Fall Movie Preview

This is a guide to help plan the fall viewing season--it sets the scene (as it were), and is the basis for my Official Predictions at the end of the year. I will organize it a little differently this year:  a few numbered themes for the season, then I will reference the theme numbers, with expected 'official' release date (if I can find it), along with my captions for the movies--my impression of what these movies portend to provide us, and how the season should play out.

I was able to catch a couple of movies while in the US—early fall releases, which means their producers don’t really consider them Oscar material--The Giver and The Hundred Foot Journey—.  * One thing that going to a serious film provided was an extensive set of trailers for some of the major releases coming this fall.

I repeat that I have no inside information, just whatever buzz I pick up, plus imdb.com and, yes, a little credit to Entertainment Weekly for legwork.  That rag justifies itself once or twice a year, this is one of them.

Themes:
1)  Amazing True-Life Stories:   I am not against action films as such, but I am so tired of the action film depicting the most amazing thing that ever happened to the human race (if it were true).  This summer was particularly vapid, it seemed to me. So, kudos to Zero Dark Thirty, which depicted something true and pretty amazing, and there are a few of those stories coming this fall.   A subset present this fall:
  1a) Tortured Geniuses (it worked for Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly).

2) The Next Big Thing among actors and actresses-- There are a couple of them each year--somehow the casting trends and vagaries of release times get them to pop up all over the place.  Remember when Jude Law was in everything?  Julia Ormond? Vera Farmiga?  Matt Damon?

3)  Movies marked for one or two nominations -- There are more than a few that—because of the subject matter, director/producer, and cast-- indicate a desire to be a “big Oscar contender”,  but I don’t feel it’s likely for there will be a single movie making a big sweep.  Instead, there appear some strong contenders for specific awards and a lively competition for those coveted Best Picture nominations (up to 10 of them).
4)  Hollywood's Liberal Attitudes Front and Center--always a theme, but maybe moreso this year?
5) Women, or Even Men, Breaking out of Type (or trying to) -- For an example, see Scarlett Johansson (also an example of theme 2 above) in her roles this year, and somehow having a baby, too.
6) Big-Ass Casts, Big Hype--now, more than ever.  See comment on theme 3.
Which leads me to--

Contenders, the Long List:

Interstellar –(3, 6, Nov. 7)--  McConaughey, Hathaway, Christopher Nolan, others.  Wormholes.  Gravity meets those meteor movies of 10 years ago and Carl Sagan's Contact (remember that one, with Jodie Foster?)  The opposite of 1).  Saving the world, with barely plausible science, and superior special effects.   A contender, but not a winner, for other nominations (what exactly did Gravity win, in the end?  Answer:  7 Oscars, so what do I know?  But this year is different, somehow.)

The Theory of Everything -- (1a, 3, 11/7)-- Eddie Redmayne, as the young (pre-and early-disease) Stephen Hawking.   Looks like great timing, with the viral ALS Ice Bucket thing (though I heard his disease called something else in the preview).  Seems an obvious Best Actor nomination.

The Imitation Game--  (1a, 2, 3, 4, 5,  11/21) – The earnest Benedict Cumberbatch makes his bid, in the role of Alan Turing, one of the most significant and unusual characters of the 20^th century (Marathoner, Decoder of the German secret code--project Enigma, outed as homosexual, suicide). Cumberbatch is due; he's earned his stripes with his TV Sherlock (and don't think the AMPAS doesn't notice TV nowadays!)

Selma – (4, 6, 12/25)--  David Oyelowo (...The Butler, his son) as MLK.  Late release is supposedly timed for King's holiday (if you buy that!), with the 50th anniversary of the Selma events next year.  Watch for Tim Roth as George Wallace, Tom Wilkinson as LBJ.  And, it has Oprah Winfrey!

Unbroken--  (1-in a big way, 5, 12/25)  - The truly amazing story of  Louis Zamperini – Olympic athlete, Japanese POW   (died 7/2 aged 97).  Directed by Angelina Jolie, script by the Coen brothers (breaking molds).  Will rise or fall on the performance of relative unknown Jack O'Connell in the lead role. 

Exodus: Gods and Kings-- (3, 12/12)--  Ridley Scott director.  Christian Bale, Sigourney Weaver.  The story of Moses; the test will be whether the parting of the Red Sea, now vs. in the day of Charlton Heston, can still amaze as it once did, and this will determine whether this can qualify at least in special effects.  I don't expect much more.   

