The Post (2017)

Kay Graham: I’m asking your advice, Bob, not your permission.

I just have to rebel. The Post isn't worth anyone's time. This is not to discredit the work of the actors, the writers, costumers, etc. To them I say great job. An excellent cast with good period authenticity and a decent script. Work with the best, get good results. 

But to "The Machine" that ultimately chose to pitch, write, finance, and believe in their hearts that The Post could be more...Why make this? What is its purpose? Who is it for? Do we even want this? (Need is different question.)

To me The Post was minutely positioned as Oscar bait to appeal to a literate, intelligent, historically educated, minority, that has an affinity for the power and history of the written word, along with the integrity of journalism.  -A production on these themes was to be expected in an age of unchecked facts and the indiscriminate megaphone that is the internet. ( I am a part of this.)  Oh, and Trump.

Yet, because this formula has already worked -See All The President's Men- why do anything different?  The Post is a recycled hack masquerading as a response to a need, when really it's just the same as it was 40 years ago. We might sell tickets to a story of bygone era where ideals and the law mattered, but it's not what we need. The degree to which The Post misses empathy with the present is astounding.   For one, people actually don't like to read (even my blog) and a film about print is in a lot of ways obsolete.

So all of this isn't what really upsets me. Yeah, it's a hack to win an award and make money from fish in a barrel.  Yes, you could just watch All The President's Men -and a I would wager a high percentage of the paying audience has.  What upsets me is that the people who, in the opinion of the creators and myself, could benefit from its story/lessons will NEVER see it. The Post is just an exercise in curing the healthy. 

3.1 out of 5 stars

Darkest Hour (2017)

Winston Churchill: Nations which go down fighting rise again, and those that surrender tamely are finished.

(I will try to write in my best and most succinct Churchill.)

Words are the only thing required to be in a fight. The tongue is the most savage weapon man possess. Words take wind and bring tyrants to ignoble ends.

As to the film Darkest Hour, I found it false advertising. It was neither terribly dark nor an hour. In fact, it was two hours of gloom punctuated by levity. This fact precluded the creation of a strong opening or adequate resolution. Without structured/emotional release a film is unsatisfying. Gary Oldman in superb and I could only see Churchill; a rare feat and my pick for Oscar.

Other notes.  I hated the zoom outs to the sky. Something about their use was illegitimate to a period piece. As it is a British film, I am always amazed at the plethora of distinctly different accents and how they are all pulled off with ease.  Yet, in this case, there were also several noticeable lisps or stutters- Halifax and The King. Both were done with aplomb.

3.7 out of 5 -Gary Oldman is that spectacular. 

Steve Jobs (2015)

Steve Wozniak: It's not binary. You can be decent and gifted at the same time.

Andy Hertzfeld: I have a solution but it's risky and borderline unethical.

Steve Jobs: I'm listening.

So Steve Jobs is the kind of movie I should like. Aaron Sorkin wrote it. It has a great cast. Its script is a delight. It's bold in its structure of 3 acts. And the emotional points resonate. 

Unfortunately, I didn't like it. 

Strange that something so set up to succeed with me didn't. Mayhaps, I am the problem. After thinking about I've been wanting to compare Sorkin to Yasujiro Ozu. My theory is that while I never tire of an Ozu film that is more or less the same perfected version of all his movies (tofu), Aaron Sorkin is only capable of writing Sorkin-esque scripts and those I do tire of. Snappy, Witty, Biting, Quotable, Quick, Literate, and To the Point. Those are the hallmarks of Sorkin, and I feel that his scripts are unmistakable. So much so that there are passable imitators. To Mr. Sorkin, I say bravo. But internally, I know that his particular brand of movie tofu is not ageless to my pallet. 

Perhaps I am suffering from movie anosmia?!  

There have been a lot of Steve Jobs portrayals lately, but Michael Fassbender's is by far the best. Without question. I know that there are many that worship at the alter of Jobs. (I've been known to offer an occasional sacrifice.) But, I think the man and the myth are 90% hagiography. 

3.789 out of 5.  

 

War Machine (2017)

Gen. Glen McMahon: Let's say you have ten insurgents. Huh? Now, let's say you kill two of 'em. Now, how many insurgents do you have left? Hmm? Hmm? Well, you'd say eight, of course. Eight. Right? Right? Wrong! In this scenario, ten minus two equals 20. Let's say the two insurgents you just killed, uh... each had six friends or brothers or some such, who are hovering on the brink of... of joining the insurgency. They're thinking about this insurgency thing. "Looks interesting. But, you know, for one reason or other, not for me." But... So, then you go and kill their friend. Now you've just made up their minds for 'em. Those hovering friends are now full, paid-up members of the enemy. Yeah. And so, in the math of counterinsurgency, ten minus two... equals 20.


War Machine is the latest in what I would call the evolving meaning behind our fascination with war.

My own simplistic understanding of the history of war films is as follows: (I have a US perspective on this.)

