“Paterson”– Movie Review

 

During the opening weekend of The New York Film Festival, I attended the U.S. Premiere of the new comedy-drama by Jim Jarmusch, “Paterson”, starring Adam Driver. 

Synopsis

A week in the life of a married New Jersey bus driver whose hobby is writing poetry.

Story

Paterson (Driver) is a bus driver who likes to write poetry during his spare time.  Coincidentally, he also happens to live in Paterson, New Jersey.  By an even stranger coincidence, one of his favorite poets is William Carlos Williams, who wrote an epic poem by the name of “Paterson”.  His wife Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) is very supportive of his poetry and has aspirations of her own – ones that change from day-to-day, if not moment-to-moment.  At first, Laura seems like she wants to be a designer, then she wants to be a baker, then a country-music singer (despite the fact that she has no musical talent). 

Despite the fact that Paterson feels loved by Laura, Marvin absolutely hates him.  Marvin, by the way, is their English Bulldog.  The petulant pooch goes out of his way to find things to do that will get on Paterson’s nerves; Marvin, however, seems to get along well with Laura.  One of Paterson’s chores is to take Marvin out on a walk every evening; he does this begrudgingly but in order to make the task more palatable, he pauses the walk mid-way through to stop at a neighborhood bar where he can hang with some of the locals.  While there, he meets a motley collection of individuals just as colorful as the ones he encounters on his bus. 

One weekend, Laura takes her home-baked cupcakes to the local flea market where she hopes to sell them.  Surprisingly, they turn out to be an enormous hit and she scores a tidy profit.  Wanting to celebrate her success, she talks Paterson into treating him to dinner and a movie.  After enjoying an all too rare evening out, they return home to find that Marvin has crossed the line:  the dog found Paterson’s notebook where he writes his poems and completely chewed it to pieces.  With the notebook beyond repair and all of his poems lost forever, will Paterson be able to recover from this or will he give up writing poetry forever?  

Review

Will “Paterson” be known as one of those movies best seen while high?  We may not know the answer in the short term, but it would certainly seem that while director Jim Jarmusch crafted his screenplay that he may have been under the influence of some kind of mind-altering substance(s).  Regardless, “Paterson” can be enjoyed on its own terms for viewers partial to character-based films.  However, for those who prefer more of a plot-based motion picture, you’d be best advised to look elsewhere as this is one of those features that has a tendency to meander for quite a period of time; if you’re looking at your watch waiting for something to happen, then you’ll be sorely disappointed.

Being a character-based story, the audience must feel deeply invested in the protagonist and his outcome in order for the movie to work.  Are these people likeable?  It depends on where you land on their personalities.  Laura can challenge your patience; Paterson himself is somewhat more likeable, if for no other reason that he is more willing to deal with the real world whereas his wife stays home and dreams.  That said, is he an admirable protagonist?  On the one hand yes – Paterson is a loving husband, devoted to his wife, even when she asks him to buy her an expensive (on his salary) present.  But this also shows him as a bit weak, as well.  Is Paterson following the “Happy Wife, Happy Life” philosophy?  Or is he too timid to object?  When Laura prepares an utterly inedible dinner based on a recipe she invented, he prefers to silently suffer. 

One can only be left to speculate on the theme of twins throughout “Paterson”.  Is it nothing more than Jarmusch’s idea of a joke or is there some deeper meaning behind this visual imagery?  If there is in fact a deeper meaning, what could it be?  This movie played previously at the Cannes Film Festival this past Spring; in reviews, analyses by critics have ranged from this being an internal rhyme scheme (like a poem) to Laura’s repetitive requests resonating in his mind (i.e., she beseeches him to  make copies of the poems in his notebook).  Lacking an explanation by the director himself (assuming he ever gives one and if it’s a serious answer), we may never know for sure.  

“13th”– Movie Review

 

On the Opening Night of The 54th New York Film Festival, I attended the World Premiere of the new documentary “13th” by Ava Duvernay. 

Synopsis

Despite the fact that the United States abolished slavery long ago, is it using the prison system to wrongly enslave its African American citizens?

Story

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution ended slavery; it states as follows:  “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”.  But just as it can be argued that the first two Amendments to the Constitution can be abused, so can the 13th, which was found to contain a major loophole.  With the clause pertaining to conviction of a crime, racists found a way to maintain the slavery of African Americans who were legal citizens of this country. 

