Succession

'Succession' Season 2 Trailer Revisits HBO's 'Happy Family'


Generally when you’re trying to decide who the main character is in any given story — if it’s not immediately obvious that is — you would ask a bunch of questions: “Who changes the most?” “Whose want drives the story?” “Who has the hardest journey?” “Who is the enemy trying to kill?”

But those are questions you can only ask when you’ve reached the end. If you ask, “Who is the main character of Star Wars,” it would probably come down to Luke Skywalker or Han Solo. But Han doesn’t change, his journey is the least arduous, and what he wants is mainly to not get caught. Luke wants to be a fighter pilot; he has to face things he doesn’t even yet know (that Darth Vader is his father, e.g.); and he has the harder journey in that he must be trained by Yoda.

In Succession, I don’t think I’ve ever met a group of characters who I find more repulsive than this family. But I was thinking about the fact that everyone wants something (money); no one changes at all; and none of the characters have any kind of journey to make. They might go through some sadness in their lives, but as Shiv said to Ken when he thanked her for coming to his birthday party, “It was just a few blocks.” That, of course, is part of the problem. His thanks was probably insincere or could be insincere. Everyone lies. The Roman character has a fondness for saying things out loud, but he’s still a liar and a manipulator. So then I think about the enemy, or the fact that they are all enemies of each other, and zero in on the main enemy: the father. The one that the title is all about. He is the main enemy, and his main enemy, in turn, is his son Kendall.

Kendall is mentally ill (no other characters seems to understand this, though they call him crazy), and watching his birthday party episode, at one point, I wanted to scream because he was literally not saying anything at all. Just babbling noises. “We good? Are we good? What? It’s a thing? Yes? No? Yes?” He is surrounded by sycophants who despise him and do not give him truthful advice but merely acquiesce to his every idea, including singing “Honesty,” by Billy Joel while chained to a cross that’s suspended in the middle of the room. (Fortunately, he sees the error of doing that, and doesn’t, but this realization leads to him finally understanding how pathetic his 40th birthday party is, and perhaps that he doesn’t have a single actual friend.)

And then I was thinking about how the show can be resolved. It can’t, without Kendall either being committed, or inheriting the company, or killing his father (figuratively or literally). He has already tried once and this third season picked up from that moment when he decided to kill his father rather than let his father send him to jail. But he seems to be losing the fight and also his mind.

Everything else is unnecessary. The older brother is an ass of extraordinary uselessness — a gelding. The sister and younger brother have journeys but both have already shown the same sycophantic and masochistic tendencies toward their father that their own underlings have towards them.

It’s a good example of how plot — and perhaps too much of it — can get in the way of understanding the essential question of the novel (or in this case, a tv series). Every week we get another investor or deal that has to be done to save the company. This time it was something to do with a failing app service company, or something. I don’t know. It didn’t matter.

And one thing I really dislike about the show is that it does not take on the fact that Rupert Murdoch has done everything he can to sow division and hatred in this country through The NY Post, Fox “News” channel, The Wall Street Journal, etc. The show is based on Murdoch and his family and their media company is an alt right bastion of lies and misinformation. But they don’t address this — although I think Kendall might have obliquely at some point — can’t remember. Anyway, I’ll be glad when it ends. Someone I know said that the characters were blind but didn’t know it. I think that’s true and I don’t care about any of them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Succession

Spencer by Stephen Knight and Pablo Larrain

There are two images for this movie: one has Diana in a red dress with a thin veil over her face, posing for the cameras. The one at the left is the less used one because it is (in the movie) Diana in front of a toilet, puking.

A lot of people won’t like the movie even though many reviews have called it a masterpiece, because they make the mistake thinking that it’s about Diana during one weekend of her abysmal life. It is actually about authoritarian regimes and the impossibility of living under them. In this case, the royal family stands as a metaphor for a political system in which all its members are trapped. Diana is the only citizen of this regime to demand her freedom, and she pays the consequences.

To some extent, it stays within the facts of her life and the weekend she stayed at Sandringham when she knew the marriage was falling apart. But it takes huge fictional turns and I think it’s because the director wanted to emphasize the prison like aspect of life in this world. When she tries to go visit her childhood home (compete fiction), she comes up against fence with barbed wire at its top. When someone complains that she didn’t close the drapes to change into one of her 15 to 20 dresses she is supposed to wear that weekend, the drapes are sewn shut, also with wire. This is done because there are supposedly photographers prowling around the grounds, even though the grounds are patrolled constantly. She even gets caught by two of the guards who insist they must report the incident. Most of this is probably not true. But every moment, including scenes at dinners with the family and even in the Queen’s Christmas day speech, the question of freedom is the central question. And Diana’s bulimia and self cutting, and even some hallucinations she has, are really questions about suicide being an answer to a lack of freedom.

