Thoughts about film

Alright, its been a while since I posted. And I don't think I can blog with the consistency of Andrew Sullivan. There's been some pretty nifty (read: infuriating) developments on the political scene. But let's put politics to a rest for now.

I want to write about movies. I suppose I do enough. Movies are part of my life. The experience of watching a great movie is downright creepy. We hear the phrase "out-of-body experience" mentioned often to describe fine filmmaking. I hate using cliches. But this one makes some sense. Truly great movies come around pretty rarely -- there's usually about one every year. That doesn't mean we should only see the truly great movies, because others are interesting, insightful, fun or provocative in their own ways. But knowing the truly greats when we see them is vital for film enthusiasts.

This year the movie was "United 93," a movie as hard to write about as it is to talk about. See it. Rent it now. Don't whine that it's "too soon" or in bad taste if haven't seen it yet. Hijacking planes and flying them into buildings was in worse taste, at any rate. Making an immediately eloquent, graceful and raw film about 9-11 doesn't qualify, I don't think.

Going back through the past five years, the lightning bolts of American celluloid (incidentally) have been "Match Point," "Sideways," "Lost in Translation," "Minority Report," "25th Hour," and "Mulholland Drive." (It's important to say American because, after all, we shouldn't go to "Hero" and "The Sea Inside" and assume we're being exposed to a reasonable share of foreign cinema.) I'm also prepared to defend "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" as deserving a spot on that list. Seriously.

There are "great films," and then there are, simply, great films. This year's "Babel" was a "great film," as I duly noted. It was better than "Crash," which had similar style. But it wasn't transcendent. It was great in the way sophisticated literature is great -- you're constantly aware of its genius, but you never forget that it's pages you're turning. I could still hear the projector in the background as I watched "Babel."

But the inspiration for this post was Owen Gleiberman's list in Entertainment Weekly of the top ten films of the year. Owen Gleiberman ranks with America's best film critics. His top ten really are his top ten. There's no pressue to spice things up. And yet here is Owen Gleiberman calling "Casino Royale" the best film of the year. With "The Good Shepherd" and "Cars" not far behind, at that. For my money, "Casino Royale" really was the best Bond since "Goldfinger," and "The Good Shepherd" indeed something darker and cleverer than many have noted. I like this Top Ten. It doesn't match what mine is shaping up as, and "Infamous" has no place there. But Gleiberman knows what criticism should intend and he knows what movies are about.

And We're Off

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa has launched his formal campaign for President, making him the first candidate to enter the race. (Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, held a fairly lackluster press conference announcing his plans to pursue a formal campaign.) My money says that Vilsack v. Hunter will likely not be the final match-up. But that's the beauty of this presidential race. It's the most open race since the 1920s, representing the first time in more than 70 years that a sitting President or Vice-President will not be one of the nominees.

Vilsack's intentions are pretty straightforward. It's no surprise that he's become the first to enter the race. He doesn't want his fellow Iowans -- of course the first to vote on the Democratic nominee -- to further contemplate supporting Edwards or Hillary Clinton. It's possible that the Iowa caucus will lose it's drama with Vilsack running, because the results may indicate mere sentimental support. But let's not call Vilsack a shoe-in even in Iowa. There's a huge difference between loving your governor and thinking he'd make a perfect President. We'll see.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is gaining more attention that previously thought possible. I have said for several months that he is the likely nominee. He's a fantastic speaker, he's good-looking, and he agrees with religious conservatives without seeming like a bigot, zealot, or opportunist. John McCain and Rudy Guiliani are favorites now, but this could simply reflect name recognition. The one problem: Romney is Mormon, which means that a great deal of Christians think he's on the way to hell regardless of his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Prediction: Some of the most interesting dialogue to come out of the 2008 race will be about Mormonism -- and implicitly, the unspoken prerequisities for representing the Christian right. We have witnessed the fall of Rick Santorum, and I suggest the Brownback, Huckabee and Gingrich campaigns have ended before they started. Thus the heir apparent to Christian right politics is someone who church is labeled an anti-Christian, unbiblical cult by a great deal of the serious evangelical community.

Anybody halfway interested in politics should be on the edge of their seats right now and up until election day 2008. 2004 was a boring, predictable election in comparison. No less than 30 different people have a reasonable chance at becoming the next President, and their campaigns will expose the multitude of policy differences, prejudices, unconventional alliances, and rhetorical struggles in American politics today. Our country had several unbelievably exciting elections in the 20th century: Truman v. Dewey (1948), Kennedy v. Nixon (1960), and Humphrey v. Nixon (1968) probably top them all. 2008 will be unprecedented in comparison. The race starts today, with a little-known, locally popular former governor of Iowa. He doesn't have a chance. But the more I turn every possibility over in my mind, the stupider those words sound.

