Fall Movie Preview
Until very recently, 2016 has been a poor year for film. To be more precise, I'm speaking of movies in general release (as opposed to showing only in film festivals) that are not mere titillation, action, silliness, nor animaion (more later on this). I would name only three that have made a positive impression on me:
1) Hell or High Water--Nominally, this is a standard cops-and-robbers story about two bank robbers and the Texas Rangers tracking them down. What makes it special is the combination of well-drawn characters, great acting, a powerful script with humor and edge, and devastating East Texas locations that make a statement about modern poverty in white America. Once again, Jeff Bridges makes an Oscar bid with his Ranger, something seemingly stuffed "between teeth and gums" in his lower mouth throughout; Chris Pine was just as strong as the brains of two brothers' convoluted Robin Hood-ish spree.
2) The Free State of Jones - This one came out too early in the year; Matthew McConnaughey's ground-breaking performance (once again!) will be long forgotten, superseded possibly even by another of his roles, but I loved the way this largely-factual story turned Confederacy-lovers' false narratives of the Civil War upside down. It was loved by neither the public nor critics, but we don't really care about that, now, do we? I recommend trying to find it if you missed it.
3) Snowden - This was a near-ideal subject for an Oliver Stone flick--lots of opportunity for his investigative journalistic-style conspiracy forays. The film focuses on Snowden's career as a spook through flashbacks from the climactic release of his material to Guardian journalists in Hong Kong. To Stone's credit, he handled this one well, not straying from the known factual record, and concealing effectively the line where Stone's speculation begins. An excellent performance by the title lead, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and by two supporting actresses, Shailene Woodley as Snowden's girlfriend and Melissa Leo as the documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras (I'd like to see Poitras' film at some point).
Although I am a strong supporter of privacy rights, I have not been one of those to make a hero of Snowden's whistle-blowing. First, I didn't find much surprising about the fact the NSA can and does snoop into any and all transmissions (the one thing in the movie/Snowden's disclosures that really bothered me is the ability to turn on and use the camera of sleeping laptops); second, he clearly broke his oath of secrecy, so I don't think the US should or will offer him total amnesty, only some eventual leniency. Finally, though, I don't think too much has changed as a result--if we didn't already know that any device that's turned on and online is fair game for the spooks, we do now, and the revised FISA regime provides very little protection for the innocent.
Enough about that and those--the good news is that the fall season will be rich in releases. Some are guaranteed box office, and several appear to be prizeworthy. A quick rundown of the notable release with expected dates follows. I've classified them into four groups--the Serious Contenders, Pretenders (to serious contention), Interesting Variations (creative and different from the usual), and those that will be light enjoyment and/or big box office. Clearly, the border between the first two categories could be blurry and I could guess wrong on some, but as it is, with 13 films I list as "contenders", I am expecting some spreading around of the Oscars (as there was in 2015), which is generally a good sign. A quick rundown, with expected release dates, follows.
Serious Contenders
10/21 American Pastoral --from the Philip Roth novel, directed by Ewan McGregor, starring McGregor, Dakota Fanning, and Jennifer Connelly. Roth= HEAVY! It will not be enjoyable, it may be indispensable, but will it be watchable?
11/11 Loving - an interracial couple whose bid to marry in Virginia violated the law, the case going to the Supreme Court. Ordinary follks oppressed by reactionary government--looks like a winning formula for Hollywood awardgivers.
11/18 Nocturnal Animals - a story-in-a-story thriller with Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, directed by fashion superstar Tom Ford. The starpower looks irresistible if the movie is any good at all.
11/18 Manchester by the Sea - Michele Williams tearjerker with good buzz from Sundance; a possible breakthrough role for Ben Affleck's little brother Casey. If I have to.
11/25 Lion - The star of Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel) with a Life of Pi-kind of story and Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara in the cast. Have to take it seriously.
12/2 La La Land - Romance between Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling, who plays a jazz pianist. I'm skeptical, but the buzz is persistent, and if Gosling's keyboards are real and convincing, he could have a Best Actor play.
12/9 Jackie - Natalie Portman as Jackie Onassis. The miracles of camera angles will make up for any height deficiency, and I expect Portman can handle the demands of the role and earn an Oscar nom.
12/9 Burn Country - James Franco's serious role, with Melissa Leo. A war journalist returns from Afghanistan and finds trouble in the homeland.
12/16 Collateral Beauty - Will Smith trying a serious dramatic role, with a cast full of stars. Michael Frankel, a prolific TV and movie director, making his own bid for the big time.
12/16 (limited release) The Founder - I don't like the limited release game, and I'm not that fond of Michael Keaton, but this story of the original McDonalds, and how Ray Kroc took it over and took it worldwide, sounds very interesting to me. One to see in early 2017.
12/25 - Gold - Matthew McConnaughey strikes gold in the wilderness of Indonesia, gets bilked out of it. I've seen the trailer, and it told me too much. It should play well in the US, maybe not abroad.