This isn’t a film about Diana, and I think that’s part of the reason it’s called Spencer. And it’s not about the pomp of the royal family, or the worthiness of the Windsors to even be royalty, whatever that means today. It’s almost an anti-royal story and there are many times it’s hard to remember that the director and writer are using Diana Spencer as a model for what they’re trying to say. You won’t think, by the end, that you saw a story about the real person and that’s what makes it so powerful.

When “the firm” allows Diana’s favorite dresser to return from Kensington Palace, where Diana lived until she was evicted, the mood suddenly changes and joy returns. This is because — and this is probably the ultimate message of the story — her dresser is in love with her. Not just a sisterly love but a head over heels gay love. Diana can’t reciprocate, but it’s love that saves her in this movie, including the love she has for her boys and the innocent pheasants that are just “there to be killed,” as the Queen mother’s equerry explains.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Spencer by Stephen Knight and Pablo Larrain

Peril

Peril

Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Peril remains. That is the overarching theme of this narrative of Joe Biden’s decision to run, the two presidential campaigns and then the pandemic which turned those campaigns upside down, the election and then Trump’s gradual descent into the narrative he continues to this day: that he won and the election was stolen from him. (His rage began with Fox News announcing that Biden won Arizona. That seemed to be the main trigger — and then traveled elsewhere, like Georgia.) Most alarmingly, it came down to a very detailed plan written by Eastman to throw out the votes of millions of people in blue states and let the house decide the election which, because the house is limited to 1 vote per state, would have gone to Trump. That plan, and any version of it that they could come up with, relied on Mike Pence seizing power he did not have. But the book goes beyond Trump finally leaving the white house to show how people like Lindsey Graham and many other Trump sycophants are still working at disassembling democracy in order to have Republicans control of all branches of the government. The title “Peril” is present tense. I found it easy to read and was never confused, and I was glad that it did not go into the many “outrageous” things that Trump did, or only mentioned a few of them. And it gives a pretty good overview of how Trump made a deal with the Taliban without including the Afghanistan government, and then drew our troops down from 86,000 to 3,000, basically handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban and leaving Biden to take the blame for whatever happened. General Milley also turns out to be one of the good guys.



View all my reviews

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Peril

Tammy Faye was a pioneer.

I didn’t see The Eyes of Tammy Faye documentary upon which the film of the same name is based. So I don’t know how accurate it is or if Jessica Chastain’s version is embellished with a newer sensibility about Tammy Faye than what’s come before, but what was clear in watching her transform from Jessica Chastain to an almost look alike of Tammy Faye, was that she, Tammy, was uninterested in catering to the patriarchy that is so repugnant in the Evangelical and tele-vangelical world. When Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, began their career on Pat Robertson’s network (Christian Broadcast Network), they devised a formula that would mimic Johnny Carson or other late night talk shows, but have it focused primarily on Christian issues. They called it The 700 Club and it was a huge success for the CBN. When Jim and Tammy walk into the Pat Robertson mansion for a luncheon, they gape and wonder how much Pat Robertson is paying himself. Jim tells Tammy, both correctly and incorrectly, that they paid for this. He is correct in the sense that The 700 Club was an enormous success and a great fund raising vehicle. He is incorrect (and this will lead to his later downfall), in that it was the viewers and their donations who paid for it.

At this same luncheon, the men are at one table, discussing important male things like the importance of destroying feminism and homosexuality, while the women are at another table discussing — who knows, we don’t get to hear. But Tammy, who’s got a kid in her one arm and a plate of food in the other stands between the hen’s table (which is out in the hot sun) and the men’s table (which is under the shade) and she decides to sit at the men’s table. That’s not the first significant instance of where Tammy Faye doesn’t do what she’s told, but it’s the first sign that a female is trying to have a voice and much to Jim Bakker’s embarrassment, she uses it. Jerry Falwell, who is invited to this luncheon, calls her, behind her back, a “firecracker,” which I took to mean as a woman who doesn’t know her place. Except that she does know her place, and it’s not at the wives’ table.

Pat Robertson stole The 700 Club from the Bakker’s but, perhaps being young, they simply decide to do the same thing and create their own network, which turned out to be the PTL (Praise The Lord) network. It was probably the beginning of their downfall, because it was too much for a somewhat unsophisticated couple like Jim and Tammy to handle. It became so popular that almost 20 million viewers tuned in every night, they opened a Christian theme park called Heritage, USA and sold what were basically time shares and it was, for a time, the 3rd most visited theme park in the U.S.

