Television Review: True Detective - Season One

True Detective

Season One

2014

Drama/Crime

3.5 stars out of 5

In 1899, Joseph Conrad published “Heart of Darkness”. This seminal book excels in language (all the more amazing when you explore Conrad’s personal history), but it exceeds almost all other books in describing a literary motif and metaphor that has become a near standard for serious writing in English language fiction: the physical and spiritual core of evil. Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 “Apocalypse Now” may be the best use of Conrad’s metaphor, but True Detective, Season One makes good use of it, too.

In the full season 1 story arc of True Detective, we are exposed to a crime, criminals and a crime scene that seem designed by program creator/writer Nic Pizzolato to evoke the basest actions humans are capable of, and to do it in the midst of the swamp-like interior of various Louisiana bayeux. The season-long arc makes typical use of the Three Act Play: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. Although in True Detective, we watch Detective gets partner, Detective loses partner, Detective gets partner back (and solves crime) – not exactly original, but entertaining.

As noted in my review below for episode one, our Detectives are superbly played by Matthew McConaughey as Rust Cohle, and in a very mediocre fashion by Woody Harrelson as Marty Hart. A woman has been killed, others are missing (and in many cases, not even reported as being missing), and our two heroes are on a quest to find the murderer or murderers. As they dig into the crime, they find evidence that the crime is only part of a series of crimes, and that there is some evidence of a cover-up and of links to people in power. When the apparent leader is finally found, he is living in conditions that are so disgusting, so revolting, it makes one question whether he is even human; he clearly thinks he has evolved upward from such a state.

To Pizzolato’s credit, he has introduced (or re-introduced, if you want to consider the Marquis de Sade amongst others) the idea that there is a kind of ethno-centricity to pain and murder. That is to say, murder with a purpose is crime to some, but an act of art/religion/what-exactly to others? The person central to the crimes in this story is living in what to outsiders seems a nightmare, but to him, is the last stair-step to his vision of Heaven. Pizzolato adds further to the complexity and the horror of the crime by suggesting as some Eastern religions also assert that time is circular. We’ve all been here before, we’ll be here again; and worse, the crimes and sufferings of the past will come to haunt us once again. These are complex thoughts for a crime drama.

The program can be watched and enjoyed by adults for the depiction and resolution of the basic crimes, or by anyone interested in the cinematic splendors of the Louisiana backwoods. But, I think this is a rare television story line with deeper undercurrents. They can be read, and perhaps over-interpreted, but it is still fun to look for deeper meaning in a story that is seemingly so prosaic.

True Detective

Season One, Episode One

2014

Drama/Crime

3.0 stars out of 5

When I first learned a Woody Harrelson/Mathew McConaughey crime drama with gothic and perhaps metaphysical elements would be coming out on HBO, I was quite enthusiastic. Working forward in time from Carnivale and Deadwood to the best written program in television history, “The Wire”, HBO has shown they can produce and air drama that is not excelled anywhere, including the silver screen. In this case though, I was disappointed. There is some good acting by McConaughey but there are problems with writing, directing and editing.

Mathew McConaughey as Detective Rust Cohle is very effective playing a severely disconnected but brilliant detective. He is initially taciturn as befits his character’s stereotype, but then starts philosophizing in so thoroughly a misanthropic manner that his partner, Martin Hart must tell him repeatedly to return to his reticence. Hart is played by Woody Harrelson. Harrelson plays Hart in a very inconsistent manner: at first he is morosely mirroring the Cohle character, then he goes upbeat and tries to be Cohle’s friend, later back down again as he tells Cohle to “stop sayin’ odd sh*t”, then up again as a family man that’s worried about Cohle.  At times you can hardly tell the two characters apart, but then depending on script requirements, the Hart character veers off in some new direction. Is this bad acting, bad directing, bad writing or all three – I’m inclined to believe all three. Just consider the simplistic way both characters are named: “Cohle” is the sad, dark character, while the family man who thinks he isn’t also another misanthrope is named “Hart”.

