The Watercooler: 10/13/08
I’m afraid I don’t have much to contribute to this week’s Monday Watercooler. I spent a good part of the weekend getting caught up on writing or procrastinating getting caught up on writing. Sadly, I don’t have much that’s ready to show for a weekend’s worth of effort. The Ballast review below is about the sum total of it for now.
The only movie I saw in theaters was Wong Kar-Wai’s Ashes of Time Redux. It was beautiful, layered, dreamy, elusive and elliptical. I enjoyed it, but I’m not embarrassed to admit that it defeated my attempt to fully grasp it. It was intriguing enough that I’m anxious to watch it again, but I’m afraid I won’t be able to describe it adequately until then.
That’s all from me. How about you? Did anyone see Ballast or Rachel Getting Married or Happy Go Lucky this weekend? How about the Ridley Scott film?
Discuss.
Filed under: Watercooler
Related Posts: - Scott and Affleck Attached to ‘The Kind One’
- Indie Indeed
- The Watercooler: 6/23/08
- Ridley Scott Goes to Movie Jail
- The Watercooler: 11/3/08
I actually saw that Ridley Scott movie a few days early and am just sitting down now to write a review. Me not like. Me think Scott’s movie supercilious hodgepodge of crap.
Anyway, this weekend was quite interesting. Friday night, I focused mainly on watching some political junk, which I usually don’t mention here but will do so this time to give myself an excuse for not having seen anything but a little noir called Loan Shark with George Raft. It was most disposable.
Saturday, I saw The Match Factory Girl, thanks to Sam, which I enjoyed a great deal. Then it was the Paul Newman-starrer Nobody’s Fool again. After that, it was off to San Francisco for Christian’s terrific presentation on “protest-ploitation” cinema of 1970. Truly a wonderful time was had by everyone, and it was a great pleasure and honor to meet the man himself!
Sunday, I saw Nixon, the director’s cut, which took me to the afternoon… Watched a couple of films with three episodic narratives in them, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, which was just about as pleasant as I thought it was, and Max Ophuls’ La Pairise, again thanks to Sam… A simply splendacious piece of cinema there… Then it was on to Paul Newman again with Until They Sail a Robert Wise picture with Jean Simmons, Piper Laurie playing sisters in World War II New Zealand. I’d love to hear what Sartre thinks about this film as a representation, most likely cockeyed, of New Zealand culture. Then it was Larissa Shepitko’s Wings, again thanks to Sam. Not the devastating powerhouse that The Ascent was, but how could it be? Nevertheless, it was quite moving in a very different yet similarly transcendent way, especially in the final movement. Then it was another little noir, this one from Great Britain, with Caesar Romero, called The Shadow Man. I couldn’t explain the plot at this moment but it was atmospherically rather winning, and distractingly so.
I’m so happy to hear you saw Ashes of Time Redux, Craig. It is, no question, “beautiful, layered, dreamy, elusive and elliptical”–perfectly summarized, even if one cannot fully grasp it immediately!
Of those, Alexander, I’ve seen only Nobody’s Fool, a movie I rather like. Interesting stuff.
As for me, I saw two films this weekend, both at home. First was Black Book and second was Up the Yangtzee, recorded from PBS, thanks to Daniel. I really liked Black Book. I have a thing for both spy/intrigue films and for WWII-era dramas like this, especially with Jewish characters, so it won for me on all counts. Carice von Houten was quite winning, and I was happy to see that playwright bloke from The Lives of Others again. If I had any criticism of it, I suppose it felt at times a little rambly or in need of compacting a bit (either that, or expanding to, say, an HBO mini-series length). My husband commented that Black Book had more than a few similarities with Lust, Caution.
Up the Yangtze was a little different than I expected, more microcosmic and personal and slightly less sweeping and grand than I thought it would be, but also quite beautifully done. I don’t think it will end up being my favorite doc of the year, but I’m awfully glad I saw it. I’m also awfully glad I live in the States. We have our share of problems, but at least when I move I don’t have to carry my whole household on my back for trip after trip up rocky mountains while barefoot before my home is systematically flooded away. There’s that.
Kudos to you Alexander on that deliriously (but deliciously) frantic schedule that took in a bevy of adored goodies, all seen before and after Christian’s show. (which sounds great too). Thanks for those acknowlegements. As it is I agree with both your take on BODY OF LIES completely as well as Craig’s on ASHES OF TIME REDUX, although I am speaking here of the original; my own hectic schedule this past week did not allow for a viewing of the one in theatres
Jenny Bee: That’s great that you finally got to see UP THE YANGTZE, and your reaction indicates it was worth the wait. I concur with your assessment. THE LIVES OF OTHERS is a masterpiece without question. I have taken my lumps at this site a few times for not issuing praise for BLACK BOOK, but I’m glad you liked it.
Personally, I had the most exciting and prolific week I’ve ever had since hanging out at The Watercooler, but what with Halloween approaching, I think I need to refocus for the rest of the month on the kids. It’s too much.
I saw the Broadway show A TALE OF TWO CITIES on Tuesday night, and took my lumps for writing a negative review on it. Let’s just say it was no LES MIZ by a long shot. I visited the Metropolitan Opera House for the first time this young season and saw Richard Strauss’ SALOME again.(on Saturday afternoon) As always a performance of overwhelming power. This particular performance was aired by HD simulcast to theatre all over the world lon Saturday and Sunday.
Here are the current films I saw:
Happy Go Lucky **** (Thursday)
Body of Lies ** (Friday afternoon)
Breakfast For Scot *** (Friday night)
Rachel Getting Married **** (Saturday night)
Ballast **** (Sunday night)
Lola Montes ***** (Sunday night)
Lucille and I chatted with director Lance Hamer after the screening of BALLAST and the subsequent Q and A at the Film Forum, and took pictures. The humble and endearing helmer confirmed he would be meeting up for an interview today with Craig at a scheduled press conference in his hometown of Los Angeles. The film was a riveting and earthy piece of slice-of-life realistic fiction.
Seeing LOLA MONTES in this restored print with spectacular cinemascope color was the equivalent of entering movie heaven. It hasn’t been seen this way since it first appeared in the 50’s, and it is surely one of the greatest films of all time, a fact I’ve known for years.