After the end of The Civil War in The United States, an odd coincidence began to occur in the South:  a significant number of Black men were being convicted of crimes and sent to prison.  While doing their time, they were put to work at various tasks of manual labor.  Why did this happen?  Southerners feared that their economy would collapse without slaves tending their farms; in a clandestine move, their leaders decided that they could still legally continue slavery despite the 13th Amendment by imprisoning Blacks and forcing them to toil in their fields as part of their “punishment”. 

It didn’t end there; this revised form of slavery continued well into the 20th century, despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Johnson.  Along the way, however, various other United States Presidents had a hand in perpetuating this new slavery:  Nixon’s War On Crime, Reagan’s Southern Strategy (as articulated by his political consultant Lee Atwater) and Bill Clinton’s 1994 Law Enforcement Act (including The First Lady’s assessment of the so-called “super predators” that some felt was a coded message for Black Americans).  Although The United States represents only 5% of the world’s population, it boasts 25% of the world’s prisoners.  With prison populations increasing exponentially (providing a high profit for corporations associated with serving these prisons), can this trend be turned around? 

Review

When was the last time you saw Newt Gingrich and Angela Davis agree on something?  If your answer is never (which, by the way, is the only correct answer), then the documentary “13th” is a must-see for you.  Duvernay’s explosive film is illustrates a devotion to its subject matter by virtue of its extraordinarily detailed research.   Once the facts are presented one by one, there is no denying the evidence before you – especially with the recent spate of Black executions by police officers around the country.  The director does an outstanding job in laying out her case before the audience. 

Having seen “13th”, it is difficult not to feel shaken; it is, without a doubt, a disturbing view of our home and one that may have not been considered if you haven’t lived in this country as a Black American.  One can understand why other countries denounce the United States when criticized over issues concerning human rights.  In this regard, America seems hypocritical because it cannot first clean up its own house before criticizing the mess in other nations.  Deservedly, the U.S. shares both blame and shame when it comes to human rights violations. 

If there are any criticisms about “13th”, it would be the following.  First, it suffers from the bane of most documentaries, The Talking Heads; even though it’s slightly over an hour and a half, it can get a bit tiresome, despite the fact that the director uses some animation and graphics to break up the interviews.  Second, it was mentioned above the degree to which it contains detailed research; this works to both its advantage and disadvantage because the viewer feels so overwhelmed with facts, it’s ambitious to process everything in a single viewing.  Lastly, despite the fact that it calls out The Clintons for their role in contributing to this situation, it ultimately morphs into a commercial for Hillary Clinton – a clip is shown of the former president admitting his Crime Bill goofed, along with one of the Republican nominee being compared to those who would advance the cause for imprisoning Blacks.   

Sadly, this film may ultimately be preaching to the choir.  It remains to be seen if anyone whose beliefs would be challenged by this documentary would even view it, much less be changed after seeing the movie. 

“The Missionary Position”– Book Review

 

For my final book of the summer, I read “The Missionary Position:  Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice” by Christopher Hitchens.

Synopsis

Mother Teresa has made a reputation for herself as someone who helps the poor – but upon closer examination, is this “saintly” woman really all she’s cracked up to be?

Story

Around the world, Mother Teresa of Calcutta has been lauded as a great humanitarian and spokesperson for valetudinarian indigents.   But is she truly as magnanimous as The Catholic Church would have us believe?  With The Church behind you, you’ve got some powerful Public Relations machinery – at least, so author Christopher Hitchens believes.  That’s why he decided to take a closer look to see if the woman actually lived up to her legend.  It is no surprise, then, that Hitchens set about to disprove her believers and expose Mother Teresa as a total phony. 

In pursuit of the truth, the premise of Hitchens’ book poses one key question:  Should the world judge Mother Teresa’s reputation by her actions and words rather than judge her actions and words by her reputation?  Is this Albanian nun worthy of beatification and canonization?  If she is in fact going to be considered a saint, has she truly performed any miracles that have been verifiable?  All are reasonable questions, despite the fact that some would accuse the inquisitor of blasphemy.  But do people prefer to believe in the myth over the reality because the reality shatters their world view and personal beliefs?

Among Hitchens proof includes Mother Teresa’s associations, which have included Haitian dictator Duvalier (who stole millions of dollars from his country before fleeing to avoid prosecution) and disgraced financier Charles Keating (who did prison time for his role in the Savings & Loan scandal).  Despite the fact that millions were donated to Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, it is difficult to trace exactly what happened to all of that money.  Since Mother Teresa believed that the ill should suffer just as Christ suffered during his crucifixion, she chose not to spend any of that money building a hospital and hiring physicians to treat and heal them. 

