The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Review of Clint Eastwood's "Richard Jewell"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new movie review in Taki’s Magazine:

Richard Jewell: The Problem With Profiling
Steve Sailer

December 18, 2019

Richard Jewell is director Clint Eastwood’s well-acted, solidly scripted biopic about the racial-profiling fiasco that undermined the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing investigation. The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.

Much of the media has denounced Clint’s movie for casting aspersions upon America’s noble Deep State. Just because our beloved Intelligence Community has a lamentable track record of going off on wild-goose chases against innocent citizens and then inviting the press to pile on to turn their daily existences into living hells is no reason to, you know, make a movie about it. Some bits of history are best swept under the rug.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 221 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.

    All I can say about the Deep State is that some parts are further over the cataract than others. But they’re all corrupt. Worth repeating Judge Collyer’s words here again:

    “The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General’s] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a ‘populist’ institution itself.

    the FBI spent six years tormenting bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill before paying him about $5 million for their abuse.

    One of many problems with government agents–along with the fact that so many are effectively unaccountable–is that on the rare occasions when they are made to pay, it’s actually the taxpayers who pay. And just as they know they’re untouchable–the worst that might happen is a reprimand in their file–these agents know that others will pay the bill. This knowledge informs their every action.

    • Replies: @Louis Renault
    Judge Collier has been rubber stamping FISA requests the entire time she's been on the FISA court. Glad to see she's doing her part to cover up the corruption.
    , @Jack D
    Although sometimes, as with the "Never Trump" stuff, this is politically motivated, most of these problems arise from a flaw in human psychology. The police are supposed to be skeptical and have an open mind about proof, but the way the human mind actually works is that FIRST you make up your mind about the guilty party and THEN you look for evidence to confirm it. And once a crime is "solved" then the police don't have to do any more hard work to find the guilty party - they've got their man and got him quick - excellent police work!

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.

    Most of the time, the cops really do pick out the guilty party on the first try, but if they happen to focus on someone who is innocent it's a Kafkaesque nightmare because their innocence is in effect irrelevant to the cops.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    The Deep State is multi-layered. Check out the Senior Executive Service (SES) which was created in 1979 to form a kind of aristocracy within the federal bureaucracy. They are all political appointees. They meddle in the actions of civilian intelligence agencies the same way retired generals insert themselves into Pentagon operations through the medium of DOD contractors. When peering into the innards of the coup d'état of Trump one can detect the fingerprints of the SES.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a ‘populist’ institution itself.
     
    The great Leonardo of Pisa,
    confused by the court born of FISA,
    said, "Data so botchy!
    Why, I, Fibonacci,
    could swear that Karachi
    gets much higher scores on the PISA!"
  2. Richard Brody. LOL. He’s turned into a Titania McGrath-style guilty pleasure.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I'm gonna need to subscribe to The New Yorker just to make sure I have full-time access to Richard Brody movie reviews.
  3. I agree upon Midnight in Paris, and I liked your gestalt-moment, too. So, I’m glad to hear, that there is another interesting movie by an old dog out.

  4. “We hear constantly these days about Baby Boomers, but I keep seeing movies directed by or starring amazingly old yet still competent pre-Boomers such as Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer. When will they shuffle off and finally allow us poor Boomers our moment in the spotlight?”

    LOL, don’t hold your breath, no stage left for the 3 aBigos, Bernie, Bloomberg & Biden; all anything but Silent.

    3 aBgos

    Speaking of Generations, surprised me a bit to see that Cooper Hefner enlisted in the Army (US). Especially so coming on the heels of his recent nuptials. Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation. More likely just a one off blip, Cooper may have decided politics is his future, and needs to polish his bona fides.

    Coop

    Cooper & wife, Harry Potter actress Scarlett Bryne

    bride

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    This is Hef's son? He looks like a less ugly Tarantino.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.
     
    LMFAO.

    Go interact with several dozen Millennials and get back to us.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.

     

    I am a Millennial. What does this mean, "become the next Greatest generation"? Does that mean my destiny is to destroy European civilization and kill millions of my fellow white Christians in exchange for nothing?

    I don't mean to denigrate the service of my own relatives, of course, but this "Greatest Generation" stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype. As Paul Fussell related in his books, the goal of most people unfortunate enough to fight in Europe and Asia was to get home as quickly as possible and forget all about it. There were 12 million Americans in the armed services during the war, and fewer than 2 million volunteered. The rest were smart enough to be forcefully inducted. Over 45,000 refused to fight but served in non-combat roles; of those 45,000, a few thousand went to prison rather than serve at all. And many thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of soldiers deserted in Europe.*

    And judging by America's continued insistence on dumb wars and poor foreign policy decisions, we've clearly done well in learning to forget.

    * See here: https://www.amazon.com/Deserters-Hidden-History-World-War/dp/0143125486

    , @Reg Cæsar
    Trump is too young to be President, apparently.
  5. Has anyone noticed that nearly every high-profile “terrorist” arrest announced by the FBI in the past 15 years involved the FBI arming the “terrorist” with dummy weapons before nabbing him? This seems to work better than trying to frame some poor slob without much evidence.

    • Agree: brandybranch, Elli
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.
    , @Hans
    Yeah, it's been great. I feel safer knowing some patsies are in jail until some genuine "terrorists" show up. And I don't understand the complaining. Oswald Patsy got gut shot. These guys are getting 3 hots and cots.

    This "security expert" explains it brilliantly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5EFzG7eVoc
    , @Arthur Pierce
    It’s propaganda to justify attacking whichever group the Deep State and its masters in Mossad want gone.
  6. @Anon
    Richard Brody. LOL. He's turned into a Titania McGrath-style guilty pleasure.

    I’m gonna need to subscribe to The New Yorker just to make sure I have full-time access to Richard Brody movie reviews.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Obviously as a critic you can pick your battles, but I for one would be interested to see your review of "Frozen 2".

    I don't want to rant, (though I suppose I will), but personally I simply could not believe how bad it was. We're talking about the bizarre confluence of a billion-dollar pop franchise and also an extraordinary work of art, you'd expect that there would be a bit of carefulness here, but no.

    The exact same creative team who had produced a masterpiece had five years and a giant pile of money to try and come up with something at least respectable, and instead they produced... this. I guess it's sort of like the random way how lightning strikes, John Lennon himself could not tell why "Tomorrow Never Knows"'was so great, and "Wild Honeypie" was garbage, and then "Polythene Pam" which was every bit as trivial, was somehow brilliant in spite of itself.

    Granted a sequel is nearly always a lesser thing, and the original Frozen was sort of a fluke: forty or fifty years in the making, even the great Walt Disney brooded on "The Snow Queen" for decades and still couldn't figure out what to do with it, then the great John Lasseter, probably the best storytelling mind of our era, did a complete 180 on the nature of the story once he heard the incredible score that he had not expected to hear. Frozen is this weird combination of a charming romantic adventure-comedy and the most shocking psychological horror of our time.

    So now as a follow-up we get some dumb self-conscious banalities, and mandatory charmless diversities. Hmmm.

  7. but it’s above average for an Eastwood movie.

    Gran Torino was a great movie. He just screwed it up by not being able to come up with a realistic ending.

    • Disagree: Desiderius, donut
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    , @VivaLaMigra
    I saw G/T and thought it sucked donkey balls. Not only that, the early 70's Ford Gran Torino was no muscle car icon; it was an emissions-choked hunk of inflated sheet metal.
    , @Desiderius
    The Real Prescence debate never really dies.
  8. @danand

    “We hear constantly these days about Baby Boomers, but I keep seeing movies directed by or starring amazingly old yet still competent pre-Boomers such as Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer. When will they shuffle off and finally allow us poor Boomers our moment in the spotlight?”
     
    LOL, don’t hold your breath, no stage left for the 3 aBigos, Bernie, Bloomberg & Biden; all anything but Silent.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VmdA

    Speaking of Generations, surprised me a bit to see that Cooper Hefner enlisted in the Army (US). Especially so coming on the heels of his recent nuptials. Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation. More likely just a one off blip, Cooper may have decided politics is his future, and needs to polish his bona fides.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VKnG

    Cooper & wife, Harry Potter actress Scarlett Bryne

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1WUBT

    This is Hef’s son? He looks like a less ugly Tarantino.

    • Agree: Liza
  9. both Eastwood and Allen see filmmaking as an inherently hit-or-miss enterprise in which sheer quantity is the surest hope of some being of quality.

    Eastwood’s earlier film (The Mule) was quite weak (saw it on a plane). Interesting concept but below average script with awkward dialogue. I’m surprised it’s the same screenwriter of Gran Torino. This new one seems more interesting, maybe I’ll watch it.

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen’s own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn’t made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.

    Scorsese has made some good or at least interesting films in his old age, but he doesn’t make a new film every year as Eastwood or Allen.

    Personally, I think that making too many (bad) movies weakens your “brand” as director. You don’t need to be a Kubrick, but making a film every 2-3 years seems to be the right balance between getting some quality and not being forgotten.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I think Christopher Nolan's movie-every-2-years schedule was too quick for him. Dark Knight and Inception were very good but he had fit and finish problems with the last Batman and Interstellar. Then he took an extra 6 or 8 months or so for Dunkirk and was back in his groove. His next one, "Tenet," is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.
    , @Abe

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen’s own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn’t made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.
     
    Allen was MeToo’d - methinketh . At least I remember seeing a story about how some studio or service (Netflix?) had dumped his latest project. Glad Hillary’s shocking loss proved such a bracing clarifier, else it probably would have taken until their diamond wedding anniversary before we finally realized Allen was schtupping his step-daughter and we could righteously unperson his a$$.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen’s own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011.

    Woody Allen reached into his own archives for "Midnight in Paris." It is based on a short story, "A Twenties Memory," that appeared in his 1971 book Getting Even. I can't remember which writer said that you know you've become a hack when you're rereading your old stuff for inspiration.

  10. @The Alarmist
    Has anyone noticed that nearly every high-profile "terrorist" arrest announced by the FBI in the past 15 years involved the FBI arming the "terrorist" with dummy weapons before nabbing him? This seems to work better than trying to frame some poor slob without much evidence.

    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Yeah, wonder how much of the anti-White/anti-American agitprop pumped out by our putatively elite institutions is some sort of elaborate Haka Dance to terrorize non-whites.
    , @Mr. Anon

    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.
     
    The main reason is because they're government employees, so they do what's easiest. It's the equivalent of looking for your car keys under a streetlight, but in this case they get to just throw down a set of keys and say "Found them!". Good job guys! Pat yourselves on the back! GS-14s for everybody! The fact that the DoJ holds civil liberties in contempt just makes it even easier. The FBI is both malign AND incompetent.
  11. “Suddenly, I was overcome by a gestalt: The profiles turned into a Rubin vase. I realized that I had nothing other than my now-shattered overconfidence.”

    Had no guess as to what a Rubin vase was, so of course did a Wiki consult:

    face

    “Water sculpture features a reverse profile of 19th c. abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in the black granite area. Design: Bill Taylor, Ross Miller”

    And there he is, abolitionist Garrison clear as day right there in the siding.

    Richard Jewel may be a flop financially, but the good news is it’s studio, Warner Bros is no Paramount. Unlike Paramount, Warner Bros is fully woke, employing plenty of women directors:

    “Paramount’s current 2020 film slate includes 16 films, and exactly one of them is directed by a woman: Reed Morano’s Blake Lively-starrer “The Rhythm Section.””

    And speaking of Paramount, it’s just about that time again, for feeling the need, the need for speed:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    ... it’s just about that time again, for feeling the need, the need for speed:
     
    The original movie with Tom Cruise was damn near 35 years ago. Let me tell you something, Danand, when Tom Cruise says he "feels the need for speed" 'these days, it just means he's going to drink a can of Red Bull with his Geritol in the morning.
  12. @Dumbo

    both Eastwood and Allen see filmmaking as an inherently hit-or-miss enterprise in which sheer quantity is the surest hope of some being of quality.
     
    Eastwood's earlier film (The Mule) was quite weak (saw it on a plane). Interesting concept but below average script with awkward dialogue. I'm surprised it's the same screenwriter of Gran Torino. This new one seems more interesting, maybe I'll watch it.

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen's own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn't made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.

    Scorsese has made some good or at least interesting films in his old age, but he doesn't make a new film every year as Eastwood or Allen.

    Personally, I think that making too many (bad) movies weakens your "brand" as director. You don't need to be a Kubrick, but making a film every 2-3 years seems to be the right balance between getting some quality and not being forgotten.

    I think Christopher Nolan’s movie-every-2-years schedule was too quick for him. Dark Knight and Inception were very good but he had fit and finish problems with the last Batman and Interstellar. Then he took an extra 6 or 8 months or so for Dunkirk and was back in his groove. His next one, “Tenet,” is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.

    • Replies: @Hail

    Christopher Nolan’s ... next one, “Tenet,” is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.
     
    Do we have any news on Tenet by right-wing director Nolan?

    As of Oct. 2019, there was sparse info publicly available, except the following:


    A key cast member of Tenet is Robert Pattinson, who [has also] been cast to be the Batman of the 2020s.

    Tenet (2020)

    Set for a July 17, 2020, release

    Directed by
    – Christopher Nolan (b.1970, London; four children w/ Emma Thomas)

    Written by
    – Christopher Nolan

    Produced by
    – Thomas Hayslip [exec. producer] (b.1970 in Vietnam; Vietnamese mother, US father; see here)
    – Christopher Nolan [producer]
    – Emma Thomas [producer] (b. Dec. 1971, London; four children with Christopher Nolan)

    Music by
    – Ludwig Göransson (b.1984, Sweden)
     

    They are about to release the first trailer for Tenet, Dec. 19, acc. to Internet rumor.

    The IMDB listing still has "The plot is currently unknown. The project is described as an action epic revolving around international espionage, time travel, and evolution."

    Besides Robert Pattinson, I am seeing John David Washington mentioned as one of the lead roles. He is the son (b.1984) of Denzel Washington and new to acting, with his first major role in the Q3 2018-released "BlacKkKlansman."

    , @Anonymous

    Dark Knight and Inception were very good but he had fit and finish problems with the last Batman and Interstellar.
     
    At 13 on imdb top movies ever for Interstellar, do you really think some more buffing was in order?
  13. Richard Jewel is a bomb because dumbshit red state evangelicals will pay to see the new (gay) Star Wars instead.

    • Replies: @SFG
    It came out before it.
  14. @iffen
    but it’s above average for an Eastwood movie.

    Gran Torino was a great movie. He just screwed it up by not being able to come up with a realistic ending.

    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I’ve heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it’s kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He’s done a lot.

    • Replies: @iffen
    He’s done a lot.

    So much so that a lifetime achievement award would be embarrassingly laughable.

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself.

    Apparently there is some unique talent and perspective that some individuals have that enable them to pull many threads together to produce great movies. It seems so rare that even the best ones can't pull it off every time.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Eastwood, as a director, is a great entertainer. I've seen not few of his movies, but I doubt any one of them is permanent (in that industry of impermanence). His movies are about physical & moral masculinity & its growing insecurities as age & decrepitude start, incrementally, to undermine them. His general world-view is libertarian; he is not artsy-fartsy; sometimes, he's ironic & self-deprecating; but, generally, he enjoys working with actors & the whole business of filmmaking- his opus as a director is a continuation, expansion & problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain.


    Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words: woman is fickle; Bergman is a God, but I'm a Schlemiel; artistically oriented intellectuals, who are financially stable & secure, seek the meaning of life & find there is no meaning in it, but they can at least fill a gaping hole in their existences by getting laid (great looking rich & intellectually pretentious WASPettes are preferred); sex & death are the themes- but the Russians had already said everything that can be said about them, so we may as well have a good time, poking fun at Russkies; there could be something deeper in all, but I can't see it and, besides, the surface is too interesting.
    , @David In TN
    I remember Eastwood as Rowdy Yates on the Rawhide TV show. In the mid-60's he became The Man With No Name, then Hang Em' High. A few years late, Dirty Harry.

    By the early 70's it was being said Eastwood had created a persona "that fascinated the world."

    Soon after he started directing himself.
    , @Pincher Martin
    Clint had such a productive and long career that it's easy to forget some very good films he has done.

    The Beguiled (1970) is superb, but no one talks about it anymore. Two enjoyable Eastwood films in which he was not the main star, but just one star among fine ensemble casts were Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968). I would admit, however, that Clint is probably the least enjoyable part of Kelly's Heroes. He just doesn't fit his role.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint's long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.
    , @syonredux

    The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.
     
    Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is simply outstanding, a perfect gem of a movie. Jeff Bridges' was particularly good. It might be Cimino's best work:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQKDQCYsEZM
    , @William Badwhite
    I thought A Perfect World was a great movie. I never understood why it didn't do better.

    Outlaw Josey Wales has some great tough guy dialogue.

    Should we bury them pilgrims Josey?

    Spit tobacco juice on dead guy's forehead, then "the hell with them pilgrims. Buzzards gotta eat, same as the worms".
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    "What are the best Eastwood-directed movies?"

    Haven't seen The Mule (2018) yet. Would like to but it's difficult seeing my favorite father figure looking so old and fragile. Today my favorite Eastwood-directed film is the violent weird western High Plains Drifter (1973). Tomorrow it'll be The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). Sunday it'll be the Boston Irish crime film Mystic River (2003).

    , @Hodag
    Bird I love for the music alone.
    , @RichardTaylor
    The movie Unforgiven is an anti-Western made to please the NYC critic crowd who hated Westerns.
    , @Anonymous
    FLAGS and LETTERS are his most impressive works, the only ones that qualify as art.

    Eastwood has made some solid genre works, esp in Westerns: HIGH PLAINS, OUTLAW JOSEY, PALE RIDER. In some ways, UNFORGIVEN is his most remarkable Western but not necessarily in a good way. It strains for significance and even 'art', something his earlier Westerns can't be accused of.

    HEARTBREAK isn't much but one of my favs as Eastwood's nod to SANDS OF IWO JIMA even though US vs Grenada is ludicrous as matter of crisis. Lots of funny scenes and warm moments.
    BRONCO BILLY and HONKY TONK MAN are minor works, a light comedy and a light tragedy, but on the plus side, without pretension.

    His earlier works were big on narcissism. It was as if the ugly world of ugly men wanted to crucify him for his handsomeness while women of all stripes wanted to throw themselves at him. So, in movies like HIGH PLAINS, he's either taking revenge on the men or jumping in the sack with the ladies. In his later movies, esp beginning with HEARTBREAK, the older Eastwood seems mainly concerned about a man's atoning for a life of adventure than obligation to the one true love of his life.

    Eastwood's attempt at heavy themes, seriousness, or dark 'psychological' material was never quite convincing. Never managed to sit through all of PLAY MISTY or BIRD. Still haven't seen WHITE HUNTER. Don't wanna go near BRIDGES OF MADISON crap, the sort of the stuff meant for Oprah fans. Did see MYSTIC RIVER and it was good but, like UNFORGIVEN, strained. Still, CHANGELING worked better than his other dark-themed movies because he'd finally mastered a kind of style that might be called gran-torino. Don Rickles called Scorsese a cadillac, true enough. Eastwood is a gran torino. Not top of the model but durable and reliable when fine-tuned and well-oiled. Many of his earlier movies were decent enough but a bit clunky here and there. BIRD was a mess, as if he was trying to do too much. PALE RIDER is pretty good but very uneven. His movies of the past decade have some of the best alignment and suspension. They steer real good, and it's fitting that MULE is about someone on the road.
    THE MULE may not be a great movie but, from start to finish, it rides like the flatlands of the mid-west. Smooth driving. Some people might fault this approach as lacking in dramatic ups and downs, but Eastwood has reached a point where he doesn't have to drive the point home. And we know the melodramatic formula well enough to fill in the voids.

    This sense of 'grace' in the later works is probably part conscious, the product of long experience in film-making. Eastwood has done it so many times that he could make movies blind-folded. He's not a master-artist but a master-craftsman. But it also owes to certain enervation that comes with age. We don't sense much in the way of exertion, even in a war movie like AMERICAN SNIPER that is remarkably muted compared to the works by Spielberg and LONE SURVIVOR(which has one of the best battle scenes ever filmed but also one of the most ridiculously funny scenes at the end when an Afghan kid falls in instant-love with the US soldier, rather like the little dino and big dino becoming friends at the end of JURASSIC WORLD). When some directors grow old, they just lose it and mark time. But Eastwood seems to have a zen-thing going for him. He has maybe 10% of the movie-making energy he did in the 80s and 90s, but he uses it so efficiently that he his movies still have dramatic motion if not the passionate charge. And in some ways, it is this muted quality that makes the key moments even more moving. It works like a painting.
    MULE will likely be remembered as one of his finer works. More than any other, it find the perfect balance between familiarity of formula, sincerity of emotions, and grimness of subject matter. In contrast, MYSTIC RIVER seemed too dark for pulp and too pulpy for darkness. Though impressive in parts, I didn't really buy it. Same with UNFORGIVEN. It's as if Louis L'Amour went into Melville or Conrad mode.

    If Allen and Eastwood have something in common, they lost their pretenses later in their career. Allen once tried to be the American Bergman/Fellini/Antonioni but finally and thankfully gave that up and began making movies like MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY. Though Allen won Best Pic with ANNIE HALL, it encouraged his worst impulses for over a decade.
    Same is true of Eastwood. All the praise for UNFORGIVEN made Eastwood go in the wrong direction. He's not a deep and dark director. He's best at conveying the traditional American grace of stoicism in the face of darkness.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/64503/matters-fate
  15. Interesting (or ironic, however you want to look at it): currently, on the sidebar of your Richard Jewell review, it shows as trending George Zimmerman’s Lonely Quest for Justice.

    It’s not clear which is sadder: how Jewell was treated damals by authorities and the media, or the fact he died at such a young age from typical diseases of modern civilization.

    Jewell did manage to wring settlements out of many of the organizations he targeted with lawsuits, so maybe there’s hope yet for Zimmerman and his “quest”.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It's not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.
  16. @Steve Sailer
    I think Christopher Nolan's movie-every-2-years schedule was too quick for him. Dark Knight and Inception were very good but he had fit and finish problems with the last Batman and Interstellar. Then he took an extra 6 or 8 months or so for Dunkirk and was back in his groove. His next one, "Tenet," is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.

    Christopher Nolan’s … next one, “Tenet,” is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.

    Do we have any news on Tenet by right-wing director Nolan?

    As of Oct. 2019, there was sparse info publicly available, except the following:

    A key cast member of Tenet is Robert Pattinson, who [has also] been cast to be the Batman of the 2020s.

    Tenet (2020)

    Set for a July 17, 2020, release

    Directed by
    – Christopher Nolan (b.1970, London; four children w/ Emma Thomas)

    Written by
    – Christopher Nolan

    Produced by
    – Thomas Hayslip [exec. producer] (b.1970 in Vietnam; Vietnamese mother, US father; see here)
    – Christopher Nolan [producer]
    – Emma Thomas [producer] (b. Dec. 1971, London; four children with Christopher Nolan)

    Music by
    – Ludwig Göransson (b.1984, Sweden)

    They are about to release the first trailer for Tenet, Dec. 19, acc. to Internet rumor.

    The IMDB listing still has “The plot is currently unknown. The project is described as an action epic revolving around international espionage, time travel, and evolution.”

    Besides Robert Pattinson, I am seeing John David Washington mentioned as one of the lead roles. He is the son (b.1984) of Denzel Washington and new to acting, with his first major role in the Q3 2018-released “BlacKkKlansman.”

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "right-wing director Nolan?"

    What is your basis for that assertion? Nolan is the best director working today, and I certainly appreciate him not using his movies to grind away at political axes. That doesn't necessarily make him right wing.
  17. @Anon
    Richard Jewel is a bomb because dumbshit red state evangelicals will pay to see the new (gay) Star Wars instead.

    It came out before it.

  18. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    He’s done a lot.

    So much so that a lifetime achievement award would be embarrassingly laughable.

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself.

    Apparently there is some unique talent and perspective that some individuals have that enable them to pull many threads together to produce great movies. It seems so rare that even the best ones can’t pull it off every time.

  19. I don’t have the platform, but anyone want to try to kick off a meme of seeing this instead of Star Wars? It’ll be easy to get tickets, and you can support one of Hollywood’s few right-wing directors.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I got no meme, SFG, but y'all have convinced me to go watch this movie, and that's even before reading Mr. Sailer's review in Takimag.

    I just wanted to get a word in on the "intelligence" community stuff mentioned. Perhaps the FBI had had its act together till more recently, at least until the AA really kicked in, but the CIA? They've been fucking up most of the operations they get involved in. (They'll tell you that it's because the successful ones are not known about. BS.) For all that money, over 40 years, could they have known the real state of the Soviet economy and maybe given us the time the USSR would break up within, I dunno, +/- a DECADE?!

    I want my money back.
  20. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    Eastwood, as a director, is a great entertainer. I’ve seen not few of his movies, but I doubt any one of them is permanent (in that industry of impermanence). His movies are about physical & moral masculinity & its growing insecurities as age & decrepitude start, incrementally, to undermine them. His general world-view is libertarian; he is not artsy-fartsy; sometimes, he’s ironic & self-deprecating; but, generally, he enjoys working with actors & the whole business of filmmaking- his opus as a director is a continuation, expansion & problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain.

    Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words: woman is fickle; Bergman is a God, but I’m a Schlemiel; artistically oriented intellectuals, who are financially stable & secure, seek the meaning of life & find there is no meaning in it, but they can at least fill a gaping hole in their existences by getting laid (great looking rich & intellectually pretentious WASPettes are preferred); sex & death are the themes- but the Russians had already said everything that can be said about them, so we may as well have a good time, poking fun at Russkies; there could be something deeper in all, but I can’t see it and, besides, the surface is too interesting.

    • Replies: @Ian Smith
    Woody Allen loved Ingmar Bergman so much that his homage to Bergman (Interiors) had dialogue that sounded like it was translated from Swedish.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Good comment.
    , @syonredux
    I prefer Woody Allen's less typical stuff. For me, his best films are The Purple Rose of Cairo (glittering fantasy vs grimy reality)and Radio Days (heart-felt evocation of a vanished time and place):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC_hRDO7Hk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xioICtn1a4I

  21. @Steve Sailer
    I think Christopher Nolan's movie-every-2-years schedule was too quick for him. Dark Knight and Inception were very good but he had fit and finish problems with the last Batman and Interstellar. Then he took an extra 6 or 8 months or so for Dunkirk and was back in his groove. His next one, "Tenet," is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.

    Dark Knight and Inception were very good but he had fit and finish problems with the last Batman and Interstellar.

    At 13 on imdb top movies ever for Interstellar, do you really think some more buffing was in order?

  22. And yes, one of Eastwood’s better movies is “Play Misty for me”; others are frequently too preachy & schematic (Gran Torino, Invictus, Million Dollar Baby); “Unforgiven” is a good film, but basically a stylized faux-naturalist American version of all Spaghetti tropes; “Space Cowboys” is an entertaining homage to the growing power of decrepitude; “Mystic River” is a movie of unbelievable badness I find it hard to believe it was taken so seriously.

  23. Uh, the much maligned Rueben’s vase? The young woman in the hat or the old hag in profile? These are deliberately ambiguous having a double meaning with each being valid rather than unintentionally ambiguous. Maybe this doesn’t affect your meaning…

    It’s amazing that a hack like Eastwood ever has an artistic success. Every Which Way but Loose! Didn’t he kill a family of Hmong squatters in Gran Torino? Interesting concept, really. Bronco Billy was weirdly good in a grainy 70s way. The Bridges of Madison County was good if only for the artistic illusion that a couple of old, er, middle-aged goats would be sexy enough for a torrid affair.

  24. @danand

    “Suddenly, I was overcome by a gestalt: The profiles turned into a Rubin vase. I realized that I had nothing other than my now-shattered overconfidence.”
     
    Had no guess as to what a Rubin vase was, so of course did a Wiki consult:

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1TW23

    “Water sculpture features a reverse profile of 19th c. abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in the black granite area. Design: Bill Taylor, Ross Miller”
     
    And there he is, abolitionist Garrison clear as day right there in the siding.


    Richard Jewel may be a flop financially, but the good news is it’s studio, Warner Bros is no Paramount. Unlike Paramount, Warner Bros is fully woke, employing plenty of women directors:

    “Paramount’s current 2020 film slate includes 16 films, and exactly one of them is directed by a woman: Reed Morano’s Blake Lively-starrer “The Rhythm Section.””
     
    And speaking of Paramount, it’s just about that time again, for feeling the need, the need for speed:

    https://youtu.be/g4U4BQW9OEk

    … it’s just about that time again, for feeling the need, the need for speed:

    The original movie with Tom Cruise was damn near 35 years ago. Let me tell you something, Danand, when Tom Cruise says he “feels the need for speed” ‘these days, it just means he’s going to drink a can of Red Bull with his Geritol in the morning.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
    Unfortunately when he feels the need for speed, he will get it satisfied by ripping through the streets of my hometown.
    https://popculture.com/celebrity/2018/07/28/tom-cruise-new-florida-penthouse-scientology-headquarters/
  25. @Mr McKenna

    The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.
     
    All I can say about the Deep State is that some parts are further over the cataract than others. But they're all corrupt. Worth repeating Judge Collyer's words here again:

    "The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General's] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a 'populist' institution itself.

    the FBI spent six years tormenting bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill before paying him about $5 million for their abuse.
     
    One of many problems with government agents--along with the fact that so many are effectively unaccountable--is that on the rare occasions when they are made to pay, it's actually the taxpayers who pay. And just as they know they're untouchable--the worst that might happen is a reprimand in their file--these agents know that others will pay the bill. This knowledge informs their every action.

    Judge Collier has been rubber stamping FISA requests the entire time she’s been on the FISA court. Glad to see she’s doing her part to cover up the corruption.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Said it three years ago.

    Impeach Roberts.

    Weak chiefs invite challenges (which is what this sort of brazen corruption is).

    , @JoeFour
    I think odds are that the FISA court was in on the scam from the get-go and Judge Collier is exercising pretended outrage and, accordingly, has written a good, old-fashioned CYA memo. Similarly, the IG report characterizes 17 items as "mistakes", that taken together, are clearly evidentiary examples of political basis and malice aforethought. We live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world with no way out, that is, unless we abolish FISA, the FBI, and the CIA ... and that would be just for starters.
  26. @SFG
    I don't have the platform, but anyone want to try to kick off a meme of seeing this instead of Star Wars? It'll be easy to get tickets, and you can support one of Hollywood's few right-wing directors.

    I got no meme, SFG, but y’all have convinced me to go watch this movie, and that’s even before reading Mr. Sailer’s review in Takimag.

