You annoy me. You piss me off. I mean, there I am, trying to get my plump ass back into shape and you are standing around right in my line of sight talking and conversing loudly for 20 FREAKING MINUTES!! Don't you know how distracting you are to someone trying to concentrate on exercise? Don't you realize that there is such a thing as personal boundaries? Don't you know how BAD YOU SMELL? Sheesh. It is not as if TALKING is any great form of exercise.
Here's a hint for you: the "club" in health club is NOT the same thing as the "club" in dance club. People are here to train and workout, NOT socialize for hours. Sure, you can socialize, but try to do it away from the workout floor where people are trying to get a workout in and stay in their zone. Here's ANOTHER hint for you: people do not like having to squeeze past your smelly selves. WHY DO YOU PLANT YOURSELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF A WEIGHT ROOM THOROUGHFARE? MOVE!!!! And, finally, hint #3: if you really wanted to get in shape, you would know that one of the goals in a workout is to maintain an elevated heart rate for a sustained period of time. TALKING DOES NOT DO THIS-well, unless the conversation makes you angry. Neither one of your smelly selves seemed to be mad.
Please take note of this, and move your smelly selves out of the way for the good of everyone around you, but especially for the well-being of my plump ass sweating oh so hotly on the machine right next to you.
Sincerely,
Artful
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
"Quantum of Solace" = Ehh....
Ever since "Casino Royale" reignited the Bond franchise with a much needed reboot of the Bond story, I looked forward to the next chapter. As a life long Bond fan, I found Daniel Craig's portrayal of the famed literary character a refreshing change to the status quo, and I loved the origin aspects that the producers brought to the table. Advanced word on the next film in the Bond series, "Quantum of Solace" suggested that this film would be the first true sequel in the franchise's history. The story would begin a mere hour after the final scenes from "Casino Royale", with the interrogation of the villainous Mr. White. The producers continued with the same screenwriting team responsible for the last film, Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade. It seemed as if this iteration of Bond would last more than one film, and I was excited for the possibilities. What sort of tortured moments for Bond would we see in the wake of his beloved Vesper's death? What kind of storyline would the writer's craft? What would acclaimed director Marc Forster ("Finding Neverland") bring to the table in his first true action film?
Unfortunately, "Quantum of Solace" is merely a collection of great moments that "might have been". The audience is, indeed thrust into the action immediately after the studio trademarks flash on the screen, and we are with Bond as he is racing in his Aston Martin DBS through a winding Italian roadway. During this first chase scene, I started to get a little concerned. It seemed that Marc Forster had decided to lift a page from the directing playbook of fellow director Paul Greengrass ("United 93", "The Bourne Supremacy". and "The Bourne Ultimatum") in that Forster used jump cuts and quick edits to convey action and intensity, with the overall result being disorientation for the movie watcher. Instead of being treated to an exciting chase, I was treated to flashes of what looked to be an exciting chase that was marred by this MTV style of movie making. I have already ranted about Greengrass' failure to utilize Moscow in the car chase scene in "Bourne", where Greengrass treated us instead to shots of Matt Damon shifting gears in his car. Here, it looked to be more of the same. I was disappointed in Forster's style as soon as the chase popped onto the screen.
The opening credit sequence itself was underwhelming. There was no opening gun barrel (it would appear in the end). Moreover, though it appeared to play with the motif of the Bolivian desert, the reintroduction of the silhouetted nudes juxtaposed with a too flashy constellation motif made me feel as if I were in a combination strip club/planetarium in the desert. This was a shame, as I rather enjoyed the theme song performed by Alicia Keys and Jack White. This seemed a step back from the opening credit sequence in the first film.
From there, the audience is treated to (SPOILER WARNING):
1) Bond's chase of a double agent through the streets and rooftops in an Italian town. I think I liked it better when I saw it in "The Bourne Ultimatum" when it was Jason Bourne and Tangiers.
2) Bond's close quarters battle with an assassin prior to his first meeting with his female "partner" for the rest of the film and the main villain."
3) A boat chase sequence every bit as disorienting as the car chase from the earlier part of the film.
4) A HORRIBLE montage sequence of a running gunbattle at an opera, with the shots of Bond's battle matched up with a soundtrack of the opera being performed. YUCK! Forster is no Coppola.
5) Two truly forgettable Bond girls who could not act their way out of a paper bag. Eva Green's Vesper really set the bar high for Bond women. The casting here was a swing and a miss.
6) The setting of the final battle. A hotel. In the middle of a desert. Run by fuel cells. What the heck????? Why make a return to the "giant explosion of the bad guy's base" cliche of earlier Bond films?
7) The lame plot of the villain itself. The villain, Dominic Greene, is attempting to extort money from governments of the different South American governments for their water supplies. The sole instance we see of the impact of his actions is a shot of a few villagers not able to get water from a spigot. Oooooo-scary! Very disappointing villainy.
To be sure, there were some aspects of the film that I enjoyed. Whenever Dame Judi Dench's M was on the screen, the scenes cracked with sharp writing and sharper acting. The homage to "Goldfinger" was affecting and powerful at the same time. I also loved the dialogue concerning how governments deal with people who would normally be considered villains during the Cold War. I particularly loved the line "If we could not deal with villains, we would have no one left to deal with." The moral ambivalence on the part of all parties save for Bond and M rang true, and I loved the emphasis on this ambiguity. One of my favorite moments of the film occurred at the opera (before the abhorrent gunbattle). Bond is attempting to discover the identities of the members of Quantum, and he sets up his post looking at the audience with a pilfered Quantum earpiece, listening in on the conference that is going on within the audience itself. After listening in, he announces his presence, and as the members of Quantum rise from their spots in the audience to make their escape, Bond photographs many of them and sends the data back to the MI6. This was a smarter Bond, not one who was a bull in a china shop. He has LEARNED from the last film the importance of surveillance and the importance of working as part of a larger team.