Review

Christopher Hitchens is at his best in “The Missionary Position”; he was an evil genius who’s both mean and hilarious concurrently – resulting in a fully entertaining read.  The last thing you ever wanted to do was to wind up on Hitchens’ radar, because when you did, he would bombard his target with a degree of vitriol that has to be witnessed in order to be fully appreciated.  He was notorious for whittling any target down to size in a seemingly effortless manner.  This pretty much sums up Hitchens’ approach toward dealing with Mother Teresa in this book, which was considered highly controversial when originally published 20 years ago. 

Is nothing sacred?  To Christopher Hitchens, the answer was an unambiguous “no”.  Hitchens shunned the appellation “atheist” in favor of “anti-theist” – basically, he thought religion was poisonous.  It didn’t matter what the religion was, he believed they were all corrupt and suffered from their own various hypocrisies.  So, Hitchens was not about to pull any punches with a nun whom the powerful Catholic Church had beatified.  In this work, Hitchens brilliantly reveals Mother Teresa to be a manipulative fraud who believed more in palliative care for the afflicted in favor of the more costly medical treatment that might have saved lives.  In keeping with Catholic doctrine, she also opposed abortion, thus enabling poverty stricken women to remain in dire financial straits.  

To be perfectly honest, I chose this book as my final read for the summer because it was by one of my favorite writers (Hitchens) and because it was a short, quick read.  Also factoring into my decision was the fact that Mother Teresa was recently canonized.  What makes “The Missionary Position” such a pleasurable read is due in part to the author’s style and wit as well as both the depth and breadth of his research.  In “The Missionary Position”, Hitchens pulls the curtain back on Mother Teresa – this woman who exploited the sick and the poor and who said the way to make the world a better place would be by smiling more.  Surely, if Mother Teresa or her acolytes read this book, none of them would be smiling. 

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice: Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Mallon: 9781455523009: Books ISBN: 1455523003 ISBN-13: 9781455523009

“Sully”– Movie Review

This week, I attended a screening by The New York Times Film Club of the new biographical drama “Sully”, starring Tom Hanks and directed by Clint Eastwood.

Synopsis

When a veteran airline pilot saves the lives of his passengers by landing his disabled plane on The Hudson River, will he be able to rescue his reputation when investigators believe he used poor judgment?

Story

On the afternoon of January 15, 2009, Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger (Hanks) courageously and safely landed a severely impaired commercial jet airliner atop New York City’s Hudson River; the lives of all 155 people on board were spared.  When both of the plane’s engines were damaged after a flock of Canadian geese were sucked into them, he determined that the jet would not be able to get to an airport in time.  As a result, his decades of experience as a pilot informed his decision to bring the airplane down on the water, thus avoiding crashing into a building, bridge or highway. 

While much of the country reasonably lauded Sully as a hero, there were some who had their suspicions about him – namely the airline’s insurance company who were charged with investigating the incident.  Based on their engineers’ analysis and running computerized simulations, it is determined that Sully made the wrong decision to land in the water because he could have easily made it to a nearby airport.  Sully, of course, disagrees with their findings, in large part due to the fact that much of it is based on merely theoretical knowledge.  

Before Sully can be permitted to return to his job, he has to attend a hearing held by The National Transportation Safety Board where they will question him about his thought process and his choices.  Having spent 42 years as a pilot and as someone whom the industry has regarded as something of an expert on safety practices and procedures, Sully is understandably outraged at having to undergo such scrutiny.  Because of this, he is now also beginning to question himself as well and becomes anxious about his standing being ruined.  Will Sully be forced to resign in disgrace or will he be vindicated?

Review

Perhaps the greatest challenge when it comes to making a movie about a well-known event from the recent past is holding the suspense of the audience when people already know the outcome.  In “Sully”, director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Todd Komarnicki manage to do so with great aplomb and admirable craftsmanship, resulting in a film that’s worth seeing not only for its entertainment value but also for the scintillating performance of its star, Tom Hanks.  “Sully” is filmmaking at its very best, with a hero worth rooting for in the ultimate feel-good story. 

Although the movie depicts The Miracle On The Hudson multiple times, it’s not really about that so much as its aftermath.  Despite having saved the life of all passengers and crew, Sullenberger is shown haunted by the thought of potential alternative outcomes as well as being plagued with self-doubt regarding his choice. This proves to be a clever way to approach the story because it pulls back the curtain to show that not only did Sullenberger not enjoy his new-found fame, it troubled him because all of the attention now put his career under a microscope.  As a result, “Sully” is about how a man redeems his good name. 

