brainrow

I just watched the Academy Awards show, all the way through, because Jon Stewart was hosting. Big mistake. Every time I’ve watched the Oscars, I’ve sworn I’ll never watch again. This time I double-dog swear. Horrible, horrible, horrible.

The only good moment in three and a half hours came early, when George Clooney won for best supporting actor:

And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it’s probably a good thing. We’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

For a moment there, I got my hopes up. Words of wisdom: never get your hopes up while watching the Oscars. (Quote courtesy of Crooks and Liars.)

Today is the national opening of George Clooney’s new movie, Good Night, and Good Luck. I’ve been looking forward to it for weeks.

But it’s not playing at any theater here in Columbus, Ohio.

Rats.

The New York Times reviews George Clooney’s new film, Good Night, and Good Luck:

Burnishing the legend of Edward R. Murrow, the CBS newsman who in the 1940’s and 50’s established a standard of journalistic integrity his profession has scrambled to live up to ever since, “Good Night, and Good Luck” is a passionate, thoughtful essay on power, truth-telling and responsibility. It opens the New York Film Festival tonight and will be released nationally on Oct. 7. The title evokes Murrow’s trademark sign-off, and I can best sum up my own response by recalling the name of his flagship program: See it now.

And be prepared to pay attention. “Good Night, and Good Luck” is not the kind of historical picture that dumbs down its material, or walks you carefully through events that may be unfamiliar. Instead, it unfolds, cinema-verite style, in the fast, sometimes frantic present tense, following Murrow and his colleagues as they deal with the petty annoyances and larger anxieties of news gathering at a moment of political turmoil. The story flashes back from a famous, cautionary speech that Murrow gave at an industry convention in 1958 to one of the most notable episodes in his career — his war of words and images with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.

Don Adams, who played Maxwell Smart on the sixties spy comedy Get Smart, has died. He was 82 years old.

Get Smart has never been released on DVD, but Amazon.com is collecting email addresses of customers interested in the series.

Once upon a time, I wanted to become a journalist. One of my role models was Edward R. Murrow, a CBS reporter whose live radio reports from wartime London brought the early days of World War II home to Americans. His television shows in the 1950s helped shape the nature of broadcast journalism. He set the bar high.

Murrow made a career of confronting liars and exposing lies. His career is the stuff of legend. One of the most legendary — and most inspiring — episodes was his 1953 confrontation with Senator Joe McCarthy, the man for whom McCarthyism was named.

So, I’m looking forward to seeing George Clooney’s new movie, Good Night and Good Luck. It won’t be in theaters until October 7, and I’m champing at the bit.

David Carr of the New York Times has a preview:

“Good Night” is about journalism, not as a subject of parody, but of inquiry. With various reporters and news anchors splashing into fetid waters to save victims of Hurricane Katrina, “Good Night” serves as a reminder that it may take a different kind of journalistic courage, a willingness to risk career and more, to bring government to account. At a time when the news media are being denied access to everything from pictures of imprisoned foreign nationals to critical government security documents, Mr. Clooney, without pressing the analogy, has made a movie that reminds that government needs a vigorous, even oppositional press to find its best nature.

Like Murrow’s reports, the $8 million film, distributed by Warner Independent Pictures, uses McCarthy’s own words to demonstrate that his stated effort to save the United States from Communist infiltration was itself a far more insidious threat….

In “Good Night,” David Strathairn renders Murrow as a reluctant hero, and a twitchy, dark one at that. His Murrow, with the fatalism of Eeyore, is a journalist who reflexively expects the worst, but responds by doing his best, steeling those around him even as McCarthy’s gun sights are trained on his forehead.

In the movie, McCarthy is shown only in archival footage. Director Clooney thought no actor could do him justice. Modern audiences who have never seen this man, once one of the most powerful men in the U.S. government, are in for a shock.

Mr. Clooney has an odd relationship with the press — he reveres its role, but has been a victim of some of its less noble reflexes….

“In this and all the rest of journalism, I think the issues are complicated,” he said. “I don’t think that there are truly bad guys or truly good guys…. There is always a split in these things, but hopefully the need for entertainment does not push news off the screen.”

Murrow said as much in a famous speech he gave at the Radio-Television News Directors Association annual meeting in 1958. Part of the speech, a reminder that television should and could produce important journalism, closes the film:

“To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: there is, in one reporter’s opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose?

“Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box.”

The movie’s trailer is available, in several formats, here.

I just watched a remarkable movie called Downfall. It’s about the final days of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime.

One thing that makes it remarkable is that it was made by German filmmakers. While Alec Guinness and Anthony Hopkins portrayed Hitler in his bunker decades ago, many Germans preferred to treat the whole Nazi era as nothing more than a bad dream. Even now, Downfall is controversial in Germany. Critics complain that the film shows Hitler and his close companions as human beings.

The filmmakers say that’s just the point: the Nazis did not have horns or tails or cloven hooves. They were human beings just like us, and that’s the scary thing.

