There is one, abbreviated trading day left in 2012, and the question of the moment is what will happen tomorrow with the financial markets. The negotiations with the fiscal cliff have not gone well, so there is doubt now both for the immediate term (what will happen in the remainder of the lame duck session, which ends January 3) and for the short term (the two weeks or so following)--particularly, if there is no substantial agreement and the tax bite happens with initial 2013 paychecks to Americans. There will be a virulent public reaction if that happens, and the deal will get done.
Most of what I have to say about the fiscal cliff, what I think will happen, and what will happen, I have already said (or at least typed). The one new element, and it was a strong ingredient leading to the current form of stalemate, was a realization by the Republicans that letting the end of the year occur without agreement would allow them to achieve the necessary result of allowing wealthy individuals' taxes to rise without having to vote for it. This translated into a broad unwillingness for Republican Congressmen to back Speaker Boehner's disingenuous attempt at a show of strength (the so-called Plan B, raising taxes for just the wealthiest). The lame duck Congress could still get a shot at voting to reduce tax rates for the many without having to vote for an increase for anyone; it might not satisfy Grover Norquist, but would be eminently defensible before their party's voters. On the other hand, if there are no tough votes to be made, they could just as easily be made in the next Congress.
Anyway, we go into the last trading day of 2012 without an agreement (it's highly unlikely, but not impossible, that one could be sprung before 2 p.m. Eastern tomorrow). The markets have stopped believing so much in the eventual deal and started trading more on the absence of any current one; as a result the Dow Jones Index has dropped six of the last seven trading days--but so far, only about 3% since the 19th, to about 12,938.
The Markets on The Market
On intrade.com, struggling along though impeded by the website's decision to enforce more limitations on American participants (their positions have been closed out in recent days, though there are supposed to be new markets available to them), there are markets for the Dow ending at various levels: the key ones are over 13000, 12750, and 12500 (the odds outside that range are pretty much 100% or 0%, with the exception of the bet of a rebound over 13250, which has been purchased at a 5% chance by some contrarian). The 13000 bet has been a big loser for bullish bettors, dropping from 80% or so two weeks ago (well up from the 50-60% it ran for much of the year) to 20% by end of week, and now trading at about 10%. Of course, 13,000 would need only a slight increase (less than 0.5%) from the current level.
So, the consensus is for a drop, I'd say, but how big? The fact that there's only half a day of trading is not much of a limitation on the trading range, as the Dow could easily drop hundreds of points in minutes, or even at the very start of the day's trading. It just means there is less time in the trading day for some news, which would probably be positive, to affect trading. So, how much is the failure to agree priced in to current valuations? A drop to 12,750, about 1.5%, is a moderately-large one day change: the last trading is at 73.1% (as of 10:20 Central), but there is a huge gap between the bid value (in the 70's) and the asked value (97% or so), so this market has a very volatile future tomorrow, as those who may hold positions will seek to end them. A similar story holds for the market on the Dow finishing over 12,500--that would require a drop of some 3.5%, or as much as the total retreat of the last two weeks, but a bit of end-day panic could easily achieve it. The current quote on that one is at 99.7%, but that is misleading because the prior trades were in the low 90's. The highest bids are mid-90, and there are a lot more shares available at 99.7%--the seller has clearly cornered that market and is trying to take profits without risking a nervous Dec. 31.
Maybe more interesting than the short-term stock markets is what the bond markets think of the current madhouse. One piece of gossip I can offer is that Mohammed El-Erian, top dog at PIMCO, was taking a flight out of D.C. to L.A. yesterday--I saw him at Dulles Airport as I was waiting to catch a different flight. This would suggest no panic or news is expected, though of course time and distance mean less in today's society. If the bond market begins to lose confidence in the U.S., though, it will be a bigger threat to the economy than bad consumer confidence or a drop in the stock markets. That will not happen until mid-January, at the earliest, so there is still some time to avoid calamity.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Will It Be Different This Time?
I don't like repeating myself (he repeated), so I've kept mum so far about the Newtown, CT massacre in the elementary school and the gun issues. Please see my post called "The Usual",after the massacre in Aurora, CO, in which I predicted several aspects of the current controversy--not that it required a crystal ball or anything.
There are a couple of things that are different this time--the crime so senseless, horrendous and inhuman, the election so over, the utter insanity of taking out one's frustrations on first graders. I will say this: President Obama did have the courage to speak out--forcefully--this time, and damn the consequences. The NRA had to think it over, let the heat of the moment die a little, before they made "their contribution" to the debate. And the best they could think of was to put armed guards in every school? That is the epitome of throwing up one's hands and giving in to madness.
Apart from "the usual" suggestions, which are more obvious than usual in this case--no semi-automatic weapons or assault guns, close the gun show loophole and prosecute the online gun dealers who defy the laws, develop a database of mentally disturbed people who cannot buy guns--here's a new suggestion: Guns can have devices which limit their use to the authorized buyers; they won't work for anyone else. It could be based on palm prints, fingerprints, or retinal scan. Prohibit the manufacture or importation of the current, unsafe guns, and begin steps to incentivize people to replace their old ones with safe ones. It's radical, I know, but radical solutions need to be proposed. In 50 or 100 years, perhaps, we will actually be a civilized society, instead of a half-civilized, half-mad one.
As far as policing the schools, that is a job for the police--not school administrators, teachers, or private rent-a-cops. A simple solution is to have a mini-police station within shouting distance of public schools, which are increasingly clumped in shared campuses. So far, the epidemic of madness hasn't hit private schools so much, so it is a good time to consider what is/will be necessary for private schools to protect themselves. Much as I hate the militarization of education (enough in our lives is militarized already), we can't just accept that schools will be unsafe with millions--and I mean it--of unqualified (and I don't mean just untrained) gun-holders out there.
There are a couple of things that are different this time--the crime so senseless, horrendous and inhuman, the election so over, the utter insanity of taking out one's frustrations on first graders. I will say this: President Obama did have the courage to speak out--forcefully--this time, and damn the consequences. The NRA had to think it over, let the heat of the moment die a little, before they made "their contribution" to the debate. And the best they could think of was to put armed guards in every school? That is the epitome of throwing up one's hands and giving in to madness.
Apart from "the usual" suggestions, which are more obvious than usual in this case--no semi-automatic weapons or assault guns, close the gun show loophole and prosecute the online gun dealers who defy the laws, develop a database of mentally disturbed people who cannot buy guns--here's a new suggestion: Guns can have devices which limit their use to the authorized buyers; they won't work for anyone else. It could be based on palm prints, fingerprints, or retinal scan. Prohibit the manufacture or importation of the current, unsafe guns, and begin steps to incentivize people to replace their old ones with safe ones. It's radical, I know, but radical solutions need to be proposed. In 50 or 100 years, perhaps, we will actually be a civilized society, instead of a half-civilized, half-mad one.