But details aside, for the rest of the movie, much of the conflict stems from what a woman is supposed to do, and Tammy Faye’s refusal to do it. On her way to give her husband a kiss, she witnesses him making fun of her makeup, and then sees him get into a very homoerotic wrestling match with the longtime PTL producer. But she says nothing and seems to understand why Jim doesn’t touch her the way she’d like to be. When Jim is trying to sell the Heritage USA theme park to the developer Roe Messner, it’s Tammy Faye who comes to the rescue and gets him to do it. (The irony, which is not mentioned in the movie, is that when Tammy Faye comes into the living room where her husband Jim is failing at trying to sell this amusement park idea, she takes the hand of Roe and her husband, and then Jim takes the hand of Roe and they pray together. Roe Messner eventually became Tammy’s second husband until he also landed in jail for very similar reasons.)

When the envious snake Jerry Falwell comes to look at the amazing television setup they’ve created, which included a satellite feed that went to 56 countries, he happens to notice an episode of Tammy’s Hour (or something like that — maybe Tammy’s Corner) where she is interviewing via television, a former gay pastor about coming out, his struggle with his parents, and his dealing with AIDS and, what was very common for her, she cried and her mascara ran down her face. Falwell leaves saying he can’t abide this abomination. (He could have been talking about both Jim’s wife and the AIDS patient.) But, the envy with which he looked at the studio, and maybe the Christian theme park, could have been the reason for the rest of what happened to Jim Bakker (who is still alive, and was just fined for trying to sell a “cure” for Covid19.) Yes, Jim Bakker was a terrible financial idiot, and he was probably a loving husband but gay at heart, but whatever he was he could always rely on Tammy to bring in the dollars because so many people loved her. Somehow, he was set up to have sex with Jessica Hahn, who was then paid some hush money that was taken from the PTL accounts. (This is, by the way, exactly what Michael Cohen did for Trump, using the election funds to pay off a woman who had dirt on him.) Jim Bakker gave control of PTL to the viper Jerry Falwell who had promised to keep it going while the scandal blew over. He promptly evicted the Bakker’s (including Tammy’s mother and step father), sold all of their belongings and then persuaded the newspapers to look into the shady dealings of the PTL company. He took everything from them, including the theme park. Tammy Faye had to move into a small trailer house while Jim Bakker was sentenced to 45 years. One of the people tele-evangelists who had called Jim Bakker a cancer, was Jimmy Swaggert, who was later caught in a hotel room masturbating to a stripper.

I might have the order of things wrong, but in Bakker’s trial, Messner (Tammy Faye’s future husband) testified that he had been told by Falwell to pay off Jessica Hahn for her silence. Except she wasn’t silent. That still puzzles me. And I’m sure Murdoch Post got its tip from Falwell. But all sorts of people, many of whom are dead or almost will be, would have to testify to the suspicious aspect of the most successful Christian televangelist couple, the equality they gave each other, and Tammy Faye in particular, and why they went down in flames. The donations to their organization kept rolling in as long as they were on tv. It only went up in smoke when Falwell took over (probably to take over that time on the satellite.)

I always felt bad for both of them. I enjoyed watching their show. There was a weird charm they had, and I respected them because they never vilified people like Falwell and Swaggart and Pat Robertson did. When they said they loved everybody they meant it. And (even though I’m an atheist) when they said Jesus loved everyone, I could feel their belief. I never felt they were lying.

One thing they left out, was that after Tammy Faye was on her own and with very few options, she said it was the gay people who supported her after her downfall. It may be that we gay men like a good female-focused tragedy. But the tragedy in this case, is that the patriarchy was too strong and too determined to destroy her.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tammy Faye was a pioneer.

It’s Time To Talk About Mike White

The writer Mike White is a gay man who grew up in California, born in 1970 and got his first writing credit at 28. In 2000 he acted in a movie he wrote called Chuck & Buck, which was the first time I noticed him and my first introduction to his work. Then The Good Girl, Pasadena, Enlightened, and most recently, The White Lotus, the series he considers to be his best work. That’s him on the poster for Chuck & Buck.

His characters are usually emotionally conflicted and/or stunted. But in Chuck & Buck it was so extremely broken the character came off as a stalker rather than someone with an obsession about an old boyfriend.

Don’t really need to speak about The Good Girl or Pasadena as I don’t remember them. Enlightened I loved and watched the series several times. In that show there was really just one broken person: Amy (played by Laura Dern who gets increasingly brilliant as she gets older). There might be 3 broken people if you include her former boyfriend (Luke Wilson) and her mother (Diane Ladd.) All the other characters were “others.” They were corporate stooges. But one of the funnier things for me was the way each episode would begin and end with Amy reciting all these aphorisms, like “Change Begins with Me.”

Her character was so un-enlightened it earned all the comedy from the satire and what we call dramatic irony — that is when the audience knows more than the character. So we, the audience, see Amy’s corporate friends laughing at her and gossiping about her and we see how hypocritical her former assistant “Krista” played by Sarah Burns is. We see her mother’s sighs and eye rolls which Amy, sitting right in front of her, doesn’t, apparently see.

