 And then the Neo-Nazis start patrolling the town's streets with fully loaded assault rifles Director: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker Writer: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker Cinematographer: Michael Beach Nichols Producer: Joey Carey, Jenner Furst, Michael Beach Nichols, Christopher K. Walker, Joshua Woltermann by Jon Cvack I always know I’m in for a treat when my friend Tim text’s me about a movie. I’m writing this right after the Charlottesville Riots, where for the first time I think we’re seeing the true side of Trump and his supporters finally coming out, and it’s breaking my heart. I see people that I would consider friends defending Nazis, masking that defense behind the First Amendment, as though just because something is currently a particular right the law cannot evolve. I once considered myself a pretty vehement first amendment supporter, but I do not consider Nazis and White Supremacists right to free speech falling within the First Amendment purview, as the very nature and foundation of those ideologies is the mass disruption and often destruction of specific human lives. The defense that so long as an individual is not inciting violence that it is within the bounds of free speech is negated when the very purpose of that idea is to destroy life. I believe in free speech as it comes through constructive dialogue. The moment one side poses to murder human life, that is no longer a constructive conversation. This seems pretty straightforward. The first amendment doesn’t apply to yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater as it could hurt or kill people, and the Nazis are a far more extreme version of this idea. The amazing thing about the first amendment's evolution is that that we now live in a world where our ability to consume speech as changed. The same amendment that allows Nazis to go out and protest is now the same amendment that allows us to watch it and judge. The founders would never fathom us watching videos on computers and cell phones, captured by the people who were there and published for the world to see. In their time you’d have the news filtered, if you ever heard it. Think of how long it would take for someone to have heard of Charlottesville Riots in rural Nebraska in the early 19th century? It’s no longer that we are reading about someone’s thoughts and what they did with them, but that we are first hand seeing the actions based upon those ideas. Amongst a freer economy, free speech has allowed us to see the smallest moments. I think of all the police killing, and of these riots, and how much was filmed. We now get to watch it and pass judgment; that is as citizens - do we want this or not? I do not and I would support the law adjusting to designate Nazis and White Supremacists as terrorists who do not have the privilege to exercise their first amendment right. It’s dangerous and produces zero benefit. The law evolved to one day allow us to see the ugly side of America, and we now must ensure that that same law is used to properly protect people against things we might not known about. Charlottesville opened a lot of people’s eyes to the extreme right of America. Not too long ago I watched a PBS documentary Oklahoma City, which is about the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 men, women, and children, committed by White Nationalist Timothy McVeigh, and while I was figured it was going to examine the events about the bombing specifically, it actually was about the rise of White Nationalism from the 1980s onward, where with the early Reagan economy, when farms were hit hardest (a period seen in both great films American Fable and God’s Country, if you’re wondering), with many having to declare bankruptcy or seek work elsewhere, especially in Iowa. During the period, many White Nationalist groups started moving to upstate Idaho, hiding out in the woods, where in one terrifying shot we see a miniature Nazi compound, covered in Swastikas. The film examines the tale of Ruby Ridge, but for the sake of brevity just check those essays out, if you want to know more. Most recent was The Battle of Bunkerville, examining Cliven Bundy and the stand off between the cattle ranchers and the accompanying militias against the Federal Government, where the Federal officers retreated against Bundy and the others pointing their loaded rifles at the police, threatening to shoot. Later he went to the Oregon Reserve Building, taking it over for a few months, with the police simply waiting for him to surrender peacefully. There was a strange combination of anti-government extremists on one hand, willing to shoot the police who they love so much because of grazing laws and Nazis/White Nationalists further to the right. I was left wondering where all the militias were who could have brought their loaded AR15’s and stand to ensure the Nazis didn’t do anything stupid. The point being that a very intense division is occurring within modern politics today, a split that is unprecedented in recent times and unprecedented for such a media heavy age, and there is a man in power who is willing to go easy on White Nationalists and Nazis, or at the very least, to appease those who disagree, he didn’t go nearly hard enough, especially for a man who knows how threaten “fire and fury.” So what happens when these behaviors are more excusable? BELOW: I was left wondering at what point a person decides to fully embrace Nazism, uproot himself to try and start a Neo-Nazi colony with any degree of confidence that it'll work out well Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 Working with George Director: George Cukor Writer: David Hempstead; based on Little Women by Louisa May Alcott Producer: Merian C. Cooper Cinematographer: Henry W. Gerrard by Jon Cvack I’ve never seen the 1994 version of the film, which given the decade I’m dying to get to. While Little Women was remade again in 1949, it was George Cukor’s 1933 version which first captured Louisa May Alcott’s novel (which I’ve yet to read), following the four March sisters Jo (Katharine Hepburn), Meg (Frances Dee), Amy (Joan Bennett), and Beth (Jean Parker) from their teenage years all the way up through their 40s (I thought 30s was pushing it a stretch, but this timeline says otherwise). It was incredible to watch Hepburn make the transformation, as even during the early years and having become spoiled with Boyhood (2014), Cukor does an incredible job of showing the age progression, focusing on everything from the costumes to the thinning hair. I found Katharine Hepburn annoying as ever in this film, with her accent and pretension grating my patience. Jo is clearly Louisa Alcott in the story and I was left wondering whether Hepburn was trying to best capture the author’s spirit, or that she just thought it was a better direction. Unfortunately, the film took on a feel that I’m starting to notice more when watching some classic films; that some are just boring, plain and simple, and the ambiguity of taste, only developed by watching enough films from the period, has learned that it’s okay to not enjoy some well regarded movies. The film left me wanting to read the book, feeling as though it was capturing the most superficial aspects of the story, when you know that the book does a far more thorough job.