It's Complicated. D: Nancy Meyers. Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, John Krasinski. Meryl Streep gets drunk and has sex with Alec Baldwin. Meryl Streep gets stoned and has sex with Steve Martin. Do middle-aged people really have to get blotto to come on to one another? (At least I think Streep's character is middle-aged: In at least three scenes, the lighting and her makeup combine to make her look like she's 75.) On the other hand, if you were a once serious actress reduced to making late-in-life soft core porn, you might get drunk and stoned, too.
It's not that ingredients for a decent screwball comedy aren't there: the plot template of a fast-talking ex-husband trying to win back his former wife while she's romanced by a Ralph Bellamy type has been around at least since The Front Page. But Streep and Baldwin have no chemistry whatsoever, and anyway her heart doesn't seem to be in the role of the sex-starved ex who finds herself living it up with a man she thought she couldn't stand. Too much of her performance seems forced and by the numbers (which pretty much sums up the script as a whole). She and I can both do better, Streep seems to be thinking, and she's right.
Baldwin does fine as the immature cad who wants turn over a new leaf, and has the one genuinely funny scene in the film. He and John Krasinski (Jim Halpern in The Office) elicit most of the film's laughs, although those are few enough. Steve Martin is, oddly, given little to do in the humor department, but displays a quiet dignity as the movie's only real adult.
At times, It's Complicated seems like one long montage. The energy-sapping soundtrack repeatedly plays over scenes of eating and drinking in which everyone smiles and laughs and apparently amuses each other greatly as if they were members of the Algonquin Round Table. Other scenes are simply not credible. Would Streep's therapist, or anyone else's, bless an affair with a married man without pointing out the inevitable emotional pitfalls? And why do TV and movie therapists always have enormous, posh offices with designer furniture, anyway?
Which leads me to another pet peeve about this kind of movie. Streep's character owns and operates as successful Santa Barbara bakery, inventively called "The Bakery." But how does that translate into her owning a $5-10 million house near the beach? The kind of divorce settlement that would require would make Baldwin's character bitter for life and hardly interested in remarrying her.
Well, we're not supposed to look at these things too closely. And in a better film, one of the charms would be that we didn't care about what kind of house Meryl Streep lived in. But this isn't a better film, and its weaknesses are such that the underlying fantasy unravels. At one time, crackling wit and a rapid-fire pace distinguished romantic comedies from other movies. Now, we have is Alec Baldwin's naked ass and Meryl Streep throwing up in a toilet. No wonder Steve Martin looks so mournful...
The great E. J. Dionne agrees with Justice Samuel Alito's audible protest of President Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's recent decision on campaign finance because it showed that the "Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government..."
Mitch McConnell was for it before he was against it...
David Sirota writes that "disaster porn" glosses over the real story in Haiti...
WWII in HD...
Who was Spartacus?...
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday Funnies & Arts
As always, click to enlarge...
Who speaks for the poor? Leonard Pitts does here, pointing out that the reception to South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer's obscene remarks might have been different had Bauer referred specifically to blacks or Jews or women. Pitts writes about the long-time, successful effort of the economically privileged to blunt the political power of the poor by pitting them against one another, usually on the basis of race:
It takes some helluva psychology to get two men stuck in the same leaking boat to fight one another. You'd think their priority would be to come together, if only long enough to bail water. But the moneyed interests in this country have somehow been able to con the poor into doing just that, fighting tooth and nail when they ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder.
Glossy ibis...
Distilled geography: Europe's alcohol belts...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
It Depends...on the Favor
One of my favorite Humphrey Bogart movies is The Big Sleep, directed by Howard Hawks, co-written by William Faulkner, and based on the novel by Raymond Chandler. Reputedly, the plot became so convoluted that Hawks asked Chandler for help and even he couldn't figure who had committed one of the murders. No matter: The Big Sleep is terrific fun and even includes a scene in which Bogart goes undercover as a gay book collector.
The Big Sleep also includes the scene above, in which a 21-year old Dorothy Malone displays an impressive knowledge of rare books as she slinks around the Acme Book Store in a brazen seduction of Bogart's Phillip Marlowe. Watch as she sidles up to Marlowe and sizes up his sexual possibilities while describing the physical attributes of a suspect. Malone caps the scene by showing girlish embarrassment and vulnerability, nearly blushing as she pulls the store shade down in anticipation of the uncovering to come. She recovers quickly, suggestively wielding a pencil before removing her glasses and shaking loose her hair. This happens at Marlowe's request, though, and not his order.
It's a great bit, a frank display female erotic power that knocks even Humphrey Bogart off his guard. It's also an unusual scene for the typically hypermasculine Hawks, in that a young woman teases an older man while retaining the authority of sexual decision making. Perhaps Hawks had his own life in mind when filming this scene: He was 52 at the time, and married to 29-year old Slim Keith, with whom he had been involved since she was 21.
Dorothy Malone was in the early stages of a acting career that lasted for fifty years. She won the 1956 Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her performance as a self-destructive, promiscuous alcoholic in Written on the Wind. She's probably best known for her three-year run as Constance MacKenzie on the television soap opera Peyton Place. Retired, she lives in Dallas...
This creep should go to jail for a long time. Some on the extreme right will try to make a martyr out of him, but he's a garden variety psychopath who should be kept off the street...
Young love, first love, filled with true devotion...
Helix #2...
Newly exposed walls...
A weathered sky...
Obama in the lion's den...
The Onion remembers J. D. Salinger...
The No Fun League claims that it and it alone owns Who Dat. Who dey t'ink dey are, anyway?...
Parking lot jam, NOLA style:
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Union
President Obama was at his best last night, using humor and inspiration to challenge Congress and the nation to stand by him as he tackles the nation's considerable problems. For one night, anyway, he repeatedly maneuvered Republicans into a rhetorical corner, forcing them to applaud even the need for health care reform. For what it's worth, I think that he reminded independents of why they voted for him.
How much impact this will have is anybody's guess. Democrats are in panic mode, preferring to snipe at each other rather than link arms and attack obstructionist Republicans. The tea-baggers, of course, simply want to dance on Obama's grave; this won't blunt them one bit. As to whether the speech stanches an independent drift to the Republicans, that depends on whether Congress passes meaningful economic legislation between now and November and on how the electorate perceives Obama's leadership. To me, it's vital that voters start seeing Republicans as partisan obstructionists. The Republicans will no doubt afford the opportunity, but Obama and the Democrats won't be able to take advantage of it if they attack each other.
The MSM doesn't seem to have a grip on the political climate at all. This article claims in one paragraph that voters are "seething" over the deficit, then asserts in the next that jobs are "foremost" in "many" Americans' minds. Simultaneously addressing the twin concerns of the deficit and jobs seems mutually exclusive: Paul Krugman never tires of pointing out that the New Deal recovery ground to a halt in 1937 when FDR turned his attention from jobs to a balanced budget. Republicans argue, of course, that retaining the Bush tax cuts will stimulate economic growth, even though (as this article points out) they can't cite a supporting economic model. Moreover, allowing the tax cuts to lapse is central to reducing the deficit. Democrats can credibly argue, if they choose to, that the Republican will add to the deficit, put no one to work, and make the rich richer. Why they wouldn't is beyond me, but then political panic is not a pretty sight.
