Contrary to most people and critics, I am going to dissent on “Slumdog Millionaire,” which was selected as Best Picture last Sunday night, completing a remarkable sweep of the major movie awards for 2009. Originally, it was a film that was going straight to DVD, as it was first seen as an Indie that would have a small or limited audience. But it picked up a distributor and soon took off like a rocket. It cost $14 million to make and to date it has returned $150 million; and now that it won the Academy Award for Best Picture it could approach $200 million before it cools off. Not bad for a combination British/Indian film of modest ambition and an unknown cast of actors. So what’s my complaint about this phenomenally popular movie? Strangely, I resisted going to see it in the first place. Why, I don’t really know. I was suspicious of its sudden success and popularity, like it was too good to be true. But I made a special effort to see it before the Awards ceremony on February 22.
Shortly after the story began to unfold, I was put off by its premise. Slumdog was not a term current within the confines of the slums of Mumbai; it was invented by the screenwriter who thought it was clever. He apparently didn’t realize what an insult it is in India where dogs are the untouchables of the animal world. But it is already an expression that has taken root in the West, an image equivalent to ‘dirt bag,’ which was originated on, if I am not mistaken, the TV series “Hill Street Blues.” When all is said and done, I think the movie is an exotic popcorn movie from India, made by Brits, about the Mumbai slums, a city within a city, that focuses on a young couple in a rags-to-riches fantasy/romance that could never happen because the Quiz program would never put someone from the slums on the Millionaire program, or at least so I have read online. The slum dwellers are on the bottom of the Indian caste system. The movie is designed to play “Let’s Pretend,” so everybody could go home from the movie feeling warm and fuzzy. The squalor of the slums is for the most part turned into scenery for the foreground sweet romance between two young people that is suppose to transcend the filth and smell of the tanneries in the slums, which of course the movie can’t convey.
There is a clean and rinse quality to “Slumdog.” While the narrative deals with the eventual romance of the sweet, becoming couple, neither of whom were nominated for anything, although the young woman could be in a beauty contest, she was that attractive and also physically unmarked by poverty, the squalor and poverty of the shacks of the people who live there in frozen perpetuity remain out of sight of the Quiz program part of the story, where the boy-hero wins his chance to win the lottery—and the girl. And to live, I suppose, happily ever after, as members of the middle class.
Slumdogs around the world, dream on!
To me there is something exploitive about the movie, like the British are still at it in India. It weaves in and out of the narrative and taints its innocence and effulgent glow.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
There is aBumpy Ride ahead
Okay, America, buckle up; there is a bumpy ride ahead.
Bill Clinton was interviewed the other day and said President Obama needs to be a positive cheerleader for the nation as well as being truthful about the economic and financial mess we are in, which is a crisis that won’t be solved by waving a magic wand, but will eventually find resolution. He needs to stress where we are headed as well as where we have been.
This crisis is unprecedented because its ripple effects are global and sending a great tsunami of fear and uncertainty around the world. The previous Administration attempted to do something with its TARP Bill, a $700 Billion package; half of it went to the banks who used it for bonuses and new capital, but it did not produce the desired result—that they restart lending—due to the fact Henry Paulson talked about oversight but none was in effect. Essentially, he saw to it his wealthy brethren were rewarded for failure. That lame effort by a fading Administration was followed by last week’s Stimulus Bill which was closer to $800 billion, which passed Congress in less than a month. The Bill is about 76% spending and 24% tax cuts, which are there to involve Republicans, which turned out to be inordinately difficult, as they chose to be nay-sayers rather than real participants as a force for change. It will take a while to see the effect of the money, as it will trickle down over two years to the needs out there. But many economists feel it will not be enough money and that there is a shortfall of help for the states. For example, some states may have to lay off teachers, which is self-defeating.
The Republicans are in-denial about the situation. They think we have to stop spending and renew more tax cuts and everything will be hunky dory, when it is obvious that is what got us into our current predicament of huge deficits. They can’t envision the government playing a vital role in a rescue mission. They rant and rave in the media, which seems to cater to them right now, but their criticism is shrill and old hat. They fault Obama for not being bipartisan when he went out of his way to include them in discussions, but they had no new ideas and refused to cooperate on the vote, especially in the House. They are having a hard time realizing they are no longer top dog.
Now that there is increasing talk about nationalizing the banks, the far right is starting to foam at the mouth. Rush Limbaugh, who has become the titular head of the Republican Party, engaged in a tirade this past week that clearly crossed the line into sheer demagoguery, some real scary stuff, in a feverish temper asking his audience to do something to stop Obama and his creeping socialism. Sean Hannity echoed those pleas and demands on FOX NEWS. The charge to his audience was the same: We have to stop him. Then on Friday the 20th Allen Keyes won the Oscar for the nuttiest comments of the week from the far right. He was interviewed at some pro-life conference and he called the president a “radical communist out to ruin the country” and who must be stopped before it’s too late before we slide into chaos and civil war. Then he made a cryptic comment about some military men are considering what they might do to stop him. That comment made me think of the 1964 movie, “Seven Days in May,” when some dissident army officers plodded to overthrow the duly elected government of the people. Burt Lancaster led the unsuccessful coup foiled by Kirk Douglas and the President, played by Fredrick March. One can’t help but wonder, could the movie be a preview of things to come?
