Michael Jackson has been dead for just over 24 hours now and I have no clue how I should feel about it. Do I lament the loss of an amazingly talented artist? I don't know. It seems he hasn't been an amazing artist for a very long time. He was quite likely tapped out, artistically speaking. Do I feel shock that someone who was the most successful solo artist of all time died $400 million in debt? Not really. His financial troubles have been well-known for many years. Do I feel disdainful regarding the allegations of pedophilia? I don't know. After all, he wasn't found guilty. For many people this is a black and white issue. Most are heartsick over the death of a great artist while many (certain of his guilt, trial verdict be damned) are just fine with his passing. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. And the middle ain't where I wanna be.
First off, I was never a huge Michael Jackson fan. I was only 11 years old when his milestone album "Thriller" came out in 1982 and I certainly was impressed by his talent and enjoyed his songs. But I never latched on to him with the frenzy that so many others did. The first musical artist that I responded to in a rabid, devotional sort of way was Prince two years later with the release of "Purple Rain." And everybody knows (or should) that you're either a Prince guy or you're a Michael Jackson guy. Well, I was a Prince guy. Back then Prince was the Marilyn Manson of his day. His androgynous sexuality and blunt lyrics ("Darling Nikki" anyone?) made him a pejorative to many parents. So who in the world would think that 25 years later the elfin, purple addicted, sex god would seem relatively "normal" when compared to the pale, altered, bizarre person of Michael Jackson? Hell, Prince has even played the Super Bowl to rave notices while Jackson has been nowhere to be found.
How in the world did Jackson get here? Obviously, most of his problems started with childhood. It's difficult to imagine how one can start out as a child star and ever really adjust to an adult life. For every Jodie Foster there's several Corey Haims (see Leif Garrett, River Phoenix, Edward Furlong etc.). When Jackson burst onto the scene at age 11 in 1969 as the lead singer of the Jackson Five he was an instant phenomenon. People were stunned by his vocal talent and charisma. He was certainly no fluke. Between 1969 and 2002 Jackson accumulated 40 top 10 hits (including 18 #1's) and has sold over 700 million records worldwide. Astonishing numbers. He seemed to make the transition from child star to adult artist in full with the release of "Thriller." However, all that success only masked the deeper problems that Jackson had.
There were signs back then that were largely ignored or passed off as "eccentricities." Taking a chimpanzee to awards shows, calling your residence the "Neverland Ranch," building a zoo and amusement park on said property, sleeping in an oxygen chamber, and wearing surgical masks outdoors are not the behaviors of a normal person. But this is nothing compared to what he had done to his appearance. From the skin lightening and anorexia to the prescription drug addictions and all those awful plastic surgeries speaks to a person full of self-loathing and depression. He hated his appearance to such a degree that he would have rendered himself unrecognizable if it weren't for the fact that he lived nearly every moment of his life in the public eye. Seriously, take a look at him as a child, then during "Thriller" to yesterday. You know those renderings that graphic artists working for the police create to alert the public what a missing child might look like years later? Well, if Jackson went missing at 15 you would never have found him in a million years.
Of course the thorniest and most disturbing issue with how to regard Jackson involves his strange behavior towards children. No one will ever know whether Jackson actually molested those children who had sleepovers at "Neverland Ranch," but it's clear his behavior was at minimum highly inappropriate. Having someone else's children sleep in your bed is just asking for trouble. Even after the trial, Jackson didn't seem to know that his behavior was wrong. I remember watching a 60 Minutes special where he referred to children being in his bed as "innocent." And to him I'm sure it was, regardless of what did or did not happen. Considering all his bizarre behavior and unusual interest in children it's not difficult to buy that he could have been a child molester. But I also think it's possible that this stunted human being couldn't relate to anyone else. He certainly was very childlike himself. From the way he spoke to the carnival like atmosphere he chose to live in, he seemed like someone who not only never grew up but didn't want to.
As I said before, this had to start with childhood. His father, Joseph Jackson is widely regarded as a hateful, domineering bastard who pushed his children well beyond reason to escape his life as a steel mill worker in Gary, Indiana. Insults and beatings were a regular way of life. The elder Jackson often referred to Michael as "ugly," and "too black." He was extremely harsh on Michael during puberty when his youngest son suffered through acne break outs. Michael's brother Marlon once recalled a particularly heinous outburst by Joseph that resulted in the father holding Michael up by one leg and beating him repeatedly across his back and bottom. Of course many people go through terrible childhoods and don't grow up to be like Michael Jackson. But when you toss in the pressure of being a child star along with the abuse it's easy to see how something must have snapped inside. None of this would excuse child molestation. Not by a long shot. Having grown up with an alcoholic myself and also having friends and family members who suffered from one form of child abuse or another, I can easily say that few things are worse. But we don't know that he did it.
I know some people think of Jackson the same way they think of O.J. Simpson. A guy who got off merely because he was famous. But that thought process neglects a couple of things. For one, the physical evidence against Simpson was far more compelling than that of Jackson's case. It's also worth noting that Simpson was found guilty of causing the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman in civil court whereas Jackson was not. And not to defend celebrities, but they are certainly easy targets (Jackson perhaps the easiest of all) for gold diggers. To that point, what kind of parent would let their child stay overnight, unsupervised with such a strange man? Did they see a financial angle? It's not that difficult to believe.
So where does that leave conflicted people like myself? I guess in the end it's as simple as this, sad. Sad for what was, what might have been, and what will now never be. No comeback and no closure. Just an awful, sickening sadness.
Sumo-Pop
June 26, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Michael Bay Is The Devil
Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys 2, The Island, Transformers, and Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. If it please the court, I submit into evidence these examples of cinema crime perpetrated by one, Michael Bay.
I mean really, what a motley list of movies this is. And yet, box office experts say his sequel to Transformers may have the biggest opening weekend of all time eclipsing The Dark Knight. To be fair, I have not and will not see the new Transformers movie. Why? Because you don't have to witness a car crash to know that it's a bad thing.
Michael Bay directs all of his movies as if the entire film-going audience is made up of 13 year old boys. To watch a Michael Bay movie (I've seen most and at least parts of all of them) is to experience an assault on the senses. His cinematography is all golden hued "magic hour" sunsets . And Michael Bay shoots every scene as if every hour of every day is "magic hour." Even the night time ones! His films are edited as if by someone in the thralls of an epileptic fit. The camera can never hold a scene for more than 3 seconds without having to cut. Characters in his films tend to shout if for no other reason than to be heard over whatever's being blown up. And the words they say! The dialogue in his movies must be written by someone who hasn't graduated from crayons yet. He seems to confuse the most directing with the best directing. I suspect that he keeps things moving at this ADD pace so that no one has the time to notice that in a Michael Bay movie there is no "there" there.
Every character in his movies seems to come from some sort of stock stereotype. Typically the heroes are of the dense musclebound jock variety. Will Smith, Nic Cage, Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson all at your service (Yes, I know Shia Lebouf's an exception but I'll get to him later). Parents are as clueless as any you would find in any 80's teen movie (Lebouf's folks in Transformers for instance). Black characters tend to shout a lot and act crazy in general (Martin Lawrence, Cuba Gooding, Tyrese Gibson, Anthony Anderson). And all the girls look and dress like they fell off the cover of Maxim magazine (Tea Leoni, Vanessa Marcil, Megan Fox). I know movies are a fantasy but this is ridiculous.
