Reflectons...

So another calendar year is about to be ending and like everyone else, I would like to make some reflections from the year. This blog will be a mix of favorites, thoughts, and some previews of reasons to be excited for the next year.

Best Movies of the Year (mind you, that I have seen):
Crash - This was one of the most powerful films of the year with an ensemble cast that delivered an ensemble performance.
2046 - The best that I've seen Zhang Ziyi act and a truly interesting look at love and relationships. Best line from the movie: "Love is all a matter of timing. It's no good meeting the right person...too soon or too late. If I'd lived in another time or place...my story might have had a very different ending."
Batman Begins - Christian Bale was superb and the darkness was terrific.
March of the Penguins - Probably one of the most ubiquitous films of the year, equally as good as a date movie, as a family film, or as a documentary to see for general interest sake.
The Aristocrats - Once again, the funniest (albeit dirtiest) film to come along in the longest time. It is truly interesting to gain access to a window into the life of comedians around comedians. The film once again demonstrates that much of humor is about a release of anxiety, making light of those things that are most uncomfortable in life.
Brokeback Mountain - Some of the best acting performances of the year can be found in this film. This was such a touching story about a relationship between two males over multiple decades that to at least one of them was mythic molded by the imagination much like how the American imagination envisioned the concepts of cowboys and the west.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Not much to say here. The books keep getting better and better and so too do the movies.
Munich - Steven Spielberg has made a complicated, interesting, challenging history questioning whether societies should or can ever compromise their values, how effective military response to terrorism is in the short and long term, and the desire for some concept of home and what that will drive men to do.
Paradise Now - An interesting and long-overdue look into the lives of those who become suicide bombers and the internal debate that happens in their community.
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - Critics did not overlook this film but most others by and large overlooked it. Robert Downey Junior is at his funniest and the script is as smart as it is playful.
Hitch - Finally a romantic comedy that appealed to men. This movie was made for men on a mission to show a woman a good time, appear moderately sensitive, and have a good time themselves.

Favorite books from the year:
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - I didn't like it quite as much as The Order of the Phoenix but I still poured through it in three days, and the ending leaves you so excited for the final chapter in this saga.
Blindness – Saramgo’s book was actually published in 1999, but I read it this year while the horrors of Hurricane Katrina were unfolding. He imagines a world where mysteriously people become infected with a contagious blindness and what then happens in their society. The parallels to what happened in Katrina show Saramago to have made some insightful predictions about our responses to such situations.
Beasts of No Nation - A tale shocking and delicate, warm and disarming that has received wonderful reviews in many newspapers including the New York Times and the Washington Post. Uzo Iweala, a friend whom I graduated with from Harvard, has certainly established himself as someone able to bring politically salient issues to light through compelling fiction.
Never Eat Alone - This is a quick read and will give you a way to approach and manage those softer relationships that can be hard but nonetheless important to maintain.

Favorite Albums from the past year:
Hip Hop - Be (Common) - This album is the convergence of one of the top three emcees out right now and one of the best producers (Kanye West) having found the perfect sound for his distinctive flow. My only critique of the album was that it was not longer.
R&B - Get Lifted (John Legend) - Another album to come out of the Kanye West camp, Legend's debut was soulful from beginning to end.
Other - O (Damien Rice)- I got wind of this artist after hearing the infectious, "The Blower's Daughter" when I saw the film Closer. The album is emotional and moving. There is a sense that nothing was left in the recording studio; it's all on the album. Every person I talk to has a different favorite song as a sign of how thorough the entire album is.
Other2 - Where You Live (Tracy Chapman) - Another soulful album from a soulful woman. Chapman has a special way of capturing experience and life in song with a melody that compliments.

Older Movies Discovered:
Roman Holiday - This is one of the best romantic comedies that I've seen and for my money, the gold standard. Gregory Peck is impeccable and Audrey Hepburn is as charming as always.
The Battle of Algiers - Such a terrific political drama about the early resistance movement (insert: terrorist movement if it assuages your sensibilities) in Algeria against France.

Moves for next year:
Glory Road - This is a must see movie for families and people of all ages. Disney and Bruckheimer have marshaled tremendous financial resources to tell the tale of the Texas Western basketball team that was the first to win the national title while starting an all black lineup.

Some final reflections from the year:
This year has been one of ups and downs, as years seem to always go, at the personal and more general level. We had the highs of the global response to the Asian Tsunami and earthquake in Pakistan and the lows of Hurricane Katrina. Deaths in Iraq have continued to mount as the insurgency rages on, but there were just elections in that country as well. In the next year, I would like to challenge our leaders to finally decide: that all Americans will have access to healthcare, that spying on the American people unchecked by other branches of government is antithetical to our system of government and core values, that real sensible solutions to illegal immigration problems that will make a real difference are needed not just popular appeals, and that we need a comprehensive strategy that takes a perspective on how American innovation will see a resurgence. In addition, I would like to see the UConn Huskies win another national title.

Lastly, be good to the people in your life and show them the support that they need and deserve. Cherish those around you because they make life worth living. Stay in touch with your friends and family because you don't want to wake up five or ten years later and wonder what happened to someone or why that person now resembles a distant stranger. What's more you never know when, how or why a person comes to occupy new significance or importance in your life. Take a chance on love, and continue to seek happiness. Many times it can be found in the happiness of others.

Ms. Aguilera, I'm Singing a Song for You

A successful remake of a song that has been done by an artist whose version is so timeless and classic that it will be forever associated with him/her can be very difficult to achieve. The list of failures includes some that are not too surprising like Michael Bolton's rendition of "When a Man Loves a Woman," but it also includes artists like Alicia Keys who remade Gladys Knight and the Pip's "If I Were Your Woman," in an interesting but not so successful way. The problem is that the original is the gold standard against which every other version is measured and so the remakes had better be made of something a little different and be just as incredible, a brilliant diamond to match the gold. Few have achieved equally great renderings, but some of them would include Jodeci's cover of Stevie Wonder's "Lately," the Fugees version of Roberta Flack's immortal "Killing Me Softly," and Dave Matthews Band's version of Jimi Hendrix' "Watchtower."

An infectious remake that has been released this year is Christina Aguilera's version of "A Song for You" on Herbie Hancock's "Possibilities" compilation album. The song, written by Leon Russell, has been covered by such greats as the Temptations and Ray Charles, but for me, Donny Hathaway still has the version (As an aside, the “A Donny Hathaway Collection” is a soul album must have and one that if you love soul music you can’t go wrong with). Ms. Aguilera's rendering of the song sends chills down the spine when you listen to it just as does Hathaway's. She has always had a voice with power that rivals Whitney's in her heyday, but what she has lacked has been the vocal maturity not to flaunt her tremendous gift on every note that she sings. However, on "A Song for You" her vocals are sufficiently reigned in where appropriate and allowed to soar at many other points to give her ownership over the song to display her range and inject her own creative flare into the tune. What a beautiful song she has graced with her voice, and what a beautiful product she has produced along with Hancock. I continue to believe that she is one the most vocally accomplished artists out in the mainstream today and that, given the right writing and production team, she has a classic cover-to-cover album or two in her ala Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Aretha Franklin, or Sade.

If you so choose, go get the album, a pretty decent one in the easy listening genre or download on iTunes a choice few tracks, mainly the ones featuring Aguilera, John Mayer, Annie Lennox, and Damien Rice along with Lisa Hannigan.

Why a Timetable in Iraq Might Just be Mission Critical

The War in Iraq, now approaching its third birthday, continues to drag on and progress has trickled in slower than some expected and most would hope for. Everyday the headlines are dominated with the latest bombing attack on American soldiers or Iraqi citizens (the significance should not be lost in regards to the fact that I use the term “citizens” in describing Iraqis, a truly laudable accomplishment of the mission over there). And of course, given the way in which the war was sold to the American public and the hubris that infected administration predictions of post-Sadaam Iraq, support has grown stronger, louder and more widespread for a timetable for troop redeployment. But many how countered that a timetable is dangerous because it gives the insurgents a definitive date that they know when the Americans will leave. The logic goes that they will take this as a signal for how long they have to outlast America after which Iraq will be theirs to terrorize unabated.

While this thinking certainly seems reasonable and logically supported, it is nonetheless flawed. A timetable for troop redeployment in Iraq is something that should not be shunned or dismissed. It is actually the better choice between having one and not having one. There are two critical reasons why this is the case. The first is that for Iraqis (and others in the region) that view American presence in the region as occupation, it clearly defines the terminality to American forces in the country. The second reason is implicit in the administration’s language regarding American presence in Iraq mainly that as Iraqi’s stand up, we shall stand down.

However, before delving into these two areas, let me first state that when I say timetable, I do not mean an inflexible one. To have a schedule that does not take into account the current realities of the situation on the ground in Iraq is foolish and lacks foresight and sound judgment.

There are those who view American presence in Iraq through the lens of our presence in other countries such as Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia – place where we maintained a military presence long after the ad hoc conflict had subsided. These people view America’s operations in Iraq as part-in-parcel of a geopolitical strategy in the region where we will use the country as a launching pad to exert undue influence in the neighboring countries. A timetable would do much to assuage a certain segment of this body’s concerns. Insurgent leaders claiming that they be necessary to insure the exiting of Iraq would be undercut in their propaganda campaigns.

As we consider what Iraqis standing up and Americans standing down means, it becomes apparent that we have established an inverse relationship between Iraqi force capability and American military presence in the country. In this case, a timetable is dictated by the capacity of Iraqis to defend themselves. Whosoever says that we should not have a timetable for American redeployment is making an implicit argument that we should not have targets for numbers of Iraqis trained and capable of defending their country. And if we don’t have goals as to numbers and by when, then we will have no metrics to measure our progress in Iraq and progress will limp along. President Bush claims to come from the school of business with management skills learned at Harvard Business School and honed in the private sector at Harken and later in the governor’s mansion in Texas. Would he have any goals that were fuzzy, ill-defined, and non-critical?

