SUPER TUESDAY IN 2016 AND ITS AFTERMATH: The Trump Extravaganza

The first Republican Presidential debate since Super Tuesday was no disappointment for those looking for entertainment and little substance.  It followed Mitt Romney’s denouncement* of the frontrunner, Donald J. Trump, and Marco Rubio’s reference to the size of Donald Trump’s hands.  It’s no great surprise that the debate itself consisted mostly of personal attacks.

Where Did The Bad Feeling Come From?

Character attacks are not new to politics, and such attacks will continue for as long as there are elections.  Yet there was a period following the 1970s where Presidential candidates did try to appear civil.  I don’t remember any election involving Ford, Carter, Reagan, or George H.W. Bush where the rancor was spilling across the media.  However, we began seeing touches of rancor directed at President Clinton after accusations of his marital infidelities became very public around 1998 prompting impeachment actions to move forward.  Clinton survived this ordeal.

The civility really came to an end on December 12, 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore.  Since that time, mostly on the internet, Facebook and Twitter, there has been a constant hurling of insults – first from the left concerning George W. Bush and then from the right regarding President Barack Obama.  That each President managed to be reelected didn’t seem to quiet down anyone.  Ever since 2000, as soon as one presidential election has concluded we are already discussing who we will vote for in the next one.

It all leads to this: every four years we hear of a new savior running for office who will save our country and make everything better.  And though disillusionment is inevitable, the disappointment with one candidate only makes us all the more hopeful for the next.

Following the Iraqi conflict and the real estate market collapse in 2007, Barak Obama made a wide variety of promises on how he would remedy the situation.  Unsurprisingly, Obama delivered on some promises and not on others.  Yet the failure of Obama to deliver on certain promises never made the hopeful believe such measures were out of reach.   Instead, the hopeful turned their support to Bernie Sanders who promises even more – to create a single-payer plan, promote free college education for everyone, etc. 

The Republican hopeful are no more realistic.  As the Republican establishment has not put a stop to illegal immigration, angry voters are now turning to Donald Trump who promises to build a wall across our borders.

We should know by now that such promises will never happen, but I suppose enthusiasm to be maintained needs to be blind.  It is also the result of a particular type of conceit.  This is the conceit among supporters and political pundits that they know without reservation what can be accomplished, and which candidate will best meet the needs of everyone.  Look what happened in the South Carolina Democratic Primary.  During the course of the primary, many pundits somehow thought they could speak for black voters by telling them that Bernie Sanders was a better for their interests than Hillary Clinton.  The strategy didn’t work.  Black voters overwhelmingly snubbed these pundits by supporting Ms. Clinton. 

Since presidential elections first began, candidates have used simple and mostly meaningless campaign slogans.  Examples include: “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,” “Return to normalcy,” “A chicken in every pot,” “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people,” and “We like Ike.”  Notoriously, Woodrow Wilson ran in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war” – this right before U.S. troops went to Europe during World War I.  And right before the reelection of Nixon to the Presidency in 1972, his Secretary of State pronounced, “We believe that peace is at hand.”  Enlisted troops continued to fight in Vietnam for another three years.  This election will be no different.  It won’t be clear why a large number of voters voted the way they did, but somehow one candidate or another will reach them by slogans calling for political revolution or promises to make America great again. 

Why Has Trump Been Successful?

While mostly unfriendly to him, the media has done a wonderful job of keeping Trump in the spotlight.  Such publicity not only appears to be leading to his nomination, it also seems to ensure he could be a formidable opponent in the 2016 election.  Like most nominees for either major party, he will likely receive at least 40 percent of the vote.  And judging by how successful he has been in the primaries, he has an outside chance of winning.

The media and Trump opponents have made a terrible mistake contributing to Trump’s success.  Not only have they gone after Trump, they have also gone all out in insulting his supporters.  And while many admit they do not know any of Trump’s supporters, these detractors continue to insist his supporters are mostly ignorant and racist.  This will change nobody’s minds.