So, the president made a fine speech last night, but any immediate impact will depend on his ability to rally congressional Democrats around its main themes. Given the craven nature of too many of them, I'm not optimistic. Beyond that, he'll have to appeal directly to the country, a tricky thing if your own party has gone wobbly. But that may be the only answer...
Speaking of craven Democrats, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) helpfully cut the president's legs from under him by commenting that "This is the time to tell the country we are fiscally sound." McCaskill added that "We have to avert a financial disaster that could occur if the world gets the sense that we can’t get our act together in terms of our deficit and our debt." Since no economist has predicted "financial disaster" if the deficit isn't brought to heel immediately, McCaskill's self-serving statement seems irresponsible at best...
Remember the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? There are 5,158 dead and counting. And drawing...
Jim "Mudcat" Grant, the first black pitcher to win 20 games and the owner of one of baseball's great nicknames, has fond memories of pitching and living in Cleveland during the Civil Rights era...
Irish neutrality and cautious cartography...
What is a Hoosier anyway?...
The Grateful Dead come to Texas Christian University in 1971...
Thanks to Foxessa for passing along this New Yorker article about the Tea Bagger movement. It's written in typical New Yorker fashion, in this case meaning that the author employs a reasonable, measured tone to explain an outlandish phenomena that he traces back to the Know Nothings and links to Richard Hofstadter's "paranoid style" in American politics:
The focus of the article is on a particular type I've known all my life: Reasonable on the surface, lofty in manner, patronizing and condescending, convinced that his life experience gives him a unique insight into the workings politics and the world, and an unwavering conviction in the infallibility of his own intelligence, intellectual skills, and acuity. Feh...
Jazz funeral:
How much impact this will have is anybody's guess. Democrats are in panic mode, preferring to snipe at each other rather than link arms and attack obstructionist Republicans. The tea-baggers, of course, simply want to dance on Obama's grave; this won't blunt them one bit. As to whether the speech stanches an independent drift to the Republicans, that depends on whether Congress passes meaningful economic legislation between now and November and on how the electorate perceives Obama's leadership. To me, it's vital that voters start seeing Republicans as partisan obstructionists. The Republicans will no doubt afford the opportunity, but Obama and the Democrats won't be able to take advantage of it if they attack each other.
The MSM doesn't seem to have a grip on the political climate at all. This article claims in one paragraph that voters are "seething" over the deficit, then asserts in the next that jobs are "foremost" in "many" Americans' minds. Simultaneously addressing the twin concerns of the deficit and jobs seems mutually exclusive: Paul Krugman never tires of pointing out that the New Deal recovery ground to a halt in 1937 when FDR turned his attention from jobs to a balanced budget. Republicans argue, of course, that retaining the Bush tax cuts will stimulate economic growth, even though (as this article points out) they can't cite a supporting economic model. Moreover, allowing the tax cuts to lapse is central to reducing the deficit. Democrats can credibly argue, if they choose to, that the Republican will add to the deficit, put no one to work, and make the rich richer. Why they wouldn't is beyond me, but then political panic is not a pretty sight.
So, the president made a fine speech last night, but any immediate impact will depend on his ability to rally congressional Democrats around its main themes. Given the craven nature of too many of them, I'm not optimistic. Beyond that, he'll have to appeal directly to the country, a tricky thing if your own party has gone wobbly. But that may be the only answer...
Speaking of craven Democrats, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) helpfully cut the president's legs from under him by commenting that "This is the time to tell the country we are fiscally sound." McCaskill added that "We have to avert a financial disaster that could occur if the world gets the sense that we can’t get our act together in terms of our deficit and our debt." Since no economist has predicted "financial disaster" if the deficit isn't brought to heel immediately, McCaskill's self-serving statement seems irresponsible at best...
Remember the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? There are 5,158 dead and counting. And drawing...
Jim "Mudcat" Grant, the first black pitcher to win 20 games and the owner of one of baseball's great nicknames, has fond memories of pitching and living in Cleveland during the Civil Rights era...
Irish neutrality and cautious cartography...
What is a Hoosier anyway?...
The Grateful Dead come to Texas Christian University in 1971...
Thanks to Foxessa for passing along this New Yorker article about the Tea Bagger movement. It's written in typical New Yorker fashion, in this case meaning that the author employs a reasonable, measured tone to explain an outlandish phenomena that he traces back to the Know Nothings and links to Richard Hofstadter's "paranoid style" in American politics:
The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes. (Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics")
The focus of the article is on a particular type I've known all my life: Reasonable on the surface, lofty in manner, patronizing and condescending, convinced that his life experience gives him a unique insight into the workings politics and the world, and an unwavering conviction in the infallibility of his own intelligence, intellectual skills, and acuity. Feh...
Jazz funeral:
Monday, January 25, 2010
Who Dat!?
(Michael DeMocker/The Times-Picayune)
The great thing about professional sports is that it can galvanize a community across class, color, economic, and political lines. In this polarized age, sports are about the only thing left that can lay claim to that. I'm not going to write much about the New Orleans Saints -- make that the National Football Conference Champion New Orleans Saints -- great overtime victory against Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings yesterday. I didn't grow up rooting for them throughout 42 years of frustration, and there are other writers can express the unique satisfaction of accomplishment better than I can. Not only that, their steadfast loyalty has earned them the right to do this without out static from someone like me. So don't miss Cliff's Crib:
This morning I got on the elevator with her and she looked like she had never been to sleep. As she was yawning and trying to get herself together I couldn't help but making a comment..."You haven't been to sleep either have you?" Turns out she was down in the French Quarters last night and had to get up this morning for work. I started with this story to prove that New Orleans is home to the people who can party real hard and grind out 8 -12 hour work days afterward with no problem. That's how we roll. I have never seen people look so tired and be so happy at the same time.And while you're at, don't miss this at NOLA.com. They've compiled the over fifty songs that New Orleans musicians have written and recorded about the Saints. The Sonics had one when they went to the NBA Finals back in '95 and I'm pretty sure that even the Red Sox had only one in history-making run to the 2004 World Series. NOLA.com adds to the playlist as new music becomes available and has streamed it, so you can listen continuously. Music can bring a city together, too.
So, even if you're not a Saints fan or a sports fan, be happy for the people of a city who had this coming to them
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday Funnies & Arts
As always, click to enlarge...
The Young Victoria. D: Jean-Marc Vallee. Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany. A smart, witty script and a fine cast led by indie favorite Blunt lift The Young Victoria above the usual costume fare. While it's hard to care about backstage machinations of royalty, the contemporary overtones of the story of a proud, intelligent young woman's ascent to power amidst the intrigues of those who do not exactly wish her well ring true. Victoria's halting romance with Prince Albert and their efforts to create an equal partnership provide the film's emotional ballast. With a terrific cameo by the great Jim Broadbent, whose booming voice rattles china and mirrors...
Roy bids fond farewell to Kate McGarrigle, who last week lost a years-long struggle with cancer. Reviewers consider Kate & Anna McGarrigle, her 1975 debut with sister Anna, to be a folk-rock classic. I'm partial to 1998's The McGarrigle Hour, in which the sisters gathered with friends and family to create a durable, intimate parlor-folk album in which the principles trade off lead vocals for seventeen original favorites, well-chosen covers (especially "What'll I Do" and "Young Love"), and traditional folk songs. The ambiance is so present and compelling that one is half convinced that the album was recorded in a living room lit by kerosene lamps...
