Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 849

#JusticeForFlint’s radical love: While Oscar’s glamour beckoned, the real artists helped Flint be seen and heard

It’s easy to denigrate artists as self-indulgent pansies. From Plato’s Republic to H.G. Wells' modern Utopia, literary visions of a perfect world have routinely shed the “useless” artist in favor of the practical artisan.  We don’t need painters to survive. Not exactly. But society devolves very quickly once the artists are gone. Come the Apocalypse, and musicians, dancers, writers and artists of every shape and stripe will simply have vanished from the dystopian landscape. Try finding a guitarist among the living in “The Walking Dead,” a poet (as opposed to a writer of doggerel) in "The Hunger Games,” or anyone attempting visual art in any sci-fi fantasy produced in the 21st century. It’s not because artists are wimpy creatures unable to withstand the hardship of honest labor. It’s the opposite. In every society, true artists are radicals. The word "radical" means “going to the root, to the origins,” with the goal of rooting out rot and seeking fundamental change. Dystopia is what happens when governments decide it’s easier to execute the artists than listen to what they have to say. In other words, dystopia isn’t the opposite of utopia. It’s the natural outcome of seeking perfection for perfection’s own shallow sake. At the Oscars award ceremony, I saw actors of many kinds participating in a culture of compliance in exchange for fame, money, power. I beheld couture dresses, bespoke suits, and lips moving as rehearsed words fell out. A sea of smiling faces as director Alejandro G. Iñárritu, bless him, earnestly accepted his Oscar for best director with a speech that boiled down to a plea for colorblind casting, even as the music cueing him off the stage was that most stirring of Nazi anthems and Hitler’s musical obsession: Richard Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” from the opera "The Ring of the Nibelung." My jaw dropped. Here you have the one guy at both the 2015 and 2016 #OscarsSoWhite nominated for a major non-technical feature film award who wasn’t one of the Aryan tribe, and the producer picked the soundtrack of the Third Reich to drown out his Pollyannaish views on race? https://twitter.com/DanielJCoe/status... The in-house audience kept smiling, oblivious to the intensely (white) nationalist meaning of the music.  But musicians heard those sweeping strains and understood what they meant. Artists remember things like the anti-Semitic symbolism baked into an opera about the mythic origins of the German Fatherland and the rise of the übermensch. However, artists weren’t at the Oscar awards ceremony, a red-carpeted room packed instead with many performers. The artists were on the other side of the country, putting on a concert to raise money and awareness for the people of Flint, Michigan. The people whose impoverished, majority black community has already fallen out of the news cycle. The people who still don’t have clean water. The people whose children who are forever poisoned, forever changed, forever damaged in innumerable ways by a government that failed them. Those people. The contrasts between the two events were stark. Organized by directors Ava DuVernay and Ryan Coogler in conjunction with the advocacy group #BlackoutForHumanRights, #JusticeForFlint seems, at first glance, like a giant FU to the Oscars. https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/stat... https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/stat... The ultimate in counter-programming, live-streamed on Sean Combs’ Revolt TV, #JusticeForFlint featured musical performances by Estelle, Vic Mensa, Jazmine Sullivan, Musiq Soulchild, Janelle Monáe and surprise guest Stevie Wonder. But #JusticeForFlint was not a protest against #OscarsSoWhite. “A lot of these people [in Flint] care nothing about these Oscars and it’s not their world,” DuVernay told the Hollywood Reporter. “When it came up that this was a possible date it felt wrong to say, ‘No, guys. Let’s not do this date because there’s something happening in L.A.’” Something. It’s not that the Oscars don’t matter. They do. It’s why #OscarsSoWhite has grabbed headlines for weeks. Big, serious Hollywood films are the last vestige of the Commons, a grand unifying event that we can point to and ask a stranger in the subway, “Did you see this?” And the answer may well be yes. These films provide cultural touchstones shared by millions, with the Oscars reifying the normative values of the U.S. Right now, those values look willfully fun-house mirror white, even as the demographics in the U.S. continue to shift. Even if many Americans didn’t watch the Oscars and profess not to care, it is still dominating today’s headlines. Why? Explains game theorist and political scientist Michael Chwe in an email to me: “For rituals like the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl, we tune in not because of the ‘content’ but simply because we want to know what other people know.” Knowing what other people know is the essence of common knowledge, Chwe explains. Deciding what belongs, and what doesn’t, is how we shape the unspoken understandings that are the bedrock of a common culture. Compared to the media blitz devoted to the Oscars, few reporters covered the star-studded event that was #JusticeForFlint, for what took place last night in Flint, Michigan, wasn’t commercial spectacle, but art in the name of social justice. The event stands in and for itself, neither defined by nor made relevant in contrast to the celebrity behemoth that is Hollywood. “At the heart of it,” Jamil Smith wrote, “the evening was about not just making Flint more visible, but more human…. #JusticeForFlint event humanized those affected not by exposing their lives to some documentary exposé or political show: I allowed us to share their joy via livestream as they joined in a spiritual embrace, what Coogler called a ‘group hug.’” Monáe and others delivered the kinds of performances that have made them stars, but what got my attention were the faces of the people of Flint, shining in the settling darkness as they listened. I saw eyes glistening with unshed tears and arms upraised to the heavens, emotions tugging at the edges of lips set hard against the grim. I saw hope in faces furrowed with anger and pain, and I heard the sound of huge hearts breaking in compassion for their terrible plight. These artists didn’t come to Flint so their egos could be served. They raised their voices so that the people of Flint could be heard and, one by one, ordinary people took the stage to bear powerful witness to what had happened to them. To what is still happening to them. To what is happening around the U.S., for Flint isn’t the only community where lead levels in water are unsafe. https://twitter.com/MichaelSkolnik/st... “The reality is we all need water. That’s a human right,” Stevie Wonder said. “And it should be clean water! One requires accountability. If it goes down bad, someone’s gotta go.” The event's modest goal was to raise $100,000 for all the people of Flint. The monetary value of a single swag bag at the Oscars? $204,000.

Continue Reading...

“Dictator of the Lincoln belt”: Meet the black political operative who orchestrated one of the great upsets in presidential election history

