OVP: The Letter (1929)

Film: The Letter (1929)
Stars: Jeanne Eagels, O.P. Heggie, Reginald Owen, Herbert Marshall, Lady Tsen Mei
Director: Jean de Limur
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Jeanne Eagels)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It has not been a super progressive weekend in the John apartment, at least in regard to film-watching.  First we had Kentucky, which had some horribly stereotypical portrayals of African-Americans.  Then came Bachelor in Paradise, which showed us how little was thought of women in motion pictures before the feminist movement.  And now we come to The Letter, a tiny film from 1929 that features a stunning performance from Jeanne Eagels, but also incredibly racist undertones in its portrayal of Chinese women.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is unfortunately the curse of watching old movies-with the great actors of long ago also comes the outdated and terrible ideals of that era as well.  The movie takes place in Singapore, with Eagels playing Leslie Crosbie, a neglected woman who has taken up an affair with another man named Geoffrey (Marshall), who in turn has become involved with a local woman, Li-Ti (Mei).  Leslie, fueled by a jealous rage after being scorned by Geoffrey, shoots him in cold blood.

We then cut to Leslie's trial, which is what the rest of the film is about (Marshall, despite being the most well-known actor in the film now, only is in the movie for a brief appearance).  Leslie makes up a lie on the stand, claiming that she shot Geoffrey in self-defense, and the judge and prosecution seem to eat it up; she is a respectable woman on paper, and there is no one to speak otherwise for the victim.

However, Leslie wrote Geoffrey a letter (thus the title) the night he died begging her to come over, and this could doom the case.  After a conversation with her lawyer, Leslie takes her husband's life savings to Li-Ti and bribes her to get the letter back (life was so much simpler and more trusting before Xerox). She is successful, and in an odd twist, Leslie gets away with the murder in court.  The film's final scene, though, shows her husband finding out about the letter.  She confesses the crime to him, how she was driven to Geoffrey's arms because she had been neglected for years by her husband, and how she even now still loves Geoffrey.  Her husband's punishment to her is to snatch away her hopes of returning to London and her old life; they will stay in Singapore and she will remain miserable.  In an odd twist (I didn't see this coming for such an early film), this is where the story ends.  There is comeuppance for Leslie, but she never has to go through another trial over her crimes.

The film is a weird juxtaposition for me as a reviewer on whether I would recommend it (I consider anything at three stars or higher to be a recommendation).  On the one hand, the film's racist overtones are hard to ignore.  Li-Ti and On Chi Seng (a Chinese man who helps in the blackmail scheme) are both depicted as duplicitous and always through the lens of how they are perceived by the film's white characters.  Despite Leslie being the murderer and Li-Ti being the wronged woman, the film doesn't really proceed that way during their only scene together; instead, we see Li-Ti being the "evil" one and Leslie being the frightened victim.  The movie lacks any sort of shading for the Chinese characters, and treats them all as stereotypes.  The cinema's treatment of people of color would unfortunately take decades to make much progress in this department.

On the other hand, Eagels is aces in the main role in the film.  While many performers of this era were hindered by moving from silent film acting to sound, Eagels had been a huge star on Broadway, and so the more theatrical speaking world of the talkies wasn't a stretch for her as an actress.  Thus, we got a more complete performance here, and she nails the melodrama of the role, while still finding ways to layer a confused woman.  She's not entirely willing to admit to herself what she has done, much less those around her.

Eagels died at the age of 39 after a really remarkable and adventurous life (seriously, check out the woman's IMDB biography page), and so with The Letter she became the first actor ever to receive an Academy Award nomination posthumously.  She lost to Mary Pickford in Coquette (generally considered one of the worst performances to ever receive an Academy Award), and as a result of her untimely death, is little mentioned today.  Have you seen any of her films?  If so, what are your thoughts on Eagels?  And don't you wish that instead of doing yet another biopic on someone we already know by heart (say, Marilyn Monroe) that Hollywood would reinvestigate one of the great early stars onscreen?

Twenty Years of Political Power

Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton

I was watching Chelsea Clinton on The Daily Show the other day, and realized that her father became president twenty years ago (feel old now?), and started to think about how Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have vastly changed the world of politics and Washington and frankly the globe over the past twenty years.  While there are arguably other figures in the past twenty years who have had just as vast of an influence (Pope John Paul II, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates come to mind), few would argue that these men have been the most dominant figures of American politics in the past twenty years.

So in trying to put together a list of the most influential shapers of the political world of the past twenty years, I knew that these three men would be at the Top 3 slots, which would hardly be any fun (lists are always more fun when the Number One isn't wholly obvious), so I decided to exclude them.  Instead, I wanted to take a look at the twenty people who didn't hold the highest office in the land who have most influenced the past twenty years of American political life.  I tried as much as possible to be objective (balancing between Republican and Democratic politicians), and also tried to focus on national influence.  For example, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg have had an enormous impact on New York City and are household names, but they rarely have impacted people outside their constituency with a great deal of depth.

In doing this, I'm obviously leaving off a plethora of names (including all White House Chiefs of Staff, a Vice President, and two losing presidential candidates most notably), but that's what the comments section is for-clearly, more than twenty people can impact the political system in a major way over twenty years.  Instead, I thought this would be a fun discussion about American politics and the biggest names that have impacted it.  Here are my twenty individuals who have most shaped the Washington and national political landscape over the past two decades:

Gov. Howard Dean

20. Howard Dean
Where He was in 1993: He had just been re-elected to a second term as Governor of Vermont
Where He's at in 2013: Contributor to CNBC and longshot presidential contender for 2016
Why He's On the List: Dean made an enormous impact on the national scene early in the 2004 Democratic primaries, when his liberal grassroots campaign lit the fires of the Democratic Party in a way that Barack Obama would find great success with four years later.  However, Dean's greatest impact to the past twenty years was his initially-maligned 50-State Strategy, which had huge success in the 2006 and 2008 elections and turned New England into a Democratic stronghold (today, no Republican has a House seat from the region).

19. Condoleezza Rice

Where She was in 1993: She had just been appointed the first female Provost of Stanford University.
Where She's at in 2013: She's back at Stanford, and just signed a book deal.
Why She's On the List: As the National Security Advisor during the 9/11 attacks, as well as the Iraq War, Rice was one of the principle shapers of foreign policy during its most pertinent phase in the United States of America since the Cold War.

18. Colin Powell
Where He was in 1993: Serving his final few months as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Where He's At in 2013: Largely outside of the public view, his most recent contribution to the political landscape has been his endorsement of President Obama
Why He's On the List: Powell spent most of the 1990's as the hope of Republican politics-many thought he would have beaten President Bill Clinton in 1996 (one of four rare occurrences from the past two decades where someone completely turned down an easy pass to a major party presidential nomination).  He later became a pivotal figure in the Bush administration and the Iraq War, and in 2008, scorned his former employer by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for the White House.

Sec. Donald Rumsfeld

17. Donald Rumsfeld
Where He was in 1993: Just finishing up a stint as CEO of the General Instrument Corporation
Where's He at in 2013: Though he's endorsed some more liberal policies since ending his stint as the head of the Defense Department (he supported repealing DADT), he can most often be found on FOX News slamming the president on issues like Syria.
Why He's on the List: Few would argue that the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the largest political story of the past twenty years, if not the largest news story in general.  Rumsfeld's position as head of the Defense Department saw the launches of both wars.  His leadership tenure also saw the horrific human rights violations at Abu Ghraib, which were one of the largest mars on the Bush administration.