Does anyone else think that Men of a Certain Age the best new show to hit television in years?...
I ain't gonna quit until I'm laid in my tomb, and even then they'd better shut it tight...
Random snap from Lakewood, Ohio...
The Ladies and Men of Unity and the Lady Rollers second line parade starts today at 11:45 a.m. NOLA time. More here...
Surely, I thought, this must be from The Onion. But click on the link and weep...
Brendan Behan: A drinker with a writing problem...
You finally work up the courage to get your first tattoo. Naturally, you'd want it to demonstrate your commitment to the World Health Organization. At least that's what Pretzels' doctor thought...
Bayou Coquille trail in winter...
Another Old Movie blog remembers the classy, elegant screen beauty Jean Simmons...
Kate McGarrigle sings "Go Leave" in 1984:
Saturday, January 23, 2010
It's a Right...and a Right
Crassly and unsurprisingly, the right-wing punditocracy has fallen all over itself exploiting the tragedy in Haiti to make ideological points. The National Review's Jonah Goldberg has this to say:
What makes Goldberg such an expert on Haiti? I slogged through his biography and looked back through his archives at the National Review. Except for this one piece, I found no evidence that he has written about Haiti in the past or ever traveled there. He does, however, have a Haitian-American in-law -- apparently, some of his best friends are Haitian-Americans -- and read a book that allows him to compare Haiti with Switzerland and Japan and find it wanting.
The solution, Goldberg assures us, is "tough love." He doesn't say what that means and I don't want to know. I mean, how much tougher could it be there? Whatever the answers for Haiti may be, they include more love and less toughness.
Meanwhile, that anorexic cretin Ann Coulter "thinks" that Bill Clinton's participation in the bipartisan effort to assist Haiti is nothing but "shame and embarrassment." It's actually rather instructive to watch her appearance on Fox News (where else?), so click on the link. Earth to Ann and the wingnut right: You're carrying on about something that happened twelve years ago.
More to the point, President Obama did what other presidents before him have done in the face of a natural disaster: He asked the most recent ex-Presidents of each party to head a bipartisan fundraising effort. As for Clinton's reputation, if Coulter would get her head out of her Fox News, she'd know that he arguably has more international prestige than any other living American.
Where is Rush Limbaugh in all of this? He's persuaded that Obama and the Democrats are secretly delighted by the earthquake because it has allowed them to shore up support among African-Americans, who typically vote Democrat 95% of the time. Rushbo's latest paranoid fantasy is that Democrats will propose making Haiti a state. After all, "there's a lotta votes down there." Come to think of it, it's not a bad idea...
What would the nation do without Justice Anthony Kennedy and his commitment to free speech? Kennedy, who apparently stays up nights worrying that those poor, beleaguered corporations are denied their First Amendment right, authored the Supreme Court opinion that overturned decades of precedent to legalize corruption. He can drink some warm milk and go to sleep now, but what about the rest of us? There was already too much money in politics, but this decision will make everyone yearn for the good old days of 2008 when all it took was a billion dollars to get elected president. If there's a silver lining, it's that the decision is apparently so poorly reasoned and so unrelated to the actual case at hand that a more favorable court should have little difficulty overturning it. Just how old is Kennedy, anyway? More here and here...
Obama at one...
The baseball offseason offers Red Sox fans a chance to navel gaze, agonize over the past, and pick at old wounds. The top (or bottom) breakups in team history are here...
Witchi tai to...
As if it weren't enough that the rich get richer, the red take from the blue, too. (Thanks to Projections for calling my attention to this.)...
Even if blame lies everywhere except among the victims themselves, it doesn’t change the fact that Haiti will never get out of grinding poverty until it abandons much of its culture.Haiti, you see, has a "poverty culture" that transcends every other contributing factor to its misery. Haitian immigrants to America do well because "American culture not only expects hard work, but teaches the unskilled how to work hard." Goldberg is right about that: Read any slave narrative and you can see how African newcomers learned how to work hard in the face of the expectations of the lash. But I digress. Goldberg offers no evidence that Haitians don't work hard, leaving it to the reader to draw the conclusions that because Haitians are black and poor, they must be lazy.
What makes Goldberg such an expert on Haiti? I slogged through his biography and looked back through his archives at the National Review. Except for this one piece, I found no evidence that he has written about Haiti in the past or ever traveled there. He does, however, have a Haitian-American in-law -- apparently, some of his best friends are Haitian-Americans -- and read a book that allows him to compare Haiti with Switzerland and Japan and find it wanting.
The solution, Goldberg assures us, is "tough love." He doesn't say what that means and I don't want to know. I mean, how much tougher could it be there? Whatever the answers for Haiti may be, they include more love and less toughness.
Meanwhile, that anorexic cretin Ann Coulter "thinks" that Bill Clinton's participation in the bipartisan effort to assist Haiti is nothing but "shame and embarrassment." It's actually rather instructive to watch her appearance on Fox News (where else?), so click on the link. Earth to Ann and the wingnut right: You're carrying on about something that happened twelve years ago.
More to the point, President Obama did what other presidents before him have done in the face of a natural disaster: He asked the most recent ex-Presidents of each party to head a bipartisan fundraising effort. As for Clinton's reputation, if Coulter would get her head out of her Fox News, she'd know that he arguably has more international prestige than any other living American.
Where is Rush Limbaugh in all of this? He's persuaded that Obama and the Democrats are secretly delighted by the earthquake because it has allowed them to shore up support among African-Americans, who typically vote Democrat 95% of the time. Rushbo's latest paranoid fantasy is that Democrats will propose making Haiti a state. After all, "there's a lotta votes down there." Come to think of it, it's not a bad idea...
What would the nation do without Justice Anthony Kennedy and his commitment to free speech? Kennedy, who apparently stays up nights worrying that those poor, beleaguered corporations are denied their First Amendment right, authored the Supreme Court opinion that overturned decades of precedent to legalize corruption. He can drink some warm milk and go to sleep now, but what about the rest of us? There was already too much money in politics, but this decision will make everyone yearn for the good old days of 2008 when all it took was a billion dollars to get elected president. If there's a silver lining, it's that the decision is apparently so poorly reasoned and so unrelated to the actual case at hand that a more favorable court should have little difficulty overturning it. Just how old is Kennedy, anyway? More here and here...
Obama at one...
The baseball offseason offers Red Sox fans a chance to navel gaze, agonize over the past, and pick at old wounds. The top (or bottom) breakups in team history are here...
Witchi tai to...
As if it weren't enough that the rich get richer, the red take from the blue, too. (Thanks to Projections for calling my attention to this.)...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What They Think It Means
There will be an intense debate over the political and policy meanings of Scott Brown's defeat of Martha Coakley in yesterday's special election for the Senate seat once held by Edward Kennedy. The Nation's John Nichols thinks the upset happened because President Obama and the Democratic Congress mismanaged the health care debate and have inadequately connected with Americans worried about the economy. In a harshly critical, even angry, piece, William Greider says that Obama must "face the hard message of this fiasco." Katrina Vanden Heuvel writes that the message is clear: Go populist now. And it does appear that pinning the hopes for reform and a revived economy on insiders and establishment figures has -- regardless how one might interpret their success or lack thereof -- resulted in a massive disconnect with the electorate.