Only once has Bay attempted to make a movie that was about something. And that movie is the awful, execrable, Pearl Harbor. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor is essentially the "true" story of U.S. Army Air Corps Second Lieutenants George Welch and Kenneth Taylor. But since Bay made a bunch of shit up they were called Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett). Has there ever been a worse made up name than Rafe McCawley? I think not. Also, apparently the standard Army issued hair cut of the 40's allowed for bangs (Hartnett) and a pompadour (Affleck). Beyond that, there's a whole list of historical inaccuracies. They are too large in number to fit in this space but here's two for the sake of example. In the movie, the real life character of Dorie Miller (Cuba Gooding) mans an anti-aircraft gun and shoots down a Japanese plane. One problem. It didn't happen. In fact, the ship moored next to the one Miller is shooting from in the movie didn't even exist until 1969! Also, there is a montage of the year 1940 shown in the movie that depicts an American Pershing tank shooting up a street in Germany. But we (US ground forces) weren't in Germany in 1940! In fact, real life Second Lieutenant Kenneth Taylor referred to the film as "A piece of trash...over sensationalised and distorted." All of which could be forgiven if the damn thing were any good or even fun to watch. But it's not. The saddest thing is that this wooden acted, hyper directed garbage only does one thing well (blow up stuff real good), will probably be the long standing cinematic document of the most horrifying day in this country's history prior to 9/11. Thanks.
So now Bay is back with the sequel to the howl inducing Transformers. A movie that esteemed USA Today movie critic Mike Clark damned with faint praise as "...the closest Michael Bay has come to making a good movie." So let's get this straight, a movie based on a cartoon about alien robots who come to earth and can shape shift from a camaro to the size of a skyscraper, have names like "Bumblebee" and "Megatron," and seems to exist solely to sell Hasbro toys and plastic cups at Taco Bell or Burger King or wherever, is this man's high water mark? The mind reels.
Now I'm not such a snob that I can't enjoy a good popcorn movie. The Dark Knight was my second favorite movie last year (after The Wrestler) and I had a good time at Iron Man as well. But see, those were good films. The Dark Knight managed to make Batman a parable about living in the terrorist age and Iron Man was full of wit and charm. Something you could never say about the bludgeoning sensory overload of Bay's films.
Bay's movies are full of actors who should know better (Ed Harris, Sean Connery, Steve Buscemi, Alec Baldwin, Ewen McGregor, John Turturo, etc.). But I suppose they gotta eat too and a mega budgeted Michael Bay flick surely pays well. But I'm really worried about Shia Lebouf. Lebouf seemed poised to become his generation's John Cusack. An offbeat, not too handsome charmer with an eclectic career ahead of him. Now he seems fixated on becoming an action star and is willing to say lines like "Megatron wants what's in my brain." I'd like to know what's in his brain too. I'm guessing dollar signs.
Now I'm quite certain that Bay thinks of himself as this generation's Steven Spielberg but he's not even Baz Luhrman (Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge, Australia). Hell, Luhrman's films are practically subtle compared to Bay's. Actually, the closest filmmaking predecessor would probably be Irwin Allen the creator of the disaster film genre (Towering Inferno, Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out). But even that's not really fair, Allen's films were only about disasters whereas Bay's films are disasters.
To be clear, it's not that I don't think that Bay has any technical skill. Far From it. He certainly knows how to move the camera and get the shot that he wants. In fact, I would bet that every movie Michael Bay has made has turned out exactly the way he has wanted it to. Which is both a compliment and a curse. It's not even that he doesn't have a vision (albeit an inch deep). It's that he has no taste. Yet his films have made billions of dollars. Why? Because there are a lot of 13 year old boys (young and old) running around out there.
Sumo-Pop
June 24, 2009
I mean really, what a motley list of movies this is. And yet, box office experts say his sequel to Transformers may have the biggest opening weekend of all time eclipsing The Dark Knight. To be fair, I have not and will not see the new Transformers movie. Why? Because you don't have to witness a car crash to know that it's a bad thing.
Michael Bay directs all of his movies as if the entire film-going audience is made up of 13 year old boys. To watch a Michael Bay movie (I've seen most and at least parts of all of them) is to experience an assault on the senses. His cinematography is all golden hued "magic hour" sunsets . And Michael Bay shoots every scene as if every hour of every day is "magic hour." Even the night time ones! His films are edited as if by someone in the thralls of an epileptic fit. The camera can never hold a scene for more than 3 seconds without having to cut. Characters in his films tend to shout if for no other reason than to be heard over whatever's being blown up. And the words they say! The dialogue in his movies must be written by someone who hasn't graduated from crayons yet. He seems to confuse the most directing with the best directing. I suspect that he keeps things moving at this ADD pace so that no one has the time to notice that in a Michael Bay movie there is no "there" there.
Every character in his movies seems to come from some sort of stock stereotype. Typically the heroes are of the dense musclebound jock variety. Will Smith, Nic Cage, Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson all at your service (Yes, I know Shia Lebouf's an exception but I'll get to him later). Parents are as clueless as any you would find in any 80's teen movie (Lebouf's folks in Transformers for instance). Black characters tend to shout a lot and act crazy in general (Martin Lawrence, Cuba Gooding, Tyrese Gibson, Anthony Anderson). And all the girls look and dress like they fell off the cover of Maxim magazine (Tea Leoni, Vanessa Marcil, Megan Fox). I know movies are a fantasy but this is ridiculous.
Only once has Bay attempted to make a movie that was about something. And that movie is the awful, execrable, Pearl Harbor. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor is essentially the "true" story of U.S. Army Air Corps Second Lieutenants George Welch and Kenneth Taylor. But since Bay made a bunch of shit up they were called Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett). Has there ever been a worse made up name than Rafe McCawley? I think not. Also, apparently the standard Army issued hair cut of the 40's allowed for bangs (Hartnett) and a pompadour (Affleck). Beyond that, there's a whole list of historical inaccuracies. They are too large in number to fit in this space but here's two for the sake of example. In the movie, the real life character of Dorie Miller (Cuba Gooding) mans an anti-aircraft gun and shoots down a Japanese plane. One problem. It didn't happen. In fact, the ship moored next to the one Miller is shooting from in the movie didn't even exist until 1969! Also, there is a montage of the year 1940 shown in the movie that depicts an American Pershing tank shooting up a street in Germany. But we (US ground forces) weren't in Germany in 1940! In fact, real life Second Lieutenant Kenneth Taylor referred to the film as "A piece of trash...over sensationalised and distorted." All of which could be forgiven if the damn thing were any good or even fun to watch. But it's not. The saddest thing is that this wooden acted, hyper directed garbage only does one thing well (blow up stuff real good), will probably be the long standing cinematic document of the most horrifying day in this country's history prior to 9/11. Thanks.
