Indignation (2016)

Film: Indignation (2016)
Stars: Logan Lerman, Sarah Gadon, Danny Burstein, Linda Emond, Tracy Letts
Director: James Schamus
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I think I have officially gotten to the point where I will watch Logan Lerman in pretty much anything.  I've never seen the Percy Jackson movies, admittedly, but Lerman consistently has pointed out that he is a fine dramatic actor, and as proof, Indignation made it onto my watch list without anything going for it other than Lerman himself as a draw (which is a pretty select club for films I'll buy tickets to regardless of reviews or plot, simply for an actor).  It shows, though, in a film like Indignation, one of those brave films that actually sets out to do the unthinkable: make a Philip Roth novel into a movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows a young man named Marcus (Lerman), a working-class Jewish boy during the heart of the Korean War who is planning on attending a Christian college in a small town in Ohio.  He is persistently rattled by his father (Burstein), who is deeply overprotective of his son, partially because he is worried about the war and how many of his son's friends will end up perishing, and also about his son's future, both in terms of religion (Marcus proclaims himself an atheist) and potentially because of mental illness.  The film unfolds with Marcus meeting a young woman named Olivia (Gadon), who has issues with depression and even once attempted suicide, but who seems to genuinely like him even though she is more sexually-forward than he is accustomed toward and as a result makes assumptions about her that she finds off-putting.  As a result, their romance is very on-again/off-again.

The film is fascinating because Philip Roth is such a good storyteller, and there's really a lot of story and complicated issues at play here.  The movie's title, you'd assume initially, would come from the economic issues at play at the beginning, with a now socially-climbing Marcus finding himself at odds with his butcher father, but instead it's about how pride and our own sense of self-worth occasionally leads us to make foolish, rash, and irreversible decisions.  Every major character in the film at some point has a "pride goeth before the fall" situation, and in nearly every case they choose pride to their doom.  Marcus, indignant over the perceived and very real slights he has with a school dean, ends up making a foolish mistake of having a student violate the church attendance policy, and as a result ends up dying in the Korean War after he is expelled from the university.  His mother leads in part to this decision by breaking up Olivia with her son because she wants her definition of what is better for Marcus, not realizing that her son, like so many characters in the film, is dealing with his own sense of depression and inadequacy.  Time and again the characters in the film, save perhaps Tracy Letts' Dean Caudwell, hand over their fate to pride, and in Dean Caudwell's situation holding off on instant gratification pays off as he destroys Marcus in a way that is permanent, and entirely within his rights as dean, and not just flying off the handle in a rash way.

It's a nastier movie than the surface would have allowed, and says a lot about what we as human beings will do to try and better ourselves.  The film itself occasionally runs out of steam-the lead actors are excellent, but Danny Burstein doesn't translate well at all (weirdly the only one of a very Broadway-blessed cast to not be able to tone down the theatrics), but the movie occasionally meanders and loses focus in a way that would be rewarded in a novel (building to a climax) but in a film occasionally feels like lackluster editing.  Plus, the film's ending, with Olivia decades later, her mind lost, still having remembrances of Marcus, felt a little cliched and hackneyed; I would have preferred us never returning to her, her life a mystery, and ending with Marcus in Korea.  That being said, this was a strong movie, and not just because of Lerman's calming presence.  I'll continue to buy tickets to his pictures sight-unseen if he continues to pick scripts this inventive.

Those are my thoughts on this film-how about yours?  What's your favorite piece of work from Logan Lerman, and where do you want to see him go next?  Do you have a Philip Roth novel you're hoping eventually makes the jump to the screen?  And what Broadway stars do you wish would get a meaty transition to the big screen?  Share below!

5 Thoughts on Last Night's Primaries

I'm just going to start out by saying I am exhausted, and running a little late today.  I had my first case of insomnia in like a month last night, and with me insomnia is more of a can't sleep from 1 AM to roughly 5 AM, so I do actually get sleep, but it's the sort of sleep where you get just little enough that it makes you feel more tired.  But it's a Wednesday, perhaps the last really important day-after-an-election until November (depending on what happens in New Hampshire in a couple of weeks), and so you know I need to get out my five thoughts.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

1. John McCain and Marco Rubio Pass the First Test

One of the major stories of this cycle, and it's nearly completely true (Kelly Ayotte is the last person at bat) is that Republicans have done a remarkable job of getting their incumbents through the primary. Despite the predominance of people like Donald Trump in the primaries, thus seeming like a harbinger of major candidates losing in primaries, no Senate incumbent has yet to lose in a primary, and all of them are taking down opponents in landslides, including last night with John McCain and Marco Rubio.  This cycle has given the Republicans no Richard Lugars or Bob Bennetts, and really nothing even close to Pat Roberts where it was a tight race but the incumbent won.  McCain and Rubio both won decisive victories, and now are pushed into races where they have the edge, but strong challengers (in the form of House incumbents) could cause issues for the former presidential candidates.

2. The Republicans Get Their Men

Despite the Republican Party's proclaimed outreach toward women this cycle, they continued to have an issue with, well, actually electing women to seats.  The House GOP caucus is 87% male, and that number doesn't look to be changing much after Florida, where every competitive seat, as well as every open seat that leans toward the Republicans went to a male competitor.  People like Mary Thomas in FL-2, who would have been the first Indian-American woman in Congress and was endorsed by the Club for Growth, continued the strange counter-Trump movement of the establishment candidate winning, but in doing so it's within the realm of possibility that by the end of this election cycle the House GOP could actually have LESS women in it that it started with, with Renee Ellmers already out and competitive races in Utah and Arizona.

Dena and Alan Grayson (D-FL)

3. The Graysons are Gone

Alan and Dena Grayson have been, in my opinion, a bit of a regional disgrace for the Democratic Party.  Grayson's marital troubles have crossed the line from none-of-my-business to torrid, and his past incendiary comments have earned him the title of the "Democrats' Michele Bachmann" (which, for those ultra-right readers, is not intended as a compliment).  As a result, last night was a bit of a joyous situation for my end, as both Graysons went down in a massive defeat.  Alan Grayson was trying for a promotion, and figured (incorrectly) that the Democrats would want to emulate the campaign of Bernie Sanders and elect a hard-left standard-bearer over a more moderate alternative, but was completely wrong and saw his Senate dreams dashed in a landslide to Patrick Murphy, while Dena Grayson lost by a large margin in a multi-candidate primary to State Sen. Darren Soto.  As a result, the Democratic Party has to be pleased, as they both got the two guys they wanted and the Graysons no longer have a platform in Congress that Democrats need to run away from.