16. Nancy Pelosi
Where She was in 1993: Pelosi had just been re-elected to a fourth term in California's eighth district.
Where She's at in 2013: House Minority Leader
Why She's on the List: Pelosi may have served only two terms as Speaker, but she used her time valuably.  She became a leading voice of the opposition from 2006 to 2008 when Barack Obama was running for the White House, and eventually led to the passage of his signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

15. John Roberts
Where He was in 1993: He served as partner at Hogan and Hartson, one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms in Washington D.C.
Where He's at in 2013: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Why He's on the List: His Court has seen an incredible number of cases, ranging from fourth amendment rights to those discussing animal cruelty.  Roberts may have shaped the court the most significantly with his stance on the Affordable Care Act, a surprise decision on his behalf that allowed the legislation to stay intact.  His court has also seen a number of gay rights cases, which will likely be regarded as some of the most important of his tenure (though he has not been in the majority on all of them).  And finally, he was part of the conservative majority who allowed the landmark Citizens United  victory.

14. Harry Reid
Where He was in 1993: Reid had just won re-election to a second term rather easily to his Senate seat in Nevada.
Where He's at in 2013: Senate Majority Leader
Why He's on the List: Reid has been the face of Congress for most of the past decade.  He has run an incredibly tight ship in the Senate after three terms as majority leader and has managed to pass the Affordable Care Act, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and major gay rights legislation during his time in charge.

Rush Limbaugh

13. Rush Limbaugh
Where He was in 1993: He was reaching the peak of his early popularity, frequently criticizing a newly-elected President Clinton.
Where He's at in 2013: Still hosting The Rush Limbaugh Show, the most highly-rated talk radio show in the country.
Why He's on the List: Few people carry the polarizing love him/hate him tag better than Rush Limbaugh.  As one of the leading voices in the conservative movement, he was a major contributor to the 1994 Republican midterm landslides and can still make-or-break a conservative politician's career on his show, which reaches some 15 million listeners.

12. Al Gore
Where He was in 1993: He had just been elected Vice President of the United States.
Where He's at in 2013: He remains one of the most highly-paid and sought after politicians on the speaking circuit.
Why He's on the List: Gore, oddly enough, had more influence in what he did out of power than he did while Vice President.  After a hair's breadth election in 2000 for the White House, he became the public face of the climate change movement.  Though he turned down the presidential nomination in 2004 (like Powell in 1996, one of those four rare politicians during this era to turn down the nomination when it would have clearly been his if he'd wanted it), he gained incredible public awareness for his movement with An Inconvenient Truth in 2006.

Gov. Sarah Palin

11. Sarah Palin
Where She was in 1993: Member of the Wasilla City Council
Where She's at in 2013: A FOX News contributor, and one of the most well-known figures in the Republican Party
Why She's on the List: Because no politician in the past five years, save Barack Obama, has received public attention as much as Sarah Palin.  Palin went from an obscure governor to the face of the Republican Party in 2008 when she overshadowed John McCain and instantly became one of the most famous women in the country.  Since then, she has been the most visible leader of the Tea Party movement and continues to have a strong following despite her controversial statements.  Also, like Powell in 1996 and Gore in 2004, few would argue that had the governor run for the Republican nomination in 2012, she likely would have won it.

10. Sandra Day O'Connor
Where She was in 1993: Enjoying her twelfth year on the Supreme Court, having just given up the title of only woman to serve in the institution.
Where She's at in 2013: Largely retired, though she frequently can be found on the speaking and talk show circuits, and just wrote a book about the history of the Supreme Court
Why She's on the List: Though she will remain indefinitely in history books as the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, that's not why she's here.  She's here because she was the key swing vote in a number of landmark cases, including those regarding McCain-Feingold and most importantly, the 2000 Presidential Election.

9. John McCain
Where He was in 1993: Despite his involvement in the "Keating Five," he had just won re-election rather handily to a second term in Arizona.
Where He's at in 2013: Currently serving his fifth term in the United States Senate, and continuing to make headlines as a member of the "Gang of Eight."
Why He's on the List: John McCain has been one of the principle leaders of the Republican Party.  From his two major presidential races (2000 and 2008) to his stance as both a key maverick in the Senate and as the body's leading "hawk," he will likely go down with the likes of Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan and Bob Dole as one of the most accomplished politicians to run for and lose the White House.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke

8. Ben Bernanke
Where He was in 1993: A tenured professor at Princeton
Where He's at in 2013: Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Why He's on the List: As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke has overseen the Great Recession as well as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  By virtue of the power that is instilled in this particular office, he has been one of the most important figures in the world's economy since taking the position in 2006.

7. Anthony Kennedy
Where He Was in 1993: Enjoying his fifth year on the Supreme Court
Where He's at in 2013: Enjoying his 25th year on the Supreme Court, making him the 25th longest-serving justice in history.
Why He's on the List: Since O'Connor retired from the Court, there has been no single justice who has been more closely monitored than Kennedy.  His opinions on abortion, gay rights, the environment, gun control, and habeas corpus have, through 5-4 decisions, become the law of the land.

6. Roger Ailes
Where He was in 1993: Ailes was finishing up his tenure at CNBC and was ready to start the failed experiment of America's Talking.
Where's He at in 2013: President of FOX News
Why He's on the List: More than any other media figure, Ailes has altered the news media landscape. FOX News has changed the Republican Party eternally, and made household names out of people like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck.

5. Alan Greenspan
Where He was in 1993: Already becoming an economic rock star as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Where's He at in 2013: He gave a speech in 2012 about congressional cooperation, but has largely stayed out of the public eye recently.
Why He's on the List: During his record five terms as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he supported Clinton's deficit reduction plan, initiated interest rate cuts post the 9/11 attacks, and saw a record high rise in gold prices.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

4. Newt Gingrich
Where He Was in 1993: House Minority Whip
Where's He at in 2013: Co-hosting Crossfire (which CNN apparently has rehashed because they're out of good ideas)
Why He's on the List: During the 1990's, he was the face of the Republican Party.  He helped facilitate the Republican Revolution of 1994, the Contract with America, and eventually led the impeachment trials against Bill Clinton as Speaker of the House.

3. Karl Rove
Where He Was in 1993: Rove was helping Kay Bailey Hutchison win the special Senate election in Texas.
Where's He at in 2013: He just extended his contract as a FOX News contributor through 2016.
Why He's on the List: Rove was Bush's right hand man during his presidential election and throughout his tenure in the White House.  Though he was surrounded by controversy due to the U.S. Attorney firings, the White House e-mail controversies, and most notably the Valerie Plame affair, he remained a key player in the Bush White House and a towering figure in electoral politics.

Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Where She was in 1993: She had just started serving as First Lady of the United States.
Where She's at in 2013: Writing another book, cashing in on the speaking circuit, and receiving daily rumors about another presidential run.
Why She's on the List: Clinton and the number one choice for most influential are probably the only two that rival the three presidents in terms of collective influence.  From her years as the most influential First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to her high profile gig as a New York senator to a presidential candidate to a globe-trotting Secretary of State, she's been a major part of the national conversation for all of the past twenty years.

