…the almost right word

Recount directed by Jay Roach — Remember the long past 2000 election in which we waited weeks to hear a verdict? This HBO film tells the story of what went on behind the scenes, while I was busy being a depressed freshman in college who hardly noticed that there was an election crisis on our hands. If, like me, you have vague memories of what transpired during those two months, this film is a must-see. The cast includes Kevin Spacey, Laura Dern, John Hurt, and Denis Leary, among others, and Jay Roach was also behind popular projects like “Borat”, “Meet the Parents,” “Austin Powers” and more. 

In addition to telling the story of this historical election, the film raises the controversial issue of election fraud, one which, coincidentally, as been discussed at length over the course of the past eight years and, more recently, in a Rolling Stone article titled “Block the Vote.” In 2002, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in order to remedy the errors of the 2000 election. The goals of HAVA are, according to Wikipedia,

• replace punch card voting systems;
• create the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections; and
• establish minimum election administration standards.

When nearly two million ballots were discarded in 2000 (because they registered more than one vote, or no vote at all, when passed through the ballot reader), HAVA was created to give the American public peace of mind. However, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast have determined in their article, 

…thanks to new provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the number of discounted votes could surge even higher…HAVA was corrupted by the involvement of Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, who worked to cram the bill with favors for his clients…In practice, many of the “reforms” created by HAVA have actually made it harder for citizens to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. In case after case, Republican election officials at the local and state level have used the rules to give GOP candidates an edge on Election Day by creating new barriers to registration, purging legitimate names from voter rolls, challenging voters at the polls and discarding valid ballots.

“Recount” provides a look at the inescapable reality buried deep within our government and, unfortunately, the possibility that corruption and fraud are systemic truths. Perhaps, on certain occasions, your vote doesn’t count, despite the election rhetoric we have all grown accustomed to. Perhaps, no matter who wins today’s historical presidential race, the United States will face four years with a leader not chosen by the people, but by the system itself.

Redbelt directed by David Mamet – Chiwetel Ejiofor steals every frame of this film as Mike Terry, a jujitsu teacher struggling to pay the bills and maintain his sense of honor. When an unexpected event takes place within his own studio (involving Emily Mortimor), Terry is forced to make a difficult decision — enter a fighting tournament with the hopes of winning a sizable prize or give up his life of jujitsu instruction (I’m simplifying). 

You’re probably familiar with Ejiofor, whether or not you realize it — he’s been in a series of memorable movies, none of which display his acting talent like Redbelt: Amistad, Love Actually, She Hate Me, Children of Men, American Gangster, Serenity. I remember seeing his face, but could never have placed him. Redbelt, however, deserves recognition mainly for Ejiofor’s performance. The character of Mike Terry represents the struggle of humankind, a decision which every adult faces — get a job and make a living or pursue a passion and, quite probably, struggle.

The best moments of this film take place at the end, which I will refrain from spoiling. Let me just say, if the Karate Kid ever inspired a tear to fall from your eye, then Redbelt is not only worth a view, but even two or three. The philosophy behind jujitsu is given proper attention, as a running theme throughout Terry’s personal struggles. It’s not to say the film doesn’t have its loose ends. Mamet’s story includes many strings which I expected to tie together throughout the climax. It was mildly disappointing to find the Tim Allen story line left out in the cold, with no true ending. Peter Travers, of Rolling Stone, put it perfectly in his review: 

At the center of this quiet storm of a movie, beautifully shot by There Will Be Blood Oscar winner Robert Elswit, Ejiofor confirms his status as one of the best actors anywhere. Born in London to Nigerian parents, Ejiofor can do film drama (Dirty Pretty Things) and comedy (Kinky Boots) and win raves onstage (as Othello). The resonant stillness he brings to Redbelt pulls you in. Even allowing for a few slips in pacing and judgment, Mamet is on his game, and that is a sight to see. No con.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

                    –George Bernard Shaw

Did you know that Ralph Nader is behind such significant acts like the 1970 Clean Air Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, among many others? In addition to these monumental movements, Nader also helped establish PIRG (Public Interest Research Groups) and Public Citizen, the most well known of his efforts which aims to engage in consumer advocacy, government accountability, clean democracy and ethical government, access to the courts, global trade, and regulatory and science policy.