4. A Tale of Two Different Congresswoman

Headed into last night, no two congressional incumbents had more on the line than Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Corrine Brown.  Both women had been involved in major scandals leading up to their House primaries, with DWS involved in the DNC leak which caused her to resign as Chair, while Brown was indicted on 24 counts of conspiracy and fraud.  The voters in these districts had strong options in a Bernie Sanders-backed challenger and a former state senator, but in the end only Wasserman Schultz won, with Brown being clobbered by Al Lawson, who on his third try will finally make it to the House from his very safe district.  I hadn't talked about it a lot because I am not a huge fan of hers, but I was supportive of Wasserman Schultz's primary bid, for a couple of reasons. One, I think that it would be wrong to completely destroy this woman's career over a leak that she had nothing to do with, and was in fact a crime against her organization by a foreign crime syndicate. Secondly, I am not a huge fan of throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, as Wasserman Schultz on most issues (not all-see marijuana, for example) has been a strong advocate for liberal causes, and in particular when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, and cancer research, has led the way.  To see her go down in such a massive fit of bad luck, particularly when she is a strong fundraiser and someone that is a leader on these issues, would have been unfortunate.  I want to see more liberals in Congress, but I also don't like how reckless the Sanders campaign has been about attacking incumbent Democrats when we don't have majorities in either house-lets win back both sides of Congress before we start throwing out our own incumbents, particularly when they're wildly popular in their home districts.  DWS will almost surely never rise higher than a committee chair, but could still be in Congress for decades to come now, albeit from a much less grand perch than before. 

Considering the 24 counts and the imminent scandal, I was fine with Brown getting out of Congress, quite frankly.

Sheriff Paul Babeu (R-AZ)

5. Apparently it was also "Shoot Yourself in the Foot" Night

I texted a friend of mine early in the evening with the message "sometimes I think Democrats WANT to lose elections" and it was hard not to think that when the results of Florida's 26th district came in.  After all, the Democrats had a strong candidate in Annette Taddeo, someone who could have made a major dent in a district that is vitally important if the Democrats have any hope of winning back the majority.  However, the Democrats in that district decided to go with former Rep. Joe Garcia, whose former chief of staff was arrested for ballot fraud after the 2012 elections and who funded a shill candidate in 2010 to run, which bordered on the illegal in my opinion (and badly backfired as Garcia lost that election anyway).  This pushes a seat that should have been a true Tossup into Leans Republican territory, a big disappointment considering the amount of Hispanic voters that could turn out here for Hillary Clinton probably would have elected Taddeo.

However, the Democrats weren't exclusively failing this year, as Arizona Republicans also decided it was time to give up on a seat last night.  Controversial Sheriff Paul Babeu (yes, the guy who was railing until immigration until it was found that his lover was an undocumented immigrant, and yes, he still rails against immigration because the GOP doesn't know the meaning of hypocrisy this year), won the election over more palatable candidates like Greg Kehne and former Secretary of State Ken Bennett.  Babeu has to be the closest the Republicans have come this year to throwing away a House seat, as he lost in 2012, and it's hard to imagine conservative Republicans voting for a man most famous for having a same-sex affair with an undocumented immigrant all the while denouncing US immigration policy.  The seat is currently held by Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), so this would be a hold, but it was one of the toughest holds for the Democrats on the map so former State Sen. Tom O'Halleran (and the DCCC) has to be in a good mood this morning.

OVP: Embrace of the Serpent (2015)

Film: Embrace of the Serpent (2015)
Stars: Nilbio Torres, Antonio Bolivar, Jan Bijvoet, Brionne Davis
Director: Ciro Guerra
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Foreign Language Film-Colombia)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I see hundreds of movies every single year, and as a result, it's really hard to get me to a point where I'm surprised.  Don't get me wrong, I still get more than excited by movies and can love new movies (though this summer that count is a bit underwhelming), but it takes a lot for me to go into a film and wonder what the hell is going on, and in a good way.  That was my experience with the provocative, Oscar-nominated Embrace of the Serpent, one of several films last year that felt pretty atypical by Academy standards.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film tells two concurrent tales, one set in 1909 with Theodor (Bijvoet), an explorer who is dying joining a younger man named Karamakate (Torres), who is taking him to a place with the fabled Yakruna, a fictional plant that has healing and hallucinogenic powers.  At the same time, another explorer named Evans (Davis) is interacting with a once lost older man, strongly implied and eventually confirmed to be the elder Karamakate (Bolivar) who has lived most of his life in seclusion in the jungle.  Both follow a trek with largely similar stops, though the effects of time show themselves in fascinating ways for a world that at first glance feels "untouched."

After all, from our standpoint we see very little change in terms of nature in this world, and instead only are able to use landmarks along the way to distinguish the ravages of time, as otherwise to the audience, there isn't much that seems to have changed in this dank, dense jungle.  The film does its best to keep this seem largely outside of space and time.  There's little hint of technological advances, or even the World War that you'd normally expect in the 1940's story, and instead the only really changed outcome is the Spanish Mission that they come across, Apocalypse Now! style, late in the journey.  It's a wonderful pair of scenes, as the earlier one is a story about a group of religious zealots repeatedly beating young children for not converting wholly to the Catholic religion, while later in the 1940's we see what years of isolation has done to these children, who begin to worship a man who proclaims himself the son of god, and is so deranged he eventually has them eat him because his delusion has made him think he is the Eucharist.

The scenes are staggering, and really when Embrace is on point, it's hard to top.  You genuinely don't know where the movie will take you-thanks to Theodor largely disappearing in the 1940's timeline we don't know if we'll come across him later on in the film, perhaps thinking himself a god as well, or whether he simply died five minutes after his final scene.  In addition, in the more modern day stories, it's not clear how the film will end, since Evans himself does find the Yakruna, and one wonders if he has spent the entire film entirely mad, trying to chase a dream that cannot possibly be real.

The jungle photography is vibrant, and really a wonder in the black-and-white.  It's a shame that the film didn't end up on the shortlist for a Cinematography Oscar nomination, as it probably earned it as the wonderful combination of modern advances with old photography (sometimes the film feels like it was shot in the era it was filming) add an authenticity to it, to the point where you half expect it to be a documentary.  All-in-all,the only caveats I really have with the film is that they don't go into the madness or motives enough of Theodor or Evans late in the film for their cruel hatred that runs forward for Karamakate.  Particularly for Evans, who has had a relatively pleasant demeanor for the full film, it feels wholly out-of-place, and even though it ended where I thought it would, I figured that both of them having the exact same attack felt symbolic but not distinct enough between the two,

Still, this is a small quibble to have with such a fine movie, one that I expect will just grow upon re-watch.  If you've seen it, please weigh in-what are your thoughts on Embrace of the Serpent?  Did you find the ending perplexing as well, or were you already so in "wow" mode you didn't care?  And where does this rank among last year's Best Foreign Film nominees?  Share below!

Why Evan Bayh's Address Doesn't Matter

One of the most common subjects that inevitably occurs in every single election cycle in at least one race (but typically more) is about alienation from constituents and whether or not a politician has "forgotten where they came from."  It may be the most cliched political attack in the book, and it's rarely that effective, though on occasion it does have some cache.  Four years ago, Sen. Richard Lugar succumbed to this after it was revealed that he had spent little to no time in his Indiana home, and lost his primary as a result to Richard Murdock, resulting in the Democrats ultimately taking the Senate seat in a huge surprise that cycle.  Two years later, Sen. Pat Roberts got caught in a similar imbroglio, when it was revealed that he had listed Alexandria, Virginia as his primary residence and it turned out that his "home" in Kansas was in fact a $300-a-month place on a golf course that he barely, if ever, used.  This year, the same question is being asked of former Sen. Evan Bayh, the frontrunner for the open Indiana Senate seat, who couldn't even remember his own address during an interview he has spent so much time away from the Hoosier State during his six years out of office.  My question here is not whether or not Evan Bayh will suffer for this sort of issue in November (he likely won't, especially in a general election where even Roberts was able to overcome such concerns, and Lugar's problem were only partially that he had "lost touch with Indiana" and more inclined toward "he had lost touch with the Indiana GOP), but whether it should matter at all.

