Film Review: Fahrenheit 11/9

"Fahrenheit 11/9"  **** (out of ****)

The temperature is rising in "Fahrenheit 11/9" (2018).

How the f*ck did this happen? That is the question filmmaker Michael Moore ask in his latest documentary.

It is more than a somewhat comical line. Trump supporters will say, that's just something all liberals have said since that disastrous night, when 63 million Americans, decided it was a good idea to send a former reality television host (he couldn't even keep that job) to the White House. No, Michael Moore uses that line to springboard into an essay on the current state of American politics and what led us to this moment. Where and when did things go wrong? Why did the American public lose faith in the political system?

That is what "Fahrenheit 11/9" is about. It is NOT a two hour Trump bashing documentary. It does not go into Trump's various business ties with Russia and examine the investigation of the 2016 election. It does not analyze which Russian or group of Russians shaped and molded Trump's worldview. I mention this because much has been made of the dismal box-office results of the movie. It made a little more than 3 million dollars opening weekend. After a week long run, several theatres will no longer show the movie, to make room for Hollywood blockbusters featuring men in tights (superhero movies). I believe that is why people stayed away. We are "Trumped out" (yes, I've invented a verb). What could Michael Moore tell us about Herr Chancellor Trump that we don't already know? Cable news repeatedly run stories about him. It is too difficult to make a movie about this administration when so much is happening so fast. How can you stay relevant? You can't.

The title, "Fahrenheit 11/9", of course is meant to recall one of Moore's previous documentaries, "Fahreheit 9/11" (2004) about another corrupt and dangerous administration. Apparently the right wing media thought this movie was going to be just as big of a threat (though that movie didn't stop George W. Bush from winning a second term, it was a box-office hit). They came out in full force, ready to attack the movie. The Wall Street Journal reviewed Michael Moore instead of the movie, and none too favorably. The "review" called Moore a "con man". The Chicago Tribune ran a negative review from one of their hack "critics". Even positive reviews had a lot of critical things to say. I suspect in an attempt to make themselves appear neutral and as if they were not all a bunch of liberals and all in against Trump.

There are similarities between Moore's two documentaries however. One of them is the focus on the ruinous job our media does. In "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore claimed journalist didn't do their job and served as mouthpieces for the Bush administration's desire to go to war with Iraq. This time around Moore points the finger at the media showing they were lap dogs for Trump. While the media tried to manipulate the public (and maybe themselves) into believing Trump should not have been taken serious as a candidate for either the GOP nomination or the White House, they sure spent a lot of time showing him on television, because of ratings. The media treated Trump with kid gloves.

Moore contrasts Trump's media coverage with Bernie Sanders. Sanders, who was able to draw crowds just as large as Trump, was ignored. Even the so-called leftist media (i.e. the New York Times) purposely avoided him. They tried to diminish his campaign when they did choose to cover him. Moore interviews Sanders who explains how institutions like the New York Times do not serve the needs of the public by reporting on events in their interest. They serve the establishment.

Moore places an emphasis on how the needs of people weren't met when he documents the events that unfolded in Flint, Michigan with regard to the water crisis there. This takes up a large percentage of screen time in "Fahrenheit 11/9" as a means to show how public officials have let down society.

To Michael Moore a comparison should be made between Donald Trump and the Republican governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder. Both rode into town telling people they would run government like a business. Snyder, elected in 2011, was chairman of the board for Gateway, and founded a venture capitalist firm. Neither man had any experience in public service and the public has paid the price since. In the case of Snyder, in 2014 the water source for the city of Flint was changed from Lake Huron to the Flint River to make way for an unnecessary piping project, which benefited some of Snyder's corporate donors. The water was contaminated with lead, exposing approximately 12,000 children and causing an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease, which resulted in 10 deaths and affected 77 other people. Snyder still serves as the governor of the state.

When government officials blatantly disregard the public in such a manner, why should citizens vote? Why should they be enablers of a broken system? That is the link to Trump. According to Moore 100 million eligible voters did not show up at the polls during the 2016 Presidential Election. Voters were suppressed and depressed. Some wanted to send a message and Trump was their outlet.

Not all the blame goes to the Republicans however. Moore is an equal opportunity offender. He takes aim at the Democratic party as well. They depressed voter turnout during the primary with the DNC's clear preference for Hillary Clinton over Sanders. Barack Obama let down the people of Flint when he traveled there and engaged in a publicity stunt, drinking a glass of water, as a way to tell people the water is okay. He didn't stand up for the people. And the old Democratic guard (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer) deny new voices from emerging within the party, discrediting them as "too left". As once again the media does their bidding echoing those sentiments.

For me, the most troubling and frightening moments in "Fahrenheit 11/9" are when Moore compares the events of today to Germany of the 1930s. Some will cry, bitch, and complain Michael  Moore is taking a cheap shot comparing Trump to Hitler. Their political loyalty (brainwashing) makes them miss the larger point that Moore is illustrating. No one is suggesting Donald Trump will be responsible for the death of 6 million Jews. It is the environment in which Trump emerged and his style of governing that is comparable. Trump divides people pitting us into "us versus them" camps. He has turned the public against the media. Only his words are to be believed. He has devoted followers, whom he conned, with his false promises of making America great again while he converges government with business interest. He has a thirst for power. His tactics are dangerous.

To expand on these points Moore interviews the last surviving prosecutor during the Nuremberg trials, Ben Ferencz, who explains he sent men to their deaths for taking actions similar to those enacted by the Trump administration.

Of course you will hear the standard arguments against Moore and "Fahrenheit 11/9" that you have heard before (not only does history repeat itself, so do Moore's critics!). Moore is playing fast and loose with facts. He glosses over history. He has a political agenda..etc, etc. I ask however, what are the lies? Expose them. The right wing movie critics couldn't. As far as glossing over history, is that Michael Moore's job, to teach you history? His job is to inform and entertain. Read a book to learn about history. He has an agenda? Of course he does! A documentary has to have a point of view. Why was it made in the first place?

Yes, Moore is guilty of theatrics but that is all he is guilty of. In one sequence he shows footage of Hitler giving a speech and removes the sound, dubbing in one of Trump's speeches. At another moment he drives to the governor's office to make a citizen's arrest. Finally he goes to the governor's mansion to hose his lawn with water from Flint.

But these moments don't abate the larger social commentary Moore is making. His ultimate message is democracy is fragile. It is an idea. If people don't stand up and defend it, it can go away. Just as it did in Germany and various other countries that have fallen to dictatorships over the course of history. History is not a straight line. We don't face an issue, tackle it, and move forward, never to deal with the issue again. History is a circle. History repeats itself. The mistakes of the past will be made again.

Hope is presented in the various social movements that have occurred since Trump. The teacher's strike in West Virginia and others states, the student protests that emerged from the Parkland school shooting. And, all the first-time candidates running for office, who felt a duty to become active. But hope is misleading to Moore. Hope provides comfort and people cannot get comfortable. Don't rely on others to fight your battles.You must act. Such as in "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore wants people to vote. Vote in the midterm elections this November.

"Fahrenheit 11/9" has been called scattershot by its defenders and critics alike. That isn't true. Moore is focused here. He is linking large themes together. It is ambitious but not undisciplined. Those are just the words of people grabbing at straws, looking to take down the movie any which way they can.

It is saddening to know the public abandoned this documentary. There is a lot of important information here. It is a rallying cry. Maybe it will gain traction on DVD. Maybe after reading this some of you will hunt down a nearby theatre to see it. I hope so.

Film Review: Bel Canto

"Bel Canto"  ** (out of ****)

Don't underestimate the power of music. Music has the ability to transcend political, economic, and social differences. It is an universal language. Have you ever been to a classical music concert? If you look around you will see a wide variety of people. Different cultures, races and ages. People from all different backgrounds join together in the name of good music.

There is great social and political injustice in the world. Countries with massive amounts of wealth also have some of the highest levels of poverty. Those left behind by their government and economic systems demand change. They will not remain "the forgotten".

What do these two ideas have to do with one another? They are awkwardly combined in "Bel Canto" (2018), the film adaptation of Ann Patchett's 2001 novel, based on a real-life hostage crisis that occurred in Lima, Peru in 1996. The novel was later adapted into an opera in 2015.

It is obvious what "Bel Canto" hopes to achieve by presenting this story, with an international cast, confined to a single location. We are led to believe this is a story of characters from different walks of life, all forced to come together to ultimately realize we are all the same. Given the current political climate it is an admirable message but good intentions are not enough to make a successful film.

Directed and co-written by the versatile Paul Weitz ("American Pie", "About a Boy") "Bel Canto" never fleshes out its characters, resulting in viewers never being truly emotionally invested. The movie doesn't tackle anything we haven't already seen in similar movies. It all begins to feel formulaic and by the numbers.

Julianne Moore, one of the great actresses of our time, stars as Roxane Coss, a famous opera singer, invited to perform at a private party in honor of Katsumi Hosokawa (Ken Watanable). He adores Roxane and her presence is meant to lure Hosokawa to build a factory in our unnamed South American country. The gathering is given an unexpected twist when a group of radical activist, in an assassination attempt, break into the party, looking for the country's president, who decided against attending.

The radicals demand the release of all political prisoners as they hold the guest hostage while negotiations with a Red Cross representative (Sebastian Koch) ensue.

During this time relationships form between the hostages and their captors and between the hostages themselves. Giving audiences some kum by yah moments, which the screenplay doesn't earn.

"Bel Canto", while filled with nice performances, lacks in execution. For a movie about the power of music, it feels flat.

Film Review: Don't Leave Home

"Don't Leave Home"  *** (out of ****)

["Don't Leave Home" opens this Friday (9/14/18) in Chicago for a week long run at Facets]

There's no place like home in director Michael Tully's mystery / horror movie, "Don't Leave Home" (2018)

The golden age of American horror movies are generally believed to have been made in the 1930s and 40s at Universal Studios with the creation of monster movies such as "Dracula" (1931),     "Frankenstein" (1931), and "The Mummy" (1932). For the last decade however there has been a resurgence in quality horror movies from "The Conjuring" (2013) and all its sequels and spinoffs to "Lights Out" (2016) and "The Babadook" (2014). The first half of "Don't Leave Home" appears to be another example.

The movie begins in 1986 Ireland when eight year old Siobhan Callahan (Alisha Weir) disappears from her home never to be seen again. The mysterious event occurred after the young girl had been painted by a priest, posing in front of a grotto, praying to a statue of the Virgin Mary. After the girl disappears, so does her image on the painting.

Thirty years later an American diorama artist, Melanie (Anna Margaret Hollyman) is preparing an exhibition titled "Lost Souls of Ireland" about Siobhan's disappearance as well as other missing person cases over the past three decades.

After receiving a negative review from an influential art critic, Melanie is contacted by the priest involved in the disappearance, Father Alistar Burke (Lalor Roddy), who has since walked away from the church and lives a life in seclusion. He would like to meet Melanie to buy one of her pieces and asks her to create a new one.

Intrigued to meet Father Burke, Melanie travels to the Irish countryside where also living there is Shelley (Helena Bereen), a kind elderly lady, who takes care of Father Burke, and may just be too friendly.

Like the recent "The Nun: (2018) director Tully's story is a throwback to 1970s American horror movies which combined religious elements. "Don't Leave Home" touches on art, religion, and faith but doesn't make any powerful statement. The movie works best as an exercise in mood and atmosphere. There are some truly effective and brilliant moments that may make you look over your shoulder. Tully makes the countryside setting a character in itself with the deliberate slow pace he has events move along.

Hollyman, who was in the rather disappointing "Claire in Motion" (2016), finds a much more engrossing character in Melanie. She plays the character vulnerable and sympathetic, making her responsible, in large part, for the appealing nature of the movie.

It becomes apparent by the third act that "Don't Leave Home" creates more questions than it has answers for. Still, there is a level of filmmaking that can be admired as well as some nice performances, a good musical score and interesting cinematography.

Nostalgia Digest - Olsen & Johnson Article

Hey everyone!

This month I have an article published in Nostalgia Digest magazine, the magazine dedicated to the "Golden Age" of radio, television, movies, and music.

My article covers the career of the 1930s & 40s comedy team, Olsen & Johnson. If you read my blog regularly you'll know I have written reviews for comedies starring the team.

Here are a few:

Hellzapoppin' (1941) - Arguably their most famous picture.

All Over Town (1937)

Oh, Sailor Behave! (1930) - Their feature film debut.

Please make sure to pick up a copy of Nostalgia Digest, available at most bookstores or you can order a copy online at http://www.nostalgiadigest.com/nostalgiadigest.html