Year: 2007

  • Anna Nicole Coulter. Its All the Same.

    Jack Shafer poses a good question over at Slate today. Unfortunately, while the headline, “Our Ann Coulter Problem. Why the Press Won’t Just Ignore Her”, suggests he supplies an answer, he doesn’t. Other than the talk radio crowd who eerily echo the notorious line, “Coulter has some good ideas”, (Like what? Blowing up the New York Times?) — everyone else who has watched Coulter’s career arc has to have asked themselves, “Why?”

    As in, “Why is this rude, unmodulated, and not particularly insightful shock-jock-style pundit given so much airtime?”

    My old pal, David Carr, of the Times, had it as right as anyone when he suggested Coulter wouldn’t get past security at The Today Show and CNN if it weren’t for the blonde-in-a-cocktail dress bit. (The reverse logic there being that Matt Lauer and everyone else might have had a few more chats with, say, the late Molly Ivins, if Ivins lost 40 pounds, 20 years and made friendly wih a bottle of peroxide).

    Let me suggest … again … (as in “yet again”) … that the media’s problem with Coulter is two-fold, maybe three-fold.

    One: The mainstream media lives in a state of constant, palpable, dry-mouthed fear of being targeted by right-wing partisans. To be called out as a “liberal” is to be on a slippery slope to getting Dan “Rathered”, where a stupendous network of resources comes to bear on you with such constancy and virulence it becomes nearly impossible to do anything — like “normal journalism” — other than rebut crackpot criticism and invective. In order to blunt this very high potentiality, mainstream media news entities and performers make extraordinary concessions to personalities who embody the far-far-right ethos. It is a way of indemnifying themselves.

    Two: Mainstream television and radio news — and I use the word “news” very advisedly in the context of commercial radio, since it barely exists anymore — is entertainment, first, second, third and foremost. That means glamour of a fairly cliched variety is a primary criteria for access to the network camera. With that in mind, rail thin blondes in short cocktail dresses — often at 8 in the morning(?) — are inherently more viable as guests than say some middle-aged gal like Ivins, or nerdy-looking wonky characters like, um, David Sirota or Glenn Greenwald, neither of whom I recall ever being asked on to chat up Lauer, Diane Sawyer or whoever is doing that CBS show these days.

    Third: Coulter can be relied on to make “news”. She will, invariably insult, vilify and engage in reckless hyperbole. Its guaranteed. Its like booking a barking seal. Her willingness to spew over-the-top invective of a sort that were she a guy in a bar would get her nose broken, is fundamental to her appeal to mainstream infotainment. Its part of an unwritten contract. “We’ll have you on, and you say something — anything, we don’t care — just as long as it is ‘hot’ enough that every other network has to pick it up and run it. Cross-promotion, baby! Its how you play the game.”

    The direct link between Coulter and the latest absurdist celebrity overreach — Anna Nicole Smith — is almost too obvious to note. (Carl Hiassen whacks his press colleagues for their Anna Nicole frenzy in his Miami Herald column.) Where Smith could be relied upon to behave like the siliconized trailer trash she was every time a camera turned in her direction, Coulter can be relied upon to give voice to the worst instincts of the country’s most angry, ill-informed yet active media watchdogs … and be blonde the whole time she is doing it.

    The solution? As an old altar boy, I place great faith in the cumulative power of shame. Enough citizen-viewers e-mailing the Matt Lauers or Charlie Gibsons of the world, or standing up during one of their barnstorming tours and asking, “the Ann Coulter question”, will eventually diminish her appeal. Cable news, even more desperate than network morning shows for sick-to-dead blondes to hold their audience, will take a lot longer to shame. And even then Coulter will be replaced … probably by something worse.

    My God! What if Coulter used her book royalties to buy herself an Anna Nicole boob job? MSNBC would give her her own show.

  • A Shallow and Sad, Sad Tale

    Two weeks ago I was at Melrose Antiques with the boyfriend when I spotted something beautiful behind the counter: a long, lime green Bonnie Cashin jacket with toggle closures up the front and at the cuff of both sleeves. I asked the shopgirls if I could please take a closer look. They handed it over. I slipped the thing off the hanger with care and asked: please, may I try it on? Lime green is not my best color, as with most people, but whaddya know that thing fit as would a glove.

    Boyfriend’s appreciation of such things rivals my own, and so his response was: “buy it,” “now,” and “who cares how much.”

    But then the shopgirls broke the sad news that it was not for sale. They spoke of some-such varmint and local apparel designer who had the thing on hold since December.

    So, to make myself feel better, I’ve been cruising the Bonnie Cashin Foundation‘s online gallery ever since. I’ve been ogling the attache and the leather gloves embellished with what seems to have been Cashin’s preferred closure–the industrial toggle. And then, just yesterday, I received an email message about this online exhibition of vintage Cashin editorial coverage.

  • Dear Friends

    picnic nocturne 2.jpg

    It was like this.

    It was this way.

    Here was the way it was.

    This is how things stood:

    Silently. Still. At attention.

    That was one moment and

    unfortunately this world is

    all about one moment to another.

    In the next moment everything was

    swirling and it was as if I was a

    plastic man crouched in paralyzed

    terror in a snow globe filled with

    sand and loose garbage and shredded paper,

    cupped in a pair of giant hands

    that never stopped shaking.

    I felt so small and yet still

    could not bring myself to answer

    the phone or return your calls.

    They have a term for this feeling, I’m

    sure, and a remedy whose name would

    fit conveniently on ballpoint pens

    and pocket protectors and desk

    calendars and NASCAR jumpsuits.

    But, anyway, listen:

    I apologize. Truly, I am sorry.

    Surely nobody chooses to feel

    like their skin has been

    turned inside out and salted.

    I suppose I learned too early

    that they have a word for everything,

    and that has been a ceaseless torment

    as well as an occasional delight.

    You should do me a favor and take

    my dictionary. I would miss it,

    but, really, you should. I beg of you,

    take that fucking thing and feed it to the dogs.

    You see, it was like this.

    It was this way.

    This was the way it was:

    The library was the garden

    where my mother took me for

    swimming lessons and I

    learned to drown.

    montana winter 9.jpg

  • The best hot rods for blizzards.

    I have never fully grasped the term “waiting out the storm.” I can understand doing so during mountaineering expeditions, but not neccessarily during a blizzard in the urban jungle. Not when there are great cars that can plow through snow faster than Tony Montana without blowing a kingpin’s fortune.

    All it takes is knowledge of a few “new age” hot-rodding tricks and the vehicles that respond best to such techniques.

    In the old days, most hot rodding was done with costly tricks like adding hotter cams or boring out an engine block. And even if you did add some HP, you’d be Jon Krakauer book material if you drove your rod on anything less than hot pavement.

    Fortunately today a simple ECU chip upgrade can give you maximum HP without robbing you of snow and ice performance. The key is knowing what cars gain the most HP from chipping without costing a fortune. The Road Rake recommends the following two bargains:

    The AudiS4 (Twin Turbo V6). This little beast puts out 250 HP to all four wheels. It runs 0-60 in 5.5. sec. Many magazines (like Sports Car Illustrated–the very best journalism on sports cars) have been less than impressed with the driving dynamics of the S4s chassis (too insulated from the road), but generally agree that it is an overall tight and fast ride.

    If you live in a place that benefits from 4WD, however, you can forget all this splitting of hairs and take advantage of a far more potent insight—The S4’s 2.7 liter biturbo engine can be chipped for around $800.00 or so to produce 330 reliable HP. While Audi dissuades owners from doing this, you can simply check into TotalAudiPerformance (TAP.com), for the chip set.

    The Subuaru WRX.
    On the same site (TAP.com) you will find a sister site for the Subuaru. They have the STI chip that pumps this car from 227 hp in stateside trim to the 276 HP you can get in the Japanese version. All for around $800.00.

  • Par Ridder? WTF?!

    After picking their jaws up from the floor, staffs at both the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press began analyzing and contemplating what Par Ridder leaving the latter to publish the former really means. Ridder is the 38 year-old scion of the once renown newspaper family. A family whose dance with Wall St. devils proved fatal, to many of their employees, if not to them.

    Knight-Ridder’s bungle led, first, to the evisceration in terms of staffing and quality of its’ papers across the country, including the St. Paul Pioneer Press. In the Twin Cities it led to a sale last spring of the Pioneer Press to Star Tribune owner McClatchy to satisfy private equity investors. That move was followed by another sale of the Pioneer Press, this to cutthroat media owner, MediaNews. What significant publishing experience the young Mr. Ridder has gained in his short career came from overseeing the execution of rigorous downsizing in St. Paul. (Ridder was quoted only last week telling Pioneer Press employees they’d be better off without a union.) He will bring that expertise to Minneapolis.