On the surface level, it really shouldn't.  I'm not going to get into the quality of these three men.  As a Democrat, I'd be happy to vote for Bayh, and could see very few (if any) circumstances where Lugar or Roberts would get a checkmark on my personal ballot.  But I think it has to be said that if the candidates were still representing the interests of their constituents, regardless of how tertiary the connection they maintained with their home states was, it shouldn't ultimately matter in whether you voted for them or not.  It's certainly likely that Lugar, Roberts, and (were he elected) Bayh would maintain multiple representatives in his staff in their home states, would place a higher premium on the needs of their home states than on other needs, and would continue to monitor things at home.  If, for example, an issue were important to 70% of Hoosiers Evan Bayh is going to care about that regardless of whether he's spending most of his nights in Fairfax County rather than in Fort Wayne.  They're going to care because the principle function of a politician is to care about reelection and who sent them to Washington in the first place.  That's a fact of life, and isn't going to change regardless of how connected a politician is to a state.

Secondly, we have gotten to the point where most moderate members of the US Congress have largely gone extinct, and so really it's your party more than anything else that helps decide how you will vote.  There are occasional exceptions like Susan Collins and Collin Peterson, but by-and-large you put any bill, regardless of the person's background, in front of the US Congress and I could tell you how a specific party is likely to vote, regardless of that person's background.  There are a few exceptions, issues that still have a regional bias (I'm thinking agriculture, trade, and military spending, in particular, are going to have a geographic bias because of the potential opposition commercials if that industry is a big part of the state's economy), but we don't see a lot of regional bills anymore go before Congress.

In fact, one of the big argumeents against needing congressional representation that is very attuned to the geographic needs of an area was removed by the same people who likely bemoan the lack of connection members of Congress have with their constituency: the earmarks ban.  There's a lot to be said for the removal of earmarks from the political process.  After all, there was FAR too much wasteful spending on the table happening and it made sure that specific areas of the country were constantly being showered with help because they had a senior member of Congress on an important committee.  However, it also meant that those members of Congress could find goodies for their specific district, things that might help drive growth at home, that would have made it easier for them to tackle the concerns of their home district.  If bringing funding for a federal highway (and the jobs and eased transportation that comes with it) or a new plant or factory was something that you could essentially incentivize a member of Congress to come to your side with, it actually meant more bipartisanship and more bills being passed.  There was, undoubtedly, an ugliness to the process (when earmarks felt wasteful or like a backroom deal), but it put more pressure on members of Congress to represent their specific geographic interests in a more direct approach.

Finally, there's the small matter of reality in this entire equation.  We are constantly telling our elected officials that we don't want just "millionaires and billionaires" in Washington, and yet, despite the paychecks that congressional members receive being robust compared to the average American taxpayer, they aren't enough to maintain two full-time homes without some sort of additional income.  Even if they could, we also want them to do their full-time jobs and work a five-day work week, while still finding time to see constituents on a regular basis.  This expectation on anyone is unrealistic, and it's worth noting that it's hurting congressional relationships.  Gone are the days when members of opposite parties socialized, perhaps implementing some much-needed civility, because they're hurrying home to make sure that they aren't being accused of abandoning their constituents or being forced to raise mountains of money to run for reelection (again, a problem that feels more pressing than where your address is).  There aren't enough days in the week for members of Congress to be all these things, and so it'd be nice if we accepted this reality.

We're starting to see that happen, quite frankly, as people like Trey Hollingsworth and Alex Mooney run in states that they have little connection toward except the right letter behind their name for their district.  The reality is that in a far more mobile economy the accomplished men and women we hope to represent us in Congress are going to be less-and-less likely to consistently have been in our home states.  This isn't to say that we still shouldn't use them representing our interests as a metric.  When Rep. Tim Huelskamp voted against the House Agriculture bill in a district that is overwhelmingly filled with farmers, he deserved to pay the price at the polls, and did.  But let's not pretend that you need a constant presence in a state to know what the state needs.  And let's also not pretend that Evan Bayh, five-time statewide officer in Indiana and a former governor (whose job is to know the state backward and forward) isn't fully aware of the needs of Hoosiers.  It's time for us to realize that it's the record and the constituency services that matter more than an address.

The Angry Birds Movie (2016)

Film: The Angry Birds Movie (2016)
Stars: Jason Sudeikis, Josh Gad, Danny McBride, Maya Rudolph, Bill Hader, Peter Dinklage, Kate McKinnon, Sean Penn
Director: Clay Kaytis and Feral Reilly
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

We have a plethora of film reviews to get through as a week off from writing didn't entail me a week off from the movies (quite the contrary, as it turns out), so I'm not entirely certain why I'm starting here as I trek through eleven movies, but whatever-let's make The Angry Birds Movie happen.  Yes, after spending much of my subway rides many years ago playing nothing but this game on my phone (I was really good, and had three stars on a plethora of levels) I decided that it was worth one of those random Netflix rentals you occasionally do to investigate the movie, which made a gallon of money (as was not expected) and won few plaudits (which was much more anticipated).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers around Red (Sudeikis), who is appropriately the signature red bird from the original game, who is a loner and is, through accidentally hatching an egg, brought to anger management with Chuck (Gad) and Bomb (McBride), the yellow and black birds from the game, respectively.  The film follows them as they try to prove that they can control their anger (or that anger can come in handy), and that the new, sly-talking pigs, headed by Leonard (Hader), have more nefarious purposes than just helping the birds.

You see where this is going, of course.  The birds have their eggs stolen by the hungry pigs, and led by the Angry Birds, the characters get angry and save their eggs.  Rovio is careful to both make the film completely outside of the initial game (you don't need to have ever picked up an iPad to be able to know the plot of this movie), while also borrowing heavily from the initial game's roster of characters for fans, which it's worth noting is relatively thin in terms of character dynamics, to create the cast lineup.  Every single bird that you remember from the games is there, including two voiced in a nice twist by Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla from the YouTube comedy show Smosh.  The film even brings back the Mighty Eagle, one of those things that was introduced to disrupt game play and keep you from getting stuck too long on the same level (like I said, every single subway ride was spent once I went below ground on this game, so I know it well).

Nostalgia for something that was a time-killing fancy five years ago, though, only goes so far and the rest of the story is relatively thin.  The film is one of those movies that can't find the balance between appealing to the children of the audience and the parents that brought them, and as a result satisfies neither.  The humor, whenever it approaches wit, is thrown aside with comic sight gags involving flatulence or urine (in a gross scene involving the "Mighty Eagle") and even comic stars like Josh Gad and Bill Hader, both well-suited for the world of animated vocals, can't really find much identity to the characters.  The film also vastly underuses Sean Penn, in what could have been a funny play on his offscreen personality (considering that he's frequently angry), but the two-time Oscar winner is wasted as a near silent, giant magenta bird who doesn't even play on Penn's real-life persona, despite him being the most famous person in the cast.