So now Bay is back with the sequel to the howl inducing Transformers. A movie that esteemed USA Today movie critic Mike Clark damned with faint praise as "...the closest Michael Bay has come to making a good movie." So let's get this straight, a movie based on a cartoon about alien robots who come to earth and can shape shift from a camaro to the size of a skyscraper, have names like "Bumblebee" and "Megatron," and seems to exist solely to sell Hasbro toys and plastic cups at Taco Bell or Burger King or wherever, is this man's high water mark? The mind reels.
Now I'm not such a snob that I can't enjoy a good popcorn movie. The Dark Knight was my second favorite movie last year (after The Wrestler) and I had a good time at Iron Man as well. But see, those were good films. The Dark Knight managed to make Batman a parable about living in the terrorist age and Iron Man was full of wit and charm. Something you could never say about the bludgeoning sensory overload of Bay's films.
Bay's movies are full of actors who should know better (Ed Harris, Sean Connery, Steve Buscemi, Alec Baldwin, Ewen McGregor, John Turturo, etc.). But I suppose they gotta eat too and a mega budgeted Michael Bay flick surely pays well. But I'm really worried about Shia Lebouf. Lebouf seemed poised to become his generation's John Cusack. An offbeat, not too handsome charmer with an eclectic career ahead of him. Now he seems fixated on becoming an action star and is willing to say lines like "Megatron wants what's in my brain." I'd like to know what's in his brain too. I'm guessing dollar signs.
Now I'm quite certain that Bay thinks of himself as this generation's Steven Spielberg but he's not even Baz Luhrman (Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge, Australia). Hell, Luhrman's films are practically subtle compared to Bay's. Actually, the closest filmmaking predecessor would probably be Irwin Allen the creator of the disaster film genre (Towering Inferno, Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out). But even that's not really fair, Allen's films were only about disasters whereas Bay's films are disasters.
To be clear, it's not that I don't think that Bay has any technical skill. Far From it. He certainly knows how to move the camera and get the shot that he wants. In fact, I would bet that every movie Michael Bay has made has turned out exactly the way he has wanted it to. Which is both a compliment and a curse. It's not even that he doesn't have a vision (albeit an inch deep). It's that he has no taste. Yet his films have made billions of dollars. Why? Because there are a lot of 13 year old boys (young and old) running around out there.
Sumo-Pop
June 24, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Last Innocent Man
On Tuesday June 16th Sammy Sosa was found to be on a list of 103 players who tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003. So now we can include Sosa on another list. The list of fraudulent sluggers. If you look up the all-time home run leaders there are 10 in the top 25 who played during the Bonds-Sosa era. Of those 10, 7 have been found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. They are, Barry Bonds (#1 all time/762 home runs), Sosa (#6/609), Mark McGwire (#8/583), Rafael Palmeiro (#10/569), Alex Rodriguez (#12/562), Manny Ramirez (#17/533), and Gary Sheffield (#24/507). It was no surprise that Sosa would join this list of cheats. He seemed to check all the suspicious boxes as a player, square head, barrel chest, Paul Bunyan forearms and biceps, and massive increase of his home run numbers. If you were one of those people who thought that Sosa got a lot bigger over the winter of 1997-98, and if you found it curious that his home run total went from 36 to 66 over that span then the 2003 test result simply confirms what you already knew. But enough about this loser.
There are three guys on that list who to the best of anyone's knowledge never tested positive for PEDs. There's the great former White Sox slugger Frank Thomas (#18/521) and current White Sox slugger Jim Thome (#13/553). Two fantastic hitters who couldn't field a lick so they spent most of the back halves of their careers as designated hitters. Which brings us to Ken Griffey Jr and his 618 home runs (#5 all-time).
Griffey has taken a lot of lumps over the last decade. He spent 8 plus star crossed years with his hometown Cincinnati Reds. During his time with the Reds, Griffey had three very good seasons. The other five years he missed 384 games due to a variety of leg injuries. In fact, only once did Griffey end the season on the field instead of the disabled list (2007). When Griffey was playing for the Seattle Mariners (1989-99) it was commonplace to argue whether he or Bonds was the best player of his generation. But then Griffey was traded to the Reds and all those devastating injuries robbed him of his place in that conversation. For his part, Bonds went from being a great all around player and sure fire hall of famer to the greatest hitter in the history of the game (sorry Babe). But how did he do this? Well Bonds will tell you it was flax seed oil that he rubbed on his arms and legs. Which only would have been more ridiculous if he had called it "magic" flax seed oil. I don't know a lot about flax seed but I'm quite sure it doesn't give you "bitch tits," make your head look like an anvil or add thirty pounds to a mature body over one winter's time. But according to Bonds it did.
So why don't I think Griffey used steroids? First of all, there has never been a failed drug test or any hint of suspicion. Secondly, one of the great benefits of performance enhancing drugs is the way it allows the body to recover from injury. Take the example of Mark McGwire who missed 308 games from 1993-95 but suddenly became the picture of durability for the next four seasons. Four seasons where he hit 52, 58, 70, and 65 homers respectively. If Griffey were using steroids during his 8 seasons with the Reds he surely wasn't doing it right. Not only did he struggle to recover from those injuries but his head stayed round, his biceps sinewy, and he didn't grow breasts. His productivity dropped due to the injuries that robbed him of his athleticism as well as all those games. But as far as we know he was clean. He played hard all the time and fought vigorously to return from his injuries. In fact, in the off season of 2004 Griffey underwent an experimental tendon reattachment surgery after his hamstring had torn away from the bone. An injury that would have sent most players to retirement. But come back he did to have his best season with the Reds.
There was great hoopla made when Griffey was traded from the Mariners to the Reds. The Reds had just missed the playoffs the year before and many expected Griffey's arrival to be the ingredient that would put them over the top. However, it wasn't to be. The Reds only managed one winning season with Griffey (his first) and never came close to contending. As a lifelong Reds fan it was crushing to watch him hobble through those 7 winless seasons with only occasional stretches of his former greatness. But as I said before, he was clean.
Still, even with all those struggles over the last 9 years, Griffey is a certain first ballot hall of famer. Those 7 other cheaters will probably only enter Cooperstown if they buy a ticket. Which I actually disagree with. I think all those guys should get in. They should have a whole separate wing for those charlatans. Why? Because baseball should own that indignity. Between the owners and the players union they had there own "don't ask, don't tell policy" and keeping these clowns out will only allow them to ignore that great shame. They didn't care because "chicks dig the long ball" as one Major League Baseball commercial claimed during this tainted period. Baseball was still recovering from the devastating strike of 1994 when Sosa and McGwire made their run in 1998 at Roger Maris' record. And the powers that be, Commissioner Bud Selig and Union Chief Donald Fehr, rejoiced in the skyrocketing attendance figures that the home run chase brought. Indeed, the chase brought baseball all the way back. But at the cost of its soul (if a sport can have such a thing).
