Movies, Movies, Movies

Did I mention that I have spent a LOT of time in planes over the last month?  In addition to the three books, listed in the review below, I was able to watch some 12 films while airborne.  Here are my takes.

"If Beale Street Could Talk".  One of the few award films I didn't get a preview of (the other was "Roma"), this is a very quiet, atmospheric film, which is simply a touching, poignant love story.  There isn't a lot of plot, nor dialogue, but the lasting looks between our ill-fated couple (played beautifully by KiKi Layne and Stephen James) are the draw here.  Set in the late 1960s (I think) the city around them creates both a cocoon for the couple, as well as danger.  It was great to watch but was oddly not memorable.  Two weeks later I had to look up the film to remember some key points.

"Eighth Grade".  What's better than an angsty teen?  A movie about an angsty teen!  Elsie Fisher gets major nods here for looking into the camera with such openness and lack of guile that you really buy the idea that this is real life happening in front of you.  It's pretty close.  Without Hollywood flourishes and soundtracks, this simply becomes a tale of a teen girl trying to fit in.  It is touching, funny and sad, with Elsie's character being just annoying enough to seem real but not so annoying as to make you want to slap her.  Kudos also to Josh Hamilton for being the well-meaning dad trying to navigate the hormone filled waters to be a support, or anchor, for his drifting daughter.  Brava, bravo all around.

"Oceans 8".  No better or worse than any of the other Oceans films.  If you have seen one you have pretty much seen them all.  Entertaining fare which is not going to stay with you in any shape or way after the credits roll.

 "Deadpool 2" and "Ant-Man & the Wasp".  I review these together because they are both sequels of films I enjoyed and they both represent a trend in Marvel which I really, really like (started by Joss Whedon on "The Avengers", perhaps?)  The trend is this -- snarky, silly, mouthy, funny, not-taking-themselves too seriously.  Yes, there are big explosions and (in Deadpool anyway), slow-mo sequences of blood and brain matter shooting across the camera lens, but there is also breaking of the fourth wall, snappy comebacks you have to replay to catch and a general sense that these films are what they are supposed to be, entertainment.  Enjoyed them greatly.  Paul Rudd ain't hard on the eyes, either.

"Spiderman, Into the Spiderverse".  Interestingly enough this animated feature follows the trends I mentioned above (in a far more family friendly way, no blood spatter) and really got to me.  An animated feature with an accompanying book (not sure whether the movie or book came first or if they were created together), this one has laugh-out-loud funny moments, social commentary and a Peter Parker worth his weight in gold.  Lead character Miles Morales is drawn beautifully and as his world explodes you see the grief and struggle in every moment.  Commendable also is his relation with his dad, which is rare in teen films but needed so much.  Yes, there is a big battle but there is a lot of growth on the part of Miles along the way and at least one twist surprised me.  Best animated feature I've seen in a long, long time.

"Fantastic Beasts:  The Crimes of Grindelwald".  I really liked the first Fantastic Beasts film.  They introduced a whole new world (New York, 1920s) and Eddy Redmayne was adorable as the awkward, sweet monster-whisperer, Newt Scamander.  I'm not sure why, exactly, I disliked this second film so much.  Yes, I watched it on a plane so there were distractions, and yes, I've come to dislike Johnny Depp as much as I previously liked him, but the film in general seemed all over the place with huge events and little through-line.  I could watch it again at home to see if I still can't follow it, but probably won't.

"The Greatest Showman".  Many (many many) people I know saw this for no other reason than to see Hugh Jackman.  Not a bad thing.  It was ... interesting, if not brilliant.  The musical score was the big standout and I may buy the whole thing just because it was that good.  Much like "Moulin Rouge" the score and particular visuals were more compelling than the whole.  Like musicals of the past the book here was weak, and that was unfortunate.  You can't help but want a deeper look into this man, this story, but the musical setting prohibits that with characters leaping into song the minute things get interesting.  It's not bad.  I enjoyed it.  But it left me with a lingering feeling that I needed to read a book on the man, because, in the end, he was no Hugh Jackman.

"Book Club".  This film gets props for treating older actors as real people with real hearts and desires, who aren't content to sit around playing grandparents and watching their private parts get dusty.  It starts with lust and ends with love, but in the end it's just a romantic comedy rather than anything with any kind of depth and meaning.  I will say though, I've never been particularly attracted to Don Johnson ... until now.  Oy, mama.

"Christopher Robin".  This great little film is strong on many parts, from casting to script to animation.  It was not a box office hit, however, and I can see why.  The first issue is the audience -- it isn't really for kids.  But the adults who would get it would dismiss it as a kind of "Mary Poppins" foolery.  Which is ironic, because that is exactly the kind of adult Christopher Robin turns into.  The truth is that the film is hard to watch.  It's The Giving Tree all over again.  Christopher Robin was a sweet little boy with wonderful friends and then life "happens" and he grows up and becomes a work-obsessed adult.  His treatment of Winnie is painful throughout the film and maybe that's why it is so hard to watch, because it shows us all how we forget the important things in life when we are focusing on what we think are the important things of life.  It's a touching film which produced a single tear here and there.  It's also one that we should all watch, to remind ourselves of the importance of doing nothing.

"Smallfoot".  Any animated film has a certain appeal.  They are fun, often warm and fuzzy, sometimes touching.  "Smallfoot" entertained on a mild level but didn't, for the most part, succeed.  Main character Migo is struggling against the philosophy/religion of his village and believes, against all doctrine, that something more exists out there.  When he discovers it, things do not go as planned.  The heavy-hitting moralism portrayed here drags down the plot and the sugary ending seemed too perfect for our complicated times.  The music and songs were fairly forgettable.  They had some nice elements here, and, again, didn't mind spending time watching it on a plane, but not what it could have been.

"What Women Want".  Yup, it's a really old film and no, I never really saw it.  With a remake of sorts out now ("What Men Want") it was worth seeing.  There is humor and Mel Gibson, who I'm not a particular fan of, is pretty good.  Ashley Johnson was perfect as the ignored daughter and Helen Hunt, well, I just love Helen Hunt.  The film is generally entertaining, walking that line between downright silly and a little insightful.  I was only flummoxed a bit by the end, which didn't seem to fit, or work, just right.  I'm not sure what a good ending would have been but maybe if they didn't have the two main characters hook up there might have been a cleaner solution?  Not sure.  Will have to see the new film and make a comparison.

Books, Books, Books

Nice thing about really long plane rides is the chance to catch up on reading.  Read three books during my recent trip to China.  While I had picked two of them randomly (just wanted really skinny books for my suitcase) the selections all turned out to be weirdly resonant for my first (and likely only) trip to a Communist nation. 

First up was Anthem, by Ayn Rand.  The story of a nameless young man living in a highly controlled society, he is an intelligent, feeling person who has been assigned to work as a street cleaner.  His curiosity gets the better of him and he experiments with leftover Science equipment (a serious breach of protocol) while simultaneously becoming attracted to a young woman working in the fields.  The spare prose beautifully reflects both the bleak existence of his world and the angst he feels in being trapped in a place with no individuality.  Written in the 1940s it could have been penned for China's Cultural Revolution, which occurred some 25 years later.  This is the society the Cultural Revolution might have produced had it continued.  I didn't love the end of the book due to some patriarchal attitudes (again, written nearly 80 years ago) and an unexpected twist in his final discovery, but the tone of the tale perfectly matched the feel of modern day Beijing in surprising ways (older factory workers are put to work as street sweepers).  Ms. Rand makes the point that brilliance can come in small packages.  In this case, a novella of only 123 pages.

Next up was China in Ten Words by Hua Yu.  Again, a perfect choice, as each of the short essays explored issues I was witnessing each day of my visit, and doing so in concise, perfectly selected prose.  There are essays entitled "People", "Leader", "Reading" and more, each covering Mr. Yu's personal experiences and history, along with Chinese history and the country's current path.  Yu rarely makes full-on conclusions, such as "good" or "bad" but simply tells the story and lets the reader decide.  The combination of his words and what I was learning and seeing in China created a rather indelible impact, helping to understand, and perhaps mourn, China a little bit.  The only criticism of this book is that China is moving so quickly that the essays, penned in 2011, are already looking a bit dated in 2019.  The true sadness is this ... Yu makes a great personal connection to China's recent past, drawing out an understanding of difficult times, but the book is ... you guessed it ... banned in China.

Last was Thomas More's Utopia, this one translated and notated by Paul Turner.  I'm glad of the lengthy introduction and extensive notes.  It helped me understand better a book everyone seems to talk about but perhaps have not actually read.  We talk of "Utopia" a good deal, but it is clear that More was not really describing a perfect society (the actual translation for Utopia is "no place" and the narrator of this fiction is a man named Raphael Nonsenso).  This mythical land has war and slavery and capital punishment.  There is also euthanasia and divorce, which Thomas More was unlikely to actually support.  There is paradox.  More talks about religious tolerance, sort of.  Atheists are tolerated as long as they keep it quiet but those who break canon law can be killed.  It's all a bit of a muddle.  Through the notations by Mr. Turner I began to see the book as a kind of Science Fiction of its day.  From H.G. Wells to Star Trek, Science Fiction has often been used as a kind of cloak to talk about modern day issues.  In 16th Century England More could not speak out about practises in the court which he disliked.  By penning this semi-humorous, outrageous tale he could hide criticisms in ridiculous banter and pray that Henry VIII didn't quite catch his meaning.  The book was oddly predictive.  Written in 1515 it nearly perfectly describes the excess of the The Field of the Cloth of Gold, a meeting between Henry VIII and his French counterpart, Francis I, five years before it actually happened.  (Maybe Henry never got around to reading this particular book).  It also predicted More's own death.  Near the end he states that the residents of this nonsensical nation, praying to their God, say they would "rather come to Thee by a most painful death, than to be kept too long away from Thee by the most pleasant of earthly lives."  More's counterpart, Raphael Nonsenso, somehow knew that his brand of honesty could never be tolerated by a nation's leader.  In any case, the reading was thick -- had to stop to digest frequently -- but interesting.  The Communist thread which ran throughout (again, not something More supported) was interesting to consider, given that this was created some 500 years before Mao got his grip on China.  I wonder if Mao read this, or what More would have thought of Communist China.  Real communist states don't really live up to the ideals set forth here, but then any society with real people, as opposed to fiction, must deal with the real human traits of ambition, pride and envy.  Seeing Mao's China and More's Utopia side by side was nonetheless interesting and made for a good final read on my last week or so there.

"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values" by Robert M. Pirsig

Yes!  I read a book.  It was hard.  Really hard.  This novel hooked me in the first few pages but I had to take repeated "brain rests" along the way.  It isn't really a book about zen.  It does have a good bit of motorcycle maintenance in it, but that information is provided as metaphor more than for practicality.  While most people remember the title, it is the subtitle which has the most importance here.  So what is this book about?  After 406 pages all I can say is that I'm not really sure.  It's about a lot of things.  It's about nature, about a road-trip, about a father trying to connect with his son, and with himself and his past.  It's about philosophy and it is about madness.  Pirsig presents this tome as a semi-real version of events surrounding a road-trip he made in the early 1970s.  He frames the narrative as a "Chautauqua", a kind of entertaining learning experience, and internal monologues become lectures to explain and define his theories.  He goes deep into the roots of philosophy, drawing from it the conclusion that life is about "Quality", something we know exists but cannot define.  Using a wealth of knowledge the book had me scrambling to learn more about the early Greeks and modern day theorists on the nature of truth, goodness, and more.  It was very deep reading.  I had to read passages over and over then set the book down to think about what I had just read.  There were tremendously insightful sections and parts which were nearly undecipherable.  Pirsig's observations of the world around him and need to understand the underpinnings of existence could be exhausting.  They did, in fact, drive the brilliant author to an insane asylum in the early 1960s where he received electroshock which effectively wiped some of his memories of the fanatical breakdown he suffered while trying to prove his thesis over that of academia of the 1950s.  While the zealotry he expresses in his "new church of reason" can be hard to take, his reflections also include tremendous insights.  Take this passage, which is possibly more relevant today than when it was written.  He notices a good deal of loneliness in people of the big cities, and says "Technology is blamed for a lot of this loneliness, since the loneliness is certainly associated with the newer technological devices ... but I hope it's been made plain that the real evil isn't the objects of technology but the tendency of technology to isolate people into lonely attitudes of objectivity."  When he talked of "truth" winning out over "good" in the minds of Greek philosophers I couldn't help but wonder what he would think about the United States at this time, when "truth" has taken quite the hit.  It was a hugely engaging and slightly frustrating book, and one I might return to someday, as I may want to start over with an understanding of what it is trying to say.  In the meantime, I think I need to bone up on some basic philosophy to help with the context.

"Won't You Be My Neighbor?"

In typical Monday morning quarterbacking, a good number of folks felt that this documentary should have won this year's Oscar over "Free Solo".  Having not seen any of the other nominees I can't say which documentary film should have won, but I do know that this film was very, very good.  Beyond telling you about the subject, Fred Rogers, and revealing several things I didn't know, there was something to be said for the style of the project, which tried to echo Fred Rogers' personality and beliefs.  In that sense it was a quiet film, one which was gentle and took time.  In addition to the actual footage, some of it behind the scenes, it relied heavily on the comments of people who had worked on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" for decades.  It says something that these people not only worked on the show for many years but still had good things to say.  When Fred Rogers talks about the importance of just being still, the camera stays on him and the filmmakers allow the audience, too, to take a moment to just reflect.  Much like the famed children's series, this documentary isn't too splashy and one viewer who watched it with me fell asleep.  Unfortunate as there is a larger issue here -- an America where all of the values Fred Rogers championed have fallen apart.  At one point, where there is an exploration of the rumor about his sexuality, it becomes clear that the modern world simply doesn't seem to have room for a decent guy like this.  And that is kind of tragic.

A Tale of Two Movies

 "Love, Simon" and "Boy Erased" were both released in 2018, both are based on books, and both deal with young men who struggle with their identity as homosexual men.  "Love, Simon" is pure fiction while "Boy Erased" is based on a memoir by Garrard Conley, who was placed in a gay conversion program by his conservative minister father.  Both films are good and tend to strike at the heart-strings.  "Love, Simon" however, is more of a slice of life with a fair amount of humor and day-to-day pathos.  "Boy Erased" is darker and involves rape and suicide.  I liked "Love, Simon" better as I felt like it was intriguing to explore the idea that homosexuality is still an issue in these supposed open times.  The movie rang very true for me in terms of how teens think and act, with complexity in the relationships between the four core friends.  I also didn't mind the lighter tone.  I really don't think everything of value has to be heavy handed.  There was a point in YA lit where every gay character faced abuse or death ("Annie on My Mind" for instance).  "Love, Simon" is far past that time, making the struggle for sexual identity a normal right of passage and not a devastating issue which will destroy one's life.  It looks at the lead character holistically, a young man who doesn't just have a secret, but deals with the fallout of some poor decisions, as well.  "Boy Erased" is compelling, almost entirely due to the unspoken struggles lead character Jared faces, played extremely well by Lucas Hedges.  The script and editing, however, are a bit staccato, and we veer from one scene to another, some of which are flashbacks in no particular order, making it difficult to stay emotionally in tune with the damage being done by the conversion therapy institute.  For those inclined towards liberal sympathies this film will create some outrage but I couldn't help but think a better produced film would have made the points more organically rather than the heavy-handed efforts here.  It should be noted that the people I watched this film with preferred it to "Love, Simon" but that is the beauty of film.  It is a subjective art.  Select one, or both, movies and compare them yourself.

"Girls"

What if ... What if "Sex and the City" was remade for today?  What if it featured the women not in their settled careers of 30 somethings but of the really early years, in their 20s, when jobs were hard to get and even harder to keep?  What if they weren't size 0 fashionistas but real women who focus more on what's going on in their insides than what they are wearing on the outside.  This is "Girls" the Lena Dunham series about a group of young women trying to navigate the world -- work and love -- in the NYC of the modern age.  A clear homage to "Sex and the City" there is plenty of sex and lots (and lots and lots) of focus on Adam Driver's penis.  I enjoyed season one and the "real" of it all but didn't make it too far into season two.  Being a good bit past the daily angst of youth I got a little burned out on Hannah's continuing need to be involved with a man who is clearly not good for her (Mr. Big, anyone?)  There is also a lot of nudity on the part of Ms. Dunham, which began as revolutionary and freeing but ended up feeling gratuitous.  That being said, it's a great show and has a lot to say about women, their roles, their lives.  This is the complicated, messy stuff and Lena Dunham doesn't shy away from making one or more of the characters fairly unlikeable as they swing through the emotional rollercoaster of trying to figure out their path.  A good addition to the new definition of female as Hollywood struggles to figure us out.

"What We Do in the Shadows"

In anticipation of the new FX series, I watched the 2014 New Zealand film by creators Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi.  Hysterically funny in a dry, kind-of "off" way, the original film focuses on a group of vampire roomates and their familiar being filmed, presumably, by a documentary film crew.  A mockumentary of sorts it induces the mundane into the profane creating humor through dissonance.  Not lacking in blood and gore it is hard to take it seriously given the deadpan line deliveries by characters to the camera in the midst of the carnage.  It struck me as the kind of Monty Python humor which ranges from chuckles to outright guffaws depending on the hour of the night when you are watching it.  The first episode of the TV show keeps closely to the premise and maintains the low-budget look.  Actors are equally committed to their over-the-top droll vampire characters, complete with ridiculous accents and big hair.  It was funny although seemed less-so than the movie.  That may be the difference in format.  Thirty minutes is a significant change from two hours.  I will continue to watch as they find their footing, but I'm likely going to save it for late nights when I'm a little punchy anyway.  If you are looking for something which is a COMPLETE ESCAPE from everything real, go for this. 

"The Village"

NBC has come up with a "This is Us" follow-up pairing.  "The Village" is a hanky-inducing sob-fest about various members of a small apartment building in New York.  SPOILER ALERT  Characters are what you might expect.  There is the mother with the pregnant teen daughter, played by the too-pretty Michaela McManus and the somewhat too old to be playing a teen, Grace Van Dien.  There is the disabled, troubled vet played by able-bodied Warren Christie.  There is a law student who brings his mouthy grandfather home to live with him.  There is a cop who loves a woman who is an undocumented immigrant.  When she is taken by ICE, he takes in the woman's kid.  Lastly, there is the oft-under appreciated Lorraine Toussaint, the social worker who holds it all together for everyone else but is hiding her own health crisis.  It lacks the personal touch of "This is Us" but has potential.  The show walks the line between truly good drama and soap-opera pablum.  Not sure which side it will land on but l am more than happy to watch for now. 

"Hidden Figures"

Finally got to see the movie everyone was talking about ... from two years ago.  Such is my life.  Like most "historical fiction" this film takes huge liberties with, well, the truth, but succeeds anyway given that it has a stellar cast and a good number of "truths" to explore beyond the actual history.  The truth here is that women, black women, black women in the sciences, had a horrendous time finding acceptance in the 20th century.  It wasn't just one battle, it was many ongoing ones.  The men in their lives didn't understand how a woman could work, much less in a field dominated by males.  The female co-workers were often secretarial types resentful of any woman, particularly a black woman, being elevated to a position of power or authority.  Being able to share in the office coffee pot at a time when there were separate water fountains or use a convenient bathroom were symbolic of the tiny wars being waged across America on a daily basis.  Favorites Taraji P. Henson and Octavia Spencer do a tremendously good job walking that impossible line -- being subservient and unoffensive even though their characters knew better than those above them in the work hierarchy.  Janelle Monae, newer to the screen, does a solid job portraying a woman whose is determined to reach for her dream, no matter how much the bar is moved.  Yes, there are a couple of "white saviors" here.  Such is the ugly truth.  When a group is being put down, it takes at least a few of the privileged class to "see" what is happening (or "get woke" in modern parlance) and address it for others to rise up.  Don't let that fool you, however.  These are women with voices.  They may speak quietly but they have a strength of conviction which each of them unfailingly commits to.  Although many of the major events of the film are known history there are still chills and tears.  Worth watching.

Sad

Bunching together a number of reviews for new shows as few are worth an individual mention.  Bottom line:  save the space on your DVR.

"Proven Innocent" is a show about a woman who was convicted for murder, served time, and was then exonerated.  Along the way she became a lawyer and now works for a law firm committed to freeing those who are wrongfully incarcerated.  If the plot seems familiar, it is.  There is little originality here and the show depends on politically tinged, emotional plot-lines which only occasionally hit home.  The actors seem mostly irrelevant with the heavy-hitting morality playing throughout.  For instance, there is Rachel Lefevre in the lead role.  Her talents are wasted.  She plays a whiny, unlikeable character bent on revenge.  Kelsey Grammar is her mustachioed villain and all the sidekicks are fairly forgettable, with the exception of chameleon-like actor Vincent Kartheiser, who's investigator character is just ... weird.

"The Enemy Within" borrows so many plots from recent shows I looked twice to make sure the set wasn't one from another FBI/CIA drama.  Even the actors are re-hashed.  Lead actor Jennifer Carpenter played a federal agent in "Limitless" and co-star Morris Chestnut seems to have patented the law and order guy who has a soft side.  The show could survive all of this if not for a dour, dark production which leaves one more depressed than entertained.  I'm hanging on to see if they find their way but I pretty much doubt it.

"Fam"  Despite a stellar cast this is unfortunately one of those cookie-cutter sitcoms with bad writing, bright lights and overacting.  There isn't a drop of reality here.  You would think networks would have learned by now (MASH, Big Bang Theory, Mom) that good comedy needs to be anchored in something.  One exception -- Odessa Adlon is a breakout star.

"The Fix"  Marcia Clark has had a top-shelf career but clearly regrets her one historic loss -- the prosecution of O.J. Simpson.  This show has a great cast, good writing and strong direction but the over-arching self-flagellation and wishful "re-do" through arch plot development kills what could be a decent show.

    

"Whiskey Cavalier"

A fun, frothy, action/comedy/romance show for the Spring.  This is the show ABC has been trying, and failing, to make for a few years now.  They finally hit gold with the casting, a better timeslot, and catchy, engaging dialog.  Scott Foley plays a great comedic sideman to Lauren Cohan's cranky isolationist.  Sidekicks Ana Ortiz ("Ugly Betty"), Tyler James Willams ("Everybody Hates Chris"), Vir Das and TV veteran Josh Hopkins as an irritating philanderer round out a team which bats the one-liners around like pros.  It's a show worth watching.  Do listen to the back-and-forth, which contain enough jabs to keep you smiling through repeats.

I Am the Night

'Tis the season for mid-season debuts.  "I Am the Night" is a six part miniseries based on the book by Fauna Hodel, called "One Day She'll Darken."  It is a biographical tale of the grand-daughter of Dr. George Hodel, a prime suspect in the Black Dahlia murder.  Fauna, raised by a black woman and told she was biracial, discovers her past and some disturbing mysteries when, as a young woman, she tried to piece together her parentage.  Possibly a child created by incest between Dr. Hodel and his daughter, or a child resulting from the rape of her mother in a mental health hospital, Fauna lived a difficult life, as did her mother, Tamar Hodel.  The novel was a way of addressing her abusive childhood and the unique perception she had on race in America.  The miniseries makes a muddle of it all.  Ignoring the facts it focuses on a fictional reporter, an ex-Korean War soldier who is hooked on drugs and gets beat up pretty much every week.  Additional fictional characters, and events, are used to try to beef up the narrative but fail.  Episodes one through four are simply boring and the over-the-top violence and creepiness introduced in episodes five and six do nothing for the narrative.  It's a shame.  You have great actors -- India Eisley and Chris Pine commit to their roles despite inconsistencies and a lack of script-based motivation, but they do so in a fog of film noir atmosphere which drowns out the possibly provocative conversation about race in the 1960s and sexual abuse by family members.  Written by the husband of Patty Jenkins (the brilliant director of Wonder Woman), and directed by Ms. Jenkins, it is all atmosphere and no meat, simply a meandering tale full of sound with no fury, signifying nothing at all.  Sorry I spent six hours on it.

"Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children"

A brilliant possibility dissolves because of poor choices on the part of the producers.  You have Asa Butterfield in the lead role, a young man who has been intriguing me since I saw his debut as a seriously creepy-ass young Mordred in "Merlin".  And you have director Tim Burton, whose unique and fantastical world view matches the subject matter wonderfully.  Unfortunately, however, the producers chose not to simply do the first book as the first film, but to start the film from the first book (exact lines and events are pulled directly from the book) and then veer off, squeezing in elements from later books in the series, presumably to get to a nice big battle at the end of the movie.  It doesn't really work.  The transitions seem abrupt, important information is missed and character development goes by the wayside.  The book, which I greatly enjoyed, is a very complicated story.  One where the world-building is done slowly and specifically.  You have to understand the nature of the "peculiar children", the time travel aspects, the threats against them.  Without that this is an entertaining and beautiful to watch movie, but it lacks the substance of the source material, and that is just a loss.

"Rent" vs. "Rent"

"Break a Leg" is going to have new meaning for Brennin Hunt, the unfortunate actor who brought the old adage back in stunning form for the live performance of "Rent" on FOX.  While the show may go on it mostly didn't, with the bulk of Saturday night's final dress rehearsal used for the Sunday broadcast.  I didn't mind the fact that it wasn't "live" per se.  I don't like commercials interrupting the narrative and always record these things anyway.  The company rallied, as they do, and the show did indeed go on, with the final scene being presented live, Mr. Hunt left sitting throughout.  What is sad is that his broken foot was the least of the problems in this production.  Not that there weren't gallant tries.  Vanessa Hudgens' tremendous vocals matched those of Idina Menzel, with flexibility in her dancing which would make a Cirque du Soleil performer jealous.  Tinashe's throaty belts gave a gravitas to Mimi and James Leyva's Angel almost made you forget Wilson Jermaine Heredia.  But therein lies the problem.  Remaking "Rent" is almost like trying to remake "The Sound of Music".  The original cast was iconic.  They didn't just create the roles, they embodied them.  The live "Jesus Christ Superstar" made me forget all previous productions.  This version of "Rent" made me think, a lot, about the original cast.  Brandon Victor Dixon blew me away as Judas in Superstar.  He was great here as Tom Collins.  But he wasn't Jesse L. Martin, who has a smoothness like sherry which simply cannot be replicated.  To his credit, Mr. Dixon didn't try, and made the role his own.  They all did, but it wasn't good enough.  Yes, I had my tears, often, but the whole thing was burdened by production issues.  Okay, it was a dress rehearsal, but actors were left in the dark (lights, please?).  The weird set left too many narrow spaces so blocking was tight and unnatural.  It was a show not for the live audience, who couldn't see many scenes, or for the TV audience, who were still blocked by backs on several occasions.  A bizarre habit of using overhead cameras gave TV viewers some shots the live audience couldn't see and were jarring -- they broke the fourth wall and took the "performance" element away.  I can't help but think that FOX was trying to replicate the huge success NBC had with Superstar and they got it all wrong.  The live audience can work, making TV viewers feel like they are the audience of a live stage production, but the overhead shots, and shots of the audience, remind you that you aren't really there.  The whole "screaming audience" thing was also a fail.  In Superstar it worked because Jesus was a hot commodity, that isn't the case with "Rent" as most of the characters are alone, even when around others.  There is also an argument to be made about adopting successful film changes.  The Superstar film added a song "Can We Start Again, Please?"  It was a hit, and added to the stage play.  "Rent" the movie changed a number of things (including the controversial decision to recast Rosario Dawson as Mimi, over the original cast member Daphne Rubin-Vega) but some of the film changes were for the good.  Jesse Martin singing the reprise of "I'll cover you" with Angel in his arms, dying, was way more powerful than the theatrical "Contact".  Angel's death was typical of this production as a whole -- no clear audience, no unified creative guidance on what it was supposed to be.  Thankfully, performers and Jonathan Larson's incredible score made it palatable, but I'll take the film any day.  FOX must have agreed, as the entire original cast was brought on at the end.  You know what you don't want when you do a faint copy of a terrific original?  The original cast showing up to remind folks of how good they were.  Nice try Fox, but you get a C- on this one.

"The Americans"

As part of my screenings for the SAG Awards I often get previews of series well into their later seasons.  So it was with "The Americans" which I had heard was good but never had the time for.  The screening of episode one of season six peaked my interest so I got the first season from the Public Library.  I watched the entire thing in a day and a half, unable to turn it off as it went from episode to episode.  It's bleak, and I don't always like bleak, but it is so incredibly well-done.  Big credit here goes to Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys as the KGB spies living in Falls Church, VA during the Reagan administration.  Ms. Russell's character, "Elizabeth" is a true believer in her nation and her cause and she does what she needs to despite the cost.  But there the pain is there and it shows in the cracks and slivers which peak through an incredibly hard and determined facade.  Matthew Rhys betrays not a single inch of his British heritage and manages to transform completely from one false identity to the next.  It is almost as fascinating to watch as seeing his character Philip struggle with the faux marriage he has helped maintain for over 20 years.  This is Spy vs. Spy at its best.  As one character says (we) "Americans like to see everything in black and white.  All we know is gray."  This is a show which almost loses itself in the gray and it left me wondering about true patriotism and the price for defending one's nation.  Well-written, sad and powerful, I look forward to watching seasons two and three (also at the library) but am bereft to learn that seasons four through six are only available on streaming.  What will I do?

"8 Plus 1: Stories by Robert Cormier"

Robert Cormier was a true wordsmith, the kind we rarely see anymore and certainly not in most YA fiction.  This collection of short stories is not his best.  But, like most of his work, it is leaps and bounds beyond much of what I have read of late.  Check out this line:  "The party coincided with one of those leaf-toasted afternoons when late summer conspires with early autumn to produce an in-between period of grace and loveliness."  It's not an important detail.  The story is a quick tale of his daughter moving on from a Senior year boyfriend.  It is an example of the richness of Cormier's writing, however, showing how he used minor details like an artist's paintbrush.  He described things in a way which draws you in, not only to setting, but to the emotion of the piece.  By his own admission these nine stories were not heavily edited and he drew liberally from his own family and his family's history to create them.  What is intriguing is that he provides a forward to each tale.  Each forward gives an insight into the writing process, the creative spark which help to form a narrative.  I liked them but read the book backwards, reading the forward after reading the story.  In that way I could take each tale in with no preconceptions.  It's a tiny, unknown little gem from a master who brought us so much more than "The Chocolate War" and "I Am the Cheese".  By all means, dig in.

"Star Trek Discovery"

Awesome.  Okay, seriously not the Star Trek I grew up with but that's really okay.  If J.J. Abrams can create a new timeline then CBS can (and does) make a Star Trek which is more post-9/11, more 21st century, than anything which came before.  It's darker and grittier, people die.  The idealism of the Federation is balanced by ugly realities.  Characters aren't black and white but messy, complicated greys.  The most important thing is that this is the first Star Trek which doesn't focus on the Captain of a given ship but on an officer who excels, falls, and digs herself out.  It's a slow process and she acknowledges that it takes time.  Perhaps a lifetime.  Elements of the other series, particularly the original series (TOS), are prevalent, as are nods to Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars.  The societal commentary which made TOS so perfect for the 1960s is present in season one with not-so-subtle references to a xenophobic human society which is dictatorial and bears a hatred for anyone who is "other."  Acting, writing, direction and look of the show, including special effects, is top-notch.  Season one has a tremendous number of twists and turns.  I saw one coming but not others.  At least two moments had me gasping "Whaaatttt?", followed by "my head hurts."  Unlike TOS this isn't episodic.  You really must watch it in order.  There is an amazingly well thought-thru storyline and I have to give kudos to the creative staff for how they crafted the many threads of this tale over 15 episodes.  I got it on disc (sorry CBS, not paying for yet another streaming service) and it comes with a plethora of extras which highlight all elements of the production.  Great new series for the current age.  So glad to have something of quality as the next step in this 50 year franchise.  Live long and prosper.

And the Award Goes to ...

Well it's that time again.  I've watched 14 films and part or all of 17 TV series over the past three weeks to select my top picks in the annual Screen Actor Guild Awards.  I share them below with my reasons for the selection in each category.  That being said, I rarely hit 50% with the actual winners but know that nearly everyone who was nominated was deserving.

Before I begin, a summary of my experiences for this round:

• In films based on past events just because they say that "this really happened" doesn't actually mean it really happened anything like what you are seeing on the screen.
• This year had a good number of instances of good acting in so-so films.
• Whispering and mumbling of lines is prevalent and makes it really hard to follow the dialogue.
• Kids are ignored.  Elisha Henig, Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe and Pixie Davies were all outstanding in their various roles ("The Sinner," "A Quiet Place," and "Mary Poppins Returns") but typically snubbed in nominations.
• Serial killers are very big this year.
• Long, wordless focus on an actor "emoting" is also very big.  It doesn't always work.
• Internet only series are still invisible in the awards field.  Elizabeth Olsen's luminous performance in "Sorry for Your Loss" was wholly ignored.  The supporting cast is pretty awesome, too.
• Hollywood must be a small place.  Not only are some actors nominated for multiple roles (Emily Blunt, John Krasinski and Amy Adams) but a number of other actors popped up in at least two, and sometimes three, of the nominated titles (Steve Carrell, Timothy Hutton, Kirby Howell-Baptiste and D'Arcy Carden).
• The major difference between a network TV show and a cable TV show is the F-word and full-frontal shots (finally including men as well as women).  Unfortunately, after enough of the R rated content it simply stops being interesting.
• Diversity in genres is increasing in the award categories.  This is a good thing.  But I'm not sure all dark comedy is really funny.
• While I appreciate the well-made drama my personal favorites will always be the well-made lighter fare.  "Crazy Rich Asians," "Mary Poppins Returns," "Black Panther," "Kominsky Method" and "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" were the ones I liked the most.  In the drama category television had a good year.  "Escape at Dannemora," "Handmaid's Tale," and "The Assassination of Gianni Versace" were all outstanding.  For films I feel "A Star is Born" was the best of the bunch.

For the Screen Actor Guild Awards, however, I don't vote for best film or TV show, just for actors, so here are my picks:

Male Actor in a Leading Role -- Bradley Cooper.  Perfect example of an actor transforming himself completely into what the role required.  And he directed himself.  Check out his final scene in the film if you don't agree.
Female Actor in a Leading Role -- This one was really, really hard.  Wanted so badly to vote for Glenn Close, who I love and who should just get the award for body of work.  I was also leaning towards Olivia Colman who was terrific as the troubled, lost Queen Anne.  But in the end I voted for Melissa McCarthy.  Not only for "most improved" but absolutely no equivocation while playing a completely unlikeable character.
Male Actor in a Supporting Role -- Not a lot of meat here.  Good actors but few made a major impression.  I love Mahershala Ali and have watched his work from the beginning, so that was my pick.
Female Actor in a Supporting Role -- Again, some competition but I was struck by Rachel Weisz, and the power she brought to her complex character in "The Favourite".  She wasn't over-the-top but somehow was the focus of every scene she was in.
Cast in a Motion Picture -- "Crazy Rich Asians".  Absolutely every actor brought something valuable to this tale.
Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries -- Anthony Hopkins and Bill Pullman were very strong contenders but I had to go with Darren Criss.  He got into the mind of a murderer so fully that it totally creeped me out.
Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries -- Patricia Arquette.  Again, she went all in playing a complex and fairly rotten person, holding nothing back.  She didn't just transform physically (gaining 40 pounds and wearing prosthetics) she transformed her being.  You couldn't look away.
Male Actor in a Drama Series -- John Krasinsky did a great job making me feel the myriad of emotions being experienced by a CIA agent torn apart on the inside.  He also pulled off young and wide-eyed after doing the opposite in "A Quiet Place."  Here's to stretching those acting muscles.
Female Actor in a Drama Series -- Elisabeth Moss.  The camera lingers over her face, in close-up, time and time again, including during rape segments.  The play of feelings across her face is beyond compelling.
Male Actor in a Comedy Series -- Alan Arkin.  He and Michael Douglas are both great in this show but Alan Arkin has a subtle brilliance in how he can turn a phrase.  He always has.
Female Actor in a Comedy Series -- Because of how SAG does their awards Rachel Brosnahan is in the same category as Alex Borstein.  Rachel will get it but Alex deserves some credit.  Her character is indelible, unique and a critical foil for Mrs. Maisel's super-sweet adrenaline.  I voted for Alex.
Ensemble in a Drama Series -- "Handmaid's Tale."  There simply isn't a better series out there today to reflect this bizarre political time through a necessary mirror.  And the women here go all out in a hugely difficult narrative.
Ensemble in a Comedy Series -- "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel."  The lightning fast pace of this screwball comedy only works if everyone is on their game.  It's a 100% participation trophy here for a cast of delightful, rich characters who return every serve.
Stunt Ensemble for a Comedy or Drama Series -- "Glow."  a) They gave me a preview, some of the other nominated shows didn't.  b) As far as I know, nothing is digital.  c)  Gotta give it up for the ladies.
Stunt Ensemble for a Motion Picture -- "Black Panther."  It was the only one of the nominated films which bothered to send me a preview and the ladies kicked some ***.

Set aside some time -- you have some films/TV to watch!

"The Sinner"

Looking for escape these days I chose not to watch this show despite good reviews for the simple reason that I didn't want to be depressed.  With awards season coming around however, I was given the chance to watch season two.  It is dark, but not as dark as I had thought.  And it is very well done.  Very very well done.  Great acting (Bill Pullman is justifiably nominated for a best actor award), great writing and a directing style which brings a kind of Twin Peaks film noir to what is essentially a mystery.  I like mysteries and enjoyed watching it unfold.  There were enough surprises to keep me going but none of them came out of nowhere.  The characters who gave me the creeps early on turned out to have a secret or two and most things seemed to "fit" when it all came together.  The series has a forward momentum and I ended up watching almost all of it in one day as I simply had to see "what happens next."  One minor complaint ... at eight episodes it was dragged out a bit more than was necessary.  I could have seen it wrap up in six, and thought it would.  To get it to eight they had to add in a few more twists and a number of threads which weren't followed through on.  A major discovery in episode six or seven turned out to be a nothing and characters were introduced late in the game with little sense of what happened to them afterward.  That being said it was top notch and once again, we have a great performance turned in by a young actor, Elisha Henig.  Unfortunately, there was not a sliver of joy in the whole thing so I'm unlikely to watch season three unless I'm in a really, really good mood. 

"The Kominsky Method"

Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin make for the best buddy couple I've seen since Tony Randall and Jack Klugman shared a screen.  A Chuck Lorre creation this isn't laugh-out-loud funny like some of his other work (okay, there is an occasional guffaw) but it touches you with a lovely blend of humor and "something else".  Not sure what, just a rush of complex emotions.  Much like "Mom" it is a grown-up comedy with some kind of bittersweet recognition of our own lives and circumstances.  As usual I had minor quibbles with actresses 15-20 years younger than their male counterparts playing wives and lovers but that is nothing new to television.  Netflix hits it out of the ballpark again with a nicely produced show.  Eight half-hour episodes make up the first season with an eagerly anticipated second season coming ... at some point. 

"Can You Ever Forgive Me?"

Melissa McCarthy deserves a real nod for committing to this character 100%.  She subverts herself and fully realizes a difficult, unlikeable woman.  It is an award-worthy performance in a fairly dull movie.  Paired with her is Richard E. Grant, playing Jack Hock, her partner in crime.  His lightness and mirth brightens the dreary film.  Based on a book which is based on supposed real events there isn't a lot of story here.  An author falls on hard times and does some sketchy things to make money.  End of story.  But this is a two hour film so attempts are made to make it a "mood" piece and beef up relationships and events.  Intrusive music overlays the beginning and end of the film, shot mostly on dark wet streets in NYC.  Even daylight scenes seem to take place under grey skies.  Jack Hock's character, along with that of a female bookseller, are beefed up to create dialog, but none of it works.  The issue is the main character.  Ms. McCarthy does a great job but you just end up hating her.  And it is hard to spend two hours watching a character with virtually no redeeming values.  SPOILER ALERT.  And the cat dies.  Of course it does.  Probably my least favorite of the award nominated films I have screened thus far.  Here's hoping Melissa McCarthy, who truly does have the chops, can find another vehicle to work her craft.  In answer to the eponymous title?  The answer is "no."

"Black Panther"

An action film which truly fulfills the hype and excels beyond the limits of the genre.  Before the obligatory fisticuffs and explosions there is real depth and storytelling.  Superb world-building in terms of combining high tech with the African diaspora.  Engaging and entertaining, every character here has dimension.  This may reflect a patriarchal hierarchy but the women of the tale have strength and contribute to the film's arc in substantial ways.  Societal messages are interwoven in a clear but subtle way and backstory is done through flashbacks to limit exposition.  Stan Lee, of course, makes a final and bittersweet cameo.  I could wax on for a good bit but there is little more to say.  It's amazing.  See it.

"Bohemian Rhapsody"

I cried, a lot, when Freddie Mercury died.  I wasn't alone.  This film, which has been pretty ravaged by critics but adored by fans, has a lot of the music which made Queen a star.  And it's a good film.  It's just not great.  It's a rock star biopic.  We know the history, we know what happens in every rock star story.  From nothing to the big break to fame to drugs to relationships which implode to band breaking up to reconciliation (maybe) and reflection back on their golden years.  Yadda yadda yadda.  That being said, I sat through this because it was Queen and it was Freddie Mercury and there is that voice, that sound, that "imagining" he had for great music.  The tale clarifies a few things, like his family background and his relationship with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton should have gotten more nods for her sensitive portrayal here) but leaves much of Freddie's real story, his inner life, his passions, alone.  It is the story of Queen with a broad watercolor brush, leaving darkness mostly to the side.  Rami Malek, whose work I like (I voted for him as Best Actor in "I, Robot") has gotten acclaim from his efforts here although I couldn't help but feel the actor was challenged by both the prosthetic teeth and being asked to do a British accent.  And no, it's not him singing.  A computerized blend of actual Queen and a Canadian singer named Marc Martel was used to replicate the amazingness of Freddie's gift.  The movie could have used editing.  Coming in at a weighty 134 minutes it could have been shorter given the lack of depth.  They do show the entire Live Aid performance, which lasted 20 minutes, so that is a part of it, but all it did was leave me craving the real show.  Somehow I don't think that's what the producers intended.  It's an "entertaining" film.  See it for the music.  See it and remember how truly great this group was, a brief moment of modern musical brilliance, before it all came crashing down.

"The Favourite"

Another film which is supposed to be a comedy that I didn't find very funny.  It's a very good film, and worth watching, but mostly I found it to just be sad.  There is Lady Sarah, a complicated woman navigating a difficult time period for women.  There is Queen Anne, a sad, sick woman who only wants to be loved.  And there is Abigail, a woman who has lost much and is determined to get it back.  The whole thing is very "Liaison Dangereuse," which, if you remember, had a certain number of peccadilloes but ended badly for pretty much everyone.  Dialogue is fast and furious and the jibes contained within is where you find the humor, but don't blink.  The setting is lush and the filming adds to the narrative in an interesting way.  Fish-eye lenses are used in several instances either to show how the world is closing in on a character or how a given character lives in their own little bubble.  It's a bit direct but it works.  Without giving away any of the plot I found this film to be quite satisfying although, in the end, it speaks to loss rather than laughs.  I was impressed by Rachel Weisz and found her to be a powerful presence.  Her key line, which resonated for me, was "We are playing entirely different games, you and I".  It was typical of the character, who evidenced power even when that power was usurped.  Olivia Colman was equally compelling as a woman who craves everything and yet still feels empty.  I look forward to seeing her work in "The Crown" later this year, as she has become the older version of Queen Elizabeth II after Claire Foy.  My only minor issue was with costuming, which appeared interesting at first only to resort to a kind of similarity from one outfit to the next.  The biggest change was when one character's dress went from the blue everyone was wearing to black, presumably to show her turn to the dark side.  Maybe they blew their budget on hair and wigs?  BTW, of all the "historical" films this year, this one appears to be the most accurate.  Yes, much of this (although not all of it) really did happen.  That's something.  Enjoy.  The Queen commands it.  (PS worst movie poster ever ...)

"Vice"

At any other time I would have found this film hysterical.  Shot in a similar way as "The Big Short" this is an in-your-face romp which explores the path, and power, of Dick Cheney.  It has enough facts to bolster the narrative and enough good performances to drive the story although at times it does seem a bit choppy.  In a bit of a twist, I'm betting most viewers will not guess the identity of the narrator until it is revealed.  The problem isn't with the film.  The problem is with the era we are living in.  When I can scan headlines and see ten times more obnoxious behavior by our current baby-in-chief I find it hard to get motivated by the sins shown in this story.  I should be outraged. The movie shows a complete and total corruption of the American institution.  The fact that President Ding Dong has normalized unacceptable behavior is perhaps the saddest thing of all.  Which made laughing at this film difficult.  Added to that is the performance of Christian Bale, nominated for numerous awards as part of his work here.  Yes, he's good.  He's also an unqualified bastard who has temper tantrums on set and is estranged from many after threatening violence against family members during arguments.  What does it say that Hollywood is as guilty of promoting this guy as the government forces were of promoting a man like Dick Cheney?  I'm just saying.  Maybe the producers didn't fully get the point.  In any case, good film, wrong time to see it, won't vote for Bale as Best Actor.  I'm past the point where I can look at the work and not the person behind it.

"BlackKkKlansman"