As far as policing the schools, that is a job for the police--not school administrators, teachers, or private rent-a-cops. A simple solution is to have a mini-police station within shouting distance of public schools, which are increasingly clumped in shared campuses. So far, the epidemic of madness hasn't hit private schools so much, so it is a good time to consider what is/will be necessary for private schools to protect themselves. Much as I hate the militarization of education (enough in our lives is militarized already), we can't just accept that schools will be unsafe with millions--and I mean it--of unqualified (and I don't mean just untrained) gun-holders out there.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
121212 Concert
This is the last of its kind: there won't be a 13/13/13, for obvious reasons (not to mention the outside chance that the world as we know it ends next Friday). As for the benefit concert, I wouldn't say that this is the last--it still seems to be working as a project. I love the way this musical community comes together for an event such as this. One can be cynical and say, "Why don't they just give a couple of million dollars, instead of performing?" That person doesn't understand that they are giving of what is most dear to them, their talent and their time. There is a trade-off, though: most of them have a professional agenda, and it's definitely good publicity--in this case it applies particularly to Billy Joel.
As telethons go, this was definitely a good one, though it skews a bit old and white. Nobody seems to be policing the clock--some performers go extremely long, while others show restraint--I guess they don't have anywhere to go later.
The censor with his finger on the button had a busy night repeatedly cutting the seven words not allowed on TV!
Brief Reviews of the Talent
Bruce Springsteen--I came in during the middle. B.S. in good form from his recent touring, did "Born to Run" and that can't be bad. B
Roger Waters -- He's touring with "The Wall", so had his light show going. Included some "Dark Side"; "Comfortably Numb" with Eddie Vetter was a real highlight. A-
Bon Jovi--tolerable; at least did "Dead or Alive", their best song. Paid back the invite Bruce gave him during his set. B-
Eric Clapton - The best overall set of the night: "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out" (acoustic); "Got to Get Better in a Little While"- great choice for the night; "Crossroads". The small band with just bass and drums with E.C. worked really well; a good change from some of the oversized ensembles. A
Rolling Stones - some crappy new song--not even the good one, "Gloom and Doom", which would've been kind of appropriate; "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Jagger has enough energy, had a couple of good wisecracks ("now NY has to come and help if it rains in London", "best collection ever of old British rockers") and it's good they showed, but basically a cameo. Keith must finally be on his last legs, performance-wise; Charlie Watts (the drummer--an original Stone), on the other hand, looks about 10 years younger than Jagger/Richards or Ronnie Wood. C
Alicia Keys--basically an improvised song or two. I liked it; it was heartfelt. B
The Who - they're touring now, so they've got their light show, too. Opened with "Who Are You"--always a good one that shows off their distinctive strengths: dynamics, lyrics, good use of prerecorded bits to augment their playing. Roger's voice is mighty shaky, and Pete's is gone. "The Beach (a/k/a Bell Boy)" - good choice - the clip of Keith Moon singing is both a sweet touch and incredibly stagy. "Pinball Wizard"--what can I say, except that it's a must-see for anyone? "See Me, Feel Me"--the best finale song, no? "Baba O'Riley" - probably not necessary, but always a popular one. "Love, Reign O'er Me". What's this last (acoustic) song - "Have some Tea With Me"? I'm very grateful that Pete Townshend is still making the effort; I hope those waiting for Kanye, Foo Fighters, or Chris Martin aren't too dismayed, because The 'Oo did go awfully long; I'd say that was basically the second set of their live performance, with encores. A
Kanye West - good that he came and performed for all the white folks, presumably mostly rich white folks, in the audience. Obviously not his usual crowd who knows all the words, but it was an interesting performance. Gotta like the reference to King Crimson ('21st century schizoid man"). Definitely an eccentric and intelligent dude; but what's with the skirt? B
Billy Joel - I've heard this was his idea--he's the Bob Geldof of the current age; it will do some good for his career, as there's a whole generation that has not heard of him. He starts with a complete song, with all the bells and whistles, written especially for the occasion: I'll call it "I've Seen the Lights Go Out on Broadway"--a good line. I'll say this for him: He does have a prolific pen, good piano skills. "I'm Moving Out"; "I'm In a New York State of Mind". "In the Middle of the Night". "You May be Right". "Only the Good Die Young." I guess if it's his show, he gets to go long, too. He is a very old-fashioned performer; basically '50's style doo wop and crooning. B+
Chris Martin - Wearing a suit and tie? "Viva La Vida" (acoustic guitar)- my favorite Coldplay song, a tough way to perform it. Brings out Michael Stipe of R.E.M., who's suddenly looking very old--is he well? Martin oozes talent, he sounds like he has a cold. They do "Losing My Religion". Last song is "Us Against the World" (I had to look it up), with Martin switching to piano. A
Dave Grohl - The Foo Fighters guitarist is playing drums, as he did with Nirvana, with Nirvana bass player Chris Novoselic, Paul McCartney on bottleneck slide, and another guitarist, and they play a Nirvana-like song. An interesting novelty. B-
Paul McCartney - Looks like Sir Paul's got a real band behind him, but the song selection is a bit deficient. His face is much too young to be 70-something: Is he Botoxing? "Helter Skelter"; some new song ("Let Me Go There"?); some Wings song; brings out Diana Krall for another new one: "What If it Rains" (or is it "My Valentine"?)--this one written for his wife, Nancy, I'm thinking she's number 4. "Blackbird"--I didn't know it had political connotations about the civil rights movement until this moment, as it's surely not obvious, but not inconceivable, either. (Maybe it's part of his standard shtick; I know he likes to do this song live.) B-
Alicia Keys does a song called "New York" to close it.
Presenters and some comments thereof: Billy Crystal (some provocative political jokes)--testimonial for Long Beach, Adam Sandler (good example of the corny, funny song caricatures he used to do on SNL--"Hallelujah"), Jimmy Fallon--all excited, Chelsea Clinton--she was never introduced--she sounds just like her Mom; Puff Daddy and Olivia Wilde (also not introduced)--an incredible story of the hospital evacuated (didn't catch the name), Jon Stewart--Seaside Heights, Stephen Colbert--his jokes' tone seemed a little off, Steve Buscemi--good to see him relatively normal, not in role--First Responders, Chris Rock--Staten Island; Seth Myers and Bobby Moynihan- Bobby's "drunk uncle" from SNL, it's not one of their better gigs. Jake Gyllenhall - also Long Beach (wild hair/beard look; is it for a role?); Blake Lively--lovely girl--Fairfield, CT. Brian Williams - on a lot, as always charming, cool, with his amazingly asymmetrical face. Jason Sudeikis, Katie Holmes - Red Hook. Red Hook's tape got bumped for an ad--Ion channel finally they got tired of waiting to put on their WWE. After a few minutes of searching, I found the continuation on AMC--bless them!--during "Helter Skelter" with Paul and his band. So I don't know if I missed any music...
The charities: I do appreciate what they are doing, and they make a good case that the people need help. I like that they have been suggesting that some things will not be built back the way they used to be; in some cases it's just not the smart thing to do.
The Sponsors: Chase, Samsung, Delta. No doubt there are considerable expenses--the venue, the stage setting, the TV production. I wonder if they are paying any of the artists. That's enough of a plug for them.
My highlights (in order): 1) Eric Clapton's set; 2) Chris Martin with Michael Stipe; 3) Eddie Vetter with Roger Waters; 4) The Who--especially the songs from "Tommy".
