Film Reviews: Oh, Sailor Behave! & Gold Dust Gertie

"Oh, Sailor Behave!"  ** (out of ****)

Billed as "America's funniest clowns" the comedy team of Ole Olsen and Chic Johnson made their screen debut in the feature length musical - comedy, "Oh, Sailor Behave!" (1930).

I'm not sure who came up with the billing of this movie or why Olsen & Johnson are referred to as being any country's "funniest clowns". The comedy team even gets top billing when they are far from being the stars of the movie.

"Oh, Sailor Behave!" is one of many 1930s pre-code movie musicals made to capitalize on the success of Hollywood's newest genre, the musical, thanks to the movies now being able to "talk" with the introduction of sound. However, as is often the case with Hollywood's unquenchable thirst for money, they over saturated the market place and audiences quickly became tired of Hollywood's latest gimmick. In today's terms think of 3-D movies. They aren't as popular as they were say five years ago, when every other movie was being released in 3-D. Unlike some other musicals of the era however "Oh, Sailor Behave!" was released with songs intact. Many movies had all their songs scrapped, releasing some movies as straight comedies.

Based on a stage play "See Naples and Die", written by Elmer Rice, "Oh, Sailor Behave!" stars Charles King (Hollywood's first leading man in musicals) as reporter Charlie Carroll. He has been sent to Naples to interview a General (Noah Berry) but instead finds love and courts Nancy Dodge (Irene Delroy).

Without revealing too much, Nancy is called to London to help her sister, putting the brake on her romance with Charlie. A misunderstanding occurs (they usually do) and Charlie is left heartbroken and rebounds with a woman he believes is the General's mistress, Kunegundi (Vivien Oakland). If Charlie can gain the lady's trust, maybe he can get an interview.

Today's audience may only be interested in the movie, if they are at all, because it is an Olsen & Johnson comedy. The boys play two sailors, Simon (Olsen) and Peter (Johnson) sent to find a man with a wooden leg who has stolen from the Navy's storehouse. This portion of the movie actually has nothing to do with the rest of the movie and is used primarily as comic relief. The boys are given screenwriting credit but most likely because they wrote their own material but had nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

With a running time of approximately 67 minutes "Oh, Sailor Behave!" doesn't feel like a "complete" movie. Some story lines are never resolved and other story lines you simply don't care if they are. I also can't honestly say I cared much for the musical numbers despite normally liking Charles King as a performer.

Intending to have Olsen & Johnson only appear on-screen when they have funny material, I can't say I laughed much watching this movie. And I am by most standard's an easy target. I like other Olsen & Johnson comedies such as "All Over Town" (1937) and "Hellzapoppin'" (1941). I'm a fan of so-called "dated humor" and get a kick out of Wheeler & Woolsey, Joe E. Brown and the Ritz Brothers. But "Oh, Sailor Behave!" strikes me as an ill conceived project. By the time of the movie's release musicals had fallen out of fashion. Given the final product we see now, it feels like the Olsen & Johnson material was added on so Warner Brothers could call the movie a comedy. Heck, it even stars "America's funniest clowns"!

It is not that the humor in the movie is "dated", corny" or "offensive", as modern audiences sadly often accuse movies of this era of being, it is just that it lacks a wallop. There was no moment I found myself laughing out loud. If this movie serves as your introduction to Olsen & Johnson it is understandable why someone wouldn't find them funny. The movie does little to establish them as characters. It would be difficult to say who is the straight man and who is the comic. The answer by the way is Olsen is the straight man and Johnson, with his high pitch laugh, the comic.

The romance in the movie doesn't fare much better either. Charlie and Nancy aren't well defined characters. Though they may sing songs to each other, there is little romance between them and not enough for audiences to latch on to, to make us care about seeing them stay together by the end of the movie. According to IMDb, King would star in one more movie and then appear in some short subjects.