That's how the progressive end of the political spectrum interprets Brown's victory. What about the other side? Reading through the comments on various blogs and web sites, I discerned three themes:
As for bipartisanship, the Republicans have no interest whatsoever in that. Whether health care or economic recovery, they've offered no alternative, no compromise legislation that they would support. They've left the work to the Democrats while carping from the sideline and making it clear that they would not be part of any solution. Their agenda all along has been to return to power no matter what it means for the country in the meantime. I don't see how Scott Brown's election will change that.
Most of the outright crowing comes from the "victory for America" crowd. They of course regard Obama as a foreign-born communist, liberals and progressives and America-hating wimps, and the Democratic party as the agent of Satan. That voters agitated about the economy, confused about health care reform, and understandably resentful of the Wall Street bailout would make common cause with the purveyors of this toxic sludge is alarming, to say the least.
One hopes that this is a signal to Democratic senators and representatives to return to their populist roots. One thing senators could do is amass a party majority for popular legislation and force Republicans to actively filibuster. I've never understood why the party hasn't been doing this anyway: It seems to prefer to throw up its hands and say "we don't have the votes." This makes the majority look ineffectual (I wonder why) when it could be making the minority look obstructive (which it is).
Greider makes some good points:
Nichols also writes that Obama's performance regarding the earthquake in Hait has thus far been admirable...
A progressive mayor for New Orleans? Read more about James Perry's Roadmap to a Safer New Orleans here...
That's how the progressive end of the political spectrum interprets Brown's victory. What about the other side? Reading through the comments on various blogs and web sites, I discerned three themes:
- This is a victory for centrism
- This is a victory for bipartisanship
- This is a victory for America
As for bipartisanship, the Republicans have no interest whatsoever in that. Whether health care or economic recovery, they've offered no alternative, no compromise legislation that they would support. They've left the work to the Democrats while carping from the sideline and making it clear that they would not be part of any solution. Their agenda all along has been to return to power no matter what it means for the country in the meantime. I don't see how Scott Brown's election will change that.
Most of the outright crowing comes from the "victory for America" crowd. They of course regard Obama as a foreign-born communist, liberals and progressives and America-hating wimps, and the Democratic party as the agent of Satan. That voters agitated about the economy, confused about health care reform, and understandably resentful of the Wall Street bailout would make common cause with the purveyors of this toxic sludge is alarming, to say the least.
One hopes that this is a signal to Democratic senators and representatives to return to their populist roots. One thing senators could do is amass a party majority for popular legislation and force Republicans to actively filibuster. I've never understood why the party hasn't been doing this anyway: It seems to prefer to throw up its hands and say "we don't have the votes." This makes the majority look ineffectual (I wonder why) when it could be making the minority look obstructive (which it is).
Greider makes some good points:
If comprehensive healthcare reform is out of the question, Obama Democrats can break it down into smaller pieces and try to pass worthy measures one by one. A bill to prohibit insurance companies from banning people with pre-existing ailments? Pass it the House and try to pass it in the Senate. If Republicans want to filibuster, make them filibuster. A measure to allow cheaper drug imports from Canada? Let Republicans vote against that. Repealing the antitrust exemption for insurance companies--Democrats support it. Democrats need to start a fight on taxes too. Do Republicans want to tax Wall Street banks or not? Obama has proposed it, let's have a roll call. The attack strategy will focus on all the reforms people want and need and create a new political dynamic.The problem is that this requires a radically different mindset from the White House and Congress. Obama gave a fiery speech over the weekend in support of Coakley; it was the president at his best. Let's hope it was a step in the right direction...
Nichols also writes that Obama's performance regarding the earthquake in Hait has thus far been admirable...
A progressive mayor for New Orleans? Read more about James Perry's Roadmap to a Safer New Orleans here...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Rust Never Sleeps
"Dissipation is actually much worse than cataclysm."Or, as Neil Young prophetically sang back in 1979, it's better to burn out than it is to rust. Christopher Hayes writes here that the policy failures of the Bush Administration nonetheless created an entrenched corporate state that left progressives on the horns of an exquisite dilemma. By working within the system to address the myriad problems facing it, progressives risk inadequate but still helpful solutions that at the same strengthen the power structure. But taking a long view and working to change the distribution of power could mean forgoing assistance for progressive constituencies that need help now, no matter how imperfect. It's the high risk-high reward approach in which failure consigns the progressive movement to irrelevance. But Hayes doubts that progessives have much choice, and points out that a movement's long-term goals doesn't preclude it from having a short-term impact. The problem that I see is that a redistribution of power does require a movement, and I don't see one. Most progressive grass-roots groups are so focused on the harm done to their constituencies during the Bush administration that they don't have the time or resources to focus on long-term collaborative movement building...
-Tracy Lett, August: Osage County
Hayes doesn't say how organizers and activists should respond to thuggish tactics like these. And you can be that these would be the tip of the iceberg in response to a serious challenge to power distribution...
I am not feeling optimistic about today's special election in Massachusetts. A loss means the end of health care reform for at least a generation, an increase in the number of retiring Democrats, and the possibility of a Republican landslide this fall. The Republican strategy of just-say-no and divide-and-conquer appears to be working: I read of one Brown voter who said that the country was more polarized than during the Vietnam war and then blamed Obama. And, of course, conservative calls for bipartisanship drip with typical hypocrisy. These are politicians who didn't think twice about politicizing a war...
Andrew Romano writes that if Martha Coakley loses, it will be because she took Massachusetts voters for granted. As someone who watched Christine Gregoire nearly lose the governor's race in Washington state for just that reason, I can attest firsthand that voters hate to be taken for granted. They're willing to bite of their nose to spite their face to send exactly that message, too...
At The Nation, Richard Kim writes that Haiti needs justice as much as charity, and that a good place to start is debt relief...
Don't miss the pictures from Haiti on Corve DaCosta's blog here...
Hey hey my my:
Sunday Funnies & Arts
As always, click to enlarge...A friend pointed out that I didn't include The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (1976) in my overview of the many cinematic faces of Sherlock Holmes. Based on the 1974 novel by Nicholas Meyer, the movie starred the great, if erratic, British stage actor Nicol Williamson as Holmes, Robert Duvall (!) as Watson, and Alan Arkin as Sigmund Freud. Using his methods, Freud assists Holmes in breaking an addiction to cocaine, which in turn allows Holmes to solve a case and by doing so avert a general war in Europe. In a sense, Seven Per-Cent is a post-Sixties artifact that would not have been possible without the drug experimentation of that decade and the drug excesses of the Seventies, during which cocaine achieved (if you want to call it that) widespread popularity. It's been a while since I've seen Seven-Per-Cent, but I recall a particularly enjoyable scene in which Holmes and Freud exchange deductive observations about each other...
Mixed message...
It Didn't Work The First Time Dept: Sarah Palin likes the Founding Fathers as much as she does newspapers and magazines. Not even Glen Beck buys it...
WWOZ picks the best albums of 2009...
The Byrds were one of the finest groups of the Sixties, as good and as important as any band not named The Beatles. Peter Tibbles traces the Byrds family tree here...
