I try to write my mini-review for the side panel within a day or two of seeing a movie on the big screen or finishing a book. So what has kept me from writing about Crazy Heart, which I saw more than 2 weeks ago? I had such great expectations, especially for the performance of Jeff Bridges as Bad Blake. While I surely enjoyed the movie, thought that it held together at the end in an honest way and rooted for Bad to conquer his demons, I was mildly disappointed overall. Still, it just eeks out a 3/4.
Let me list the things about the movie that I didn't like.
1. The character of Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) falling for Bad. There's 28 years difference in real life and the same for the characters in the movie. So a good-looking, if lonely 30ish woman is going to fall for a totally dissolute 57 year old, which is the given age of Bad in the movie? Only in a 57 year old man's fantasy. The character of Jean would have worked much better if she were considerably older; say an attractive grandmom who has care of a grandchild. Grandmom could have built up considerable gravitas through life's misfortunes to match that of Bad's mostly self-inflicted misfortunes. A character who has gone through say divorce and a widowing, daughter in jail/on the streets, scraping out a living; what a rich character that could have been.
2. Bad goes to one AA meeting and seemingly gets the cure.
3. For a woman with a part-time job on a minor newspaper, Jean lives in this nice house on several wooded acres -- far too nice for someone in her place in life. She seemingly can travel on whim as though she has money to spare.
4. Bridges' performance as Bad seemed like an easy role; maybe playing dissolute is harder than I think.
Now there were things to like about the movie:
1. The acting was generally solid overall.
2. The music was a very nice fit to the storyline.
3. I thought that relationship and interplay between Bad and Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) worked very well.
4. Even though the character of Wayne wasn't well developed (nor did it need to be), I love Robert Duvall as a crusty old guy, so it's always a treat to see him.
5. I loved the seediness of the joints where Bad played, especially the bowling alley. That framed the "how far he has fallen" setup nicely.
Okay, I feel better for having written this up. I will not be surprised if upon re-viewing the movie my review might improve. Some day I'll watch it on TV and see if my feeling about it changes or not.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
April 1865:The Month That Saved America by Jay Winik
I remember reading the review for "April 1865:The Month That Saved America" by Jay Winik when it first came out in 2001 and wanting to read the book. When I spied it on the library shelf three weeks ago, I couldn't remember whether I had read it before or not. Not remembering if I had read it is not quite as damning as it might sound since I typically read 2-3 books a year about the Civil War or its dramatis personae. As it turns out, I had read it before but that's okay -- it is a stunning book, with a strong premise meticulously realized while vividly written.
The premise is almost simple on the surface; wise decisions by 5 major players and several smaller ones set the United States on a path that allowed it stay together despite the trauma and errors of Reconstruction and its Jim Crow aftermath. These decisions laid the groundwork for the U. S. to slowly move towards its potential as the great beacon of freedom. Had some or all of the decisions not been made, the United States, if it existed at all, would be very different than it is today.
Winik does a masterful job of propelling the story linearly while delving liberally into the background of the South and the North as well as the major characters. The reader learns that the United States was hardly a country in some ways, such that when people formally talked about their country they used the plural form, "these" United States. People thought of themselves as citizens of their states first, country second, if they even indeed ever thought of the latter. This feeling was especially prevalent in the South, where the great John C. Calhoun had been a South Carolinian, thank you and South Carolina should be able to nullify any federal law if it so chose and could secede whenever it wanted. Robert E. Lee was a Virginian, so much so that even though he was against secession, he turned down the Union command 5 days before accepting the command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Even the New England states flirted with secession during the War of 1812.
Naturally the author delves into the raison d'être of the war, slavery, which was the major failure1 of our otherwise farseeing Founding Fathers. Wise as they were, they had no solution for the great question of slavery. They left that for another "day", which came approximately "four score and seven years ago" later.
The great players as seen by the author are first and foremost, Abraham Lincoln, whose unerring belief in the Union and the need to preserve and restore it, was the foundation upon which he based all his actions, including the slow pace which he took to end slavery. His belief in a peaceful peace, without retribution, without vengeance, without labeling even Confederate President Jefferson Davis a traitor, set in motion a quick joining of North and South, that while tenuous, was cemented enough to hold once the real problems of the post-war set in. Lincoln was careful to instill this spirit in his 2 mighty warriors, Grant and Sherman. And as brutal as they were in war, no matter how Hun-like as they were viewed by Southerners, neither wanted any more carnage. Their treatment of their vanquished foes set the tone of a peaceful surrender and feelings of mutual good will between the fighters on both sides.