12/25 Toni Erdmann - Germany's submission for best foreign language film - serious drama of a man and his grown daughter, directed by a woman- Maren Ade.
12/25 Fences - Like Will Smith, Denzel Washington seems to have put aside his action playthings and is looking for some recognition (additional, in his case). Story by the famed playwright August Wilson.
Pretenders
9/30 - Deepwater Horizon - seems to be more about the tragedy of the platform workers than the endless cleanup which got the news. Stars Mark Wahlberg.
10/7 - The Girl on the Train - this year's missing woman Gone Girl-type story.
11/4 Hacksaw Ridge - This was a tough call: the true story of an American conscientious objector who won the Medal of Honor for WWII exploits saving lives sounds like a winner. The director was Mel Gibson, though, and we know how much Hollywood hates him now.
11/11 Elle - Isaelle Huppert tracking down her rapist.
10/14 The Accountant - A weird story premise, with Ben Affleck as an Asperger's genius accountant for the mob who has to take up arms. Seems ludicrous to me (but I do love the use of the Radiohead song in the trailer).
12/9 Miss Sloane - Although I'm a fan of its star, Jessica Chastain, I'm picking this story of a woman challenging the gun lobby to be a miss. It has been done, and gun control does not seem to be welcomed as a real issue these days.
12/21 (limited release) Patriots Day - Another Mark Wahlberg effort, investigating the bombing of the Boston Marathon. It might work for some, but I am totally sick of crime forensic dramas.
Interesting Variations
10/7 -The Birth of a Nation - This account of the slave revolt of 1831 in Virginia led by Nat Turner and violently repressed is like the bookend to The Free State of Jones. It is likely to be even more controversial--in the current Black Lives Matter/Charlotte riots context, and because it will differ so markedly in perspective from the William Styron novel The Confessions of Nat Turner. When it's released, you will be forced to endure discussion of who, exactly, is entitled to tell the story of a tribe/ethnic group/nationality, and who is not. I'm more interested in whether the film will present the entire arc of the story--the motivations of the rebels, of the frightened, vengeful slaveowners, and of those who were neither one nor the other. If it works, it could be another 12 Years a Slave. And, finally, note the title, an intentional disrespectful reference to the "classic"1915 KKK movie by D.W. Griffith.
10/21 Moonlight - This is to be the first of a three-part narrative about a black man living in Miami. Once again, high potential for controversy, and the serial film strategy is an unusual one (for something that's not science fiction or fantasy).
11/11 Arrival - Amy Adams plays a linguist recruited by the military for a secret mission: translating alien communications. I will take a chance on Adams on almost anything, so I hope it will not be a waste of my time and money. The alien arrival thing has potential but it has also been done a bit too much, considering how low the likelihood.
12/16 Neruda - a Spanish/French production of the life of the radical Chilean poet, played by Gael Garcia Bernal. Chile's submission for Best Foreign Language consideration.
12/24 Inferno by Dante - I saw a trailer for this: it is very unusual, with narration by Eric Roberts and veteran Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, both about Dante's creation and with some presentation of it with paintings providing visuals. Will not be a big hit, but I will see if it if I can find it.
12/31 Strangers in a Strange Land - 12 comedic shorts set in 12 global cities. Interesting idea, and I like the reference to Heinlein's sci-fi classic.
Just for the Fun or Box Office of it -
9/23- Magnificent Seven - big hype, big cast, been done too much already. Pass.
9/30 - Miss Peregrine's home for Peculiar Children - a Tim Burton creepfest, from the young adult novel by Ransom Riggs, with a pretty big-time cast. If my children insist on my going.
10/21 Keeping up with the Joneses - Zach Galifianakis/Jon Hamm/Isla Fisher/Gael Gadot (new WonderWoman). A comedy about spies (or terrorists) and ordinary people in the suburbs. I've seen the preview twice and it had me in hysterics both times--I hope they didn't use all the good stuff in the trailer.
10/28 -Inferno - Tom Hanks re-reprises his DaVinci Code role in another Dan Brown mystery thriller, directed by Ron Howard, and including the felicitous Felicity Jones. I will watch it for the locations: Florence, Venice, Istanbul.
11/18 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - The other movie on my teenage daughter's must-see list, J.K. Rowling's new Harry Potter prequel. I will not contribute directly.
12/16 - Rogue One - A pretty good idea, a Star Wars spinoff between #3 and #4 (the original), starring Miss Jones again. Better idea than the new series, I'd say.
12/25 Why Him? James Franco as the boyfriend unappreciated by her Dad, Bryan Cranston. Seems pretty lightweight.
12/31 Mata Hari - David Carradine (Kung Fu series, Kill Bill series) tries his hand at directing the classic story of the WWI woman spy. Could be interesting, more likely howlingly bad. It's listed for 12/31, but I'm thinking its release will be held up.