Believe...
Australia is big...
Life, death, song, longevity, gloom, grace, resolve, tenacity, and misery in Haiti. (Thanks to Foxessa for the link.)...
Speaking of whom, Foxessa writes that Americans expect Haitians to behave in ways that we would never ask of ourselves...
Pike Place purple...
I stopped at a road house in Texas. A little place called Hamburger Dan's. I heard that old jukebox a-playin' a song about a truck driving man...
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Yele, Wth Fear?
Yesterday, I wrote that I made my earthquake relief donation through Yele Haiti, the foundation established by Haitian musician Wyclef Jean. I liked the idea of donating to a group with roots in Haiti, plus my personal experience with small foundations and advocacy groups is very positive and predisposed me to support one. Small institutions are often effective at addressing otherwise overlooked issues and can be adept at identifying and responding to emerging needs. The Christian Science Monitor raised some concerns about Yele's overhead, but also recognized that the expenses were well within the expected amount for a small foundation. Yele appeared on enough lists of recommended groups that I figured it was a safe bet.
I may have figured wrong, although I'm still not sure. Questions have been raised about how efficiently Yele is run and the appropriateness of some past expenses. Disaster relief specialists question how soon it can bring its donations to bear in Haiti since it has no experience in disaster relief. Read more here, here, and here. No one questions Yele's sincerity or that they have done good work in Haiti. No one appears to doubt that donations will eventually reach Haiti. The main issue is whether Yele is prepared to efficiently apply and distribute the contributions they've received in a timely manner. For donors and would-be donors, this is the key point.
In terms of raising money, Yele has been successful, unquestionably. The technique of fund raising through cell phone texting has been widely admired and praised. Yele brought in over a million dollars in the first 24 hours after the earthquake; how much of that money would have gone to other charities anyway is an open question. And, it has partnered with other first responders, presumably to provide an avenue for effectively bringing the donations to bear on the ground.
So, is Yele the best way to help Haiti? I don't regret my contribution, but I'm going to hedge my bet by giving to the Doctors Without Borders as well. Unless someone can think of a good reason not to...
You can help Haiti and simultaneously thumb your nose at Rush Limbaugh by donating through the Clinton Foundation...
Oxfam is working to address one of Haiti's biggest problems, the absence of water. But they only have 114,000 gallons on hand...
I may have figured wrong, although I'm still not sure. Questions have been raised about how efficiently Yele is run and the appropriateness of some past expenses. Disaster relief specialists question how soon it can bring its donations to bear in Haiti since it has no experience in disaster relief. Read more here, here, and here. No one questions Yele's sincerity or that they have done good work in Haiti. No one appears to doubt that donations will eventually reach Haiti. The main issue is whether Yele is prepared to efficiently apply and distribute the contributions they've received in a timely manner. For donors and would-be donors, this is the key point.
In terms of raising money, Yele has been successful, unquestionably. The technique of fund raising through cell phone texting has been widely admired and praised. Yele brought in over a million dollars in the first 24 hours after the earthquake; how much of that money would have gone to other charities anyway is an open question. And, it has partnered with other first responders, presumably to provide an avenue for effectively bringing the donations to bear on the ground.
So, is Yele the best way to help Haiti? I don't regret my contribution, but I'm going to hedge my bet by giving to the Doctors Without Borders as well. Unless someone can think of a good reason not to...
You can help Haiti and simultaneously thumb your nose at Rush Limbaugh by donating through the Clinton Foundation...
Oxfam is working to address one of Haiti's biggest problems, the absence of water. But they only have 114,000 gallons on hand...
Friday, January 15, 2010
Haiti, With Tears
The emerging horror in Haiti has caused countless Americans to reach for their wallets and purses. I made my donation to the earthquake relief fund set up by Yele Haiti, the foundation established by the Haitian-American musician Wyclef Jean. Small foundations sometimes grapple with the problem of seemingly excessive overhead -- it's a matter of scale -- so if that concerns you, MSNBC.com has provided a list of charitable organizations active in Haiti.
The avoidable part of the butcher's bill is coming due as I write. The real story of Hurricane Katrina was the failure of the levees. Now, Haiti's abject poverty and the destruction of what little infrastructure that it had will become frightful players in the tragedy. Port-au-Prince has little water, no hospitals, no fire stations, and no electricity. The rest of the country will be unable to handle the demands put on what little infrastructure it has. Haiti has no significant internal means of disaster response. So, despite what Rush Limbaugh has to say (which is that Americans support Haiti through their taxes), that poor country is going to need help and lots of it...
As probably everyone knows by now, Pat Robertson claims that the earthquake is divine retribution for a pact that Haitians made with the devil during their long struggle for freedom (1791-1804). What Robertson didn't mention is that the French colonial slavemasters were among the most hardened of that despicable breed, infamously dispensing gruesome tortures for the most trivial offenses while working their slaves to death on sugar plantations. If any Haitians made a pact with the devil, it's because they had good reason to think that God had deserted them...
Haitian art, Haitian music, Haitian culture, Haitian religion, Haitan people...
Spike Lee has begun production on a sequel to When the Levees Broke, his superb documentary about the personal impact of the levee-failure flooding induced by Hurricane Katrina. The new film will expand the scope to the entire Gulf Coast and revisit many of the people who appeared in the original film. Also, PBS has a number of Katrina-related projects in the works and director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia, Rachel Getting Married) is in preproduction of animated version of Dave Eggers' book Zeitoun. More here...
I've got 200 more miles of rain and asphalt and light before I sleep...
R. I. P., Bobby Charles...
The great Fats Domino sings Charles' immortal "I'm Walking to New Orleans":
The avoidable part of the butcher's bill is coming due as I write. The real story of Hurricane Katrina was the failure of the levees. Now, Haiti's abject poverty and the destruction of what little infrastructure that it had will become frightful players in the tragedy. Port-au-Prince has little water, no hospitals, no fire stations, and no electricity. The rest of the country will be unable to handle the demands put on what little infrastructure it has. Haiti has no significant internal means of disaster response. So, despite what Rush Limbaugh has to say (which is that Americans support Haiti through their taxes), that poor country is going to need help and lots of it...
As probably everyone knows by now, Pat Robertson claims that the earthquake is divine retribution for a pact that Haitians made with the devil during their long struggle for freedom (1791-1804). What Robertson didn't mention is that the French colonial slavemasters were among the most hardened of that despicable breed, infamously dispensing gruesome tortures for the most trivial offenses while working their slaves to death on sugar plantations. If any Haitians made a pact with the devil, it's because they had good reason to think that God had deserted them...
Haitian art, Haitian music, Haitian culture, Haitian religion, Haitan people...
Spike Lee has begun production on a sequel to When the Levees Broke, his superb documentary about the personal impact of the levee-failure flooding induced by Hurricane Katrina. The new film will expand the scope to the entire Gulf Coast and revisit many of the people who appeared in the original film. Also, PBS has a number of Katrina-related projects in the works and director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia, Rachel Getting Married) is in preproduction of animated version of Dave Eggers' book Zeitoun. More here...
I've got 200 more miles of rain and asphalt and light before I sleep...