* Often films that attempt to cram mountains of material in an hour and forty five minutes feel rushed and superficial, as though it was made not to honor the story so much as to make money. Still, the good adaptations at least come close to capturing the spirit. There were a few memorable moments - the play, Jo rejecting the boy who loves her - but beyond that, and especially compared to other Cukor films, it felt empty. A Star is Born (1958), My Fair Lady (1964), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Born Yesterday (1950) - all these film are all so strong when I think back. Little Women isn’t bad, and I imagine anyone that watched it growing up might have grown attached, but then I think they were probably watching the 1994 version, which given the decade, I’m confident is much better. *This was confirmed when I looked up the page count at 816. BELOW: Hepburn's particularly grating in this film Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  It's never too late to do another movie together Director: Ron Shelton Writer: Ron Shelton Producer: Thom Mount and Mark Burg Cinematographer: Bobby Byrne by Jon Cvack I’ve been revisiting many of the most famous baseball movies, realizing upon Googling the "Best Baseball Movie" list that I had completely forgotten about Little Big League ('94), with still a handful of other films I’ve never seen - most famously Eight Men Out ('88). I had first seen Bull Durham back in college whilst trying to make my through AFI’s Micro Lists (in this case 10 Best Sports Movies). I had loved the film, admiring its abandonment of the Major Leagues in order to focus on the Minors and what making it to The Show means to tens of thousands of players. Counter to Field of Dreams ('89) or The Natural ('84) and their ability to focus on the game’s mythology and nostalgia, Bull Durham is much more focused on the game’s stark reality; namely, that 99.999% of aspiring players will fail. The film opens with a narration from baseball fanatic and groupie Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon) who explains how at the top of each season she will shack up with the best player in the hopes of getting them to the major leagues, then moving on to the next year’s star. This year, it's an ace pitcher (when he can throw correctly) Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLooshs (Tim Robbins) whose first seen having sex in the shower with another fangirl moments before his debut, with Manager Joe Riggins (in an incredible role from Trey Wilson), perfectly matched up by his Bench Coach Larry Hockett (Robert Wuhl), who's enraged about Nuke’s complete disregard for the game. Sure enough, too caught up in his head, the Nuke pitches terribly, having the speed but no control whatsoever, sending balls flying in all directions. Hockett and Riggins decide to bring the 12 year ailing veteran “Crash” Davis (Kevin Costner) in as a catcher to help coach Nuke, while simultaneously realizing it’s also his last shot to get into the majors. One of the most fascinating elements of baseball is its farm system. Unlike most other sports, baseball players often have to work their way up through a system ranging from A to AAA ball. Most of these are owned by the Major League teams, which are thus farming new talent. As usual with baseball movies, knowing how this works helps you to appreciate Crash’s character all the more. He was good enough to play in AAA for twelve years, a few shy of having the minor league record, and yet he never got to the next level beyond a few games. While Nuke doesn’t have the same passion or focus, Crash knows that Nuke has what it takes. Having watched The Player a week or so after Bull Durham, it was incredible to see the range in which Robbins had been able to extend himself, maintaining a layer of ignorance where you’re never sure if it’s all part of some ruse, or actually who he is. Annie is a bizarre character, floating between bizarre and sexist, yet always affirming her femininity and knowledge. She’s not a stupid bimbo like the character so easily could have so easily been (especially during the 80s). She likes to talk about science, philosophy, and religion, even when it bores the players. She’s a deeply sad character, and my main gripe is that we never find out what makes her want to sleep with so many men. Some might say there is no point, and it was simply a queer lifestyle she desired. Perhaps she simply loved the game so much knowing that she had a role in contributing to its greatest stars. She joins Crash in coaching Nuke, mixing sex and psychology to try and get the best performance out of him, eventually forcing Nuke to wear her black silk panties to help relax his mind. And yet there’s also Crash, both his attraction to Annie and her to him. Robbins was thirty at the time, but the movie makes him seem (and might have said) he was in his early 20s, making it odd that while Annie has a much more suitable man in front of her that is Crash, she still chooses the young Nuke. It felt as though there was some type of Greek myth I was missing, but the Oedipal dynamic is fascinating, as Annie seems to serve as a type of mother figure, rejoining the father after her son has grown into the man that she hoped he’d be. The film shows the hope these players have, determined to use any and all opportunity to make it to The Show. More and more, I see that this lesson applies to so many other endeavors - film, music, writing, politics. There are so few slots and so many wanting to fill them that the margin for error is minuscule between those who fail versus those who succeed. In a brilliant scene, Crash breaks down how a hitter hitting just one more or one less ball per week in a season could make or break their shot at the majors; equally about one extra hit per 20 at bats. At its core, baseball is a game about statistics. There is a probability for an event. The real world doesn’t work with such strict, quantifiable numbers; there are more subtle moments that result in an ailing number. Not taking a meeting, not showing up to a party, not having the discipline, not knowing the right person - to think of how many small things can go wrong that could blow anyone’s shot at their Show. Bull Durham is about accepting that fate, and coming to terms that it may never happen. It’s a funny and somber film, abandoning the thrilling allure of the Majors and instead looking at the reality of those trying to get there. BELOW: What makes baseball great: its ability to serve as a metaphor for most things in life Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  A harbinger of what the ACA would fix Director: Francis Ford Coppola