Downfall shows that Hitler thought himself infallible. He ignored advice from his generals. He ignored facts that didn’t fit his fanciful view of the situation. When his ill-considered orders didn’t work, he accused his officers of disloyalty rather than endure criticism of his plans. He fired, and sometimes executed, those who dared to stand their ground when he was wrong. As the Russians closed in on Berlin, he declared that they were falling into his trap, and would be destroyed by a massive pincer movement — by two German army groups that had already been wiped out.

A handful of those around him shared his delusions. More understood the true situation, but did nothing and said nothing. They were Hitler’s men, and they would drag the whole country down with them before they would contradict their leader.

Human nature doesn’t change. We must struggle today against the same dark tendencies within us that the Nazis allowed to govern their lives. We must not place our trust in deluded leaders, nor in those who turn their backs on truth and sign on to their leader’s happy delusions.

Some years ago, when Gary Hart was running for president, an astute observer noted that he seemed to be imitating some of John F. Kennedy’s tics and gestures on the stump. I can tell you that Gary Hart was not the only politician of his generation to adopt some of Kennedy’s mannerisms. On The Simpsons, Springfield mayor Diamond Joe Quimby didn’t start out as a caricature of the Kennedys; he started as a caricature of small-time politicians who modeled themselves on JFK.

If you see enough film of him, you can eventually see that much of Kennedy’s speaking style was in imitation of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I suspect Roosevelt borrowed something from Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or other successful politicians of that era. We all borrow something from the people we admire. The person we become depends, in part, on our choices of from whom we borrow.

When I hear the deep resonant voice of James Earl Jones, I always hear an echo of the great actor Brock Peters, who died today. Peters’ voice could send shivers down my spine. His face could be used in a dictionary to illustrate the word “dignity.”

His most important role was probably Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Watch it.

From a DVD commentary, Simpsons executive producer David Mirkin:

There’s no lack of lack of backbone in Hollywood.

After I retired last year, I borrowed and read the first four Harry Potter books. Before I’d finished reading the fourth book, I ordered the fifth from Amazon.com, and waited impatiently until it arrived.

If you dismiss the Harry Potter books as children’s literature, or if you know Harry Potter only from the movies, you’re cheating yourself of something wonderful.

The sixth book is due on July 16. I’ve had my copy on order for some time now. In anticipation, I’ve been re-reading the first five books.

Recently much was made of parallels between the plot of the latest Star Wars movie and political current events. The movie was considered critical of aspects of the Bush Administration. Director George Lucas denied that the movie was about Bush or the War in Iraq:

Lucas said that a long time ago in a galaxy far away, he had read some history and wondered why, after going to the trouble of killing Caesar, the Roman Senate turned things over to his equally power-hungry nephew, Augustus Caesar? Or that after a revolution, France turned next to Napoleon, a dictator?

That’s what fueled the entire Star Wars saga, Lucas said. “It seems to happen the same way every time: There are threats, and a democratic body, the Senate, is not able to function properly.”

So I was interested, when reading Harry Potter books published before George W. Bush became president, to see parallels to current events every bit as strong as those in the latest Star Wars movie.

For example: Dumbledore, a very good wizard, objects to the practice, at a wizard prison called Azkaban, of using dementors as guards. Dementors are cruel magical creatures that torment the souls of anyone in their power. The Minister of Magic dismisses Dumbledore’s objections as “preposterous,” and adds, “Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!”

In the books, there are good wizards and evil ones, who practice Dark Magic. Aurors are wizards specially trained to fight against Dark Magic. Voldemort, the worst of the Dark Wizards, led a reign of terror years before, then he mysteriously lost his powers and vanished. Most people in the magical world still fear even to speak his name. Many good wizards believe Voldemort is still alive, waiting to strike again.

The teenaged student wizards, including Harry, notice a certain mistrust between some of the adult foes of the Dark Side. One of their adult friends is talking about a senior official in the Ministry of Magic whom I’ll call John Smith, to avoid giving away too much of the story:

“He’s a great wizard, John Smith, powerful, magical — and power-hungry. Oh never a Voldemort supporter,” he said, reading the look on Harry’s face. “No, John Smith was always very outspoken against the Dark Side. But then a lot of people who were against the Dark Side… well, you wouldn’t understand… you’re too young….”

The teenagers complain, saying, “Try us, why don’t you?” So their friend takes them back to the peak of Voldemort’s power:

“You don’t know who his supporters are, you don’t know who’s working for him and who isn’t; you know he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. You’re scared for yourself, and your family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing…”

He continues:

“Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. Smith’s principles might’ve been good in the beginning — I wouldn’t know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemort’s supporters. The Aurors were given new powers — powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. [Some suspects were] handed straight to the dementors without trial. Smith fought violence with violence[…] I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. He had his supporters, mind you — plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way…”

Gosh, that sounds familiar.

I was talking up the latest Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, a few weeks ago, before I’d seen the movie.

Well, I finally saw the movie, a week and a half ago.

So, uh… just forget I said anything, okay?

Had she lived, Marilyn Monroe would be 79 years old today.

This quote is attributed to her:

Hollywood is a place where they’ll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your soul.

Recommended: The Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot and The Misfits. The first two are brilliant comedies. The Misfits is not a comedy. Marilyn is extraordinarily good in all three. She had talent.

In preparation to see Revenge of the Sith sometime soon, I’ve dug out the old DVDs and watched them.

Yikes, is The Phantom Menace ever a rotten movie!

If anyone ever tries to tell you that good special effects make a good movie, sit him down and show him — oh, Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights — back-to-back with The Phantom Menace. And the next time he dares to open his mouth to say something about movies, say two or three years from now, offer to show him those two movies again.

Attack of the Clones is much, much better, but it’s not very good, either.

Years ago, when Return of the Jedi came out, and I saw those adorable Ewoks, I knew that whatever George Lucas’ original vision might have been, the movie had been tailored to sell teddy bears. And when I first saw The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, I knew those movies were not so much written, as designed — built around ideas for video games.

There was one glimmer of a thought in Attack of the Clones: that it’s possible to feel completely justified in doing something terrible, but that sense of justification does not excuse the terrible deed. The new movie is getting a lot of attention for commenting on current events, but I think that started here.

Nevertheless, I was ready to skip Revenge of the Sith entirely, but I won’t. The reviewers have been mostly positive, and surprised.

Andy Ihnatko likes it:

Unbelievable. Unbelievable!

“Revenge Of The Sith” is clearly the best of all the Prequels, but that sounds like faint praise at best and sarcasm at worst. It’s better than “Return Of The Jedi” and I have to ask myself if it isn’t better than “A New Hope,” too. When I come down off the endorphin buzz, I’ll probably conclude that no, it isn’t, but the fact that I even have to consider such a question says a whole hell of a lot about this movie.

So I’m going to see it soon. I hope I’ll like it, too.

George Lucas knows how to get people talking about his movies. A right-wing website has added him to its long list of boycotted entertainers. (The website demands “Please name one liberty we’ve lost, Mr. Lucas,” right under their online petition asking the Attorney General to charge Michael Moore with treason.) Hey, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. From the New York Times:

For sheer lack of subtlety, the light-saber-wielding forces of good and evil in George Lucas’s “Star Wars” movies can’t hold a candle to the blogging, advertising and boycotting forces of the right and left. (Or left and right.)

More a measure of the nation’s apparently permanent political warfare than of a filmmaker’s intent, the heroes and antiheroes of Mr. Lucas’s final entry, “Episode III – Revenge of the Sith,” were on their way to becoming the stock characters of partisan debate by mid-Wednesday, hours before the film’s opening just after midnight:

¶The liberal advocacy group Moveon.org was preparing to spend $150,000 to run advertisements on CNN over the next few days … comparing Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, to the movie’s power-grabbing, evil Chancellor Palpatine, for Dr. Frist’s role in the Senate’s showdown over the confirmation of federal judges.

¶Conservative Web logs were lacerating Mr. Lucas over the film’s perceived jabs at President Bush – as when Anakin Skywalker, on his way to becoming the evil Darth Vader, warns, “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy,” in an echo of Mr. Bush’s post-9/11 ultimatum, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

¶A little-trafficked conservative Web site about film, Pabaah.com – for “Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood” – added Mr. Lucas to its list of boycotted entertainers…

¶Even the Drudge Report Web site got into the act: beneath a picture of Darth Vader, it compared the White House press corps to the vengeful Sith, after reporters peppered a press secretary for pressing Newsweek magazine to “repair the damage” in the Muslim world caused by a retracted report about desecration of the Koran.

I guess I’m not the only person who’s noticed that the Dark Side of the Force looks a lot like the Bush Administration. Here’s Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post:

“Revenge of the Sith,” it turns out, can also be seen as a cautionary tale for our time — a blistering critique of the war in Iraq, a reminder of how democracies can give up their freedoms too easily, and an admonition about the seduction of good people by absolute power.

Some film critics suggest it could be the biggest anti-Bush blockbuster since “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

A. O. Scott’s review of Revenge of the Sith in the New York Times is fun to read:

This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That’s right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it’s better than “Star Wars.”

“Revenge of the Sith,” which had its premiere here yesterday at the Cannes International Film Festival, ranks with “The Empire Strikes Back” (directed by Irvin Kershner in 1980) as the richest and most challenging movie in the cycle. It comes closer than any of the other episodes to realizing Mr. Lucas’s frequently reiterated dream of bringing the combination of vigorous spectacle and mythic resonance he found in the films of Akira Kurosawa into American commercial cinema.

…

“This is how liberty dies – to thunderous applause,” Padmé observes as senators, their fears and dreams of glory deftly manipulated by Palpatine, vote to give him sweeping new powers. “Revenge of the Sith” is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power. Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” Obi-Wan’s response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: “Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.” You may applaud this editorializing, or you may find it overwrought, but give Mr. Lucas his due. For decades he has been blamed (unjustly) for helping to lead American movies away from their early-70’s engagement with political matters, and he deserves credit for trying to bring them back.