This week, as the Democratic candidates approach Super Tuesday, African-American voters in the South and Midwest are seen as the difference between victory and defeat. Today, the pursuit of black voters entails symbolic gestures — grip and grin with Al Sharpton, breakfast at Sylvia’s — that may resonate with voters without tangibly representing votes. Current headlines echo a forgotten history of African-American election power and the genius of a black political operative. It’s a history that brings up crucial questions for the days ahead. Son and namesake of the “South’s first black millionaire,” Robert Church Jr. was a 6-foot-tall, 200-pounder, with patrician features but a tough-set jaw. He dressed like a star of Hollywood’s golden age, and smoked constantly. In 1920, he orchestrated a great upset in presidential election history. Time dubbed him “dictator of the Lincoln belt,” a six-state area of the upper South and Midwest. He was a self-funded Republican operative at a time when black voters still revered the GOP as the party of Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells. Really, he functioned more like a congressman from the state of blackness. But as dawn broke over Chicago, June 10, 1920, Bob Church found himself in trouble. At age 34, Church was a two-campaign veteran of presidential politics, leading his delegates at the 1912 and 1916 Republican conventions. Now, they were kicked out of their seats at the Republican National Convention. They faced a foe within the party—an all-white faction that believed in the racial purification of the Republicans. He could have easily left the party that jilted him. Instead, his greatest triumph launched from his lowest moment. He went to work. In Church’s time, black vote winning was a grass-roots grind. Church never held public office. His power and prestige grew from the Lincoln League, founded 100 years ago this month to educate and register African-American voters. He had started off locally, with headquarters on Memphis' legendary Beale Street. During the same years that blues composer W.C. Handy led a black takeover of American popular music from Beale, Church plotted a similar revolution in politics. In Memphis elections, Church developed a tiebreaker strategy. His coalition lacked the numbers to win an office outright, but city mayoral races typically came down to the open Democratic primary. In a toss-up between white Democrats, Church’s 10,000 black voters could tip the balance of power and decide an election. Look familiar? In a smoky room, Church dealt his support in exchange for black community upgrades. A compromise, but in Southern-style realpolitik, a preferable alternative to African-Americans' having no influence at all. Church would leverage a black presence on the police force, improved parks, playgrounds and streets in black neighborhoods, and newly built schools and healthcare facilities for African-American citizens of Memphis. The Lincoln League enlisted women to teach voting classes in every black church or fellowship hall in every black neighborhood in Memphis. Voting school instructors made weekly reports to headquarters, specifying the number of new voters trained. Weekly rallies attracted thousands. The League grew statewide and expanded into New Orleans and Chicago branches, site of the League’s 1920 national convention, when Church invited white GOP figures to attend and witness the power. As of that year’s election, no former Confederate state had gone for the party of Lincoln since 1876 — 11 states, 10 elections. Church’s home state of Tennessee had gone conservative in every election since 1868. Church sent campaigners door-to-door like salesmen to register African-American voters and get them to the polls. A League speakers’ bureau dispersed loquacious volunteers at the neighborhood level to invigorate voters. “Now there were some groups that if you sent a man there with too much polish he couldn’t get away with it,” recalled Lincoln Leaguer Herbert Brewster. “They wanted you to come down to earth and talk street talk.” They adapted, and made sure to send out the right orator to suit the climate. Lincoln League electioneers went out in loudspeaker-equipped automobiles to set up outside factories at lunch hour.  As Republican nominee Warren Harding battled Democrat James Cox, it became clear that the GOP effort needed black support, despite rough treatment at the convention. On Sept. 22, 1920, a cryptic telegram arrived in Church’s office from Republican National Committee chairman Will Hays. Hays had attended the League’s national meeting in Chicago and come away impressed.  “I wish you would go down to Maryland right away for me,” the note read. “See what the situation is in a particular matter which Senator Weller will mention to you and I wish you would go into this very thoroughly.” Church went to Maryland and helped get out the black vote there. He also organized black voter campaigns in Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois. He ventured wherever else the party needed him, energizing black constituencies without asking for a penny from party headquarters. Harding won the presidency on Nov. 2, 1920, and the election results showed a stunning breakthrough: After five decades as a Democratic stronghold, Tennessee’s electoral votes swung into the Republican column, with an estimated 170,000 black Republican votes statewide. That result was as unimaginable in November 1920 as Alabama going Democrat in November 2016. Of the states Church organized in, Kentucky was the only loss. RNC chairman Hays wrote to President Harding to laud Church: “He is in a class by himself … as to matters political ... He goes about largely at his own expense on political errands, never taking a salary, and he is a very exceptional individual.” Hays informed Harding that Church would henceforth handle all federal appointments in Tennessee and among African-Americans nationwide, covering jobs from federal judges and district attorneys to postmasters and postal delivery workers. Patronage would make up a major part of Church’s political life, as he reinforced the Memphis black middle class with stable letter-carrier jobs and public school teaching positions. Wary of any hint of compromised or corrupted character around him, Church steadfastly refused sweetheart spoils appointments for himself, like a federally funded vacation to the Virgin Islands, ostensibly to research economic conditions there, and as Hays noted, Church declined reimbursement for his party activities. Church remained in Washington through spring 1921, establishing a relationship with the White House later described in the press as “a hotline running from Beale Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.” Meanwhile, an adviser in Memphis opened a package addressed to Church. It contained a length of rope fashioned into a noose. After learning of this, Church assured his advisers that the rope bothered him not at all, he had never backed down and never would. He followed through. He battled the GOP mercilessly as it turned from longtime African-American supporters in the ’20s, most decisively in Herbert Hoover’s 1928 campaign. Church issued a scathing endorsement in the Chicago Defender, concluding he could only support Hoover by default: “The Republican Party offers us little. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFFERS US NOTHING.” When Hoover’s lily-white Southern campaign manager announced his will to take over federal job appointments, Church went straight to the White House and threatened to fight this move to his death. Church fought until his opponents destroyed his fortune and his political organization. He kept fighting from exile until he died in 1952. Today, as white candidates scramble for black voters, some might wonder: Is your vote better off now in this Black History Month, 2016, than it was 96 years ago? Harding didn’t exactly connect with black voters, but he empowered a black man to serve the constituency. What does the symbolism — Sharpton, Sylvia’s, a Charleston shooting survivor’s endorsement, whether you’re part of “the black vote,” or you’re a black voter, whether you connect or don’t with Clinton or Sanders — really mean? Another election is about to be decided by African-American voters; will the payback be as meaty without a congressman of black America like Bob Church to hold Washington accountable? Preston Lauterbach is author of "Beale Street Dynasty" (W.W. Norton, 2015), a story of sex, song and the struggle for the soul of Memphis, and "The Chitlin Circuit" (W.W. Norton, 2011), a Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe and NPR book of the year.This week, as the Democratic candidates approach Super Tuesday, African-American voters in the South and Midwest are seen as the difference between victory and defeat. Today, the pursuit of black voters entails symbolic gestures — grip and grin with Al Sharpton, breakfast at Sylvia’s — that may resonate with voters without tangibly representing votes. Current headlines echo a forgotten history of African-American election power and the genius of a black political operative. It’s a history that brings up crucial questions for the days ahead. Son and namesake of the “South’s first black millionaire,” Robert Church Jr. was a 6-foot-tall, 200-pounder, with patrician features but a tough-set jaw. He dressed like a star of Hollywood’s golden age, and smoked constantly. In 1920, he orchestrated a great upset in presidential election history. Time dubbed him “dictator of the Lincoln belt,” a six-state area of the upper South and Midwest. He was a self-funded Republican operative at a time when black voters still revered the GOP as the party of Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells. Really, he functioned more like a congressman from the state of blackness. But as dawn broke over Chicago, June 10, 1920, Bob Church found himself in trouble. At age 34, Church was a two-campaign veteran of presidential politics, leading his delegates at the 1912 and 1916 Republican conventions. Now, they were kicked out of their seats at the Republican National Convention. They faced a foe within the party—an all-white faction that believed in the racial purification of the Republicans. He could have easily left the party that jilted him. Instead, his greatest triumph launched from his lowest moment. He went to work. In Church’s time, black vote winning was a grass-roots grind. Church never held public office. His power and prestige grew from the Lincoln League, founded 100 years ago this month to educate and register African-American voters. He had started off locally, with headquarters on Memphis' legendary Beale Street. During the same years that blues composer W.C. Handy led a black takeover of American popular music from Beale, Church plotted a similar revolution in politics. In Memphis elections, Church developed a tiebreaker strategy. His coalition lacked the numbers to win an office outright, but city mayoral races typically came down to the open Democratic primary. In a toss-up between white Democrats, Church’s 10,000 black voters could tip the balance of power and decide an election. Look familiar? In a smoky room, Church dealt his support in exchange for black community upgrades. A compromise, but in Southern-style realpolitik, a preferable alternative to African-Americans' having no influence at all. Church would leverage a black presence on the police force, improved parks, playgrounds and streets in black neighborhoods, and newly built schools and healthcare facilities for African-American citizens of Memphis. The Lincoln League enlisted women to teach voting classes in every black church or fellowship hall in every black neighborhood in Memphis. Voting school instructors made weekly reports to headquarters, specifying the number of new voters trained. Weekly rallies attracted thousands. The League grew statewide and expanded into New Orleans and Chicago branches, site of the League’s 1920 national convention, when Church invited white GOP figures to attend and witness the power. As of that year’s election, no former Confederate state had gone for the party of Lincoln since 1876 — 11 states, 10 elections. Church’s home state of Tennessee had gone conservative in every election since 1868. Church sent campaigners door-to-door like salesmen to register African-American voters and get them to the polls. A League speakers’ bureau dispersed loquacious volunteers at the neighborhood level to invigorate voters. “Now there were some groups that if you sent a man there with too much polish he couldn’t get away with it,” recalled Lincoln Leaguer Herbert Brewster. “They wanted you to come down to earth and talk street talk.” They adapted, and made sure to send out the right orator to suit the climate. Lincoln League electioneers went out in loudspeaker-equipped automobiles to set up outside factories at lunch hour.  As Republican nominee Warren Harding battled Democrat James Cox, it became clear that the GOP effort needed black support, despite rough treatment at the convention. On Sept. 22, 1920, a cryptic telegram arrived in Church’s office from Republican National Committee chairman Will Hays. Hays had attended the League’s national meeting in Chicago and come away impressed.  “I wish you would go down to Maryland right away for me,” the note read. “See what the situation is in a particular matter which Senator Weller will mention to you and I wish you would go into this very thoroughly.” Church went to Maryland and helped get out the black vote there. He also organized black voter campaigns in Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois. He ventured wherever else the party needed him, energizing black constituencies without asking for a penny from party headquarters. Harding won the presidency on Nov. 2, 1920, and the election results showed a stunning breakthrough: After five decades as a Democratic stronghold, Tennessee’s electoral votes swung into the Republican column, with an estimated 170,000 black Republican votes statewide. That result was as unimaginable in November 1920 as Alabama going Democrat in November 2016. Of the states Church organized in, Kentucky was the only loss. RNC chairman Hays wrote to President Harding to laud Church: “He is in a class by himself … as to matters political ... He goes about largely at his own expense on political errands, never taking a salary, and he is a very exceptional individual.” Hays informed Harding that Church would henceforth handle all federal appointments in Tennessee and among African-Americans nationwide, covering jobs from federal judges and district attorneys to postmasters and postal delivery workers. Patronage would make up a major part of Church’s political life, as he reinforced the Memphis black middle class with stable letter-carrier jobs and public school teaching positions. Wary of any hint of compromised or corrupted character around him, Church steadfastly refused sweetheart spoils appointments for himself, like a federally funded vacation to the Virgin Islands, ostensibly to research economic conditions there, and as Hays noted, Church declined reimbursement for his party activities. Church remained in Washington through spring 1921, establishing a relationship with the White House later described in the press as “a hotline running from Beale Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.” Meanwhile, an adviser in Memphis opened a package addressed to Church. It contained a length of rope fashioned into a noose. After learning of this, Church assured his advisers that the rope bothered him not at all, he had never backed down and never would. He followed through. He battled the GOP mercilessly as it turned from longtime African-American supporters in the ’20s, most decisively in Herbert Hoover’s 1928 campaign. Church issued a scathing endorsement in the Chicago Defender, concluding he could only support Hoover by default: “The Republican Party offers us little. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFFERS US NOTHING.” When Hoover’s lily-white Southern campaign manager announced his will to take over federal job appointments, Church went straight to the White House and threatened to fight this move to his death. Church fought until his opponents destroyed his fortune and his political organization. He kept fighting from exile until he died in 1952. Today, as white candidates scramble for black voters, some might wonder: Is your vote better off now in this Black History Month, 2016, than it was 96 years ago? Harding didn’t exactly connect with black voters, but he empowered a black man to serve the constituency. What does the symbolism — Sharpton, Sylvia’s, a Charleston shooting survivor’s endorsement, whether you’re part of “the black vote,” or you’re a black voter, whether you connect or don’t with Clinton or Sanders — really mean? Another election is about to be decided by African-American voters; will the payback be as meaty without a congressman of black America like Bob Church to hold Washington accountable? Preston Lauterbach is author of "Beale Street Dynasty" (W.W. Norton, 2015), a story of sex, song and the struggle for the soul of Memphis, and "The Chitlin Circuit" (W.W. Norton, 2011), a Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe and NPR book of the year.

