Month: December 2017

Hereditary royalty and landed gentry
by Tom Sullivan

Senate passage of the GOP tax cut bill and comments from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) over the weekend brought to mind a Scrutiny Hooligans post from 2011 (grammatical warts and all):

Colonist or Royalist?

It’s what every American should be asking themselves this week. The Tea Party too.

Do you stand with the modern-day British East India Corporations and their masters (the Kochs, the Olins, the Bradleys and other royals that want to unmake the American Century and rig American democracy like they rigged the financial markets)? Or do you stand with the people in your community? Who do you serve?

It’s pretty clear who Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP leadership in Wisconsin serves. They and their brethren and Forbes 400 patrons have declared open war on the middle class, with rafts of industry ghost-written legislation in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana — in about half the states. To strip the collective bargaining rights of political enemies, to defund public schools (and teachers), to suppress the vote by requiring photo IDs (Jim Crow, Jr.), to dissolve elected local governments in a corporate coup d’état, to arrogate sweeping executive authority over state agencies in a single unelected … tzar(?), to transfer tax dollars from the poor and middle class to give tax breaks to corporations, the works — all supported by the same press-shy billionaire ideologues behind Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council. As the fake “Koch” phone call demonstrated, they don’t care about your jobs or your economy, and they don’t care about you.

So where do you stand? Colonist or Royalist?

“Corporations shouldn’t pay taxes at all. That’s a terrible idea.”
— pro-Walker demonstrator Jay from LaCrosse in Madison, WI.

Maybe the picture at the top helped a little, but the post got under the skin of a local Republican pol who used to visit the site — which told me I’d hit a soft spot.

But a comment by Grassley figures into this reverie as well. The Iowa Republican argues he wants to eliminate the estate tax to help Iowans stay on their family farms. The Des Moines Register wasn’t having it:

The number of Iowans paying the estate tax actually numbers in the dozens each year, out of roughly 1.4 million who file federal tax returns each year. IRS data from the last five years shows the number of Iowa taxpayers owing estate taxes ranged from 32 in 2012 to 61 in 2015, and that the vast majority of those probably were not farmers or small business owners.

Despite that evidence, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee in the Senate, has long presented the estate tax as a potentially ruinous burden on farmers and small business owners.

Fellow Iowa Republicans, U.S. Reps. Steve King and David Young, joined the chorus, King insisting the estate tax “often falls hardest on family-owned farms and small businesses.”

Kristine Tidgren, assistant director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, told the Register, “I haven’t come across any examples of an Iowa family that had to sell the farm to pay the estate tax,” adding, “I don’t think the current estate tax system threatens family farmers.”

Experts be damned. Grassley was insistent:

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Grassley? He’s not eliminating the estate tax to benefit working commoners, but to protect the ownership class from the rabble. His comments prompted an acid-dipped response from Pat Rynard at Iowa Starting Line:

It’s difficult to think of a more condescending, elitist worldview – that if you’re not ultra-wealthy, it’s clearly because you’re wasting all your money on alcohol, frivolous fun and prostitutes (I assume that’s what he meant when he said women). Certainly it couldn’t be because people are struggling to find decent-paying jobs, are straddled with debt from the college education they need to attain better jobs, or are paying outrageous sums for health insurance and medical bills. Nope, it must be because they’re all getting hand jobs from hookers in the back of a dark movie theater while downing a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.

Filthy peasants.

Grassley’s comments recall what historian Robert Calhoon once wrote about colonists who supported the Crown during the American Revolution. “Historians’ best estimates,” he wrote, “put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent,” a figure not far removed from the Republican base. As many as 500,000 colonists among a population of 2.5 million never bought the founders’ “created equal” nonsense. They remained committed to a system of government by hereditary royalty and landed gentry. Powdered wigs supported by loyal subjects also carries echoes today. Even after the Treaty of Paris, most loyalists remained on these shores. Their progeny and like-minded continentals who arrived later are with us still. It is a personality type committed to maintaining the “natural” order.