There are multiple technical problems with this first episode. The pacing is the most problematic issue. The pacing drags all too frequently. Camera framing was also a problem, with various angles ranging from good to incomprehensible. Initially, the editing is confusing, but as the rhythm slowly develops, it does become better. The story is told with flashbacks and to some degree this works reasonably well – in fact, it is the best part of the writing.

The basis of this first episode is that Cohle and Hart in flashback mode investigate a gruesome murder of a part-time prostitute (a pross according to True Detective). The clever part is that a similar crime occurs 17 years later, and our two former detectives (now in a completely new incarnation in the case of Cohle) are asked by contemporary detectives to not only help them understand the new crime but help them explain it in the context of the older crime – committed by someone evidently no longer free to re-commit it. Well, that is an interesting premise. And on that note, I will bide my time with respect to this series, and hope that episode 2 and later episodes will improve in quality with respect to the writing and directing.

 

Movie Review: Dallas Buyers Club

Dallas Buyers Club

2013

Drama

4.0 stars out of 5

Science and reason live in an uncomfortable balance with mainstream American thought. Americans from the Left and the Right both profess to believe in the scientific method, but in truth only do so as long as it does not disturb some cherished belief or Party line. The Right refuse the overwhelming voice from the environmental and climate scientists as regards climate change;meanwhile the Left do the same as regards GMO and drug regulation. There have been various polemics out of Hollywood before on any number of topics, some of have been excellent movies no matter how tendentious their story line (e.g. Star Wars IV-VI as examples of an anti-science POV, or Platoon as an example of anti-war POV). While with many such movies I may enjoy the acting or directing, I will often cringe as I watch the completely predictable play out before my eyes.

Dallas Buyers Club is one such movie. It has a dialog than snaps and slashes at homophobia, and acting by Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto that very justly won them Oscars. And yet the very same writers for whom I have great respect for what they did with the dialog have written a story arc and directed a broadside at the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry that cannot be justified, and from an artistic point of view is quite cliché-ridden.

The movie concerns a Good ‘Ole Boy, Ron Woodruf (McConaughey): a bull-riding, oil field womanizer homophobe living in the deepest (metaphorically) part of Texas. He learns early on in the movie that he has HIV, which later develops into AIDs. He then watches his Cracker friends abandon him and throw him to the curb. Ron initially meets an establishment doctor in Dallas who tells him he has thirty days to live. Eventually he ends up in Mexico where he finds an iconoclastic American ex-pat doctor that gets him on a path to better nutrition and as the movie protrays it, a much longer and happier life. His path to a longer life leads him into establishing a vitamin and medicine system alternative to the FDA’s approach with AZT. In order to sell his alternatives he sets up the Dallas Buyers Club with new friend Rayon (Leto).

The major story arc of his fight with the FDA is comletely predictable: they’re bad, Woodruf is good; double blind tests are bad, anectotal stories of success are good; multi-year tests are bad, one month in Mexico is good. Really? To go back to my opening thoughts, does anyone understand in Hollywood what it takes to develop and test a drug? Do they know or care about the value of double-blind tests? Does anyone in Hollywood remember Thalidomide? Who would scream the loudest if Woodruf’s Protein T had such a problem?

The acting is absolutely first rate, and in my opinion the only reason to see this movie. It is unfortuntely just one more example of the dumbing down of America. It is so much easier to believe in Miracles than the hard work that Science and Engineering require to produce a new drug that works and oh-by-the-way, does no harm. Dialog is also first rate: there are many memorable lines in the movie that I truly enjoyed (Jennifer Garner as Dr. Eve responding to Woodruf’s question to her when he thought she was a nurse: “Are you f’ing deaf?”; her reply, “I’m a f’ing doctor”.) But my favorite (and I am being cynical) is the small footnote at the end of two  hours of hearing that AZT is poison that describes AZT being part of the sucessful “cocktail” of drugs currently in use to dramatically extend the lives of those with AIDs.

The movie is worth seeing for adults, and I do recommend it; but I do so wish a belief in rationality was ascendent in America, rather than the philosophy summarized on all too many bumpers: “I believe it, that settles it”.