Jonathan Demme has returned in a big way with RACHEL, a simultaneously painful and exhiliarating film that boasts a fabulous performance by Anne Hathaway. Mike Leigh’s HAPPY GO LUCKY, is a breezy and insightful film that also has a great lead performance, and its a wonderfully winning concoction. I will let Alexander Coleman, Dan Getahaun and others put BODY OF LIES where it belongs, ugh!, and the gay-themed BREAKFAST FOR SCOT is fair enough, with a fine child’s performance as an ultra-effeminate boy living with two closeted gay men.
On the DVD front I managed to see THE VISITOR and BOY A again, and I watched the two Criterion Melvilles, LE DOULOS and LE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE (both of which I’ve already seen), Ozu’s AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON (again a revisit) Vidor’s THE CROWD, Sjostrom’s THE WIND, Bill Douglas’ COMRADES, Von Stroheim’s THE WEDDING MARCH, the Kazan A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE to back up my recent theatre visit, and Kluge’s ARTISTS AT THE TOP OF THE BIG TOP by Kluge. Finally I revisited Welles’ CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, as I had copied it for a friend and couldn’t resist looking at it again.
Of this last group, I had of course already seen the Vidor, Sjostrom and Von Stroheim numerous times through the years.
And people wonder why I have little time to write for our new blogsite?!?
Wow Sam, you had a great weekend. I saw nothing, lol, not one thing.
Yes, but Nick, you did see several of these films before and I loved your presently posted reviews of HAPPY GO LUCKY and BREAKFAST FOR SCOT which are at Fataculture.
I really want to see Ashes of Time, especially because you describe it like the only other WKW I’ve seen, MBN.
Jeez, Alexander…you seriously live in like a time warp or something. How many hours are there in the day? I’m looking forward to your certain-to-be nasty review of BoL. And cool that another face-to-face meeting happened courtesy of LiC!
Well I am glad you saw it, JB, even if it wasn’t perhaps as earth-shattering as I or others may have suggested. I saw about the last hour of it last night and was just as impressed with it this time around. There were just so many layers to it - cultural, political, etc. It was truly a story about the people and not the river itself, so it may be misleading for those expecting something more Discovery Channel-ish. Might be worth checking out the comments on the PBS blog and an interview with the director (http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/). I’m always surprised at how intelligent/articulate comments are there. Kind of like here, in fact.
Incredible weekend for you yet again, Sam. I wonder if I should freak out Lance Hammer by approaching him when he comes here on the 29th, thus completing the LiC triumvirate!
I saw the Czech film Beauty in Trouble on Saturday afternoon. Very well done with solid acting performances. I expected a little more action or intrigue for some reason, but it still ended up being a somewhat moving account of a Prague woman trying to juggle her two kids, felonious husband, slimy stepfather, and disapproving mother. I don’t know when this movie was made, but I was more than a little surprised and then somewhat disappointed that “Falling Slowly” is used almost in its entirety during a montage scene that didn’t at all fit with the theme of the song. Or maybe it just didn’t fit with how I experienced that song in “Once”. Weird how that happens, isn’t it?
I saw Happy-Go-Lucky at the retrospective preview screening on Saturday. I’ve tiptoed past Nick’s praise of it and I think I’ll land near him. It took me a little while to realize how rich it was, but all things considered it’s a completely engaging film.
Yesterday I went completely blind into the retrospective screening of Contempt. I can see why it was as influential as it has been considered, but I think quite a bit of it went over my head…
Wow, many of us had busy weekends. I just wanted to mention I saw Boy A on Wed and liked it quite a bit, even though I acknowledge it has a couple convoluted moments but the acting and storytelling are superb.
I began the weekend with a revival showing of David Lean’s Brief Encounter from a new exquisite print from the BFI. If only all classic films could be seen this way! Up until the last 15 minutes of the film I was willing to say it was good, but then Lean summed it all up with a spectacular ending, virtuoso in every respect. Celia Johnson was quite good, as was Trevor Howard.
Later that evening I saw Jellyfish on DVD and I was quite taken by it. It took a while to grab hold and I can’t exactly explain it all to you, but I really enjoyed it. One of those examples of a film trying to do a lot and mostly succeeding for me, which I appreciate.
Sunday I saw Lean’s Great Expectations, which I enjoyed less than Brief Encounter but still enjoyed. Lean had some scenes of pure cinematic brilliance in this otherwise straightforward adaptation and Francis L. Sullivan (Night and the City) was awesome as Mr Jaggers.
Glad to hear Jennybee liked Up the Yangtze and I look forward to seeing Ballast.
“It took a while to grab hold and I can’t exactly explain it all to you, but I really enjoyed it.”
Welcome to the club, Joel. Jellyfish is nothing if not the most confounding movie of the year.
Alexander and Sam, you two need to slow down before you have hernias or something. :)
Joel, so glad you loved Jellyfish. It’s on my Top 10 of the year and likely to remain there. It is hard to explain it, and even to recommend it - you just have to experience it. No other way to say it.
I caught Happy-Go-Lucky and have to politely hop onto the opposite side of the fence from Sam, Nick, and Daniel. Exceptional filmmaking from Leigh, great performances, but it felt like just another generic indie film, the kind you see to be “in the know” but forget about and never, ever watch again. My piece will be up by Friday, but I’m not sure I have that much to say about it. I’m glad some of you really enjoyed it, but I don’t think I was infected by Pippy like you were, and if you’re not completely taken with the main character, you’re screwed, since she composes the entirety of the film.
Watched XXy yesterday, and hope to have a review of it up tomorrow. An intense coming-of-age story that sadly transforms into a been-there-done-that coming-of-age melodrama. Sure there’s a “twist” on it, but the film kind of sputters at the end.
Also finally watched The Rape of Europa, which I also hope to have a review of up soon (I’m seeing a pattern here - I can sympathize with your weekend, Craig). Wow. It’s incredible, especially since superficially it appears to be the most bland PBS style doc you’ve seen, the kind of thing that populates the History Channel 24/7. But it’s fascinating and riveting and gives you a window into World War II that you’ve never seen through before. Additionally it leaves you with some very uncomfortable and challenging questions at the end. Highly, highly, highly recommended.
Oh yeah, also saw Religulous. Pretty much what one would expect, although I laughed more than I thought I would. Maher is funny, but he’s not a very nice person.
Dan: That would be great if you could make that a Lance Hamer triumverite!