America was very good to New World royalty. They invested in a political party. They’re preparing to close on a country.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

If you like Trump why wouldn’t you like Roy Moore?by digby

They love a handsy man:

Just a year ago over 60 million Americans voted for a man who was caught on tape bragging that he could assault women and get away with it, not to mention that he endorsed torture and other war crimes, mass deportation and jailing his political opponents so this really should not be a surprise. There are many millions of deplorables:

A new CBS News poll finds 71 percent of Alabama Republicans say the allegations against Roy Moore are false, and those who believe this also overwhelmingly believe Democrats and the media are behind those allegations.

The poll found 92 percent of Republicans who don’t believe the allegations against Moore say the Democrats are behind the charges, and 88 percent say newspapers and the media are behind them.
[…]
The Senate contest looks to be highly dependent on turnout. Moore has a lead over Democrat Doug Jones, 49 percent to 43 percent, among the likely voters who are most apt to vote on Dec. 12. Among all registered voters, the contest is even. And nearly a quarter of voters still describe themselves as “maybe” or “probably” going to vote.

A majority of Alabama Republican voters (53 percent) say the allegations against Moore are a concern, but that other things matter more. One-third of Republicans say the allegations are not a concern to them.

The poll describes a picture of many Republican voters choosing based on other issues: Half of Moore’s supporters say they are backing him mainly because they want a senator who will cast conservative votes in the Senate, rather than because they think Moore is the best person for the job.

The poll also found 49 percent of Moore voters say their Senate vote is in support of President Trump, and 23 percent of Moore voters say the president’s comments about the race, specifically, have made them more likely to back Moore.

Among all registered voters, the president has a 57 percent approval rating in the state. Among Moore’s voters, it is an astounding 96 percent approval.

Doug Jones does not appear to be drawing many crossover Republicans, which he would almost surely need in order to gain ground. Only 9 percent of Republicans say they’re voting for him.

More than eight in Republicans are planning to vote for Moore, and a higher number of Moore’s backers call themselves definite voters than do Jones’ backers.

Looking for signs of what could happen in the final week, the race could still change, as 12 percent of Republicans say they could change their minds. Moore, in turn, could potentially benefit from voters who say they’re unsure about their vote choice or backing “someone else” at the moment, as this group looks like they’re usually Republican: two-thirds voted for Donald Trump in 2016.

Alabama remains a deeply conservative state: most registered voters believe that abortion should be illegal (58 percent) and that same-sex marriage should not be legal (56 percent). Moore draws nearly nine in 10 voters who believe abortion should be illegal. Only 19 percent of registered voters call themselves liberal.

Mitch McConnell has backed off his criticism and now says that it’s up to the people of Alabama. If Moore wins, and he likely will, I can hardly wait to see all these Republicans including the president welcome this freak into the fold. They are now officially the underage pussy grabbing party. Woo hoo.

.

Mr Popularby digby

Trump's been below 40% for over six months. Previous 9 elected polling-era presidents combined spent under two months below 40% during first *two* years.— Jonathan Bernstein (@jbview) December 3, 2017

All Trump fun facts via wonderful 538 estimates. https://t.co/du1mwrxD7o

BTW that's ~ a week of Clinton and six weeks of Carter.— Jonathan Bernstein (@jbview) December 3, 2017

Just saying.

If we had a parliamentary system like every other advanced country this government would have fallen and we’d be having a new election. Instead, our wonderful system is allowing his rabid minority to enact an extremist agenda while the majority has to watch helplessly, waiting for the next scheduled election.

.

Politics and Reality Radio: “Collusion” Author Luke Harding on Trump-Russia; Gary Cohn and Trump’s Goldman Sachs White Housewith Joshua Holland

It’s a two-book show!
This week, we’re joined by The Guardian’s Luke Harding to talk about his new book, Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. We recorded this interview a day before we learned that Trump’s former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Then we welcome the I-Fund’s Gary Rivlin, co-author, with Michael Hudson, of Wall Street’s White House: How Gary Cohn Wrecked the Global Economy and Parlayed It Into a White House Job. The fact that Trump surrounded himself with Goldman Sachs vets highlights the degree to which his populist rhetoric about “America first” and “good jobs” was always just a giant grift.

Playlist:
The Paragons: “The Tide Is High”
Rickey Nelson: “Lonesome Town”

As always, you can also subscribe to the show on iTunes, Soundcloud or Podbean.

.