At only an hour and a half, “Sully” is deceptively short; by the end of the movie, you would think it had been at least two hours because of the emotional roller coaster viewers have been on up to that point.  For one thing, having to watch the landing on the water multiple times – including the anxiety in the cockpit which led up to it – really takes something of a toll.  By the end, the audience can’t be blamed for feeling overwrought.  Unlike with Eastwood’s “American Sniper”, one can feel comfortable rooting for the protagonist in “Sully” – this is a man who is a hero because he saved lives rather than one who took lives. 

“No One Left To Lie To”– Book Review

 

Recently, I read “No One Left To Lie To:  The Triangulations Of William Jefferson Clinton” by Christopher Hitchens. 

Synopsis

After two terms of President Bill Clinton, in what shape is the nation and the Democratic party?

Summary

The book is made up of seven chapters, plus a Preface and Afterward, as well as a Foreward that was done by presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley specifically for the twelfth edition.  The chapters, in order, are:  Triangulation; Chameleon In Black and White; The Policy Coup; A Question Of Character; Clinton’s War Crimes; Is There A Rapist In The Oval Office?; and The Shadow Of A Con Man. 

Originally published in 1999, Hitchens began working on this book as President Clinton’s second term was nearing its end, shortly after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and around the time of the impeachment proceedings.  Hitchens uses the book as a way to not only reflect on the many scandals that touched Clinton’s presidency but also to look at his history of repeated behavior that foretold what he would do once he became the most powerful man in the country, if not the world.

Ultimately, Hitchens concludes that Clinton has left a legacy that neither the former President nor The Democratic Party can point to with any degree of pride.  For example, Hitchens cites The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), which basically sold the homosexual community down the river, angering many of the Liberals who supported him (not to mention the gays themselves).  DOMA alone is believed to have significantly delayed marriage equality in The United States. 

Whenever scandal threatened to draw negative attention his way, “Slick Willy” would invoke tactics similar to those seen in the movie “Wag The Dog” by bombing a country for no apparent reason, whether they deserved it or not; this would distract the press and the public substantially in the hope that by the time the “war” coverage was no longer on the front page of the newspapers or the lead story of the evening news, the scandal that precipitated it would have long since died down and the source of the hubbub will be a distant memory.   

Review

The title “No One Left To Lie To” was not an original thought by author and journalist Christopher Hitchens; it was actually borrowed from someone whom he heard on the news.  In an airport waiting to board a plane, Hitchens was watching television when David Schippers was being interviewed; Schippers was the chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee at the time Clinton’s scandals had reached their peak.  In his analysis of the besieged President, Schipper said of Clinton, “He lied to the people, he lied to the Cabinet, he lied to his top aides and now he’s lied under oath to the Congress of The United States.  There’s no one left to lie to”.   

The subtitle of the book is “The Triangulations Of William Jefferson Clinton”.  Triangulations, as explained by Hitchens, were those acts by Clinton where he made promises to the Liberals and Democrats while delivering actions to the Conservatives and Republicans for the purpose of holding on to political power.  The author poses the reasonable question, “Why is Clinton not hated by the Left and not loved by the Right?”.  The result of this was that not only did Clinton in fact hold on to his power, but also, he dragged the Democratic party further to the political Right than the party itself wanted.  The pain of such Clinton acts as NAFTA, for example, are still being felt by Americans to this day. 

This is a short book and an easy read – one you can get through rather quickly.  Especially pleasurable is Hitchens’ typically meticulous research and rapier wit.  Hitchens, an avowed Socialist, was much further to the left than Clinton himself, so this is in no way a hit-job by someone with Conservative leanings.  In the last weeks before this year’s presidential elections, it is also a vital book to read.  Even if you choose not to read the entire work, you should at the very least read its final chapter which details similar misdeeds by Clinton’s wife.  Did one teach the other or are they two people with similar talents who found each other?  In any event, it is worthwhile to check out before deciding for whom to cast your vote in November. 

No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton: Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Brinkley: 9781455522996: Books ISBN: 1455522996 ISBN-13: 9781455522996

“The Hollars”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new comedy-drama  “The Hollars”, starring John Krasinski, who also directed.

Synopsis

When a dysfunctional family is united after one of them falls ill, can they use this opportunity to resolve their issues with each other?

