Tornando a questo ultimo periodo dell'anno, e sfogliando un po' i listini delle varie case di distribuzione, ci accorgiamo che non sono certo poche le pellicole che potranno darsi battaglia per conquistare i premi prestigiosi. A partire da W di Oliver Stone che, come molti di voi sapranno, tratta la storia dell'ascesa di George W. Bush dal college alla stanza ovale.  Ricordiamo che Oliver Stone non è certo antipatico all'Accademy, visto che nella sua lunga carriera ha portato a casa la bellezza di 3 Oscar e altrettante nomination (una per JFK) come miglior regista . Intendiamoci, questo non significa che la vittoria è assicurata, anche perché stiamo facendo congetture basandoci sui gusti della vasta giuria, sugli argomenti trattati da ogni pellicola e sulla storia di ogni autore.

Quindi, proseguendo con le nostre considerazioni, possiamo anche affermare che, se Oliver Stone sarà quasi sicuramente in corsa per uno (o forse per entrambi) dei maggiori premi, Ron Howard non starà certo a guardare. Il Regista premio oscar per il magnifico A Beautiful Mind (Oscar alla migliore Regia e al Miglior Film nel 2002) attualmente impegnato sul set di Angeli & Demoni sarà quasi sicuramente in corsa per l'ambita statuetta con il suo Frost/Nixon film ambientato nel 1977 che ricostruisce i retroscena di una serie di famose interviste televisive durante le quali ha avuto luogo un serrato faccia a faccia fra il presentatore David Frost e l’ex Presidente repubblicano Richard Nixon, costretto alle dimissioni in seguito allo scandalo Watergate. Sappiamo benissimo che la cerimonia degli Oscar è sempre favorevole ai film documento, soprattutto se tratti da sceneggiati teatrali (come in questo caso).

Probabilmente, essendo questo l'anno delle elezioni negli stati uniti, i grandi autori si sono concentrati tutti su pellicole più o meno politiche e biografiche, ed ecco infatti che, oltre ai lavori di Stone e Howard, spunta fuori Milk di Gus Van Sant. Possiamo dire con certezza che Harvey Milk non è certo Richard Nixon o George W. Bush ma possiamo, con altrettanta certezza affermare che, la storia di Harvey Milk, ha un forte potenziale e sicuramente, visto anche il cast di altissimo livello (ne parleremo dopo), ha tutte le carte in regola per dare del filo da torcere ai due autori citati in precedenza.  Per fare un po' di chiarezza nelle menti di chi non conosce assolutamente la persona di Harvey Milk vi consiglio di leggere questo breve sunto della sua vita (QUI).

Che io sappia, o che io ricordi, le migliori pellicole che hanno quasi la certezza di comparire tra l'elenco dei candidati alle statuette di Miglior Regia e Miglior Film sono questi tre. Poi sono più che sicuro che, come accade ogni anno da qualche tempo a questa parte, qualche sorpresa arriverà sicuramente anche se, pensando un po' ai lavoro usciti quest'anno, non è che ci siano molti progetti che meritino almeno una nota. L'unico dubbio mi sorge sul film di Allen ma visti i suoi ultimi lavori questo Vicky Cristina Barcelona non credo che abbia le qualità per competere in una manifestazione del genere.

Volendo sprecare due parole sulle performance mi verrebbe da dire con certezza che quest'anno, a Sean Penn, l'oscar come miglior protagonista per Milk non glielo toglierebbe nessuno, ma visto quanto accaduto l'anno scorso nella sezione Attrice Non Protagonista e Attrice Protagonista è meglio mantenersi cauti e aspettare di vedere la pellicola.

Quasi certamente avrò dimenticato diverse pellicole già uscite o in procinto di uscire ma queste sono solo speculazioni, d'altro canto siamo ancora in Odore di Oscar, prima di vedere qualcosa di concreto dovranno passare almeno quattro mesi.

Musique

Sorties de disques :

9 septembre : Band de garage
16 septembre : Tryo
23 septembre : Les Cowboys Fringants, TV on the Radio
7 octobre : Oasis, Of Montreal
14 octobre : The Cure
21 octobre : The Dears
28 octobre : Jean Leloup, Jane's Addiction
11 novembre : Daniel Boucher
18 septembre : U2, Mononc' Serge et Anonymus

Spectacles, galas, remises de prix, festivals :

6 septembre : Karkwa, Alfa Rococo, Radio Radio, Socalled et autres en spectacle dans le vieux-port
11 au 14 septembre : Salon de la musique indépendante de Montréal
14 septembre : Dandy Warhols au Club Soda
17 septembre : Bloc Party
20 septembre : Sigur Ros au Quai Jacques-Cartier
21 septembre : Gala GAMIQ
26 septembre : Black Mountain au National
9 octobre : Karkwa au Club Soda
5 novembre : Feist au Centre Bell
12 novembre : Nine Inch Nails au Centre Bell
1er décembre : Neil Young au Centre Bell

Cinéma

W., de Oliver Stone
The Road, de John Hillcoat
Miracle at St. Anna, de Spike Lee
Valkyrie, de Bryan Singer

En plus, des élections surement le 14 octobre. Ça promet.