1/6 F.U. Woody Allen - A black man's true story of trying and failing to get in a Woody Allen movie (it seems he never casts African Americans). Not a 2016 release, apparently, but could have some sneaky support from Hollywood elements who are a bit peeved at Allen's snotty weirdness.
Finally, there is the strange saga of Terrence Malick, who might be both the most-loved and most-hated American auteur director. His 2016 oeuvre has two parts: First was The Knight of Cups, a delayed-release early-2016 flop with a big cast (including Christian Bale), which appears to be the only film this year to which perennial top cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki contributed. It disappeared before I could ever find it. The other part is a documentary short, Voyage of Time: Life's Journey, which appears to have some astronomical outtakes from The Tree of Life (if you've seen that movie, you'll have a good idea what I mean) and was narrated by the impeccable Cate Blanchett. It would be a good pick for that obscure Oscar category if nominated.
P.S. If you're wondering about The Lobster--I saw it, and I have to admire the sheer weirdness of it. Did not like it--at all. Satire is my favorite movie genre, but that was not recognizable to me as such--maybe because I'm not a paranoid single.
Showing posts with label CSI: Boston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSI: Boston. Show all posts
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Political Drama 2016: Act I, Scene 1
Republican Kabuki
If it were a TV show, the 2016 election would begin with a spasm of violence (something like what occurred in Paris yesterday--see below), then cut to a commercial. That is the principle of the hook.
Make no mistake, the story of the 2016 elections has now begun, but it begins with drama that is, at best, fake--it's more like mundane events setting the scene. There is nothing wrong with that; Shakespeare's plays often began in like manner; the big events, if there are to be such, will come later. This week, we get the Kabuki play of John Boehner's (tearful, of course) election as Speaker, despite a handful of self-promoting fools who mistakenly believe their Congressional service will be enhanced by rebelling against their party caucus' decisions. At least their actions will identify themselves as people not to be counted on for key votes by the party's Majority Whip, Steven Scalise.
Speaking of Scalise, he had his own fake drama this week. An enterprising reporter dug up the gem that Scalise had spoken to a white supremacist group in his state of Louisiana headed by the famous racist politician David Duke--twelve years ago. It was not scandalous behavior then, because Scalise was a no-name state legislator looking for support wherever he could find it. It may be scandalous now, but it hardly qualifies as news: Scalise was fairly open at the time that his politics were like Duke's "without the baggage"; now he has the baggage and it is Duke. Beyond being "pro-white", Duke is also big on the global Jewish conspiracy topic--that is the one that Scalise will have to throw over convincingly, if he wants to remain in the party's House leadership. Not to please his party's caucus, which lost its only Jewish member when his predecessor, Eric Cantor, lost his seat last summer in a primary against an obscure tea-bagger, but to keep from alienating Sheldon Adelson, one of the party's super-rich backers--and a major backer of Israel and Netanyahu--who must be placated.
The most dramatic move to date in the budding 2016 electoral story has been made by Jeb Bush, who opted for the early headline move in positioning himself to run. The early move has worked in the past---notably, for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama--but is no guarantee of success (just look at Rick Perry, who preceded Jeb this time around but seems to be making no traction at all, in spite of trying to adopt a more intellectual persona). Jeb's move has worked well, though, putting the pressure on other potential party Establishment figures to either get in or give up: in particular, Chris Christie is on the spot, Mitt Romney's camera-shy wife now has a good reason to tell her husband the country does not, after all, need him to run again, and Marco Rubio is in a tough bind. I think all three will end up being pre-empted by Bush's move; though they may still decide to run, they will find it a tough row to hoe. In particular, if Bush has put to rest the thoughts of another Romney candidacy, he has achieved a major tactical success: the Republicans, especially the Establishment ones, like hierarchy and an orderly succession, and Romney's willingness to take on the incumbent President is endearing to them (though not to the right wing, which insists on the strange argument that he and John McCain only lost because they weren't "conservative" enough).
I don't think Bush's move prompted Mike Huckabee's withdrawal as a Fox News paid commentator; instead, he has listened to his advisers and stepped forward early, in order to try to build a structured campaign--something he failed to do in 2008, preventing him from capitalizing on his unexpected victory in the Iowa caucuses. He may be able to pull that Iowa trick off again, as he has a solid core of support that could emerge from a crowded field of right-wingers. But will he have his lines prepared for Act I, Scenes 2 and 3? If he can survive New Hampshire and make a good showing in the always-critical South Carolina Republican primary, he, rather than Ted Cruz, could be the survivor on the right-wing to make the final group of serious contenders for the nomination (as I said before, I think the other two will be Bush and Rand Paul). I have underestimated Huck before; I will try not to do it this time.