Story

John Hollar (Krasinski) is undergoing something of a crisis – and things aren’t about to get better anytime soon.   To begin with, John’s career isn’t on the trajectory he’d hoped it would be at this point in his life; for another thing, his fiancée Rebecca (Anna Kendrick) is pregnant with their first child, which is merely serving to compound his stress.  Add to that the latest news:  Sally (Margo Martindale), his mother, is quite ill and in the hospital.  Upon hearing this news, John immediately takes a temporary leave from his cartooning job in New York City to return to his family’s small hometown where he can support his mother. 

Arriving back home, John finds that he’s stepped into more controversy than he expected with his dysfunctional family members.  For one thing, his recently divorced brother Ron (Sharlto Copley) has been living at home with their parents Sally and Don (Richard Jenkins); this has been awkward for a couple of reasons:  one, of course, is due to the divorce itself, but the other is because until recently, Ron worked for Don at his failing heating and plumbing business.  When money became tight, Don had to lay off Ron; as a result, tensions have heightened between them.

After an examination, it turns out that Sally is seriously ill – she has a brain tumor that has apparently existed for quite some time without having been either detected or treated and now has to undergo a craniotomy in order to have the tumor removed.   With Rebecca feeling neglected once she hears that John’s ex-girlfriend has been pursuing him, she flies out there to be with him.  Joining John’s family, Rebecca tries to provide support during these turbulent times even though she’s dealing with an impending birth.  But will the family be able to resolve their internal conflicts by the time Sally recovers from surgery?

Review

While watching “The Hollars”, one gets the impression that although it may have been made from an original screenplay, it could nevertheless be based on a book titled, “The Big Hollywood Bible Of Movie Clichés”.  No one would be blamed for getting the sense that as the writer typed each page, he checked off every item in the book as he went along.  We are supposed to like “The Hollars” (both the family and the movie) because “they are so similar to us” and that the story has some verisimilitude with respect to the real life of average folks.      

People will always enjoy a good story if it is well-told.  In the case of “The Hollars”, it may be a good story, but it’s not well-told, at least not most of the time.  Krasinski’s angst over his professional and personal life is rather unsympathetic and one gets the recurring urge to tell his character to just grow up and snap out of it because he doesn’t realize how good his life truly is.  As his brother, Sharlto Copley’s character is equally unsympathetic; while we are supposed to feel for him because he misses his children, his erratic behavior has dark undertones that cause suspicions about what more nefarious acts he might commit.

On a positive note, “The Hollars” has a cast worth boasting about; movie and television fans will find an abundance of faces and names that are instantly recognizable.  This is an ensemble piece and the actors were likely drawn to it because each character had his or her own tale in which they would be featured.  Unfortunately, when characters start behaving in an irrational manner and do things that just don’t make any sense, that’s where viewers are in jeopardy of falling out of the story.  In a “dramedy”, it can be a delicate balance to know when to take things seriously and when not. 

“Hands Of Stone”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of The New York City Premiere for the new biography “Hands Of Stone”, starring Edgar Ramirez, Robert De Niro and Usher. 

Synopsis

When boxer Roberto Duran hires Ray Arcel as a trainer, he attains great success – but after suffering a professional setback, can Duran rebound?

Story

Growing up poor in Panama, Roberto Duran (Ramirez) had to hustle to help his family survive after his American father abandoned them – something which helped form a deep-seated hatred for America and Americans.  After a local boxing trainer takes pity on him, he agrees to help the young Duran get fights where he earns money to support his mother and siblings.  As Duran grows up, his boxing skills become more impressive; it is at this point he is introduced to Eleta (Rubén Blades), a successful businessman who promotes matches.  Eleta brings Duran to America, where he gradually builds quite a reputation.

In 1971, Eleta invites Ray Arcel (De Niro) to see Duran fight; Duran impresses Arcel as a natural destined for greatness, but when Eleta tries to get Arcel to become Duran’s trainer, both Arcel and Duran are reluctant to enter into an arrangement.  Duran’s hatred of Americans makes him suspicious of Arcel; meanwhile, Arcel is wary of re-emerging from a forced retirement after a New York City mobster (John Turturro) threatened his life if he remained in the profession.  Agreeing to train Duran on the condition he does not make any money from his effort, Arcel consents to work with Duran. 

