THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : Things Said and Unsaid.

This is the fifth article in our new series THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST, where we monitor tv's political comedians and hold them accountable. The original article, Court Jester as Propaganda Tool, can be found HERE. The second article, The Drumpf Affair and Little Bill Maher's Power Fetish, can be found HERE. The third article Waxing Brazilian and Waning Credibility can be found HERE, and the fourth, Out Trumping Trump on the Great Wall of Trump HERE.

ESTIMATED READING TIME : 7 MINUTES 12 SECONDS

A (relatively) brief post on the recent comings and goings of our favorite political comedian, Brave Sir John Oliver, and to a lesser extent, Little Bill Maher, over the last few months. Much has happened but I've been pressed for time so haven't been able to update you, dear reader, on the shenanigans these two faux truth tellers have been up to.

As I have tried to show in previous posts, John Oliver uses the Establishment Propaganda Model ™ to great effect to deceive and misinform his audience. Oliver is not the first comedian to use that model, but in recent years he has certainly been the most effective. Part of how you know he is such a good propagandist for the establishment is to see how the establishment has embraced his work. If Oliver were what he claimed to be, a rebel speaking truth to power, those in power would loathe or maybe even fear him, but they don't, they celebrate and embrace his every move. It seems every week following one of Oliver's shows the public is inundated with articles in the mainstream press about how Oliver's latest "takedown" or "evisceration" of one subject or another was so utterly brilliant. Even Oliver has poked fun at the embarrassing amount of gushing praise his work receives.

The thing about Oliver's "eviscerations" or "takedowns" are that they have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the subjects he takes on. Yes, they may raise some sort of momentary awareness, but that awareness evaporates almost as soon as the episode is over. The Atlantic magazine did a great piece on this recently where they exposed the reality that Oliver is all sound and fury signifying nothing. And that is part of the Establishment Propoganda Model™ as well. Feed the audience something to distract them and to give them the impression that they are well informed and making a difference, when in reality they are really being led down a cul-de-sac of self satisfaction with nothing at all changing in the long run. 

What has interested me the most in the last few months since my last John Oliver Twist post, has been the things that Oliver has left out of his segments, as opposed to what he has put in. This is a vital part of the Establishment Propaganda Model ™, focusing on certain, specific things, but leaving others out. For instance, on episode 10 of season 3, which aired on April 24, 2016, Oliver's opening segment was on Obama's trip to Saudi Arabia and how the Sauid's ignored him during his trip.

It was a cute bit, but if you watch it closely you realize that it entirely ignored the real reason the Saudi's were so angry with Obama. Saudi Arabia was furious with the U.S. over a bill that was up before congress that would allow victims of the 9-11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia over their role in those attacks. That is kind of a huge thing to leave out of the story, don't you think? It's like talking about O.J.'s marriage to Nicole and leaving out the stabbing. The funniest part of the whole thing is that two episodes later, on episode 12 of season 3, which aired on May 15, 2016, Oliver opened his main segment, which happened to be on the 9-1-1 emergency phone system and it's problems, by stating "9-1-1, a number we work hard to remember". Apparently Brave Sir John doesn't work so hard to remember those numbers when they point to Saudi complicity in terror attacks referred to by those same three numbers, and Obama's ass-kissing of those same, complicit Saudi's. 

The Saudi/Obama kerfluffle and Oliver's choice to willfully ignore the reason behind it, 9-11, is both odd and telling. It is also telling that just a few weeks later, Oliver did a little bit on Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who had lost his cat. Kadyrov is a real piece of work, no doubt about it, but Oliver made a big point, in fact he mentioned it twice, that Kadyrov's wikipedia page has an entire section dedicated to his human rights violations, as if this was some sort of remarkable "gotcha" point. As I said, Kadyrov, a Sunni Muslim, is a real piece of work (or a real piece of something else more odorous), but that said, you know another group of Sunni Mulsims who have a less than stellar track record on human rights…that's right...the Saudi's! Oliver never mentioned that fact in his piece on Obama visiting the royal kingdom to try and quell the fears of financial liability of the royal family over their role in 9-11. In fact, Saudi Arabia has such a horrendous human rights record that, unlike Kadyrov, they don't just have a mention of it on their wikipedia page…they have a whole wikipedia page dedicated to it!!

This is how the Establishment Propaganda Model™ works, some things are said and others not said. The assumptions underlying the establishment propaganda are never to be challenged, only blindly accepted. A great example of this shows up on Oliver's most recent episode, episode 13 of season three, which aired May 22, 2016. Oliver opened the episode by doing a segment on the turmoil in Venezuela, and the protests that have broken out there. The very first thing he shows about the protests is a video clip from ABC News which clearly states the context of the protests, that "on one side (of the protests) are students and the middle class, and on the other, police and the military."

That quote may seem like a minor part of a bigger segment, but this clip and statement are incredibly crucial in setting up the context of the protests and the premise of Oliver's argument that follows. This statement of "students and the middle class being on one side, and the military on the other", does all the work Oliver needs in setting audience expectations for who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in the Venezuelan situation.  And I am not saying that Oliver is wrong here, as he skillfully shows with the rest of the segment, Venezuelan president Maduro is, like Kadyrov, a real piece of work. What actually intrigued me the most about Oliver's Venezuela piece and his setting of context in regards to the protests, was that in a very similar situation in Brazil (episode 6, season 3, air date March 20, 2016), he completely ignored the context of those protests because he was taking the side of the right wing, the lighter skinned, the powerful, the rich and the military, against the black lower and working classes. Why would Oliver highlight the context in one case and ignore it in the other? The answer is obvious, the context helps him in the Venezuela argument, and undermines him in the Brazil argument. The key in both cases is that Oliver, just like the American Establishment, and just as the Establishment Propoganda Model™ would predict, calls for the overthrow or removal of an elected, left-wing, South American government that is less than friendly with the U.S.. The Venezuela/Brazil protests segments are damning and incontrovertible evidence of Oliver as a propaganda tool. Every liberal watching his show immediately sided with the "students and middle class" against Maduro in Venezuela, just as they would have sided with the black, poor and working class protesting in support of the left-wing President Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, but Oliver intentionally never alerted them to the class warfare element of the Brazil situation.

This is how the Establishment Propaganda Model™ works, you manipulate the information you present in order to contort "reality" to your own ends. So, for instance, the mainstream media in the U.S. would ignore or treat as completely normal the U.S. military doing exercises on the Russian border, but would call Russian military exercises WITHIN THE BORDERS OF RUSSIA as provocative. An easy way to dissect this sort of propaganda is to simply turn it around and imagine what you would think if the media from another country…Russia say, did the same thing. Would you trust them, or believe them? Would you take them seriously? Of course not. If the Russians did a military exercise in Canada and the U.S. did a military exercise in North Dakota, who is the one being provocative? In this case, obviously the Russians. So this is one way you should watch and read the news and see through the propaganda model.

As previously stated, it is not always the things that are said that are revealing of the Establishment Propaganda Model™ at work, but what isn't said. For example, why does John Oliver choose the subjects he chooses? Why did he completely ignore 9-11 in regards to the Saudi/Obama situation when it was such a vital part of the story? Why hasn't he done a segment on the "28 pages" redacted from the 9-11 report which some believe implicate the Saudi's in the attack? Why hasn't he done a segment on the C.I.A. losing the torture report…talk about a situation ripe with comedy? Or better yet…why not do a bit on this press conference from last year by the State Department which talks about how the U.S. has  'long standing policy" to not support coups. it is relevant to both the Venezuela and Brazil situations…and come to think of it, the Ukrainian and Egyptian situations as well. This press conference is the height of comedy and should be right up Brave Sir John's alley…yet he ignored it. 

These are the types of questions viewers should be asking of Oliver and all of the other political comedians. These questions show that it isn't just what Brave Sir John says that proves he is a propaganda shill for the establishment, it is what he chooses NOT to say.

LITTLE BILL MAHER PUCKERS UP

As for Little Bill Maher…well…he has been up to his old ass-kissing tricks once again. Most of the episodes of Realtime with Bill Maher are dreadfully dull and inane. The only time my interest is piqued is when Bill bends over backwards (or just over) for an interview guest. On the 5th episode of season 10, which aired on February 12, 2016, Little Bill interviewed "journalist" Richard Engel. Engel was there to promote his book, and Maher was more than happy to let him "plug away".

What was so interesting in the interview was that Maher briefly mentioned Engel's being kidnapped in Syria. This kidnapping story is pretty amazing and is a twisting and turning tale of propaganda from start to finish. Engel was kidnapped by Syrian rebels who claimed to be Assad forces in an attempt to garner U.S. public support to invade Syria. Engel claimed that a group of Syrian rebels attacked his captors, killing many of them, and freed him. The purpose of the propaganda was to make Assad's troops out to be the bad guys, and the rebels to be the good guys. Except…there were no dead bodies…even though Engel claimed to have seen them. And the rebels didn't save Engel from Assad's forces, they saved him from themselves. It was all a ruse…one which, shock of shocks, NBC, the home of Brian Williams, gladly went along with. You know who else gladly went along with it? Little Bill Maher. The story had been quite clearly debunked and dissected by the time Engel made it the set of Realtime, but Little Bill Maher simply pretended that Engel's original story was the one that happened. In typical Maher fashion, he got on his knees, licked his lips and told Richard Engel that he was "so brave", much like his similar work with General Hayden this season.  This is a great example of the Establishment Propaganda Model™ in two respects…the first is what Maher (and Engel) didn't say, namely that the kidnapping was a ruse and propaganda ploy, and two, retelling the original story so that the truth of what actually happened goes down the memory hole, never to be seen or heard again.

Another hum dinger of an interview with Little Bill was on epsidoe 13, season 10, air date April 22, 2016. This time writer Lawrence Wright stopped by to discuss 9-11, Saudi Arabia and the 28 pages redacted front he 9-11 report. I was glad Little Bill was tackling this important issue…and then I saw the interview. This interview was a classic of the Establishment Propaganda Model™ in that it served no purpose but to obfuscate the truth, not reveal it. Take a look.

This interview is so incoherent as to be mind numbing…and that was its purpose. Wright speaks of Saudi complicity in the attacks due to a Saudi agent being in contact with the hijackers here in the U.S. He also spoke of Saudi government officials being involved by supporting the attack logistically. He also claimed that the U.S. intelligence community knew this as it was happening and were also in close watch over the hijackers their entire time in America. But then he says that the 28 pages aren't really worth much thought because all they will do is "embarrass" the C.I.A. Yes…"embarrass" is what he said. The idea that anything other than "embarrassment" is behind the nondisclosure of the 28 pages is never even mentioned or thought of. What an absurd idea!! How could it be anything other than fear of "embarrassment"? This ignores the fact that it isn't just 28 pages we haven't seen about 9-11 and the Saudi's, but 80,000 files. That's right, 80,000 files…not just 28 pages. That is a hell of a lot of "embarrassment" to cover up in an attempt to save face.

Later in the interview Wright goes on to "explain" that Saudi Arabia isn't responsible for any terrorism at all…only the ideology that creates terrorists. Got that? This comes just moments after he explains that Saudi Arabian officials were in direct contact and supported the hijackers on 9-11. If none of this makes any sense to you, then that makes two of us.

Of course those statements by Wright are in direct contradiction of one another. Maybe Wright was just drunk and rambling…not the craziest notion after watching the absurd interview, or maybe he was intentionally being obtuse and contradictory. Maybe that is his job, to muddy the waters, to obfuscate the truth, not to clarify it. And Little Bill Maher was all to happy to help Wright make a gigantic mess of things. Little Bill was giddy at the chance to be able to change the subject from 9-11 and Saudi and U.S. Intelligence "embarrassment" and make it about Pakistani child fuckers…seriously. Little Bill turned the redacted 28 pages of the 9-11 report into a story about Pakistani child fuckers. Pakistani child fuckers reinforces Little Bill's, and the establishment's, preferred worldview, and U.S. intelligence "embarrassment" and Saudi complicity in 9-11 do not. Concerned about Saudi Arabia, U.S. intelligence and terror attacks?Don't worry…Lawrence Wright and Bill Maher assure that there is nothing to see here.

Besides his interviews, Little Bill has been full of the usual idiocy in his comments over the last few months as well. A case in point is when he had a comedian on and talked about how he, Little Bill, doesn't tell his audience what they want to hear. He was very proud of this, wearing it as a badge of courage. Little Bill is a truth speaker who says the truth no matter what…consequences be damned!! In his next breath, Little Bill went out of his way to make a point blindly supporting Israel. Little Bill explained that Europe, who has always been adversarial with Israel, might now be more sympathetic to Israel since European countries are now being over run with Muslim immigrants from Syria. It was a staggeringly illiterate thing to say, historically speaking. In case Little Bill doesn't know, it was European Jews who immigrated into Palestine, not the other way around. And those European Jews brought with them a terrorist campaign against the locals which featured the invention of the car bomb!! Yes, Little Bill Maher doesn't tell his audience what they want to hear, unless that audience are his pay masters in the establishment, then he says exactly what they want to hear, especially about Israel, over and over again. Bravo Little Bill!! 

Also in keeping with the Establishment Propaganda Model™, Little Bill, just like Brave Sir John, hasn't mentioned on his show the C.I.A. losing it's torture report either. In addition, Little Bill keeps on banging home the idea of "liberals supporting liberal ideas" in regards to the Middle East and Islam. Either Bill is dumber than I think, or he is intentionally laying the foundation for more wars in the region against Islam. You see, you cannot argue for liberals to fight for liberal values in Middle Esatern countries, without also arguing for actual fighting in those countries. Little Bill is a neo-con in that he wants to reshape the middle east, and while he would say he is against another war there, his rhetoric betrays him. You can't tell people to fight for liberal values and then tell them not to actually fight.

In conclusion, both Brave Sir John and Little Bill Maher have been, as the Establishment Propaganda Model™ would predict, serving as useful tools to reinforce the establishment narrative, and not to attack it.  As much as I am loathe to do it, I will continue to watch these two dim-witted, establishment shill, asshats, week in and week out, all as a service to you, my dear reader. I hope you are grateful for this, the greatest of all sacrifices, that I willingly make for you. God help me!!

©2016

Batman v. Superman : Dawn of Justice - A Review

****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!****

MY RATING : 2.5  OUT OF 5 STARS

MY RECOMMENDATION: SEE IT IN THE THEATRE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIKE SUPER HERO FILMS. IF YOU ARE LUKEWARM ABOUT SUPER HERO FILMS, WATCH IT ON CABLE/NETFLIX.

"LOW EXPECTATIONS ARE THE KEY TO A HAPPY LIFE." - ME…TO EVERY WOMAN I HAVE EVER DATED.

As a general rule I never read movie reviews before I see a film. In fact, I don't even like to see trailers because studios so often undermine the power of a film by giving away its content in trailers. When I see a film, I want to see it with as close to virgin eyes as possible. If I don't understand a film, I will take the time to actually see it again. I love film so I don't mind investing time into it in trying to understand the art and craft of it all.  I understand that I am an outlier in this area as most people look upon films as consumers looking upon a product they may potentially buy, so they want as much information as they can get before hand, not afterwards. This is why studios reveal so much (too much!!) in trailers, they want to give as much of the film as possible in a two minute movie because they believe that audiences want to know what they are getting.

In regards to Batman v. Superman : Dawn of Justice, I found it very difficult to keep my cinematic virginity oath by avoiding news and information about the movie before I saw it. One reason this was such a struggle was that I saw the film just this past week and it was released two months ago, so I am definitely way behind the times. Another reason is that for the last two months my internet homepage has been giving me headlines telling me how awful critics thought the movie, and Ben Affleck were. I never read the articles, but I certainly got the message from the headlines, Batman V. Superman was an epic failure and Ben Affleck was back to his old tricks of ruining movies. And thus…my low expectations were unconsciously inseminated, then gestated for two months and were consciously born this past week.

When you have low expectations, anything good that happens is a pleasant surprise and you find yourself more grateful for things than if you had expected them. And so it was with my experience watching Batman v. Superman. I expected it to be really awful…and it just wasn't. Maybe it isn't as good as I thought it was, but it was certainly better than I ever thought it would be. And guess what…you know what made the film good…I hope you are sitting down for this…it was Ben Affleck's intricate, internally detailed and vibrant performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman. I know you think I am bullshitting you, but It's true, I promise, I am not in any way, shape or form, bullshitting you.

"DO YOU BLEED?" - BATMAN

When I heard that Affleck had taken the role of Batman I thought it was a very bad idea for both him and the film.  Affleck had worked so hard to rise up from being a punchline at the nadir of his acting career and reinvented himself as a respectable filmmaker and passable actor. I thought he was squandering all of the good will he had worked so hard to generate by chasing the "movie stardom" dream that had been the cause of his previous great downfall. Chasing stardom and money was what had scuttled Affleck's promising career once before, and I was sure it was going to do the same thing again. But, to his credit, Ben Affleck proved me a fool because he is damn good as Batman. I think it is his best performance…ever. Which, you know, isn't a very high bar, but he brings a brooding gravitas to the role of which I simply didn't believe he was capable.  Affleck's performance throughout is solid, but his inner rage and fury during his fight with Superman is absolutely dynamic. Affleck imbues Batman with such a tangible psychological wound that it gives him a visceral and volcanic rage, which erupts during this epic superhero brawl. Affleck's magnetic and potent performance is shocking considering his tepid work in most of his previous films. 

Sadly, the "Ben Affleck is dreadful" meme is out there in regards to his work as Batman. Prior to seeing the film, I saw headlines and videos mocking Affleck for having stepped in it again with Batman V. Superman. Maybe it was my exposure to this criticism which lowered my expectations for his work, which is why I was able to appreciate him so much in the role. Who knows? Regardless, if Ben Affleck keeps doing the strong work he did as Batman in future films, the critics will eventually quiet themselves. With all of that said…as much as I disagree with the sentiment, I found this video to be absolutely hysterical.

Description

As much as I enjoyed the film, is Batman v. Superman perfect? Hell no. Director Zack Snyder can be pretty heavy handed at times, the abysmal Man of Steel being a perfect example, and he loses control of this film in the last quarter, but even with all his faults, he has a distinct visual style that works well here. Snyder also does a good job of keeping the storytelling coherent, which is no small accomplishment considering he is juggling multiple important narratives (Superman, Batman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman etc.) that he must weave together. He does so, not seamlessly, but well enough for the film to make sense both internally and externally.

HELLO DARKNESS MY OLD FRIEND

Another key to the film's success is that it is dark…relentlessly dark. And it never wavers from that dark vision. It is a credit to the filmmaker that, unlike in the recent Captain America movie, Batman v. Superman sets its heavy tone and commits to it, taking its subject matter very seriously. The film is a dark psychological study, and I found it to be authentically compelling. There are no witty one liners to water down the mood, and no winks and nods to the audience that this is all in good fun. Batman v. Superman is not in good fun, it is deadly serious business, which to me is the film's great strength, but may also be its greatest weakness in the eyes of critics and a large part of its audience. 

On the downside, one of the glaring problems with the film is that in the final quarter of the picture, it sort of goes off the rails when the hybrid villain appears and we get a generic city destroying, knock down, drag out donnybrook. The hybrid monster is supposed to be a hybrid between General Zod and Lex Luthor, but it really looks more like a hybrid between the most recent Godzilla and the Hulk….and not in a good way. The whole fight sequence with the hybrid is dreadful, this is director Snyder at his worst, and should be cut because it feels as if it is from a very different, and very horrible film (like Man of Steel!!). The fight between Batman and Superman, which precedes the hybrid nonsense, feels epic and climactic and should have closed the movie. That said, even the Batman-Superman fight had a flaw, namely that there is a huge emotional turning point for Batman at the end of the struggle that felt rushed, watered down, and ignored, which was not because of Affleck's striking performance, but rather Snyder's weak grasp of dramatic storytelling. It is a shame because there could have been a truly powerful moment captured there, but Snyder was in too much of a rush to get to the hybrid battle to let the audience sit with Batman in the apex of the deep torment that Affleck had so finely crafted from the very beginning of the film. 

Another problem with the film is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Eisenberg is a good actor (see his work in The Squid and the Whale and The Social Network ), but he is distractingly bad as Luthor. The performance is shallow and showy, and Eisenberg feels small in the part. I understand what Eisenberg was trying to do, he was playing a wounded child, but he wildly misses the mark with his work. A more grounded and energetically focused performance, as opposed to the energetically frantic one he gave, would have given Lex a menace and power that were lacking and sorely needed. When you are walking among giants like Batman and Superman, you better bring a villain who can hold his own…Eisenberg's Lex Luthor fails to do so.

"MORTALS, BORN OF WOMAN, ARE FEW OF DAYS AND FULL OF TROUBLE." - THE BOOK OF JOB

The myths and archetypes on display in Batman v. Superman speak to all of us on some level. In some ways, at its core, Batman v. Superman is a comic book version of the Book of Job, with Batman taking the role of Satan (God's shadow), and Superman the all-powerful God (God's ego) duped into a battle with his darker self at the expense of mankind. 

From a psychological perspective, Batman, Superman and even Lex Luthor represents the various masculine wounds that men in our time carry with them and often pass down to their sons. Batman is the psychological shadow, a man, whose sense of self and masculinity is deeply wounded by the martyring (and thus absence) of the mother and father archetype in his life. Superman is the ego/messiah with a mother and father wound of his own, having been adopted by earth parents after his Kryptonian birth parents rejected him. Yes, his Kryptonian parents did it for his own good, but that disconnect with his home planet and parents dwells in Superman's psyche. Superman's struggle with the anima, the feminine, is also on display in the form of his relationship with his mother Martha and his girlfriend Lois Lane, as is Batman's in his absence of any genuine connection to a female in his life, including his late mother Martha. Even Lex Luthor, the tormented little boy, struggles with the masculine wound given to him by his own cruel father. These three men represent the different paths that can be taken when a boy is left to make the journey to manhood with the father archetype being absent because of martyrdom, paternal rejection or the father being wounded himself. All three men live in the shadow of their fathers, Batman/Bruce Wayne runs his father's company and tries to avenge his death, Superman wears an "S" on his chest, the symbol of his father's hope, and Lex Luthor tries to live up to the expectations placed upon him by his own wounded father. These men are all sides of the same multi-dimensional masculine wound coin, expressing their pain in different ways.

The myths of Batman and Superman, and the archetypes that they embody, are the reasons why these comic book stories resonate so deeply with wide swaths of the population. Batman v. Superman has gotten pretty poor reviews yet is on the cusp of making a billion dollars. Captain America : Civil War will no doubt do the same. These super hero stories can be fun to watch and entertaining, but they also speak to us on a deeply unconscious level. These stores also speak to us from our collective unconscious, telling us things we know but struggle to articulate.

For instance, is it a coincidence that in an election year we have two superhero movies about internal conflict between superheroes? In Batman v. Superman we have iconic heroes Batman and Superman squaring off, and in Captain America : Civil War we have two groups of "good guy" heroes doing battle. And also notice that these heroes are divided by contrasting color, Batman is blue, Superman red...Captain America blue, Iron Man red. This is not coincidence…for we as a people are at war with ourselves. In the wider world, civilizations are clashing, see the struggle for Islam to come to terms with modernity as an example. And in the west itself, societies are turning on one another…look no further than the rise of nationalist movements and parties of both the right and left in Europe along with the fraying at the seams of the European Union. Here in the U.S. the rise of Donald Trump in the U.S. is an example of that same clashing impulse. These civilizational battles are what are unconsciously on display in this years crop of super hero films. These films are an expression of our collective unconscious, which is explored and discovered by artists (writers, filmmakers etc.), who become artists in the first place because they are inclined to spend so much time in and around the unconscious, both collective and personal. (I have much, much more to say on this topic…trust me...but that is a posting for another day). Regardless, as mindless as these super hero movies may appear to be, and some of them are really mindless, they do have deep mythical and psychological meaning to us, which is why I appreciate it so much when these type of films take their super hero subject matter seriously.

"FOR WE WERE BORN ONLY YESTERDAY AND KNOW NOTHING, AND OUR DAYS ON EARTH ARE BUT A SHADOW." - BOOK OF JOB

In conclusion, much to my surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed Batman v. Superman : Dawn of Justice. Call me crazy, but I thought that the film and Ben Affleck's performance were well worth the price of admission. I realize I am in the minority on this one, and as my email inbox constantly reminds me, whether the subject be Chris Kyle, John Oliver or Terence Malick, I am almost always in the minority. It doesn't bother me though, as I myself have unlocked  my own super power, a key to eternal happiness…The Power of Low Expectations! Hey, if The Power of Low Expectations can do the unthinkable and make me really like a Ben Affleck/Zack Snyder film, then it really is a super power to be reckoned with!! With a true magic elixir like The Power of Low Expectations, I could be capable of anything!! Or nothing at all!! Either way I'll be happy…and that's all that matters…right?

©2016

Captain America : Civil War - A Review

**** THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!****

MY RATING : 2 OUT OF 5 STARS

SEE IT IN THE THEATRE IF YOU LOVE SUPER HERO MOVIES, IF YOU ARE LUKEWARM ABOUT SUPERHERO MOVIES, WAIT TO SEE IT ON CABLE.

My 2016 movie going has been pretty limited due to an insanely busy schedule, but with 'pilot season' fading quickly into the rear view mirror, I found some time to sneak off and see a movie this week. The last time I went to the theatre was when I ventured to the art house to catch Terence Malick's mesmerizing Knight of Cups. This time I decided to do my patriotic duty as a citizen of the United States of Disney and spend time in the dark with the great unwashed masses at the local cineplex and go see Captain America : Civil War.

Captain America : Civil War is the third Captain America film (Captain America : The First Avenger 2011, Captain America : Winter Soldier 2014) and the thirteenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The film is directed by brothers Anthony and Joe Russo and is written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. The film boasts an all-star cast which includes Chris Evans reprising his role as Captain America and Robert Downey Jr. doing the same as Iron Man, along with Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Rudd, to name but a few.

Captain America : Civil War is a pretty strange movie. In some ways it is an interesting, dare I say noble and courageous attempt to examine the ethics and morality of U.S. foreign policy and military actions and the struggle of Empire to maintain a uni-polar world while under great pressure from without and within to create a multi-polar world where cooperation among nations rules the day. On the other hand it is a terribly uneven and long (it runs for two and half hours) exercise in propaganda and corporatism that is little more than an elaborate commercial for itself, American exceptionalism, future Marvel franchise films, and the auto maker Audi.

To the film's credit, it is much better than either of the recent Avengers films. The Avenger films were an unmitigated mess, more spectacle than storytelling. The problem with the Avengers is that it is near impossible to create any drama when it is difficult to imagine a villain that could match up with the murderer's row of super heroes which include Thor, Hulk, Captain America and Iron Man. Captain America : Civil War avoids that problem by having the "villains" as equally as powerful as the heroes, because the "villains" are superheroes. Iron Man is a match for Captain America and each super hero faction matches up pretty well against the other up and down the line.

Another reason that Captain America : Civil War is better than the Avengers movies is because  the fight sequences are toned down to be less universally and randomly destructive, there are no city-wide rampages that leave New York looking like Aleppo, but instead the fights are more personalized between equally matched super hero combatants. The side effect of this is that the violence is more targeted and meaningful, and less chaotic and random. It also means that the film is less loud and over bearing in its bombastic destruction, which is a plus for anyone who isn't an adolescent and has a brain rattling around in their head.

To the film's credit, it raises a rather complex issue for a super hero movie, the issue of "collateral damage", with the super heroes contemplating all the innocents that have died as a result of their epic battles with various super villains like Loki and Ultron in the previous Avenger films. Captain America and his team believe that, while tragic, these civilian deaths are the price you pay for stopping evil. If you live in the U.S. and watch, read, or listen to any mainstream media, that will sound awfully familiar to you. Although on the surface they clash, Iron Man actually agrees with Captain America in principle about the collateral damage issue but he disagrees with how to strategically handle the fallout over civilian deaths.

Iron Man is the symbol of American ingenuity and capitalism, so he just wants to stay in business by any means necessary, and so he believes the Avengers should fall under U.N. control for the time being until this whole mess blows over. At the end of the day the disagreement over whether the Avengers will give up sovereignty to the U.N. gets pushed to the background as all agree that the Avengers are a universal good and are morally righteous having never intended to kill any innocents, so they are neither morally nor ethically culpable in any way. The disagreement which starts the Avenger civil war is really about how to handle the logistics going forward and Captain America's stubborn attachment to his principle on maintaining sovereignty.

As I watched Captain America talk about the specter of the U.N. having control over the Avenger's , I was reminded of the first time I ever heard of Americans being afraid of a tyrannical UN. I was driving through central Pennsylvania about 20 years ago with an incredibly sexy native Pennsylanian woman whom I will call The Amish Minx, and we saw two huge signs on trailers in someone's yard, one read "Keep the UN out of the US" and the other "Don't let the UN take our guns". The Amish Minx, who was born and raised in central Pennsylvania, had always told me the state was basically Pittsburgh and Philadelphia separated by Kentucky, and she used these signs as evidence backing up her thesis. She often referred to the state she loved as Pennsyl-tucky.

I think Captain America's message of defiance against the U.N. will deeply resonate in the heart of Pennsyl-tucky and the rest of the American heartland….which is what it is meant to do. Captain America refusing to give up his freedom to decide which bad guys to kill to the meddling, feckless and corrupt U.N., is perfectly American, which makes sense since he is Captain America after all, and not Captain International Political Organization, while Iron Man, the international businessman, is willing to compromise by appeasing the U.N.…for now. As the story progresses though, it is revealed that the real beef between Captain America and Iron Man is, as these things always turn out to be, actually very personal, as Iron Man feels betrayed by Captain America over the death of Iron Man's parents many years ago.

Oddly enough, for a film trying to tackle the heavy consequences of innocents being killed during Avenger battles, the fight scenes between the warring Avenger factions have an incredibly light, fun and playful tone to them. This uneven tone does the film and its alleged serious intentions a terrible disservice. The fights are little more than one-liner battles of wittiness and super heroes trying to out-cool each other. The other drawback is that while the Avengers can feel a little bad about killing innocent people while fighting evil, they themselves never have to fear death because they are never in any peril whatsoever. The fights and the film would have been much better served if the fights between the super hero factions carried some real danger to them. If the teenage Spider-man gets killed by Captain America over a nebulous principle, we have a much more dramatic and interesting movie…but the studio is out billions of dollars in the form of, yet again, another whole new re-boot of the Spider Man franchise.

Another thing that detracts from the collateral damage issue is that when the Avenger factions square off they do so in an airport that has been evacuated, thus it is completely devoid of the danger of civilians being hurt, a central theme in the movie. This big airport fight would have been so much better, so much more impactful and so much more meaningful, if the warring Avenger factions had to not only fight each other but take into account the innocent civilians that could be harmed by their fighting. This would have kept the collateral damage debate front and center in the film and it also would have complicated the battle, giving it much more drama, depth and dimension.

