Book Reviews: The Friends of Eddie Coyle, American Desperado, Paris: A City Revealed

The Friends of Eddie Coyle
by George Higgins

Decades ago I saw bits and pieces of the movie based on this book on Detroit's ABC Channel 7 4:30 movie. I was only a kid and didn't remember much about it other than Robert Mitchum, who played the title role, was one suave dude. Over the intervening years I have read or listened to multiple people rave about how this book is a crime classic that kicked off a more realistic and less operatic or moralistic wave of modern crime stories. It was supposedly Tarantino before Tarantino. Tarantino did use the name of a story character for a movie title. So I finally decided to read this book. It's a good story though it's more Death of a Salesman transferred to the criminal world than a mob shoot em up. The cops and criminals are marking time and punching a clock instead of having any sort of dedication or zeal to catching felons or making criminal scores. They just do their job and go home. The reader may be positively impressed by the book's dialogue which dominates the text. The criminals and cops like to talk. But they aren't speaking theatrically of how "Our true enemy has yet to reveal himself" or " What I never knew until this day was that it was Barzini all along". No. Higgins is not that kind of writer. His characters are meat and potatoes guys and gals. They whine about how they can't get any sleep because they've been on the road too long, complain of their boyfriend's crude public comments on their body/sexual skills or pitch a fit about not having the proper sandwich condiments. So yes I think this book and the movie it inspired probably influenced many later writers. The story read like a play. Like many books that are mostly dialogue it can initially be a little difficult to follow what's happening as the people talking to each other already know the unspoken assumptions concerning the subject matter under discussion.
This book deglamorises organized crime. Although the Mafia is in the background and spoken of obliquely, the book examines folks who are not Mafia members, though they may work with or be related to them. This is set in Boston. So most of the criminals and cops are of Irish background.

Eddie Coyle is an aging gangster. He's a criminal jack of all trades. You looking for some sex movies? Eddie can help. Are you in need of fireworks or bootleg liquor? Eddie's the one to see. Eddie knows the rules but is a fading player. Small time. No one on either side of the law fears or respects him. Eddie's current primary business is gun dealing. Eddie was recently busted in New Hampshire for transporting bootleg whiskey across state lines. Eddie kept his mouth shut about whose whiskey this was but his sentencing is approaching. Eddie thinks he's a bit too old to go back to prison. He could be looking to make a deal. However Eddie must be careful about his demeanor because his "friends" are alternately worried that Eddie is too scared about going back to prison or that Eddie is not concerned at all about going back to prison. Either conclusion could be harmful to Eddie's future life plans. Eddie thinks about sharing information on some small crimes here or there to uncaring federal agent Foley, who may or may not have other informers. Eddie also supplies guns to a Mafia backed group of bank robbers. Eddie gets the gats from youthful gun runner Jackie Browne. Watching over all of this is bartender and part time hitman Dillon, who is the local liaison to "the boys" (mob). 

I liked the book but I don't know that I would run around raving about how good it was. I thought it was okay. Strangely enough it reminded me of the penultimate scene in Cooley High in that mistaken assumptions can be deadly. No one can trust anyone in this book. I imagine that's what the real underworld is all about. This was a very quick read. You can finish it in a week or less quite easily. This book oozes fatalism. George Higgins also wrote Cogan's Trade which was turned into the film Killing Them Softly.






American Desperado
By Jon Roberts and Evan Wright

Speaking of the real underworld I remember watching the 2006 documentary "Cocaine Cowboys". This film centered on the Miami drug trade and its associated violence. Most of the violent players were Cubans and Colombians. But there were other people involved. One such person was a smuggler/manager for the Medellin Cartel named Jon Roberts. This older man had a very pronounced NU YAWK accent. He looked scrawny. He was going to seed physically. I figured he was a small time hustler/player. WRONG on all accounts! Jon Roberts was actually John Riccobono, the Italian-American son and nephew of some rather scary mobsters in the Gambino Crime Family. Although he was not formally inducted into the Family that proved to be no impediment to his criminal successes. In New York, Roberts spearheaded the Mafia's control of nightclubs, restaurants and concert booking. He also started dealing cocaine and reading between the lines may have done a little pandering. He certainly gained a reputation as a violent up-and-comer. One of his favorite schemes was to pretend to sell drugs to hippies or college students and rob them instead. This was in equal parts pure predation (hippies rarely fought back or went to the police) and class resentment. When Roberts got caught up in a kidnapping/extortion plot that went bad he took the judge's choice to enter the Army. He served in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne. After a short period in regular service Roberts was supposedly recruited for special programs. He does not name them but he's very obviously referring to the CIA's Operation Phoenix. I won't describe everything in detail that Roberts said he did here but utter depravity including murder, torture and mutilation pretty much covers it. The author was unable to verify many of these claims. You'll have to decide for yourself if Roberts was telling the truth.