With the Washington Redskins heading to New Jersey to kickoff this year's NFL season against the Super Bowl champion New York Giants, I've decided to go into the vault for one of the few football films to portray the game in all its violent, cutthroat, egotistical glory. Even though Any Given Sunday doesn't feature real NFL teams, director Oliver Stone was able to cast Hall of Famers Jim Brown and Lawrence Taylor as a defensive coordinator and a linebacker, respectively. And, while the level of authenticity is strained just a bit by having Al Pacino coach a team named the Miami Sharks, the realistic game play, the depiction of the players' great physical sacrifices, and numerous off the field confrontations more than make up for the strange logos and wacky mascots.

The Any Given Sunday trailer begins with a bolt of lightning before showing flashes of players battling on the gridiron as Pacino descibes the personal sacrifices he's made for the game. We then see quarterback Dennis Quaid sustain a career-threatening hit, which leads to a battle between Pacino and team owner Cameron Diaz over the direction of the franchise. With Quaid out of commision, Pacino calls on Jamie Foxx to take over as the Sharks' signal caller. Foxx's recklessness, inexperience, and ambition put him at odds with his coach and running back LL Cool J, but despite direct warnings Foxx vows to continue to play his game while he has the chance. While the team falls into disarray under Foxx's divisive influence, Diaz takes out her frustrations on Pacino and let's him know that she thinks he's washed up. My favorite part of the trailer comes the first time we see Foxx on the field, getting hit and spun end over end while diving for a touchdown. Any Given Sunday opened December 22, 1999. Check out the trailer at Zuguide.com.

Oliver Stone, excombatiente de la guerra de Vietnam, comenzó en esto del cine como uno de tantos aficionados que aspiran ha hacer de el su profesión: Rodando un corto.

Ese corto de 12 minutos, se titulaba “Last Year in Viet Nam”, y lo rodó en 1971. He encontrado un video de el, de una duración de poco más de seis minutos, pero puede darnos una idea de ese trabajo.

En 1974 realizó su primera película, “Seizure” (en español “La reina del mal”), un film de terror en el que un novelista que está trabajando en un libro de ese género, sufre durante un fin de semana una continua pesadilla en la que se le presentan tres finales alternativos a su novela. El sueño llega a tomar cuerpo y se convierte en real.

Tenía archivados algunos recuerdos de esa película, que han despertado al ver el pequeño trailer que voy a colgar aquí. Probablemente la vi en video, pero no puedo determinar la fecha, y desde luego, mucha impresión no debió de causarme, cuando los recuerdos a los que me he referido, permanecían dormidos.

Otro corto fue su tercer trabajo como director, este en 1979. Dura 17 minutos, y su título es: “Mad Man of Martinique”.

La verdad, lo desconozco totalmente, y no he encontrado ese corto por ningún lado.

Y llegamos a “La mano”, que presentó en 1981 para la pantalla grande.

El guión de “La mano”, lo escribió Stone basándose en la novela de Mark Brandel “La cola de la lagartija”, y trata sobre un dibujante de comics que viajando en coche con su mujer, pierde la mano derecha en un accidente al sacar esta por la ventanilla del automóvil. El accidente pone fin a su carrera, y enturbia las relaciones con su mujer. La mano cortada aparecerá físicamente y con su aparición dan comienzo unos escalofriantes asesinatos.

“La mano”, a la que yo siempre he considerado la ópera prima de Stone, aunque evidentemente no lo es, con ese argumento aparentemente sencillo, desarrolla una trama compleja con visos surrealistas, que se aleja de la simple película de terror, adentrándonos en un thriller psicológico, en el que lo irreal puede ser real, o solo parecerlo.

Un inmenso Michael Caine protagoniza la película, ofreciendo un recital de expresiones y miradas memorables, conforme sus miedos o su locura avanzan.

A pesar de no ser una obra totalmente redonda (se le pueden criticar algunos fallos), contiene los suficientes valores para apreciarla. Los diálogos y las escenas familiares son convincentes y cercanos, tanto como la actitud del protagonista ante la pérdida de su mano, y los escenarios en los que se mueve la trama. Puede que el guión zozobre en algunos momentos, pero eso lo ves más tarde, porque mientras transcurre la compleja historia, el interés que te crea no te permite prestarles atención, y eso ya es un punto positivo.

Un relevante manejo de la cámara, y la excelente música de James Horner, que remarca la tensión del film en los momentos apropiados, son otros de los logros de este film, que aunque atípico en lo que luego ha sido la filmografía de Stone, nos ponía en la pista de que era un director principiante de los que en un futuro podía dar que hablar.

Así ha sido. Entre sus películas posteriores encontramos un abanico de argumentos que en nada se relacionan con “La mano”, y dar que hablar, si que ha dado (es un provocador nato), a veces para alabarlo, y otras para retractarlo. No todo lo que ha hecho es bueno, pero en los años transcurridos desde aquel 1981, nos ha ido entregando algunos títulos muy dignos, que quedarán reflejados para siempre en la historia del cine.

Y todo empezó… con una mano.

