2016: Obama's America (2012)

I read somewhere once, I think it was in The Nation so admittedly it was a liberal saying this, that when Dinesh D'Souza started out writing about liberal biases at colleges he probably had a point, but that over time he seemed to grow less concerned with scholarly rigor, and more concerned with making money. Perhaps there is no better example of this then the conservative pundits foray into documentary style filmmaking. The first of these, 2016: Obama's America, D'Souza co-wrote and directed with John Sullivan. The film is based on Dinesh's 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage, and was released the weekend before the 2012 Republican National Convention.

The purpose of this documentary, though the films adverting touted it seemingly more neutrally as an exploration of the presidents psyche, was quite clearly to make the case against re-electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Though even saying the film was to "make the case against Obama's re-election" is somewhat misleading, because the film doesn't really make that case, at least not in a way likely to change anyone's opinion. Rather the movie was a rallying cry for conservatives, meant to reinforce pre-existing negative conceptions about Barack Obama, and get out the vote. Ultimately the film failed in its electoral objective, but did succeed rather handsomely at the box office, bringing in $33.4 million off of a budget of only $2.5 million. Interestingly Gerald R. Molan, a frequent producing partner for Steven Spielberg, and consequently an Oscar winner for Schindler's List, was a producer on this and all of D'Souza's subsequent films to date.

The film starts out by telling some of D'Souza's personal backstory, an immigrant from India who came to the United States to go to college, ended up working in the Reagan Whitehouse. and had a subsequent successful career pontificating. D'Souza makes the point that his foreign background gives him a special perspective into the background of Barack Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and would likewise have been exposed to the anti-imperialist  feelings of the then recently liberated third world. Such claims to special insight seem at least somewhat over stated to me, but is hardly D'Souza's greatest overstatement in the film. Those come in when once he really starts talking about his subject.

Dinesh travels around the world retracing Obama's past, with stops in Indonesia, Hawaii, and of course the land of the presidents biological forefathers Kenya. D'Souza also investigates, though not in the depth I'd have expected, those he considers to be Obama's spiritual and ideological forefathers. People like Frank Marshall Davis, the black writer, activist, and registered communist that Barack's grandfather put him in contact with while growing up in Hawaii. As well as Edward Said, the post-colonial studies professor who taught the future president at Harvard. Also Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist turned University of Illinois professor who was an early supporter of Obama's political carrier back in Chicago. Though not so much Said, I can certainly see how Obama's associations with Davis and Ayers could raise concerns. (On a side note I never really had much of a problem with Obama's relationship with long time pastor Jeremiah Wright, given that the black communities ancestral introduction to America was aboard slave ships, and hasn't exactly been a picnic since, some of his harsher rhetoric seems perfectly understandable to me.)

D'Souza will set up potential points of concern, like the relationships with Davis and Ayers, but he is never able to translate them into anything concrete to be worried about. If these people warped a presidents thinking, how did they do that, what idea's did they plant into his head that differs from existing Democratic party orthodoxy, because I have to say I don't see it. I don't see what Obama did that Hillary or Joe Biden wouldn't have done in office. I don't see Barak Obama as a radical, I don't see this rage that D'Souza attributes to him, I would say that charge is more a reflection on those making it then on the one they are making it against. If Barak Obama was so hostile to capitalism, why didn't he try harder to regulate it in the aftermath of the 2008 fiscal crises, when there was a public demand to do so, yet not one businessman went to jail. Obamacare owed its origins to the conservative Heritage Foundation. The draw down in Iraq, the lowering of confrontational rhetoric overseas, whatever their drawbacks they reflected overwhelming popular consensus at the time. D'Souza stokes a lot of fear about what the president will do if reelected, freed from the constraints of having to run again, but now we know, turns out not much. I look at Barak Obama and I don't see much of a revolutionary, I just see a Democrat.

I will give D'Souza some credit, his tone isn't particular strident, even if some of the things he says are. The film is nicely made, it doesn't look cheap. Briefly when giving backstory on Obama he mentions that the man was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961 and that his birth was announced in two local papers. Here D'Souza's dismisses the 'Birtherism conspiracy' which was no doubt embraced by a sizable portion of his target audience. Now he doesn't come out and actually say anything along the lines of "birtherism is false and you shouldn't believe it" and challenge his audience, but at least he refuses to feed into it, which is something.