But I think it was that focus on the one character that made it an easy comedy to watch. It probably deserved a few more seasons, but it got two and the show was completed — it wasn’t left in the middle like many other good shows. And in the end she got what she wanted, which was to bring her company down.

The White Lotus comes ten years after Enlightened, and this time, just about all the characters are deranged. That, perhaps, is one of the reasons some people have said they can’t stand it. As I wrote somewhere else it’s a very hard comedy to laugh at. The Mossbachers (a family of four who have brought with them a dark skinned friend of their daughter’s. Her ethnicity matters in the plot.) are played by Steve Zahn (Mark), Connie Britton (Nicole), Sydney Sweeney (Olivia) and Fred Hechinger (Quinn). Paula is Sydney’s friend and is curiously, not given a last name in the series, but is played by Brittney O’Grady.

Jake Lacey arrives on the same boat with his brand new wife Alexandra Daddario. They are Shane and Rachel Patton. The last guest on the boat is one of my favorite actors, Jennifer Coolidge who plays Tanya MacQuoid which she explains is pronounced with “one syllable.” That sort of nonsense is the kind of thing all the hotels workers have to put up with and the leader of these “others” is Armond, played by Murray Bartlett and the lesser ranked Belinda Lindsey (Natasha Rothwell) who runs the spa, which seems to be the only reason Tanya has come to this Hawaiian resort. There are also a couple of cute assistants: Dillon and Hutch (Lukas Gage and Alex Merlino.)

The series starts almost at the end of the story with a very morose looking Jake Lacey waiting by himself at the airport. He tells some inquiring tourists if he liked his stay and when he said he stayed at The White Lotus, the couple say, “We heard someone died there.” He tells them to fuck off, goes to look out the window at the plane and sees them loading a coffin size box with the words “Human Remains” on the side. The scene cuts to 7 days earlier when all those mentioned above are first arriving at The White Lotus. So from the start, there is a mystery about who died and who is the coffin at the end.

People have said — probably correctly — that this is about white privilege or rich white privilege because all the characters, with the exception of Paula, is white and they are all rich. The staff is either Hawaiian or white, and all have to work. But I think what Mike White shows, or believes, is that it is not possible to “mingle” or really even co-exist when half the people in this resort are working their asses off to please the other half who are doing nothing but eating or funtivities like learning to scuba. The service class — which is now 77% of America and includes 16 to 17 million people working in hotels and resorts — is very much a suffering silent class with almost no unionization and low pay. When things go wrong, and everything more or less goes wrong for these people, it is the service class who will pay the price.

The first thing to go wrong is a genuine mistake. Murray has accidentally double booked the Palm Suite which Shane Patton thinks is his honeymoon suite. Murray lies and says it must have been booked wrong by Shane’s mother, but says correctly that the Pineapple Suite is a better suite. This isn’t good enough for Shane and, in fact, nothing is ever good enough for him. His wife is already having doubts about having made a mistake marrying him because she knows she’s just eye candy for his ego. She’s a trophy wife and he is also unable to listen — most of the time because he’s obsessed with not getting the room he wanted. Tanya in the meantime, is a drunken mess, but makes friends with Belinda at the spa and invites her to dinner. She repeats several times that Belinda ought to go into business for herself and she could finance it. The fact that she’s repeating herself should have been a clue for Belinda that she’s constantly drunk and not remembering things.

The family is a shit show. Perhaps the most unlikeable group of the bunch. The daughter Olivia and her friend Paula are constantly mean, to everyone. They pretend to read books and have a book consultant tell them what to pretend to read. The mother is the breadwinner in this family and she’s always going on about having to zoom China. (In real life, Connie Britton speaks either the Mandarin or Cantonese Chinese.) The little brother Quinn, is the picked on runt of the group and the girls make him sleep on the beach because they don’t want him fapping while looking at Paula. He’s addicted to his devices, but they fall off his chaise (or chayze if pronounced by Tanya) while he’s sleeping, the tide comes in and washes them away. The girls have brought drugs, including ketamine, and do some but forget to take Paula’s backpack with them. The pack gets turned in, eventually winding up in Murray’s hands who, coincidentally, is 5 years sober. Not anymore. The hilarity of all these people being mean to each other continues for six days until finally, someone is accidentally killed. I had, by the last episode, a pretty good idea of who the victim was, but was hoping it was not. There’s enough info in this review to make a guess, but you’d have to read between the lines abit.