R. I. P., Bobby Charles...
The great Fats Domino sings Charles' immortal "I'm Walking to New Orleans":
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Crazy Heart
Crazy Heart. D: Scott Cooper. Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell. At the beginning of Crazy Heart, country singer Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) emerges cautiously from an SUV as battered as his soul. Face deeply lined and slightly bent at the waist, Blake has the ginger, stiff-legged walk of a middle-aged man who driven too many miles and had too many drinks. Blake makes his way into the Arizona bar where he'll be playing that night; the owner is thrilled to meet him, but the barmaid clearly has no idea who he is and refuses to comp him a drink. Apparently, Blake's reputation has preceded him: The bar owner has put him up at a "fine motel" and offers dinner, but is adamant about Blake paying for his booze. Somewhat insulted, Blake leaves the bar for a liquor store across the street. He looks longingly at a bottle of his favorite bourbon, but obviously can't afford it. Luckily, the store proprietor recognizes Bad, buys him the bottle, and puts in a song request for that evening's show. Somewhat touched, Blake gratefully agrees and leaves the liquor store with a spring in his step. That night, during the performance of the song, he becomes sick from too much alcohol and exits the stage to throw up in an alley, leaving the band to perform the song.
Through this opening sequence, Bridges, one of the best actors to never receive an Academy Award and better than more than a few who have, displays a gamut of emotions reinforced by the essential reality of his character: A first-rate songwriter trapped in the body of a second-rate entertainer who views living through the dual prisms of alcoholism and endless touring across the vast southwest. He's in turn world-weary, humorous, sage, and cynical. This performance may well net Jeff Bridges the Oscar he has merited for years.
Crazy Heart tells the story of how a man who has given up on life discovers that it is worth living after all. It's honest, beautifully acted and filmed, and makes few missteps. The script, which resolutely refuses to deal in stock characters and situations, offers one pleasant surprise after another. Just when you anticipate Bad Blake making a snide or cynical remark, he smiles or offers an unexpected perspective. We expect Colin Farrell, cast effectively against type as Tommy Sweet, the country star who was once Blake's protege, to throw Blake a few condescending crumbs. Instead, he feels guilty about his success at the older man's expense. We see in Farrell's deep eyes the knowledge that his success won't last forever and that someday he'll be on the road alone and in need of a helping hand. Sweet wants to help Blake out, but for most of the film the older man's alcoholism and pride block Sweet's efforts to reestablish their friendship. And, painfully, when Sweet joins Blake on stage for a duet, we immediately see why he is the star and Blake is not: Besides being young and handsome, Sweet is simply the better singer.
A gig in Santa Fe prompts local music reporter Jean Craddock (Gyllenhaal) to seek out Blake for an interview. He is immediately smitten, and we can see why: The willowy, doe-eyed Gyllenhall is fresh-faced, lovely, and vulnerable. Moreover, she readily trades witticisms with him. Why she's attracted to this crumbling ruin of a man is less clear, but after an auto accident lands him in a Santa Fe hospital he turns to her. Jean puts him up in her house, where he quickly develops a grandfatherly interest in her four-year old son Buddy.
A tentative and tender courtship follows, culminating in Jean and Buddy visiting Blake at his home in Houston. Events there force Blake to confront his alcoholism, his abandonment of his adult son, and the realities of a relationship with a younger woman who has a child. These all lead to a lovely, authentic conclusion that rings as true as church bell.
Crazy Heart will mistakenly be pigeonholed as "small" movie. It's not. The human heart is as limitless and open as the southwestern landscape that populate the film. It's also as dark and murky as the barrooms in which Bad Blake performs. Crazy Heart explores all of these facets with wisdom, insight, humor, tenderness, and maturity. I'd like to see the big film that can claim that.
Through this opening sequence, Bridges, one of the best actors to never receive an Academy Award and better than more than a few who have, displays a gamut of emotions reinforced by the essential reality of his character: A first-rate songwriter trapped in the body of a second-rate entertainer who views living through the dual prisms of alcoholism and endless touring across the vast southwest. He's in turn world-weary, humorous, sage, and cynical. This performance may well net Jeff Bridges the Oscar he has merited for years.
Crazy Heart tells the story of how a man who has given up on life discovers that it is worth living after all. It's honest, beautifully acted and filmed, and makes few missteps. The script, which resolutely refuses to deal in stock characters and situations, offers one pleasant surprise after another. Just when you anticipate Bad Blake making a snide or cynical remark, he smiles or offers an unexpected perspective. We expect Colin Farrell, cast effectively against type as Tommy Sweet, the country star who was once Blake's protege, to throw Blake a few condescending crumbs. Instead, he feels guilty about his success at the older man's expense. We see in Farrell's deep eyes the knowledge that his success won't last forever and that someday he'll be on the road alone and in need of a helping hand. Sweet wants to help Blake out, but for most of the film the older man's alcoholism and pride block Sweet's efforts to reestablish their friendship. And, painfully, when Sweet joins Blake on stage for a duet, we immediately see why he is the star and Blake is not: Besides being young and handsome, Sweet is simply the better singer.
A gig in Santa Fe prompts local music reporter Jean Craddock (Gyllenhaal) to seek out Blake for an interview. He is immediately smitten, and we can see why: The willowy, doe-eyed Gyllenhall is fresh-faced, lovely, and vulnerable. Moreover, she readily trades witticisms with him. Why she's attracted to this crumbling ruin of a man is less clear, but after an auto accident lands him in a Santa Fe hospital he turns to her. Jean puts him up in her house, where he quickly develops a grandfatherly interest in her four-year old son Buddy.
A tentative and tender courtship follows, culminating in Jean and Buddy visiting Blake at his home in Houston. Events there force Blake to confront his alcoholism, his abandonment of his adult son, and the realities of a relationship with a younger woman who has a child. These all lead to a lovely, authentic conclusion that rings as true as church bell.
Crazy Heart will mistakenly be pigeonholed as "small" movie. It's not. The human heart is as limitless and open as the southwestern landscape that populate the film. It's also as dark and murky as the barrooms in which Bad Blake performs. Crazy Heart explores all of these facets with wisdom, insight, humor, tenderness, and maturity. I'd like to see the big film that can claim that.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Trouble With Harry?
Look, I have my issues with Harry Reid. He's allowed the sorry likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to lead him around by the nose in public. He's done a poor-to-nonexistent job of influencing the MSM coverage of the debate over health care reform insofar as the Senate debate goes. He gave up on a public option without a fight. But to compare what Reid said in private to what Trent Lott said in public, as conservatives urge? Give me a break.
According to Mark Halperin and John Heileman, authors of the forthcoming book Game Change, Reid described in private conversation then-candidate Barack Obama as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." An early supporter of Obama's, Reid's characterization, though clumsy at best, was a hard nosed description of the advantages Obama had in a national campaign.
Why did the 69-year Reid use the word "Negro"? (That's what this is all about, after all.) Beats me. He's certainly old enough to remember when "Negro" was an advance on "colored," but he's also old enough to have seen "black" supplant "Negro" and "African-American" supplant "black." He should have used a more considered word, but who can deny the actual point Reid made? An important part of Barack Obama's appeal to whites is that he is not threatening to them, and Reid set forth the precise reasons why.
