OVP: Agatha (1979)

Film: Agatha (1979)
Stars: Vanessa Redgrave, Dustin Hoffman, Timothy Dalton, Helen Morse, Celia Gregory
Director: Michael Apted
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Costume Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

One of the more enjoyable parts of the Oscar Viewing Project is that you get to see movies you didn't know existed.  Usually, for me, this is some random comedy from the midst of the Studio System that got nominated for Best Score and suddenly I'm toe-tapping alongside Marion Davies or Eleanor Powell much to my delight.  Occasionally, though, there's something more recent like Agatha which peaks out as a movie that I'm staggered I didn't realize existed, mostly in this case because I'm such a fan of Agatha Christie.  I own everything she's ever written (and can see it from where I'm typing this now), and have read most of it, and yet I never realized that this biography, starring Vanessa Redgrave & Dustin Hoffman at the peak of their fame, existed.

(Spoilers Ahead) It should be noted that the film itself doesn't take place over Christie's illustrious career, but at perhaps the most mysterious moment of it-the famed disappearance of the mystery novelist that attracted massive media speculation (it was on the front page of the New York Times) at the time.  After all, the world's most famous mystery writer suddenly disappears in a moment that seems plucked from the plot of one of her books?  How could the public not eat that up?  Since that story to this day remains shrouded in enigma (the Christies were pretty mum on the situation with Agatha ignoring the event entirely in her autobiography, and at the time claiming Agatha had amnesia though they divorced soon after), this is a series of made-up events, and in many ways they lean heavily into the idea that this could be one of Christie's novels.  After all, we have Agatha largely playing a Gone Girl situation here, disappearing into a Turkish Bath (truly random coincidence-I was in Hot Springs, Arkansas last week so I actually got to see a bathhouse similar to that used in this movie for the first time!), and attempting to frame her husband's mistress for murder, while in the process attempting suicide (she's unsuccessful in both attempts).

The film features Christie (Redgrave) as a woman of deep introversion, almost socially-awkward and Hoffman as Wally Stanton, an American reporter trying to get a major scoop on the world's most famous writer suddenly disappearing in the midst of a scandalous divorce.  The two actors clearly care about these characters deeply, particularly Redgrave who puts a tenderness around the author that is lacking in the script (which realizes pretty early on that the actual plot, devoid of side characters, is far too thin and so stretches the movie to the point of tedium).  Both are fine actors, but they have zilch chemistry with each other, and cannot seem to connect at all, making their fictional romance exceedingly dull to watch.  The movie at its best shows the mind of Christie, the way that she tries to pick up things from those passing by to create her characters, or the way her plan is never said out loud, so you have to deduce it the same way you would if you were reading her novels.  Unfortunately, these are only short bursts in the film, and the rest is terribly dull.  This isn't really a lost treasure other than in describing its plot; the movie itself is best left forgotten, particularly considering all of the truly great work Hoffman and Redgrave did in the late 1970's.

The movie's Oscar nomination was for Best Costume Design, and while it's easy to see why the Oscars honored it (and a nice nod to Shirley Ann Russell, who had been doing showy work for a decade at that point and never been cited by AMPAS), there's nothing special here.  The suits are fine, but nothing memorable, and the dresses worn by Redgrave aren't particularly insightful.  Yes, she wears frocks and furs as if she's covering up something, but that's about the most basic reading one could make into such a character, and quite frankly may be due more to Redgrave than anything else. Otherwise, this is a case of another period film scoring a citation in a year that was oddly bereft of such opportunities.

How to Fix the "Appointment" Process

Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)

I don’t oftentimes agree with Republicans.  Particularly in 2018, with even the most moderate of Republicans like Susan Collins causing me nothing but heartache in the past year, it’s not often that I agree with Republicans, and in particular twice in a row, but recent actions in Minnesota and Alabama are showing that principle (on my part, not always theirs) occasionally trumps party, and that we need to figure out a better way to address political appointments.

Both Alabama and Minnesota have, in the past two years, had Senate vacancies that caused a lot of stir.  The former’s was Republican-induced, with President Trump appointing then-Sen. Jeff Sessions to head the Justice Department, and which resulted in a stunning victory for the Democrats by US Attorney Doug Jones.  The latter’s was a result of the resignation of Sen. Al Franken, something that has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many progressives who adored Franken, particularly amid allegations of a Roger Stone conspiracy, coupled with accusations that he was sacrificed to make it easier for Jones to beat Roy Moore in Alabama or to boost Kirsten Gillibrand’s presidential prospects.  I don’t want this to get into a discussion on Franken specifically, but I will state that I supported, and still do support Franken’s resignation as I felt that being represented by him was not something I was comfortable with (I was no longer willing to vote for him in a primary after that), but I particularly think it’s time to move on and idiocy to punish Tina Smith with Trump still in 2018 (we will need all of the fighters we can get for the back half of his first-term, and Smith is one of them).

