With Jessica Simpson’s recent breakup with Dallas Cowboys QB, Tony Romo, the tabloids have plastered her all over their covers, lamenting how she got dumped. Other mags and websites have thrown up photo galleries and theories on why the pair split. And all this attention has me wondering—Is Jessica the new (B-List) Jennifer Aniston?

Like, this here from People.com. “The Way They Were?” Really? Was this relationship important enough to garner its own photo retrospective? And you know, it kind of reminds me of something…

Mm-hm.

Here’s the latest In Touch, featuring the kind headline, “Jessica Dumped Again.” Where have I seen this before?

Oh yeah, on The Insider! I love how they have a link for full coverage of Jennifer Aniston getting dumped. Doesn’t that sound like a nightmare sequence from an ’80s teen movie?

Here’s this week’s Us Weekly, speculating that since both Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey recently broke up with their significant others, it must mean they’ll get back together. Kinda like this…

I predict this the first in a long line of Newlyweds reconciliation covers.

Finally, this week’s Star has a vaguely familiar theme…

Just flip-flop who gets the lead story, and you’re done! Easy peasy!

Seriously though, I hope Jessica’s not the latest in the whole “poor, lonely single gal” trend the tabloids have going with Jennifer Aniston. Honestly, if we could kill that altogether, let Jen and Jess and any other single or recently split woman in Hollywood be, I’d be most appreciative. I mean, hey, George Clooney hasn’t had a girlfriend in months! And he’s in his 40s! The horror! Where’s his “Lonely George” cover?

WORLD EXCLUSIVE

Otedola starts a press war while his debts remain unpaid.

Confidential email correspondence between top UBA executives.

From:                   @ubagroup.com>

To:                         @ubagroup.com>

Sent: Wed, Mar 4, 2009 11:14 am

Subject: speaking with Femi Otedola

Good Morning Sir,

I had a discussion with FO on the various outstandings on his account and the prospect of new businesses despite the huge debit. This was based on my plea to Akin to intervene on our behalf as we cannot reach him and it appears Busola is clueless as to what to do or say. From his analysis, he seemed confident that he is capable of repaying but he needs time.

He claims he had exchange losses of up to N16bn which affected them but they are still importing and have cargoes worth N23bn yet to be discharged; shipped. He also expects that they will make a profit of N800m per cargo. He also claims that he is trying to recover some money from the FG on the importation of DPK in the region of N17bn. On net worth within the oil industry, he says he has shares worth N70bn on AP, N12bn on Chevron and N5bn on Mobil.

I guess these values would have diminished.

On possible repayment sources aside from the N800m per cargo, he said the following sources are available to him:

-Payment from AP via PPPRA amounting to N11bn.

-Income from Dividend on shares amounting to N20bn

-Profit from Fineshade UK per month between $6-7M Rental income on properties per year amounting to N2bn.

Rental income from AP on Walter Carrington at N5bn for 8 years.

However, it appears that FO is fond of overvaluing his assets and I am not sure if they have been used as collateral with other banks. There’s also the issue of the AFC certificates which he claims have not been delivered to him even though other shareholders have received theirs. He had tried talking to PO on my prompting but his line was off and I found that he was airborne at the time. I have told him I will give both you and PO his number so that you both can talk to him.

Please Sir, you can stress the fact that they need to make substantial payments like his competitors are doing and enquire about the AP rental as I was not sure whether he said he had collected the money or that they were to pay him. Lastly, he said that Zenith has restructured his loan of about N30bn for about 3 years and have given him fresh funds to trade hence the bids we are seeing. This, he was able to do with the outstanding of JIM which UBA does not have.

His number is 080        . Thanks

Relationship Director, Major Oil Marketers (Energy Bank)

United Bank for Africa Plc | UBA House | (14th Floor) 57 Marina, Lagos, Nigeria Office: eMail: @ubagroup.com Website: www.ubagroup.com …Africa’s Global Bank

DISCLAIMER NOTICE Information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the addressee only. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this communication without prior permission from the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please delete it permanently without copying, disclosing or otherwise using its contents, and notify the sender immediately. Any information, statements or options contained in this message (including any attachments) are given by the sender. They are not given on behalf of UBA Group unless subsequently confirmed by an individual other than the author who is duly authorized to represent UBA group. UBA Group does not enter into contractual relations over the internet. The contents of an attachment to this email may contain software viruses which could damage your computer system. Whilst every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk has been taken, the sender cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the attachment.

KEY:

FO: Femi Otedola

PO: Phillips Oduoza, UBA DMD, South.

Sir: Anthony “Tony” Elumelu GMD, UBA

JIM: James “Jim” Ovia, GMD, Zenith Bank

Some information has been redacted to discourage spammers.

Released By:

Yeside Solanke,

Personal Secretary/Editorial Assistant to

Dayo Coker, BFR.

Editor/ Public Affairs Analyst

The Insider Blog

dayocoker.wordpress.com

email: dayo.coker@gmail.com

Farrah Fawcett

The news of the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett on June 25 boosted syndicated news magazine shows into huge ratings. Coverage of the deaths of the two icons help propel all shows, giving them great numbers for the week ending June 28. Entertainment Tonight was the top rated show for the week, followed by Inside Edition, Access Hollywood, The Insider, and Extra.