In this book Roberts is frank about his involvement in some civilian murders, presumably those he had already confessed to and a bit less forthcoming about some others. A typical phrase describing those in the second category goes something like "I won't say what I did but so-and-so was found in the street a month later". Roberts is extremely and disturbingly frank about the evil he's done. Perhaps this is associated with being a lapsed Catholic? He's clear that when he dies he thinks he's going to hell. But Roberts also believes that no matter what anyone says, evil is stronger than good. Evil gets things done in this world. One reason Roberts may have felt this way was that as a child he saw his father commit murder. Guilt is not something that Roberts seems to feel or even understand but he does have a little disdain for people who glamorize his lifestyle (filmmakers and rappers). There are only one or two incidents he details where he ever claims to feel anything close to remorse.

After his discharge from the Army Roberts returns to New York and takes up where he left off. But when a police officer is killed (I wonder who did that?) Roberts decides that Miami might be a better location to operate. Miami is also an "open" city in that no one Mafia family can claim hegemony. Anyone can operate down there. And anyone does. Jon moves there, hooks up with a Cuban drug dealing maniac as well as a few killers who would later become CIA assets, and becomes a criminal extraordinaire. He builds his own small drug network and continues to run nightclubs and commit armed robberies. Nothing if not ambitious Roberts rises in the loose Florida criminal network to become Max Mermelstein's right hand man. Mermelstein was an in-law of ranking Medellin Cartel members. Mermelstein was responsible for overseeing smooth importation and delivery of cocaine to distributors and getting the proper monies in return. But per Roberts, Mermelstein was a coward, a weak man who never killed anyone. Mermelstein couldn't even stand up to local Cuban thugs, let alone his mad dog Colombian employers/relatives. Roberts took over 95% of Mermelstein's responsibilities, making him a boss in name only. With a few notable exceptions Mermelstein was ok with this. He got to throw parties and act like he was important. Roberts had a very low opinion of his "boss" and was happy to "manage upwards",  leaving Mermelstein out of the loop on many decisions. Roberts was the Cartel's point man for importations, distribution, and payment. Roberts could also be held personally responsible if anything went wrong. He describes one such misunderstanding.

Many CIA assets and informers weave in and out of this story. I am suspicious as to exactly when Roberts became a CIA asset. I think it happened MUCH earlier than he admits to. He details his involvement in the CIA contra arms for drugs scandals. This book pulls the curtains back on the cesspool of corruption that was (is?) Florida politics, the rivalries between and among various law enforcement and criminal organizations and the fact that General Noriega and some of Roberts' criminal associates were pedophiles. Roberts could not have worked as long as he did without the passive and active assistance of many law enforcement officials at every level. Funny, vicious and occasionally extremely disturbing this fascinating tale reads like a combination of Boogie Nights and Wiseguy. Roberts has a lot of interesting stories about some famous people. Some he identifies by name, others he does not. Some people mentioned include Jimi Hendrix, Mercury Morris, Frank Stella, Bruce Lee, the actress Toni Moon (an ex-wife), OJ Simpson, Meyer Lansky and James Caan. If you're curious about proper pistol whipping techniques, need to know what to say or not to say at a Mafia sitdown or for strictly professional reasons must practice using the minimum energy necessary to beat someone with a baseball bat, this is the book for you. As Roberts flatly tells the reader " Most of the time I've been on this earth I've had no regard for human life. That's been the key to my success".






Paris: A City Revealed
by Mike Gerrard and Donna Dailey

This is another coffee table book that I picked up from a bookstore bargain section quite some time ago and only just recently got around to reading. So it goes. Paris is a city I've always wanted to visit. However some people that I know who have been there say I might not enjoy it all that much. I don't care for cigarette smoke in the air and dog waste on my shoe in this country so why travel thousands of miles to have the same experience somewhere else. Still I love Gothic, Baroque, Art Deco and Romanesque architecture so I imagine at some point before I shuffle off this vale of tears I will take a trip over there. This book is written by a husband and wife travel writing duo who got engaged in Paris and evidently know the city quite well, judging by the book's text. I think that people need beauty in the world, whether they find that beauty in other human beings, creative pursuits, art, buildings, nature or other things. Life is too short to look at ugliness. Why hurt your eyes? This book is stuffed full of beauty. It virtually glows with it. Just flipping thru this book will cause you to have renewed appreciation for this natural glories of nature and vibrate in harmony with the universe as you are struck with awe at the things that humans can build once they put their mind to it. Ok there might be a little hyperbole in that last sentence. Nevertheless this book seizes your attention with its photography.

The book is arranged in ten different sections,(St. Germain and the Left Bank, Montmartre, Central Paris, etc) each of which discusses a different area or aspect of Paris, complete with lavish high quality photography and short concise descriptions which will answer some questions and hopefully pique your interest even more. Paris probably originated from a small fishing village settled around 250 BC. Much of the architecture that impresses me was built in the Middle Ages or Renaissance. As I've said before you can say what you like about the peoples of those times long past, what with their superstitions, lack of plumbing or personal hygiene and by our standards, barbarity, but they knew how to build things. And they built to last. If you've been to Paris then of course some of these photos and stories will be quite familiar. If you've never been then this is the next best thing. It's like taking a trip without having to deal with all the hassles. Amazon is charging $63 for a new edition but you'd be a sucker to pay more than $12.98.