Continue Reading...

White supremacists yelling “Heil Hitler,” waving Confederate flag wallet attack Latino teens at LA park: local media

Knife-wielding white supremacists yelling "Heil Hitler" and waving a Confederate flag wallet attacked Latino teens in a Los Angeles park on Sunday, according to local media reports. The three white supremacists were arrested, and police say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime, ABC7 reports. The Los Angeles Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed to local media that the attackers were screaming "Heil Hitler" and shouting racial slurs. NBC4 noted that the attackers openly called themselves white supremacists. The local news outlets even reported that "one of the men who was arrested after this attack was heard yelling racial insults at the photographer who shot this video," and captured the incident on camera. After the white supremacists attacked the teens, witnesses say they drew their knives and threatened a Latino family nearby. The father of the family, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of his safety, told NBC4 "three white males came and they just started beating them [the Latino teens] up, and punching them." "After that, they started coming toward us and they pulled out some knives, and they were saying that they would kill us," he added. Authorities say no one was seriously injured. Just a day before the attack, violence broke out at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, California, which is nearby. KKK extremists, who were protesting what they called "illegal immigration and Muslims," stabbed at least three anti-racist counter-protesters, with knives and a flagpole. After a white supremacist stabbed an anti-racist counter-protester with the pointed tip on an American flag, a witness said he was grievously wounded. Anti-racist counter-protesters reportedly fought the white supremacist extremists with two-by-fours. Thirteen people were arrested. Police reportedly released the KKK extremists on Monday.Knife-wielding white supremacists yelling "Heil Hitler" and waving a Confederate flag wallet attacked Latino teens in a Los Angeles park on Sunday, according to local media reports. The three white supremacists were arrested, and police say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime, ABC7 reports. The Los Angeles Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed to local media that the attackers were screaming "Heil Hitler" and shouting racial slurs. NBC4 noted that the attackers openly called themselves white supremacists. The local news outlets even reported that "one of the men who was arrested after this attack was heard yelling racial insults at the photographer who shot this video," and captured the incident on camera. After the white supremacists attacked the teens, witnesses say they drew their knives and threatened a Latino family nearby. The father of the family, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of his safety, told NBC4 "three white males came and they just started beating them [the Latino teens] up, and punching them." "After that, they started coming toward us and they pulled out some knives, and they were saying that they would kill us," he added. Authorities say no one was seriously injured. Just a day before the attack, violence broke out at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, California, which is nearby. KKK extremists, who were protesting what they called "illegal immigration and Muslims," stabbed at least three anti-racist counter-protesters, with knives and a flagpole. After a white supremacist stabbed an anti-racist counter-protester with the pointed tip on an American flag, a witness said he was grievously wounded. Anti-racist counter-protesters reportedly fought the white supremacist extremists with two-by-fours. Thirteen people were arrested. Police reportedly released the KKK extremists on Monday.Knife-wielding white supremacists yelling "Heil Hitler" and waving a Confederate flag wallet attacked Latino teens in a Los Angeles park on Sunday, according to local media reports. The three white supremacists were arrested, and police say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime, ABC7 reports. The Los Angeles Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed to local media that the attackers were screaming "Heil Hitler" and shouting racial slurs. NBC4 noted that the attackers openly called themselves white supremacists. The local news outlets even reported that "one of the men who was arrested after this attack was heard yelling racial insults at the photographer who shot this video," and captured the incident on camera. After the white supremacists attacked the teens, witnesses say they drew their knives and threatened a Latino family nearby. The father of the family, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of his safety, told NBC4 "three white males came and they just started beating them [the Latino teens] up, and punching them." "After that, they started coming toward us and they pulled out some knives, and they were saying that they would kill us," he added. Authorities say no one was seriously injured. Just a day before the attack, violence broke out at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, California, which is nearby. KKK extremists, who were protesting what they called "illegal immigration and Muslims," stabbed at least three anti-racist counter-protesters, with knives and a flagpole. After a white supremacist stabbed an anti-racist counter-protester with the pointed tip on an American flag, a witness said he was grievously wounded. Anti-racist counter-protesters reportedly fought the white supremacist extremists with two-by-fours. Thirteen people were arrested. Police reportedly released the KKK extremists on Monday.Knife-wielding white supremacists yelling "Heil Hitler" and waving a Confederate flag wallet attacked Latino teens in a Los Angeles park on Sunday, according to local media reports. The three white supremacists were arrested, and police say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime, ABC7 reports. The Los Angeles Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed to local media that the attackers were screaming "Heil Hitler" and shouting racial slurs. NBC4 noted that the attackers openly called themselves white supremacists. The local news outlets even reported that "one of the men who was arrested after this attack was heard yelling racial insults at the photographer who shot this video," and captured the incident on camera. After the white supremacists attacked the teens, witnesses say they drew their knives and threatened a Latino family nearby. The father of the family, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of his safety, told NBC4 "three white males came and they just started beating them [the Latino teens] up, and punching them." "After that, they started coming toward us and they pulled out some knives, and they were saying that they would kill us," he added. Authorities say no one was seriously injured. Just a day before the attack, violence broke out at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, California, which is nearby. KKK extremists, who were protesting what they called "illegal immigration and Muslims," stabbed at least three anti-racist counter-protesters, with knives and a flagpole. After a white supremacist stabbed an anti-racist counter-protester with the pointed tip on an American flag, a witness said he was grievously wounded. Anti-racist counter-protesters reportedly fought the white supremacist extremists with two-by-fours. Thirteen people were arrested. Police reportedly released the KKK extremists on Monday.Knife-wielding white supremacists yelling "Heil Hitler" and waving a Confederate flag wallet attacked Latino teens in a Los Angeles park on Sunday, according to local media reports. The three white supremacists were arrested, and police say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime, ABC7 reports. The Los Angeles Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed to local media that the attackers were screaming "Heil Hitler" and shouting racial slurs. NBC4 noted that the attackers openly called themselves white supremacists. The local news outlets even reported that "one of the men who was arrested after this attack was heard yelling racial insults at the photographer who shot this video," and captured the incident on camera. After the white supremacists attacked the teens, witnesses say they drew their knives and threatened a Latino family nearby. The father of the family, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of his safety, told NBC4 "three white males came and they just started beating them [the Latino teens] up, and punching them." "After that, they started coming toward us and they pulled out some knives, and they were saying that they would kill us," he added. Authorities say no one was seriously injured. Just a day before the attack, violence broke out at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, California, which is nearby. KKK extremists, who were protesting what they called "illegal immigration and Muslims," stabbed at least three anti-racist counter-protesters, with knives and a flagpole. After a white supremacist stabbed an anti-racist counter-protester with the pointed tip on an American flag, a witness said he was grievously wounded. Anti-racist counter-protesters reportedly fought the white supremacist extremists with two-by-fours. Thirteen people were arrested. Police reportedly released the KKK extremists on Monday.Knife-wielding white supremacists yelling "Heil Hitler" and waving a Confederate flag wallet attacked Latino teens in a Los Angeles park on Sunday, according to local media reports. The three white supremacists were arrested, and police say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime, ABC7 reports. The Los Angeles Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed to local media that the attackers were screaming "Heil Hitler" and shouting racial slurs. NBC4 noted that the attackers openly called themselves white supremacists. The local news outlets even reported that "one of the men who was arrested after this attack was heard yelling racial insults at the photographer who shot this video," and captured the incident on camera. After the white supremacists attacked the teens, witnesses say they drew their knives and threatened a Latino family nearby. The father of the family, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of his safety, told NBC4 "three white males came and they just started beating them [the Latino teens] up, and punching them." "After that, they started coming toward us and they pulled out some knives, and they were saying that they would kill us," he added. Authorities say no one was seriously injured. Just a day before the attack, violence broke out at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, California, which is nearby. KKK extremists, who were protesting what they called "illegal immigration and Muslims," stabbed at least three anti-racist counter-protesters, with knives and a flagpole. After a white supremacist stabbed an anti-racist counter-protester with the pointed tip on an American flag, a witness said he was grievously wounded. Anti-racist counter-protesters reportedly fought the white supremacist extremists with two-by-fours. Thirteen people were arrested. Police reportedly released the KKK extremists on Monday.

Continue Reading...

“I hate seeing what it represents”: Forgetful Donald Trump disavowed David Duke in 1991

Former-KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is just a drop in the bucket of controversial Donald Trump endorsers. And, up until this weekend, Trump was doing well for himself spewing white nationalist talking points to the slack-jawed. The Donald didn't do himself any favors with the beltway, though, when he pretended not to know who David Duke is. Even Trump's most unabashed media bedfellow, Joe Scarborough, trashed Donald's ham-handed effort to "play Switzerland" so as to not offend Southern voters. "Is he really so stupid that he thinks Southerners aren't offended by the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke?" the "Morning Joe" host said today during an on-air rant, in which he also called Trump's Duke-neutrality "disqualifying." And if you're as dumb as Donald Trump and think maybe he doesn't know who David Duke is, the Internet is here to smack some irrefutable sense into you. According to a Media Matters report, Trump guested on "Larry King Live" in 1991, shortly after Duke's unsuccessful run for Louisiana governor. Asked his thoughts on Duke receiving 55% of the white vote in the state, Trump answered:

"I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there's a lot of hostility in this country. There's a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States. [...] "It's anger. I mean, that's an anger vote. People are angry about what's happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they're really in deep trouble."

 

Continue Reading...