Miles: So Public Enemies…
Katie:  So yeah – hated it.
Miles: (laughs). That’s all, folks
Katie: How do you take a fascinating story and turn it into a 3-hour long lame-fest? Just ask Mann. He shouldn’t have directed it – I thought all of his shots were wrong.
Miles:  I think you may be right, and I say that with reservations, because I don’t think the movie is terrible, but it is boring without a doubt.
Katie:  Meh. Honestly the only thing I was impressed by was the sound editing during the gun fights, which were incredible. The sound was perfect.
Miles:  The thing is, it’s almost a carbon copy of Miami Vice in that it’s shot in the same style, has long stretches of uninteresting, unenlightening character moments and then suddenly bursts forth with some interesting action beats. Beyond that, there’s not much that you can’t glean from the trailer. All of the best lines are there and you’re certainly not going to learn anything about Dillinger or Pervis. Especially Pervis…
Katie:  I totally agree with that. Except that I think more mojitos and go-boats would have helped this film. Oh, but Pervis….I’m fairly certain that Bale was channeling Obama for his accent.
Miles:  Does Christian Bale just not care anymore? Because he used to pick really interesting and challenging roles AND he brought something to the table. Now it seems he just shows up, scowls and goes home. And sadly, it’s not all his fault, because there’s just nothing to work with in this movie
Katie:  I thought everyone was forgettable in it save for Baby Face Nelson, but anyone who plays him will always be great because he’s such an awesome character/person.
Miles:  Depp has the same problem, but at least he’s able to Johnny Depp it up a bit. But yeah, I can’t think of Baby Face without thinking of O’ Brother, but I did like the guy that played him. And oddly enough, I thought Stephen Dorf was actually one of the better actors in the film. He had the right look for the period too.
Katie:  Even though he was only in it for about 2 minutes total.
Miles:  Sure…
Katie:  I was just so surprised by how fucking slow it was. It was like every shot lasted 5 seconds longer than it needed to. Ex: door….door…..door….door…..Depp looking at door…..door….
Miles:  I wasn’t, mainly because I’ve seen The Keep and that shit is slooooooow.
Katie:  I haven’t seen that.
Miles:  You’d hate it, I think. But anyway, this is the first movie I’ve seen in a while where it became abundantly clear that Johnny Depp had nothing to add to the character other than his perceived charm. He was essentially playing himself – a movie/rockstar
and frankly, that shit didn’t work for me.
Katie:  It sucks because he is usually so dynamic, but here it seemed like he was a dude wearing a coat that was too big for him.
Miles:  (laughs) Like a kid dressing in his older brother’s coat for a wedding.
Katie:  Exactly like that.
Miles: The only person who is remotely watchable and naturally charismatic in the whole thing is Marion Cotilliard and that’s only because she’s so fucking pretty.
Katie:  She’s pretty, but even she seemed bleh to me. After I saw it I said something that I thought I never would.
Miles: Yes?
Katie:  “I think I’d rather re-watch The Newton Boys.”
Miles: (laughs) I said something similar: “I could really go for some Fig Newtons”
Katie: “I’d rather listen to Olivia Newton John sing Let’s Get Physical”
Miles: The biggest shock for me was how much face-time William Powell and Myrna Loy got.
Katie:  I know! I thought they were gonna show the whole fucking movie
Miles:  But I loved that moment in the theater, mainly because I’ve grown to become a Thin Man fan.
Katie:  Right, well that’s all fine and good, but still…
Miles:  “I’d rather cover my balls with a fig leaf and read up on Newton’s three laws of motion.”
Katie:  (laughs) I like that one.
Miles:  And yes, no matter how often they kept cutting to those two actors, it didn’t make the movie any better.
Katie: Man, what a disappointment though.
Miles: It’s sad too, because I like Mann a lot. The Insider is one of my favorite flicks, period, and his style is so far off from that now.
Katie:  Yeah, I just hate the way he shot this. I understand wanting to stay true to your style, but come on.
Miles:  Think about it, it’s a movie in which very little happens, but you’re on the edge of your seat the entire time. How does he make a movie about robbing banks and escaping prison boring?
Katie: I was on the edge of my seat for this too, but it was because I was contemplating leaving.
Miles:  At The Insider?!?!?!
Katie: (laughs) No, when I saw Public Enemies.
Miles:  You’d better die if that’s what you meant…oh, anywhooo! I think we’re beating a dead, boring horse at this point.
Katie:  Newton.
Miles:  I’m going to type a memo into my Apple Newton.
Katie:  If Mann filmed a movie about beating a dead horse it’d be 4 hours long and shot with 56 cameras.
Miles:  Yeah, but parts of it might be pretty good. There’d definitely be some good blood oozing out of the horse’s head.
Katie:  Yeah for maybe the first hour, but then the next three?
Miles:  (laughs) And on that note, Newton.

Johnny Depp fulfills a lifelong ambition by having his name printed laterally across the shaft of his penis.

Sometimes I wish I were just an ordinary audience member (not that I’m removed from that by anything other than conceit and a WordPress account), so I could look at Michael Mann’s PUBLIC ENEMIES and just say “Blah… what a tedious film.” For in many ways that would be the correct response, and such is the film’s deadening aspect that one does wonder if any critical analysis can produce anything worthwhile from this flat spectacle.

Johnny Depp is John Dillinger, celebrity bank robber, who says things like “You can either be a live coward or a dead hero,” and “I like baseball, fast cars, whisky and you,” which is nice. But Depp is somewhat muted, the way he was in THE NINTH GATE: an actor dedicated to flamboyance, he’s at sea in Mann’s world of low-talking hard men. And Mann is at sea with the showbiz side of Dillinger. He’s a stranger to gusto.

Here’s one problem: how is this film different from HEAT? If you like HEAT, I guess you won’t care, but for me, both films are long, unexciting films about low-affect thugs who talk a lot about how professional they are, and then act like idiots. In HEAT, DeNiro decides to kill a guy who’s threatening him with exposure, so he attacks the guy very publicly in a car park, using only blunt instruments, such as his fists and wits. One of those situations where I always think, “If a witness shows up and spoils things, I’ll be annoyed. And if a witness doesn’t show up and spoil things, I’ll STILL be annoyed.”