Writer: Francis Ford Coppola; based on The Rainmaker by John Grisham Cinematographer: John Toll Producer: Michael Douglas, Fred Fuchs, and Steven Reuther by Jon Cvack I know I had seen The Rainmaker once upon a time, recently discovering Netflix saves your rental history and looks like I watched this back on March 11, 2008, which was back in my junior year of college when I might have had a few too many Seagram’s to remember much; supported by the fact that while I remembered images and individual moments, I had no clue about the incredible cast - Jon Voight, Mickey Rourke, Matt Damon, Danny DeVito, Claire Danes, Dean Stockwell, Virginia Madsen, and Danny Glover, all directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The story is part of that great 90s revival of procedural dramas - Ghosts of the Mississippi, A Time to Kill, Primal Fear, and the 12 Angry Men remake (with the exception of A Civil Action (‘98) all being made between 1996/1997), and with such an extraordinary number of such a specific type of the film it’s no surprise that the movie was a great success. I’m always left wondering what happened to Francis Ford Coppola when seeing anything he made after Apocalypse Now, wondering if he truly did pour everything he had into that film, never able to achieve the same level again. The Rainmaker isn’t bad; but it’s not bad the way Rumble Fish isn’t bad. It just doesn’t even come close to the expertise and craft of The Godfather I & II and Apocalypse Now. Similar to The Firm (made in 1993), Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon) is a fresh law school grad and idealistic young man who hopes to use his law for the good, currently a bartender in Memphis, unable to find a job in the lawyer heavy town. He hasn’t yet passed the bar, though gets involved with a local ambulance chaser and massively undeveloped character J. Lyman Stone (Mickey Rourke) who could just as well operate a Reno casino. His attorneys are only paid with the cases they bring in, which he then gets a percent of. Rudy gets synced up with paralegal and six-time BAR Exam flunkie Deck Shifflet (Danny Devito). Operating in Stone’s firm for so long, Deck knows all the tricks, having a full rolodex of contacts at the local hospitals where they meet 22 year old Donny Ray (Johnny Whitworth) who’s in for his cancer treatment, currently on his deathbed after his insurance company failed to pay for a bone marrow transplant. Rudy soon meets Kelly Riker (Claire Danes); a victim of domestic abuse, who Rudy immediately grows infatuated with in a mildly weird way, in that even though the woman is bruised and beaten, he still has some strange attraction to the girl; as though Rudy was more determined to help because he found her pretty rather than because he felt a genuine concern for her welfare and just so happened to develop an attraction. In a massive plot rush, Stone makes headlines after the FBI open up an investigation into possible racketeering, leading Shifflet and Rudy to jump ship and open their own law firm where they make a quick high six figure sum after settling a personal injury case which leaves them with the means to take on Danny Ray’s case, suing Great Benefit health insurance for $10 million. The defense is led by a classic and powerful role from John Voight who plays the rich corporate attorney Leo F. Drummond whose personality and mind is as fascinating as any of the other characters. While Stone makes a slight return to the story, I didn’t fully understand his role. He’s one of the first characters introduced in the film who serves no purpose beyond getting Rudy a job and then helping them out with some files. I haven’t read the book, but assume that this person had a much larger role. Yet for such a big character, played by such a big person, I also wonder if maybe some of the scenes hit the floor. Regardless the rest of the cast is incredible, setting up a great setting, which in this case, in an age before the Affordable Care Act, insurers could prey on poor or ignorant people, get them to purchase a predatory and otherwise useless health plan, and never pay a dime, rejecting their every claim. In Donny Ray’s case, they didn’t want to pay for the bone marrow transplant, figuring it unproven. As mentioned, I haven’t read much John Grisham, but it’s a film like this that makes me want to pick up a book. The plot is far from all that original and yet the characters are so rich. The film was Grisham’s second, heavily autobiographical and based off his own experiences as a young Memphis attorney. What we discover is that, like any industry, competition is fierce, and far from everyone’s got noble intentions. For some, the purpose is to get rich and powerful. I always think of what it’d be like to have a legal job at some gigantic corporation like Shell Oil, handling lawsuits, using all your knowledge and education to prevent individuals from finding justice. The job is to protect the interests of the rich and powerful, in the hopes of becoming rich and powerful. And on the flip side is Rudy, who’s determined to use the privilege for good, seeing how tilted the scales are, and how massive and well financed his opponents are. The movie does a perfect job of inserting politics without being political, using argument to prove a point; in this case that Great Benefits had unlawfully rejected the claims of over 90% of their clients, including Donn Ray. Initially the trial is led by Dean Stockwell, who now that I think about it, also had a terribly brief role as the tobacco loving Judge Harvey Hail, who quickly suffers a heart attack after looking to be more big business friendly, as he had often been. Hail’s replaced by his political mirror and former civil rights attorney Tyrone Kipler (Danny Glover) who is clearly more sympathetic to Donny Ray’s case. He’s also the film’s most fascinating character, as while wanting justice for the Ray’s family, he’s committed to following procedure and rule, even if that means some facts won’t be shared. For instance, they secure former Great Benefit employee Jackie Lemanczyk (Virginia Madsen), who provides them with an internal employee guide that has a mysterious "Section G” instructing all employees to reject the vast majority of claims, totaling about 100,000, where they only paid out 90,000. Unfortunately, it was obtained through stealing and is therefore impermissible. It’s this kind of detail and insight that makes the film so fascinating. Just as you feel David Simon’s personal connection to The Wire, using the tiniest details to show how the system works, Grisham achieves the same with law. There are moments that I’d be ashamed to list, for fear of getting wrong, yet which proved the legal means in which the case was arranged and debated. Add the amazing cast and it felt as though I was following an actual event. It’s not my favorite procedural, but it’s definitely one of the best from that 90s pool. BELOW: Jon Voight as another great 90s