W.E.

Melanie and I watched the movie “W.E.” last night via a Netflix Blue-ray rental and I admit I was prepared to hate it. Madonna directed and co-wrote it and it only has a %12 Rotten Tomatoes approval rating from critics. The only reason I was aware of the movie at all was because of its Oscar nomination for costumes.

 

Part of my expectation was tainted by my dislike of Madonna. It’s a weird thing to dislike a celebrity because you don’t know them, your impression is formed strictly by the media. Nonetheless, I think she’s a demanding, self-serving wannabe with questionable talents. She doesn’t let people get in her way and seems to use others to get ahead. You can say this is no different from the behavior of successful men which we accept - and women often use this argument to defend the unlikable behavior of successful women - but that assumes a lot about me. I don’t like or accept this behavior in anyone, woman or man. To be self-serving at the expense of others is not, to me, an attractive or acceptable way for someone to behave.

Madonna was most recently married to the British film director Guy Ritchie and in 2003 they collaborated on the very un-Guy Ritchie movie “Swept Away.” He wrote and directed it, she starred in it. It was a huge bomb with a %5 Rotten Tomato score. (Just before the movie opened, I remember seeing Ritchie and Madonna on a Red Carpet somewhere. When asked how “Swept Away” was, Ritchie said, “It’s horrible.” Madonna elbowed him and laughed and said he was kidding, but it didn’t look to me like he was kidding.) The impression is that Madonna used her husband to further her own career.

 

Of the 78 reviews for “Swept Away” on Rotten Tomatoes, only four gave it a favorable rating. Of those who liked it, one admits to it having a “ghastly” start, one predicted it will become a camp classic, one gave backhanded kudos to Madonna saying it shows she “doesn’t suck” as an actress, and the other’s review is no longer active on the site.

Melanie was curious to see "W.E." and I like historical dramas, so I was mildly interested too. The film tells two parallel stories. One is about Wallis Simpson’s affair and marriage to King Edward VIII who abdicated his throne for her, and the other is of a woman in 1998 who’s fascinated with the Simpson story and sees similarities in her own life.

The line in the film that sounds like pure Madonna to me (I’m paraphrasing from memory) is, “Everyone talks about how much he gave up by marrying her, but no one ever talks about what she gave up.”

That’s right, Wallis Simpson is the one we should all feel sorry for, no one appreciates what women go through. Bitch, please. What did Simpson give up? She was a married woman who had an affair with a would-be king and divorced her (from all accounts) decent, loving and non-abusive husband for him. She was then ostracized by Britain and the royal family. So what did she give up exactly?

Now here’s the surprise; "W.E." isn't half bad. Well, maybe it is half bad, but it's only half bad. The critics gave it a %12 approval rating but the audience rated it %51.

The direction is deftly handled (it's not easy for me to say that) and I like the intercutting between the two story lines. Sometimes the film switches back and forth quickly without warning, but you never get lost. I think the acting is great (Madonna’s not in it) and the production and costumes especially are very well done. The script is a little weak and one-note. The modern story isn’t well resolved and might not be needed at all, despite the good acting. It’s not bad, just doesn't seem to go anywhere. And you never understand why the modern woman is so fascinated by Simpson and Edward. So the script could definitely be better. But I think the main reason the critics didn't give the movie a better reception has more to do with Madonna than the movie itself. That’s unfortunate because the film, though only OK, is better than Madonna’s being given credit for. I enjoyed it; not a lot, but I enjoyed it, and it did make me want to know more about the real story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward.

Maybe the only reason I liked the movie at all is because my expectations were so low.  But I don’t think so. It’s still obvious why Madonna chose to do it – a female-directed female-centric movie starring two women depicting the struggles of strong women – but the movie works more than it doesn’t. Interesting.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Magic City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_City_(TV_series)

I’ve been watching this new show on the Starz cable channel called “Magic City.”  It’s set in a fancy hotel in Miami in the late 1950s and I didn’t know what to make of it at first.  I liked it but I was a little put off by it.

The hotel owner is played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan who looks a bit like Dean Martin in his prime.  He has people like Sinatra playing his hotel and the Kennedy’s stopping by for luncheons, and also allows backroom gambling and has hookers on site.  As a result, he deals with the local mob boss played by Danny Huston.  Huston may be a boyhood friend, but he’s also a moral-less crime lord who comes off a bit crazy, a bit insane. 