In terms of the acting…well…this is a super hero movie so...there are actors in it. Actually, to be fair, the actors all do very solid work. Robert Downey Jr. in particular is, as usual, terrific as Iron Man. He is a skilled and talented guy, and his Iron Man has never failed to be lively, smart, energetic and compelling. Chris Evans as Captain America is not exactly Laurence Olivier, but he is well suited for the role in that he is an all-American, impossibly handsome guy and he is comfortable letting his biceps do all the heavy lifting and serious acting. Scarlet Johannsen and Elizabeth Olsen do some quality work with the garbage they've been given in the script. Everyone else is pretty forgettable, although to be fair, the entire film, while entertaining, is pretty forgettable, so they fit right in.

The B-level super heroes that Marvel has scraped off the bottom of the barrel for this one are pretty funny in that they are nowhere near being ready to be prime time players. Black Widow, Winter Soldier, Falcon, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Vision and Scarlet Witch aren't exactly the '27 Yankees…they are more like the 2016 Yankees. That said, A-lister Spider Man does make an appearance, and is spectacularly and incredibly annoying. As I said, previously, the film would be better if the young Spider Man is convinced to fight for Team Iron Man, and then like so many young men drawn into the glory of battle, dies too young for a worthless cause. Admittedly, that would be a pretty heavy thing to throw into a Captain America movie, but considering the civilian deaths/collateral damage theme the filmmakers bring up it would, in theory, have been appropriate. Of course, that would make this a real, genuine film and not just some summer, popcorn movie fun…but I would argue you can have both. Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is the gold standard for comic book films, balancing dark material and Super Hero entertainment, and Captain America : Civil War is no The Dark Knight…but it is better than the previous Captain America and Avenger films.

Not surprisingly, since the Captain America comic was originally created back in 1941 as American propaganda during World War II, when you dig a little deeper into Captain America : Civil War, you realize that it is little more than updated and more sophisticated propaganda for American exceptionalism in the twenty first century. The film is designed to reinforce what Americans have been conditioned to believe for generations through education and the media…that we are a special people and nation, and that when we kill innocent people it is not immoral, only an unintentional accident. This is the "good intentions" argument that self promoting nitwit Sam Harris likes to parade around, until a real super hero, Noam Chomsky, goes all Hulk on him and smashes his vapid argument for all to see. (CHOMSKY SMASH!!!) This is also the same thinking that brings cries of "moral equivalency!!" anytime someone tries to hold the U.S. accountable for its evil deeds.

 While the film appears to be about the Uni-Polar v. Multi-Polar debate and the collateral damage issue, it is actually very deceptive, because at its core the film never questions the morality or righteousness of the American/Avenger cause. In cinematic terms, doing that would mean that Team Iron Man would have to have a true come to Jesus moment and realize that Team Captain America must be stopped no matter the price….but that is not going to happen in the Disney owned Marvel Universe or this coprorately owned one either.

It is easy to make the argument that the Avengers have always been good and acted properly by stopping Loki or Ultron from destroying the entire planet because Loki and Ultron are comic book villains who embody true evil, and the Avengers are comic book super heroes who embody pure goodness. The comic book world is comfortably Manichean which is why we love and crave it so much. The clarity and surety that comic books and their films give us is reassuringly simple, even when it appears to be complex, as in the case of Captain America : Civil War. The real world rarely gives us such Manichean clarity, and it is almost always much less clear cut in the real world who is good and who is evil. The shaded area of grey in which we all live, which can be so uncomfortable for its moral ambiguity, will find no home in Disney's Marvel Universe.

Sadly, that won't stop audience members from unquestioningly swallowing the obvious propogandic lesson of the film, that the US, just like the Avengers, is always and every time right, morally and ethically, even when it does wrong, and that the U.S., just like the Avengers, is always and every time morally superior in each and every way to his opponents/victims, no matter who they are. When people or a nation put themselves morally above others, it gives them free reign to do anything because no matter what they do, it is good because they are good. The most obvious example of this…**WARNING: Godwin's Law in full effect!!**… are the Nazi's, who didn't think they were evil, they thought they were good and right ("If God is with us, who could be against us?"). The German thinking was that invading Poland or slaughtering Jews, though ugly, was acceptable because it served the greater and higher good, which was Germany and all its mythic glory. The Avengers and the U.S. aren't the Nazi's, but they are compelled by the same sense of self-reverence and moral superiority, which is an uncomfortable, but important idea to contemplate.

Even though at its core, Captain America : Civil War is a piece of propaganda for American exceptionalism and militarism, it is an entertaining piece of propaganda. I readily admit that I enjoyed the film. I thought it could have been a hell of a lot better, but for what it is, a summertime, popcorn, super hero movie, it is very entertaining. It keeps a solid pace and tempo, and never lulls or loses steam. Although it runs for over two and a half hours, I was never bored and never looked at my watch. It is for these reasons that I would say that if you like Super Hero films, you will definitely like Captain America : Civil War. If you are on the fence about these types of films, I would say, due to the issues of an uneven tone, save your money and wait to see it when it is on cable. Also, the film is not cinematically or visually vibrant enough or stylistically unique enough to demand that you see it in the theaters on the big screen. 

Whether you do what I did and venture out to the theatre to watch the film with the hoi polloi, or if you wait to see it on cable, my one piece of advice is to try to watch the film consciously, being aware of how you are being manipulated and how propaganda works on both the conscious and unconscious level. It is ok to enjoy a piece of propaganda, as propaganda can be well made and entertaining, as long as you don't become an unwitting victim of that propaganda, which will teach you to accept things without thinking and to never question the propagandists assumptions and basic premises. The only antidote to not thinking brought on by propaganda…is to think. So enjoy the film, stay conscious, and keep thinking and questioning.

©2016

Knight of Cups : A Review and Dispatches From the Great Malick Civil War

***THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!!***

ESTIMATED READING TIME : 14 MINUTES

MY RATING: 4.75 out of 5 STARS - SEE IT IN THE THEATRE

*** REVIEW SUMMARY***: If you like Terrence Malick films you will really like Knight of Cups. As the third film in Malick's undeclared autobiographical trilogy, with The Tree of Life and To the Wonder being the first two films, it is much more accessible than To the Wonder and ever so slightly less accessible than The Tree of Life. Be forewarned, if your tastes run more conventional and mainstream, Knight of Cups, and any other Malick film for that matter, will not be for you.

Once the soul was perfect and had wings, and could soar into Heaven…find your way from darkness to light. Remember.

In 2011, I went to see the film The Tree of Life written and directed by Terence Malick. I was deeply moved by the film and genuinely loved it. The greatest attempt at describing my feelings for the film would be to say it was the film that I had unknowingly been waiting for my entire life.  Considering I am very reticent to engage in hyperbole in regards to any film (or any-thing for that matter), this was high praise indeed. 

When I was asked by people if I liked the film, I shared with them that same glowing endorsement, and I was received in one of two ways, either people warmly embraced me as a fellow traveler and soul-mate on this incredible journey of life, or I was assaulted like a stranger in a strange land with a level of vitriol unprecedented in the long, troubled history of mankind. 

It was clear, the battle lines had been drawn, pro-Malick people on one side, anti-Malick people on the other. The people who disliked The Tree of Life, REALLY, REALLY HATED it, and the people who liked the film, REALLY, REALLY LOVED it. The anti-Tree of Lifers said the film was incoherent, rambling and pretentious, while the pro-Tree of Lifers said it was intimate, personal and visionary. I wasn't entirely shocked by the negative reaction to the film by some people, during the showing I went to, three different audience members, at different times, got up and turned to face the rest of the crowd and held their arms out wide as if to say "what in the hell is this?" and then made a spectacle of themselves as they stormed out of the theatre in a loud huff, making sure everyone knew how much they hated the film.  And thus, with these 'walk-outs', the first shots in "The Great Malick Civil War", which had been simmering for decades, were fired, and the horrible, bloody war rages on to this day with Malick's latest release Knight of Cups.

At the conclusion of the showing of Knight of Cups (which is written and directed by Terrence Malick, stars Christian Bale, and is shot by Emmanuel Lubezki) which I attended, two blue-haried old biddies sitting near the front of the sparsely filled theatre made a show of dismissively laughing loudly the moment credits rolled. This was followed by an older man, sitting by himself on the other side of my row, who cupped his hands by his mouth and booed loudly, vomiting his negative opinion over every one in the theatre. My instinct was to walk over and pour my root beer over this geezer's head, and tell him that since he felt the need to share his feelings with me, I thought I'd share my feelings with him. Thankfully my better nature prevailed, or I might be writing this post on the lam, wanted for the murder, justifiable in my eyes, of three old people in a Los Angeles theatre. When it comes to this Great Malick Civil War, I am trying, God knows, to follow John Lennon's example of "giving peace a chance."

The Malick Civil War is one of those wars to which we've become so accustomed, the type of war which no one can win and which will last until the end of history. I can't end the war myself but I can try to help you understand it, it's origins and how to survive it, so that you can tell your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren about how we got into this senseless slaughter we know as "The Great Malick Civil War", with the hope that those future generations can bring an end to the carnage.

FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN MOVIES AGO

The Abraham Lincoln at the center of this civil war is enigmatic writer/director Terence Malick. Malick has directed and written seven feature films, which are, in chronological order, Badlands (1973), Days of Heaven (1978), The Thin Red Line (1998), The New World (2005), The Tree of Life (2011), To the Wonder (2012) and Knight of Cups (2016). In keeping with his somewhat eccentric image, after his second feature, Days of Heaven, Malick disappeared from movie-making and public life, only to resurface twenty years later with the film The Thin Red Line. Malick is a unique man, unlike most other directors, as evidenced by his rarely doing any press or interviews for his films, and not even allowing himself be photographed on the set of his movies.

Malick's last three films, The Tree of Life, To the Wonder and Knight of Cups, which seem to form a sort of personal and autobiographical trilogy, are films that are particularly challenging for some viewers, and down right off-putting to others. The biggest complaint about The Tree of Life, To the Wonder and Knight of Cups is the main complaint about many of Malick's films, namely people don't understand what the hell is happening in the story. In a Malick film, the narrative can be, at times, non-linear. Malick's films are like dreams...impressionistic, abstract and filled with symbolism.

"GIVE ME SIX HOURS TO CHOP DOWN A TREE AND I WILL SPEND THE FIRST FOUR SHARPENING THE AXE." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Unlike most other other filmmakers, Malick likes to shift perspective in his films. We often hear, in voice over, the inner thoughts and feelings of multiple characters throughout his films. It is a technique very similar in story telling structure to a novel or even a long form poem, and when done well, as it is in Malick's case, it helps create an intimacy and personal connection between the audience and the character.

Malick heightens this effect by often having these voice-overs be done in a barely audible whisper. Examples of this multiple-protagonist-narration technique can be found in The Thin Red Line, where the narration comes from as many as five characters, Private Witt, Sgt. Welsh, Captain Staros, Private Bell and Lt. Col. Tall, and the perspective jumps across multiple story lines, so we see the overarching narrative through these different protagonists perspectives, giving the film a depth and complexity it would otherwise be lacking with a more conventional storytelling technique.

The New World is also narrated by three different characters as well, Captain Smith, Pocahontas and John Rolfe, giving the story a much more well-rounded and deeper personal dimension than a standard filmmaking approach. This love triangle, which is a theme often explored in Malick's films, is brought to greater life and depth by understanding the inner thoughts and workings of all the participants. 

In The Tree of Life, the narration jumps between the mother (Jessica Chastain), the father (Brad Pitt) and the son as both a child (Hunter McCracken) and as an adult (Sean Penn), which gives the film a vibrant and exquisitely powerful intimacy. The use of multiple protagonist's narrations and perspectives is extremely unconventional in filmmaking, hell, just using a single narrator is a technique that many filmmakers vehemently disagree with, never mind using multiple narrators. In the hands of a less visionary director, the voice-over is a bandage used to cover their weak storytelling skill, but with a handful of directors, Malick and Scorsese in particular, voice-over narration is a weapon they wield expertly that elevates their storytelling to glorious heights. 

Malick hasn't always use multiple narrators in his films, for instance in Badlands and Days of Heaven, his first two films, he uses a singular narrator, both young woman/girls, to guide the viewer through the picture. In Badlands, the protagonist is Sissy Spacek's teenage character, Holly, who shows us the story, and her innocence makes the brutality and barbarity of Kit (Martin Sheen) and the other male characters more palatable for the viewer. In Days of Heaven, a young girl, Linda (Linda Manz), narrates the story of Bill (Richard Gere) and Abby (Brooke Adams) as they make their way from Chicago to the plains of the Midwest. This technique gives the viewer a distance from the main protagonists, but maintains Malick's signature intimacy (and the theme of femininity), in this case, through the eyes of an innocent child. As Malick has matured and found his voice and style as an artist and filmmaker, he has become more deft at the use of the multiple protagonists and narrations, and has used it to great effect in his last five films to give the viewer more complex perspectives.

"I WALK SLOWLY, BUT I NEVER WALK BACKWARDS" - ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Malick also has a distinct and unique visual style where he only uses natural lighting. In addition to the natural lighting, Malick also highlights this naturalism with his camera movement by letting the camera dance and float about. He sometimes let's the camera stop to focus on the wonders of the natural world and setting, holding on an animal, an insect or a tree. Malick never rushes his camera, and his deliberate pace and natural lighting, free moving camera and occasional focus on nature, all create a signature style that has a tangible and palpable feel to it. You don't just see through Malick's camera, you feel the world it inhabits. Whether it is the minuscule bumps on a soldiers helmet, the abrasive blades of grass in a field, the texture of a character's sweater, through Malick's use of natural light, these objects have greater definition and every contour of them is accentuated, giving the viewer the sense memory of similar items they have felt in their own lives. It is a remarkable accomplishment for Malick to be able to bring his visuals to such a heightened  and naturalistic state that viewers not only bask in their beauty but recall their own tactile memories.

There is a sequence in Knight of Cups where Christian Bale wears a bulky, wool sweater, and Cate Blanchett simply reaches out towards him and feels it. Malick's camera, with the guidance of one of the great cinematographers working today, Emmaneul Lubezki, picks up every single nook and cranny of this sweater, it is palpable on screen, and when Blanchett reaches out for it you feel that sweater right along with her, and also feel her character's longing to connect with Bale.

"I DESTROY MY ENEMIES WHEN I MAKE THEM MY FRIENDS." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Which brings us to acting in a Malick film. Of the many people with whom I have disagreed about Terrence Malick films, many of them are actors. A lot of actors I spoke with about The Tree of Life, absolutely hated the movie. I was shocked by this revelation as I would have assumed actors were a bit more cinematically sophisticated than the average Joe, but boy was I wrong. Actors may actually be even more culturally conditioned in their movie watching because they are so used to reading scripts and understanding the basics of how to tell a story. This does not suit the viewer of a Malick film, in fact it is poison.

Malick is very improvisational with his actors and his camera, which scares the living hell out of most actors. A lot of actors want to know what to do and when to do it. Being left out in front of a camera with no context and nothing to do but simply "be", is a form of torture for most actors. In addition, because Malick is able to bring us so intensely close to his subjects and into their internal world, the opportunities for a big external clash with the outer world are reduced. The brushes with the external are quickly integrated into the internal, so we don't have the explosive confrontation that actors love to embrace. Since Malick uses voice over so often, actors aren't allowed to talk their way through something, which a lot of actors desperately love to do. The actors are forced to be present in the moment and just "be alive" before the cameras. It is very improvisational and in some ways like watching an unrehearsed dance...kind of like…I don't know...life. Some actors hate it when they don't know what to do...am I mad here? Am I sad? Do I laugh? Do I cry? No, you just are here...alive and human. Once an actor can get comfortable with the "not knowing" of Malick's approach, then Malick can fill in the proper meaning and purpose he intends through voice over and editing.

Malick's style of filmmaking lays an actor bare. You can't bullshit, or rely on your good looks to charm your way through a Malick film. You need talent, skill and frankly, intelligence and gravitas to be able to thrive in a Malick film. There have been some extraordinary performances in Malick films, for instance, Cate Blanchett in Knight of Cups does simple yet stellar work, bringing her great craft to bear in a role that would have been invisible in the hands of a lesser actress. 

Blanchett being great is no surprise as she is one of the world's finest actresses, but Malick has been able to get great performances from some less expected places. In To the Wonder, Olga Kurylenko, who had previously been in little more than action films, gives a wondrous performance. Kurylenko, whose background is in dance and for whom English is a third language, is comfortable expressing herself through her body and movement, which means she is never stuck trying to figure out a scene, but rather is capable if just inhabiting it, a great quality for an actor to possess in a Malick film. Another surprising performance in a Malick film is Colin Farrell in The New World. Farrell's naturalism and tangible fear in front of Malick's camera made for a mesmerizing and unexpected  performance from the often-time uneven actor.

Other actors who have thrived in Malick films are Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in Badlands, with Sheen giving a Brando-esque level performance filled with charisma and power. Nick Nolte, Jim Cavezial, Sean Penn, Ben Chaplin and Elias Koteas all do very solid work in The Thin Red Line. Koteas and Nolte in particular do spectacularly specific work in very difficult roles. The aforementioned Colin Farrell, Christian Bale and Q'oriana Kilcher in The New World. Kilcher is simply amazing as Pocahontes, completely natural, charismatic and at ease as Malick's Native American muse. Sean Penn, Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain all give detailed and vibrant performances in The Tree of Life, with Chastain really being the break out star. Chastain, like Blanchett, is one of the great actresses working today, and her work in The Tree of Life was so masterful and elegantly human that she was immediately catapulted into the upper echelon of highly respected actors.

Conversely, there have been actors who have been exposed in Malick films as being little more than a pretty face with an empty head. Richard Gere simply lacked the gravitas to carry Days of Heaven and the film suffered greatly for it. Gere was just unable too fill the screen and maintain the viewers interest mostly due to a lack of focus and grounding. Along the same lines, Ben Affleck is really dreadful in To the Wonder. Affleck was revealed to be a dullard with absolutely nothing going on behind the eyes. He is obviously a handsome guy, but he is unable to express much with his face, leaving him being awkward and uncomfortable in front of Malick's camera without anything to do but just be. Simliarly, Rachel McAdams also struggled mightily in To the Wonder, as both actors seemed lost and wandering throughout their screen time, especially in comparison to Olga Kurylenko's transcendent performance. 

The ability to be able to communicate non-verbally is paramount for an actor in a Malick film, which is why highly skilled actors, like Chastain, Blanchett, Penn and Sheen were able to shine, as were relative novices like Kilcher and Kurylenko who are grounded and comfortable in their bodies. 

In Knight of Cups, Christian Bale shows his great craft and skill by being able to carry the narrative of the film without saying a whole lot. He is an often underrated actor, but his work in Knight of Cups is testament to his mastery of craft and innate talent.

"ALL THAT I AM, OR HOPE TO BE, I OWE TO MY ANGEL MOTHER." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Malick often returns to the same themes in his films. One theme that runs through all of his films, and is the central focus of Knight of Cups, is the Anima, the feminine. Malick has always had a certain, very specific type of feminine archetype on display in his films. His central female characters have almost always worn flowing, light dresses, mostly in the style of the 1940's or so, and have also frequently gone barefoot, both symbolic of femininity and maternity. This particular female archetype, probably inspired by the director's own mother, is not a damsel in distress, or a vixen or a school marm, it is a femininity of strength and intrigue, like the goddess or the Virgin Mary. At once mystical, mysterious, powerful and enchanting. This archetype is vividly on display in The Tree of Life in the mother character portrayed by Jessica Chastain. The archetype also shows up in fleeting and tantalizing glimpses in The Thin Red Line, as Ben Chaplin's wife (Miranda Otto) who writes him at the front. 

In Knight of Cups, the entire film is an exploration of the Anima, and the director's relationship, in the form of Christian Bale, to her many faces. Even the interaction between male characters is entirely based upon their individual and unique relationship to the Anima. The different faces of the Anima, such as Cate Blanchett and Natalie Portman, are sign posts along the journey of the main character as his relationship to the feminine changes as he ages and matures.

Other themes running through all of Malick's films are philosophy and spirituality, usually in the form of a Gnostic Catholicism. Malick is one of the rare directors who even considers having characters who think about God in their life in his films. The big questions that Malick tackles, questions of life and death, love and loss, God, nature and the infinite, are almost never found in any other films. Malick is alone out in the wilderness in trying to understand the world in which he lives, both in its external and internal forms, and the universe he inhabits and the God who created it, be he merciful or not, or if he exists or not, and what that all means to the individual making his way in the world. 

In the Knight of Cups this Gnostic Catholicism is a major theme as well. Christian Bale's character is lost amid the decadence and debauchery of a modern day Babylon, and has forgotten his true self and that he is a divine Son of God. The spiritual seeking and struggle on display in Knight of Cups is a common and powerful theme running through all of Malick's films and it is part of what sets him apart from other directors.

HOW TO WATCH A MALICK MOVIE - A PRIMER

Malick's films, especially his later ones and the autobiographical trilogy, are less storytelling as they are meditations. Meditations on God, faith, nature, grace, annihilation, fatherhood, motherhood, childhood, the duality of man, the duality of God, and Malick's cinematic meditation can become meditative for viewers. The key to appreciating Malick's films are to understand that they are not something you actively try to figure out. You don't have to decide if the guy in the red hat is in internal affairs, or if the doctor is really a ghost or the ship's captain is a spy. Watching Malick is, in and of itself, an artistic meditation. A meditation on the internal life of his characters and the character's struggle, as it relates to our own struggle and to our own internal life. Viewers are not consumers of a Malick film, they are participants. The catch being, of course, is that viewers don't participate intellectually with Malick's films, but emotionally and spiritually.

The key to enjoying a Malick film is to stop trying to impose standard storytelling rules upon it, and trying to figure it out consciously. A Malick film is like going to an art exhibit, you don't mentally figure the art out, you just let it wash over you and go for the ride. You trust that the artist/auteur has something to say and that you'll understand it at some point in time. The artist may be working on an unconscious level, beyond the ability of the viewer to articulate how or why the piece moves them. With Malick, it may not even be when the film is over, it may be after you see it a second time, or third time that it resonates with the viewer. Or it may be when an event in the viewer's life changes their perspective and the film then makes more sense to them in retrospect.

Some people may not be ready to hear what Malick is saying. Maybe they have become a prisoner to formula and cultural conditioning. Maybe they've been taught to be a passive consumer and need their films to only be entertainment and can only tolerate their art when it's spoon-fed to them. Maybe Malick's philosophical and theological perspective are off-putting to many viewers who do not share his Catholicism or any belief in God at all. I mean Adam Sandler is a trillionaire and makes a couple of movies a year, and they've made TWO Sex in the City films for God's sake, but poor Terence Malick has only made seven films in the last forty years, so trust me when I tell you that I totally understand if people don't believe in God. The truth is, belief in God is not a requirement to enjoying a Malick film, but belief in art is.

Another requirement to enjoying a Malick film is that you must have lived a life in order to truly appreciate Malick's work. Malick's films are not for some twenty-something who is joyously jaunting through life with the world as their oyster. A Malick film is for those who have experienced the slings and arrows of life and have the scars to prove it, and those who have loved and lost or lost and loved. For example, The Tree of Life is entirely about loss. If you haven't lost a loved one, a dear friend, a child, then maybe the film is a jumbled mush of nonsense. But if you have, like me, lost someone, the film walks you through the questions, the thoughts, the meditations, the doubts, the hopes and the fears of what this life, and the ending of it, all mean. It has no answers, and therein lies the rub.

We have been culturally conditioned to want answers. We pay our $10 and if we are asked a question by a film, then by God that same film better give us answers. And if it doesn't, if we are left walking out of the theatre with questions, with doubt, with a humility before the vastness of the universe and all of time, with nothing more than an understanding of how miniscule and insignificant we are in the big picture of things and yet how meaningful and powerful we are in the lives of others in the same predicament as we are. Well...that causes some people to walk out before the film is over. Or to shut down and seethe while waiting for it to end and then unleashing their boos on anyone within earshot. Or to simply want to go back to sleep walking through life avoiding the only certainty that we are born with...that we will all die. Everyone we know, have known or will ever know, will die. Everything we know, have ever known or will ever know will disappear. And so will we. The clock is ticking.

This is why I love Terrence Malick films, because they feel as if they were made especially for me. Malick and I have lived very different lives, but his films, The Tree of Life, To the Wonder and Knight of Cups, in particular, are as close to my actual inner life and struggles as anything ever captured on film. Malick speaks my language, walks in my world and is able to cut me to the bone and reveal things about my inner being that I wasn't even aware of until he enlightened me. Malick asks me the same questions that I ask myself and struggles with the same answers, or lack of answers, that I struggle with. This is what makes Malick such a genius, and why I admire his work so much, and also why others may loathe his work. 

"MEDIOCRITIES EVERYWHERE…I ABSOLVE YOU…I ABSOLVE YOU…I ABSOLVE YOU ALL." - SALIERI

"MOZART, MOZART, FORGIVE YOUR ASSASSIN!! I CONFESS I KILLED YOU…" - SALIERI (AND THE REST OF US)

We live in a world of Salieri's, where mediocrity is rewarded and genius shunned. Some great examples of this are that Steven Spielberg has two Best Director Oscars and Terrence Malick has none. Spielberg is the ultimate Salieri to Malick's Mozart. A comparison of their two war films is proof of that. In 1997, after a twenty year absences from directing, Malick returned with his World War II film, The Thin Red Line, based on the James Jones book. Also that year, Steven Spielberg released his World War II film, Saving Private Ryan. The films could not have been more different and more glaring examples of the genius of one man, Malick, and the pandering mediocrity of the other, Spielberg. 

The juxtaposition of these two films is perfect for making the point about Malick as a singularly unique and original artistic voice and brilliant filmmaker. In Saving Private Ryan, a standard formulaic war film, we are shown the devastating effects of war upon the human body. Spielberg's gymnastic D-Day sequence shows the physical brutality of war in a very tense and riveting way. But after that sequence the film falls into the pattern of standard war film tropes. Malick's The Thin Red Line on the other hand, shows the impact of war not only on man's body, but upon his psyche, his spirit and his soul. Malick also has a vividly compelling war action sequence, where Marines must take a hill with Japanese machine gunners atop it, but Malick gives a more nuanced and human view of war beyond the physical carnage of it, by showing how it impacts not only the external life of the soldiers fighting, but the internal life. The torment of war upon the mind, the heart, the humanity and the spirituality of the men forced to fight it is front and center in The Thin Red Line, and completely missing from Saving Private Ryan. The Thin Red Line is the rarest of the rare, a multi-dimensional, deeply intimate war film that leaves us questioning war and our own righteousness, while Saving Private Ryan is simply another one-dimensional, standard war film that never forces us to question our virtue or morality. Saving Private Ryan shows us men surviving war, while The Thin Red Line teaches us that it is what men do to survive in war that does the most damage to them.

Spielberg won a Best Director Oscar for Saving Private Ryan. No one boos or walks out of a Spielberg film because he never questions his audience or makes them think or feel. He just mindlessly and soullessly entertains and leaves us on our way. Malick never let's his audience, or himself, off the hook. He challenges the audience, to surpass their cultural conditioning and to ask themselves the big questions that they don't want to think about. 

We are the guilty ones. We are all mini-Salieri's who reward the work of other more famous Salieris. Mediocrity has become King in America. Tom Hanks has won two Best Actor Oscars while Joaquin Phoenix has won none. A malignant mediocrity like Steven Spielberg has two Best Director Oscars, when two of the most rare cinematic geniuses, Terrence Malick and Stanley Kubrick have none. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, poster children for mediocrity, currently lead our Presidential elections. We have sentenced ourselves to a life term of mediocrity and deceive ourselves by calling it greatness. We are the ones to blame for this, no one else.

It is interesting to me that the people who walked out of The Tree of Life when I saw it, and the people who were so dismayed at the Knight of Cups when I saw it, were older people. These are the people who should most be thinking about the questions of life and death that Terrence Malick raises, yet they were the ones who were the most resistant to these Malick films. Maybe the fact that the next big thing to happen in the life of these folks will be the ending of it, is why they do not want to think about death, and they would rather be mindlessly entertained rather than confronted with their mortality. Of course, their fear and cowardice speaks more to them and their failings than it does to the artistry of Terrence Malick.

The people who would walk out of a Malick film, or boo it upon its conclusion, are the same people who laughed at Van Gogh, Picasso, Jackson Pollack or Mozart. They are the Gatekeepers of Mediocrity, Salieri's all, who want to keep genius in a cage while they whistle by the graveyard of their own worthless lives. I don't hate people who boo Malick films, I pity them. These people are missing out on so much beauty and joy and wisdom. To their credit, they do make me think about what things might I be resistant to out there that may be so fantastically wonderful but which I am too afraid to experience or understand. There is a lot of art in the world which is beyond my limited intellect, but I would never be so presumptuous as to boo it and stamp it as worthless. While I may not intellectually understand Jackson Pollack's work, I can still marvel at its dynamism. The same can be said of Opera, or classical music. While those art forms are things I know very little about, I would not presume to belch my inadequacies upon them in order to not feel stupid. Rather I would try and learn more about them and see if I could find the ageless beauty and wisdom that resides within them. 

Malick is an incomparable filmmaker. No one even attempts to do what he is and has been doing in cinema for the last forty years. Terrence Malick is among a very small, handful of true cinematic geniuses the world has ever known. The reality is, if you stand up and walk out of a Malick film, or boo loudly at the completion of a Malick film, that is an indictment of you and your compulsively myopic artistic tastes. Not understanding the genius of a Malick film is not a Malick problem….it is a YOU problem.

The Great Malick Civil War still rages to this day (and obviously, I rage along with it!!), with neither side willing to give an inch, but only one thing is assured…this war will end, and years from now, the fools, the clowns and the idiots who laughed and booed at Malick will be long gone and completely forgotten, but Malick's films will stand as a monument to his genius for the ages to come. Knight of Cups will be among those films which history will revere.

©2016

THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : Out-Trumping Trump on The Great Wall of Trump

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016, BUT DUE TO A TECHNICAL ISSUE, IT IS RE-POSTED AGAIN NOW. APOLOGIES TO ANY READERS WHO HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT.

ESTIMATED READING TIME: 8.5 MINUTES

This is the fourth article in our new series THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST, where we monitor tv's political comedians and hold them accountable. The original article, Court Jester as Propaganda Tool, can be found HERE. The second article, The Drumpf Affair and Little Bill Maher's Power Fetish, can be found HERE. The third article Waxing Brazilian and Waning Credibility can be found HERE.