Good that the Nirvana guys got together (and some credit to Dave Grohl--it's probably hard to go back to drums after you've been the front man/guitarist), but I'd say they need to work on more material before they are ready for the killer revival (if they have any desire at all to do that).
As telethons go, this was definitely a good one, though it skews a bit old and white. Nobody seems to be policing the clock--some performers go extremely long, while others show restraint--I guess they don't have anywhere to go later.
The censor with his finger on the button had a busy night repeatedly cutting the seven words not allowed on TV!
Brief Reviews of the Talent
Bruce Springsteen--I came in during the middle. B.S. in good form from his recent touring, did "Born to Run" and that can't be bad. B
Roger Waters -- He's touring with "The Wall", so had his light show going. Included some "Dark Side"; "Comfortably Numb" with Eddie Vetter was a real highlight. A-
Bon Jovi--tolerable; at least did "Dead or Alive", their best song. Paid back the invite Bruce gave him during his set. B-
Eric Clapton - The best overall set of the night: "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out" (acoustic); "Got to Get Better in a Little While"- great choice for the night; "Crossroads". The small band with just bass and drums with E.C. worked really well; a good change from some of the oversized ensembles. A
Rolling Stones - some crappy new song--not even the good one, "Gloom and Doom", which would've been kind of appropriate; "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Jagger has enough energy, had a couple of good wisecracks ("now NY has to come and help if it rains in London", "best collection ever of old British rockers") and it's good they showed, but basically a cameo. Keith must finally be on his last legs, performance-wise; Charlie Watts (the drummer--an original Stone), on the other hand, looks about 10 years younger than Jagger/Richards or Ronnie Wood. C
Alicia Keys--basically an improvised song or two. I liked it; it was heartfelt. B
The Who - they're touring now, so they've got their light show, too. Opened with "Who Are You"--always a good one that shows off their distinctive strengths: dynamics, lyrics, good use of prerecorded bits to augment their playing. Roger's voice is mighty shaky, and Pete's is gone. "The Beach (a/k/a Bell Boy)" - good choice - the clip of Keith Moon singing is both a sweet touch and incredibly stagy. "Pinball Wizard"--what can I say, except that it's a must-see for anyone? "See Me, Feel Me"--the best finale song, no? "Baba O'Riley" - probably not necessary, but always a popular one. "Love, Reign O'er Me". What's this last (acoustic) song - "Have some Tea With Me"? I'm very grateful that Pete Townshend is still making the effort; I hope those waiting for Kanye, Foo Fighters, or Chris Martin aren't too dismayed, because The 'Oo did go awfully long; I'd say that was basically the second set of their live performance, with encores. A
Kanye West - good that he came and performed for all the white folks, presumably mostly rich white folks, in the audience. Obviously not his usual crowd who knows all the words, but it was an interesting performance. Gotta like the reference to King Crimson ('21st century schizoid man"). Definitely an eccentric and intelligent dude; but what's with the skirt? B
Billy Joel - I've heard this was his idea--he's the Bob Geldof of the current age; it will do some good for his career, as there's a whole generation that has not heard of him. He starts with a complete song, with all the bells and whistles, written especially for the occasion: I'll call it "I've Seen the Lights Go Out on Broadway"--a good line. I'll say this for him: He does have a prolific pen, good piano skills. "I'm Moving Out"; "I'm In a New York State of Mind". "In the Middle of the Night". "You May be Right". "Only the Good Die Young." I guess if it's his show, he gets to go long, too. He is a very old-fashioned performer; basically '50's style doo wop and crooning. B+
Chris Martin - Wearing a suit and tie? "Viva La Vida" (acoustic guitar)- my favorite Coldplay song, a tough way to perform it. Brings out Michael Stipe of R.E.M., who's suddenly looking very old--is he well? Martin oozes talent, he sounds like he has a cold. They do "Losing My Religion". Last song is "Us Against the World" (I had to look it up), with Martin switching to piano. A
Dave Grohl - The Foo Fighters guitarist is playing drums, as he did with Nirvana, with Nirvana bass player Chris Novoselic, Paul McCartney on bottleneck slide, and another guitarist, and they play a Nirvana-like song. An interesting novelty. B-
Paul McCartney - Looks like Sir Paul's got a real band behind him, but the song selection is a bit deficient. His face is much too young to be 70-something: Is he Botoxing? "Helter Skelter"; some new song ("Let Me Go There"?); some Wings song; brings out Diana Krall for another new one: "What If it Rains" (or is it "My Valentine"?)--this one written for his wife, Nancy, I'm thinking she's number 4. "Blackbird"--I didn't know it had political connotations about the civil rights movement until this moment, as it's surely not obvious, but not inconceivable, either. (Maybe it's part of his standard shtick; I know he likes to do this song live.) B-
Alicia Keys does a song called "New York" to close it.
Presenters and some comments thereof: Billy Crystal (some provocative political jokes)--testimonial for Long Beach, Adam Sandler (good example of the corny, funny song caricatures he used to do on SNL--"Hallelujah"), Jimmy Fallon--all excited, Chelsea Clinton--she was never introduced--she sounds just like her Mom; Puff Daddy and Olivia Wilde (also not introduced)--an incredible story of the hospital evacuated (didn't catch the name), Jon Stewart--Seaside Heights, Stephen Colbert--his jokes' tone seemed a little off, Steve Buscemi--good to see him relatively normal, not in role--First Responders, Chris Rock--Staten Island; Seth Myers and Bobby Moynihan- Bobby's "drunk uncle" from SNL, it's not one of their better gigs. Jake Gyllenhall - also Long Beach (wild hair/beard look; is it for a role?); Blake Lively--lovely girl--Fairfield, CT. Brian Williams - on a lot, as always charming, cool, with his amazingly asymmetrical face. Jason Sudeikis, Katie Holmes - Red Hook. Red Hook's tape got bumped for an ad--Ion channel finally they got tired of waiting to put on their WWE. After a few minutes of searching, I found the continuation on AMC--bless them!--during "Helter Skelter" with Paul and his band. So I don't know if I missed any music...
The charities: I do appreciate what they are doing, and they make a good case that the people need help. I like that they have been suggesting that some things will not be built back the way they used to be; in some cases it's just not the smart thing to do.
The Sponsors: Chase, Samsung, Delta. No doubt there are considerable expenses--the venue, the stage setting, the TV production. I wonder if they are paying any of the artists. That's enough of a plug for them.
My highlights (in order): 1) Eric Clapton's set; 2) Chris Martin with Michael Stipe; 3) Eddie Vetter with Roger Waters; 4) The Who--especially the songs from "Tommy".
Good that the Nirvana guys got together (and some credit to Dave Grohl--it's probably hard to go back to drums after you've been the front man/guitarist), but I'd say they need to work on more material before they are ready for the killer revival (if they have any desire at all to do that).
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Talking Them Down from the Cliff....Pt. 2
We will post the third part when the deal is finally concluded, at which time we will reckon the meaningful winners and losers…and those in Washington, too.
