I haven’t felt, gazed upon, heard, smelled and marveled at an early morning rainshower in years. This was somewhere between 5:30 and 6 am this morning. The cats and I shared the same bedroom-window view…the sound alone plus the cool air…awesome.
Daily
“Most Reddit-Approved Movie Ever Made”
Since Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert‘s Everything Everywhere All At Once appeared last March, I’ve been in the grip of opposing instincts. I’ve been dying to hate on this A24 release, and at the same time fearful of watching it. (Right now a 720p streamer is my only option, as I refuse to pay to see it theatrically.)
Since learning that a majority of critics have recently placed it at the very top of their Best of 2022 lists (as complied by World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy), I’ve been determined to hate it all the more. I can say with absolute confidence that I’ve never hated a movie that I’ve never seen more than EEAAO. I was therefore comforted by Jordan Ruimy’s 6.7.22 pan — actually a review of a re-watch.
Excerpt #1: “It didn’t do a damn thing for me. Yes, the cast is great, the photography nicely chosen, Chinese culture effortlessly represented, etc. But it felt as though the Daniels were just throwing every idea at the screen, and the result felt rather shallow, especially at a whopping 142 minutes.”
Except #2: “I’m not going to imply that the praise stems from this being a minority story, inventively told, with a dash of social commentary for good measure. There are [so] many people creaming their pants over this film that it can’t just be a virtue-signaling thing. It’s very well made, I’ll give it that, and its success is somewhat groundbreaking for Asians in Hollywood, so I’ll let it slide.”
Except #3: “The top-billed performances are also fantastic (especially Michelle Yeoh), the fighting choreography is visually inventive, and it’s just a very ambitious venture for these indie filmmakers. The first hour is actually fairly solid, but boy,=M does it also overstay its welcome.”
Except #4: “This is the most ‘Millennial’ movie I have ever seen, as a certain philosophy ruminates throughout the film. Cue in the nihilism. The movie basically says the world is a place that’s chaotic and devoid of meaning, so any kind of social development or progress is just an illusion, unless, of course, you learn to love. It might be the most Reddit-approved movie ever made, and its very nihilism, despite the trite messaging, renders it almost meaningless.
“So what, in the end, do we finally get from this film? An overabundance of slapstick, a fetish for over-the-top fighting, multiverses stamped upon more multiverses, and a soapy message about family and love. But at the same time it’s ice-cold…a relentless ADD-infused assault on the senses. There’s nothing cinematic about what the Daniels have done here; it feels rather like a 140-“minute music video devoid of human feeling.”
Ruimy to HE: “You need to watch it just to see how long you can last before you turn it off.”
Why Schmoes Don’t Like Biden
I’ve said time and again that what most people want from an American president right now is sensible, practical, fair-minded, JFK-styled liberalism. By today’s political barometer that translates into some kind of left-moderate centrism — responsible, measured, forward-thinking governance that respects the various tribes, but not too wokey-woke. Respect for the hard-working middles, roosters don’t lay eggs, no more homeless bums ripping off CVS stores, etc.
Biden wasn’t so much triumphant in late 2020 as most voters understood that Donald Trump was an anti-democratic, frothing-at-the-mouth sociopath, and therefore had to go. And so Joe Biden won fair and square.
Then the Biden team turned right around and got the pandemic under control and invigorated the job market and withdrew clumsily from Afghanistan and whatnot, and then (this is where some of the trouble started) became cheerleaders for progressive change across the board — a government that seemed to be more in the equity-over-meritocracy camp than vice versa. And then came the Ukraine War, ridiculous gas prices (bad), out-of-control inflation (cancer).
Jimmy Kimmel on Republicans: “It’s like you’re playing Monopoly with somebody who won’t pass ‘Go’ and won’t follow any of the rules … How do you ever make any progress?”
President Biden: “You gotta send ’em to jail.”pic.twitter.com/c1MH1eWtY3
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) June 9, 2022
The guy in charge always takes the blame for everything, and the coming anti-Democratic slaughter in the November mid-terms won’t be the half of it. Nobody wants another Biden-vs.-Beast election in ’24, but this, dear God, might happen. Many of us are very, very afraid of Trump returning to the White House — a prospect too horrible to contemplate and yet contemplate it we must. People still want to vote for a sensible, not-too-extreme left-moderate or right-moderate, but the system is apparently unwilling to cough up that possibility.