"Oh, Sailor Behave!" is a "tough sell". A lot seems to have been cut from the plot. The comedy doesn't gel and the songs aren't memorable. The characters aren't defined and the actors themselves don't appear to click with one another. There's no chemistry. This is a curiosity piece for those that like either early Hollywood musicals and / or Olsen & Johnson fans.

 "Gold Dust Gertie"
** (out of ****)

"Gold Dust Gertie" (1931) was the third comedy to feature Olsen & Johnson and are given larger roles than the previous two movies they appeared in.

Like "Oh, Sailor Behave" and "50 Million Frenchmen" (1931) this too was a musical. The latter was a Cole Porter musical which due to the public's negative reaction to musicals, had all of its songs scrapped. "Gold Dust Gertie" would find the same fate and be released as a straight forward pre-code comedy, which is pretty risque (so is "Oh, Sailor Behave"). The boys play a more intricate part in the plot of the movie but are still second fiddles as the movie is pushed as a Winnie Lightner vehicle.

I honestly can't say I am much of a fan of Lightner. You may also know her for appearing in "Sit Tight" (1931) with Joe E. Brown. Lightner plays Gertie, a gold digger quick with the get rich schemes and wise-cracks. Lightner just isn't funny to me. I prefer Eve Arden, who played similar wise-cracking smart-alec characters.

Gertie is a gold digger that has been married multiple times only so she can get divorced to collect alimony. Two of the men she has married are George (Olsen) and Elmer (Johnson), best friends that work at a bathing suit company.  How Gertie met the men is not explained. If the men are best friends, why did they both marry the same woman? Was Gertie cheating with one of them? We don't know. Maybe there was a song cut out explaining it.

George and Elmer remarry as well, since their boss places a high value on employing respectable, family men. Neither man however has been keeping up with his alimony payments causing Gertie to stopped by their job to collect payment. She will even expose the men as having been married before to their boss. Gertie however finally decides on trying to trick their boss, John Arnold (Claude Gillingwater) into marrying her, as she pretends to be an innocent old-fashion woman.

This set-up has comedic potential and there are some laughs however with Lightner at the helm, I was just never fully engaged. Olsen & Johnson fare much better in this movie than "Oh, Sailor Behave!" but if you are a fan of the team I can see someone feeling "Gold Dust Gertie" is too restrictive for the team, not allowing them to branch out and really invoke their style of humor, which has been described as "nut humor". A lot of "Gold Dust Gertie" plays as bedroom farce. Both movies make a lot of sex jokes as well.

The movie was directed by Lloyd Bacon, who had a lot of success with movie musicals such as "42nd Street" (1933), "Footlight Parade" (1933) and "The Gold Diggers of 1937" (1936). He also had a long career in comedy, starting off as a actor and directing Joe E. Brown comedies: "You Said A Mouthful" (1932) and "Son of A Sailor" (1933).

A lot of "Gold Dust Gertie" moves fast and has some laughs. Olsen & Johnson are funny, at times, but Winnie Lightner never becomes a likable character and just isn't funny.

Film Review: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

"National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation"
** 1\2 out of (****)

It's home for the holidays with the Griswold's in "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" (1989).

A lot of people I think like the idea of the holiday season and what it represents but when you get down to the gift buying, decorating a Christmas tree, cooking a Christmas dinner, preparing to host a dinner party, you realize geez this is a lot of work. Is it worth it? And do you really want to spend the day with family and in-laws that may begin to fight?

I think somewhere in "Christmas Vacation" that idea is lurking around. We all want a perfect Christmas but family, decorations and gifts get in the way.

"Christmas Vacation" isn't really a "Christmas movie". But Alex, you will say, the word "Christmas" is in the title. Thank you for pointing that out. I was wondering what that word was. It doesn't matter however. "Christmas Vacation" is primarily about the difficulty of dealing with family and trying to create the perfect experience. It is no different than the previous National Lampoon vacation movies with the Griswolds. This movie just happens to take place around Christmas. The setting could have also been Thanksgiving and little would have to be changed. Of course screenwriter and producer John Hughes had already given us his Thanksgiving adventure, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" (1987).

"Christmas Vacation" was the third vacation movie in the series, coming after "National Lampoon's Vacation" (1983) and "National Lampoon's European Vacation" (1985), and had already established the characters in the Griswold family and father Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) in particular. Clark prides himself on being a family man and wants to give his children wonderful memories of their time spent together. He is good-natured and well meaning but of course, as is the nature of comedy, his plans don't always work out.

Placing the Clark character in this Christmas setting could provide a lot of comedy potential with the character trying to make the "perfect Christmas", whether it is picking out the right Christmas tree, decorating their home with a lights display or buying gifts. In these moments the movie is able to find laughs and provides Chase the opportunity to engage in a lot of comedy high-jinx, a staple of a John Hughes comedy.

However there is a minuscule plot in "Christmas Vacation". The movie is basically a series of comedy sketches that when put together I think don't add up to much and never gives us a big payoff, emotionally or laugh-wise. A rewrite would be needed. Perhaps have the Clark character narrate the story or have the movie take place during the course of one day. There is a neighboring yuppie couple (Nicholas Guest and Julia-Louis Dreyfus) that isn't into Christmas and think the Griswolds are losers. What if the neighbors were into the holidays and "competed" with Clark. Alex, you'll say, these ideas are predictable and cliche. What, you think "Christmas Vacation" is an original work of art?!

Again, this is not to imply some won't laugh at "Christmas Vacation". You will. But take a scene where Clark goes Christmas shopping for his wife and is in the lingerie section. An attractive young female sales clerk approaches Clark. He becomes hot and bothered staring at her and her cleavage and trips over his words. It is funny. I smiled. But this scene doesn't advance the plot of the movie at all. Had this scene be deleted nothing important would have been left out. At that goes for multiple comedy sequences. If you are a fan of this movie and remember this scene or that scene as being funny, yes, the individual sequences on their own are funny but in the context of the movie as a whole they do nothing plot-wise.

The movie does have a very good cast of character actors including William Hickey as Uncle Lewis, who had been appearing in movies since the 1950s and was nominated for an Academy Award for his supporting role in "Prizzi's Honor" (1985). Here he plays an absent minded character that unknowingly causes great destruction. His wife in the movie, Aunt Bethany, is played by Mae Questel, who us old timers will remember as the voice of Betty Boop. Do younger children know who Betty Boop is anymore? Her character is similar to Uncle Lewis, playing a forgetful old lady who even wraps her pet cat up as a Christmas present. Rounding things out is Doris Roberts, best known as the mother on the TV show "Everybody Loves Raymond", Diane Ladd, E.G. Marshall, Randy Quaid and Brian Doyle-Murray (Bill's brother). Each character is meant to be "colorful" and provide an obstacle for the Clark character, testing his holiday cheer. All of the actors are very good in the roles. They aren't believable characters but they are funny.

"Christmas Vacation" even finds time to make a slight social commentary on big business and the importance of a holiday bonus. I've been in the situation and can relate to the drama of waiting for it and the crushing effect it can have when you don't receive one. That's one thing about "Christmas Vacation" that is actually believable. The other commentary is the reason a boss may or may not give out a bonus, because it would affect the company's bottom-line. From the CEO's perspective a Christmas card would serve just as well. It's the thought that counts right?

Of course the humor arises from this situation when the characters exaggerate their reaction and do what the rest of us in the audience would only dream of doing as retaliation.

Is there a Christmas message in "Christmas Vacation"? Perhaps something about spending time with family. The holiday miracle of receiving a Christmas bonus. And the dangers of having a real Christmas tree in your home.

This isn't a movie that will give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside. That's fine. This is a comedy with the word "Christmas" in the title. It has plenty of physical comedy and some good performances. The movie as a whole doesn't add up to me but you will find yourself laughing. For something more heartfelt, go watch "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946).

Merry Christmas everyone!

Film Review: Wonder Wheel

"Wonder Wheel"
*** (out of ****)

Woody Allen's "Wonder Wheel" (2017) unfortunately, for the Mr. Allen and the movie, has been released at a time when the country is going through a major national dialogue concerning sexual harassment. Many women have come forward with stories "outing" film producer Harvey Weinstein, news anchors Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer, comedian Louis C.K., TV host Tavis Smiley, Garrison Keiller and Dustin Hoffman for their inexcusable behavior. Somehow or another Woody Allen's name has been thrown into the fire. And so "Wonder Wheel" is at a cultural disadvantage. To review this movie you need to talk about Mr. Allen the man and the movie.

The Man & the Culture

Every year I hate to read what the sheep (movie critics) have to say about the latest Woody Allen movie. Lets be honest. A lot of people don't like Woody Allen. A lot of that has to do with allegations Mr. Allen molested one of his ex-lover's, Mia Farrow, adopted children. Mr. Allen then dated and eventually married another of Ms. Farrow's adopted daughters. There may have been those in the public that didn't like Mr. Allen even before this scandal broke out in 1992. They may have thought Mr. Allen simply wasn't funny and / or narcissistic. Or create any reason and justification for a feeling they couldn't quite put in any language.

These feelings, even held by "professional critics" find their way into "reviews" of Mr. Allen's movies. Usually not to Mr. Allen's advantage. Naturally people don't have to like Woody Allen or his movies. People don't even have to come up with good reasons not to like him. The general public is under no obligation to see Mr. Allen's movies. What I personally object to, year in and year out, is the unprofessional manner in which "movie critics" conduct themselves, spewing their personal feelings against Mr. Allen into their "reviews" criticizing his every movie. Rarely, nothing in life is 100%, do critics stick to discussing the acting, editing, cinematography, writing and directing in Mr. Allen's movies exclusively. A Woody Allen movie doesn't fail or succeed based on its merits. It all comes down to your personal opinion of the man. Not the movie but the man behind the camera.

Within itself that is an obstacle Mr. Allen must overcome film after film. Yes, there are exceptions. Mr. Allen's "Midnight in Paris" (2011) was well received by "movie critics" and embraced by the public. But in this current social climate "Wonder Wheel" and Mr. Allen are up against even larger odds. This climate gives the "movie critics" and the public another opportunity to sharpen their knives and attack Woody Allen the man. The quality of the movie is immaterial, just as long as the individual gets to throw in their jabs against Mr. Allen.

You see there are those in the media, in their attempt to be movers and shakers, that have tried to stir a debate around Mr. Allen. Why, they say, have Charlie Rose and Harvey Weinstein and others been immediately outcast from society but Mr. Allen is given a pass? The accusations against people like Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Rose, Mr. Hoffman...etc are much different than the accusation against Mr. Allen. No actress has come forward to state Mr. Allen molested them on-set. No actress has come forward to state Mr. Allen called someone in his dressing room and then exposed himself. No actress has suggested they were declined a role in one of his movies because they would not grant Mr. Allen sexual favors. That is a major difference. I thought that is what we are all talking about. Sexual harassment. Men pressuring women into corners, engaging in inappropriate behavior.

In the case of Mr. Allen he was accused of molesting Ms. Farrow's adopted daughter. An investigation ensued and charges against Mr. Allen were dropped. Others claim Mr. Allen married his daughter. First, there are laws against such things. When presented with this fact, those that don't like Mr. Allen will say, well, I meant he married his step-daughter. Again, not true. Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow were never married. Mr. Allen did not live with Ms. Farrow and her children. Mr. Allen did not adopt Soon-Yi, whom he did marry.

Would I want Mr. Allen to babysit my children? No. But, that has nothing to do with Mr. Allen's movies. If you cannot separate your personal feelings towards Mr. Allen and his movies then you should recluse yourself from reviewing one of his movies. Those in the public that do not like Mr. Allen, that's fine. Don't see his movies. But, don't use this serious moment in the culture and our discussion of sexual harassment as an opportunity for you to air your grievances against Mr. Allen.

This is all unfortunate that someone has to discuss all of this in order to simply write a movie review. Artists in general may sometimes not be nice people. Should we, as an audience, use their personal lives against them and have our own feelings cloud our judgement when assessing their work? For me the answer is no. But I understand for some the answer is yes. That's fine but don't conflate Mr. Allen with those that have been accused of sexual harassment. Even if you don't like him personally.

The Movie

"Wonder Wheel" is one of Mr. Allen's period pieces and admittedly goes over similar ideas presented in Mr. Allen's previous films. That doesn't bother me as much as it does other "critics". Various filmmakers (Ingmar Bergman, Martin Scorsese, Eric Rohmer, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino) can be accused of making the same movie over and over again. Of course, their names aren't Woody Allen, which makes a big difference. Artists sometimes like to work with familiar themes and find new ways to ultimately convey the same message. That is how I interpret Mr. Allen's movies.

The setting is 1950s New York and largely takes place in Coney Island, the famed amusement park. An onscreen narrator (Justin Timberlake) tells of the story of Ginny (Kate Winslet), a waitress. The narrator, Mickey, is a lifeguard, that begins a love affair with Ginny.

Ginny is on her second husband, Humpty (Jim Belushi), and has a child from her first marriage, Richie (Jack Gore). Ginny was an aspiring actress in school who met a jazz drummer, whom she had a child with, and eventually cheated on. She now regrets that action as she realizes he was the love of her life. Since that time life has not turned out as Ginny would have liked. She wants more out of life. She doesn't want to be a waitress forever. She is in a loveless marriage. Ginny desperately seeks someone to carry her away, to show her the world. She wants to find someone she can give all the love she feels inside her, just waiting for the right person to come along.

Adding to Ginny's problems is the return of Humpty's estrange daughter, Caroline (Juno Temple), whom he had from a prior marriage. Caroline married a mobster against her father's wishes and is now on the run from him. The return of Caroline changes Humpty. All is forgiven and he becomes a new man. He saves the money he earns, working the carousel ride at Coney Island, so his daughter can go to night school and not be a waitress the rest of her life, after Ginny gets her a job in a restaurant.

The movie's title comes from the giant ferris wheel in the amusement park that obstructs the view in Ginny and Humpty's apartment, also in Coney Island. 

If you are a Woody Allen fan, you can see how "Wonder Wheel" combines ideas and characters from other movies. In "Annie Hall" (1977) Allen's character believed he grew up in a house underneath a roller coaster in an amusement park. In "The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1984) the lead character was a woman unhappy with her life, she finds escape in the movies. Humpty accuses  Ginny of the same thing. Humpty likes to go fishing and brings home what he catches, for Ginny to clean. This is similar to a character in "Radio Days" (1987). How many of Mr. Allen's movies have had gangster characters? Too many to list here. The character Richie likes to start fires, something Mr. Allen says he used to do as a child. And finally, luck plays a part in the movie just as it did in "Match Point" (2005).

Although I was never one to call Kate Winslet a great actress, she does give an excellent performance. The kind of performance that should garner an Academy Award nomination. Technically the story is Mickey's, since he's the narrator. but Ginny (and Ms. Winslet's performance) carries the movie. We understand Ginny's problems and we believe Ms. Winslet is Ginny. The character requires a performance that covers an emotional range. "Critics" can write it all off as saying, Ginny is just a typical neurotic Woody Allen female character, but they are missing out on a lot if that is all they see.

Mr. Allen usually gets exceptional performances from his actors and often is able to show us actors in a new light. I am reminded of Andrew Dice Clay in "Blue Jasmine" (2013). This time around it is Jim Belushi that deserves a second look. You may not think Mr. Belushi can act but often all it takes is the right script to come along to bring out an actor's talent. "Wonder Wheel" is such a script for Mr. Belushi who plays the working class slob perfectly and has moments of intense drama. Who knew Mr. Belushi could act?

Even though I am color blind I could still tell "Wonder Wheel" is a marvel to look at thanks to the cinematography of Vittorio Storaro, my favorite cinematographer, who worked on Mr. Allen's "Cafe Society" (2016) as well as "The Last Emperor" (1987), "Apocalypse Now" (1979) and "Last Tango in Paris" (1972). I can't tell you all the colors in the movie but I enjoyed the lighting and the way shadows are used.

In fact the cinematography and the subject matter should remind some of the films of Douglas Sirk and titles like "All That Heaven Allows" (1955) and "Written on the Wind" (1956). And of course, the plays of Tennessee Williams.

Some have complained "Wonder Wheel" feels like a stage play and the dialogue isn't good. That last point was a major concern for the Chicago Tribune "movie critic" who gave the movie one star. Lets assume the movie does feel like a play. So what? Did that stop anyone from appreciating "Fences" (2016) with Denzel Washington? I thought it was a wonderful movie. I even placed it on my top ten list. Was their a strong critical backlash because it felt like a play? Not that I can recall. It was even nominated for multiple Academy Awards. As for the dialogue, I never felt Woody Allen wrote great dramatic dialogue. I prefer his comedy writing. However, it also depends on what the dialogue is meant to achieve. The dialogue in "Wonder Wheel" isn't meant to sound realistic. It is poetic. Some "critics" couldn't / can't wrap their minds around this concept. The characters throw out references to Hamlet and Eugene O' Neil. Those references aren't thrown out just for the Hell of it. They are supposed to mean something. Allen's screenplay is "poetic". If you don't like that kind of dialogue, fine. But don't fault it for not being what you wanted it to be.

"Wonder Wheel" isn't one of Allen's great dramas but it is a pretty darn good one. I liked it a bit more than "Cafe Society" and "Irrational Man" (2015) but don't think it is as good as "Blue Jasmine" or "Midnight in Paris". It lacked an emotional connection for me, even though I could relate to the Ginny character. There is more to the movie than audiences are giving it credit for. It was just released at the wrong time. As Mr. Allen would say, luck plays a bigger part in our life than we would like to admit. "Wonder Wheel" wasn't lucky with its release date.

Film Review: Saving Capitalism

"Saving Capitalism"  **** (out of ****)

In "honor" of the recent Republican "tax plan" that has passed the Senate (at 2am this morning. Good thing they weren't trying to hide anything) and another version of the "tax plan" that passed the House of Representatives, it seemed like a good time to review the Netflix original documentary, and one of the year's best films, "Saving Capitalism" (2017).

"Saving Capitalism", directed by Jacob Kornbluth and Sari Gilman, follows former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration Robert Reich, as he explains how our capitalist economic system is rigged due to corporate interest and the lack of individual power.

Kornbluth had previously followed Reich in the documentary "Inequality For All" (2013), which I also called one of the best films of the year. If you saw "Inequality", which focused more on the topic of income inequality and its widening gap, "Saving Capitalism" serves as a nice companion piece to it.

The documentary begins with Reich on something of a book tour, promoting his new book, also called Saving Capitalism. However, Reich wants to do more than go on a tour to promote his book, he wants to actually speak to people about the economy and get their ideas on how well they think the government and capitalism are working for them.

Given the current political times it is an interesting idea and one which most people know the answer to. The government is not working within the interest of the people and capitalism leaves too many people far behind as corporate greed has made the system rotten to its core. Neither of which has changed or will change in the era of Chancellor Trump. Hence the redistribution of wealth known as the GOP (Grand Old Party) "tax plan" which takes from the working class to give to the wealthy. If that sounds strange to you, "Saving Capitalism" will explain how we arrived at this moment.