Jefferson Davis is not one of the great five. Davis was also a complex man and was the one man who came the closest to causing the war to drag on for years after it did. Davis only gave up after his armies had all done so, spending the month after Lee's surrender as a president on the run. He commanded Lee and General Joseph Johnston, head of the Confederate Army of the East, to take to the hills and fight a guerilla war. Lee disobeyed first, primarily driven by starvation (his men were already dying and his last ditch effort to get supplies was botched) but also understanding that enough was enough. If he continued fighting, Lee could only see deprivation for little real gain. He no longer had the heart to ask his men to do any more. It was time to return to family.
Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox was hardly the end of the war. Joseph Johnston still commanded the Army of the East and was ordered by Davis to head west and take to the hills. He decided to meet with his opposite, Sherman, and when given the most generous terms, decided to surrender. It took a number of days, mainly due to some modifications required by the Union Senate and during the second subsequent meeting, Johnston agreed to the still generous Sherman terms. Johnston saw the same issues as Lee, minus the starvation in Johnston's case, but since Lee had laid down his sword, Johnston could take comfort from emulating the lead of the great hero of the South.
Several other characters had somewhat more minor roles but played against form for a brief moment helping the return to union. The dreaded guerilla Nathaniel Bedford Forrest also capitulated to generous terms; his army could have survived indefinitely in the hills or in Texas. Those terms however did not mellow Forrest, and while he abided by the surrender, he reached even greater infamy by starting the Ku Klux Klan. And the new President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, had his one brief shining moment when he stood up to Congress, which wanted to impose onerous penalties on the South.
The final chapter, Reconciliation, discusses the immediate aftermath of the war. Stunningly, with all the hatred burning red hot, people North and South begin to use the word "nation" as though they were lurched into a new world where country trumped state. "The" United States replaced "these" United States in everyday usage. Touchingly, the last few paragraphs of that chapter tell the tale of a first stirring of the possibility of a southern white accepting a black person with a level of equality. "The black man slowly lowered his body, kneeling, while the rest of the congregation tensed in their pews" is the evocative introduction to a story that will move you. This vignette closes the narrative and only then, knowing that I had been so moved before, was I 100% confident that I had indeed read the book before.
The book closes with an Epilogue of two parts: rapid fire comments about the end-of-war status of the movers and shakers of the last third of 19th century America, followed by a "true" epilogue, a summation of the author's conclusions. While understanding where Carnegie, Rockefeller, Henry Ford, et al stood in April, 1865 is interesting, it doesn't add to the conclusion. That is my sole quibble with the book -- it has an extraneous interesting half chapter. Not too shabby.
While I would suggest a rudimentary knowledge of the American Civil War before tackling this book, if you know nothing about the war I think that Winik gives you enough background to allow you to enjoy the book and understand the author's intent.
P. S. For those of you who still subscribe to the Sunday paper, AND whose paper carries the Parade Magazine, AND the name "Winik" looks vaguely familiar, it's because the author's wife contributes to the magazine under her unique appelation, "Lyric Wallwork Winik".
1 I would also posit that a more clearly written 2nd amendment would have been helpful, but its legacy pales when compared to perpetuating, nay, encouraging slavery.
The premise is almost simple on the surface; wise decisions by 5 major players and several smaller ones set the United States on a path that allowed it stay together despite the trauma and errors of Reconstruction and its Jim Crow aftermath. These decisions laid the groundwork for the U. S. to slowly move towards its potential as the great beacon of freedom. Had some or all of the decisions not been made, the United States, if it existed at all, would be very different than it is today.
Winik does a masterful job of propelling the story linearly while delving liberally into the background of the South and the North as well as the major characters. The reader learns that the United States was hardly a country in some ways, such that when people formally talked about their country they used the plural form, "these" United States. People thought of themselves as citizens of their states first, country second, if they even indeed ever thought of the latter. This feeling was especially prevalent in the South, where the great John C. Calhoun had been a South Carolinian, thank you and South Carolina should be able to nullify any federal law if it so chose and could secede whenever it wanted. Robert E. Lee was a Virginian, so much so that even though he was against secession, he turned down the Union command 5 days before accepting the command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Even the New England states flirted with secession during the War of 1812.
