I am trying to write shorter more concise reviews. Iron Man 3 happens to be a perfect film on which to practice that style. The foreign marketplace, especially China, is an increasingly important part of the Hollywood business model. Studios must create films which can appeal to people even if they have to use subtitles, dubbing or have no translation at all. Thus enter Iron Man 3. It is an action film. No one expects Silver Linings Playbook or Annie Hall. Subtle, Iron Man 3 is not. But there's a, I don't know a patina of boredom and paint by the numbers attitude that pervades this film. Sequels rarely live up artistically to the original and this one is no different. But even for an action film this movie seems to have a remarkable lack of feeling. Good looking woman in peril? Check. Wisecracking hero? Check. 2nd tier buddy who helps save the day? Check. Bad guy with secret past? Double check.
As mentioned China is a more important market to Hollywood these days. That country has not been shy about censoring films that are thought to be insulting to China. So The Mandarin, who in the comic was a definitively Chinese/Eurasian villain, has been reworked to be a probably non-Chinese villain of possibly Western or South/West Asian origins played by Sir Ben Kingsley. In a nod to the original comic he leads an organization called the The Ten Rings, which claims to be taking revenge on America for, well, basically everything from the slaughter of Indians to pick your reason. He's been hijacking the airwaves and ranting his manifesto immediately before or after his minions carry out another terrorist attack. No one can figure out how these bombs are being set off or for that matter how a cave dwelling crazy old man can tap into the private and public satellite network of the entire planet.
Iron Man , Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is recovering (badly) from the events in the last Avengers movie and dealing with the challenges of living with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). No matter how rich you are or how much you love someone there's always tensions when two people live together and this couple is no different. This is all portrayed as Stark's fault. Heh-heh. He's got panic attacks and avoids emotional intimacy with Pepper.
A blast from the past appears when the scientist Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whom Stark once rejected and ignored turns up with a tantalizing new offer for Stark CEO Pepper Potts, both on a business and personal level. Her response sets into motion a series of plots. One person who may or may not be involved in these plots is Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), a scientist who used to have an intimate connection to Tony Stark. Meanwhile, Stark's former bodyguard and now officiously paranoid Stark Industries security chief, Happy Hogan, (Jon Favreau, a previous director in this series) doesn't like what he sees in a visitor to Stark Industries. Shortly afterwards Hogan is seriously wounded in a bombing for which The Mandarin takes credit. Tony Stark takes this very personally and dares the Mandarin to come get him. And obviously things get blown up, again, and again and again. And once more with feeling.
This movie makes some very obvious allusions to 9/11. I didn't think they really worked. The film is not dark or majestic. Downey's irony and sarcasm are in full effect here but he doesn't really have much to play against -- with the exception of his relationship with Harley (Ty Simpkins) a ten year old precocious boy with a talent for computers, engineering and mechanics -- in short a younger Tony Stark. The duo provide much of the film's humor. I don't know if this was deliberate but I was occasionally reminded of Chaplin or WC Fields. Stark spends a great deal of the movie without his armor. The special effects are excellent but all in all I would say this is a wait for DVD/On-Demand film. Don Cheadle reprises his role as War Machine Iron Patriot, Colonel James Rhodes, Stark's good friend. TRAILER
I've written a lot about blues musicians who didn't fit the stereotype of wild and crazy drunks. Well of course there are people who not only fit the stereotype, they helped create it. Whether he was playing live or in recording in studio Theodore Roosevelt "Hound Dog" Taylor was rarely without a bottle of whiskey and often somewhat buzzed if not technically drunk during performances. He routinely got in arguments and fights with his band's other guitarist, Brewer Phillips, whom he loved and hated in equal measure. Driving across country to make gigs Taylor would occasionally slap the sleeping Phillips across the back of the head telling him to "Wake up and argue!." They often traded insults and had fistfights. This friendly and not so friendly rivalry took a deadly wrong turn once. When Phillips joked about how he used to know the current Mrs. Taylor when she was allegedly in a different line of work, an angry Hound Dog shot Phillips twice with the intention of killing him. Phillips survived and the two men repaired their friendship shortly before Taylor died of lung cancer. Presumably Phillips thereafter refrained from discussing the sexual history of his buddy's wife. I don't know. I know that Taylor didn't shoot him again. And if that's not real friendship I don't know what is.
Hound Dog Taylor (he may have gotten the name after the Klan chased him from Mississippi for practicing vigorous consensual integration with a Caucasian woman during her husband's absence) may often have been drunk, was possibly illiterate and could certainly be occasionally violent. But he was also, despite his protestations to the contrary, one of the best slide blues guitarists around. There were plenty of more technically advanced guitarists. Taylor himself said that when he died people should say of him "He couldn't play for s*** but he sure made it sound good!". But as far as emotion and tone he was unique in music. Taylor had a very rough and nasty guitar tone, one which provided a nice complement to a nasally tenor voice. With the possible exception of Elmore James (Taylor's primary influence), there was no other contemporaneous blues guitarist and few rock ones who played with such massive distortion. Taylor was really more of a rock-and-roll guitarist in many ways. He was joined on stage in his gleeful abandon by the aforementioned Brewer Phillips on guitar and Ted Harvey on drums. Harvey also provided back up vocals and shouts of encouragement when Taylor or Phillips was really hitting the note.
