Monthly Archives: October 2019

You Talkin’ to Me?

Joe Pesci, left, and Robert De Niro have drinks in a bar in a scene from Martin Scorsese's "The Irishman."

You could make an arguable case that not only is Martin Scorsese America’s greatest living director, but that he’s made the best movie of every decade dating back to the 1970’s. There was Taxi Driver (1976),  Raging Bull (1980),  Goodfellas (1990) and The Departed (2006), all considered masterworks of their time. Even casual moviegoers are likely familiar with Scorsese’s cinematic hallmarks: violence, corruption and an anti-hero spiraling uncontrollably toward a violent fate.

The Irishman is not your average Martin Scorsese film. Sprawling, intimate and oftentimes surprisingly melancholy, Irishman is a moving portrait of the emotional toll of sitting atop the mob underworld.

While the director has tackled daunting subjects before, ranging from Howard Hughes (The Aviator) to Jesus (The Last Temptation of Christ), this may be Scorsese’s most ambitious film yet, spanning most of the 20th Century and using 210 minutes to do it. This bears repeating: Irishman is 15 minutes longer than Titanic. Is it too long? By at least a half hour. Does that dilute the film? Hardly.

For one thing, the director has assembled the Holy Trinity of actors in Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. Scorsese could have had the trio reading baking recipes and it probably would have made for compelling viewing.

Here, they gather for the first time in deeply delivered portrayals. De Niro plays the titular character, a World War II-vet-turned-Teamster driver named Frank Sheeran that ends up as a middle man between mafia don Russell Bufalino (Pesci) and the hot-headed-but-lovable union boss Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino). The movie is told from Sheeran’s point of view; he matter-of-factly narrates the story from his perch in an elderly care center. Sheeran recalls his years working for the Bufalino crime family, reflects on his biggest hits and considers his involvement with his good friend Jimmy Hoffa’s disappearance in 1975.

De Niro is terrific, but it’s Pacino and Pesci who truly light up the screen. As Hoffa, Pacino gets to barnstorm the story, giving Irishman most of its kinetic energy. Pesci, meanwhile, who was talked out of retirement to return to acting for the first time in nine years, nearly makes the film unexpected single-handedly. While he was the violent hothead in Scorsese classics including Bull, Goodfellas and Casino, here he infuses the movie with palpable menace simply with a brooding stoicism.

Their performances are augmented by the film’s astounding “de-aging” software. While at first jarring, the special effect is soon a natural element of the world Irishman is creating and becomes as unnoticeable as, say, the special effects in the CGI remake of The Lion King. The 76-year-old De Niro, in particular, transforms from fresh-scrubbed World War II soldier to wrinkled, white-haired octogenarian.  The de-aging is especially effective in the outstanding third act, when Sheeran’s once-fearsome hitman devolves into just another senior citizen who must come to grips with both his past and mortality.

But Irishman offers more than special effects. Screenwriter Steven Zaillian (Moneyball) crams the screenplay with some crackling wit (all without using tired mob dialogue like “fugghedaboutit” or references to guys getting “whacked”). Instead, we get a surprising dose of humor: an animated Hoffa explaining how to best fight a man, depending on whether he’s armed with a knife or gun;  hitmen grousing about smelly fish in the car on their way to a murder; or mob miscreants spiking watermelon with liquor during a sit-down meal. And Ray Romano supplies some laugh-out-loud scenes as De Niro’s perpetually frazzled attorney.

While Scorsese knows violence chapter and verse, he’s also made some melancholic pictures, including The Age of Innocence (1993) and Hugo (2011). Irishman has him working out of both lenses. Yes, we get violence, nearly as soon as Pacino introduces himself to De Niro with the line “I hear you paint houses” — a wink-wink reference to the blood that splatters the walls after a hit.

But what’s striking about the movie is an introspective spirituality that runs through the narrative. This isn’t Ray Liotta declaring in Goodfellas “My whole life I wanted to be a gangster!”  Instead, De Niro is conflicted about his role in the premature deaths of others, right up until his final moments on screen. A young Scorsese could not have made Irishman, just as today’s Scorsese likely could have not made Goodfellas.

Which brings us back to what is possibly Irishman‘s biggest hurdle for audiences: its 3 1/2-hour running time. Oddly, Netflix may be a suitable venue for the film (the streaming service picked up the $170 million movie when Paramount balked). While Scorsese’s underbelly films always look better through the prism of a theater screen, Irishman is in many ways a throwback picture, both in scope and star power. It could also use an intermission. A pause button and smaller screen will not ruin this experience.

Regardless of how you view the film, Irishman deserves viewing. Five years ago, even the notion of such a film seemed impossible, from its de-aging special effects to its availability on TV three weeks after its debut. But let’s face it: The Irishman may be the capstone film of four silver screen legends, turning in performances reminiscent of their mob-story heydays. That’s an offer you really shouldn’t refuse.

One Character or Less

Image result for trump lynching

We at the HB hope you enjoy President Trump’s latest tweet, which has dominated the airwaves and frustrated staffers and spokesmen at Little Kremlin, er, the White House, since president Trump sausage-pecked it yesterday. It hopefully will be the last you see.

We plan to no longer quote his non-newsworthy tweets — i.e., nearly all of them — for the sake of our own sanity and the nation’s. From here going forward, we’re employing the LTC Policy regarding Twitter, as well as all Social Media.

LTP is an acronym for Limited Twitter Coverage. The policy calls for any tweet that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack on a person, group or cause to be stricken from news coverage. We invite our colleagues  to do the same — not only to improve political discourse in America, but to re-institute a standard of values in U.S. journalism, which unfortunately has become a mirror of the people it covers.

You can use the latest tweet as reason enough for an LTC Policy, though we could have (and should have) implemented such a policy years ago. Precisely, three years ago. Remember covfefe? (“Despite the constant negative press covfefe.”) That was the tip of a cognitively dissonant iceberg. Here are just a couple of his Alzheimer-ish ramblings, in addition to the latest:

Yes, romantic loyalty is important, Mr. President.

Er…what? And who or what the hell is EASY D?

And so on. Books have been published about his “tweetstorms.” Image result for book about trump tweetsA count by The Washington Post and New York Times found that the president has tweeted 17,000 times from 2015, when he entered the race, through July 2017. We must have passed 25,000 tweets months ago. Imagine the ink we’ve spent, the airtime hours we’ve wasted, just to cover his 3 a.m. rants?

Writing about Trump’s caustic journaling is a Faustian bargain. The devil pays well, but always collects. On the one hand, you could argue that America has a right into the insights of the man with the nuclear PIN code. Anything that exposes his predisposition, they argue, informs a voting public.

The argument’s not without merits. And that’s not to mention the money at stake from covering Trump’s tweets. Boiling blood always outsells coagulating, and CNN, MSNBC and about every other outlet in America would chop off its right hand rather than give up that cash cow.Image result for twitter cash

But at what cost the cow? Does it not play into a simple-but-effective Republican strategy of getting beneath Democrats’ skin? Does it not make news coverage of the very subject numbingly repetitive? What’s worse: Are we discriminating against those who aren’t part of the Social Media ecosystem? They’re a larger group than you think: A full 78% of Americans aren’t on Twitter, according to a Pew poll. Yet 51% of Americans read tweets in the media, according to the same study.

What if we have been reeled in by the troller-in-chief? Consider the distraction the tweet caused: Instead of covering the plethora of scandals before us, we’re going ape shit over the word “lynching” and its meaning. Consider how the tweet was really a coded wink to his base: The administration can (and did) argue that the media was misconstruing him again while still giving a nod to Trumpkins. All while we chased cauldrons.

Speaking of which: For us reporters (it’s time we speak in the collective), tweets don’t it even pass  basic reporting essentials, like attribution and sourcing. News outlets — particularly new and shiny digital ones — love to make a point of how hip and topical they are by quoting clever, anonymous Twitter users. You’ll see legitimate outlets quoting tweeters with identifications like or @centralsquarepigeon,  or @LordVoldemort7, or @sarcasticrover, or on and on and on. Some have clever quips to make, some not so much. Either way, a reporter would be given a pink slip  had he/she returned from a Man-on-the-Street story without real names, real attribution, anything that would give the interviewee reason to stand by his or her words.

To add to the confusion, Trump rarely tweets about anything of import. Other than lambaste investigations as witch hunts, when has he tipped his hand about anything controversial or even revealing? Before the  Post story broke, were any of the 25,000+ tweets about Ukraine’s need to battle corruption? Any tweets about how his “internal tax audit” is going? Anything about his emoluments schemes (besides denying them)?Image result for funny trump tax return

Even yesterday’s tweet could use a LTC Policy vetting. What exactly did the president reveal with that controversial missive? That he’s a racist? That he doesn’t know history? That he has no grasp of the definition of words (Webster’s definition of lynching: “(of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial).” Last time I checked, impeachment is a legal trial, and Trump still breathes.Image result for black man lynched

This isn’t to say we should drop coverage of Twitter. It has become the White House’s de facto source of press releases, as opposed to news conferences. Foreign nations — most recently France and Brazil — have publicly bickered and delayed aid over perceived-offensive tweets. Cabinet hirings and firings are done by tweet (ask John Bolton). The #Metoo movement was an historical hashtag. And stories like the Vanity Fair article on Mitt Romney using the pen name @PierreDelecto helped to chillingly  underscore the fear that runs through the GOP. They are legitimate stories.

But what are we really gaining with circus tent coverage over all administration tweets, besides misinformation? 24/7 news outlets have been quick to trumpet new ethics policies, including withholding the identity of mass shooters and not re-reporting thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories.

But that’s not nearly far enough. If we hope to regain even a modicum of respect in the public’s eye, we’ve got to demonstrate some deliberateness in what we cover — if only to give the stories we do write sense of gravitas. It’s a counter-intuitive ask: to drop some stories simply because they don’t cut muster, even if it hurts our bottom line. But we do it with every other form of journalistic coverage, from entertainment to business to sports.

Why not the most important beat of all?

 

 

“Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President”

 

Retired Admiral William H. McRaven is a former commander of the United States Special Operations Command. He served in the Persian Gulf War, as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He fought in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and has won three Defense Distinguished Service Medals, Defense Superior Service Medals, two Legion of Merit medals and two Bronze Stars. In other words, the guy’s got swagger. He can afford to walk softly.ADM William H. McRaven 2012.jpg

Last week, though, he wasn’t so softly. He took the rare step of voicing a complaint against his commander-in-chief — in the New York Times, no less. The mere act of his publicly criticizing a superior is newsworthy enough.

But what he penned was so poetic and damning, every news outlet in America should have picked it up. If the first investigation into the president drowned in 448 pages of investigative paperwork by Robert Mueller, McRaven’s file is a one-page note. And as we head toward the road of impeachment, every American should read it.

As I said, the press was remiss enough in letting the letter fly largely under the radar. And the NYT didn’t help the cause, hiding it behind a paywall. But we here at the HB found a workaround, and will run the letter. We invite other outlets to follow suit. Man up and speak out.

Last week I attended two memorable events that reminded me why we care so very much about this nation and also why our future may be in peril.

The first was a change of command ceremony for a storied Army unit in which one general officer passed authority to another. The second event was an annual gala for the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) Society that recognizes past and present members of the intelligence and Special Operations community for their heroism and sacrifice to the nation. What struck me was the stark contrast between the words and deeds heralded at those events — and the words and deeds emanating from the White House.

On the parade field at Fort Bragg, N.C., where tens of thousands of soldiers have marched either preparing to go to war or returning from it, the two generals, highly decorated, impeccably dressed, clear eyed and strong of character, were humbled by the moment.

They understood the awesome responsibility that the nation had placed on their shoulders. They understood that they had an obligation to serve their soldiers and their soldiers’ families. They believed in the American values for which they had been fighting for the past three decades. They had faith that these values were worth sacrificing everything for — including, if necessary, their lives.

Having served with both officers for the past 20 years, I know that they personified all that is good and decent and honorable about the American military with genuineness of their humility, their uncompromising integrity, their willingness to sacrifice all for a worthy cause, and the pride they had in their soldiers.

Later that week, at the O.S.S. Society dinner, there were films and testimonials to the valor of the men and women who had fought in Europe and the Pacific during World War II. We also celebrated the 75th anniversary of D-Day, recognizing those brave Americans and allies who sacrificed so much to fight Nazism and fascism. We were reminded that the Greatest Generation went to war because it believed that we were the good guys — that wherever there was oppression, tyranny or despotism, America would be there. We would be there because freedom mattered. We would be there because the world needed us and if not us, then who?

Also that evening we recognized the incredible sacrifice of a new generation of Americans: an Army Special Forces warrant officer who had been wounded three times, the most recent injury costing him his left leg above the knee. He was still in uniform and still serving. There was an intelligence officer, who embodied the remarkable traits of those men and women who had served in the O.S.S. And a retired Marine general, whose 40 years of service demonstrated all that was honorable about the Corps and public service.

But the most poignant recognition that evening was for a young female sailor who had been killed in Syria serving alongside our allies in the fight against ISIS. Her husband, a former Army Green Beret, accepted the award on her behalf. Like so many that came before her, she had answered the nation’s call and willingly put her life in harm’s way.

For everyone who ever served in uniform, or in the intelligence community, for those diplomats who voice the nation’s principles, for the first responders, for the tellers of truth and the millions of American citizens who were raised believing in American values — you would have seen your reflection in the faces of those we honored last week.

But, beneath the outward sense of hope and duty that I witnessed at these two events, there was an underlying current of frustration, humiliation, anger and fear that echoed across the sidelines. The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within.

These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, “I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!”

Those words echoed with me throughout the week. It is easy to destroy an organization if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great. We are not the most powerful nation in the world because of our aircraft carriers, our economy, or our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.

But, if we don’t care about our values, if we don’t care about duty and honor, if we don’t help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice — what will happen to the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Rohingyas, the South Sudanese and the millions of people under the boot of tyranny or left abandoned by their failing states?

If our promises are meaningless, how will our allies ever trust us? If we can’t have faith in our nation’s principles, why would the men and women of this nation join the military? And if they don’t join, who will protect us? If we are not the champions of the good and the right, then who will follow us? And if no one follows us — where will the world end up?

President Trump seems to believe that these qualities are unimportant or show weakness. He is wrong. These are the virtues that have sustained this nation for the past 243 years. If we hope to continue to lead the world and inspire a new generation of young men and women to our cause, then we must embrace these values now more than ever.

And if this president doesn’t understand their importance, if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.