What it’s like to face the Special Counselby digby

I thought this was a fascinating look inside the Mueller investigation. It doesn’t tell us anything about what they know (other than that they seem to be very interested in Jared Kushner.) It just gives you a flavor of what it’s like to be in the crosshairs of Robert Mueller, who is referred to as a “Sphinx-like figure.”

Once inside, most witnesses are seated in a windowless conference room where two- and three-person teams of FBI agents and prosecutors rotate in and out, pressing them for answers.

Among the topics that have been of keen interest to investigators: how foreign government officials and their emissaries contacted Trump officials, as well as the actions and interplay of Flynn and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.

Mueller’s group has also inquired whether Flynn recommended specific foreign meetings to senior aides, including Kushner. Investigators were particularly interested in how certain foreign officials got on Kushner’s calendar and the discussions that Flynn and Kushner had about those encounters, according to people familiar with the questions.

Often listening in is the special counsel himself, a sphinx-like presence who sits quietly along the wall for portions of key interviews.

This picture of Mueller’s operation — drawn from descriptions of witnesses, lawyers and others briefed on the interviews — provides a rare look inside the high-stakes investigation that could implicate Trump’s circle and determine the future of his presidency.

The locked-down nature of the probe has left both the witnesses and the public scrutinizing every move of the special counsel for meaning, without any certainty about the full scope of his investigation.

[…]

At least two dozen people who traveled in Trump’s orbit in 2016 and 2017 — on the campaign trail, in his transition operation and then in the White House — have been questioned in the past 10 weeks, according to people familiar with the interviews.

The most high profile is Kushner, who met with Mueller’s team in November, as well as former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former press secretary Sean Spicer. Former foreign policy adviser J.D. Gordon has also been interviewed.

White House communications director Hope Hicks was scheduled to sit down with Mueller’s team a few days before Thanksgiving. Mueller’s team has also indicated plans to interview senior associate White House counsel James Burnham and policy adviser Stephen Miller.

McGahn, who was interviewed by Mueller’s prosecutors for a full day Thursday, was scheduled to return Friday to complete his interview. However, the special counsel postponed the session as a courtesy to allow McGahn to help the White House manage the response to Flynn’s plea, a person familiar with the interview said.

Cobb declined to say which White House aides remain to be interviewed.

Several people who worked shoulder to shoulder with Flynn have also been interviewed by Mueller’s operation. That includes retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, the chief of staff to the National Security Council, as well as several people who worked with Flynn Intel Group, a now-shuttered private consulting firm.

[…]

People who have gone before Mueller’s team describe polite but detailed and intense grillings that at times have lasted all day and involved more than a dozen investigators. Spicer, for example, was in the office from about 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. for his fall session. Mueller’s team has recommended nearby lunch spots, but many witnesses have food brought in for fear of being spotted if they go outside.

Mueller has attended some interviews, introducing himself to witnesses when he enters and then sitting along the wall. Sometimes he is joined by his deputy, longtime friend and law partner James Quarles, a former Watergate prosecutor who is the main point of contact for the White House.

Investigators bring large binders filled with emails and documents into the interview room. One witness described the barrage of questions that followed each time an agent passed them a copy of an email they had been copied on: “Do you remember this email? How does the White House work? How does the transition work? Who was taking the lead on foreign contacts? How did that work? Who was involved in this decision? Who was there that weekend?”

Some witnesses were introduced to so many federal agents and lawyers that they later lamented that they had largely forgotten many of their names by the time one team left the room and a new team entered.

“They say, ‘Hey, we’re not trying to be rude, but people are going to come in and out a lot,’ ” one witness explained about the teams. “They kind of cycle in and out of the room.”

One contingent of investigators is focused on whether Trump tried to obstruct justice and head off the investigation into Russian meddling by firing Comey in May. Prosecutors Brandon Van Grack and Jeannie Rhee have been involved in matters related to Flynn.

Yet another team is led by the former head of the Justice Department’s fraud prosecutions, Andrew Weissman, and foreign bribery expert Greg Andres. Those investigators queried lobbyists from some of the most powerful lobby shops in town about their interactions with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign adviser Rick Gates.

Mueller’s team charged Manafort and Gates last month with engaging in a conspiracy to hide millions of dollars in foreign accounts and secretly creating an elaborate cover story to conceal their lobbying work for a former Ukrainian president and his pro-Russian political party. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Lawyers familiar with prosecutors’ questions about Manafort said they expect several more charges to come from this portion of the case.