    I just wanted to get a word in on the “intelligence” community stuff mentioned. Perhaps the FBI had had its act together till more recently, at least until the AA really kicked in, but the CIA? They’ve been fucking up most of the operations they get involved in. (They’ll tell you that it’s because the successful ones are not known about. BS.) For all that money, over 40 years, could they have known the real state of the Soviet economy and maybe given us the time the USSR would break up within, I dunno, +/- a DECADE?!

    I want my money back.

    • Replies: @SFG
    They screwed up the Bay of Pigs, and that was before AA.

    My best guess is given the relative insular nature of Americans, we just don't do foreign intelligence all that well. The Brits, the French, and the Russians all have extensive experience with other countries that are peer competitors going back centuries...Americans literally have to go 'overseas'.

    On the other hand, being isolated also means we don't have to fight wars on our soil. So there is that.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    They’ve been fucking up most of the operations they get involved in. (They’ll tell you that it’s because the successful ones are not known about. BS.)
     
    True.
  27. @Steve Sailer
    I'm gonna need to subscribe to The New Yorker just to make sure I have full-time access to Richard Brody movie reviews.

    Obviously as a critic you can pick your battles, but I for one would be interested to see your review of “Frozen 2”.

    I don’t want to rant, (though I suppose I will), but personally I simply could not believe how bad it was. We’re talking about the bizarre confluence of a billion-dollar pop franchise and also an extraordinary work of art, you’d expect that there would be a bit of carefulness here, but no.

    The exact same creative team who had produced a masterpiece had five years and a giant pile of money to try and come up with something at least respectable, and instead they produced… this. I guess it’s sort of like the random way how lightning strikes, John Lennon himself could not tell why “Tomorrow Never Knows”‘was so great, and “Wild Honeypie” was garbage, and then “Polythene Pam” which was every bit as trivial, was somehow brilliant in spite of itself.

    Granted a sequel is nearly always a lesser thing, and the original Frozen was sort of a fluke: forty or fifty years in the making, even the great Walt Disney brooded on “The Snow Queen” for decades and still couldn’t figure out what to do with it, then the great John Lasseter, probably the best storytelling mind of our era, did a complete 180 on the nature of the story once he heard the incredible score that he had not expected to hear. Frozen is this weird combination of a charming romantic adventure-comedy and the most shocking psychological horror of our time.

    So now as a follow-up we get some dumb self-conscious banalities, and mandatory charmless diversities. Hmmm.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    "Frozen" is well done and had catchy songs but has very little to do with the original story "The Snow Queen" by Andersen. Really, the story is just a pretext, as there's almost nothing in common in terms of plot or even characters, setting, etc.

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.

    I don't know about this sequel but likely it's even more removed from the source.
    , @Danindc
    Interesting take. I will say that the song “Let It Go” is amazing but it’s too hard core for a 5 year old. so many soaring emotions in that song. Breeding a generation of psychotic divas.
    , @Moses
    Took my kids to "Frozen 2." Visually beautiful, but otherwise total garbage.

    Not only did the story make no sense, but it was anti-White PC through and through. Consider:

    - 1850s Norway town about 25% brown and black (Original "Frozen" took a LOT of heat for being all White -- das ist verboten!). One main character, a military officer, is Black. In Norway. Because, you know, Norway has ALWAYS been diverse.

    - [Disney's Polynesian-themed "Moana" from a few years ago featured only Polynesians, no Whites or Blacks or other races, so I guess it was "100% diverse and therefore a-ok. All the main actors/actresses in "Moana" had polynesian origins as well. Same for old and rebooted "Mulan" -- no Whites means "100% diverse and therefore ok!. "Diverse" doesn't mean "multiple races" it just means "fewer or no Whites".]

    - Turns out Elsa and Anna's mother was from an indigenous minority Northern tribe

    - Northern tribe ostensibly modeled after Scandinavia's minority Sami people. Sami look White, but in this film they look like Eskimos with Asian features. Yet mother and Elsa/Anna look "hideously White" despite their Asiatic Eskimo blood.

    - Elsa/Anna's deceased grandfather, the king, falsely befriended the Northern tribe and built a dam to ruin their lands. Then under the guise of a friendship leader meeting, White grandfather king literally stabbed Eskimo tribal leader in the back and led his army to a surprise attack the Eskimos.

    - Anna realizes that to undo this wrong she must destroy the dam. She knows that destroying the dam will unleash a great wall of water that will smash her town of Arendell and possibly kill many of her own people. But that doesn't matter, the Great White Crime of her ancestor must be paid for.

    - Anna abandons her soon-to-be fiance without even attempting to locate him. It's clear she ranks him a pretty low priority in her life. Later she apologizes to him and he responds "That's ok. My love is not fragile."

    Yeah, it was that bad.

    Fortunately I think all the PC and anti-White messages sailed over the heads of my kids. Still, it got me thinking how do I protect my kids from this dreck? Move to the moon? It's everywhere, all the time.
  28. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:

    I had finished grad school and was living in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2002 when the Beltway sniper was picking off people at gas stations and store parking lots. Like everyone else in the area I followed the case very closely. In the October 14 shooting in Manassas, VA I even drove to the area right after the news broke to watch the dragnet. I saw how piss-poor it was. On one corner there were dozens of guys in FBI, DEA, ATF,… flak jackets quickly scanning cars with flashlights. It was clear they were looking for a particular description.

    I devoured all news. I watched CNN, Fox News, MSNBC nonstop. I clearly recall every criminal profiler, including former FBI profilers Clint Van Zandt and Robert Ressler, as well as Pat Brown, say with an air of metaphysical certitude that it was a white male. Brown went further and said it was probably a white nationalist type. Anyway, I think we know the rest of the story.

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-12-15-0212160297-story.html

    Facing the Beltway snipers, profilers were dead wrong
    Elsbeth Bothe
    THE BALTIMORE SUN
    December 15, 2002

    The typical mass murderer is extraordinarily ordinary,” says James Alan Fox, author of books titled The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder, (Pearson Education, 2000) and Overkill: Mass Murder & Serial Killing Exposed, (Da Capo Press, 1994). He is also a teacher with a textbook: How to Work with the Media (Sage Press, 1993), and maintains a self-promoting Web site named Wolfman Productions. Facilely exploiting his experience in both areas, Fox had previously managed to become a talking head on high-rated broadcast shows.

    During the tempestuous three weeks of this October, while the media raged and the Beltway Sniper rampaged, Fox, his colleagues and competitors were truly in their glory. A cross section of ordinary people were being slaughtered as they went their usual ways within range of an assault rifle. That was the only link connecting the crimes — ten dead, three critically wounded — pedestrians, motorists pumping gas, shoppers, a schoolboy, a bus driver. With little to supplement repetitious accounts of the continuing killings, the media offered limitless space for the speculations of self-aggrandizing experts on whodunnit.

    “He stops and shoots and doesn’t hear the screams,” Fox dramatically divulged to his alarmed audience. “Others enjoy squeezing the last breath from their victim. It makes it easier for him psychologically to murder.” Clifton Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler, agreed: “This is someone who is cold, who is calculating, who has the skills and doesn’t care who they hurt.”

    “This could be a disgruntled employee who was fired. It is someone who is angry,” offered Brent Turvey, who wrote Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, (Academic Press, 1999) Turvey was echoed by Robert K. Ressler, best-selling author of I Have Lived in the Monster (St Martin’s Press, 1998), and Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI, (St.Martin’s Press, 1993).

    Where does the Beltway Sniper hang out? “He’s a weekday warrior. Even snipers have jobs,” declared Fox. On the theory that serial killers strike close to home, D. Kim Rossmo, author of Geographic Profiling (CRC Press, 1999), applied his computerized mapping techniques, which, according to him, narrow the police target by 95 percent on average. “The more killings you have, the better it works,” said the software manufacturer.

    Ressler lamented that there were “no behavioral clues at the scene.” Indeed, even the parameters of the sites were uncertain — from where were the shots fired? There were no eyewitnesses, just bodies hit with matching bullets, and sightings of a motor vehicle thought to be a light-colored truck or van. “That vehicle will be in a garage or a lake,” predicted Van Zandt.

    The experts were neither misogynists nor racists. They all agreed with Van Zandt that “this is something white males do.” Fox and Van Zandt, along with most others…

    • Replies: @Alden
    I remember the DC sniper case well. The White man in a White van turned out to be 2 black men in a dark blue sedan. One black man was even an illegal immigrant abandoned by his mamma as a teen; something black mammas do often.

    And an ordinary White man, a truck driver found them when the heavily women/minority fed state and local cops couldn’t.
    , @No Jack london
    Let's not forget the spectacular work of Police Chief Charles Moose.
    , @Mr. Anon
    FBI profilers got the Unibomber wrong too.
  29. Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words:

    That was more than a few words.

    Allen can’t compare to his idols Bergman or Fellini because he doesn’t really have a lot to say that he hasn’t said already in Love and Death, which might actually be his best film, even though, technically, he improved a lot since then, but in terms of content/themes, not all that much.

    Also, since he’s a superficial atheist, I doubt he can make really great movies, great art is related to religious experience. Not that you need to be a believer, but you need to have a certain type of mind that is, I think, related to that of religious mystics (many of Fellini and Bergman’s films were exactly about their struggle between their religious upbringing and their more skeptical beliefs later on).

    Allen doesn’t even believe in art, but he also doesn’t make films that are very popular with the general public, well, at least since the early 90s (with a few rare exceptions). Honestly, besides the fact that he’s Jewish and so he has friends in Hollywood, I don’t even know why he still makes movies or why people gave him money to make one film every year for decades when other directors get burned by just one bad/unpopular picture. Do his films even pay themselves? I know they are cheap, and he has a certain number of followers, but still.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Well, this is about an Eastwood's movie, so....

    Alright, just a few words.

    1. I agree that Love and Death is probably Allen's best movie (I would add Annie Hall, and perhaps Zelig, plus two or three other early movies, especially outrageously funny film about Sex)

    2. he is/was frequently wrongly perceived as an artistic filmmaker, something which he is not (although perhaps sometimes he aspired to be). So, he can be appreciated justly when we put him in the right perspective, a cinematic connoisseur & a literate person whose mode of expression is film; he enjoyed all the fuss that goes with the celebrity status (who can blame him?)

    3. I disagree about religion etc. Besides, Fellini, although he dabbled with Jung's ideas & LSD, was not religious as a filmmaker; his movies are even more desperate & bleaker than those made by a skillful healthy-minded atheist. True, Fellini was a master- just I don't find his obsessions (clowns, for instance) interesting: he talks, I hear him & don't bother to listen anymore.

    Allen's movies move in the intersection of sentimentality, nostalgia, parody & absurdist fantasy. These elements may not fit well altogether, but they, sometimes- work. He's not a major director, but is much more than a minor imitator. As I said above, he has a vision to convey, and that vision, although limited, has a charming quality I don't quite see in another film authors.

    4. as for Jewish angle, I would say that Allen is the best counter-argument against the claims that Jews control film industry & push their agenda on the world. Such a gifted author like Allen would, if that were the case, have been showered with money for his movies- and he barely gets scraps. A lunatic idiot like Tommy Wiseau succeeded to invest $ 6 M in his masterpiece of how-not-to-do-films "The Room".

    All said, I like Allen's movies. True, I am not following his career; I find his films about white bourgeois, artsy & sensitive people entertaining-they have a NYC-European air about them. And, last but not least- I'm not bombarded by third worlders who populate most US film production in past 20 & more years.
  30. @The Alarmist
    Has anyone noticed that nearly every high-profile "terrorist" arrest announced by the FBI in the past 15 years involved the FBI arming the "terrorist" with dummy weapons before nabbing him? This seems to work better than trying to frame some poor slob without much evidence.

    Yeah, it’s been great. I feel safer knowing some patsies are in jail until some genuine “terrorists” show up. And I don’t understand the complaining. Oswald Patsy got gut shot. These guys are getting 3 hots and cots.

    This “security expert” explains it brilliantly –

  31. Clint Eastwood is a good director. He is not a writer. He has never been credited with a single script in his entire career. Analysis of his career should take that in consideration. If his output decreased in quality, one should pin the blame of that on the fact that there simply are no good writers anymore. Directing shouldn’t get worse with the years. It’s a job that gains enormously with experience. The talent just doesn’t go away. Writing is trickier. Not only can an individual become “empty” of things to say, or unmotivated to say them, but that can happen to a whole society, as seems to be the case. The culture has changed. Some things just cannot be said anymore, and the education of the young is such that they do not even feel the inclination to say them. And there’s also the fact that there is now one hundred years of old movies to choose from and cinema-quality TV sets to watch them on. Supply is dependent on demand, and the demand for good new movies is just not the same as it was in the past.

  32. @Bardon Kaldian
    Eastwood, as a director, is a great entertainer. I've seen not few of his movies, but I doubt any one of them is permanent (in that industry of impermanence). His movies are about physical & moral masculinity & its growing insecurities as age & decrepitude start, incrementally, to undermine them. His general world-view is libertarian; he is not artsy-fartsy; sometimes, he's ironic & self-deprecating; but, generally, he enjoys working with actors & the whole business of filmmaking- his opus as a director is a continuation, expansion & problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain.


    Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words: woman is fickle; Bergman is a God, but I'm a Schlemiel; artistically oriented intellectuals, who are financially stable & secure, seek the meaning of life & find there is no meaning in it, but they can at least fill a gaping hole in their existences by getting laid (great looking rich & intellectually pretentious WASPettes are preferred); sex & death are the themes- but the Russians had already said everything that can be said about them, so we may as well have a good time, poking fun at Russkies; there could be something deeper in all, but I can't see it and, besides, the surface is too interesting.

    Woody Allen loved Ingmar Bergman so much that his homage to Bergman (Interiors) had dialogue that sounded like it was translated from Swedish.

  33. Now you see it. Now you dont:

  34. @danand

    “We hear constantly these days about Baby Boomers, but I keep seeing movies directed by or starring amazingly old yet still competent pre-Boomers such as Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer. When will they shuffle off and finally allow us poor Boomers our moment in the spotlight?”
     
    LOL, don’t hold your breath, no stage left for the 3 aBigos, Bernie, Bloomberg & Biden; all anything but Silent.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VmdA

    Speaking of Generations, surprised me a bit to see that Cooper Hefner enlisted in the Army (US). Especially so coming on the heels of his recent nuptials. Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation. More likely just a one off blip, Cooper may have decided politics is his future, and needs to polish his bona fides.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VKnG

    Cooper & wife, Harry Potter actress Scarlett Bryne

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1WUBT

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.

    LMFAO.

    Go interact with several dozen Millennials and get back to us.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    There’ll be better than the baby boomers (which is a bar passed by essentially every other generation.) The socio/economic fuel to go “booma booma” just isn’t there. Even the most privileged hipsters are really lesser yuppies with far more diminished economic prospects. The material stuff in “LA Law” “Dallas” and “Thirtysomthing” demonstrates a much greater disparity now than when they aired. Essentially everyone I know (in terms of same age bracket) is still living in some “Scott Pilgrim” type apartment. So the tolerance for snobby boomerish behavior is low. If hard times make great men, the Millennials will possess the power of sobriety.

    https://youtu.be/UqTOZ3sCt_0

    https://youtu.be/LnTIV2A-vqI
  35. @Redneck farmer
    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.

    Yeah, wonder how much of the anti-White/anti-American agitprop pumped out by our putatively elite institutions is some sort of elaborate Haka Dance to terrorize non-whites.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  36. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s defense of Kathy Scruggs was absurd. It included the following passage about her getting scoops from law enforcement:

    “Whenever something would happen, the police would call Kathy. They always trusted her to get the scoop because they knew it would be handled right. She was proud the FBI called her about Jewell. She was proud of the way she reported it to begin with.”

    She was essentially a PR person for the FBI. It also conceded that she was a hard partying, pill popping drunk who was once found naked in a taxi at 3 AM, but she never would have slept with a source for a scoop and it is slander that Eastwood put that in his movie. They also don’t understand why the average person thinks they are pushing an agenda and are not a fair and impartial source of factual information for the public.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Kathy Scruggs was a whore who knew how to use her body to "get the story"-nothing more.

    Eastwood correctly exposed her "journalistic talents" for all to see.

    THAT is why the AJC wants blood.

    Eastwood exposed the TRUTH about "journalism" in general.
  37. https://spectator.org/nixons-resignation-reconsidered/

    “At one point, Cox became so worried about the sustainability of Judge Sirica’s one-sided rulings in favor of the prosecutors that he feared their conviction verdicts would be overturned on appeal. He secretly approached Chief Appellate Judge David Bazelon to explain how the judicial panels could be stacked to maintain Bazelon’s slim one-vote liberal majority. Sure enough, each of the 12 appeals from Sirica’s criminal trials was heard by the full nine-judge appellate court, sitting en banc — a circumstance unprecedented in any federal appellate court anywhere in the country, before or since.”

    • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
    Thanks for the link, that was extremely interesting.

    One of the ironies of living under the power of the duopoly is how ridiculous it is that this kind of thing, using power improperly to maintain that power, is treated as blasphemous, heinous, anti-American, whereas actually doing evil things is, worst case, a lapse in judgment.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3
    I hate Nixon, but he definitely got screwed by the deep state.
  38. Just before hitting the Publish button, I paused to perform a reality check: What would I find if I looked at my evidence about this poor bastard once again, but this time from a skeptical perspective?

    We live in a society where the guy who says that has to go begging for quarters, but the guy who doesn’t gets six figures for a one-hour speech.

  39. @Mr McKenna

    The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.
     
    All I can say about the Deep State is that some parts are further over the cataract than others. But they're all corrupt. Worth repeating Judge Collyer's words here again:

    "The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General's] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a 'populist' institution itself.

    the FBI spent six years tormenting bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill before paying him about $5 million for their abuse.
     
    One of many problems with government agents--along with the fact that so many are effectively unaccountable--is that on the rare occasions when they are made to pay, it's actually the taxpayers who pay. And just as they know they're untouchable--the worst that might happen is a reprimand in their file--these agents know that others will pay the bill. This knowledge informs their every action.

    Although sometimes, as with the “Never Trump” stuff, this is politically motivated, most of these problems arise from a flaw in human psychology. The police are supposed to be skeptical and have an open mind about proof, but the way the human mind actually works is that FIRST you make up your mind about the guilty party and THEN you look for evidence to confirm it. And once a crime is “solved” then the police don’t have to do any more hard work to find the guilty party – they’ve got their man and got him quick – excellent police work!

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.

    Most of the time, the cops really do pick out the guilty party on the first try, but if they happen to focus on someone who is innocent it’s a Kafkaesque nightmare because their innocence is in effect irrelevant to the cops.

    • Agree: Old Prude
    • Replies: @Marty
    Exception: Mark Fuhrman.
    , @Anonymous

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.
     
    Do we see this in World War II historiography?
  40. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    I remember Eastwood as Rowdy Yates on the Rawhide TV show. In the mid-60’s he became The Man With No Name, then Hang Em’ High. A few years late, Dirty Harry.

    By the early 70’s it was being said Eastwood had created a persona “that fascinated the world.”

    Soon after he started directing himself.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies? Kind of a bizarre turn he took there for awhile.
  41. @eah
    Interesting (or ironic, however you want to look at it): currently, on the sidebar of your Richard Jewell review, it shows as trending George Zimmerman's Lonely Quest for Justice.

    It's not clear which is sadder: how Jewell was treated damals by authorities and the media, or the fact he died at such a young age from typical diseases of modern civilization.

    Jewell did manage to wring settlements out of many of the organizations he targeted with lawsuits, so maybe there's hope yet for Zimmerman and his "quest".

    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities."

    The very attitude that allowed the Neo cons to con us into the invasion of Iraq. You're a thoughtful and bright guy, Jack. That sentence is unworthy of you.
    , @ben tillman

    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.
     
    The law says otherwise, and I agree.
  42. @Bardon Kaldian
    Eastwood, as a director, is a great entertainer. I've seen not few of his movies, but I doubt any one of them is permanent (in that industry of impermanence). His movies are about physical & moral masculinity & its growing insecurities as age & decrepitude start, incrementally, to undermine them. His general world-view is libertarian; he is not artsy-fartsy; sometimes, he's ironic & self-deprecating; but, generally, he enjoys working with actors & the whole business of filmmaking- his opus as a director is a continuation, expansion & problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain.


    Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words: woman is fickle; Bergman is a God, but I'm a Schlemiel; artistically oriented intellectuals, who are financially stable & secure, seek the meaning of life & find there is no meaning in it, but they can at least fill a gaping hole in their existences by getting laid (great looking rich & intellectually pretentious WASPettes are preferred); sex & death are the themes- but the Russians had already said everything that can be said about them, so we may as well have a good time, poking fun at Russkies; there could be something deeper in all, but I can't see it and, besides, the surface is too interesting.

    Good comment.

  43. @Jack D
    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It's not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.

    “It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.”

    The very attitude that allowed the Neo cons to con us into the invasion of Iraq. You’re a thoughtful and bright guy, Jack. That sentence is unworthy of you.

  44. @iffen
    but it’s above average for an Eastwood movie.

    Gran Torino was a great movie. He just screwed it up by not being able to come up with a realistic ending.

    I saw G/T and thought it sucked donkey balls. Not only that, the early 70’s Ford Gran Torino was no muscle car icon; it was an emissions-choked hunk of inflated sheet metal.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    That's not the point of it. The character is a retired Ford worker, his Gran Torino is a major part of his life, and the "hey you (refugee immigrant) kids, keep your hands off my car" disrupts it. It is about the character; the emissions-choked sheet metal is just the McGuffin.
  45. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.

    According to theory, the free press is supposed to be more than a public-relations agency that blindly repeats press releases handed out by Feds. All that stuff about “skeptical truth-seeking reporters” that’s in history books about Watergate and Viet Nam, just doesn’t seem to show up in real life. Was it ever real?

    • Replies: @Arthur Pierce
    “Was it ever real?”

    No.
  46. From the review:

    Remarkably, Eastwood is likely a more consistent director now in his later 80s than in his early 80s when he made some forgettable movies like Hereafter and J. Edgar before his 2014 comeback American Sniper.

    What I find most remarkable about Eastwood is how productive he has been since becoming a senior citizen.

    Clint turned 65 in 1995. Since that year he has directed 22 films and produced two others. He has also acted in ten of those movies. And he shows no sign of slowing down. He directs a film almost every year.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Don't forget that Michelangelo died when he was 89, still chiseling until the very end. His last work was basically expressionist, c. 350 years before expressionism appeared on the world stage.

    Just, I wonder- why wasn't he bored, after 7-8 decades of doing the same damn thing....

  47. @iffen
    but it’s above average for an Eastwood movie.

    Gran Torino was a great movie. He just screwed it up by not being able to come up with a realistic ending.

    The Real Prescence debate never really dies.

  48. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.

    Similar to the Beltway Sniper case. DC police chief Moose flat out lied when he claimed the murderer was obviously a frustrated white male over 40. This was not just talk. There were rifle owners in the NoVa area who had cops and Feds show up at their house, demanding an inventory of rifles. Some had their carbines taken away to labs for test firing, to compare bullets against evidence bullets. Imagine if the cops showed up to take castings of your car tires and, eh, they just decided to take the whole car for a few days. No worries, eh?

    Then we found out it was a weirdo, gay, black Muslim from the Pacific Northwest. Anyone recall any backtracking by Chief Moose, the rest of the DC cop establishment, the Feds or (laughing) the press?

    • Replies: @David In TN
    Regarding the Beltway Sniper, the press, etc took the position "Even though the killer turned out to be black, the profile was still correct."

    One of the apologias for black crime has been "All serial killers are white males." This lie has appeared in "news" stories and feature films.

    The blogger Countenance has said black serial killers benefited from the "quasi-official line" that there were no black serial killers.

    Nicholas Stix has described how "FBI Profiler" Robert Ressler became a media darling with the "no nonwhite serial killers" trope.
  49. @Dumbo

    both Eastwood and Allen see filmmaking as an inherently hit-or-miss enterprise in which sheer quantity is the surest hope of some being of quality.
     
    Eastwood's earlier film (The Mule) was quite weak (saw it on a plane). Interesting concept but below average script with awkward dialogue. I'm surprised it's the same screenwriter of Gran Torino. This new one seems more interesting, maybe I'll watch it.

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen's own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn't made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.

    Scorsese has made some good or at least interesting films in his old age, but he doesn't make a new film every year as Eastwood or Allen.

    Personally, I think that making too many (bad) movies weakens your "brand" as director. You don't need to be a Kubrick, but making a film every 2-3 years seems to be the right balance between getting some quality and not being forgotten.

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen’s own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn’t made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.

    Allen was MeToo’d – methinketh . At least I remember seeing a story about how some studio or service (Netflix?) had dumped his latest project. Glad Hillary’s shocking loss proved such a bracing clarifier, else it probably would have taken until their diamond wedding anniversary before we finally realized Allen was schtupping his step-daughter and we could righteously unperson his a$$.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    It was Amazon. The film ("A Rainy Day in New York") was not released in the U.S., but it's right now being shown abroad (Europe and South America). So far the reviews are mostly negative, but some people seem to have liked it. I don't know. Haven't seen even the trailer but I'm pretty sure it is not among his best work.

    But yeah, after this problem it doesn't look like he will be making any film soon, unless Europeans want to bank him. Or perhaps the Chinese?
  50. @Abe

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen’s own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn’t made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.
     
    Allen was MeToo’d - methinketh . At least I remember seeing a story about how some studio or service (Netflix?) had dumped his latest project. Glad Hillary’s shocking loss proved such a bracing clarifier, else it probably would have taken until their diamond wedding anniversary before we finally realized Allen was schtupping his step-daughter and we could righteously unperson his a$$.

    It was Amazon. The film (“A Rainy Day in New York”) was not released in the U.S., but it’s right now being shown abroad (Europe and South America). So far the reviews are mostly negative, but some people seem to have liked it. I don’t know. Haven’t seen even the trailer but I’m pretty sure it is not among his best work.

    But yeah, after this problem it doesn’t look like he will be making any film soon, unless Europeans want to bank him. Or perhaps the Chinese?

  51. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    Clint had such a productive and long career that it’s easy to forget some very good films he has done.

    The Beguiled (1970) is superb, but no one talks about it anymore. Two enjoyable Eastwood films in which he was not the main star, but just one star among fine ensemble casts were Kelly’s Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968). I would admit, however, that Clint is probably the least enjoyable part of Kelly’s Heroes. He just doesn’t fit his role.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    Clint being awesome in Where Eagles Dare:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdaeBiF__u4

    "We got company."

    Indeed.
    , @danand

    "Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned."
     
    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be "that silly ape". Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn't sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.

    I think I'm repeating myself here, with an Eastwood anecdote, but I'll risk it. A girl from my high school class, and good friend of my sisters, had a yearly "date" with Eastwood over the span of a decade (80's). Just once annually, and no, I know not what they did during the encounters; maybe just said hello and held hands? Anyway she was a classic "blond bombshell" and married a guy right out of HS. Her husband was an extremely popular guy from my HS class, but what I remember most was the $22.50 an hour wage he earned at age 18 driving a delivery truck for a beer company.

    Eastwood = Gunslinger, who liked women?

    https://youtu.be/AKu-Cq7QglQ
    , @Mr. Anon
    Joe Kiddwas good. The Eiger Sanction, though a ridiculous premise, was entertaining and funny. Escape from Alcatraz was also good.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.
     
    Same here. I think it was because it appealed to blue-collar people like me. Generally class plays a much larger role in opinions than anyone is willing to admit.
  52. @Desiderius
    https://spectator.org/nixons-resignation-reconsidered/

    "At one point, Cox became so worried about the sustainability of Judge Sirica’s one-sided rulings in favor of the prosecutors that he feared their conviction verdicts would be overturned on appeal. He secretly approached Chief Appellate Judge David Bazelon to explain how the judicial panels could be stacked to maintain Bazelon’s slim one-vote liberal majority. Sure enough, each of the 12 appeals from Sirica’s criminal trials was heard by the full nine-judge appellate court, sitting en banc — a circumstance unprecedented in any federal appellate court anywhere in the country, before or since."

    Thanks for the link, that was extremely interesting.

    One of the ironies of living under the power of the duopoly is how ridiculous it is that this kind of thing, using power improperly to maintain that power, is treated as blasphemous, heinous, anti-American, whereas actually doing evil things is, worst case, a lapse in judgment.

  53. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is simply outstanding, a perfect gem of a movie. Jeff Bridges’ was particularly good. It might be Cimino’s best work:

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    The late Michael Cimino has an interesting body of work. The Deer Hunter (1978) is his masterpiece. Supposedly the director's cut of Heaven's Gate (1980) is another of his films that aspires to greatness. I've only seen the studio cut which contains some beautiful images and interesting scenes but has continuity problems. My favorite Cimino film is the flawed Year of the Dragon (1985): supercharged action scenes, a very politically incorrect (but accurate) screenplay by Oliver Stone, and an intense lead in Mickey Rourke (with the fine face God gave him before he mutilated himself).
    , @Anonymous

    Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is simply outstanding, a perfect gem of a movie.
     
    But even here, there are signs of Cimino's megalocinemania. Though a movie about crooks and caper gone bad, it features vista after vista of the great American West. It's like he wanted to do HEAVEN'S GATE already as background.

    Was it meant to suggest tension between urban crime thriller and the Western? Noir characters in a Western universe?

    Though SICILIAN was a bomb, it looks pretty good now. And though most of the actors were not Italian, the guy who plays the old mafia chief is outstanding.

    https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-sicilian/Film?oid=1064734
  54. @Bardon Kaldian
    Eastwood, as a director, is a great entertainer. I've seen not few of his movies, but I doubt any one of them is permanent (in that industry of impermanence). His movies are about physical & moral masculinity & its growing insecurities as age & decrepitude start, incrementally, to undermine them. His general world-view is libertarian; he is not artsy-fartsy; sometimes, he's ironic & self-deprecating; but, generally, he enjoys working with actors & the whole business of filmmaking- his opus as a director is a continuation, expansion & problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain.


    Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words: woman is fickle; Bergman is a God, but I'm a Schlemiel; artistically oriented intellectuals, who are financially stable & secure, seek the meaning of life & find there is no meaning in it, but they can at least fill a gaping hole in their existences by getting laid (great looking rich & intellectually pretentious WASPettes are preferred); sex & death are the themes- but the Russians had already said everything that can be said about them, so we may as well have a good time, poking fun at Russkies; there could be something deeper in all, but I can't see it and, besides, the surface is too interesting.