Je Suis Triste Pour Charlie
I am a big fan of political satire. For me, it is the highest form of literary art, and I hope that someday I may have the time and ability to write a decent satirical work. Dealing with the powers that be in a less than respectful manner, it is also an art which takes great risk.
We are accustomed to think that the forms of attack on press freedom come from the government: trying to get journalists to reveal their sources, pressing them when they disclose secrets, targeting them in civil wars (as has happened in Syria). Government also provides the press a safe harbor in some respects, in the form of special protection against slander and libel suits. The notion that private individuals can cripple press freedom and effectiveness of political satire through acts of violence is, in this day, a new and scary proposition.
I hope you will not think it churlish, and it may relate to my weakness with the French language, but what I have to say about the satire I have seen from the satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo that was attacked yesterday in brutal, terroristic fashion is that it doesn't seem very funny to me. Brave, defiant, irreverent, yes, but not so humorous. I have always insisted that sense of humor is subjective: I hate it when people try to get me to agree with them, contrary to what my senses and emotion tell me, that "That's funny" or "That's not funny"--so I will limit my comment to that subjective observation, but that is the reason that I am not quite in the "Je suis Charlie" camp.
I am sad for those involved (especially the policemen who had the difficult and dangerous task of trying to defend the newspaper from the attack); I am angry at those who did it (and those who may have put them up to it); I will raise my pen (or my mouse), if that form of protest makes some kind of difference. Finally, I will express my full solidarity with the French people: we Americans may find them hard to deal with (that cursed independence! I joke), but they are, in fact, our oldest and most reliable allies in the world. We have never fought a war against them (as Americans), and our alliance goes back even farther than our nationhood.
One piece on the subject that I found especially interesting was written by Daniel Burke, CNN's Religion Editor. Burke discusses the history and practice of this prohibition on the publishing of images of Mohammed. First, I found it interesting that this is never mentioned in the Quran; second, that the practice is not consistent across all of Islam (he observes that images of Mohammed--with faces--are found in the cultures of Turkey and Iran, but not often in Sunni mosques, and very rarely if ever in the Arabian peninsula). Finally, he comments on the irony that this fetish about not having the image produced comes from a directive to avoid creating idols, that Mohammed wanted Islam to treat him as an ordinary man, not a god to be worshipped. In today's society, it is a fact that the depiction of real-life heroes tends to make them more human; therefore, it would make sense for the practice of Islam to relax this prohibition, to make the religion more approachable. Certainly it should be shouted from all the minarets that the depiction of Mohammed is not a capital offense.
Is there a tie-in from this episode in Paris to the 2016 election? Not really--only this: as we saw also in the terror attack at the Boston Marathon (case finally going to trial), the threat in today's Western countries takes the form of small cells of committed fanatics with unlikely targets far removed from the centers of power and commerce. It was my fervent desire that GWOT (Global War on Terror) would end in these post-Bushite years (we may not even be post-Bushite yet--we shall see), but I recognize that the threat of terror is not completely gone, and the challenge of suppressing it is more global than ever. We are in a new phase, in which our counterterrorism must have multiple strategies, multiple tactics, flexibility, but also consistent resolve. It will be interesting to see if any of our Presidential candidates can grasp this subtlety in the electoral marathon to come.
Mario Cuomo
The three-term governor of New York died last week. In his prime (early to mid 1980's), I was a big fan of Cuomo, and I hoped he would run for President. He never did, and after he pulled back from the campaign in 1991-92 (I will never know why, maybe), his star faded and he fell, somewhat shockingly, to Republican George Pataki in 1994.
Cuomo is the man who is credited with the quote that "campaigning is poetry; governing is prose". I have to say that his administration of New York was very prosaic. He always argued for the causes of the poor and downtrodden, but during his terms New York enforced the draconian sentencing and harsh drug laws previously enacted, causing prison populations to grow enormously. He did hold out courageously against the law'n'order types who wanted to burn more criminals (which may have caused his ultimate political defeat in '94), and he maintained his principles, his willingness for political combat, and his pride throughout; however, I felt somewhat disappointed at the time that he did not succeed in doing more. In that sense, I think he helped me learn a lesson about how hard it is to accomplish progressive change in this country, even in the states where progress is possible. This has allowed me to moderate my expectations for the current national Presidential administration, which has kept me from joining the ranks of those who (from a progressive viewpoint) only criticize Obama and fail to recognize his successes.
With regard to the political career of his son Andrew, I am an agnostic: I don't see the same eloquence, though I do see a similar political combativeness. I have not lived in New York during his administration, so my view is from the outside only. I think his time to step onto the national stage is likely to come in 2020, and I will try to keep my mind open about him until then.
If it were a TV show, the 2016 election would begin with a spasm of violence (something like what occurred in Paris yesterday--see below), then cut to a commercial. That is the principle of the hook.