It is true that the baggage of Trump is there for everyone to see.  Trump should have known without prompting that David Duke was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.  And while not solely responsible for the rioting at his rallies, Trump should have taken some accountability for the violence occurring there.  Trump also is not telling us how he will live up to his promises.  Like Sanders (but seemingly more effectively), Trump supplies easy answers for difficult issues by mostly saying what his supporters seem to want to hear.  And as I write this, with Trump’s unfavorable ratings with women too low for him to realistically expect to win against Hillary Clinton unless something changes, Trump insults Ted Cruz’s wife.

Yet while the average Trump supporter may never have received a college education, this is far different from being ignorant.  Trump supporters consist of a large number of blue-collared workers who have worked hard to support their families.  Among them, there will be a large portion who have run their own businesses successfully and who did not have well-to-do parents to help them get started.  Whether the anger of some of Trump’s supporters is justifiable, these individuals still are facing a set of issues that many other voters are not facing. 

To his supporters, Trump’s an outsider, has business experience (though perhaps not real world business experience), and has demonstrated in three quarters of the primaries and caucuses his ability to win.  And it appears Trump supporters understandably do not feel that candidates like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton are anything to boast about.

What Happens Next?

Just a few days ago we had a terrorist attack on Brussels which likely is tied to the one in Paris.  The stakes are very high and we cannot afford to allow ISIS to win.

William Buckley once stated: “I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”  While I reluctantly agree, I’d also rather entrust the government of the United States to these same 400 people than the editorial staff for the National Review or any other news outlet.

I hope that voters take the time to educate themselves on who is best qualified for the office and don’t make up their minds too quickly.  Having done that, I also hope that these voters remain humble in the knowledge that whoever they pick may still end up being a disastrous choice.

* As an aside, the same week Romney made this speech he also filed his name for consideration of the Presidency of the United States.  In other words, his speech may seem a bit self-serving.

March 24, 2016

©  Robert S. Miller 2016

THE REVENANT (2015): Story of Revenge

The Revenant, the 156-minute thriller directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu, is both exciting and disappointing.   Its attributes include its non-stop action from beginning to end; the physically grueling acting display put on by both Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy; possibly the most visually impressive film I have ever seen beautifully using the backdrop of the mountains throughout; and an overall simple story that’s almost refreshing when one thinks about all of the botched scripts coming out of Hollywood.

By itself, this of course does not make for a great movie.  And unfortunately, the moviemakers fail to provide us with anything else to turn this from an interesting movie-going experience into something special.  The movie is too long, relies far too much upon violence to pull moviegoers in, and turns an otherwise intriguing film into a revenge story – with the revenge element being the least interesting portion of the entire movie.

Hugh Glass (DiCaprio), a tremendous frontiersman and explorer, guides a group of hunters besieged by hostile Arikara Indians.  Between battles with the tribe, Glass gets himself mauled by a bear during a remarkably choreographed scene.  Two members of the hunting party and Glass’ Native America son, Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) remain behind with the intent of carrying the badly injured Glass to safety.  One of the members is the young Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) on one of the first of his many explorations of the west.  The other is John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), a capable and extremely unscrupulous man who already has had run-ins with Glass.  Eventually Fitzgerald kills Hawk and cajoles Bridger into leaving Glass behind.

Assuming that Glass could never survive on his own, Fitzgerald and Bridger eventually make their way back to a military fort.  In the meantime, Glass not only survives his wounds, he also is able to evade the Arikaras and to even rescue the daughter of an Arikara chief from a group of Frenchmen.  When Glass shows up at the military fort, Fitzgerald disappears.  Bridger then confesses to the commanding officer the truth about the abandonment of Glass.  Though Glass is still recovering from his wounds, he pursues Fitzgerald.  When he finds Fitzgerald, a tremendous knife fight breaks out.  While stabbed in the knife fight, Glass still is able to deliver Fitzgerald to his death at the hands of the Arikara chief whose daughter Glass had rescued.  Glass then presumably dies because of his wounds.

