Movie Reviews: Lone Survivor, Bad Blonde, Baggage Claim

Lone Survivor
directed by Peter Berg

There is a scene from the book Gates of Fire which captures what I think of as the elite warrior ethos which is displayed so magnificently in Lone Survivor. In the book scene a feared Spartan warrior has caught a recruit making an unforgivable mistake in weapons handling. So he smacks the recruit across the face with a handle, cutting the man's scalp and breaking his nose, before continuing to harangue him about all the things he was doing wrong. After a moment the recruit tries to wipe the blood off his face and out of his eyes. This was an even worse error as his captain inquires sarcastically if the youngster thinks that during battle everyone will stop to allow him time to wipe blood from his face so that he will look pretty. He also hits him again. Things go downhill from there for the recruit. I was reminded of that scene because of Lone Survivor's reveal of real SEALs training and the fact that its heroes are indeed pushed far beyond their previous already hardened levels of endurance in their desperate battle to stay alive and complete the mission. They have no time to wipe the blood off their faces. Whether you've been shot repeatedly, are drowning on your own blood, have limbs shot off, or are coping with broken bones as long as there's life there's fighting to be done. Because the enemy certainly won't stop. And neither should you. SEALs and associated Special Forces units are operating at the tip of the spear, just as Spartans did so long ago. By definition most people won't ever get anywhere close to that sort of excellence in their everyday endeavors but the never give up never say die can do spirit can inspire everyone in whatever their mundane day to day business might be. 

Lone Survivor then is both a sort of hagiography to this sort of excellence in action as well as one of the most effective war movies I've seen in a while. There aren't any political statements here, which makes the heroism shown something above and beyond petty little partisan squabbling.

Fortunately never having been in war I can't say flatly whether the film was realistic or not but it certainly did a good job of raising my blood pressure. This is a film I might purchase and watch again. I think it might have been realistic because not only was the film was based on eyewitness stories but also SEALs and other military personnel acted as technical advisers. The film is based on a real life military operation. Lone Survivor is so far distant from the movie Battleship it's hard to believe the same director helmed both films. Lone Survivor is an action movie. You don't really get to know a whole lot about the four primary characters. This isn't an in depth emotional talkie. The men love their wives, girlfriends or children. They will kill and die for each other. They are painted in broad swaths but that's ok for this sort of flick. In Afghanistan, a Taliban bad guy, Ahmad Shah, is running around killing Marines, American sympathizers and anyone else who's gotten on his nerves. Shah has certainly gotten the attention of the American military command. The decision is made to kill or capture him along with his eye-shadow wearing right hand man, who likes beheading people. To this end, Lieutenant Commander Kristensen (Eric Bana) is tasked to oversee this operation. He plans out all the details and contingencies. The front line folks will be a four man recon team who will avoid contact with the enemy, identify Shah and then summon more troops and more firepower for extraction. 

The recon team is traveling light and has nothing but rifles, radio and phones, sidearms, magazines and a few grenades. No machine guns, no medical kits, and no heavy weapons are being carried. This SEAL recon team includes cool headed team leader Lieutenant Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), intense Matt Axelson (Ben Foster), worried Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch), and easygoing Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg). The recon team gets inserted into hostile territory easily enough but as you can guess from the title the mission starts to go badly. Communications are spotty and even when they aren't, Commander Kristensen's superior officers have their own problems to deal with and emphatically don't want to hear about setbacks. I mean if your boss answers your phone call with "WTF are you calling me for? I thought I told you not to do that!" you can guess the conversation will be short and unpleasant. When Murphy makes a moral decision that Ned Stark would no doubt applaud, before too much longer the four men must make a desperate stand in the mountains against what seems like an entire brigade of Taliban fighters. And these guys brought their big guns. Literally. They've got machine guns, bazookas, and rocket propelled grenades. They know the terrain much better than the Americans do. So if you're outgunned, outnumbered and surrounded, what do you do? Well if you're an American Bada$$ you attack, that's what you do.

Again, utilitarian principles raise their ugly head. What is the value you place on your own life and those of your fellow soldiers? In war obviously you care more about yourself and your fellow soldiers or citizens than you do enemy soldiers. You're trying to kill them, after all. But what about enemy civilians? What about enemy children? How important are they if they get in the way of mission success? You may think in advance about what you would do to survive but if you stand around thinking about it while the s*** is hitting the fan you won't survive long enough to think about anything else. The person who goes home is the person who is reacting, not thinking. This movie is so exciting because there are multiple times (really the vast majority of the film) where the four men must make split second decisions to survive. As I mentioned before where there is life there is hope, even if survival means jumping off cliffs, pulling shrapnel out of yourself without benefit of morphine, or making a last stand to save your brother-in-arms from being flanked. This was a really good film and will be enjoyed by anyone who is partial to war or action flicks or for that matter Wahlberg, Kitsch or Foster. The way the film was shot makes you think you were there.
TRAILER







Bad Blonde
directed by Reginald LeBorg

Contrary to popular perception Hammer Films was not a schlock horror production company solely dedicated to gothic dramas, technicolor and truly astounding amounts of cleavage. Those characteristics may have been among my favorite things about the company but Hammer Films actually produced a pretty wide variety of film genres and styles. One such style was film noir. Some time ago my brother sent me a DVD four pack of old school Hammer Films that were all about morally conflicted heroes, dangerous dames and seemingly hopeless situations. The package included the 1953 film Bad Blonde. I just got around to watching it. This film was perhaps art imitating life. It starred American Hollywood actress Barbara Payton, who after a very brief time near the top of the starlet food chain, burned out just as quickly. She had affairs with everyone from Howard Hughes to Woody Strode, inspired two other actors to assault and near murder, and compulsively cheated on her husbands. She allegedly even tried to blackmail studio execs. Both of her parents were alcoholics. Maybe she was congenitally prone to substance abuse. Who knows. As her career stalled due to scandal and unreliability Payton succumbed to alcohol and drug abuse. She eventually fell into prostitution. She declined from a $300/hr upscale escort to a $5/transaction streetwalker who was robbed and beaten by customers and police. She drank herself to death before her 40th birthday. Even today her story remains among Hollywood's most infamous and tragic. Bad Blonde was filmed around the beginning of Payton's commercial decline though her physical collapse was not yet noticeable.