As an editorial in the New York Times put it in their Sunday paper, “Taking over the banks will be very difficult politically.” To say the least. Indeed it looks like an inevitable thing at this point, and it makes sense that the government does that, on a temporary basis, because it is the people’s money that would be bailing out the banks, so the people should have partial ownership. Let’s face it, the bankers have been reckless and have shown little social responsibility, so why should they be rewarded for bad management, which is contrary to logic and the American way.
Bill Clinton was interviewed the other day and said President Obama needs to be a positive cheerleader for the nation as well as being truthful about the economic and financial mess we are in, which is a crisis that won’t be solved by waving a magic wand, but will eventually find resolution. He needs to stress where we are headed as well as where we have been.
This crisis is unprecedented because its ripple effects are global and sending a great tsunami of fear and uncertainty around the world. The previous Administration attempted to do something with its TARP Bill, a $700 Billion package; half of it went to the banks who used it for bonuses and new capital, but it did not produce the desired result—that they restart lending—due to the fact Henry Paulson talked about oversight but none was in effect. Essentially, he saw to it his wealthy brethren were rewarded for failure. That lame effort by a fading Administration was followed by last week’s Stimulus Bill which was closer to $800 billion, which passed Congress in less than a month. The Bill is about 76% spending and 24% tax cuts, which are there to involve Republicans, which turned out to be inordinately difficult, as they chose to be nay-sayers rather than real participants as a force for change. It will take a while to see the effect of the money, as it will trickle down over two years to the needs out there. But many economists feel it will not be enough money and that there is a shortfall of help for the states. For example, some states may have to lay off teachers, which is self-defeating.
The Republicans are in-denial about the situation. They think we have to stop spending and renew more tax cuts and everything will be hunky dory, when it is obvious that is what got us into our current predicament of huge deficits. They can’t envision the government playing a vital role in a rescue mission. They rant and rave in the media, which seems to cater to them right now, but their criticism is shrill and old hat. They fault Obama for not being bipartisan when he went out of his way to include them in discussions, but they had no new ideas and refused to cooperate on the vote, especially in the House. They are having a hard time realizing they are no longer top dog.
Now that there is increasing talk about nationalizing the banks, the far right is starting to foam at the mouth. Rush Limbaugh, who has become the titular head of the Republican Party, engaged in a tirade this past week that clearly crossed the line into sheer demagoguery, some real scary stuff, in a feverish temper asking his audience to do something to stop Obama and his creeping socialism. Sean Hannity echoed those pleas and demands on FOX NEWS. The charge to his audience was the same: We have to stop him. Then on Friday the 20th Allen Keyes won the Oscar for the nuttiest comments of the week from the far right. He was interviewed at some pro-life conference and he called the president a “radical communist out to ruin the country” and who must be stopped before it’s too late before we slide into chaos and civil war. Then he made a cryptic comment about some military men are considering what they might do to stop him. That comment made me think of the 1964 movie, “Seven Days in May,” when some dissident army officers plodded to overthrow the duly elected government of the people. Burt Lancaster led the unsuccessful coup foiled by Kirk Douglas and the President, played by Fredrick March. One can’t help but wonder, could the movie be a preview of things to come?
As an editorial in the New York Times put it in their Sunday paper, “Taking over the banks will be very difficult politically.” To say the least. Indeed it looks like an inevitable thing at this point, and it makes sense that the government does that, on a temporary basis, because it is the people’s money that would be bailing out the banks, so the people should have partial ownership. Let’s face it, the bankers have been reckless and have shown little social responsibility, so why should they be rewarded for bad management, which is contrary to logic and the American way.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Dubya and PoppyOliver Stone’s ” W,” now out on DVD, is conspicuous for what it left out, not for what it includes. The other main facet of the movie t
Oliver Stone’s ” W,” now out on DVD, is conspicuous for what it left out, not for what it includes. The other main facet of the movie that grabs you is the guessing game of what actor is impersonating what member of Bush’s Cabinet and entourage. Some are more successful than others. There are three main strands in the biopic of our 43 president, who over this weekend was ranked 36 by a gathering of 65 historians. And they are: Delving into his youthful drinking and aimlessness; his relationship with his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, a difficult relationship for both parties; and the start-up of the War in Iraq and how it was rationalized and how it quickly got out of control, being one of his Administration’s more egregious miscalculations.
His father had to use his influence to bail him out of a number of escapades and binds that his drinking had got him into, basically treating him as a family liability; he was the son who lived in the shadow of Jeb Bush, who was the favored son because he was more reliable, directed, and a smooth operator. Jeb was the one the family expected big things out of, not the bumbling George Junior. So, emotionally speaking, Dubya had a chip on his shoulder and was driven to prove his worth to “Poppy,” his childhood nickname for his father which had carried over into adult life. And it’s true the Senior Bush and Barbara treated him as if he were mentally challenged and barely able to tie his own shoe laces. When he told them that he was going to run for governor of Texas, they all but laughed in his face and tried to talk him out of it because Jeb was running for office in Florida and his race could distract from Jeb’s. That only fueled his fire and pricked his inferiority complex. He was determined to show his parents he had the stuff to be a successful politician. Interestingly, when Elder Bush asked Ronald Reagan to help George Junior find a job, the president wrote in his journal that junior was his Vice President’s ne’er-do-well son who has never had a decent job and he was almost 40 years old. That was 1986. Well, Poppy got him a loan of $600,000 to become part owner of the Texas Rangers and when Junior sold his share of the club he made $43 million. It always helps to be well-connected.