A witness shows up. DeNiro stops kicking the guy, acts innocent (he doesn’t quite rolls his eyes up and hang his mouth open like Harpo Marx looking innocent, but it’s similar) and when the witness (I think maybe a COP CAR) drives off, he gets set to resume the beating, but his prey has somehow crawled off and vanished. Even though he was right there.

Christian Bale lost 63 pounds, and then put them on again, to play Special Agent Melvin Purvis.

In PUBLIC ENEMIES it’s the Bureau of Investigation guys who do the stupid stuff, disobeying direct orders and getting killed, repeatedly letting Dillinger go by — Christian Bayle’s college-boy agents let him down continuously. So he gets some veterans from Texas, and the ignores their advice. Dillinger escapes again. It’s one of these combat-hardened vets who actually plugs Dillinger at the end, and he’s one of the few good characters in the film: Stephen Lang is steely-eyed and magnetic, and his character is actually competent, amid an ocean of assholes.

Mann could have used the factual catalogue of blunders to poke fun of the formative FBI, or he could have used the scenes of torture and reckless trigger-happy public endangerment to condemn them, but he doesn’t seem to want to say anything. I felt like yelling through the film at him, using it as some kind of Hi-Def ear-trumpet, quoting Graham Crowden in IF… — “Do You Have An OPINION???”

All this might pass if the film had an appealing aesthetic, but I struggled, I really did, to find anything worthwhile about it. Mann has spoken about how he tested the digital cameras for a lark, and found that on film, his test scene looked like a movie set in the ’30s, whereas on digital it looked like he’d gone back in time and was IN the ’30s. Which sounds nice, but it doesn’t play that to me. To me it looks like a YouTube video in fancy dress. Digital has advanced to a point where you often need expertise to tell it from film, but Mann succeeds in making it look fuzzy and dead.

(Full disclosure: my local gigaplex, the Vue Ocean Terminal, underlights its projectors, has disfigured screens, and lets light spill onto the screen from the exit. So the film wasn’t looking its best. But I still think this is one that’ll look better on DVD.)

Mann juggles oddball angles looking up under machine guns at faces, uses handheld shots to create a sick-making motion blur whenever he can, and cuts things into what Roman Polanski has called “that fruit-salad style…” The art deco locations are often dazzling, but the camera is never in synch with their cool splendor.

The “great romance” aspect of the film, not really borne out by history, is shot dead execution-style by the limp playing of Depp and Marion Cotillard (all her concentration is going on not sound too French) and by Mann’s total disinterest in women, which also results in the pathetic wastage of Lilli Taylor. Since Mann, like Cotillard’s character, is completely unconcerned with any moral view of what Dillinger does for a living, you’d think he’d have more identification with her.

(Roger Corman, in BLOODY MAMA and THE ST VALENTINE’S DAY MASSACRE, both of which I saw recently, is likewise uninterested in preaching or taking sides, but he IS ripping the veil from off the American capitalist dream. You can’t accuse him of not having a point of view. All Mann has is a viewfinder, generally aimed up at somebody from under their armpit.)

Thing about MM is, he has lots of ideas, but they generally work better in his head than on the screen: the jump-cuts in MANHUNTER, the long-lens confusion of LAST OF THE MOHICANS. Of course, nobody with Mann’s sense and budget could make this movie without hitting some good points: the phone-tapping room, a constellation of little glowing lights; and Dillinger’s last night with his girl, in a barren moonscape lit by chill morgue-rays — such moments suggest that a ’30s digital movie COULD look beautiful.

And Dillinger’s sly visit to the offices where his case is being investigated — which I assume to be at least partly poetic license, since we never see him tell anyone about it, so how would the screenwriters know it happened? — is a nicely mythic and romantic moment, like Dillinger’s last words… a few moments of this kind impress, late in the day.

Oh, there’s another impressive actor in the thing: Peter Gerety as Dillinger’s lawyer. I wonder if his dialogue in court is straight from the historical record, because he sure talks better than anybody else in this film. Maybe such able thesps as Billy Crudup, Stephen Dorff, Marion Cotillard and Giovanni Ribisi make such little impact because of the weedy dialogue, which is devoid of all period zing (in the zingiest slangiest era in American history!), stranding the cast in a neutral zone of slow, emphatic delivery. (I know pastiche is the last thing on Mann’s mind, but folks in ’30s flicks talk FAST, and that would be a wonderful thing to offer modern audiences.)

Got home and slung an authentic 1930s crime-flick, THE BEAST OF THE CITY, in the old Panasonic, and within minutes was exulting in lines like ~

Cop: Mind if I ask you some questions?
Jean Harlow: Sure, if you don’t ask them in Yiddish.

And ~

Jean Harlow (embracing cop): Are you going to reform me?

Cop: What for?

EVERY line in that film seemed to sparkle and crackle with lust, malice and wanton throwaway wit. By contrast, the verbiage emanating at snail-speed from the kissers of Mann’s barely-dramatis personae cuts about as much mustard as a hash-slinger with hooks for hands. See?

Still, Mann’s usual stumbling-block is music — I recall with rising nausea the synth-pop atrocities of MANHUNTER, the smorgasbord of ethnic stylings in THE INSIDER (”The most heterosexual movie ever made! It’s nothing but angry men shouting into HUGE PHONES!” – Ben Halligan) and the somnolent Tangerine Dream drones of THIEF. Here he does about as badly as you could do in a rich musical decade, but not half as badly as he normally does. The bluesy humming is actually quite nice, although it’s diluted with lots of other effects which don’t mesh into a whole, and every time the radio is on its Billie Holliday, which is fine but limited.

As in ALI, Man shows an interest in resurrecting history but never illuminates it. Dillinger appears to have escaped from prison in Indiana by carving a gun from a bar of soap, blackening it with shoe-polish, and holding up the guards. Woody Allen parodied this in his first film, TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, where Allen’s home-made side-arm dissolves into a lather during a rainstorm. But Mann includes the incident without explaining the fake gun at all. (An alternative theory, from cult author Robert Anton Wilson: Dillinger meditated real hard, and teleported out of his cell. I’d watch THAT movie. Twice!)