Vice President Dick Cheney

1. Dick Cheney
Where He was in 1993: He had just finished his tenure as Secretary of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Where He's at in 2013: Frequently appearing on news shows discussing the decisions of the Obama administration.
Why He's on the List: As Vice President, Dick Cheney had an incredible hand on foreign policy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  No other Vice President has had the level of influence over the country that Cheney did.  For eight years, sometimes even more than the president, he was the most prominent politician in the country.  And, like Powell in 1996, Gore in 2004, and Palin in 2012, Cheney was the only other person to basically turn down the nomination for the presidency (in 2008).

And those are my choices for the twenty most influential American politicians of the past twenty years. Who should be cut and whom would you include?  I considered Ken Starr, Bob Dole, Joe Biden, Madeline Albright, and William Rehnquist-should one of them have made it or would you have gone with someone else entirely?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Bachelor in Paradise (1961)

Film: Bachelor in Paradise (1961)
Stars: Bob Hope, Lana Turner, Janis Paige, Jim Hutton, Paula Prentiss
Director: Jack Arnold
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Bachelor in Paradise")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Trying to find common ground between the Oscar Viewing Project and the Best Original Song category is a difficult thing for me on occasion.  In the case of things like musicals, it's fairly easy to rationalize needing to see the film-the song is made or broken based on what I'm seeing in addition to what I'm hearing, and I have long felt that a film should get some points (for or against) when it comes to how they incorporate a song, not just for how great it is.  "Moon River," for example, one of this film's competitors at the 1961 Oscars, is not just a song that is sung over the credits; it's also a song that Audrey Hepburn beautifully and enchantingly sings on her New York balcony, drawing in the viewer. This film's title song (also written by Henry Mancini) just plays over the opening credits and basically just sits there even then, so the rest of the film has little attachment to the music.

This wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances-I watch movies because I love movies, not just because Oscar found them attractive-but Bachelor in Paradise is tired, sexist, and far too long for a film that can't quite decide if it's a comedy or a melodrama, but fails at both.  The film talks about a Lothario named A.J. Niles (Hope), a playboy who bed-hops around the world and writes about it in sensational books, but then runs afoul of the IRS and is forced to live in suburbia and write a book about America.  The premise seems ripe for good laughs (it does star Hope, after all), but it descends into wildly antiquated ideas about femininity and what it takes to have a successful marriage.  Hope teaches classes to the ladies of the neighborhood how to light the fire back in their marriages; the lesson essentially boils down to that old Jerry Hall quote about being a maid, chef, and whore.  Just when you think it hasn't gotten any worse, he makes a crack about Susan Hayward vs. Gina Lollobrigida and you've sunk deeper.

As the film is supposed to be a comedy, you know that there's an epiphany coming for Hope's character, and like any good film from this Classical Hollywood format, he falls in love with a local woman (a real estate agent named Rosemary, played by Turner) who has sworn off men.  Turner is in a weird conundrum with this performance-she's clearly far, far too beautiful to successfully play a cinematic spinster, but she's also a woman of a certain age and the script is calling for her to be more standoffish in the role.  Think Shirley Jones in The Music Man, except instead of singing goodnight to her someone, she just avoids alcohol and seems frustrated at every turn.  Turner is not an actress that I've taken a strong shine to, but even I know that she can be better than this: completely pent-up, wild character swings without any sort of reason.  The script is doing her no services here (let the woman land a punchline once and a while!).

It's also worth noting that while Turner is about the right age for her character, Hope is not.  Hope consistently played the leading man in comedies, but he wasn't Laurence Harvey-the guy got the girl by being the funny one, not the hot one.  A lady loves to laugh, and Hope could do that.  Except that in this film the nearly 60-year-old Hope has women throwing themselves at him with utter abandon the second he enters the screen.  It makes absolutely no sense when you look at it objectively, and it seems that a more alluring actor would have been a better choice for the role (perhaps someone in Turner's age group?).

About the only thing that I truly enjoyed about the film was the supporting performance of Paula Prentiss.  Prentiss, unknown to most audiences today, was a consistent presence in films of the 1960's.  Tall with a spectacular speaking voice, she lit up every scene she was in during Bachelor, rising well above her sexy next-door-neighbor routine to give us a more well-rounded individual.  The rest of the movie was in desperate need of some of those real life touches, but she's not in enough of the picture to save the movie.

What are your thoughts about Bachelor in Paradise?  Was I overly critical or right on the nose?  Do you have a favorite Paula Prentiss movie?  And where does "Bachelor in Paradise" rank in the Henry Mancini discography?  Share in the comments!

Top Ten Shows I Should Be Watching (But Am Not)

Tonight, the rest of the internet is about to explode with talk about the Breaking Bad series finale, and I'll be the first to admit I feel left out.  This is a show that under normal circumstances I would be obsessed with: it's on cable, it's a drama, it's filled with multi-season plots, it has an antihero protagonist, and it's a critical darling.  I love everything about it, but for some reason I never watched the show.

We all have that show, though, that we're certain we'd love if we gave it a shot, but for some reason never get around to watching.  Every Friday at breakfast my coworkers will discuss upcoming or recently aired television and without fail, someone (occasionally me) will say something along the lines of "I really need to start that show."  Even with the myriad of ways to get entertainment, there's always movies, television, books, theater, and restaurants that we just never get around to because there isn't time to do it all.  It's a cold, hard fact of life, and it's super depressing, but true.

But recently I've been doing the math and may dive into Netflix Instant again (it's gotten a LOT better since I cancelled my subscription) and in weighing the pro's and con's, I decided to make a list.  Below are the ten shows that I most wish I was watching, and haven't given into yet; we'll stick to only shows that are currently still on the air, though a list of shows that have finished their runs that I want to see will probably be coming later this week.

10. Louie (FX)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 3

Reason I Never Started: I know this is going to make me sound like an ignoramus, but standup comedy is one of my entertainment blind spots and aside from recognizing him from Parks and Rec I had never really heard of Louis CK before he broke out with this series.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: This was the only Comedy Series nominated for the top Emmy last year that I don't watch.

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: Since his rise to fame, I have perused C.K's standup comedy and interviews, and he's delightful.  His SNL show was a joy and anyone that can give my beloved Melissa Leo such a plum role (I did see her clip) deserves a viewing.

Odds I'll Ever Give It a Shot: Solid-I usually cruise through comedies pretty quickly, and the seasons are cable series long.

9. Scandal (ABC)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 2

Reason I Never Started: About the only thing I can think of is the Shonda Rhimes factor-I am not a devotee of Grey's or Private Practice either.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: As someone who is persistently harping about Hollywood's horrible record with hiring women of color for leading roles, I'm disappointed in myself that ABC actually has a genuine hit with an African-American woman and I'm not watching.

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: Political drama is catnip to me, and I adore Kerry Washington.

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: 50/50.  If I join Netflix instant, all bets are off, as I love television and am perfectly content with binge viewing, even if I enjoy traditional viewing better (I've talked about the reasons why here).  However, the seasons are longer than the rest of the series in this list and what I have seen of Grey's I haven't really enjoyed.