“W” completely ignores many aspects of Bush’s program, like compassionate conservatism, his faith-based initiatives, his tax cuts for the wealthy, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the counter terrorism slip-ups, the increase of executive power, and other issues. His klutzy personal style was dealt with throughout the movie. But his ineptitude with the English language was barely touched upon. That being said, I realize that Stone was not attempting to make an epic about George Bush, so it was understandable that he sought to narrow his focus down to the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would clearly be the hallmark (and black eye) on his eight years in office, along with 9/11 and the serious recession which began during his watch. There is a fair amount of discussion in the ‘War Room’ about Bushian policy about the War and Foreign Affairs. Much of it rings true.
The actors who impersonated the actual figures were, by and large, able to pull it off, with varying degrees of success. One was an abject failure; that was Scott Glenn’s portrayal of Donald Rumsfeld. His personality is too soft to be the proud, aggressive Rumsfeld. In contrast, Richard Deyfuss interpretation of Dick Cheney was right on the money, both in appearance, mannerism and authoritative thinking. He was the main voice of the Neoconservative fellowship in the Administration. Dubya swallowed his line hook, line and sinker. Jeffrey Wright, a fine actor, did a good job as Colin Powell and demonstrated how Powell was the odd man out in the War Room. I did not even recognize Thandie Newton as Condi Rice as she hid her sex appeal and became a plainer and desexed professional woman amid a gaggle of Republican men. She hung back and was not a major participant, which seemed about right measure for her. Toby Jones, who did a marvelous impersonation of Truman Capote in “Infamous,” was Karl Rove. Although his role was minor, Jones did an adequate job.
As a final word I would say the film, although interesting, as was Josh Brolin’s performance, indeed, much more so then his portrayal of Dan White in “Milk,” was anti-climatic, coming so late in Bush’s second term, when we all knew what he and his neoconservative entourage had been up to for eight years. I don’t know what Stone’s budget was but the film grossed $25 million in the theaters, which you might call a modest success. I am sure it didn’t do better because it seemed beside the point and too little too late.
His father had to use his influence to bail him out of a number of escapades and binds that his drinking had got him into, basically treating him as a family liability; he was the son who lived in the shadow of Jeb Bush, who was the favored son because he was more reliable, directed, and a smooth operator. Jeb was the one the family expected big things out of, not the bumbling George Junior. So, emotionally speaking, Dubya had a chip on his shoulder and was driven to prove his worth to “Poppy,” his childhood nickname for his father which had carried over into adult life. And it’s true the Senior Bush and Barbara treated him as if he were mentally challenged and barely able to tie his own shoe laces. When he told them that he was going to run for governor of Texas, they all but laughed in his face and tried to talk him out of it because Jeb was running for office in Florida and his race could distract from Jeb’s. That only fueled his fire and pricked his inferiority complex. He was determined to show his parents he had the stuff to be a successful politician. Interestingly, when Elder Bush asked Ronald Reagan to help George Junior find a job, the president wrote in his journal that junior was his Vice President’s ne’er-do-well son who has never had a decent job and he was almost 40 years old. That was 1986. Well, Poppy got him a loan of $600,000 to become part owner of the Texas Rangers and when Junior sold his share of the club he made $43 million. It always helps to be well-connected.
“W” completely ignores many aspects of Bush’s program, like compassionate conservatism, his faith-based initiatives, his tax cuts for the wealthy, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the counter terrorism slip-ups, the increase of executive power, and other issues. His klutzy personal style was dealt with throughout the movie. But his ineptitude with the English language was barely touched upon. That being said, I realize that Stone was not attempting to make an epic about George Bush, so it was understandable that he sought to narrow his focus down to the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would clearly be the hallmark (and black eye) on his eight years in office, along with 9/11 and the serious recession which began during his watch. There is a fair amount of discussion in the ‘War Room’ about Bushian policy about the War and Foreign Affairs. Much of it rings true.
The actors who impersonated the actual figures were, by and large, able to pull it off, with varying degrees of success. One was an abject failure; that was Scott Glenn’s portrayal of Donald Rumsfeld. His personality is too soft to be the proud, aggressive Rumsfeld. In contrast, Richard Deyfuss interpretation of Dick Cheney was right on the money, both in appearance, mannerism and authoritative thinking. He was the main voice of the Neoconservative fellowship in the Administration. Dubya swallowed his line hook, line and sinker. Jeffrey Wright, a fine actor, did a good job as Colin Powell and demonstrated how Powell was the odd man out in the War Room. I did not even recognize Thandie Newton as Condi Rice as she hid her sex appeal and became a plainer and desexed professional woman amid a gaggle of Republican men. She hung back and was not a major participant, which seemed about right measure for her. Toby Jones, who did a marvelous impersonation of Truman Capote in “Infamous,” was Karl Rove. Although his role was minor, Jones did an adequate job.