John Oliver's HBO show "Last Week Tonight", took Easter weekend off, so you would think I would have no fodder for my John Oliver Twist article this week. You might also think that with it being Easter that I would be so busy with bunny related activites that I would have no time to write yet another John Oliver Twist article...you would be sadly mistaken on both counts. After last week's John Oliver Twist - Brazil article ran long (as most of my articles do), I decided against posting my analysis of Oliver's allegedly devastating takedown of Trump's Mexican border wall proposal. With no new material to dissect this week, I am free to go back a week to examine Brave Sir John's supposed evisceration of The Donald's cornerstone issue. Here is the relevant segment from the March 20, 2016 episode of "Last Week Tonight".

As someone who does not support a wall on the Mexican border, I found Oliver's argument on episode six of season three against Trump's wall to be, frankly…Trumpian in its vacuousness, speciousness and transparency. What made this "takedown" so absurd was how obviously flaccid it was to anyone with an open mind on the subject and half a brain in their head. A brief glance at Oliver's argument reveals it to be at best, amateurish. 

Brave Sir John challenged Trump for his ever changing estimate of the cost of building "his" wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. At first Trump said the cost would be 4, then 8, then 10, then 12 billion dollars. Not surprisingly, Trump is a bit fuzzy on the details, which is par for the course with The Donald and part of his appeal to his followers, you see Trump is a big "ideas man", he'll let others fill in the details. Regardless of where that number lands, it certainly is a lot of money. Oliver claims that Trump's estimate isn't the half of it, as there will be maintenance costs and all sorts of hidden building costs and such, which will greatly increase the ultimate final cost, which Oliver puts at roughly $25 billion. Brave Sir John points out that this is $77 per American, and that money would be more effectively and more wisely used buying each American a Palmer Waffle Iron rather than building a wall. Cute. He then joked that this plan, unlike Trump's would not offend Latinos…only Belgians. In a weird coincidence, the terror attacks in Belgium a few days later made that joke much less funny in hindsight.

The issue I have with this line of attack from Brave Sir John is this, if we have learned anything over the years it is that Americans never give a rat's ass how much something costs, especially if it is something that they want. Look at it this way, $25 Billion certainly is a hell of a lot of money, but to put it into perspective, it is a drop in the bucket compared to other government spending. When compared to say, Obamacare, which is something that Oliver's liberal audience would presumably support, and that program's cost over a ten year period, which is $2.76 trillion, or even just the increase in overhead for Obamacare over that same time period which is $270 billion. Liberals would not be swayed against Obamacare by a "cost" argument, just like conservatives, and most Americans, were not swayed against the Iraq war by the cost argument. Speaking of which, $25 Billion is still $5 billion less than the U.S. spent every single month in Iraq during the war. If you remember, that war was sold on the premise that oil revenue would pay for the war effort…or put another way…the Iraqi's would pay for the war. Sound familiar? It should, because The Donald is guaranteeing that Mexico will pay for building the wall.

Brave Sir John did step up and take on the claim by Trump that "Mexico will pay for the wall". He used two clips of former Mexican presidents saying that "no" and "fuck no" they won't be paying for Trump's stupid wall. These denials are absolutely meaningless in the debate and prove little except how paper thin John Oliver's anti-wall argument really is, because of course Mexican politicians are going to say that Mexico won't pay for the wall. Trump's argument is that Mexico will pay because they wouldn't want to endanger the $54 Billion trade surplus they have with the U.S. Brave Sir John countered that by saying that yes, Mexico does have a trade surplus with the U.S., but that money is not just sitting in some pile somewhere, it is Mexican businesses money. A glaringly obvious point is sitting right out there for all to see but Brave Sir John ignores it because to acknowledge it would scuttle his entire argument. That point is this, that if a President Trump (God help us all) is in power and says to Mexico, "hey, either you pay for this wall or I am going to put big tariffs on all Mexican products coming into the U.S.", a Mexican President might say "fuck you" to Trump, but Mexican business interests will say…"no...fuck you El Presidente, pay that orange haired gringo for his stupid wall". And in Mexico, as in the U.S., money talks and bullshit walks. The reason is simple and clear, Mexico needs the wealthy American market much more than America needs Mexican goods. Apparently Brave Sir John has never heard of the term leverage, or how to use it. For decades now, the U.S. has been idiotic with it's "free trade" policy, this fact is a great part of Trump's appeal to blue collar workers. If Donald Trump, or anyone else, becomes President, he or she would be very wise to tear up all the free trade agreements we've gotten ourselves into and end "free trade" as we know it because it is neither free, nor trade. America is the wealthiest nation on the planet, we are of much more value as a market to every other nation on earth, than those nations are valuable to us for their products. Sometimes being a bully has its uses, and in the trade debate, this is one of those times. 

Oliver's next line of attack was to claim that Trump's wall simply won't work in keeping out illegal immigrants because no matter how high it is, people will just get ladders one foot higher to climb it and use ropes to climb down on our side. Of course, this conveniently ignores the reality that a wall is much more easily manned than a wide open border. And since the wall will be manned anyone trying to climb it will be exposed to the people meant to protect the border who are working on the wall. This is an obvious point that any impartial observer would note, and it is an extremely silly argument against Trump's wall.

Oliver also makes the claim that "nearly half" of all illegal immigrants have come across the border at official checkpoints. Brave Sir John makes it seem like this is some magic bullet that proves that the wall is totally useless and a giant waste of time and money….case closed.  Of course, this does nothing of the sort…think about it, "nearly half" of all illegal immigrants cross at border checkpoints? "Nearly half" can also be said another way…"less than half"…or better yet try this on for size, "more than half of all illegal immigrants do not cross the border at a checkpoint". Think of it this way…if the U.S. could stop "more than half" of all crime, wouldn't that be a pretty tremendous accomplishment. Or "more than half" of all drugs coming over the border, or terrorists coming into the country or whatever it is you are trying to stop. Even though his supporters are too blind to see it, Brave Sir John's semantic gymnastics are again, little more than clever cover for a glaringly vacant argument. 

Oliver attempts to buttress his "wall is useless" argument by declaring that Trump's wall won't stop drugs coming into America either because drug cartels already build tunnels, or use catapults, or slingshots, or just have people throw drugs over the border in an attempt to evade law enforcement. Seriously…this is his argument. Think about that logic for a second, we should not build a wall because people will try and circumvent it? Yes, cartels will still try to get drugs into the U.S., I mean, you can't keep drugs out of a secured facility like a prison, so your not going to keep them out of an entire country, but does that mean we shouldn't try to keep them out? O.J. got away with killing two people, so I guess we shouldn't arrest anyone for murder. What the fuck kind of dimwitted logic is that and what sort of numb-nuts falls for it?

The biggest issue I have with Oliver's "takedowns" of Trump are that they are fighting fire with fire…or better said…Oliver fights emotionalism with emotionalism. Trump is the master of pushing buttons and playing on people's emotions, and to counter that, one must plug into reason, logic and rational thought, not with counter-emotions. Trump's proposal is certainly vacuous, but Oliver's attack of it is specious at best. What Oliver is really doing is not rationally countering Trumps proposal, but rather satiating his liberal audiences emotional and psychological desire to feel intellectually superior. Think of it this way, would Oliver's argument against the wall convince anyone who believes that we need a wall to change their mind? No…it would only reinforce the beliefs of those who are already against the wall. This sort of argument is perfectly Trumpian…empty, hollow and emotive. Trump does little more than posture, pose and preen, and although his liberal devotees don't, won't or can't see it…John Oliver does exactly the same thing. Both men are symptoms of the same disease that has become epidemic and is ravaging this country…emotionalism.

In terms of the specifics of the immigration debate…want me to let you in on a little secret? Here it is…the powers that be don't want to fix the illegal immigration issue, they want it to forever be a mess. You want to know why? Well…whether you do or don't , I'm going to tell you. Illegal immigration keeps wages down and undermines organized labor in the U.S. (whenever you hear someone say that "illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want to do" tell them that sentence is incomplete. Here is the complete version, "illegal immigrants do the jobs American don't want to do…AT THAT WAGE". And therein lies the problem and the proof of downward wage pressure), which keeps American workers struggling to keep their heads above water, and keeps corporate profits way up. Corporate profits keep the the powers that be happy and low wages and neutered unions keep working people struggling and disorganized, and a struggling, disorganized person is one who is more worried about paying their bills than marching in the streets. Speaking of marching in the streets, illegal immigration also does something else, and this is a topic no one talks about…it keeps pro-U.S. corporatists, tyrants and right-wing fascists in power in Central and South America. If all illegal immigration into the U.S. were stopped today, and all of those poor people who come here for a better life were stuck in the shithole from which they came, then eventually, the pressure in their home countries would grow and grow until finally it would explode in a huge wave of revolution. It is easier for the U.S. to absorb these down-trodden people and use them as near slave labor, than it is for the U.S. to keep them where they are and let them grow in numbers and get more and more disgruntled until they finally lash out and overthrow our corporate puppets who run their country. Mexico is, of course, the greatest example of this. But the rest of Latin America is also riddled with nations that have gone through multiple revolutionary cycles. The region is also infested with drug gangs and cartels, which the U.S. works very hard to keep in business. What? Why would the U.S. do that? Well, for one, to destabilize our own inner cities through an influx of drugs so that the poor can never organize and protest effectively, and also so that the U.S. intelligence community can have an off the books way of raising money for their nefarious operations around the globe. 

Which brings us to the truth about John Oliver, that he is a propaganda tool for the establishment in arguing for the status quo. John Oliver's audience is overwhelmingly liberal, yet he argues time and time again against working people and for the powers that be, and the immigration debate is no different. Oliver's liberal audience should believe in a strong working class and a unionized labor force, but illegal immigration undermines unions and the working class while exploiting poor illegal immigrants for nearly slave wages. In his case against Trump, Oliver argues against using our leverage to strengthen America's trade position in favor of giving our power away to corrupt Central and South American governments like Mexico. John Oliver argues for the status quo and allowing the people of Latin America to escape their native lands for the U.S., which lets corrupt tyrants and corporatists favorable to the U.S. establishment to never be held accountable to their people and to prosper throughout the region. As highlighted with last weeks Brazil column, Oliver has a special hatred for any left or liberal government in Central or South America (Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina etc.) that does come to power through the people's vote and goes out of his way to denigrate and attack them. 

John Oliver's stance on immigration is once again proof of his being a propaganda puppet for the establishment, and his liberal viewers unwitting dupes in his charade. The biggest red flag about Brave Sir John being a warrior for the establishment is that he never makes an alternative proposal to Trump about what to do about illegal immigration. This shows that John Oliver wants to maintain the status quo, which benefits no one but those at the very top of the power structure in the U.S, in other words, the people to whom Brave Sir John answers.

In order to not be accused of doing just what Brave Sir John does, and not offering a counter proposal to Trump's immigration plan, let me offer my own. You want to solve the illegal immigration problem? Make it a crime punishable by prison time for a business to hire any illegal alien and enforce that law for everyone in the corporate power structure of the company. Deport a million illegal aliens, and I promise the rest will leave by their own accord because they can't work due to pulling the weed at the root, which is employment. If illegal immigrants have had children in the U.S., which makes those children citizens, then allow those people to stay under a green card (with all the worker protections that come with it) and garnish a portion of their wages for ten years, and make them become proficient in the English language. After ten years or a certain total sum paid in fines for coming here illegally, and once they have learned English, they become citizens. Finally, legalize narcotics, which will eliminate the need for the drug cartels to use violence, corruption and human exploitation in order to run their business. Wow…look at that, I just solved some of the biggest issues currently ailing our nation. But guess what…none of these things will happen, not because they can't happen, but because the establishment don't want them to happen. It is more beneficial to the power structure in the U.S. for the scourge of the illegal drug trade, the downward wage impact of illegal alien labor, and the upward corporate profit motive, to continue than it is to solve the problem. With shills like John Oliver…and his HBO partner in crime, little Bill Maher, consistently making the establishment case while pretending to be rebelling against the establishment, I am sure no one will notice, or do anything about it, which is just how they want it.

©2016

THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : Waxing Brazilian and Waning Credibility

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2016. DUE TO A TECHNICAL ISSUE IT IS RE-POSTED AGAIN. APOLOGIES TO READERS WHO HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT.

ESTIMATED READING TIME : 11 MINUTES

This is our third article in our new series, THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST, where we monitor TV's political comedians and hold them accountable. The original article, COURT JESTER AS PROPAGANDA TOOL can be found HERE. The second article, THE DRUMPF AFFAIR AND LITTLE BILL MAHER'S POWER FETISH, can be found HERE.

This past Sunday, March 20, 2016, John Oliver was at it again on his HBO show "Last Week Tonight". As Always, Brave Sir John was the right-wing establishment wolf dressed in a rebellious left-wing sheep's clothing. The topics this week on episode 6 of season 3…protests in Brazil and Donald Trump/s xenophobic border wall. Let's take a closer look to see where Brave Sir John pulled the bait and switch on his starry-eyed, lapdog, liberal followers. Here is the Brazil protest segment of the episode for those of you who were lucky enough to miss it.

The opening segment was on Brazil, which happens to be in the midst of a terrible economic downturn, and the anti-government protests that have rocked the country recently. The protests are in response to alleged widespread corruption by the left-wing Workers Party government of President Dilma Rousseff and her mentor and predecessor Lulu Da Silva, involving the state-owned oil company Petrobras and an investigation known as Operation Car Wash. The anti-government protestors are calling for Rousseff to be impeached, and for Rousseff and Lula to be charged with crimes. It is, as NBC's Chuck Todd recently re-tweeted, a case of the "People vs. The President"…or at least that is what the media establishment in the U.S., John Oliver included, and Brazil, would have us believe. Brazil's political situation is certainly a potential comedic goldmine, so let's take a closer look and see if John Oliver went down the right mine shaft or if he gave his viewers the shaft.

Here is a little context on the "anti-government protests" of which Brave Sir John is so enamored. Take a look at this picture of the protestors….notice anything a little funny?

In case you are color blind I'll help you out, the protestors are overwhelmingly white. In fact, according to polls cited by Joshua Howet Berger of yahoo News, the protestors against Rousseff and her leftist government are "significantly richer, whiter and more educated than Brazilians at large." At the largest anti-governemnt protests in Sao Paulo, 77% of the demonstrators self identified as white, and 77% were university graduates. In the entirety of Brazil these numbers are dramatically lower, with 48% of the population White and only 13% university graduates.

To expand our context a bit more, understand that Brazil's population of 200 million people is roughly 50.7% Black/Brown, and Black/Brown people make up a disproportionately larger percentage of the populace living in poverty, 70%, than they do of the overall population. Black/Brown people also make up 68% of homicide victims and 62% of the prison population. In other words, Brazil has a pretty serious race problem. In addition, according to a study by the BBC, "Brazil has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world." If we broaden our context to Brazilian history, the deep roots of that income and racial inequality are easy to see as Brazil was the last country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery in 1888.

What does any of this have to do with John Oliver and his Brazil bit? Well, take a look at this other picture. This was taken of a family heading out to attend the anti-government protest of which John Oliver is spoke and supports.

This picture should be the Holy Grail for a rebellious liberal comedian like Oliver as it captures perfectly the hypocritical core of the protests against the left wing government. Rich, white people, with their pure-bred dog, out to protests their suffocating oppression at the hands of the left wing government with their black nanny in tow wearing her uniform, pushing their two children.  HOLY SHIT!! Is this not the kind of picture that gives a supposed liberal comedian like Brave Sir John wet dreams? I can hear his voice…"Keep up Maria!! We can't be late to the anti-government protest!! We need to oust this oppressive left-wing government which forces us to pay you a livable minimum wage!! It's for your own good Maria!! Followed by…""Maria you need to wear all whtie today so you match little Fifi, my husband and I are wearing matching green and yellow, so you should wear the same color as the dog since you and Fifi are equals in my eyes!!Viva La Revolucion!!" But Oliver never mentioned this infamous picture, nor did he ever mention the racial component (white) of the anti-government protests, or of the pro-government protests that followed (Black/Brown).

The closer you look at what Brave Sir John kept out, the curiouser his Brazil segment becomes. Another aspect that Oliver failed to mention can be found in a terrific article at The Intercept written by Glenn Greenwald, which tells us that the white, wealthy, anti-government protestors are being relentlessly egged on by the corporate Brazilian media which are owned by a small group of, not surprisingly, rich, white oligarchs with a long track record of nefarious political activities. The main culprit is a media monster known as Globo, which is basically the Fox News of Brazil. How bad is Globo? Well, in 1964 there was a military coup in Brazil which overthrew a democratically elected left wing government, just so you know, this coup was backed and funded by the U.S., another little factoid that Brave Sir John would never mention. Anyway, this coup led to over twenty years of brutal, right-wing, pro-U.S., military dictatorship which tortured, murdered, disappeared and imprisoned political opposition. This coup was fully supported by Globo and the rest of the oligarch media and their ownership of a handful of plutocratic families, which described the coup as "a noble defeat of a corrupt left wing government." If that sounds eerily reminiscent of what is going on in Brazil right now…well, it would seem with U.S. backed right wing South American coups, as with fashion, everything old is new again.

So what we have is John Oliver, a darling of the liberal class here in America, taking the side of the wealthy, white, right-wing Brazilians and their mouthpiece media monster Globo, which is basically a Portuguese language Fox News on steroids, in their attempt to overthrow a democratically elected left wing government that has, through various government programs like raising the minimum wage, lifted tens of millions our of poverty and hunger, many of those millions being the poor Black/Brown Brazilians who are now protesting in support of the government. Let that sink in for a minute. A very understated comparison would be if John Oliver were supporting the Tea Party and Fox News in an attempt to remove Obama from the Presidency because of Obamacare.

Well, you may ask…what about the corruption? There is no doubt that the terribly flawed left wing Worker's Party government of Rousseff is corrupt…but you know who else is corrupt? The right wing governments that preceded Lulu And Rousseff in office and the one that would take her place if she is impeached. In fact, according to that same article by Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept, "five members of the impeachment commission are themselves being investigated as part of the same corruption scandal that is threatening to bring down Rousseff. Of the 65 members of the House impeachment committee, 36 are currently facing legal proceedings." The right wing opposition leader who would replace Rousseff if she were impeached is Vice-President Michel Temer, who, surprise, surprise, has also been identified as having accepted bribes in the same scandal that embroils Rousseff. Hold onto your hats because, shock…the opposition Senate leader, Aecio Neves, has also been implicated five times in this same exact scandal. Another understated but apt comparison would be when during the 90's, republicans like Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston tried to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, when they themselves were having affairs. In the opening of the Brazil segment, John Oliver says in a very dismissive and throw away fashion, that "the Rousseff government claims the charges are politically motivated", ummm…yeah…you think that might be a possibility? Goodness knows it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

So now we have an executive branch, president Rousseff and her predecessor Lulu, ensnared in corruption allegations, and the legislative branch tarred by the same corruption investigation, but at least the judiciary has clean hands in all of this…right? Right? RIGHT? Oh dear. Even this part of the story is rife with unbelievable corruption. Brave Sir John mentioned a "smoking gun" audiotape of a wiretapped conversation between Rousseff and Lulu that was released by the court which seems to indicate that Rouseff and Lulu were in cahoots to get Lulu protection from prosecution by making him part of her cabinet. With the help of Mr. Greenwald once again, a closer investigation of this "smoking gun" reveals that the judge who leaked the audiotape, Sergio Moro, obviously did so as a political maneuver to embarrass Rousseff and Lulu and to create the same street protests of which Brave Sir John is so enamored. A brief glance at the facts surrounding this audiotape, that Brave Sir John portrayed as powerful proof of Rousseff's and Lulu's looking guilty but which is, in reality, much more ambiguous than he claims, shows that the audiotape was illegally obtained after Moro's warrant had expired, and it was released to the media without any due process and only hours after the tape was made. This, of course, didn't stop the right wing Globo from dramatizing this "bombshell" revelation with all the journalistic integrity we have come to expect from out own 'Fair and Balanced" friends at Fox.

Oliver also mentioned that twenty judges have vowed to block Rousseff's attempt to get Lulu onto her cabinet, a move that Oliver described as an "outright revolt". It is an interesting choice of words because Oliver praises this "outright revolt" by the judiciary, but never mentions the judges connections to the upper class, white protests and the right wing opposition party. A judicial revolt is not democratic, and in fact, subverts the will of the populace in Brazil which over the last four presidential election has elected Lulu and Rousseff to the nations highest post. In the last presidential election alone, 54 million Brazilians voted for President Roussef. Would John Oliver's sycophant fans think he was so wonderful if he spoke the same way about Jstice Scalia and the Bush v. Gore decision of 200 which discontinued recounts and put the man with fewer votes, Bush, into the white house? Or the Senate republicans who are blocking Obama's Supreme Court nominee in his final year in office? Both of these pale in comparison to what is happening in Brazil right now but it gets the point across that Brave Sir John is up to no good and his liberal fans are none the wiser. 

In regards to the state-run oil company Petrobras scandal, Brave Sir John was quick to point out that the only two words more suspicious than "state-run" are "oil company". He then quickly corrected himself and gave this list of the most suspicious two word phrases…1. Open Marriage 2. Well-spoken 3. Homeopathic remedy 4. State-run 5. father-daughter 6. Oil company 7. Discount sushi. As always Brave Sir John is nothing if not "clever", but beneath this clever cloak lies a steely establishment dagger. What is this establishment dagger? Let's take a closer look.

Brave Sir John's favorite tactic is to completley ignore context when attacking any country except the U.S. In his assault on the left in Brazil, he makes the blanket statement that "State-run" is a suspicious word. Good to know…I hope his liberal sycophants in the U.S. are listening so that they understand that single payer healthcare…which would be "state-run"…is very suspicious. As are social security, medicare, medicaid, law enforcement and the military to name but a few. Also, according to Brave Sir John the question becomes…why would ANY country have a state-run oil company? To Brave Sir John that idea is utter lunacy…the implication being that those dipshit Brazilians are just idiots. This is where context would help a great deal because as with nearly every country in South America, Brazil has a very long and dark history of being raped, ravaged, pillaged and plundered by Europeans and American colonialist powers. Brazil's natural and human resources have been exploited for centuries by powerful outsider interests which subjugated much of the populace and stole most of the resources. This might be an important fact to point out when discussing the desire by Brazilians to nationalize their oil industries.

And as a supposed beacon of liberalism, Brave Sir John might also want to point out that it was U.S. multi-national companies that as recently as late last century were the ones leading the charge to exploit Brazil and its resources, and also destroying its Amazon rain forest in the process. But Brave Sir John would never do that because that would mean standing up to the Establishment which is anathema in the weak kneed world of John Oliver.

It also would have been helpful in regards to the "state-run" issue, to point out that the U.S. was behind the coup in 1964 that overthrew the democratically elected left wing government and installed a brutal right wing military dictatorship. That right wing dictatorship ruled from 1964 to 1985…which might be important piece of information if you are trying to explain why, after returning to democracy in 1986, Brazil would eventually in 2002 embrace the left wing Worker's Party and "state-run" oil companies after decades of severe right wing dictatorial rule and the exploitation by multi-national companies that came with it.

The context of the '64 coup might also be useful in understanding that not everything his what it appears to be in Brazil, namely that these wealthy, white, right wing protests might be backed by powerful foreign interests…like…I don't know…the United States, which has a very long and odious history of partaking in such covert operations in the region. 

These facts are uncomfortable for Brave Sir John because they go against the establishment narrative that he routinely espouses and vociferously defends. As does the fact that in 2013 it was revealed that the U.S. was spying on President Rousseff and intercepting her texts, emails and phone calls…which might be an indicator that they were trying to dig up dirt on her to get her removed from her democratically held office of President.

Why would the U.S. want to remove Rousseff and her left wing government from office? This is a geo-political move by the U.S. to strangle the potential economic, military, and political rival of the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) in the cradle. Removing the threat of the BRICS alliance guarantees that the world remains a uni-polar one, with the U.S. at the top, and not a multi-polar one where the BRICS are an admittedly weaker, although viable, alternative to U.S. domination. This is also why the U.S. has made covert moves against Russia in the form of the coup in Ukraine and the war in Syria. Coincidentally, or not, the moves against Putin and Russia also involved the Olympics, the 2014 Socchi Winter Olympics, which brought a great opportunity for a propaganda victory by the west over Putin. The moves against Rousseff coincide with this summer's Rio de Janeiro Olympics.

What makes the Rio Olympics interesting is that there is also a massive corruption scandal swirling around them that is centered on the same ruthless construction monopolies at the heart of the Petrobras/Car-Wash investigation that has enveloped Rousseff, but the political party involved with the Olympic corruption is the center right opposition party to the Worker's Party, so for the time being that investigation has been thwarted.

Construction magnate Marcelo Oderbrecht, whose company Odebrecht was at the heart of the Petrobras corruption, was sentenced to 19 years in prison for his role in that scandal. Odebrecht was also involved in building much of the World Cup and Olympic venues, but the company's criminality in those cases has been ignored for now. As a Rio based journalist told The Nation's Dave Zirin, " The contrcution Indistrial Complex in Brazil is similar to the Military Industrial Complex in the U.S. Instead of Haliburton and the Carlyle Group, Brazil has Odebrecht and all the rest ." Brave Sir John has taken on FIFA corruption on his show, so why not take on Olympic corruption in Rio? Why not expose the Construction Industrial Complex  and its connection to the opposition trying to take down the Worker's Party in Brazil? This seems to be fertile ground for a comedian whose legion of fans are avowed liberals, does it not?

To close out the Brazil piece, Brave Sir John in passing states that there were "pro-government rallies" as well. In his next breath he went on to the next segment. Ummm…the fact that there were "pro-government" rallies is kind of an important point, and it actually undermines the majority of the segment that preceded that acknowledgment. A closer inspection of both the anti and pro-government rallies also reveals something quite extraordinary that Brave Sir John might wanted to enlighten his audience with. Namely, that the people who dislike Rousseff and the Worker's Party are openly calling for a military coup to overthrow the government and to, in a wonderful bit of Orwellian flourish, "restore democracy". The Brazilian oligarch class is pissed off by the social changes that have taken place in Brazil during the 13 years of Worker Party rule in the country…changes like a higher minimum wage and greatly reduced poverty and hunger. As Duke University historian John French told Yahoo News, that wealthy, white Brazilians are "discomforted by the fact that people are rising to places where they're not supposed to be, for example, a lot of poor people are now flying in airplanes, which really outrages them because airports used to be an upper-class preserve. Or the tripling of the number of people going to higher education."

If this story were based in the U.S. wouldn't John Oliver and his ilk be in total support of the impoverished Black minority fighting against an uprising by wealthy white elites? The answer is, of course, yes. In fact, race would be the central issue in the story for people like John Oliver….you know how I know that…because he makes it the central issue later in the same episode with his segment on Trump's Mexican wall. But in the case of Brazil, since it has a leftist government, Brave Sir John takes the side of American corporate and foreign policy establishment interests which loathe the Worker's Party and Rousseff and Lulu, over that of its historically dispossessed and marginalized poor Black/Brown population. If anyone else were doing that, Brave Sir John would call them a racist…so what does that make him…a racist, a hypocrite and an imperial asshat?

With the Brazil segment Oliver did what he always does in regards to South and Central America, he attacked only the leftists who stand for their native people against the U.S. establishment…remember his assault on President Correa of Ecuador last season? Why would Brave Sir John, a supposed liberal, only attack South American leftists and their policy? And why wouldn't he openly declare that was what he was doing? The answer is obvious, he was covertly doing the dirty work for the U.S. establishment by inoculating his liberal audience from thinking critically about America's imperial foreign policy in the region.

Brave Sir John's modus operandi is to completely ignore context and nuance when trying too make an argument, and the Brazil story is testament to that. Oliver's turning a blind eye to the crucial context of these protests is damning and incontrovertible confirmation that he is an agent of disinformation who intentionally obfuscates the truth and deliberately misinform his audience. 

Will Brave Sir John's liberal audience actually inform themselves about the slow-motion coup taking place in Brazil and hold John Oliver accountable for being a lackey to the establishment and powerful here in America? It is doubtful, you know why? Because he distracts his intellectually self-satisfied minions by wrapping his imperial foreign policy and establishment ass kissing, in a fuzzy, warm blanket of domestic liberalism. You know how I know that? Because, in keeping with his tried and true formula, he followed up his assault on the Worker's Party of Brazil, with the delicious liberal red meat of deconstructing the reasoning and logistics of Donald Trump's xenophobic Mexican wall. The liberal establishment swooning over Oliver when he takes on Trump reaches uncomfortably pornographic proportions, so I wouldn't count on much self-refelction from that crew of mindless, yet self-satisfied dupes. 

The truth of what John Oliver is really up to with his HBO show is very clear to see for those interested in looking. When presented with the choice of siding with the wealthy, white, fascist oligarchy or the downtrodden and their very flawed leftist government, Oliver chooses the former. Time after time, when given the choice between the powerful and those fighting for the powerless, Brave Sir John chooses the powerful. While his audience are overwhelmingly avowed liberals, Brave Sir John knows where his bread is truly buttered…on the side of the establishment and empire. Well done, Brave Sir John, another episode of "Last Week Tonight" and another misinformation mission accomplished. 

UPDATE I - MAY 25, 2016

Some new information has come to light on the coup in Brazil…I am pretty positive that Brave Sir John won't do a segment on this material because it is inconvenient to his rabid pro-U.S. establishment argument. Please read the following.

RIGHT WING/FASCIST COUP IN BRAZIL

UPDATE II - JUNE 3, 2016

The hits keep on coming down in Brazil. Please read this new piece from Glenn Greenwald…another bit of information that Brave Sir John won't share on his show.

INTERIM PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL RECEIVES 8 YEAR BAN ON RUNNING FOR OFFICE

And for more information on John Oliver and Brazil, check out the new John Oliver Twist : Things Said and Unsaid 

©2016

St. Patrick's Day : The Five Best Irish Films

The following article is republished from St. Patrick's Day 2015

Estimated Reading Time : 7 Minutes

I am Irish-American. Most of my best friends are Irish. Among the loveliest of the plethora of lovely ladies in my prodigious gaggle of gorgeous girlfriends are Irish. I love the Irish. I love being Irish. But...I do not love St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick's Day is the day people of all types get to embody the most base and degrading stereotypes of the Irish. They dress in kelly green, wear "Kiss Me I'm Irish" pins, get roaring drunk and vomit all over themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be within vomit radius. For some reason I can't quite understand, stereotyping of the Irish is permitted by our culture which is so quick to take offense when other groups or nationalities are stereotypically portrayed. Ironically, in attempting to celebrate Irishness, people end up being incredibly and disgustingly disrespectful to the Irish and what it means to be Irish.

