Movie Review: "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot"

"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot": B.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is a coming of age movie, but not of the sort usually given that description.  Kim Baker (Tina Fey) works for a big city news organization, mostly writing copy for the on-air "talent."  It is boring and ungratifying work.  In the age of nascent social media and instant notification of newsworthy events, the trend for the public's reliance on newspapers is dwindling, and local news is mere filler in between more important national and international stories.  As this revelation is occurring to Baker, she sees Tanya Vanderpoel (sexy Margot Robbie), a beautiful Australian war correspondent, giving a battlefront report from Afghanistan on live network television.  Baker envies Vanderpoel's status as a revered journalist, and within a few scenes, Baker has become an embedded reporter with the US Marines in Kandahar Province.  This new career will be the exact opposite of the boring yet safe occupation she left behind.

Baker is naive as she starts this new chapter in her life.  She does not speak the local language and has to be tutored regarding religious proprieties.  Vanderpoel, who is simultaneously Baker's friend and occupational rival, takes the rookie under her wing, telling the new arrival that back in the States she (Baker) might only be "a six or a seven," but in Afghanistan she's a "Kabul Cutie."  In other words, be on your guard around men.

Marine Corps General Hollanek (Billy Bob Thornton) is a difficult man to impress.  If it were up to him there would be no embedded journalists accompanying his troops.  They mostly get in the way of his men, and God forbid a journalist should be killed or wounded on his watch.  But the Corps is willing to put up with the intrusion because of the upside potential of good publicity making the airwaves back home.  Notwithstanding Hollanek's reservations, from the first combat mission on which Baker rides along her bravery in the line of fire impresses the grizzled Marine.  She is there to report on the firefights, not just their aftermath.

Before too long, life in the war torn desert country becomes the new norm for Baker.  She catches herself referring to Kabul as her home, and what started out as a temporary assignment turns into a three year sojourn.  There is little she misses about the life she once knew, including her boyfriend Chris (Josh Charles).  In front of the camera Baker covers life and death.  Behind the scenes out of the public's view are wild parties and one night stands.  She and her friends work hard and play even harder.

The script is guilty of presenting a few too many redundant scenes, but one which stands out positively shows how Baker is able to gain the trust of the women in a small village where General Hollanek's men are repairing, for the third or fourth time, a water well.  Hollanek is puzzled regarding the cause of the well's repeated damage.  Baker advises the general that the women themselves confided to her that they intentionally sabotaged the well so that they would have an excuse to get their water from the nearby river, thus providing an opportunity to socialize out of earshot of the local men.

The unsung hero in Baker's story is her Afghan "fixer," Fahim (Christopher Abbott).  He mentors her as she tries to assimilate the local customs and culture, a challenge even for a man to undertake and exponentially more difficult for a woman.  Fahim also bravely pulls Baker away when she foolishly attempts to photograph covertly a radical Muslim who is preaching to an angry crowd.  Of the male characters in the film, he is the only likable one.  The story lines involving Scottish photographer Iain Mac Kelpie (Martin Freeman) and Afghan attorney Ali Massoud Sadiq (Alfred Molina), both of whom have sexual conquest on the brain, are ridiculously absurd and count as negative check marks on my report card.  At least they provide a laugh or two.

I was impressed with Fey's acting performance in the predominately serious role.  I was a little worried that every time I saw her on screen I would have difficulty erasing Sarah Palin from my thoughts.  (A similar problem occurs in other movies when I see Steve Carell onscreen and flash back to his Michael Scott character from The Office.)  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is a film which mixes drama and comedy while delivering a message that war is never the answer.  It is not in the same league with the incomparable satire MASH, but few movies, regardless of genre, are.             

Dillon Hall Diaries: The Four Reasons You Pray, & The Grotto

I had a buddy in high school who became a priest. I talked to him right after he was ordained, and I remember he told me that in the seminary they taught the seminarians that the ideal homily was seven minutes long. Anything longer risked losing the congregation's attention; anything shorter was too light weight. I often wish he had never revealed that "secret" to me, because nowadays when I'm in church I just can't bring myself to give the homilist more than those seven minutes of my undivided attention. To be honest, I usually make a judgment about three minutes into his sermon, and if what he has to say hasn't grabbed me by that time, I tune him out. Shame on me! (By the way, if the homilist is reading a canned sermon, shame on him!) I'm sorry to report that at my church, my "stick with the sermon to the end" record is rather poor. But... here is where my rationalization comes into play. In those circumstances when I'm not into the sermon, instead of using that time to mentally DCE the Notre Dame football roster or think about what I'm going to eat for Sunday brunch, I use that time to pray.

