Monthly Archives: September 2013

Eight and a Half of My favorite Movie Performances: Completely Unhelpful and Yet Still Full of Spoilers

30 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by in Movies

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

So, I’m still trying to get back in the swing of blogging here.  Damned if life isn’t keeping me away from the keyboard these days, but I miss it so. And what better way to start back in than by chatting up a few of my favorite performances. I’m not presenting them in any particular order, and here I am less interested in the overall films than the contributions of a single actor.

Anyway, without further ado…

Christoph Waltz in “Inglorious Basterds”

Screencaps-from-Inglourious-Basterds-christoph-waltz-11030636-354-390Say what you will about him (and I have, I know), but Tarantino can certainly spin a story; he can pile ever more twists onto a narrative until you swear the whole thing couldn’t possibly get any more complicated, and then that damned Tarantino will prove you wrong, all the while keeping you on the edge of your seat. How does he do it? For one thing, his villains are always smarter than your average thug; their motives are always complex and their heads are full of ideas just waiting to burst out. Sooner or later, a Tarantino villain can be relied upon to explain himself, and in so doing, to surprise us with some new plot twist we couldn’t possibly have expected.

This is where Waltz comes in; he is perfectly contemptible at every moment of this film. This is easily one of Tarantino’s most complex villains, and Waltz gives him an air of contemptibly that remains constant with every new twist in the story. You just can’t help but hate him no matter what he is doing; whether he is being charming or churlish, killing innocent people with a smile on his face, or saving the day (still with a smile on his face). Hate him? Hell! You just can’t help but want to hurt him. If I had three wishes, I would use one of them to wish this guy into existence, so I could smack that smirk off his face.

…but he’d probably get the upper hand on me in the end.

Dam that Waltz!

***

Gong Li in “To Live”

220px-To_Live_PosterOkay, I admit I’m biased. I’ve been in love with Gong Li ever since I first saw her sassing one of the characters in Farewell My Concubine, but for my money the best performance she ever produced was in To Live. Much like Farewell, To Live tells the story of a relationship against the backdrop of late twentieth-century Chinese history. In this case, the relationship is more straight-forward; it’s just a couple, not a love triangle. But of course one must never fall in love in a Chinese drama.

That ever ends well.

One of my favorite scenes in the film begins with a humorous look at the Maoist era. Jiazhen (played by Gong Li) and her husband accompany their daughter (Fengxia) to the hospital where Fengxia is to give birth. They are joined by Fengshia’s husband, Wan Erxi, and two of his workmates just as they realize the hospital is remarkably devoid of doctors. Upon learning that the reasons for this are political, Erxi contrives to bring a doctor to the hospital on the pretext of shaming him at the sight of good politically correct nurses doing so well without supervision. Unfortunately, the doctor hasn’t eaten in several days and efforts to remedy that serve only to make the situation worse. It is all hilarious, at least until Fengxia begins to hemorrhage. With no-one conscious and capable of helping, the comedy goes very dark indeed, and this scene ends with Gong Li in tears, simply begging her daughter to stay alive…

George C. Scott in “Dr. Strangelove”

Dr._Strangelove_-_General_Buck_TurgidsonYes, Peter Sellers was brilliant in this movie, and he was also brilliant in this movie, and he was even brilliant in this movie, but for all of Sellers’ brilliances, George C. Scott’s performance as General Turgidson is the one that consistently has me reeling in laughter.

I could swear I once saw Scott claim that this was his favorite role on a talk show, but my memory may be sideways on that one. The truth is Scott’s performance has been something of a controversy. Apparently, director Stanley Kubrik wanted Scott to play the part a bit more recklessly than the already well-established actor deemed appropriate. So Kubrik would shoot the scene straight, so to speak, then ask Scott to do it one more time, hamming it up a bit, just as an exercise. Scott is said to have felt rather betrayed when it was the over-the-top performances that made it into the final cut. I can definitely understand his feelings on the issue, but I’ll be damned if the results aren’t sheer genius.