    I prefer Woody Allen’s less typical stuff. For me, his best films are The Purple Rose of Cairo (glittering fantasy vs grimy reality)and Radio Days (heart-felt evocation of a vanished time and place):

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    I didn't see the latter movie, but it seems to confirm that Allen is a combination of parodist, fantasist & a humorous nostalgic. He evidently likes filmmaking in all aspects & is much more educated than most successful directors. To me, his sensibility is quintessentially Jewish, not only because he frequently references it in many movies, but even more because of intonation I associate with modern Jewish artistic culture: self-deflation, absurdist parody, constant repudiation of the heroic element in life, bittersweet reflections on life's deceptions, flashes of fantasy (and frequently much more than flashes),..

    When he tries to be serious in producing moral & existential drama- he fails. But, when he mixes humor, nostalgia & a staccato of classic film references- he succeeds, mostly.
    , @Jack D
    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it's all downhill from there. Sleeper, Bananas and Take the Money and Run are all comedy classics. The send up of Castro in Bananas is almost as good as Chaplin's send up of Hitler.

    Allen at least has some self awareness - in "Deconstructing Harry" , Allen plays a movie director much like himself and people keep coming up to him and saying, "I love your movies, especially the early funny ones."
  55. @Mr McKenna

    The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.
     
    All I can say about the Deep State is that some parts are further over the cataract than others. But they're all corrupt. Worth repeating Judge Collyer's words here again:

    "The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General's] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a 'populist' institution itself.

    the FBI spent six years tormenting bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill before paying him about $5 million for their abuse.
     
    One of many problems with government agents--along with the fact that so many are effectively unaccountable--is that on the rare occasions when they are made to pay, it's actually the taxpayers who pay. And just as they know they're untouchable--the worst that might happen is a reprimand in their file--these agents know that others will pay the bill. This knowledge informs their every action.

    The Deep State is multi-layered. Check out the Senior Executive Service (SES) which was created in 1979 to form a kind of aristocracy within the federal bureaucracy. They are all political appointees. They meddle in the actions of civilian intelligence agencies the same way retired generals insert themselves into Pentagon operations through the medium of DOD contractors. When peering into the innards of the coup d’état of Trump one can detect the fingerprints of the SES.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    It's almost as if they want to take....Executive Action...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWoqCVY9x0Y
    , @Anon
    Most SES are career civil service, not politicals.
  56. @Jack D
    Although sometimes, as with the "Never Trump" stuff, this is politically motivated, most of these problems arise from a flaw in human psychology. The police are supposed to be skeptical and have an open mind about proof, but the way the human mind actually works is that FIRST you make up your mind about the guilty party and THEN you look for evidence to confirm it. And once a crime is "solved" then the police don't have to do any more hard work to find the guilty party - they've got their man and got him quick - excellent police work!

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.

    Most of the time, the cops really do pick out the guilty party on the first try, but if they happen to focus on someone who is innocent it's a Kafkaesque nightmare because their innocence is in effect irrelevant to the cops.

    Exception: Mark Fuhrman.

    • LOL: Mr McKenna
  57. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    I thought A Perfect World was a great movie. I never understood why it didn’t do better.

    Outlaw Josey Wales has some great tough guy dialogue.

    Should we bury them pilgrims Josey?

    Spit tobacco juice on dead guy’s forehead, then “the hell with them pilgrims. Buzzards gotta eat, same as the worms”.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    A Perfect World is summed up metaphorically during its scene where the trailer that has been getting pulled down the road by a pickup truck for half the movie becomes unhitched and comes to a bumpy stop in a field.

    When it comes to a bunch of bumbling white hicks who are in serious need of of a young hot Mary Sue to set them straight, Eastwood was a good decade ahead of his time. Costner was dull, but he has not stopped being dull since DWW.

    For me, Eastwood was mostly hit or miss. I loved Heartbreak Ridge, but hated American Sniper. Much (not all) of what he has done since The Unforgiven has been forgettable.
  58. @danand

    “We hear constantly these days about Baby Boomers, but I keep seeing movies directed by or starring amazingly old yet still competent pre-Boomers such as Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer. When will they shuffle off and finally allow us poor Boomers our moment in the spotlight?”
     
    LOL, don’t hold your breath, no stage left for the 3 aBigos, Bernie, Bloomberg & Biden; all anything but Silent.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VmdA

    Speaking of Generations, surprised me a bit to see that Cooper Hefner enlisted in the Army (US). Especially so coming on the heels of his recent nuptials. Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation. More likely just a one off blip, Cooper may have decided politics is his future, and needs to polish his bona fides.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VKnG

    Cooper & wife, Harry Potter actress Scarlett Bryne

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1WUBT

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.

    I am a Millennial. What does this mean, “become the next Greatest generation”? Does that mean my destiny is to destroy European civilization and kill millions of my fellow white Christians in exchange for nothing?

    I don’t mean to denigrate the service of my own relatives, of course, but this “Greatest Generation” stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype. As Paul Fussell related in his books, the goal of most people unfortunate enough to fight in Europe and Asia was to get home as quickly as possible and forget all about it. There were 12 million Americans in the armed services during the war, and fewer than 2 million volunteered. The rest were smart enough to be forcefully inducted. Over 45,000 refused to fight but served in non-combat roles; of those 45,000, a few thousand went to prison rather than serve at all. And many thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of soldiers deserted in Europe.*

    And judging by America’s continued insistence on dumb wars and poor foreign policy decisions, we’ve clearly done well in learning to forget.

    * See here: https://www.amazon.com/Deserters-Hidden-History-World-War/dp/0143125486

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @William Badwhite

    this “Greatest Generation” stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype
     
    When I hear it I like to point out "how could be they be so great if they raised the Boomers? Greatest generation, worst parents ever".
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Does that mean my destiny is to destroy European civilization and kill millions of my fellow white Christians in exchange for nothing?
     
    Right, because the pagan Nazis and the brutal Imperial Japanese were great defenders of European civilization and especially Christianity.

    fewer than 2 million volunteered
     
    My father, father-in-law, and all my uncles and my wife's uncles old enough to volunteer did so. They were there, you were not, and I can tell you that to a man they believed it was a struggle for civilization. They knew what Japan had done to China, and what Germany had done wherever they went. And they were right.

    You are thinking about the wrong war.
  59. @syonredux

    The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.
     
    Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is simply outstanding, a perfect gem of a movie. Jeff Bridges' was particularly good. It might be Cimino's best work:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQKDQCYsEZM

    The late Michael Cimino has an interesting body of work. The Deer Hunter (1978) is his masterpiece. Supposedly the director’s cut of Heaven’s Gate (1980) is another of his films that aspires to greatness. I’ve only seen the studio cut which contains some beautiful images and interesting scenes but has continuity problems. My favorite Cimino film is the flawed Year of the Dragon (1985): supercharged action scenes, a very politically incorrect (but accurate) screenplay by Oliver Stone, and an intense lead in Mickey Rourke (with the fine face God gave him before he mutilated himself).

  60. @David In TN
    I remember Eastwood as Rowdy Yates on the Rawhide TV show. In the mid-60's he became The Man With No Name, then Hang Em' High. A few years late, Dirty Harry.

    By the early 70's it was being said Eastwood had created a persona "that fascinated the world."

    Soon after he started directing himself.

    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies? Kind of a bizarre turn he took there for awhile.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    It was the most commercially successful turn Clint ever took in his long career. Those two movies were critically panned, but they were also the biggest box office successes Clint ever had.
    , @David In TN
    Eastwood apparently did the Phyloe Bedoe films to get away from Dirty Harry. After those he had some sub-par at the box office films, so he played Dirty Harry again in Sudden Impact.
    , @Anonymous

    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies?
     
    Still beats the Gipper with bonzo the chimp.

    The first EVERY WHICH movie is pretty fun.
  61. Some call ” Deep State” what really should be termed the Criminal State or the Real Government.

  62. Where’s Whiskey when you need him? Women hate, hate, HATE, white gamma males! If Richard Jewell had looked like Christopher Reeves, he’d have been an instant hero for the media and the FBI would have backed off.

    • Agree: Dumbo
    • LOL: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @David In TN
    If Richard Jewell had been black, he would have been the biggest hero in the world. The FBI would NEVER have suspected him.
    , @Whiskey
    Oh so true.
  63. @Pincher Martin
    Clint had such a productive and long career that it's easy to forget some very good films he has done.

    The Beguiled (1970) is superb, but no one talks about it anymore. Two enjoyable Eastwood films in which he was not the main star, but just one star among fine ensemble casts were Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968). I would admit, however, that Clint is probably the least enjoyable part of Kelly's Heroes. He just doesn't fit his role.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint's long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.

    Clint being awesome in Where Eagles Dare:

    “We got company.”

    Indeed.

    • Replies: @GeologyAnon
    Honestly that looks terrible. No hand grenades? No even attempt on the Heer to advance while suppressing the doorway? And the Foley effects ugh.

    I wonder if the video game industry is responsible for making a huge swath of mid century war movies completely unwatchable for zoomers and millennials. Not because of distraction but just shattering any versimilitude in these scenes. Still, I think pretty much anyone could see how dumb and implausible that scene is.
  64. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    “What are the best Eastwood-directed movies?”

    Haven’t seen The Mule (2018) yet. Would like to but it’s difficult seeing my favorite father figure looking so old and fragile. Today my favorite Eastwood-directed film is the violent weird western High Plains Drifter (1973). Tomorrow it’ll be The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). Sunday it’ll be the Boston Irish crime film Mystic River (2003).

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    You won't be missing much if you skip watching The Mule. I found it very contrived, implausible and somewhat slap dash. Completely forgettable except for how forgettable it was.
    , @JMcG
    I saw The Mule and enjoyed it very much. Not a masterpiece, certainly.
  65. @syonredux
    I prefer Woody Allen's less typical stuff. For me, his best films are The Purple Rose of Cairo (glittering fantasy vs grimy reality)and Radio Days (heart-felt evocation of a vanished time and place):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC_hRDO7Hk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xioICtn1a4I

    I didn’t see the latter movie, but it seems to confirm that Allen is a combination of parodist, fantasist & a humorous nostalgic. He evidently likes filmmaking in all aspects & is much more educated than most successful directors. To me, his sensibility is quintessentially Jewish, not only because he frequently references it in many movies, but even more because of intonation I associate with modern Jewish artistic culture: self-deflation, absurdist parody, constant repudiation of the heroic element in life, bittersweet reflections on life’s deceptions, flashes of fantasy (and frequently much more than flashes),..

    When he tries to be serious in producing moral & existential drama- he fails. But, when he mixes humor, nostalgia & a staccato of classic film references- he succeeds, mostly.

  66. @Pincher Martin
    From the review:

    Remarkably, Eastwood is likely a more consistent director now in his later 80s than in his early 80s when he made some forgettable movies like Hereafter and J. Edgar before his 2014 comeback American Sniper.
     
    What I find most remarkable about Eastwood is how productive he has been since becoming a senior citizen.

    Clint turned 65 in 1995. Since that year he has directed 22 films and produced two others. He has also acted in ten of those movies. And he shows no sign of slowing down. He directs a film almost every year.

    Don’t forget that Michelangelo died when he was 89, still chiseling until the very end. His last work was basically expressionist, c. 350 years before expressionism appeared on the world stage.

    Just, I wonder- why wasn’t he bored, after 7-8 decades of doing the same damn thing….

  67. @William Badwhite
    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies? Kind of a bizarre turn he took there for awhile.

    It was the most commercially successful turn Clint ever took in his long career. Those two movies were critically panned, but they were also the biggest box office successes Clint ever had.

  68. I saw “Richard Jewell” this weekend with my wife and enjoyed it. We had been in Olympic Park a few days before the explosion and we had tickets for baseball, softball and field hockey for the 1996 Olympics, though we only went to the baseball game (Japan vs. the Netherlands IIRC). We had applied for the tickets a year in advance, but those were the events we got and for the baseball game the stadium was about 20% filled and we could have walked up on game day and gotten better tickets.

    One thing that isn’t mentioned in the movie is how poorly run the Atlanta Olympics were. We had a hotel in Toccoa, which is almost in South Carolina, because the Olympic committee had control over reservations in the state of Georgia and you had to take what they gave you (the next night it was Macon when our tickets were for softball in Columbus). When we got to the outskirts of Atlanta to take MARTA to the events there were several hotels advertising rooms available, so they didn’t fill up the closest rooms first.

    I do wonder if Atlanta based CNN was only too happy to have a different story to run with so that there wasn’t as much attention being paid to how poorly the games had been run. The IOC chairman didn’t call the Atlanta games “the best ever” as he customarily did in his closing speech and which he only withheld for the Atlanta games.

    • Replies: @keypusher
    Oh, yeah, right you are. It was especially bad because the world had fallen in love with Barcelona during the '92 Games. Not many cities on earth match up to Barcelona, but Atlanta is quite a step down.
    , @Desiderius
    It was a massive deal in Atlanta when Samaranch announced we were getting the games. Can still hear him saying, "...the city of... Atlanta." Utterly stunning. No one thought we really had a chance.

    https://youtu.be/BimvBrf6-KY

    It seemed at the time to be THE breakthrough moment for the "New" South. At Tech we were all convinced it was our cutting-edge VR presentation of all the completed Olympic venues that was the key, but in retrospect it was probably Billy Payne's Augusta National schmoozing.

    Was so excited six years later didn't even make it up from Americus where I was living at the time. Remember seeing the bomb there and being glad I hadn't. Southern cities have too many carpetbaggers for their own good.

  69. Lame Wars reviews are out.

    From:
    https://geeksofcolor.co/2019/12/17/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-review/

    In the meantime, Rey is continuing her Jedi training under the watchful eye and tutelage of General Leia. The two have created quite the bond, with Leia believing Rey capable of great things, if only she could get out of her own way – especially after her time with Kylo Ren.

    WTF?

    I thought Ma-Rey Sue already ruled and could do no wrong?

  70. @syonredux
    I prefer Woody Allen's less typical stuff. For me, his best films are The Purple Rose of Cairo (glittering fantasy vs grimy reality)and Radio Days (heart-felt evocation of a vanished time and place):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC_hRDO7Hk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xioICtn1a4I

    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it’s all downhill from there. Sleeper, Bananas and Take the Money and Run are all comedy classics. The send up of Castro in Bananas is almost as good as Chaplin’s send up of Hitler.

    Allen at least has some self awareness – in “Deconstructing Harry” , Allen plays a movie director much like himself and people keep coming up to him and saying, “I love your movies, especially the early funny ones.”

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it’s all downhill from there.
     
    You're massively underrating Radio Days and The Purple Rose of Cairo. Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig are also very enjoyable.
    , @Morris Applebaum IV
    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.

    He's made a couple of excellent films since, but he's also made some of the worst films I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of films) including two supreme stinkers: Whatever Works (2009) and Everyone Says I Love You (1996)
    , @Mr McKenna
    “Deconstructing Harry” is likely Allen's most underrated film. It's not easy--it's scabrous and foul-mouthed in the extreme--but it's smart and wickedly funny.

    But then, I'm clearly more of a Woody Allen fan than you are! In addition to 'Hannah and Her Sisters', I'd also recommend "Crimes and Misdemeanors" 'Husbands and Wives', 'Manhattan Murder Mystery', and 'Midnight In Paris'. The popular 'Match Point' didn't really work for me.

  71. Did you mean Last Tango in Paris? I remember you once wrote that it was one of your favorite movies of all time.

  72. In a previous, presumably higher-budgeted incarnation, Jonah Hill had been set to star, with Leonardo DiCaprio as his lawyer.

    Just saw this today. Hill and DiCaprio are listed as Executive Producer along with a few others.

    The movie is ok. Kinda long at 2:10 and no real dramatic moments. The guy who plays Jewell is very good. No need to rush off to the theater; it’ll be at RedBox by February.

    Eastwood will be remembered as a guy who made a lot of entertaining movies. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is very good, but my favorite is In the Line of Fire.

    “Just one thing. Aim high”.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Absolute Power was aimed squarely at Clinton right before his impeachment. Sometimes old Clint gets a little too much on the nose.
  73. OT — Blast from the past.

    Unz.com readers will find this old recording from Radio Moscow appropo:

    https://ia801003.us.archive.org/9/items/radiomoscowwarmongersmonthly7.400mhz8september19870120utc/RadioMoscow_Warmongers’Monthly-7.400MHz-8September1987-0120UTC.mp3?download=true

    Sounds just like Unz writers!

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    If the link doesn't work go to https://shortwavearchive.com/ to listen.
  74. @Pincher Martin
    Clint had such a productive and long career that it's easy to forget some very good films he has done.

    The Beguiled (1970) is superb, but no one talks about it anymore. Two enjoyable Eastwood films in which he was not the main star, but just one star among fine ensemble casts were Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968). I would admit, however, that Clint is probably the least enjoyable part of Kelly's Heroes. He just doesn't fit his role.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint's long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.

    “Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.”

    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be “that silly ape”. Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn’t sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.

    I think I’m repeating myself here, with an Eastwood anecdote, but I’ll risk it. A girl from my high school class, and good friend of my sisters, had a yearly “date” with Eastwood over the span of a decade (80’s). Just once annually, and no, I know not what they did during the encounters; maybe just said hello and held hands? Anyway she was a classic “blond bombshell” and married a guy right out of HS. Her husband was an extremely popular guy from my HS class, but what I remember most was the $22.50 an hour wage he earned at age 18 driving a delivery truck for a beer company.

    Eastwood = Gunslinger, who liked women?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    He was a gunslinger in the Every Which Way movies. He just used his fists instead of pistols.

    Spaghetti Midwesterns.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    Firefox was awesome.

    Clint getting ready to kick ass to the trippy Maurice Jarre score:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdfMQdb_5FY

    "Let's just say we gave it one hell of a try...."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hldbhg0avXA

    "....boy...is this a machine..."

    , @Pincher Martin

    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be “that silly ape”. Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn’t sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.
     
    I agree it was a much different film from what Eastwood normally did, but it was still a popular and funny movie.

    And while comedy wasn't in Clint's wheelhouse, he still played an underground bare knuckles champion fighter in the movie, which is not far from his typecast tough guys in Westerns, police dramas and military films. So I wouldn't say it was quite like Schwarzenegger playing a pregnant scientist in Junior.

    The laughs came from the orangutan, Ruth Gordon and the bikers. Clint played it straight.

  75. @Jack D
    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it's all downhill from there. Sleeper, Bananas and Take the Money and Run are all comedy classics. The send up of Castro in Bananas is almost as good as Chaplin's send up of Hitler.

    Allen at least has some self awareness - in "Deconstructing Harry" , Allen plays a movie director much like himself and people keep coming up to him and saying, "I love your movies, especially the early funny ones."

    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it’s all downhill from there.

    You’re massively underrating Radio Days and The Purple Rose of Cairo. Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig are also very enjoyable.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Curious omission of Hannah and Her Sisters.
    , @Jack D
    Yes, Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig were both pretty good but then there are tons of forgettable stinkers = Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?) , You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Melinda and Melinda, etc. - I could name more. Allen has a tin ear for dialogue - no actual humans talk like his dramatic characters. The plots are stupid and contrived. The Coen Brothers could run circles around the old man in their sleep. No one except die hard Allen fans goes to see these pictures anymore. The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap - name stars work for scale for the honor of working for this genius, the movies are set in drawing rooms so you don't have to spend a zillion $ on CGI or build the sets for the ice planet Hoth. So if the picture only grosses $3 million you're not taking a $97 million bath.
  76. how do we know this wasn’t really around the time the US government began to formally identify core Americans as the enemy? seems like this is the time period where it started to happen, after 1992 or 1993, when the Clinton administration ushered in tons of pure, 100% for sure, anti-American domestic enemies for 8 years of directly attacking core America.

    FBI went overboard in an isolated oopsie? maybe that was the plan all along. to start directly attacking guys like Jewell.

  77. @SunBakedSuburb
    The Deep State is multi-layered. Check out the Senior Executive Service (SES) which was created in 1979 to form a kind of aristocracy within the federal bureaucracy. They are all political appointees. They meddle in the actions of civilian intelligence agencies the same way retired generals insert themselves into Pentagon operations through the medium of DOD contractors. When peering into the innards of the coup d'état of Trump one can detect the fingerprints of the SES.

    It’s almost as if they want to take….Executive Action

  78. The old situation Eastwood has chosen to film just happens to perfectly fit, in the present, both the incoherent persecution of our President, as well as the Deep State (and antiracist organizational) fetish for white nerds despite blacks and Muslims attacking Jews. Eastwood really is a great communicator.

  79. @syonredux

    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it’s all downhill from there.
     
    You're massively underrating Radio Days and The Purple Rose of Cairo. Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig are also very enjoyable.

    Curious omission of Hannah and Her Sisters.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Curious omission of Hannah and Her Sisters.
     
    That's another good one.
    , @Dumbo
    After his "early funny ones" in the 70s, Allen's peak was for sure in the 80s (Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and her Sisters, etc), but then he had a sort of renaissance in the 90s with minor movies such as Bullets over Broadway (1994) and even Deconstructing Harry (1997). But since then, for me at least, it has been all bad, or I perhaps I just got tired of his style. Even Match Point, which critics liked, and Midnight in Paris, which was popular, felt like a rehash of better, earlier things. Now he's not even trying.

    All filmmakers can get repetitive, but Allen can be particularly lazy or uninspired sometimes, with zero interest in characters who are not himself.

    The Cohen brothers are also repetitive, and I don't like their comedies so much (I think they are better when they do noir or drama), but at least they always try new things. That recent Western stories thing that they did was not bad (irregular, but interesting).
  80. @The Alarmist
    Has anyone noticed that nearly every high-profile "terrorist" arrest announced by the FBI in the past 15 years involved the FBI arming the "terrorist" with dummy weapons before nabbing him? This seems to work better than trying to frame some poor slob without much evidence.

    It’s propaganda to justify attacking whichever group the Deep State and its masters in Mossad want gone.

  81. @anon
    It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.

    According to theory, the free press is supposed to be more than a public-relations agency that blindly repeats press releases handed out by Feds. All that stuff about "skeptical truth-seeking reporters" that's in history books about Watergate and Viet Nam, just doesn't seem to show up in real life. Was it ever real?

    “Was it ever real?”

    No.

  82. @anon
    The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.

    Similar to the Beltway Sniper case. DC police chief Moose flat out lied when he claimed the murderer was obviously a frustrated white male over 40. This was not just talk. There were rifle owners in the NoVa area who had cops and Feds show up at their house, demanding an inventory of rifles. Some had their carbines taken away to labs for test firing, to compare bullets against evidence bullets. Imagine if the cops showed up to take castings of your car tires and, eh, they just decided to take the whole car for a few days. No worries, eh?

    Then we found out it was a weirdo, gay, black Muslim from the Pacific Northwest. Anyone recall any backtracking by Chief Moose, the rest of the DC cop establishment, the Feds or (laughing) the press?

    Regarding the Beltway Sniper, the press, etc took the position “Even though the killer turned out to be black, the profile was still correct.”

    One of the apologias for black crime has been “All serial killers are white males.” This lie has appeared in “news” stories and feature films.

    The blogger Countenance has said black serial killers benefited from the “quasi-official line” that there were no black serial killers.

    Nicholas Stix has described how “FBI Profiler” Robert Ressler became a media darling with the “no nonwhite serial killers” trope.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The whole "Profiling" thing was overdone, as if FBI profilers were these magical wizards who could figure out who the criminal was just from his profile. They make great movie characters to move along the plot of thrillers but in real life are not that particularly effective. It turns out that real life criminals don't always fit a profile and that a profile such as "angry white male loner" fits thousands if not millions of guys so you're really not narrowing down much even if you are right. And then add in a dose of PC - the kind of profiles that might actually be meaningful such as "young Muslim male" or "young black male" are racis' so you can't use them. TSA has to randomly feel up Italian grandmothers even though the total # of Italian grandmothers who have ever put bombs in their underwear is zero.
    , @Anonymous

    Nicholas Stix has described how “FBI Profiler” Robert Ressler became a media darling with the “no nonwhite serial killers” trope.
     
    Is Robert Ressler himself White?
  83. @Joe Stalin
    OT -- Blast from the past.

    Unz.com readers will find this old recording from Radio Moscow appropo:

    https://ia801003.us.archive.org/9/items/radiomoscowwarmongersmonthly7.400mhz8september19870120utc/RadioMoscow_Warmongers'Monthly-7.400MHz-8September1987-0120UTC.mp3?download=true

    Sounds just like Unz writers!

    If the link doesn’t work go to https://shortwavearchive.com/ to listen.

  84. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Obviously as a critic you can pick your battles, but I for one would be interested to see your review of "Frozen 2".

    I don't want to rant, (though I suppose I will), but personally I simply could not believe how bad it was. We're talking about the bizarre confluence of a billion-dollar pop franchise and also an extraordinary work of art, you'd expect that there would be a bit of carefulness here, but no.

    The exact same creative team who had produced a masterpiece had five years and a giant pile of money to try and come up with something at least respectable, and instead they produced... this. I guess it's sort of like the random way how lightning strikes, John Lennon himself could not tell why "Tomorrow Never Knows"'was so great, and "Wild Honeypie" was garbage, and then "Polythene Pam" which was every bit as trivial, was somehow brilliant in spite of itself.

    Granted a sequel is nearly always a lesser thing, and the original Frozen was sort of a fluke: forty or fifty years in the making, even the great Walt Disney brooded on "The Snow Queen" for decades and still couldn't figure out what to do with it, then the great John Lasseter, probably the best storytelling mind of our era, did a complete 180 on the nature of the story once he heard the incredible score that he had not expected to hear. Frozen is this weird combination of a charming romantic adventure-comedy and the most shocking psychological horror of our time.

    So now as a follow-up we get some dumb self-conscious banalities, and mandatory charmless diversities. Hmmm.

    “Frozen” is well done and had catchy songs but has very little to do with the original story “The Snow Queen” by Andersen. Really, the story is just a pretext, as there’s almost nothing in common in terms of plot or even characters, setting, etc.

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.

    I don’t know about this sequel but likely it’s even more removed from the source.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.
     
    A friend of mine showed it to some kids (age 6) that her daughter had over for a sleepover. They really liked it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV1M1y595_U&t=927s
    , @Abe

    “Frozen” is well done and had catchy songs but has very little to do with the original story “The Snow Queen”
     
    I remember attending a grammar school kiddie “dance” a few years back at my son’s school and all the little girls were still enthralled with it, despite the movie having been out a couple years by then. So that meant half a decade of reigning as one of the most popular girl’s franchises, which translates to beaucoup bucks for Disney.

    Yet in the recent WRECK IT RALPH film they dedicated a whole subplot to deconstructing (i.e. passing on) Disney’s own princess movie trope at the behest of some crazy SJW screenwriter attached to the RALPH project. And then they put out another princess movie to make billions.

    Tell boys princess movies are bad with one hand, sell buttload of princess movies to girls with the other. Get woke, go broke, or become schizophren-oke!

  85. @J.Ross
    Curious omission of Hannah and Her Sisters.

    Curious omission of Hannah and Her Sisters.

    That’s another good one.

  86. @David In TN
    Regarding the Beltway Sniper, the press, etc took the position "Even though the killer turned out to be black, the profile was still correct."

    One of the apologias for black crime has been "All serial killers are white males." This lie has appeared in "news" stories and feature films.

    The blogger Countenance has said black serial killers benefited from the "quasi-official line" that there were no black serial killers.

    Nicholas Stix has described how "FBI Profiler" Robert Ressler became a media darling with the "no nonwhite serial killers" trope.

    The whole “Profiling” thing was overdone, as if FBI profilers were these magical wizards who could figure out who the criminal was just from his profile. They make great movie characters to move along the plot of thrillers but in real life are not that particularly effective. It turns out that real life criminals don’t always fit a profile and that a profile such as “angry white male loner” fits thousands if not millions of guys so you’re really not narrowing down much even if you are right. And then add in a dose of PC – the kind of profiles that might actually be meaningful such as “young Muslim male” or “young black male” are racis’ so you can’t use them. TSA has to randomly feel up Italian grandmothers even though the total # of Italian grandmothers who have ever put bombs in their underwear is zero.

    • Agree: Alden, Old Prude
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't think profiling was overdone, but the issue is that organized serial killers study police methods in order to thwart them, so in the arms race between criminal and police, new methods were countered. Profiling added the dimension of "why". The motives are possible to understand, just very rare so you have to study the examples to learn the commonalities.

    For a lot of them it's a sexual thing, which like many a modern male's journey through internet porn, starts out vanilla and then progresses to more extreme "not my proudest fap" moments. That journey in someone with violent fantasy starts out amateurish and builds. E.g. stealing clothes off clotheslines, rape of elderly, rape, murder. Given that, it gives a clue as to which criminals to focus on. The murderer may already have a rap sheet. That is just one example gained by studying similar examples.

    The ubiquity of camera surveillance has made serial killing a lot more risky in the first world.
  87. @J.Ross
    Curious omission of Hannah and Her Sisters.

    After his “early funny ones” in the 70s, Allen’s peak was for sure in the 80s (Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and her Sisters, etc), but then he had a sort of renaissance in the 90s with minor movies such as Bullets over Broadway (1994) and even Deconstructing Harry (1997). But since then, for me at least, it has been all bad, or I perhaps I just got tired of his style. Even Match Point, which critics liked, and Midnight in Paris, which was popular, felt like a rehash of better, earlier things. Now he’s not even trying.

    All filmmakers can get repetitive, but Allen can be particularly lazy or uninspired sometimes, with zero interest in characters who are not himself.

    The Cohen brothers are also repetitive, and I don’t like their comedies so much (I think they are better when they do noir or drama), but at least they always try new things. That recent Western stories thing that they did was not bad (irregular, but interesting).

  88. @Louis Renault
    Judge Collier has been rubber stamping FISA requests the entire time she's been on the FISA court. Glad to see she's doing her part to cover up the corruption.

    Said it three years ago.

    Impeach Roberts.

    Weak chiefs invite challenges (which is what this sort of brazen corruption is).

  89. @BB753
    Where's Whiskey when you need him? Women hate, hate, HATE, white gamma males! If Richard Jewell had looked like Christopher Reeves, he'd have been an instant hero for the media and the FBI would have backed off.

    If Richard Jewell had been black, he would have been the biggest hero in the world. The FBI would NEVER have suspected him.

    • Agree: BB753
  90. @William Badwhite
    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies? Kind of a bizarre turn he took there for awhile.

    Eastwood apparently did the Phyloe Bedoe films to get away from Dirty Harry. After those he had some sub-par at the box office films, so he played Dirty Harry again in Sudden Impact.

  91. @BB753
    Where's Whiskey when you need him? Women hate, hate, HATE, white gamma males! If Richard Jewell had looked like Christopher Reeves, he'd have been an instant hero for the media and the FBI would have backed off.