I went to a Catholic grade school and a Catholic high school. Somewhere along the way we were taught that there are four stages of prayer: adoration, thanksgiving, contrition and petition, and they MUST be done in that order. If you start asking God for favors as soon as you hit your knees, your prayer request has little chance of being granted by The Man Upstairs. On the other hand, so said my religion teachers, if you first take the time to give a prayer of love/adoration, then thank God for all He has given you, and follow it up with an act of contrition, only THEN are you in a position to ask for favors.

This morning at Mass was one of those "tune out the sermon early" kind of experiences, so I did a little praying. As I was praying, my mind drifted (again!) to my visitations to the Grotto at ND when I was a student. I was there quite a lot. What better place to do some serious thinking, if not praying? I must admit, when I visited the Grotto I totally blew off what I had been taught in grade school and high school about prayer. I hastily skipped the first three stages and launched directly into my all-important petitions. I particularly needed some supernatural help first semester freshman year. About two weeks before leaving for ND in the fall, my high school girl friend and I broke up. Emil T's chemistry class was causing me too many sleepless nights. I was a little homesick. I had virtually no spending money. I wasn't pulling down the "A's" that I used to get in high school. Lots of things to worry about and pray for.

Things started to turn around for me in the latter half of freshman year. I firmly believe that year would not have had a happy ending without my visits to the Grotto. Now when I'm back on campus for a football game or a reunion, I make a point of stopping by there, but I do a little more thanking and a little less asking. The area surrounding the Grotto is much the same as it was forty years ago. (One huge difference: Brother Duck is no longer doling out bread to his favorite web-footed creatures treading water in St. Mary's Lake.) On the morning of game day there are usually hundreds of people visiting the Grotto, many of them sporting attire for our opponent. When I look at the throng I wonder how many of them are ND alums thinking back to their days of invoking help there as students. It's probably a safe bet that most of them went right to Prayer Step # 4 then, just as I did.

The Putative Penultimate Post

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it…

- various attributed sources

 

To be or not to be, that is the question…

 

- Shakespeare's Hamlet

 

About the time I started blogging in the fall of 2011, one of the Star Tribune's Sunday financial writers -- her surname escapes me, but I'm fairly certain her first name was Jennifer --announced that she was publishing her last column, which would be her twenty-ninth.  She was voluntarily moving on to different endeavors.  Her news struck me as a little early to be pulling the curtain on a column, especially since I usually found her offerings to be worthwhile.  It was then I secretly set for myself the seemingly very attainable goal of writing at least thirty posts on the Quentin Chronicle.  Then, if I chose to hang it up, at least I'd have the satisfaction in my own little world of knowing that I'd outlasted the Strib's columnist!

 

It has not escaped my attention that my next post on the QC will be my two hundred fiftieth, a nice round number.  It is time for introspection and decision making.  Do I want to keep doing this?  In order to answer the question, the starting point should probably be to remember why I started blogging in the first place.  My daughter Jill is the one who talked me into blogging.  There were two main reasons at the time, and a third later entered the picture.   As I explained in my December 6, 2011 introductory post (Following David Brinkley's Lead), prior to blogging I had been writing and sending periodic unsolicited movie reviews via e-mail to my family for a number of years.  Putting future reviews in a blog would be an easy transition, Jill predicted.  New movies come out every week, so there would never be a shortage of things to write about.  Ditto for other topics about which --again, on an unsolicited basis -- I would opine to my family via e-mail.  Topics like etiquette, personal finance, current events, grammar and sports were frequent fodder.  Transitioning from e-mailing to blogging would simply involve an extra step or two of effort.  And one of the beauties of a free lance blog is that you can write on any subject you wish.

