Skip to content

Month: February 2018

Ask South Vietnam by @BloggersRUs

Ask South Vietnam
by Tom Sullivan

The GOP’s 2011 gerrymandering of North Carolina’s congressional districts flipped me from NC-11 into NC-10. Subsequent court rulings forced new maps, not only for congressional seats, but for some state House and Senate districts as well. It meant that in the March 2016 primary, I voted in NC-10, but by Election Day 2016, I’d been whipsawed back into NC-11. That map is still under challenge. There’s no telling where — without ever moving — I’ll be voting this November.

But time has all but run out for another congressional district redraw before November 2018. Meaning, similar to how Senate Republicans ran out the clock on Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Republican legislators in North Carolina will have held onto their gerrymandered congressional map for almost the full ten-year cycle.

North Carolina is hardly alone.

Axios provides a summary of where various gerrymandering challenges stand across the country:

Wisconsin

The latest: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case this spring.

The backdrop: Wisconsin Republicans appealed a lower-court ruling that struck down the legislative map drawn in 2011 citing that it was unconstitutional because it’s heavily skewed in their favor. The court later ordered the state to draw a new map by Nov. 2017, a request the U.S. Supreme Court blocked when it agreed to hear the case last year.

Why it matters: If the justices uphold a lower court ruling challenging the State Assembly Districts, this would be the first time the Supreme Court strikes down a voting map on the grounds of partisan gerrymandering.

Maryland

The latest: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a partisan gerrymandering case on March 28. A decision is expected by June.

The backdrop: The case centers on the 6th congressional district, which was redrawn in 2011 to include parts of the heavily Democratic Montgomery County. ​While Republican voters argue that the Democratic-controlled legislature is unfairly drawn, three judges ruled against the plaintiffs’ request to discontinue the use of the current map ahead of the 2018 midterm election.

Why it matters: This is the only redistricting legal battle filed against Democrats. Republicans there said the current map has diluted their votes and cost an incumbent his seat.​

The Axios post goes on. It’s shocking to see the cases all lined up in one place. Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan. With the exception of Maryland (noted above), all the cases stem from the Republicans’ successful REDMAP effort in 2010 to gain control of state legislatures and the post-2010 census redistricting (emphasis mine):

The idea behind redmap was to hit the Democrats at their weakest point. In several state legislatures, Democratic majorities were thin. If the Republicans commissioned polls, brought in high-powered consultants, and flooded out-of-the-way districts with ads, it might be possible to flip enough seats to take charge of them. Then, when it came time to draw the new lines, the G.O.P. would be in control.

David Levdansky expected another “picnics-and-handshakes” campaign in 2010. Instead, outside groups flooded his Pennsylvania House of Representatives district south of Pittsburgh with inflammatory and false flyers attacking him for “increasing taxes by a billion dollars” and alleging he voted “to waste $600 million taxpayer dollars and build an Arlen Specter library.”

Rebutting the cascade of lies was fruitless. The thirteen-term Democrat lost by 151 votes.

NC state Senator John Snow, a Democrat in the far western mountains of North Carolina, faced a blizzard of mailers from three groups backed by Art Pope. One of them, Jane Mayer recounted for The New Yorker, was “reminiscent of the Willie Horton ad that became notorious during the 1988 Presidential campaign.”

Snow saw $800,000 from outside groups flung his way and lost by 161 votes in a district spanning eight counties.

After gaining control of state legislatures in the 2010 elections, Republicans began furiously packing and cracking.

UC Irvine’s Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) called the North Carolina gerrymander “the most brazen and egregious” case in the country, with Republican legislators admitting what they’d done and arguing it was legal. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court agreeing to hear both the Wisconsin (Gill v. Whitford) and Maryland (Benisek v. Lamone) cases first is significant. “It could also be that Gill finds partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable,” Hasen wrote in December, “but leaves certain issues open, issues which the Court then must resolve in Benisek.” Or else (a reader suggested) “they want to hear a challenge to a Democratic gerrymander in addition to the Wisconsin Republican gerrymander.” That might appeal to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Should the court find partisan gerrymanders unconstitutional, Republican legislative majorities will have to look for new ways rig elections in their favor, and they will.

