Chicks in Space!

Amazing. We’re still in a brouhaha about the Dixie Chicks. Though most of the public comments have been made by their lead singer, Natalie Maines, she keeps being represented as lead spokescritter for The Chicks, so I’ll just keep referring to them as The Chicks. Thus....

They can say what they want, but they are not immune from criticism. They can sing what they want, but some of the lyrics of their new song just sound like whiny little bitch monkey talk. They are not “brave” and I feel like gagging any time I see the words “Dixie Chicks” and “brave” used in the same sentence, where “brave” refers to “Dixie Chicks”. Barf! See?

Over on MSNBC I read an article by some guy about “red state liberals” and how if you’re offended by The Chicks you just need to get over it because it’s what he and his have had to put up with for years, well six years. At least.

Oh puh-leez! What’s most offensive about The Chicks is precisely what’s wrong with this article. It’s this never-ending pity party, a constant whine – sometimes made with sobs, sometimes with anger -- about how repressed and oppressed they are. Barf! Damn, another gag reflex.

You want to feel repressed? Try tuning into your favorite alternative rock station and being aurally mugged because you support Bush, the battle for Iraq, and the entire worldwide war against terror. Try looking for a movie to see and anything that’s not “This Season’s Must See Blockbuster!” turns out to be another anti-Bush screed by pampered snotty little self-righteous gazillionaires. Try listening to some music and hearing that you’re an idiot for supporting Bush. Try tuning into a “left-leaning” talk show and hear that 1) you are genetically defective if you support Bush and 2) you are just a pawn for the “Bush crime family”. Try it, just for a day.

In terms of political debate, The Chicks were (are) chickenshits, okay? Dear sweet little Natalie spouted her bit in London, in front of a Chick-friendly, anti-Bush audience. She would have been brave if she had said the same shit in front of a crowd in Texas, or any other venue within the United States. But she didn’t. Instead, she was in Europe where they're none too happy with Bush to begin with. Natalie’s not stupid, she knew exactly where she was and what she was doing. When the backlash began, she and the The Chicks demanded to be immune from criticism. Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly and every other outlet for the MSM granted them the status of saints.

Why? Because country music is predominantly conservative, in terms of artists and fans and songs. So when The Chicks slipped over to the MSM's dark side, the MSM lept to their defense. And the Chicks lept, too, as they embraced the rock and hip-hop scene, publically stating that rock fans and rock stars were more in tune with what they felt and believed. Who abandoned whom?

I’m happy that The Chicks new CD is selling well (though not as well as their last). I enjoy anyone’s capitalist success. That’s true even if I think their “art” is the stuff plagues are made of, because they managed to find an audience that believes otherwise. This is true even if you’re schlock-king Dan Brown. Maybe especially if you’re schlock-king Dan Brown, because if his badly written crap can sell 60 quadrillion copies throughout the known universe, then there’s hope for the rest of us schlock-king-wannabes.

By the same token, though, I embrace everyone’s right to not buy their shit, to be offended by what they produce, and to reject what they spout. I don’t find The Chicks brave (barf!) or even interesting. If anything, they’re whiners and they’ve found a complete whiner’s support group collectively known as The Left. If you want your art to be judged, then present your art and critics be damned, but accept that critics are part of the game. If you want to spout politics, expect to get spouted back at, because that’s part of the political game.

And I should immediately make clear that anyone who sent The Chicks a death threat because of what dear sweet little Natalie said ought to be sought out and introduced, face-first, to the business end of an outhouse. At a minimum. For a start. After all, shit deserves to be introduced to shit. Clear?

If I could stand most country music, maybe I’d hear some pro-Bush or pro-American music. But I can’t so I’m stuck in hell. Since I’m stuck I might as well be amused, and nothing is funnier than a rock star who believes his/her/its music is Significant.

It’s just as bad -- no, it’s worse at the movies. There are at least four movies in production about the battle for Iraq, and all four take a negative spin. (And hey, isn’t it “too soon”?) Where is the pro point of view, the one that says deposing a murderous thug of a dictator is a good thing, that bringing democracy to a region of dictators is a good thing? The snotty of you, maybe even dear sweet little Natalie, would probably say that there is no “pro” view so therefore there cannot be a pro movie.

If so, wow, such hubris.

What the hell am I saying? “If so”? Of course it’s so! You can hear it in the way they argue, in the way the left presents the case, any case. A contrasting POV is never shown because they don’t believe one exists. You see this in all aspects of the media, but most especially in their “dramatic” presentations. Oh the brav -- Barf!

Look, anyone in the entertainment industry is voluntarily participating in slavery. This is especially so for those trying to get their little toe in the door. They live in a part of the country where millionaires have a hard time affording a home. 30 or more rent a single-room studio apartment because you need 30 poverty-level incomes to afford the rent. It’s brutal. It is a system that is not designed to encourage success. Support groups thrive. You have to live in an echo chamber that says, “You are good, you will succeed” because nothing in the business says that. Quite the opposite. Until you do succeed, that is.