 

One of my favorite magazine titles is Mental Floss, which in a way describes my second reason.  Writing allegedly keeps the brain cells functioning to a higher degree than many other hobbies or pastimes I might have pursued such as golfing, bird watching or gardening.  (Notice how I picked three activities which I don't do!  No insult intended to you duffers, ornithologists or weed pickers out there.)  I have found that it's much more challenging to get an idea across using the written word than verbalizing, not that the latter is necessarily always easy.  Maybe if I wasn't so bad at doing crossword puzzles, drawing or playing bridge I would have bypassed blogging.  But I have long been attracted to writing and even seriously considered majoring in journalism, notwithstanding my unfortunate exploits as a journalism student in high school.  (See my August 25, 2012 post, Chrome Dome & The Cub Reporter.)  My desire to attend Notre Dame, which in 1965 did not offer a journalism degree, trumped my choice of major.  Otherwise I was thinking of applying to Missouri or Northwestern, renowned for their journalism programs.  I didn't take that path, and the rest is history. Now, after twenty-six years of practicing law for a living, here I am practicing writing for free.  

 

The permanency of a blog is personally appealing, and that leads me to the third reason, viz., my beautiful grandchildren, Rosie, Winnie, another baby girl who will make her appearance within the next two or three weeks, and any others who presently are mere twinkles in their parents' eyes.  My paternal grandparents died before I was born.  I do remember the Pook's parents, both of whom were born in Italy, but only a few isolated encounters with them remain fresh in my mind.  After the day comes when I am in that big writing lab in the sky, I would like to leave behind something about me for the grand kiddies to see.  If they ever, in a bored moment, ask their parents, "What was the Old Buckaroo like?" the reply might be a suggestion to read a QC post or two.  In my non-technological mind, blog posts have a better chance of being read in the future than, say, e-mails which could dissolve into cyber space (either accidentally or by design), or cards and letters which could become lost.

 

So, those are the reasons I started this blog, and arguably they're legitimate reasons to continue.  But it has not all been sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, to borrow a phrase from the recently departed Leslie Gore.  One of the subjects I originally intended to cover was traveling, and yet many trips have come and gone without my having written about them.  My high school reunion in North Dakota, circling Lake Superior, and this winter's road trip to Florida are just three recent examples of undocumented excursions.  When the US celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show two years ago, I was going to chime in; never got around to it.  Ditto for new albums I bought but did not appraise.  There is a post about the Marquis in the recesses of my brain which hasn't transformed into a post.  I am disappointed in myself for the procrastination.  Thank you, Sisters Of Mercy, for the life-long guilt trip!  I can blame the time I've spent watching the football bowls and playoffs and the NCAA basketball tournament as the culprits, but another time consuming temptation will rear its head soon thereafter.  (Did I mention the Twins' season opener is April 4?)  In short, it is a lack of self discipline which prevents me from writing about some experiences and observations that I'd like to memorialize.  I guess, with respect to traveling, that's why we have cameras.

 

You might wonder why I referenced the tree falling question at the top of this post.  One thing I've learned as a blogger: I cannot have it both ways.  A quick internet check this morning revealed that the Huffington Post blog has 112 million followers.  I have twelve.  No, not twelve million; TWELVE period.  Actually that number is exaggerated, since one of those twelve is I.  Yes, I signed up to be a follower of my own blog!  My kids have offered to provide a link on their Facebook pages to the QC, but I declined.  Word-of-mouth is okay, but I am not interested in a written advertisement.  Having said that, it is kind of unfulfilling to write stuff that few people read.  Even some of "the other eleven" have asked me if I've seen a movie about which I'd written a week before.  Maybe instead of blogging I should alternatively keep a diary.

 

I do not find the Google Blogspot site to be a particularly user-friendly host for my posts.  Slight revisions to drafts, such as simply adding or deleting a comma, require having to re-separate the paragraphs all the way through the post.  That is a nerve wracking waste of time.  I have been told by a few people that they gave up in their attempts either to become a blog follower or to leave a comment because the Blogspot site threw up too many roadblocks.  I have earnestly thought about stopping the QC at two hundred fifty posts and then, if and when the mood strikes, starting a different blog by switching to another site.  (I even have a name for the new blog picked out.)  The word "closure" is overused, but there is at least some gratification in bringing closure to an undertaking which has gone on for almost four and a-half years.  In order to make the switch out of Blogspot I either need a magic wand -- Presto, done! -- or someone to hold my hand through the process.

 

Here is what I've decided.  After I publish my two hundred fiftieth post, I am going to continue for the immediate future with the QC.  In the meantime, I am going to attempt to find a more acceptable site to host a new blog.  Depending on my luck or lack thereof, I might stick with the QC, start a new blog, or start a new replacement hobby.  Am I too old a codger to take up backpacking?