For readers who have followed this post every morning, the point is that mid-term elections matter. Local (even rural) state-level elections matter, to Republicans if not to citified progressive activists. Democrats across the country were caught napping in 2010 and the rest is history. They relied too long on coattails from higher-profile national and statewide races to elect their candidates in rural and/or marginal districts outside their bright-blue urban strongholds, and allowed opponents free rein in the countryside. Ask South Vietnam how well that worked.

If on the other hand Democrats believe an advanced ground game might have scraped together a couple of hundred votes among eight under-resourced counties, and if they want to win back state legislatures by 2020, there is a link below worth following.

* * * * * * * *

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

The CPAC boys and girls have made their choice

The CPAC boys and girls have made their choice

by digby

They’ve decided on their “favorite” Democrats in 2020. They figure the following will be the easiest for Trump to beat:

According to a very unofficial straw poll conducted Thursday and Friday morning, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts emerged as the potential challenger CPAC “voters” believe Trump would most assuredly outlast. 

After Warren, the leading vote-getters were:
2. Oprah Winfrey (10)
3. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey (9)
4. (tie) Hillary Clinton (7), Sen. Bernie Sanders (7)
6. Sen. Kamala Harris (6)
7. Rep. Maxine Waters of California (5)
8. Former Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota (4)
9. (tie) Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (2), Utah Senate candidate Mitt Romney* (2)
11. Former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia

You can see what most of those people have in common I’m sure. These folks have never heard of subtlety.

My favorite comments in the article were that they didn’t think most of these people had the “experience” to be president. And they are all Trump fanatics, the most ignorant, ill-equipped, unfit person to ever hold the office.

Honestly, it must be something in the envelope glue these Republicans use that turns them into blithering fools.

.

Politics and Reality Radio with Joshua Holland: arming teachers and Medicare for all

Politics and Reality Radio: Former SWAT Operator Says Trump’s Call to Arm Teachers Is Ridiculous; A Different Approach to Medicare for All


with Joshua Holland

This week, Donald Trump repeatedly called for arming teachers. It’s his Big Idea to contain gun violence, despite the fact that all mass shootings, on and off of school campuses, represented only around 3 percent of gun homicides last year. We kick off our show by talking to someone who knows a thing or two about facing off against armed bad hombres, and who says the idea is nothing short of silly. David Chipman served as a member of the ATF’s Special Response Teams — the agency’s equivalent of SWAT — and now serves as a senior policy advocate at the Giffords Campaign.

Then we’ll speak with Topher Spiro, senior fellow for health policy at the Center for American Progress, about CAP’s new proposal for a universal health care system called Medicare Extra for All.

Finally, we’ll be joined by Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, to discuss corporate America’s efforts to pay Republicans back for the windfall it received in the tax bill with a wave of propopaganda designed to hoodwink the public into thinking that the cuts are trickling down into their paychecks.

Playlist:
Gorillaz: “Fire Coming Out of the Monkey’s Head”
Earl: “Tongue Tied”
The Beatles: “Hello Little Girl”
Moby: “Down Slow”

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

ICYMI: me this week

ICYMI: me this week

by digby

Once again, I thought I’d link to all my Salon columns for the week for those who have lives and are just catching up:

If democracy makes a comeback, suburban women will lead it

Trump’s source of inspiration? Paul Manafort’s dark deeds and dubious clients

Donald Trump Jr.’s Indian vacation: The family cash-grab continues

Trump begins to face the truth on Russia — with a new round of lies

Who’s in charge of the classified intelligence about Trump? Trump. It’s a problem

.