8. Homeland (Showtime)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 2 (but three is starting tomorrow)

Reason I Never Started: I don't think I was getting Showtime when this started, so this is the rare solid excuse.  But I get it now and I have Showtime On Demand (or whatever their version of HBO Go is), so the excuses are running thin.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: Seeing Homeland take the Emmy last year.  I HATE being left out of a major cultural event like that-missing the top Emmy nominees drives me crazy (in a similar way to not having seen a Best Picture nominee on Oscar nomination morning also drives me bonkers).

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: I'm actually not certain I would-no one in the cast really calls out to me in an obvious way.  But I feel like I should at least give it a shot, considering the acclaim the series has gathered.

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: Not super.  I am still weighing whether I'm keeping Showtime (since I don't currently watch anything on the channel, even though I like having the option), and Homeland doesn't appear to be on Netflix Instant (someone correct me in the comments if I'm wrong).

7. Justified (FX)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 4

Reason I Never Started: I only recently jumped onto the FX train.  I have to come to find that they're a crasser, less prestigious HBO, but teaming with quality (even if I hate FXX).

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: Margo Martindale, one of the best working character actors, having the performance of her career and me not being there to recognize it.

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: Timothy Olyphant, Jeremy Davies, Walter Goggins, Margo Martindale-how could you not?

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: Weak, for a couple of reasons.  From what I can tell, it's not available on Netflix Instant (again, comments section people or Netflix employees googling their company-Netflix isn't super user friendly until you're an actual user, and the more shows that are available, the more likely I'll join it and start Bechdel-ing or writing about the series, so wins for all!).  And with four seasons, that's a lot to catch up on through Netflix DVD's in the mail (I like to save the envelopes for movies) or buying the DVD's when they're on sale at Target.

6. The Newsroom (HBO)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 2

Reason I Never Started: The reviews were not kind when this show premiered, and I had a fairly full plate at the time.  The second season has gotten better reviews, which is heartening.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: It's the only major series on HBO I don't watch aside from True Blood (which looks like it got terrible)-I like to be a completist.

Reason I'm Sured I'd Love It: Aaron Sorkin's name on a project regularly sparks my interest, and as a longtime voter for Jed Bartlett, the fact that he has a hit show again and I don't watch bugs the crap out of me.

Odds I'll Ever Give It a Shot: Really strong.  I'll probably catch this before they start the next season.

5. The Americans (FX)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 1

Reason I Never Started: I get a little bit nervous when shows look interesting to me but I'm afraid will bomb.  I was once burned by Pushing Daisies and am a little remote control-shy since.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: That a show I almost started watching from the beginning became a hit and I wasn't there to claim I watched it from the beginning (this admission is a bit narcissistic, I'm aware).

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: A critically-acclaimed period drama starring two actors I really like but who are frequently miscast and I'm always disappointed that I don't get to see them in something stronger?  Always a good thing!

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: Another show that doesn't seem like it's on Netflix Instant, but I kind of want to say it's on my DirecTV On Demand.  Either way-I might just buy the first season.  This is a show I want to give a try.  Probably before January.

4. Downton Abbey (PBS)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 4

Reason I Never Started: I didn't know it was on because otherwise Maggie Smith would have got me there.  Plus, let's all remember that no one expected this to be the freak hit that it was, so keep the judgmental glares for some of the other shows on this list.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: Almost everyone I know watches this show.  I cannot even begin to tell you how often I hear about how I should watch this show-easily more than every show on this list combined.

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: Period costume soap opera with an Oscar-winning actress at its center?  Bloody awesome.

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: I avoid spoilers like the plague, as I've said before, but unlike the other shows on this list, I think I know every major spoiler regarding this series, so I'm less inclined to give it a shot.  Plus, another show that is questionable for Netflix Instant.

3. House of Cards (Netflix)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 1

Reason I Never Started: Ha!  An actual reason-I don't have Netflix Instant!

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: I've gotten so into the concept of original online programming in the past year with my YouTube fascination, but I haven't experienced the Grand Teton of original programming: Netflix.  The fact that it was the first online-only show to score an Emmy Drama Series nomination only sticks the knife in deeper.

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: Washington power games and Kevin Spacey as a villain-yes sir!

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: If I get Netflix Instant, it's a done deal.  If not, it's still a pretty good bet-the cast looks scrumptious and I am kind of on the hunt for another drama.

2. Orange is the New Black (Netflix)

Number of Seasons I'm Behind: 1

Reason I Never Started: Again, no Netflix Instant.  Plus, unlike House of Cards and Arrested Development, this series seemed to come relatively out of nowhere as a critical and cultural event.  As a result, more than those two series (which relied on an ardent fanbase and an Oscar winner), this series really showed Netflix as a power to be reckoned with.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: I'm going to be at least one season behind again on a hip young show that I'm certain to love (see also Lena Dunham and Girls, which I DO watch, though didn't during its first season).

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: An ensemble dramedy with a primarily female cast?  I'm there.  Plus, with many of my regular sitcoms going off of the air either in the past or upcoming year, I need to start finding new shows to become involved with (another aspect of this exercise).

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: Really, really strong (it might already be in my Netflix queue for discs).  If I watch Netflix Instant, it's likely the first show I investigate.

1. Breaking Bad (AMC)-I'm aware this is anticlimactic, but there's really no other choice.

Number of Season I'm Behind: 5

Reason I Never Started: No one really watched the show the first season, and it didn't catch me as strongly as Mad Men did.

Most Embarrassing Thing About Not Watching: Getting left out of the cultural phenomenon that is going to happen tonight on social media and around the Internet.

Reason I'm Sure I'd Love It: As I said above, it's on cable, it's a drama, it's filled with multi-season plots, it has an antihero protagonist, and it's a critical darling.

Odds I'll Ever Give it a Shot: Dicey.  I don't like watching series after they've fully run (no one wants to talk about them anymore, and that's a lot of the fun of television).  If I haven't seen it before year-end (when I give out my own personal awards for film and TV) or by next year's Emmys (the last significant cultural event Breaking Bad will be a part of), this goes from iffy to almost no chance.

And those are the shows I'm ashamed to say I don't watch.  Do you have any (I know you do!)?  If so, share in the comments.  Also, which of these shows should I investigate (let's keep everything spoiler free, people)?  I promise that if I get any sort of consensus in the comments I will give the show a shot and do a Bechdel Test write-up on the first season (incentive!).  Please share!

OVP: Kentucky (1938)

Film: Kentucky (1938)
Stars: Loretta Young, Richard Greene, Walter Brennan, Douglass Dumbrille
Director: David Butler
Oscar History: 1 nomination/1 win (Best Supporting Actor-Walter Brennan*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I've been royally remiss lately in my Oscar Viewing Project watching, as my TiVo and increasingly full Genie (not to mention dust-collecting Netflix DVD's) can all attest.  I could blame a lot of things, but the fact that there just is never enough time (he said, pretending to be Burgess Meredith) to do all the things you want can be blamed most heavily.  However, I'm using this weekend as a Clean-Out-the-TiVo event (so I can cancel my subscription and just use the Genie).  As a result, throughout the next week, you're going to be seeing a plethora of films from different genres and time periods, bound together by nothing more than a random Oscar nomination.

Spoilers Ahead We'll start this series of write-ups with Kentucky, an early Technicolor picture from 20th Century FOX starring Loretta Young and Richard Greene.  The film starts during the Civil War, with two rivals (the Goodwins and the Dillons) taking different stances in the war, which ultimately leaves Mr. Dillon (who supported Lincoln) fairly wealthy and Mr. Goodwin (who supported Davis) ends up flat broke, and eventually dead, at the hands of Mr. Dillon.  This sets up a remarkable feud that goes on to the present day, which happens to be 1938.

