http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:40:15 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/22/234015.php Jerry RitceyWeary of the usual bookstore fare? There's a book out there to tell you a story you have not heard before, which no reader of John Grisham can say. It's nice to read a first novel that makes you wait impatiently for the author's next work. The Bone Weaver by Victoria Zackheim starts off with neurotic Mimi, an academic mourning the death of her best friend - nearly her only friend. She chafes at what she sees as the insensitivities of her mother Rivka, who barely registers a ripple at the loss her daughter is feeling. Mimi can hardly seem to breathe she so misses the advice that Sarah, the lost friend and sounding board, gave her. Interspersed with Mimi's life almost totally alone in LA are the stories of Rivka's clan. Rivka's grandmother and family live in a community of Jews forced out of the mainstream of society near Warsaw. The pogroms just beyond the horizon fill one with a sense of dread, given what the coming 20th century will end up doing to the Jews in Poland. But the shtetl village is a living organism. There is a stark contrast between the Mimi chapters, where she lives a solitary life in modern LA, pushing away one living friend she has, berated by the deceased Sarah in her mind. She thinks of her mother Rivka trying to pry out the tale of her life understand her own. It was this very silence that was pushing Mimi forward, urging her to uncover and comprehend all those things that her mother refused to tell. Four generations of women, she thought, and I am the last. Malka, Fredl, Rivka, and me. And not the last to date, but the last ever. An only child, a woman with no children; the end of the line. Malka, Fredl, Rivka, Mimi. Period. If only she could understand why it ended here.Malka, the great-grandmother to Mimi, dwells in Nowy Zycie, near Warsaw. The clan makes the best of life they can, with hints around the edges of the dangers that gradually close in around them. A book-loving daughter, Fredl, is not pleased to learn she is to be given away in an arranged marriage, but a twist takes the story to places not expected. At times it felt as if the story from Nowy Zycie was utterly alien to Mimi's modern isolation. But the severely limited choices faced by the elder generations, where they made the best life they could, makes all the more strange Mimi's inability to decide on a course, given her freedoms. Zackheim manages to capture living inside of not just grief, but shock; Mimi wonders if she has lived half a life, with Sarah living the rest for her. Delving into the past seems to give her something to hold onto. In Nowy Zycie, Zackheim describes the lives of the clan engagingly, from the great-grandfather extending too much credit to his beleaguered neighbours to Malka worrying over hot embers at night. They plan, they live, they struggle mightily to make their children's lives happy. The tale becomes so entrancing that the flashes back to modern day LA at times are unwelcome, unless considered as a single thread of life leading to Mimi. As this builds, it gives added gravity to Mimi's drift, contemplating all the sorrow of her ancestors that have built a wall around her mother. Rivka emerges in the story and her distance from everyone - her husband included - becomes more understandable against the violent anti-Semitic Russia where she lived. Does Mimi echo Fredl, her grandmother who was lost in grief of her own? It is hard to explain how one woman's grief could be at all assuaged by the sometimes horrific fates of her female predecessors. Do their dreams and vitality go beyond death, just in memory, and help Mimi move beyond her own losses? Easy answers are not forthcoming - grief is not shown as easy or a puzzle to solve, which is refreshing. The most distant part of the book for the present-day reader is life in a shtetl community of oppressed Jews in premodern Europe. Victoria Zackheim focuses on the intricacies of their lives, and the basic economics that help. She effectively describes a world almost forgotten, almost erased. Each ordinary thing does not have the feel of a forced history lesson, but gives unique voices a chance to speak, and of course occasionally complain. The flashbacks have an intensity predicated on simple feelings, and events like dinner on the Sabbath with a guest sit you at the table awaiting fate. The emotional toll is grave enough that the actual violence itself is mostly offstage, and nothing compared with the havoc wreaked in the characters you watch grow with the trepidation of a Jewish mom. Tears are to be found here, to be sure. The story has two timelines, from modern LA to Nowy Zycie. At first I found the jumps between the timelines jarring, but this may be part of the intent. It comes together not in a showy method of revealing secrets, but a complex emotional history. After finishing, it becomes an