Naturally the author delves into the raison d'être of the war, slavery, which was the major failure1 of our otherwise farseeing Founding Fathers. Wise as they were, they had no solution for the great question of slavery. They left that for another "day", which came approximately "four score and seven years ago" later.
The great players as seen by the author are first and foremost, Abraham Lincoln, whose unerring belief in the Union and the need to preserve and restore it, was the foundation upon which he based all his actions, including the slow pace which he took to end slavery. His belief in a peaceful peace, without retribution, without vengeance, without labeling even Confederate President Jefferson Davis a traitor, set in motion a quick joining of North and South, that while tenuous, was cemented enough to hold once the real problems of the post-war set in. Lincoln was careful to instill this spirit in his 2 mighty warriors, Grant and Sherman. And as brutal as they were in war, no matter how Hun-like as they were viewed by Southerners, neither wanted any more carnage. Their treatment of their vanquished foes set the tone of a peaceful surrender and feelings of mutual good will between the fighters on both sides.
Jefferson Davis is not one of the great five. Davis was also a complex man and was the one man who came the closest to causing the war to drag on for years after it did. Davis only gave up after his armies had all done so, spending the month after Lee's surrender as a president on the run. He commanded Lee and General Joseph Johnston, head of the Confederate Army of the East, to take to the hills and fight a guerilla war. Lee disobeyed first, primarily driven by starvation (his men were already dying and his last ditch effort to get supplies was botched) but also understanding that enough was enough. If he continued fighting, Lee could only see deprivation for little real gain. He no longer had the heart to ask his men to do any more. It was time to return to family.
Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox was hardly the end of the war. Joseph Johnston still commanded the Army of the East and was ordered by Davis to head west and take to the hills. He decided to meet with his opposite, Sherman, and when given the most generous terms, decided to surrender. It took a number of days, mainly due to some modifications required by the Union Senate and during the second subsequent meeting, Johnston agreed to the still generous Sherman terms. Johnston saw the same issues as Lee, minus the starvation in Johnston's case, but since Lee had laid down his sword, Johnston could take comfort from emulating the lead of the great hero of the South.
Several other characters had somewhat more minor roles but played against form for a brief moment helping the return to union. The dreaded guerilla Nathaniel Bedford Forrest also capitulated to generous terms; his army could have survived indefinitely in the hills or in Texas. Those terms however did not mellow Forrest, and while he abided by the surrender, he reached even greater infamy by starting the Ku Klux Klan. And the new President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, had his one brief shining moment when he stood up to Congress, which wanted to impose onerous penalties on the South.
The final chapter, Reconciliation, discusses the immediate aftermath of the war. Stunningly, with all the hatred burning red hot, people North and South begin to use the word "nation" as though they were lurched into a new world where country trumped state. "The" United States replaced "these" United States in everyday usage. Touchingly, the last few paragraphs of that chapter tell the tale of a first stirring of the possibility of a southern white accepting a black person with a level of equality. "The black man slowly lowered his body, kneeling, while the rest of the congregation tensed in their pews" is the evocative introduction to a story that will move you. This vignette closes the narrative and only then, knowing that I had been so moved before, was I 100% confident that I had indeed read the book before.
The book closes with an Epilogue of two parts: rapid fire comments about the end-of-war status of the movers and shakers of the last third of 19th century America, followed by a "true" epilogue, a summation of the author's conclusions. While understanding where Carnegie, Rockefeller, Henry Ford, et al stood in April, 1865 is interesting, it doesn't add to the conclusion. That is my sole quibble with the book -- it has an extraneous interesting half chapter. Not too shabby.
While I would suggest a rudimentary knowledge of the American Civil War before tackling this book, if you know nothing about the war I think that Winik gives you enough background to allow you to enjoy the book and understand the author's intent.
P. S. For those of you who still subscribe to the Sunday paper, AND whose paper carries the Parade Magazine, AND the name "Winik" looks vaguely familiar, it's because the author's wife contributes to the magazine under her unique appelation, "Lyric Wallwork Winik".
1 I would also posit that a more clearly written 2nd amendment would have been helpful, but its legacy pales when compared to perpetuating, nay, encouraging slavery.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Movies I saw in theaters in 2009
Best movie that I saw in 2009:
Adventureland
The characters ring true in this warm-hearted look at young folks whose lives are not quite meeting their expectations.
2009 Reviews, in reverse chronological order:
Up in the Air 3/4
Interesting mix of comedy juxtaposed against a backdrop of a very depressing corporate downsizing environment. Clooney, with his Cary Grant ease, is fine as a man facing up to the emptiness of his life.
Sherlock Holmes 3/4
I was pleasantly surprised by this film's Holmes-iness, compared to the mayhem emphasized in the trailers. Downey works as a bi-polar Holmes, Law is terrific as a competent Watson, McAdams is a lovely femme fatale (or is she?); the rest of the cast works as well.
The 400 Blows 3.5/4
Truffaut's breakout film. Semi-autobiographical story of a troubled adolescent with uncaring parents and hateful teachers. First time in 30 years that I saw it, I was slightly less moved this time as it seemed a bit dated to me.
The Fantastic Mr. Fox 3/4
Fun, clever and quirky bit of animation. I'm not quite getting the 4 star love from the critics but a joy regardless.
Men Who Stare at Goats 2.5/4
Amusing, wacky with a couple of LOL moments but ultimately a mildly unsatisfying redemption movie.
Moon 3.5/4
Unusual and unsettling sci-fi about a man working alone on the moon. Is he really alone and how much of his existence is real?
A Day at the Races 3.0/4
Top of the second tier of the Marx Bros. movies, good anarchy but a very dated extended song and dance number that is very racist by today's standards.
Girls Town 1.5/4
But 4/4 for sheer fun 1959 style. Wanna see Paul Anka punch out Mel Torme? Elinor Donahue as Mamie Van Doren's sister?
Star Trek 3/4
A few too many impossible mini-cliff hangers -- like most current adventure movies -- but well presented with nice tie-ins to the original TV series.
Sugar 3.5/4
One of the best movies ever dealing with a baseball theme. Ultimately it's the story of a stranger in a strange land finding a second home.
Adventureland 4/4
The characters ring true in this warm-hearted look at young folks whose lives are not quite meeting their expectations.
Sunshine Cleaning 3/4
No capsule.
Frost/Nixon 3/4
No capsule.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 3/4
No capsule.
Milk 3.5/4 (Can you say Best Actor Oscar?)
No capsule.
Adventureland
The characters ring true in this warm-hearted look at young folks whose lives are not quite meeting their expectations.
2009 Reviews, in reverse chronological order:
Up in the Air 3/4
Interesting mix of comedy juxtaposed against a backdrop of a very depressing corporate downsizing environment. Clooney, with his Cary Grant ease, is fine as a man facing up to the emptiness of his life.
Sherlock Holmes 3/4
I was pleasantly surprised by this film's Holmes-iness, compared to the mayhem emphasized in the trailers. Downey works as a bi-polar Holmes, Law is terrific as a competent Watson, McAdams is a lovely femme fatale (or is she?); the rest of the cast works as well.
The 400 Blows 3.5/4
Truffaut's breakout film. Semi-autobiographical story of a troubled adolescent with uncaring parents and hateful teachers. First time in 30 years that I saw it, I was slightly less moved this time as it seemed a bit dated to me.
The Fantastic Mr. Fox 3/4
Fun, clever and quirky bit of animation. I'm not quite getting the 4 star love from the critics but a joy regardless.
Men Who Stare at Goats 2.5/4
Amusing, wacky with a couple of LOL moments but ultimately a mildly unsatisfying redemption movie.
Moon 3.5/4
Unusual and unsettling sci-fi about a man working alone on the moon. Is he really alone and how much of his existence is real?
A Day at the Races 3.0/4
Top of the second tier of the Marx Bros. movies, good anarchy but a very dated extended song and dance number that is very racist by today's standards.
Girls Town 1.5/4
But 4/4 for sheer fun 1959 style. Wanna see Paul Anka punch out Mel Torme? Elinor Donahue as Mamie Van Doren's sister?
Star Trek 3/4
A few too many impossible mini-cliff hangers -- like most current adventure movies -- but well presented with nice tie-ins to the original TV series.
Sugar 3.5/4
One of the best movies ever dealing with a baseball theme. Ultimately it's the story of a stranger in a strange land finding a second home.
Adventureland 4/4
The characters ring true in this warm-hearted look at young folks whose lives are not quite meeting their expectations.
Sunshine Cleaning 3/4
No capsule.
Frost/Nixon 3/4
No capsule.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 3/4
No capsule.
Milk 3.5/4 (Can you say Best Actor Oscar?)
No capsule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