Lessons from Rwanda

A Catholic nun is sentenced to 30 years in prison for her role in the Rwanda genocide of 1994. More than 750,000 people may be held trial at a UN tribunal. This is an important step for healing in Rwanda.

There are lessons from Rwanda, and they matter to the world today. The United States cannot be isolationist. We cannot be uninterested in human rights issues in other countries. We essentially were during the Rwandan genocide, and 500,000 corpses later, we might be said to have a bit of blood on our hands. The phrase "world police" is batted around by people who will not entertain the alternative of what not assuming something like that position leads to. And incidentally, those who missed the boat (I am ashamed to say I was one of them) in supporting the liberation struggle in Iraq - those international solidarity liberals who should have been a consistent, checking part of the dialogue to prevent the disaster our involvement has led to - are now calling for what must be assumed to be unilateral intervention in Darfur. I could wish the intervention in Iraq had been conducted absent WMD fear tactics, which merit President Bush being called up in front of a special Congressional subcommittee.

The sad truth is that most of the American people wouldn't have supported intervention in Iraq if it had been simply in the name of human rights. Opposition to a morally grounded intervention in Iraq would not, in those circumstances, have been justified opposition to shady, suspicious characters in our government. It could not from any angle have seemed a liberal position. One day those who speak cynically and dogmatically against addressing the human rights grievances of the Iraqi people will wake up and realize how conservative they really are. The anti-war stance is not always the most liberal. There are some who act as if the lessons from Rwanda can inform our position on any country except Iraq, and it's a shame.

Student trustees at a California community college decide to stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings. I say its their right. Rights are really, really inconvenient for a lot of people. That concept is lost on a lot of college students. But the whole thing does smack of psuedo-idealistic cynicism. Berets are very cool hats. Why are they wasted on self-impressed revolutionaries?

Very Interesting

A privately owned landscaping company specifically refuses business to a homosexual couple, and they're now the scourge of the Internet blogosphere. Kudos to the L.A. Times for this slick coverage. I wish I could get their paper delivered in Madison. But about this specific story, I have two things to say:

1) There are few rights more important in the U.S. than freedom of association. Neither party today seems to really get that. Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the pressure to associate, societal or otherwise - and the Garden Guy corporation certainly grasps that fact. It should not be against the law for privately owned businesses to discriminate against homosexuals, but it also shouldn't be against the law for newspapers, magazines, and television news stations to expose these businesses for what they are: shady, laughable picketers of bigotry. There's a great dynamic at work here.

2) ...but there's a downside to that dynamic, and it doesn't need to be that way. Assuming the husband and wife who own this business are telling the truth, their actions have resulted in many death threats and vile insults. Treating the opposition ideologies in such an ugly, callous manner is not something that the civil rights-minded community should engage in. That kind of thing discredits a great cause. The best thing to do about discriminatory business owners isn't to flood their email box with death threats, but to peacefully make sure their discrimination does not go unnoted and move on. There can be no moral high ground if someone like Sabrina Farber is being told she should not be able to bear children. Please. Insults of that caliber were what Jim-Crow southerners yelled at African-American schoolchildren being led into integrated schoolhouses during the 1950s.

ERS

Don't Leave Us!

It's impossible to have contempt for somebody like Lincoln Chafee. He's almost (and I stress almost) more loveable than Joe Lieberman (who would have been an ideal choice for Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding the Senate rebalancing of power that would have caused.) I disagree with some of Chafee's foreign policy positions, and its obvious he is a Republican In Name Only, but he was a genuinely likeable Senator. The Republican Party really needs more people friendly to the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood - there really shouldn't be a contradiction there - and although Chafee is probably justified in considering leaving the GOP, it's a loss.

Regarding Saddam Hussein's death sentence, Christopher Hitchens has the right idea.

Some more juicy tidbits from the modern American Mark Twain (please catch my sarcasm) Ann Coulter:

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards. Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

Ever notice how obsessed Ann Coulter is with homosexuality? I hope, for her sake, that Bob Casey shows up to the Senate wearing a leotard someday.