Rubio and Cruz are the real monsters: Liberals should be rooting for Trump — and he’ll be easier to beat come November

Confession time: I'm rooting for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination. And not in a casual, that-would-be-amusing way. When he won South Carolina, there was celebrating at my house. When he won Nevada, I did a happy dance. When pundits on TV say in shocked, repulsed tones that his nomination is starting to look inevitable, I say, "Damn skippy." Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I like Trump — I hate him with the passion of a thousand burning suns — or that I want him to be president. But yes, I think he should win the Republican nomination. He's run the best campaign, one that speaks to what Republican voters want to hear, and, by that measure, he deserves to win the nomination, so that Hillary Clinton can wipe the floor with him in November. This is not a popular opinion, and not just with the establishment Republicans who can't help acting like the main problem with Trump is he puts his dirty shoes on the couch. The common wisdom in most of the media — conservative, mainstream and liberal — is that a Trump nomination would be a ruinous thing, a blow to both the Republican Party and the political system as we know it. To which I can't help but say, "So what?" I don't agree with Trump supporters on, well, almost anything, but I can't help sharing in the pleasure they take with the way that Trump's very existence exposes the smarmy two-faced hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party. Modern conservatism is built on a base of protecting men's dominance over women, white people's dominance over people of color and rich people's dominance over everyone else, but it's generally considered impolite to say so bluntly. Instead, it's standard for Republicans to pretend that policies obviously designed to screw people over are meant to help.  That puts journalists in this terrible situation of having to pretend that Republicans mean well, since it's generally considered impolitic to call someone a liar. Trump doesn't play that game, at least not as much, and it is nakedly obvious that this, and not his actual beliefs and policies, is what angers many of his detractors. Take, for instance, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review on Fox News recently, complaining that Trump is "completely overturning what the Republican reset was supposed to be about after 2012, which was this idea that it was going to be a more consistently conservative but more inclusive and nicer toned party." "And instead it's going to be a less conservative but meaner toned and less inclusive party," he added. To which I must again say, "So what?" People who value kindness and inclusivity already have a party. They're called the Democrats. But of course, Goldberg doesn't actually want a kinder, more inclusive Republican Party. What he and other establishment Republicans want is to be able to pursue nasty, bigoted policies while maintaining an air of gentility that garners respect in the mainstream media. Which is why it gives Trump voters such a thrill to symbolically kick dirt in the faces of folks like Jonah Goldberg by voting for Trump. Trump annoys because he's loud and rude. Because if you actually look past the surface, even by a millimeter, to the policy level, this notion that Trump is somehow more hateful than his competitors Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio simply becomes laughable. Take, for instance, this telling exchange from Thursday's CNN debate:

CRUZ: Did you say if you want people to die on the streets, if you don't support socialized health care, you have no heart. TRUMP: Correct. I will not let people die on the streets if I'm president. CRUZ: Have you said you're a liberal on health care?

It went on in this vein for a bit, before Wolf Blitzer put a stop to it, but it was a telling moment where Cruz really did try to frame it as soft-hearted and "liberal" to even consider the possibility that human life is worth more than tax cuts. But Cruz is still considered by both the Republican establishment and the mainstream media to be a more acceptable candidate than a bully like Trump. Because Trump calls people "pussy," which is far worse than letting people die in the street. So crude, you know. Rubio didn't get a chance to weigh in on the "let people die in the streets" debate, but since a major part of his platform is eliminating Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, it would seem he is also on Team Screw 'Em. If those 5-year-olds don't want to die from leukemia, they should get jobs that have full-time health benefits. To be exquisitely clear, this is in no way a vindication of Trump. He represents the worst of conservatism. His policies are nonsensical, he clearly would rather burn this country to the ground than have anything approaching justice or equality in it, he is racist to his core, and he has no respect for anyone but himself and people who are just like him. But that's just as true of Cruz or Rubio, and in some cases, they are arguably worse. Trump retweets racist propaganda. Both Cruz and Rubio have backed legislation designed specifically to make it harder for people of color to vote. Trump likes to rattle on about this stupid Mexican wall that will never be built.  Marco Rubio's immigration platform is also building up a big wall that makes the Southwest look like a war zone. Cruz is also all about that wall, while also suggesting that undocumented immigrants are "criminals and terrorists." Trump suggested he'd be up for banning Muslims from traveling to our country. Cruz and Rubio aren't so blunt about it, but they send the same pro-bigotry message by rushing for the microphones to denounce President Obama every time he dares suggest that Muslims should be treated with respect and dignity. Both have also attacked Syrian refugees, hinting that they are terrorists in disguise who are slipping in through a supposedly haphazard system, which is a total falsehood. Cruz even suggested a bill banning refugees. "The press went gaga for Rubio after Iowa," Matt Taibbi colorfully wrote in Rolling Stone last week, because "he's an unthreatening, blow-dried, cliché-spouting, dial-surveying phony of the type campaign journalists always approve of." It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's true. And since it's true, it should be easy to see why Trump supporters enjoy the opportunity to stick it to the journalistic establishment that is so easily swayed by shallow Republican candidates who trick you into thinking they're reasonable because they wear nice shoes and can somewhat imitate the facial expressions of people who feel empathy. Look, someone has to win the Republican nomination. In this particular contest of villains, Trump is the least-bad option. Cruz seems like a sociopath who thinks he's a prophet. Rubio just perpetuates that myth that the politics of nihilism are OK so long as the figurehead is handsome and genial enough. A Trump nomination, on the other hand, would puncture any remaining illusion that the Republican Party is a home for serious people, instead of a den of misanthropes and bullies that see politics solely as a way to preserve their own privilege while screwing over everyone else. That, and it will probably be easier for Clinton to beat Trump than either of his opponents.Confession time: I'm rooting for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination. And not in a casual, that-would-be-amusing way. When he won South Carolina, there was celebrating at my house. When he won Nevada, I did a happy dance. When pundits on TV say in shocked, repulsed tones that his nomination is starting to look inevitable, I say, "Damn skippy." Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I like Trump — I hate him with the passion of a thousand burning suns — or that I want him to be president. But yes, I think he should win the Republican nomination. He's run the best campaign, one that speaks to what Republican voters want to hear, and, by that measure, he deserves to win the nomination, so that Hillary Clinton can wipe the floor with him in November. This is not a popular opinion, and not just with the establishment Republicans who can't help acting like the main problem with Trump is he puts his dirty shoes on the couch. The common wisdom in most of the media — conservative, mainstream and liberal — is that a Trump nomination would be a ruinous thing, a blow to both the Republican Party and the political system as we know it. To which I can't help but say, "So what?" I don't agree with Trump supporters on, well, almost anything, but I can't help sharing in the pleasure they take with the way that Trump's very existence exposes the smarmy two-faced hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party. Modern conservatism is built on a base of protecting men's dominance over women, white people's dominance over people of color and rich people's dominance over everyone else, but it's generally considered impolite to say so bluntly. Instead, it's standard for Republicans to pretend that policies obviously designed to screw people over are meant to help.  That puts journalists in this terrible situation of having to pretend that Republicans mean well, since it's generally considered impolitic to call someone a liar. Trump doesn't play that game, at least not as much, and it is nakedly obvious that this, and not his actual beliefs and policies, is what angers many of his detractors. Take, for instance, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review on Fox News recently, complaining that Trump is "completely overturning what the Republican reset was supposed to be about after 2012, which was this idea that it was going to be a more consistently conservative but more inclusive and nicer toned party." "And instead it's going to be a less conservative but meaner toned and less inclusive party," he added. To which I must again say, "So what?" People who value kindness and inclusivity already have a party. They're called the Democrats. But of course, Goldberg doesn't actually want a kinder, more inclusive Republican Party. What he and other establishment Republicans want is to be able to pursue nasty, bigoted policies while maintaining an air of gentility that garners respect in the mainstream media. Which is why it gives Trump voters such a thrill to symbolically kick dirt in the faces of folks like Jonah Goldberg by voting for Trump. Trump annoys because he's loud and rude. Because if you actually look past the surface, even by a millimeter, to the policy level, this notion that Trump is somehow more hateful than his competitors Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio simply becomes laughable. Take, for instance, this telling exchange from Thursday's CNN debate:

CRUZ: Did you say if you want people to die on the streets, if you don't support socialized health care, you have no heart. TRUMP: Correct. I will not let people die on the streets if I'm president. CRUZ: Have you said you're a liberal on health care?

It went on in this vein for a bit, before Wolf Blitzer put a stop to it, but it was a telling moment where Cruz really did try to frame it as soft-hearted and "liberal" to even consider the possibility that human life is worth more than tax cuts. But Cruz is still considered by both the Republican establishment and the mainstream media to be a more acceptable candidate than a bully like Trump. Because Trump calls people "pussy," which is far worse than letting people die in the street. So crude, you know. Rubio didn't get a chance to weigh in on the "let people die in the streets" debate, but since a major part of his platform is eliminating Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, it would seem he is also on Team Screw 'Em. If those 5-year-olds don't want to die from leukemia, they should get jobs that have full-time health benefits. To be exquisitely clear, this is in no way a vindication of Trump. He represents the worst of conservatism. His policies are nonsensical, he clearly would rather burn this country to the ground than have anything approaching justice or equality in it, he is racist to his core, and he has no respect for anyone but himself and people who are just like him. But that's just as true of Cruz or Rubio, and in some cases, they are arguably worse. Trump retweets racist propaganda. Both Cruz and Rubio have backed legislation designed specifically to make it harder for people of color to vote. Trump likes to rattle on about this stupid Mexican wall that will never be built.  Marco Rubio's immigration platform is also building up a big wall that makes the Southwest look like a war zone. Cruz is also all about that wall, while also suggesting that undocumented immigrants are "criminals and terrorists." Trump suggested he'd be up for banning Muslims from traveling to our country. Cruz and Rubio aren't so blunt about it, but they send the same pro-bigotry message by rushing for the microphones to denounce President Obama every time he dares suggest that Muslims should be treated with respect and dignity. Both have also attacked Syrian refugees, hinting that they are terrorists in disguise who are slipping in through a supposedly haphazard system, which is a total falsehood. Cruz even suggested a bill banning refugees. "The press went gaga for Rubio after Iowa," Matt Taibbi colorfully wrote in Rolling Stone last week, because "he's an unthreatening, blow-dried, cliché-spouting, dial-surveying phony of the type campaign journalists always approve of." It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's true. And since it's true, it should be easy to see why Trump supporters enjoy the opportunity to stick it to the journalistic establishment that is so easily swayed by shallow Republican candidates who trick you into thinking they're reasonable because they wear nice shoes and can somewhat imitate the facial expressions of people who feel empathy. Look, someone has to win the Republican nomination. In this particular contest of villains, Trump is the least-bad option. Cruz seems like a sociopath who thinks he's a prophet. Rubio just perpetuates that myth that the politics of nihilism are OK so long as the figurehead is handsome and genial enough. A Trump nomination, on the other hand, would puncture any remaining illusion that the Republican Party is a home for serious people, instead of a den of misanthropes and bullies that see politics solely as a way to preserve their own privilege while screwing over everyone else. That, and it will probably be easier for Clinton to beat Trump than either of his opponents.