The film then follows the instant attraction between young Sally Goodwin (Loretta Young, in one of her only four color film roles) and Jack Dillon (Richard Greene, who with his Grand Canyon dimples and pleading eyes looks like a cross between Harry Styles and Dana Andrews).  They flirt quite readily at a horse race (both families are titans of the horse-racing industry), with Sally not knowing Jack's heritage.  Sally's father dies and as a result Sally must sell all of her horses, but thanks to a bet her father made before he died, she gets to keep one.  Jack, still under the guise of a rambling horse trainer, offers to train the animal, who like all horses in the movies starts out a runt and ends up a champion.

The film clearly is borrowing from Shakespeare's star-crossed lovers routine, but there's no need for poison and Friar Lawrence here.  Once Sally discovers Jack's true identity, she quickly realizes that he genuinely loved her (this is a film from 1938, after all), and ends up in his arms after her horse wins the Kentucky Derby.

The film would be a typical forgotten love story were it not for that old codger of the American Cinema, Mr. Walter Brennan.  Robert Osborne introduced this film (I watched it on Turner Classic) and made the sarcastic comment about Brennan being only 44 when this film was made, but he played a man who was "in his sixties...or perhaps 125; no one could ever tell with Brennan."  This is so true-I often wonder if there's any actual proof that Walter Brennan wasn't born a cranky old man.

Brennan won his second Academy Award for this performance, and while his routine is standard Brennan, there's a likability about him-he lands his jokes (some of which are still funny 75 years later) and steals every scene from Young, an actress who is very beautiful but generally does nothing for me on the screen (I've never seen her play a role I really latched onto, and this is no exception).  This is the first of 1938's Supporting Actor nominees I've seen, oddly enough, so I cannot say where Brennan will end up ranking, though I would put his performance somewhere around three stars, much better than the film.  I will say, though, that Brennan has a special spot in every Oscar trivia hound's heart, as his three Oscars in five years is a record that no actor will break, ever.

Those are my thoughts on Kentucky-if you've seen it, share yours.  If you haven't, discuss what your favorite Loretta Young and Walter Brennan roles are.  Or if you also have a school girl crush on Richard Greene.  Or what performance from 1956 or 1982 (the only other two years where I've never seen a Supporting Actor nominee) I should investigate first!

Glee: Love, Love, Love (#5.1)

Gleeks, it's that time of year again...April, apparently.  The shows' writers decided to not skip out on some major events in the lives of Sam, Tina, Artie, and Blaine by giving them a senior prom, Nationals tournament, and Nationals Championship (if I remember right Brittany is at MIT right now-correct?  Someone could have reminded us of that one, since Jacob Ben Israel wasn't here with his customary Glee Summer recap, probably because Josh Sussman is almost thirty and doesn't remotely resemble a teenager anymore.

This week Mr. Schuester (ugh, I miss the episodes when Matthew Morrison was in Washington DC) had the group do a Beatles Week, which considering the moptop hairstyles being sported by Ryder and Sam (seriously-Chord Overstreet's bangs need to given National Landmark status they are so rocking) seemed wildly appropriate.  The Beatles have such a diverse discography that you could probably do an entire season of just them (they've been done before, of course, with "Blackbird" by Kurt), but we got primarily the big hits and everything framed up nicely, even if none of these songs particularly "popped" for me in a way that would make me want to go out on iTunes and buy them.

The writers of the show did way too much foreshadowing in the opening scene, with Rachel trying out in a chemistry run for Funny Girl.  Sure, she didn't get the part, but the fact that they cast actors who were too famous for two scenes and nothing more (Ioan Gruffudd and Twilight's Peter Facinelli) means that they will be back, and she's likely going to get the part.  The entire New York section of this episode was really terrific, in my opinion, and far surpassed Ohio (this was my refrain for most of last year, and I'm sticking with it)-Lea Michele and Naya Rivera have terrific chemistry, and it was nice to see them working in a diner as "struggling actresses," even though shouldn't Rachel still be finishing her school year?  There was no mention of college this week on her part.

We did get confirmation that at least one more Glee club member was headed to join the New York clique-Artie is destined for the Brooklyn Film Academy and apparently over the summer (I mean, past two weeks) has officially become romantically involved.  Kitty was on fire this episode-I honestly dug everything about her: the popularity issues (you know a slushy is coming...), the snappy one-liners that are more biting than vicious, and the way that she, unlike Quinn, gets over her biggest issues when it comes to love fairly quickly.  I mean, Ryan Murphy will almost certainly change everything about her come next week, but she'll still always be more interesting than Marley.  Also worth noting, and I didn't realize until Kitty had pointed it out: Artie gets around.  Tina, Brittany, and Sugar (where was Sugar-the mysteriously missing until there's a large dance scene member of the New Directions) all have dated him in the past-Artie may have dated more members of the Glee Club than anyone else except Puck.

I'd discuss Tina, but I'm so over this character.  The persistent mood swings, hyper-bossiness, and constant revelations that she has changed, even when the next week she hasn't.  Even in Glee world she's too much.  And could the writers have been any more obvious about what is going to happen next week?  We now have Blaine/Kurt, Artie/Kitty, Marley/Jake, and Tina/Sam set up for the Prom.  Only Ryder and his catfisher Unique are left to be matched up as dates.

Speaking of Blaine/Kurt, I thought I would be more emotionally involved in their engagement, but I have to admit I wasn't, which is odd because their relationship has been one of my favorite parts of Glee.  I mean, the engagement was cute, and the Kurt/Burt conversation was wonderful and anyone who gets proposed to in any fashion by Darren Criss is required by the laws of sense to say yes, but I just didn't buy it.  They JUST got back together, they're only 18/19, and now they're suddenly engaged.  I get that the writers are in the fifth season rut now-this isn't How I Met Your Mother, the show doesn't have another five seasons to resolve everything.  But your early twenties shouldn't be about getting married.  They're about finding yourself-a show can function without having everyone being happily ever after in the end.  And I think that the show squandered a real opportunity to have the two of them date other people and then realize they're meant for each other.  It's particularly vexing because Kurt/Blaine have been the most iconic gay relationship that Gen Y has had in their entertainment lives, and I just wish they had taken the time to fill it out a bit before they had them ride into the sunset.

That's where the show ended, but I can't end it there, because there's something that the writers are waiting to say that I'm not going to do.  Even though his name was never spoken, yes, you could feel his presence.  It was in the way that Lea Michele beautifully sang "Yesterday" (why he had to go, I don't know, he wouldn't say).  It was in the speech Burt gave to Kurt about how we don't know how much time we have left and how life comes down to a few days.  It was in how you knew that he would have been the final person Kurt hugged before he said yes to Blaine.  Cory Monteith's missing presence was felt throughout the entire episode, and my gut says it'll be felt through the entire remainder of the series.  A bittersweet note to end on, but sometimes life (and this show) does that.

What were your thoughts on the episode?  Do you feel that they are appropriately handling Monteith's untimely death?  Were you rooting for Kurt to say yes?  Did you also notice Amber Riley on the stairs even though she never had any actual lines?  Share in the comments!

