A good documentary on the days of great newspapers, and how it could be better

• The 2019 HBO documentary Breslin and Hamill is a great look at the heyday of newspapers, especially in New York City w/ its multiple competing dailies, and a sorrowful reminder to all of how far we've come, or descended, since that day, with newsrooms today having just a fraction of the staff size and capacity, and with the concomitant loss in particular of coverage of state and local news (Rhode Islanders are still fortunate that the Providence Journal does a good job on state and Providence news). The doc focuses on the two NY newspapers columnists, sometimes competitors and sometimes stablemates, in the New York press from the 50s through the 80s or 90s - Jimmy Breslin and Pete Hamill - two guys w/similar backgrounds, working-class Irish w/ no formal education beyond high school - who learned on the job and rose to the top, each in a different manner: Breslin mainly through his street smarts and his lifelong connection to neighborhoods and tough guys and w/ his uncanny knack for finding the unique angle on major stories (e.g., his interview on the day of the JFK funeral w/ the guy who dug the gravesite) and w/ his sympathy for the underdog; Hamill was the more poetic of the two, more known for setting a mood and capturing a nuance, and unlike Breslin he rose up into management, becoming a beloved editor in chief at the NY Post. The doc includes late-life interviews w/ the two men together and much great archival footage that give us the feel for life in the eccentric, smoky, alcohol-reeking newsrooms of old. Plus there are many interviews w/ those who knew the two men (JB died two years ago), including family members, colleagues, and media critics and scholars. And that's my major concern w/ this movie - it makes its point and then some, it's just too damn long. Heed Hemingway's warning : Kill your darlings. And that's so easy and unpainful today: why not trim all of the talking head interviews and make them available as supplements, full length if need be, to those who want to know more, as Criterion does w/ its film library? You'd have a great 90 minute film w/ many extras. As is it's fine to but gets tedious by the end. 

The hateful characters in the watchable series Succession (and a note on The Sopranos)

The 10-part HBO series Succession, a portrait of a dysfunctional uber-wealthy family based loosely, or maybe not so loosely, on the Murdoch clan and its right-wing media empire, will hold anyone's interest start to finish as it's well-written and well acted by the large ensemble, each family member w/ distinct personalities and neuroses. At one point they're called a "nest of vipers," which is apt: There's not a moment that we sympathize in the least w/ any of the horrendous characters in this family, the Roys. Top to bottom - the malevolent patriarch, his scheming 2nd wife, the 4 children constantly at each other's throats, the various suppliants and egocentric paramours, all are horrible - in their scheming, their treatment of anyone they can boss around or control w $, this vulgar behavior, their crude language (and here I offer a note to the writers: I have never seen a show that so frequently uses the adj. "fucking" or various other forms of the verb/adj; this tic does not make your writing stronger or more powerful, quite the opposite. One ex.: It's better if the father says to eldest son: You're a nobody, as opposed to You're a fucking nobody - the former is devastating in its simplicity, the latter just crude and bullying). So, yes, fun in a guilty way to watch this horror show and to hate everyone in it - but I note that over the past few weeks I've been watching Season 1 of The Sopranos, which is so great in large part because the mob characters are stone cold killers and brutal assailants, yet we also see them as tender, thoughtful, devoted to family and to their kids, and it's this broadening of character in such surprising ways, and the recognition of the pain these characters live w/ trying to justify their lives and criminal behavior that keep is involved and make us care about these characters. We feel that, if we knew him, we'd like Tony (et al.); with the Roys, we feel that wed never know them, they'd never know us, and if our lives crossed we would hate them.

A highly unsettling and provocative documentary: Three Identical Strangers

Tim Wardle's 2018 documentary, Three Identical Strangers, starts off as if it's going to be a feel-good story about triplets separated at (actually, six months after) birth who discover one another through a series of chance encounters when they're about 20 years old and who enjoy a few moments of celebrity and fame as their unlikely story is picked up by TV and print media. The three guys look and behave incredibly alike, and they're each cute and buoyant and enjoying every bit of the media attention - eventually parlaying their instant celebrity into a popular NYC restaurant/club, Triplets. But then the documentary takes some even stranger twists and turns, which I will not reveal, but it's fair to say that this movie gets darker and darker and becomes a serious examination of medical ethics, as we learn that the three boys, unbeknownst to them, had bee part of a vast (and as yet unpublished) medical experiment. Wardle and his team do a good job conveying this story and all of its nuances through interviews, use of archival footage, and some re-creation of scenes (in particular, the meetup of the boys some 30 or so years back). He also blends in interviews with journalist and author Lawrence Wright, who did extensive research for a magazine feature of twins as well as another set of twins - two young women separated at birth - who have written about the ethics of twin-studies. Some of the outside experts Wardle interviews do little to make their case and he's ruthless in his editing of their weirdly evasive interviews. All told, though there's nothing unusual or groundbreaking cinematically in this film, it's a highly unsettling and extremely provocative journalistic documentary.

