Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

Entertaining action caper movie that offers a great taste of 1970s era New York. The premise of hostage takers in a subway car works.  Walter Matthau plays the transit detective in charge of the case.  Although he gets to use his gun at the end of the film, what he mostly does is talk over the radio to the criminals, but he manages to make the character interesting.  The action moves at consistently energetic pace, and while the plotting has a few serious holes it is more than serviceable.  The best parts of the film though when it gives a sense of a gritty, barely functioning New York.  As solid and entertaining a film as Pelham is, it doesn’t compare to the masterwork New York crime film released the following year, Dog Day Afternoon.

The Verdict (1982)

The structure of The Verdict could not be more conventional. Paul Newman plays an ambulance chasing lawyer whose once promising career is far in the past.  A semi-functioning alcoholic, he hangs on to a few final threads of dignity. Offered a promising medical malpractice case, Newman's character sees the chance for an excellent payday. However after seeing the victim's injuries, he turned down a generous settlement offer chooses to fight for the victim and his own redemption. From here the story plays out exactly as one would expect. From finding a beautiful love interest who supports and encourages him, to the various setbacks in the case, to the rousing, high-minded closing argument the film follows every element of the standard courtroom drama.

Although its core is entirely ordinary, the execution makes this film special. Newman, with his blue eyes staring out of the stubbled face, brings depth and nuance to his character’s struggle for redemption.  The script by David Mamet features hard, sharp dialogue that conveys the ideas that would be in any ordinary courtroom drama presents them more directly and with more feeling. Sidney Lumet's direction likewise takes what could simply be ordinary and, without being showy, brings a sure touch that brings the richness and tensions out of each scene.  

One small, telling moment that captures the difference between a well crafted film like this and standard films churned out by studios occurs toward the end of the film when Newman's partner tells him a key piece of information.  As viewers we already know what he will be told so rather than having us listen to the conversation, Lumet shoots the scene outside on a busy New York street, placing the camera high above the two characters. We hear only the ambient sounds of traffic and not what the two men below say.  Instead we watch Newman's reaction which is all we need to see.  We focus on the emotional impact of the revelation without being subjected to hearing the information repeated.  This type of clever filmmaking shows that with talented artists like Newman, Mamet, and Lumet even utterly conventional material can be made in to an excellent film. 

Today’s David Brooks Column: In Which He Announces He Is a Democrat but Does Not Himself Recognize It

In his column Brooks once again calls for new ideas that get around the entrenched positions of the parties.  Yet at the end of his column he lists four areas he would support, which are positions that are hardly new (all have been proposed as legislation in the Congress) and, moreover, these positions align him quite closely with the Obama-Democratic agenda.  Let’s take this point by point.

1.      “This reinvigoration package would have four baskets. There would be an entitlement reform package designed to redistribute money from health care and the elderly toward innovation and the young. Unless we get health care inflation under control by replacing the perverse fee-for-service incentive structure, there will be no money for anything else.”

When it comes to entitlements the key is health care.  Other countries have models that control health care costs much better than our system does, while providing better outcomes, but these are off the table for Republicans because they increase government involvement.  So what the Democrats offer is mild changes to the system and trial programs that move us in the right direction but are limited in scope.  The Republicans are currently trying to block or defund these initiatives.   Brooks’s position is essentially that of the Democrats.


2.      “There would be a targeted working-class basket: early childhood education, technical education, community colleges, an infrastructure bank, asset distribution to help people start businesses, a new wave industrial policy if need be — anything that might give the working class a leg up.”

Democrats have proposed and supported all these things.  For example, an infrastructure bank was initially proposed by Senators Dodd and Hegel, as a bipartisan measure, but in the last few years it has received Democratic support and has been championed by Obama.  Why has the Democratic push not been stronger?  Because this type of legislation has no change of passing.  An infrastructure bank, like all the measures Brooks lists, requires government spending, something the current Republican Party will not support.  They are interested in cutting, cutting, cutting.


3.      “There would be a political corruption basket. The Tea Parties are right about the unholy alliance between business and government that is polluting the country. It’s time to drain the swamp by simplifying the tax code and streamlining the regulations businesses use to squash their smaller competitors.”

First off, Brooks seems to be inventing the Tea Party he would like, rather than the Tea party that is.  The Tea Party that actually exists is hardly focused on challenging the “alliance between business and government.”  Go skim through any of the prominent Tea Party forums.  You will not find much rhetoric about attacking business’s involvement in government.  Second, the Tea Party aside, the Republicans have been reluctant to simplify the tax code because they want to cut taxes rather than take acts that are revenue neutral.


4.      "There would also be a pro-business basket: lower corporate rates, a sane visa policy for skilled immigrants, a sane patent and permitting system, more money for research." 
Lowering corporate taxes certainly fits with the Republican but is Brooks really concerned with lowering corporate taxes, which has been declining as a share of GDP for years?  Currently the United States nominally has a high corporate tax rate but the effective rate is low to average because of the many loopholes in the system.  So lowering corporate taxes would mean closing loopholes, and is something that will likely be part of any budget deal.  This is a centrist position held by moderates in both parties, so on this issue Brooks is not as close to just the Democrats.  His final point here, however, calling for “more money for research” comes straight from the Obama-Democratic platform.

If Brooks really wants to see the positions he claims to support come into being, he would be better for supporting the Democratic agenda.  Rather than calling for new ideas or “new movements,” why doesn’t he just join the established group that is already fighting for most of what he believes in?  I am sure the Democrats will be glad to have you.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Woody Allen’s latest, Midnight in Paris, opens with a three or four minute montage of shots just of Paris. I could look at these types of images for hours; no city is a beautiful as Paris.  Yet the pleasure I had of watching this opening was much like the pleasure of the film as a whole: great moments but no narrative thrust. 

The plot centers on Gil, a hack script writer from Hollywood, who romantically yearns to be a novelist, like his modernist literary heroes.  He is in Paris with his fiancée, Inez, and her parents, none of whom like or appreciate Paris in the least.  The relationship with the fiancée is so unbelievable that it is hard to get invested in the film.  Rachel McAdams plays the role for all it is worth but the character of Inez just doesn’t work. Inez constantly derides Gil’s literary ambitions and basically attacks him for desiring anything beyond material wealth.  The movie gives no hint at how these two ever came together; there simply is no hint of a spark, even a fading one, in their relationship. 

Owen Wilson is fine, even good as Gil; he plays the Woody Allen role with some of the well worn Allen ticks but only just enough to give a taste of the character without going into pastiche.  For me Wilson isn’t deep enough, or nuanced enough to bring much to the character though.  He is a pleasant figure but the relationship plot is so unbelievable and his literary ambitions clichéd, he never emerges as a full character.  The problem here mostly lies in the script, not Wilson’s acting, and he seems capable of filling a space in film more demanding than the dreck he has been in recently (see Hall Pass) but his amiable presence isn’t enough to get the viewer invested in the character. 

When Gil is magically transported to the 1920s and gets to interact with his artistic heroes, the film picks up.  Without any emotional investment in the frame story that surrounds the fantasy of 1920s Paris with its wonderful cameos and the gorgeous production the moments don’t add up to a fully satisfying film.   The feeling of Paris and the portrayals of great the writers and artists are enough to make the film entertaining at least. 

Shocker: David Brooks finds fault with contemporary culture

David Brooks’ columns get worse and worse.  Yesterday he used is space on the Times Op-Ed page to fault the lack of discussion about good character in contemporary culture.  Perhaps one could write an insightful piece on the subject but Brooks certainly doesn’t.  Consider his first sentence: “One reason many politicians behave badly these days is that we spend less time thinking about what it means to behave well.”

Do many politicians behave badly these days? Certainly scandals such as the Anthony Weiner Twitter episode grab headlines but are they really so common? Consider that perhaps one or two national politicians a year out of the 435 members of the House, 100 senators, and many executive branch officials are involved in these scandals.   The numbers are hardly overwhelming.  Surely other politicians who behave badly are not caught.   But that has always been the case.  Politicians have affairs, cheat, and lie.  Do we really have any suggestion that this has increased? 

What has increased is the scrutiny politicians are under.  They are more recognizable, less sheltered by social conventions, and much easier to leave a trail in our digital age.  This is a huge cultural shift and so too has the way these events are reported changed.  But Brooks simply treats the issue as one of cultural decline.  Complaining about the type of conversation we are having about the Weiner case would make sense. 

Yet Brooks argues that “these days...we spend less time thinking about what it means to behave well.”  He seems to miss entirely that that is the conversation we are having.  Part of what drives the public interest in such scandals is certainly crass voyeurism and the pleasure of seeing a public figure brought down, but issues of character and morality are also being discussed: What does it mean to cheat in a digital age? What type of behavior is acceptable for a married man?  For a married politician? What is the relationship between a politician’s public and private behavior?  Can the two even be separated in the online age? 

After the first sentence Brooks offers paragraphs of praise to the politicians in Trollope’s novels, who “are reserved, prudent and scrupulous. They immerse themselves in dull practical questions like, say, converting the currency system.”  He argues that “readers would have come away from his books with a certain model for how practical people should behave, which they could either copy or argue with.” Brooks does not really want to argue with these models; he thinks they should be copied. This is fine and well.  In fact I agree with Brooks here.  My ideal politician would probably share many of these Trollopian virtues.  However, by framing his column with a the-past-was-better argument, Brooks sets himself above the debate that is actually going on right now.