    Oh so true.

    • LOL: BB753
  92. @syonredux

    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it’s all downhill from there.
     
    You're massively underrating Radio Days and The Purple Rose of Cairo. Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig are also very enjoyable.

    Yes, Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig were both pretty good but then there are tons of forgettable stinkers = Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?) , You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Melinda and Melinda, etc. – I could name more. Allen has a tin ear for dialogue – no actual humans talk like his dramatic characters. The plots are stupid and contrived. The Coen Brothers could run circles around the old man in their sleep. No one except die hard Allen fans goes to see these pictures anymore. The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap – name stars work for scale for the honor of working for this genius, the movies are set in drawing rooms so you don’t have to spend a zillion $ on CGI or build the sets for the ice planet Hoth. So if the picture only grosses $3 million you’re not taking a $97 million bath.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Dumbo

    The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap
     
    I did some research and according to Wikipedia (not sure if that's reliable) his films revolve around a 15-30 million budget, but not all of them make money, some appear to have lost money (i.e. Bullets over Broadway cost 20 million and obtained only around 10 million).

    Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?)

     

    I was surprised to see that a stinker like Irrational Man (haven't seen it, but seems to be pretty bad) made 27 million and turned a small profit, while Purple Rose of Cairo (peak Allen) made only around 10 million and barely paid itself.

    Cafe Society, another surprise for me as I hadn't even heard of this one, made 40 million (from a 30 million budget), but Wonder Wheel lost money (25-15).

    I don't know, I guess people go to watch Allen movies depending on which actors are in it more than anything else.
    , @J.Ross
    Old Kids on the Hall line:
    "You're just mad cos you didn't understand Interiors!"
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Mostly true, but you could dismiss any movie by any director using such way of arguing. The Coen brothers are doubtless technically subtler & more inventive than Woody Allen, but they're emotionally empty (or almost empty). Allen is narrow in his sensibilities, but has achieved, in his whole opus, more than they will ever do, even if they live to their 120s.
  93. @danand

    "Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned."
     
    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be "that silly ape". Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn't sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.

    I think I'm repeating myself here, with an Eastwood anecdote, but I'll risk it. A girl from my high school class, and good friend of my sisters, had a yearly "date" with Eastwood over the span of a decade (80's). Just once annually, and no, I know not what they did during the encounters; maybe just said hello and held hands? Anyway she was a classic "blond bombshell" and married a guy right out of HS. Her husband was an extremely popular guy from my HS class, but what I remember most was the $22.50 an hour wage he earned at age 18 driving a delivery truck for a beer company.

    Eastwood = Gunslinger, who liked women?

    https://youtu.be/AKu-Cq7QglQ

    He was a gunslinger in the Every Which Way movies. He just used his fists instead of pistols.

    Spaghetti Midwesterns.

  94. @danand

    "Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned."
     
    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be "that silly ape". Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn't sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.

    I think I'm repeating myself here, with an Eastwood anecdote, but I'll risk it. A girl from my high school class, and good friend of my sisters, had a yearly "date" with Eastwood over the span of a decade (80's). Just once annually, and no, I know not what they did during the encounters; maybe just said hello and held hands? Anyway she was a classic "blond bombshell" and married a guy right out of HS. Her husband was an extremely popular guy from my HS class, but what I remember most was the $22.50 an hour wage he earned at age 18 driving a delivery truck for a beer company.

    Eastwood = Gunslinger, who liked women?

    https://youtu.be/AKu-Cq7QglQ

    Firefox was awesome.

    Clint getting ready to kick ass to the trippy Maurice Jarre score:

    “Let’s just say we gave it one hell of a try….”

    “….boy…is this a machine…”

    • Agree: Desiderius
  95. @Jim Don Bob

    In a previous, presumably higher-budgeted incarnation, Jonah Hill had been set to star, with Leonardo DiCaprio as his lawyer.
     
    Just saw this today. Hill and DiCaprio are listed as Executive Producer along with a few others.

    The movie is ok. Kinda long at 2:10 and no real dramatic moments. The guy who plays Jewell is very good. No need to rush off to the theater; it'll be at RedBox by February.

    Eastwood will be remembered as a guy who made a lot of entertaining movies. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is very good, but my favorite is In the Line of Fire.

    "Just one thing. Aim high".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8wvEC_cBU4

    Absolute Power was aimed squarely at Clinton right before his impeachment. Sometimes old Clint gets a little too much on the nose.

  96. @SunBakedSuburb
    The Deep State is multi-layered. Check out the Senior Executive Service (SES) which was created in 1979 to form a kind of aristocracy within the federal bureaucracy. They are all political appointees. They meddle in the actions of civilian intelligence agencies the same way retired generals insert themselves into Pentagon operations through the medium of DOD contractors. When peering into the innards of the coup d'état of Trump one can detect the fingerprints of the SES.

    Most SES are career civil service, not politicals.

  97. @Dumbo
    "Frozen" is well done and had catchy songs but has very little to do with the original story "The Snow Queen" by Andersen. Really, the story is just a pretext, as there's almost nothing in common in terms of plot or even characters, setting, etc.

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.

    I don't know about this sequel but likely it's even more removed from the source.

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.

    A friend of mine showed it to some kids (age 6) that her daughter had over for a sleepover. They really liked it:

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    Yes. A friend recently showed it to her children (6-8) and they enjoyed it. And these are kids who mostly watch only dumb Youtube animations or the latest Disney stuff. Apparently Miyazaki (the great Japanese animator) is a big fan of this film.
  98. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.

     

    I am a Millennial. What does this mean, "become the next Greatest generation"? Does that mean my destiny is to destroy European civilization and kill millions of my fellow white Christians in exchange for nothing?

    I don't mean to denigrate the service of my own relatives, of course, but this "Greatest Generation" stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype. As Paul Fussell related in his books, the goal of most people unfortunate enough to fight in Europe and Asia was to get home as quickly as possible and forget all about it. There were 12 million Americans in the armed services during the war, and fewer than 2 million volunteered. The rest were smart enough to be forcefully inducted. Over 45,000 refused to fight but served in non-combat roles; of those 45,000, a few thousand went to prison rather than serve at all. And many thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of soldiers deserted in Europe.*

    And judging by America's continued insistence on dumb wars and poor foreign policy decisions, we've clearly done well in learning to forget.

    * See here: https://www.amazon.com/Deserters-Hidden-History-World-War/dp/0143125486

    this “Greatest Generation” stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype

    When I hear it I like to point out “how could be they be so great if they raised the Boomers? Greatest generation, worst parents ever”.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That's how the cycle works. Great achievers are usually poor parents.
    , @CJ
    A similar idea is expressed by, “If the 1950s were so great, then why did they lead to the 1960s?”
    , @Old Prude
    Nice of Brokaw and his ilk to be nice to finally appreciate their parents after most had died. A little late and a lot opportuni$tic.
  99. @Jack D
    Yes, Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig were both pretty good but then there are tons of forgettable stinkers = Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?) , You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Melinda and Melinda, etc. - I could name more. Allen has a tin ear for dialogue - no actual humans talk like his dramatic characters. The plots are stupid and contrived. The Coen Brothers could run circles around the old man in their sleep. No one except die hard Allen fans goes to see these pictures anymore. The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap - name stars work for scale for the honor of working for this genius, the movies are set in drawing rooms so you don't have to spend a zillion $ on CGI or build the sets for the ice planet Hoth. So if the picture only grosses $3 million you're not taking a $97 million bath.

    The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap

    I did some research and according to Wikipedia (not sure if that’s reliable) his films revolve around a 15-30 million budget, but not all of them make money, some appear to have lost money (i.e. Bullets over Broadway cost 20 million and obtained only around 10 million).

    Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?)

    I was surprised to see that a stinker like Irrational Man (haven’t seen it, but seems to be pretty bad) made 27 million and turned a small profit, while Purple Rose of Cairo (peak Allen) made only around 10 million and barely paid itself.

    Cafe Society, another surprise for me as I hadn’t even heard of this one, made 40 million (from a 30 million budget), but Wonder Wheel lost money (25-15).

    I don’t know, I guess people go to watch Allen movies depending on which actors are in it more than anything else.

  100. @Jack D
    Yes, Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig were both pretty good but then there are tons of forgettable stinkers = Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?) , You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Melinda and Melinda, etc. - I could name more. Allen has a tin ear for dialogue - no actual humans talk like his dramatic characters. The plots are stupid and contrived. The Coen Brothers could run circles around the old man in their sleep. No one except die hard Allen fans goes to see these pictures anymore. The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap - name stars work for scale for the honor of working for this genius, the movies are set in drawing rooms so you don't have to spend a zillion $ on CGI or build the sets for the ice planet Hoth. So if the picture only grosses $3 million you're not taking a $97 million bath.

    Old Kids on the Hall line:
    “You’re just mad cos you didn’t understand Interiors!”

  101. Anonymous[405] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    The whole "Profiling" thing was overdone, as if FBI profilers were these magical wizards who could figure out who the criminal was just from his profile. They make great movie characters to move along the plot of thrillers but in real life are not that particularly effective. It turns out that real life criminals don't always fit a profile and that a profile such as "angry white male loner" fits thousands if not millions of guys so you're really not narrowing down much even if you are right. And then add in a dose of PC - the kind of profiles that might actually be meaningful such as "young Muslim male" or "young black male" are racis' so you can't use them. TSA has to randomly feel up Italian grandmothers even though the total # of Italian grandmothers who have ever put bombs in their underwear is zero.

    I don’t think profiling was overdone, but the issue is that organized serial killers study police methods in order to thwart them, so in the arms race between criminal and police, new methods were countered. Profiling added the dimension of “why”. The motives are possible to understand, just very rare so you have to study the examples to learn the commonalities.

    For a lot of them it’s a sexual thing, which like many a modern male’s journey through internet porn, starts out vanilla and then progresses to more extreme “not my proudest fap” moments. That journey in someone with violent fantasy starts out amateurish and builds. E.g. stealing clothes off clotheslines, rape of elderly, rape, murder. Given that, it gives a clue as to which criminals to focus on. The murderer may already have a rap sheet. That is just one example gained by studying similar examples.

    The ubiquity of camera surveillance has made serial killing a lot more risky in the first world.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I disagree. Most of these serial killers are sociopaths who, lacking any ability to connect to other human beings, need to find another raison d'etre. In particularly dark cases, that outlet can be serial murder, just as other sociopaths might find their outlet in relatively mild stuff like highly promiscuous lifestyles or binging on video games. Or more perniciously and in unusually high-functioning cases, ascending in corporate or political life for the sake of dominating as many people as they can for entertainment value.

    As an example, Ted Bundy tried to blame his crimes on porn, but if you know how to detect a sociopath, you can visibly tell he's trying to manipulate the SoCon interviewer before his execution. The truth is prosaic: he was a classic sociopath who simply enjoyed murdering women. Who was the guy who said "Some men just need killin'?" That's the reality here.

  102. @Dumbo

    Woody Allen can also be summed up in a few words:
     
    That was more than a few words.

    Allen can't compare to his idols Bergman or Fellini because he doesn't really have a lot to say that he hasn't said already in Love and Death, which might actually be his best film, even though, technically, he improved a lot since then, but in terms of content/themes, not all that much.

    Also, since he's a superficial atheist, I doubt he can make really great movies, great art is related to religious experience. Not that you need to be a believer, but you need to have a certain type of mind that is, I think, related to that of religious mystics (many of Fellini and Bergman's films were exactly about their struggle between their religious upbringing and their more skeptical beliefs later on).

    Allen doesn't even believe in art, but he also doesn't make films that are very popular with the general public, well, at least since the early 90s (with a few rare exceptions). Honestly, besides the fact that he's Jewish and so he has friends in Hollywood, I don't even know why he still makes movies or why people gave him money to make one film every year for decades when other directors get burned by just one bad/unpopular picture. Do his films even pay themselves? I know they are cheap, and he has a certain number of followers, but still.

    Well, this is about an Eastwood’s movie, so….

    Alright, just a few words.

    1. I agree that Love and Death is probably Allen’s best movie (I would add Annie Hall, and perhaps Zelig, plus two or three other early movies, especially outrageously funny film about Sex)

    2. he is/was frequently wrongly perceived as an artistic filmmaker, something which he is not (although perhaps sometimes he aspired to be). So, he can be appreciated justly when we put him in the right perspective, a cinematic connoisseur & a literate person whose mode of expression is film; he enjoyed all the fuss that goes with the celebrity status (who can blame him?)

    3. I disagree about religion etc. Besides, Fellini, although he dabbled with Jung’s ideas & LSD, was not religious as a filmmaker; his movies are even more desperate & bleaker than those made by a skillful healthy-minded atheist. True, Fellini was a master- just I don’t find his obsessions (clowns, for instance) interesting: he talks, I hear him & don’t bother to listen anymore.

    Allen’s movies move in the intersection of sentimentality, nostalgia, parody & absurdist fantasy. These elements may not fit well altogether, but they, sometimes- work. He’s not a major director, but is much more than a minor imitator. As I said above, he has a vision to convey, and that vision, although limited, has a charming quality I don’t quite see in another film authors.

    4. as for Jewish angle, I would say that Allen is the best counter-argument against the claims that Jews control film industry & push their agenda on the world. Such a gifted author like Allen would, if that were the case, have been showered with money for his movies- and he barely gets scraps. A lunatic idiot like Tommy Wiseau succeeded to invest $ 6 M in his masterpiece of how-not-to-do-films “The Room”.

    All said, I like Allen’s movies. True, I am not following his career; I find his films about white bourgeois, artsy & sensitive people entertaining-they have a NYC-European air about them. And, last but not least- I’m not bombarded by third worlders who populate most US film production in past 20 & more years.

    • Replies: @Dumbo

    Such a gifted author like Allen would, if that were the case, have been showered with money for his movies- and he barely gets scraps. A lunatic idiot like Tommy Wiseau succeeded to invest $ 6 M in his masterpiece of how-not-to-do-films “The Room”.
     
    20-30 million a year, every year, are not scraps. And his films are rarely big money-makers. I doubt a non-Jewish director could have a career like that if he didn't make money, talented or not.

    I think "The Room" was self-financed. I don't get why this became popular. It's just a bad/ridiculous movie.

    I’m not bombarded by third worlders who populate most US film production in past 20 & more years.
     
    Yes, what's nice about Allen movies is that they are always anachronistic. No matter when they supposedly take place, it's almost always a version of the 30s in termos of "diversity", behavior and musical tastes (jazz etc).
  103. @Jack D
    Yes, Broadway Danny Rose and Zelig were both pretty good but then there are tons of forgettable stinkers = Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, Irrational Man (did ANYONE even see this?) , You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Melinda and Melinda, etc. - I could name more. Allen has a tin ear for dialogue - no actual humans talk like his dramatic characters. The plots are stupid and contrived. The Coen Brothers could run circles around the old man in their sleep. No one except die hard Allen fans goes to see these pictures anymore. The only reason they could get made is that he makes them for cheap - name stars work for scale for the honor of working for this genius, the movies are set in drawing rooms so you don't have to spend a zillion $ on CGI or build the sets for the ice planet Hoth. So if the picture only grosses $3 million you're not taking a $97 million bath.

    Mostly true, but you could dismiss any movie by any director using such way of arguing. The Coen brothers are doubtless technically subtler & more inventive than Woody Allen, but they’re emotionally empty (or almost empty). Allen is narrow in his sensibilities, but has achieved, in his whole opus, more than they will ever do, even if they live to their 120s.

  104. @danand

    “We hear constantly these days about Baby Boomers, but I keep seeing movies directed by or starring amazingly old yet still competent pre-Boomers such as Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer. When will they shuffle off and finally allow us poor Boomers our moment in the spotlight?”
     
    LOL, don’t hold your breath, no stage left for the 3 aBigos, Bernie, Bloomberg & Biden; all anything but Silent.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VmdA

    Speaking of Generations, surprised me a bit to see that Cooper Hefner enlisted in the Army (US). Especially so coming on the heels of his recent nuptials. Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation. More likely just a one off blip, Cooper may have decided politics is his future, and needs to polish his bona fides.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1VKnG

    Cooper & wife, Harry Potter actress Scarlett Bryne

    https://flic.kr/p/2i1WUBT

    Trump is too young to be President, apparently.

  105. An interesting comparison with Woody Allen, but in many ways I think their directing careers are polar opposites. Clint produced lots of crap in his early years of directing and some gems. Woody Allen probably had the highest batting average of any director up to 1989. For whatever reason, aging, running out of ideas, the Mia Farrow conflict, he’s pretty much sucked since then.

    Clint in his 70s & 80s has been “hit or miss”, but so is almost every director in history, including the living ones you and Hollywood hold in higher esteem (Christopher Nolan, The Coen Bros., Martin Scorcese). Frankly, I think Clint has been better than Nolan, The Coens or Scorcese in the last two decades. The number of good and really great films he’s directed is very long.

    Great Films:

    American Sniper (2014)
    Gran Torino (2008)
    Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
    Million Dollar Baby (2004)
    Mystic River (2003)

    Good/Very good:

    The Mule (2018)
    Sully (2016)
    Invictus (2009)
    Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

    I’m looking forward to seeing “Richard Jewell” tonight. Hope to add it to the list above. It’s doing horribly at the box office (probably because nobody cares about a fat unattractive “loser”, but also because the mainstream media is trying to kill it) so I hope people support it today or tomorrow because it may be gone in most theaters by Friday.

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    Clint's best film is a Perfect World IMO
  106. @Jack D
    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it's all downhill from there. Sleeper, Bananas and Take the Money and Run are all comedy classics. The send up of Castro in Bananas is almost as good as Chaplin's send up of Hitler.

    Allen at least has some self awareness - in "Deconstructing Harry" , Allen plays a movie director much like himself and people keep coming up to him and saying, "I love your movies, especially the early funny ones."

    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.

    He’s made a couple of excellent films since, but he’s also made some of the worst films I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot of films) including two supreme stinkers: Whatever Works (2009) and Everyone Says I Love You (1996)

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.
     
    Overstatement of not just one century, but, actually, two: 20th & 21st.
    , @Dumbo
    Yes, "Whatever Works" is (for me) the worst film I saw by Woody Allen. In fact I didn't see anything by him since then, that's how much I hated it. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is good, but it wouldn't be in my top 10 list.
  107. @Dumbo
    "Frozen" is well done and had catchy songs but has very little to do with the original story "The Snow Queen" by Andersen. Really, the story is just a pretext, as there's almost nothing in common in terms of plot or even characters, setting, etc.

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.

    I don't know about this sequel but likely it's even more removed from the source.

    “Frozen” is well done and had catchy songs but has very little to do with the original story “The Snow Queen”

    I remember attending a grammar school kiddie “dance” a few years back at my son’s school and all the little girls were still enthralled with it, despite the movie having been out a couple years by then. So that meant half a decade of reigning as one of the most popular girl’s franchises, which translates to beaucoup bucks for Disney.

    Yet in the recent WRECK IT RALPH film they dedicated a whole subplot to deconstructing (i.e. passing on) Disney’s own princess movie trope at the behest of some crazy SJW screenwriter attached to the RALPH project. And then they put out another princess movie to make billions.

    Tell boys princess movies are bad with one hand, sell buttload of princess movies to girls with the other. Get woke, go broke, or become schizophren-oke!

  108. @danand

    "Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned."
     
    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be "that silly ape". Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn't sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.

    I think I'm repeating myself here, with an Eastwood anecdote, but I'll risk it. A girl from my high school class, and good friend of my sisters, had a yearly "date" with Eastwood over the span of a decade (80's). Just once annually, and no, I know not what they did during the encounters; maybe just said hello and held hands? Anyway she was a classic "blond bombshell" and married a guy right out of HS. Her husband was an extremely popular guy from my HS class, but what I remember most was the $22.50 an hour wage he earned at age 18 driving a delivery truck for a beer company.

    Eastwood = Gunslinger, who liked women?

    https://youtu.be/AKu-Cq7QglQ

    Pincher, I was none too happy when I went to the theater and saw the poster for that film. The Clint of my youth was the persona of the cool gunslinger: my father took me with him to watch Dirty Harry around my 10th Christmas. I guess it just rubbed me wrong to see Clint pictured with what I considered to be “that silly ape”. Roughly a decade later my father and I went to see Firefox. That too just didn’t sit right, my mind had indelibly typecast Clint.

    I agree it was a much different film from what Eastwood normally did, but it was still a popular and funny movie.

    And while comedy wasn’t in Clint’s wheelhouse, he still played an underground bare knuckles champion fighter in the movie, which is not far from his typecast tough guys in Westerns, police dramas and military films. So I wouldn’t say it was quite like Schwarzenegger playing a pregnant scientist in Junior.

    The laughs came from the orangutan, Ruth Gordon and the bikers. Clint played it straight.

  109. @Hail

    Christopher Nolan’s ... next one, “Tenet,” is scheduled for 3 years after Dunkirk so that is promising.
     
    Do we have any news on Tenet by right-wing director Nolan?

    As of Oct. 2019, there was sparse info publicly available, except the following:


    A key cast member of Tenet is Robert Pattinson, who [has also] been cast to be the Batman of the 2020s.

    Tenet (2020)

    Set for a July 17, 2020, release

    Directed by
    – Christopher Nolan (b.1970, London; four children w/ Emma Thomas)

    Written by
    – Christopher Nolan

    Produced by
    – Thomas Hayslip [exec. producer] (b.1970 in Vietnam; Vietnamese mother, US father; see here)
    – Christopher Nolan [producer]
    – Emma Thomas [producer] (b. Dec. 1971, London; four children with Christopher Nolan)

    Music by
    – Ludwig Göransson (b.1984, Sweden)
     

    They are about to release the first trailer for Tenet, Dec. 19, acc. to Internet rumor.

    The IMDB listing still has "The plot is currently unknown. The project is described as an action epic revolving around international espionage, time travel, and evolution."

    Besides Robert Pattinson, I am seeing John David Washington mentioned as one of the lead roles. He is the son (b.1984) of Denzel Washington and new to acting, with his first major role in the Q3 2018-released "BlacKkKlansman."

    “right-wing director Nolan?”

    What is your basis for that assertion? Nolan is the best director working today, and I certainly appreciate him not using his movies to grind away at political axes. That doesn’t necessarily make him right wing.

    • Replies: @Hail
    I cannot claim any special insight on what his true views are. I was semi-ironically repeating a common characterization of his movies.

    Do a search for "chirstopher nolan right-wing" or "christopher nolan fascist" or the like to see some on both sides. Among the tentative advocates of the Nolan as Right-Wing Director idea is one Steve Sailer.

    Here is what iSteve commenter Unladen Swallow said a few months ago on Nolan:


    Steve has implied [Christopher Nolan] is a closeted conservative, as you need to be in Hollywood. [...] All these guys have to keep the messages at least somewhat cryptic to avoid being blacklisted like John Milius was after making “Red Dawn” in 1984, prior to that, Milius was arguably the top screenwriter in Hollywood (There was a documentary on Netflix about Milius and what happened to his career after that movie, don’t know if it is still there).

    The leftist ideologue movie types really hate Nolan’s Batman trilogy, particularly the second and third ones, they were also upset he didn’t use global warming as a plot device in “Interstellar” and complained about the lack of black soldiers in his last film “Dunkirk”.
     

  110. @William Badwhite

    this “Greatest Generation” stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype
     
    When I hear it I like to point out "how could be they be so great if they raised the Boomers? Greatest generation, worst parents ever".

    That’s how the cycle works. Great achievers are usually poor parents.

  111. @Jack D
    I liked Allen a lot better when he thought that he was just a comic and not the American Igmar Bergman. His last good movie was Annie Hall and it's all downhill from there. Sleeper, Bananas and Take the Money and Run are all comedy classics. The send up of Castro in Bananas is almost as good as Chaplin's send up of Hitler.

    Allen at least has some self awareness - in "Deconstructing Harry" , Allen plays a movie director much like himself and people keep coming up to him and saying, "I love your movies, especially the early funny ones."

    “Deconstructing Harry” is likely Allen’s most underrated film. It’s not easy–it’s scabrous and foul-mouthed in the extreme–but it’s smart and wickedly funny.

    But then, I’m clearly more of a Woody Allen fan than you are! In addition to ‘Hannah and Her Sisters’, I’d also recommend “Crimes and Misdemeanors” ‘Husbands and Wives’, ‘Manhattan Murder Mystery’, and ‘Midnight In Paris’. The popular ‘Match Point’ didn’t really work for me.

  112. STAR WARS as STAR WEIMARS

    Next one should feature interracial, interspeciesal, and orga-mega ‘sex’ among Jabba, Chewy, Lando, Jar Jar, and C-3PO.

    Welcome to

    Port-O-San-Francisco.

    https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/1206774581505212417

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Star Wars is irrelevant and a mess for years, but it is hilarious that the latest iteration is preceded by a massive campaign blaming fans for not accepting the previous newer movies (which still made money, allegedly). Headlines and opinion pieces are commanding fans to keep their opinions to themselves and calling fans "horrible." This is before the movie comes out.
  113. @VivaLaMigra
    I saw G/T and thought it sucked donkey balls. Not only that, the early 70's Ford Gran Torino was no muscle car icon; it was an emissions-choked hunk of inflated sheet metal.

    That’s not the point of it. The character is a retired Ford worker, his Gran Torino is a major part of his life, and the “hey you (refugee immigrant) kids, keep your hands off my car” disrupts it. It is about the character; the emissions-choked sheet metal is just the McGuffin.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    If anything, it adds to the pathos (and the realism) that his most prized possession is not a Shelby Mustang or something really valuable but an overaged, wheezy malaise era boat.
    , @Desiderius
    It's also about those immigrant kids becoming more family to him than his own kids, in an anti-atomization way moreso than pro-immigration.

    A valuable contribution to the modernism was a mistake genre.
  114. @William Badwhite
    I thought A Perfect World was a great movie. I never understood why it didn't do better.

    Outlaw Josey Wales has some great tough guy dialogue.

    Should we bury them pilgrims Josey?

    Spit tobacco juice on dead guy's forehead, then "the hell with them pilgrims. Buzzards gotta eat, same as the worms".

    A Perfect World is summed up metaphorically during its scene where the trailer that has been getting pulled down the road by a pickup truck for half the movie becomes unhitched and comes to a bumpy stop in a field.

    When it comes to a bunch of bumbling white hicks who are in serious need of of a young hot Mary Sue to set them straight, Eastwood was a good decade ahead of his time. Costner was dull, but he has not stopped being dull since DWW.

    For me, Eastwood was mostly hit or miss. I loved Heartbreak Ridge, but hated American Sniper. Much (not all) of what he has done since The Unforgiven has been forgettable.

  115. @68W58
    I saw "Richard Jewell" this weekend with my wife and enjoyed it. We had been in Olympic Park a few days before the explosion and we had tickets for baseball, softball and field hockey for the 1996 Olympics, though we only went to the baseball game (Japan vs. the Netherlands IIRC). We had applied for the tickets a year in advance, but those were the events we got and for the baseball game the stadium was about 20% filled and we could have walked up on game day and gotten better tickets.

    One thing that isn't mentioned in the movie is how poorly run the Atlanta Olympics were. We had a hotel in Toccoa, which is almost in South Carolina, because the Olympic committee had control over reservations in the state of Georgia and you had to take what they gave you (the next night it was Macon when our tickets were for softball in Columbus). When we got to the outskirts of Atlanta to take MARTA to the events there were several hotels advertising rooms available, so they didn't fill up the closest rooms first.

    I do wonder if Atlanta based CNN was only too happy to have a different story to run with so that there wasn't as much attention being paid to how poorly the games had been run. The IOC chairman didn't call the Atlanta games "the best ever" as he customarily did in his closing speech and which he only withheld for the Atlanta games.

    Oh, yeah, right you are. It was especially bad because the world had fallen in love with Barcelona during the ’92 Games. Not many cities on earth match up to Barcelona, but Atlanta is quite a step down.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    They should have delayed Atlanta in 1996 to late September like they did in Seoul in 1988. Waiting for a late bus in Atlanta in early August is not fun. Barcelona in 1992 was pretty disorganized too, but if you had to wait for a bus, hey, at least you were in Barcelona!
  116. Honkytonk Man

    “The bittersweet irony of this awesome scene is that Clint Eastwood is still alive and Marty Robbins died a week before this movie was released in the theaters. I remember seeing this when I was very small, and even as a child I recognized what a tremendously beautiful voice he had. That voice was a gift from God. RIP Marty Robbins 1925-1982”. – Comment from YT

  117. For Star power, Philip Seymour Hoffman would have made an excellent Richard Jewell. He was a great sad sack in Boogie Nights.

    Unfortunately, it is difficult talking Mr. Hoffman into appearing in any movies nowadays.

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  118. @Inquiring Mind
    That's not the point of it. The character is a retired Ford worker, his Gran Torino is a major part of his life, and the "hey you (refugee immigrant) kids, keep your hands off my car" disrupts it. It is about the character; the emissions-choked sheet metal is just the McGuffin.

    If anything, it adds to the pathos (and the realism) that his most prized possession is not a Shelby Mustang or something really valuable but an overaged, wheezy malaise era boat.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  119. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    Bird I love for the music alone.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  120. @Barnard
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's defense of Kathy Scruggs was absurd. It included the following passage about her getting scoops from law enforcement:

    “Whenever something would happen, the police would call Kathy. They always trusted her to get the scoop because they knew it would be handled right. She was proud the FBI called her about Jewell. She was proud of the way she reported it to begin with.”
     
    She was essentially a PR person for the FBI. It also conceded that she was a hard partying, pill popping drunk who was once found naked in a taxi at 3 AM, but she never would have slept with a source for a scoop and it is slander that Eastwood put that in his movie. They also don't understand why the average person thinks they are pushing an agenda and are not a fair and impartial source of factual information for the public.

    Kathy Scruggs was a whore who knew how to use her body to “get the story”-nothing more.

    Eastwood correctly exposed her “journalistic talents” for all to see.

    THAT is why the AJC wants blood.

    Eastwood exposed the TRUTH about “journalism” in general.

  121. I blame Silence of the Lambs, and its predecessor Manhunter, for the rise in popularity of profilers.

  122. @Morris Applebaum IV
    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.

    He's made a couple of excellent films since, but he's also made some of the worst films I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of films) including two supreme stinkers: Whatever Works (2009) and Everyone Says I Love You (1996)

    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.

    Overstatement of not just one century, but, actually, two: 20th & 21st.

