Month: June 2008

Survey Says

by digby

I find this interesting and am curious as to what you all think it will mean for the coming campaign:

If John McCain is elected President, 63% of voters say it’s at least somewhat likely that he will reach across party lines and work effectively with both Republicans and Democrats. Fifty-two percent (52%) say the same will be true if Barack Obama is elected President. The two candidates remain very competitive in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans believe McCain would reach across party lines effectively. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats say that about Obama.

However, 47% of Democrats also believe that McCain could effectively reach across party lines. Republicans see Obama in a much more partisan light—just 25% believe he would function effectively on a bi-partisan basis.

Among unaffiliated voters, 61% see McCain as able to work effectively with both Republicans and Democrats. Fifty-six percent (56%) of unaffiliated voters say the same about Obama.

McCain is seen as the more uniting candidate by men and women, young and old, white voters, conservatives and moderates. Obama is seen that way by African-Americans, other minority voters, and those who are politically liberal.

Assuming that Obama is the nominee, does this argue for putting a Republican like Chuck Hagel on the ticket? Or does it argue for Obama to reach beyond his base coalition with something other than a tack to the right to meet John McCain “in the middle,” which is how this will be spun?

I am conflicted on this. The conventional wisdom says that the Dems should try to turn McCain’s image to that of a more doctrinaire conservative and have Obama do some sort of dramatic bipartisan gestures like picking a Republican for the ticket. The first part won’t be easy because his “maverick” reputation is so well established but I think it still needs to be hit hard. Republicans are the bums they want to throw out right now, and McCain is Republican, maverick or not. Going after that brand is worth doing for the party and for the down ticket races alone.

But the second half of the equation, I’m not quite sure about. It’s certainly going to be tempting for Obama, assuming he is the nominee, to move pretty hard right to counteract the “most liberal member of congress” rap. Many people will argue that he must restore bipartisan cred in this year in which it’s established conventional wisdom that the thing most people yearn for more than anything is unity and consensus. But I’m not entirely sure that’s what people actually want. My sense has always been that people are terribly dissatisfied with their government and the direction of the country but I’ve never been convinced that they attribute the problems in Washington to too much partisan loyalty to the Democratic party. I may be wrong about that, but I would love to see some data to support that idea before we go with a Democratic/Republican ticket (which would be nearly impossible for me to feel enthusiastic about, although I’d fall in line.)

I think it would be great if Obama rejected the predictable paradigm and ran purely on a reformer/populist platform instead of a bipartisan consensus platform. I think there’s ample reason to believe that it would be more successful than trying to out maverick the maverick, and would give the Democrats a mandate for real change instead of a mandate for compromise.

Perhaps I misread the public mood and what they want more than anything is for everyone to get along. But I have to think that part of McCain’s popularity with the independents is they perceive that his method of “reaching across party lines” is that they think he’ll knock heads together and force people to bend to his will. I don’t know if Obama running to the right, as Democrats are wont to do in general elections, will counteract that particular style of leadership. Something different is called for.

Again, I’m not entirely sure of my perceptions about this at this point. I need for the smoke to clear a bit before I can accurately see the lay of the land. Maybe the country really is yearning for bipartisan compromise and will reject the tough guy approach outright. If that’s the case, then tacking to the right on issues or putting a Republican on the ticket may actually be the smart move. But I’m not convinced it’s necessary and I certainly don’t think it’s desirable.

Comments still fubared. Sorry.

.

Can You Believe It?

by digby

They lied. And Rove should have been fired:

President Bush broke his promise to the country by refusing to fire aide Karl Rove for leaking a CIA agent’s identity, said Scott McClellan, the president’s chief spokesman for almost three years.

“I think the president should have stood by his word and that meant Karl should have left,” McClellan said Sunday in a broadcast interview about his new tell-all book, a scathing rebuke of the White House under Bush’s leadership.

Amato has the video.

.

Photo Finish

by digby

I’m hearing and reading a lot today about how the Clinton supporters are going to ruin the party with their obstinate refusal to acknowledge that Obama has won and threats to vote for McCain. I think everyone needs to take a breath.

The fact is that this campaign is a photo finish. There has never been a primary where it’s come even close to a tie before. Someone had to win and it’s going to be Obama and it’s going to be seen as legitimate, mostly because the primaries ran their course (for which everyone should actually be grateful.) But to think that a race this close could end with an instantaneous round of kumbaaya among the loser’s most passionate supporters is probably a little naive. It’s not human nature. (And if Clinton had been the one to win with this narrow lead, you can be sure the other side would be threatening to stay home or vote for McCain too. See this article from just before the Indiana primary if you don’t believe me.)