***

Carl Anderson in “Jesus Christ Superstar”

tumblr_lli7k0Fkv11qjdpq8o1_500Now folks have certainly raised questions about the decision to cast a back man as Judas, and there are good reasons for those questions, but I somehow doubt many people came away from this movie thinking worse of African-Americans on account of it. I can well imagine the untold numbers that must have walked away saying something like; “wow, Judas really stole the show!” He didn’t of course; the show was always his film from the outset. Yes, Ted Neeley belts out an amazing performance in the Garden of Gethsemane, but the consistently moving presence in this movie is clearly that of Anderson.

This movie is essentially the story of Jesus, as told from the viewpoint of Judas, and in 1973 that was a Hell of a departure from traditional film fair on that topic. Anderson had to secure the sympathies of an audience for the greatest traitor of all time, so to speak, and that had to be a tough sell. He had to frame the whole movie with its first song and wrap it up with its last,. Anderson did all of that with tremendous style and force. Every time I watch this movie I keep waiting for Judas to come on screen, cause it’s just not the same without him.

In this production anyway, you gotta give it up for Judas, because he is absolutely the best part of the movie.

***

Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”

09-heath_ledger_as_joker_wallpaper_-_1280x1024The hype related to this performance was so intense I thought I would have to wait several years before seeing it, just to get that crap out of my mind. I was so prepared to be disappointed, because I thought there was no way Ledger’s performance in The Dark Knight could possibly match the press he was getting.

It did.

***

Lara Belmont in “The War Zone”

The_War_Zone_20825_MediumLara Belmont deserves every Oscar that was ever given out to anybody in any category ever conceived. Seriously folks, they should all be gathered up and sent directly to her along with a great big note saying, “We’re not worthy.” Then they should close down the motion picture academy and replace it with a link to the most convenient place to buy a copy of The War Zone.

I could say a lot of things about this movie and Belmont’s performance, including at least one warning for anyone thinking of giving it a quick look-see. This movie is not for the faint of heart. It is a very frank and sometimes graphic meditation on the subject of incest. First time director, Tim Roth does not flinch in his treatment of the subject matter, and he doesn’t really let his audience do it either. All in all, it’s a pretty merciless 99 minutes.

For me, the hardest scene to watch comes near the end of the film as Jessie (Belmont’s character) watches a confrontation between her brother and her father. In effect, they are fighting about her, and yet she plays no role in the fight itself. Jessie watches the men in her life explode in anger over the fate of her own body as she sits at the kitchen table and smokes a cigarette.

…and quietly falls apart.

***

Ray Winstone in “Sexy Beast”

Sexy Beast 2000 Ray Winstone pic 1Ben Kingsley got the lions-share of attention for his own amazing performance in this film, but for my money the real brilliance came from Ray Winstone. Nevermind the fact that Ray Winstone is always outstanding. This man could sneeze an amazing performance into a sheet of kleenex. Hell, on an off-day Winstone could phone in a sneeze from home, and 4 out of 5 sheets of kleenex would tell you it was the best damned bit of acting they had ever seen. The fifth sheet of kleenex would of course damn itself to hell as unworthy to receive the expectorate of this genius.

…over the phone!

The moment of true genius comes as Gal Dove (Winstone) is eating breakfast and a mob boss comes to question him about the whereabouts of a missing co-conspirator. You see, Gal was the last to see the man alive, and the boss doesn’t quite buy gal’s account of things. Gal is cool as ice during the whole conversation, of course. You can see his facade, and it’s convincing, but you can also see how close he is to losing it altogether. The whole scene is nails on a chalk-board, excruciating.

It is also exquisite.

***

Evan Adams in “Smoke Signals”

smokesignalsThere is a lot to love about this movie, but I’ve always thought the acting was a little uneven. I have had a full on fan-boy crush on Irene Bedard ever since 3 days before I learned of her existence, but this certainly isn’t her best work. Adam Beach is Adam Beach, and his Beachyness plays out to great effect in this story. But there is one performance in this movie that is just perfect, Evan Adams as Thomas Builds-the-Fire. This character is so gentle, and so clever, and so damned likable, you just can’t help but wish he was real.