As a final word I would say the film, although interesting, as was Josh Brolin’s performance, indeed, much more so then his portrayal of Dan White in “Milk,” was anti-climatic, coming so late in Bush’s second term, when we all knew what he and his neoconservative entourage had been up to for eight years. I don’t know what Stone’s budget was but the film grossed $25 million in the theaters, which you might call a modest success. I am sure it didn’t do better because it seemed beside the point and too little too late.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Stonewalling Obama
Continuing their negative stance against the Recovery and Reinvestment Bill, the house Republicans once again voted NO, just like last time; the only difference being 7 Democrats joined in. The final vote was 246-183. I listened to some of the debate in Congress on C-SPAN and the Republicans to a man (or woman) kept repeating their tedious and remorseless gospel of tax cuts and more tax cuts, while bed-mouthing the Democrats’ philosophy of spend, spend, spend, which they and most economists say is necessary in the midst of the current crisis. They also fear what they call a “moral hazard” confronting the country: encroaching socialism. They are, in short, unable to separate themselves from the discredited ideas and formulas of the Bush and Reagan Administrations, and although they understand that Capitalism is a roller coaster ride, they can’t seem to get a handle on the fact there are times when the government, as the agent of the people, needs to step in and return the nation to its basic equilibrium. You cannot sit back and do nothing.
The Republicans spent a lot of hot air on hyperbole, exaggerating some of the things in the Bill, like for example, that some of the money is going to rats in San Francisco and pooh-poohing a high speed train from L.A. to Las Vegas. Representative David Obey in the House, on hearing this accusation about rats in the Bay Area, said that was malarkey and holding up the Bill said, “You show me where rats are mentioned in this bill? There are none there.” As far as I know no one took up the challenge. What I read in the paper this morning about the high speed train, Las Vegas wasn’t even mentioned; the basic idea was a train up and down the Pacific coast, much like what exist on the Atlantic coastline. Las Vegas would make sense too, as it is the largest city slightly inland from the coast and about 80% of the people who go to Vegas come from Southern California. But a train up and down the coast makes good sense, a good way to travel quickly, and without using up more gasoline or jet fuel.
The vote in the Senate was almost the same as the first time, 60-38, with Ted Kennedy not voting this time, as the Democrats knew they could reach 60 votes without him. The vote did take 5 hours, however, as one Democratic senator, Mr. Brown from Ohio, was home making funeral arrangements for his mother, so he was late getting back to Washington D.C. The signing ceremony will take place next Tuesday in Denver.
One last comment: The three GOP senators that broke rank with their Party, Collins and Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, deserve a medal for voting with the majority. It took considerable courage to do what they did.
The Republicans spent a lot of hot air on hyperbole, exaggerating some of the things in the Bill, like for example, that some of the money is going to rats in San Francisco and pooh-poohing a high speed train from L.A. to Las Vegas. Representative David Obey in the House, on hearing this accusation about rats in the Bay Area, said that was malarkey and holding up the Bill said, “You show me where rats are mentioned in this bill? There are none there.” As far as I know no one took up the challenge. What I read in the paper this morning about the high speed train, Las Vegas wasn’t even mentioned; the basic idea was a train up and down the Pacific coast, much like what exist on the Atlantic coastline. Las Vegas would make sense too, as it is the largest city slightly inland from the coast and about 80% of the people who go to Vegas come from Southern California. But a train up and down the coast makes good sense, a good way to travel quickly, and without using up more gasoline or jet fuel.
The vote in the Senate was almost the same as the first time, 60-38, with Ted Kennedy not voting this time, as the Democrats knew they could reach 60 votes without him. The vote did take 5 hours, however, as one Democratic senator, Mr. Brown from Ohio, was home making funeral arrangements for his mother, so he was late getting back to Washington D.C. The signing ceremony will take place next Tuesday in Denver.
One last comment: The three GOP senators that broke rank with their Party, Collins and Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, deserve a medal for voting with the majority. It took considerable courage to do what they did.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A-Rod or A-Fraud?So now it has been revealed that Alex Rodriguez used steroids between 2001 and 2003 while he was with the Texas Rangers and he has be
So now it has been revealed that Alex Rodriguez used steroids between 2001 and 2003 while he was with the Texas Rangers and he has been lying about it ever since, like, for example, in the Katie Couric interview on 60 Minutes. His name was on a list seized by Federal officials during evidence-gathering on the BALCO investigation. The list was supposed to be anonymous as well as destroyed but wasn’t—the Player’s Association is responsible for that—and somehow got in the hands of Selena Roberts of the New York Times who is writing a book about Rodriguez. It means that Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Raphael Palmiero, Roger Clemens, and Andy Pettit, now constitute a Rogue’s Gallery of allegedly juiced ballplayers. Then throw Pete Rose in the mix for his gambling infractions, you have a tarnished All-Star team and eight players who were largely a cinch to get into the Hall of Fame, but now that achievement is possibly out of reach, probably for a generation, if not forever. Shoeless Joe Jackson, move over!
So what now? Do we now pack up our love of the game and stay home rather than go to the ball parks or watch them on TV? Or do we assign an asterisk to the era and go forward hoping things have changed? I say the latter; we have to put it behind us, mindful that the use of steroids was part of baseball’s culture, just like pot was a big part of the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, and indeed, according to some polls, has been tried by almost 50% of Americans. I don’t state that as an excuse, more like a fact. The wonders of chemistry, legal and illegal, natural or synthetic, have touched us all. It is our cultural ambience. Anyone for a Tylenol PM?
A-Rod’s name was on a list with 104 names on it. Would anyone like to guess if the other names will come out? I’d bet they would.
I’m sure that Michael Phelps is happy that the media has abandoned him for A-Rod. I told you something would come along to change the focus.