 

Finally, a word about post # 250, which I plan to publish Monday, the day after Easter.  I chose Easter Monday due to the religious theme of the post.  I first drafted and posted it on Notre Dame Nation under my non de plume, East Of Midnight, on March 8, 2009.  During that week, a hot topic on that site had been the grotto on the Notre Dame campus, and what it meant to the men and women on the board.  I weighed for a few days whether to contribute to the discussion, and finally decided to do so. Of all the posts I've published on NDN, that generated the most positive responses, so I will offer it here for your consideration.  I employed the term "DCE," a football reference commonly used on NDN.  It is shorthand for "depth chart engineering."  Thanks for reading my stuff. 

"Going Up To Four," & Other Elevator Musings

I worked in downtown Minneapolis for twenty-seven years, 1980 to 2007.  For the last nineteen of those years I was perched on the seventeenth floor of the Wells Fargo Tower, with a slivered view of a short span of the Mississippi River several blocks away to the north.  Except for a period of about two years in the mid-eighties when my office was on the third floor of the Investors' Building, one story above the Skyway, my co-workers (in corporate speak, "teammates") and I rode an elevator several times a day to get to and from our desks.  All the foregoing is to set the stage for this claim: I have ridden my share of "lifts" over the years.  What follows are some observations, quips, homemade rules, rants and even a personal historic moment for me related to that experience.

*****

 

You can always tell a rookie rider by the way they get on and off the elevator car.  The unwritten rule, apparently unbeknownst to the newbies, is similar to that of entering or alighting from a subway car.  When you are waiting to gain access, you should stand off to the side, i.e., on either side of the door, so that the exiting passengers can have the center pathway onto the platform or the floor, as the case may be.  Rookie riders waiting to get on insist on standing right in front of the door, smack dab in the middle like a tackling dummy. Then when it opens some of them barrel right in, thus obstructing the evacuation of those in the car who want to get out.  In addition to thereby displaying a total lack of common sense, such behavior is also mystifying because (i) there is no such thing as a choice spot to stand inside an elevator car in most office buildings -- I'd grant an exception for elevator cars with glass window-walls, except there are none downtown -- and (ii) how can anyone be that excited to take an elevator ride, especially if they're on their way to work?  These are the same preoccupied people who refuse to step out of a crowded elevator car temporarily to make room for those in the back row who need to exit at an earlier-reached floor.  Sigh.   

 

*****

 

Teachers often instruct their pupils to use their "inside voices" until they get to the playground.  Unfortunately there are some adults who are incapable of transporting that wisdom to an elevator scenario.  Of course, it's always the person with the loudest natural voice who insists upon speaking at a volume clearly audible to everyone present.  Here is my rule for those riding in a crowded car:  If you are getting off on the same floor as the person you're addressing who is not standing right next to you, call a conversation timeout until you've reached your destination.  Then step out and carry on as loudly as you wish; otherwise, spare the rest of us the headache.  If you're conversing with someone not from your floor, you may each utter one or two short, softly spoken exchanges.  If you have more to say, well, that's why we have telephones, e-mails and texting available to us.

 

*****

 

Another irksome behavior during an elevator ride is being with a coin jingler.  I could count on at least several rides a week when I would be in the same car with a guy jingling the coins in his pocket.  Maybe I was the only downtown worker who found this annoying, but, come on!  Can't you be in an elevator for sixty seconds without jingling your coins?  Men don't jingle their coins when they're walking down the street.  Why does being in an elevator prompt that idea?  Pavlov's dogs?  At least I rarely had a ride longer than seventeen floors.

 

*****

 

This behavioral trait of elevator riders is one I actually find amusing.  Many elevator cabs, including the ones in the Wells Tower, have lighted floor designations which flash on and then quickly off, one at a time, as each floor is passed.  This horizontal row of lights is above the doors.  Then there is a set of buttons for passengers to request a stop.  These buttons light up when pushed, then turn off as the elevator slows to a stop at the respective floor.  These buttons are next to the doors at eye level.  It is interesting to see how many people, craning their necks, are mesmerized by the flashing light show above the doors, when simply looking at the lighted buttons on the side would tell them when their floor has been reached.  They must have sore cervical spines from gazing up, as if in a trance.  This begs the question, what did they expect to see up there?