    • Replies: @Morris Applebaum IV
    I'll get back to you in 2100 to see if it's still in the top ten.
  123. @Anonymous
    I had finished grad school and was living in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2002 when the Beltway sniper was picking off people at gas stations and store parking lots. Like everyone else in the area I followed the case very closely. In the October 14 shooting in Manassas, VA I even drove to the area right after the news broke to watch the dragnet. I saw how piss-poor it was. On one corner there were dozens of guys in FBI, DEA, ATF,... flak jackets quickly scanning cars with flashlights. It was clear they were looking for a particular description.

    I devoured all news. I watched CNN, Fox News, MSNBC nonstop. I clearly recall every criminal profiler, including former FBI profilers Clint Van Zandt and Robert Ressler, as well as Pat Brown, say with an air of metaphysical certitude that it was a white male. Brown went further and said it was probably a white nationalist type. Anyway, I think we know the rest of the story.


    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-12-15-0212160297-story.html

    Facing the Beltway snipers, profilers were dead wrong
    Elsbeth Bothe
    THE BALTIMORE SUN
    December 15, 2002


    The typical mass murderer is extraordinarily ordinary," says James Alan Fox, author of books titled The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder, (Pearson Education, 2000) and Overkill: Mass Murder & Serial Killing Exposed, (Da Capo Press, 1994). He is also a teacher with a textbook: How to Work with the Media (Sage Press, 1993), and maintains a self-promoting Web site named Wolfman Productions. Facilely exploiting his experience in both areas, Fox had previously managed to become a talking head on high-rated broadcast shows.

    During the tempestuous three weeks of this October, while the media raged and the Beltway Sniper rampaged, Fox, his colleagues and competitors were truly in their glory. A cross section of ordinary people were being slaughtered as they went their usual ways within range of an assault rifle. That was the only link connecting the crimes -- ten dead, three critically wounded -- pedestrians, motorists pumping gas, shoppers, a schoolboy, a bus driver. With little to supplement repetitious accounts of the continuing killings, the media offered limitless space for the speculations of self-aggrandizing experts on whodunnit.

    "He stops and shoots and doesn't hear the screams," Fox dramatically divulged to his alarmed audience. "Others enjoy squeezing the last breath from their victim. It makes it easier for him psychologically to murder." Clifton Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler, agreed: "This is someone who is cold, who is calculating, who has the skills and doesn't care who they hurt."

    "This could be a disgruntled employee who was fired. It is someone who is angry," offered Brent Turvey, who wrote Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, (Academic Press, 1999) Turvey was echoed by Robert K. Ressler, best-selling author of I Have Lived in the Monster (St Martin's Press, 1998), and Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI, (St.Martin's Press, 1993).

    Where does the Beltway Sniper hang out? "He's a weekday warrior. Even snipers have jobs," declared Fox. On the theory that serial killers strike close to home, D. Kim Rossmo, author of Geographic Profiling (CRC Press, 1999), applied his computerized mapping techniques, which, according to him, narrow the police target by 95 percent on average. "The more killings you have, the better it works," said the software manufacturer.

    Ressler lamented that there were "no behavioral clues at the scene." Indeed, even the parameters of the sites were uncertain -- from where were the shots fired? There were no eyewitnesses, just bodies hit with matching bullets, and sightings of a motor vehicle thought to be a light-colored truck or van. "That vehicle will be in a garage or a lake," predicted Van Zandt.

    The experts were neither misogynists nor racists. They all agreed with Van Zandt that "this is something white males do." Fox and Van Zandt, along with most others...
     

    I remember the DC sniper case well. The White man in a White van turned out to be 2 black men in a dark blue sedan. One black man was even an illegal immigrant abandoned by his mamma as a teen; something black mammas do often.

    And an ordinary White man, a truck driver found them when the heavily women/minority fed state and local cops couldn’t.

    • Agree: David In TN
  124. He made an interesting choice in understating the issues. One of those issues was the counter balance between Mr. Jewell’s, sincere support of ethics of law, and his intelligence and how that sincerity manifested as both qualities bumped up against his own overzealousness — that was very well done — the complexity of this very by all accounts gentle and decent man.

    I think what I would have liked is the image of Officer Jewell’s wedding – against the oft played card of the homosexual charge – would have been a little more icing on the cake.

    ——————————————————————————–

    One wants to respect our law enforcement, but the problem is always that when they override justice, they seem obtuse to the damage of ruined lives they leave in the wake. So, for those of you are constantly pushing law and order over the purpose of “law and order” — what is becoming a kind narrative staple and government and power is not new and the practice of abusing power has been well honed on entire populations.

    Laughing, I have no doubt that Attorney Jack Goldsmith has been getting an earful, from his former colleagues, concerning his own revelations regarding prosecutions by the government.

    • Replies: @black sea

    One wants to respect our law enforcement, but the problem is always that when they override justice, they seem obtuse to the damage of ruined lives they leave in the wake.
     
    Andrew Bacevich has made the point -- with regard to military personnel -- that as a culture we need to get past this reflexive "respect" for everyone wearing a uniform. As he puts it (I'm paraphrasing) the people in the military are just people.

    I certainly respect those in law enforcement who do their work well and maintain standards of professionalism in the face of considerable strain. Some do, some don't. Most probably sometimes do and sometimes don't. Like the rest of us.

    , @Anonymous

    Laughing, I have no doubt that Attorney Jack Goldsmith has been getting an earful, from his former colleagues, concerning his own revelations regarding prosecutions by the government.
     
    What are you referring to?
  125. @Inquiring Mind
    That's not the point of it. The character is a retired Ford worker, his Gran Torino is a major part of his life, and the "hey you (refugee immigrant) kids, keep your hands off my car" disrupts it. It is about the character; the emissions-choked sheet metal is just the McGuffin.

    It’s also about those immigrant kids becoming more family to him than his own kids, in an anti-atomization way moreso than pro-immigration.

    A valuable contribution to the modernism was a mistake genre.

  126. @William Badwhite

    this “Greatest Generation” stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype
     
    When I hear it I like to point out "how could be they be so great if they raised the Boomers? Greatest generation, worst parents ever".

    A similar idea is expressed by, “If the 1950s were so great, then why did they lead to the 1960s?”

  127. @Anonymous
    STAR WARS as STAR WEIMARS

    Next one should feature interracial, interspeciesal, and orga-mega 'sex' among Jabba, Chewy, Lando, Jar Jar, and C-3PO.

    https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1207352373460570113

    Welcome to

    Port-O-San-Francisco.

    https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/1206774581505212417

    Star Wars is irrelevant and a mess for years, but it is hilarious that the latest iteration is preceded by a massive campaign blaming fans for not accepting the previous newer movies (which still made money, allegedly). Headlines and opinion pieces are commanding fans to keep their opinions to themselves and calling fans “horrible.” This is before the movie comes out.

  128. @The Wild Geese Howard

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.
     
    LMFAO.

    Go interact with several dozen Millennials and get back to us.

    There’ll be better than the baby boomers (which is a bar passed by essentially every other generation.) The socio/economic fuel to go “booma booma” just isn’t there. Even the most privileged hipsters are really lesser yuppies with far more diminished economic prospects. The material stuff in “LA Law” “Dallas” and “Thirtysomthing” demonstrates a much greater disparity now than when they aired. Essentially everyone I know (in terms of same age bracket) is still living in some “Scott Pilgrim” type apartment. So the tolerance for snobby boomerish behavior is low. If hard times make great men, the Millennials will possess the power of sobriety.

  129. @Anonymous
    I had finished grad school and was living in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2002 when the Beltway sniper was picking off people at gas stations and store parking lots. Like everyone else in the area I followed the case very closely. In the October 14 shooting in Manassas, VA I even drove to the area right after the news broke to watch the dragnet. I saw how piss-poor it was. On one corner there were dozens of guys in FBI, DEA, ATF,... flak jackets quickly scanning cars with flashlights. It was clear they were looking for a particular description.

    I devoured all news. I watched CNN, Fox News, MSNBC nonstop. I clearly recall every criminal profiler, including former FBI profilers Clint Van Zandt and Robert Ressler, as well as Pat Brown, say with an air of metaphysical certitude that it was a white male. Brown went further and said it was probably a white nationalist type. Anyway, I think we know the rest of the story.


    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-12-15-0212160297-story.html

    Facing the Beltway snipers, profilers were dead wrong
    Elsbeth Bothe
    THE BALTIMORE SUN
    December 15, 2002


    The typical mass murderer is extraordinarily ordinary," says James Alan Fox, author of books titled The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder, (Pearson Education, 2000) and Overkill: Mass Murder & Serial Killing Exposed, (Da Capo Press, 1994). He is also a teacher with a textbook: How to Work with the Media (Sage Press, 1993), and maintains a self-promoting Web site named Wolfman Productions. Facilely exploiting his experience in both areas, Fox had previously managed to become a talking head on high-rated broadcast shows.

    During the tempestuous three weeks of this October, while the media raged and the Beltway Sniper rampaged, Fox, his colleagues and competitors were truly in their glory. A cross section of ordinary people were being slaughtered as they went their usual ways within range of an assault rifle. That was the only link connecting the crimes -- ten dead, three critically wounded -- pedestrians, motorists pumping gas, shoppers, a schoolboy, a bus driver. With little to supplement repetitious accounts of the continuing killings, the media offered limitless space for the speculations of self-aggrandizing experts on whodunnit.

    "He stops and shoots and doesn't hear the screams," Fox dramatically divulged to his alarmed audience. "Others enjoy squeezing the last breath from their victim. It makes it easier for him psychologically to murder." Clifton Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler, agreed: "This is someone who is cold, who is calculating, who has the skills and doesn't care who they hurt."

    "This could be a disgruntled employee who was fired. It is someone who is angry," offered Brent Turvey, who wrote Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, (Academic Press, 1999) Turvey was echoed by Robert K. Ressler, best-selling author of I Have Lived in the Monster (St Martin's Press, 1998), and Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI, (St.Martin's Press, 1993).

    Where does the Beltway Sniper hang out? "He's a weekday warrior. Even snipers have jobs," declared Fox. On the theory that serial killers strike close to home, D. Kim Rossmo, author of Geographic Profiling (CRC Press, 1999), applied his computerized mapping techniques, which, according to him, narrow the police target by 95 percent on average. "The more killings you have, the better it works," said the software manufacturer.

    Ressler lamented that there were "no behavioral clues at the scene." Indeed, even the parameters of the sites were uncertain -- from where were the shots fired? There were no eyewitnesses, just bodies hit with matching bullets, and sightings of a motor vehicle thought to be a light-colored truck or van. "That vehicle will be in a garage or a lake," predicted Van Zandt.

    The experts were neither misogynists nor racists. They all agreed with Van Zandt that "this is something white males do." Fox and Van Zandt, along with most others...
     

    Let’s not forget the spectacular work of Police Chief Charles Moose.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Wait, this isn't the centerpiece of your library? That's racist.

    https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1309201966i/1677102._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg
  130. @Achmed E. Newman
    I got no meme, SFG, but y'all have convinced me to go watch this movie, and that's even before reading Mr. Sailer's review in Takimag.

    I just wanted to get a word in on the "intelligence" community stuff mentioned. Perhaps the FBI had had its act together till more recently, at least until the AA really kicked in, but the CIA? They've been fucking up most of the operations they get involved in. (They'll tell you that it's because the successful ones are not known about. BS.) For all that money, over 40 years, could they have known the real state of the Soviet economy and maybe given us the time the USSR would break up within, I dunno, +/- a DECADE?!

    I want my money back.

    They screwed up the Bay of Pigs, and that was before AA.

    My best guess is given the relative insular nature of Americans, we just don’t do foreign intelligence all that well. The Brits, the French, and the Russians all have extensive experience with other countries that are peer competitors going back centuries…Americans literally have to go ‘overseas’.

    On the other hand, being isolated also means we don’t have to fight wars on our soil. So there is that.

  131. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Be quite a thing if those of the Millennial generation were to actually come thru and fulfill their ordained destiny: become the next Greatest generation.

     

    I am a Millennial. What does this mean, "become the next Greatest generation"? Does that mean my destiny is to destroy European civilization and kill millions of my fellow white Christians in exchange for nothing?

    I don't mean to denigrate the service of my own relatives, of course, but this "Greatest Generation" stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype. As Paul Fussell related in his books, the goal of most people unfortunate enough to fight in Europe and Asia was to get home as quickly as possible and forget all about it. There were 12 million Americans in the armed services during the war, and fewer than 2 million volunteered. The rest were smart enough to be forcefully inducted. Over 45,000 refused to fight but served in non-combat roles; of those 45,000, a few thousand went to prison rather than serve at all. And many thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of soldiers deserted in Europe.*

    And judging by America's continued insistence on dumb wars and poor foreign policy decisions, we've clearly done well in learning to forget.

    * See here: https://www.amazon.com/Deserters-Hidden-History-World-War/dp/0143125486

    Does that mean my destiny is to destroy European civilization and kill millions of my fellow white Christians in exchange for nothing?

    Right, because the pagan Nazis and the brutal Imperial Japanese were great defenders of European civilization and especially Christianity.

    fewer than 2 million volunteered

    My father, father-in-law, and all my uncles and my wife’s uncles old enough to volunteer did so. They were there, you were not, and I can tell you that to a man they believed it was a struggle for civilization. They knew what Japan had done to China, and what Germany had done wherever they went. And they were right.

    You are thinking about the wrong war.

  132. @Mr McKenna

    The FBI monomaniacally targeted an innocent rent-a-cop for being a Frustrated White Man, and then leaked his name to the press despite never having any actual evidence against him.
     
    All I can say about the Deep State is that some parts are further over the cataract than others. But they're all corrupt. Worth repeating Judge Collyer's words here again:

    "The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General's] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a 'populist' institution itself.

    the FBI spent six years tormenting bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill before paying him about $5 million for their abuse.
     
    One of many problems with government agents--along with the fact that so many are effectively unaccountable--is that on the rare occasions when they are made to pay, it's actually the taxpayers who pay. And just as they know they're untouchable--the worst that might happen is a reprimand in their file--these agents know that others will pay the bill. This knowledge informs their every action.

    One of many ironies is that the FISA court is hardly a ‘populist’ institution itself.

    The great Leonardo of Pisa,
    confused by the court born of FISA,
    said, “Data so botchy!
    Why, I, Fibonacci,
    could swear that Karachi
    gets much higher scores on the PISA!”

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  133. @Achmed E. Newman

    ... it’s just about that time again, for feeling the need, the need for speed:
     
    The original movie with Tom Cruise was damn near 35 years ago. Let me tell you something, Danand, when Tom Cruise says he "feels the need for speed" 'these days, it just means he's going to drink a can of Red Bull with his Geritol in the morning.

    Unfortunately when he feels the need for speed, he will get it satisfied by ripping through the streets of my hometown.
    https://popculture.com/celebrity/2018/07/28/tom-cruise-new-florida-penthouse-scientology-headquarters/

  134. @Achmed E. Newman
    I got no meme, SFG, but y'all have convinced me to go watch this movie, and that's even before reading Mr. Sailer's review in Takimag.

    I just wanted to get a word in on the "intelligence" community stuff mentioned. Perhaps the FBI had had its act together till more recently, at least until the AA really kicked in, but the CIA? They've been fucking up most of the operations they get involved in. (They'll tell you that it's because the successful ones are not known about. BS.) For all that money, over 40 years, could they have known the real state of the Soviet economy and maybe given us the time the USSR would break up within, I dunno, +/- a DECADE?!

    I want my money back.

    They’ve been fucking up most of the operations they get involved in. (They’ll tell you that it’s because the successful ones are not known about. BS.)

    True.

  135. @Desiderius
    https://spectator.org/nixons-resignation-reconsidered/

    "At one point, Cox became so worried about the sustainability of Judge Sirica’s one-sided rulings in favor of the prosecutors that he feared their conviction verdicts would be overturned on appeal. He secretly approached Chief Appellate Judge David Bazelon to explain how the judicial panels could be stacked to maintain Bazelon’s slim one-vote liberal majority. Sure enough, each of the 12 appeals from Sirica’s criminal trials was heard by the full nine-judge appellate court, sitting en banc — a circumstance unprecedented in any federal appellate court anywhere in the country, before or since."

    I hate Nixon, but he definitely got screwed by the deep state.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  136. @Louis Renault
    Judge Collier has been rubber stamping FISA requests the entire time she's been on the FISA court. Glad to see she's doing her part to cover up the corruption.

    I think odds are that the FISA court was in on the scam from the get-go and Judge Collier is exercising pretended outrage and, accordingly, has written a good, old-fashioned CYA memo. Similarly, the IG report characterizes 17 items as “mistakes”, that taken together, are clearly evidentiary examples of political basis and malice aforethought. We live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world with no way out, that is, unless we abolish FISA, the FBI, and the CIA … and that would be just for starters.

  137. You mentioned the anthrax attacks in the review.

    Has anyone ever figured out why Kathy Nguyen, the Vietnamese immigrant who lived in the Bronx, was targeted?

  138. Indeed, the Jewell case was tragic, driven by monumental errors of judgment on the part of media and law enforcement. But let us NOTICE that because Jewell was innocent does not mean that the FBI, given the information at the time, was “wrong” to label him as a suspect. Certainly, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was taken to the woodshed for leaking out his name, but that led to procedures put in place since then to ensure that there is not a rush to judgement.

    Of course, the film does play off the Fake News mantra which has paralyzed the sensibilities of a certain core group of (white) Americans. And, of course, our fearless host neglects to focus on a critical element of fictionalization in Eastwood’s film–a “quid pro quo”. Allegedly, a female reporter who took the lead on the story slept with an FBI agent, who proceeded to leak false information to her. But according to various sources, there is no truth that Kathy Scruggs ever slept with her source. Eastwood deftly propagandizes through implication that aspect in the film.

    Furthermore, Mrs. Sailer’s “movie review” is a two days late and $12 short.

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/clint-eastwoods-prequel-current-deep-state-drama-lloyd-billingsley/

    As an aside, when can we expect you to dedicate a post to the historic event taking place in our nation’s capital? Or will you remain your cagey self on this important matter?

  139. I notice only Baron Kaldian has mentioned my favorite Eastwood film, Space Cowboys.

  140. @keypusher
    Oh, yeah, right you are. It was especially bad because the world had fallen in love with Barcelona during the '92 Games. Not many cities on earth match up to Barcelona, but Atlanta is quite a step down.

    They should have delayed Atlanta in 1996 to late September like they did in Seoul in 1988. Waiting for a late bus in Atlanta in early August is not fun. Barcelona in 1992 was pretty disorganized too, but if you had to wait for a bus, hey, at least you were in Barcelona!

  141. @Anonymous
    I don't think profiling was overdone, but the issue is that organized serial killers study police methods in order to thwart them, so in the arms race between criminal and police, new methods were countered. Profiling added the dimension of "why". The motives are possible to understand, just very rare so you have to study the examples to learn the commonalities.

    For a lot of them it's a sexual thing, which like many a modern male's journey through internet porn, starts out vanilla and then progresses to more extreme "not my proudest fap" moments. That journey in someone with violent fantasy starts out amateurish and builds. E.g. stealing clothes off clotheslines, rape of elderly, rape, murder. Given that, it gives a clue as to which criminals to focus on. The murderer may already have a rap sheet. That is just one example gained by studying similar examples.

    The ubiquity of camera surveillance has made serial killing a lot more risky in the first world.

    I disagree. Most of these serial killers are sociopaths who, lacking any ability to connect to other human beings, need to find another raison d’etre. In particularly dark cases, that outlet can be serial murder, just as other sociopaths might find their outlet in relatively mild stuff like highly promiscuous lifestyles or binging on video games. Or more perniciously and in unusually high-functioning cases, ascending in corporate or political life for the sake of dominating as many people as they can for entertainment value.

    As an example, Ted Bundy tried to blame his crimes on porn, but if you know how to detect a sociopath, you can visibly tell he’s trying to manipulate the SoCon interviewer before his execution. The truth is prosaic: he was a classic sociopath who simply enjoyed murdering women. Who was the guy who said “Some men just need killin’?” That’s the reality here.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't know about you, but my sexual fantasies don't extend to extinguishing the life of a woman. Or any other being, or animal, or whatever. I doubt I'll ever win the world's most empathetic guy award, but in the search for life's meaning I am not going to find it in orgasming to the death of something. In porn or IRL.

    Similarly, I am not going to end up as an arsonist. I loved fire as a kid, but starting a massive blaze? No. One way to find an arsonist police use is to look at the bystanders looking at a blaze, and see who has an erection admiring their own handiwork. I find it similarly hard to imagine, but there you go.

    Those are some massive differences between ourselves and those types of criminals. Imagine needing to plunge in knife to orgasm? Imagine even having that as a trigger? It's pretty hard to comprehend, but once you understand it, it is useful info to get to the bottom of a crime. Profound difference to just "wanting to kill women".

    That sexual fantasy/compulsion aspect has all sorts of ramifications once you think about it. They need to pluck up the courage and build experience to reach their goals. They want to have their release but not go to prison, which is not an easy thing to achieve. And as a sexual thing, the reality is never as good as how you imagined it. They look to improve the experience each time. They take trinkets to remember and masturbate on the experience. All of these details and more allow someone who has studied these people (and profiling was based on interviewing them to find out what made them tick) to find clues to look for that others overlook.

    If you don't have any other useful evidence like DNA or a witness, you are looking for a needle in a haystack. Profiling allows or allowed some success because you were looking for a needle among a few strands of hay, rejecting the rest of the haystack. Maybe sometimes the needles were in the rest of the haystack, but also there have been successes.

    I have read many books on the subject, I had my reasons. (I suggest reading a book or two on the subject before thinking that you understand it and thence dismissing it.) Profiling is a tool to hunt people who kill and get away with it. Just one tool, and it has its limitations, but also its successes and uses. Ideally in life you'd just use woods, irons and a putter. But sometimes your best and only option is a sand wedge.

    Profiling is about noticing similarities about groups of people. They do, and surprisingly so. In that way it has mucho overlap with this blog.
  142. You idiots, and I mean you, just don’t give a shit, do you? Do you ever for once in your life, perchance, think?

    I doubt it.

    Look. If you are against profiling whites you should be against profiling blacks.

    But no, you’re not, because you are typical “conservatives,” i.e., confused nihilists. As Atzmon has pointed out elsewhere, you can be suckered into anything, no matter how inconsistent, as long as it excites your pineal gland, you lizard-brains.

    • Replies: @Rob
    Hey Ron, what happened to my ignore list?

    As to you, we’re not against profiling. We’re against bad profiling. Profiles generated from fantasy, pc, and law-enforcement desperation to have a suspect.. We’re against police using the media to harass a suspects (especially innocent ones), and we’re generally against profiles generated from very small samples that don’t narrow potential suspects very much. Black (or white) guy running down the street holding a purse typically carried by women? He fits the profile of a mugger, so stop him and question, and maybe arrest him. White man who has a rifle and lives in Maryland, DC, OR Virginia? That does not significantly narrow the potential suspects very much, because honestly, everyone profiles killers like that as male. That the profile was created out of whole cloth, and turned out to be wrong, that’s the sort of profiling we don’t like.

    Seriously, was that really hard for you.

  143. @68W58
    I saw "Richard Jewell" this weekend with my wife and enjoyed it. We had been in Olympic Park a few days before the explosion and we had tickets for baseball, softball and field hockey for the 1996 Olympics, though we only went to the baseball game (Japan vs. the Netherlands IIRC). We had applied for the tickets a year in advance, but those were the events we got and for the baseball game the stadium was about 20% filled and we could have walked up on game day and gotten better tickets.

    One thing that isn't mentioned in the movie is how poorly run the Atlanta Olympics were. We had a hotel in Toccoa, which is almost in South Carolina, because the Olympic committee had control over reservations in the state of Georgia and you had to take what they gave you (the next night it was Macon when our tickets were for softball in Columbus). When we got to the outskirts of Atlanta to take MARTA to the events there were several hotels advertising rooms available, so they didn't fill up the closest rooms first.

    I do wonder if Atlanta based CNN was only too happy to have a different story to run with so that there wasn't as much attention being paid to how poorly the games had been run. The IOC chairman didn't call the Atlanta games "the best ever" as he customarily did in his closing speech and which he only withheld for the Atlanta games.

    It was a massive deal in Atlanta when Samaranch announced we were getting the games. Can still hear him saying, “…the city of… Atlanta.” Utterly stunning. No one thought we really had a chance.

    It seemed at the time to be THE breakthrough moment for the “New” South. At Tech we were all convinced it was our cutting-edge VR presentation of all the completed Olympic venues that was the key, but in retrospect it was probably Billy Payne’s Augusta National schmoozing.

    Was so excited six years later didn’t even make it up from Americus where I was living at the time. Remember seeing the bomb there and being glad I hadn’t. Southern cities have too many carpetbaggers for their own good.

  144. @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    The movie Unforgiven is an anti-Western made to please the NYC critic crowd who hated Westerns.

  145. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "right-wing director Nolan?"

    What is your basis for that assertion? Nolan is the best director working today, and I certainly appreciate him not using his movies to grind away at political axes. That doesn't necessarily make him right wing.

    I cannot claim any special insight on what his true views are. I was semi-ironically repeating a common characterization of his movies.

    Do a search for “chirstopher nolan right-wing” or “christopher nolan fascist” or the like to see some on both sides. Among the tentative advocates of the Nolan as Right-Wing Director idea is one Steve Sailer.

    Here is what iSteve commenter Unladen Swallow said a few months ago on Nolan:

    Steve has implied [Christopher Nolan] is a closeted conservative, as you need to be in Hollywood. […] All these guys have to keep the messages at least somewhat cryptic to avoid being blacklisted like John Milius was after making “Red Dawn” in 1984, prior to that, Milius was arguably the top screenwriter in Hollywood (There was a documentary on Netflix about Milius and what happened to his career after that movie, don’t know if it is still there).

    The leftist ideologue movie types really hate Nolan’s Batman trilogy, particularly the second and third ones, they were also upset he didn’t use global warming as a plot device in “Interstellar” and complained about the lack of black soldiers in his last film “Dunkirk”.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "I was semi-ironically repeating a common characterization of his movies."

    Yeah - I should have picked up on that. Thanks for the reply, the points are well taken.
  146. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    Most of the bruhaha seems to be over the film’s portrayal of journalists, especially a certain female one. That seems to be its main sin. This got me thinking. It seems that most modern portrayals of journalists are extremely sympathetic, with journos having a totally objective zeal to find the truth akin to an experimental physicist. I assume this is a consequence of All The President’s Men. My film knowledge is hardly encyclopedic, but the only subsequent film I can think of where journalists were less-than-sterling is Absence of Malice(1981), with Paul Newman in the Richard Jewell role.

    In contrast, if you watch old (pre-Watergate) movies, they often treat journalists as being unethical, lying drunks. In other words, the sort of people who you’d enjoy watching a film about but whom you wouldn’t want to go anywhere near in real life. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that such movies were often written by guys like Ben Hecht and Sam Fuller, who had actually been journalists.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Screenwriter Ben Hecht got hired at age 16 by a Chicago newspaper in 1910. His most important job back then was to go to the home of a young woman who had just been murdered and while the reporters tried to talk their way in through the front door, he'd squeeze in a back window and steal off the mantle a photo of the newly deceased for printing on the front page. Once he stole an entire framed portrait in oil paint.
    , @Glaivester
    William Atherton's character in Die Hard and Die Hard 2.
  147. @Anonymous
    Most of the bruhaha seems to be over the film's portrayal of journalists, especially a certain female one. That seems to be its main sin. This got me thinking. It seems that most modern portrayals of journalists are extremely sympathetic, with journos having a totally objective zeal to find the truth akin to an experimental physicist. I assume this is a consequence of All The President's Men. My film knowledge is hardly encyclopedic, but the only subsequent film I can think of where journalists were less-than-sterling is Absence of Malice(1981), with Paul Newman in the Richard Jewell role.

    In contrast, if you watch old (pre-Watergate) movies, they often treat journalists as being unethical, lying drunks. In other words, the sort of people who you'd enjoy watching a film about but whom you wouldn't want to go anywhere near in real life. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that such movies were often written by guys like Ben Hecht and Sam Fuller, who had actually been journalists.

    Screenwriter Ben Hecht got hired at age 16 by a Chicago newspaper in 1910. His most important job back then was to go to the home of a young woman who had just been murdered and while the reporters tried to talk their way in through the front door, he’d squeeze in a back window and steal off the mantle a photo of the newly deceased for printing on the front page. Once he stole an entire framed portrait in oil paint.

  148. @EliteCommInc.
    He made an interesting choice in understating the issues. One of those issues was the counter balance between Mr. Jewell's, sincere support of ethics of law, and his intelligence and how that sincerity manifested as both qualities bumped up against his own overzealousness -- that was very well done -- the complexity of this very by all accounts gentle and decent man.

    I think what I would have liked is the image of Officer Jewell's wedding - against the oft played card of the homosexual charge - would have been a little more icing on the cake.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    One wants to respect our law enforcement, but the problem is always that when they override justice, they seem obtuse to the damage of ruined lives they leave in the wake. So, for those of you are constantly pushing law and order over the purpose of "law and order" --- what is becoming a kind narrative staple and government and power is not new and the practice of abusing power has been well honed on entire populations.

    Laughing, I have no doubt that Attorney Jack Goldsmith has been getting an earful, from his former colleagues, concerning his own revelations regarding prosecutions by the government.

    One wants to respect our law enforcement, but the problem is always that when they override justice, they seem obtuse to the damage of ruined lives they leave in the wake.

    Andrew Bacevich has made the point — with regard to military personnel — that as a culture we need to get past this reflexive “respect” for everyone wearing a uniform. As he puts it (I’m paraphrasing) the people in the military are just people.

    I certainly respect those in law enforcement who do their work well and maintain standards of professionalism in the face of considerable strain. Some do, some don’t. Most probably sometimes do and sometimes don’t. Like the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The FBI has brought this upon themselves - from the earliest days Hoover sought favorable publicity for the G-Men and arranged for them to be portrayed as superhuman "we always get our man" crime fighting geniuses on film. So naturally there had to be a backlash someday and the giants revealed to have feet of clay. Maybe if the FBI had portrayed itself with less hubris, as just another organization staffed by flawed humans - some of them trying to do their best and among the best at what they do (which is not to say perfect), some of them more interested in self promotion or in seeing how little work they could get away with, an organization that sometimes gets it right and sometimes get it wrong - then the backlash would not have been as great.

    But instead we have one extreme or the other - either the FBI is great or it's a bunch of evil crooks. The truth is usually too boring for the movies or TV. This was really brought home when the Giant Trumpslayer Mueller finally appeared on TV and turned out to be a snoozy and maybe slightly senile bureaucrat. The press, in their eagerness to slay Trump, had built him up to be such a superhero that the really Mueller was bound to be disappointing, but in the event it was an even bigger letdown.
  149. @The Wild Geese Howard
    Clint being awesome in Where Eagles Dare:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdaeBiF__u4

    "We got company."