February 25, 1968

February 25, 1968

by digby

I don’t know why it just occurred to me that it’s been 50 years exactly since 1968. I have to assume there have been a thousand navel gazing essays that I’ve missed. It’s all ancient history now, of course.

But it’s interesting that we are in something of a similar situation today with the left fired up, a burgeoning youth movement, civil rights and equality at the center of our politics —- and shootings. Always the shootings. We don’t have big war (yet) thank God. (1968 would have 16,899 Americans killed in South Vietnam.) Today we have different threats, with climate change, a rising global far right movement and an information sea change that’s challenging the very concept of reality. But Americans have divided in the same way on either side of those threats. We always do.

Anyway, I was reminded by Professor Peter Dreier via email today of an event that took place on this day back in 1968 and he graciously allowed me to reproduce it here:

I’m shocked that the media (mainstream and left) overlooked this important milestone in American musical and political history. Fifty years ago today (February 25, 1968) Pete Seeger sang the controversial anti-war song “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy” on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour show on CBS. Pete had been blacklisted from network television since the 1950s because of his leftist politics, so for the Smothers brothers to invite him to sing on their popular show — much less to sing a powerful anti-war song in the midst of the Vietnam war — was an act of courage. 

What made Pete’s appearance on February 25, 1968 controversial was that he had performed “Big Muddy” on the Smothers Brothers show the previous September, but CBS refused to broadcast it and removed it from the tape. An angry Tom Smothers made sure that the story of the censorship appeared in the media. Because of the bad press, an outcry among the public, and probably because the Vietnam War had become even more unpopular, the Smothers Brothers were allowed to invite Seeger back later in the season, when he again sang “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy,” which was clearly metaphor for the Vietnam war. 

Pete first sang a medley of anti-war song, then launched into “Big Muddy.” Here’s a video of Pete’s performance 50 years ago today: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHETC5qAnqo. For those unfamiliar with Pete’s political and musical story, here’s my tribute to him, published in The Nation after he died in 2014: https://www.thenation.com/article/pete-seeger-brought-world-together/

.

Trump TV loves their Dear Leader so, so much

Trump TV loves their Dear Leader so, so much

by digby

Meanwhile in the real world:

President Donald Trump’s approval rating in a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS stands at 35%, down five points over the last month to match his lowest level yet.

The slide follows a January bump in approval for the President, a finding that appeared connected to a bullish stock market and strong reviews for the economy. His new rating matches a December poll, which marked his lowest approval rating in CNN polling since taking office in January 2017.
The President also earns his lowest rating yet among Republicans, though he is still viewed positively among his own partisans. Overall, 80% of self-identified Republicans say they approve of the President, one point below his previous low mark of 81%, hit in late September of last year. Just 13% of Republicans say they disapprove of the President’s performance. Approval for the President stands at just 5% among Democrats and 35% among independents.

Also:

As President Trump sends mixed signals about what he’ll support when it comes to gun legislation, his approval rating has fallen to its lowest level in the USA TODAY survey since he was inaugurated last year. Just 38% now approve of the job he’s doing as president; 60% disapprove.

That’s a steep drop from the president’s standing one year ago, in March 2017, soon after his first address to Congress had received good reviews. Then, 47% expressed approval, a high-water mark for him in the poll; 44% expressed disapproval.

What’s more, the intensity of feeling is hardening against the president. Now, the percentage who “strongly disapprove” of him is more than double the percentage who “strongly approve,” 39% compared with 16%.

.

Step by step…inch by inch… by @BloggersRUs

Step by step…inch by inch…
by Tom Sullivan

Some unexpected snark this morning from the New York Times’ Peter Baker regarding the walls slowly closing in on the Oval Office:

WASHINGTON — In a fiery speech to supporters on Friday, President Trump went after his vanquished opponent from 2016. “We had a crooked candidate,” he declared. The crowd responded with a signature chant from the campaign trail: “Lock her up!”

