Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 833
March 16, 2016
“The Americans” ups its stakes: Finally, the slow-burn drama lays out consequences for its family of spies
At this point, on the eve of its fourth season premiere, “The Americans” has lasted longer than nearly anyone behind it anticipated. After a strong debut, the moody ’80s spy drama, about a Soviet family undercover in Washington, D.C., failed to find much of an audience. Partly that’s because the show can be hard to find, and partly that’s because the show can feel hard to connect to, as I explained last year. “The Americans” is a drama about the canonical bad guys of American pop culture going off and doing a bunch of bad things, and then spending several episodes dealing with the messy emotional and logistical fallout of that. It’s slow, moody and ethically complex, concerned with family, marriage and the human toll of espionage, all while struggling to define why, exactly, the characters are devoting their lives to spycraft. In short, it is the exact opposite of a James Bond film; and given that those are so compulsively watchable, it’s not that surprising that “The Americans” can be hard to warm up to. But there’s another less tonal issue for the show, and that’s the question of dramatic stakes. After setting up the Jennings family’s precarious position in the first episode—and exploring Philip and Elizabeth's (real-life lovers Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell) fraught marriage in the first season—the show has struggled to make much of the espionage feel particularly high-stakes. Largely, that’s because secrets, in narrative, are begging to be revealed; “The Americans” is an excruciating exercise in delayed gratification. Any shared secret has taken years of maneuvering; after hinting at it right from the pilot, it’s only at the end of last season that their daughter, Paige (Holly Taylor), was told the truth about what Philip and Elizabeth do. Similarly, it has been now four seasons since FBI agent Stan Beeman (Noah Emmerich) moved in across the street from the Jennings family, but he seems no closer than ever to discovering their terrible truth. This is a very long waiting game, in an environment where other people’s lives seem to snuff out at the drop of a hat. In a show where, like “Star Trek’s" infamous redshirts, new characters cycle in and then die, the Jennings family is apparently made of Teflon. Their delicate balance of assimilation and subversion is such a dangerous one that by all rights it should have turned them into corpses by now. And yet, the Jennings persist (at least until season 5 or 6, renewals willing), committing acts of domestic terrorism within an ever wider net while suffering, on the whole, rather limited consequences. (There’s much more guilt than gunshot wounds.) At least in one or two ways, Season 4 lays a stage for some consequences to come home to roost for the cast of “The Americans.” “Glanders” introduces a new regular cast member, actor Dylan Baker (Colin Sweeney, of “The Good Wife”), who plays a turncoat biochemist specializing in biological warfare. The Jennings' mission switches, under the stewardship of handler Gabriel (Frank Langella), from transmitting radio signals to playing hot potato with vials of deadly super-disease. It creates a different kind of fear for the Jennings, who have long been playing with kerosene-soaked matches; contagion knows no national borders. The fear of transmitting something fatal to their children has a lovely metaphoric resonance for the life Philip and Elizabeth have chosen—especially as Paige, new to the double life, is demonstrably terrible at it. Her ineptness with secrecy is sweetly understandable, but one that lives in sharp opposition to her hardboiled spy parents. The show has always been invested in highlighting the contrast between Philip and Elizabeth’s harsh Soviet upbringing with the lives their two American children live; but in the first four episodes of this season, the realities and consequences of both are showcased more powerfully than ever. Sam Adams at Criticwire mused that watching “The Americans’" America is watching a battle between two countries that defined themselves in opposition to each other. “Elizabeth and Philip Jennings are becoming Americans. What are we becoming?” he asks, reflecting on the current election. Certainly, the show is asking the same question—pointing to the Jennings’ most consequential act of all: their decision to have two American children. Paige, born around 1970, would be somewhere around 46 today. Who, “The Americans” asks, does she turn out to be?
After Bernie, now what? To mean anything, the Sanders campaign must outlast its figurehead
We have carved the epitaph onto the tombstone of Bernie Sanders’ improbable 2016 campaign over and over again, and every time we’ve had to paper those somber chiseled letters over with another witty telegram from Mark Twain: Reports of my death have been exaggerated. But as absolutely everyone with a liberal arts education has already pointed out, on the ides of March we have finally reached a parting of the ways. After four defeats and a tie, at best in the big states of Super Tuesday III, Sanders’ path to the nomination — to use the execrable phrase of political journalism — is now a strand of gossamer spider web floating on the breeze. There may be valid strategic and political reasons for Sanders to fight on into the spring, and there are states ahead that he might yet win: Wisconsin, Oregon, Maryland, maybe California. But as I have argued in previous misbegotten campaign obituaries, sooner or later the Bernie Sanders movement has to get over Bernie Sanders, at least as a plausible candidate for the Democratic nomination. That leaves us with two questions: Where do Bernie’s voters go in 2016, and what happens to all that unexpected energy he released? That first question, I have to say, is not nearly as interesting nor as significant as it seems, although Hillary Clinton’s campaign will feel obliged to spend the next few weeks taking it seriously. The second question will not be answerable for some time to come, and my Magic 8-ball makes ambiguous predictions. Sanders’ supporters will either vote for Clinton in the fall or stay home, despite whatever you may read on social media today. All the frenzied speculation about enraged Bernie Bros flocking to Donald Trump is worth the paper it isn’t printed on. To the extent any actual person has vowed to do that, it’s more than a little reminiscent of the PUMAs of 2008 (“party unity my ass”), a tiny handful of vociferous Hillary Clinton supporters who threatened to defect to the McCain-Palin ticket after Hillary got her lunch stolen by an unqualified and unelectable male opponent. Believe it or not, there was all kinds of speculation about a disastrous rift within the Democratic electorate; I can remember reading blog posts asserting that Barack Obama would lose 40 states and be remembered as the George McGovern of our day. If 2016 were shaping up as a normal 21st-century election between a centrist Democrat and a “mainstream conservative” Republican — that is to say, someone far to the right of Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan on every possible issue, but who stops short of overt racism and whose real agenda is protecting the owners of investment capital — then the Sanders electorate might indeed be crucial. That is, it might be crucial in a tiny handful of swing stages where such elections are decided, including Florida, Ohio, Virginia and a couple of others. (In practice, whoever carries two of those three states is elected president.) In that scenario, Sanders voters in New York and California and Texas and Alabama matter exactly as much as all other voters do in the 40 or so states that both parties take for granted: not at all. But this isn’t a normal election, as even the political establishment has finally noticed from its unique head-up-posterior perspective. We’re getting only half the prescribed ingredients, and the resulting concoction is unstable and unpredictable. If the centrist Democrat has emerged right on schedule, after overcoming a spirited but insufficiently organized opposition, the “mainstream conservative” is nowhere in sight. We can come up with all sorts of words to describe Donald Trump, many of them highly prejudicial, but “mainstream” and “conservative” and “Republican” simply don’t fit. By any reasonable standard, Clinton goes into a fall campaign against Trump as a heavy favorite, but what have reasonable standards done for us lately? Trump is uniquely positioned to exploit her weaknesses with younger voters and working-class whites, and fully intends to attack her record on economic policy and her BFF relationship to the financial industries from a populist, pseudo-left perspective. Trump-Clinton is full of unknown unknowns that have the leadership castes in both parties understandably anxious. It’s only a mild exaggeration to say that Democrats are afraid their candidate might find a way to lose, while Republicans are afraid their candidate might find a way to win. It’s a multilayered crap sandwich of democratic dysfunction, served on poisonous-mushroom ciabatta. I would suggest that the secret sauce in the sandwich has less to do with actual Sanders voters switching to Trump than with a whole bunch of disgruntled, downscale independents in those middle American swing states who might conceivably have voted for Sanders in a general election, but who would vote for Trump 100 times while eating broken glass and volunteering as a waterboarding practice dummy before they’d vote for Hillary Clinton. You are free to argue that this election will define an entire political epoch and could lead to the downfall of America and all that, but Bernie Sanders’ role in it is winding down. Of course he will endorse Clinton at some point between now and the Democratic convention, and he may make a few campus speeches on her behalf in the fall. But she’s not going to want him around as a reminder of how close the whole thing came to going south all over again, and if she loses to Trump her campaign will have to find somebody else to blame. If we look past 2016 at the potential aftereffects of the Sanders campaign, we begin to glimpse some tenuous tendrils of possibility. Those who have argued, and still argue, that the Sanders moment was a bizarre anomaly, that the desire for “political revolution” is limited to an inbred subset of white college graduates, and that it’s time to return to “abject fealty” to the Democratic Party (as Ryan Cooper of the Week puts it, in a useful article) are delusional. The generation gap between Sanders voters and Clinton voters is much sharper and more important than the racial or gender divides that have plagued this campaign. Sanders will not win the nomination for the simple and unavoidable reason that older voters far outnumber younger ones. But he has beaten Clinton by outrageous margins among voters under 35, and has won the under-45 vote in nearly every state. Yes, Sanders’ voters have mostly been white, partly because the campaign began in predominantly white states, and that fact created an enormous problem of perception that Clinton’s campaign successfully exploited. That’s how politics works; there was nothing unfair about it. But the Sanders electorate has become increasingly diverse as the campaign has progressed, and it appears that he carried the younger African-American and Latino vote in most of this week’s primaries. Skeptics who paint the Sanders moment as meaningless or tainted with some version of politically unacceptable privilege need to talk to the group of African-American high school students I encountered aboard a Brooklyn bus on Wednesday morning, who were eagerly arguing that if it turned out Bernie had actually won the Missouri primary, he might still have a realistic shot. He probably didn’t and almost certainly doesn’t, but that’s not the point. In Cooper’s article, he argues that the primary defeats of Democratic prosecutors in Chicago and Cleveland, who had refused to bring charges against police officers in the killings of Laquan McDonald and Tamir Rice (respectively), provide examples of the kind of electoral change that can happen at the local level. Any connection between those results and the Sanders campaign is speculative at best — but the fact that energized, activist young people drove the Sanders campaign, the Black Lives Matter movement and the local elections in those Midwestern cities is not speculative at all. If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party still think they can take this galvanized new generation for granted, or shine it on with bland, Bernie-lite promises, then they richly deserve to lose.We have carved the epitaph onto the tombstone of Bernie Sanders’ improbable 2016 campaign over and over again, and every time we’ve had to paper those somber chiseled letters over with another witty telegram from Mark Twain: Reports of my death have been exaggerated. But as absolutely everyone with a liberal arts education has already pointed out, on the ides of March we have finally reached a parting of the ways. After four defeats and a tie, at best in the big states of Super Tuesday III, Sanders’ path to the nomination — to use the execrable phrase of political journalism — is now a strand of gossamer spider web floating on the breeze. There may be valid strategic and political reasons for Sanders to fight on into the spring, and there are states ahead that he might yet win: Wisconsin, Oregon, Maryland, maybe California. But as I have argued in previous misbegotten campaign obituaries, sooner or later the Bernie Sanders movement has to get over Bernie Sanders, at least as a plausible candidate for the Democratic nomination. That leaves us with two questions: Where do Bernie’s voters go in 2016, and what happens to all that unexpected energy he released? That first question, I have to say, is not nearly as interesting nor as significant as it seems, although Hillary Clinton’s campaign will feel obliged to spend the next few weeks taking it seriously. The second question will not be answerable for some time to come, and my Magic 8-ball makes ambiguous predictions. Sanders’ supporters will either vote for Clinton in the fall or stay home, despite whatever you may read on social media today. All the frenzied speculation about enraged Bernie Bros flocking to Donald Trump is worth the paper it isn’t printed on. To the extent any actual person has vowed to do that, it’s more than a little reminiscent of the PUMAs of 2008 (“party unity my ass”), a tiny handful of vociferous Hillary Clinton supporters who threatened to defect to the McCain-Palin ticket after Hillary got her lunch stolen by an unqualified and unelectable male opponent. Believe it or not, there was all kinds of speculation about a disastrous rift within the Democratic electorate; I can remember reading blog posts asserting that Barack Obama would lose 40 states and be remembered as the George McGovern of our day. If 2016 were shaping up as a normal 21st-century election between a centrist Democrat and a “mainstream conservative” Republican — that is to say, someone far to the right of Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan on every possible issue, but who stops short of overt racism and whose real agenda is protecting the owners of investment capital — then the Sanders electorate might indeed be crucial. That is, it might be crucial in a tiny handful of swing stages where such elections are decided, including Florida, Ohio, Virginia and a couple of others. (In practice, whoever carries two of those three states is elected president.) In that scenario, Sanders voters in New York and California and Texas and Alabama matter exactly as much as all other voters do in the 40 or so states that both parties take for granted: not at all. But this isn’t a normal election, as even the political establishment has finally noticed from its unique head-up-posterior perspective. We’re getting only half the prescribed ingredients, and the resulting concoction is unstable and unpredictable. If the centrist Democrat has emerged right on schedule, after overcoming a spirited but insufficiently organized opposition, the “mainstream conservative” is nowhere in sight. We can come up with all sorts of words to describe Donald Trump, many of them highly prejudicial, but “mainstream” and “conservative” and “Republican” simply don’t fit. By any reasonable standard, Clinton goes into a fall campaign against Trump as a heavy favorite, but what have reasonable standards done for us lately? Trump is uniquely positioned to exploit her weaknesses with younger voters and working-class whites, and fully intends to attack her record on economic policy and her BFF relationship to the financial industries from a populist, pseudo-left perspective. Trump-Clinton is full of unknown unknowns that have the leadership castes in both parties understandably anxious. It’s only a mild exaggeration to say that Democrats are afraid their candidate might find a way to lose, while Republicans are afraid their candidate might find a way to win. It’s a multilayered crap sandwich of democratic dysfunction, served on poisonous-mushroom ciabatta. I would suggest that the secret sauce in the sandwich has less to do with actual Sanders voters switching to Trump than with a whole bunch of disgruntled, downscale independents in those middle American swing states who might conceivably have voted for Sanders in a general election, but who would vote for Trump 100 times while eating broken glass and volunteering as a waterboarding practice dummy before they’d vote for Hillary Clinton. You are free to argue that this election will define an entire political epoch and could lead to the downfall of America and all that, but Bernie Sanders’ role in it is winding down. Of course he will endorse Clinton at some point between now and the Democratic convention, and he may make a few campus speeches on her behalf in the fall. But she’s not going to want him around as a reminder of how close the whole thing came to going south all over again, and if she loses to Trump her campaign will have to find somebody else to blame. If we look past 2016 at the potential aftereffects of the Sanders campaign, we begin to glimpse some tenuous tendrils of possibility. Those who have argued, and still argue, that the Sanders moment was a bizarre anomaly, that the desire for “political revolution” is limited to an inbred subset of white college graduates, and that it’s time to return to “abject fealty” to the Democratic Party (as Ryan Cooper of the Week puts it, in a useful article) are delusional. The generation gap between Sanders voters and Clinton voters is much sharper and more important than the racial or gender divides that have plagued this campaign. Sanders will not win the nomination for the simple and unavoidable reason that older voters far outnumber younger ones. But he has beaten Clinton by outrageous margins among voters under 35, and has won the under-45 vote in nearly every state. Yes, Sanders’ voters have mostly been white, partly because the campaign began in predominantly white states, and that fact created an enormous problem of perception that Clinton’s campaign successfully exploited. That’s how politics works; there was nothing unfair about it. But the Sanders electorate has become increasingly diverse as the campaign has progressed, and it appears that he carried the younger African-American and Latino vote in most of this week’s primaries. Skeptics who paint the Sanders moment as meaningless or tainted with some version of politically unacceptable privilege need to talk to the group of African-American high school students I encountered aboard a Brooklyn bus on Wednesday morning, who were eagerly arguing that if it turned out Bernie had actually won the Missouri primary, he might still have a realistic shot. He probably didn’t and almost certainly doesn’t, but that’s not the point. In Cooper’s article, he argues that the primary defeats of Democratic prosecutors in Chicago and Cleveland, who had refused to bring charges against police officers in the killings of Laquan McDonald and Tamir Rice (respectively), provide examples of the kind of electoral change that can happen at the local level. Any connection between those results and the Sanders campaign is speculative at best — but the fact that energized, activist young people drove the Sanders campaign, the Black Lives Matter movement and the local elections in those Midwestern cities is not speculative at all. If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party still think they can take this galvanized new generation for granted, or shine it on with bland, Bernie-lite promises, then they richly deserve to lose.
How to make “Indiana Jones 5″ the best of the series: Kill off the racist, sexist tropes the series is steeped in
Like most millennials, I’m absolutely psyched that Steven Spielberg is making a fifth "Indiana Jones" movie. The 1980s trilogy was a staple of my childhood, and after the disappointment of 2008’s "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," I’m hoping with bated breath that this new (and presumably final) chapter will offer a fitting close to the Harrison Ford-helmed series. That said, there is something the existing Indiana Jones films contained that I hope Spielberg will be circumspect enough to omit this time around — namely, the copious quantities of racism and sexism. It gives me no joy to admit such a thing about such a cherished franchise, but the bigoted tropes in some of these films are so rampant that they become cringe-inducing. We can start with the original film, 1981’s "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which perpetuated Hollywood’s long-standing tradition of vilifying Arabs. As a study published by the Islamic Human Rights Commission pointed out, that film utilized “cultural stereotypes and scenarios [that] are patently obvious,” including a street scene with bazaars, veiled women and snake-charming music. Aside from a character in Arab-face played by John Rhys-Davies, the Arabs in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" exist mainly to affirm the movie’s Orientalist stereotypes. They aren’t human beings with agency who impact the plot as much as the characters of European descent, but two-dimensional archetypes who cheer, jeer, aid or thwart the protagonists as the needs of the plot dictate. Of course, while the offenses in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" can at least be contextualized as par for the course in 1980s Hollywood, the same cannot be said for the prejudice against Indians in its sequel, 1984’s "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." When the filmmakers requested permission to shoot in India, the government denied them on the grounds that they thought the movie racist. Despite this undeniable warning, Spielberg and crew proceeded, and the subsequent movie — though quite fun on a visceral level — makes it clear why the Indian authorities later banned it from being screened in their country. Setting aside the cackling Chinese gangsters from the opening sequence, the movie contains blazingly racist caricatures of Indians eating disgusting foods, lacking the table manners and sophistication of their Western counterparts, and being swept up in a barbaric cult. Even the sympathetic Indian characters are depicted as helpless and childlike, needing nothing more than a white savior like Indiana Jones to rescue their kidnapped offspring. Additionally, whereas "Raiders of the Lost Ark" contained a proactively adventurous female counterpart worthy of Indiana Jones in Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott is a materialistic, self-absorbed and shrill nuisance who only aids the heroes after being pushed into it. At one point in the film, Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones wearily remarks that “the biggest trouble with her is the noise”; in another scene, while listing pros and cons about having her around, he includes “speaks her mind” under both sections. Just like the Indians’ “bizarre” culture is used as a running gag, so too is Scott’s femininity set up as an ongoing burden the main character is expected to struggle with. Because her constant shrieking is quite literally hard on the ears, Capshaw does nothing to add sympathy to her character or contradict Jones’ negative opinion of her (which, of course, doesn’t stop them from coupling in the end). Although 1989’s "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" includes some of the same Arab caricatures seen in the first film, it is easily the least offensive (and, in my subjective assessment, the most enjoyable) movie in the franchise. Neither of these things can be said of 2008’s "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which, though leagues less offensive than "Temple of Doom," is still shockingly insensitive. Ravenwood, despite her heroic role in the first movie, is reduced to a damsel-in-distress trope in this one. Additionally, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" contains racist caricatures that, though featured much less prominently than the ones in "Temple of Doom," are no less disturbing. This time around, though, it’s the indigenous people of South America — first in Peru, where a pair of “savage” stereotypes wearing skull masks need to be defeated or scared off by the heroes, and then in Brazil, where an indigenous tribe serves a similar plot function. While these characters may be callbacks to the Hovitos from the opening scene of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (who were similarly depicted as simple-minded “savages”), they are perhaps more offensive because so much time has passed between the two films. Perhaps this is the main message that Spielberg and Company should bear in mind when crafting "Indiana Jones 5." Aside from the vocal protests of the Indian government in response to "Temple of Doom," there wasn’t much of an outcry when the various racist and sexist characters were presented in the original movies. Consequently, although it is understandable why some people condemn the movies wholesale as a result of these flaws, there is a value to recognizing them as products of their time. This doesn’t excuse their racism and sexism, of course, but it does provide an appropriate context for appreciating them. With the possible exception of "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," they all remain fantastically entertaining popcorn fare, with sharp writing, brilliant action sequences and state-of-the-art special effects that hold up remarkably well today. While the problematic content does tarnish the series' legacy for more socially conscious viewers, they certainly don’t negate it entirely. That said, we live in a time when directors, producers and other filmmakers are aware of — or should be aware of — how popular culture can unwittingly perpetuate systems of oppression. As such, filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to be aware of the tropes that they use and the prejudices those tropes manage to reinforce. Thankfully, many filmmakers, including Spielberg’s protégé J.J. Abrams, have already taken steps to increase diversity and draw awareness to casual racism and sexism within Hollywood cinema. If Spielberg wants the fifth Indiana Jones film to be a worthy finale for his series, he will need to take their lead and learn from his past mistakes. There is no reason why the new movie can’t be careful about racist and sexist stereotyping and still contain the same fantastic writing, acting, action choreography and special effects as the 1980s films. Indeed, if anything an increased sensitivity will only make this movie more timeless. If nothing else, it will be wonderful to have a great Indiana Jones flick that I don’t have to wince through.Like most millennials, I’m absolutely psyched that Steven Spielberg is making a fifth "Indiana Jones" movie. The 1980s trilogy was a staple of my childhood, and after the disappointment of 2008’s "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," I’m hoping with bated breath that this new (and presumably final) chapter will offer a fitting close to the Harrison Ford-helmed series. That said, there is something the existing Indiana Jones films contained that I hope Spielberg will be circumspect enough to omit this time around — namely, the copious quantities of racism and sexism. It gives me no joy to admit such a thing about such a cherished franchise, but the bigoted tropes in some of these films are so rampant that they become cringe-inducing. We can start with the original film, 1981’s "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which perpetuated Hollywood’s long-standing tradition of vilifying Arabs. As a study published by the Islamic Human Rights Commission pointed out, that film utilized “cultural stereotypes and scenarios [that] are patently obvious,” including a street scene with bazaars, veiled women and snake-charming music. Aside from a character in Arab-face played by John Rhys-Davies, the Arabs in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" exist mainly to affirm the movie’s Orientalist stereotypes. They aren’t human beings with agency who impact the plot as much as the characters of European descent, but two-dimensional archetypes who cheer, jeer, aid or thwart the protagonists as the needs of the plot dictate. Of course, while the offenses in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" can at least be contextualized as par for the course in 1980s Hollywood, the same cannot be said for the prejudice against Indians in its sequel, 1984’s "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." When the filmmakers requested permission to shoot in India, the government denied them on the grounds that they thought the movie racist. Despite this undeniable warning, Spielberg and crew proceeded, and the subsequent movie — though quite fun on a visceral level — makes it clear why the Indian authorities later banned it from being screened in their country. Setting aside the cackling Chinese gangsters from the opening sequence, the movie contains blazingly racist caricatures of Indians eating disgusting foods, lacking the table manners and sophistication of their Western counterparts, and being swept up in a barbaric cult. Even the sympathetic Indian characters are depicted as helpless and childlike, needing nothing more than a white savior like Indiana Jones to rescue their kidnapped offspring. Additionally, whereas "Raiders of the Lost Ark" contained a proactively adventurous female counterpart worthy of Indiana Jones in Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott is a materialistic, self-absorbed and shrill nuisance who only aids the heroes after being pushed into it. At one point in the film, Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones wearily remarks that “the biggest trouble with her is the noise”; in another scene, while listing pros and cons about having her around, he includes “speaks her mind” under both sections. Just like the Indians’ “bizarre” culture is used as a running gag, so too is Scott’s femininity set up as an ongoing burden the main character is expected to struggle with. Because her constant shrieking is quite literally hard on the ears, Capshaw does nothing to add sympathy to her character or contradict Jones’ negative opinion of her (which, of course, doesn’t stop them from coupling in the end). Although 1989’s "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" includes some of the same Arab caricatures seen in the first film, it is easily the least offensive (and, in my subjective assessment, the most enjoyable) movie in the franchise. Neither of these things can be said of 2008’s "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which, though leagues less offensive than "Temple of Doom," is still shockingly insensitive. Ravenwood, despite her heroic role in the first movie, is reduced to a damsel-in-distress trope in this one. Additionally, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" contains racist caricatures that, though featured much less prominently than the ones in "Temple of Doom," are no less disturbing. This time around, though, it’s the indigenous people of South America — first in Peru, where a pair of “savage” stereotypes wearing skull masks need to be defeated or scared off by the heroes, and then in Brazil, where an indigenous tribe serves a similar plot function. While these characters may be callbacks to the Hovitos from the opening scene of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (who were similarly depicted as simple-minded “savages”), they are perhaps more offensive because so much time has passed between the two films. Perhaps this is the main message that Spielberg and Company should bear in mind when crafting "Indiana Jones 5." Aside from the vocal protests of the Indian government in response to "Temple of Doom," there wasn’t much of an outcry when the various racist and sexist characters were presented in the original movies. Consequently, although it is understandable why some people condemn the movies wholesale as a result of these flaws, there is a value to recognizing them as products of their time. This doesn’t excuse their racism and sexism, of course, but it does provide an appropriate context for appreciating them. With the possible exception of "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," they all remain fantastically entertaining popcorn fare, with sharp writing, brilliant action sequences and state-of-the-art special effects that hold up remarkably well today. While the problematic content does tarnish the series' legacy for more socially conscious viewers, they certainly don’t negate it entirely. That said, we live in a time when directors, producers and other filmmakers are aware of — or should be aware of — how popular culture can unwittingly perpetuate systems of oppression. As such, filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to be aware of the tropes that they use and the prejudices those tropes manage to reinforce. Thankfully, many filmmakers, including Spielberg’s protégé J.J. Abrams, have already taken steps to increase diversity and draw awareness to casual racism and sexism within Hollywood cinema. If Spielberg wants the fifth Indiana Jones film to be a worthy finale for his series, he will need to take their lead and learn from his past mistakes. There is no reason why the new movie can’t be careful about racist and sexist stereotyping and still contain the same fantastic writing, acting, action choreography and special effects as the 1980s films. Indeed, if anything an increased sensitivity will only make this movie more timeless. If nothing else, it will be wonderful to have a great Indiana Jones flick that I don’t have to wince through.
The genius of “Underground”: A gripping slavery drama that dares to be entertaining
Not long ago I sat with my husband and previewed several episodes of “Underground,” a new drama that premiered last week on WGN America. As the end credits rolled on Episode 2, which airs tonight at 10 p.m. on the cable channel, I asked him whether this is a series he’d willingly watch. He considered the question in silence for a few moments, then nodded. “It takes a while to get to the dramatic hook, but I like the cast and it’s a decent heist story. Sure!” Then I asked him whether his mother – a sweet, gentle, white woman who lives in a small Midwestern city – would watch. Barely missing a beat, he snorted. “Hell no!” There it is, “Underground’s” big challenge: getting people like my mother-in-law, the average television consumer, to watch a series about slavery, one in which the perilous Underground Railroad plays a central role. Making “Underground” something of a different proposition from previous television projects about slavery is that it capitalizes on all the elements of an exciting, high-concept drama while remaining respectful of the subject. Given the tense sociopolitical climate and diversity issues in the entertainment industry, “Underground’s” very existence would be considered by some as a miracle, albeit one no doubt facilitated by having John Legend sign on to the series as an executive producer. Rather, call it a miracle for WGN America’s quickly expanding brand. “Underground’s” series premiere was the most-watched program on WGN America to date, averaging 2.3 million total viewers in its time slot debut, which is about 10 times the network’s prime-time average in season-to-date ratings. Including the three encores that aired on premiere night, the debut’s total viewership swells to 3.5 million, with 1.5 million of those from the coveted adults 25-54 demographic. “Underground” follows an ingenious blacksmith named Noah (Aldis Hodge) as he plans to escape the Georgia plantation where he’s toiled as a slave all his life. A skilled worker, Noah knows he can find work in the North and live as a free man. He also knows that the key to a successful escape is a meticulous plan; early in the premiere, he makes the realization that the one commonality shared by runaway slaves who get caught is that each attempted to make their 600-mile escape alone. Slavery is not a subject most people would willing examine in a meaningful way, and certainly not via prime-time entertainment. That’s because, well, the definition of entertainment connotes an element of amusement or enjoyment, and bearing witness to the brutality of slavery is neither of those things. Look, as an African American woman, I get it. I grew up in a household where viewing any repeats of “Roots” or its sequels “Roots: The Next Generation,” “Roots: The Gift” — possibly the only Christmas special to include a hanging — and much later, “Alex Haley’s Queen,” was mandatory. So were any documentaries about the Underground Railroad, or Frederick Douglass, the Amistad, or any other prominent figures or historical chapters about the pre-Civil War South that one can think of. Looking back with the sensibility of an adult, I am beyond grateful that my mother augmented our school history lessons by insisting that we watch those miniseries, specials and documentaries. Those works made me appreciate the difficult striving of all those in my family who constructed the scaffolding upon which my very comfortable life is built. But as a kid, I would have much rather tuned in to, say, “The Facts of Life” or “Taxi.” So yes, the eat-your-vegetables seriousness with which the topic has heretofore been addressed may influence an uninitiated viewer’s desire to watch “Underground.” A greater factor, however, may be the fact that a significant number of white American viewers don’t like to be reminded that white people used to partake in the exploitation and subjugation of black people. But that stain on America impacts our ability to address social inequality in a fundamental way even now. It’s also incredibly hard to discuss calmly and with meaning. To bring up the topic of white privilege or to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement is to implicitly acknowledge slavery’s continued effect on our culture. Unless we’re talking about “The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore,” there isn’t really a series on television that does that in a sustained, front-and-center fashion. (And Wilmore’s ratings, sad to say, are reportedly 55 percent lower than “The Colbert Report’s” were during the same time period in 2014.) “Underground,” then, is an act of bravery – not only for taking on slavery as a subject for a series as opposed to a mini, or a special, but for pushing aside any implied obligation to be utterly earnest in demonstrating the era’s grimness. It has seized its right to making a thrilling action series that also is heartfelt, honest and emotionally gripping. “Underground’s” first four episodes more than do justice to the subject by not shying away from the tragedy and complexity of the so-called “peculiar institution.” At the same time, creators and executive producers Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, veterans of NBC’s “Heroes,” inject the story with the same fuel utilized in such adventures as “The Great Escape.” Noah forms a team of specialists out of men and women whose intelligence and bravery are underestimated by the oppressors who have dehumanized them. The various subplots includes a few soap opera elements, as a few slaves turn the master-and-servant dynamic on its ear, or keep the audience guessing as to where their allegiances lie. “Underground” employs brave stylistic choices as well. Viewers who sample the drama will immediately notice Legend’s influence on the show’s contemporary soundtrack, further augmented by the work of Raphael Saadiq as the show’s composer. Legend and Saadiq chose to forgo the swelling orchestral strains typical of period pieces, instead using soulful hip-hop breaks and pop music interludes to punctuate the intrigue playing out onscreen. This is not unheard of; the CW’s “Reign” uses the same stylistic tactic in loosely adapting the tale of Queen of Scotland Mary Stuart. Period pieces about royal romance are devoid of cultural controversy, though. And this tactic works more effectively in some scenes than others; hip-hop’s grit and bone-shaking cadence feels in tune with the sweat and struggle of Noah and his compatriots. In contrast, a scene in the third episode employs Problem Child’s “Good to Be Young” to illustrate the festive, decadent air of an antebellum Southern ball – daring, but the thematic disconnect also is jarring. “Underground” defies convention in other more fundamental ways, resisting the temptation to write all of the white characters as drawling racists fond of flowery Foghorn Leghorn-style speechifying (although there are a few of those). If anything, “Underground” takes the interesting tactic of defining several major white characters as participants in slavery purely for economic and political reasons, and not necessarily due to prevailing racial attitudes of the time. Nevertheless, there’s also a heaping dollop of squeamish tension derived from the precarious situation of Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s Rosalee, the young house slave Noah loves, and whose beauty draws threatening attention from the white slave masters and overseers in her orbit. Those scenes in particular, where Rosalee is spoken about in lurid terms while powerful men paw her like a cut of meat, are uncomfortable for anyone to watch. Certainly my mother-in-law, a woman who may be singularly responsible for keeping CBS in business, would not settle into watching those moments with ease. For viewers like her who enjoy the closed-case efficiency of network procedurals and simple comedy of multi-camera half-hours, “Underground” could be a tougher sell. It may also be difficult to convince those who can only digest a story like this if it’s presented with dry gravity, to give the show a shot. The hope – my hope – is that enough viewers continue embracing “Underground” not only to give it a respectably long run on television, but to inspire more series like it.Not long ago I sat with my husband and previewed several episodes of “Underground,” a new drama that premiered last week on WGN America. As the end credits rolled on Episode 2, which airs tonight at 10 p.m. on the cable channel, I asked him whether this is a series he’d willingly watch. He considered the question in silence for a few moments, then nodded. “It takes a while to get to the dramatic hook, but I like the cast and it’s a decent heist story. Sure!” Then I asked him whether his mother – a sweet, gentle, white woman who lives in a small Midwestern city – would watch. Barely missing a beat, he snorted. “Hell no!” There it is, “Underground’s” big challenge: getting people like my mother-in-law, the average television consumer, to watch a series about slavery, one in which the perilous Underground Railroad plays a central role. Making “Underground” something of a different proposition from previous television projects about slavery is that it capitalizes on all the elements of an exciting, high-concept drama while remaining respectful of the subject. Given the tense sociopolitical climate and diversity issues in the entertainment industry, “Underground’s” very existence would be considered by some as a miracle, albeit one no doubt facilitated by having John Legend sign on to the series as an executive producer. Rather, call it a miracle for WGN America’s quickly expanding brand. “Underground’s” series premiere was the most-watched program on WGN America to date, averaging 2.3 million total viewers in its time slot debut, which is about 10 times the network’s prime-time average in season-to-date ratings. Including the three encores that aired on premiere night, the debut’s total viewership swells to 3.5 million, with 1.5 million of those from the coveted adults 25-54 demographic. “Underground” follows an ingenious blacksmith named Noah (Aldis Hodge) as he plans to escape the Georgia plantation where he’s toiled as a slave all his life. A skilled worker, Noah knows he can find work in the North and live as a free man. He also knows that the key to a successful escape is a meticulous plan; early in the premiere, he makes the realization that the one commonality shared by runaway slaves who get caught is that each attempted to make their 600-mile escape alone. Slavery is not a subject most people would willing examine in a meaningful way, and certainly not via prime-time entertainment. That’s because, well, the definition of entertainment connotes an element of amusement or enjoyment, and bearing witness to the brutality of slavery is neither of those things. Look, as an African American woman, I get it. I grew up in a household where viewing any repeats of “Roots” or its sequels “Roots: The Next Generation,” “Roots: The Gift” — possibly the only Christmas special to include a hanging — and much later, “Alex Haley’s Queen,” was mandatory. So were any documentaries about the Underground Railroad, or Frederick Douglass, the Amistad, or any other prominent figures or historical chapters about the pre-Civil War South that one can think of. Looking back with the sensibility of an adult, I am beyond grateful that my mother augmented our school history lessons by insisting that we watch those miniseries, specials and documentaries. Those works made me appreciate the difficult striving of all those in my family who constructed the scaffolding upon which my very comfortable life is built. But as a kid, I would have much rather tuned in to, say, “The Facts of Life” or “Taxi.” So yes, the eat-your-vegetables seriousness with which the topic has heretofore been addressed may influence an uninitiated viewer’s desire to watch “Underground.” A greater factor, however, may be the fact that a significant number of white American viewers don’t like to be reminded that white people used to partake in the exploitation and subjugation of black people. But that stain on America impacts our ability to address social inequality in a fundamental way even now. It’s also incredibly hard to discuss calmly and with meaning. To bring up the topic of white privilege or to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement is to implicitly acknowledge slavery’s continued effect on our culture. Unless we’re talking about “The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore,” there isn’t really a series on television that does that in a sustained, front-and-center fashion. (And Wilmore’s ratings, sad to say, are reportedly 55 percent lower than “The Colbert Report’s” were during the same time period in 2014.) “Underground,” then, is an act of bravery – not only for taking on slavery as a subject for a series as opposed to a mini, or a special, but for pushing aside any implied obligation to be utterly earnest in demonstrating the era’s grimness. It has seized its right to making a thrilling action series that also is heartfelt, honest and emotionally gripping. “Underground’s” first four episodes more than do justice to the subject by not shying away from the tragedy and complexity of the so-called “peculiar institution.” At the same time, creators and executive producers Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, veterans of NBC’s “Heroes,” inject the story with the same fuel utilized in such adventures as “The Great Escape.” Noah forms a team of specialists out of men and women whose intelligence and bravery are underestimated by the oppressors who have dehumanized them. The various subplots includes a few soap opera elements, as a few slaves turn the master-and-servant dynamic on its ear, or keep the audience guessing as to where their allegiances lie. “Underground” employs brave stylistic choices as well. Viewers who sample the drama will immediately notice Legend’s influence on the show’s contemporary soundtrack, further augmented by the work of Raphael Saadiq as the show’s composer. Legend and Saadiq chose to forgo the swelling orchestral strains typical of period pieces, instead using soulful hip-hop breaks and pop music interludes to punctuate the intrigue playing out onscreen. This is not unheard of; the CW’s “Reign” uses the same stylistic tactic in loosely adapting the tale of Queen of Scotland Mary Stuart. Period pieces about royal romance are devoid of cultural controversy, though. And this tactic works more effectively in some scenes than others; hip-hop’s grit and bone-shaking cadence feels in tune with the sweat and struggle of Noah and his compatriots. In contrast, a scene in the third episode employs Problem Child’s “Good to Be Young” to illustrate the festive, decadent air of an antebellum Southern ball – daring, but the thematic disconnect also is jarring. “Underground” defies convention in other more fundamental ways, resisting the temptation to write all of the white characters as drawling racists fond of flowery Foghorn Leghorn-style speechifying (although there are a few of those). If anything, “Underground” takes the interesting tactic of defining several major white characters as participants in slavery purely for economic and political reasons, and not necessarily due to prevailing racial attitudes of the time. Nevertheless, there’s also a heaping dollop of squeamish tension derived from the precarious situation of Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s Rosalee, the young house slave Noah loves, and whose beauty draws threatening attention from the white slave masters and overseers in her orbit. Those scenes in particular, where Rosalee is spoken about in lurid terms while powerful men paw her like a cut of meat, are uncomfortable for anyone to watch. Certainly my mother-in-law, a woman who may be singularly responsible for keeping CBS in business, would not settle into watching those moments with ease. For viewers like her who enjoy the closed-case efficiency of network procedurals and simple comedy of multi-camera half-hours, “Underground” could be a tougher sell. It may also be difficult to convince those who can only digest a story like this if it’s presented with dry gravity, to give the show a shot. The hope – my hope – is that enough viewers continue embracing “Underground” not only to give it a respectably long run on television, but to inspire more series like it.Not long ago I sat with my husband and previewed several episodes of “Underground,” a new drama that premiered last week on WGN America. As the end credits rolled on Episode 2, which airs tonight at 10 p.m. on the cable channel, I asked him whether this is a series he’d willingly watch. He considered the question in silence for a few moments, then nodded. “It takes a while to get to the dramatic hook, but I like the cast and it’s a decent heist story. Sure!” Then I asked him whether his mother – a sweet, gentle, white woman who lives in a small Midwestern city – would watch. Barely missing a beat, he snorted. “Hell no!” There it is, “Underground’s” big challenge: getting people like my mother-in-law, the average television consumer, to watch a series about slavery, one in which the perilous Underground Railroad plays a central role. Making “Underground” something of a different proposition from previous television projects about slavery is that it capitalizes on all the elements of an exciting, high-concept drama while remaining respectful of the subject. Given the tense sociopolitical climate and diversity issues in the entertainment industry, “Underground’s” very existence would be considered by some as a miracle, albeit one no doubt facilitated by having John Legend sign on to the series as an executive producer. Rather, call it a miracle for WGN America’s quickly expanding brand. “Underground’s” series premiere was the most-watched program on WGN America to date, averaging 2.3 million total viewers in its time slot debut, which is about 10 times the network’s prime-time average in season-to-date ratings. Including the three encores that aired on premiere night, the debut’s total viewership swells to 3.5 million, with 1.5 million of those from the coveted adults 25-54 demographic. “Underground” follows an ingenious blacksmith named Noah (Aldis Hodge) as he plans to escape the Georgia plantation where he’s toiled as a slave all his life. A skilled worker, Noah knows he can find work in the North and live as a free man. He also knows that the key to a successful escape is a meticulous plan; early in the premiere, he makes the realization that the one commonality shared by runaway slaves who get caught is that each attempted to make their 600-mile escape alone. Slavery is not a subject most people would willing examine in a meaningful way, and certainly not via prime-time entertainment. That’s because, well, the definition of entertainment connotes an element of amusement or enjoyment, and bearing witness to the brutality of slavery is neither of those things. Look, as an African American woman, I get it. I grew up in a household where viewing any repeats of “Roots” or its sequels “Roots: The Next Generation,” “Roots: The Gift” — possibly the only Christmas special to include a hanging — and much later, “Alex Haley’s Queen,” was mandatory. So were any documentaries about the Underground Railroad, or Frederick Douglass, the Amistad, or any other prominent figures or historical chapters about the pre-Civil War South that one can think of. Looking back with the sensibility of an adult, I am beyond grateful that my mother augmented our school history lessons by insisting that we watch those miniseries, specials and documentaries. Those works made me appreciate the difficult striving of all those in my family who constructed the scaffolding upon which my very comfortable life is built. But as a kid, I would have much rather tuned in to, say, “The Facts of Life” or “Taxi.” So yes, the eat-your-vegetables seriousness with which the topic has heretofore been addressed may influence an uninitiated viewer’s desire to watch “Underground.” A greater factor, however, may be the fact that a significant number of white American viewers don’t like to be reminded that white people used to partake in the exploitation and subjugation of black people. But that stain on America impacts our ability to address social inequality in a fundamental way even now. It’s also incredibly hard to discuss calmly and with meaning. To bring up the topic of white privilege or to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement is to implicitly acknowledge slavery’s continued effect on our culture. Unless we’re talking about “The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore,” there isn’t really a series on television that does that in a sustained, front-and-center fashion. (And Wilmore’s ratings, sad to say, are reportedly 55 percent lower than “The Colbert Report’s” were during the same time period in 2014.) “Underground,” then, is an act of bravery – not only for taking on slavery as a subject for a series as opposed to a mini, or a special, but for pushing aside any implied obligation to be utterly earnest in demonstrating the era’s grimness. It has seized its right to making a thrilling action series that also is heartfelt, honest and emotionally gripping. “Underground’s” first four episodes more than do justice to the subject by not shying away from the tragedy and complexity of the so-called “peculiar institution.” At the same time, creators and executive producers Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, veterans of NBC’s “Heroes,” inject the story with the same fuel utilized in such adventures as “The Great Escape.” Noah forms a team of specialists out of men and women whose intelligence and bravery are underestimated by the oppressors who have dehumanized them. The various subplots includes a few soap opera elements, as a few slaves turn the master-and-servant dynamic on its ear, or keep the audience guessing as to where their allegiances lie. “Underground” employs brave stylistic choices as well. Viewers who sample the drama will immediately notice Legend’s influence on the show’s contemporary soundtrack, further augmented by the work of Raphael Saadiq as the show’s composer. Legend and Saadiq chose to forgo the swelling orchestral strains typical of period pieces, instead using soulful hip-hop breaks and pop music interludes to punctuate the intrigue playing out onscreen. This is not unheard of; the CW’s “Reign” uses the same stylistic tactic in loosely adapting the tale of Queen of Scotland Mary Stuart. Period pieces about royal romance are devoid of cultural controversy, though. And this tactic works more effectively in some scenes than others; hip-hop’s grit and bone-shaking cadence feels in tune with the sweat and struggle of Noah and his compatriots. In contrast, a scene in the third episode employs Problem Child’s “Good to Be Young” to illustrate the festive, decadent air of an antebellum Southern ball – daring, but the thematic disconnect also is jarring. “Underground” defies convention in other more fundamental ways, resisting the temptation to write all of the white characters as drawling racists fond of flowery Foghorn Leghorn-style speechifying (although there are a few of those). If anything, “Underground” takes the interesting tactic of defining several major white characters as participants in slavery purely for economic and political reasons, and not necessarily due to prevailing racial attitudes of the time. Nevertheless, there’s also a heaping dollop of squeamish tension derived from the precarious situation of Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s Rosalee, the young house slave Noah loves, and whose beauty draws threatening attention from the white slave masters and overseers in her orbit. Those scenes in particular, where Rosalee is spoken about in lurid terms while powerful men paw her like a cut of meat, are uncomfortable for anyone to watch. Certainly my mother-in-law, a woman who may be singularly responsible for keeping CBS in business, would not settle into watching those moments with ease. For viewers like her who enjoy the closed-case efficiency of network procedurals and simple comedy of multi-camera half-hours, “Underground” could be a tougher sell. It may also be difficult to convince those who can only digest a story like this if it’s presented with dry gravity, to give the show a shot. The hope – my hope – is that enough viewers continue embracing “Underground” not only to give it a respectably long run on television, but to inspire more series like it.Not long ago I sat with my husband and previewed several episodes of “Underground,” a new drama that premiered last week on WGN America. As the end credits rolled on Episode 2, which airs tonight at 10 p.m. on the cable channel, I asked him whether this is a series he’d willingly watch. He considered the question in silence for a few moments, then nodded. “It takes a while to get to the dramatic hook, but I like the cast and it’s a decent heist story. Sure!” Then I asked him whether his mother – a sweet, gentle, white woman who lives in a small Midwestern city – would watch. Barely missing a beat, he snorted. “Hell no!” There it is, “Underground’s” big challenge: getting people like my mother-in-law, the average television consumer, to watch a series about slavery, one in which the perilous Underground Railroad plays a central role. Making “Underground” something of a different proposition from previous television projects about slavery is that it capitalizes on all the elements of an exciting, high-concept drama while remaining respectful of the subject. Given the tense sociopolitical climate and diversity issues in the entertainment industry, “Underground’s” very existence would be considered by some as a miracle, albeit one no doubt facilitated by having John Legend sign on to the series as an executive producer. Rather, call it a miracle for WGN America’s quickly expanding brand. “Underground’s” series premiere was the most-watched program on WGN America to date, averaging 2.3 million total viewers in its time slot debut, which is about 10 times the network’s prime-time average in season-to-date ratings. Including the three encores that aired on premiere night, the debut’s total viewership swells to 3.5 million, with 1.5 million of those from the coveted adults 25-54 demographic. “Underground” follows an ingenious blacksmith named Noah (Aldis Hodge) as he plans to escape the Georgia plantation where he’s toiled as a slave all his life. A skilled worker, Noah knows he can find work in the North and live as a free man. He also knows that the key to a successful escape is a meticulous plan; early in the premiere, he makes the realization that the one commonality shared by runaway slaves who get caught is that each attempted to make their 600-mile escape alone. Slavery is not a subject most people would willing examine in a meaningful way, and certainly not via prime-time entertainment. That’s because, well, the definition of entertainment connotes an element of amusement or enjoyment, and bearing witness to the brutality of slavery is neither of those things. Look, as an African American woman, I get it. I grew up in a household where viewing any repeats of “Roots” or its sequels “Roots: The Next Generation,” “Roots: The Gift” — possibly the only Christmas special to include a hanging — and much later, “Alex Haley’s Queen,” was mandatory. So were any documentaries about the Underground Railroad, or Frederick Douglass, the Amistad, or any other prominent figures or historical chapters about the pre-Civil War South that one can think of. Looking back with the sensibility of an adult, I am beyond grateful that my mother augmented our school history lessons by insisting that we watch those miniseries, specials and documentaries. Those works made me appreciate the difficult striving of all those in my family who constructed the scaffolding upon which my very comfortable life is built. But as a kid, I would have much rather tuned in to, say, “The Facts of Life” or “Taxi.” So yes, the eat-your-vegetables seriousness with which the topic has heretofore been addressed may influence an uninitiated viewer’s desire to watch “Underground.” A greater factor, however, may be the fact that a significant number of white American viewers don’t like to be reminded that white people used to partake in the exploitation and subjugation of black people. But that stain on America impacts our ability to address social inequality in a fundamental way even now. It’s also incredibly hard to discuss calmly and with meaning. To bring up the topic of white privilege or to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement is to implicitly acknowledge slavery’s continued effect on our culture. Unless we’re talking about “The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore,” there isn’t really a series on television that does that in a sustained, front-and-center fashion. (And Wilmore’s ratings, sad to say, are reportedly 55 percent lower than “The Colbert Report’s” were during the same time period in 2014.) “Underground,” then, is an act of bravery – not only for taking on slavery as a subject for a series as opposed to a mini, or a special, but for pushing aside any implied obligation to be utterly earnest in demonstrating the era’s grimness. It has seized its right to making a thrilling action series that also is heartfelt, honest and emotionally gripping. “Underground’s” first four episodes more than do justice to the subject by not shying away from the tragedy and complexity of the so-called “peculiar institution.” At the same time, creators and executive producers Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, veterans of NBC’s “Heroes,” inject the story with the same fuel utilized in such adventures as “The Great Escape.” Noah forms a team of specialists out of men and women whose intelligence and bravery are underestimated by the oppressors who have dehumanized them. The various subplots includes a few soap opera elements, as a few slaves turn the master-and-servant dynamic on its ear, or keep the audience guessing as to where their allegiances lie. “Underground” employs brave stylistic choices as well. Viewers who sample the drama will immediately notice Legend’s influence on the show’s contemporary soundtrack, further augmented by the work of Raphael Saadiq as the show’s composer. Legend and Saadiq chose to forgo the swelling orchestral strains typical of period pieces, instead using soulful hip-hop breaks and pop music interludes to punctuate the intrigue playing out onscreen. This is not unheard of; the CW’s “Reign” uses the same stylistic tactic in loosely adapting the tale of Queen of Scotland Mary Stuart. Period pieces about royal romance are devoid of cultural controversy, though. And this tactic works more effectively in some scenes than others; hip-hop’s grit and bone-shaking cadence feels in tune with the sweat and struggle of Noah and his compatriots. In contrast, a scene in the third episode employs Problem Child’s “Good to Be Young” to illustrate the festive, decadent air of an antebellum Southern ball – daring, but the thematic disconnect also is jarring. “Underground” defies convention in other more fundamental ways, resisting the temptation to write all of the white characters as drawling racists fond of flowery Foghorn Leghorn-style speechifying (although there are a few of those). If anything, “Underground” takes the interesting tactic of defining several major white characters as participants in slavery purely for economic and political reasons, and not necessarily due to prevailing racial attitudes of the time. Nevertheless, there’s also a heaping dollop of squeamish tension derived from the precarious situation of Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s Rosalee, the young house slave Noah loves, and whose beauty draws threatening attention from the white slave masters and overseers in her orbit. Those scenes in particular, where Rosalee is spoken about in lurid terms while powerful men paw her like a cut of meat, are uncomfortable for anyone to watch. Certainly my mother-in-law, a woman who may be singularly responsible for keeping CBS in business, would not settle into watching those moments with ease. For viewers like her who enjoy the closed-case efficiency of network procedurals and simple comedy of multi-camera half-hours, “Underground” could be a tougher sell. It may also be difficult to convince those who can only digest a story like this if it’s presented with dry gravity, to give the show a shot. The hope – my hope – is that enough viewers continue embracing “Underground” not only to give it a respectably long run on television, but to inspire more series like it.Not long ago I sat with my husband and previewed several episodes of “Underground,” a new drama that premiered last week on WGN America. As the end credits rolled on Episode 2, which airs tonight at 10 p.m. on the cable channel, I asked him whether this is a series he’d willingly watch. He considered the question in silence for a few moments, then nodded. “It takes a while to get to the dramatic hook, but I like the cast and it’s a decent heist story. Sure!” Then I asked him whether his mother – a sweet, gentle, white woman who lives in a small Midwestern city – would watch. Barely missing a beat, he snorted. “Hell no!” There it is, “Underground’s” big challenge: getting people like my mother-in-law, the average television consumer, to watch a series about slavery, one in which the perilous Underground Railroad plays a central role. Making “Underground” something of a different proposition from previous television projects about slavery is that it capitalizes on all the elements of an exciting, high-concept drama while remaining respectful of the subject. Given the tense sociopolitical climate and diversity issues in the entertainment industry, “Underground’s” very existence would be considered by some as a miracle, albeit one no doubt facilitated by having John Legend sign on to the series as an executive producer. Rather, call it a miracle for WGN America’s quickly expanding brand. “Underground’s” series premiere was the most-watched program on WGN America to date, averaging 2.3 million total viewers in its time slot debut, which is about 10 times the network’s prime-time average in season-to-date ratings. Including the three encores that aired on premiere night, the debut’s total viewership swells to 3.5 million, with 1.5 million of those from the coveted adults 25-54 demographic. “Underground” follows an ingenious blacksmith named Noah (Aldis Hodge) as he plans to escape the Georgia plantation where he’s toiled as a slave all his life. A skilled worker, Noah knows he can find work in the North and live as a free man. He also knows that the key to a successful escape is a meticulous plan; early in the premiere, he makes the realization that the one commonality shared by runaway slaves who get caught is that each attempted to make their 600-mile escape alone. Slavery is not a subject most people would willing examine in a meaningful way, and certainly not via prime-time entertainment. That’s because, well, the definition of entertainment connotes an element of amusement or enjoyment, and bearing witness to the brutality of slavery is neither of those things. Look, as an African American woman, I get it. I grew up in a household where viewing any repeats of “Roots” or its sequels “Roots: The Next Generation,” “Roots: The Gift” — possibly the only Christmas special to include a hanging — and much later, “Alex Haley’s Queen,” was mandatory. So were any documentaries about the Underground Railroad, or Frederick Douglass, the Amistad, or any other prominent figures or historical chapters about the pre-Civil War South that one can think of. Looking back with the sensibility of an adult, I am beyond grateful that my mother augmented our school history lessons by insisting that we watch those miniseries, specials and documentaries. Those works made me appreciate the difficult striving of all those in my family who constructed the scaffolding upon which my very comfortable life is built. But as a kid, I would have much rather tuned in to, say, “The Facts of Life” or “Taxi.” So yes, the eat-your-vegetables seriousness with which the topic has heretofore been addressed may influence an uninitiated viewer’s desire to watch “Underground.” A greater factor, however, may be the fact that a significant number of white American viewers don’t like to be reminded that white people used to partake in the exploitation and subjugation of black people. But that stain on America impacts our ability to address social inequality in a fundamental way even now. It’s also incredibly hard to discuss calmly and with meaning. To bring up the topic of white privilege or to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement is to implicitly acknowledge slavery’s continued effect on our culture. Unless we’re talking about “The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore,” there isn’t really a series on television that does that in a sustained, front-and-center fashion. (And Wilmore’s ratings, sad to say, are reportedly 55 percent lower than “The Colbert Report’s” were during the same time period in 2014.) “Underground,” then, is an act of bravery – not only for taking on slavery as a subject for a series as opposed to a mini, or a special, but for pushing aside any implied obligation to be utterly earnest in demonstrating the era’s grimness. It has seized its right to making a thrilling action series that also is heartfelt, honest and emotionally gripping. “Underground’s” first four episodes more than do justice to the subject by not shying away from the tragedy and complexity of the so-called “peculiar institution.” At the same time, creators and executive producers Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, veterans of NBC’s “Heroes,” inject the story with the same fuel utilized in such adventures as “The Great Escape.” Noah forms a team of specialists out of men and women whose intelligence and bravery are underestimated by the oppressors who have dehumanized them. The various subplots includes a few soap opera elements, as a few slaves turn the master-and-servant dynamic on its ear, or keep the audience guessing as to where their allegiances lie. “Underground” employs brave stylistic choices as well. Viewers who sample the drama will immediately notice Legend’s influence on the show’s contemporary soundtrack, further augmented by the work of Raphael Saadiq as the show’s composer. Legend and Saadiq chose to forgo the swelling orchestral strains typical of period pieces, instead using soulful hip-hop breaks and pop music interludes to punctuate the intrigue playing out onscreen. This is not unheard of; the CW’s “Reign” uses the same stylistic tactic in loosely adapting the tale of Queen of Scotland Mary Stuart. Period pieces about royal romance are devoid of cultural controversy, though. And this tactic works more effectively in some scenes than others; hip-hop’s grit and bone-shaking cadence feels in tune with the sweat and struggle of Noah and his compatriots. In contrast, a scene in the third episode employs Problem Child’s “Good to Be Young” to illustrate the festive, decadent air of an antebellum Southern ball – daring, but the thematic disconnect also is jarring. “Underground” defies convention in other more fundamental ways, resisting the temptation to write all of the white characters as drawling racists fond of flowery Foghorn Leghorn-style speechifying (although there are a few of those). If anything, “Underground” takes the interesting tactic of defining several major white characters as participants in slavery purely for economic and political reasons, and not necessarily due to prevailing racial attitudes of the time. Nevertheless, there’s also a heaping dollop of squeamish tension derived from the precarious situation of Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s Rosalee, the young house slave Noah loves, and whose beauty draws threatening attention from the white slave masters and overseers in her orbit. Those scenes in particular, where Rosalee is spoken about in lurid terms while powerful men paw her like a cut of meat, are uncomfortable for anyone to watch. Certainly my mother-in-law, a woman who may be singularly responsible for keeping CBS in business, would not settle into watching those moments with ease. For viewers like her who enjoy the closed-case efficiency of network procedurals and simple comedy of multi-camera half-hours, “Underground” could be a tougher sell. It may also be difficult to convince those who can only digest a story like this if it’s presented with dry gravity, to give the show a shot. The hope – my hope – is that enough viewers continue embracing “Underground” not only to give it a respectably long run on television, but to inspire more series like it.
The new documentary “Trapped” takes viewers to the bloodiest battlefield in the American “war on women”
The forces responsible for the rightward drift of American politics claim to champion personal liberty, limited government and deregulation of services and industry. They are brazen in their hypocritical willingness to violate all of these principles to strip women of their constitutional protections and medical rights. A powerful and essential new documentary, Trapped, from director Dawn Porter exposes how Republicans in state governments have launched a campaign to, in the words of one doctor in the film, “chop away piecemeal at women’s reproductive rights and services.” Constrained by federal law, anti-choice governors and legislators cannot expressly prohibit abortion, but they can pass and enforce regulations that are sufficiently rigid, harsh and expensive to “make abortion a thing of the past in our state,” as former Texas governor Rick Perry announced. Regulations include limiting abortions, even when administered in pill form, to surgical centers with costly equipment and employees, requiring doctors who perform abortions to acquire admittance privileges at local hospitals where the Christian conservative culture views them as the enemy, and prohibiting the opening of a clinic within 1,500 feet of a school or church. Legislators also demand that licensed medical professionals lie to their patients, telling women abortion “can increase their chances of getting breast cancer,” even though no scientific evidence supports that claim. The most famous attack on women’s rights and health happened in Texas with the controversial bill HB2, currently under review in the Supreme Court. Wendy Davis rose to national prominence with her heroic filibuster of the measure, but Perry eventually signed it into law. Prior to its passage, 40 clinics in Texas offered abortion services. Now, there are six. Mississippi has only one clinic, while a handful remain open in Alabama. One study estimates that since the passage of these laws, from 100,000 to 240,000 women in Texas have attempted to induce abortions for themselves, or have sought services from unregulated and unsafe providers. Filmmaker Dawn Porter takes viewers to the bloodiest battlefield in the American “war on women,” and creates an unsettling and infuriating document of the heartache and hardships the religious right deliberately inflict upon women seeking services that are both legal and safe. Surprisingly, the film is as encouraging as it is disturbing. The doctors, women’s health center operators and nurses Porter profiles in her film display an everyday strength as they struggle to serve women, including rape victims, against the avalanche of assault from clerical bullies and vicious agents of big government. I recently had the opportunity to speak to Porter over the phone. David Masciotra: Congratulations on making such a powerful and profound documentary. I expected to find it unsettling, but I was surprised to also find it inspiring. That surprise was the result of the way you chronicled the lives of the service providers, doctors and nurses. Dawn Porter: Thank you. I’m glad you got that, because I felt it and still feel it. When you see inspiration in stories, it is important to show it. No one wants to feel hopeless, and we don’t need to feel hopeless. We need to feel aware, but sometimes, because we have so much information coming at us, it becomes overwhelming. What the service providers are doing is remarkable and ordinary. They are determined and principled, but they are regular. I think there are more people like that than we see. DM: The novelist James Lee Burke once said that “the important battles are being fought in places no one has ever heard of.” Our culture has such a grand conception of courage that we often lose the ordinariness of many people’s courage and heroism. DP: Yes, it's easy to celebrate people who make grand gestures, but I see many people who are quietly courageous and heroic. Seeing those people is watching democracy live. The people in this film don’t give up, and they are very American. They are very entrepreneurial. They are problem-solvers. DM: What ignited your passion, and what provoked you to make an entire documentary about it? DP: I was in Jackson, Mississippi, making another film, and I read in their local paper that there was just one clinic left in the entire state. I was floored by it. I just assumed that in this age of Roe v. Wade that there would be many clinics. By comparison, in the New York City area, there are 80. Now, there are six states with just one clinic open. I became interested in how the political process was closing clinics. It isn’t violence or extremism, it is our legitimate political process. I’m a lawyer by training, and a political scientist, but I became fascinated with watching individuals fighting to remain open and keep these services available, as they should be. DM: I was surprised by how brazen many state officials are at articulating the real agenda of their actions. I was familiar with the phony pretext of “protecting women’s health,” but I was surprised seeing Perry, and others, state explicitly, “We want to end abortion.” DP: It is chilling, and astounding. They have a total disregard for our laws and Constitution. DM: Is one of the hopes and purposes of your documentary to encourage people to pay more attention to state politics, and become more involved and invested at that level? DP: Yes, absolutely. Barack Obama wins in 2008, and in 2010 there is a pretty intense political backlash, and one of their first political acts was to start passing prohibitive regulations on abortion. There have now been more than 250 laws targeting abortion clinics passed. The state level is incredibly important. It really governs our day to day in ways more profound than the president. Every two years we also elect our congressmen and women. We can have a significant impact on how we are governed by voting. Eighty percent of the American people believe abortion should be available in at least some circumstances, yet we have these laws closing down clinics. Where is the political disconnect there? That’s what the documentary is about. DM: Do you believe your documentary has relevance to the presidential race, because of the importance of judicial appointments that the president makes? DP: The presidency is so important not just for the present, but for an entire generation. Supreme Court appointments are for life. The next president will appoint not just one, but possibly three justices. We need someone who is able and qualified to govern. The stakes are high here. The case challenging HB2 is the most significant one on abortion rights in the last two decades. DM: One of the service providers states in the documentary, “We need to stop shaming women over abortion.” Is that something you wanted to explore in the film? DP: I had never been in an abortion clinic. I did not know what to expect. I realized once I started filming that I had really internalized the negative messaging about clinics. I thought about that a lot. We do not discuss abortion outside of politics, and in court cases, it is framed in the terms of privacy: something not to be discussed. We’ve created a culture of silence. Yet, 1 in 3 women under the age of 45 have had an abortion. It is an incredibly common experience for women, but so many women feel alone. I spent time in six different clinics—a lot of time in clinics. I saw over and over, women beating themselves up and feeling ashamed and alone. Much of what the service providers do is try to reverse that. They try to create a safe, warm and welcoming environment, because that is what good medical care is about, and this is medical care. It was striking and sad to me how ashamed many women felt, and how they felt the need to justify their decisions. At first, I wanted to show the range of reasons women have abortions, but then I felt, it is none of my business. We put too much pressure on women, and it is not helpful to their mental or physical well-being. Many of the reproductive rights organizations are trying to get women to talk more about their experiences, and I think that is helpful. We need to talk about how common it is, and how important it is for women to have a safe place for it. DM: One of the major sources of shame for women around abortion is religion. I went into the documentary prepared to vilify religious people, and while it certainly has its villains like Judge Roy Moore, I was surprised that the abortion providers are also religious. There is even a scene of some of them praying together before they are confronted by a threatening mob of protesters. What do you make of that conflict and contrast? DP: I grew up in the northeast where religion is not part of daily life like it is in southern communities. All of the abortion providers and staff go to church, and all of them have their spirituality. I thought it was refreshing to see people unwilling to cede religious belief to extremists. In one of the doctor’s views, God is the source of comfort and compassion, and that’s how he practices his religious beliefs. I’ve had so many people react to this film by thanking me for that alone, for showing that there are many people like that. DM: You’ve already mentioned some surprises of your experience shooting the film. Is there anything else you learned that you did not know before beginning the process? DP: It was a hard film to make. The clinic operators and staff are strapped and stressed, because of these laws. The legislation is changing, by design to make compliance more difficult, rapidly and constantly. In terms of what surprised me, I have to say that so many elected officials are being terribly dishonest. Call me naïve, but I found the level of it shocking. I feel like if you are opposed to abortion, that’s your right, but too many officials are deceptive in their tactics, and they are putting misinformation in the hands of women. They say there are breast cancer risks with abortion. They even imply that there are criminal penalties for seeking an abortion. Much of it is empowered by these regressive religious communities throughout the South, and they create a culture of fear. None of that is healthy for a democratic society. But there are also stronger progressive communities in that same region, more so than many people think. I hope this film is a good starting point for people to see how important and complex this issue is. David Masciotra is the author of "Mellencamp: American Troubadour" (University Press of Kentucky). He has also written for Salon, the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Review of Books. For more information visit www.davidmasciotra.com.
The forces responsible for the rightward drift of American politics claim to champion personal liberty, limited government and deregulation of services and industry. They are brazen in their hypocritical willingness to violate all of these principles to strip women of their constitutional protections and medical rights. A powerful and essential new documentary, Trapped, from director Dawn Porter exposes how Republicans in state governments have launched a campaign to, in the words of one doctor in the film, “chop away piecemeal at women’s reproductive rights and services.” Constrained by federal law, anti-choice governors and legislators cannot expressly prohibit abortion, but they can pass and enforce regulations that are sufficiently rigid, harsh and expensive to “make abortion a thing of the past in our state,” as former Texas governor Rick Perry announced. Regulations include limiting abortions, even when administered in pill form, to surgical centers with costly equipment and employees, requiring doctors who perform abortions to acquire admittance privileges at local hospitals where the Christian conservative culture views them as the enemy, and prohibiting the opening of a clinic within 1,500 feet of a school or church. Legislators also demand that licensed medical professionals lie to their patients, telling women abortion “can increase their chances of getting breast cancer,” even though no scientific evidence supports that claim. The most famous attack on women’s rights and health happened in Texas with the controversial bill HB2, currently under review in the Supreme Court. Wendy Davis rose to national prominence with her heroic filibuster of the measure, but Perry eventually signed it into law. Prior to its passage, 40 clinics in Texas offered abortion services. Now, there are six. Mississippi has only one clinic, while a handful remain open in Alabama. One study estimates that since the passage of these laws, from 100,000 to 240,000 women in Texas have attempted to induce abortions for themselves, or have sought services from unregulated and unsafe providers. Filmmaker Dawn Porter takes viewers to the bloodiest battlefield in the American “war on women,” and creates an unsettling and infuriating document of the heartache and hardships the religious right deliberately inflict upon women seeking services that are both legal and safe. Surprisingly, the film is as encouraging as it is disturbing. The doctors, women’s health center operators and nurses Porter profiles in her film display an everyday strength as they struggle to serve women, including rape victims, against the avalanche of assault from clerical bullies and vicious agents of big government. I recently had the opportunity to speak to Porter over the phone. David Masciotra: Congratulations on making such a powerful and profound documentary. I expected to find it unsettling, but I was surprised to also find it inspiring. That surprise was the result of the way you chronicled the lives of the service providers, doctors and nurses. Dawn Porter: Thank you. I’m glad you got that, because I felt it and still feel it. When you see inspiration in stories, it is important to show it. No one wants to feel hopeless, and we don’t need to feel hopeless. We need to feel aware, but sometimes, because we have so much information coming at us, it becomes overwhelming. What the service providers are doing is remarkable and ordinary. They are determined and principled, but they are regular. I think there are more people like that than we see. DM: The novelist James Lee Burke once said that “the important battles are being fought in places no one has ever heard of.” Our culture has such a grand conception of courage that we often lose the ordinariness of many people’s courage and heroism. DP: Yes, it's easy to celebrate people who make grand gestures, but I see many people who are quietly courageous and heroic. Seeing those people is watching democracy live. The people in this film don’t give up, and they are very American. They are very entrepreneurial. They are problem-solvers. DM: What ignited your passion, and what provoked you to make an entire documentary about it? DP: I was in Jackson, Mississippi, making another film, and I read in their local paper that there was just one clinic left in the entire state. I was floored by it. I just assumed that in this age of Roe v. Wade that there would be many clinics. By comparison, in the New York City area, there are 80. Now, there are six states with just one clinic open. I became interested in how the political process was closing clinics. It isn’t violence or extremism, it is our legitimate political process. I’m a lawyer by training, and a political scientist, but I became fascinated with watching individuals fighting to remain open and keep these services available, as they should be. DM: I was surprised by how brazen many state officials are at articulating the real agenda of their actions. I was familiar with the phony pretext of “protecting women’s health,” but I was surprised seeing Perry, and others, state explicitly, “We want to end abortion.” DP: It is chilling, and astounding. They have a total disregard for our laws and Constitution. DM: Is one of the hopes and purposes of your documentary to encourage people to pay more attention to state politics, and become more involved and invested at that level? DP: Yes, absolutely. Barack Obama wins in 2008, and in 2010 there is a pretty intense political backlash, and one of their first political acts was to start passing prohibitive regulations on abortion. There have now been more than 250 laws targeting abortion clinics passed. The state level is incredibly important. It really governs our day to day in ways more profound than the president. Every two years we also elect our congressmen and women. We can have a significant impact on how we are governed by voting. Eighty percent of the American people believe abortion should be available in at least some circumstances, yet we have these laws closing down clinics. Where is the political disconnect there? That’s what the documentary is about. DM: Do you believe your documentary has relevance to the presidential race, because of the importance of judicial appointments that the president makes? DP: The presidency is so important not just for the present, but for an entire generation. Supreme Court appointments are for life. The next president will appoint not just one, but possibly three justices. We need someone who is able and qualified to govern. The stakes are high here. The case challenging HB2 is the most significant one on abortion rights in the last two decades. DM: One of the service providers states in the documentary, “We need to stop shaming women over abortion.” Is that something you wanted to explore in the film? DP: I had never been in an abortion clinic. I did not know what to expect. I realized once I started filming that I had really internalized the negative messaging about clinics. I thought about that a lot. We do not discuss abortion outside of politics, and in court cases, it is framed in the terms of privacy: something not to be discussed. We’ve created a culture of silence. Yet, 1 in 3 women under the age of 45 have had an abortion. It is an incredibly common experience for women, but so many women feel alone. I spent time in six different clinics—a lot of time in clinics. I saw over and over, women beating themselves up and feeling ashamed and alone. Much of what the service providers do is try to reverse that. They try to create a safe, warm and welcoming environment, because that is what good medical care is about, and this is medical care. It was striking and sad to me how ashamed many women felt, and how they felt the need to justify their decisions. At first, I wanted to show the range of reasons women have abortions, but then I felt, it is none of my business. We put too much pressure on women, and it is not helpful to their mental or physical well-being. Many of the reproductive rights organizations are trying to get women to talk more about their experiences, and I think that is helpful. We need to talk about how common it is, and how important it is for women to have a safe place for it. DM: One of the major sources of shame for women around abortion is religion. I went into the documentary prepared to vilify religious people, and while it certainly has its villains like Judge Roy Moore, I was surprised that the abortion providers are also religious. There is even a scene of some of them praying together before they are confronted by a threatening mob of protesters. What do you make of that conflict and contrast? DP: I grew up in the northeast where religion is not part of daily life like it is in southern communities. All of the abortion providers and staff go to church, and all of them have their spirituality. I thought it was refreshing to see people unwilling to cede religious belief to extremists. In one of the doctor’s views, God is the source of comfort and compassion, and that’s how he practices his religious beliefs. I’ve had so many people react to this film by thanking me for that alone, for showing that there are many people like that. DM: You’ve already mentioned some surprises of your experience shooting the film. Is there anything else you learned that you did not know before beginning the process? DP: It was a hard film to make. The clinic operators and staff are strapped and stressed, because of these laws. The legislation is changing, by design to make compliance more difficult, rapidly and constantly. In terms of what surprised me, I have to say that so many elected officials are being terribly dishonest. Call me naïve, but I found the level of it shocking. I feel like if you are opposed to abortion, that’s your right, but too many officials are deceptive in their tactics, and they are putting misinformation in the hands of women. They say there are breast cancer risks with abortion. They even imply that there are criminal penalties for seeking an abortion. Much of it is empowered by these regressive religious communities throughout the South, and they create a culture of fear. None of that is healthy for a democratic society. But there are also stronger progressive communities in that same region, more so than many people think. I hope this film is a good starting point for people to see how important and complex this issue is. David Masciotra is the author of "Mellencamp: American Troubadour" (University Press of Kentucky). He has also written for Salon, the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Review of Books. For more information visit www.davidmasciotra.com. 
Our nominee is a disaster: Time may be running out, but Democrats will come to rue Clinton over Sanders
Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat not linked to an FBI investigation. If this doesn't mean anything to you, then you're too terrified of Trump's rallies to realize that Clinton could get indicted. Also, if you can't fathom the possibility of Donald Trump winning, then keep in mind that most Americans don't trust or like Hillary Clinton. A general election isn't a popularity contest among Democrats. In 10 out of 10 national polls regarding favorability, Hillary Clinton has negative favorability ratings nationally in all 10. Be very careful what you wish for, because most Americans have an unfavorable view of Clinton and Bernie Sanders already beats Trump by a wider margin. I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and I explain why in this YouTube segment. Most importantly, Democrats should remember that 33% of Bernie Sanders voters will refuse to vote for Clinton in November, if she becomes nominee. As stated by The Wall Street Journa
l
, there are a great many Bernie Sanders supporters like myself:
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers in order to win the White House.So, you can replay the unrest at Trump rallies one million more times (we know how that terrified voters into choosing Clinton the other day), but I'll just show you this video of the typical IED blast that American soldiers had to battle in Iraq. Between half to two-thirds of all the American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of IED blasts, and Hillary Clinton advocated sending U.S. ground troops back to the Middle East last November. I called Donald Trump a clown and buffoon when I appeared on CNN, but Hillary Clinton in many ways is worse. Why? Bill Kristol and other neoconservatives would rather see Hillary Clinton in the White House than Trump, so while I'll never vote for Trump, I'll never vote for a Democrat with a neoconservative foreign policy. I explained last year during an appearance on MSNBC that Republicans want another ground war, and I know very well that Hillary Clinton will give them their wish. Of course, IED's and perpetual wars that we send American soldiers to fight don't bother certain Democrats. Sadly, most Democrats don't care about how Hillary Clinton plans to utilize the AUMF, and certainly don't comprehend the ramifications of merging both political parties into one on matters of war and foreign policy. Also, Hillary Clinton's private server indeed experienced hacking attempts from various nations and Russia-linked hackers. Bryan Pagliano's immunity will allow him to tell the FBI every detail of Clinton's server, in addition to why she had the server in the first place. The moment Bryan Pagliano was given immunity was the moment Bernie Sanders became the nominee; indictments are most likely around the corner. However, if Clinton ends up winning the nomination, then I'm writing-in Bernie's name, and no amount of fear-mongering can influence a person who sees the DNC for what it's become; a political machine that values power and party loyalty, without adherence to core ideals or principle. The same could also be said for its prized candidates and many of its supporters. At least, the Republicans are loyal to their insane views, while many Democrats have worked hard to mock the genuine progressives who've rallied behind Bernie Sanders. Have you ever wondered why this dynamic exists? The lesser evil theory should also apply to the long-term future of the Democratic Party. We only have a two-party system and if Clinton moves the country even further to the right in terms of war, foreign policy, Wall Street and other issues, then we essentially have a one-party system. Why did Trump contribute money to Clinton's Senate campaigns and Foundation? Why did Bill Clinton and Donald Trump go golfing and why did the Clintons go to Trump's wedding? At some point, people like Bill and Hillary Clinton must learn that their duplicity, in terms of overt leaning towards conservative policies (read Michelle Alexander's Nation piece) must come with peaceful political repercussions from a disenchanted base. In today's world, Trump's overt racism is evil, but Hillary Clinton's reference to black youth as "super predators," her 3 a. m. ad against Obama, Clinton's willingness to accept prison lobbyist donations (after Bill Clinton apologized for mass incarceration) and her racist 2008 campaign isn't evil; it's just politics. The problem with Hillary supporters is that they have no concept of hypocrisy. When a political party knows it can side with Bush on Iraq, evolve on gay marriage all the way until 2013, accept prison lobbyist donations after "apologizing" for mass incarceration, and still expect to rally the faithful and obedient masses in November, then American democracy has a problem. Also, Trump needs Congress to implement his crazy schemes and nothing he's spewed can be done unilaterally, aside from war, and he's less hawkish militarily than Clinton! I still want to see Clinton's Goldman Sachs transcripts. I still want to see Clinton's 22 Top Secret emails that the State Department won't allow Americans to view, but the Clinton campaign feels is simply over-classification. Please excuse my loyalty to Bernie Sanders over the political party that's sided with Republicans on numerous topics, when Sanders wants to address structural issues pertaining to Wall Street and foreign policy. There are those in the media and American politics who would allow Hillary Clinton and the DNC to get away with virtually anything, without the slightest fear of how these actions might affect a general election. Thus, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and every other top Democratic leader can act with impunity, and expect The Daily Banters and Beasts of the world to defend them, regardless of whether or not Democrats morph into moderate Republicans. I'm never voting for anyone who believed Bush's intelligence on Iraq, because Bernie Sanders used the same intelligence and voted against the invasion. I'm never voting for a political dynasty that incarcerated more Americans than any presidency in history, because unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders doesn't take prison lobbyist donations and addressed prison reform long before 2016. I'm never voting for a person I consider a liar. If you consider me a liar for my support of Warren, Webb and O'Malley before Sanders, or even an article on a Republican I wrote simply to protest perpetual wars, then don't vote for me when I run for president. Yes, Clinton supporters rely on a childish and dangerous form of moral relativism, blissfully ignoring the irony that on each topic, their candidate is worse than the morally relative comparison. But Sanders supported the F-35! Ok, but that was a weapons system, and Hillary Clinton is a neocon with a weapons deal scandal, voted for Iraq, and has an ongoing FBI investigation. Checkmate. End of debate. I'm not voting for a person who won't break up Too Big to Fail Banks, or reinstate Glass Steagall, because Bernie Sanders already wants to implement these safeguards; before the next financial collapse, not after. I'm not voting for someone linked to an FBI investigation. One Nixon is enough for me, and I don't need to rally behind a person who adores Nixon's closest associate, Henry Kissinger. As for pragmatism, Clinton or one of her aides could be indicted at any moment before or after the election, so you better vote for Bernie Sanders if you don't want Trump, or you fear impeachment during Clinton's first or second year in office, if she wins the election. It's important to have principles in life, and I'm never voting for anyone who says "I've always tried" to tell the truth. Therefore, I'm never "falling in line," or pledging allegiance to Hillary or the DNC. I'm an American first, before any party loyalty, and I'm voting my conscience. You vote your conscience, and don't forget to ask why Donald Trump donated money to Clinton's Senate campaigns. That being said, Bernie Sanders is still the front-runner. Clinton could get FBI and Justice Department indictments at any moment, and future primaries are favorable to Sanders. This is far from over. (This article first appeared on The Huffington Post)
Obama’s SCOTUS pick: With Trump surging, the president has put the Senate GOP in a tough spot now that’s he’s tapped Merrick Garland
President Obama has finally made his pick for what is probably the worst, most thankless job in Washington: Merrick Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is his new nominee for the Supreme Court. The nomination will now go to the Senate, where the Republican majority has promised it will not proceed past their impregnable wall of principled obstruction. As far as the timing goes, the president could hardly have picked a better moment to confront the Republican obstructionism in the Senate. Ever since Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly last month, the Republicans in Congress have insisted that his successor to the high court must be nominated by the next president. The American people, they insisted, should have a say in who gets to fill that vacancy. They pretended that this stance was rooted in principle and precedent, but it was and is all about political power: the Republicans wanted to keep open the possibility that a Republican president would pick Scalia’s successor and restore the court’s 5-4 conservative majority. At the time, it seemed at least possible that someone like Marco Rubio or even (Senate Judiciary Committee member) Ted Cruz could be that president. But since then, it’s become impossible to deny that that likely Republican nominee is former reality TV star Donald Trump. Tuesday's night’s slate of primaries only further strengthened his grip on the nomination – he padded his delegate lead, denied Cruz the upset victories he was looking for, and bounced Rubio from the contest altogether. And now Obama has put the choice to the Republicans: are you going to consider the long-serving and widely respected judge that I’ve nominated, or will you risk letting a corrupt billionaire scam artist who lacks a basic understanding of how government works make the pick? Segments of the Senate Republican caucus have spent the past month either sounding alarms about a Trump victory or actively opposing his candidacy – now they’re going to argue that he has a stronger claim to this nomination than the sitting president? The political bind for the GOP on this is brutal. And already we’re seeing some cracks in the obstructionist façade. Two vulnerable Senate Republicans up for election in blue states this year – Illinois’ Mark Kirk and New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte – have broken with the GOP leadership and said they’ll meet with Garland. Sen. Pat Toomey tweeted that he’d be happy to consider Garland’s nomination, but only if he’s re-nominated by Obama’s successor. And Sen. Orrin Hatch told reporters he’d be open to considering Garland’s nomination during the lame-duck session after the election, which completely undercuts the Republicans’ argument that “the people” should have some say. As for the nominee himself, Obama’s selection of Garland scrambles the political calculations on both left and right. As ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, Garland isn’t the dream pick for liberals – he has a “reputation for moderation,” and he has a “relatively conservative record on criminal justice.” Garland is also a relatively old nominee, and he’s a white guy looking to succeed another white guy on the court. The White House’s political calculation seems to be to make it as difficult as possible for Republicans to obstruct the nominee. They can’t dismiss Garland as a wild-eyed liberal, they can’t deploy the sort of dog-whistling racial politics that marred Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation process, and the public record is studded with quotes from prominent Republicans and conservatives praising Garland. If one were to make the (still foolish) assumption that the GOP blockade could be broken, one would have to think that Merrick Garland is one of the few nominees who could do it. The risk in selecting Gardland, however, is that the White House may not have liberal backing in trying to push the nomination through. President Obama’s put the GOP in a tough spot politically with the Garland pick, but he’s left his own base out in the cold to get there.
“I had like a whole eight ball in one pocket, half an eight ball in the other”: Steve-O describes his insane 3-hour bathroom coke binge with Mike Tyson
Steve "Steve-O" Glover, of "Jackass" franchise fame, opened up about his notoriously destructive and drug-addicted past in a new interview with GQ. The eight-years-sober Steve-O described a Hollywood Hills party at which he spent three hours locked in a bathroom smoking pure powder cocaine in a hollowed-out cigarette with Mike Tyson. "I remember I was distinctly not invited, but I showed up and rang the doorbell. Mike Tyson opened up the door," Steve-O recalled. "I said, 'Hey, is it cool if I come in?' And he said, 'You got any coke?' And I told him, 'Yeah, dude, I got a bunch.' And I did. I had like a whole eight ball in one pocket, half an eight ball in the other pocket." On the bathroom floor, Steve-O made perhaps his riskiest by calling himself the n-word in front of the former-heavyweight boxing champion. Tyson, however, affirmatively replied, "You ask me, the definition of that word is anybody who uses it." So the two continued to discuss "the finer points of racism in America ... just sort of philosophizing about how to make the world a better place, and it was just fucking incredible, man." Steve-O said the next time he and Tyson spent significant time with each other was in "the psychiatric ward together." Asked if he can recall a definitive low-point of his drug addiction, Steve-O recounted showing up to his dealer's house because he wouldn't answer his phone. His dealer would shoot up cocaine and, therefore, left dried blood droplets all over the place. Desperate for a fix, Steve-O snorted a mixture of cocaine and dried blood from a table where his dealer would weigh his product. "That’s probably the lowest point I can recall," he said. "And I can’t imagine trying much harder to contract AIDS. And thankfully, I didn’t." Read the full interview at GQ.Steve "Steve-O" Glover, of "Jackass" franchise fame, opened up about his notoriously destructive and drug-addicted past in a new interview with GQ. The eight-years-sober Steve-O described a Hollywood Hills party at which he spent three hours locked in a bathroom smoking pure powder cocaine in a hollowed-out cigarette with Mike Tyson. "I remember I was distinctly not invited, but I showed up and rang the doorbell. Mike Tyson opened up the door," Steve-O recalled. "I said, 'Hey, is it cool if I come in?' And he said, 'You got any coke?' And I told him, 'Yeah, dude, I got a bunch.' And I did. I had like a whole eight ball in one pocket, half an eight ball in the other pocket." On the bathroom floor, Steve-O made perhaps his riskiest by calling himself the n-word in front of the former-heavyweight boxing champion. Tyson, however, affirmatively replied, "You ask me, the definition of that word is anybody who uses it." So the two continued to discuss "the finer points of racism in America ... just sort of philosophizing about how to make the world a better place, and it was just fucking incredible, man." Steve-O said the next time he and Tyson spent significant time with each other was in "the psychiatric ward together." Asked if he can recall a definitive low-point of his drug addiction, Steve-O recounted showing up to his dealer's house because he wouldn't answer his phone. His dealer would shoot up cocaine and, therefore, left dried blood droplets all over the place. Desperate for a fix, Steve-O snorted a mixture of cocaine and dried blood from a table where his dealer would weigh his product. "That’s probably the lowest point I can recall," he said. "And I can’t imagine trying much harder to contract AIDS. And thankfully, I didn’t." Read the full interview at GQ.Steve "Steve-O" Glover, of "Jackass" franchise fame, opened up about his notoriously destructive and drug-addicted past in a new interview with GQ. The eight-years-sober Steve-O described a Hollywood Hills party at which he spent three hours locked in a bathroom smoking pure powder cocaine in a hollowed-out cigarette with Mike Tyson. "I remember I was distinctly not invited, but I showed up and rang the doorbell. Mike Tyson opened up the door," Steve-O recalled. "I said, 'Hey, is it cool if I come in?' And he said, 'You got any coke?' And I told him, 'Yeah, dude, I got a bunch.' And I did. I had like a whole eight ball in one pocket, half an eight ball in the other pocket." On the bathroom floor, Steve-O made perhaps his riskiest by calling himself the n-word in front of the former-heavyweight boxing champion. Tyson, however, affirmatively replied, "You ask me, the definition of that word is anybody who uses it." So the two continued to discuss "the finer points of racism in America ... just sort of philosophizing about how to make the world a better place, and it was just fucking incredible, man." Steve-O said the next time he and Tyson spent significant time with each other was in "the psychiatric ward together." Asked if he can recall a definitive low-point of his drug addiction, Steve-O recounted showing up to his dealer's house because he wouldn't answer his phone. His dealer would shoot up cocaine and, therefore, left dried blood droplets all over the place. Desperate for a fix, Steve-O snorted a mixture of cocaine and dried blood from a table where his dealer would weigh his product. "That’s probably the lowest point I can recall," he said. "And I can’t imagine trying much harder to contract AIDS. And thankfully, I didn’t." Read the full interview at GQ.
Mitch McConnell cites non-existent clause in the “Biden Rule” as reason there will be no Senate hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor today and declared that President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia will not receive a hearing. "The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction," McConnell said. "The senate will continue to observe the 'Biden Rule' so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision," he added, without acknowledging that the "Biden Rule" has little to do with outgoing presidents nominating people to the Supreme Court. (Biden made an observation to the effect that if an outgoing president nominates someone before the summer of his last term in office, that person typically receives the Senate's approval, but that if he or she is nominated during the summer, that person does not -- meaning that McConnell even gets what could be called the "Biden Observation" wrong.) "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell concluded. "The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this -- give the people a voice in filling this vacancy." Watch McConnell's statement in the Senate below via MSNBC. https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/7101...
March 15, 2016
Sanders denied a rust belt comeback: Clinton sweeps Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina
There will be no historic or surprising upset in the Democratic primaries tonight. Hillary Clinton won all five states on this Super, Super, Super Tuesday. A week after pulling off a Michigan miracle, Bernie Sanders finds himself virtually shut out of a path to the Democratic nomination after losing in Ohio to Clinton. More than twenty minutes after midnight EST, Clinton's birth state was finally called in her favor by CNN. Clinton lead Sanders 50.5 percent to 48.6 percent. Shortly before 1am EST, NBC News called Missouri for the former secretary of state as well. Earlier in the night, Clinton had also been projected the winner in Florida, delivering her fifth win of the night after also taking North Carolina, where 107 pledged delegates are up for grabs. Clinton's dominance in the South remains unbroken and her huge margins of victories with African-Americans looks to be holding up in both Ohio and Florida, according to exit polls. And unlike in Michigan, Clinton managed to win white voters in Ohio, 51 percent to 48 percent. "We are moving closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination and winning this election in November," Clinton said in a victory speech in West Palm Beach, Florida. Clinton trounced Sanders in Florida, where 214 pledged delegates are up for stakes. Despite losing on fertile ground to Clinton in Ohio on Tuesday, Sanders still has a whole host of friendly territory coming up, including Wisconsin on April 5. Clinton, however, holds a more than 2,450,000 vote lead over Sanders, according to Real Clear Politics: There will be no historic or surprising upset in the Democratic primaries tonight. Hillary Clinton won all five states on this Super, Super, Super Tuesday. A week after pulling off a Michigan miracle, Bernie Sanders finds himself virtually shut out of a path to the Democratic nomination after losing in Ohio to Clinton. More than twenty minutes after midnight EST, Clinton's birth state was finally called in her favor by CNN. Clinton lead Sanders 50.5 percent to 48.6 percent. Shortly before 1am EST, NBC News called Missouri for the former secretary of state as well. Earlier in the night, Clinton had also been projected the winner in Florida, delivering her fifth win of the night after also taking North Carolina, where 107 pledged delegates are up for grabs. Clinton's dominance in the South remains unbroken and her huge margins of victories with African-Americans looks to be holding up in both Ohio and Florida, according to exit polls. And unlike in Michigan, Clinton managed to win white voters in Ohio, 51 percent to 48 percent. "We are moving closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination and winning this election in November," Clinton said in a victory speech in West Palm Beach, Florida. Clinton trounced Sanders in Florida, where 214 pledged delegates are up for stakes. Despite losing on fertile ground to Clinton in Ohio on Tuesday, Sanders still has a whole host of friendly territory coming up, including Wisconsin on April 5. Clinton, however, holds a more than 2,450,000 vote lead over Sanders, according to Real Clear Politics:
