#4 2005, and Background

My #4 is probably the second best film I saw in 2005. I'm honest like that. Before I talk about it (I have no old review to cut and paste...not a decent one at least), I'll include a list of films I'd like to see from 2005, but never did. They could affect this list, but I find that doubtful. More likely, they'd kick off my 8-10. My 1-7 is pretty rigid. But you never know.

Haven't seen, but want to:
Syriana
Good Night, and Good Luck
Capote
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Narnia: LWW

I have also not seen Crash, but could care less. Heard great and terrible things, which means it's at least ballsy. But I just don't care.

#4: The Constant Gardener

This was an emotionally devastating film. Made moreso by the location shooting and gritty reality glimpsed just behind the main characters. At it's heart, it's a magnificent love story after the fact. It features some great performances, an interesting and (awfully) topical thriller story, and some of the best direction you'll ever see. It also features one of the most singularly devastating scenes I've ever seen, and it's out of nowhere. I don't want to give anything away, but it involves a brother's courage at a funeral, and occurs near the middle of the film.

While the topical thriller material would (and could) drive most films...this is far more personal. This is: how far would you go just to find out what could be a painful truth, even knowing the cost? How much does love mean to you?

At the time I saw it, I considered it the best film of the year (and it was). My #1 film is better, but not by a huge amount. In many years, this would be the best film of the year.

Tomorrow, I'll do my #3 film, plus my favorite film from 2004: The Passion of the Christ :)

No Politics

Not today. It's not even February of an election year and the rhetoric is sky high.

On to movies. I'll be counting down my top 5 over the next few days.

Today is #5. Review was written on January 3rd.

Brokeback Mountain:

Heavy weekend...started with Munich and ended with Brokeback Mountain.

I found the film constantly beautiful and engaging. Ang Lee is extraordinarily skilled. This is very delicate material, and he gets excellent performances out of every single person in front of the camera. Special kudos to Ledger, of course, but each character had a moment (or more) to really control a scene.

Regarding Lureen:
I think she certainly knew Jack was gay. And I believe she is having trouble coping with his death. She looks hard and angry on the phone, but every few moments, her breath catches as she fights back real tears. It was a subtle sound cue, but I heard it a few times. Great performance by Anne in that scene.

I think what is important about the movie is that it *isn't* important. It's not presented as them against the world, or making aomw critical culture "stand". It's simply about the connection between them and the reality that such a connection carries significant baggage. As a straight male, I was never uncomfortable with scenes of physical love (or emotional vulnerability). I think the film is remarkably accessible for mainstream audiences. Almost all of my favorite films this year are about loss and emotional connections. Weird.

Ang Lee made a great film.

Written today: December and January have yielded 3 of my top 5. BBM was tough to place. It's probably a better film than my #2 and #3 choices, but they are deeply sentimental to me. I am willing to guarantee Best Picture and a Best Director for Ang Lee. No chance anything else gets close. The film itself is deserving, AND it's riding a zeitgeist. Impossible to beat.

I &%!#ing LOVE Nuclear Power

My wife watched The West Wing last night. Their boogeyman of the week was a staple of the 70's...nuclear power. As a nuclear engineer (of sorts), I was appalled at the horrific misrepresentations thrown around in the show. I shouldn't be...Hollywood gets 99% of everything, from lawyers to the military to science to the weather wrong, all in the name of entertainment. But this issue is a particular thorn, because what most people know about nuclear power comes from Sci-Fi Channel movies, and a few early 80's films. Not content to look at the possible legit consequences of nuclear power, they chose to ignore how US Nuclear plants are designed, run, and monitored in this country.

Here are a few actual truths:

1) Our plants will never explode.
2) Our plants provide an immense amount of energy, with minimal waste, and a safety record everything else in the world would literally kill for.
3) Nuclear power is also critical to our military, powering our forward power projection...carriers and submarines.
4) The people employed by the NRC, the Navy, and civilian plants are smarter than you. A lot smarter. Unless you work for NASA.