-

Filmografía completa pinchando aquí

-

“Last Year in Viet Nam”

“Seizure”

"La mano"

Swanson  

In honor of Governor Sarah "Caribou Barbie" Palin's selection as the V.P. candidate, I'm sending this post from somewhere deep in the North Woods of Minnesota. (Okay, true confessions: I'm actually on a walking/riding trail in an Illinois forest preserve, no more than 100 yards from an intersection featuring a stoplight and a mini mart. But I did have to step over a lot of horse shit on the trail on my way to this ACTUAL stump, from which I will now deliver a rousing political speech.)

Hey, speaking of horse shit, how about that V.P. choice by Senator McCain?!

So, is this a bold, "maverick" choice by a maverick leader? (Here's an idea: let's get Maverick star James Garner as a back-up VP option... cowboy presidents play almost as well as war heroes in the Red States).

Or is Palin's selection-- as many center-to-left pundits are calling it-- a Hail Mary pass with the clock running out?

At first, I did not have strong opinions on the choice when it was announced. I thought: "Alaska? That's cool. I also liked that she's not a career politician, but a young reformer and supermom (I refuse to demean myself and my country by referring to her as a "hockey mom"... this is the U.S.A., not Canada or Norway!) I liked that her faith -- similar to Obama's-- seems genuine and keeps her grounded, that it's not some cloak to put on or take off whenever it's politically expedient to do so.

I knew the pick was gimmicky, a Republican attempt to win over some of the Hillary supporters and Reagan Democrats that are on the fence about Obama but don't like McCain. So Palin was potentially a smart move, the "high risk/high reward" option that the party went with, since Huckabee, Giuliani, Ridge, Lieberman and Romney -- the other front-runners for VP-- all had their downsides, either religious or political. I acknowledged that her whole "beauty queen/bowhunter" persona and obvious charisma might go a long way toward winning over those voters for whom image is everything (though they'd deny it), and for whom McCain therefore seems out-of-touch and cranky, plus risky due to his age.

She was certainly the most interesting option. I mean, look at her:

She's like Diane Keaton with an Uzi, only not so California Flaky Liberal. What's not to love, at least if you're a thirty-to-sixty something evangelical or working-class Catholic suburbanite with strong "family values", and a belief in "woman's intuition" as the missing ingredient in American politics?

Then the story broke on Monday about Palin's teenage daughter being pregnant, and I got off the fence. I now see the Palin pick for what it is: a slimy, hypocritical, gender-pandering, manipulative end-around, designed to dupe certain American voters yet again into irresponsible single-issue voting ...that issue being abortion (as if I had to tell you). 

Even though a vote for McCain/Palin would go against  the country's best interests in terms of the economy, national security, environmental responsibility, and experienced, wise government overall, religious conservatives were likely to love the pick because of Palin's staunchly pro-life position (a position which McCain does not exactly share when it comes to stem cells, by the way, nor does his wife Cindy). The Palin pick was designed to be a sexy but heavyhanded olive branch, offered to influential religious and social conservatives like Focus on the Family's James Dobson, who until recently had all but given up on this election and on McCain.

Dobson and some of the megachurchers were probably starting to come back around anyway. But I'm sure McCain's also been hearing the quiet buzz about the Obamicans, and therefore noted with some concern Barack's realistic nod in his DNC speech to work at reducing abortions. (What Barack actually said, in checking the DNC transcript: "We may not agree on abortions, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.")

Ah, but that was all before the Bristol Palin teenage pregnancy story hit. Spin it all they want, that poor girl was the real  hurricane-force problem that the Republicans were wringing their hands about behind closed doors Monday, not some storm with a scary German name.

When I heard the news item, I immediately thought: is this really happening? Did they actually not know the girl was pregnant when they picked Sarah Palin? It sounds more like the plot twist in a David Mamet or Oliver Stone movie, the ironically amusing or gut-wrenching development which causes everyone to show their true colors. (I also thought of the book and movie Primary Colors, for obvious reasons.)

Sex has been the "wild card" in American presidential politics at least since FDR's day, maybe even since Jefferson's day. (Anyone remember Gary Hart?). In the Clinton era, lacking any substantive crime or policy-related issue to drag Bill and Al Gore down with, it took Monica-gate to send the Democrats limping out of the White House. That, and abortion. (I think Gore, also an evangelical Christian, is pro-choice.)

Thus, when I heard the Bristol Palin story, I thought, "Maybe they're so calculating that they actually did know, but went ahead anyway, just to make it look like they tried  to get a woman on the ticket, and now they're going to drop her during the convention and go with the man they really wanted in the first place (whoever that is)."

Nah. They ain't that smart, and they know we ain't that dumb. Besides, I know teens. I've been one. I've taught them. The poor girl was probably terrified to tell anybody she was pregnant (five months?!?), and then the whole rushed and mysterious process of vetting and selecting her mom went down before Bristol had a chance to come clean about her situation.

My opinion: McCain's team didn't know, because Sarah Palin didn't know, or else she chose not to tell them about it. If she told them up front as they claim now -- if she filled out the exhaustive and "intrusive" vetting questionnaire and included it on there --then let's see the document. Plus I've seen the videotape from before the "official" pregnancy announcement, and the kid can obviously be seen hiding her baby bump with a jacket. I seriously doubt McCain's handlers would have allowed a practically unknown VP candidate with such an obvious potential liability to go forward if they had known. 