Irishness, contrary to common beliefs, is not about leprechauns, shamrocks and pots o' gold. Nor does it entail wearing green, getting drunk and puking. Rather, Irishness is a complex combination of fierce defiance, intellectual curiosity, contemplative melancholy, and roguish charm that outwardly manifests itself in artistic, cultural and spiritual works of immense depth and genius.

So, as an actual tribute to the Irish, instead of drinking green beer and eating corn beef and cabbage today, I recommend you dive into the plethora of fantastic Irish works of art. Whether in the form of music, literature or film, true Irish culture is worth exploring in order to get a sense of who the Irish really, truly are, and what has made them that way. Go read the works of James Joyce, Sean O'Casey, W.B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw or Seamus Heaney. Go listen to some traditional Irish music, or put on some Van Morrison, Rory Gallagher or U2. Or, since this is an acting coaching website...go and watch a great Irish film!

With that in mind, here are a list of my favorite Irish films which I thoroughly encourage you to watch. Instead of going to a crowded bar and being surrounded by idiotic jackass phony-Irish wannabes and taking the risk of getting covered in your own vomit,  or worse, someone else's, sit down and watch these films and come to understand the heart and soul of the greatest people on earth.

TOP FIVE IRISH FILMS

1. BLOODY SUNDAY directed by Paul Greengrass : 

Bloody Sunday (2002) is the true story of the 1972 shootings of innocent protestors in Derry in the occupied six counties, by British Army paratroopers. The film is masterfully directed by Paul Greengrass, who later went on to direct some of the Bourne films and United 93. 

Through the dynamic use of handheld camera, Greengrass creates an intimacy and immediacy that is riveting, and that impacts the viewer on a visceral level. In addition to Greengrass, lead actor James Nesbitt does spectacular work as Ivan Cooper, the organizer of the peaceful protest that ends is bloody slaughter. Nesbitt's performance is the centerpiece of an outstanding ensemble.

Bloody Sunday may be difficult to watch, but it is a truly great film that is must-see.

2. HUNGER directed by Steve McQueen :

Hunger (2008), is the story of the 1981 hunger strike by Bobby Sands and other members of the I.R.A. at the H.M.S. Maze prison. This is Steve McQueen's first feature film, which he later followed with Shame and the Academy Award winning 12 Years a Slave.

McQueen proves right out of the gate that he is an artistic and creative master as a director with Hunger. The visuals of the film have such a unique grit and texture to them that they can, and often do, tell the story all by themselves. Along with McQueen's brilliant direction, Hunger boasts Michael Fassbenders tour-de-force portrayal of Bobby Sands, which elevates the film to a transcendent work of genius. Fassbender's performance in Hunger is as intricately crafted and delicately human as any captured on film in the last twenty years.

Again, Hunger is not for the feint of heart. It is a brutally unforgiving film. Yet, it is such a finely crafted film, that it takes its much deserved space in the pantheon of great Irish films.

3. JIM SHERIDAN FILMS - IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993), IN AMERICA (2003), MY LEFT FOOT (1989), THE FIELD, (1990), THE BOXER (1997)

Jim Sheridan is the Grand Master of Irish filmmakers. No other director has been as consistently great as Sheridan. In fact, Sheridan's work is so superlative that I couldn't pick just one film to put in my top five, so I gave him a top five list all to his own.

1. In the Name of the Father (1993): Based on the true story of the Guilford Four, four people wrongly convicted for the 1974 Guildford Pub bombing by the I.R.A. which killed five people. Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Gerry Conlon, a wayward Irish youth who gets blamed for the bombing, as does his father, family members and friends. Day-Lewis' gives a powerhouse performance that propels this film to the tops of the Sheridan list.

2. In America (2003) : A semi-autobiographical film about the Sullivan family, husband Johnny, his wife Sarah, and their two daughters, Christy and Ariel who move to New York City from Ireland in 1982 in the wake of the death of their young son Frankie. Samantha Morton stars as Sarah and earned an Oscar nomination for her stellar performance, as did Djimon Hounsou in a supporting role as their HIV positive neighbor. The entire cast, particularly the two young actresses, Sarah and Emma Bolger, are outstanding. In America is a deeply moving, and insightful look into the struggle to find forgiveness and peace in a new land.

3. My Left Foot (1989) : The film that put Sheridan on the map, is the story of Christy Brown, an Irishman born with cerebral palsy, who can only use his left foot. Brown overcomes his obstacles and becomes a writer and painter. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Best Actor Oscar for his remarkable work in the lead, and Brenda Fricker won a Best Supporting Actor as Bridget Brown, Christy Brown's mother. An excellent film buoyed by sterling performances.

4. The Field (1990) : The story of an old Irish farmer, Bull McCabe, trying to hold onto a strip of land, his family and tradition. McCabe is played by Richard Harris, who earned an Oscar nomination for his fine performance. Have you noticed a pattern? Actor's get Oscar nominations when they are directed by Jim Sheridan, which is why so many great actors want to keep working with him.

5. The Boxer (1997) : The story of a boxer recently released from prison, who was a former member of the I.R.A. Once again Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Danny Flynn and is really incredible as the boxer trying reform his ways in the ever more complex world of "The Troubles". Emma Watson plays Maggie, Flynn's former girlfriend, and gives a subtly compelling performance. Day-Lewis' continuous commitment to realism in the portrayal of a boxer wins the day, as his seamless portrayal is as spot on as any in film history.

4. ONCE directed by John Carney

Once (2007), is an Irish musical film about the trials and tribulations of a Dublin singer/songwriter street musician as he tries to make a career in the music business. The "guy", played by Glen Hansard, meets and falls for a piano playing Czech immigrant "girl", played by Marketa Irglova. The two lead actors have a phenomenal chemistry and charm. The music is heartbreakingly good.  Once is joyously exhilarating in its artistic spirit, its musical power and its heart felt honesty. An absolute gem of a film.

5. THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY directed by Ken Loach

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006), is the story of two brothers, Damien and Teddy O'Donovan who join the Irish Republican Army and fight in the Irish War of Independence (1919-1922) and the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). Cillian Murphy stars as Damien and gives the strongest performance of his fine career. The film excels due to Murphy's complex work and also because of director Loach's clear, detailed and specific dramatic explanation of the wars for Ireland and what caused them and why. Definitely worth your time if you enjoy Irish history. 

In the spirit of the day, I leave you now with the words of one of the great Irish poets.

Had I the heaven' embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

- He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven by W.B. Yeats

And thus concludes my St. Patrick's Day sermon.  Go forth, spread the word and try to remember what it actually means to be Irish today. Sláinte Mhaith!! 

© 2015

Irishness, Cultural Memory and The Curse of St. Patrick's Day

What does Irishness, cultural memory and the curse of St. Patrick's day have to do with acting? Well, let us begin with this statement: the key to great acting is specificity.  Be specific in action, intention and character and you can bring life to any part no matter how big or small. The converse is also true, generalities will suffocate any part in the crib, from Hamlet to the third extra on the right, leaving it lifeless and limp.  St. Patrick's Day is a celebration of the  generalities and dumbing down of what it means to be Irish,  and that is the 'Curse of St. Patrick's Day'.

Irish characters in film and television for decades consisted of little more than the kind hearted policeman, priest or nanny who loved to drink, sing or put up his/her dukes, all with a charmingly lovely Irish lilt to their sing song speech.  These characters had as much depth and complexity as an Irish Spring soap commercial.  This image of this rosy cheeked lad or lass has been the defining one of the Irish for the majority of time that film has existed.

St. Patrick's day celebrates this version of Irishness.  As the saying goes, "everyone is Irish on St. Paddy's day"...yeah...well, not so much.  Wearing a green Notre Dame shirt and drinking yourself silly doesn't make you Irish, no matter what the culture at large may think.  Irishness is not an idiot puking on their "Kiss me I'm Irish" pin in the gutter, trust me.

We, the Irish, are just as much to blame as anyone for our own misrepresentation. We Irish, and by 'Irish' I also mean Irish-Americans, embrace and celebrate our own self-destruction.  Drunkenness is not something to hang your hat on, especially when the Irish culture is rich in so many other ways. Yet we do celebrate drunkenness anyway with an uncanny pride. Have the drunken fools chugging their green beers ever read James Joyce?  George Bernard Shaw? Samuel Beckett? William Butler Yeats? Odds are they haven't, and would never associate Irishness with those writers, or with any intellectual endeavor.

Which brings us to the point, what is Irishness?  Irishness is deep, dark and complex. Hell, Freud once said of the Irish,  "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever."  If you've stumped Freud you've got to be pretty complicated. So what makes the Irish so complex?  Well, Irishness is defined in part by over four hundred years of occupation by a foreign power and the helplessness, shame and anger that come with occupation. Irishness is massacres, famines, insurgencies, civil wars, sectarian violence, hunger strikes, brutal discrimination and segregation and near cultural extermination. In contrast, Irishness is also defined by staggeringly great works of art, intellect and spirituality.

Want to know true Irishness? Read the plays of J.M. Synge or Sean O'Casey, or read the novels of James Joyce or the poems of Yeats.  Read about the rich history of the place and it's people, from the Celts to St. Patrick and St. Brendan all the way to Michael Collins and Bobby Sands. Want to know the experience of Irishness in America?  Read or see any of Eugene O'Neill's plays, but check out Long Days Journey Into Night and Moon for the Misbegotten in particular. Or if you just don't want to read, watch a Jim Sheridan film, try In America or In the Name of the Father. Or watch Hunger by director Steve McQueen or Bloody Sunday by Paul Greengrass.  These will teach you more of what Irishness is than any St. Patrick's Day parade or crowded Irish pub.

This brings us back to acting and specificity.  What do we as actors do if we are in a position where we are playing an Irish character?  Well, if the writer and the director both understand what true Irishness is in all its complexity, then you'll be allowed to build a rich, complex character devoid of any stereotypes or generalities. But  what should an actor do if the writer and director just wants them to be a stereotypical Irish lad or lass straight from central casting?

This is what you do, you fill the general with the specific. You build an internal life which is as rich as the Irish and their culture and history. If you are told to play a smiling, rosy cheeked, kind hearted cop/priest/maid, use true Irishness and Irish cultural memory to make the motivation and inner life more vibrant. For instance, use the cultural memory of four hundred years of foreign occupation that has taught the Irish to keep their true thoughts and feelings to themselves while projecting a joyous exterior to the world in order to keep their occupiers at arms length. So the cheery cop/priest/maid with a heart of gold actually has a hidden and much more vibrant inner life with which to keep the actor and their actions alive and engaged.  If you are playing a stereotypical drunken, brawling Irishmen, tap into the fire within that character that makes the Irishmen fight to prove himself and his manhood in an attempt to break free of the cultural shame and humiliation of being a second class citizen in his own country. If you are asked to play the stereotypical kind hearted, fun loving, witty Irishmen(or women), then feed that choice by tapping into the insecurity and low self worth of a poor, hard working people with the burning and desperate need to be loved by everyone they meet. This will help you 'raise the stakes' of your actions and be a driving force through your creation of the character.

These are just a few suggestions to get an actor to realize that there is much more than meets the eye when you have to play a stereotype. Sadly, more often than not, that's exactly what we are asked to play, but it is up to us to give depth, meaning and complexity to these parts. The actors greatest challenge is to give specificity to generalized writing and direction. Using the cultural memory and rich history of a characters nationality, religion or race is a great way to engage our imaginations and tap into different textures and colors when bringing a character to life.

So, have a happy St. Patrick's Day, but instead of wearing green and getting drunk, shake off that curse of St. Patrick's Day and go read a book by a great Irish writer, or read about Ireland's history, or go watch a film by a great Irish director or with great Irish actors.

 Now go forth and celebrate the tradition of the Irish in all its wondrous complexities.

Slainte.

©2016

2nd Annual SLIP-ME-A-MICKEY AWARDS©™® : 2015 Edition

THE SLIP-ME-A-MICKEY AWARDS!!

The Slip-Me-A-Mickey™® awards are a tribute to the absolute worst that film and entertainment has to offer for the year. Again, the qualifying rules are simple, I just had to have seen the film for it to be eligible. This means that at one point I had an interest in the film, and put the effort in to see it, which may explain why I am so angry about it being awful. So any vitriol I may spew during this awards presentation shouldn't be taken personally by the people mentioned, it is really anger at myself for getting duped into watching.

The prizes are also pretty simple. The winners/losers receive nothing but my temporary scorn. If you are a winner/loser don't fret, because this years Slip-A-Mickey™®  loser/winner could always be next years Mickey™® winner!! Remember…you are only as good as your last film!! 

Now…onto the awards!!

WORST FILM

The nominees are...

TRUMBO : I saw Trumbo because they sent me a screener for the SAG awards. I was intrigued because Bryan Cranston stars and is a great actor, and Dalton Trumbo led a remarkably interesting life. This film is so atrociously bad as to be shocking. An all-star cast of Oscar and Emmy winning actors churn out colon-twingeing performances that are reminiscent of a high school improv troupe raiding the local haberdashery. An embarrassment of a film.

CHILD 44 : I am an admitted Russophile, so I am on board with any Russian themed films. I was working as a consultant on a Russian-themed film that was in development when Child 44 came out and was sent to see the movie to see if it would artistically undermine the film I was working on. Technically I was getting paid to see Child 44 and I still almost walked out. This movie boasts a stellar cast, including Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman (one of my all time favorite actors), yet it is an extraordinary abomination of a film. It is such a jumbled, muddled, befuddling, piece of crap film, that even the people in it seem baffled as to what the hell is going on. Child 44 is so awful that I was praying that we could go back in time and have the Soviets win the cold war and then they ban Child 44 and send its makers to Siberia to think long and hard about the cinematic crime they had committed. In conclusion, Child 44 is the Chernobyl of Russian-themed films…meaning, no Russian film can survive in it's wake for at least 100 years. Proschay Navsegda!!

AVENGERS : AGE OF ULTRON : What a loud and meaningless, incoherent, mind numbing assault on the senses this film is. I saw it with a friend who is a big time Hollywood director, and periodically throughout the film we would look at each other perplexed and say "what the fuck is this?" We still haven't figured it out. The film made a billion dollars, which only goes to prove my theory that "people are idiots…myself included."

BRIDGE OF SPIES : Steven Spielberg rolls out another one of his dreadful 'serious" films with the usual results. This movie is two hours and twenty minutes of dim-witted, flag-waving nonsense. Bridge of Spies is like watching a "pledge of allegiance" competition at a nursing home for the compulsively and criminally patriotic. 

THE LOSER IS…TRUMBO!!! This film is a steaming pile of amateur hour garbage. Dalton Trumbo must be spinning in his grave.

WORST PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR:

The nominees are….

THE ENTIRE CAST OF TRUMBO : As previously stated, the acting in this film doesn't even reach the height of a small town high school theatrical production. The acting is more like little kids raiding their grandparents closet and playing dress up than it is a feature film. 

THE ITALIAN FAMILY IN BROOKLYN : The collection of actors playing the Italian family in Brooklyn act like they just walked out of a Prince spaghetti commercial from the 70's. This "family" is so bad they make Father Guido Sarducci look like Daniel Day-Lewis. In case you are wondering…that is not a compliment.

ALMOST EVERYONE ON EARTH IN THE MARTIAN : Whenever The Martian would show us action taking place on earth, the same thing would happen over and over…some tech nerd would be struggling over a problem and then…BOOM!! the answer would occur to them and they would raise their eye brows and furiously look for a pen and paper to write down their brilliance and then run to another room to tell someone about it. By my count, this happened more than 200 times in the film. Granted, I was so bored it may have just felt like it happened 200 times. The acting was so bad I was praying for an group of Martians to show up and obliterate all life on earth and put me out of my misery.

THE LOSER IS…ITALIAN FAMILY FROM BROOKLYN!! Trumbo is awful across the board, but these Italians from Brooklyn undermine what could have been a decent film. Their acting is so odious that their stink envelops the rest of the film and scuttles the whole ship. This just makes me hate Italians even more than I already do!!! I'm kidding of course…sort of…no seriously…I'm kidding…or am I? No, I am, I am. I swear to you I'm kidding….a little.

MOST OVERRATED FILM OF THE YEAR:

THE MARTIAN : I was excited to see The Martian…then I saw it. Why on earth…or Mars, would anyone think this is a good film, never mind a great one. The movie undercuts any dramatic tension it could have developed by letting the audience know information that Matt Damon himself doesn't know. The movie veers off into farce the further it goes along. That people were tripping over themselves to praise this film is further evidence of my theory that "the people of earth are absolute idiots…myself included!!!" 

P.O.S. HALL OF FAME INDUCTEE

JARED FROM SUBWAY: Personally, I could not give a flying fuck what some useless piece of shit spokesman for a horrible sandwich company does with his time. But when Jared was arrested and then convicted for having sex with minors, I felt my usual righteous anger turn into a full on rage. Thanks to Subway's advertising blitzkrieg I had been incessantly subjected to this little shitstain of a prick on my tv for the last decade. They forced this asshole into my life just like he forced himself on underage kids. So…Jared…fuck you for fucking kids and fuck you for entering my consciousness in the first place you fat fuck. Now…if only Flo from Progressive would murder the Kardashians, my life would be complete.

THE 2015 P.O.S. ALL-STARS

LENA DUNHAM : The creator and star of HBO's navel-gazing shitshow Girls, Dunham is a repugnant troll of a human being. In her book "Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She's Learned", she claims to have been sexually assaulted by a fellow student at Oberlin College. When investigative journalists looked deeper into the claim they discovered that Lena's story didn't jibe with the actual facts on the ground. In other words…she made it up and threw a non-guilty guy under the bus in the process. It is really cool of her to lie about a sexual assault in order to pad her feminist bona fides, but you know who might not appreciate Dunham's self serving bullshit story…women who were actually sexually assaulted. Dunham's pretending to know their torment won't help them recover, and her lying won't make it easier for actual victims to be believed when they come forward. Dunham also wrote about her sexual interactions as a seven year old with her one year old sister. If Dunham were a man she would be rightfully excoriated for being a sexual predator, but since she is a woman she gets a pass for her repulsively shameful behavior. Congratulations on being a Piece of Shit All-Star Ms. Dunham. 

THE SMITH FAMILY: This year we got to hear from Jada Pinkett-Smith how her husband was snubbed by the Academy Awards because he was black. We also got to hear how Jada was boycotting the Oscars in a show of solidarity with other snubbed black actors…which was convenient since she wasn't invited (as Chris Rock hilariously pointed out). I have one simple request for the entire Smith family...Will, Jada, Jaden and Willow…please shut the fuck up and go away forever. Will Smith is an abysmal hack of an actor and a dopey embarrassment as a "rapper". Jada Pinkett-Smith is a fly on the shit that is Will Smith, she desperately needs to bottle her manufactured self-righteous anger, stop talking immediately and vanish with her equally obnoxious other half. Jaden and Willow are kids, so they have an outside chance to not be as malignantly narcissistic as their God-awful parents, but I gotta be honest… it isn't looking very good as they aren't off to the best possible start in not following in their egotistical parents footsteps. Regardless…congratulations entire Smith family for being Piece of Shit All-Stars!!

And thus ends the second annual Slip-Me-A-Mickey™® Awards!!! To the winners/losers…don't take it personally…and God knows I hope I don't see you again next year!! To you dear reader…thanks for tuning in and we'll see you again next year!!

IN CASE YOU MISSED ALL THE EXCITEMENT OF THE 2015 MICKEY™® AWARDS…CLICK HERE TO CATCH ALL THE ACTION!!!

©2016

2nd Annual MICKEY AWARDS™® : 2015 Edition

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Second Annual Mickey™® Awards!! In the crowded field of awards, be it the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, Tonys or even The Nobel Prizes, The Mickeys™ ® are the ultimate award, the pinnacle of artistic achievement, the highest honor known to mankind or any other life from anywhere in the universe! 

A quick rundown of the rules and regulations of The Mickeys™®…The Mickeys™® are selected by me. I am judge, jury and executioner. The only films eligible are films I have actually seen, be it in the theatre, via screener or VOD. I do not see every film because as we all know, the overwhelming majority of films are God-awful, and I am a working man so I must be pretty selective. So that means that just getting me to actually watch your movie is a tremendous  accomplishment in and of itself…never mind being nominated or even winning!

Now…about the…unpleasantness…from last years Mickey™® Awards. Unless you have been living under a rock, you know the controversy that erupted following last years ceremony when Emma Stone filed a class-action lawsuit against The Mickey's™® for discrimination against actors due to a discrepancy in prizes awarded to other non-acting artists in different categories. Last year the prizes for winning a Mickey™® were clearly stated as thus…

"The Prizes!! The winners of The Mickey™® award will receive one acting coaching session with me FOR FREE!!! Yes…you read that right…FOR FREE!! Non-acting category winners receive a free lunch* with me at Fatburger (*lunch is considered one 'sandwich' item, one order of small fries, you aren't actors so I know you can eat carbs, and one beverage….yes, your beverage can be a shake). Actors who win and don't want an acting coaching session but would prefer the lunch…can go straight to hell…there are NO SUBSTITUTIONS with The Mickey™® Awards prizes. But if you want to go to lunch and we each pay our own way, or better yet, you pay for me... that is cool."

Ms. Stone and her gaggle of high priced attorneys argued to the Federal court that she should be eligible for the free Fatburger meal instead of the Acting Coaching session, even though the Coaching session costs considerably more than the meal at Fatburger ($100/hr for a coaching session vs. maybe a $10 fat burger meal). The most compelling moment of the trial, and of Ms. Stone's argument, was when she stated through a torrent of tears that, "I just won a Mickey™® Award for Best Actress…I don't need a god-damn acting coaching session…what I need is a F****ing turkey burger and Oreo shake!!" 

The judge ruled in Ms. Stone's favor and The Mickey™® Awards appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, then bad luck struck when Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving the court at a 4-4 deadlock in the case. When the  Supreme Court is tied, it reverts back to the lower court's ruling, which in this case means, The Mickey's™® get screwed and must abide by Ms. Stone's request….thanks for nothing Scalia!!

Anyway...With all of that said, the new rules are thus...

The Prizes!! The winners of The Mickey® award will receive one acting coaching session with me FOR FREE!!! Yes…you read that right…FOR FREE!! Non-acting category winners receive a free lunch* with me at Fatburger (*lunch is considered one 'sandwich' item, one order of small fries, you aren't actors so I know you can eat carbs, and one beverage….yes, your beverage can be a shake, you fat bastards). Actors who win and don't want an acting coaching session but would prefer the lunch…can still go straight to hell…but I am legally obligated to inform you that, yes, there are WILL BE SUBSTITUTIONS allowed with The Mickey™® Awards prizes. If you want to go to lunch I will gladly pay for your meal…and the sterling conversation will be entirely free of charge.

To be clear, I hold no ill will towards Ms. Stone and look froward to our lunch date in the very near future.

Now that that awkwardness is out of the way…lets get started…so sit back…relax….and enjoy the second annual Mickey™® Awards!!

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Roger Deakins - Sicario: Roger Deakins is one of the great cinematographers working today. He lives up to that billing with his work in Sicario. Deakins masterful camera movement, framing and visual style aren't just beautiful, they tell the entire story of Sicario without a word needing to be spoken. Deakins cinematically vivid work is a vital component in making Sicario the superb movie is is.  

Emmanuel Lubezki - The Revenant: Lubezki has won three Best Cinematographer Oscars in a row, solidifying his spot as the top cinematographer in the game today. Besides his Oscar winning work, Lubezki has also shot Terrence Malick's recent work (The New World, The Tree of Life, To The Wonder, Knight of Cups and the unreleased Weightless) which has been visually stunning. Lubezki's dazzling camera movement and his use of setting and visual texture to enhance and tell a story are exquisite.

Cary Joji Fukunaga - Beasts of No Nation: Fukunaga does extraordinary work in Beasts of No Nation, a film he also directed. Fukunaga's use of the lush African setting and how he paints the film with a vibrant and colorful palette, are simply spectacular. There has been talk swirling around Beats of No Nation of visual plagiarism on Fukunaga's behalf, which I find disturbing, but The Mickey's nominating committee, although split, did vote for Fukunaga's nomination this year. I think he might be on double secret probation though. It will be interesting to see his work in the future.

Robert Richardson - The Hateful Eight : Richardson is one of my all-time favorite cinematographers. His iconic earlier work with Oliver Stone was artistically daring and groundbreaking. His work in The Hateful Eight is striking for its intricacy, the opening shot in particular is sublime.

John Seale - Mad Max Fury Road: A confession…due to a jam packed schedule, I did not see Mad Max: Fury Road in the theatre…I know, I am a bad person. After having seen it on cable though, I think I missed the entirety of the brilliance of John Seale's cinematography. The film, even on tv, is arrestingly beautiful. Seale's use of contrasting colors and dynamic camera movement was phenomenal.

And the winner is….ROGER DEAKINS - SICARIO: This year's cinematography category was particularly difficult as all of these men did extraordinary work. Deakins rises slightly above the rest of the nominees through his usual eye-catching and dramatically powerful work. Winning the high and mighty Mickey Award solidifies Deakins standing in the cinematography community. 

BEST SCREENPLAY

Alex Garland - Ex Machina : Garland is the best science fiction writer working today because he uses the genre to tell smaller, intimate, human stories, as opposed to using the genre as a vehicle for a special effects festival. Ex Machina is a delicate and compelling story about humanity that uses artificial intelligence to explore and explain the complexities of mankind.

Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer - Spotlight: Spotlight is a fantastic script that has absolutely no excess fat or wasted scenes. McCarthy and Singer write a captivating narrative that moves with a winning pace. 

Adam McKay, Charles Randolph - The Big Short: McKay and Randolph have done the near impossible, they made finance interesting, entertaining, funny and dramatic. What is even more impressive is that they wove multiple story lines together seamlessly and all without a single mis-step.

Aaron Sorkin- Steve Jobs: Sorkin's writing can be a disaster in the hands of a lesser director, but in Steve Jobs, his writing sparkles. The film is really a stage play with a camera rolling. Sorkin's multi-layered script is the best he has ever written.

Taylor Sheridan - Sicario: Sheridan's script for Sicario is fantastic because it never loses sight of its main characters lack of big picture vision. Sheridan keeps the viewer in the dark right along with his lead character, and the results are dramatically impressive.

And the winner is…ALEX GARLAND - EX MACHINA: In a tremendously tight race, Garland ekes out the history by a nose over McKay and McCarthy, with Sorkin right behind them. Garland's script is like a stage play in a black box theatre except with subtle yet spectacular special effects. A touching, heart breaking and ultimately frightening story. Congratulations Alex!! You didn't win an Oscar, but as everyone knows, The Mickey kicks the Oscar right in the ass!!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Rachel McAdams- Spotlight: McAdams does the best work of her career as an intrepid reporter from the Boston Globe chasing the Catholic church sex abuse scandal and cover up in Boston. Her work in the film is highlighted by a delicate humanity that lights up every scene she inhabits. I hope we get to see much more of McAdams in roles like this going forward. 

Kate Winslet - Steve Jobs: Winslet is a wonder. Her career is one fascinating performance after another. In Steve Jobs she completely disappears into her role and brings a formidable power to her performance. Her work in Steve Jobs is so intricate that it is a delight to watch.

Alicia Vikander - Ex Machina: Vikander gives as stunningly precise and meticulous a performance as I've seen in recent years as an artificial intelligence, robo-lady frankenstien in Ex Machina. What makes her so good in the role, is that she doesn't play a robot, she plays it as painstakingly human as possible. A truly terrific performance.

And the winner is…ALICIA VIKANDER - EX MACHINA : A stunning piece of work from Vikander gets her the highly coveted Mickey Award.  Winslet was not far behind, but Vikander's performance stayed with me for days afterwards…hauntingly human, seductively beautiful and surreptitiously manipulating, without a doubt, Vikander earned her Mickey…and this lucky lady has a turkey burger from Fatburger waiting for her…on me!!! 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Benicio del Toro- Sicario: Del Toro is quietly menacing as a shadowy agent in Sicario. Del Toro is one of those actors who has mastered the two qualities most actors struggle with…stillness and silence. He brings his formidable presence to bear in Sicario and to great affect.

Mark Ruffalo - Spotlight: Ruffalo is on a hot streak, giving many solid performances in the past few years. In Spotlight he embues his character with a secret wound that gives him a captivating presence throughout.

Idris Elba - Beasts of No Nation: Elba's charismatic rebel leader is at once both a father figure and ferocious predator. Without Elba's charming, layered and fearsome performance, Beasts of No Nation would have failed, because it is imperative that the audience fall under Elba's spell right along with the main character. 

Christian Bale - The Big Short: Bale can be overlooked as a great actor because he is also a movie star in big budget action films. But Bale's meticulous, yet very fluid work in The Big Short is fascinating. Bale is able to fully inhabit his character and his specific mannerisms without ever falling into caricature, and all while staying present and alive in what feels like, much to his credit, an improvised performance.

Oscar Isaac - Ex Machina: Oscar Isaac has had a few missteps in recent years, most notably in the dishonestly titled A Most Violent Year. But in Ex Machina we see Isaac at his very best. His mad scientist character is part Zuckerberg, part Dr. Frankenstien, and all manipulative asshole. Isaac creates a three dimensional character where other, lesser actors would have simply taken the easy route and played a villain. Isaac at his best is a joy to behold…I hope we see more of him.

And the winner is…CHRISTIAN BALE - THE BIG SHORT : Bale's performance is so fastidious yet vibrant that you can't take your eyes off of him. Bale may be a big movie star, and an Oscar winner…but now as a Mickey winner, he has truly arrived among the elite. Congratulations Christian!!

BEST ACTOR

Michael Fassbender - Steve Jobs: Fassbender is one of the great actors working in film today. His meticulous and detailed performance in Steve Jobs is an amazing achievement. Fassbender's mastery of the Sorkian dialogue, and his specific character work create a truly outstanding and original masterpiece. 

Abraham Atta - Beasts of No Nation: Abraham Atta is the lead actor who drives the entirety of the narrative in Beasts of No Nation. Previously unknown, Atta brings an undeniable charisma and dynamism to his work that fills the screen and is impossible to ignore.

Ryan Gosling- The Big Short: Gosling has been floundering around for a few years in some less than stellar movies. In The Big Short he finally hits his stride and gives a thoroughly potent and engaging performance. Gosling is feverishly funny as the narrator who drives the narrative forward.

Domnhall Gleeson - Ex Machina: Gleeson's performance in Ex Machina was overlooked by the lesser Academy Awards, but The Mickey's are not influenced by those wind bags. Gleeson is stellar in Ex Machina, bringing a damaged and genuine humanity to his role. Gleeson is one of the most interesting young actors working in film today.