Tracks-- (1, 2, now--was released earlier elsewhere) --based on a true-life adventure memoir of a lone woman, with camels, crossing Australia.   Mia Wasikowska is the centerpiece; you may remember her from the offbeat Alice in Wonderland (and she will be in its sequel); she's also starring in a new release of Madame Bovary (which I would say is very unlikely to go over big in the US). 

The Good Lie --(1,2, 3,4, 5, 10/3)--.  Based on a true-life story (moved to the US, though?) of Sudanese who escape conflict, and the small-town woman (played by Reese Witherspoon) who gives them a home and a chance for a new life. 

Gone Girl --(5,6, 10/3)– The kind of story that I hate when true, but this is fictional (very successful novel by Gillian Flynn, who has a screenwriting credit ). Ben Affleck as the suspected murdering husband, Rosamunde Pike as the disappeared wife, Tyler Perry as the Johnnie Cochran-type defense lawyer. A David Fincher movie, with Reese W. as Producer. I like the casting, could be a nomination for Best screenplay, adapted. Don't see nominations for Affleck, Fincher or Best Picture here, though.   

Wild--  (2,3,5,12/5)--  Reese W. in the adaptation of an original memoir.  A hike on the Pacific Crest Trail by a burnt-out person.  True-life but doesn't sound too amazing; however, could this be Reese's nomination, of all the possible ones for her this year? 

Inherent Vice – (6, 12/12)-- Directed and screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – (The Master, There Will be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights)  with Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson, Reese W, and others you would recognize.  As far as I know, the first attempt ever to make a movie of a Thomas Pynchon novel (I would presume he had approval on the script?  I would presume P.T. Anderson is sworn to secrecy?)  And what a choice--his most lurid novel. It's probably this year’s Cloud Atlas—won’t be a hit, but I’m backing it, regardless.  

Annie --(3, 12/19) -- The musical based on the stupid comic strip--the song "Tomorrow", and all that. Quvenzhane’ Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Jamie Foxx, Cameron Diaz.  Sia has new songs in it, which should get it a nomination.  Interesting casting, for sure. 

Into the Woods-- (3, 6-and then some!, 12/25) – Meryl Streep (singing again), Johnny Depp, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine...Directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago).  The 1987 Broadway musical with the fairy tales mixed together, but the movie has no original songs (clearly a lost nomination opportunity!) Stephen Sondheim is credited on music and lyrics, though, which should get a nomination for him of some kind, as they simply must get him to the event.
Foxcatcher-- (5, 6, 11/14)  – Like Gone Girl but a true story; interesting maybe, but not so amazing. Appeals mostly to our morbid curiosity. Steven Carell plays the creepy, rich sponsor of an Olympic wrestler, also features Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, others. Major buzz, but I'm not buying it.
The Judge --(3,5,6, 10/10) – Robert Downey Jr. (co-produced with his wife), Robert Duvall in the title character role. Courtroom drama in which Bob Jr. defends the senior Bob.  Seems like a mess, but Duvall is always an Oscar threat (in this case, it could be Supporting Actor, which would facilitate a nomination).
Birdman -- (6, 10/17)–   Michael Keaton (as ex-superhero actor), Ed Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, directed by Inarritu (21 Grams, Amores Perros).  Yet another movie about a washed- up Keaton playing a super-hero? Super star power, and as with Foxcatcher, major buzz. Seems bathetic.
Whiplash – (2, 3, 5, 10/10) Indie hit with Miles Teller (The Spectacular Now, the Divergent series, the upcoming romcom Two Night Stand (9/26), and a future Fantastic Four series remake), as a jazz drummer. He's supposed to be good in this one (as opposed to the others).
Leviathan (3, 4, 12/31)  Russian production, small-town drama with some allegorical implications; its late release suggests its distributor thinks it's a serious contender, for Best Foreign Language.  Tricky situation, politically, but could be promising.
Rosewater – (1, 4, 5, 11/7)-- Directed by Jon Stewart – memoir of Maziar Bahari, an Iranian journalist imprisoned and tortured.  The political dynamics are positive:  sure, everyone hates Iran (snark), but this one strikes a blow for reform there. I'm thinking nominations for Stewart/Bahari (Screenplay, adapted), Gael Garcia Bernal as the lead character, Shohreh Agdashloo for Supporting Actress (as his wife).

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies -  (3, 6, 12/17) -- Both Hobbit 1 and Hobbit 2 got three nominations each (none won).  Lord of the Rings finally cashed in big on the final installment, so I think Bot5A will get one actual award.  It would be fair if it had Peter Jackson's name attached to it, an award for perseverance (and commercial acuity).  He has won three previously, one being for Screenplay, Adapted:  I think there is some tough competition there, so maybe he should get it for Screenplay, Original, as this is basically all made up, hardly the original story at all. (snark)  Seriously, I think it will be between this one and Interstellar for Visual Effects.