Continue Reading...

Oscars’ biggest upset: Why Stallone’s surprising loss was the shock the Academy needed

Something quietly revolutionary happened at the Oscars last night: They were revolutionarily quiet. Going into the ceremony, the major focus was on host Chris Rock’s opening monologue and his response to criticism of the Academy Awards for lack of racial inclusion. (He did OK.) But this was also one of the most hotly contested Oscar years in recent memory, one without a clear frontrunner for most of the race: “The Revenant” had the most nominations and won the BAFTA, but “The Big Short” was the victor at the Producer’s Guild and “Spotlight” took the SAG. “The Revenant” was favored to win by bookies, but it was anyone’s race. That trophy ended up going to “Spotlight,” Tom McCarthy’s hard-nosed Catholic sex abuse drama. The film’s unexpected win capped off an evening that favored the restrained over the grandiose. In the evening’s most shocking moment, Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies”) prevailed in the Best Supporting Actor category over Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”), a sentimental favorite of many Oscar voters due to his long-running role in the Rocky franchise. Stallone won at the Critics Choice Awards and the Golden Globes and was widely expected to repeat here. On Gold Derby, pundits favored the 69-year-old actor by 76 percentage points. Rylance was all the way down in third, behind Mark Ruffalo (“Spotlight”). It might not have been the popular choice (or the easy one), but the Oscars absolutely made the right call. Sylvester Stallone’s performance was seemingly tailor-made to appeal to awards voters: He’s a beloved veteran launching his bid for a comeback in the part that made him famous. “Creed” finds an aging Rocky Balboa (major spoiler alert) battling cancer while training his nemesis-turned-friend’s estranged son. A scene where an ailing Rocky climbs the stairs of the Philadelphia Art Museum, which you might remember from the original film, might as well blink “OSCAR REEL” at the bottom of the screen. This is not to denigrate the strength of Sylvester Stallone’s bruisingly effective performance, easily his finest on-screen turn to date. He’s so good in “Creed” that it makes one wonder the actor Stallone could have been if he hadn’t whittled away most of his career trying to one-up Arnold Schwarzenegger. Until his ‘80s downturn, Sly had never appeared in a movie that wasn’t well-received by critics: According to Rotten Tomatoes, his first critical misfire didn’t come until his unlucky 13th film back in 1983, when he helmed the disastrous “Saturday Night Fever” sequel, “Staying Alive.” As much as “Creed” makes one wistful for the early, good “Rocky” movies, it suggests what could have been if Stallone had chosen a different path. But while nostalgia can be a powerful emotion, it shouldn’t be the reason someone is handed the year’s most prestigious acting award. Many might suggest that Sylvester Stallone didn’t win because of statistical factors and the Academy minutiae that too often determines victors: Stallone wasn’t nominated for the Screen Actors Guild award, one of the strongest predictors of success on Oscar night. Four of the last five Best Supporting Actor winners were chosen by SAG. However, SAG voters didn’t even go for Mark Rylance; they selected Idris Elba (“Beasts of No Nation”) instead, who didn't receive an Oscar nod. Vulture’s Kyle Buchanan, meanwhile, suggests that Stallone’s loss signaled the fact that nostalgia has limits. “While industry observers touted Stallone’s comeback narrative as irresistible, I kept talking to actual Hollywood insiders who weren’t that enamored of Stallone as a person over his few decades in show business, and consequently withheld their vote,” Buchanan writes. “It’s a problem that afflicted other Oscar nominees like Mickey Rourke, Lauren Bacall, and Burt Reynolds, who learned that a comeback narrative can only take you so far: If the voters don’t actually want to see you on that stage, you won’t make it up those steps.” But aside from statistics and personal politics, there’s a simpler, better reason Mark Rylance won: He deserved it. Rylance, soon to voice the title character in Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of the beloved Roald Dahl novel “The BFG,” is one of the most acclaimed and distinguished theater actors on the planet. Rylance has won three Tony Awards, including for “Twelfth Night” and “Jerusalem,” and has often been called the greatest actor of his generation. He’s been long overdue for his breakout role in film. And what an incredible breakout it was. In Spielberg’s “Bridge of Spies,” Mark Rylance plays Rudolf Abel, a hapless Soviet spy apprehended by the American government after receiving a message from the Russian government. Rylance is an ideal foil for Tom Hanks, doing his usual Jimmy Stewart thing as James B. Donovan, the lawyer assigned to his case. Whereas Donovan is befuddled and angry, trying to give his client the best possible defense in a system that wants to deny Rudolf Abel his basic rights, Abel is comically composed. When Donovan asks if anything ever gets to Abel, he responds, “Would it help?” It’s rare to see an actor do so much with so little. Imagine you were an artist entrusted to paint a portrait of a man standing in front of you. Instead of being given every possible pigment on your palette, you’re only allowed brown and white. How do you depict the fullness of a human life with just two colors? Such is the case with Mark Rylance: He’s extraordinarily controlled, hinting at the complex inner life of a stoic, nearly unknowable man just by raising his eyebrow. Rylance gave what was not just one of the best performances of the year but what had to be one of the most extraordinarily difficult.  What’s so surprising about Rylance’s victory isn’t that many people thought the award would go to Stallone but that it’s the kind of thing that never wins Oscars. The Academy likes its nominees to go big or go home. In many cases, the eventual winner is not the person who has done the best acting in the category but the most acting. This is absolutely true of winners like DiCaprio and Brie Larson (“Room”), who were both very good but also gave big, showy performances that the Academy tends to favor. In “Room,” Larson is asked to do nearly everything one can ask of an actor—she’s funny, sad, sweet, and angry all in the course of 100 minutes. It’s “capital-A” acting at its finest. That “everything but the kitchen sink” mentality often overlooks smaller, quieter performances that are arguably even more challenging, a fact Rooney Mara should know well. This year, Mara was nominated for her truly stunning work in Todd Haynes’ “Carol.” The 31-year-old played Therese Belivet, a shy salesgirl who strikes up a relationship with an older woman (Cate Blanchett) in the middle of a divorce. Belivet tends to speak in a tone that’s barely above a whisper, and Mara’s performance is all about the power of her gaze—a look that conveys years of unspoken longing. She won Best Actress at Cannes but was steamrolled by the Vikanderssance, as the Swedish actress nabbed nearly every award in sight for “The Danish Girl.” The problem with Rooney Mara’s campaign is the same that plagued her in 2012, when she was nominated for playing Lisbeth Salander in David Fincher’s American remake of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.” What do you choose for her Oscar clip? What’s the “big moment” that defines her performance? The same situation likely faced the Academy editing team when putting together a highlight reel for Saoirse Ronan (“Brooklyn”). In a movie that deals with themes of homesickness and longing, most of Ronan’s performance takes place internally. In a year where the conversation has focused heavily on diversity, it’s a refreshing change of pace to see the Academy recognize diverse kinds of acting, ones that challenge the notion of what an “Oscar performance” is. What’s held the Academy back for so long is an incredibly rigid notion of who qualifies for recognition and why—whether that’s in terms of race, sexual orientation, ability, or even performance. Every year, too many fine actors—from Michael B. Jordan and Idris Elba to Michael Keaton—are passed over simply because it’s not the kind of thing the Oscars like. It’s time to rewrite that script. Celebrating Mark Rylance’s win may not be the fullest realization of the change that the Academy needs, but in an ugly, awful, embarrassing year, it’s something.Something quietly revolutionary happened at the Oscars last night: They were revolutionarily quiet. Going into the ceremony, the major focus was on host Chris Rock’s opening monologue and his response to criticism of the Academy Awards for lack of racial inclusion. (He did OK.) But this was also one of the most hotly contested Oscar years in recent memory, one without a clear frontrunner for most of the race: “The Revenant” had the most nominations and won the BAFTA, but “The Big Short” was the victor at the Producer’s Guild and “Spotlight” took the SAG. “The Revenant” was favored to win by bookies, but it was anyone’s race. That trophy ended up going to “Spotlight,” Tom McCarthy’s hard-nosed Catholic sex abuse drama. The film’s unexpected win capped off an evening that favored the restrained over the grandiose. In the evening’s most shocking moment, Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies”) prevailed in the Best Supporting Actor category over Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”), a sentimental favorite of many Oscar voters due to his long-running role in the Rocky franchise. Stallone won at the Critics Choice Awards and the Golden Globes and was widely expected to repeat here. On Gold Derby, pundits favored the 69-year-old actor by 76 percentage points. Rylance was all the way down in third, behind Mark Ruffalo (“Spotlight”). It might not have been the popular choice (or the easy one), but the Oscars absolutely made the right call. Sylvester Stallone’s performance was seemingly tailor-made to appeal to awards voters: He’s a beloved veteran launching his bid for a comeback in the part that made him famous. “Creed” finds an aging Rocky Balboa (major spoiler alert) battling cancer while training his nemesis-turned-friend’s estranged son. A scene where an ailing Rocky climbs the stairs of the Philadelphia Art Museum, which you might remember from the original film, might as well blink “OSCAR REEL” at the bottom of the screen. This is not to denigrate the strength of Sylvester Stallone’s bruisingly effective performance, easily his finest on-screen turn to date. He’s so good in “Creed” that it makes one wonder the actor Stallone could have been if he hadn’t whittled away most of his career trying to one-up Arnold Schwarzenegger. Until his ‘80s downturn, Sly had never appeared in a movie that wasn’t well-received by critics: According to Rotten Tomatoes, his first critical misfire didn’t come until his unlucky 13th film back in 1983, when he helmed the disastrous “Saturday Night Fever” sequel, “Staying Alive.” As much as “Creed” makes one wistful for the early, good “Rocky” movies, it suggests what could have been if Stallone had chosen a different path. But while nostalgia can be a powerful emotion, it shouldn’t be the reason someone is handed the year’s most prestigious acting award. Many might suggest that Sylvester Stallone didn’t win because of statistical factors and the Academy minutiae that too often determines victors: Stallone wasn’t nominated for the Screen Actors Guild award, one of the strongest predictors of success on Oscar night. Four of the last five Best Supporting Actor winners were chosen by SAG. However, SAG voters didn’t even go for Mark Rylance; they selected Idris Elba (“Beasts of No Nation”) instead, who didn't receive an Oscar nod. Vulture’s Kyle Buchanan, meanwhile, suggests that Stallone’s loss signaled the fact that nostalgia has limits. “While industry observers touted Stallone’s comeback narrative as irresistible, I kept talking to actual Hollywood insiders who weren’t that enamored of Stallone as a person over his few decades in show business, and consequently withheld their vote,” Buchanan writes. “It’s a problem that afflicted other Oscar nominees like Mickey Rourke, Lauren Bacall, and Burt Reynolds, who learned that a comeback narrative can only take you so far: If the voters don’t actually want to see you on that stage, you won’t make it up those steps.” But aside from statistics and personal politics, there’s a simpler, better reason Mark Rylance won: He deserved it. Rylance, soon to voice the title character in Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of the beloved Roald Dahl novel “The BFG,” is one of the most acclaimed and distinguished theater actors on the planet. Rylance has won three Tony Awards, including for “Twelfth Night” and “Jerusalem,” and has often been called the greatest actor of his generation. He’s been long overdue for his breakout role in film. And what an incredible breakout it was. In Spielberg’s “Bridge of Spies,” Mark Rylance plays Rudolf Abel, a hapless Soviet spy apprehended by the American government after receiving a message from the Russian government. Rylance is an ideal foil for Tom Hanks, doing his usual Jimmy Stewart thing as James B. Donovan, the lawyer assigned to his case. Whereas Donovan is befuddled and angry, trying to give his client the best possible defense in a system that wants to deny Rudolf Abel his basic rights, Abel is comically composed. When Donovan asks if anything ever gets to Abel, he responds, “Would it help?” It’s rare to see an actor do so much with so little. Imagine you were an artist entrusted to paint a portrait of a man standing in front of you. Instead of being given every possible pigment on your palette, you’re only allowed brown and white. How do you depict the fullness of a human life with just two colors? Such is the case with Mark Rylance: He’s extraordinarily controlled, hinting at the complex inner life of a stoic, nearly unknowable man just by raising his eyebrow. Rylance gave what was not just one of the best performances of the year but what had to be one of the most extraordinarily difficult.  What’s so surprising about Rylance’s victory isn’t that many people thought the award would go to Stallone but that it’s the kind of thing that never wins Oscars. The Academy likes its nominees to go big or go home. In many cases, the eventual winner is not the person who has done the best acting in the category but the most acting. This is absolutely true of winners like DiCaprio and Brie Larson (“Room”), who were both very good but also gave big, showy performances that the Academy tends to favor. In “Room,” Larson is asked to do nearly everything one can ask of an actor—she’s funny, sad, sweet, and angry all in the course of 100 minutes. It’s “capital-A” acting at its finest. That “everything but the kitchen sink” mentality often overlooks smaller, quieter performances that are arguably even more challenging, a fact Rooney Mara should know well. This year, Mara was nominated for her truly stunning work in Todd Haynes’ “Carol.” The 31-year-old played Therese Belivet, a shy salesgirl who strikes up a relationship with an older woman (Cate Blanchett) in the middle of a divorce. Belivet tends to speak in a tone that’s barely above a whisper, and Mara’s performance is all about the power of her gaze—a look that conveys years of unspoken longing. She won Best Actress at Cannes but was steamrolled by the Vikanderssance, as the Swedish actress nabbed nearly every award in sight for “The Danish Girl.” The problem with Rooney Mara’s campaign is the same that plagued her in 2012, when she was nominated for playing Lisbeth Salander in David Fincher’s American remake of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.” What do you choose for her Oscar clip? What’s the “big moment” that defines her performance? The same situation likely faced the Academy editing team when putting together a highlight reel for Saoirse Ronan (“Brooklyn”). In a movie that deals with themes of homesickness and longing, most of Ronan’s performance takes place internally. In a year where the conversation has focused heavily on diversity, it’s a refreshing change of pace to see the Academy recognize diverse kinds of acting, ones that challenge the notion of what an “Oscar performance” is. What’s held the Academy back for so long is an incredibly rigid notion of who qualifies for recognition and why—whether that’s in terms of race, sexual orientation, ability, or even performance. Every year, too many fine actors—from Michael B. Jordan and Idris Elba to Michael Keaton—are passed over simply because it’s not the kind of thing the Oscars like. It’s time to rewrite that script. Celebrating Mark Rylance’s win may not be the fullest realization of the change that the Academy needs, but in an ugly, awful, embarrassing year, it’s something.

