One Battle After Another

Well, that’s an interesting concept for a movie: make a film about characters whom only a crazy person would find sympathetic. I guess this is what happens when you start from a position of making sure you have the correct politics, and then work on developing the story from there. That applies especially so when those correct politics echo the most deranged fever dreams of campus justice warriors. The result here is that the story’s villains are plainly villainous, but the putative heroes are simply bundles of uncontrolled animal urges who are not any more admirable than the other side. Other relatively minor issues grow out of a muddled timeline—the tale clearly has contemporary happenings on its mind, but includes a time shift that requires an origin point much further back in the day—and a central relationship that is preposterous on its face. So much for the problems. On the other hand, one must acknowledge that the plot has good pacing, the performances are solid all around, the script does not shy away from any particular difficulties, and—lastly but certainly not least—the core story in its human dimensions overcomes the film’s self-inflicted wounds to grow increasingly more compelling as the narrative moves forward. Also, the movie deserves credit for presenting a most compelling argument for the fact that security and liberty are diametrically opposed forces; increased emphasis on the former necessarily undermines the latter. That’s a political statement that is very much worth making these days, more so perhaps than the blanket canonization of one population cohort versus the demonization of another. So while this flick would hardly qualify as a Best Picture nominee (let alone winner) but for it tickling the strings of Hollywood’s preferred viewpoints, it must merit consideration as a good to maybe even excellent film—it’s just not an example of greatness. So don’t take that PURR as more than it really is. As usual, the real neverending battle is the fight to get people to stop overhyping whatever catches their momentary, acculturated but unrelated fancy. 

The Great Dictator

Transitions are difficult. This film serves as an example of that fact, as director and star Charlie Chaplin presents an uneven effort in his first full talking picture. The movie catches Chaplin caught between the type of visual set pieces that were standard fare in silent films and the more structured narrative demands of the modern, sound enhanced motion picture of later days. Some of the visual sequences fall flat, while others still work well enough to elicit genuine laughs. Meanwhile, a compelling narrative tale, featuring excellent supporting work from Paulette Goddard, is woven into and around those visual jokes, offering a story of deep pathos—in the story of the crimes of the period leading up to World War II—and biting satire—via a full-throated attack on the perpetrator of the those crimes. The sympathetic story is genuine and moving, even within the unevenness of the full presentation. And then, when the film reaches its climax, Chaplin steps out of character and delivers an end statement that is surprising and electrifying and that carries the potential of rousing the passions of even the most diffident viewer. This film was nominated for Best Picture, and that was clearly a reach; I can’t deem that nomination as anything other than a nod to lifetime achievement. Yet the movie’s message comes across so forcefully in the denouement that this film deserves recognition as must-see material, for its instructional value on being a human being if nothing else—and especially so as a great deal of that message remains so sadly relevant today.

Bombshell (2019)

I can't resist the hot blonde chicks. Apparently, that was Roger Ailes' premise, too. He and Rupert Murdoch built a media juggernaut--and quite literally changed the world--using mostly the power of the flaxen-haired. This work would have you believe that Ailes was a tremendous creep, and that his media machinations happened at a tremendous cost to the well-formed mannequins employed by FOX News. The former premise seems plausible--though, as this movie itself makes clear, it's easy to cast a guy who was substantially less easy on the eyes than Megyn Kelly as a monster (I'm familiar with that reality myself). The latter premise is questionable, or at least this flick does not do a fully successful job of making that case. For certain, it does not raise the point of the Faustian bargain that these women made. It's hard to imagine that any gal grows up looking that attractive (Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are undeniably good-looking, regardless of their work as political spokesmodels) and doesn't know by the time she's 17 years old that doors open for her that would otherwise be closed to others less endowed by nature with looks (to say nothing of more or less talent). None of these women would have been there--and reaped years of benefits--without their looks, and what those looks meant to others (read: males) who employed or watched them. It also doesn't help that the movie's liberal viewpoint is bluntly apparent throughout (and voiced by Theron's Kelly, which comes across as somewhat false), and thereby distracts from what would otherwise be a more effective (dare one say, fair and balanced) indictment of Ailes and the whole operation. Oh, well--at least most of the scenes feature visuals that are nice to look at.

Vice

An interesting question arises when watching this movie: was Dick Cheney the most or least likely person to rise to such heights of power? The presentation seems to argue, or at least provide, evidence in both directions. Most of what you see here is pretty much boilerplate for anyone at least vaguely well informed on the subject; not much new ground is broken in the exploration of Cheney's life (other than, perhaps, that he was a rather rough roughneck early on). That means the life presented, or the case being prosecuted (if you will) pretty much follows the course you would expect. One failing that does pop up is overreach, especially in summary; certain events and trends are laid at the old man's feet for which, at best, he only deserves tangential blame. At least the performances are top notch, but given the principals involved--Bale, Adams, Rockwell--that's hardly a surprise. This one is definitely worth a look, but I don't think you need to make permanent room in your man-sized safe for a copy, on whatever may be your preferred media.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

It is impossible in 2019 to watch this film without relating it to today's political madness. The corruption, the use of media to distort public opinion, the overwhelming effect of money and greed on every thread that forms our political process--all these things were understood long ago, and the testimony of the past could inform opinion today, if contemporary participants were willing to listen to that wisdom. Beyond its civic usefulness, this is a very strong piece of cinema. Director Capra shows all his skill, visual and otherwise, while James Stewart and Jean Arthur give their roles all the earnestness and cynicism, respectively, required to bring the story to its fullest expression. This should be required viewing for all Americans, and all would-be Americans as well; the lessons learned just might be the key to turning around our current dysfunction. Watch it and think about it.