Talk about having great weeks, well you had a stellar one there yourself! I absolutely loved HAPPY-GO-LUCKY myself, and am “happy” to be on the same page with you! I knew you would mention the use of “Falling Slowly” in the Czech film, and you do make the proper disclaimer there, as great as the song is and as fine as that film is. CONTEMPT of course is a staggering masterpiece (Alexander’s review of it at CCC is a masterpiece in and of itself) but it’s a toughie!
After seeing BOY A on DVD again this week, I think you nailed it Joel, as far as I’m concerned. And you are dead-on, methinks with Lean’s masterwork BRIEF ENCOUNTER, though I confess to liking GREAT EXPECTATIONS more.
Evan, Poppy’s a teacher! Get it? LOL!!!
I look forward to reading your review of THE RAPE OF EUROPA.
RELIGULOUS??? Let’s not go there.
LOL.
Alexander, I LOVE Nobody’s Fool! Another awesome Paul Newman performance, and a great film.
I didn’t get to the movies this weekend. I’m on a marathon streak of working for 18 hours a day right now. However, I did manage to catch After the Thin Man on Saturday afternoon. Those movies are so charming. Myrna Loy was amazing and I loved William Powell, in these movies and, of course, in My Man Godfrey.
I do want to see Ballast - it’s come with such high praise from the film buffs whose opinions matter to me. And also Rachel Getting Married. At this rate though, I may get to one movie in the next couple of months and that movie is going to be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. :-)
Ugh, Alison. Hope the work load mellows soon.
wha…? Alison, are you an account service representative at Lehman Brothers? Jeez.
Interesting thoughts on HGL, Evan. I’ve not read other reviews but I’ll add yours to my must-read list as usual. I agree that the film really depends heavily on Poppy, but I found the most engaging (and the funniest, for that matter) moments to be those with Scott, the driving instructor (was that his name?). ***SPOILER ALERT***That Poppy was unsuccessful charming the pants off of Scott (not literally, of course) makes this movie SO much more realistic. I didn’t necessarily identify with him as a xenophobic misanthrope, but I definitely feel like I’ve played the Scott to other people’s Poppy’s from time to time.
Justin Snow recommended Europa here at least 6 months ago and I was hoping to make it through the year with it being the lone documentary that I missed (along with your recommended The Singing Revolution). I regret skipping both.
Did you see Beauty in Trouble, Sam? What were your thoughts? Interesting that you knew I would mention the song. Is that a common complaint of this film?
Also, thanks for the heads up on Contempt - who better than Alexander to educate me. I must read it.
Wish I could read all about HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, but I’ll have to wait until I see it myself sometime this week… meh…
I was in San Diego this weekend and didn’t feel like driving much–hence no TROUBLE THE WATER–so I stuck with the standard multiplex fare to mixed results.
Friday night was QUARANTINE which (despite unexpectedly positive reviews) was pretty awful. The first act is OK, but the thing quickly reveals itself to be the dullest shakicam horror movie you’ll ever see. Whereas CLOVERFIELD, its clear American inspiration, was terrifying in that it thrust relatable people into a universally-scary situation, this one pins caricatures into an apathy-drenched one. And given even the last scene is shown in promo materials, we all know where this one’s headed before it gets there.
Saturday was CITY OF EMBER, which was forgettable but entertaining. This isn’t what I expected Gil Kenan to do after the inventive MONSTER HOUSE, but it’s not bad, just a bit pointless.
Sunday was intended to be all-giggles with FIREPROOF, but–I’ll take some heat for this–I ended up liking the thing. Yes, there are some token Hallmark Movie qualities on display here, particularly in the acting-department, but never has a Hallmark Movie been as sincere or as heartfelt as this one. FIREPROOF is well-done enough that the sometimes-cloying religious-references just feel like baggage in an otherwise solid effort, even though the project was cleverly conceived from them. Count it a pleasant surprise.
That’s all for me. Weekdays are always more cinematically interesting because they give me the opportunity to catch up with advanced screenings. This week, all I have on the agenda so far in that regard is W., but that’s fine by me.
Hah, Danny B, that probably explains why Fireproof has already shown a steady profit on its fairly meager $500k investment. Kirk Cameron will not be stopped!
I’ve got Europa at home from Netflix, still need to watch it. Can I break out the months-old cliche once again and remind you all that it’s been a startlingly good year for docs? Where 2007 was the year for amazing works of fiction, 2008 is an amazing years for works of non-fiction.
Dan G: I did indeed see BEAUTY IN TROUBLE, and I must admit it was a penetrating drama with the interesting cultural subtexts, and yes the use of that great sone has been a rightful bone of contention among a number of critics.
Very nice week there, Danny Baldwin.
lol Daniel. I supplement my income with work in a law firm during times when there are less music jobs (which in this economy is happening more and more frequently unfortunately). I’m working on a case that’s going to trial.
If you can get to it, I highly recommend Trouble the Water.
Daniel G., make no mistake; I’d still give Up the Yangtze four stars out of five, and I expect that if I were to have seen it in a theater instead of on my TV, that could be a half-star higher. It’s great stuff and I wholeheartedly recommend it. I was also heartened (and in one case, amused) to read the character updates on the PBS site, and glad so many people have been donating to help the girl’s family.
Evan, I’ve just added The Rape of Europa to my Netflix queue. Looking forward to that, in a sort of dreading to know the story kind of way.
It’s more fascinating than “dreading,” jennybee, although there are genuine moments of sadness. It spends very little time focused on the holocaust and whatnot - it’s all about the art.
Also, quick question: has anyone seen The Order of Myths, that doc about race relations and Mardi Gras? And if so, is it worth seeking out?
Glad to see you liked XXY Evan, it’s still one of my five favorite films of the year.
Things are crazy busy here at the LiC head offices. In the words of Peter Venkman: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!”
For those of you keeping score at home who are concerned that LiC did not make a Sunday post, you’ll note that I snuck in the Watercooler a minute early so now I just have to come up with something for TODAY…
Alexander, it looks like you saw enough movies for the both of us. Shit phone….more in a minute.
I’ve wanted to see “The Order of Myths” forever!
I really wanted to go see Appaloosa this weekend, and in fact, had practically purchased tickets for yesterday, when the Mrs. decided she didn’t want to go see a Western. So I’ll probably catch a matinee sometime in the next couple of days while she’s at work.
Out of what I actually saw, it was a very slow weekend for me, movie-wise… only caught two films.
I watched Breach on Friday, and thought it was OK. I liked Chris Cooper and found several of the supporting roles good, but found Ryan Phillipe wooden (pretty much par for the course with his work, now that I think about it).