Continue Reading...

Sam Smith’s LGBT Oscar gaffe: Here’s how a Very Special Acceptance Speech goes off the rails

To quote Jennifer Garner, bless his heart. Surely he meant well. But here's a tip for Sam Smith as he goes forward in his career — when you find that you've been nominated for a major award, make sure you vet your acceptance speech though a few fact checkers first. It's a brief speech! You have a publicist! It won't take much time, I promise! On Sunday, Smith, the 23 year-old British singer-songwriter who gained fame with 2014's cuddle anthem "Stay with Me," had a remarkably not-great night for a guy who went home with an Oscar. First, there was his unfortunate performance of his nominated song from "Spectre," the James Bond movie theme "Writing’s On The Wall." Let's just say that had Smith been a contestant on "The Voice," not a lot of chairs would have been swiveling. Afterward, Smith, speaking for everyone watching at home, said that "Singing was horrible" and admitted he "hated every minute" of the performance. And later, when he and Jimmy Napes nonetheless picked up the statuette for best song, Smith gave a #humbleandblessed speech in which he said, "I read an article a few months ago by Sir Ian McKellen, and he said no openly gay man had ever won an Oscar, and if this is the case — and even if it isn’t the case — I want to dedicate this to the LGBT community all around the world. I stand here tonight as a proud gay man and I hope we can all stand together as equals one day." Did Sir Ian McKellen really say that? If only there were some way to find out, perhaps some engine of search! Needless to say, the Twitter police, even happier than they are when someone makes a grammatical error, leapt all over Smith's comment, pointing out that what McKellen actually said, in a January Guardian interview, was that "No openly gay man has ever won the Oscar; I wonder if that is prejudice or chance," and The Guardian framed his comments in the context of the best actor Oscar. At the time, McKellen noted that hetero Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Sean Penn have all won for playing gay men, saying, "How clever, how clever. What about giving me one for playing a straight man? My speech has been in two jackets… 'I'm proud to be the first openly gay man to win the Oscar.' I’ve had to put it back in my pocket twice." But as the New York Times' Yonette Joseph and others have pointed out, plenty of gay people — in varying degrees of being out, it's true — have over the years won Oscars in a variety of categories. One might take a strict interpretation of McKellen's definition of "openly," but here, let's watch gay Oscar winner Joel Grey announce that the Academy Award is going to gay actor Sir John Gielgud. Smith also isn't the first gay winner for a Best Song Oscar — unless you want to forget Elton John (for "The Lion King's" "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?"), Stephen Sondheim (for "Dick Tracy's" “Sooner or Later") and Melissa Etheridge (for "An Inconvenient Truth's" ‘I Need to Wake Up.") He wasn't even the only LGBT individual nominated in that category this year — Smith was up against transgender artist ANOHNI, who was nominated "Racing Extinction's" "Manta Ray."  If he wanted to see what an openly gay Oscar winner looks like, Smith might have watched "Milk" screenwriter Dustin Lance Black's victory lap at the 2007 awards, when he said that the story of Harvey Milk "gave me hope to live my life, it game me hope that one day I could live my life openly as who I am and that maybe one day I could even fall in love and get married." At the time, he told "all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight… you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value." Maybe that's why on Sunday evening, Black — who nine years later is happily engaged to British diver Tom Daley — tweeted a clip of his own acceptance speech and said, "Hey @SamSmithWorld, if you have no idea who I am, it may be time to stop texting my fiancé." He later added, "THE POINT: knowing our LGBTQ history is important. We stand on the shoulders of countless brave men and women who paved the way for us." Sir Ian McKellen, meanwhile, yet again distinguishing himself in the Best Person On Twitter, Non-Chrissy Teigen Division, tweeted, "I'd said no openly gay actor had received #Oscars-that doesn’t detract from @samsmithworld achievement. Congratulations to him & all others!"  Smith's choice to use his moment to dedicate his Oscar to the LGBT community was a well-intentioned one, but the way he went about it came off as unnecessarily self-congratulatory as a comment thread's "First!" Worse, in the process, he forgot about the other Oscars nominees and winners who are members of the LGBT community he dedicated his win to — an omission that about five minutes on Wikipedia would have rectified -- and missed an opportunity to give credit to his predecessors.To quote Jennifer Garner, bless his heart. Surely he meant well. But here's a tip for Sam Smith as he goes forward in his career — when you find that you've been nominated for a major award, make sure you vet your acceptance speech though a few fact checkers first. It's a brief speech! You have a publicist! It won't take much time, I promise! On Sunday, Smith, the 23 year-old British singer-songwriter who gained fame with 2014's cuddle anthem "Stay with Me," had a remarkably not-great night for a guy who went home with an Oscar. First, there was his unfortunate performance of his nominated song from "Spectre," the James Bond movie theme "Writing’s On The Wall." Let's just say that had Smith been a contestant on "The Voice," not a lot of chairs would have been swiveling. Afterward, Smith, speaking for everyone watching at home, said that "Singing was horrible" and admitted he "hated every minute" of the performance. And later, when he and Jimmy Napes nonetheless picked up the statuette for best song, Smith gave a #humbleandblessed speech in which he said, "I read an article a few months ago by Sir Ian McKellen, and he said no openly gay man had ever won an Oscar, and if this is the case — and even if it isn’t the case — I want to dedicate this to the LGBT community all around the world. I stand here tonight as a proud gay man and I hope we can all stand together as equals one day." Did Sir Ian McKellen really say that? If only there were some way to find out, perhaps some engine of search! Needless to say, the Twitter police, even happier than they are when someone makes a grammatical error, leapt all over Smith's comment, pointing out that what McKellen actually said, in a January Guardian interview, was that "No openly gay man has ever won the Oscar; I wonder if that is prejudice or chance," and The Guardian framed his comments in the context of the best actor Oscar. At the time, McKellen noted that hetero Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Sean Penn have all won for playing gay men, saying, "How clever, how clever. What about giving me one for playing a straight man? My speech has been in two jackets… 'I'm proud to be the first openly gay man to win the Oscar.' I’ve had to put it back in my pocket twice." But as the New York Times' Yonette Joseph and others have pointed out, plenty of gay people — in varying degrees of being out, it's true — have over the years won Oscars in a variety of categories. One might take a strict interpretation of McKellen's definition of "openly," but here, let's watch gay Oscar winner Joel Grey announce that the Academy Award is going to gay actor Sir John Gielgud. Smith also isn't the first gay winner for a Best Song Oscar — unless you want to forget Elton John (for "The Lion King's" "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?"), Stephen Sondheim (for "Dick Tracy's" “Sooner or Later") and Melissa Etheridge (for "An Inconvenient Truth's" ‘I Need to Wake Up.") He wasn't even the only LGBT individual nominated in that category this year — Smith was up against transgender artist ANOHNI, who was nominated "Racing Extinction's" "Manta Ray."  If he wanted to see what an openly gay Oscar winner looks like, Smith might have watched "Milk" screenwriter Dustin Lance Black's victory lap at the 2007 awards, when he said that the story of Harvey Milk "gave me hope to live my life, it game me hope that one day I could live my life openly as who I am and that maybe one day I could even fall in love and get married." At the time, he told "all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight… you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value." Maybe that's why on Sunday evening, Black — who nine years later is happily engaged to British diver Tom Daley — tweeted a clip of his own acceptance speech and said, "Hey @SamSmithWorld, if you have no idea who I am, it may be time to stop texting my fiancé." He later added, "THE POINT: knowing our LGBTQ history is important. We stand on the shoulders of countless brave men and women who paved the way for us." Sir Ian McKellen, meanwhile, yet again distinguishing himself in the Best Person On Twitter, Non-Chrissy Teigen Division, tweeted, "I'd said no openly gay actor had received #Oscars-that doesn’t detract from @samsmithworld achievement. Congratulations to him & all others!"  Smith's choice to use his moment to dedicate his Oscar to the LGBT community was a well-intentioned one, but the way he went about it came off as unnecessarily self-congratulatory as a comment thread's "First!" Worse, in the process, he forgot about the other Oscars nominees and winners who are members of the LGBT community he dedicated his win to — an omission that about five minutes on Wikipedia would have rectified -- and missed an opportunity to give credit to his predecessors.

Continue Reading...

Your 2016 Oscars in GIFs: Watch Jacob Tremblay geek out over “Star Wars” droids and more

Continue Reading...

Leo earned his Oscar for “The Revenant” — and he might be our greatest movie star ever