    Indeed.

    Honestly that looks terrible. No hand grenades? No even attempt on the Heer to advance while suppressing the doorway? And the Foley effects ugh.

    I wonder if the video game industry is responsible for making a huge swath of mid century war movies completely unwatchable for zoomers and millennials. Not because of distraction but just shattering any versimilitude in these scenes. Still, I think pretty much anyone could see how dumb and implausible that scene is.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    No hand grenades?
     
    You must have never seen the entire movie. The grenades and advancement you so desire come shortly after the end of this clip.
    , @Lurker
    That scene contains a classic movie mistake.

    The setting is a castle that is a German military base, everyone is wearing German uniforms. An alarm sounds and all the German guards immediately realise, presumably from some code embedded in the alarm, two things:

    #1 That they must head to the radio room.

    #2 That they need to start shooting at Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton. Who are also dressed as German soldiers.
  150. @Morris Applebaum IV
    An interesting comparison with Woody Allen, but in many ways I think their directing careers are polar opposites. Clint produced lots of crap in his early years of directing and some gems. Woody Allen probably had the highest batting average of any director up to 1989. For whatever reason, aging, running out of ideas, the Mia Farrow conflict, he's pretty much sucked since then.

    Clint in his 70s & 80s has been "hit or miss", but so is almost every director in history, including the living ones you and Hollywood hold in higher esteem (Christopher Nolan, The Coen Bros., Martin Scorcese). Frankly, I think Clint has been better than Nolan, The Coens or Scorcese in the last two decades. The number of good and really great films he's directed is very long.

    Great Films:

    American Sniper (2014)
    Gran Torino (2008)
    Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
    Million Dollar Baby (2004)
    Mystic River (2003)

    Good/Very good:

    The Mule (2018)
    Sully (2016)
    Invictus (2009)
    Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

    I'm looking forward to seeing "Richard Jewell" tonight. Hope to add it to the list above. It's doing horribly at the box office (probably because nobody cares about a fat unattractive "loser", but also because the mainstream media is trying to kill it) so I hope people support it today or tomorrow because it may be gone in most theaters by Friday.

    Clint’s best film is a Perfect World IMO

  151. @Dumbo

    both Eastwood and Allen see filmmaking as an inherently hit-or-miss enterprise in which sheer quantity is the surest hope of some being of quality.
     
    Eastwood's earlier film (The Mule) was quite weak (saw it on a plane). Interesting concept but below average script with awkward dialogue. I'm surprised it's the same screenwriter of Gran Torino. This new one seems more interesting, maybe I'll watch it.

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen's own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011. He hasn't made anything interesting or popular since then or before that, and his last one seems to be pretty weak.

    Scorsese has made some good or at least interesting films in his old age, but he doesn't make a new film every year as Eastwood or Allen.

    Personally, I think that making too many (bad) movies weakens your "brand" as director. You don't need to be a Kubrick, but making a film every 2-3 years seems to be the right balance between getting some quality and not being forgotten.

    Midnight in Paris is okay, not great, even by Allen’s own work, very derivative, and it was in 2011.

    Woody Allen reached into his own archives for “Midnight in Paris.” It is based on a short story, “A Twenties Memory,” that appeared in his 1971 book Getting Even. I can’t remember which writer said that you know you’ve become a hack when you’re rereading your old stuff for inspiration.

  152. @Jack D
    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It's not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.

    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.

    The law says otherwise, and I agree.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Nope. Most of the other outlets settled but the Atlanta Journal appealed to the end and they won. The GA appeals court said: "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action."
  153. @Bardon Kaldian
    Well, this is about an Eastwood's movie, so....

    Alright, just a few words.

    1. I agree that Love and Death is probably Allen's best movie (I would add Annie Hall, and perhaps Zelig, plus two or three other early movies, especially outrageously funny film about Sex)

    2. he is/was frequently wrongly perceived as an artistic filmmaker, something which he is not (although perhaps sometimes he aspired to be). So, he can be appreciated justly when we put him in the right perspective, a cinematic connoisseur & a literate person whose mode of expression is film; he enjoyed all the fuss that goes with the celebrity status (who can blame him?)

    3. I disagree about religion etc. Besides, Fellini, although he dabbled with Jung's ideas & LSD, was not religious as a filmmaker; his movies are even more desperate & bleaker than those made by a skillful healthy-minded atheist. True, Fellini was a master- just I don't find his obsessions (clowns, for instance) interesting: he talks, I hear him & don't bother to listen anymore.

    Allen's movies move in the intersection of sentimentality, nostalgia, parody & absurdist fantasy. These elements may not fit well altogether, but they, sometimes- work. He's not a major director, but is much more than a minor imitator. As I said above, he has a vision to convey, and that vision, although limited, has a charming quality I don't quite see in another film authors.

    4. as for Jewish angle, I would say that Allen is the best counter-argument against the claims that Jews control film industry & push their agenda on the world. Such a gifted author like Allen would, if that were the case, have been showered with money for his movies- and he barely gets scraps. A lunatic idiot like Tommy Wiseau succeeded to invest $ 6 M in his masterpiece of how-not-to-do-films "The Room".

    All said, I like Allen's movies. True, I am not following his career; I find his films about white bourgeois, artsy & sensitive people entertaining-they have a NYC-European air about them. And, last but not least- I'm not bombarded by third worlders who populate most US film production in past 20 & more years.

    Such a gifted author like Allen would, if that were the case, have been showered with money for his movies- and he barely gets scraps. A lunatic idiot like Tommy Wiseau succeeded to invest $ 6 M in his masterpiece of how-not-to-do-films “The Room”.

    20-30 million a year, every year, are not scraps. And his films are rarely big money-makers. I doubt a non-Jewish director could have a career like that if he didn’t make money, talented or not.

    I think “The Room” was self-financed. I don’t get why this became popular. It’s just a bad/ridiculous movie.

    I’m not bombarded by third worlders who populate most US film production in past 20 & more years.

    Yes, what’s nice about Allen movies is that they are always anachronistic. No matter when they supposedly take place, it’s almost always a version of the 30s in termos of “diversity”, behavior and musical tastes (jazz etc).

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    20-30 million a year, every year, are not scraps. And his films are rarely big money-makers. I doubt a non-Jewish director could have a career like that if he didn’t make money, talented or not.
     
    I just checked- most of his movies, from the 1990s on, had a small budget, c. $5-15 M; most were flops; and some spectacularly succeeded (financially) earning 10-15 times more money. Who couldn't invest in such a guy? You never know what's going to be- you may lose a bit, but you may earn a lot (respectively). As for Joo-Jooing: who are his producers? Names?


    I think “The Room” was self-financed. I don’t get why this became popular. It’s just a bad/ridiculous movie.
     
    The Room is a cult classic of badness, along with Robot Monster, Troll 2, Shark Exorcist, Samurai Cop etc.
  154. @Morris Applebaum IV
    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.

    He's made a couple of excellent films since, but he's also made some of the worst films I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of films) including two supreme stinkers: Whatever Works (2009) and Everyone Says I Love You (1996)

    Yes, “Whatever Works” is (for me) the worst film I saw by Woody Allen. In fact I didn’t see anything by him since then, that’s how much I hated it. “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is good, but it wouldn’t be in my top 10 list.

  155. @ben tillman

    The real blame falls on the FBI for leaking false information. It’s not wrong for the press to report what they have been told by the authorities.
     
    The law says otherwise, and I agree.

    Nope. Most of the other outlets settled but the Atlanta Journal appealed to the end and they won. The GA appeals court said: “because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators’ suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action.”

  156. @syonredux

    There is a Soviet animation from the 50s which is quite faithful and is not bad.
     
    A friend of mine showed it to some kids (age 6) that her daughter had over for a sleepover. They really liked it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV1M1y595_U&t=927s

    Yes. A friend recently showed it to her children (6-8) and they enjoyed it. And these are kids who mostly watch only dumb Youtube animations or the latest Disney stuff. Apparently Miyazaki (the great Japanese animator) is a big fan of this film.

  157. @Pincher Martin
    Clint had such a productive and long career that it's easy to forget some very good films he has done.

    The Beguiled (1970) is superb, but no one talks about it anymore. Two enjoyable Eastwood films in which he was not the main star, but just one star among fine ensemble casts were Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968). I would admit, however, that Clint is probably the least enjoyable part of Kelly's Heroes. He just doesn't fit his role.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint's long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.

    Joe Kiddwas good. The Eiger Sanction, though a ridiculous premise, was entertaining and funny. Escape from Alcatraz was also good.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Joe Kidd was good. The Eiger Sanction, though a ridiculous premise, was entertaining and funny. Escape from Alcatraz was also good.
     
    All three were entertaining, and that's what Clint was good at. Entertaining middlebrow fare. Movies with a good if straightforward story. Clint's films weren't always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.
  158. Newborn kidnapped from a Chicago hospital in 1964 is found living in rural Michigan – 53 years after FBI reunited his biological parents with the WRONG baby

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7807735/Newborn-kidnapped-Chicago-hospital-1964-living-rural-Michigan.html

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
  159. Anonymous[114] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Although sometimes, as with the "Never Trump" stuff, this is politically motivated, most of these problems arise from a flaw in human psychology. The police are supposed to be skeptical and have an open mind about proof, but the way the human mind actually works is that FIRST you make up your mind about the guilty party and THEN you look for evidence to confirm it. And once a crime is "solved" then the police don't have to do any more hard work to find the guilty party - they've got their man and got him quick - excellent police work!

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.

    Most of the time, the cops really do pick out the guilty party on the first try, but if they happen to focus on someone who is innocent it's a Kafkaesque nightmare because their innocence is in effect irrelevant to the cops.

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.

    Do we see this in World War II historiography?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Good point. This is exactly how the minds of Holocaust deniers work, except that in their case they have decided that their man is innocent rather than guilty.
  160. @Mr. Anon
    Joe Kiddwas good. The Eiger Sanction, though a ridiculous premise, was entertaining and funny. Escape from Alcatraz was also good.

    Joe Kidd was good. The Eiger Sanction, though a ridiculous premise, was entertaining and funny. Escape from Alcatraz was also good.

    All three were entertaining, and that’s what Clint was good at. Entertaining middlebrow fare. Movies with a good if straightforward story. Clint’s films weren’t always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Clint’s films weren’t always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.
     
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

    Eastwood more or less knew this even though there were times when he shot over the mark, not least due to French auteurists and Dave Kehr getting a bit elaborate in their praise.

    Overall, Eastwood didn't let the praise(nor the criticism) get to him that much. He just kept at it within the range of what he could do well with eye to get a bit better and better, like a tortoise that never quits.

    In contrast, Warren Beatty was too ambitious for his own good, not least because BONNIE & CLYDE became one of the biggest events in movie history. And he was very much of part of 70s cinema when so much was happening. His most ambitious project was REDS, and he seemed to be on top of the world. Back then, Eastwood wasn't yet a respected director and Oliver Stone had yet to make his mark, but it seemed as though Beatty was poised to become a combo of Later Eastwood and Stone. A radical film-maker with broad appeal. For some reason, it didn't pan out. Did he get lazy? Was he overly ambitious for his own good? Just how did he get sucked into ISHTAR? He never really recovered as actor or director except for that moment with DICK TRACY, quite wonderful and still one of the best comic book movies. Who remembers his movie BULWORTH?

    Maybe Beatty wanted too much. He wanted to be an artist and a star, appearing in both MCCABE AND MRS MILLER(maybe best thing he ever did) and HEAVEN CAN WAIT, a hit but derided by many as fluff(but it's good fluff and with some special moments).

    Another thing. Eastwood aged gracefully whereas Beatty didn't. Beatty clung to youth as long as possible than taking on a new life as an old man as Eastwood and Redford did. Redford could have done more if not for his politics that made him overly apologetic for being a white man.
  161. @Bardon Kaldian

    Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is arguably one of the 10 greatest films ever made.
     
    Overstatement of not just one century, but, actually, two: 20th & 21st.

    I’ll get back to you in 2100 to see if it’s still in the top ten.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Yeah, bottom 100. Top 100 in past two decades include films like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz-vegualMg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJMGz4nXSBY

    Woody could never even come close.
  162. @David In TN
    Regarding the Beltway Sniper, the press, etc took the position "Even though the killer turned out to be black, the profile was still correct."

    One of the apologias for black crime has been "All serial killers are white males." This lie has appeared in "news" stories and feature films.

    The blogger Countenance has said black serial killers benefited from the "quasi-official line" that there were no black serial killers.

    Nicholas Stix has described how "FBI Profiler" Robert Ressler became a media darling with the "no nonwhite serial killers" trope.

    Nicholas Stix has described how “FBI Profiler” Robert Ressler became a media darling with the “no nonwhite serial killers” trope.

    Is Robert Ressler himself White?

    • Replies: @David In TN
    "Is Robert Ressler himself white?"

    Robert Ressler (1936-2013) was white.
  163. @utu
    Newborn kidnapped from a Chicago hospital in 1964 is found living in rural Michigan - 53 years after FBI reunited his biological parents with the WRONG baby

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7807735/Newborn-kidnapped-Chicago-hospital-1964-living-rural-Michigan.html

    Thanks.

  164. @Dumbo

    Such a gifted author like Allen would, if that were the case, have been showered with money for his movies- and he barely gets scraps. A lunatic idiot like Tommy Wiseau succeeded to invest $ 6 M in his masterpiece of how-not-to-do-films “The Room”.
     
    20-30 million a year, every year, are not scraps. And his films are rarely big money-makers. I doubt a non-Jewish director could have a career like that if he didn't make money, talented or not.

    I think "The Room" was self-financed. I don't get why this became popular. It's just a bad/ridiculous movie.

    I’m not bombarded by third worlders who populate most US film production in past 20 & more years.
     
    Yes, what's nice about Allen movies is that they are always anachronistic. No matter when they supposedly take place, it's almost always a version of the 30s in termos of "diversity", behavior and musical tastes (jazz etc).

    20-30 million a year, every year, are not scraps. And his films are rarely big money-makers. I doubt a non-Jewish director could have a career like that if he didn’t make money, talented or not.

    I just checked- most of his movies, from the 1990s on, had a small budget, c. $5-15 M; most were flops; and some spectacularly succeeded (financially) earning 10-15 times more money. Who couldn’t invest in such a guy? You never know what’s going to be- you may lose a bit, but you may earn a lot (respectively). As for Joo-Jooing: who are his producers? Names?

    I think “The Room” was self-financed. I don’t get why this became popular. It’s just a bad/ridiculous movie.

    The Room is a cult classic of badness, along with Robot Monster, Troll 2, Shark Exorcist, Samurai Cop etc.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Woody Allen never goes over budget by much. If you invest in one of his movies, you probably would only get, say, 80% of your money back, but it's not going to be Heaven's Gate. And until it comes out you get to brag to your friends that Woody's next script is genius.

    I suggested that rich WASPs should subsidize Whit Stillman's movies the way that rich Jews subsidize Woody Allen's movies, but nobody listened to me.

  165. @Morris Applebaum IV
    I'll get back to you in 2100 to see if it's still in the top ten.

    Yeah, bottom 100. Top 100 in past two decades include films like this:

    Woody could never even come close.

    • Replies: @Morris Applebaum IV
    By the way, Richard Jewell was a fabulous film by Clint Eastwood, though I'm struggling to see how it relates to "problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain" Maybe it has something to do with his character, Rowdy Yates, I'm not sure.

    One little piece of advice I have for film critics is that they should actually watch the movie before they comment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ7_RrZPqv0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7erAVaZPOE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-sJvraeyew
  166. @Bardon Kaldian

    20-30 million a year, every year, are not scraps. And his films are rarely big money-makers. I doubt a non-Jewish director could have a career like that if he didn’t make money, talented or not.
     
    I just checked- most of his movies, from the 1990s on, had a small budget, c. $5-15 M; most were flops; and some spectacularly succeeded (financially) earning 10-15 times more money. Who couldn't invest in such a guy? You never know what's going to be- you may lose a bit, but you may earn a lot (respectively). As for Joo-Jooing: who are his producers? Names?


    I think “The Room” was self-financed. I don’t get why this became popular. It’s just a bad/ridiculous movie.
     
    The Room is a cult classic of badness, along with Robot Monster, Troll 2, Shark Exorcist, Samurai Cop etc.

    Woody Allen never goes over budget by much. If you invest in one of his movies, you probably would only get, say, 80% of your money back, but it’s not going to be Heaven’s Gate. And until it comes out you get to brag to your friends that Woody’s next script is genius.

    I suggested that rich WASPs should subsidize Whit Stillman’s movies the way that rich Jews subsidize Woody Allen’s movies, but nobody listened to me.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Yes, Stillman, agreed. Similar to Allen re nostalgic urban wit; better because there is, unlike Allen, not something obsessively pathological in his movies. He's not only more "real", but also healthier.

    Oh well, not anyone can be Terrence Malick...
  167. @SunBakedSuburb
    "What are the best Eastwood-directed movies?"

    Haven't seen The Mule (2018) yet. Would like to but it's difficult seeing my favorite father figure looking so old and fragile. Today my favorite Eastwood-directed film is the violent weird western High Plains Drifter (1973). Tomorrow it'll be The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). Sunday it'll be the Boston Irish crime film Mystic River (2003).

    You won’t be missing much if you skip watching The Mule. I found it very contrived, implausible and somewhat slap dash. Completely forgettable except for how forgettable it was.

  168. @Steve Sailer
    Woody Allen never goes over budget by much. If you invest in one of his movies, you probably would only get, say, 80% of your money back, but it's not going to be Heaven's Gate. And until it comes out you get to brag to your friends that Woody's next script is genius.

    I suggested that rich WASPs should subsidize Whit Stillman's movies the way that rich Jews subsidize Woody Allen's movies, but nobody listened to me.

    Yes, Stillman, agreed. Similar to Allen re nostalgic urban wit; better because there is, unlike Allen, not something obsessively pathological in his movies. He’s not only more “real”, but also healthier.

    Oh well, not anyone can be Terrence Malick…

  169. @Hail
    I cannot claim any special insight on what his true views are. I was semi-ironically repeating a common characterization of his movies.

    Do a search for "chirstopher nolan right-wing" or "christopher nolan fascist" or the like to see some on both sides. Among the tentative advocates of the Nolan as Right-Wing Director idea is one Steve Sailer.

    Here is what iSteve commenter Unladen Swallow said a few months ago on Nolan:


    Steve has implied [Christopher Nolan] is a closeted conservative, as you need to be in Hollywood. [...] All these guys have to keep the messages at least somewhat cryptic to avoid being blacklisted like John Milius was after making “Red Dawn” in 1984, prior to that, Milius was arguably the top screenwriter in Hollywood (There was a documentary on Netflix about Milius and what happened to his career after that movie, don’t know if it is still there).

    The leftist ideologue movie types really hate Nolan’s Batman trilogy, particularly the second and third ones, they were also upset he didn’t use global warming as a plot device in “Interstellar” and complained about the lack of black soldiers in his last film “Dunkirk”.
     

    “I was semi-ironically repeating a common characterization of his movies.”

    Yeah – I should have picked up on that. Thanks for the reply, the points are well taken.

  170. @William Badwhite

    this “Greatest Generation” stuff was always a bunch of Brokaw hype
     
    When I hear it I like to point out "how could be they be so great if they raised the Boomers? Greatest generation, worst parents ever".

    Nice of Brokaw and his ilk to be nice to finally appreciate their parents after most had died. A little late and a lot opportuni$tic.

  171. @SunBakedSuburb
    "What are the best Eastwood-directed movies?"

    Haven't seen The Mule (2018) yet. Would like to but it's difficult seeing my favorite father figure looking so old and fragile. Today my favorite Eastwood-directed film is the violent weird western High Plains Drifter (1973). Tomorrow it'll be The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). Sunday it'll be the Boston Irish crime film Mystic River (2003).

    I saw The Mule and enjoyed it very much. Not a masterpiece, certainly.

  172. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Obviously as a critic you can pick your battles, but I for one would be interested to see your review of "Frozen 2".

    I don't want to rant, (though I suppose I will), but personally I simply could not believe how bad it was. We're talking about the bizarre confluence of a billion-dollar pop franchise and also an extraordinary work of art, you'd expect that there would be a bit of carefulness here, but no.

    The exact same creative team who had produced a masterpiece had five years and a giant pile of money to try and come up with something at least respectable, and instead they produced... this. I guess it's sort of like the random way how lightning strikes, John Lennon himself could not tell why "Tomorrow Never Knows"'was so great, and "Wild Honeypie" was garbage, and then "Polythene Pam" which was every bit as trivial, was somehow brilliant in spite of itself.

    Granted a sequel is nearly always a lesser thing, and the original Frozen was sort of a fluke: forty or fifty years in the making, even the great Walt Disney brooded on "The Snow Queen" for decades and still couldn't figure out what to do with it, then the great John Lasseter, probably the best storytelling mind of our era, did a complete 180 on the nature of the story once he heard the incredible score that he had not expected to hear. Frozen is this weird combination of a charming romantic adventure-comedy and the most shocking psychological horror of our time.

    So now as a follow-up we get some dumb self-conscious banalities, and mandatory charmless diversities. Hmmm.

    Interesting take. I will say that the song “Let It Go” is amazing but it’s too hard core for a 5 year old. so many soaring emotions in that song. Breeding a generation of psychotic divas.

  173. @Pincher Martin
    Clint had such a productive and long career that it's easy to forget some very good films he has done.

    The Beguiled (1970) is superb, but no one talks about it anymore. Two enjoyable Eastwood films in which he was not the main star, but just one star among fine ensemble casts were Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968). I would admit, however, that Clint is probably the least enjoyable part of Kelly's Heroes. He just doesn't fit his role.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint's long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.

    Same here. I think it was because it appealed to blue-collar people like me. Generally class plays a much larger role in opinions than anyone is willing to admit.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    Right turn, Clyde. Not that an orangutan needs a comma.
  174. @Anonymous

    Once you are convinced that you have the guilty party, then any denials on his part or evidence to the contrary is just an effort by the guilty to evade responsibility and you have to redouble your efforts to nail him. If any evidence is exculpatory, you just readjust your theory to accommodate it. The more deeply you are invested in the case, the harder it is to lose face and admit that you picked the wrong guy and now you have to go back to square one.
     
    Do we see this in World War II historiography?

    Good point. This is exactly how the minds of Holocaust deniers work, except that in their case they have decided that their man is innocent rather than guilty.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Good point. This is exactly how the minds of Holocaust deniers work, except that in their case they have decided that their man is innocent rather than guilty.
     
    How invested are you in your own case?
  175. @GeologyAnon
    Honestly that looks terrible. No hand grenades? No even attempt on the Heer to advance while suppressing the doorway? And the Foley effects ugh.

    I wonder if the video game industry is responsible for making a huge swath of mid century war movies completely unwatchable for zoomers and millennials. Not because of distraction but just shattering any versimilitude in these scenes. Still, I think pretty much anyone could see how dumb and implausible that scene is.

    No hand grenades?

    You must have never seen the entire movie. The grenades and advancement you so desire come shortly after the end of this clip.

  176. John Orr, the fireman in Wambaugh’s “Fire Lover” wasn’t much interested in being the “first reporter.” He wanted to be the brilliant investigator who discovered the fire cause.

  177. Anonymous[114] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    I disagree. Most of these serial killers are sociopaths who, lacking any ability to connect to other human beings, need to find another raison d'etre. In particularly dark cases, that outlet can be serial murder, just as other sociopaths might find their outlet in relatively mild stuff like highly promiscuous lifestyles or binging on video games. Or more perniciously and in unusually high-functioning cases, ascending in corporate or political life for the sake of dominating as many people as they can for entertainment value.

    As an example, Ted Bundy tried to blame his crimes on porn, but if you know how to detect a sociopath, you can visibly tell he's trying to manipulate the SoCon interviewer before his execution. The truth is prosaic: he was a classic sociopath who simply enjoyed murdering women. Who was the guy who said "Some men just need killin'?" That's the reality here.

    I don’t know about you, but my sexual fantasies don’t extend to extinguishing the life of a woman. Or any other being, or animal, or whatever. I doubt I’ll ever win the world’s most empathetic guy award, but in the search for life’s meaning I am not going to find it in orgasming to the death of something. In porn or IRL.

    Similarly, I am not going to end up as an arsonist. I loved fire as a kid, but starting a massive blaze? No. One way to find an arsonist police use is to look at the bystanders looking at a blaze, and see who has an erection admiring their own handiwork. I find it similarly hard to imagine, but there you go.

    Those are some massive differences between ourselves and those types of criminals. Imagine needing to plunge in knife to orgasm? Imagine even having that as a trigger? It’s pretty hard to comprehend, but once you understand it, it is useful info to get to the bottom of a crime. Profound difference to just “wanting to kill women”.

    That sexual fantasy/compulsion aspect has all sorts of ramifications once you think about it. They need to pluck up the courage and build experience to reach their goals. They want to have their release but not go to prison, which is not an easy thing to achieve. And as a sexual thing, the reality is never as good as how you imagined it. They look to improve the experience each time. They take trinkets to remember and masturbate on the experience. All of these details and more allow someone who has studied these people (and profiling was based on interviewing them to find out what made them tick) to find clues to look for that others overlook.

    If you don’t have any other useful evidence like DNA or a witness, you are looking for a needle in a haystack. Profiling allows or allowed some success because you were looking for a needle among a few strands of hay, rejecting the rest of the haystack. Maybe sometimes the needles were in the rest of the haystack, but also there have been successes.

    I have read many books on the subject, I had my reasons. (I suggest reading a book or two on the subject before thinking that you understand it and thence dismissing it.) Profiling is a tool to hunt people who kill and get away with it. Just one tool, and it has its limitations, but also its successes and uses. Ideally in life you’d just use woods, irons and a putter. But sometimes your best and only option is a sand wedge.

    Profiling is about noticing similarities about groups of people. They do, and surprisingly so. In that way it has mucho overlap with this blog.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    One way to find an arsonist police use is to look at the bystanders looking at a blaze, and see who has an erection admiring their own handiwork. I find it similarly hard to imagine, but there you go.
     
    Do you have a cite for this claim about police scanning the crowds looking for erections?

    Imagine needing to plunge in knife to orgasm? Imagine even having that as a trigger? It’s pretty hard to comprehend, but once you understand it, it is useful info to get to the bottom of a crime.
     
    I think the problem for most of your claims is that it is more difficult to find evidence for someone needing a "plunge a knife in to orgasm" as it is to just work the evidence of the crime scene. Generally, serial murderers don't reveal those details to others, not even intimate friends (if they have any).

    And as the FBI investigators of Richard Jewell discovered, even if you do find out something incriminating about someone's past, you still have to connect them to the crime.

  178. @Redneck farmer
    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.

    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.

    The main reason is because they’re government employees, so they do what’s easiest. It’s the equivalent of looking for your car keys under a streetlight, but in this case they get to just throw down a set of keys and say “Found them!”. Good job guys! Pat yourselves on the back! GS-14s for everybody! The fact that the DoJ holds civil liberties in contempt just makes it even easier. The FBI is both malign AND incompetent.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    It’s the equivalent of looking for your car keys under a streetlight, but in this case they get to just throw down a set of keys and say “Found them!”

    That's pretty much how the Russia-Collusion hoax started.

  179. The reference to Shattered Glass made me think – the Rape on Campus story would make a great film. Follow the exploits of Sabrina Rubin Erdely as she constructs a Rubin vase of her own, and cons the “woke” world!

    It turns out that there are at least two such projects underway.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Erdely#Film_projects

  180. @Anonymous
    I had finished grad school and was living in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2002 when the Beltway sniper was picking off people at gas stations and store parking lots. Like everyone else in the area I followed the case very closely. In the October 14 shooting in Manassas, VA I even drove to the area right after the news broke to watch the dragnet. I saw how piss-poor it was. On one corner there were dozens of guys in FBI, DEA, ATF,... flak jackets quickly scanning cars with flashlights. It was clear they were looking for a particular description.

    I devoured all news. I watched CNN, Fox News, MSNBC nonstop. I clearly recall every criminal profiler, including former FBI profilers Clint Van Zandt and Robert Ressler, as well as Pat Brown, say with an air of metaphysical certitude that it was a white male. Brown went further and said it was probably a white nationalist type. Anyway, I think we know the rest of the story.


    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-12-15-0212160297-story.html

    Facing the Beltway snipers, profilers were dead wrong
    Elsbeth Bothe
    THE BALTIMORE SUN
    December 15, 2002


    The typical mass murderer is extraordinarily ordinary," says James Alan Fox, author of books titled The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder, (Pearson Education, 2000) and Overkill: Mass Murder & Serial Killing Exposed, (Da Capo Press, 1994). He is also a teacher with a textbook: How to Work with the Media (Sage Press, 1993), and maintains a self-promoting Web site named Wolfman Productions. Facilely exploiting his experience in both areas, Fox had previously managed to become a talking head on high-rated broadcast shows.

    During the tempestuous three weeks of this October, while the media raged and the Beltway Sniper rampaged, Fox, his colleagues and competitors were truly in their glory. A cross section of ordinary people were being slaughtered as they went their usual ways within range of an assault rifle. That was the only link connecting the crimes -- ten dead, three critically wounded -- pedestrians, motorists pumping gas, shoppers, a schoolboy, a bus driver. With little to supplement repetitious accounts of the continuing killings, the media offered limitless space for the speculations of self-aggrandizing experts on whodunnit.

    "He stops and shoots and doesn't hear the screams," Fox dramatically divulged to his alarmed audience. "Others enjoy squeezing the last breath from their victim. It makes it easier for him psychologically to murder." Clifton Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler, agreed: "This is someone who is cold, who is calculating, who has the skills and doesn't care who they hurt."

    "This could be a disgruntled employee who was fired. It is someone who is angry," offered Brent Turvey, who wrote Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, (Academic Press, 1999) Turvey was echoed by Robert K. Ressler, best-selling author of I Have Lived in the Monster (St Martin's Press, 1998), and Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI, (St.Martin's Press, 1993).

    Where does the Beltway Sniper hang out? "He's a weekday warrior. Even snipers have jobs," declared Fox. On the theory that serial killers strike close to home, D. Kim Rossmo, author of Geographic Profiling (CRC Press, 1999), applied his computerized mapping techniques, which, according to him, narrow the police target by 95 percent on average. "The more killings you have, the better it works," said the software manufacturer.