It amused me that this film, which depicted adultery and murder, still conceded to the mores of its time by showing a husband and wife using separate beds. Although I thought the two leads lacked chemistry this film still worked for me because of the setting, lighting and writing, which were all good. There's something to the complementary claims that women who marry for money end up earning every penny or that there's no fool like an old fool who thinks he can marry and satisfy MUCH younger women. There are countless books or films based on a trophy wife getting bored or irritated with her older husband and deciding to get rid of him. The nearest comparison to Bad Blonde is obviously The Postman Always Rings Twice. Bad Blonde opens up in England with former boxing manager Sharkey (Sid James) hustling carnival rubes to go a few rounds with his stable of pugilists. If they win they make money, otherwise they don't. No one accepts the offer so Sharkey gives the high sign to a plant to enter the ring and win on purpose to make people more willing to gamble. But the plant is deliberately tripped by the blond Adonis Johnny Flanagan (Tony Wright) who takes his place in the ring. Flanagan beats Sharkey's fighter like a rented mule. Sharkey doesn't like this and doesn't want to pay Flanagan. But all is forgiven when Sharkey meets Flanagan's trainer Charlie Sullivan (John Slater). Sullivan and Sharkey go way back together. They're old friends. The whole thing was a set up to let Sharkey see how Flanagan can handle himself. Flanagan could be the middle-aged Sullivan's and Sharkey's ticket back to the big time.

As a trainer and manager with a fighter all they need now is a promoter. They choose to work with Giuseppe Vecchi (Frederick Valk), a cliched extroverted bighearted loudmouthed Italian who sweats a lot and wants everyone to be his friend. Vecchi is a man who would walk into a dark alley on the bad side of town and be honestly surprised and emotionally damaged that someone would rob him. It's not that he's dumb. He simply can't comprehend anyone deliberately trying to hurt him. His circle of trust almost includes the entirety of humanity but is centered on his icy blonde wife Lorna (Barbara Payton). Flanagan first sees Lorna changing a stocking through a conveniently open door. He's immediately both attracted to and repelled by her. Flanagan refuses to train with her around though he sneaks some sharp looks her way every chance he can. The feeling is mutual as Lorna dismissively tells the muscular Flanagan that she's seen better bodies hanging in a butcher shop. But when she watches Flanagan fight she gives indications of erotic rather than martial interest, what with her staring eyes, open mouth, lip licking and leaning forward. When Vecchi invites Flanagan and team to live at his home during training, the stage is set for people's worst impulses to take over. This film is shot in glorious black and white. I would hate to think of it in color. There's a lot of shadows and for that matter foreshadowing, what with Vecchi smiling blissfully under a horned stag's head. The film drags slightly in the middle but other than that moved pretty fast. It's about 80 minutes.

Tony Wright's acting was pretty stiff for most of this film. I wonder if the annoyance which Payton's character showed towards him was based on Wright's real shortcomings. Sid James really carries this film. His Sharkey knows all the angles. I also liked Selma Vaz Dias as Vecchi's protective and suspicious sister. I almost expected her to produce a butcher knife and start screaming "Vendetta!!".
TRAILER






Baggage Claim
directed by David Talbert

If About Last Night was a well written funny adult romantic comedy which appealed to both genders and generally avoided stereotypes, Baggage Claim isn't. And that's putting it mildly. The only reason (as a man) to view this film was to watch Paula Patton bounce around in a few revealing outfits. And although that's always fun, it's not enough to recommend this film. In fact I think I might have damaged or lost a few brain cells watching this movie. You might as well title this film "Black Comedy 2: The Stereotypes Strike Back!" There's the over the top effeminate gay best friend, a crass sex obsessed obese black woman, and an aggressive bossy busybody black mother. Of course from a female perspective there's a great deal of eye candy in terms of men so perhaps women viewers may look at this movie somewhat differently. I can't call it. Because of differing biological clocks men and women may stereotypically view the ideal time to get married rather differently. One of my female cousins recently sent around a meme which showed an elderly toothless man grandly announcing to eligible ladies that lucky for them he's finally ready to quit playing the field, settle down and get married. That's the spirit which animates Baggage Claim. Montana Moore (Paula Patton) is a thirty something stewardess who is becoming needier and needier for love, real love, that is, not just love that lasts for a few hours of sport sex. And for her real love means something leading to marriage. She thinks she may have found something worthwhile and meaningful with the classy gentleman Graham (Boris Kodjoe) but soon discovers the unpleasant truth of the bromide that "gentleman is simply another word for a patient wolf".

Making matters worse Montana feels that's she's being constantly negatively judged by her abrasive brassy mother Catherine (Jenifer Lewis). Catherine has been married multiple times and is brimming over with unwanted advice for her daughter about men. Montana lives next door to her old high school buddy William (Derek Luke), who has constantly provided emotional support to her over the years but even if William were available Montana generally doesn't think of him in that way. When Montana learns that her kid sister is getting married in a month that's the last straw for her. She doesn't want to show up as a bridesmaid to her younger sister's wedding without having a fiancee/engagement of her own to brag about. She's been to enough weddings and is sick and tired of living the cliche, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

It's the holiday season so Montana and her so-called brain trust, fellow flight attendants Gail (Jill Scott) and Sam (Adam Brody), decide that that the best plan is to arrange for Montana to travel on the flights that her various exes will be on and hopefully restart the flame. Obviously this assumes that the breakup was amicable which as you probably know in real life isn't always the case. I mean there's a few women that if I never see them again it will be too damn soon but this is a movie. So for the next 30 days Montana flies across the US, meeting various ex-boyfriends, played by Taye Diggs, Trey Songz, and Djimon Hounsou among others. Comedy ensues or tries to as Montana runs through airports or rediscovers that there was a reason that things didn't work out with boyfriend X the first time around. This movie tries and fails to combine Sleeping Beauty fairytales with you go girl feminist self-empowerment. 
There's a minor subplot with Ned Beatty and a few ham fisted shots at Black Republicans and chauvinists that didn't really add much to the story. Maybe with better writing it might have worked? This is a film for the lowest common denominator. There's nothing wrong with that. Just know that going in. Tia Mowry and Lala Anthony also have roles.
TRAILER