Likewise he shows a judge taunting J. Edgar Hoover for never actually arresting anyone, without showing the punchline, which is included in Larry Cohen’s THE PRIVATE FILES OF J EDGAR HOOVER: Hoover stage-managed an arrest and turned up to snap the cuffs into place, a troupe of tame news cameramen in tow. Mann exposes himself as a filmmaker with no sense of humour — or storytelling.

A closing title tells us that (predictably dead-eyed) Christian Bayle’s real-life character resigned from the Bureau a year after Dillinger’s death, and killed himself in 1960. And I wondered, why tell us that? The movie hasn’t done anything to explain such actions, we barely even know this guy, so what’s the point of telling us?

Une nouvelle chanson de Mary vient de faire surface sur internet, enjoy ! =D

Mary J. Blige – Nothing On Me (HQ)

Source : LoveBscott.com

joi 28 mai, ora 14.30 / Casa de Cultura “Mihai Ursachi” – Parcul Copou / intrare libera

The Insider de Michael Mann | drama, thriller | cu Al Pacino, Russell Crowe, Christopher Plummer | SUA | 1999 | color | 157 minute | subtitrarea este in limba romana

Sinopsis: Jeffrey Wigand a fost martorul-cheie in procesele intentate de statul Mississippi si alte 49 de state americane industriei tutunului care a fost obligata sa plateasca 246 miliarde $.
Wigand, fost sef al departamentului de cercetari si dezvoltare al companiei Brown & Williamson, era un foarte apreciat om de stiinta si ultimul deconspirator datorita functiei sale inalte. Nici unul aflat in postura lui nu a mai dat in vileag ceea ce cunostea.
Intre timp, Lowell Bergman, reporter si producator al emisiunii-ancheta “60 Minutes” pentru Mike Wallace, i-a luat un interviu faimosului Wigand in care acesta facea niste dezvaluiri senzationale [...] (cinemagia.ro)

* acest eveniment isi doreste sa puncteze ziua de 31 mai, declarata “Ziua Mondiala fara Tutun“, si este organizat de Centrul Diecezan Caritas Iasi si de Primaria Municipiului Iasi

State of Play is one of the best surprises of the year so far.  In enduring all the overblown explosions that fill the cineplex these days, we can only hope that annually a movie like this can be released to acclaim and also a fantastic box office.  However, as entertaining as this movie is, and as well-crafted a plot and as structurally intact as this story plays, I have some doubts as to how well this movie can save the newspaper which the story is about  — and also how well this movie can save this type of genre film.

The closest film in recent times to this movie — aside from the English mini-series by the same title — was the San Francisco-based epic, Zodiac (2007), based on the true story of the Zodiac serial killer and a newspaper employee’s ability to solve the crimes.  The commonalities between these two films about the ingenuity of journalists and staff working at newspapers are plenty, so if you enjoyed that David Fincher epic, which in my opinion is probably his finest work so far, then you will definitely applaud every step that Russell Crowe takes in this entertaining film.

He treads into dangerous territory, on the trail of damaging and conspiratorial information, which begins with a story that can solve an enigma, inside a puzzle, which is wrapped inside a mystery.  Though it is debatable whether or not the film presents a realistic conclusion, your politics are not at the center of whether or not you will be smartly entertained or if you will like this movie.

Playing veteran reporter Cal McAffrey, a seasoned sleuth who is a downtrodden Sherlock Holmes of Washington D.C., Russell Crowe delivers a performance that is comparable to what he was able to achieve in Michael Mann’s docu-pic thriller, The Insider.  If you haven’t seen that movie, then I can only say that you are really missing some of the best writing in film history, or, at least, some of the best writing ever achieved by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump).  This movie attacks corporations offering privatized mercenary services in a similar way that Michael Mann’s film based on the true story of a 60 Minutes segment on the Tobacco companies dealt with the smoking industry.

Cal McAffrey is a stumbler and even possibly a bumbler, who is unassuming and yet charming in a professorial manner; despite unattractive habits which have infiltrated into his modest bachelor lifestyle, which includes driving a 91′ Saab appearing to be on its last wheel, Cal holds intact a respect for the Constitution, even as his organization is ravaged by insufferable budget cuts and the dominance of the competing Internet.  Cal is old school, someone who sees no reason to buy a newer computer, since his older seventeen year old model is still working well enough.  Naturally, he would subscribe to the popular adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

The movie suggests that he’s on the verge of becoming obsolete, rolled over and capsized by new technologies, which are presented as the fate of both the present and future of the printed word; this threat is embodied by an inexperienced attractive blogger-journalist, Della Frye, who is possibly half his age.  Played by Rachel MacAdams with skepticism, she also turns out to be forgiving of him and a wholesome liberated woman, whose role sharply contrasts Crowe’s seamier presence.

Both are following the same news story, pitted against one another by their editor, Cameron Lynne, who is played by Helen Mirren.  The breaking story they report on is congressman Stephen Collins’ affair with a former head researcher, who either commits suicide or is murdered before hundreds on a train platform during her morning commute.

State of Play penetrates deeply into the seedier side of Washington and the highly-guarded secrets that congressmen conceivably encounter when they grope their way through the labyrinth of the governmental corridors of power.  Cal is oafish, long-haired, and unlike the Washington lavish elite in every way, and yet, he is also the most keen and sharp mind around.  His connection to Stephen Collins is more than professional, it is newsworthy because he is also connected to the congressman’s wife, who is Anne Collins, played by Robin Penn Wright.  Suggested is that in their youth Cal had lost her to Collins.