Michael Keaton - Spotlight: It bring me great joy to see Michael Keaton back in the mix following his Mickey ward last year for Best Actor. This years performance is a different type of performance…quieter and simpler in many ways, but requiring a deep command of skill and craft. Keaton is back in the game, and his second straight Mickey nomination is a testament to his undeniable talent.

And the winner is…MICHAEL FASSBENDER - STEVE JOBS: Fassbender's performance in Steve Jobs cannot be overstated. It was a Herculean task to overcome the degree of difficulty in Sokrin's script, and create a believable and viable Steve Jobs to carry what is really a stage play on camera for two hours. Mr. Fassbender, a tip of the cap and I raise a toast to you with our milk shakes from Fatburger…SLAINTE!!!

BEST ACTRESS

Saoirse Ronan - Brooklyn : Saoirse Ronan has the rare ability to dramatically fill a screen without the slightest need for dialogue. She has what all actors crave...presence. Her work in Brooklyn far exceeds the film itself, but it is a testament to her talent that you cannot take your eyes off of her every second she is on screen. 

Brie Larson - Room: Larson won the Oscar this year, which is good, but is nothing compared to even getting nominated for a Mickey award. She can now rest easy knowing that her work has been acknowledged by the premier award on the planet. Brie Larson has a really mesmerizing screen presence. She has an allure and a power about her that the camera loves. I hope she gets even better roles going forward, her talent deserves it.

Emily Blunt - Sicario: I had no idea Emily Blunt could be as good as she is in Sicario. Her work is so good, so layered, so specific that it is undeniably captivating. Blunt has a powerfully vibrant humanity that illuminates every scene she inhabits in Sicario. 

Alicia Vikander - The Danish Girl: Ms. Vikander is certainly having quite a year, a double Mickey nominee for her work in Ex Machina and now in The Danish Girl. Much like last years The Theory of Everything, the female lead in The Danish Girl is really the straw that stirs the drink of the film, and not the more "showy" performance by lead actor Eddie Redmayne. Vikander's double Mickey nomination (and one win) is a testament to her ability…the sky is the limit for her.

And the winner is…EMILY BLUNT - SICARIO: Blunt was overlooked by other awards, but the Mickey's recognize work of true genius. Emily Blunt goes all in, and gives everything she has in Sicario, and it is more than enough. Congratulations Ms. Blunt, and to answer your question, yes, your husband who I will only address as "that guy from The Office", is allowed to attend your Mickey's Award dinner at Fatburger, but he has to pay his own way.

BEST ENSEMBLE

The Big Short - A star-studded and stellar cast do spectacular work bringing the sometimes dry topic of finance to a wider audience by being funny, dramatic and genuine.

Spotlight - As professionally acted a film as I saw all year. Even the smaller roles, like the actors playing abuse victims recalling their victimization, were flawless. A film full of tight and taut performances across the board.

Beasts of No Nation - A cast of newcomers do truly dynamic work in this vivid glimpse into the madness at the heart of an African civil war. Idris Elba gives a staggeringly good job in a supporting role and Abraham Atta is stunning in his debut role.

Steve Jobs - A cast of all-stars live up to their names and the task of conquering Sorkin's mountainous dialogue. Across the board the acting is top notch.

Ex Machina - The three stars of the film, Domnhall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac and Alicia Vikander are utterly mesmerizing in this intimate and beguiling film.

Sicario - Emily Blunt leads the way in a film which boasts great performances from supporting actors, like Benicio del Toro and Josh Brolin, and also from smaller roles, like the menacing special operators who inhabit the world Blunt is trying to navigate. 

And the winner is…SPOTLIGHT - This competition was razor thin as The Big Short, Steve Jobs, Beasts of No Nation and Ex Machina were mere percentage points behind The Big Short. Spotlight boasts a mammoth cast and all them hit it out of the park. There isn't a single mis-step among the lot of them.  Everyone in the cast is now eligible for a free meal at Fatburger…although to be clear…it is only one meal free split amongst them all.

BREAK THROUGH PERFORMER OF THE YEAR

Emmanuel Nii Adom Quaye - Beasts of No Nation - Quaye plays the mute child soldier Stryka and is absolutely mesmerizing every time he is on screen. Quaye tells the story of Stryka and the civil war all with a simple glance or empathetic look. Quaye's mastery of silence, a skill most actors, even the greatest among us, struggle to adequately refine, is astonishing. His ability to simply be present in a scene and to just live out the circumstances is exceptionally impressive. I hope Quaye can find a path to a career as an actor because he has the eyes of a true artist.

BEST DOCUMENTARY

Listen to Me Marlon by Stevan Riley - Stevan Riley's remarkable documentary Listen To Me Marlon, does the near impossible…it let's us mortals get a brief glimpse into the mind of an artistic god and genius. Brando is such great actor that it is hard to tell if he went through life always acting or never once acting. Listen to Me Marlon not only shares with us Brando's intimate thoughts but also how he thought. To the outsider Brando seems a madman, but listening to him here you come to understand that he was not mad, but rather desperately and hopelessly human. In Brando's wounded  and genuine humanity is where his genius lies. We will never have another Brando, but with Riley's documentary we get to appreciate and begin to understand the Brando we were blessed enough to have for a time.

BEST DIRECTOR

Danny Boyle - Steve Jobs : Without Danny Boyle, Steve Jobs would have been a disaster. Aaron Sorkin's dialogue needs a strong hand to guide it, and Boyle provides that and much more as director of Steve Jobs. Boyle's directing was paramount to Steve Jobs being as artistically successful as it was.

Alex Garland - Ex Machina : Ex Machina has a quiet confidcne about it, and I think it gets that from its director Alex Garland. Garland never gets showy and never pushes how story too hard. He lets the viewer get lulled into the hypnotic trance of the possibilities sparkling in the eye of Alicia Vikander's artificial intelligence. Garland wisely let's his Mickey Award winning script and a trio of Mickey nominated actors do all the work in this spellbinding film. 

Adam McKay - The Big Short : McKay's previous resume gave no hints to his ability to be able to pull off this. McKay's direction is so unique and interesting that it entertains, informs and never lags or lulls. A previously unthinkable talent and skill residing in McKay emerges with his directing of The Big Short.

Tom McCarthy - Spotlight : McCarthy does a really high quality job of keeping the pace and energy of his film flowing while cutting all of the dramatic fat from the bone. McCarthy is exceptionally good at coaxing great performances from his cast and in shaping the drama of Spotlight. Every scene pops with a dramatic crispness that is a tribute to MCarthy's great direction.

Cary Joji Fukunaga - Beasts of No Nation : Fukunaga reigns in what could have been an unwieldy beast of a story by focusing on the humanity of his main actors. He manages to elicit great performances from a collection of newcomers all while making a visually beautiful and dramatically compelling film.

Denis Villeneuve - Sicario : Villeneuve weaves a mesmerizing story of deceit and power around the moral and ethical struggle which is the war on drugs. In lesser hands, Sicario could have been nothing more than an action film, but Villeneuve creates a complicated moral tale that sparkles from beginning to end. 

And the winner is…ADAM MCKAY - THE BIG SHORT : This competition was incredibly close as Tom McCarthy and Danny Boyle tied for second place mere percentage points behind McKay. McKay gets the Mickey™® award though for churning out such a thoroughly entertaining and insightful film that keeps you riveted from start to finish. McCarthy and Boyle are welcome to join Adam McKay and I for our Fatburger feast, but they will have to pay their own way. 

BEST PICTURE

All seven of these films are the very best of the best and get my highest recommendation. Instead of giving a top ten list, The Mickey's™® only nominate films that were head and shoulders above the rest. It is no joke to say that every one of these films is a winner by just being nominated for a Best Picture Mickey. You should go watch all of them…now, without further ado...Here, in order, are the very best films of 2015.

7. Listen To Me Marlon : A marvel of a film that gives us a glimpse into the mind of genius. Stevan Ridley masterfully weaves together hours of footage of Brando's thoughts and gives them to us in a coherent way that we can begin to understand the brilliance at the center of this previously misunderstood genius.

6. Beasts of No Nation: A staggeringly good ensemble cast and harrowing story, both supported by Cary Fukunaga's vibrant cinematography make Beasts of No Nation a definite must see for any lover of great films. Exemplary performances by Idris Elba and newcomer Abraham Atta are just two acting highlights from this glorious film.

5. Sicario : A spellbinding film that takes the viewer down the rabbit hole of the war on drugs, where nothing is what it seems. Captivating performances from Emily Blunt and Benicio del Toro, along with the magnificent cinematography of Roger Deakins, make Sicario one of the most compelling films of the year.

4. Ex Machina : An exquisitely intimate film that highlights the weakness of humanity and the darkness that resides deep within all of us. Alex Garland's superb script and outstanding performances from Domnhall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac and Alicia Vikander create one of the most magnificent films of the year.

3. Steve Jobs : Stellar directing from Danny Boyle and dynamic perfomances from the entire cast, but most notably Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet, make Steve Jobs one of the most artistically fulfilling films of the year for cinephiles everywhere .

2. Spotlight : Tom McCarthy gives a masterclass in directing, writing and editing as Spotlight is the tightest and most dramatically taut film of the year. An amazing cast all give stand out performances in this classically structured gem.

1. The Big Short : The Big Short is the film of the year for it's unique narrative structure and entertaining storytelling style. Director Adam McKay keeps the pace up and the performances front and center all while pulling back the curtain to reveal the ugly truth behind American capitalism.

MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF THE YEAR

TIE - Sicario, The Big Short, Spotlight :  Sicario, The Big Short and Spotlight are all great films, but they are also all films about pulling back the curtain and exposing the ugly reality behind the facade of our lives. All three of these films reveal to us that things are never what they seem to be on the surface, and certainly aren't what Authority tells us they are. Whether it is because we are too scared, too stupid or too willingly blind, we are usually incapable of seeing the truth even when it is right in front of our eyes. 

The deception of the Drug War (Sicario), the scam of American Capitlaism (The Big Short) and the shocking compliance of the church sex abuse scandal (Spotlight), all show us both the institutional and individual, moral and ethical corruption that is rampant in the U.S. This corruption is corrosive on authority across the board in American life, the effects of which are easily seen in our daily lives in our lack of trust in institutions and in our politics run amok. This corrosive effect is not going to stop anytime soon, and it's impact will be felt for generations.

When the American Empire crumbles and is left smoldering upon the ash heap of history, future people will watch Sicario, The Big Short and Spotlight and see what is obvious in hindsight but what eludes us today, namely that the warning signs of our imminent collapse are readily apparent for those with eyes to see…and the courage to look.

We would be wise to learn the lessons of these films and apply them to our decaying country. From Sicario we learn that The Drug War is a moral charade that fronts for tyranny. The Big Short shows us that American Capitalism is a rigged game meant to rob the masses and enrich the exorbitantly wealthy.  Spotlight reveals that we are our own worst enemy when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable and holding the powerful accountable.

In my opinion, it is too late for this nation to not only learn those lessons, but absorb and integrate them. Sicario, The Big Short and Spotlight divulge to us the hard truth, that Authority is blatantly and openly corrupt beyond repair, but the populace is too fat, drunk and stupid to be anything but blindingly compliant. We as a people have been pacified, placated and policed into a neutered subservience. In other words, we have met the enemy…and it is us. This is the reality of our world. The game is over, and the good guys lost, or maybe there were no good guys to begin with. Regardless...we just don't have the strength and the courage to see the truth dancing right before our eyes, and, sadly, we will get, and are getting, the country and the world we deserve.

On that cheery note…please remove your head from the the oven and give a warm round of applause for all of the Mickey™® winners this year. I am proud to announce that 2015 was a strong year for quality films…at least we have that going for us!!! 

Thus we end our second annual Mickey™® Awards. Thank you for coming and we'll see you again next year!! 

TO CHECK OUT THE DARK SHADOW OF THE MICKEY™® AWARDS, CLICK HERE FOR THE 2ND ANNUAL SLIP-ME-A-MICKEY™® AWARDS!!!

©2016

The Big Short : A Review, a Diagnosis and a Warning

ESTIMATED READING TIME: TEN MINUTES

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!****

MY RATING: SEE IT IN THE THEATRE!

"IT AIN'T WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT GETS YOU IN TROUBLE, IT'S WHAT YOU KNOW FOR SURE THAT JUST AIN'T SO." - MARK TWAIN

The Big Short, directed by Adam Mckay and written by McKay and Charles Randolph (based on the book The Big Short by Michael Lewis), is the story of a collection of men who foresaw the financial collapse of 2007/2008 and bet big against the housing bubble and Wall Street and won.

The Big Short is a truly remarkable film, without a doubt one of the very best of the year. It takes the difficult and complex subject of finance in general, and the collapse of 2007/2008 in particular, and not only breaks it down into understandable pieces, but does so in an extremely entertaining and insightful way.

When The Big Short ended and the credits rolled, I was curious as to who directed the film. I was stunned when I saw that Adam McKay, of all people, had directed it. Prior to The Big Short,  Adam McKay was better known as Will Ferrell's director, having been at the helm for the Ferrell films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Stepbrothers, and Anchorman 2 : The Legend Continues. In my mind, directing a singular comedic talent like Will Ferrell amounts to turning on the cameras and getting out of the way. It was previously unthinkable that a director with Adam McKay's resume would have the skill to make a film as impeccably crafted as The Big Short. McKay's direction is nothing short of masterful. McKay is able to flawlessly weave together the multiple, complicated narratives of the film, all while never losing the mesmerizing pace of the story. He shows a tremendously deft touch even with the most minor of scenes and lets the visuals tell as much of the story as the dialogue. 

There is a subtlety and specificity to McKay's direction that speaks volumes to his talent and vision. Two sequences stand out in this respect. The first is when we see a brief daytime long shot of Las Vegas with a freeway in the foreground where a homeless man urinates in the shadows of the traffic. The man, with his shopping cart filled with his possessions by his side, is barely visible in the shot, but that is the point, because those obliviously driving by him on the freeway above are blind to his plight and the one that awaits them as well.

The second shot is of a man and his family, who we meet very briefly earlier in the film, evicted from their rental home because of a landlord who gets foreclosed upon. The family now live in their van parked at a convenience store. This scene, which is visuals accompanied by a voice-over not directly connected to the action, shows a little boy running away from the family van. The shot is maybe three seconds long, but it stops your heart it is so well done. This shot cinematically conveys to the viewer absolutely everything they need to know, and all without a word. It shows how vulnerable and dangerous life is for people on the margins in America. My reaction to that brief shot was visceral…how could it not be? The shot is so quick you can only react to it on a gut level, and at that level, you instantly fear that the little boy will run into traffic. That shot connects the bigger story of The Big Short, to the human story of those devastated by the housing collapse. That little boy is in danger and it is because of the shenanigans of the big banks. These two shots/sequences are the type of small details that make all the difference in a film, and they highlight Adam McKay's exquisite direction of The Big Short.

The acting in the film is solid across the board. Ryan Gosling easily does the best work of his career as Jared Vennett, a bond salesman at Deutsche bank. He gives a funny, dynamic and charismatic performance that is the engine driving the film forward. Steve Carrell does exhaustive work playing the unlikable but ultimately compelling Michael Baum, the manager of a hedge fund whom Vennett approaches to invest against the housing market. Christian Bale gives a layered and intricate performance as Dr. Michael Burry, the eccentrically awkward mastermind who uncovers the fraud at the heart of the housing bubble. Brad Pitt brings a surprising gravity and humanity to the film as former JP Morgan trader Ben Rickert, and acts as a counterbalance to Gosling's fast talking and ego-driven Vennet. The rest of the cast is superb as well, with Hamish Linklater, Rafe Spall, Jeremy Strong, Max Greenfield and Billy Magnussen among others who all do standout work.

"TRUTH IS LIKE POETRY, AND MOST PEOPLE HATE POETRY" - OVERHEARD AT A WASHINGTON, D.C. BAR

I saw The Big Short in the theatre on the same day that I saw Spotlight. This was just by coincidence, but in hindsight it is easy to see that the movies are actually companion pieces. They have a lot in common as both The Big Short and Spotlight are flawlessly crafted films. Both pictures are superbly written, acted, directed, shot and edited. In addition both The Big Short and Spotlight explore similar themes, namely institutional blindness, perverted forms of religion, and the moral and ethical rot at the center of American life. 

"TO SEE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF ONE'S NOSE NEEDS A CONSTANT STRUGGLE." - GEORGE ORWELL

The institutional blindness on display in The Big Short runs not only through Wall Street, but also the media and Washington. When you hear talking heads on television say that no one saw the financial collapse of 2007-2008 coming, realize that this is just one more form of that blindness. Hindsight is usually 20/20, but not when you are unable to admit you were catastrophically wrong in the first place. As the great American Prophet (or is it Profit?) Dr. Phil is fond of saying, "you can't change what you don't acknowledge"…you're god-damned right about that, good doctor. Besides the characters at the center of The Big Short, there were other people who saw the collapse coming too, but they were the "wrong" people, so no one listened to them. Hell, even a clueless dope like me saw it coming. Ask my poor clients who had to listen to me ramble on and on about it day after day. Of course, most of those clients, and most of my friends, just nodded politely at my ramblings and ignored them…and lost a ton of money. I, and a very tight circle of friends, ended up being right not because we were geniuses, God and you dear reader know that isn't true, but rather because we weren't infected by the mania brought on by the lure of easy money that had gripped, and still grips, the nation. One of the glaring symptoms of this mania is that it brings with it a greed-induced frenzy that makes it, to paraphrase Orwell, 'hard to see what is right in front of your nose'.

The institutional blindness at the core of American capitalism comes from years of uncritical thinking from the people inside its foundational institutions. No one at any level of the American capitalism food chain, from University economics and finance departments, to the media to government to Wall street, dare question the basic premise of American capitalism because it has become a most-holy, sacred religion. This religion deems insatiable greed not only healthy for the economy, but a "good" and worthy attribute for everyone. This new church of American capitalism found a cinematic saint in Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone's 1987 film Wall Street, but St. Gordon was just preaching the gospel of the semi-non-fictional Saint Ronald Reagan from the early 1980's. Both St. Gordon and St. Ronnie were followed by free market saint and snake oil salesman extraordinaire, Bill Clinton in the 90's, who cleared the way for "unfettered, free-market capitalism" to take a giant shit on all of us.

"THE CAPITALIST WILL SELL YOU THE ROPE WITH WHICH YOU INTEND TO HANG HIM" - VLADIMIR LENNIN

Ask anyone with an advanced degree in economics or finance if during their long years of schooling they ever had to take a course on an alternative economic system to capitalism. The answer will be a resounding "no". That is not to say that socialism or communism or any other "ism" is better than American capitalism. But it is to say that when people are taught, or more accurately, conditioned, to NOT think critically about their economic system (or anything else for that matter), then that system stops being an economic one and starts being a religious one. Religion is based on faith and to its faithful adherents, is beyond reproach…see Spotlight as evidence of that. When something as profane as American capitalism becomes sanctified, corruption and collapse are sure to follow, just as it did with Soviet "socialism". With religion comes magical thinking, and so it is with American capitalism, which must contort reality in order to reinforce its faith based belief system. So we get deformed and distorted economic information from the powers that be because they must keep the house of cards standing at all cost. The Big Short humorously shows how while the underlying mortgages crumbled, the mortgage backed securities made up of those same bad mortgages actually went up. That is what happens in religion when reality doesn't conform to the sacred belief system, magical thinking kicks in and…MIRACLES OCCUR…up can become down, black can become white, or as those of us living in reality say…FRAUD HAPPENS. This charade of American capitalism can only last so long, as reality has a funny way of cutting through the bullshit of magical thinking and kicking you right in the nuts…just ask Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns.

"TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUPID AND ILLEGAL AND I'LL HAVE MY WIFE'S BROTHER ARRESTED" - JARED VENNET, THE BIG SHORT

See, in American capitalism, fraud is not a bug, but a feature, it is baked into the cake. Fraud and magical thinking are at the very heart of American capitalism. The fraud that runs rampant is easy to see.  We have all of the big banks rigging bids on municipal bonds and bilking every city in the nation for billions of dollars. Then we have Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, Bank of America, UBS and Citigroup and the LIBOR scandal, where they manipulated the world's interest rates and in so doing a good portion of the world's economy. Then there is the fraud on display in The Big Short where big banks defrauded their customers in order to cover their asses as the mortgage market tumbled. This doesn't even touch upon the criminality of banks laundering money for drug cartels, or rate-rigging the currency rates. 

In all of these scandals, no one was sent to prison. No one was held criminally liable. The Banks simply paid a fine, sometimes in the billions of dollars, but never had to admit to wrong doing. This is the casino-gulag business model, banks make $10 billion in fraud and only pay $1 billion in fines. That is a pretty good deal if you can get it…and the big banks know how to get it.

I had a conversation recently with an older friend, very conservative, who told me that he was "sick and tired of all the big bank bashing" because Wall Street "creates a lot jobs and a lot of wealth". I nodded politely so as to not offend his religious belief in American capitalism. The reality is that Wall Street, like Las Vegas, "creates" nothing, but they do "engineer" more gambling opportunities where the house always wins, and the concept of "the common good" never has to rear its ugly head.

"THE IGNORANT MIND, WITH ITS INFINITE AFFLICTIONS, PASSIONS AND EVILS, IS ROOTED IN THE THREE POISONS. GREED, ANGER AND DELUSION." - BODHIDHARMA

This taps into the moral and ethical rot at the center of America. Wall Street and Main Street, both infected with an insatiable greed, no longer invest, they speculate. The myopic greed and lure of easy money that has infested America makes corporations and regular people cut off their nose to spite their face, all in the name of higher short-term earnings and to the detriment of the long term, the common good and common sense. This is no way to run a company, or a country…but it's what is happening all around us. We have CEO's who mine their company for short term profits, which often times includes profit through fraud, in order to appease shareholders and get their bonuses before moving on, all the while ignoring the long term health of their business. The same is true of government, where politicians ignore the long term health of the country in favor of the short term health of their political careers and the next election. Regular Jane's and Joe's did the same thing by "flipping" houses and trying to run with the wolves on Wall Street…but found out the hard way that it is a rigged game. Now, they do the same thing in a different way by going into debt just to pay their bills month to month. This myopic approach to finance, politics and life, can only last so long before the bill comes due. Robbing Peter to pay Paul only ends up, at best, with either Peter or Paul breaking your thumbs, or at worst, with the two of them burying you in a shallow grave out in the desert.

The Church of American Capitalism and the moral and ethical rot that comes with it, has also infected American Christianity in the form of the "Prosperity Gospel". This Prosperity Gospel is the perfect symbol for the lascivious and lecherous greed, that like a cancer, has metastasized through all walks of American life and bastardized Christianity into little more than Santa Claus for adults. Turning greed into spirituality and religion is the last straw in the fall of the moral underpinnings of any nation and its people. Gordon Gekko once said, "Greed is good", but the Prosperity Gospel of the Church of American Capitalism teaches , "Greed is God".

"WHENEVER I WATCH TV AND SEE THOSE POOR STARVING KIDS ALL OVER THE WORLD, I CAN'T HELP BUT CRY. I MEAN I'D LOVE TO BE SKINNY LIKE THAT, BUT NOT WITH ALL THOSE FLIES AND DEATH AND STUFF." - MARIAH CAREY

The other religion, besides the church of American capitalism and greed, so masterfully on display in The Big Short, is the uniquely American religion of Celebrity. Director McKay wisely uses famous people to talk directly to the audience and explain complicated financial terms and processes. This has a dual effect, one, it breaks down the complex language of finance which Wall Street uses to make people think only they can do this stuff, terms like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO), Mortgage Backed Security (MBS), and Credit Default Swap (CDS), into language the layman can understand. Two, it surreptitiously tweaks the audience for being so mindless as to only pay attention when a celebrity is talking. The celebrities involved, Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez and chef Anthony Bourdain, all get the point across both on the surface level of explaining the information, but also on the subversive level of proving the audience as suckers for the famous, a.k.a. high priests and priestesses of the Church of American Celebrity. If Collateralized Debt Obligations, Mortgage Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps were explained by some dry academic, people would, as they've been trained to do, instantly tune out, but when it is done by Margot Robbie in a bubble bath…attention will most surely be paid. 

"WE FORGET THAT THE WATER CYCLE AND THE LIFE CYCLE ARE ONE." - JACQUE COUSTEAU

Speaking of bubble baths…at the end of the movie, there is an update on what the main characters are up to since their big short paid off. We are informed that Dr. Michael Burry, who closed his hedge fund right after the collapse of 2007/08, now focuses his investments on one commodity…water. This is pretty interesting because running throughout the film there is a very subtle subtext about water. If you watch the film again, pay attention when water is in a shot (like Ms. Robbie's bubble bath cameo), what characters drink it and when they drink it. There is one scene where Dr. Burry, while talking about shorting the housing market, chokes on a swig of water from a bottle, which, knowing the context of his later investing work, is very intriguing. Another scene involves a swimming pool with an unwanted reptilian guest lurking in it behind an abandoned Florida house. The house no doubt abandoned because of the "gully" (definition of a "gully" is "a water worn ravine") in the housing market. That scene is juxtaposed with a scene of a lavish swimming pool at Caesar's Palace, which is populated by investment bankers (from Goldman Sachs!!) and a woman from the SEC. Gators, bankers and feds…oh my!!! Water is the hidden secret within The Big Short, and the secret about water in today's world is that it will soon replace oil as the commodity over which we go to war.

"EVERYONE, DEEP IN THEIR HEARTS, IS WAITING FOR THE END OF THE WORLD TO COME." - HARUKI MURAKAMI

In conclusion, The Big Short is a phenomenal, must-see film, that shows us what went catastrophically wrong back in 2007/2008, and what is still wrong with our system. It is up to us to break free from the magical thinking brought on by the Church of American capitalism, and the distraction from thinking brought on by the Church of American Celebrity, and to see the truth that sits right in front of our nose…the American financial system is not only fundamentally and structurally flawed, it is irreparably broken and untenable. The house of cards is coming down whether we are ready for it or not…it isn't a matter of if…it is a matter of when. You can either prepare for the coming tsunami* or not, that is up to you…but what you cannot do this time around...is say that no one told you it was coming. 

*See what I did there? Tsunami…water? C'mon..pay attention!!!

©2016

THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : The Drumpf Affair and Little Bill Maher's Power Fetish

ESTIMATED READING TIME: 10 MINUTES

This is the second article in our new series THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST, where we monitor tv's political comedians and hold them accountable. The original article, Court Jester as Propaganda Tool, can be found HERE.

There has been a great deal of chatter about John Oliver's latest episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight and Oliver's "masterful takedown" of all things Donald Trump. I think the episode is noteworthy, but not for the same reason others seem to think so. I believe the episode is noteworthy because it lays bare, not just the vacuousness of Donald Trump, but also the vapidity of Brave Sir John and his flaccid humor.

The problem with Oliver's Drumpfening, is not that he attacked Donald Trump, who has been a boil on the ass of America for over thirty years, but rather that he only diagnosed the symptom (the boil) and not the disease (the corrupt establishment) from which it sprang. This is John Oliver's modus operandi, he zeros in on a very specific, and frankly, insignificant issue, and self-aggrandizingly beats it death, all the while whistling past the graveyard of the bigger looming issue. It is this larger issue, the disease if you will, that needs to be addressed, ridiculed and dissected, not the superficial symptom. 

Oliver's Trump episode exposes his adamant and willful ignorance of the larger, more pressing issues from which these smaller issues come. The Egyptian economic crisis is a perfect example. Oliver made fun of Egyptian President el-Sisi and his opulent arrival via a $200,000 red carpet to an event where he tells Egyptians that there must be spending cuts to basic services in  order to save money as the country goes through economic hardship. Oliver followed up with a scathing attack on a tongue-in-cheek el-Sisi speech where he tells Egyptians that they can "sell him" in order to raise money. It was funny because it is such an obvious display of corruption and narcissism on the part of El-Sisi. Oliver rightly took the leader to task for such nonsense. What Oliver didn't do…was take the United States to task for being the ones behind putting El-Sisi into power and keeping him there.

A brief history lesson shows us that the U.S. backed the brutal dictator Hosni Mubarek for decades until he was overthrown by the "Arab Spring" protests. A democratic election followed that put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt. This was unacceptable to the U.S. and it's ally Israel, so the U.S. quickly went about undermining the Muslim Brotherhood's government and supported a coup by another military leader in the vein of Mubarek, this time with the aforementioned nefarious narcissist General el-Sisi. So Oliver shows what a venal and delusional leader el-Sisi is but ignores how and why he got into power in the first place. Brave Sir John also fails to mention that the US is backing el-Sisi, who besides being corrupt, is a savage tyrant who tortures and brutalizes the same democratic forces we once praised in Egypt. Because if Oliver pulled that particular string of inquiry into el-Sisi and Egypt, then he begins questioning the U.S. and the establishment, and Brave Sir John  has proven that he will never, under any circumstances, take on or stand up to, the U.S. establishment in general, and its foreign policy in particular. Even though Brave Sir John wears the mask of the fearless rebel, he is actually a chickenshit sycophant whose actual job is to protect authority, never attack it.

Oliver followed the el-Sisi bit with his much adored Trump rampage. It was a very effective evisceration of the unscrupulously hollow man behind the Trump brand. But, regardless of whether you like Trump or not, there is a much deeper, and more relevant story behind him and his political rise than his obvious lies and despicable behavior. That story is…how in the hell did the Trump phenomenon even become possible in the first place?

The answer to that question is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. The political, media, financial, and corporate establishment of this country has spent years demeaning, belittling, exploiting and deceiving the populace for their own personal wealth and gain. No one trusts or should trust politicians, the government, the media, Wall Street or corporate America. The failure across the board of the establishment and its exploitation of the working class, is the fertile ground upon which the demagogue Trump gained his foothold and blossomed into a most unlikely voice for the forgotten. 

It is not without a tremendous amount of irony that a silver-spooned, self-serving billionaire has become the symbol of the exploited. As Oliver points out, Trump's whole game is just pure bullshit, but so is John Oliver's, as Trumps lies are lies of commission, while Oliver's lies are lies of omission. Oliver never even attempts to pull the Trump weed at its root, instead preferring to pluck the dandelion by its Orange-haired head, insuring that the ground from which this toxic flower blossoms will never be held to account, guaranteeing that another, maybe even more repugnant, weed will bloom from the same soil the next time around. 

Oliver's target audience, those on the political left and in the establishment, already loathe Trump with a fiery passion, so by simply taking down Trump, Oliver is just doing what he always does, reassuring his audience that they are really, really smart and superior, all the while making sure they never actually question the root causes of such problems, only their superficial existence.

