Movie Review" Spotlight"

Spotlight (2015)

R

5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Tom McCarthy
Writer                                   Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer
Cinematography                 Masanobu Takayanagi
Editing                                  Tom McArdle
Music                                    Howard Shore

Mark Ruffalo                       Mike Rezendes
Michael Keaton                  Walter Robinson (Robbie)
Rachel McAdams               Sacha Pfeiffer
Liev Schreiber                     Marty Baron      
John Slattery                       Ben Bradlee, Jr.
Stanley Tucci                       Mitchell Garabedian

 

It is rare for me to find a movie or TV show where I cannot stop talking throughout the film (pity my poor wife) or program about how great the writing is (see “The Wire” 2002 – 2008 for a TV version of great writing). It is even rarer for the acting, directing and editing to be at just the same high level of performance. Finally, it is unbelievably rare for that same film (should it be a movie) to be the winner for that year’s Oscar Best Picture Award, and yet writer/director Tom McCarthy (along with co-writer Josh Singer) has done just that with 2015’s “Spotlight”. The story-telling and completely believable characters that inhabit this film seem so true to actual people that you too may be tempted to exclaim throughout the movie, “why can’t more pictures be as authentic in their depictions of real people, how they think, react and act”. This is truly a 5 Star Movie.

“Spotlight” begins with a priest in trouble with the law for child abuse. He is being held in a Police precinct holding area while in another room, a second priest “counsels” the family of the children abused by the first priest. A telling conversation takes place in an outer office by two policemen; the older, more experienced policeman evinces little hope to the younger cop that any real justice will take place in the back rooms. Shortly thereafter, we the see accused priest being driven off with the second priest in a dark limousine. No further views of the family are to be seen.

The movie jumps to the first day for a new editor at the Boston Globe, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber). The introduction of the new editor unsettles the staff at the Globe as they are already fearful of layoffs, and Baron coming as he does from Miami brings both the persona of the Outsider and the reputation of a corporate axman, someone with a history of cutting costs by cutting people. The use of the Outsider in this early phase and indeed throughout the movie is extremely clever as it helps define the insularity of Boston. Despite being in the Top 25 largest US cities, Boston (at least in this movie) is seen to be a very homogenous city where the various powers in the city, the police, the district attorney’s office, the press, and the Catholic Church all work so closely together there is none of the expected checks and balances between these forces. As this movie progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that those working to (say) enforce the law or to prosecute the law in the name of the city’s victims will instead in some cases work just as hard, perhaps harder to help protect the name of the Catholic Church. The abuse victims that come to light as the movie moves forward will be the unnamed collateral damage in the fight for some greater good that by protecting the Church’s reputation will allow the Church to provide.

As the staff of the Globe get to know their new editor it is made quickly clear that while he is indeed there to review staffing versus costs, he is also very interested in pushing the Globe’s investigative team, Spotlight, into pursuing hard hitting stories. Early in his tenure, he wants them to drop what they are doing and work on a story he had recently read in a Globe column concerning a pedophile priest, Father John Geoghan. More to Baron’s point though is the article’s coverage of a local lawyer’s, Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) assertion that the local Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law (Len Cariou) has known of Geoghan’s activities for years and has been covering them up. This dual focus of Spotlight’s investigative team (i.e. individual priest pederasty vs. systemic cover-ups) will create some dramatic tension on the Spotlight team as the members do not always have the same target in mind. However, it also raises many disturbing questions; not the least of which is “what are the Church’s priorities”?

“Spotlight” will now begin a fascinating journey as the movie employ’s many Newspaper Movie clichés in its efforts to demonstrate the tenacity and the tedium needed to research a problem. In this case, the team will discover that the abuse of children by Catholic priests is an old problem, one kept secret via the efforts of the Church and the complicity of the city’s power brokers. They will discover that there are patterns in the choice of victims, the heretofore successful efforts at cover-up, and the oftentimes knowing decisions by those set up to protect the innocent to turn their gaze, their concern away from the problem right before their eyes; worse, within their power to do something about. Also complicit in the cover-up is the Globe itself as the movie reveals that they have had in the past five years information that they should have followed up on, but didn’t. Another curious point made by the movie is that the Globe had less obviously incriminating information in their own basement; they just needed the right stimulus to get them to review the data. When they did start looking for patterns in those basement books of the Church’s records for each priest in the Boston diocese, they could see that the Church was moving certain priests far more frequently than the average and they were using code words (e.g. sick leave) to conceal the true reason for the move.