The almost zen-like clarity that Cal possesses, and his years of experience enables him to recognize the difference between ‘dirt’ and ‘truth’, which the film assumes that most of us probably forget, if we even manage to think so deeply.

Despite the complex web of relationships surrounding Crowe’s character, including his having been the former college roommate of congressman Collins who is played tearfully by Ben Affleck, Crowe’s McAffrey is inspired.  He will stop at nothing, even if it means destroying the careers and lives of those who have meant something to him.

On the way to championing his story, Cal manages to let go of and triumph over a past conquest; he becomes a respected teacher who dispenses alcohol; he cradle-robs the heart of a babe in arms; he gets a street-trash deep throat source murdered; he presses a congressional heavyweight into a corner; and he gains a toothy grin because of incomparably high journalistic standards.  Cal is shot at and even suffers the worst undignified injury for a journalist, which results in the bandaging of one of his precious typing hands.

The movie never takes on a moral tone, even though it constantly throws audiences amid the turmoil of what appears to be difficult choices for Cal and his gang of embattled reporters.  Ultimately Cal charges forth alone with gladiatorial willingness, so that he may properly rescue the first amendment from a few powerful elected officials who blatantly trample on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution — seeing the ends as a justification for the means.

The public enemies in this story are painted as hijackers of democracy who serve only to profit.  They are dangerous because they command the allegiance of a legion of satellite henchmen who do their dirty work, as represented by one mercenary soldier, Robert Bingham, played with a naivete by Michael Berresse.

The film is a non-stop escalation into a journey of fear and conspiracy, which might remind viewers of a few stratagems worthy of a novel by Angels and Demons author Dan Brown.  Incidentally, in one critical scene an important witness by the name of Vernon Sando is murdered, who turns out to be played by an actor named Dan Brown.

Cal takes no prisoners in his quest for the truth.  Ultimately, the movie’s cumulative strands of storylines culminate to present in concert an argument which many Americans already believe: the hidden purpose of the War on Terror had everything to do with the excessive greed of a select minority of powerful men.

I saw this film because the trailer looked interesting and less fanciful than most of the movies of this type, which suggests some mystery, action, and plenty of boring talking heads scenes.  State of Play is so different from the trailer that you should not be misled by it.  Cleverly directed by Kevin MacDonald (The Last King of Scotland), this film offers a tightly-woven script by two established screen scenarists, Matthew Michael Carnahan (The Kingdom, Lions for Lambs) and Tony Gilroy (The Bourne movies, Michael Clayton).  The teamwork of cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto and editor Justine Wright serve to make the most of other creative elements, which otherwise might have been missed or dismissed.

I was engaged by the lengthy exposition in State of Play, which brought together a number of closely linked sub-stories, drawing them forward into a tight webbed knot of intrigue.  Among thrillers and movies about gumshoe sleuths, State of Play, like Zodiac before it, proves that a newspaper staff and backdrop is as good a vehicle and environment as any to set a greatly satisfying whodunnit;  Cal’s ‘91 Saab might not be the expensive sports car that character actor Jason Bateman drives (playing goofy Washington insider and smooth operator Dominic Foy), but the car is sufficient enough to take us for a thrilling ride.

Though some of the characters featured only appear briefly to bring context to or to abbreviate moods and scenes in the story, they are in their summation memorable performances because of unique quirks, the potency of the lines, or even the stare of the camera on their faces.  Look for Jeff Daniels who plays power broker Senator George Fergus.  Like the rest of the cast of characters, he stands out as someone who does a fine job in helping State of Play to deliver the maximum effect of the punch.

April 24th, 2009

Copyright 2009 by Bryan Hsuan.  All Rights Reserved.

It’s been too long since I had a chance to bash a Hans selection, but alas, having recently seen the trailers for Drag Me To Hell in between NBA Playoffs action has given me an opportunity. Unless Sam Raimi can get back some of his pre-Spidey 3 magic, Drag Me To Hell looks like another made for an opening weekend #1 cash grab, generic teen horror flick. I will be passing, as I also have not seen a genuine horror masterpiece since…since…I can’t even remember. Hopefully Midnight Meat Train fits the bill when I watch it soon.

For my #3, I pick another big name director who has fallen off his game a bit recently, with Michael Mann’s Public Enemies.

Michael Mann's Public Enemies

Title: Public Enemies

Synopsis: A crime spree during the Great Depression leads to the birth of the FBI.

Director: Michael Mann

Cast: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Channing Tatum, Giovanni Ribisi, Billy Crudup

Why you should be excited too: Aside from seeing Johnny Depp vs Christian Bale with tommy guns? How about the fact that we get to see a Michael Mann story of crime in America, one of our finest directors in that genre? Mann may have definitely dropped the ball with Miami Vice, but if Public Enemies is anywhere close to some of his other works (Thief, Manhunter, The Last of the Mohicans, Heat, The Insider, Collateral), then we will soon have a crime classic on our hands.

Based on Bryan Burrough’s non-fiction book of the same name, Public Enemies will showcase Depp’s John Dillinger being chased by Bale’s Melvin Purvis. The film will not be 100% historically accurate, but according to Burrough, will be as close as Hollywood will be able to make. I am looking forward to what should be a well acted American gangster epic, with tommy gun shootouts. Public Enemies will be released on July 1, 2009, in the thick of the summer movie season.

John Connor went back a little too far in time

Earlier this semester, I was fortunate enough as an undergrad to take a mini-class at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley. Pretty sweet, eh? Well, it gets better. One of my instructors was Lowell Bergman. Yeah, that Lowell Bergman.

Though he didn’t speak much (it was a guest-lecture class) and the course lasted only seven weeks, I feel like I learned something merely by sitting in the same room as the man. He’s on Frontline, for God’s sake. So when I found out that there was a movie made about him, I naturally had to see it.