All-in-all, while it's fun to see them trot out different characters and occasionally some of the music works, the movie itself is a chore.  Pixar may be struggling these days, but it's not yet approaching this level of commercialization without the cute.  The Angry Birds Movie is essentially The Lego Movie...if The Lego Movie wasn't any good.

5 Thoughts on The West Wing

Okay, that was a longer break than I was expecting to take.  I think, like all people, sometimes it's important to check out from your life.  Particularly when you're not sure where the next steps are supposed to take you, and where they are going.  I still don't have that many answers, but at least I have some pursuits, and as a result, I think it's time for me to get back into the work of writing on a daily basis, so we'll be having at least one article every day this week, and I know this because I have written all of them by the time you've read this (ahh, the magic of scheduling blog articles).  I've jotted down quite a few topics and ideas, so hopefully you enjoy the new content.  And with that...

One of the things I've been doing a lot of in my week off from responsibility is watching a good deal of television, specifically two shows that I haven't seen in a number of years that, through Netflix or a lovely gift for my birthday, recently came into my life.  I find that looking back on TV shows are mostly memories now but were once appointment viewing is a distinct joy, like seeing an old friend, and one that you genuinely liked  After all, you're suddenly remembering certain scenes that were once part of your daily obsession, or realizing quotes that you say on a consistent basis are not of your own making, but instead have an origin.  That's been the case with me for both of these shows, and so I figured I'd begin the week by talking through two shows (one today, one on Wednesday) that I have found myself watching, and what my reaction is over ten years after I last saw an episode in the series.

We'll start with the one I just finished back-to-back episodes on, The West Wing, which is still esteemed by pretty much every political junkie I ever find myself coming across.  The show, centered around the presidency of the fictional Josiah Bartlett, was showered with Emmy Awards back in the day, brought a number of stars to major celebrity, in particular Allison Janney, and was a strong compliment both to the Bill Clinton administration and a counter to the Bush administration that seemed to run against everything the series had to stand for.  At the time, I was a burgeoning political junkie, and this stoked the fire something fierce.  Here's five things that stand out years later:

1. The Writing is Immaculate

Much has been said of shows like The West Wing and its trademark Aaron Sorkin patter, particularly in the way that the characters talk like they are cartoons, wonked-out and brilliant like a DC-laden Gilmore Girls, and it's with good reason: Sorkin is a damn fine writer.  The writing here, particularly the way that the comebacks and dialogue roll out are crisp and intensely quotable.  Even when you approach the point where it can no longer surprise you (typically it's hard to shock the audience through writing after two seasons or so, which occasionally gives way to ridiculous plot holes), you are still in awe of the way that he can throw out bon mot after bon mot.  It helps that he's aided by a relatively new concept of profiling the very centralized world of the West Wing (the show rarely sees these characters outside of the scope of their office lives, likely because that's all they seem to have time for), and so we get a cloistered, always interesting set of stories, but it cannot be undersold that the writing is exceptional, rivaled only by The Social Network in terms of the best thing Sorkin has ever done.

2. Politics Has Changed

It's fascinating to see what issues, even only fifteen years or so ago, are on the minds of the Bartlett White House and what things the president seems to be willing to compromise on and which things he wants to dismiss.  For example, topics like school prayer show up with deep regularity, despite the fact that no one talks about school prayer anymore in the public sphere, while immigration was just mentioned, perhaps for the first time that I've noticed, and I'm already three seasons into the series. The idea of a Democratic president not backing gay marriage is absurd in our current timeline, and yet here he's barely willing to buck Don't Ask-Don't Tell on this program.  The show occasionally touches on issues that still resonate today, particularly around the topic of gun control and issues in the Middle East (though even there it's more focused on foreign issues in South America than we're accustomed to hearing), but by-and-large it's good the show had such wonderful and rich characters and writing, because the politics definitely bottle this into a specific time-and-place.

3. The Show Has a Sexism Problem

Perhaps because I was in high school when I was initially watching the show and hadn't really become aware of such a thing or perhaps fifteen years ago was truly a long time ago in the world of network dramas, but man does this show have a serious sexism problem.  This is something that has plagued criticisms of Sorkin for years, so it's not hard to see that this may have been more the writer and not just the times they were living in, but the show's treatment of women is kind of appalling, both surface-level and if you peak below.

Take, for example, the most important female character on the show: CJ Cregg.  A brilliant press secretary and pretty much every viewer's favorite character from the show, nonetheless upon further review she frequently comes up short in terms of getting to be as brilliant as the men around her.  Frequently she's in conversation with Toby, Sam, or Josh and they are chastising her for not knowing about some arcane aspect of the Mexican economy or the periodic table.  On a show that deals with such complicated issues as The West Wing, expositional dialogue (where they have to explain to the audience in an organic way the nuances of a specific policy topic) is inevitable, but it seems to nearly always be at the expense of one of the women like CJ, Donna, or Ainsley being lectured by one of the men, rather than nearly ever the other way around.  And when it is the other way around, it's meant to come across as silly or emasculating, like when Ainsley destroys Sam in a debate and then it's stunning that a woman could overcome him, or Donna's breadth of knowledge being considered "cute" rather than impressive.  Even Abby is frequently found being talked down to or put in her place by people, and she's the First Lady.  And the comments about the women's appearance, particularly CJ's, is deeply insulting.  It'd be one thing if Sorkin was doing this to try and illustrate how much harder it is for women in this overwhelmingly male environment, but Josh or Sam never actually acknowledge their casual sexism and are considered heroic for remembering an anniversary or firing two of Ainsley's coworkers for an over-the-top display of sexism that even in 2001 a lawyer would be smart enough not to do.

4. My Perspectives on Characters Has Changed

This sexism didn't quite destroy my memory of the show (I see enough movies to know that I have to adjust my expectations in this regard, however unfortunate that may be), but it did color my perceptions on some characters.  When the show first came on, my favorite characters were consistently CJ, Josh, and Donna, in roughly that order, with the Bartletts coming up next.  Looking back, now, though, it's hard not to see that Josh is only acceptable on occasion.  It's likely due to the fact that Bradley Whitford's acting is really strong (the best thing I've ever seen from him), that I am able to not find Josh completely off-putting, but both he and Sam are hard to love when you see how they only seem to care about a few members of the staff, and the only people they really look up to are Toby and Leo, while people in their lives like CJ, Donna, and Mandy (yes, the women), are more props that occasionally challenge them.  It doesn't help that they both feel like Sorkin surrogates on the show, and while Sorkin the writer is a genius, I find him maddening as a celebrity.

Meanwhile, several other characters have gone up in my estimation.  I love Leo upon revisit, to the point where I'm kind of shocked I didn't name him one of my favorite characters at the time.  Sturdy, consistent, and challenging to the president, you'd be hard-pressed to find a scene that he doesn't elevate, and it's heartbreaking that John Spencer saw this as his swan song, rather than lending his sturdy presence to more television decades to come (he passed away during filming).  I also don't find Ainsley nearly as infuriating as I did at the time, perhaps because most of the issues she's espousing now aren't nearly as controversial (or have been thrown to the ash bin of political discourse), or because I see her as someone just trying to make a difference who is constantly being underestimated because of her appearance, but I think she's charming in a way.  A Republican counterpoint that feels convenient (it's hard to imagine her today taking such a position nor it being offered to her), but a character with more depth than I recalled.

