Recently in Rants Category

You can accuse me of being overly sensitive about this....oh wait, you can't! One of the things it's almost impossible to be too sensitive about is fucking HITLER, so when I saw the image on Hollywood Elsewhere yesterday, I just about crapped my Lederhosen. WTF is Jeffrey thinking? Just a guess, but the two groups of people likely to be really offended by being mocked up as der Führer are Jews and Germans.

Even if Werner is somehow not offended by the image, I still call Douchebag on this post and I'll be offended on his behalf.

UPDATE: I just received an email from Paul Cronin, the editor of Herzog on Herzog that reads, in part:

"Werner once told me that he would never live through another era of Nazism, because he would die fighting it."

So yeah, I think Werner would be offended by Jeff's post.

In response to my good friend AJ's reaction to some of the criticism leveled at the Sex and the City movie, I left some of the following as a comment on his blog, but as they do in Congress, I would like to revise and extend my remarks, to wit:

I understood Karina's tongue-in-cheekness when I read her post and I'd like to point out that in my post I was actually angry about what I perceive as the film's anti-woman aspects (well, I can't say the film exactly because I haven't seen it, but I do know the show). You even quoted my point for me, AJ. I think the franchise is anti-woman and offers if not a completely unrealistic portrayal of "life in the big city," than an unbelievably shallow one.

I completely disagree with Kim Voynar's POV (mentioned in AJ's post) but that's fine. Plenty of people have strong, differing opinions on issues, films, books, etc but to dismiss the male film critics who are criticizing the film in toto because we wouldn't understand a movie that's not about us? Talk about a hypocritical generalization.

When she writes: "SatC has never been about fashion or a credit card lifestyle if you look beneath its surface. It's about a group of smart, independent women who, successful as they are, still struggle with figuring out love and relationships and how to have and maintain a relationship with a man without losing who you are as an intelligent woman with a career and life of your own."

Ah, if it were only so.

Karina Longworth has already done your work for you. No need to read the reviews of Sex and the City. Karina's fallen on the grenade for all of us and you can read her excellent post, here: 5 Ways to Dismiss The Sex and the City Movie.

Personally, I never had even a nanosecond's thought of seeing this culturally, politically, emotionally and cinematically bereft film. Save yourself the pain and re-watch season one of BSG or a Tracy-Hepburn movie. At least you'll be getting a full dose of strong, well-rounded and developed female characters and not four nauseating ersatz women.

Ever since my choice for the democratic nomination, John Edwards, suspended his campaign, I have been besieged by friend and stranger alike, urging me to vote for Barack Obama. Literally no one I know has approached me about Hillary. Maybe that says something about my friends or Hillary or maybe it says something about me. It doesn't matter, because the only way I hold my nose and vote for her is if she's the nominee in November. The thing is, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, either. Many of my friends are somewhat incredulous at my recalcitrance, but I have my reasons.

First a little background. My mother was a proud and politically active woman of mixed ethnicity but I think she identified most often as black. She was a filmmaker, author and journalist and paid close attention to the goings on of the day. She was deeply involved in the Civil Rights movement and I was raised in an politically aware home. But let's be honest, unless you know me or are very race conscious, you wouldn't know I was anything but Caucasian (or maybe Latino. I get that on the streets of NYC all the time). That said, I was raised in a multi-ethnic home and am myself very conscious of my heritage.

I am a feminist and a civil rights activist and I would be more than happy to see the first woman president or the first black president. The thing is, I will not and cannot sacrifice my overall political beliefs and I flatly refuse to do something so base and crass as to sell my vote for race or gender. This year's race for the democratic nomination has been framed by the media for over a year as Clinton vs. Obama and as a result, the candidate most committed to the wellbeing of the people, John Edwards, was marginalized from the start. He really never had a chance and for that, the mainstream media should be ashamed. It's clear, at least from my perspective, that John Edwards preached what was fair and good: An end to the dominance of Big Pharma and the insurance company lobby, the return of the government to the people, the end of corporate media dominance...oh.... Ooops!