So the Commissioner and the Union sacrificed what was right for the sake of expediency. Something that an injury prone former superstar, toiling away in near obscurity never did. So when someone asks you who was the greatest player of the steroid era you can answer in two ways. If you include the juicers then Barry Bonds is the obvious answer. But if you don't, then Ken Griffey Jr is the only answer. And you won't have to feel sick when you answer the question.
Sumo-Pop
June 20, 2009
There are three guys on that list who to the best of anyone's knowledge never tested positive for PEDs. There's the great former White Sox slugger Frank Thomas (#18/521) and current White Sox slugger Jim Thome (#13/553). Two fantastic hitters who couldn't field a lick so they spent most of the back halves of their careers as designated hitters. Which brings us to Ken Griffey Jr and his 618 home runs (#5 all-time).
Griffey has taken a lot of lumps over the last decade. He spent 8 plus star crossed years with his hometown Cincinnati Reds. During his time with the Reds, Griffey had three very good seasons. The other five years he missed 384 games due to a variety of leg injuries. In fact, only once did Griffey end the season on the field instead of the disabled list (2007). When Griffey was playing for the Seattle Mariners (1989-99) it was commonplace to argue whether he or Bonds was the best player of his generation. But then Griffey was traded to the Reds and all those devastating injuries robbed him of his place in that conversation. For his part, Bonds went from being a great all around player and sure fire hall of famer to the greatest hitter in the history of the game (sorry Babe). But how did he do this? Well Bonds will tell you it was flax seed oil that he rubbed on his arms and legs. Which only would have been more ridiculous if he had called it "magic" flax seed oil. I don't know a lot about flax seed but I'm quite sure it doesn't give you "bitch tits," make your head look like an anvil or add thirty pounds to a mature body over one winter's time. But according to Bonds it did.
So why don't I think Griffey used steroids? First of all, there has never been a failed drug test or any hint of suspicion. Secondly, one of the great benefits of performance enhancing drugs is the way it allows the body to recover from injury. Take the example of Mark McGwire who missed 308 games from 1993-95 but suddenly became the picture of durability for the next four seasons. Four seasons where he hit 52, 58, 70, and 65 homers respectively. If Griffey were using steroids during his 8 seasons with the Reds he surely wasn't doing it right. Not only did he struggle to recover from those injuries but his head stayed round, his biceps sinewy, and he didn't grow breasts. His productivity dropped due to the injuries that robbed him of his athleticism as well as all those games. But as far as we know he was clean. He played hard all the time and fought vigorously to return from his injuries. In fact, in the off season of 2004 Griffey underwent an experimental tendon reattachment surgery after his hamstring had torn away from the bone. An injury that would have sent most players to retirement. But come back he did to have his best season with the Reds.
There was great hoopla made when Griffey was traded from the Mariners to the Reds. The Reds had just missed the playoffs the year before and many expected Griffey's arrival to be the ingredient that would put them over the top. However, it wasn't to be. The Reds only managed one winning season with Griffey (his first) and never came close to contending. As a lifelong Reds fan it was crushing to watch him hobble through those 7 winless seasons with only occasional stretches of his former greatness. But as I said before, he was clean.
Still, even with all those struggles over the last 9 years, Griffey is a certain first ballot hall of famer. Those 7 other cheaters will probably only enter Cooperstown if they buy a ticket. Which I actually disagree with. I think all those guys should get in. They should have a whole separate wing for those charlatans. Why? Because baseball should own that indignity. Between the owners and the players union they had there own "don't ask, don't tell policy" and keeping these clowns out will only allow them to ignore that great shame. They didn't care because "chicks dig the long ball" as one Major League Baseball commercial claimed during this tainted period. Baseball was still recovering from the devastating strike of 1994 when Sosa and McGwire made their run in 1998 at Roger Maris' record. And the powers that be, Commissioner Bud Selig and Union Chief Donald Fehr, rejoiced in the skyrocketing attendance figures that the home run chase brought. Indeed, the chase brought baseball all the way back. But at the cost of its soul (if a sport can have such a thing).
So the Commissioner and the Union sacrificed what was right for the sake of expediency. Something that an injury prone former superstar, toiling away in near obscurity never did. So when someone asks you who was the greatest player of the steroid era you can answer in two ways. If you include the juicers then Barry Bonds is the obvious answer. But if you don't, then Ken Griffey Jr is the only answer. And you won't have to feel sick when you answer the question.
Sumo-Pop
June 20, 2009
Viva La Revolution (but keep it down)
There are few things more inspiring than watching those suffering under the boot heel of an oppressive regime stand up and fight for their freedom. The reformist movement in Iran, grown organically from the bottom up has galvanized the population and drawn the rabid attention of the rest of the world. Prior to the protests over the contested, fraudulent election in Iran between current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reform candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the average american probably thought that Iran was made up of terrorists and holocaust deniers. However, since the outcome of the election on June 12, 2009 we have found that generalization to be faulty. We have learned that the citizens of this country (where over half of the population is under 25!) are largely well-educated and hungry for change. Instead of accepting the reelection of Ahmadinejad by a 2 to 1 margin, the Iranians turned their streets into a sea of green (the color of the reform movement). They did not stand for the massive irregularities of the election results. For example, several towns reported voter turnout greater than that of the local population. Ahmadinejad supposedly out polled Mousavi in his hometown and in urban areas where the reform candidate had the most support. And not by small margins. This clearly was a stolen election. So in spite of warnings from Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei that there would be a brutal crackdown against protesters, the people of Iran fight on.
So it is particularly disturbing to watch some politicians in our country attempt to turn THEIR uprising into a political football to be kicked around the halls of Washington DC. Yet that is what has happened. In the senate, that noted voice of calm reflection, John McCain has bellowed from the rafters of congress that the president has to pound his fist, shout at the top of his lungs, and use bellicose language against the government of Iran. Basically, he wants President Obama to do what he would do. You know, act like a child. Joining this chorus of foolishness are South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Indiana Representative Mike Pence. One wonders what they think Obama should do. There is no diplomatic relationship between the USA and Iran to break off. They are already dealing with heavy UN sanctions and we are not going to attack them militarily. We already invaded a country that didn't attack us and how did that work out?
Now President Obama did release a statement over the weekend. Here it is:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights. As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion. Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
What would these politicians like him to add to this? Foul language? Is that statement not clearly in support of the people of Iran? Furthermore, why do we think that sharpening our tone with their leaders will work to good effect? We do not exactly have copious amounts of credibility with middle-eastern countries, Iran in particular.
Here's a little history on US-Iran relations:
In 1953 the United States used the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. Under the direction of President Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA embarked on their first covert operation against a foreign country. They deposed the popular Mossadeq and replaced him with a dictator, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who led a reign of tyranny that lasted 26 years until the Iranian revolution of 1979. In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran over border disputes and a fear that the suppressed Shia majority of Iraq would be influenced to revolt by the Shia led government of Iran. Iraq was led by President Saddam Hussein (remember him?) during the bloody 8 year war. And you know who supported Hussein's efforts? Well that would be us, the good ol' US of A led by that cowboy Ronald Reagan. We provided them with funds, weapons, and ammunition. Supplies that they would one day use against us.
So why in the world would they be looking to us for guidance now?