Then again, some things never changed.  CJ and Donna remain my favorites, and I still have a soft spot for the complicated partnership of President and Dr. Bartlett, and some of the characters I initially couldn't stand I never really get even years later.  At the top of that list is Oliver Babish, who is played by the deeply overacting Oliver Platt (not my favorite actor by any estimation), who is condescending, rude, and frequently being proven wrong but doesn't have any sort of humility or reverence for anyone other than his own voice.  It's a bad character, one drawn too broadly and too filled with unearned ego, and one who is constantly being underestimated by strategy.  He's the sort of person whom the writers constantly have to reassure you is brilliant because he needs to be for the story to work, and yet is constantly overridden and overestimated and proven wrong.

5. I'm Still Not Sure If I Can Go Past Season 4

Here's where things get interesting for me, and will have some spoilers for fans of the show so watch out in that regard.  Back when this show was on, it's hard to remember this but it was before most people had a TiVo or a DVR, including yours truly.  As a result, you had to make a concentrated effort each week to turn in for your favorite show or at least reset the VCR to record the series.  When it was so easy to drop out of a show, decisions on the series mattered, and I remembered thinking toward the end of the fourth season when (SPOILER ALERT) Sam was written out of the show and Aaron Sorkin was dropped from the series due to issues with substance abuse and conflicts with Warner Brothers.  At that time, I decided (headed off to college myself) that it was time to retire the show as I simply didn't have the time to watch it and it didn't really feel as good to me anymore.  I have read pretty voraciously in the years since both A) what happens to all of the characters so there's not a lot of surprise left for me and B) that the show did see a steady decline in the overall approach, even though it still gained generally favorable reviews.  I'm about five episodes into the third season right now, so I don't have to make the decision for a while, but part of me is fine leaving off again with the Season 4 finale, never to see a time when Leo dies or we have to deal with a lame-duck Bartlett administration.  For those that made it through-is it worth it?  I don't want my memories tarnished, particularly if the characters become a-characteristic.  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Taking a Break

I will be back to full-time posting on Monday, but in the meantime, just be thankful the world has an Ansel Elgort

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Film: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Stars: John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Gallagher, Jr.
Director: Dan Trachtenberg
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

In the past few years, a trend has occurred in the horror/thriller genre that is both cool and (perhaps like all of those people who keep proclaiming a Golden Age of Television even after most of those "Golden Age" shows have disappeared) eye-rolling is that we consistently get "quality" horror films to go along with the genre that for years was considered something of a wasteland.  Though decades ago horror films also ran this gamut (watch a Hitchcock film next to a Vincent Price one...though I have an affinity for both), it's become more pronounced in recent years, with a plethora of profitable but deeply forgettable slasher films playing alongside movies such as The Babadook, The Conjuring, and (best of all) The Cabin in the Woods.  This year, we've already had one additional entry into this pantheon, 10 Cloverfield Lane, a film that has received wild praise for its claustrophobic look at abuse and paranoia.

(Spoilers Ahead) I bring up claustrophobia both literally and figuratively right now, because it is at the center of this film's appeal.  A young girl named Michelle (Winstead), driving carelessly gets into a car accident, and then is brought to a shelter by a man named Howard (Goodman), who at first seems to be both deeply controlling (he has her chained up) as well as oddly kind to her, but in a patronizing, paternal way.  As the film goes on, the movie shows us that they are in an elaborate bomb shelter, as Howard is sure that there has been some sort of chemical attack on the United States (though he's not sure from where, but it's heavily implied he assumes that it's either aliens or a foreign government).

Michelle is not convinced, and slowly gets the only other person in the shelter, a young man named Emmett (Gallagher) who seems to be a bit dense but sweet, to team up with her as she tries to escape.  She soon learns that something tragic has happened outside of the shelter when a neighbor outside the wall shows up and is "infected."  However, she also learns that Howard's daughter that he speaks of with great affection is not his daughter, but instead a girl whom he kidnapped earlier just like Michelle.  The film progresses with Emmett and Michelle trying to escape, willing to risk the outside compared to staying with Howard, and in the process Emmett dies, followed by Howard, and then Michelle is sent out into the world where she is attacked by aliens.

That last twist in the script may largely depend on whether or not you liked this movie, and honestly I kind of hated the last minute twist, which I know a number of people have weighed in on here.  It felt like one direction too many in a film that had already been quite good, so the twist didn't kill it for me, but felt more like an "oh brother" eye roll.  The picture up until that point was a strong acting trio, particularly in my opinion between Goodman and Winstead, the former giving his boisterous physical appearance so much depth as a man bereft of emotional connection and therefore trying to force it, and the latter a woman who is encountering circumstances she never pondered occurring in her life.  The metaphor of a textbook abusive relationship is not thinly-veiled (in many ways it resembles We Need to Talk About Kevin in a lot of ways), but it works because the actors and writers are strong.

The last minute alien attack, however (therefore linking us to the original Cloverfield monster from the film that shares its name, and thus making this a tangential sequel) felt overdone and unnecessary.  I felt like the original script (at least what I've read is the original script), with Michelle thinking this was all a horrible nightmare, and then driving to see a destroyed Chicago, may have been a more appropriate and ambiguous ending.  The implication of an alien attack and the Cloverfield monster is already there in the title, we don't need to get a full-on confirmation, as ambiguity in the film, particularly the strange grey areas that the film went to early on (is Howard an awful person who's also correct, or just a sociopath?) is its greatest asset.  While the ending didn't destroy the picture (too many good things had happened at that point to really contest the quality), it definitely left me with a sour taste.

Those are my thoughts on this most recent "prestige" horror film-how about you?  What's your favorite of this recent trend?  And what'd you think of 10 Cloverfield Lane and its twist ending?  Share your thoughts below!

Starting a New Chapter

Reinvention is not the easiest of tasks, as we are forceful creatures of habit.  I say that as someone who, for the first time in living in an apartment for over two years, is using my library to write a blog article rather than doing so in the same, desktop living room space that I always devote to my writing.  I have, after eight years, finally put in semi-retirement (I don't know if I'll bring him out for the occasional moment of glory) my computer, affectionately nicknamed "Bobby" (after the cute guy that sold it to me at Best Buy, as well as the more well-known Attorney General who is in a portrait directly behind me).  I had not decided on what to name my new computer, but as I can just make out my copy of The Moviegoer situated sternly behind it, I will go with Percy, a fitting name for such a thing, and am hopeful that Percy lasts throughout a Hillary Clinton administration the way that Bobby did through the Obama Years.