People familiar with the Mueller team said they convey a sense of calm that is unsettling.

“These guys are confident, impressive, pretty friendly — joking a little, even,” one lawyer said. When prosecutors strike that kind of tone, he said, defense lawyers tend to think: “Uh oh, my guy is in a heap of trouble.”

I wouldn’t want to have to face them. And I would guess that it’s very unwise to lie to them although knowing the motley crew around Trump it’s probable that some did.

I don’t have big expectations for this probe. They may be able to prove Trump obstructed justice but the Republicans would have to vote to impeach him and they are supporting known pedophiles for office these days so I can’t imagine they care at all about that. Just as Trump said not paying any taxes on his millions would “make me smart”, they would surely believe that obstructing justice would be just as brilliant.

.

“Restoring confidence”
by digby

We’d all wondered why this guy was demoted and now we know.

Special counsel Robert Mueller removed a senior FBI official from his team in the Russia probe after learning of anti-Trump text messages that could be used to undermine the investigation’s credibility, The Washington Post reports. Citing several sources familiar with the situation, the report says Peter Strzok, the former deputy head of counter-intelligence at the FBI, was taken off the investigation this summer over text message exchanges with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and was also working with Mueller. The pair, who were reportedly having an affair, had exchanged a series of text messages throughout both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the ongoing probe into possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Multiple sources cited in the report said these messages revealed an obvious anti-Trump bias on both sides, which Mueller feared could be used by the president’s supporters in Congress to challenge the findings of the Russia investigation. Strzok was subsequently demoted to a job in human resources, while Page left Mueller’s team in July, before the text messages surfaced, according to the report.

Republicans are having a fit over this like it means the investigation is tainted when it actually means the opposite. Personally, I think this makes Strzok an eminently reasonable, trustworthy person but that’s just me. Mueller did the right thing. He got rid of him. That should Not that it seems to matter.

Here’s Sessions:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has recused himself from matters relating to the Russia investigation, said in a statement that if proven to be true the agent’s actions “would raise serious questions of public trust.”

“My job is to restore confidence in the Department of Justice in all aspects of our work and I intend to do so,” said Sessions, whose recusal following revelations that he had failed to disclose meetings with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S effectively paved the way for the appointment of Mueller as special counsel.

“As such, I have directed that the FBI Director review the information available on this and other matters and promptly make any necessary changes to his management and investigative teams consistent with the highest professional standards.”

And here comes Trump screeching like a madman on twitter this morning:

.

Don’t tell Daddyby digby

Our president is a bad seed:

Chief of Staff John Kelly over the past five months has imposed discipline and rigorous protocols on a freewheeling White House. But President Donald Trump has found the loopholes.

The president on occasion has called White House aides to the private residence in the evening, where he makes assignments and asks them not tell Mr. Kelly about the plans, according to several people familiar with the matter. At least once, aides have declined to carry out the requested task so as not to run afoul of Mr. Kelly, one of these people said.

The president, who values counsel from an informal group of confidants outside the White House, also sometimes bypasses the normal scheduling for phone calls that give other White House staff, including Mr. Kelly, some control and influence over who the president talks to and when.

Instead, some of his friends have taken to calling Melania Trump and asking her to pass messages to her husband, according to two people familiar with the matter. They say that since she arrived in the White House from New York in the summer, the first lady has taken on a more central role as a political adviser to the president.

“If I don’t want to wait 24 hours for a call from the president, getting to Melania is much easier,” one person said.

A spokeswoman for Mrs. Trump said: “This is more fake news and these are more anonymous sources peddling things that just aren’t true. The First Lady is focused on her own work in the East Wing.” The White House declined to provide comment.

Mr. Kelly has frequently said that it is his job to control the White House below the president, rather than the president himself. The president’s penchant for what one confidant dubbed “workarounds” to the new White House protocols shows the limits of Mr. Kelly’s approach.

“John has been successful at putting in place a stronger chain of command in the White House, requiring people to go through him to get to the Oval Office,” said Leon Panetta, a White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton who worked with Mr. Kelly, a four-star Marine general, in the Department of Defense. “The problem has always been whether or not the president is going to accept better discipline in the way he operates. He’s been less successful at that.”