villain Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Though an obvious point, while everyone focuses Ellar Coltrane's transformation, we forget that everyone aged 10 years, including Ethan Hawke who finished training day just a few years prior to this project Director: Richard Linklater Writer: Richard Linklater Cinematographer: Lee Daniel and Shane Kelly Producer: Richard Linklater, Cathleen Sutherland, Jonathan Sehring, and John Sloss by Jon Cvack Check out the first thoughts on Boyhood from January 4, 2016. There are many movies that use iconic songs that elicit a heavy dose of nostalgia - Stand by Me ('86), Now and Then ('95), Dirty Dancing ('87), My Girl ('91); essentially any coming of age story having taken place in the 1950s has that one track that elevates the story and impacts the culture. Yet while most of those films I watched as a kid, Boyhood was my first encounter with a coming of age story as an adult, portraying the era in which I grew up; realizing that for how fresh the film's opening song of Coldplay's “Yellow” feels in my memory, the song was released close to sixteen years ago, demonstrating how fast time moves, in which the period seems both close and distant, as with most of the things that’ve transpired since. For a three hour film, I was absolutely blown away by how quickly the story plays out, though I suppose it’s due to the ten different individual segments, creating an anticipation for what Mason Evans (Ellar Coltrane) will experience next. There would be best friends who come and go and fights with parents and first loves and subsequent heartbreaks and those first drinks and drug experimentsd. We watch as Mason encounters each problem, often assessing it all wrong and taking away the wrong lesson, all while his parents are doing the same. It’s a movie that allowed me to go back and re-experience all of my own ups and downs while growing up, with an amazing cast that brings such profound flavor to moments that seemed so banal or fleeting when first remembered. It allowed me to reconsider how certain events have affected latter ones, and that the small moments that seemed so large then and I laugh about now actually were strong and powerful and in no way insignificant, allowing me to no longer cringe at their memory, but instead embrace them as real and universal, serving as rite of passage. In the end, during one of the most powerful scenes between Mason and his mom Olivia (Patricia Arquette) we discover her adult view of life. Nothing goes as expected and the frustration is neverending. Just when things seem to calm a new event occurs. As Linklater explores, the challenges we all face in adulthood become increasingly more serious and consequential, and it’s only by pushing through the pains of adolescence that we could ever possibly be prepared for those later in life. Boyhood celebrates where one is at in any particular moment, no matter the age. The mom can’t find the right husband, or she’s a moment too late. The dad gives up on his dreams while his friend continues and reaches some success. Boyhood takes a look at those small moments that assemble and evolve us into becoming what we are. We cannot escape our choices or the way we respond to certain situations anymore than we control the actions of others and how we're impacted by them. I look at all the chapters in my life, the past year, the past eight years, and I consider how they’ve all affected me; realizing that aside from the spectrum of events - from heartbreaks to deaths to professional and personal frustrations - that the only consistent piece is the feeling they’ve all provided. Whether something goes well or terrible, the response is the same, except with a little more knowledge that time will heal, or that the sheer ecstasy of good news or a good day cannot last forever. Everything passes and all we’re left with are the memories of those moments, which Linklater has shown to be some of the most precious of human experience. BELOW: Not a perfect drunk step-father, but pretty dang close Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Still, an important story to tell Director: Theodore Melfi Writer: Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi Cinematographer: Mandy Walker Producer: Donna Gigliotti, Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping, Pharrell Williams, and Theodore Melfi by Jon Cvack My girlfriend and I had the privilege of seeing a preview of this film at the San Diego Film Festival where the director had a fifteen minute, uncolored, unmixed cut to preview. It was an incredible picture, full of fascinating characters and an incredible cast, showcasing the math and engineering prowess many of these women possessed. Unfortunately, we then missed the theatrical run due to conflicting schedules, though after finally getting the film on BluRay it provided one of the strangest movie experiences I’ve ever had, learning that the fifteen minute preview we saw was not at all the first fifteen minutes, but rather a compilation of scenes that extended across the first 90 minutes of the two hour and change running time. Keep in mind - the preview did not at all play like some sort of assembly of the best clips, but rather as a strong first act, leaving me excited for where the film would go, and if it could achieve Apollo 13 levels. The film involves three genius women of color, all working on the race that would eventually send John Glenn into space, including: math wunderkind Katherine Johnson (Taraji P. Henson) who was what was once referred to as a “computer” before the machine came out and stole the term; her supervisor that’s not paid or respected as a supervisor/computer programmer Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer); and soon-to-be engineer Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe) as they attempt to navigate segregated and racist Hampton, Virginia at NASA. They battle against colored bathrooms over a quarter of a mile across campus (which, according to Fact Checks, was embellished and never happened; Katherine Johnson specifically was able to use the white bathroom with limited criticism from her colleagues); bigoted upper management such as Vivian Mitchell (Kirsten Dunst) who preserves the systemic racism (though never actually existed as a person); along with an education system that maintains segregation, preventing people of color - let alone women - from acquiring the necessary credentials to enter into the NASA engineering training program (which did actually happened; Mary Jackson helping to end the policy). We see them experience bigotry and hatred, and knowing that some facts were embellished for dramatic effect I couldn’t help resenting that in order to achieve some great speeches and monologues they had to distort the reality of the culture, making it more racist in order to highlight the courage these women had, which could have been more effective if they focused on the micro. For instance, when Katherine Johnson finally gets chewed out for having to