It may seem a trivial thing, to talk about a new computer, but it's not when I realize how much of my life over the past eight years has been spent on that computer.  I bought it just out of college, and had the highest of hopes for it, and indeed it has been home to some of my greatest accomplishments.  It was one of the first purchases I made when I started the career track I remain on to this day, and through its internet I found the first guy who ever called me his boyfriend and through which I wrote over 1700 blog articles (well, give or take with other shared computers of friends and occupations, but the bulk of it was performed on Bobby).  It's hard not to be reflective at the disappointments that he brought to me as well.  Despite the best of intentions but the worst of follow-throughs, I never finished my third novel on that computer, and indeed barely made it more than a handful of pages through it.  That man I called my first boyfriend would hardly be my last, but he didn't get to be the home of other more long-term descriptors like partner.

The passage of time is something that we don't oftentimes get reminded of, and while for most people eras of their personal journey are perhaps marked by cars or by jobs or by children, for me they seem to be by computers.  This is my fourth personal computer, and I remember the places all of mine have taken me toward, and where I was when I lived in their warm, mechanical glow.  As someone who has lived most of their life as an aspiring writer, trying to find words and sentences to express my innermost thoughts, computers are my lifeblood.  If there's a computer there's a portal for creativity, a vessel for when the world has left me speechless or without a rudder.  I can just pour whatever I'm trying to express into the paragraphs of a letter or a story or a blog post.

I started this blog over four years ago, and the readership has gone up-and-down, mostly better when I consistently write or when I get to an article that I think people will enjoy, and we'll return to that soon enough, but I wanted to try something a little different with this piece, because I wanted to take advantage of the anonymity that a blog provides. While I personally know several of the readers of this blog (a couple of hangers-on from my flesh-and-blood and not digital world), most of the people that I interact with on this blog and (more often) through Twitter are people I will never meet or never will.  We get very few comments (few is being generous), and so I know very little of the readership of this blog, or really aside from the occasional post that happens to land an image that somehow pops up in a Google or Bing image search, I know little of what people like aside from guesses (and admittedly a couple of posts that I know clearly resonated about Darren Criss and Harry Potter).  This has never bothered me, though, because I embraced the anonymity of this blog out of wanting to become a better writer.

By being anonymous, and not caring what parts of myself I was giving over to the other side of the computer, I could learn how to write again.  Four years ago, I hadn't written so much as two sentences in years outside of the confines of Microsoft Outlook.  I genuinely thought I had forgotten how to write.  The first few articles were bizarrely labored, and I wondered if I could do something like this, giving near daily thoughts, but I pushed through because I wanted to prove to myself that I could achieve something.  I was going through a low period (something we all go through from time to time) and an outlet, something to accomplish but more so something to rely upon, felt truly liberating.  Best of all was the anonymity, proving that I could write about literally whatever was of interest to myself and if people liked it, so be it, and if not, there was no pressure as my name wasn't attached.

As you might imagine considering the wistfulness of this article, I am not far from one of those moments right now in my life, a few months into such a mood which may be why the writing has been a bit more sporadic and frequently excuse-riddled.  It's hard to find yourself when you don't know where to go and when you feel you have very few people that have a vested or active interest in making yourself better.  This is not meant to disparage one of the people who know me in my life, but to acknowledge the truth that as you get older and you don't go down a traditional family path (whether by choice or by bitter providence) you become almost exclusively your own guardian, not just in matters of finance, but in matters of care and drive and love.  I can say with relative certainty that no one has a continuous, active, daily interest in my future except me, and that's something only really single people and those in loveless romantic relationships can claim.  I honestly have no idea how to really get out of this funk, but as of this past weekend I've decided that trying to ride it out is not working, and so I have purchased this computer to both metaphorically and literally start a new chapter.  Some of this journey I'll bring to this blog, some of it will be outside of this laptop, but I will be sharing moments along the way and I invite you to join me.  The era of Percy, part four of John, is about to begin.

Happy Lost Day!

4 8 15 16 23 42

It's Lost day!!!!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you might be thinking, "what does that mean?" and if you know what it means, you might be thinking "seriously John-didn't we just go through this months ago for absolutely no legitimate reason other than you wanted to talk about your favorite show of all-time?"

To the former group, what I mean by Lost day is that today is one of the sequences of numbers associated with the show Lost and therefore a day to celebrate (or in most cases, a date to worry about being cursed as the numbers are no good).  4 8 15 16 23 42 are deeply prevalent throughout the series Lost, and while I won't get into exactly where they all factor in, they do quite a lot.  Today is 8/15, and even better, it's 8/15/16, so I cannot let this most momentous of days pass by without devoting some time to my favorite show.  And for the second group-I can write about Lost if I want to write about Lost-we'll get back into Trump's campaign manager secretly getting money from the Russians a different day, okay?

I actually covered a lot of ground with Lost Week when I did it earlier this year (Link Right Here!), so you might be thinking that I don't have a lot of things to say about the subject, but that's where you would be wrong, because I always have a lot to talk about Lost.  Seriously-I think I could go on and on about this show in the same way I do politics and movies, but in those cases people actually want to hear about them (or, you know, they don't and I just have to pretend), but with Lost it's a niche show that most people have given up on in the years since.  For this day, I figured I would try and talk about something I didn't have time to get to with Lost Week and to discuss what Lost means to me personally.  I also am just putting this out into the universe, but I think I'm going to be doing 4/8 and 8/15 as my national permission days going forward to write articles about Lost as much as my heart desires, and if you haven't watched the show-what the hell are you waiting for?!?

I think the thing, for me, that I have to remember when wondering about Lost and why it stuck out to me even more than shows like Mad Men, Desperate Housewives, and Gilmore Girls (all of which have a special place in my admittedly TV fickle heart) is to understand why I love film more than television.

The reality is that television, for me, is generally pretty boring since it's so repetitive.  This isn't to say that I don't love television-I do, and there are shows (like the three I mentioned in the last paragraph-let's keep up), that I am willing to proudly display next to my movies, both literally and figuratively.  Television is constantly on in my apartment, though that can occasionally be a symptom of me watching not a TV series but (more often) a movie or a tennis tournament.  I like the noise of television, and once I latch onto a show, I generally latch on tight even when the quality of the show has waned significantly and it's more of a habitual and spiteful watch than anything else (explore this blog for very long and you'll find some Glee recaps to prove that).

Movies are finite pieces of information, ones that clearly had a goal in mind when they started, and are complete stories.  They are generally not dependent on the real world to shape the story for them.  When an actor or a writer signs up for a movie, they are making that entire film, and not just a season or several seasons of the show.  So often on television, we are faced with the realities of life.  A network decides to add a new star in the hopes of shoring up ratings or a longtime cast member quits to pursue greener pastures or are fired for some reason that the tabloids debate for weeks.  I look at a show like Grey's Anatomy, and realize that the hopes of so many of the fans have long since been extinguished-the happy endingsare gone from reality because certain cast members left.  It's hard to be emotionally invested in such a show because we know that the ultimate goals of the series aren't being achieved.