    Ridder was introduced at a hastily-called 9:15 AM meeting, (a company-wide e-mail went out at 8:29 AM, almost as though someone preferred most reporter-types were NOT on hand for the Ridder-era curtain-raising). His introduction coincides with the first day of Avista Capital Partner’s ownership of the Star Tribune, following McClatchy’s startling Dec. 26 fire-sale of the paper to avoid capital gains tax penalties.

    Ridder’s tenure at the Pioneer Press, overseeing draconian cutbacks in staffing and depth of coverage, is not the sort of thing that should reassur either Star Tribune newsroom employees or, if it cares, the community at large. A brief Q&A at the early morning introduction apparently did not get into specifics of the Avista game plan, which has most of the staff on edge, presuming cutbacks and lay-offs a la what Ridder supervised at the Pioneer Press.

    Pioneer Press staffers were in a different state of shock. Ridder may have been regarded as a rich kid in a largely empty suit, but no one I talked with ever considered he’d leave … for the Star Tribune. While the Pioneer Press “playbook” may be a thin, rudimentary text these days, Avista may — “may”, I say — see an advantage in having a guy who knows how all the revenue deals are managed on board their ship, if getting ruthless and sinking the Pioneer Press once and for all is part of their profit-making strategy.

    More to follow.

  • Looking Back, Looking Ahead

    This weekend, I went to DIVA MN–which was quite fun, in part due to the attentions (or maybe it was just ass kissing) I received from a male model. I meant to bring my camera so that I could share with you the takes, but alas, it was forgotten at home. And then yesterday afternoon I went to see Love, Janis at the Ordway. Now, try as I might to be open-minded, I was feeling rather snobbish about this one as I walked in (automatic against biopics n’ -plays). But once inside, I was happy to find a fine local performer, Kate Eifrig, in the title role. There was a fine singer doing Janis, too. She had the raspy, bluesy voice anyhow, even if she couldn’t quite reach the high notes and squeals. Which is all a roundabout way of saying I rather enjoyed the thing. Then, last night, I went to see Don Juan Giovanni, which was entertaining, even if some of the singers’ voices were inaudible. But, being the nice person that I am, I’m just assuming they overdid it the night before, on opening. The production’s use of an old, 50s-era Plymouth was cool as hell, though. And Bradley Greenwald, I’ve decided, has a voice of pure gold. But this production didn’t show him off the way others have. I hope Jeune Lune remounts Carmen yet again just so I can hear him sing La fleur que tu m’avais jetée and C’est toi! C’est moi! all over again.

  • The Three-Pointer: Losing the Wrong Way

    Game #58, Home Game #30: Utah 106, Minnesota 83
    Game #59, Road Game #29: Boston 124, Minnesota 117 (2 OT)

    What’s the Plan: Buck Up? Draw Straws? Haze the Rookies?
    The past week has taught us that the Wolves can be casually blown out by a quality NBA team, with consecutive 26-point losses to Dallas and Utah standing as exhibits Y and Z. Today we discovered that the squad with the league’s second-worst record, the pitiful Boston Celtics, can come home to a noon start after an overtime road game the previous day, and outlast Minnesota in two overtimes while giving four guys aged 24 and under more than 30 minutes apiece of playing time.

    The players who logged more than 30 minutes for the Wolves include a trio who are 6 months either side of age 31 (Mark Blount, Kevin Garnett, and, in his first start of the season, Troy Hudson), and 27-year old Ricky Davis. Top draft choice Randy Foye played a mere 5:49 out of 58 possible minutes (due to the two five-minute overtimes), and showed that even his bountiful self-confidence is not impervious to getting bounced from the starting lineup–he was tentative and committed two turnovers during his lone stint, the substitution-filled bridge between the first and second quarters. Last year’s top draft choice, Rashad McCants, went scoreless in 27 minutes of action that would have been at least cut in half if Trenton Hassell hadn’t been sidelined for the day after twisting his ankle on the first possession of the game. McCants, who received a whopping 3:09 of PT during the Utah drubbing, likewise is performing like self-doubt is raising havoc with his instincts and equilibrium. The other promising rookie, Craig Smith, joined the team-wide posse that got their rears whupped on the boards, becoming one of seven Wolves players to rack up more personal fouls than rebounds. Smith finished with one basket and grabbed one rebound (no assists, no blocks, four fouls) in 29:05 on the court.

    To complete the tragicomedy, the Wolves telecast ran an interview with Jim Petersen and the team’s assistant general manager Rob Babcock, who proclaimed that the future was “bright” and specifically cited Foye, McCants and Smith as a core of young talent that has management excited. While Foye and McCants seem to exhibit very different temperaments, both have loads of raw talent and seem to be motivated by an internal swagger. One is a rookie trying to make the transition from college swingman to pro point guard–an enormous adjustment. The other is recovering from the dreaded microfracture surgery. Put simply, despite their tough demeanors, they are both in mentally fragile situations, and the worst thing you can do is play yo-yo with their minutes based on the inconsistency of their recent performances.

    After the Utah embarrassment Friday night, I asked coach Randy Wittman if it was time to play the kids. What do you mean, he wanted to know, inferring that the promising young trio was earning sufficient exposure, when in fact they’d combined for 42:27, or an average of 14:09, in a no-contest game the fundamentally airtight Jazz led by 20 less than halfway through the second period.

    Basketball 101 says if you are going to have a chance at making noise in the playoffs, you settle on a set rotation early, and establish individual roles and a team identity by New Year’s at the latest. If it is obvious to all but the most deluded observers that this isn’t your year, you nurture your young talent through a combination of putting them in a position to succeed and exercising patience and counseling when you challenge them outside their comfort level. The Wolves continue to scramble their roles and rotations, have never established an identity, have gone 6-13 after firing one coach for going 20-20, and are now playing head games with their most valuable young assets. Rather than disgrace themselves again by conjuring up some faux injury to Kevin Garnett and Ricky Davis while having their worst outside shooter jack up three-pointers in order to tank the final game of the season, they should sacrificing short-term gain by building for the future in a more noble and intelligent manner. But no; this franchise can’t even lose right.

    2. Huddy’s Turn at the Point
    The short-term dividends of turning to veteran Troy Hudson were apparent today, as the dude with the dreadlock pony tail went off for 26 points (9-15 FG, 3-6 from 3 pt) and 8 assists in 46:02. More specifically, Huddy teamed with Kevin Garnett for a steady diet of crisp, high-post pick and rolls, which served as the genesis for the vast majority of the Wolves’ half-court offense.

    This is pure speculation on my part, but the insertion of Hudson seems like a sop to KG, who has always loved Hudson’s play beyond any reasonable evidence. Longtime Wolves fans couldn’t help but get a sense of deja vu, a pleasant vibe for Garnett as well, no doubt, as he and Huddy reverted back to the rhythms of what I consider perhaps KG’s finest season, 2002-03, a year before he took MVP honors. It was when KG, Huddy and Wally Szczerbiak accounted for nearly 60 percent of the Wolves’ offense with Garnett leading the team across the board–points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks–while Minnesota won more than 50 games and threw a scare into the Lakers during the playoffs. It was a team in which KG orchestrated a cornucopia of open jump shots as drawn up by Flip Saunders. Today, with the raw, tired and poorly coached Celtics as the opponent, and a motivated Ricky Davis as a better Szczerbiak (and Mark Blount pulling 4th wheel Rasho status), Garnett registered a triple-double 33-13-10, while Davis racked up 35 and Huddy chipped in 26, for the second-highest trio total in franchise history (the MV3 had two more, 96, in an overtime win versus Sacramento three years ago).

    There is a rub, of course–more than one if you count the battery acid on Foye’s psyche–and that is Hudson’s defense. He was a horrible defender even before enduring all those knee, thigh, leg, and ankle injuries, and if anything, he is more horrible now. How bad? Well, his counterpart, Celtic point guard Delonte West, scored 31 points in 30:31 of playing time during the second half and two overtimes. Huddy defenders might want to point out that West scored 7 of those points in the three or four minutes Mike James was subbing in. But even if we grant that Hudson defends better than James–an analysis that can’t be undertaken without a flurry of cruel, snarky jokes, so we’ll bypass it for now–taking a stand on the evidence of a promising but still mediocre point guard torching you for 24 points in 26 minutes isn’t exactly winning the argument.

    The best defender among the team’s three point guards is Randy Foye. The best possible on-ball defender of West available today was Marko Jaric, who had a pair of nice steals but couldn’t hit any of his four shots in 18:50 of play. But Randy Wittman wanted someone who could jump start the offense in the most basic fashion possible, and to that extent, Huddy delivered, picking and rolling the squad to 50 percent from the field, 43 percent from beyond the 3-point arc. Will Wittman allow Hudson to continue grooving the flow for KG Tuesday night against the Lakers? If Hassell’s ankle hasn’t healed enough for him to guard Kobe Bryant, it won’t matter.

    3. Absurd Stats and Incomplete Links
    Sometimes numbers really can tell you how badly a ballclub is performing. For example, a game after their most inaccurate shooting performance in franchise history and their lowest point total ever at home, the Wolves grabbed their fewest rebounds of the season, 25, against Utah and played such putrid defense in the second period that Utah first miss occurred five seconds before the halfway point. Going up against 6-9 Carlos Boozer, 7-1 Kevin Garnett preferred to shoot from outside and not go hard to rim, a preference for the perimeter that extended to the other end of the court and helped account for him grabbing just 4 boards, or half his previous season low.

    Garnett partially atoned today in Boston, snaring 13 rebounds. Given the double overtime, that was less per-minute than his season average but positively Rodmanesque compared to his sorry teammates, who collectively grabbed 14 more. That’s 27 rebounds in all, in 58 minutes, and an incredible 30 fewer than the 57 Boston grabbed–the biggest differential in franchise history. That’s right: When the Celts missed a shot, they were more likely than Minnesota to get it back, outrebounding the Wolves 23-21. At the other end, when the Wolves shot, it was nearly always one and done, with Boston owning the glass 34-6. That, in a nutshell, is why the Wolves lost. I can’t find the final discrepancy in second-chance points, but shortly after halftime it was 13-0 in favor of the Celts. Officially, both teams attempted 88 shots, but that ignores all the times Boston snared an offensive rebound and forced a Minnesota foul on the ensuing putback. Boston doubled the Wolves’ free throw attempts, 46-23, and the 17-point margin in made free throws more than compensated for Minnesota’s higher field goal percentage. A couple games back I asked Wittman if, given Mark Blount’s proclivity for putting himself in early foul trouble (not to mention his indifferent defense and inability to effectively joust for rebounds), Minnesota was considering singing another big man to a 10-day contract. The coach said no, and that Mark Madsen was almost ready to return. So, we’ve got Mad Dog still waylaid and Eddie Griffin never coming back and the team has managed a collective 52 rebounds while yielding 96 in its past two games–and that doesn’t count getting outboarded 54-39 by Dallas a game before that. Today, Blount grabbed 3 rebounds in 36:10 before fouling out. And the team still claims, with a straight face, that it is in a playoff push. “We’ve got to keep fighting,” Wittman says. It is an oxymoronic statement.

    Finally, a note of thanks to those who made themselves, and me, at home here at The Rake before I’d even posted anything. I’ve sincerely appreciated all the kind words on my behalf, but now it is time to reset the tone, which is my quick reminder that stupid, one-line, and excessively nasty or personal comments will get doinked. We talk hoops as intelligently as possible, and if someone strays too far from that mandate, even if it’s to flatter me, it won’t get aired. By contrast, it bears repeating one more time that I do this primarily because of the quality feedback I get from you folks–insights into the team and the game itself. Thanks. I will also be beefing up the links on the left–Stephen Litel’s blog and 10,000 Takes are just two local sites I want to publicize, and Bill Simmons at ESPN.com doesn’t need my paltry endorsement but I’m glad to have the chance to offer it. Now if I can only figure out the software….

  • The Non-Surprise of "Studio 60's" Demise

    Having made a point — an “appointment” — to watch all but one episode of the highly-anticipated and now by all appearances canceled “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” I am not the least bit surprised it got whacked. And I am not engaging in schadenfreude. I was genuinely eager for another Aaron Sorkin series, even a post 12-step Aaron Sorkin series, and I hope he learns something from this and comes back with another.

    I never revered “The West Wing” like some. When interviewing Sorkin with other critics during that series’ Clinton-era glory days I asked him, repeatedly, why he was so consciously writing away from the ripest, juiciest, most crowd-grabbing story lines? As in anything resembling the epic manipulations of public attitude and congressional authority, not to mention the potboiler sexcapades of those innocent Bubba times of yore. If you were doing a top-of-the-line network TV series about the Oval Office, why, for God’s sake, would you avoid the titanic clash of interests — cynical, reckless and butting up against the weight of the Constitution — going on outside our door?

    Every time I asked, whether on the “West Wing” set or at some cocktail schmooze, Sorkin would give the slightest little sigh of exasperation — (as though network bosses were wondering the same thing?) — and repeat that he was not interested in the dark and mendacious aspects of government. Rather, he said, he wanted to do a show about the nobler impulses of government.

    That never satisfied me. Good God man, pit nobler impulses against the forces of dark mendacity! There’s a long history of that concept working very well. Especially at a moment when the entire country was endlessly analyzing everything from stained blue dresses to, as I say, the naked corruption of Congressional authority.

    Frankly, I thought “The West Wing” became more watchable after Sorkin checked in for treatment. True, those three or four classic Sorkin lines of dialogue were suddenly gone from the new episodes, but pesky details like plots and storylines were elevated to a higher priority.

    So last spring, about the time of the May “up-fronts” in New York, the buzz started early and heavy about “Studio 60”. A smart insider’s look at network television from the perspective of a very savvy survivor. Terrific! I’m in. And never mind the come-down in gravitas from the internal dynamics of the Oval Office. In pop-culture addled 21st century America, the attitudes and role-modeling of Hollywood are a supremely valid point of dramatic departure. The people most addicted to “pop” entertainment and information have little to no idea how it works, or who is working it. Add the possibility of topical satire and parody inherent in a show set behind-the-scenes of a live, weekly comedy skit show and we should have been talking a steady flow of 80 mile an hour fastballs into Sorkin’s wheelhouse.

    But instead of exercising the opportunity for cultural commentary — nobler or more crass — Sorkin headed off into the not at all interesting emotional travails of people — TV writers, producers and executives — almost none of us have ever been inclined to worry about. Worse, what ripe character conflicts Sorkin created, he studiously managed to avoid picking for their juice. Matthew Perry’s character can’t resolve his obsession with a Christian cast member. Cool, you think. But other than a few good Sorkin lines about the hypocrisy of the religious right, the Matt & Harriet relationship was pretty much one of constant aggravation, bickering and tease. Swell. Who can ever get enough of that?

    Basically, every episode of the show to the point of its’ cancellation felt like throat-clearing, scene after scene, episode after episode preparing the audience for something truly significant and substantial … that never came.

    Obviously you don’t usually associate “significant” and “substantial” with a TV show about a TV show. But Sorkin nattered around with the fitful romance of Matt (Perry) and Harriet (Sarah Paulson), then introduced another one between Danny (Bradley Whitford) and network boss Jordan (Amanda Peet). I just didn’t care. Whether any of them ever got together and raised plump babies in a gated Pacific Palisades estate just didn’t matter to me. I was making an appointment with an Aaron Sorkin inside-the-industry-he-knows-best drama for fresh, lucid insights and observations on the network/Hollywood/show biz culture. The creation and marketing of pop iconography, even. It was something he could have done with the cast he had but chose not to.

    I could go on, but let me wrap it here, by saying that both of the key women were badly mis-cast. I never got the visceral allure of Harriet on Matt. Harriet was a study in cool restraint. (Wouldn’t spontaneity be a criteria for working on a skit show … and winning the heart of a comedy writer?) And Amanda Peet, usually a vivacious free-spirit in other roles, was flat-out unbelievable as a network boss — all allusions to former ABC chief, Jamie Tarses, withstanding.

    I understand the need for high-profile executives to project a flat affect and never let the bastards see them sweat, but Peet’s character never seemed affected by anything. Not the machinations and threats of her boss, played by Steven Weber, her pregnancy … nothing. Come on! Having chatted up network bosses being microwaved by bad publicity, bad ratings, upper management pressure and desertion by former friends, believe me, you can read the stress on their faces. Its that kind of job. More to the point, there is fascinating behind-the-scenes drama in watching a clever, resourceful, highly competitive character put on the public face required to handle such situations.

    Finally — and this time I mean it — “Studio 60”, like “The West Wing” badly needed to get off its’ lavish, expensive set and breathe. As a viewer I felt entombed. Didn’t this hot and trendy cast and crew ever get out, hit the town, gather at parties in the Hollywood Hills and enjoy their notoriety? Would some strategic location shooting – a la “Curb Your Enthusiasm” been such a sacrifice?

    I remember asking both Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme, who directed a lot of “West Wing” episodes, if maybe a show about the President of the United States might need a bit more sense of scale — motorcades, Air Force One, foreign trips, political rallies, conventions — venues that conveyed the rarefied ambience of the world’s highest office? Their response was on the order of, “You’re talking about the #1 show in the country. Go away.”

    Obviously, despite this failure, Sorkin will work again. He’s one of those people I’ve never worried about. But I’d like to encourage him to take one more shot at a show set behind-the-scenes of modern media. There’s plenty to be explored and said. How about for example, an HBO series, (for language and adult situation license), behind the camera of some particularly pernicious cable news channel?

    I see Bradley Whitford as Bill O’Reilly, and Amanda Peet can play Greta Van Susteren.

  • God Is In The Details

    zodiac1.gif

    Zodiac
    , 2007. Directed by David Fincher, written by James Vanderbilt. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., Anthony Edwards, Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, Chloe Sevigny, Dermot Mulroney, Philip Baker Hall and Elias Koteas.


    Now showing in theaters around town.

    There’s a scene early on in David Fincher’s masterful Zodiac, in which we see the opening routines of the day at The San Francisco Chronicle and a mailman’s route to said newspaper. A letter is sorted; simultaneously the reporters grab their coffee en route to work. We see that the letter is hauled in bags through the streets, into the Chronicle building. There, the scribblers meet, sweat over articles, and gather in the editor’s office to chew over the events of the day and how they’ll lay on the front page. Finally, the secretary has opened the letter and bursts in on the pow-wow, and hands off the note–now bearing dozens of fingerprints–to the editor, who reads the Zodiac killer’s note. The chase is on.

    Zodiac is not your usual serial killer movie. In fact, those folks with a serious blood lust, hoping for another Se7en experience will be disappointed–there is precious little blood in Zodiac. What we get instead is a very detailed investigation, a chase that takes a path so twisted, so winding, that’s it’s a wonder that Fincher’s able to keep us abreast of everything. But he does. The result is a film about brilliant people (including, perhaps, the killer) and how their pursuits can, and do, warp them. And eventually liberate them, giving them something to live for.

    On a hot Independence Day in 1969, a young couple is seen waiting patiently for the other to make the first move in a secluded spot outside of Vallejo. It’s the usual scene: girl with braces, a guy trying to be cool, leading up to the first clumsy kiss. But the girl is married, and a car pulls up. Is it the husband? Thank God, no, they think, until this stranger, a silent, lumbering man, brutally empties his gun into these two. The young man, Mike Magau survived; his date, Darlene Ferrin was pronounced D.O.A. at the hospital.

    A short while later, the Chronicle receives that first letters from the killer, who as yet remains nameless. But as the white shirts in the newsroom ponder what to do with this thing, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a political cartoonist for the newspaper, finds himself with an unquenchable curiosity, and scribbles down the anagram that the killer included in his letter, and which the murderer claims will identify him, if broken. Assigned to the story is the flamboyant crime writer Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr., in full-on stoner mode, and outstanding). The two men could not be a better study in contrasts. Graysmith is an avowed Eagle Scout first-class who wants to solve the case Hardy Boys style, while Avery is a coke-snorting, booze-hound who is as eager to analyze the Zodiac killer (making the claim that the guy is a repressed homosexual).

    Mirroring these two in the police department are the investigation team of David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards). Toschi is a famous cop, the inspiration for Steve McQueen’s Bullitt, and eventually Dirty Harry and the Michael Douglas character in Streets of San Francisco. His squarer half, William, is a perfect foil–calm, collected, and both know exactly what they’re doing. And when a cabbie is shot by the Zodiac in San Francisco, they’re on it like bloodhounds.

    The Zodiac killer appealed to this odd collection of men as crossword puzzles attract folks from every walk of life. Their personalities are honed on the chase–Graysmith’s dogged civilian pursuit, combing libraries and files; Avery’s crack reportage, needling the killer to the point that he (Avery) was a target; and the officers, who are seen pursuing this case with such precision and determination its like watching a great jazz trumpeter riff through the most difficult tune.

    Zodiac is a movie about thinking, about how people set their minds to work out problems, and where that path leads them. Here, it leads them down strange alleys and darkened basements, routes that often, so painfully often, end up nowhere. The Zodiac himself changes so often he’s like a ghost–he’s ambidextrous, throwing handwriting experts off; his notes and cryptograms are so brilliant, referencing dozens of different sources, that three of the four have yet to be deciphered today; his M.O. changed on apparent whims. Obvious suspects are interviewed, investigated, closed in on, and then, with one contradictory piece of evidence, released–and in some cases, reopened, new evidence fingering someone, only, again, to watch that case fall apart.

    The Zodiac shot young adults in the dark while they sat in their vehicles; in broad daylight, masked, he stabbed a couple and left them for dead by a lake (again, the man survived, the woman died); he shot a cabbie in one of Frisco’s wealthiest sections; he threatened bombings and delivered perfect diagrams of a homemade explosive and threatened to shoot children as they departed a bus; he picked up hitchhikers, killed in the ‘burbs and the cities of northern California. Then, when it seems as if the police have settled on a geographical range, it is discovered that he killed far south, near Los Angeles.

    To make matters worse, the Zodiac took credit for other’s crimes, and then we find there were likely murders he didn’t take credit for, in places no one figured he’d go.

    Fincher’s Zodiac takes a long time to resolve itself, and its ending is profoundly frustrating. The Zodiac case is never wrapped up with tidy little bows and perfect folds, and at times takes on an almost otherworldly sense, as if murder and pursuit are somehow a part of a divine, existential game. Fincher’s camera tracks police cars from on high, sometimes at the height of the spans on the Bay Bridge, through the fog. Like some sort of wicked God, he watches as the dots scurry and chase another elusive dot, one that has murdered yet another dot. There is very little emotion, very little terror, but remains an utterly compelling film, with mercilessly little backstory–we get nothing about Graysmith’s first divorce, and Fincher never hovers over the marital, emotional, or substance abuse problems of his characters. All of whom, it might be added, are portrayed by a bevy of actors guided by a strong hand like I haven’t seen in ages: Gyllenhaal’s Graysmith is a wide-eyed Hardy Boy, Bryan Cox’s Mario Belli is perfectly hammy, and John Carroll Lynch, as a suspect, is frightening, but never too much so. The rest of the cast is equally sound.

    I doubt Zodiac will fare well at the box office, and one can only wonder what The Departed’s chances would have been had this film been released in December. As it is, Zodiac is one of the most intelligent thrillers in many a year, and a truly great film.

    In brief:

    Black Snake Moan (area theaters) is a hideous motion picture. Opening with a wonderful shot of Christina Ricci flipping off a giant tractor, the film is a painful bore. Despite it’s chained heroine, it’s as timid as if it were written by Nicholas Sparks. Ricci’s character finds a not-so-strange redemption from Samuel Jackson, spouting fire and brimstone (but with little of the thrill as his sermons in Pulp Fiction), the nudity is tedious, the direction mundane. A failure on every level (including the rancid singing by Ricci and Jackson)… Tears of the Black Tiger (Lagoon Cinema) is pulpy, violent, melodramatic, turgid and light years more fun than Snake. An homage to Thai westerns of the 60s and 70s, it’s the story of a poor young man who cannot marry his true love, the daughter of a wealthy and powerful province governor. So this boy becomes The Black Tiger, and, of course, the girl (who still loves him), becomes engaged to an ambitious cop. A bit too long, but a hypnotic and colorful (my God, the colors!) entertainment… The Italian (Edina Cinema) is a relentlessly bleak film about a young orphan promised to a wealthy Italian couple. Hence his at times derogatory nickname. While waiting for the paperwork to come through, the boy watches in horror as the mother of an orphan long since adopted kills herself in despair. Determined to find his own mom, the kid hightails it from the orphanage and the hunt is on. In spite of its subject, and the myriad of defeats this poor little fellow goes through (try not to cry), The Italian is as hopeful a movie as you’ll see, as small characters in this boy’s life offer little kindnesses that help him on his way… Amazing Grace (Lagoon Cinema) is awful, a weepy tearjerker about the young stud William Wilberforce (played by the intriguingly named Ioan Gruffudd) who, through his dogged efforts to convince British Parliament to ban slavery, becomes a hero and nearly a saint. Of course, why spend even a lick of time with any of the African protagonists, like Oloudaqh Equiano, an prince who helped convince the hero to act–ignore Equiano’s status as a guy who physically survived all the crap Wilberforce yaks about, or that Wilberforce’s butler has more memorable lines, or, most egregiously, that Equiano’s played by Sengalese singer Youssou N’Dour, who doesn’t even sing the title song. A wretched and insulting movie.

    zodiac2.gif

  • Must Go On

    For the brave among us: The Exonerated, an anti-death penalty plays, opens this evening at Mixed Blood and Mark Mothersbaugh: Postcard Diaries (i.e., art from the frontman of Devo–yes, we’ve covered this endeavor of his before) opens at Creative Electric Studios.