1. Early years through WWII (1930-50s): Patriotic -Us good. Enemy Bad. Nature of combat: noble and unmessy. We win. War just (no further explanation necessary).
2. About WWII- fantastic realism (1950s-60s): Adventure -Us good. Enemy bad. Nature of combat noble but an acknowledgement of loss and some suffering. We win. War just (some explanation required)
3. Vietnam (1960s-80s): Straight Up -Us good but deeply deeply flawed. Enemy mysterious, vicious, but not evil. Nature of combat: gruesome, horrifying, brutal; loss psychological and physical for all to see. We don't win. War is just (on some level with deep and disingenuous explanation)
4.  Reagan's Cold War, Gulf War, and Hegemony (1980s-2000): The Distance -Us good but understandably flawed. There is distance now between the experiences of the audience and the experiences of the military. Enemy implacable goons who tend towards evil. Nature of combat distant through planes, sniper rifles, missiles etc. less graphic consequences, acknowledged losses. We win (minor engagement) War just (on a moral level, but only so far)
5. Post 9/11 (9/11/01-2009): FirePower -Us good (small flaws), Enemy evil (no real explanation), outgunned but crafty, and unpredictable. Nature of combat distant, one sided, fewer graphic wounds, unequal numbers; 5 of us 100s of them. We win (tiny tiny engagement) War just (but cuz 9/11 that's about it)
6. Alice in Wonderland (2009-current) Meta -Us good folks, but folks, Enemy unknowable, indistinguishable from innocents. Nature of combat changes to stuff, logistics, supply chain, politics, tactical, distant. We win, but winning is not the end. War just (We think, We're not sure, but we say it is.)

War Machine is a clear category 6. It is a very unfunny satire, if it weren't, basically true...  The presence of information on war and about war has made everything complicated. There are no more binaries. There are no more battles. No true victory. Ashes.  And so, the films try and follow the story through the people and the process -which yields absurdity. Which is now the point. 

3.0 out of 5.  My Brad Pitt-athon rolled on.  I liked his style and voice. 

Rent (2005)

"To Marijuana!!" -Tom Collins

It's hard to overcome my own biases.  RENT is one of those biases. I am/was inclined not to like it. Something about it and all the hype I got from all corners of my social circles gave me a distrustful distaste like broccoli to 3 year old. It is of particular note that I have heard lots of people, who while technically able (And I would never doubt the joy in someone's heart) to sing, just throw cacophony in to my ears. Five Hundred, Twenty-One Thousand, Six Hundred Minutes made me ball up my fists and shut my heart.   I was born to be stubborn and yell at children and hippies to get off my lawn. Pbhhhhhhh.

Then someone bribed me to watch the 2005 movie of RENT.

And, now having sat through it, RENT is firmly OK. I admit my previous rejection was not entirely valid or rational, and the musical merits consideration as a cultural and 90s era touchstone. But I can't bring myself to call it a masterpiece.  -All my theater friends may now feel free to pelt me with diatribes, soliloquies, fruit, and ever so in-group jabs. I am a philistine.

 There were some laudable things about RENT.

1. Jesse Martin can sing!
2. The music is at certain moments perfect.  -I found it emotionally and melodically flat at others, but perfection should always be given its due.
3. The depiction of AIDS, alternative gender performances, alternative sexual orientations, and social class dynamics were revolutionary and no doubt a breath of fresh air/hope in 1995.
4. I certainly have more empathy now for those I have seen belt out it's anthems...and the joy it meant to them. -Few musicals/works of art can do that. 
5. RENT made me consider that I have generally always felt secure in my ability to be, say and do what I want without interference. (I would be remiss to not mention that this is deeply entwined with privilege.) I recognize that for those from other circumstances, RENT speaks on a deeper level and serves as a touchstone for communication about these issues to an often hostile society. I am in many ways lucky that these themes do not resonate as strongly with me. But, I cannot will not deny their existence, power, or importance. 

3.8 out of 5 stars

Ocean's 11 (2001)

Virgil Malloy: Who you calling bud, pal?
Turk Malloy: Who you calling pal, friend?
Virgil Malloy: Who you calling friend, jackass?
Turk Malloy: Don't call me a jackass.
Virgil Malloy: I just did call you a jackass.

Reuben: [as Danny and Rusty are leaving Reuben's home after lunch] Look, we all go way back and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it.
Danny: That was our pleasure.
Rusty: I'd never been to Belize.

Completing my tour de Ocean's trilogy, 11 is clearly the best. It has the best dialogue; the leanest of the casts, and does a great job and effortfully exuding cool.

I had forgotten that earring clad Joshua Jackson is in this. A part of me also wanted to write this review like I was Rusty and always mmphh eat...ing.

What I think Ocean's 11 does so well is the narrative structure that supports both telegraphing the play and supporting the big reveal. This is not easy. The writers deserve extra attention and adulation for the job they did in this regard. It's in the way that Saul just asks the central question of the heist at the beginning and we forget about it.

3.93 out of 5, Worth is every time.

Ocean's 12 (2004)

Danny Ocean:  Do I look 50 to you? 

Basher: Yea...but only from the neck up....

Ocean's 12 is the weak link in this trilogy. Sequels that go to Europe are just cliche -like 'sexy voiced secretaries". 

The big reveal is underwhelming and the introduction of a few more characters leaves less time for those we knew.  -though hats of to Eddie Izzard, Robbie Coltrane, Jared Harris, and Catherine Zeta Jones. 

Why is it that even though I know the play, for me and for other Americans I assume, I continue to buy into the brand that Europe is sophisticated and glamorous? I've been. And I've met Europeans. I can base my heuristic shortcuts on experience...yet centuries of colonial power positioning remain. 

You kind have to watch this to complete the trilogy so...there's that. 

2.4 out of 5 for the ensemble and the dialogue, but not much beyond that. The plot is pure lunacy.