The public posturing by the President and his supporters on the one hand, and by the Congressional Republicans on the other hand, has moved little since the initial positions taken just after the election’s results became clear. If anything, the lines drawn in the sand for their positions on taxes, the key element of this phase of the negotiations, have been dug more deeply, which will make them harder to cross. Both sides also seem to be saying that President Obama and Speaker Boehner have not yet begun face-to-face negotiations: Obama is saying that they will begin when the Republicans agree to the tax increases on the most wealthy, while Boehner, who has agreed to revenue increases but not tax rate increases, is looking for the President to put “real spending cuts”—by which he means cuts to the cost of entitlement programs—on the table before meaningful negotiations can begin.
Despite the gap in public, and even the lack of any acknowledged behind-the-scenes direct negotiations, there is movement in some of the positions and even optimism about the outcome. So far, Wall Street and the markets show no sign of alarm. It is by no means certain that any agreement will be reached by the end of the year, when the automatic end of tax cuts and beginning of sequestration begin, but there is no panic about that, because after that, the pressure to conclude a deal will rise sharply, and there is confidence on all sides that it will then get done.
The reckoning is that the President and the Democrats have most of the advantage: Obama's election win is still fresh (and the margin has grown as the counting completes) and the fall-back costs of failure to agree are deemed greater for the Republicans. The Tea Party Republicans may not feel the same way, though, as no agreement would mean the fastest reduction in the deficit, so if they get the upper hand with Boehner we could be in a stalemate next month which resembles the current National Hockey League lockout: no agreement, no negotiations, continuing erosion of the brand (in this case, of the U.S. dollar). As we pointed out in our previous post, Boehner needs to thread the needle in a deal which can convince 50-75 Republican Congressmen to come with him and not cause the other 160-180 ones to vote him out of his leadership position. The key difference between 2011 and now is that the conservative Republicans (and their lobbyist godfather, Grover Norquist) seem to have authorized Boehner to go ahead and make a deal which they will not support, in the interests of avoiding a generalized tax increase for which they would suffer severe political consequences.
Dealing Out the New, New Cards
How then is the emerging deal shaping up? This is where it gets very fuzzy, but some guesses may still be made. The Speaker offered $800 billion in additional revenues over ten years; Obama's proposal was $1.6 trillion. Splitting the difference would be $1.2 trillion, and that's certainly a likely figure. It also is the amount that had been tentatively agreed by Obama and Boehner two years ago, before Boehner got his negotiating legs cut out from under him by his caucus. Essentially, that would be Boehner's $800 billion in reduced "tax expenditures" plus Obama's $400 billion in tax rate increases for the wealthy. Somehow, this seems too easy; I would guess instead the revenue increase number will be cut back to $1 trillion, with somewhat less than the above figures both in the tax rate increases and in the deductions eliminated. This will allow both sides to claim a measure of victory, as it's always easier to get agreement on reducing tax increases than going the other way, and it will provide more room for phasing in tax increases gradually during this continuing period of vulnerability for the economy.
I'm looking for two gradations in the higher income rates, one for those with income over $1 million and one for $250K - $1 million; I'm looking for the proposed deduction cuts to be smoothed out to reduce the impact on moderate taxpayers, for a substantial shift in the income level when the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax begins to apply, and for tax rates on capital gains and dividends to be increased but to have a top rate lower than the marginal rate for the highest income ranges. The surprising thing is that both sides seem ready to throw the payroll tax reduction "holiday" of the past couple of years under the bus; this is surprising because the economy's recovery is still relatively weak, but the payroll tax cut is one that, by general agreement, can not be extended indefinitely (the money is needed to support the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, which are shrinking); I thought it would be phased out over the next two years, but both sides seem to need to tote that money up for the promised savings they want to tout.
There will be a few hundred billion in cuts in discretionary expenses (Obama's Federal departments have been harvesting and storing them up for this purpose), and I'm looking for a couple hundred billion of new defense/security/intelligence cuts, as well (though not so much, or so blunt, as the sequestration cuts). There were already some cuts achieved in previous negotiations; those will be counted in the total of the final agreement. There will also be a very small amount of additional investments and aid to states in the final package, and some sort of agreement to fix the debt ceiling through 2014. The package of specific deficit reductions that will be announced--and it will come together quickly once the progress starts, somewhere in the calendar range of Dec. 26-Jan. 15--will be a bit small, in the range of $2.5-3.0 trillion, but it will include, on top of that, an agreement to find more from the big entitlement programs and from closing loopholes in the tax code. That amount will be small, but increasing, over the 10-year timeline that everyone has agreed to view, and will bring the total up to $4 trillion, enough--without including rapid economic growth into the calculations--to bring the deficit down but not eliminate it.
This will bring the second difficult aspect of this agreement, finding the formula that compels Congress and the President to accomplish this last trillion without specifying the details now. The specifics will take months, possibly the entire session of Congress, to work out. I will be very surprised if there is any agreement about Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in either the lame-duck session or the initial months of the new Congress, and, to be frank, it would be unwise to try to revise the tax code in a hurry. Still, the staff groups are able to put a number around reasonable savings that would result from the process, and that will be the final slide in the Power Point presentation--that, and the fiscal handcuffing that would result if the special bipartisan groups to be formed cannot reach a result. I'm guessing it would be some sort of automatic additional increase in tax rates across the board, something everyone would seek to avoid.
I'm Entitled (to Spout Off, Anyway); How About You?
Now, to close, a few comments about the most knotty of all the problems, the question of what to do about the entitlements.
Social Security is the one with the least urgent problem; essentially the challenge is to maintain a large-enough surplus in the trust fund so that the program will never be a burden on the national debt, which until now it has not. The trust fund--which is a separate account from the overall Federal budget, but doesn't really have money stored away in Ft. Knox or anything--would begin to run an annual deficit in a few years, and if there are no changes, it would be depleted in 15 years or so, and after that full funding of it would begin to add to the deficit. All that is needed is to change the trajectory a little, and we would get safely past the most difficult years of our demographic challenge, the ones when the ratio of workers to retirees is lowest, until about 2050, and then it would essentially be self-funding indefinitely into the future. The pieties about holding the retirement age for Social Security are hypocritical; the resistance against reducing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) in it is not. People think that the age 65 for retirement is inviolate, but they are wrong; this was already changed in the famous deal made in the Eighties by Reagan and Tip O'Neill. It's gradually increasing, to 67 for full benefits (of course, one can retire earlier and get less); it could be adjusted a bit more over the next decade or two, and we'd be home free. The COLA is seductively attractive, in that it saves a ton of money over the long term, but that also means that the value of the benefit would be shrinking, and it's already very low.
Medicare is the largest problem in numerical terms, and in the sense that the current trajectory is going to bankrupt the program soonest. The Affordable Care Act, the infamous Obamacare of political demagoguery of all sides, has had a significant effect improving the finances of the program, but not nearly enough. The remedies which are usually proposed--increasing the age of eligibility, or reducing the benefits (the latter, in the wolf in sheep's clothing form of the Paul Ryan-proposed voucher program)--are the wrong ones. Reducing benefits--any way that you do it--means bankrupting more seniors; increasing the eligibility age actually just makes the economic dynamics worse. The best solution is actually the opposite: lowering the eligibility age, making it available to people 55 and older! Because their health costs are lower than older folks, bringing them into the program would improve the economics of the program. If we think of it as a business, raising the eligibility age focuses the program more on the unprofitable customers, expanding it brings in more profitable customers, improving the operating leverage. Of course, there would be no requirement for fifty-something-ers to buy in, but some would do so (those getting the worst deal from the private insurers), and employers would find it attractive to participate for their older employees (something which should be allowed through the reform). Instead of creating a death spiral for Medicare, expanding would create a virtuous cycle which, combined with changing it from fee-for-services to fee-for-customers, focusing on prevention and maintenance, could end up making the whole thing workable in the long run--and eliminating decades more of debates about whether the health insurance industry needs the challenge of "the public option", which otherwise is not going to go away.
I actually think Medicaid is the most difficult problem of the three to solve. Mostly Medicaid is about the assistance to states to provide for health services for those who can not afford health insurance, so its viability is challenged both by the dire state of the states' budgets and the rising costs of health. Already, many states are cutting their rolls of eligible people by fiat; soon, the horror stories will begin to pile up in those states. It's going to get worse, and some kind of Federal program to improve minimum standards for states will be worthless unless it is accompanied by an increase in funding--and the pressure will all be in the other direction. I have no proposed solution for the present, except that we must insist on holding the line against cuts and holding states responsible for the health of their poorest and the effectiveness of how the money is spent. Eventually, once other problems get addressed (Federal deficits, state revenues, the economy, health costs), we will come back to this one, and hopefully there will not be too great a cost in the meantime.
The public posturing by the President and his supporters on the one hand, and by the Congressional Republicans on the other hand, has moved little since the initial positions taken just after the election’s results became clear. If anything, the lines drawn in the sand for their positions on taxes, the key element of this phase of the negotiations, have been dug more deeply, which will make them harder to cross. Both sides also seem to be saying that President Obama and Speaker Boehner have not yet begun face-to-face negotiations: Obama is saying that they will begin when the Republicans agree to the tax increases on the most wealthy, while Boehner, who has agreed to revenue increases but not tax rate increases, is looking for the President to put “real spending cuts”—by which he means cuts to the cost of entitlement programs—on the table before meaningful negotiations can begin.
Despite the gap in public, and even the lack of any acknowledged behind-the-scenes direct negotiations, there is movement in some of the positions and even optimism about the outcome. So far, Wall Street and the markets show no sign of alarm. It is by no means certain that any agreement will be reached by the end of the year, when the automatic end of tax cuts and beginning of sequestration begin, but there is no panic about that, because after that, the pressure to conclude a deal will rise sharply, and there is confidence on all sides that it will then get done.
The reckoning is that the President and the Democrats have most of the advantage: Obama's election win is still fresh (and the margin has grown as the counting completes) and the fall-back costs of failure to agree are deemed greater for the Republicans. The Tea Party Republicans may not feel the same way, though, as no agreement would mean the fastest reduction in the deficit, so if they get the upper hand with Boehner we could be in a stalemate next month which resembles the current National Hockey League lockout: no agreement, no negotiations, continuing erosion of the brand (in this case, of the U.S. dollar). As we pointed out in our previous post, Boehner needs to thread the needle in a deal which can convince 50-75 Republican Congressmen to come with him and not cause the other 160-180 ones to vote him out of his leadership position. The key difference between 2011 and now is that the conservative Republicans (and their lobbyist godfather, Grover Norquist) seem to have authorized Boehner to go ahead and make a deal which they will not support, in the interests of avoiding a generalized tax increase for which they would suffer severe political consequences.
Dealing Out the New, New Cards
How then is the emerging deal shaping up? This is where it gets very fuzzy, but some guesses may still be made. The Speaker offered $800 billion in additional revenues over ten years; Obama's proposal was $1.6 trillion. Splitting the difference would be $1.2 trillion, and that's certainly a likely figure. It also is the amount that had been tentatively agreed by Obama and Boehner two years ago, before Boehner got his negotiating legs cut out from under him by his caucus. Essentially, that would be Boehner's $800 billion in reduced "tax expenditures" plus Obama's $400 billion in tax rate increases for the wealthy. Somehow, this seems too easy; I would guess instead the revenue increase number will be cut back to $1 trillion, with somewhat less than the above figures both in the tax rate increases and in the deductions eliminated. This will allow both sides to claim a measure of victory, as it's always easier to get agreement on reducing tax increases than going the other way, and it will provide more room for phasing in tax increases gradually during this continuing period of vulnerability for the economy.
I'm looking for two gradations in the higher income rates, one for those with income over $1 million and one for $250K - $1 million; I'm looking for the proposed deduction cuts to be smoothed out to reduce the impact on moderate taxpayers, for a substantial shift in the income level when the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax begins to apply, and for tax rates on capital gains and dividends to be increased but to have a top rate lower than the marginal rate for the highest income ranges. The surprising thing is that both sides seem ready to throw the payroll tax reduction "holiday" of the past couple of years under the bus; this is surprising because the economy's recovery is still relatively weak, but the payroll tax cut is one that, by general agreement, can not be extended indefinitely (the money is needed to support the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, which are shrinking); I thought it would be phased out over the next two years, but both sides seem to need to tote that money up for the promised savings they want to tout.
There will be a few hundred billion in cuts in discretionary expenses (Obama's Federal departments have been harvesting and storing them up for this purpose), and I'm looking for a couple hundred billion of new defense/security/intelligence cuts, as well (though not so much, or so blunt, as the sequestration cuts). There were already some cuts achieved in previous negotiations; those will be counted in the total of the final agreement. There will also be a very small amount of additional investments and aid to states in the final package, and some sort of agreement to fix the debt ceiling through 2014. The package of specific deficit reductions that will be announced--and it will come together quickly once the progress starts, somewhere in the calendar range of Dec. 26-Jan. 15--will be a bit small, in the range of $2.5-3.0 trillion, but it will include, on top of that, an agreement to find more from the big entitlement programs and from closing loopholes in the tax code. That amount will be small, but increasing, over the 10-year timeline that everyone has agreed to view, and will bring the total up to $4 trillion, enough--without including rapid economic growth into the calculations--to bring the deficit down but not eliminate it.
This will bring the second difficult aspect of this agreement, finding the formula that compels Congress and the President to accomplish this last trillion without specifying the details now. The specifics will take months, possibly the entire session of Congress, to work out. I will be very surprised if there is any agreement about Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in either the lame-duck session or the initial months of the new Congress, and, to be frank, it would be unwise to try to revise the tax code in a hurry. Still, the staff groups are able to put a number around reasonable savings that would result from the process, and that will be the final slide in the Power Point presentation--that, and the fiscal handcuffing that would result if the special bipartisan groups to be formed cannot reach a result. I'm guessing it would be some sort of automatic additional increase in tax rates across the board, something everyone would seek to avoid.
I'm Entitled (to Spout Off, Anyway); How About You?
Now, to close, a few comments about the most knotty of all the problems, the question of what to do about the entitlements.