This is an excellent movie – there is no other way to describe it. Director Tom McCarthy has set the pacing and use of camera angles to expertly create a kind of tension that would not normally be expected from a team of reporters poring over books in the Globe’s basement. McCarthy has also in his command some of the year’s best acting. Michael Keaton as the Spotlight team leader, “Robbie” Robinson is asked to portray a wide range of emotions as he skirts his own loyalty and history to the Church as well as that to the Globe and investigative journalism. He is shown to be torn as he realizes his own role in the history of the problem; consider for example, the scene of his return to his high school (ironically, directly across the street from the Globe) to discuss with one of this former classmates a third classmate that had been abused by a priest while a student at that school. The pull of his conflicting loyalties play across his face in an astonishingly clear manner. Another good pair of performance are by Spotlight team members Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo) and Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams). McAdams must like Robbie balance her own relationships to the Globe and in her case, to her Nana’s touchingly played devotion to the Church. Ruffalo has a more influential role as he is the ultimate author of the article. Additionally, he is apparently also battling some internal demons. What these demons are is never made clear. Ruffalo plays Rezendes as a man determined to expose the priests involved in the various abuse cases. He flies from room to room, from airport to Justice Department buildings and on to the Globe. His demeanor is of one possessed at times as he screams out his frustrations at the slow pace of the investigation.

As good as the above acting is the best is by Schreiber. He comes into the Globe and immediately takes charge. He is the Outsider, not a Bostonian, not a Catholic, but he is in charge. What is most delightful about his acting is the manner in which he takes control. An excellent example is the initial meeting between Schreiber’s character, Marty and the Spotlight staff. They want to stay on a story they working on the Boston P.D. Marty most clearly wants them to move to the child abuse story. He does not rant, he does not command, he suggests and comments. It is clear what he wants, and despite the ever present reluctance of every Bostonian in this movie to challenge the Church, that is exactly what he wants them to do. Schreiber’s character will get his way with the Spotlight crew as he will with many others in the film, but it is his calm, clear thinking and decided leadership that win him his arguments. It is so refreshing to see actors acting like real people. This is done from beginning to end in “Spotlight”.

“Spotlight” is as close to a perfect movie as I have seen in several years. My only gripe is the casting of John Slattery as Chief Editor, Ben Bradlee, Jr. His role is not critical to the movie’s success. It is possible I cannot avoid seeing Slattery as “Madmen” executive Roger Sterling due to my own limitations. Unfortunately, Slattery seems to be still playing Sterling on several occasions in “Spotlight”. That being said, this movie is a gem. It is worth seeing for the many technical merits of acting, directing, and editing. But it is also quite clearly worth seeing for the questions it raises regarding the Catholic Church’s decisions during this period. It is tempting to condemn Cardinal Law’s behavior, but I came away wondering at his promotion to the Church’s most prestigious church (Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore) following his public disgrace in the wake of the Globe’s reporting. Was he rewarded with the Rome posting for doing his job? If he was, what are the Church’s values when they balance off the need to maintain the Church’s reputation with the harm done to the abused children? I cannot fathom their motives. It is strongly to McCarthy’s credit that “Spotlight” raises these questions. It is also curious to examine the Church’s generally positive public responses to the movie. It really leaves the viewer with the hope that these abhorrent problems are truly a thing of the past and that the Church has learned from its errors. Time will tell.

Movie Review: "Danny Collins"

Danny Collins (2015)

R

2.5 Stars out of 5

Writer/Director                  Dan Fogelman
Music                                    Ryan Adams, Theodore Shapiro               

Al Pacino                              Danny Collins
Bobby Cannavale               Tom Donnelly
Jennifer Garner                   Samantha Donnelly
Annette Bening                   Mary Sinclair
Christopher Plummer        Frank Grubman

 

“Danny Collins” is one of those movies that are almost certainly a work of love by the team that put it out. It seems probable that writer/director Dan Fogelman learned of a true life story wherein 70’s English folk singer Steve Tiltson received a letter of encouragement form John and Yoko Lennon 34 years after it was sent. I’ll presume further that he thought this would be a good basis for an Americanized version of that story. The sad truth of the matter is, though, the resultant movie feels like a highly contrived story with artificial characters and dialog all crammed into the mold suggested by the Tiltson story. The movie contains some very good acting by Al Pacino in the title role, some pleasant music if you are a John Lennon fan, some good comedic banter, but really a quite unbelievable story-line.