I Am Not Your Negro

Some voices cannot be silenced, by time or fashion or even through death. James Baldwin's analysis of the American condition remains powerful and important, and--as demonstrated by the seamless integration of today and yesterday displayed in this documentary--as timely as ever, even long after the author left this world thirty years ago. There's much here to think about, most assuredly for white American viewers, but also black Americans as well. It's hard to name someone who approaches the topic of race and American society today with the clarity, intellectual rigor, and convincing eloquence that Baldwin showed throughout his career; one walks away from this movie thinking that, if enough young black Americans could see this film and be inspired to follow in Baldwin's political, intellectual, and scholarly footsteps, they could be powerful weapons against the injustice that continues to plague this society. Not to be missed by anyone who wishes to recognize the uncomfortable truths about the U.S.A.

Snowden

Regarding tangled webs we weave: we give a great deal of thought to the webs, but we tend not to consider much about the weaver. If we do give consideration, it's usually to condemn and judge--nothing particularly positive. Oliver Stone set out to shift against that with this biopic of both the man and his actions. The attempt was not entirely successful; there are enough inconsistencies that nagging feelings about the verdict are inescapable. Some of the problems are simple movie-making issues. For instance, Shailene Woodley portrayal of Snowden's girlfriend starts off sharp and smart, but devolves into a hyper-emotional almost-bimbo. (Though it may be the best testimony to Snowden's integrity, that he was willing to forgo his hottie for the sake of personal freedom.) The best work here is probably from Rhys Ifans as young Ed's mentor in the spook world; he covers the whole gamut from menace to nobility in an excellent performance. So is Snowden a hero or traitor? There's no point in saying in a review of this movie; the answer is largely a matter of personal viewpoint (though the film's coda, with various media reports of government action to curb surveillance, seems to present a pretty good case in his favor). You'll just have to judge for yourself.

Miss Sloane

Watching this movie can easily make one wonder: with all the paranoia about a terrorist group taking out an American city, if that city were Washington...would we really be losing so much? Perhaps this portrait of official and unofficial amorality in the nation's capital is a little too cynical, and thus should not inspire such a question. What is unquestionable is that here we have yet another film that celebrates excessive cleverness, both its own and that of its characters, including the titular anti-heroine played by Jessica Chastain. She does her usual great job--Chastain is neck-and-neck with Amy Adams in the race for "current best American actress"--in a movie that she owns from start to finish. Whether you will enjoy this work depends mostly upon your tolerance for this sort of paean to cleverness; in this viewer's case, I found its excesses forgivable, given its solid performances, good pacing, and at least somewhat interesting political viewpoint. It gets my vote.

The Big Short

I don’t think this movie makes a good case that any of the investors depicted is the hero of this story. Perhaps that’s the point: there were no heroes, and couldn’t be, given the nature and scope of the crimes being committed. It’s entertaining, almost to a fault. A few of the scenes--particularly the expository interludes--are a little too clever; they actually undermine the seriousness of the message of the movie (if any). Will anyone learn anything from this tale? Of course not; the same swinishness is already happening again. But, at the very least, next time no one will be able to claim that no one saw it coming.

A Face in the Crowd

The villainy of Andy Griffith--who would have thought it? Apparently, Elia Kazan, that’s who. This film has become a standard namecheck for explaining our country’s current politics--no, Lonesome Rhodes is not Trump; Glenn Beck remains the modern model, though others are coming up fast behind him--so it’s probably must-see material at this point. Fortunately, it’s entertaining material, so you won’t get bored watching it. The only real problem is, in the end it might be too hopeful; there’s no guarantee that our ending will actually be even this happy.

Where To Invade Next

A somewhat kinder, gentler Michael Moore. Not that Moore was kicking people in the dick as he built his career as filmdom’s foremost political muckrake--but there was always an angry edge to the geniality in his previous cinematic indictments (as he would probably admit himself). Here, though, Moore seems to have softened a bit; perhaps it’s because he’s looking for solutions rather than just exposing problems. It also probably helps that he’s talking to Europeans about their solutions; Moore usually reserves his harshest scolds for his fellow--but wrongheaded--Americans. There are the usual caveats here: Moore doesn’t ask enough questions, frames some ideas a bit too sunnily, assumes too much in the transferability of solutions from one situation to another; and, as always, be suspicious if he quotes statistics (Moore doesn’t seem to understand numbers very well). But it’s certainly worth everyone’s time to check out the ideas presented herein and contemplate how they might, just might, make a good nation even better.

Zero Dark Thirty

Depending upon your politics, you may be predisposed to hate this movie before the first scene. But a more practical reason to hate this movie might be its simple banality. Certainly that’s true in the early torture scenes; it’s surprisingly easy to be blase about the evils men do, especially this many years down the line. There’s also a certain predictability--even beyond the already well-known endgame--that pervades much of this film’s story structure. I certainly wouldn’t call it a Best Picture worthy film, despite the nomination, but it’s probably worth your time, perhaps to be watched with a certain amount of clinical detachment. I guess that’s the cost of doing business within the notorious muddle this film seeks to depict.

Bowling For Columbine

Michael Moore takes on the U.S.A.'s love affair with guns, and shows how it is definitely an abusive relationship. It's less strident than his earlier works, but no less clear in its presentation of the argument or effective in making its point. Moore presents the issue in his inimitable style and lets the reality make its own case--and the case is a devastating indictment of our society. Objective? Not really. Political? Certainly. Brilliant? Without question. Every citizen of this country should watch this movie, then try to justify the hatefulness that lies in our society's core. A "Best Of All" inductee.