SEEING PAST THE FLACK

A LOST CAUSE
NO WINNERS

    This goes with fairy tales are not real and life does not leap from a script.

    Human endeavors are messy, imperfect, not simply explained but some refuse to so acknowledge. People prefer easy answers, crowd support, bumper stickers and social media trending to tell us what to think. All of this comes to a center in the talk and reality of Truth-that is Truth the film.

    If it is possible, lets find a point of centrality on this controversy. No one wins. It is about a screw up on top of a screw up and in a time of nasty politics and polarity.

    Right wing and or conservative bloggers and critics say the film is a failure because it's a defense of flawed CBS News investigative report. Liberals say it's a failure because it memorializes how CBS News failed to hold George Bush accountable for being a slacker and avoiding air national guard duty while already avoiding duty in Viet Nam. Self appointed moralists or journalistic ethicists have also weighed in. Some of these children unleashed their screeds and words of torment even before seeing the film. That informs us. 

    Another point of centrality. CBS doesn't like the film and won't advertise it. Dan Rather doesn't like the film, it is a low point in his life. George W. Bush fans don't like it because of what it relates about him. It's been criticized by both left and right.

     OK, maybe another point of centrality. The flap and furor over the plot line, the screw up, has eclipsed the merits of the film. The artistic endeavor, a movie with actors making an entertainment has been overshadowed by largely preconceived notions about the CBS story, Dan Rather, George W. Bush, the 2004 Presidential election, Mary Mapes and who knows what else. I think the film is a victim of prejudgements about the story and personalities and those judgements over look what is after all only a cinematic creative effort. 

      Bull shit to those who say this is trying to change history. Only historian's change history. History is the way it is memorialized and told. Generations of historians see things differently. Winners of wars see history differently than losers. Slave traders see it differently than slaves. Invading business and governments see it differently than invaded natives and cultures and etc. Oliver Stone who is a talented film maker may be the exception. Stone has convinced himself he can fabricate events and change history. Instead Stone is seen for the self aggrandizing bull shit peddler he can be. His films can be entertaining but Wall Street, JFK, Nixon, World Trade Center, Evita and others have not changed truth or rewritten history. They are just films, an artistic pursuit even if written or directed with animus or motivation. Films do not write history.

     Truth is a geyser of how passionately stitched are our politics and biases. This film is being blown over by the same ideological predators who prowled the republic in the time of Bush vs Kerry. We should release history to historians undertaking a study where facts rise to the surface.

     There is a fact at the heart of this film Truth. Before CBS reported that George W. Bush was avoiding his duty, other news organizations had reported the story. They did not however rely on documents which put the CBS effort under fire.  

     Now to the film; Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford, Topher Grace, Dennis Quaid, Elizabeth Moss, Bruce Greenwood, Stacy Keach, John Benjamin Hickey, Dermot Mulroney. These are not slackers. They are terrific and well cast. Blanchett is once again brilliant. Redford as Rather is quite a site and credible! (Redford could have been a great anchor) The film explores the emotional tangles of a team of journalists, how investigative reporting is done, the pressures that come down from management. It samples the stresses and moments of elation that those of us who have done investigative work know. This film also explores the devastation to lives. These characters are based on real people, to whom these events were life changing. The film shows this by way of outstanding acting and directing.

     The film also shows how the CBS report was flawed. Where and how the team erred. How they were tricked. How they got the story right, but screwed up in how they did it.  And this last point is what it seems no one wants to face.  

      We should remember, a million dollars was offered to anyone who could prove that George W. Bush did not avoid some of his air national guard duty when assigned from Texas to Alabama. All of these years later, no one has been able to prove he did his full duty and took all examinations. What irritates liberals is that no one can really make that point  now without someone citing the questionable documents error at CBS News. The truth of the matter gets dunked in the process of the media fire storm and hissy fits. The screw up.

     Those who say this is a defense of the CBS report don't understand reality. Careers were ended. Good people got sacked. You see that. It is the consequence of the errors they made and you see how the error was made. You see how CBS News reacted. These are glimpses into the process and the good guys become the bad guys because they screwed up. This is not Oliver Stone changing history. Mapes has not worked in journalism since. Dan Rather's illustrious career and rich history at CBS were dumped on a trash heap. This hurt. They were trying to tell a story, they made a mistake.

They got trashed. That is what the film tells.  