The film begins with a young Danny Collins (Al Pacino) just beginning his musical career as a Rock and Roll singer/composer. He is being interviewed by a fairly obnoxious editor for a Rock magazine; he’s obnoxious, but still impressed by Danny. The movie then jumps forward 40 years and we re-meet Danny. He is now very rich, very famous and seemingly very different from the idealistic artist from the 70’s as he belts out his Neil Diamond-ish hits from that era to audiences made up of fans now grown into their “golden” years. Danny knows he looks ridiculous in his flamboyant clothes and as he stands alongside his far younger girl friend. He gets blunt commentary from his even-older manager, Frank (Christopher Plummer). Frank will not hold back as he confirms (when asked by Danny) about every mistake Danny makes in his life. However, Frank is not a bad guy. In fact, he quite clearly loves Danny for reasons explained late in the movie. And he brings a present for Danny: the long lost Lennon letter. Thus ensues in this scene and a few that shortly follow some of the movie’s best acting by Pacino. The camera closes in on him as he ponders his life and now truly begins to think about paths not taken and mistakes made all too often. It’s not a bad set up for a movie.

The problem is that Danny and his fellow characters take one improbable step after another as the movie plods to its inevitable conclusion. Having decided to make changes in his life, Danny stops his tour in order to fly to New Jersey (on his private jet, of course) in an effort to link up with a son he has largely ignored for the son’s entire life. The son, Tom Donnelly (Bobby Cannavale) is a blue collar type of American Hero. He lives in a lower middle class Eden with his wife Samantha (Jennifer Garner) and their daughter Hope (what else could she be named?). As Lennon’s music peals forth, we watch Donnelly reject the father, the father try again using the grand-daughter as a kind of leverage, achieve some reconciliation, lose it through a stupid act by the father, and then (surprise!) get it back through his persistence. There’s health problems with the granddaughter, the son, some loving comments by the friend, and a potential age-appropriate (almost age-appropriate, as the movie amusingly notes) paramour and a happy ending. The decisions and too fast to believe changes in attitude that take place throughout the movie will likely annoy you as much as they did me.

That being said, Benning, Cannavale, and Plummer play their parts in a highly professional manner; each lending some verisimilitude to a script that badly needs its feet placed on the ground where real people live and interact. For example, Donnelly hates his father for having abandoned him, and yet when he is told by Danny that he sent money to Donnelly and that Donnelly’s mother rejected Danny after giving birth, Donnelly continues to hate and blame Danny for having abandoned him and his mother. Who abandoned who? It is presented as a stereotype of a self-interested Rock Star having left his responsibilities behind in his wake, but the dialog completely fails to support this concept. Later in the movie, we learn from Frank that Danny may have his flaws but he never fails to support the ones he loves in his life. Well, what is it; is he a worthless rake, or a caring man? The film simply deals in images, and they are quite frankly images that do not align well at all.

Credit is due to Pacino (Golden Globe nominee for Best Actor) for his acting and painful attempts at singing (think of Leonard Cohen on a night when he is suffering from an especially bad sore throat). He does a good job playing a role that I found to be reasonably well defined at least by Pacino’s performance. But it is a role that does not seem to belong to the movie’s counterweighing characters, his son and his family's life. Danny is a ridiculous character, but not completely for the reasons the movies want you to believe. This movie is easily skipped by anyone not thoroughly in love with Al Pacino’s acting or John Lennon’s music (the film is replete with it, and to the movie’s credit they chose songs that do align well with the scene unfurling before the viewer).

Movie Review: "99 Homes"

99 Homes (2015)

R

4 Stars out of 5

Director/Editor                   Ramin Bahrani
Writer                                   Ramin Bahrani, Amir Naderi, Bahareh Azimi
Cinematography                Bobby Bukowski
Music                                   Antony Partos, Matteo Zingales

Rick Carver                          Michael Shannon
Andrew Garfield                 Dennis Nash
Noah Lomax                       Connor Nash
Laura Dern                          Lynn Nash
Tim Guinee                         Frank Greene

 

The 2008 housing bubble collapse in the United States is beginning to prove to be ample fodder for film makers (e.g. see 2015 Oscar Best Movie nominee “The Big Short”). Movies like “The Big Short” have focused on the malfeasance and fraud perpetuated by Wall Street bankers. Ramin Bahrani has chosen in his 2015 offering, “99 Homes” to cast a double focus: on a system that favors local banks and to a lesser degree on the people thrown out of their homes by those same local banks. To his credit, Bahrani has added a Mephistophelean deal in his story as he frames the overall arc of the film about the decisions made by one man recently evicted with his son and widowed mother from their Orlando home.  Temporarily homeless and unemployed, his belongings sitting on a street curb, he makes a fateful decision to work for the “Devil”; the same man that had just evicted him.

Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) opens the movie in a well-crafted courtroom scene. Nash has roughly 60 seconds to convince a judge to issue a stay on his eviction. The Judge (Richard Holden) is exasperated and highly overworked as he tries to quickly move through hundreds of cases just like Nash’s. The Judge checks the paperwork for accuracy and “sentences” Nash to eviction. Nash tries to argue but there is no winning argument for him in this scenario; he ends up being evicted from the courtroom as well. Nash will return home to his mother, Lynn (Laura Dern) and son, Connor (Noah Lomax). The mother is a home-based hair stylist and seems utterly uncomprehending of their pending fate. The son being only 9 is equally in a daze. Nash as the responsible party in this small family desperately searches through his legal papers. He remains convinced that there is hope; he hangs all his hopes on the Judge’s comment that he has 30 days to file an appeal. The Nash family consequently and understandably believes they have 30 days more in their home.

They don’t. The next day, real agent Rick Carver (Michael Shannon) shows up with two Sheriff Deputies and a work crew to evict the Nashs and to place all of their property on the curb in front of the house they still think is their home. The scene of their eviction, their incomprehension, their assertion of their property rights to the deputies and Carver is heartrending. (Indeed, during this scene and several others of high tension Music Directors Antony Partos and Matteo Zingales have written a score that emphasizes the frantic beating of a human heart.) The Nashs stand in the street amongst their furnishings with a mixture of despair and loss that Director Bahrani wants the viewer to feel as well as view. He will contrast this view with a later scene with Rick Carver at one of his two opulent mansions: one with a presumed wife, the other with an apparent mistress. The contrast between the wealthy, their greed and lack of empathy versus the blue collar family forced into a hotel filled with other evicted families just like theirs is intentional and is one of the highlights of the film. The Nash’s eviction is one that will be repeated several times throughout the movie, sometimes with elderly homeowners, sometimes with African-Americans, sometimes with families that are not only like the Nashs but are in fact neighbors and friends.

The best aspect of the movie though is the alluded to deal made by the evicted Nash. He goes to see Carver after his eviction in a vain search for tools the thinks Carver’s eviction team stole while evicting Nash. Because of Nash’s bravado and tenacity in seeking his tools, Carver sees something in Nash that he believes will be of value to Carver as he continues his “real estate” business based on eviction. Carver will make the point very clear what kind of real estate business he is in as he later rationalizes his actions to Nash in an attempt to convince Nash to come work for him. Besides stating on multiple occasions that Nash should not become emotionally attached to houses (they are after all, just boxes, and one is just like the next), Carver will make his most telling point when he tells Nash that he was once a loser that made his living as a real estate agent putting people into homes, but now he is a winner as he evicts people from their homes, and he becomes the new owner in the process. Venality and greed could not be made plainer. Just like the courtroom scene that emphasized that there is no hope for the soon-to-be evicted in the law, or by the two deputies sent to carry out the eviction and who refer to Carver as “Boss”, there is no hope anywhere for those caught in the situation of having falling behind on their loans, for whatever reason. To be sure, some blame must be placed on the homeowner, but this movie makes it quite clear there is plenty of blame to be shared by the state, the banks, and by the various investor/leeches that move in to take advantage of a system designed not to protect the homeowner, but rather is in fact designed to protect the bank. Those without power and wealth will inevitably lose, while those with the influence their money can buy will as always come out the winners.

This movie is at its strongest when it gives free rein to Michael Shannon and his portrayal of a modern demon. Just like other fallen demons, Rick Carver once tried to make it as an honest and moral being. However, refusing to follow his roofer father into poverty, Carver (it’s hard to ignore the choice of names here) slashes his way through neighborhoods looking for those on the edge of eviction. Of course, once he heads down this path, Carver finds it easier and easier to not just bend the rules but to actually break them: he has his new man Nash remove A/C units from empty homes so he can charge the government to replace them, he forges documents in order to facilitate evictions and writes his actions off as merely “correcting” a filing error, he blithely ignores the pain and suffering he is adding to the world. He reminds me of the Jacob Marley character in Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”, as he slowly adds link to link in an already long chain of misery attached to him. However, as miserable an example of human behavior the Carver character is, Andrew Garfield’s portrayal of the conflicted Nash is an even more interesting character. To some degree like Carver before him, Nash slowly converts from evicted and outraged man of conscience to petty Carver minion to active evictor to eventually his breaking point. Near the movie’s climax, the Nash character must make a decision to help in the eviction of neighbor and friend Frank Greene (Tim Guinee). He clearly is torn as he must decide to violate one of the last few strands of his moral code, if not in fact the law as well. He makes a fateful decision, the consequences, the movie leaves to some degree ambiguous.