About three hours later and 10 miles to the north, Mr. Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman, who helped put him in the White House, arrived at a federal courthouse in Washington to plead guilty to being crooked and face the prospect that the authorities will now lock him up.

The Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election so far has yielded 100 criminal counts against 19 people and three companies. The guilty plea on Friday by Rick Gates, Donald Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman mentioned above, adds to the count of former Trump associates facing more than chants.

“When you put that all together, the White House should be extremely worried,” Benjamin Wittes told the Times. Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare.

In what Axios calls the “War of the Memos,” minority Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Saturday released their memo rebutting the claims of Rep. Devin Nunes’ memo. Released in January, the Nunes memo alleged FBI misfeasance or worse in their FISA-approved surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The memo attempted to delegitimize the Russia investigation as well as the FBI itself. Much of the hue and cry from Republicans centered on Nunes’ allegations that the Steele dossier assembled as paid opposition research against Trump “formed an essential part” in the bureau obtaining warrants from the court.

The Democrats’ rebuttal counters that prior to obtaining the dossier the FBI had reason to believe Carter Page was “knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities.” Indeed, Page had been on the FBI’s radar since 2013 when the agency indicted several Russian spies who had targeted Page for recruitment.

The memo contains little not already known, Marcy Wheeler notes. But it adds an important piece of information about the Russian outreach via Joseph Mifsud to Trump adviser George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos has already pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with people working with the Russian. Wheeler cites this passage from the Democrats’ memo:

George Papadopoulos revealed [redacted] that individuals linked to Russia, who took interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late April 2016 that Russia [two lines redacted]. Papadopoulos’s disclosure, moreover, occurred against the backdrop of Russia’s aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos’s plea that the information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary Clinton emails.

Wheeler writes:

While the description of what Papadopoulos said is redacted, the context makes it clear (as does this Adam Schiff tweet) that Papadopoulos didn’t tell Downer specifically what Russia had told him was available, only that they could release it to help Trump.

But that Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians were thinking of releasing it to help Trump is news, important news. It means the discussions of setting up increasingly senior levels of meetings between Russia and the Trump campaign took place against the offer of help in the form of released kompromat.

Which, particularly given the evidence that Papadopoulos shared that information with the campaign, makes the June 9 meeting still more damning.

It is yet more evidence that the Trump campaign went into the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting knowingly hoping to obtain stolen Hillary Clinton emails the Russians were offering in support of the campaign. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were in that meeting. Investigation special counsel Robert Mueller now has Manafort under a microscope.

Former White House Counsel John Dean pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate investigation. He weighed in last night on the pressure Manafort faces:

Replying to Wheeler about whether current White House counsel Don McGahn may face charges in the investigation, Dean acknowledged he could be, “I was not charged rather plead, when I realized what I had done. Before Watergate no one had heard of obstruction, which is no excuse. Stupidity often topped sinester in planning. That will be true here.”

Step by step, Mueller’s investigation gets closer to the Oval Office. But should it yield evidence of direct involvement by the president himself, it seems unlikely any of the president’s associates in the House of Representatives will do anything about it, even with many among the senior staff of the White House facing criminal charges. More than likely, the chants of his supporters to lock up their opponents will grow louder. Whether they simply will sound increasingly pathetic remains to be seen.

If it wasn’t so serious and threat to this fall’s elections, the investigation into Russian election interference in 2016 might resemble an old vaudeville sketch, “Slowly I Turned.” Video here.

* * * * * * * *

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

Run for the shadows: Top 10 Film Noirs By Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5

Saturday Night at the Movies


Run for the shadows: Top 10 Film Noirs

By Dennis Hartley

It’s been a dark week here in Seattle. I actually mean that in a good way. Film noir expert/revivalist Eddie Muller brought his “Noir City” mini-festival to town (sponsored here by SIFF), hosting seven days of screenings at local theaters. Muller’s travelling exhibition gives audiences around the country a chance to catch films from the “classic” noir cycle on the big screen. That’s what got me thinking about my favorite genre entries.