I don’t think I’d be going out on a limb here if I say that when Al Pacino plays you in a movie, you’ve definitely made it. I suppose the same can be said of Russell Crowe. But DAMN. I’d take that as a serious compliment. Anyway, maybe it’s my Cal Bears bias, or my journalism bias (ironic, isn’t it?), but I thought this was a beautiful movie. A little long, but still beautiful. Al Pacino and Russell Crowe acted the hell out of this, bringing to life a very journalism-centric story and making it into a drama that needed to be told.

The specificity of the story was made universal by Crowe, I think. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not the biggest Crowe fan, but this was by far the best work I’ve ever seen him do. It was hard to even see the movie star behind the big glasses, gray hair, Southern accent and slight Bill Murray-esque demeanor (not in the comedic sense, mind you). His character, former tobacco scientist Jeffrey Wigand, one to whom few people would ordinarily relate, suffers the consequences of life as it happens: one minute, you’re at the top of the world, the next you’re fired and immediately after that a series of unfortunate or random events take the lead in a tumble downward that scatters your family and your credibility. That’s real life, and it sucked for Wigand pretty hard.

But what sucked even more was the scam that Bergman (Pacino), Wigand (Crowe) and Mike Wallace (the ever-stoic Christopher Plummer, SWOON!!!) uncovered. Big tobacco has been screwing the world for so long that we’ve gotten used to it. They’ve been denying the fact that their product is a horrible, addictive, cancer-causing shitstick of death and blindly manufacturing cigarettes for pure profit. I will say that, while people now have no right to sue big tobacco because they should be fully aware of the fact that cigarettes will MAKE YOU DIE OMG DUH!!!, but the brute ignorance and selfishness of the corporations is what really gets my goat. And that was one of the targets, thankfully, of Bergman’s investigation and of this movie.

I think this movie may be most enjoyable for journalists, merely because it takes an insider (HAR HAR) look at the industry, which is slowly dying/being controlled by corporations/becoming irrelevant. CBS is a beast in this industry, indeed providing the best news show on network television, as mentioned in the film. But this film is also perfect for curious people. People who like to ask a lot of questions. People who know that you need to ask a lot of idiots before you get to the smart one. Watching this film improves your reporting skills, even if you didn’t have any before. It’s educational and you don’t even realize it until you’re through with it.

And it’s a nice movie to watch; I’m fairly certain that Ben Mackenzie (formerly of “The O.C.” and now of “Southland”) will age into a better-looking Russell Crowe, so that’s good for him. And Wigand’s children, played by Hallie Kate Eisenberg and Renee Olstead, are probably the cutest kids with ringlets since ol’ Shirley herself.

Naturally, as a critic, I have criticisms, but they are few. The music in this film rivaled that of a minimalist suspense film, which I guess may have been their intent, but still. Too eerie in some scenes, especially considering the subject matter. And how exactly did Bergman get his source, Wigand, so quickly? I realize that the movie was about the two of them working together, but it seemed like he spent about 5 minutes getting the name from someone. Granted, this is a movie, and it is Lowell Bergman, who has direct lines to every newspaper editor everywhere, but I wanted a little struggle. Just a little. It would have made me feel better, that’s all.

See this movie. It’s important.

Hello.  My name is Jonathan Williams.  I have something I need to say.  It has been extremely difficult to not be open with it.  However, it is almost as hard to come out with it.  But I feel it is time I come out-out of the closet.  Since I was three years old, I have been a Christian.  This disgusts me.  I have been a Christian for this long and I have never truly witnessed to someone outside of church.  I want to let people know how much I love my God that it’s intoxicating.  I want to affect people and help them see how amazing of a life it is having the knowledge that God’s got your back!  So there it is.  I am officially coming out of the closet.  I understand that I am only here to bridge the gap, if you will, to let people know that there really can be true Christians that care.  I’m tired of Christians preaching at everyone then getting wasted on the weekends!  Knowing that I alone have possibly been sent to certain people that would not listen to anyone else but me, I would never forgive myself if they died without me at least telling about my true love-Jesus.  I suppose the main reason I haven’t shared my faith is fear.  The single-most paralyzing word.  I have been scared.  Scared of how different I am.  Scared that people won’t accept me any longer for who I am.  Scared even of losing my job.

In many ways I see similarities between closet Christians and closet gays.  We don’t know how to express what we feel.  Speaking from experience, I know it is very hard to tell people, that come from a different background, about God.  I am afraid they won’t accept me any longer.  That almost seems to be the same issue with gays, they are afraid to come out because they are afraid they will no longer be accepted for who they are but more as an ever encompassing breed.  “It eventually led to him opening up to Miner, one of the first times anybody outside Boltz’s circle of family and friends knew his long-kept secret: Ray Boltz is gay.” ( http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/9-12/arts/feature/13258.cfm)  Ray Boltz, long time inspirational Christian artist, was forced to end his marriage with his wife of 30 long years.  All because he came out of the closet.  The instant he was bold enough to tell everyone about his lifestyle, everything changed.  “I remember the fear, pain and loneliness I felt as a young adult, knowing I was “different,” but too afraid to say the word “gay” because of the fear of the unknown. I thought I was the only one.” (http://gaylife.about.com/mbiopage.htm)  This comes from “Ramon Johnson-About.com Guide to Gay Life since 2002” (http://gaylife.about.com/mbiopage.htm).  Fear of the unknown.  Both Ramon and Ray had very similar experiences, Ramon was afraid that he was the only one, Ray was petrified of everything he would lose once he did come out.  I would like to introduce to you James Hartline.  He was gay for thirty years before he accepted Jesus into his heart and left his life of homosexuality for a life of serving God.  He talks about how it is getting harder and harder to protect even young children from the homosexual lifestyle.  “Last year, Hartline witnessed a man wearing a thong while pedaling the LGBT Pride Parade route on a bicycle and handing out candy to children.”  (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/127942.aspx) This is ridiculous.  Things like this happen with the gay pride parade and who knows what other events.  Although, I guess that is what it takes to be noticed and to get rights.  “The first real attempt at organizing for political purposes was Henry Gerber who arrived in the U.S. from Germany in 1913. In 1917 he was briefly institutionalized in a mental hospital for homosexuality (the common fate of many
gays)” (http://hnn.us/articles/11316.html)  A long time ago they had no rights whatsoever, now gay marriage is legalized in five states.