This movie has very good acting from Shannon and Garfield; in fact, it is worth watching for Shannon’s performance alone. The directing is very effective along with the editing and sound track in creating a taut movie, filled with a sense of doom and despair. The anger and incomprehension of the evicted shows some of the best aspects of the writing and directing. There is some weakness in the writing in terms of creating back stories for the evicted that have little more than set piece appearances in the movie. But even in the case of Carver and Nash, their back stories are only poorly described. A consequence of this is that it is hard to relate to either character as people; it is far easier and is perhaps Bahrani’s intention that we relate to them only as stereotypes; in the case of Carver and Nash, as the Devil and Faust, respectively. That being said, this is a first rate movie that is clearly felt most strongly by the writer/director as a statement about the powerlessness of the common man in the face of remorseless greed that comes from banks, speculators, and even from at least one of their own. The movie is worth seeing as an examination of how the evicted are treated as well as to enjoy the acting of Shannon and Garfield.

Book Review: "Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush" (2015) by Jon Meacham

 

Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush (2015)

4 Stars out of 5

Jon Meacham

836 pages

Jon Meacham’s fifth book on American history and the personalities that shape it is entitled “Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush” (2015). When one considers common public opinion on Bush 41 (as he is known within the Bush family, along with “Poppy” and “Bush the Elder”) it is that GHWB was if not an ineffective US President, then he was at the very least an un-noteworthy one. Meacham in his previously demonstrated thoughtful manner goes to great length to show that there is far more to consider about GHWB than the public and media-held opinions on our 41^st President. However, more to the point are the implications raised by Meacham’s book: can a person be civil, respectful and effective in a modern political campaign, can a person be a good leader but a poor President, and even more to the point, is there any real benefit to the endless analysis on American television by individuals not fully informed on the background of any action taken by an American President? Coming to this book as I did as a committed Democrat in terms of my political leanings, I came away with a far more informed and respectful opinion on GHWB and even on his son, Bush 43.

Meacham does an excellent job of exploring the early life and formative factors on GHWB’s development. Bush was born to Prescott Bush and Dorothy Walker in Milton MA, though they moved to Greenwich CT shortly after his birth. Both the Bush and Walker families were long time members of the wealthy elite living in America. It must be noted though that the Bush family pushed their offspring to make it on their own. To be sure, they received a privileged education, had family connections of note and an early life without want. But the children were taught from a young age to succeed and to do so without appearing to want to do so. The desire to win (a dominant feature of GHWB’s personality) is understandable but the curious injunction to do so without appearing to make the effort is a curious aspect in my opinion. GHWB would take these life lessons into school, the business world and his political life. But before he could do so, he would enlist at 18 in the US Navy shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He would actually become the youngest naval aviator in the USN at the time of earning his wings. His stint in the Navy would include 58 missions in the Pacific, one of which would result in the loss of his plane and the death of his two crewmen, an event that would haunt GHWB to the present as he wonders still if he had done everything he could do to save them.

As his stint in the Navy neared its in end in 1945 he married Barbara Pierce, surely the single-most significant anchor in GHWB’s life. They would have six children: one would be a US President, two would be state governors, and one would die from Leukemia at age 3. The death of Robin in 1953, the same year Jeb would be born and eldest child George W would be six, would like the death of his two crewmen bring GHWB to tears during his interviews with Meacham. In fact, the number of times that GHWB would display his compassion during the Meacham interviews as relayed by Meacham in his book is one of the most compelling and enlightening aspects of the book. This man characterized by the media as lacking in any empathy for the citizens of the US (most especially during the 1992 campaign for president) is shown by Meacham to be highly empathic, kind and sensitive to the needs of others.

With the close of WWII, GHWB was now free to return to his deferred college education at Yale. Prior to graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a BA in Economics, GHWB would be the captain of the baseball team, become a member of the Skull and Crossbones Society, and like his father before and his son after him, and would join the cheerleading squad. This curious membership intrigues me more than the Skull and Crossbones membership; the reason being that going to Yale is only a part of the family destiny, but in keeping with the family charter of succeeding, one has to be a team member. This passion for leading but also of fitting in with the team, the idea that for those that have, there is a deep-seated drive to give back is a key aspect to the Bush family ambitions. To be sure, the Bushes drive as hard as they can to succeed, but it is not just the drive to succeed that is so important, it is this component of their make-up that says they must do everything they can to help  American society that I think is the most noteworthy. Perhaps, their chosen means to helping that society may be misconstrued or under-appreciated by those with different chosen paths to helping America, but it is hard to complain about the Bush motivations.