Much like "Green Book" this is a so-called comedy is set in a historical past depicting America's struggle with racism.  While I still took issue with a few things (like calling this a comedy) it was better than "Green Book".  Unlike "Green Book" the film is directed by black virtuoso director Spike Lee and focuses on the black experience through black eyes.  This is the presentational version of Spike Lee, who has a wide range of styles.  This particular film makes points through visuals and messaging rather than through characters.  During a Kwame Ture rally the scene melds into faces of the crowd, a kind of living tableau of beautiful blacks, echoing words of the speech, encouraging the audience to love themselves.  Recounting the story of Ron Stallworth, the first black police officer in Colorado Springs, this is supposedly a "true" tale.  Mr. Stallworth suffered through pretty overt racism in his department but eventually came across a case he could sink his teeth into -- monitoring the actions of the local Klan.  He did this by creating a phone relationship with the leaders of the group and sent a white officer in his place for face-to-face meetings (Adam Driver as Flip Zimmerman).  The laughs are meant to come from the behavior of the ridiculous, stupid Klansmen.  Again, like "Green Book" I found it hard to laugh.  After viewing the film, I wondered if Spike Lee was doing the same as Jordan Peele did last year with "Get Out" and using a non-dramatic format to make a point.  Getting folks to laugh at racism then showing the ugliness of racism may create in the viewer a paradoxical reflection, an inner dialogue.  Is this ever funny?  Right when you might be tempted to think these idiots can't get their act together on anything there is Harry Belafonte playing Jerome Turner, telling an achingly sad story of Jesse Washington, a man who was castrated, tortured and burned over the death of a white woman.  The movie is not subtle. It begins with a faux Alex Jones character and ends with actual footage of Charlottesville, right down to showing different angles of the assault that killed Heather Heyer, all of which is a way of yelling, rather than saying "GET IT?"  I don't disagree with the points but I struggled with the insistence that this is a TRUE story when, in fact, almost every major part of the narrative has been manipulated to make a point.  When books do that I really jump all over them.  I can't help but think there is so much overt racism in the U.S. that you really don't have to manipulate reality to see it, but then I look at President Ding Dong's response to Charlottesville (also in the film) and think, okay, yeah, people don't get it.  SPOILER ALERTS!!!!  Bottom line:  Truth.  Ron Stallworth was the first black police officer in Colorado Springs, he did face incredible racism, he did infiltrate the Klan and he did talk with David Duke on the phone.  Nearly everything else in the film (the time period, Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard, Patrice, Felix and Connie Hendrickson, Flip Zimmerman being Jewish, the Klan guys blowing anything up, calling David Duke to say "ha-ha you bastard") is all fiction.  What isn't fiction is that the investigation was shut down and covered up and that high-ranking military and government types were a part of the local Klan and didn't face repercussions for that until years later.  One of the final shots in the film, that of maybe (???) Adam Driver's character joining the Klan has become a big debate, leading to further examination of the film's meaning and racism.  Are we all racists, even those who are targeted by the Klan?  The movie made me think and in that sense it succeeded but this year's crop of socially relevant films shot wide, in my humble opinion, rather than directly at an easily defined target.

"Green Book"

This has to be the most white movie about black struggles I have ever seen.  Written and directed by white men the lead character is ... a white man.  This is not to say that white people can't create material covering the black plight but this film ain't it.  Called a comedy, the premise is pretty simple.  Black music prodigy Dr. Don Shirley has chosen to do a tour in the deep south in the early 1960s.  He needs a driver and selects the loutish Tony "Lip", who is conveniently a club bouncer, as well.  Tony is not a fan of black people and his opinion of them stands only one step to the left of stereotype images of fried-chicken eating black-face entertainers.  In a kind of twisted Pygmalion the well-educated Shirley attempts to refine the borderline gangster.  We are supposed to laugh.  Dr. Shirley experiences some gross kind of racism, Tony observes it and feels badly, then does something loutish.  Cue the laughter.  But I couldn't.  I'm thinking the reality of this film is just too close.  It would be one thing if it was truly history, but less than a month ago I watched a video of a man kicked out of his hotel for ... wait for it ... daring to call his mother from the lobby.  Security was called.  The video shows a man devastated by what occurred.  He is shocked, angry, sad.  The tears are clearly there under the surface.  It's hard to watch and, I imagine, impossible to experience.  Before that I watched a video of a woman waiting with a friend for a car repairman.  They were verbally assaulted by a drunken white woman who insisted, in every racist way possible, that she was better than these two black women.  It made me embarrassed for my entire race.  So no, I wasn't able to laugh at the dumb white guy in this film.  It was just too real.  And it makes me sick.

"All in the Timing" by David Ives

I read a book!  Finally.  Of course, it is theatre related.  Fourteen short plays.  As previously mentioned, I like reading short plays as a way of finding monologues.  Unlike the Humana Festival collection these plays started out light and humorous, a delightful change.  I failed in my quest to find a funny monologue but enjoyed the works, which included laugh-out-loud humorous pieces, profane pieces (the Mamet piece is both profane and hysterical) and thoughtful pieces.  Many of the plays revolve around the challenges of relationships and the book ends with a particularly short piece written in an almost absurdist form which evokes a poetic form, echoing the death of a relationship.  Worth the read, or performance.  Well-done.

"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"

Thank God for this show.  Really.  During awards season I often slog through one really dark, depressing film after another.  This show has been an incredibly delightful palate-cleanser each night as I work to pull out of the grey fog which descends after watching all the "meaningful" art films.  Which is not to say this isn't meaningful, it is hugely so.  Set in the late 1950s New York there are tremendous ripples about women's roles and a changing society but it is explored through the lens of a cheerful, super-smart, upbeat woman known as Midge Maisel.  No, her life doesn't go as she planned.  That seems to be a theme for all of the characters.  But she has a can-do attitude and time and time again, makes lemonade out of life's lemons.  This is one of those cases where the entire cast, the entire production, is magnificently brilliant.  Every character adds something unique to the narrative and no expense seems to be spared in presenting the world of upper west side New York life.  It creates a colorful shell within which the story feels very real, has significant depth, but is not depressing.  Another huge part of the success of this series has to be the writing.  It is not only funny but delivered at a mad clip.  I dare you to try and do anything while watching this show ... you would miss a dozen plot-points.  Rachel Brosnahan has received due credit for her portrayal of this feisty, feminine woman but my vote will be going to Alex Borstein whose "Susie Myerson" is unforgettable.  They say that a supporting actor award should go to someone who fills a role so completely you can't imagine anyone else doing the role.  Such is the case with Ms. Borstein, whose facial expressions alone have sent me into laughing fits.  Well-imagined, perfectly executed, definitely one of the smartest new series to come along in a good long while.  This is a show I look forward to watching, time and time again.

"A Quiet Place"

NOT a fan of horror but as a SAG voter I will watch whatever is sent to me, particularly if I have to vote on it.  If I choose to watch it at 10am on a sunny day, however, that is entirely my choice.  With real diversity of genres finally invading the award world horror has begun to make it into the annual film-binging.  Last year was "Get Out" which was scary as hell but quite brilliant.  This year it is "A Quiet Place" which is equally scary as hell and perhaps even more brilliant.  The premise and execution of this idea, that humans have to remain completely silent or get eaten by the big bad aliens, is just inspired.  Produced, directed and starring John Krasinski and his wife, Emily Blunt, the film had me on the edge of my seat for every single one of the 90 minutes, much of it covering my mouth.  You know the premise is well-done when you buy in so completely that you don't dare scream in places where, quite frankly, you need to scream.  I did jump a good deal but very very quietly.  Even after the film was over I felt I had to be quiet, tip-toeing down the stairs for a snack.  The kids, of course, are left out of actor nominations but should be given huge credit for their work.  Millicent Simmonds does a truly amazing job of communicating her conflicting emotions after an unimaginable loss and Noah Jupe's sense of horror ripples across his face time and time again, looking like an Edvard Munch still-life.  The film is exquisitely made and allows the silence to swallow you whole, only occasionally using underscoring.  It is this focus on the actors and action which makes the film truly good and not just one of a given genre.  Krasinski, like his wife, is having a good year, being honored for his work in Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan".  How he managed to make and star in this film as well as that series is beyond me.  In any case, this story is outstanding and really made an impression, "sticking with me".  Just don't watch it alone.  Or at night.