I think the thing that has most exacerbated the fervent Clinton supporters’ frustration, and frankly astonished me a bit, has been this endless drumbeat since February for her to drop out even though she was still winning primaries. Nobody should expect a politician who is still winning to quit. It makes no sense. It’s not in their DNA. Certainly, in a race this close it made no sense whatsoever. I don’t think that line has helped Obama (and I think it’s why the campaign itself has been so careful not to publicly flog it.)

In 84 and 88, Jackson was seen as a potential party wrecker too and in 88 he took his historic campaign, in which he won 11 contests, all the way to the convention. He made a very famous speech which he ended with the chant “Keep Hope Alive,” which could have easily been construed as wishing for Dukakis to fail so he could get another bite at the apple (something that people are accusing Clinton of already.) But it wasn’t.

And that’s because while Jackson went to the convention trailing by 1200 delegates, he was holding a very important card, which everyone recognized and respected. You can rest assured that people were worried that his constituency, many of them first time voters who he had registered, would stay home in the fall, and so Democrats treated him and his campaign (publicly at least) with respect and deference, and rightly so. He represented the dreams and aspirations of millions of Democratic voters, after all.

To many African Americans, a constant clamor for Jackson (or Obama if it had gone that way) to drop out of the race would have been seen as a call to go to the back of the bus. Likewise, for many of Clinton’s supporters, it’s been seen as a call to sit down and shut up (or “stifle” as Archie Bunker used to say to Edith.) I’m not saying it’s entirely rational, but then these things rarely are. The extreme closeness of this race makes it even more frustrating and emotional for a lot of people.

There is opportunity in all this mess. Obama’s main rationale for running is that he’s uniquely capable of bringing the disparate strands of our frayed politics together to get things done for the common good and change politics as we know it. If this is handled well, and the party comes together, he can take credit going into the fall for healing a painful rift in the Democratic party thus making the case that he has the ability to do the same thing for the country.

Activists can all help him do that by getting past this tedious pie fighting stage as quickly as possible. Obama supporters should acknowledge the fact that Clinton got an enormous number of votes and represents a vital constituency in the Democratic party that must be respected if we are going to win. And Clinton supporters need to acknowledge the fact that while their candidate came extremely close, at the end of the race, she came up short. Somebody has to win it and by the measures the party has set forth, Obama is the one who did. This is a Democratic year and I believe we will win this thing. But it’s going to take leadership from both the candidates — and us.

Update: I should point out that Obama hasn’t quite clinched and nobody should expect Clinton to concede until he crosses the finish line. I could be wrong, and she’ll decide to take it to the convention like Jackson did in 88, Kennedy did in 80 and Reagan did in 76. But I doubt it.

* comments are fubared. Not my doing.

A Lethal Limbo

by digby

Here’s a heartwarming story that took place in the greatest country the world has ever known:

In May 2007, Victoria Arellano, a 23-year-old transgender immigrant from Mexico, was sent to a detention center in San Pedro after being arrested on a traffic charge.

Arellano, who was born a male and had come to the United States illegally as a child, had AIDS at the time of her arrest but exhibited no symptoms of the disease because of the medication she took daily. But once detained, her health began to deteriorate.She lost weight and became sick. She repeatedly pleaded with staff members at the detention center to see a doctor to get the antibiotics she needed to stay alive, according to immigrant detainees with whom Arellano shared a dormitory-style cell. But her requests were routinely ignored.

The task of caring for Arellano fell to her fellow detainees. They dampened their own towels and used them to cool her fever; they turned cardboard boxes into makeshift trash cans to collect her vomit. As her condition worsened, the detainees, outraged that Arellano was not being treated, staged a strike: They refused to get in line for the nightly head count until she was taken to the detention center’s infirmary.

Officials relented, and Arellano was sent to the infirmary, then to a hospital nearby. But after two days there — and after having spent two months at the federally operated facility — she died of an AIDS-related infection. Her family has taken steps to file a wrongful-death claim against the federal government.

The treatment Arellano received in San Pedro, unfortunately, is typical of what passes for healthcare at about 400 immigrant detention centers across the U.S. More than 70 immigrant detainees have died in custody since 2004, at least 13 of them in California, more than in any other state, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The reason may shock you. Unlike federal and state prisons, immigrant detention centers, many of which are run by private contractors, are not legally mandated to abide by any healthcare standards when it comes to treating sick immigrants. Civil and immigrant rights groups have filed suit in New York to force federal officials to issue such rules, but the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction in the matter, has yet to produce them. In the absence of legally binding standards, detained immigrants, such as Arellano, have no legal way to complain about the lax healthcare they receive at the facilities where they are held. They cannot appeal the denial of care or sue in federal court to obtain it.