GHWB would leave Yale to strike out on his own in a direction far different from his stock broker and senator father and father-in-law: the Texas oil industry. With some help from father Prescott, GHWB would move to Odessa TX as a sales clerk. Over the course of 18 years, GHWB would rise to President of his own off-shore oil drilling company, Zapata Offshore and would have become a millionaire by age 40. He did this quite frankly via his own initiative and drive. Meacham’s book does not reveal much more than advice and good will from his well-connected family and friends. The later criticisms of GHWB as having a silver spoon throughout his life do not really appear to be the case.

By 1964, GHWB would turn his attention to Texas politics and then shortly later to national politics. His father had been a two-term US Senator from CT, but it again appears GHWB’s interest and eventual success in politics are self-generated. It is quite possible that his father’s time as a US Senator inspired GHWB, but the direct role of the father according to Meacham seems to have been minimal. In any event, following a short stint as a local Republican Party chairman, and a failed run at US Senator, GHWB won a seat in the US House of Representatives in 1967; he would hold this seat for two terms frequently supporting States Rights issues (over civil liberties) and President Nixon on his Viet Nam policies. His time as a Representative would end when he made a second failed run at US Senator in 1968. GHWB’s political career appeared to be over. Fortunately for him, while a Representative he had made a powerful ally in the form of Richard Nixon. Nixon would start GHWB on a decades-long career as an appointed servant of the American people: Nixon’s appointee as Ambassador to the UN and Chairman of the National RNC, President Gerald Ford’s appointee as “Ambassador” to the People’s Republic of China and as CIA Director. With Ford’s defeat to Jimmy Carter in the 1976 Presidential race, GHWB’s career as an appointee also ended.

The 1980 presidential race would again change GHWB’s status: this time it would put him on the road to the White House. GHWB would fail in his attempt at the Republican Party’s nominating process for President. And despite his at times verbally-rough battle against Ronald Reagan, the eventual winner of both the nominating process and the general election, GHWB would be RR’s choice for Vice-president; albeit his second choice, behind Gerald Ford who had turned the offer down, but his choice nevertheless. It is GHWB’s time as the 43^rd US VP that I find the most enlightening about his character. He would transform from the fierce opponent of Reagan and his “Voodoo Economics” (as termed by GHWB) to his most loyal lieutenant. Despite having GHWB’s own reputation often being impugned as being nothing more than a lap dog to Reagan or of being a “wimp”, GHWB would constantly use his abilities and experience in the service of his boss, President Reagan. GHWB’s time as VP stand in such stark contrast to Dan Quayle under GHWB (1989-1993) or Dick Cheney’s years under GHWB’s son, Bush 43 (2001-2009). GHWB would stand in the background to Reagan never doing anything that smacked of “grandstanding” or independent, let alone contrary behavior to that established by his boss. Quayle for example would demonstrate on several occasions his propensity for self-aggrandizement at the expense of anyone, including his boss. Cheney would operate so independently as VP to Bush 43, that he would be accused by many to be functioning as the President, rather than VP. Not GHWB, he would be the trusted assistant, possibly compromising his own political policies, but never his principles in the service of his President.

Well maybe he would on one occasion he would compromise his principles and this is likely the low point of his otherwise morally upright career: the 1987 “arms for hostage” imbroglio under Reagan. This operation which sought to trade with Iran in an effort to free the hostages had been expressly forbidden by a US law prohibiting any negotiation with the hostage takers. A scheme was created under the influence of US Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, a member of Reagan’s National Security Council. As a Vice President chartered by his President to take a large role in issues of national security, GHWB was present at several meetings where this plan to free the hostages was discussed. There is considerable corroborating evidence to support the assertion that GHWB had knowledge of the negotiations; and yet he denies any knowledge when he states he was “not in the loop”. It is per Meacham an assertion that is “unworthy of his character”. This comment by Meacham gives the reader deep insight into the tone of the book and of the deep and abiding respect by Meacham for his book’s subject. Meacham has built his biography of GHWB around the central pillar of a principled man, and despite the Iran hostage affair’s apparent lapse by GHWB, Meacham will follow in GHWB’s footsteps and try to be as gentle and kind toward his subject’s lapse as he possibly can.