Those...and please pardon the pun...Trumpeting Oliver's masterful annihilation of all things Trump are really only buttressing the trivial type of thinking from which a man like Trump can gain traction. It is a strange bit of political and intellectual Jiu Jitsu, but the reality is that Oliver's empty attack on Trump's shallowness will only reinforce the type of thinking, or more accurately, the shortcuts to thinking, that brought a man like Trump to political prominence in the first place. I doubt Oliver's minions will be self aware enough to break through their own sense of self-satisfaction to see that they are just as vacuous and mindless as the buffoons who praise and follow Trump. Both groups, those who love Trump and those who love Oliver, are embracing the easy, the simple and the thoughtless at the expense of the meaningful, the important and the sophisticated.

LITTLE BILL MAHER LOVES FELLATIO!!

A brief note on another impotent clown who wears the rebel mask but refuses to actually take on the powerful…Little Bill Maher. On Friday nights Realtime with Bill Maher, Maher shamelessly interviewed former NSA and CIA chief General Michael Hayden. The interview touched upon Hayden's new book, thoughts on surveillance and on the Apple/FBI battle over the iPhone of the San Bernadino shooters.

Little Bill Maher is, on his very best day, a third rate hack of a comedian and an intellectual dwarf. To his credit, Maher is very good at hosting "Realtime" and at keeping the show moving as his panels are usually populated by a collection of dullards so lacking in wit and insight as to be mind numbing. Watching a chimp smelling his own poop would be a vastly more entertaining and intellectually stimulating exercise.  

In keeping with Little Bill's patty cake interview style that he used with propagandists Judith Miller and Kathryn Bigelow, Maher went the extra mile last week. Fridays interview with Hayden was nothing short of pornographic as Maher spent the entire interview fellating General Hayden on live television. Little Bill empathized with Hayden for doing such a hard job and never getting credit for it. BOO-HOO. Maher said that Americans demand better intelligence after a terror attack but then want less surveillance when no attacks have occurred. To Maher this showed how Americans are coddled and stupid, something Little Bill would know a lot about since he is a spoiled pampered dipshit. Little Bill even chastised his audience for cheering Apple for taking on the FBI.

What was really great was that Maher told his audience that they have no idea what a dangerous and scary world we live in because terrorists REALLY want a nuclear bomb and to set it off in America. OH NO….WITTEW BIWW IS SCAWED!!!!  Maher sounded more like Dick Cheney's fluffer than an insurgent comedian.

Little Bill went on to say that the intelligence services only make the news when they don't stop an attack. He claimed that the NSA, CIA et al have stopped attacks, but that all of the attacks that they have stopped, and how they have "kept us safe" since 9-11, are not front page news. Maybe it isn't front page news because it isn't even remotely true. The idea that the NSA has kept us safe from any attacks and that is why they need such vast surveillance on regular Americans is a piece of steaming horse shit that has been debunked many times. Little Bill repeating that lie proves he is out to deceive, either his audience, himself, or both.

The NSA and other intelligence agencies have regularly lied to Congress and undermined our democracy by spying on ordinary Americans and on the U.S. Congress that is tasked with oversight of that same intelligence community that is doing the spying. Little Bill knows these things, but he chooses to ignore them in order to leave his pre-concoeved worldview unchallenged. Instead Maher lets his irrational hatred and fear of Muslims override the rational, easily observable facts on the subject of surveillance and the intelligence agencies.

Little Bill finished Fridays interview with the most egregious form of bootlicking imaginable when he gushed to General Hayden…"Thank you for you service." Thank you for your service? This to a man, General Hayden, who is an agent of tyranny, who has lied to congress about torture and committed numerous war crimes,  one more heinous than the next.

Little Bill Maher is a shill for the establishment elite, who uses his position to fortify authoritarians and war criminals. It is amusing that Maher is so in lock step with the intelligence community in regards to surveillance since the most animated and aggressive he has ever been on television was when he physically ejected a bunch of 9-11 Truthers from his studio audience. Maybe someone should remind Little Bill that the intelligence agencies had lots and lots of surveillance on the 9-11 hijackers, yet did nothing to stop the attacks. 

Someone should also tell Little Bill that more surveillance won't keep us safe. Being smarter about our foreign policy, and keeping our nose out of other people's business most certainly will. But that line of thinking doesn't mesh with Little Bill's nuanced world view which is Islam = Bad, US establishment = Good.  

It is mealy-mouthed cowards like Little Bill Maher that make despots like Bush, Cheney and yes, even Donald Trump possible. Brownnosing Little Bill is willing to give up all of our liberties for the straw man of perfect security. What a wonderful couple…the straw man of perfect security and the boogie man of scary Muslim terrorists, maybe Little Bill can blow both of them when he's done with General Hayden. Little Bill Maher should grow a pair of balls and stop playing the rebel while he kisses establishment ass, and start actually being the rebel by kicking the establishment in the ass.

©2016

88th Academy Awards : The 2016 Oscars Predictions Post

Ladies and gentleman, it is that time of year once again. The High Holy Days of the Church of Hollywood are upon us and Saint Narcissus is reading his list and checking it twice, finding out who's been naughty and nice, and who gets a shiny new best friend named Oscar. 

The Oscar Trophy is the most sacred of objects, a religious talisman that bequeaths upon its holder a glory and an immortality that no man could bring asunder. The Oscar statuette is a golden key that unlocks the door to the stairway to heaven. We as lowly peons, who get to watch the Oscars, should be eternally grateful for the opportunity to catch this brief glimpse into the goings on among the gods atop Mount Olympus. 

As a citizen of the Kingdom of Hollywood, the United States of America, The Planet Earth, The Milky Way Galaxy, and the Kardashian Universe, it is not only my reverent duty, but my deepest and most glorious pleasure to share with you my picks for the 88th annual Academy Awards. 

RESPECT THE GODS!!! PLEASE NO WAGERING!!

Best Supporting Actress :

 Jennifer Jason Leigh -  The Hateful Eight: Jennifer Jason Leigh is one of the bright spots in the otherwise dreary The Hateful Eight, but her character is totally under written in the second half of the film. I do hope we see more of her though as she is a terrific actress.

Rooney Mara -  Carol : I have not seen Carol. I know, I am a bad person. Rooney Mara is a pretty great actress though and from what I hear she does solid work in Carol. Sadly, hearsay is not allowed in evidence in the court of Oscar.

Rachel McAdams -  Spotlight : Spotlight is the best work Rachel McAdams has ever done. Amusingly enough, the costumers took a page from Amy Schumer's stand up act and put McAdams in khaki's to un-beaufity and un-sex her. It doesn't work, she is still gorgeous, but it does help her look more like a normal schlub that would work as a reporter and less like a movie star. 

Alicia Vikander -  The Danish Girl : The Danish Girl is a mess of a movie, just a disaster area in terms of a coherent narrative. That said, Alicia Vikander does solid if unspectacular work in it. Vikander's true award worthy work this year was in Ex Machina where she is absolutely mesmerizing.

Kate Winslet - Steve Jobs : Kate Winslet is staggeringly good in Steve Jobs. The film itself, and her work in it, are exquisite. For a such an accomplished woman, it is a credit to her artistic integrity that she not only chooses to take on such demanding roles, but also gets better and better at them as she goes along.

WHO WINS: ALICIA VIKANDER . This is a tough category but I think Vikander pulls it out because she is beautiful, talented and Swedish…a deadly combo for the Academy. Vikander is the new acting "it" girl. It will be exciting to see what direction her career takes after this.

WHO SHOULD WIN: KATE WINSLET. Her mastery of the Sorkian dialogue and her commitment to character in Steve Jobs are a wonder to behold.

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale -  The Big Short: I was luke warm about Bale's performance when I first saw the film. After watching it again I was really, really impressed. It is a subtle and specific piece of superb acting. Bale is often over-looked, but he is a consistently great actor, especially when he takes on supporting roles in more artistic films.

Tom Hardy - The Revenant: I am a fan of Tom Hardy,  and really respect his work. His work in last year's The Drop was particularly noteworthy. In The Revenant, I found him to be a bit, one dimensional and shallow. It is not his fault, as the character is poorly developed in the script. 

Mark Ruffalo- Spotlight: Mark Ruffalo is an actors actor. Everybody loves him. He is on a role with three nominations in the last five years, including for his excellent work in the fatally flawed Foxcatcher last year and now in Spotlight. In Spotlight Ruffalo is able to imbue his character with a history and a secret that makes him undeniably compelling. It is a fantastic bit of work.

Mark Rylance- Bridge of Spies: I am admittedly biased for Mark Rylance. I have great respect for his Shakespearean work. I am glad to see him getting recognized for film work. I think Bridge of Spies is a big pile of nothingness, but Rylance is certainly a bright spot. His performance is so meticulous yet human that you can't take your eyes off of him.

Sylvester Stallone- Creed : Sly is not exactly a great actor. He has tried over the years…but to no avail. He is a movie star and he was, at one time, a good one. That is all I have to say.

WHO WINS: SLY STALLONE. I know, I know…but this is how the Academy works. They reward guys for their careers, no matter how atrociously they've acted in those careers. Sly has made a ton of money for a ton of people…and now they pay him back. The Academy also loves this kind of story…the comeback. With that said…keep an eye out for Mark Ruffalo. he might sneak in there an get the win, which frankly, I think he deserves.

WHO SHOULD WIN: CHRISTIAN BALE. Bale does a really fantastic job in The Big Short. I'd give it to him…or Mark Rylance, just because I like him so much. Bale's work is impressive because it is so layered and naturally off-beat.

Best Actress:

Cate Blanchett - Carol : I have not seen Carol. I know this makes me a bad person. Regardless, I know that Cate Blanchett is one of the very best actresses on the planet, so I trust she is more than worthy of this nomination. Beyond that I can, and will, say nothing.

Brie Larson - Room : Brie Larson is utterly magnificent in the terribly uneven Room. She brings a captivating and genuine humanity to her role and an appealing presence to the screen. She has the opportunity to be one of the hand full of actresses whose work really matters in the coming years.

Jennifer Lawrence -  Joy : It seems you can't have an Academy Awards without Jennifer Lawrence anymore. That is fine by me as she is a solid, if inconsistent actress, and a vivacious movie star. I have not seen Joy…I cannot imagine any scenario where I missed anything by not seeing it. I cannot say if Lawrence deserves this nod for her acting, but she does deserve it for her "star" qualities, which always brighten an otherwise dull festivities.

Charlotte Rampling - 45 Years : Due to circumstances beyond my control, i was not able to go to as many movies as I usually do this year. In fact, I was so out of the loop that I had never, and still have not, ever heard of this movie. That said, Charlotte Rampling is as good an actress as you'll find, and she has done consistent quality work over the course of her illustrious career.

Saoirse Ronan -  Brooklyn : I am a big fan of Saoirse Ronan. Her work in Brooklyn is so much better than the film that surrounds her. She is one of those actresses who can tell an entire story just with the slightest look in her eye. She is as interesting an actress as I've seen in recent years, and I look forward to watching her career unfold.

WHO WINS: BRIE LARSON: This is a no brainer. Larson has won most of the other acting awards leading up to this, so the Academy will fall in line and reward her for a job well done in Room.

WHO SHOULD WIN: BRIE LARSON. I have no problem with Larson winning, I would also have no problem with Saoirse Ronan winning. Both young actresses live up to the hype of their performances in films that don't live up to the same hype.

Best Actor:

Bryan Cranston -  Trumbo: Bryan Cranston is a terrific actor. He can do drama, comedy, television and film. I love Bryan Cranston. I don't know anyone who doesn't love Bryan Cranston. That said…he is not only "not good" in Trumbo…he is actively terrible. This film, and Cranston's performance in it, are so atrociously awful as to be embarrassing. Yuck.

Matt Damon -  The Martian: This is not so much an acting performance as it is a movie star performance. Matt Damon has done some stellar work in his career, and you can make the argument hat he is the best, and most underrated actor of his generation. That said, his work in The Martian is, just like the film itself,  underwhelming and a little…soft.

Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant: I found Leo's work in The Revenant to be a step back in his artistic evolution. There was a lot of grunting and groaning, and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but there wasn't much skill or craft on display. To DiCaprio's credit, he always brings high energy and 100% commitment to his work, but in The Revenant he fell back into old and bad habits.

 Michael Fassbender - Steve Jobs : Fassbender is a wonder in the sensational Steve Jobs. The degree of difficulty in this role is off the charts, especially when you throw in the very particular writing style of Aaron Sorkin, which is difficult to master. Fassbender not only conquers the difficult script , but imbues Jobs with a driving inner life that fills the screen and every scene he inhabits. Fassbender has proven himself to be one of the best and most interesting actors working in film today. The sky is the limit in terms of his future.

Eddie Redmayne - The Danish Girl: Eddie Redmayne won a Best Actor Oscar for what I thought was a rather mundane performance as Stephen Hawking in last years The Theory of Everything. I felt that performance was trite and shallow, but in The Danish Girl, Redmayne brings a palpable wound to his role that is magnetic. Redmayne's work in the terribly flawed The Danish Girl, is far superior to his work in The Theory of Everything, and shows that Redmayne is not a one trick pony.

WHO WINS: LEONARDO DICAPRIO. This is a lock. Why? Well, in Hollywood terms…Leo is due. He has played the Hollywood game the right way. He has been a movie star and a big time actor and has never bitched and moaned when he hasn't won an Oscar. He has waited his turn and now…he is due.

WHO SHOULD WIN: MICHAEL FASSBENDER.  Fassbender gives by and far the best performance of the year in Steve Jobs. It is as meticulous, specific and detailed a piece of work as you'll see. Sadly, in Hollywood's eyes, it just isn't Fassbender's time.

Best Original Screenplay:

Bridge of Spies: A terrible movie and a terrible script. But the Coen brothers co-wrote it so it gets nominated. Yay Hollywood!!

Ex Machina: Fantastic film and a remarkable script. Alex Garland is THE best science fiction writer in film today. Ex Machina is proof of his prodigious talent and skill.

Inside Out: Didn't see it and frankly don't care.

Spotlight: Superb film with an exquisitely crafted and tight script from it's director Tom McCarthy.

Straight Outta Compton: Awful script, awful film. Even worse, the only reason the film is nominated is because the Academy assumed the writers were Black. They aren't. Oops.

WHO WINS: SPOTLIGHT. I think McCarthy wins because he wrote a great script, but also because the Academy ( and I), admire his film, and his directing, but won't give him Oscars for either. This is a compromise Oscar. Also, McCarthy is a well-known, and liked actor in the industry, and the Academy is made up of a majority of actors, and God knows actors like to reward other actors.

WHO SHOULD WIN: SPOTLIGHT. That script has no fat and no wasted scenes in it. It is extremly well written.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

The Big Short: A staggeringly well written script that boils down complex and complicated financial topics into digestible, entertaining and compelling dramatic and comedic scenes. Remarkably well done.

Brooklyn : The script has some issues, the biggest of which is the Italian family and the love story. Mama mia!!! 

Carol : Did not see it, not proper for me to comment.

The Martian : Why do people like this movie? Why do people respect this movie? I found the script to be a total shit show. The script goes to great lengths to diminish any dramatic tension and momentum it might have had if it were well written. A piece of junk.

Room: A flawed script. The first half is powerful, the second half flaccid. If the writer and director could have maintained the laser focus they had in the first half of the film throughout, they would have had the film of the year on their hands.

WHO WINS: THE BIG SHORT: Besides being exceedingly well written, the script is written by director Adam McKay. The Academy will give McKay, just like they gave McCarthy, a consolation Oscar for screenplay, since they won't give him Best Director, or Best Picture. This is how the game works.

WHO SHOULD WIN: THE BIG SHORT. Easily the very best script in this bunch and maybe of the entire year.

Best Director:

Adam Mckay - The Big Short : After seeing The Big Short for the first time, the credits rolled and it was revealed to me that Adam McKay was the director. Adam McKay? Isn't he "Will Ferrell's" director? Yes, he is. It is almost inconceivable that the man who has directed Will Ferrell movies directed The Big Short. This film is so well made, so well directed that it is astonishing. McKay may not win the Best Director Oscar, but his work in The Big Short is unquestionably worthy of the award.

George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road: I finally saw Mad Max: Fury Road and while I think it is a tremendous achievement in filmmaking, I don't think it is much of an artistic achievement. The degree of difficulty in making this film, and George Miller's popularity among the Academy are probably why he and the film are nominated.

Alejandro G. Inarritu -  The Revenant: Innaritu is an interesting director…I am still not sure he is a good one though. Birdman, while good, was flawed. The Revenant, while similar to Mad Max, is an undeniably great achievement in filmmaking, is not a great film. There is always something just…off…about an Innaritu directed film. I am not sure why…but I am sure it is true.

Lenny Abrahamson -  Room: Abrahamson lost control of this film in the second half, just like he lost control of last years Frank in the second half. There is a lack of narrative focus in both films that I find troubling, and the blame for that falls at the feet of Abrahamson.

Tom McCarthy -  Spotlight: Spotlight is a professional film across the board. Well acted, well written, and very well directed. There is no dead air, no drop in tension, no narrative sidetracks that undermine this film. McCarthy deserves all the praise he is getting and a helluva lot more for his great work directing Spotlight. To think the last film he directed prior to this one was The Cobbler, starring Adams Sandler, is mind boggling. But as they say, the mortgage aint gonna pay itself.

WHO WINS: ALEJANDRO G. INNARITU. I think this year the academy just goes with the momentum of The Revenant, and Innaritu wins his second consecutive Best Director Oscar.

WHO SHOULD WIN: ADAM MCKAY. It is impossible to overstate what a terrific job he did directing this sprawling, complex story, and making it not only palatable but enjoyable. I would also be pleased to see McCarthy win for Spotlight, but I think McKay did the better job.

Best Picture:

The Big Short: Great, great film. The script, the director and the cast are all outstanding. To add to it, the film is incredibly relevant considering the financial storm that is fast approaching us. The lesson from this film is that we have learned nothing from 2008. What you fail to acknowledge you are doomed to repeat.

Bridge of Spies: Utter garbage. Not a single thing is noteworthy about this film. It isn't even terrible enough to be terrible. It is middle of the road, lukewarm, propaganda. It is nominated because Spielberg rules with an iron fist.

Brooklyn: Flawed film, with elements of greatness, but with a love storyline that scuttles the whole ship. Let me take that back, it is the casting of that love story and the italian family at the center of it that scuttles the good ship Brooklyn.

Mad Max: Fury Road: Shooting this film, with all of it's elaborate stunts and locations, and doing it in the conditions of the high desert, is a tremendous achievement. That said, the film is really little more than a two hour chase scene.

The Martian: A mess of a movie that can't get out of its own way. It never could decide on what it wanted to be, so it tried to be everything to everyone and ended up being nothing.

The Revenant: An odd film in that it is not very good on it's surface, but the deeper you dig the more interesting it gets. Some very easily observable structural flaws make this film less than what it should have been, and less than what people make it out to be. 

Room: As good a first half of a film as any this year, the second half really undermines the power of the first. Releasing the dramatic tension of life in the room was an unwise narrative choice that is like an albatross around the neck of the rest of the film.

Spotlight: Solid film across the board. Superb cast, script and directing make this film a joy to behold. Reminds one of the solid and steady films Hollywood used to churn out on a regular basis back in the 70's.

WHO WINS: THE REVENANT. I think The Revenant goes on a run this year. It has all the momentum and all of the energy. I also think that the technical people in the Academy admire the degree of difficulty involved in shooting in the cold and the snow and want to reward that. The achievement of even making a film of any note while shooting in those conditions, is worth tipping the cap, and I think the Academy will do so here.

WHO SHOULD WIN: THE BIG SHORT…with Spotlight a close second. Both films boast top-notch, stellar casts that do great work, extremely well crafted scripts and solid and deft direction. I think  The Big Short is slightly better than Spotlight, but both films are deserving of recognition.

Thus ends another glorious Oscar preview and prediction post. Be sure to keep your eye out for the expected protests and jokes at the expense of the Academy this year due to the charges of racism and the #OscarsSoWhite meme. I have written at length on the subject, so if you want a rational, and not emotional, approach to the subject, you should read this. And be sure to bring it up to your Oscar party guests as I am sure it will make for some interesting discussions that devolve quickly into racism accusations being shouted at you. Let it bother you not, just notice the blind embrace of emotionalism by #OscarsSoWhite supporters and their allergy to rational discussion and statistical fact.

I think Jamie Foxx, a Best Actor Oscar winner and a Black man, summed it up best when he said of those complaining about a lack of Black actors at the Oscars that they should..."act better". He may have been joking, but he is right. When your argument for Black actors to get Oscar nominations includes that dullard from Star Wars, the amateur hour clowns from Straight Outta Compton and, God help us…WILL SMITH, you don't exactly have a Black leg to stand on. 

With that said, you can rest assured that next year we will have many Black actors nominated, even if their work is unworthy of the award, because if the Academy is one thing…besides being White... it is certainly spineless…oh... and easily manipulated too.

Regardless of all of that unpleasantness…please go forth and enjoy the most sacred holiday this universe, of which Hollywood is undeniably the center, has ever known, Oscar Night. Be sure to surround yourself with friends and bask in the warm glow of the frenzied, masturbatorial, self-congratulatory, back slapping that will fill your tv screen on Sunday night. Rest assured that dopes like us, and our stupid, loser friends, will never be worthy enough to win an Academy Award, but we are lucky enough to get to watch the greatest and holiest among us as they win their awards….and that is reward enough for me…and should be for you too.

In conclusion, we pray to the gods atop Olympus and all the Kardashians, we pray to our Father Kevin Costner, to the Son Shia LeBouf and to the Holy Ghost Whoopi Goldberg. 

Amen.

Spotlight : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONATINS ZERO SPOILERS!!! THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!****

MY RATING : SEE IT IN THE THEATRE!!

Spotlight, directed by Tom McCarthy and written by McCarthy and Josh Singer, is the true story of a team of reporters from the Boston Globe's Spotlight team, who investigate and report on child sex abuse by Catholic priests in the Boston Diocese. The film stars Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Stanley Tucci, John Slattery and Liev Schrieber.

Spotlight is one of the very best films of the year. It is a tense drama, exquisitely acted by a sterling cast, deftly directed and intricately edited. Spotlight is the type of film that seems like it could have been made during cinema's golden age in the 1970's. It feels like a distant cousin of that decades All the President's Men, another story of journalism and hard-driving reporters investigating a scandal deep at the heart of a thought to be untouchable power. Interestingly enough, in Spotlight, John Slattery plays Boston Globe journalist and editor Ben Bradlee Jr., the son of famed Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, one of the key players at the Post during their Watergate reporting, who was played by Jason Robards in All the President's Men.

Even though Spotlight is set in the late 1990's and early 2000's, it is really an insightful period piece about the last days of the relevancy of newspapers, and of the dying craft of investigative journalism. The film pays homage to the last generation of journalists who will have had the opportunity to work full-time doing investigative reporting for a newspaper. Corporatism and the internet have devastated the newspaper industry, and Spotlight shows us that industry's last gasp, and what we are missing now that it is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

Spotlight is also about the scourge of institutional blindness and the insidiousness of silence in the face of that blindness. The willful institutional blindness of the church, the press, the courts and law enforcement, and of the people of the city of Boston is on full display in the film. At its heart, Spotlight is really an indictment of the city and the people of Boston. Boston is one of the most parochial places you could ever imagine. For a place filled with legendary institutions of higher learning, it is remarkably narrow-minded and short-sighted. As the film shows us, the suffocating claustrophobia, knee-jerk myopia and the vicious parochialism of Boston created a toxic brew of dysfunction, arrogance and deference in which predatory priests and the Church hierarchy thrived. Only an outsider could break the spell of Boston's willful blindness, and in Spotlight that role is played by Liev Schreiber as Marty Baron, a Jewish editor from Miami who is new to the city and the Globe, and not beholden to the Church. Baron is the one who instigates the Spotlight team into investigating the church and pushes them to dig deeper and reach higher up the hierarchy in their work.

When the story of Spotlight ends, and the indictment of Boston is complete, a very long list of other cities and town scrolls across the screen. These cities and towns are places where other Catholic sex abuse scandals have been uncovered, and the viewer gets the dawning realization that Spotlight isn't an indictment against the city and people of Boston, it is an indictment against all of us, no matter where we live. We are all guilty of the same blindness and cowardice, to one degree or another, on display in Spotlight.

Director Tom McCarthy and his editors do a spectacular job deftly maneuvering the viewer through the morass of the allegations and the cover up at the heart of the film. He keeps a solid and steady dramatic pace, never letting the story lose steam or the viewer lose interest. McCarthy shows a great skill in pacing and tempo throughout the film. Spotlight is littered with detailed little gems which frame and shape each scene and propel the story through the entirety of the film. McCarthy is an actor himself, and his understanding of acting is on full display in Spotlight. He keeps the scenes tight and the actors loose. McCarthy directs the drama to be  vibrant, but never pushes the pace too hard that we lose the subtlety, specificity and humanity at the heart of each of the performances.

The acting on display in the film is exquisite across the board. Even the small, local hires, playing abuse victims and local residents, hit it out of the park. This is a top-notch, professionally acted film from top to bottom. Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams and Brian D'arcy James play the Spotlight reporters perfectly. They bring a tangible sense of purpose and vivd detail to their work that drives each scene and ultimately the narrative of the entire film.

It is great to see Michael Keaton follow up his great artistic success in last years Birdman, with his solid work in Spotlight. Keaton is pitch-perfect as Walter "Robby" Robertson, a native son of Boston and well-respected journalist. I hope Keaton continues to make these kinds of choices in the projects that he chooses as he is such an asset to any film where he can bring his skill and experience to bear.

McAdams does the best work of her career as reporter Sacha Pfieffer.  McAdams is as grounded and genuine as she has ever been on screen. She displays a humanity and a compelling internal life that is both steady and captivating.

Mark Ruffalo follows up his terrific work in last years otherwise disappointing Foxcatcher, with a dynamic performance as reporter Michael Rezendes. Ruffalo brings a magnetic power and a tangible wound to the role that is mesmerizing. Ruffalo has been on a roll lately with great work and Spotlight is some of his best.

Both Liev Schreiber and Stanley Tucci have smaller roles but they do spectacular work. Both men are actors of extraordinary craft and talent, and they both bring all of their skills to bear in Spotlight. Without Schrieber and Tucci's multi-dimensional portrayals, the film would have suffered greatly.

Spotlight is the type of superbly crafted film of which I wish Hollywood would make more. Spotlight, The Big Short, which is another great film from this year, and 12 Years a Slave from 2013, all had minuscule budgets around $20 million and all of them at least more than doubled their budgets in profits. Instead of spending $100 or $200 million to make a monstrosity like The Avengers or some action piece of crap, why not take that money and make five or ten Spotlights, or The BIg Shorts or 12 Years a Slave? Those three films combined cost $60 million to make and have grossed $363 million. With moderate budgets like that, there is less risk and higher reward, as opposed to a $200 million film, which will nearly double its budget on marketing and then need to make a billion dollars just to be considered a success. Spotlight shows that good and great films can be made relatively inexpensively using just the skill, craft and talent of the people involved. I wish for all of our sakes that Hollywood would learn that lesson, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't. Regardless of the state of the film industry, Spotlight is proof that there are still artists out there capable of making high quality, smart films. 

In conclusion, Spotlight is one of my favorite films of the year. It teaches us hard lessons about our own cultural blindness and the price that the most vulnerable among us pay for it. It also shows us a time not long ago, when the press could, on its better days, hold those in power accountable. Those days are long gone, and Spotlight reveals to us that our culture is lesser for the loss of true investigative journalism. Spotlight is well worth your time, money and effort to go see it in the theaters. I strongly encourage you to do so. 

©2016

****WARNING, THIS FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS SPOILERS!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT****

FROM THE KONSPIRACY KORNER!!

(This section is written by my lifelong friend and our resident conspiracist, Prof. Rev. Dr. Steve Keithans a.k.a The Mayor of Westfield. The good Professor Reverend Doctor Keithans views may or may not be the same as my own, but regardless, I am happy to share them here with you now.)

The strangest thing…when speaking with my good brother Michael McCaffrey about the film Spotlight, one of the great elements that we both noticed about the film was how fantastically well paced it is. But to my eyes there was one small hiccup which stuck out to me like a sore thumb. Films have a visual style, rhythm and pace to them. Shots are consistently framed and lit in a certain style and held for a certain length creating an unconscious rhythm for the viewer of a film. Each shot informs the shot that follows it and is informed by the one that preceded it. Spotlight quickly establishes its visual rhythm and sticks with it through the entire film…except for one…single...shot.

The shot in question takes place at exactly 1 hour 23 minutes and 22 seconds of the film. The shot is of the Boston Globe parking lot as editor Mark Baron (Liev Schreiber) arrives to the office. It is a wide shot, one which we have not seen yet, nor will we see it again. We have seen this same parking lot before but only in close ups and two shots of the actors in their cars. In this shot, from a high angle wide shot, we see Baron pull his car in to the parking lot. Looming over the parking lot, and dominating the shot, is a big "AOL Anywhere" billboard and the background is the skyline of Boston. Here is a screen capture of the shot.

It is an odd shot in the context of the visual style and rhythm of the film and it is jarring to the unconscious of the viewer because it breaks that rhythm. It is pretty striking that the one shot that is out of rhythm with the entire film is that of an AOL Anywhere billboard which happens to have a giant pyramid with an all seeing eye in it. What makes the shot all the more jarring is the context of where it shows up in the film. The scene directly following this shot shows Mark Baron entering the Boston Globe office, in the foreground a group of people are gathered around a television watching breaking news. The breaking news is the 9-11 attack. Baron stops in front of the television long enough to see a jumbo jet crash into the World Trade Center. 

When I first saw the film I felt uneasy with the parking lot shot, but didn't really give it much thought. The sensation was one of slight discomfort, something just seemed off, nothing more. It was more subconscious than anything and it barely registered in my conscious mind except to say…"hmmm…that feels…off".

Upon my second viewing of the film, I was more consciously jarred by the visual anomaly, and I wondered if this was just a very unsubtle case of AOL product placement.  

Then I thought, well, maybe the director is trying to symbolically say that newspapers in general, and the Boston Globe in particular, don't know what is coming at them, the black swan theory if you will…that they are blind to their own on-coming demise in the form of AOL (the internet), much like the U.S. was blind to the 9-11 attacks. 

Then I wondered if maybe this shot has a deeper meaning that the director was not even conscious of, or maybe he was…who knows, right? Maybe the all seeing eye highlighted in that shot is symbolic of one of the shadowy "secret societies" that are known to use child sex abuse rituals when they practice their dark art. Or maybe it is symbolic of the all seeing eye of "the powers that be" in the military-intelligence-surveillance industrial complex who were either complicit or entirely behind the 9-11 attacks in order to increase their power and control by creating a "new Pearl Harbor". Or maybe those two groups, the child sex abuse ritual people, and the military-intelligence-surveillience industrial complex people are cross pollinated and are actually one in the same and this shot shows us a brief glimpse of their vast power and control…the billboard does say "AOL Everywhere" after all.