Now it should be stated that there are notable republicans who think that McCain is off his rocker (again). Senator Lugar of Indiana who has more foreign relations experience than anyone in congress has supported the President's "arm's length" approach. He, as well as MSNBSC analyst Pat Buchanan, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and no less than George Will have echoed Lugar's sentiments. Buchanan, in fact, has gone the furthest calling McCain's comments "irresponsible." It should also be mentioned that noted journalists Richard Engel (NBC's chief foreign correspondent who is fluent in Arabic) and CNN's Christiane Amanpour (who is Iranian and lived there for 11 years) have said that the President's stance isn't just the best approach but the only one that makes any sense.
The basic concern on the part of these foreign policy experts is that if we weigh in too forcefully, we will then be used as a foil to justify the Iranian government's brutal treatment of protesters. They would claim that the United States government is trying to overthrow the leadership of Iran just like we did in 1953. They would turn this civil uprising into a war against the "infidels." This oppressive regime survives largely on the hatred of the western world and we don't need to provide them with any excuse to legitimize that view.
But here's the thing that McCain, Graham and Pence should take note of. The most successful revolutions come from within. Whether it's Ghandi in India, or George Washington in this country, the point is clear: true uprisings come from the ground not from overseas. And in case you haven't noticed, they're doing just fine without us.
Sumo-Pop
June 22, 2009
So it is particularly disturbing to watch some politicians in our country attempt to turn THEIR uprising into a political football to be kicked around the halls of Washington DC. Yet that is what has happened. In the senate, that noted voice of calm reflection, John McCain has bellowed from the rafters of congress that the president has to pound his fist, shout at the top of his lungs, and use bellicose language against the government of Iran. Basically, he wants President Obama to do what he would do. You know, act like a child. Joining this chorus of foolishness are South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Indiana Representative Mike Pence. One wonders what they think Obama should do. There is no diplomatic relationship between the USA and Iran to break off. They are already dealing with heavy UN sanctions and we are not going to attack them militarily. We already invaded a country that didn't attack us and how did that work out?
Now President Obama did release a statement over the weekend. Here it is:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights. As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion. Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
What would these politicians like him to add to this? Foul language? Is that statement not clearly in support of the people of Iran? Furthermore, why do we think that sharpening our tone with their leaders will work to good effect? We do not exactly have copious amounts of credibility with middle-eastern countries, Iran in particular.
Here's a little history on US-Iran relations:
In 1953 the United States used the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. Under the direction of President Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA embarked on their first covert operation against a foreign country. They deposed the popular Mossadeq and replaced him with a dictator, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who led a reign of tyranny that lasted 26 years until the Iranian revolution of 1979. In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran over border disputes and a fear that the suppressed Shia majority of Iraq would be influenced to revolt by the Shia led government of Iran. Iraq was led by President Saddam Hussein (remember him?) during the bloody 8 year war. And you know who supported Hussein's efforts? Well that would be us, the good ol' US of A led by that cowboy Ronald Reagan. We provided them with funds, weapons, and ammunition. Supplies that they would one day use against us.
So why in the world would they be looking to us for guidance now?
Now it should be stated that there are notable republicans who think that McCain is off his rocker (again). Senator Lugar of Indiana who has more foreign relations experience than anyone in congress has supported the President's "arm's length" approach. He, as well as MSNBSC analyst Pat Buchanan, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and no less than George Will have echoed Lugar's sentiments. Buchanan, in fact, has gone the furthest calling McCain's comments "irresponsible." It should also be mentioned that noted journalists Richard Engel (NBC's chief foreign correspondent who is fluent in Arabic) and CNN's Christiane Amanpour (who is Iranian and lived there for 11 years) have said that the President's stance isn't just the best approach but the only one that makes any sense.
The basic concern on the part of these foreign policy experts is that if we weigh in too forcefully, we will then be used as a foil to justify the Iranian government's brutal treatment of protesters. They would claim that the United States government is trying to overthrow the leadership of Iran just like we did in 1953. They would turn this civil uprising into a war against the "infidels." This oppressive regime survives largely on the hatred of the western world and we don't need to provide them with any excuse to legitimize that view.
But here's the thing that McCain, Graham and Pence should take note of. The most successful revolutions come from within. Whether it's Ghandi in India, or George Washington in this country, the point is clear: true uprisings come from the ground not from overseas. And in case you haven't noticed, they're doing just fine without us.
Sumo-Pop
June 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Miss Alaska
So monday night David Letterman succumbed to pressure and issued a second, more crestfallen apology to the Governor of Alaska and her family. Letterman all but dipped to a knee and begged for forgiveness from the Palin family and anyone else who may have been offended. And it pisses me off royally. Before I go further let me state this--- I think the joke referring to Alex Rodriguez knocking up Bristol Palin during the seventh inning stretch was crass, tastless and a little bit funny in a way that makes you feel bad about yourself. I have no issue with the Governor and her husband Todd (Alaska's first tool), defending their daughter's honor. However, it is very clear that "Miss Alaska" stretched this issue out over a week to keep her sneering mug in front of the camera for as long as possible.
Think about this, a whole week! A week when Iran is teetering on a revolution, when health care reform is being seriously debated in the halls of congress, and our President has submitted sweeping reforms of our financial system and all "Miss Alaska" wanted to do was fight with a late night comedian!?!? Are you kidding me!? This is the Governor of Alaska, a woman who ran for the second highest office in the land just a few months ago and she thinks that this is the most pressing issue of the day? How can she possibly expect to be taken seriously? She's starting to reach the unholy level of that fascist party doll (thank you Richard Belzer) Ann Coulter.
Now do I think she should have ignored the joke entirely? Of course not. But why didn't she just make a classy "I'm fair game but he should leave my kid out of it" type statement. No, instead she implies that David Letterman was making a joke about her 14 year old daughter Willow, and all but calls him a pedophile. Of course the joke had to be about Bristol because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. I mean she was the one who got knocked up right? And besides, who in the hell even knew she had a daughter named Willow? And by the way as a candidate "Miss Alaska" wasted no opportunity to push her family in front of the camera every chance she had.
It should be mentioned that this isn't the first time a politician's child was made the butt of a joke. During the Clinton administration no less than John McCain made a joke about Chelsea Clinton's appearance and another conservative commentator referred to her as the "family dog." But I don't recall the Clintons going ape shit over it. I mean Bill and Hillary are hardly the classiest people ever (see last year's campaign) but they were willing to let it die.
But I have to say, the most galling aspect of this whole faux issue is the fact that this woman thinks she has a right to call someone else out on the issue of offensive speech. This woman who while running for vice president said that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" and called him a "socialist" ginning up the fervor in her crowds to the point that people started shouting out "kill him" at the mention of Obama's name. Did she try to tamp down the rhetoric or correct anyone who shouted these heinous words? Did she pay any mind to this country's terrible history of political assassinations or the fact that then Senator Obama had to request secret service detail before any other candidate due to death threats? No, she left it out there to linger. Dangerously.
