Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: February 2008

VANTAGE POINT

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Vantage PointBreathless action featuring a super-intense car chase, with a story told in a non-linear style based on rewinding the action, and replaying it through another observer’s point of view. Just as you’re getting tired of the replays, the narrative moves forward and now includes everyone’s point of view, as we move to the climax. While the plot holes are merely annoying, the ending and its improbable coincidences might spoil the experience for some viewers.

US president Ashton (William Hurt) is in Salamanca, Spain for an international summit on terrorism. Back on duty is Secret Service agent Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid), who took two bullets for Ashton six months earlier. The excitement begins almost at once, as the president is shot, followed by two explosions, and mass confusion.

Suffice to say, all is not as it seems, even as Barnes attempts to put together the pieces, with the help of video feed from an on-site TV network and a camcorder courtesy of an American tourist (Forest Whitaker). Throwing in a lovesick Spanish cop (Eduardo Noriega) under the influence of a femme fatale (Ayelet Zurer), and a ringleader who has all the angles covered electronically (Saïd Taghmaoui) spices up the action. Taking perhaps too prominent a place in the proceedings is a little girl (Alicia Jaziz Zapien). Revealing any more story would spoil it.

For the most part, the pic has not been well-reviewed. Some critics are weary of the Rashômon (1950) device of retelling the story through different POVs. Others complain about the non-reality of various plot elements. One big flaw—not heavily commented on—concerns the rather serious time inconsistencies, when comparing one POV to another. It’s one thing to tell the tale in a non-linear manner, but it would have helped if the different POVs all lined up.

As it is, the Rashômon device was probably the best way of presenting the story, since absent that, all the baddies and plot twists would have had to have been revealed in a much less satisfying manner. Still, there was no particular need to hash it out so many times. Notably, this is the first film a quite awhile that identifies the terrorists as Islamists, even if this accomplished with about a one-second long shot showing the wife of one of the perps in a hijab.

The most valid complaints would be that we get maybe 30 minutes of actual story in our 90 minute running time, and everything comes down to a bloodthirsty terrorist finding a conscience, exactly when the story needs it. Bear in mind, though, that at least since the scarecrow let go of the rope holding down Professor Marvel’s balloon in The Wizard of Oz (1939), plot holes and suspension of disbelief have been staples of the cinema.

Enjoy Vantage Point for the action and the pace—just try not to think too much.

JUMPER

Posted on by Posted in Movies

JumperHow do you take the compelling premise of teleportation, spend gobs of money to bring it to the silver screen, and end up with—at best—a lackluster showcase for mediocre special effects? Well, one way would be to get three guys to collaborate on a script that rips the life out of the original property; direct the scenes featuring the protag and his girlfriend to bring out the worst perfs from already poor actors; and slash/burn-edit the pic in a manner to destroy narrative and even common sense.

Jumper is very loosely based on Steven Gould’s novel, that tells the tale of young David Rice (Hayden Christensen), who discovers that he has the ability to teleport. David’s home life is far from enjoyable: His mother left when he was five, and he gets to live with an abusive and alcoholic father (Michael Rooker) in Ann Arbor, Michigan (changed inexplicably from the book’s mythical Stanville, Ohio).

David’s first teleportation or jumping experience in the book is an escape from yet another beating from the father to the safe, familiar, and comfortable surroundings of the public library—clearly a haven for the boy. In the movie, though, David ends up in the library after falling through the ice to retrieve a snow globe for his girlfriend, hurled there by a thuggish school mate, that should have broken upon impact anyway. Unfortunately, he brings lots of water with him, but no reason is proffered as to why he would have ended up in the library, of all places.

David realizes that jumping is the ticket out of his rotten life, and before long ends up living large, courtesy of being able to enter and exit bank vaults at will—to say nothing of the ultimate love ’em and leave ’em scenarios, portrayed in PG-13 style. Alas, if it seems too good to be true, it is, in the form of Roland (Samuel L. Jackson)—mysterious leader of the Paladins. The Paladins have been killing jumpers since medieval times, either because they all eventually go bad, or shouldn’t have the power in the first place—or something.

The Paladin angle is probably the dumbest change from the book, that had David being chased by the NSA. The Paladins have all kinds of high-tech goodies to defeat the Jumpers, and are shown actually killing one caught in the jungle. The real Paladins were chamberlains in ancient Rome, and were later high officials in the Catholic Church, the latter duty being a possible explanation for Roland’s line that “Only God should have this power.”

Meanwhile, David feels that it is a good time to head back to Ann Arbor and look up Millie, the girlfriend (Rachel Bilson). Bear in mind that he disappeared from town eight years earlier, and is presumed dead, yet Millie not only warms up to him right away, she agrees to drop everything and take a little Roman holiday with David—using conventional means of travel.

When in Rome, at the Colosseum no less, much exposition breaks out in the form of a Paladin attack on David, along with the introduction of Griffin, a more experienced jumper (Jamie Bell). David and Griffin will team up to defeat the Paladins, presumably in time for the sequel, set up as it is by David’s mother (Diane Lane) appearing at the end.

Pared down to a merciful 88 minutes, about all Jumper brings is quick action and a good perf from Bell, with Jackson phoning it in and still coming out better than all but Rooker.

The main source material Jumper was first published in August, 1992, and gained some notoriety by having David’s second jump occur as he is about to be savagely raped by a group of truck stop perverts. Oddly, this sequence could have been handled far more discreetly, and it makes you wonder about Gould, especially since the book was targeted to kids. His blog has fairly shocking grammatical and spelling errors for a published author, along with some pointed inconsistencies.

He links to a negative review of the film from Salon‘s James Hannaham, and suggests that Hannaham read the book, implying that he might like it better than the movie. Yet, in response to criticism that the movie ruined the book, he goes off in multiple directions to defend the film—his best reason being that it will make him more money. And, he displays a T-shirt given to him by relatives with the message “Never judge a book by its movie.” This is as close as he gets to knocking the film.

He does blog that, “I’ve now seen the movie three times….I can’t really predict how it will do. Reviews have been mixed tending to negative but I’m not sure how deserved they are. You will have to make up your own mind.”

Okey-dokey. The T-meter on rottentomatoes.com gives the film an awful 16% rating. Here’s a sample…

“Nice job completely blowing a potential blockbuster”     Gina Carbone, seacoastonline.com

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN

Posted on by Posted in History

Few American schoolkids can have avoided seeing the famous picture of the victorious Harry Truman holding up the Chicago Tribune, with the blaring headline “Dewey Defeats Truman.” The picture is usually accompanied with a paragraph or two mocking the primitive polling methods of 1948, whereby phone surveys were utilized. Phone surveys would tend to miss the many lower and lower-middle class voters who had neither telephones nor even permanent addresses. Mentioned far less often is that many radio political commentators, including broadcast legend H.V. Kaltenborn, ignored Truman’s consistent lead on election night, assuring listeners that late returns would propel Dewey to victory.

The biggest problem with the polling might have been that a goodly number of organizations were so confident of Dewey’s lock on the outcome, that they simply stopped polling a few weeks before the election—thus not recording a big surge in support for Truman. At any rate, since history textbooks are overwhelmingly written by liberals, or even full-on Leftists, the entire exercise portrays a subtext that the rich-guy and evil Republicans were simply clueless as to the plight of the little guy, and deserved to lose on that basis alone.

The truth of what occurred though, is far different, and there may be lessons for us sixty years later…

Harry Truman, a Pendergast machine politician and senator from Missouri, was essentially forced upon FDR as the vice-presidential candidate in 1944, after he was convinced to jettison uber-Leftist Henry Wallace. Although this was hidden from the public, Roosevelt was already in seriously declining health and many Democrats were quite uncomfortable with Wallace ascending, sure as they were that FDR would not make it through his fourth term. In retrospect, such cynicism—not to mention the elevation of an obscure senator, tied to a corrupt political machine (that he would never disavow)—challenges even today’s bottom-of-the-barrel standards.

For his part, FDR hardly ever spoke to Truman, the accidental incumbent who became the 1948 Dem candidate despite significant initial opposition.

Contrast Truman with Thomas E. Dewey, successful New York City prosecutor and Manhattan district attorney dubbed “Gangbuster,” spawning a popular radio program. Dewey ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York in 1938, being barely defeated by New-Dealer Herbert Lehman. Dewey was to be elected governor handily in 1942, and again in 1946 by the greatest margin in state history. An extremely popular governor, he cut taxes, reduced the state’s debt, and enacted the country’s first law prohibiting racial discrimination.

Although Dewey lost to FDR in 1944, he did better than any other opponent. Dewey was not afraid to go after inefficiencies, corruption, and communist influences in FDR’s administration, and also intended to go public with the assertion that “instead of being reelected, [FDR] should be impeached,” since he knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Well, of course he did, but revelation of this would have exposed the fact that we had broken the so-called Purple Code of the Japanese. As it happened, Dewey avoided this topic in the campaign, persuaded by the military.

Imagine losing an election knowing this—and probably a whole lot more—about your opponent, but having to keep mum about the worst details. You would think that this would have turned Dewey into a much more aggressive campaigner in 1948, but you would be wrong.

Given the defection of Wallace’s Pinko contingent, as well as Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats over Hubert Humphrey’s civil rights platform plank, the fractured Dems supporting a less-than-popular Truman seemed like a lost cause. The Republican strategy was to run out the clock, and Dewey quite uncharacteristically spouted platitudes for the entire campaign. An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal noted that “No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot not have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.”

Worse, with Truman battling as if he had nothing to lose, Dewey refused to counter any of his attacks. Perhaps the biggest blunder was that Dewey did not even attempt to separate himself from the Republican-controlled 80th Congress, dubbed “do-nothing” by Truman. Good grief! Dewey was a GOVERNOR, was more liberal than most of the Republicans on the Hill, and his 1948 platform provided for expanding social security, civil rights, public housing, and federal aid for health and education. It also didn’t help that he studiously avoided red-baiting, despite the repeated urgings of conservatives.

Given the record from 1948-1952, there is little disagreement that Dewey would have made a far better president than Truman. You can bet that Truman never raised up that copy of the Chicago Tribune calling for immediate impeachment proceedings against Truman, in the wake of his “revenge of the nerds” firing of MacArthur:

President Truman must be impeached and convicted. His hasty and vindictive removal of Gen. MacArthur is the culmination of a series of acts which have shown that he is unfit, morally and mentally, for his high office… The American nation has never been in greater danger. It is led by a fool who is surrounded by knaves…

We can only speculate on how different this country could have been had the 1948 election turned out according to plan. But then, the best man doesn’t always win.

BAD MOVIES AND BAD POLITICS

Posted on by Posted in History, Movies

What’s worse: A pitiful crop of movies, going back to the beginning of the supposed blockbuster release portion of the year—last December—or a pitiful crop of presidential wannabees? No doubt, the anticipated “serious” reply would be the pitiful crop of presidential wannabees, but I would like to break with tradition.

The last time a presidential election offered a candidate who rose above the rest of the putrid field was back in 1984, with Ronald Reagan—and the time before that was 1980 with Ronald Reagan. Not surprisingly, Reagan scored landslides in both contests. Before Reagan, Eisenhower was an easy choice over Stevenson in both 1952 and 1956; and before that, it was 1924 with Coolidge. If you catch my drift, the American presidency has been truly bereft of great or even good men.

There are many reasons for this, of course, not the least of which is the emergence of the political class, or people who essentially made a career out of politics. This was to happen after Andrew Jackson left office, even if there was plenty of shady dealing before he got there. Jackson’s presidency really does mark a turning point…

As it happened, when Jackson was elected in 1828, this marked the first time that the presidency was decided by popular vote. In 1824, although Jackson had more electoral votes than his opponents, since there were three opponents, none pulled a majority, and the election went to the House. Candidate Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams, and was rewarded by being appointed Secretary of State.

When Jackson was reelected with a crushing victory in 1832, that election would be the first time the candidates were chosen by nominating conventions. Although Martin Van Buren was Jackson’s hand-picked successor, he was a full blown New York lawyer politico, and would become the model for most of those who followed him. Simply put, the system tends to corrupt those who remain in it too long; and even if they do not become financially corrupt, they become far too imbued with the process.

Moreover, it is abundantly clear that those few times that someone good does come along are strictly by accident. Thus, why should I worry about a situation that seems to be completely random?

Movies, on the other hand, are hardly random. A grueling process exists whereby scripts are selected, developed, cast, and finally turned into pictures. How, then, to elucidate a litany of recent losers such as Rambo, Untraceable, Over Her Dead Body, The Bucket List, The Golden Compass, et al. at the very time when the good films are supposed to be released? The standard answer—that it’s all up to 17-year-old boys—is not going to explain away that entire list.

A better rationale would be to suggest that the powers that be in the industry might have forgotten that it generally takes four components to assure a chance at success: Star power, good story, quick pace, and good execution—with good story being by far the most important. Too many current releases want to rely on star power and making the deal, to the exclusion of everything else. Indeed, this is now starting to occur in the even lowliest of indie releases.

For example, Displaced (2006) features a reasonable story idea that is completely undermined by incredibly awful acting, plot execution so inept it is difficult to believe that anyone ever watched the dailies, props that would embarrass a junior high pageant, and character development below cartoon standards. But, the producers somehow enticed Ian McKellen to do a voice-over at the beginning, which could have been delivered better by an unknown, and no doubt blew most of their budget in the process. Yet, by God, the film got made, and got distributed, and that’s all that counts.

One suspects that the pic got done by virtue of its endless and mindless action sequences, and McKellen’s minuscule presence. It is quite telling that the making-of featurette emphasizes the process of getting the film made under hopeless circumstances. Fine, but you would think in the five years they claim it took to release it, someone would have figured out basic matters such as being able to tell the protags and antags apart, and spending at least a few moments on dialog that could have helped hapless viewers follow the absurd plot line.

What does a grade-Z indie feature have to do with presidential politics? Way too much, unfortunately. They both aptly demonstrate that obsession with the process will tend to ruin the outcome. If you are searching for a byword for our age, look no further.