inescapable thought that the story could only have been told in this manner. The style does not attempt to show off, but the prose builds a set of lives to study that seem unlike anything that was invented, but flawed, fascinating characters. Zackheim writes - very well, I might add - in a way about grief that reflects it directly, being a confused and unfocused, unforgiving state of mind. Mostly from Mimi's perspective, you are in a place from which you want to escape at times, but cannot find a path. The tale of the prior generations is so full of life it nearly eclipses the horrors they suffer. Finding strength beyond sorrow is a tricky game, and in her first novel she plays it in top form. Nowy Zycie will echo long after you have heard it's tale, and it's conclusion. Books20155@blogcritics.org Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:40:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/18/233425.php Jerry RitceyThe new documentary Outfoxed, directed by Robert Greenwald was shown in many (perhaps 20-30,000 screening parties across the US today. It's probably a revelation to no one that Fox News is partisan. Thus I went in to view this movie thinking perhaps not much would be revealed. What was more disturbing was the way that the producers and higher ups at Fox decide in advance of any actual newsgathering both what the story will be and what to emphasize in the story. In fact, it's difficult to say anything displayed in the movie on Fox could be called journalism. Instead, it seems to be a kind of impersonation of journalism. The recitation of talking points is amusingly portrayed on the Murdoch-owned network, as the hosts of shows repeat the same phrases over and over as though they were facts. The seamless blend between what seems to be reportage and what is undeniably commentary certainly leaves an unpleasant taste, for those who would like something resembling journalistic integrity in the professional news. Bill O'Reilly comes in for a brutal treatment, but he can find no one to blame. In fact the impression of him grows worse and worse each time he appears in the film. From browbeating a 9/11 son's survivor on his talk show, to peddling blatantly untrue stories about what that son said on his abbreviated appearance, the appeal of O'Reilly's show is lost on me, politics aside. To put it simply, he doesn't seem to be saying anything of interest, and the repeated recitation of talking points indicates either how little he thinks of the intellectual strengths of his viewers, or his own limited thought process. As a news-gathering organization, Fox generally comes across as foolish at best, and the doublethink behind their "Fair and Balanced" slogan is mind-numbingly insincere. However, the fact that other networks try to "outfox" Fox by overbooking Conservative guests versus liberal ones in pursuit of profit does not help their reputation much either. I guess I can understand someone wanting to watch Fox to have their own views confirmed repeatedly, though I have a difficult time imagining wanting to actually get news from it. As a film, "Outfoxed" tends to drag in parts. It largely relies on talking heads, clips from Fox, and graphics. There are several laughs in the film, mostly at the expense of the hapless anchors who play off of a game plan we the viewer are aware they had little hand in forming themselves. Not as sweeping as Michael Moore's recent political documentary, it does achieve a certain strength from focusing on one subject. The consolidation of media in the hands of a few corporations, not to mention what can only be described as a loose handle on principles in the TV cable media should be worrisome even to those who subscribe to the same basic notions as Fox News. I have read some claiming other networks are "as biased" as Fox, but I'm not sure that addresses the central point in the film, that Fox seems to resemble what you and I might imagine a real news org to be in name only. Whether this awareness will trickle down to people who rely principally on cable news for their view on the world remains to be seen.In viewing 'house parties' across the US tonight, coordinating with MoveOn.org, the left-leaning political action group, many people mass-scheduled and followed up on with a webcast where viewers could ask question of the director and other appearing in the film. I noted several large enclaves of viewers in places other than the usual Democratic strongholds, such as Texas and Florida. Participants and viewers of the webcast were encouraged to sign petitions and volunteer time to organizations that support the message of the film. In some ways, the net lets a new kind of mass media exist, where the net is a nation-wide water-cooler. Al Franken also took part and filled in some more detail on the treatment of one 9/11 survivor's son by Bill O'Reilly. So it's fair to say it is in many ways a partisan film, though it hardly seems to matter considering that