 2016: Obama's America is not as bad as I thought it was going to be, and severs as a moderately interesting historical artifact of the conservative obsession with Obama's "foreignness". In 2012 Dinish D'Souza looked forward at the potential horrors of America in the year 2016, he was right, 2016 was indeed horrible, just not for the reasons he expected. **1/2

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965)

Made for a budget of $45,000 by exploitation auteur Russ Meyer, Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! has managed to cement for its self a lasting place in the pop culture psyche despite having a plot that is essentially a porno without the nudity. Three Go-Go dancers, including the improbably bosomed Tura Satana, take their sports cars for a spin in the desert, end up killing a young man, take his teenage girlfriend (Susan Bernard)  hostage, and decide to use her as bate to steal money from a crippled old man (Stuart Lancaster) and his two sons, one of whom is mentally retarded. The movie doesn't make much sense, but is surprisingly watchable (it has a 73% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes). An odd film literacy film, but still a film literacy film. **1/2

Death to Smoochy (2002)

Despite a generally negative critical reception upon its initial release, the dark comedy Death to Smoochy has amassed something of a cult film status over the years. For some reason I was expecting the film to be more of a conventional satire, though it actually has little insightful to say about the world of children's entertainment, which is the filed in which its story plays out. Disgraced kiddie show host  "Rainbow" Randolph Smiley (Robin Williams) builds up a murderous rage against his replacement, nice guy in a rhino costume Sheldon Mopes (Edward Norton) and plots to take him down. The movie really takes its first third or so to set up its concept, and during this part of the film I wasn't really enjoying it, its was mostly awkward, events seemed to be going really fast and I couldn't make out the shape of what this movie was trying to be. Even as its intent got to be clearer to me I would still say the movie is misshapen, there is an unevenness to it that never goes away. Two things provide the movie a narrative through line on which to grab hold, one is the intentional ridiculousness of its premise. Pre-school programing as a world ripe with organized crime, graft, vendettas, and composed almost entirely of unsavory characters, the juxtaposition is at least amusing. Second you have Edward Norton's absolute commitment to his character, squeaky clean, somewhat (but not over much) naïve, and the implication between the lines that Mopes was once a very angry man, whose Smoochy the Rhino character serves as a kind of self therapy. The arc of Nora Wells relationship with Smoochy is perhaps too spot on, but Catherine Keener mostly sells. I understand both how people can hate this movie and how some can love it, I'd have to peg my feelings about the film somewhere in between. The conceit of the film often works better in theory then in practice, but the audacity of the attempt has its own satisfactions. Jon Stewarts hair in this though, is really just awful. **1/2

BlacKkKlansman (2018)

Director Spike Lee's biggest box office hit since The Inside Man twelve years ago, BlacKkKlansman tells the true story of Colorado Springs police detective Ron Stallworth's infiltration of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970's, with the catch being that Stallworth is a black man. Colorado Springs first black officer and detective Stallworth, on a whim and in response to an ad in the paper, called up a local KKK recruiter and quickly convinces him that he might be a promising new recruit. Stallworth (John David Washington) made one big mistake however, he used his real name, necessitating the use of an undercover white officer (Adam Driver) to play him in person, while the real Stallworth continued the ruse over the phone (oh what you could pull off in days before Google searches). Stallworth in fact got to be pretty good friends over the phone with then KKK grand wizard David Duke, and his undercover operation ended up yielding some fairly significant fruit, which I won't spoil here. The whole operation was kept hush-hush for decades until Stallworth decided to make it public upon his retirement, publishing his book  Black Klansman in 2014.

The bulk of this story, is in fact actually true, as improbable as it may seem. Some liberties were of course taken, there is one particular plot point towards the end that really feels like an example of Hollywood stakes raising, and I'm not entirely sure that girlfriend was real, but the operation itself, the friendship with Duke, and its ultimately legal results, again true. The film uses current racial tensions as part of its framing, which might turn some people off, but felt right to me. This is a funny, exciting, and at times tense movie, which I can think of nothing else like. One of the stand out films of the year so far. ****

In Order of Disappearance (2014)

Recommended to me by the only Norwegian I know In Order of Disappearance is an action/ revenge film with a distinctly Nordic air and quirky/dark sense of humor. Stellan Skarsgård is Nils Dickman, who along with his wife run a plow company which keeps roads in the far north of the country passable. Beloved in his community Niles is awarded as "citizen of the year" and has a friend who regularly pesters him to run for office under the "Farmers Centrist Party". Shortly after the award ceremony the Dickman's are contacted by authorities in the nearest large city to inform them that their only child has been found dead from a drug overdoes. The strain of this event breaks up the couples marriage and Nils is very close to ending his own life when new information comes to light. A friend of his late son informs Mr. Dickman that his child's death was no accident, that it had been made to look like one by the local mob in retaliation for a theft of drugs, ironically not committed by the younger Dickman but rather by his "friend" while borrowing his car. Nils demands that the real thief leave and never come back, but only after gleaning information from him on those involved in his son death. Armed with new purpose Nils Dickman sets out on a mission of revenge, to kill everyone in the mob responsible for the death of his son.  

This dark set up provides an introduction to a slightly off kilter world full of police who idolize American cop shows, a vegan mafia boss, gay gangsters, a Japanese hit-man known as "The Chinaman" and an aging Serbian Mafioso who has become fascinated with skiing. The Sebrian's come into the picture after Dickman's continued "disappearing" of the vegan don's lieutenants lead him to concluded that the rival Serbian syndicate has broken their truce, and start a gang war. Things escalate, and keep escalating with a carnage oddly balanced by an odd politeness, such as when Dickman, having kidnapped the mob bosses young son, consents to give him a ride in his snow plow after much pestering. The humor elevates this film over its typical American cousin, and in fact (though mixed relational metaphor) will soon give birth to one. The English language remake Hard Power, to star (appropriately) Liam Neeson is do to come out next year, and helmed by the originals Nordic director Hans Petter Moland. I'm looking forward to that, but still readily recommend In Order of Disappearance to those who may be interested. ***

Ocean's 8 (2018)

Sequel/ spin-off from the Steven Soderbergh/ George Clooney Ocean's 11 franchise. Sandra Bullock plays Debbie Ocean, the sister of Danny who has apparently either died or faked his death, I don't know I never saw Ocean's 13. After getting out of prison for a crime she didn't commit, Debbie has committed plenty of crimes just not the one she went to prison for, Ms. Ocean brings together a bakers half dozen of likable but morally compromised women to rob jewelry from the annual Met Gala. It's a good cast including Cate Blanchette, Mindy Kaling, Sarah Paulson, Anne Hathaway as an ego centric celebrity, and Rihanna as a stereotype bustlingly attractive hacker. It's enjoyable, a well put together caper film with the seemingly required "and here's the part we didn't tell you" twist at the end. The movie shows that a cast of talented women can anchor a film of this sort, but it doesn't show they can do it any better then the men because even when this movie is trying to be "imaginative" it still feels derivative.  I was pleasantly surprised by the Marlo Thomas cameo and if you know anything about Anna Wintour that joke version of herself is pretty funny. ***

Mission: Impossible- Fallout (2018)

Despite having little in the way of authorial vision, five different directors over six movies, the Mission: Impossible franchise has done a remarkably good job of connecting threads between the films, and in Fallout it ties many of these threads into a nice bow. A more or less direct sequel to the previous outing Rouge Nation, as it concerns the same villain (Sean Harris), and is helmed by the same director (Christopher McQuarrie, a Cruise favorite, this is the 5th time he's directed the star). Fallout teams Ethan Hunt what old favorites Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Alec Baldwin and Rebecca Ferguson, as well as the addition of Henry Cavill as a CIA agent (no Jeremy Renner in this one, I was a little disappointed by that) to prevent the breakout of Solomon Lane, and the use of three stolen nuclear warheads. There is skydiving, a much better bathroom fight then in The Karate Kid, a boat chase in Paris, a street chase in London, and a helicopter chase in Kashmir, in short set pieces a plenty and they are as well done as you'd expect. Michelle Monaghan even returns as Hunts wife Julia, making the most of the witness protection program. Not my favorite of the series, that would probably be #4 Ghost Protocol, it is still a satisfying enough conclusion for the franchise, if it is in fact a conclusion, because they certainly hedge some at the end. I guess it might just depend on how long Mr. Cruise can subject his aging body to the riggers of this kind of filmmaking, but really what is Tom going to do when he can't make action movies anymore? ***

Anomalisa (2015)

Charlie Kaufman's interest in puppetry has been established in his cinematic cannon as early as his first feature film Being John Malkovich back in 1999, which was both literally and figuratively about puppetry. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Kaufman chose to adapt his own 2005 play Anomalisa in a puppet type format, specifically stop motion animation of deliberately marionette type figures. Now given that the story is chiefly about a lonely man spending a night a Cincinnati hotel, this might seem like the type narrative that you would just film people acting, why would you even consider doing it some other way as a film. Well Kaufman has his reasons, and they make this film more effective then it would have been as standard indie fair.

First off there are only three voices in the film. David Thewlis as Michael Stone, an author and a customer-service expert in town to give a conference. Jennifer Jason Leigh a Lisa Hesselman, an insecure but sweet natured woman who has come to Cincinnati to hear Stones talk. Tom Noonan as literally everybody else. This voice casting serves as a device to highlight the perceived connection Michael finds he has with Lisa, she is literally different then everybody else in the world, she is an anomaly. Yet Kaufman finds a way to invert his own device, to trick us with it in a way that reveals Michael's true character and flip the narrative on us, or rather the way we perceive the narrative because it has all actually been in front of us the whole time. A neat trick, though you do have to go through puppet sex to get there. ***1/2