Make no mistake, the story of the 2016 elections has now begun, but it begins with drama that is, at best, fake--it's more like mundane events setting the scene. There is nothing wrong with that; Shakespeare's plays often began in like manner; the big events, if there are to be such, will come later. This week, we get the Kabuki play of John Boehner's (tearful, of course) election as Speaker, despite a handful of self-promoting fools who mistakenly believe their Congressional service will be enhanced by rebelling against their party caucus' decisions. At least their actions will identify themselves as people not to be counted on for key votes by the party's Majority Whip, Steven Scalise.
Speaking of Scalise, he had his own fake drama this week. An enterprising reporter dug up the gem that Scalise had spoken to a white supremacist group in his state of Louisiana headed by the famous racist politician David Duke--twelve years ago. It was not scandalous behavior then, because Scalise was a no-name state legislator looking for support wherever he could find it. It may be scandalous now, but it hardly qualifies as news: Scalise was fairly open at the time that his politics were like Duke's "without the baggage"; now he has the baggage and it is Duke. Beyond being "pro-white", Duke is also big on the global Jewish conspiracy topic--that is the one that Scalise will have to throw over convincingly, if he wants to remain in the party's House leadership. Not to please his party's caucus, which lost its only Jewish member when his predecessor, Eric Cantor, lost his seat last summer in a primary against an obscure tea-bagger, but to keep from alienating Sheldon Adelson, one of the party's super-rich backers--and a major backer of Israel and Netanyahu--who must be placated.
The most dramatic move to date in the budding 2016 electoral story has been made by Jeb Bush, who opted for the early headline move in positioning himself to run. The early move has worked in the past---notably, for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama--but is no guarantee of success (just look at Rick Perry, who preceded Jeb this time around but seems to be making no traction at all, in spite of trying to adopt a more intellectual persona). Jeb's move has worked well, though, putting the pressure on other potential party Establishment figures to either get in or give up: in particular, Chris Christie is on the spot, Mitt Romney's camera-shy wife now has a good reason to tell her husband the country does not, after all, need him to run again, and Marco Rubio is in a tough bind. I think all three will end up being pre-empted by Bush's move; though they may still decide to run, they will find it a tough row to hoe. In particular, if Bush has put to rest the thoughts of another Romney candidacy, he has achieved a major tactical success: the Republicans, especially the Establishment ones, like hierarchy and an orderly succession, and Romney's willingness to take on the incumbent President is endearing to them (though not to the right wing, which insists on the strange argument that he and John McCain only lost because they weren't "conservative" enough).
I don't think Bush's move prompted Mike Huckabee's withdrawal as a Fox News paid commentator; instead, he has listened to his advisers and stepped forward early, in order to try to build a structured campaign--something he failed to do in 2008, preventing him from capitalizing on his unexpected victory in the Iowa caucuses. He may be able to pull that Iowa trick off again, as he has a solid core of support that could emerge from a crowded field of right-wingers. But will he have his lines prepared for Act I, Scenes 2 and 3? If he can survive New Hampshire and make a good showing in the always-critical South Carolina Republican primary, he, rather than Ted Cruz, could be the survivor on the right-wing to make the final group of serious contenders for the nomination (as I said before, I think the other two will be Bush and Rand Paul). I have underestimated Huck before; I will try not to do it this time.
Je Suis Triste Pour Charlie
I am a big fan of political satire. For me, it is the highest form of literary art, and I hope that someday I may have the time and ability to write a decent satirical work. Dealing with the powers that be in a less than respectful manner, it is also an art which takes great risk.
We are accustomed to think that the forms of attack on press freedom come from the government: trying to get journalists to reveal their sources, pressing them when they disclose secrets, targeting them in civil wars (as has happened in Syria). Government also provides the press a safe harbor in some respects, in the form of special protection against slander and libel suits. The notion that private individuals can cripple press freedom and effectiveness of political satire through acts of violence is, in this day, a new and scary proposition.
I hope you will not think it churlish, and it may relate to my weakness with the French language, but what I have to say about the satire I have seen from the satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo that was attacked yesterday in brutal, terroristic fashion is that it doesn't seem very funny to me. Brave, defiant, irreverent, yes, but not so humorous. I have always insisted that sense of humor is subjective: I hate it when people try to get me to agree with them, contrary to what my senses and emotion tell me, that "That's funny" or "That's not funny"--so I will limit my comment to that subjective observation, but that is the reason that I am not quite in the "Je suis Charlie" camp.
I am sad for those involved (especially the policemen who had the difficult and dangerous task of trying to defend the newspaper from the attack); I am angry at those who did it (and those who may have put them up to it); I will raise my pen (or my mouse), if that form of protest makes some kind of difference. Finally, I will express my full solidarity with the French people: we Americans may find them hard to deal with (that cursed independence! I joke), but they are, in fact, our oldest and most reliable allies in the world. We have never fought a war against them (as Americans), and our alliance goes back even farther than our nationhood.