And thinking. And thinking.

This is one of the toughest “top 10” lists I’ve tackled, because I could easily do a “top 100”. Out of the 3700 titles in my personal movie collection (I know…it’s an illness), over 800 fall in the noir/neo-noir/mystery categories. One could say I’m a little obsessed.

I had to narrow it down this way: which noirs have I re-watched the most times? That was the chief criteria behind these selections. So note going in that this is not designed to be my definitive assemblage of the most “historically important”, or “classic” noirs of all time (although several of these titles might be considered as such). These are purely personal favorites, so if this compels you to fire off a “You Philistine! I cannot believe you overlooked [insert title here]!!!” response, your indignation is duly noted beforehand.

One more note. I’m fully aware that most film scholar types generally define the “classic noir cycle” as cynical, darkly atmospheric B&W crime dramas produced between 1940 and 1959; consequently any similar entries going forward automatically get tossed into the “neo” noir bin. That said, there are some (like yours truly) who respectfully argue that the Force remains strong, at least through the mid-1970s. And so it goes. Alphabetically:

Ace in the Hole – Billy Wilder’s 1951 film is one of the bleakest noirs ever made:

Charles Tatum: What’s that big story to get me outta here? […] I’m stuck here, fans. Stuck for good. Unless you, Miss Deverich, instead of writing household hints about how to remove chili stains from blue jeans, get yourself involved in a trunk murder. How about it, Miss Deverich? I could do wonders with your dismembered body.

Miss Deverich: Oh, Mr. Tatum. Really!

Charles Tatum: Or you, Mr. Wendell-if you’d only toss that cigar out the window. Real far…all the way to Los Alamos. And BOOM! (He chuckles) Now there would be a story.

Tatum (played to the hilt by Kirk Douglas) is a cynical big city newspaper reporter who drifts into a small New Mexico burg after burning one too many bridges with his former employers at a New York City daily. Determined to weasel his way back to the top (by any means necessary, as it turns out), he bullies his way into a gig with a local rag, where he impatiently awaits The Big Story that will rocket him back to the metropolitan beat.

He’s being sarcastic when he exhorts his co-workers in the sleepy hick town newsroom to get out there and make some news for him to capitalize on. But the irony in Wilder’s screenplay (co-written by Lesser Samuels and Walter Newman) is that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy for Tatum; in his attempt to purloin and manipulate the scenario of a man trapped in a cave-in into a star-making “exclusive” for himself, it’s Tatum who ultimately becomes The Big Story. Great writing, directing and acting make it a winner.

Chinatown – There are many Deep Thoughts that I have gleaned over the years via repeated viewings of Roman Polanski’s 1974 “sunshine noir”.

Here are my top 3:

1. Either you bring the water to L.A. or you bring L.A. to the water.

2. Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.

3. You may think you know what you’re dealing with, but, believe me, you don’t.

I’ve also learned that if you put together a great director (Polanski), a killer screenplay (by Robert Towne), two lead actors at the top of their game (Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway), an ace cinematographer (John A. Alonzo) and top it off with a perfect music score (by Jerry Goldsmith), you’ll produce a film that deserves to be called a “classic”.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle– This vastly under-appreciated 1973 crime drama/character study from director Peter Yates features one of the last truly great performances from genre icon Robert Mitchum, at his world-weary, sleepy-eyed best as an aging hood. Peter Boyle excels in a low-key performance as a low-rent hit man, as does Richard Jordan, playing a cynical and manipulative Fed. Steven Keats steals all his scenes as a scuzzy black market gun dealer. Paul Monash adapted his screenplay from the novel by George P. Higgins. A tough and lean slice of American neo-realism, enhanced by DP Victor J. Kemper’s gritty, atmospheric use of the autumnal Boston locales.

