Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
★★★★ / ★★★★

Two charismatic strangers named Bonnie (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde (Warren Beatty) teamed up and decided to rob banks in the Depression-era 1930s. Their adventures eventually led them to take in other people including C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), Buck Barrow (Gene Hackman), and Blanche Barrow (Estelle Parsons). I’ve heard a lot about this movie via references from other pictures and television shows so I expected a lot from it. I have to say that it more than impressed because although it was initially about criminals who simply wanted some sort of excitement in their lives, we eventually really got to know them such as how they felt toward each other, their own insecurities and their realization that they wanted to leave the life of crime and start over. In under two hours, Arthur Penn, the director was able to helm a movie with sympathetic characters (when they shouldn’t be because they’ve killed people, especially considering when the film was released) and come full circle when it comes to the story. I also liked the dialogue and the passion in the body language of the actors, notably Dunaway. At times, I would pay attention more on what she was doing instead of what she was saying–something that I often catch myself doing when I’m conversing with someone. So I consider that a very good thing because it means she’s established a bridge between the character and the audience. Lastly, I enjoyed that this picture tried to be more than a series of action sequences. It actually had humor–especially when Gene Wilder appeared on screen–and real dramatic weight, which adds another layer to its substance. I think “Bonnie and Clyde” is rightfully considered as one of the greatest American films because even though it was undoubtedly violent, it really was more about the drama in wanting to escape situations with increasing amount of gravity. Pretty much every minute was efficient and I was fascinated with what was going to happen with the characters even though I knew of their fates. If one hasn’t seen “Bonnie and Clyde,” one should make it a priority. My only regret is that I hadn’t seen it sooner.

Stark Sands and Laura Osnes as Bonnie and Clyde
__________________________________________________________
By Carol Davis

LA JOLLA, California —We can deny it all we want but most of us are intrigued with the glamour and glitz that goes along with most Hollywood types. In some cases it doesn’t even have to belong to Hollywood at all. I love reading about legendary figures; what they do, how they did it, how they arrived at becoming so big and how the press and public treat and/or react toward them. (Oy, poor Tiger)

There is something both mysterious and romantic about the idea of saying, “to hell with convention, I’m going to do it my way” (Frank did) because that’s usually the case when someone we read about seems larger than life.

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were two such characters, and I use the word characters not in a demeaning sort of way, but to illustrate that they were truly characters of their own making; their very own creations who lived up to and in some ways beyond their own expectations for whatever that’s worth.

Many who saw the 1967 movie version of their escapades will remember the beautiful Faye Dunaway as the sculptured and lean Bonnie Parker and the handsome, virile and sinewy Warren Beatty on the run, bathtub lovers whose claim to fame followed them wherever they went, whatever they did even in the afterlife.

So it goes with the new Ivan Menchell (book), Frank Wildhorn (music) and Don Black (lyrics) depression era musical drama Bonnie and Clyde now in a world premiere at The La Jolla Playhouse through Dec. 20^th. What you might ask, do Bonnie and Clyde and musical theatre have to do with each other? Before I saw the show someone asked me, “Who wants to see a shoot em up musical about two pesky, self-absorbed outlaws who randomly killed innocent bystanders or anyone else who got in their way”?  Based on the opening night’s audience response, a lot, I guess!

The three creators Menchell, Wildhorn and Black come to the table with serious credits to their names. Menchell worked on the book to the musicals The Prince and the Pauper, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and now Bonnie and Clyde. He also wrote the bittersweet 1990 comedy The Cemetery Club about three Jewish widows whose husbands died and the widows are now in different stages of healing. They meet once a month at the cemetery, where the three deceased spouses lay buried, to pay their respects. It later became a movie starring Ellen Burstyn and Olympia Dukakis. Wildhorn’s Scarlet Pimpernel and Jekyll & Hyde with Black’s Sunset Boulevard complete the troika.

If anyone had any doubts that the story of the star crossed lovers, Bonnie and Clyde would be different or had somehow changed from the two outlaws that they eventually became or that the ending might be more glamorous because it is a musical, doubt no longer. Menchell relied on several sources to write the book for the show; Go Down Together: The True Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde by Jeff Guinn, Bonnie and Clyde The Lives Behind the Legend by Paul Schneider and ‘from first hand accounts taken from the book Ambushed by Ted Hinton’.

While some practice at changing history, these collaborators, according to interviews with the creators about the making of the show, were more interested in focusing on the “tragic love triangle between Bonnie, Clyde and Ted Hinton (the Dallas County, Texas Deputy Sheriff who was the youngest of the posse that ambushed the couple and killed them outside Louisiana in 1934. He tried to court her with the approval of her mother before she met up with Clyde) and how Bonnie and Clyde were and what it must have been like for the parents to have children like this?”

To sum it up Menchell added… “We want all of it-the tragic love story, the passion, the commitment to family, everything that endears us to them-and yet still keep them homicidal”. Tongue in cheek or not, I think we got it all under the fine direction and musical staging of Jeff Calhoun and his talented pool of actors and technical staff.

It’s almost hard to believe that the couple was barely out of their teens when they met, robbed more than a dozen banks, killed 13 innocent people and were gunned down by a volley of bullets in their car and all before they were out of their twenties. What a waste of human life! Funny thing is (and the musical capsules this) they both came from decent hard working families.

Ironically, Clyde’s brother Buck (Claybourne Elder) was also drawn into the mix while his zealously religious wife Blanche (Melissa van der Schyff You’re Not Going Back to Jail) tried to keep him on the straight and narrow but he couldn’t resist the money and the excitement. On the other hand Bonnie’s devoted, both religiously and maternally, mother Emma (Beautifully and poignantly portrayed by Mare Winningham) tried to reason with and counsel her daughter to no avail as well.

The story plays out against the depression era backdrop on Tobin Ost’s multi level set of sliding bleached plank boards that frame the backdrop (used successfully for Aaron Rhyne’s projections of the real life characters which brought the story back to reality) of the different locations giving the impression and the look of a drought-ridden locale. Ost also designed the 30’s looking costumes; Bonnie’s being the most eye catching while the others are depression- era perfect.

For a new musical, Wildhorn’s score is catching, with a combination of blues, gospel, folk and ballads that reveal the moods, times and characters it depicts. The tone of The Long Arm of the Law sung by the Sheriff (Wayne Duvall) in Act I and then at the end of Act I in a reprieve are powerful reminders of who the two are and that they will get their comeuppance.

Compared to Emma’s lament, The Devil sung with passion and grief for her daughter to You Love Who You Love, (Bonnie and Blanche) You’re Going Back to Jail, (Blanche and Salon women) The World Will Remember Me (Clyde and Bonnie) and finally Dyin’ Ain’t So Bad (Bonnie and Clyde) the music’s trajectory with its differing styles moves the story but never really reveals any more about the players, their motives or drives than what we hear in their conversations or see in their actions. Some of the reprieves could be eliminated to shorten the length without taking anything away from the overall production.

Clyde was a conceited self professed bad boy who never looked back on what he did or thought, “Other people got dreams, I got plans”. For him there was no option; no plan ‘B’. And in a brief exchange when Bonnie commends his shooting skills she says, “You’re good”. “I’m not good, I’m the best” he retorts.

His biggest complaint was that Bonnie never put his name first in her poems about them. She hoped to get them published some day. (You’ve read the story of Jessie James of how he lived and how they died. If you’re still in need of something to read, here’s the story of Bonnie and Clyde… Some day they’ll go down together they’ll bury then side-by-side. To few it will be grief, to the law a relief, but it’s death for Bonnie and Clyde. The Trails End by Bonnie Parker). And they were.