Throughout the 1970’s, Arcel and Duran make quite a team; Duran keeps winning and his notoriety grows.  By 1980, Duran earns a shot at the welterweight title against champion Sugar Ray Leonard (Usher); Duran wins, taking the championship from Leonard.  Disturbed, Leonard convinces Eleta to schedule a rematch months later.  But in that fight, Duran – who, to this point, has been enjoying his celebrity – has lost his drive.  The fight ends when Duran tells the referee he’s quitting, allegedly saying, “No mas” (“No more”) – causing Leonard to regain his belt.  But after going from Panama’s national hero to their national disgrace, can Duran make a comeback as a boxer?

Review

When it comes to “Hands Of Stone”, the good news is it’s certainly no hagiography; Roberto Duran never comes across as a saint.  The bad news is Duran’s character is so obnoxious it is difficult to root for him – unfortunate, given that this is supposed to be his life story.  Certainly a biography that treats its subject as bordering on the saint-like would be difficult to watch not to mention unrealistic; however, the filmmakers seem to have encountered great difficulty riding the fine line of when to present Duran negatively and when not.  Ultimately, Duran’s film character crosses the line to the point the audience understandably must wonder why they should care about his outcome. 

In that regard, “Hands Of Stone” could be compared unfavorably to Scorsese’s “Raging Bull”.  Both stories are biographies of boxers who suffer a downfall – one professionally, the other personally.  Also, both show darker sides of their subject.  But where LaMotta  suffers for his misdeeds, never again reaching his previous level of success, Duran appears to attain some degree of redemption (albeit questionable).  Why should we care?  Regardless of whether or not Duran actually said, “No mas” in the re-match with Robinson (he claims he never did), the fact remains is that he quit and his motivation for doing so is rather murky (at least based on what we can discern from the movie).

Speaking of “Raging Bull”, it is worth mentioning that since that great film, it feels like De Niro has been desperately trying to find his next “Raging Bull” (“Hands Of Stone” isn’t it, nor was “Grudge Match”).  Having said that, what should also be noted is the character of Ray Arcel is much more compelling than Duran; that’s the motion picture that would be interesting to see.  How Arcel survived after being forced out by the mob is a fascinating story – not to mention a victorious one as he had a comeback of his own.  Maybe someday that picture will be made.       

“Sinatra: The Chairman”– Book Review

 

This summer, I read “Sinatra:  The Chairman” by James Kaplan, a biography of Frank Sinatra from 1954 until his death in 1998.

Synopsis

After Frank Sinatra wins the Oscar in 1954, can this change the momentum of his career or is he basically done at this point?

Story

In the Spring of 1954, having secured his acting award for “From Here To Eternity”, Sinatra was sure that he was on the comeback trail.  Having been jettisoned by his former recording company, Columbia Records, he was in dire search for not only a new contract, but a new start as well.  Before long, it would be Alan Livingston of Capitol Records who would be willing to take a chance on Sinatra.  While the singer wanted to work with Axel Stordahl, the arranger with whom he had so many successes in his glory years of the 1940’s, Livingston played a hunch and paired him with an up and coming staff arranger named Nelson Riddle. 

Having spent the next few years re-establishing himself as the premier song interpreter of his time by working with Riddle and Billy May to produce hit singles and albums that were praised by both critics and the public alike, Sinatra once again found himself at the top of the world professionally.  As might be expected, however, his personal life was another matter entirely.  After many highly publicized separations and reconciliations with then-wife Ava Gardner, they finally divorced; although their tumultuous marriage was officially over, their passion was not – in fact, their life would intersect many times for decades to come. 

After leaving Capitol to form Reprise, his own record company, Sinatra found the business of running a label to be a challenge; as music tastes were changing in the early 1960’s, Reprise – adamantly against signing any rock and roll acts – relied solely on the performers that were more or less contemporaries of Sinatra.  He signed his Rat Pack buddies Dean Martin and Sammy Davis, Jr., among others and found that his dream company was hemorrhaging money.   Eventually, in order to save the label, Sinatra wound up selling it to Warner Brothers, in exchange for a movie deal.  Again, however, Sinatra’s personal life was considerably turbulent; as a notorious playboy, he had many romances – one of which culminating in a brief marriage to actress Mia Farrow. 

Through his many connections with organized crime, Sinatra was able to help get John F. Kennedy elected president of the United States; their close friendship ended when Kennedy rebuffed Sinatra.  In later years, Sinatra became a Republican, supporting candidates like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.  Following a brief retirement in the early 1970’s, he tried to make a comeback, but his time had clearly passed.  He remarried in 1976; with age, he slowed down and this marriage would prove to last him until his demise in 1998. 