But again, that’s not the point here-the point is what happened after these vacancies, and specifically how both were filled with Democrats.  The Alabama state legislature looks set to pass a law requiring that a special election be held only in regularly-scheduled federal elections rather than having an off-election, which the Republicans blame on how Jones beat Moore (ignoring the fact that Roy Moore overwhelmingly won their primary and was just the worst candidate you could possibly imagine running for this seat).  In Minnesota, Gov. Dayton’s decision to pick his lieutenant governor left her office open, and the line of succession mandated that State Sen. Michelle Fischbach take her place, with the Republicans now suing to let Fischbach hold her critical State Senate seat even while LG, even though Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has stated she can’t do that.  The Republicans even proposed having a special session to elect a new Democratic State Senate President to allow Dayton’s LG to be of his own party, but Democrats balked at this, primarily because Fischbach’s resignation (or potentially them winning her seat) would flip the State Senate over to the left.  Republicans obviously don’t want this to happen, particularly over a largely ceremonial office for a term that will end in just 11 months.

The thing is, here, that the Republicans are actually right on both counts.  I think they are bad sports and horrid for choosing this time in particular in Alabama to pass such a law, but it didn’t actually “need” to have an election immediately to fill Sessions seat.  Other public figures have been replaced by Democrats without us batting an eye about them getting a full two-year-term in office; you can look as recently as 2009 for a clear example.  That year the nation elected two Democratic senators to the White House (Barack Obama and Joe Biden) and they in turn appointed two more to their cabinet (Hillary Clinton and Ken Salazar).  All four were replaced by Democrats (Roland Burris, Ted Kaufman, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Michael Bennet, respectively), and all four served until the next regularly-scheduled federal election with little issue.  While I think that a special election winner should be seated pretty much immediately (the tax bill should have been forced to have a vote with elected Doug Jones, not appointed Luther Strange), I don’t have a problem with them avoiding an expensive special election, particularly if the party the people chose to begin with is being represented still.  It’s worth noting that the Democrats tried something similar to Alabama in the run-up to the 2004 election in Massachusetts to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing the replacement to a hypothetical-President John Kerry, a move that ended up being foolish in hindsight when Scott Brown pulled off a shocking upset over Martha Coakley in 2009.

Similarly, the Fischbach situation seems to reek of opportunism on the part of the Democrats.  Fischbach clearly doesn’t want to be lieutenant governor rather than a state senator, and only was Senate President to do the other roles of the position.  Considering she doesn’t want to give up her seat, and picking up her State Senate seat is a longshot, it would make more sense for the Democrats to simply elect one of their own as a State Senate President (perhaps a state senator from a safe blue seat that was going to retire anyway), and have he or she serve out the remainder of Smith’s term as a career-capper.  It’s worth noting, of course, that Democrats are playing with fire here in a way they aren’t in Alabama (where Jones was nothing but upside); if Dayton were to die or have to resign (he does have cancer and is in his 70's, after all), Fischbach would become governor, thereby giving entire control of the Gopher State to the Republican Party.  Even with a few short months in charge, they would be able to have an enormous impact.

Honestly, I think the entire appointment process should be changed to mirror Wyoming’s Senate process, where if a senator dies or resigns, he or she is automatically replaced by someone of the same party; the state party of the departed senator chooses three candidates, and then the governor chooses one of those three.  This way, the seat doesn’t exchange hands from the people’s will (at least in terms of partisan makeup) until the next federal election.

This would cause situations where a senator who is clearly unable to serve properly could resign without it disrupting control of the Senate.  Look at Tim Johnson or Mark Kirk, both senators who suffered strokes and missed months of work (leaving the people of their state without representation for dozens of votes), who stayed on in at least some part due to the fact that they had governors of the other party who would choose their successor.  This is wrong, and disrupts the will of the people; Johnson & Kirk forfeited the rights of millions of people to have a voice in Congress in large part due to the fact that it would have cost their party too much to have them resign.  In a perfect world, a senator would be selected of the same party, and then have to stand in the next scheduled federal election.  This would be a fair solution to alleviate at least some of the “win at all costs” mentality in Washington.