Then I wondered if maybe this shot was a secret warning from an insider of one of these groups, alerting anyone with the eyes to see that this nefarious, shadowy group was behind both the sex abuse in the Catholic church, and 9-11 and most everything we see in the media (once again…"Everywhere"). And then I wondered if this shot was indicating that another 9-11 was coming, this time aimed at Boston.

And then I wondered why my head hurt so much, and then I realized that my tinfoil hat was on way too tight. Sadly, after I removed the tinfoil hat from my head, the aching still remained…and even more unsettlingly, so did the anomaly of that shot and the all seeing eye in the pyramid looming over the city of Boston, and glaring right at me…and seeing right through me…knowing and controlling…"EVERYTHING".

©2016

Beasts of No Nation : A Review

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!!****

MY RATING : SEE IT!!

Beasts of No Nation is the story of a young boy who struggles to survive in his West African homeland as civil war ravages the country. The film is shot, written and directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, and is based upon Uzodinma Iweala's novel of the same name. The film stars Abraham Atta as the young boy Agu, and Idris Elba as "Commandant", a leader of a group of rebel fighters.

Beasts of No Nation is unquestionably one of the best films of the year. It is a devastating portrait of the making, and life, of a child soldier in a vicious and brutal war. Director Fukunaga masterfully gives the viewer the palpable sense of fear that thrives amidst the chaos and disorder of a country coming apart at the seams. It is out of this fertile intense fear that ruthless child soldiers are born, and atrocities committed. Fukunaga deftly shows Agu's transformation from a frightened little boy wretched from his loving family and alone in the world, to being a young man thrown in with a 'new warrior family', who frightens his world.

Beasts of No Nation has drawn comparisons to Apocalypse Now, and rightfully so. While it is not as great as that iconic classic, it certainly illustrates the same maniacal senselessness of fighting in a war with no meaning, no purpose and no end. At its mythic core, the film is really about a world absent of the feminine energy, or Anima. When Agu's mother must leave the war zone, Agu is left behind to emotionally fend for himself as a boy among the men. He knows this is the beginning of his perilous hero's journey from boyhood to manhood. When a boy evolves he needs both the Anima (feminine) and the Animus (masculine) to shape and form him during this delicate developmental period. Without the symmetrical push-pull tension of feminine vs. masculine, no psychological balance and harmony can be created. Not to mix animal metaphors, but when the Mama bear is not there to protect and nurture her cubs, then they must run with the ruthless wolves. With the wolves of men, no quarter is asked and none is given. Men can teach a boy how to be a man, but they cannot teach him how to be human. Beasts of No Nation shows what happens when the fragile Yin and Yang of masculine/feminine is knocked out of balance. As the film teaches us, when the Anima vanishes and the Animus is left to reign alone, violence, sadism, madness and rape prosper.

Writer/Director Cary Joji Fukunaga was also cinematographer on the film and he paints with a powerful and intricate touch. His camera movements and use of color are exquisite and give the film a distinct visual style. To be fair, I read a bit about a charge of "photographic plagiarism" on Fukunaga's part involving stealing a still photographers approach to shooting child soldiers under the influence of drugs. If the charge, which I take to be a very serious one, is true, it is a damning one. There is a thin line between paying homage to another visual artist, and downright theft, but when that line is crossed it is a deplorable act. Fukunaga is obviously an enormous storytelling and visual talent, I certainly hope he chooses to fall back on his own ideas and not borrow or out right steal from any other artists in the future.

As for the acting, Abraham Atta is an absolute powerhouse as Agu. He makes the transition from being a typical little boy who pesters his brother and is afraid to be away from his mother, to being a cold blooded killer, seamlessly and effortlessly. There is not a single false note from him in the entire film. He is a genuinely grounded, charming and dynamic screen presence. Atta is a Ghanaian born actor, and I really hope he is able to continue to work and grow as an actor in the years to come as he is a natural.

Idris Elba gives a staggering performance as "Commandant". Elba is one of the best actors working in film and television today. He can do drama and comedy, he can play the leading man or the villain. In Beasts of No Nation he plays a complex and charismatic leader of a rag-tag band of soldiers fighting government troops in a civil war. Elba's Commandante has an undeniable magnetism that lures both the viewer and Agu under his spell. Commandante is both bully and best friend, a father figure and a foe to Agu and the viewer alike. Without an appealing and forceful actor like Elba playing the role of Commandante, the narrative of the film would fall apart, as Agu's transformation would not be unbelievable for the audience if they themselves don't simultaneously fall under the Commandante's hypnotic allure right along with Agu. 

The rest of the cast are all Ghanaian born actors who do tremendous work. The entire cast is spot-on in their work and completely committed, bringing a chilling sense of realism to the picture. Emmanuel Nii Adom Quaye as the mute child warrior Stryka is particularly fantastic. His character never says a word but conveys more than words ever could. Quaye carries a world and war weariness on his face that says more than any dialogue. Just a look from Quaye's Stryka can break your heart, or stop it, depending on his intentions. Quaye, like Atta, is a vibrant screen presence and an actor of undeniable intrigue. 

There has been a lot of talk about Beasts of No Nation and Elba, in particular, being snubbed by the Academy Awards because the film is a "black' film and Elba a black actor. I have written previously my thoughts on the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, so I won't go into great detail here. I will say this, Beasts of No Nation deserves to be nominated for Best Picture, Elba, and maybe even Quaye for Best Supporting Actor and Abraham Atta for Best Actor. The fact that they weren't nominated has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the film industry. Beasts of No Nation was distributed by Netflix, which made the film available immediately on it's online service. Netflix also skirted some distribution agreements with theaters and therefore only released the film into theatres in very limited areas for a short time. The Academy views Beasts of No Nation as a tv movie since it went online at the same time it went into theaters. This is why it was overlooked by the Academy.

Regardless of all that, the film deserves to be seen and admired. Fukunaga deserved a Best  Director nomination as well, but was overlooked right along with the film, Elba, Quaye and Atta. Race was not why that occurred. Right or wrong, the business is why it occurred.

In conclusion, Beasts of No Nation is a spectacular film. I saw it as a SAG dvd screener and desperately wish I could have seen it on the big screen. It is a visually dazzling, dramatically compelling and emotionally potent film. The acting, directing, writing and cinematography are all top notch and nearly flawless. I highly recommend you take the time and watch Beasts of No Nation, as it is most definitely worth your time and attention. 

©2016

Bridge of Spies : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!! THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!***

MY RATING : SKIP IT.

Bridge of Spies, written by Matt Charman and Joel and Ethan Coen and directed by Steven Spielberg, is the story of James B. Donovan, an American insurance lawyer who must defend Rudolf Abel, a Soviet spy arrested in Brooklyn in 1957 at the height of the cold war. Donovan, played by Tom Hanks, struggles to overcome both overt and covert legal, popular and familial hostility in order to give Abel (Mark Rylance) a worthy defense.

The first half of the film is dedicated to Donovan's defense of Abel amid a corrupt legal system. The second half of the film follows Donovan's attempts to facilitate a prisoner swap In East Germany between the Soviets, who want Abel back, and the Americans, who want infamous U2 pilot Francis Gary Powers back. This prisoner swap is made even more complicated as the negotiations are occurring as the Berlin Wall is being built, and an American college student is trapped on the wrong side of the wall.

If you asked most "normal" people, "normal" meaning people smart enough to not work in the film business, who the greatest filmmaker in the world was? Odds are, probably 90 to 95% would say Steven Spielberg. His name is synonymous with modern day filmmaking and enormously successful blockbusters. But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret, if you anonymously asked that same question to people who work in the film business, and they knew their answers would be confidential, the answers would be exactly the opposite. Spielberg would maybe get 5% of the vote. How do I know this? Because I've done it. I talk to people everyday in this business and they tell me all sorts of things you won't hear among 'the normals'.

I'll let you in on another dirty little secret…Steven Spielberg simply lacks the skill as a filmmaker to make a serious film of any notable quality. If you give Spielberg some aliens, dinosaurs or monsters, he'll knock it out of the park nine times out of ten (for instance, Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind are two popcorn films of unadulterated genius). But give him a true drama with real people, and he fumbles and stumbles his way through it. He can make his serious films appear to be noteworthy to the unsophisticated viewer, with soft lighting and a swelling soundtrack, but anyone with the least bit of artistic sensibility can see that these "serious" films are, like their director, completely devoid of gravitas.

I saw Bridge of Spies a few months ago and have not written about it at all because I found it to be so unremarkable. It is a tepid and flaccid film of no note whatsoever. I was so underwhelmed by it that I basically forgot I saw it and therefore forgot to review it. Then a friend, a famous director whom I will call Director X, emailed me a review of the film with a laughing emoji attached. As a practice I never read reviews prior to seeing a film and almost never after seeing a film. But I read the review my friend sent me and it made me, like the emoji accompanying it, fall out of my chair laughing. The review was glowing and spoke of Spielberg with a reverence usually reserved for saints and martyrs. The thing that made me laugh so hard was the reviewer said that Spielberg made the brilliant decision to "remove all dramatic tension from the film". Think about that sentence for a minute. "Remove all dramatic tension from the film". That is usually something you write about a film when that film is an unmitigated disaster, not when you are praising a director for his brilliance. For instance a reviewer may write, "why on earth would a director REMOVE ALL DRAMATIC TENSION FROM A FILM?" Well…whether St. Spielberg made that decision consciously or unconsciously, I can't say for sure, but he certainly succeeded in "removing all dramatic tension from the film". Spielberg should be charged with dramatic and storytelling misconduct and general directorial malpractice for having "removed all the dramatic tension from the film".

This glowing review was not alone in it's praise of Bridge of Spies, the film is currently at 91% at critic section of the website Rotten Tomatoes. This is less an endorsement of Spielberg's work and more an indictment of the reviewers, in particular, and the business of film criticism in general. Whenever a new Spielberg film comes out you can count on the overwhelming amount of reviews being inordinately positive. Spielberg's power and reach in the film industry is gargantuan, that reviewers are afraid to speak ill of him even when he churns out one of his usual sub-par "serious" films is a testament to his standing in the business and the reviewers cowardice in the face of it. It is amazing that so many reviewers are either that bad at their job and don't know garbage when they see it, or are too afraid to speak truth to the powerful in the industry. Don't believe me? Go read the glowing reviews for the dreadful Amistad, or Saving Private Ryan, which got Spielberg a Best Director Oscar, but which is little more than one great battlefield sequence surrounded by two and a half hours of below standard World War II film tropes. Want more, check out the heavy-handed Munich, or the cloying The Color Purple.

Spielberg's holocaust epic, Schindler's List, is considered to be his greatest film for it won him a Best Picture and Best Director Oscar, but Stanley Kubrick said it best when he said of the film "Think that's (Schindler's List) about the Holocaust? That film was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about 6 million people who get killed. Schindler's List is about 600 who don't. Schindler's List is about success, the Holocaust is about failure." As always, Kubrick is right. Here is a great short video of director Terry Gilliam explaining Spielberg and his success. It is well worth the two minutes it takes to watch. In the video Gilliam explains the difference between the genius of Kubrick, whose films make us question, and that of shills like Spielberg, whose films give us answers, and answers that are always soft and "stupid". Spielberg placates us, Kubrick agitates us. Spielberg tell us what we want to hear, Kubrick tells us the truth.

So it is with Bridge of Spies where Spielberg goes to great lengths to assure us that America is unquestionably the moral and ethical beacon of hope in a cold and dark world. There is the opportunity for Spielberg to leave us with a question as to whether American moral superiority is genuine or simply a facade, but he goes to great lengths to eliminate that question when he adds a dramatically misguided coda to the film. This coda is there for no other reason than to squelch any potential uneasiness or doubt within the viewer as to their own, and America's "goodness".

Prior to Bridge of Spies, Spielberg's last piece of crap "serious" film was Lincoln, and it is a perfect example of what I am talking about in terms of Critic malfeasance. I was listening to a podcast on the now defunct Grantland website where some critics were discussing Lincoln and all of them but one were tripping over themselves to praise the film. The one critic who was a bit apprehensive had to keep assuring the others and the listener, that he was, in fact, NOT A RACIST and was against slavery, but that he thought the film was slightly flawed. Good Lord, it was just the worst sort of pandering imaginable. Lincoln isn't a great film, it isn't even a good film, it is a really really really bad film. It is so structurally flawed that if it were a house it would be condemned. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a dope, a dupe, or both.

There are two things at play here…1. Everyone needs to kiss up to Spielberg and pretend he's some "serious" filmmaker in order to not lose access and get frozen out of the film business where Spielberg is very powerful and has a long memory. and 2. Critics really do not know any better and don't know what the hell they are writing about and just go with the flow of the pandering crowd.

Regardless of why it happens, there is no doubt that it does happen, and that it has happened with Bridge of Spies. Structurally, once again, the film is untenable. Spielberg, just like in Lincoln, adds an unnecessary coda to the film that does nothing more than water down the already thin narrative. 

Just like in Lincoln, in Bridge of Spies, Spielberg adds story lines that do little more than extend the running time and do nothing but muddy the dramatic and narrative cohesion of the story. Just like in Lincoln he has a cloying and candied soundtrack that tells the viewer when and how to feel. Just like in Lincoln, and all his other "serious" films, Spielberg indicates his seriousness with a specific 'soft lighting'.

Steven Spielberg is a huge collector of Norman Rockwell's paintings. This should come as no surprise as he is the Norman Rockwell of filmmaking. Most of Spielberg's 'serious' films are little more than saccharine propaganda espousing America's moral and ethical supremacy. It is sadly ironic that the man who has done so much noble work for holocaust survivors with his Shoah Foundation, has morphed into little more than a modern day American Leni Reifenstahl.

Tom Hanks reprises his role as Spielberg's partner in propaganda crime by starring in Bridge of Spies. Hanks performance is typically Hanks-ian as he does little more than play dignity that often-times veers into arrogant preeminence. Like the film, Hank's performance is of no note whatsoever. It comes and goes without the least bit of notice.

Acting styles and tastes have changed over the years, for instance, go watch Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, a film for which he won his first of back-to-back Best Actor Oscars. Hanks performance, and the film itself, are terribly shallow and vacuous. Watch any Tom Hanks film over his stretch of dominance from 1992 to 2002 and you notice something, Tom Hanks doesn't act, he performs, which is why he is such a match for Spielberg who doesn't create art, but instead makes entertainment. To the uninitiated that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but to those in the know, it is a gigantic difference. There are very rare moments in Hanks career when he stops performing and starts acting (or being), and these moments are glorious, but they are very few and far between.

The first moment of note when Hanks stops performing and starts acting is in Forest Gump when Forest realizes that Jenny has had his child, and then realizes the implications of that and asks Jenny if his child is stupid or not. It is the only real moment in the entire film from Hanks and it is spectacularly human.

Another example is in Captain Phillips, where, after spending the entire film butchering a New England accent...AGAIN (he did the same thing in Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can), Hanks pulls out a moment of genuine humanity that is staggering. The moment is near the end, when Phillips sits in an examination room after his rescue a doctor (who is spectacular in the scene) checks him out to make sure he has no injuries. Hanks says little, but his body starts to convulse uncontrollably and he weeps and wails. It is easily the greatest acting Tom Hanks has ever done on screen.

Do these moments override the previous two hours of bad accent in Captain Phillips, or the shticky performing on display in Forest Gump? For me…maybe…but it depends on what day you ask me.

Hanks is like those actors in the Pre-Brando Big Bang era, actors like Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart. He is more playing himself or playing a version of himself that people identify as the "everyman". What has bubbled to the surface in Hanks "everyman" work in the latter part of his career, is that "everyman" has become "smug and contemptuous". There is a haughtiness that seeps through his pores that I find odd and frankly puzzling. A great example of this is in a scene from Saving Private Ryan where Hanks' character listens to Matt Damon's character do a monologue about he and his brothers growing up.

That same air of superiority, the "my poop don't stink but yours sure does" attitude, is on full display from Hanks in Bridge of Spies as well. How the American everyman came to be so arrogant and high and mighty I have no idea, but in the world of Spielberg and Hanks, he certainly has. 

A few final notes in terms of the acting in Bridge of Spies (which is a horrendous name for a film by the way, no doubt thought up by some marketing genius at a studio). First, Mark Rylance gives an outstanding and meticulous performance as Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. Rylance is one of the great Shakespearean actors of our time, and he was the first artistic director of the Globe Theatre in London (1995-2005). Many, many moons ago I had the good fortune to study with him while I was in London. He is a fountain of knowledge regarding acting and Shakespeare, and is a very soft-spoken and genuinely kind person. His work in Bridge of Spies has garnered him a much deserved Best Supporting Actor Oscar. I don't know if he will win, but I will certainly be rooting for him. I also hope he does more film work and a wider audience gets a chance to appreciate his brilliance.

Another actor of note is Eve Hewson, who plays Tom Hanks daughter in the film. Hewson doesn't have too many scenes in the film, but she is captivating whenever she is on screen. There is one scene where she is lying on a couch eating ice cream that in the hands of a lesser actress would have been little more than a throwaway, but Hewson makes it a vibrant sequence worthy of attention. In a strange twist, Eve Hewson is the daughter of Paul Hewson a.k.a. Bono. Bono is, of course, the lead singer of U2, which took its band name from the same plane Francis Gary Powers was flying over the Soviet Union when he was shot down. Spooky coincidence or brilliant subliminal marketing…you decide!!!

In conclusion, Bridge of Spies is another in a long line of Spielberg's uncritical and pandering "serious" films. It is just another one of the Spielberg-Hanks propaganda collaborations that is painstakingly safe and flag-wavingly dull. In fact, I have an admittedly insane theory that both Spielberg and Hanks are contract propaganda agents of the U.S. intelligence community. Obviously I don't have time to share my tinfoil hat wearing madness with you here, but just go look at both of their filmographies and notice a pattern in the themes running through the films of both of them (case in point…notice in the re-release of E.T. Spielberg edited out the government agents guns and replaced them with walkie talkies and flashlights!!). Ok…enough of my rambling, just know that in the final analysis, Bridge of Spies is a film of no consequence that you never need to watch. If it is in the theatre, save your money and skip it, if it is on cable, don't waste your time, just change the channel. 

One final note, thank you for reading, and if you could do me a favor and keep this review between just the two of us, I'd really appreciate it. I don't want Steven Spielberg getting wind of it as I'll never work in this town again if he hears I've bad mouthed one of his movies. Also, I'm pretty sure the notoriously vicious Tom Hanks might murder me with a baseball bat if he found out I said a bad word about his work. I will thank you in advance for your discretion. 

©2016

Room : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!****

MY RATING : SKIP IT IN THE THEATRE, SEE IT ON NETFLIX OR CABLE  

Room, directed by Lenny Abrahamson with screenplay by Emma Donoghue (based on her novel of the same name), is the story of Joy, a young woman abducted and held in a small room by a stranger who routinely rapes her, and Jack, her five year old son who was conceived as a result of these rapes and has never known any life outside of the room they call home. The film stars Brie Larson as Joy and Jacob Tremblay as Jack. Room has received four Academy Awards nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actress.

Room is one half of a truly brilliant film. Room has some extraordinary elements to it, but is burdened by a structural flaw that undermines its potent dramatic power. What is the flaw? Well, the first half of the film, where we are trapped with Joy and Jack in the room is so well done, so full of genuine humanity and palpable tension that it is absolutely mesmerizing. Sadly, the film makes a dreadful mistake by moving away from and releasing the dramatic tension of Joy and Jack's captivity, and instead follows them as they struggle to reintegrate back into the real world. That decision completely dissipates the dramatic tension that was so compelling while Joy and Jack were imprisoned. We are instead left with a second half of the film that is muddled and vague.

I have not read the book the film is based on, but I suspect the film is faithful to it, as the author is the screenwriter, but film is not literature. I think it was Marlon Brando who once said, "It's moving pictures, not moving words". As always, Brando is right. The structure of a story for a book is vastly different than that for a film. Books have a different pace, rhythm, and perspective. Books use words, film uses visuals. The first half of Room is a brilliant film, the second half feels like a book put to pictures.

In the first half, the film is visually vibrant and dramatically focused. For instance, the sequence where Jack escapes and struggles to maintain his focus in the vast, frightening and glorious new world outside the room, is unquestionably magic. It is as heart pounding a sequence as any in film this year. Part of what makes Jack's escape and car ride so compelling is that he doesn't have to say much. We also get to see this wondrous new world for the first time through his eyes. The rest of the film never lives up to that staggering sequence. The drama gets diluted from that moment onward. The story of Joy and Jack adjusting to life after the room lacks focus and is nowhere near as imperative as their life in confinement and whether they will survive.

Director Lenny Abrahamson also directed last years Frank, which, like Room, was also an uneven film that suffered from a lack of focus. Like Frank, Room, can't decide what exactly it wants to be. Since it can't have one focal point, it ends up trying to do too much. A general rule in filmmaking is "less is more". Room should have been an hour and ten minutes of the audience being stuck in the room with Joy and Jack. The films final ten minutes should have been Jack's pulse-pounding escape, which is a masterpiece of filmmaking on Abrahamson's part. You could maybe extend it to follow Jack as he tries to help the police decipher his five year old ramblings and backtrack to save Joy, which is another great sequence in the film. An entire film of Joy and Jack struggling to survive and stay sane in that room, the claustrophobic drama of that, would have even heightened the already unimaginable excitement of Jack's climactic escape. I believe if Room had followed that path, it would have been the best film of the year…but it didn't….and it wasn't.

Brie Larson is a phenomenal actress and her work in Room is superb. Larson's Joy is a deeply wounded soul, but it doesn't translate into making her fragile or delicate, but rather gives her a formidable power and spiritual ferocity. Joy is genuine, grounded, likable and yet, like all of us, oh-so human and flawed which makes her especially enthralling. What makes Larson's work so good is that it shows us a real person trying to make the best of an impossible situation. Larson's artistic courage is on full display as she is able to exquisitely convey the mental and emotional torment of being held prisoner. Larson's performance, like the film, does struggle in the second half to maintain it's early radiant brilliance, but that has more to do with a lack of narrative focus rather than her obvious command of craft and skill.

Brie Larson is the odds-on favorite to win the Best Actress Oscar at the Academy Awards this year. She certainly has earned it if she does indeed win. She has a great career ahead of her if she can avoid the pitfalls that have sidetracked so many other talented young actors. The pressure to satiate the ravenous greed of the industry can often suffocate the creative impulses of many artists, even after they win an Oscar. I look forward to seeing the talent and skill of Brie Larson blossom and prosper in the years to come, let's hope Hollywood doesn't smother her genius in the crib.

Speaking of cribs, Jacob Tremblay is the young actor who plays five year old Jack. Tremblay was eight when he shot Room. He is utterly fantastic in the film. Jack is, like all five year olds, maddening, frustrating and absolutely amazing. The film thrives when it shows us Jack's perspective and lets us into his world. The old Hollywood maxim says to never work with animals or kids…but you can throw that saying out in Tremblay's case as he his work in Room is sublime. 

As for the rest of the cast, there are some big names but they do subpar work in the film's flawed second half. Joan Allen plays Joy's mother, and the part is terribly underwritten and her performance is underwhelming. William H. Macy is uncharacteristically dreadful as Joy's estranged father. Both of these performances suffer from the lack of focus that derails the film itself in its second half.

In conclusion, Room's impeccable first half is as good as it gets, but once the dramatic tension is dissipated, the story loses all momentum in its second half and staggers to its anti-climactic finish. The film is worth seeing for Brie Larson's and Jacob Tremblay's performances alone, but one can't help but feel disappointed that the film didn't live up to the heightened expectations created by its first half. So, see Room on Netflix or cable, but there is no need to spend your hard-earned money going to see it in the theatre. 

©2016

Brooklyn : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME MINOR SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL MINOR SPOILER ALERT!!****

MY RATING: SKIP IT IN THE THEATRE, SEE IT ON NETFLIX OR CABLE.

Brooklyn, written by Nick Hornby and directed by John Crowley, is the story of Eilis Lacey, a young woman from the small town of Enniscorthy, Ireland, who leaves her home and starts a new life in Brooklyn, New York in 1952. The film stars the luminous Saiorse Ronan as Eilis, with supporting turns from Domnhall Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters and Emory Cohen. The film has been nominated for three Academy Awards this year for Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.

As the son of Irish and Scottish immigrants, and a native son of the beloved borough in the title, I was very excited to see Brooklyn, as Eilis Lacey's story is not dissimilar to my own mothers. The immigrant tale of Eilis Lacey is one that many, if not most of us, can relate to. As someone who has moved cross country from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, I related to Eilis story as well, not in setting, but in substance. Whether we have moved to another country, or moved to the big city from the suburbs, or vice versa, we all have to leave the nest and venture out on our own at some point in our lives. Brooklyn tells the story of how grueling, but imperative and ultimately rewarding that journey away from our home, and to our new home, can be. "You can never go home again" is a true statement not because "home" has changed, but because "you" have changed by leaving home. Eilis Lacey's circular odyssey in Brooklyn teaches us that the initial fear of leaving the security of home can transform into the exhilarating freedom of being away from the gossip, prying eyes and small minds of a place you have outgrown, if you only have the courage to embark on the adventure. At some point in the immigrant's journey, returning "home" no longer means going back to the place of your past, but rather returning to the place of your present and future, and Brooklyn makes that very clear.  

Another reason I was excited to see Brooklyn, is that it stars Saiorse Ronan, is one of the great actresses working today. Ronan certainly she proves her mettle and earns her OScar nomination in tackling the role of Eilis Lacey. Ronan imbues Eilis with such a vivid inner life that she is absolutely mesmerizing to watch. Director John Crowley, on occasion, wisely lets the camera linger on Ronan well after the action of the scene has ended, and there are stunningly effective moments of brilliance that he captures by doing little more than letting Saoirse Ronan be present and fill the screen.

Ronan's subtlety and mastery of craft are really something to behold. She has a deft touch and never imposes herself onto a scene, but rather inhabits her character so fully that you feel as if she isn't acting at all…which is the goal of all great actors. Ronan is not a showy actress, her strength lies in being genuine and grounded, and allowing the rooted humanity of her characters to shine through. Ronan envelops Eilis in a thick coat of melancholy when we first meet her, a young and awkward girl struggling to make her way in a strange new world. As the film progresses, Ronan adeptly allows Eilis to gradually bloom into a weary and a wary young woman, and then blossom into an adult woman who embraces her incandescent power.

Besides being remarkably talented, Saoirse Ronan also has the benefit of being a classic beauty. She is so beautiful that she would be right at home in any of the great museums of the world, but she is not the typical "Hollywood" beauty. Her beauty is an approachable one, making it a marvelous asset but never a distraction. While the camera loves her face, it is Ronan's immense skill and prodigious talent that fills the big screen. There is not a lone disingenuous moment from Ronan in the entirety of Brooklyn, which is a great credit to her commitment, as the script could have easily led her to moments of melodrama.

As great as Saoirse Ronan is, the film never fully lives up to the stellar work she does in it. The first half of the film is very compelling, buttressed by solid supporting work from Jim Broadbent and Julie Walters. But mid-way through the film, when a love story comes in to play, the wheels come off the wagon. The biggest reason for this is that the love interest, Tony Fiorello, is of no interest at all. He is a one dimensional, cardboard cutout of a character. The actor playing Fiorello, Emory Cohen, does the best he can, but his character is a weak spot in the script and Cohen seems an ill fit for the role. This mis-casting and under-writing is devastating to the rest of the film. The Tony Fiorello character is pivotal for the ensuing narrative of the film to be even remotely believable, and sadly, Cohen's Tony is not believable in the least. In fact, the entire Fiorello family is an albatross around the neck of the film. The characters in the Fiorello family would be more at home in an old Prince spaghetti commercial than they are in Brooklyn.  None of the characters in the Fiorello family are credible and neither is the relationship between Eilis and Tony, which is the death knell of Brooklyn.

In the last quarter of the film, Domnhall Gleeson shows up as local Irishman Jim Farrell, and does his usual quality work, but it is too little too late to save the film. Brooklyn would have been much better served with much more of Domnhall Gleeson's Jim and much less of Emory Cohen's Tony. But alas, 'Twas not to be.

Despite the love story mis-step, Brooklyn does get a lot of things right. It is a well made period piece with flawless costumes and set pieces. Brooklyn is also visually exquisite, as cinematographer Yves Belanger uses a delicate palette to paint a lush picture of 1950's Brooklyn and rural Ireland.

In conclusion, Brooklyn is a gorgeous looking film, highlighted by a wondrous performance from the magnificent Saoirse Ronan. Sadly, a fatal flaw in the script and the casting had a devastating impact on the film that undermines many of the positives it had going for it, rendering Brooklyn a mixed bag at best. In my opinion, Brooklyn is worth seeing on Netflix or on cable, but it is not worth your time and hard-earned money to make the punishing trek to go see it in the theatre. 

The Revenant : A Review

****THIS  REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!! THIS SECTION IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!***

MY RATING : SKIP IT IN THE THEATRE*, SEE IT ON NETFLIX OR CABLE.

*UNLESS YOU ARE A LOVER OF GREAT CINEMATOGRAPHY, THEN DEFINITELY SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN IN THE THEATRE

THE REVIEW

The Revenant, directed by Alejandro G. Innaritu and written by Innaritu and Mark L. Smith (based on the book of the same name by Michael Punke), is the story of hunter and guide, Hugh Glass, who, in 1823 on the northern plains of North America, seeks to avenge a loved one's murder while struggling to survive the uncolonized wilderness and the native tribes that inhabit it. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Glass, and boasts supporting performances from Tom Hardy and Domnhall Gleeson.

 Much has been made about Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in the film and his likelihood of winning the Best Actor Oscar at this years Academy Awards. I agree that Dicaprio will win the Oscar, but I disagree that his performance is worthy of such high praise. In fact, this performance seemed like a step back in DiCaprio's artistic evolution. There is a lot of grunting, groaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it all feels forced and frankly, showy. DiCaprio seems to want to indicate how hard he is working, and to his credit he is working very hard, and how much he is "acting". I found the performance heavy-handed, contrived and ultimately off-putting, which was disappointing considering the trajectory of DiCaprio's work in recent years with his truly stellar turns in Django Unchained and The Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio's performance in The Revenant is along the lines of his work as Howard Hughes in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, which I felt was over-the-top and sub-par to his very high standards.