If you do achieve success, you’ve been driven somewhat insane by the process. This insanity is visible in any number of ways, and The Chicks declaration of their “bravery” is just one of them. Others would include Britney Spears loving publicity while demanding her privacy and George Clooney believing he has any talent. At all.

Well, actually that last is delusional, but that’s a form of insanity, right?

And that’s not really fair since I kind of like Clooney the actor when he’s being Clooney the actor a la ER or even Three Kings, and he rocked in The Peacemaker. But when he subverts his acting for his activism...barf! Especially given that he gets Edward R. Murrow almost all wrong by leaving out the follow-up to his conflict with McCarthy, that Murrow came to agree that Communism was the major threat to the country, that maybe ol' Tail-Gunner Joe bad it right.

But maybe that’s just Hollywood. Where else would a crowd listen intently, take seriously, and then soundly applaud someone praising them and their industry by reminding them of what sort of racist drivel they often make? (In case you need clarification, during his Oscar acceptance speech Clooney noted with pride that the Academy had awarded an Oscar to a black woman. That woman was Hattie McDaniel, for her performance as Mammy, Scarlett O’Hara’s servant in Gone With the Wind. Her performance and appearance is the epitome of Aunt Jemimah, which is not an altogether flattering term -- or image -- for a black woman. God bless Hattie, but that role...ugh!)

So it’s obvious why The Chicks chose to abandon their “country roots”, embrace the rock culture, and have their latest album produced by someone who specializes in rock and hip-hop albums. That’s their crowd, that’s their base, that’s their insanity. More power to them! I wish them well and fantastic success (good for a capitalist economy to have success stories, you know).

Just don’t call them bra -- Barf!

The Top 5 Conservative Rock Songs of All Time

Michael Long spent this last week listing the top five conservative rock songs. Yesterday, he posted song number 1:

#1) The Who - "Won't Get Fooled Again"

Says Long:

Power corrupts both Left and Right, hence the deep conservative passion for reducing the power of government itself. Some of us go further, advocating that we smash government into little bits that, if need be, can be crushed under your shoe or dusted off the collar with your fingertips. Better to keep the burden light, since at some point we will have to throw off the burden. We get fooled again and again. We always do.

Amen. And the rest of the list:

2) The Beatles - "Taxman" (Most excellent.)

3) The Rolling Stones - "Sympathy for the Devil" (Best. Stones. Song. Ever.)

4) Lynyrd Skynyrd - "Sweet Home Alabama" (Play some Skynyrd!)

5) The Beach Boys - "Wouldn't It Be Nice" (Ugh. Beach Boys. Ew.)

Dear Steven Spielberg

It's late and I'm tired but I had to take a moment and note that I've just finished watching the DVD of your film, Munich, for the second time. This time I watched your introduction, in which you describe why you wanted to make this movie and what your goals were. You noted that while you are not opposed to a policy of retaliation, we must all be cautious and be aware of the consequences of our retaliation. We must be mindful of those because there are unintended consequences, which are the most dangerous of all. You also emphatically state that your film was not and is not intended as an assault on Israel.

I wish I had seen that film. I wish you had made that film. Alas....

Since we all know so much about you, it's only fair that you know something about me. I am not a Jew. I am Catholic by birth, reinforced with nine years of nun-based education. I am not a practising Catholic or Christian. Indeed, since I do not accept the notion that I must accept Christ as my salvation, there are many who would say I am not a Christian at all. So be it. I prefer to make my amends with God directly, never mind the "middle man."

I am also an ardent supporter of Israel. If I had been born in another age, in another place, I would probably have been a Zionist. I make no bones about my bias here; I believe Israel is a valid country and has every right to exist on this planet. Israel has the right to respond to any efforts to change that. Period.

So when I watch a movie that says the contrary, I take exception. You claim you had no such intention, but how else to explain much of your film. The Arab-Palestinian side of the argument gets lots of air time, but no one comes back with a proper response, or much of any response at all.

Consider the scene where Avner is talking with the Palestinian in Greece. We hear all the arguments about why the west supports Israel, including the canard that it's because of the Holocaust. No rebuttal is made. In context of the film, you could argue that Avner had to bite his tongue or risk being discovered. But even later, when it might have been a point of debate among his collegues...nothing. The Palestinian argument stands without rebuttal or rebuke, or even a serious challenge.

There are moments like this throughout the film. The Palestinian giving the "interview" so they can plant a bomb in his phone. He gives all the Palestinian arguments for why Israel should cease to exist. Never is a contrary thought uttered. Ever. And behind all of this is "Papa", the shadowy figure feeding the Israelies information. Family; to him it's all about family. A man must do what is necessary to feed his family. Thus he provides the justification for all acts of terrorism against Israel because, after all, the Palestinians are doing what is necessary for their "family".

