|
|
Content by Douglas Doepke
Commentateur n° : 1,315
Votes Utiles:
40
|
|
|
Reviews Written by Douglas Doepke (Claremont, CA United States)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emergent Voice, Jul 13 2004
Compact, highly readable, survey of neo-con strategy for a new American century. The booklet is simply too condensed to be either weighty or deep, nor do the respective sections on Terrorism and Iraq cohere well, (oddly, there is next to nothing on Afghanistan, a logical bridge between the two). That being said, Mahajan emerges as a consistently sharp-eyed critic of Washington's pretentions at doing something other than building a particularly ruthless and self-serving world empire. That is the book's core and its main virtue. The historical facts are presented cleanly and effectively, much like an extended op-ed piece with footnotes. I particularly like the way Mahajan refuses to pull punches in either this book or in his tv appearances. The section on the murderous UN sanctions regime is especially revealing for an inside look at how that body gets co-opted into the imperial project. Anyone looking to understand why an anti-war, anti-US movement, is growing world-wide, would do well to pick up this little book from one of its emergent voices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gumshoe, '60's Style, Jun 25 2004
The screenplay (Leigh Brackett) of The Long Good-bye is unusually well thought out and coherent. For a private-eye movie, that's an exception, and I suspect it's that very tightness which forced the famously anarchic Altman into a disciplined groove. It also helped produce this, his most accomplished, film. Then too, only an audacious film-maker of Altman's calibre could have brought such an irreverent approach to the screen.Small wonder Chandler purists detest this 1960's version of Phillip Marlowe. Like others of that period, the film sets about subverting an icon of the popular culture. Elliot Gould's Marlowe is anything but the hard-boiled professional audiences have come to admire and expect. Instead, he's grubby, feckless, and seemingly too disengaged to care about Chandler's prized passion: chasing after truth despite an uncaring corrupt society. Worse, one suspects Gould's Marlowe is a hippie at heart, ready to chuck it all and head for the woods with his beloved cat, a load of pot, and a world-weary "Its OK with me". Moreover, he's tossed about by most every event that comes his way, too burned-out to complete a thought and too bummed-out to press an investigation. He can't even find his cat. The slouching gait and hang-dog expression have all the assurance and verve of a man headed for a hanging. Bogart's classic impersonation, it ain't. But Altman has laid a trap, one that only comes into focus at film's end. It's a startling yet oddly believable turn of events. Head doctors term this type of reconfiguration Gestalt Shift, and here the shift is a rewarding one, causing us to go back and re-examine the Gould character and his passage through what has gone before. It's also a brilliant stroke which at last links the counter-cultural Marlowe to the classic version. There are many fine touches in the film, including a highly effective use of sudden violence, particularly runty Henry Gibson's slam-bang humbling of lordly Sterling Hayden (he knows about drunks). And, for once, Altman's penchant for non-actors like Jim Bouton does little damage, although I wish the ending had skipped the ill-advised "Hooray for Hollywood". Nonetheless, this is one of the half dozen or so films that define counter-cultural film-making from the 60's. However, Its key Southern California ambience is best viewed, as other reviewers point out, in wide-screen. So catch up with that mode if you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
House of Ill Repute, Jun 14 2004
The Bush - Saudi connection. No surprise that these two privileged families from oil rich locales would hook up in some back-scratching fashion. However, what starts out in the early 80's as a fairly innocuous business partnership, deepens over the years into an affair of state and ultimately into a sinster backdrop to Pearl Harbor II. Unger charts the evolution in workman-like fashion. Names are named and financial dealings specified. All of which come together in the penultimate chapter "9/11", where we get a good idea of how the Bush-Saudi family alliance came to trump national interest. The section on al-Qaedi's Abu Zubaydah is particularly intriguing, and if true, opens up a whole new avenue into Saudi machinations.The book is certainly not disguised Bush-bashing, despite claims made by many disarmed and desperate critics. Rather it's a particularly tragic chapter in the nation's history, providing a rare glimpse into the intersection of big business, family politics, and state policy. Instead of piling on the messengers like Unger and Richard Clarke, let's commend those investigative reporters and administration insiders for trying to get the story out to a beleagured and befuddled American public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Gabby Showcase, Jun 13 2004
Enjoyable Western that even non-Wayne fans should find entertaining. Film blends equal parts mystery, bravado, romance, and humor in fairly smooth fashion. Mystery plot comes from actor-writer Paul Fix, comic relief from incomparable Gabby Hayes, while convincing bravado is supplied by you-know-who. Still and all, this is a Gabby Hayes showcase, and I would think a high point of his career ( he had just left the Hopalong series). In fact, the first ten minutes are among the funniest and most satisfying of any Western on record: the chemistry between Hayes and Wayne is simply terrific and easily tops that between Wayne and his two leading ladies. This is a fine "buddy" picture, even if the participants are wildly unequal in age and skills. My one complaint -- special effects and art direction. Scenic shots from Sedona, AR, simply do not blend well with pedestrian shots from the San Fernando Valley, while shoddy process photography and occasional cheapjack sets also mar final result. Apparently Wayne still did not command a class A budget. Too bad. Still and all, fans of the Duke and those of all tastes could do a lot worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oddball Achievement, May 17 2004
Academic intrigue inside a jounalistic context -- not the most compatible or promising of bedfellows. Still and all, the book remains oddly entertaining despite inbuilt limitations. From the text, a smattering can be learned about the following: Anglo-Austrian philosophy, two of its most unpleasant luminaries, late Habsburg Vienna, rivalries at Cambridge, and last but not least, more than you may ever want to know about an obscure event from 1946. It's this latter that forms the book's centerpiece, and it's a testament to the authors' chutzpah that they are able to magnify this seemingly innocuous confrontation into a climactic and meaningful clash of intellects. Expectations build as the narrative meanders toward what really happened in room H-3, King's College, Cambridge, as two massive egos of the ivory tower, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper, at last collide. The actual upshot is a disappointment, and its meagreness can be taken as an ironical commentary on the elusive nature of Truth and Reality, an outcome not unbefitting a subject of this kind. Then too, the authors take liberties in filling out subjective detail, at the same time, neither the material nor the chapters cohere well despite the tenacity of purpose. Also, I agree with reviewer Walter Horn that Popper's reputation is inflated to approximate Wittgenstein's, without which much of the drama would dissipate. Nonetheless, the issue between the two remains a key one: Does traditional philosophy rest on anything other than linguistic confusion. Don't expect an answer or even a preference from the authors. All in all and despite the many drawbacks, the book stands as something of an oddball achievement, though it poses a genuine risk to those who care nothing about baldness and the dead king of France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom And The Bubble
|
de Robert Brenner Édition : Paperback |
| Price: CDN$ 16.79 |
|
| Availability: Usually ships in 3 to 5 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Providing Perspective, May 7 2004
Picking up a book about economics is often like checking in with an accountant: it's no fun, but it may save trouble later on. Fortunately, Brenner's is a rewarding call to make. The text is accessible to the non-professional as well as the professional, although a familiarity with market fundamentals such as exchange rates, balance of payments, and other tools of the trade, is assumed. From the text, I gathered two key points that I believe can be capsulized. First, the so-called New Economy, touted by many stock market cheerleaders, was built on little more than old-fashioned market speculation plus timely intervention by central banker Greenspan. Moreover, the process was doomed once the disconnect between share prices and profit rates became too great, as it eventually did. Against this background, extravagant projections of New Economy iconoclasts like Newt Gingrich (Brenner himself names no names) should be measured, along with a stern warning for the future. Second, are two deeper, more ominous developments: namely, international overcapacity and falling profit rates, twin trends that have plagued industrial economies since the early 1970's. Against this backdrop, which Brenner also charts, longer-term prospects should be measured, even as international bankers tinker with short-term, burden-shifting measures like exchange rates. And though Brenner acknowledges the anodyne impact of military spending, he draws no conclusions about its future amidst a sagging GDP.Yes, the book is heavy with graphs, nonertheless the author can't be expected to substantiate his case without strong evidence. Moreover, Brenner's refreshing approach places the New Economy in a broader-than-usual context that furnishes the reader with an informed historical perspective. In most every respect, this is a check-in call worth making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schizoid, May 4 2004
Schizophrenic film that can't decide whether it's Playhouse 90 or Airplane!. In one corner are Scott and Chayevsky making with the intense psychological realism and some really powerful moments; in the other is chaotic urban hospital laboring at zany gallows humor with a few scattered laughs. In between is director Hiller hoping for single workable whole. Result is awkward pastiche that doesn't live up to super-rich potential. Film is object lesson in how miscasting of even top-notch talent can produce disappointment. I keep wishing gifted amateurs like Zucker Bros. & Jim Abrams had gotten hold of idea first. Sure, Scott is great actor, but he's so authentic he overwhelms ambient efforts at satire; yes, Chayevsky gets off some good lines, but keeps piling on the prose long after it's peaked out. What the movie really needs are more sight gags and a lot less talky angst. In short, let the visuals carry the message -- something word fiend Chayevsky could never allow. My advice: once hippie chick Rigg starts bragging about Scott's restored virility, switch off, because it's a downhill ride from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wacko, April 30 2004