No, if we are to hasten and achieve success in Iraq, a timetable must be established that is based goals for trained Iraqis by hard deadlines that will dictate the ability to redeploy American forces. And when those deadlines approach, assessments (which can only be made with established targets) must be made as to how progress has gone and what changes in policy, if any, must be made. A timetable will in this way enhance the work we are doing in Iraq, bolster our claims that this is a finite occupation, and undercut the insurgency.

Paradise Now - A Two Day Vignette - Interesting, Informative, and Compelling

It’s not a movie that will make you cry or one that makes you completely sympathize with its complicated characters, but make not mistake about it, Paradise Now is powerful. The impact of the film exists in the fact this it provides a vignette taking place over two days into the lives of two lifelong Palestinian friends living in the West Bank who have been chosen to carry out a suicide bombing mission in Tel Aviv. What is special about this window into their lives is that it is completely an insular discussion and conversation that happens. We see only the internal debate regarding suicide bombing with no outside perspectives. It is interesting because as we think about what motivates suicide bombers, it is really that internal debate that happens that ends up making the difference. For those who choose to bomb, the perspectives of those viewed as outsiders or the enemy do not matter; the perspectives of the people in their community do.

What seems to be the unifying theme is the Israeli settler as an evil, overbearing and immoral oppressive force that must be stopped. Yet the three character arch-types, while connected in this, nonetheless, are very different. Jamal is tied in with the political movement, those who propagate the political rhetoric to supplement the disdain of Israeli settlers. He is who first informs Said, one of the two “protagonists” of the film, that he has been selected to carry out a suicide mission. He himself, we can assume, will never have to commit this kind of mortal sacrifice. Said’s character is determined to carry out his bombing mission, though with some reservations. We learn that the motive for him, the tipping point, was when Israelis induced his father into becoming an informant. He has lived with that family shame his entire life, and he views his suicide mission as an act of both revenge and redemption. His motives in this sense are very personal and emanate less from Palestinian resistance at the community level. Suha, played by Lubna Azabal with beauty and brilliance, is a Palestinian who group up outside of the region and only recently moved back. Her father exploded himself when she was still very young and is now a legend in their town. But she does not celebrate this act. She provides the voice for those whom bombers leave behind. They must deal with the loss and even greater, the consequences of Israeli retaliation. She argues that their struggle must be a moral one and that bombing will never succeed because of the power asymmetry that necessitates smarter tactics.

The most alarming part of the movie is that when it begins and we first see the film’s protagonists, there is no indication that the next day they might become suicide bombers. The transition happens with the snap of a finger. One moment they are living out what they conclude to be helpless and worthless lives, and the next moment they find something that gives their lives meaning and purpose. They are ad hoc fanatics more than anything else. We don’t see them espousing long tirades about Israel and we don’t here them preaching in the streets that the Jews must be pushed into the seas. No, until they are selected as suicide bombers, we see them as ordinary people. This is quite discomforting because the suggestion is that the ones carrying out the attacks are quite ordinary in everything except this one act. And just like for Said, they all have their tipping point. Said quite possibly would have never chosen to become a suicide bomber but for his father’s informing.

The film only gives two glimpses of Israelis, and they are not the demonized settlers. We see soldiers manning a checkpoint, but this is only meant to provide the backdrop of the power imbalance and physical aesthetic assault Palestinians must endure daily. The other glimpse happens when Said is sitting on a bus, contemplating exploding himself there though it is not his target. Here are the Israelis we see most intimately and they are not the demonized settlers. They are not the politicians. They are not the soldiers. They are simply very ordinary people living out their daily lives. The parallels of them to our first glimpses of Said and Khaled are striking. What makes these Israelis even more sympathetic is that they sit there completely oblivious to what potentially might occur just at any moment. In addition, we know nothing about them, we have only their faces, and so we are forced to imagine who they are. Are they married? Do they have any children? A cat perhaps? What is their profession? It humanizes them on a very individual and personal level as our forced imagining of them connects us to them.

From the beginning, the suicide mission is not a sure thing and the movie keeps you on edge with the possibility that Said and Khaled will not carry out their mission. The film’s strength lies in the presentation of the closed discussion that happens in their community. If we accept that a certain small segment of a population (Bin Laden for instance) are unreachable and will be extremists no matter what, surely our mission must be to then understand that other subset of a population that is ordinary but for some reason is driven at some point to terrorism. When the Bush Administration speaks of winning hearts and minds, these are to whom they should be referring. To the extent also this film helps us to understand the voices in a community, we can then select more intelligently those voices within who preach practicality and find inventive ways to support them. At the end of the day, we need these internal voices to ring loud and reverberate through the souls of a community. That will be a key component to progress in the struggle for peace. A nice bookend to Paradise Now would be this same film, but in the Israeli community. Let us here the internal debate that happens there to the exclusion of commentary from the Arab world, Europe or the U.S. It would make for an equally compelling and equally interesting movie.

On the Name Change

So if this is not your first time visiting this site, you might have noticed the change in the name of my blog from "Movies and Whatever Else It Occurs to Me to Write" to "Notes from a Native Son." I changed the name to more accurately reflect the direction that my blog has gone in since its inception. When I started, I fully intended that movie commentary would constitute the lion’s share of my writings, but as time has gone on, I have found myself not surprisingly drawn to a wider range of topics with political ones coming to occupy as much attention as cinematic ones.

So how did I choose this name in particular? Well, some will undoubtedly note the obvious allusion to Richard Wright's "Native Son" and James Baldwin's "Notes of a Native Son." First, Wright's novel is one of the most important 20th century America pieces of fiction, pointedly looking at the implications on the community - both black and white - of racism and white supremacy. Baldwin picked up on these themes and discussed in his work how racism, or, to be more accurate, how race had colored his experiences and then gave a keen lens through which to view America from behind the veil.

For my part, I can never, and would never want to, escape the fact that I have grown up in America as a black man. This has profoundly affected the way in which I see things, the way in which I understand things, and how I view history’s interplay with the present and culture's coll0quy with life. For these reasons (and because Baldwin is one of my favorite writers) I have changed the title of my blog to more accurately reflect what it is I think that binds my writings together. They are notes, of sorts, compiled by a man born in and of America who has experienced the world as a member of a community that has historically been the most foreign and at the same time the most American of peoples in this nation. My family's (both blood and existential) experiences - past, present and future - the society in which I grew up, and my own personal journeys skew my views that taken together constitute notes from this native son.

Not So Colorblind Katrina: Race as a Subtext to Poverty

Much hoopla has been made over the role race played in America’s response to Katrina. There have been accusations leveled by many black leaders and others in the liberal community that race played a factor in the nation’s neglect. However, as evidence that poor whites in Louisiana faired no better than poor blacks has come to light, the arguments made in William Julius Wilson’s The Declining Significance of Race, that class has supplanted race, seem to ring most true. While some have held on to the notion that race still played a major role in the poor service given to some and not to others, many have retreated from this stand and the mainstream media (save a few) have been sharp to reframe the issue as one of class.

Yet, it seems to me still that race played an important role that cannot be overlooked. First, one cannot talk about class in this country without talking about race. The two have always been inextricably linked. From the antebellum days until the Civil Rights Movement, blacks were proscribed to the lower rungs of opportunity through coercion, terror, adjudication, legislation, social structures, etc. Indeed, between 1865 and 1954 (especially in the Nadir) it was common that when blacks, small in number though they were, started to achieve modest and more than modest business success, which many times brought them in direct economic competition with whites, the response by whites was to riot, destroy, and many time lynch under the false guise of protecting the ever-sacred white womanhood. The Tulsa race riot of 1921 is perhaps the most destructive example of this practice.

With the Civil Rights Movement came economic mobility for some in the community, yet most still suffered in the same conditions as before. The gains of the Civil Rights era were by and large middleclass gains. Affirmative Action was expanded broadly by the Nixon Administration in an effort to drive a wedge either between some combination of middleclass blacks, the rest of the community and the Democratic Party, or between whites and the Democratic Party. Today’s political alignments prove this to be a rather prescient political strategy. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts were important but did little to change the economic conditions that plagued blacks in this country. For these reasons, Martin Luther King at the time of his assassination was attempting to address the issues of poverty and economic mobility. This too was one of the primary concerns of the Black Panther Party, an organization that like King was the subject of relentless harassment and abuse of power at the hands of the Justice Department's COINTELPRO.

As nothing was ever done to address the initial poverty that blacks experience worse than any other group in this country, save perhaps the indigenous populations, present-day conditions look little different from conditions in 1954 where blacks continue to be disproportionately poor, experience unemployment rates at higher than average levels, still have an overwhelming wealth deficit as compared to whites, live in the poorest, most social-capital deficient communities. Given all of this, it seems very difficult to separate class from race. The Oprahs, Jay-Zs, Stan O'Neils, and Bob Johnsons are the exceptions rather than the rules.

But there is another way in which race factored into this equation. While it is true that poor whites and poor blacks received similarly poor relief during and in the aftermath of Katrina, a question of why still remains. And race here comes into play. Black has become the color of poverty, creating a façade that blacks constitute the only or even majority impoverished in the nation. When exposes or articles or documentaries of poverty are relayed, blacks are disproportionately represented in pictures, video and print. Studies have shown that in the late sixties and increasingly in the seventies, blacks began to be disproportionately represented in images for stories related to welfare. These same studies have shown an inverse relationship between the perception of blacks as the recipients of welfare and America’s support of it. And by the eighties, Ronald Reagan, an old-time conservative ala Strom Thurmond, was decrying “welfare queens,” an ugly implicit reference to black women, thereby placing the responsibility of welfare on the backs of blacks, rather than on those of the majority of its stakeholders, whites. This did two things. First, it singled out the unsympathetic poor blacks as welfare’s face, and second, it then capitalized on the historic stereotype of African-Americans as lazy (insert: shiftless), sex-craven people to portray welfare recipients as loose mothers who functioned as baby factories and refused to get jobs.