Governor Palin is the political equivalent of "actress" Denise Richards. She knows nothing (see Katie Couric), she does nothing (ask the citizens of Alaska-post election), and she is constantly in search of a camera to stand in front of and spought nonsense. She has essentially created her own reality show and because of a boisterous minority on the right, she is treated by the news media as someone of importance. Shame on them.
So why did David Letterman apologize? Probably because he is far too decent a guy. Remember, Letterman grew up in the conservative midwest (Indiana Specifically), and was probably genuinely aggrieved that anyone would think he was referring to a 14 year old having sex with A-Rod. Of course, that was only one of the two borderline jokes that Letterman made about the Governor. The other compared her wardrobe to that of a "slutty stewardess." That far funnier joke made me realize how Dave should have responded to "Miss Alaska's" repeated slings and arrows. It reminded me of what Bill Maher said on his HBO program Real Time when he was criticized for referring to Governor Palin as being intellectually on par with a stewardess. He said "you're right that was an insult to stewardesses."
Sumo-Pop
June 18, 2009
Think about this, a whole week! A week when Iran is teetering on a revolution, when health care reform is being seriously debated in the halls of congress, and our President has submitted sweeping reforms of our financial system and all "Miss Alaska" wanted to do was fight with a late night comedian!?!? Are you kidding me!? This is the Governor of Alaska, a woman who ran for the second highest office in the land just a few months ago and she thinks that this is the most pressing issue of the day? How can she possibly expect to be taken seriously? She's starting to reach the unholy level of that fascist party doll (thank you Richard Belzer) Ann Coulter.
Now do I think she should have ignored the joke entirely? Of course not. But why didn't she just make a classy "I'm fair game but he should leave my kid out of it" type statement. No, instead she implies that David Letterman was making a joke about her 14 year old daughter Willow, and all but calls him a pedophile. Of course the joke had to be about Bristol because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. I mean she was the one who got knocked up right? And besides, who in the hell even knew she had a daughter named Willow? And by the way as a candidate "Miss Alaska" wasted no opportunity to push her family in front of the camera every chance she had.
It should be mentioned that this isn't the first time a politician's child was made the butt of a joke. During the Clinton administration no less than John McCain made a joke about Chelsea Clinton's appearance and another conservative commentator referred to her as the "family dog." But I don't recall the Clintons going ape shit over it. I mean Bill and Hillary are hardly the classiest people ever (see last year's campaign) but they were willing to let it die.
But I have to say, the most galling aspect of this whole faux issue is the fact that this woman thinks she has a right to call someone else out on the issue of offensive speech. This woman who while running for vice president said that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" and called him a "socialist" ginning up the fervor in her crowds to the point that people started shouting out "kill him" at the mention of Obama's name. Did she try to tamp down the rhetoric or correct anyone who shouted these heinous words? Did she pay any mind to this country's terrible history of political assassinations or the fact that then Senator Obama had to request secret service detail before any other candidate due to death threats? No, she left it out there to linger. Dangerously.
Governor Palin is the political equivalent of "actress" Denise Richards. She knows nothing (see Katie Couric), she does nothing (ask the citizens of Alaska-post election), and she is constantly in search of a camera to stand in front of and spought nonsense. She has essentially created her own reality show and because of a boisterous minority on the right, she is treated by the news media as someone of importance. Shame on them.
So why did David Letterman apologize? Probably because he is far too decent a guy. Remember, Letterman grew up in the conservative midwest (Indiana Specifically), and was probably genuinely aggrieved that anyone would think he was referring to a 14 year old having sex with A-Rod. Of course, that was only one of the two borderline jokes that Letterman made about the Governor. The other compared her wardrobe to that of a "slutty stewardess." That far funnier joke made me realize how Dave should have responded to "Miss Alaska's" repeated slings and arrows. It reminded me of what Bill Maher said on his HBO program Real Time when he was criticized for referring to Governor Palin as being intellectually on par with a stewardess. He said "you're right that was an insult to stewardesses."
Sumo-Pop
June 18, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Liberal Heart of Clint Eastwood
This past tuesday saw the release of Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" on dvd. Eastwood has said that this may be his last film as an actor but that he will continue to direct for the forseeable future. Seeing how everyone has a good handle on what kind of actor Eastwood is (stoic, minimalist), I thought it would be interesting to look at his career behind the camera. In doing so what I found was fascinating. This noted conservative, registered republican since 1951, supporter of republican presidential candidates from Richard Nixon to John McCain has the filmmaking heart of a liberal. Since 1988--- with few exceptions--- his films have centered around three particular themes: racism, feminism, and the futility of violence. Now this may be hard to imagine from Mr. "go ahead, make my day," but consider the evidence.
Starting in 1988 with "Bird" his biopic of jazz legend Charlie Parker, Eastwood has consistently tackled social issues in nearly all his directorial efforts. "Bird" was a sympathetic look at the troubled life of of the saxophonist Charlie Parker. Eastwood delved into his musical genius, his drug abuse, and his rocky long term relationship with a white woman. The film was neither judgemental nor sentimental in looking at Parker's career but it made perfectly clear the effects of racism on the troubled jazz man. Eastwood has gone on to make three other films looking at the racial divide in this country. In a matter of fact way, "Unforgiven" (through the character played by Morgan Freeman) exposed the casual racism of the old west, but "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Gran Torino" delved more deeply into the subject. On the surface "Flags" would appear to be a very conservative pro-war film. However, take note of the character Ira Hayes as played by Adam Beach, and his struggles as a native american trying to assimilate in an unforgiving post-war America. Eastwood makes it clear that although Hayes was a war hero, the USA was no place for a man of color to get ahead. Now "Gran Torino" makes an even stronger comment than "Flags" by centering his story around the racist character of Walt Kowalski played by Eastwood himself. The character not only learns to accept the asian family that moves in next door to his Detroit home, but befriends them and is, in fact, willing to die for them.
When it comes to the subject of feminism, Eastwood is probably not the first person who's name comes to mind. But take into consideration these three films, "Bridges of Madison County," "Million Dollar Baby," and "Changeling." With "Bridges" Eastwood took an awful book and turned it into a sterling tale of the sexual awakening of a middle aged Italian immigrant woman (Meryl Streep). Through her affair with the National Geographic photographer played by Eastwood we see the stifling effects of the 1960s on a traditional woman living in the midwest. Eastwood makes it clear through societal reasons and family circumstances that this is a woman who has not been allowed to live as she would wish. Nine years later Eastwood approached feminism from a more modern perspective with "Million Dollar Baby." While "Million Dollar Baby" may seem more like a sports movie on the surface than a feminist outcry, Eastwood's approach reflects the difficulty of a woman trying to enter the traditionally male dominated sport of boxing. Eastwood's character, gym owner and trainer Frankie Dunn states early on that "I don't train girls" but finds himself giving in to her (Hilary Swank) persistance and pluck. More liberal still is "Baby's" argument that a person not only has the right to live as they choose but also to die as they choose. Jack Kevorkian, anyone? However, the strongest pro-feminist statement by Eastwood yet is Eastwood's other, even better film from last year, "Changeling" starring Angelina Jolie. The brilliant "Changeling" documents the true story of the 1928 abduction of a single mother's (Jolie) son. There are many incredible twists and turns in "Changeling," so much so that my jaw probably dropped five times while watching the picture. From the insistence by the Los Angeles police department that a boy found after the abduction is Jolie's son (when he clearly is not) to a sub-plot involving a serial killer, "Changeling" is a doozy of a film. But its main focus is on that of a single mother trying desperately to find her son in the harsh pre-feminist atmosphere of 1920s America. At one point Jolie's character is institutionalized for not accepting that the shorter, circumcised (her son was not) boy returned to her by the LAPD is not her son. For this she is treated like a hysteric and only freed to continue her search for her son thanks to a crusading minister (John Malkovich). In "Changeling," Eastwood strikes a real blow against female oppression and for the feminist wave to come.
Still, I would say the most fascinating of the three main themes of the last 20 years of Eastwood's career is that of the futility of violence. Now it may seem strange to think that "Dirty Harry" would make films that are statements against violence, but here again Eastwood subverts expectations. First with his all-time classic western "Unforgiven," Eastwood made it clear that little good comes from violence. In a particularly telling scene, Eastwood's vigilante Will Munny says to a member of his gang and first time killer (played by Jaimz Woolvett) that "It's a hell of a thing to kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he was gonna have." The young, shaken wannabe gun slinger then says to Munny "I just don't know if he (His first victim) deserved it." Munny's classic response? "deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Eastwood followed "Unforgiven" with his most underrated film, "A Perfect World" starring Eastwood and Kevin Costner. In "World" Costner plays a murderer who escapes prison and then kidnaps a child (Eastwood is the local sheriff trying to catch them). What's particularly interesting in "World" is the effort that Eastwood the director makes to understand the criminal played by Costner. He isn't simply a bad man but more of a person from a terrible family background who never had a chance. Later, in Eastwood's oscar winner "Mystic River," Eastwood again returns to the wrong headed, foolhardy theme of vigilante violence. In "Mystic," the character played by Sean Penn takes the law into his own hands after the murder of his daughter. He ends up committing murder against a wrongly accused childhood friend. Like "A Perfect World," (and "Gran Torino" as well) "Mystic" argues that people are a product of their environment and if they don't "break the cycle" of violence they are doomed to fall victim to it.
Now I am willing to bet that Eastwood, the former republican mayor of Carmel, California (1986-1988) wouldn't like being called a liberal on any level. I'm sure he would argue that over 50 years as a registered republican would qualify him as a card carrying conservative. And politically that may be true. But when looking at his work on film over the last twenty years, it's difficult to reach the same conclusion. So Clint Eastwood the artistic, social liberal is certainly a label he would not feel that he deserves. But then "deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
Sumo-Pop
June 14, 2009
Starting in 1988 with "Bird" his biopic of jazz legend Charlie Parker, Eastwood has consistently tackled social issues in nearly all his directorial efforts. "Bird" was a sympathetic look at the troubled life of of the saxophonist Charlie Parker. Eastwood delved into his musical genius, his drug abuse, and his rocky long term relationship with a white woman. The film was neither judgemental nor sentimental in looking at Parker's career but it made perfectly clear the effects of racism on the troubled jazz man. Eastwood has gone on to make three other films looking at the racial divide in this country. In a matter of fact way, "Unforgiven" (through the character played by Morgan Freeman) exposed the casual racism of the old west, but "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Gran Torino" delved more deeply into the subject. On the surface "Flags" would appear to be a very conservative pro-war film. However, take note of the character Ira Hayes as played by Adam Beach, and his struggles as a native american trying to assimilate in an unforgiving post-war America. Eastwood makes it clear that although Hayes was a war hero, the USA was no place for a man of color to get ahead. Now "Gran Torino" makes an even stronger comment than "Flags" by centering his story around the racist character of Walt Kowalski played by Eastwood himself. The character not only learns to accept the asian family that moves in next door to his Detroit home, but befriends them and is, in fact, willing to die for them.
When it comes to the subject of feminism, Eastwood is probably not the first person who's name comes to mind. But take into consideration these three films, "Bridges of Madison County," "Million Dollar Baby," and "Changeling." With "Bridges" Eastwood took an awful book and turned it into a sterling tale of the sexual awakening of a middle aged Italian immigrant woman (Meryl Streep). Through her affair with the National Geographic photographer played by Eastwood we see the stifling effects of the 1960s on a traditional woman living in the midwest. Eastwood makes it clear through societal reasons and family circumstances that this is a woman who has not been allowed to live as she would wish. Nine years later Eastwood approached feminism from a more modern perspective with "Million Dollar Baby." While "Million Dollar Baby" may seem more like a sports movie on the surface than a feminist outcry, Eastwood's approach reflects the difficulty of a woman trying to enter the traditionally male dominated sport of boxing. Eastwood's character, gym owner and trainer Frankie Dunn states early on that "I don't train girls" but finds himself giving in to her (Hilary Swank) persistance and pluck. More liberal still is "Baby's" argument that a person not only has the right to live as they choose but also to die as they choose. Jack Kevorkian, anyone? However, the strongest pro-feminist statement by Eastwood yet is Eastwood's other, even better film from last year, "Changeling" starring Angelina Jolie. The brilliant "Changeling" documents the true story of the 1928 abduction of a single mother's (Jolie) son. There are many incredible twists and turns in "Changeling," so much so that my jaw probably dropped five times while watching the picture. From the insistence by the Los Angeles police department that a boy found after the abduction is Jolie's son (when he clearly is not) to a sub-plot involving a serial killer, "Changeling" is a doozy of a film. But its main focus is on that of a single mother trying desperately to find her son in the harsh pre-feminist atmosphere of 1920s America. At one point Jolie's character is institutionalized for not accepting that the shorter, circumcised (her son was not) boy returned to her by the LAPD is not her son. For this she is treated like a hysteric and only freed to continue her search for her son thanks to a crusading minister (John Malkovich). In "Changeling," Eastwood strikes a real blow against female oppression and for the feminist wave to come.
Still, I would say the most fascinating of the three main themes of the last 20 years of Eastwood's career is that of the futility of violence. Now it may seem strange to think that "Dirty Harry" would make films that are statements against violence, but here again Eastwood subverts expectations. First with his all-time classic western "Unforgiven," Eastwood made it clear that little good comes from violence. In a particularly telling scene, Eastwood's vigilante Will Munny says to a member of his gang and first time killer (played by Jaimz Woolvett) that "It's a hell of a thing to kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he was gonna have." The young, shaken wannabe gun slinger then says to Munny "I just don't know if he (His first victim) deserved it." Munny's classic response? "deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Eastwood followed "Unforgiven" with his most underrated film, "A Perfect World" starring Eastwood and Kevin Costner. In "World" Costner plays a murderer who escapes prison and then kidnaps a child (Eastwood is the local sheriff trying to catch them). What's particularly interesting in "World" is the effort that Eastwood the director makes to understand the criminal played by Costner. He isn't simply a bad man but more of a person from a terrible family background who never had a chance. Later, in Eastwood's oscar winner "Mystic River," Eastwood again returns to the wrong headed, foolhardy theme of vigilante violence. In "Mystic," the character played by Sean Penn takes the law into his own hands after the murder of his daughter. He ends up committing murder against a wrongly accused childhood friend. Like "A Perfect World," (and "Gran Torino" as well) "Mystic" argues that people are a product of their environment and if they don't "break the cycle" of violence they are doomed to fall victim to it.