Harvey had previously played with Elmore James. The group had no bassist. They didn't need one. Phillips would often tune his guitar down and provide a pseudo-bass tone. Phillips also played the rhythm lines and occasionally took solos or played lead. If Phillips had been in another group he would have gotten even more attention as he was a very fine soloist and pretty good blues singer. Harvey's frantic drum patterns never let up. He was infamous for even playing in time while he was technically asleep. Sometimes it sounded as if there were more than three men in the band. Harvey put out a lot of sound. He was an extremely busy drummer and the band's secret weapon. Taylor would play a feedback riff on one string, slide on another and trade basslines with Phillips all at once. Taylor could be almost incoherent when he wasn't singing, telling and laughing at jokes before he even reached the punchline. Often the jokes weren't necessarily that funny. Taylor had polydactyly and once famously and likely drunkenly removed at least one extra digit with a razor blade. He was just that sort of bada$$. Words like primitive, archaic and brutal were often used to describe Taylor's music; one person called his group "The Ramones of the Blues". Taylor's sound was, despite mixes of relatively cheap and/or shoddy American and Japanese gear, not especially easy for others to duplicate, though many tried.
Freddie King's hit "Hideaway" was based on (i.e ripped off from) a Taylor instrumental. Most of Taylor's music was well suited for dancing. Like many other bluesmen, no matter how long his solos became (and he would sometimes go off the deep end) he and his bandmates usually kept the groove going, one way or another. I liked his voice. It wasn't as deep as Howling Wolf's but it had that grit and strength which is not easy to find. Check out Taylor's tongue in cheek tribute to Howling Wolf "The Dog Meets the Wolf" where he tries to sing in Wolf's gruff gravelly baritone. It's funny and respectful. My favorite Taylor song is "Sadie". Other blues songs share some lyrics with it but as far as the pain of unrequited love and the embarrassment of being insulted by the other person's honey, "Sadie" says it all. And if you want something slower give "Things Don't Work Out Right" a listen. It's a long slow philosophical blues about the ups and downs of love. Taylor uses a tremendous amount of feedback and tremolo on this tune. At points his guitar sounds like a horn or a singer. "It Hurts Me Too" is an Elmore James piece where Taylor lets his guitar sing portions of the verses. So turn up Taylor's music loud. If you drink, open up a bottle of something. Have a laugh and shake your moneymaker like it's your last time shaking it. Cause one day it will be. She's GoneSadieI'm Wild About You Baby Jam (Live in Ann Arbor) It Hurts Me Too The Dog Meets The WolfWhat I'd SayLet's Get Funky Kitchen Sing Boogie (Phillips on lead)See Me In The Evening Things Don't Work Out RightPhillips Crawl (Phillips on lead).44 blues
Paul Odette Lute Works Volume 1, Johann Sebastian Bach
I don't usually find much value in saying that so-and-so was the greatest when it comes to discussing art. That said though certainly Bach was among the world's greatest composers. His music has a lot to offer and can be arranged or played for a seemingly infinite variety of instruments and choirs. Although Bach was best known as an organist, he also wrote for other instruments, especially the lute. But his lute music was usually written for keyboards or even occasionally violins or cellos. It's a bit of a mystery why Bach did this or if he played the lute himself. So almost all of Bach's lute music must be significantly rearranged to actually play on the lute as the voicing between keyboard and lute are significantly different. The lute is arguably a forerunner/great-uncle of the guitar and is closely related to the Levantine/Arabian/North African instrument, the oud, which is basically a fretless lute. With that sort of ancestry it makes sense that one of the better interpreters of the music which Bach wrote for lute or for lutelike harpsichords, is Paul O'Dette, who started out as an electric guitarist mostly working in a popular context before switching to lute and embarking upon a long and rewarding career as a classical lutenist. Even if you've never heard Bach (which I find implausible) or you don't like classical music (which would be a shame) you could do worse than to listen to O'Dette's interpretations here. And if you like classical music and/or are a Bach fan you will love this CD and probably go searching for more of O'Dette's work. The production is pristine. You're right there in front of O'Dette's lute. There aren't any mistakes, at least not any that anyone who's not an award winning musician would notice. It's fantastic music and awe inspiring technique. You can literally hear each individual note bloom and decay because of the microphone placement and recording venue, not because of any electronic slight of hand. The CD recording has a nice little natural reverb with very lush sound. Hopefully you have a decent sound system because this CD begs to be heard on something with a little power and gain.