Stereotypes and Commercials: Haagen-Dazs and Pepsi

Stereotypes are always tricky things. There are actual national differences, ethnic differences, gender differences and maybe even racial differences. But there's a thin line between having a honest good natured laugh at what everyone (or almost everyone) agrees is a difference and between (maliciously??) poking fun at something that not everyone agrees is a difference or is even funny at all. I don't watch a lot of television so even though this Haagen-Dazs gelato commercial has apparently been out there for a while I just recently saw it. After watching it I had two thoughts. My first thought was that the ad was a little stereotypical. My second thought was I wondered what the actress' name was. There were some people of Italian descent who had a serious problem with the commercial while others I know were not bothered in the slightest because it was clear to them that the commercial was spoofing stereotypes about Italians and not Italian-Americans. Of course if you must be stereotyped, being thought of as passionate, hot tempered, sexy and intense is not necessarily the worst stereotype to bear. Or is it?

Of course like any other stereotype, positive stereotypes can come along with a huge unseen cost attached. People who endorse stereotypes consciously or not may have some difficulty treating members of that group fairly and on an individual basis. Or they may not. People are complex after all. Just because you laugh at a joke in the abstract doesn't necessarily mean you will treat the real life object of that joke as less than. You also may remember the Pepsi Max "Love Hurts" commercial in which we saw a large black woman constantly comically assault her boyfriend/husband because he wasn't eating right. Near the end, annoyed that he smiled at a blonde white woman, she threw a can at his head, missed and hit the other woman instead. The couple then ran off.

Some people didn't necessarily find that commercial or its use of Three Stooges type violence and stereotypes very funny. Other folks might think in either case no harm is intended or being done and those who claim offense need surgery to remove the broomstick that has apparently inserted itself somewhere unpleasant in their body. I can't call it. Sometimes everything is funny until it's your group being mocked. Then again there is very offensive racist humor out there that's not funny except to people who really do hate the group that is the object of the joke.

Did you think the Haagen-Dazs Gelato commercial was humorous?

Do you see any difference between the Haagen-Dazs and Pepsi commercial?

Has society become too uptight on issues like these?

More Taxes for Michigan Roads?

One of the reasons for encouraging people to use less gasoline and more green technology was not only to help reduce pollution but also to reduce wear and tear on the roads. Ultimately for pollution's sake it might be better for us all to be driving hybrids or electric vehicles. Or for the roads' sake more of us should be bicycling or taking mass transit. But in the mean time the auto companies should be compelled to increase CAFE standards while consumers should be encouraged to car pool, bicycle, walk to work, use mass transit and do other things which will result in less use of gasoline. One person who's almost comically gung-ho about this is NYT Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Thomas Friedman, who has a 70% chance of working his support for a carbon tax into any column he writes, no matter the subject matter. Mid-East Peace? Carbon tax will solve it. Islamic Terrorism? Carbon tax will hit the spot. Russia making ominous noises? A carbon tax will settle their hash. China polluting the entire planet? Obviously we need a carbon tax. Donald Sterling situation? A carbon tax would have prevented it. And so on. Vehicles are more fuel efficient than they used to be. Gasoline costs more than it used to. And people don't buy as many cars or drive as much as they used to. So you would think that the state would be happy about this right? We're cutting back on emissions and getting more out of less: the very definition of efficiency. That's good, right?

Well not so fast partner.


You see all that fuel efficiency and higher CAFE standards and bicycling to work may be good for the environment and for politicians who have made it their business to be seen as standing up against older methods of energy generation but they're not good for state revenue. When people buy less gasoline they also pay less gasoline tax. Less money coming into the state coffers means the state either has to (a) be wiser and smarter with less or (b) find a way to shake citizens down to make up the difference. If you know anything about Michigan politicians (or politicians anywhere) you can hazard an informed guess about which choice they would likely prefer. 

LANSING — Michigan could solve its road funding problems by being one of the first states in the nation to move to a system where motorists pay a fee based on the number of miles they drive, according to a University of Michigan report to be released today. The report, prepared for the Michigan Environmental Council by Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation (SMART) at U-M, says fuel consumption is declining as traditional vehicles become more efficient and electric vehicles more common. 

Together, those trends are making road funding models based on fuel taxes obsolete, the report says. Instead of continuing to raise fuel taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure a mileage fee could more fairly allocate costs based on the number of miles driven, the time of day, the route taken, and the weight of the vehicle,” the report says. Elizabeth Treutel, a master of urban planning candidate at U-M and one of the authors of the report, said moving to such a system is probably five to 10 years away, but the report is partly intended to start a conversation.

LINK

Let me be perfectly clear, as our President likes to say. Climate change is real. I support less pollution, better roads, and within reason, certain higher CAFE standards. Lord knows I've spent more than my share of money because of issues caused by potholes. But as you might have noticed I also have this strange preoccupation with privacy. I just don't think it's any of the state's business how much I drive each year. I don't think there is any non-intrusive method for them to obtain that information. And if you're going to make people pay for the number of miles they drive then frankly I would just as soon the state (speaking federal and Michigan here) get out of the business of twisting arms to get companies to produce little hybrid/electric clown cars that at least in Michigan are not super popular. I have a 45 minute one way commute on a good day. I don't think it's "fair" to charge me more because I was not fortunate enough to find a job closer to home. And by "fair" I also mean in my interest. There are people who outearn me by factors of five, ten or more who may have a 10 minute commute. Is it really right that they would pay less tax than I do?