One piece on the subject that I found especially interesting was written by Daniel Burke, CNN's Religion Editor. Burke discusses the history and practice of this prohibition on the publishing of images of Mohammed. First, I found it interesting that this is never mentioned in the Quran; second, that the practice is not consistent across all of Islam (he observes that images of Mohammed--with faces--are found in the cultures of Turkey and Iran, but not often in Sunni mosques, and very rarely if ever in the Arabian peninsula). Finally, he comments on the irony that this fetish about not having the image produced comes from a directive to avoid creating idols, that Mohammed wanted Islam to treat him as an ordinary man, not a god to be worshipped. In today's society, it is a fact that the depiction of real-life heroes tends to make them more human; therefore, it would make sense for the practice of Islam to relax this prohibition, to make the religion more approachable. Certainly it should be shouted from all the minarets that the depiction of Mohammed is not a capital offense.
Is there a tie-in from this episode in Paris to the 2016 election? Not really--only this: as we saw also in the terror attack at the Boston Marathon (case finally going to trial), the threat in today's Western countries takes the form of small cells of committed fanatics with unlikely targets far removed from the centers of power and commerce. It was my fervent desire that GWOT (Global War on Terror) would end in these post-Bushite years (we may not even be post-Bushite yet--we shall see), but I recognize that the threat of terror is not completely gone, and the challenge of suppressing it is more global than ever. We are in a new phase, in which our counterterrorism must have multiple strategies, multiple tactics, flexibility, but also consistent resolve. It will be interesting to see if any of our Presidential candidates can grasp this subtlety in the electoral marathon to come.
Mario Cuomo
The three-term governor of New York died last week. In his prime (early to mid 1980's), I was a big fan of Cuomo, and I hoped he would run for President. He never did, and after he pulled back from the campaign in 1991-92 (I will never know why, maybe), his star faded and he fell, somewhat shockingly, to Republican George Pataki in 1994.
Cuomo is the man who is credited with the quote that "campaigning is poetry; governing is prose". I have to say that his administration of New York was very prosaic. He always argued for the causes of the poor and downtrodden, but during his terms New York enforced the draconian sentencing and harsh drug laws previously enacted, causing prison populations to grow enormously. He did hold out courageously against the law'n'order types who wanted to burn more criminals (which may have caused his ultimate political defeat in '94), and he maintained his principles, his willingness for political combat, and his pride throughout; however, I felt somewhat disappointed at the time that he did not succeed in doing more. In that sense, I think he helped me learn a lesson about how hard it is to accomplish progressive change in this country, even in the states where progress is possible. This has allowed me to moderate my expectations for the current national Presidential administration, which has kept me from joining the ranks of those who (from a progressive viewpoint) only criticize Obama and fail to recognize his successes.
With regard to the political career of his son Andrew, I am an agnostic: I don't see the same eloquence, though I do see a similar political combativeness. I have not lived in New York during his administration, so my view is from the outside only. I think his time to step onto the national stage is likely to come in 2020, and I will try to keep my mind open about him until then.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
CSI: Boston - the Conclusion
This is a story that just won't quit, and one that no storywriter could come up with.
As I predicted, the visual evidence produced the identity of the alleged perpetrators very quickly, then after a short commercial break (and a few false leads: the New York Post canard, the convenience story robbery red herring), came the exciting final half-hour of the show. For some reason--were they "made" as the wanted suspects?--they (allegedly) killed an M.I.T. security officer sitting in his car. This brought down the storm; the senior (alleged) evildoer Tamerlan was dramatically brought down and taken out, but young Dzokhar escaped.
Then came a day of intense drama, the area on lockdown, teams of officers going door to door to find him. The search proved fruitless and the Governor came out and told everyone they could come out. Within minutes, it seemed, young Tsarnaev was spotted by an alert citizen just outside the zone of the house-to-house search, hiding in a boat.
Now comes the real drama of the movie--and we know it will be a movie, maybe several of them--as Tsarnaev huddled in the boat, bleeding severely. The flashbacks--how did he get into this? Why did he ever agree to it? Should he go out in a hail of bullets or face the music? Punctuated by the occasional flashbomb to distract him and bring us back to the story.
Yes, he was at least partially responsible for several deaths, injuries to many, inconvenience to millions. Yes, the malice of the style of the attack--going after the families watching the game, non-competitive finishers four hours into the race, loading the bombs with b-b's, ball bearings, and nails--undermines the empathy we might otherwise feel for the 19-year-old "good guy" (as those who knew him described him).
Still, it's not a simple story at all. Flashback to Chechen in the 1990's. After the fall of the Soviet Union this region of Russia proper, a perennial headache with its Islamic majority and rebellious warrior tradition, wanted out. The Russians, stung by the collapse of the weak coalition of formerly Soviet Republics, were having none of it. The repression was horrendous--both to the Chechens and to the Russians. Think of the US Civil War if it were just South Carolina that seceded. The postwar governance has been equally repugnant to both: to Russians, duty in the Chechen capital is literally "menacing"*. The Chechen suppression has its side effects leaking into neighboring areas, into Moscow itself--it's a wound that won't heal.