But forward she went. And the Palins' hand was forced, so that the "October surprise" of this election wouldn't turn out to be a bouncing baby boy or girl. So then the McCains and Dobsons of the world had to do some major spin-control, saying they did know all along, but went ahead anyway because it didn't matter. Now they're saying the situation is one more example of Sarah Palin sacrificially living out her pro-life, pro-family values, because 1) they're obviously going to keep the baby, and 2) after all, we're all human, we all make mistakes, and we have to love our children no matter what they do. 

As I predicted, Obama has taken the high road. He made a statement saying that it was "off-limits" for a campaign to get into anything related to a candidate's family life. He also reminded us that he himself was born to an 18-year-old girl. Yeah, Barack's no dummy. He'll let the situation speak for itself: ambitious Sarah Palin, the ultimate token candidate, outed by her own family as a foolish hypocrite unable to manage her own household, let alone the nation.

And let me "out" myself on this: I'm basically pro-life. As a pacifist and a Christian-- taking God at his word when He said He knew me in the womb, and that He also said "judge not, lest ye be judged"-- I'm opposed to the taking of any life, whether it's an embryo's or a death row inmate's. But I'm also aware that my own is an extreme minority position (especially the pacifist portion of it).

In framing abortion and the conditions that lead to it as an economic and educational problem, not just a religious one, I seek to address the problem through social activism, not legislation. We need to curb the destructive messages about sexuality in the media, and do so in our families AND schools, while also acknowledging that Pandora's box is already open. We can't legislate morality, nor can we re-parent every child of every messed-up family. That means effective and consistent birth control messages should be pressed even harder than we're pressing the messages about drinking, drugs, the climate crisis, immigration, whatever social problem you want to bring up. It means we should support adoption much more strongly than we do as a nation, not just in principle but with better policies and support for women to bring babies to term. And it means attacking poverty as a "pro-life" issue, no less so than abortion. An unborn baby in Alaska has no more and no less value in the eyes of God than one born with AIDS in Africa, or with fetal alcohol syndrome in Detroit, or with a silver spoon in its mouth like Geoge Bush and John McCain had.

Abortion is certainly a sin. So are lying, cheating, and stealing (elections included).

So I'm not attacking the Republicans or the Palins for their pro-life position, just for their cynicism, self-involved policies, and narrow-minded clumsiness. I honestly wish some Republican would come along who doesn't insult the intelligence of the American public. A few years back I wondered if McCain was that guy. But he's changed. I don't trust him anymore.

In contrast, I don't agree with Obama on about 25% of his positions, but I do trust him. I'm further left on some issues, like specific foreign policy situations, and further right on others, like abortion. But I'm not a single-issue voter. And I know I'm an odd bird. I also recognize we've been presented with nothing but  "baby-killers" as candidates, from both parties, for as long as anyone can remember. It all comes down to who you define as the babies, and how old they are (isn't an 18-year-old, unnecessarily killed in Iraq, still a "baby" to his or her mother and father?).

These issues are all related. For example, in China, where abortion has become commonplace, they're courting American political and economic interests like crazy. So does the presidential candidate with the smartest and most just anti-China policy therefore end up being the true pro-life candidate, simply by virtue of condemning that nation's multitude of human rights abuses (at every age)?

Ultimately, it comes down to which candidate has the widest scope, the clearest vision, in their plan to preserve and improve the lives of as many babies (and grownups) as possible. So yes, the focus should not be on a candidate's family life, but on their good judgment and character, as seen in their family as well as their local, state and national policy record. On the family front, with her willingness to put her own daughter in harm's way, all the hard evidence I see regarding Sarah Palin so far is pretty damning.  

Heck, even Hollywood head case and former wild-ass teenager Lindsay Lohan can see that, as she points out on her blog this week. It took a small child to point out that the proverbial emperor had no clothes on. Maybe through her own mistakes, Lindsay's wised up enough to help us all get wise.

Tomorrow: some analysis of Palin's RNC speech tonight, and some troubling background on her "natural resources" agenda and record in Alaska.

Let's just get this out of the way: I did not vote for Bush. Not once. Ever. I have a hard time finding the interest to go see a movie about him, therefore, and I'm usually a very curious person. I don't know, though, maybe it's the movie itself that doesn't excite me. JFK is an opus to Oliver Stone's batshit craziness. W. looks almost cartoonish, even simple-minded, in its portrayal of Bush as a happy-go-lucky frat boy turned wannabe statesman. Watching this trailer, I just can't see that this will be anything other than silly. Josh Brolin will drink and squint his way through three hours; the supporting cast will speak in stupid platitudes ("Who do you think you are, a Kennedy? You're a Bush! Act like one!" Oh, James Cromwell, you are so wrong for that part and deserve so much better) and do their best cocktail-party imitations of the Bush cabinet. The only bright light I can see is maybe Toby Jones as Karl Rove. He was so sweet and mischevious in The Painted Veil. I think he's good enough to bring some actual depth to the evil genius behind the whole Bush thing. This is the only bit of truly inspired casting. The rest are just thrown in according to type and Richard Dreyfuss has no excuse at all. I'll be interested to see the reviews when W. comes out. I really don't think Stone is going to pull this off.

When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are.

