"August: Osage County", an essay from the W.A.P.O.G. Anthology

This review was written last year after seeing this film, but is being published here for the first time in my new essay collection titled…"What a Piece of Garbage".

"August: Osage County" is a family drama  which features two of my favorite actors in the world, Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper. I could literally enjoy watching them do anything…well... anything except this. This is a film with a stellar and accomplished cast, including Julia Roberts, Ewen McGregor, Julianne Nicholson, Juliette Lewis and Sam Shepard among many others. It is based on a Tony award and pulitzer prize winning play of the same name, and yet, it is not a good movie at all. In fact, it is a mess. The problem isn't the cast, or the script, the problem is the director, or should I say the lack of a director. What I found so frustrating about this film is that I couldn't help but wonder if a better director couldn't have made it a really worth while film. Sadly we will never know.

To be fair, I saw the play when it was in Los Angeles a few years ago and I didn't like the play either. The problem with seeing a play in Los Angeles is that the audience feels like they are at a 'live studio audience' taping of "Two and a Half Men" or "Happy Days" or something and are desperate for any opportunity to laugh. L.A. audiences turn everything into a comedy, and the actors onstage end up trying to push for laughs and the whole rhythm and intent of the play gets sidetracked while the slack jawed dopes in the audience yuck it up. In all honesty, I've had the same experience in New York, so I can't just blame the city of Angels, the truth is the blame lies with the human race, or at least the minority population of it that attends live theater. Regardless of my feelings about the play, the film is simply put, not well made. The way it is shot makes it look like a tv show, a very special episode of "Rosanne" or something like that. The performances are lost under the rudderless direction, which is a shame because great actors like these need to have a director who can highlight their great work, not obfuscate it.

In conclusion, "August: Osage County" is not worth your time, even if you're just looking to steal something great from Meryl Streep.

Godzilla: Structural Integrity, Chaos Theory and the God Encounter

* Warning: This review contains….SPOILERS!! Consider this your official Spoiler Alert.

I grew up loving Godzilla movies. Godzilla and The Planet of the Apes were the things I loved the most as a kid. Other kids were into Star Wars...what a bunch of nerds!!! Godzilla and Planet of the Apes on the other hand, made me super-duper cool and a total chick magnet. Or at least that's what I keep telling myself. That is a brief history of my relationship with Godzilla. To put things into a more present day context, I haven't seen a Godzilla film since the 1998 "Godzilla", directed by Roland Emmerich and starring Matthew Broderick, or as I prefer to call it, "Ferris Bueller Saves Manhattan". That film was an abomination, not only to Godzilla fans, but to humans beings, or any sentient living entities for that matter. I feel the same way about the Tim Burton "Planet of the Apes" atrocity from 2001, which makes me so angry I have vowed to punch Tim Burton in the groin the next time I see him, to assure the world that he never, ever is able to procreate, but that is a diatribe for another day.  

Having not still not fully recovered from the brutalizing I took at the hands of '98 "Godzilla", I saw the trailer to the latest "Godzilla" and was impressed. It looked cool. It had Bryan Cranston in it, a really great actor I admire, and it had some cool shots. I thought…maybe…just maybe…we will get an actual good Godzilla film. So, I went to the movies, not with high hopes, but certainly with hopes.

I am here to report that "Godzilla" is not a good movie, not even close. I will say this though, 2014 "Godzilla" is head and shoulders above 1998 "Godzilla", which is sort of like being the tallest midget at the circus. The reasons being: one, I got to watch Bryan Cranston instead of Matthew Broderick. Two, the CGI is fantastic, Godzilla and his enemies look great (when we finally get to see them). Three, they took the subject matter and played it seriously, as opposed to the '98 version which played the entire thing as a farce. In fact, the best thing about the new film is that it got the tone right. If you are going to make a Godzilla movie, you cannot do it with your tongue in cheek, or with a smirk on your face. 2014 "Godzilla" gets the tone exactly right, it plays the film seriously. I mean, what is the sense of going to a Godzilla movie if no one involved pretends Godzilla is real and can kill them? You'd be better served going to a Muppet movie. The 1998 Ferris Bueller "Godzilla" is exhibit A in my case against playing Godzilla as a farce. That film was a smirk-fest from start to finish.

2014 "Godzilla" should be praised for it's tone. Making a monster or action movie without 'the smirk' is no easy task. I've had lots of clients come to me to work with them on auditions for these types of films. It is not the easiest thing in the world for an actor to work on. To be rolling around on the floor pretending to be in a shootout with aliens, or screaming that the T-Rex is "Coming back!!", while you are in an audition room with stone faced, bored people watching you (when they're not watching their phones), is not the funnest thing for an actor to do. Many actors completely freak out over these circumstances because they feel so foolish playing something so absurd. I always point out to them that the only thing more embarrassing than having to roll on the floor while pretend shooting at pretend aliens, is to half-ass it as you roll on the floor pretend shooting at pretend aliens. The people in the room watching...producers, writers, directors, casting people, won't think less of you if you totally humiliate yourself by buying into the scenario of the scene, even if you have no props, no costume, no set. They will think less of you if you feel the need to let them know you are really cool and totally in on the joke, because the joke in question... is the film...the film they have written, are directing, and have put tens of millions of dollars into. So, if you sort of wink and nod your way through the audition in order to let them know you're cool and that you know this is foolish, they are sure to have zero interest in trusting you to convince the masses to give them their hard earned money in order to watch this ludicrous hunk of poop. If you want to laugh and joke afterwards about it, go crazy, but just remember that while you may not take this stuff seriously, these people do, at least on a certain level, so don't ever demean the material in front of them, no matter how fantastically awful it is.

Now, speaking of 'fantastically awful', let's get back to "Godzilla". One problem with the new "Godzilla" is a problem I have noticed in many recent big-budget-blockbuster-type films I have seen lately (I am thinking of "Noah" and "Transcendence"), namely, that they are structurally unsound. What I mean by that is that the fundamentals of the storytelling are so deeply flawed that the film collapses under the weight of it's own conflicting narratives and complexity.  Leaving it unable to succeed on any level, be it myth-making, storytelling, art or entertainment.

"Godzilla" starts off with a storyline about Bryan Cranston's character trying to solve a mystery at the Japanese nuclear power plant where he works with his wife. We watch Cranston arguing for someone to listen to him and coming up against corporate resistance. Then we see him lose his wife right in front of his eyes due to a nuclear accident that is caused by the mystery earthquakes he is trying to solve. Cranston is a really good actor, so we are drawn to him, we relate to him, he makes us connect.

Cranston dies about an hour into the film. Right when the first monster, a giant moth type thing, arrives. We then switch protagonists and now have to follow his son as he leads us through the story. The problem, of course, is that we don't know, or care about the son in the least. The film has already established our connection to Cranston, and given us a powerful glimpse of his humanity. The son? We have only just met him moments before. The work the story did in attaching us to Cranston cannot be passed off to his son, storytelling doesn't work that way, or at least it doesn't work well that way. So the first hour of the film is a waste, storytelling wise. Now, I am sure the filmmakers made the decision to do this so that their protagonist was younger and more attractive to younger audiences, it is a decision many filmmakers make with an eye to trying to build the box office, but it is a decision that undermines the story. Another reason they did it was to have an active figure who could actually engage in combat with the monsters in the film. Again, I understand the reason why, I just am telling you that it completely distorts and destroys any coherent or effective audience attachment to the main characters.

A big complaint I have heard from people regarding "Godzilla" is that it takes nearly an hour for Godzilla to show up. I actually disagree with this criticism to a certain extant. The structure of the film could work if you use the first hour of the film establishing a connection between the audience and the lead character, and building tension for the arrival of Godzilla. "Jaws" is a great example of this structure. We spend the first part of the film unravelling a mystery and getting to know Chief Brody. It works very well in "Jaws". But a big difference between "Jaws" and "Godzilla" is that Chief Brody doesn't die an hour in and then we have to watch his kid chase a shark. Or more accurately stated, we don't watch his kid fight an octopus that shows up before the shark. That's what happens in "Godzilla". The first monster we see isn't Godzilla. It's the MUTO, or Mothra monster. This goes against every storytelling convention there is, and so if switching main characters from Cranston to Johnson is strike one, then giving us Mothra first when we want Godzilla is strike two. (Also, there is a strike two and a half…namely…when Godzilla FINALLY arrives, and does battle with Mothra Number One in Honolulu, we only see about ten seconds of it, then they cut away and don't show us anymore. The main rule of Godzilla movie making is that when Godzilla shows up, you keep the camera on Godzilla. He is the goddamn star of the picture. The film isn't titled, "Unkown Guy I Don't Give a Shit About", it's titled "Godzilla" fergodsakes, so when Godzilla arrives, everything else becomes secondary..everything…and also…never, ever, ever cut away from a Godzilla fight. It's a sin.)

Here comes strike three. The main structural flaw of the film is that it tries to make a 'superhero' movie instead of a 'monster' movie. In this film, Godzilla is the savior of mankind, he fights two "mothra-esque" creatures and saves humans from their destruction. Even though it is highly flawed, this film still could have worked if it only corrected that main flaw. Godzilla is not the savior of mankind. Godzilla is wrath upon mankind. Godzilla is punishment for man's sins. Godzilla is the God encounter, not in the new age, light, love, puppy dogs and rainbows version of God, but in the old testament, wrathful, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, and Job- type of encounter with God. 

The original Godzilla film, "Gojira" from 1954, is a fantastic film. (It is Japanese and not to be confused with the 1956 American re-cut which has Raymond Burr in it, which is pretty terrible). In it,  Godzilla is a result of the use of atomic weapons. He is nature pushing back. Mankind thinks he is beyond nature, more powerful, Godlike even. Well, Godzilla/God is here to tell you that your cities will burn, and a thousand years from now Godzilla will still be here and you humans will not. Godzilla is Leviathan from the Old Testament.

2014 "Godzilla" turns Godzilla into mans protector, which changes the structure of the film and the myth of Godzilla and renders it useless. Godzilla as a super hero lacks much, but Godzilla as a monster has much to offer. In a Superhero Movie (a good one at least), you get to know the superhero, you get to know the villain, and you get to know the people the superhero is trying to protect. For instance, we know Batman, we know Batman's love interest, we know the Joker, we see the Joker try and hurt Batman by trying to hurt his love interest. Pretty simple. So when we spend time with Batman's girlfriend, it propels the movie along because she is an integral part of the story and shows Batman's human and softer side. 

Now, with a Monster Movie, we get to know the people the monster is after, and we root for them to survive the monster encounter, or if the monster is a metaphor for God, we see them survive, or not survive the God encounter. "Jaws" is a fantastic monster movie. "Jaws" wouldn't work if the shark is trying to save children from a ravenous octopus. 

And while we are at it, there are times in the film when we hear that Godzilla has appeared to fight the Mothras (or is it Mothri? In any case, there are two of them), in order to "restore balance" to the earth. What sort of tortured logic is this? I agree that Godzilla, the original myth, is meant to restore balance to the earth, he is in fact sent by "earth" or "God" if you will, to restore balance, the balance being restored is the one which puts mankind back in it's place. Godzilla is meant to humble man, not save him. If the current Godzilla is meant as a metaphor for environmentalism, then the best thing Godzilla could do is not kill the Mothras, but kill the people. The Mothras didn't fuck the earth up, we did. That's why God/Mother Earth sends Godzilla to us…to kick our ass and put the "fear of God" in us.

If you've ever been in, or witnessed, a hurricane, a tornado, a tsunami, an earthquake or a volcanic eruption…that is the God encounter, that is Godzilla. In our entertainment driven culture, we don't like to make people feel uncomfortable. We want, not necessarily a happy ending, but at least we want mankind to win and to be the "good" guys. Godzilla is not a myth where we should win or where we are good. Godzilla is a myth about mankind's sins and our helplessness in the face of the destructive power of God. Godzilla is wrath, Godzilla is the Goddess Kali, Godzilla is Old Testament God putting us in our place.

Mankind likes to think it is in control, likes to think it is in charge and that there is an order to the world. The Godzilla myth is meant to shatter our illusions of control, and to show the power and helplessness that results with chaos being unleashed and reigning in our world. Godzilla is the God of War unconsciously released into the world by man who thinks he can control it. War cannot be controlled, it has a power and mind all it's own. War is chaos. Godzilla is war. Godzilla is coming to get us, and there is nothing we can do about it. We can build walls, he will topple them. We can send armies to fight him, he will kill them. We can drop nuclear weapons on him, he will absorb their power and get stronger. Godzilla is retribution for sins committed against the earth. Godzilla is retribution for man's sins against man. Godzilla is man's punishment for arrogance. Godzilla is death. Relentless, unstoppable, unforgiving. You cannot argue with it, you cannot fight it, you cannot make it pity you. You can only step back and marvel at it's enormous power and bow down and kneel at the almighty horrific divinity that destroys all the minuscule and ridiculous plans of man.

That is what a Godzilla movie should be. Instead we get narratively incoherent niceties telling us that Godzilla is our friend. Just more lies we tell ourselves so that we can avoid thinking about the beast from the abyss that is closing in on us every moment of every day.

Soon...some day very soon, Godzilla will be here…he is coming for you...are you ready to meet him? He isn't coming to save you, he is coming to obliterate everything you have ever known, or will know. He is coming to annihilate you. Don't be a fool….Prepare.

ADDENDUM: Some people have asked me what I think the film should have been. Here is what the film "Godzilla" should have been. It should have been Bryan Cranston trying to get to his son in San Francisco after the beast that killed his wife has risen again and is bearing down on the Bay area. Cranston would try to: one, convince people Godzilla is real, two, convince people Godzilla is coming and, three, figure out a way to stop Godzilla. He would succeed at the first two only because Godzilla would show up, thus proving he wasn't crazy... but he would realize that there is nothing to be done to stop Godzilla once he is here, nothing but to run and hide and pray that he spares you. Then the military would fight Godzilla, and Godzilla would win. The bay area would be destroyed, mankind humbled and Godzilla would slowly walk back into the Pacific ocean leaving us to think about the lesson he has taught us. We would see him walk away and pray that he would never return. But of course, we could never be sure he wouldn't return. He would be lurking in the back of our minds as he lurks in the depths of the Pacific. Then you could make a sequel where he does return, and this time, if you really wanted, you could have him fight other monsters and in a sense be a savior, because you have already established his fearsome power in the first film. The first film would be Godzilla as punisher, the second film would be Godzilla as savior. But instead we got the piece of crap film they gave us, which of course will have a sequel, but what kind of sequel will it be? It will be Godzilla saving us from different monsters, because that is all you can really do from here on in, more of the same. So with the wrong myth driving the story, audiences will be left unconsciously unfulfilled, leaving them with a vague sense of dissatisfaction. They are stuck in the superhero narrative now, not the monster narrative. So like mankind, the makers of "Godzilla" are reveling in their monetary success which they interpret as genius, but they have committed a fatal error in tampering with the myth of Godzilla, and eventually…the myth, like all powerful myths, will exact its revenge, on their box office and on our psyches. 

2014 Academy Awards

The Academy Awards are bigger than the Super Bowl, Christmas, New Years Eve, A Royal Wedding, a Royal Funeral, Election Night, the actual Big Bang (and most definitely The Big Bang Theory) and the birth of your own or anyone else's child. The only thing more important than the Academy Awards is…my opinion of the Academy Awards. 

Okay, that last paragraph contained some hyperbole, but 'tis the season. So, let me re-phrase the previous paragraph and inject a wee bit more honesty into it. 

No one really cares about the Academy Awards unless they are nominated for one, and even fewer people than that care about my opinion of the Academy Awards. But will that stop me from pontificating about the Oscars? No way!! it is every American's right…nay…RESPONSIBILITY…to take an interest in and have an opinion about the Oscars. What follows is my duty as an upstanding citizen of the great People's Republic of Hollywood.

Click on the film titles for my in depth reviews of the films.

BEST ACTOR NOMINEES

Christian Bale - American Hustle.  I think American Hustle is a pretty bad movie. I also think Christian Bale has been much better in other things. He is a very good actor, but I felt his performance, along with the film, wasn't particularly strong. 

Bruce Dern - Nebraska. I thought Bruce Dern was pivotal in keeping 'Nebraska' from veering off into the land of self-adoring quirkiness. His acting work here is stellar and saves the film from itself.

Leonardo DiCaprio- The Wolf of Wall Street. I have always found Leonardo DiCaprio to be a bit disappointing as an actor. He always seems to be pushing so hard in every film he makes. You see it on his face, he presses and pushes so hard that his brow is in a permanent furrow. That said, he has been great before. His performance in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" was really remarkable.  He was also very good in "Catch Me If You Can". The key to his performance in that film was the script called for him to play at 'acting grown-up', which is what I felt he had been doing in his other films. For me, his performances always had the whiff of 'kids playing dress-up and doing a show in the basement' type of feel to them. With all that said, Leo is truly awesome in "Wolf of Wall Street". Besides "Gilbert Grape", it is by far the best performance of his career. His high energy performance style, which rings so hollow to me elsewhere, fits perfectly with the coked up wall street hustler character that he plays in this film.

Chiwetel Ejiofor - 12 Years a Slave. "12 years a Slave" is a brilliant film and Chiwetel Ejiofor is brilliant in it. Without him the film may not have succeeded artistically. His work avoids all the pitfalls that could have easily trapped a lesser talent. He never succumbs to sentimentality, or defiant nobility, which so many might have done, instead, he simply shows a man's struggle to survive. It is a work of great craft and skill.

Matthew McConaughey - Dallas Buyers Club. I know everyone is enamored with Matthew McConaughey and his recent renaissance, but consider me unconvinced. I find it hard to buy into an actor when he spends the last fifteen years churning out some of the worst, absolute horseshit films and performances imaginable. And then he simply does his job in an actual real film and everyone trips over themselves to say how amazing he is. Yes, he lost weight to play the part. But hasn't McConaughey always been a "body" actor? Isn't this just more of the same? Instead of showing off his abs, now he's showing off his skinny. Instead of changing physically, how about he does some actual, you know, acting work. And while we're at it…think of this…could McConaughey have played this part if it was the New York buyers club? Or the San Francisco buyers club? Isn't this performance just one more charming-quirky-Texan-takes-on-the-world type roles that he usually plays? I think his performance in the film "Mud", also out this year, was significantly better than his "Dallas Buyers Club" performance. I would have been more impressed if he had played the Jared Leto role in "Dallas Buyers Club", that would have taken some courage. I do hope he continues to choose more challenging roles and films, but his performance here is all smoke and mirrors, and I prefer meat and potatoes when it comes to a leading actor.

WHO WINS: I hate to say it but it seems like this is McConaughey's year. 

WHO SHOULD WIN: DiCaprio and Dern both give Oscar caliber performances, but Chiwetel Ojiofor is who should really win.

BEST ACTRESS NOMINEES

Amy Adams - American Hustle. Amy Adams is great in "American Hustle", which is saying something considering how much I disliked the film. She shows a genuine vulnerability and desperation that she has never shown in a film before. It is the best she has ever been.

Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine. "Blue Jasmine" is not a good movie. But Cate Blanchett is absolutely astounding in the lead role. She takes what could have been a cartoon character and fills her with a profound humanity. She also grounds her 'mental illness' in a reality, which makes it all the more heart breaking. A stunning performance.

Sandra Bullock - Gravity. Sandra Bullock does a very good job in "Gravity". I can only imagine how difficult it was to work while shooting this film. She does as well as you can expect. The film isn't really about her though, it is more about the stuff around her.

Judi Dench - Philomena. This is one of the few nominated films I haven't seen. That said, Judi Dench is one of the wonders of the world. She is always so good, no matter how big or small the part, or how good or bad the film. She is a master craftswoman without a doubt.

Meryl Streep - August: Osage County. Ok. Meryl Streep is….Meryl Streep. She is amazing. I could watch her do anything…well almost anything. This movie is a steaming pile of excrement. Streep's performance may have been great, but she has no director to help her bring it out. I cannot believe I am saying this, but Meryl Streep has no business being nominated for an Oscar for this film. Yuck.

WHO WINS? I think Cate Blanchett wins. Woody Allen actresses have always faired pretty well on Oscar night. Amy Adams has an outside shot, you never know.

WHO SHOULD WIN? I would give it to Cate Blanchett. I really found her performance to be substantially better than everyone else.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR NOMINEES

Barkhad Abdi - Captain Phillips. Captain Phillips is a well made film. Abdi is very good in it. Without him the film would be in deep trouble.

Bradley Cooper - American Hustle. Again, my dislike of this film is deep. I am again, baffled as to why Cooper is nominated. A lot of things baffle me. Like, why didn't he have a New York accent? Is that asking too much?

Michael Fassbender - 12 Years a Slave. Fassbender is spectacular in this film. He takes a difficult role, and brings it to life with a sense of perverted humanity. He is in love with one of his slaves. So, his brutality is his distorted way of expressing his love. It is a fantastic performance which could have been a disaster in lesser hands.

Jonah Hill - The Wolf of Wall Street. Jonah Hill is pretty great in "Wolf of Wall Street". He perfectly captured the essence of so many guys that I used to work with while I was on Wall Street back in the day. It was so good it was more than a little creepy.

Jared Leto - Dallas Buyers Club. I find this filmed terribly flawed, but Leto is easily the best part of it. He jumps into the part, full throttle and gives a semblance of depth to a rather two dimensionally written character.

WHO WINS? It looks like Jared Leto. Hollywood loves to reward these types of films and these types of performances.

WHO SHOULD WIN? Michael Fassbender should most definitely win. His work is stellar in a very difficult and complex part.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS NOMINEES

Sally Hawkins - Blue Jasmine. I thought "Blue Jasmine" was not great, but that Cate Blanchett was great in it. I wasn't very impressed with Sally Hawkins performance. It's not her fault, the character felt poorly written and incomplete.

Jennifer Lawrence - American Hustle. Just to be clear…I didn't like this movie…at all. Jennifer Lawrence is an incredibly beautiful, charming and appealing presence in all of her films, and in life for that matter. But I found her to be not very good in this part. It feels like she is getting by on her beauty and charm, as opposed to doing the work. Again, her accent is all over the place, at least when she tries to do one. And she seems completely detached from the time period of the film. Her work in "Winters Bone" was jaw dropping, her work here is paint by numbers.

Lupita Nyong'o - 12 Years a Slave. Again…I loved this film. A true work of genius. And the film doesn't work without Nyong'o's performance. She is vital to film. Her work is so good that it feels foolish comparing it to the other nominated performances.

Julia Roberts - August: Osage County. Why is Julia Roberts nominated? The film is atrociously awful. Her performance is entirely forgettable. The entire film is just a tremendous waste of a great casts talents and efforts.

June Squibb - Nebraska. June Squibb is the sassy old lady in "Nebraska". I actually thought she almost ruined the movie. I don't blame her, she didn't write it. But her over the top performance nearly derails the entire picture. 

WHO WINS? I actually think Jennifer Lawrence wins. There is an outside shot Lupita Nyong'o wins. But everyone loves J-Law. And why shouldn't they? It feels like she's the most popular girl in school right now. She may be due for a backlash (Hollywood is a real bitch!!), but it's not happening any time soon.

WHO SHOULD WIN? Lupita Nyong'o. Easily. She is fantastic.  

BEST DIRECTOR NOMINEES

David O. Russell - American Hustle. Okay…once again…I do not like this film. Have I told you that yet? I think Russell is the one to blame. He has a great cast, a great idea and yet he creates nothing more than a cheap, shallow, lazy piece of work. Russell's current run of three directing Oscar nominations is one of the great mysteries of my life time. To quote Spinal Tap, this mystery is "best left unsolved really".

Alfonso Cuaron - Gravity. This film is a technical masterpiece. While I found it oddly forgettable afterwards, I was totally riveted while watching it. Cuaron is a master craftsmen, and he shows off his skill with this picture.

Alexander Payne - Nebraska. Payne can be hit or miss at times. He hit with "About Schmidt" and missed with "The Descendants". While "Nebraska" isn't his greatest work, he is closer to hitting here than missing.

Steve McQueen - 12 Years a Slave. I love Steve McQueen as a filmmaker. I loved his first two films, "Hunger" and "Shame" and I love "12 Years a Slave".  He is uncompromising towards his audience. He never, ever lets his films slip into the abyss of sentimentality.

Martin Scorsese - The Wolf of Wall Street. Martin Scorsese is a true genius. His filmography is as great as any director who has ever lived. "The Wolf of Wall Street" doesn't come close to comparing to his earlier work like "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull" or "Goodfellas", but it is without a doubt the best film he has made in the last twenty years.

WHO WINS? I think it is either Cuaron or McQueen. I give the edge to Cuaron. Hollywood loves those types of films, and I think they don't really love McQueen. God help me if David O. Russell wins.  I think his middle initial "O" may stand for the "Oh No!!!!" I scream when he wins.

WHO SHOULD WIN? Steve McQueen. Without question.

BEST PICTURE NOMINEES

American Hustle. Okay..I absolutely adored this film!! Wait, no I didn't. I really didn't like this film at all. Have I told you that before? Everytime I type that I dislike the film more and more. Did I tell you I watched the film twice? I did. Twice. I had to make sure that it was as awful as I thought it was. Mission accomplished.

Captain Phillips. Paul Greengrass directed one of my favorite films, "Bloody Sunday", back in the late 90's , early 2000's. I  highly recommend you see it. It is a master work. It stayed with me for weeks after I watched it. I found his newest work,  "Captain Phillips" to be a well made yet pretty empty film. Much like "Zero Dark Thrity", it felt more like an exercise in propaganda for American Exceptionalism than it did a piece of dramatic storytelling. It is interesting if for no other reason than Tom Hanks is both awful and fantastic in it. His 'accent' is distractingly terrible and unneeded, that's the awful part. The great part? Well…there is one scene in the film which is the best scene Tom Hanks has ever done in front of a camera. That is saying something considering he has two Best Actor Oscars on his mantle.

Dallas Buyers Club. I was really excited for the first forty minutes of "Dallas Buyers Club". It was a very intense and intimate film, and Matthew McConaughey was really great in it. Then the film quickly shifted gears and became little more than a Movie of the Week for the next hour and a half. Very disappointing, if for no other reason than the first forty minutes are so tantalizingly good and gave us a glimpse of what might have been.

Gravity. A well crafted and entertaining film that I found totally forgettable the second I walked out of the theater. That doesn't mean it isn't any good. It just means…it is what it is.

Her. I really liked "Her". I thought it was an original and challenging film. I thought Joaquin Phoenix proved once again that he is so good that he is actually redefining what acting is. I realize not many people share these opinions with me. But I still loved the film.

Nebraska. A very good movie. Dern is fantastic. The black and white looks beautiful and helps tell the story. Worth watching, but not a Best Picture type of movie.

Philomena. I am sad to report that I have not seen "Philomena". I am a bad person.

12 Years a Slave. The best film of the year. 

The Wolf of Wall Street. The best film of the second half of Scorsese's career. Interesting and dynamic. Also has Leonardo DiCaprio giving one of the best performances of his career. The critics who argue it is a tribute to greed and decadence don't get it, and probably never will.

WHO WINS? This is tough…I think it is a three man race between "American Hustle", "Gravity" and "12 Years a Slave". God help us if "American Hustle" wins. I may go on a rampage…HULK SMASH!!

WHO SHOULD WIN? "12 years a Slave" is the best film of the year to me. I think in ten years it will also be the only film besides "The Wolf of Wall Street" that anyone will watch or talk about.

And, please, no betting or wagering on the Academy Awards!! This is the holiest of holies and should not be sullied by the baser instincts of man.

Thus concludes my duties. Go in peace and enjoy the 2014 Academy Awards!!

Oh, and for the first time ever, we have comments here on the blog. So feel free to comment below.

American Hustle is Hustling America

There is a scene in David O. Russell's "American Hustle" where Christian Bale's con artist character, Irving, walks with Bradley Cooper's FBI agent character, Richie, through a museum in New York, and he points out a Rembrandt hanging on the wall. Richie comments that it's beautiful. Then, much to Richie's disbelief, Irving informs him that the painting is a forgery, and gives a brief monologue asking who is the greater artist…the original artist or the forger?

I found that scene to be very enlightening while watching "American Hustle", because if you answered that question by saying the forger is the greater artist, then you'd think "American Hustle" is a great film. The reason being is that "American Hustle" is, in fact, a forgery. It is a forgery of many, much better Martin Scorsese films. A friend of mine, the Honorable Rev. Dr. Seamus J. Magillicutty III, recently overheard two people talking about this film and they described it as "Scorsese karaoke". I couldn't agree more. Russell uses Scorsese-esque camera moves, he uses popular music like Scorsese, he uses voice overs like Scorsese, the storyline and location are right out of the Scorsese playbook, you name it and he tries to copy Scorsese. The problem is, that David O. Russell isn't Scorsese, not even close. Despite the camera moves, the film visually looks flat and stale. Despite the popular music the film doesn't pulse with a vibrant life but rather feels listless. And despite the voice overs, or maybe even because of them, the narrative isn't more clarified but rather becomes murkier.

The pitch for this movie is an easy sell, four terrific actors combined with a very interesting story and time period and the film should be a slam dunk. The problem is, like the last two David O. Russell films, "Silver Linings Playbook" and "The Fighter", there is no 'there'…there. These films should be good, but they just aren't. They all look and feel the same way, visually dull, dramatically rushed, scattered and sloppy. The films seem forced into conventional storytelling structures, with the final product being a shallow, tinny mess with a staggering lack of attention to detail that feels unconscionably lazy.  

Here are a few examples of what I mean. In "The Fighter" the boxing scenes are absolutely laughable in how amateur they are. The fighters move and react as if they are fighting under water. I mean, it is supposed to be a realistic boxing movie and yet it looks, feels and seems like it was made by people who have not only never boxed, but have never even watched an actual fight or seen any other boxing movie. Christian Bale is great in "The Fighter", no doubt about it, but his performance is forced to overcome the flatness of the films visual style and emptiness of its drama. He is the only thing with any life in the whole film.

Another example can be found in "Silver Linings Playbook", where Bradley Cooper does outstanding acting work in a film that doesn't rise to meet his strong commitment to it. The film is set in Philadelphia, which is a major part of the story, and yet, not a single actor in the film has a Philly accent. Philadelphia also, according to the film, has only one police officer on duty  in the whole city, and this poor bastard works every minute of every day. Football is also a major part of the story, yet again, as in "The Fighter" with boxing, "Silver Linings Playbook" seems to be made by people who have never played or watched football a day in their lives, and listening to the dialogue about football is truly painful and cringe worthy. The attention to detail in both of these films is so extraordinarily sloppy as to be embarrassing.

A look at "American Hustle" reveals the same thing. Amy Adams is fantastic in the movie, doing the best work of her stellar career. She has an on again/off again British accent which is proper for her character, but in contrast Jennifer Lawrence seems to start out trying a Long Island accent, which is completely off and sounds like a Boston accent more than anything, but then she just stops trying altogether at some point. Christian Bale is a great and often under rated actor whom I have deep respect for, but here he feels rushed and unfocused, and his New York accent is poor at best. Bradley Cooper, another actor I respect,  doesn't even try to attempt a New York accent even though his character is obviously born and raised in the city.  These may be small things to some people, but they are the things that separate a good movie from a great one, and they undermine the narrative, drama and believability of the film.

Another oddity is the casting in two smaller but vital roles. I love Louis CK, he plays an FBI middle manager in the film, and while he is funny, he has his usual goatee. No FBI middle manager in the late 70's, or now, would have a goatee, it just wouldn't happen. If you can't commit to the character and the time period, then you undermine the integrity of the film. Another casting error is Jack Huston as a gangster. Huston is a fine actor and is great on "Boardwalk Empire", but he has a softness and kindness to his eyes and face which make him a less than intimidating presence, this works wonderfully on "Boardwalk Empire" as he struggles with his violent past and present,  but here it undermines a critical plot point in the film where he is supposed to be a dangerous and scary guy. And while we are at it, Jennifer Lawrence, who is someone I really, truly like as an actress and presence, has an improvised dialogue with Christian Bale where she charmingly talks about Wayne Dyer's book "The Power of Intention", that's cute and all, but that book was published in 2002, not 1977. Is it totally her fault for the improv? No, but it never should have made the final cut of the film, and is just another example of sloppiness and laziness on the part of the director who is the one with final say on all of these issues.

"American Hustle", like "Silver Linings Playbook" and "The Fighter" before it, is a great idea for a film, has an extraordinary cast of actors in it, and seems like it should be great. The problem is, it simply isn't great, and neither are "The Fighter" or "Silver Linings Playbook". They all look flat, they are all conformist in style and structure,  and they all have zero dramatic resonance because they lack the courage to commit to drama. 

I admit, it is pretty unfair of me to compare David O. Russell as a director to Martin Scorsese, who is arguably one of the greatest filmmakers in history. But when you make a film like "American Hustle", and even "The Fighter", you are bringing that comparison onto yourself. One of the biggest differences between the two directors is that Scorsese makes dramatic films that can be very funny at times, while Russell makes comedic films that attempt to be dramatic. The result is Russell's films are flimsy, shallow and crumble upon repeated viewings, while Scorsese's are among the greatest in cinematic history.

I think that the other huge difference between Scorsese and Russell is that Russell brings a certain effeminate quality to his films which doesn't serve the type of films he is trying to make very well at all. Another way to say that is, David O. Russell, and his films, have no balls. Scorsese on the other hand has balls as big as hot air balloons. If Scorsese were directing this film here are a few things that may be different. First off, when Jack Huston's gangster character finds out that Bale's Irving might be working with the feds, he wouldn't simply put a burlap sack over his head (ooooh…it must have been so dark and scratchy with that sack over your head!!), no,  he would've beat the hell out of him and maybe broken a few of his fingers or put his head in a vice or cut off his nose or ears. Secondly, Irving would've taken the government's offer of immunity and lived out the rest of his life in Wichita, ordering pasta with marinara sauce but being served egg noodles with ketchup instead, all with no ears and alone, because Amy Adams character would have died of a drug over dose in a hotel room while turning tricks to get her heroin fix. Thirdly, Bradley Cooper's Richie would end up trapped in a loveless, vacant marriage to his fiancé and working at a toll booth on the Jersey turnpike dreaming of what could have been after the FBI fired him for screwing up the entire operation. Finally Jennifer Lawrence would end up like all the wives in "Goodfellas", wearing cheap polyester blend outfits and too much makeup, drinking herself to a slow death while her gangster husband runs around behind her back.

That is the final and foremost difference between Scorsese and Russell, Scorsese doesn't sugar coat it, he doesn't force upon the story a happy ending, he doesn't shy away from the brutal, ugly truth. He lets his characters hang themselves upon their own failures and let's them live the unhappily ever after that they've earned. Sadly, Russell is not brave enough to do that, he must have the happy ending, the tv movie finish, that everything is alright and these people with all their flaws still have all their dreams come true. And that is the thing that bothers me the most about his movies…they are lies, and they convince us to believe the lies we tell ourselves. Scorsese cares too much about cinema to use it to lie to people.

In conclusion, "American Hustle" lives up to it's name by conning and hustling people into thinking it is a great film. It isn't. It is a rushed, sloppy, cheap knock off  that deserves absolutely none of the critical acclaim it is garnering. It isn't the worst film ever made, but it certainly shouldn't be talked about as a great film at all.

Oh, and hey...David O. Russell…..go get your fuckin shine box.

Nebraska: A Review

I was hesitant to see Alexander Payne's new film "Nebraska" when it first came out. While I had really loved Payne's film "About Schmidt" and enjoyed  "Sideways", I had absolutely loathed his last film "The Descendants". It is difficult for me to put into words how awful I found this film to be.  The fact that critics and movie-goers alike both loved the film and it received all sorts of nominations and awards not only baffled me but irritated me.  My conclusion as to the glowing reception the film received was that people simply gave Payne the benefit of the artistic doubt and thought that it was great simply because HE made it. I worried that "Nebraska" would be a similar experience of not judging a work of art on the art itself but rather on the resume of the artist who made it. Thankfully, I was wrong.

I really enjoyed "Nebraska". Like many of Payne's films it is a road picture, and it has a somewhat ornery and unlikable leading man making the hero's journey. In "Nebraska" that ornery and unlikable leading man is Bruce Dern. He is really terrific. He plays a somewhat senile and dementia addled alcoholic old man. He plays his senility and confusion with such a humanity, specificity and fullness that you can't help but wonder if he isn't acting at all. Thankfully he is acting, of course, and brilliantly.  It is without a doubt one of the best performances of his long career.

Dern also uses his considerable gravitas as an actor to keep the film grounded. The trouble with Alexander Payne films is that they can at times spiral off into the orbit of their own quirkiness and self satisfaction. That was the problem with "The Descendants". As much as I like George Clooney, he simply doesn't bring the skill, weight and gravity to a role that someone like Bruce Dern, Paul Giamatti or Jack Nicholson would. "The Descendants" failed as a film because Clooney is ill-equipped to carry a film LIKE THAT. Instead of the film being a deeply dramatic story with a quirky fringe surrounding it and quirky characters inhabiting some of it, it became a quirky film at it's core which tried to be dramatic but didn't have the weight at it's center to hold that type of emotion or power. "Nebraska" could have easily suffered the same fate if not for Bruce Dern's performance.

Dern's performance is similar in greatness to Jack Nicholson's in Payne's "About Schmidt", which in my opinion was the best performance of Nichoson's later career, much better than his Academy Award winning performance in "As Good As it Gets". Like Dern in "Nebraska", Nicholson uses his heavyweight talents, skills and status to keep "About Schmidt" grounded and real while the quirkiness swirls and storms around him. 

The supporting actors, including Will Forte, June Squibb and Stacey Keach are all very good, as are all the actors in smaller parts, who seem to be unknown local hires from Nebraska. Forte in particular does a very good job of playing it straight and not falling into the trap of relying on his substantial comedy chops. You can at times see Forte struggle against his comedic instincts, but he wins that battle and gives a very genuine and good performance. Squibb plays the sassy old lady character with glee, and she is good at it, although the character itself comes dangerously close too veering to far into her oddness and taking the film with it, but thankfully both Dern and Forte are there to pull her back and the film is better for it.

"Nebraska" is shot in black and white, and that decision pays huge dividends. The black and white is beautiful and gives the film a certain air of depth, timelessness and isolation that it might not have had if shot in color. The cold and vast spaces of the great midwest are highlighted and used effectively as reflections of the inner world of the characters and their relationships with each other by the use of black and white.

In conclusion, I really liked "Nebraska" and thought Bruce Dern was outstanding. I recommend you go see it. If you liked "About Schmidt" you'll like "Nebraska". If you liked "The Descendants"…then I have nothing to say to you. Absolutely nothing. 

Her: A Review

"Her", written and directed by Spike Jonze and starring Joaquin Phoenix, is a simple, yet completely original love story. 'Original' being the operative word when talking about this film and the talents involved with it. There may be no more original an actor working today than Joaquin Phoenix and Spike Jonze has consistently proven himself to be a true original as a director with his previous films "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation" and "Where the Wild Things Are".  With "Her", they have both created a unique and fresh spin on the classic love story, this time set in the near future with the object of affection being a body-less, voice-only computer operating system (think of falling in love with 'Siri' on your iPhone).

Every element of this film is intriguing and imaginative. The setting, a Los Angeles of the near future is both sprawling, foreign, anti-septic and vaguely familiar. The costumes, which are fantastic, create a future where some of the worst looks of the past are combined to reach greater and greater heights of subtle comedy. 

The cast is outstanding, with really strong supporting performances from Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Chris Pratt and Olivia Wilde. Pratt and Wilde both have small parts that  easily could have fallen prey to caricature in the hands of lesser actors, but they manage to create full and interesting characters with their brief time on screen. Adams and Mara bring a powerful, genuine feminine presence to the story that is vital in keeping the story grounded in reality. Rooney Mara has a particularly riveting scene with Joaquin Phoenix that is both extremely well played and at times difficult to watch due to its honest portrayal of remnants of love lost. She has a charismatic presence that is both combative yet fragile. Amy Adams does equally excellent work with a character she effortlessly and completely inhabits.

As great as the set, the costumes, the script, the directing and the supporting cast is, the straw that stirs the drink is the performance of Joaquin Phoenix. He brings the human, the heart and the soul to the film. His work is stellar. He is heartbreaking, frustrating, fascinating and always genuine. His physicality tells most of the story. Just watching how he walks differently at different times during the arc of his character is a master class in physicality. By embracing a physical approach to the role, he accentuates his humanity in contrast to his body-less girlfriend. Comparing and contrasting his work in "Her" with his work in last years "The Master", shows Joaquin Phoenix may very well be the best actor on the planet at the moment, he is certainly the most ingenious.

One last performance has thus far gone unmentioned, and that is of Scarlett Johanssen as the voice of the Operating System that Joaquin falls in love with. If it weren't for her truly terrific work in a difficult role, this film might not have worked. Her voice is so rich, so…well….human…that you can't help but fall in love with her as Joaquin's character does. What I think makes her voice performance so good is that she doesn't play it as a voice performance, she feels alive in the room. There are times in the film when she doesn't say something, and that silence, or hesitation, is what makes her seem so real, so human, so present. It is a credit to Scarlett Johanssen that such a beautiful actress is able to remain beautiful, sexy and attractive even when you take away her physical assets, which are considerable.

In conclusion, "Her" is a truly original film well worth your time and money, and deserving of much more awards consideration than it is currently receiving. It is the most honest, human and true relationship film I have seen in a very long time. I highly recommend it.

All is Lost: A Review

When I first saw the trailer for "All is Lost", the 'lost-at-sea' film directed by J.C. Chandor and starring Robert Redford, I was not the least bit interested in seeing it. The trailer made me think the film was one of those hollywood movies that tries to play itself off as being an 'independent' or 'artistic' film, but is really just another hollywood shlock fest without the least bit of subtly or artistry. Upon seeing the film, I now realize how fantasticality wrong I was in my pre-judgement.

"All is Lost" is a really remarkable film. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It stars Robert Redford, and only Robert Redford. He is by himself the entire film, and he barely says a word. Redford is one of the great under appreciated actors of his time, and here he gives what may be the greatest performance of his career.

The film is an existential meditation on aging, death, love, fear, God, nature, capitalism, humanity, Hollywood and Robert Redford's own life and career. It is beautifully photographed and Redford's performance is masterful.

To be clear, this is not a film for everyone. It isn't a typical hollywood film. My best friend, the inimitable Chaz J. Chazzington, absolutely hated the film, saying it lacked emotion. I had the opposite reaction. To me it is the film that "Gravity" should have been. It is Robert Redford facing the vast darkness of the abyss, by himself, which is how we all must face our own annihilation. Cold, scared and alone.  Redford's complex stoicism may not be enough emotion for everyone, but keep in mind, it's not the emotions shown in a film that count, it's the emotions a film conjures in the viewer that really matter. And "All is Lost" brought up deep emotions within me, such as fear of my own impending death, of my own annihilation, of my own regrets in life, of all the joys and sorrows I have experienced in this life, and how I will miss it when it ends no matter what comes after it. 

In short, "All is Lost" makes us look at all the uncomfortable things we would prefer to ignore. Life, death and the inevitability of our destruction at the hands of the infinite abyss that we prefer to ignore rather than acknowledge, and that bears down upon us every moment of every day. The abyss is the relentless Shark calmly hunting us in his frigid sea, it is the Wolf coolly trotting after us in his forest, waiting for us to tire, it is the Tiger silently stalking us through his jungle, waiting for the precise moment to pounce. These are the feelings that we as humans try to not think about or feel. We do everything we can to avoid contemplating our own inevitable demise. "All is Lost" skillfully nudges us to think about the unthinkable and the uncomfortable. I found it to be a fantastic film and well worth your time.

JFK and the Big Lie

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For it if prosper, none dare call it treason."

- Sir John Harrington

I had the great misfortune to watch a segment of the Chris Matthews Show "Hardball" on MSNBC today. I usually never watch cable or network news but I made an exception this week out of my curiosity for how the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination would be covered. During his show today, Chris Matthews did a brief segment on the assassination with former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, author of the book "Reclaiming History" which sets out to debunk any and all conspiracy theories in the assassination of JFK. The segment was a wonderful piece of masturbatorial propaganda. Matthews and Bugliosi both thought it absurd and ludicrous for anyone to believe that a conspiracy had or could have taken place. So, they spent the entire ten minute or so segment tearing down straw men and acting flabbergasted at how anyone could ever believe such conspiratorial madness.

I don't know why I was the least bit surprised, Chris Matthews may be the most empty-headed, vacant and vapid person on television. On his best day he is an intellectual midget, on his worst he is a blathering, emotive, syphilitic baboon. Just to show you I'm not biased against Matthews because of his political view point, which I am sympathetic to on some occasions, let me share with you another commentator on television who may be even more disgustingly insipid and intellectually inept as Matthews, and that's the blow hard over on Fox, Bill O'Reilly. Years ago while O'Reilly was hosting the show "Inside Edition" he was outspoken in his demand that the JFK investigation be re-opened because he felt there were many unanswered questions. Fast forward to today and O'Reilly has put all doubt aside as he's become firmly entrenched in the establishment, as he became the co-author of the creatively titled book "Killing Kennedy". Both men are wonderful examples of what is wrong with not only the media in this country, but the country itself. They are frauds and phonies, poseurs and pussies. I would wager they don't have a single testicle between the two of them. They are establishmentarians, and they worship power like whores worship money, or pigs worship shit. That both profess to be 'men of the people' is a bad joke, since they are mouth pieces for the elite, nothing more than tools of propaganda for the powerful.

To be fair to Matthews and O'Reilly, they are not alone. All week long all of the major networks and cable channels have been doing stores on the JFK assassination. I include in this list, the History Channel, PBS and all the myriad of other cable channels. Without exception, there are no channels covering or exploring the idea of a conspiracy. Not one. There are documentaries on Oswald and how he acted alone, documentaries on JFK's final 24 hours before he was killed by a lone gunmen, documentaries on JFK's lost home movies of his life before he was killed by a lone gunmen and of course the "Definitive Guide to the JFK Assassination" which features Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi, two staunch anti-conspiracy authors, and  much, much more. 

The media drumbeat for a lone gunmen is overwhelming, not a single contrarian voice is to be heard. Every show or segment on the assassination is a replica of the Matthews and Bugliosi charade, where everyone agrees that conspiracies are a joke and that Oswald acted alone of course.  What is so strange about this set-up is that these shows are allegedly predicated on there being contrasting views. You get one guy on the left, one guy on the right and you have them spout talking points for five minutes and the segment ends. Not with the JFK assassination, with this topic you get one or more people to come on and confirm the official story and say how ridiculous conspiracy theories are, the host agrees and everyone goes home happy in their superiority. I find this despicable and not the least bit surprising. The media always accepts the official story and puts all it's focus and energy on belittling alternative theories. The media's job has become to protect the establishment at all costs. The media has zero interest in the Truth, their only interest is in Power. Anything that challenges the establishment or it's power and superiority is eliminated.

One of the straw men that Matthews and Bugliosi dragged out was the idea that people believe in conspiracies because they cannot believe that a great man like Kennedy could be killed by a 'loser' like Oswald. This is the sort of speculative and emotive garbage that passes for thought in the media today. Couldn't the argument be made that people like Matthews and Bugliosi cling to the idea of a lone gunmen because they cannot comprehend the thought that the establishment would conspire to murder their chief executive? If that was the case both Matthews and Bugliosi would be unintentionally complicit in Kennedy's killing because they have worked to uphold the power of the establishment that killed him.  So, maybe we should put to bed the moronic idea that people can't comprehend that the great Kennedy could be killed by the nobody Oswald. Think of it this way, do we struggle to believe that a loser like Mark David Chapman killed the great man John Lennon? Do we conjure up imaginary conspiracies to prove that Chapman didn't shoot Lennon? No. So, let's stop with the pop psychological analysis of people who see the facts of the case and believe that a conspiracy took place.

The other strange thing that the media talking empty-heads do is never discuss the actual facts of the case. They accuse conspiracy theorists of doing nothing but speculating but then they themselves go ahead and do nothing but speculate. A great example of this is the book "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. He complains throughout the book of conspiracy theorists speculating about events, and then he spends the rest of the book speculating as to what happened and what Oswald was up to, except he speculates that Oswald acted alone as opposed to in a conspiracy. Bugliosi and Matthews avoided any sort of discussion on facts today as have all the channels all week. Not a single person has appeared on television to talk about the facts of the assassination, except to say that conspiracy theorists avoid discussing the facts of the case.

Matthews also said one of the dumbest and most historically illiterate things I've ever heard today during his segment. He was foaming at the mouth recounting how when he asked Oliver Stone how the parade route in Dallas could have been moved to allow it to pass by the School Book Depository in order to allow Oswald to be present for the assassination, he said Stone told him that maybe LBJ had gotten the route changed. This made Matthews lose his mind, he said it was 'inconceivable' to think Johnson was involved in the assassination. The mind boggles at this sort of ineptitude. LBJ became president when JFK died. A brief glance at history will tell you that leaders often get killed (throughout history it is more often than not that they get killed), and the person who usually kills them is the one who assumes power after them. Matthews may not like this fact, but it is certainly a fact. Does that mean that LBJ had JFK killed? Not necessarily, but it does mean that it isn't 'incomprehensible' that he might want JFK eliminated. Also, he was a powerful Texas politician with great reach and sway in his home state and had a bitter feud with not just JFK but his brother the Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. You could say you think it's 'unlikely', sure, but "incomprehensible"? I think not.

That is the thing that bothers me the most. The historical illiteracy. If you study history you will learn that of all the theories of history, The Great Man Theory, Marxian Theory etc., conspiracy theory isn't only a valid theory of history, it is the ONLY theory of history. It takes a willful ignorance or a staggering idiocy to see it any other way. That doesn't mean that there is a grand conspiracy connecting all of history, it does mean that in every single historical era, conspiracies have ruled the day. The establishment media would have you believe that only our era is devoid of conspiracies. We are somehow immune to conspiracies at the highest levels of power. That is so absurd as to be comical. Does that mean that all conspiracy theories are created equal? And all are true? No, of course not, not even close. What it does mean is that a study of history teaches us that it isn't the conspiracy theory we should be most wary of, it is the "official story" that deserves our greatest skepticism. If you believe the "official" story given by the government (any government), you are officially an idiot.

One last dead horse that every single establishmentarian, "official story" believer keeps beating is the idea that "three people can keep a secret but only if two of them are dead". Bugliosi said that exact thing today. This statement again displays a robust historical ignorance. Conspiracies only come to light after the powers that executed them have been eradicated. So if the JFK assassination were a coup d'etat, the power elites wouldn't exactly want it to come to light any time soon. They prefer to convolute the story and label any sort of conspiracy theories as unhinged thinking. Why do you think they haven't released all of the files regarding the case? If there is nothing there, why not release the files? The answer is pretty obvious, they have something to hide. Also this belief that conspiracies are impossible because no one could keep quiet for long is a statement that can never be proven, for with every conspiracy that comes to light, that would prove that every other conspiracy theory must be false, you see the tortured, circular logic in that? Conspiracies usually, but not always, come to light after the conspirators and their ilk have been toppled…see Sir John Harrington's quote above in bold face. (One caveat to this is that when people do come forward they are ridiculed, diminished or die. For example, did you know that someone in the CIA has come forward and admitted to being a part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy? Well, that someone is named below.)

In conclusion, do yourself a favor and never ever watch network or cable news. It is a cesspool filled with jackasses and idiots. It is a propaganda tool meant to lull you to sleep and convince you to not ask questions or search for answers on your own. The thing that the establishment media want to do at all times is to promote stories that are a tragedy and convolute stories that would outrage the populace against the establishment. The reason is simple, it is easy to manage a tragedy, it is difficult to contain an outrage.

Okay, now that I got that off my chest, let us take a quick look at some things you may or may not know about the Kennedy assassination.

DID YOU KNOW?

1. That the United States government officially believes that a conspiracy took place in the killing of JFK?

In the late 1970's the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church to investigate intelligence activity, found that a conspiracy to kill JFK was most likely. The committee forwarded their findings to the Justice Department and asked them to investigate the case. The Justice Department has declined to do so. Question, why do pundits and commentators in the establishment only believe the Warren Report and not the Church Committee?

2. E. Howard Hunt admitted on tape on his death bed to being involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK.

E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame, was a CIA operative who many speculated was one of the 'hobos' photographed being detained by police in the train yard behind Dealey place the moments after the assassination. Hunt's CIA career is a pretty fascinating and/or frightening one depending on your point of view. His work involved but wasn't limited to the Bay of Pigs, Watergate and the Nixon administration. He confessed to his son St. John Hunt on tape. E. Howard Hunt claims that the following, among many, were involved in the conspiracy.

LBJ:  Gave the order to kill Kennedy and used his position of power to cover it up.

Cord Meyer:  CIA agent and husband of Mary Meyer, a mistress of JFK.

William Harvey: CIA agent connected to mafia kingpins Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.

Frank Sturgis: CIA agent, Bay of Pigs veteran and future Watergate conspirator.

Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and alleged 'Grassy Knoll' shooter.

A topic for another day is E. Howard Hunt's connection to George H. W. Bush, and Bush's whereabouts on Nov. 22, 1963 and his connections to the CIA well before he become head of the agency. 

3.  According to Roger Stone, a political operative in the Nixon, Bush I and Bush II political campaigns, there is strong fingerprint evidence and eyewitness testimony that LBJ hit man Malcolm "Mac" Wallace was in the sixth floor of the depository when the shooting took place.

In Stone's book "The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ", he ties LBJ to a series of politically motivated murders in Texas, all done by farmer Marine sniper and LBJ comrade Malcolm "Mac" Wallace. According to Stone, partial prints found in the sixth floor of the school book depository can be matched to Wallace. Stone also claims that eyewitness testimony places Wallace in the shooters nest prior to the shooting.

Here are two pictures of LBJ, the first is him taking the oath of office in Air Force One en route to Washington after the assassination. Kennedy's body is in the back of the plane. The second picture shows Congressman Albert Thomas (D) from Houston in the background giving LBJ 'The Wink'. Pretty chilling.

4. The fascinating life and public death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

There is documented proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant, even though the FBI denied this fact for years and destroyed evidence that proved it. Oswald met with FBI agents on multiple occasions prior to the assassination, but the agents burned their notes for all of those meetings. Odd.

Oswald also spoke Russian. He spoke it well enough for his future wife Marina to think he was a native Russian when she met him at a dance in Russia after Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union. Odd for a man with a ninth grade education and poor grades to master a foreign language he wasn't familiar with while growing up.

Oswald also had classified clearance into intel when he was in the Marines prior to his defection. He renounced his U.S. citizenship and turned over his passport when he defected to the Soviet Union.

When he returned to the U.S. he was given money to travel by the state department and given his passport back and allowed to bring his new Russian wife with him. His defection was seemingly forgotten and dismissed.

Oswald's tax returns are still classified and have not been released to the public fifty years after his death. A reasonable explanation for this would be that he was an active CIA operative who was on the CIA payroll, a fact which would be easy to discover if his tax returns were released.

Oswald had no gun powder residue on his hands or cheeks after the shooting of JFK. Proving he hadn't fired a rifle that day. His fingerprints were also not found on the murder weapon after the shooting. A single palm print was found on the rifle days after the shooting and after Oswald's own death by an FBI analyst. The print is somewhat suspicious since the FBI were with Oswald's body in the funeral home where it was being prepared for burial, and no witnesses were present for this time period with the body.

In the final analysis, whatever you believe to be the truth, do your own research, do your own reading, come to your own conclusions. You may be surprised by what you find and how your pre-existing beliefs are challenged.

12 Years a Slave: A Review

"12 Years a Slave" is the story of Solomon Northrup, a free black man, who was kidnapped in Washington D.C. and sold into slavery in the deep south. It stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, with supporting performances by Michael Fassbender, Paul Giammatti, Paul Dano, Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt.  It is directed by Steve McQueen.

I thought the film was a work of subtle brilliance. The topic of slavery is one that is ripe for simplicity, sentimentality and overt moralization. This film avoids these pitfalls due to the mastery of the director Steve McQueen. McQueen shows the desolation, degradation and dehumanization of slavery not only upon those enslaved, but upon those who do the enslaving and also those who simply live in a world where slavery exists. The immorality of slavery has a corrosive and unhinging effect on everyone who lives with it, under it or near it. The dehumanization inherit in slavery is literally maddening for anyone coming into contact with it for any period of time. The mind and soul, whether of an individual or of a nation, cannot exist in balance while the cancer of slavery rages on anywhere within it's midst.

This theme of desolation, degradation and dehumanization is one which McQueen has touched upon in his other films as well. In "Hunger", the story of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands and his imprisonment and torture at the hands of the British, he shows the brutalizer as well as the brutalized pay a high moral price for the evil and sadism of torture. Again, McQueen doesn't judge his characters, or project any of his judgements upon them or us. He shows that the evil men are capable of doing far outweighs their ability to live with the evil that they do. We see the corrosive effects of torture upon those who do the torturing, something that would have been interesting to see in a film like "Zero Dark Thirty", but I guess that is asking a lot from a film that is nothing but propaganda.

In "Shame", McQueens second film, he tells the story of  a sex addict living in New York City. Again, he shows the effects of imprisonment upon the human spirit and soul. In this film the lead, very well played by Michael Fassbender, degrades himself further and further in order to satiate his addiction. He is entirely captive to his sexual impulses. He is both captive and captor and it drives him to the brink of annihilation. As the film ends, McQueen leaves us to wonder whether Fassbender's character will choose another path, the question is never overtly answered, but you can't help but feel he cannot survive life in a modern day Babylon with demons such as his. You leave the film asking not only will Fassbender's character survive in this culture of instant gratification, but will I?

Which brings us back to "12 years a Slave". In the film McQueen shows the moral degradation brought about by the dehumanization of slavery. Slave owners can start out good, kind hearted people, but they must rationally, morally and ethically contort themselves so much in order to make sense of their world so as to lose the ability to maintain any sort of mental or spiritual balance. The enslaved are obviously also victims of this moral degradation. They simply do whatever they must in order to survive. They not only have their freedom taken from them, but their dignity, humanity and sanity. That is the most striking thing about this film, it expertly shows the insanity of slavery. I don't mean that as a metaphor, but literally how slavery has a maddening effect on anyone who comes into contact with it and they lose their moral balance and their minds. Slavery is a madhouse. Up becomes down, left becomes right. Good becomes evil, evil becomes good. In fact, the films that come to mind in comparison to "12 years a Slave" are not slavery films at all, but films like "Apocalypse Now", where a man descends into the chaos of the Vietnam war in order to find a Colonel driven mad  by the hypocrisy and insanity of war, or the original "Planet of the Apes" where astronaut Charlton Heston lands on an bizarre planet where apes run the world and humans are mere animals, Heston finally screams "It's a madhouse, a madhouse!!"

In terms of acting, the work of Chiwetel Ejiofor is stellar as a family man snatched from his civilized world of manners and etiquette and thrown into the chaos of human bondage. Like McQueen, Ejiofor never falls in into the trap of being the noble, unbreakable spirit, as can be so common in films about slavery. What makes his performance, and the film,  so moving is that he does break. He is destroyed as a human being on every level. He suffers moral degradation from his dehumanization as much as anyone in the film, and it is most striking because we see that he started out a rational, thoughtful, decent man. He ends up being made just as mad as the rest of the people under the spell of slavery. In the end we see what Ejiofor craves is not freedom, or love, or family, but rather civilization, as shown by his desperately grasping at the formality with which the film opens. It is a fantastic performance because it could have easily fallen prey to sentimentality which is the nemesis of great art. That is also McQueens great strength as a director, he never ever let's sentimentality seep into his films. 

McQueen's other great strength is that he is a visual storyteller. He lets images tell his story as opposed to dialogue. The images are what gets seared into your memory and tell you the story on a much deeper level than conversation ever could.  Even when a scene is nothing but two characters talking, it is how McQueen frames the shot that overrides any words that may be spoken. A perfect example of this is a scene from "Hunger" where Bobby Sands has an extended conversation with a Catholic priest in a visiting room at the HMP Maze prison in which Sands is being held. The scene goes on for almost ten minutes, but McQueen never moves the camera away from a long shot of the two men. Sands and the priest sit at opposite sides of a table and the camera stays still for ten minutes as they talk and smoke. It is an amazing scene, both by the actors and by McQueen, to have the confidence and vision to hold a shot that long at that distance. He never needs to telegraph an emotion, which would've been the standard move in a scene like the Sands/priest scene with a cut to a closeup. That is what makes McQueen such a tremendous director, his avoidance of sentimentality and his confidence to rely on images rather than words.

In conclusion, I found "12 Years a Slave" to be a fantastic film. It isn't a typical Hollywood type film, it is much more subtle and smart than that. I wholly recommend it to anyone who loves cinema and wants to see a finely crafted performance from a powerful actor, Chiwetel Ejiofor. I also highly recommend watching "Hunger" and "Shame" for both the directing of Steve McQueen and the acting of Michael Fassbender. 

Finally, something to keep in mind when watching the film is how it relates to our world today. We look back upon the horrors of slavery and wonder how could anyone have thought it was a moral and ethical thing to do when it is so obviously morally corrosive and cancerous. Ask yourself, are there things in our world today that are as equally corrosive and cancerous? Aren't we all morally diminished when our country tortures? Or when we indefinitely imprison people without trials? Or we kill innocents or women and children with drone strikes? Or we start illegal wars of aggression in which hundreds of thousands or millions die? We have stopped the evil of slavery, but our moral decay, our spiritual cancer, rages on all around us and within us. We are all as complicit today as the citizens of the slave holding south were then. As a character in the film says about the south and slavery, 'there will be a great retribution for the evil that they've done', and so it will be for all of us as well if we don't wake up to the truth staring us right in the face.

Halloween: Respect the Darkness

" I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE DEVIL."

" YOU SHOULD, HE BELIEVES IN YOU."

I love Halloween. Well, let me clarify. I love Halloween in theory. In practice it is usually awful. For instance when you're a kid and you have a really cool or scary costume and then you'd go out to trick or treat and your mom makes you wear a coat. Halloween is just one more thing ruined by mom's insisting on winning the war against 'The Chill'.

 What I love about Halloween is the really scary stuff. Demons, ghosts, spirits, the unknown, the eternal darkness and the unfathomable power of the Dark Lord and of evil. You know what I'm not afraid of? Michael Myers from the "Halloween" movies or Jason from "Friday the 13th", or the one I hear a lot, Hannibal Lecter from "The Silence of the Lambs". You know why I'm not afraid of Mike Myers or Jason? Because I'm not a teenager having sex, which seems to be the only people those two take an interest in killing. Hannibal Lecter? He's a sixty something year old man! Why would I be afraid of him? If I run, he can't catch me because…HE'S SIXTY!! If I can't run I'm not afraid to fight him because….HE'S SIXTY!!! The only sixty year old man I could possibly be afraid of is an I.R.S. agent or a really bad surgeon. Okay, back to Halloween and my problem with it..

What I don't like about Halloween is the belittling and mocking of the darkness and it's power, or people being too precious and cute with their clever costumes, or the fad of women dressing in Halloween slut garb. To be clear, I am not against women dressing as sluts, in fact, quite the opposite, but I would argue that they should do it for the entire year and not just on Halloween.

I guess my biggest problem is that all holidays have been commercialized beyond recognition and usefulness by our capitalist/corporate culture. Christmas isn't about Jesus being born, it's about buying things. Going further back, Christmas isn't even about the pagan celebration of the solstice either, never mind Jesus. Easter is unrecognizable as a celebration of Christ rising from the dead, and somehow has turned into a bizarre ritual involving chocolate bunnies and chicken peeps, whatever the hell they are. I am not even a religious person, I just dislike the mindless and meaningless way we celebrate things for no reason whatsoever.  Even Halloween has been neutered by our vapid culture by turning it from an acknowledgement of the darkness in this world and in ourselves, into a bonanza for the candy and dentistry industries.

The need to be reminded that we are helpless and hapless in this life and the next is important. Life is not like a movie, (SPOILER ALERT!!!!) in the end the star of the film, you, doesn't survive, they die, always.  We all die. Our fear of the abyss in this life and after it is something we should embrace, because if we don't face it and embrace it now, it will most certainly devour us when we face it on the other side. A definition of respect is "intelligent fear". We respect a bear because it can kill us, we respect a shark because it can eat us, and so we should respect the darkness, both within and without, for it can and will, annihilate us.

So, this Halloween, don't mock the darkness, don't laugh at evil, don't belittle the Dark Lord. Be respectful, you'll be glad you did, for the Dark Lord never forgives and never forgets. 

Now…onto my three favorite films to watch on Halloween in a very, very dark house. 

THE SHINING:

There may be nothing creepier than the shot which follows the young boy Danny as he rides his Big Wheel through the deserted halls of the Overlook Hotel until he suddenly comes across the twin daughters of the previous caretaker. Kubrick is a genius, and The Shining is as masterful a horror film as has ever been made.

ROSEMARY'S BABY:

Mia Farrow is fantastic and heads up a brilliant cast which includes John Cassavettes,  Ruth Gordon, Ralph Bellamy and Charles Grodin. Another genius, Roman Polanski, masterfully builds an increasingly claustrophobic tension around his luminous lead actress. Polanski brings to life every mother's darkest fears.

THE EXORCIST:

No matter how many times I watch this film, it scares the hell out of me. A bunch of years ago I went and saw it in the theaters when it was released with previously cut scenes. One of the restored scenes had Linda Blair as the young girl possessed by a demon(maybe the Devil himself), walking on all fours, upside down and backwards down the stairs with her head twisted around. It freaked me the hell out. This film is an absolute classic. If you haven't seen it in a while, watch it, and try to get a good nights sleep afterward.

CLASSICS: Nosferatu, Lon Chaney and Boris Karloff

Classic films aren't everybody's cup of tea, but I really like some of the old classic horror films. Nosferatu is one of the best. The vampyre in it is pretty bone chilling. Well worth checking out.

As are the films of Lon Chaney Sr. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "The Phantom of the Opera", "The Unholy Three" and "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" are all worth watching.

Boris Karloff is best known for being the original Frankenstein, which is a great film to watch on Halloween. I'm not much a fan of the other Frankenstein films, "Bride of Frankenstein" and "Son of Frankenstein", but the original is cool to watch. He also starred as the mummy in the appropriately titled "The Mummy". I like Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Sr. a lot. Quality old time actors. 

GRAVITY: Or a Lack Thereof ?

I had the good fortune to go see the film "Gravity" last week. What follows is a spoiler free review. 

I really enjoyed "Gravity". It is an extremely well made Hollywood film.  It is tense, heart pounding and exhilarating. It kept me captivated for nearly two hours. It reminded me an awful lot of last years Oscar winner "Argo", in that this is the type of movie that Hollywood used to churn out all the time in the 70's. Quality idea, quality script, quality director and actors, add them all together and you get a quality film. It is an indictment of Hollywood that films like "Argo" and "Gravity", which are good, well-made films, are the exception rather than the rule.

The "Argo" comparisons also apply to the casting. Ben Affleck isn't the greatest actor in the world (he is a really good director), but he is a movie star. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney aren't the greatest actors in the world either (although Clooney is a great producer and good director), but they are certainly movie stars. Movie stars are very good at being themselves and being likable. Affleck, Clooney and Bullock have made fantastic careers out of being likable people. When you have a slam dunk of a story, like with "Argo" and "Gravity", and you have a very skilled director as both films have, then you don't need a transcendent performance from your lead actors. You just need your lead actors to be consistent and to put asses in the seats. Bullock and Clooney fit that bill without a doubt. 

I have never been much of a fan of Sandra Bullock, but I found her very likable in this role. She is still Sandra Bullock doing Sandra Bullock things, and George Clooney does George Clooney things, but that is really all that is required of them. The best performance in the film is that of "Space". Space/The Abyss is unrelenting and unforgiving, and makes for a perfect screen villain for Bullock to battle.

That's all the good news, the bad news is that the film is entirely forgettable. It is sort of like a delicious Chinese food feast that you thoroughly enjoy, yet leaves you hungry twenty minutes later. I was highly entertained for the duration of the movie, but afterwards could hardly recall any of it. There are no transcendent performances, no particularly memorable shots or scenes(just like with "Argo"). That doesn't make it a terrible film, it just makes it a watchable, well-made, yet forgettable one.

That all said, I am sure Sandra Bullock will be nominated for an Oscar, as will the film. Like "Argo" last year, Hollywood will probably want to congratulate itself for doing it's job and honor a star for doing hers. I look forward to the day when Hollywood churns out these types of films on a regular basis so that they don't deserve Oscar attention, but for now they are few and far between, so they will get lots and lots of award attention. 

In conclusion, I recommend "Gravity". It will entertain you, just don't expect it to change your life, or even your day. 

 SPOILER ALERT: A quick paragraph on a metaphorical look at the film with spoilers in it.

In a weird way I kept thinking about Bullock's big break-through role in "Speed". "Gravity" is like the grown-up version of "Speed", except much better. Bullock plays herself, only twenty years older and wiser after two decades of surviving the rough and tumble world of stardom. Clooney plays the Keanu role, just older and a little less dim, and "Space/The Abyss" plays the villainous Dennis Hopper role testing Bullock's mettle at every turn. If you look at the film that way, it becomes a metaphor for surviving Hollywood. Bullock has had her ups and downs and maybe even considered giving up, but she has soldiered on and never let Hollywood take her soul even though she has lost a lot, the least of it is her little girl, which obviously represents her loss of innocence, artistic and otherwise. Keanu, of course, was a big star, but has since drifted into the ether just like Clooney does in the film, presumably never to be seen again and also presumably by his own choice, and Hollywood as represented by "Space", is relentless and unforgiving and soul sucking. Hollywood will suck the life out of you if you don't have your protective suit on, and it is a devastatingly lonely and treacherous place for the few elite who get to bask in the view from above of all those little people down there. That is one way to look at the film, especially if your a metaphorical lunatic like me.  

BREAKING NEWS: Good Things Happening to Good People!

It's been very busy here at Mission Control, so please forgive the sporadic postings of late. To catch everyone up, there has been some shocking evidence discovered that proves the theory "Good things happen to good people" and disproves my previously long held belief that "Good things only happen to the most horrible people imaginable". 

Here's the evidence and the good people.

My dear friend, the beautiful and talented Christina Chang, can now be seen kicking ass as Megan Vannoy on ABC's "Nashville". Be sure to check her out every Wednesday night at 10 p.m., or catch up on what you've missed On Demand. Christina is as great an actress as she is a friend, which is saying quite a lot, so make "Nashville" a regular in your TV viewing.

This autumn it is full spectrum dominance from our Resident Rock God and all around great dude Dave Patten as he is currently touring parts of North America in support of his EP "On This Ledge". Just as Christina Chang is kicking ass in "Nashville", Dave Patten is kicking North America right in the ass. If he's coming to your town, definitely make the time to go and see him. He puts on a fantastic live show that is not to be missed. Follow the link to see the tour dates. 

Dave Patten Tour Dates.

The other big event in the Dave Patten full spectrum dominance invasion, besides crushing America beneath his Rock God boots, is that he is starring in his first feature film. "Delivery Man" starring Vince Vaughn and the aforementioned Dave Patten opens nationwide November 22.  

And last but certainly not least, the lovely and multi-talented Jill Latiano has produced a powerful documentary about genetically modified foods titled "GMO OMG". Please follow the link below to find when and where you can see this film. And trust me, you should really see this film, it is eye-opening to say the least. 

 "GMO OMG" directed by Jeremy Seifert

Congratulations to Jill, Christina and Dave. Here's to hoping you all continue to prove that good things can happen to good people!!

Stillness: Lessons from Redford, DeNiro and Penn

This past week Robert DeNiro turned 70, Sean Penn turned 53 and Robert Redford turned 77.  In honor of their births, let's take a closer look at their work and see if there's anything for us mortals to steal, for as the old saying goes, 'good writers borrow, great writers steal'.  The same certainly applies for actors. 

Robert Redford is easily the biggest movie star of the these three actors.  Redford is one of those rare actors who is actually under appreciated for his acting skills because he is such a big star and so handsome.  While his style is very different from DeNiro or Penn, it is in it's own way, just as highly crafted. 

The main thing that stands out in Redford's work is his mastery of stillness.  Stillness is a tremendous asset to the actor but an often overlooked one.  The key to mastering stillness is to not confuse it with stiffness.  Stillness is not a lack of fluidity, but rather a containment and control of a vibrant energy.  Redford's stillness is full, as opposed to stiffness which is vacant.  Think of Redford as an eagle perched on a branch.  It sits still but remains vibrant, powerful and majestic.  Redford's stillness is full of thought and intention, which gives the viewer the impression that he is a deep thinker and very smart, which is a great technique to fight against the usual stereotyping of good looking people, whether man or woman, as being less than bright.  

Stillness also draws the viewer in to the actor, it forces them to watch closely, for any movement is magnified and takes on greater meaning when it's surrounded by stillness.  It also helped in creating contrast with Redford's scene partners.  Think of the success Redford had opposite Paul Newman in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Sting". Newman's energy, both physical and emotional, was more chaotic and hot as opposed to Redford's which is controlled and cool.  Another example of this is in "All the President's Men" when Redford was opposite Dustin Hoffman, another more energetic and emotionally volatile actor, which further heightened and was heightened by Redford's controlled, yet full, stillness.  The lesson here is that contrast creates chemistry.

Stillness is also a big part of Robert DeNiro's repertoire as an actor but in a very different way.  If Redford is a majestic eagle on a branch, DeNiro is a hungry bengal tiger in a less than sturdy bamboo cage. DeNiro uses stillness and silence to create a very unsettling effect on his scene partners and the viewer. DeNiro's character in "Taxi Driver", Travis Bickle, often holds a steady look at another character for an awkwardly long period of time.  He doesn't say anything, but projects an immense sense of unpredictability and violence boiling just under the surface.  To strengthen this sense, DeNiro breaks off the stare and glances away for a brief moment, as if to think for a second, and then returns to it, fortifying the sense of the chaotic just under the surface.  It's a fantastic technique, one that is in many ways DeNiro's trademark, that he's used in most of his performances to great effect.  The key to the technique is that the silence and the stillness are filled with an energy and an intention.  When DeNiro stares at someone he isn't just looking, he's projecting his psychological intention upon them.  He wants something from them, or wants to do something to them.  As a viewer, you feel that intention just with his look and the holding of it.

DeNiro's Vito Corleone (Godfather Part II), Jake LaMotta (Raging Bull) and Jimmy Conway (Goodfellas) all have that same sense of controlled menace to them, that at various times roars to the surface and gives external life to the beast cultivated within.  Similar to Redford's stillness being well balanced by Newman's more chaotic energy, DeNiro's stillness, silence and ferocious inner life are often balanced by actors that are more outwardly chaotic and frenetic.  The obvious example being Joe Pesci playing opposite DeNiro in "Raging Bull", "Goodfellas" and "Casino".  Pesci's inner life is constantly being given voice and to great comedic effect, while DeNiro's remains silent, only showing itself through physical violence not words, with great dramatic effect.  The balance between the two strengthens their performances, and as stated earlier, contrast creates chemistry.

Sean Penn is an interesting contrast between DeNiro and Redford in that he is often filled with an unsettling energy that is in constant motion.  If Redford is an Eagle, DeNiro a Tiger, then Penn is a Shark, constantly in motion and with a voracious appetite.  Penn's kinetic energy feeds his characters and attracts the viewer in similar ways that Redford's stillness draws them in.  The big difference being that when Redford moves it takes on great meaning, but when Penn stops moving is when he has tremendous dramatic power.  A great example of this is his character Matthew Poncelet in "Dead Man Walking", Poncelet is always fidgeting, always looking around, always smoking, raving or bullshitting, but when he finally stops, and Penn looks up and you see his eyes, he is still for a moment, and we connect with him, we see his humanity and his soul, for a brief second.  Then he goes back to the movement, but it's that movement that makes the brief moments of stillness so powerful and revealing.  The moments of stillness with Poncelet are when we see him stop acting and start being real, and those moments are what makes Penn such an astounding actor.

You can see this throughout Penn's remarkable career, even in a comedy like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", Penn's stoner/surfer dude Spiccoli is not the typical stoner, slow and sloth like, he's always fidgeting and moving.  It isn't until the end of his character arc when Mr. Hand actually teaches him something by getting him to sit still that we see Spiccoli isn't just a brain dead dope but a complicated and caring person.

The same technique can also be seen in "Mystic River" where Penn's character gets more and more still as the drama heightens and he is begins taking action.  The more still Penn becomes, the more menacing he is, and that is heightened by his frenetic energy that fills his character leading up to the stillness.

One final example is Penn's work as Harvey Milk in "Milk".  Milk is driven by a righteous cause and fueled by the injustice he sees in the world.  Milk's internal engine is running at full speed and he is constantly in motion campaigning or politicking, but the only time he slows down and gets still is when he is genuinely connecting with another character as opposed to trying to convince them to join his cause or to get out of his way.  The stillness makes Milk human, and the audience connects to him because we see him truly, genuinely connect with another person, whether it be his lover, a friend, a staff worker or a troubled young man on the phone.  Penn's use of constant movement make his moments of stillness pack the dramatic power that he is famous for.

Redford, DeNiro and Penn are all very different actors.  For instance, DeNiro and Penn are both notorious for completely inhabiting their characters physically, changing their appearance, their speech and their gait, whereas Redford is more of a leading man who must use his craft much more subtle ways in order to give a standout performance. Regardless of their differences, they all share one thing in common, mastery of the power of stillness.  We should learn from their fantastic work and try to integrate stillness into our acting tool box.

Robert De Niro and Sean Penn: Happy Birthday to the Kings of Commitment!!

Happy birthday to two of the greatest actors alive. Robert DeNiro, born on August 17, 1943, turns 70, and Sean Penn, born August 17, 1960 turns 53 today. De Niro and Penn are icons of American acting and can trace their lineage as great American actors all the way back to the grandfather, or godfather of them all, Marlon Brando. Just as De Niro and Penn were judged in comparison to the master Brando's work, so will young actors today be judged by the work of De Niro and Penn.

A brief look at their resumes is all it takes to see why they reside on the Mount Rushmore of American actors. Shockingly, De Niro has only won two Academy Awards, one for Best Supporting Actor (Godfather part II) and one for best Actor (Raging Bull), but his work is so phenomenally great it is beyond being measured by awards. His work with director Martin Scorsese alone is better than some of the greatest actors entire careers.

De Niro gave astoundingly memorable performances in the Scorsese films "Mean Streets", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy", "Goodfellas",  "Cape Fear" and "Casino". His non-Scorses directed films are nearly as impressive, "Godfather Part II", "The Deer Hunter",  "Brazil", "The Mission", "The Untouchables", "Midnight Run", "Awakenings", "Heat" and "Silver Linings Playbook".

Sean Penn also has only won two Academy Awards, Best Actor in "Mystic River" and "Milk", but his work is also well beyond being judged by mere awards. Penn burst onto the scene as a twenty-one year old with a fantastic performance in the film "Taps". He then gave great performances in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", "Bad Boys", "The Falcon and the Snowman" and "At Close Range".  His work in "Colors", "Casualties of War" and "State of Grace" showcased his immense talent and skill.

He then seemingly disappeared for three years, only to reemerge with a supporting role in "Carlito's Way", soon after he starred as Matthew Poncelet in Tim Robbin's "Dead Man Walking". His mesmerizing performance in that film re-esteablished Penn as the greatest actor of his generation. He reinforced this position with stand out performances in "She's So Lovely", "The Thin Red Line", "Sweet and Lowdown" and "I Am Sam". Then came his two Oscar winning performances in in two very different roles in "Mystic River" and "Milk".

The amount of powerful performances De Niro and Penn have given is staggering. The one trademark of both of their work is simply: Commitment.  Physical, emotional and mental commitment to the character and the work.  What we can learn from both Robert De Niro and Sean Penn it is that we should take what we do as actors seriously, and take our craft seriously. When we do act, to commit to it, like a man who's hair is on fire commits to finding a lake. These men both teach us that if we want to act, and act well, we must commit to not only the part we are playing, but to the art and craft of acting.

My respect and admiration for both of these men, their work, their skill, their talent, their commitment, knows no bounds. I wish both of these iconic actors a very happy birthday, and I hope we see more of them on screen in the years to come. 

Constantin Stanislavski : The Patriarch

"Create your own method. Don't depend slavishly on mine. Make up something that will work for you! But keep breaking traditions, I beg you."

- Constantin Stanislavski

Constantin Stanislavski, the patriarch of modern acting, died 75 years ago today. It is no exaggeration to say that every performance we see in film, television and theatre today has its seed in the 'method' of Stanislavski. His rejection of a formulaic theatricality and his embrace of realism in all its varied forms, revolutionized the art of acting.

Although you can't get two different actors, teachers or schools to agree on what exactly Stanislavski's 'method' was, his approach is the foundation for every single acting 'school' around today. Like Abraham, who was the father of three great religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Stanislavski is the father of the three great 'schools' of acting, Strasberg, Adler and Meisner (and all the other ones too!!). You may think that's blasphemy. I think it's an apt metaphor, because those acting schools get along about as well as those three religions do, although to be fair, the acting schools do take themselves much more seriously, so conflict is inevitable. 

A toast to the Patriarch of Modern Acting, the great Constantin Stanislavski. We are all deeply in his debt. Oh...and go read his books, it's always best to go straight to the source material!!

"Unless the theatre can ennoble you, make you a better person, you should flee from it."

"Love the art in yourself and not yourself in the art."

Magna Mater: Edie Falco

Magna Mater is latin for "Great Mother", and is an apt title for a series of posts about actresses who have mastered, revitalized or reinvented the role of "Mother" on TV or in film.  Women, particularly women of a certain age, are really up against it in Hollywood's youth obsessed culture.  So, it is important to take the time and recognize the great actresses who have overcome the myriad of obstacles placed before women and succeeded despite the industry's sexism and ageism.

The headliner for the first Magna Mater post is Edie Falco and her portrayal of Carmela Soprano on HBO's "The Sopranos".  Falco won three much deserved Emmy awards for her work as Carmela, wife of mobster Tony Soprano (played by the late James Gandolfini) and mother to Meadow and AJ Soprano, her teen daughter and son. 

As good as James Gandolfini was as Tony, (see my tribute to the actor and praise for his work in my "Requiem for a Heavyweight" post below), Falco is the one who really had to do the more subtle and complex work.  Unlike Tony, Carmela CHOSE this life whereas Tony was born into it.  Tony was unconscious in most of his actions, a slave to his voracious sexual, violent and power hungry appetites.  Carmela on the other hand, was conscious of the nefarious ways that afforded her luxurious lifestyle but she chose to ignore it in order to maintain her comfortable life.

Carmela may have appeared a tacky New Jersey housewife, with her gaudy outfits and house, but a battle raged deep within her every moment of the day.  She was smarter, tougher and more genuine than the other mob wives but, unlike the other wives, she earnestly struggled spiritually with the choice of living the good life through 'bad' means. 

Carmela also wanted to be the voice of all that was good and right as opposed to Tony who was so tainted with the darkness of his work that he could never even understand his moral compass as much as he struggled with it, never mind be one to other people.  Carmela would chastise Tony, AJ and Meadow for their moral failings, all the while knowing she was a moral failure as well.  She would fight with Tony about his sexual escapades with other women, but failed to hold herself accountable for her emotional affair with the family priest.  She would be furious with Tony for withholding things from her, but she wouldn't tell him of her fling with AJ's high school principal.  She would agonize over AJ's lazy, entitled attitude toward life, but failed to see the moral compromises she made with her life in order to enjoy the good life that AJ enjoyed so much.

The key to Falco's performance is that she was able to be this walking contradiction while being very likable.  Fair or not, this is the key for women, they must be likable even when they are being a 'nagging' mother or a 'bitching' wife.  It is a high wire act for any actress, that's for sure.  Falco was able to do it by filling the spaces in conversations, or altercations with a vivid inner life.  In every scene she is in, it is what she doesn't say that is much more interesting than what she does say.  She would have been a superstar of the silent movie era because she is able to express an entire complicated story with just a look or a touch.

Carmela is a woman with a vivid inner life and a lot of secrets.  She keeps secrets from everyone with whom she has a relationship.  She doesn't say everything she's thinking to her friends, to her priest, to her lover, to her kids or to Tony.  She always holds something back even when she's been invited to speak freely.  She is too smart to let anyone know absolutely everything. 

A great way for the actor to build a vivid inner life that creates a dramatic tension in the open spaces of a scene, is for the actor to actually write out the things the character would want to say if given the chance, or if they had the courage or if they could be consequence free.  Fill yourself with the speech you want to give, the speech where you can say everything you've ever wanted to say, and be ready to say it at any moment.  Don't just write it out and think the work is done, be ready to say it, but choose not to in the scene.  This technique fills the actor with a sense of mystery and having a secret, and quietly empowers both the character and the actor in the scene. 

Another way to fill a character and a scene is with psychological intentions.  Falco is phenomenal at psychological intentions.  Just watch her scenes with the family priest to see this skill in action.  She yearns for the priest to make a move on her, to kiss her, but he never does.  Falco's yearning can be a result of creating a film that you play in your mind, for instance of your scene partner reaching over and grabbing you by the hair and kissing you passionately.  The more vivid and specific the movie in your head, the more powerful the intention and the effective the performance, and the movie in your head should include not just visual sensations but touch, smell and taste.  The film should be a multi-sensation, specific event for which you desperately yearn.  Psychological intentions are a great way to fill yourself, the character and the scene and yet still be in the present moment.  Intentions can also be tweaked to create a power dynamic between characters, for example, doing a scene where you have an intention for your scene partner to grab you and kiss you is very different than a scene where you want to grab and kiss your partner, it is a subtle difference in theory but a powerful one in practice.

So, Edie Falco shows us how to create an inner life in order to bring life to every moment we are on screen.  Watch her work as Carmela and you'll see her struggling constantly to keep her inner life to herself.  When her secrets finally do come out, in the finale of season 4, her explosion with Tony may be the single greatest piece of acting ever seen on television.  It is so visceral, gut wrenching and electric you feel as if you shouldn't even be watching such a personal, intimate moment between two people. If you do watch this scene, also take note of Falco's use of breath to tap into emotion and express the armageddon of her character's emotional world.  The scene is four years in the making, and all the work Falco did for every scene of every episode leading up to it, pays off in this ultimate climax of explosive truth and emotion. It is an absolute tour de force of a performance and one we should watch in the context of her work over the entire run of the show in order to fully appreciate it's otherworldly brilliance.

For her work as Carmela Soprano, Edie Falco is most deserving of the title Magna Mater, and Magna Actrix (great actress). 

Man of Steel: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Monotonous

Superman is a great American myth and archetype.  It is ripe for a quality re-telling of the story, just as Christopher Nolan re-told the Batman myth with his iconic Dark Knight films.  I was hoping Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and written by David Goyer, was going to be to Superman as Dark Knight was to Batman.  Alas, 'twas not to be. 

Let me say, the collection of actors in this film is a pretty impressive list. Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane and Laurence Fishburne have 11 acting Oscar nominations between them.  The failure of the film is not the fault of these actors.

Henry Cavill plays Superman and is perfectly cast.  He is impossibly handsome and is as ripped as you'd expect a Superman to be.  I first saw Cavill on the Showtime TV show The Tudors.  He is a fine actor with a subtle charm and dynamic presence, so I hope he doesn't get tainted by the stink of Man of Steel.  He has the makings of a movie star, but this is a bad film to kick off his climb to the top.  Henry Cavill is not the problem with Man of Steel.

As for the film itself, I won't go into the painful details, so no need for a spoiler alert, the only spoiler alert would be that the film is a steaming pile of excrement atop a flaming pile of even more excrement.  The main quality of the film is that it is relentlessly LOUD, for no other reason that I can gather except to make sure you don't fall asleep from it's suffocating monotony.  The story is at best incoherent and at its worst schizophrenic.

My best guess as to why the film is so awful, is that the director Zack Snyder wanted to make one film, the studio wanted to make another film and the producer wanted to make a yet another film.  I can only hope that none of them wanted to make THIS film.

In conclusion, this film is a wasted opportunity.  A great collection of acting talent along with an iconic character and storyline were not enough to make Man of Steel even remotely entertaining or interesting.  Superman Returns was an even more horrible Superman film from 2006, followed seven years later by the atrocious Man of Steel, so if history is any guide we won't have to wait very long for another horrendous Superman film.

The bottom line is that Man of Steel is more like Man of Steal…Audiences Money.

If you at the studios have any interest in making another Superman film, I ask that you please contact me.  I have a lot of ideas which may or may not be any good, but lucky for me lack of good ideas has never stopped you from making a Superman film before.  You have my number and my rates are reasonable....for now. 

©2013

Requiem for a Heavyweight : James Gandolfini

James Gandolfini died on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 in Rome at the age of 51. He is best known for his three-time Emmy winning performance as mafia boss, Tony Soprano, on HBO's "The Sopranos". 

I had the good fortune to watch the entire run of "The Sopranos" recently so the brilliance of Gandolfini's performance is very fresh in my mind.  James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano was one of those rare cases where the perfect actor is cast to play a character that is perfect for him.

The character of Tony Soprano could have been a cookie cutter caricature in the hands of a lesser actor.  Gandolfini, on the other hand, took a tired, old cliche and breathed fresh, new life into it.  Gandolfini was a mountain of a man,  at 260 pounds he was a physically imposing presence, and he was comfortable projecting his powerful presence on screen, but what set Gandolfini apart was that he had expressive, sensitive, child-like eyes.  You could sense his insecurity, sensitivity, his hurt and inner wound with just a look from those eyes.  When he turned in a flash into a hulking, raging menace, it was all the more effective because he was a hurt, confused little boy just a moment before.  His Tony was, in fact, a giant child, both physically and emotionally.  He was at once combustible and yet lovable, and always dangerously at the mercy of his appetites. 

The complexity of the inner life of Tony Soprano is what made the character so fascinating, so beloved and the show so successful. The contrasts between Tony's child-like soul, sometimes wounded and other times sweet and playful, and his violent and cruel actions made for as dynamic a character as there has ever been on television. 

Tony Soprano was, like many of us, a man at war with himself, with his conscience and with his sense of duty to his family and his "family".  That battle played itself out in every relationship he had, from his wife and kids, to his therapist and gumares, to his mother, uncle and sister and finally to his mafioso friends and enemies alike.  Gandolfini's innate talent, skill and commitment to craft are what made it possible for us to relate to a mafia boss on a human level.  Tony was one of us, with all the strengths we wish we had, and the weaknesses we wish we didn't.    

As an actor, James Gandolfini was what we all should aspire to be, he was successful because he was a master craftsman who loved his craft and honed it.  He didn't play the game, he wasn't a publicity hound, he didn't marry a movie star, he didn't inject himself into the maelstrom of our celebrity culture.  He simply worked hard to develop his skill and talent, and then he put his head down and went to work.  When he went to work he brought to life a character that is as good as anything we have ever seen on television and has changed the medium forever by opening the door for more morally and emotionally complicated characters.  

The world of acting is a lesser place with the loss of the heavyweight talent and artistry of James Gandolfini.

The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification: Part 2.

I have gotten a little feedback from my earlier post about the great man theory and the dangers of deification.  Here are a few comments from some clients and friends. The first comment is maybe the most important, a friend mis-read the title and thought it said "The Great Man Theory and Avoiding the Dangers of DEFECATION." I shudder to think of the myriad of dangers defecation poses for the actor. My main piece of advice in this area is something I tell all my clients, from beginners to big stars....Don't shit your pants! It is a simple piece of advice but it can take you a long way in this business, or any other.  While there is a chance your career can bounce back from a pants-shitting, you are better off not risking it and avoiding shitting your pants at all costs.

The other question I got was, "what are some examples of some actors who fell into the trap of deification?" (not defecation).  I am usually pretty hesitant to criticize actors even if they are big time well known stars.  The reason being is that actors, even big stars, may not have all that much power when it comes to the performance we see on the screen.  If it is terrible, it may be the fault of the director, of the script, of meddling producers, you name it.  Also, I just like actors so I don't like to attack one of my own tribe.  With that said, I do think there is value in critiquing a performance in order to learn something from it as opposed to indulging in shadenfreude.

A generalized good example of deification can be seen in virtually every portrayal of President Kennedy.  Lots of actors have played the role, and everyone of them gets stuck trying to impersonate the former President.  His speech is so distinct that actors get lost trying to imitate it and they end up playing the public JFK as opposed to the private Jack Kennedy.  The other issue with films about Kennedy is that filmmakers and audiences have deified him as well so they don't push for or want a nuanced performance, they want JFK to be a simplified hero because of his tragic death.  This is understandable and as I said in the previous post on the topic, the same is true of Martin Luther King Jr.  People are old enough to remember King and Kennedy or have seen video of them, so portraying them in a unique, honest and artistically complex way is nearly impossible because of the audiences expectations, and therefore the producers and directors expectations as well.  While a film about the less respected parts of their lives, like their womanizing, would be very interesting, it wouldn't get made because it would feel disrespectful to two tragic heroes of the American myth.  So we end up with one dimensional performances in generally simplistic films. 

Speaking of historical figures, let us take a look at the Academy Award winning performance of Daniel Day-Lewis in Steven Speilberg's "Lincoln".  You may be wondering how Daniel Day-Lewis is mentioned in a posting about failures in acting?  Let me say up front, Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor walking the planet today, and he did deservedly win an Oscar for his portrayal of Lincoln.  The issue though is deification, and while Mr. Day-Lewis wasn't guilty of it, Mr. Speilberg most certainly was. Day-Lewis' performance was pitch perfect.  He created a truly unique Lincoln, with a higher pitched voice than others who have played him for example, and an emotional and human frailty missing from other actors attempts at the part.

 Where the film fails, and I think it fails spectacularly (or miserably depending on your perspective), is in Speilberg's handling of the material.  For instance, Daniel Day-Lewis has zero control over the soft lighting that framed Lincoln like a halo whenever he was on screen.  He also had no control over John Williams' score that would soar like a valiant American eagle whenever Lincoln so much as entered a room or opened his mouth.  Day-Lewis had no control over Tony Kushner's trite screenplay, nor over Doris Kearns Goodwin's book upon which it was based.  Daniel Day-Lewis could only control his own performance, and he did it wonderfully, but he couldn't control Speilberg's worship of Lincoln and hence his turning the film into the canonization of St. Lincoln.  The film fails because while Day-Lewis created a living and breathing very human Lincoln, the rest of the cast and Speilberg and his creative team, undermined his performance by treating his Lincoln as if he were the dead Abe Lincoln resurrected and giving him the reverence and doe-eyed fawning that scenario would deserve.  None of us have seen Lincoln alive nor heard his voice and Daniel Day- Lewis was able to build Lincoln from his own creative genius.  Sadly, Steven Speilberg's creative genius seems to be only of use when sharks, dinosaurs or aliens are involved, and thus we are left with the wasted performance of a master actor in a self-righteous mess of a movie.

One performance that was scuttled due to deification cannot be blamed on the director.  The film was "Ali" (2001) directed by Michael Mann and starring Will Smith as the heavyweight boxer and self proclaimed greatest of all time.  

Will Smith is a major movie star and one of the biggest box office draws of all time so his playing the greatest of all time felt like a perfect fit.  "Ali" seemed to be an attempt on his part to try and garner more respect as an actor as opposed to a movie star.  He did receive an Oscar nomination for his performance but that may have had more to do with Hollywood politics than it did with his performance.   Will Smith is not only a movie star but also a rapper and had a hit tv show, "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" so he is someone who is known for oozing charisma.  He's made a phenomenal career out of his charisma.  Yet, when playing Muhammed Ali, one of the most charismatic men of the last century, Smith became wooden and dull.  He fell into the trap of deifying Ali, which is an easy trap to fall into since Ali is such an amazing man.  Smith wanted Ali to be the coolest man on the planet, but Ali wasn't cool, he had an inferno of rage blazing within him.  Rage against the injustice of racism he grew up under in Louisville, Kentucky.  Rage against the establishment that wouldn't recognize his greatness due to his religion (The Nation of Islam) and rage against the government that sent thousands of young men to die in a far off land for a fight that made no sense.  Ali was a cauldron of rage.  He may have channeled it into charisma, humor and his athletic prowess...but it was the rage that fueled him.

Smith's performance fails because he refused to see the complexity that made Ali so charismatic and electric.  Ali wasn't the charm, the smile, the rhyming poems or the  tomfoolery.  Ali wasn't a 'nice guy'.  He was a rough, tough badass of a  man.  Ali had a side to him that was nasty, mean, brutal and menacing.  Ali physically tortured opponents like Floyd Patterson whom he intentionally didn't knock out so he could inflict more harm to him round after round because Patterson refused to call Ali by his Muslim name.  He racially attacked and humiliated a friend, Joe Frazier, who gave him money when he wasn't allowed to fight due to his refusal to serve in the military.  He called Frazier an 'uncle Tom' and said he looked like a gorilla. This is vicious, brutal stuff but it's what also made Ali the greatest of all time.  He was a merciless assassin who would carve up his prey and brutalize them into submission.  Ali certainly is a great man, but what made him great wasn't the surface stuff but rather the internal life that propelled him to that greatness.  

Will Smith was creatively overwhelmed trying to play Ali.  When an actor of inferior ability and imagination comes up against a part demanding complexity and skill they either do the hard creative work and rise to the occasion, or they don't.  Will Smith didn't and we were left with a wooden, lifeless performance that fell flat and was an injustice to the complex greatness of a man like Ali.

Another reason Smith may have felt restricted in how he could play Ali was that Ali is still alive, and maybe in the back of Will Smith's head he was thinking to himself, "What will Ali think of this?".  Like millions of other people, Smith reveres Ali, and rightfully so, but that type of deification may have been what held him back from giving a more dynamic and complex performance.

Part of the struggle for an actor like Will Smith is that he is a movie star first and foremost and that is different from being an actor.  Being a movie star can be a wonderful thing for your wallet but a terrible hindrance to the actor's creative spirit.  But that is a topic for another day.  

I hope these few examples helped show what the dangers of deification can look like and help you to avoid falling into them.  The main lesson is this, when playing a great man (or woman), do not deny their shadow, their inner darkness.  Embracing the shadow of a great man (or woman) will help you create a more complex character and give a more nuanced performance.

My apologies to Will Smith and Steven Speilberg if my critiques offended.  I genuinely meant no personal harm as I understand you both to be two of the nicest and most generous people in the business.  You have my number if you'd like to discuss this posting.

The Great Man Theory and Avoiding the Dangers of Deification

The "Great Man Theory" is, in very basic language, a 19th century idea that history is driven by the actions of great men.​  Deification is simply the act of making a god out of someone or something.  You may be asking yourself, what does the great man theory and deification have to do with acting?  Well, let's take a closer look and find out.

As human beings and actors, one of our great weaknesses is our psychological need to make gods of our great men and women.  We project all sorts of positive attributes and noble motivations onto our 'great men' in order to give us something to aspire to and believe in.  History has proven that this is never a good idea as 'great men' always prove themselves to more 'man' than 'great'.  ​Yet the great man theory is the dominant theory of history taught to us from a young age in school and popular culture.  We learn that Columbus discovered America, George Washington founded the United States, Abe Lincoln freed the slaves and Elvis invented rock and roll.  We want a simple narrative and the great man theory gives it to us without getting us mired in any complicating details.

Similarly, in drama, whether it be film, tv or theater, we are told to find a simple narrative in order to tell a story. ​ We are constantly told by the gatekeepers of our culture that the audience want to be told simple stories with an easy to follow and understandable narrative.  As actors though, we want to flesh out our characters and give them depth, dimension and human complexity well beyond what any surface story would allow.  Our yearning for this creative human complexity is directly at odds with our culture's alleged demand for narrative simplicity.  So if we are fortunate enough to get to play a historically famous character, a 'great' man or woman, how do we swim against this tide of simplicity and create a character of depth and dimensions well beyond the typical one note portrayals given to us in history?

To start, we must set aside our personal feelings or beliefs toward the character.  This is where we risk deification.  Actors must avoid making gods out of the people they play. Why?  Because gods are one dimensional and boring.  Gods have no dramatic tension.  They are perfect.  On the other hand, people are interesting because of all of their flaws and foibles.  Actors are supposed to show the human condition, not the ​divine condition.  If we admire the 'great man' to the point of deification, we are falling into the trap of simplicity that strangles our imagination and creativity in the crib.  Deifying 'great men' is just as damaging to our creative approach as demonizing them. 

In order to better understand how to create a complex character out of a great man of history, let's take a look at some great actors taking on the challenge of playing 'great men'.​

Let's start with Ben Kingsley's Oscar winning portrayal of Gandhi.  Gandhi was famous the world over for being a revolutionary figure who kicked the British out of India through non-violence.  Playing Gandhi as a saint would certainly play to the audiences expectations and maybe even be accurate according to the script, but as a genuine portrait of the man Gandhi, it would be inaccurate and, frankly, one note and boring.  

In order to give the character dimension and depth, the actor needs to create a lush and vivid inner life that can drive the characters actions in their outer life.  Ben Kingsley is as good an actor as there is, so ​when he portrayed Gandhi he didn't focus on his gentleness, kindliness or saintliness, the script already highlighted those things.  Ben Kingsley dug deep into Gandhi and didn't find a soft, sweet and gentle love at his center, but rather he found a burning anger.  Gandhi was angry at the world, at racism, at the injustice of Imperial Britain, at man's inhumanity to man and finally at violence itself.  Kingsley has said that Gandhi is the angriest person he's ever played.  Now, he couldn't bring this deeply felt core of anger out in ways that weren't on the page of the script (having Gandhi punch someone in the face wouldn't fly), he had to be in the world like Gandhi was in the world, a man of peace.  The lesson from Ben Kingsley and Gandhi is this: external peace does not mean internal peace.  In fact, the opposite is almost always true.

Kingsley's Gandhi was invigorated and driven by this internal anger.  It drove him through the film and made him incredibly dynamic and charismatic.  Playing a historical man of peace is difficult, there has never been a very good portrayal of Martin Luther King for example, although that may have more to do with audience expectation and deification by both writers and directors than the lack of an actor to accurately play him,  Kingsley however, gives us the blue print for bringing a vibrant inner life to a man of peace.  It is to play to his internal opposites.

Denzel Washington's portrayal of Malcolm X is another example of a great actor bringing life and dimensionality to what could have been a performance undercut by deification.  Denzel Washington, along with Spike Lee's script, made Malcolm into more than just a noble and defiant civil rights leader.  Denzel played Malcolm X as a real man, one who was constantly growing and evolving, be it physically, emotionally, intellectually, politically or spiritually.  It is a truly beautiful performance which shows Malcolm in all his humanity and frailty, from his unconscious rage and desperation, to his righteous anger and defiance, to his disillusionment and finally enlightenment.  What makes Denzel's Malcolm so interesting is that he struggles, not just against outside forces, but against his own inner weakness and insecurity.  A lesser actor would have made Malcolm into a strong, charismatic leader who never doubted himself or his mission, the pop culture Malcolm we see on t-shirts.  Denzel avoids that trap by not making him fearless but rather filled with a complicated fear and self doubt.  Malcolm's courage in the film (and life) is accentuated by the fact that Denzel lets us see that Malcolm is afraid, but acts in spite of his fear.  Malcolm is at times on unsteady ground and unsure of himself, but he moves forward despite those fears and that gives the film and the portrayal the powerful dramatic tension that would have been lacking with a lesser actor (and director).

Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in "The Doors" is another great performance by an actor who easily could have fallen into the trap of deification.  Morrison is a legend, therefore Kilmer could have been expected to play him as the icon of cool that most perceive him to be.  Instead, Kilmer, informed by Oliver Stone's script, makes Morrison into a tragically flawed anti-hero that we watch self destruct.  Kilmer creates such a full portrait of Morrison by letting us see him not as just the cool, sexy rock god, but also as the cruel asshole, the creep, the drunk and finally the fool.  Both Kilmer and Stone should be applauded for the honesty of the Jim Morrison they put on film, for both were self described fans of The Doors and idolized Jim, but they didn't let their idolization (which is merely a different form of deification) get in the way of creating a full, dramatic and human character.  Kilmer's Morrison is fascinating not because he is a rock god, but rather because, as Morrison says of himself in the film, "I see myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being, with the soul of a clown, which forces me to blow it at the most important moments."  The fact that Kilmer's Jim is aware enough to know this about himself yet is incapable of doing anything about it, makes him an absolutely captivating and heart breaking character.  It would have been a terrible mistake and a creative crime to make Jim Morrison nothing more than the guy on the album cover.  Thankfully for us, Kilmer (and Stone) gave us the real Jim or at least a real man playing the part of Jim Morrison, which, in a weird way, is exactly what Jim Morrison was doing all along.  Kilmer masterfully removed the public mask of Jim Morrison and showed the human being behind it, and the film and the audience were better for it.

​These three examples show us that the key to playing a historically 'great man' is to embrace and cultivate opposites.  Gandhi's anger, Malcolm's fear and Morrison's clown are examples of creating a dynamic internal life of opposites in order to give a character's outer actions complexity and depth.  The secret inner life of a character allows the actor to be engaged on a level beyond a simplistic approach based on surface actions and gives us the chance to bring our own unique creative imagination to any character, no matter how famous and well known they may be.