    Ressler lamented that there were "no behavioral clues at the scene." Indeed, even the parameters of the sites were uncertain -- from where were the shots fired? There were no eyewitnesses, just bodies hit with matching bullets, and sightings of a motor vehicle thought to be a light-colored truck or van. "That vehicle will be in a garage or a lake," predicted Van Zandt.

    The experts were neither misogynists nor racists. They all agreed with Van Zandt that "this is something white males do." Fox and Van Zandt, along with most others...
     

    FBI profilers got the Unibomber wrong too.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    The idea of psychological profiling was popularised by film and TV. In response, universities began providing courses in "Forensic Psychology". The fact that law enforcement agencies do not recognise this discipline or its qualifications is irrelevant, as is the general failure of psychological profiling itself. Kids wanted to be Clarice Starling, or Cracker.

    It is a gross example of how the educational-industrial complex cons kids out of their money.
  181. @No Jack london
    Let's not forget the spectacular work of Police Chief Charles Moose.

    Wait, this isn’t the centerpiece of your library? That’s racist.

  182. @Mr. Anon
    FBI profilers got the Unibomber wrong too.

    The idea of psychological profiling was popularised by film and TV. In response, universities began providing courses in “Forensic Psychology”. The fact that law enforcement agencies do not recognise this discipline or its qualifications is irrelevant, as is the general failure of psychological profiling itself. Kids wanted to be Clarice Starling, or Cracker.

    It is a gross example of how the educational-industrial complex cons kids out of their money.

  183. @GeologyAnon
    Honestly that looks terrible. No hand grenades? No even attempt on the Heer to advance while suppressing the doorway? And the Foley effects ugh.

    I wonder if the video game industry is responsible for making a huge swath of mid century war movies completely unwatchable for zoomers and millennials. Not because of distraction but just shattering any versimilitude in these scenes. Still, I think pretty much anyone could see how dumb and implausible that scene is.

    That scene contains a classic movie mistake.

    The setting is a castle that is a German military base, everyone is wearing German uniforms. An alarm sounds and all the German guards immediately realise, presumably from some code embedded in the alarm, two things:

    #1 That they must head to the radio room.

    #2 That they need to start shooting at Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton. Who are also dressed as German soldiers.

  184. @Jack D
    Good point. This is exactly how the minds of Holocaust deniers work, except that in their case they have decided that their man is innocent rather than guilty.

    Good point. This is exactly how the minds of Holocaust deniers work, except that in their case they have decided that their man is innocent rather than guilty.

    How invested are you in your own case?

  185. @Anonymous
    I don't know about you, but my sexual fantasies don't extend to extinguishing the life of a woman. Or any other being, or animal, or whatever. I doubt I'll ever win the world's most empathetic guy award, but in the search for life's meaning I am not going to find it in orgasming to the death of something. In porn or IRL.

    Similarly, I am not going to end up as an arsonist. I loved fire as a kid, but starting a massive blaze? No. One way to find an arsonist police use is to look at the bystanders looking at a blaze, and see who has an erection admiring their own handiwork. I find it similarly hard to imagine, but there you go.

    Those are some massive differences between ourselves and those types of criminals. Imagine needing to plunge in knife to orgasm? Imagine even having that as a trigger? It's pretty hard to comprehend, but once you understand it, it is useful info to get to the bottom of a crime. Profound difference to just "wanting to kill women".

    That sexual fantasy/compulsion aspect has all sorts of ramifications once you think about it. They need to pluck up the courage and build experience to reach their goals. They want to have their release but not go to prison, which is not an easy thing to achieve. And as a sexual thing, the reality is never as good as how you imagined it. They look to improve the experience each time. They take trinkets to remember and masturbate on the experience. All of these details and more allow someone who has studied these people (and profiling was based on interviewing them to find out what made them tick) to find clues to look for that others overlook.

    If you don't have any other useful evidence like DNA or a witness, you are looking for a needle in a haystack. Profiling allows or allowed some success because you were looking for a needle among a few strands of hay, rejecting the rest of the haystack. Maybe sometimes the needles were in the rest of the haystack, but also there have been successes.

    I have read many books on the subject, I had my reasons. (I suggest reading a book or two on the subject before thinking that you understand it and thence dismissing it.) Profiling is a tool to hunt people who kill and get away with it. Just one tool, and it has its limitations, but also its successes and uses. Ideally in life you'd just use woods, irons and a putter. But sometimes your best and only option is a sand wedge.

    Profiling is about noticing similarities about groups of people. They do, and surprisingly so. In that way it has mucho overlap with this blog.

    One way to find an arsonist police use is to look at the bystanders looking at a blaze, and see who has an erection admiring their own handiwork. I find it similarly hard to imagine, but there you go.

    Do you have a cite for this claim about police scanning the crowds looking for erections?

    Imagine needing to plunge in knife to orgasm? Imagine even having that as a trigger? It’s pretty hard to comprehend, but once you understand it, it is useful info to get to the bottom of a crime.

    I think the problem for most of your claims is that it is more difficult to find evidence for someone needing a “plunge a knife in to orgasm” as it is to just work the evidence of the crime scene. Generally, serial murderers don’t reveal those details to others, not even intimate friends (if they have any).

    And as the FBI investigators of Richard Jewell discovered, even if you do find out something incriminating about someone’s past, you still have to connect them to the crime.

  186. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Everyone forgets that Every Which Way But Loose (1978) was the most commercially successful movie of Clint’s long career. I have no desire to see it again, but I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in the theater as a kid despite it being critically panned.
     
    Same here. I think it was because it appealed to blue-collar people like me. Generally class plays a much larger role in opinions than anyone is willing to admit.

    Right turn, Clyde. Not that an orangutan needs a comma.

  187. @obwandiyag
    You idiots, and I mean you, just don't give a shit, do you? Do you ever for once in your life, perchance, think?

    I doubt it.

    Look. If you are against profiling whites you should be against profiling blacks.

    But no, you're not, because you are typical "conservatives," i.e., confused nihilists. As Atzmon has pointed out elsewhere, you can be suckered into anything, no matter how inconsistent, as long as it excites your pineal gland, you lizard-brains.

    Hey Ron, what happened to my ignore list?

    As to you, we’re not against profiling. We’re against bad profiling. Profiles generated from fantasy, pc, and law-enforcement desperation to have a suspect.. We’re against police using the media to harass a suspects (especially innocent ones), and we’re generally against profiles generated from very small samples that don’t narrow potential suspects very much. Black (or white) guy running down the street holding a purse typically carried by women? He fits the profile of a mugger, so stop him and question, and maybe arrest him. White man who has a rifle and lives in Maryland, DC, OR Virginia? That does not significantly narrow the potential suspects very much, because honestly, everyone profiles killers like that as male. That the profile was created out of whole cloth, and turned out to be wrong, that’s the sort of profiling we don’t like.

    Seriously, was that really hard for you.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    So you are against arresting and imprisoning innocent whites.

    But you are for arresting and imprisoning innocent blacks.

    Now I understand. Perfectly consistent.
  188. @Mr. Anon

    I think part of the reason is scare away more competent people who might try terrorism; make them think the FBI is more effective than it really is.
     
    The main reason is because they're government employees, so they do what's easiest. It's the equivalent of looking for your car keys under a streetlight, but in this case they get to just throw down a set of keys and say "Found them!". Good job guys! Pat yourselves on the back! GS-14s for everybody! The fact that the DoJ holds civil liberties in contempt just makes it even easier. The FBI is both malign AND incompetent.

    It’s the equivalent of looking for your car keys under a streetlight, but in this case they get to just throw down a set of keys and say “Found them!”

    That’s pretty much how the Russia-Collusion hoax started.

  189. @Bardon Kaldian
    Yeah, bottom 100. Top 100 in past two decades include films like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz-vegualMg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJMGz4nXSBY

    Woody could never even come close.

    By the way, Richard Jewell was a fabulous film by Clint Eastwood, though I’m struggling to see how it relates to “problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain” Maybe it has something to do with his character, Rowdy Yates, I’m not sure.

    One little piece of advice I have for film critics is that they should actually watch the movie before they comment.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Alda is a film actor of great subtlety - the merest flick of an eyebrow betray his inner feelings. No need for broad gestures. And Allen too - he doesn't hit you over the head with the point he is trying to get across. These two were made for each other!
  190. New teaser trailer for Christopher Nolan’s upcoming 2020 science fiction action thriller film Tenet, starring BlacKkKlansman‘s John David Washington:

    TENET – Official Trailer

  191. @Anonymous
    Most of the bruhaha seems to be over the film's portrayal of journalists, especially a certain female one. That seems to be its main sin. This got me thinking. It seems that most modern portrayals of journalists are extremely sympathetic, with journos having a totally objective zeal to find the truth akin to an experimental physicist. I assume this is a consequence of All The President's Men. My film knowledge is hardly encyclopedic, but the only subsequent film I can think of where journalists were less-than-sterling is Absence of Malice(1981), with Paul Newman in the Richard Jewell role.

    In contrast, if you watch old (pre-Watergate) movies, they often treat journalists as being unethical, lying drunks. In other words, the sort of people who you'd enjoy watching a film about but whom you wouldn't want to go anywhere near in real life. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that such movies were often written by guys like Ben Hecht and Sam Fuller, who had actually been journalists.

    William Atherton’s character in Die Hard and Die Hard 2.

  192. William Atherton’s character in Die Hard and Die Hard 2.

    The FBI guys in Die Hard didn’t come off too well either.

  193. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    What are the best Eastwood-directed movies? Unforgiven is really good, of course. The part of his next movie A Perfect World that I saw was impressive. I've heard good things about Bridges of Madison County, suggesting his peak was in his early 60s in the early 1990s. Outlaw Josey Wales, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby?

    It seems like as an actor Clint should have tried to work with other top directors besides Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and himself. The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.

    On the other hand, it's kind of silly to say that Clint Eastwood should have done more in his career.

    He's done a lot.

    FLAGS and LETTERS are his most impressive works, the only ones that qualify as art.

    Eastwood has made some solid genre works, esp in Westerns: HIGH PLAINS, OUTLAW JOSEY, PALE RIDER. In some ways, UNFORGIVEN is his most remarkable Western but not necessarily in a good way. It strains for significance and even ‘art’, something his earlier Westerns can’t be accused of.

    HEARTBREAK isn’t much but one of my favs as Eastwood’s nod to SANDS OF IWO JIMA even though US vs Grenada is ludicrous as matter of crisis. Lots of funny scenes and warm moments.
    BRONCO BILLY and HONKY TONK MAN are minor works, a light comedy and a light tragedy, but on the plus side, without pretension.

    His earlier works were big on narcissism. It was as if the ugly world of ugly men wanted to crucify him for his handsomeness while women of all stripes wanted to throw themselves at him. So, in movies like HIGH PLAINS, he’s either taking revenge on the men or jumping in the sack with the ladies. In his later movies, esp beginning with HEARTBREAK, the older Eastwood seems mainly concerned about a man’s atoning for a life of adventure than obligation to the one true love of his life.

    Eastwood’s attempt at heavy themes, seriousness, or dark ‘psychological’ material was never quite convincing. Never managed to sit through all of PLAY MISTY or BIRD. Still haven’t seen WHITE HUNTER. Don’t wanna go near BRIDGES OF MADISON crap, the sort of the stuff meant for Oprah fans. Did see MYSTIC RIVER and it was good but, like UNFORGIVEN, strained. Still, CHANGELING worked better than his other dark-themed movies because he’d finally mastered a kind of style that might be called gran-torino. Don Rickles called Scorsese a cadillac, true enough. Eastwood is a gran torino. Not top of the model but durable and reliable when fine-tuned and well-oiled. Many of his earlier movies were decent enough but a bit clunky here and there. BIRD was a mess, as if he was trying to do too much. PALE RIDER is pretty good but very uneven. His movies of the past decade have some of the best alignment and suspension. They steer real good, and it’s fitting that MULE is about someone on the road.
    THE MULE may not be a great movie but, from start to finish, it rides like the flatlands of the mid-west. Smooth driving. Some people might fault this approach as lacking in dramatic ups and downs, but Eastwood has reached a point where he doesn’t have to drive the point home. And we know the melodramatic formula well enough to fill in the voids.

    This sense of ‘grace’ in the later works is probably part conscious, the product of long experience in film-making. Eastwood has done it so many times that he could make movies blind-folded. He’s not a master-artist but a master-craftsman. But it also owes to certain enervation that comes with age. We don’t sense much in the way of exertion, even in a war movie like AMERICAN SNIPER that is remarkably muted compared to the works by Spielberg and LONE SURVIVOR(which has one of the best battle scenes ever filmed but also one of the most ridiculously funny scenes at the end when an Afghan kid falls in instant-love with the US soldier, rather like the little dino and big dino becoming friends at the end of JURASSIC WORLD). When some directors grow old, they just lose it and mark time. But Eastwood seems to have a zen-thing going for him. He has maybe 10% of the movie-making energy he did in the 80s and 90s, but he uses it so efficiently that he his movies still have dramatic motion if not the passionate charge. And in some ways, it is this muted quality that makes the key moments even more moving. It works like a painting.
    MULE will likely be remembered as one of his finer works. More than any other, it find the perfect balance between familiarity of formula, sincerity of emotions, and grimness of subject matter. In contrast, MYSTIC RIVER seemed too dark for pulp and too pulpy for darkness. Though impressive in parts, I didn’t really buy it. Same with UNFORGIVEN. It’s as if Louis L’Amour went into Melville or Conrad mode.

    If Allen and Eastwood have something in common, they lost their pretenses later in their career. Allen once tried to be the American Bergman/Fellini/Antonioni but finally and thankfully gave that up and began making movies like MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY. Though Allen won Best Pic with ANNIE HALL, it encouraged his worst impulses for over a decade.
    Same is true of Eastwood. All the praise for UNFORGIVEN made Eastwood go in the wrong direction. He’s not a deep and dark director. He’s best at conveying the traditional American grace of stoicism in the face of darkness.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/64503/matters-fate

  194. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Joe Kidd was good. The Eiger Sanction, though a ridiculous premise, was entertaining and funny. Escape from Alcatraz was also good.
     
    All three were entertaining, and that's what Clint was good at. Entertaining middlebrow fare. Movies with a good if straightforward story. Clint's films weren't always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.

    Clint’s films weren’t always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.

    “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

    Eastwood more or less knew this even though there were times when he shot over the mark, not least due to French auteurists and Dave Kehr getting a bit elaborate in their praise.

    Overall, Eastwood didn’t let the praise(nor the criticism) get to him that much. He just kept at it within the range of what he could do well with eye to get a bit better and better, like a tortoise that never quits.

    In contrast, Warren Beatty was too ambitious for his own good, not least because BONNIE & CLYDE became one of the biggest events in movie history. And he was very much of part of 70s cinema when so much was happening. His most ambitious project was REDS, and he seemed to be on top of the world. Back then, Eastwood wasn’t yet a respected director and Oliver Stone had yet to make his mark, but it seemed as though Beatty was poised to become a combo of Later Eastwood and Stone. A radical film-maker with broad appeal. For some reason, it didn’t pan out. Did he get lazy? Was he overly ambitious for his own good? Just how did he get sucked into ISHTAR? He never really recovered as actor or director except for that moment with DICK TRACY, quite wonderful and still one of the best comic book movies. Who remembers his movie BULWORTH?

    Maybe Beatty wanted too much. He wanted to be an artist and a star, appearing in both MCCABE AND MRS MILLER(maybe best thing he ever did) and HEAVEN CAN WAIT, a hit but derided by many as fluff(but it’s good fluff and with some special moments).

    Another thing. Eastwood aged gracefully whereas Beatty didn’t. Beatty clung to youth as long as possible than taking on a new life as an old man as Eastwood and Redford did. Redford could have done more if not for his politics that made him overly apologetic for being a white man.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    Warren Beatty has to be one of the most overrated people in the history of Hollywood. I think Bonnie and Clyde and McCabe and Mrs Miller are the only Beatty films I can remember watching that I actually enjoyed. But Penn and Altman are the reasons those films are memorable. Beatty just happens to star in them.

    Reds is awful. It doesn't survive rewatching. A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda. There's a good reason no one watches it today. It's simply unwatchable. A couple of years ago I tried to rewatch it and failed. The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons or as a lifetime achievement award. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents more than those talents deserved.

    In the last few years I've watched a lot of older films that I've never seen before. Among Beatty's films those have included Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It's a trivial film about nothing of importance.

    I can't agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It's fitting that Beatty's last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.
    , @Pincher Martin
    I forgot to mention another reason Beatty has not survived as an auteur in his older age while Clint has thrived is that Beatty as a director suffers from a compulsive disorder that makes him reshoot scenes over and over and over again. Clint, by contrast, just points and shoots. Actors who work with Beatty quickly get exasperated. Clint, on the other hand, gets along quite well with most actors, even though Clint's politics aren't as congenial to Hollywood nearly as well as Beatty's are.
  195. @Morris Applebaum IV
    By the way, Richard Jewell was a fabulous film by Clint Eastwood, though I'm struggling to see how it relates to "problematization of his role as a Spaghetti hero-villain" Maybe it has something to do with his character, Rowdy Yates, I'm not sure.

    One little piece of advice I have for film critics is that they should actually watch the movie before they comment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ7_RrZPqv0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7erAVaZPOE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-sJvraeyew

    Alda is a film actor of great subtlety – the merest flick of an eyebrow betray his inner feelings. No need for broad gestures. And Allen too – he doesn’t hit you over the head with the point he is trying to get across. These two were made for each other!

  196. DICK TRACY, quite wonderful and still one of the best comic book movies.

    First of all, this is a low threshold because comic book movies are infantile to begin with – it’s like “best symphony based upon a tune from a wind up toy.”

    2nd, Dick Tracy is a mixed bag. Yes, the visuals are great – the guy who did the latex masks is terrifically talented, the color palate and 2 dimensional look matches the comic in a clever way. The craft work is impeccable and impressive. We got it – this is a comic strip on the silver screen. The only thing missing is a plot and any sense of emotional engagement with the characters. You really don’t care what happens to them. Unfortunately, the latter is what movies are really all about. All the sets and costumes have to be in service of the story and not an end unto themselves.

  197. @Anonymous

    Clint’s films weren’t always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.
     
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

    Eastwood more or less knew this even though there were times when he shot over the mark, not least due to French auteurists and Dave Kehr getting a bit elaborate in their praise.

    Overall, Eastwood didn't let the praise(nor the criticism) get to him that much. He just kept at it within the range of what he could do well with eye to get a bit better and better, like a tortoise that never quits.

    In contrast, Warren Beatty was too ambitious for his own good, not least because BONNIE & CLYDE became one of the biggest events in movie history. And he was very much of part of 70s cinema when so much was happening. His most ambitious project was REDS, and he seemed to be on top of the world. Back then, Eastwood wasn't yet a respected director and Oliver Stone had yet to make his mark, but it seemed as though Beatty was poised to become a combo of Later Eastwood and Stone. A radical film-maker with broad appeal. For some reason, it didn't pan out. Did he get lazy? Was he overly ambitious for his own good? Just how did he get sucked into ISHTAR? He never really recovered as actor or director except for that moment with DICK TRACY, quite wonderful and still one of the best comic book movies. Who remembers his movie BULWORTH?

    Maybe Beatty wanted too much. He wanted to be an artist and a star, appearing in both MCCABE AND MRS MILLER(maybe best thing he ever did) and HEAVEN CAN WAIT, a hit but derided by many as fluff(but it's good fluff and with some special moments).

    Another thing. Eastwood aged gracefully whereas Beatty didn't. Beatty clung to youth as long as possible than taking on a new life as an old man as Eastwood and Redford did. Redford could have done more if not for his politics that made him overly apologetic for being a white man.

    Warren Beatty has to be one of the most overrated people in the history of Hollywood. I think Bonnie and Clyde and McCabe and Mrs Miller are the only Beatty films I can remember watching that I actually enjoyed. But Penn and Altman are the reasons those films are memorable. Beatty just happens to star in them.

    Reds is awful. It doesn’t survive rewatching. A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda. There’s a good reason no one watches it today. It’s simply unwatchable. A couple of years ago I tried to rewatch it and failed. The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons or as a lifetime achievement award. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents more than those talents deserved.

    In the last few years I’ve watched a lot of older films that I’ve never seen before. Among Beatty’s films those have included Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It’s a trivial film about nothing of importance.

    I can’t agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It’s fitting that Beatty’s last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It’s a trivial film about nothing of importance.
     
    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted - it's a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing. Sex in Hollywood had always been portrayed coyly and indirectly - usually in a tongue in cheek or wink/wink manner . Think of all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson pictures. Shampoo was one of those movies that helped bring us to where we are now (for better and for worse) and so in effect helped to bring about its own obsolescence. What looked new and fresh then looks trite to us because it has been copied so many times but it's not just another copy, it's the original of its genre.

    It's like Wolfgang Puck and the original menu of Spago . Now we look at it and you think, what a trite menu - this is the same food that they serve at mall food courts and on airlines and in the frozen food section of your supermarket - how could anyone have gotten excited about eating that food? Hollywood stars and players lined up to eat that, which even blue haired ladies in Cleveland nowadays reject as trite? That's all true but the reason is that they are all copying Spago. When Puck served these dishes 40 years ago they were all new and fresh and his inventions.

    , @Anonymous

    Reds is awful... A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda... The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons.. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents...
     
    It's an impressive work in many ways, but yes, also awful. It seems Bertolucci and Beatty went opposite directions with 1900 and REDS. Bertolucci went total auteur and made one of the silliest and most insane films ever. After awhile, even the outrage grows tiresome and ultimately boring.
    In contrast, Beatty played it safe, and it's a rather mild movie about a radical character. It's a bit jarring, watching an old-fashioned conventional movie that lionizes a American communist. The style and politics cancel each other out. Also, while Beatty identifies with the radical character, he still wants to be the lovable "You're So Vain" guy. Most offensive the politics but the schmaltz, like when Beatty and Keaton throwing snow balls at each other and making love are juxtaposed with the Bolshevik takeover. I mean gimme a break. Still, it's not a total loss, and it does have some strong scenes. I still prefer it to OUT OF AFRICA.

    The academy had mixed feelings about it, as did the critics. Beatty got best director, but best picture went to... what was it? CHARIOTS OF FIRE?


    ...Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.
     
    PARALLAX VIEW is one of the best paranoid movies of the 70s when Hollywood was in paranoid mode. Nixon's presidency prolly had something to do with it. Also, Jews still didn't have the commanding heights in Deep State. PARALLAX is more relevant than ever. People are being 'parallax-ed' without them noticing. SPLENDOR would have been silly without Beatty. Just a laughable premise for a movie.

    I can’t agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It's not much but was special to my younger self. It was different from GREASE, STAR WARS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and usual stuff seen on big screen. Also, even though most of the movie is routine comedy, there are moments, especially the bittersweet ending, that are genuinely poignant.
    I still regard it as one of the most heart-aching scenes in cinema.


    It’s fitting that Beatty’s last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.
     
    Still, I don't think we should judge the value of movies by box office. So many great movies bombed while so many junk raked it big bucks. Btw, its title RULES DON'T APPLY certainly applies to Beatty.
  198. @black sea

    One wants to respect our law enforcement, but the problem is always that when they override justice, they seem obtuse to the damage of ruined lives they leave in the wake.
     
    Andrew Bacevich has made the point -- with regard to military personnel -- that as a culture we need to get past this reflexive "respect" for everyone wearing a uniform. As he puts it (I'm paraphrasing) the people in the military are just people.

    I certainly respect those in law enforcement who do their work well and maintain standards of professionalism in the face of considerable strain. Some do, some don't. Most probably sometimes do and sometimes don't. Like the rest of us.

    The FBI has brought this upon themselves – from the earliest days Hoover sought favorable publicity for the G-Men and arranged for them to be portrayed as superhuman “we always get our man” crime fighting geniuses on film. So naturally there had to be a backlash someday and the giants revealed to have feet of clay. Maybe if the FBI had portrayed itself with less hubris, as just another organization staffed by flawed humans – some of them trying to do their best and among the best at what they do (which is not to say perfect), some of them more interested in self promotion or in seeing how little work they could get away with, an organization that sometimes gets it right and sometimes get it wrong – then the backlash would not have been as great.

    But instead we have one extreme or the other – either the FBI is great or it’s a bunch of evil crooks. The truth is usually too boring for the movies or TV. This was really brought home when the Giant Trumpslayer Mueller finally appeared on TV and turned out to be a snoozy and maybe slightly senile bureaucrat. The press, in their eagerness to slay Trump, had built him up to be such a superhero that the really Mueller was bound to be disappointing, but in the event it was an even bigger letdown.

  199. @Anonymous

    Clint’s films weren’t always memorable, but most of them survive rewatching. And a handful of his films have risen above their aim of just entertaining to become classics.
     
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

    Eastwood more or less knew this even though there were times when he shot over the mark, not least due to French auteurists and Dave Kehr getting a bit elaborate in their praise.

    Overall, Eastwood didn't let the praise(nor the criticism) get to him that much. He just kept at it within the range of what he could do well with eye to get a bit better and better, like a tortoise that never quits.

    In contrast, Warren Beatty was too ambitious for his own good, not least because BONNIE & CLYDE became one of the biggest events in movie history. And he was very much of part of 70s cinema when so much was happening. His most ambitious project was REDS, and he seemed to be on top of the world. Back then, Eastwood wasn't yet a respected director and Oliver Stone had yet to make his mark, but it seemed as though Beatty was poised to become a combo of Later Eastwood and Stone. A radical film-maker with broad appeal. For some reason, it didn't pan out. Did he get lazy? Was he overly ambitious for his own good? Just how did he get sucked into ISHTAR? He never really recovered as actor or director except for that moment with DICK TRACY, quite wonderful and still one of the best comic book movies. Who remembers his movie BULWORTH?

    Maybe Beatty wanted too much. He wanted to be an artist and a star, appearing in both MCCABE AND MRS MILLER(maybe best thing he ever did) and HEAVEN CAN WAIT, a hit but derided by many as fluff(but it's good fluff and with some special moments).

    Another thing. Eastwood aged gracefully whereas Beatty didn't. Beatty clung to youth as long as possible than taking on a new life as an old man as Eastwood and Redford did. Redford could have done more if not for his politics that made him overly apologetic for being a white man.

    I forgot to mention another reason Beatty has not survived as an auteur in his older age while Clint has thrived is that Beatty as a director suffers from a compulsive disorder that makes him reshoot scenes over and over and over again. Clint, by contrast, just points and shoots. Actors who work with Beatty quickly get exasperated. Clint, on the other hand, gets along quite well with most actors, even though Clint’s politics aren’t as congenial to Hollywood nearly as well as Beatty’s are.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Clint, on the other hand, gets along quite well with most actors, even though Clint’s politics aren’t as congenial to Hollywood nearly as well as Beatty’s are.
     
    More than the actors, it seems Eastwood has assembled a crew around him that knows exactly what he wants. They are on the same wavelength.
    Also, Eastwood is a classicist who doesn't mind sticking to the tried-and-true.
  200. @Anonymous

    Nicholas Stix has described how “FBI Profiler” Robert Ressler became a media darling with the “no nonwhite serial killers” trope.
     
    Is Robert Ressler himself White?

    “Is Robert Ressler himself white?”

    Robert Ressler (1936-2013) was white.

  201. @Pincher Martin
    Warren Beatty has to be one of the most overrated people in the history of Hollywood. I think Bonnie and Clyde and McCabe and Mrs Miller are the only Beatty films I can remember watching that I actually enjoyed. But Penn and Altman are the reasons those films are memorable. Beatty just happens to star in them.

    Reds is awful. It doesn't survive rewatching. A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda. There's a good reason no one watches it today. It's simply unwatchable. A couple of years ago I tried to rewatch it and failed. The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons or as a lifetime achievement award. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents more than those talents deserved.

    In the last few years I've watched a lot of older films that I've never seen before. Among Beatty's films those have included Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It's a trivial film about nothing of importance.

    I can't agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It's fitting that Beatty's last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It’s a trivial film about nothing of importance.

    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted – it’s a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing. Sex in Hollywood had always been portrayed coyly and indirectly – usually in a tongue in cheek or wink/wink manner . Think of all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson pictures. Shampoo was one of those movies that helped bring us to where we are now (for better and for worse) and so in effect helped to bring about its own obsolescence. What looked new and fresh then looks trite to us because it has been copied so many times but it’s not just another copy, it’s the original of its genre.

    It’s like Wolfgang Puck and the original menu of Spago . Now we look at it and you think, what a trite menu – this is the same food that they serve at mall food courts and on airlines and in the frozen food section of your supermarket – how could anyone have gotten excited about eating that food? Hollywood stars and players lined up to eat that, which even blue haired ladies in Cleveland nowadays reject as trite? That’s all true but the reason is that they are all copying Spago. When Puck served these dishes 40 years ago they were all new and fresh and his inventions.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted – it’s a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing.
     
    SHAMPOO came out in 1975, after CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and LAST TANGO. And STRAW DOGS and CLOCKWORK, and PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK with its endless reference of people 'balling' each other. By then, its sexuality was nothing new. What made SHAMPOO special was, oddly enough, its sentimentality and old-fashioned romanticism. Despite all his flings and betrayals, the Beatty character knows he threw it all away and lost the chance with the woman of his life. Also, its mood is unlike any other. No other film presented LA in such way, just like HAROLD and MAUDE, another Ashby flick, did special things with Northern California.
    , @Pincher Martin

    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted – it’s a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing. Sex in Hollywood had always been portrayed coyly and indirectly – usually in a tongue in cheek or wink/wink manner . Think of all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson pictures. Shampoo was one of those movies that helped bring us to where we are now (for better and for worse) and so in effect helped to bring about its own obsolescence.
     
    I have a hard time believing that's the reason.

    Shampoo came out in 1975. Six years earlier, Midnight Cowboy won both commercial success and the Academy Award for Best Picture - the same year the now-forgotten Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice was a critically-acclaimed hit. Women in Love, based on the D.H. Lawrence novel, had been a critically-acclaimed hit in Britain in 1969 and won Glenda Jackson an Oscar after its release in the U.S in 1970. Mike Nichols' Carnal Knowledge came out in 1971 to plaudits and a decent box office. Last Tango in Paris was a cultural phenomenon in the early seventies.

    Hollywood was a long ways from Doris Day and Rock Hudson by the mid-seventies. The frank portrayal of sex in the movies was old hat when Shampoo came out.

  202. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin
    I forgot to mention another reason Beatty has not survived as an auteur in his older age while Clint has thrived is that Beatty as a director suffers from a compulsive disorder that makes him reshoot scenes over and over and over again. Clint, by contrast, just points and shoots. Actors who work with Beatty quickly get exasperated. Clint, on the other hand, gets along quite well with most actors, even though Clint's politics aren't as congenial to Hollywood nearly as well as Beatty's are.

