7-20-12: Where Are We Going Wrong?

Hi everyone!

I just wanted to follow up on my post of this weekend regarding the shootings last Friday at the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado. Presumed suspect James Holmes appeared in court for the first time this morning, his hair dyed orange, looking and behaving completely out of touch with the world around him. As more comes out in the press about Mr. Holmes's background, the more disturbing this case becomes. What upsets me most is the fact that over the period of sixty days he was able to amass an arsenal that, according to today's New York Times,  included 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle, and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun...all purchased legally over the Internet. This shouldn't surprise me, but it does.

What is even more alarming to me, however, is the continued arrogance of gun lobbyists who continue to spout off in the press to the effect that if Mr. Holmes hadn't been able to acquire the hardware needed to pull of Friday morning's attack, he could just as easily have built a bomb (or several bombs) that would have caused even greater loss of life. As it is, he'd rigged his apartment with tripwires and enough incendiary bombs to blow his apartment building to hell and back. Luckily, the Aurora police were skillful enough to remove the bombs without incident and explode them in an unidentified and remote location away from any population centers.

I'm sure over the weeks and months ahead we'll hear more than we will ever want to know about James Holmes. The question on everyone's minds right now is what could possibly have led a by all accounts intelligent and seemingly mild-mannered young man to plan and carry out such an act of horrific devastation. Clearly, something went wrong somewhere on his life's journey from a quiet, upscale neighborhood outside of San Diego to the Denver suburb of Aurora. What does this say about our nation's ability to detect and treat severe mental illness? How many young men like Mr. Holmes are out there in need of help but perhaps are unsure of where to get that help or are perhaps even unaware that help is needed? Who do we blame for this? Our healthcare system? Our media? Hollywood? The Second Amendment? All of the above? I don't have the answers but I would sure like someone to help me understand.

The tragic irony of all this (or perhaps not irony per se but sheer coincidence) is that the Aurora tragedy takes place just as Norway is commemorating the one-year anniversary of another horrific gun-related tragedy--Anders Behring Breivik's rampage in and around Oslo last summer that killed 77 people. In the past six years alone, it seems the world has experienced one mass shooting after another: the Toronto shopping mall shooting last month; the 2011 Tucson, AZ shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people; Fort Bragg; Virginia Tech; the list goes on. And this doesn't even begin to take into consideration the murder and mayhem experienced on a daily basis by innocent civilians caught in the crossfire in the world's all-too-many war zones. What have we learned from any of this? Sadly, apparently nothing.

I realize as I'm writing this that I am probably preaching to the choir and that if I can't propose answers then there is probably no point in posing questions. I'm just afraid that as a nation and as a world, we are quickly becoming desensitized, and as the memory of 7-20 slowly fades into memory and we fixate on our own individual lives, it will take another tragedy on the scale of what we just witnessed in Aurora, Colorado to shock and remind us all over again how fragile life is, how we take it for granted, and how preventable so much of this tragedy really is.

Ciao.

"The Dark Knight" Massacre

Hi everyone!

By now we've all heard about the "The Dark Knight" massacre that took place at a midnight showing of the  movie at a cineplex in Aurora, Colorado Friday morning. The latest count has twelve confirmed dead and scores wounded and being treated in local area hospitals. The killer James Holmes, a 24 year-old former med student at the University of Colorado (Denver) Anschutz Medical Campus, walked through an emergency exit at the front of the theatre just as the sell-out crowd was settling down to enjoy the movie. He allegedly announced "I am the Joker" before dispensing a canister of tear gas and beginning to shoot randomly into the crowd. Many initially thought the whole thing was some sort of publicity stunt until it became tragically apparent that it was not. Police arrested Mr. Holmes in the parking lot minutes later who warned them his apartment was booby-trapped to explode. As of this writing, Aurora police are still trying to find a way into Mr. Holmes's apartment.