…and living next door.

In the documentary, Reel Injun, director, Chris Eyre, claims that he once asked Adams what he was doing to make the character come together. Adams explained that he was playing his own grandmother.

Evidently, Evan Adams’ grandmother is made of wonderful.

***

Donald Sutherland in “Little Murders,” …Okay, it’s just the one scene.

This movie was obscure when it wasn’t hopelessly dated, and I can’t say much for the overall production really. It’s been a long time since I first watched Little Murders, but I do remember the whole thing left me feeling kinda meh, …except for this one glorious little scene. The sermon Donald Sutherland gives at this wedding has me dying of laughter every time.

 

Who Needs Christmas? I Can be a Grinch All Year Long!

19 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by in atheism, Religion

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Y’all might have noticed a little clip making the rounds on the net lately. It’s a debate between Jamie Kilstein and John Fugelsang over the existence of God. It occurs on Totally Biased with Kamau Bell, and frankly, the whole thing is a lot of fun.

Yes, I am going to take a stand against fun here. I mean, someone has to do it!

Seriously though, it’s hard to dislike this piece, because all three come across as funny and likable, and all three make interesting points, though I have to say the best point Kilstein makes is the one he attributes to his girlfriend. I’d have to give the edge to Fugelsang on this one though. His humor was the edgier of the bunch, and definitely the most thoughtful. If I had to pick a winner, …or even if I didn’t, I’d give it to the believers in this one.

Lest you think I have already give up the gripe and joined the fan-club though, let me get to the problem. Okay, I don’t really have a problem with anything in this video. I don’t literally agree with a lot of the points made by any of these guys, but I’m happy to have a laugh and take it as food for thought. What bothers me is the way some folks are touting this as a model of religious discussions and debate between different viewpoints. By some people, frankly I mean the folks at Upworthy.

…and I like Upworthy, but that’s not going to stop me from cappin’ on them.

…the bastards!

By ‘bastards’ in this case I mean Joseph Lamour, who has this to say about the segment:

If you’re religious, think about the last time you had a talk with an atheist about religion. If you’re an atheist, think about the last time you talked religion with someone who was devout.

Now think how you would have liked that to go.

Okay, Lamour isn’t really a bastard, but dammit, I’m trying to pick a fight here, so I’m calling him one anyway. Someone has to be the bad guy amidst all this goodwill and nice-ossity.

…dammit!

I should add that Upworthy puts this page under the following title: “A Debate Between An Atheist And A Christian Has Quite A Surprising Result.”

So what’s the problem?

Well first, I’m still looking for my surprise. Believe it or not, a polite and friendly conversation doesn’t count as a surprise ending for some of us. These happen all the time; ugly conversations too, but friendly and polite conversations about religious topics are not that rare. If that was supposed to be the surprise, then I’m a little disappointed. I feel like a kid who just got a Happy Meal without a toy. And no, I don’t want the damned cashier to give me one now; it’s too damn late dammit!

I do damn-say.

I do!

Okay, but what’s the real problem with this piece? It’s this. There are reasons this debate went so well, and those reasons should make it perfectly clear why this bit of comedy fun isn’t really a model for how these discussions are supposed to work. If this is a fun chapter in the story of interfaith discussion and debate, it is ultimately a unique chapter, and it isn’t going to set the tone for the rest of that story. Sorry, it just isn’t.

For one thing the Christian wasn’t very ‘Christian’, so to speak. That might actually be because he was too Christian for Christians, though I suspect many would respond that he wasn’t Christian enough, and of course he may well be right to say that Jesus wouldn’t be either, cause Christianity is a tough club and the Prince of Peace may well be barred entrance at this point, and well, …fun with identity-belief games. The point is that he wasn’t representative of Christianity as it is conventionally defined in the public eye. That may be a good thing in itself, but let’s be honest, it’s one of the reasons this debate went so well.