So what now? Do we now pack up our love of the game and stay home rather than go to the ball parks or watch them on TV? Or do we assign an asterisk to the era and go forward hoping things have changed? I say the latter; we have to put it behind us, mindful that the use of steroids was part of baseball’s culture, just like pot was a big part of the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, and indeed, according to some polls, has been tried by almost 50% of Americans. I don’t state that as an excuse, more like a fact. The wonders of chemistry, legal and illegal, natural or synthetic, have touched us all. It is our cultural ambience. Anyone for a Tylenol PM?
A-Rod’s name was on a list with 104 names on it. Would anyone like to guess if the other names will come out? I’d bet they would.
I’m sure that Michael Phelps is happy that the media has abandoned him for A-Rod. I told you something would come along to change the focus.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Kobe and LeBron: The Gold Dust Twins
There is little disputing the fact that Kobe Byrant and LeBron James are the two most talented Players in the current NBA. The two demonstrated their high-flying talent this week with superb performances at Madison Square Garden. They put on a phenomenal display of dazzling skill and physical agility.
Kobe came to town after the Lakers big center, Andrew Bynum, went down with another leg injury, just like last year, so Kobe, perhaps feeling the pressure to pick up the scoring load went out and scored a record 61 points on a 19-for-31 shooting and 20 –for-20 on free throws. That topped the previous record of 60 points in Madison Square Garden by Bernard King who played with the Knicks in the seventies. The following night against the Raptors he scored 36 points. The Lakers won both games. 97 points in two night isn’t too bad.
48 hours after Kobe got his 61, LeBron and the Cavaliers came to New York to play the Knicks in The Garden. Certainly aware of what Kobe had done, LeBron went out and had a fantastic night. He hit for 51 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 boards. Like Kobe, he put on a display of star power, a breathtaking demonstration of all-around skill, scoring, passing, rebounding, and over-all basketball mastery. He was the first player since Kareem Abdul Jabar to have a triple double in a 50 point game. He was also awed by being associated with the previous greats of the game and by setting a record in such a venue that has meant so much to the history of pro-basketball.
Although both are great talents, they play a different game. Kobe is a lean 6’7”, an off-guard who can shoot from anywhere on his side of the court. I’d call him a finesse player. He is largely unguardable, as he can get off a jump shot despite a lot of pressure. He relies on quickness and a quick release. He can also slash toward the basket for a dunk or layup, as if he is sliding through an opening in a wall. He has multiple moves that can leave the defensive player wondering where he’d go. And by the time he retires he will be right up there in terms of being the leading scorer or very close. In contrast, LeBron is a power player. He’s 6’8” and 260 pounds, and its all muscle. When driving to the basket he can accelerate with unbelievable speed and with his size and strength, few players want to take a charge. He is extremely agile for such a big man. His outside shooting may be slightly behind Kobe’s shooting average and consistency, but it has improved every year he has been in the NBA. On the other hand, he has a stronger all-around game than Kobe, who doesn’t get the same number of boards and assists.
Kobe came to town after the Lakers big center, Andrew Bynum, went down with another leg injury, just like last year, so Kobe, perhaps feeling the pressure to pick up the scoring load went out and scored a record 61 points on a 19-for-31 shooting and 20 –for-20 on free throws. That topped the previous record of 60 points in Madison Square Garden by Bernard King who played with the Knicks in the seventies. The following night against the Raptors he scored 36 points. The Lakers won both games. 97 points in two night isn’t too bad.
48 hours after Kobe got his 61, LeBron and the Cavaliers came to New York to play the Knicks in The Garden. Certainly aware of what Kobe had done, LeBron went out and had a fantastic night. He hit for 51 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 boards. Like Kobe, he put on a display of star power, a breathtaking demonstration of all-around skill, scoring, passing, rebounding, and over-all basketball mastery. He was the first player since Kareem Abdul Jabar to have a triple double in a 50 point game. He was also awed by being associated with the previous greats of the game and by setting a record in such a venue that has meant so much to the history of pro-basketball.
Although both are great talents, they play a different game. Kobe is a lean 6’7”, an off-guard who can shoot from anywhere on his side of the court. I’d call him a finesse player. He is largely unguardable, as he can get off a jump shot despite a lot of pressure. He relies on quickness and a quick release. He can also slash toward the basket for a dunk or layup, as if he is sliding through an opening in a wall. He has multiple moves that can leave the defensive player wondering where he’d go. And by the time he retires he will be right up there in terms of being the leading scorer or very close. In contrast, LeBron is a power player. He’s 6’8” and 260 pounds, and its all muscle. When driving to the basket he can accelerate with unbelievable speed and with his size and strength, few players want to take a charge. He is extremely agile for such a big man. His outside shooting may be slightly behind Kobe’s shooting average and consistency, but it has improved every year he has been in the NBA. On the other hand, he has a stronger all-around game than Kobe, who doesn’t get the same number of boards and assists.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Bowling, Porn, and Phelps
President Obama telephoned the coach of the Arizona cardinals after the Super Bowl to congratulate him on his team’s performance, a classy thing for the president to do, even though he had picked the Steelers to win. What a heartbreaking loss it was too! When I saw replays of Santonio Holmes’ catch in the corner of the end zone with less than a minute remaining in the game, a play that has come to be the archetypal single play to symbolize the victory for Pittsburgh, I couldn’t help but think that if the Cardinal defense hadn’t run out of gas at the end of that final drive led by Big Ben, the play they would be showing would be Larry Fitzgerald’s catch and run for a 64 yard touchdown, and the QB they would be talking about would be Kurt Warner whose spot in the football Hall of Fame would be a cinch, for his magnificent performance in his third Super Bowl. The truth is there is a thin red line between winning and losing. In the final analysis, it was a great game, with lots of big plays, on defense as well as offense, and it rehabilitated the Arizona Franchise.