A social comedy that is devoid of values

There are some funny moments and scenes in Crazy Rich Asians and the lead couple is tres "cute," and I especially liked the two sidekicks - the childhood friend of the female lead, a rare, outspoken hipster in the conventional and conformist Singapore high society, and the gay cousin or nephew who self-describes as the "Rainbow Sheep" of the family - ok, those are the pluses - but even in the world of big-budget comedy doesn't anyone else find this entire movie morally repulsive? The thin plot involves a "crazy rich" Singapore guy in NY who falls in love with Chinese woman, the youngest prof at NYU apparently, and takes her home to meet his family; she's from humble origins but for some completely inexplicable reason had no idea how wealthy her guy, later her fiancé, really is. OK, so we more or less see this new world of mega-wealth through her naïve eyes - and the whole ethos of the movie seems to be: Don't you wish you had this kind of money? Isn't this lifestyle grand? And despite the usual family psychodramas, if you had this kind of money everything would be perfect. We see the most elaborate receptions, prewedding parties that would cost millions, unlimited shopping and dining, luxury accommodations in hotels (despite a slight obeisance to racial prejudice in the opening scene - quickly snuffed out of course by $$$) and on planes (my father does business with the airline, these tickets are comps!) - and throughout not a word, not a thought about the welfare of others or using the $ to do anything to benefit society - it's all just lavish, sybaritic spending. Sure, this is just the latest among many rich boy / poor girl fantasies - Love Story perhaps being the Ur document, but few have been so blatantly extravagant and value-free.

Puzzled by the critical adulation for A Star Is Born

I don't really get all the hype around the 3rd (4th if you count the Bollywood v) of A Star Is Born (2018); it will probably be nominated for a BP Oscar but won't win (inevitably it will split votes w/ Bohemian Rhapsody, which pleas to the exact same demo). Yes, Lady Ga Ga is a really good pop singer (and dancer) w/ her unique sense of costumery and yes props to Bradley Cooper, who costars and also does a good job directing, keeping the plot moving along and not dwelling on himself, as many director/stars will tend to do. But honestly I didn't believe in their relationship for a minute - he's a huge stadium rock star who wanders into a drag-queen bar and is blown away by her singing - it's odd and a little annoying that the talent he discovers by chance is the only one in club who's not in drag, but so be it. Her performance that blows him away is OK but she's no Edith Piaf, but let's just accept that he spots a potential future star; their romance and eventual marriage is equally hard to fathom, as he seems much older than she  and why either would be particularly attracted to the other will remain one of those mysteries of love. As everyone in the world knows, the movie traces the ark of her career - at first his discovery and protegee, then branching into a solo career when she's discovered by  hot agent who gets her to change her act into more of a costumed dance #, a transition, actually from say Alison Kraus to, say, well, Lady Ga Ga. Cooper (Jackson Maine) can't abide her success, in particular because he sees her new flashy style as fake, and goes deeper into his long-time alcoholic funk. I actually tuned out about an our from the far-away finish, but was filled in on the dark ending, darker than I would have expected. But overall I couldn't buy into the lead characters, found the ingenue/agent/aging star motif to be shopworn (for better examples see the Ray Charles or the Johnny Cash biopics, or for a singer in a funk see Crazy Heart) and the music not especially inspired. But then again, this movie was not aimed at my demo, either.

A rare miniseries that gets better w/ each season: Call My Agent

Major props to the French miniseries Call My Agent (Dix pour Cent, in France) Season 3, which is the rare project that seems to get better with each season: We know more about the characters, of course, and we watch them interact and face off against one another in many ways through many dimensions of office intrigue and sexual politics. Some of this material will feel right and familiar to anyone who's worked in an office; some is unique to this particular high-pressure, glamorous, but always in-the-background profession. We watch the people in this Paris-based talent agency - the boss, Hachim, a wealthy and egotistical entrepreneur who bought the agency and tries to impose his will on the employees, plus a team of 9 agents and their assistants, each w/ a distinct personality and agenda - as it evolves over time, fending off many threats from outside and inside, various mutinies, subterfuges, successes and failures. There's plenty of good gossipy drama and lots of humor throughout, and, as the series has gained more traction, at least in France, they get even bigger starts to front each episode (the key catch in this season is Isabel Hupert, playing the role of an overworked movie star who double-books projects, to her agent's near demise - and a play on her evident omnipresence in Europe and the U.S.) and many more actors, critics, and directors for cameos - esp in the final episode of the season, the agency anniversary party filled w/ many actors and others as "guests" - unfortunately, not ones American viewers are likely to recognize, but we get the picture. By the end, we end up caring about each of the characters, despite their double-dealings and infidelities, and we appreciate getting what feels like a true inside look at this complicated profession - what agents have to do to get, retain, mollify, appease, and coddle the talent and how they manage to earn their 10 percent. Six hour-long episodes and definitely worth watching, though be sure to start w/ Season 1 as the plot is intricate and builds from that base.