High and Low – Akira Kurosawa’s 1963 noir, adapted from Ed McBain’s crime thriller King’s Ransom, is so multi-leveled that it almost boggles the mind. Toshiro Mifune is excellent as a CEO who, at the possible risk of losing controlling shares of his own company, takes responsibility for helping to assure the safe return of his chauffeur’s son, who has been mistaken as his own child by kidnappers.

As the film progresses, the backdrop transitions subtly, and literally, from the executive’s comfortable, air conditioned mansion “high” above the city, to the “low”, sweltering back alleys where desperate souls will do anything to survive; a veritable descent into Hell.

On the surface, the film plays as a straightforward police procedural; it’s engrossing entertainment on that level. However, upon repeat viewings, it reveals itself as more than a genre piece. It’s about class struggle, corporate culture, and the socioeconomic complexities of modern society (for a 50 year old film, it feels quite contemporary).

Kiss Me Deadly – Robert Aldrich directed this influential 1955 pulp noir, adapted by A.I. Bezzerides from Mickey Spillane’s novel. Ralph Meeker is the epitome of cool as hard-boiled private detective Mike Hammer, who picks up a half-crazed (and half-naked) escapee from “the laughing house” (Cloris Leachman) one fateful evening after she flags him down on the highway. This sets off a chain of events that leads Hammer from run-ins with low-rent thugs to embroilment with a complex conspiracy involving a government scientist and a box of radioactive “whatsit” coveted by a number of interested parties.

The sometimes confounding plot takes a back seat to the film’s groundbreaking look and feel. The inventive camera angles, the expressive black and white cinematography (by Ernest Laszlo), the shocking violence, and the nihilism of the characters combine to make this quite unlike any other American film from the mid-50s.

The film is said to have had an influence on the French New Wave (you can see that link when you pair it up with Godard’s Breathless). British director Alex Cox paid homage in his 1984 cult film, Repo Man (both films include a crazed scientist driving around with a box of glowing radioactive material in the trunk), and Tarantino featured a suspiciously similar box of mysterious “whatsit” in Pulp Fiction.

Night Moves – In Arthur Penn’s 1975 sleeper, which you could call an “existential noir”, Gene Hackman delivers one of his best performances as a world-weary P.I. with a failing marriage, who becomes enmeshed in a case involving battling ex-spouses, which soon slides into incest, smuggling and murder. Alan Sharp’s intelligent, multi-layered screenplay parallels the complexity of the P.I.’s case with ruminations on the equally byzantine mystery as to why human relationships, more often than not, almost seem engineered to fail. I think I’ve just talked myself into watching it again.

Strangers on a Train– There’s something that Wim Wenders’ The American Friend, Rene Clement’s Purple Noon (and Anthony Minghella’s 1999 remake, The Talented Mr. Ripley) all share in common with this 1951 Hitchcock entry (aside from all being memorable thrillers). They are all based on novels by the late Patricia Highsmith. If I had to choose the best of the aforementioned quartet, it would be Strangers on a Train.

Robert Walker gives his finest performance as tortured, creepy stalker Bruno Antony, who “just happens” to bump into his sports idol, ex-tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) on a commuter train. For a “stranger”, Bruno has a lot of knowledge regarding Guy’s spiraling career; and most significantly, his acrimonious marriage. As for Bruno, well, he kind of hates his father. A lot. The silver-tongued sociopath Bruno is soon regaling Guy with a hypothetical scenario demonstrating how simple it would be for two “strangers” with nearly identical “problems” to make those problems vanish…by swapping murders. The perfect crime! Of course, the louder you yell at your screen for Guy to get as far away from Bruno as possible, the more inexorably Bruno pulls him in. It’s full of great twists and turns, with one of Hitchcock’s most heart-pounding finales.