 

*****

 

Is this an example of one-upmanship, or simply filling a conversational void?  This describes an extremely brief dialogue I had with a Wells banker named Rick whose office was also in the tower.  He and I never worked together -- he was not a commercial banker -- but over the course of a few years we had taken many elevator rides together, Rick to 14 and yours truly to 17.  (Our elevator bank went from 1 to 19 in the fifty-seven story building.)  We knew each other only by our first names, but if we ran into each other in the Skyway or on the sidewalk, we'd exchange quick pleasantries.  One autumn afternoon I left my office around 3:30, and it was clear from the jacket I was wearing that I was leaving for the day.  When I got on the elevator there was no one else in the car.  It stopped at 14, and Rick came on board.  Although this happened in the year 2001, I hereby submit a verbatim record of our conversation during the fifteen seconds it took to get down to the ground floor:

 

Rick: Leaving for the day?

 

Me: Yes, I'm going to watch my daughter, Jill, in a swim meet in St. Louis Park.  She's one of the captains on Benilde-St. Margaret's team.

 

[Silence for eight or nine seconds, while Rick tries to think of something to say.  Finally the doors open at the ground floor and Rick steps forward to exit, then turns toward me.]

 

Rick: My next door neighbor's niece is the captain of the Mounds View team.  Have a good day!

 

*****

 

I wrote earlier on this blog (January 12, 2016) that people remember where they were and what they were doing when first learning of tragic historic events, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the assassination of President Kennedy.  I will always remember my elevator ride on the morning of September 11, 2001.  I had taken the bus downtown, and boarded a crowded elevator to take me up to the seventeenth floor.  One of the paralegals in my Commercial Law Group, Sherry Ewert, was standing  behind my right shoulder.  She asked if I had heard what happened that morning in New York City.  When I told her I hadn't, she informed me that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, and that it may not have been an accident.  This was before the second plane crashed into the other WTC tower.

 

The Law Department shared the seventeenth floor with the Wells Government Relations Department.  The latter department possessed the only television on the entire floor.  Many of us from both departments jammed into the small conference room where the TV was hooked up, and witnessed the networks' reportage of the awful events.  As you can imagine, we were glued to that set for the longest time.  When news of the other hijacked planes -- two of them outside New York -- became public, no one knew for sure if other buildings in other cities might be targeted.  Finally, around 10:45, the honchos in San Francisco advised us by phone to leave if we felt unsafe in the tower.  I'm not sure how many of us might have left early that day even without that green light, but in any event, I was back home by noon.

 

*****

 

Shortly after the 1998 merger of Norwest with Wells Fargo, the company moved its corporate headquarters from Minneapolis to San Francisco.  Before that event, the executive offices resided on the fourth floor of the tower, meaning that's where you'd find the CEO, the CFO, the COO, various regional presidents and department heads of the huge bank holding company, and other men and women wearing very expensive suits.  The "silk stocking gang," you might say.  The general counsel of the corporation, Stan Stroup (whom I've mentioned in two other posts, May 23, 2014 and March 16, 2015), set up shop on 17 with the rest of the lawyers, even though as a direct report of the CEO, Dick Kovacevich, he certainly was entitled to office on 4 had he so chosen.

 

One day I needed to meet with Stan, but when I walked over to his office his secretary, Julie Voels, informed me that he was "up on four."  "Up on four?" I asked, thinking that Julie got her directions mixed up.  She then informed me that the joke was Stan's creation.  When he met with the big boys he was "going up" even though they were thirteen floors below us.

 

*****

 

I've poked fun here about clueless, rude, coin jingling, transfixed elevator riders, so maybe the last entry should be on me; it's only fair.  When I was in fourth grade and my sister, Michele, was in second, our parents took us from Chicago to New York City on the New York Central Railroad.  We stayed in the Waldorf Astoria -- the Marquis must have had a good year -- and saw all the sights tourists to that city enjoy: the Statue Of Liberty, the United Nations, Central Park, Rockefeller Center, the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall, etc.  When we entered the Empire State Building, a one hundred two story skyscraper, I could hardly wait to get to the top.  There was an Otis Elevator crew working inside the shaft of one of the other nearby elevators which was temporarily out of commission.  Just before we set foot inside the car to which we were assigned, I heard a woman ask an usher, "Are these elevators safe?"  The usher replied, "Why yes, m'am, the Otis crew just put some fresh scotch tape on the cables this morning."