Richard M. Nixon was a complicated man and a lightning rod for controversy. Oliver Stone is no stranger to controversy himself. Yet, I have to say that his 1995 look at the life of our 37^th President is much more balanced than I expected. The movie shows incidents from Nixon’s life that highlight him at both high and low points both professionally and personally. There is an expected subplot dealing with conspiracy theory, but it’s practically low-key – nothing like his 1991 film, JFK. The film is quite long – the version I watched was the recent Blu-Ray Director’s cut and ran over three and a half hours. Despite its length, the film remains interesting.

Anthony Hopkins was, perhaps appropriately, a controversial choice to play Nixon as he is Welsh, not American. There are moments when camera angles and body posture overtly recreate familiar Nixon poses and mannerisms. I found this distracting and such tactics pulled me out of the story every time they happened. The most powerful scenes in the film for me were ones where Stone left Hopkins free to create a character without worrying about his face resembling Nixon’s as he spoke.

Stone chose his actors well – the ensemble is uniformly excellent. Some standouts would be Joan Allen as Pat Nixon (nominated for Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for this role), Bob Hoskins as J. Edgar Hoover, James Woods as H. R. Haldeman, Mary Steenburgen as Hannah Nixon (the President’s mother), David Hyde Pierce as John Dean, and especially Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger. With Sorvino, Stone actually succeeds with what he tried to do with Hopkins. It was quite rare for me to look at Kissinger in the movie and actually see Sorvino – he is eerily transmuted, but the physical aspects of the role never overcome the performance.

Identity is key to the film. Many characters question who Richard Nixon is, and at times it seems even Nixon himself wonders. This makes the characterization a bit schizophrenic. The Nixon that we see talking to his advisors is not the man we see in his private moments. Nixon makes a comment after the Kent State shootings that, “I’d like to offer my condolences to those families. But Nixon can’t.” With his cabinet and advisors, “all the president’s men,” Nixon comes off a little unhinged. He can be rude, crude, and aggressive. When we see him talk to them in a more private setting, he changes completely and becomes reflective, thoughtful and rational. Still, this back and forth seems appropriate. Nixon is not an easy figure to pin down and to do justice to all of the man’s complexities takes a bit of whiplash.

A recurring motif is that Nixon feels that he was always in John Kennedy’s shadow. The quote I used to start the review comes from the end of the film when Nixon is leaving the White House. He pauses in front of the painting of Kennedy and reflects. There is a moment when he talks to Manolo, a Cuban who works in the White House kitchen, about his feelings toward Kennedy. Manolo thinks that Kennedy let the Cubans down and describes him as a “politician,” not a hero. Yet, when Nixon asks him why he cried at Kennedy’s death, Manolo can only respond with, “I don’t know. He made me…see the stars.” Nixon is left to ponder, “How did he do that?”

This Blu-Ray is being called an Election Year edition. Canny marketing ploy, no doubt, but I was struck by the number of parallels to current events and campaign issues. Politics goes on and on much like the sea, and it seems very little changes except the players involved. While this film may not be for all tastes, I can say I found it a worthy use of over three hours. It would make a good double feature with the 1976 film All the President’s Men, but only if you have the time to invest.

La primera película de esta sección es el film Trece días (Thirteen Days, Roger Donaldson 2000), que se centra en la crisis de los misiles de Octubre de 1962 que enfrentó a los Estados Unidos con la Unión Soviética de Nikita Kruschev y la Cuba de Castro. El film aborda la trama desde el punto de vista del presidente John Fitzgerald Kennedy (al que en la película llaman coloquialmente Jack), de su hermano Robert (o Bobby) y de un asesor personal del presidente interpretado por Kevin Costner.

No es necesario saber más de una trama que está en los libros de historia así que pasemos a los detalles, empezando por el reparto. Bruce Greenwood (JFK) y Steven Culp (RFK) son excelentes elecciones. Su parecido con los personajes que interpretan no es exacto (algo que podrían haber conseguido perfectamente) sin embargo se basan en los gestos y el porte de los personajes que interpretan para lograr una credibilidad sobresaliente. Por su parte Kevin Costner repite muy correcto en el ambiente Kennedy (después de interpretar al fiscal Jim Garrison en la película de Oliver Stone JFK: Caso Abierto).

La fotografía corre a cargo del ahora director Andrzej Bartkowiak (Romeo debe morir, Doom) que desde entonces no ha vuelto a repetir en este puesto en ningún film. Aunque no alcanza la excelencia del ambiente estresante que logró en Un día de furia (Joel Schumacher, 1993) su trabajo es bueno, aunque algo pobre si se compara con lo que hizo Robert Richardson para JFK: Caso Abierto. El blanco y negro que aparece varias veces a lo largo de film parece más una excusa para camuflar las carencias de los efectos especiales en las escenas del U2, que una licencia artística de director de fotografía.

Trece días tiene una de las mejores elipsis que he visto en los últimos años. En un momento dado, a mitad de película los personajes de Kevin Costner y Bruce Greenwood charlan a solas en el Despacho Oval de la Casa Blanca. Al terminar, Costner acompaña hasta la puerta al presidente Kennedy que sale de la habitación. Costner cierra la puerta pero cuando se da la vuelta JFK está sentado delante de decenas de periodistas leyendo un discurso televisado. La escena está tan magistralmente rodada que es posible que el espectador ni se de cuenta del truco.