      There is a moment where Mapes is speaking to the special inquiry team that CBS hired to investigate the report. What she said was a truthful recitation of how and why she erred. It does not change the outcome. But it does add another wrinkle, another fold of truth.

      One should look closely at the "inquiry team" CBS management brought in to investigate. But that is for another day.

      And so back to why this film is so troubling. It demonstrates how messy and screwed up life can be and how good can be bad. That ain't easy for humans to abide. Especially in a fully loaded media world where everyone is on at high volume with their minds made up.

     25 or 50 years from now this film will be seen as a portal into a moment and void of the hype and bias will be appreciated as an artistic exploration of human frailty, well acted. Americans of all persuasions don't like films or morality tales without a happy ending. Sometimes Truth is bitter.

A PEACEFUL RETREAT

   A little finger pond, near where Santa Rosa Creek flows into the Pacific in Cambria, is a hidden get away for water birds.

   I thank them for sharing their peaceful setting with me.

   See you down the trail.

A LETTER TO MARTIN SCORSESE & LEONARDO DICAPRIO & SHINE THOSE BOTTOMS

STRETCHING THE BOUNDARIES

OF ECLECTIC 

AND FILM

Wherein this post searches for a center of gravity

WOLF OF WALL STREET

     Dear Mr.'s Scorsese and DiCaprio,

          I've read a wide array of the reviews and articles and have seen you both interviewed. Since the 1970's I have broadcast and published my admiration and respect for your movie making and story telling genius Mr. Scorsese. Many of your films are among my all time favorites.  Mr. DiCaprio I have been impressed by your acting since the days of Gilbert Grape. Still, I have been arguing with myself since seeing WOLF OF WALL STREET.  

          I'm still not sure if I think it is a brilliant lampoon of money hustlers told as a dark comedy, high slapstick, a political lancing of some of the noveau 1%, an indictment of the morality, or lack there of, of Wall Street, a contact high, a celebration of libido, history, the highest use rate of the F-Bomb in film history, a precise portrayal of a cretin, a religious affirmation of the evil of greed, a remake of ("...greed is good...) WALL STREET on steroids and a lot more cocaine, a disgusting exploitation film, your joke on everybody else (can you believe we are getting rich on making this kind of film?) or all of the above or some combination there of.
        Clearly you left your mark.  I'm still trying to approximate some judgement on this 3 hour romp.  For sure you immerse your viewers into the maelstrom of Jordan Belfort's rise and high life style. You seemed to recreate the sales room, lavish parties, drug use, sex, opulence and mindless and pointless lifestyle with your directorial and acting brilliance.  You got terrific supporting roles Jonah Hill, Rob Reiner, Kyle Chandler, Margo Robbie, and others. Matthew McConaughey's chest pounding chant cameo is one of those scenes you'll never forget. Robbie Robertson's musical supervision was brilliant.
      I guess I'm inclined to think that what you've made is a multi-million dollar cartoon.  You were able to reduce a time, place, ethos and personalities to big screen tragic-comedy cartoons.  Leo, your lude induced crawling scenes made buffoons and jack asses of anyone ever so loaded, or anyone who would desire to be so loaded.  
     Gentlemen you have created a cinema work that will, as you know, especially you Martin with your love for film history, live for decades.  I guess you have provided 22nd Century sociologists a core sample of western decadence, worship of money and hedonism that no historian could do so graphically.  
      I'm still wondering though about the older woman who wandered into the theatre a little more than half way through.  My guess is she was "theater hopping" joining a film in progress after the movie she paid for had ended.  She came in slowly, not looking at the screen so as to amble to a seat in the row in front of us.  She sat down at the moment that cocaine was being snorted off the buttocks of a young woman while the f-bomb was offered up and carnal athletics ensued.  She was up and out of her seat much more rapidly than she wandered in.  Would love to have been able to read her thoughts.  Her action drew a few snickers from those of us who by now had become somewhat sated and even bored by the outrage and sexuality.  And on that reflection I realized that you Mr. Scorsese had accomplished a great deal.  Your three hour assault so deadened our senses to such excess that we sort of expected it, even accepted it as normal behavior, of those whom we watched. Touche'!
    Did we laugh, yes.  Was it comedic, yes. Was it wretched excess, yes indeed. Did we get it, yes. Does it say something about the quality of life and even morality, yes. But I bet that while some of us will give this thought, contemplation, look for morality or signs of political statement, see it as brilliant comedy, there are other's, future Jordon Belforts or Gordon Gekkos, for whom you have raised the bar.
    And finally Mr. Scorsese you have pounded Oliver Stone. His crafting of WALL STREET, good as it is, was not nearly as immersive as WOLF OF WALL STREET, cartoon and morality tale in one.  BTW, how many times was the F-bomb used?
    