Sunset Boulevard – Leave it to that great ironist Billy Wilder to direct a film that garnered a Best Picture nomination in 1950 from the very Hollywood studio system it so mercilessly skewers (however, you’ll note that they didn’t let him win…the Best Picture statuette went to All About Eve that year). Gloria Swanson’s turn as a fading, high-maintenance movie queen mesmerizes, William Holden embodies the quintessential noir sap, and veteran scene-stealer (and legendary director in his own right) Erich von Stroheim redefines the meaning of “droll” in this tragicomic journey down the Boulevard of Broken Dreams. Wilder coscripted with Leigh Brackett and D.M. Marshman Jr.




Sweet Smell of Success– Tony Curtis gives a knockout performance in this hard-hitting 1957 drama as a smarmy press agent who shamelessly sucks up to Burt Lancaster’s JJ Hunsecker, a powerful NYC entertainment columnist who can launch (or sabotage) show biz careers with a flick of his poison pen (Lancaster’s odious, acid-tongued character was a thinly-disguised take on the reviled, Red-baiting gossip-monger Walter Winchell).

Although it was made over 60 years ago, the film retains its edge and remains one of the most vicious and cynical ruminations on America’s obsession with fame and celebrity. Alexander Mackendrick directed, and the sharp Clifford Odets/Ernest Lehman screenplay veritably drips with venom. James Wong Howe’s cinematography is outstanding. Lots of quotable lines; Barry Levinson paid homage in his 1982 film Diner, with a character who is obsessed with the film and drops in and out of scenes, incessantly quoting the dialogue.




Touch of Evil – Yes, this is Orson Welles’ classic 1958 sleaze-noir with that celebrated (and oft-imitated) opening tracking shot, Charlton Heston as a Mexican police detective, and Janet Leigh in various stages of undress. Welles casts himself as Hank Quinlan, a morally bankrupt police captain who lords over a corrupt border town. Quinlan is the most singularly grotesque character Welles ever created as an actor, and stands as one of the most offbeat heavies in film noir.

This is also one of the last great roles for Marlene Dietrich (who deadpans “You should lay off those candy bars.”). The scene where Leigh is terrorized in an abandoned motel by a group of thugs led by a creepy, leather-jacketed Mercedes McCambridge could have been dreamed up by David Lynch; there are numerous such stylistic flourishes throughout that are light-years ahead of anything else going on in American cinema at the time. Welles famously despised the studio’s original 96-minute theatrical cut; there have been nearly half a dozen re-edited versions released since 1975.

Posts with related themes:

Ride the Pink Horse
Mickey One
They Live By Night
In a Lonely Place
The Night of the Hunter
North by Northwest
Notorious
Brighton Rock (2010 vs. 1947 versions)
Kubrick’s Noir Cycle: The Killing and Killer’s Kiss
My Obsession with Ida Lupino: Moontide and Road House

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter



–Dennis Hartley

The biggest load of pathetic rationalization you will ever read

The biggest load of pathetic rationalization you will ever read

by digby

This is by David Brody, the conservative evangelical TV broadcaster, attempting to explain why he and others like him love that immoral, dishonest piece of garbage Donald Trump. He tells their leaders he loves them.He makes liberal cry. And he delivered their agenda. (But don’t call the “transactional” because that makes them sound like the mercenary, self-centered hypocrites they are.)

Of all the questions surrounding the current president, perhaps the most perplexing is this: How could evangelicals get behind a man like Mr. Trump, especially well-known conservative leaders who both treasure and champion morality? Constant news reports paint a picture of an out-of-control, angry, mentally unstable, reckless president who is prejudiced against all of humanity except white people with modest incomes and out-of-date values. But after interviewing scores of evangelical leaders, I have developed a different perspective.

Most of the world, and even most reporters, know only the public side of President Trump. In private, evangelical leaders have come to recognize a more compassionate side.

For example, Mr. Trump took a car ride with Mike Pence along with Billy Graham’s son Franklin and Tony Perkins, a leading figure on the Christian right, during the Louisiana floods of 2016. Impressed by what Franklin Graham’s Christian ministry had done for flood victims, Mr. Trump told him that he was writing it a six-figure check, which Mr. Graham told him to send to Mr. Perkins’s church. Both men were moved by his impulsive kindness, and a bond was formed.