take another 20 minute break by running across campus, returning to take her coffee from the “colored” pot (also didn’t happen) it leads her to give a borderline cringey speech where she yells and screams about how frustrating it is for her, leading her boss and Director of the Space Task Group, Al Harrison (Kevin Costner), to take a crowbar and beat down the colored bathroom sign in order to usher in integration (also didn’t happen). The issue is that NASA’s portrayed as a far more aggressive and bigoted enterprise from the era than it really was, making it seem like all the men in Space Task Group were horrible people at the expense of the story. While these women’s story is long overdue for an adaptation, I take issue with have the filmmakers revise history in order to provide a more dramatic effect; as even Katherine Johnson’s double checking of math didn’t take place during John Glenn’s reentry. I know it’s a common practice, but rarely is a film’s entire dramatic effect so heavily reliant on events that never happened. And to toss another trope onto the fire, we get to watch uninspired relationships manifest, featuring powerhouse player Mahershala Ali as veteran Jim Johnson in one of the most underwhelming roles I’ve ever seen. One the largest issues is presenting these women as benevolent; inviolable in their strength and character; never even attempting to show or hint at a negative trait. So while history is revised and painted with a much more somber tone, the opposite is done for the characters, who serve as paragons of virtue. It all goes back to that fifteen minute cut, which made many of the embellishments and tropes work, as it all seemed to be building toward something bigger and better than any first act could provide. To think that all of this fluff could have been removed and that it still worked just goes to show how unnecessary it all was and what could have been. BELOW: Great scene. Too bad it never happened Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Kind of a pyramid scheme? Director: Ted Braun Cinematographer: Buddy Squires Producer: Glen Zipper and Devin Adair by Jon Cvack I had first noticed Herbalife while hanging out at my favorite coffee shop over in Culver City as a representative pitched a handful of young woman, hardly out of high school; whose eyes were wide with dreams of wealth. I never knew anyone that had gotten involved, though my sister’s ex-high school boyfriend once fell victim to a similar scam involving steak knives (in which he had to buy a set to try and sell, though it was more about trying to get others to buy the set and try to sell; he didn’t last long). The film opens up with “Activist Investor” and hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman as he’s about to give a presentation in the long past stale Al Gore format where he stands on a stage and talks about the problem, which is then intercut with footage examining the rise and structure of Herbalife. For those not familiar, Herbalife is a health supplement company that recruits members to both 1) sell their product and 2) more lucratively (as they say), recruit additional members to sell their product. Similar to the steak knives, the individuals starting out are call "distributors" who have to buy about $3,000 worth of the supplements in order to start selling. They are restricted from setting up any of their shops with the name Herbalife or its logos on display anywhere outside or inside the store, also requiring that distributors who wish to set up shops to rent both the storefront and all the necessary materials. To earn above and beyond their supplement sales, the distributors are urged to recruit as many other people as possible. Naturally, most members they recruit fail, though not after they too had purchased thousands of dollars in supplies, with a small percentage then finding other to buy in. However, even if only two of a hundred distributors recruit two new members each, and those two recruit two more, at only two generations down at two people each, with 16 total members, the member pulls in $32000 worth of sales per month. The point is to find the right person to try and get those two yes’s out of a hundred. Many people have been hurt by this business; that much is evident, and yet by the very fact that its CEO was attracted from Disney, and that thousands of people gather at these rallies to celebrate the cause, and that the documentary even has one young man who was very successful with the business, bringing in a six figure salary (though they did not at all go into why or how; the pivotal questions), proves that some people do, in fact, find succeed. Where the ethics get complicated is when desperate new distributors target non-English speaking immigrants who're willing to pour their life savings into the business with dreams of wealth; taking advantage of the language barrier and failing to fully describe what the business is. Then again, you're left wondering if any of these immigrants might have succeeded and gained the life they sought. The doc left me thinking about Los Angeles and the thousands of people who arrive in pursuit of entertainment. Most people starting here compete for any entry level position they can get, whether it’s paid or not, and it'll continue - legal or not - so long as the hungry supply is so drastically higher than the demand. One of the things most of us quickly learn is how many people are pursuing their dreams with equal degrees of passion. At the end of the day, there are not simply enough jobs for everyone. I feel privileged to have even made a film, having found a job that allowed me to save and invest as much as I could back into my passion project, while supported by may friends, family members, and strangers. There are many people who have fantastic stories to tell and simply don’t have the resources to tell them. With a proliferation of media production college programs around the world and the low cost of decent equipment, there are thousands more now able to pursue the industry, and while with digital and social markets opening up new avenues, there are more people pursuing the few slots available in traditional television and film production than ever before. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of success in reaching the upper echelons of Hollywood are the same as Herbalife. I imagine people who are struggling to get ahead might see Herbalife as their way out from a financially unfulfilling life. To have someone come up to you and say that you could become a millionaire. A good salesman will seem like your best friend, making it seem that if she could do it then you could do it too. So they head out to recruit and, like pursuing filmmaking specifically and finding the entry level job, most will say no and a handful will say yes. In a way, Herbalife reflects any competitive industry - not just entertainment, but politics, law, Wall Street, architecture, art, music, you name it. Think of all those who invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in education, time, or equipment, hoping to get into a highly competitive position. 