Nuclear power has the potential for horrific misuse and danger. Just like an airplane, a fire, or a knife. They can do immense harm...but never have. They can also do immense good. But most citizens are misinformed to the extent that we ignore nuclear power as a viable form of energy. They are misinformed because they think Hollywood is right on this topic.

They are wrong. Hollywood is wrong, willfully so. Nuclear power requires the best minds, the best designs, the best operators, and the best safety programs. And they have them.

The record speaks for itself.

Nuclear power has the potential for great value or great danger. It depends on the discipline used to harness it. It is not inherently evil, bad for the environment, or malicious. Or even unsafe. It is simple science.

Which isn't simple in our ignorant country anymore.

Living in the Courtroom

Judge Garrett: In this courtroom, Mr.Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, color, religion, and sexual orientation.
Joe Miller: With all due respect, your honor, we don't live in this courtroom, do we?

- Philadelphia

Joe Biden, a man I would vote for, began his statement during the Alito hearings yesterday with something that troubled me greatly...until I thought about it. He spent significant time discussing the great Sandra Day O'Connor. That didn't bother me. But he discussed the confiormation hearings for Alito as an extension of that. There is no "swing seat" on the Court. No O'Connor seat. No "female" seat. Yet Biden discussed greater scrutiny for Alito because he was replacing O'Connor and because he was replacing a woman, dropping the number of woman on the SC to ONE. I thought to myself...that's not fair. That's un-Constitutional. The same standard should be applied to all nominees, male, female, conservative, liberal, progressive, straight, gay, old, young. And I believe that.

Sort of. I kept being reminded of something I tell everyone about my wife being pregnant. The greatest thing for pregnancy were the first female doctors. They brought a perspective males just DON'T HAVE. When I talk about my love for Peter Jackson films, I always have to remember both of his co-writers are women...and they bring significant heart and compassion to his work. When are we unfair to be more fair? Why is there only one woman on the SC? They make up 50-51% of our population. Contrary to PC beliefs, men and women are NOT the same, and can often be very complimentary. Losing a female voice on the SC does matter. My initial gut, while noble, also ignored human nature and one of the truths of America. We don't live in the Constitution. We live in a country where it is filtered through our own weaknesses.

I joked with Beth that I was a humanist. I believe in equality as best as it can be...never balanced, because we aren't, but as close as we can get it. My dislike of minority watchdog groups is that very often, it seems they don't want that at all...just for rules that favor them. Which is easy to say on my side of the fence as a white male. I take no notice of original sin, or white male guilt. I care little for the past, but the present. Do we have to be unfair (as affirmative action and Joe Biden's comments are, in my opinion) to be fair? As long as we are flawed, I think we do have to play a few favorites. The deck is stacked, like it or not. I may hate that reality, but pretending it isn't stacked is lying to myself.

So I feel a bit less contempt for many of those groups. In going uphill, they may overshoot sometimes, but can I really blame them? Not at all.

BREAK

As for SC hearings, as a sarcastic note, I think you actually hear Alito's voice less than a quarter of the time. Just long-winded policy speeches by tired warhorses (more Republicans than Democrats, if you can believe it). STFU already...find out what the guy thinks. His prospective job is way more important than yours. I do love the hearings though. Honest debate over the meaning and direction of our country is outstanding. I'll take it any way I can get it.

Piss on THAT

I had a few paragraphs, trying to discuss some disparate themes. My POS computer dicked the dog and here I am with a blank page again. So I'll be brief and use someone else's words.

Regarding Gene Shalit and GLAAD's rush to be offended...too much of a rush apparently.

"Dear Damon [Romine], and Neil [Guiliano],
Peter Shalit here—Gene Shalit's son. I have been a member-supporter of GLAAD for years. I assume you were not aware of that, but I am disappointed that you did not do a little background research on my dad, or try to contact me, or attempt to reach my dad through me, before issuing your press release this past week calling him homophobic because of his review of Brokeback Mountain. I did notice the "editor's note" which mentioned that he has a gay son, i.e. myself.

By way of background, I am a gay man, a physician, serving a mostly gay patient population in Seattle, and author of Living Well, the Gay Men's Essential Health Guide, which is a guide to gay health for gay men. I frequently comment to people that I can't imagine having another job that would immerse me in the gay community as much as the one I have. The gay community is my life.

