W.

Meh.

It's an Oliver Stone film.

Before going to see it I had assumed that all the good press for this film was due to widespread surprise that Stone didn't string ol' Georgie up by his nut sack and piss on him. All the interviews I saw with Mr. Stone were marked by words like "even handed" and "fair" regarding the film's portrayal of our current President. Admittedly, if I hadn't expected such an "even handed", nay even sympathetic, picture- I might have been more pleasantly surprised by my matinee viewing.

But I wasn't.

Indeed, W. is a sympathetic portrait of a man in over his head. However, Stone's film carries all the hallmarks of a muck raker's restraint as he struggles to make a monster into a man. W. is rife with pity and cheap, armchair psychology. There is little insight in the script beyond a high schooler's interpretation of a Wikipedia page on Oedipal complex. We all know W. was the wayward Bush and it is not difficult to imagine how hard it must be to live in a powerful man's shadow. I didn't need 2 hours and 11 minutes to be told what I already understand.

Josh Brolin does give a fine performance and the supporting cast was quite good at what they were asked to do. Clearly, they were asked to walk and talk like the people we see on the news everyday. They did just that, but no more was asked of them. The cast, as a whole, was uncanny in their likeness to the real-life characters. Excellent speech and physical work was done by all- but there was no room in the script for them to be anything other than props to enliven the reality of the title character's experience. There was no examination of their motivations or relationships with one another or with W himself. With one notable exception. Ellen Burstyn was somewhat out of place in her few scenes because it seemed she was trying to squeeze a little bit more out of the script and character than her cohorts. In fact, her physicality was defiantly unBarbara Bush, but her emotional choices were quite clear.

I have to say, I was shocked to find myself uncomfortable with the scenes depicting George and Laura as a normal couple who occasionally find themselves having important discussions in their underwear. One particular scene features W chatting with Laura on the toilet. I think the intent was to humanize W even more, but as an issue of taste I feel it was gratuitous and somewhat disrespectful. I am no fan of this President or his administration but I have no desire to watch our President take a dump.

Bio-pics are always a bit dicey. When one decides to fictionalize a real person's life they are apt to play fast and loose with history to achieve dramatic ends. As one who values truth and history, I have to say that I see this as a dangerous practice. There is a scene where Richard Dreyfus's Cheney gives a speech about controlling oil so "...no one will fuck with us again...". This scene was placed there for expediency- to clue us in to the filmmaker's view of the administration and not necessarily the historical character's view. I fear all too few viewers will make that distinction and Stone's widely and easily consumed version of history will become fact. In my humble opinion, that is a disservice to history and truth.

But, it's an Oliver Stone film.

Meh.

John Adams

It has been a long time since we've seen a historical mini-series on television. It has been even longer since a historical mini-series has had the mainstream push that HBO's miniseries event John Adams has had. The buzz before the show has caused even non-geek excitement about this decidedly unsexy historical figure.

Yes. I said unsexy. John Adams did not exactly cut the most dashing of colonial figures but David McCullough strives to give him, and his extraordinary wife, their due in this mini-series. So far.

I'll admit. I'm leery of bio-pics in general and even more concerned about drama that features such prominent historical figures. So often writers tend to weigh heavily on hyperbole, reverence and/or revulsion when it comes to such subjects. The person(s) in question are usually either overly praised or mercilessly "exposed" for their shortcomings as suits the writer's whim and rarely do I walk away with a sense of the real human. Rather, I tend to walk away with a better understanding of the writer's opinion of the person and the circumstances involved. Drama is not meant to "report", but rather to "retell" and there is a lot of wiggle room in retelling and that can lead to critical distortions of the truth.

Luckily, the first two episodes of this series seem to side-step these land mines. So far the text has yet to exalt or defile the man, but has sought to explore his dilemmas as if they were urgent- not foregone conclusions. We are allowed to empathize with Adams and that empathy is strikingly tempered by the input of his intelligent and insightful wife- Abigail.

Historically speaking, their relationship was an extraordinary partnership of intellectual equals and proves itself more than worthy of exploration by our modern culture awash with all kinds of gender role confusion and conflict. Here is where Giamatti and Linney have earned their salt. Not only have they deftly handled the circumstances of time and place, but they have shattered the expectations and preconceived notions of that time and place. In their hands, John and Abigail are loving and playful with one another in a way that brings the audience beyond the formality of colonial culture and language. Their rapport is deeply personal and the shadows of resentment that flicker through Abigail's eyes as she watches her ambitious beloved leave her to tend to the children and the farm again and again I can only describe as deeply resonant.

I do wonder, however, how much "speechifyin'" from the ornery and loquacious Adams the series can support. At the moment the speeches and the rants are fascinatingly juxtaposed with Adam's insecurity, but can that theme progress from here on out? I do hope that it can, but that is a piece of dramatic gymnastics considering the man's choices as he passes through his life. We will just have to wait and see.

The series is, on the whole, very well cast and well shot by Tak Fujimoto- with the exception of some tiresome hand-held footage during the Boston Massacre, but that can be forgiven. I understand that choice. However, I must make note of an actor who tickles my fancy somewhat these days and that is Tom Wilkinson as the cantankerous Benjamin Franklin. He blows onto the small screen with a wittily dismissive air and overshadows Adams with ease. I am eager to watch this historical relationship and all of its complexity unfold. The small taste I've had has been a delight.

If you haven't seen the first two episodes yet, find a way to catch up. You won't be sorry.

Freedom to Fascism

Due to Michael Moore's success and the rise of the documentary as popular entertainment, I have learned to approach new documentaries with some serious trepidation. Unfortunately, "Freedom to Fascism" validated every last one of my nuveau doc fears.

I am a very critical viewer of entertainment. Over the years I've also become a skeptical consumer of "investigative reporting". I know enough about narrative construction to be able to see when I'm being manipulated and I don't appreciate it.

Let's get this straight. Michael Moore is the only Michael Moore we have. I've stated my views on his work before. It is not documentary- it is cinematic essay. His style is unique, as is his personality. I find him entertaining. I find his reporting to be challenging but not without its rather significant deficeincies. His work should be viewed with a critical eye, but it is always skillfully and humorously assembled. Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" tries to follow the angry fat man model, but he has neither the cinematic skill nor the humor of Michael Moore.

First off, Russo spends the first half of the film trying to shoot down the 16th Amendment to the Constitution claiming that it was never fully ratified and therefore should be null and void. He also makes the argument that even if said amendment were legal that the Constitutional definition of the word "income" is suspect and that it would not and should not apply to personal wages. Through all of this, Russo throws many quotes and comments in text upon the screen to support his points. Not once does he ever show us the 16th Amendment. Wouldn't you think that would be important to share with your audience? Especially since Russo presumes his audience needs to be schooled on so many other aspects of the law, wouldn't the 16th Amendment be something he should explore in depth? At the very least using a reading of the amendment to provide us with some context? The brief claim he makes about the amendment's apparent lack of ratification by the states is not explored. It is simply stated as fact. I'm sorry, Mr. Russo, but I need to know how it became the 16th Amendment without being ratified. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying that a critical point in your story is missing.

Throughout the film, Russo and his interview subjects keep repeating the phrase, "Show us the law.". This refers to the federal law that would require us to pay tax on our personal income. I do, indeed, find this intriguing, especially since no one in the documentary is ever shown a law. I do think this is, legitimately, something for us to demand as a nation. However, Russo's interviews never feel complete. It seems as if Russo becomes impatient with the length of the interviews (perhaps owing to his less than engaging interviewing style) and rather that playing them out he simply freezes the frame and narrates as he pleases over the frozen image. Russo talks a lot in this film and his tone is alarmist.

The editing in the film is sloppy. Which surprises this viewer as Russo spends a lot of time building his own credibility by referring to himself a few times as "...an award winning filmmaker". I am certain he is. Just not for this film. The music is heavy handed and the end of the film consists of an angry diatribe written by Russo that the audience simply reads off the screen. Seems a little lazy and preachy to me. This is not documentary. This is an ineloquent Op-Ed piece written by an angry man.

I have nothing against Russo's anger- except for the fact that it makes for a poor documentary. I get quite frustrated with artists who complain out of one side of their mouths that the Bush Administration is fear mongering and using propaganda to sell the American people a bill of goods and then they go right out and use the same tactics to sell their own point of view. That kind of "reporting" shows absolutely no respect for the intelligence of its audience. Couldn't a more traditional documentary about the process of ratifying the 16th Amendment stir an audience to question? Couldn't an investigative examination of how the Fed really works give us an appropriate wake up call? Many of us don't know how it works and I am sure we would be shocked to discover the facts in black and white. If you agree with Russo that a more sensationalist approach is required to get the peoples' attention, then I have to sadly shake my head. That would only mean that we accept that assessment of our collectively low intelligence. Personally, I think we can do better. I think we could have more coherent arguments to the cause. Instead we are left with what feels like a slapdash fifth grade book report assembled the night before it was due.

I was not given enough actual information in this film. I was yelled at, spoken down to, preached at, and then given a website to visit. Presumably so I could take further abuse. While I agree that we need to demand, as a nation, some serious reform and the return of our individual liberties and rights to privacy, I do not believe this film was an effective tool in that fight. This tool was a piece of crap designed to herd sheep.

I'm no sheep. Give me some credible reporting.

Man of the Year

I have a lot of respect for Robin Williams' talent, even though I don't much care for the films he chooses to do. Even frantic, talented people can have rather pedestrian tastes. "Man of the Year" is the latest case in point.

A popular political comedian decides to throw his hat into the Presidential ring, a company wins a bid to develop the program that will "simplfy" the American voting process, and a diligent computer programmer discovers a glitch in the new software that results in the aforementioned comedian's immenent presidency. You would think this would be enough to give momentum to the story. You would think Robin Williams, Laura Linney and Christopher Walken would be able to move even a crappy script forward. Christopher Walken makes a lot of crap, but he's always fascinating, right? Well, this is a notable exception. Somehow Barry Levinson waved a magic wand and made not only the conflict dull- but Robin Williams sedate and, well, unfunny. Williams, Linney and Walken are all highly credible in their performances, but something vital is missing. It was almost as if Levinson had set up the circumstances and asked the performers to just live by them and then systematically edited out all the interesting parts leaving only shot after shot of campaign caravans and presidential motorcades. Enough with the driving already!

This film has all the self important fingerprints of a Hollywood agenda film. There was once a time when an agenda film actually said what it meant without all the back peddaling and kow towing. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Meet John Doe, Sullivan's Travels- these are all important, and highly watchable films. Unfortunately, I will be filing this one next to obnoxious, poorly constructed tripe like Bulworth and The Contender. Don't get me started.

First of all, there are extreme efforts taken to not point fingers at anyone. In the film, the glitch is a mistake and no one intended to thwart the election, but it clearly needed to be covered up to save the company's financial future. The sitting president is a Democrat, just to keep people from thinking this little film about voter fraud bears any similarity to any persons living or dead. Yeah. They fooled me. Second, Robin Williams' angry comedian performance feels restrained while poor Lewis Black's tirades are set free only when there is some other more pressing piece of business to distract us from what he is saying. Levinson missed every potential interesting moment by about a mile.

Oh, wait, there is one exception. Laura Linney's character, Eleanor, returns home after a confrontation with her boss's lawyer and then hears an odd noise. This was properly suspenseful. I knocked my soda over when the hired goon finally attacked her. She should have been dead, but like every other punch in this film Levinson pulled it. He was so intent on not making this a mystery that he completely avoided a series of interesting, revealing moments in favor of a two hour diatribe about the importance of being involved regardless of the inevitablility of human error. It seems to me that what this film really advocates is the status quo.

The film opens up with Christopher Walken telling the story to somebody of how this all transpired. I had hoped that, maybe, just maybe, Williams' character had been killed for exposing the truth about the system. Nah. That doesn't happen. Nobody dies. Nobody's life is ruined. In the end everyone goes back to their lives and Williams and Linney play out their prerequisite romance. This film has absolutely nothing to say and takes about two hours to say it.

Well, the popcorn was delicious.