“Tom Cruise,” film critic David Thomson wrote in a 2010 tribute, “is 48.  At that age, Gary Cooper had just made 'The Fountainhead,' Bogart had done 'The Big Sleep,' and Montgomery Clift … well, he was dead.” Leonardo DiCaprio is 41, and he has done more good work than Tom Cruise had at that age. In fact, DiCaprio had done more great work by age 31, by which time he had already made "This Boy’s Life," "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape," "Total Eclipse," "Romeo + Juliet," "Titanic," "Catch Me If You Can," "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator" and "The Departed." Now that DiCaprio has won his first Oscar on Sunday night (of five nominations) it might be time to toss this question out: Is Leonardo DiCaprio the greatest movie star ever? Has he given more excellent performances in more critical and financial hits than Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Cooper, Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington … or anybody? Before you answer that question, consider that since turning 31, you could add to DiCaprio’s film list "Blood Diamond," "Shutter Island," "Inception," "The Great Gatsby," "The Wolf of Wall Street" and, now, "The Revenant." Over the last 20 years, there have probably been bigger box office stars, but surely DiCaprio would have topped Cruise and Johnny Depp if he had played it safe with "Mission Impossible" or "Pirates of The Caribbean" or some other bloated and predictable franchise film.  No other star with DiCaprio’s kind of leverage has taken such enormous chances  — and scored such enormous payoffs. In his first professional job at age 5 – or so the legend is printed  –  he was kicked off the set of "Romper Room" for being disruptive.  The next 15 years or so may seem like the inevitable arc of a gifted child star – commercials that practically made his face recognizable before high school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oA3S... In his teens, a slew of parts in TV shows and bad movies like "Critters 3" followed. Lots of teen actors have similar careers.  The astonishing part for DiCaprio was what came next. When he was 18 he was cast as the stepson of a psychotic bully played by Robert De Niro in "This Boy’s Life," based on Tobias Wolff’s memoir about a teen coming of age. De Niro was astonished by the kid’s talent and assurance. According to Martin Scorsese, De Niro told him, “I'm working with this young kid. He's really good. You should work with him sometime. His name is DiCaprio.” "This Boy’s Life" was released in 1993.  In that same remarkable year, DiCaprio stole scenes from another veteran movie actor, Johnny Depp, playing his autistic younger brother in "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?" Janet Maslin wrote in the New York Times, “But the film's real show-stopping turn comes from Mr. DiCaprio, who makes Arnie's many tics so startling and vivid that at first he is difficult to watch … The performance has a sharp, desperate intensity from beginning to end.” Playing Arnie earned him his first Oscar nomination. Someone – I don’t know who since many people claim to be the first to say it – later asked rhetorically, “Didn’t this kid have an awkward phase?” In 1995 he stole scenes from another Oscar winner, Gene Hackman, in the Sam Raimi western "The Quick and the Dead." The same year he starred in "The Basketball Diaries," playing a junkie so convincingly that Newsday’s Gene Seymour wrote, “He’s too good an actor to be a star.” A gay teen, an autistic, a gunfighter and a junkie – all roles he took on before his 21st birthday. David Thomson wrote of Tom Cruise’s daring when he signed on for Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 masterpiece (Thomson’s word) "Magnolia": “By agreeing to play Frank Mackey, leader of a hysterical male cult yet also the lost son of a great parable of lost angels, Cruise showed the courage I think we all grant him.” I’m not sure Cruise showed all that much courage in accepting the role, but it was daring and he was very good. But in 1999 Cruise was 37 and DiCaprio 21. How much courage did it take for Leo to play Arthur Rimbaud opposite David Thewlis’ Paul Verlaine in "Total Eclipse"? (Directed by Agnieszka Holland, most recently of "The Wire" and "House of Cards.")  DiCaprio’s performance is an astonishing piece of work, one of the few times on film when an actor’s personality has suggested the spirit and depth of a great poet. With all due respect, it was simply beyond the range of River Phoenix, who was cast for the part but died before filming began. A scene where he stands on a table and rants while trashing the work of a roomful of established (and now mostly forgotten) French poets is a bit of breathtaking bravado. It is so far beyond the range of Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp or any other American film actor of our time as to make you wonder if it’s not the greatest performance ever by so young an actor. It’s one of the greatest and, amazingly, least seen film performances of the last 50 years. Popular young actors are supposed to spring out of television series or so-called franchise films and then slide into a comfortable stretch of sequels, occasionally veering off into “character” parts as they settle into middle age. But Leo was already doing the character roles before "Titanic" launched him into superstardom in 1997. If Thomson was correct in commending Cruise’s courage for playing a part that might be seen as a version of himself (and Thomson was correct, I think), then how much courage did DiCaprio, then 24, show in 1998 playing a snotty, self-absorbed hedonist – surely the perception of Leo often proclaimed  in supermarket tabloids – in Woody Allen’s "Celebrity"? The film was surely an inspiration for the HBO series "Entourage"; look closely in "Celebrity" and you’ll even see Adrian Grenier in Leo’s entourage. Four years later, he was as smooth as Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief" in Spielberg’s "Catch Me If You Can" (but Grant was 51 when he made that film).  The comfortable cool that emanates from this performances is 180 degrees from his Rimbaud in "Total Eclipse," but the two performances have one thing in common: You can’t think of any other actor who could have played the part as well. 2002 also saw him begin his collaboration with Martin Scorsese in "Gangs of New York," where he attempted the only mountain he could not scale, a matchup with Daniel Day Lewis. But DiCaprio was 27, and I wouldn’t rule out a closer showing should the two be paired again, particularly if DiCaprio gets to play a role more fully written than Amsterdam Villon. After "Titanic" became the most popular movie ever made, DiCaprio seemed to mock his own success in words that didn’t come from any publicist: "I had no connection with me during that whole 'Titanic' phenomenon, and what my face became around the world … I’ll never reach that state of popularity again, and I don’t expect to.” He’s taken roles like the one in "Revolutionary Road" because the character, he said, “was unheroic and slightly cowardly.” (Though no doubt he wanted to work again with close friend Kate Winslet.)  What’s amazing is how many roles since "Titanic" have resulted in financially successful films despite such daring choices as "Inception." “Once upon a time” writes Thomson, “Cruise would have been in 'Inception.'”  True — but he wouldn’t have been as good, and he would have shrunk when paired with Tom Hardy.  There was, of course, that otherwise unwatchable sludge of a Clint Eastwood film, "J. Edgar," a movie that he surely must have known had no chance at the box office regardless of how good DiCaprio was. Then there was his turn as Baz Luhrman’s "Gatsby." Suspend, for the moment, all questions of what you thought of Luhrman’s interpretation of Fitzgerald’s novel and admit, at least this: When DiCaprio turns on the balcony, extends his hand and says, “I’m Gatsby,” you saw for the first time what Fitzgerald must have seen when he conceived the character. Would it have been terribly unfair if Leo had taken home the gold statue for "Wolf of Wall Street"? Perhaps not in the same year  Matthew McConaughey won for "The Dallas Buyers Club," though even McConaughey might have had trouble outdoing Leo rant-for-rant. When he jumped on that desk to deliver his hysterically funny rant, did it cross anyone’s mind that he was cribbing from the scene in "Total Eclipse" 18 years earlier?) In the lead-up to the ceremony, I heard some carping about DiCaprio’s worthiness for the best actor award.  Is his work in "The Revenant" the best he’s ever done?  