Stark Sands has the perfect look and mannerism as the self-confident and arrogant bad boy, Clyde Barrow who entices Bonnie to travel with him convincing her that they would be good together. He’s also in fine voice especially since this is his first musical. He shows no remorse for anything he has done, he’s that vain. Stark is convincing in his mannerisms and ways and a perfect match with Laura Osnes’ Bonnie.

Laura Osnes is a beautiful, bored and captivating Bonnie Parker whose need to escape from the humdrum world of her mother, working as a waitress in the depressed and repressive Texas and tired of her would-be suitor is a recurring theme. Between her lust for adventure and a willingness to follow Clyde into any situation and his need to be recognized at any cost, the formula for disaster is set.

Calhoun’s eye for the perfect cast is evident in the fact that there isn’t a weak link anywhere. Wayne Duvall is excellent as the out to get the pair at any cost Sheriff. Mike Sears (fresh from Man From Nebraska recently seen at the Cygnet Theatre) shows another side in multiple roles.  Chris Peluso’s Ted is strong and well meaning as well as the strong arm of the law and Michael Lanning stirred the audience with his (God’s Arms Are Always Open) number as the preacher.

Music supervisor John McDaniel who is in charge of orchestrations, incidental music and vocal arrangements conducted his six-piece band flawlessly. Michael Gilliam and Brian Ronan are right on with the mood lighting and sound design.

The trio of creators makes a perfect case for the two young lovers to wreak havoc on those around them while still having some sympathy for those left to fend off the residual effects of their actions. Mare Winningham whose role of Emma, Bonnie’s mother, has been expanded from the movie version is very much a part of the backdrop as is Clyde’s brother Buck whose loyalties lay on the side of Clyde rather than the pleas of his wife and his mother.

Menchell’s book is captivating and enticing and the two lovers create a convincing and tragic love story. Black’s lyrics are both fun and pointed and get the message across but its Wildhorn whose musical variety and mix of different genres that are the most impressive.

Like it or not is what it is and if we don’t learn from our past it will bite us in the end. Walking to my car, I heard someone actually humming a tune from the show. That’s always a good sign. Enjoy! Hats off to the La Jolla Playhouse.

Bonnie and Clyde will continue through Dec. 20^th in the Mandell Weiss Theatre.

See you at the theatre and Happy Chanukah!

*
Davis, a San Diego based theatre reviewer, may be contacted at davisc@sandiegojewishworld.com

Misery is a 1990 American horror-thriller film from Columbia Pictures and Castle Rock Entertainment, based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King. Directed by Rob Reiner, the film received critical acclaim for Kathy Bates’ performance as the psychopathic Annie Wilkes. Bates won both the Academy Award for Best Actress and a Golden Globe. The film was ranked #12 on Bravo’s 100 Scariest Movie Moments.

Trivia:

• Cameo: [J.T. Walsh] State of Colorado Police Chief.
• Director Cameo: [Rob Reiner] the helicopter pilot.
• After seeing The Shining (1980). Rob Reiner was immediately inspired to direct a movie based on a Stephen King novel.
• The main character Paul Sheldon’s novels are published by Viking, the same publishing company that published Stephen King’s books at that time.

Buy this title on Blu-ray Disc

• A video of When Harry Met Sally… (1989) (also directed by Rob Reiner) is visible in the general store.
• The “guy who went mad in a hotel nearby” is a reference to The Shining (1980), also based on a novel written by Stephen King.
• Jack Nicholson was offered the role of Paul Sheldon but passed because he wasn’t sure he wanted to do another movie based on one of Stephen King’s novels after what he had experienced with Stanley Kubrick on The Shining (1980).
• When Annie demands that Paul burn his manuscript, she lights the paper and we see a close-up of the words on the paper, an article about Cameron Crowe and how he is an amazing scriptwriter. It talks about his movies, but mostly offers praise for Say Anything… (1989).
• According to William Goldman’s book “Four Screenplays”, the main character role, Paul Sheldon, was offered to William Hurt, ‘Kevin Kline (I)’, Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford, Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Richard Dreyfuss, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford, and Warren Beatty, all of whom declined.
• Anjelica Huston was offered the leading role, and was interested, but was unable to accept it due to her commitment to The Grifters (1990). Bette Midler also turned the role down before it went to Kathy Bates.
• One of Stephen King’s first typewriters had a malfunctioning “N” key, just like the one used by James Caan in the movie.
• The new manuscript that Paul burns at Annie’s urging was called “Fast Cars.”
• In a recent interview with Melvyn Bragg, William Goldman revealed that few actors wanted the role of Paul Sheldon because Annie Wilks overshadowed him so much as a character. Warren Beatty commented before declining that the hobbling scene made Paul Sheldon “a loser for the rest of the film”. Goldman was determined to keep that scene in the film as it was his favorite from the Stephen King novel.
• Stephen King had originally planned to release the novel under his pseudonym, Richard Bachman. While writing it, however, it was discovered that King was Bachman. King subsequently published the novel under his real name, and announced that Bachman had died from “cancer of the pseudonym.”

Dos jóvenes y guapísimos Natalie Wood y Warren Beatty protagonizan 'Esplendor en la hierba'

Yo estoy deseando de que llegue el viernes para ver ‘Esplendor en la hierba’. De tan romántica y tan letal, debe ser deliciosa.  Dice Carlos Losilla en la revista Dirigido que la última escena de esta peli es “para muchos la mejor de la filmografía de Kazan”. En ella, “Wood, recién salida del hospital psiquiátrico, decide visitar a Beatty con unas amigas, un trance por el que debe pasar si quiere liquidar de una vez por todas su pasado”.

Un pasado que remite a un amor imposible que en un momento dado pudo ser acreedor de un sueño americano que no llega a materializarse: para algo es un sueño y para algo es Elia Kazan, no hay más que ver ‘Río salvaje’. En un tono más manso, con más matices, es muy significativa la mirada triste de Montgomery Clift cuando sobrevuelan la isla finalmente desalojada y la presa que, a punto de abrirse, simboliza el progreso por el que él ha luchado y que ahora se traduce en tristeza, en duda.

Los sueños sueños son y América tiene toda una trayectoria contemporánea de claros y sombras que de forma melancólica pudo anticipar hace cincuenta años el director que ahora homenajean los héroes del cineclub.

Treinta años después y con otra pose, Beatty con la inigualable Madonna de quien fue novio en la realidad

En esa memorable escena final de ‘Esplendor en la hierba’, un desmejorado Beatty – aún no ha conocido a Madonna, eso llegó años más tarde en ‘Dick Tracy’ – recibe a esta Wood que trata de ajustar cuentas con ella misma. Siguiendo con la sinopsis recogida de la revista Dirigido, “las bulliciosas conversaciones entre los dos enamorados se precipitan hacia el lugar común, hasta que afloran las aguas torrenciales del pasado, mitigadas ahora por el paso del tiempo: ‘Nunca te olvidaré’ dicen ambos casi al mismo tiempo”.

¡Me muero! Losilla también lo hizo en su adolescencia, y luego, ya adulto y pasada la treintena, cuando falleció Kazan y redescubrió el título al que elogia sin fisuras: “La intensidad de estos momentos, la emoción que destilan, las complejas relaciones que sugieren, dejan bien claro que, al contrario de lo que parecía en un principio, en esta historia no hay ni buenos ni malos, ni héroes ni traidores”.