God Help the Girl-- (3, 9/5)  - Only thing that caught my eye about this was that the music is from Belle & Sebastian, who are a fave with some critics.  So it might get a nomination for the music. 

The Book of Life (3, 10/17) – animated film produced by Guillermo del Toro.  So maybe it's the favorite for that award.

And the Rest: 
Big Eyes – (3, 12/25)  Another weird, true story, starring  Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz.  Paintings of girls with big eyes; she turns out to be the painter, he the fraud.  Seems a little too quirky, but I will root for Amy for anything, while Christoph got two Oscars already (prematurely, I’d say).
The Homesman - (6, 11/7) - Tommy Lee Jones, Hilary Swank, Grace Gummer (Meryl's daughter, and Streep in a small role), others. I quote imdb.com for the description:  "A claim jumper and a pioneer woman team up to escort three insane women from Nebraska to Iowa."  Swank is also in You're Not You, described as "a drama centered on a terminally ill woman and the aimless young woman who becomes her caregiver" (Swank is the terminally ill one.)  She sure can pick 'em, eh?  (sarcasm)
Jimi:  All is by my Side --(3, 9/26) --  This is a highly controversial one; Andre Benjamin (Andre 3000 of Outkast) as Jimi Hendrix.  The world is waiting for the definitive Jimi story, but the buzz is that this is not it--and they couldn't get permission to use his original music in the film.  Longshot nomination bid maybe, but Best Actor is a tough category to get a nomination in any year.
While I'm on the topic of controversial movies focusing on blacks:
Dear White People – (4, 10/17, it has made the film festival circuit already)  I saw the preview; it's about how black people see whites, set at a college.  Black people may or may not buy in, but whites certainly will not, not in this polarized climate.
Left Behind – (5?, 10/3) Nic Cage in a Rapture drama, he was a pilot and missed it somehow. There is some dramatic poignance inherent to these stories of transcendental doom, but who really wants to see them?  Not me-
This is Where I Leave You --(2, 6, 9/19)-- Tina Fey, Jason Bateman, Jane Fonda, Adam Driver. Semi-comedic family drama.  Gets the 2) because of Driver (of "Girls"), who is all over and is building a reputation as an actor of Brando-ish intensity.

Last Days in Vietnam (4, 9/5) - A documentary on the helicopter drama in Saigon.  Could be powerful. 

The Zero Theorem  (1a, 8/14, or is it 9/19?) Terry Gilliam directing Christoph Waltz, and others.  Quirky story of a genius trying to solve the mystery of human existence. Sounds like Brazil, but less likely to be successful in the cult way that one ended up being. I'll want to see it, if I can find it. 

Men, Women and Children  - (2,4,5, 10/17)  Directed by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Juno, Thank you for Smoking).   It seems to be about modern day young people; Reitman has an ear and a nose for current trends that cannot be denied. Cast includes Ansel Elgort (the young guy in Fault in Our Stars), Adam Sandler (serious role, that earns it the 5) mention; he has done it before, but still seems to look for the breakout). Although the release has been chaotic (EW didn't even have a release date), I'd say, don't write this one off. 

Rudderless --(3, 10/17) - The feature-length movie directorial debut of the superb character actor William H. Macy.  Starring Anton Yelchin and Billy Crudup, it's the story of a grieving father who forms a band to play the music of his deceased son.  A sleeper for two or three nominations. 

St. Vincent – (6?, 10/24) - Bill Murray as an unlikely daycare guardian for a young kid. With Naomi Watts, Melissa McCarthy.  I saw the preview, and it looks hilarious (as long as they didn't put all the good bits in the trailer), but hilarious doesn't usually win any awards.  Go see it, would be my advice.
Love is Strange –(3, 4, 11/5) -- John Lithgow and Alfred Molina as gay marrieds who suffer for their choice.  Great actors, maybe one will hit it big, but I would see it/them more successful as a comedy, frankly.
Mr. Turner (10/31)  The story of JMW Turner, the 19th century English naturalist painter. Written and directed by veteran Mike Leigh, great character actor Timothy Spall (you'd recognize him) in the title role. Could be a BAFTA winner, but probably a longshot for any Oscar recognition; I feel certain that American audiences will be indifferent.
Pride --(1, 3, 4, 9/19)--Historical drama based on gays who helped British union movement in '80's.  Could sneak in for a couple of US nominations, despite a predictable lack of commercial success.
Maze Runner –(9/19)-- sci-fi action flick.  Looks very improbable (Divergent type); should rake in the dough.