The storyline seems to borrow from the plotline in Jack London’s gripping short story, “Love of Life.”  The story also bases itself upon a novel regarding the real life exploits of explorer, Hugh Glass, who was the victim of a bear mauling.  There are a few major differences, however, between the movie and the real life adventure (1) the real Hugh Glass survived for several years after the incident in question; (2) Glass never had a son who died at the hands of Fitzgerald; and (3), Glass forgave the real life Jim Bridger, who was an extremely young man at the time, and Fitzgerald who was a soldier by the time Glass finally caught up with him.

Besides trying to push fiction off as fact, another problem with this film changing the narrative is that the real life story is more intriguing than the one we see on the movie screen.  Regarding the real life story, we ask ourselves why Glass would forgive the two.  Though trying this question out as a plot device will not draw in an audience who would rather see a twenty-minute knife fight, it would give the audience more to ponder upon at the end of the film.  In any case, we can’t call a movie great when the story upon which we base the film is more compelling than what we see in the movie theater.

The Revenant probably will receive awards during next week’s Academy Awards, and it certainly would not be the worst choice ever made if it won an Oscar for Best Picture.  However, if I was on the committee to choose the best picture and if I really cared who won the award to begin with, I would choose Steve Jobs over The Revenant.  While nowhere near as riveting to watch, Steve Jobs tells a better story than The Revenant.

February 21, 2016

©  Robert S. Miller 2016

CREED (2015): Rocky Revisited

Sylvester Stallone is back once again in Creed playing his most famous character, Rocky Balboa.  Rocky, originally filmed in 1976, resulted in six sequels (including Creed) – some good and others not so good.  Creed , a 133 minute film, is well paced the only sequel that almost equals the merit of the original.

While Creed greatly resembles the original Rocky, there are a few significant differences.  The lead role features Michael B. Jordan as Adonis Johnson, rather than by Stallone.  Adonis is the illegitimate son of Rocky’s late great rival, Apollo Creed.  After spending a number of years in orphanages and juvenile lockup, Apollo’s wife, Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashad), finally decides to adopt the boy.  Adonis spends the remainder of his adolescence living in an affluent California home and eventually works in an office.

Adonis is not satisfied, however.  The memory of the father he never met haunts him and he decides, against his adopted mother’s wishes, to take on a career as a boxer.  Since the California gyms do not prove promising, he eventually makes his way to Philadelphia to ask Rocky to train him.  Rocky reluctantly takes on this task.  In Philadelphia, Adonis also falls in love with a young singer he meets named Bianca (Tessa Thompson).  Tessa plays essentially the same supporting role as Adrian in the earlier Rocky films.  Her struggle is hearing loss that, we discover, will eventually lead to total deafness.  Predictably, Adonis fights some difficult opponents and eventually gets a chance at the light-heavyweight championship.  He goes the distance against the undefeated champion, Ricky Conlan (Tony Bellew), and just as occurs in Rocky loses the fight on a split decision.

What makes this film succeed, unlike many of the other sequels, is the relationship between Rocky, as a trainer, and his new protégé.  The training sequences are probably the best in any Rocky film, and Stallone plays the role of an experienced a wise trainer remarkably well.  Stallone also limits the pathos – a pathos that nearly destroys all of the other sequels. 

Rocky has struggles of his own.  He learns he is suffering from cancer and decides to refuse treatment so that he can join his late wife, Adrian, who died from cancer.  Adonis refuses to allow Rocky to make such a choice.  Adonis convinces Rocky that he will do everything in his power to seek the championship belt if Rocky will abide by the instructions of his doctors.  Adonis lives in the same apartment with Rocky and helps him out every instance that Rocky struggles from the effects of the chemotherapy.  In the end, Rocky discovers that he is cancer free, and Adonis bonds with the new father figure who helps him become a man.