Likewise, I watched the Forbidden Kingdom and found it fun, but forgettable. In a lot of ways, I found myself comparing it to Michael Angarano’s other leading role, in Sky High, where it was not nearly as bad as I expected, but nothing to write home about. To me, I think the biggest issue with TFK is that for the Kung Fu movie inspired fun, Kung Fu Panda did it all better, and seeing the two within a few months of each other, this one just felt flat by comparison.
Michael W, I completely agree with you about Ryan Phillipe in Breach. He was definitely the weak link - I’m just not impressed with him in general. Chris Cooper was excellent however, and I enjoyed Laura Linney’s performance as always. The movie was okay but nothing special.
Nick, it’s good to take a break once in a while. I hope your weekend was good even if it was movie-less.
JB I had the exact same reaction to Yangtze…in a good way, but I was expecting someing more political when it turned out to be a very moving human story. Good stuff.
I also loved Black Book…it even made my 2007 Top Ten. Sam disagrees, but that’s cool.
Sam takes the weekend prize if for no other reason than the sheer running around, not to mention the fact he saw two excellent movies I can vouch for in Ballast and Rachel Getting Married plus a couple more that sound good as well.
Evan, sorry you didn’t like HGL as much as what is shaping up as the Conventional Wisdom. My hopes are undaunted. That damn Rape of Europa just keeps popping up….
Daniel G., I’d described Ashes of Time as much more difficult than MBN. Maybe it was my mood, but MBN’s looseness allowed me to let go and just kind of go with it, but with Ashes, I felt like I was constantly struggling to hold onto a thread of sense, juggling characters and events while just trying to admire how interesting it looked, but in the end I failed and the last 30 minutes or so I’d completely lost track of what was going on.
Just between you and me, I think MBN’s approachability is one of the reasons some hard core Wong fans turn their noses up to it.
Also, you asked about Beauty in Trouble the other day and I meant to throw in my two cents. Yes I saw it and I liked it (It was the movie that caused part of the fuss over the oscarability of Falling Slowly from Once), though it slipped from my memory really quickly.
Alison, I love the Thin Man movies…especially the first one. I love how often they’re drinking and how fun and glamorous they make it look! Plus Powell and Loy have such charisma together. You have the sense they genuinely like each other and their affection is infectious.
Joel, thanks for your heads up on Jellyfish. There has been plenty of head scratching over that one and I’m more intrigued everytime someone mentions it.
Danny B. I’m still trying to figure out what happened with City of Ember. On the surface it sounded like something that should’ve been kind of amazing, yet it sounds like it fell flat and the studio has known for a long time. Sad that it got clobbered by Chihuahua.
As for Fireproof, sincerity and heart goes a long way, but a Hallmark movie is still a Hallmark movie and it belongs on the Hallmark channel. Of course, I didn’t see the thing so that’s not fair of me to say at all.
Matthew, you’ve been trumpeting XXY for quite a while. I’m afraid I missed it in theaters and will have to catch up to it on DVD.
Michael, between Apaloosa and Forbidden Kingdom, I liked FK more though it was admittedly silly. It felt like it was made by a bunch of people who grew up watching cheesy ’80s martial arts movies and it was very much made very much in that spirit. Forgettable, yes, but every time I’m reminded of it, I smile.
That “dogs and cats living together” line has always amused me greatly, Craig. Mainly because the Wilding household has always had so many under the same roof simultaneously that lived in perfect harmony.
My pup would like to have Zelda for a girlfriend. I have a hunch that’s what’s going on. She really has softened where he’s concerned. I think she actually does love him.
But cats being what they are, Zelda must be her own woman. She belongs to no one. She’s a free soul.
Nobody would ever completely melt her hard feline heart. Guess we have something in common…
Went to The Wrestler at NYFF. Probably my favorite Aronofsky film and easily one of the best of the year. Just a simple, subtle, beautifully realized character study. I think I prefer this side of Aronofsky to his experimental side….though I admire his ambition for movies like The Fountain even if I have problems with it.
I’ve always been a fan of “That’s right, this man has no dick.”
Great news on The Wrestler, Ari. I hope I don’t regret my decision to skip it at AFI. At least I’ll be able to catch up with it in December.
Craig, as I said in my email, you are one sly rascal. Terrific job in keeping your daily post chain unbroken.
Jennybee and Alison, yes, Nobody’s Fool is quite the sweetly, charmingly gentle film that seems to caress the viewer. And Paul Newman is a big part of that. When you watch all of his films in the span of a couple of weeks as I am, it becomes overwhelmingly apparent just what… an… actor he was, as if it weren’t already.
The Thin Man films are all so enjoyable, Alison, and the first one remains a classic as Craig says.
As Alison says, Michael W., I agree with your evalutation of Cooper and Philippe in Breach. Sorry to hear you were unable to see Appaloosa–I seem to be one of the film’s sole admirers here, though I do not promise a tremendous film in the offing with it, either.
Alison, don’t work yourself too much! :)
Ari, you have said exactly what I wanted to hear about The Wrestler. One of my thoughts filing out of The Fountain was that Aronofsky needed to just make a film, tell a story, and set the experimentation aside for at least a little while. You have me pumped for it.
Like Craig, I’m in the dark about Jellyfish and I keep kicking myself about it. Must correct this very soon.
I do live in a time warp, Daniel, and a warped place, the San Francisco Bay Area… he said lovingly. ;)
Evan- THE ORDER OF MYTHS is indeed worth checking out. As a lifetime Californian, I assume I responded to it differently than those not on the coasts will, if only because it was rather illuminating to me to see a city where race is still the permeating issue in socio-politics. The movie steers clear of any profound statements, but its ability to observe a place that seems all-too-foreign to so many other Americans makes it worthwhile.
Craig- Yeah, CITY OF EMBER should have been a better movie and a hit. I began to get the floppage once I saw that Bill Murray was in the movie for no apparent reason other than “Hey, it’s Bill Murray!”–a sin–and that Walden was clearly striving for CHRONICLES OF NARNIA-meets-BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA, only not as substantive as either film. But it should play well on DVD, at least.
I’m always up for a Thin Man movie. One of the things I like about them is that they were, to my mind, one of the first depictions of married couples–well after the honeymoon–to portray marriage as a fun, sexy and desirable arrangement between two people who continue to think the world of each other, year after year, martini after martini. Their witty banter is always grounded in the believable loving relationship Loy and Powell’s characters have with each other. I love it.
