Monthly Archives: June 2019

Broken or Intentionally Busted?

Image result for when they see us

It’s can be difficult to watch When They See Us, but it’s certainly not for lack of craftsmanship.  Ava DuVernay’s  direction and writing pulls no punches in laying out the harrowing events endured by the Central Park Five while adding a necessary layer of humanity to their story that challenges viewers to reconsider what it means to find justice in America. This story has never lacked for attention, by media and director Ken Burns, but See brings a heretofore unseen personal side of the tragedy.

In April 1989, five teenagers (four black and one Hispanic) were arrested for the rape and near-fatal assault of a wealthy, young white woman in New York’s Central Park. The victim, Trisha Meili, has no memory of that night. Although there was no physical evidence linking the boys to the attack, Raymond Santana, 14; Kevin Richardson, 14; Yusuf Salaam, 15; Antron McCray, 15; and Korey Wise, 16, were all convicted of the crime. The real identities of all involved were subsumed by the case: Meili became “the Central Park Jogger,” while the boys became “the Central Park Five.” Image result for when they see us

This devastating miniseries restores the individual humanity to the six vulnerable humans at the center of the case. Written and directed by DuVernay, the fact-based Netflix miniseries reveals how the teenagers became pawns in a bigger game. The first episode shows how regular teen lives are destroyed by a simple a decision to go to a park. And we see police coerce confessions from scared kids who just want to go home.

In subsequent episodes, we watch as media create a narrative in which black kids from “a world of crack, welfare, guns” are driven to random attacks on white people, “wilding.” We see the shock on the face of one boy’s mother when she learns that Donald Trump has taken out full-page ads in four newspapers calling for the return of the death penalty. Final episodes take us through the brutality of prison time and the grim reality of life as an ex-con.

If those boys had been executed as Trump wanted, they would never have lived to see serial rapist Matias Reyes confess to the crime (providing case-clinching DNA) in 2002, or receive the $41 million legal settlement that Trump has called a “heist.”Related image

In an age of fast-paced, plot-twisting crime TV, the macabre momentum of this series feels agonizingly unstoppable at times: If Netflix’s Making a Murderer taught us anything, it’s the grim, sometimes illegal, measures police will take to make an arrest. And that sometimes slows See too much.

But if there are few shocks in See, DuVernay’s respect for the physical and emotional toll on the kids carry surprising power, even for a media-saturated story. You want to cheer when the wrongful convictions are vacated. But the sight of the now-grown men returning to their childhood bedrooms seems a hollow triumph. Ultimately, See underscores the unsettling question about relationships between police and minority communities: Is the system broken, or is it acting just as it was designed?

 

No one Knows Who They Were, or What They Were Doing

Image result for when the screaming stops movie

You’d be forgiven if you didn’t know the music band Bros. In the late 1980s, Bros were the hottest act in British pop. The twin brothers played to sold-out concerts, top ten chart hits and the undying devotion of screaming, swooning fans, dubbed “Brosettes.” Though they enjoyed Beatle-like mania, Matt and Luke Goss called it quits in 1992, refusing to speak for 27 years.

But as any good rock doc knows, no reunion is out of the question. And this documentary offers an all-access pass during the countdown to the Bros reunion concert of 2017. But make no mistake: This is no Behind the Music TV rockumentary. Bros can’t help but focus on the toxic relationship between brothers who sometimes make Cain And Abel seem like best pals. Original fans of the duo will be riveted, but even casual music fans will recognize this is more a story about sibling rivalry.Image result for when the screaming stops movie

The title is taken from a question posed to the brothers by the late British television presenter Terry Wogan: What would become of duo “after the screaming stops?” They found out sooner than either expected. In the weeks after of Bros’ biggest hits, drummer Luke Goss moved to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career, making appearances in Blade 2, Hellboy 2 and others. Singer and musician Matt Goss pursued a solo career, undertaking lengthy residencies at Las Vegas hot spots including Caesars Palace.

The decision to reunite for an epic concert at the O2 arena in Britain seems motivated by both professional pride and personal demons. The ticking clock to the big day gives the film structure and tension as archive footage of past concerts is paired with confessional interviews. The brothers are generally interviewed individually, and in that solitude both reveal all manner of insecurities, musical and familial.

Like the group Wham!, Bros resent that the British press never took them seriously. Despite being the front man, Matt appears to be the most volatile and vulnerable, lamenting the distance between him and his brother. He also gives Bros its occasional This is Spinal Tap-esque humor. “You need to be on the same page, otherwise you don’t get to turn the page, “ he declares.

There is also a Spinal Tap element to the tempers and tantrums. Rehearsals are as mesmerizing as slow-motion car crashes as the brothers clash. Bros’ success at times seems nothing short of miraculous, given the brothers often can’t seem to bear being in the same room together.Image result for when the screaming stops movie

The tension ratchets up as drummer Luke grows frustrated that his viewpoint takes a backseat to his brothers (sometimes tearful) antics. Bros doesn’t shy away from the warts-and-all candor of their arguments. We revisit the death of their parents and odd reality of being a world celebrity in your 20’s. Credit After The Screaming Stops for aiming to be more than a promotional tour for  a comeback record.

Like Spinal Tap, if Bros‘ deserves any feedback, it’s for a lack of context. There are no interviews about why the brothers became so big or what make their songs so popular. The film opts not to interview any musical media or academia for insight.

But the comparison with Spinal Tap stops about there. Far from being a mockumentary, Bros is a serious look at fame’s effect both on youth and music, and whether it’s doing either any favors. When it gets off stage, away from the lights and stage bravado, Bros can crank to 11.

The I.I. Word

Image result for mueller press conference

There were three epiphanies in last week’s testimony from Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding his investigation of the president:

  1.  Journalistically is the clearest way to write, hands down.
  2.  Robert Mueller is not a good writer.
  3. Congress has a workaround the “I word,” as Donnie has begun calling it, and it’s pretty simple.

First, the hearing validated journalistic writing. Take your legal, medical, academic and technical literacy jargon and stick ’em in a book somewhere to sell em to your students. Why do you think Mueller’s press conference grabbed so much more attention than his two years’ of research? Because he had to speak succinctly, plainly and clearly, which is isn’t the first rule of journalism; it’s the only rule. There’s a reason America’s greatest writers — Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Salinger, Vonnegut — employed  the style.Image result for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Salinger, Vonnegut

Second, Bob could have really used a good copy editor. There’s no arguing the investigation was an opus of thorough legalese: 2 years’ investigation, three dozen indictments, hundreds of witnesses and not one leak. It’s 448 pages of legal prowess. Yet what’s the one line you remember from the entire affair? “If there was evidence exonerating the president, we would have said so.” Again, it came from the press conference. But more importantly, why not write that in the report, first page? In fact, go a step further: The first page of the tome should have been a journalistically-penned synopsis, summarizing the Russian hacking, the 5 specific incidents of obstruction and that Trump was not out of the woods; far from it.

Mueller also could have used a memorable conclusion, essential in solid writing. Here’s where a journalistic final page would have come in handy, when Mueller could explain that he’s not prosecuting Trump, but simply gathering facts for a grand jury. And Congress is the grand jury. Write that! Again, a bulleted, numbered list parenthetically enclosing the gist of the case would have dictated the narrative, instead of relying on two impromptu press conferences to clarify findings that Trump’s lackeys intentionally muddied.Image result for bob barr funny

And finally, the talk that’s dominated the post-Mueller conference has been impeachment. Rightfully, it’s a sticky wicket for the 237 presidential candidates. Trump seems to want one (it would provide his base the red meat of a new “witch hunt”), and Pelosi (who saw Bill Clinton’s post-impeachment surge in popularity polls) knows the gesture would die in the Senate before it passed even one of the flaps of Mitch McConnell’s neck.Image result for pelosi

But there’s a clear third option: impeachment inquiry. In that outdated relic we call the U.S. Constitution is a little loophole that allows the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment inquiry against any president. According to federal law, the House Judiciary Committee first can hold hearings to investigate whether impeachment is warranted. This can include calling witnesses, collecting documents and debating whether the behavior in question constitutes an impeachable offense, which the Constitution only ambiguously defines. The inquiry would culminate in the panel either voting to recommend that the full House approve one or more articles of impeachment, or deciding not to make any such recommendation. It’s been launched twice, against Nixon and Clinton, and is precisely the tool to use on Trump.

What a gift horse Dems seemed determined to look in the mouth. This middle ground would allow Dems on the fence to stay perched there while aggressive Dems subpoena the shit out of the president and his cronies. And there’s no timetable for when the Judiciary Committee has to take a vote. So take your time. If the GOP can string along Merrick Garland for a year without a Supreme Court vote, surely the Dems can take two on a matter exponentially more important. Strategically, it could be politically astute: You couldn’t buy as much negative advertisement as you’d get from seeing Trump’s slackwits sweat it out in a courtroom. PLUS: You get to dismiss any Trump assertion by simply pointing out ‘This from the guy under investigation for impeachment,” a tag that could stick well into 2020 Sure it’s vague. But it’s accurate.

So why the hesitancy to move for inquiry? In short, guts. It died with John McCain.  But I find these questions best addressed in reverse order. If this doesn’t qualify for an impeachment inquiry, what would? Buck up, wingers. You may have expected Mueller to trot Trump out of the White House in handcuffs. But he’s done something nearly as effective: He’s deputized you.