At the end of the Reagan era, GHWB will with the somewhat lukewarm endorsement of Reagan run for and win the job of US President in 1988. During his four years as President, he will manage American strategy during the dissolution of the USSR – this will be a period of extreme danger to the world as a whole. Fortunately for the world, American actions will depend on a man that thought deeply with a view to history and respect to others, often at the cost of his own treatment in the hands of the press and others not fully informed of events. Two events during this period amply illustrate this last point: the restive actions of Lithuania to throw off Moscow’s control and the brief period following Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s removal from power by an internal coup d’etat. In the first case, the USSR had embargoed Lithuania’s delivery of energy from the USSR. This was in response to rising anti-USSR demonstrations in Lithuania. To his immense credit and completely unknown to anyone outside of the halls of power in Washington and Moscow, GHWB negotiated with Gorbachev a hidden deal that would help both the USSR and its growing economic problems with a IMF loan, return the needed supply of fuel and electricity to Lithuania, and keep all of this hidden from view in order to save everyone’s sense of “face”. Similar cool-handed tactics during the Moscow putsch that removed Gorbachev by an reactionary conservative movement in the dying USSR allowed the soon to be departed USSR to gracefully and bloodlessly move onto a post-authoritarian regime. No one died, no one lost face, and no one outside of the insiders knew.

In my opinion, GHWB’s performance as Reagan’s VP in contrast to his own VP, Dan Quayle, and then again when GHWB handled the two cases shown above demonstrates that there is a place for tactful, thoughtful analysis and execution in the role of US President. Based on the absurd Republican campaign of 2016, there is very little reason to believe that the Party of Lincoln, of Theodore Roosevelt, or of Ronald Reagan still believes this to be true. I quite frankly wonder which if any of these men, let alone a “wimp” like GHWB would be nominated by their party in 2016, nominated that is based on their strategic vision, principles or experience. It is far more likely they would be elected or not based the antithetical behaviors of slander, inexperience, and from-the-hip thinking that so strongly characterizes modern campaigning.

Is there room in the early 21^st Century for politicians that like GHWB are graceful in tone; who know a lives based on respect for their fellow man and then live their life according to that type of morality; and who love their duty to family and their country more than their reputation or career. I hope so, but fear it may not be true in the age of 24 hour “news”, of Super PACs, and of a country that really seems to pray at the altar of “Me First”. The Age of the Dedicated Public Servant may well have had its last, best adherent in George Herbert Walker Bush. I did not, do not agree with all of his policies (most especially his domestic policies), but he is one of the very few politicians I greatly respect despite his political philosophies, and this is due to his stature as one of the few principled politicians of our times.

I always search out certain themes, topics, and authors when I choose a book to read. Jon Meacham heads the list of my favorite biographers. He did his best work with his Pulitzer Prize winning book on Andrew Jackson (“American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White house”, 2008), continued at a high level with his biography of Thomas Jefferson in 2012, and now this book on GHWB. Each of these books is definitely worth reading by anyone interested in a careful analysis of the people and the personalities that have shaped American history. “Destiny and Power…” is an excellent book that should be read by all, but most especially by left-leaning readers such as me. Just like George HW Bush found, it is always educational to read and better understand both sides of an argument before one forms an opinion.

Book Review: "Freedom" by Jonathan Franzen

Freedom (2010)

5 Stars out of 5

Jonathan Franzen

576 pages

Just as he did in late 2001 with “The Corrections”, Jonathan Franzen brings his superlative control of language and narrative to 2010’s “Freedom”. Just as in “The Corrections”, Franzen brings his unequalled eye to human nature and ear for dialog to this newer book. And just as he did in “The Corrections”, Franzen’s view of humankind is so critical, at times so toxic, that most readers will be wondering why they continue to read about such horrid characters as the Berglunds, people that just about anyone would rather run away from than interact with; and yet at least partly because of the artistry and themes Franzen brings to his novels, the typical reader reads on. Language, narrative flow, artful constructions, incredibly detailed characters and theme are the reasons to read Franzen. Swallow your distaste for his characters and jump in to any of his books, you won’t be disappointed.

The theme for “Freedom” is not a new one for literature, but in Franzen’s hands, its exploration is a big part of the pleasure you will receive in reading this book. The title tells you the theme but not its implications. Where does your freedom, your “personal liberty” start to imprison or at the very least infringe on someone else’s freedom? Or worse, as in the case of lead character Patty Berglund having obtained her personal liberty from husband Walter, and finding out that you still hate yourself, does one end up like Patty just that much more disappointed in the loving and kind man that granted you that freedom to be yourself, or that much more self-despising, or even that much more disappointed in the son that you have poured your adult life into when he turns away from you. These are the issues that suffuse the theme of freedom or personal liberty throughout “Freedom”. And you will find in this complex tale of interweaving lives that it is not just Patty that suffers from these questions and outcomes.

