Detective Story, the third web installment of The Animatrix, is now online. Nice to look at, but wooden dialogue and a pointless story make this one rather disappointing. I’ve heard good things about Final Flight of the Osiris, but first I have to steel myself to sit through Dreamcatcher.
Category: Authors
The Subtler Knife.
Contrary to the Ratner report of a few days ago, AICN reports that Sam Mendes will take on His Dark Materials. Better than Ratner, surely, but I for one didn’t think all that much of Road to Perdition. Can’t we draft Gilliam for this project?
It’s Oh So Quiet.
Still catching up with my Oscar slate, and last night’s foray was Phillip Noyce’s remake of The Quiet American. All in all, very well done, and a battered, despairing Michael Caine deserves an Oscar for this much more than he ever did for his turn in the schlocky Cider House Rules. (As I said last week, though, the Best Actor field this year is very, very strong, and I still think Day-Lewis has the edge – having not yet seen any of the movies featuring Best Actress nominees, I can’t really comment on the women.) Brendan Fraser is also quite good, and the political dimension of the story (i.e. America’s involvement in sponsoring Vietnamese terrorism) is very well-integrated with the dramatic tale being told. If anything, the film slipped in the ratings to the right only because (a) The Pianist was better, or at least more powerful, (b) I found this film a bit slow in the first hour, partly because the tale begins at the end with the death of the “quiet” American (not much of a spoiler – it’s almost the first shot in the film), and thus much of the dramatic tension in the story has already been siphoned off, and (c) the “Vietnam is a woman” allegory is a bit heavy-handed – the audience can pick up on what’s going on without it being stated over and over again. But it’s worth seeing, and Michael Caine is magnificent.
Flights of Imagination.
The Science Fiction Book Club picks the 50 most significant science fiction/fantasy books of the last 50 years, although after the top ten they’re listed alphabetically (Via Lots of Co.) I’d say I’ve read about half of these, and the choices seem pretty legit. No surprise who‘s at the top of the list, but otherwise it seems like the fantasy side got short shrift. I guess the Narnia books (and for that matter Animal Farm and 1984) are over 50-years-old. Speaking of which, I can’t say I’m a very big C.S. Lewis fan (particularly as compared to Tolkien), but nonetheless – the Narnia film site is now live.
Paging Theodore Rex.
The Old World will burn in the fires of Industry…and yet, concerned about GOP vulnerability in the suburbs, Frank Luntz is now advocating a kindler, gentler environmental message for Republican candidates, including Orwellian substitutions of “conservationist” and “climate change” for “environmentalist” and “global warming” respectively. Well, dang, now that they put it like that, I feel much more at ease about the GOP cutting down trees and drilling up Alaska.
Roll Call.
Slate queries various pundits on the Iraq war, including Mark Bowden, Alan Brinkley, Nicholson Baker, and Spike Lee. In a related story, forget Vietnam or WWII. Neal Gabler of Salon has found a more pertinent historical corollary to Iraq in the Spanish-American war. The McKinley-Bush comparisons are eerily apt, particularly when you factor in Karl Rove’s hero, Mark Hanna.
Truth and Consequences.
Misread misanthrope or principled truthteller? Louis Menand and Leon Wieseltier battle over the legacy of George Orwell. Only recently in my readings (in Menand’s Metaphysical Club and James Livingston’s Pragmatism, Feminism, and Democracy) have I encountered this notion that the pragmatism of the Progressives (such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, and John Dewey) eventually leads to the same moral relativist conclusions as post-structuralism (in fact, Livingston argues that much of the postmodern devotion to figures like Foucault and Derrida is mainly a reflection of the European indifference to, if not ignorance of, American scholarship – James and Dewey came to the same philosophic conclusions decades earlier.) And, indeed, Herbert Croly’s 1909 The Promise of American Life, considered the bible of the Progressive moment, attacks abolitionism for much the same reasons as Louis Menand – that it was dangerous and destructive in its reliance upon absolute moral certainty. (Sadly, to say the progressives had a moral blind spot when it came to America’s racial dilemma is an understatement.) But, then again, the “prophetic pragmatism” of Cornel West is cleary infused with a moral sense that is based on certain underlying truths. (“Like Foucault, prophetic pragmatists criticize and resist forms of subjection, as well as types of economic exploitation, state repression, and bureaucratic domination. But these critiques and resistances, unlike his, are unashamedly guided by moral ideals of creative democracy and individuality.”) So, I’d say that, while I fall somewhere between Menand and Wieseltier on the subject of Orwell, and while I usually find Wieseltier to be a pompous ass (his own attack on Cornel West comes to mind), in the end I side with those who say keep the aspidistra flying. To paraphrase Orwell, all truths may in fact be equal, but some truths are more equal than others. It may involve some intellectual doublethink, but one can recognize that a truth may have some basis in subjectivity and still hold it – and fight for it – with conviction.
Agents Orange.
Speaking of Orwell (is it Eurasia or Eastasia today, Saddam or Osama?), the Dubya administration capitalizes on terror panic to drum up war fever (and good media coverage.) It’s amazing to me how worried many people here in town seemed about the recent orange alert (status update via Looka.) One friend told me that his out-of-town guests cancelled their flight into the city because of a possible attack, and a handful of other folks I know wouldn’t use the subway. I dunno…I just can’t get too stressed about something that’s so completely out of my hands. Besides, it’s probably true that living in New York City increases the chances that I’ll die as a result of terrorism, but it also vastly decreases the chances that I’ll die in a car wreck, which is still the leading cause of death in America for people under 33. So, it’s basically a wash. Not that I’m ambivalent about perishing in a gas attack or something worse, mind you, but I just don’t see the utility in freaking out every time the US intelligence community decides to cover its ass by issuing warnings based on non-specific “specific information.”
Still Crazy After All These Years.
Salon checks in with Dr. Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson, on the eve of a new memoir, Kingdom of Fear.
Gangs of Helms Deep.
Also from Follow Me Here, Salman Rushdie compares gang violence in Two Towers and Gangs of New York to developments in Iraq. Interesting points, but did we see the same Scorsese film? In both the initial and final gangland scenes, there’s hardly any sense of moral ambiguity. To the contrary, as I noted in this post, the Irish (Neeson/DeCaprio) forces are portrayed exclusively as maligned, freedom-loving immigrants, while the Nativist (Day Lewis) gang are portrayed as racist brutes. You’d never get the sense in Scorsese’s film that it was the former group that actually unleashed virulent hatred upon the city’s African-American population in July of 1863. I suspect this reading of Gangs has more to do with the close friendship between Rushdie and “The Band that Built America.” Or perhaps Rushdie saw the longer Scorsese cut of the film, which is rumored to be more nuanced.