Another story involves Mr. Trump and the televangelist James Robison praying together inside an S.U.V. on the airport tarmac in Panama City, Fla., during a campaign stop. When Mr. Trump exited the car, he gave Mr. Robison a hug, pulled him up against his chest firmly and said, “Man, I sure love you.” A small gesture, perhaps, but heartfelt, real and so unlike the caricature of the president most of us see. And practically every evangelical leader I interviewed has a similar story.

Critics say that the Trump-evangelical relationship is transactional, that they support him to see their agenda carried out. In fact, evangelicals take the long view on Mr. Trump; they afford him grace when he doesn’t deserve it. Few dispute that Mr. Trump may need a little more grace than others. But evangelicals truly do believe that all people are flawed, and yet Christ offers them grace. Shouldn’t they do the same for the president?

This is more than a biblical mandate. The Bible is replete with examples of flawed individuals being used to accomplish God’s will. Evangelicals I interviewed said they believed that Mr. Trump was in the White House for a reason.

Bishop Wayne Jackson, who is the pastor of Great Faith Ministries International in Detroit and calls himself a lifelong Democrat, remembers Mr. Trump’s campaign visit to his church. He told me that the moment Mr. Trump got out of the car, “the spirit of the Lord told me that that’s the next president of the United States.”

Evangelical leaders also see a civic obligation to speak godly counsel to him, on policy and personal matters. He is, after all, the president. And it’s paying off. I’ve watched Mr. Trump through the lens of the faith community for years, and he has delivered the policy goods and is progressing on the spiritual ones.

My reporting suggests Donald Trump is on a spiritual voyage that has accelerated in recent years, thanks to evangelicals who have employed the biblical mandate of sharing and showing God’s love to him rather than shunning him. President Trump told me that he “was exposed to a lot of people, from a religious standpoint, that I would’ve never met before. And so it has had an impact on me.”

This president’s effect on our cultural norms has been shocking. His critics would call it appalling; evangelicals say it’s immensely satisfying: They’ve seen a culture deteriorate quickly in the past decade, and they’re looking for a bold culture warrior to fight for them. Showing that God does indeed have a sense of humor, He gave them Mr. Trump. Yet in God’s perfection, it’s a match made in heaven. Mr. Trump and evangelicals share a disdain for political correctness, a world seen through absolutes and a desire to see an America that embraces Judeo-Christian values again rather than rejecting them.

Finally, why in the world wouldn’t evangelicals get behind and support a man who not only is in line with most of their agenda but also has delivered time and time again? The victories are numerous: the courts, pro-life policies, the coming Embassy in Jerusalem and religious liberty issues, just to name a few. He easily wins the unofficial label of “most evangelical-friendly United States president ever.”

Does Mr. Trump have moral failings? Yes. Critics will suggest a hypocrisy coming from evangelical leaders who are quick to denounce the ethical failings of others who don’t have an “R” next to their name. But the goal of evangelicals has always been winning the larger battle over control of the culture, not to get mired in the moral failings of each and every candidate. For evangelicals, voting in the macro is the moral thing to do, even if the candidate is morally flawed. Evangelicals have tried the “moral” candidate before.

Jimmy Carter was once the evangelical candidate. How did that work out in the macro? George W. Bush was the evangelical candidate in 2000: He pushed traditional conservative policies, but he doesn’t come close to Mr. Trump’s courageous blunt strokes in defense of evangelicals.

Evangelicals have found their man. It may seem mystifying to outsiders, but for someone like me, with a front-row seat to an inside view, it makes perfect sense. Maybe they’re taking their cue from Billy Graham, embracing presidents with moral failings rather than rejecting them.

He’s all yours guys. And like him you are all empty vessels lacking even the slightest bit of integrity and decency. His legacy is your legacy. I’m sure you’ll enjoy each others company in the 9th circle of hell.

.