A film with high ideals that just doesn't click

Let's face it: It's nearly impossible to build a good, cinematic drama about lawyers building case, even a landmark case, to overturn an obscure section of the revenue code, with the much broader aim of establishing a precedent in law for barring discrimination "on the basis of sex." The reality is that any such legal action involves lots of boring research and endless conferences and tedious, arcane legal arguments. Mimi Leder team behind the Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic On the Basis of Sex, give it their best, but sadly the arcane legal arguments are elusive and static and the attempts to make the legal profession bright and dramatic tend to fall flat and have the effect of making the movie feel fake and scripted rather than lived and true to life. The ideals behind this project are great, and it's eye-opening to learn how long it took to get sex- or gender-discrimination recognized in U.S. law; the various scenes of the prejudice RBG faced in law school and in her first job search are well played and help us see the obstacles she (and thousands of other women) had to overcome just to enter, let alone prosper, in the profession. And the best scene by far, in my view, was the "mock trial" at which RBG prepares for her key arguments before the District Court, in which she is pushed by the mock justices to and beyond her limits. But some of the scenes are so heavy-handed - even if loosely based on truth - that they almost undermine the whole project - especially the attempt to portray the Harvard law dean (played by SamWaterston, an unlikely heavy). Further, there is absolutely zero chemistry between the leads, Felicty Jones as RBG and Armmie Hammer as her supportive husband; her attempt to talk Brooklyn is almost comical, and he's probably twice her height. Most of us who see this film will be right on board w/ its politics and hoping that this is at least for the most part an historical drama rather than a depiction of the current state of the law and the legal profession, and all of us with the real RBG (on screen for a moment toward the end of the film) at least 6 more years of great health - but noble ideals don't necessarily make for a good picture, in fact, sometimes quite the opposite, as all they do is confirm us in our current beliefs rather than push us to think.

Reasons ot Watch Wanted Season 3

The 3rd season of the Netflix series Wanted doesn't quite measure up to the first two, but if you can accept it as just a police chase with strong comic elements it's worth watching. As in the first 2 seasons, the entire series is built on the relationship between two women - polar opposites - forced to be on the run after they get entangled ina  robbery gone wrong: Lola (Rebecca Gibney) and Chelsea (Geraldine Hakewill). Lola's the hardened woman who takes no shit and is from a tough background, a family saga on crime and abuse; Chelsea's the poor little rich girl, seemingly incompetent but one who rises to the occasion and the one who changes the most over the course of the series. The problem with the series, though, is that most of the interesting material developed in Season 1; once the 2 women have developed a friendship and a partnership in crime, there's little more development in their characters or their relationships - despite efforts in season 3 to push further into Lola's back story and her strained relationship w/ her abusive mother. So season 3 depends for its momentum on Lola and Chelsea on the run, prison escapees; they go through so many close calls and the police are so monumentally incompetent that it's more of a comedy than a tension-filled drama. My God, their names and faces are all over the news and they drive around in such conspicuous vehicles with many stops for food and lodging - and nobody recognizes them? But who cares, it's all kind of fun and not meant to be too deep, despite a nod in the plot to the plight of some women imprisoned in the sex trade, whom Lola and Chelsea, at risk to themselves, drop everything to help. All told it's well-scripted w/ 2 excellent actors in the leads, playing likable and to a degree credible characters. Where it goes in the inevitable Season 4 is hard to say - but I fear it's a car running out of gas.