So, John Edwards was, for my money, the most progressive, committed and honest person in the democratic race and he got my support. When he dropped out, I fully expected a switch to click in my head and start to get excited about Obama, but you know what? I couldn't do it. I don't like his heathcare plan, he strikes me as an appeaser, I don't fully trust him and he never says anything. It drives me nuts. His speeches are like revival meetings and while I love a good call-and-response, "Yes we can" doesn't really say much besides, well, "yes we can." Besides, I'm loyal. When I support someone, I support them and in the absence of an endorsement from Edwards, I felt no compelling urge to vote for Obama.

The thing is, it's all about November, for me and who can beat John McCain (for he's clearly the likely nominee). Unfortunately, the only candidate who was the clear winner in that contest is no longer in the race. In poll after poll, you democrats all over the country named Edwards as the candidate you thought could most beat the republicans in November and in poll after poll you named Edwards as the candidate who most cared about people. And what did you all do? You voted against your interests and against the interests of the country as a whole. I just don't get it. If you really thought Obama or Clinton were more likely to win, the results would make sense, but you didn't. You said Edwards was a better candidate and cared more about you and then you went out and voted for someone else. Shame on you.

Photo of John Edwards by George P. Stern

I have, in the not so distant past, been accused of being a bit of a stickler when it comes to the "proper" way to do certain things, be they cooking, dressing or behaving. While I'm not a total bastard about it (I think the "no red wine with fish" rule is largely pointless and have been known to wear white after labor day), there are indeed certain rules that are important, some more than others, of course. They help society get along at a small, personal and individual level. One of these rules is the naming of foods or dishes on a menu. It's important, I think, for the diner to know what he or she is getting when ordering. For example, a martini is gin (as opposed to a vodka martini) and if you order penne puttanesca, you should be comfortable in assuming it won't contain cream or meat...or shoe leather, for that matter.

The same goes for one of the all-time classic sandwiches and one of my favorite guilty pleasures, The Club. Without a doubt a guilty pleasure due to the presence of both mayonnaise and bacon, but a pleasure, nonetheless. The Club has endured since the late 19th century, the origin in dispute, with a tried and true recipe, one with very little room for interpretation. The classic Club is: a regular or triple decker (there is question on this point) creation of turkey or chicken (roasted, not smoked), crispy bacon, lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise on toasted white bread, cut diagonally into quarters. Acceptable deviations include chicken instead of turkey and if you twist my arm, avocado (maybe a "California Club"?). That's not to say adding lobster or cheese might not taste damn good, but it would NOT be a Club.

The following sandwich on offer at the café at the Arclight cinemas (home to AFI Fest) and billed as a Club is most decidedly, NOT: Roast beef, bacon, turkey, tomato, provolone, mozzarella and garlic aoli on toasted bread. Yes, it contains turkey, bacon and tomato, but so would a liverwurst, sea urchin, limburger, mustard, turkey, bacon and tomato sandwich, but I wouldn't call that one a Club, either.

Here endeth the rant.

An article on the front page of today's print edition of the New York Times entitled: "Rebel Unity Is Scarce at the Darfur Talks in Libya" has the following photograph accompanied by the caption: "A Darfur rebel took in the buffet lunch at his hotel in Sirte, Libya. Many rebel leaders did not show up for talks called in an effort to end the bloody conflict in Sudan."

Photo by Jehad Nga for The New York Times, © The New York Times

Hmmmm, didn't show up, you say? Well, were they told that there'd be cake? I find cake is often an incentive to gather warring factions all in one room.

I also find that a picture of starving, brutalized people is a far more effective means of getting the message of genocide out than a picture of a rebel in a tracksuit eating more than most people in his country get in a year.

Photo from Wondering of a Wanderer

Just a thought.

Just to let you all know, I am going to be hammering on this issue at least until this particular film vanishes from theaters and probably after that, too. Why? Because I think it's that important, that's why. This weekend, while it's raining and blustery in the Northeast, why not bundle into the car or subway and head to the local theater and check out what is for my money, so far, the best picture of the year. Yup, you guessed it. It's Andrew Dominik's brilliant The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. What about the rest of the country? Well, click here, enter your zip code and find the film!

Personally, I am astonished that this soon-to-be classic film is no longer in playing in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood or Santa Monica. In fact, if you live in the area, the closes theater is probably AMC Theaters Burbank Town Center 8 or Laemmle's One Colorado Cinema in Pasadena. Fucking Burbank!!?? Pasadena!? People who live on the West Side in LA have enough trouble getting into their cars on weekdays, so the odds of them driving to the Valley on a weekend are astronomical.

Much has been written in the blogosphere (whither the mainstream media?) about what is being called Warner Brothers' clear and shameful dumping of the masterpiece that is Andrew Dominik's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and while it's clear that the studio isn't putting as much money behind this films as say, Michael Clayton, they aren't exactly completely dumping it out of malice aforethought, either. Suffice to say that the film is going to need some help from us, the folks that love it, if it's going to survive more than a week or two more and no amount of hectoring and badgering of Warners is going to get them to throw what they likely see as "good money after bad."

What is going to get them to release the film wider and wider still? Banging the drums about this extraordinary film, that's what. Blog the fuck out of it. Link to this blog and others. Tell your friends to see it. Find every possible positive review you can and add them to your Digg, del.icio.us, Twitter, Fark, Facebook, etc. (see "Bookmark" button in this post). If you feel at all passionate about this film, force your friends to see it. Bribe them. Go with them, even if you've already seen it. From what I've been told, this film is much like "next day" spaghetti in that it's something that's even better the second time around. I will be making my 2nd trip to see it later this week.

This past weekend's gross numbers are an improvement for the 3rd straight week and to their credit, Warners has expanded from 5 to 61 to 163 to 301 theaters, even in the face of a raft of blog posts accusing them of outright dumping the film. I must confess, I was one of them, but I have moderated my opinion a bit. It's silly for me to assume that a giant entertainment corporation is going to take a huge chance on a film like Jesse James by releasing it on over a thousand screens from the start. However, awards season is upon us and the "serious" awards contenders are going to be flooding the theaters from here on in, so if you like this film, tell you friends to see it before all others.

It was recently announced that Denzel Washington is set to star as Det. Zachary Garber in Tony Scott's remake of Joseph Sargent's 1974 thriller, The Taking of Pehlam One Two Three in a role made famous by Walter Matthau. I am sure that those of you who have seen the original are, like me, asking WHY!?! Way the hell would anyone do this? Of the many films from 70's Hollywood, this is one of the most stylized and so obviously set in that time period. It takes place in a pre-Ed Koch, early 70's New York that was undergoing a severe budget crisis causing the freezing of city wages and the slashing of the city's workforce. It's a period piece, pure and simple.

Besides, it's really a stupid premise.

Don't get me wrong, this is one of my all-time favorite films. it's brilliant in almost every way, including that the idea of hijacking a train on a closed system is patently ridiculous. I mean, where they gonna go? As one famous exchange in the film puts it:

Lt. Rico Patrone: Wait a minute. I just figured out how they're going to get away.
Lt. Garber: I'm listening.
Lt. Rico Patrone: They're going to fly the train to Cuba.

This one of dozens of bit of dialog that are bound to be removed or altered unless it's a period film (which you know it won't be) because they won't make sense in 2008. How many of today's audience would know that in the 60's and 70's there were dozens of US flights that were hijacked and flown to Cuba? It was so common that in a Monty Python episode a man tries to hijack a Cuba-bound plane to Luton (an airport outside London) and eventually ends up hijacking a double decker bus that changes its destination sign to read "Straight to Cuba."

The thing is, without the period touches, this is just another heist thriller and one with an absurd premise, to boot. The bankruptcy of New York, the oddly Ed Koch-like Lee Wallace as the Mayor of (3 years prior to Koch's election!), the grimy look of the city and the completely un-PC dialog:

Caz Dolowicz: Oh, come on. If I've got to watch my language just because they let a few broads in, I'm going to quit. How the hell can you run a goddamn railroad without swearing?

All of these things serve to make the original what it is, a gripping, tense and occasionally very funny period thriller. See the original, please!

I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure Joe Strummer is turning in his grave. He's pissed and he's pissed at Nissan. You see, I finally got around to watching the "Heroes" season premiere last night and it was the Nissan show, complete with the fantastic Clash cover of Toots and the Maytals' "Pressure Drop." Don't get me wrong. I've recently made my peace with the odd product placement. (What a coincidence, Claire got a Nissan Rogue for her birthday!) They help expensive TV series defray the cost of production, thus possibly helping to keep quality programming with marginal ratings on the air. But Joe Strummer and The Clash being used to hawk an automobile? Unless the rights money went to charity, this is just wrong. The only thing worse than a sellout is a posthumous one where the artist has no say in the matter.

So...Fuck You, Nissan!

Ask Roger Catlin. he agrees with me. As does James Poniewozick in his review of the "Heroes" episode, and he phrases it brilliantly, to wit: "The Nissan Rogue commercial with the Clash version of Pressure Drop? Killed a teensy bit of my soul."

But my favorite has to be Dead Spot on the Web who in his post entitled "Well Done, Nissan" writes:
"In less than an hour, you managed to make sure that I will never, ever buy one of your cars for as long as I live. That's like some kind of land speed record, but for assholes."

Over at Gawker.com (I get nauseous even writing that domain name) the notorious Emily Gould has written a "review" of Hannah Takes the Stairs that is so slight, dimwitted, mean-spirited, misrepresentative and careless as to almost make it farcical. What stops it short of being laughable is that the sheer reach of Gawker into the target audience for the film could have an impact on the film's success The fact is, a negative review from one of the darlings of the New York City 20-something pop culture set is potentially damaging to this film's box office returns in its only week in release. As judged by the comments, this "review" has convinced a chunk of Gawker's readers from seeing the film.

Don't get me wrong, I do not decry critics the right to negatively review a film. That would be absurd. Nor would I object to a thoughtful debunking of the idea that "Mumblecore" is a real movement in American independent film. I do, however, take issues with writers who expound upon things they clearly do not understand and are crude, rude and downright mean when doing so. To wit:

"On seeing the preview, I thought I could relate, a bit, to our heroine Hannah." Writes Emily, continuing, "(That's the idea, right? She's supposed to represent a generation.)" Ummm, no. Hannah is not necessarily supposed to be likable. She's confused, often feckless and somewhat careless in her relationships. She's also honestly looking for happiness, something we all do, but might never find. She's representative of what some people are like but in no way did the filmmakers intend for Hannah to be representative of a generation. I don't think a fictional character has represented a whole generation since Sal Paradise. (You had to look that one up, didn't you, Emily?)

The New York City Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting (MOFTB) has proposed new rules governing the shooting of film or still photography in New York that are downright fascist in nature. In a move that has drawn massive protests, including over 16,000 signatures to an online petition set up by Picture New York, the MOFTB has proposed a set of rules changes that do nothing but serve to punish New York's still and moving picture photographers. Not only that, but the rules changes are confusing as hell, leaving the cops open to harass the hell out of photographers, left and right. The MOFTB site summarizes the changes thusly:

1) Film or still photography activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more persons (at one site for 10 or more minutes) would require a permit, or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. However, note that this situation is RARE for recreational photographers.

Nice of them to tell us, the actual people it affects, how RARE this situation it is.

2) Applicants unable to meet the insurance requirement may be eligible for a waiver of insurance.

3) Still photographers engaged in "permitted" activity (activity where you need a permit) would require insurance. "Permitted" activity can include (emph. mine) those where vehicles or equipment other than hand-held cameras are used.

"Can include?" Can you be MORE vague, please?

The confusion has already started, since the MOFTB neglects to mention "including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities" in their summary, but does include it in the actual text of the regulations, found elsewhere on their site.

One of the big problems is, the new (and existing) rules seem to imply that whatever is not SPECIFICALLY named as being permit-free, DOES need one, which is a ridiculous way of looking at things. It should the other way around, i.e. "Activities A-F require permits, everything else is fair game." The former leaves the rules widely open to interpretation by the police. Never a good thing.

I am a born and bred New Yorker and I have seen the city that I love slowly turn from one of the most vibrant, exciting and culturally relevant places on Earth into just another big city. This proposed crackdown on the personal liberties of the city's artistic community is yet another offense against the memory of what New York was (and still can be). Please, contact the mayor's office and let them know how you feel. Also, my fellow blogger Eugene Hernandez is collecting comments on his website and he will forwarding them on to the Mayor's office.

Hilary Clinton: For fuck's sake, Hilary, admit it! You. Were. Wrong. You know what real adults do when they fuck up? They admit it and move on. Everyone on the left thinks you were wrong in voting for the war and many republicans do, too, so just admit it, so we can get on with things.

Wolf Blitzer: Please don't ever moderate a debate again. Your questions were largely facile, you interrupted candidates far too often and the hand-raising thing is just silly.

CNN and the Democratic Party: While there was a big "to do" made about the democratic party refusing to enter into a debate that was to be held on Fox News because it's not exactly "fair and balanced," what on EARTH made you think the Manchester Union Leader was a good alternative? That newspaper makes the New York Post look like The Nation!

Senator John Edwards: You want to "re-establish America's moral authority in the world?" Are you kidding me? So you really think that even before "W" lost us whatever credibility we still had, we had moral authority in the world? That statement is just too ridiculous for me to get into, so I'll just say mention a few of our "moral superiorities": Guatemala 1954, Dominican Republic 1965, Chile 1973, Vietnam and Watergate.

Senator Dodd: I'm not your biggest fan, but BRAVO for getting the last word in about reinstating the constitution after W and his thugs shredded it. Good luck to you or the eventual winner.

Film writers, much like groups in any other profession, rarely agree on things. For example to some folks, Marie Antoinette is actually a good film. Recently one issue seems to have united scribes in a way I haven't seen since the Bahamas International Film Festival debacle of aught five. The recent decision by the Tribeca Film Festival to raise their ticket prices 50% from $12 to a whopping $18 is, as David Poland writes, an absolute "jaw dropper" that begs the question: Who do they think they are?

For a festival that is produced by a not-for-profit entity and professes to have been "conceived to foster the economic and cultural revitalization of Lower Manhattan through an annual celebration of film, music and culture," and whose mission is "to promote New York City as a major filmmaking center and allow its filmmakers to reach the broadest possible audience," this move is at best, shortsighted and at worst it redefines the word "hubris." Do they really think they deserve to charge as much as or more than any other festival in the world?

And now we get to two of the films that I'll have to put down as not exactly my favorites. As I've said before, I don't normally beat up on small films, but as the title of this piece might indicate, these two films need to be exposed for what they are. Claudio Assis's Bog of Beasts (Brazil) and Jilani Saadi's Tender is the Wolf have both, according to their filmmakers, been misunderstood. Well, I'm pretty sure that's complete bollocks. Not only that, but I can find no excuse for the 2007 IFFR VPRO Tiger Awards jury to have given an award (even one ex aequo) to Assis's film. From my second day in town, the words being used to describe this film included such "superlatives" as: loathsome, repugnant, vile, irredeemable and misogynist.

I cannot remember if I have ever seen a more contemptible or brutal film. This story of life in a small Brazilian village is so chock-a-block with despicable characters as to defy description. It's something like I'd imagine a town would be if it were almost completely populated with pederasts, rapists and incestuous (not to mention pedophilic) old men. This village is so far to the fucked zone of the moral compass, the drunks, pimps and whores are the among the more virtuous citizens. It's a village where the sons of the rich fit in the narrow range between being only morally bankrupt and being psychosexually sociopathic, all without any sort of consequence. This is a group led by a caricature of a man so insane, that gang-raping a prostitute isn't enough for him, he also need to sodomize her with what appears to be a 2 x 4.