Fugelsang’s values, at least as he represented them in this discussion, don’t necessarily clash with those of Kilstein or any number of secularists such as, …well, myself. He may well have values to which we object, but he did not put those values front and center in the discussion above. Fogelsang may believe in something we don’t, but in this discussion he did not threaten many (or perhaps any) secular ideas about how to live and behave. Put a conservative Christian up there, standing up for conservative Christian values, and we would have a much deeper clash between all the parties involved. I suspect that both Kilstein and Bell would have had a much more difficult time relating with God’s man in this debate had he taken a different approach to the issues in question.

Is Fugelsang’s faith better, more accurate, or more true than that of the folks we normally associate with the label? Well that’s a battle between him and them (though I kinda hope he win’s it). For the present, the point is that he is for many of us in the just-say-no-to-God club the kinda Christian we can readily get along with.

So, perhaps it isn’t so surprising that the folks in this debate got along after all.

More to the point, look at the contours of the debate. These are comedians; they are playing for laughs. Each makes his points, but not one of them really scrutinizes the claims made by the others. In fact, each gets by with a lot of shaky reasoning and imprecise language because we don’t normally expect rigorous arguments from comedians. We expect to laugh. …and if a comedian also gives us something to think about, well hey, then that’s a plus. But we don’t sit in the front row and shout “red herring” at folks like this. And apparently they don’t do it to each other either.

…which is another reason why this turns out to be a friendly debate. The poison pens and trashy talk comes out on this issue when people actually begin to take apart each other’s reasoning on the subject. That’s when it starts to get personal, not necessarily because the other guy is calling you names, but because your own thinking is actually on the line in such a debate. …and okay, because people also call each other names. Discussions about religion get a lot more heated when people actually respond directly to the arguments of the other person, …when they say things like; “that’s not true!” or “that’s totally irrelevant.” It’s at such moments that people start to pepper the discussion with additional phrases like “…you stupid git” or “you miserable cur!” It is much easier to keep it calm when folks just outline their basic point of view and move-on. It’s counter-arguments that turn up the heat on iterfaith conversations, and those really didn’t happen here.

Which means none of these guys got called-out on their cheap shots, their wonky reasoning, or their not-literally-true claims. None of these guys even had to make up his mind as to just how serious he was about the claims he made on the topic, much less answer a direct challenge to the truth of those claims. The tougher arguments don’t necessarily happen because people are trying to be mean, but because there are genuine questions about whether or not some points of view are just wrong, and once you put those questions on the table, the pulse rates start to go up. Counter-arguments are where the shit gets real, and counter-arguments didn’t really happen here.

Counter-arguments didn’t happen, because of course this wasn’t really a debate; it was a venue providing each party with a chance to highlight aspects of their comedy routine, and each did so with remarkable skill. In short, this was comedians doing what comedians do.

The debate wasn’t ugly, because they never really got to the ugly questions.

Won’t someone please think of the ugly questions?

Irritation Meditation Number Whatever: I Love the Smell of New Propaganda in the Morning!

02 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by in Irritation Meditation, Politics

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

tumblr_msikmn9yWU1saikk3o1_500So, here I am surfing along the wifi challenged net of my lovely hotel room and what do I find in between 404 notices? Well it appears to be the latest talking point from the right wing echo chamber; a snappy little infographic promoting the virtues of a national day devoted to the celebration of Capital!

It seems that labor and capital both need each other, at least according to this catchy little visual. So, in the interests of fairness, we really ought to have a national Capital Day, at least if we are going to have a national Labor Day. And if we can’t have that, well then we should at least celebrate them together.

I mean it’s only fair!

I found this on Tumblr, a account for The Bill of Rights Institute, … so, Koch Brothers, yep! The visual has the stamp of FEE on it, which leads us easily enough to the Foundation for Economic Education, an unsurprisingly Libertarian bastion of economic chatter, and once there it doesn’t take long to find a whole article (penned by none other than the President of the foundation, Lawrence Reed)  touting this movement to counter-balance the celebration of labor with that of capital.