A Merry Friggin Christmas – (now imdb says "sometime in November"!, was scheduled for 11/7 according to imdb.com) With Robin Williams--will it come off the schedule?  It might not be in good taste, considering.  Actually, I have to note that the Christmas movie seems to be disappearing--and this seems at best a post-modern, or an anti-Christmas version of it. 

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb --(6, 12/19)  –  Robin Williams reprised his role as Teddy Roosevelt in this second sequel of the Scooby Doo variety; he is now given top billing over the main character, Ben Stiller.  The Academy does not need to give Williams a posthumous Oscar (or even a nomination) for this turkey; he won an award (deservedly) for Good Will Hunting, and was nominated three other times.
Mockingjay Pt. 1 - (6, 11/21)  I don't really think this one will be up for any Academy awards, either.  It does have the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (see above comment regarding Williams; Hoffman won his award for Capote).  Hoffman's character had been set up perfectly to get bumped off in this episode (I haven't read the books, so I don't know for certain).  Hoffman is also in another movie, one out in some locations but with a re-release 10/30, called A Most Wanted Man, a John LeCarre spy thriller, and I wouldn't be surprised if he got a flyer nomination for Supporting Actor for that (out of homage).  Again, no obligation to give him an award at this point; he deserved more, but not necessarily for that one.  

As always, look for the late December releases, and those around Thanksgiving, to be the leading candidates for the big awards (my categorization, unconsciously, reflected that expectation).  The many September/October ones have a tough task to stay in cinemas through to the end of the year, unless they become runaway hits. The ones where my interest level and likely commercial/Academy success coincide are Unbroken, Selma, and The Imitation Game; possibly also Rosewater, Leviathan, Whiplash, and Men/Women/Children. I will insist, contrary to all other opinions, on Inherent Vice, St. Vincent, Rudderless, The Zero Theorem, and Last Days in Vietnam--at least until I see them!  I will see, and be amazed by, Interstellar, but I will not believe it.  Not for one second. 

*The Giver was a noble, failed effort--talking with my children (who read the book), the big problem was the movie kept the book's confused ending.  100' Journey (title is a good one, if you see it) was sweet, predictable. My sympathies for “The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood  (Richard Linklater's inventive, longitudinal study of childhood), which were ambitious efforts, well-received by critics, but have to be considered longshots for the major awards, given their early release dates.  Actually, it will be interesting to see if Ralph Fiennes gets a nomination for Best Actor for Grand Budapest, which he certainly deserved.   What is Wes Anderson thinking, releasing the movie in the spring?  Doesn't he have any self-respect? (snark)

Arcade Fire -- All In

@ 

United Center - Chicago, IL - Tue, August 26

 Arcade Fire's show--and I do mean "show"--was very impressive. They brought it all--Confetti, balloons, lights, mirrors, costumes (with big-head masks), a revolving second stage, even a disco ball for a song or two (This latter, and its frame, intruded on my line of sight.) The only thing missing was Fireworks (they were not needed).

Here's a brief video of the Reflektor Guy, who emerged on the second stage and spun slowly with intense light beams shone on him. Unfortunately, my miserable camera couldn't contain the glare: 

They brought passion and great musicianship, with an expanded group: I counted 12 people. Besides the three principals (Win Butler, brother Will, wife Regine), and the familiar members on bass, drums, violin, and guitar, they added two extra percussionists and horns.

It reminded me of the classic expanded Talking Heads band of the early '80's in many ways--crossing multiple genres, the sense of joy. They have accentuated the Caribbean music influence and brought forward Regine's role. I would say that the current release shows a surprising turn toward a "nouveau disco"--leave it to the Francophones for that-- (or at least rave/house/electronic sound), but definitely toward higher production value--no garage/grunge here, though there were a couple of songs with full-bore, chaotic noise.

The selection of songs--both from the new album an from the old ones--was pretty much impeccable. They didn't insist on playing all the songs from "Reflektor", and that pleased the crowd, which knew all the words, particularly from the oldest albums.

I have to admit my familiarity pretty much ends with "Neon Bible" and "The Suburbs", but the crowd (all ages, I should say) seemed to be AF loyalists from the beginning. The invite suggested cool formal wear or costume; it was optional, really, but all part of getting people engaged in the show in a way comparable with the artists' own evident commitment.

The show started on time with '80's punk/electronic ironists Devo and had a great middle session with DJ Dan Deacon, who did a good job getting the crowd involved and using the large space left open at the back of the floor area.

Great program, great performance.