This doesn't just happen when it comes to cast departures, but also from the opposite end of the spectrum-the network saying they need to stretch out the story to keep the cash revenue going.  How much better would How I Met Your Mother have been if they'd ended it at seven seasons rather than ten?  The selfish aspect of this, the person that wanted to keep going with this crew that I loved (save Barney, who was increasingly obnoxious as the series went on) would have said forever, but the final few seasons were just a series of Robin/Ted/Barney triangles and the finale was relatively disappointing even for those of us who saw it coming.  The same could be said for series like Friends or Gilmore Girls, who had lackluster final seasons that left a bitter taste in your mouth, primarily because we knew where the series should have ended years earlier.  Series frequently tie together things that shouldn't have been together-things that don't feel like a natural conclusion (really-Samantha Jones decides to stay with her younger model boyfriend rather than embracing her single hood...at least until they're on the big screen-blasphemy!), just because of time constraints.  Movies don't have this problem-movies, provided they don't go into some ridiculous split ending Hunger Games territory, are actually finite and rarely do we see the strains of the universe and we get the ending the writers began with unless that film is Blade Runner.

(Spoilers for the Series Lost Ahead) This is what made Lost so special in my mind.  Lots of people may quibble with me, but taken as a whole, Lost is about as good of a storytelling experiment as one six season show can get.  The plot rarely repeated storylines, and even ones that were used more than once went in for higher and higher stakes (the Sawyer/Kate/Jack love triangle, John vs. Jack in their battle of science/faith).  The show always felt relatively essential, as well.  The story may have suspended belief on occasion (particularly the time-traveling fifth season), but it felt concrete as a show.  It was something that feels organic revisiting it-there are few seams in the lining.  Watching a season turn into the next season upon revisiting the series there are relatively few plot holes left behind.  Honestly, while you can quibble about the mysteries, and I have, for the most part there are solutions or near-solutions for almost every single question on the show, and the biggest questions (what is the meaning of life?) are too big for even a show as good as Lost to answer.

There were, of course, some of the issues symptomatic to television on display in the series.  We had at least a couple of actors (Cynthia Watros, Michelle Rodriguez, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje come to mind) that left likely due to outside circumstances, while the writer's strike cost us a few more in-depth looks at the Kahana (probably a Charlotte or Miles-centric story that would have aired that year that I am forever wishing I'd received), but by-and-large the show didn't lose much with these real-world issues, and kept telling the story they meant to tell.  As a result, Lost, more than any other show (though The Leftovers and to a lesser degree Game of Thrones may come close) was the best of both worlds-taking the finest attributes of both film and television and putting it into the same place.  While I have loved other shows, no other series has ever made me love it the way that I love my favorite movies.

Honestly, Lost is still the most special thing in my world, and the most hallowed of ground.  I can talk about movies or politics or tennis or Broadway until you literally begging for a topic change, but you  bring up Lost and suddenly I become quiet, as if holy territory has been reached.  Recently I discovered the Lost novels and it was like I'd died and gone to heaven-seeing stories about Shannon or Charlie or Kate, getting into the minds of new characters and discovering little tidbits (finding how John Locke discovered the backgammon table-literally, I cannot) was magical.  Everything about this series is magical.  I will happily entertain ideas and theories, but never really complaints unless they're constructive.  The people who said they wasted their lives when the show ended-I can't deal with them, and basically find that unforgivable.  You watched a different, very cinematic, journey than I did.  So those of you out there who are still pushing the button, who still want to go back, who want more round on the golf course, Happy Lost Day!

4 8 15 16 23 42 

Olympic Images of the Day: Day 8

We are at the half way point in the Rio Games, and what an amazing night for the Americans (and also, other countries).  Let's take a look at some of my favorite moments:

It does my ancient heart proud to see someone older than me pull off the gold last night (probably for the last time in aquatics).  That it was Anthony Ervin, whom I have crushed on since he tied Gary Hall sixteen years ago, is all the better.  Arguably the coolest guy on Team USA, and someone who has struggled to get to this point with issues of drug abuse and depression, this has to be one of the most cathartic and wildest moments of the tournament.

In another upset, Maya Dirado, who has for some reason (I'm still not sure why) declared this her first and last Olympics, managed to end it with a bang.  After pulling off a team gold and two individual medals, she came from behind in arguably her weakest event (seriously-what a finish!) to grab the gold medal in the 200m backstroke.  An incredible moment with someone who clearly got swept up in the emotion of the Games!

I don't know what day of the Games this victorious Katie Ledecky is from, because honestly-isn't this the recurring image of the Games at this point?  Ledecky clobbered in every one of her events, picking up a string of golds, last night her final one of the Games with the 800m.  The only quibble I have now is that for some reason they don't include the 1500m in this tournament as well (or the 800m for the Men's)-let's get some more swimming out there and have her compete for another gold!!!

Finally, we'll end with a victorious Michelle Carter, picking up the first USA medal of Track & Field, this time in the shot put.  She got to one-up her father Mike Carter (who won the silver at the 1984 Games), break an American record in the event, and also managed to win the first gold medal of the T&F events.  Also, am I the only person who wishes they'd focus more on the field portion of Track & Field.  Those runners are so impressive, but they spend more time on the blocks than they do on the track-the field events take a while and have a more climactic build, so I'm more about them.  Either well done Team USA!!!

Olympic Images of the Day: Day 7

I missed a day here (I know), but I got caught having to do something else on Wednesday night, so I wasn't able to tune in for the Olympics post like I planned.  But I was up all night last night, and so here are some of my highlights from an exclusively gymnastics and swimming evening:

For Americans there is Mary Lou.  And Carly.  And Nastia.  And Gabby.  And now Simone.  Yes, for the fifth time (and the fourth straight Olympics) the United States dominated the Gymnastics All-Around competition, though as Tim Daggett and the other announcer whose name they never actually say nauseatingly pointed out, she's the greatest of all time, no debate.  NONE!  It was hard to argue watching her perform, though, as while the announcers were incredibly annoying (and weirdly sexist to Nastia Liukin in their persistent mansplaining considering she's the only one whose, well, actually won this event before and is the one the audience actually wants insights from), Biles radiated on the floor of that Rio theater as she brushed her way into immortality.

Four years after she lost her bronze medal on essentially a technicality, Aly Raisman was back and this time left no doubts that she was great enough to earn a medal in this event.  After crushing the competition in a Floor routine for the ages, she broke down in tears in one of the best Olympic moments of the week, her strength giving way to the pressure she clearly felt to correct what happened in London and prove she deserved to be on a podium in one of the signature events of the Olympic Games.  Well done Aly!

Finally, there was Aliya Mustafina, who was the only person who seemed to really give Biles a worry (at one point she assumed the lead thanks to a fantastic piece of work on the Uneven Bars).  She also pointed out the problem of the American announcers a bit, as Tim Daggett got increasingly cruel to the Russian gymnast in a way he wasn't to anyone else, particularly people that were much weaker than Aliya, who seems kind of baller (she railed against doping, but also pointed out she wasn't willing to compete under any other banner than Russia, thus celebrating the Olympic Games' inherent love of country).  She also became the first woman in sixteen years to medal in this event twice.  Plus, her last name is awesome sauce: MUSTAFINA!!!!!