[…]

Since arriving in July, Mr. Kelly has clamped down on a number of practices that aides say made the White House’s internal operations chaotic in the first several months of the Trump presidency. He has told staff there will be no more patching through calls from Trump friends outside the White House who wanted to weigh in on the news; instead they would need appointments. And he stopped aides from wandering into the Oval Office to try to get time with the president.

Mr. Kelly has never aspired to control the president’s Twitter feed, however, which continues to create news, promote the president’s agenda and draw criticism. Just last week, Mr. Trump’s tweets prompted top congressional Democrats to cancel a meeting to discuss the looming deadline for a deal to avoid a government shutdown. He also​ drew a rebuke from British Prime Minister Theresa May for retweeting videos posted by a far-right British nationalist group that purported to show violence committed by Muslims.

On Nov. 12, with many of Mr. Trump’s senior military and diplomatic advisers arguing for diplomacy with North Korea, the president tweeted that the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, was “short and fat.” Asked about the tweet, posted during the president’s trip to Asia, Mr. Kelly shrugged.

“Believe it or not—I don’t follow the tweets,” he said, adding that he urges White House policy staff not to be influenced by the missives and does not himself use Twitter. “We develop policy in the normal traditional staff way.”

Those who have watched the two men interact said their personalities are too different to ever be very close. “Kelly is too much of a general, and Trump is too much Trump,” one White House official said. But Mr. Trump continues to hold Mr. Kelly in high regard, these people say. He frequently calls out Mr. Kelly during his public appearances.

At a briefing on Hurricane Maria relief efforts in Puerto Rico earlier in the fall, Mr. Trump noted Mr. Kelly’s presence in the back of the room.

“He likes to keep a low profile; Look at him sitting in the back,” Mr. Trump continued. “But, boy, is he watching—you have no idea.”

Daddy’s so mean. But don’t worry, sonny boy can figure out how to get around him. He’s smart. He has a good brain.

.

Lock himup for jokingby digby

So, President Obama alluded vaguely to Trump twweting without ever saying his name and Lou Dobbs wants him arrested:

Someone asked Obama about recent comments made by his wife, Michelle, in Toronto: The former first lady said it was never a good idea to “tweet from bed,” a not-so-subtle commentary on Trump’s early-morning social media habits.

In New Delhi, her husband agreed.

“Michelle was giving the general idea. … Don’t say the first thing that pops in your head. Have a little bit of an edit function,” he said. “Think before you speak. Think before you tweet.”

This will not stand:

Before he left office, Barack Obama said his goal was to steer clear of the political spotlight — as George W. Bush had done when he left the White House — giving the new president room to govern without Obama’s shouldering into every debate with the megaphone that being a former commander in chief affords.

But a Fox Business commentator said Obama violated that unwritten rule with a recent comment about Trump’s tweets. What’s more, according to Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, that violation should merit arrest.

“I think U.S. marshals should follow [Obama], and anytime he wants to go follow the president like he is and behave [like that],” Dobbs said on his show Friday. “I mean, this is just bad manners. It’s boorish and it’s absurd and he doesn’t realize how foolish he looks.”

“I mean, he should be brought back by the marshals. Isn’t there some law that says presidents shouldn’t be attacking sitting presidents?”

No, no there isn’t.

.

We are in the middle of 5th Avenue
by Tom Sullivan

Citizen Trump boasted, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” As president, he walked yesterday afternoon, figuratively, into the middle of 5th Avenue and shot off a tweet as much as admitting he obstructed justice in firing former FBI director James Comey.

I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2017

Flynn pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn might have faced multiple charges. The single felony plea deal strongly suggests he had much more to tell Robert Mueller’s investigators about the Trump team’s dealings with Russia during the presidential campaign.

Yesterday’s tweet created such consternation in the White House that John Dowd, Trump’s personal lawyer, told news agencies that he had drafted it, only sloppily. In the first person. In the president’s voice.

After the president’s digital outburst on Saturday, Democratic congressman Rep. Ted Lieu of California responded in all caps, “THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.” Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer during President George W. Bush’s administration, tweeted that the sitting president “could be Tweeting himself into an obstruction of justice conviction.”