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: The Mountain and The Viper

And we're back. Once again it's on! If you didn't know already this episode made it abundantly clear for the six millionth time that the show creators are just that, show creators, and are not solely interested in bringing George R.R. Martin's unedited story to the screen. I don't mind this when they are tightening up storylines, dropping stereotypical characters or moving things along a little more quickly than Martin is wont to do. But it's a mixed bag when the showrunners start putting their own subthemes and stories into the series. It's inevitable I guess. We must take the good with the bad. In this episode sometimes the new material worked and sometimes it simply did not. I'll write more in detail on this once the season has completed. But for now all I can say is that the butterfly effect is real. I don't see how it's not going to cause some serious storms later on in the televised series.Ok, enough bellyaching. What happened. Well we open up in everyone's favorite Molestown brothel where a prostitute, jealous that Gilly doesn't have to sell herself and contemptuous of Gilly's wildling heritage, is both complaining to and threatening Gilly about her baby's noise. Gilly can't really pay attention because she hears the sounds of wildling raiding parties signalling each other.  Yes, Tormund, Ygritte and crew attack the brothel, killing everyone, prostitutes, customers, Night's Watch members. It's less of an attack than a massacre since most of the people are unarmed or hardly in a position to defend themselves. Ygritte decides not to kill Gilly and her baby but warns them to be quiet. 

Again, here is an example of wanton violence against human beings of both genders. The horror. Although I'm as prudish as anyone and more so than most it still fascinates me that generally depictions of violence are not as criticized as depictions of sex or nudity. Jon Snow and his friends in the Night Watch pout impotently about not being able to or allowed to protect Molestown.

As promised last episode Theon Greyjoy has been sent by Ramsay Snow to masquerade as well, Theon Greyjoy and convince the Ironborn holding Moat Callin to surrender in return for safe passage to the sea. The Ironborn commander rejects the offer but is murdered by his second who accepts. Of course the offer is bogus and once inside Ramsay kills all the Ironborn, taking the opportunity to flay a few of them, apparently just to keep in practice. Theon really is a sad sack but he brought it on himself. He betrayed the Starks. He betrayed and bit his own sister when she tried to rescue him. And he's betrayed his own people. Roose is pleased to receive Moat Callin from Ramsay. He legitimizes him. As Roose is now Warden of the North, perhaps he will need a new seat of power. Apparently Winterfell may be the new home that Ramsay told Theon about. That would really stink huh? But that's the way of the world. Sometimes people betray you at a wedding, kill you and take your stuff. Good, bad or otherwise, Roose Bolton is alive and Robb Stark isn't. There's a lesson to be learned there. I think it might be that if an ally of yours has a flayed man as his sigil that might not be the person you want to rely on or give any sort of responsibility to. Just saying.

In Meereen, Daenerys' court ladies and the Unsullied are bathing in adjoining areas. Grey Worm catches a look at Missandei nude. He takes a longer look. I would too. Any man would. My goodness. She is an incredible looking woman. Evidently she can made a dead man jump and shout. Literally, if Grey Worm is looking at her. I would include a (non-nude) picture but it's probably not really work appropriate. Missandei is not too upset that Grey Worm looked at her. While Daenerys is doing Missandei's hair the two ladies wonder if Grey Worm lost both twig and berries or just the berries and may still possibly be functional. In a powerful scene Grey Worm comes to apologize for looking at Missandei and says if he hadn't been Unsullied he never would have seen her. Missandei says she's glad that he saw what he did. If you were wondering how Littlefinger would explain his murder of Lysa Arryn he's claiming it was suicide. The other Lords of the Vale, led by Lord Royce, are skeptical of this version of events and want to speak to the witness, Alayne Stone, Littlefinger's niece. Littlefinger doesn't want this. Alayne Stone reveals herself as Sansa Stark. Using a skillful mix of lies and truth she backs up Littlefinger's lie of suicide. Freed from suspicion, Littlefinger begins plotting to have Robin leave the Vale, to help him grow up as it were. When he asks Sansa why she lied for him she says that she didn't know what the Vale Lords would do to her but that she knew what Littlefinger wanted. Sansa appears to be making a move towards becoming a player in her own right, especially when she later appears in an ever so slightly revealing gown to accompany Robin (and Littlefinger?) on a trip outside The Vale. Littlefinger has hungry eyes.

All good things must come to an end, right? Well Lord Friendzone aka Ser Jorah Mormont had a good run as Queen Daenerys' Number One Male Friend Who is Definitely Not Allowed to Do That Thing to Her. He need not wonder if he can ever make the jump to lover. The answer is not only no but F*** No!. Ser Barristan received a message from Westeros. It was a signed pardon for Jorah from King Robert Baratheon. Well why would Jorah be needing that? It's obvious of course. Barristan's no dummy and neither is Daenerys. Barristan's old school. Following the man code he tells Jorah to his face that's he's busted before he informs Daenerys. In what is likely the episode's high point a cold, regal and extremely upset Daenerys forces Jorah to admit that he was a spy and fed information on her and her brother to King's Landing. Jorah also finally admits that he loves Daenerys but he's a day late and a dollar short. She exiles him, giving him the patented Michael Corleone "Get outta my sight" brushoff. At least there was no Clemenza outside waiting for Ser Jorah with a garrote. Arya and the Hound arrive at the entrance to The Vale (Gates of the Moon) only to learn that Lysa Arryn is dead, something which the emotionally drained Arya Stark finds inappropriately hilarious. In King's Landing Tyrion and Jaime reminisce about old family stories in the jail cell. Tyrion is of course curious as to whether Jaime thinks Oberyn can win. I mean you don't get a nickname like the Red Viper just drinking tea and watching other men fight, right? 