To demonstrate.  There’s a bar in the hotel with windows that look out under a pool.  Danny Huston’s character Ben "The Butcher" Diamond says things like, “You should put mermaids in that pool.  No one wants to watch fat kids swim.”  Ike (Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s character) says, “I have girls in there too Ben, you’ve seen them.”  “No, mermaids I said.  Mermaids.” 

How do you answer crazy?

It’s also a lurid program.  Lots of death and Showtime-caliber sex.  I have the past three or four episodes on the TiVo, meaning I’ve been letting them pile up because I didn’t know if I was into the show or not.  It’s not Melanie’s kind of thing so I haven’t been getting around to watching them.

I just finished watching two of the recent episodes and then it hit me.  This show is Mickey Spillane without the censorship.  It’s a pulp novel crime thriller come to life with real tits and ass.  There are no cutaways to trains going into tunnels.  When the guy and the girl hit the sack, you see it in all its cable glory.

I didn’t mention an interesting twist.  The hotel owner is Jewish as is Ben “The Butcher” Diamond.  You don’t see that too often, usually the mob guys are Italian, even though there has always been an active Jewish mob too.  On the other hand, it’s almost not noteworthy because in the end, criminals are criminals.  I never thought of crime as an equal opportunity employer, but there you go.

I’m getting into the look and feel of the show.  The sets and costumes are fantastic, and the cars, amazing.  Even the color palette is like old color Kodaks or postcards.  Everyone drinks and smokes and it makes me wish I lived in a time when smoking was still OK for you.

I think I’ll watch the remaining episodes pretty quickly now.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Johnny Carson

I’ve never been a huge fan of Johnny Carson. I grew up when he was at his most popular and watched him probably most nights – I’ve always tended toward late hours and his was the only show on - but I never worshiped him to the extent a lot of entertainers do. Carson is often praised for his comic timing and quick ad-libbing, and his ability to put guests at ease, knowing when to interject and when to let them go on. And these are all valid observations.

But what I always saw in Carson was insincerity. Not that he was nasty or unkind, just hidden and secretive. I had no problem believing he was shy off camera because I could see the tension as he strove to stay in character and suppress his real persona. I had no problem believing he wasn’t always pleasant and could be mean and vindictive. Carson was great at hiding in plain sight. You saw him every night but you never saw what he was really about. The person on camera was manufactured.

He wasn’t genuine, he wasn’t real, and that always bothered me. He was incredibly polished but he was artificial. Jack Parr was Carson’s immediate predecessor and I’ve only ever seen his Tonight Show in clips, but what I see is someone infinitely more “authentic” than Carson ever was. Of course this is an opinion, I never met Jack Parr to know what he was like, but he conveyed sincerity and authenticity. With Carson, I always knew there was a lot more lurking or cowering under the surface and it felt distancing to me. He might laugh at a guest but I’d wonder, what are you really thinking?

A recent American Masters on PBS takes a look at Carson’s life and career. Watching clips from the Tonight Show underlines my initial impression of Carson, stylistically perfect but disingenuous. On the other hand, I have a better respect for Carson’s insight into what works and what doesn’t work when interviewing guests. He DID make that look easy and it isn’t (remember how embarrassingly uncomfortable Chevy Chase was in his short-lived talk show?). I think Carson was a good listener and was good at making his guests feel they were the center of his attention, and he was effective at drawing them out. And he understood comedy and used it well. But I always felt he was like a ticking bomb that could explode at any moment.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

New Keyboard

My old keyboard came with my MacPro about five years ago and it's been showing it's age. First the keys got grimy from my beefy mits. I pulled and cleaned them and they looked good for a while, but I think I scrubbed off some protective coating because they got dirty again real fast. Then the space bar started getting temperamental. Today was the day for a replacement.


Apple only sells one detached keyboard now so it makes your choice... easier. It's got a considerably smaller footprint than the older one, but fortunately the keys are spaced and sized the same. That means it's not as congested as a laptop keypad, which I can barely use. I feel like I'm wearing mittens when I try to type on one.

The difference in size is dramatic.



Same sized keys, just fewer of them in a slimmer box.

But watching me use the thing is like watching a circus clown on a tricycle.



I like it. Smooth action, great response and feel.   But I see a period of adjustment before me.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

The Skin I Live In

Melanie and I watched "The Skin I Live In" via a Netflix Blu-ray over the weekend. It's a 2011 movie written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar starring Antonio Banderas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skin_I_Live_In

When I first started watching it I thought it was done by the same director who did "Y Tu Mamá También" in 2001, Alfonso Cuarón (who also co-wrote that script). Both directors have unique, individual (though similar) styles and approach sexuality in frank, almost shocking but intelligent ways.