I also don't like the baked in presumption that that the state is guaranteed some fixed amount of revenue from citizens. They wanted us to use less gasoline; we're using less gasoline. Now that's no good because their tax revenue is declining? That is not my problem. If I were running things I would suggest cutting the truck weight limits in half and giving businesses more incentive to transport items by train. There are far too many semi-trailers or other large trucks on Michigan roads. That's where the road damage starts if you ask me. I also think the standards for roads are far too low. Other states in the upper Midwest don't seem to have the kinds of roads with which Michigan is cursed so I don't think the problem is weather related. So right now I'd want to know more about who's fixing the roads and why are they doing such a poor job before I'd support giving them more money.

But what's your call?

Is a tax based on mileage rather than gasoline usage fair?

If you were the state what would you do when faced with declining gas tax revenue?

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: The Laws of Gods and Men

Have you ever been hurt very badly emotionally? I mean really stretched to your breaking point and even broken? I've found that the only people who can do that are almost by definition people with whom you have intimate vital relationships. That is to say siblings, parents and long standing providers of your nookie. Generally speaking nobody else can get close enough to stick the knife into you. Nobody else knows exactly where to strike to do the most damage. Both Yara Greyjoy and Tyrion Lannister discover that the hard way. More on that in a minute. Stannis Baratheon and Davos Seaworth, being short on money and resources decide to take a long shot, actually their only shot and travel to Braavos to request a loan from the legendary Iron Bank. Stannis thinks this should be a slam dunk as he is the rightful king of Westeros. But as another man once told Daenerys in a similar situation there is a bit of a problem in trying to borrow or demand resources from people on the basis that you're ruler of all Westeros when in truth you don't actually rule Westeros. The bankers, especially the lead banker Tycho, force Stannis to admit that he only has a handful of ships and men, lost his last battle and lacks resources to fight a war or pay the bank back. They deny the loan and would prefer Stannis and Davos depart immediately. Business is business. Nothing personal you know.

In a scene which perfectly reflects the relationship between Davos and Stannis, Stannis silently asks Davos for help. Stannis is far too proud to actually verbalize the request. Davos makes an impassioned argument that the war is not over until Stannis dies. Davos tells the Iron Bank that by backing Stannis the bank will have a better chance of getting its money back since the elderly Tywin Lannister can't be long for this world. Davos emphasizes Stannis' rectitude by revealing his own amputated fingers. This speech evidently works. Davos' old buddy Salladhor Saan is relaxing in the hot tub with two women when Davos stops by to pay him and to tell him that they're putting the band back together. The war is back on!

In Meereen Daenerys learns that giving justice is not as simple as conquering is. We see that her dragons attacked a goat herd and made off with some goats. When the herder comes to her she offers him three times the value of the goats. Sounds good but what if everyone starts to claim damages? And shouldn't she have a better way of feeding her dragons? What sort of ruler lets dragons just fly around the countryside doing whatever they want?  But that's small potatoes to the next claimant. Hizdahr Zo Loraq is a member of the noble class. His father was one of those whom Daenerys crucified. In a nod to the Antigone tragedy, Hizdahr claims that all he wants is a proper burial for his father, whom he claims was actually against the crucifixion of slave children. He begs the queen for this. After some back and forth Daenerys allows the burial to proceed. Not letting people be buried is an atrocity. Was Daenerys' decision an act of mercy or one of weakness? Time will tell. Life is not necessarily as black and white as Daenerys thought it was.

Yara has finally reached the Dreadfort and has scaled it with her merry band of killers. We see an impressive speech in montage as she implores her men to remember what was done to her brother Theon was done to them all. They're IRONBORN dammit! Nobody does that to them and lives to talk about it. I'm not sure about the mental capacity of the Northern Lords. Haven't they ever heard of perimeter security? What's the freaking point of having a castle if people can just climb right in anytime they want? Anyway Yara and crew are handling their business Greyjoy style, until they finally reach Theon, kept not in dungeons but in kennels.  As we know already Theon has long since lost his identity. Theon thinks Yara's appearance is a Ramsay trick.  He refuses to answer to his name and has to be dragged out of the cage. This is what enslavement does to people. It's an ugly scene. It's only fantasy of course but was quite reminiscent of events in real life. When Ramsay counterattacks,  Theon runs back into the cage. When Yara makes a last attempt to rescue her brother he actually bites her. The emotional damage is probably more hurtful to Yara than the physical. Fleeing, she tells her waiting men that her brother is dead.