ERS

Letters from 12:11 AM

Jim Doyle will be Governor of Wisconsin for another four years, and Tammy Baldwin will continue to send delightful earmarks back to Wisconsin's 2nd Congressional District and get nothing done in Washington. Wisconsin has voted overwhelmingly Democratic tonight. It also passed the gay marriage ban very easily, which can only mean -- as my friend Brian Dammeir has mentioned -- that a great number of Christian evangelicals decided to vote for the party of abortion rights and stem cell research and vote to ban same sex marriage. This is a monstrously important development.

I'm disappointed as hell that the gay marriage ban passed. It's an unfortunate thing whenever democracy works against individual rights. But note that the margin of passage in Wisconsin -- as of now, 58% to 42% -- is significantly smaller than in other states. These beasts have passed with 80% majorities in Southern states. We're getting there. How does the line from "To Kill a Mockingbird" go, when Miss Maudie observes that the jury took one hour to unjustly convict Tom Robinson of rape: "We're making a step. It's just a baby-step -- but its a step." Amen to that.

In more optimistic news, the demoralized, morally castrated Republican Party will need to suffer through at least two years of Nancy Pelosi -- who cannot help but resemble a bitchy china doll -- as Speaker of the House. I hope they mend their ways and stake again their claim to true American values. But these next two years will be fun. There's something more than cynicism here, too; perhaps the Democrats will pick up on the values Republicans are shirking.

And I'm going to be up all night to see who takes control of the senate. Jim Talent, George Allen, and Conrad Burns all need to lose their Senate races for Democrats to take control. There is a strong possibility of this happening. We're hanging on by a thread. I don't like to use the word "we're" when speaking about Democratic politics -- I've been free from partisanship for about a year -- but it feels right at this moment. The alternative to weak Democratic rule is insane, destructive Republican rule. Does anybody remain unconvinced that there is something approaching a night-or-day scenario here?

Perhaps the best news of the night is that Rick Santorum will probably never again serve in the United States Senate. Mr. Santorum comes close to being the only public official in America today who can be justifiably called an absurd, confused man.

May we wake up tomorrow to ineffective but reasonable Congressional leadership!

ERS

Three Hours Out

I did not volunteer with Fair Wisconsin this election season, and no matter what happens tonight, I will always regret not getting involved. This semester started out too stressed and progressed too painstakingly for me to find the time. But three hours before the polls close, I'd like to say something that needs to be said. Those who led the movement to defeat this amendment are heroes. I have been deeply moved by the energy, enthusiasm, and hope that has driven this campaign - and in as much as I can say so as a common voter, it was an honor to vote "No" this morning.

I hesitate to write in this manner because it suggests something sappier and less important than I want to convey. But let's really think about what we're up against, all things considered. Yes, most of those who voted "Yes" today are good people. They wouldn't pass by you if you were bleeding on the street, even if you were wearing a Fair Wisconsin T-shirt. Their votes were not driven by hostility towards gay people, but were borne of the conviction that tradition matters. That's respectable in some cases, but it's sorely misguided here - and we're up against a culture which thinks tradition is more important than treating people with dignity.

We should not hesitate to confuse the children by making social progress. They'll get over it, and they'll be better people for it. We should dare to support a society which does not treat gay people as curious novelties. Too often gay people are seen as cute enough to talk to (and really funny on Will & Grace) but undeservant of the same structure of life that everybody has. The gay rights movement is the great civil rights movement of the modern day. It is not enough that anti-sodomy laws have been overturned by the Supreme Court. The only way to extend proper dignity to what is a significant portion of the population is by ensuring the right to marriage to everybody. But I refuse to be a pessimist. If the results come in and the ban passes by a landslide, so be it. People will change their minds, but they'll do it slower than some had hoped. We have at least three hours to dream about success here. But with a lot of luck and prayer, Wisconsin will become the scourge of the Christian Right very, very soon.

The Right Idea

Homosexuals have become scapegoats for the undermining of marriage which society has undergone quite independently from any attempt to extend the family structure to all citizens. This guy has it right. For the love of God (I mean that in the most literal sense) vote No on your states' gay marriage bans.

"As a married person, the gay people who live across the street are the least threat to my marriage," says [David] Liners, executive director of Wisdom, a faith-based social justice organization in southeastern Wisconsin. As he sees it, poverty, drug abuse, divorce and other social ills are greater threats to the institution of marriage than same-sex marriage.

Liners and others agree that looking at ways to strengthen marriage is a good idea but feel the amendment misses the mark: "It's the right problem, but the wrong solution." (The Capital Times)

Tony Blair for President

Tony Blair's moral courage is astounding. It's sad this man will cease to be Prime Minister very soon.

"Our position on the death penalty is well known. We're opposed to it," Blair said. But Blair relented under intense questioning, saying "We are against the death penalty ... whether it's Saddam or anybody else."

"However, what I think is important about this is to recognize that this trial of Saddam has been handled by the Iraqis themselves and they will take the decision about it," he said. "It does give us a very clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of that regime. The numbers of people that died, hundreds of thousands of them .... That doesn't alter our position on the death penalty at all, but it simply does give us a reminder of that. "

He sought to play down the importance of Saddam's fate, saying "there are other and bigger issues to talk about."

Better This Way

When the dust has settled, and the nonsense about American imperialism, Halliburton, and Iraq being "Arabic for Vietnam" has gone down, people will need to ask themselves: Would you rather have this man and his lunatic sons overseeing the Iraqi people right now? Is President Bush the moral equivalent of the Baathist party? You don't see the figurative public castrating of a region's most powerful tyrant very often. But when it comes, it's breathtaking.

A Good Day

The problem with capital punishment isn't that it's not fair. It's that it's too fair. The responsibility of human beings is to be as just as possible without losing our humanity in the process. The death penalty smacks of ritualized, fetishized premeditated murder. How people can eat hors d'ouvres at American executions is beyond me.

But today, one of the world's great tyrants was sentenced to death, and here's what I absolutely do not want to happen: I don't want people to use the immorality of capital punishment to further lambast what they see as a loud gesture of American imperialism. There are 25 million Iraqis who were going to be free of their torturer regardless of his sentence - who have been free for several years. And they must know in stronger and bolder language than has been provided that the American government has no plans to colonize their country.

Saddam Hussein will be served with justice. Would I prefer him to spend the rest of his life whithering away in a prison cell, far from his instruments of torture and underground palaces, with no power besides walking (or crawling) across the very small floor space to pick up his dinner? Sure. The worst punishment for Saddam Hussein isn't to be dead. It's to be incomparably pathetic and small. It's to be common and pennyless and unimportant and abandoned only to memories of sadism. As it happens, the man has at most several months of consciousness (factoring in the appeals process) in front of him before he enters the abyss. There should have been many, many more. But it wasn't going to happen. And I'll go out on a very reasonable wing and say this is a good day no matter what. There are children dancing in the street in marvelous mockery of their former leader, who could not have done that a decade before. The incompetence of those who orchestrated and orchestrate the war in Iraq can (and should) be discussed tomorrow and for many days after. But this is their day, and I'm glad they can't hear the cynicism already being leveled at these proceedings.

See This Movie-Film

It's one of the most consistently offensive comedies in years. But its also one of the best. It has a heart, and a real point to those who are paying attention. "Borat" is an anti-racism film which includes every destructive stereotype in America. There's a method to its madness. Go see it.

What's Satire?

"As millions of lunatic Muslims plot to murder Americans, some Americans — we call them "Soccer Moms" — will cast a vote to save Michael J. Fox this year. In the process, they will put all Americans at risk by voting for a frivolous, dying party." --Ann Coulter, in a recent column

In fairness, Congress is changing hands because the GOP has lost its right to be America's party, through six years of incompetence, bigotry, and pandering to the anti-American Christian right. But should we waste time even criticizing Ann Coulter? Her stuff is obviously satirical. She doesn't really think all Muslims are lunatics and that Michael J. Fox should not be sympathized with. She can't actually hope, either, that the Democrats are a frivolous, dying party (they're frivolous but not dying)- because her book sales for the next two years will be significantly heightened if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House. The concern with Ann Coulter is that people who read her religiously probably don't get that she's being satirical ("Muslims are lunatics! You go Ann! Fuck Michael J. Fox!"), and she doesn't seem to mind. She prefers it that way. Even Rush Limbaugh has said on air that her recent book, "Godless," is a great intellectual work. Somehow I don't think the millions who've made that book a bestseller walked into Barnes and Noble asking clerks where Ann Coulter's latest "satire" was.

"It also says I should be executed"

I love Andrew Sullivan.

Ughhhh

The new ad by Vote Yes for Wisconsin. It's despicable. Like all things Religious Right, it's also ridiculously funny. Moral of the ad: Don't do anything resembling social development and progress, because it might confuse children for a little bit.