This all goes to show that to the extent that America views poverty as black, the country looses sympathy for poverty as a public cause. So while poor whites and blacks are equally affected by the nation’s neglect of the poor, it is the combined effect of racist attitudes towards blacks and poverty painted as black that has led to a generally reduced commitment to America’s poor of all colors.

These lessons about America’s subtextual racial tensions playing themselves out in very meaningful yet harmful ways in the lives of both blacks and whites have broader applicability in our society. If we think about the way in which blacks were portrayed as predatory dealers and violence-craven addicts for years, and how our policies toward users reacted to theses images, it was a less-than-honest look at the problem of drugs in our society, and did a disservice to all members of it. What this all goes to say is that the lesson the country never seems to learn continues to ring true year after year. Blinders of bigotry obfuscate fiction from fact, dream from reality, illogic from logic and will have consequences that will look color-blind to the untrained eye but will never be able to completely separate themselves from the cold fact that their roots lie American racism.

When Will Rome Get a Clue?

The Catholic Church's forthcoming review of 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States, handed down from the Vatican, for "evidence of homosexuality" is as ridiculous as it is short-sighted. The main driving force behind this latest inquisition is the sex abuse scandals that have rocked the Church's very foundation over the past few years in the states. By seemingly equating pedophilia with homosexuality, the Church has (at least in its mind) found a scapegoat upon which to heap blame and revealed its enormous ignorance on the issue of sexual abuse raising further questions (as if it were possible) as to its overall ability to handle the issue internally. If the Church were to expel every last homosexual priest they would still not eradicate the sex abuse problems.

In addition to the sex abuse issue, the Church as a fundamental stance that gay priests live in direct violation of divine law. It is important to pick apart this logic because it has major flaws. The first fundamental question the Church must wrestle with is whether or not homosexuality is a choice. If it is not a choice, then it is something one is born with much like brown hair or blue eyes. How then can it be sinful to be born a certain way? How can the Church believe that in a Calvinist fashion a person by definition is sinning from that day he/she is born by virtue of the fact that he/she was born with a particular trait. This predeterminism runs contrary to a belief in reconciliation. If, however, the Church believes that being gay is a choice, then one can only be gay in the doing of that act. Homosexuality in this case becomes a performance. Thus, celibate priests cannot then by definition be gay because they do not perform the acts that would define them as such.

Homosexuals in the Church is something that the Vatican and Catholics worldwide are going to need to examine with stronger logic and reason than they are currently employing. However, if the Church believes, mistakenly, that somehow homosexuality is the locus of pedophilia, a much more important issue, it will fail to substantially deal with the abuses that have gone on within it. Abuse of children is disgusting, perhaps the most reprehensible act to the sensibilities. It is even more distasteful and destructive when the perpetrators are stewards of faith because the effect is to cripple a child's trust not only in people but also in faith. Some real intelligence and not merely group-dogmatic-think must be brought to bear to make sure the Church continues to have relevance in the 21st Century. It is crucial because the lessons, the passion, the spirit, and righteousness it provides in peoples lives will not lose their importance. Introspection, though, growth and re-orientation are just as important to institutions as they are to personal growth.

A Decent Summer for Movies

Labor Day has come and gone, kids are headed back to school, so it's time for this LA resident to accept that summer is over. Consequently, I should provide the bookend to the piece I wrote earlier previewing the summer movie season. Here are some of the highlights and not-so-high-lights...

March of the Penguins - Perhaps the surprise hit of the summer, this film is now the second highest grossing documentary of all-time. The film was a beautiful look at the mating and birthing saga of the Emperor Penguin, a process involving almost constant sojourn, courtship, love, and sacrifice. A fantastic movie for the family, a fantastic movie for a date - Penguins showed that the process of creating and sustaining new life requires commitment, perseverance and resolve.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - The movie was the highest grossing film of the summer. Lucas rebounded from the lackluster previous two episodes to make a Star Wars movie that was worth of the name. Read my review for further commentary.

Batman Begins - This film could have easily been called Batman Returns, the title of the second of the recent Batman films (directed by Tim Burton) because after the previous two, which were crap, the latest from Nolan proved to be a worthy addition, darker than the others and more introspective. The stellar line-up of cast members did not disappoint, though the Katie and Tom show got a little out of hand (okay, a lot out of hand).

Hustle and Flow - Like Melvin van Peebles before him, John Singleton took a tremendous risk by committing the cardinal sin of investing his own money to make a movie, but he was rewarded with a very good film and a very decent return on his investment. Terrence Howard followed up Crash with a powerful, and affecting performance that may earn him an Oscar nod.

Crash - One of the most beautiful films of the summer, Talyor Hackford's film wove an intricate story of a diverse group of people living in Los Angeles struggling with alienation as their stories crashed into one another. The writing was wonderful, the direction strong, the score a beautiful complement, and the acting solid. Struggle, ugliness, brutality, heroism, intimacy, downfall, and redemption are all the subject matter.

Wedding Crashers - This was probably the second funniest film of the summer with consistently hilarious moments for the first two-thirds. Vince Vaughn was at his best with the timing and delivery of his lines and Isla Fisher was easily his comedic match.

The Aristocrats - Not for those who are easily or even not-so-easily offended, this documentary is the funniest thing I have seen in the past year. People who find this movie funny probably need some psychological help and don't worry, I'm shopping around online for shrinks as we speak. However, the concept of comedy being a release for those things in life that we are uneasy about and make us uncomfortable is perhaps exhibited better no where else than in this film.

2046 - Kar Wai Wong made a beautiful film visually speaking. From a subject matter standpoint, this movie took a great look at the nature of love, relationships, and how we run to and from them. Unlike Closer which examines some similar themes, 2046 has an ambiguous conclusion as to whether what the main characters quest for can be attained. Therefore, the cynics can conclude no, and the hopeless romantics can imagine their happy endings.

And for the biggest flop of the summer, the moviee that stunk in an oh so extra special way...

The Island - Michael Bay can be a great action director, but this was nothing more than 136 minutes of the director getting off while the audience could do nothing but bear witness to a script that looks as though it was part of some eighth grade summer camp final project. Lesson - big budget + two budding stars with no track record or drawing box office crowds + director who is as consistent as Bush administration reasons for going into Iraq ≠ good movie or successful film.

The film that best lived up to the hype...

Mr. and Mrs. Smith - This action movie was more than decent with some genuinely funny moments. What made this movie even more fun though, was that everyone wanted to see what the on-screen chemistry would be like between Angelina and Brad. Conclusion: to anyone with eyes, the attraction between the two was so painfully obvious. Had there been no rumors of an affair between them before the movie came out, once it did, they would have immediately surfaced and there would be the same results for Jennifer and Brad's marriage (though I have it from some different sources that Angelina played a smaller roll in the breakup than tabloids speculate).

So summer is over and now we can all look forward to the crap that will be rolled out continuously until Thanksgiving. Word to the wise, read reviews because the hit-to-miss ratio is about to go down substantially, see some indies and use and abuse the three-movies-at-a-time privileges on Netflix.

Unlocking the Full Potential of the Military's Transformative Power

It has been well covered by various media outlets from radio to television to print to film that those men and women who make up the ranks of today's United States military disproportionately come from among the working class and working poor. However, one of my closest friends from childhood is atypical in this regard. He comes from an upper-middleclass, prep-school background. He enlisted in the summer of 2002 just before the Bush administration began to hype-up allegations that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He had no misgivings when he enlisted. Regardless of administration claims, he felt that Hussein was a brutal dictator who needed to be dealt with.

The change in my friend could be seen almost immediately. He went from being an intelligent kid searching for direction in life, to someone who now feels fulfilled in the work that he is doing, truly applying himself to life. Like many before him, he has genuinely been transformed by service in the military. It is still a profession where people can find purpose and direction in and leave with tremendous skills to re-enter civilian life.

But as I said, my friend is somewhat atypical. Growing up as a child of privilege, the Army was not the only option among an abundance of bad ones. He was in college when he enlisted. His options would be wide open once he graduated. With this as his situation, he chose the Army, and it has served him tremendously. There is no doubt that for most men and women who join the armed services tremendous opportunity and experience will be granted them. Yet for too many today, the military represents the only option that will bring a positive return. What this means is that there has been no real competition for these soldiers. The military has not won out in a truly competitive environment. As a result, without questioning the commitment of those who join and fight in the armed forces, it is the case that they have not made choices in the way that my good friend did.

I truly believe in our United States military. Its ranks are filled by the bravest and most self-sacrificing men and women in our country. What I also believe is that we owe Americans choices. That is one of the supposed blessings of liberty, a free society, capitalism. The working class and working poor deserve the education that will allow them to have options when they consider joining the military. It is important for our competitive future, but it will also more fully unlock the tremendous transformative power of service in uniform.

So Palmero Used Steriods, Get Over It

Rafael Palmero has tested positive for steroid use, and so he is now the first high profile Major Leaguer to suffer suspension in the league's new tougher testing climate. Congress, of course, wants to waste some more time and money on this issue because we certainly are not at war, everyone in America has affordable health insurance, we have restored fiscal responsibility to the budget, no genocide is currently underway in Darfur, nor a famine in Niger, the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran have been dealt with, and China and India are not looking to challenge American economic leadership in the world.

Forgive me if I don't take political grandstanding in Congress too seriously. I much more prefer President Bush's not-so-thinly veiled continuation of his policy of being loyal to his friends, though they be crooks, because deep down, I think that even he chuckles when he repeats some rendition of "He's a good man," or "I looked into his soul," or "He told me he didn't do it, and so I believe him."