The bells ring to summon the combatants to the courtyard. Oberyn is attended by his number one lady Ellaria Sand. When she sees the hulking Mountain enter she questions her lover "You're going to fight that?" Oberyn casually responds "I'm going to kill that." This dialogue was directly from the book. Tyrion is worried by Oberyn's nonchalance and his lack of heavy armor. Echoing that great philosopher Bushwick Bill Oberyn is not impressed with The Mountain's size. Size ain't s*** as far as Oberyn is concerned. Significantly Oberyn has chosen to fight with the paragon of Dornish weapons, the spear. Spears are great en masse in battle but can be less than effective against heavy plate armor in a duel. The person wielding the spear would have to be very skilled to find all of the rare weak spots against a person so protected. As it turns out Oberyn does happen to be extremely skilled. The match pits Oberyn's speed and skill against The Mountain's mass and brutality. In a deliberate nod to a similar scene in The Princess Bride, Oberyn continually chants "Elia Martell. You raped her. You killed her. You murdered her children. Say her name!"  It appears that speed does kill. Oberyn is able to dance in and out of The Mountain's range, knocking his helmet off, stabbing him in the knee and the foot and slowing him down. Eventually Oberyn catapults over The Mountain who he has knocked down and drives the spear through The Mountain's guts, pinning him to the ground. At this point the prudent thing to do would have been to grab the Mountain's greatsword and behead him from a safe distance. But Oberyn is not a prudent man. He wants Gregor Clegane to confess that Tywin Lannister gave the order.

As Oberyn harangues all things Lannister he makes the critical mistake of getting too close to The Mountain. If you remember in the last episode Bronn told us that The Mountain is devilishly quick for his size. Yes he is. The Mountain grabs Oberyn, punches him and knocks his teeth out. He pulls him to the ground and gouges out his eyes. He finally says "Elia Martell. I raped her! I killed her children! I bashed her f****** head in. Like this!" The Mountain crushes Oberyn's head like a rotten plum. Cersei's happy. Tywin pronounces a death sentence for Tyrion.

What I liked

• In a world full of silicone one woman named Missandei stood up and said "Enough!". Heh-heh.
• Jorah's emotional pain at being forced to admit that yes he had betrayed the woman he loved but things were different now and couldn't she give him a pass. All Daenerys can see is that Jorah was working for Robert Baratheon, the man who killed her brother and drove her into exile. I thought the acting here was pretty intense and extremely well done. Jorah telling Varys about Daenerys' unborn child is what Daenerys can't forgive.
• Sansa becoming a player. This is questionable morally of course and as Littlefinger reminds her she doesn't really know him. But she's seen first hand what happens to those who try to remain morally pure.  There's a lot Sansa doesn't know. There's more I want to say here but I'll save that for a later post.

What I didn't like

• The final battle scene between The Mountain and Prince Oberyn was FAR too short. I don't think we got a sense of how epic this showdown was supposed to be. The Mountain is the undisputed heavyweight champion of vicious killers. NOBODY thought that Oberyn could defeat The Mountain. It is a great shock to everyone when Oberyn has The Mountain flat on his back. Tyrion is obviously not only hopeful but confident. Oberyn wore The Mountain down via speed, endurance and constant invocation of his murdered relatives. Watching the scene I didn't get the feeling that Oberyn had FINALLY gotten what he was looking for, a chance at vengeance/justice. The whole thing felt rushed to me. I think it needed more time to allow the viewer's (and Tyrion's) hope to build.
• The scene with Tyrion and Jaime in the cell was FAR too long. I don't care about stories about deceased mentally challenged relatives. This took precious time away from what should have been the episode's main event.
• I would have thought Littlefinger would have had a plan that did not involve relying on Sansa Stark to avoid imprisonment or execution. More on this later...

*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....

Book Reviews: I, Sniper, Breakfast of Champions

I, Sniper
by Stephen Hunter

You know the drill. Bob Lee Swagger, an aging Vietnam Vet, top sniper, and downright genius in all things involving guns, detective work, violence, mechanics, or weapons is off somewhere minding his own business when some immoral person someplace does something bad. Only Bob Lee can put things right. And by God he means to do just that. I've mentioned before that I like the series although the author is quite different from me politically. If the story is good I usually don't care about politics. I could never have read anything by Robert E. Howard or H.P. Lovecraft if I required all of my reading material to be created by like minded people. There are no writers with whom I agree on everything. However there are limits to my tolerance. This book is not Hunter's best. I, Sniper is the first Bob Lee Swagger novel I've read where it felt to me as if the author was deliberately and too obviously marketing his story towards one side of the political spectrum. Hunter shamelessly panders here. The hero only watches Fox News. Hunter takes shots every other page at the supposed effete nancy boy anti-gun New York Times/East Coast Media journalists and intelligentsia. Hunter has stated that some of this bile is released frustration at being what he thought of as a token conservative at his previous Washington Post gig as well as anger that the NYT did not review his older books. Hunter chides others about their unexamined assumptions but seems blissfully unaware of his own. Previously, Hunter used this series (via Swagger) to give concise if gruff explanations of gun and military culture to those who were unfamiliar with them. I, Sniper often radiates a sneering exclusionary tone towards people who aren't fervent military or law enforcement wannabes supporters or knowledgeable of various firearms esoterica. We don't have Hans and Franz mocking "girlie men" but the book comes close. Literary incarnations of Jane Fonda, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers and Bernadotte Dohm are murdered. A famous gadfly journalist (O.Z Harris) is posthumously revealed as a Soviet agent.

There's also some whining about the fact that while Bob Lee Swagger and friends were bleeding and dying in Vietnam, the people mentioned above weren't.  Hunter even uses "European" as an insult and marker of difference when the hero investigates a crime victim's home and notices that it doesn't look "American" because among other things there's no flag. Right. Because that makes perfect sense. As a reader who doesn't share Hunter's smoldering antipathy towards anyone to the left of Chris Kyle, I found myself wishing Hunter would just go write an essay someplace and tone down the "I'm a real American and you're not" political rants in what until now had been a decent series.

Anyhow, Joan Flanders, famous actress, scion of a famous acting family, anti-war icon, exercise guru, millionaire and ex-wife of southern billionaire businessman T.T. Constable is murdered by a sniper, along with three other aging left-wing icons of varying fame and fortune. Two of the murdered people lived in Hyde Park, Chicago and were friends with and mentors to a very highly placed politician and avatar of hope and change (hint, hint, hint). Swagger friend, FBI Assistant Director Nick Memphis, is tagged to lead the investigation. The evidence implicates Vietnam Veteran Carl Hitchcock (an avatar of real life Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock). Hitchcock was the number one sniper in Vietnam. Supposedly, he was upset that new evidence proved he was only the number two sniper. So he went on a killing spree to regain his first place status. Things look pretty cut and dry, especially when Hitchcock is found dead from presumable suicide. The media loves the narrative of a "right-wing vet baby killer" murdering the very people who tried to stop the Vietnam War. 

