“”I’d really like to hear this paragraph recited by Malcolm X. It’s worthy of that. I also think he would have agreed with everything in it.” — Friendo text from a couple of hours ago.

Written late this morning: “Is it rightwing to believe that guys having babies is a bizarre detour and more than a little nutso? Is it rightwing to generally favor meritocracy over equity? Is it rightwing to believe that not each and every white male in the workplace is necessarily sexist and evil and deserving of punishment or censure or being told to sit in the back of the bus? Is it rightwing to believe that bio-women should compete against other bio-women in sports, and that women competing against six-foot-four trans guys is wrong and unfair? Is it rightwing to believe, as humanity has believed for countless centuries, that in the vast majority of cases XX and XY chromosones naturally determine gender, and that for the most part roosters are roosters and hens are hens? Is it rightwing to believe in free speech and against moderates or sane conservatives getting shouted down by the woke mob on college campuses? Is it rightwing to believe that obesity is a bad thing, health-wise, and that the example of people like Lizzo is not a positive one as far as impressionable kids are concerned?”

Actual Malcolm X (in a similar frame of mind): “We been took! Boondoggled! Hoodwinked! Flim-flammed! Sold a bill of goods! Hog-tied! Led astray! Bamboozled! Had a tin can tied to our tails!”

It was announced or revealed last night during the Met Gala that Vogue‘s Anna Wintour (born on 11.3.49) and highly esteemed actor Bill Nighy (who popped out 39 days later on 12.12.49) are a romantic couple.

It’s always a blessing when people of any age fall in love, however long their relationship is fated to last, but I’d like to ask a question. Wintour was, of course, the real-life inspiration for Meryl Streep‘s “Miranda Priestly” in The Devil Wears Prada. Is there any north-of-60 guy out there who would feel good and comforted by going out with a woman who’s long been characterized as a brutally tough, feisty, high-strung, demanding Type A personality? What are the odds, honestly, of lasting with a person like Wintour? Think about that.

A leftie friend bawled me out yesterday for saying that the ’24 presidential race would be more stimulating and issue-oriented if Joe Biden were to run against Vivek Ramaswamy rather than Orange Plague. I was flat-out told to rescind my endorsement of the guy.

Response: “One, I didn’t endorse him. I merely said that, in theory, the ‘24 campaign would be much more substantial and thoughtful if Biden were to run against Vivek than that sociopathic, mouth-breathing animal from Mar a Lago. VR won’t get within 100 miles of the Republican nomination, of course, but it would make for a smarter, more philosophical battle if he was the Republican candidate. Trump vs. Biden will be awful, grotesque. Would you honestly like to see Trump run against Joe? Please.”

I said that anyone who questions climate science simply hasn’t paid attention, but I did add that I feel a certain allegiance with Ramaswamy’s anti-woke rhetoric, particularly in the arena of radical trans ideology.

“Having a granddaughter wakes you up to this stuff,” I wrote. “It’s no longer a conceptual thing for doctors and psychological specialists to recommend hormone blockers or even biological mutilation with kids who’ve expressed a certain ambiguity or anxiety about their gender…it makes you realize that radical gender ideology is more specific and real-deal when you have a granddaughter who may come under their influence in a dozen years.

“I think that some trans activists have crossed the line in some ways,” I said. “I think kids should be left the hell alone until they’re 18 or whatever. Some would say gender is a spectrum and nobody’s one thing or the other and that alleged gender dysphoria has nothing to do with social peer pressure. Well, I think it does have something to do with peer pressure in some cases.”

Bill Maher: “If this spike in trans children is all natural, then why is it regional? Either Ohio is shaming them or California is creating them. It wasn’t that long ago when adults asked kids ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?’ They meant ‘what profession?'”

HE: “Some would further say it’s healthy and liberating for drag performers to perform for grade-school kids. I’m of two minds about this. On one hand it’s obviously fun and harmless but on the other hand I’m thinking ‘fuck those guys for trying to mold kids while they’re soft clay.’ Hence my allegiance with guys like Vivek. I don’t agree with him in many respects, but from where I’m standing he strikes me as relatively sane.”

In response to which the leftie pally said “how conservative have you become over the last couple of years?”