My bigger problem is not with Congress however. I have a problem with all of the fans who stopped watching baseball after the strike-shortened season in '94 and did not return to being fans until the historic 1998 McGuire-Sosa run at Maris' single-season home run record. Sure the camaraderie was great between the two. You couldn't have picked a better pairing to remind people of what they loved about the sport. But you also couldn't have picked a better pairing to put your money on for poster-children of steroid use. But back in '98, no one wanted to deal with steroid use as a problem - not the majors, not the Congress, not the fans. Everyone was just happy that balls were flying out of the park at record rates.

So now everyone wants to get on their holier-than-thou kick and wag their fingers at players and say shame on you. Well I would like to turn that accusatory, my shit don't stink, finger right back around. When you celebrate home run hitting that is unnatural, denying what your gut and brain tell you to be the case - that these guys are using roids - and when it is that steroid use that brings you back to the game, you are a hypocrite. These players needed steroids to hit home runs at unprecedented rates and the country needed steroids to enjoy the game again. How pathetic.

In other news this year, Ken Griffey, Jr. is playing in his first injury-free season in over 4 years and is showing he still has what it takes. The A-Rod-Sheffield paring have already combined to hit 52 home runs. Braves rookie Jeff Francoeur is second among right fielders in assists with 9 in only 31 games. Roger Clemens at age 43 is leading the majors with an ERA of 1.53, over a run and half better than his career average. Julio Franco turned 47 and might bat .300 again. The Yankees may not make the playoffs.

The Du Bois Society - the Black Hebrew School

Every Saturday morning over my final three years of college, you could find me rising at the ungodly hour of 8:00 AM to dress and catch the Redline into the Dorchester area of Boston. I along with two other classmates of mine was a tutor/mentor for a program called the Du Bois Society. The purpose of the program was to provide academic enrichment for highly motivated and talented black, Boston-area high school students. The kids in the Du Bois Society were mostly middleclass and attended some of the top high schools in the area, both public and private. Given that I had grown up in similar circumstances, being one of a handful of blacks at predominantly white secondary institutions, I had a special affinity with them.

The academic enrichment was not directionless, though. The Du Bois Society had a focused mission to introduce these students the field of African-American studies with reading selections chosen by Harvard professors with whom they had a Saturday seminar one Saturday out of every month. The idea was that it was important to teach these students that they did not exist in a vacuum but were part of a larger community, history, and struggle of black people both in America and globally. Like Du Bois before them, they should recognize their roles as some of the most privileged blacks in the world and the responsibility that came along with it. Because school was not going to teach them, those who ran the program, the Harvard professors who supported it, the students, their parents, and the Harvard teaching assistants saw it as important that before college, these young leaders learn about black history, how race relations differed here and in other countries, religion’s role in liberation, black art history and its role in emancipation, the history of science and racism, and so many other issues that would provide a backdrop and context for the world they live in today and what their success would and should mean.

The Du Bois Society is run in conjunction with Harvard's department of African and Afro-American studies. It is a great example of black academia, both professors and students, leaving their ivory towers and taking an interest in and engaging with the larger black community. Make no mistake; the Du Bois Society was very talented-tenth oriented. Some criticize the program for this reason, but those of us who were a part and devoted time to it, see the importance of renewing the so-called talented-tenth's commitment to the negated-nine-tenths of the community who have been relegated to impoverished, under funded, forgotten urban spaces. It is also a building block for a larger community movement. Just as Jewish parents send their kids to Hebrew school on a weekly basis, it should become commonplace in the black community for parents to send their kids to Du Bois Societies where they will study subjects as diverse as anthropology, political science, economics, and religion all with a focus on Africa and the world of the Diaspora. The end game of a program like the Du Bois Society is purpose. Purpose will provide motivation, fuel that will be guided as young black children mature and find their eventual direction.

Keep Hustlin

"Keep Hustlin’," sings one of DJay's prostitutes on the hook of a home-produced track for the mix-tape that is going to change his and his women's lives in Craig Brewer's Hustle and Flow. DJay is played by Terrence Howard who earlier this summer moved audiences in Crash. In Hustle and Flow, he gives a dynamic, piercing, and profoundly true performance as a Memphis pimp who is trying to break into the rap game, in what he views as his last chance to get out of his monotonous rut of a life.

"Keep Hustlin’" accurately describes Mr. Howard's career. This role may indeed garner him an Oscar nomination, but even if it does not, it has allowed one of Hollywood's most underrated actors to finally display his ability to be a compelling lead. Since his first TV movie role in The Jackson: An American Dream, Howard has appeared in nearly 40 movies. His characters have usually had an air of coolness about them, and he has always been impressive with how refreshingly honest and true his roles have come across. Yet only now, at the age of 36 is he starting to get the roles he deserves and acclaim he has earned. He has continue to hustle in the game of Hollywood, delivering dynamism even in supporting roles because he is a craftsman who takes pride in his work, and, because if success was not going to be handed to him on a silver platter, he was damn sure going to have to fight for it. He kept up his hustle and now it is paying off.

Hopefully we can now cross Howard's name off the list of black actors who have yet to reach the pantheon of Denzel, Samuel, Morgan, Will, and Jamie (recently inducted) - those who can regularly get work and good roles. Not sure, but Hotel Rwanda may have inducted Don Cheadle. Next up: Jeffrey Wright.

Throw the Book at Karl Rove

As more information comes out on an almost daily basis regarding the outing of former C.I.A. operative Valery Plame (Wilson), it seems more and more likely that Karl Rove was involved and was, in the least, a partial source of the leak. As Tim Russert pointed out on Meet the Press last Sunday, it is clear by the rules governing the disclosure of classified information by officials with high-level security clearance, Rove's confirmation to Bob Novak and primary sourcing of Matthew Cooper's article constitute improper disclosures. Whether or not this constitutes a violation of the 1982 federal law protecting the identities of our nation's spies is still to be determined.

If it happens that Karl Rove is convicted of improperly revealing the identity of Valery Plame as a C.I.A. operative, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should look to punish him to the full extent of the law, which allows for 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. The reason that I advocate that he throw the book at Karl Rove is because of what no one in the administration is denying, but what they are rather confirming on a daily basis. The leak occurred and happened in conjunction with an official policy to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger and his finding's that Iraq had indeed not attempted to purchase enriched uranium from that country as had been previously stated by the President and used by many officials as justifications to go to war. It is this that is so despicably criminal. If Karl Rove did in fact out Ms. Plame, it may not have been in retaliation (as she and her husband claim) but it was certainly motivated by politics and a win-at-any-costs mentality. The intelligence failures of 9/11 brought into the spotlight shortcomings in our human intelligence, that field that Valery Plame used to specialize and serve her country in. It is criminal and treasonous therefore to intentionally or accidentally out a C.I.A. agent for no better reason than to discredit her husband.

Yes, it is perhaps true that Rove made a mistake. This is unlikely given his keen political mind and the White House's initial denial that he had any involvement, a claim that some in the administration had to have known at the time to be untrue. But let's just suppose that he did make a mistake and reveal something he shouldn't have by a mental slip. What still stands is that he did so in the context of trying to discredit someone (who was in fact telling the truth) for political gain. As an official with access to the identities of C.I.A. operatives, Karl Rove must unfortunately be held to a higher standard. His mistakes were costly and under different circumstances might have cost someone their life. It is inexcusable to be to so wrapped up in politics that you let slip to the press secrets whose maintenance are key to the protection of America. If Bush wants to stand firm in the War on Terror, he will fire his political guru, Karl Rove, who either put politics above his country's safety or was so engrossed in winning at politics that the result was the same, he inappropriately let slip a secret that jeopardizes the cloke of secrecy and anonymity protecting our C.I.A. field agents.

Take Notes from Natalie Portman

In 1994 Natalie Portman burst onto the acting scene with her performance in the critically acclaimed Leon (The Professional). The cast included such talents as Jean Reno, Danny Aiell0 and Gary Oldman. Ms. Portman was only thirteen when the movie debuted with an entire future ahead of her that could see superstardom, multi-millions, countless awards, failure, or mediocrity. To her and her parent's credit, they chose to make Portman a superstar not only for her good looks and appeal to young girls but more importantly for her tremendous talent that was developed and nurtured over her subsequent films.

In the past year, she has been featured in three hit movies, Garden State, Closer, and Star Was: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. During this span she has won a Golden Globe and received her first Oscar nomination, losing in a toss-up to Cate Blanchett (who had been nominated previously). But how has she made the transition from unknown actress with a breakout performance at age thirteen to credible and recognized adult actress in just over a decade? The road she has traveled has been well selected and other young actresses and actors would be wise to take notes.

As opposed to pursuing projects that would be Natalie Portman vehicles or trying to establish her brand name as a teenage powerhouse, she early on took on roles that were smaller than the one she had in Leon. Among the roles, some were challenging, some were not, and most of the films were not extremely commercially successful. However, what was consistent about the films that she chose was that she was working with talented, established actors whom she would presumably be networking with and learning from.

After Leon, the next big film she did was Michael Mann's 1995 crime drama, Heat, that had an essemble cast that included: Val Kilmer, Ashley Judd, Jon Voight, Mykelti Williamson, and, biggest of all, the first ever scene pairing of Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. She continued to select scripts that had in many cases essemble casts. Thus, she has subsequently also worked with: Woody Allen, Tim Roth, Ed Norton, Alan Alda, Julia Roberts, Annette Bening, Jack Nicholson, Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renee Zellweger (to name only those with Oscar nominations). The roles she has chosen have been safe to the extent that she was not the main star for most of them, but the characters have been very mature for their age. This last point is key because it is often times difficult for successful child actors to transition into successful adult actors. One need only recollect Macaulay Culkin or look at the Olsen twins' and Lindsay Lohan's current struggles to see this. Portman however was already playing older roles as a teen (indeed her first was a very mature one). But working with those greats must have given her an education in acting equal to if not surpassing the one she received at Harvard.

The final smart thing she did was to sign on to the three picture deal that was George Lucas' latest trilogy installment of the Star Wars saga. These movies were assured to be box office hits (even if they did not receive raved reviews). This decision meant that she could take chances because there would be three films over 6 years that were sure to be huge events putting her name right back in the headlines each time.