Jeffrey Toobin concurs at The New Yorker, writing, “In sum, on the basis of the publicly available evidence, the case against Trump for obstruction of justice is more than plausible. Most perilously for the President, Flynn may know what Trump has to hide.”

The problem is one of timing, writes Aaron Blake for the Washington Post:

The day after Trump fired Flynn, on Feb. 14, Trump urged then-FBI Director James B. Comey to be lenient with Flynn, according to Comey’s notes at the time, saying, “I hope you can let this go.” If Trump knew at that time that Flynn had lied to the FBI and was under investigation, the argument goes, it may constitute an attempt to obstruct that investigation.

Walter Shaub, the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, suggested the tweet could prove a major misstep for the president and even that it might have cost any other president his job.

And there’s the rub. This is not any other president. This is Dear Leader in a cult of personality that will defend him for shooting someone down in broad daylight in the middle of 5th Avenue, and whose enablers in Congress will stand behind so long as he can grasp a pen.

But after Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick’s asked on Friday, “What if they threw a conviction and nobody came?” it seems prudent not to put too much faith in the strength of institutions that seem toothless in the #TrumpRepublic . Lithwick wonders “whether we’re being trained to abandon our steadfast belief that the rule of law will save us, or if we’re being taught to cling to the illusory protections of the law as it becomes just another on a long list of anachronisms.”

Those institutions have been eroding for some time at the hands of a ruling class that demands, as does the president, immunity from common law, from accountability for looting the commons and preying upon the weak, and from membership in the community at large. The very foundations upon which law and society have been constructed since the Charter of the Forest hang in the balance. As exemplified by Trump the First, the ruling class has, as Matt Taibbi once cautioned, trained followers to go “into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the field…. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger.” Taibbi wrote at the beginning of the T-party movement, “Actual rich people can’t ever be the target.” Or blameworthy.

The sad irony, if not our salvation, is while our weakened institutions may no longer be reliable, the one thing we can count on is for Trump to be Trump.

The sitting president had the right to remain silent. Just not self-control.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Best BR re-issues of 2017 Pt.1 
By Dennis Hartley 

If you’re looking for a stocking stuffer for your favorite cinephile here’s a good place to start. More coming next week. 

Being There (Criterion Collection) – For my money, the late director Hal Ashby was the quintessential embodiment of the new American cinema movement of the 1970s. Beginning in 1970, he bracketed the decade with an astonishing seven film streak: The Landlord, Harold and Maude, The Last Detail (reviewed below), Shampoo, Bound for Glory, Coming Home, and this 1979 masterpiece. Adapted from Jerzy Kosinki’s novel by frequent Ashby collaborator Robert C. Jones (who was uncredited…a hitherto unknown tidbit revealed in an extra feature), it’s a wry political fable about how a simpleton (Peter Sellers, in one of his greatest performances) literally stumbles his way into becoming a Washington D.C. power player within an alarmingly short period of time. Only in America! Richly drawn, finely layered, at once funny and sad (but never in a broad manner). Superbly acted by all, from the leads (Sellers, Melvyn Douglas, Shirley MacLaine, Jack Warden, Richard Dysart) down to the smallest supporting roles (a special mention for the wonderful Ruth Attaway). Like Sidney Lumet’s Network, this film only seems to become more vital with age. The Trump parallels are numerous enough; but one scene where Sellers meets with the Russian ambassador (a great cameo by Richard Basehart) has now taken on a whole new (and downright spooky) relevancy. Criterion’s Blu-ray features a beautiful 4K restoration and a plethora of enlightening extra features.

Fat City (Powerhouse Films) – John Huston’s gritty, low-key character study was a surprise hit at Cannes in 1972. Adapted by Leonard Gardner from his own novel, it’s a tale of shattered dreams, desperate living and beautiful losers (Gardner seems to be the missing link between John Steinbeck and Charles Bukowski). Filmed on location in Stockton, California, the story centers on a boozy, low-rent boxer well past his prime (Stacey Keach), who becomes a mentor to a young up-and-comer (Jeff Bridges) and starts a relationship with a fellow barfly (Susan Tyrell). Like most character studies, this film chugs along at the speed of life (i.e., not a lot “happens”), but the performances are so well fleshed out you easily forget you’re witnessing “acting”. One scene in particular, in which Keach and Tyrell’s characters first hook up in a sleazy bar, is a veritable masterclass in the craft. Granted, it’s one of the most depressing films you’ll ever see (think Barfly meets The Wrestler), but still well worth your time. Masterfully directed by Huston, with “lived-in” natural light photography by DP Conrad Hall. You will be left haunted by Kris Kristofferson’s “Help Me Make it Through the Night”, which permeates the film. The print is beautifully restored, and extras include new interviews with the cast.

The Last Detail  (Powerhouse Films) – Hal Ashby’s 1973 comedy-drama set the bar pretty high for all “buddy films” to follow (and to this day, few can touch it). Jack Nicholson heads a superb cast, as “Bad-Ass” Buddusky, a career Navy man who is assigned (along with a fellow Shore Patrol officer, played by Otis Young) to escort a first-time offender (Randy Quaid) to the brig in Portsmouth. Chagrinned to learn that the hapless young swabbie has been handed an overly-harsh sentence for a relatively petty crime, Buddusky decides that they should at least show “the kid” a good time on his way to the clink (much to his fellow SP’s consternation). Episodic “road movie”
misadventures ensue. Don’t expect a Hollywood-style “wacky” comedy; as he did in all of his films, Ashby keeps it real. The suitably briny dialog was adapted by Robert Towne from Daryl Ponicsan’s novel; and affords Nicholson some of his most iconic line readings (“I AM the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker!”). Nicholson and Towne were teamed up again the following year via Roman Polanski’s Chinatown. This edition sports a fabulous 4K restoration (the audio is cleaned up too, crucial for a dialog-driven piece like this). Loads of extras-including a sanitized TV cut of the film, just for giggles.

The Loved One  (Warner Archive Collection) – In 1965, this black comedy/social satire was billed as “The motion picture with something to offend everyone.” By today’s standards, it’s relatively tame (but still pretty sick). Robert Morse plays a befuddled Englishman struggling to process the madness of southern California, where he has come for an extended visit at the invitation of his uncle (Sir John Gielgud) who works for a Hollywood studio. Along the way, he falls in love with a beautiful but mentally unstable mortuary cosmetician (Anjanette Comer), gets a job at a pet cemetery, and basically reacts to all the various whack-jobs he encounters. The wildly eclectic cast includes Jonathan Winters (in three roles), Robert Morley, Roddy McDowell, Milton Berle, James Coburn, Libarace, Paul Williams and Rod Steiger (as Mr. Joyboy!). Tony Richardson directed; the screenplay was adapted by Terry Southern and Christopher Isherwood from Evelyn Waugh’s novel. No extras on this edition, but the high-definition transfer is good.

Man Facing Southeast  (Kino-Lorber) – I originally caught this 1986 sleeper from Argentina on Cinemax 30 years ago and have been longing to see it again ever since. Kino-Lorber’s Blu-ray edition signals the film’s first domestic availability in a digital format. Writer-director Eliseo Subiela’s drama is a deceptively simple tale of a mysterious mental patient (Hugo Soto) who no one on staff at the facility where he is housed can seem to remember admitting. Yet, there he is; a soft-spoken yet oddly charismatic young man who claims to be an extra-terrestrial, sent to Earth to save humanity from themselves. He develops a complex relationship with the head psychiatrist (Lorenzo Quinteros) who becomes fascinated with his case. While primarily sold as a “sci-fi” tale, this one is tough to pigeonhole; part fable, part family drama, part Christ allegory (think King of Hearts meets The Day the Earth Stood Still). Beautiful, powerful, and touching. Extras include interviews with Subiela, Soto, and DP Ricardo de Angelis. 

Metropolis  (Eureka; Region “B”) – Japanese director Rintaro’s visually resplendent 2001 anime is based on Osama Tezuka’s manga reimagining of Fritz Lang’s 1927 silent film classic. The narrative (adapted by Akira director Katsuhiro Otomo) is framed as a detective story (not unlike Blade Runner), with a PI and his nephew attempting to unravel the mystery of Tima, a fugitive robot girl who has become a pawn in a byzantine conspiracy involving a powerful and corrupt family that rules Metropolis. Intelligent writing, imaginative production design and beautifully realized animation make this a must-see. Extras include interviews with cast and crew, and a “making of” documentary.