Los padres de los jóvenes que fueron Beatty y Wood quisieron, con sus torpezas, lo mejor para sus hijos, y ellos se extraviaron un poco en la juventud para extraviarse definitivamente más tarde: desoyendo la llamada de ese amor puro que tan pocas veces puede alcanzar algo más que a dicha pureza. Como en tantas familias, como en tantas relaciones, aquí, en USA y en Pekín: “entonces la novela rosa, el panfleto social, dejan ver al desnudo la verdad oculta entre bastidores”.

Los Estados Unidos, medio siglo después, sueñan cada vez menos. Después de leer ‘La vida, un estadio intermedio’, de Carsten Bresch, por cuya recomendación siempre estaré agradecido, porque me amuebló la cabeza de un modo científico a la par que sugerente, sobre la esencia de la humanidad, su evolución, su punto de inflexión…; me meto de lleno en el análisis político con un libro que he encontrado de un antiguo editor de la revista Foreign Affairs, Faraid Zakaria: el libro se llama ‘El mundo después de USA’.

Comienza así: “Este libro no trata del declive de América, sino del ascenso de todos los demás. Trata de la gran transformación que está ocurriendo en el mundo, transformación que, aunque se discute con frecuencia, sigue comprendiéndose poco. Pero es natural; los cambios, incluso los radicales, suceden de manera gradual. Por mucho que hablemos de una nueva era, el mundo parece el mismo que conocemos. Pero en realidad es muy diferente”.

Sarah Palin vs. Pit Bull

At last the American right and left have one issue they unequivocally agree on: You don’t actually have to read Sarah Palin’s book to have an opinion about it. Last Sunday Liz Cheney praised “Going Rogue” as “well-written” on Fox News even though, by her own account, she had sampled only “parts” of it. On Tuesday, Ana Marie Cox, a correspondent for Air America, belittled the book in The Washington Post while confessing that she couldn’t claim to have “completely” read it.

“Going Rogue” will hardly be the first best seller embraced by millions for talismanic rather than literary ends. And I am not recommending that others follow my example and slog through its 400-plus pages, especially since its supposed revelations have been picked through 24/7 for a week. But sometimes I wonder if anyone has read all of what Palin would call the “dang” thing. Some of the book’s most illuminating tics have been mentioned barely — if at all — by either its fans or foes. Palin is far and away the most important brand in American politics after Barack Obama, and attention must be paid. Those who wishfully think her 15 minutes are up are deluding themselves.

The book’s biggest surprise is Palin’s wide-eyed infatuation with show-business celebrities. You get nearly as much face time with Tina Fey and the cast of “Saturday Night Live” in “Going Rogue” as you do with John McCain. We learn how happy Palin was to receive calls from Bono and Warren Beatty “to share ideas and insights.” We wade through star-struck lists of campaign cameos by Robert Duvall, Jon Voight (who “blew us away”), Naomi Judd, Gary Sinise and Kelsey Grammer, among many others. Then there are the acknowledgments at the book’s end, where Palin reveals that her intimacy with media stars is such that she can air-kiss them on a first-name basis, from Greta to Laura to Rush.

Equally revealing is the one boldfaced name conspicuously left unmentioned in the book: Levi Johnston, the father of Palin’s grandchild. Though Palin and McCain milked him for photo ops at the , he is persona non grata now that he’s taking off his campaign wardrobe. Is Johnston’s fledgling porn career the problem, or is it his public threats to strip bare Palin family secrets as well? “She knows what I got on her” is how he put it. In Palin’s interview with Oprah last week, it was questioning about Johnston, not Katie Couric, that made her nervous.

The book’s most frequently dropped names, predictably enough, are the Lord and Ronald Reagan (though not necessarily in that order). Easily the most startling passage in “Going Rogue,” running more than two pages, collates extended excerpts from a prayerful letter Palin wrote to mark the birth of Trig, her child with Down syndrome. This missive’s understandable goal was to reassert Palin’s faith and trust in God. But Palin did not write her letter to God; she wrote the letter from God, assuming His role and voice herself and signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” If I may say so — Oy!

Even by the standard of politicians, this is a woman with an outsized ego. Combine that with her performance skills and an insatiable hunger for the limelight, and you can see why she will not stay in Wasilla now that she’s seen 30 Rock. The question journalists repeatedly asked last week — What are Palin’s plans for 2012? — is a red herring. Palin has no obligation to answer it. She is the pit bull in the china shop of American politics, and she can do what she wants, on her own timeline, all the while raking in the big bucks she couldn’t as a sitting governor. No one, least of all her own political party, can control her.

The fact-checking siege of “Going Rogue” — by the media, Democrats and aggrieved McCain campaign operatives alike — is another fruitless sideshow. Palin’s political appeal has never had anything to do with facts — or coherent policy positions. The more she is attacked for not being in possession of pointy-headed erudition, the more powerful she becomes as an avatar of the anti-elite cause. As Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, has correctly observed, “She represents less a philosophical strain on the right than an affect and a demographic.”

That demographic is white and non-urban: Just look at the stops and the faces on her carefully calibrated book tour. The affect is emotional — the angry air of grievance that emerged first at her campaign rallies in 2008, with their shrieked threats to Obama, and that has since resurfaced in the Hitler-fixated “tea party” movement (which she endorses in her book). It’s a politics of victimization and sloganeering with no policy solutions required beyond the conservative mantra of No Taxes. Its standard-bearer can make stuff up with impunity: “Thanks, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”; Obama’s “palling around with terrorists”; health care “death panels.”

After the Palin-McCain ticket lost, conservative pundits admonished her to start studying the issues. If “Going Rogue” and its promotional interviews are any indication, she has ignored their entreaties during her months at liberty. Last week, Greta Van Susteren chastised Oprah for not asking Palin “one policy question,” but when Barbara Walters did ask some, Palin either recycled Dick Cheney verbatim (Obama is “dithering”) or ran aground. Her argument for why “Jewish settlements” should be expanded on the West Bank was that “more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.” It was unclear what she was talking about — unless it was the “rapture” theology that requires the mass return of Jews to settle the Holy Land as a precondition for the return of Christ.

The discredited neocon hacks who have latched on to Palin as a potential ticket back into power have their work cut out for them. But it’s better for Palin’s purposes to remain as blank a slate as possible anyway. Some of her most ardent supporters realize that she’ll drive still more independent voters away if she fills in too many details. And so Matthew Continetti, the author of the just-published “Persecution of Sarah Palin” and her most persistent cheerleader after William Kristol, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that her role model for 2012 should be Bob McDonnell, the new Republican governor-elect of Virginia, who won on “a bipartisan, center-right approach.”

What Continetti means is that Palin could still somehow fudge her history as McDonnell did; his campaign kept his career-long history as a political acolyte and financial beneficiary of Pat Robertson on the down-low. Even the far right has figured out that homophobia is a turnoff to swing voters, which is why Palin goes out of her way in “Going Rogue” to remind us she has her very own lesbian friend. (What’s left unsaid is that the book’s credited ghost writer, Lynn Vincent, labeled homosexuality as “deviance” in her own writings for World, the evangelical magazine.)

But no matter how much Palin tries to pass for “center-right,” she’s unlikely to fool that vast pool of voters left, right and center who have already written her off as unqualified for the White House. The G.O.P. establishment knows this, and is frightened. The demographic that Palin attracts is in decline; there’s no way the math of her fan base adds up to an Electoral College victory.

