Monthly Archives: March 2019

The Blue Path Forward

Image result for mueller trump

I have a psychological problem when it comes to sports. I’m such an irrational fan of my favorite teams I cannot stand to watch them on live TV. I get angry at player mistakes, infuriated by referees’ missed calls, and generally so wound up I cannot watch the event for risk of either smashing my TV to bits or suffering an embolism.

So I created a homeopathic treatment for my emotional disorder: I tape the game, check the score on the web after the contest is over, and either enjoy the victory I know is coming or delete the recording before I watch one second of futility.Image result for tony romo grips helmet

Though I know it’s got to be a deep-rooted psychological imbalance, it’s at least easy to rationalize: If you knew a movie was going to have a bad ending before you bought the ticket, would you still go see it? Similarly: If you knew the flick had a good ending, would you watch it? I know the thrill of watching sports is akin to the adrenaline charge of gambling; the dopamine rush is in the unexpected. But I figure life is uncertain enough. Best to hew to that which you know makes you happy.

I’d offer a similar proposal to Democrats, who, in the wake of the Mueller report, are acting like  they just lost the Super Bowl on a blown call. There’s screaming, cursing, crying of injustice. Already, Dems are threatening to subpoena Mueller — a man whose qualities the left raised to the rafters the past two years — to bring him in for questioning under oath. They are demanding to inspect the entire 300-page report themselves. Nancy Pelosi called the GOP “scaredy cats” for its refusal to release the findings, perhaps a fair criticism.Image result for pelosi calls gop scaredy cats

But it’s a useless approach, and a peculiar one. What would the Dems do with the report anyway? In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), a branch of the Justice Department, ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted; it’s either impeachment or bust. So we knew that Mueller wasn’t going to be walking Trump out in cuffs. And we knew impeachment wasn’t going to result: That requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. You couldn’t get two-thirds of the Senate to agree sand is dry.

The left’s problem is this: They fail to see the similarity between Trumpism and religion. For years, we’ve heard that this is the piece of evidence that will turn the tide: the Access Hollywood tape; the Stormy Daniels affair; the failed overhaul of Obamacare; the Mueller investigation.

But let’s face the undeniable: Nothing will change a Trumpian mind, just as nothing will turn a believer into a doubter. Faith in Trump is like faith in an afterlife; they have no evidence to support their belief system, but gosh is makes them feel good.Image result for trump and god

Given that, perhaps Dems should try a new approach: acceptance. Better yet, relief.

Fox and the GOP have been gloating since the report’s release, and they have that right. But they were always going to handle the report that way, rejecting news they didn’t like, embracing news they did. As the president has (rightfully) boasted, he could commit murder without consequence. Faith is a bitch; just ask the women of Salem.

Instead, when they’re surrounded by media, why don’t Nancy and Chuck try this tack: Say you’re relieved by the findings. You’re happy with the half dozen convictions and 19 indictments brought about by the investigation. After all, isn’t that actually true? Would you really have wanted to hear, from any top cop investigating any federal officials, from either party, that they are pawns of an enemy state? Does our partisanship infect that deeply?Image result for trump russian spy funny

It’s a tough pill to swallow, to be sure. It’s hard to see righteous, loudmouth fat asses brag. But that’s what we elected and, thus, what we’ve got coming. Remember: Trump’s election was America’ diagnosis of metastatic political cancer. Some vomiting and hair loss is inevitable. And it still may kill us.

But acceptance of foolish faith doesn’t mean you have to abandon sniping. Far from it. If anything, the report allows for some delicious sarcasm from the left, though we’re lousy at that. Imagine if Pelosi were to say the following: “First of all, we’d like to thank Bob Mueller. It was a thankless task, and he was the model of professionalism. Second, we’re actually relieved that Mr. Mueller decided the president of the United States is not a Russian spy. We know the guy is bad, but that would have been tough to deal with, him being a spy and all. Now let’s to fixing things we know he screwed up, like healthcare and tax inequity.” Trump and Hannity would lose their unwrinkled gray minds. And for god’s sake, somebody officially thank Mueller. He served the military, saw battle, and was rewarded with two years of Trump work? He probably envies John McCain at this point.

Or Dems could be even snippier with a single retort: “O.J. was acquitted, too.”

The point is, act like you’ve got a goddamn job to do, which you do. Ultimately, we’re going to have to concede that Trump is that immovable societal object. The answer is not to create an unstoppable force, but an indifferent one.

I better wrap this up. I have several games to delete.

 

 

Steven Spielberg’s Homage to the Master

Image result for spielberg the shining

I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories. But I think I’ve stumbled upon one.

Steven Spielberg was Stanley Kubrick’s prized protege. They talked often, visited each other’s sets, even teamed up to make the underrated film, A.I. Spielberg has always been an immense talent, but let’s face it: Having Stan the Man as your corner cut man is like a writer having Salinger as a writing tutor. If you don’t take advantage of the teachings, you don’t deserve school.

I’ve been doing an inordinate amount of research into Sir Kubrick of late, and discovered a little YouTube nugget of an interview with Spielberg. In it, he sheepishly admitted he did not care for The Shining when he first saw it, and (very) reluctantly told Stanley as much when Kubrick asked his impressions. Only after watching the Jack Nicholson movie a few times, Spielberg spilled in the clip, did he recognize the movie’s genius and, more importantly, its subterfuge.

The Shining, an adaptation of a Stephen King horror movie, is not the haunted house flick audiences (and King) were expecting. I remember Dad’s disappointment when we left the theater. More than 46% of the nation’s critics at the biggest papers in the country gave it a thumbs-down.

Over time, though, its reputation has risen like a zombie with the munchies. Instead of a haunted house story, critics and historians posthumously realized, The Shining is a haunted human story, touching on domestic abuse, alcoholism, even the genocide of the American Indian. The American Film Institute recently named it one of the 30 most thrilling movies in the past century. The AFI also named Jack Nicholson’s Jack Torrance among the top 25 cinematic villains of all-time. What the AFI failed to note is that Poltergeist, the Disney-fied horror film ostensibly made for kids and families, was secretly a dark homage to Stanley from Spielberg, who wrote and produced the movie.

Try it as I accidentally did: Play The Shining theme over any three minutes of Poltergeist, and you’ll see that the whimsical score and sitcom lighting were simply a ploy to get it a PG rating. But when played with a traditional horror score, the movie feels entirely different — and the images are sheer Kubrickian. Here’s a sample. At 1:20, you’ll swear Stanley rose from the dead for the editing booth:

Now for something less theoretical, FactSlaps:

  • Chinese princess Xin Zhui’s body, who died in 163 BCE, is so well preserved that her skin is still soft her arms and legs can bend, and her internal organs are still intact.Image result for Xin Zhui'
  • Camels gave humans the common cold.Image result for camels have humans the common cold
  • Science knows more about coffee, wine and tomatoes than it does about breast milk.
  • Hugh Jackman was a party clown before being famous.Image result for hugh jackman party clown
  • More people watch online video game play than major cable networks and subscription entertainment services.Image result for people watching video game
  • The Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest structure, stands 2,716 feet tall. It has 24,000 windows, contains 393,000 cubic yards of concrete and took 22 million man hours to build.Image result for what is The Burj Khalifa?
  • World renowned cellist Yo Yo Ma once left his 266 year old cello, worth $2.5 million, in the back of a NYC taxi. It was returned to him in time for his evening concert.Image result for Yo yo ma's $2 million cello

The Death of the Hollywood Twist

Image result for us movie

Two months months ago, while working a story on M. Night Shyamalan’s career, I called up every internet clip and video analysis I could find about the director, who is known for his twist endings (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs).

In the course of reporting the story, a prelude to Shyamalan’s latest film, Glass, I came upon a number of videos breaking down the new film — including the twist ending — which hadn’t even been released yet.

That didn’t stop sneak preview viewers from spilling more than the twist ending. The videos spelled out every twist. Every unexpected turn was revealed, dissected and analyzed. There were a half-dozen surprises in the film, at least. Some video critics warned they were going to spill the movie’s  secrets. Some did not.

By the time I walked into the movie, I knew every turn the flick was going to make, from character revelations to battle outcomes.

I enjoyed the movie, but couldn’t help but wonder whether spoilers had cast a shadow of bias over my viewing. It certainly ensured a surprise-free couple of hours. Tension was a non-factor. Still, the spoilers had alerted me to Shyamalan’s break from comic book tradition with Glass — which perhaps biased me to like the movie.

Regardless of this particular movie, spoilers have become such a reality in film that, to enjoy one, you pretty much have to avoid computers, cell phones and TV sets till you’ve seen the film.

What would Hitchcock think about the development, I wondered. This has to be crazy-making for suspense directors like Shyamalan, John Carpenter, West Craven, and on. Just this weekend, Jordan Peele’s movie Us raked in $70 million on its opening weekend, breaking multiple records for a suspense film. So spoilers didn’t appear to hurt the bottom line.

Still, on a lark, I decided to do similar research Saturday on the movie, which ends with a twist on which the film squarely rests.

So I turned on YouTube. The first video recommended was entitled “The ending of Us explained.” The video was done by a group called Looper, a wildly popular movie website and online channel. The movie opened at midnight Thursday. The video was posted about 4 p.m. ET on Friday. Within its first four hours, it had more than 15,000 views.

The video aired without warning viewers of spoilers ahead, and the six-minute video broke down every key scene in the flick, as well as the identity of the mysterious villain. A cursory look uncovered a half dozen other similar videos. Then I went to Wikipedia and looked up the movie. There, too, was a page-long synopsis of the movie, including the surprise ending. All within 36 hours of its opening.

What’s happening here? Remember when you had to hear someone tell you of  The Sixth Sense! Or The Crying Game? Go all the way back to Citizen Kane or Psycho; Some of Hollywood’s most iconic moments stem from rugs being pulled beneath viewers’ feet. Imagine your reaction if a friend told you in the mid-80’s, “You gotta see The Empire Strikes Back! It’s got great effects! And I can’t believe Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father!” (oh, spoiler alert). You’d likely punch your friend in the face.

But spoilers have become so pervasive in movies some YouTubers are recording their reactions literally seconds after stepping from the theaters. And perhaps that’s inevitable. Maybe word-of-mouth is like the phone booth and mailbox; short for this world. Our laptops have become our water coolers, Facebook our hair salons, Twitter our barber shops.

The overall effect on movies is hard to gauge, though some signs are ominous. A recent study by VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands found that spoilers may not ruin an experience entirely, but can reduce suspense and decrease overall enjoyment of a film.

In a study of 412 college students, scientists found that movies that had been spoiled were rated as less moving, less thought provoking, and less successful at drawing the viewer into a narrative world and providing an immersive experience. The effects of story spoilers were “consistently negative,” Benjamin Johnson, an assistant professor and study coordinator, said in a statement.

“Our study is the first to show that people’s widespread beliefs about spoilers being harmful are actually well-founded and not a myth,” Johnson said. “Instead, we surprisingly found that for all the outcomes, spoilers were detrimental.”

The study did not recommend solutions, nor even suggest one was possible in the immediacy of an internet era. But Hollywood may have no choice but to act: Despite annual box office records, most of the increase is due to inflation. Actual movie attendance is down about 10% over the last 20 years, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com. If that trend continue, studios may be on the receiving end of a disastrous spoiler.