Review

About a year ago, I reviewed the biography “Frank:  The Voice” by the same author; it was considered the first volume in a two-volume set on the singer’s life.  Once again, Kaplan does not disappoint; just as Sinatra’s unique singing voice brought a new interpretation to old songs, Kaplan’s unique writing voice brings a new perspective on an oversized personality we all thought we already knew far too well.  Both Kaplan’s writing style and research prove to be what shines above all of the so-called gossip because he provides readers with substantial facts that either buttress or refute the various stories that have circulated throughout Sinatra’s life. 

One of the things that Kaplan appears to be trying to do is to get inside Sinatra’s head.  Without a doubt, this is something which sets this book apart from others who have attempted biographies of the star.  At the risk of sounding like the author is attempting to psychoanalyze his subject, Kaplan cites Sinatra’s behavior over the decades to draw conclusions that are quite credible, based on the evidence previously provided.  Another thing that enriches this biography is that there are an abundance of details that very often have gone either overlooked or omitted altogether in past biographies.   

Arguably, Kaplan’s best writing comes at the very end of the book when he describes visiting Sinatra’s gravesite.  After so many years of writing about this icon in the history of popular American culture, he sounds like he comes away a little disappointed.  There are no long lines wrapping around the site.  The letters have somewhat faded from years of being in the sun.  Perhaps the most egregious error of all is that in literature supplied by The Palm Springs Desert Memorial Park, The Chairman takes second billing to Sonny Bono, who is also buried in the same cemetery.  Is the disappointment Kaplan conveys due to the underwhelming gravesite of his subject?  Or is the disappointment in knowing that his fine work on this idol of millions has come to its inevitable conclusion?   

Sinatra: The Chairman: James Kaplan: 9780385535397: Books ISBN: 0385535392 ISBN-13: 9780385535397

“Florence Foster Jenkins”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of The New York City Premiere of the new comedy-drama, “Florence Foster Jenkins” , starring Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant. 

Synopsis

When a wealthy socialite attempts a singing career, can she succeed despite her lack of talent or will she be forced to confront the reality she fears?

Story

In 1944, the end of the second World War seemed nowhere in sight.  Florence Foster Jenkins (Streep), a well-heeled New York City socialite and known patron of the arts, wishes to support the American troops by various fundraising efforts in collaboration with her husband, St. Clair Bayfield (Grant).  As a lifelong lover of music, she gifts some money to her friend, the great conductor Arturo Toscanini, so that he and noted opera singer Lily Pons can put on a show at Carnegie Hall. Upon seeing the performance, Florence becomes inspired to sing herself; this would fulfill two of her great desires –namely, a career in the world of music and also raising money for the war effort. 

Florence and St. Clair hire  Cosme McMoon (Simon Helberg), a talented pianist, to accompany her.  After many rehearsals and vocal lessons, it becomes painfully clear to everyone except Florence that she has zero singing ability.  However, being an affluent woman who is financing everyone’s life, no one is about to tell the empress that she isn’t wearing any clothes; as a result, they all agree to allow her to live her delusion.  Hoping to provide a positive experience for his wife’s debut as a performer, St. Clair pads the audience with people whom he believes will provide a favorable response.  Hearing her, some of the true music lovers are aghast, while the rest struggle to suppress laughter. 

Rather than be discouraged by this reception, Florence is emboldened.  She records a song and sends it to a local radio station; when it gets played on the air, it becomes the most popular recording on the show, providing Florence with considerable notoriety.  The audience clamors for requests to not only play it but purchase it as well.  Gaining in popularity, Florence arranges with Carnegie Hall to stage her own performance there, where she will give away a thousand tickets to members of the military.  St. Clair and Cosme are understandably worried.  They have been dutifully shielding Florence from reality and are concerned that if she finds out the truth about her singing, she will be heartbroken.  Ultimately, they are unable to dissuade Florence from performing.  On the night of her concert, will she be rewarded with the acclaim she so desperately seeks or will she suffer the greatest humiliation of her life? 

Review

“Florence Foster Jenkins” is based on true events, bringing into the forefront the astonishing life of someone who had a brief amount of fame in the 1940’s and has long since been largely forgotten.  The movie itself is equally forgettable.  Its attempts at humor descend to a level of a second rate situation comedy in dire need of cancellation while its efforts towards the more serious veer irrevocably towards the melodramatic.  With characters drawn as broadly as the three main ones in this story, it’s asking too much of the audience to abruptly shift gears from silly to tragic. 