You are right, Jennybee, The Thin Man goes beyond the elemental but briskly paced crime tales to be a depiction of loving, resilient marriage. The chemistry of the two leads is paramount for that to function with such sterling efficacy.
I must see The Order of Myths!
The Rape of Europa is an extraordinarily fascinating documentary, Jennybee, about one of my favorite subjects in all of history.
I am so, so jealous Ari, “The Wrestler” is now my most anticipated film of this year. Completely.
Ok, so faint praise for The Order of Myths. Thanks for the comments, Danny. I’m from the south, so I wonder if it will be as much of a “foreign” experience for me as it was for you.
And on MBN, I didn’t think it was that approachable, Craig. (as he runs and hides in the corner)
“Then it was on to Paul Newman again with Until They Sail a Robert Wise picture with Jean Simmons, Piper Laurie playing sisters in World War II New Zealand. I’d love to hear what Sartre thinks about this film as a representation, most likely cockeyed, of New Zealand culture.”
Sorry Alexander but I’ve not seen this one. It was filmed on location here so at least the natural environment would have been authentic.
No movie watching this past week. Been catching up with the final season of The Wire and finished my second Culture novel by Iain M. Banks – both activities highly recommended.
Our general election campaign has commenced here. The present interconnectedness of the world has been underscored for me by my greater interest in the US presidential race. If the rest of the world is to endure another Republican administration (and/or Senate majority) we’ll be forced to insist upon reparations to compensate for the appalling impact of their financial mismanagement.
On a cheerier note, I love the first 2 Thin Mans and I’m with Craig on Black Book. Lean’s Great Expectations is the definitive film version for me, undoubtedly helped by finding it mezmerizing as a kid.
Alison, I know that times are hard but those hours are too long to sustain. You’ll do yourself a mischief.
Joel, I’m most happy to hear you saw Brief Encounter–one of my favorite Leans–and Great Expectations is, I think, as Sartre notes, the definitive film version. I feel the same way about Lean’s Oliver Twist, which I fell in love with as a kid.
Danny Baldwin, native Californians (SF Bay Area here) unite! There are so few of us.
Sartre, I’m very glad to see you in the LiC neighborhood today. I would be interested in hearing your reaction to Until They Sail if and when you do see it.
sartre! I’ve missed you!
Unfortunately the hours can’t be helped. It’s what’s expected of everyone when you sign on to work at a trial. Court is very intense.
Lean’s Oliver Twist was just on the other day. I caught the end of it when I got home in the middle of the night. David Lean was a master.
Thanks for the recommendations, Alexander. Both of the Lean movies I’ve seen thus far were good, Brief Encounter being the better of the two.
You’re most welcome, Joel, anytime. It is rewarding to hear you enjoyed the two movies you saw. Brief Encounter is a veritable knockout.
Ugh, looks like my work schedule is going to approach Alison’s this week. Feels like it at least. If I work hard for the next hour I might be able to get to Band of Outsiders this evening…we shall see.
The Order of Myths sounds pretty intriguing to me. I think I’ll have about the same reaction as Evan, and I would theorize that those who were “surprised” by something like Jesus Camp will be surprised by this as well. And vice versa. Sometimes I feel like the land east of the Rockies and west of the Appalachians is an entirely different country.
Oh, and Alexander, I’m a native Californian, too! But I’ve only spent early childhood years and then three recent years in San Diego there. Maybe I’ll be back someday…
sartre! Nice to hear from you again. I’ve missed you, too.
Thanks for the welcome backs! Things are still hectic for us while we jump from place to place, set up work and home, and catch up with friends and family here after mostly being overseas for the past 3 years. Although the frequency of my comments has dropped as a result, I’ve kept up with most posts and threads. It’s always a pleasure to do so. Now that I’ll be behind you all re the Fall releases I’m more eager than ever to read your thoughts and reactions to them. I’m particularly holding out for your responses to Synecdoche and Ben Button.
I may be a Kiwi but after recently returning from 2 years in the SF Bay Area I consider myself an honorary Northern Californian.
i of course presented my protestploitation night and it was great to see alexander along with the good crowd. now i am decompressing.
Evan, if you found MBN unapproachable, you will do more than run and hide from Ashes of Time. All I’m sayin’.
Sartre! Always glad to hear from my favorite Kiwi. Does the economy circle the drain in a different direction down there?
Congrats Christian on the success. Sorry I was unable to come up and enjoy it. Now when are you going to program it here in LA?
We’ll be doing it in January or Febuary at a soon-to-be-announced locale here in Hollywood!
right on!
I would also like to extend my congratulations to Christian, who I don’t know well, but whom I’ve exchanged posts with in the past. His cinematic passion is infectious.
And it’s always wonderful to see a post from sartre. Very happy to see all is going well and look forward to your insights as the year-end movie blitz moves into high gear. Greetings my good friend.
Hmmm… is that a challenge, Craig? Hast thou thrown the gauntlet down? :) I don’t mind obtuse films - I thought MBN was unapproachable for different reasons. I’ll have to try out Ashes and see if it takes with me. I need to get a little more Wong Kar Wai in my system to see I’m allergic or if I just had one unfortunate experience.
See, folks, it was my black magic: I mentioned Sartre and brought him back to the fore.
Evan, watch what you say about my man Wong Kar-Wai! (No, just kidding. Just seek his earlier work out.)
“Does the economy circle the drain in a different direction down there?”
Our financial market is responsibly regulated by government and our banks have been prudent re lending (so the impact will at least be softened here). Our political decision making also isn’t penetrated by special interests (we would call that corruption). But sadly no matter how well small countries function the US economy’s effluent causes their financial markets (with all the unwelcome run-on consequences) to similarly eddy around the drain :-(
Meanwhile, Bush is cracking down on the the so-called criminals that caused this crisis. You can read all about it here and here.
“I may be a Kiwi but after recently returning from 2 years in the SF Bay Area I consider myself an honorary Northern Californian.”
After 2 years in the Bay Area, sartre, you qualify as a virtual native.
I just saw “W” and henceforward shall refer to it as “Single-U.”
Ha, I don’t suppose that’s Single-U as in singular, Pierre?
Josh Brolin for president! Wait, no, then he couldn’t be in movies.
I’m still trying to figure out what the Single-U stands for Pierre? All the words coming to mind aren’t positive.