Social Security is the one with the least urgent problem; essentially the challenge is to maintain a large-enough surplus in the trust fund so that the program will never be a burden on the national debt, which until now it has not. The trust fund--which is a separate account from the overall Federal budget, but doesn't really have money stored away in Ft. Knox or anything--would begin to run an annual deficit in a few years, and if there are no changes, it would be depleted in 15 years or so, and after that full funding of it would begin to add to the deficit. All that is needed is to change the trajectory a little, and we would get safely past the most difficult years of our demographic challenge, the ones when the ratio of workers to retirees is lowest, until about 2050, and then it would essentially be self-funding indefinitely into the future. The pieties about holding the retirement age for Social Security are hypocritical; the resistance against reducing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) in it is not. People think that the age 65 for retirement is inviolate, but they are wrong; this was already changed in the famous deal made in the Eighties by Reagan and Tip O'Neill. It's gradually increasing, to 67 for full benefits (of course, one can retire earlier and get less); it could be adjusted a bit more over the next decade or two, and we'd be home free. The COLA is seductively attractive, in that it saves a ton of money over the long term, but that also means that the value of the benefit would be shrinking, and it's already very low.
Medicare is the largest problem in numerical terms, and in the sense that the current trajectory is going to bankrupt the program soonest. The Affordable Care Act, the infamous Obamacare of political demagoguery of all sides, has had a significant effect improving the finances of the program, but not nearly enough. The remedies which are usually proposed--increasing the age of eligibility, or reducing the benefits (the latter, in the wolf in sheep's clothing form of the Paul Ryan-proposed voucher program)--are the wrong ones. Reducing benefits--any way that you do it--means bankrupting more seniors; increasing the eligibility age actually just makes the economic dynamics worse. The best solution is actually the opposite: lowering the eligibility age, making it available to people 55 and older! Because their health costs are lower than older folks, bringing them into the program would improve the economics of the program. If we think of it as a business, raising the eligibility age focuses the program more on the unprofitable customers, expanding it brings in more profitable customers, improving the operating leverage. Of course, there would be no requirement for fifty-something-ers to buy in, but some would do so (those getting the worst deal from the private insurers), and employers would find it attractive to participate for their older employees (something which should be allowed through the reform). Instead of creating a death spiral for Medicare, expanding would create a virtuous cycle which, combined with changing it from fee-for-services to fee-for-customers, focusing on prevention and maintenance, could end up making the whole thing workable in the long run--and eliminating decades more of debates about whether the health insurance industry needs the challenge of "the public option", which otherwise is not going to go away.
I actually think Medicaid is the most difficult problem of the three to solve. Mostly Medicaid is about the assistance to states to provide for health services for those who can not afford health insurance, so its viability is challenged both by the dire state of the states' budgets and the rising costs of health. Already, many states are cutting their rolls of eligible people by fiat; soon, the horror stories will begin to pile up in those states. It's going to get worse, and some kind of Federal program to improve minimum standards for states will be worthless unless it is accompanied by an increase in funding--and the pressure will all be in the other direction. I have no proposed solution for the present, except that we must insist on holding the line against cuts and holding states responsible for the health of their poorest and the effectiveness of how the money is spent. Eventually, once other problems get addressed (Federal deficits, state revenues, the economy, health costs), we will come back to this one, and hopefully there will not be too great a cost in the meantime.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Authenticity in the Movies
The title may seem antithetical--going to the movies is one of the classic escapist forms of entertainment, a chance to leave the world behind and concentrate on the flickering screen in a darkened room--but the quality of genuineness is one of the key qualities which identify a well-made film, and the environment--high-intensity attention, extreme magnification--makes inauthenticity apparent.
I'm going to focus here on regular feature films, as distinguished from the documentaries, which are a distinguished art form, one I wouldn't claim to be qualified to criticize, and one with very different entertainment value. So, what I'm talking about are the made-up stories, or stories re-told, historical fiction, or the re-creation of human events.
It's not just whether a film is realistic, though that is an element of what I'm trying to analyze. Like published fiction, the audience has agreed provisionally to suspend disbelief for the duration of the experience, so it doesn't have to be quite real. Artistically, though, breaking stereotypes and going beyond stock characters and situations--"making it real", as they say in hiphop society-- have periodically been sources of renewal for movies, revitalizing the genres when the rules that govern them become too confining. That's an aspiration, not a universal one in film, but a creditable one.
So, granted we are talking about the movies' artificial world, what I'm expecting from a well-made production is the avoidance of fakery. This adds greatly to the cost of making films, but it is generally money well spent, in that the ticket-buying public expects a convincing simulation of reality. It is for this reason that movie productions go "on location"--sometimes to the place where the story is set, but, if not, to a place that, in key characteristics, resembles it sufficiently.
Seeking the Really Fake
Now, I want to discuss two exceptions to the general principle of seeking the best possible imitation of what is real. One is the intentional inclusion of anachronism, or of something--a prop, a location--that obviously does not fit the scene. This is a risky strategy and not advisable except for humorous or satiric pupose; there are few other cases in which it would make sense for movie creators to call attention to the fact that they have chosen not to make their art the most convincing they could.
To give an example from Cloud Atlas, a film I consider generally very commendable, one aspect that has been criticized has been excessive or poor use of makeup. I have only seen the film once--sadly, it has disappeared far too quickly in this season of rapid-fire releases--but there is one scene in which I would agree with that criticism: in the formal dinner scene which concludes the 1847 episode, two characters clearly stood out unfavorably: Halle Berry and Doona Bae made up in whiteface. There are reasons that was done--to complete the concept that the principal cast members would appear in all six episodes--but in this particular case it creates a jarring reaction, a rejection of the scene as being less than what it should be.
The other exception to the strategy I would note is the transformation of film into theater, placing the action on a stage. Blurring the boundary of reality with artifice through use of the motif of the play within the play, or the film being made within the film, is in itself beyond questioning because of the success it has found: it can create an ironic tone to comment on the nature of drama or of life itself, as its use often seeks to pose a profound comment on the fundamental relationship between drama and real life. Think of Hamlet, 8 1/2, or, to cite dramatic use of a play in a film, Barton Fink. Reduction of a movie to a play, though, is a more problematic technique, one that has been attempted (and sharply criticized) in the new release of Anna Karenina. I want to see the movie, and I hope I will enjoy it, but it seems to me to be a wrong-headed approach to the work of the great Russian novelist Tolstoy and his use of the great panorama of his vast country--perhaps it's an attempt to capture the claustrophobia of the heroine's situation. I have seen other movies that have tried this approach; I can't think of any that have been successful doing it (Synecdoche, New York, anyone? I can't say I've managed to watch it, though I've tried). This minimalistic technique basically is an artistic statement rejecting the desirability, maybe even the possibility, of a realistic approach; as I say, I don't get it.
