The Zeitgeist

Will the real Judy please sit down? That's Zellweger on the right.

Movies for Solitary Confinement

This appeared in print and online around April 1, 2020 during the Corona Virus Lockdown.

Since most of us have been forced into “solitary confinement” due to the onset of the viral apocalypse there are a lot of hours to fill when not trying to work or trying not to overeat (good luck with that!). Because most every professional and amateur sport has been cancelled, this leaves movies and TV to fill much of the gap.

The profusion of choices is practically paralyzing. When I was young (in the 60s and 70s when dinosaurs roamed the earth) we had just a handful of TV channels and networks and there always seemed to be something to watch, often as a communal experience with the whole family encircling a 19-inch black and white Zenith tube TV. Now we have a bazillion channels and web streaming services available on our big screens, desktops, laptops and phones and sometimes it can seem like less is worth watching. Where are the equivalent of Samantha and Jeanie?

To kill tons of time while staving off The Plague, I’ve compiled a list of on-demand and streaming movies that can soak up a whole lot of hours – So here we go. Rankings are between one and five stars.

MOVIES:

Judy (2019) ★★★★★

Renée Zellweger quite literally becomes Judy Garland, albeit Garland towards the end of her sadly too-short short life. Set in 1968 the film mostly focuses on her highly successful last series of concerts in London and all the accumulated challenges, setbacks, depressions, anxieties and neuroses that have all piled up to produce an artist at her breaking point.

Zellweger embodies Garland as did Gary Oldman in his portrayal of Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour (2017, also ★★★★★) to such an extent that she won the Academy Award for Best Actress along with the Golden Globe, BAFTA and Screen Actors Guild trophies for the same category. She swept all major and minor awards across the spectrum and when you see this movie, you’ll know why.

Zellweger’s portrayal of Garland encompasses not just drama but also song – she treats us to a bravura array of Garland hits (Zellweger proved she could sing back when she starred in Chicago (2002 ★★★★) but this level of song mastery goes straight to the ethereal. Her Judy Garland is affecting, touching and haunting and you will be left profoundly moved. There are flashbacks to Judy as a girl and adolescent (played competently by Darci Shaw) but the real action takes place in the late 60s present. The British supporting cast lends gravity and verisimilitude.

This is a must see if you like rock bio heartbreak and redemption stories like Ray (★★★★★), Bohemian Rhapsody (★★★★), Walk The Line (★★★★) and What’s Love Got To Do With It (★★★★★) all of which are highly worthwhile seeing as well.

One Upon A Time in Hollywood ★★★★

Staying in the world of the late 60s, Director Quentin Tarantino brilliantly recreates 1969 LA and Hollywood right down to the smallest paper clip. I’m in love equally with the performances of Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie as with DiCaprio’s cream-colored 1966 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. How do I know every detail of Tarantino’s 1969 is correct? Because I was alive and 11 years old at the time.

Brad Pitt, although not having top billing, really anchors the film. Pitt won Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, BAFTA and Screen Actors Guild. The film itself won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. Pitt made this movie as a 55-year-old and to say on him 55 looks 42 is an understatement. We should all look so good.

This is a bromance between a fast-fading TV star (DiCaprio) and his faithful sidekick and stunt double (Pitt) that echoes the relationship between John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994 ★★★★★) although with the violence spaced out and themed differently. In the Uma Thurman role is Margot Robbie (Wolf of Wall Street, 2013, also with DiCaprio, ★★★★) playing the late Sharon Tate. “Once Upon A Time” takes the Charles Manson-Sharon Tate Murders in a different direction and with an alternate story line full of twists, turns and surprises.

There are two versions of this film, the full-on version is 2 hours and 41 minutes – (that will chew-up time!) but there is an airplane cut that’s about a half hour shorter which benefits from tighter editing and a quicker pace. Try to rent that one if you can. The only reason this film gets four instead of five stars is because it’s about 20 minutes too long, but I sympathize with the director, what with all these great performances, where can you cut? Any Tarantino film is worth seeing and this latest one is no exception.

Ad Astra ★★★★

Perfect for the “end times” we’re living in, “Ad Astra,” (2019) has the fate of the whole universe in play – all life as we know it is in the balance. Brad Pitt (he had a busy 2019) rockets from 1969 to an unspecified future, perhaps 50 years from now, so about 2069. Pitt plays a heroic astronaut who is tasked with traveling out to Neptune to possibly confront his maybe alive or dead father (played with stoic derangement by Tommy Lee Jones) who headed a space station out at the edge of the solar system where Space Command thinks the cosmic threat is coming from.

The movie also retreads Donald Sutherland as a former friend and colleague of Jones in the quest to stop the threat. “Ad Astra,” Latin for “to the stars,” is evocative of Stanley Kubric’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968 ★★★★★) probably one of the most creative, original and innovative science fiction movies of all time. In “Ad Astra” as with “2001” we are presented with existential ponderings on the of meaning of life and of the nature of life itself. There are plenty of parallels including commercial flights to the moon (on Virgin Atlantic in “Astra” versus the defunct Pan Am in “2001”), vast stretches of uncooperative space and a lot to go over again and again in your mind after viewing the film. Pitt plays a retrained, sardonic space hero in a tight, mature performance. Excellent special effects and cinematography.

Another two lonely astronaut in crisis movies worth seeing are Gravity (2013 ★★★★) starring Sandra Bullock, George Clooney and Ed Harris which won seven Oscars including Best Director for Alfonso Cuarón and The Martian (2015 ★★★★) directed by Ridley Scott and starring Matt Damon, also a seven Academy Award-winner which is essentially “Castaway” in space with Damon and Tom Hanks tied for best latter day Robinson Crusoe.

Ford vs. Ferrari ★★★★★

Matt Damon and Christian Bale star as famed performance car guru Carroll Shelby and legendary race car driver Ken Miles respectively in this seemingly “gearhead” movie that women will actually like, believe it or not. As much a car movie as an “accomplish the impossible story against crazy odds and establishment guys in suits” who are always getting in the way of real vision and innovation. As the title suggests this is about Ford Motor Company taking on Ferrari at the Grand Prix of Le Mans back in the mid to late 60s and doing what no one thought was remotely possible, especially in the time they had to do it. The movie keeps you on the edge of your seat and you also feel like you’re a part of the action.

There’s great chemistry between Damon and Bale, two of the best actors of our time, giving highly charismatic performances. The race scenes are probably the best since the original Ben Hur back in the late 50s. “Ford/Ferrari” garnered two Academy Awards along with a bazillion nominations for best everything. 2019 was a highly competitive year and in another time this film would have seen more awards.

If you’d like to see Christian Bale in his first starring role (as good as anything since) rent Empire of The Sun (1987 ★★★★★) Steven Spielberg’s WWII coming-of-age epic set in Japanese-occupied China. John Malkovich and Joe Pantoliano are also great in the film.

Motherless Brooklyn ★★★★

Edward Norton directs, stars and co-wrote the screenplay for this modern Film Noir set in 1950s New York City. Norton plays a private detective with a highly visible case of Tourette's Syndrome, so to say he’s viewed as quirky and totally underestimated by all and sundry persons around him is an understatement. Norton’s character has Tourette’s, but he plays it with tremendous heart and pathos so that you never really feel sorry for him (and certainly don’t laugh at him) but on the contrary with each passing scene come to admire him more and more.

Norton gets all the visuals right about 50s New York, the clothes, cars, streets, dialog. He’s got a great cast backing him up featuring Bruce Willis, Alec Baldwin, Bobby Cannavale and the always terrific Willem Dafoe. It’s a real old-time gumshoe whodunnit and you’ll never guess the end until the end. While “Motherless” wasn’t nominated for any Academy Awards, this was a major omission as it deserves far more recognition.

For a “Bizarro World” Film Noir also featuring Bruce Willis, check out Sin City (2005 ★★★★) directed by Quentin Tarantino along with Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez. The film is based on a graphic novel by Miller and it actually looks like a charcoal or pencil drawing with amplified black and white cinematography with a 50s riff. “Sin” features Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba at her peak (MTV Movie Award Winner), Rosario Dawson, the late Powers Boothe (“Deadwood”), Michael Clarke Duncan and even Rutger Hauer. Winner at the Cannes Film Festival for Best Visuals. Not for the squeamish. Guys and teens will love it.

Finally, for those of you singles cooped-up solo, or those in need of a semi chick-flick, a real apocalyptic romcom would be Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012 ★★★ ½) where Steve Carell and Keira Knightley stumble into one another’s arms as an asteroid heads towards Earth. There’s no real sci-fi in here, but a lot of tenderness, empathy and heart. Carell often plays the emotionally down on his luck dude and this film is no different. Even though oblivion is neigh we’re not afraid because love burns eternal.

The Zeitgeist

Star Trek: Above and Beyond. Third Film of New Generation Delivers.

I first started watching Star Trek in the fall of 1966 on what was our family’s only TV – a 19-inch black and white Zenith that sat on a metal rolling cart in the living room of our two bedroom apartment. (It wouldn’t be until at least 1970 that we first got a color set even though NBC was running shows in color way before ‘66.) I was eight years old during Star Trek’s first season and that my parents tolerated my fascination with this show that aired after my bedtime is something which I’m most grateful for all these years later. As a kid and then a teenager the thing I wanted most to do in this world was to pivot at warp factor two and bring all photon torpedoes to bear. So, you could call me a lifetime Trek fan.

For the uninitiated, Star Trek is the story of the Starship Enterprise, a giant battleship in space on a peaceful five year mission to explore the galaxy and go where “no one has ever gone before.” Getting to the outer limits of space is made possible by traveling beyond the speed of light at “warp speed.” At the helm of the Enterprise is Captain James T. Kirk, an all-American boy from Iowa. William (“Priceline Negotiator”) Shatner originated the role of Kirk 50 years ago and played the character both in the series and a slew of movies from 1979 to 1994. Kirk’s main sidekick is an alien officer from the planet Vulcan named Mr. Spock, played from 1964 (in the very first pilot) until his recent death by Leonard Nimoy.

In 2009 due to the graying and gradual demise of many key cast members (and also to remake the epic for a new generation) Paramount Pictures relaunched and rebooted the original Star Trek crew with a whole new cast playing the old familiar characters. Star Trek from 2009 was a huge gamble – could the original Trek characters be replaced by new actors like the Superman, Batman and Spiderman franchises? The answer at both the box office and from fans was a resounding yes.

Which brings us to the newly released Star Trek Beyond. This is the third film in the new generation of the original reprise and it’s pretty safe to say it’s the best of the three so far. (Not that the first two were anything less than very good). Directed by “Fast & Furious” Justin Lin, Beyond moves at breakneck speed and at a breathless pace but doesn’t feel exhausting or overdone. The special effects are outstandingly creative and majestically executed so that not only are they awe-inspiring but 90 percent of them have plausibility as being technologically possible – which was one of the key effects hallmarks of the original series from the ‘60s.

Starting with the 2009 reboot, producer J.J. Abrams assembled a terrific ensemble cast. Nearly everyone in the crew clicks together and feels like the children or the clones of the original cast. Chris Pine as Kirk does an amazing job playing a 1967 William Shatner while at the same time bringing a millennial sensibility to the role, a tough combination to pull off. Zachary Quinto nails Nimoy’s Mr. Spock and truly outstanding in his cloning is Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy. You’d think they injected him with the late DeForest Kelly’s DNA. Beyond in addition to nonstop action also features full-out Trek humor with the Spock-McCoy banter as spot-on as if it were Nimoy and Kelly on the old Desilu sets in ’68.

The supporting cast of Simon Pegg as Scotty, Zoe Saldana and Uhura and the late Anton Yelchin as Chekov all hit the bullseye as well. Pegg was also the principal writer of the film. Idris Elba as the villain du jour (Krall) is sufficiently mad and menacing and truly a delight is Sofia Boutella as a stranded woman warrior and Kirk ally, Jaylah.

Without being a spoiler, Beyond features a lot of derring-do, suspense and danger for the Enterprise crew but knowing full well that a sequel must certainly be in the offing, you know the galaxy and the Federation will be saved, evil will be eradicated and hope restored with a bright future for humanity, but you’ll have a great time watching the heroes from Star Fleet bring it all home.

Beyond is probably one of the three best Star Trek movies produced since 1979 and if you like Trek, science fiction or action films, this is very much well worth the price of a theater admission and absolutely should be seen either in 3-D or on a really big screen.

The Zeitgeist

Fox News' Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier

Crimes of Omission: Primary Election Coverage a Triumph of Superficiality by Broadcast News Media

(Note: This article was written and appeared originally on March 2nd, 2016 on InauguralClock.com)

If one subscribes to the blather emanating from the incessant talking heads on cable TV news one would come away thinking that four states or 11 states or 15 states have already predetermined the outcome of the 2016 presidential season – that it’s unstoppable manifest destiny that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton at the helm for the Democrats. What’s the point for people in the other 35 states to even vote? National composite polls are presented as a fait accompli even though there is no such thing as a “national primary” and this arguably helps skew actual election results as voters are influenced by supposed “inevitability.”

Declarations to the effect that both Donald and Hillary are “electoral juggernauts,” and are “running the table” never cease, yet the crimes of omission on the part of the anchors, reporters and pundits are stupendous.

Key omission number one – hardly anyone on TV mentions that many of the primaries are “open,” meaning that voters often don’t have to be a registered voter in the party’s primary they’re voting in. In many states Independents can vote in either party’s primary thereby substantially skewing the results and the wishes of the core party members. Voter registrations and party affiliations can be switched pretty quickly, also throwing off the wishes of the party faithful. Why many early voting states allow this kind of open and chaotic cross-party pollination is beyond me. Why should non-Republicans or non-Democrats determine who their respective parties will nominate for the highest office in the land? Primary results are then presented as though they were authentic gauges of party members’ sentiments when in fact they’re often not.

Key omission number two – anchors and reporters for example will say that “Trump is winning in every state” or “Hillary is sweeping the primaries” without explaining how many or how few delegates may come from being victorious in any given state’s race. All state wins aren’t created equal. For example, winning in Texas is worth a whole lot more than winning in Vermont but the TV news folks just tally-up how many states someone won without giving any perspective or reference and based on that a candidate is either inevitable or over. Also, because the cable news guys are all in New York, late-breaking results from the center or the west of the country are given short-shrift in the big picture. For example, on Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders won in Colorado and Minnesota but all the talking heads had written Sanders off by 8:00pm without those results.

Key omission number three – There’s been few delegate count tally screens (especially on Fox), just screens showing results of who won which state. This is incomplete information because not all states have equal delegates and therefore are not necessarily as significant. You can win small Southern states all day long but if you can’t win in New York, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania and California, you can’t be nominated. Context is missing in its entirety. For example, Sanders isn’t “over” when as of March 2^nd he’s only 191 delegates behind Hillary with 35 states to go and 2,383 delegates needed to secure a nomination. Likewise, Ted Cruz is only 90 delegates shy of Trump with the same 35 races still to go and 1,237 delegates needed to win. Ninety is not Mount Everest but if you listen to the cable people you’d think it might as well be Mars. Why they declare the races to be over so early if baffling because you would think it’s in their interest to keep the horse races rolling on and on to generate ratings. The composition of the populations of many state races ahead favor candidates other than Trump and Hillary but you just don’t hear any of that.

Key omission number four – Donald Trump hasn’t even reached 50 percent of the vote in any state or any race anywhere yet his wins by slim pluralities are presented as resounding mandates and crushing victories over his rivals. No one discusses why Trump can’t reach 51 percent and what it means that roughly 60 to 65 percent of GOP voters are voting against him. If you want to see a resounding victory or mandate from the voters look at Hillary’s results in Alabama where she got 77 percent of the vote or Georgia where she garnered 71.3 percent. Likewise, Sanders snatched 86.1 percent of the vote in Vermont. Those are mandates and crushing victories. In other states like Oklahoma, Sanders got 51.9 percent to Hillary’s 41.5. That’s a clear majority because it’s over 50 percent. In Minnesota, Sanders received 61.7 percent. Another clear majority. When Trump gets 38.8 percent in Georgia, this is not any kind of majority. Likewise he got 32.7 percent in Arkansas and just 38.9 percent in Tennessee.

Also omitted are what Trump’s electoral results may mean in a general election (again, limited context) because let’s take one of his best results, Massachusetts at 49.3 percent (with heavy voting by Independents and Democrats in the GOP primary). Since Republicans are just 23 percent of registered voters in the nation, extrapolating his win means that if he got the same support across the GOP nationwide that would translate into just 11.3 percent of the entire American electorate which is a sure way to replicate a Barry Goldwater-like crushing defeat in the general election (Goldwater got 38.47 percent of the popular vote and just 52 votes in the Electoral College). If Trump were racking-up results like Hillary and Sanders in their big wins then it would mean he’s got the backing of the Republican rank-and-file but this context is never mentioned on air.

Key omission number five – no pressing follow-ups – on-air personalities hardly ever press Trump in particular with follow-up questions on any given subject when he evades or ignores the question or gives an obfuscating answer. Most on-air people just move on to the next question hoping for a better answer to that one so he gets away with providing no answers to the American people. A key example of this has been an utter dearth of follow-ups about his releasing of his income tax returns despite the IRS clearly saying that anyone can release their returns even if those returns are being audited and that non-audited returns from earlier years can also be released and Trump gets away with this time and time again.

Key omission number six – Poll results and bandied about with much breathless excitement but hardly ever mentioned are the dates when the poll was conducted, how many voters were polled out of how many registered voters (a quarter percent anyone?), how the poll was conducted (i.e., by landline telephone which is how most polls are done, which is not an accurate way to reach a broad cross-section of Americans in 2016) and what are the demographics of those polled? Yet a poll of 1,000 people reached via landline three days before is presented as the sentiments of the American people and can become self-fulfilling prophesies.

What all this says is that sadly broadcast news is terribly superficial and ephemeral and underscores the essential nature of print and web journalism to provide deeper analysis, context and perspective for the average American voter. Unfortunately, most Americans still get most of their news and information from broadcast and cable news which may partly explain why the country is beset and saddled with the kind of underwhelming candidates we’ve got for 2016 from both parties.