I was in that packed theater with you, Pierre (a great pick for my box office slate!). I think people should see the movie. It’s a lot tamer than we’ve been led to believe, but still entertaining. Thandie Newton chalks up one of the best performances of the year.
Meanwhile…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us
*******CAUTION! POTENTIAL SPOILER REACTIONS TO “W” **********
joel and jennybee, I’m sayin’ Single U as opposed to Double U because I find the movie thin, underdeveloped and unimaginatively executed. It’s not that “W” is bad — it’s not — it just isn’t good IMO.
It’s half-baked.
The film’s saving grace is Brolin’s performance. His name may get tossed around during the Oscar preliminaries, but stiff competition — not to mention artistic and political controversy over the film — make it difficult to predict the likelihood of a nomination.
***** END OF POTENTIAL SPOILER FOR “W” *******
Yeah, Pierre, that’s what I expected you meant. Thanks for the clarification.
Half-baked. Like its topic.
Oh come on Alison. You’re gonna miss that frat-boy smirk just a little bit. Admit it. :)
To be replaced by that hockey mom smirk?
Oh, don’t even say that joel. I’m seriously going to cry if she ends up as our president.
Ugh…
“Half-baked. Like its topic.”
I get your joke, Alison, but such a comparison also could be interpreted as falling into line with the argument of my filmgoing companion, who liked “W” better than I. He says that the film is what it is because Bush is what he is. My argument is that “is’s” aside, a film needs to be cinematically rich to be good cinema — regardless of its subject. Take for instance Man on Wire, which made the most of a few minutes of tightrope walking. Granted, that feat is pretty dramatic-sounding, but a feature-length documentary on the subject could have fallen flat (no pun intended) as a result of unimaginative treatment.
Another example might be The Queen, which to me seems like a distant cousin of “W.” I’m not saying The Queen is great cinema, but it took a pretty simple premise and stretched it into a film that was critically well-received and popular at the box office.
Despite the skill of the actors involved, “W” is too much of a rough draft. I credit Brolin for going as deep as he could go, but Stone apparently was too self-imposedly rushed to take that and go with it.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but my impression was that Stone definitely rushed this project. It was originally scheduled for a 2009 release and got pushed up, either to coincide with while Bush was still in office or to give it an Oscar push. Whatever the reason for the rush I had a feeling it was a bad idea.
Don´t have time to read all the comments, but:
Greetings from sunny Madrid!
Don’t have much time to comment myself, but I agree that W. wasn’t good. IMO, it’s about the dullest movie Stone could’ve made on the topic, mainly because he settles for a talking-point driven biopic, which feels undercooked at this point in history. (Much of the material feels more accusatory than it is biopic-ish.)
For me, the exercise somewhat failed to grasp the most fascinating aspect of Bush’s campaigns and presidency: his everyman charm. Brolin is good and all, but I didn’t sense that he was playing Bush so much as he was a perception of Bush, which doesn’t work in this context.
Well-constructed on an aesthetic level given the rushed nature of the project, but who cares? It ranks among my least favorite pictures this year.
I was going to say how lucky all these people who have seen “W” are, but Hedwig, you my friend are the luckiest person on Earth…enjoy Madrid! :)
An everyman charm, Daniel Baldwin? I’ve never felt an everyman charm from him. He’s always nauseated me.
Many hate W., that’s for sure, but we must remember that he was elected by the heartland on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” which was boosted by Middle Americans’ ability to relate to his demeanor. One would be ignorant to say that he doesn’t have a charming quality for many people–if not at all for liberals–especially in red states.
Stone completely ignores this, I think, and concentrates too much on depicting W. as being equally as brash and as arrogant as what Stone views as the man’s approach to foreign-policy. This a mistake. He is so concentrated on depicting the guy as a raging alcoholic on a personal level–even going so far as to subtly suggest *minor spoiler* that alcoholism may have returned in the waning days of his presidency *end minor spoiler*–that he loses sight of the fact that the reason the guy got elected was largely because people just plain liked him on a personal level. (He puts too much faith in the father-son relationship, too.)
That, I think, is the movie’s major misstep: its assumptions about W.’s personal life. These diminish its credibility as a biopic. If Stone had gone for something more experimental, I’d be fine with it, but as I said before, it doesn’t work in this context. If history had judged W. more completely, perhaps it might’ve been a-OK. Right now, it isn’t.
I think somewhere deep down, under all the politics and posturing, there’s an interesting story (quite possibly very Shakespearean) to be told about W. To properly portray his purported likability by the right/middle and absolute hatred by the left, you’d almost need to do this one like I’m Not There, with a fractured storytelling that portrays the character in radically different ways.
My own feelings (beyond my absolute intolerance for the man) is that W was in way over his head from the start and that his own fairly simple (and likely largely ignorant) views of the world fostered the misguided direction that his administration took. If you want to know what really happened in the White House in the last 8 years, George W Bush was likely a bit player; Cheney was really in charge and he is the one that will make the subject of a great movie(s) someday.
The I’M NOT THERE comparison is spot-on, Joel. The idea left me stunned for about a minute.
That’s precisely why I said I would’ve been willing to embrace Stone’s vision had it been more experimental in nature. The biopic-structure is too linked to objectivity, which, unless time has passed, is really impossible.
No doubt Stone has shown a lot of balls in simply going for the movie, but the movie in turn reflects little of this. It’s all pretty paint-by-numbers, which makes the fact that it’s so comfortable with a one-dimensional (and not one bit “empathetic,” as Stone glibly says) all the more irritating.
But, hey, at least it’s out of the way and we can all get on to better Oscar bait. I’m seriously doubting I see a great movie all October, though; this and SYNECDOCHE were serious let-downs…
Mr. Eastwood, I’m counting on your for a homer next Friday!
Not to mention– Stone echoes your general idea on Cheney, but it’s all so dismissive and one-dimensional that it’s hard to take seriously, accurate or not.
Also, because there was some earlier discussion of it: THE PRINCESS OF NEBRASKA will go live on YouTube on the 17th at 9 p.m. PST, according to a press release that just found its way into my inbox.
Hola, Hedwig! Hope you’re having fun in the sun.
Danny, the subject of why Bush was elected and re-elected is a huge can of worms and frankly a more interesting subject to me than the man himself. I agree with you that many people responded to his ‘regular-folks’ likeability and these same people are similarly snowed by Ms. Palin. It’s just that I reject totally the logic that says a president should be a person you’d like to sit down and have a drink with.