Portman in the interim has also graduated high school and college (Harvard) and is now one of the hottest and most talented young actresses in Hollywood. She is much further along the path to securing a long career with meaningful roles as a female than some of her contemporaries such as Kirsten Dunst, Anna Paquin, and Christina Ricci. So for those young actresses looking to do what Portman has, take roles where the character is very mature for her age. Tend to adult movies rather than kids movies. Do as many films with great actors as possible even if the films themselves are not great. And finally, don't forget that you are making a name for yourself, so it is important to do a blockbuster every now and again; think: Scarlett Johansson doing The Island.

Rize

Don't confuse gettin crunk with gettin krump. The former owing its origins to southern slang is about livening the mood and making things exciting. The latter refers to a dance form that along with clowning is the subject of David LaChapelle's documentary "Rize." As the story goes, LaChapelle was shooting Christina Aguilera's "Dirty" music video when he was introduced to dancers who were doing something wholly unique and ultimately more interesting than his current project. He wrapped the shoot with overflowing excitement because he could now investigate what he had only caught a glimpse of, the new and original dance style known as krumping.

"Rize" is a terrific documentary because in it, unlike the style made multi-million-dollar-successful by Michael Moore, LaChapelle does not editorialize. This film is about capturing this social movement - expressed through dance - that has taken hold in the violence-ravaged hoods of Los Angeles from South Central to Watts. The movie opens against a backdrop of urban upheaval and feelings of powerlessness and disgruntledness as manifested through the Watts riots and the Rodney King Riots some thirty years later. However, as we hear the stories of the dancers as they explain how and why they got involved with clowning or krumping, what becomes apparent is that the real backdrop that this art form is set against is the gang violence in their midst every day, their very own Baghdad. The pink elephant in the film is that these kids are born into an existence where their life chances are low, one to two mistakes or bad breaks away from death, but no hope of success - not what we associate with America and its dream.

It is in this suffocating void that krumping and clowning evolved. In the place of drug gangs, the kids have formed dance gangs if you will. The dance movements rely heavily on popping, commonly associated with strippers, and in various expressions pull from other recent popular black dance forms such as Crip walking and the Harlem shake. The flailing of the dancers as they twerk their bodies violently and at extreme angles is a cathartic release of extreme emotion. Feelings of distress, anger, longing, hate, love, violence are all channeled through the movements of the bodies and communicate as effectively as ballet. And what is so beautiful about this therapy is that for all of its showiness and threat of violence against the opposing dancer, in the end, it is about dance and when a battle is finished it is finished.

"Rize" at its core shows that artistic creativity is bubbling below the surface in various marginalized communities in the face of the years of reducing funding for the arts. "Rize" shows how faith and youth culture have melded to give young people a sense of hope, purpose and direction. "Rize" shows that even under unrelenting duress, like air, still the people rize.

Things I Believe...

The following is a list of things that I believe:

1. Although opposed to the war in Iraq, I believe that we must show resolve now to win the peace there. This means an economic, political, and yes, military commitment for at least the next 10 years.

2. The retirement age should be raised to 65. People are living longer than ever, still have much to contribute when they reach the current retirement age, and are healthier if they remain active. In addition, with more people going to college and advances in medical health, people are starting careers and families later in life now as well.

3. Social Security must be dealt with, and so, though it pains me to say it, kudos Mr. President for starting the debate. Privatization is not the way to go, but should not be ruled out altogether. However, the government should encourage private accounts as an addition to Social Security savings.

4. Military engagements and spending, though not popular, will have to be scaled back. When added to servicing the debt, our budgetary flexibility is almost nonexistent. Cuts must be on the table if we wish to see balanced budgets once again. There's just not enough money (in fact little at all) in the GOP's perennial poster children of waste such as welfare.

5. We should normalize relations with Cuba. We have counted Sadam Hussein, Joseph Mobutu, and countless other brutal men as allies at one point or another and Castro certainly has much better records than they. If we want to spur on democracy in Cuba, nothing will be more crippling to the Castro regime than an influx of American tourists, goods, media, and example.

6. Our healthcare system is the best in the world for those who can afford top-notch treatment. For everyone else it is just all-right at best. We need a drastic overhaul including considering making insurance actually just that, insurance and not a shared payment plan for every time you see a doctor. More importantly, the power of information technology must be harnessed to improve care, make it assessable to more, and to reduce costs in a system that is seeing unsustainable rates of inflation. Preventative healthcare must be a crucial component to health savings.

7. China and India pose a real threat to American economic predominance in the world. Even with NAFTA, it is cheaper for a company to set up shop in China and ship goods to the States by cargo than it is for them to do it just across the border in Mexico and bring them over by truck. In addition, despite consumer complaining, Americans will still choose cheaper goods and services over having technical support and customer service in American English rather than Indian English. What's more, more and more jobs in more and more parts of the economy are becoming exportable and it is nothing but a race to the bottom for the lowest cost of production.

8. Our education system needs to be examined carefully and changed. Math and science needs to be emphasized to a greater degree; the current movement in the Christian Right is standing in diametric opposition to this and scientific progress. The school year and day should be lengthened and teachers unions should be the ones calling for it. They know better than anyone the challenges facing us. As was seen in Milwaukee, vouchers are not the answer, but they also are not not the answer.

9. Detroit should establish itself as the hub of automotives that use alternative energy sources.

10. D.C. should be granted statehood. It is completely antithetical to not allow our nation's capital to have complete representation in our government.

11. The University of Connecticut has the best basketball program in the nation. The women's team is dominant and has ignited a state to cheer for them like only men's teams are cheered for in most states. The men's team has one of the top five programs in the country and will soon be a perennial Final Four team. The football program will soon rise in the college sporting world and little children in Connecticut will enjoy upbringings similar to those in Michigan, California, Ohio and other states where college football is a religion.

12. Drug addiction should not be treated as a criminal issue. It is nonsensical to convict a drug addict, throw him/her into a prison with easy access to drugs and then release that same person and expect him/her to have kicked the habit. As is becoming the case more and more in California, drug addictions should be viewed as a healthcare issue.

13. If you are a strict constructionist, then you cannot stay true to your beliefs and maintain that the 2nd Amendment gives all persons the right to bear arms. I myself, however, do not subscribe to strict constructionism. I believe in the living and breathing Constitution.

Retire the Confederate Flag...

I went the movies over the weekend, surprise surprise, and I saw the previews for "The Dukes of Hazard." Something caught my eye: the Confederate Flag that sat atop the Dukes' car. It has always perplexed and vexed me since I was child why there is such toleration for the Confederate Flag in our country. I have heard all the arguments. The flag represents southern heritage. The flag represents brave men who fought and died under it in the Civil War. The flag is a symbol of the old south. I'm not buying it.

I will admit that no doubt my views are influenced by the fact that I am black and that all that flag represents to me is that it took a Civil War to free my ancestors. I will inevitably be countered by the weak argument that the war was about states' rights, but this of course was mainly the right to have slavery. So we're back to square one. But were I not a black man, I would still take issue with the flag as it is the symbol of the largest rebellion in the history of our nation. Every soldier who fought for the Confederacy, brave and valiant though he may have been, was a traitor by the very fact that he took up arms against the United States of America. These were the Terry Nicholses and Timothy McVeighs of their day. True, they did not attack non-military persons, but they were fighting to preserve the most evil, cruel and peculiar institution ever known to our nation. So while you might find this rhetoric harsh, upon considering the brutality of slavery, I'm sure you'll agree it is quite reserved. And finally, it amazes me how, for instance, state legislators in South Carolina can preach patriotism and supporting American troops with one breath and sing the praises of traitorous Dixie and the Confederate Flag with the next.

I honestly cannot fathom why the flag is tolerable and so celebrated. The Germans seem not to have any hesitation or equivocation about their feelings for the Nazi flag. Though it certainly was a symbol of a party that reinspired many Germans and many valiant soldiers died under it, this can never overshadow the evil that it represents. That flag is also about tyranny, totalitarianism, intolerance, and the anti-semitic systematic extermination of an entire race of people. Any positive aspects that the Nazi flag might represent can never come close to having any significance when stacked up against all of the bad. This is the same with the Confederate flag. I would not go so far as to ban the item as I strongly cling to freedom of speech in our society. But I would certainly expect that state and local governments would cease endorsing a flag that represents organized rebellion and treason against the US and a belief in the social death known as slavery. I would also challenge every American who calls him or herself patriotic and a supporter of freedom and tolerance to denounce this symbol as well.

If we sat in the a movie theater and saw a trailer for a comedy and the protagonist drove a car with a swastika painted on the hood, we would be appalled and the Anti Defamation League would be up in arms. A public outcry would rise up. But the symbol of the Confederacy is perfectly allowable in our society. Why is this okay? Why is it that southern children can still be taught that the Civil War was actually the War of Northern Aggression (who fired on whom again)? No doubt there are numerous beautiful and wonderful things about the south and its traditions, but the Confederate flag has got to be the least of these. The south and the nation as a whole needs to accept that the Confederacy was wrong because slavery was wrong, and though they were brave, Confederate soldiers fought, at the most basic level, to preserve an inhumane and ungodly society. As the symbol of that final holdout against the winds of change sweeping in progress toward freedom and justice for all, the Confederate Flag has no place in the American spirit only in its museums and history books.

How to Make Prison Privatization Work

Perhaps one of the worst public policy mistakes that is currently plaguing America is privatization of prisons that has led to the rise of the Prison Industrial Complex. How our society has fallen into this pitfall is easy to see: it merely has been viewed like any other contract that governments give out to the private sector. There are very troubling issues that lie in the incentives for the Prison Industrial Complex - now an extremely powerful lobby - though. If we think about it, when a person is convicted of a crime, there is an ideal time which that person should serve, which of course is debatable. However, parties should not have interests in seeing people put away for longer than is merited and provides for the most desired outcomes for society. The PIC has incentives to see tough sentencing and longer stays because more people in prison for longer periods of time means more and more money for that industry. Society, however, ideally uses utility and justice as it measuring stick for prison sentences.