Closet christian-”Someone who believes in the Christian religion who is either unwilling or unable to make a public affirmation of his/her faith.” (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=closet%20christian) Fear.  Once again fear cripples us.  Even though we Christians may never have been rejected in our life, it is the fear of rejection that keeps so many of us quiet.  But there is only so much one can take.  Being a Christian, and having kept it in for so many years, I cannot physically keep it in any longer.  When I don’t tell people about my faith, it feels more like a burden.  I have this amazing truth to tell you but I’m so scared that you will reject me that I will keep it to myself.  Christianity is not designed for that.  God sent his son to die for us and he was rejected, beaten, ridiculed, you name it; not once was he too timid to share God’s love for people on this earth.  On the contrary, I can completely understand if someone comes from a very secular background where there is the risk of being disowned from the family, that would be a bit more rough!  Also, how far are you/am I willing to take this in the work place?  There is always the fear of losing your place of income, but who gave you/me that job in the first place?  God.  I for one am completely tired of harboring this best kept secret of all time, I have harbored this secret for about twenty years.  That is a long time to keep a secret for.  A lot of times people are encouraged when they find out a friend or a coworker is Christian.  It really makes things so much simpler when you can face the problem in numbers.  It seems all too scary to face it by yourself.  What would be the response if we started making as big of a stand as gays have?  Would we be arrested?  What would happen?  After all, we have much more of a selfless approach to everything.  Gays march for rights to be with the same sex and be married.  All we Christians want is the ability to give you a chance to hear our faith in work places, school, and publicly.  All for the greater good.

Gays vs. Christians: Who would ever think to relate those two?  They seem to be two groups that reside on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum!  But when you examine it closely you see how many things in common we have.  Gays are afraid to come out because they feel alone, different, and scared.  Christians are afraid to come out because we at times can feel alone, different, and scared.  Alone because it has been so long since we have encountered someone else who is also a believer willing to make the stand for our faith.  Alone because they feel that they are the only gay people out there.  Scared because we don’t know what people’s response will be once we profess our faith; could be rejection or hate.  Scared because they don’t know what peoples response will be when they come out with their lifestyle; could be rejection or hate.  Both parties also fear coming out because both are different than the average American.  Christians because we choose the path of self sacrifice.  Gays because they prefer same sex over opposite.  Although, right now gays make more of a stand for themselves than Christians do.  They also have many more rights than Christians do.  If we held a march of God, per-say, would we be allowed?  Or would we be arrested for this or that?  Meanwhile gays have their pride marches seemingly all the time along with numerous other similar events.  All we want to do is have the right to love people and  show the way of our God.  All gays want are their rights to legally be able to be together and married.

Hi.  My name is Jonathan Williams.  I am a Christian.  I am not afraid of the consequences of me coming out with my faith.  I am tired of hiding in the corner with my faith.  I am eager to be tested.  Yes I have the fear of being rejected.  Yes I have the fear of losing friends.  And yes I do have the fear of losing my job, if I don’t approach it the right way, or if they have no tolerance for my beliefs.  But to me all of the consequences are worth the action.  If I lose everything in my profession of faith, at least I haven’t lost my faith.  “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:16 ESV)  I would rather lose everything here on earth than risk losing everything in the after life.  Jeffrey Wigand: “There are times when I wish I hadn’t done it. There are times when I feel com… compelled to do it. If you asked me, would I do it again, do I think it’s worth it? Yeah I think its worth it.” ( The Insider)  At times I feel as if I am in Jeffrey Wigand’s shoes, I know everything about this terrible disease called sin.  I know of this terrible place called hell where you go after a life of sin.  I have the antidote to this disease called sin.  And thus far I have kept it to myself.  The life I have been living is a travesty of representation.  To me it is no longer a question of if I share my faith, it is a question of when and where I will start to make my stand.  I pray that if enough of us make that decision, we will pave the way, just as gays have in order to have rights.  “Christian Teacher Suspended Without Pay-Ohio School Board Suspends Recipient of Distinguished Service Award
for Refusing to Remove Bible from His Desk”(http://www.bibleonthedesk.com/pressreleases.php) We need to take the steps to lead to having prayer, Bibles, and our profession of faith legalized in this nation.  As you can see, some of us have already started.

Den här gamla historien om kvinnan som skar av sin mans penis fortsätter tydligen. Nu har de återförenats och mannen har bett om ursäkt.
Det ger väl hopp om något.
Men det är inte det jag tänker på när jag läser om det.
Det jag tänker är att det vore “roligare” om man beskrev det som att hon högg av hela hans kropp. Att allt hon lämnade kvar var hans penis.
Jo, så var det nog hon tänkte.

John Wayne Bobbitt

It is difficult to explain the difference between a “pit bull” abuser ~ the kind that won’t let go ~ and a “cobra” abuser ~ the kind who will strike to kill when he/she feels threatened.

John Wayne Bobbitt is a quintessential “pit bull” abuser.  For those of you who need to understand the difference in order to craft a viable safety plan, I strongly urge you to visit The Insider web site and look at tonight’s clip several times.   (Click on the blue words ~ they’ll take you right there.)