Why is FXX a Thing?

A world without Dennis?  No!!!

Super-mini rant time: I've been on this tirade on Twitter off and on this week, and my brother is probably sick to death of me saying it, but why is FXX a thing?  You basically take two hit FX comedies (The League and my beloved It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and build an entire network around it?  Couldn't they have found a way to play Parks & Recreation and Freaks and Geeks reruns on the main channel?  I know that the channel it was replacing was FOX Soccer, but couldn't it have been replaced with another FOX sports channel, because of course my cable provider doesn't carry FXX and now I can't watch one of my favorite shows (hey DirecTV-any progress here?)?  Is anyone else in a tizzy over this, or is it just me?

And That Makes 15!

For those gay couples who ride the Holland Tunnel every day into Manhattan for work, they no longer have to look at their New York neighbors with envy (well, at least when it comes to equality): gay marriage is legal in the Garden State!!!  Of particular note in Judge Mary Jacobson's decision is that she used the Supreme Court's June decision to strike down the ban, possibly giving clearance for other like-minded judges around the country to follow suit (the courts are probably our only hope in places like Alabama and Idaho).

This is nothing but bad news for Chris Christie, who has been cruising to an easy reelection.  Christie remains the frontrunner (nothing short of a miracle is going to stop that), but you can bet that State Sen. Barbara Buono will be using this to her full advantage in their debate next month, as gay marriage remains relatively popular with a majority of New Jersey voters (some polls have it as high as 60%).

As for my predictions of which state will be sixteenth (arguably we're at 14.5, depending on how you classify New Mexico), it definitely comes down to Hawaii and Illinois, with my gut telling me it will be the former.

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

Let's take a look at what's happening around the web!

In the world of Politics...

Henry Kaiser Family Foundation: For those of you who want to see if you will actually be paying more with the Affordable Care Act, this is a great little calculator to peruse.

Sean and Chris, the loving couple...except on the campaign trail?

Buzzfeed crucifies Sean Eldridge for his straight-as-an-arrow rollout of his congressional campaign.  His website and his first video both don't mention his work on behalf of marriage equality or his gazillionaire husband Chris Hughes.  Eldridge is a great on-paper candidate, but between that nasty New York Times article from a few months back and his quick "bury-the-gay" campaign rollout (don't give me that look-NO straight politician wouldn't put his wife and/or children into a biographical campaign commercial) makes me think this is an all-flash, no-substance campaign.

Washington Post: Former Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) got into a dish-tastic conversation about her losing Senate campaign in 2012, throwing her consultants and staff underneath the bus.  Aside from being gossipy fun (you rarely get a politician this prominent speaking this candidly), I don't think she has a good point.  Berkley's ethical issues were intense, and they certainly wouldn't have gone away just by her "being herself."  She still came within a hair's breadth of winning a Senate seat (the only big miss for the upper house Democrats in 2012), but I think that she made it that far by riding Obama's coattails in spite of her issues; the consultants helped, not hindered.

Huffington Post: And in our last slightly shallow political story of the week, Wyoming politics got a whole lot saucier when Lynne Cheney told Alan Simpson to "shut his mouth."  I'm 100% behind believing Simpson here (why would he lie?), and I really do question what Liz Cheney was thinking running at this juncture.  I get why she didn't make a go in Virginia (no one's going to beat Mark Warner), but couldn't she wait for an open Wyoming seat?  The governor's mansion will be open in five years-she could have taken it then, and it's not like Enzi is a spring chicken.  Trying to go against the affable incumbent is political suicide, and no amount of her father's goodwill will make up for her completely screwing up her political future by losing a GOP primary in the state.

In the world of Entertainment...

Michael B. Jordan

Playbill: Chicago became only the third show in Broadway history to hit 7000 performances.  One of the zillion things that I miss about living in New York is access to Broadway-now whenever I go to Manhattan I want to see all of the new shows and never hit the long-runners.  If I ever become sporadically rich, I'm going to go and hit Mamma Mia, Chicago, Phantom, and Wicked, so I can see them near Shubert Alley rather than on tour.

The Wrap: My future husband Michael B. Jordan has been cast in an Independence Day sequel.  While I'm all for Michael taking the movie star route, does it really have to be in a sequel?  He has such great movie star potential-why can't someone see that and give him his own franchise and not someone else's?

Film Experience: Michael C. starts into an interesting discussion on audience reaction and what responsibility a director has in shaping said reaction.  It's an interesting topic, though I can't chime in too much as I haven't seen Captain Phillips yet (but I will be going in a couple of weeks!)

And Just One More...

It's not often that a political ad goes viral, but this incredibly clever ad featuring openly gay state legislator Carl Sciortino (he's running for Ed Markey's seat) and his Tea Party-supporting father is definitely worth a view:

Ranting On...Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Like I’ve said several times, this is largely a 2016-free zone, unless for some reason the media or a major politician has become such a part of the national conversation that it seems difficult to ignore.  This was the case last week with our Hillary Clinton rant, and I just couldn’t let the week pass without mentioning Ted Cruz as part of our Friday rant.

The first thing to address is just who is Sen. Ted Cruz?  He’s a Tea Party darling, obviously, and like I mentioned earlier this week in our primary article, he’s not beholden to the Republican Party.  In 2012, when Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison decided to retire, it appeared that her logical successor was Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.  Dewhurst was at the time the most powerful politician in Texas not named Rick Perry, and seemed destined for a major spot in the national conversation.  However, his conservative bona fides were questioned (not sure how-his record is about as conservative as you could get), and Ted Cruz waltzed in and won a runoff against Dewhurst by a landslide 13-points.

Cruz has since become a leading voice in the conservative movement, and has positioned himself in a place no Republican would have guessed a year ago: at the front of the party's presidential race.  While Chris Christie has become the choice of the moderate Republicans, and Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan continue to stay below-the-radar, Ted Cruz has come out blazing.  The primaries may not be for another few years, but don’t tell Cruz that-he’s already campaigning.

The thing about Cruz’s filibuster that was so stunning from a political standpoint was that it had no chance of succeeding.  The Senate, after 21-hours of politics, mixed with some Dr. Seuss, still proceeded to the funding bill.  This wasn’t a Wendy Davis style “Mr. Smith” speech; in Davis’s case, she had to meet a deadline to the kill the bill and she did.  Cruz’s speech didn’t accomplish anything tangible.  Sure, he gained an enormous focus on his and his fellow Republicans’ efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act, but the end result is unlikely to be in different due to his actions.

No, and I don’t mean to be cynical here, but there’s no way not to talk about it with a little bit of eye-rolling: this speech was all about Ted Cruz.  From a political standpoint, this was a brilliant maneuver.  While the Democratic Party is in a situation where it’s likely Hillary or Bust (we as a party really need to start pushing our bench of Gillibrand, Patrick, O’Malley, Cuomo, and Klobuchar to a stronger position in the national conversation), the Republicans have a plethora of strong contenders.  Cruz’s job in trying to be president (and make no doubt-anyone who did what he just did is more interested in the White House than a long career on Capitol Hill) is to find a way to distinguish himself from the brimming Republican bench of contenders.  Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin all have longer resumes and a better claim on the nomination.  On a base level, all of these politicians agree on almost every major Republican issue-Cruz needs to get his name in the media in order to gain the upper hand.  This filibuster is easily his boldest (and most successful) move so far.