On the surface, “Freedom” is a long exploration of the Berglunds and those around them. We first meet Patty in late 20^th century St. Paul, MN. Patty is the wife of Walter Berglund a lawyer for 3M and the mother of a daughter and son. Patty is a kind of iconic suburbanite, unable to criticize anyone with a word more forceful than “weird” and who is very likely to show up at your door with a plate of cookies to welcome you to the neighborhood. Walter in a seemingly similar manner is the nice guy at work, assigned to the philanthropy section of the legal department since he is too "nice" to argue a case in court.  The reader knows if he’s read “The Corrections” that this Edenic landscape the Berglunds inhabit is destined for a change, and little surprise will occur when it does. It largely but not solely arrives in the form of Richard Katz, a rock musician of little success in music but considerable success with women. He is the college friend of mild-mannered Walter, and the secret desire of Patty. This long-standing triangle will result in some graphic sex and three broken lives.

A key to understanding Patty is revealed in Franzen’s exploration of her earlier life: she was the daughter of a successful and politically-liberal New York family where Patty was somehow considered a disappointment due to her athleticism. Indeed, Patty is no mere athletic dilettante but in fact is an All-American basketball player. This background on Patty works on multiple levels as it allows Franzen to explore the hypocrisy of those that play at liberalism even as they glorify the superficial definitions of success (Patty’s artsy sister is the family hero, while Patty is the black sheep), but it also introduces a key factor in Patty’s temperament: her un-abiding competitiveness – she must win. Thus Patty is defined as someone who has lived her life feeling unloved by her family, and is thus suffering from a diminished self-image, and is also quite paradoxically determined to win every battle she enters; and to her, everything is a contest.

In contrast to Patty is Walter, a third generation Scandinavian émigré to America. In a family characterized by unmet expectations by the previous generation in the next, Walter is descended from a string of alcoholic, angry men that hate everyone around them, most especially their sons. Just as Walter's son (Joey) will do to Walter later in the book, Walter will defy his father by being his exact opposite: a teetotaler that will bend over backwards to please everyone he meets. However, just like his father and grandfather before him, Walter will end up angry at the world for never meeting up to his expectations, and this most certainly will include his son Joey. Joey will turn to far right Republicanism (one wonders if this only out of spite) as Walter has already turned to far left environmentalism. This clash of generations allows Franzen to provide a voice for each political side of the argument during the George W Bush war years in Iraq. It is not that clear who wins the fictional argument between Walter and Joey as both are such damaged goods, but it seems pretty clear that Franzen’s political tendencies are to the left as he gives extensive voice to Walter on the subject of over-population and describes a pained sense of late-arriving conscience to Joey once Joey learns some of the truth behind how American forces were “supported” by greedy arms suppliers (including Joey).

One of the most brilliant aspects of how Franzen tells his story is how he switches voices from 3^rd person omniscient to 1^st person voices for various members of the primary story to a curious 3^rd person Patty. This latter voice is remarkable. It is ostensibly Patty writing in the 3^rd person about Patty as a form of therapy. In this treatise introduced early in the overall novel she explores her personal history in New York as a “jock” that is out of sync with her artsy family, but more tellingly describes the adult Patty’s motivations and thoughts as she considers her children, her husband and her heart’s desire, Richard. This self-examination by Patty is as acerbically written as all of Franzen’s writing and if there is a flaw in this book it is that: the voice of Patty describing Patty sounds all too Franzenian. Be that as it may, sounding Franzenian is really quite an art in itself. Patty’s insights about herself (like Franzen’s about all his characters) make this part of the book the centerpiece. And of course, Patty’s writing becomes in time more than a clever exploration of Patty, but a plot device as well.

This book is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful examinations of American values and priorities in the early 21^st century that I have yet read. It is at times vulgar, profane and highly sexualized. However, it is an example of how modern literature can investigate in a thorough manner, topics as big as the environment and can do so while it is exploring in great detail human behavior via equally big themes such as freedom. In hindsight, it is not hard to see how these two themes of the environment and freedom can overlap (one man’s freedom to pollute is another man’s crime against humanity), but it is a profound pleasure to read about these topics while enjoying the remarkable understanding of the human condition and witty misanthropic dialog that Franzen has so thoroughly mastered.

This book is well worth reading by every adult. It has many sexual situations so beware if this is an issue for you. You may well come away from the book largely disgusted by the characters that Franzen so expertly defines in this book. However, if you enjoyed “The Corrections” or if you enjoy reading a modern master of American fiction, then is book should be on your reading list.