An Unreasonable Man is quite possibly the best documentary I have ever seen. First and foremost, you hardly realize that you’re watching a documentary! The story is compelling and surprising — I had little knowledge of Nader’s extensive background in political activism. I had heard the stories, like many others, but never the real facts. The documentary, in addition to providing a basis by which one can better understand the man behind the movement, also effortlessly convinces you that he is, indeed, the most forward thinking “politician” out there. 

When Nader was a child, his father would give his three children an assignment at the breakfast table — Each morning, he chose a topic that would later be the dinner discussion. The kids arrived at the dinner table prepared to literally debate politics, even at a young age. This obviously instilled a very serious sense of awareness and responsibility in Nader and his siblings. 

Since the 1950s, Nader has maintained an incomparable presence in the political realm, beginning with his automobile-safety activism. In fact, he is responsible for the things we now take for granted: seat belts, air bags, built-in safety precautions in our cars. Upon the success of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Nader began to tackle issues across the board: the Federal Trade Commission (with the help of Nader’s Raiders), the National Air Pollution Control Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, in addition to many others. 

I encourage any person who is interested in rights, of any kind (civil, environmental, etc.) to view this film. It will give you a look at who this man is, not who the media has made him out to be. It will, quite possibly, lead you to question the current state of our government, the limits imposed by a two-party system, and the truth behind the politicians we all support.

Stop-Loss directed by Kimberly Peirce — Peirce makes a blunt departure from the dramatic effect of her previous project, “Boys Don’t Cry,” with this film about a group of United States soldiers returning from a tour in Iraq. In general, “Stop-Loss” is a mediocre attempt to address a grave issue. However, Ryan Phillippe’s performance is startling and the subject matter is one that deserves attention.

The term “stop-loss” refers to a military policy by which a service member’s active duty can be involuntarily extended. According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, 

The number of soldiers held in the Army under the stop-loss program reached a high in March 2005 of 15,758. That number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008.

In Peirce’ story, Phillippe’s character has returned to his Texas home expecting to retire from active duty. His paperwork is ready, he has handed in his army-issued gear, and in the final step, he discovers that he has been stop-lossed. The film follows this character, in addition to his soldier-friends, as they re-enter into a “normal” sense of society — haunted by alcohol, nightmares, and vision-like day-dreams, they have become violent, poisoned versions of who they used to be, before Iraq.

The film reminds us that we are, in a sense, repeating history. It reminds us that young men are returning from Iraq as truly changed individuals who can no longer exist in the lives they once had. It reminds us that many of these soldiers are literally forced to return, over and over again. It reminds us that we have now occupied Iraq for five years with questionable progress. 

“Stop-Loss” is not Academy material, but it makes an inescapable, timely impact. 

Check out End Stop Loss Now for more information on anti-stop-loss movements, and Iraq Veterans Against the War for information on soldiers who are opposed to the Iraq occupation.

Sir! No Sir! directed by David Zeiger — Erase from your mind whatever thought you have when I say the words, “war documentary.” This is not your typical war documentary. Sir! No Sir! tells the story of GI’s during Vietnam who eventually realized they were fighting an amoral war. The film was released in 2005 at the Los Angeles Film Festival. It is comprised of interviews and historical footage. It follows GI morale: from the beginning of Vietnam, in which participants were hesitant, to the eventual protests that overwhelmed the country, including over 500,000 incidents of desertion in the U.S. military (between 1966 and 1971). Eventually, the GI anti-war movement made the fight in Vietnam virtually impossible, which, in turn, led President Nixon to the concept of “Vietnamization” — the ground fighting was left to the South Vietnamese troops, limiting US involvement.  

As a result, the presence of U.S. soldiers at the border was denied, leaving these soldiers to fend for themselves. When six of these soldiers were ordered to go on what was effectively a suicide mission, they refused and instead decided to send a message to the home front. Nixon responded to this by pulling that company out, but then other companies started to stop fighting as well. Some officers were killed by their own men. 

The film is now part of the Iraq Media Action Project film collection, and extras on the DVD include an introduction by Jane Fonda, who was well-known for her activism during Vietnam and her participation in
the FTA Tour (an anti-war road show named “Free The Army”, a play on the troop expression “Fuck The Army”). In this introduction, Fonda mentions how surreal it is to be experiencing yet another unwanted and unwarranted war (Iraq) in which our troops are blatantly disregarded, as is the general opinion of the American public. 

I knew very little of the GI anti-war movement that took place during Vietnam. Having learned how far their opposition extended, I begin to wonder if the present GI population is also engaging in such opposition. Sir! No Sir! is currently being distributed to GIs in Iraq courtesy of Iraq Veterans Against the War — an organization founded in 2004 which includes over 1,200 members in 48 states. We may not see it in the headlines everyday, but there is opposition among the soldiers in Iraq. If we continue on this path, Iraq may be another Vietnam — another part of US history in which we occupy a country for nearly a decade, killing innocent people day after day after day. 

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days directed by Cristian Mungiu – To even begin to describe the intensity of this film is a challenge. The story follows two university friends in the last years of the Romanian Communist regime. It begins quietly, as we are introduced to the girls who are preparing for an abortion, which was illegal during the Ceauşescu era. It’s dark and haunting. There is no soundtrack to accompany the mood — it’s all set for you, without the typical display of Hollywood film-making: This is Communist Romania — you feel it in every second of every scene: From finding a hotel room to house the abortion procedure and the young girl as she recovers, to discussing the process with the “doctor” (who takes advantage, in the most gruesome and truly pathetic way, of the two friends), to the aftermath of the abortion. The film unexpectedly follows Otilia (performed by Anamaria Marinca), the friend of Gabita (the pregnant student), very carefully. We watch her, rather than Gabita herself, as she experiences this horrifying and frightening act. One can imagine that abortion, in 1987 Romania, was not an easy procedure. The impact is not to be shaken off — the girls cannot just go back to normal. They are haunted, just like we who view the film.

This is great acting – you can’t shake it. The same goes for the filmmaking. In a coda, set in the hotel restaurant, Mungiu gives us a moment to let the themes of the film resonate. He knows that in Romania today abortion is a common form of contraception and that being pro-choice doesn’t make him an advocate of the easy fix. It’s the tension between those two poles, movingly readable on Marinca’s face, that deepens the film’s meaning and raises it very close to the level of art.

It’s not easy to watch. It’s not relaxing. It’s gut-wrenching and disturbing. It’s the story of what really happened beneath such oppressive regimes and, most likely, continues to happen in countries that do not allow abortions. The procedure, in itself, is haunting. One can only imagine that an illegal abortion would be even more haunting. After viewing this film, you don’t have to imagine.

Control directed by Anton Corbijn — Released in 2007, this film is a black and white biopic of Ian Curtis, the lead singer of Joy Division who killed himself at the age of 23. The soundtrack, comprised mostly of Joy Division songs performed by the actors, is an unbelievable accompaniment to the powerful visual experience provided by the photographic talents of Anton Corbijn. Prior to viewing the film, I knew next-to-nothing about Joy Division. I was never exposed to their music, and though I had heard vague stories of the singer’s suicide, I recalled very little. For someone with this limited knowledge, the film literally knocked me on my ass. I was impressed by Sam Riley’s performance as Ian Curtis — He literally embodies the quirks, spirit and movements of the troubled singer: the awkward dancing, the poetic inclinations, the simultaneous sense of an outcast and a star. In fact, the character reminded me a little of Jim Morrison, particularly in his moody vocals. Hours after viewing the film, I was still awestruck with emotion. I am not suggesting it’s perfect — I do believe the movie is flawed. It calls upon this powerful story of suicide and provides us with only allusions as to the reasons why. Nonetheless, the discovery of this music, and the story, was, to me, inescapable.

I’m Not There directed by Todd Haynes — When I first heard about “I’m Not There,” I was confused. Cate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan?? In fact, there are six actors, each performing a version of Dylan’s character at different times in his life. Blanchett’s role is Jude, Dylan at the height of his 60s fame clad in black sunglasses and a suit. Among the other actors are Heath Ledger, Christian Bale and Richard Gere. Even with these male interpretations, Blanchett is the flawless embodiment of Bob Dylan:

Numerous other reviewers have raved about Blanchett’s performance: Newsweek magazine called the performance “so convincing and intense that you shrink back in your seat when she fixes you with her gaze.”

Though the film moves quietly and is sometimes hard to piece together (much like Dylan’s music), “I’m Not There” provides the viewer with an unusual look at this epic poet-musician. It’s been said that this is the only biography Dylan has approved.

When it comes to celebrity buzz blogs, What Would Tyler Durden Do is the way to go. We all know the name comes from Brad Pitt’s Fight Club character. The man behind WWTDD is actually on MySpace, though his profile picture is questionable. His description of the site, however, is right on: “”What Would Tyler Durden Do” is a blog focused on bringing you the latest gossip and news about rich and famous celebrities.  And then making fun of them.  Why?  Because fuck them, that’s why.” Perez Hilton has got nothin’ on this guy.

I’m going to jump on the band-wagon and tell you about “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog” (be forewarned: that is only the beginning of this post’s extensive linkage). You may or may not already be familiar with this latest craze in web-series — It’s a Joss Whedon project. Whedon is most well-known for his role as Writer, Producer, and Director on the hit series “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” As a much-deserved side note, I would like to mention that I laughed heartily while mocking this show before I finally gave in to watching it. It is, as many claim, genius, whether you’d like to admit it or not. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is more than just a story of a badass, blonde, SoCal chick who uses the word “like” in every sentence. The series is thought-provoking, smart and hilarious.

But back to Dr. Horrible.

Whedon began this project during the recent Writer’s Strike. Despite the trend of unsuccessful web-series, the Whedon family stood by Dr. Horrible:

“Dr. Horrible,” you see, has the Internet cooked into its DNA. Rather than being a top-down, studio controlled production, it began earlier this year as a kind of dinner table brainstorm between Whedon, his brothers Zack and Jed, and Jed’s fiancée Maurissa Tancharoen…“We’re family, and we’re sitting here doing nothing,” recalled Tancharoen. “So let’s get together and write something, whether it’s for $100 or whatever it turns into.”

Little did they know that Dr. Horrible’s premier would crash the server, leaving people across the country impatient and disappointed. Fortunately, the series can also be seen on Hulu, as well as iTunes. But hey, Hulu is free.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have great disdain for spoilers, so I’ll make this quick — “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog” begins with a video blog featuring Neil Patrick Harris. Harris is cast as Dr. Horrible himself, singing his woes away. Nathan Fillion is Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible’s nemisis. Harris’ character struggles to be evil, to be a menace to society. However, his heart clearly belongs elsewhere — Penny, a long time crush, becomes Dr. Horrible’s laundry buddy. One can say that she clouds his judgement in the fight for evil. “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog” is wacky, silly, and near perfect. My only complaint? It’s too short.

I first fell in love with Julian Schnabel after seeing Basquiat. The film featured countless cameos (Parker Posey, Courtney Love, Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper and more), as well as remarkable performances by Jeffrey Wright and Benicio Del Toro. I had always admired Basquiat’s work, the film only furthered my admiration. I fell in love with Schnabel all over again when I saw his artwork at a museum. He creates abstract paintings in a style reminiscent of Pollock and Picasso — “I’m the closest thing to Picasso that you’ll see in this *#@ life,” he once said. Schnabel is also the mastermind behind Before Night Falls, the story of Reinaldo Arenas, a Cuban poet who was persecuted for his homosexuality and subversive writing during the Cuban Communist Revolution. Schnabel’s films have a common thread — not only do they tell stories of great artists, but they provide the viewer with uniquely ethereal experiences.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is no different. It is, in my opinion, Schnabel’s most sophisticated film yet. In 1995, Jean-Dominique Bauby, the 43 year-old Editor of the French Elle Magazine, suffered a massive stroke that put him in a coma and left his entire body paralyzed. When he awoke, over twenty days later, he was diagnosed with Locked-in Syndrome — his left eye was the only muscle he could move. Bauby gradually learned to communicate with this eye. With a simple blink he would confirm a letter which would spell a word. Although Bauby engaged in speech and physical therapy, he never regained movement, or use of his tongue. In two summer months of 1996, Bauby wrote a book, with the help of a transcriber. “The book took about 200,000 blinks to write and each word took approximately two minutes. The book also chronicles everyday events and what they are like for a person with locked-in syndrome,” states Wikipedia. Schnabel’s film is based on this book. We watch as Bauby struggles to communicate. We see him visit his children. We see him cry. “The French edition of the book was published in March, 1997. It received excellent reviews and sold 150,000 copies in the first week and went on to become a number one bestseller across Europe. Ten days after the book was published, Bauby died of pneumonia” (also from Wikipedia).

Salon wrote, “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly suggests — perhaps it even proves — that our capacity for joy, and our ability to process it through whatever senses are available to us, are more durable than we think. In his book, Bauby wrote about how although his ability to hear the outside world had been somewhat impaired, the hearing inside his head had changed dramatically. He wrote of being aware of the butterflies ‘that flutter inside my head. To hear them, one must be calm and pay close attention, for their wingbeats are barely audible. Loud breathing is enough to drown them out. This is astonishing: My hearing does not improve, yet I hear them better and better. I must have butterfly hearing.’”

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a poetic, yet true, interpretation of Bauby’s memoir. It is artisticly mezmorizing and emotionally challenging.

The New York Times has been interviewing actors and posting these videos on The Moment. Screen Test is a series of black and white shorts — We never see or hear the interviewer, just the answers to their questions. Thus far, Screen Test interviews include Peter Sarsgaard, James Franco, Tyra Banks, Seth Rogen, Matthew Goode, Anna Faris and Will Ferrel. Each is uniquely entertaining: Goode sips from a glass of wine while laughing and discussing his experience with Woody Allen (Match Point), Rogen talks about his upcoming “Stoner Flick,” and Tyra Banks displays an array of “smiling techniques.” My personal favorite is the Matthew Goode interview, but I’m fairly certain it’s simply because he’s drinking a glass of wine.

Editorial Addendum: Latest Screen Tests feature Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Penelope Cruz. In addition, I somehow missed an older Screen Test with Elizabeth Banks.

Although I’ve seen a few films that I wouldn’t recommend, these two are certainly worthwhile:

Kids directed by Larry Clark — I first saw this when I was sixteen. Needless to say, I never got it. I was too young to understand the point, the message of the film. However, watching it now, ten years later, it hits me hard. This movie is historical, whether you appreciate it or not. It speaks honestly of our generation, of children growing into teenagers, growing into adults. I think it’s easy for some to ignore the harsh reality in which we live — we can get HIV, we are not invincible. Wikipedia says that Larry Clark is known for casting first-time actors in his work. Indeed, this was the theatrical debut for the four main characters — all of whom went on to become professionals: Rosario Dawson is Ruby (no introduction needed, but if I must: The 25th Hour, Rent, Sin City etc. You know her…she’s hot. ‘Nuff said); Chloë Sevigny is Jennie (professional model, also in Broken Flowers, Zodiac and currently Big Love); Leo Fitzpatrick is the notorious Telly (Fitzpatrick hasn’t done much, but he has made appearances on Law and Order and Carnivàle); Justin Pierce is Casper. Pierce had the potential to be a Hollywood success case, just like his co-stars Dawson and Sevigny. In 2000, he was discovered dead in a Las Vegas hotel room — he had hung himself. The dark nature of the film was only emphasized after Pierce’ suicide. I cannot separate Casper, the character, from Pierce, the person. Overall, Kids is truly haunting.

Grizzly Man directed by Werner Herzog — Herzog is a German filmmaker who has worked on the production of nearly 60 films. With Grizzly Man, Herzog explores the world of Timothy Treadwell, an enthusiast of the dangerous brown grizzly bear. Treadwell lived among grizzlies for thirteen summers in Alaska, filming over 100 hours worth of their interactions. He befriended them, gave them names and observed as a peaceful protector. The film is a splicing of this footage, accompanied by Herzog’s narrative. As an audience, we see the progressive demise of Treadwell’s desire to interact with human society. Instead, Treadwell retreats further and further into his life among the wild. By the end of the film, Herzog exposes us to various takes Treadwell did in order to wrap up his last season in Alaska. In these scenes, Treadwell is furious — he felt targeted by the National Park Service, he felt misunderstood. Days after he filmed these last scenes, he was attacked and killed by an angry grizzly. The movie is reminiscent of Into the Wild or John Muir, but the footage is real. Herzog honors this reality and the man behind it.

I know I’m probably one of the few remaining women in the United States who has not yet seen Sex and the City, the movie. I don’t mean to imply that I’m not interested — I watched the show like everyone else. I just wasn’t prepared to run out and pay ten bucks to sit in an uncomfortable theater and surround myself with people who actually answer their phones during films (!!). I’ll wait patiently for Netflix to deliver, thank you.

Apparently a book is mentioned in the movie that everyone immediately googled (or g••gl•d, as the un would say) — “Love Letters of Great Men.” A New York Times book blog informs us that this, once fictional, book will now be published. It’s true, the collection of love letters never actually existed, but the film references letters that are real. So publisher Macmillan has decided to create it.

Darwin and Flaubert, Mozart and Twain, Browning and Wilde — “every shade of love is here,” the book site proclaims.

Perhaps this is a marketing ploy. Perhaps women across the world have been searching for this book since the film premiered. But honestly, don’t we have tons of books of letters to read?

It may have taken me two years to finally watch The Lives of Others, but it certainly won’t take me another two to watch it a second time — This was the first thing I thought of while finishing the film — I must see it again.

Leben der Anderen, Das chronicles East Germany in 1984, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. During this period, many German citizens were called upon to watch their comrades and report supsicious activity. It was typical of dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, etc. In a sense, more recent acts of national security against terrorists are not very different — Arrest anyone whose loyalty is uncertain. In the film, one man strays from his path to professional success by withholding information from the “Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, better known as the Stasi—the state security service, which, by the mid-nineteen-eighties, employed more than ninety thousand personnel.”*

I don’t want to give away too much of the story — One of my personal pet peeves is spoiling a film with the review. The movie is quiet, yet haunting. It captures a piece of history that is easily forgotten, yet just as easily repeated.

[Editorial Note: ...the almost right word is experimenting with capitalization. Please be patient and, if you have any opinions on the matter, let me know!]

* Anthony Lane of The New Yorker: “Guilty Parties“

“I’m really in the way as a person,” he said. “The myth has taken over. I find myself an appendage. I’m no longer necessary. I’m in the way. It would be much better if I died. Then people could take the myth and make films.”

i became enamored with hunter s. thompson during my “beat” phase. i read fear and loathing, watched the movie a handful of times, and then dove into tom wolfe (the electric kool-aid acid test was an amazing book, and so well written — far superior to i am charolette simmons, one of his most recent novels). i compare the two writers only because of a comparison made in the nytimes article:

“I would argue that Hunter and Tom Wolfe are the two most original voices to come out of journalism in the last century, and it’s no coincidence that they both worked for Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone…”

indeed, thompson was an original.

“gonzo: the life and work of dr. hunter s. thompson” is a documentary comprised of rare footage (including home movies, audiotapes and excerpts from unpublished writing) and narrated by johnny depp. i’ve read repeatedly about depp’s fascination with thompson. he spent an extensive period of time living with the man and studying his every move, in order to perfect his performance for “fear and loathing.” i caught an interview once, with depp and hunter thompson himself — the similarities between the character in the movie, and the character in real life (because yes, he was a character) were uncanny.

the film is currently awaiting release, but it’s already saved in my queue.

Thompson, whose defects of character could occupy a separate ZIP code, was not just an original, he was also a patriot and a romantic. Working from the far reaches of the culture and often lucidity, Thompson, who died in 2005 at 67, changed the way that much of America thought about itself, in part because his version of journalism threw a grenade at the bland convention of formal balance and straight reporting.

when?
some day!
in eight years!

this, is me. (actually, it’s when harry met sally) i’m not worried about turning 30. actually, i’m not even worried about turning 35. i’ve got plenty of time. it’s forty that worries me. and i can’t help but hear this conversation in my head, as if suddenly i have become sally albright who orders her chef salad, with the oil and vinegar on the side. and the apple pie a la mode…but i’d like the pie heated, and i don’t want the ice cream on top. i want it on the side. and i’d like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it. if not, then no ice cream, just whipped cream. but only if it’s real. if it’s out of a can, then nothing.

not even the pie?

no, just the pie. but then not heated.

berekely in the sixties — mark kitchell — an award-winning documentary on the most politically active college campus in history. the film’s main focus is the free speech movement (there is now a small cafe on the berkeley campus called the ‘free speech movement cafe‘) and the anti-war protests. amazing footage — joan baez, allen ginsberg, m.l.k., the grateful dead. there is also a brief section on the origin of people’s park, which was extremely controversial. the stories are told by the activists themselves, activists whose ghosts continue to haunt the streets and corners of this city and school. i have been enamored with the sixties since i first discovered the beats as a kid. in fact, this is probably the reason i wanted to attend berkeley for undergraduate (i wound up at uc santa cruz instead). upon graduation, i moved to berkeley to be with some friends. living in that city was a trip. my apartment was blocks from people’s park. i walked by it on a regular basis, on my way to bookstores or a coffeeshop. it felt like i was living in a part of the past that i had always worshiped.

commune — jonathan berman –in 1968, a group of people founded the black bear ranch commune, located on a large piece of property in siskiyou county, northern california. the purchase of the land was funded by popular rock musicians of the time, and the ranch slogan was “free land for free people.” it was a random group of people, all looking for an alternative living situation; looking to get as far away from the u.s. government as possible. eventually, the original group (including actor peter coyote) left the commune, but new generations have continued to carry on the spirit of living on the land. in 1987, the ranch was adopted as a trust, protecting it from any form of development. if you happen to give this movie a go, you must watch the special feature interview with peter coyote. he is well-spoken and passionate, a perfect example of the general mindset that existed on this particular piece of land at this particular time. watching this documentary makes you want to throw your laptop into the ocean and run for south america.

in 2003, bush invaded iraq. i was living in santiago, chile. i remember bush asked for the approval and support of the chilean president at the time, ricardo lagos. lagos refused. the chilean public, myself included, rejoiced — they didn’t want to be a part of this “war.” isn’t it amazing that, five years later, we’re still in iraq? in fact, i hardly think about it. i live my days completely oblivious, i never even consider the atrocities that are occurring at any given moment.

last night, we watched ‘in the valley of elah.’ i could ignore it no longer. the terrifying reality of iraq and this occupation was thrown in my face and in many ways, i welcomed it. i don’t want to ignore or forget. but what can we really do about it? what kind of action can i take? i think this sense of helplessness is what pushes my head back into the sand. i often prefer to hide for awhile before i confront.

the movie wasn’t perfect — there were simple flaws, and obviously the story has been done, in one way or another. but it addresses that which many of us tend to ignore, and for that, i am thankful. rolling stone said it well: It’s about the humanity being sucked out of the soldiers we send there, and how that process reflects on us as a nation. Yes, Haggis stumbles and loses focus. The haunting, heart-piercing Elah isn’t perfect. It’s something better: essential.

marie antoinette — directed by: sofia coppola — considering how much i appreciate sofia coppola’s directorial talents, it’s surprising that last night was the first time i watched this film. when it premiered in 2006, reviews were mixed. i believe the new york times summed it up perfectly (no surprise there): To say that this movie is historically irresponsible or politically suspect is both to state the obvious and to miss the point. hours after the movie ended, i could not escape the mental images floating through my head — wild colors mixed with the most amazing display of desserts and a backdrop of original, contemporary music. i believe coppola was criticized for her choice in the music, but i’ve always loved her for it. ‘virgin suicides‘ was, without a doubt, taken to another level as a result of its soundtrack. remember trip fontiane walking down the high school hall, with heart’s ‘magic man’ blasting behind him? classic. coppola did it again, in my opinion, with this most recent film. the scenes of dunst, rolling in flowers or walking through fields, are gentle and beautiful. mixed with elaborate images of never-ending champagne and sweets, party dresses and a life of leisure. the end was simply perfect. we all know what happened to antoinette, we don’t need it spelled out for us. this look behind her life is creative and inspiring, with the obvious gray clouds hanging in the background. (and manolo blahnik-designed-shoes, hah!)

there will be blood — directed by: paul thomas anderson — this movie should probably be seen a couple times. in fact, i’m ready to watch it again right now. i first noticed p.t. anderson with ‘boogie nights,’ as most of us did, and later with ‘magnolia‘ (both of which were awesome). in 2003, when i was living in chile, i took myself to the movies on my birthday and saw ‘punch-drunk love,’ which wasn’t as good as the previous two, but still worthwhile to watch. this most recent film, however, beats everything that came before it (proof of a good director, don’t you think?). the fact that the main actor is daniel day lewis certainly doesn’t hurt. it’s kind of dark, and kind of violent, but the story is haunting, historical and incredible…as is the main character. definitely one of the best movies of the year. it was filmed in texas, coincidentally in the same area ‘no country for old men‘ was filmed. i recently read that a big fire scene in ‘there will be blood’ forced the coen brothers to stop production for days! to wrap it up, i again consult the nytimes review: But the film is above all a consummate work of art, one that transcends the historically fraught context of its making, and its pleasures are unapologetically aesthetic. It reveals, excites, disturbs, provokes, but the window it opens is to human consciousness itself.

editorial note: what’s your opinion on these films? leave a comment. share with us. we’re waiting.