I know it makes me appear hopelessly naive but I continue to believe that we can learn from our mistakes, take honest stock of our actions and re-route our priorities and thereby our destinies.
However…
The avalanche of Madoff family publicity over the past several days, including the revelation and insane media coverage of Ruth and Bernie’s non-suicide, is mortifying and, in itself, criminal. Between the Madoffs and Michael Jackson (who, like Generalissimo Franco is still dead,) have me terribly perplexed and more than a little nauseous. Bernie may be the cock and balls, but Ruth, Andrew and especially Catherine Hooper, Andrew’s fiance, all dangle from the dingleberry that is Bernie Madoff. They all deserve to be thrown into a cold, wet, Medieval dungeon and fed nothing but grubs and Bernie’s rotting intestines. Too extreme? I don’t think so. The issue isn’t only the extent to which any or all of them knowingly participated in the Ponzi scheme, but how long and hard they averted their gaze. How long, while living the American Wet Dream (a million times more potent that the American Dream) did they never question, never suspect, never confront, never imagine and/or worst of all, never walk away?
Mark, on the other hand, did the right thing. He bowed to the unimaginable shame that he felt. The rest of them feel no real shame. Instead they lock arms with the always-willing media – in a very real sense, now, their accomplices – and cry and pout and feel sorry for themselves and try desperately to be a little less hated. True, TV “News” hasn’t been authentic news for a very long time, but going to such lengths to give voice to a family that, either directly or by inexcusable and almost certainly purposeful ignorance, has inflicted so much suffering and heartache, cannot go without comment. (Print “journalists” contribute, of course, but they can’t have nearly the impact.)
So my comment to the American media is this: how can you live with yourselves? How you can face your families without intense shame? How can you present the likes of Ruth and Andrew Madoff to your viewers and readers without irony and obvious distaste? Your behavior is a dishonor to your profession and your country. I’m embarrassed by your unquenchable thirst for ratings and your desperate yearning for the approval of the lowest common denominator. How is it you’re not embarrassed? And if you are, why don’t you stand up and say so?
Have the decency and humility to say “enough”. Light that fire and remind yourself – and us – that there’s still such a thing as doing well by doing good.
Among the dizzying list of stuff that Occupy Wall Street is now for or against is moving your money out of the big banks and into local banks or credit unions. Which is an awesome idea. Of course, it’s not OWS, though, that’s getting it done since it renounces any semblance of leadership or any particular point of view. Instead, it’s a woman – one woman, Kristen Christian – who was fed up with something – one thing – and decided to actually try to do something about it. She concocted something called “Bank Transfer Day” where she’s calling on everyone to remove their assets from the major banks on November 5.
Here’s some news about it:
This is something many of us have been thinking about and hundreds of thousands of people have already made the move. The fact that Ms. Christian took it upon herself to create a movement, though, has gotten the attention of the media and, because it’s dead simple to understand and there’s a specific call to action, November 5 may actually move the needle. Something OWS is incapable of because of its insistence on non-leadership and imprecision which will inevitably lead to its rank as a non-entity.
In case the thought of changing your bank makes your head hurt, here are a few primers on how to do it without breaking a sweat.
Changing you bank account:
Way to light a fire Kristen!
When a good friend sent me a link about Occupy Wall Street two or three weeks before its September 15 kick-off, I was ecstatic. This was exactly what we needed. An organized, citizen-led movement taking on the bankers and traders and mortgage brokers and rating agencies and insurance companies that had both separately and conspiratorially plunged the country and the world into the depths of financial ruin.
Then I read their Facebook page and all the air went out of my sails. “You’re going to occupy Wall Street on a fucking Saturday?! You’re going to rage against the machine on a day when the machine is unplugged and nothing and no one but a tumbleweed and the occasional drunk are going to notice or care. What a joke.” Granted, it was to be only the first day of what was advertised as a long-term occupation, but why launch with a whimper?
In spite of the fact that the tenacity of the protesters in Zuccotti Park (decidedly not Wall Street) has, for the moment, succeeded in winning the attention of the media and has organically spawned Occupy protests across the US and around the globe, it’s doing nothing to move the needle. Amplifying the simmering anger that many of us feel is important and the fact that that the media (the ultimate rating agency) have hitched a wagon or two to the movement’s growth is diverting. But where’s the beef? In fact, what’s the beef?
The friend that first alerted me to OWS called me from Zuccotti last night and he was elated. He’d been to the Park several times and his enthusiasm came flooding through the phone. He was clearly inspired and I was excited for him. But now that the movement has our attention, now that the country and the media are focused on their protest, a focused message is absolutely mandatory and the lack of one is inexcusable. When I asked my friend the question that so many are asking, namely ‘what do you want?’, he didn’t really have an answer. No one seems to have one and that’s the problem. Saying ‘it’s not just one thing’ or ‘it’s not a protest, it’s a movement’ or ‘the media won’t let the truth out’ doesn’t help anyone. My friend more or less said all of these things then he said something that lost me altogether. He said it was a revolution. Really? A revolution? Not only is OWS not a revolution, it’s not likely to spark one either.
The Boston Tea Party sparked a revolution. Why? Because it was about something. OWS is about dozens of things, some of which are sophomoric at best. Supposedly, the Occupy movement was inspired by Tahrir Square. That’s all well and good but, once again, those protests were about something. They may have had a somewhat fractured orientation at first, but very quickly, their raison d’etre coalesced into the removal of a dictator from power and that laser focus gave them a strength and a will that was unstoppable. Oh, and they were willing to die for it. Among other things, Occupy wants to end all wars. They want jobs. They want to tax the wealthy. They want universal healthcare. They want campaign finance reform. Terrific, so do I, but how? By camping out a couple of blocks from the seat of financial power holding signs and occasionally getting hauled off to jail for setting up a tent? There’s also the anti-fracking contingent, the forgive all student loans contingent, the mortgage overhaul contingent, the anti out-sourcing contingent, the anti-drilling contingent, the save the whale contingent. Then there are the global Occupy movements that are about a handful of similar issues plus others that are specific to each country’s crisis of the moment.
Floating around in the dizzying haze of Occupy Wall Street’s demands is an issue that is easily digestible by the average American, one almost guaranteed to be whipped into a frenzy by the media and sure to drive their ratings well past the 2012 elections, and also happens to be the greatest scandal of this and the previous decade: the abject refusal of the Obama administration and of Congress to indict, prosecute and jail the scores of arch criminals whose financial manipulation and double-dealing have directly and indirectly lead to the global financial meltdown. read more…
I tend to be a fairly passive movie viewer in the sense that I’m rarely trying to second-guess the plot. I don’t want to know what’s going to happen and it doesn’t inflate my ego to elbow someone in the next seat and knowingly whisper “Of course it was the butler.” In fact, I don’t even want to know what song is next which is why I’m so addicted to Pandora.
However, on a flight back home to Seattle from Chicago last night, something happened that made me think I ought to pay closer attention than I typically do when watching a film. At least to the subtlety of the writing. I thought I did. Last night, though, I was so taken by surprise at a few lines from “To Catch a Thief” that I felt I must have been sleepwalking through the previous dozen times I’d seen it.
Or maybe it’s just that the sight of Grace Kelly and Cary Grant cavorting on the Riviera for an hour and a half is enough to dull anyone’s senses. In any case, half way in, a couple of lines of dialogue were so fresh and new that I restarted the film and jotted down the handful of gems that it seemed I’d never heard – or was too consciously jealous of Prince Rainier – to fully appreciate or make complete sense of.
So in honor of frequent Hitchcock screenwriter John Michael Hayes, in deep and abiding appreciation of the written word, and because I must have been half asleep those other dozen times, here are the lines I noted from 35,000 feet…
(It helps if you’ve seen the movie. If you haven’t, you really really should.)
Jessie Royce Landis (Grace Kelly’s mother): Mr. Burns, do you make much money at lumber?
Cary Grant: Right now building is booming.
Jessie Royce Landis: Would you mind if I had you investigated a little?
Cary Grant: Not at all. With what object?
Grace Kelly: Are you sure you were talking about water skis? From where I sat it looked like you were conjugating some irregular verbs.
Cary Grant: Say something nice to her Danielle.
Brigitte Auber: She looks a lot older up close.
(Grant winces)
Grace Kelly: To a mere child, anything over 20 might seem old.
Brigitte Auber: A child? Shall we stand in shallower water and discuss that?
Grace Kelly: Drinking dulls your senses.
Cary Grant: And if I’m lucky, some of my hearing.
Grace Kelly: (After a night with Grant) You’re already caught. I called the police from your room and told them who you are and what you did tonight.
Cary Grant: Everything? Oh the boys must’ve enjoyed that down at headquarters.
Grace Kelly: (After a night with Grant) He’s a low, worthless thief.
Jessie Royce Landis: Just what did he steal from you?
Grace Kelly: Oh, mother!
In my growing certainty that Obama cannot and should not win re-election, I proposed a new political party a couple of weeks ago. I found zero traction for it on Wastebook so thought I’d repost here…
Barack Obama is the most disappointing President of our lifetimes. He should not and will not win re-election. Unless a viable 3rd party candidate is identified, nominated to run and is vigorously supported, America will never recover from the fallout.
The New Socialist Party
If you’re anything like me, you’ve been wondering whatever became of the “change” and “hope” we were promised not so long ago by our fast-fading President. Your amusement at the Tea Party turned quickly to concern and then despair. You cheered – at least inwardly – at bin Laden’s demise, but you anguish over a 10-year war in Afghanistan with no end in sight. You’ve grown tired of a President who leads from behind and capitulates at every opportunity. Of advisers and cabinet members whose fingerprints are all over the obscene mess that’s brought America and the world to its fiscal knees.
President Obama is not going to be re-elected. Whatever skills he may have as a community organizer and political candidate, he’s proven himself to be a hapless and below average President. If we don’t act now, if we turn away from the stark reality that Obama is the definition of a one-term president, then America will never regain its footing or its place and stature in the world. If we allow the Tea Party-led Republicans to take the White House, our only alternative will be an American Spring that, unlike the Arab Spring, will generate little if any of the self-satisfaction or expectation for a better life.
Last time around we came to within inches of Vice President Sarah Palin. It can happen and it will happen unless we can identify and support like hell a viable 3rd party candidate – one with perfect clarity about the meaning of the words hope and change; one whose concern for the American people will trump any and all entreaties, bribes and threats by special interests.
Why New Socialist?
If you’re on Facebook, you’re a new socialist. If you have a Twitter account, you’re a new socialist.
If you care more about people than oil companies, investment banks, big pharma and the health insurance industry, you’re a new socialist. If “too big to fail” makes your blood boil, you’re a new socialist. If ethics and morals aren’t just catchphrases to you, you’re a new socialist. If you despise professional politicians, you’re a new socialist. If you always mean what you say, say what you mean and act accordingly, you’re a new socialist. If you shun all extremism, you’re a new socialist.
If you’re a socialist, you’re *not* a new socialist. If wealth distribution is your thing, you’re *not* a new socialist. If you’re a science denier, you’re not a new socialist. If you pray to god for guidance before trying everything you can think of first, you’re not a new socialist. If you’ve ever equated corporations with people, you’re *not* a new socialist.
Website
http://newsocialistparty.org
Unless and until I can raise the required funding for my game-changing digital distribution platform (only 1.5 million in case you’re interested) I’m no longer going to write about the state and fate of so-called independent film. I’ve already written all that needs to be written about how awful things are and how to fix them by reinventing distribution and reinvigorating truly independent cinema.
Instead, I’m going to write about whatever the hell I feel like writing about. Today, it’s two ways life can be dramatically improved with a couple of minor law enforcement pivots.
1) An extraordinary amount of time and resource is focused on speeding. ‘Speed Kills’, right? Wrong. At least not on any roadway where the speed limit is 55 or above. On side streets, in school zones; anywhere off the highway you can probably make a case for enforcing speed limits. On the highway, however, the criminals aren’t the speeders, but those who refuse to keep right when they’re not passing another vehicle. These selfish, irresponsible creeps are by far the single most dangerous drivers on the road. They’re responsible for the vast majority of road rage incidents and their seeming dedication to impeding traffic should be the highest priority of law enforcement. If state and local governments rely heavily on income from speeding tickets for their survival the solution is simple: swap the fines – and the focus – for speeding and failure to keep right. Not only will they be swimming in revenue, but they’ll actually be making the roads safer. Speed doesn’t kill. Thoughtlessness and irresponsibility do.
2) Noise. This one is dedicated to the streets of New York City, but even those of us who’ve moved away or who’ll never actually live in New York will occasionally visit and suffer the incessant, insane cacophony of car horns. There’s a lot about life in New York City that demands serious sublimation in order for one to maintain any degree of sanity day in and day out. At the top of the list is noise and the most obvious and unnecessary of those noises is the car horn. Not only is it loud and annoying, it’s also an assault on anyone who happens to be nearby and should be treated as such by the law. The fine for unnecessarily honking a car horn in New York City is $350. That’s real money. If the NYPD should ever choose to be as aggressive about horn honking as it is about parking, not only would would the quality of life in the City improve dramatically, the City’s coffers would overflow with $350 fines.
I wrote the following response to an article in yesterday’s LA Times about piracy as it relates to independent film. Due to extremely conservative limits imposed by the Times, a truncated version of my comment appears on their site. Here’s the complete version…
I applaud filmmakers like Greg Carter and Ellen Seidler who put it all on the line in order to follow their passions and get their films made. However, as a distributor for many years and a close follower of technology trends, I have to take issue with the premise of this article.
It’s undeniable that piracy has substantial impact on studio films. The higher profile the film, the more ‘leakage’. For independent films, though, it’s extremely rare for piracy to noticeably affect revenue. The independent film audience by and large has no interest in stealing content. They just don’t. The fact that a film is out there on file sharing sites doesn’t prove that a single person has downloaded the film and watched it. In fact, some of the most visible file sharing sites aren’t file sharing sites at all. They’re fishing sites that use every film title under the sun as bait to lure unsuspecting users into thinking they’re downloading a film or other content only to have their machine infected by a virus and/or taken over by a bot.
I sympathize with independent filmmakers who, today, are facing a marketplace that’s as unwelcoming and bewildering as it’s ever been. But to point to piracy as a principle or even secondary reason for failure to recoup is either disingenuous or simply naive.
My advice, unsolicited as it may be, to Ms. Seidler, Mr. Carter and any other filmmaker who believes that piracy is at the root of their inability to sell tickets or DVDs or downloads is don’t spend another minute chasing ghosts. Instead, get back on the horse and move forward with your avocation. And yes, independent filmmaking should be considered an avocation today rather than a career.
The waters are dark and treacherous and the first rule in 2010 is don’t give up your day job. The second is don’t expect recoupment much less a return on your investment. It may happen, but to expect it is setting yourself up for failure. Follow your dream, follow your passion but do so with eyes wide open. Piracy is not your enemy. It’s just never been harder to succeed financially.
Light an honest fire!
In response to my last post, David Dewitt suggested that “…writers, by temperament, are unlikely to go into independent film in the U.S.” What a brilliant observation, David. Writing is a solitary and monumentally difficult endeavor while filmmaking is a collaborative and only substantially difficult endeavor. Why is it, then, that so many independent filmmakers insist on writing their own films? There’s no shame in working with a writer to fully realize your vision. In fact it’s almost farcical and verging on pure vanity to think that you have the skill to write a Class A script *and* be an effective, inspired director. The two aren’t mutually exclusive but they are an exceptionally rare pairing. My first rule about post-apocalypse American independent filmmaking is ‘keep your day job’. I think I’ve discovered the second: ‘filmmaking is hard enough, leave the writing to writers’.
Until today I was alarmed when I’d hear from young filmmakers that American film schools seem to aggressively segregate their writing programs from their directing programs. Duh, of course they do. What’s missing, though, is a required class for directing students entitled, ‘You think you can write? Think again’. Yes, there are a handful of American independent filmmakers who, on occasion, have magically synthesized these two art forms to great success. Those are the rare exceptions, however, and to aim at so tiny a target is self defeating. Especially post apocalypse and pre Rennaissance.
But go ahead. I know you want to and nobody’s going to talk you out of trying. And I suppose nobody should. Just please write a minimum of ten drafts, twenty if you can stand it, and then throw it out and start again because it’s likely only passable at best and more likely it sucks. Then go out and find yourself a writer to collaborate with and let her do most – if not all – of the actual writing.
On a related note, this coming Sunday’s NY Times Magazine contains an excellent story about the ongoing legal battle over Franz Kafka’s writings. In it, Elif Batuman refers to Kafka’s belief that “breadwinning and the art of writing must be kept absolutely apart.” I think Kafka would have said the same about filmmaking.
Light a Kafkaesque fire!