Para terminar, es digna de mención la soberbia forma de tratar las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y la U.R.S.S. El modo en que las tensas relaciones entre comunismo y capitalismo obligaban a americanos y soviéticos a comunicarse con acciones en lugar de palabras. Una simple llamada de Kennedy a Kruschev habría solucionado todo el primer día. Pero esto no era posible. Se trata, si cabe, del punto más interesante de una película para amantes de la historia.

Calificación: 7/10

Foi divulgado um vídeo com a cena em Bush conhece sua futura esposa e primeira-dama Laura (Elizabeth Banks).Pode ser uma pré disposição de achar tudo que envolve Bush tem um tom de humor circense, vejam vocês e deixem sua opinião, o filme estréia no dia 17 de outubro no EUA.

1) Who would have predicted a political convention could have been this satisfying and heartening?  Several months ago, l watched both Obama and Hillary Clinton being interviewed on Sixty Minutes.  Every time Clinton was asked a question, you could sense she was jumping ahead to how she would answer and "frame" the question.  Obama, in stark contrast, appeared to listen and give very thoughtful answers.  That kind of thoughtfulness would be especially valuable in a president -- but unfortunately, less so in a presidential candidate.  Still, I'm very hopeful for him, particularly after last night's incredible speech.

Comparing him and McCain, now, reminds me of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s famous remark about FDR, that he had a second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament to govern.  I do think Obama has a first-class temperament for governance, far better than McCain's hot-tempered, peppery personality.  Truth is, I also think Obama has a first-class intellect.

2) Yesterday, one of my friends announced that Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was going to be McCain's pick for veep.  I should have known it wasn't true.  McCain would never be seen in public with a woman that close to his age.

Oops!  Just noticed he chose the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.  I see she's 44.  Figures.

3) My friend Roger wrote to chide me about my use of "medal" as a verb when I was so caught up in Olympic fever.  He was aghast, he wrote.  If Roger was aghast, then I was certainly chagrined.  I struggled to point out that at least I hadn't used "podium" as a verb, as many of the commentators did.  But, no deal.  Roger held firm.

I feel especially bad that I offended Roger, since he's from New Zealand.  Do you know how much New Zealanders suffer?  Every time Roger or one of his countrymen come to visit us, they have to listen to comments about "puttin' a shrimp on the barbie" and "I just love the Great Barrier Reef!" and paeans to Australia, since no one really believes New Zealand is a separate country.  Once, someone in rural Texas even complimented a visiting Kiwi on his mastery of the English language.

I won't add to that world of pain by using medal as a verb.  Mea culpa.

4) Speaking of worlds -- no, make that universes -- of pain, Texans have their own crosses to bear, starting with the Current Occupant of the White House.  Now, I read that Oliver Stone is making W, a movie about said Current Occupant.  One of the early scenes takes place in Midland, where I went to high school and the city where my husband was born and grew up.  Evidently, the movie places cowboy hats on most of the men at the barbecue where George and Laura met.  I am heartsick.  Men in Midland never wore cowboy hats, except, maybe at Halloween.  That's because they were too busy trying to look like Dallas men, who also never wore cowboy hats.  But I guess you'd never know that unless you visited those places, would you?

All I can think is, If they're getting the hats wrong, nothing else counts.

(Copyright 2008 by Ruth Pennebaker)

EN PAY DECK LM GPS HEK GW IWM USO YHOO SINA QQQQ PDS LLY CSCO NYT

Today, Brolin is hinting at police brutality in a Huffington Post interview:

There was no bar fight, and that will come out. What really happened, I can’t talk about it, but it’s pretty ridiculous. What I can say is that what went down was not good at all, and everybody involved knows that. I think they had a responsibility from their penal-code manual to do what they needed to do, but I don’t think it paralleled what was actually done.

Prior Popsquire Posts...

Makeup Monday: Josh Brolin

Fighting and Celling

I'll definitely be seeing this.

In Theaters: October 17th, 2008.

For higher quality video visit here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118883/

Jerry (Mel Gibson) is a rather paranoid, slightly delusional, and slightly disturbed conspiracy theorist. If not engaged in conspiratorial theories, he works as a taxi driver who seems to be constantly on the edge, fueled, presumably, by sufficient doses of caffeine leaving him constantly rambling on about a whole host of conspiracy theories to his bewildered taxi fares who all give the viewer the distinct impression of just wanting to be left alone. His living apartment is a littery mess, and the level of his paranoia is clearly demonstrated by his nutty habit of putting locks on not only his refrigerator but the food containers stored in it as well (after all, if he is so concerned about the prospect of being poisoned then what about the cups he is using to drink his coffee out of?). This rather blatant caricature of the conspiracy theorist (or researcher), an acting performance that admittedly perhaps can only be accomplished by someone of the caliber of Mel Gibson, sets the freakish tone for the entire movie. Viewers are thus left with the notion that basically conspiracy theorists are individuals automatically suffering from various expressions of psychopathology, namely: hyperactivity, delusions and paranoia.