a media organization that delivers news is doing a disservice to write the news before it occurs. Video17583@blogcritics.org Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:34:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/30/111854.php Jerry RitceyI just saw Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and found it an arresting, if uneven effort. The crowds for the film were remarkable -it was sold out (this on a Saturday afternoon, for a movie with no orcs, light-sabers, or even Jesus). There may be some spoilers in this post, so stop reading if you want to see it with "fresh" eyes. I've lead a lot of vitriol in the press and the web concerning this movie, usually focusing on Mr. Moore's weight and that "fact" that he's crazy. It's certainly a very biased movie in the sense that Mr. Moore has a particular point of view he wishes to espouse. But I've never thought that documentary filmmakers have to exist in some politically neutral ground - for one thing I wouldn't buy it. I bet even those filming tree frogs in Brazil have ideas on free trade, abortion, and taxes. But on to the movie. If you hate Moore - well he is in the movie on screen much less than in Roger & Me. But he is the narrator, so if you suffer seizures like Kramer from Seinfeld when his voice is heard, better skip this one.It begins with a montage of the 2000 election, which at the time I thought was surreal enough, but Moore casts as a kind of bad dream that he wonders if it actually happened. Less effective is the parade of Democratic Congressmen and women attempting to have the join session of Congress not certify the election. Mr. Gore at that point knew the legal fight was over, and was not interested in pursuing a supra-legal override. The film moves on to show Bush taking numerous vacations in Maine and Texas during the first year of his presidency. The most alarming parts, given what happened, that involve memos and warnings of terrorist plots are a bit unfair in that they don't depict more than some sound bites and shots of vacation fun as the response, without getting into a great deal of detail. 9/11 itself is treated respectfully - Moore does not actually show the planes hitting the tower. The shots of reactions of people in NYC bring back some chilling memories.The story of Bush's rather unsuccessful business career is told, as is the association of Bush's family with members of the Saudi royal family, and indirectly - usually through the Carlyle Group - with the Bin Laden clan. It's probably on these points that most of those lambasting Moore as a tinfoil hatter are hanging their arguments. I thought the association with Bin Laden's family not so worrisome as how deeply involved the Saudis in general are with prominent and powerful US politicos. Honestly my readings of "reviews" by some web site made me think that in the film that claims would be made by Moore of Bush knowing what would happen when in fact he makes exactly the opposite claim, that the administration was not sufficiently worried by the chances of terrorist attacks. I know some nut bars out there claim all sorts of vile garbage about Bush, but such claims are not present in this film. Moore implies that Bush is rather too easy on the Saudis considering that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and Bin Laden himself is from one of it's richest families.One key point I've read here and there is that Moore incorrectly asserts that the US let some Saudi nationals, including some of the Bin Laden clan, fly out of the US while most commercial traffic was grounded after 9/11. However, Moore specifically narrates that they were let out after September 13th, and seems mostly concerned, via an interview with an ex-FBI terror export, that many of them were not interviewed extensively enough given the magnitude of the attack. Yes, I know Richard Clarke was the official who ordered the evacuation. But I have to doubt the sanity of anyone who thinks the administration was unaware or did not approve of this action. IF they were unaware, that's actually a worse indictment than approval, don't you think?The second half of the film drags on a little, although it has many jarring sequences of bombings in Iraq both during the invasion and after the carrier landing and the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Moore's use of footage showing happy Iraqi kids playing and flying kites may be his most off-key moment in the movie. He doesn't so much gloss over Saddam's atrocities as not go into them at all, though it's fair to say they have been covered extensively in other media reports, and here he is addressing other issues. Though I never met Moore, I'd probably most want to rip into him for this sequence. After this scene, one in particular of a grieving Iraqi woman is so raw it lets you know that we are definitely not in a light to heavy mockery of "the man" as in "Roger & Me", which as a film, definitely has more laughs. A sequence of Marine recruiters outside a Flint, Michigan mall hunting down potential recruits is probably the finniest scene in the film. They hunt them down like the salesmen in "Glengarry Glenn Ross" pick leads.The use of one mom of a soldier provides what has to be the emotional core of the film, though it's not all in one sequence. One in particular of her breaking down outside the White House is almost unbearable in it's anguish. That the administration has not given deep thought to who it's attacking and why, is one of Moore's keynotes, and he makes a fairly convincing case in the context of the film. His known antiwar stances outside this film weaken this point somewhat.Least effective is when Moore attempts to tie together too much near the end of the film, somehow trying to link increased defense spending with poverty, and the problems of the impoverished leading them to adopt a higher rate of military service as the only jobs available. He's better when pointing out the specific administration foibles, not trying to slap-dash his own socialist mantra onto what is happening.The most disturbing part of the film for many, myself included, was the portion showing Bush's reacting to the second plane hitting by sitting and reading "My Pet Goat" with schoolchildren for an inexplicable seven minutes. Moore's attempts to guess at what he is thinking are not so convincing - in fact, they are perhaps the second-weakest note in the film. The impression that Bush was waiting for someone to tell him what to do is a worrisome conclusion that's hard to dismiss.Given Moore's reported factual problems with "Bowling for Columbine", which I have not seen, I am interested in any factual inaccuracies in this film as well. On first viewing, the main problems seem to ones of interpretation and inference, not so much any facts that I noted as being wrong. But overall, it's so rare to see a movie exploring American politics with such naked opinions, compared with the dull, washed up TV news coverage, that it's just not possible to ignore this movie as a major political film of our time. Video16963@blogcritics.org Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:18:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/30/111113.php Jerry RitceyI come not to bury Six Feet, but to praise it. There's no denying that Six Feet under was a bit sickly, if not yet on it's deathbed, last season. The brilliant actress Lilly Taylor played Nate's wife with such force, and was so irritating, that it was genuinely difficult to watch each scene she was in. Rachel Griffiths' Brenda was making a slow...very, very slow, recovery from sex addiction, all part of Alan Ball's belief system that no joy should go without some pain thrown on top of it. In what must have the the most coma-inducing plotline last season, Ruth - usually make sparkling by Frances Conroy - was wooed by Babe the pig's dad. I would almost have rather watched "The Simple Life 2" than their romance, and let me add I'd rather have my eye sliced open with a straight razor than have to look at any image, transmitted, painted, or otherwise interpreted of Paris Hilton again. Someone needs to remake Freddy Rodriguez's character Rico, his subplots have needed embalming, as they are so tired to nearly be deceased. But on to the Fischer family kids, the heart of the show. Lauren Ambrose's Claire, full of laid-back intensity, put to utter waste with her plots. She joins an art school, and instead of the usual problems high-schoolers taking art to a new level run into, her main problem is how to express her art. Not say, learning her craft, learning what art has been done before to avoid the common problem of repeating things that have already been done. No, she apparently needs no schooling at all, she just needs to express herself. Mr. Ball evidently believes the great artists do not need to study anything of art history, they just absorb it, possibly at house parties, which is almost the only thing Claire attends anymore. There is so much talent in Miss Ambrose that it truly saddens me that the storyline that back her is so out of touch with reality, when the Claire's acute awareness is the core of her character.David C. Hall is always sympathetic in a role that in lesser hands could have been too preening, and definitely too annoying, and he constantly amazes me with his acting choices. There's no escaping the fact the drama he is saddled with, meaning his tumultuous relationship with Keith, seems to be missing something. Namely, a good reason why we should care so much about this relationship. Now, it must be said Mr. Ball has a less horrific case of this condition, which I call the "why care about me" disease of screenwriting. The writer, in putting himself in the script, leaves out the reasons you should care about the character because he just assumes you care about him. Mr. Ball in this case fails to get us involved in caring about the relationship between the two