Cuarón had already shot two big budget American films prior to "Y Tu Mamá También" but he chose to shoot it in Mexico. I've read it was partly because he feared getting an NC-17 rating in the States which would have made financing and marketing difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Tu_Mam%C3%A1_Tambi%C3%A9n

The resulting film is in no way pornographic, but it depicts sexual growth and maturity in an honest and adult way. It’s not overtly graphic, but it’s not cautiously shy either. It seems Cuarón was afraid any honest depiction of budding sexual awareness would scare Jack Valenti’s puritanical MPAA ratings board away from an R rating. (Amazingly, the film Cuarón directed immediately after this was "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." He did a great job, but what about "Y Tu Mamá También" made the producers think he was right for a Harry Potter movie?!?!) By shooting in his native Mexico, Cuarón was able to make the movie he wanted and it's a great flick, a coming of age story between two Mexican teenagers and an “older” woman in her late 20s who accompanies them on a road trip.

“The Skin I Live In” contains sexual elements with a bizarre storyline that reminded me of the vibe of "Y Tu Mamá También" but with more thriller and some sci-fi elements. The films explore the nature of sexuality in different ways (though you wouldn’t really call “The Skin I Live In” a movie about sex, maybe more about sexual roles).

“The Skin I Live In” stars Banderas as a surgeon who becomes obsessed with the idea of transforming people through plastic surgery. We find out early on he lost a wife to a fire and later suffered another tragic loss. He decides to develop an artificial skin that will look and function as effectively as normal human skin but will be much more impervious to burning. Wait until you see how he goes about testing it.

The movie flashes back and forth a lot so you have to pay attention, but I had no trouble understanding where it was going and understanding the actions, motivations and relationships of the characters (unlike "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy). At times the information is a little subtle but I like that, the movie treats us like intelligent people and trusts we’ll be able to follow along. The film is a thriller, a mystery, an examination of identity and sexual identity, and it’s an original. You won’t see the ending coming, it’s a deftly-handled surprise. I like mainly how smart the film is. Banderas is great in what might have been seen to be on paper a risky role. He’s confident and effortless, and I enjoyed seeing him in something with substance. The movie gets close to melodrama and the mild sci-fi elements might strain credulity a bit, but it’s so expertly put together I had no trouble suspending my disbelief and going with it.

I’d be curious to know what other people think. Chime in if you’ve seen it. If you haven’t and you like original movies, check it out. It’s in Spanish with subtitles but by the end you’ll forget you’re even reading them.

The movie, which premiered in May 2011 in competition at the 64th Cannes Film Festival, didn’t get any Academy Award nominations this year but it won Best Film Not in the English Language at the 65th British Academy Film Awards.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Delta Airlines

MY COMPLAINT TO DELTA AIRLINES SENT TUESDAY NIGHT AT ABOUT 9:30

My wife Melanie Hanlon and I had an unhappy flight this afternoon coming home from Ft. Myers Florida.

There were two flight attendants on board, a very nice and helpful woman named Joyce, and a very unpleasant blonde woman who didn't wear a name tag. She was abrupt and rude to me on several occasions during the flight.

I got up to use the bathroom but apparently the seatbelt light was on. It was a smooth flight and at this point well under way. In my experience, people are generally allowed to relieve themselves if needed even if the light is on. If not, I expect to be asked nicely to return to my seat.

I approached the bathroom where the blonde attendant was and asked how I could tell if the bathroom was empty, and she said very abruptly, "You must return to your seat at once sir, the seat belt light is on! I just made another announcement." If so I hadn't heard it.

After 10-15 minutes when the light went out, the same attendant was in the galley by the bathroom. I reached for the bathroom door and she said, "Someone's in there!" in an abrupt tone. I asked her how I could tell and she looked at me uncomprehending. I asked again how I could tell and she tapped a wall and pointed to a light. (I never did figure out how to interpret the light.) She then demanded I stand in the isle while I waited. I backed up out of her way but again she demanded I stand in the aisle instead of to the side of the bathroom, apparently I was in her way. I took a step back into the aisle and waited.

After I'd used the bathroom the attendant was in the aisle between me and my seat. I didn't wait in the aisle because that would block her when she backed up, so I waited in the galley. When she saw me she demanded to know where my seat was. I said "In front of the cart." She backed the cart up into the galley and stared at me not saying anything. I went back to my seat.

My wife told me the same attendant had missed servicing our seat and had to be waved down for a beverage. My wife got a drink but I never did. Other people were missed as well.

During the flight I watched when the seatbelt light was turned on as other passengers walked about using the bathroom without being scolded.