I don’t want someone running things who is as dumb as a I am.
That’s kind of a tangential rant off the subject of the movie itself…sorry :)
Back to the movie, I was hoping at its best the movie would seek to illuminate US as much as it sought to illuminate Bush, but it sounds like that’s not going to be the case.
Craig, I tend to agree, but I think that to be complete the movie had to address the aspect of why people responded to Bush in order to stimulate that personal illumination. Whether you agree with the “drink” concept isn’t relevant; the fact that you recognize the “drink”-campaigning worked is.
You’re right in saying that his election and re-election is more interesting than what the movie does tackle and my qualms with the movie directly reflect this.
But, since you branched out on the “drink” idea… I will say that I personally wish people didn’t buy into the notion, either. Trouble is: it has become nearly impossible to be conservative and not play that card, as Karl Rove (who is actually, in my view, the most accurately depicted in W.) brilliantly understood. I fear that conservatism will lose traction if it doesn’t head in a more intellectual direction because, frankly, the great moral-issues of the current time (which lure Middle-American “drink voters in) will ultimately head in a more progressive direction in the end and getting votes based on gay-marriage and abortion will prove a hopeless strategy.
While I like Palin as a V.P. and think she was a smart choice for the moment, the tactic is already beginning to fall apart. People like Bobby Jindal (my original choice for V.P.) are the future of the party in that they can defend conservatism from an intellectual standpoint based more on natural law than on shoring up religious voters.
The central problem is that those of us who prefer to take a more complex look at conservatism need those “drink” voters now because the party has yet to fully transform. It’s a frustrating position to be in, and it may very well take a Democrat back in the White House to make Republican voters realize they need to take a different strategy or the people they elect will end up like W.
Relevant as all of that is to the hidden themes of the Stone’s film, it didn’t have much of a relation to my view of the film itself because, well, Stone didn’t bring it up. It’s a little disheartening he had the chance to make such a complex, thought-provoking (and, as you said, personally illuminating) motion picture and didn’t.
It sounds like we agree on several issues and I didn’t mean to sound cranky (if I did).
I think both parties have some stock taking to do in the next 4 to 8 years and I’m not convinced either of them are going to come up with answers I approve of.
No, you didn’t sound cranky at all. In fact, this brief thread of messages has caused me to think more than the whole of W. did. =)
Danny: Don’t be counting too hard on that homer! I saw CHANGELING at the NYFF, and like many others it was more like a “single.” (my opinion of course) Maybe it will work for you.
Not encouraging, but I’ll still keep up hope. I have such an affinity for Eastwood, especially in recent years (aside from the overrated LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA).
If not, I’m sure I’ll catch at least one great movie at AFI Fest, which is not too far away.
Everyone is forgetting about Clint’s Gran Torino, a completely unseen, unhyped entity at this point. Will it sneak up on the Oscar race?
God I hope not. I love Clint and all but he’s got a truckload of Oscars already. Does he really need another one? Personally, my fingers are crossed that Benjamin Button will be all that and a bag of chips and Fincher will finally get his due.
I saw W on Tuesday, and liked it quite a bit. It’s a bit dull and uneven in the first half, but the second half really starts to cook. Brolin is indeed quite good, but I thought the film’s best performance belonged to James Cromwell as Bush Sr. He’s absolutely heartbreaking.
Jeff Wells was right, you do feel sorry for Bush by the end…I am as far from a Bush fan as you can get, but I think that Stone did a commendable job in trying to understand him rather than attack him.
I do think, however, that he should have waited until the end of his presidency, if for no other reason than to give the film a more solid ending.
Alison, even though Gurus of Gold and the like have been slating GRAN TORINO in the Oscar race, I think the reason there’s lack of hype is that it just got scheduled for NYC release on Christmas and wasn’t a surefire 2008 release.
If you’ll remember back to 2005, MILLION DOLLAR BABY wasn’t on aaaannybody’s radar until early December when the euthanasia comments started to fly and ended up taking Best Picture and being one of the best films of that year… So Clint may just have a few tricks up his sleeve in that department…
I envy you, Hedwig! I hope you’re enjoying yourself in Madrid.
Eastwood’s philosophy, judging by 2006 and 2008, seems to be, “If the first one doesn’t get ‘em [Oscars], the second one will!” It’s almost like he knows the first movie isn’t so hot so he strives to push another picture out just before the end of the year.
I may reply to all of the W. comments after I see it this weekend. However, I’m not surprised by the lukewarm response here, Brolin notwithstanding.
One of the ironies of Nixon was that Stone intelligently demonstrated just how persuasively the thirty-seventh president rallied a conservative base that had considered him a borderline sellout when he made peace with the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party in 1960 while paving the way for consistent GOP rule of the White House. It seems like an unfortunate flaw if Stone skips over just how successfully Bush was marketed to conservatives and “Jox Six-Pack,” as it were.
This year it’s Joe the Plumber, Alexander. We could have a drinking game based on how many times they mention it on CNN.
Hahaha… At some point tonight I felt like holding a blanket up to my chin and whispering to Bruce Willis, “I see Joe the Plumber.”
Everyone has a human side. Even the likes of Hitler and Stalin. But I choose to focus on the consequences of the actions of the worst of us, not to mitigate their failings. Bush has led an administration that sent large numbers to their death and damage, tore apart Iraqi infrastructure and civilian life, perpetrated unimaginable loss of life and suffering among its people, ballooned US national debt in the process (but filled the coffers of companies that included those key members of the administration had ties to), and had no post-invasion plan beyond a naive notion of joyous citizens embracing their liberators (willfully ignoring all advice presenting a more realistic, complex picture).
The whole action was based on at worst deliberate lies, at best a disregard for necessary standards of proof married to ideological and evangelical zeal and plain stupidity. Add to this numerous other displays of incompetence and ideological extremism, including response to natural disaster and championing deregulation that led to a worldwide financial crisis that threatens depression, and the erosion of civil liberties of both its own people and selected foreigners (even at the level of torturing them) and its truly difficult conceiving of a more disgraceful, and arguably criminal, democratic regime.
I doubt it’s very hard to depict the kind of personal history that would partially explain how such a limited and venal man rose to power and acted as he did. But the prospect of being armed with that knowledge offers me no solace in the face of the sheer scale of his iniquity and of those who served him.