The reason for this is simple, and something that should be noted with the increasing movement to appease the base in presidential primaries: once the primaries are done, you have a 50/50 shot of being president.  We haven’t quite yet moved away from the 2000 election, which was a razor thin victory for George Bush in a nation that barely went for Vice President Gore.  The country, both in the popular vote and in the electoral college, remain fairly evenly divided.  One could make an argument that the Democrats have gained some upper ground in getting to 270, but elections in 2002, 2004, and 2010 prove that the swing states can move to the GOP with a modicum of ease.  As John Kerry and Mitt Romney (both candidates who inspired little fervor in their respective bases) proved, once you’ve gotten through the primary, you instantly get 47% of the vote-it’s the nominee's job to grab the last 1-2%.

So for Cruz, his biggest issue in 2016 may well be the primary.  It certainly was for Barack Obama the last time we had an open White House; few objective people would argue that John McCain gave him a harder race than Hillary Clinton.  This filibuster shows Cruz as a principled (you have to give him that) “man-of-the-people;” a fighter and a champion on one of the GOP’s biggest pet causes.  Every other major Republican has come out against the ACA, but no one gets the credit that Cruz does.  Being the face of the most important issue for the GOP is an enviable position for any politician who wants the White House, and you know that Paul, Christie, and Rubio are wishing they had gone on such a successful media blitz.

Cruz’s move didn’t come without penalties, of course.  He’s made a mortal enemy out of the likes of John McCain, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn, four of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.  He’s not going to be getting any plum committee spots after this, and I doubt he’ll ever be able to be a significant policy shaper for the Republicans, unless he can succeed into an executive position.

But for the purposes of what he was trying to accomplish (positioning himself as a major player in the next presidential election and as the poster boy for overturning the ACA), this has to be considered a home run.  Like it or not America, Ted Cruz has arrived.

OVP: Prisoners (2013)

Film: Prisoners (2013)
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

It's hard not to judge a book by its cover, and in a way that's true for a movie.  A movie has a more complicated cover-it's sometimes the trailer, it's sometimes the real-life inspiration, but most of the time, it starts with the cast and director of a film.

In the case of Prisoners, for me, it could not have had a more interesting or less intriguing cover, somehow simultaneously.  On the one hand, you'd be hard-pressed to find a fall film with three actresses I love more at the moment than Viola Davis, Melissa Leo, and Maria Bello-each has given at least one Oscar-worthy performance in the past decade, and are consistently fascinating screen performers.  Denis Villeneuve, the film's director, recently picked up an OVP award from me for his complicated Incendies.  And Jake Gyllenhaal makes most everything better, particularly when he's playing a detective (Zodiac is one of the best films of the past decade, and a must-see if you haven't already).

This would normally be enough for me, but the men in this film gave me a collective yawn (with the exception of Jake).  Hugh Jackman, Terrence Howard, and Paul Dano have all had their moments before (well, Howard and Dano have), but I've grown to find them all extremely hammy since those moments, and each routinely takes the opportunity to serve their performance with a side of ham.  So I went into this movie somewhat optimistic (the reviews have been kind), but with a tense stomach.

(Spoilers Ahead)...and that's how I left.  The film unfolds in an even-keeled fashion-you get to know where it's headed quickly, and because it's a big screen adventure and not an episode of SVU, you know that it's coming with a solidly happy ending.  The movie unfolds swiftly-we meet two couples and their similarly aged children (Jackman & Bello, Davis & Howard), and thanks to tell-it-all trailers, we know their little girls will be taken (though, in the trailer-maker's defense, that was evident the second the movie started rolling).

The characters take wildly sharp turns after the kidnapping.  Howard and Davis, despite their daughter missing, get shoved to the background of the film-they are in mourning, but not doing anything that grieving parents wouldn't do.  Maria Bello's wife, who was so strong in the movie's opening scenes, becomes bedridden and lives off of a combination of sleep and medication.

Then there's he-man alpha male Hugh Jackman, who is trying very hard to show that he's not a musical actor (they even make a joke about his singing abilities early in the film).  Jackman's character (named Keller Dover, which is a name someone could TOTALLY have in real life) starts the film already on the edge-his sense of paranoia is sharp, and he stores shelves upon shelves of emergency supplies in his basement for some coming doom.  He's a loose cannon who just had his keg lit.

Jackman gets it through his head that one man in particular, Alex Jones (Paul Dano, who has gotten far too twitchy and overact-y since his strong turn in There Will Be Blood), and decides to take the law into his own hands when the police are forced to release Alex due to a lack of evidence.

My problems with these scenes were not that what Jackman was doing-torturing a man he has scant evidence was involved in his daughter's disappearance-was wrong, it's that it was obviously wrong the second he started doing it.  I would have to go back and look and see if Keller really heard the whispered, veiled message that spurred his taking of Alex, but it doesn't matter.   The film is trying to take a poke at recent hit films like Taken, where the love of a father justifies him killing dozens of potentially innocent people to get her back.  But to any sane human being, not killing innocent people is totally obvious.

The film takes a jut from "really?" to bad when they try to have their cake and eat it too with Keller-they want to make you think "edgy" and "how far will he go?" but they don't have the guts to have him not gain any knowledge from the torture (I wasn't kidding about the spoiler alerts, so look out).  He finally gets a comment about a "maze" which leads to him, eventually, learning that Melissa Leo's "aunt" to Alex is the real diabolical genius and kidnapper, and Alex was just a pawn.  By having the torture lead to something fruitful, the director seems intent on justifying what had just happened, and making everyone in the audience who thought "that's what I would do if I were in Keller's shoes" feel appeased.  The film would have been far edgier if they had left it with David Dastmalchian's enigmatic and haunted man as the killer-having Keller truly have to deal with the fact that he held an innocent man in captivity and tortured him to the brink of his life without any purpose or justification-that's an interesting movie.  But instead, we are given yet another cake-and-eat-it-to situation.

The problem with this, and why I cannot write this film off entirely, is that there are other strong elements at work here aside from Jackman's unfortunate plot and overcooked performance.  I adored, for example, what Jake Gyllenhaal was doing here with his complicated detective.  Gyllenhaal's Detective Loki (always a good sign when you don't have to look up a character's name after the first viewing) moves through the film, haunted and broken.  You learn just enough about him for him to remain interesting-he's what I was hoping Daniel Craig's character in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would have been-a phantom, someone of a strong moral compass who also has seen a bit too much of the world.  Gyllenhaal has had some wandering since he gave us all the epic lovelorn cowboy in Brokeback Mountain and followed it up with a nerdy, eccentric detective in Zodiac, but this is the same actor we fell in love with a few years back, who promised to take the art house circuit by storm.  Detective Loki is operating on a better movie than Prisoners, and hopefully someone will soon give Gyllenhaal just that.

The film also has other things worth noting, though Gyllenhaal is the greatest stand-out.  My love of Melissa Leo knows no end, and I have been dying for her to play a villain.  She also grabs her big moments toward the end of the movie-I love the way she spits out her reason for kidnapping children-you get shivers knowing the way she blurts it out, a speech she's likely given before many times in her head.  The surprise never really happens (you know it's her for most of the movie), but she doesn't pitch to the rafters and she keeps just the right sense of calm-had it not been for Detective Loki, you know she had the cunning to get away with the crime (I hate when movies suddenly make the villain an idiot so that they can get caught).  Leo, as the film's big reveal, has the best chance at awards love, though obviously you have to see the full movie to get the depth of what she's doing.

