“Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval. But we’ve got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up…Barack Obama. He’s redefining what a politician is, so we’llhave to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I’m hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to.√ɬ¢√¢‚Äö¬¨√Ǭù — Bob Dylan speaking to Times Online‘s Alan Jackson in a 6.6 interview piece.
This is what visionary poet-gods do when they get older. They come down to earth and say sensible things and stand on the side of positive upheavals. Which is fine. Of course, the Dylan of Legend — the one who held mountains in the palm of his hands — would have never endorsed anyone. Not out of apathy or disdain, but because he had bigger fish to fry. Politicians — the brave ones — endorsed him.

The fact that TV commentators are genuinely wondering if Hillary Clinton will say the right things tomorrow (and in the right way) speaks volumes. Her reputation for egocentric ungraciousness is now the stuff of legend.

Clint Eastwood did a little drop-by last night in front of a packed house at Santa Monica’s Aero theatre. The visit followed a screening of Michael Henry Wilson‘s Clint Eastwood: A Life in Film, a tribute doc about aspects of Eastwood’s life and career.

Following last night’s Clint Eastwood visit to Santa Monica’s Aero theatre — Thursday, 6.5.08, 9:40 pm

Wilson’s film has exactly one talking head — Eastwood. The descriptive terms are “intimate,” “straight,” “unfettered” and “revealing.” The other Eastwood doc, Bruce Ricker and Dave Kehr‘s Clint Eastwood: Out of the Shadows, is more comprehensive, but Wilson’s doc, being less of a show and less slick, gives you a quieter, gentler appreciation of the man within.
Clint was his usual low-key, reflective, straight-dopey self during the discussion. He shared the small stage with Wlson and L.A. Weekly critic Scott Foundas, who moderated. Foundas’s questions were intelligent but a little too inside-baseball. Ditto the audience questions, which were also a little suck-uppy. Nobody asked about the Spike Lee brouhaha. Nobody asked about Gran Torino. Nobody asked whether Clint likes McCain or Obama. (The former, I’m guessing.)
When I arrived around 7:15 pm and given my ticket, I was told that the Aero management didn’t want me to ask “any journalist questions.” What’s that supposed to mean? I asked. I’m supposed to…what, ask only fanboy kiss-ass questions? It turned out to be a moot discussion because Foundas never picked me. I was sitting about halfway back on the left side.
There was also a rule about no photos, which I respected.

Here I am finally running a piece about Surfwise and its director, Doug Pray, whom I interviewed on the phone over a month ago. My apologies to Doug and the PMK/HBH publicist who worked with me on this. Here’s our chat, at least. All vital information lies within.

The Paskowitz clan

It’s not that I didn’t like the film. Surfwise, a doc, is a wild and surprising thing, really. A portrait of a large family (dad, mom and nine kids) who lived as surf vagabonds in the ’70s and ’80s, roaming around in a small-sized camper, and especially about what a dictator-prick the father of the brood — Dr. Dorian “Doc” Paskowitz — turned out to be.
And yet he raised his children to be strong and aware and resourceful; not one turned out “badly.” And yet they all clearly have issues with the guy. And Doc, now in his mid ’80s and doing pretty well health-wise, is shown as still feisty, still headstrong, and not all that concerned with his children’s opinions of him. Father knows best.
What matters in the end is that Surfwise starts out as one thing — something light and good natured and even Brady Bunch-y at times — and then gradually veers into the darker imagnings of Eugene O’Neil.

A doctor who eventually got fed up with the straight and narrow, Paskowitz is first portrayed as an admirable rebel. Pray shows us how Doc, his wife Juliette, and their nine kids spent nearly 20 years driving around the U.S., driving from beach to beach and living hand to mouth. No formal education for the kids — they were camper-schooled. Doc eventually started a successful surfing school in Orange County. But his tyrannical purist ways finally pushed the kids away and into their own lives and into apartments and homes with actual plumbing.
By the time Pray began working on Surfwise in ’04, many or most of the kids haven’t seen the old man in ten years.
One thing that inspired them to leave was Doc and Juliette’s insistence of having sex every night inside the camper, loudly, whether their kids were asleep or not. Good God.
I’ve just realized, I think, why I hesitated writing about Surfwise. It’s because Doc reminds me in a very roundabout way of my own father, who inspired me to emotionally “leave home” at a very early age because of his brusque and aloof manner. A dark cloud hung over him night and day. He was a good dad — took care of three kids, paid the bills, kept a roof over our heads, paid for everyone’s education — and a bright and witty fellow, but a negative influence in almost every other way.