This horrific event has some personal immediacy for me. Just this past week I was hired as an adjunct professor at the Community College of Aurora. I'll be teaching three classes of Basic Composition at the college Monday through Thursday evenings starting at the end of August. The school is no more than a half a mile from the theatre complex where the shootings took place. As fate would have it, I had planned to drive down to the school yesterday morning to drop off some HR forms to finalize my hiring. Friday was my deadline to do this. The campus was pretty quiet when I got there around ten-thirty. I took care of business and headed out. Before heading back out to the High Country where I've been staying, I wanted to run some errands in Cherry Creek, an upscale suburb not too far from Aurora. I didn't realize until too late that the route I'd chosen to take happened to go past the scene of the shooting. It was all roped off with police cars and press vehicles gathered as far as the eye could see. I stopped at the light and forced myself not to look out the window. I just didn't want to know.

The crazy thing was, my brother and I were supposed to attend a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" Thursday night. He'd gotten tickets earlier in the week for a viewing in Highland Ranch, another suburb of Denver on the opposite side of the city from Aurora. He didn't realize until later that the tickets he purchased were for a marathon screening of the entire trilogy, with the final installment slated to begin at 12:01am. When we discovered this, we decided not to go. The thought of sitting in a movie theatre for eight-plus hours with a bunch of costume-clad weirdos held no appeal. No, we hadn't planned to see the film in Aurora and our lives were never in danger, but in retrospect, what if we had chosen to see the movie at the Century 16 cineplex? Neither my brother nor I are the type to attend midnight showings, but what if we had been?

I realize this kind of speculation is pointless. But my point is, what makes these kinds of events so horrific is that they can happen to anyone anywhere. And as long as this country refuses to (or is prevented from) enacting tougher gun control laws, what happened Friday morning in Aurora, Colorado can (and probably will) happen again. By all accounts, Mr. Holmes purchased his guns legally at a local hunting/fishing supply store. But that's beside the point. Legally purchased or not, what the hell was he doing with an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and a .40 caliber Glock handgun? What was the clerk who sold them to him thinking? And what's worse, Friday morning's massacre took place a mere ten or so miles from Littleton, site of 1999's Columbine High School killings. Has this country (not to mention this state) learned nothing in the past thirteen years? Apparently not. The gun lobbies and Second Amendment blow-hards are too powerful.

We go to the movies to escape, to be entertained, to be moved. This is something we all share regardless of race, gender, or country of origin. Perhaps we are naive in our sense of security? After all, our multiplexes don't require us pass through metal detectors or body scans before we head over to the box office and refreshment stand. Perhaps they should? Perhaps this is just the sad state of the world we live in? I know I'm probably over-reacting but I don't know when I'll actually go to a move theatre again. I love movies but if I can watch them in the safety of my own home, at least for now, it seems like a more attractive option. And, thanks to Mr. Holmes, I probably won't see "The Dark Knight Rises" in a theatre or otherwise...at least not anytime soon. Any enjoyment I might have derived from it has been tainted by the thought that the images on screen are what was playing when Mr. Holmes decided to play the Joker and viciously end so many innocent lives.

Ciao.

If I were Vladimir Putin: Russian influence in Syria

Hi everyone!

It's been a while since I've written about current events...and I've missed it. I just couldn't let the ever-evolving situation in Syria continue without saying something about it today, especially in light of  yesterday's bombing in Damascus.

So all the pundits are saying how this latest event which killed Bashar's brother-in-law and deputy chief of staff Asef Shawkat; his minister of defense Dawoud Rajha; and former minister of defense and military adviser Hassan Turkmani, is going to be the defining event in the conflict, the point at which the Assad regime and its cronies and sycophants have no choice but to step down. One can only hope that this assessment proves to be true. Unfortunately, however, I can't help but be strongly skeptical.