Favorite moment: Win forgot what day it was (did he really forget?), and used that "memory lapse" to launch a song he wrote 20 years ago.

Setlist: 1. Here Comes the Night Time
2. Neighborhood #3 (Power Out)
3. Joan of Arc/My Body is a Cage
4. Month of May
5. The Suburbs
6. Ready to Start
7. Neighborhood #1 (Tunnels)
8. We Exist
9. Reflektor
10. Keep the Car Running
11. No Cars Go
12. Haiti
13. Afterlife
14. It’s Never Over (Oh Orpheus)
15. Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains)
Encore:
16. Who Do You Love (Bo Diddley)
17. Normal Person
18. Rebellion (Lies)
19. Wake Up
(from Greg Kot's review in Chicago Tribune)

Progress Report Pt. 1--Sports

It's been awhile--I apologize for my summer break, which involved a lot of travel.  We will cover a lot of ground as I comment on progress (or lack thereof) in a number of my favorite topical areas.

Baseball:   There's about 20% left of the regular season, and the races for the postseason spots are fairly clear.  There have been about five or six good teams, seven or eight terrible ones, and the rest have been thoroughly mediocre (or inconsistent).

It is shaping up as a good season for the California teams:  three of the five are sure to make the postseason (Dodgers, A's, and Angels), with the Giants a likely contender for one of the contested wildcard spots.  (Only the Padres are out of it.)  The two teams with the best records in the majors (I hate the expression "in baseball", when referring to the North American MLB , as it disrespects the Japanese league) are Los Angeles de Anaheim and the Oakland A's in the same division, the AL West.  One of them will be cruelly set into a one-game playoff against the survivor of a close three-way race (the Yankees, Mariners, and the AL Central runner-up); that survivor will probably be on something of a hot streak, so that Angels-A's contest (they have a big series this weekend) shapes up as perhaps the most important down the stretch..

In the National League, barring a collapse, four teams we should expect to advance are Washington in the East, Milwaukee and St. Louis in the Central, and the Dodgers.  The Central should end up being close, while the other wild card looks to be a three-way contest between Atlanta, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh.  (My Reds had a golden opportunity to make the postseason, but lack of depth has led to a recent, definitive collapse.)

In the AL, Baltimore emerged as the best team in a shockingly bad Eastern division (faded glory), while Detroit failed to evidence its expected quality and is now in a tight race with the Royals in the Central. Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Kansas City have been the teams showing significantly more than expected, with the Washington Nationals re-emerging to the form of two years ago, while the list of disappointing teams (or ones handicapped by injury) is long.

My preliminary picks for the World Series would be the Dodgers against the AL West division winner; most of the contending teams have stocked their rotations enough to be threatening in a short series, but I think the Dodgers are the only NL team strong enough to put up a good battle in the Fall Classic.

A final comment, regarding the AL's apparent superiority:  It is somewhat real (hard for me, an NL fan, to admit), as it has a 147-126 edge in interleague play (with 27 games left to go), but five of the six divisions have an aggregate won-lost better than .500.  It is only the NL West, despite the presence of the Dodgers (along with Washington, the best team in the league) and the respectable Giants, which has absorbed all the other divisions' positive records: With three bad teams (the Padres, and the awful Rockies and Diamondbacks) the NL West is at -31. .

NBA:  A lively offseason sets up a season of change. The big move was LeBron James moving from Miami back to Cleveland (yes, they forgave him, and quickly), and Cleveland then shored up their lineup with rebounding/scoring big forward Kevin Love.  The return of Derrick Rose to active duty in Chicago (I should mention also the addition of Paul Gasol) makes the Bulls and the Cavaliers the early favorites in the Eastern Conference, which overall at least should be more competitive with the West this year. (Besides those two, Miami remains a playoff team, the Knicks signed strategic superstar Phil Jackson to build around re-signed Carmelo Anthony, and the Nets and Pacers remain potent, if weakened, squads.)

Crunch time is coming for teams such as defending champion San Antonio (basically unchanged, except its aging core a year older, which could be offset by continued development of their emerging star Kawhi Leonard), the LBJ-less Heat, the Bulls, and, most emphatically, the Oklahoma City Thunder, which has two years left to show Kevin Durant that the combo with him, Russell Westbrook, and Serge Ibaka (but without James Harden) can win in the postseason.

I will hold off on predictions for the season until the summer ends, hoping that the USA basketball team will not suffer any more injuries such as the one which knocked Paul George (and probably his team, the Pacers) out of this season.

Soccer:  Personally, my soccer mind is still trying to recover from those two shocking blowouts at the World Cup:  Germany 7-1 over Brazil, and Holland 5-1 over Spain.  I think the latter one may have more impact on the 2014-15 club season:  I can't imagine the teams from La Liga dominating Europe the way Spain's teams did last season.

To my view, it was a busy--no, chaotic--summer transfer season, and I'm not sure it's over even yet.  The prevailing move was the sale of one big-money player to have the funds to buy another.  It reminds me of those puzzles where you can only move one piece at a time, shifting them constantly until you (hopefully) end up with the right picture--in this case, the combination of on-field chemistry and economic viability.

It's hard to make a complete picture of what it all means, but I will say I don't like the changes to the Champions League finalists, Real and Atletico Madrid, and I (mostly) like the changes to my team, Chelsea. They are stocked at midfield (I love the addition of Fabregas), defense, and even goaltender, now that they brought back Courtois from Atletico.  Just as I don't like the single striker up front, I really don't like the fact that Chelsea has only three strikers (and now the big one, Diego Costa, is injured).  You can put me down as one who disagrees with letting Lukaku go definitively to Everton.

Still, I have to give credit to Mourinho:  he doesn't play it safe, he is a great judge of soccer talent, his outspoken opinions draw attention to himself and take the pressure off his players, and his teams show up ready for the big games.  He is under the guillotine, no doubt:  either the Champions Cup, the Premier League, or he will be fired.  My predictions:  Chelsea loses vs. Bayern Munich in the Champions League final (a rematch of 2012), and Manchester City, narrowly, over Chelsea in the Premier League.  Mourinho departs after coming so close to a super season.

Football:     I don't plan to watch any games until sometime in November.  I really don't understand the appeal of preseason NFL games--it is laughable, or pitiable; however, it did provide most of the opportunity fans will have to see Johnny Manziel play in live action this season.  Here are the five important questions for the year:
1) Can the Supersonics repeat? No--Russell Wilson is bound to get hurt.
2) Can the Broncos win it for Peyton Manning, in what surely must be his last season? No, and it may not be (his last).
3) Will any big-market teams do well, besides New England?  No, but it might help if there were one in LA.
4)  How many times will broadcasters/commentators slip up and say "Redskins"?  How many of those slip-ups will be intentional malfunctions (identifiable, because they say "sorry" before or after)?  Hundreds; about 80% of them.
5) Who will be more studly in the Super Bowl, Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers?  Take your pick.
And, no, Weird Al will not be playing at halftime--the NFL isn't cool enough, in that nerdy way that would be required.

And, in terms of the NFL's minor league, Alabama will dominate, as usual, in the regular season, but the four-team playoff (finally, progress!) will give the Tide two chances to go out, and I think they will do it.  Not to a Big 10 team, though; that is unthinkable.

Is It About Titanium?

I had an interesting conversation with a Russian emigre the other day.  He was a military engineer in the Soviet Union, before he defected--now he drives a taxicab.  He told me that, apart from the posturing and national prestige stuff going on with Putin and "New Russia", there is an important military-economic rationale for the aggression in Ukraine.

The world's largest supplier of titanium--which is an essential mineral in the bodies of military (and commercial) aircraft, as well as submarines--is a company called VSMPO, which is controlled by Rostec, the Russian-government owned technology company.  All the titanium VSMPO uses comes from the Ukraine. These are all facts.

Now, here's where the defector's speculation comes in, and some of this is less easily verified.  He alleged that there is a major titanium ore mine (producing rare "blue titanium", he said) in the Donetsk region.  He told me the name of the place--three times--but I could not find it.  The metallurgical plant in Ukraine which processes the ore is in an area called Irshansk, which is far from the Russian border, but I imagine the plant is secondary, while access to the ore could be the primary objective.  The smelting, he says, is in Crimea (which Russia annexed a few months ago).  In the Soviet days, he told me, these areas could transport materials easily and produce without border restrictions; today, if Ukraine blocked titanium shipments (the critical material is apparently called "ilmenite"), it could disrupt production of Russian military planes and submarines, as well as critical arms trade it conducts with a number of other countries.

Here are a couple more facts:  the sanctions have not yet targeted the flow of titanium--this is certainly no accident. Rostec (and the plane manufacturer Sukhoi) are both blocked from trading with the US government because of sanctions (relating, apparently, to previous trade with Iran), but Rostec has a major joint venture to supply titanium to--Boeing. According to the Wall Street Journal (an article about three weeks ago), Boeing has been stockpiling titanium to insure against adverse consequences if the Russia-Ukraine crisis continues or intensifies (which it seems to have done, just in the last couple of days, as Russia invaded a new front in Ukraine, closer to Crimea).  Boeing claims to have about eight months' supply.

Just when Ukraine seemed to have a handle on the insurgents in the Donetsk area, Russia has chosen to provoke new disruption.  I am waiting to see if this hidden story comes more to the forefront, but titanium is such an important strategic resource that it is not hard to believe that concerns about the metal may lie behind some of the outrageous acts of the past few weeks.

Getting the Big Ones Right

Thursday I was getting planning to write an Andy Rooney-ish post about a variety of minor annoyances. Leaving work, though, I felt in a great mood and didn't feel the need; however. there was something bothering me.  This news story about the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq put to flight by threats of imminent massacre; I got into a couple of chats about it, as I am wont to do, and suggested that the correct action would be a humanitarian relief effort with an armed escort, and I predicted, based on the dire reports, that it would be announced within hours. I went to bed uneasily that night, my cellphone set to CNN so I could easily check updates during the night.

I would say I had it about 40% right. The timing was spot on; when I woke up and checked at 4 a.m. (10 p.m. Eastern), the announcement from President Obama was there.   Of course, that's usually the time when major Presidential announcements are made, late in prime time (East coast).  With regard to the humanitarian effort to provide food and supplies to the Yazidis on the mountain, there was no announcement of an armed escort, which would be there to make sure the supplies did not fall into the wrong hands and to help with distribution.  Of course, thinking about it, it would not make sense to say Americans were rappelling down to the mountaintop to help; it could bring up unwanted discussions of whether there were technically "combat forces' boots on the ground", as well as providing an extra incentive to the besiegers to attack: the trade value of a captured US military person would be enormous.  Neither did the announcement say there was not an armed escort--what would have made most sense was to have a few brave, armed Iraqis go down and help, and word that there is an airlift of people from the mountaintop--very limited--suggests this is probably the case.

The big one that I didn't anticipate was the initiation of airstrikes against the forward elements of ISIS* forces approaching Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region (and new refuge for thousands from fleeing Iraqi minorities).  There is a tactical military sense to it; by slowing their thrust at a reasonable distance from the city, the airstrikes can prevent panic in the justifiably nervous civilian populations there.  There is also the fact, of which I was unaware or that I had forgotten, that US military advisers were in Irbil with the Kurdish forces--this is always a key factor in the equation determining future US military calculations.  Still, this was a bit of a surprise and not entirely welcome.  I agree with the statement from Keith Ellison, head of the Progressive Caucus in the US House, who supports Obama's initiatives but warns against "mission creep".

The US woke up yesterday to find we had started military action, and then today found out that our journalists have concluded for us that we are in a new war--as the Times said in one of their least fair headlines, that "Airstrikes May Continue for Months, Obama Says".  Actually, he said no such thing, though it is possible to conclude that they could.  In his televised speech Friday, which I recommend as a perfect example of the Obama Doctrine--the difference between no wars and stupid wars--he gave the reasons for the orders commencing the airstrikes, clearly and persuasively.  In his hasty news appearance on Saturday (with a helicopter waiting in the background to take him on vacation), he was a little less careful.  He said efforts to support the Kurdish forces (and Iraqi forces) would continue, and that the priority was on getting the different factions together into a new--and different--government.  This is the "long-term project".   He didn't say the airstrikes near Erbil wouldn't continue, of course--that would tend to reduce their effectiveness--but one can hope that blunting the assault would buy the time needed.  As for the humanitarian effort, it should be over in a few days.  Neither enterprise is assured of success.

Public reaction, I would say, puts Obama's position right in the center of the spectrum, from those who want more war now to those who are convinced this is Iraq War 3.  It may be, but unlike the first two, there won't be American ground forces in Iraq:  I'm pretty sure of that, at least as long as President Obama is around, but that's only 29 more months, and it would be optimistic to think that the country will get all straightened out and peaceful in that amount of time (29 years, maybe)  Just a couple points about Iraq:  we don't "own it", because we didn't "break it"; it's pretty much been broken for at least 50 years.  And we are there under the terms the previous President and current Iraqi Prime Minister left us:  if, as much as, and as long as, the government there wants us, and no more--maybe less, in the actual case.

Not Saying She's a Critic, but 'Helpful' Would Be Stretching It
Would-be President Clinton has popped up in recent days with an interview in Atlantic in which she does some careful distancing from Obama's positions, in particular the old debate--now more or less a dead issue--of arming anti-Assad moderates.  She doesn't come out and say this would have prevented the emergence of ISIS, but she suggests it might have helped (and again the headline writers jump headlong to the misleading and provocative conclusion--"Hillary Clinton: 'failure' to help Syrian Rebels led to the Rise of ISIS."  Well, she did use the word 'failure'.)

Headlines like those make it easy to see why there is some erosion in public support for Obama's foreign policy.  Things are quite difficult right now, on a number of fronts, and the support of Obama's political allies is a bit ambivalent.  Meanwhile, the partisanship has spilled over into the handling of foreign affairs.  Debate over these is something I support--it's better than everyone falling in line once the flag is unfurled--but Obama is given little credit for the successes, and every one of them has a "yes, but..." attached:  exiting Iraq and Afghanistan, deposing Qaddhafi, removing the chemical weapons from Syria, agreement on the enriched uranium with Iran, even punishing President Putin's Russia for Ukraine and containing China's naval ambitions.

Clinton says plenty of positive things about Obama in the interview, but does indicate a few points of divergence.  The one about Syrian rebels is public knowledge; Obama has the view that it was never a real option to arm them. Her positions in general are a bit more hawkish, and significantly more completely in line with Israel's in the current confrontation in Gaza.

Israel-Palestine has been one singular lack of success so far in the Obama foreign policy.  I am certain that he and Secretary Kerry will give it one more go in the last two years of his administration, but Clinton's comments (quite revealing on some of the specifics in the recent negotiations) suggest to me that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is a close observer of Washington, will conclude he can get a better deal in the next administration. And so it (always) goes:  somebody there always seems to think there's reason to delay.

Avoiding Cold War II
With regard to the famous Russian Reset, what we got the second time around doesn't seem to run any better, and it's too late to re-boot again, for all concerned.  That "increased flexibility" Obama was overheard to promise the Russian Foreign Minister after the 2012 elections (it was taken out of context and referred to strategic arms limitation negotiations only) is long since gone. We have to deal with the Putin we have, not the one we would like to have.  I don't think it's impossible to deal with Putin; he's willing to help if it's in his interest (for example, with Syrian chemical weapons and with Iran).  The difficulty, as seems always the case with Russian leaders, is fully appreciating their different point of view on the world.

Let me suggest a little counter-factual thought piece which might help.  Let's propose that the full depth of the Great Crater of 2008-09 emerged a few months later than it did, and that John McCain won the election, immediately proceeded to irritate the Chinese, who pulled out their money and the recession became a depression.  Let's further assume that the deficit became unmanageable, the government defaulted on its debts, and that the Constitution came crashing down.  A few states--let's propose a Redneck Republic of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, along with outlying territories Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico--decided to go their own way. Now, how do you think those of the 45 remaining states, who managed to pull it back together somewhat, would feel toward those renegades a couple of decades later?  And what if a faction emerged in Arkansas (headed by Chelsea Clinton) that suggested that Arkansans were sick of the Rednecks and might welcome it if the NUSA might take them back?  What would President-for-life Marco Rubio's response be?

All quite ludicrous, I suppose, but we have to consider the roller coaster ride Russia has been on, and the unsatisfied nostalgic desire for what now seems to have once been that is present in a large portion of the Russian people.  They want Putin to do the things he is doing:  in Ukraine now, and before that in Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Caucasus. Like Cubans under our embargo there, the reaction of the world's punitive actions against Russians will only make it easier to bring them more tightly around to the nationalist line. Although there is no new Treaty of Versailles (and maybe there should be some peace terms developed even now, though not humiliating ones), it brings to mind the volatility of Germany between the Wars, which became an eagerness to settle the score.

We have to be careful--and I think President Obama is--to get the right mix between punishing the (clearly) bad behavior of Russia in Ukraine and driving Russia back toward the isolation that historically has been a strong impulse of that country.  Worse still would be if we drove Russia into the arms of China and a formal alliance against the West--the Chinese might be receptive, if they felt our policy toward them was strictly one of containment, and given their ongoing energy resource issues for which Russia, if it gets frozen out of Europe, would be in a position to offer help.

My conclusion is that these are exceedingly "interesting" times for US foreign affairs, and I would really like Obama to get as many of them settled as possible before he leaves:  I trust him--his careful, intelligent approach--more than any other alternative I can see on the horizon.

*ISIS:  The movement has now taken the name (in English) "IS"--Islamic State, probably wanting to avoid association with the ancient Egyptian "devil-worshippers" god Isis, and reflective of their now-global ambitions (as opposed to just Iraq and Syria).  The US is now officially referring to it as "ISIL", which is neither a concession to the Islamists' expressed will nor inflammatory.  I prefer the inflammatory title, which also is the one in the Atlantic article.