HE response: “I’m not a rightie at all. I’m a center-left moderate. It’s the crazy left that has gone over the waterfall. Okay, I’m a little more conservative these days, sure, but so are you. I was a good leftie for many decades, but then the woke crazies muscled their way in around ’16 or ’17, and now old-school lefties are being accused of being righties. It’s not me — it’s the woke crazies who’ve injected crazy serum and changed the political spectrum.

This will never, ever happen again. Foreign-language flicks no longer have the currency they had in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. Plus the oldsters who might pay to see such a film are still too chicken to leave their homes and risk infection…they’ll never come back. The difference between the spiritual act of big-screen movie-watching 50 years ago vs. whatever you want to call movie-watching today…well, it’s just fucking shattering when you think of what’s gone and will never fucking return.

This afternoon the AMPAS Board of Governors announced new campaign promotional rules and regs in order to prevent any further Andrea Riseborough-style guerilla campaigns.

The sore-loser contingent took great exception to the Risebourough insurgency, and so the Academy has announced rules that will make it harder for such a grass-roots campaign to manifest or be effective.

Members “may encourage others to view motion pictures”, and they “may praise motion pictures and achievements.” But they may not “share their voting decisions at any point. And they may not discuss their voting preferences and other members’ voting preferences in a public forum. This includes comparing or ranking motion pictures, performances, or achievements in relation to voting.

This also includes speaking with press anonymously” — a reference to those Honest Academy Ballot articles that Scott Feinberg and Anne Thompson have posted for years.

Note: Academy members have always known they aren’t supposed to talk to journos like Feinberg and Thompson, but they’ve done it anyway, and will almost certainly continue to do so.

Furthermore, Academy members “may not attempt to encourage other members to vote for or not vote for any motion picture or achievement,” and they may not “lobby other members directly or in a manner outside of the scope of these promotional regulations to advance a motion picture, performance, or achievement.”

“Andrea Riseborough + Duelling Concepts of Meritocracy vs. Equity,” posted on 2.15.23:

Marriages between an exceptional film sequence and a great pop song can make for very special combustions.

I’m talking about the use of one or more songs (either acquired or originally composed) that have enhanced and deepened the emotional value of a non-musical film. And a certain film that, after merging with the right song or songs, acquires a certain dimensionality or legendary quality for itself.

A situation, in short, in which both the movie and the music experience a major mutual upgrade.

Example #1: Berlin‘s “Take My Breath Away” was not only written for Top Gun — it was forever welded to the legend of that film and vice versa.

Example #2: That blues number (I don’t even know the title!) performed by the Mighty Joe Young Blues Bandin Michael Mann‘s Thief (’81). I’ve never forgotten that song, and Thief was hugely amplified by it. Performed at The Katz & Jammer club on Chicago’s North Side.

Example #3: Phil Collins‘ “In The Air Tonight” was one thing when it popped in January ’81, but it became a whole ‘nother thing when it was used for that sex-on-a-train scene sequence in Risky Business, which opened two and half years later (August ’83).

HE Picks: (1) “Moon River,” Breakfast at Tiffany’s; (2) Blondie‘s “Call Me”, American Gigolo; (3) Bob Dylan‘s “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door,” Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid; (4) “The Power of Love,” Back to the Future; (5) “Up Where We Belong”, An Officer and a Gentleman…the list goes on and on.

Or someone less agenda-driven?

I’m presuming that this recently posted N.Y. Times want ad for a full-time senior film critic slot (i.e., an invitation for qualified persons to apply) is essentially bullshit. They have a pretty good idea who they’re going to hire, I’m guessing, and it won’t be some sensible centrist type with amiable popcorn tastes. They almost certainly want a woke Maoist. The ad is about Times management needing to demonstrate that they’re an equal opportunity employer.

I wonder if this means that Wesley Morris has passed on the job?

Update: I’m told that the ad isn’t entirely bullshit as the Times hasn’t yet hired a replacement.

Two and a half months ago (2.21.23) I posted a piece about who might replace outgoing N.Y. Times film critic A.O. Scott. It was called “Times Needs To Replace Scott With A Brilliant Moderate Who Eschews Woke Maoism.”