Book Review: Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe

 

Book Review: Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe

1987

Drama

4.0 stars out of 5

Tom Wolfe’s book from the late eighties about life in New York City in the late eighties is a very hard book to read. Not because it is poorly written – it is superbly written; but rather because it is about a time in American history and about a group of people that are painful to read about.

The book explores many themes besides the tenor, the zeitgeist of the times. To be sure, the violence and racism of the late eighties in America are a compelling topic. But Wolfe uses this theme as a framework to explore human nature across many of societies strata; an exploration with a very jaundiced point of view.

We meet Sherman McCoy as a seemingly very succesful  Wall Street bond salesman;  in his own self description, a Master of the Universe. Sherman’s vanities do not stop with his success at work, he is equally or even more vain of his Knickerbocker family history, and even of the size and nature of his chin. Sherman being a Master of the Universe needs of course the perfect mate, and since his wife Judy has started to age, Sherman takes a mistress, Maria Ruskin. Maria is of course vain about her beauty and ability to control men to get what she wants.

The story arc of the book follows Sherman and Maria on an ill-fated trip into the Bronx where they accidently run down a young African-American youth, who later dies from his injuries. A consequence of this accident, permits Wolf to introduce an English ex-patriot/alcoholic newspaperman (Peter Fallow)  to start the drum beat of public opinion to find the “hit and run” Sherman and Maria. Exhorting the local populace is the “Reverend” Bacon, while the assistant DA assigned to the case (Larry Kramer) flexes his neck muscles. Kramer simultaneously tries to convict Sherman once he’s been found and to seduce each attractive young woman he meets on the jury.

Part of the humor of the book is to view the various vanities of each character through the eyes of the other characters: Larry continously flexes his muscles and Sherman frequently juts his jaws to the bemusement of various on-lookers – meanwhile, both Larry and Sherman believe most intently that they are impressing rather entertaining their audience.

The reader could read the book with a view to the big story arc of Sherman’s fall in order to see how the climax and its resolution are treated. But I think a far better view to this book is to carefully explore with Wolfe the various characters and their vanities, and then watch how Wolfe destroys each one. To his credit, by the book’s end, I think Sherman is the only one who ever puzzles this out. And for me, this is what made reading the book worth the effort. Truly, this is a book of characters that I found myself endlessly hating, and hating for their vanties. By the book’s end though, I was forced to face my own vanities (they are multiform) and wonder how I would have functioned had I been one of the characters in the book. In fact, this book like many great books is a useful tool for self-exploration.

Note to the Reader: I had read this book in an effort to start a pet project that compares good books to the bad movies made from them. The DePalma movie Bonfire of the Vanities incomprehensively starring Tom Hanks as Sherman and Bruce Willis as Peter Fallow (not to mention several other very odd casting choices)has been widely panned. I thought then to compare the two in a later review. But having read this book, I may re-aim myself to compare bad books made into good movies. Two of my favorites being “Bridges Of Madison County” and “A River Runs Through It”: two pretty mediocre books made by Eastwood and Redford into profoundly good movies.

House of Cards, Season Two

House of Cards

Season two

2014

Drama

4.5 stars out of 5

The second season of “House of Cards” continues the story of former congressman/now vice-president Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) and his wife Claire (Robin Wright), and of their no holds barred drive to the top of Washington DC. It is marvelously written, directed, and acted. One of the best TV shows I have ever seen, nearly as well-done as “Breaking Bad” or “The Wire”.

Like Walter White in “Breaking Bad” the story explores just how far a writer can go in terms of creating an anti-hero without losing the interest and sympathy of the viewer. Frank is a non-stop lying, scheming, back-stabbing Vice President in Season Two, episode One. One continually wonders why anyone would trust him or believe him on any topic whatsoever. At yet, he practices his southern charm also on a non-stop basis, and he is able to use this ability plus his cunning to disassemble one administration while covertly building the basis for a successive one.