John's Top 10 of 2017

The Globes, Oscars, and pretty much every critic on the internet has weighed in with their Top 10 list of the year, and I figure it is time for me to do the same.  Yesterday I went through the Worst of the Year, and I can't leave you there for long, so let's dive into 2017 one last time.  I will admit up-front that this is arguably one of the least years I remember from the past ten years (the last time I only had six 5-star movies was 2006), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some notable gems, particularly the below ten films (listed alphabetically, because why rank when I implore you to see all ten, and with more in-depth reviews linked for all of them, so go peruse):

Beach Rats (dir. Eliza Hittman)

In a year where queer cinema was hitting most of the biggest home runs, this is one that could have easily slipped past my radar.  However, with a spectacular debut from Harris Dickinson & a chilling look inside of a closet that won't open, Eliza Hittman shares an uncomfortable story that is beautifully lensed and impossible to shake.

The Big Sick (dir. Michael Showalter)

The romantic comedy is never actually dead, but it feels like it's in constant need of resuscitation.  This film did it not with a compelling leading lady, but instead two incredibly fun performances from Ray Romano & Holly Hunter as a worn married couple who are trying to cope with their daughter's ex-boyfriend being pushed into their lives.  Please give Kumail Nanijiani another movie, ASAP, but perhaps more importantly-give Romano & Hunter a TV series, as this chemistry should be bottled.

Call Me by Your Name (dir. Luca Guadagnino)

I've seen it twice, and it'll be thrice this week.  A beautiful, haunting movie that just unfolds with the confidence of a classic from its opening scenes, its central romance is forbidden, felt, and dead sexy.  Chalamet, between this and Lady Bird, is a discovery of seismic proportions.  One of those movies I know I'll be watching every year.

Coco (dir. Lee Unkrich)

It holds up on second viewing, and that's about as high of a compliment as I can give a picture I loved so fully.  Charmed with bouncy original music and a gorgeous palette of pink, tangerine, and violet, it also has plenty of heart and is proof that when they aren't churning out mindless sequels, Pixar is still the best game in town.

Dunkirk (dir. Christopher Nolan)

An anonymous, but never emotionless, look at war first-hand.  Astoundingly directed by Christopher Nolan (arguably his most ambitious task to-date), we see war on land, air, and sea in a cast of characters that share little of themselves but instead work as blank canvasses, representing in their stead the millions of men that have come before-and-since.  A triumph.

The Florida Project (dir. Sean Baker)

At once a sprawling documentary and an intimate drama, this film feels so raw and authentic you'll be forgiven for assuming that leads Bria Vinaite and Brooklynn Prince weren't just discovered in the shadow of Orlando.  Combined with a soulful, introverted turn from Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project is an honest look at poverty through the wonderful lens of a child.

God's Own Country (dir. Francis Lee)

Yes, it borrows from Brokeback, but the best films often feel possible because of what came before them.  And surely God's Own Country strikes its own path with its troubled leads, and the revelation of Josh O'Connor's Johnny discovering love, and more importantly, intimacy, for the first time in his life.

Jane (dir. Brett Morgen)

Special effects are fine and all, but perhaps nothing was more shocking this year onscreen than the magic of Brett Morgen's time machine documentary, which takes Dr. Jane Goodall back decades with a gold-hued camera as we discover her love of chimpanzees first-hand.  Few documentaries have been so jaw-dropping, and so devoted to their subject.

Lady Bird (dir. Greta Gerwig)

Actors-turned-directors' first efforts can occasionally feel like a waste of time, indulgent affairs for people whose editors are afraid of pissing off the movie star.  Thankfully Greta Gerwig had no such issues, creating a semi-autobiographical look at the world of mothers-and-daughters, grounded by great work from Saoirse Ronan & Laurie Metcalf.

Personal Shopper (dir. Olivier Assayas)

Part grief drama, part ghost story, all fascinating.  Olivier Assayas's devotion to actresses, and finding the small mountains that his lead characters can experience in the oddest of times, is on full-display as Stewart's Maureen deals with the death of her brother, and possibly his hanging-on as she attempts to move on in every capacity of her life.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Keith Ellison?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Rumors were mounting yesterday morning that Rep. Keith Ellison, a Minnesota congressman since 2007 and the Vice Chair of the DNC, may be exploring a bid for Attorney General of Minnesota.  The current AG Lori Swanson is widely assumed to be mulling a run for governor of the state, and as a result her seat will be open in 2018.  It is relatively unusual for sitting members of Congress to run for a statewide constitutional office that isn’t governor (it’s viewed in some capacities as a step down), and especially considering Ellison’s strong profile in the state (outside of senior senator Amy Klobuchar, he’s arguably the most high-profile current officeholder from the Gopher State), I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the why’s and ramifications of such a jump.