But there is a free market remedy that can have great benefits on business, prisoners, and most importantly society. State governments should move to give contracts for prison to companies using recidivism rates as the comparative measure. Currently, it is in the Prison Industrial Complex's best interest for prisoners who are release to commit crimes again, so that they will come right back for more revenue. However, if having comparatively lower rates of recidivism were necessary to their business model, recitivism rates would necessarily come down, which would mean less tax-payer dollars spent on prosecuting and incarcerating repeat offenders. More importantly, it would mean that far fewer people would become victims. Prisoners who were in prisons with strong performance at recidivism would have higher chances of leading productive lives when they left which would benefit themselves, their families, and their communities.

Lowering costs by steering contracts to the private sector has created bad incentives. It also has given a false sense of cost-saving. In fact, costs may very well be artificially higher because of the Prison Industrial Complex's incentive for more criminal acts and longer stays. This can be fixed though. Governments owe it to citizens, to tax-payers, to former-victims, to not-yet-victims, to prisoners to demand more of the private sector.

Episode III - Review of the Sith

As I took my seat in Hollywood's Arclight dome theater at 9:30 AM Saturday morning, having only turned in for the night some 6 hours before, a chill went up the back of my spine. Finally, it was here. This was the moment that I and every other fan had been waiting for since Attack of the Clones but really since The Phantom Menace failed to meet expectations building since childhood. Then the introduction, as familiar as family - the 21st Century Fox shot followed by Lucas Films. And once the introductions were finished (you've got love that films that still only need two production companies to make) the John Williams Star Wars theme came on with the prologue to Episode III. George Lucas did not disappoint.

Episode III is by far the darkest of in the double-trilogy, but it makes sense. Its subject matter is how does democracy, fighting to hold on, die? In a dark and subvert messiah narrative, how does the savior fail and plunge into the depths of the darkness he was supposed to rescue us all from? In short, how do good hearted individuals and well intentioned societies go over to the dark side? Of course we have been given the preview answer in words from Yoda's wisdom in Phantom: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering," but none of the previous Star Wars films has force us to confront in tangible, real, and manifest terms what that prediction/admonition truly means. All this is to say that George Lucas is a great story-teller and he back to his best. The narrative more than compensates for unconvincing romantic dialogue and exchanges and at-times stodgy general dialogue. The action sequences are terrific, though the space confrontations still do not challenge those of the original three episodes. The light saber battles have gotten progressively better and more intricate with each new episode and this film features two epic ones.

The first is the showdown that we were deprived of in Episodes V and VI, the battle between Emperor Palpatine and Yoda. They are equal matches for one another with both extensive knowledge of the Force and beautiful manipulation of light sabers - Yoda's acrobatic moves are juxtaposed with the Emperor's elegant strokes. But truly the battle we have been waiting for is the one between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin, by this point Darth Vader. This is the climax where we will see how, in their first battle, Obi-Wan is able to stave off death and defeat the superior Jedi, Anakin Skywalker, which he fails to do so many years later in Episode IV. The setting is the volcanic country, Mustafa, which looks so unstable in its omnipresent surface eruptions that it might explode upon itself. With the red overtones from the lava, hate and anger meet hurt and disillusion. Anakin's fall gives us a sense of just how quickly Lucifer's fall from heaven into hell might have been as he is steaming with bile and deluded with visions of grandeur and supreme power, one might describe as hubris. And though by this point Anakin is a more skilled Jedi than Obi-Wan and wields a more fearsome light saber, Obi-Wan's noble mission to save the galaxy from its gravest threat, even in the face of striking down the apprentice he has mentored since boyhood and self-described brother, gives him the added goodness boost that heroes enjoy. But as we of course know, he does not finish the job (though he assumes that Anakin's days are limited).

So too does Yoda fail to defeat Emperor Palpatine, though he does not lose the battle either. Instead, we see Yoda's wisdom and superior mental capacity, most of all in patience, as he maps out a new strategy for success. A momentary (albeit a very long one) retreat for ultimate victory the choice chooses Yoda does. We almost instantly know that he is banking on winning the war rather than the battle. So what are the reasons why Episode III is perhaps the second (perhaps third) best of the double trilogy? To start, the large themes and narratives it deals with are complex, deep, rich and challenging. The movie more than any of the previous five engages politics. It really considers what tenuous ground democracies stand on. It forces us to confront the fact that our enemies may have similar or their meritorious intentions for their opposition. But the movie also forces us to watch a film whose ending we generally know. What's more, unlike the rest of the franchise that has been generally upbeat and optimistic, we must witness what we know is going to be the darkest chapter of the tale that will end in tragic and melancholy fashion. In fact, the last part of the movie, the point from which Anakin turns to the dark side and Senator Palpatine initiates the execution of Order 66, for the clones to eliminate all of the Jedi, there is non-stop sadness, beautifully complemented by John Williams' score, as we see almost the entire Jedi order eliminated and the Galaxy plunged into what will become the dark years.

Episode III is George Lucas' most ambitious film since the original Star Wars: A New Hope. He has successfully captured his imagination on screen and once again told a story that titillates the senses. Not only are the eyes stimulated but the heart and mind as well. This movie finishes on inverse parallel low level to the high level that Return of the Jedi finishes on. The film reminds us that even in the darkest hour, we should fear not, for though Siths will have their revenge, the Jedi will return. That is to say, even when the darkest hour has come, a new hope is on the horizon.

The Youth - America's Conscience

Yahoo News recently reported that Illinois' state legislature has "voted to sell off about $1 billion worth of investments in companies doing business with Sudan, part of a nationwide campaign to protest genocide in the African nation." It will become the first state to take such action, hopefully to be followed by the remaining balance of the fifty. The legislature's vote follows closely on the heels of Harvard University's decision to divest from Petro China which has major dealings with the Sudanese government that has at best tacitely endorsed a genocide against black Africans in its nation. The university's decision has undoubtly given divestment significant clout and momentum as Harvard is often a leader by virtue of the fact that when it finally does act the nation takes note and follows in turn.

Harvard's divestment announcement came after an engaged movement led by Harvard seniors to withhold the traditional senior class gift which the class collects and donates at the end of the year. The university uses the class gift to show alumns how satisfied current students are with the school which in turn spurs on alumni giving.

The student campaign was led by, among others Matt Mahan and Brandon Terry, two young men whom I consider close friends and whom I hold in the highest regard. They are energetic, passionate, intelligent, and have an understanding of the social responsibility that comes along with the priveledge of attending a university like Harvard. Their efforts serve as an important example and reminder of the critical role that young Americans play in our society. Too often the outcries of the young are trivialized and discounted as naive and lacking in experience and therefore understanding. In reality, the youth of America have over the past fifty years in many cases been the conscience of the nation. Paradoxically, though, we encourage young people to dream and to achieve great things, but when it comes time to give them a seat or to listen to them we are reticent and disregard their insights.

Matt Mahan and Brandon Terry are examples of how young people can move powerful institutions and even possibly the nation. The Harvard class of 2005 is around 1,600 students in total. Even if we assumed 100% participation in the divestment movement (which there was not), that would mean that 1,600 young people moved Harvard which is now rippling through state legislatures across the country. Isn't that incredible? How wonderful it is that a passionate few can move so many for the cause of humanity at its most fundamental level.

Iran and Nukes

Iran is going to pursue nukes and anyone who says otherwise, Republican or Democrat, American or non-American, is simply refusing to look at the logical options for that country. Here's how it will play out:

Iran will negotiate with the Europeans trying to force some niceties out of the U.S. and a recognition of their right to pursue nuclear fuel. In secret, they will go ahead with their determination to acquire nukes. If caught again, they will go through the next round of song and dance and they will do it just fine. Europe will not want to cut off communication to a country that has already been accused of supporting terrorists. To cast them completely into rogue status would only be to push them further into the embrace of terrorists will be the thinking. In addition, that beautiful thick black liquid that Iran has so much of will give it additional leverage in their Charleston Two Step. It will also be argued that we need to avoid alienating Iran as well given it's extremely large young population that desires a more moderate regime and increased democracy, seen as a potentially revolutionary force over the next twenty years in the West.

Lastly, save sanctions, what other options will there be? China and Russia certainly will not engage militarily. The U.K. and the rest of NATO are too shy without strong American presence, and the United States government (let alone it's people) are not about to get into another military conflict in the Middle East when the two current ones are draining our economic and political capital. We also will need to be even more cognizant of Shiite sentiments in Iraq that will not take too kindly to a military conflict with its Shiite brethren in Iran. And of course their is the added dead weight loss of further pissing off the rest of the Islamic world that the U.S. will not want to incur at a time when winning hearts and minds seems to be the War on Terror game plan. If we are convinced Iran is pursuing Nukes, it will also be an infinitedly more impossible task to convince the U.N. after the Iraq debacle.

One way or another, either getting caught more times or covertly, Iran will press on until they secure nukes. Given the rest of the world's unwillingness or inability to credibly substantially enact repercussions, why would they not? For them, there is a tremendous amount to gain. Once they have acquired nuclear weaponry, their borders will be infinitely more secure from a U.S. invation over the short term. Over the long term, new conflicts may arise with Pakistan or India or China or even North Korea (all this to say that the geopolitical future is uncertain) and nukes will secure them against these enemies as well. For a country like Iran who is not known for its military mite, nukes somewhat level the playing (or should I say, battle) field. The United States can more easily make the decision to go to war against a non-nuclear country than a nuclear one. This is the reason why Cold War battles were staged using other countries as stand-ins. We could release our pent-up aggression and fight our wars through much less dangerous indirect players.