My other favorite sequence was the final one in the film-Bond's confrontation with Vesper's Algerian boyfriend. Personally, I thought that it should have been near the beginning of the film. The sequence also saddened me because it appeared to have been shot by Martin Campbell as a coda to "Casino Royale." Why could the rest of the film not have done the same? Instead, the audience was left with mishmash of plotlines that do not mesh well together at all.
I was disappointed in this film. Although I would not go so far as to call this "The Bond Supremacy", as so many reviewers have done, I can see where they are coming from. Filmmakers need to get away from this method of action filmmaking. The film also needed more character development sequences. Everytime there was the opportunity (with a favorite being Bond's inability to sleep on an overnight plane flight to South America), the filmmakers dropped the ball in the next scene. Here's hoping that the writers and director for the next Bond film will take a look at what worked in "Casino Royale" and bring the character back to greatness.
Craig is still Bond in my book. He just needs the stories to let him prove it.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
What The Heck is WRONG with Consumers?
Over the last few months, all of us have been battered with what seems like an endless barrage of news concerning financial meltdowns. First, it was the subprime mortgage market. Next, it was the debt market that relied on the subprime mortgage markets. As banks and financial houses continued to fold, the stock market started its tumble. As consumer confidence eroded, credit slowed to a crawl and then stopped. Small businesses can no longer get the loans required to start up. Without the small businesses, people cannot get jobs. Without jobs, people cannot purchase durable goods or invest in the future through the stock market. Unemployment is skyrocketing, and the odds are that we have not seen the worst of it. The so-called "bailout" programs being touted by the current administration and Congress promise to leave so much debt on the American ledger, with no clear cut plan as to how this debt should be paid back, that I fear our children and children's children will be paying the price for our mistakes.
Yes, I said OUR mistakes. A lot of ink has been wasted writing on how the banks are to blame for giving out mortgages to people who should not have qualified in the first place. Of COURSE they are to blame, those evil "predatory lenders" who "trapped consumers" and caused this housing crisis in the first place. At the same time, I feel that not enough attention has been paid to the duties of the individuals to take responsibility for their own actions. Many individuals no doubt knew that there were issues with their income levels and possibility of repayment, yet they took on an inordinate amount of debt without doing the necessary research required. STUPID STUPID STUPID! Don't try to tell me that "these were unsophisticated buyers" who "were waylaid into unfair terms by evil doers." Many of these buyers know exactly what they need to to to manipulate the system. Their mistakes are what we are paying for now, not just those of the banks and other financial institutions. The bailouts will allow these individuals to walk away scott free.
Now a lot of you will read this and merely think that I am spouting off about stuff I know nothing about. I mean, I am more fortunate than a lot of people. What I do know are the lessons of my youth. I know of people who could not afford food and shelter yet were working and spending their money on designer clothes. I know of college kids who rang up incredible amounts of debt on credit cards and then were "shocked" when they were unable to pay. YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO PAY MONEY BACK-SOMETIMES WITH INTEREST!!! Geez. How simple a lesson can that be? Now, I know that there are a lot of hard working people, some of whom are friends of mine, out there just trying to make ends meet. I know that they do not HAVE credit cards or have regular mortgages that they struggle to pay each month. Is it fair to them to have to pay for the mistakes of others?
I was raised in a household where the operative mantra was "save save save." My parents were relatively successful, yet you would not have known it by looking at us. We did not wear designer clothes or have designer accessories, my brother's first car was a $500 1973 Plymouth Duster with a CB radio (in 1985) that was sold later on for the exact same amount. I have had a job of some sort continuously since I was 14 years old, and I have saved every step of the way. Even today, I have some hobbies that people might consider a waste of money, but I ALWAYS put 10% of EVERY paycheck into regular old savings. Nowadays, this is a lot easier than in the past, but I did this even when money was extremely tight. At those times, I did without. Even now, however, I am trying to find ways to cut expenses (not easy in a city that has the highest taxes of any city in the country-including NY). My bills are paid off first every month and THEN the savings go in. I factor in the amount I need for food and transportation, and then I look at what is left. Starting in February, that means student loan payments. This month, I cancelled my 10 year (!) comics subscription solely because I felt that, at this point, it was a waste of my money. Through all of my struggles, from a student on through graduate school and while paying for law school, I have never had to depend on ANYONE to pay my bills. I managed on my own and took pride in that fact.
The name of this blog is "Rants and Ramblings", and this post is a little of both. Today, I saw the news that consumer groups are trying to convince Congress to allow banks to forgive CREDIT CARD DEBT. WHAT? REALLY? So pretty much, the people who are responsible for putting us in this situation get a FREE PASS? Whose fault is it that they are in so much debt? WHOSE? Not mine! Yet, I am paying for someone else's designer clothes, expensive dining out habit, or comic book habit! Is that fair to me? Is that fair to those friends of mine who are doing without credit cards and living paycheck to paycheck?
I agree that something has to be done to help the economy, but I do not support a wholesale bailout of companies nor of individuals saddled with credit card debt. Sure, give them the money to get out of their current situation, but DON'T make it a gift. Make them pay it back. Garnish wages. Garnish company profits. Make the stockholders decide whether or not a company is being fiscally responsible. Only by taking responsibility for the current crisis can companies and individuals learn the easiest fundamental truth about economics: if you spend more than what you earn, you will be in DEBT!!