What medical care is available is often delayed, or denied, while doctors and nurses at the facilities await approval from officials in Washington, who can deny crucial care without explanation

.

For those who would make the inevitable observation that these immigrants shouldn’t be granted health care that Americans don’t have, one thing to keep in mind is that they also aren’t free to go anywhere to get treatment — like an emergency room or an alternative medicine doctor or some quack operating out of his basement. This person was in jail for the crime of being brought here illegally as a child and could do absolutely nothing to help herself.

It is unconscionable to deny people medical care under any circumstances. To lock them up without due process and then deny them medical care is something you’d expect during the worst excesses of the Taliban or the Soviet gulags. I suppose it’s always been this way in this country that worships individualism and has a sick love-hate relationship with its immigrant character. But that doesn’t make it any less sickening.

Perhaps it isn’t possible to offer universal health care to illegal immigrants. Apparently it isn’t possible to ensure it for tens of millions of American citizens. But it most certainly should be possible to offer it to all prisoners, especially people whose crime was being brought here illegally as a child. It’s disgusting and the people who allowed this to happen are simply monstrous.

.

Tonight’s second feature: Sketches of Sydney Pollack

By Dennis Hartley

I’m sure you have heard by now that we lost director-producer-actor Sydney Pollack earlier this week.

He was one of the last of the old school Hollywood filmmakers; a dependable “all purpose” director in the Michael Curtiz vein. From westerns (Jeremiah Johnson, The Scalphunters) and war films (Castle Keep) to love stories (The Way We Were, This Property Is Condemned) and sweeping epics (Out of Africa, Havana) Pollack displayed a real knack for effortless genre-hopping. He may not have been an “auteur” or a flashy visual stylist, but he knew how to tell a damn fine story, and he always did so with intelligence and class. He respected his actors; you could glean that from the full-blooded performances that usually informed a Pollack film. Perhaps this was not surprising, as Pollack spent substantial time in front of the cameras as well, usually in supporting roles.

As an actor, he was most recently seen in Michael Clayton (which he also co-produced). He received critical raves for his acting in Woody Allen’s Husbands and Wives(and deservedly so-he more than managed to hold his own opposite the formidable talents of the great Judy Davis). His relatively small role in Eyes Wide Shut was one of the few highlights in Stanley Kubrick’s final (and most disappointing) film.

Perhaps his most endearing turn as an actor was when Pollack the director cast himself in the gender-bending rom-com Tootsie . ( Pollack played the exasperated agent of a “difficult” and mercurial actor (Dustin Hoffman, who some might say was basically playing himself) and got to deliver a line which has become a classic quote: “I BEGGED you to get some therapy!” While inarguably Pollack’s most audience-pleasing film, I don’t necessarily consider it his best (One major drawback? That god-awful soundtrack.)

Beginning with his 1993 legal thriller The Firm, Pollack’s films began to slouch more toward “product” than artifice (with the possible exception of his 2005 documentary, Sketches of Frank Gehry by Sydney Pollack. All in all, however, he left behind an impressive legacy of well-crafted cinema in his nearly 50 year long career. A few personal recommendations:

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? -This richly decadent allegory about the human condition has to be one of the grimmest and most cynical films ever made. Pollack assembled a crack ensemble for this depiction of a Depression-era dance marathon from Hell: Jane Fonda, Gig Young (who snagged a Best Supporting Actor Oscar), Susannah York, Bruce Dern and Red Buttons are all outstanding; Pollack even coaxed the wooden Michael Sarrazin (the Hayden Christensen of his day) into showing some real emotion.

The Yakuza -I was overjoyed when this 1975 sleeper came out on DVD. Robert Mitchum and Ken Takakura are excellent in this complex (and surprisingly credible) culture clash/gangster drama. Pollack had some major writing talent on board-Robert Towne and Paul Schrader scripted from a story idea by Schrader’s brother Leonard. The similarly-themed 1989 Ridley Scott thriller Black Rain was a relatively shallow exercise, IMHO.

Three Days of the Condor -One of seven collaborations between star Robert Redford and director Pollack, and one of the seminal “conspiracy-a-go-go” films An absolutely first-rate thriller with more twists and turns than you can shake a dossier at. The film’s final scene plays like an eerily (serendipitously?) prescient prologue for All the President’s Men, which wasn’t released until the following year. An exemplary cast includes Faye Dunaway, Max von Sydow, Cliff Robertson, and John Houseman. Lorenzo Semple Jr. and David Rayfiel adapted from James Grady’s novel “Six Days of the Condor”.

Absence of Malice -Before it was fashionable to take the news media to task, Pollack delivered this solid blend of morality tale and civics lesson about the straight arrow son of a mob figure (Paul Newman) whose reputation is sullied when he becomes the fall guy in an unethical federal prosecutor’s investigation. An irresponsible newspaper journalist (Sally Field) is no help, with her eagerness to print first, and fact check later. Newman decides to ingeniously turn the tables on the mudslingers, whilst putting the average citizen’s alleged protection under the libel laws to the supreme test. A scathing indictment of the press (ah…if they only knew how much worse it could get). Scripted by ex-reporter Kurt Luedtke, and featuring that wily old scene-stealer Wilfred Brimley.

The Swimmer -It’s not technically a 100% Pollack project (more on that in a moment) but one of the more underrated dramas of the late 60s. A searing, downright scary performance from Burt Lancaster fuels this existential suburban nightmare. Frank Perry is the credited director, but Pollack was brought in to finish the film after Perry dropped out during production. Eleanor Perry scripted from the original John Cheever short story.

More to explore: The Slender Thread, Bobby Deerfield, The Electric Horseman, Sabrina, Random Hearts, The Interpreter .

.

Saturday Night At The Movies: Double Feature

A tonic for summer blockbusters: Two films without guns

By Dennis Hartley

As we gird our loins for Hollywood’s seasonal onslaught of loud, overproduced and generally chuckleheaded summer fare, I thought we would take a moment this week to catch our breath and take a peek at two decidedly offbeat alternatives-one film currently in limited release, and another that I just caught at the Seattle International Film Festival.

First up: a new film from writer-director Harmony Korine called Mister Lonely (currently in select cities, but also available right now via the “IFC in theaters” PPV service). Now, I will be straight with you and admit upfront that Korine, a member of the “love him or hate him” film school, is not one of my favorite directors. If you have followed this weekly post for a while, you know that I have a pretty high tolerance for what a lot of other folks might call “weird” or even “unwatchable” cinema, but I found Korine’s Gummo (1997) and Julien Donkey-Boy (1999) just, well, too weird and (virtually) unwatchable. However, I had heard good buzz about his latest (OK, the fact that I had the option of “ordering in” as opposed to dragging my lazy ass to the theater may have had a hand in my decision). It turns out that Korine can make a “watchable” film-in the form of this tragicomic rumination on alienation, mental illness, and the tendency of humans to kowtow at the alter of both pop culture and, erm, “God” with equal fervor.

Beautifully shot by DP Marcel Zyskind (Code 46, The Road to Guantanamo), the film begins with an elegiac slow-mo sequence reminiscent of the opening credits for Blue Velvet. Choreographed to Bobby Vinton’s plaintive ballad “Mr. Lonely”, a Michael Jackson impersonator (Diego Luna), replete with requisite red jacket, shades and surgical mask, rides a scooter, with a stuffed, winged monkey toy in tow. It’s a remarkable scene that manages to convey both a blissful innocence and an aching sadness at the same time.

The otherwise shy and awkward young man puts out his hat and performs all the requisite flamboyant MJ dance moves in the streets of Paris, where he is largely ignored; he supplements this meager income with help from an “agent” who gets him the odd booking. While performing at a nursing home, he meets a Marilyn Monroe impersonator (Samantha Morton). The two have an immediate attraction to each other, although “Marilyn” is quick to mention her husband, a Charlie Chaplin impersonator (Denis Lavant). She and “Charlie” live on a communal farm in Scotland with their daughter “Shirley Temple” and a few dozen other celebrity impersonators; she talks Michael into joining this odd but welcoming community (the “One of us! One of us!” chant from Freaks did enter my mind more than once.)

At first glance, this extended family of fringe dwellers appears to lead a Utopian existence. They have a barn (and yes, at one point, they do put on a show). They cheerfully tend to the livestock and enjoy warm communal mealtimes together (usually in full costume), but upon closer examination, it seems that there is trouble in paradise. A sadomasochistic undercurrent runs through Marilyn and Charlie’s marriage; at one point, a tearful Marilyn blurts out the film’s best line: “Sometimes, when I look at you, you seem more like Adolph Hitler than Charlie Chaplain.” The “Pope” (James Fox) is an alcoholic. “Abe Lincoln” (Richard Strange) has an impulse to utilize “fuck” in every sentence. The Buckwheat impersonator has an unhealthy obsession with chickens…and so on. Korine throws in a somewhat weaker second narrative concerning a missionary priest/pilot (German director Werner Herzog, who cannot act) and his posse of er, flying nuns (don’t ask) doing relief work in the jungles of Central America. I will say no more.

Luna and Morton both give lovely and touching performances; they are a major reason to see this film. I’m not going to pretend that I completely grasped Korine’s intent; but his film is visually engaging, emotionally resonant, and it did haunt me afterwards. I find it easier to contextualize by pointing to two Nicholas Roeg films that I strongly suspect had a major influence on Korine here: Performance (1970) and Insignificance (1985). In Performance (written and co-directed by Donald Cammel), the narrative plays with the concept of two self-loathing protagonists who swap identities in an attempt to escape themselves; in essence “impersonating” each other. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Korine has cast two of the principal actors from Performance in his film-James Fox and Anita Pallenberg (who plays the Queen of England impersonator). In Roeg’s Insignificance, screenwriter Terry Johnson fantasizes Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, Senator Joe McCarthy and Albert Einstein interacting in a hotel room in the 1950s; the result is a strange but compelling treatise on fame, politics and nuclear paranoia. Korine uses the same device (the unlikely juxtaposition of iconic figures) to expound on his themes as well. Granted, Mister Lonely is not for all tastes, but if you would prefer to not “Mess With the Zohan” this summer, thank you very much, it is one possible alternative.

I am currently immersed in the 2008 Seattle International Film Festival, which kicked off on May 22. Well, as “immersed” as I can be, considering that I have a pesky 9-5 gig, which doesn’t give me the spare time (or energy) that I would need to catch all 400 films between now and June 15 (I’ll have more on this year’s SIFF, beginning next week).

I was going to wait until next week to begin reviewing Festival films, but since it cozies up nicely with this week’s theme, I thought I’d give you a sneak preview of a black comedy out of Canada that I hope will find a U.S. distributor at in the near future. Quebecois writer-director Stephane LeFleur’s Continental: A Film Without Guns breathes new life into the old “network narrative” trick (a device most associated with the work of Robert Altman, but which has been around at least since 1932’s Grand Hotel.)

In fact, LeFleur uses a hotel as the rendezvous point in this story of four lonely and disenfranchised people, whose lives are destined to intersect, directly or tangentially. In the enigmatic opening scene, a middle aged insurance salesman snoozes through his bus stop and wakes up at the end of the line (literally and/or figuratively). He calmly gathers up his briefcase and coat, and after what appears to be a moment of Zen, meditating on the night sounds of the forest, walks straight into the darkness of the trees and disappears.

The remainder of the film delves into the ripple effect that the man’s disappearance has on the lives of four people-his 50-ish wife (Marie-Ginette Guay), a 30-ish life insurance salesman who is hired to replace him (Real Bosse), a 60-ish owner of a second-hand store (Gilbert Sicotte) and a 20-something hotel receptionist (Fanny Mallette). To be sure, the age spread of the characters indicates a convenient symmetry, but LeFleur is examining certain universal truths about the human condition that transcend age and/or gender; namely, the fear of dying, and perhaps most terrifying of all- the fear of dying alone.

That is not to say that this is a Bergman-esque, “excuse me while I go hang myself in the closet” fest. LeFleur injects just enough deadpan humor into his script to diffuse the inherently depressing nature of his themes. All members of the cast give uniformly excellent performances. The almost painterly photography (by DP Sara Mishara) is richly moody and atmospheric, no small feat in a film largely comprised of static interior shots.

LeFleur exhibits a style quite similar to that of fellow Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan (The Adjustor, Exotica, The Sweet Hereafter). Like Egoyan, LeFleur is not afraid to hold a shot as long as he needs to, nor is he afraid of silence. Silence can speak volumes, especially in the hands of a skilled director (watch a Kurosawa or Ozu film for a master class). In a movie season of explosions and screeching tires, a little silence can be golden.

All by myself: Henry Jaglom’s Someone to Love, Lars and the Real Girl, Marty (1954), Sunday, Naked Into the Wild, Never Cry Wolf, Edward Scissorhands , Happiness,Lost in Translation Brief Encounter, Brewster Mccloud, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Taxi Driver American Beauty , Spirit of the Beehive, I Stand Alone, Following, Ikiru – Criterion Collection Tokyo Story Minnie and Moskowitz, Harold and Maude, Harry and Tonto Cal Me and You and Everyone We Know Persona, Zelig, Images, Mayor of the Sunset Strip, The Conversation, The Lives of Others, The Lonely Guy, Magnolia, In the Realms of the Unreal – The Mystery of Henry Darger, Welcome to L.A., The Station Agent, Fat City Monsieur Hire , Turtle Diary, Why Shoot The Teacher, Middle of the Night

Previous posts with related themes:

The Visitor
Pan’s Labyrinth

.