The effects of the Arab Spring are still being felt. Only time will tell how these fledgling democratically-elected governments are going to pan out over time. Despite the election of Brotherhood-backed Morsi in Egypt, the country still remains locked in a battle of wills between parliament and the military counsel. In Libya last week, the people appeared to reject political Islam in favor of a more socially liberal leader, thus bucking the trend for the region. In Bahrain, protests continue, though they have been somewhat stymied by Saudi Arabian and covert American influence. Iraq continues to find its way and despite a string of recent bombings, the future is looking brighter there than it has for close to a decade. Iran remains a constant irritant and if it is indeed behind yesterday's Israeli-targeted bus bombing in Bulgaria, one can only surmise how Israel will react. The Palestinians continue to struggle for unity and a defined homeland. Israel's unlikely and short-lived Likud-Kadima coalition government collapsed due to conflict over the ultra-Orthodox conscription issue.

And then there is Syria. Kofi Annan continues to push a pipe dream while the country further devolves into civil war. The U.S. and its allies do little but shake their collective fingers and say "Bad, bad Bashar." Of course, Russia remains the sticking point. Putin and his cronies seem hell-bent on maintaining their only position of influence in the Middle East despite the fact that pretty soon Putin's BFF in Damascus may no longer be around. It really is only a matter of time. If I were Putin--and I'm certainly glad I'm not, but let's pretend--if I were Putin, I'd offer Bashar and his immediate entourage asylum in Moscow in exchange for a handover of power to a transitional Friends of Syria-backed government. The jury is out on whether the Syrian rebels can coalesce into a cohesive, unified entity and it is still anyone's guess whether a greater Alawite-Sunni bloodbath can be avoided, but I don't see another feasible alternative. In a perfect world, Bashar and his cronies shouldn't escape prosecution, but if a relative peace can be established by keeping him alive with some dignity intact and granting him comfortable exile in Russia, maybe it's worth a shot.

It's your decision, Mr. Putin. The ball is in your court. In the long run, what have you got to lose except your best friend in the Arab world? You don't really want that, do you?

Ciao.

Movie Review: Oliver Stone's "Savages"

Hi everyone!

Last week I gave a glowing review of Don Winslow's novel "Savages," the basis of which forms the backbone of Oliver Stone's new film of the same name that released this weekend. I loved the book. I only liked the movie...and I really really wanted to love it.

Here's what's good:

1. Salma Hayek. Ms. Hayek is brilliant and understated as Elena Sanchez, the somewhat reluctant boss of the Baja Cartel. With saucy wit in abundance and a fair bit of pathos thrown in, the sultry Latina actress dominates every scene she's in...and, for that matter, every scene she's not in. While Elena is certainly an important presence in Mr. Winslow's novel, she appears on the page in more of a supportive role. In the film, Elena is the black widow spinning a complicated web while calling the shots in a hyper-masculine environment. You can't help but smile whenever Ms. Hayek's Elena graces the screen. She has never looked better.
2. Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson. Their characters, Chon--the battle-hardened Iraq war veteran--and Ben--the pot-growing environmental wannabe do-gooder--are what drive the movie forward. Both certainly have their share of screen appeal. They are fun to watch even though no one will be blown away by their acting.
3. The cinematography. "Savages" is big and gaudy and consistently beautiful to look at. The color palates are all over the place--from bright and sunny and very SoCal to grainy cinema verite. What I really liked was the contrast between the gorgeous Laguna Beach vistas to the blood-soaked grimy warehouses where Benicio del Toro and company enact their drug-fueled tortures. And the soundtrack is great too!
4. Benicio del Toro. Crazy, comic, and super-cool, Mr. del Toro (along with Ms. Hayek) is what makes this an almost-great film. I felt myself tense up every time he was onscreen because I never knew which way he was going to go. 
5. Blake Lively. Okay, okay, I may catch some flak for this but Ms. Lively is simply radiant. While her acting isn't particularly impressive, Ms. Lively as Chon and Ben's girlfriend "O" lights up the screen with her distinctive SoCal beauty. I couldn't take my eyes off of her.

Here's what's not so good:

1. The ending. I won't give it away but suffice it to say that fans of the book (like me) will probably not be pleased with how Oliver Stone has chosen to end this story. And this doesn't pertain just to the film's final ten minutes. Around the 1 hr. 35 minutes point (of a 2 hr. 10 minute running time) things start to go haywire...and not in a good way. What I particularly loved about the book is its relative simplicity and its economical narrative style. This sadly isn't the case here. Mr. Stone veers radically from the original novel about 95 minutes in, adding more plots and double-crosses that not only don't make sense but reduce the film to a puzzling, disappointing mess, something not far off the mark from the "Fast and Furious" franchise, which I don't mean as a compliment. With about ten minutes left, you think 'okay, we're getting back on track here' but then Mr. Stone decides to veer once again from the book's original ending, leaving me irritated and frankly a little pissed off as the final credits roll. I've been trying to figure out why he chose to change things up so radically at the end to little avail. Perhaps he wanted to give John Travolta  more screen time or bring the story around to a more traditional Hollywood ending? I don't know. It's not a happy ending exactly, but it wraps everything up a little too neatly.
2. The decision to leave Uma Thurman's character on the cutting room floor. Ms. Thurman is purported to have played Blake Lively's character's mother, but all her scenes were cut so what we're left with are a couple passing references to her and nothing else. The relationship and flaky banter between O and her mother in the book frequently had me in stitches. I can only imagine what Ms. Thurman brought to the role. I can certainly understand why the character was excised given the film's already two-hour-plus running time, but without seeing the vaguely troubled relationship O has with her mother, we don't really get a sense of O's identity. Are we supposed to be sympathetic toward her? As is, O remains a cipher. She's beautiful to look at but there's very little depth to her. She demonstrates a certain degree of strength in captivity and it certainly isn't hard to figure out why Chon and Ben are so physically attracted to her, but beyond the surface there's a curious lack of substance. Hopefully, Mr. Stone will restore Ms. Thurman in the Blu-Ray/DVD Director's Cut of the film as has been hinted. 

So, yes...I recommend "Savages" if for no other reason than the film is visually splendid to look at and it provides some powerhouse summer entertainment without really adding up to much in the end. But maybe that's all we want from summer movies anyway--an escape from the stifling heat outside. If that's the case, then "Savages" more-or-less fits the bill. I really really wanted to love this film. It's almost great but settles for being merely pretty good. Disappointing.

Ciao. 

Museum Review: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver CO

Hi everyone...and continued greetings from Colorado!

I was excited today to finally have gotten a chance to visit the new Clyfford Still Museum in Denver. It opened in November 2011 to great fanfare as it is the first museum anywhere in the world dedicated entirely to the art and legacy of the 20th century American Abstract Expressionist painter Clyfford Still.
My visit today was definitely worth the wait.

The museum is in possession of at least 95% of Still's impressive oeuvre as well as his entire archive of letters, notes, and other ephemera. Currently on view is what is being called the second Inaugural exhibit. It is a chronological representation of Still's work from the 1920s until his death in 1980. What was most interesting to me--who until today had a fleeting exposure to his work at best--was how Still's work evolved from more traditional/representational depictions of American life during the Great Depression and Industrial Age to full-on Abstract Expressionism. In fact, Still was painting in the abstract long before his better known contemporaries--including such luminaries as Rothko, Motherwell, and Pollock--had broken out of their own conventional style and taken the credit for pushing serious American art forward.

Still's abstract paintings are large format. As displayed in the museum, each canvas more-or-less is given its own wall. The color palates are bright--orange, blue, red, green--though often what most strikes the eye are his formless/dimensionless figures boldly painted in wide brushstrokes of black. Eschewing a central focal point, Still's paintings possess no discernible center. Instead, he invites the eye to follow the direction of his colors and brushstrokes across the entire painting, leaving interpretation to the individual. What is also interesting is that Still resisted the convention of giving any of his work a specific title. Each piece in the museum is identified by a number and its date. This is in strict keeping with stipulations imposed by the Still estate. Around the midpoint of his career--at a time when his work was being exhibited and championed by such influential art dealers as Peggy Guggenheim--Clyfford Still withdrew his work from public exhibition. In fact, the last twenty or so years of his life and career (1961-1980) he lived and worked in relative seclusion at his farm in Maryland.

Upon his death, Still entrusted his family with the responsibility of finding an American city that would commit to building a museum in which his works could be displayed independent of any other artist in the manner he desired. Denver was finally selected in 1999 and the museum opened to the public in November of 2011.

The museum itself is a thoroughly contemporary architectural gem of unadorned concrete-walled galleries and natural overhead lighting. As I mentioned earlier, each piece is given its own wall space which allows the viewer to devote his or her attention to a single piece without any neighboring distractions. This is a wonderful way in which to experience the work of an under-appreciated 20th century American master. My only criticism is that because the museum is dedicated solely to Clyfford Still's art (as per the Still estate's request), it is somewhat difficult to place his work within an historical context, or rather in the company of his better-known artistic peers. I would have liked more of a reference point, something to compare Still's genius to. Nonetheless, this is a minor criticism and does not deter one from enjoying, discovering, and/or rediscovering a brilliant American artist.

Given its relatively small (and beautifully manageable) size, I was able to stroll through the entire museum twice at a leisurely pace. I then enjoyed a coffee in the outdoor terrace of the Mad Beans cafe at the adjacent Denver Art Museum before meeting my brother for lunch at the Three Lions Pub on Colfax Avenue. More on the Three Lions in a later entry as I will definitely be returning there as well.

If you find yourself in Denver and have an hour or so to spend discovering the work of a truly great 20th century American artist, the Clyfford Still Museum at 1250 Bannock Street is time well spent.

Ciao.

Book Review: "Savages" by Don Winslow

Hi everyone!

By now you've probably all seen the trailers for "Savages" (see above) the new Oliver Stone film coming next week to a theatre near you. The movie looks like a cross between Mr. Stone's "Natural Born Killers" and any number of Quentin Tarantino bloodbaths--John Travolta included. What you may not know is that "Savages" is actually based on a critically-acclaimed 2010 novel by crime fiction writer Don Winslow, whose newest just-released novel "The Kings of Cool" is a prequel of sorts to "Savages."

"Savages" isn't the sort of novel I typically gravitate to. But I've been so looking forward to seeing the film that I figured I might as well give the book a try before heading to the cineplex next weekend. I was pleasantly--even devilishly--surprised.

First off, this isn't a novel for everyone and it will never be recommended for anyone's book club. It tells the story of Ben and Chon, late-twentysomethings who run a successful marijuana operation in Laguna Beach, California, and their girlfriend O (short for Ophelia). When the Mexican Baja Cartel, headed by the formidable (and lonely) Elena la Reina decides to shift business operations north of the border, Ben and Chon find themselves in the middle of a vicious turf war between rival Mexican drug cartels. Over the course of its spitfire 300 pages, the reader is treated to everything from mass decapitations, double-double-crosses, farcically smart and funny dialogue, wild and often graphic sex scenes, and more than its fair share of semi-precocious pop culture references. Without giving anything away, the novel ends in a brutal old-fashioned Western-style shoot-em-up that is as taut as it is surprising.

Based on the movie's trailer, it seems Oliver Stone has adhered pretty closely to the overall flavor of the novel although it does appear he's taken some liberties with the plot. In the book, Elena (played by Salma Hayek) and O (Blake Lively) never actually meet and they certainly never have dinner together, but this appears to be the set-up for one of the trailer's funniest lines--a comment Elena makes about O's relationship status. I also recently read that all of Uma Thurman's scenes--as O's space-cadet, New Age spouting mother, Paqu--were cut from the film. This is a shame because O's and Paqu's scenes together in the novel, though brief, are often hilarious. This same article said Oliver Stone may restore these scenes in the director's cut to be released on Blu-Ray and DVD. We'll see...

If you're looking for a quick, violent, witty, and utterly unputdownable summer beach read, "Savages" may be one to take a look at. If you're a fan of early Bret Easton Ellis ("Less Than Zero" in particular), you'll love Don Winslow's writing style.

I, for one, will be first in line at the box office next weekend when "Savages" the film gets its national release. Until then, enjoy the trailer!

Ciao.