90% won’t pursue it at all, of the 10% that do maybe half of them find a job, of that 5% maybe a tenth of them are positioned on a solid professional track (often based on resources or connections), and while I'm pulling this last number out of my ass (though it seems reasonable), maybe 1% actually make it into the upper echelons of their industries. They are mythological creatures. They are versions of Herbalife's Millionaire Club and President’s Team, who make it seem like you can get there too; never acknowledging the sheer amount of luck required. At the end of the day, Herbalife remains a publicly traded company; people do make money off this business. It is a micro reflection of our general economy. Where it gets nasty is when they target those who don’t know any better; those who have no idea what type of scam this is. Bill Ackman is what I’ve now heard a few times on NPR described as an “activist investor” which wants to short stocks (selling them to make a profit by betting on their failure), in the hopes of swaying the market to bring down the company. The guy looks like an asshole, epitomizing Wall Street sleaze with his expensive suits, perfect haircut, and condescending way of speaking to others. What makes him such a fascinating character is the fact that we don’t know if his predictions are right. Combatted by another hedge fund billionaire Carl Icahn, who believes that the stock is stable, if not posing chances for great returns (agreed by many other investors by the very nature of their preserving the stock), throughout the film I was left wondering who was right. The primary issue is that the Herbalife’s model is well known at this point, and in an economy that runs on information, it seems difficult to assume that so many investors would be so fooled by the modest trading prices. Given the discussion above, it seems that aside from the exploited, many have at least a novice understanding of what they’re getting into and act accordingly, with most quitting and few pursuing, and a fraction of those able to make a living, and a fraction of those achieving the advertised wealth. The immediate criticism is that Ackman simply wants to make himself and his clients rich through the short sell is rejected by Ackman in that he plans to donate all his profits. But that’s also a very specific set of words - he still has his client’s interest to consider (who do want to make money), along with wanting to avoid losing the billions he invested should the company continue its successful trajectory. Up to the very end I found myself arguing back and forth. In the end, the SEC ruled in favor of numerous lawsuits and ordered that Herbalife was to restructure its model that I could accept Ackman’s cause. And yet, through further research, according to Fortune magazine, regardless of the controversy and the documentary, as of November 2018 the company saw a $700 million stock surge, with share price now at about $55, beyond the peak it reached in the film when Icahn was arguing in favor of Herbalife. It again leaves me on a cliff. The documentary is not made all that well, excluding more favorable arguments and details that might provide a more balanced approach to the business model. As much as I was left wondering which side to fall on, my interpretation was based more on taking the information they provided and letting it bake for a few days, rather than because the filmmakers enlightened me. Surprisingly it was produced by the Academy Award winning producers of Undefeated (2011), so it wasn’t like this all came from nothing. It fails by trying to mask itself as objective, providing a center-anti-Herbalife slant when it could have been more interesting if they shifted straight to the middle. BELOW: Ackman explains short selling and gives you a taste of his personality Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  An extraordinary and chilling image Director: Leni Riefenstahl Writer: Leni Riefenstahl, Walter Ruttmann, and Eberhard Taubert Cinematographer: Sepp Allgeier and Franz Weihmayr Producer: Leni Riefenstahl by Jon Cvack Triumph of the Will is a one of a kind film, serving as not just a documentation of history but as an historical documentation in and of itself. I had seen clips in college, never all that excited to put on the two hour propaganda film that follows Hitler and his cronies around Berlin. Yet with a growing passion for history and in a time when those on both side of the aisle like to compare the other side’s president to Hitler, and as I’m trying to work my way through an increasingly shorter list of films I need to see, I figured that now was the time. It was directed by Leni Riefenstahl, who was brought specifically for her ignorance of Nazi politics, which as my professor recently told me, is a shame in that one of the first great female filmmakers unfortunately created one of the strongest pieces of propaganda ever made. The film opens up in the skies as we cut between Hitler and his/the plane’s POV looking down upon Germany, as the infamous Godlike figure that’s descending upon Berlin to bring hope and salvation to the troubled masses. For Hitler Nazism was the religion, and it was even Hitler’s grand plan to have his Nazi ideology take over as the state religion and usher out all other organized religions. We then watch as he heads from rally to rally, involving all his esteemed generals - Goebbels, Himmler, Rommel, and countless others - as they inspect countless parades throughout the Berlin streets and parks, culminating in a gathering of 150,000 troops (which honestly sounds like a small number) as Hitler lays a wreath down at the First World War memorial. What you notice throughout the film is there is no mention of a Master Race or Jews, Christians, political dissidents, or the handicapped who he would begin to systematically murder by creating the first Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. And it wasn’t until three years after the film’s release that the Jews were increasingly rounded up and sent off to the camps. Made in 1935, Triumph of the Will captures the moment before Hitler’s determination to create Welthauptstadt Germania (aka New Germania) and usher in a new era of German excellence, comprised of white, blond, blue-eyed, and physically and mentally strong individuals. It’s with this fact in mind that the film becomes all the more terrifying, as the endless display of the Swastika and Eagle (both references to the Roman Legions) trump any Christian or Judeo symbols; if any at all. While there are cathedrals and churches, they’re hijacked to promote the Nazi message. They offer ideas of hope and change, and in age where it’d take a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread, with unemployment rampant, the masses found inspiration in a leader who was vowing to return Germany to a former great time - to Make Germany Great Again; blaming the Jews and other non-German ethnic or religious group who could take the blame and provide an easy and tragic scapegoat for far more complex problems. What makes the film so terrifying is that the images seem so innocent. We see how easy it’d be insert American flags and our American Eagle, make some adjustments to the uniforms and see that, in terms of the how the public responds, it wouldn’t be all that different. One of the finest examples of this fact being the Hitler Youth rallies, along with the hardly adult recruits. We see young men picking on and teasing each other. I have faith that the at least the slim majority of those who served the Nazi cause genuinely thought they were doing the right thing. I keep finding myself wanting to avoid comparing the cause to our current situation, but again, this was shot before Hitler invaded Poland and started World War II. His famous Time Magazine “Man of the Year” would be awarded three years later. What’s most terrifying is that beneath all of these shallow bells and whistles there was an effort to kill millions in order to advance a cause. I was left wondering what some of these same people would say watching the film today; why they believed it or the feelings that it brought about. What Riefenstahl captures is the most terrifying element of any murderous regime; that the people first have to accept the leader's’ intentions as noble and righteous, often to the point of being willing to fight, die, and kill all in the name of that virtue. Before there was internet or phones, I think of how hard it must have been to have ever found the truth; hearing it only from the community or in partisan newspapers, until the information channels were then taken seized and exchange was based purely on hearsay. I don’t believe Trump is a Nazi (at all), but I do think he has a self-serving agenda that makes him want to do whatever it takes to preserve his well being. It creates endless lies and exaggerations, and you can see how much he’d like to control information in order to protect himself. And yet amidst all this, and given all of the information we have access to, it still doesn’t matter to most of his supporters and 90% of Republicans. There are people who choose to ignore facts and are on the wrong side of the history and while I absolutely do not believe this will result in the deaths of millions, I do think it’s defending a crook and generally bad person who's saying what just under half the country wants to hear. Triumph of the Will is effective because it makes you focused on what the future could be rather on the way of getting there. It’s easy and superficial, serving as a tragic demonstration of human nature’s timeless way of choosing such. It’s function as an historical document should serve as a harbinger; that in 1933 it was possible to make an effective piece of propaganda to sway millions of people over to your side; in 2017, with VR, AR, video games, films, television, and endless avenues of media, think of all there is utilize and how effective it could now be. BELOW: Great mini-doc about the film's power and significance Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  A champion for practical effects Director: Christopher Nolan Writer: Christopher Nolan Cinematographer: Hoyte van Hoytema Producer: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan by Jon Cvack After the success of watching Interstellar ('14) without seeing a single trailer, looking at a single screenshot, reading a single synopsis, and only accidentally seeing a tagline on a bus station billboard, not having a single clue what to expect, I was excited to see Dunkirk with the same strategy in mind (this time making sure I didn’t look at any bus stops); however, unfortunately having one person spoiling the triptych structure in an article title on Reddit. There was once a movement of epic war films that we haven’t seen since Saving Private Ryan (1998) and The Thin Red Line (1998), first brought about by The Longest Day (1962)and reaching its zenith with films like A Bridge Too Far, The Guns of Navarone (1961), and Where Eagles Dare (1968). Inglourious Basterds (2009) returned to the genre, offering the action over drama and yet bringing the high brow art of Tarantino and, as with all his films, standing tangentially to the genre than within it. Dunkirk isn’t exactly the epic war film I was expecting to see, and yet it provided the greatest iMax experience I’ve yet had, serving as one of Nolan’s best films. Similar to Nolan’s other explorations of time as, seen in Inception (2010) and Memento (2000), this film follows three separate storylines; all taking place at the infamous retreat at Dunkirk. One thing I kind of wish I read was a brief synopsis of Dunkirk, as having recently read about it in "Atonement" and its devastating history, and seeing the effects in the film (which left out much of the action from McEwan’s book), I realize how little we Americans know about the event. In an interview, Nolan reveals how it was a story that he grew up with; ingrained in English culture the ways D-Day is in American. Logline being that, in 1940, before America was even in the war and after an unsuccessful invasion across the English channel and into France, the German slaughtered the British forces, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk. With the channel filled with German U-Boats, numerous Luftwaffe flying through the sky, and the German forces closing in, the United Kingdom was humiliated, refusing to risk anymore carriers to take the men off the beach, instead opting for a bunch of small fishing boats to make the long journey and retrieve the men. In the end Churchill would make his famous “We shall fight on the beaches” speed, of Iron Maiden Live After Death Fame. Not knowing about the great retreat or the method involved, it made me assume that this was much more about an immense battle per the likes of The Battle of the Bulge or Stalingrad. On the other hand, it’s a testament to Nolan’s prowess that - after gaining a more base understanding of where I was and what I was watching - he made me excited to start piecing together the story. It involves three narratives - one follows an ace spitfire pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy) and his partner Collins (Jack Lowden), taking place over a single hour; the second follows fisherman Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance; in a brilliant role) who’s taking his boat across the channel with his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and George (Barry Keoghan; who will go on to do great things), taking place over a day; and the third follows British army pilot (Fionn Whitehead) who for once looks his character's age at only eighteen years old, determined to do whatever it takes to get off the beach as quickly as possible, taking place over a week. It takes a second to fully grasp how this structure plays out. One of the first