The Insider is a gossip show.  He’s not “in love” with his ex-wife Lorena Gallo.  Listen and watch closely.  He can’t let go.  He’s seizing the opportunity to get back with Lorena with everything he’s got.  This is what the experts mean by “control.”  Like most abusive people, he’s in denial.  His “mea culpa” admissions are just enough to make him appear sympathetic.

Listen and watch Lorena closely.  She’s smart.  She’s not buying any of it.  She’s telling him with everything that she’s got that it is over.  She’s “constructing boundaries.”

I hope that she knows that when he finally understands that she’s moved on that she’s at substantial risk.

If you are one of the millions of women walking in Lorena’s shoes, click on the “pit bull” and “safety plan” tabs at the top of this post.  Surf around this site.  Every day I add new information to guide you in your quest for freedom and recovery from abuse.

Although I don’t have the time or resources to be an advocate for individual people, I have a wealth of information on my library shelves.  I’ve survived abuse and stalking for 17 years.  If there’s something specific you need to know, please leave a comment.  I will respond ASAP in a post or a series of posts if the issue is complex.  Your question may help others who are walking in your shoes right now.

Lorena Gallo

Lorena who?

You probably know her by her married name:  Lorena Bobbitt.  She’s the one who “bobbed” her husband’s “manhood.”

In 1994, the New York Times opined about her case and the Violence Against Women Act in “A Million Mrs. Bobbitts:”

Lorena Bobbitt’s response to being continually raped, sodomized and beaten by her husband was uniquely bizarre. But her situation was commonplace. What happened to Mrs. Bobbitt happens, in varying degrees, to more than a million American women every year.

. . .If the Bobbitt case provoked a lot of nervous laughter, the situation itself was no joke. Neither is the situation the Violence Against Women Act can help remedy.

After the 11:00 news on the weekend, I typically switch to HGTV as my default network while I read.  Tonight’s book is Cokie Roberts’ fascinating book Ladies of Liberty.  Ironically, I was reading about Thomas Jefferson’s disdain for women. . .he wasn’t kidding around when he wrote “all men are created equal.”

A promo about the Bobbitts for CBS’ The Insider captured my curiosity.  It seems they are following up on Ms. Gallo’s recent appearance on Oprah.  They arranged for the couple to be reunited for a televised showdown.

We all remember the infamous “bob,” but the domestic violence that preceded it gets lost.  Ms. Gallo tonight confronted her ex-husband about marital rape as well as a coerced abortion both of which he denied along with a series of phone calls to her.

Since their divorce, John Wayne Bobbitt was convicted in 2003 for domestic violence, and appeared in porn flicks.  It appears he may still be stalking Ms. Gallo.

She’s moved on with her life.  She sells real estate in Great Falls, Virginia and donates 10% of her income to domestic violence causes.  She’s also a hair dresser and mother.  She’s engaged.   She hopes to open a shelter and maintains a web site:  Lorena’s Red Wagon.

I’m listening to I’ll Be Gone (Moby + Patti LaBelle)–for a couple reasons, 1) coworker1 hates it and she’s been texting for the last twenty minutes so fuck her and 2) Miami Vice.

Until recently, Mann always had at least one great cinema moment in his films. Thief has one, Manhunter has one (”my man”), Last of the Mohicans (theatrical, not director’s), Heat has three or four, Miami Vice has one (the I’ll Be Gone sequence). Insider doesn’t, Collateral doesn’t. Et cetera, et cetera. Public Enemies will not, Ali doesn’t have any.

Other great moments–The Last Temptation of Christ, the ending. Henry Fool, the ending.

Those are the ones I’m thinking of now … maybe the helicopter rescue in Superman (maybe).

These are cinematic payoff sequences, where the medium just skyrockets in potential. Most movies don’t have things like them, most great movies don’t have things like them (Kubrick never had one of these). They’re somewhat populist moments. I’m trying to think of another example and I really can’t. Mann’s kind of the best for them, just because he understands that kind of payoff storytelling.

In grad school, when I was still working towards a story collection versus a novel, I used to want to write something with one of those cinematic payoffs. It’s incredibly hard to even conceive of a way to get them down in a draft, much less edit them, much less make them successful. I’m trying to think of a novel with one of those moments. Cat’s Cradle has one. Vonnegut has them, but he usually saves them for the endings. In Cat’s Cradle, he does it early. Bluebeard’s got a great one.

Novels don’t tend to work in moments like that. In singularly memorable moments … not even punch in the gut ones, just moments in general.

As a going present, my professor/mentor gave me an annotated copy of Dracula. I fucking hate Dracula. I wrote an essay about how much I hated Dracula–and she read it out loud because I was busy with my mom’s … I guess memorial service is what it’d be called. So I couldn’t figure out why she was giving it to me.

HUGE Dracula reference in the novel. About it sucking no less. And I totally forgot about it. And giving a copy of Dracula as a gift was part of the fucking scene in the novel. I felt like a douchebag. It’s probably the second most thoughtful gift I’ve ever gotten. No, first. The only competition was when my dad got me this Muppet Show soundtrack CD. So I douched on this great gift, because it wasn’t a memorable part of my own fucking novel. I mean, I kind of recovered–I blamed it all on being a drunken dipshit.

No big cinematic moments in the novel, the first one (no idea what’ll happen in the second). In fact, one of my advisors told me to put one in–the eureka moment–to make it more sellable and I argued for about two hours to not. It was a funny scene–I mean, I hated this two-faced woman but she did know some stuff and sellable was one of them–because we were in this “family friendly” coffee shop and there was this kid around and we both kept swearing and getting nervous looking, like we’d get 86′d.

I think I’d like to do one of those moments. Paul Pope does an amazing one in 100% (ending). But they’re not easy in literature. I”m pretty sure T.C. Boyle’s never had one, no for Rick Moody. Pynchon has a bunch, obviously, but he always cuts them short. I feel like I just read another one–besides Cat’s Cradle–but I can’t remember what.