I say this because it's important background for understanding that my dad has always been completely loving and supportive of me, my life, my partners, and my choices. He wrote a piece about me in 1997 for The Advocate (currently posted on their home page)—and agreed to have his picture on the cover of the magazine—because what the piece says is true about how he feels and how he has always acted.

I spoke with my dad yesterday about the issues with his review. He had no idea that his review of a movie, and his reaction to a particular character, would be seen as homophobia. Of course he is not homophobic. Actually the truth is the opposite. Agreed, he didn't particularly seem to like Brokeback Mountain, and he found the character of Jack unsympathetic. But his negative response to a particular character is not "defamation" and had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character. The interpretation-generalization of this as "homophobic" is unfortunate and incorrect. It is precisely because my Dad is not homophobic that he felt free to criticize the move as he saw it, and not anticipate that he would be accused of homophobia for doing so.

(Incidentally, I loved the movie—and it sure isn't the first time I have disagreed with my dad about one of his reviews. I was sorry he didn't like it, but hey, these things happen. I have always felt that he was entitled to his opinion and I leave it at that.)

When I first saw your press release a few days ago my reaction was "goodness, this is silly" and I decided to sit tight and hope it would blow over. But it hasn't, judging by the e-mails I have received from friends, and the buzz I have seen online. People are concerned about these accusations about my dad, and some bloggers are talking about him as if he is an enemy of gay people. I decided to contact you because there could have been better ways to handle this situation, and I am hurt by your mischaracterization of my father, a man who does not have a molecule of hate in his being. It does not speak well for GLAAD, and it is not helping our community.

We are all really on the same side—you, my Dad, me, my family, our community. The gay community has enough enemies that we should not be attacking or alienating those who, such as my Dad, are part of our family and are our true friends. We may disagree with his opinion of a movie and his interpretation of a particular character, but that is his job as a critic to give his opinion. He may have had an unpopular opinion of a movie that is important to the gay community, but he defamed no one, and he is not a homophobe. It is you who have defamed a good man, by falsely accusing him of a repellent form of bigotry. It is ironic and sad that an organization whose mission is to combat defamation has committed such an act itself, an act which amounts to character assassination with so little consideration of the repercussions.

I am happy to discuss this further with you by e-mail, or you can feel free to phone me... Sincerely, Peter Shalit"

My gut feel (admittedly thanks to general disrespect towards the politics most special interest [right and left]) is that GLAAD wanted the media attention.

They just were willing to ignore good sense and their beliefs to get it. They performed an uneducated character attack on a crappy reviewer (Shalit is 100% wrong about the film...factually wrong I might add).

Power Corrupts

And money is power. Right now, Abramoff is going to torch some politicians, probably only a fraction of those that have truly entrenched themselves in the system. But still, a little housecleaning is never a bad thing. Someone on C-Span called this a congressional problem, not just a Republican one. Sounds like something I'd say. But not in this case. Abramoff is directly linked to the Republicans, and they will rightly bear the brunt of his revelations. Do I believe this is merely one set of corruptions in the House and/or Senate? Certainly. Do I believe the same percentage of Democrats are also gaming the system. Certainly. But the Republicans rule the roost, and overstepped even the extremely wide latitude the law allows them; their hubris should cause them to pay. With luck, perhaps the brutal vice money and lobbying holds in the District will be broken. With luck, I'll win the lottery without buying a ticket, too.

Shockingly, this isn't getting the traction it most certainly should, but maybe the people merely expect such a double standard in their extremely well-paid, elected leaders. Maybe as humans, we're ingrained to expect and forgive the dark specter of graft and illicit dealings from our leader. Or at least pretend it's business as usual.

BREAK.

I had an interesting discussion on feminism last night with Beth. What are the goals of the movement in 2006? The laws are as they should be. The letter of the law at least. What is the next step? How to achieve it? Our discussion ended at an impasse, as we (and people in general) do not fundamentally have the same definition of what fair means. There was too much to cover in a short little blog, but suffice it to say, there are no easy answers. Why do people continue to look for them :)