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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 09, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 02, 2005
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)