Ellison is clearly an ambitious pol, one who has been trying in recent years to gain a stronger foothold on the national conversation.  In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s devastating losses in 2016, Ellison ran for the DNC Chair in what was largely seen as a proxy battle between the Clinton Wing and the Sanders Wing of the Democratic Party, and while he (like Sanders) lost the primary, he was seen as too strong of an asset not to be given a spot on the DNC leadership, and so Tom Perez appointed him his #2.  Still, though, Ellison clearly wants to make the jump to higher office, but knows that his background and voting/rhetoric history may be damning in a light blue state like Minnesota.

This is because while Minnesota has consistently gone to the Democrats on a presidential level, they have shown a proclivity for a specific type of politician when it comes to statewide elections.  For years they lost repeatedly when it came to statewide races against the Republicans, frequently nominating people like John Marty, Skip Humphrey, and Roger Moe, boring old white guys with ties to the Iron Range who had little connection to the growing base of support in Hennepin and Ramsey counties.  In the past fifteen years, the party has been smarter, nominating figures like Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken who have better connections to the Cities, while still able to connect to rural voters.

Ellison would be the end-game of this trend, as he has shown relatively little interest in the rural parts of the state since he represents Minneapolis in Congress (which is not a rural area), and is much further to the left than even someone like Klobuchar and Franken.  He is also, it has to be said because it’s impossible to deny it could be an issue, a black, Muslim man.  While Minnesotans have elected African-Americans statewide (specifically Supreme Court Justice and Vikings legend Alan Page), they have never done so in a partisan election, and no Muslim-American has ever won a statewide constitutional office in any state.  While we have seen extraordinary progress in terms of the “Bradley Effect” in recent years, this is still Trump’s America and it’s impossible to imagine Ellison’s religion not being something that is part of a stealth “Southern Strategy” campaign in parts of the state that he’d need to win to take a statewide election (specifically St. Louis County), that are predominantly white, Christian communities.  Lest we forget, the Republican nominee for the Senate from Alabama as recently as last month said that Ellison shouldn't be seated in Congress because of his religion-it's hard not to see that being something the GOP would covertly try to insinuate on the campaign trail.

So it is not a small question of whether Ellison would be able to win the AG spot based on both the Bradley Effect and his liberal history.  This might not be a huge issue in a state like Illinois or California, where the primary is basically the general election for Democrats, but Minnesota hasn’t always had a full-slate of Democrats statewide, and it was one of the closest states that did go for Hillary Clinton in 2016.  In an era where Attorneys General have become much higher profile on a national scale (look at all of the lawsuits that have been levied against the Trump administration that might otherwise not have with a Republican politician, including many by AG Swanson from Minnesota), the Democrats may not want to take this risk, even if Ellison is a superhero in many sects of the DFL.

That being said, this could be Ellison acknowledging the Democratic Party’s reluctance to go with someone of his profile.  Obviously someone with ambition, it’s quite possible that Ellison could have sought a larger stage already in 2018 should he have wanted.  The open governorship would have given him a better jumping off point if he someday wanted to pursue the White House, and challenging Tina Smith in the Senate special election would have given him an enormous platform in the national conversation.  Ellison’s passing on this may be an acknowledgement that even he isn’t sure if he could win such high stakes contests, and is perhaps starting with a smaller office with the hope of going larger.  It’s also worth noting that as AG, should he win, Ellison could be a major thorn in the side of the Trump Administration, raising his profile even within the party.

After all, going from Congress to a constitutional office with the hopes of it paying long-range dividends isn’t entirely unprecedented.  Rep. Adam Putnam was seen as a rising star in the House leadership (elected to the House at only the age of 26), but abandoned a congressional leadership path in 2010 to run for Agriculture Commissioner, a statewide office that had none of the power of his perch in Washington, but did make him a statewide-elected official in Florida.  That bet seems likely to pay off this year, with Putnam a frontrunner to win the GOP nomination in a state that has served a launchpad for politicians like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Bob Graham onto the national stage in recent years.  Were he still in Congress, Putnam would have a bevy of congressional votes he’d have to defend (as well as a connection to an unpopular Congress), and also wouldn’t be able to point out that he has won twice statewide already.

That may also be Ellison’s goal here.  He has hit the point in his career where he wants to make a big bet on himself, and would surely start out with the advantage in an AG primary contest.  Were he to win, he would be able to claim that he can win statewide, perhaps trying a primary challenge against Smith in 2020 or a future run for governor.  If he loses, he’s still the DNC Vice Chair and popular enough to get into a future cabinet job…and in a year that is likely to be friendly to the Democrats like 2018, he would know that his statewide prospects are impossible in a light blue state like Minnesota.  How this plays out could be interesting to watch (as the “Bradley Effect” and the “too liberal/conservative” labels have taken a beating in recent years in terms of electoral prognoses), but this could be one of the most-telling down-ballot races of 2018.