 

I wished I hadn't heard that.  Gullible me did not get the humor.  During the whole time we were in the building, I was more worried about the elevator ride than I was vertigo or fear of heights.

 

That leeriness toward elevators has carried on into my adult life to a modified extent.  Now I am not afraid to ride in elevators, but I do not like to take rides up to the very top floor of any building.  What if the elevator shot through the roof?  Then what?

Eighth Annual Movie Ratings Recap

When I awoke on the morning of January 31, my first thought was that this was the last day of the twelve month period I use for blogging purposes when putting together my annual Movie Ratings Recap.  After making a pot of coffee -- one of the few things within my culinary skill set -- I refreshed my memory as to how many movies I had seen in theaters the previous year, then quickly compared that total against my running list for this year's total.  It turned out I needed to see one more movie that day in order to avoid having a lower total than last year's twenty-five.  A blogger's dedication knows no bounds.  Thus, Momma Cuan and I scooted over to the Park Mann to see The Big Short.  Even though I did not end up posting my review until February 8 (A-), it makes the list for this Eighth Annual MRR since I saw it before the February 1 deadline.  (An aside: One of the posts I'm thinking about drafting in the future has to do with self-imposed rules, such as the one just described.)

In the eight years during which I've been reviewing movies, this is the first year I did not rank any movie below a B-.  Thus, even though the quantity of films seen wasn't as high as what I'd hoped for, the quality was generally there.  If you're keeping score at home, I have attended 225 movies at the theater during that eight year span, and the breakdown of my grades for those pictures is as follows:

A   7 (3%)

A-  37 (16%)

B+ 66 (29%)

B   50 (22%)

B-  41 (18%)

C+ 11 (5%)

C   9 (4%)

C-  2 (1%)

D   1
D-  1

In case you're wondering, I never change a rating once I have published the review.  On a rare occasion I might subsequently admit a rating error -- I probably should have given Tangerines, reviewed here last May, an A- instead of a B+ -- but once a rating is posted it's written in stone. Another self-imposed rule!  And, for those movies which, in retrospect, I wish I'd graded differently, it is never more than one notch up or down, e.g., from a B+ to a B, or vice versa.

Of the eight films recently nominated for Best Film by the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences, I have seen six of them.  I still plan to see Brooklyn and Room, especially if one of them is awarded the Oscar.  My single "A" film of the past twelve month period, The Imitation Game, was nominated for Best Picture of 2014, but since I did not see it until after February 1, 2015, it is on the present MRR.

Here are the twenty five films I've seen in the most recent twelve month period, together with the respective dates of my review.  Within each grade, the films are listed in my order of preference.

A:

The Imitation Game (February 11, 2015)

A-:

About Elly (July 28, 2015)
Red Army (March 6, 2015)
The Wrecking Crew (April 28, 2015)
Bridge Of Spies (November 5, 2015)
The Big Short (February 8, 2016)

B+:

Tangerines (May 15, 2015)
The Martian (January 15, 2016)
Everest (December 17, 2015)
Ricki And The Flash (August 25, 2015)
Spotlight (December 5, 2015)
Steve Jobs (November 12, 2015)

B:

Me And Earl And The Dying Girl (July 23, 2015)
Carol (January 20, 2016)
The Revenant (January 25, 2016)
The Longest Ride (April 20, 2015)
Macbeth (December 21, 2015)
Love & Mercy (June 20, 2015)
Still Alice (February 26, 2015)
Mad Max: The Fury Road (August 8, 2015)
Testament Of Youth (June 30, 2015)

B-:

The Theory Of Everything (February 15, 2015)
Welcome To Leith (November 18, 2015)
Far From The Madding Crowd (May 20, 2015)
Aloha (May 30, 2015)

Movie Review: "The Big Short"

"The Big Short": A-.  The Great Recession of this century occurred in 2008.  The economy went in the tank, the stock market tumbled, residential real estate foreclosures were rampant, major financial institutions declared bankruptcy, people lost their jobs, 401(k)s and IRAs took unbelievable hits, life savings were jeopardized, the middle class shrunk, welfare rolls expanded, unemployment lines extended and fingers were pointed.  The number one culprit in the public's collective view was Wall Street.  Yet here we are, eight years later, and only one Wall Street executive, and a relatively low one at that, has served prison time.  After viewing The Big Short, people may be astonished, if they weren't already, that only one white collar criminal has lost his freedom.