AND NOW FROM THE PROFANE TO

DOWN HOME

    After dinner last evening and while cleaning up, Lana said to me she wanted to try something to clean the bottom of a Revere Ware pan.  She said she had heard about a combination of salt and lemon juice.  Our original Revere ware pans are dated to the beginning of our marriage. 

Here, is what ensued.

     By the way, I scrubbed as well.

     See you down the trail.

CLINT EASTWOOD AS HISTORIAN

REEL THOUGHTS

EASTWOOD HAMMERS STONE
J. EDGAR IS MASTERFULLY DONE
Director Clint Eastwood's turn at
contemporary history is a superb film and by most
standards a fair and accurate portrayal of the FBI's late director J. Edgar Hoover, one of America's controversial
public figures. Eastwood handles the history with class and avoids the kind of distortion and overblown perspective
we have come to expect of other film history bio pics.
None of that from Clint Eastwood who has shown
time and time again he is one of the most skilled
directors in film history. 
People familiar with the Hoover story, or the Hoover and FBI histories will commend Eastwood for his even handedness, authenticity and class.
There are many who have paid close attention to the Hoover chapter of Bureau history and the story is fully told in many books and histories. Eastwood does not
reveal anything not already in public attention, but he
plumbs the personality, emotion, psychology and story line of Hoover and the early FBI in ways that brings the material
to a vivid accounting. 
Dustin Lance Black's screenplay is as good as it can get.
He had a huge story and well documented life to whittle and render and he delivered a compelling script for Eastwood.
Black deserves special recognition, especially from historians.
Hoover was complex and so is the story and it is superbly
told with attention to detail, historical elements,
and the pathos of the time and personality.
Birthing a federal investigative agency was not a simple task, trying to protect a democratic republic from threat while preserving liberties is a constant battle, so is the power and money game in Washington and the 
Hoover story as told by Eastwood beautifully displays
those pushes and shoves.  Hoover's insistence on 
professionalism and his own ego feeding are well told.
Hoover's relationship with his mother may be where
Eastwood begins to wander into interpretation, though
it is plausible by some accounts already told.
The same is true of the persistent rumors of Hoover's
relationship with his long time assistant and frequent companion Clyde Tolson. 
I've covered the FBI, have friends who are former agents, some from the Hoover era and some from the modern bureau, I have read and listened to many theories
about that relationship.  In that context I think
Eastwood's handling of that part of the story is
pure genius.  I came away thinking that in many ways
Tolson was a kind of "rudder" of Hoover and for
the greater good of the FBI.  I don't want to say
more, because your own viewing and evaluation on this part of the story-line is important.
As a period piece it is also brilliant.  
DiCaprio should get an Academy nomination for his 
work.  Inspired and simply brilliant.
Judy Dench as Hoover's mother is one of those
haunting performances that you will long remember.
Naomi Watts as Helen Gandy and Armie Hammer as 
Clyde Tolson are superb. Equally brilliant are 
Sian Grigg who did DiCaprio's make up and prosthetic effects and Alessandro Bertolazzi who did the same for
the aging Naomi Watts.  You can not appreciate how
brilliant their work, until you see it.
Tom Stern's cinematography should also win awards.
I marvel at how each Eastwood film gets better at 
mastering the art.  This film will be on 
all time best lists.  There is so much, so good about
this film, and most of it just stays out of the way and/or empowers the story that some may not fully appreciate just how exquisite is the work. 
 This is an extraordinarily intelligent and subtle film.
It tells part of the modern American story and will
no doubt reside as popular memory.  By contrast
I think of some of the work Oliver Stone
 has inflicted upon us.

JFK by Stone may have been the most egregious bastardizing of history, but Stone has substituted fantasy or conspiracy as fact in other efforts.  He has also done

George W. Bush, Larry Flynt, Nixon and the McMartin child molestation trials in LA among others.

Eastwood on the other hand, brilliantly interprets reality.

If more American History could be so told!
And by the way Clint Eastwood even wrote the music.
Maestro indeed!
See you down the trail.