Why did this blood feud end up coming to our shores? This is one of the big questions we will seek. The Tsarnaevs were granted asylum by the US; the younger one recently became a citizen, and his older brother might have done so, except that the Russians tracked down his suspicious behavior and their inquiries put a hold on the process. Maybe this was Tamerlan's motive--some kind of paranoid response to frustrated ambition?
The next episode for Tsarnaev will be the "Law and Order" one. The over-under on Dzokhar is 25-to-life. The Feds will dangle the threat of a death sentence if they need to, but I don't think they must. He will be willing to cooperate, I think, having seen all too clearly how serious of a fix he's got himself into. As a public real-life crime drama, this far exceeds O.J. for both importance and interest level. It's not 9/11, but I would compare it to the Patty Hearst/Symbionese Liberation Army story of the '70's for its complexity and multiple story lines.
More broadly, Sen. Charles Grassley crassly tried to bring this story into the immigration legislation game, which is still in its early innings; his ploy has been coldly rejected by most. Instead, it only points out how important it is to evaluate prospective immigrants (and do it better!) Next will be the tie-in to the gun reform issue; how did they get their guns? Of course, the counter will be that, however they got the guns, it was the bombs, which caused the greatest damage ("guns don't kill people--pressure cookers kill people"), and they used nothing that needed anything more than a couple of visits to the hardware, grocery, and toy supply stores.
Finally, there are the stories of Boston, of Watertown, of the state of Massachusetts, of the participants in the Marathon and their families, of the many victims from all walks of life and their perspectives about the incident drama. We must give them all our support in dealing with this brief, but traumatic, experience and its enduring consequences.
*A Russian-speaking colleague gave me the translation of the literal meaning of the Russian word "grozhny", which is also the name of the Chechen capital. The Russians have spent lavishly to rebuild the city after destroying it and purging any rebellious citizens, which is one reason why the Tsarnaevs grew up mostly in nearby Dagestan.
As I predicted, the visual evidence produced the identity of the alleged perpetrators very quickly, then after a short commercial break (and a few false leads: the New York Post canard, the convenience story robbery red herring), came the exciting final half-hour of the show. For some reason--were they "made" as the wanted suspects?--they (allegedly) killed an M.I.T. security officer sitting in his car. This brought down the storm; the senior (alleged) evildoer Tamerlan was dramatically brought down and taken out, but young Dzokhar escaped.
Then came a day of intense drama, the area on lockdown, teams of officers going door to door to find him. The search proved fruitless and the Governor came out and told everyone they could come out. Within minutes, it seemed, young Tsarnaev was spotted by an alert citizen just outside the zone of the house-to-house search, hiding in a boat.
Now comes the real drama of the movie--and we know it will be a movie, maybe several of them--as Tsarnaev huddled in the boat, bleeding severely. The flashbacks--how did he get into this? Why did he ever agree to it? Should he go out in a hail of bullets or face the music? Punctuated by the occasional flashbomb to distract him and bring us back to the story.
Yes, he was at least partially responsible for several deaths, injuries to many, inconvenience to millions. Yes, the malice of the style of the attack--going after the families watching the game, non-competitive finishers four hours into the race, loading the bombs with b-b's, ball bearings, and nails--undermines the empathy we might otherwise feel for the 19-year-old "good guy" (as those who knew him described him).
Still, it's not a simple story at all. Flashback to Chechen in the 1990's. After the fall of the Soviet Union this region of Russia proper, a perennial headache with its Islamic majority and rebellious warrior tradition, wanted out. The Russians, stung by the collapse of the weak coalition of formerly Soviet Republics, were having none of it. The repression was horrendous--both to the Chechens and to the Russians. Think of the US Civil War if it were just South Carolina that seceded. The postwar governance has been equally repugnant to both: to Russians, duty in the Chechen capital is literally "menacing"*. The Chechen suppression has its side effects leaking into neighboring areas, into Moscow itself--it's a wound that won't heal.
Why did this blood feud end up coming to our shores? This is one of the big questions we will seek. The Tsarnaevs were granted asylum by the US; the younger one recently became a citizen, and his older brother might have done so, except that the Russians tracked down his suspicious behavior and their inquiries put a hold on the process. Maybe this was Tamerlan's motive--some kind of paranoid response to frustrated ambition?
The next episode for Tsarnaev will be the "Law and Order" one. The over-under on Dzokhar is 25-to-life. The Feds will dangle the threat of a death sentence if they need to, but I don't think they must. He will be willing to cooperate, I think, having seen all too clearly how serious of a fix he's got himself into. As a public real-life crime drama, this far exceeds O.J. for both importance and interest level. It's not 9/11, but I would compare it to the Patty Hearst/Symbionese Liberation Army story of the '70's for its complexity and multiple story lines.