It will also be remembered, at least in Tucson, for the porn intervention shortly after Fitzgerald’s TD. At its beginning I thought it was a lead in to another bizarre ad, so I switched to the golf channel to check some tournament scores and missed the show and tell 90 seconds provided apparently by somebody asleep at the switch. 80,000 Tucson households received the signal; the rest of the country did not see it. There was a great flurry across the nation about the incident, and then the young woman in the clip called the local Comcast office; she gave her name and her partner’s, who she said had made over 600 adult films. She said she had two young children, but not if she was married or unmarried. Her age was 23. It’s a story that tells you something about the times we live in. The woman works full or part time as a porn star, and she wanted her 15 minutes of fame. Hey, there are all kinds of work out there and in a deepening recession who can say what someone might do to survive. The great Spanish filmmaker, Luis Bunel, made a movie in the late sixties, “Belle du Jour,” starring Catherine Deneuve in her prime, about a French housewife stuck in a boring marriage who moonlighted as a hooker in afternoons.
Then there is the case of Michael Phelps and the already infamous photograph of him sucking on a bong at a party last November in South Carolina. I heard on the radio yesterday that some crisis interventionist suggested that the Olympic swim star go on Oprah and submit to a drug test. That’s bad advice. Rather than try to prolong the story, go hide, for the public has a short memory and surely other stories will come along, like Barry Bonds trial, to eclipse his minor bump in the road. And why take a drug test when we already know he smoked pot. Underlining that fact makes no sense. Don’t prolong, say so long.
It will also be remembered, at least in Tucson, for the porn intervention shortly after Fitzgerald’s TD. At its beginning I thought it was a lead in to another bizarre ad, so I switched to the golf channel to check some tournament scores and missed the show and tell 90 seconds provided apparently by somebody asleep at the switch. 80,000 Tucson households received the signal; the rest of the country did not see it. There was a great flurry across the nation about the incident, and then the young woman in the clip called the local Comcast office; she gave her name and her partner’s, who she said had made over 600 adult films. She said she had two young children, but not if she was married or unmarried. Her age was 23. It’s a story that tells you something about the times we live in. The woman works full or part time as a porn star, and she wanted her 15 minutes of fame. Hey, there are all kinds of work out there and in a deepening recession who can say what someone might do to survive. The great Spanish filmmaker, Luis Bunel, made a movie in the late sixties, “Belle du Jour,” starring Catherine Deneuve in her prime, about a French housewife stuck in a boring marriage who moonlighted as a hooker in afternoons.
Then there is the case of Michael Phelps and the already infamous photograph of him sucking on a bong at a party last November in South Carolina. I heard on the radio yesterday that some crisis interventionist suggested that the Olympic swim star go on Oprah and submit to a drug test. That’s bad advice. Rather than try to prolong the story, go hide, for the public has a short memory and surely other stories will come along, like Barry Bonds trial, to eclipse his minor bump in the road. And why take a drug test when we already know he smoked pot. Underlining that fact makes no sense. Don’t prolong, say so long.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Plowing Through Familiar Territory
I recently saw two movies back to back at home that plowed through very familiar territory. They were, “Pride and Glory,” a melodrama about good and bad cops, all of them members of one Irish family, and an Ivory/Merchant drama called “Before the Rains,” a tale of illicit love between a British landowner and a Indian woman employee during the waning days of colonialism in Southern India.
“Pride and Glory” concerns a family of cops, the Tireneys, the father, who is a Police Department Chieftain (Jon Voight), who is a bit too fond of alcohol and is more interested in cops sticking together than weeded out the bad apples; an older son, Frannie (Noah Emmerich), who’s a police commander in a tough section of Washington Heights in New York City, who is solid but willing to look the other way on occasion; a younger brother, Ray (Edward Norton), a hot-shot ex-detective who has withdrawn and is a loner who lives on a rundown boat; and Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell), who is married to Ray and Frannie’s sister, Megan (Lake Bell), a hot-headed corrupt cop, the bad cop in the scenario, who is loving around the family but away from it brutal, nasty, and willing to not only kill street criminals, but capable of framing other family members to save his own skin. The father talks Ray into reengaging as a Detective on a case where 4 officers were slaughtered by some Hispanic thugs who were warned the cops were coming, and Ray finds out that it was a dirty cop who called them to warn them heat was coming. When told about the situation, neither Frannie nor the father wanted to believe it. The rest of the story was about the tug of war between family members, and who was going to do the right thing. And I’ll bet you can guess how it turns out.
The best part of the film is the nitty-gritty action and raw violence, which has an in-your-face kind of reality. And it is photographed up close and sordid. The acting is competent and suitable for such a high wire act, with Noah Emmerich and his wife, Abby (Jennifer Ehle), more outstanding than the rest. Colin Farrell has a tendency to be way over the top. He flames out on occasion. He can be a scorched earth kind of actor if a Director doesn’t rein him in.
