Change Your Image
classicalsteve
Reviews
Carville: Winning Is Everything, Stupid! (2024)
A Good Doc But Too Much Feeding James' Dogs; Needed More on Winning
The subtitle of this documentary is "It's About Winning, Stupid!", a paraphrase of his famous line "It's the Economy, Stupid!" which became a tag for the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992. But I felt that too much of the doc showed him feeding his dogs, walking his dogs, making lunch, and not enough about how he won campaign victories. The doc should have been more about the "winning" and less of the common domestic chores we all share. Sometimes I felt like the doc seemed like "It's About His Dogs and Luggage, Stupid!"
Towards the beginning, we see Bill Clinton about to undergo an interview for the documentary. The first question is "What did you see in James Carville to hire him as your campaign manager?" (paraphrased). Great question, but just before Clinton is about to answer the doc cuts to something else! I really wanted to hear that answer, and it was probably the main reason I wanted to see this documentary! The doc to its discredit never returns to Bill's answer to the question. They return to Bill Clinton only once who answers what seems to be a different question. If that answer was the answer, I missed it.
I also wanted to hear much more about Carville's first big success when he helped Bob Casey win the gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania but it was only touched upon. How did he do it, what was his strategy? How did Casey find him? Instead we learn he didn't have enough money to fly to Pennsylvania from New Orleans when he was being considered. But what about details concerning the campaign itself? It then just ran through his later wins without any details.
The segment on the Bill Clinton campaign was a bit more fleshed out, showing how he and his team came up with "change or more of the same", "it's the economy, stupid", and "don't forget health care". But again I wanted much more development. I still didn't get a sense of how the campaign used these slogans to turn them into votes. They interviewed some people from the campaign, well and good, but again I needed a lot more about how they did it.
Probably the strongest part of the doc concerned Carville beginning to have doubts about Joe Biden's reelection. They have an ongoing timeline from late Spring, about May, 2024, through the horrid debate between Biden and Trump to Biden's resignation from his own reelection. But many other things needed a lot more coverage.
Way too much of this doc showed Carville with his dogs, walking around hotels, packing up and walking with his luggage. What about the juicier stuff? They showed some of these things already, and it seems we didn't get to see enough of the material which really matters: how he won these campaigns!
There were moments when I started fast-forwarding the mundane stuff, trying to get to the meatier stuff, no pun intended. If it's only an hour, the doc should use screen time for the items which really matter. In my view a missed opportunity that could have been a great documentary but only merely good.
It's About the Campaigns, Stupid! No one would care about his dogs or his lunch if he hadn't had a very savvy campaign manager.
Munich (2005)
Spielberg's Darkest and Yet Most Poignant Film
The George Lucas/Steven Spielberg collaboration, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has a clear delineation between the bad guys, the German Nazis, "looters", and the good guys, Indiana Jones and his team, "archeologists". In "Munich" at first we're guided towards the Israelis as the good guys, enacting justified revenge for a heinous act committed against innocent Israeli athletes.
During the 1972 Olympic Games held in Munich, West Germany (at the time when West German and East Germany were separate countries), eleven Israeli athletes were kidnapped and eventually killed by an extremist Arab group called Black September. Security was fairly lax and it wasn't difficult for the group to get into the apartments of the Israeli athletes. Two athletes were killed initially and the other nine during a shoot-out with German police. The incident stained the Olympic Games of that year.
Avner Kaufman (based on real-life Israeli assassin and security consultant Juval Aviv, played by Eric Bana) is pressed by the Israeli government to lead an operation to avenge the Munich Games Massacre, as it was then called. Avner's main recruiter is Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush) who explains that Avner will basically lose his entire identity, so that if ever caught, the Israeli government could claim no association. The group led by Avner is to execute anyone loosely connected to the massacre, including planners who didn't in fact carry out the deed.
Pretty quickly we, the audience, learn that this movie is not so much about the events leading up to the kidnapping and massacre but rather a revenge story. The movie begins with the first events of the kidnapping and eventual massacre, but only through flashbacks that we learn the whole story of the Massacre, which is not the main thrust of this film. Rather where and how the assassinations take out their targets and how these exploits affect the perpetrators is really at the heart of the main narrative.
Through a secret French intelligence organization who claims loyalty to no nation, the Israeli assassins obtain information concerning the whereabouts of the different organizers of the original attack. The information doesn't come cheap: typically between $200,000 to $300,000 for a name and the person's whereabouts. The Israelis only know their intelligence contacts as Louis (Mathieu Amalric) and his father Papa (Michael Lonsdale) even though at one point the family invites Avner to their estate in the French countryside. Mathieu Kassovitz as toy-maker turned explosives assembler and Daniel Craig as another of the Israeli assassins earn honorable mention.
What begins as a revenge story starts to become a tale of losing one's soul. Is it right for a government to enact vigilante revenge instead of relying on the international police and courts? In some ways the recruiter, Ephraim, seems nearly as diabolical as the Black September group. Avner begins to suspect that his team may be doing more dirty work than simply hunting down those responsible for Munich.
Without question this film is one of Spielberg's best efforts and without doubt his darkest, even given "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List". In the end of "Munich" there really are no heroes but a battle between Palestinians and Israelis which seems never with a clear end in sight. Are they really putting an end to Palestinian assassination or are these "executed" people simply being replaced by more assassins with more assigned targets?
Mitt liv som hund (1985)
Charming Coming-of-Age Character Study Set in Rurual Sweden
The story is about a preadolescent boy whose mother sends him to live with relatives in the late 1950's. On the outset it appears the boy and his brother, who is sent elsewhere, are too difficult for their mother to handle which is why she sends them away. At some point, it's revealed the mother is very ill, but I can't remember if that fact is revealed early or later in the film.
Ingemar, who if memory serves is the younger of the two brothers, is sent to live with his maternal uncle and his wife in a rural town. There is not really a "plot" per se, typical of a lot of European movies. Instead, Ingemar meets a bunch of eccentric characters, some in the uncle's family, others who are close friends.
One character is Saga, a girl about Ingemar's age, who is very much a tomboy. She likes to engage in boxing. Ingemar reluctantly agrees to let the girl box him in a small ring. And he starts to become fond of her. Part of the story is the beginning Ingemar's sexual awakening.
Also there's a recurring "theme" concerning a funny polka song the uncle likes to play on a little record player. It's originally a British novelty song called "I Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts", and a version in Swedish is what's on the record-single. The wife hates the song, but the uncle keeps playing it!
There's also the older "grandfather", the wife's father (I think), who compels Ingemar to read from some "interesting" magazines. Not exactly pornographic but it has texts and pictures of a slightly fascinating nature for the average hereto male Swede!
I believe "My Life as a Dog" is actually a very charming film, but certainly not for all American tastes, and not plot-driven. It's a kind of character study of these funny people living not terribly remarkable lives. That said, as we get to know them, they are remarkable in very understated ways. I came away sort of caring for these kooky but kind of lovable characters. It is very European in the sense of being fairly understated but ultimately uplifting, which you don't find in a lot of European films of this sort.
The Truth vs. Alex Jones (2024)
The First Amendment Does Not Cover Baseless Defamation
Alex Jones has asserted that the lawsuits against him concerning his bogus claims that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Dec, 2012 was a massive hoax violate his Free Speech rights. He has also claimed that the removal of his videos which made the same claims on Youtube or Facebook also violated his First Amendment Rights. Or if someone challenges his views, that's also a violation of his First Amendment rights. Wrong.
Here's what the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
So freedom of speech is about prohibiting any government of the US, from a city council to the US Congress, passing a law to prohibit freedom of speech and/or press. This does not mean that a private company such as Youtube or Facebook are somehow prohibited from denying someone their point of view on anything at anytime. In the case of Alex Jones, if individuals find his views objectionable and/or are harmed by them, that somehow they are violating his rights to speech if they protest or file a lawsuit. Yes, most free speech is protected from government intervention but they may be subject to defamation lawsuits if proved to be false and/or harmful.
This documentary is about the defamation lawsuits and trials against Alex Jones and InfoWars who repeatedly for now going on 10+ years claimed that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary was somehow a hoax and the grieving parents were actors, and the city of Sandy Hook staged the event. And if anyone was harmed by his assertions, they have no case because Jones is protected by the First Amendment. Again wrong.
Yes, an individual does have the right to propagate just about anything they desire without government hindrance, more or less, but there are limitations including injunctions as a result of due process of law. For example, yelling "Fire" in a packed movie theater when there is no fire is not protected under the First Amendment. Also, anyone making false claims can be subject to a civil lawsuit and/or trial if they propagate falsehoods and people are harmed by such propagation. There are yet others such as leaking classified government documents. Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers was going to be tried for the leak in a criminal case which was eventually dismissed. (I'm sounding like someone with a law degree!)
The parents of the slain children at Sandy Hook Elementary filed two defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones when for 10 years he claimed that no child actually died at SH Elem late 2012, the parents were actors, and the activities of law enforcement and EMT's were all staged. Why? Because, according to Jones, it was a left-wing hoax designed to motivate the US Government to pass laws to take away people's guns.
In fact, in the wake of the shooting, a loophole in the law about gun control was put up for a vote by the US Congress, insisted upon by then President Barack Obama. Five Republican Senators who were pressured by the NRA and other pro-gun groups voted against it, fearing retaliation in a primary. So, even if Jones was correct about the shooting being a hoax to promote the ultimate prohibition of guns, which of course it wasn't, the "hoax" failed miserably.
These parents for over 10 years have been harassed, being accused of being liars and at worst experiencing death threats. I know one parent continually moved under false names and was still "found" by conspiracy fantasists. One of the most poignant moments of the doc is when one of the parents talked to someone who noticed her pendant as a memorial to her child. She was asked about it and the mother explained it was for her child who died at Sandy Hook. To which this person said "They said it was a hoax" (I'm paraphrasing). I would be really curious who this "they" that were referring to. Obviously most likely Alex Jones on his InfoWars.
One item which should be noted but hasn't actually been addressed: it is a serious crime, a felony no less, to impersonate a police officer or a government official. So Jones was also alleging that the police officers and government officials who arrived on the scene are all actors. If so, Jones should have pressed that these people also be arrested.
I think the term "conspiracy theory" should be substituted with a new term: "Conspiracy Fantasy". There are conspiracy theories which have proved to be true, such as the Watergate scandal which began as a theory based on the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. A real theory is based on concrete evidence, only the "theory" designation means that there is no means to prove something to be absolutely true or could be refuted with new evidence. When government officials under then President Nixon admitted to the Watergate break-in and the ensuing cover-up, the "theory' became fact. The Watergate Scandal is no longer regarded as a conspiracy theory but a fact.
Jones did not create a theory about the Sandy Hook shooting based on hardcore investigation and evidence. He didn't interview the parents, he didn't interview the police officers and government officials who arrived on the scene. So far as I know he never even visited Sandy Hook in Connecticut. He concocted a "fantasy conspiracy" and then found tiny bits and pieces to somehow prove that Sandy Hook never happened.
One of the saddest moments of the incident was Robbie Parker's speech a day after the shooting. His daughter Emilie was one of the slain children. But it ended up being one of the nuttiest pieces of "evidence" offered by Jones. When Parker went up to the microphone he was shocked to see all the reporters and onlookers. He had never been in such a spotlight before. He then made a brief chuckle out of embarrassment. (I have been a performing musician for several decades and I know what he was going through. I still get nervous when I get out on stage.)
But Jones propagated on InfoWars that Parker's "chuckle" proved he was in fact an actor who never had a daughter. One question I've always had for Jones: if these people were all trained actors as he claimed, where did they get their training? What degrees had they earned? AFI in Los Angeles? Juilliard? Yale School of Drama? Had they appeared in theater, commercials, TV shows or even movies?
If Jones was really a diligent reporter and journalist, wouldn't he feel obligated to find which acting schools and work these people had on their resumes since he claimed there were "trained actors". Parker in particular claimed he had never been in front of an audience before his speech. He was just a grief-stricken father trying to cope with the loss of his daughter. Even though it goes without saying: he is not an actor. And Jones is not a journalist but a political entertainer. Period.
Dune: Part Two (2024)
The Sands of Dune Would Have Blown Frank Herbert Away
NOTE: I am more or less combining the two movies in one review since it really is one movie in two installments, similar to the Lord of the Rings movies by Peter Jackson.
The short of it is, these two movies will go down in history as two of the greatest SF/Fantasy movies of all time. These films capture the feel of the novel as not just SF about highly-advanced technology but also about sophisticated societies and mysticism which puts it into the realm of science fantasy as it is sometimes called, similar to "Star Wars". Simultaneously, the movie has a superb balance between awe-inspiring wars and the emotions of the main characters. The best description might be the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov meets Lord of the Rings by Tolkien.
When "Dune" written by Frank Herbert was published in 1965 by Chilton, a publisher mainly of auto repair book manuals no less, nothing like it had ever appeared in SF before. It wasn't only the scope, the action taking place among several politically and culturally sophisticated societies on a planet called Arrakis aka Dune. Some of the novels by Robert Heinlein did have some similar elements. But Herbert brought a new depth which had yet to be explored in SF.
Herbert combined several elements which had rarely (if ever) been assembled in a single SF novel before.
First, a galactic political structure inspired by the Italian city-states of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. The galaxy is run by an Emperor and twelve noble houses, and the rivalry between the Houses of Atreides and Harkonnen form the core of the events. Paul Atreides, the central character, is the son of Duke Atreides and heir to its rule. Harkonnen is ruled by Baron Harkonnen who gives a new definition to the word "overweight". Harkonnen may have been inspired by the Medicis of Florence, and maybe House Atreides loosely inspired by the House of Mocenigo in Venice. Or he simply made each House their own character. Of course the baddies are House Harkonnen, bald albinos, where there is very little individuality, almost like clones.
Second, a trade commodity with high demand. Indigenous to Arrakis is the spice Melange, which is only found on Arrakis which makes Dune a prize possession in the galaxy. Melange has both healing and even regenerative capabilities as well euphoric effects making it the most highly-sought-after commodity in the Galaxy.
Third, sophisticated societies. On Arrakis there are several cultural societies, some friendly, others more adversarial. There are the Fremen who are native to Dune and divided up into several different groups, one of which believes in the prophecy of a savior while another looks at the world from a more secular view. (Sound familiar?)
There is also the Bene Gesserit, an interplanetary matriarchal society with mystique powers. They have elements of a Roman Catholic Convent with those of the Knights Templar. They are mostly nonviolent but use their mystique powers to wield power over the other Houses. Lady Jessica is a Bene Gesserit and Paul's mother.
And then a random impediment. What makes mining the spice Melange so challenging is that giant sandworms roam all over Dune. They are about as long as a two tower bridge with a height and width of about six trains. They are attracted by static repeating sounds which makes avoiding them very difficult.
All these elements combined into a messianic and militaristic adventure at the highest level. Incredible movie adapted from an incredible book.
History's Greatest Mysteries: Shroud of Turin (2024)
A Relatively Balanced View of the Many Theories Behind the Most Famous Shroud of History
One aspect of "History's Greatest Mysteries" I like is that it offers a number of different theories concerning whatever topic they're exploring. A lot of documentaries about the Shroud of Turin either try to prove it is a miraculous artifact or a sophisticated fraud. I believe it is neither. Believers purport it is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, aka Jesus Christ. But as we'll see even the Gospel accounts don't quite fit with that idea.
The Shroud of Turin is certainly an enigmatic artifact. The few undeniable facts:
It is a piece of shroud-like linen dating from before circa 1400.
It has a strange image of a man projected onto the cloth. This was not known until it was discovered towards the end of the 19th century when it was photographed for the first time. The image became apparent when the negative of the photograph was examined.
The short documentary first lays out a short history of its known existence which begins circa 1350. It then explores several possible theories of what it actually is above and beyond that it is a linen with an image:
A medieval hoax, perpetrated by its first owner Geoffroi de Charny in the mid-14th century
A gruesome episode during the persecution of the Knights Templar
An artifact from ancient times which proves the miraculous Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth because it is the shroud into which Jesus' body wrapped after his death by crucifixion.
Many Christians want to believe these sorts of artifacts prove the actual of Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical occurrence not just a Christian myth story compiled later by the Gospel writers. However there are problems with trying to make the Shroud into some kind of physical evidence of Jesus' Resurrection. The most significant that where was it for about 1300 years? There are other problems as well.
Two more significant problems not mentioned in the documentary do cause some doubt that it's the image of Jesus of Nazareth. The first concerns all the Gospels. Despite a lot of misconception even among the most avid of Christians, the Gospels never actually describe the Resurrection. The Resurrection is only alluded to but never detailed. In Mark the women go to anoint Jesus' body but he's already gone when they get there and at the end of the story the women tell no one! So there is no anointing in Mark. The Gospels also differ in how they refer to the resurrected Christ. Only the Ascension is described in Acts of the Apostles written by Luke as the first scene of the second "part" of his narrative.
One theory is that light of the magnitude of many lasers happened during the Resurrection and impressed on the Shroud. However, nowhere in the Gospels is "light" mentioned as part of the Resurrection because it's never described as I've already alluded to!
The other bigger problem is what happened to bodies after crucifixion in ancient times. Crucifixion, a terrible and excruciating form of execution (the latter adjective actually deriving from the word "crucifixion") had several phases: scourging, carrying the upright of the cross, affixing to the cross, and then death. Once dead, the victim's body was not allowed to be taken for anointing and burial, the last phase of the punishment. Part of the process was the indignity done to the body which was left to rot on the cross and be prone to the elements.
Christian historian John Dominic Crossan (an avid Roman Catholic btw) was once asked what happened to Jesus' body after the Crucifixion. He responded that it was probably eaten by dogs. A very unromantic image but that result has much higher probability than the idea that Joseph of Arimathea somehow asked Pontius Pilate for Jesus' body. (This would contradict just about everything understood about Pilate being a very unsentimental prefect.)
Still the documentary is a very interesting and relatively informative program about the different views of the Shroud. Is it really the shroud of Jesus of Nazareth? I would say about 1000 to 1 against.
American Fiction (2023)
An Interesting Premise But Somewhat Unbalanced: Art Film or Comedy?
I'll begin by saying I hope no one actually makes "Plantation Annihilation" into a movie! The premise is fairly interesting. It reminds me of some previous films which covered similar territory: "The Dark Half", based on a book by Stephen King where a literature professor is secretly writing books under a pseudonym, and the pseudonym comes to life! Also "The Hoax" starring Richard Gere based on the true story of a fabricated biography of Howard Hughes. It has some elements also of "Tar" but much more watchable and somewhat enjoyable but it felt like a film which hadn't quite decided what it was supposed to be.
Thelonious "Monk" Ellison is a struggling academic working at a nameless university in Los Angeles. He has published a few books, none of which have sold well, because, he is told they aren't "Black enough". In a scene which has almost become a bit cliche, he challenges a student who walks out of class. (At least the scene didn't last too long.) Frustrated he goes on leave to Boston/New England to attend a literary conference.
There he notices another African-American's book which is getting a lot of acclaim: "We's Lives in Da Ghetto" by Sintara Golden which appears to cater to African-American stereotypes. Over the course of a lot of screen time (almost too much), Monk finally decides to write a similar book. In my favorite scene of the film, we see Monk writing and the characters he's writing about perform in front of him.
The main thrust of the plot is how the publishing community becomes interested in Monk's book which he wrote as a kind of protest. In a couple of moments I didn't quite buy Monk's behavior towards the publishing world's interest in his book. Any writer academic or otherwise would love their material to be acclaimed and popular. This idea that academics live in a "bubble" where they don't care about popularity is a big canard.
My problem with the movie is the other story-line involving Monk's family in New England. I felt it was a bit melodramatic and in some ways comprised the main thrust of the story. Monk has a sister Lisa who feels Monk has been avoiding the family because he lives in Los Angeles. (Truth be told academics have to go where the job is; they usually don't have a choice.) She and a housekeeper care for their ailing mother, played by Leslie Uggams who was cast as Kizzie in "Roots" 50 years ago! Tragedy strikes on several fronts and I wasn't sure if I was watching a comedy or drama.
If there was another glaring problem it was some of the gay characters which show up. Monk's brother Cliff is gay, who is not stereotypical. However, his gay friends are which seemed to diminish the point of the story which I thought was a critique of stereotypes. By having stereotypes in a movie critiquing stereotypes I thought it undermined the point of the story. There's even a gay publishing editor who was so over-the-top it was nearly offensive.
Still an interesting film with a great performance by Jeffrey Wright as Monk. I guess part of the idea was to portray the African-American characters much more roundly while the White characters were stereotypes. I am still not sure after having watched it if I understood what the point of all this was in the final analysis. To its credit, the ending was very unexpected but I am not sure if it was overall very satisfying.
Of Mice and Men (1992)
Maybe the Best Film Adaption of this American Tragic Story: "Tell me about the rabbits..."
"An American Tragedy" (film title "A Place in the Sun"), "The Great Gatsby", and "Of Mice and Men" focus on the tragic consequences of seeking the so-called American Dream. (At least that's an interpretation.) Of the three, "Of Mice and Men" is the only one where the setting and characters are exclusively in rural America. The title comes from the poem by Robert Burns "To a Mouse".
The well-known tale concerns two migrant worker friends in 1930's West Coast America, one slightly shorter, the other big and lumbering. George Milton (Gary Sinese) the shorter of the two is highly intelligent, while Lennie Small (John Malkovich) is incredibly strong but feeble-minded and doesn't quite understand his own strength. When angered he has a tendency to grab whatever it is around him and hold on for dear life. (Mental retardation was probably barely understood during this time.) The two are obviously not well-educated although George can read.
The story takes place at a ranch-farm somewhere in rural California where George and Lennie have signed up to do manual labor. Their goal is to save up enough money to buy a house and land of their own. A recurring "story" is the fantasy which George had probably fabricated to keep Lennie in line: they would have a house and Lennie would tend the rabbits, never seen but only referred to. (Shortly after the book and the first movie adaption with Burgess Meredith as George and Lon Chaney Jr. As Lennie, Warner Bros. Endlessly spoofed the characters in their cartoon shorts, with a large lug always wanting a small pet animal and to name him "George".)
The rest of the film includes a spot-on cast, including Ray Walston as Candy, an aging work-hand who had caught his hand in a harvesting machine many years earlier, and his pet dog who is probably the same age in dog years. Casey Siemaszko plays Curly, the insufferably jealous husband of his wife, the latter only referred to as Curly's wife played by Sherilyn Fenn. These two offer outstanding performances.
That said, Gary Sinese and John Malkovich offer possibly the best actor-pairing of these characters imaginable. George is highly intelligent but caught in a kind of purgatory having to look after the feeble-minded Lennie. At first we're told that George agreed to look after Lennie at the behest of a some kind of mutual relative. Later we learn that may not be true. Malkovich's and Sinese's performances as two of the most lovable losers in literary history are worth the price of admission alone. A tour de force film. I can see no downside to this film whatsoever and that's saying a lot.
Fame in the Twentieth Century (1993)
A Stunning and Biting Critique of What It Means to Be Famous since 1920
I don't believe most of the public understands what fame really is, how it works, and what it means to be famous. Clive James' documentary explores how fame operates at a deeper if not more cynical level. It's not just about people becoming household names; their personas become bigger than even themselves. There is a misunderstood culture about fame, and James tries to open the curtain so-to-speak and let the stranger and more enigmatic aspects of fame come to light. Most of what James reveals about "fame" is not flattering, and it's not always the fault of the famous.
James uses two iconic figures in the introduction to begin his thesis: Elvis Presley and Elizabeth Taylor. Shortly after Elvis' death, some people claimed "Elvis sightings", believing he wasn't dead after all but was roaming the world, a bit like Jacob Marley from "A Christmas Carol".
Elizabeth Taylor towards the end of the 1980's was not starring in movies anymore. She was famous simply for being Elizabeth Taylor. In other words, famous for being famous. It's one thing to admire someone's work as an actress but quite another when the public elevates someone to where they are seen nearly as a demigod or demigoddess in their eyes. She played Queen Cleopatra, and was seen as a kind of queen of popular culture.
Before circa 1920 people were famous for their deeds, having won great military victories, or making some breakthrough in science or the arts. Then film, originally thought to be used only to document short episodes of peoples' lives, became an entertainment medium, possibly the most powerful in the world. Now people all over the world could see stories being told on a large screen.
Suddenly actors, few of which had ever been famous on stage, became famous on screen. Audiences fell in love with the people they saw in the movie theaters. But what were they falling love with? People in a movie would act and say lines which were in written scripts. I think James' point is that people became enthralled with an illusion. It's interesting to note that Rudolph Valentino who had captured the hearts of women under 40 was in fact a gay man in reality. Mary Pickford often played in her films the lost young woman. From nearly the beginning of her film career she was married but that fact was kept from the public. She was never the lost young woman, just an actress who played a lost woman
Each episode is by decade, from the 1920's through the 1980's. And with each succeeding decade, the reality of fame becomes broader and more complex. Girls of the 1960's didn't just enjoy listening to the song recordings of the Beatles; they would fall to their knees and worship them at their live concerts. John Wayne was thought to be a war hero because he played in many WWII movies where was the American soldier/officer who made things right. In fact, he never fought in a single combat in WWII. His was "wars" were all in Hollywood.
Television actors became famous in a different way. Viewers thought the characters they played on television were them. Even newspapers and magazines referred to those people by the name of their fictional character: "Kojack gets divorced." How could Kojack played by Telly Sevalas get divorced in real life? Kojack is a fictional character! And many people were often surprised to find out that Henry Wrinkler, who played the Fonz on "Happy Days" couldn't ride a motorcycle! The actors were becoming a fictionalized version of themselves to TV audiences.
James points out that John F. Kennedy became the first president who looked like a movie star. And then in the climax of the series, a movie actor, not a particularly exceptional actor, got the chance to play the role of his life. Ronald Reagan, unlike Kennedy who had been a war hero in real life, became President of the United States, Why? Because he understood how to be in front of the camera. Reagan had very little knowledge of current events but he knew how to communicate as actors must do onscreen. And he looked good in a denim jacket on a horse, even though in real life he hated riding horses!
Movie fame had caught up to the Presidency with dire results. Two years after Reagan's presidency, the US entered a Recession. His successor, George H. W. Bush, took all the blame for the US's economic woes, which were the result of horrid economic policies put in place by Reagan. But Reagan was too famous to be criticized. And people tend to blame the current President for economic hardship even if it's not really their fault. So the less likeable G. H. W. Bush was slaughtered in his reelection campaign in 1992. Fame gives and fame takes away.
Eight Men Out (1988)
One of the Great Sports Dramas of a Sad Baseball Episode
The real tragedy of the story is not only that members of the Chicago White Sox baseball team (aka the Black Sox) threw some games during the 1919 World Series. It was what happened to those players afterwards. Several of the best all-time players in baseball history were involved and were banned for life from baseball. Particularly pitcher Eddie Cicotte, and position players "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, the latter two claimed later they didn't accept the bribes and didn't cooperate. Jackson in particular still has one of the highest career batting averages in MLB history.
The film I think is really about business corruption and greed during the early decades of the 20th century. The owners of baseball teams were making exponentially more than players' combined salaries. Most professional baseball players of this era were illiterate and uneducated. When given the opportunity to throw games for payment, the White Sox players didn't really understand the far-reaching effects long-term.
According to the film, Jackson, who probably didn't really cooperate, always believed his ability was at such a high level that some team in the MLB would still hire him regardless of the scandal. He didn't realize that later, MLB would introduce a special clause into their contracts. It said a player could be banned from the game even if he didn't participate in "throwing a game" but heard about it from other "crooked players" and didn't report it. In other words players had to be snitches.
The highest-paid baseball players made about $8000 to $10,000 a year during 1919 and 1920. The White Sox payroll in 1919 was about $90,000. Certainly baseball players made about four or five times the average worker's salary, but it was a pittance compared to what the owners were making which was probably millions. The owners made money not only off ticket sales but score cards, souvenirs, and food and beverages. Charles Comisky, the owner of the White Sox, even bottled his own beer below the stands, and sold them to attendees.
Players of the era were caught in a web of tightfisted egomaniac owners who were often miserly towards their players and salaries. Unlike today, there was no such thing as free agency, i.e. A free market In other words a player couldn't entertain offers from other ball clubs. They were stuck with their team and the owners decided how much to pay them. The players' only recourse was possibly to leave the game but they were all under contractual obligation. And in many cases, players could be traded.
At the beginning of the film, the players are talked about like they're livestock animals. They can be bought, traded and sold like chattel. The "Black Sox" nickname occurred because Charles Comisky, owner of the White Sox, wanted the players to pay for their uniforms to be laundered! When they refused the uniforms started looking unclean, hence the new nickname.
The other side of the game were the gamblers who were making hundreds of thousands of dollars off bets concerning players making only a fraction. Consider at the time, there were no pensions for former players. In 1919 the gamblers offered the best White Sox players $10,000 each to throw games, $2000 per game. In the end they gave them $5000 per player. But this was still huge money, more than half a years' salary for an entire season for the best players. Would they throw the game? Was the money enough?
ESPN Films: Catching Hell (2011)
One Foul Ball Determined Who Went to the World Series in 2003? I Don't Think So
A great documentary about how supposedly one fan during one play determined the fate of the 2003 Cubs. He didn't. He may have had a tiny influential piece of the outcome (one out which wasn't) but that can't be determinative. To put it bluntly, after the incident, the Marlins scored 8 runs. The fan had nothing to do with those runs period. To demonstrate how mythological and superstitious people still are, some Cubs fans saw the incident somehow jinxed the Cubs. It's ridiculous and makes no sense.
In Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS, the Chicago Cubs were beating the Florida Marlins by 3-0, The Cubs were leading the series itself by 3-2 in a best of seven: the team to win four games goes to the World Series. In other words, if the Cubs won, they go to the World Series for the first time in nearly 100 years.
It's the top of the 8th Inning, and the Cubs are supposedly five outs away from their first World Series appearance since 1908. Marlins hitter Luis Castillo comes to the plate and hits a foul ball to left field. Cubs outfielder Moises Alou, a great hitter but an "okay" fielder goes to the fence in foul territory. He jumps up for the ball and it appears a fan (or fans) touched the ball first preventing Alou from making the catch, hence the play and an out.
Alou throws his glove down in disgust and glares back at the fans. Castillo then was walked on a wild pitch, beginning an 8-run rally. It was determined by reply that a fan wearing a knit cap, sweatshirt with "Renegade" on it, a green turtleneck and headphones had been the first fan to touch the ball, Shortly thereafter, the Marlins scored 8 runs. Later the fan was named as a Steve Bartman Then nearly every Cubs fan blamed this fan for supposedly turning the game in the Marlins' favor. The Marlins won 8-3.
Now let's compare it to another hypothetical baseball scenario. A player gets a hit and is on first. Now a base runner, he leans too far towards second base, the pitcher sees it, throws the ball to the first baseman and the runner is picked off. He's out and there is no one on base. The next pitch, the batter hits a home run. I have heard announcers say in such situations how bad it was that the runner was picked off because it would have been a 2-run home run rather than a solo home run, one run rather than two.
This analysis is WRONG. There is no way to know whether the batter would still have hit the home run if the base runner hadn't been picked off. First off, the pitcher would be out of the stretch so already his pitching style would have been different. Anything could have happened. The batter could have been hit, there might have been a wild pitch. Maybe the runner tried to steal second but was thrown out. We can't go back in time and replay the alternative scenario. Ultimately "what-if" imagined scenarios are interesting but they are just fantasies. Most often we can never know.
So back to Steve Bartman and Moises Alou. The prevalent idea at the time was somehow Bartman cost the Cubs the game. After the missed out, the Marlins scored 8 runs. Several other things happened which were the fault of the Cubs, not Bartman. A wild pitch and a short stop error were really the determinative plays, the latter maybe the real crucial play of the inning. The Marlins all of a sudden got a series of hits in that inning. Also, there's no way to know that the Marlins might have gotten more runs in the 9th inning even if Alou had caught the ball.
Still, there's no way to know that the Marlins may have still have won the game even if the Bartman/Alou incident hadn't taken place. We can't go back in time, change the outcome of the one play and see how things would have been different. In a similar vein, there is no way to know that Alou would have gotten the ball if it hadn't been touched by a fan. Alou claims he would have caught the ball (of course) but not even he knows that. The wind was erratic that game and it looks like the wind played a part. It is possible the ball could have bounced out of Alou's glove, so outcomes are never inevitable in sports. Also consider, say the Cubs went to the WS but lost to the Yankees.
There have been many missed foul balls in MLB history. If there was a missed foul ball and on the next pitch, the batter hit a home run, the fielder who missing the ball isn't vilified for the rest of eternity for having missed the foul ball. But because of the "curse" of the goat for Cubs fans, Bartman became the perfect "scape goat", Strangely there was a happy ending. The Cubs finally won the WS and gave Bartman a WS Ring.
The Stunt Man (1980)
Enjoyable If Somewhat Uneven Exposé of Film-Making in Action-Comedy-Drama
My favorite scene in this movie is how Eli (Peter O'Toole) gets his leading lady Nina (Barbara Hershey) the performance he wants in a particular scene. Without giving it away, a similar situation happened on the real set of "The Exorcist" where William Friedkin used unconventional means to get the performance from one his actors. "The Stunt Man" in some sense is about the director getting what he wants out of his cast and crew and how he does it.
Briefly, "The Stunt Man" is about a Vietnam vet turned fugitive-from-the-law, Cameron (Steve Railsback), accused of attempted murder in an ice cream shop no less. (Never seen as the story begins when he's on the run.) He has an altercation with an antique car on a bridge before he stumbles onto a movie set located on one of the Malibu or Santa Monica beaches in California.
Turned out the car on the bridge was part of the movie and it went over the side of the bridge and into the river along with their stunt man who drowned! They are shooting an anti-war movie set during the First World War. Barbara Hershey in an early role plays Nina, the leading actress of the film. Aspects of the film they're shooting seem like if Ed Wood directed "Saving Private Ryan"!
Through sheer luck, Cameron becomes the stunt man's replacement, pretending he's now "Bert", the late stuntman! Eli the director (Peter O'Toole in a quintessential O'Toole performance) tells Cameron basically that if he tells his movie crew, he is Bert, then he's Bert!
Cameron then learns not only the movie-making biz but the politics involved. People are all sleeping with each other, such as the lead actor having an affair with the makeup and hair artist. The stunt coordinator is a total pessimist, and the screenwriter is like all writers, frustrated with how his screenplay is being butchered by Eli. Eventually Cameron, now Bert, is involved with an affair with someone quite unexpected!
The best aspects of the movie are when the camera rolls and the scenes are shot. Some of Bert's interactions are wildly unrealistic. The director treats Bert as a near-equal, which is not how a director would someone like a stunt double. Eli spends more time with his arm around Cameron/Bert than any other hire on the production! At one point he screams at his cameraman for not using more footage on a take. That may be somewhat realistic.
A decent film, for me a one-watch. Pauline Kael hailed it as the best movie about movies but I would contest "The Player" directed by Robert Altman is far more realistic. There are parts of this film which are rather nutty.
The Lost King (2022)
Whether King Richard III Murdered the Princes Is Beside the Point - A Great Film About Perserverence
Philippa Langley instigated an exhumation project of the highest order: the discovery and exhumation of a late medieval English king, in this case, King Richard III. This film chronicles, more or less, Langley's determination to find the remains of Richard III, the last of the Plantagenet monarchs who lost his battle against King Henry VII at Bosworth Field in 1485. My admiration for Langley stems largely from her finding primary sources overlooked by medieval scholars. At nearly every turn, scholars dismissed her objective because they were convinced this was territory which had been thoroughly researched. Langley proved there were gaps in the historical record.
Her main motivation to find Richard III's grave: to right the wrongs of what she and the Richard III Society label as largely Tudor propaganda supposedly instigated in the 16th-century to smear Richard's name. The famous (or infamous) Shakespeare play depicts Richard as an evil hunchback. (Even though I largely disagree with the core beliefs of the society, I can relate being a member of two societies who do not believe William of Stratford wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare.)
I think the main point of the film is not Richard himself but the determination and perseverance of Langley to find Richard's remains. She found sources somewhat overlooked by scholars and hypothesized his remains were buried under a car park in the city of Leicester in England (Americans take note: it's pronounced "lester"). The discovery did not prove that Richard III hadn't ordered the assassination of the two young princes, the eldest still in history books named as King Edward V. (King Henry VIII's sickly son would become King Edward VI.) This assessment of King Richard III is still largely agreed upon by scholars, despite the efforts of the King Richard Society.
Generally a moving and remarkable movie. My only little quarrel is Langley, played by Sally Hawkins in a remarkable performance, sees the apparition of Richard III. Apparently, the artistic license represents the real Langley having self-talks about the project, and imagined herself having conversations with Richard III's ghost. But she never had visions of him and this aspect of seeing his ghost is not in the book "The King's Grave: The Search for Richard III" co-written by Philippa Langley and Michael Jones.