Here's what Trent Lott said in public about Strom Thurmond, the vile racist who ran for president in 1948 on a segregationist, anti-civil rights platform:
Meanwhile, the inimitable Michael Steele soldiers on:
The conservative breast-beating over this is downright bizarre. When it comes to civil rights and at least attempting to guarantee racial minorities access to the full blessings of American life, conservatives can't point to a single accomplishment. In fact they resisted with might and main every step forward attempted by the movement activists, the radicals, and the liberals. Yes, some Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but these days they'd be called RINO's.
Reid's words were bizarre and poorly chosen. He has apologized to President Obama and the president, having much bigger fish to fry, has accepted the apology. That's good enough for all but the most rabid and hypocritical conservatives. And that, as usual, is who does all the ranting...
I'd rather be in some dark hollow...
Class Act Dept. Rushbo, with his usual grace, charm, and urbanity:
The first season of Treme is scheduled to begin on HBO on April 11.
According to Mark Halperin and John Heileman, authors of the forthcoming book Game Change, Reid described in private conversation then-candidate Barack Obama as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." An early supporter of Obama's, Reid's characterization, though clumsy at best, was a hard nosed description of the advantages Obama had in a national campaign.
Why did the 69-year Reid use the word "Negro"? (That's what this is all about, after all.) Beats me. He's certainly old enough to remember when "Negro" was an advance on "colored," but he's also old enough to have seen "black" supplant "Negro" and "African-American" supplant "black." He should have used a more considered word, but who can deny the actual point Reid made? An important part of Barack Obama's appeal to whites is that he is not threatening to them, and Reid set forth the precise reasons why.
Here's what Trent Lott said in public about Strom Thurmond, the vile racist who ran for president in 1948 on a segregationist, anti-civil rights platform:
I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.There's a clear implication here: The United States would have been better off with a president who supported Jim Crow laws and opposed even the most miniscule advances in civil rights. Trent Lott pointedly endorsed to policies of a racist politician who did not believe that all are created equal. Publicly longing for the bad old days of Jim Crow strikes me as a far cry from a pragmatic political analysis made in a private strategy meeting.
Meanwhile, the inimitable Michael Steele soldiers on:
Clearly, he [Reid] is out of touch not only with where America and his district [sic] are but where — how African Americans generally feel about these issues.How the ultraconservative Steele can claim to be in touch with how the majority of African-Americans feel about anything escapes me. Equally clueless were the remarks of right-wing Texas Republican senator John Coryn, who called Reid's comments "embarrassing and racially insensitive." Forgive me, John, but I doubt that you spend much time figuring out how to be racially sensitive. What I can believe is that you are well-versed in that code words and phrases that appeal to bigots while allowing a veneer of plausible deniability.
The conservative breast-beating over this is downright bizarre. When it comes to civil rights and at least attempting to guarantee racial minorities access to the full blessings of American life, conservatives can't point to a single accomplishment. In fact they resisted with might and main every step forward attempted by the movement activists, the radicals, and the liberals. Yes, some Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but these days they'd be called RINO's.
Reid's words were bizarre and poorly chosen. He has apologized to President Obama and the president, having much bigger fish to fry, has accepted the apology. That's good enough for all but the most rabid and hypocritical conservatives. And that, as usual, is who does all the ranting...
I'd rather be in some dark hollow...
Class Act Dept. Rushbo, with his usual grace, charm, and urbanity:
I know the real reason that Teddy Kennedy was mad and offended when Bill Clinton said, "Hey, come on man. You know, this guy would have been fetching us coffee a couple years ago". What made Teddy Kennedy mad was it's women get him coffee, it was Negros that brought Ted Kennedy his booze. And that's why he was all offended.Treme teaser:
The first season of Treme is scheduled to begin on HBO on April 11.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Holmes, Sweet Holmes
By 1893, Arthur Conan Doyle was tired of Sherlock Holmes. His creation, the great consulting detective who disdained intuition and worshiped at the altar of deductive logic, had defined its author instead of the other way around. And so, in the story "The Final Problem," Holmes confronted his nemesis, Professor Moriarty, on an unfenced ledge high above the gorge of Reichenbach Falls. An epic wrestling match ensued and the two men plunged to oblivion.As hard as it may be to believe today, the public outcry that followed was so intense that Doyle reconsidered his decision to kill off Holmes. He knew a cash cow when he saw one, and so -- not for the last time in the annals of entertainment -- returned a mortal character from the dead for a series of further adventures. Before that, though, Doyle wrote a play called "Sherlock Holmes" in the hopes that it would provide a stream of income as he built a new home and pursued other interests. (Oddly, for a man who invented a literary character synonymous with rational thought, these interests included a fascination with the occult.)
Doyle's effort was not the first play about Holmes, but it would become the most significant. Believing that the drama needed further work, a literary agent connected Doyle with the actor and playwright William Gillette (see photo above, as Holmes), who gave the play its needed refinements. Starring as Holmes, Gillette performed the play over 1,300 times before American and British audiences. His refinements included three alterations that forever defined Sherlock Holmes in the eyes of generations of moviegoers.
First all, Gillette coined and added to the script the immortal phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," words that never actually appeared in any Doyle's stories or novels. The other two refinements turned out to be iconic: Gillette changed the stem of Holmes' pipe from straight to curved and outfitted the detective in a deerstalker hat. Basil Rathbone as Holmes displays both here:
It didn't take long for the new medium of film to make use of Sherlock Holmes. He first appeared in an eponymous 1908 short film, then again in 1916. Thus began his century-long run as the most commonly recurring character in movies other than possibly Jesus Christ: I can't think of any other character whose life in film extends as far back as Sherlock Holmes. Actors offer interpretations of the detective as if he were Hamlet. Robert Downey, Jr.'s deconstructed Holmes currently in theatres is undoubtedly the most radical vision of Holmes, but he's not the first actor to depart from Doyle's original conception.
Indeed in 1922, John Barrymore essayed a brooding, cautious Holmes, the famous profile sculpting the immediate atmosphere as if it were stone. Barrymore's Holmes carried the weight of the world on his shoulders, as if each decision and deduction had cosmic import. Sighing and filling his cheeks before exhaling, Barrymore showed none of the airy self-confidence that Basil Rathbone would two decades later. In the following clip, Barrymore's Holmes meets Professor Moriarty for the first time. Notice how the bright makeup and dark backdrops combine to emphasize Barrymore's profile:
The advent of sound offered studios the opportunity to show Holmes as Doyle conceived him: Quick of wit, sharp of tongue, and formidable in intelligence. Basil Rathbone wasn't the first Holmes of the talkie era, but it was he who developed one of the most iconic characters in film history, an amazing feat for an actor who never achieved the status of screen icons like Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne. Those two giants created screen images that rendered their own personas iconic; Rathbone, in constrast, extended and increased the stature of an unforgettable character by the way he as an actor interpreted Holmes.