Yes, I said OUR mistakes. A lot of ink has been wasted writing on how the banks are to blame for giving out mortgages to people who should not have qualified in the first place. Of COURSE they are to blame, those evil "predatory lenders" who "trapped consumers" and caused this housing crisis in the first place. At the same time, I feel that not enough attention has been paid to the duties of the individuals to take responsibility for their own actions. Many individuals no doubt knew that there were issues with their income levels and possibility of repayment, yet they took on an inordinate amount of debt without doing the necessary research required. STUPID STUPID STUPID! Don't try to tell me that "these were unsophisticated buyers" who "were waylaid into unfair terms by evil doers." Many of these buyers know exactly what they need to to to manipulate the system. Their mistakes are what we are paying for now, not just those of the banks and other financial institutions. The bailouts will allow these individuals to walk away scott free.
Now a lot of you will read this and merely think that I am spouting off about stuff I know nothing about. I mean, I am more fortunate than a lot of people. What I do know are the lessons of my youth. I know of people who could not afford food and shelter yet were working and spending their money on designer clothes. I know of college kids who rang up incredible amounts of debt on credit cards and then were "shocked" when they were unable to pay. YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO PAY MONEY BACK-SOMETIMES WITH INTEREST!!! Geez. How simple a lesson can that be? Now, I know that there are a lot of hard working people, some of whom are friends of mine, out there just trying to make ends meet. I know that they do not HAVE credit cards or have regular mortgages that they struggle to pay each month. Is it fair to them to have to pay for the mistakes of others?
I was raised in a household where the operative mantra was "save save save." My parents were relatively successful, yet you would not have known it by looking at us. We did not wear designer clothes or have designer accessories, my brother's first car was a $500 1973 Plymouth Duster with a CB radio (in 1985) that was sold later on for the exact same amount. I have had a job of some sort continuously since I was 14 years old, and I have saved every step of the way. Even today, I have some hobbies that people might consider a waste of money, but I ALWAYS put 10% of EVERY paycheck into regular old savings. Nowadays, this is a lot easier than in the past, but I did this even when money was extremely tight. At those times, I did without. Even now, however, I am trying to find ways to cut expenses (not easy in a city that has the highest taxes of any city in the country-including NY). My bills are paid off first every month and THEN the savings go in. I factor in the amount I need for food and transportation, and then I look at what is left. Starting in February, that means student loan payments. This month, I cancelled my 10 year (!) comics subscription solely because I felt that, at this point, it was a waste of my money. Through all of my struggles, from a student on through graduate school and while paying for law school, I have never had to depend on ANYONE to pay my bills. I managed on my own and took pride in that fact.
The name of this blog is "Rants and Ramblings", and this post is a little of both. Today, I saw the news that consumer groups are trying to convince Congress to allow banks to forgive CREDIT CARD DEBT. WHAT? REALLY? So pretty much, the people who are responsible for putting us in this situation get a FREE PASS? Whose fault is it that they are in so much debt? WHOSE? Not mine! Yet, I am paying for someone else's designer clothes, expensive dining out habit, or comic book habit! Is that fair to me? Is that fair to those friends of mine who are doing without credit cards and living paycheck to paycheck?
I agree that something has to be done to help the economy, but I do not support a wholesale bailout of companies nor of individuals saddled with credit card debt. Sure, give them the money to get out of their current situation, but DON'T make it a gift. Make them pay it back. Garnish wages. Garnish company profits. Make the stockholders decide whether or not a company is being fiscally responsible. Only by taking responsibility for the current crisis can companies and individuals learn the easiest fundamental truth about economics: if you spend more than what you earn, you will be in DEBT!!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
In honor of the release of "Quantum of Solace": my previous post on "Casino Royale"
I am actually going to write a new, more in-depth review for "Casino Royale" tomorrow. Does it hold up after repeated viewing? What aspects about it particularly appealed to me? Why should you care? After that, look for my review of "Quantum of Solace" on Saturday evening. Now, here is my original post on Daniel Craig's first Bond film.
My father and I have always enjoyed movies. I credit Dad with instilling in me an appreciation for the craft and artistry involved in making movies. I don’t think that Dad knows that my lifelong appreciation for movies began the summer between 5th and 6th grade. During the school year, my father had purchased a very heavy and exotic looking device that, for all intents and purposes, looked like a giant tape recorder. My father was excited about this giant box, and my brother and I could not understand why. Our confusion lasted as long as it took for my Dad to put a tape into the box and press “play.” We found ourselves watching a movie on TV. We were able to pause it so we could go to the bathroom or get snacks. My mind was really blown away when my Dad was able to play a TV show that had been on 2 nights before. Wow. The family VCR was definitely a hit, and I think that we were among the first adopters of the new technology. Dad, in his infinite wisdom, had even chosen a VHS machine instead of Betamax. His decision was highly prescient. Our love affair with the VCR intensified upon Dad’s purchase of a video camera. Now, we were able to film all of our family’s special moments and watch them instantaneously instead of waiting weeks for Super 8 film to develop. No more setting up the projector and the screen. It was all so awesome. I know that, in a world of tiny camcorders, digital cameras, and DVRs this all might seem a bit trite, but I grew up in a time where we had 3 channels (6 after Dad set up a UHF/VHF antenna). It really seemed like magic to me.
The VCR was also the way that Dad and I bonded. My parents were very good about choosing appropriate films for my brother and me (resulting in me not seeing “My Fair Lady”, a “G” rated film, mind you, for a few years because Henry Higgins yells the word “Damn” several times). The real fun came during the aforementioned summer when Dad took my brother and me to the video store, the Video Discount Warehouse, located in Portsmouth, VA. This was a time before the ubiquitous Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, Erol’s, Movie Gallery, and Family Video. Every Wednesday, Dad would take us there and let my brother and me choose movies. I still remember how the films had stickers on the spines (red “As” for new releases, blue “Bs” for slightly older releases, and green “Cs” for old releases and kid films). Dad would always let my brother and me choose the maximum 6 movies, and he did not limit us to the most inexpensive lists. Sometimes, he would gently make suggestions if we could not decide. I used to look forward to my Wednesdays with Dad because they were true bonding times. Neither of us was into baseball as many fathers and sons are, so we bonded over films. I think that, except for my love of science fiction films, we have a pretty similar taste in movies to this very day.