Not even a performance by the great Meryl Streep proves enough to elevate this movie.  While laughs abound the first time you hear Streep’s character attempt to sing – not to mention the humorous reactions by Grant and Helberg – the joke grows weary before too long.  The movie then goes to great lengths to make the audience appreciate that this is the tale of a real human being, but by then it is far too late; the perception that this person is merely a cartoon character has already been so ingrained in the mind of the viewer that convincing us to change our perspective is a Sisyphean task, to put it mildly.

While Helberg’s character truly existed in real life, the way he is portrayed in “Florence Foster Jenkins” would understandably make an audience believe that he is merely the figment of a desperate screenwriter’s imagination.  For one thing, Cosme comes across as someone who either is a grown adult with childlike naiveté or a guy who’s just plain stupid.  Exactly why he would honestly think that everyone around Florence actually took her to be a serious talent instead of just glomming off her money defies explanation.  Ultimately, it’s too bad that the filmmakers didn’t adhere to a simple rule:  If the story is too good to be true, then make it a documentary instead. 

“Hell Or High Water”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a screening by The New York Times Film Club of the new crime drama “Hell Or High Water”, starring Jeff Bridges, Chris Pine and Ben Foster.

Synopsis

When a pair of brothers go on a bank robbery spree, can they be brought to justice by a Texas Ranger on the verge of retirement?

Story

Weeks after their mother’s death, brothers Toby and Tanner (Pine and Foster) start robbing a bunch of banks, all of which belong to the Texas Midland chain throughout West Texas.  Although it was Toby’s idea, Tanner, who has done time for bank robbery (among other things), is the mastermind behind these crimes – assuming “mastermind” is the correct word here.   The two come across as so inept and amateurish, you’d never know one of them actually had experience at this.  In spite of themselves, they manage to take in quite a haul after several jobs – something in the neighborhood of $40,000.   

After several of these jobs, Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Bridges) is assigned the case along with his Native American partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham), whom he mercilessly baits with racist remarks.  Despite the fact that Hamilton is literally weeks away from retirement, he desperately wants to catch these guys before hanging up his badge – one for the road, you might say.  Doing so is not going to prove easy, however – Hamilton’s having difficulty finding a pattern, much less cooperative witnesses.  Without reliable descriptions of these two men, this investigation is going to take a while – yet with nothing but retirement facing him, Hamilton is certainly in no rush. 

Finally, Hamilton’s instinct as a lawman for several decades kicks in and he surmises that their next target will be the large Texas Midland branch in Post, Texas.  As he and Alberto head there along with a fleet of their fellow Rangers, they learn the brothers have not only already hit the Post branch, but they have turned murderers, too.  When things go sour at this busy, crowded bank, Toby and Tanner wind up taking the life of a guard and a customer.  Now, the Rangers are in hot pursuit of not only thieves but killers, as well.  After the brothers split up during their getaway, Tanner chooses to directly confront the cops; being extremely well armed, he engages them in a shootout, killing one of the Rangers.  For Hamilton, this now becomes personal.  But after neutralizing Tanner, can he capture Pine?

Review

If you tire of comic book flicks and feel you have busted enough ghosts for one summer, then perhaps it’s time for you to check out “Hell Or High Water”.  It’s a fun, gritty, wild ride while also touching on interesting themes, such as how the economy has screwed those of our society who can least afford to lose money and how some of the most predatory lenders around have been banks themselves – the ones who are supposed to be the most risk-averse and honest.  The film is bookended by some intense action and violence, but in the middle, backstory and character arc rule, giving viewers a respite from some of the shooting.

What makes “Hell Or High Water” so interesting is the artful way in which it peels away the exposition’s onion-like layers until we learn the reason why the brothers engaged in this series of felonious adventures.  Knowing the context for their crime spree perfectly sets up the magnificent ending, making it all the more satisfying.  Taking nothing away from a terrific movie such as “No Country For Old Men”, you might compare it to “Hell Or High Water” by saying it is a less dark version of “No Country”, yet it similarity deals with how a lawman from another generation sees the world around him change. 

As far as the performances are concerned, Jeff Bridges and Ben Foster truly shine here; they are given the opportunity to steal just about every scene they are in because their characters are so broadly drawn – in the hands of lesser actors, their roles would have been caricatures.  With Bridges and Foster, however, they are able to discover nuances about Hamilton and Tanner that give each greater depth.  Unfortunately, Pine suffers by comparison because his Toby is essentially Tanner’s straight man; basically, Pine plays the more boring of the two, but in the end, the more human.