Now to be fair, Lawrence does tell us he will be celebrating Labor Day. Apparently, that’s okay, just as long as we don’t dip into any lefty labor union kinda thinking. Good workers know their place, and their place is working for capital! …without complaints and collective bargaining power. And of course Reed does want to reassure us that he is NOT engaging in class warfare, no. He loves labor. Hell, workers too can become capitalists if they save and invest.

I wonder what Reed thinks the average worker has to invest in today’s climate?

Apparently, we aren’t supposed to think of capital as something deployed only by bankers, because of course workers COULD invest in stock themselves. And in the classic tone-deaf stylings that have become the hallmark of libertarian thought, that little bit of formal equivalence is supposed to help us forget the massive difference between the economic power of the investing classes and those who might have a chunk of their fragile retirement fund riding on the fate of a corporation or two.

I could wonder a lot of things about the fairy-tale land of free market fundamentalism this preacher sells from his think-tank pulpit, but for the present it is enough to meditate on the vision of fairness he has in mind here. It is somehow unfair, he and the folks at FEE seem to be suggesting, that Americans should think about labor and not give a happy nod to capital as well. I wonder where that sense of fairness can be found when paychecks are measured against dividends, personal bankruptcies to corporate bailouts, and second homes to rental properties? I wonder where that sense of fairness is when people like Donald Trump talk about building this or that casino with hardly a nod to those who actually did the dirty work? I wonder where that emphasis on interdependence can be found when folks talk about ‘job creators’ as though they were the unmoved movers of the economic world? And I wonder where all this painfully important need for balanced credit falls when we measure the access of workers to the ear of public officials against that of capitalists? Today, it seems we must be reminded that workers and capitalists work hand-in-hand; on most days that same vision of cooperation is deemed to mean every-man-for-himself, and shame on those who fall short at the end of the month.

No doubt the fine folks at FEE will protest (as Libertarians often do) that they are against sundry special treatments for big business as well. And I suppose, one can indeed imagine a world in which the libertarian scheme of things offers a fair chance to everyone and a better more efficient economy for all. That world is every bit as real as the communist state. In the world we live in though, Libertarian intervention always seems so much more focused on the denial of benefits to the lower classes. Bail out a corporation and they will tell you that sucks and things are not supposed to work that way. Offer health care to the working poor and they will burn the country down around our ears if that’s what it takes to stop you.

And just as a small petty footnote in economic history, they may even find a way to begrudge working men and women a single day of acknowledgement.

I Suppose Hospitals are Full of Such Stories

01 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by in General

≈ 28 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

bosch20

I think a little Bosch is in order here.

“Do you want them or not?”

This was the nurse talking to the patient next to me earlier this morning. Her words struck me as about the most cruel thing I had heard anyone say in a very long time. To be fair, I wasn’t privy to the whole story, and the occasional dose of percoset could not have done much to improve my own perception of events happening on the other side of a curtain. Still, I think I took in enough of what was going on to understand the poor sobbing man who had to answer this question.

My own stay at the hospital was rather uneventful. Three minor procedures and an overnight stay. It was painful, but hardly beyond my own (less than impressive) tolerance levels. I found the staff pleasant and helpful. The story of my brief encounter with the medical world this weekend has thus far been a rather boring story of a plan coming together nicely. The drama last night was unfolded just beyond the curtain beside me.

The patient showed up well into the evening, obviously in great distress. I could hear the man explain that he had walked out of another hospital because they wouldn’t give him enough pain killers. He didn’t seem to be capable of repeating that move again. Shortly after being left to his own devices, the man began to vomit. He seemed to vomit until he had nothing left, and he just kept on going.

…all night.