Another film genre I can't "get" is the musical, whether comic, dramatic, or pure song-and-dance. Pure opera has something to say for itself, as it posits a figurative musical reality which represents the essence of the mundane prosaic one, but all those stories where the dialogue stops and the characters break into song, or song-and-dance, are just too absurd for me to accept, even if the singing isn't dubbed and the music somehow fits the story. (Music soundtracks in movies are another topic, and one that I can't criticize effectively; I will say that an effective musical soundtrack must either enhance the storytelling by reflecting the interior emotions of the characters--addressing one of the great weaknesses of movies vs. books--or be totally lost within it, subtly framing the dialogue or action.) West Side Story is an example of the kind of disjointed fakey reality that bothers me; even though made with superior production, it is a fake that is only partly redeemed by the classical beauty of its Romeo and Juliet story and a little bit--not much, mind you--of reality intruding into the movie's artificial New York City of longing and songing. The new movie version of Les Miserables seeks to somehow make musical drama more realistic through hand-held camera work--adding a stylistic veneer of realism to a fakey form of rendering the original gritty, historically-based real-life drama.
When Unreality Needs Little Excuse
Science fiction is a special case, in that, for most of it, there is no objective reality to which the movie's created reality can be compared (an exception would be prehistoric drama--something like 1,000,000 B.C.--and its unfortunate tendency to have unintentional anachronism). In science fiction, the test of authenticity is usually whether--given the scenario--the action, the visual effects, and the dialogue are convincingly real. In this regard, the Cloud Atlas scenes from a futuristic Korea ("Corporea", in the book) are a highlight of the film. Avatar had, to me, several ludicrous premises to its story having to do with unrealistic aspects of a human society capable of interstellar travel, but once immersed in it, the look and feel--and the stubborn atavism of many of the human characters--were effective and believable. About Blade Runner, one could say much of the same: the whole notion of the androids created and living beyond human contact with built-in expiration dates seemed unrealistic, but if one accepted that, much of the behavior, the earthbound environment, the neo-noir storytelling, all made so much sense. Fantasy movies enjoy the same freedom of divorce from reality, but the same strictures of being true to their rules of engagement, thus the success of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings in faithfully re-creating its unreal world.
But then there are the stories that are just too far over the top, whether science fiction or just totally unrelated to any world we know or could know. The ones that, if one of them could only have happened, would have been the most amazing event in the history of humanity, greater in magnitude, import, and all-out achievement than the Bible's Greatest Story Ever Told. Their stories are legion--think of almost any Will Smith movie of recent years (I am Legend, Independence Day, Hancock, even his Wild Wild West), Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Bond, etc. Bond movies at least have the cover story of secrecy as to why these incredible exploits are unknown to us in the real world. In other words, I have a little trouble taking this kind of pure escapism seriously, which is why I love a movie like District 9, which uses a fake documentary style and incredible events to poke fun at the genre. Then there are the horror stories, the splatter flicks, vampires, zombies, etc. which fundamentally rely upon being totally unrealistic for their entertainment value: if they had any component that seemed at all realistic, they would be unendurable.
Even Better than the Real Thing
Finally, though, there are the movies that strive to tell real stories, and to do it in a way that feels real. In this, we allow the director the artistic license to enhance reality, because it makes the storytelling tolerably interesting, as long as the condensation of the storyline does not distort it excessively. Argo is a very interesting story based on a real, little-known caper, and most of it was well told. The locations--in Turkey, not Iran--seemed realistic, there is plenty of authenticity in the story, and even much of the Hollywood angle has its truth to it. Unfortunately, the movie goes off the rails at its climax, with an unrealistic car-chasing-plane scene which has no fundamental basis in the true story.
As much as I criticize Steven Spielberg for his emotional manipulation and his willingness to engage in escapist fantasy (E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones), he is a master of the art of telling true stories in a convincing way. In this regard, I cite Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, and Schindler's List, and now I have to say that he has outdone himself with Lincoln. With the assistance of extensive research, a superb screenplay by Tony Kushner, and a brilliant cast, headed by a performance by Daniel Day-Lewis so great that, like War Secretary Edwin Stanton's comment upon the moment of Lincoln's death, it "now...belongs to the ages", Spielberg has told a story that fools the viewer into the feeling that it is the real thing in every way. With Spielbergian manipulative power, he swept me into the world of 1865 Washington D.C. from the first scene to the end. Only when I saw it a second time could I see the artistry of his craft, and I encourage all to view it--repeatedly.
I refer to my previous prediction that the over-under bet for Oscars for the movie is seven. For me, that Lincoln should win Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Picture are absolute certainty, no matter what the competition may be; I'd say it should also contend for 5-10 more: Supporting Actor (David Straitharn or Tommy Lee Jones, if they don't cancel each other's chances out), Best Actress (Sally Field should be nominated, at least), Best Director (maybe not), Music, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costumes, Film Editing, and Makeup.
There is, however, a movie that is rumored to have a real chance of topping Lincoln for Best Picture. * It's the only thing that could beat the real thing, a true story of great importance like that in Lincoln: a story about something real, important, and, better for box office, contemporary, but enhanced way beyond what is real for the purpose of storytelling. I'm referring to Zero Dark Thirty, in which Kathryn Bigelow apparently has once again shown the talent for doing just what she accomplished so well in The Hurt Locker, now applied to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The inverse of my description of horror films above, the intensity of Hurt Locker is beyond what can be endured, except that it has that moral urgency which comes from that relevance. Not being in the privileged fraternity of movie critics or insiders, I haven't seen it, but I think the Oscar race for Best Picture could end up being a classic battle between what is real, but old, and what is now, but even more than real.
*And it's about even with Lincoln in the odds on Intrade--which recently decided to boot off systematically all the illegal American accounts it used to wink at. I hope I can at least still get on--they claim they will have a new, legal form for Americans to participate.
I'm going to focus here on regular feature films, as distinguished from the documentaries, which are a distinguished art form, one I wouldn't claim to be qualified to criticize, and one with very different entertainment value. So, what I'm talking about are the made-up stories, or stories re-told, historical fiction, or the re-creation of human events.
It's not just whether a film is realistic, though that is an element of what I'm trying to analyze. Like published fiction, the audience has agreed provisionally to suspend disbelief for the duration of the experience, so it doesn't have to be quite real. Artistically, though, breaking stereotypes and going beyond stock characters and situations--"making it real", as they say in hiphop society-- have periodically been sources of renewal for movies, revitalizing the genres when the rules that govern them become too confining. That's an aspiration, not a universal one in film, but a creditable one.
So, granted we are talking about the movies' artificial world, what I'm expecting from a well-made production is the avoidance of fakery. This adds greatly to the cost of making films, but it is generally money well spent, in that the ticket-buying public expects a convincing simulation of reality. It is for this reason that movie productions go "on location"--sometimes to the place where the story is set, but, if not, to a place that, in key characteristics, resembles it sufficiently.
Seeking the Really Fake
Now, I want to discuss two exceptions to the general principle of seeking the best possible imitation of what is real. One is the intentional inclusion of anachronism, or of something--a prop, a location--that obviously does not fit the scene. This is a risky strategy and not advisable except for humorous or satiric pupose; there are few other cases in which it would make sense for movie creators to call attention to the fact that they have chosen not to make their art the most convincing they could.
To give an example from Cloud Atlas, a film I consider generally very commendable, one aspect that has been criticized has been excessive or poor use of makeup. I have only seen the film once--sadly, it has disappeared far too quickly in this season of rapid-fire releases--but there is one scene in which I would agree with that criticism: in the formal dinner scene which concludes the 1847 episode, two characters clearly stood out unfavorably: Halle Berry and Doona Bae made up in whiteface. There are reasons that was done--to complete the concept that the principal cast members would appear in all six episodes--but in this particular case it creates a jarring reaction, a rejection of the scene as being less than what it should be.
The other exception to the strategy I would note is the transformation of film into theater, placing the action on a stage. Blurring the boundary of reality with artifice through use of the motif of the play within the play, or the film being made within the film, is in itself beyond questioning because of the success it has found: it can create an ironic tone to comment on the nature of drama or of life itself, as its use often seeks to pose a profound comment on the fundamental relationship between drama and real life. Think of Hamlet, 8 1/2, or, to cite dramatic use of a play in a film, Barton Fink. Reduction of a movie to a play, though, is a more problematic technique, one that has been attempted (and sharply criticized) in the new release of Anna Karenina. I want to see the movie, and I hope I will enjoy it, but it seems to me to be a wrong-headed approach to the work of the great Russian novelist Tolstoy and his use of the great panorama of his vast country--perhaps it's an attempt to capture the claustrophobia of the heroine's situation. I have seen other movies that have tried this approach; I can't think of any that have been successful doing it (Synecdoche, New York, anyone? I can't say I've managed to watch it, though I've tried). This minimalistic technique basically is an artistic statement rejecting the desirability, maybe even the possibility, of a realistic approach; as I say, I don't get it.
Another film genre I can't "get" is the musical, whether comic, dramatic, or pure song-and-dance. Pure opera has something to say for itself, as it posits a figurative musical reality which represents the essence of the mundane prosaic one, but all those stories where the dialogue stops and the characters break into song, or song-and-dance, are just too absurd for me to accept, even if the singing isn't dubbed and the music somehow fits the story. (Music soundtracks in movies are another topic, and one that I can't criticize effectively; I will say that an effective musical soundtrack must either enhance the storytelling by reflecting the interior emotions of the characters--addressing one of the great weaknesses of movies vs. books--or be totally lost within it, subtly framing the dialogue or action.) West Side Story is an example of the kind of disjointed fakey reality that bothers me; even though made with superior production, it is a fake that is only partly redeemed by the classical beauty of its Romeo and Juliet story and a little bit--not much, mind you--of reality intruding into the movie's artificial New York City of longing and songing. The new movie version of Les Miserables seeks to somehow make musical drama more realistic through hand-held camera work--adding a stylistic veneer of realism to a fakey form of rendering the original gritty, historically-based real-life drama.
When Unreality Needs Little Excuse
Science fiction is a special case, in that, for most of it, there is no objective reality to which the movie's created reality can be compared (an exception would be prehistoric drama--something like 1,000,000 B.C.--and its unfortunate tendency to have unintentional anachronism). In science fiction, the test of authenticity is usually whether--given the scenario--the action, the visual effects, and the dialogue are convincingly real. In this regard, the Cloud Atlas scenes from a futuristic Korea ("Corporea", in the book) are a highlight of the film. Avatar had, to me, several ludicrous premises to its story having to do with unrealistic aspects of a human society capable of interstellar travel, but once immersed in it, the look and feel--and the stubborn atavism of many of the human characters--were effective and believable. About Blade Runner, one could say much of the same: the whole notion of the androids created and living beyond human contact with built-in expiration dates seemed unrealistic, but if one accepted that, much of the behavior, the earthbound environment, the neo-noir storytelling, all made so much sense. Fantasy movies enjoy the same freedom of divorce from reality, but the same strictures of being true to their rules of engagement, thus the success of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings in faithfully re-creating its unreal world.
But then there are the stories that are just too far over the top, whether science fiction or just totally unrelated to any world we know or could know. The ones that, if one of them could only have happened, would have been the most amazing event in the history of humanity, greater in magnitude, import, and all-out achievement than the Bible's Greatest Story Ever Told. Their stories are legion--think of almost any Will Smith movie of recent years (I am Legend, Independence Day, Hancock, even his Wild Wild West), Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Bond, etc. Bond movies at least have the cover story of secrecy as to why these incredible exploits are unknown to us in the real world. In other words, I have a little trouble taking this kind of pure escapism seriously, which is why I love a movie like District 9, which uses a fake documentary style and incredible events to poke fun at the genre. Then there are the horror stories, the splatter flicks, vampires, zombies, etc. which fundamentally rely upon being totally unrealistic for their entertainment value: if they had any component that seemed at all realistic, they would be unendurable.
Even Better than the Real Thing
Finally, though, there are the movies that strive to tell real stories, and to do it in a way that feels real. In this, we allow the director the artistic license to enhance reality, because it makes the storytelling tolerably interesting, as long as the condensation of the storyline does not distort it excessively. Argo is a very interesting story based on a real, little-known caper, and most of it was well told. The locations--in Turkey, not Iran--seemed realistic, there is plenty of authenticity in the story, and even much of the Hollywood angle has its truth to it. Unfortunately, the movie goes off the rails at its climax, with an unrealistic car-chasing-plane scene which has no fundamental basis in the true story.
As much as I criticize Steven Spielberg for his emotional manipulation and his willingness to engage in escapist fantasy (E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones), he is a master of the art of telling true stories in a convincing way. In this regard, I cite Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, and Schindler's List, and now I have to say that he has outdone himself with Lincoln. With the assistance of extensive research, a superb screenplay by Tony Kushner, and a brilliant cast, headed by a performance by Daniel Day-Lewis so great that, like War Secretary Edwin Stanton's comment upon the moment of Lincoln's death, it "now...belongs to the ages", Spielberg has told a story that fools the viewer into the feeling that it is the real thing in every way. With Spielbergian manipulative power, he swept me into the world of 1865 Washington D.C. from the first scene to the end. Only when I saw it a second time could I see the artistry of his craft, and I encourage all to view it--repeatedly.
I refer to my previous prediction that the over-under bet for Oscars for the movie is seven. For me, that Lincoln should win Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Picture are absolute certainty, no matter what the competition may be; I'd say it should also contend for 5-10 more: Supporting Actor (David Straitharn or Tommy Lee Jones, if they don't cancel each other's chances out), Best Actress (Sally Field should be nominated, at least), Best Director (maybe not), Music, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costumes, Film Editing, and Makeup.
There is, however, a movie that is rumored to have a real chance of topping Lincoln for Best Picture. * It's the only thing that could beat the real thing, a true story of great importance like that in Lincoln: a story about something real, important, and, better for box office, contemporary, but enhanced way beyond what is real for the purpose of storytelling. I'm referring to Zero Dark Thirty, in which Kathryn Bigelow apparently has once again shown the talent for doing just what she accomplished so well in The Hurt Locker, now applied to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The inverse of my description of horror films above, the intensity of Hurt Locker is beyond what can be endured, except that it has that moral urgency which comes from that relevance. Not being in the privileged fraternity of movie critics or insiders, I haven't seen it, but I think the Oscar race for Best Picture could end up being a classic battle between what is real, but old, and what is now, but even more than real.
*And it's about even with Lincoln in the odds on Intrade--which recently decided to boot off systematically all the illegal American accounts it used to wink at. I hope I can at least still get on--they claim they will have a new, legal form for Americans to participate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