Yet among Republicans she still ties Mitt Romney in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with 65 percent giving her serious presidential consideration, just behind the 71 for her evangelical rival, Mike Huckabee. The crowds lining up in the cold for her book tour are likely to be the most motivated to line up at the polls in G.O.P. primaries. They don’t speak the same language as Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner or, for that matter, McCain. They are more likely to heed Palin salesmen like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh than baffled Bush administration grandees like Peter Wehner, who last week called Palin “a cultural figure much more than a political one” on the Web site of the establishment conservative organ Commentary.

Culture is politics. Palin is at the red-hot center of age-old American resentments that have boiled up both from the ascent of our first black president and from the intractability of the Great Recession for those Americans who haven’t benefited from bailouts. As Palin thrives on the ire of the left, so she does from the disdain of Republican leaders who, with a condescension rivaling the sexism they decry in liberals, belittle her as a lightweight or instruct her to eat think-tank spinach.

The only person who can derail Palin is Palin herself. Should she not self-destruct, she will doom G.O.P. hopes of a 2012 comeback. But the rest of the country cannot rest easy. The rage out there is larger than Palin and defies partisan labeling. Her ever-present booster Continetti, writing in The Weekly Standard, suggested that she recast the century-old populist outrage of William Jennings Bryan by adopting the message “You shall not crucify mankind upon the cross of Goldman Sachs.” If Obama can’t tamp down that rage across the political map, Palin will at the very least pave the way for a demagogue with less baggage to pick up her torch.

Frank Rich
The New York Times

One of my favorite films is Reds, starring Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, and a host of other big name stars.  Since my awakening to the phony Left/Right paradigm, I no longer subscribe to its political message, but I still find it to be good story and ‘instructional’, as well. 

In this clip from the 1981 film, John Reed (portrayed by Warren Beatty), is an American journalist and communist that finds himself swept up in the October 1917 Revolution.  When urged by a comrade to speak at a worker’s rally, he balks.  Feeling somewhat as an outsider, he replies, “But I have no credentials to speak here.”  His Russian friend disagrees…

Warning: Adult scenes

An important lesson is given here.  Your authority to act is not dependent upon credentials.  No diplomas or certificates are required.  Your authority to act is not contingent upon approval from others, or their permission.  You make your own ’credentials’ when you decide to translate your desire into action.  John Reed’s credentials were earned, as the old saying goes, when he suited up and showed up.

Brick by brick, the foundation for the New World Order has been laid for the past several hundred years.  The international financial elite will soon attempt to place the capstone of open “global governance” atop their pyramidical control grid.  Our work to destroy the New World Order must go further than to temporarily thwart their planners and architects.  We must smash the foundation as well as the superstructure.

The foundation that supports the New World Order is composed of the masses – you and me.  Like it, or not, we are the supporting foundation, not only in the economic terms of financial feudalism, but in psycho-spiritual terms as well.  We have allowed the elite to construct walls in our minds.  Walls that keep us in a psychic comfort zone of complacent acceptance of our own victimization.  Our complacency, fear, and ignorance, are the source of their power.  Tear down these walls. 

We do not need permission.  We owe no explanation. 

“Rights are not given.  They are taken.”  Ayn Rand  

 —————————————————————-

John Reed, author of Ten Days that Shook the World, a book that today remains the standard firsthand account of the Russian Revolution, is buried in Moscow.  If you’re interested in early 20th century political history, the film is well worth the time.  And it’s entertaining too.
More info on Reds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reds_(film)

read the vincente minnelli biog last week. also read one about quentin tarantino. now reading bad boy drive about Nicholson, Beatty, Hopper and Brando. Loose idea is that they all lived close to each other on Mulholland Drive, Cali.

It’s a bit lurid and potentially misogynistic at the moment. It might get better. Not holding out much hope.

Not researching anything in particular and as I read more biogs than I do novels these are simply the latest. Going to read The Suspicions of Mr Whicher next.

I’ve been staying with my brother this week (in my head I always call him my “bother” and chuckle goofily, though we get along well). This morning he drove me to work by way of his son’s school — half an hour north. As the primary caretaker, my brother spends an inordinate amount of time driving my nephew here, there, and everywhere. I think it would make me crazy if I had to do it every day, but he seems to not think much of it.

When I visit, I enjoy these early-morning rides, little slices of time when we end up talking about nothing in particular. I realized today that his commute routine is similar to mine, albeit an extended version: on the way to his son’s school, he plays a cello CD, part of my nephew’s practice routine for the instrument. Once he’s dropped him off, he starts scanning the ol’ FM.

This morning we heard some gems. We dissected “Run to You.” I head-bobbed to “I Want to Get Away.” And then there was “You’re So Vain.”

My emotional reactions to this song are all tied up with the summer of 1986 or ‘87, when my sister was living at our family summer house in Vermont. My parents and I came back and forth a few times — we no doubt interrupted her fun, but the visits were totally fun for me. And there were two cassettes that defined that summer: James Taylor’s “That’s Why I’m Here” and Carly Simon’s — hm, greatest hits, I guess.

And oh, the glamour of “You’re So Vain.” My sister filled me with wisdom, and I was incredulous. It’s about Warren Beatty, really? And Mick Jagger is singing on it? I suppose today Carly, Warren, and Mick all seem old and haggard, but twenty years ago that was some juicy stuff. And a decade before that, when she released the song, it was even juicier — check out all these attempts to figure out the truth.

Celeb intrigue aside, I just loved this song. It didn’t take long for me to start singing along that summer, even if I didn’t get the words quite right — I wondered, for a long time, about the “scarfot” in the line “your scarf it was apricot.” And I didn’t understand why she had some dreams there were clowns in her coffee.

At least, that latter misunderstanding is what I told my brother this morning. Even as I said it, I thought I might be making it up. My brother has just asked what the real lyric means. Here’s Carly’s explanation:

“Clouds in my coffee” are the confusing aspects of life and love. That which you can’t see through, and yet seems alluring … until. Like a mirage that turns into a dry patch. Perhaps there is something in the bottom of the coffee cup that you could read if you could (like tea leaves or coffee grinds).

Seems to me Carly don’t quite know what she means either. But it’s a great lyric, and it’s a song that still makes me instantly happy, after all these years.

Martin Scorsese

By Gregg Kilday – HollywoodReporter.com

The Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. will bestow its highest honor, the Cecil B. DeMille Award, on Martin Scorsese at the 67th annual Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 17.

The award recognizes “outstanding contribution to the entertainment field”; the most recent recipients have been Steven Spielberg, Warren Beatty, Anthony Hopkins, Robin Williams and Michael Douglas.

Scorsese presented the award to Spielberg at the Golden Globes broadcast in January.

An Oscar winner for directing “The Departed,” Scorsese also has picked up two Golden Globes — for directing “Departed” and “Gangs of New York” — and has five additional Globe noms.

His next film, “Shutter Island,” will be released Feb. 19 by Paramount.

NBC will be broadcast the Globes from the Beverly Hilton; Ricky Gervais is the host.

Nominations will be announced Dec. 15.

Amazon Specials!

Warren Beatty en Dick Tracy

El actor Warren Beatty estará demandando a Tribune Co. sobre los derechos de explotación del film Dick Tracy, de 1990. De acuerdo al contrato, éstos le pertenecen a la citada empresa, pero el actor podría seguir recimiendo regalías, a cambio de que hubiera una nueva producción antes del 2008, algo que nunca pasó. Sin embargo, ahora emprenderá una acción legal buscando quedarse con los mismos en forma definitiva, argumentando que se trata de su trabajo. Hasta ahora, la balanza está muy pareja, y será difícil saber quienes se llevarán la mejor parte.