That said still a moving and brilliant film. Should Richard III have been interred with monarchical honors? My answer is yes. Even though he probably had the princes murdered he did become a legitimate king. So many of the most fascinating figures "usurped" the English crown beginning with William the Conqueror. Another example: Henry of Bolingbroke had little claim to the crown which he took from King Richard II, a direct descendant of King Edward III, famous for his battles in the 100 Years War against France with his eldest son Edward the Black Prince. (At the time, everyone thought Prince Edward would become Edward IV, but died in battle before the death of his father.)
Hats and crowns off to Philippa Langley who did what everyone said couldn't be done. Her triumph shows there is still a lot of undiscovered history out there and history continues to be "rewritten". Even though professional scholars have contributed much, it shows there is still much more and there may yet be further discoveries which discredit accepted history.
The Flash (2023)
Jumbled Mess of a Movie Like Crushed Tomatoes Going Splat w Overlong Battle Scenes and Unresolved Issues
The idea of time streams is a complex one, and whether crushed tomatoes are placed on a certain shelf in a grocery store changes the entire history of the world. But here, 75% of the movie consists of long battle and action sequences of the CGI variety which go on way too long and didn't further the story much. At one point it appeared like a video game, most of which I had seen before. Actual story made up about 25% of the film. An aging Batman/Bruce Wayne, played by Michael Keaton reprising his role of 30 years ago, tries to explain the time stream stuff. And get this: he uses the analogy of crushed tomatoes on top of bad spaghetti! (Keaton's reappearance as Batman/Wayne was my favorite aspect of the movie,) But how the time stream stuff works is never fully explained which made me think the screenwriters hadn't really thought it all through.
The story has two plots. The first which we learn pretty quickly so I'm not giving anything away is that the Flash's mom had been murdered and his father has been unjustly accused of the crime. He goes back in time to try to "fix" what happened. But his changing of history has dire consequences. But these consequences have not just Earth-changing significances but also change some of the history of the Universe!
The second plot appears in about the middle of the movie, and as far as I can tell, comes into being because of the changing of history. However, this is never fully explained. This second plot was far too underdeveloped to be completely comprehensible and in some ways I found I didn't really care too much about it.. Without giving too much away, it involves the appearance of General Zod, who unlike the first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, is more like a cross between Vladimir Harkonnen of "Dune" and the Incredible Hulk. My problem with this portrayal of Zod is that it was flat and uninteresting. Terence Stamp in the first two Reeve Superman movies made his character highly interesting and appealing. Here he's just a slobbering hulk.
The biggest flaws of this movie: the baddie and his subplot are under-developed, the characters were not developed enough for me to care about them, and the action sequences were far too long and did almost nothing to further the plot. At many points I was waiting in rapt anticipation for the end of the sequence. Even a great action sequence with CGI has to further the story in some way. If it's just action for the sake of action because studio execs think that's what the 14-to-24 crowd wants, it's a bad storytelling decision.
While I liked Keaton's reappearance as Batman, the only aspect which I found entertaining, I felt the overall movie was so in your face in the action department and lacking in story development, I have no desire to see this film again. Yes there are a lot of complex ideas in this film, but a story has to explain them and spend a bit of time letting the audience understand, instead of having superheroes zooming around all over the place going after super-baddies.
In the end, I found myself not really caring that much about the characters which is often the ultimate point of any story. In the first Reeve Superman movie, when Superman finally brings up the dead Lois Lane from her car stuck in the ground, we were on the verge of tears. Here I was like, yeah? There are references to other Superheros in the DC Universe and images of other actors playing the roles of Superman and Batman. At one point it was getting a bit much like this was a homage to the whole DC/Warner Brothers franchise. But Zod is not like the Terence Stamp version, my favorite portrayal, and was just not interesting enough to care one or the other. I have no desire to see this movie again and I doubt whether it will be released in a 25th-anniversary edition a quarter century from now.
The Bourne Identity (2002)
A Decent Action-Flick But Little to Do with the Novel: Where was Carlos?
A major part of the plot of the original novel is the little-seen but ever-present assassin Carlos. Carlos is the invisible baddie of the story. During much of the novel, Carlos and Jason Bourne are playing a kind of chess match for assassins, which makes the original novel a cut-above most novels of this type. For reasons not exactly clear to me, the filmmakers cut the entire Carlos side of the novel from this screenplay.
The biggest weakness of this movie is that because of the axing of Carlos, the main antagonist of the story is the US operation Treadstone. Yes Treadstone is in the book and at one point the top brass are trying to get Bourne. In the novel, many factions are after Bourne, but in the movie, it's only Treadstone.
Also the joining forces of Jason and Marie has a lot more drama than in the movie. Instead, their linking up is a bit conventional but then her decision to stay with Bourne really makes little sense. In the novel Marie has a very real reason to stay with Bourne.
Ultimately a decent but not entirely satisfying adaption of Ludlum's brilliant novel into an "okay" but not great movie. And the ending is entirely different. A one-watch.
The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley (2019)
Investors Lose $900 Million to a 20-Y-O Charismatic: What Were They Thinking?
Elizabeth Holmes' two favorite phrases came from Thomas Edison and Yoda of "Star Wars" respectively: "I haven't failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways it doesn't work" (paraphrased, referring to the incandescent light bulb), and "Do or do not. There is no try".
Holmes seems to have ignored the core essence of both statements, in particular, the Edison statement. According to the documentary, she wanted to believe the Edison machine, the blood test device created by her lab techs at Theranos, worked when it didn't. She didn't allow that it might take dozens if not 100's of tries before it became functional and marketable. Maybe thousands. She insisted on a certain size which was not only impractical but disobeyed the laws of physics considering what she wanted it to do!
The other question it raises: why in the world were investors taking a chance on a 20-year-old who lacked a college degree and no medical experience? Because she had big mesmerizing eyes and the kind of charisma we often associate with a Tucker Carlson or a Sean Hannity? Okay granted she had an interesting idea, but it needed to work! Giving a 20-year-old nearly a billion dollars should be a test-case in a simple fact: 20-year-old's don't know anything and she had no experience in the field.
Holmes would often cite Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They were college drop-outs and often told they couldn't succeed in computers. What's the difference? Why couldn't Holmes succeed like Jobs and Gates?
The difference is, Jobs and Gates were tinkering with computers when they were in junior high and high school. They were studying code and hardware for many hours every week for 10 years. They got their 10,000 hours of experience outside the classroom when there was nearly no computer instruction for young people at that time. It doesn't sound like Holmes was constantly going to medical labs at a university or hospital and seeing how blood-testing was actually accomplished. She came up with an idea in her head and it was almost like the idea itself was worth billions.
While still at Stanford, she approached a Stanford professor of medicine and explained her idea. The professor tried to tell her that her idea, while innovative, was impossible, at least in terms of its original vision. But Holmes was not deterred. But instead of working at the Stanford medical labs and getting a better understanding of blood testing, she dropped out of school and founded a company that failed miserably. She failed at creating a blood-testing machine. She succeeded at convincing investors her idea was worth billions.
Instead with the investment money she built a huge complex with plush offices and labs as if Theranos were already a hugely successful company. In 2014, Wall Street was touting the company was worth billions. By 2016 it was worth nothing. Holmes and business partner/lover Sunny Balwani were eventually indicted and convicted of fraud. By comparison Apple didn't create a big office complex until they had substantial cash flow.
Elizabeth Holmes has the kind of self-assurance and charisma we might associate with some of the talk-show hosts who occasionally blatantly lie right on the air. They're believed because they look and sound so confident in what they're saying. Holmes has big penetrating eyes that seem never to blink. They're hypnotic. And it appears it was very easy for investors and others to get enraptured by her persona to the tune of $900 million which was ultimately lost. She received endorsements from likes of George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, and James Mattis, none of whom were qualified at rendering an objective judgement on the feasibility of a small device to test 200+ aspects of blood from a small sample. And yet because of their endorsements, investors flocked to Holmes.
Much of the documentary shows her speaking on talk-shows, being on the cover of financial magazines, and giving speeches. But she didn't seem to be working on her product herself that much. Which shows the imbalance. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac were constantly working on their computers before they went out into the world. Yes, Jobs did make big presentation speeches but ultimately his computers did function. Theranos' machines didn't.
Late in the documentary, she is shown being asked if the blood tests were being completed by the Edison machine, the device invented by the Theranos lab techs at the direction of Holmes and her partner, Sunny Balwani. She claimed they all were. It was an outright lie. The Edison machine was not working properly, and they were using machines they had bought from other companies and even were out-sourcing blood analysis to other labs.
The documentary essentially depicts Holmes as a great marketer and spokesperson for her company but a terrible leader when it came to creating her product. When it wasn't working she and Balwani would say the problem was with the attitude and/or qualifications of the workers! And often if there was a problem brought forth by the lab techs, they didn't want to hear about it.
At one point, one of the lab techs, only 23 at the time, went to Balwani and told him the results produced by Edison were erroneous. She was told she wasn't qualified to make such an assertion, even though she had degrees in the field. Balwani had no degrees in medicine or lab work to speak of. It's a microcosm of the dysfunctional culture of Theranos.
As related by former employee Tyler Schultz, grandson of George Schultz, Sec of State under Pres Reagan, there was the carpet world and the tiled world at Theranos. The carpet world was the external "face" of Theranos where Holmes was a kind of tech rock star. Everything seemed neat and clean. The tiled world, the labs, was chaotic as the devices were not working properly. And Holmes went to a lot of trouble to ensure no one from the outside actually saw the labs. Sort of reminds me of Bernie Madoff and the ponzie scheme on the "other floor".
Inventing Anna (2022)
The Female Clark Rockefeller: Is There Really Meritocracy
In the 21st century, we often like to believe we're creatures of intellect who have occasional emotions. However some scholars have put this notion on its head: we are really creatures of emotion who use our intellect occasionally but not consistently. Anna Sorokin, Russian providential, posed as Anna Delvey, German heiress. People liked her and wanted to befriend her but not because of what she actually had accomplished. The reason the doors opened to her was because she convinced people she was of impeccable European pedigree.
There's an interesting moment in "Inventing Anna". Anna is trying to convince a philanthropist/investor to help her realize a dream of an exclusive club for artists. In their first meeting, the philanthropist says he doesn't invest in ideas, only people. In other words, only the people really count, not the ideas. No matter how good the idea, if you're not "in", don't waste my time.
Later, Anna meets him a second time. He confesses he's heard people of the upper crust mention her. All of a sudden his opinion about and demeanor towards her changes, and he appears to be open to helping her financially. What changed? She knew the right people. That was it!
A tremendous expose of the world of elites among artists and monied people. Many lack talent but they have the power to act as gate-keepers, and sometimes they slip up and let someone "in" who shouldn't be there. Julia Garner offers a tour-de-force performance as the woman with a thousand faces. She adopts an elite German accent to hide that she is in fact a Russian with no family pedigree to speak of, but she fools many around her, hook, line, and sinker. She also proves the Devil wears Prada.
A couple of decades previous to Anna's story, a German provincial name of Christian Gerhartsreiter was posing as Clark Rockefeller, a supposed distant cousin in the Rockefeller clan. He wore monogrammed jackets and spoke with a transatlantic accent, and was able to fake his way into the elites of New York. And the best part (or the worst): he convinced an attractive businesswoman who was making $1 million a year to marry him!
Anna Sorokin must have adopted aspects of Gerhartsreiter's play book. What Anna and Clark had in common: they both claimed they had access to millions of dollars because of their connections, Clark as a supposed Rockefeller, and Anna supposedly having a super-rich dad we never see or hear from. And they never spent a dime. Other people fooled by the their antics often spent thousands on them not realizing that both characters at their core were essentially impoverished and would be homeless and destitute if not for the welfare they were being provided under false premises.
And yet even after the elaborate con of Clark Rockefeller was revealed, the upper-crust didn't learn the lesson. (Some people claimed they "knew it all along" but of course never told anyone!) They still want to believe that what you see is what you get. If someone "acts" in the right way, dresses the right way, speaks the right way, then they must be "one of us", a completely elitist way of navigating the world. It exposes a world so caught up in image that they don't see the snake pit for the flowers.
Tár (2022)
A Great Performance Doesn't Necessarily a Story Make -- Too Many Loose Ends
Spoiler Alert: This is more of a critique.
I found this film frustrating to say the least. Yes, Blanchett's performance is mesmerizing but her character, Lydia Tar, doesn't have many redeeming qualities outside of her musicianship. But that's only part of the problem. This story if story it can be called centers on Lydia who seems to have everything a classical music artist could desire. But she ends up in scenes where I thought it was Tar in Unwonderland and we were losing the gist of the story.
The opening scene is an interview with Lydia in which nearly half the interview was listing her awards. (The opening credits were longer than many scenes!) She's won every award imaginable from an Oscar to a Grammy to Best Guest on Sesame Street. (Just kidding about the last one, but the list is long.)
This presents a problem as it seems from the get-go, the character can only go down. And incredibly unrealistic. (Btw not even Leonard Bernstein had achieved the so-called "EGOT", Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards. He was nominated for the Academy Award once but didn't win.) I could have bought she had won two of the four and striving for the other two. But all four seemed much. But again, this is only the beginning of the problems I had with this film.
Just as things seemed to be too mundane for their own good, she has lunch with a fellow conductor where they talk classical music like inside baseball. I'm a classical musician and I knew what they were discussing, but would an average audience? And the discussion didn't seem to propel the story at all.
Then there's a blood-bath scene in which she puts a young conducting student at Julliard in his place. Yes when I was a music student at the undergraduate level I had seen such confrontations, and I was even the target of a couple of such episodes. But my issue was the whole scenario was never really further developed except for someone having secretly video-taped the class session. The video is doctored and used as evidence against her later in the film but to what end. It's never quite explained. We someone with a camera video-taping Lydia at different events but we never find out who she was or her motives. I wondered if it was Krista.
Then the story seemed to pick up when we meet a young cellist, Olga, who is being considered for the orchestra in Berlin, the orchestra where Lydia is the music director and main conductor. Lydia sees a video of the cellist playing her heart out performing the Elgar Cello Concerto, one of the great concertos in my humble opinion. Turns out the performance was when she was 13, and we assume she's probably now about 25. Highly unusual for a cellist to be that accomplished at such a young age, but I was willing to run with it.
Lydia proposes to have her orchestra perform the Elgar Cello Concerto and we immediately realize she wants Olga to be the soloist rather than the first chair cellist who's probably been there for many years. Using her ability to get what she wants while making it seem "egalitarian" she holds auditions. The story seemed to be on its way to be about the conflict between her lesbian lover, the first chair cellist, and the orchestra itself which is now murmuring behind Lydia's back.
As a side story, there's a young musician, Krista, who has committed suicide and it appears Lydia had some kind of relationship with her. There are emails from her both on her computer and her assistant's where she says things like there's nothing to live for. An investigation begins into her death. But that's another one of the loose threads which is never explained or resolved.
Then the story takes some further strange turns which seem to make no sense and not relate to the main plot of the story. Lydia hears strange sounds, often while sleeping. She often gets up in the middle of the night and looks into the refrigerator. At one point she hears a metronome which is accidentally turned on in the middle of the night.
She has an adopted daughter she cares for with her lesibian "wife"/ There are a few scenes with her but eventually she is taken from her. An interesting character but I thought a distraction. She even gets lost in some slum housing where she thinks Olga the cellist resides and is attacked but we don't see who or what attacked her!
Olga accompanies Lydia to New York, but even here I was confused that they were together. (We don't see Olga on the plane.) However, after they return, the story of the cellist seems to disappear from the movie altogether. Her lesbian lover accuses her of having an affair with Olga but they don't communicate. This is further not resolved except I guess we as the audience assume they've broken up.
Regarding Krista, Lydia is accused of impropriety and her assistant quits. Then the authorities want the emails from the late Krista. Because of questions about Lydia's behavior, she's fired from the orchestra, or at least we gather. It's never fully explained.
The whole thing climaxes with the most bizarre scene of the entire film, which exiles her from the classical music world of Europe. Even a power-hungry conductor would know that such behavior is a career-ending faux pas. And the film ends with her in another country in a gig which has the importance of about 1% of her gig in Berlin.
But the loose ends were too loose and unresolved and I felt ultimately dissatisfied with the ending. We never quite understand what had happened with Lydia and Krista. We never see the cellist perform the Elgar. We aren't even quite told what happens to Lydia's lesbian lover. Her final gig is a kind of a what? Which is how I started to feel throughout the last half of the film, It went from boring to interesting, maybe potential, to too bizarre for its own good.
A Merry Tudor Christmas with Lucy Worsley (2019)
An Outstanding Trip to Early 16th-Century Christmas in England
If there was anything I gleaned from this documentary, I learned that many Christmas traditions from the 15th and 16th centuries in England were banned during Oliver Cromwell's "reign" of the 1650's. Traditions I had never been aware of have been reintroduced in this fine documentary about Tudor history and culture concerning Christmas (celebration of Christ).
Lucy Worsley has presented an outstanding glimpse into Christmas Tudor style. Unlike today, Christmas lasted 12 days, from Dec 25 to Jan 5, not only Dec 25. The gift-giving aspect was a fundamental part of the activities, particularly gifts to the current monarch, in this case King Henry VIII. (Worsley plays young Henry Tudor.) Aside from gifts, games and masques were all part of the activities for 12 days.
There was also a form of tomfoolery, an early form of partying Tudor style, mainstays in Christmas traditions among the nobles and servants of the nobility. Someone would be named the Lord of Misrule who would "conduct" the partying activities of Dec 25, for nobles, clergy, servants and students.
All these wonderful traditions, save a small few, were gutted from the celebratory menu. Thanks to Oliver Cromwell and Puritan sensibilities which frowned on things like celebrating the entire tradition of the 12 Days of Christmas was erased from culture.
So the traditions which have been largely lost have been brought to the fore because of Worsley. Maybe there might be room to have these kinds of celebrations again!
Rapiniamo il Duce (2022)
Sort of Ocean's 11 Meets Inglorious Bastards with a Touch of The Dirty Dozen
This is a fun movie if you don't take it too seriously. Without question, it borrows from all kinds of other movies. The characters are more like caricatures than rounded characters. The main plot involves a heist of gold and other treasures hoarded by the Mussolini regime to fund his war campaign when they were still allies of the German Nazis. The story takes place during the last days of the Second World War, just prior to Mussolini's dethronement.
The movie features elements you may recognize:
Among the good guys: the heist organizer, the sharp-shooter, the alluring young lady, the acrobat, the code-breaker, the race-car driver, and the anarchist.