“Before the Rains” is a story of a British planter in Southern India who is having an affair with his Indian house keeper while his wife was away in England. The time is 1937 when Indians all over the country were reacting to colonialism and wanting to push the British out to become independent. The planter, Moores, is played by Linus Roache, who is currently a lawyer on television’s “Law and Order” program. An attractive Indian actress, Nandita Das, is Sanjani, the housekeeper, who finds herself in an impossible situation when her husband and the village people find out she was sleeping with the planter. At the same time Moores gives her a little cash and boots her out, telling his foreman on the farm, T.K. (Rahul Bose), to take her far away so no one thinks too badly of him. So the poor woman, who has already been beaten by her irate Indian husband and taken advantage of by her foreign employer, is now rejected by Moores and shipped out of sight to assuage his guilt and and protect his investment on the farm and in a road he is building. She’s trapped between a rock and a hard place.
From the moment you got the drift of the narrative you knew it was heading toward disaster. Moores wife is played by Jennifer Ehle who has less to do in this film than “Pride and Glory’ but does her bit well enough. She leaves Moores when she finds out what a double-dealing coward he is. In similar fashion, T.K. has to solve the dilemma he’s in: Does he remain loyal to his employer or does he obey the moral and cultural guidelines of his people? In the meanwhile the rage for independence is being shouted in the streets of the village. The film, even if quite predictable, is a good lesson about a cultural clash. It is also beautifully photographed in a jungle area in Southern India. It was written and directed by an Indian.
“Pride and Glory” concerns a family of cops, the Tireneys, the father, who is a Police Department Chieftain (Jon Voight), who is a bit too fond of alcohol and is more interested in cops sticking together than weeded out the bad apples; an older son, Frannie (Noah Emmerich), who’s a police commander in a tough section of Washington Heights in New York City, who is solid but willing to look the other way on occasion; a younger brother, Ray (Edward Norton), a hot-shot ex-detective who has withdrawn and is a loner who lives on a rundown boat; and Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell), who is married to Ray and Frannie’s sister, Megan (Lake Bell), a hot-headed corrupt cop, the bad cop in the scenario, who is loving around the family but away from it brutal, nasty, and willing to not only kill street criminals, but capable of framing other family members to save his own skin. The father talks Ray into reengaging as a Detective on a case where 4 officers were slaughtered by some Hispanic thugs who were warned the cops were coming, and Ray finds out that it was a dirty cop who called them to warn them heat was coming. When told about the situation, neither Frannie nor the father wanted to believe it. The rest of the story was about the tug of war between family members, and who was going to do the right thing. And I’ll bet you can guess how it turns out.
The best part of the film is the nitty-gritty action and raw violence, which has an in-your-face kind of reality. And it is photographed up close and sordid. The acting is competent and suitable for such a high wire act, with Noah Emmerich and his wife, Abby (Jennifer Ehle), more outstanding than the rest. Colin Farrell has a tendency to be way over the top. He flames out on occasion. He can be a scorched earth kind of actor if a Director doesn’t rein him in.
“Before the Rains” is a story of a British planter in Southern India who is having an affair with his Indian house keeper while his wife was away in England. The time is 1937 when Indians all over the country were reacting to colonialism and wanting to push the British out to become independent. The planter, Moores, is played by Linus Roache, who is currently a lawyer on television’s “Law and Order” program. An attractive Indian actress, Nandita Das, is Sanjani, the housekeeper, who finds herself in an impossible situation when her husband and the village people find out she was sleeping with the planter. At the same time Moores gives her a little cash and boots her out, telling his foreman on the farm, T.K. (Rahul Bose), to take her far away so no one thinks too badly of him. So the poor woman, who has already been beaten by her irate Indian husband and taken advantage of by her foreign employer, is now rejected by Moores and shipped out of sight to assuage his guilt and and protect his investment on the farm and in a road he is building. She’s trapped between a rock and a hard place.
From the moment you got the drift of the narrative you knew it was heading toward disaster. Moores wife is played by Jennifer Ehle who has less to do in this film than “Pride and Glory’ but does her bit well enough. She leaves Moores when she finds out what a double-dealing coward he is. In similar fashion, T.K. has to solve the dilemma he’s in: Does he remain loyal to his employer or does he obey the moral and cultural guidelines of his people? In the meanwhile the rage for independence is being shouted in the streets of the village. The film, even if quite predictable, is a good lesson about a cultural clash. It is also beautifully photographed in a jungle area in Southern India. It was written and directed by an Indian.
Plowing Through Familiar Territory
I recently saw two movies back to back at home that plowed through very familiar territory. They were, “Pride and Glory,” a melodrama about good and bad cops, all of them members of one Irish family, and an Ivory/Merchant drama called “Before the Rains,” a tale of illicit love between a British landowner and a Indian woman employee during the waning days of colonialism in Southern India.
“Pride and Glory” concerns a family of cops, the Tireneys, the father, who is a Police Department Chieftain (Jon Voight), who is a bit too fond of alcohol and is more interested in cops sticking together than weeded out the bad apples; an older son, Frannie (Noah Emmerich), who’s a police commander in a tough section of Washington Heights in New York City, who is solid but willing to look the other way on occasion; a younger brother, Ray (Edward Norton), a hot-shot ex-detective who has withdrawn and is a loner who lives on a rundown boat; and Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell), who is married to Ray and Frannie’s sister, Megan (Lake Bell), a hot-headed corrupt cop, the bad cop in the scenario, who is loving around the family but away from it brutal, nasty, and willing to not only kill street criminals, but capable of framing other family members to save his own skin. The father talks Ray into reengaging as a Detective on a case where 4 officers were slaughtered by some Hispanic thugs who were warned the cops were coming, and Ray finds out that it was a dirty cop who called them to warn them heat was coming. When told about the situation, neither Frannie nor the father wanted to believe it. The rest of the story was about the tug of war between family members, and who was going to do the right thing. And I’ll bet you can guess how it turns out.