Slapstick is a strange form (well all comedy is strange I think) — but slapstick in particular is usually at its funniest when the characters are all in a struggle to live. They’re running in and out of doors so that the man with the axe doesn’t get them, or the police don’t catch them and take them to jail. Slapstick is desperation. The sitcom is a mini tragedy. In each episode the characters do the wrong thing — think of I Love Lucy and how many times she did the wrong thing that got her into trouble and antics. There’s a reason Ricky kept saying “You can’t be in the show.” Think of Mary Tyler Moore giving dinner parties. How many times did Murray try to insult Sue Ann Nivens, only get an insult ten times as nasty, usually about his baldness.

This show made me think of the line of Thoreau’s that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” He felt this was caused by misplaced value. And one very cogent reviewer said, of this series, that the series is about people who are being made miserable by all their things and posessions, but would rather hang onto them than give them up. I think that’s half an explanation because it fits in with Quinn, the overlooked little brother, eventually finding some emotional satisfaction in paddling an outrigger with some local men who affectionately call him “fucka.” But this wasn’t by choice. His sister and her friend made him sleep on the beach and the waves took his devices. It was only when he was freed from these chains that he found something else. I think most of the characters were desperate, in one way or another, but I don’t always think that came from wealth, phones, devices or drugs. I think the deeper answer is that we are living in an impossible situation — perhaps one of the reasons people in this covid era of reopening are not going back to work like everyone expected. As Murray said, before he started doing some drugs, “I exploit you, they exploit me, that’s how it works.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on It’s Time To Talk About Mike White

Two movies, completely different.

Annette, written by Ron Mael and Russell Mael of Sparks, and Carax.

Free Guy, written by Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn.

First one first. Annette is a musical disaster, but it is such a peculiar disaster that it’s actually interesting, and in a completely bizarre way, it’s saved by a puppet and perhaps by Adam Driver and Marianne Cotilliard’s naked bodies. The theme is moonlight, pop culture, parental abuse, male rage and drunkenness. You can look on Wikipedia for the entire plot, which is dull. (More or less A Star Is Born, as Marion Cotilliard’s career as an opera singer who dies in almost every performance becomes more famous, and Driver’s career as some kind of weird comedian gets lost in his internal rage — kind of like Lenny Bruce — until he is finally, thankfully, booed off the stage.) At that point, they have already made love, in a gorgeously filmed sex scene where their white and hairless bodies look ghostly and strange, had a girl baby, performed by a puppet, who seems preternaturally thoughtful, and sung many awful songs. The end doesn’t matter, except like Pinnochio, the little girl puppet, who has managed to put her father in prison, turns into a real young girl with an astonishing ability to sing.

Ultimately, there is no point to the movie. There is no internal reflection and it’s not even clear what either of the parents want (the third adult in the movie is the puppet/girl’s probable father and he has a very clear want, but the film makers turn him into a passive participant in his own death, so that bit was ruined). Adam Driver can barely sing — though he sings better than Russell Crowe in Les Miserables. I thought Cotilliard’s singing was dubbed, but I wasn’t sure. The very young girl at the end — the live version of the puppet — was extraordinary for the fact that she could sing, but is so young she can’t pronounce the words properly. Most people, leaving the theatre, were amused by the piece. But it’s basically a musical written by a not very good band.

Free Guy I had wanted to see because I once read a story that was told from the point of view of NPCs in a video game. Normally, Non Player Characters (NPCs) just walk around in the background of a video game completely ignorant of the Players that are trying to kill each other. They’re not even “ignorant” because that would imply consciousness. They are no more animated than the trees or grass of the game which might, depending on the people coding the game, move a little. This story tries to take “blue shirt guy” and make him “real” — also like the puppet from the movie above — by linking him to a core component of the programming, which was an attempt at AI (artificial intelligence). In the real world McKees (Joe Keery) and Millie (Jodie Comer) are the creators of this AI programming and Millie has launched a multi-million dollar lawsuit against their boss (an insufferable Taika Waititi), who has stolen their code and embedded it in a secret place inside the world of the game, which is called… I can’t remember. But the difference is that in a normal MMORPG game, you can’t interact or do anything with the NPC unless they have a specific purpose, like to sell you a drink or a toy or a piece of equipment. In this game, you can kill, maim or harass any NPC you want. Well one day this guy, “Blue Shirt Guy,” played by Ryan Reynolds in his usual dim way, wakes up. He doesn’t know he’s in a game, yet, but he does know that he can do things differently. And that begins his transformation — not from puppet to human, but from computer code to slightly more aware computer code. If the movie had been at all interesting, they might have tackled subjects like “Is a computer code that is self aware considered to be alive, and what might the obligations be for us to keep that universe alive?” As technology nerds continue to work on AI, they might, if they were smart enough or moral enough, actually have to ask themselves this question. It’s already been brought up several times and the movies I can think of right now are three: AI, by Spielberg, and the two Blade Runner movies. A book is Never Let Me Go, by Ishiguro. And of course, P.K. Dick addressed this in so many ways. Blade Runner is based on his novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I’m sure Isaac Asimov addressed the question — perhaps in 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the computer HAL being heartbreakingly aware of itself and its own slow murder. Star Trek (the ones with the android Data) also tried to tackle this thorny question and eventually just gave him the rights of all humanity and even tried to let him age a little. Alien, in most of its versions, gave us an android that was almost always a villain, even when he seemed heroic as happened in Alien: Prometheus (heroic) and Alien: Covenant (back to evil).

But the movie was entertaining and slightly funny. Ryan Reynolds is always nice to look at and I wonder what will happen in five or six years when he’s not so good looking. I also wondered if people my age would even understand it. The terminology of young people and the way they talk now is so different and strange. They speak in acronyms and are plugged into their music all day. I’m not sure this movie will work for anyone who isn’t young. I happen to know some of these terms. But when the “real world” decides to “reboot the server” in order to change the game to its original factory settings, does anyone who’s not worked in technology even understand what that means? When they are searching for the AI code inside the game itself, does it even make sense to someone who has no experience with technology, other than looking at the cracked screen of their cellphone? And will anyone even notice the reference to The Shining when Antwan decides to take an axe to all the servers in the server room. I don’t think so. This is a world where people don’t want to take a vaccine because they fear they will be tracked and traced by a secret microchip, and they express this fear while they hold their cell phone in their hand.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Two movies, completely different.

The Hunt

Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof

This isn’t about whether or not this is a good movie. It’s a stupid movie. The premise is that about a dozen people wake up in a forest somewhere and find out, rather quickly, that they are being hunted. They don’t know why and they barely have time to guess. There’s a large box in the middle of a field which contains a pig and a huge array of weapons. But even as they’re choosing their weapons, the hunters start firing on them.

But to understand what’s going on you have to go to the first moment in the film, and then the last moments, so that’s where all the spoilers are, if you’re even interested in this piece of crap. The writers and director have worked on admiral pieces before, like Mare of Eastown and The Leftovers. Damon Lindelof reimagined Watchmen in a brilliant way that brought the formerly forgotten Tulsa White Riot to the world’s attention.

The real villain in this “piece” is corporate political correctness. A group of friends working in this company exchange some texts and one of them says, “At least we have the Manor.” That is an inside joke among these liberal people: Hillary Swank has rented a 3 bedroom house in Croatia which her friends keep calling The Manor. Well right wing-nuts get a hold of these texts and turn it into a conspiracy theory that liberal elitists (New Yorkers of course) are hunting human beings in an unidentified location called The Manor. The corporation fires everyone who was involved in the chat. Now pissed — but pissed, not at their corporation, but at the right wing nut jobs who peddled this garbage — they decide to play it out for real. They do their research to figure out who is spreading these lies; they train for six months (at least Hillary Swank does); then they kidnap and drug all twelve purveyors of fake news. And then they kill them. Except one, Crystal, happens to have military training and did a tour of duty in Afghanistan. She ends up killing all the liberal hunters and then has a showdown with the last one standing: Hillary Swank, where Swank discovers that they kidnapped the wrong Crystal and that, in fact, she’s actually a really smart person because she read George Orwell’s Animal Farm. She kills Hillary Swank and then gets on the plane that brought them all their and says she wants a ride home and “that’s not going to be a problem is it?” To show us that she’s a decent person, which she’s not btw, she has the flight attendant sit down with her to share some tea. The end.

Some people say it’s a satire of “both sides” but I think that engaging in both-sidism and saying one is equal to the other is another of our problems. People who peddle these lies and knowingly spread them are the side that resulted in our almost losing our democracy. The other side is effectively weaker and more thoughtful. The other side (the liberal side) brings butter knives to gun fights, almost always. A perfect example is Chuck Schumer and his inability to get rid of the filibuster which allows a minority party (when they are in the minority that is) to block all meaningful attempts to govern. When they are in the majority they do what they want, including backing an insurrection and allowing a criminal president to get away with multiple crimes and major corruption.

In this movie, the liberals don’t bring butter knives, they bring assault rifles and training. Oh and, a complete lack of morality or empathy. They should have taken their rifles to the company that fired them. But then how do you hunt a corporation?

Anyway people seem to like it. I just thought it was total nonsense.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Hunt

Two movies about Mexico

I Carry You With Me, written by Heidi Ewing and Alan Page

The Forever Purge, written by James DeMonaco

The first was infinitely better, although by the end I was not sure what the movie was about. It was more like a character study of a guy and his boyfriend who crossed over the Mexican border to the U.S. and, in New York City of course, managed to go from deliveries and mopping floors to being the chef and owner of his own restaurant. The movie would infuriate anti-immigrant people or people who insist there’s a “right” way of immigrating and an “illegal” way. What those people don’t understand is that the people who do it impulsively, to make money, say, are stuck forever, unable to return to see their families or travel the way any of us born here would. But then that’s where the movie ended — kind of stuck, plot-wise. Perhaps that was the point. I still liked it. The “you” is deceptive and kind of meta, in that it doesn’t actually refer to his partner. The story is based on a true story.

The Forever Purge turns its sight on Racists which has been the under-story for the entire series. The premise of all the purge movies is that one night a year, The New Founding Fathers, (a group that sounds suspiciously like Maga-heads), have declared that for one night a year, from sundown to sunrise, all crime, including murder, is legal. This supposedly allows for citizens to vent their spleen. And crime disappears on the other 364 nights and days. But the entire series is an accidental proof that most people, unlike the Maga-heads, are not interested in murdering, maiming, or beating the shit out of others.

Previously, Purge took on the issue of helping someone who is trapped outside. Most of the movie takes places inside a single home. Purge: Anarchy moved outside and tackled the issue of people working together. I think this was the first time a character said “Fuck the New Founding Fathers.” That’s only important because of the final purge movie. Purge: Election Year (2016) ironically, finds a female presidential candidate under attack by the mob. This movie acknowledged that most of the violence committed on Purge night was against the poor and needy. The First Purge is the most hated of all five movies: and most feel it was absolute racism. But I think they’re overlooking the fact that New Founding Fathers decided to test their theory of Purge night on a poor neighborhood of black people. Because those black people, including a gang leader, go hunting down the white nazis who have come into their neighborhood specifically to kill blacks, I don’t think the accusation of racism is fair. But I hardly remember the movie (or any of them really), so I could be wrong about the plot. I just remember thinking that yes, the Purge would not affect the wealthy because they’d be able to hire security and batten down their homes and that is consistent in all the movies, including the First Purge, because this is a test run. The Forever Purge finally ends this series by bringing in some Mexicans (illegal of course), and their wealthy white employers who seem to be cattle ranchers and horse owners or breeders. They live near El Paso. Like always, the wealthy roll down the iron screens to their enormous house, as well as their horse and cattle stables, and they spend a comfortable night with dad and sis drinking wine and listening to music. The poor people get on a bus and make their way to a large warehouse which is guarded by former soldiers. Everyone survives okay. The action really begins the day after, when the Maga-heads decide that they are going to “forever purge” and make their intentions to kill Mexicans known and “keep” “their” country pure. It ends on a dour note, as Americans start fleeing to Mexico and Canada to escape these people, and some camera retreats to google earth type views show an America that is completely in flames. The New Founding Fathers have failed. The purge they tested out in The First Purge, and in all the later movies, has turned around and consumed its creator. I wouldn’t really say this had very much to do with Mexicans, except in an oblique way with the Texas cattle rancher (Josh Lucas) expressing discomfort with people speaking Spanish and getting frustrated with the fact that they don’t care to speak English. This is a common complaint among people who consider themselves non-racist, and the character even says, later, that he has nothing against Mexicans. But he could have added, “as long as they speak English and stay in their place.” In the end, he’s going to have to learn Spanish anyway.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Two movies about Mexico

Recommendation for a company that wishes to take on the galactic empire of Amazon.com

Bookshop.org

That’s it. That’s all you need to know. If you buy a book from them, the affiliated bookstore will receive 30% of the cover price. That’s far more than Amazon pays. (Amazon takes a cut of everything, from self-published authors, to traditional publishers, to people selling toothpaste or weird doo-hickies that go into your windowshades.) Bookshop.org also donates, every six months, among all it’s affiliated bookstores, money to help them keep going. So far they’ve donated more than $14 million dollars. Amazon donates nothing. They take a little longer. They don’t have free shipping like Amazon prime. But they support local bookstores and they even have a map of local bookstores near you that you can direct your indirect donations to.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Recommendation for a company that wishes to take on the galactic empire of Amazon.com

Promising Young Woman, written and directed by Emerald Ferrell

I had to see this a second time after reading an interesting New Yorker review from the perspective of a woman who has seen a lot of rape revenge movies, and revenge movies in general. The first time I saw it, I enjoyed the movie but found it a bit strange, with an unsatisfying ending. After reading the review, I realized what it was I had missed.

The premise is that she (Cassie) and her best friend Nina were both going to medical school, when Nina had to drop out because she had been gang raped at a frat party where she was shit faced drunk. Cassie was not there at the time, a small detail which is probably at the core of Cassie’s personality. Cassie dropped out to help Nina, but it was to no avail. Nina killed herself. Now, some nine years later, this woman who was on course to becoming a great doctor goes out every weekend, pretends she’s falling down drunk, and accepts the aid of all the “nice guys” who want to help her get home safely, but then decide that they’ll have their way with her. She then suddenly comes to, reveals that she’s completely sober, and basically scares the shit out of them.

(Don’t read anymore if you hate spoilers. I’m going all the way to the end of the movie.)

Sometimes the person is someone who has a connection to what happened to Nina and sometimes not: A woman named Madison (played by Alison Brie) didn’t believe the story and/or blamed Nina for getting that drunk; A lawyer (played by Alfred Molina), who has helped young men get out of sexual assault charges for most of his career; and a college dean who says to Cassie that the college has to give these boys the benefit of the doubt and that she doesn’t remember the case from nine years ago because they get so many of them (she says this without irony).

But it seems, generally, that she has just chosen to live this way — of going out and scaring “nice” guys who turn into predators when she looks helpless and drunk. She keeps a book of conquests — basically slashes — and it appears that she’s done this to possibly hundreds of guys in Los Angeles. (I assumed it was L.A. but the script doesn’t say.) She lives with her parents and works at a minimum wage job as a barista. She’s angry and has decided to stay angry. Even Nina’s mother, (played by Molly Shannon), tells her that her anger isn’t helping. But I think the anger hides a different aspect which calls to mind the old joke, “Two lesbians were making out and a guy walked by and said, ‘Are you sisters?'” Cassie was in love with Nina and Nina was in love with Cassie. Whether this was ever sexual is irrelevant. They each had a half heart with the other one’s name on it.

Bo Burnham plays a guy named Ryan who gets probably the only sympathetic male part in the movie. He shows up, recognizes Cassie as that promising young woman and they start dating because he genuinely seems kind. Cassie seems to be healing in his presence. But even with him, there was something really bothersome about a scene in a pharmacy where he starts singing to Paris Hilton’s “Stars Are Blind,” in a jokey way, but also in a way that made you feel that Cassie simply can’t go that route. Paris Hilton represents all that’s wrong with the world. The “promising” of the title has vanished. She is simply a 30 year old woman whose love was raped and killed herself because of the trauma.

When the guy who caused that trauma (Chris Lowell) returns from England and Cassie learns he is about to be married and have a wonderful life, she also learns that a video was made of this assault, shared with many people and still exists. She watches it and discovers that Ryan was there, laughing and ogling with a little bit of Billy Bush awe. So her world has ended, once again, and she decides to take the ultimate revenge by pretending to be a stripper and crashing the bachelor party for Al. She intends to carve Nina’s name into his stomach, first by sending him up to the bedroom and then by drugging (with vodka shots poured directly into their mouths) all the friends who are celebrating. In the bedroom she handcuffs Al to the bed and as she reveals who she is and what happened to Nina he starts screaming for help that isn’t coming because they’re all passed out downstairs. Just before she manages to start carving Nina’s name into his stomach, he manages to break one hand free of the cuff and overpowers Cassie, smothering her in one of the longest death scenes I think that’s ever been filmed. It’s gruesome and meant to be. He even screams “Stop fucking moving!” as he’s killing her, as if she should just go quietly. You keep thinking maybe she’ll jump up and not be dead, but she doesn’t. She is very much dead. His friend Joe comes up in the morning, and when Al tells him that he killed the stripper, Joe asks, “Is the 90s?” Until he takes the pillow off her head and sees it’s true. Together they burn her body somewhere deep in the woods.

And then the wedding happens. It’s an absurd wedding, with lots of weird dancing and horrible vows. The lawyer she previously went to harm and ended up forgiving instead, receives a package saying that she is probably dead, explaining everything she meant to do, and that she was probably killed by Al. In the package is the half heart Nina would have worn around her neck with the name Cassie on it. They do a search for her body and find the ashes, as well as the necklace she was wearing with the name Nina. The police invade the outdoor wedding and arrest the groom. Ryan, who is attending the wedding, receives a series of scheduled texts. “You didn’t think this was the end did you?” and then finally “love Cassie and Nina.” That was another thing I missed the first time. She also committed suicide, to be with Nina. The New Yorker review pointed out the similarity of this ending to Thelma and Louise, which has divided so many people. Way back when women all over San Francisco and probably in cities everywhere were wearing shirts that said, “I am Thelma,” or “I am Louise,” as if their drive over the canyon cliff was a happy ending. Men tended to disagree and saw it as tragic.

But as this movie makes very clear men also tend not see sexual assault as much of a big deal as women do. They elected a man who has been sued by 26 women who have said he assaulted them. Probably hundreds more who he kissed without their permission, or squeezed their ass cheek, or something else. And still they supported him. Because they don’t care about misogyny. Assault is just a misunderstanding. Boys will be boys.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Promising Young Woman, written and directed by Emerald Ferrell