Among the baddies: the sadistic fascist officer, his wife, a washed-up Hollywood-type actress, and his henchman.
The settings: an officer's palace, a hideout, a militaristic compound with its prisoners and hoard of treasure.
Pietro Lamberti is the amoral entrepreneur who has been trying to sell arms to different militaristic factions with albeit mixed results. His code breaker, Amedeo, intercepts a transmission that Mussolini's hidden treasure might be lifted and taken to Switzerland by one of his high-ranking officers. They know they're going to lose the war, so why not take the money and run? Pietro decides, instead of trading in arms, maybe they can steal the gold.
In true Ocean's 11 style, we hear Pietro's voice-over as he describes the different people he wants to recruit for the heist. Each has a brief scene which tells us who they are, more or less. Sound familiar? There's even a scene which is a throw-back to Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly".
True to these kinds of movies, Federal Secretary Borsalino, a sadistic high-ranking officer in Mussolini's regime, runs the Dead Zone. The Dead Zone is a military complex where not only the gold is stashed but where prisoners, both political and military, are incarcerated, some awaiting execution. Borsalino is having an extra-marital affair with a young singer, who also happens to be the lover of Pietro! He is planning to take the gold and the girl no less for himself.
His estranged wife, Nora Cavalieri, is a throw-back to Old Hollywood, but now her career is on the skids because she's older and can no longer play young female characters. She also knows about the gold and the younger woman.
The result is an entertaining and enjoyable fantasy flick where all the different nutty characters interplay. A few twists and turns make the story a bit unpredictable. And as I said at the beginning, if audiences don't take it too seriously, it's 90 minutes of entertaining cinema. Is it based on a true story, as implied? Probably not.
The Lost Leonardo (2021)
Maybe the Greatest "Sleeper" Painting Ever Discovered or Greatest Art Fraud of All Time
"The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding." Leonardo da Vinci. William Shakespeare and/or Leonardo da Vinci also once said that "Eyes are the windows into men's souls".
This documentary about the controversial painting recently attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, "Salvator Mundi" ("Savior of the World") may also show that in the art world, the eyes of a potential master painting may also reveal men's souls, particularly those who may seek to benefit from such an artwork. In other words, the mesmerizing power of a painting's eyes may reveal everything from awe and wonder to contempt and avarice among those involved in the art trading game. Art is not just about beauty but also commerce and even reputations.
Most of us laypeople who hear about old master paintings which are auctioned for millions of dollars, euros, or pounds, can only dream of possessing such works. However, those in the middle of the fine art game see things the public rarely glimpses.
This documentary reveals how a painting like "Salvator Mundi" (c. 1500-1510) have many forces at work among players in a host of different areas: art restorers, art historians, art collectors, art dealers, art auctioneers, museum curators, and even national governments. All are shown to have played a part in the fascinating recent history of "Salvator Mundi".
The painting was won at auction by two art dealers who are constantly looking for "sleepers". "Sleepers" in the fine art world refers to misattributed fine art, including paintings and other fine art, which are sold with a misunderstanding of the paintings' origins. In some cases, the artworks turn out to be of much greater importance and in turn of much higher value.
Robert Simon and Alexander Parish bought the painting for under $1200 in 2005, the auction house out of New Orleans believing it was simply a copy of a long lost Leonardo da Vinci. Not a real Leonardo, but simply by one of his students, assistants, or maybe even a follower who had not known Leonardo at all. It was described as heavily over-painted and a "wreck".
They commissioned art historian and restorer Dianne Modestini to restore the painting in two phases. Firstly, to clean and remove the overpaint, and secondly, restore those areas which had been "lost".
After the restoration, Simon and Parish sought to sell the painting in part to pay for their many expenses, mostly the restoration. Thus begins a strange and winding tale from its placement in the art market, its eventual sale (twice), the last at Christie's Auction House, and then the strange circumstances regarding its being pulled from a Louvre exhibition of works of Leonardo.
It begins with art experts, some favorable to the painting with a few unfavorable. There is the Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier who had a Russian oligarch client, Dmitry Rybolovlev. Rybolovlev desired to buy the best paintings on the market. As events unfold, in part because of information regarding Bouvier's business practices, it turns out Bouvier was defrauding his client and others regarding prices he paid for paintings and then for how much he resold them to his clients.
It winds up in an auction at Christie's where it sells for a record hammer price of $400 million, plus $50 million in premium/commission for a total of $450 million. The total surpasses the previous auction record of approximately $180 million (hammer) for a fine art piece.
But even the high price at the auction is not the end of the story. For a time, no one knew who the buyer was, the Saudi Crown Prince. The Prince agrees to lend the painting to the Louvre for their special Leonardo da Vinci exhibition. But at the last moment, he pulls the painting from the exhibit.
What happened? The claim is about national politics (MBS wanted the painting in the same room as the Mona Lisa, aka Giaconda, but the French refused). However, further speculation is that the Louvre examined the painting themselves and may have found some attributes of the painting which may affect its reputation negatively. Several people involved try to obtain information from the Louvre, but they hit a brick wall.
Overall a wonderfully compelling documentary about the art world, and how it's not just about artistic beautiful but politics and careers. Of all the people interviewed, art historian/restorer Dianne Modestini comes off with the most integrity. She determined the work was by Da Vinci when she began restoring the painting's lips. No one painted lips like Leonardo, and she concluded that was enough to convince her it was real. She had no ax to grind and was going to be paid for her work regardless. So her opinion I value highly. However, other art historians disagree...
Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Ridiculously Bad WWII Flick: Sort of WWII Meets The Good, the Bad, and the Silly Ugly
Would-be filmmakers take note: this film makes no sense at all. Every sequence has not a shred of realism. First the main plot: Five Allied soldiers, four British and one American, plan to infiltrate and rescue Brig. General George Carnabya. Carnabya is supposed to be the leading expert on Nazi warfare and has in his head their future plans and strategies. He's being held captive in an "eagle's nest" similar to that of Hitler's in the Bavarian Alps. The head of the mission is played by Richard Burton and the American is played by Clint Eastwood just before he starred in the "Dirty Harry" films.
Let's go through the problems:
First: There's not a good baddie. The German-Nazis do their duty but none are the sadistic cruel officer you often expect from these kinds of films. The film definitely needed someone like Maj. Arnold Toht, the evil Nazi from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" who tries to torture Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), and inadvertently ends up with part of Allen's medallion seared onto his hand! You know you're in trouble when you ask a Nazi to be reasonable and he says "That time has passed!" Sadly no such baddie here. Just a couple of high-ranking officers who bicker but they're never terribly evil. What a bummer.
Secondly: The British all seem to speak German perfectly! Even Clint! They pass themselves off as German officers with flying colors!
Third: Dozens of trained Nazi soldiers firing hundreds of rounds at two guys and a girl and the three never get hit! Clint mows them down like Blondie from the Spaghetti Westerns! Oh yes, Burton does get a bullet in his hand once.
Four: There's sort of an interesting scene in the middle about double-crossing but it doesn't really get developed. Instead 90% of the movie is Clint mowing down the Nazis.
Five: Where did they get all this dynamite? Was there a K-Mart at Dusseldorf nearby? They parachuted in with five backpacks. Three of the others end up not being involved in the final rescue.
Six: Not to mention the ammunition. Burton and Eastwood have more rounds than a year at a golf resort! And they never seem to need to reload!
Seven-A: The Germans are all idiots. They need to crash through a door to get to Burton and friends. Do they use dynamite or a bazooka? No. They use a wooden ramrod!
Seven-B: Maj. Von Hapen flirts with double-agent Mary. He sort of suspects something when Mary claims to be from Dusseldorf but seems not to know basics of the small city. Why doesn't von Hapen arrest right there and take her hostage?
Eight: The problem to end all problems. When they finally find Carnabya, he's not in a cell with his hands and mouth fettered. He's in a hall dining with the other German officers! Really? They plan to get the information they want out of him. How? Whipping? Electrocution? No! They have truth drugs! Scary!
Ultimately disappointing and full of unbelievable luck. Three Allies outwit and outgun hundreds of German soldiers. To rescue a captive who is not really that bad off!
One of the most ridiculous of war movies right up there with "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge Too Far".
The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021)
The Love-Seeker and the Corrupt Televangelist: Christianity Gone Awry
Jessica Chastain offers the performance of her career as Tammy Faye, the tragic celebrity wife of fallen televangelist Jim Bakker, played by Andrew Garfield in an equally-compelling performance. Chastain found a nearly perfect balance between what had become almost a caricature of Faye, the constantly emotional and overly made-up celebrity, and the real person behind the makeup, satin and mink.
On PTL, Tammy often wore lots of makeup and expensive and eye-catching clothes, such as satin blouses and mink coats, which seemed a far cry from the Jewish preacher and aesthetic of 2000 years ago who challenged the spiritual and secular authority of Palestine and was crucified as a result. Jesus died for an alternative message of spirituality and questioned Roman authority. The Bakker's lived in a lavish house and owned many cars while donning expensive clothes to appear in an elaborate studio set.
What I gleaned from this film was that Tammy Faye Bakker, and eventually Tammy Faye after her divorce from Bakker, simply wanted to be loved and accepted. According to the film, her fundamentalist parents, particularly her mother, were so wrapped up in worrying about whether certain behavior would cause salvation or damnation, they didn't really offer her the love and support she craved. In a scene at the dinner table, her mother says that God will damn liars to Hell which doesn't leave much room for error. (So I guess if I told someone their outfit was attractive, but inside I didn't think so, this would be grounds for God's wrath.)
Since she couldn't find love in her home, Tammy found it in church, and later in Jim Bakker, a rising evangelical preacher who had a different message to American Christians: the point was to be happy in this life and the seeking of comfort, happiness, and material wealth were not taboo to being a good Christian. This was what Tammy was looking for. Eventually, through their television shows, the Bakker's offered a much more accepting view of the Christian message: that all people were accepted of God's love and shouldn't feel guilty about desiring the good things in life. Unfortunately, the Bakker's desires for the "good things", by using money from religious donations to fund a lavish lifestyle, ended up being their own downfall.
For about 14 years, from 1974 to 1987, the Bakker's built a media empire trading on their version of the Christian message, called PTL (Praise the Lord Network), one of the largest religious networks in the United States. Unlike other preachers who propagated fire and brimstone for failing to worship God and Jesus, the Bakkers' message of acceptance was well-received, and at one point had as many as 20 million viewers. Their set looked like a cozy home, rather than a church stage, and they would bring other preachers and pastors to their show as well as people having life problems who had found "Jesus". Much of the show included discussions about God and Jesus, and Tammy and others would sing new gospel songs. However, during all episodes they had a constant 800 number onscreen for devout viewers to call in and make pledge donations.
However, Jim Bakker became too ambitious, even by the standards of televangelists of the time. Aside from his extramarital affairs with both men and women, Bakker decided to create an imagined Disneyland for Christians, called Heritage USA. Unfortunately, the kind of money it would take, like trying to create Disneyworld in a couple of years without large investments, required huge fundraising. Instead of getting legitimate investors, the Bakker's called on their viewers, who became "business partners" by putting up certain amounts of money through their donation network. But it was basically a fraud. The Bakker's used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle of fancy homes, cars, and beautiful clothing and jewels for Tammy. Thousands of television investment-viewers believed they were investing in Heritage and were promised free excursions to the resort, even though it could only accommodate a few dozen people at any given time. It was more akin to a Holiday Inn with a couple of attractions than anything close to a Disneyland.
A great cast and one of the most searing exposures of American religion on television gone awry. While they used the names of God and Jesus in much of their broadcasts, they didn't really know who Jesus was, his message, and why he was executed by local authorities in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. To their credit they also spoke with people outside the evangelical sphere, such as a gay man suffering from Aides which is reproved by more traditional Evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell. Not to be missed, especially for those interested in America's brand of Christianity.
Tucker Carlson Tonight (2016)
Tucker Never Lets Inconvenient Facts Get in the Way of His Fictional Conspiracy Fantasies
New York Times journalist Nicholas Confessore once said that if you wish to partake of the practice of real journalism, you must interview people and engage in extensive research. Even if you're writing a scathing expose about certain people, you have to interview those involved. You may not be able to interview the grand poobah, but you can interview often those around him or her.
If your journalism is trying to uncover some kind of conspiracy then you're obligated to get to the heart of the matter by using things like sources and documents. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward engaged in months of extensive digging to uncover the Watergate scandal which brought down then President Nixon.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson never engages in this kind of research. He's really just an entertainer who says things those on the far right-wing politically want to hear. He provides the red meat for his followers. He seems to adhere to the old adage that says if you say an untruth enough times, some people begin to believe it.
Carlson propagates many conspiracy theories and often has no facts to back up his claims, just his own opinions. While there are many, one of his favorites, really a conspiracy fiction-fantasy, is the so-called "Replacement Theory". Replacement Theory is the idea that somehow the left-wing side of politics, usually Democrats, are trying to lure illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe (called the Third World by Carlson) to come to the United States to "replace" real Americans.
Carlson claims that in order to augment their voting base, the Democrats need these people who will somehow allow the Dems to control government. The whole idea is absolutely preposterous and he's never offered any concrete evidence that any of this has a shred of legitimacy. If it is, who is behind it? Not just "them", as he often wants to label his political enemies, but who are the specific people? When did it start? How does it work? For one thing, if this is really what the leaders of the Democratic Party are doing, they've failed miserably since the right-wing now has six Supreme Court Justices and have had the House and the Senate for several presidential terms.
One reality which seems to be unknown to Carlson, immigrants from Eastern Europe, particularly from former Easter Bloc/Soviet countries, actually tend to lean Republican/right-wing and not Democrat/left-wing. They tend to lean Republican because they're skeptical of strong governments. While the rationality is rather flawed in my opinion, their conclusions do have their own logic. If a government is weaker, then supposedly the government will be less prone to becoming totalitarian and/or dictatorial, or so goes the argument. So the idea that all these immigrants from Eastern Europe will come here and register Democrat really has no basis.
Carlson also talks about "they", usually left-wing people either holding political office or celebrities. So they include people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Chelsea Clinton, etc. And he says things like "they don't like you", "you" meaning Carlson's audience, and "they" as those on the left. "They" want to take away your rights, or "they" want to control you. Even though people like Oprah Winfrey wanted to make the US a better place for everyone, she would come under the "they" without any factual basis for his claims. He would also say on the extreme end that "they" are coming for you! My question have they? I tend to lean left but a lot of my dad's family leans right. Why haven't members of my dad's family been taken yet?
A more recent Carlson conspiracy theory is that President Joe Biden's campaign was funded in large part by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, current President of Ukraine involved in a military struggle against Putin's Russia at this writing. Again the notion is absurd because in the US, foreign entities are not allowed to give financing to candidates running for office. If it was true, then Bill Barr under then President Donald Trump should have prosecuted the Biden campaign! He never did. So either Barr let Biden get away with violating federal campaign laws, and/or they weren't doing their jobs. Maybe the answer is the Biden campaign didn't break any laws!
A ridiculous show which isn't news but a brand of political entertainment, Carlson style! Journalism is about learning things, usually things the journalist doesn't know and finds out and then reveals their findings to the public. But if you already know the answer then what's the point of doing research? That's Carlson's modus operandi. He already knows everything and he's going to do the thankless job of imparting his amazing knowledge to the public. And make millions doing it.
History's Greatest Mysteries: The Holy Grail (2022)
Generally Interesting But Ultimately Flawed Scholarship About the Holy Grail
Amateur historian Graham Phillips claims he owns the "Holy Grail", in this case the ointment jar used by Mary Magdalene to gather the blood of Jesus during the Crucifixion and later to anoint his body. This is one of four theories proposed by the documentary episode "The Holy Grail", part of "History's Greatest Mysteries".
To give Phillips credit he tracked down an ointment jar which according to the British Museum dates from the first century. The provenance was from a British-English family who owned the jar in the 19th century claiming it was the ointment jar of Mary Magdalene. That probability is about a million to one, if about zilch. The British Museum only authenticated it as a real ancient jar, nothing more, one of 1000's many of which can be bought on the market today at auction and specialized artifact retailers.
First problem: how many alabaster ointment jars existed in ancient Palestine or Egypt in the First Century? Probably over 100,000 of which 1000's survive. They are not rare. Examples can be had for about $500 to $1000. Even an example from Egypt about 2000 years older than Phillip's artifact went unsold at an auction in 2019 where the opening bid price was only $250. So what links his jar with Jesus? There is no real evidence presented and the reality is explained in problem no. 2.
Second Problem: If Jesus was crucified as a low-status criminal in Jerusalem, his body was burned in a common grave, not put in a tomb and not anointed. Tradition has held that Joseph of Arimathea asked Pontius Pilate for Jesus' body, a story which a lot of historians regard as a myth. Jesus rabble-roused and claimed he could destroy the Great Temple in Jerusalem. Pilate saw that as enough of a threat of sedition to have him arrested and crucified. (Pilate was rather notorious for crucifying rabble-rousers during Passover. Jesus was only one of perhaps 100's who were so crucified during Pilate's tenure in Jerusalem of about 10 years.) Enacting sedition was enough to push Pilate to execute Jesus, so the next step was to burn the body in a common grave which is what was done with 99.99% of condemned criminals in the Ancient Roman Empire.
Part of the punishment of crucifixion was to deny the condemned any kind of posthumous ritual and burial. So the notion that Pilate had Jesus' body put into a tomb and placed guards there is most definitely a Christian fiction and/or myth. There would be no burial and therefore no anointing of the body. But what about the gathering of blood during the execution?
Third Problem: crucified criminals typically were not stabbed. They died slow deaths as a result of suffocation, not impalement. The notion that a centurion stabbed Jesus with a spear is another Christian myth. So, the idea that Mary Magdalene went up on a step-ladder and took blood from Jesus' wounds from impaling is ludicrous. "Explicit linkages between menstrual blood, circumcision blood, and the blood of sacrificial victims are not made by biblical texts but are found in later Jewish interpretive traditions, especially rabbinic documents which would have been after the time of Jesus." (Oxford Bibliographies, "Blood in the Hebrew Bible"). It would have made no sense to someone like Mary Magdalene who was most certainly a Jew, to gather Jesus' blood as sacrificial, because that idea of Jesus as the Lamb of God isn't proposed until the Gospel of John around 100 CE, about 65+ years after the death of Jesus.
Phillips can claim all he wants that his jar was owned by Mary Magdalene but until historians can verify such a claim it really has no merit. He owns an ancient alabaster jar, a fairly common artifact. History doesn't pan out that this jar would have any connection to Jesus, and probably not having been owned by Mary Magdalene.