Somehow this goofy movie seemed to invite a different kind of approach. So what follows is my highly subjective review of Madam Satan.Ten minutes into this supremely unfunny sex farce and I'm ready to chuck the cassette. First, there's Roland Young who's supposed to be an amusing drunk but is more like a ten day hangover, and second, there's Reginald Denny who's spent too many nights opening refrigerator doors because his face looks completely frozen. Then up pops this really zaftig little nuimber named Lillian Roth, who's also a dead-ringer for Shirley Temple's older sister, so I ease up on the remote. But another thirty minutes of Denny and Young and not even Roth's wiggling and warbling can compensate. Then just as I go for the off-button, somebody in Hollywood mixes up the reels and out of nowhere I'm looking at long lines of happy people singing and dancing and snaking their way into this big balloon, the likes of which no one has seen in 60 years. Must be a free meal, I figure, since this is 1930 and it is the Big Depression. But no, on the inside is an x-rated version of Flash Gordon in the royal court of Ming the Merciless, except these pagans are marching around to the clatter of trash can lids banging together like it's pick-up day on Mars. It's really wild, all the girls trying to see whose outfit is the weirdest and slinkiest, and dancing around like it's the last night of a fertility rite, while all the guys are going absolutely crazy. Right then I'm wishing I was born a lot sooner, especially when the mysterious Madam Satan appears, looking like the slithery serpent from the Garden of Eden. Right away I know she's one of the director's favorites because he keeps angling his camera toward her chest area. So what do I care that this second movie has no plot, what with these lunatics in charge, who knows what'll happen next. Then, just as I'm really into all the drunken revelry, up pops Denny and Young again, and I know the Hollywood bigshots aren't as smart as people say, otherwise these two lunkheads would not be allowed to ruin another few reels. But there's Young anyway, yukking it up like he's really funny, and there's Denny still trying to get his face unstuck. And, sure enough, there's Roth, looking as cute and dimpled as ever, except this time they've stuck weird feathers in her at all angles like she's been plucked by a blind guy. But she doesn't care, because she keeps on singing her little heart out and I think I'm in love. Anyway, everyone knows that with all this sinning going on and a character like Madam Satan in charge, the wrath of God can't be far behind. And sure enough, just as they auction off the girl with six arms, down comes this bolt of lightning and there goes the balloon spinning up toward the heavens. But then God gets his bearings back, and back down goes the balloon, with all the pagans screaming and yelling and becoming instant converts. I don't want to give away the ending, except to say miracles do happen, since the outside of this balloon suddenly sprouts more parachute drops than the jump schools at 82nd Airborne. Ordinarily, I would figure I dreamed all this weird stuff, but even with an empty 12-pack my dreams are never, never this weird. I know there is a moral to this movie, which must be that sin shouldn't look like too much fun, otherwise the killjoys and fussbudgets among us will make sure movies show only good things like twin-beds, closed-mouth kissing, and dreary couples named Rock and Doris. And that will be the end of really wacko movies like this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Walking Wounded, April 26 2004
Sensitively told coming-of-age film set against Las Vegas and the early years of atomic testing. Rose (Annabeth Gish) is thirteen and very much wants to connect with stepdad Jack (Jon Voight), an alcoholic WWII veteran still possessed by the demons of combat. Trouble is, she's operating on one track, while he's operating on two, so that just when they seem at last to converge, he goes off on a destructive delusionary binge. Movie is notable for the exceptionally fine performances of these two actors. Gish, tottering atop two gawky legs and peering out from behind the cosmetic curse of horned-rim glasses, is the very real, aching embodiment of adolescent angst. Hers has to be one of the finest, least mannered renderings of teen-age yearning and self-doubt in many, many years, and made even me, a hardened old curmudgeon, feel a kindly regard for the hopelessly pubescent. Voight's character is less sympathetic and more complex. Victimized by the evils of war and beset by alcohol and impotence, he's having trouble with his masculinity in a house full of women. He wants to fulflill a positive role for his wife and stepdaughters but the inner turmoil keeps erupting unpredictably.You want Jack and Rose to connect, to heal one another's emotional wounds, but circumstance is against them. Movie leaves off on suitably ambiguous note as atomic test parallels emotional family blowup. We know time will take care of Rose's problems, but what of Jack. Film is not so much about dysfunction as it is about adolescence and the walking wounds of war, such that you'll remember the characters long after the various plot complications have subsided. What a fine piece of non-commercial movie making this is thanks to Sundance Productions and writer-director Eugene Corr. Their work along with that of the entire cast shows once again why "the obscure little movie with something to say" continues to be one of our finest film traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dreck then, Dreck now, April 3 2004
Golden Turkey Awards to the following: to Shug Fisher for proving that lovable town drunks are the real menace and should be locked away permanently, to special effects for proving that a single coupon to Toy's R'Us furnishes all the props a movie needs, to the luckless lizard for proving that a single narcotized expression gets you real screen time, to the composer of "Laugh Children Laugh" for turning an audience of nice Sunday school graduates into howling mad atheists, and finally, to the producers for believing this 70 minutes of unabashed treacle would actually convert switch-blade greasers into Pat Boone acolytes. The best way to view this 50's abomination now, as then, is passed-out in the back of a '57 Chevy. Some may call it camp -- it doesn't rise to that level. I still call it dreck.
|
|
|
|