I don’t dislike Stone, but I think this project was misguided.
Well said, sartre.
When I first heard about this project I had my doubts. If a film was going to be made about him it should have been long after he left office. At least then there would be some real historical perspective, not to mention that at that point we’ll have seen the more long-term outcome of his actions.
Off topic and random funny: I know everyone has moments they’d rather not have caught on camera and there are probably plenty of Obama, but I can’t help it, this pic of McCain last night just makes me laugh out loud. It’s a silly photo, no matter who your guy is:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Republican-presidential-nominee-shaking-hands-Senator-Barack-Obama-presidential-debate/photo/081016/ids_photos_ts/r1772410910.jpg/;_ylt=AujAY6EXHmMQy5Zsha09SbsDW7oF
Funnier than the face is the position of his jacket, making him look like he’s dressed in a priest’s garb.
That’s hilarious, thanks jennybee for starting my day with a good laugh!
Thank god people don’t follow me around with a camera, all I’m sayin’.
I will never understand why McCain acted like a nut the moment the debate wrapped. He stood up with almost hysterical alacrity, and then began behaving like a man belonging to an institution.
Of course, some will say he acted like a demented person before the debate concluded.
Sartre, did you receive my latest email to you?
sartre, I just read your fascinating submission (above) what a fecund, insightful and beautifully-modulated and reflective piece of writing, which by the way I agree with 100%. I haven’t seen Stone’s film yet though but will do so over the weekend.
“I will never understand why McCain acted like a nut the moment the debate wrapped. He stood up with almost hysterical alacrity, and then began behaving like a man belonging to an institution.”
I suspect McCain felt like he’d whipped Obama’s “you-know-what” (earlobe?) and was feeling spry and a bit giddy about it. He has this way of kind of wiggling in his seat while smirking when he’s thinking highly of himself or what he’s just said, and I imagine he felt like kicking up his heels in the relief of his self-perceived victory.
From my perspective, that’s just more evidence of how out of touch he is. But I could be wrong. Maybe he was running out of Polyjuice Potion and was about to morph back into George Bush.
Hahaha, Jennybee…
Poor McCain. Stone should think about making a film about him. Here is a man considered a war hero, often referred to throughout the years in glowing terms by his colleagues, and he lost his bid to become president eight years ago because (doubtless from McCain’s perspective) W. showed up and had the right last name and the right accent, advantageously setting McCain up as unpalatable to the Republican base (which on many issues he is, but W. has been chronically disinterested in traditional conservatism as it was known even as recently as twenty-five years ago), and forcing him out of the process for eight arduous years. McCain at that time was labeled more enthuasiastically as a “maverick,” and “independent,” and probably would have defeated Gore in that race by a substantial margin, considering for one thing just how mismanaged Gore’s campaign was.
So now, after eight long, disastrous years of W.’s presidency, McCain is eight years older, ostensibly less adept at being agreeably civil on television (though one must ultimately chuckle that a country sinking into bankruptcy decides who wins in its potential rulers’ debates primarily on that criteria), and his party’s “brand” as those talking heads on television call it, has been muddied and shattered beyond recognition. Compounding his problems, he has to confront Obama, the first Democratic nominee to inspire widespread enthusiasm from his base since Bill Clinton in 1996.
I suspect McCain has a room at one of his houses where George W. Bush pictures are stapled to every last corner, with words written in blood over them that are not repeatable in these quarters.
“But I could be wrong. Maybe he was running out of Polyjuice Potion and was about to morph back into George Bush.”
Ha! And the real John McCain (of 2000) is locked up in a chest somewhere. I suspect your giddily intoxicated with a sense of his own success theory is spot on. It would have made the subsequent reality testing all the more crushing.
Thanks Alison and Sam for your kind words, I was just letting off some steam. I don’t think I did Alexander.
The thing about McCain is that he ran in 2000 as a true maverick, calling the religious right ‘agents of intolerance’ etc. He gets clobbered by Rove and Co. so in 2008 he sells out his principles only to find his ‘experience’ drawing card is worthless so at the last minute he goes back to trying to be the maverick. He zigged or zagged one too many times.
Well, I have to run now, Sartre, but I’ll send another email to you soon. One point was that I thought you might be interested in my review of the film you promote with your avatar every time you post. :)
Oh, yes, your comment of wisdom concerning the horrors of Bush was most adroitly rendered, Sartre.
Oh, and yes, sartre, I completely concur with your Bush assessment and the film’s appropriateness. As always, very well put.
I find the whole war hero as qualification for leadership angle problematic. Vietnam wasn’t a very honorable war, if the word honorable can ever be applied to war. Does being captured and tortured by the enemy and surviving make one a hero? Is it qualification for the highest level of leadership or for somehow being more adept at dealing with national security issues? By those standards the genuine combatants imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo are qualified to lead their countries if ever released. I don’t wish to overstate the parallel, but so deliberately trading on one’s war hero status seems unconvincing and distasteful to me.
Or is simply having a military career sufficient qualification to better deal with national security issues? Its true McCain supported the surge. But as Mark Benjamin at Salon pointed out “McCain was among the most aggressive proponents of a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, cosponsoring the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. He also expressed full faith in the way it would be executed — a war plan conceived and executed by Rumsfeld.” In other words, president McCain would most likely have brought about the unmitigated disaster that has unfolded in Iraq. Not such encouraging qualification on national security issues.
Generally I’d have to agree with your points, sartre, and your point about Git Mo is certainly a stiff jab at the idea that being a POW necessarily says anything about leadership qualities.
That said, most Americans (I can only speak for Americans on this one) feel that national service is a very valuable quality in a leader and that typically, someone with actual military service is less likely to use military force without careful consideration. Of course, the reality of that assumption has been repeatedly proven wrong, most recently by John F Kennedy in Vietnam and Truman in Korea.
I know Republicans like to count W, but protecting Texas from imminent aerial bombardment by the venerable North Vietnamese air force doesn’t count as military service to me.
“That said, most Americans (I can only speak for Americans on this one) ”
As always, you speak exceedingly well. I can appreciate the hope that military experience might actually slow the trigger finger.
McCain’s earlier enthusiasm for a pre-emptive strike seems to raise serious doubts about his embodiment of more measured judgment on that front. A point the Obama campaign has nicely underscored.
His erratic behavior and sudden angry outbursts really freak me out. I hadn’t seen that until this election campaign but apparently, it’s something he’s well known for.