And by that we mean: Billy Corgan, we don’t give a shit about your opinion. Billy’s the latest sort-of-famous person we’re adding to the category “Celebrities weighing in on something about which they have zero knowledge.” (The list includes Jenny McCarthy and anything, John Ratzenberger and health care, and Warren Beatty and the 2003 recall of Gray Davis.) This week’s topic: SWINE FLU!

See, swine flu is on Fat America’s mind. Billy Corgan is part of Fat America. He’s also a quasi-celebrity with a lot of time to reflect (because no one cares about him anymore). He’s got a blog. You see where we’re going with this, right?

If you follow some of the links I have been supplying as of late, you’ll notice many are focused on the propaganda build up to our day of reckoning with the Swine Flu virus. I say ‘propaganda’ because, in my heart, there is something mighty suspicious about declaring an emergency for something that has yet to show itself to be a grand pandemic. Our American President Obama has declared a national emergency about this virus, which he in his own words said was, at this point, a preventative measure. So, why declare an emergency if there isn’t one?

There’s just too much awful stuff in that paragraph to pick apart, so we’ll just sum up by saying that Billy has difficulty with word choice (“propaganda”) and syntax (“I say ‘propaganda’ because, in my heart, there is something mighty suspicious about declaring an emergency blah blah blah more words that don’t work well together”).

In case you haven’t been keeping score, there are a lot of famous people out there who won’t be getting the swine flu vaccine. Some of those people we don’t like (Rush Limbaugh). Some we do (Bill Maher).

We’re getting ahead of ourselves, though. (Cheap journalist’s trick coming up.) Will Billy be getting the H1N1 vaccine?

I for one will not be taking the vaccine. I do not trust those who make the vaccines, or the apparatus behind it all to push it on us thru fear. This is not judgment; it is a personal decision based on research, intuition, conversations with my doctor and my ‘family’. If the virus comes to take me Home, that is between me and the Lord. I have put up some of these links to inspire the question in you, so that perhaps you can make a better decision for yourself. That is what holistic life is about: a willingness to look at all the facts or opinions.

Ugh. First, thanks for making one more dose available to someone else, Billy. We were really worried that because of the vaccine shortage, your bald, aging ass would prevent some pregnant woman or stupid kid or Goldman Sachs executive from getting dosed. Second, who really cares what you’re doing? Have you written a good song since “Bullet with Butterfly Wings“? Does Goth America need another fat guy weeping over a guitar to know that things out there are bad and, like, maybe just getting worse?

One thing we’re pretty sure of is that Billy’s highly informed opinion (“based on research, intuition, conversations with my doctor and my ‘family’,” whatever that means) is just as illegitimate as the rest of Fat America’s. As Billy himself says:

I am not a doctor, and I am in no way suggesting that you should follow any medical advice from me.

Thanks, Billy! If you’re not a doctor and you’re not suggesting anyone follow your advice (bullshit), why the 840 rambling, poorly composed words? We know songwriting is your forte, but come on!

I am willing to question anything: the existence of God, the existence of me or you or Robert Zimmerman. I am willing to wonder aloud whether any of this we experience here on Earth is real. What is there to be afraid of in questioning life itself? I know God is not afraid of my doubt. That is why He gave me the faculty to doubt, to overcome its mystique to better know faith.

And while we appreciate your need to question shit, we’re not sure why you need to get all cheeky and cute and invoke Bob Dylan, John Lennon and rock history with a dumb reference to the nature of celebrity culture and worship, but OK. Your lyrics are kind of obtuse and self-important in a childish way, too. Makes sense that your weird science-based religious theory would be as well.

Just so you know how ridiculous Billy’s thought process is, here’s a sampling of his recent tweets:

Maybe life really is a bummer when you’re a hummer. Get the vaccine or don’t get it, Billy. But please: SHUT UP. Oh, and break up Smashing Pumpkins, too, because they’re crap without Jimmy Chamberlain.

My pal Tate lounging in his new bedroom reminiscing
about the “thing” he had with Warren in the 60’s.
(page 75…has all the details)

I just left the Communications Building at Elon.  What started off as a way to spend an afternoon, observing a video production for some Broadway guy, turned into wonderful time spent with music and storytelling.  I was in for way more than I planned.

The Broadway figure and centerpiece for a crowd of about 30 people was, Charles Strouse.  If you’ve never heard his name before, which was my case, you’ve definitely heard his music.  This is the man responsible for writing the music for “Bye Bye Birdie,” the score for “Bonnie and Clyde,” and most well known for the famous lineup of songs from, “Annie” (there’s a lot lot more).

The stage was set in a Behind the Music format in which Strouse weaved stories in between songs about his successes, fears of failure, and what he enjoys about his work and marriage.  He opened with the theme song from “Bye Bye Birdie,” and continued through highlights of his catalogue, ending with a Q&A session.  Throughout his performance I kept thinking what an honor and privilege it was to hear the man responsible for the music that has shaped Broadway perform.

Since I am relatively unfamiliar with some of the productions that he built with music, my favorite part came at the end when he performed a four piece montage from “Annie.” It had all the major players, “Maybe,” “Hard Knock Life” (Jay-Z’s got nothing on this guy), the duet between Annie and Daddy Warbucks, and finished with “Tomorrow.”

He spoke of collaborations with other various artists, and how he worked with Mel Brooks and ultimately introduced him to the woman he would marry.

The funniest story dealt with Warren Beatty.  He mentioned how Warren called him to work on the music for “Bonnie and Clyde,” but wasn’t convinced that it was actually Warren Beatty on the phone.  His son, he explained, has always been a prankster and frequently calls him impersonating someone else.  Charles was determined not to fall for one of his son’s little jokes, and assumed that this phone call, which was actually from Warren Beatty was his son.  When Warren told him about the project and asked how much he would work for, Charles responded with a figure that was top dollar for the time that the film was made, $50,oo0.  Beatty was surprised at the high cost and said that he would have to get back with him.  After not much time, Warren Beatty called him back and agreed to pay him the desired amount.  Charles couldn’t believe it and confessed to the audience that he would have done the work for free, but didn’t actually tell Warren this until many years later.

One of the ground rules mentioned before the performance was that the audience was not allowed to sing along because this was a live recording.  The very last question came from a student asking Strouse that because his melodies are so contagious and they weren’t allowed to sing along, would he mind playing “Tomorrow” with the assistance of the audience.  With a smile, Strouse began to play the opening bars and the entire crowd sang in unison.

They allowed Mr. Strouse to leave the studio first so that he could prepare to sign books for everyone, and as he walked past me I said, “thank you.”  He gave a genuine, heartfelt smile and shook my hand.