One very clever aspect of season two is the juxtaposition of Frank with an equally Machiavellian character, billionaire Raymond Tusk (Gerald McRaney). Both men are vying for the attention of and influence over President Garret Walker (Michael Gill). It is the season long story arc as Raymond and Frank contend over the President. Again, it is amazing how this story can maintain interest and concern over Frank and Clair despite their complete lack of morality. It is equally amazing in a problematic sense that President Walker and wife, Trisha (Joanna Going) are so easily influenced by Raymond, Frank and Claire – how on Earth did Walker ever achieve the White House?

There are other plot problems that are all too common to fiction: the convenient overhearing of confidential information, the open shades as two people secretly make love, etc. But really the biggest problem is also paradoxically the show’s most dominant theme: Frank Underwood’s complete and total amorality. He will literally do anything (e.g. Peter Russo’s exit in Season One) to achieve his ends. He will build up and then throw under the bus absolutely anyone to achieve his ends. Are there really people like that running our government? The cynic in me says, yes; but the idealist and movie critic says, it is a little over the top – there appears no law at all that Frank won’t break; I struggle with this a little.

So, where does this all end up? Is this merely a witty and clever story about the world’s worst people climbing to the top of the US government? Is it a Jonathan Swift style parable of how counter-intuitively, the bad do some times win? Or is it a thinly veiled attack on a certain southern former president and his now ascendant wife? I think the story can be viewed and watched, and enjoyed for all of these interpretations; and in my opinion, despite the various plot holes and occasionally pointless and gratuitous sex scenes, most adults will enjoy Season Two even more than Season One.

I’m sitting here wondering where they’ll go in the recently optioned Season three: Frank’s descent into the lowest levels of Dante’s Inferno? As my wife, Sandy commented, Frank has few new directions left to explore.

The Presence

The Presence

2010

Horror

2.5 stars out of 5

So many stories about life after death, about good vs. evil, it’s a question that has troubled Man for a long time. Hollywood has taken a crack at it time and time again, too. There are some good ideas out there that are truly entertaining (Defending Your Life), but I’m sorry to say The Presence isn’t one of them.

Writer and director Tom Provost gets some points for cinematography and the courage to go twenty or so minutes into the movie without a single word of dialog.  We watch a nameless woman played by Mira Sorvino enter a log cabin that we later learn goes back to her childhold. We are introduced to a man (Shane West) within the cabin prior to her arrival wherein we quickly learn some interesting restrictions and freedoms placed on this man. Mira’s boyfriend (Justin Kirk) arrives shortly thereafter, and then the “fun” begins.

We have an opportunity to see the afterlife from another perspective, and of the eternal war between good and bad also from this new perspective. I think the idea is somewhat clever, and I am not sorry I spent the time watching this movie; but it is truly a mediocre movie. The acting is really at a low level, there’s no character development, nor really any real characters that you could describe that have more than two dimensions. They lay the groundwork with hints of child and wife abuse, but don’t explore it at all.

The idea is slightly novel and I enjoyed the scenary (kept wondering if that was Mt Hood in the background of the “lake”), but this movie was ultimtately disappointing.

Frozen

 

Frozen

2013

Animation

4 stars out of 5

Frozen continues in many ways traditions started in the early years by Walt Disney and his first feature length animated films: fairy tale, orphans, princes and princesses. This can be both bad and good. Overall, the effect in Frozen is good. Justifiably nominated for Oscars in Best Song and Best Animated Feature, Frozen is a movie loosely based on the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale The Snow Queen and is definitely worth seeing by children and adults.

I watched this movie twice (with my granddaughters) and having done so, substantially improved my opinion of it. Initially, I was put off by the Disney tradition of parental death and of girls seeing the future solely in terms of some man carrying them off into the sunset. Yes, it ends differently and it does feature sibling love and devotion, but these aspects seemed to me to get lost in yet another variation of the story lines that run endlessly on the Disney Channel programs aimed at young teenage girls. I also enjoyed both times the comedic angles introduced by Olaf the snowman (Josh Gad).