Now I am willing to bet that Eastwood, the former republican mayor of Carmel, California (1986-1988) wouldn't like being called a liberal on any level. I'm sure he would argue that over 50 years as a registered republican would qualify him as a card carrying conservative. And politically that may be true. But when looking at his work on film over the last twenty years, it's difficult to reach the same conclusion. So Clint Eastwood the artistic, social liberal is certainly a label he would not feel that he deserves. But then "deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
Sumo-Pop
June 14, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Land Of The Brave?
Yesterday, President Obama had the first Guantanomo Bay detainee, Ahmed Ghailani brought to the United States to face charges related to his alleged role in the African embassy bombings in 1998. Following his transfer, the unfortunately named (and orange hued) house minority leader, John Boehner declared that this was the "first step in the democrats plan to import terrorists to America." As if Ghailani were being brought here for a guided tour of our most vulnerable facilities. Now why would Boehner stoop to such a ridiculous statement? Probably because on June 3rd the well respected Gallup organization released a poll that said that americans oppose the closure of Guantanomo Bay prison and the transfer of any prisoners to this country by a 65% to 32% margin. And all I can say is what a bunch of panicky, weak-kneed pansies we are. Do we really believe that our country is incapable of transporting, convicting, and holding these prisoners safely inside our borders? Well, apparently by a 2-1 ratio, yes.
First of all, the idea that the Gitmo prison makes us safer is ludicrous. What Gitmo has become is one of the best recruiting tools that Islamic extremists have against us. The fact that we are holding people in a foreign prison without legal representation indefinitely makes us look weak, fearful, and tyrannical. In the time the prison was opened in 2002 we have tried exactly 10 prisoners out of the over 500 who are detained there. We have tortured through waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and other methods that we have abhorred when other countries have used them against us. In fact, we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers after world war 2 for the use of waterboarding against americans. We have violated the Geneva convention and international law repeatedly during the "war on terror." So imagine, if you will, how easy it is for the extremists to use Gitmo as a recruiting poster. But we think this place makes us safer. Amazing.
Now I am a big time lover of movies but anyone who thinks we can't haul prisoners safely from one prison to another has seen Con Air one too many times. These guys aren't superheroes. Hell, they aren't even Nic Cage. It's hard to even think of a major prison break that was successful in recent history. And no the television show starring Wentworth Miller on Fox (the aptly named Prison Break) doesn't count. Also, it's worth mentioning what kind of prison we'd be putting these people in. They wouldn't be in a Hotel Hilton. They would be in what's known as a supermax prison.
Here's a little about supermax prisons. The concept was developed from a prison in Marion, Illinois that went on full lockdown for 23 years after two guards were murdered by inmates. In a full lockdown setting, prisoners are generally allowed outside their cell for one hour a day. Otherwise, they are typically held in solitary confinement. Where they are under constant surveillance by closed-circuit television cameras. They are allowed only the barest of neccesities in their cells. The walls and the plumbing are often sound proof so that the inmates cannot communicate with each other. And what of that one hour a day of exercise? That takes place in another enclosed area where the inmate can exercise alone under the watch of armed guards. How many people would you hazard a guess have escaped a supermax prison? The answer is Zero. Zilch. None.
Maybe we are afraid that our justice system will be unable to convict these prisoners. But here's the thing, the average conviction rate by federal prosecutors is way over 90%. And after 6+ years of holding these people without trial or legal representation we should have a pretty good case against these folks. If we don't, then why were they imprisoned in the first place?
Yet here we are six years after panicking our way into invading a country that didn't attack us and we've learned nothing. After years of bullshit terror alerts, a policy of torture, a quagmire in Iraq, we want to commit the same mistakes based on fear. Somehow we don't think this country is strong enough to cycle fewer than 600 people through our justice system. Well if that's true then we are a weak nation running in fear of the bogeyman. I'm well aware that there are real dangers in this world. I will never forget the way I felt on September 11. But I will also never forget one of my favorite quotes, "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"--Benjamin Franklin.
Sumo-Pop
June 9, 2009
First of all, the idea that the Gitmo prison makes us safer is ludicrous. What Gitmo has become is one of the best recruiting tools that Islamic extremists have against us. The fact that we are holding people in a foreign prison without legal representation indefinitely makes us look weak, fearful, and tyrannical. In the time the prison was opened in 2002 we have tried exactly 10 prisoners out of the over 500 who are detained there. We have tortured through waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and other methods that we have abhorred when other countries have used them against us. In fact, we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers after world war 2 for the use of waterboarding against americans. We have violated the Geneva convention and international law repeatedly during the "war on terror." So imagine, if you will, how easy it is for the extremists to use Gitmo as a recruiting poster. But we think this place makes us safer. Amazing.
Now I am a big time lover of movies but anyone who thinks we can't haul prisoners safely from one prison to another has seen Con Air one too many times. These guys aren't superheroes. Hell, they aren't even Nic Cage. It's hard to even think of a major prison break that was successful in recent history. And no the television show starring Wentworth Miller on Fox (the aptly named Prison Break) doesn't count. Also, it's worth mentioning what kind of prison we'd be putting these people in. They wouldn't be in a Hotel Hilton. They would be in what's known as a supermax prison.
Here's a little about supermax prisons. The concept was developed from a prison in Marion, Illinois that went on full lockdown for 23 years after two guards were murdered by inmates. In a full lockdown setting, prisoners are generally allowed outside their cell for one hour a day. Otherwise, they are typically held in solitary confinement. Where they are under constant surveillance by closed-circuit television cameras. They are allowed only the barest of neccesities in their cells. The walls and the plumbing are often sound proof so that the inmates cannot communicate with each other. And what of that one hour a day of exercise? That takes place in another enclosed area where the inmate can exercise alone under the watch of armed guards. How many people would you hazard a guess have escaped a supermax prison? The answer is Zero. Zilch. None.
Maybe we are afraid that our justice system will be unable to convict these prisoners. But here's the thing, the average conviction rate by federal prosecutors is way over 90%. And after 6+ years of holding these people without trial or legal representation we should have a pretty good case against these folks. If we don't, then why were they imprisoned in the first place?
Yet here we are six years after panicking our way into invading a country that didn't attack us and we've learned nothing. After years of bullshit terror alerts, a policy of torture, a quagmire in Iraq, we want to commit the same mistakes based on fear. Somehow we don't think this country is strong enough to cycle fewer than 600 people through our justice system. Well if that's true then we are a weak nation running in fear of the bogeyman. I'm well aware that there are real dangers in this world. I will never forget the way I felt on September 11. But I will also never forget one of my favorite quotes, "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"--Benjamin Franklin.
Sumo-Pop
June 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)