The powers that be want the investigation wrapped up. But Nick Memphis is thorough. He calls in Swagger (the number three sniper in the Vietnam War) to review the case. If there's one thing Swagger's good at besides shooting it's putting the facts together and letting people know what he thinks. Swagger finds some inconsistencies. And we go down the rabbit hole of shadowy conspiracy, Washington politics, revenge and some damn fine shooting. Just as John Henry the steel driving man had to measure his strength against a newfangled steam engine so will Swagger have to face off against sniper technology that is far beyond his natural skill and instinct. But he's Bob Lee Swagger. You don't get to have a name like that unless you wake up in the morning drinking TNT and smoking dynamite. Mess with Swagger and he WILL punch you in your testicles/ovaries before ripping them off and beating you over the head with them for being stupid enough to **** with him in the first place. I liked the character a lot more than the story. The reader may learn a little more about the science of shooting and how newsrooms work. I thought the newsroom workplace descriptions were interesting. There was almost too much technical information about guns and shooting included. Hunter uses a lot of misdirection and trickery. There are also some uncomfortable questions raised about utilitarianism. Swagger is a lot of things but utilitarian he's not though the bad guys (mirror images of Swagger) try to convince him otherwise. There's a few obvious plotholes. The title is obviously a nod to Mickey Spillane's I, The Jury. Bottom line is that I was equally taken aback by Hunter's fierce injection of politics and his suggestion that his hero looks like Buddy Ebsen. For all the years I read this series I really had Tommy Lee Jones in my mind's eye. I would be more worried if Captain Woodrow F. Call was after me than if Jed Clampett was on my trail. 







Breakfast of Champions
by Kurt Vonnegut

Basically you should just read this book if you haven't already. It's incredibly funny and sad at the same time. Along with Slaughterhouse-Five this book remains the quintessential Vonnegut work. It's satirical and and full of slapstick. It can be enjoyed on that level alone. Yet at the same time it can also be understood and enjoyed on a much deeper level. Much like Stephen King or other great authors Vonnegut had a singular voice, one that was so definitive and pleasurable that you can get lost in it and wonder why everyone doesn't write like that. I read this book when I was young, maybe ten or twelve? It was one of my parents' books but I can't remember which one. Either my parents had a different idea about my appropriate reading material because I was just so incredibly awesome and mature as a kid or they hadn't noticed I was reading it. Hmm. That's a good question. I'm leaning towards the latter probability. Breakfast of Champions is a book which has occasionally been targeted for banning in secondary schools. It is full of profanity, racial slurs, sexual activity,violence and frank discussions of reality, sexism, gender relations, environmentalism, racism, free will, and more sex. If you are easily offended or prefer that other people do your thinking for you then this book is probably one you should skip. Here's a brief example of Vonnegut's prose style:

"1492. The teachers told the children that this was when their continent was discovered by human beings. Actually millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat and rob and kill them..Here is how the pirates were able to take whatever they wanted from anybody else: they had the best boats in the world and they were meaner than anybody else and they had gunpowder...The chief weapon of the sea pirates, however, was their ability to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was much too late, how heartless and greedy they were."

"Sometimes people would put holes in famous people so that they could be at least fairly famous too. Sometimes people would get on airplanes which were supposed to fly to someplace, and they would offer to put holes in the pilot and co-pilot unless they flew the airplane to someplace else."

There's more but I don't want to just quote the book. Who wants to read all the funny parts in a review. The brief outline of the story is that a Midwestern white businessman named Dwayne Hoover (his father changed the last name from Hoobler so people wouldn't think the family was Black) is slowly cracking up mentally. The whys and wherefores are up for debate. Hoover goes completely batty when he meets speculative fiction author Kilgore Trout (one stand in for the author, though the author himself later appears in the story) who is in town for a convention. For whatever reason Hoover is impressed with the financially unsuccessful Trout and views him as something akin to a prophet. He reads Trout's latest novel, in which the author, claiming to be God, tells the reader that the reader is the only human with true free will. Everyone else is just a robot. This was the wrong message for Hoover to get at that time as it sends him into a mordantly funny rampage. And believe it or not that is really a very small portion of the story. It's written in very short bite size paragraphs, similar to the style that James Ellroy would later make famous. This was a very quick read. I must reiterate that I am somewhat surprised that I got away with reading it so young. 

Anyway this book made me a Vonnegut fan for life. His description of how some whites see blacks as little more than obsolete farm machinery or how some women pretend to be dumber than they are as to not hurt fragile male egos was accurate. Vonnegut points out the absurdity of many things merely by stating them plainly and without explanation. i.e. "..Some people thought they shouldn't have to share anything unless they really wanted to and they didn't want to and so they didn't." or "Vietnam was a country where America was trying to make people stop being communists by dropping things on them from airplanes." I love his ironic tone. Hopefully you will as well. Vonnegut used absurdity for sharp political criticism.

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki Resigns

This was hardly unexpected. When your boss refuses to give you words of support and your peers are distancing themselves from you it's time to do the right thing and fall on your sword like a good little soldier. I really think that the problems with the VA are both about the people at the top and the entire bureaucratic VA culture. I don't know if the next person to be approved as secretary will make any difference but as one lady manager told me quite some time ago "Your time for excuses and explanations ended when you took the job". If something happens on your watch you are responsible. Period. Nobody wants to hear about what the last Administration did or do not do, especially six years after you took over responsibility and actually ran on making changes. Once again, though this continues a pattern of the President and his direct reports seemingly being out of the loop when major bad mojo is going down. I really do think that this is at least in part a byproduct of the fact that before his election the President had never managed large organizations, either in business or in government bureaucracy. It is also in my opinion a byproduct of the fact that in a bipartisan sense, people love giving lip service to supporting the troops but are often nowhere to be found when the troops need help. Anyway, Shinseki gave us his ritual pound of flesh. It wasn't all his fault but apparently he didn't improve things either. I have no pleasure in seeing him resign nor am I saddened. Let's see if actual changes are made to how the VA delivers health care. I think that a voucher system allowing vets to get private coverage might be the way to go. There's no reason that anyone who laid it on the line for this country, whether you agreed with the policy or not, should have to deal with a p**s poor health care system. Heck, none of us should have to deal with such a system.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned Friday in a personal meeting with President Barack Obama, shortly after publicly apologizing for deep problems plaguing the agency's health care system that Obama called "totally unacceptable."

Obama said Shinseki had served with honor, but the secretary told him the agency needs new leadership and he doesn't want to be a distraction. "I agree. We don't have time for distractions. We need to fix the problem," Obama said.Obama said he accepted the retired four-star general's resignation "with considerable regret" during an Oval Office meeting. Shinseki had been facing mounting calls to step down from lawmakers in both parties since a scathing internal report out Wednesday found broad and deep-seated problems in the sprawling health care system, which provides medical care to about 6.5 million veterans annually.

LINK

Elliot Rodger: UCSB Isla Vista Murderer

The predictable reactions about the recent murders in Isla Vista were that people immediately used the tragedy to argue for previously accepted conclusions. So if you already felt that whiteness, white masculinity or even masculinity itself are all highly problematic or needed to be interrogated and altered you felt that your premise was vindicated by these murders, never mind that Rodger was half white. He clearly identified with white privilege and saw himself as better than other non-whites. If you thought that interracial marriages and immigration are bad ideas then you looked at the British born half-Asian Rodger and argued those characteristics were somehow salient to his actions. If you were convinced that the path to better living is found via psychiatry and aggressive state law enforcement intervention then you were outraged that therapists or police didn't do something earlier, as surely you would have done were you in their position. If you think that pick up artists or game theorists are synonymous with misogyny, hatred and terrorism then you probably wanted to know why the NSA, FBI or other agency weren't keeping tabs on Rodger's online presence and targeting him with drone strikes. If his last name hinted at Muslim heritage maybe agencies would have been watching him. If you think that youthful "bullying" will often bear dark poisonous fruits in later years then you were outraged that teachers or other authority figures didn't pick up on and correct Rodger's persecution feelings earlier. There were even some people who thought that the delicate featured Rodger was dealing with gay panic. And of course if you think that the NRA is the source of all evil then you were upset that Rodger was able to legally purchase guns in the first place.
And so on.

You can find all of these perceptions and more across the net if you deign to search.
Some might even have some validity. But I think that most of them are the worst examples of Monday morning quarterbacking. For those who have lost loved ones or have had their lives altered by being wounded by this madman, I would not contradict anything they might say in their grief. But  the rest of us must step back, analyze what happened and see if we can prevent such things. I don't think we can. I think it's only too human for everyone to look at this incident and immediately argue that they are justified in whatever preexisting conclusion they already had. It is understandable of course but it would make for bad public policy. First off let's look at the guns. Rodger bought the guns legally roughly a year before he went on his killing spree. He passed all the background checks. The guns were not "assault rifles". They had limited capacity magazines. In short, there was nothing under current law, which in California is tilted towards more restrictive purchasing standards, which would have prevented Rodger from buying a gun. Nothing. Absent outlawing guns in private hands, I'm not sure what more gun control advocates would like to see done. Keep in mind that Rodger stabbed three men to death and ran over at least one more with his BMW. For those who fixate on the guns I would just like to know what law, what standard would they seek to impose that would be able to distinguish between a monster like Rodger and the thousands of other people who purchase guns each year? 

Next look at the opportunities for intervention. If someone is thought to be an imminent danger to himself or others, there is an ability to place that person under a 72 hour hold. But the key word there is imminent. No one except the therapists and police involved know how Rodger presented himself but evidently they did not see the threat. It is easy after the fact, as some CNN windbags did, to pompously talk about missed signs. But the reality no one knows what any human is capable of, given the right stimuli. Our justice system is designed to convict people for what they have done after a trial by jury. It is not, with very few exceptions, designed to imprison or convict people for what they might do, on the say so of family members, police or mental health experts. If you want to open the floodgates and start locking people up for things they haven't done, well you will need to radically change our concept of law. Most people with mental health problems are not violent. I don't want people to be arrested for what they might do or even for their hateful ideologies. Rodger could accurately be described as a loser, a racist, a misogynist, a misanthrope.  He attempted to find other people who shared his views. Despite his outwardly directed hatred the person he most despised appears to have been himself. His sense of race and class based entitlement was apparently very strong. There was a yawning gulf between who Rodger was and who he thought he should be. Unable to stand it any more he wanted to make everyone else pay. I can't think of any consistent method to identify and intervene with people like this. 

Maybe if Rodger had improved his social skills with (white) women he would have reduced his frustrations and found happiness. Or perhaps not. Maybe eventually he would have snapped and killed any girlfriend or other sexual partner he had. We don't know and will never know. Anyone who tells you they have the answer to stop horrific events like this is mistaken. I understand and sympathize with the urge to find the reason why this happened and get the government to fix it. But sometimes there simply aren't answers.

Rodger Manifesto

My father drove up to Santa Barbara to meet me a few days later. When we sat down at our table, I saw a young couple sitting a few tables down the row. The sight of them enraged me to no end, especially because it was a dark-skinned Mexican guy dating a hot blonde white girl. I regarded it as a great insult to my dignity. How could an inferior Mexican guy be able to date a white blonde girl, while I was still suffering as a lonely virgin? I was ashamed to be in such an inferior position in front my father. When I saw the two of them kissing, I could barely contain my rage. I stood up in anger, and I was about to walk up to them and pour my glass of soda all over their heads. 

My two housemates were nice, but they kept inviting over this friend of theirs named Chance. He was black boy who came over all the time, and I hated his cocksure attitude. Inevitably, a vile incident occurred between me and him. I was eating a meal in the kitchen when he came over and started bragging to my housemates about his success with girls. I couldn’t stand it, so I proceeded to ask them all if they were virgins. They all looked at me weirdly and said that they had lost their virginity long ago. I felt so inferior, as it reminded me of how much I have missed out in life. And then this black boy named Chance said that he lost his virginity when he was only thirteen! In addition, he said that the girl he lost his virginity to was a blonde white girl! I was so enraged that I almost splashed him with my orange juice. I indignantly told him that I did not believe him, and then I went to my room to cry. I cried and cried and cried, and then I called my mother and cried to her on the phone. How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves.

Movie Reviews: About Last Night, Rage, Devil's Due

About Last Night
directed by Steve Pink

This is a remake of a 1986 film of the same name that had a predominantly white cast. This film has a predominantly black cast. Each film was based on a David Mamet play. There was a recent interesting discussion at The Atlantic about the need to make more non-white and/or non-male people the center of story lines instead of just being at best the sassy best friend. Judging by some of the comments by self-identified whites you would have thought that the writer was suggesting harvesting women's ovaries to sell for cheap in Eastern Europe. It was sort of depressing but also quite predictable how many people not only accepted but defended the idea that they wanted no black characters in their books or movies, not a one. They thought that cinematic and literary monochromatic depictions were not only normal and realistic but preferred. Similarly although this remake was directed and written by white people, the writer talks of the ugly, skeptical, and horribly racist reactions she received from some white people in so-called liberal Hollywood when it became known that her film would have a predominantly black cast. "I heard some very interesting reactions to the casting, specifically from white people who work in the movie industry. While I was doing the rewrite, I got dozens of really mean jokes, most of which I don’t feel comfortable putting into writing here because they were sometimes racist and always hurtful. The most clever one (still lame) was: "How’s your David Blamet script going?" It was like my script was suddenly not as good or less than or just plain not cool because of the casting. Whatever. Those people suck."

I would say that the writer, Leslye Headland (who also wrote the Bachelorette film), and director Steven Pink (who wrote High Fidelity and directed Hot Tub Time Machine) did a good job at creating a funny romantic comedy. It's only occasionally harsh but is always very honest. Hopefully much like Bill O'Reilly's surprise when he visited a Harlem restaurant and learned that black people weren't actually cursing each other out or shooting each other, perhaps some white people who might otherwise dismiss this as a "black" film will give it a shot. To dip into cliche for a moment, the story and themes are universal. They aren't made any less so because the lead characters are black. Lastly if I recall correctly this film had no racial caricatures. Specifically there were no morbidly obese or masculine black women, no thugs and no drugs, and no black best friend of either gender who only exists to help the white character along his or her journey to love and happiness with someone else. In other words this film was a breath of fresh air. When I was very young it was not uncommon for my relatives to call people on the phone to let them know "Black people were on TV!". It didn't matter what the black people were doing, just being on TV was sufficient. That had started to dissipate by the time I was in second grade as black politicians and other movers and shakers became more common. Still I want to give a virtual shout of "Black people in a movie!" in a nod to those long gone days.

Ok. Enough with the social commentary already. What's this film about? Well as mentioned it is an acerbic romantic comedy which has four lead roles. There's Danny (Michael Ealy) and Bernie (Kevin Hart), good friends who work as salesmen/distributors in the Los Angeles restaurant supply business. Bernie is a confirmed player (and he gets the lion's share of the film's funny lines) who doesn't really believe in love. He thinks that his hopelessly romantic friend Danny needs to stop moping around about being dumped by the love of his life Alison (Paula Patton-man that is one sexy lady) and get back in the game. To this end he has invited Danny along on his date with Joan (Regina Hall), a sexy and occasionally over the top dentist. Joan has asked her roommate, Debbie (Joy Bryant), a telecom exec, to tag along. In a recurring theme throughout the film Bernie and Joan are more down to the earth than their friends and often (occasionally hysterically wrongly) think that they know what's best for Danny and Debbie. Unsurprisingly Bernie and Joan hook up. Somewhat more surprisingly so do Danny and Debbie, after Debbie is impressed with how Danny is not threatened by her prior relationship with Terrell Owens (playing himself). It's been a while for both Danny and Debbie. Debbie is looking for a gentleman and Danny seems to be just such a man. 

Now it wouldn't be a romantic comedy if there weren't some conflict. This film delivers on that front. It makes some very funny and true to life observations about the challenges couples face in meeting each other's friends and family, moving in together, accepting or rejecting each other's quirks and flaws, dealing with the reality that you probably weren't your lover's one and only, being honest about the emotional vulnerability that saying "I love you" brings, and learning how to handle conflict with your significant other. That last could mean that you shut up and smile or become willing to respectfully but passionately fight on an issue that's important to you. In a modest subplot Danny doesn't like his job very much, especially since it brings him in conflict with his deceased father's best friend Casey (Christopher McDonald) a tavern owner who is chronically unable to pay his debts or update with the times. But Danny is concerned that quitting his job will lose him Debbie's respect since as he ruefully tells Bernie "There's a good chance she makes more than I do". In what seems like a tip of the hat to (500) Days of Summer, this film occasionally uses animated sketches that morph into real life sets. There is some blink and you'll miss it toplessness from Joy Bryant and extended (though not full frontal) nude scene from Michael Ealy. Again although EVERYONE did a great job in this flick special note must go to Kevin Hart. His character's manic behavior and utter pragmatism really drove the humor.
TRAILER
Interview with Headland





Rage
directed by Paco Cabezas

Rage stars Nicolas Cage. There are some people who will automatically not watch the film just because of that fact. A lot of times Cage seems to act as if he is zoned out on Quaaludes. And in the instances where that's not the case he's often incredibly frantic, looking or sounding as if he's pumped up on speed. Well that's the impression I often get anyway. I can't recall too many recent movies where he wasn't at one polarity or the other. Well that's also the case with this film but in a bit of a surprise it actually fits the character and his situation. The issue with this film was that there really wasn't a strong second actor or actress role for Cage to well..rage against. Rachel Nichols has a toned down/desexed role as Cage's wife. Danny Glover has a small part as a cop who may or may not be trying to help Cage. But the bad guys lack a little panache, a little style a little badness. Paul Maguire (Nicolas Cage) is a businessman. He appears to be a developer and real estate investor. He has a pretty younger wife Vanessa (Nichols) and a cute teen daughter Caitlin (Aubrey Peeples). Paul also has a large home, nice clothes and everything else that one would expect a middle aged man of means and substance to have in this great country of ours. His daughter is the apple of his eye. He dotes on her. Her mother died years ago. Like many fathers in that situation, Paul holds on fiercely to his little girl because she's the only reminder of his deceased wife. She's growing up quickly though. The boys are starting to come around. Although Paul is accepting of this fact as all men must become some day I suppose, he is still protective. 