The film is honest and simple – perhaps a bit too simple because we have seen this script before.  Still, this is the only Rocky film where the fight sequences are only slightly overstated.  The romance in Creed also plays a smaller role – though the relationship between the two young people remains a tender one.  This film will never be remembered like the original only because director, Ryan Coogler, resists including the same elements that made Rocky such a box office draw.  Yet by doing so, Coogler provides us a film that is mostly unpretentious and better than most.

January 16, 2016

©  Robert S. Miller 2016

STEVE JOBS (2015): Biopic of Ruthless Tech Giant

The protagonist in Steve Jobs is seemingly as unpleasant as any individual can be for someone not in prison.  For many years he attempts to deny paternity concerning his daughter Lisa  (played at differing ages by Makenzie Moss, Ripley Sobo and Perla Haney-Jardine) and only grudgingly pays support after first publicly humiliating Lisa’s mother.  Steve Jobs (Michael Fassbender) fails to publicly acknowledge the debt he owes to his early partner, Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), and the designers behind the scene that make Apple Computers possible.  And he is extremely defensive about any information that may taint his professional reputation, and holds lasting grudges against any real or imagined slights.  Yet somehow his beleaguered assistant, Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) manages to hold onto her position during three product launches including the release of the Macintosh in 1984, the NeXTcube in 1988, and the iMac in 1998.  Hoffman only does so by sacrificing her entire personal life.

Frankly, certain movie reviews were more interesting than the film itself – though not necessarily for the right reasons.  Reviewer Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, for example, goes so far as to compare this film to a rendering of Shakespeare’s Macbeth.  Yet like the products that Steve Jobs launches, Hollywood will replace Steve Jobs with another biopic concerning some other technology mogul.  After all, we had a film biopic about Mark Zuckerberg just five years ago.

A.O. Scott, of the New York Times, does a better job than Turan of summing the film up.  While calling it a “less perfect movie” than The Social Network, Scott refers to Steve Jobs as “a more credible character study, and it leaves behind a fascinating residue of ambivalence.”  Yet even Scott can’t resist inflating the importance of this film.  He states in his review: “The accuracy of this portrait is not my concern. Cinematic biographies of the famous are not documentaries. They are allegories: narrative vessels into which meanings and morals are packed like raisins in an oatmeal cookie; modern, secular equivalents of medieval lives of the saints; cautionary tales and beacons of aspiration.”  While accuracy may not be his concern, it still needs to be a concern of film studios that may at some point face a libel suit for films like this.

Both reviewers, carried away by their willingness to make a point, speak in too great urgency about what is not a great film.  Unlike the film biopics of T.E. Lawence or George S. Patton, few movie viewers are going to want to see Steve Jobs a second time.  This movie has its faults.  Steve Jobs says little that is engaging about its lead character.  Also, the dialogue is almost too perfect to be believable with each insult and cutting remark leading into a culminating scene.  The roles played by Seth Rogen and Jeff Daniels are barely even supporting parts.  And the movie, transparently directed by Danny Boyle as a three-act play, begins and ends in circular fashion concerning Jobs’ relationship with his daughter. 

Nevertheless, this is mostly an intelligent film (intelligence being a relative term whenever speaking about movies).  The attributes of the movie include the acting of Fassbender, Winslet, Moss, Sobo and Haney-Jardine.  Whatever else its faults, the dialogue, written by Aaron Sorkin, generally advances the story.  The seminars that Jobs leads help the audience understand his popularity, which is much like the popularity of a cult leader.  The ending of the film, at first seemingly to be on too much of an upbeat note, is suitably ambiguous leaving us with neither a happy or sad ending.  The 122-minute film is also a compelling critique of American success when it wonders aloud whether it’s possible in corporate culture to be “decent and gifted at the same time.”

November 29, 2015

 

© Robert S. Miller 2015