The past few years being a Michael Phelps stan has been a bit tough.  After a London Games where I questioned repeatedly his need to retire (he clearly had enough gas in the tank to keep going), he got his DUI and was constantly ostracized for his behavior.  Rio has been my redemption, though, as he's been stronger here than perhaps even at Beijing.  Last night in the 200m IM, his signature event, he became the first swimmer ever to win the gold medal in four straight events, and then turned around and managed to land the 100m fly with only 35 minutes separating the events.  Regardless of the rest of his tournament (he still has two finals left), Phelps has ended his career in the classy way he hoped, but failed to do four years ago.

In what (for me) was the most emotional moment of the night, Simone Manuel made her way into the history books, and not just by breaking an Olympic Record in the 100m free.  Manuel became the first ever African-American woman to win a gold medal (or a medal of any kind) in an individual swimming event.  It was particularly moving not just because of the history behind such a moment, but also because it seemed completely unexpected (she won in a tie, wasn't the favorite headed into the event, and it was the result of a late push by Manual that it happened) and because the announcers, two straight white men, not only acknowledged the fact but Dan Hicks and Rowdy Gaines seemed genuinely moved to be a part of history.  A great American moment all-around.

Finally, there's Nate Adrian, who managed to (the night after he was upset in an event he dominated four years ago) come back swinging with the best smile in American swimming on his face, and rebound into arguably the weirdest and fastest event in the water, the 50m freestyle.  He's not the favorite headed into tomorrow, but for his fans, it was a great moment to rally.  Go Nate!

OVP: The Blue Dahlia (1946)

Film: The Blue Dahlia (1946)
Stars: Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, William Bendix, Howard da Silva, Doris Dowling
Director: George Marshall
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

There's no genre in probably all of filmdom that I love more than film noir.  I have a penchant for "women who lie to themselves," romantic epics, and cerebral dramas, but at the end of the day you put me in front of a detective film with a jaded lead and a beautiful but dangerous woman in his romantic sights and I'm truly set.  This is why I picked The Blue Dahlia off of my DVR (again-trying to clean that thing out a bit over the next month), hoping that some interactions with the likes of Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake would be a great start to the week.  Unfortunately, the film doesn't have enough of a vested interest in its supporting cast and can't hold together its mystique (likely due to some famed offscreen issues with writer Raymond Chandler) to really graduate to a classic film noir.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Johnny Morrison (Ladd), a discharged US Naval officer who is coming home to see his wife Helen (Dowling), only to find that she's clearly having an affair and throwing a gigantic party and killed their son in a drunk driving accident (it's a lot to take in in the first ten minutes of the movie).  Johnny threatens to kill his wife, but doesn't, and leaves, eventually meeting a woman on the street named Joyce (Lake), while Helen manages to get into all sorts of mischief, eventually blackmailing her lover and going home (unknowingly) with one of her husband's best friends.  Helen is found killed, and naturally Johnny is suspected, but while on the run-from-the-law he pursues the truth and eventually discovers the real killer.

It's the stuff of classic detective boilerplate, and with a writer like Chandler one should assume that it'd be better than it is, but the film lacks a few key elements that make for a truly interesting film noir.  For starters, the side characters, and really all of the characters, aren't that interesting.  Casting Ladd as the main character makes sense, but the rest of the cast isn't distinctive enough, and in particular the women don't stand out enough in the cast.  Chandler purportedly hated the film's leading lady, nicknaming her Moronica Lake, and while she was famously difficult to work with, he didn't give her a lot to do in the role other than occasionally seem mysterious and pretty.  It's hard not to think that a better actress like Rita Hayworth or Gene Tierney might have been able to find something stronger in the part, but Joyce is underwritten, and Helen is a bit of a cartoonish harpy-overall, his treatment of women isn't strong, and his work with men is hardly distinctive, not drawing the characters diversely enough, save for William Bendix' drunk-and-frightened Buzz, the highlight of the picture.

The ending also doesn't work.  Purportedly this was the studio's fault, as Chandler initially meant for Buzz, while in a blackout, to be the killer, and this made the most sense as it was disturbing and played into a number of the red herrings (as Buzz was arguably the only character who had no legitimate reason to want Helen dead), but the producers didn't want a naval officer to be portrayed as the killer so Chandler changed the ending and as a result sacrificed what was working in the film (the natural weirdness of a mystery where the killer was the only person who didn't want the victim dead).  By doing this, they might have appeased audiences but they hurt the film overall, and as a result it's a pretty lousy detective film.  There's moments to enjoy (I liked Lake's chemistry with Ladd better here than I did her films with Fredric March and Joel McCrea, and I get why they were paired together quite often), but overall this is pretty disappointing.

Those are my thoughts on this detective film.  It's relatively well-reviewed, so I'm likely in the minority here-anyone want to come to the picture's rescue?  Is it weird that this film essentially is remembered now for its connection to the entirely unrelated Black Dahlia murder?  If you haven't seen it, weigh in on your thoughts on Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, and Raymond Chandler in the comments!

Olympic Images of the Day: Day 5

Honestly, that may have been the best night of the games so far!  What an incredible evening for Team USA and really for anyone who loves the world of athletics, as swimming and gymnastics were just unbelievable last night, and I left duly impressed by pretty much everyone (and relatively hoarse toward the end of the endeavor).  Here are some of my best moments:

Is it just me or is Michael Phelps more fun this year than he's been, well, ever?  Honestly, and I count myself as a longtime, ardent fan of his, but as also a big fan of Andy Murray's, I clearly have a thing for dour athletes, and Phelps is usually the cranky one when compared to his hang-loose partner Ryan Lochte.  This year, though, perhaps because he knows that it's not just his pronouncement but his age that is ensuring that he will be retiring after Rio, he's more relaxed, and even seemed to revel in his defeat of Chad le Clos' whose bizarre antics prior to the 200m fly, which he didn't even medal in, baffled swimming analysts and the announcers and perhaps even Phelps himself.

If you haven't gotten on the Katie Ledecky train yet, I honestly don't know what to do with you.  Undefeated at the Olympics so far, she got yet another gold yesterday in the 200m free, and seems to be a really lovely human being, hugging her opponents and humbly amassing fans (while inspiring a generation of young women and men to get into the pool the way Michael Phelps did for her so many years ago).  Truly a class act, and I'm excited to see her continue her streak as the week moves on.

So the United States gets another team of immortal gymnasts to be on the cover of every Wheaties Box between her and Tallahassee, and arguably this is the best group ever, with Americans dominating the competition, particularly led by Team Captain Aly Raisman and gymnastics wunderkind Simone Biles. In a lovely tribute to her decades of excellence in the field, the team named themselves the "Final Five" in honor of Marta Karolyi's retirement, a move that brought the famously stoic coach to tears.

I was a little worried, I have to admit.  My imaginary Olympics boyfriend (well, one of the top ones), barely made it to the 100m free in swimming, coming out of the Heats in last place and nearly missing the semifinals, but Nate Adrian rebounded in a spectacular fashion, dominating his semifinals and is heading into tonight as the favorite to repeat his gold medal from the London Games.  Also, Nate Adrian is adorable.  Like, the  most adorable.

Finally, and I know this is a thirsty way to end this post (though, really, isn't thirstiness kind of the point of the Olympics at this juncture?), but look at Marcelo Chierighini, Brazilian swimmer.  That's obscene.  No one should be allowed to be that good-looking.  But I'm glad he got license to anyway.