The best part of the film is the nitty-gritty action and raw violence, which has an in-your-face kind of reality. And it is photographed up close and sordid. The acting is competent and suitable for such a high wire act, with Noah Emmerich and his wife, Abby (Jennifer Ehle), more outstanding than the rest. Colin Farrell has a tendency to be way over the top. He flames out on occasion. He can be a scorched earth kind of actor if a Director doesn’t rein him in.
“Before the Rains” is a story of a British planter in Southern India who is having an affair with his Indian house keeper while his wife was away in England. The time is 1937 when Indians all over the country were reacting to colonialism and wanting to push the British out to become independent. The planter, Moores, is played by Linus Roache, who is currently a lawyer on television’s “Law and Order” program. An attractive Indian actress, Nandita Das, is Sanjani, the housekeeper, who finds herself in an impossible situation when her husband and the village people find out she was sleeping with the planter. At the same time Moores gives her a little cash and boots her out, telling his foreman on the farm, T.K. (Rahul Bose), to take her far away so no one thinks too badly of him. So the poor woman, who has already been beaten by her irate Indian husband and taken advantage of by her foreign employer, is now rejected by Moores and shipped out of sight to assuage his guilt and and protect his investment on the farm and in a road he is building. She’s trapped between a rock and a hard place.
From the moment you got the drift of the narrative you knew it was heading toward disaster. Moores wife is played by Jennifer Ehle who has less to do in this film than “Pride and Glory’ but does her bit well enough. She leaves Moores when she finds out what a double-dealing coward he is. In similar fashion, T.K. has to solve the dilemma he’s in: Does he remain loyal to his employer or does he obey the moral and cultural guidelines of his people? In the meanwhile the rage for independence is being shouted in the streets of the village. The film, even if quite predictable, is a good lesson about a cultural clash. It is also beautifully photographed in a jungle area in Southern India. It was written and directed by an Indian.
“Pride and Glory” concerns a family of cops, the Tireneys, the father, who is a Police Department Chieftain (Jon Voight), who is a bit too fond of alcohol and is more interested in cops sticking together than weeded out the bad apples; an older son, Frannie (Noah Emmerich), who’s a police commander in a tough section of Washington Heights in New York City, who is solid but willing to look the other way on occasion; a younger brother, Ray (Edward Norton), a hot-shot ex-detective who has withdrawn and is a loner who lives on a rundown boat; and Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell), who is married to Ray and Frannie’s sister, Megan (Lake Bell), a hot-headed corrupt cop, the bad cop in the scenario, who is loving around the family but away from it brutal, nasty, and willing to not only kill street criminals, but capable of framing other family members to save his own skin. The father talks Ray into reengaging as a Detective on a case where 4 officers were slaughtered by some Hispanic thugs who were warned the cops were coming, and Ray finds out that it was a dirty cop who called them to warn them heat was coming. When told about the situation, neither Frannie nor the father wanted to believe it. The rest of the story was about the tug of war between family members, and who was going to do the right thing. And I’ll bet you can guess how it turns out.
The best part of the film is the nitty-gritty action and raw violence, which has an in-your-face kind of reality. And it is photographed up close and sordid. The acting is competent and suitable for such a high wire act, with Noah Emmerich and his wife, Abby (Jennifer Ehle), more outstanding than the rest. Colin Farrell has a tendency to be way over the top. He flames out on occasion. He can be a scorched earth kind of actor if a Director doesn’t rein him in.
“Before the Rains” is a story of a British planter in Southern India who is having an affair with his Indian house keeper while his wife was away in England. The time is 1937 when Indians all over the country were reacting to colonialism and wanting to push the British out to become independent. The planter, Moores, is played by Linus Roache, who is currently a lawyer on television’s “Law and Order” program. An attractive Indian actress, Nandita Das, is Sanjani, the housekeeper, who finds herself in an impossible situation when her husband and the village people find out she was sleeping with the planter. At the same time Moores gives her a little cash and boots her out, telling his foreman on the farm, T.K. (Rahul Bose), to take her far away so no one thinks too badly of him. So the poor woman, who has already been beaten by her irate Indian husband and taken advantage of by her foreign employer, is now rejected by Moores and shipped out of sight to assuage his guilt and and protect his investment on the farm and in a road he is building. She’s trapped between a rock and a hard place.
From the moment you got the drift of the narrative you knew it was heading toward disaster. Moores wife is played by Jennifer Ehle who has less to do in this film than “Pride and Glory’ but does her bit well enough. She leaves Moores when she finds out what a double-dealing coward he is. In similar fashion, T.K. has to solve the dilemma he’s in: Does he remain loyal to his employer or does he obey the moral and cultural guidelines of his people? In the meanwhile the rage for independence is being shouted in the streets of the village. The film, even if quite predictable, is a good lesson about a cultural clash. It is also beautifully photographed in a jungle area in Southern India. It was written and directed by an Indian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