    Clint, on the other hand, gets along quite well with most actors, even though Clint’s politics aren’t as congenial to Hollywood nearly as well as Beatty’s are.

    More than the actors, it seems Eastwood has assembled a crew around him that knows exactly what he wants. They are on the same wavelength.
    Also, Eastwood is a classicist who doesn’t mind sticking to the tried-and-true.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    More than the actors, it seems Eastwood has assembled a crew around him that knows exactly what he wants. They are on the same wavelength.
     
    Yes, and by contrast, Beatty spent most of his time trying to either write or acquire scripts about projects he was interested in. And as he got older he had great difficulty getting to production because he was so finicky about a script and then when he did finally find one he liked, he would become even more difficult to work with after shooting began on a film.

    There are numerous stories in Biskind's book Star: How Warren Beatty Seduced America about how Beatty as a director would shoot a scene over and over again, causing some of his fellow actors to claim he was abusive. But when you watch his movies, the evidence for this style of directing doesn't come out on the screen. Beatty's movies don't look that sharply produced or well edited.

    I just googled about Beatty's style as a director and here are a few comments I found:

    Reportedly, Warren Beatty re-shot some scenes up to thirty-five times. Paul Sorvino said he did as many as seventy takes for one scene, and Maureen Stapleton said she did as many as eighty takes for another. Reportedly, of this, she famously once said to Warren Beatty, "Are you out of your fucking mind?" This earned her a round of applause from the crew.
     
    Here's another:

    Jack Nicholson once got so frustrated at having to do so many takes of a scene with Diane Keaton, that he snapped at Warren Beatty, "Just tell me what the fuck you want and I'll do it."
     
    Ishtar had the same problem during filming. Elaine May shot one scene fifty times with three cameras running simultaneously. Is it any wonder Beatty's films always ran over budget?

    In Love Affair, Beatty reportedly tried to get Katherine Hepburn, who was quite elderly and not well at the time, to keep filming a scene over and over again until she gave him a withering look after like the third or fourth take.
  203. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It’s a trivial film about nothing of importance.
     
    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted - it's a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing. Sex in Hollywood had always been portrayed coyly and indirectly - usually in a tongue in cheek or wink/wink manner . Think of all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson pictures. Shampoo was one of those movies that helped bring us to where we are now (for better and for worse) and so in effect helped to bring about its own obsolescence. What looked new and fresh then looks trite to us because it has been copied so many times but it's not just another copy, it's the original of its genre.

    It's like Wolfgang Puck and the original menu of Spago . Now we look at it and you think, what a trite menu - this is the same food that they serve at mall food courts and on airlines and in the frozen food section of your supermarket - how could anyone have gotten excited about eating that food? Hollywood stars and players lined up to eat that, which even blue haired ladies in Cleveland nowadays reject as trite? That's all true but the reason is that they are all copying Spago. When Puck served these dishes 40 years ago they were all new and fresh and his inventions.

    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted – it’s a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing.

    SHAMPOO came out in 1975, after CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and LAST TANGO. And STRAW DOGS and CLOCKWORK, and PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK with its endless reference of people ‘balling’ each other. By then, its sexuality was nothing new. What made SHAMPOO special was, oddly enough, its sentimentality and old-fashioned romanticism. Despite all his flings and betrayals, the Beatty character knows he threw it all away and lost the chance with the woman of his life. Also, its mood is unlike any other. No other film presented LA in such way, just like HAROLD and MAUDE, another Ashby flick, did special things with Northern California.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    I completely agree with the first two sentences of this post. I'm not sure what to make of the claim that Shampoo is sentimental and old-fashioned. It's a meandering story about an unsympathetic and ditzy hairdresser's romantic life with political elevator music in the background.
  204. @Jack D

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It’s a trivial film about nothing of importance.
     
    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted - it's a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing. Sex in Hollywood had always been portrayed coyly and indirectly - usually in a tongue in cheek or wink/wink manner . Think of all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson pictures. Shampoo was one of those movies that helped bring us to where we are now (for better and for worse) and so in effect helped to bring about its own obsolescence. What looked new and fresh then looks trite to us because it has been copied so many times but it's not just another copy, it's the original of its genre.

    It's like Wolfgang Puck and the original menu of Spago . Now we look at it and you think, what a trite menu - this is the same food that they serve at mall food courts and on airlines and in the frozen food section of your supermarket - how could anyone have gotten excited about eating that food? Hollywood stars and players lined up to eat that, which even blue haired ladies in Cleveland nowadays reject as trite? That's all true but the reason is that they are all copying Spago. When Puck served these dishes 40 years ago they were all new and fresh and his inventions.

    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted – it’s a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing. Sex in Hollywood had always been portrayed coyly and indirectly – usually in a tongue in cheek or wink/wink manner . Think of all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson pictures. Shampoo was one of those movies that helped bring us to where we are now (for better and for worse) and so in effect helped to bring about its own obsolescence.

    I have a hard time believing that’s the reason.

    Shampoo came out in 1975. Six years earlier, Midnight Cowboy won both commercial success and the Academy Award for Best Picture – the same year the now-forgotten Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice was a critically-acclaimed hit. Women in Love, based on the D.H. Lawrence novel, had been a critically-acclaimed hit in Britain in 1969 and won Glenda Jackson an Oscar after its release in the U.S in 1970. Mike Nichols’ Carnal Knowledge came out in 1971 to plaudits and a decent box office. Last Tango in Paris was a cultural phenomenon in the early seventies.

    Hollywood was a long ways from Doris Day and Rock Hudson by the mid-seventies. The frank portrayal of sex in the movies was old hat when Shampoo came out.

  205. @Anonymous

    You are missing something. Nowadays we take the frank portrayal of sexual politics on screen for granted – it’s a commonplace. But when Shampoo came out, such frank treatment of sex on screen was a new thing.
     
    SHAMPOO came out in 1975, after CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and LAST TANGO. And STRAW DOGS and CLOCKWORK, and PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK with its endless reference of people 'balling' each other. By then, its sexuality was nothing new. What made SHAMPOO special was, oddly enough, its sentimentality and old-fashioned romanticism. Despite all his flings and betrayals, the Beatty character knows he threw it all away and lost the chance with the woman of his life. Also, its mood is unlike any other. No other film presented LA in such way, just like HAROLD and MAUDE, another Ashby flick, did special things with Northern California.

    I completely agree with the first two sentences of this post. I’m not sure what to make of the claim that Shampoo is sentimental and old-fashioned. It’s a meandering story about an unsympathetic and ditzy hairdresser’s romantic life with political elevator music in the background.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I’m not sure what to make of the claim that Shampoo is sentimental and old-fashioned. It’s a meandering story about an unsympathetic and ditzy hairdresser’s romantic life with political elevator music in the background.
     
    Yes, it's hip and casual as narrative, but it all builds to an emotional denouement where Beatty's character gets on his knees and pleads. There's a similar kind of buzz at the end of AMERICAN GIGOLO, a cynical story of pervs but ends with confirmation of love and loyalty and glimpse of redemption.

    Even though the guy fails at the end of SHAMPOO(as in BLUE VALENTINE), the ultimate message is life needs compass and anchor. The movie ends with the 'hero' at the top of the hill but all alone.
  206. @Anonymous

    Clint, on the other hand, gets along quite well with most actors, even though Clint’s politics aren’t as congenial to Hollywood nearly as well as Beatty’s are.
     
    More than the actors, it seems Eastwood has assembled a crew around him that knows exactly what he wants. They are on the same wavelength.
    Also, Eastwood is a classicist who doesn't mind sticking to the tried-and-true.

    More than the actors, it seems Eastwood has assembled a crew around him that knows exactly what he wants. They are on the same wavelength.

    Yes, and by contrast, Beatty spent most of his time trying to either write or acquire scripts about projects he was interested in. And as he got older he had great difficulty getting to production because he was so finicky about a script and then when he did finally find one he liked, he would become even more difficult to work with after shooting began on a film.

    There are numerous stories in Biskind’s book Star: How Warren Beatty Seduced America about how Beatty as a director would shoot a scene over and over again, causing some of his fellow actors to claim he was abusive. But when you watch his movies, the evidence for this style of directing doesn’t come out on the screen. Beatty’s movies don’t look that sharply produced or well edited.

    I just googled about Beatty’s style as a director and here are a few comments I found:

    Reportedly, Warren Beatty re-shot some scenes up to thirty-five times. Paul Sorvino said he did as many as seventy takes for one scene, and Maureen Stapleton said she did as many as eighty takes for another. Reportedly, of this, she famously once said to Warren Beatty, “Are you out of your fucking mind?” This earned her a round of applause from the crew.

    Here’s another:

    Jack Nicholson once got so frustrated at having to do so many takes of a scene with Diane Keaton, that he snapped at Warren Beatty, “Just tell me what the fuck you want and I’ll do it.”

    Ishtar had the same problem during filming. Elaine May shot one scene fifty times with three cameras running simultaneously. Is it any wonder Beatty’s films always ran over budget?

    In Love Affair, Beatty reportedly tried to get Katherine Hepburn, who was quite elderly and not well at the time, to keep filming a scene over and over again until she gave him a withering look after like the third or fourth take.

  207. Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    The little bit I saw of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for Michael Cimino (Deer Hunter) looked promising.
     
    Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is simply outstanding, a perfect gem of a movie. Jeff Bridges' was particularly good. It might be Cimino's best work:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQKDQCYsEZM

    Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is simply outstanding, a perfect gem of a movie.

    But even here, there are signs of Cimino’s megalocinemania. Though a movie about crooks and caper gone bad, it features vista after vista of the great American West. It’s like he wanted to do HEAVEN’S GATE already as background.

    Was it meant to suggest tension between urban crime thriller and the Western? Noir characters in a Western universe?

    Though SICILIAN was a bomb, it looks pretty good now. And though most of the actors were not Italian, the guy who plays the old mafia chief is outstanding.

    https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-sicilian/Film?oid=1064734

  208. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Obviously as a critic you can pick your battles, but I for one would be interested to see your review of "Frozen 2".

    I don't want to rant, (though I suppose I will), but personally I simply could not believe how bad it was. We're talking about the bizarre confluence of a billion-dollar pop franchise and also an extraordinary work of art, you'd expect that there would be a bit of carefulness here, but no.

    The exact same creative team who had produced a masterpiece had five years and a giant pile of money to try and come up with something at least respectable, and instead they produced... this. I guess it's sort of like the random way how lightning strikes, John Lennon himself could not tell why "Tomorrow Never Knows"'was so great, and "Wild Honeypie" was garbage, and then "Polythene Pam" which was every bit as trivial, was somehow brilliant in spite of itself.

    Granted a sequel is nearly always a lesser thing, and the original Frozen was sort of a fluke: forty or fifty years in the making, even the great Walt Disney brooded on "The Snow Queen" for decades and still couldn't figure out what to do with it, then the great John Lasseter, probably the best storytelling mind of our era, did a complete 180 on the nature of the story once he heard the incredible score that he had not expected to hear. Frozen is this weird combination of a charming romantic adventure-comedy and the most shocking psychological horror of our time.

    So now as a follow-up we get some dumb self-conscious banalities, and mandatory charmless diversities. Hmmm.

    Took my kids to “Frozen 2.” Visually beautiful, but otherwise total garbage.

    Not only did the story make no sense, but it was anti-White PC through and through. Consider:

    – 1850s Norway town about 25% brown and black (Original “Frozen” took a LOT of heat for being all White — das ist verboten!). One main character, a military officer, is Black. In Norway. Because, you know, Norway has ALWAYS been diverse.

    – [Disney’s Polynesian-themed “Moana” from a few years ago featured only Polynesians, no Whites or Blacks or other races, so I guess it was “100% diverse and therefore a-ok. All the main actors/actresses in “Moana” had polynesian origins as well. Same for old and rebooted “Mulan” — no Whites means “100% diverse and therefore ok!. “Diverse” doesn’t mean “multiple races” it just means “fewer or no Whites”.]

    – Turns out Elsa and Anna’s mother was from an indigenous minority Northern tribe

    – Northern tribe ostensibly modeled after Scandinavia’s minority Sami people. Sami look White, but in this film they look like Eskimos with Asian features. Yet mother and Elsa/Anna look “hideously White” despite their Asiatic Eskimo blood.

    – Elsa/Anna’s deceased grandfather, the king, falsely befriended the Northern tribe and built a dam to ruin their lands. Then under the guise of a friendship leader meeting, White grandfather king literally stabbed Eskimo tribal leader in the back and led his army to a surprise attack the Eskimos.

    – Anna realizes that to undo this wrong she must destroy the dam. She knows that destroying the dam will unleash a great wall of water that will smash her town of Arendell and possibly kill many of her own people. But that doesn’t matter, the Great White Crime of her ancestor must be paid for.

    – Anna abandons her soon-to-be fiance without even attempting to locate him. It’s clear she ranks him a pretty low priority in her life. Later she apologizes to him and he responds “That’s ok. My love is not fragile.”

    Yeah, it was that bad.

    Fortunately I think all the PC and anti-White messages sailed over the heads of my kids. Still, it got me thinking how do I protect my kids from this dreck? Move to the moon? It’s everywhere, all the time.

  209. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin
    I completely agree with the first two sentences of this post. I'm not sure what to make of the claim that Shampoo is sentimental and old-fashioned. It's a meandering story about an unsympathetic and ditzy hairdresser's romantic life with political elevator music in the background.

    I’m not sure what to make of the claim that Shampoo is sentimental and old-fashioned. It’s a meandering story about an unsympathetic and ditzy hairdresser’s romantic life with political elevator music in the background.

    Yes, it’s hip and casual as narrative, but it all builds to an emotional denouement where Beatty’s character gets on his knees and pleads. There’s a similar kind of buzz at the end of AMERICAN GIGOLO, a cynical story of pervs but ends with confirmation of love and loyalty and glimpse of redemption.

    Even though the guy fails at the end of SHAMPOO(as in BLUE VALENTINE), the ultimate message is life needs compass and anchor. The movie ends with the ‘hero’ at the top of the hill but all alone.

  210. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin
    Warren Beatty has to be one of the most overrated people in the history of Hollywood. I think Bonnie and Clyde and McCabe and Mrs Miller are the only Beatty films I can remember watching that I actually enjoyed. But Penn and Altman are the reasons those films are memorable. Beatty just happens to star in them.

    Reds is awful. It doesn't survive rewatching. A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda. There's a good reason no one watches it today. It's simply unwatchable. A couple of years ago I tried to rewatch it and failed. The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons or as a lifetime achievement award. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents more than those talents deserved.

    In the last few years I've watched a lot of older films that I've never seen before. Among Beatty's films those have included Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.

    Shampoo is one those films that makes the recent American past seem like a foreign country. Hw could that film be so commercially successful? How could it get so many positive critical reviews? It was one of those films that added to the early Beatty cult, but in retrospect that reaction seems mildly crazy. It's a trivial film about nothing of importance.

    I can't agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It's fitting that Beatty's last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.

    Reds is awful… A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda… The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons.. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents…

    It’s an impressive work in many ways, but yes, also awful. It seems Bertolucci and Beatty went opposite directions with 1900 and REDS. Bertolucci went total auteur and made one of the silliest and most insane films ever. After awhile, even the outrage grows tiresome and ultimately boring.
    In contrast, Beatty played it safe, and it’s a rather mild movie about a radical character. It’s a bit jarring, watching an old-fashioned conventional movie that lionizes a American communist. The style and politics cancel each other out. Also, while Beatty identifies with the radical character, he still wants to be the lovable “You’re So Vain” guy. Most offensive the politics but the schmaltz, like when Beatty and Keaton throwing snow balls at each other and making love are juxtaposed with the Bolshevik takeover. I mean gimme a break. Still, it’s not a total loss, and it does have some strong scenes. I still prefer it to OUT OF AFRICA.

    The academy had mixed feelings about it, as did the critics. Beatty got best director, but best picture went to… what was it? CHARIOTS OF FIRE?

    …Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.

    PARALLAX VIEW is one of the best paranoid movies of the 70s when Hollywood was in paranoid mode. Nixon’s presidency prolly had something to do with it. Also, Jews still didn’t have the commanding heights in Deep State. PARALLAX is more relevant than ever. People are being ‘parallax-ed’ without them noticing. SPLENDOR would have been silly without Beatty. Just a laughable premise for a movie.

    I can’t agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It’s not much but was special to my younger self. It was different from GREASE, STAR WARS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and usual stuff seen on big screen. Also, even though most of the movie is routine comedy, there are moments, especially the bittersweet ending, that are genuinely poignant.
    I still regard it as one of the most heart-aching scenes in cinema.

    It’s fitting that Beatty’s last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.

    Still, I don’t think we should judge the value of movies by box office. So many great movies bombed while so many junk raked it big bucks. Btw, its title RULES DON’T APPLY certainly applies to Beatty.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Still, I don’t think we should judge the value of movies by box office.
     
    I would generally agree, but Rules Don't Apply bombed so badly that it makes Ishtar and Richard Jewell look like commercial successes. It grossed less than $4 million on a $25 million budget. Compare that to Scorsese's The Aviator, another film about Howard Hughes, which grossed over $200 million.

    Beatty has never been one to make art house flicks. Even Bulworth did okay at the box office. Beatty thinks of himself as doing epic films, important films, films which strike a chord with the public and the critics. Rules Don't Apply succeeded at doing none of those things.

    Beatty isn't Robert Altman, and frankly if Altman had made Rules Dont Apply, even he probably would've been embarrassed by how poorly it did at the box office.

    The movie was also a critical failure.
  211. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

    PARALLAX VIEW is one of the best paranoid movies of the 70s when Hollywood was in paranoid mode

    Eeehhhhhh…no. C’mon, beating up the manly sheriff of some mountain town with a fly rod? Secret corporation documents in that sheriff’s office in nowheresville? Gimme a break! It’s a Beatty vehicle more than a real story.

    Now, on the other hand, I caught a real 70’s paranoia movie on cable a few years back, then recnetly watched it again on Netflix. Really sharp film, in a lot of ways. Old school creepy head games.

    “The Conversation” by Francis Ford Coppola.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Eeehhhhhh…no. C’mon, beating up the manly sheriff of some mountain town with a fly rod? Secret corporation documents in that sheriff’s office in nowheresville? Gimme a break! It’s a Beatty vehicle more than a real story.
     
    You're missing the point. That scene is frightening because it's so unexpected. The fly-fisherman is the last person you'd expect to be One of Them. It heightens the paranoia.

    Really sharp film, in a lot of ways. Old school creepy head games.
    “The Conversation” by Francis Ford Coppola.
     
    More impressive as Walter Murch film than Coppola's. But beyond technique, not much in the way of story. Its point, that the spy is spied upon, is hardly original. Also, there simply isn't enough material in terms of character, story, or theme for work as art film, what it strives so hard to be. (Same problem with IMAGES by Altman.) In contrast, PARALLAX is happy to be a genre thriller, like MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. A far more effective paranoid movie with Hackman was NIGHT MOVES by Penn. When it comes to 70s paranoia, maybe Polanski took it furthest with THE TENANT, but it was less contemporary than chronic, the neurosis of being the eternal outsider.
    , @Pincher Martin
    I thought The Parallax View was mildly diverting entertainment, but both The Conversation and Three Days of the Condor are better, with The Conversation clearly the best of those three.
  212. @Rob
    Hey Ron, what happened to my ignore list?

    As to you, we’re not against profiling. We’re against bad profiling. Profiles generated from fantasy, pc, and law-enforcement desperation to have a suspect.. We’re against police using the media to harass a suspects (especially innocent ones), and we’re generally against profiles generated from very small samples that don’t narrow potential suspects very much. Black (or white) guy running down the street holding a purse typically carried by women? He fits the profile of a mugger, so stop him and question, and maybe arrest him. White man who has a rifle and lives in Maryland, DC, OR Virginia? That does not significantly narrow the potential suspects very much, because honestly, everyone profiles killers like that as male. That the profile was created out of whole cloth, and turned out to be wrong, that’s the sort of profiling we don’t like.

    Seriously, was that really hard for you.

    So you are against arresting and imprisoning innocent whites.

    But you are for arresting and imprisoning innocent blacks.

    Now I understand. Perfectly consistent.

  213. @William Badwhite
    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies? Kind of a bizarre turn he took there for awhile.

    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies?

    Still beats the Gipper with bonzo the chimp.

    The first EVERY WHICH movie is pretty fun.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Bedtime for Bonzo was a successful box office hit due to Bonzo being an amazing chimp child performer. The first half hour, by the way, is a fairly intellectually rigorous Nature vs. Nurture debate with Reagan representing Nurture and his old-fashioned eugenicist department chairman representing Nature, which leads Reagan to try to prove the only difference between chimps and men is in upbringing.
  214. Anonymous[157] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    PARALLAX VIEW is one of the best paranoid movies of the 70s when Hollywood was in paranoid mode

    Eeehhhhhh...no. C'mon, beating up the manly sheriff of some mountain town with a fly rod? Secret corporation documents in that sheriff's office in nowheresville? Gimme a break! It's a Beatty vehicle more than a real story.

    Now, on the other hand, I caught a real 70's paranoia movie on cable a few years back, then recnetly watched it again on Netflix. Really sharp film, in a lot of ways. Old school creepy head games.

    "The Conversation" by Francis Ford Coppola.

    Eeehhhhhh…no. C’mon, beating up the manly sheriff of some mountain town with a fly rod? Secret corporation documents in that sheriff’s office in nowheresville? Gimme a break! It’s a Beatty vehicle more than a real story.

    You’re missing the point. That scene is frightening because it’s so unexpected. The fly-fisherman is the last person you’d expect to be One of Them. It heightens the paranoia.

    Really sharp film, in a lot of ways. Old school creepy head games.
    “The Conversation” by Francis Ford Coppola.

    More impressive as Walter Murch film than Coppola’s. But beyond technique, not much in the way of story. Its point, that the spy is spied upon, is hardly original. Also, there simply isn’t enough material in terms of character, story, or theme for work as art film, what it strives so hard to be. (Same problem with IMAGES by Altman.) In contrast, PARALLAX is happy to be a genre thriller, like MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. A far more effective paranoid movie with Hackman was NIGHT MOVES by Penn. When it comes to 70s paranoia, maybe Polanski took it furthest with THE TENANT, but it was less contemporary than chronic, the neurosis of being the eternal outsider.

  215. @Anonymous

    Reds is awful... A silly love story caked over with silly commie propaganda... The Academy occasionally falls for such bad films for political reasons.. Beatty was always good at schmoozing and had a lot of friends in the industry who promoted his talents...
     
    It's an impressive work in many ways, but yes, also awful. It seems Bertolucci and Beatty went opposite directions with 1900 and REDS. Bertolucci went total auteur and made one of the silliest and most insane films ever. After awhile, even the outrage grows tiresome and ultimately boring.
    In contrast, Beatty played it safe, and it's a rather mild movie about a radical character. It's a bit jarring, watching an old-fashioned conventional movie that lionizes a American communist. The style and politics cancel each other out. Also, while Beatty identifies with the radical character, he still wants to be the lovable "You're So Vain" guy. Most offensive the politics but the schmaltz, like when Beatty and Keaton throwing snow balls at each other and making love are juxtaposed with the Bolshevik takeover. I mean gimme a break. Still, it's not a total loss, and it does have some strong scenes. I still prefer it to OUT OF AFRICA.

    The academy had mixed feelings about it, as did the critics. Beatty got best director, but best picture went to... what was it? CHARIOTS OF FIRE?


    ...Splendor in the Grass, The Parallax View, Shampoo, and Heaven Can Wait. The only one of those films I found even mildly diverting was The Parallax View.
     
    PARALLAX VIEW is one of the best paranoid movies of the 70s when Hollywood was in paranoid mode. Nixon's presidency prolly had something to do with it. Also, Jews still didn't have the commanding heights in Deep State. PARALLAX is more relevant than ever. People are being 'parallax-ed' without them noticing. SPLENDOR would have been silly without Beatty. Just a laughable premise for a movie.

    I can’t agree with you about Heaven Can Wait, which I thought was an uninteresting movie about an uninteresting love story. I did enjoy seeing the Rams players who had brief roles in it.

    It's not much but was special to my younger self. It was different from GREASE, STAR WARS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and usual stuff seen on big screen. Also, even though most of the movie is routine comedy, there are moments, especially the bittersweet ending, that are genuinely poignant.
    I still regard it as one of the most heart-aching scenes in cinema.


    It’s fitting that Beatty’s last movie about Howard Hughes, a project Beatty has been talking about for decades, was a complete bomb.
     
    Still, I don't think we should judge the value of movies by box office. So many great movies bombed while so many junk raked it big bucks. Btw, its title RULES DON'T APPLY certainly applies to Beatty.

    Still, I don’t think we should judge the value of movies by box office.

    I would generally agree, but Rules Don’t Apply bombed so badly that it makes Ishtar and Richard Jewell look like commercial successes. It grossed less than $4 million on a $25 million budget. Compare that to Scorsese’s The Aviator, another film about Howard Hughes, which grossed over $200 million.

    Beatty has never been one to make art house flicks. Even Bulworth did okay at the box office. Beatty thinks of himself as doing epic films, important films, films which strike a chord with the public and the critics. Rules Don’t Apply succeeded at doing none of those things.

    Beatty isn’t Robert Altman, and frankly if Altman had made Rules Dont Apply, even he probably would’ve been embarrassed by how poorly it did at the box office.

    The movie was also a critical failure.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I would generally agree, but Rules Don’t Apply bombed so badly that it makes Ishtar and Richard Jewell look like commercial successes.
     
    Just saw this. This is actually quite good. Made without pretensions. Nice minor work like CAFE SOCIETY. It's like Beatty came down the vanity high with age. Though revolving around Hughes, the main characters are young people... though the main actor is presented as clone of Beatty who, as hughes, talks of DNA and genetics. To be sure, the guy looks more like a clone of Dicaprio. And the guy in WHIPLASH looks like clone of John Cusack. So, who will be clone of Tom Cruise?
    But maybe Hollywood really will clone its stars. Pay Cruise 100 milllion to clone his genes for future cruises.

    RUSH from 1991 is one that was soon forgotten. Never heard of it until now. Set in the mid 70s, it's about the rise of drug trade in rural America. So, the seeds were sown back then.

    Harrowing movie. Not great but solid. Made by a woman who could have been like Kathryn Bigelow.
    Must watch today given the drug epidemic in the heartattackland.

    Bubba the Hutt scene is done real good.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWxGewDCNN4

  216. @anon
    PARALLAX VIEW is one of the best paranoid movies of the 70s when Hollywood was in paranoid mode

    Eeehhhhhh...no. C'mon, beating up the manly sheriff of some mountain town with a fly rod? Secret corporation documents in that sheriff's office in nowheresville? Gimme a break! It's a Beatty vehicle more than a real story.

    Now, on the other hand, I caught a real 70's paranoia movie on cable a few years back, then recnetly watched it again on Netflix. Really sharp film, in a lot of ways. Old school creepy head games.

    "The Conversation" by Francis Ford Coppola.

    I thought The Parallax View was mildly diverting entertainment, but both The Conversation and Three Days of the Condor are better, with The Conversation clearly the best of those three.

  217. @Anonymous

    How to explain all those Phyloe Bedoe bareknuckle fighting and driving around with an ape movies?
     
    Still beats the Gipper with bonzo the chimp.

    The first EVERY WHICH movie is pretty fun.

    Bedtime for Bonzo was a successful box office hit due to Bonzo being an amazing chimp child performer. The first half hour, by the way, is a fairly intellectually rigorous Nature vs. Nurture debate with Reagan representing Nurture and his old-fashioned eugenicist department chairman representing Nature, which leads Reagan to try to prove the only difference between chimps and men is in upbringing.

  218. @EliteCommInc.
    He made an interesting choice in understating the issues. One of those issues was the counter balance between Mr. Jewell's, sincere support of ethics of law, and his intelligence and how that sincerity manifested as both qualities bumped up against his own overzealousness -- that was very well done -- the complexity of this very by all accounts gentle and decent man.

    I think what I would have liked is the image of Officer Jewell's wedding - against the oft played card of the homosexual charge - would have been a little more icing on the cake.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    One wants to respect our law enforcement, but the problem is always that when they override justice, they seem obtuse to the damage of ruined lives they leave in the wake. So, for those of you are constantly pushing law and order over the purpose of "law and order" --- what is becoming a kind narrative staple and government and power is not new and the practice of abusing power has been well honed on entire populations.

    Laughing, I have no doubt that Attorney Jack Goldsmith has been getting an earful, from his former colleagues, concerning his own revelations regarding prosecutions by the government.

    Laughing, I have no doubt that Attorney Jack Goldsmith has been getting an earful, from his former colleagues, concerning his own revelations regarding prosecutions by the government.

    What are you referring to?

  219. Anonymous[419] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Still, I don’t think we should judge the value of movies by box office.
     
    I would generally agree, but Rules Don't Apply bombed so badly that it makes Ishtar and Richard Jewell look like commercial successes. It grossed less than $4 million on a $25 million budget. Compare that to Scorsese's The Aviator, another film about Howard Hughes, which grossed over $200 million.

    Beatty has never been one to make art house flicks. Even Bulworth did okay at the box office. Beatty thinks of himself as doing epic films, important films, films which strike a chord with the public and the critics. Rules Don't Apply succeeded at doing none of those things.

    Beatty isn't Robert Altman, and frankly if Altman had made Rules Dont Apply, even he probably would've been embarrassed by how poorly it did at the box office.

    The movie was also a critical failure.

    I would generally agree, but Rules Don’t Apply bombed so badly that it makes Ishtar and Richard Jewell look like commercial successes.

    Just saw this. This is actually quite good. Made without pretensions. Nice minor work like CAFE SOCIETY. It’s like Beatty came down the vanity high with age. Though revolving around Hughes, the main characters are young people… though the main actor is presented as clone of Beatty who, as hughes, talks of DNA and genetics. To be sure, the guy looks more like a clone of Dicaprio. And the guy in WHIPLASH looks like clone of John Cusack. So, who will be clone of Tom Cruise?
    But maybe Hollywood really will clone its stars. Pay Cruise 100 milllion to clone his genes for future cruises.

    RUSH from 1991 is one that was soon forgotten. Never heard of it until now. Set in the mid 70s, it’s about the rise of drug trade in rural America. So, the seeds were sown back then.

    Harrowing movie. Not great but solid. Made by a woman who could have been like Kathryn Bigelow.
    Must watch today given the drug epidemic in the heartattackland.

    Bubba the Hutt scene is done real good.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings