Whiplash : A Review

**WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL AND FINAL SPOILER ALERT!!**

Whiplash, written and directed by newcomer Damien Chazelle, and starring Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons, is one of the best, if not the best film of the year. The film tells the story of 19 year old Andrew Neiman (Teller), an aspiring and ambitious jazz drummer in his first year at the acclaimed Shaffer Conservatory, and his relationship with the school's infamously demanding conductor, Terence Fletcher (Simmons). 

The film is nearly impeccable in all areas. First time director, Chazelle, masterfully creates and maintains a palpable tension throughout the entirety of the story. The storytelling is so streamlined and efficient that there is not one wasted scene or even a wasted moment. Every single moment is built upon the previous and builds toward the next. 

The performances by Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are unquestionably brilliant. Both actors deserve, at a minimum, Oscar nominations, as does Chazelle for the script and his direction. Watching this film and their performances in it, reminds me why I love cinema and acting as much as I do. This is one of those films which gives me hope that exquisitely sublime acting can still matter, and that artistic films of tremendous quality can overcome a business model and public that more often than not discounts them in favor of mindless big-budget retreads and sequels.

Miles Teller as Andrew, plays the awkward teenager, struggling to fit in and make his way in the world, so perfectly that it is, at times, uncomfortable to watch. There are no seams to Teller's performance at all, he simply inhabits Andrew in all his discomfort, desperation, need, ambition, sweetness and ugliness. Teller never makes a false step by veering into sentimentality or manipulation. He so thoroughly brings Andrew to life in such a genuine and organic way that Andrew feels familiar to us and so we recognize him from our own lives, as maybe our son, a brother, a desperate friend or God forbid…ourselves. The skill and power of Teller's performance binds us to Andrew so that we cringe with him, celebrate with him and deflate with him through all of his ups and downs. 

J.K. Simmons as Terence Fletcher has an energy that is so concentrated and direct that it is palpable. He pulsates with a focused ferocity and cutting brutality that is as magnetic as it is repulsive. His performance is, like Miles Teller's, the work of a master craftsman. It is specific, precise and distinct yet irresistibly dynamic. When Simmon's Fletcher unleashes his wrath, those around him only pray that he doesn't direct that energy at them, and when he directs it at someone else they put their head down, keep their mouth shut and thank the good Lord that it's the other guy getting it and not them. Fletcher is a cruel bully who emotionally, physically and mentally abuses all around him, but by the end of the film he is proven to be not only vindictive and vicious…but effective. Simmons makes this ferocious and callous man Fletcher a real person, so that even in his remorseless brutality to those around him, we never feel he lacks passion or doesn't care…it is just what he cares about and if it's too much, that is in question. Fletcher is interested in transcendent greatness, and will do most anything to see it form before him, including destroying those who lack the skill, and more importantly, the will, to be great.

The Fletcher character reminds me of the quote from the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds." Fletcher is death, the destroyer of Andrew's world and the world of all artists who aspire to exalted greatness. Fletcher is destroyer to Andrew's ego, his self-image, his worldview, his hopes and his dreams. All those things must be destroyed in order for Andrew, and all artists, to complete the hero's journey and become, not just a man, but a god who walks upon the earth. Andrew must leave his father, and his father's approach to the world (settling for 'good enough') and embrace Fletcher's (the unrelenting search for greatness), even if it is through spite and vengeance toward Fletcher, in order to complete his hero's journey. Andrew must be emptied in order to find the greatness that lives deep with him. Fletcher is the one who destroys Andrew's self and leaves him bloodied and broken in front of the world, and in that naked humiliation, at his lowest point, devoid of everything, Andrew is able to discover the greatness that was hidden within him all along. It is his anger and hatred at Fletcher that at first brings the needed vitality to birth this newfound greatness, but once it breathes the air of life and becomes manifest in the world, Andrew's anger and rage towards Fletcher fades and he is left in a state of near religious ecstasy as he becomes one with his drums in musical precision, passion and perfection. 

Whiplash works not only as a straight forward story of a young man coming of age as an artist and overcoming obstacles to do so, but it is also a great mythical tale of the hero's journey into the sacred ground of the gods and the gatekeeper who protects that sacred ground. Andrew is, of course, the hero on the journey, and Fletcher is the gatekeeper, be it the dragon, or Cerberus or the Sphinx, who puts all initiates to the test, and only those who pass his grueling gauntlet will be allowed into the inner sanctum of the gods where the treasure of golden music resides. Andrew must answer all questions posed to him, and survive all tests Fletcher-dragon puts to him, in order to even be considered for entry into the revered ground. And even after passing the tests, it isn't until Andrew releases his old self, symbolized as his being son to his father, and he walks away from his father and takes the offensive against the tyrannical Fletcher-dragon, is he able to prove his courage and worth and gain entry into the sacred land of the gods, where Apollo, Greek god of music, or Saraswati, Hindu Goddess of music, or Dionyssus, god of religious ecstasy and ritual madness, is conjured and made manifest in Andrew's playing. He then stops playing the drums, and the drums start playing him, the music and Andrew, are in the hands of the gods now, and the music that is a result of this mystical and supernatural intercourse is gloriously divine.

The hero's journey that Andrew embarks on is the same journey that all artists, be they musicians, actors or writers must go through. In my experience as an acting coach and teacher, the struggle I most often see is that of aspiring actors being unable to truly empty themselves and lose their old self in order to embrace the new self that is waiting for them if they only would have the courage to make the leap towards it. In working with actors, I am often reminded of the 'oedipal' section of The Doors song "The End" in which Jim Morrison sings of killing his father and fucking his mother. So many actresses I have seen need to kill their father, symbolically of course, to free themselves from the fear of his judgement, in order to become great. Actors need to kill their mothers (and fathers) in order to stop being sons, in other words children, and start being men.  Like Andrew, sons are always on the defensive, but when they 'kill their fathers', like Andrew did in walking away from his father, they are then free to go on the offensive, which is where freedom lies.  It has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of both actors and actresses lack the courage and the will to symbolically kill their parents, and their work suffers as a result of it. Parental judgment, whether real or imagined, can, and almost always does, destroy the freedom needed for artistic greatness to flourish, and leaves in it's wake the lesser choices of entertaining and performing. Thus all artists who strive for greatness must at some point kill their parents, again symbolically, in order to be free and empty enough to enter the hallowed ground of the gods where true greatness lies. Only once an artist kills their parents will they be able to complete their hero's journey by slaying their own personal Fletcher-dragon. This is the story of Whiplash, and it is the story for all of us who answer that most divine of calls, the sacred call to be an artist.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

BIRDMAN or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance): A Review

"The two hardest things in life to deal with are failure and success" - author unknown

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is the story of Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), a former star of the fictitious superhero "Birdman" franchise films, who is on the downside of his career and tries to reignite it by adapting, directing and starring in a stage version of Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. The film follows the trials and tribulations of the staging of the play, of Riggan's life and his descent (or further descent) into madness.

Besides Michael Keaton in the lead, the film boasts a stellar cast of supporting actors including Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Amy Ryan and Zach Galifianakis. All of them turn in solid and sometimes spectacular performances. Norton in particular is really great as Mike Shiner, a stage actor intensely committed to his craft and work. 

Keaton is the best he has ever been in the lead role of Riggan Thomson. He effortlessly captures Riggan's desperation, emptiness and regrets, both professional and personal. Keaton emanates Riggan's frantic need to be famous, important, respected and loved (both by others and himself), and that reeking stink of desperation seeps through his every pour and envelops and follows him wherever he goes.  Keaton as Riggan is both charismatic and repulsive at the same time, no easy feat, and he carries the film with the power of his performance as a man running out of performance power.

"Popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige" - Mike Shiner

The symbolism of having Keaton play the lead is undeniable. Keaton has been identified for decades by his portrayal of Batman in the first few Tim Burton Batman movies of the 80's. In many ways, Keaton's once promising career never fully recovered from being Batman. His wallet certainly never suffered from playing the Caped Crusader, but his artistic soul, instincts, reputation and career most assuredly did. Keaton, just like Riggan Thomson, had not only lost his artistic soul, but he had also lost the thing most precious in the entertainment industry…cultural relevance. Riggan's staging of a 'comeback' play is on one level, an attempt to save his artistic soul by returning to the birthplace of acting…the theatre, and doing a work by Carver, a writer who once encouraged a young Riggan to really pursue being an actor. But as the ice cold theatre critic Tabitha Dickinson (brilliantly played by Lindsay Duncan) tells Riggan, "You aren't a real actor, you're a celebrity". Ouch…the truth hurts, as they say, because on another level Riggan proves Tabitha right, by using his return to the theatre as just a way for him to get some temporary artistic credibility (Mike Shiner's aforementioned 'prestige') in order to return to cultural relevance, and thus fame ('popularity'). Of course, the same could be said of Keaton, who in returning to a smaller, independent, art-house type film, is trying to re-ignite not only his long lost acting credibility (prestige), but also his fame and cultural relevance (popularity). Keaton has gotten nominated for a Golden Globe and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets an Oscar nomination, which brings with it prestige. So this film may work for him on both the prestige and popularity counts. Time will only tell how things play out, I certainly hope he doesn't fling himself out of a high-rise window.

What is fascinating about Birdman is that it plays with the multiple ways in which reality is perceived from an artists (or at least an actor's) point of view, and lets all of those various realities mix together to help the viewer try and understand why Riggan is so out of and off balance. His world and his perception of the world never settles down enough for him to stand firmly upon it and claim one reality as his own, so he stumbles from one perception of reality to the next, never fully understanding any one that he inhabits.

Riggan has a sign up on his dressing room mirror which reads, "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing". This is a bit of wisdom that Riggan is never fully able to integrate into his psyche. Riggan, like most famous people, or formerly famous people, is stuck between being an actual human being and being a human creation. Is he defined by what people are saying about him on Facebook, or how many twitter followers he has? Is he defined by what the critics say of him? Or of what studio heads think of him? Or of what films roles he is offered, or how many awards he has won, or how much money he makes? Or is he defined by his past success as Birdman, or has his past success as Birdman actually become a failure and does that define him? All confusing stuff but it can be boiled down to this…there are two questions that famous people, whether they be actors, reality stars, cable news talking heads, politicians or general wannabes wrestle with on an everyday basis…1. what do people think of me? and 2. what do the really important people think of me?….and not always in that exact order.

The artist is not spared in the distorted perception of reality discussion either. Edward Norton's Mike Shiner is a successful broadway actor, the quintessential stage actor. He is so lost in his art that he is unable to actually be a real, live person anywhere except on stage in front of an audience. He is so committed to his art in fact, that the only time he has been able to get an erection in the last six months is on stage in front of a live audience during a performance of Riggan's 'comeback play'. He is self aware enough to know that he is a disaster area of a human being, but is so cocksure as an actor that he is willing to overlook the 95% of his life off-stage in order to 'shine' for that 5% of the time he is on stage. The artist, along with the fame hungry star, can lose their balance in the search for their validation of choice. As Mike Shiner puts it, "popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige". Shiner is the artistic shadow of Riggan, and in turn, Riggan is the shadow of Shiner, both distorted by their quest, one for popularity, one for prestige. Flip sides of the same coin.

"I do not like the man who squanders life for fame; give me the man who living makes a name" - Emily Dickinson

The lesson to take from Birdman, (and a life in the acting business) is that fame is a disease. The pursuit of it is an act of the insane. With fame comes a deep moral and ethical decay and rot. The world of the famous is filled with corruption, depravity, self-loathing and paranoia. When a person attains fame, they cease to be a human being, and morph into a soul-less product. Just like any large corporation, be it Exxon, Time-Warner or Goldman Sachs, the famous may have legal 'personhood' but they are not actual human beings.  This is the sickness of fame. It strips those who have it of their human being-ness, and that is why it strips those of us looking upon them of our humaneness. We project all of our hopes and fears upon them, often all at the same time. When a person is so inundated with all of these projections, they can't help but be overwhelmed by them as if by being struck by a tsunami. Their true selves get obliterated, and the person they were, for good or for ill, vanishes, and is replaced with a new self, that is false and manufactured. The only antidote to the disease and addiction of fame is to actively work against it and to cultivate a grounded life and a sense of true self. Fame as an off-shoot of being genuinely talented, is difficult enough, even when it is vigorously shunned, but fame that is a result of  sheer ambition and force of will that is pursued to fill a desperate psychological need or satiate a malignant narcissism, is an act of madness that will most assuredly result in self immolation. Birdman lays that hard truth bare for all to see, and it is a lesson that America would be wise to learn in this age of the reality television star and the celebration of the minimally talented.

"Whatever begins, also ends" - Seneca

As much as I enjoyed Birdman, and I genuinely did, there is one major flaw, and in some ways it undermines the entirety of the film. The ending is terribly bungled, so much so that it leaves me scratching my head because they actually had the chance to end it perfectly twice and let those endings pass and instead settled for a muddled and bewildering ending that scuttles the interest and brilliance that leads up to it. The film ends with Riggan jumping out a hospital window, and his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) entering the empty hospital room and not finding her father and seeing the window open she goes to it and looks out. First she looks down, as if to find his body splattered on the sidewalk, when she doesn't, she then looks up…and sees something and smiles. We don't see what she sees, but I would assume that Riggan has become The Birdman, or a legend and now resides among the stars or something along those lines. He has become immortal at last. That ending is fine in and of itself, but it doesn't work because in the context of the film, there were not one but two different endings leading up to it, thus altering and undermining the final beat of the movie. The first aborted ending is when Riggan is on stage with a real gun and not the prop gun of the play, and holds it to his head and pulls the trigger in front of a packed house on stage. The screen goes black. The film could have ended there and people would have left talking about it. How people will literally (and figuratively) kill themselves for fame and stardom. This is a major theme running through the American psyche at the moment and numerous films are exploring the subject, from Whiplash to Foxcatcher to Birdman. The 'shooting yourself on stage' ending leaves us talking about those type of issues and our celebrity and fame infected and obsessed culture as we leave the movie theatre and for days and weeks after. 

The second ending comes right after the first, we come back from a black screen following the shooting to find Riggan in the hospital, he survived, but he shot his nose off. He has literally (and figuratively) cut, or in this case shot, his nose off to spite his face. On the other hand, he is on the cover of all the newspapers and the hot topic on television, everyone is talking about him, and even giving him great reviews. He is back to relevance, both artistic and fame-wise, prestige and popularity. He sits in bed thinking about it all, the madness of it, the hell that was fame when he once knew it, the road that lies ahead of being back in-the-mix of the decadent, vicious, vapid and vacant world of hollywood and pop culture. Keaton is brilliant in this scene, he captures Riggan's conflicted feelings and fear perfectly. It would have been an absolutely fantastic way to end the film, with just a close up of Keaton as he hears that he IS BACK ON TOP, and seeing what that really means to someone who has lived through it before and knows he won't live through it again this time, and how empty and toxic the prize he has just won really is. Cut to black…prepare Oscar speech. But again, they didn't do that, they instead have a few more minutes of the film which just aren't necessary and which undercut the brilliance that preceded it and disrupt and alter the rhythm of the film. I have been trying to figure out why the decision to end the film where they did was made, it is baffling. It isn't a more 'hollywood' ending, in fact it is still an 'art house' ending, just a more muddled and less coherent one. And of the three artistic endings it could have used, it is without question the weakest. 

As a result of the unskillful ending of the film, I had the experience of finding the film to be…well...forgettable. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy the experience of watching it in the theatre, and it is also not to say that it isn't a good film, it is to say that by faltering at the end the film does not end up staying with you for very long. You don't walk out of the theatre and talk about it for hours. You don't think about it and mull it over for the following days and weeks. The film had the chance to be a sumptuous feast if it had gotten its ending right, but instead it lurches from one false ending to the next, which ultimately, like chinese food, leaves you hungry twenty minutes later.

In conclusion, Birdman is a very good film that I really enjoyed watching, with solid and sometimes spectacular performances by the entire cast, but it misses out on being a great film by not getting the oh-so-critical ending right, and that is a terrible shame. As I said, I did enjoy the film, but I do wonder if 'normal' people, in other words, 'non-actors' or 'non-entertainment industry' people will enjoy it quite as much as I did. But with all that said I recommend you go see it, if for no other reason than to get a glimpse into the madness of the life of being an actor, or even worse...a successful actor.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

FOXCATCHER and the Problem of Perspective

WARNING: SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!! READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A FOXCATCHER VIRGIN!!

In January of 1996, John du Pont, heir to the massive du Pont family fortune, shot and killed Olympic gold medal winning wrestler Dave Schultz in front of the house Schultz lived in with his wife and two children on the sprawling du Pont family compound. I remember when this incident occurred and watching the national news stories about it, which were heightened because of du Pont's famous family name and tremendous wealth and Dave Schultz's standing as an American Olympic hero. After committing the murder John du Pont locked himself in his home and refused to come out. It all had the shades of a sort of O.J. Simpson type of situation. The stand off with police lasted two days before John du Pont was apprehended. It was a riveting, fascinating and incredible story. The one thing I remember most from watching the story unfold in real time was asking myself the question, why would a guy with so much money and power, the things we are taught to value the most here in America, throw it all away by killing an olympic hero? What was the real story? It was a compelling mystery and I always thought that answering that question would make a great movie. Which is why I was so excited to see the story made into the film Foxcatcher, directed by Bennett Miller and starring Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo.

In the film, Channing Tatum plays Mark Schultz, an olympic wrestler and Dave Schultz's younger brother, Mark Ruffalo plays Dave Schultz and Steve Carrell plays the eccentric John du Pont. The main focus of the film is the odd relationship between Mark Schultz and John du Pont who is one very strange wrestling enthusiast and philanthropist.

Since nearly twenty years had passed since the murder, I had forgotten the majority of the details of the crime, and only vaguely remembered the basics of the story, and upon seeing the film I realized I had mis-remembered a lot of the actual story, so consequently I was surprised by how the story played out. Usually being surprised by a film is a really good thing, but in the case of Foxcatcher, the reason I was surprised was also the reason the film fails, and that is because the film has a gigantic problem with the basics of storytelling perspective. To illustrate my point I have to give away the end of the film, so even though I've already given a SPOILER ALERT at the top, here is your final SPOILER ALERT. 

The biggest issue with the film is that it never comes to terms with it's perspective problem. The film is shown from Mark Schultz's perspective. We see everything play out from his point of view. Miller uses the camera to show us what Mark sees through his eyes, and we hear what Mark hears, we experience the world as Mark experiences it. This technique creates a connection between the viewer and Mark. We empathize with him, we root for him, we project ourselves onto him. The choice to do this is a really critical error in telling this story. The filmmaker had basically four perspectives to choose from in telling the story. There was Dave Schultz's perspective, John du Pont's perspective, Mark Schultz's perspective and there is the 'God' perspective, where the audience sees everything and knows everything. Miller chose Mark's perspective, which to me is the weakest perspective to choose of the four because in reality, Mark is a secondary character in the story, but in the film they make him the main character. The main characters in the real-life drama are Dave Schultz and John du Pont. They are also the more interesting characters. That is not to say that Mark isn't interesting, it is just to say that he isn't AS interesting as Dave Schultz and John du Pont.

An example of how Miller establishes that this is Mark's story, and why he shouldn't have, is one sequence where Mark, who at this point in the story has turned against his one time benefactor du Pont, must work out extra hard prior to a weigh-in in order to lose the twelve pounds he gained in a self-loathing binge the night before, in order to be allowed to wrestle. In the sequence Mark rides a stationary bike in the bowels of an arena trying to sweat out the weight while brother Dave encourages him. Then we see du Pont enter the hallway in front of them and Mark is obviously unhappy to see him, so Dave intercepts du Pont before he can get into ear shot of Mark and he has a conversation with him. Just like Mark, we don't get to hear that conversation, we only get to see it occur through Mark's eyes and through the glass of the door. That would have been a great scene to watch and listen to. The older brother protecting his little brother from the strange du Pont, but also keeping du Pont happy because du Pont was Dave's benefactor at this point too, and Dave has a wife and young kids to feed. We don't get to see that scene up close or hear it at all, that is the choice director Bennett Miller made. That is okay, and could have worked in the film if the actual, real-life story turned out another way, with du Pont shooting Mark instead of Dave (which is what I thought would happen since I mis-remebered the true story and since the film was showing us everything through Mark's perspective), or with Mark at least being present for the shooting. But it didn't. In the end, when du Pont shoots and kills Dave, Mark is all the way across the country when it happens, and entirely off-screen.  In the climax, we see everything that Mark couldn't see after spending two hours seeing only what he could see, and on top of that, we are never even allowed to see Mark's reaction to the news of the murder. We never get any closure with the story because we have been forced, through the choice of the director, to project ourselves onto Mark for the first two hours of the film, now in the final act of the film, we are abruptly and jarringly pulled from that perspective and thrown into the "God" perspective of seeing all. The film ends with Mark in an arena about to go into an octagon and compete in an MMA fight, but as the scene begins he sits backstage waiting to go on. I kept thinking someone would come up and say "Mark, phone call" and he'd go to a pay phone and get the news that the creepy du Pont had killed his brother, but we never got that.  That scene never happens and it is such a massive mistake on such a basic storytelling level that is is absolutely shocking. The ending of the film undermines the entire choice to use Mark's perspective to tell the story. It makes absolutely no storytelling or filmmaking sense. Never getting to see the impact of Dave's death on Mark is not only a truly baffling filmmaking decision, but an unforgivably wasted opportunity.

Part of why that is a wasted opportunity is because it would have been a great scene to see Channing Tatum sink his teeth into. I must admit, I have never really understood the Channing Tatum phenomenon. I know women go crazy for him, but I just don't get it (not surprisingly), and I have never seen him be anything other than passable in terms of acting on film. I don't think he's terrible, I just don't think he's ever been very good, or much of anything for that matter. But to his great credit, he does a really good job as Mark Schultz, and I would've appreciated seeing him tackle the scene where he learns of his brother's murder. What I did really admire about his performance was that he fully committed to the part physically. He had a very distinct gait and carriage and even transformed how he held his jaw and forehead. When you are Channing Tatum, you don't have to do stuff like that. He could have just gotten all ripped physically and been a piece of eye candy, but instead he decided to actually become another person and inhabit a character. I commend him for the hard work and putting thought and time into it. It is a sad thing to say, but an actor actually committing to their work and doing their job is worthy of praise in the Hollywood of today.

Mark Ruffalo is fantastic as the older, and more successful, brother, Dave Schultz. His complicated relationship with his younger and more emotionally fragile brother Mark is a really rich and layered piece of work. We don't get to see too much of his relationship with du Pont, which is a shame because it really would have been fascinating to see him handle the eccentricities as deftly as possible while trying to keep the money train flowing in order to provide for his family. Again, another wasted opportunity that is all the more glaring since the majority of the film is undermined by the final fifteen minutes. I think using Dave's perspective to tell the story would have been a much wiser storytelling choice and also would have let us see much more of the subtle and intricate performance that Ruffalo delivers.

Steve Carrell's work as John du Pont is good but I have to say, through no fault of his own, it feels incomplete. Carrell embraces the oddities and eccentricities of du Pont, and there are lots of them, and he believably transforms himself into the character, but once again, the choice of using Mark's perspective to tell the story robs us of the chance to really get to know du Pont, to get into his head and to understand him on anything other than a surface level. I would have loved to see just a single scene of John du Pont by himself in a room, for instance. Carrell is much more than just a comedic actor, and I would have really loved to see him get the opportunity to do more with such a fantastic part, but sadly the script does't permit it and the film suffers for it. A really fascinating film would have been one told from John du Pont's perspective because he is the real mystery in all of this. The film never really even approaches the topic of why, exactly, John du Pont killed Dave Schultz. I have done a bunch of reading on the murder since seeing the film, and the more I read about it, the more obvious it is that the story of John du Pont, and the twisted and dark world residing in his head, is the real treasure that the filmmakers should have gone after.  But I guess they didn't have the courage to reach for that brass ring. Their film is so much the lesser for it.

Foxcatcher is one of those films that really could have been great. It is a fascinating story with really unique characters and is populated by a cast of very talented and interesting actors. It has all sorts of intriguing issues boiling just underneath it's surface…America's corruption, moral decay, and hypocrisy, class warfare, the degradation people will sink to in order to get money, fame or success.  But sadly, the film, not unlike John du Pont the man, is a failure, and not unlike the murder of the great Dave Schultz, I think it is a senseless and tragic waste.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

Gone Girl: A Review

This first review contains ZERO spoilers!!

Gone Girl reminds me of Spinal Tap's eleventh studio album, "Shark Sandwich".

Simply stated, Gone Girl should stay gone.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS MULTIPLE SPOILERS!!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!

I am Jack's Wasted Life

Immediately as the credits rolled, after sitting silently for the full two and a half hours of Gone Girl (directed by David Fincher, written by Gillian Flynn), a middle aged woman sitting in the row behind me proclaimed, very loudly, her opinion of the film to her female companion, "That was the most morally reprehensible film I have ever seen!" she bellowed. I was able to decipher from the rest of the diatribe that followed, that she was deeply offended by what she perceived to be the film's misogyny. I understood her argument but I didn't think the film raised, or lowered as the case may be, itself to the standard of "most morally reprehensible film I have ever seen". Most artistically reprehensible film? Now that's a different story.

To be clear, I have not read the book Gone Girl. (As my friend Chaz J. Chazzington says, "Reading? What are you a nerd?" ) Nor have I read or heard any reviews or opinions of the film. I was a 'tabula rasa', as they say, in regards to Gone Girl when I went to see it.  After watching it, I wish I could go back to that more pleasant time in my life when I had no knowledge of Gone Girl at all. That time, so peaceful and pleasant, seems very far away now, and the real tragedy is…I know I will never be able to return to it.

I am not sure where to begin in my critique of Gone Girl. The film fails in so many ways and on so many levels, that I'll be damned if I can just pick the one most glaring reason why it is no good. I guess I will do what the filmmakers did and just throw shit against a wall and let you, the reader, pick things out and try to make some semblance of order out of it.

I am Jack's Inflamed Sense of Rejection

First off, the film has no purpose. None. It might be trying to say something about modern tabloid culture, or suburban middle America, or marriage, or relationships, or exploitation, or appearances…maybe. But there is nothing, not a single thing, that is original, unique or interesting in the entire film. It says nothing, it does nothing, it means nothing. It just is. It doesn't even look great, which for a David Fincher film, is quite shocking. Some people might say, "well…it's a movie, it is just meant to entertain!" Ok, I can get on board with that..except…Gone Girl isn't even mildly entertaining. It is not something you are entertained by, it is something you endure. It is a muddling, befuddling, bewildering exercise in mindlessness. It exists only to support it's own existence.

I am Jack's Raging Bile Duct

Speaking of no purpose…who cast this film? This film boasts, in pivotal roles, not only Doogie Howser (Neil Patrick Harris) as an obsessive boyfriend who gets his throat cut, but also Medea (Tyler Perry) as a cut-throat New York city defense attorney. How is that a good idea? You couldn't find two better actors, actors with more heft, skill and edge to them than Doogie Howser and Medea? If this was an episode of Law and Order or CSI, then I'd say, good job, but this is a major studio motion picture with a budget north of $60 million dollars. You couldn't find ANYONE better than Doogie and Medea to fill those roles?  If you don't take your own film seriously, why should I?

Ben Affleck plays the lead, Nick Dunne, and he is…fine. I like Ben Affleck, I don't think he is a particularly good actor, but I think he is a good director and frankly I root for him to do well for no other reason than he seems like a nice enough guy. (For instance it was nice to see Ben, an 'empty-headed actor' passionately stand up to Bill Maher and Sam Harris and all of their intellectual midgetry on Real Time with Bill Maher last week.) What Ben Affleck brings to a movie is minimal, and that is okay. Sometimes you don't need a leading man to bring much to a film (see early Tom Cruise as an example), you just need him to not take things away from a film (see more recent Tom Cruise as an example). Ben succeeds in 'not taking things away' from Gone Girl. That is not to say he is good…that is to say that he "is", and that is all he needs to be. He certainly lacks the range and expressiveness to convey the many twists and turns in the film, and a you could have cast someone better, but you also could have cast someone worse (again, see Tom Cruise as an example).

I am Jack's Broken Heart

The only true bright spots in terms of the acting are Carrie Coon as Margo Dunn, Nick's sister, and Kim Dickens as Detective Rhonda Boney. Both Coon and Dickens are really great actresses and it is frustrating that the film doesn't live up to the work they do in it. Coon is so good I kept wishing they had cast her in the lead role of Amy Dunne instead of Rosamund Pike. Pike may be a good actress, I don't know, I've not seen her work before, but she makes a classic error in her portrayal of the psychopath Amy. She gives away the game almost from the get-go. Amy is a psychopath and psychopaths are really great actors (don't ask me how I know that!!). You can't see the seams with a psychopath. If I were working with an actress cast in the part of Amy, I would tell her to play it straight, be genuine, don't play genuine. The script does all the work for you, it gives you obviously insane actions and makes you go to great lengths to maintain your control over the situation, so you do not need to play that she is a wild-eyed psychopath, we will see it in her actions, and when you are playing her as a genuine person, it makes her actions all the more creepy, and her all the more believable as the manipulative and vengeful woman she is. This is why I was hoping that Carrie Coon was playing Amy. She is pretty, yet approachable in that girl-next-door, not super model, not Rosamund Pike way. She seems like a real person, and that is what the role needs. I also saw that Reese Witherspoon was a producer on the film. I don't know if she had bought an option on the book or what, but I think she would have been fantastic as Amy, and the fact that she would have been playing with and against her good girl image would have made her performance all the more impactful.

I am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise

Structurally, the film is really three films jammed together. The first film is, as Ben Affleck's Nick Dunne astutely observes while being interrogated, an episode of Law and Order. It is a good-enough episode, and a fairly captivating mystery. Then the film transitions to the Amy Dunne perspective in the second act. This is a much weaker portion. Once the shock of the reveal of Amy being alive wears off, you are asked to believe more and more preposterous things as a viewer while Nick and Amy play a cat and mouse game that has appeared out of nowhere. Act three begins when Amy Dunne publicly reappears covered in blood at the Dunne home in front of the media. This is the Evel Knievel of shark jumps. The last third of the film is nothing more than a farce. One absurdity and illogical choice after another. The choices that people have to make in order for the story to keep going forward, are so illogical and asinine that they make it seem like it is all happening in another universe where the laws of human behavior are so opposite our own as to be incomprehensible.

I am Jack's Medulla Oblongata

Here are just a few things that stand out in the Gone Girl universe that make me think that the laws of human behavior, not to mention the laws of physics and biology, do not apply...

1. When we learn that Amy is alive and is on the run and hiding out, she decides to befriend someone. Well, you may think that friendship is a normal human need and want. You would be wrong because we learn earlier that Amy has no friends, and the only friend she has in their neighborhood, the moronic Noelle Hawthorne, is, according to Amy, nothing more than a prop for the purpose of her fake murder scheme. In other words she is totally, 100% committed to her scheme, yet she quickly ditches it in order to have companionship with the trailer trash girl living next door. It makes no sense.

2. When it is revealed that Amy is still alive, she is driving down a highway and defiantly eating a fast food burger. Good for her. She won't be worried about her body or what society has to say about it any more. Eat, eat, eat, lots of junk. It's all we see her doing as she hides out. And she gets fat. Her face gets fat, she gets a gut. I was thinking that she must have been hiding for like six months. No…it was day four of her being on the run. She was able to gain roughly twenty five pounds in 96 hours. How biologically odd. And thankfully for her, she is able to lose that weight just as quickly when she has to appear in sexy lingerie and have sex with Doogie Howser.

3. When Amy inexplicably keeps all her money with her when she inexplicably goes miniature golfing with her inexplicable new redneck friends, and then they inexplicably see her money and not so inexplicably steal it from her, she is left with no one to call except her ex-flame Doogie Howser. She and Doogie decide to meet at a riverboat casino on the Mississippi. There may be no more photographed place on earth than a casino. Why not meet at a McDonalds parking lot, that way you can eat all the fast food burgers you want and magically gain weight and then magically lose it, remain hidden and get some product placement money as well. 

4. When Amy goes to live with Doogie in his hidden cabin, she learns once inside that the outside of the place is under constant surveillance.  Once she decides to double cross Doogie she stages herself crying and in anguish in front of one of the windows so the cameras pick her up in a state of despair. And then once she kills Doogie and comes forward she tells police to look at the surveillance footage to prove she was a prisoner. But what about the footage prior to her double crossing Doogie? What about the footage of her strolling in to the cabin arm in arm with Doogie without a care in the world. Wouldn't they see that footage too? 

5. When Amy tells Nick she is pregnant, it is the final nail in his coffin. He can't leave her now. She is too crazy to be left alone with a kid and too manipulative to go to the authorities. She has won. Except, Nick has an ally, not only in his powerful NY attorney but also in Detective Boney on the local police force. He has people in power who know who Amy really is. He couldn't come forward in the interview with the tabloid woman Ellen Abbott and tell his entire side? Hell…wouldn't Sela Ward's TV host have great interest in that story? How is it that he feels so powerless?

I am Jack's Cold Sweat

After seeing Gone Girl, I was having a conversation with a famous director friend of mine. In order to protect his identity, and spare his career, I will call him Mr. X. Mr. X disliked Gone Girl as much as I did, but he thought it would get a Best Picture nomination. I was shocked, how could something so awful get a nomination? He said..."remember Avatar?" Sadly…I do remember Avatar. Avatar is a really atrocious film. The acting is beyond words it is so horrific. The story is obscenely incoherent. But like Avatar, Gone Girl has struck a chord with the public. People saw it in droves, and Avatar, in all it's awfulness, managed to get nominated. I am fearful that Gone Girl will as well. My one and only hope is that Avatar was a sci-fi movie with lots of bells and whistles and shiny things for the masses to gawk at, which is maybe why they flocked to it. The only bell or whistle or shiny thing for the masses to gawk at in Gone Girl is Ben Affleck's penis, which hopefully doesn't have the same eye candy appeal to Oscar voters as Avatar did.

I am Jack's Smirking Revenge

There is a scene in Gone Girl where the beautiful Rosamund Pike, as Amy Dunne, takes a hammer to her face and smashes herself with it. I think this is the only scene in the entire film with which I connected. Amy smashing her face with a hammer was the perfect visual representation of how I felt for two and a half hours watching Gone Girl. I think they should do a promotion where they hand out hammers to people as they enter the theater and wait and see how long they make it without smashing their own face in in order to escape the inanity playing out before them onscreen. 

I am Jack's Colon

You may think after having panned Gone Girl, that I am not a fan of it's director, David Fincher. You couldn't be more wrong. I really like most of Fincher's films. His less popular films, Zodiac and The Game, are among some of my all-time favorites, as are his more well known films Fight Club, Seven and The Social Network. Fincher is a brilliant and stylistically original artist. I just think that his style has failed with Gone Girl, not that he is a failure. 

So what style would have made Gone Girl better? It is interesting, but as I watched the final third of Gone Girl, the director I kept thinking of was David Lynch. Two of Lynch's films in particular, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive.  Both of those films touched upon certain similar themes as Gone Girl attempted to touch upon, namely, the ugliness just beneath the surface of the American heartland's veneer (Blue Velvet), and the moral and ethical cancer at the heart of America's fame driven culture (Mulholland Drive). The main thing that Gone Girl becomes in it's third act is realist absurdism. No one does absurdism wrapped in a blanket of stylized realism better than David Lynch. Lynch's Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive are both dramas, comedies, tragedies, social commentaries and horror films all rolled up into one, which is exactly what Gone Girl unsuccessfully tried to do.

So, here is my pitch on "How to make Gone Girl a good film":  Start off by not having Gillian Flynn, who authored the book, write the screenplay. Have David Lynch, who should replace Fincher as director, write the screenplay, or better yet, have Charlie Kaufman write the screenplay, that would really turn the story on it's head. You can keep Ben Affleck in the lead if you like, and Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens in their roles as well. We replace Rosamund Pike with Reese Witherspoon in the lead role of Amy. Finally, we replace Neil Patrick Harris with the incisive and edgy talent of Alan Cumming and we jettison Tyler Perry for Samuel L. Jackson, who would bring a great deal of life, energy and power to the role of the lawyer. There you have it, I saved Gone Girl….you're welcome. If only some studio would wise up and put me in charge, then I could save all of Hollywood, and by extension…your soul…and the world.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

Pride: A Review

This is a SPOILER FREE review.

Pride, directed by Matthew Warchus and written by Stephen Beresford, is a film based on the true story of an unlikely alliance between a group of gays and lesbians, who raised money to help support a small mining town in Wales, and the miners they helped, during the UK Miners strike in 1984.

The ensemble cast is excellent across the board. Such great actors as Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Paddy Considine and Dominic West star, but lesser known talents are also on display, in particular Irish actor Andrew Scott, British actress Jessica Gunning and American actor Ben Schnetzer. 

Shnetzer plays Mark Ashton, a gay activist who conjures up the idea of raising money to support the striking miners.  I was shocked to learn that Schnetzer was American. His Northern Irish accent is impeccable. Mark Ashton was obviously a very charismatic and determined man, and Schnetzer is able to give him an inner life and vibrancy that truly brings him to life and never rings hollow.

Jessica Gunning plays Sian James, a Welsh miner's wife and mother to his children. Gunning makes Sian's dynamism feel real and natural and not forced and staged. Watching her character gain confidence, balance and power was really interesting. Sian's character arc is pretty remarkable and Gunning's portrayal of it does the real woman's journey justice.

Andrew Scott plays Gethin, a gay man in self-exile in London from his Welsh boyhood home and family. He is really fantastic. He carries a great wound with him that is never spoken, but which is palpable. When a woman from the mining town speaks his native Welsh to him on the telephone, it takes his breath away, and ours with it. I had not heard of Andrew Scott before this film, but damn, he is really good, I look forward to seeing more of his work.

As for the bigger names, Bill Nighy is just fantastic. He plays Cliff, an elder statesman from the Welsh mining town. He is, as always, flawless. His character doesn't speak much, but Nighy fills him with such a distinct inner life that you cannot take your eyes of off him. There is a scene between Cliff and Imelda Staunton's Hefina, who is an elder stateswoman of the Welsh mining town, and the two of them barely speak, but it is so understated, so well done, so well crafted and so highly skilled that it should be mandatory viewing for actors young and old. It is simple yet precise. Perfection.

Speaking of Imelda Staunton, she is a master. Her Hefina Headon is a powerhouse of a woman, both tough and kind, smart and funny. There is nothing so enjoyable as watching master crafts people, like Bill Nighy and Imelda Staunton, ply their trade.

As for the film itself. It is being billed as in the vein of The Full Monty and Billy Elliot. This is an accurate description. Those films are funny, political and poignant. Pride lives up to that billing. As I watched I thought to myself that these types of films are only really done well by the Brits. They have a way of being understated in both their comedy and their poignancy that American films struggle with. For instance, their are numerous scenes which are highly emotionally packed in Pride, yet they are done with almost no dialogue. The director lets the scene play out and we get to feel along with the characters, as opposed to in most American films we are told, either through dialogue, or music, what to feel. The Brits are good at letting silence do the work for them, while we Americans feel the need to make sure everyone is hit over the head with the emotion and meaning of a scene or of the comedy.

Pride, The Full Monty and Billy Elliot are stories that all came out of the economic turmoil of the Thatcher years, when the labor union movement was under full scale attack by the 'free-marketeers' and the 'free-traders'.  This has become fertile ground for British filmmakers, artists, musicians and writers over the years, and rightly so. What was really under attack during the Reagan-Thatcher years wasn't just the labor movement, or a certain economic system, what was really being attacked was a way of life, a culture, a tradition handed down from father to son. A tradition that bound together communities from one generation to the next. It is ironic that it was mostly conservatives who were at the forefront of decimating the labor movement in order to maximize profits, or in other words, to feed their greed. And yet, conservatives are supposed to cherish tradition, and community, and family, but their economic policies during the Reagan-Thatcher years obliterated the things they alleged to hold dear and that they claimed made our countries and communities great. The real heart breaking aspect of watching Pride is knowing that as noble as the miners and their cause is, and knowing how important it was that they win, they didn't. Organized labor is dead, and both the UK and the US as countries, and all of their people, are worse off because of it. There is no recovering from the cultural and economic damage done by Thatcher and Reagan. Seeing the struggle on film and knowing it ends badly is gut wrenching. It is also somewhat ironic that the gay rights movement has succeeded beyond it's wildest dreams since that time, while the labor movement is nothing but a ghost, although the gay community would still have to face the crucible of the AIDS epidemic as Reagan/Thatcher were dismantling labor. So while it took thirty more years for the gay community to make serious, lasting progress, those thirty years have only seen the denigration of the labor movement to the point of extinction. The truth is, more people probably know a gay person than know someone in a private sector union. Considering the heights that labor had soared to in our history, and the depths of the closet the gay community was forced into in their history, that is an absolutely remarkable thing to consider. Hopefully, in the next thirty years, labor will have made a Lazarus-esque rise as astounding and empowering as the gay community has in the last thirty. Sadly, I sincerely doubt that will happen, and all of us, whether gay or straight, management or labor, will be worse off because of it.

Frank: A Review

This is a SPOILER FREE review…for the most part.

Frank is the story of Jon, played by Domnhall Gleeson, who is a wannabe musician who stumbles into a gig with the art house band "Soronprfbs". Fronting the band is lead singer, Frank Sidebottom who wears a giant paper-mache head at all times. Frank is played by Michael Fassbender. Jon ends up replacing the previous keyboardist in the band, who has gone crazy. The film follows the trials and tribulations of Jon, "Soronprfbs" and Frank, in that order. The film is directed by Lenny Abrahamson and written by Jon Ronson and Peter Straughan.

Domnhall Gleeson does a good job of driving us through the story as Jon. He has an accommodating energy and presence which makes him a good narrator. His suburban, rock-star wannabe turning into a fish out of artistic water is interesting enough to keep you watching, but the script and direction don't keep you caring. I do look forward to seeing more of Gleeson in the future though, he strikes me as an interesting and developing talent.

In a supporting role, Maggie Gyllenhall plays Clara, a member of the band. Gyllenhall has been great in other films, I'm thinking of her role in Secretary as a prime example, so it isn't as if she lacks talent, but here she confuses caricature with character. It may not be all her fault. The film, at times, is so rudderless as to be lost-at-sea, so I doubt she received much direction. But you never lose the sense that she is play acting at being a real person. There isn't a single moment when she feels real. She never once does anything remotely interesting or genuine or shows Clara to be anything other than a Saturday Night Live sketch. Her work strikes me as being lazy and unfocused, but then again, so is the film, so I think the director must take the lions share of the blame. Which is a shame, because that character in the hands of a better or more imaginative actress, or director, could have been gold…instead the film suffers greatly because of it.

Frank is one of those films that spends the first 3/4ths of it's time being one thing, and then spends the last 1/4 of the film being something else. It either doesn't know what it wants to be or lacks the courage to be what it wants, and when it finally find some deeper purpose and meaning, it is too late, because the impact of the final twenty minutes is undermined by the lack of focus in the first hour and ten.

I found the film to be frustrating because it wastes what is a very interesting story, or at least what could have been a very interesting story and it throws away Michael Fassbender's fantastic performance. The majority of the film is about the band, the supporting characters and the oddity of their artistic process. What this lacks is a focus on the relationship between Gleeson's Jon and Fassbender's Frank. That relationship gathers no steam until the latter part of the film. When the film finally decides to be about something, namely about how fame, with all it's toxicity and corrosive effects, and our addiction to it, is like a mental illness, it shines, and is genuinely moving and insightful. Sadly, everything that leads up to this clarity is so muddled and unfocused that it dissipates the dramatic and human impact of Fassbender's performance and the film's climax. 

What the film needed to do was to be about Fassbender's Frank. Frank is interesting. The more we see Frank, the more we want to see Frank. The more we learn about Frank, the more we want to learn about Frank, and the more we learn about Frank the more we learn about ourselves, our culture and humanity in general. For some reason, Frank is sidelined. He is a sideshow to the main show of the bands other members. We are forced to focus on the supporting cast, the most famous of which, Ms. Gyllenhall, is so awful as to be unbelievably distracting. 

Frank is a film that can't figure out what it wants to be, and when it is at it's best, it let's Fassbender's talent and skill show us what it is about.  This should have been a character study with a laser like focus on Frank. Fassbender's performance is so heartbreaking, and so painstaking that I was deeply offended to see it squandered. We deserve better, and so does Michael Fassbender. With all of that said, and as frustrating an experience as it was, I am glad I saw the film for Michael Fassbender's performance alone.

The Skeleton Twins: A Review

THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!

One of the things I really like about living in Los Angeles, especially where I am by the beach, is that it rarely gets oppressively hot. I cannot stand the heat. Heat is my kryptonite, and when you combine that with the whole not-being-able-to-fly thing, you quickly will come to realize that I am a less-than-ideal Superman at best. We all have our weaknesses, so shoot me, wait…actually don't, I'm not made of steel either. Regardless, a few weeks ago it got hot. Brutally, barbarically, demonically hot. It was the kind of hot that reminds me of New York City in August and the stilted air while waiting for a subway train that makes you feel like you are standing in the worlds largest urinal. In other words…it was uncomfortably HOT. Luckily for me, a pretty young lady approached me with an ingenious plan to escape the heat. Her idea was to go somewhere where there was air conditioning. I immediately recognized her brilliance. So we decided to go see a movie. She wanted to see The Skeleton Twins, starring Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader. I consented. This is our story, this is their story.

The Skeleton Twins, directed by Craig Johnson and written by Johnson and Mark Heyman, is the story of estranged siblings Maggie and Milo, played by Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader, who come together after ten years of estrangement. Maggie flies to Los Angeles to pick up her brother Milo after he attempts to kill himself. She takes him back to their hometown in upstate New York to help him regain some mental and emotional stability. Although returning to 'home' may be the last thing that will give Milo any stability considering his personal, and the family's history.

Bill Hader as Milo is really great. Hader is obviously a great comedic actor, and this role affords him the chance to be bitterly and brutally funny, but what impresses the most is that he isn't trying to be funny. His comedy comes out of the natural circumstances and personality of the character. You watch him in this film and you forget he is Bill Hader, you just see Milo, who is a fully formed and completely believable human being. Hader never breaks from his commitment to character, and he is so naturalistic in his approach that his performance seems effortless. Milo is charismatic, funny and yet heartbreaking. Hader's work is seamless.

Kristen Wiig on the other hand never seems to find her character, and we see her exerting a great deal of effort in trying to "act". Having watched Wiig for years on Saturday Night Live and seeing her in Bridesmaids, I do not hesitate a single moment in calling her a comedic genius. She is a joy to watch when she is in her element. Sadly though, in The Skeleton Twins she is out of her element. She tries to be serious and heavy and dark, but she simply lacks the skill, endurance or commitment to do it believably. You can almost see how desperate she is to be taken seriously as an actress. The only time she seems to find her stride is when she and Hader have scenes which are nothing more than the two of them clowning around, lip-synching a Jefferson Starship song and getting high on Nitrous Oxide. The difference between Hader and Wiig in this film is that Hader is acting while Wiig is performing. Yes, Hader is funny and 'performs' as Milo, but we are seeing Milo perform, not Hader. Where with Wiig we are watching HER perform, and not Maggie. Part of the reason for this is that Milo is written to support Hader's 'performing' where as Maggie is not written to support Wiig's performing.

As crazy as this sounds, I couldn't help but feel that this film could have been really great if another more 'serious' actress were cast as Maggie. Wiig's castmate from Bridesmaids, Rose Byrne, for instance, comes to mind. Byrne is a very good actress, and she can do comedy, but she isn't funny…she's an actress. Wiig is someone who is funny who is trying to act, and that is not what the film needed. The reason being that you need to balance Hader's comedic energy with something more solemn and with more gravitas, as opposed to matching him with Wiig who has a similar comedic energy. Wiig is miscast as Maggie because Maggie needs to be the polar opposite of Milo in order for the film to work, but Wiig is not far enough from Hader to pull it off, and the film feels out of balance because of it.

Another actor of note, Luke Wilson, has a supporting role as Maggie's fiancé, Lance. Wilson is really great. He is one of those actors that sort of gets overlooked, for a variety of reasons, but he never fails to do excellent work. Lance would be a caricature in lesser hands, but Wilson gives him great depth and humanity out of which comes the comedy. Wilson turns what could have been a throw away character into a terrific asset for the film.

Ty Burrell, another great actor, also has a supporting role but his story line seems under written and is more a distraction than anything else. That is not to say that the writing is poor. It isn't. The Skeleton Twins is one of those times when a script is actually much better than the final film. You can see the intricacy and great depths of the writing if you know where to look and look hard enough…the use of water symbology for example (clearing brush by the dam, Moby Dick, Scuba lessons, etc). The script indicates a complexity and artistic maturity that the film fails to rise up to. As previously stated, I think the casting of Wiig in the lead is the main obstacle to that aspiration. The problem, of course, is that the film probably only got financing because Wiig was starring in it. Combine that with a marketing campaign that highlights the Wiig/Hader comedy scenes and bills the film as "laugh out loud funny", and you can see how the business end of things has undermined the artistic. This is a shame, because underneath all of the surface comedy, there is a great film trying to get out. We just need both the business people, and the artistic people, to have the courage to make the version of this film where it is a drama that is at times funny, rather than a comedy which tries to be dramatic.

With all that said, I didn't hate The Skeleton Twins. It was fine. A wasted opportunity, but fine. Bill Hader was, as they say, a 'revelation'. It was nice to see Luke Wilson again. It was also great to be out of the heat for two hours. While there are better options to avoid heat stroke, there are also worse. So if you want to avoid death by heat suffocation, why not go see The Skeleton Twins? The life you save, could be your own.

Calvary: A Review

*This review contains NO SPOILERS!!!*

Calvary, written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, is a small film that tackles big questions. It is not a perfect film, but despite it's flaws it is well worth seeing.

The film stars Brendan Gleeson, who is a truly fantastic actor, and he is as good as he's ever been here as Father James Lavelle. He brings a personal, national and spiritual history to his character that is written all over his face. His work seems effortless, which is always the sign of a master craftsmen on display. Gleeson is an actor comfortable being both gentle yet volcanic, kind yet steadfast.  His presence brings with it a rich and vivid inner life that pierces the darkness like a lighthouse on a rocky shore, giving the viewer something by which to emotionally navigate and also beckoning them to come closer to get a better look. Gleeson is 'one of those actors', the type of actor who deserves much more attention than he gets, but is probably not very interested in getting any attention at all.

Kelly Reilly, the quintessential Irish beauty, is also very good in a supporting role. She is, not unlike Gleeson, one of those actors who always draws the viewer in with her inner life, and we, like her character, are moths to the flame of her intrigue and can't help but be captivated enough to take a closer look.

The rest of the supporting cast is just okay. The weakest aspect of the film are some of the supporting actors. In particular, the two most well known and recognizable actors in supporting roles are not very good. Some supporting actors seem miscast, some seem to be cast in a different film. Regardless of that flaw, the film was strong enough to overcome it.

Besides Gleeson and Reilly, another great strength of the film is that it looks absolutely gorgeous. Director McDonagh uses the ruggedly bleak yet stunningly beautiful western Irish landscape to perfection. Whether it be the lone mountain off in the distance to symbolize salvation that is attainable but only through a great journey and struggle, or shots of rough surf crashing into the jagged coast line symbolizing the perils of our spiritual quest for meaning, McDonagh fills our eyes and sub-conscious with a visual story that succeeds even without his well crafted words.

Calvary, in case you don't know, is the place where Christ was crucified. Calvary, the film is about the crucifixion of modern man, the Catholic Church and one priest in particular. The questions raised by the film that make it so intriguing are…can Catholicism survive modernity with its narcissistic and spiritually vacant "free" market capitalism and "free" love,  and it's intellectually vapid atheism, among other competing gods? Can Christianity survive? Can Christ?  Or is Christ, and more specifically, Christ's message of forgiveness, the cure for the emptiness that plagues modern man? Can Christ's message also free us from the cycle of historical, national, personal and spiritual grievances born from our unwillingness, or inability to forgive? Can we as people, or the Catholic church as an institution, be brave enough to admit our sins, be penitent of them, and be humble enough to ask forgiveness for them? Or will we, like the Catholic Church of our time, be too arrogant, too self serving, too greedy, too lazy and too blind to ever do any of those things? Will we take the easy road of cheap grace and cynicism, even if the cynicism is hard won? And will our failure to be penitent and ask for forgiveness, or to be brave and give forgiveness to those that ask, lead us down the same path as the Catholic church, which leaves us as nothing but a smoldering pile of ruins to be gawked at by historians? 

The theme of Calvary is the struggle for man to find God. It is the struggle not only of our time, but of all time, and the film is well worth your time.

A LACK OF EMPATHY: Ethan Saylor, Down Syndrome and the Pandemic of Fear or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Narcissistic Hysteria in a Nation of Eunuchs

In light of the shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri  police officer, I re-post this article which I originally posted March 21, 2013, which deals with the killing of Ethan Saylor, a 26 year old man with Down's Syndrome, by three Maryland police officers. I believe many, but not all, of the thoughts expressed in this piece are pertinent to the situation playing itself out in Ferguson.

Today, March 21, is World Down Syndrome Day.  In honor of this occasion let us recount the tale of Ethan Saylor, a 26 year old man with Down Syndrome who, on January 11, 2013, went to see "Zero Dark Thirty" with his caregiver in suburban Maryland.  When the film ended Ethan's caregiver went to the bathroom, leaving Ethan briefly alone.  Ethan then went back into the theater to sit and watch the film again.  Theater employees asked Ethan to leave or to buy a ticket.  He did neither.  Three off-duty police officers who were working as mall security were called in and while forcibly subduing and removing Ethan from the theater, he died.  The coroner has ruled the death a homicide.  None of the officers involved have been charged with a crime or have even spoken to investigators.  Now, you may have a few questions at this point...like...why should I care? What does empathy, fear, eunuchs and hysteria have to do with anything?  And what does all this have to do with acting?  All excellent questions which I hope to answer as we go along.

Let's start with a definition of empathy.  According to Webster's, empathy is "The ability to understand another person's circumstances, point of view, thoughts, and feelings. When experiencing empathy, you are able to understand someone else's internal experiences."  Add to that definition "and bring it to life" and there you have a pretty accurate description of the art of acting.  Many people conflate empathy with sympathy, though they shouldn't.  Sympathy is "feelings of pity or sorrow for someone else's misfortune." Empathy is active, it takes you out of yourself in order to understand the internal workings of another, whereas sympathy is passive and self-centered, focusing on how you feel about the other as opposed to how the other feels.  Empathy is a great trait to have for an actor, sympathy is not.

Let's use the incident with Ethan at the movie theater as a case study in a lack of empathy.  As stated earlier, Ethan went with his caregiver to go see "Zero Dark Thirty".  After the film ended his caregiver went to the bathroom, leaving Ethan alone briefly.  At this point Ethan went back into the theater and sat down to watch the movie again.  Let us assume that a theater employee, an usher, saw him go back into the theater and sit.  The usher would easily be able to recognize that Ethan had Down's Syndrome by his physical appearance, he had all the physical traits and characteristics of someone with Down's.  At this point we have failure number one in our lack of empathy.  The usher could have simply ignored the situation, or pretended to not have seen Ethan.  Even if we give the usher the benefit of the doubt and presume that he did not know that Ethan had already paid for one ticket, the question must be asked, why couldn't he just let the young man watch the movie?  How many of us would just turn a blind eye to the situation?  What harm is there in that?  Well, an answer to that could be that the usher was fearful he would lose his job.  He is probably a young guy/girl and needs the money and can't risk losing the job.  So, he approaches Ethan and tells him he must buy a ticket or leave.  Ethan does neither.  

Here we have failure number two in our quest for empathy.  The usher would not, or was incapable of, feeling empathy for Ethan.  He couldn't place himself in Ethan's shoes and understand that Ethan just wanted to see the movie again and had no comprehension of money or tickets or rules or anything of the sort.  The usher could only focus on how Ethan's action affected him.  So, the usher goes and gets the manager.  Now the manager, we presume, is more experienced than the usher, may be older, may be not, but certainly is at least  equipped with the authority to bypass the rules and let Ethan watch the movie where the usher may not have felt he was authorized to do that.  So the manager arrives and asks Ethan to buy a ticket or leave.  Ethan does neither.  Instead of just letting it go, and understanding that Ethan is not, according to reports, causing a scene or disturbing other patrons, the manager now has failure number three in our search for empathy.  The manager doesn't think of how or what Ethan is feeling or thinking, he only focuses on how Ethan's actions are affecting him and he doesn't like it, so the manager calls mall security.  

Mall security, as was previously stated, are not the run of the milll rent-a-cop mall security.  These are three off duty Maryland Sheriffs Deputies.  They arrive on the scene and things take a turn for the worse.  The security guards/police officers approach and get the story from the theater manager.  Now instead of just pulling the manager aside and saying, "Hey, c'mon, this young man has Down's Syndrome, do we really want to make a federal case out of this?", they instead take the manager's side and tell Ethan he has to leave.  That is failure number four in our journey to discover the lost trait of empathy.  

At this juncture Ethan does something that is anathema to any law enforcement officer, he is 'defiant'.  Defiant is an interesting word choice, because some people observing Ethan's behavior would describe him as 'stubborn', a term commonly used to describe people with Down's Syndrome when they sulk and refuse orders, the security guards/police officers though describe Ethan as 'defiant'.  At this point we have failure numbers five and six in the eternal quest for empathy.  First, Ethan's caregiver returns and is looking for Ethan.  She discovers him in the theater and sees the commotion that is happening around him.  She explains to the officers that she can talk Ethan into complying if given the chance, but the officers are beyond talking at this point.  They disregard her advice, ignore her and have her removed from the area.  Then they physically attempt to move Ethan out of the theater.  Think about this for a moment, this is not some lone cop fighting for his life on a street corner in Baltimore with some thug but rather these are three grown men, with years of experience and training in law enforcement, and they decide the best course of action is to physically confront and remove a young man with Down's Syndrome, who has all the physical and mental limitations that come with it, from a suburban Maryland theater over a $10 movie ticket.  It gets worse, the three officers grab Ethan and throw him to the floor.  Standard operating procedure for law enforcement when immobilizing a suspect is to get them face down on the ground, arms spread wide with an officer on each wrist and another officer with a knee in the back of the neck to stop the suspect from getting up.   This is what these three grown men, with training and experience did to Ethan Saylor because he didn't pay $10 to see the same movie over again.  That is actually not an entirely true statement.  Ethan was physically attacked not because he didn't have a ticket, but because he was 'defiant' towards the officers and did not submit to their authority and comply with their demands.  In the attempt to force Ethan to comply, the officers killed him.

So this begs the question, what kind of men are these?  What 'man' would do that to someone with Down's Syndrome.  I hesitate to even call them 'men', for they only barely meet the minimum physical requirements to carry the title.  I prefer to call them eunuchs because they are horribly misshapen and malformed 'men'.  They are also obviously pathetic cowards completely devoid of any moral or emotional compass.  These 'men' are disgusting and revolting savages.  

I obviously have an opinion about these 'men' and it isn't favorable in the least, but what would I do if I were cast to portray one of these 'men' in a play or film?  It does an actor no good to hate the person they are playing. How would I begin to play these 'men' with any sort of depth or complexity if I already thought so little of them?  

To start, I would put their actions into the context of the world in which they live.  I would say that these cowardly 'men', are the product of a culture of fear.  Fear breeds cowardice and cowardice thrives on fear.  So these 'men' live in a world in which we are inundated with things to be afraid of, such as terrorists, that's a big one.  We used to be deathly afraid of the god-less communists, but now we are deathly afraid of the god-fanatic terrorists.  It's either too much God or not enough.  Other rampant fears are child molesters, drug dealers, gang bangers, earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, carbon monoxide, radon gas, mad cow disease, bird flu, nuclear weapons, guns, school shooters, serial killers, grizzly bears, rabies, coyotes, sharks, people who don't look like us, people who do look like us, your neighbors, strangers, friends, family, ourselves, others, sugary cereals and satanists, to name just a few.  

In a futile attempt to quell our multiple anxieties, this nation consumes more anti-anxiety medication than the rest of the world combined.  Our fear, born of a self-serving, myopic narcissism, has reached the level of hysteria, with daily breathless reports in the media of the next great danger that threatens our very existence.  These 'men' were born and raised into this madness, this pandemic of fear, and they absorbed that fear and hysteria and narcissism.  

Fear distorts and decays our ability to reason and think rationally.  A great example of this is that this week is also the ten year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.  In the lead up to the war we were told that we were in mortal peril.  We heard all about mushroom clouds, anthrax attacks, suitcase nukes, clandestine meetings with terrorists, Saddam as Hitler, you name it and we were given it to fear about Iraq.  It all was a bunch of bullshit, but that didn't stop the vast majority of the populace from supporting the war.  There were people who said it was a bunch of bullshit from the get go, but those people were called traitors and marginalized and ignored.  No one listened to those people because no one was capable of hearing them,  everyone was in fever with the hysteria of fear.   

The culture that created those 'men' who beat and killed Ethan is the same culture that supports and endorses torture.  It is the same culture that refuses to hold accountable the government officials who ordered that torture and started an unprovoked war which killed hundreds of thousands.  People in Nuremberg were hanged for far less.  But this culture says we cannot prosecute our war criminals because it is thought to be too 'politically inconvenient' for anyone to do so, which is nothing less than aiding and abetting torture, a crime in and of itself.  

Continuing with the illusion of law and order which bore us these 'men',  if the bank forecloses on your house, do you know who comes to throw you out?  The sheriffs department, that's who.  The police departments are not here to 'protect and serve' the taxpayers, they are here to 'protect themselves and serve the powerful'.  How many sheriffs have gone to the homes of the criminal banksters who have swindled billions from pension funds and 401k's with their fraud and theft and dragged them out of their house and into the jail?  If you are a drug dealer or drug user you will go to prison for decades, but if you run a bank that launders billions in drug money, you are too big to prosecute, so you not only don't go to jail, the government will make you a deal where you get to keep all the profits and the taxpayers will cover the losses of any deal you make, legal or otherwise.  This is the world from which those 'men' were spawned, where 'law and order' is that the powerful buy the 'law' so as to maintain 'order' over the lowly.  

How could they not be misshapen and malformed eunuchs?  Those 'men' are perfect representatives of the culture which created them.   The fear that pervades our society has allowed for a virulent form of impotence to overcome us all.  It started with our great fear of the drunk driver, so we got roadblocks to stop us at checkpoints (anything to protect the children!!!) and it has now devolved into no-knock raids where SWAT teams break into houses and shoot dogs in their crates and people in their beds, yet no one in this nation of eunuchs says or does anything about it.  This is the new normal,  where we think the police will protect us but we really need protection from the police.  Everyday in this country law enforcement agents of one kind or another intimidate, assault, harass, beat and murder citizens.  These 'men' were birthed into this world, learned at it's knee and brought forth into the world the lessons they had mastered.  Torture, aggression and violence are all acceptable but only when they are the one's doing it.  The way they treated Ethan Saylor was the way they were taught to treat us all.  This is the context in which these 'men' came to be and in which they developed their understanding of the world.

So, how can I, the actor, be more specific in my internal choices when playing one these 'men'?  One way would be to understand that in the confrontation with Ethan, the stakes were not just a $10 movie ticket.  The stakes for these 'men' were nothing less than the survival of their entire universe.  For these 'men' could not allow their authority to be undermined or ignored.  Defiance cannot be permitted because if they did not impose order their psyches would implode.  Their entire worldview is dependent upon their believing that they are hero's, the good guys who save the day, and everyone who opposes them is an arbiter of chaos.  That is the battle here, it is not between three police officers and a man with Down's Syndrome, but rather between good versus evil, order versus chaos.  These 'men' HAD to subdue Ethan and force him to submit to their authority or everything that is right and good in the universe would crumble.  Chaos would upend the order and their authority would evaporate.  

The key to playing these 'men' is to understand that they see themselves as the ultimate hero figures.  The use of force is not only justified in this case but is demanded, for chaos cannot be permitted to exist in the face of the authority of order.  The 'men' were just imposing the will of their benevolent God, who bestows his great gift of law and order upon us, when they beat Ethan.  These officers HAD to impose their authority by any means necessary, regardless if it meant the killing of an innocent, because it was in the duty and service of the righteous and the good.  That is the way to get into these characters psyches and portray them with a depth and complexity, giving their actions motivations that go beyond a typical portrayal of evil for evil's sake.  Evil for perceived goodness sake is much more compelling, as Ethan no doubt noticed while watching "Zero Dark Thirty" before his untimely death.

In terms of playing a character like Ethan, well there have been many great actors who have played mentally disabled or Down's Syndrome characters.  Sean Penn and Leonardo DiCaprio to name two.  What those men brought to their roles were great detail, a childlike innocence and compassion, an awe of their surroundings and an unlimited ability to love.  This sounds like an apt description of Ethan Saylor from what I have read.   Ethan wasn't like the rest of us, warped by our fears and anxieties, he didn't worry about his taxes, or getting a promotion at work, or where his kids would go to college.  Down's Syndrome may have limited Ethan's intellect but it didn't limit his passion for life or his ability to love and be loved.  He was a young man with a great deal of heart, and an even greater deal of courage. 

As an acting exercise, try and find empathy for random people throughout your day.  If someone cuts you off in traffic, try and get out of your own head and thinking about how this person's actions affected you but rather think about what may be going on with them.  We never know where people are in their lives, maybe that person who cut you off just lost their job, or their daughter is in the hospital or their spouse just left them, who knows.  It is just an exercise, this person may in reality be just a jerk, but thinking that way won't give you a chance to exercise your imagination and your empathy muscles.   A strange side effect of this exercise is that you may develop a greater capacity for compassion and the world may become a better place for it, who knows.

So in conclusion, in honor of Down's Syndrome day, let us all remember Ethan Saylor and his family and loved ones.   The world is a lesser place because of his leaving it.  And let us also try and remember to have empathy for those with mental disabilities and those that care for them.  They don't want or need our sympathy, but they deserve our empathy and respect.

Truth, Justice and the Curious Case of Chris Kyle

"Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night" - Bette Davis

A few weeks ago I was reading online about the defamation lawsuit filed by Jesse Ventura against former Navy SEAL, Chris Kyle. The case sounded pretty interesting, so, I borrowed from a friend a copy of American Sniper, the autobiography of Chris Kyle, and read it. It was a very compelling read.

Here is a little background on Chris Kyle and his story:  Kyle was a Navy SEAL sniper from Texas. He claims to be the deadliest sniper in American history with over 160 'confirmed' kills. Confirmed kills are defined as kills with at least one other witness besides the shooter. Kyle served four tours of duty in Iraq and was awarded two Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars for Valor for his actions during the war. Upon returning to Texas after his tours of duty were over, he settled down with his wife and two kids, started a security firm and wrote a book about his experiences as a sniper. The book, American Sniper, became an instant success and propelled Chris Kyle into a sort of celebrity status. Kyle also worked helping other war veterans deal with PTSD when they returned from the war. On February 2, 2013, Chris brought a vet suffering from PTSD to a shooting range where the vet shot and killed both Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield.  

The Court Case

In the lead up to the defamation case going to trial, all of the legal experts on television and in print said that it was highly unlikely that Jesse Ventura could win the case because the bar was set very high in defamation cases concerning celebrities. According to these various experts, in order for Ventura to win he would need to prove that not only did Chris Kyle lie about him, but also prove that he did so maliciously and that he prospered from it.

Despite the very high burden of proof, on July 19, 2014, Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, WWF wrestler, TV show host and Former Navy SEAL (technically he was in the pre-cursor to SEALs, the UDT) won a defamation lawsuit against deceased former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, author of American Sniper to the tune of $1.8 million. In the book, Chris Kyle, claimed to have punched 'Scruff-face', later identified by Kyle on both the The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel and The Opie and Anthony radio show as Jesse Ventura, in a SEAL bar in California after Ventura said some nasty things. Here is the passage in question from the book:

After the funeral, we went to a local bar for the wake proper. (for Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor winner Mike Monsoor who was killed in action in Iraq)

As always, there were a bunch of different things going on at our favorite nightspot, including a small party for some older SEALs and UDT members who were celebrating the anniversary of their graduation. Among them was a celebrity I'll call Scruff Face.

Scruff served in the military; most people seem to believe he was a SEAL. As far as I know, he was in service during the Vietnam conflict but not the actual war.

I was sitting with Ryan (a SEAL who was wounded and blinded in the Iraq war) and told him that Scruff was holding court with some of his buddies.

"I'd really like to meet him, " Ryan said.

"Sure". I got up and went over to Scruff and introduced myself. "Mr. Scruff Face, I have a young SEAL over here who's just come back from Iraq. He's been injured but he'd really like to meet you."

Well, Scruff kind of blew us off. Still, Ryan really wanted to meet him, so I brought him over. Scruff acted like he couldn't be bothered.

All right.

We went back over to our side of the bar and had a few more drinks. In the meantime, Scruff started running his mouth about the war and everything and anything he could connect to it. President Bush was an asshole. We were only over there because Bush wanted to show up his father. We were doing the wrong thing, killing men, woman and children and murdering.

And on and on. Scruff said he hates America and that's why he moved to Baja California. 9/11 was a conspiracy.

And on some more.

The guys were getting upset. Finally, I went over and tried to get him to cool it.

"We're all here in mourning." I told him. "Can you just cool it? Keep it down."

"You deserve to lose a few," he told me.

I was uncharacteristically level-headed at that moment.

"Look," I told him, "why don't we just step away from each other and go on our way?"

Scruff bowed up again. This time he swung. 

Being level-headed and calm can last only so long. I laid him out.

Tables flew. Stuff happened. Scruff face ended up on the floor. 

I left.

Quickly. 

I have no way of knowing for sure, but rumor has it he showed up at the BUD/S graduation with a black eye.

That is the story that was proven to be untrue in the court proceedings. Jesse Ventura didn't say those things to Chris Kyle or any other SEAL.  Chris Kyle did not hit Jesse Ventura. The entire episode never occurred. Or to put it another way, Chris Kyle lied. To put an even finer point on it, Chris Kyle lied to make himself look good.

Chris Kyle, The Hero Archetype and Fantastical Tales of Wonder

Having read the book, I went and did some more research of Chris Kyle and his life. The things I found were pretty astounding. If you thought the Jesse Ventura fight was a hell of a yarn, wait until you get a load of some of the other stories Chris Kyle told about himself but left out of his book. 

Chris told many people, and some reporters, that just after his return from Iraq in 2009, he was carjacked by two men at a gas station on a remote Texas highway. Chris asked the men if he could reach into his truck to get his keys, and as he did he pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot both men in the chest from under his armpit. The two men were killed instantly. Chris called the police and waited for them while leaning against his truck. The police came, Chris handed them a phone number to call at the Pentagon. The cops called the number, and the people at the Pentagon told the cops that Chris Kyle was a war hero and a Navy SEAL. The police also went inside and watched the gas station surveillance video of the incident. The cops then let Chris go on his way. Chris claimed he got emails from cops all across the country after the incident thanking him for "keeping the streets clean". Great story. Except none of it is true.  Not a word. There were no carjackers, no dead bodies, no cops, none of it. He made the whole thing up. His big mistake was then telling the story to his SEAL friend, Marcus Lutrell, author of Lone Survivor, and Marcus put the story in his second book, Service: A Navy SEAL at Work. Now it wasn't just a tall-tale, it was in the public record, and it is demonstrably a lie. The New Yorker magazine and other journalists have investigated the story. They all come to the same conclusion. There were no carjackers. There were no dead bodies. There were no cops. None of it happened. No police departments know anything about it, no coroner ever saw the bodies, no gas station had any surveillance video or ever heard of such a thing and no cops ever responded to the scene and called the Pentagon. 

The second story that was told by Chris Kyle was that he and another SEAL were sent by the government to New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Once they got to New Orleans, Chris and another sniper went to the roof of the Superdome, and started shooting looters in the city. Chris Kyle said this to many people, he also said this on tape. Chris claims to have killed thirty looters all on his own. Helluva story. Only problem is…there's not a speck of truth in it. Once again this is a total fabrication, or to put it less delicately, a complete, bold faced lie. Chris Kyle never went to New Orleans after Katrina. He never shot 'looters'. Just like with the carjackers, there are no bodies and no documentary or corroborating evidence it occurred. None. Chris Kyle lied. Again. 

Don't take my word for it...Here are two links to in-depth articles about these two stories. (New Yorker-  LINK     Washington Post -   LINK)

Taya Kyle, Chris's wife, fought in court to make sure that both of those stories were kept out of the Jesse Ventura defamation lawsuit because she didn't want her husband to be "labelled a liar". Smart woman. The stories were kept out of the lawsuit, and yet, incredibly, Ventura still proved Kyle was lying about the bar room fight (or non-fight, as it turned out).

These stories are so fantastical that only a true believer could ever think them anything other than fairy tales. So the question becomes, why would Chris Kyle tell such patently absurd stories? 

Rambo, Red Meat, and the Spitting Protestors Canard

Chris Kyle told other lies as well, but these he put in his book. They are smaller lies compared to the car jacking and Katrina stories, but they are important nonetheless because they show a pattern of lies and embellishment that is troubling. One lie is about when Chris first went to deploy for Iraq. Here is the passage from the book:

Generally, when SEALs go out for a deployment or come back, we do so very quietly - that's the nature of special operations. There are usually few people around except for our immediate families; sometimes not even them. In this case, because of when I was heading out, it happened that I passed a small group of protestors demonstrating against the war. They had signs about baby killers and whatever, protesting the troops who were going over to fight.

Great story. It really is. We have poor Chris Kyle was going off to war to fight for our freedoms and he had to go past these assholes calling him a baby killer. That would be pretty infuriating…except…it isn't true. It never happened. There may have been protestors, but none of them had "baby killer" signs or were protesting the troops. This is at worst pure fantasy, at best a great embellishment. San Diego and Coronado, California are very pro-military areas. There are huge populations of active service and retired military people living there. A protestor with a "baby killer" sign would stick out like a sore thumb. That would also make not only the local news, but national news. And other vets would have reported the same thing on their own websites or chat rooms. None of that happened. There is no reporting, or evidence that there were ever any protestors with "baby killer" signs anywhere near San Diego or Coronado California. Or anywhere else for that matter.  Never. Nor were there any pictures taken of those signs or news reports about them. Chris Kyle lied again. 

This lie is not a new one, it is really just an urban myth from the Vietnam era, popularized by a monologue in the Sylvester Stallone film, First Blood. In his speech Stallone's character, Vietnam veteran John Rambo says, "And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer!" Sound familiar? Yes, just like American hero, John Rambo, Chris Kyle was called baby killer by protestors. This doesn't pass the smell test. It didn't happen to John Rambo because he isn't a real person, and it didn't happen to Chris Kyle either because it is factually untrue. As for the spitting protestor canard, please read the book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke. His book dismantles the myth of the vicious Vietnam war protestor spitting on the poor, returning vet. Here is a link-  LINK.

We Found Them!!

Another lie Chris Kyle tells in his book is about those pesky missing WMDs. Here is the passage:

At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled.

Maybe the reason is that the writing on the barrels showed that the chemicals came from France and Germany, our supposed Western allies.

What a groundbreaking story. This is interesting insight from someone who was there and can tell us first hand. Except of course, it is all a lie. Completely fabricated. Totally untrue. There were no barrels of WMD, and the story wasn't covered up because it would offend our allies France and Germany. The story couldn't be covered up because it never happened. This is something that can be easily checked and verified. You can do it yourself. I did. It is a lie. There is no proof or evidence that this incident occurred. Even if you simply apply logic and reason, this story crumbles. The US would gladly embarrass the French over WMDs. Remember the "Freedom Fries" nonsense? The French were our national punching bags for years because they didn't "back us in Iraq". If we had the chance to rub their "cheese-eating-surrender-monkey" noses in it, we certainly would have taken it.

So why would Chris Kyle lie about shooting car jackers and looters, and "baby killer" signs and WMDs? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, he did it to reinforce his status as a hero. Chris Kyle embodied the Hero Archetype. His fans would be the first to tell you this. He was a hero for fighting for his country, he was a hero for killing so many Iraqis, he was a hero for saving American lives. This is his story, and it's the story he tells in American Sniper, and it is why he is beloved by so many. But, like all archetypes, the Hero Archetype has a life of its own. Chris Kyle was submerged in it and overcome by it. He even says in his book that he felt "invincible". It could be easy to see how he would be swept away by all the hype and praise and glory. He knew he didn't kill any car jackers or looters, but he could have…and that was all that mattered in his mind. He BELIEVED that he did, even while he KNEW that he didn't. The archetype made him BELIEVE it, his rational mind KNEW it was false, but the rational mind almost always takes a back seat when the archetype is in town.

The following is the definition of the Hero Archetype: "HERO: He is a character who predominantly exhibits goodness and struggles against evil in order to restore harmony and justice to society".  That is the Rambo story. That is also the story of Chris Kyle, or to be more exact, that is the story Chris Kyle tells, to us and, more importantly, to himself.

So why the other lies about the "baby killer" signs and the WMDs? This is simply, in a storytelling and narrative sense, to reinforce the hero's struggle by giving him multiple foils and also to give context to his journey. As a storytelling device, these lies do two things for Chris. One, they make him a sympathetic figure who overcomes not only physical danger in the form of enemies on the battlefield, but also gives him a spiritual strength by making him a martyr for fighting to protect people who hate him. Secondly, the stories make him out to be 'The Truthteller'. Chris Kyle knows the REAL truth, and he is the only one brave enough to actually tell it.  Kyle's 'Hero journey' was not only against the evil hordes of Iraqis and Muslims, both of whom he calls "savages" in his book, but against the evil opposition back home in the form of anti-war people, Jesse Ventura being a prime example. The protestor and WMD lies are about feeding red meat to a certain segment of the population, people who are not only pro-war, but anti-liberal. These folks buy a lot of books, as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly can attest. The stories and lies Chris Kyle told were the juicy, delicious red meat of which they dream. Chris Kyle became a hero to them not only because he killed lots of Iraqis, but also because he had slain all sorts of uncomfortable factual dragons as well. In other words, Chris Kyle told people what they wanted to hear, and those people loved him for it. How many people heard Kyle tell the story of punching Ventura and thought, "Yes, finally somebody shut that loud mouth up!". He proved to these folks that, "Yes! Anti-war people DO hate the troops, just like I thought all along". And "Yes, there WERE WMDs in Iraq…SEE…BUSH WAS RIGHT!!! I WAS RIGHT!!" Except, of course, they weren't, and we know that now. But Chris Kyle let these people live in a world of fantasy and call it reality. He was very good at doing that sort of thing, especially with himself.

The Usual Suspects

What has been interesting in the aftermath of the verdict against Chris Kyle is that the media has gone into hyper-drive in attacking Jesse Ventura, and not Chris Kyle. Kyle is a proven liar, yet no one talks about that. They all talk about how could Jesse Ventura sue a poor widow. I find this baffling. What is even more baffling, and frankly appalling, is how they so thoroughly misrepresent the facts of the case and misinform the populace.

Anderson Cooper, of CNN, proved once again there is no depth so low that his journalistic integrity won't sink to it, when he said of Ventura, "Has he no shame?" Cooper had nothing at all to say about Chris Kyle and his lying, and made no mention of the very public and provable other lies Kyle told besides his Ventura lie. Shouldn't the question be, "Chris Kyle, have you no shame?", but it isn't. Proving once more, that truth has no meaning for Anderson Cooper. 

The question becomes…why isn't the media up in arms over Chris bullshitting them? Remember when Oprah had a conniption when she discovered author James Frey had lied to her about his book A Million Little Pieces? Why aren't the media directing their venom at Chris Kyle for having lied to make himself out to be more than he was, rather than attacking Jesse Ventura? The answer, of course, is that the media is in the same business as Chris Kyle…the "giving people what they want" business. Watch and listen, if you dare, to these three fine examples of journalistic integrity over at "Fox and Friends". WARNING: Steve Doocey Alert .

Every media outlet, all the cable channels and every other talking head, is saying how disgusting Ventura is, and not saying a word about Chris Kyle except to call him a hero. The question from everyone is, "Jesse…why won't you give the money back to this widow?" As opposed to being, why did Chris Kyle lie about this incident to enrich himself and what other lies has he told? Everyone is up in arms that Ventura would "sue a widow". The facts of the case are, he sued Chris Kyle, and then Kyle died in the lead up to the trial. All along Ventura said he'd drop the suit if Kyle just retracted the statement. Kyle wouldn't do that. He decided to stick to the lie, then tragically, Kyle was killed. Why is that Ventura's problem? Ventura didn't lie, Kyle did.

Watch this CBS This Morning interview with Ventura the day after the court decision. Notice how dismissive and oppositional all the questioners are.

Notice in particular the "journalist" , and I use that term very very loosely, Norah O'Donnell, being intentionally obtuse and misstating the facts of the case…"there WAS an argument... correct?". No Norah, there wasn't, THAT IS WHY WE HAD A TRIAL!! You beautiful, yet vacuous dipshit!

Heads I win, Tails You Lose and the Magic of the Rearview Mirror

The other thing talking heads and writers have been saying of Jesse Ventura is that he should have "dropped the lawsuit when Chris Kyle died, then he could have saved his reputation!" Or "Ventura sued to save his reputation but has damaged it by winning the lawsuit against a widow!". This sort of logic is a shortcut to thinking. If Ventura had dropped the lawsuit people wouldn't say "Oh, what a great guy", instead they wouldn't say anything at all and would still despise Ventura for his 'conspiracy theories'. Then they would recall how Chris Kyle punched him out for bad-mouthing America, and when Ventura would say that wasn't true, these same talking heads would say, "Well, if it weren't true you should have sued for defamation!!" This is how the game works. Heads they win, tails you lose. As my grandmother used to say, "damned if you do, damned if you don't." The same thing would have happened if Ventura dropped the suit when Chris Kyle was killed. The media likes to play the game of hindsight with everyone except themselves.

Charity Begins at Home and The Money Trail

One final lie that has been told ad nauseam, is that Chris Kyle and his family donated all the proceeds from the sale of the book American Sniper to families of vets. The Kyle's say that 100% has gone to charities that support other vet families. This is an out and out lie, and a really despicable one that is repeated constantly by the corporate media. The truth is…the family has only given 2% of the profits to charity. The profits from the book belong to the Kyle family, and they should do with them what they please, but what they shouldn't do is tell people they are giving the money away in order to look good, while they in fact keep the money. The Kyle family has made over $6 million from the book, and that number will increase with further book sales and from an upcoming movie starring Bradley Cooper and directed by Clint Eastwood. So why isn't the corporate media up in arms over Chris Kyle and his wife lying repeatedly about the profits and proceeds from the book? Instead of asking Jesse Ventura why he doesn't give the money he is owed back to the Kyle family, why not ask the Kyle family why they keep lying about giving money to vets when they don't?

To further inform yourself, please read this really thoughtful and smart article over at The New Republic that give the facts of the case and dispel the myths that the media is selling. LINK

I Come To Bury Truth, Not To Praise It

Truth has become the enemy in America. It is hated and despised. The people who hate the truth the most are the ones who are in power. That is why the media is so quick to heap vitriol upon Ventura and not question the legacy of Kyle. Lies are celebrated. Lies are tonic for the ills that truth reveals. You never saw anyone taken to task for lying about the Iraq war. No one, not a government official, or a pundit or a journalist or a media personality, lost their job over lying about or being wrong about Iraq.

The lies that the media has wrapped itself in for the sake of ingratiating itself to power are easily observed. In regards to the Iraq war alone, the fellating of power by the media, and by the public, is amazing and easy to see. First we had the march to war…the lies Bush and company told about WMDs and Iraq's involvement in 9-11. Then we had the farce of the Jessica Lynch story, which Chris Kyle repeats in his book without the slightest regard to the truth. Then we have the charade of the death of Pat Tillman, a true American hero, who is violated and desecrated in death by the same government and media that duped him into serving in the first place.

This is why the media hates Jesse Ventura in particular. Ventura was vociferously against the Iraq war. He was right, and the corporate media, and most of the public, were wrong. They were either duped or complicit, but Ventura saw through the smokescreens. He is also a 9-11 Truther. This drives the corporate media and establishment types batty. It is a direct assault on their authority. It is sort of amusing and ironic that the term "Truther" has become derogatory in the media and in America. Telling the truth, or asking questions looking for it, is a sure fire way to get on the wrong side of the corporate media, Jesse Ventura is living proof of that.

Watch the news clips above, and search out others, and notice something…no one…not a single person, is interested in the truth. The truth is never mentioned, never alluded to, never a consideration. Truth is the real victim in this case. Truth is the forgotten one. The old Superman slogan was , "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Notice how, if you look closely at that saying, it is clear that "truth and justice" are not the same thing as the "American Way". And so it is.

The Righteous Mind, Cognitive Dissonance and The Suspension of Disbelief

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who wrote an interesting book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. In it, he describes the things that people believe are their greatest moral priorities. The six categories are Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation. For example, liberals may think that Fairness is the most important thing to them morally and conservatives may think that Loyalty is the most important thing to them morally. It is an interesting idea, and it comes into play with the Chris Kyle story. The one thing that does not appear on the Moral Foundations category list is…The Truth (honesty). 

If The Truth were an option for moral priorities, it would not come in first for either liberals or conservatives. Try having a discussion with a liberal about Obama or race, for instance, and you will quickly find out that The Truth comes in a very distant third to fairness and care. Conservatives, at least in my experience, put both authority and loyalty above The Truth. I spoke with a conservative friend of mine recently and he talked about wanting to talk in public about some semblance of The Truth, but in the next breath he said he could "never bad mouth his country". This sort of thinking and struggle is too common, people have an interest in The Truth, just not when The Truth conflicts with another, more importantly held belief, and most certainly not when The Truth can make them either uncomfortable or unpopular, which it often can. People will do all sorts of logical and moral gymnastics to maintain their belief system and world view and to keep The Truth at arms length. 

Cognitive Dissonance is "psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously". People will contort in all sorts of ways to avoid seeing the uncomfortable truth that is right in front of their eyes and facing that conflict. So we have an American war hero who you may feel is beyond reproach because of his service, and yet he is proven a liar in a court of law. So you lash out, either at Ventura, or the jury, in order to reject the new information that clashes with your strongly held belief in Chris Kyle. What usually occurs when people are presented with new information that clashes with their strongly held belief, is that they "seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists." 

A personal example, years ago in the 1990's, I was having a conversation with an older friend, someone twice my age. We were talking politics and he was talking about how much he respected and admired George H.W. Bush (The 41st President, not Dubya, the 43rd). I asked why he admired him and he said "because he is a self made man!". I thought this strange, and told him that George H.W. Bush was a lot of things, but a "self-made man" was not one of them. He vehemently disagreed and asked what proof I had of that. I told him that George H.W. Bush was the son of a senator, and not just any senator, but Prescott Bush, one of the most powerful senators of his time, and also a very powerful banker. I also told him that the Bush family was one of the most powerful and richest families in the country and had been for a long time. I told him that calling George H.W. Bush a self made man was like calling John F. Kennedy a self made man, or better yet, Teddy Kennedy. The man gave me a look of disdain and told me in not so many words, that I was full of it (he hated the Kennedy family no end). "Bush wasn't the son of a senator, he came up the hard way and made a life for himself", the man told me. The guy got pretty indignant about the whole thing and was positive he was right. A little more background on this friend, he wasn't a Johnny come lately to the Bush train, he had supported Bush back in 1980 in the republican primary against Reagan. He was a huge Bush supporter. So I told him I'd go home and look it up. So I looked it up and sure enough, George H.W. Bush is the son of a powerful senator who was also a banker. I told my friend the news, and his response was fascinating, he simply said…"but Bush is a self made man". I was left scratching my head. First off, how could such a strong supporter of Bush (41) not know he was the son of a senator? Secondly, how could that same person simply ignore the evidence of that fact and continue to believe what he believed before? The answer is obvious, it is the power of cognitive dissonance. The man didn't know that fact because it didn't fit into his narrative of who Bush (41) was (his strongly held belief) and was an inconvenient fact (new information that challenged his strongly held belief), so he was unconsciously blind to it in order to avoid or reduce his mental and emotional conflict. Secondly, he didn't want to change his narrative once the new information was blatantly obvious because that would take some great effort, so he simply ignored it again, this time consciously, and went back to his previously held belief in order to avoid mental and emotional angst. This man should fear not though, he is not alone, for we all have our blind spots, and as the term 'blind spots' suggests, we can see them in other people, but rarely see them in ourselves.