Eleven paragraphs seems about right for such a film, so I'll leave it at that, though the Comments section is there if you want to discuss Viola Davis or Dylan Minnette (Lost alert!) or Roger Deakins' cinematography.  What were your thoughts on the film?  Do you think it will play into the awards season?  Did you also notice the necklace on the corpse super early on and wonder why no one else put that together?  Share in the comments!

What to Do About Primaries

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), Chair of the DCCC

Nothing about heading a congressional campaign committee is easy, or quite frankly, enjoyable.  It’s essentially a job you only have minimal control over, but get fully blamed for when you fail.  The job essentially boils down to fundraising, candidate recruitment/retention, and praying that the electoral climate is favorable toward you, with an emphasis on that last part.  Sens. Jerry Moran and Michael Bennet, along with Reps. Greg Walden and Steve Israel are the current men to hold the job, and despite all of their best intentions and plans, a national wind in the direction of either party will easily take precedence over all of the hard work that they have done.

But there is emerging, with the rise of the Tea Party and the increased focus on pure partisanship over the past few years, a key aspect of their roles that had in the past been relegated to backrooms at best and ignored at worst: the primaries.  While the congressional committees have only sparingly gotten into races so far this cycle (particularly the DCCC), I wanted to examine whether this is a good idea or not for congressional committees.

The first thing that I should probably clarify is what I mean by primaries here, because there is one way that congressional committees have regularly in the past gotten involved in a primary, and that is if an incumbent is running for reelection he or she is almost always endorsed by the congressional committee.  This makes a great deal of sense for both parties for a myriad of reasons.  For starters, if you’re an incumbent, unless you were appointed, you’ve already won reelection-you’re a proven vote-getter and if you made it to Congress, likely a solid fundraiser.  Elections are about minimizing your risks, and if you already have a quality candidate that the public has voted for before, why risk a candidate who is an unknown?   Unless an incumbent is in a situation where they have become wildly unpopular in the district due to a high profile vote (Bob Inglis, for example) or to a scandal (Bill Jefferson, for example), it usually behooves the party to get behind the incumbent.  Plus, on a personal level, the heads of the congressional committees are members of Congress themselves-these are their coworkers, and they don’t want to risk upsetting someone whom they’ll likely need as a supporter on an upcoming vote.

Gwen Graham, the DCCC's endorsed candidate in FL-2

But the DCCC has started getting involved in open primaries-seats where either the incumbent is retiring or there is more than one challenger in the race.  Some examples of races where they’ve endorsed include FL-2, PA-8, and CA-31.  In each of these races, there’s a candidate that is considered superior from a GOTV angle, either through fundraising ability, personal biography, or name recognition.  From a tactical standpoint, it makes sense to get in and try to win the race for the most electable candidate-the point is to get the best candidate into the general so that you can win the seat.  This is a way to do that, and if that were the only consideration, I’d be all for it.

However, like most of politics, it’s more complicated than just endorsing the best candidate.  Primaries are seen more and more as a litmus test, not just a stamping ground for the powers that be.  Looking at today’s special election in Alabama, it’s very clear that Bradley Byrne is the choice of Republican leadership and congressional leaders in Washington-he’s a longtime star in the state party, has a solid right-of-the-middle voting record, but he’s also viewed as an establishment pick, primarily because he is.  This descriptor has become a death knell in the Republican Party.  While the Tea Party doesn’t enjoy the media strength and stamina that it did heading into 2010, don't confuse this slowdown with the movement lacking sway, particularly in primary electorates.  The continued prominence of Sen. Ted Cruz, who should otherwise be a backbencher, proves this true.  Byrne, who is a strongly conservative candidate, can now be marketed as a liberal not because he is one, but because he’s simply the preferred candidate of the party leaders.  This puts groups like the NRCC and NRSC into an impossible catch-22: they can either go out and help their favored candidate and risk losing him support in a primary, or they can ignore him and risk him losing without the resources that a congressional committee can provide.

Additionally, with primaries where an endorsed candidate isn’t successful, you still have to campaign that candidate in the general.  Looking at Illinois’s 13^th district for example, establishment Democrats wanted State’s Attorney Matt Goetten to be their candidate.  He had the endorsement of the DCCC and Sen. Richard Durbin.  They had invested time and resources into getting him past perennial candidate David Gill, in hopes of winning a GOP district in November, but on primary day, Goetten still lost to Gill by less than 200 votes, due in large part to a strong liberal grassroots movement (the Democrats don’t have a “Tea Party,” but that doesn’t stop their stronger candidates from suffering a similar fate).

The Democrats were now in a terrible position.  They had campaigned against David Gill in the primary (though you’d be hard-pressed to ever see a negative ad against a member of your own party for fear of this situation, just endorsing a different candidate hurts your credibility) and had wasted resources on a candidate who now had no chance of winning the only election that matters, the general.  However, Illinois-13 was still a competitive district.  The Democrats still needed to target it if they had any hope of winning the House.  So they had wasted time and money against their general election candidate and now were forced to spend even more money and time to try and get their second choice elected (which they didn’t-Gill lost in one of the closest races in the country, making his miniscule win over a better candidate in the primary that much more bittersweet, and a great example of the risks of getting involved in a primary).

Finally, there’s the ego of it all with primaries.  Ted Cruz was in a similar situation to Gill, except that he actually went on to win the general election.  What that situation gives you is a candidate who was not wanted by the party leadership, who has denounced the party leadership as a result, and is now potentially a thorn in the side of the leadership.  He doesn’t owe his election to Congress to the congressional committee-they wanted the other guy.  And considering the ego that is involved in making it to that level of competitive politics (no matter how humble a politician may seem, it takes a certain amount of ambition, ego, and drive to become a member of Congress), there’s a lot of room for grudges.

So the congressional committees are in a bind with the recent rise in primaries, and the solution really must be case by case, but I do think they need to follow this rule in order to minimize a lot of the liability: if you’re going to endorse, go all in for your candidate.  With the limited number of seats available to swing to each party (gerrymandering being particularly prevalent this census cycle), the DCCC and NRCC need to maximize every single seat they have an advantage in to ensure success.  I like what the DCCC is doing in CA-31, for example.  This is a seat that they could just leave to fate and suffer the potential risk-there’s no incumbent, but Joe Baca, a former member of Congress, certainly feels like one considering he served with Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for seven terms before he was taken down in 2012 against a fellow Democrat.  But Baca isn’t the best candidate and isn't the incumbent-he has a carpetbagger tag attached to him (he ran in the 35^th district in 2012) and has quite a bit of scandal regarding nepotism in his past (he used his position as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to financially support his sons’ electoral ambitions).  Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar is the better candidate, and the DCCC is being very upfront and outspoken in their support of him, because he’d make the best challenger in the general.  There is no halfhearted endorsement here-Aguilar has DCCC resources and money at his disposal.  This is the best way to negate the increasingly common primary problem-if you’re going to bet, make sure to bet the farm.

Those are my thoughts, at least, but what are yours-what involvement, if any, do you think the congressional committees should take in order to ensure their preferred candidates make it to the general?  Share in the comments!