characters, although it must be said we're fascinated by the characters themselves, no small thanks to the great actors in this case. It's a much less bad problem than what infects anything that Mike Binder has written, where he not only forgets to make us care about his character (played by him in most shows and movies), but actually doesn't realize most of us actually loathe him.Peter Krause playing Nate was a revelation in the first season. Few actors could stand up against an actress like Rachel G. and hold their own, but Nate did it. However last season, be it the bad-wife plotline, or his overall lack of reasons we should not think he's a prick, he seemed to be adrift. Maybe the way this guy has been drifting away is part of a larger plot, but honestly, when he isn't playing off against Brenda, it's hard to see why we're watching Nate anymore. He's like Kirk without a Spock.This season, so far they seem to be trying to bring Nate out of the doldrums, leaving Ruth married to Mr. Babe, but otherwise so far not a lot has changed. There's still hope though, although since Six Feet Under is the only reason we have HBO right now it's a pricey little drama. The brutal burial of his wife gave Nate a new kind of fire this season, and perhaps this will mean better dynamics for the rest of the cast as well. It may be safe to say it's going to live a while longer, but hopefully on a new course. Video16960@blogcritics.org Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:11:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/30/184331.php Jerry RitceyMost Appalling of 2003After getting an idea from Eric Olsen, I was thinking... There are many choices for most appalling person, place or event of 2003. Coming in at the wire, there?s the warning from FBI to beware of people bearing almanacs. This has to be one of the most pointless warnings in the history of warnings. Next they'll be issuing warnings about people wearing glasses, which could be used to read almanacs which could be used to plan terrorism. I shudder to think of the tree-frog-like brain in the middle manager at the FBI who thought this was a good warning. I would submit the colour coordinated threat levels as the worst event, but it wasn't event this year.Then there's the Valerie Plame affair. Bob Novak reported on her being a CIA agent - oops but that's against the rules! Especially when the administration person(s) who leaked it to Novak was shopping the story around, hoping to throw dirt on her husband, who was opposed to Bush's Iraq policies. Yesterday's act of treason is today's political reality, I suppose. Bill O'Reilly's idiocy was highlighted when Fox News tried to sue Al Franken over his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them". Bill is all for free speech for he, not for thee...His overwhelming hypocrisy is all the more funny when you realize that's what the book is about. Well, he did help boost sales, so I'm sure Al thanks him...I know you think the movie 'Gigli' was bad, but I think you have to give the worst film crown to 'From Justin to Kelley' the film with two hopefully-with-short-lived careers from 'American Idol'. A nod to many people I met who thought "The Real Cancun' demonstrated just what doesn't work on films despite working on TV.Michael Jackson....nah, too easy.The murder of Zahra Kazemi in Iran, where she was working more or less as a journalist, and the lack of Iranian investigation was particularly galling. She was beaten, taken into custody, died, and was swiftly buried. When someone talks to me of emerging democracy in Iran, I wonder what Zahra's opinion on the matter would be.Humanitarian concerns were not the primary motivation Bush used to get support for the war in Iraq. In fact some of his reasons seemed to have turned out to be based on very little in the way of facts. I supported the war because I thought a dictator needed to be taken out of there, but that's not the reason Bush gave. Why is this a problem? I'm thinking of the other muderous thugs out there that need to be gotten rid of. Ultimately I can't find the Bush administrations actions to be appalling in this instance, so this is not going to win the award. I'm not sure there's support in the administration for democracy, especially their recent critique of the fledgling democracy in Tawain, at the behest of China. Just checking guys, but we're FOR democracy, right? That one gets them a nod for an appalling sentiment.Speaking of lesser thugs, Robert Mugabe and his visit to France, warmly greeted by Chirac was pretty appalling. Not just because Mugabe has gone from a defender of freedoms to an oppressor, but that the leader of a democracy coddled him. Can't forget France not doing much to stand by the US, who at last count, have saved them two to three times this past century. Give the nod to Chirac here for keeping vipers close to his breast - we all know how well those types of things pan out.But the winner will be something beyond merely appalling and truly horrifying, if not all that surprising. Lifted from LGF, this site on mass graves in Iraq shows something so horrible it can't help but be the worst event of the year. Even though many of the murders occurred over his long reign, Saddam's victims should not be forgotten. Politics11343@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:43:31 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/28/163552.php Jerry RitceyAnne Garrels account of her stint reporting for NPR during the buildup to the to 2003 Iraq War puts you right in the hotels filled with spies and paranoia. As a westerner in this land, she was dependent on her minders not being slavish devotees of Saddam Hussein. One minder actually had two heroes - Saddam and Slobodan Milosevic. However she was able to find one who helped her get a bit more of the truth in Iraq than the Bathists would have liked.As an NPR reporter Anne ended up below the radar of some of Saddam's officialdom, who regularly extorted bribes in the forms of fees from higher profile TV reporters. She even offers insight into the bitter sniping between reporters who had to renew work visas every ten days or be evicted from Iraq, thus losing their chance to report anything. Anne's writing is clear and concise, and she avoids going into cliches, though you can't help but be moved by the fear she saw in the eyes of the ordinary Iraqi. She was able to read between the lines to tell what some thought of the former regime when speaking openly against it would have certainly meant death. She also notes Iraqis who criticized America before the war, putting in her own asides wondering why they don't seem to be given pause by the mass slaughter Saddam had inflicted on the people for thirty years. Noted throughout the text are the underlying tensions in Iraq, though with Saddam they were brutally repressed. Sadly these views seem to have been borne out by the violence and chaos after the fall of Saddam, when as many of her interview subjects predicted, the coalition forces were ill-prepared to control Iraq.Given the limits placed on her and the constant surveillance, it's an amazing testament to her reporting abilities and to the efforts of her key "minder," Amer, that they managed to get as many stories and to as much of the truth as they did. Her experience in war torn areas in Russian republics and Afghanistan help give insights to this book, making it more than just a reporter's diary. Weaker points include some missives from her husband about what Anne's safety and state of mind are - from his vantage in the US albeit with personal contact with her via satellite phone and email. Although I think it points to how compelling Anne's writing is, and how eager one is to return to it. She does not focus on militaristic aspects, but brings in human elements to the story. For those attempting to gather a deeper understanding of a war far away that may have repercussions of years to come, this is an excellent start. Books11277@blogcritics.org Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:35:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/11/000322.php Jerry RitceyAs Heather notes, ER has fallen on some bad times. Aside from a drop in ratings, it's now resorting to dropping anvils - or in this case helicopters - upon characters. The one in question, Romano, a surgeon with a nasty attitude that I always found refreshing, lost his arm to a helicopter. I wonder if the writers lost one at the same time, because the quality of the writing has descended by about half. At any rate, they pound home the idea that Romano now fear helicopters, and runs from an encounter near one - only to have one drop on his head. Pretty ironic, eh? Bet you didn't see that one coming. Aside from treating a long time regular so shabbily by barely noting his death, except as a kind of obvious joke, they haven't been doing much with this drama set in an urban ER. That's right folks, ER is set in Chicago. Though with one, two, and now three episodes set in Africa, I'm beginning to wonder. Not that there's anything wrong with a drama set in Africa, that would be kind of refreshing. It's just seeing some Chicago doctors visit Africa and bathe in the light of their self-illumination is not very good drama. I guess the point is to show us coddled viewers that war-torn parts of Africa have horrible health care. It's a big switch to go from showing people fleeing from soldiers intent on murdering them en masse to trying to get the audience to care about a kleptomaniac kid stealing accidentally lopped off fingers. I think perhaps we can use as a guide to the episodic quality the number of body parts being lopped off in an episode, with bonus negative points if the body part ironically figures in the storyline. I have to do something to entertain myself during this show. The writers are no longer on call. Video10862@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:03:22 EST