Therefore the movie seems to sponsor a critical frame of reference which rejects anyone who choses to scrutinize and subsequently criticize the society he or she lives in. True, the conspiracy theorist in the movie is of the sympathetic hero type but his level of craziness far outweigh his credibility as an astute critic of society, an interpretation that is all the more evident when it is revealed that Jerry is the victim of a mind control program suffered earlier in life. Thus the movie suggests that his mind is warped to begin with and it is but to be expected that all kinds of mental borderline-insane non-sense is churned out by it.

Therefore, through some conspiratorial watershed event, should conspiracy theories become more prevalent in the future the public is already being prepped to receive budding conspiracy theorists with ample doses of ridicule and contempt. Remember, this movie was made in 1997, i.e. 4 years before 911 = the designated watershed event. Even George W Bush emphasized "not to tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" shortly after 911.
So, on the one hand, you have the emergence of all kinds of conspiracy theories disseminated most significantly through the Internet and, on the other hand, you have movies such as the one discussed here, seeking to condemn the budding conspiracy theorist by ridicule. As such, this movie, though charming as it may be in some cinematographic respects, may be interpreted as a de-facto psychological counterintelligence operation aimed at thwarting (budding) critics of society and government.

Towards the end of the movie the meat and potatoes of the theme of the movie is revealed. It is confirmed that yes indeed their was such a thing as a CIA Mind Control program ('MK-ULTRA') but it was terminated already in 1973. Then, what will turn out to be the bad guy of the movie ("Jonas"), continued its research independently from, the movie suggests, any government organizations. Of course, the technology of MK-ULTRA then was purportedly stolen and its mind control subjects were deployed in the private sector. This makes it look as if, yes the government was involved in Mind Control, but no they were not responsible for any ensuing acts of assassination. Instead, the movie makes it look as though historic assassinations carried out by Mind Controlled "Manchurian Candidates" were done by renegade factions operating independently from the government, the latter which then consequently walks away from any blame. By sticking to this theme, where the bad guys are invariably just some radical renegade governmental offshoot, limited in scope and authority, it seems never appropriate or righteous to accuse government, or a governmental organization, in its entirety. This theme can also be seen in effect in the Psyop works of Dan Brown with his filmed book 'The DaVinci Code' and other movies such as 'Shooter'.

Therefore the function of this movie, with respect to programming, on the viewing audience is twofold. First, it is to help persuade the viewer to reject through ridicule and contempt, people engaged in critically reviewing society and government. And secondly, it is to help convince the viewer that if there is government involvement in criminal or unethical activity it is always being perpetrated by small criminal break-away factions spun off from government rather than intrinsic involvement by the government.

Let's now home in on the very concept of conspiracy theory. A theorist is someone who engages in theories, or speculation, with respect to some arbitrary subject matter. However, a more ambitious researcher would want to be able to test his or her idea or theory with some means of verification or fact checking. Compared to science this would simply be the analogue of experiment or observation. Therefore, if a theory turns out to be not supported by the facts belonging to the case, it is in need of revision and afterwards again should be subjected to fact-checking and altered accordingly if need be. This process of refinement must continue until both theory and experiment are ideally most compatible with each other... Therefore people who take their research a bit more serious and who sincerely strive to have their theories conform to actuality as much as possible, would much better be called conspiracy scientists rather than be given the handicapped one-legged label of conspiracy theorist.

Returning to the movie, here comes the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist Jerry who even quite frankly states in the movie that neither of his theories can be proven, arguing that a good conspiracy theory simply cannot be proven. As such, Jerry throws what little left of his own credibility out of the window and thus leaving the viewer with the impression even more that people who engage in conspiracy theories, no matter how sympathetic its authors may be, are in actual fact but mere fruitloops, one way or another.

Then there are some dialogues/passages that I thought were rather salient and deserved extra addressing:

"Jerry: They'll stick me in the same place as Oswald, just another lunatic acting alone.
Alice: Oswald killed the President, is that what you're planning to do Jerry?
Jerry: No, on the contrary."

This can be counted as a confirmation to the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing John F Kennedy, which is ironically and remarkably quite unlike what real life 'conspiracy theorists' believe by and large.

"Jerry: The Oliver Stone-Bush Connection. If anyone who has the information he's got and had a national podium to shout it from, they actually let him do it? No it's quite clear that he is a disinformation junkie for them....The fact that he's still alive says it all. He probably should be dead but he's not."

Well I agree that Stone is a disinfo agent but not according to the specifics given here. Stone made "JFK", a movie that is justly critical of the official "lone nutter" explanatory fairy tale. Indeed it stands to reason to suspect that the powers that be never would allow a movie to come out revealing the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination, especially if it is produced by such a large movie-house as Warner Bros. Since the people responsible for the assassination are never revealed in the movie it is fair to assume that the maker of "JFK" is indeed in league with the same powers that were responsible for the assassination. As researcher Eric Jon Phelps pointed out, the actual hand in the Kennedy assassination is hinted at when DA Jim Garrison utters the phrase "Black is white and white is black", a slogan Phelps maintains is listed in the book of Spiritual Exercises belonging to apprentices of the Jesuit Order. Indeed, since Kennedy refused to recognize the Pope's temporal power in the US he made himself a open target for assassination by the Vatican to be executed under the auspices of its Praetorial Guard, the Jesuits. So I would agree with Jerry only if the slogan "The Oliver Stone-Bush Connection" would be replaced by "The Oliver Stone-Vatican Connection". That this may indeed give a more accurate rendition of actuality is further evidenced by the fact that Mel Gibson himself is very friendly with the Jesuits and that the Gibsons since long have had strong ties with Opus Dei.

"Lone gunman assassins have three names. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman."

Although it is true that the full names given here comprise three names, the truth-content of the statement as a whole is in severe doubt. Personally, I think the case of the lone gunman assassin is very weak compared to a conspiratorial interpretation in all three case alluded to. However, to slip a semi-truth into a sentence like this tends to make it look as if the whole sentence is true to a gullible viewer. As such, ironically a technique is laid to bear aiming at deceptively trying to dissuade the viewer precisely from seeking refuge to conspiracy theories since, by construction, 'lone gunman theories' refute the need for appealing to conspiratorial accounts to explain away the transpired events.

To recap, as ironic as it may seem I maintain that this movie needs to, at least, be frowned upon by 'conspiracy theorists' and the like, rather than being received with open arms. In other words, this should not be one of your banner movies folks....

I don't know what to make of Oliver Stone's flick, W, which is supposed to detail Dubya's rise from fuck up to the white house. It's being released in October, just in time for the presidential election in November. Josh Brolin was a boss in No Country for Old Men, and I hope we get to see him deliver classic Bushisms like:

• "To the C students I say, 'You too can be president of the United States,"' (at the 300th commencement of Yale University.)
• "Is our children learning"
• "You misunderestimated me"
• "It will take time to restore chaos"

How sad is it that we might be able to tell our kids one day that we lived through the worst president ever?

First, W, Oliver Stone's biopic about current President George W. Bush will debut Oct. 29...about a week before the 2008 elections. (See a trailer here)

Then, in December, Ron Howard presents Frost/Nixon, a dramatic retelling of a famous interview between David Frost and former President Richard Nixon, after he resigned due to the Watergate scandal. (See that trailer here)

What's interesting (to me, at very very very least) is the fact that both of these filmmakers think we're going to want to watch any more political media after this campaign season wraps up. I'm thinking both movies will be well acted, and possibly even award nominated (which is why they're probably being released at that time of year), but not box-office beasts...because of burnout...baby.

Conheça os novos e excelentes posters de W., o novo filme de Oliver Stone sobre a vida de George W. Bush, e que conta com Josh Brolin (Este País Não É Para Velhos) no papel principal.

No vasto elenco encontramos ainda Elizabeth Banks (Para Sempre, Talvez e trilogia Homem-Aranha) como Laura Bush, James Cromwell (Homem-Aranha 3; A Rainha) como George Bush Sénior, Ellen Burstyn (O Escolhido e Requiem for a Dream) como Barbara Bush, Richard Dreyfuss (Poseidon e O Tubarão) como Dick Cheney, Thandie Newton (Maratona do Amor e Crash - Colisão) como Condolezza Rice, Scott Glenn (Ultimato e O Silêncio dos Inocentes) como Donald Rumsfeld, Jeffrey Wright (A Invasão e Syriana) como Colin Powell, Ioan Gruffudd (Quarteto Fantástico) como Tony Blair e Toby Jones (The Mist-  Nevoiro Misterioso) como Karl Rove.

Jesse Bradford (As Bandeiras dos Nossos Pais e Os Homens do Presidente), Jason Ritter (Joan of Arcadia e Freddy vs Jason), Rob Corddry (Loucuras em Las Vegas), Sayed Badreya (Iron Man - Homem de Ferro) e Noah Wyle (ER - Serviço de Urgências) também participam.

Whether the film is a smash or a disaster, this is a home-run of a poster.

Stone has said:

"Here, I'm the referee, and I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors."

I wonder if Stone got any inspiration from Forrest Gump? The story (based on a novel by Winston Groom) deals with a not so bright man from Southern America who becomes very famous and influential but at the same time remains gaumless.  It is one of the most memorable films of the 90s and stars Tom Hanks in the prime of his career.  It also received many Oscars and other prestigious awards.

I think the wikipedia description of Forrest Gump should be copied and pasted to the W. one.

"The film tells the story of a man with an IQ of 75 and his epic journey through life, meeting historical figures, influencing popular culture and experiencing first-hand historic events while being largely unaware of their significance, due to his lower than average intelligence."

There is also a huge comparison between films with the Vietnam War in Gump and Iraq War in W.  I wonder how Stone will portray the Iraq War in W.?  'Forrest Gump' shows the horrors of Vietnam culminating in the death of Gump's, Bubba.  Afterwards, it shows the anti-Vietnam War movement with cameos from John Lennon and the appearance of Gump at the Washington Monument Protest.  I don't think Bush ever grasped the seriousness of the Iraq War so the anti-war movement may not be portrayed as much.

This isn't the first time Stone has made a film featuring a president. JFK released in 1991, perhaps his most controversial film before this one, deals with the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  This film has long been debated and spawned lots of unofficial sequels and documentaries.  Stone is a genius in keeping you enthralled in the case and even to this day, I watch shows debunking the film and then other's rebunking Stone's claims.  I don't think we'll ever know who really shot Kennedy. Let's hope this film is as captivating and as memorable (and not feature Kevin Costner ;))

Trailer