The episode's balance takes place in King's Landing. Again Charles Dance deserves so much credit for his Tywin Lannister but Peter Dinklage matches him as Tyrion Lannister in Sunday's show. At the King's Landing Small Council meeting Tywin discusses his concerns about Daenerys, The Hound's continued existence, and how to deal with the Unsullied. Tywin thinks armies win wars, not dragons. Varys says that Jorah Mormont is no longer giving information on Daenerys. We also see that Tywin absentmindedly treats Mace Tyrell as a secretary. Later in a conversation between Prince Oberyn and Varys we learn that Oberyn spent five years in Essos. This allows him to correctly guess that Varys is from Lys. Varys doesn't want to talk about that but does claim to be asexual and only interested in power.

The trial has opened. It's an obvious railroad job. Tyrion is chained in the defendant's stand while witness after witness comes forward and talks of how they never liked or trusted him. As any liar would tell you, the most convincing lies are those mixed with bits of truth. Ser Meryn, Pycelle, Cersei and even Varys all tell of hostile statements (taken out of context) made by Tyrion. Pycelle even claims that Tyrion stole poisons from him. Dontos' body has been found. Sansa's necklace was with it of course and has poison residue. This of course is considered to be proof of Tyrion's and Sansa's involvement. In anything approaching a fair trial someone would ask Pycelle what was HE doing with poison in the first place and why didn't he report anything stolen but this isn't a fair trial. Other than saying and repeating that he didn't do it Tyrion isn't allowed to speak. And when he is his trademark witticisms/sarcasm have left him. Anger is all he has. Jaime is increasingly discomfited by this and confronts Tywin during a lunch break. Tywin may not know or even care who killed Joffrey but he does know what he wants. And so does Jaime. In exchange for Tywin showing mercy and sending Tyrion to the Wall, Jaime agrees to resign from the Kingsguard and become the heir his father always wanted in order to continue the Lannister name. In a snarky aside that imo shows that yes Tywin really does know about the incest, Tywin orders Jaime to marry a woman and "father children named Lannister!".

OK. 

Feeling a little better, Jaime tells Tyrion to be cool and once found guilty to ask mercy. Tyrion isn't sure about this but we know that the brothers love and trust each other. But as I mentioned before everyone has their breaking point. Tyrion's is reached when Shae is brought in as a witness against him. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Shae lies outrageously about plots between Sansa and Tyrion, claiming that Tyrion agreed to murder Joffrey to consummate his marriage with Sansa. Shae has very obviously been coached. Shae speaks dispassionately about her status as prostitute for Tyrion. This last, finally is simply too much for Tyrion to take. The woman he loved is trying to get him killed or exiled and his family is helping her do it.

In an angry and incredibly intense outburst Tyrion again says he didn't kill Joffrey but wishes that he had. He says he's on trial for being a dwarf and by the way f*** all of y'all! He wishes he could have been the monster that everyone thinks he is. He wishes he had let the city burn. He demands trial by combat.

What I liked

• I thought that this was the best episode of the series, save Joffrey's assassination. 
• Tywin uses the trial as a gambit to force one son to do what Twyin wants while getting rid of another son. That's using the law to your advantage, something Tywin knows all about. He's the ultimate pragmatist. He may think incest is wrong but he's gonna play the hand he's been dealt.
• Varys' dismissal of desire as being dangerous fits in very well with Tyrion's predicament. All Tyrion has ever wanted is romantic love from a woman and familial love and respect. To have him brought so low and finally accept that he can't have either of those things was a milestone for the character. Even in his outburst at his father you could see the love, that hurt and rejected, has turned to hate. If Tyrion hadn't had desire he wouldn't have tried to protect the city or protect Shae.
• Very little that Littlefinger does is by accident. The discovery of Dontos' corpse with the necklace makes Sansa look even more guilty which increases her dependence on Littlefinger. It obviously puts Tyrion in a very bad place. I'm sure Littlefinger, thru appropriate cut outs, told people where to find Dontos. He set Tyrion up very effectively.
• Shae's return. This means that either Bronn sold Tyrion out or Cersei's/Tywin's people were closer than Bronn had thought. It will be interesting to see if we learn what happened. Was Shae tortured? Was she acting from spite? Was she paid off?
• Theon's aka Reek's psychological destruction. Well I don't mean that I liked it per se but it showed that Ramsay Snow is a total monster. He's able to infest people's minds even when he's not around. It's enslavement. It's mental torture/rape. It's evil. And given the amusement with which Ramsay viewed Reek's tortured, naked body was I the only one who thought that Ramsay was about to rape Reek? It didn't seem out of the realm of possibility. The violence against Theon is as painful as anything in the show.
• Jaime's willingness to sacrifice his relationship with Cersei and his Kingsguard position, two things which define him, in order to save his brother's life.

What I didn't like

• Although I liked the exposure of the depths to which Theon has fallen I still thought the scene was a little rushed. Why wouldn't the Ironborn have immediately killed Ramsay's dogs and pulled Theon out, regardless of whether he wanted to go. This was a departure from the books.
• The running time was a little shorter than normal. 
• Pycelle tested the residue on the necklace? CSI: Westeros?

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events please be 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..