criticisms I heard coming out of the film was an older man’s inability to follow the events by even midway through. It makes me where Christopher Nolan is simply interested in the idea of time within narrative, or how time is observed by particular characters within certain situations. A plane that’s only got an hour left of fuel left while trying to save as many men as possible is more pressing than hiding away in a boat for half a day, waiting for the tide to come in. I’d have to watch it again to see the way this might operate, though I suspect I might not find much. Instead I’d argue Nolan’s more interested in how time provides new forms of narrative, rather than any grand philosophic examinations. While I was expecting an epic battle sequence, instead Nolan focused on the more minute elements of the larger tragedy; using his hyper realistic style (with the vast majority of the effects being practical and it's wonderful) to, as he said in his interview with Peter Travers, “...capture what it’s like to be there.” Everything looks so real and so large on the iMax screen, with the ocean and beaches extending as far as the eye can see, that Nolan somehow takes what seems a straightforward story and weaves it into a challenging and yet accessible narrative unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Like most of his movies, and the reason I think he’s one of the best contemporary filmmaker, is his commitment to film language while being at the pinnacle of popular entertainment - he’s a High Art filmmaker, who while occasionally wandering into melodrama, is able to make you believe, or even certain, that what you are watching has actually or could actually happen. Dunkirk accomplishes the rare feat of ushering in a new style of Hollywood action filmmaking; especially in an age where the vast majority of these films abandon everything Nolan promotes - an over reliance on VFX and a strange homogenous language, looking as though the same voice extends throughout the majority of these films. Dunkirk has been criticized for celebrating war with others saying it celebrates valor. I think both are silly questions to ponder. It is action movie that celebrates the civilians who dedicated their lives to rescuing the soldiers at Dunkirk, capturing the fear, worry, and events which surrounded the day. Nolan’s brilliance comes by abandoning any commitment to actual events, instead opting to try and position the audience as close as possible the experience. I resent those who refuse to accept anything beyond an anti-war message when positioning viewers as close as possible to the fear as possible might be a far greater way to demonstrate the horror and dangers. No one should ever want to feel that way, or wish that any of their younger citizens would have to. Few filmmakers have provided such a visceral experience, some pro-war, some anti, some celebrating veterans, and Nolan has joined their ranks. He created a war film that will be watched for the rest of cinematic time, living in the same ranks as any of the greats. BELOW: Great Vox explainer video about Han Zimmer's score Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  A universal tale Director: Zhang Yimou Writer: Bao Shi; based on Remembrance by Bao Shi Cinematographer: Hou Yong Producer: Zhang Weiping and Zhao Yu by Jon Cvack Long before any interest in cinema, I once followed an incredible local band whose drummer went on to start another hardcore/rock ‘n roll hybrid group called Raise the Red Lantern. When I got into films I remember looking up the film, surprised to see it wasn’t some war or action movie, but about a concubine in a small Chinese village. I only recently saw the film, glad I waited until I was older so I could fully appreciate it. The next film I saw was Not One Less (1999), about a younger substitute teacher whose assigned to a small and impoverished village when one of the boys runs away to the city and she races off to find him; not as pretty as Raise the Red Lantern (1991), but containing and equally intimate and tiny story that speaks volumes with its insights into relationships and community or complete lack of. Having gotten into the fourth round of my Master List, it’s exciting when I start to grasp an unfamiliar filmmaker’s style. I knew The Road Home, even with all its talk about Mao’s Communist Revolution would be far smaller. It opens in black and white when the son (Sun Honglei) is called back home after his father had died. The mother wants the son to provide a traditional funeral, marching the casket back up the road to the small village where the father and mother first met. The son then begins the story and we shift into color. The first thing I noticed was the score, expecting per the style some American composer that did Little Giants or Now and Then or Beethoven or any 90s kids movie). It was actually a Chinese man by the name San Bao (who I can’t find much about), who had somehow near perfectly capture or share in the development of that 90s type of coming-of-age style - I’ll link below. The story is about a young peasant farmer girl Zhao Di (Zhang Ziyi), born and raised in a remote village, whose daily routine involves caring for her blind grandmother and cooking food for the construction workers who’re building a new school. When the teacher Luo Changyu (Zheng Hao) shows up, Zhao immediately falls in love, and so we witness all the universal foibles of a person trying to first impress someone they're attracted to. I watched Satyajit Ray’s Jalsghar after this and though the DVD was possibly the worst pirated-like transfer I ever saw (I got it through Netflix) it provided an equally universal and fascinating story - about a couple of lonely men who’ve grown bored with life, aside from music which can lift them up. In The Road Home, the communists call back Luo for breaking a law, leaving me wondering whether Yimou would explain what happened or leave it all to the power of history and our knowledge. The blanks I filled in involved liberal politics that he was likely beaten for, and yet determined to get back to the love of his life. Yimou Zhang creates films that make me wish I could appreciate the smaller moments; or even a life beyond entertainment and all that comes with living in a big and expensive city with a lot of ambitious people. He captured a moment that extended beyond the images and story and into a feel that took me back to home; remembering my parents house during the summer; my toy cars all over the patio table; my dad cutting the grass while the sox game played played. It’s a film that makes me think of how great it was to be able to only think of what’s in front you; offering the thrill of a first adventure. It’s a movie where I’m sure when everyone gets down to the tiniest detail - in that it’s a story about love - and extends in a thousand different directions, all with shades of melancholy and hope. BELOW: Beautiful score from Sao Ban Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed