stephenrtod

Made in 1998, "Mercury Rising" showcases Bruce Willis as a compassionate champion of one against a monolithic NSA that, even 14 years ago, acted as if it knew better than the American people what we needed to know, a surreptitious shadow governmental adjunct that took Machiavelli's central idea, that "The ends justify the means" to a hideous conclusion. As in many of Willis' other films, such as "Sixth Sense," Willis projects a strong, trustworthy male role-model for a troubled, albeit gifted, autistic boy of nine.

What I enjoy best about this film, however, are the many intensely suspenseful "turns," throughout the movie, almost like a cinematic flow chart, in which the survival of the protagonists is extremely doubtful. This is a film in which truth overcomes malignant power, a work of art which illustrates what Helen Keller insisted is true: "I may be only one, but still I am one." The American people, and the people of the world, who need to continue to cherish freedom and hope, and work to instill and maintain both of those values until they're ubiquitous, need many more such movies.

Actors are professional pretenders. Movies that depict real life events, or literary works,are successful if they present persuasive indications, hoping to capture the spark of reality on stage or screen.

George Clooney is a sentimental man who conceals his sentimentalism well. He makes movies whenever he can about topics, people, and issues he cares about.

Having read the book this film was based upon, I was looking for gestures, expressions, persuasive indications of a movement most people, including me until very recently, were not aware of.

A story in today's Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the desire to save, protect, salvage and restore, and allow the present and the future to continue to enjoy art - is ongoing - even in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. That article also dramatized General Eisenhower's efforts to ensure that American soldiers were respectful and appreciative of other countries' cultures and their artistic and other achievements.

I thought that the exposition, the part of the movie that was slowest moving, where each character had to be introduced and developed, then inserted into the rather tense and nervous camaraderie, such as it was, was the weakest part of the film; but even this part had the feel of a recapturing of the mis en scene of 1944 global Armageddon in the world.

I often forget that many of the Chicago group that made Saturday Night famous: John Belushi, Bill Murray and many others, were classically trained actors. Bill Murray listening to a record while in the shower is a great moment in theater, in acting, in verisimilitude, the art of making the gesture, the moment, seem so real that the audience forgets it is only a movie.

The entire cast behaved as if they truly were the architects, curators, sculptors, and connoisseurs they were portraying, and I felt that the movie got stronger and stronger after the going got really tough in their mission.

Kate Blanchett plays a tough French woman smoldering with an inner burning anger, and she is convincing in every scene she was in. I thought that she inspired and uplifted Matt Damon's performance.

I think the quality of the writing is uneven, but that is true not only of art, but of life. Sometimes, ordinary people utter mundane statements; sometimes, we are inspired to be eloquent, elegant. I think that "The Monuments Men" captured that reality, too.

I would love to see it again, and I urge anyone who is interested in the idea of saving precious works of art from military and other predators, to read the book by Robert M. Edsel.

This show catapults from noble to pretentious, from great speeches and lines and writing to dialog that is too rapid fire and difficult to fully comprehend without subtitles; from legitimate attacks on power mongers, true villains in our culture, and violations of our Constitution by those who purport to support it- to a problematic melange of caricature, infotainment, and zaniness. Sometimes, the show is profound; other times, it is quite disappointing. Sanctimonious one moment, scintillating the next.

I've watched all of the shows, and I have to wonder how much of it was written with an eye upon some focus groups' reactions. (?) Aaron Sorkin is a very clever writer, and I do give him credit for showcasing other writers of "The Newsroom's" screenplays, but the show continues to have a really tough time trying to decide if it is going to be (a) Horatian satire, i.e. writing that mocks and ridicules wrongs and weaknesses in society yet forgives them: gentle ridicule, or (b) Juvenalian satire: vicious, sometimes cruel, sometimes not funny at all, as if the writer hates the satirical target and would cheer its demise, or (c) romantic comedy like the chemistry between Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable, Tracy and Hepburn, and others.

I can understand a television show that attempts to be all things to all people, but it is confusing to try to accomplish this self-contradictory function in one program.

At the same time, when Will challenged one political party for making war on the poor instead of making war on poverty, I cheered. Then, moments later, Will ruined that moment by apologizing for his remark because he was taking medication that swayed his thinking.

I thought our society was way past laughing at someone who is drinking and drunk all of the time. When he is a high ranking official in a major network, it is even less amusing.

I have listened to people I admire attack "The Newsroom" for distorting and condemning the Romney campaign, a job they bungled pretty much by themselves without too much help by trying to appeal to the right politically and then trying to leapfrog back to the political center.

So much talent. Slow down. Keep a central idea. Focus on basics of writing, communication, comedy, and tragedy. Otherwise, it is a creative mess.

Let us see people doing their actual jobs more, with less political and romantic and other kinds of intrigue drawing them away from the very real problems that arise from attempting to be journalists, broadcasters, and investigative reporters. Things that really happen in the world are sad and funny, by turns. A show like "The Newsroom" could really perform a service to society by providing an accurate mirror for the plethora of absurd, terrible, hilarious, utterly mad or wonderful events that happen in our world.

Our basic networks that handle news all too often spend the majority of their news time telling what to think or how to think about events. Talented satirists like Jon Stewart project such sharp satire of the media and the news that such shows are depended upon for their accuracy in depicting the very news they lampoon.

The entire cast should be brought in on the creative process and do some serious brainstorming about the essential question: What do you want this show to be?