“What I find really hard to take is the way the media behave. They seem to pick on Barack much more readily than they do on McCain. They suddenly say he’s this kind of politician, he’s not what we thought, dah-dah-dah-dah. They say, ‘We’re not supposed to take a side, we’re supposed to just give the news,’ but they don’t just give the news, and they don’t tell the truth…excuse me? I only listen to Keith Olbermann. To hell with the rest of them. I’m an MSNBC type now.” — Lauren Bacall speaking to the S.F. Chronicle‘s Walter Addiego. Somehow the idea of that “put your lips together and blow” lady from To Have and Have Not being a BHO fan feels delightful.

David Gilmour‘s “The Film Club” is nominally about his decision to permit his 15-year-old son, Jesse, to drop out of school as long as he agreed to watch three movies a week of Gilmour’s choosing. That’s it? No requirement to write about them afterwards? No digesting and reprocessing them in some creative way (like shooting a short-film tribute)? Just watching three films a week doesn’t seem like enough to engage a 15 year-old. I would insist on at least four or five.
Douglas McGrath‘s 7.6 N.Y. Times article about the book reminded me, in any case, of that i-Village article I co-authored with my son Jett about three years ago that covered…well, vaguely similar ground. The title was “Kazan for Recess? Kubrick for Snack? How to create a passion for film in your kids.”
The underlying point, now that I’m thinking about it, was that unless a movie-fanatic father saturates his kids with first-rate films early on (and I mean starting at the toddler stage), any effort to implant or encourage a sense of taste in movies will be an uphill one, and may well prove fruitless.
Kids are off into the wild blue yonder by the time they hit 15. Friends, school, burgeoning sexual urges, media distractions…forget it. The spiritual divorcement process actually begins sometime in their late tweens. You have to reach them early on, when they’re still soft clay, or you’re spinning your wheels. Even if you’ve gotten to them early they still go away in their mid teens. But if you’ve done your work they’ll come back after three or four years.
I love two Gilmour lines that are excerpted in McGrath’s article. The first is a statement that Peter Yates‘ Bullitt “has the authority of stainless steel.” The other, as McGrath writes, “captures the reality-altering magic that movies cast.” After seeing Bullitt as a kid, Gilmour recalls “emerging from the Nortown theater that summer afternoon and thinking that there was something wrong with the sunlight.”

In response to a somewhat dithering, self-regarding Emily Gould piece called “How Your Emily Gould Sausage Gets Made” (posted 7.3.08 on her Emily Magazine blog), Some Came Running‘s Glenn Kenny wrote the following: “Um, not to put too fine a point on it — and believe me, I know this is going to sound ‘mean,’ but there’s just no way around it — but could you do the rest of humanity the favor of, like, throwing yourself in front of a bus or something? Thanks.”

I had read elsewhere that Kenny had suggested Gould should off herself, but this is not that. By the use of the term “bus,” which is universally preceded these days by the words “throw under the,” Kenny is telling Gould to dispense with a certain late June/early July attitude or psychology that she’s currently working from, or which (if you want to be forgiving or magnanimous) has enveloped her.
As we all know, those who get thrown under a bus are being punished for something they’ve recently said or done — discipline, not execution. What Kenny is actually suggesting, I think, is that Gould should change or refine or alter or somehow upgrade her…whatever, Brooklyn blogger shpiel. (Not that I have any such issues with Gould myself. I’ve always liked her prose and considered her a pretty cute kitty.)
The proof is in the pudding of Kenny’s actual sentence. The word “like” and the words “or something” are obviously softeners (as in fabric) which emphasize a meaning that is 90% metaphorical.

Here’s a nice FindLaw analysis piece by John Dean that explains the Obama/FISA issue pretty well. Dean puts things in a perspective we’re not hearing because of the “Obama is flip-flopping” drum currently beating in the blogosphere. Dean’s main points are (a) that the FISA amendments contain no criminal immunity and (b) that Obama has stated in so many words that he will direct his attorney general to explore how serious (i.e., clearly criminal) Bush administration malfeasance has been in terms of wiretaps and such.
“I have taken a closer look at the House-passed FISA bill and tracked its legislative history,” he begins. “It is clear not only from the language of the bill (which must be read in the context of other, related statutes to be clearly understood), but also from the legislative history, that there is absolutely no criminal immunity for anyone in these FISA amendments.
In addition, I spoke with the Washington office of the ACLU, [and] the ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.
“Because this legislation addresses only civil liability, Senator Obama has a unique opportunity to show that his leadership as President would, in fact, bring a change to Washington. Indeed, he can both support the amendments now pending (for the reasons he stated), and make clear that as President he will request that his attorney general determine if criminal actions should be taken for the blatant violations of the criminal law. Actually, he has already said this, but in a larger context.
“Since Obama aas already declared that he will hold the Bush administration officials responsible for their crimes, he can now have it both ways: Support the FISA Amendments and Hold Miscreants Responsible
“During the primaries, Senator Obama stated that, as President, he would not give his predecessors a pass for their crimes, which has recently become the informal custom. Obama was asked about this matter by a seasoned political reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News, Will Bunch.
“Bunch wanted to know from Obama whether his administration’s Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed” by the Bush Administration. The discussion arose in the context of the uses of torture and other illegal means to fight terrorism, but Obama’s response was general and unequivocal. Bunch reported that Obama said:
“‘What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.
“‘So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.
“‘You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody is above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.’
“If Obama is a man of his word,” Dean concludes, “he should place Bush officials and the telecommunications companies on notice of the action he will take as President.”

Last night I was watching clips of a couple of Jezebel writers, Tracie Egan (brunette, teetering towards a certain fullness of face) and Moe Tkacik (redhead, thinner), on Lizz Winstead‘s Shoot the Messenger, a weekly talk show. Their appearance was taped on 6.30.08. If you haven’t spoken to any sharp, urban twentysomething femme fatales lately, you may want to watch this.

Mostly I was going, “Okay…” Sassy but not classy, and certainly not very curious about anything outside their realm. Is there anything more attractive than the exhibiting of genuine curiosity? Is there a bigger turn-off than people who don’t seem to know the meaning of the word? Although I admire their sexual fearlessness, or the pose of same.
Egan and Tkacik are obviously tickled to be passing along intentionally nervy and contrarian attitudes about sex, date rape and sloppy contraception (i.e., having the guy pull out). Clearly they’re being themselves, but that also means deriving a certain delight in pissing off older women who are veterans of feminist battles over the last 30 to 40 years by talking about how…well, listen to them.
Definitely fascinating, although a voice is telling me there’s something degraded going on as well. Something in their “you know, whatever” way of talking — blase urban Valspeak — tells me that certain aspects of the universe are being overlooked by these two. I’d be willing to bet they’ve never read anything by Alan Watts.
Lauren Lipton‘s 5.4.08 N.Y. Times profile of the Jezebel crew reads as follows:
“The Jezebel blog was founded last spring by Gawker Media as a smart, feisty antidote to traditional women’s magazines (or ‘glossy insecurity factories,’ as Jezebel describes them). It quickly developed a loyal following and has seen an influx of new visitors, after being name-checked on the official blog for Gossip Girl, the prime-time soap opera.

“But as Jezebel‘s first anniversary approaches on May 21, its readers and editors are learning a lesson right out of high school: popularity has its pitfalls, and mean-girl behavior is hard to quash.
“Some readers, in comments on the site, have accused editors of political bias and misogyny. Readers have called one another, by turns, immature, boring and cliquish. This spring the editors responded by banishing certain commenters and putting others ‘on notice’ for being nasty or, worse, not funny.”
I know the name of that tune. Nothing gives me a feeling of greater pleasure than the banning of brutish big-mouths who spew personal venom on the HE threads. I slap those bitches down like dogs, and then boot their ass into the snow.
How do you pronounce Moe Tkacik’s last name? Obviously you drop the “t.” What is it…Kassik?

I shrugged at this Harvey Weinstein–Joe Roth “please fire me” tape, which made its way around earlier this week. This is how colorful swagger types whose success partly depends on their ability to convince people every day that they fear nothing and no one….this is how guys like that talk. The bluster and the clubby attitude and vague air of entitlement. Most of them swear like sailors, and it’s kinda funny when they do.

I don’t live in these realms on a daily basis but time and again I’ve been in the room when such conversations have taken place. Twas ever thus.

It pains me to report this, but Hancock did a lot better yesterday than anyone was expecting — $18.8 million — and is now looking at $67 million for the weekend and $109 million cume for the five-and-a-half day July 4th holiday. It’s still not a major wowser — if Hancock was an earthquake-level hit it would be looking at a five-day haul of at least $120 or $130 million — but the $109 million cume means, as my numbers guy said this morning, “they got out alive.”
Dammit. I wanted to see Will Smith, Akiva Goldsman and Peter Berg punished (i.e., by seeing Hancock come up short in terms of expectations) for creating one of the all-time worst third acts in motion picture history.
Yesterday’s reporting about Thursday’s figures being flat encouraged me to think, “Okay, people are actually saying no to a bad film…the ticket-buying public is showing a little judgment here!” Not true, it turns out. Smith is such a big star that people will pay to see anything he’s starring in, including a film that sends you out staggering and gagging. They’re going for those first two acts, I suppose.
Who am I to talk, right? I paid to see it last Tuesday night.