Movie Reviews: The Sacrament, The Wolverine, 13 Sins

The Sacrament
directed by T.I. West

The Sacrament was directed by one of the actors who was in You're Next and stars three of that movie's leads. I don't remember the first time I really felt the presence of real evil in the world. But certainly one of the earliest moments had to have been the Jonestown Massacre. I was just a child when it happened but all these years later I still remember the pics of the massed corpses, most of them black, huddled together, even the kids, in the ugly and final equality of death. There are plenty of conspiracy theories about Jim Jones, alleged CIA links he had, and whether Jonestown was an MK-ULTRA experiment. Some claim that only a few people killed themselves and that most Jonestown residents were actually killed by mercenaries or even more outrageously US special forces. I don't know about any of that. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that over 900 people, including many children and young adults went to a foreign country because a swindler and megalomaniac convinced them to do so. They gave up their meager savings, social security checks, passports and family ties because he told them to do so. And they drank the Kool-Aid, were injected with poison, or were shot dead.

We read vampire stories about reanimated corpses who survive on human blood and convert their victims into willing slaves. Well there are real life vampires out there. Jim Jones was one such beast. He victimized people who had already been deeply harmed by racism, capitalism, rape, molestation, family alienation, the criminal justice system or other failed institutions. These people, a great many of them older women, really needed someone to love them and tell them they mattered. Instead Jones turned their desperate hopes into fear. He used the damage they had suffered to turn them into dead trophies to his own insanity or willing accomplices to suicide, murder and mayhem. Like a tick he grew swollen on the adulation of others. When that worship was threatened, no matter how remotely, the parasite destroyed the host rather than set it free. The Sacrament is then a re-interpretation of how the Jonestown Massacre occurred. It skillfully mixes reality (VICE magazine) and fiction in an intoxicating and grim melange that builds suspense even though we think we know what's going to happen.

Sam (A.J Bowen) and Jake (Joe Swanberg) are journalists for VICE magazine. They are proud to handle stories which the corporate media won't touch. When their primary photographer Patrick (Kentucker Audley) suddenly hears from his long lost junkie sister Caroline (Amy Seimetz) he wants to accept her invitation to visit. Sam and Jake ask to tag along with Patrick as Caroline has moved out of the country to a commune named Eden Parrish. There have been rumors about this place. Sam and Jake would love to do a story on it. And the fact that their photographer has a personal link to Eden Parrish makes them even more interested. Upon arrival the three men are a bit nonplussed by the presence of armed guards but feel better upon meeting Caroline who seems to enjoy some authority within the commune. They also meet a diverse group of people, all of whom seem to be happy, despite having left most technology and creature comforts behind in the U.S.

The commune religious leader, known as Father (Gene Jones), agrees to an interview but insists on having it in front of the entire congregation. During that interview Father lets his genial mask slip ever so slightly (though the creepy shaded glasses stay on) and Sam's suspicions are raised. If you've ever read Mario Puzo's The Godfather you know that one of Vito's constant instructions to his sons was to never make an open threat. We see that threat here or think we do. Sam can't be sure. It's ambiguous but given the context, it really isn't. I liked the writing and Jones' acting. Just one additional bit of information can cause a massive shift in your perceptions. I think the filmmakers could have given a little more explanation of how the people who followed Father to Eden Parrish saw him and why so many of them were fanatically loyal. There is a part of love which is almost madness which makes you give yourself over completely to the other person. People need this. Father seems to offer this. 
TRAILER





The Wolverine
directed by James Mangold

I think part of the reason that Japan looms large in the Western imagination is because it was one of the few modern non-Caucasian nations to not only escape European colonialism and settlement but also for a while even beat the Western nations at their own game of imperialism and conquest. Anyway this movie is similar to The 47th Samurai, The Last Samurai or any number of other stories which have a Japanese and a Westerner entangled in bonds of honor and obligation. So the story is not something which is new but who cares, right. Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is a baaaaaaaaaad man who protects his friends, harms his enemies and obviously spends a lot of time at the gym. This was a fun movie with the proper amount of hijinks, derring do and last minute rescues. Logan is hiding out brooding over his dead love Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) and making examples of hunters when he is located by Yukio (Rila Fukushima) the cutest little assassin/action girl you ever did see. Yukio, who can see the future on occasion, is not there to kill Logan. She has a message for him.

Yukio works for the Japanese corporate CEO Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi) who is dying. Yashida and Logan are linked together. As a POW in the last days of WW2, Logan saved Yashida's life during the bombing of Nagasaki. Yashida views this as a debt he's never paid and so wants to see Logan before he kicks the bucket.

