July 7, 2004
<Fahrenheit 9/11
John chose John, Bush said at least Cheney could be President (not realizing, as my friend Ed pointed out, that he is already President) and all is right with the Democratic Party. Ah, time to relax with a good movie!
So Winnie and I headed toward the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland and took in the matinee showing of Michael Moore’s latest, Fahrenheit 9/11. I loved Moore’s first film, Roger and Me, and thought his second, Bowling For Columbine, was a stinging indictment of the American culture of fear, which in turns fuels the gun culture.
In this film, Moore takes the current administration and the media complacency surrounding it to task. He rakes some great muck and backs most of it up with solid facts. You will note I did say “most.” There are parts of the film where he is obviously reaching, such as suggesting Bush was thinking of his Saudi Royal Family friends after being told about the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center, but I don’t mind. His showing of Bush with that deer-in-the-headlights look is classic…and the question he poses – Why did he sit there for nearly 15 minutes after being told (for the second time) this country was under attack before leaving? – has yet to be answered and will probably remain so.
Moore goes after the current junta full bore, such as smacking them upside the head for flying members of Osama bin Laden’s family to leave the US while all air traffic for everyone else was grounded. He likens it to flying Timothy McVeigh’s family out of the country immediately after the Oklahoma City bombings.
He shows how Bush and his family and many members of his administration have had direct and profitable contact in the past and the present with the Saudi Royal family. Thus bringing up the question just why is it the Saudis where not more actively involved in the investigation…and why didn’t the administration push them?
These are just a few of the questions the film raises. Everyone knows Moore is anti-war and anti-Bush, yet he makes a powerful case for anyone who watches with an open mind to seek answers to many of the questions he raises.
I’ve heard it said that Moore’s film is not a documentary, but a 90-minute political commercial. Maybe so, but then what is a documentary if not a point-of-view of what has or is happening all around us? Many documentaries I have seen push a political view of one or another. Very few documentaries are detached series of photos.
No, Moore’s film is a documentary of the strongest kind. And despite the fanatical right (who haven’t seen the movie) and Fox News bashing him daily, he deserves to be heard by all. See it, and then judge for yourself.
Fini
Tracy
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
A Contender, A Somebody
Brando
My earliest memory of Brando is his singing in Guys and Dolls. Ugh! Why in the world does everyone think this is a great actor?
I next saw him in A Streetcar Named Desire and I then knew why. His quintessential interpretation of Stanley was a lesson in the actor’s art. I later learned that he originated the role on Broadway, his only major stage performance.
Many thought him a method actor, yet he himself said he was not. He simply imitated life he observed, including his own. His was the technique of Brando, unique to Brando and only Brando. He muttered, hesitated, and tossed off lines as if they just popped into his head. His acting was both raw and self-indulgent, yet in the right role, it was brilliant.
In the Godfather, he reached a pinnacle of his career, even though he was only forty. His interpretation of Don Corleone, the tired, old, yet still powerful Mafia Godfather, blew me away (so to speak). I recently saw this film again and you cannot tell he is acting. It is as if the producers went to New York, found this old Godfather sitting in Central Park and asked if he would like to make a movie…and yet, it is acting, pure and simple. Let’s face it; he is Brando, playing Brando’s interpretation of a Mafia Boss. He later spoofs this role in the delightful little movie “The Freshman” with Mathew Broderick. However, I dare you to watch these movies back to back and tell me the difference in the acting. Other than the context and the lines, it is the same.
Apocalypse Now in 1979 shows us a Brando completely unleashed. He was always indifferent to schedules and scripts, but in this role as the unbalanced Col. Kurtz, he explodes, delaying shooting, improvising lines and throwing off the other actors around him with his actions – Col. Kurtz to a tee.
One of his last films was Don Juan DeMarco with Johnny Depp and Faye Dunaway. A pretty good little film in which he plays a psychiatrist (all 300 pounds of him) who must try to cure Johnny Depp from his delusion of being Don Juan. I recommend it, if just for the scenes between Brando and Depp or Brando and Dunaway. Fun
As for On The Waterfront, other than the scene between him and Rod Steiger in the back of the cab, I didn’t really care for it much…just too pat, too dated. I know, blasphemy! But do not take that as a diminishment of the man and his art. He was, after all, a contender, a somebody.
Fini
Tracy
My earliest memory of Brando is his singing in Guys and Dolls. Ugh! Why in the world does everyone think this is a great actor?
I next saw him in A Streetcar Named Desire and I then knew why. His quintessential interpretation of Stanley was a lesson in the actor’s art. I later learned that he originated the role on Broadway, his only major stage performance.
Many thought him a method actor, yet he himself said he was not. He simply imitated life he observed, including his own. His was the technique of Brando, unique to Brando and only Brando. He muttered, hesitated, and tossed off lines as if they just popped into his head. His acting was both raw and self-indulgent, yet in the right role, it was brilliant.
In the Godfather, he reached a pinnacle of his career, even though he was only forty. His interpretation of Don Corleone, the tired, old, yet still powerful Mafia Godfather, blew me away (so to speak). I recently saw this film again and you cannot tell he is acting. It is as if the producers went to New York, found this old Godfather sitting in Central Park and asked if he would like to make a movie…and yet, it is acting, pure and simple. Let’s face it; he is Brando, playing Brando’s interpretation of a Mafia Boss. He later spoofs this role in the delightful little movie “The Freshman” with Mathew Broderick. However, I dare you to watch these movies back to back and tell me the difference in the acting. Other than the context and the lines, it is the same.
Apocalypse Now in 1979 shows us a Brando completely unleashed. He was always indifferent to schedules and scripts, but in this role as the unbalanced Col. Kurtz, he explodes, delaying shooting, improvising lines and throwing off the other actors around him with his actions – Col. Kurtz to a tee.
One of his last films was Don Juan DeMarco with Johnny Depp and Faye Dunaway. A pretty good little film in which he plays a psychiatrist (all 300 pounds of him) who must try to cure Johnny Depp from his delusion of being Don Juan. I recommend it, if just for the scenes between Brando and Depp or Brando and Dunaway. Fun
As for On The Waterfront, other than the scene between him and Rod Steiger in the back of the cab, I didn’t really care for it much…just too pat, too dated. I know, blasphemy! But do not take that as a diminishment of the man and his art. He was, after all, a contender, a somebody.
Fini
Tracy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)