One of the films that we rented that summer was a recent blockbuster, “Octopussy.” Up to that point, I had only watched part of a James Bond film, and it had bored me to tears. The film was “From Russia, With Love,” and I remember when it was broadcast on ABC falling asleep while watching it. I also remember my parents’ amusement at my comment upon viewing the moment when Bond, fresh from the shower with a towel around his waist, finds Tatiana Romanova in his bedroom, sits down on the bed, and starts his seduction. My comment? “Wouldn’t he be embarrassed if his towel fell off.” Hey, I was pretty young, so I didn’t quite get the sexual overtones of Bond. I think that my parents were both amused and comforted by my naivety. Anyway, “Octopussy” was available, and we rented it. I was mesmerized from the first moments of the film. Roger Moore became the Bond of my childhood the moment he flew out of Cuba using the tiny jet in the pre-credit sequence. The next time we went to the video store, Dad let me rent the max number of Bond films. I devoured them over the next few days. My favorite Bond when I was a youngster was Roger Moore; I think that a lot of this had to do with the foppishness of his performance. As a kid, you never want to fell as if the hero is really in any danger, and I never felt that Moore was ever in any danger.
Time went on. As I reached my teen-aged years, Moore gave way to Dalton, and my appreciation for the performances of Dalton and Connery grew. My appreciation was born both out of a more mature appreciation for how the character was portrayed (with me wanting more realism from my action heroes) and out of my appreciation for Ian Fleming's original James Bond novels. Connery came closest to Fleming’s description of Bond, and and I later learned that Fleming, impressed with Connery’s portrayal of his creation, introduced a Scottish background into Bond’s backstory during the writing of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," which coincided with the filming of "Goldfinger". Dalton took his cue from the Fleming novels, but subpar screenplays and having the role of the follow-up to the popular Moore (not to mention a long drawn-out lawsuit concerning the character of Bond), proved to be Dalton’s undoing. I always felt that Dalton received short shrift for his portrayal, and it is not deserved. He did the Fleming Bond proud. Between the last Dalton film, 1989’s “License to Kill” and 1995, there were no Bond films as the lawsuit was litigated.
In 1995, however, Pierce Brosnan was given the role and was superb in the film “Goldeneye.” Brosnan proved to be a worthy successor to the Bond mantle, and the story also gave the audience an all too rare glimpse into the psyche of Bond. There were not a lot of gadgets in the film, and Brosnan gave a subtly nuanced performance as Bond, finding middle ground between the intensity of Dalton and the foppishness of Moore. Still, I never thought that Brosnan could compare to Connery from the first 3 Bond films. Sadly, the quality of the films deteriorated rapidly shortly after that (a remote control BMW in “Tomorrow Never Dies,” Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist in “The World is Not Enough,” and an INVISIBLE CAR and a diamond-satellite refuge from “Diamond are Forever” in “Die Another Day”). The future looked bleak. Brosnan was starting to look a little too old for the role (a role that was originally offered to him in 1986 before NBC screwed that up). The screenplays by Purvis and Wade were ludicrous, and I started to wonder about the viability of the franchise. I found myself reading the books, and I wondered why the filmmakers couldn’t just make a straight translation of Fleming’s novels. The thing that every single Bond film has missed was Fleming’s character. The movie Bond (with the noted exceptions of Dalton, Connery’s first 3 films, and George Lazenby’s single film portrayal in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”) all missed the boat when it came to understanding the character of Bond. Bond is an assassin, a cold, calculating, cruel weapon of the MI6.
Word then started coming about a NEW Bond. This Bond would be Daniel Craig, Paul Newman’s weak son in “The Road to Perdition.” I was a bit nervous about this until I saw his performance in Steven Spielberg’s “Munich”; his performance in that film convinced me that Craig might be a good Bond, but I was skeptical as to whether the producers would actually take advantage of Craig’s talent by providing a good screenplay. When the trailers for the new film started to play, I started getting more excited. This was a different kind of Bond, one who seemed to have sprung from the pages of Fleming’s novel. “Casino Royale” opened yesterday. I saw it today.
Wow.
The origin of Bond proved to be every bit as satisfying as that of Batman in “Batman Begins.” The screenwriters (the much maligned Purvis and Wade, with an assist from "Crash" writer/director Paul Haggis) crafted an excellent story, using Fleming’s novel as the template and FAITHFULLY ADAPTING it, changing some minor aspects that had to be changed due to the post-Cold War world we live in. We see the 2 kills that made Bond 007 (2 kills, 2 “0s”, hence 00…and this is straight from Fleming's 1952 novel). Daniel Craig IS James Bond to the point who…dare I say it…not only challenges Connery’s portrayal but actually SURPASSED it in many ways. The plotline is timely and not far fetched, the stunts were not ridiculous, and there were no gadgets. The wonderful thing is that we get to see what made Bond BOND. I cannot recommend this film enough. Halfway through the film, I reflected on what a good film it was, not just what a good “James Bond” film it was. Several things made me smile…retaining Rene Mathis and Felix Leiter as characters from the novel, the creation (lifted straight from Fleming’s novel) of the James Bond martini, the total lack of slapstick and ridiculous science, the acting of Daniel Craig, the soundtrack (both Chris Cornell's throwback of an opening song, AND the string-heavy instrumental soundtrack that was a throwback to the great Bond soundtracks of the 1960s), and the overall “feel” of the film. This film felt like a classic 1960s Bond film sans rocket packs and bulletproof cars. Much of the dialogue was lifted straight from the novel, and I was pleased. This is a great film. I cannot recommend it enough. I was also impressed with the pacing. In most action films, the character scenes are too often viewed as filler for the action sequences, but the scenes had true import in this movie. In the end, when Bond (excuse me, Daniel Craig) delivers the famous introduction, I was smiling. When the original arrangement of Monty Norman’s James Bond theme played over the final credits, I was smiling even more broadly. Even the theme was as it was in the early Connery films. This was a great Bond film. This was a great spy movie. This is one of my favorite films of the year. Wow. Congratulations, Daniel Craig. May the producers continue to provide good screenplays for you to use, and may we continue to see you as Bond for years to come.
For those of you interested in watching the films in chronological order:
1) Dr. No
2) From Russia, With Love
3) Goldfinger
4) Thunderball
5) You Only Live Twice
6) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
7) Diamonds Are Forever
8) Live and Let Die
9) The Man With the Golden Gun
10) The Spy Who Loved Me
11) Moonraker
12) For Your Eyes Only
13) Octopussy
14) A View to a Kill
15) The Living Daylights
16) License to Kill
17) Goldeneye
18) Tomorrow Never Dies
19) The World is Not Enough
20) Die Another Day
21) Casino Royale
22) Quantum of Solace (to be released on 11/14/08 in the United States)
Note..I realize that there was an earlier version of Casino Royale, and I know that Connery was in the Thunderball remake, Never Say Never Again, but the only authentic Bond films (in my opinion) are the ones from Eon Productions.
My father and I have always enjoyed movies. I credit Dad with instilling in me an appreciation for the craft and artistry involved in making movies. I don’t think that Dad knows that my lifelong appreciation for movies began the summer between 5th and 6th grade. During the school year, my father had purchased a very heavy and exotic looking device that, for all intents and purposes, looked like a giant tape recorder. My father was excited about this giant box, and my brother and I could not understand why. Our confusion lasted as long as it took for my Dad to put a tape into the box and press “play.” We found ourselves watching a movie on TV. We were able to pause it so we could go to the bathroom or get snacks. My mind was really blown away when my Dad was able to play a TV show that had been on 2 nights before. Wow. The family VCR was definitely a hit, and I think that we were among the first adopters of the new technology. Dad, in his infinite wisdom, had even chosen a VHS machine instead of Betamax. His decision was highly prescient. Our love affair with the VCR intensified upon Dad’s purchase of a video camera. Now, we were able to film all of our family’s special moments and watch them instantaneously instead of waiting weeks for Super 8 film to develop. No more setting up the projector and the screen. It was all so awesome. I know that, in a world of tiny camcorders, digital cameras, and DVRs this all might seem a bit trite, but I grew up in a time where we had 3 channels (6 after Dad set up a UHF/VHF antenna). It really seemed like magic to me.
The VCR was also the way that Dad and I bonded. My parents were very good about choosing appropriate films for my brother and me (resulting in me not seeing “My Fair Lady”, a “G” rated film, mind you, for a few years because Henry Higgins yells the word “Damn” several times). The real fun came during the aforementioned summer when Dad took my brother and me to the video store, the Video Discount Warehouse, located in Portsmouth, VA. This was a time before the ubiquitous Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, Erol’s, Movie Gallery, and Family Video. Every Wednesday, Dad would take us there and let my brother and me choose movies. I still remember how the films had stickers on the spines (red “As” for new releases, blue “Bs” for slightly older releases, and green “Cs” for old releases and kid films). Dad would always let my brother and me choose the maximum 6 movies, and he did not limit us to the most inexpensive lists. Sometimes, he would gently make suggestions if we could not decide. I used to look forward to my Wednesdays with Dad because they were true bonding times. Neither of us was into baseball as many fathers and sons are, so we bonded over films. I think that, except for my love of science fiction films, we have a pretty similar taste in movies to this very day.
One of the films that we rented that summer was a recent blockbuster, “Octopussy.” Up to that point, I had only watched part of a James Bond film, and it had bored me to tears. The film was “From Russia, With Love,” and I remember when it was broadcast on ABC falling asleep while watching it. I also remember my parents’ amusement at my comment upon viewing the moment when Bond, fresh from the shower with a towel around his waist, finds Tatiana Romanova in his bedroom, sits down on the bed, and starts his seduction. My comment? “Wouldn’t he be embarrassed if his towel fell off.” Hey, I was pretty young, so I didn’t quite get the sexual overtones of Bond. I think that my parents were both amused and comforted by my naivety. Anyway, “Octopussy” was available, and we rented it. I was mesmerized from the first moments of the film. Roger Moore became the Bond of my childhood the moment he flew out of Cuba using the tiny jet in the pre-credit sequence. The next time we went to the video store, Dad let me rent the max number of Bond films. I devoured them over the next few days. My favorite Bond when I was a youngster was Roger Moore; I think that a lot of this had to do with the foppishness of his performance. As a kid, you never want to fell as if the hero is really in any danger, and I never felt that Moore was ever in any danger.
Time went on. As I reached my teen-aged years, Moore gave way to Dalton, and my appreciation for the performances of Dalton and Connery grew. My appreciation was born both out of a more mature appreciation for how the character was portrayed (with me wanting more realism from my action heroes) and out of my appreciation for Ian Fleming's original James Bond novels. Connery came closest to Fleming’s description of Bond, and and I later learned that Fleming, impressed with Connery’s portrayal of his creation, introduced a Scottish background into Bond’s backstory during the writing of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," which coincided with the filming of "Goldfinger". Dalton took his cue from the Fleming novels, but subpar screenplays and having the role of the follow-up to the popular Moore (not to mention a long drawn-out lawsuit concerning the character of Bond), proved to be Dalton’s undoing. I always felt that Dalton received short shrift for his portrayal, and it is not deserved. He did the Fleming Bond proud. Between the last Dalton film, 1989’s “License to Kill” and 1995, there were no Bond films as the lawsuit was litigated.
In 1995, however, Pierce Brosnan was given the role and was superb in the film “Goldeneye.” Brosnan proved to be a worthy successor to the Bond mantle, and the story also gave the audience an all too rare glimpse into the psyche of Bond. There were not a lot of gadgets in the film, and Brosnan gave a subtly nuanced performance as Bond, finding middle ground between the intensity of Dalton and the foppishness of Moore. Still, I never thought that Brosnan could compare to Connery from the first 3 Bond films. Sadly, the quality of the films deteriorated rapidly shortly after that (a remote control BMW in “Tomorrow Never Dies,” Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist in “The World is Not Enough,” and an INVISIBLE CAR and a diamond-satellite refuge from “Diamond are Forever” in “Die Another Day”). The future looked bleak. Brosnan was starting to look a little too old for the role (a role that was originally offered to him in 1986 before NBC screwed that up). The screenplays by Purvis and Wade were ludicrous, and I started to wonder about the viability of the franchise. I found myself reading the books, and I wondered why the filmmakers couldn’t just make a straight translation of Fleming’s novels. The thing that every single Bond film has missed was Fleming’s character. The movie Bond (with the noted exceptions of Dalton, Connery’s first 3 films, and George Lazenby’s single film portrayal in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”) all missed the boat when it came to understanding the character of Bond. Bond is an assassin, a cold, calculating, cruel weapon of the MI6.
Word then started coming about a NEW Bond. This Bond would be Daniel Craig, Paul Newman’s weak son in “The Road to Perdition.” I was a bit nervous about this until I saw his performance in Steven Spielberg’s “Munich”; his performance in that film convinced me that Craig might be a good Bond, but I was skeptical as to whether the producers would actually take advantage of Craig’s talent by providing a good screenplay. When the trailers for the new film started to play, I started getting more excited. This was a different kind of Bond, one who seemed to have sprung from the pages of Fleming’s novel. “Casino Royale” opened yesterday. I saw it today.
Wow.
The origin of Bond proved to be every bit as satisfying as that of Batman in “Batman Begins.” The screenwriters (the much maligned Purvis and Wade, with an assist from "Crash" writer/director Paul Haggis) crafted an excellent story, using Fleming’s novel as the template and FAITHFULLY ADAPTING it, changing some minor aspects that had to be changed due to the post-Cold War world we live in. We see the 2 kills that made Bond 007 (2 kills, 2 “0s”, hence 00…and this is straight from Fleming's 1952 novel). Daniel Craig IS James Bond to the point who…dare I say it…not only challenges Connery’s portrayal but actually SURPASSED it in many ways. The plotline is timely and not far fetched, the stunts were not ridiculous, and there were no gadgets. The wonderful thing is that we get to see what made Bond BOND. I cannot recommend this film enough. Halfway through the film, I reflected on what a good film it was, not just what a good “James Bond” film it was. Several things made me smile…retaining Rene Mathis and Felix Leiter as characters from the novel, the creation (lifted straight from Fleming’s novel) of the James Bond martini, the total lack of slapstick and ridiculous science, the acting of Daniel Craig, the soundtrack (both Chris Cornell's throwback of an opening song, AND the string-heavy instrumental soundtrack that was a throwback to the great Bond soundtracks of the 1960s), and the overall “feel” of the film. This film felt like a classic 1960s Bond film sans rocket packs and bulletproof cars. Much of the dialogue was lifted straight from the novel, and I was pleased. This is a great film. I cannot recommend it enough. I was also impressed with the pacing. In most action films, the character scenes are too often viewed as filler for the action sequences, but the scenes had true import in this movie. In the end, when Bond (excuse me, Daniel Craig) delivers the famous introduction, I was smiling. When the original arrangement of Monty Norman’s James Bond theme played over the final credits, I was smiling even more broadly. Even the theme was as it was in the early Connery films. This was a great Bond film. This was a great spy movie. This is one of my favorite films of the year. Wow. Congratulations, Daniel Craig. May the producers continue to provide good screenplays for you to use, and may we continue to see you as Bond for years to come.
For those of you interested in watching the films in chronological order:
1) Dr. No
2) From Russia, With Love
3) Goldfinger
4) Thunderball
5) You Only Live Twice
6) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
7) Diamonds Are Forever
8) Live and Let Die
9) The Man With the Golden Gun
10) The Spy Who Loved Me
11) Moonraker
12) For Your Eyes Only
13) Octopussy
14) A View to a Kill
15) The Living Daylights
16) License to Kill
17) Goldeneye
18) Tomorrow Never Dies
19) The World is Not Enough
20) Die Another Day
21) Casino Royale
22) Quantum of Solace (to be released on 11/14/08 in the United States)
Note..I realize that there was an earlier version of Casino Royale, and I know that Connery was in the Thunderball remake, Never Say Never Again, but the only authentic Bond films (in my opinion) are the ones from Eon Productions.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Yet ANOTHER Take on the Election-a personal perspective
My parents are unabashed Republicans. I grew up during the era of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, during the Cold War, before the 24 hour news and internet of today. While the Democrats were bumbling their way through numerous presidential defeats, Reagan presided over one of the most prosperous times in American history. While his policies would, ultimately, lead to the recession that denied George H.W. Bush a second term in office, Reagan was the standard bearer for Republican presidents (warts and all). He and Gorbachev developed a rapport that resulted n the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. His back door dealings, as illegal as they were, resulted in the freeing of the American hostages held for almost a full year in Iran (and one of the kidnappers was the current Iranian president!). Having been weaned on Reagan's America and the careful lessons of my parents, I registered as a Republican when I turned 18. I voted for Bush in the first Clinton campaign, but I attended the Clinton inauguration. There was a sense of change in the air, a sense of hopefulness. Hand in hand with a Republican Congress, Clinton's administration presided over the most prosperous economy the country had ever experienced. After the first four years of William Jefferson Clinton, I cast my first ballot for a Democrat and felt justified in my decision. Dole did not represent progress the way that Clinton did. Clinton produced results (except for the universal health care initiative spearheaded by the First Lady).
Right around the time of Clinton's second term, when the first allegations about Clinton's marital infidelities started to make their rounds, the first cracks in the leadership and ideology of the Republican Party started to make their presence known. In their kowtowing to the ideologies of the far right, they forgot about their more moderate party members. Now, I am not in any way, shape, or form condoning adultery. However, Clinton's success both on the world stage and for this country should have been the focus and not what he did on his private time. Many of you would disagree, and say that the President is a symbol. I agree. However, the symbolic "purity" of the American President likely went out the door with my beloved Thomas Jefferson and his dalliance with Sally Hemings, a woman who was NOT his wife. The office is just that...an office. Placing the man on some sort of moral pedestal is rather asinine.
But I digress. This alliance of the Republican Party with the far right slowly started to make its presence know during Dole's campaign. Rather than focusing on the issues at hand that were concerning most Americans (growing unrest overseas, the unregulated financial markets, etc.). they chose instead to focus on Clinton's private life. This did not improve during the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore, as the election debacle of 2000 showed. Through cunning and subterfuge, the Republicans stole the election. What the heck? This was not the party that I signed up for! This was a party who was looking for power at ANY cost-even where that cost would be the welfare of the American people.
And then 9/11 happened, and Bush rose to the occasion. He and fellow Republican Rudolph Guliani, the outgoing mayor of New York City, symbolized leadership when the country most needed it. Bush calmed our fears, told us everything would be all right, and took some action to calm the world. He was our president. The only problem was that he was just not smart enough to recognize that all of his own actions were being carefully controlled and orchestrated by the Republican leadership. After 9/11, Bush failed as a leader, using the attacks as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation without any provocation other than a bit of name calling. He ignored the growing financial problems at home and discarded Clinton's budgetary means for eliminating the national debt within our lifetime. At the same time, in the back of my mind, I could not ignore my own misgivings about the fact that he had STOLEN the election. As young men and women died in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq, the pockets of the Vice President (a Haliburton board member) and many of Bush's oil cronies were being lined with money made possible by the war-blood money.
The issue with Kerry in the election of 2004 was not the "stupidity of the American people" but, for me, was one of the devil you know versus the devil that you don't. The American people were faced with two choices for President who, on paper, looked a lot alike. Older white men, Yale grads and fellow Skull and Bones members. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. The images of Bush's leadership during 9/11 and the constant beating of the drum for consistent leadership during the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq cost Kerry the election. However, my enduring memory of that election was the "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisements orchestrated by the Republican Party. At that moment, I knew that the "Party of Lincoln" had lost its way. However, there was one bright spot during the dark days of 2004. During the Democratic National Convention, a young junior senator from Illinois was chosen to give the keynote address. Most people outside of his home state did not know who he was, but those of us lucky enough to have him represent us in the Senate knew of his oratory skills and his amazing credentials. Columbia undergrad and Harvard Law School. Head of Harvard Law Review. Professor of Constitutional Law at the prestigious University of Chicago School of Law. A self-made man in every sense of the word who was NOT born with a silver spoon in his mouth but who had an amazing brain.
That night, Barack Obama was introduced to the world, and the world took notice. Using that speech as a springboard, Obama catapulted himself into the national consciousness and with one fell swoop, was placed on the short list of viable presidential candidates for the Democratic Party. When the time came to select the Democratic candidate, the list consisted of Senator Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and, trailing both, Barack Obama. Obama, undaunted, carefully mapped out a campaign strategy that would give him the candidacy. The heated rhetoric that flew between the Obama and Clinton camps looked for a time to be just as suicidal as the actions of the Republican Party over the previous 8 years. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, with no true challengers, sat back and watched. If anything, the lack of any real challengers for McCain was an albatross around his neck, for the contentiousness of the campaigns between Clinton and Obama overshadowed McCain's easy victories in the primaries. McCain should have used the extra time to come up with a message, a platform, and to vet a proper vice-presidential candidate. He failed miserably on all counts.
Now, up until the primaries, I was still hopeful for the Republican Party. I believed that if McCain separated himself from the current Republican leadership, he could bring the party back in a way that would resonate around the world. All he needed to do was denounce the alliance with the far right in favor of the more moderate Republicans. Bipartisanism at its best starts in the middle. McCain, however, did not do that. He embraced the Republican machine and used it to his advantage. He surrounded himself with the same right wing syncophants, those emboldened by their campaigns against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. There was a smugness about the Republican Party, a disdain for the intelligence of the American people, including some of their own party members.
Obama's campaign was run like a perfectly-oiled machine. He surrounded himself with good people, people who KNEW what they were doing and believed in HIS message. This was not a case where there was a puppet master and a puppet. Obama was also not surrounded by "party people." Just from watching how well his campaign was run, I learned two things: 1) Obama would make a hell of a president and 2) he KNOWS how to surround himself with people who succeed at their jobs. In contrast, McCain surrounded himself with party people who, in their underestimation of the intelligence of the American people (and American women in particular), honestly thought that they could do anything and still win. The minute Sarah Palin was chosen as the Vice-Presidential Candidate, the minute chance that I might vote for McCain evaporated. You see, that was the signal to me that voting for McCain would be a continuation of the worst presidential administration in my lifetime. It would be run by the same puppetmasters in control of Bush. Sure, I would pay higher taxes, but "what does it profit a man to gain the world, yet lose his soul"?
In the end, I believe in Barack Obama. His victory tells me that it is possible for ANYONE born in this country to become president, even someone like me, the child of immigrants from South India. His victory also signals to the world that they should not give up on the United States. For the first time in a long time, I am looking forward to a new administration.
Disclaimer: these are my own views of the events that occurred over the last 20 years. I am sure that people will disagree with my take, but I don't care. That is what makes a blog a wonderful thing!!
Right around the time of Clinton's second term, when the first allegations about Clinton's marital infidelities started to make their rounds, the first cracks in the leadership and ideology of the Republican Party started to make their presence known. In their kowtowing to the ideologies of the far right, they forgot about their more moderate party members. Now, I am not in any way, shape, or form condoning adultery. However, Clinton's success both on the world stage and for this country should have been the focus and not what he did on his private time. Many of you would disagree, and say that the President is a symbol. I agree. However, the symbolic "purity" of the American President likely went out the door with my beloved Thomas Jefferson and his dalliance with Sally Hemings, a woman who was NOT his wife. The office is just that...an office. Placing the man on some sort of moral pedestal is rather asinine.
But I digress. This alliance of the Republican Party with the far right slowly started to make its presence know during Dole's campaign. Rather than focusing on the issues at hand that were concerning most Americans (growing unrest overseas, the unregulated financial markets, etc.). they chose instead to focus on Clinton's private life. This did not improve during the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore, as the election debacle of 2000 showed. Through cunning and subterfuge, the Republicans stole the election. What the heck? This was not the party that I signed up for! This was a party who was looking for power at ANY cost-even where that cost would be the welfare of the American people.
And then 9/11 happened, and Bush rose to the occasion. He and fellow Republican Rudolph Guliani, the outgoing mayor of New York City, symbolized leadership when the country most needed it. Bush calmed our fears, told us everything would be all right, and took some action to calm the world. He was our president. The only problem was that he was just not smart enough to recognize that all of his own actions were being carefully controlled and orchestrated by the Republican leadership. After 9/11, Bush failed as a leader, using the attacks as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation without any provocation other than a bit of name calling. He ignored the growing financial problems at home and discarded Clinton's budgetary means for eliminating the national debt within our lifetime. At the same time, in the back of my mind, I could not ignore my own misgivings about the fact that he had STOLEN the election. As young men and women died in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq, the pockets of the Vice President (a Haliburton board member) and many of Bush's oil cronies were being lined with money made possible by the war-blood money.
The issue with Kerry in the election of 2004 was not the "stupidity of the American people" but, for me, was one of the devil you know versus the devil that you don't. The American people were faced with two choices for President who, on paper, looked a lot alike. Older white men, Yale grads and fellow Skull and Bones members. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. The images of Bush's leadership during 9/11 and the constant beating of the drum for consistent leadership during the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq cost Kerry the election. However, my enduring memory of that election was the "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisements orchestrated by the Republican Party. At that moment, I knew that the "Party of Lincoln" had lost its way. However, there was one bright spot during the dark days of 2004. During the Democratic National Convention, a young junior senator from Illinois was chosen to give the keynote address. Most people outside of his home state did not know who he was, but those of us lucky enough to have him represent us in the Senate knew of his oratory skills and his amazing credentials. Columbia undergrad and Harvard Law School. Head of Harvard Law Review. Professor of Constitutional Law at the prestigious University of Chicago School of Law. A self-made man in every sense of the word who was NOT born with a silver spoon in his mouth but who had an amazing brain.
That night, Barack Obama was introduced to the world, and the world took notice. Using that speech as a springboard, Obama catapulted himself into the national consciousness and with one fell swoop, was placed on the short list of viable presidential candidates for the Democratic Party. When the time came to select the Democratic candidate, the list consisted of Senator Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and, trailing both, Barack Obama. Obama, undaunted, carefully mapped out a campaign strategy that would give him the candidacy. The heated rhetoric that flew between the Obama and Clinton camps looked for a time to be just as suicidal as the actions of the Republican Party over the previous 8 years. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, with no true challengers, sat back and watched. If anything, the lack of any real challengers for McCain was an albatross around his neck, for the contentiousness of the campaigns between Clinton and Obama overshadowed McCain's easy victories in the primaries. McCain should have used the extra time to come up with a message, a platform, and to vet a proper vice-presidential candidate. He failed miserably on all counts.
Now, up until the primaries, I was still hopeful for the Republican Party. I believed that if McCain separated himself from the current Republican leadership, he could bring the party back in a way that would resonate around the world. All he needed to do was denounce the alliance with the far right in favor of the more moderate Republicans. Bipartisanism at its best starts in the middle. McCain, however, did not do that. He embraced the Republican machine and used it to his advantage. He surrounded himself with the same right wing syncophants, those emboldened by their campaigns against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. There was a smugness about the Republican Party, a disdain for the intelligence of the American people, including some of their own party members.
Obama's campaign was run like a perfectly-oiled machine. He surrounded himself with good people, people who KNEW what they were doing and believed in HIS message. This was not a case where there was a puppet master and a puppet. Obama was also not surrounded by "party people." Just from watching how well his campaign was run, I learned two things: 1) Obama would make a hell of a president and 2) he KNOWS how to surround himself with people who succeed at their jobs. In contrast, McCain surrounded himself with party people who, in their underestimation of the intelligence of the American people (and American women in particular), honestly thought that they could do anything and still win. The minute Sarah Palin was chosen as the Vice-Presidential Candidate, the minute chance that I might vote for McCain evaporated. You see, that was the signal to me that voting for McCain would be a continuation of the worst presidential administration in my lifetime. It would be run by the same puppetmasters in control of Bush. Sure, I would pay higher taxes, but "what does it profit a man to gain the world, yet lose his soul"?
In the end, I believe in Barack Obama. His victory tells me that it is possible for ANYONE born in this country to become president, even someone like me, the child of immigrants from South India. His victory also signals to the world that they should not give up on the United States. For the first time in a long time, I am looking forward to a new administration.
Disclaimer: these are my own views of the events that occurred over the last 20 years. I am sure that people will disagree with my take, but I don't care. That is what makes a blog a wonderful thing!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