How far do you think the First Amendment protections on free speech should stretch? In a famous Supreme Court case which then restricted the ability of anti-war citizens to distribute anti-war literature, the Court said that a person could not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. I think the example was a good one although the actual case opinion was in my view horribly incorrect. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." LINK
This standard was fortunately later modified in the 1969 Brandenburg decision which allowed that free speech could not be restricted unless, among other reasons, it incited or was likely to incite imminent lawless action. I'm guessing this would for example include such things as standing up in a courtroom where your loved one was about to be sentenced and yelling out to your numerous friends and family "Let's burn this muyerfuyer down and kill that judge!!". That's probably going to get you removed from the courtroom and arrested. There are some other instances in which free speech protections do not apply: threats, lies, copyright infringement, parental rights over children, and a few other circumstances which don't much interest me for purposes of this post. Of course my blog partners Old Guru and The Janitor can easily give chapter and verse on exactly where free speech is and is not limited legally. It's what they do. But I'm not only interested on where the legal line currently is but rather where do you think it should be?
In Arizona there may be another test case, not necessarily legally, but culturally and politically of where we think free speech ends and harassment begins. At the University of Arizona a student protested Take Back the Night rallies and designation of April as sexual assault awareness month by holding a sign that read "You deserve rape".
A student holding a sign that read “You deserve rape” ignited outrage across campus Tuesday, on the same day of a sexual assault awareness event, but administrators declined requests to remove him or his sign.
Dean Saxton — also known as Brother Dean Samuel — regularly preaches on the UA Mall in front of Heritage Hill and the Administration building. On Tuesday, his sermon drew the attention of onlookers, several of whom either personally confronted him or complained to the Dean of Students Office.
The Dean of Students Office received stacks of written complaints, emails and multiple phone calls regarding Saxton’s sermon about women, said Kendal Washington White, interim dean of students. Saxton has never directly threatened anyone in particular, and his language has been general enough that he isn’t targeting a particular person, White said. However, a university attorney was contacted to discuss the situation. “We find it to be vulgar and vile,” White said. “However, it is protected speech. He has yet to, at this point, violate the student code of conduct.”
Saxton, a junior studying classics and religious studies, said his sermon was meant to convey that “if you dress like a whore, act like a whore, you’re probably going to get raped.” “I think that girls that dress and act like it,” Saxton said, “they should realize that they do have partial responsibility, because I believe that they’re pretty much asking for it.”
I think this is a classic case of "I disapprove or what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I tend to think that the best remedy for bad speech is good speech...in the public sphere. That last is important. I don't hold that there is any free speech right to come to a blog and insult people, visit someone's home and curse out the owner or even for the government to insist that a private organization accept an individual member who has previously stated his or her fervent opposition to the group's goals. And often once a parent tells a child that "this conversation is over", well that's the end of that. Usually in my household that particular phrase was a warning signal that this was my final chance to sit down and be quiet before more convincing methods were used. Obviously in a private workplace, someone carrying that same sign Saxton is carrying likely would be fired immediately, forcibly escorted from the premises and possibly sued. So those are all exceptions to "free speech" with which I'm fine. But in the public sphere where the government is able, willing and eager to use coercive methods that are simply not available to blog moderators, company managers or strict parents, I think we need to be very careful about suggesting that some ideas can't be expressed or worse yet, must be punished after the fact if anyone dares to express them. The country is full of people who have repugnant ideas. Whether we like it or not, they have the right to express them. Although I might well enjoy forcing certain people to shut up , whatever political coalition gives me the power to take that action and play censor may be fleeting. So in the not too distant future I might be forced to give up my free speech rights by "bad guys" who find my ideas repugnant. That's not acceptable. Even folks who are in the same general political spectrum as I am can often have surprisingly and to my way of thinking, ridiculously different ideas about topics. They may think that banning this or that idea is a small price to pay for harmony. So it goes.
Saxton's speech may well be hateful and may make people uncomfortable. But that's exactly the sort of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect. Unless Saxton makes a particularized threat to someone or otherwise disrupts class I don't see where the university has or should have the power to prevent him from expressing his opinion. One man's free speech is another woman's hostile environment. In the public sphere I think protecting the right to free speech is more valuable than supposed completing claims like freedom from hate speech or hostile environments. Anything stating someone deserves sexual assault is wrong, obviously. But saying "You deserve rape" in a general sense is different from saying you're going to rape a particular person. One is free speech, albeit ugly, while the other is an actionable threat which should see someone locked up. Of course Saxton's message is not directed at my gender. So maybe I can afford to be rather blase about it. Though in truth I'd feel the same way if he started carrying around a sign endorsing theories of racial inferiority. What if the message is directed at you? What if you are a woman who is wearing a skirt that is too short, heels that are too high or a top that's too tight or too revealing for Saxton's preference. Does your opinion change? Does Saxton deserve a punch in the mouth?
Questions
1) Is this free speech?
2) Should the student code of conduct change to make things like this actionable?
3) Should public schools or universities have exemptions from First Amendment protections in order to provide safe environments?
4) Should hate speech lack First Amendment protection?
This week's episode starts with the trial by combat duel between Beric Dondarrion and Sandor Clegane, The Hound. As mentioned last week, Thoros is a priest of R'hllor, the same god that Melisandre serves. He intones a prayer that the Lord of Light show the truth. As befits the champion of a god so infatuated with light and fire Beric fights with a flaming sword. The Hound is famously afraid of fire. Prayers are chanted by all and the fight is on. It's a classic battle royale with The Hound's strength and size matched against Beric's speed and fire. They go head up for quite some time before The Hound's brute force starts to turn the tide and he cleaves Beric from collarbone to kidney. It's a death blow. The Hound has won the fight but he and Arya are both shocked to see Beric still alive after a quick prayer by Thoros. The Hound is free to leave, albeit without all his gold. An infuriated Arya is prevented from killing the wounded Hound. Arya is further disappointed when Gendry announces he intends to stay with Beric. Gendry thinks the social distance between Arya and himself is too great to allow for true friendship. Arya is personally hurt that Gendry won't trust in her big brother Robb, as she most assuredly does. It's ironic that Gendry is indeed Robert Baratheon's son and thus, illegitimate status aside, could indeed be Arya's future husband. Beyond the Wall Tormund and Orell continue to distrust Jon Snow. They interrogate him about the Night Watch and the Wall, specifically how the various castles are manned. Jon gives some answers but finally starts to show a little anger at the disrespect. They threaten him but before the men can engage in more figurative "sword" measuring, Ygritte shows that she'd like to do a little literal "sword" measuring of her own. In a scene Freud would have had a field day with she steals Jon's sword and runs with it into a warm cave. If he wants his sword back he'll have to .. Well you know what happens next. Ygritte has decided that her hints and flirting just aren't working with Jon Snow so she lays it on the line. Jon Snow shows that he may not have been a master debater but he is indeed a cunning linguist. After they've done what any healthy non-related heterosexual duo would do when there's no one else around Ygritte recalls some of her previous unsatisfactory experiences. She wants to know where the formerly virginal Jon got skills, especially the special kiss. Jon says he was just doing what came naturally and would prefer not to hear about Ygritte's previous paramours. Ygritte is head over heels in love.
Locke brings Brienne and Jaime to Bolton at Harrenhal. Bolton, however appears angry about Jaime's mutilation and Locke's sadism. He is courteous to both Brienne and Jaime and orders Jaime's wounds treated by Qyburn. Qyburn is a former maester who was expelled from the Citadel for unauthorized and unethical experiments. Tyrion meets with Olenna Tyrell to complain about the cost of the wedding between Joffrey and Margarey. Showing that she knows exactly how important the Tyrells are, Olenna reminds Tyrion in great detail of the soldiers, food and wealth that the Tyrells, which is to say Mace, which is to say Olenna, are providing to the Lannisters and how untenable the Lannister situation would be without the Tyrell backstop. She also points out that weddings are important diversions for otherwise troublesome lower classes. Nevertheless she agrees to split the cost. Meanwhile Cersei has not let go of her distaste for the Tyrells and tasks Littlefinger to find something on them.
In a scene that is a bit too rushed and didn't quite have the sense of betrayal required, Lord Karstark and his retainers murder the Lannister child prisoners. Robb is very upset by this as he's fighting for justice and can't have his men murdering children. This could obviously put his sisters' lives at stake. Edmure, Talisa and Catelyn all remind him that whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter are, Karstark leads a key part of Robb's army. When brought to account Karstark shows no remorse and is downright contemptuous of Robb and Catelyn. That does it. Even if he had doubts Robb no longer does. He orders Karstark's retainers hanged and executes Karstark himself, just like Dad would have done. While Arya is reciting her prayer for vengeance against those who have wronged her and her family, Beric explains that Thoros has brought him back from the dead six times but that he loses more of himself each time. When Thoros and Beric sadly explain this process won't bring back Ned, Arya is further embittered.
Stannis finally goes to see his wife, Selyse. He is ill at ease and in typical Stannis fashion wants to admit his adulterous wrongdoings with Melisandre . He is taken aback to discover that Melisandre has already told Selyse everything. Selyse is not only okay with it but downright happy. Stannis may be a true believer both in his right to be King and in R'hllor but Selyse is a fanatic on both levels. In fact Selyse is downright creepy as she has evidently saved her stillborn children in glass bottles. Yeah. Stannis leaves his wife to see his daughter Shireen, who suffers from greyscale, a disease akin to leprosy. We see that Davos is still in prison. Shireen considers him a friend.
Jaime goes to the same pool as Brienne to take a bath, something which puts her ill at ease. He insults her, almost for old times sake, but immediately apologizes. He explains that everyone calls him "Kingslayer" for killing the Mad King but that by murdering the king, he stopped the king from incinerating King's Landing and also avoided the worse sin of patricide, which is what the king had just ordered him to do. Brienne is shocked and wonders why Jaime never told anyone this before. This is a pretty powerful scene. Daenerys is on the march. The Unsullied have chosen their own leader, Grey Worm, to speak for them with Danerys. Jorah and Barristan talk about the good old days, even though they were often on opposite sides. Jorah is still suspicious of Barristan and old man or not, doesn't want Barristan having clear access to Daenerys or authority over him. Typical friend zone behavior. Unfortunately there apparently isn't a bard in either Westeros or Essos who's written any song like Tell Her About It. So Jorah still hasn't made his move. Jorah is curious as to whether Barristan was on the small council. We see the limitations of feudal as opposed to national armies. Karstark's men have left the army. Their primary loyalty was to Karstark, not Robb. In a scene that echoes the comments of our own Fed Up, Robb admits that he's lost purpose and direction, primarily because the Lannister armies won't engage him anymore yet he lacks the ability to siege King's Landing. Talisa suggests going home to retake the North but Robb knows if he goes north he won't be able to get his remaining bannermen to come south again. Robb decides to attack Casterly Rock and draw out the Lannisters. To do that he'll need more men and that means making peace with Walder Frey, whom he rejected as a father-in-law when he married Talisa. Sansa and Margaery (cleavage alert!) are watching Loras spar. A squire is flirting with Loras and later they do what any healthy homosexual duo would do. It turns out that the squire was one of Littlefinger's prostitutes. Littlefinger learns that Loras is to marry Sansa. Littlefinger doesn't confront Sansa with this information but when Sansa demurs at leaving with Littlefinger, claiming that it's too dangerous, Littlefinger says he understands and hopes that Sansa considers him a true friend. He then promptly passes this information on to Cersei.
Tyrion visits his father to report on progress cutting costs. He is somewhat dismayed to find Big Sis there looking like the cat that swallowed the canary. Tywin dismisses Tyrion's report of wedding cost containment as small potatoes. Cersei has told Tywin of the Tyrell marriage plans for Sansa. As it is widely believed that Robb and Sansa are the only Stark children left alive that makes Sansa not only a very valuable hostage but also the heir to the North.The Lannisters don't want the Tyrells to have her. Tyrion wants to know what that has to do with him and soon picks up through his sister's smirk and his father's glare that he is to marry Sansa. Tywin has made up his mind and won't hear differently. Tyrion says Sansa is still a child but in Westeros old enough to bleed means old enough to breed. Tywin has another order however. He intends that Cersei should marry Loras. This was a surprise to Cersei and she likes it even less than Tyrion did. But Tywin is master of this pride of lions and browbeats both of his children into sullen submission, saying that they disappoint him. From his perspective the Lannister name and power is far more important than his children or their happiness.
I enjoyed the shifting of perspectives regarding Jaime and the nature of good and evil. Stannis and Melisandre have a very Manichean view regarding morality. Either a man is good or he is not. An onion with rot in it is a rotten onion, period. Even Ned Stark was probably closer to this view in some ways although he was more forgiving than those two. However Jaime has a more flexible sense of morality. We are introduced initially to the evil side (trying to murder a child, sleeping with his sister, cuckolding the king, being snarky and arrogant to everyone not a Lannister, killing a distant cousin in an attempt to escape, murdering the king he was sworn to protect) but recently we've seen that for at least some of those actions he had very good reasons, reasons we might even claim were moral. We've also seen him try to protect a woman from rape. GRRM's work challenges the usual depiction of good and evil in fantastical/historical literature. Benioff and Weiss have captured that aspect pretty well, I think. We also see as Sansa did not, that the Tyrells may not be as abusive or evil as Cersei or Joffrey are, but they are quite definitely self-interested. *This post is written for discussion ofthisepisode and previous episodes. If you have book based knowledge of future eventspleasebe kind enough not to discuss that here. NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS.Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea....
I always liked Julianne Moore ever since the movies Hannibal and Boogie Nights, which is why I was interested in watching this film. I hadn't seen her in a comedic role before. The English Teacher is a successful mix of comedy and drama. And like (500) Days of Summer, it has a few important things to say about life. Unlike (500) Days of Summer I wouldn't say this was a must see movie but it is unusual in that it actually accepts that people over a certain age still have desires and that people under a certain age aren't necessarily dumb. I liked the setting and background for this movie. Most of it takes place in a school, a gym, or someone's home. Everything looks and feels very real. The sound levels are well done as well. You can hear everyone. The character motivations might occasionally be described as broad but again they are very true to life. People get lonely and do stupid things. People gossip and try to protect their jobs. The plot is that Linda Sinclair (Julianne Moore) is a Pennsylvania area high school English teacher. She has incredible zest and passion for her work and her students. But she doesn't quite have that same feeling in the rest of her life. Life is basically passing her by. In a voiceover, an older female narrator (her conscience?, her fear?) explains that Linda is an incurable romantic and thus thinks that any man she meets should live up to the men found in works like "Pride and Prejudice" or "A Tale of Two Cities". Of course most men don't and in one of the film's running gags, when Linda (rarely) goes out on internet initiated dates, she immediately judges and grades the men. Negative comments in red ink appear on screen. No, Linda is happy most days just to go home alone and read or watch TV. And the voiceover says that's just the way it should be, thank you very much.
Things change when she bumps into a former student Jason Sherwood (Michael Angarano). The last she heard Jason had gone to NYU's writing program and on to Broadway but Jason ruefully explains that he washed out of NYU and is under increasing pressure from his father, Dr. Tom Sherwood (Greg Kinnear in an excellent albeit small role) to attend law school. Linda thinks this is a shame because she still believes Jason has real, world changing writing talent. Feeling encouraged, Jason shares with Linda his masterpiece play, something he claims is based in part on his own life. Linda reads it and is transformed by the artistry and tragedy on display. She shares it with the hammy drama teacher Carl Kapinas (Nathan Lane), who can't stop telling everyone about the time he auditioned for Soderbergh, as well as the school principal Slocum (Jessica Hecht) and vice principal Pelaski (Norbert Butz). I really liked Slocum and Pelaski as they reminded me of my own high school principal and vice-principal. Slocum is always calculating the proper political move to try to keep everyone happy when she's not worrying about budgets and lawsuits. Pelaski doesn't know very much about art but does know kids need suspensions and detention and an occasional kick in the behind. And he's happy to oblige.
Based on Linda's and Carl's enthusiasm for the play Slocum and Pelaski decide to allow the play to be cast and performed at the school. Positive it will be a success, Linda even agrees to pay for any cost overruns out of her own pocket. Linda gets Jason to act as consultant and producer. Linda is excited by the prospect of "saving" Jason from law school and working closely with a creative person. And Jason is excited by Linda. And that's when Jason shows Linda how hot for teacher he really is while Linda shows Jason how to make a lady smile. After that obviously things go wrong. The play, Linda's reputation, her job, her career are all at stake. It is an interesting phenomenon that illicit sex can harm or help a man's reputation but virtually never helps a woman's. Them's the breaks. Linda's jealousy and defensiveness don't help matters, either. When you spend too long lying to yourself you lose the ability to tell when other people can see through your lies. Students "coughing" and saying "ho" are the least of Linda's problems. This was, to me anyway, a surprisingly funny film. It doesn't have any obvious bad guys. It's just a slice of life that doesn't take any sides other than giving the very clear message that whoever you are, whatever you do, you need to get up and enjoy life because it's too precious to waste away. Check this one out. It's not groundbreaking or anything like that but there are worse ways to spend your time. TRAILER
Fresh Meat directed by Danny Mulheron
I watched this movie because of Morrison. This was a New Zealand horror movie that with a few changes could have reached the over the top zaniness shown by director Peter Jackson in his classic grand guignol horror film Dead Alive. As in Dead Alive, the protagonist has a secret and doesn't quite fit into their family. You've probably seen this story before. A bunch of would be hard cases decide to take someone hostage only to discover that the hostages aren't quite what they seem to be. This film is a horror comedy but it doesn't quite work well as either one. A few interesting subplots start but then stop before they go anywhere. The film's protagonist is Rina Crane (Hanna Tevita), a Maori nubile teen who has been sent to a girl's boarding school by her father Hemi Crane (a slumming Temeura Morrison) who intends that his daughter remain virginal until marriage. Well Rina may be only technically virginal or perhaps only virginal in a heterosexual sense as the film opens up with Rina successfully using the old "I don't have any soap" opener with a fellow classmate in the communal shower. Fun ensues. Rina strongly prefers her own gender, something to which her father is oblivious. Hemi is a college associate professor.
For break, Hemi picks Rina up from school and returns her to the family home. At home Rina's mother and Hemi's wife Margaret (Nicola Kawana) is completing shooting the latest TV episode of her celebrity chef show. Hemi is genially jealous of his wife's greater material success. He's worried she may have cheated on him. Hemi believes that his status as associate, as opposed to full professor, is because of racist pakehas (whites) and may have cost him Margaret's respect. But before Hemi and Margaret can get started on their mutually enjoyable rounds of snide insinuations and subdued accusations, Rina discovers a human hand in the refrigerator. It appears that Hemi, Margaret and Rina's brother Glenn (Kahn West) have taken to cannibalism. They were going to tell her but the time was never quite right. The impetus for this came from Hemi, who having read about cannibalism and the Solomites cult, thinks the time is right to reintroduce the practice, for selected people only, of course. To Hemi this practice has religious and cultural utility and has the added benefit of giving him superpowers.
But before Rina can truly get into it with her apparently insane family their home is invaded by four bumbling desperadoes, the multiracial Tan gang. The gang includes leader Richie Tan (Leand Macadaan), who was broken out of prison by his group but looks like the only thing he can lead is the line to the all you can eat buffet, his idiot cokehead brother Paulie Tan (Ralph Hilaga), Johnny (Jack Shadbolt), an even dumber gang member who knows a little something about cooking, and Gigi (Kate Elliot) Richie's putative girlfriend, the group's only remotely intelligent member and Rina's immediate lust object. The feeling may be mutual. This was a movie that had a few funny moments, mostly provided by Morrison, but it's not something that is a must see or even something you would rent at full price. The Haka makes an appearance in a scene that is both funny and highly inappropriate. However, this film is not as funny as it thinks it is. If you want to experience Morrison in much better surroundings and truly see what a skilled actor he is please check out Once Were Warriors, which unlike Fresh Meat, really is a must see film. TRAILER
Yellowbeard directed by Mel Damski
This is a Monty Python film in all but name as it stars Python players John Cleese, Eric Idle and Graham Chapman. However it also stars Americans Peter Boyle, Martin Hewitt, Madeline Kahn, and Cheech and Chong. So the result is a mix of British and American humor styles that doesn't quite work as well as you might have expected. It's more a collection of skits than a seamless comedy film. There are some places where you will laugh out loud and a few others where you might think, well that didn't really work did it. I recently rewatched this. It wasn't as funny as I remembered it being but we all change over the years, I guess. There are a number of jokes that would be considered extremely inappropriate by today's standards. This film is not GLAAD or NOW approved. The title character (Chapman, he wrote the film) is a murderous English pirate who's been captured by the English government, convicted of tax evasion and locked up for decades. The character is a parody of both Blackbeard and Al Capone. Despite being in the worst prisons they have, virtually starved to death and tortured daily for information, Yellowbeard has steadfastly refused to tell anyone where he buried his greatest treasure. Despairing of ever getting their hands on the treasure, the government decides to heed a suggestion by Commander Clement (Idle) and simultaneously increase Yellowbeard's (about to end) sentence by a ridiculous amount and turn a blind eye when the enraged Yellowbeard escapes from prison. The obvious hope is that Yellowbeard will lead them to the treasure. Clement also has a secret agent watching Yellowbeard, Yellowbeard's former first mate Moon (Peter Boyle). Moon has to be careful about getting too close to the over the top savage Yellowbeard as he previously lost a limb when he annoyed Yellowbeard. Yellowbeard is known for being one of the world's most evil men, prone to such atrocities as slicing off victims' lips and making them eat them.
Yellowbeard puts his old crew back together. Strangely he doesn't go after the treasure immediately but rather searches out his wife Betty (Madeline Kahn) and son Dan (Martin Hewitt). It turns out that these two people unknowingly have some information that Yellowbeard needs. And that sets off a great treasure hunt. I liked this movie but it was uneven. Chapman is outrageously over the top. He gets most of the good lines. When he scornfully asks Dan how many men he's killed and Dan replies that he thinks he killed one or two, Yellowbeard angrily responds that Dan will never kill anyone if he goes around thinking! He fondly recounts all the horrible things he had done before he was Dan's age. Cheech and Chong show up as Spanish religious refugees who aren't so holy as not to want a piece of the action. James Mason is a bored and sadistic ship captain who prevents every sailor on the ship (except for himself) from bringing women onboard. As mentioned, this film wasn't quite as hilarious overall as I remember it being but parts of it are quite funny. It was also Marty Feldman's last movie. Trailer
Occasionally I might or might not purchase items from Amazon and other online retailers. When I file my tax returns the State of Michigan insists that I give it a listing of online purchases and estimate and provide the sales tax I then owe to the state. Now it takes more than a bit of chutzpah to bogart your way into a private transaction that neither involved you nor took place in your jurisdiction and then claim that the actual parties to that transaction owe you a cut and need to let you wet your beak, or else. But that's how states tend to behave when there's money at stake. For obvious reasons I won't discuss my answers to my state's nosy little questionnaire. But in general some higher sales tax states and "brick and mortar" retailers aren't pleased with the explosion in online sales. Apparently some of my fellow true blue Americans don't see the point of paying taxes to their state for transactions in which that the state had no role. Even excessively honest people tend to get amnesia about the $1500 or so they spent online last year without paying sales tax. Retailers who aren't primarily online get annoyed with people using their stores as a showroom or to price check for items they intend to purchase online. Some consumers visit a bookstore or electronics shop with no intention of purchasing anything therein. All they're doing is getting a hands on experience before ordering elsewhere. This makes some retailers rather peeved, as you might imagine. They have less money to kick up to their mob captain, state.
Some people have come up with a solution. That is a solution from their point of view, not necessarily mine. This solution will of course require you to pay more taxes. It's only fair right? I mean why should some states go without what they view as their tax revenue just because some consumers have decided it's better to order things online on occasion.
Legislation that would empower states to tax online purchases cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on Monday after winning an enthusiastic endorsement from President Obama.
Senators advanced the bill in 74-20 procedural vote on Monday evening, just one vote short of the backing it received in a test vote last month. Twenty-six Republicans joined Democrats in moving forward with the bill..
Major retailers are putting all their lobbying muscle behind the legislation, arguing it would close an unfair loophole that benefits online merchants over brick-and-mortar stores. The National Retail Federation, which represents chains such as Macy’s, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), which counts Target and others among its membership, announced it would score lawmakers’ votes. But signs of trouble for the bill also emerged as Wall Street groups urged the Senate to slow down and eBay began marshalling its users in a massive campaign to kill it.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Roundtable said the measure could pave the way for financial transaction taxes on the state level, an idea that Wall Street and its supporters fiercely oppose. “It’s important for Congress to explore all the possible outcomes and costs of the proposal, especially the impact on consumers,” Scott Talbott, the senior vice president of public policy for the Roundtable, said in a statement...The Marketplace Fairness Act would empower states to tax out-of-state online retailers, but would exempt small businesses that earn less than $1 million annually.
Under current law, states can only collect sales taxes from retailers that have a physical presence in their state. People who order items online from another state are supposed to declare the purchases on their tax forms, but few do. The proposal has the support of a host of governors, including Republicans Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rick Snyder of Michigan and Bob McDonnell of Virginia. Passage of the bill could bring billions of dollars in new revenue to state governments. The bill has split the tech industry, pitting eBay against the retail giant Amazon.
In email to eBay users, eBay CEO John Donahoe argued that the bill would “penalize small online businesses,” urging the site’s millions of users to contact their members of Congress and voice opposition.The company is lobbying for Congress to increase the small-business exemption from $1 million to $10 million. Donahoe also took a shot at Amazon, a key supporter of the legislation. “Amazon, for example, has fought harder than any other company to require all businesses to collect sales taxes online, while also seeking special tax benefits as it expands its warehouses throughout the country. It’s bad tax policy,” Donahoe wrote....
LINK So as you can see some of this is a case of the elephants fighting and the grass getting trampled. I don't think that Wall Street cares about whether I pay the proper use tax on books or cd's I order online. But Wall Street is very concerned about states attempting to put financial transaction taxes on services that take place in cyberspace. For example California, which has a political class much friendlier to higher taxes than some other jurisdictions, might decide that every transaction which takes place between consumers in California and bankers or financial service companies based in say New York, is now subject to a California tax.
This sort of backdoor tax was disallowed in a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in which North Dakota attempted to tax Quill Corporation, a business which had no sales force, retail outlet or other physical location in the state. Amazingly North Dakota tried to argue that Quill's floppy disks and sales flyers were physically located in the state and therefore so was Quill. The Court rejected this line of reasoning but evidently said that Congress could change the law if it wanted to do so. And now it looks like Congress wants to do so. I think this is a bad idea and also unfair. If you're a business who is only physically located in one state why in the world should you have to figure out the tax policies of 49 other states, and various counties, cities, townships and territories. That's expensive. Additionally this new online tax proposal would seem to discriminate between online purchasers and physical purchasers. There are states who do not have sales taxes or have different sales taxes than my state. That's their right. If I happen to drive across the border to purchase goods or services that's my business and my right to do so. My money doesn't automatically belong to my state or the businesses that reside within. If I order something online from a state with no sales tax like New Hampshire my state wants to be able to track that transaction and get its cut. But if I drive to New Hampshire and purchase something my state is just out of luck? Does that makes sense? Or is Michigan also going to try to put GPS on my car to track down any such trips? If the states feel that their tax structure is no longer feasible because of a change in consumer behavior then they are free to do things more efficiently OR raise other taxes on businesses or individuals within their state. I don't think states should be able to compel other businesses or other states to adopt their tax policy on "their" citizens. I think all this law would do, if passed, would be to squeeze out smaller businesses. It's not coincidental that Amazon is in support. Amazon just happens to be selling new tax policy software and has already negotiated tax exemptions for itself. Or maybe I'm just being selfish. Maybe I'm just opposed to paying my "fair" sales taxes on goods I hypothetically order online...
I think the Libertarian Party needs to sign this young lady up as a spokeswoman, that is once she finishes teething. She concisely sums up my frustrations with the various busybodies of the world, no matter their age, political persuasion or familial or business relationship to the people they're trying to tell what to do. And she's funny as can be.