My father was like Doc, I believe, because he lived his life the way he wanted to (which included drinking until he went into AA in the mid ’70s), and because his manner and emotional attitude was finally alienating. He never hit anyone (except for me, once) or caused a scene or acted cruelly in any blatant way. He was and is a decent and well-behaved man, but a good portion of my life has been guided by a strong wish not to be resemble him in any way.
Except for the part about being a writer, that is. My dad began in journalism, but became a successful advertising copywriter and account executive.
Apologies to Doug and Magnolia Films for my personal stuff getting in the way of Surfwise ink. Update: Apologies for the bad grammar and syntax that I didn’t correct until Friday, 6.6.

Rope of Silicon‘s Brad Brevet scratching his head over the M. Night Shymalan internet animus. In other words, not fanning the flames.

This is off-the-beat even for HE, but a story posted today by The Independent‘s Patrick Cockburn says that “a secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.”
This sounds like a fairly big deal…no?
“The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq,” the story goes on. “Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
“But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the U.S. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.”

This is not a teaser poster or “sheet” (as Ain’t It Cool’s “Merrick” has written) for Oliver Stone‘s W. It’s just some print concept that was thrown together and handed out during last month’s Cannes Film Festival. It’s obviously not selling a movie.

The most inspiring thing about the culture right now is that for most under-20s, this Signe Wilkinson cartoon — which I like and am even touched by — is a bit of a meh. Because they really don’t see color the way Hillary Clinton‘s rube supporters do, or did during the primary campaign.

It’s no secret that the fall-holiday season will deliver two major political biopics — Oliver Stone‘s W. (Lionsgate) and Ron Howard‘s Frost/Nixon (Universal). Two portrayals of failed, bordering-on-tragic Republican presidents (the current George Bush, the late Richard Nixon) opening within seven weeks of each other means high expectations, lots of political baggage and possibly an Oscar competition of sorts.

They’ll inevitably be compared. They’re similar enough to be seen as a kind of two-headed hydra. The temptation to call them a pair of political IEDs being lobbed by Hollywood liberals at John McCain‘s campaign will be considerable. The best scenario for Stone’s film, obviously, is that is will have a strong impact in this regard. The Nixon tragedy is so specific and widely accepted that Howard’s film won’t be part of the election conversation as much as W., but the two films taken together will certainly remind audiences of the Republican potential for Oval Office screw-ups and arrogance.
It seems inevitable that the fates and fortunes of the two will be seen as somehow linked or bouncing off each other before long. (Will they be seen as a twofer or an either-or?) Expect sharp retorts from the conservative talk-show hosts and bloggers as soon as W begins screening.
Party chit-chatters will tell you that both feature lead performances — Josh Brolin‘s as Bush, Frank Langella‘s as Nixon — with strong shots in the awards derby. Having read the scripts for both and seen Langella’s performance in the Frost/Nixon stage play, I can say there’s most likely merit in these assumptions.
My personal can’t-wait-for-it, however, is Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney in W. The longing to see Cheney eviscerated is so strong that my feelings about Dreyfuss’s performance probably aren’t to be trusted. I need to take a pill and calm down about this.
Frost/Nixon, opening on 12.5, has been finished for some time and has been screened here and there. (A friend caught it a week or so ago.) The plan is to “screen the shit out of it” for general media starting in August, even though it won’t open for another four months. W, which went before the cameras several months after Howard’s film did and is currently being edited, will be out on 10.17.
No matter how good Frost/Nixon turns out to be (and I’ve heard that it works), it would seem that Stone’s film is in a more opportune position, release-wise, but why speculate this early in the game?

Got up really early for some reason, worked a couple of hours and then went down to Norm’s on La Cienega for breakfast. A couple of good-natured beefy guys who work for a glass-installing outfit came in, and as they sat down they greeted the waitress — a 40ish black woman — and said, “So, [name]…excited? Good news, eh?”

Norms on La Cienega — Thursday, 6.5, 6:35 am.

They were talking about Obama’s triumph, of course. Now, it’s entirely possible that these guys knew the waitress well enough to have sussed out her political beliefs to some extent so let’s tread carefully. Nonetheless, I took their comment to mean, “Hey, one of your people won the nomination!” I mean, they didn’t look to me like guys who read Salon…okay?
The waitress gave them a quick glance as she said “yeah, I’m excited.” She said it in a somber tone that indicated (to me anyway) that she saw them as a couple of racist lunkheads who left good tips.
And just as this happened, I was reading this 6.3 Richard Cohen column in the N.Y. Daily News. I was right in the middle of reading the first three graphs, I mean. The combination of this and the two chowderheads at Norms (a) gave me the chills and (b) put me in a down-ish mood.
Media elites don’t really understand how deeply racist this country is. Among the lugs, I mean. They really don’t. They need to hang out more at Norms, at truck stops, in working-class neighborhood taverns. If Obama wins, it’s going to be a squeaker.

A riff on Adam Sandler‘s Republican-conservative thinking as manifested in his films, penned by Cinematical’s Eric Kohn. Are his core convictions all that evident in his films? The answer for the most part seems to be “yeah…but not so you’d notice.”