Suspension of disbelief is "a willingness to suspend ones critical faculties and believe the unbelievable, sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment." Suspension of disbelief is usually spoken of in reference to watching a movie, for instance, we know that Sandra Bullock isn't really in danger in outer space, but we suspend our disbelief in order to enjoy it for entertainment purposes. People do this constantly and consistently in regards to real life as well. Read the stories Chris Kyle told in his book and elsewhere. Read the alleged 'Jesse Ventura fight'. If you are a fair minded, independent observer of those stories, don't they come across as absolutely, and obviously false? Don't they seem to be blatantly made up and absurd? When I first read the Ventura part of the book, I thought…"well, that story is a hunk of horseshit". I've been in a few bar fights and seen a few more. That story is such blatant, self-serving nonsense that only the most die-hard true believer could ever buy it. People suspend their critical thinking, or 'suspend their disbelief' in order to 'preserve their current understanding of the world' and 'reject the conflicting information'.

For instance, if you think it is totally believable that Chris Kyle was sent to New Orleans by the US government and ordered to shoot US citizens, and yet you think Jesse Ventura is a loon for saying the US government capable of killing its own citizens on 9-11, then you may suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance. In order to diminish the mental conflict of these opposing beliefs, you will suspend your disbelief for the story about Chris Kyle yet maintain what you consider 'critical thinking' about the Jesse Ventura story. Another example might be if you believe that Chris Kyle shot two car jackers and officials made the bodies disappear and there is no record of it at all, yet you think that it is impossible for any conspiracy to prosper because 'no one would keep their mouths shut', then you may suffer from cognitive dissonance, and you might treat the malady with a small dose of suspension of disbelief applied in just the right area, the 'car jackers' story, in order to maintain your previously held worldview.

People need to believe, because without that belief, whether it be in their heroes, their country, their church, their world view, their ideology, their political party, or their own goodness, they will crumble. They MUST believe in order to be able to face the day. If their belief system is shown to be a fraud, they wouldn't have anything to stand upon, and everything about them would be a lie, and that would mean they would be mentally and emotionally obliterated. Their identity would be shattered. They would cease to exist. Without their belief system/identity, they are nothing, they are cast into the dark abyss, the void of 'not knowing'. That is a frightening prospect for most people.

We as humans need to bend reality in all sorts of bizarre ways in order to be able to survive and keep our psyche in tact. We ignore some things, and focus on others, all in an attempt to make 'reality' fit what we want it to be. We suspend our disbelief so that we can be loyal to our country, or our president or whatever is important to us. We hold contrasting beliefs and attitudes simultaneously in order to make our belief system make some sort of sense to us internally, even when it makes no sense externally. This is the human condition. It is not a disease that only infects those of a certain political party or religion, it is a disease that infects mankind, and it is epidemic.

So we create American Heroes to convince ourselves that we, as a country and as a people, are good. We are the moral ones in the world. Bush wouldn't lie because he's the type of guy you want to have a beer with. Jessica Lynch was held hostage by those filthy, Iraqi, Muslim hordes who are savages…except she wasn't. She was saved by Iraqis who saw a young woman terribly injured and brought her to a hospital and cared for her. Pat Tillman was a true American hero who gave his life saving his comrades and fighting for America and against Al-Qaeda, except he really was gunned down in a terrible case of friendly fire and had serious doubts about the missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Chris Kyle punched that no good 9-11 truther Jesse Ventura out in a bar because he badmouthed America and the troops. Except Ventura never said those things and Chris Kyle never did those things. Just like there were no filthy hippie protestors with "baby killer" signs, and there were no WMDs that Chris Kyle and Chris Kyle alone found in a basement in Iraq. Just like he didn't shoot two car jackers in the middle of nowhere Texas, and he didn't shoot looters in the aftermath of Katrina. None of those things are true…but that doesn't mean there aren't people who desperately need them to be true.

The Manichean and the Search for Empathy

A Manichean philosophy is one that sees the world in black and white. With the Manichean there is no gray area. Things are either good or evil, you are either with us or against us. Chris Kyle spells out very clearly in his book that he sees the world in black and white. This is a sensible and logical way to look at the world for a soldier in combat. You are trying to kill your enemy, your enemy is trying to kill you. I am good, he is bad. A war zone is a tough place for nuance to make a living. So for Chris Kyle, all the Iraqis are savages and evil. He doesn't like Muslims either. To make things clearer he gets a crusader cross tattooed on his arm. Message sent and received. He is good, his enemies are bad. Black and white. While a Manichean philosophy can serve you well in wartime, it can have its drawbacks in peace time. For instance, if you view the world as black and white, that means if someone tells a lie, then they are a liar. Liars are bad people because lying is wrong. If we hold Chris Kyle to the same standard he holds the rest of the world then some uncomfortable things come into question.

The Jesse Ventura story Chris Kyle told is a lie. I have also pointed out the other lies he has told. The uncomfortable question about Chris Kyle now is…did he lie about anything else? We don't know the answer to that question. Kyle claims to be the deadliest sniper in American history. He claims to have 160 'confirmed' kills (as stated before, 'confirmed' kills are kills witnessed by another soldier besides the shooter). That statistic has not been confirmed in any way by the US Navy or Pentagon. It would be very helpful if the Navy at least released some information about the kills and whether they really happened or not. There are other uncomfortable questions that we can probably never get the answer to. Namely, of the kills Chris Kyle actually does have, how many of them were "good" kills. Did he kill innocent people. He was questioned about shooting an Iraqi man who Chris claims had a weapon, but who witnesses claim only had a Koran. Maybe Chris was telling the truth about that incident, but as we have seen, Chris' version of the truth, and the actual Truth can often times be two totally contradictory things.

It has been proven in court that Chris Kyle lied about someone else to make himself look good and to enrich himself. Does that mean he was a bad father? A bad husband? A bad son? Does it mean the work he did with fellow veterans suffering from PTSD wasn't a good, kind and noble thing to do? Does it mean he wasn't a good friend and comrade to his brothers in arms? Does Chris Kyle being a liar mean that Chris Kyle is a bad person? If Chris Kyle answered that question about someone else, he would say "Yes", at least according to his own acknowledged Manichean world view. I see things differently. I don't think people are the worst thing they have ever done. I think we are all deeply flawed human beings struggling to make our way in a confusing and frightening world. I think Chris Kyle lied about a lot of things. I also think Chris Kyle did a lot of good for veterans who were suffering and struggling upon their return to 'the world'. I think Chris Kyle was probably a great dad, and a great husband, a fantastic son and a terrific comrade in arms. I don't think he was a terrible human being…I think, like all of us, he was a terribly human - being. I wish Chris had lived long enough to be able spend some time in the 'gray area', and to see others in all their contradictions and complexity.

Truth is Beauty, Beauty Truth

The uproar over the last few days, the knee-jerk reaction to the verdict, the vitriol spat on Jesse Ventura and the national sainthood bestowed upon Chris Kyle were all very predictable. In America emotion rules the day. Instant gratification means we have an impulse and we have to follow it. Facts, truth and reason have no place in our current culture, except as objects of ridicule and scorn. We know what we know and we know it is right because we FEEL it is right. We would rather shout someone down than go inward and question ourselves, our beliefs, our worldview, because God forbid we are wrong, then the whole house of cards will tumble and no one wants that.

I've been wrong many, many times in my life. I don't mean kind of wrong, or misspoke a fact or something. I mean spectacularly, horrifically and catastrophically wrong. There have been a few times in my life when I have discovered, much to my chagrin, that everything I know is wrong. Everything. It is a pretty disconcerting thing to find that out. Truth be told it is earth shattering. It leaves you seriously out of balance and frankly in a state of despair. The one benefit of having been through those experiences though, is that it has left me with a hunger for the Truth above all else. The Truth about the world and the Truth about myself. I cherish Truth over loyalty, authority, fairness and care. Which I guess makes me neither a liberal or a conservative.  Having survived the 'everything you know is wrong'  apocalypse also helps you see through the bullshit that is often being sold to you, particularly by the media.  The bullshit the media spews out piles up so fast you need wings to stay above it.* If your loyalty is only to the Truth, you will see the world in a vastly different way. It can be a pretty isolating and difficult thing to do, but it is better than lying to yourself. Or at least it is to me. That is not to say that I have some ownership of the Truth, not at all, believe me. The Truth is just as elusive to me as it is to anyone else. And it can be just as uncomfortable to me as it for anyone else. Hell, I didn't want to write a blog piece talking bad about Chris Kyle. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of angry emails from his fans calling me all sorts of names. But the truth is the Truth, and I feel like I need to speak it, even when it is unpopular, or maybe particularly when it is unpopular.

My one hope is that the people who are attacking Jesse Ventura, and who are reflexively defending Chris Kyle, can step back and not only take a closer looks at the facts of the case and facts about the man himself, but also take a deeper look into themselves, and let their loyalty be to the Truth and not to their preconceived notions.

Final Thoughts

The fans of Chris Kyle say he is an American Hero. They say he is the embodiment of all that is good about this country. I actually slightly disagree with that. I think Chris Kyle is not the perfect American, but rather the perfect embodiment of America. He was brave, yet a bully. He was selfless, yet selfish. He was humble, yet a braggart. He was brilliant, yet dense. He was a bullshitter, yet sincere. He was heroic, yet cowardly. He was the perfect embodiment of America in all of its manic contradictions and hypocrisies. And as the court case has proven, Chris, in the true American fashion, was more interested in marketing himself than in telling the Truth.

So I sincerely ask you to keep Chris Kyle, his comrades, both fallen and those still with us, and their families in your thoughts and prayers. And also keep the millions of Iraqis, both friend and foe, alive and dead, in your thoughts and prayers as well. But also try and take time to stop and remember...the Truth.

One Final Final Thought

I realize that many people may be upset, or angry or offended by this piece. This is a topic which causes emotions to run very high and for people to take great offense. You may not like what I have written and you may hate me for having written it. That is your prerogative.

You may also think that Chris Kyle and I have nothing at all in common. You would be wrong about that. A few days before Chris was tragically killed, he posted this on his Facebook page, "If you don't like what I have to say or post, you forget one thing, I don't give a shit what you think. LOL".

Couldn't have said it better myself, Chris. Rest in Peace.

*Apocalypse Now

© 2014

IF YOU FOUND THIS POST OF INTEREST, YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY…

THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : COURT JESTER AS PROPAGANDA TOOL

THE JOHN OLIVER TWIST : THE DRUMPF AFFAIR AND LITTLE BILL MAHER'S POWER FETISH

#OSCARSSOWHITE : DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE?

THE WAY OF THE GUN: MEDITATIONS ON AMERICA AND GUNS

SICARIO : A REVIEW AND REPORTS FROM DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE OF THE DRUG WAR

CITIZENFOUR : A REVIEW AND RANDOM THOUGHTS

FOR THE FOLLOW-UP POST TO THIS ARTICLE...

 TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE CURIOUS CASE OF CHRIS KYLE PART TWO : THE REACTION

COMMENTS ARE ON. PLEASE BE THOUGHTFUL, RESPECTFUL TO ONE ANOTHER AND GERMANE. 

From The Memory Hole: Iranian Air Flight 655

On Thursday, July 17, Malaysian Air flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine en route from The Netherlands to Malaysia. All 298 people on board, including 80 children, were killed. It is a horrific and unspeakable tragedy. My thoughts and prayers go out to the lost and to their grieving friends and families.

I almost never watch cable news, but once I read about the crash on the internet, I turned on the television and tuned in the cable news stations, switching back and forth from MSNBC to Fox and to CNN in an effort to gather information and maybe gain a little insight. Boy, was I wrong. Instead of information I got hyperbole and moral outrage, instead of insight I got propaganda and partisanship. Cable news, be it Fox, MSNBC or CNN, has the remarkable ability to actually make you stupider just by watching. 

The one thing I kept hearing over and over was that this MH17 disaster reminded all the talking 'empty' heads of Korean Air flight 007, which was shot down by Soviet fighter planes when it made an unauthorized flight into Soviet airspace in 1983. All 269 people on board died. I remember this event vividly. The US and Soviets were at the height of the cold war and this incident caused many to believe the cold war was about to get hot. I can sort of understand why MH17 reminds the empty heads of KAL 007, there are planes involved, there are Russians involved (to what extant we don't know yet in the case of MH17), and lots of innocent people died. I get it. There are lots of differences too…namely that in the case of KAL 007, the plane either deliberately or by accident, flew into restricted airspace, then was deliberately shot down by Soviet fighters. MH17 was not in restricted airspace, was allegedly shot down by a surface to air missile and not a fighter plane, and was done so allegedly by accident and not deliberately. I can forgive the news networks for comparing the two incidents, what I cannot forgive is their complete silence on another incident that greatly resembles MH17, but which was perpetrated by the US.

Iran Air flight 655 was shot down on July 3, 1988 by the USS Vincennes while flying in Iranian airspace. The flight was going from Tehran to Dubai when it was shot down, all 290 people on board were killed. Do you remember this incident? Most Americans don't. It has been lost down the memory hole. It is seldom, if ever, spoken about. Why do you think that is? Could that incident in anyway give context to Iran's distrust and dislike of the US? Maybe? Because you know who does remember it? Iranians. In fact, Iran has kept the Tehran to Dubai flight numbered as IR655 in tribute to that doomed flight, which is in direct contrast to every other major airline accident, which never uses the same flight number again.

If you don't remember the incident, and why would you, it's not like you'll ever hear about it from the media, here's a brief rundown of it. Flight 655 was in Iranian airspace, properly giving out it's identifying signals as a civilian aircraft, when the USS Vincennes, a US Navy Guided Missile Cruiser, went into Iranian waters and shot the plane down. The Iranians were rightfully incensed. The US also refused to apologize, with then President Bush (George H.W.) saying he would "never apologize for America". In fact, the US gave medals to every sailor who was aboard the Vincennes during the incident, and gave special commendation to the officers involved in the shooting. Eight years later, in 1996, the US agreed to pay $213,103.45 as compensation to the families of each victim. As Ron Burgundy would say…"stay classy America".

One final note, 18 years ago to the day, July 17, another air tragedy occurred that has eery similarities to the MH17 disaster. TWA flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island after taking off from JFK airport. All 230 people aboard died.  The official cause of the accident is that an electrical spark caused the fuel tanks to exploded. Never before or since, in the history of aviation, has an electrical spark caused a fuel tank explosion. Never. I urge you to go and watch the documentary "TWA: Flight 800". It is available on EPIX and coming soon to Netflix. Here is the link to the film's website. TWA FLIGHT 800. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. The evidence is overwhelming that the plane was not brought down by 'an electrical spark in the fuel tanks'. It is also readily apparent that the US government and it's propaganda media friends, went to great lengths to obfuscate the truth about what really happened to the plane. To any remotely independent person who reviews the evidence, it is very clear that TWA Flight 800 was in fact brought down by a missile, most likely by accident and by the US Navy. Again…please go watch the film, it is very compelling.

In conclusion, I ask that you fight against the idiotic chatter of the media and the propaganda outfits,  see through their lies and disinformation. Instead, use your time and energy to remember not only the victims of MH17, but also the victims of IR655, KAL 007 and TWA flight 800. Most importantly keep their grieving families in your thoughts and prayers, and demand that they get the truth, at the very least we owe them that.

Derek, Orange is the New Black, and the Sophomore Slump

I recently binge-watched both season one and season two of "Derek" on Netflix. I had very low expectations for the show. I don't consider myself a fan of Ricky Gervais, that is not to say that I dislike him or his work, it is just to say that he is not someone I really think about when it comes to acting. I'm not sure why that is, I liked "Extras" very much and thought the series finale was one of the best things I had seen on television in a long time, and of course, "The Office" is a classic.

"Derek" is the story of Derek and the old folks home he 'works' at with his fellow misfits. The show is shmaltzy, maudlin, manipulative, cheesy…and yet…I really liked it. Let me qualify that...I really liked season one. In season one, Gervais is completely committed to the character, physically, mentally, emotionally. He is 'Derek' all the time. It is a quirky and somewhat mannered performance, but Gervais succeeds in making you believe him as Derek and care about him. Derek is simple, sweet, genuine and kind, basically the polar opposite of everyone else Ricky Gervais has ever played. Gervais is able to tap into much deeper wells of emotion through fully inhabiting a character so far removed from his previous roles and public persona. It is a tribute to him that he had the courage to try and take on such a part.

The supporting cast is excellent as well. Karl Pilkington in particular is fantastic as the nursing home jack of all trades, and he and Gervais have such a specific and interesting chemistry that brings them both to life. Kerry Godliman is also great as the director of the nursing home. One thing Gervais does very well, is cast women who are beautiful and charming but also real. His leading women are all very appealing because we know them, these are women who inhabit real-life, not 'Hollywood life'.  The rest of the cast does an excellent job as well.

