It's all over the media, OJ Simpson recovered some stolen property with the help of a four friends and one or two guns (depends on which report you read).
OJ's story, and his story is always interesting, is that a sports memorabilia dealer contacted him with the startling news that some of his personal belongings are up for sale by dealers who would prefer to keep it quiet--which is when OJ, friends and guns made an unannounced visit. The other story is that the goodies were once kept in a storage facility rented by OJ's mom, and when the rental went due, the property became that of the highest bidder. So, OJ was taking back things that no longer belong to him.
OJ said he was running a sting on people who may or may have not stolen his property. Other people say they were robbed at gun point. The Las Vegas police are looking into the matter.
Having gotten away with murder, and I am one of those who believe he did, Simpson has every right to think he can talk his way out of this one--if, in fact, he did recover what might or might not be his at gun point. Meanwhile, Simpson's theoretical tell all, If I Did It, became the property of the out-of-their-heads Goldman family, who appeared on Oprah, changed the name of the book to I Did It, and will now recover some of their damages in the form of book royalties--assuming someone buys it. I won't, but I am sure others will.
This is a story that keeps on giving, because the cast of characters just will not shut up. I don't know who did what, and I bet the cops will have a difficult time because none of the people involved seem credible. But its just another twist in the never-ending winding road that is Simpson's life. I guess if I had beaten a double murder rap, I might keep my head down and my good self out of the media. But then, I'm not OJ. Anyway, OJ is my pick for Freak of the Week.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
3:10 to Yuma, then and now
I suppose 3:10 to Yuma was ripe for the remaking. A landmark Western made in 1957, the film is a psychological drama that calls on the hero (Van Heflin) to do what the town officials are to frightened of doing and in the process, Heflin has to examine his own code of ethics. He is a man caught between personal need and "the public good," a rancher plagued by drought who is coerced into doing a dirty job (turning in Glen Ford) for the reward.
This is one of Ford's best performances as the monstrous bad guy who plays a psychological game of manipulation. Most of the action is confined to a hotel room as Ford tries to convince the needy rancher to take $10,000 and look the other way as Ford escapes. A little talky, but good stuff.
Of course, I'm not sure how many people have seen this film, although it magically showed up on Cable this month, just as the remake is unleashed.
In the new version, Christian Bale is pursued by Russell Crowe's men as he struggles to escort Crowe to the train bound for Yuma Prison. No doubt about it, Bale and Crowe are talented actors. And to MTV generation, I am sure this violent shoot 'em up is superior to the "snoozy," talky original. The 2007 version is far more violent and cynical. And the ending makes NO sense.
If the 1957 version is a minor masterpiece (and I think it is), the 2007 version is just another shoot 'em up in living color. Some of the interesting psychological aspects remain--of course, that's the story, but for me it just missed. I have no doubt that Bale and Crowe will be on somebody's short list of Academy Awards. But this remake, while abounding in bells and whistles, is not as taut or as interesting.
This is one of Ford's best performances as the monstrous bad guy who plays a psychological game of manipulation. Most of the action is confined to a hotel room as Ford tries to convince the needy rancher to take $10,000 and look the other way as Ford escapes. A little talky, but good stuff.
Of course, I'm not sure how many people have seen this film, although it magically showed up on Cable this month, just as the remake is unleashed.
In the new version, Christian Bale is pursued by Russell Crowe's men as he struggles to escort Crowe to the train bound for Yuma Prison. No doubt about it, Bale and Crowe are talented actors. And to MTV generation, I am sure this violent shoot 'em up is superior to the "snoozy," talky original. The 2007 version is far more violent and cynical. And the ending makes NO sense.
If the 1957 version is a minor masterpiece (and I think it is), the 2007 version is just another shoot 'em up in living color. Some of the interesting psychological aspects remain--of course, that's the story, but for me it just missed. I have no doubt that Bale and Crowe will be on somebody's short list of Academy Awards. But this remake, while abounding in bells and whistles, is not as taut or as interesting.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
But we are not into nation building
Instead of going after the architects of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, George Bush, for his own reasons, diverted the military to the occupation of Iraq, for reasons that are still not clear. And even now, when the administration's lies about our motives and their complicity, are common knowledge, Bush and his various mouthpieces insist on equating the two.
Here's what I know: In the five years since our invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi people are not safe in their own homes, do not have reliable electricity or running water, and live lives of unimagined terror. The only people who seem to be doing well in Iraq are the independent contractors who question prisoners, cater Army meals, and manage every aspect of Iraqi life from the spotty electricity to the stock exchange. Tonight the President will appear on television to assure us that things are just dandy in Iraq and that troops will be coming home soon, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
No doubt about it, the attacks on 9/11 should have been answered, but the Taleban could have been found in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, had we been interested in looking. We sure didn't care what the Taleban was doing when it usurped the Afghan government an instituted faith based policies that meant females could not be educated or hold jobs and that it was just fine to blow up those Buddhas.
I understand that we Americans do not like to think of ourselves as the aggressive bully boys who would invade a country that has done nothing to us--but that is exactly what happened. And it is not unpatriotic to question this or any other administration.
If we are not, as the administration maintains, dabbling in nation building, then why are we in Iraq? If the administration did not intend our presence to be permanent that why did he completely destroy Iraq's ability to govern itself? This week Abdul-Satter Abu Risha, the most prominent figure in a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in an explosion near his home in Anbar province. Does it seem to you that Iraq is making slow but stead progress towards becoming a democratic nation?
Bush can send all the soldiers and marines he wants to Iraq and it will make little difference. It's like calling the cops when your neighbor beats his wife. He'll stop beating his wife while the cops are then--but resumes when the cops are gone. We, the United States of America, has created one hell of a mess in Iraq. Since the first Bush administration, we have taken a country that had a high literacy rate, free health care, and equal opportunities for woman and reduced it to the stone age. We have brought those people nothing but heartbreak and despair. The senate Democrats lack the will to end the war by doing what Nixon did in Vietnam--he declared it over and brought troops home. And I can hear you now, "But look and what happened in Vietnam after we left." What happened in Vietnam happened because we were there in the first place. What has happened and what will happen in Iraq happens because we are there. Armies of occupation are never welcomed and we are an army of occupation who came unbidden into a country that had done us no harm. There are Iraqi people who remember Iraqi before the sanctions, before the occupation. Maybe the only answer at this juncture is to allow Iraq to splinter into it's original shape, pre-British intervention, before Gertrude Bell stitched it together and called it a country.
Here's what I know: In the five years since our invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi people are not safe in their own homes, do not have reliable electricity or running water, and live lives of unimagined terror. The only people who seem to be doing well in Iraq are the independent contractors who question prisoners, cater Army meals, and manage every aspect of Iraqi life from the spotty electricity to the stock exchange. Tonight the President will appear on television to assure us that things are just dandy in Iraq and that troops will be coming home soon, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
No doubt about it, the attacks on 9/11 should have been answered, but the Taleban could have been found in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, had we been interested in looking. We sure didn't care what the Taleban was doing when it usurped the Afghan government an instituted faith based policies that meant females could not be educated or hold jobs and that it was just fine to blow up those Buddhas.
I understand that we Americans do not like to think of ourselves as the aggressive bully boys who would invade a country that has done nothing to us--but that is exactly what happened. And it is not unpatriotic to question this or any other administration.
If we are not, as the administration maintains, dabbling in nation building, then why are we in Iraq? If the administration did not intend our presence to be permanent that why did he completely destroy Iraq's ability to govern itself? This week Abdul-Satter Abu Risha, the most prominent figure in a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in an explosion near his home in Anbar province. Does it seem to you that Iraq is making slow but stead progress towards becoming a democratic nation?
Bush can send all the soldiers and marines he wants to Iraq and it will make little difference. It's like calling the cops when your neighbor beats his wife. He'll stop beating his wife while the cops are then--but resumes when the cops are gone. We, the United States of America, has created one hell of a mess in Iraq. Since the first Bush administration, we have taken a country that had a high literacy rate, free health care, and equal opportunities for woman and reduced it to the stone age. We have brought those people nothing but heartbreak and despair. The senate Democrats lack the will to end the war by doing what Nixon did in Vietnam--he declared it over and brought troops home. And I can hear you now, "But look and what happened in Vietnam after we left." What happened in Vietnam happened because we were there in the first place. What has happened and what will happen in Iraq happens because we are there. Armies of occupation are never welcomed and we are an army of occupation who came unbidden into a country that had done us no harm. There are Iraqi people who remember Iraqi before the sanctions, before the occupation. Maybe the only answer at this juncture is to allow Iraq to splinter into it's original shape, pre-British intervention, before Gertrude Bell stitched it together and called it a country.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Why can't we just get along?
I've seen it done, so I know it's possible, but I have never been able to achieve it: Remain friends with the former significant other. I generally like the guys I have dated, that's why I dated them in the first place. Often what I miss when they are gone, is a sense of humor or perspective or the ability to say something outrageous without fear of reprisals. I am completely at peace with the fact that he has moved on, and I know the boundaries--but some how it gets complicated by something I don't understand and that's the end of that.
I don't expect that this is one of those all-the-time friendships, he's got a life, I've got a life, but can't we chat once in awhile. Except that the last time I tried it, with the last boyfriend (and I do mean LAST boyfriend), everything went well until, I guess he got tired of me as a friend, the way he was tired of me as his girlfriend.
Maybe, it's not possible to remain friends with the former significant other. Maybe those people who claim friendship are doing something else. I don't know, I just know that there are one or two with whom I wish I had remained friends instead of becoming something other.
I don't expect that this is one of those all-the-time friendships, he's got a life, I've got a life, but can't we chat once in awhile. Except that the last time I tried it, with the last boyfriend (and I do mean LAST boyfriend), everything went well until, I guess he got tired of me as a friend, the way he was tired of me as his girlfriend.
Maybe, it's not possible to remain friends with the former significant other. Maybe those people who claim friendship are doing something else. I don't know, I just know that there are one or two with whom I wish I had remained friends instead of becoming something other.
Monday, September 10, 2007
More than just the little lady
Jane Wyman died today, she was 93. The reason I mention it is that the headline reads: Reagan's First Wife Dies, as if that explains it all. Wyman won an Academy Award for her performances as Johnny Belinda, who was deaf and raped in the 1948 film--and its right there in the first paragraph of her obit, right next to the Oscar--which should have been enough. That was also the movie that the less successful Reagan cited as the reason for the end of their marriage. Reagan went on to become one of the few labor leaders to side with the bosses (ah those wonderful McCarthy days) and as president of these United States--but as an actor, he was a pretty good sports caster--in fact as a president., he was a pretty good sports caster.
But I digress.
Jane Wyman had a long career that culminated in 1980 in the CBS pot boiler Falcon Crest, not bad for a girl who started out as a brassy blonde in a 1930s musical. But when she dies, at the venerable age of 93, she is remembered as Reagan's First Wife. Maybe Jane didn't mind--she sure never said anything one way or the other. But it annoys me that a woman who had a long and relatively successful career can be identified at the end of her life as Somebody's First Wife. Somehow, I'd like to think that we have gotten past the point where a woman must be identified in some way with the men in her life. But I guess not.
But I digress.
Jane Wyman had a long career that culminated in 1980 in the CBS pot boiler Falcon Crest, not bad for a girl who started out as a brassy blonde in a 1930s musical. But when she dies, at the venerable age of 93, she is remembered as Reagan's First Wife. Maybe Jane didn't mind--she sure never said anything one way or the other. But it annoys me that a woman who had a long and relatively successful career can be identified at the end of her life as Somebody's First Wife. Somehow, I'd like to think that we have gotten past the point where a woman must be identified in some way with the men in her life. But I guess not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