In the 2008 presidential election campaign, Democrat candidate Barack Obama was able to turn the tables on the GOP by asking the famous question originally posed by Republican Ronald Reagan one week before the 1980 presidential election day: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"  In both 1980 and 2008, the challenger posing that question was elected president over the incumbent party.  For most voters both in 1980 and 2008, the answer was a resounding "No!"  The Big Short tells the story of how our country reached that point.

Not everyone lost net worth in 2008.  Starting in 2005, when the housing industry is universally considered one of the pillars of the American economy, Dr. Michael Burry (Christian Bale), a neurologist turned hedge fund manager, starts seeing developments which have escaped the attention of almost everyone else.  Burry correctly observes that credit standards are so lax that even people who ordinarily would not come close to qualifying for a mortgage loan due to their low FICO (i.e., credit) scores now are able to buy into the housing market.  The main attraction for these home shoppers is the teaser initial interest rate on short-term adjustable rate mortgages.  After paying ridiculously low interest for three or sometimes five years, a balloon payment will come due.  Burry predicts that when these credit-unworthy mortgagors are unable to refinance, foreclosure will ensue.  Thus for those short-term loans originated in 2005 (the time when Burry sees the light), the sky will fall in late 2007-2009.

Burry is the founder of Scion Capital, a hedge fund over which he exercises complete autonomy.  When he starts investing hundreds of millions of dollars in credit default swaps, a financing vehicle which will pay off only if mortgage loans defaulted en masse, two things (among others) happen.  First, the mortgage banks such as Goldman Sachs are only too happy to sell him these products; in fact the Goldman bankers are having difficulty hiding their mirth, figuring that the socially awkward and somewhat odd looking Burry is naive to buy any swaps, let alone buying them by the bushel basket.  Secondly, Scion's other officers and investors become outraged at Burry's investment decision, which requires Scion to pay periodic fees to keep the swaps in place.  Day by day, from the time of his initial purchase until the 2008 crash, Burry updates on the chalk board outside his office the rate of return for the Scion portfolio.  It is consistently a negative percentage, sinking lower on a daily basis, and each update raises the blood pressure and ire of his partners.

But as we all know, Burry gets the last laugh.  When the housing market finally goes bust, Burry's predicted payday becomes a reality.  The final number he writes on his blackboard in 2008 is plus 489%.

The Big Short isn't a movie about what happened; we all know.  Rather, it's a movie that explains, often humorously, how and why the crisis occurred.  To that end, director Adam McKay employs two enjoyable devices.  Fans of the television show The Office will recognize the gimmick of having the actors look directly into the camera and speak to the audience.  (Coincidentally, that show starred Steve Carell, whose character is mentioned below.)  This gives the storyteller an opportunity to educate the viewers without having to tweak the dialogue artificially for that purpose.  Secondly, McKay uses cameo appearances by internationally famous Anthony Bourdain and singing actress Selena Gomez in a couple of sidebar skits, shot respectively in a kitchen and at a blackjack table, to illustrate how complex investment products like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and synthetic CDOs work.

While Burry is certainly the main character, the viewers are also introduced to financial contrarians like Jared Vanett (Ryan Gosling, who strongly resembles ESPN's Adam Schefter), Mark Baum (Carell), and Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt).  All of them become heavily involved following the lead of Burry by jumping with both feet into the credit default swap gamble.  Each of those characters has his own interesting background and motive.  A wrong telephone number and a discarded brochure in an office lobby figure in the fortuitous routes for their involvement.  The inclusion of these big time investors gives the story line welcome periodic breaks from the Burry plot.  Their separate reactions to their personal good fortune, occurring simultaneously with the tragic consequences befalling millions of people, is a lesson in human nature.

Arguably one of the reasons for making the film is so that the American viewing public can be made aware of the abuse of power and conflicts of interest displayed by a number of Wall Street firms, the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the two most important bond rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Moody's.  The film also shows the stupidity -- there's no other name for it -- of the Department Of The Treasury and the Federal Reserve.  The Big Short takes a complex topic from recent history and, in a very entertaining way, makes it quite digestible.  The lessons to be learned:  If you think something is too good to be true, it probably is; and, don't assume everything you are told by the government and its agencies is on the level.