"Saving Capitalism" throws a lot of data at the viewer, so be prepared to take notes. Because it is going to be fresh on a lot of people's minds, lets talk about corporate taxes. In the news we hear about how America is at a terrible disadvantage because of the current corporate tax rate which is 35%. To hear Republicans tell the story, this creates a heavy burden on corporations. Did you know that because of this tax rate corporations can't pay their employees a higher wage? It's true. Just ask a Republican. The tax rate effects productivity, investment, profit, wages and innovation. Plenty of CEOs and shareholders cry themselves to sleep thinking about how powerless they are in helping their employees make a living wage and promote the working class. All because of the corporate tax rate! Did you also know that is all a lot of balderdash? As "Saving Capitalism" explains, corporations receive huge tax subsidies. Some estimates go as far as stating near $100 billion goes towards corporate welfare a year. Some recipients are the top four oil companies. They received $4 billion in subsidies. Google received $632 million. And $20 billion went to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). A tax cut was not needed for corporations because of these subsidies. Corporations aren't paying a 35% tax rate. What will happen now when the rate will drop to 20%?

If that's the case then how do pieces of "legislation" like the GOP "tax plan" pass chambers of Congress? I'm glad you asked. "Saving Capitalism" goes on to explain the influence of money in politics. Did you know corporations make donations to political campaigns? According to "Saving Capitalism" corporate interest groups spend $34 for every $1 unions and public interest groups spend combined. In 2016 alone, corporations spent $3.15 billion on lobbying, equaling $5.9 million per member of Congress. Those donations influence policy. Hence the GOP "tax plan".

But just because corporations give money to politicians, that doesn't mean politicians act in the interest of corporations. Right? Our government is a system of the people, for the people, by the people. We, the people, elect the politicians and they know they work for us! Boy, today is just not your day is it? As "Saving Capitalism" reveals, a study was conducted putting this theory to the test. How much influence do individuals have on laws passed? Researchers at Princeton and Northwestern University found when corporations do not want a piece of legislation to become law, 100% of the time it doesn't. Legislation corporations want passed has a 60% chance of becoming law. On the opposite side, legislation the public does want passed has a 30% chance of becoming law. It is the same percentage as laws being passed that the public does not support. Hence the GOP "tax plan".

These are just some of the tidbits of information "Saving Capitalism" provides. The documentary is a wealth of information which will make your blood boil, if you are paying attention.

Unlike "Inequality For All", "Saving Capitalism" has more of a human interest angle. We get to meet some of the people Reich speaks to on his tour, ranging from a farmer to lobbyist. This gives the documentary an opportunity to briefly provide a counter point to Reich's argument. One lobbyist becomes very defensive as he believes Reich's argument demonizes people who own companies and pay their employees good wages and provide decent benefits. But we also meet a lady who works in the fast food industry in California and her struggle to survive and pay all her bills and rent and still have money left over. She and others are fighting for a $15 minimum wage. While another person believes the country needs Donald Trump and praises Trump's honesty.

"Saving Capitalism" however also presents Reich as a likeable man who truly wants to help people and inform them. He goes into some detail about his time working in the Clinton administration and how he didn't always agree with policies implemented. Eventually he resigned.

Remember the documentary is called "Saving Capitalism". The word "saving" is in the title. As Reich explains, capitalism within itself is not a moral or immoral system. Neither good or bad. The problem, as I interpret Reich's position, is how people use and abuse the system. It is a system that only works for a few. Reich isn't advocating for doing away with capitalism but improving it, expanding it so more people may benefit from it. To Reich that means citizens must participate and hold their government responsible. To make this point we see clips of TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party protest and Occupy Wall Street.

But, he also warns against misguided anger and the two faces of populism. Trump, he indirectly implies, is "authoritarian populism". This is when society, so fed-up with the system, wants someone to act like a dictator or "strongman" to fix everything. Or populism reform, which rebuilds the system in a democratic way, which Bernie Sanders represented.

There are those that will complain the movie offers a rather generic solution of engagement and activism. That generally is what all political documentaries leave us with. Things can change if the public fights for that change. The system will have in place is fine but merely needs to be improved upon on. I suppose what else can a documentary or public figure tell us?

Still "Saving Capitalism" offers a lot of good information and presents that information in an entertaining way while stirring up a lot of emotion and possibly anger in the viewer. It will result in some good conversations afterwards and get people talking about important issues. For that reason it is one of the year's best.