Being nothing if not understanding of honor and fellow warriors, Logan decides to go to Japan to pay his final respects. There he sees Yashida. But Yashida's idea of paying his debt to Logan isn't just kind words or a samurai sword. No, Yashida somehow knows that Logan is conflicted about his mutant healing abilities, which confer virtual immortality. Outliving all his loves has left Logan lonely, bitter and cynical. Yashida's bio-tech company has been at the cutting edge of some very interesting research. Yashida offers to remove Logan's healing factor and transfer it to himself, thus saving his life and allowing Logan to die naturally at some future point. What a guy. Logan declines the offer. Although at times he hates his abilities, they are his abilities. Yashida dies and a power struggle breaks out for his company, which is supposed to pass to his granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto). Logan saves Mariko from an assassination/kidnap attempt but discovers in the aftermath that something is off about his healing factor. The "doctor" Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova), literally a femme fatale, probably has something to do with that. All the usual special effects, double crosses, street fights, bada$$ one liners and set piece battles take place. If you like action or like Jackman, this will be an enjoyable flick.
TRAILER




13 Sins
directed by Daniel Stamm

This is a remake of an Asian horror/black comedy film. Initially it raises some interesting questions about how much we all need money and what we'd be willing to do to get a lot of it. For some of us that might mean working 50 hours per week with people we generally dislike doing things we don't much care about for 40 years. Other people might view that as an intolerable constraint on their happiness. Some people might look for the big score or decide that little things like legalities are for other people. Anyway most of us probably want more money, whatever lies we tell ourselves, our friends or our loved ones. Elliot (Mark Webber) is a salesman. What he sells isn't very important. What is important is that he's not very vested in his work, something which his greedy and sadistic boss has noticed.

Elliot still has a conscience about sales and often holds back from selling stupid people things they don't need. So even though Elliot has just completed the biggest sale he's ever made his boss has decided that Elliot isn't cut out for the job. The boss thinks that Elliot lacks the necessities. The boss thinks himself proven correct in his opinion when Elliot doesn't curse at him, get in his face, punch him out or do anything which might hint that Elliot actually does have a swinging pair. I thought the film should have continued this examination of gender expectations but it put those aside. As Elliot mopes and whines his boss gleefully fires him. This scene resonated with me as there are definitely situations in life where people test you to see just how much testosterone you have/how much crap they can get away with. Elliot fails his test. Elliot does have needs. He has to support his mentally challenged brother (Devon Graye) and his caustic, cranky bigoted father (Tom Bower). Elliot is engaged to marry his sweet supportive relentlessly happy fiancee (Rutina Wesley). Not having money and not having health insurance makes doing all of these things much more difficult if not impossible. Could you look into the eyes of your disabled brother and tell him that yes even though you promised always to take care of him he'll have to go into a public institution?

While he's driving home, Elliot's cell phone rings. A cheery man with a British/Commonwealth accent tells Elliot that he's been chosen to play a game. There are 13 challenges to overcome. Should Elliot complete them all he will get $6,000,000. Each challenge Elliot performs will result in monies deposited into his bank account. Quitting the game, telling anyone about the game or refusing a challenge means he loses all the money he's won so far. Elliot decides to play the game. The first challenge is to swat the fly in his car. Elliot is taken aback by the knowledge that he's apparently under surveillance but decides to go for it. The second challenge is to eat the fly which he does as well. The challenges become more dangerous and crueler. Elliot comes to the attention of Detective Chillicoat (Ron Pearlman doing his trademark worldweary take on things). Pearlman gives this movie some much needed gravitas. There are a few comedic moments as well as nods to conspiracy theories. I wonder if 13 Sins would have been better had Pearlman and Webber switched roles. This was an okay watch if you're into that sort of thing but not something I would remember a year later.  I'm skipping the trailer here because it shares too much. 

Detroit Teacher Fired For Using Broom To Break Up Fighting Students

"She ain't wait. That's who she deserve."

I didn't go to Detroit Public Schools until high school. It was private school/parochial school until then. And the high school I attended was something akin to a charter school. You had to pass an entrance exam. This cut down on the knuckleheads and riff raff. The violence was minimal, almost non-existent. Kids will be kids but I can't even remember fights in school. Sure you had a few smart wannabe hoodlums but once you got to know them they were nice people. I'm told my old school has changed since then. But I still don't think it's anything like Pershing. Pershing has always been a school for dummies and real hoodlums. So that there was a fight in a Pershing classroom didn't surprise me. A fight at Pershing is like shooting at a gun range. It's what you expect. The small female teacher tried to break up the fight by smacking one of the assailants with a broom. This didn't work. The brawl continued until other male students decided to end the fracas. But the teacher, who was not supposed to leave the room and didn't have any way to call for help, was fired for hitting one of the combatants. Her case allegedly could also be referred for child abuse investigation.

Yes, that makes sense. NOT. Her termination surprised me. I respect the heck out of teachers. But I could never be a teacher. They have too many stupid rules. They deal with too many stupid people. And if a classroom fight occurs, God forbid they try to stop it lest they lose their jobs. Years ago a relative told me there was very little learning going on in some Detroit schools. And he was right. A football star who body slams a security guard gets a plea deal and goes back to school in apparent violation of state law while a teacher trying to restore order to a classroom is fired. Gee, that must do wonders for employee morale, huh? Words don't really do justice to this scene so check out the video below. And folks wonder why people are leaving DPS...



Fox 2 News Headlines

Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: The Jason Patric Situation

We've discussed some of the issues around child custody and parental rights before. If you are a man and you impregnate a woman, whether you are married to her or not, there is the strong possibility that the state will force you to, if not act as an actual on site father to your child, to at least pay some of your income to the mother for child support. The amount you pay can depend on a number of factors including how good your lawyers are, what the child has become accustomed to, how rich you are, how much of your income or wealth is legal and easily estimated and identified by child support auditors, how easy you are to locate, which judge you get, how aggressively the mother of your child wishes to pursue child support and how aggressively you wish to pursue joint or sole custody. And if you're married and your wife is playing house with other men, well generally you're also responsible for financially supporting any resulting children even if you don't find out about it until years after the fact. Deal with it. We hear a lot about how too many men refuse to support their kids, to "man up" and marry the mothers of their children or prefer to run around impregnating various women who apparently had the bad luck to slip and fall on the man's you know what. Some people even argue that the rise in single motherhood and/or out of wedlock births is mostly men's fault.

Well maybe. But if there's one thing I know for sure it's that it takes two to tango. The recent story below the fold about the actor Jason Patric and his struggle with one time girlfriend/friend with benefits/paramour/booty call Danielle Schreiber to be included in their son's life was fascinating to me. It reminded me of some of our previous discussions as well as the unacknowledged dangers inherent in alternate family units and new reproductive technologies.

LOS ANGELES — He is a movie star who shot to fame on a motorcycle in “The Lost Boys.” She is a California massage therapist from a prominent East Coast family. Four years ago, with his sperm, her eggs and the wonder of in vitro fertilization, they produced a child. From there, the tale gets very, very messy. For the last two years, Jason Patric and Danielle Schreiber have been waging what has become one of the highest-profile custody fights in the country — one that scrambles a gender stereotype, raises the question of who should be considered a legal parent and challenges state laws that try to bring order to the Wild West of nonanonymous sperm donations. 

Ms. Schreiber, an American civilization graduate of Brown University who runs a Rolfing massage practice in Los Angeles, met Mr. Patric in 2002 when he went to her as a massage client and the two became a couple, dating off and on for a decade.  She had long wanted to be a mother, according to a family member. But pregnancy attempts with Mr. Patric did not go well. “I even had a surgery to increase our chances,” he said in an interview last week. They decided in 2009 (at a time when they were not romantically involved but still friendly) to pursue artificial insemination. Along came Gus, named after Ms. Schreiber’s paternal grandfather.  

The baby eventually helped rekindle a romance between Ms. Schreiber and Mr. Patric, although they never formally moved in together. For the next two years, Mr. Patric said that he played a parental role (“I took him to get circumcised when he was 8 days old”) and that Gus, now 4, referred to him as “Dada” in videos and messages. “Thank you for teaching me to pee in the toilet, watch airplanes, learn Beatles songs. I love you Dada, Gus,” read a card that was written by Ms. Schreiber, given to Mr. Patric and later presented as evidence in court.  Then, in June 2012, the couple broke up for good. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Patric filed a paternity suit for shared custody. According to both sides, there was legal mediation, during which time Gus continued to see Mr. Patric. But then, according to court filings, Ms. Schreiber abruptly started to withhold visits....

LINK 

Now I know of some men who are pretty crappy fathers. I also know of some women who are horrible mothers. It's just part of life. I have friends of both genders who occasionally vent about how much they hate their ex. I can sympathize. However absent some clear proof of threat, violence or unfitness, I don't think either parent should be able to unilaterally exclude the other parent from their child's life. I don't think that the child's relationship with their parent should be hostage to how the other parent feels. Again, obviously this idea of mine doesn't apply to child molesters, drunks, substance abusers, rapists, abusers, other criminals, etc. I can count the women I truly hate in this world on the fingers of one hand and still have most fingers left. Fortunately I do not have children with them. But if I did I would have to find a way, even if only for the child's sake to be (temporarily) civil, and allow the child to have a relationship with his or her mother. It's not my right to interfere with that. In my view it's almost sinful. That goes for either gender. I am suspicious of Schreiber's restraining order, coming as it did in a custody dispute.

So I think it's a little unfair and hypocritical for society to castigate men for shirking fatherly responsibilities and then turn around and try to prevent a man from doing just that. But maybe Patric should never have agreed to donate his sperm. Maybe he should have insisted on marrying this woman and/or doing things the old way. So maybe he's just out of luck. I certainly don't think that we should use this case to tear down anonymity for egg/sperm donors or allow such anonymous donors to show up out of the blue years later and start demanding parental rights. But to focus on the in vitro aspect of this case as Schreiber's partisans would like to do misses the point that this child, however he was conceived, was the product of two people who had an ongoing relationship with one another.

If we say that Patric has no parental rights because he was unmarried and/or used the wrong sort of technology to become a biological father then it seems we'd have to make other changes. Should we also say that no unmarried man has the right to demand fatherly rights AND that no unmarried woman has the right to demand child support? Somehow I think that second part would get more people's attention. Not married to the father? Sorry lady, no child support for your child. Better luck next time. Most people, and certainly not just unmarried mothers, would see that rule as horribly unfair to the child. Well isn't it horribly unfair to a child to prevent him or her from having a relationship with the father?

Thoughts?