So this all begs the questions, who will respond and how should they? The U.S. will have military options to make air strikes from either Afghanistan or Uzbekistan. The Israels will undoubtedly consider air strikes on nuclear facilities as well. The Europeans will look to continue talks, but will any of this be fruitful? Certainly nukes in the hands of another nation no matter which one is not a postive occurrence. However, are the other options worse? That is to say, any military strikes against Iran will have political repercussions for the U.S. or Israel with implications in the War on Terror. In addition, if military strikes are made (an essential declaration of war) and Iran still acquires nukes, this only increases the likelihood of that nation putting them in the hands of terrorists (though this would seriously undermine the defensive purpose the weapons might serve). Sanctions will largely be ineffective if Iran is determined to obtain nukes because once it does, sanctions no longer serve a purpose and the economic benefit of lifting them will be too great an incentive. One last option is to play Iran's little game and to become much friendlier with them. If they feel secure and are economically tied to the West, there is a much greater chance that it will use it nukes purely for defensive purposes. The pitfall here is that it requires backing down from a country determined to acquire nuclear capabilities which is egregiously problematic and sends a horrible message to the rest of the non-nuclear world. There are tough questions ahead that will have to be answered and re-answered as more countries push for nuclear capabilities. The right course of action is not clear but it is necessary.

A Pleasant Surprise - A Taxi Cab Confession of Sorts

This past weekend I flew into Boston and was shocked, in a pleasant way. The cab driver who rode me from the airport to the place where I was staying for the night was something of a dinosaur in the sense that he engaged me in a conversation. Ten years ago there would have been nothing extraordinary about this, but with the proliferation of cell phones, the fall in their prices, and widespread free nights and weekends, the cab experience has been drastically altered.

I still can recall the first time I stepped into a cab to find the driver having a conversation on his cell phone. After receiving my destination location, he proceeded to start talking. I mistakenly thought he was speaking to me at first, and found his phrases to make no sense – they seemed to be gibberish. I soon realize, though, that his utterances were not meant for me but for someone else with whom he was talking on his cell phone.

Before cell phones became so affordable, cabbie conversations must have been pretty thankless. Some people would inevitably choose not to converse or simply not converse with their driver in which case the driver had to simply ride in silence. Then there were also the lulls in between customers that, save the radio and possibly a book, must have been the most mundane and boring times devoid of human interaction. So it’s quite understandable the appeal of cell phones for cab drivers. They must make the job go by a lot easier. In addition, they now can stay in touch with family and friends far better than before – indeed much better than most of us as they do so on the job.

I may be a little old school and I acknowledge the benefits of cabbies on cell phones, but still I miss the conversations with cab drivers of days gone by. It was something that I had grown up with and come to expect like rolls in a restaurant or a free glass of water. Cab drivers were some of the most practiced conversationalists in our society, and they always seemed to have very interesting stories either about their own lives or about things they had heard from other cabbies. Surely something has been lost in the cab experience probably forever.

Crash - Racism as Manifestation and Hopeless Wandering

Paul Haggis' Crash analyzes a group of people living in Los Angeles over a two day period who are grappling with loneliness, hopelessness and alienation in a city overflowing with people. What's more, the film which critically examines the concept/theory of America's meltingpot uses the ethnically diverse city as a microcosm for a country where de facto segregation is the reality and where racism manifests itself often times as the displacement of the angst people feel. The characters are disconnected from those that do not look like them, but in truth they are disconnected from those that look like themselves as well.

This movie is absent of any characters who are completely bad and whom we cannot feel sympathy for, but it is also devoid of just about any (save one) characters who we can completely empathize with. No one's hands are completely clean nor dirty.

What Haggis asks us to consider is that in this country where we are so disconnected from one another, there is quite possibly some cosmic connection that binds a random group of us together where the fate of one becomes the fate of all. He also suggests that under duress so many of us might be pushed to utter racial epithets or the allow our stereotypes to take form in words and actions. At the same time, these extremely tense and emotional situations gives ordinary people the chance to rise to the occassion and become something greater than they thought possible. One need only think about the firemen who acted and died so valiantly on September 11th to realize the truth in this observation.

Crash is about racism on a very profound level. In a country where political correctness and social sanction goes so far as to scourn a public official for using the word (correctly mind you) niggardly, racism covertly lies in the hearts, minds, and actions of individuals, but almost never outwardly in their words. Indeed, it is only when extreme tension mounts that an epithet is even uttered. The film seems to argue that how we respond when a crash takes place (here: a metaphor for an extremely emotional collision/event) is the more accurate indicator of where race relations are. The unspoken truths in our day to day actions lie within whom we cohabitate with, whom we live around, and the respect we afford people.

But if Crash were about racism only, it would be well done. What makes this a great film is that racism is itself the subject matter at a very basic level, but racism as the manifestation of loneliness, hopeless, and alienation is the subject matter at a deeper level. Everyone knows that racism originates from fear and ignorance etc, but Haggis asks us to think of racism as the locus of displacement for what we really feel. We are disappointed with an outcome, so we must find someone to blame. We don't feel connected to those with whom we should be close, so we lash out at others. We simply feel like the agency we were supposed to have as human beings living in America - land of the free, filled with limitless opportunity - is missing, so we must strike someone else down. With our limited imaginations, our segregated upbringings, learned racism and stereotyping, we turn toward the other. That ethnic person so different from ourselves whom we feel justified in tearing down is an easy target, certainly easier than confronting our own deamons, or to even face an even scarier conclusion: that we are perhaps powerless to change what's wrong with our own lives. Confronting our own deamons is challenging enough because they require leaving our comfort zones and introspectively examining the painful parts of our souls. But think of being forced to accept that which we cannot change. Think of what it is to be Don Cheadle's character who tries to reach out to his mother, but who will always be treated with some level of disdain and worse than his younger brother who (unlike him) has amounted to little in life.

After Million Dollar Baby we have learned that we must try and find the silver lining in Mr. Haggis' tales. Crash paints a pretty dismal picture of race relations in our country. L.A. is segregated with whites, blacks, hispanics, Asians all living in their ghettos. From their respective loci of habitation, they each inflict hurt onto outsiders and onto their own as well. What is common is that they are struggling, every last one of them. They are struggling in their personal relationships, struggling with jobs, struggling with life, struggling to survive. The hispanic female sees the Asian female and vice versa and they see no connection. They see only the exotic other and not a human being who shares their same suffering. So then what is the silver lining? Haggis seems to argue that our lives are interconnected no matter how far away we try to move and how many barriers we try to errect. There is a sense that we are not just some random assortment of individuals playing out our lives here on Earth, but that there is some metaphysical interplay happening between all of our fates. And yes, life is difficult and filled with adversity, but we each experience it no less than the next man and there has to be some comfort in this - in truth, we really are not alone.

So what the film asks us to do is to look past harsh exterior facade that others often project. Haggis wants us to look past skin color and to listen to more than accents. We are pushed to look at ourselves and question our own shortcomings and inner demons. There is also a pretty stinging indictment on our society as we busy ourselves with our lives that crashes are the only times in which we come into contact with one another. Mr. Cheadle's character in fact questions whether this isn't some subconscious decision to find human connection. Our lives are filled with the potential to enjoy genuine human interaction and relationships, we just do not. The tragedy of Crash is that its characters do not find each other and were it not for the hand of fate, they would not know one another at all.

Finally, Hitch Hikers Guide Arrives

I saw The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy this past weekend and thank God. For the previous few weeks, there had been the inevitable dirth that occurs in the Spring season of movies. I had not been excited for a film since Sin City a rare bright spot in an otherwise utterly boring period. Hitch Hiker's though was a thorough enjoyable movie. The special effects were cool though not astounding, the acting was entertaining though not mindblowing, but the movie as a whole was very good.

Mos Def is truly coming into his own as an actor and has shown just in the past year how versatile he is with his evocative role in The Woodsman as the relentless detective tormented by the sex crimes he must investigate but cannot prevent. Hitch Hiker's provides a much lighter role and a chance for him to display some more of the comedic abilities that we have seen in movies like The Italian Job and Brown Sugar. Zooey Deschanel is just as exquisitely cute as she was in the 2003 Thanksgiving hit Elf. She has a sassiness about her that is not abrasive and just enough attitude to make you respect her but not to much to present a barrier to discovering her. The movies will get rolling now, but this is one that is good for a first date, a second date, a third date, or just a good time.

And the Band Plays On...

And the Band Played On is a 1993 film adaptation of the novel (with the same title) dramatizing the early years of the discovery and investigations into the A.I.D.S .virus in this country. Watching the film is tremendously disturbing for the sheer fact that we already know the outcome. Americans and the Regean administration first viewed the disease as a gay one. Many had the peculiar notion that it could not infect people outside that population, and some thought it was God's form of retribution for "indecent" lifestyles. But so long as it was viewed a gay problem, most (including Regean) did not care. You watch the film and you know the utter stupidity of the reasoning, the logic replaced with bias, and you know the dire consequences. No one cared about A.I.D.S. until it was too late to prevent it from becoming an epidemic. The public and private sector did not mobilized to act to develop a testing method, to test blood stores, to proactively teach prevention and safety to all segments of the society, and so children and junkies and gays and straights and mothers and fathers and everyone under the sun contracted the disease (in terms of populations the virus has penetrated).

I remember the early 90s. These were very formative years for me in terms of a consciousness about the disease. America was truly becoming aware of the crisis as megastars like Magic Johnson and Arthur Ashe went public that they too were infected with A.I.D.S. or H.I.V. (which causes A.I.D.S.) If these Herculean, straight men could contract the virus, who couldn't? In fact, I was at a forum on A.I.D.S. the night Ashe passed away. He was supposed to attend as one of the panelists to talk about his internal struggle to go public, but did not come because he had been feeling sick. He sent a recording for us instead, and after it finished showing, they announced a hero had died.