Multiple Maniacs  (Criterion Collection) – Warning: This 1970 trash classic from czar of bad taste John Waters is definitely not for the pious, easily offended or the faint of heart. A long out-of-print VHS edition aside, it has been conspicuously absent from home video…until now. Thank (or blame) The Criterion Collection, who have meticulously restored the film back to all of its original B&W 16mm glory (well, almost…there’s grumbling from purists about the “new” music soundtrack, reportedly precipitated by the prohibitive costs of securing music rights for some of the tracks that were “borrowed” by Waters for his original cut). The one and only Divine heads the cast of “Dreamland” players who would become Waters’ faithful repertory for years (Edith Massey, Mink Stole, David Lochary, etc.) in a tale of mayhem, perversity, filth and blasphemy too shocking to discuss in mixed company (you’ll never see a Passion Play in quite the same way). Flippancy aside for a moment, watching this the other day for the first time in several decades, I was suddenly struck by the similarities with the contemporaneous films of Rainier Werner Fassbinder (Love is Colder than Death and Gods of the Plague in particular). Once you get past its inherent shock value, Multiple Maniacs is very much an American art film. Extras include a typically hilarious commentary track with Waters.

Ocean Waves  (Universal Studios Home Entertainment) – This 1993 anime is one of the last remaining “stragglers” from Japan’s Studio Ghibli vaults to make a belated (and most welcome) debut on Blu-ray (it was previously only available on PAL-DVD). Adapted by Kaori Nakamura from Saeko Himruo’s novel, and directed by Tomomi Mochizuki, it concerns a young man who returns to his home town for a high school reunion, which triggers a flood of memories about all the highs and lows of his adolescent years. It’s similar in tone to another Ghibli film, Only Yesterday, which is also takes a humanistic look at the universality of growing pains. On a sliding scale, this may be one of Ghibli’s “lesser” films, but the studio has set a pretty high bar for itself, and it will certainly please Ghibli completists (who, me?). Extras are scant, but the hi-definition transfer is lovely.

Seven Days in May (Warner Archive Collection) – This 1964 “conspiracy a-go go” thriller was director John Frankenheimer’s follow-up to The Manchurian Candidate (the cold war paranoia force was strong in him!). Picture if you will: a screenplay by Rod Serling, adapted from a novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II. Kirk Douglas plays a Marine colonel who is the adjutant to a hawkish, hard right-leaning general (Burt Lancaster) who heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The general is at loggerheads with the dovish President (Fredric March), who is perceived by the general and some of the other joint chiefs as a “weak sister” for his strident support of nuclear disarmament. When Douglas begins to suspect that an imminent, unusually secretive military “exercise” may in fact portend more sinister intentions, he is torn between his loyalty to the general and his loyalty to the country as to whether he should raise the alarm. Or is he just being paranoid? An intelligently scripted and well-acted nail-biter, right down to the end. Also with Ava Gardner, Edmund O’Brien, and Martin Balsam. No extras, but a great transfer.

They Live By Night (Criterion Collection) – This 1949 film noir/progenitor of the “lovers on the lam” genre marked the directing debut for the great Nicholas Ray. Adapted by Ray and Charles Schnee from Edward Anderson’s Thieves Like Us (the same source novel that inspired Robert Altman’s eponymous 1974 film), this Depression-era tale concerns the unexpected and intense mutual attraction that sparks between a young escaped convict (Farley Granger) and a sheltered young woman (Cathy O’Donnell). The young lovers’ primal drive to meaningfully connect with someone who truly “gets” them clouds the illogic of expecting to play house when one of them is a wanted fugitive. In a fashion, the film presages Ray’s 1955 social drama Rebel Without a Cause more so than it does his later noirs like In a Lonely Place and On Dangerous Ground, with its shared themes of young outcasts, adolescent confusion, and doomed love. Moody, atmospheric and surprisingly sensual for its time (it doesn’t hurt that Granger and O’Donnell are both so beautiful). Criterion’s 2K restoration lends depth to the shadows and light of George E. Diskant’s cinematography. Extras include commentary by “Czar of Noir” Eddie Muller.



More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter




–-Dennis Hartley