Beyond what I said in my last post, I’ll let Jamie or someone else have the last word on this year’s Oscar nominees. For now, I’d like to move on to a movie that definately won’t be put in the “great” category: Pat Garret and Billy the Kid.
Perhaps as proof that I’m not all hard-hearted Republican, I really like Bob Dylan. I don’t think there’s any one in the last half-century who matches Dylan’s skill with words or mood, and he has created some fantastically interesting music (Highway 61, Blonde on Blonde, Nashville Skyline, New Morning). A similar artist in the prime of his career today would undoubtedly have a few movie offers. Dylan, though seems to have only been in one feature movie, Sam Peckinpah’s Pat Garret and Billy the Kid.
The most surprising thing about this movie is that Dylan is not the worst thing about it. The movie is long on style but short on, well, everything else. I’d say that Dylan–except for the ever watchable James Coburn–is the best thing in the movie. Certainly the fact that it stars a 35 year old Kris Kristofferson as a 20 year-old Billy the Kid doesn’t help. Nor does the fact that it features Peckinpah’s signature pointless violence. There’s also a seen in which Pat Garrett gets an overwhelming 5 prostitutes sent to his room.
As for Dylan (who is the only reason a modern viewer might watch this movie), it seems as though Peckinpah let him write his own lines. The first time you see him, Garrett’s in a bar and it keeps flashing to all of the people there and one of them’s Dylan. After showing him several times, Garratt asks, “What’s your name?” to which Dylan responds, “That’s a good question,” and the movie leaves it at that. Later (10-15 minutes), Billy the Guy in his Mid-Thirties asks Dylan’s name, and he replies “Alias.” They call him Alias for the rest of the movie. There’s also an, er, tense scene where Garrett forces Dylan to read off the labels of a general store’s inventory while he holds a couple of guys at gunpoint; there’s poorly written dialogue, with Dylan in the background saying things like “Lima beans, quality salmon, flour, Red Man tobacco.”
I give the movie one star for having Slim Pickens, two for having Dylan (he “acts” and sings the soundtrack), one star for Dylan’s bizarro lines, and another star for James Coburn. It, however, loses four stars because I had to drink heavily to make it through.
Final score, 1 star. Blech, but maybe worth it for Dylan fans.
Apollo posted this at 1:35 AM HKT on Sunday, February 26th, 2006 as Belles Lettres
No Comments »
The Seven Last Words Part One
Growing up, I loved Holy Week not just because we usually got the week off from school (though that helped) but also because we spent so much time at church and with the people at church I loved. I think that Easter and Good Friday are more important than Christmas, but they tend to get shortchanged. Read the rest of this entry »
Hubbard posted this at 1:11 AM HKT on Sunday, February 26th, 2006 as Faith
2 Comments »
I’ll give you two out of the top ten. Batman and Kong. As an honorable mention, I’d add Walk the Line, which was good, but not excellent. This Batman, despite my expectations and so many disappointing prior movies in the Batman series, was fantastic. The best compliment I can pay a movie or book is that I can’t think of a way that it could be better, and I can say that about Batman.
As I said before, the only one of the BP nominees I saw was Capote, so when looking at counter-factual nominees, I ask, “Was it better than Capote?” I am an enormous fan of Truman Capote’s writing, have read most of his published works, and have read a couple of biographies of the man. I am more interested in him than the average person, and I found the movie–on a deep level–boring. Truman Capote’s writing was lively and entertaining; Truman Capote’s life was lively and entertaining; Capote was boring. As a study of a man–which is what Capote purports to be–Batman Begins was a much better movie. As Capote devled deeper and deeper into its subject, I found that I could associate with him less and less, and I left the movie feeling nothing. In contrast, Batman Begins made me genuinely empathetic with a billionare comic book hero. Truman Capote grew up poor in the South, moved to a city and was able to achieve success through his writing because he stuck to his principles–I should be able to empathize with this. Instead, I empathize with Bruce Wayne. Perhaps had I spent hours contemplating Capote, it would have given me a deeper understanding of Truman and I would have recognized the movie for the obvious masterpiece it is, but that would involve a profound misunderstanding of the movie genre.
The main criticism I’ve heard about Kong is that it was too long, and indeed it was. I think you could have cut 45 minutes from the movie and not one bit of worthwhile film lost. That said, it was an excellent film. Entertaining, moving, and with an undestanding of human nature. It wasn’t The Godfather, but it was better than Capote.
All great movies do one thing: they entertain. I don’t want to pay $9.50 to be preached at; nobody does. There are several churches within walking distance of my apartment, when I want a morality lesson I can get one there for free, or I could pick up Augustine from my bookcase. Preachy moralism is easy to come by, entertainment is not. Great movies are entertaining because they undestand and accurately portray human nature. Batman did that. For the first time, I undestood Bruce Wayne. Kong did this. Although I personally disapprove of human-monkey relationships, there were many points in the film at which I felt–strangely–moved. Capote did not provide a reason why I should feel empathy for the main character, or for any character.
Going to a slightly different topic, I think the fact that nobody saw these movies is relevent to how good they are. A great man cannot be great if he is not in a position to fulfill his greatness. That is, if Churchill is not elected Prime Minister but instead serves out the war as a backbench MP, he is not a great man; if Lincoln is not president, he is not a great man; if Washington gets killed in the Revolution, he is not a great man. Instead, all of these men are great not simply for what they believed and said, but what they were able to achieve. Movies are on a different level, but I don’t think a movie can be great if people don’t watch it. No matter the point a movie makes, if it plays to theaters with eight or nine people, it cannot be considered a great movie. A movie should convey something to the public, but it can’t do that if the public doesn’t watch.
Perhaps there weren’t any great movies last year. I’m willing to accept that. But if that’s the case and we’re just choosing between “Good, but not quite great” movies, then I think the Academy is foolish to pick four obviously political movies and a biography of Truman Capote as its Best Picture nominees. It should, as I say, throw the public a bone and at least pretend to care about what they think. Otherwise, I hope there’s less griping about decreased box office numbers this year.
Apollo posted this at 12:25 AM HKT on Sunday, February 26th, 2006 as Kulturkampf, Philosophy
1 Comment »
I believe that William Goldman once noted: “Every Oscar night you look back and realize that last year was the worst year in the history of Hollywood.”
I’m not sure that the Academy Awards are the best way to pick good movies. Looking back on 1987, do we better remember The Last Emperor or The Princess Bride? Which film is the greater classic from 1999, American Beauty or Office Space? Going further back, in 1977 was the most memorable movie Annie Hall or Star Wars? The first movie in each of my questions won the Oscar for best picture; the second is the one I think has had more staying power because it resonates with us.
Perhaps the best way to pick good movies would be to wait a decade before giving them any awards. Of course, there’s no market for that.
Hubbard posted this at 11:19 PM HKT on Saturday, February 25th, 2006 as Kulturkampf, Nerdom
No Comments »
Apollo,
I’m still waiting for you to name one of your “popular” movies that the you “plebs” saw that deserves the nomination over the current nominees. Until you do that I basically think your argument is the typical Theo Con. whining I hear every morning on Laura Inghram and every afternoon on Michael Medved.
So lets take a look at your “popular” movies, Apollo, lets see if the “plebs” recognize an artistic movie as opposed to just watching movies that are enjoyable to see.
This year’s to 30 Movies:
1 Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith Fox
2 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
3 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
4 War of the Worlds
5 King Kong
6 Wedding Crashers
7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
8 Batman Begins
9 Madagascar
10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith
11 Hitch
12 The Longest Yard
13 Fantastic Four
14 Chicken Little
15 Robots
16 Walk the Line
17 The Pacifier
18 Fun with Dick and Jane
19 The 40-Year-Old Virgin
20 Flightplan
21 Saw II
22 Monster-in-Law
23 Are We There Yet?
24 Cheaper by the Dozen 2
25 The Dukes of Hazzard
|26 March of the Penguins
27 The Ring Two
28 Constantine
29 The Exorcism of Emily Rose
30 Four Brothers
Which of these movies deserves it more Apollo? Instead of whining about who our industry fails to recognize popular movies – tell me which of these movies is made better? The giant Star Wars geek in me wishes SW3 was nominated but it doesn’t deserve it. The Longest Yard? Narnia? Fantastic Four? Which one Apollo? The only two I would even consider are King Kong and Walk the Line – and both of them are debatable as to whether they are actually better than the current nominations.
In the words of the immortal thespian Ahnuld – “Stop whining!”
Jamie posted this at 8:29 PM HKT on Saturday, February 25th, 2006 as Kulturkampf
3 Comments »
In a reply to one of Jamie’s posts, commenter trey writes, in reference to Brokeback’s box office:
actually, that’s over 70 million domestically. Add international take to that so far it is approaching 120 million for Brokeback.
First, I consider it a conservative point of principle to not care much about what foreign cultures think of American culture, since I don’t particularly think much of theirs. If the question is, “What do foreigners think of a movie about gay cowboys?”, my answer is, “I don’t care.”
Second, though, I thought I’d lookup how well the BP nominees did worldwide, to see if it was just us blockhead Americans who were too dumb to get these obvious masterpieces. Turns out, these movies weren’t just unpopular* in America–they’re unpopular worldwide.
Brokeback, the best performing BP nominee in America, is still the best performing worldwide, although it drops from #33 in America to #39 worldwide. Crash drops from #49 domestically to #63 worldwide. Good Night and Good Luck drops from #90 domestically to #107 worldwide, below –in a 2005 cinematic version of baseball’s Mendoza line– Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalow. And Capote goes from #107 domestically down to #128 worldwide. Only Munich improved its relative box office, going from #64 domestically to #50 internationally.
*As to whether Brokeback is popular, Jamie does have a point that each of these movies were enormously profitable (although it’s worth pointing out that Munich isn’t profitable until its foreign numbers are included). That does not make them popular. Everyone knows about Brokeback Mountain largely because it’s a source for snickering and humor (when it appears in Boondocks, it’s not politically incorrect). These other movies had exactly zero cultural impact. Brokeback and, to a lesser extent, Munich became topics of convseration not because everyone was seeing them or raving about them, but purely because of their subject matter. Face it, Jamie, the enlightened few in the Academy just felt like thumbing their noses at we plebs rather than throwing us a bone and nominating at least one movie that we saw.
Apollo posted this at 6:13 PM HKT on Saturday, February 25th, 2006 as Kulturkampf, Those Wacky Foreigners
No Comments »
Here is an article linked at Drudge about gay soldiers being discharged from the army.
Army Charges 7 in Sex-For-Money Web Site
By ESTES THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Army has charged seven paratroopers from the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex acts in video shown on a Web site, authorities said Friday.
Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex acts for money, according to a statement released Friday by the military.
Four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishments.
The Army has recommended that all be discharged.
Now lets leave aside the fact that having gays in the military is a debateable subject (I happen to believe that those that wish to serve their country should be allowed to. Furthermore I’d feel safer in a firefight if the guy watching my ass thinks its cute.) How stupid are these soldiers? Did they think no one would find out? Do they think that this is the behavior we want our soldiers to exhibit? Gay or straight? In a military culture where “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is so important these men, who heroically chose to defend this country, decided to throw it all away. For what?
In all honesty I think the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy of our military is discriminatory and legally dubious. I think that men and women who choose to serve our country should be allowed to do so regardless of their declared sexual orientation. However, these soldiers do not desrve to wear the uniform because they have disrespected everything it stands for.
What troubles me about these charges is that of sodomy. I personally think laws against sodomy are outdated and, at least in application, discriminatory. Will the army begin investigating Colonels who get a bit kinky with their wives? Will they start conducting investigations into the personal lives of soldiers? When you make specific sex acts illegal it begs the question of how far you are willing to go to enforce such laws. Such laws are legally untenable because they involve things that are not, and should not, be public record. So punish these soldiers all you will – but don’t charge them with a crime that is, in the vast majority of cases, impossible to enforce. That is unless we all want Big Brother TeleScreens in our bedrooms.
I sincerely hope that gay rights activists do not choose to champion the case of these soldiers – I’m not holding out much hope though.
Jamie posted this at 7:42 PM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Brave New Worlds
No Comments »
(I’m pretty sure Fahrenheit 9/11 didn’t start raking in the bucks until after the Awards).
Very, very wrong. Of course F911 had a lot of Michael Moore created controversy pushing it when it opened. Brokeback Mountain has made a bit over $70 Million – Academy Award nominations came out a little over a month ago – its fair to say its Box Office is not solely a reflection of the awards it has won.
As for Cinderella Man – I thought it was a heavy handed, pedantic movie with okay performances – not really deserving of an Oscar nom. Furthermore it was written by Akiva Goldsman who wrote Lost in Space and Batman and Robin – both of which merit an eternal ban from all awards. Okay except the Razzie.
Jamie posted this at 2:52 PM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Kulturkampf
3 Comments »
Back when I was in high school, a handful of Asian girls were discussing whether or not they should date White boys. Since I have an Asian mother and a Caucasian father, I was considered Asian in this conversation. One girl asked, “Should we date outside the race?”
I said, “Of course. Why should we Asian guys have all the bad luck?”
You would not believe resulting hostility. With that in mind, here’s a short film, set at UCSD (you can see the Geisel library in the background) that deals with this sometimes touchy issue. It’s a hoot. By the by, Apollo and Dorothy, what do you think of the film?
Quick trivia: the main character’s t-shirt reads “bai ren kan-bu-dong,” which translates to “White people can’t read this.” (Hat tip, John Derbyshire.)
Hubbard posted this at 1:18 PM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Humor, Kulturkampf, Nerdom
No Comments »
Victor Hanson is particularly good in his column today. There’s nothing in there with which I disagree, or that I could have phrased better.
Out of many rather exceptional points, I thought one worth repeating here. I had once known about this story but had forgotten it; I don’t think I’ve heard more than a couple of brief stories about it since 2003.
One of the great lapses in world journalism is investigating what happened to the 100,000 criminals let out by Saddam Hussein on the eve of the war. Thus the terrorists have succeeded in making all the daily mayhem of a major city appear to be political violence — even though much of the problem is the theft, rape, and murder committed by criminals who have had a holiday since Saddam freed them.
Frankly, though, I don’t know how the media would find the time or page space. What, with vice presidents having hunting accidents and not speed dialing David Gregory, and security companies being transferred from one foreign country to another (AYRABS! AYRABS, people, AYRABS! AAAAAYYYYYYYYYYRRRRRRAAAAAABBBBBBSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), I think there are simply too many important stories for one institution to cover. Perhaps we should establish a 5th estate to help out the 4th?
Apollo posted this at 12:28 PM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Iraq
No Comments »
Conor here’s why you’re wrong (HA! Time to get snarky!)
1) Everyone knows McCarthy was a blowhard. We’ve been hearing for years that he conducted an evil witchhunt against law abiding citizens (a very dubious contention as Apollo has already pointed out). So this begs the question – why make this movie at all? The only answer is: To canonize Edward R. Murrow as a heroic crusading journalist combating evil. While I agree that Murrow was a great broadcaster I find it a bit much to portray him as some sort of heroic crusader.
2) Crash rubbed me the wrong because it felt like the movie was stuck in early 70s. Its like nothing has changed in race relations in America or Los Angeles in 35 years – again why is this movie so revolutionary? As to my criticism of the writing – well I was going by my reading of the script – which is mainly large blocks of text punctuated by dialog – I hate that style of writing.
3) Movies I would nominate instead of Crash and Good Night, And Good Luck: A History of Violence, Walk the Line, Mrs Henderson Presents, King Kong (although its too long) and Syriana.
Snark on!
Jamie posted this at 11:46 AM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Kulturkampf
2 Comments »
I also enjoyed Good Night and Good Luck, which kind of surprised me. If you don’t think McCarthy was a blowhard the movie admittedly isn’t for you, but that isn’t exactly a radically liberal position to take.
Call me a reactionary, but…
I can’t bring myself to see Good Night and Good Luck for two reasons: First, McCarthy was a blowhard, but preachy anti-McCarthyism has the same vice. Second, and more importantly, there were actual Communists, and McCarthy actually did name a lot of them. It’s uncertain how, exactly, since the VENONA wires weren’t shared with him, but he nailed a lot of people who were giving secrets to the Soviets.
But, of course, one is far more likely to hear denunciations of McCarthyism than to hear denunciations of Communists or treason. Indeed, when someone is, even legitimately, accused of siding with the enemy, the cry of “McCarthyism” works as an absolute defense. It’s an unfortunate fact, though, that there were people in the U.S. who sided with Stalin and acted, as best they could, to aid the USSR to the detriment of the US. Of course, those people were almost universally leftists, and Hollywood is dominated by leftists, so there are movies focussing on the blowhard anti-Communist, and not very many on the Rosenbergs. Hollywood can’t properly preen when telling the story of how American sympathizers gave our enemy the atomic bomb. A lot of McCarthyism was wrong, and he hurt his own side tremendously, but Communism was worse. Perhaps when there are couple of movies on that topic I’ll have a little more patience for anti-McCarthyism chest-beating.
Apollo posted this at 10:54 AM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Kulturkampf
No Comments »
Jon Rowe is performing a public service by making the law clear. Key graph:
Antidiscrimination codes are written in such a way that the text of the statutes do not grant special rights to minority groups but rather protect certain categories which universally apply to all people. So, take for instance, “race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.” These categories apply to everyone; hence white male straight Christians, like the fellow cited above, have their “race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion” protected under such requisite codes. If sexual orientation is not a protected category in a particular jurisdiction, then such a person could be fired merely for being straight. So ironically, the “heterosexual” orientation of the majority gets protection under a so called “gay rights” ordinance.
The whole post is good, so take time to read it all.
Hubbard posted this at 9:12 AM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Kulturkampf
No Comments »
Take a standard policy; add a country that, while far from perfect, comes close to being an ally in the Arab world. Mix in hypocrisy and grandstanding and political stupidity to taste. Throw it all into the meatgrinder of politics. What you get is the Dubai Ports World mess. Read the rest of this entry »
Hubbard posted this at 7:44 AM HKT on Friday, February 24th, 2006 as Kraut-hammered, Uncategorized
No Comments »