Therefore: Vote in November ’24 for an amiable, hoarse-voiced, woke-favoring, 80-year-old grandpa whose job performance most voters (to go by polls) disapprove of, or for a deranged, diabolical, anti-democratic, crime-boss grandpa who deserves to be wearing an orange jumpsuit but may not even be prosecuted because Attorney General Merrick Garland doesn’t have the sand.
The bottom line is that Biden might have a shot if he was 55 or 60 or even 65, but people really, really don’t like the idea of a doddering old fellow at the helm. Most voters believe that Joe’s a decent human being but they suspect he’s too much in the pocket of the wokes, and that he’s not strong or sharp enough to crack the whip the way it needs to be cracked. His instincts are sound but people want younger…they just do.
I hate to say it as I like and admire Joe Biden, but someone strong and moderate and JFK-like (a GenXer in their 50s or early 60s) needs to challenge him in the primaries, and that means starting next year. I’m sorry but I’m scared. Who isn’t?
Reminder to “Nope” Press Junketeers
Just remember that you can’t ask Keke Palmer about…you know. Just don’t go there. Even as an attempt to clarify whether or not Palmer had anything to do with the incident in question. (Which she may not have.) You know what I mean. Okay, you can go there but if you do, there might be consequences. Just saying.
Nope opens on 7.22.
Four Kinds of Movie Scores
From David Poland‘s Substack review of Jurassic World: Dominion: “Michael Giacchino, a truly great composer, told me many years ago that when a movie is scored wall-to-wall, it is almost always because the movie is not good.”
I’m not sure that Giacchino’s blanket rule…well, he’s mostly right but I’ve loved many film scores that are not so much wall-to-wall as heard very frequently, and I think they’re wonderful. Dimitri Tiomkin‘s score for Alfred Hitchcock‘s Strangers On A Train, Hugo Friedhofer‘s score for The Best Years of Our Lives, Alex North‘s for Spartacus and Miklos Rozsa‘s for King of Kings, to name but four.
I’m basically saying that intrusive scores aren’t necessarily a problem if the music is really good.
“Musical Score As Strong Supporting Character,” posted on 6.17.19:
“I’ve written a few times about the four different kinds of film scores — (a) old-school orchestral, strongly instructive (telling you what’s going on at almost every turn), (b) emotional but lullingly so, guiding and alerting and magically punctuating from time to time (like Franz Waxman‘s score for Sunset Boulevard), (c) watching the movie along with you, echoing your feelings and translating them into mood music (like Mychael Danna‘s score for Moneyball), and (d) so completely and harmoniously blended into the fabric of the film that you’ll have a hard time remembering a bridge or a bar after the film ends.
“We all understand that the era of classic film scores — composed by Miklos Rosza, Bernard Herrman, Waxman, Max Steiner, Maurice Jarre, Alex North, Dimitri Tiomkin, Bronislau Kaper, Ennio Morricone, Leonard Rosenman, Nino Rota, Elmer Bernstein, Alfred Newman, Hugo Friedhofer and Jerry Goldsmith — is over and done with.
Taibbi Dares To Write About Walsh Doc
From Matt Taibbi‘s “What is a Woman? Should Be Reviewed More, For One Thing,” posted on 6.8. The subtitle reads “Matt Walsh pranks the pants off America’s silliest intellectuals, and the sad thing is, it wasn’t hard at all.”
Excerpt #1: “The message of What Is A Woman? is not only are there no simple answers to the questions and reservations felt by millions about ‘gender affirmation’ (including huge numbers of Democrats, as polls in places like Florida show), but the movie shows academic after academic and activist after activist seething at the mere implication that they should have to explain themselves. Their attitude is positively medieval: ‘We keep the Bible in Latin for a reason!”
“They invent new nomenclature almost daily (making a priesthood of interpreting academics central to the new religion). The problem is to the uninformed, all the ‘simple truths’ seem to run in the other direction, like that it sure doesn’t look like fair competition when swimmer Lia Thomas massacres pools full of assigned-at-birth-girls.
“If you’ve been on Twitter you’ve seen it, but in the movie there’s a real interview with a real professor who goes ape when Walsh invokes the word truth, which ‘sounds transphobic’ to Herr professor:
This was perhaps the most utterly insane scene of the entire documentary, hands down… @MattWalshBlog pic.twitter.com/qF9MXvsmtv
— Kyle J. Maxwell (@khendriix_) June 2, 2022
“It’s as if these interview subjects believe winning over people who don’t already agree with them is not only not important, but offensive and beneath them. Certainly the subjects in What is a Woman? go out of their way to dismiss as utterly insignificant those who don’t share their worldview.
“When Walsh interviews gynecologist Dr. Marci Bowers, he begins by asking, ‘The critics on the other side of this issue…’ He has to pause, because Bowers recoils in exaggerated fashion, shaking her head like a person waked by revolting smelling salts.
“’There aren’t many,’ she scoffs. ‘But go ahead.’
“’There aren’t many who would disagree with what you’re saying?’
“’Well, the dinosaurs of the world are certainly out there.’
Excerpt #2: “It’ll be easy enough for mainstream critics to ignore this film, and they will. In a democracy, though, at some point you have to answer the population’s questions in a way that makes sense to them. Otherwise, they will flock to the first person who does offer a comprehensible answer.
“I saw this [syndrome] with the financial crisis, where candidates like Hillary Clinton tried incomprehensibly to blame 2008 on ‘shadow banking,’ offenders who by an extraordinary coincidence didn’t overlap with any of the roughly ten million financial institutions who’d paid her millions in speaking fees. The public had dealt with banks firsthand and didn’t buy it, believing Donald Trump more when he pointed the finger at firms like Goldman, Sachs.
“Ignoring popular discontent or confusion on principle isn’t a strategy that can ever work, for any political movement. Walsh’s movie exposes this, and give him credit — he got the people inclined to hate him the most to make his arguments for him.”
Post-Trial Spin
During their talk-show appearances victorious Johnny Depp attorneys Camille Vasquez and Ben Chew were naturally obliged to “stick to the narrative,” but of course the non-sequestered jury was influenced by social media messaging about the libel trial…of course they were.
Judgment-wise, the smart move on Depp’s part would be to let Amber Heard skate on the $10 million…just let it go. He’s made his point, and that’s what counts.
Bluray Philistines Don’t Love Dark 4Ks
I own 10 or 15 4K UHD Blurays. And yes, the format is relatively young. But the thrill is gone.
I’ve watched 4K UHD discs of Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, The Revenant, both Godfather films, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Ten Commandments, Jaws, Jerry Maguire, T2: Judgment Day, Rear Window, Psycho, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Sting, The Bridge on the River Kwai and so on. And every time I pop one in I’m vaguely bothered by the fact that the images, while looking very rich and dense and more film-like than the 1080p versions…I’m vaguely bothered by the darkness.
And while I’m happy that I’m watching these films with much higher pixel density, my inner peon keeps asking me “why do the 1080p versions seem a bit more satisfying to the eye?” I’ll tell you why. Because the 1080p images are not only sharp and robust and well-mastered, but also less murky and shadowed.
The fact is that 4Ks are darker looking — there’s no ignoring that reality. This is because “4K high-pixel density blocks the backlight more than lower resolutions,” according to Home Theatre Academy. “4K screens have four times more pixels than 1080p, thus making it harder to illuminate the image. Most TV and monitor screens use an LED backlight to illuminate the pixels that form the image. Since a 4K screen has a high pixel count, it’s hard for the backlight to illuminate the image effectively.”
Continuing: “4K can look super dark next to a 1080p or a 720p screen, if all other specs are the same. After all, there are four times as many pixels in the same size screen, but the backlight isn’t any stronger. If your new 4K TV or monitor has an HDR mode, it’ll be even darker.
“It’s worth noting that not all screens use standard LED screens with backlights. Most modern smartphones and even some high-end TVs and monitors often use OLED. Instead of a backlight, the pixels both illuminate and create the image that shows up on the screen. However, OLED screens are significantly dimmer than LED displays. The resolution doesn’t really affect the brightness of OLED screens.”
“4K HDR is so dark because HDR is trying to achieve a higher contrast between dark and bright scenes. HDR stands for high dynamic range. Since HDR makes dark places look even darker, it tends to become too dark to see anything. Additionally, 4K is harder to illuminate than HD in general.
“The whole purpose of HDR is to make movies, videos, and games appear more true-to-life. It gives the image more depth. With HDR enabled, caves actually look like dark, creepy caves, for instance. Unfortunately, an inherent quality of HDR is that the overall image appears much darker than in SDR (standard dynamic range).
“HDR on a 4K TV can make everything look darker than it really is. Disabling HDR is an effective workaround.”
So you know what? I respect what 4K distributors are offering but I don’t care that much about it. I’m basically a 1080p guy. Every time I’ve watched a 4K movie** I’ve gone “okay, very nice, wonderful resolution, I’m glad that the image harvest is much greater in terms of pixels and whatnot, but the hell with it. I’ll just stick with 1080p, thanks. Because, being a peon, 1080p makes me happier.”
** The 4K Dr Strangelove looks a little fuller and richer and more cinema-like to my eye than the 1080p, but what do I know?
Dave Weigel Asked For It
A smart, seasoned, socially attuned Washington Post journalist re–tweets a demeaning joke about women, and he doesn’t realize that he’s poking a hornet’s nest and literally asking to be harshly disciplined? How does this happen?
How could the respected Dave Weigel (who looks like an overweight member of a Moody Blues tribute band) not understand that if you say or do the “wrong thing” these days (i.e., if you offend or agitate college-educated Millennial & Zoomer-aged #MeToo wokesters in a business environment) that you stand an excellent chance of being professionally assassinated?
Weigel immediately apologized to the initial complainer, Felicia Sonmez, both on Twitter and Slack, and had earlier defended Sonmez in a dust -up over a condemning Kobe Bryant tweet immediately following his death…and it doesn’t matter. The Post has suspended Weigel for a month without pay.
Weigel is only 40 (DOB: 9.26.81) and therefore technically a Millennial, but he looks like a guy who over-indulges and, as noted, the moustache conveys a Justin Hayward in the late ‘60s identification of some kind. A boomer in a Millennial’s body. If Weigel looked like Neil Patrick Harris the Post probably would have only suspended him for a week.
Temple of Submission
What did Michelle Pfeiffer’s Elvira say when she first saw Tony Montana’s “cream puff” — a beige Cadillac convertible with zebra-striped upholstery? “It looks like somebody’s nightmare,” she said.
For her and husband Seth Gabel’s Los Angeles home, Bryce Dallas Howard has approved an interior design that complements her own redhead colors — pastel pinks, light greens, creamy beiges. Her house, her design, her call.
But c’mon…what kind of dude would live in this girly-girl’ed, dollhouse environment? Ernest Hemingway would scoff at such a proposition. Where are the empty beer cans and half-eaten bags of pretzels? Where’s the man-cave? Where’s the HD flatscreen tuned to ESPN?
McConaughey’s Clearest Moment
I’m guessing that after Matthew McConaughey‘s White House briefing room speech (delivered about an hour ago) many hardcore Republicans, not to mention the Texas gun-nut crowd (including Joe Rogan), probably regard him as a traitor.
Because what he said was eloquent and real and heartfelt. Responsible gun ownership. Background checks. Minimum age of 21 to purchase AR-15s. A waiting period. Red-flag laws and consequences for those who abuse them.
“People in power have failed to act. Can both sides see beyond the political problem at hand and admit we have a life preservation problem on our hands? We have to stand up for what we truly value…we gotta get some real courage and honor our immortal obligations instead of our party affiliations. We are not as divided as we are being told we are. We need to lead with humility.”
Depp’s Silver Years
A Hollywood Reporter analysis piece by Winston Cho basically says that Johnny Depp, despite his triumphant court victory over Amber Heard, is out of the mainstream Hollywood game now.
He can become an indie-realm star like Mel Gibson and perhaps earn $15 million a year, the piece says, but the golden Captain Jack days are over.
Depp was on the downslope before the Heard troubles began anyway. By my yardstick he began to be seen as a seen-better-days guy six or seven years ago. Every big movie star downshifts sooner or later. Depp was at the top for roughly 22 years, starting in ’90 and then starting to downshift in ’12 or thereabouts. (Tom Cruise is roughly Depp’s age, yes, but he’s an exception to the rule.) There’s nothing wrong with being an indie hotshot. He’ll be fine as long as he lives moderately and, you know, watches the intake.