Season two, though, is a different story. Pilkington is gone, and his second fiddle position is filled by David Earl as Kev, an alcoholic loser, who was also in season one, but his role was less prominent. Earl does a great job of being funny and heartbreaking as Kev, making him a fully formed and complex character, not just a one-trick pony. The problem, though, is that with Pilkington's Dougie gone, and Kev moving up the food chain to second banana, no one steps up to replace Kev as the third banana. So it is just Derek and Kev with Dougie gone.

Another problem with season two is Gervais. For some reason, he simply can't stick with the character Derek, as we got to know him in season one. Maybe it was too taxing for him, maybe he just had to let the audience in on the joke but, in season two, Gervais makes Derek more self-aware and less simplistic, and by doing so, undermines the premise of the show. Throughout season two, Derek does takes to the camera where he gives the audience a knowing look. What made Derek so appealing to me in season one was that he would give takes to the camera and have a clueless look, he was lost. He wasn't in on the joke. In season two, Derek's takes to the camera are done with self-awareness. Derek is in on the joke in season two, and by making him self-aware and smarter, our sympathies for him are removed. It almost feels like Gervais is winking at us to let us all know that HE knows, and that the show itself is a joke, and we unwitting butts of it.

Season two also goes beyond the pale in terms of manipulation. "Derek"  is a manipulative show to begin with, we have a main character who is a sweet simpleton in what can be a cruel, uncaring world. But in season two, the show pulls at our heartstrings with a never ending cavalcade of miseries that reek of desperation. (SPOILER ALERT!!!) There's the death of Derek's long-lost and now found father, there's a miscarriage, hell, there's even Derek's favorite dog dying.  In season two, the show switched from trying to get the viewer to understand and like Derek, to getting the viewer to pity him. Pity is the least creative or imaginative way to get someone to feel something, and the show suffers because of it.

So watch season one, and enjoy Ricky Gervais stepping out of his comfort zone, but skip season two.

I also recently binge-watched "Orange is the New Black" on Netflix. The show is the story of Piper, a white, upper-middle class, bi-sexual woman played by Taylor Schilling, who is sentenced to a year in prison for laundering money ten years earlier for her drug dealing girlfriend. The girlfriend, played by Laura Prepon, also gets sentenced to the same prison as Piper. To make matters more complicated, Piper has a fiancé, played by Jason Biggs, on the outside waiting for her to get out of prison so they can get married.

Season one is really well done. It expertly introduces all the characters, the other prisoners, the prison staff and Piper's family in a really well thought out and cohesive way. Piper's fish-out-of-water routine is what drives the comedy, but the narrative is driven by her complicated relationship with ex-gf Alex (Laura Prepon), and her fiancé, Larry (Jason Biggs).

Sprinkled in among the main narrative, are little snippets of the backstory and lives of the other prisoners and prison staff. This is really well done and is a great idea to give depth and meaning to the many secondary characters. Whether it is the prison supervisor who plays bass in a band, or the guard married to a Ukrainian mail-order gold digger, or the black inmate who was adopted by white parents who had their own 'miracle' white child after adopting, or the young woman raised in the foster system who is an easy mark for a drug dealing 'mom', or the Russian woman who dared to over step her bounds with the men in the Russian mafia, all of the secondary stories are interesting and effective.

The thing I like the most about "Orange is the New Black" is the ensemble cast. It is filled with actors who we might never have seen without this show. They are lesser known character actors who rarely, if ever, get the screen time that they deserve. In "Orange", they get that time, and they get meaty roles and story lines that give them the chance to show how good they really are. It is refreshing to see new faces dominate a show, and do it so very well.

Season one really moves along at a great pace with not only the Piper story driving us forward, but also the secondary stories creating a complete picture of the men and women who work and live at the prison. It is a really interesting, unique and entertaining show and I highly recommend it.

Season two, on the other hand, is not so great. The secondary stories are still there, in fact, they have an even more prominent role in the show.  While I find those stories interesting, and the actors in them do well, those stories do not drive the narrative. The narrative is driven by the Piper story, and in season two, the Piper story fizzles.

Season two starts off meandering, but then just goes into full blown wandering. The season feels rudderless and directionless most of the time. Piper's fish-out-of-water routine is greatly diminished because she now knows prison life. Now she flounders in the real world, and we only see brief glimpses of that. Her relationship with Alex is over, and Alex is gone for most of the season. Her relationship with Larry is over, and his role is greatly reduced for most of the season. While I love the secondary stories, they are not enough to drive the narrative forward in a compelling fashion. It is sort of like eating only mashed potatoes and stuffing on Thanksgiving, with no turkey.  The Piper/Alex/Larry story is the turkey, and season two is lacking it. 

"Orange is the New Black", like "Derek", suffers from the 'sophomore slump'. The sophomore slump is not an unusual malady for a tv show…or a film, band, artist, athlete or student. If you think about it, the sophomore slump is such a universal ailment, that the only people that really stick out are the ones who don't suffer from it. 

The best example of why a sophomore slump occurs is in the music business. A band may spend ten years writing and playing their material before they get signed to a record deal, then they record the material and people love it. Then they go into the studio to record the second album. Well, they don't have ten years to write and play the new material and perfect and fine tune it. They have a few months. So, unless they have a huge backlog of material they didn't use on the first album, then they have to write and record new material in a short period of time. And even if they do have a huge backlog of material, it isn't going to be as good as the first record, because that material was passed over on the first record.

The same thing happens with a tv show, or a film. You put all of your good ideas into season one because you desperately need to have them pick up season two. Also, you have learned a whole bunch of lessons from your first season, but you have to integrate those lessons in a much shorter period of time than you had for your debut. The other danger is, you don't want to simply repeat yourself with your second season. It is a tough spot to be in, no doubt. That is why those uninfected by the sophomore slump are the outliers.

The sophomore slump for the actor is a curious disease. It is slightly different than for other artists. The actor may get a big break on a project and get some fame and fortune, and they need to follow this up. The biggest mistake actors make after getting some success, is that they think they are 'done', that they are a complete actor. They think they know everything about acting because they are famous or rich or working. The truth is, the best way to avoid the sophomore slump if you're an actor, is to keep working on your craft. You must constantly be on guard against complacency. If you are in a class, keep going. If you don't want to go to a class and deal with the politics and nonsense that can sometimes accompany them, then go to a private coach or teacher (…in other words, CALL ME!! Cuz that is what I do!!). The key is to remain confident yet humble, ambitious yet grounded. Realize that just because you have a job or fame or money, doesn't mean you've figured out acting…or life. It just means you have fame, money or a job. Keep working on getting better. You have to work as hard between project one and project two as you did between project zero and project one. Work, work, work. Hone your craft and your skill. Always be getting better. Once you think you have it figured out…you are creatively dead.

So, check out seasons one of "Derek" and "Orange is the New Black", but avoid season two. And please go to your local acting coach/teacher to get your vaccinations against the dreaded 'Sophomore Slump'. The artistic career you save, could be your own.

Godzilla: Actor, Artist, Icon, Legend

What follows are excerpts from my soon to be published biography of Godzilla titled "Godzilla: Actor, Artist, Icon, Legend" Copyright 2014. All Rights Reserved.

FROM HIROSHIMA TO HOLLYWOOD

In 1951, Marlon Brando burst upon the acting world like a nuclear bomb as Stanley Kuwalski in the film adaptation of  Tennessee William's "A Streetcar Named Desire". His power, magnetism and charisma would change acting forever.

Two years later and half a world away, the U.S.S. Fatty Arbuckle was dropping sonar buoys deep in the Pacific. As a treat to the beleaguered and homesick sailors, the commanding officer had obtained a copy of "Streetcar" and showed it on the ships deck for some much deserved R & R. In the dark of that Pacific night, the sailors weren't the only one's watching Brando's masterful performance. Floating upon the ocean's surface, with just his eyes and ears above the waterline, was someone else who would become not just mesmerized, but inspired, by Brando's performance. This young viewer, floating alone in the dark depths of the Pacific, decided to change his life. At that exact moment, he made the greatest decision someone can ever make…to become an actor. That decision didn't only change his life…it changed the world. 

That aspiring actor set off for Tokyo the next day. By simply taking that first step, he set forth the hands of fate, and destiny greeted him at Tokyo's shores. He was literally discovered the following week in Tokyo Bay and secured an audition for Toho Films, the biggest and best movie studio in all of Japan. The rest is history. That young actor's name was Godzilla, and the film in which he was cast as the lead was "Gojira", and it would make him one of the biggest stars that Japan has ever seen.

Godzilla was brought into this world in egg form in 1945 off the coast of Hiroshima, Japan. While still in the egg stage of his development, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb upon his hometown, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and genetically altering Godzilla in his development. Three weeks later he burst from his egg, larger than normal, and he grew up in the nuclear fall out of that horrific attack. It changed him on every level. At the tender young age of six months, he left the coast of Japan and went deep into the Pacific, to find himself, to find his life, to find his destiny. He found it on the black and white images dancing upon the silver screen on the deck of the U.S.S. Fatty Arbuckle.

Brando was the inspiration for Godzilla, and the two would forever be linked, in their careers and their lives, becoming artistic admirers, neighbors, confidantes and longtime friends.

In 1954, "Gojiro" was released in Japan and became an instant classic and made Godzilla into a superstar overnight, earning him his first Japanese Academy Award for Best Kaiju. That same year, Brando won his first Best Actor Oscar with his performance in "On the Waterfront", cementing his place atop the acting world. 

In 1955, Godzilla would star in "Godzilla Raids Again", for which he would win his second Best Kaiju award in as many years, becoming the first actor to ever win the award in back-to-back years. He was now the toast of all Japan, and along with fellow Japanese acting great Toshiro Mifune, ushered in a golden era of Japanese acting. Mifune and Godzilla were the biggest stars in all of Japan, and would become the fiercest of rivals, to the point where Mifune once bitterly said of Godzilla, "He is not my rival, he is my enemy".

In 1956, "Gojira" was re-cut for American audiences and released in the U.S. under the title "Godzilla: King of All Monsters". While Godzilla disliked the re-edit, and despised his re-edtited Canadian co-star Raymond Burr, he didn't dislike the results of a U.S. release. Godzilla went from being the biggest movie star in Japan, to being one of the biggest stars in the world, a crossover success which eluded Mifune, much to Godzilla's delight.

1956 would also be the first time that Godzilla and his idol, Brando, met. Marlon Brando came to Japan to shoot "The Teahouse of the August Moon". Brando was first introduced to Godzilla at a party thrown by his 'Teahouse' co-star Machiko Kyo, who also happened to be one of a myriad of women dating Godzilla at the time. Godzilla was nervous upon meeting his idol and also wary that the infamously womanizing Brando might be after his sometime girlfriend Machiko, but after a few cocktails both men loosened up and a friendship was born. That night Brando goaded Godzilla into pulling a drunken prank on the Tokyo rail system. Brando watched with glee as the drunken Godzilla performed a wild dance and crushed all the rail lines leading into the city. Godzilla destroyed nearly $50 million worth of infrastructure that night, but he built a friendship with Brando that lasted lifetime.

Brando and Godzilla became such close friends that Brando decided to accept a role in the film "Sayonara"  which shot in Japan in 1957. Brando stayed with Godzilla at his newly built "Monster Island" compound for the entirety of the shoot. Their parties were legendary, as both actors became well known for their late night shenanigans. They tore through the ladies and the country's infrastructure with equal fervor and passion. As the true renaissance actors that they were, they also spent as much time discussing art, acting, philosophy and religion as they did chasing women and destroying power plants.

In the following decade, Brando would buy his own island in Tahiti, becoming one of Godzilla's neighbors. Brando also, ironically enough, became godfather to Godzilla's son Minilla. This was the first, but not the last time Brando would be called "Godfather". In 1971, Brando also famously paid tribute to his friend Godzilla with his death scene in "Godfather", imitating his Japanese friend as a show of respect.

FEUDS

King Kong

In 1961 Godzilla hadn't been in a film in nearly six years. He had spent his time off enjoying his celebrity, including the women and wealth that came with it, and spending that enormous wealth building his "Monster Island" home. Toho studios approached Godzilla that year with an idea. They wanted to make another Godzilla film, but this time they wanted to change things up, this time they wanted Godzilla to have a co-star.

King Kong was Hollywood royalty. In 1933 he made his film debut in the movie aptly titled "King Kong", which became an instant classic around the world. He won a Best Monster Oscar for his performance. It was followed later that year with "The Son of King Kong", which while less successful and critically acclaimed as Kong's first film, still was a financial success. 

Much like his Japanese counterpart Godzilla, Kong had grown up in the South Pacific on a remote island, in Kong's case, the mysterious Skull Island. He was plucked from obscurity and became one of the biggest and richest stars in the world. Also like Godzilla, Kong hadn't worked in a while, but Kong's absence hadn't been for a mere six years, Kong hadn't shot a film in nearly thirty years. During that thirty year absence he had managed at first to stay in the spotlight through his tumultuous and public relationship with his "King Kong" co-star, Fay Wray. Once that relationship ended, and ended badly, Kong retreated to his upstate New York mansion and faded from public view and memory.

By 1961, Kong was in deep financial trouble. Thirty years of unemployment and a love of horse racing will do that. After failing to stir any interest from Hollywood, Kong's agent reached out to Toho as a last resort to try and find work. Toho saw the opportunity to cash in on Kong and to get him for cheap, but they needed to be careful. Godzilla was the biggest star they had, and he was notoriously fickle and did not like being disrespected. Toho approached Godzilla about the idea of making a Godzilla and King Kong buddy comedy film, maybe a road picture in the style of the Bob Hope-Bing Crosby films. Not surprisingly, Godzilla was not happy with the idea, showing his displeasure by sinking three large cargo ships off the Japanese coast.

Toho changed it's approach, tapping into Godzilla's anger and vanity, and using it to their advantage. They made the pitch that the film would no longer be a buddy comedy, but rather, a fight between the two of them. They also pointed out that it would be "Godzilla vs. King Kong", not "King Kong vs. Godzilla" as Kong had wanted. This intrigued Godzilla, for he longed to have someone or something worthy to match up against, as opposed to the Japanese civil defense troops, which he felt were beneath his dignity to fight. The final push that sealed the deal for Godzilla was when Toho pointed out that Godzilla wasn't going to New York to shoot a King Kong movie, but rather King Kong was coming east, to Japan, to shoot a Godzilla movie, that and the fact that they guaranteed Godzilla twice the pay rate of Kong and 50% of the profits on the back end. Godzilla was on board and Kong was heading to Japan and the fireworks were soon to follow.

The first meeting between the legendary actors was at a table read of the script held on Kaiju Island just one week prior to shooting. Godzilla knew everyone at the reading pretty well, having been part of the Toho family for seven years at this point, Kong on the other hand, knew no one. Kong's social anxiety was well known in movie making circles, and in fact had been a major reason for his unemployment over the last thirty years. He often over compensated for his anxiety by acting overly aggressive, and his first Toho script reading was no exception. Kong entered the valley, set up as a makeshift reading room, with a scowl on his face and immediately sat in a corner brooding. Godzilla, usually in a bad mood, was actually on his best behavior and feeling good, so he went over to introduce himself and say hello to Kong.

Godzilla  put out his short arm to shake Kong's hand and said, "Welcome to Japan, Kong". Kong stood up and grabbed Godzilla's hand and simply said, "You can call me King". A shudder went through the production staff, everyone there knew this was not going to go well. Godzilla smiled and looked Kong right in the eye and said, "You can call me God". After some intense chest thumping, some roaring and some giant boulder throwing, the reading was called off. The producers wanted the actors to "save it" for when the cameras were rolling. So they parted and refused to speak to or acknowledge one another for the entirety of the shoot.

The relationship was so contentious that the producers had to shoot multiple endings in order to appease each star. When the film finally came out, the Japanese version ended with Godzilla defeating Kong, but the American version had Kong defeating Godzilla. This infuriated Godzilla, who felt it was a display of obvious anti-Asian racism, so he threatened to destroy Tokyo, Kyoto and Toho studios itself in his ensuing rampage if the U.S. version was released. Toho execs were forced to concede to Godzilla an even bigger portion of the profits of the film in order to save their studio. Godzilla may not have liked how the U.S. version ended, but, racism be damned, he certainly liked making nearly ten times as much as King Kong. As Godzilla once said to a reporter, "Kong may win in the American version, but I am winning in life."

Kong would go on to make more films with Toho, but never with Godzilla. Their feud would go on for decades, and while they never liked each other, they did eventually develop a grudging respect for one another.

Toshiro Mifune

In 1950, Toshiro Mifune, a relative unknown in the Japanese film industry, burst onto the scene in a supporting role in Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon". The performance was so electric that he quickly became the 'Marlon Brando' of Japanese acting.

Four years later in 1954, Godzilla had his breakout success in "Gojira", and was thrust into the same category as Mifune, that of the great Japanese actors. 1954 was also a great year for Mifune, for he starred in Kurosawa's masterpiece "Seven Samurai". His performance was spectacular and earned him numerous accolades and awards, including the Japanese Academy Award for Best Actor. Yet, even with his great success and critical acclaim, Mifune was being overshadowed by Godzilla, and he did not understand it, or like it.

Godzilla on the other hand, didn't like the little attention Mifune did get, and thought that he, Godzilla, should have won Best Actor, instead of Best Kaiju. Without anywhere to place the blame for this perceived snub, Godzilla turned his resentment toward Mifune.

The two met for the first time at a party thrown by a mutual friend, the brilliant actor Takashi Shimura. Shimura had worked with Mifune on both "Rashomon" and "Seven Samurai" and the two had become close friends and deeply respected and admired each others work. Shimura had also starred alongside Godzilla in his debut "Gojira". Shimura felt an instant fondness for Godzilla, and took him under his wing and helped him a great deal with the ins and outs of film acting during the shoot. Godzilla once said of Shimura, "Shimura taught me the power of stillness, without Shimura, there would be no Godzilla". Godzilla trusted and respected Shimura a great deal, looked up to him like a big brother. So when Shimura's wife was throwing him a birthday party, she invited both Mifune and Godzilla. Unbeknownst to her, the results would have far reaching affects.