More broadly, Sen. Charles Grassley crassly tried to bring this story into the immigration legislation game, which is still in its early innings; his ploy has been coldly rejected by most. Instead, it only points out how important it is to evaluate prospective immigrants (and do it better!) Next will be the tie-in to the gun reform issue; how did they get their guns? Of course, the counter will be that, however they got the guns, it was the bombs, which caused the greatest damage ("guns don't kill people--pressure cookers kill people"), and they used nothing that needed anything more than a couple of visits to the hardware, grocery, and toy supply stores.
Finally, there are the stories of Boston, of Watertown, of the state of Massachusetts, of the participants in the Marathon and their families, of the many victims from all walks of life and their perspectives about the incident drama. We must give them all our support in dealing with this brief, but traumatic, experience and its enduring consequences.
*A Russian-speaking colleague gave me the translation of the literal meaning of the Russian word "grozhny", which is also the name of the Chechen capital. The Russians have spent lavishly to rebuild the city after destroying it and purging any rebellious citizens, which is one reason why the Tsarnaevs grew up mostly in nearby Dagestan.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
CSI: Boston
Naturally, we can only condemn in the strongest possible terms the people responsible for the bombs in Boston on Monday. The design of the attack was cruel and cowardly, suitable only for terrorizing. The attackers will be caught, and while the justice imposed on them will be severe, it will not be nearly as bad as what they deserve.
Why do I feel so strongly they will be caught? Two or three things. First, while I would not call the US a "police state", it is a very well-policed one. We have an over-abundance of police at all levels (the Federal ones a bit less visible). This kind of stuff is now firmly, deeply ingrained in our national culture: the number of shows about law'n'order generally, and Crime Scene Investigation in particular, has mushroomed beyond all reasonable bounds. In the specific case of Boston, recall the recent movies "The Town" and "The Departed", which had the multiplicity of cops of all kinds as a theme in each. All of these are very eager to put to work their detective skills and criminal forensics capabilities. Any physical evidence at the scene will be collected, documented, analyzed, and correlated.
Then, there's the fact that the plotters, no doubt in order to create the greatest shock on the public psyche, chose to set off the bombs in one of the most public, most camera-covered places imaginable. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of cameras trained on the area at all times. Whatever precautions those who set the bombs in place may have taken, there will be a variety of still and action shots taken of them, from a variety of angles. Their 'tells' will be spotted, and the descriptions of those most visible will be produced. We can then hope that tracking down that person/those folks will lead to all the cell membership and it will be broken.
This is a good thing, that a public place should be so heavily covered with cameras. It is important to make a clear distinction between the public spaces, subject at all times to closed-circuit monitoring with review by any and all agencies, and private spaces, in which privacy must be possible and any monitoring is under the control of the right private individuals. The inside of my house is off-limits to the snoops; the outside, too, though I am responsible for anything that comes out of my property into the public space. My car is private on my property, but not when it's out on the public thoroughfares. My computer is private, but what I put out there is not. These are rules that our public agencies, our courts, and our journalists, need to respect.
Why do I feel so strongly they will be caught? Two or three things. First, while I would not call the US a "police state", it is a very well-policed one. We have an over-abundance of police at all levels (the Federal ones a bit less visible). This kind of stuff is now firmly, deeply ingrained in our national culture: the number of shows about law'n'order generally, and Crime Scene Investigation in particular, has mushroomed beyond all reasonable bounds. In the specific case of Boston, recall the recent movies "The Town" and "The Departed", which had the multiplicity of cops of all kinds as a theme in each. All of these are very eager to put to work their detective skills and criminal forensics capabilities. Any physical evidence at the scene will be collected, documented, analyzed, and correlated.
Then, there's the fact that the plotters, no doubt in order to create the greatest shock on the public psyche, chose to set off the bombs in one of the most public, most camera-covered places imaginable. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of cameras trained on the area at all times. Whatever precautions those who set the bombs in place may have taken, there will be a variety of still and action shots taken of them, from a variety of angles. Their 'tells' will be spotted, and the descriptions of those most visible will be produced. We can then hope that tracking down that person/those folks will lead to all the cell membership and it will be broken.
This is a good thing, that a public place should be so heavily covered with cameras. It is important to make a clear distinction between the public spaces, subject at all times to closed-circuit monitoring with review by any and all agencies, and private spaces, in which privacy must be possible and any monitoring is under the control of the right private individuals. The inside of my house is off-limits to the snoops; the outside, too, though I am responsible for anything that comes out of my property into the public space. My car is private on my property, but not when it's out on the public thoroughfares. My computer is private, but what I put out there is not. These are rules that our public agencies, our courts, and our journalists, need to respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