Three things about Sian Heder‘s CODA: (a) It’s an audience-charming confection that dealt sincere cards with a little too much heart sauce, (b) it was obviously more likable than Jane Campion‘s doleful Power of the Dog so I understood why Academy members gave it the Best Picture Oscar, and (c) it wasn’t saved by the Best Supporting Actor Oscar-winning Troy Kotsur but by Eugenio Derbez, who played the Latino singing teacher.

In short I’ve respected Heder’s work as far as it goes, but I never thought of her as being all that hip or edgy. Until last night, that is, when I caught her cameo in episode 4 of Barry (“it takes a psycho“). Now I really respect her. Because the scene she’s in satirizes the syndrome of indie-level directors taking paycheck gigs on superhero movies. (Chloé Zhao directing the much-maligned Eternals, Ryan Coogler helming Black Panther, etc.)

Playing herself, Heder appears in a Hollywood sound-stage scene, directing a Wonder Woman-ish fantasy flick called Mega Girl. Sarah Goldberg‘s “Sally Reed” is helping Ellyn Jameson‘s “Kristen” prepare for a big monologue scene, and she spots Heder almost immediately.

Sally: Hi…hi, you’re Sian Heder.
Heder: Hi.
Reed: I’m Kristen’s acting coach.
Heder: Great.
Reed: CODA is a masterpiece.
Heder: Thanks.
Sally: It’s incredible. I mean I could cry just thinking about it.
Heder: I’m clearly switching gears on this one. On CODA I worked with committed actors to tell a deeply personal story, and now I’m working with models in Halloween costumes fighting over a blue glowy thing.
Sally: Well, that’s exciting.
Heder: Yeah, it’s gonna be a good movie…I think. I think when people see Mega Girl, they’re gonna think ‘whoever made that, made CODA.”

Jeff and Sasha’s latest Substack chat was recorded in two sections — the first while I sat in a noisy Wilton laundromat, and the second as I lay comfortably on my queen-sized bed at home. I liked chatting from a lying-down position — it made me feel good and reassured. Here’s da link.

For decades I’ve been convinced that there are only two Sean Connery 007 films worth re-watching — Dr. No (’62) and From Russia With Love (’63), both directed by Terence Young. Because they’re the only two Connerys that aren’t undermined by high-tech gadgetry, silly stunts, Daffy Duck-level plotting and an attitude of smug financial arrogance on the part of the producers.

Guy Hamilton‘s Goldfinger (’64) was the film that demonstrated how the burgeoning Bond franchise had become drunk on its own fumes and begun to degenerate into foolery. The first two Bonds at least flirted with realism from time to time, but with Goldfinger the realism was more or less out the window.

For a reason I can’t quite fathom I popped in my Goldfinger Bluray last night and endured the damn thing. Okay, I watched it because it boasts a wonderfully clean and richly colored 1080p transfer. There’s no faulting the tech.

Goldfinger runs 110 minutes but feels a bit longer, mainly because it starts to descend into silliness starting with the Auric metal conversion plant sequence in Switzerland (which arrives around the 35-or 40-minute mark), and then it turns a truly ridiculous corner when the setting moves to Goldfinger’s horse farm in Lexington, Kentucky.

The instant wham-bam conversion of Honor Blackman‘s Pussy Galore from a flinty lesbian into a heterosexual James Bond ally is my favorite bit of absurdity, but compacting that black Lincoln Continental with a dead gangster in the back seat and a sizable load of gold bars in the trunk…none of it makes a lick of sense. Not to mention those Fort Knox Army troops pretending to succumb to knockout gas with absolute uniformity…arguably the dopiest display of substandard action choreography in the history of motion pictures.

What a surreal satire Goldfinger is…an unwitting lampoon of the old-school macho sexism that prevailed in late ’63 and early ’64. And yet the same basic foibles were tolerable in Dr. No and From Russia With Love.

Yes, okay — the first three sequences are approvable. Bond blowing up the drug laboratory in Latin America is pretty good, and I love that moment when Connery spots an oncoming assailant in a reflection in a woman’s eye. Screwing up Goldfinger’s crooked card game in Miami Beach while seducing Shirley Eaton‘s Jill Masterson, only to discover her dead, gold-painted body the next morning. And then the golf game with Goldfinger in a British country club, complete with a gold bar wager and some last-minute golf ball switching. But then it’s off to Switzerland and it all starts to fall apart.