Dean Baquet Replaces Jill Abramson At New York Times

You may have heard that the New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recently fired Executive Editor Jill Abramson and replaced her with Managing Editor Dean Baquet. Baquet becomes the first Black person to serve as Executive Editor. Abramson's dismissal was met with wails and shrieks from many prominent women in the media who were immediately either convinced or worried that Abramson's termination was based in sexism. I waited to write on this because (1) I wanted to see if any other information about this termination arose (it did), (2) I was very busy at my own job and lacked the time to write and (3) I wasn't convinced that it was something about which I had enough interest to write. But I got a little amused and even annoyed by some of the hysterical hyperventilating happening around this incident. So now that the crisis has hopefully dissipated in my own workplace and my job is safe, I have a little time to share some thoughts about what I now think of as a much hyped non-event.

When your former co-workers give a standing ovation to the person who replaced you it could indicate that you weren't super well liked. I've had both men and women bosses. If you're younger than 60 and have worked any serious amount of time in corporate America you probably have also had bosses of both genders. I wouldn't dare speak for you but I've had women bosses that I admired, respected, and emulated and those that I despised and hated with the white hot intensity of one thousand supernova. And the same is true of male bosses to whom I've reported. Some were decent. Some were middling. Some were superstars. Some were incompetent. Some were downright malevolent and/or bigoted.

In a former workplace I once worked with a black contractor who was a few years older than me. Our company was flexible on start time, especially for direct hires, but expected everyone to put at least 8-9 hrs each day. Most us started between 6 AM and 8 AM. 8:30~9 AM start times were considered late and would cause some raised eyebrows or snide comments. On a good day this fellow would not arrive until 9:30 AM. 10 AM wasn't uncommon. He never stayed late. His tardiness caused problems with management and resentment with peers. One morning he wasn't around when a business group manager needed him for something important. And when he did arrive he ignored her requests. Well that was a mistake. She took a personal interest in documenting his late arrivals and bad mouthing him to her fellow managers and supervisors. Shortly afterwards the man was fired. There is a stereotype of black men being incompetent or tardy. I've dealt with it. But if you really are consistently tardy and get fired you or your friends can't whine about stereotypes. That stuff is on you. Similarly if (and I say if because nobody outside of a few people at the NYT really knows what happened) Abramson really was an abrasive and/or ineffective leader then terminating her was just and fair. If not then I expect a lawsuit will result and we'll be able to read about it in the papers. It's important to remember though that men get fired for among other reasons, being abrasive, including one of Abramson's predecessors at the NYT. Just because someone gets fired for what some people might deem stereotypical reasons, doesn't automatically mean that the firing was unjustified. There actually are a few harsh unpleasant women in this world. According to the NYT, contrary to what some of Abramson's media partisans claimed about her unequal pay, Abramson's compensation was comparable to or exceeded that of her male predecessor.

On Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger said, as he did in an earlier public statement, that Ms. Abramson’s pay package in her last year in the job was 10 percent higher than Mr. Keller’s. “Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country — one that The New York Times often covers,” Mr. Sulzberger wrote. “But it doesn’t help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal.”

Until Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger had said only that her removal was due to “an issue with management in the newsroom.” His new statement cited a pattern of behavior that included “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.” Mr. Sulzberger said that he had wanted Ms. Abramson to succeed and had discussed these problems with her. But he ultimately concluded that “she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.” The decision to replace her, he said, was “for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender.”

LINK
Of course what else will a boss say about someone whom he just fired, right? So I wouldn't necessarily take everything Sulzberger says as gospel. Still it is a reminder that there are usually at least two sides to each story. It's not as cut and dry that male bosses get away with acting unpleasantly and female ones don't. If you are a boss at any level your job includes overseeing and evaluating people's work. You must let them know where they're doing great work, where they could improve and occasionally even unilaterally give them opportunities to succeed elsewhere. But it's also just as important if not more so to get people who want to work for you and with you. Because sometimes if your perceived management style failings are greater than the benefit the company obtains from keeping you on, your actions and attitude could be helping you to dig your own grave, figuratively speaking of course.

I am just dismayed at the rush of judgment by so many people to assume that Abramson's firing was a case of sexism. From what I can tell Abramson tried to dilute Baquet's power and role by bringing in another woman to take away some of his workplace responsibilities. Not working at the NYT I couldn't say if this was justified or not. But I do know, particularly in hyper competitive workplaces, taking work from someone is often seen and meant as a precursor to a less than excellent performance review or worse as cover for pushing them out. There's a HUGE difference between you going to your boss and requesting that s/he hire someone because you're doing the work of five people and your boss deciding on his/her own that the work you're doing isn't quite up to par and you need help. Given that Baquet was a previous finalist for Abramson's job he apparently saw her move as a preemptive strike and responded accordingly. Sulzberger had other issues with Abramson and that was that. Now it's true that Abramson has every right to hire as she sees fit. But let's reverse the genders/management roles. Say Baquet is Executive Editor. If he had tried to hire another Black man to help Abramson do her job the same people complaining about Abramson's firing would be pointing to Baquet's aborted hiring attempt as proof of sexism and the old boy's network. They would be cheering Baquet's firing as a blow against sexism and for transparency.

Heads I win. Tails you lose.

There is racism, sexism and every other ism in the world. That's obvious.
But before we lead a lynch mob on behalf of Abramson, who apparently was not underpaid, let's find out what's going on first. It sounds to me like she made a power play and lost. It happens. It happens to men all the time. Now that more women are in high paid, high stress positions, it will happen to them as well. That's my take anyway, with the evidence I see.

What are your thoughts?
Do you think that abrasive women are still treated differently than abrasive men?
If you work for other people what qualities do you look for in a boss?