But given what we know now, those leaders who were already adults in the 80s when a do-nothing strategy was first thought to be good public and social policy and those of us who were shaped by the public awareness of the disease in the 90s, how can we stand for the Bush administration's instance on abstinence-only education. The administration seems to think that because teen-pregnancy is relatively under control and because H.I.V. infection rates no longer seem out of control in most of America (read: white America) that we do not need to be teaching children about the proper and effective use of contraceptives in the event they decide of their own volition to engage in sexual activity.

Lani Guinier posits in The Miner's Canary that disenfranchised and marginal communities act as an early detection system for ills that have yet to reach the larger society. Had the marginal gay community been viewed in this way, perhaps the country would have mobilized early enough to keep A.I.D.S. infection rates low enough to avoid an epidemic. Today, we can look at the black community, perhaps the perennial marginal community and miner's canary, as an indicator for what's to come. A.I.D.S. infection rates are extremely high among black and in certain subsegments, black gays and black southern females for instance, infection rates are rivaling some African nations.

The Bush administration should be lauded for the focus it put on the pandemic in Africa during the first term, increasing funding to historic levels (though still not nearly enough), but through promoting abstinence-only education in schools we are ignoring a re-burgeoning problem in our own country. Abstinence is an important component in the discourse on the prevention of STDs as is monogamy. However, to deny teens the education on contraceptives in the event they choose to have sex is criminal. It would amount to proposing that kids not be taught about safe fire-arm use because some don't want kids using them. If a teenager decides to go hunting, who would encourage that we deny that kid the appropriate education on how to be safe with a rifle, even though the only 100% fool proof way not to be injured by that rifle is to not own or use it?

Kids will or will not have sex. Teaching them about contraceptives does not mean that we do not teach them about the risks of sex (which include not only physical but social and psychological ones as well). conservatives seem to be scared that teaching teens that condoms are almost 99% effective when used properly will infuse them with confidence about having sex. While this viewpoint is entirely simplistic it is also true. However, the argument is that just because some kids will be likelier to have sex we should deny all teenagers education and facts about their safety (and the safety of us all as STDs are not an individual's but community's problem) is weak. In addition, if we play out the argument something else becomes telling. There are kids who will have sex because they learn about a way to do it safely, and a priori they will be engaging in safe-sex. On the other hand, the kids most likely to engage in the risky behavior of unprotected sex are those who take the abstinence pledges. They take them with the genuine intent on following through, but one night when their hormones get the better of them (as they often do with teens) some decide to have sex perhaps in the heat of passion but are sadly not carrying contraception. Indeed, even if they had condoms with them, they would most likely not know the proper way of using them. And do they decide then not to engage in sex absent protection? No. They go ahead anyway but simply have unsafe, unprotected sex.

As And the Band Played On illustrates, when it comes to A.I.D.S., one community's crisis will not be avoided through a Disneyland mentality that suggests we live in a fantasy world where everything is peachy and nothing can go wrong. A denial of the fact that a problem in black America will be a problem in larger America is a type of wishful-thinking no one can afford. Our children need honest education. Yes, abstinence is the only fool-proof way of not contracting the H.I.V. virus through sex, but to stop there is dishonest. Teens must also understand and know that if they are sexually active then monogamy is important, but that condoms are necessary as well. They must also understand that while contraception does not negate risk, it is a very effective mitigator of it when used properly. So they must also no how to use condoms properly.

In addition, teens must be instructed on how to have the courage and fortitude to insist upon safe-sex and that they should not engage in it otherwise. But no: to educate beyond abstinence is to endorse teen-sex, conservatives suggest. Please. If we are concerned about moral fiber, parents are the place to start and then the pews. School play a part as well, but they are there to teach much more. Schools are and should be about education, not expurgating what we dislike. What good is chemistry if we do not arm our children with all the facts about sex and STDs? What will you tell the kid who makes the heat of passion decision to have sex, but does not have a condom or has one but uses it incorrectly and thereby contract H.I.V.? "It's your fault even though I denied you education on safe-sex" ? It is criminal to the health of our children and to the health of the larger community, society, and eventually world to teach abstinence only.

13 Reasons to Be Excited for the Upcoming Movie Season

In no particular order...

13. Romance & Cigarettes - A musical staring James Gandolfini, Kate Winslet (perhaps the greatest combination of talent and beauty in Hollywood today), and the still-so-lovely Susan Sarandon just beams with potential. Winslet picks roles and movies almost as well as any actress today, so this will hopefully be the musical for the year and help Gandolfini rebound from Surviving Christmas. Word to the wise: unless you are the man in Hollywood (e.g. Will Smith), do not do a film with Ben Affleck. It will tank.

12. Mad Hot Ballroom - This movie is not going to be a summer blockbuster, though it may surprise many in how successful it might ultimately be, but it's gonna have heart. We won't be able to help but think how cute these little ladies and gentlemen are as the practice and practice hard to make their ballroom dance moves worthy of being deemed mad hot.

11. Lords of Dogtown - Catherine Hardwicke's second film as a director looks to be strong like her debut, the deeply unsettling Thirteen. She seems to capture the mood of native southern Californians very well on screen and this movie will be tons of fun. In a word, it will be awesome.

10. Crash - This movie features a dynamic cast that could explode with on-screen chemistry. Some of the actors such as Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Esposito, and Ludacris have chosen a film that will challenge their ability and hopefully provide some street cred alongside the likes of Don Cheadle, Brendan Fraser, and Ryan Phillippe to name a few.

9. The Wedding Crashers - I mean c'mon, really, who hasn't always wondered what it would be like if Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson were serial wedding crashers? After the scene in Old School where Vaughn tells Will Ferrell to head for the hills, we've all been craving more of Vaughn and wedding scenarios. Ferrell also makes a cameo. Just sit back, wait, and then enjoy.

8. War of the Worlds - This movie is aiming to be an Independence Day level action blockbuster and I don't think it will disappoint. Worlds is going to be a fun blow-em-up action/melodrama remake with Spielberg, the ever competent director (especially in sci-fi), in the director's chair. Cruise and Fanning - a pairing that should be as successful as Washington and Fanning were in Man on Fire.

7. Hustle and Flow - The movie that garnered the highest price-tag at Sundance will hopefully have something to show for such cost. Having won an Audience Award there, it seems to have the street cred to back it up. Terrence Dashon Howard, an extremely capable actor who has never quite gotten his dues (who also stars in Crash, number 10 on the list) will show if he can carry a lead role. Ludacris (also in Crash), in yet another film this summer with Howard, seems to be looking to establish himself as a thoroughly credible rap/actor much like Heavy-D, Tupac, and Mos Def before him. Audiences will see if they have been hustled or if the movie flows like a smooth break beat.

6. Madagascar - This will be the animated film of the summer. Like all animated films (despite what popular opinion might have you believe) it is not so much the quality of the animation so much as the quality of the writing that will make or break it, and by every measure from previews, Madagascar looks to be in great shape. Dreamworks has pulled together a great cast that includes Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, and Jada Pinkett Smith for what will be a delightful family film for all ages. A word of note: the second major animated film to be set in Africa (the Lion King being the first) again features a cast of animals...

5. Bad News Bears - Richard Linklater proved with School of Rock that he is a director that can successfully navigate a comedic pairing of an adult and children. The formula was successful in that movie with him at the helm and it should be successful again in Bears. Billy Bob Thorton is the perfect coach to play Walter Matthaw's role in this remake. He has the perfect disposition, which the film Bad Santa capitalized on, to bring the hard-hitting punchiness that this comedy will need to be comedically successful. After Santa, we can have nothing but high expectations and hopes for Bears.

4. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - I don't know anyone who saw the original as a kid that starred Gene Wilder who hasn't been hoping for one of those remakes that are all-so in vogue right now. Tim Burton has the imagination of a child not scared of the dark, and so (though hopefully toned-down from movies like Batman and The Nightmare Before Christmas) he was made to direct this film. Johnny Depp is just weird enough to play Willie Wonka, and after Pirates, who can doubt that he has the gusto? Freddie Highmore (who got snubbed in the Oscar season - he deserved a nomination for his portrayal of Peter in Finding Neverland) will have another grand platform (with Mr. Depp again) to display his tremendous skill as an actor at such a young age.

Ok, so I lied, well sorta. 13-4 were in no particular order, but 1-3 are the top three in the following order:

3. Kicking and Screaming - The previews speak for themselves, but Mr. Ferrell has become a master at film comedy and is getting terrific scripts to fully display his talent. This movie will not only be a great family film filled with laughs for the kids and the parents, but will also have something for teens and the 20 somethings who will flock because we can't get enough of Farrell.

2. Batman Begins - This movie is really an apology for Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Bale, the new Batman (or should I say Bruce Wayne as he is just becoming the bat in this film) looks like he will be what the series had in Keaton and what it potentially could have had in Kilmer, that is an actor who has the right talent to capture dark softness and enigmatic disconnect of Bruce Wayne. To back him up in this film is a terrifically talented cast that includes: Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Ken Watanabe. This movie will certainly revive the Batman franchise.

1. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - Was there really any other movie I could have place in the top spot? Like Batman Begins, Episode III will be George Lucas' apology for Episode I and especially Episode II. Billed as the the darkest of the double trilogy, this movie will feature some of the most epic of the fight scenes, ones on par with Luke Skywalker's and Vader's fight in Empire. Anyone who has seen the extended trailer knows that this movie is what all fans had been expecting from the first two episodes but did not get. The one thing, though, that has consistently been good in the last two has been the fight scenes and this last installment of the saga will have lots of them. Episode II saw Yoda's first-ever on-screen battle and Episode III will feature more fighting from him plus the Emperor fight with a light saber for the first time. This movie will be spectacular or else George Lucas has failed the human race. I myself will probably see it in the theaters at least twice and perhaps more times if it is that good. It might just have the largest four day opening in history. It might just go on to gross more than the original film domestically. It might just do Titanic numbers. We'll just have to wait and see...