A beautiful and complex movie whose politics are suspect: Happy as Lazarro

Alice Rohrwacher's 2018 Italian-language drama, Happy as Lazarro, is a fine, entertaining, moving, and thought-provoking film of European provenance and available exclusively on Netflix (not sure if it's ever been shown in a U.S. theater). In essence the film is about a community of some 60 farm laborers - men, women, children - who indentured servants, slaves practically, working a tobacco-growing estate in the remote mountains in Italy, virtually cut off from the modern (ca 1995) world. The workers are horribly exploited by the so-called Marquise, but her enterprise is threatened as the world is turning against tobacco products, what a shame. The central figure is the eponymous Lazarro, who seems to have significant mental disabilities and is thus the butt of jokes and the one given all the dirty work among the clan of workers. Ultimately, the Marquise's son, Tancredi, a rebel and an outsider in his family, befriends - sort of - Lazarro and exploits him even worse that his mother exploits the farm workers. Up to the half-way point the film seems a lot like the well-known Tree of Wooden Clogs, a look at exploited, communal agricultural labor - and there are probably other such films as well - but Rohrwacher makes a sudden shift into a kind of allegorical story line as something dramatic and unexpected - No spoilers - happens to L., and we then jump some 20 or so years into the present, where L. joins a group of the farm workers who living hand-to-mouth in a semi-criminal manner on a rail siding in an industrial city in North Italy. It's not entirely clear how this film lines up politically and culturally: Clearly, through the first half our sympathies are entirely with the exploited farm workers; but once they're freed from their servitude their conditions seem even worse and their lives less communal and less ethical. Why did none of the children benefit from a public education? Why did none of the adults, aided by public welfare and housing, presumably, get on their feet and get real jobs? The sense is almost that they were better off and more productive in their enslavement. Whether or not that's AR's intention, one has to feel that the politics of the movie are selective and dubious at best - but it's still worth watching and worth thinking about, in particular trying to figure out the significance of the mysterious, cryptic central figure.

Can millions of Netfllix viewers be wrong?: Bird Box

Enticed by news reports that Bird Box is by far the most successful of Netflix original releases, we watched it last night and I can report that it's not the worst movie I've ever seen but there's nothing so special or remarkable about it, either. This post-apocalyptic movie follow closely the conventions of vampire films, most obviously Night of the Living Dead. In this case: An outbreak of an unexplained phenomenon sweeps across the world and turns hordes of people and suicidal mobs. Anyone who even looks eye-to-eye at one of the suicides will immediately kill himself/herself, often in the most gruesome manner. Following a few scenes of panic and mayhem, we watch our protagonist - the always good Sandra Bullock - as she finds shelter in a spacious Marin County house, where soon she and about 10 others find shelter from the onslaught: The cover all windows so as to avoid any eye contact w/ the suicidal hordes. But others keep coming to the door, begging for admittance and for solace - though each poses a risk. It's impossible to know who's one of the suicidal vampires and who's "safe." From this premise various adventures follow as Bullock et al have to forage for food, etc. , with every excursion requiring all to proceed completely blindfolded (leading, apparently, to many imitators who've seen this film or heard about it trying various stunts while blindfolded - stupid.) Of course, the #s in the household gradually dwindle. The movie opens w/ Bullock's blindfolding two children and taking them on a rowboat on a rapid river, apparently headed for safety; scenes of this river journey are cut into the narrative, and of course by the end we understand what she's doing and whom she's protecting. I must say that for a high-wattage vampire/end-of-world movie there's incredibly little tension and not jump-out-of-your seat moment of surprise - possibly because all of the secondary characters are so thinly drawn, possibly because the premise is so weird that we can't in any way identify with the plight of the survivors. Compare this w/ movies like Children of Men and it's obvious that Bird Box is pretty much a stunt, not a well thought through drama. Can millions of Netflix viewers be wrong? They usually are.

Why to watch Season 2 of Mrs. Maisel

There's at least one good reason to stay with The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (Prime) through Season 2: Rachel Brosnahan, who has simply made the lead character her own, dominating the show in every scene she's in, which is most scenes. Just to watch her walk with her elbows tucked in and her torso leaning forward, always in a rush, and to hear her in conversation, clipped and sharp and so fast you can't even think straight, to hear her answer the telephone (which opens the season and leads a real payoff in the final episode) is half the fun of the show. The highlight of course is her comic routines, which unfortunately she does not get to do in each episode of Season 2, but when she does it's always surprising and funny: the French nightclub bilingual routine, the "Blue Night" in the Catskills w/ her cantankerous father in the audience, the night she rips into the fellow (male) comedians, when she bombs at the wedding reception. The key is that these aren't pauses in the plot for a shtick - as in say a Seinfeld episode - but are integrated into the on-going plot. Another + in season 2 is that Alex Borstein comes into her own as well, not just as a sidekick: in particular in the fine episode where she wins over a couple of thugs hired to abduct her. Unfortunately, Season 2 is not all great, however;:the Catskills interlude drags on for too long, love interest subplot has little energy or chemistry, it's increasingly disturbing how indifferent Midge Maisel is to her kids, and most of all the ancillary parental dramas, in particular the idiotic behavior of her mother at the outset (flying off to Paris for no reason) and of her father throughout (who can believe for two seconds his vetting of the suitor? - unfunny). So you take the bad or mediocre with the good or really good and hope for even better in Season 3, which the final episode unerringly cues up.