It all keeps getting worse as you declare that what the terrorists did at the Munich games is the moral equivalent of what the Israelies are doing. Again, time and again the argument is made that Jews should be righteous, that they don't have the death penalty, that they're breaking a staggering variety of laws, etc. It becomes a drum beat. It reaches a nauseating crescendo during the Israeli raid into Lebanon. The actions of the Mossad troops are hauntingly similar to the actions you depict the Black September members performing, right down to costume changes. The film screams: "See, the same!"

But it's not.

You are honest enough to show the Mossad agents attempting to only kill their three targets, or anyone attacking them. Except for the one woman who gets caught in the cross-fire, all others are avoided. In contrast, the Black Septemberists just kill.

There's more to it than that, however. The murder of a cold-blooded killer is not the same as the murders that killer commits. That is, the assassination of a terrorist is not the moral equivalent of the murder of innocent civilians that the terrorist causes. Yet your film refuses to make that distinction. Worse, none of the Israeli agents even try to make that point. The closest you get is when one declares that the only blood he cares about is Jewish blood. In short, he's a racist, but at least he tries to make a distinction.

Marvelous.

Amazingly, Munich reaches even lower by saying that fighting terrorism causes terrorism. This "point" is made explicitly when the agents discuss how many acts of terror have been committed since they began their targetted assassinations. "Since we began...." But that is such a crock. The implication is that terrorism didn't really begin until then, but how does that explain the Munich massacre itself? Or the bombings and the like which had happened prior to the Munich games, several of which are listed near the film's end?

At best you buy into the terrorist argument that they've been provoked, which is nonsense. They were in business before any retaliation, and they continue is business today whether there's retaliation or not. And the end result of such an argument, that fighting terrorism causes terrorism, can only serve to undermine any assertion of self defense. I can hear the police investigators now:

"Our investigation concludes that this woman was killed because she hit her husband after he punched her. Her improper act of self-defense brought about her murder. Thus...no crime."

You might say I'm being extreme, but am I? How else do you explain the film's closing shot, the towers of the World Trade Center standing in the background. The film screams that the Israeli acts of retaliation caused 9/11! 9/11 was the most severe of unintended consequences, the consequence of Israel and the United States fighting back against terrorists. How dare we!

I could go on, but frankly it sickens me. I am a great admirer of your films. I defend any of them against all comers. Hell, I even liked 1941. But there is no defense of Munich. It is reprehensible. While on a techinical level it is a decent thriller, an echo of the great thrillers of the Seventies, it is morally bankrupt, ethically hollow, and almost thoroughly dishonest.

I am not saying you should have made the film 100% pro-Israel. I am not saying you should have swung completely the other way, just showing all the justifications for the Israeli actions. Your desire to show that there are many aspects of the Middle East problem is admirable. However, I am saying that there should have been honest rebuttal to the Arab-Palestinian points being made. In other words, I'm saying there should have been a real argument presented, leaving something real for viewers to debate, and not just a one-sided didactic.

I wish you had made the film you describe in your introduction. I really do.

Look up into the sky!

The first trailer wasn't bad, but the second one evokes a most reverend, "Holy shit!"

I loved Richard Donner's Superman, more than tolerate Richard Lester's sequel, and avoid the others like the plague. This one just looks cool, beautiful and cool. Kevin Spacey ("Wrong!") is so over the top as Lex Luther he's more perfect than Gene Hackman was.

But the moment that hooks me, that brings a tear to the eye, is not just when the trailer uses a clip from one of James Horner's best scores, it's the moment that belongs to Lois:

The world doesn't need a saviour, and neither do I.

Oh my.

So, a different sort of Superman film. It will be interesting to see if this is a match for Batman Begins.

Why is this question being asked?

Why is this a question?

Is the country ready for ‘United 93?’

Did anyone ask if the country was ready for V for Vendetta, or American Dreamz? Of course not, and for two key reasons:

1) They can make whatever damn movie they want. If you don't want it to be made, then you don't make it. You don't get to decide that someone else can't make it either. It's well established that if an artist wants to create something, more power to 'em. I thought this question was settled when the NEA defended funding "Piss Christ".

2) Because those movies, and others, slam the current administration and its policies, to one degree or another, and thus are perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable, apparently, is portraying ordinary Americans as extraordinary people.

I don't know if I'm ready for United 93. I want to see it, I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD, I know it's a story that desperately needs to be told and re-told, but I don't know if I have the fortitude for the theatre experience. But bless the producers and director for making this film.

Let me try and make this clear and please don't misunderstand. The firemen and policemen who died in the World Trade Center, the men and women killed in the Pentagon, were heroes for being firemen and policemen and for serving their country, not necessarily for anything special they did on 9/11/2001. The fact they were willing to do a job that most people would not, to risk (at best) their reputation and (at worst) their lives made them heroes.

Indeed, members of those departments, and PD's and FD's around the nation, members of our Armed Forces, are our heroes. To focus on the police, the best of them prove the truth of Sir Robert Peel's principles of law enforcement, most especially:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

The key phrase is "the police are the public and the public are the police". How is this relevant to United 93? Because those passengers gave rise to Peel's observation that the police perform the duties "which are incumbent on every citizen".

They knew what was happening, they knew how things would end. They opted not to be passive, they took action and it cost them their lives. We will never know how many lives were saved but we should damnwell honor their sacrifice and remember what happened.

So yeah, hell yeah, United 93 had to be made, and we ought to be ready for it because we should never forget what happened that day. Not ever. And certainly we should never forget the sacrifices willingly made.

Amazing stupidity in the news

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Under election-year pressure to reduce surging gasoline prices, President Bush on Tuesday halted filling of the nation's emergency oil reserve, urged the waiver of clean air rules to ease local gas shortages and called for the repeal of $2 billion in tax breaks for profit-heavy oil companies.

Compare the headling, "Bush eases environmental rules on gasoline" versus the story "urged the waiver of clean air rules". The headline, in other words, is a lie. Bush didn't "ease" a thing, he's recommending that the EPA temporarily ease some regulations.

And before you scream he's endangering the environment, were you also scream a few years ago when then-Governor Gray (Out) Davis was begging the EPA to grant California a waiver re replacing the gasoline addictive MTBE with ethanol? MTBE, the known carcenogenic. I do not recall a single environmental group or labor union screaming how Davis was going to give us all cancer.

That's because they're sensible when a Democrat is in office; they only go nutters when a Republican is in office.

But this story is full of laughs. Like:

Democrats, eager to blame Republicans for high gas costs ahead of the November congressional elections, said Bush has had five years to find a way to lower prices and has favored big oil companies over consumers.

But Democrats never want to lower prices. They want to tax the crap out of gasoline to 1) increase the amount of money the Federal government has to spend on crap and 2) alter the public's buying habits, that is, to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles.

(And never say never, since the article notes that Democrat Bob Menendez, NJ, is suggesting a 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax. Nice try, but note that it's a suspension, not a repeal.)

Others in the article make suggestions, but its worth noting that none of them would change the price tomorrow, if ever. Most are long-term, which is appropriate since how we got here is long-term. Namely, a complete Democrat stonewall of any attempt to explore for new sources of oil, plus increasing gas taxes to supplement government coffers, plus blocking any expansion (or even maintenance) of refining capability, plus blocking available alternative energy sources (i.e., nuclear), etc.

This is basic capitalism in action, supply and demand. The world demand is up (see China), the supply is limited (see lack of new developments) and so the price goes up. D'uh.

And before you rush out and buy that hybrid to save on the purchase of gasoline, don't forget to factor in the thousands of dollars you'll pay as a "premium" for the privelege.

For me, I'm getting 36mpg commuting on my motorcycle, and on longer runs I'm easily 40+. Cars are so...cage-like.

Next, a law mandating you lock your house

CNN.com - N.Y. county mandates wireless security - Apr 21, 2006:

New York's Westchester County has enacted a law designed to limit identity theft by forcing local businesses to install basic security measures for any wireless network that stores customers' credit card numbers or other financial information.

Also, because you are presumptively stupid....

The law also requires that businesses offering Internet access -- coffeehouses and hotels, for example -- post signs warning that users should have firewalls or other security measures.

Why this is a silly law is made clear a few paragraphs later....

Experts warned that the law would not fully protect anyone from dedicated hackers but acknowledged it could raise awareness of the vulnerabilities inherent in wireless technology.

So the county is imposing a legal burden on all businesses, big and small, for the sake of minimal education. And while the law may or may not have sanctions and/or punishments in case of violations of the law, it sets up any business for a civil suit. So what the hell is "basic security" anyway?

Make OS X open source?!?

John Dvorak: Apple Needs to Make OS X Open-Source:

A cloud is rising over Mac OS X and its future unless Apple makes its boldest move ever: turning OS X into an open-source project. That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes.

Interesting concept. Apple has taken three discrete steps that have lured my interest. First was Mac OS X, a lovely operating system that deserves far greater exposure. Second, the shift to Intel. And third, Boot Camp, its "beta" software that allows a MacIntel user to install and boot Windows XP, in addition to Mac OS X.

Right then and there, with step three, I know that my next computer purchase will be a Mac, probably an iMac. More than good enough for the Mac application I want to run (Bartas Technologies Copywrite), and more than good enough to support the XP programs I want to run (Doom3, damnit). Oh, and I get to keep my entire PC library, all my files, hardware, etc. The TCO for a Mac, for me, fell through the floor.

I've always argued against the assertion that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They're not really primarily a software company, either. They are (surprise) something different, a company that sells a hardware/software symbios. Until recently, one could not live without the other.

That's no longer true. Apple's Intel hardware can now easily live without Apple's software. Certainly there were distros of Linux that always made this possible, but now we have Apple seemingly endorsing the concept.

So what of OS X? Apple can simply sell it to whoever wants it, to install it on whatever Intel (or AMD) box they choose. Just limit support to key manufacturers. Or, alternatively, make a deal with someone like Dell to market OS X on their machines.

Or, as Dvorak suggests, just release OS X to open source and concentrate on hardware.

Interesting times ahead.

Save the planet, get a motorcycle

For now, I have foresaken cars and will stick with my BMW K1200 LT (mine is not this new, it's a 2000). It's simple math.

My beloved, lamented, and missed Passat got around 20mpg on my current commute. Don't blame the car, blame the distance, as in less than 5 miles from home to office. Last year, when I was commuting a longer distance, I got over 30mpg on the commute. Under these same circumstances, my Beemer gets 35mpg. Voila, I almost half as much fuel as I used to.

Of course, now that I have helped save the planet I say it is time to pave the planet. I need more roads to ride on. As the T-shirt says: One world, one people, one slab of asphalt!

The Talk of the Town?

The New Yorker: The Talk of the Town:

The imminence of catastrophic global warming may be a subject far from the ever-drifting mind of President Bush—whose eschatological preoccupations privilege Armageddon over the Flood—but it is of growing concern to the rest of humanity. Climate change is even having its mass-entertainment moment. “Ice Age: The Meltdown”—featuring Ellie the computer-animated mammoth and the bottomless voice of Queen Latifah—has taken in more than a hundred million dollars at the box office in two weeks. On the same theme, but with distinctly less animation, “An Inconvenient Truth,” starring Al Gore (playing the role of Al Gore, itinerant lecturer), is coming to a theatre near you around Memorial Day. Log on to Fandango. Reserve some seats. Bring the family. It shouldn’t be missed. No kidding.

No way. Near as I can tell, most of the major leaders in the environmental movement are morally bankrupt, as in they don't mind a stretch or two with the truth. Few (none?) of their predictions pan out. Kyoto was/is/ever will be a joke. (If it was so damn important, why didn't Clinton/Gore really push for its ratification? Why blame Bush for what they put on the way back burner? Food for thought.)

There is still argument about global warming, no matter what Gore & Co. may say/scream/rant/kant. Even if the grant the notion, there is no solid evidence linking that to human activity. I'd feel a lot better about the global warming rant if they focused on how to cope with the alleged warming, rather than continually saying that the US must be destroyed (at least economically).

But no, their focus on the US changing the fundamentals of its society betrays the goal. Strange how all the major environmental movements are -- to be generous -- socialist in orientation.

Again, the goal isn't to "save" the environment. Consider that Kyoto adopts a "per capita" measure for the production of greenhouse gases. By that measure, China isn't even in the same league as the US. But if you measure actually tonnage of greenhouses gases produced, China is second only to the US, is expected to catch the US in the next few years, and will exceed in the US after 2010. And tonnage should be the focus, because if man-made greenhouses gases really are the cause of global warming, then the planet just doesn't give a fig about how much gas is generated per person; it cares about total tonnage, of which China (and India) produce a lot.

Yet China is exempt from Kyoto.

The Kyoto Accord is a farce and that Gore et al keep braying about Bush's refusal to sign tells me more about them than him.

So no. I thank you, but no, and yet still I thank you, but again no, I shall not pay to see Gore bray on.

Pigs fly yet again

Going Nuclear:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

A couple of years ago, the Sacramento Bee ran a series of articles about the environment. The series recounted how the desperate need to save habitat for the spotted owl had forced the lumber industry of northern California out of business. It also revealed that at the time and unto this day, the spotted owl has never actually been seen in that area. So why was it that an industry had to die? Simple: A biologist who wrote the original report admitted -- years later -- that he just felt it was a gestalt that the reqion was the owl's habitat.

In other words, he lied through teeth because it just felt like owls would like that area.

Now we have this guy saying, "Oops!" That nuclear power wasn't as bad as he screamed. Nice.

I embrace his realization of his error. I lament that as a result of his earlier actions, the United States has shut down nuclear reactors and has no plans anywhere for building more.

Which sportscar am I...?

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!

You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

A History of Violence

Watched David Cronenberg's A History of Violence last night. Kicks the crap out of Crash, and probably all the other films that were considered "Oscar worthy" for 2005. (I saw "probably" because I have not, as yet, seen the others.)

I like Cronenberg films. There is always something unsettling about them, and I don't just mean their subject matter. It's the way he does thing, how he films. All of his films are very straight-forward, or so it seems. When there's violence it always has a sense of here-and-now-real, with little pretense and not a hint of glory.

And that's true here. I remember reading that this is a difficult film to review, and now a difficult one to write about, because to really discuss the film you have to give everything away. Which would be wrong because even though you may assume what the truth is, that's only a part of the story. In short, the film doesn't rely on that mystery and that's why it's really, really good, if not great.

All performances are more than good enough, even Viggo who I normally just see and think "Zzzzz." The stand-out is Maria Bello as his wife. The things she has to go through and the transformations of her character...yeesh. She carries it all off very well; shame that the Academy didn't think so.

The plot of the film is simple: What if a person you thought you knew really well wasn't the person you thought he was? The answer isn't crucial to how Cronenberg's play the drama. It's how people react to the possibility, how things slowly begin to unravel, then accelerate.

Highly recommended, not necessarily for the faint of heart. Cronenberg is reputedly anti-violence but violence is at the core of this film. The never blinks or turns away from what people are capable of doing to each other, but the real violence in this film isn't physical, and that's what makes it a winner.

Return to Jackson's Kong, King

I should have written this last night, but I couldn't see straight. It was a three-way blitz: a bit of pink eye, a lovely carbernet, and watching the rest of Peter Jackson's King Kong. At the end of the marathon, the pink eye was in recession, the bottle was almost empty, and Kong wasn't half bad.

It wasn't half good, either. Attend!

Kong is a story in three acts: New York (meet everyone) -- Skull Island (meet Kong, etc.) -- New York (Kong as stage act). In the 1933 original, each of these is taut and to the point. In the 1976 re-visit, much the same time schedule is adhered to. In the 2005 re-make, each act is stretched almost beyond endurance. With the exception of 2005's third act, Jackson should have left well enough alone.

I already ranted about Act I, so on to II and III....

After a seemingly endless sea voyage during which damn near nothing happens, we arrive at Skull Island, "the most dangerous place on earth." I laugh outloud (blame the wine) at the natives, especially the white folk in black face. Oh how 1930's! Jackson overuses slow motion and overuses some sort of long-shutter speed smear technique that he should forget exists. Really. In all things, moderation. All things.

But there's nothing of moderation in the entire Skull Island sequence. It plays over and over as though Jackson was desperately trying to out jurassic Jurassic Park. But in terms of more dinosaurs, more lethal dinosaurs, more people stomped, more people eaten...just plain more more more!, that was already done in The Lost World. And Kong '05 doesn't live up to either film. It's all very pretty and all very lush and lots of times it feels all very fake, as though it was all created on a computer.

Oh, wait.

That's the problem with too much. A film depends on a willing suspension of disbelief, and while that's a strange topic to discuss in terms of a film about a 30-foot ape, it still applies. The brontosaur stampede: Too much, too unbelievable that everyone wasn't squished. Ann being carried off by Kong; too much, too much to believe that the neck of the fair and lovely Naomi Watts wouldn't snap like a very dry, very brittle twig under Kong's (at this point) untender treatment. Fall down the ravine, please. Dinosaurs fall down the ravine, oh for heaven's sake! And fighting on the way down. Gag!

Look, I live for these sorts of films and it was all so far over the top that I started laughing again, and this time I won't blame the wine.

But....

There is a sequence where Ann is just being carried in Kong's hand and the camera stays with her while all around the world whirls by, not just by Kong's speed but because he's swinging his arm, jumping around, leaping from tree to tree (with his best girl by his side; is Kong a lumberjack?). That sequence is magic. There are others, like the sunset, but they get lost in the noise of the rest. Thank God that at the end of all this, they capture Kong.

Have you seen the film? Have you seen any of the Kong films? If no, then go see and come back later, because I'm giving it all away, such a heartless bastard am I.

Last warning: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Very well, you have been warned. And now, Act III, Return to New York City:

I'm going to get my "complaints" for this part of the way right away. Much like the rest of the film, some things just go on far too long.

There, I'm done, because Act III redeems the film and makes it watchable and enjoyable. Jack Black's performance never gets good, but Naomi Watts takes over. Even what's his face, er (quick glance and IMDB), Adrien Brody turns out well. To explain what makes Act III so extraordinary and special, we have to return to 1933 and 1976.

In both of the priors versions, Kong in NYC is still a beast. He's shackled and chain, but he's still Kong, damnit, and he will kick your ass. In both, Ann willingly particpates in Kong's exhibition and humiliation. Ultimately he carries her off and she's with him when he faces his doom. In 1933, Kong dies, Ann gets reunited with her lover, the first mate, and all's as well as it's ever going to be.

In 1976, Kong dies but Ann tries to wave off the attacking helicopters, to save Kong. She fails, Kong dies, and the last scene is her with the body, surrounded by the press she's always sought, and her lover drifting away into the crowd, abandoning her.

Kong '05 rejects almost all of this, to its credit and ultimate success. When you see Kong on stage he is a whipped puppy, a shadow of his former self, less than a shell. He is passive to the point of being pitiful. When "Ann" appears on stage, he brightens up, only to discover that this "Ann" is an actress, not his Ann. His Ann has refused to participate in Kong's humiliation and wants nothing to do with the extravaganza.

(Props to that extravaganza, too. It's a stage recreation of the 1933 Skull Island ceremony, complete with Max Steiner's music. Geek heaven!)

This fake, plus a few flash bulbs, pisses Kong off and he goes off on a tear, just like in the prior films. What is different is that he doesn't go searching for Ann, she finds him. The beast is soothed, he gathers up his girlfriend, and they go for a stroll in the park. I am not kicking.

The ice "skating" scene is breathtaking and beautiful. You know it can't last, here comes the Army and all, but for a few shining minutes Jackson's Kong ceases to be a movie. It rises to the level of beauty and is damn-near art (though I hate that term, "art", and wouldn't curse this part of the film by calling it "art").

The attack and death of Kong go on too long, but the only other thing that ruins the third act is Jack Black's flat and lifeless recitation of the closing line, "Twas beauty that killed the beast." Ugh.

In sum, Kong '05 has moments, most of which are during the final act. I still prefer the original 1933, and look forward to adding the trashy but strangely watchable 1976 version to my Kong collection. If nothing else, I'll be watching Act III 2005 several times.

Jackson's King Ko-uhhh-Zzzzz....

I admit it. I was pre-disposed to not like Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Like Jackson, I'm a big fan of the original 1933 version. Heck, I even like a few moments in the 1976 rendition, which is otherwise pretty awful. But when Dino de Laurentis announced he was remaking the fabled film, he made no pretense of being some great lover of the original. Oh, he liked it, and said so, but compare with Jackson, who made the original sound like his mother. Now, I love my mother, and I'm sure Jackson loves his mother, but I'd never want to make love with my mother. Jackson, on the other hand....

Oh, that's harsh. Let's concentrate on the film instead.

Watching the first third of Jackson's film is seeing a man obsessed with himself. There are plenty of coy moments, but since Jackson takes us back to the time at which the original was made, 2005 begs comparison with 1933. And 1933 kicks 2005's ass.

Jackson takes a full 30 minutes to do what Cooper and Schoedsack did in 10 or less. Worse, the expasion adds precisely zip. It's just showing off a digitally recreated New York of the 1930's. The original film is on Skull Island within 20 minutes, Jackson takes over and hour. And while 2005 won an Oscar for visual effects it all feel relentlessly fake. The lighting never seems right. Ugh.

I stopped watching when Kong snatched Ann. All interest was lost. It was all remarkably uninvolving. The snatch was nicely done, with Kong all in shadow and mist, but Rick Baker as man-in-a-suit Kong from 1976 does better. Maybe when I try and watch again, I'll get more into it, but frankly I like Baker's man-in-a-suit Kong better than Jackson's CGI rendition. And for sheer emotional enjoyment, the 1933 Kong rules.

Other things bother the crap out of me. Max Steiner's score from 1933 is worthy of orchestral presentation. John Barry's score from 1976 is one of his best, and easily the finest thing in the film. James Newton Howard has the thankless task of following in their footsteps, and he doesn't come into his own until the arrival on the island. His gentle score underlying Hayes' recitation from Conrad's Heart of Darkness is superb; in fact, that gentle bit of film is the best thing in whole first hour. It is certainly a juicy, forboding quote:

We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign - and no memories. The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there - there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.

I have a certain faith that in the next two hours of the film, Howard's music continues to improve.

But I don't know, not yet. As the mighty crew takes off into the jungle in pursuit of Kong and Ann, I eject the disk and look for something else to watch. Ah, there it is, my new 50th anniversary version of The Ten Commandments.

About those "message" films

I'm late to the party. I just this week saw the Best Picture of 2005, Crash.

That's "the best"? Oh, such a sorry state Hollywood is in.

Crash isn't a bad film, per se, but it's not exactly great, either. I did enjoy the casting and the performance. I was frankly surprised at how well Ludacris performed. His introductory bit with Larenz Tate is the highlight of the film. The lines are perfect, the delivery perfect, the humor is perfect. In fact, watching that scene you have the sensation that you're about to watch an amazing satire unfold. Unfortunately, no, this is meant to be a "serious" film.

Too bad, because it would have been great satire and made precisely the same points in a much better way. As it is, it continues Paul Haggis's deceitful career.

Deceitful, you ask? Well, yes, because he presents these serious films with serious topics for serious discussion...and then creates utter falsehoods. Attend me...

Haggis wrote the Best Picture of 2004, Million Dollar Baby. Now, for the most part it's a pretty good flick. Despite the purported lack of realism, I loved the boxing sequences. The editing, the photography, the directing, are all excellent. But the film completely collapses after The Accident.

It's been over a year, I'm going to assume everyone knows the plot twist. If you don't, if you haven't seen the film but plan to, stop now or you'll just be pissed off at me.

You've been warned.

Throughout the film, Maggie (Hilary Swank) has been portrayed as a fighter. I don't mean just in the boxing ring, I mean in life. She fights here way into adulthood, she fights her way to independence from her family, she fights for Frankie (Clint Eastwood) to train and manage her, etc. She does not give up, she does not quit, she wins. Always.

So she suffers that horrendous accident that renders her a quadrapalegic and, voila, she suffers a compete 180-degree reversal in personality. She is now a quitter. "Kill me! I cannot live like this!"

That is so utterly in opposition to how the character was established that it's trash. Certainly characters can suffer such reversals; certainly people in real life do. But a better writer would have shown the descent, would have shown the fight, would have shown her losing this last, crucial fight for character. (Or, as I'd prefer, winning; she is, after all, a winner.)

So Haggis hacks this bit so he can get on to his real issue, the right to die, the right to have a quality life. Frankie consults his priest, but his priest is an idiot who can't even discuss the Trinity of the Catholic faith correctly (another Haggis gaff; Catholic priests live to discuss the nature of the Trinity).

Now we get to the stuff that really irritates the crap out of me. Her treatment at the hospital is horrific. She suffers gangriene and has to have a leg amputated. She tries to swallow her own tongue, to kill herself, and they...well, you get the picture. It's ugly and it is a complete crock of shit. This hospital is described as "the best", yet they are essentially torturing this bed-bound patient. And no one kicks their ass!

Because we are getting to Haggis's message, his moral. Maggie wants to die, and Frankie must kill her. Euthanasia, mercy killing, the thing that until very recently was illegal throughout the land (the recent development being the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutionality and legality of Oregon's "assisted suicide" statute).

This is important to understand. The issue wasn't the right to die, the issue was assisted suicide. Haggis wanted to illustrate a person's right to have someone kill them.

But the presentation is utter horseshit. Maggie is forever trapped in a bed and living off a respirator. If a patient in that condition turns to her doctor and says, "Turn my damn breathing machine off", what do you think happens? All the doctor has to do is determine that the patient is rational. He can then adminster pain medication and he'll then unplug the damn machine.

That's "right to die". It is black letter, chiseled in stone law in the United States. Everywhere. Including California.

So in reality once the medical staff heard Maggie say she wants off life-support, they take her off life support and off she goes. Done deal.

So at its core, Million Dollar Baby is a lie. It creates a false scenario with a false resolution. It sucks.

Crash is not quite that bad, but it shows the same stain of dishonesty. I don't mean in its portrayal of Los Angeles, but in how its characters behave. Everyone is a stereotype and everyone lives up to their stereotype. The above mentioned scene between Ludacris and his partner is a case in point. They keep joking back and forth, and then proving the "validity" of the stereotype they're discussing. If the film had been satire, that would have been great. But it isn't, so it isn't.

In Crash, every character of every race is a rascist. Fine, we all suffer some degree of the stain of racism. In Crash, every character is a stereotype. Fine, every stereotype has some, no matter how thin, link to reality. But in Crash, every character, when under any degree of stress, openly vents their rascism.

And that's a crock.

One of the most egregious examples is Ria (Jennifer Esposito), who at the start of the film has been in a traffic accident. She goes out to talk to the officer investigating the accident, but he's busy talking with the Asian driver of the other car. The two drivers hurl racial epithets. Fine for the Asian, but Ria is a cop. Am I really to believe that an LAPD detective is going to be so blatantly racist in front of so many witnesses and at such a time? Wouldn't such a person be just slightly less obvious?

On and on, the film drowns itself in the over-the-top manner in which its characters vent their inner rascist. Ruins the experience big time.

There are jewel like moments. There is one scene guaranteed to make you stop breathing. Oh yes, you're being blatantly manipulated, but it's a pretty well gone bit of manipulation.

And the subtle humor of the shopkeeper's daughter (I can't remember her name, and thus can't name the actress who portrayed her), in her gentle interactions with her father at the end, are beautiful. This is especially so when you reflect on the same characters at the beginning of the film and realize what she did. (Sorry, don't want to give away too much.)

So Crash isn't as inherently dishonest as Baby, but it continues Haggis's penchant for dishonesty in his characters and plot. I am not excited about what he might crank out next.

Now, off to find a copy of Capote!

And maybe I'm back....

It's not that I disliked Typepad, I just don't want to spend the money. Call me "cheap".

PS - Have moved...

...so look for me at 667.

Kathleen Parker writes....

In a parallel universe called 'what if.':

NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

Hmm, makes you wonder.

Via Right-Thinking Girl.

Ugh

A new year, a new template, a new post. Yippee.

I really have to keep more up to date here. So much has happened since Arnie's bloodless right-wing coup d'etat take over of California. As predicted by the radical elements of the left-left-oh-so-very-left wing, his stormtroopers quickly consolidated power. You didn't see that in the news? See how much control the vast, vast, oh say very vast, right-wing conspiracy has? The media is ours, bwahaha!

Where was I? Oh, yeah, new year....

This is caucus day. I wonder which sad case will become the new Democrat front-runner? And "sad case" is just so kind a way of putting it. Really, they all suck like a vacuum cleaner. A Kirby. Something could suck cheese from a dead rat's, er, posterior. I'm really not interested enough in any of them to make an extensive comment. At best they are so boring. At worse...oh, let's so not go there. When there actual is a Democrat candidate, I'll rant more. For now, ugh. I feel so sorry for those members of my parents' party. It is all so pitiful.

Remember, a third party is a viable alternative.

Until later....