I am a big fan of actor Tom Hardy as well, but I felt his performance in The Revenant was underwhelming. It is not Hardy's fault, as his character, John Fitzgerald, is terribly under written. Fitzgerald is initially a very compelling character, but is given no dramatic arc, making him a rather hollow character, so we lose interest in him the more we see of him.

Having Fitzgerald be under-written is a big issue for the narrative of the film as well, as we need a much stronger foil for Hugh Glass to be up against in order to make the story more dramatically dynamic. The Fitzgerald character being cursory means that the narrative is never able to flower into anything more than the one-dimensional survival story of Hugh Glass, as opposed to a two-dimensional chase/revenge story, or a three-dimensional story about Glass chasing his psychological shadow in the form of his nemesis Fitzgerald. This is a disappointment as The Revenant has greatness hidden within it on multiple levels, but director Innaritu is unable to mix these potent ingredients together in a satisfactory manner in order to cook up a gourmet cinematic feast, rather we are left with a serving of unseasoned and uncooked bison meat. 

Innaritu, who won a Best Director Oscar last year for Birdman, is a very talented guy, but he has a tendency to make basic structural decisions that frustrate the potential power of his films. He undercuts the mythological flow of his films with foundational flaws that are minor in practice but major in impact. For instance, in Birdman, the ending sequence was held for a scene and a series of beats too long. This flawed climax had the result of watering down and undermining the brilliance that led up to it. In The Revenant, Innaritu again makes a minor structural stumble which stunts the energetic, mythic and psychological flow of the film. Without giving too much away, I will only say that the narratives involving Glass and his own survival and his pursuit of Fitzgerald, don't travel together in a straight line as they should, but rather diverge at a crucial point in the story, much to the detriment of the dramatic flow of the film.

On the bright side, Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki creates a visual masterpiece by seamlessly weaving his deftly moving camera amidst the stunningly crisp natural beauty of the film's locations. In the last two years, Lubezki has won consecutive Best Cinematography Oscars for his work in Gravity and Birdman (also directed by Innaritu), and it would not be a shock if he won for a third straight time this year for The Revenant. In the last decade, Lubezki's collaborations with Terence Malick on The New World, The Tree of Life and To the Wonder, and his work with Alfonso Cauron on Children of Men and Gravity, along with his work with Innaritu (Birdman, The Revenant) prove he is a visual genius of the highest order and a master at the top of his game. The Revenant is worth seeing in the theatre if for no other reason than to see Lubezki's magnificent work up on the big screen.

To be clear, The Revenant is not a terrible film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is also not a great one. It is a very dramatically flawed, but visually beautiful, piece of art. It is frustrating to me that the film as a whole could not live up to the potential of its various pieces in the form of a great cast, director and cinematographer. The reality is that The Revenant not only COULD have been better, but it SHOULD have been great. 

****WARNING: THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS CONTAIN SPOILERS!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!****

THE MYTHOLOGICAL AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

A bit of advice given to a young Native American at the time of his initiation:  "As you go the way of life, you will see a great chasm. Jump. It is not as wide as you think." - Joseph Campbell

The Revenant is one of those rare films that is actually much more interesting on the deeper mythological and psychological levels than it is on the entertaining/storytelling level. I found the film intriguing almost despite itself. I do wonder though, if people who do not have my interest and background in Jungian psychology and Joseph Campbell's comparative mythology would enjoy the film very much on any of these deeper levels. Regardless, here is a very short breakdown of some of the mythological and psychological imagery used in the story.

The mythology and psychology running through the film is laced with Native American spirituality and symbology. There is a Bear prominent in the story which is the impetus to send Glass on his literal and mythological quest. In native spirituality, Bear medicine symbolizes awakening the power of the unconscious, and in The Revenant, Bear brutally forces Glass to go on his journey deep into the darkest recesses of his psyche and soul to find and heal his true self. Bear instinctively and viciously attacks Glass in order to protect her cubs, leaving him unable to protect his "cub", his son Hawk, from danger. On the epic journey started by Bear, Glass will, as the title of the film suggests (Revenant means "one who has returned, as if from the dead"), die many times and be born again. Like Christ, Glass must die to his old self in order to be born again to his higher self.

Also like Christ, Glass must wander alone through the wilderness in order to be spiritually purified. It is during this "time in the desert", that Glass comes across a fellow wanderer, Hikuc, a Pawnee Indian, who also happens to share the same spiritual/psychological wound as Glass, namely, the deep grief at the loss of his family. Hikuc and Glass share the sacrament of communion in the form of eating raw bison meat. In Native spirituality, Bison, similar to Christ in Christian mythology, is a gift from the Great Spirit meant to nourish and sustain his people. Bison also symbolizes 'right prayer joined with right action'. Once Glass has been purified, and eaten the holy sacrament, he can now move on to the next portion of his journey, the symbolic re-birthing.

Glass rides on the back of Hikuc's horse to the woods where Hikuc prepares a "purifying womb" for him in the form of a sweat lodge. Glass hibernates(Bear medicine) in this sweat lodge, his physical, psychological and spiritual wounds beginning to heal thanks to Hikuc's help. When Glass awakens inside the sweat lodge, the world outside, just like Glass inside the womb, has been changed, having been christened, with a pristine layer of white snow. 

When Glass emerges from the sweat lodge, a place of 'right prayer', he resumes his journey on his own after finding Hikuc "crucified" like Christ and hanging from a tree. Glass continues on and commits an act of 'right action' by saving an Native princess from the same men who sacrificed Hikuc on the tree of life. Having fulfilled the sacred call of the Bison (right prayer joined with right action), he is now fully prepared for the "Great Leap".

A pulsating horse chase follows his saving of the princess that climaxes with Glass making the great spiritual leap from his current state of 'clutching onto the life he has now' to the state of 'letting go in order to embrace the life that is waiting for him'. Glass "dies" on this Great Leap as he rides Hikucs horse over the edge of a cliff. This is followed by Glass, once again, hibernating (Bear medicine) through a blizzard in a makeshift womb, this time in the dead body of his sacred horse mother, and being born anew after surviving a cold, dark night. 

The Great Spirit has, through Bear, Horse and Man(both Native and European), forced Glass to evolve by forging a new spirit, a new soul and a new self. Glass, having survived this crucible, is now sufficiently healed, and prepared to finish his earthly quest and then to shuffle off this mortal coil into the arms of the Great Spirit.

This alchemical cycle of destruction, purification, initiation and reconfiguration is the heart of the psychological myth of The Revenant and is what makes the film so imperative on a much deeper level than it's less than its rather mundane superficial one. Viewing the film through this mythological/psychological prism, makes for a much more satisfying experience. I recommend you do so, for Glass' spiritual journey is the same journey we all must make….the struggle to find meaning in our suffering as we hurtle headlong towards our own inevitable obliteration.

©2016

THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : Court Jester As Propaganda Tool

****ESTIMATED READING TIME : 15 MINUTES****

WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS QUESTIONABLE LANGAUGE. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL TRIGGER WARNING…MOTHERFUCKERS!!

On a Sunday night last April, after finishing a session with my final client of the day (yes, I work on Sundays!!), I heated up some chicken and pasta, plopped myself down on the couch and tuned in to John Oliver's HBO weekly comedy show "Last Week Tonight". Oliver's main topic was the Internal Revenue Service, which makes sense since this was that most dreaded time of the year, tax time. Oliver's premise was that the I.R.S. is hated, but desperately needed, and terribly underfunded. He made the analogy that the I.R.S. is the "anus of the country", saying "you may not like to talk about it but you really need it to work." It's a clever anal-ogy*, which was no surprise since John Oliver is nothing if not clever…and an asshole.

*anal-ology…GET IT? See how clever I was there?

To start at the beginning, I am one of those rare people who through the years have not religiously watched Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show". Nor did I watch much of Stephen Colbert's "The Colbert Report". I am in a tiny minority in the world I inhabit when it comes to my viewing habits of Comedy Central political shows, I readily admit that. I'm not sure exactly sure why, I have nothing against either man, but I just never thought, or remembered, to watch their shows. Regardless, I only rarely watched, and because of that I was not familiar with John Oliver.

When John Oliver's HBO show came out, I missed the entire first season. The biggest reason I missed it is probably the same reason I didn't watch "The Daily Show", namely, because it never occurred to me to watch. Coming in a very close second for why I missed it is…I didn't have HBO at the time, so I was incapable of watching. I was aware of the show though because the media was gushing in its praise of the program and of Oliver. Nearly every media outlet did glowing pieces on Oliver, ebullient in their praise of him and the show, calling it, "smart, funny and insightful!" 

In no time at all, "Last Week Tonight" became a big hit and Oliver the darling of the hipster/intellectual/cool kid set. The mainstream media slobbered all over him, adorning him with the type of praise once only reserved for Saint Jon Stewart, the Patron Saint of Thinking People Everywhere™.  It was at this point that I got HBO, so the John Oliver option was suddenly on the table. So, I decided to check out "This Week Tonight" and see what all the fuss was about.

Season two of "Last Week Tonight"  started off innocuously enough, or so I thought. Oliver made fun of some racist tweets made by the Argentinian president while on her trip to China. He also talked about the closing of Radio Shack and the Republican congressman who decorated his office like Downton Abbey. It was clever enough if not a bit cloying, but as expected it was funny in a "man shooting fish in a barrel", substance-free way. In my opinion it was amusing enough, but not very "insightful". Oliver finished the show by doing a seemingly mundane bit about Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa. The bit included a video of Correa hosting a live talk show where he answers questions from the audience and pontificates on whatever topic he feels like. In the video, Correa (in Spanish, or as they say in Spanish, En Espanol) singled out a young Ecuadorian man who had tweeted that he wished President Correa were dead. Correa gave out the young man's name to his audience and told people to flood the mans Facebook and Twitter accounts. John Oliver excoriated Correa for bullying the poor, young man. He then showed a funny, weird and completely out of context clip of a creepy clown embracing Correa during one of these live talk shows. Oliver relentlessly mocked Correa, and he did it very, very well.  

After the show ended, out of pure curiosity, I looked Correa up on the internet. I knew nothing about him and frankly, very little about Ecuador. I was pretty shocked too see what kind of a man Correa was and what he had accomplished in his life. Correa isn't the tin-pot dictator and bully Oliver made him out to be, not in the least. Here are some of the highlights of Correa's public life. After resigning in protest over corruption as finance minister from the previous administration and being widely regarded as the most respected and trusted person in the country, he was voted into the Presidency in 2006 and took office in 2007. Upon becoming President, Correa immediately poked his finger into the eye of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), The World Bank, and the U.S. He declared Ecuador's national debt illegitimate since it was contracted by corrupt and despotic prior regimes. Correa then said that Ecuador would default on $3 Billion worth of bonds. He pledged to fight creditors in international court and reduced the price of outstanding bonds by 60%. He then refused to renew the U.S. lease of Eloy Alfaro Air Base in Manta, Ecuador, thus ending the U.S. military presence in the country. If Correa wanted to make enemies, he certainly succeeded. He not only made enemies, he made enemies with the most powerful country, military and financial institutions in the world. To make matters worse, for the U.S. anyway, Correa greatly reduced Ecuador's rampant unemployment and poverty, solidifying his popularity in the country. 

In addition to all that, Correa also took on foreign oil companies because they failed to meet environmental and investment regulations. He restructured the country's finances in order to increase spending on social programs, rather than on foreign debt, and set out to protect and support the indigenous Quechua Indians of Ecuador, a long brutalized people. In other words, Correa was a champion for justice and for the people of Ecuador. These might be things that John Oliver's audience might want to know about the man, but Brave Sir John Oliver had no interest in informing his audience, only propagandizing them.

If you still think Brave Sir John was doing the right thing by calling out Correa for his "bullying" of a citizen who was wishing him dead, you should look more closely at the historical context of Correa's comments. A brief perusal of South and Central American history shows us that colonialism has devastated the continent. Up to and including this century, the U.S. has been behind some of the most brutal and insidious policies in the region. Correa is an Ecuadorean nationalist, which means the U.S. government, military, Wall Street and Oil companies hate him, because he puts the Ecuadorian people first. When you see John Oliver ridiculing Rafael Correa for being a "bully" when someone publicly states they want to see him dead, keep in mind the history of U.S. backed assassination of people like fellow Ecuadorian President Jaime Roldos and Panamanian President Omar Torrijos to name just two of many, or the U.S. backed coups and wars that litter South and Central American history (Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras to name a few). Then keep in mind it is not Correa who is the bully.

John Oliver is the weapon used those by those in power to ridicule Correa in the eyes of the mostly liberal Americans who, if they knew anything about him, would, or should, greatly admire him. But now Correa is little more than a punchline, and if and when he is 'killed in a plane crash', or 'overthrown by a popular revolt', or 'hangs himself in his jail cell'* or a civil war or coup breaks out in Ecuador, Americans, liberal Americans in particular, will just nod and say "hey, thats that despotic clown we saw on John Oliver". The man who stood up for his country and the weakest of its people, and wouldn't be bullied by military or corporate empire is now a joke. Mission accomplished John Oliver, true dissent from the American establishment group-think, is now strangled in the cradle.

Oliver is just the newest propaganda tool of the American Empire, at home and abroad. So when Oliver was mocking Correa, he was intentionally doing the IMF's, World Bank's, U.S. Government's, Military's, Wall Street's and the Oil Company's dirty work. Way to go Brave Sir John, instead of bullying the bullies, you are bullying for the Bullies. Good work. 

John Oliver's greatest skill as host of "Last Week Tonight" is in reassuring his audience that they are, in fact, as smart as they think they are, and most definitely smarter than everyone else. What Oliver is really doing with his show is inoculating his audience from thinking critically. Oliver serves up the very bitter pill of American Empire and Citizen Subservience wrapped in a delicious serving of liberal red meat. His audience is too enamored with it's own delusions of superiority to realize that they are, in fact, just like those ridiculous Fox News viewers they love to hate, in that they too are gullible rubes lapping up gobs of American Imperialism by the bucketload. What the hell am I talking about? How can everyone's favorite, goofy, Brit really be a propaganda tool? That's how propaganda works. If it is obvious, it isn't any good. "Last Week Tonight" is really good propaganda because the show, and its host John Oliver pretend to be truth tellers against propaganda.

Oliver sells himself as the brave and noble truth teller, a much needed check to the power of the mainstream media. But Oliver only mimics speaking truth to power and standing up for the little guy. He appears to plant his flag on the high ground of rational thought, moral superiority and common sense, and waves it with a robust sense of self-satisfaction. This is all little more than theatrics though, because the reality is that John Oliver doesn't speak truth to power, he is merely a puppet of power, a useful idiot, a weapon they use to pacify and control those who believe themselves to be well informed and deeply critical thinkers. The stark truth is that John Oliver doesn't stand up for the little guy, he consistently kisses up and kicks down. And as for being a symbol of rational thinking, Oliver instead waves a red flag of emotion in front of liberals in order to get them on his side and then feeds them misinformation, disinformation and propaganda while they are in their highly emotional state.

"Last Week Tonight's" formula is obvious to any one with a nose for media manipulation, and it executes that formula with a surgical precision week in and week out. Oliver lures 'intellectuals' in with a wonkish bit on a very specific topic, be it infrastructure, the I.R.S., FIFA, NCAA, voting rights in U.S. territories or patents, and then, like a pied piper, once he gets the viewer hooked, he leads them to the establishment narrative he really wants to sell them, usually in the form of a foreign policy or intelligence issue, and they, wanting to not be seen as stupid, unquestioningly accept the story he is selling. If you also notice, when Brave Sir John does critique something "American", it is always and every time a critique of a that very specific thing, and never a critique of America. 

Another thing to take notice of are what type of targets and topics Brave Sir John decides to take on. Just as a quick example of how Brave Sir John earned that nickname...he has taken on both FIFA and the NCAA, two organizations that are universally loathed by every single person who has even the most remote knowledge of them, with the handful of corrupt men running them being the lone exceptions. Another example of Brave Sir John's tremendous, steadfast courage was when he took on both racism (he literally said "fuck racism!!" in regards to Ferguson, Missouri, I shit you not) and cigarette companies. Taking on racism and cigarette companies!! What truly brave stance to take…IN 1964.

Regardless of Brave Sir John's weak kneed choices in segment topics, he never fails to to be a propaganda tool when it comes to the issues that really count. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. So let's take a taste of John Oliver's rotten and rancid pudding, shall we, and see what we come up with. 

On episode two of season two, Oliver followed up his initial mocking of Correa with another flurry of attacks prompted by Correa actually defending himself against Oliver's baseless buffoonery the week before.

Episode three had Oliver belittling another countries finance minister, this time Greece, who had the temerity to take on the IMF. What a strange coincidence? Three episodes into season three and John Oliver had attacked enemies of the IMF on all three episodes. In this episode, he said Greece's finance minister looked like "Pitbull's uncle", looked "slimy" and probably smelled like "scented lube". All very funny stuff, but once again he was attacking the underdog, not the big bad bully of colonialism and empire. There is comedy to be found in the horror of the Greek economy, but it isn't the cheap kind at the expense of its finance minister. Why didn't Oliver make fun of Goldman Sachs engineering the whole Greek fiasco and then looting the public coffers once Greece was bailed out? Or JP Morgan? Why not make fun of the IMF, which basically ran an extortion racket that oversaw the entire Greek collapse? Is that not funny to John Oliver? Would his self described intellectual audience not "get it", like they "get" his making fun of the way the finance minister dresses and looks? Why not make fun of Germany for accomplishing what Hitler never did, conquering and ruling all of Europe without having to fire a single shot, by bailing out their reckless banks at the expense of the Greeks? The reason why Oliver wouldn't take that approach to the issue is obvious, it is contrary to the narrative the establishment is feeding the populace. Oliver's job is not to challenge the establishment narrative, but to reinforce it.

Episode three turned out to be a propaganda tour-de-force, as it also gave us Oliver's brave and cutting edge stance on Ukraine. His stance, not surprisingly, is identical to the mainstream media's and U.S. governments official stance…that EVIL PUTIN™ started that horrific war. What a brave and shocking stance to take!! The real comedy here is that anyone with the slightest bit of sense, curiosity and courage knows that the U.S. intelligence community started the Maidan protests and the civil war in Ukraine. The U.S. planned, funded and executed the whole thing, from soup to nuts. In a genuine piece of comedy completely ignored by Brave Sir John, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on tape during one of her phone calls saying as much. Even some Government-friendly media outlets like the BBC have reported that the snipers on rooftops at the Maidan who shot and killed protestors, weren't government forces, but rather some shadowy group attached to the protesters who were trying to start a revolution.

A great way to smell an establishment rat is to listen to them when they speak of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The U.S. has been at war with Russia for at least the bunch of years. The war started out purely in the form of propaganda (remember the Socchi Olympics and the media assault on all things Russian?), and has now morhped into a proxy shooting war in Ukraine and Syria. As many people who have senselessly died in these terrible wars, one of the greatest casualties has been the truth. There is, believe it or not, comedy to be found in Ukraine, Syria, Putin et al, but it is in the way the establishment group-think has to contort reality in order to make it fit their preconceived narrative. John Oliver is more than happy to ignore the contorting, and just mouth the same old party line in regards to these deadly serious issues. 

Now, you may be thinking, wait, Putin is a tyrant and a monster!! He wants the Soviet Union to come back and he wants to dominate Europe!! Look, I am not making the case that Putin is some saint, but like Correa, he is a true nationalist, and he is certainly not half of what the U.S. media and officialdom have painted him to be. For instance, there have been multiple accusations by the powers that be here in the U.S. that Putin has sent Russian troops into Ukraine. The problem is that there is no proof of this. It would be nice to have proof, because, as I am fond of saying, "proof proves things." But the charge has been made so often that it is now taken for granted that it is reality. It isn't reality, it is establishment fiction and propaganda.

The same is true of MH- 17, the plane shot down over Ukraine, killing all aboard. The U.S. said in the immediate aftermath of the shoot down that it had proof that Russia or Russian backed separatists shot down the plane. Again, there is no proof of this, and for some strange reason, the U.S. seems to have lost it's evidence because out hasn't released it. Maybe Russians did shoot the plane down, but there is no PROOF that they did. "Proof proves things!"  But again, this charge has been repeated so often by the media and establishment that it is taken as completely true.

The charge that Putin had a second rate political rival, Boris Nemtsov, assassinated in Moscow also became a part of the establishment narrative, and not surprisingly, there is no proof that is true ( Remember..."Proof proves things!!"), nor is there much logical sense to the accusation when you take Nemtsov's lack of political standing or threat to Putin into the equation. That didn't stop John Oliver on episode 4, from doing an entirely predictable bit about it though, that was completely uncritical of the U.S. official narrative. John Oliver, if he so wished, could have a field day holding the U.S. government's feet to the fire regarding their statements and actions in regards to Russia and Putin, but he has no interest in doing that. His only interest is in buttressing the story being told by those in power because he is not a truth teller, he is a lap-dog to power.

The most glaring example of Oliver being an incurious lap-dog for the establishment, was when he travelled to Russia and interviewed whistleblower Edward Snowden. The interview was so confrontational, and so obviously a piece of contrived propaganda that I was left slack jawed at the audacity of it. The propaganda script was easy to see from the get-go as Oliver started off the bit by playing like he was scared to death by just being in Russia. He was, in particular, very frightened because…shudder...across the way was the old KGB building from back in the Soviet Union days. He quivered like a nubile starlet in a horror film at the thought that the KGB, which has been defunct for over twenty years, might come and get him. He also was worried that they were 'eavesdropping'  and 'listening' to his conversations, even going so far as to talk to the imaginary microphones hidden in the room. This was particularly odd since the Russians aren't the ones who are proven to eavesdrop, THE U.S.. is the country that does that!! "Proof proves things…like NSA spying!!"

For some reason, Oliver also played up the drama that Snowden was an hour late for the interview. This was so strange as Oliver made it seem like a huge piece of intrigue, but the reality is that people sometimes get stuck in traffic, it happens. But Oliver made it out to be an intensely dramatic moment which was odd in and of itself. When Snowden showed, Oliver proved himself to be an even bigger douchebag than I had already thought he was. He proceeded to be completely adversarial, and frankly rude, to Snowden, even holding him accountable for the New York Times screwing up an article and putting out some classified information on ISIS in Mosul. He blamed Snowden for the mistake and called the situation a "major fuck up". This is just the most twisted and tortured sort of anti-logic imaginable, but it is right in line with the contortions propaganda salesmen routinely peddle. You see…according to Oliver, the U.S. government reads all our emails and listens to our phone calls, but Snowden is the bad guy because THE NEW YORK TIMES FUCKED UP. Got it, thanks again Brave Sir John for the "insight".

Things went downhill from there as Oliver proceeded to minimize the importance of the information Snowden released because it was "too complex" for regular people to really understand. He also dropped in a beauty of a throw away statement, namely that Julian Assange, creator of Wikileaks, was a "bad" guy and not likable. Good to know, Brave Sir John, thanks again for that nearly subliminal "insight" that is devoid of any context. He then proceeded to say it is hard to "wrap your head around perfect privacy vs perfect security."  Great straw man from Brave Sir John, as that is an entirely false argument. "Perfect security" is an impossibility, while "perfect privacy" is not.

Brave Sir John then followed this up by showing videos of people interviewed in Times Square who had no idea who Snowden was or what information he released. Oliver assured the viewer that these interviews were COMPLETELY representative!! Trust him!! Brave Sir John would never lie!! This is the oldest trick in the book in order to bolster your preconceived opinion…go and watch, if you dare, Bill O'Reilly's segment, "Water's World",  if you don't believe me. Or any "man on the street" segment on any two-bit show anywhere. This nonsense was followed by Oliver undermining the vital importance of the NSA survelience issue by reducing it to a bit on "dick pics". That is some solid, top notch, "insightful" comedy from America's favorite rat-faced, establishment lap-dog. Oliver succeeded in doing what Snowden himself said in the film Citizenfour the media would do to him to obfuscate the NSA spying issue, they would make the story about him and not about the NSA spying. Brave Sir John played that game plan perfectly. 

In response to the Oliver piece, all the cable channels, officialdom's own public relations department, did stories on the interview and sure enough, they all took shots at Snowden and diminished his truly brave work and service. On Chris Matthews reliably revolting show, he had a group of guests on, each more repugnant than the next, who all took the same courageous stance that John Oliver took, that Edward Snowden was a "leaker", and not a "whistleblower". Washington Post Establishment shill extraordinaire, the achingly ambitious yet utterly vacuous Jonathon Capehart, ended the Chris Mathews show segment by declaring Edward Snowden was "smug". Thanks for the thoughtful analysis Jonathon, have you ever heard of the phrase, "pot calling the kettle black?"

The most disturbing part of the entire Snowden affair happened a few days later, when I overheard some very liberal friends talking about Oliver's interview with Snowden. These true- blue liberals lapped up everything John Oliver had fed them. One of them kept mis-stating that Snowden "was the 'wiki-leaks' guy", showing that Oliver's disinformation and obfuscation campaign was a huge success with his target audience. Of course my liberal friends, like the rest of Brave Sir John's audience, think they are astoundingly well informed, but are, in reality, really dangerously mis-informed.

Oliver has proven, with his constant regurgitation of establishment narratives, on Putin, Snowden and Correa in particular, that he is a propaganda tool for the powers that be. If you watch his show closely enough, you will notice that John Oliver never, ever questions the things the Establishment holds dear... U.S. foreign policy, the Intelligence community, Israel, capitalism, The War on Terror, or the establishment itself. Brave Sir John is, at heart, a corporatist and Imperialist, which should come as no surprise since he is currently an employee of Time-Warner. 

It is important to understand that John Oliver is the symptom, not the disease, which is ironic because Brave Sir John only feels comfortable pointing out very specific symptoms on his show, and never the bigger disease. This is what the intelligence community does, they co-opt popular culture to their benefit in order to shape opinion. They manipulate, dominate, and misinform people through pop culture, media and film. It isn't just Brave Sir John, it is Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and even...gasp…Jon Stewart!! I know people will have a tough time swallowing the charge against Jon Stewart, but go take a look at his interview with Kathryn Bigelow, director of Zero Dark Thirty, a well known propaganda piece, the day after the Senate Torture report came out showing that her film was filled with convenient lies for the intelligence community. Stewart and Bill Maher both had the same reaction to Bigelow when they interviewed her in the same week, they both ignored the torture and propaganda issue and instead let Bigelow plug her work involving African elephants. Stewart started his interview by bringing up the torture topic and asking her thoughts, and Bigelow simply replied, "it's been a tough week"...End of discussion, Stewart dropped the subject…NOW let's talk elephants!! It was truly bizarre on Stewarts part, but at least he asked her thoughts, Bill Maher ignored the topic altogether when Bigelow was on his show later in the week.

These "clowns", Oliver, Stewart, Colbert and Maher shape and form public opinion and thought, particularly on the political left. These guys and their imitators are insidious because they use the ruse of being rebellious comedians who scrutinize authority to actually cover their vehement defense and cultural enforcement of all things establishment. It is all the more insipid because these men are held up, and hold themselves up, as a vital check and balance to establishment authority. These clowns only play the role of court jester, but never have the courage to actually speak the truth to the ruling powers or challenge their authority. They are less like the court jesters of old and more like the court eunuchs. They are more interested in staying relevant and in good graces with the establishment than in growing a pair of balls and telling the truth.

Do I think that CIA operatives are sitting in the writers room at HBO or Comedy Central…no…well..probably not. That is not necessarily how it works. But I would say that John Oliver, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert wouldn't have their jobs on television if they weren't vociferous establishmentarians. Would some corporate entity with a television channel have given a weekly or daily show to George Carlin or Bill Hicks when they were alive or if they were alive today? Not in a million years, because those guys directly challenged the establishment, their foundation of power and their false narratives. They didn't dance and giggle around specific symptoms like John Oliver, they punched hard and often by diagnosing the whole god-damned disease. And where are the Carlin's and Hick's of this new generation of comedians? They might be out there, but they won't be getting work on corporate television anytime soon. Guys like Carlin and Hicks are anathema to the corporatist, imperial system and the powers that be who run it. Dangerous comedians will be frozen out of the process entirely. That's how the game works.

In a normal world, comedy is found in being contrarian. But not with the comedy or propaganda we get from Brave Sir John and his ilk. Brave Sir John just tells people what they want to hear…that they are really, really smart!! That what they read in the New York Times and Washington Post is true!! Oh…and they are really smart BECAUSE they read the NY Times and Washington Post and can regurgitate the establishment party line on all matters big and small!! In reality, John Oliver and his ilk are cowards. They won't take on true power, which makes John Oliver in particular…and I'll use a British term here he will definitely be able to understand…a fecking twat.

"Last Week Tonight" begins its third season tonight, Sunday, February 14. I will be tuning in to watch if only to observe and note the propaganda that Brave Sir John will be selling. I will try and keep a running tally as season three progresses. If you watch the show, and if you like the show, watch it with a sharply critical eye. Watch how Brave Sir John lulls you into a false sense of liberal camaraderie and superiority, and then pay attention when he sells you the Establishment line. 

I know some of you may think I'm crazy, or an idiot, or both, well rest assured, you are in good and crowded company. But understand, I am not asking that you agree with me in thinking that John Oliver is a propaganda tool for the establishment, I am simply asking you to BE CONSCIOUS AND AWARE when you watch his show. There is more going with on with "Last Week Tonight" than meets the eye. Wake up and see through the bullshit you're being fed, whether it's the mainstream media or an "alternative" comedian who is feeding it to you.

I leave you know with a relevant quote from the wonderful writer and intellectual Chris Hedges.

"Those few who acknowledge the death of our democracy, the needless suffering inflicted on the poor and the working class in the name of austerity, and the crimes of empire—in short those who name our present and past reality—are whitewashed out of the public sphere. If you pay homage to the fiction of the democratic state and the supposed “virtues” of the nation, including its right to wage endless imperial war, you get huge fees, tenure, a television perch, book, film or recording contracts, grants and prizes, investors for your theater project or praise as an pundit, artist or public intellectual. The pseudo-politicians, pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-artists know what to say and what not to say. They offer the veneer of criticism—comedians such as Stephen Colbert do this—without naming the cause of our malaise. And they are used by the elites as attack dogs to discredit and destroy genuine dissent. This is not, as James Madison warned, the prologue to a farce or a tragedy; we are living both farce and tragedy." - Chris Hedges, The Great Forgetting 1/10/2016

EPISODE 2 : THE JOHN OLVIER TWIST : THE DRUMPF AFFAIR AND LITTLE BILL MAHER'S POWER FETISH

EPISODE 3 : THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : WAXING BRAZILIAN AND WANING CREDIBILITY

EPISODE 4 : THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : OUT-TRUMPING TRUMP ON THE GREAT WALL OF TRUMP

EPISODE 5 : THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : THINGS SAID AND UNSAID

©2016