Mifune showed up to the party with his young niece , Momoko, a 16 year old girl visiting Tokyo for the first time. Godzilla on the other hand, showed up with only an oil tanker of whiskey in his belly. Shimura introduced Mifune and Godzilla, and the three men spent a few moments talking about acting and art, and the brilliance of Kurosawa. Mifune then introduced his niece Momoko to Godzilla, she was a big fan and was awe-struck at meeting him. Then after the conversation they went their separate ways and mingled throughout the party. Shimura was pleased that his two good friends, who were seemingly rivals, could bury the hatchet and at least be civil to one another. 

Then it happened. How it started, no one knows for sure, all that is really known is that Mifune went to the back yard to get some air. Upon taking in Shimura's beautiful view, he noticed something that shocked and horrified him. Godzilla was being sexually satisfied, in public, by Mifune's naked young niece, Momoko, down by the waterside.

Mifune exploded into a violent rage, one that matched Godzilla in it's ferocity and intensity. He ran down to the waterside with a Samurai's war cry. Shimura and the rest of the party-goers ran outside to see what the racket was all about. They got there just in time to see Mifune pull a Samurai sword from his belt and draw upon Godzilla. Godzilla was lost in the ecstasy of the moment and did not hear Mifune's war cry. He did feel Mifune's sword pierce his big toe though, and let out a yell that knocked over several beach front houses.

Mifune then covered his niece, and advanced upon Godzilla. As Godzilla described the event, "I was in no mood for Mifune's bullshit. If he wanted to go, then I figured... let's go." The two actors fought for only a few moments before Shimura had reached them and separated them. Mifune was left with two black eyes, broken ribs and third degree burns on his arms. Godzilla was left with an infected big toe and a nasty hangover.

While Mifune may have lost the fight, he won the respect of his fellow party-goers including Shimura. Mifune had fought with courage and honor. The same could not be said of Godzilla. Shimura was so outraged with Godzilla's behavior toward the young girl and Mifune, that he refused to speak to him ever again. When Godzilla awoke the next morning, he realized the gigantic mistake he had made. He tried to reach out to Shimura, but Shimura refused to see or speak to him.

Godzilla and Mifune would become the two great Japanese actors, not only of their time, but of all time, but they remained the fiercest and bitterest of rivals for the remainder of their careers.  Mifune could never forgive Godzilla for what he had done, and Godzilla could not live it down, it has haunted him and his career ever since.

Tyrannosaurus Rex & Steven Spielberg

 In 1918, Tyrannosaurus Rex, or T-Rex as he came to be known, acted in his first film, the forgettable "Ghost of Slumber Mountain". The film may have been forgettable, but T-Rex was not, and he has been working steadily in both film and television ever since his debut.

T-Rex became known in the industry as a solid but not stellar, working actor. He won a Best Supporting Monster Oscar for his work in the 1933 film "King Kong". During the filming of "King Kong", the film's star, King Kong and T-Rex struck up a great friendship. They have remained the best of friends through good times and bad.

Godzilla has never worked with T-Rex, and has said he never will. Kong's friendship with T-Rex may be part of the reason why Kong and Godzilla got along so poorly. Godzilla was called a "Japanese T-Rex" by the American press during the "Godzilla: King of All Monsters" publicity tour. He responded by saying, "See that name on the top of the marquee? It says 'Godzilla'! Ain't no movies named 'T-Rex'."  Kong remembered this slight against his friend and it colored his opinion of Godzilla before they ever even met.

While T-Rex has never publicly said so, it was commonly believed that he was resentful if not outright jealous of Godzilla. Godzilla's star had grown larger than T-Rex could ever hope to imagine, and for an old pro like Rex, that must have hurt. But in the early 1990's, things would take a strange twist, and for the first time, Godzilla would find himself on the outside looking in.

The story actually began in 1966 when Godzilla found out he had become a father for the first time. His son was named Minilla, and the mother's identity has never been revealed, although rumor has it that she was an underage sex worker from an unknown Pacific island.  Not surprisingly, Godzilla did not take well to fatherhood at first. His partying lifestyle being cramped by the responsibility for taking care of an infant grew tiresome, but Godzilla did it anyway. Soon, Minilla was the apple of his father's eye. Godzilla asked his friend Marlon Brando to be Godfather to his son, and Brando gladly accepted. 

Godzilla's life was changing, he was growing up. A year later, in 1967, Godzilla decided it was time for his son to get into the movie business. Minilla was cast as Son of Godzilla in the creatively titled, "Son of Godzilla". Minilla became a sensation. He was cute, adorable, charming and charismatic. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree as they say. A mini-star was born. He was nominated for Best Supporting Kaiju that year, but lost out to Mothra in a very controversial and hotly debated decision.

Minilla would go on to co-star with his father in multiple films, "Destroy All Monsters" in 1968, "All Monsters Attack" in 1969 and "Godzilla vs. Gigan" in 1972. He won Best Supporting Kaiju for 'Monsters Attack' and 'Gigan'. He was on the top of the acting world in 1973, when he decided to take a break from acting and attend Princeton University. He majored in English Literature with a minor in Comparative Religion. He graduated in 1978 and returned home to Monster Island ready for his next adventure in life, but the world he returned to was a different world from the one he left.

Godzilla's career had taken a turn. During the 50's, 60's and 70's, Godzilla had reigned supreme at the box office, but by the late 1970's, things had fallen off. Many attribute the change in demand for Godzilla to the rumors of rampant cocaine use on Monster Island. Godzilla had fallen back to his old partying ways while his son was at Princeton. Oddly enough, Godzilla's acting work had never suffered during this alleged partying. He won back-to-back Best Kaiju for his starring roles in "Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla" (1974) and "Terror of MechaGodzilla" (1975), and also won Best Supporting Kaiju in those same films for playing opposite himself as MechaGodzilla. While the films were not considered superior, his work in them certainly was. It was a stroke of genius to have Godzilla play against the only other actor who could stand toe to toe with him…Godzilla! So Godzilla put on a suit of armor and through the use of technology acted against himself. Sadly, Eddie Murphy used the same idea years later in the "Nutty Professor" films. 

After the grueling work of acting with himself, Godzilla took a much needed break from filmmaking. But then something odd happened, when he was ready to return, no offers came his way. Disco had become the "in" thing, and Godzilla was considered "out". Pop culture is a fickle bitch. Since there was no work for Godzilla, there was also no work for Minilla.

Then there was a break, a bit of luck. Godzilla met Steven Spielberg at Jack Nicholson's house during his annual Bastille Day party. Godzilla cornered Spielberg and the two talked for hours, striking up a friendship. Spielberg told Godzilla he was currently trying to cast the title role in a film he was directing, but couldn't find the right actor. Godzilla immediately pitched his son Minilla for the part. Spielberg thought it over and asked if Minilla would come in for a screen test. What happened next is up for debate, but when it was all over, neither Godzilla, Minilla, or Spielberg ever would be the same.

Godzilla's version of events is that Minilla went into the screen test, nailed it, and Spielberg offered him the part, right on the spot. Minilla accepted and called his father with the good news. Spielberg's version is very different. Speiberg claims that Minilla showed up to the screen test two hours late, and was obviously high on something. He shot the test, but was horrible and Spielberg simply thanked him for coming in and left it at that.

As Godzilla and Minilla celebrated on Monster Island, Spielberg was announcing the casting of the lead for his new film. The actor he cast was E.T., a total unknown, the film was "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial". E.T. wouldn't remain unknown for long. The film went on to become one of the biggest hits of all time. Godzilla erupted with fierce anger against Spielberg. In a blinding rage, he told the Hollywood Reporter that Spielberg "was racist against Minilla because he was Asian and not a Jew", and that Spielberg "only cast Jews, they look out for their own kind." The Jewish community was horrified, and the AGL, the Anti-Godzilla League was formed. It's first act of business was to correctly call out Godzilla for his anti-semitism, and secondly to also pointed out that E.T. was in fact, not a Jew but a Presbyterian.

The damage had been done. Godzilla, the actor who felt he had suffered because of anti-Asian racism, was now seen as anti-Semitic, and no one wanted to work with someone so associated with that sort of ugliness. Minilla was painted with the same brush as well.

In 1984, Godzilla tried a comeback, he starred in the film "Return of Godzilla". It was wishful thinking. The reviews were dismal. The box office even worse. Godzilla had become a B-level actor virtually over night. This was the bad time, but unbeknownst to Godzilla, things would actually get worse.

In 1992, ten years after 'E.T.' became a household name and a billionaire, Steven Spielberg was at it again, this time making a film adaption of the Michael Crichton novel "Jurrasic Park". Spielberg needed a monster to headline the film. Someone who could act, but also put asses in the seats and  sell tickets. As production started on the film he still hand't found his monster, and his leading lady Laura Dern approached him with an idea. Laura Dern was Bruce Dern's daughter. Bruce Dern was a Hollywood legend, an old school actor from the 60's and 70's. He was good friends with Marlon Brando, and in turn was also good friends with Godzilla. In fact, Laura Dern considered Godzilla to be an uncle. So, at her uncles behest, she asked Spielberg to consider casting Godzilla. Spielberg thought long and hard about it, and thirty seconds later he cast T-Rex, Godzilla's nemesis. Spielberg and the AGL had never received an apology from Godzilla, so with no apology, forgiveness was impossible.

As if things couldn't get even worse, T-Rex's son, Barney, had just booked his own TV show, "Barney and Friends", that same year. Godzilla stepped in it again when he told Variety that he thought a "fruitcake like Barney shouldn't be allowed near kids". The gay community erupted in outrage and came to Barney's defense. What made this offense even more egregious is that prior to it, Godzilla, unbeknownst to him, had a huge fan base in the gay community. Godzilla's hateful remarks toward Barney ended up pushing the gay community not only away from Godzilla, but toward Barney. Barney said in response to the Godzilla verbal attack, "I may be a Tyrannosaurus Rex, but Godzilla is the dinosaur ". "Barney and Friends" became a smash hit, making Barney a huge superstar overnight. "Jurrassic Park" went on the break box office records, the greatest success of T-Rex's long career. That same year T-Rex won a his first Best Monster Oscar and Barney won an Emmy. Godzilla was on the outside of Hollywood looking in, with Gays and Jews and Gay Jews all allied against him and things didn't look like they'd get better anytime soon. 

Marlon Brando

As we've explored previously, Brando and Godzilla were the best of friends, but there was a time when there was a split in their friendship. In the late 1990's, Godzilla was suffering from massive depression, which he medicated by ingesting heroic amounts of alcohol. His career was a shadow of its former self. His first son, Minilla (not to be confused with Baby Godzilla, his second son from another woman, the French actress, Bridget Bardot), had left the acting industry and opened an Import/Export business in San Francisco. Godzilla's Monster Island paradise had turned into his prison. He had lost his passion for acting and for life. He was alone and desperate.

Then Matthew Broderick came calling. Broderick had gotten Godzilla's number from Brando, the two of them had worked together on the film "The Freshman" a few years before. In the film, Brando spoofed his Oscar winning performance as Don Corleone in "The Godfather". Broderick was interested in doing an American version of Godzilla, and wanted to reach out to Godzilla. 

When Godzilla heard from Broderick he had no idea who he was. Broderick explained he had starred in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". Godzilla still had no idea who he was. Godzilla didn't care though, he was desperate. He did do one thing though before signing onto the film. He called his old friend Brando and asked him about this Bueller kid. Was he alright? Could the kid act? No one knows why he did it, maybe he was delirious, maybe he didn't hear the question, who knows, but Brando vouched for Broderick to Godzilla. Godzilla signed up to do the film.

Director Roland Emmerich had a specific vision for the film, he wanted Godzilla to be a lean, mean, fighting machine. Godzilla had to quit drinking, lose weight and get in shape. He had to commit. Godzilla knew it was now or never for his career, he had to put in the work, no more star turns, no more laziness, no more being coddled. Godzilla vowed to change his shape, to reinvent himself not just for American audiences but for the world. If he could pull it off, he could be back on top.

During Godzilla's absence from the top of the heap, T-Rex had run amok, he had starred in three 'Jurassic Park' movies and had the hardware (three Best Monster Oscars) and the bank account to show for it. His son Barney was also still king of the TV hill.  Godzilla used that as fuel to light his fire. He worked hard, trained hard and came onto set in the best shape of life. Rumors were also rampant that he had extensive plastic surgery, but Godzilla has always denied this.

Filming started and things immediately went sour. Godzilla constantly referred to Broderick as Bueller, which upset Broderick no end. Godzilla also clashed with Emmerich, who kept directing Godzilla to be "more T-Rex-ish". Godzilla, Broderick and Emmerich clashed for months.  After a late night shoot where Godzilla and Broderick shot a complex sequence in Madison Square Garden, frustrations boiled over, and Godzilla made some very disparaging remarks about Broderick's wife, Sarah Jessica Parker, referring to her as "Sugar-tits" and calling her a "horse faced slut", which left Broderick in tears and women's groups outraged. Godzilla then got drunk and called Brando, cursing him out for vouching "for 'Bueller', that no talent little prick." Brando and Godzilla did not speak for years after that call. Both men too proud to ask for forgiveness for the damage they had done(thankfully they reunited a year before Brando's death). The N.O.W.A.G. was formed (The National Organization of Woman Against Godzilla) and began a campaign against Godzilla, both the actor and the film. Gays, Jews, and Women all boycotted the film and rallied against it.

The film "Godzilla" came out in 1998, and was panned by critics and flopped at the box office. To make matters even worse, many reviewers pointed out that Godzilla had tried to make himself into T-Rex for the film. This stung Godzilla to the core, and sent him spiraling into a dangerous depression. He locked himself away on Monster Island, stewing in his anger.  His anger only increased when in 2005, his old rival, King Kong made another comeback with his film, "King Kong". Kong became the darling of Hollywood once again, and co-starring along with Kong was his old friend T-Rex, and his oldest son, D-Rex. Kong and Rex made no attempt to hide their glee at their success, and Godzilla's failure, openly talking about how they were "the two biggest stars in the history of Hollywood". Godzilla was not only losing at the game of life, he was being wiped from the history books.

DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK…wait…actually…YES, GO AHEAD AND CALL IT A COMEBACK

Nine years after Kong and T-Rex rode atop the box office and rubbed his nose in it, and sixteen years after the humiliation of "Godzilla" (1998), Godzilla is back. It all started when he made a face to face apology to Steven Spielberg and the AGL for his anti-semitic remarks. They graciously accepted his apology and his promise to work across the globe fighting against the scourge of anti-Semitism. Another major event that led to a Godzilla transformation, was that his son Minilla came out of the closet. Minilla announced on January 1, 2011, that he and his lover Barney, yes, THAT Barney, were to be wed in a small ceremony at the San Francisco courthouse. Once his son told him he was gay, Godzilla saw things in a different light and apologized to the gay community and to Barney for his venomous words back in the day. Godzilla even confessed to a drunken, late-night, homosexual dalliance of his own back in the late fifties with his "Godzilla: King of All Monsters" co-star Raymond Burr. His apology was accepted and he promised to fight for Gay civil rights across the globe. Finally, Godzilla apologized to Sarah Jessica Parker, but not her husband, whom he still detests. He wrote a lengthy piece in Vanity Fair describing the deep shame he felt for having verbally attacked such a "lovely and talented young lady". Rumors began to swirl almost immediately that the two were sleeping together, these rumors have never been officially denied, and are most likely, entirely true. The N.O.W.A.G. was disbanded at Ms. Parker's request, and Godzilla seems to have put his troubles behind him.

Hollywood then came calling. "Godzilla" (2014) is the symbol of an actor re-born. The film is awful, but none can doubt that Godzilla is magnificent. Godzilla is back to his old city destroying ways(he even demanded that San Francisco be the location for the shoot so he could be near Minilla and Barney), kicking ass and taking names. He is assured of a Best Kaiju nomination, and has already seen a major boost to his once moribund bank account. The film "Godzilla" (2014) has had such a successful first weekend box office, not one but two sequels have already been green lit. Meanwhile, a King Kong film is probably a long way away, if history is any measure, they won't make another one for twenty more years or so. T-Rex is reduced to making "Land of the Lost" and other such junk, relegating him to second class status as far as monsters go. But Godzilla? He's back…because he's not only an actor, an artist, a star, an icon and a legend…he's a survivor. As Godzilla is fond of saying, "I survived Hiroshima, I'll survive Hollywood." And, right now, he's doing more than surviving…he's thriving.

"Lee Daniels The Butler", 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".

Lee Daniels "The Butler" is a ham fisted journey through American history that plays like a humorless black version of Forest Gump. It is completely devoid of any subtly, nuance or genuine human emotion or drama. As my dear friend Lady Penelope Pumpernickel-Dussledorf described it, it is like watching the senior class play at any suburban high school in America. All the senior class popular people are there, Oprah, Cuba Gooding Jr., Mariah Carey, Robin Williams, John Cusack and they put on costumes and make faces and pretend to feel things and then it's over and everyone stands and claps and tells them afterward how good it was. Except, in this case it wasn't good. 

I will say this though, Forest Whitaker is a really fantastic actor and I've always enjoyed watching his work. It is a shame that he is wasted here in such a Hallmark network style piece of crap like this.

The only entertaining thing I have found associated with this film is watching Oprah go on television and talk about being a serious actress and her 'process'. Now that is some serious comedy. The best acting Oprah has ever done is when she's pretended to be an actress. Sorry, but playing dress up does not an actor make.

In conclusion, Lee Daniel's The Butler is not a good film. It is a shame that such a dramatically ripe and important story is told in such a flaccid and amateur way. I am glad Lee Daniels put his name in the title though, now we know who to blame.

"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.