Granted, there were moments of respite, but they were few and far in between. I could hardly imagine the pain he must have experienced, but listening to him cry just like a child was enough to drive the point home for me. The physical suffering of the patient next to me was but the kicker for the real story. Over the course of the evening, the staff slowly seemed to disengage themselves from the struggle to control his pain, replacing the effort to help him with explanations for their own inability to do so. The response time for his requests grew longer and longer over the course of the evening. At least one time I could hear people joking and laughing just outside the door as his bell rang, and the man struggled to expel whatever it was that wanted out of his belly so badly.

Was I missing something? Perhaps the staff believed him to be a problem patient of sorts, contributing to his own misery in one way or another, or perhaps they simply felt they were unable to help him. Either way, their increasing reluctance to try seemed to grow more obvious over the course of the night. I suppose it would make sense in that perverse way that the human mind actually seems to work that a nurse unable to help a patient in any substantive manner would withdraw from him emotionally, but this seemed to be an exceptionally striking loss of compassion. By morning, it seemed the staff could hardly pretend to care anymore just what happened to this patient.

One particularly sad chapter in the drama came when my neighbor asked for pain medication. He was given a pill and some water, all of which stayed down less than a few minutes. As the patient pointed out that his pain medication was now in the bucket, the hospital staff argued that some of it must be making its way into his system. How much was in the bucket and how much was in his system, no-one could tell, and that unanswered question had serious consequences. The man continued to complain of pain all night, and having given him pain medications, the staff explained that they could not risk giving him anything more. Despite any evidence to the contrary, they had to assume the medication they had given him was still in his system. He would simply have to tough it out.

At some point in the evening, I heard somebody take them man into the bathroom where they left him. About ten minutes later I heard a crash. Do, I know that he fell? Not quite. Something else could have gone wrong, but I continue to believe that is what I heard. By this point in the evening, I was getting a slow response to my own requests for help. Perhaps the staff was just that busy, and perhaps my own efforts to get help for the neighbor had earned me too a skeptical ear. Either way, no-one came to help for several minutes as I pressed buttons and talked into speakers. The man begged me to find him some help. Finally, I decided to get up and make for the hallway.

Someone finally entered the room as I grunted and groaned my way out of bed. After asking them to help my neighbor I was told he was just lying on the floor. It was only after I insisted several times that he had fallen, and after I added that I had heard a crash, that anyone turned their attention to him. After sometime they got him back into his bed and listened as he added a very sore shoulder to his list of complaints. Convinced that it had popped out of place, my neighbor asked for help pushing it back into its socket. This request was of course denied, and rightly so, I imagine, but I couldn’t help thinking that to this person it was just one more refusal to help him.

Things were relatively quiet for awhile after that. When asked, the man always said he was in pain. Finally, someone brought him a couple pain pills and a glass of water. The man patiently explained that he would vomit them back up just as they had the first time. His nurse interrupted with terse question; “Do you want them or not?”

After a long silence, I could hear the man taking the pills. It had to be a difficult decision. The previous botched attempt at such medication was the very reason he spent the night in so much pain, and now this was the only option the nurse could (or would) offer him. She left immediately after giving him the pills, and the room fell silent. As it happens, he did keep this batch down, and things were okay for awhile (less than an hour). Who knows, maybe there was a trace of wisdom in her cruelty.

I keep thinking about this, wondering how accurate my sense of the events may be, what details may fill the gaps in my own sense of the story, and just how much I should be angry over the story unfolding beside me. If I’ve gauged the bathroom incident correctly, then I think that argues for an angry-as-hell verdict, but I am on very uncertain ground there. Most of the story takes place in more grey areas, a patient in great pain, and staff well beyond their ability to help him. I wonder if people may have overlooked some options that were available to them all along, but I don’t know what those would be. Perhaps there are lessons here about the way bureaucracies allocate authority for decisions and the way people deal with those policies in real life. Far more likely, I suspect there is a lesson here about the way that people respond to their own limitations, and the short trip from inability to help to utter lack of compassion. These weren’t uncaring people, at least I don’t believe they were, but by the end of the evening you’d have been hard-pressed to see it in their actions toward that patient.

Ah well, I now have a date with some percoset.

…which I am apparently unable to spell.