A highly respected supporting actor who often appeared opposite Errol Flynn -- another icon of the Bogart/Wayne mold -- Rathbone's casting as Holmes in 1939's The Hound of the Baskervilles was nothing short of inspired. Polished and urbane, this unflappable Holmes willingly and even callously risked the lives of others to close a case. Rathbone delighted in Holmes' skills with disguise, relentlessly twitted Nigel Bruce's hapless Watson, and knew at all times that he was the smartest guy in the room. Here he is at the end of Dressed to Kill (1946):
Indeed in 1922, John Barrymore essayed a brooding, cautious Holmes, the famous profile sculpting the immediate atmosphere as if it were stone. Barrymore's Holmes carried the weight of the world on his shoulders, as if each decision and deduction had cosmic import. Sighing and filling his cheeks before exhaling, Barrymore showed none of the airy self-confidence that Basil Rathbone would two decades later. In the following clip, Barrymore's Holmes meets Professor Moriarty for the first time. Notice how the bright makeup and dark backdrops combine to emphasize Barrymore's profile:
The advent of sound offered studios the opportunity to show Holmes as Doyle conceived him: Quick of wit, sharp of tongue, and formidable in intelligence. Basil Rathbone wasn't the first Holmes of the talkie era, but it was he who developed one of the most iconic characters in film history, an amazing feat for an actor who never achieved the status of screen icons like Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne. Those two giants created screen images that rendered their own personas iconic; Rathbone, in constrast, extended and increased the stature of an unforgettable character by the way he as an actor interpreted Holmes.
A highly respected supporting actor who often appeared opposite Errol Flynn -- another icon of the Bogart/Wayne mold -- Rathbone's casting as Holmes in 1939's The Hound of the Baskervilles was nothing short of inspired. Polished and urbane, this unflappable Holmes willingly and even callously risked the lives of others to close a case. Rathbone delighted in Holmes' skills with disguise, relentlessly twitted Nigel Bruce's hapless Watson, and knew at all times that he was the smartest guy in the room. Here he is at the end of Dressed to Kill (1946):
As mentioned, Rathbone excelled as a disguised Holmes. In The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes, impersonated a music hall singer:
As was perhaps expected of a wartime series, Rathbone portrayed Holmes as a bemused observer of the establishment who was nonetheless a conservative patriot committed to preserving it. Typically, he rescued a would-be baron or lady from a nefarious plot, and in one instance he saved the life of a newly crowned prince. Whatever the case, the aristocracy -- and by extension the British Empire -- was always safe in the hands of Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes.
Many versions of Holmes followed, each inevitably compared to Rathbone's and most found wanting. Christopher Lee offered a tinge of the macabre while Ian Richardson contributed a blue-blooded touch in their versions of The Hound of the Baskervilles. In Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970), Robert Stephens capitalized on Holmes' famous "aversion to women" (the words are Doyle's) and played a Holmes who may or may not have been gay:
(For the record, Colin Blakely's Watson was decidedly heterosexual.)
In 1988's witty parody Without a Clue, Michael Caine played a dunderheaded Holmes while Ben Kingsley showed that, behind the scenes, Watson was in fact the unappreciated (and frustrated) brains of the outfit:
Incidentally the various screen portrayals of Watson make for another blog entry. Whatever scintillating chemistry it engendered, Nigel Bruce's lumbering, blundering Watson from the Rathbone series was quite at odds with Doyle's quiet and steady original character, who actually was of normal intelligence.
The most well-received contemporary version of Holmes is Jeremy Brett's icy interpretation for the Mystery! television series. Brett is a bit cold and mechanical for my taste, but many people like him and he has certainly garnered excellent reviews. Here he is displaying the logic of deduction:
Now, a little more than a hundred years after Holmes first appeared on the silver screen, comes the first completely deconstructed Holmes in the form of Robert Downey, Jr.'s portrayal in the film Sherlock Holmes. Downey's performance takes its cue from a London that is a far cry from the romantic city of Rathbone and the others, a town awash in fog and atmosphere. This London is grimy and incomplete, and Downey's unkempt, mumbling Holmes matches it nicely. (No film, but the unfortunate trailer is here.)
This Holmes is less interesting in saving the British Empire than he is in solving the case for its own sake. In this sense, he's closer to Doyle's conception of the character than Rathbone's wartime interpretation. And there are other links to Doyle: My recollection is that Holmes was not unfamiliar with martial arts, and the scene in which he shoots a "patriotic" VR in the wall is recreated here with wit and verve. Irene Adler makes an appearance, although Rachel McAdam is far too girlish for the part. Mary Morstan, who appeared in the novel The Sign of the Four and eventually married Watson, appears as the good doctor's fiancee and gives as good as she gets in her interactions with Holmes. Most important, Doyle's fascination with the occult is central to the plot.
The plot itself involves a depraved member of the House of Lords who may have risen from the dead to threaten that useless institution and the rest of Parliament. Holmes, in part an action hero in this film, stays hot on his trail even as events seem to undermine his treasured deductive logic. (I don't want to give away the ending, so I'll just say -- a la Holmes' television counterpart Dr. House -- that there is an explanation for everything.)
With one exception involving the premature launching of a ship, the action sequences tend to drag the film down. Though coherent, they could be from any movie about any protagonist. As this particular protagonist is notably cerebral and has a notably strong personality, they seem all the more incongruent. But there is much to like about Sherlock Holmes. Downey's interpretation is rooted enough in the past that, for all of its modernity, it makes sense. Jude Law's querulous, exasperated Watson is refreshing. The scenes in which Holmes thinks through his next physical moves come off very well and lend credibility to Holmes as an action hero. All in all, this is a movie worth seeing despite its limitations.
What is next for Sherlock Holmes? Probably a sequel to this movie, although I think the most inventive use of the character is Hugh Laurie's recreation of him as House, the brilliant, pompous, drug-addicted physician of the TV show of the same name. I'd like to see more reinventions of Holmes in different modern settings, although it takes an actor of Laurie's presence to pull this off. Whatever it might be, audiences will flock to the movies and ooh-and-aah over Holmes' brilliance. After all, he's captured our filmgoer imagination for over a hundred years and there's no reason to think that he'll stop any time soon.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Sunday Funnies & Arts
As always, click to enlarge...
Listening to Willie on a lazy Sunday morning. Life can be pretty good sometimes...
JUST A SONG: Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova are Falling Slowly. If you didn't see Once, what are you waiting for? Read Roy's writeup of this song, read his review of the movie here, and put it in your Netflix queue...
SSSS IX...
Stones N' Bones...
Images of Bishop, Texas from Premium T....
RFB: Willow tree with sparrows in juncos in an Idaho snowstorm...
Too cold, Big Lake at City Park...
David Corn writes that Michael Steele is killing the Republican party...
Not the Nuacht: Ever wonder what The Onion would be like in Ireland? Now you know...
Sports Section
The Seahawks apparent decision to fire Jim Mora and hire Pete Carroll as coach is a real head-scratcher. For all I know, Carroll will be the another Vince Lombardi and coach the Hawks to repeated Super Bowl glory. And I could understand moving quickly if they were after someone like Tony Dungy or Bill Cowher, someone whose NFL stature and track record is such that they have to throw big money out, make a lot of commitments, and grab him before someone else does. But if there's a big pro market for Pete Carroll, I missed it. Why not include him as part of a diligent, far-ranging search? If emerged from something like that as the best candidate, Seahawks fans would feel a lot more comfortable. As it is, this smacks of a star-struck Paul Allen flashing his wad...The Red Sox are serious about building a team around pitching and defense. Their infield and outfield defense in the best in my memory and probably my father's, too. Whether that's enough to catch the Yankees is an open question, but from here it seems like a reasonable strategy to counteract the Yank's ability to sign the biggest bats on the free agent market...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