At the end of the flight, again abruptly, the same attendant demanded I bring my seat back upright, a seat I'd never adjusted. I leaned forward and pushed the button but the seat stayed where it was. A moment later Joyce, the other flight attendant, asked me to bring my seat forward. I explained I'd already done that but Joyce asked me to lean forward. She then manually pushed my seat back upright. Apparently it had slipped back during the flight and the mechanism didn't respond when I pressed the button to raise it. Joyce was helpful and nice, and a dramatic contrast to the horrible attitude of the other attendant.

I'm not a novice flyer. In my experience, once a flight is underway and is going smoothly, getting up to use the bathroom when the seatbelt light is on is generally allowed. And if I need to go back to my seat, I expect the flight attendant to tell me so in a courteous manner.

This is unacceptable. I'm not looking for anything, but I want an answer to a question. These are difficult and competitive days for the airline industry. As a traveler I expect to be treated with professionalism and courtesy. My question is this. With so many other airlines on which to fly, why would I choose to fly Delta again?


DELTA AIRLINES' RESPONSE TO ME SENT AT 5:20AM WEDNESDAY

Dear Mr. Hughes,

RE: Case Number 6139917

Thank you for your comments. On behalf of Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection carrier, Shuttle America, I sincerely apologize for the poor customer service received from one of our flight attendant while traveling with us.

After reading your comments, I certainly understand why you wanted to bring this matter to our attention. We expect our flight attendants to be helpful and professional at all times. Excellent customer service is the key to our success and your comments and observations are helpful in ensuring we maintain our goal of providing this level of service. We will make every effort to prevent anything similar from happening again. Please accept our apology for the poor impression, and we welcome further opportunities to be of service. I am truly sorry you did not receive the service you expected and should have received.

That said, we also appreciate your kind comments regarding the service received from another flight attendant, Joyce. We believe our team members are our most important assets, and I am happy to learn our flight attendant exceeded your expectations. Please know I will be sharing all your comments with our responsible leadership team.

However, as a gesture of apology for the poor customer service received, I have issued an Electronic Transportation Credit Voucher (eTCV) in the amount of $50.00 for each passenger. Please note the voucher number and associated Terms and Conditions will be arriving in a separate email. I encourage you to add Delta Air Lines to your receiver list so the voucher document is not misdirected to your spam folder. Please keep the voucher number and the Terms and Conditions since the number is required for redemption. It is also important to remind you that there is no Direct Ticketing fee for reservations confirmed online at delta.com.

Mr. Hughes, I want to thank you, again, for writing regarding the poor customer service received while traveling with us. We appreciate your interest in our company and look towards your future travel with us.

Sincerely,

Michelle M. Matthews
Coordinator, Corporate Customer Care
Delta Air Lines

-----

I figure if you got nothing to lose, why not speak up?

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Miracle on South Division Street

Melanie and I saw an interesting play last night at St. Luke’s Theatre on West 46th Street, “Miracle on South Division Street.” It was a comedy drama and tickets were $28.50/ea via TDF.

http://stlukestheatre.com/

St. Luke’s is an Off-Broadway house I’d never been to before and is on the small size, bigger than a 99-seat black box but not by much at 174 seats.

“Miracle on South Division Street” is a four-character play with a mother and her three adult children. TOO adult, in fact; the actress playing the oldest daughter didn’t look much younger than the actress playing the mother.

It’s an Equity show and I wondered why they didn’t cast more age-appropriate actors out of that professional pool. I figure the pay probably wasn’t great so maybe they couldn’t attract more talented and appropriate actors.

I liked the woman who played the middle child Beverly Nowak (Liz Zazzi), she had great presence and timing and a well-developed character. The eldest daughter Ruth Nowak (Andrea Maulella), though too old, did a good job playing someone younger, and her character takes some nice turns. The mother Clara Nowalk (Peggy Cosgrave) was a little flat and one-note, and she should have aged herself with makeup for the part. The actor playing the youngest, the son Jimmy Nowalk (Rusty Ross), started off weak and amateurish and I kept wondering how he got cast. When I see weaker actors in otherwise professional plays I think maybe there’s hope for me (I don’t set my own bar very high ☺ ). He get’s better through the show though, almost as if the actor has to warm into the character.

The play is flawed but good. The end gets farcical which isn’t a bad thing, but you have to suspend your disbelief more than usual to go with it. But there are some great laugh-out-loud moments. It also has a nice heart and some real emotion. A clever show that starts off a little slowly. Good, not great, and entertaining; I’m glad we saw it.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)