L’intellectuel germanopratin par excellence

“Sorte de croisement entre Yves Montand et Jean-Paul Sartre“, BHL est résumé en trois mots par l’américaine Marianne Wiggins (1) : “grand, riche, beau et marié à un ancien mannequin. Selon elle, “son aura de philosophe a fait de lui un habitué des plateaux de télévision, mais il est aussi un journaliste accompli doublé d’un réalisateur de documentaires. Il n’est donc pas étonnant que le mensuel américain The Atlantic Monthly ait eu l’idée de génie d’engager M. Lévy pour marcher sur les traces d’Alexis de Tocqueville, qui, au XIXe siècle, avait parcouru notre jeune nation, puis rédigé son grand classique De la démocratie en Amérique (…) Tocqueville était un magistrat, un juriste imprégné de pragmatisme et d’idéaux moraux. M. Lévy est un intellectuel à paillettes, un beau parleur un peu snob (…) Même s’il reconnaît avoir eu pour compagnon de voyage Sur la route, l’ouvrage de Jack Kerouac, il devait également avoir sous la main la collection complète des Vanity Fair. Les Américains typiques sont pour lui rien moins que Barry Diller, Norman Mailer, Woody Allen, Warren Beatty. Tocqueville avait certes rencontré John Quincy Adams, Sam Houston, Daniel Webster et Andrew Jackson, mais aussi des fermiers, des artisans et des petits commerçants, et il avait débattu avec passion du système éducatif américain, de la poésie du pays, de sa langue et même de sa conception du mariage (…) La méthode de travail de Bernard-Henri Lévy consiste à faire jouer à des célébrités le rôle d’oracle local. Jim Harrison pour le Montana, Charlie Rose pour la Caroline du Nord, Sharon Stone pour Los Angeles. Parsemer un article de noms de célébrités rend sa lecture plus aisée et plus agréable, le problème, c’est qu’American Vertigo aurait pu s’appeler “Célébrités en Amérique” ou “Dans l’intimité des stars”. 

Encore plus sévère, l’Allemand Johannes Willms – qui s’appuie sur la lecture de Le b.a.-ba du BHL, enquête sur le plus grand intellectuel français, de Jade Lindgaard et Xavier de La Porte – trace un portrait au vitriol de notre BHL : “L’homme est une icône ambulante. Il est aussi connu en France que cette femme à la poitrine opulente par laquelle le peintre Eugène Delacroix a symbolisé la Liberté, celle au chemisier grand ouvert, qui franchit une barricade le drapeau tricolore à la main. Bernard-Henry Lévy – qu’en France on appelle BHL – a deux choses en commun avec cette créature emblématique : l’attitude narcissique et la chemise blanche ouverte jusqu’au nombril (qu’il porte sous un costume sombre). La tenue, qui met en valeur son torse de héros au bronzage permanent, fait son petit effet. C’est un élément non négligeable car, à l’âge de la télévision, l’apparence est le message. Le narcissisme et la chemise blanche ne sont donc pas une marotte mais un logo. Or l’effet que BHL a habilement construit pour accroître son prestige d’unique star des intellectuels français semble s’être épuisé. Une biographie vient de paraître, quatre autres sont en cours d’élaboration et toutes entendent détruire la magie, dépouiller BHL de sa chemise déjà grande ouverte et le présenter dans la “vérité” de sa nudité (…) [Son] réseau de connexions diverses si typique de l’“exception culturelle” française explique également pourquoi BHL reste toujours la star des intellectuels français : tous les médias d’une certaine importance, ou presque, sont à ses pieds, et ses rares détracteurs ont du mal à se faire entendre (…) Reste à voir si tout cela suffira à lui faire passer sans dommages la tempête qui se prépare avec les autres ouvrages, en particulier ceux de Philippe Cohen et Nicolas Beau, deux journalistes connus pour leur pertinence et pour leur virulence. Il serait de toute façon grand temps de démythifier ce comédien qui, en se faisant passer pour un intellectuel, ridiculise l’ensemble de cette corporation.”

Dans un article consacré à un ouvrage de BHL, Comédie, un autre journaliste allemand, Rudolf Walther (3), n’y va pas de main morte : “le cœur du livre est en réalité un monologue que mène BHL, le médiatique, avec un Lévy prétendument authentique et purifié. Inutile de souligner que ce dernier n’a pas souvent droit à la parole. Dès les premières phrases, la catharsis est annoncée : “Je les connais bien. Le théâtre. La bassesse. Ces gens qui vous tendent la main comme pour vous prendre le pouls.” Ce que l’auteur ne dit pas, c’est qu’il s’est précisément servi pendant vingt ans de ces gens-là pour sa propre mise en scène. Les “nouveaux philosophes”, tant dans leurs propos que dans leurs publications, n’ont jamais atteint un niveau d’élaboration critique ou théorique très élevé. Devant les caméras en marche, ils dictaient leurs commentaires sur les émissions de la veille, un “dialogue” avec les médias qui a fini par se tarir. Aujourd’hui, ils se contentent donc de soliloquer.” Ce qui ne l’empêche pas que “BHL ne travaille que là où le sang coule ou, du moins, là où tourne une caméra.” Fermez les guillemets !

Il serait toutefois faux de faire des journalistes allemands les critiques les plus sévères de BHL. Introduisant une traduction d’un article de l’écrivain consacré à l’Allemagne, Jürg Altwegg (4) rappelle l’apport du philosophe français : “il s’est fait connaître du grand public par sa mise en scène de la “nouvelle philosophie”, qui, dix ans après Mai 68, allait entraîner la fin de l’hégémonie marxiste dans la culture française et marquer le déclin du communisme. La contribution de Lévy à la critique du stalinisme et du marxisme a paru sous le titre la Barbarie à visage humain [Grasset]. Dans la foulée d’André Glucksmann, qui, dans les Maîtres penseurs [Grasset], revisitait les précurseurs du national-socialisme dans la pensée allemande, Lévy élargissait, dans l’Idéologie française [Grasset], l’approche antitotalitaire à l’analyse du terreau dont s’était nourri le régime de Pétain. A sa parution, en 1981, le livre souleva de fortes vagues et ouvrit les yeux sur la France de Vichy.” Faisant allusion à l’article de Lévy sur l’Allemagne d’après la chute du mur, le journaliste écrit : “Pour les lecteurs allemands, l’article de Bernard-Henri Lévy est plus qu’un résumé des récents débats : c’est un miroir français, un regard extérieur, plein de sympathie, plein d’injustice aussi, et non dépourvu de sens critique. Il montre qu’il existe un débat politique transnational sur le passé. Et qu’une sorte de conscience intellectuelle européenne est en train de voir le jour.”(1) Marianne Wiggins – Los Angeles Times – 02-02-06

(2) Johannes Willms – Süddeutsche Zeitung – 09-12-04

(3) Rudolf Walther – Tages-Anzeiger – 22-01-98

(4) Jürg Altwegg – Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung – 25-02-99

Oscar winner for Best Original Screenplay at the 1962 awards, and a nomination for Natalie Wood in Leading Actress Role.

A fragile Kansas girl Deanie’s (Natalie Wood) unrequited and forbidden love for a handsome young man Bud (Warren Beatty) from the town’s most powerful family drives her to heartbreak and madness. This movie is all about young love/first love, growing up, coping with pressures of school, getting into college, sexual repression and ultimately making decisions. Deanie and Bud are a young couple in their final year in high school they are very much in love, but have not done anything more than kissing. As time moves on Bud seems to be more and more frustrated with all of this, wanting to move to another level and also wanting to marry Deanie. Overall he is very confused about what he should do.

Bud’s sister Ginny(Barbara Loden) was a disgrace to the family as she had been to different colleges across the country and ended up getting pregnant by a guy in Chicago which prompted her parents to pay for an abortion and bring her home. Hence she was the talk of the town, and very much embarrassed herself and the family on numerous occasions. Especially at New Year when she was all over every man in the room, after drinking a lot. I found it rather difficult to watch some of this as the acting was fantastic but you had to totally feel for the character and felt embarrassed for her. In the way in which she was acting. Bud tried to help her out and ended up getting into a fight with the men.

Bud’s father Ace (Pat Hingle) wanted to very much control Bud’s life and tell him how he was going to live it. This did not help when he was not supportive of Bud in his decision to want to marry Deanie. He told him to go to Yale and then in 4 years if he still wanted to marry her do it then. He also told him that there is two types of girls, and sometimes you have to go away from the nice girl to get what you want. This made me think and try to decide if that is still the same now and these two types of girls exist or not. I did not really come to any conclusion as it seems that often the “nice” ones are the ones you have to watch out for and maybe the way Deanie went in this movie helps to show that too?

When Bud tells Deanie that he does not want to see her anymore she ends up having a total breakdown. Which starts when she has to read a poem out in class, and ends up just running out. This is followed by not being herself at home with her parents and the bath scene with her mother is really hard to watch, but fantastic acting. She just totally loses it and keeps saying that she wants to die and does not even want to face her friends anymore. Then deciding to go to the dance, but ending up attempting to jump into the waterfall. Which resulted in her breakdown totally happening and being put in a mental institute.

Two and a half years after being put in the mental institute Deanie was released and went back home to pack up her things as she planned on marrying a man she met in there. But the one person she wants to see the most is Bud. Her Mother tries to prevent this from happening but it really is something that she has to do in order to move forward in her life. Her two friends take her to see him, and I thought they really could have told her that he was married with one child and another on the way. But it was such a heartbreaking moment in away as this could have all totally broke Deanie again after spending a couple of years sorting herself out. Bud did not look totally happy, but satisfied. It was a bittersweet ending as you really feel that Deanie and Bud could have been together and very happy together, but it obviously was not meant to be.

Performance wise I think Natalie Wood is so good as the nice girl next door, but also incredible in the breakdown scenes. Warren Beatty was just perfect as Bud, he was handsome and acted with such emotion in parts. Pat Hingle as Ace was also fantastic and I have to admit throughout the movie I was trying to figure out where I knew him from and yes thats right I knew him as commissioner Gordon in Batman.

This movie really does make you think about first love and how views on sex before marriage and sex at a young age for the first time have possibly changed over time and are not really seen as such a big deal anymore. Or at least that is how I see it now. But also that pressures from society can really push you to the edge and just be too much to take at times. You just have to find a happy medium and try to deal with everything that is thrown at you.

Kappler (Christopher Plummer): Che cos’è Roma? Tutta la sua grandezza è passata! Tutto ciò che resta è una cartolina, un cortile da ricreazione per cavalli e preti!

tratto dal film The scarlet and the black di Jerry London (1983)

Zenobia (Anita Ekberg): A Roma il clima è dolce come un’eterna primavera.
Marco Valerio (George Marchal): No a Roma no, dove regnano la corruzione e l’intrigo!
Nel segno di Roma di Guido Brignone (1959)

Il gerarca fascista (Eros Pagni): Nessuna cosa al mondo l’è maggiore di Roma: mollezze, tradimenti, sudiciumi, quanti ne nascondi, eh? Roma la capitale… Si, sette colli pieni di merda e di vipere!
Film d’amore e d’anarchia di Lina Wertmuller (1973)

Un cinematografaro: Ahò! Si vedi ‘a gente che lavora nun è RRoma!
Roma di Federico Fellini (1972)

Il Giudice (Fernando Rey): E poi io questa città la odio. Sono tutti falsi, cinici, traditori.
Corruzione al palazzo di giustizia di Marcello Alipandri (1975)

Il gigolo (Warren Beatty): Questa città ha tremila anni, e ognuno dei suoi conquistatori è ritornato nella polvere.
La primavera romana della signora Stone di Josè Quinterno (1961)

BiBi (Claudio Gora): Si può andare in ogni città e ognuno resta quello che è: il genovese un genovese, il fiorentino un fiorentino; a Roma, invece, dopo tre giorni si diventa tutti romani!
Il sorpasso di Dino Risi (1962)

Ognuno si guardi attorno e guardi se stesso, e vedrà la grandezza di Roma!
La caduta dell’impero romano di Anthony Mann (1964)

“You’re So Vain” is a #1 hit song written and released by Carly Simon. Simon has never officially revealed who the song is about. Common theories on the subject include Mick Jagger (who sang backup vocals), Cat Stevens, Warren Beatty, Kris Kristofferson (whom she briefly dated), unfaithful fiancé William Donaldson and ex-husband James Taylor.

Jag har nu betat av den första Allen-filmen i serien. Efter att tänkt noga om vilken jag skulle se, föll lotten på Woodys första film. Den filmen som han gjorde debut med som manusförfattare: “What’s new Pussycat?” (1965) – titlen kommer förövrigt från Warren Beatty (som sade detta till sin dåvarande flickvän)

Jag kan säga att jag ännu är skeptisk. Visst gillar jag Peter Sellers som har en av huvudrollerna, men i den här filmen blir det bara för mycket. Peter O’Toole gör inte heller saken bättre, trots att han är en bra skådespelare.. Uppenbarligen ska filmen vara en komedi, men jag skrattade fan inte en enda gång. Kanske det blir bättre i nästa film som jag väljer att se, detta är ju trots allt debuten.

I don’t like it but Warren Beatty is starting to grow on me here.

California Sen. Jay Bulworth (Warren Beatty), reduced by years of compromise and scheming, hires a hit man to put him out of his misery. Kicking off an election campaign with nothing to lose, Bulworth lets his mouth get his ass in hot water.

Now for me I like a lot of satirical films, such as Natural Born Killers and also This Is Spinal Tap.., but I never really found the politician satirical films to be that interesting or funny. I always felt like they were just trying to imitate real-life figures in politics and make a different story, but this one is very different and I actually enjoyed it.

This movie is passed off as a comedy, but I think more importantly it says what we wish a lot of politicians would say all the time, which is the truth. Granted this movie is only one opinion, but the talk about race and more importantly class, is right on if you listen to what he actually says, part of it will either make you sick or really stop to make you think. The message that lies within the film is heartfelt and actually shows us a lot of true elements to what we want for our country but in a hugely melo-dramatic way, but with a really strong sense of comedy.

The comedy in this film never really gets old, and I actually found myself laughing at a lot of what Beatty said but also a lot of people around him were saying. The racist slang’s that Beatty uses are hilarious to listen too but also very true in what he says half of the time, and what shows to be the strength is it’s screenplay.

I felt like some parts in this film were not needed at all. The love story between Halle Berry and Beatty was pretty lame, and not needed, and put in just for the sake of having a love story. Also by the end of the film I felt it got a little too predictable. There is a little bit of symbolism that runs throughout the film that when it first came up basically made me know what was going to happen for the rest of the film.

Beatty, though as much as I try to dislike him, I just can’t help but love him in this film. This is basically his film as he is director, main actor, producer, and also co-writer. He does a very good job with all but ultimately succeeds in his acting. This isn’t the normal woman charmer dick like Beatty we have seen before he actually plays a different character than all of his other films, and breaks down barriers that some thought could never be broken. It breaks down and so does his performance and it really does show he can act in different roles and play different people, and not the same guy all the time.

Consensus: Bulworth is a little predictable by the end, but Warren Beatty does a great job at keeping this movie hilarious but also very true in it’s message about race in politics, without ever losing it’s charm.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Warren Beatty needs a second chance.

Quarterback Joe Pendleton (Warren Beatty) is nearly killed in an accident when an over anxious angel takes his soul before its time. Reincarnated as a millionaire whose wife (Dyan Cannon) and secretary (Charles Grodin) have plotted his murder, Joe falls in love with environmentalist Betty Logan (Julie Christie) while leading his old football team back to the Super Bowl.

This film is a remake of a 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan, which I can say beats out the original. Despite my dislike for Warren Beatty I found myself trying not to be too taken back by his presence and really that wasn’t a problem here with this film.

The film’s gags and jokes are reminiscent of old screwball comedies from the 30’s and 40’s. I enjoy films that go back in time for their comedy but still make it funny in the recent time and this film does a good job at it.

The only problem with this film is that the comedy is just not always there. I does succeed in its attempts to be funny but at other times I think it tried and din’t go so smoothly. The screenplay for this movie is smart with a very slight touch of irony which was played out good. The only problem I have about the screenplay is that when it starts going towards the romantic scenes I couldn’t help but laugh at how corny some of the lines were. Lines such as ” I can’t stop staring at you”, and “I can’t imagine a life without you” are used and I felt were way too corny.

One important thing that this film shows is the themes of life, death, love and humanity. I think this film best signifies these themes and handles them with such care to where it doesn’t become preachy but touching and something we can all relate to.

Warren Beatty does do a very good job in this film but it’s not great and I feel like every time he plays the same guy in every movie just with a different tweak. But he does alright but a lot of the supporting cast do very well and showing these stuck-up people for what they are.

Consensus: Though labeled as funny it is at times but not too much, but shows a perfect portrait of lives that can change with powerful themes about life and love.

8.5/10=Matinee!!

The Decisions That Changed the Face of Hollywood As We Know It

Shared via AddThis

The Decisions That Changed the Face of Hollywood As We Know It

‘Twilight’ without Kristen Stewart? No Brangelina without ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’? ‘Friends’ without Jennifer Aniston? ‘Titanic’ without Leonardo DiCaprio? It could have been. With one decision from the casting directors, one suggestion from a co-star or a gut reaction from a director, our favorite movies and TV shows could have wound up completely different. Take a look at some of the decisions that changed the face of Hollywood.

Fate in Hollywood: What Almost Was

Everett Collection / Paramount Vantage

13 photos

Robert Pattinson supposedly attended the ‘Twilight’ casting because he liked Kristen Stewart’s performance in ‘Into the Wild.’ See More Coincidences & Casting Decisions That Changed the Fate of Our Fave Flicks and Shows >>>

(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)

http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=749160&pid=749159&uts=1255698636

http://www.popeater.com/mm_track/popeater/movies/?s_channel=us.moviespop&s_account=aolpopeater,aolsvc&omni=1&ke=1

http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swf

Fate in Hollywood: What Almost Was

Robert Pattinson supposedly attended the ‘Twilight’ casting because he liked Kristen Stewart’s performance in ‘Into the Wild.’ See More Coincidences & Casting Decisions That Changed the Fate of Our Fave Flicks and Shows >>>

Everett Collection / Paramount Vantage

Everett Collection / Paramount Vantage

//

– Bruce Willis was originally cast as Danny Ocean in ‘Ocean’s Eleven.’ Replacement George Clooney celebrated by having a keg of Guinness installed in his dressing room. Jon Favreau, who wrote ‘Swingers,’ turned down the offer to write the screenplay. Owen and Luke Wilson dropped out of playing the brothers Virgil and Tuck to film ‘The Royal Tenenbaums.’ Michael Douglas and Warren Beatty were all considered for the role Terry Benedict which eventually went to Andy Garcia.

– Englishman Hugh Laurie, star of ‘House,’ won the British national title as a member of the junior coxed pair and was a varsity rower at the University of Cambridge before quitting due to mononucleosis. He rebounded by taking up acting and starring alongside love interest Emma Thompson with the Cambridge Footlights. In response to Laurie’s audition for ‘House,’ producer David Shore exclaimed “See, this is what I want; an American guy.” The audition video was shot in a hotel bathroom in Namibia. “It was the only place with enough light,” confessed Laurie.

// — Ewan McGregor turned down the role of Neo in ‘The Matrix’ to work on ‘Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.’ His uncle, Denis Lawson, acted in the original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy and was McGregor’s inspiration to get involved in show business. Will Smith turned down the role of Neo because he “wasn’t smart enough as an actor.” Sean Connery was originally offered the role of Morpheus but refused because he couldn’t understand the script. Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity) didn’t tell anyone she twisted her ankle while filming for fear she would be re-cast.

– Steve McQueen was the first to turn down the role of Captain Willard in ‘Apocalypse Now.’ Jeff Bridges auditioned for the role and Nick Nolte expressed interest but director Francis Ford Coppola instead went with Harvey Keitel. Within two weeks of shooting, he was replaced by Martin Sheen.

– ‘Entourage’ is loosely based on the experiences of executive producer Mark Wahlberg as an up-and-coming Hollywood star. Kevin Connolly, who portrays Eric, had retired from acting but was convinced to act in the show after the creators said his part was written with him in mind.

– Paramount Pictures considered Ernest Borgnine, Orson Welles and George C. Scott for the role of Vito Corleone in ‘The Godfather.’ Director Francis Ford Coppola preferred either Laurence Olivier or Marlon Brando. Olivier was too sick so the role went to Brando. Sylvester Stallone was rejected for a role and shifted to screenwriting, later penning the script for ‘Rocky.’ Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman and Jack Nicholson all turned down offers to play the role of Michael Corleone, a role which turned Al Pacino into a star.

– Patrick Dempsey, aka McDreamy, auditioned for the role of Dr. Chase on ‘House’ before taking the role of Dr. Shepherd on ‘Grey’s Anatomy.’ Rob Lowe passed on the role. Isaiah Washington (Dr. Burke) also auditioned to portray Dr. Shepherd. The show was originally titled ‘Complications.’

– Quentin Tarantino plied Brad Pitt with five bottles of Pink Floyd Rose wine at Brangelina’s Chateau Miraval estate before he accepted a role in ‘Inglourious Basterds.’ Tarantino approached Adam Sandler to star as a Nazi but was rebuffed by his choice to film ‘Funny People.’

– ‘Gossip Girl’ was originally pitched as a feature film starring Lindsay Lohan as Blair Waldorf. After repeated failings, the show’s backers eventually approached Josh Schwartz, producer of ‘The O.C.,” to turn it into a television series. Mischa Barton turned down the role of Georgina Sparks. It was later given to Michelle Trachtenberg. Leighton Meester dyed her blonde hair brunette to audition to play Blair Waldorf.

– Despite rampant speculation to the contrary, Heath Ledger was director Christopher Nolan’s only choice to portray The Joker in ‘The Dark Knight.’ Rachel McAdams, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Emily Blunt were rumored to play Rachel Dawes, a role turned down by incumbent Katie Holmes and eventually portrayed by Maggie Gyllenhaal. Josh Lucas, Mark Ruffalo and Liev Schreiber were considered for the role of Harvey Dent but Aaron Eckhart won out.

– Nicolas Cage was so close to starring in ‘The Wrestler’ that he was seen doing research for the part at a Ring of Honor Wrestling event in New York City. But director Darren Aronofsky decided against the desires of investors that Robinson could only be played by Mickey Rourke.

Sources: IMDB | Research by Dino Sossi and Megan Rumph