The second time around I was better able to enjoy the music by Idina Menzel as Elsa in the role of the senior sister; most especially as she sings the Oscar nominated song, “Let it go.” Having seen her before in a non-singing role in Enchanted and hearing her very strong voice in this song, I keep wondering why she isn’t a wildly successful pop singer. She really nails this song and others in the movie. Kristen Bell as the junior sister Anna does a fine job in her singing and acting, but Idina is a hard singing act to follow.

The second time always allows one to better see and observe nuances in the story telling. In this case, you can really see that somewhere in time an artist was inspired by a snowflake and the beauty within. Maybe that artist decided to write a movie around all the visual imaginings that one could possible think of on the various solid forms of water. Frozen imagines and executes these wonderful works of art with exceptional skill.

Finally, I had with the second viewing an opportunity to ignore the frothy sub-story of Anna and her beau, Prince Hans (Santino Fontana) and to focus much more on the sibling love and affection aspect of the story. Rather than the Anna/Hans story being predominant, it was much easier to see the Elsa/Anna story line as being the true story arc. Somehow this was lost in the first viewing, and seeing it a second time made my enjoyment of the movie far greater.

While I think Frozen lacks the emotional punch of the first Cars or the first two Toy Story movies, or maybe even the high quality of the songs in The Little Mermaid, Frozen does a great job of carrying on the Disney traditions and is a really fine movie to see with your grandchildren.

American Hustle

American Hustle

2013

Drama/Comedy

4.5 stars out of 5

David O. Russell’s “America Hustle” tells an oddly varied story of the Abscam corruption case from the late 1970’s/early 1980’s wherein six US Representatives and one US Senator were convicted of corruption. The story focuses on a fictionalized version of the con-man at the center of the FBI sting (Melvin Weinberg), a fictionalized FBI agent, and two (hopefully) fictionalized women in the con-man’s life.

The con-man, Irving Rosenfeld is played by Christian Bale as an overweight, comb-over loser/anti-hero. Bale walks a tightrope as he shows us Irving succeeding at his various cons but in complete thrall to his Jersey Shore-esque wife Rosalyn played by Jennifer Lawrence. Since it seems that everything that Lawrence does these days, she does at a performance level so far above almost all of her peers, it is no surprise to watch her as she portrays a beautiful but empty-header schemer with complete believability. Irving is smart enough to run or sense a scam on every occasion, while Rosalyn has so fooled herself that she is the smartest person in the room, she inevitably misunderstands almost every scene she is in – sometimes to comic effect, sometimes to disastrous effect.

In stark contrast, the other woman in Irving’s life is Sydney Prosser played exceptionally well (revealingly so) by Amy Adams. This ex-stripper from Albuquerque meets Irving at a pool party and its love/crime at first sight. Sydney via her oddly chosen alternate persona of Lady Edith joins Irving in his scams and ups the ante considerably in their defiance of the law. Eventually, they are trapped by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) who forces them into helping him with the Abscam sting mentioned above.

The story arc is highly entertaining and waxes and wanes between comedy and drama; it even includes a chilling portrayal of an uncredited cameo by Robert DeNiro as a Florida mobster. But in truth, this is a story of excess during a time of excess in America perpetrated by people lacking in any excesses (wealth, taste, vision) of their own. The quartet of Irving, Rosalyn, Sydney and Richie consist of people that really aren’t fooling anyone, even themselves; they are just faking it. They each are yearning for something more from life (though Rosalyn is too dense to even know what it might be), and each is willing to break any norm, any law to get it.

As I watched the movie I was reminded on several occasions of George Roy Hill’s “The Sting” (1973) starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford. In that movie as in “American Hustle” you have lovable anti-heroes trying to scam some truly awful people (whom in Hollywood, I guess it is morally okay to scam), and you know as you watch, there will be a double-scam wherein our heroes get away with it. Oh so Hollywood. But also like The Sting, American Hustle is an outstanding movie well worth watching for the adult level humor; but most especially for Bale, Adams’, and Lawrence’s acting, and for the inevitable coda at the end of the story arc. You want these heroes to get what they want, and well…they do.

This is definitely a movie only for adults. There is an enormous of profanity and some (let’s say) suggestive clothing.