Movie Review: "The Revenant"

"The Revenant": B.  I once heard a humorous comment from a long distance runner.  "Sure, I admire the Kenyans and Ethiopians, but could they run a marathon if it took them the five hours it takes me?"  I was reminded of that quote when I read about Leonardo DiCaprio choosing voluntarily to suffer in the extreme cold while filming The Revenant in order to make his portrayal of frontier scout Hugh Glass more authentic.  The question that comes to mind is this: Wouldn't it be more impressive acting if DiCaprio really wasn't all that cold but looked and acted cold? 

The Revenant leads all contending film entries with twelve nominations in various categories for this year's Academy Awards.  The double icing on the cake is that the movie itself is deemed by the press to be the likely winner among the eight films nominated for Best Picture, and DiCaprio is the front runner in the race for Best Actor.  He has been shut out in his four previous acting nominations.  The film is worthy of just about every positive adjective one could find; "sprawling" would be my first choice.  The movie is beautifully photographed by cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who shot mainly in British Columbia, Alberta, Montana and Argentina.  The perfectly chosen locations include scenes of snow covered mountains, white water rivers, the sun shining through trees defrocked by winter, and campfire timbers floating through the night sky.  Several panoramic and aerial shots capture the majesty and magnitude of the mountains, especially when compared to a lonely frontiersman making his way on foot or by horseback across the snow-blanketed valley.

The underlying plot is one we've seen time and again, particularly in westerns.  A man is left for dead, deserted by his compadres whose own well being is foremost in their decision making.  Somehow the deserted man survives, and thereupon is driven to get his revenge on the culprits.  The Revenant dresses up this familiar story arc by adding many remarkable episodes to put meat on the bone.

The scene most talked about is the attack by a ferocious momma bear on Glass, who has been hired to guide an unsavory group of pelt hunters.  Their prey consists of fox, beaver, raccoon, buffalo and any other furry four-legged creatures they can shoot. The rugged scout is armed with a rifle and a hunting knife, but those prove quite inadequate against the mammoth creature.  Most of the men in his group, including John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), prefer to leave the badly mangled, unconscious Glass in the snow, but at the insistence of their leader, Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson), they drape him on a wooden plank attached to a horse and take him with.  Captain Henry realizes Glass, a half-breed with irreplaceable knowledge of the unforgiving land and its indigenous inhabitants, is invaluable to the troop out in the wilderness.  They are dozens of miles from their post on the other side of the almost impassable mountains.  Furthermore, as we learn in the first few minutes of the movie, these men are not only hunters but the hunted -- by Indians -- as well.  Captain Henry's decision to try to save Glass is based more on necessity for his men's survival than human kindness.

When it becomes apparent that dragging the near-dead Glass up a steep icy mountain is doomed to fail, Captain Henry offers extra money to Fitgerald and another younger hunter, Jim Bridger (Will Poulter), to stay with Glass while the rest of the party proceeds.  Also staying behind is Glass' son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), still a teenager.  Henry's instructions to Fitzgerald are to wait for the impending passing of Glass, and to bury the body honorably before proceeding with the two youngsters to catch up with their party.  After Henry and the other men leave, not only does Fitzgerald disobey orders, but he does so in a most reprehensible manner in full view of the disabled Glass.

Glass, his body having been shredded by the bear, is nearly frozen and can barely walk.  Gasping for every breath he eventually drags himself out of the shallow grave.  The chase is on.  Think "the hare and the tortoise."

Glass' quest for revenge is grueling.  Little by little he regains his strength and mobility, but not before memorable encounters with a Pawnee, a pinto, and a disgraceful band of French trappers and fur traders.  In this movie, unlike cowboys and Indian flicks of yesteryear, the whites are the bad guys.  Hardy as Fitzgerald makes a great villain; rugged, smart, unpredictable, and intimidating in a way that DiCaprio is not.  Hardy is also up for an Oscar in the Best Supporting Actor category.

One could argue that Mexican director Alejandro Inarritu, who won the Best Director Oscar last year for Birdman (reviewed here January 17, 2015; B) does not waste a single scene or include an extraneous speaking part in The Revenant.  I found the saga too long at one hundred fifty-six minutes, and as noted above, the basic plot itself is not original.  Perhaps my biggest beef is the second-to-last scene, which is illogical and gratuitous.  The theme of the story is "leave revenge for God to handle," but revenge is ultimately rendered by a disinterested party.