Perhaps not, but then he wouldn’t be the first actor to receive an Oscar for work that wasn’t his best performance. Was Paul Newman’s in "The Color of Money"? Dustin Hoffman’s best performance certainly wasn’t in "Rain Man"; in fact, I’ll give Tom Cruise the nod over him for that one. Was Pacino’s best in "Scent of a Woman"? Denzel Washington in "Training Day"? The real surprise, when we look back on DiCaprio's career so far, is that this is the first Oscar he's won. But given the power he now wields at age 41 and his uncanny ability to select directors and roles, it’s almost scary to think what he’s capable of doing in the next 10 years or so.“Tom Cruise,” film critic David Thomson wrote in a 2010 tribute, “is 48.  At that age, Gary Cooper had just made 'The Fountainhead,' Bogart had done 'The Big Sleep,' and Montgomery Clift … well, he was dead.” Leonardo DiCaprio is 41, and he has done more good work than Tom Cruise had at that age. In fact, DiCaprio had done more great work by age 31, by which time he had already made "This Boy’s Life," "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape," "Total Eclipse," "Romeo + Juliet," "Titanic," "Catch Me If You Can," "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator" and "The Departed." Now that DiCaprio has won his first Oscar on Sunday night (of five nominations) it might be time to toss this question out: Is Leonardo DiCaprio the greatest movie star ever? Has he given more excellent performances in more critical and financial hits than Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Cooper, Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington … or anybody? Before you answer that question, consider that since turning 31, you could add to DiCaprio’s film list "Blood Diamond," "Shutter Island," "Inception," "The Great Gatsby," "The Wolf of Wall Street" and, now, "The Revenant." Over the last 20 years, there have probably been bigger box office stars, but surely DiCaprio would have topped Cruise and Johnny Depp if he had played it safe with "Mission Impossible" or "Pirates of The Caribbean" or some other bloated and predictable franchise film.  No other star with DiCaprio’s kind of leverage has taken such enormous chances  — and scored such enormous payoffs. In his first professional job at age 5 – or so the legend is printed  –  he was kicked off the set of "Romper Room" for being disruptive.  The next 15 years or so may seem like the inevitable arc of a gifted child star – commercials that practically made his face recognizable before high school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oA3S... In his teens, a slew of parts in TV shows and bad movies like "Critters 3" followed. Lots of teen actors have similar careers.  The astonishing part for DiCaprio was what came next. When he was 18 he was cast as the stepson of a psychotic bully played by Robert De Niro in "This Boy’s Life," based on Tobias Wolff’s memoir about a teen coming of age. De Niro was astonished by the kid’s talent and assurance. According to Martin Scorsese, De Niro told him, “I'm working with this young kid. He's really good. You should work with him sometime. His name is DiCaprio.” "This Boy’s Life" was released in 1993.  In that same remarkable year, DiCaprio stole scenes from another veteran movie actor, Johnny Depp, playing his autistic younger brother in "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?" Janet Maslin wrote in the New York Times, “But the film's real show-stopping turn comes from Mr. DiCaprio, who makes Arnie's many tics so startling and vivid that at first he is difficult to watch … The performance has a sharp, desperate intensity from beginning to end.” Playing Arnie earned him his first Oscar nomination. Someone – I don’t know who since many people claim to be the first to say it – later asked rhetorically, “Didn’t this kid have an awkward phase?” In 1995 he stole scenes from another Oscar winner, Gene Hackman, in the Sam Raimi western "The Quick and the Dead." The same year he starred in "The Basketball Diaries," playing a junkie so convincingly that Newsday’s Gene Seymour wrote, “He’s too good an actor to be a star.” A gay teen, an autistic, a gunfighter and a junkie – all roles he took on before his 21st birthday. David Thomson wrote of Tom Cruise’s daring when he signed on for Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 masterpiece (Thomson’s word) "Magnolia": “By agreeing to play Frank Mackey, leader of a hysterical male cult yet also the lost son of a great parable of lost angels, Cruise showed the courage I think we all grant him.” I’m not sure Cruise showed all that much courage in accepting the role, but it was daring and he was very good. But in 1999 Cruise was 37 and DiCaprio 21. How much courage did it take for Leo to play Arthur Rimbaud opposite David Thewlis’ Paul Verlaine in "Total Eclipse"? (Directed by Agnieszka Holland, most recently of "The Wire" and "House of Cards.")  DiCaprio’s performance is an astonishing piece of work, one of the few times on film when an actor’s personality has suggested the spirit and depth of a great poet. With all due respect, it was simply beyond the range of River Phoenix, who was cast for the part but died before filming began. A scene where he stands on a table and rants while trashing the work of a roomful of established (and now mostly forgotten) French poets is a bit of breathtaking bravado. It is so far beyond the range of Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp or any other American film actor of our time as to make you wonder if it’s not the greatest performance ever by so young an actor. It’s one of the greatest and, amazingly, least seen film performances of the last 50 years. Popular young actors are supposed to spring out of television series or so-called franchise films and then slide into a comfortable stretch of sequels, occasionally veering off into “character” parts as they settle into middle age. But Leo was already doing the character roles before "Titanic" launched him into superstardom in 1997. If Thomson was correct in commending Cruise’s courage for playing a part that might be seen as a version of himself (and Thomson was correct, I think), then how much courage did DiCaprio, then 24, show in 1998 playing a snotty, self-absorbed hedonist – surely the perception of Leo often proclaimed  in supermarket tabloids – in Woody Allen’s "Celebrity"? The film was surely an inspiration for the HBO series "Entourage"; look closely in "Celebrity" and you’ll even see Adrian Grenier in Leo’s entourage. Four years later, he was as smooth as Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief" in Spielberg’s "Catch Me If You Can" (but Grant was 51 when he made that film).  The comfortable cool that emanates from this performances is 180 degrees from his Rimbaud in "Total Eclipse," but the two performances have one thing in common: You can’t think of any other actor who could have played the part as well. 2002 also saw him begin his collaboration with Martin Scorsese in "Gangs of New York," where he attempted the only mountain he could not scale, a matchup with Daniel Day Lewis. But DiCaprio was 27, and I wouldn’t rule out a closer showing should the two be paired again, particularly if DiCaprio gets to play a role more fully written than Amsterdam Villon. After "Titanic" became the most popular movie ever made, DiCaprio seemed to mock his own success in words that didn’t come from any publicist: "I had no connection with me during that whole 'Titanic' phenomenon, and what my face became around the world … I’ll never reach that state of popularity again, and I don’t expect to.” He’s taken roles like the one in "Revolutionary Road" because the character, he said, “was unheroic and slightly cowardly.” (Though no doubt he wanted to work again with close friend Kate Winslet.)  What’s amazing is how many roles since "Titanic" have resulted in financially successful films despite such daring choices as "Inception." “Once upon a time” writes Thomson, “Cruise would have been in 'Inception.'”  True — but he wouldn’t have been as good, and he would have shrunk when paired with Tom Hardy.  There was, of course, that otherwise unwatchable sludge of a Clint Eastwood film, "J. Edgar," a movie that he surely must have known had no chance at the box office regardless of how good DiCaprio was. Then there was his turn as Baz Luhrman’s "Gatsby." Suspend, for the moment, all questions of what you thought of Luhrman’s interpretation of Fitzgerald’s novel and admit, at least this: When DiCaprio turns on the balcony, extends his hand and says, “I’m Gatsby,” you saw for the first time what Fitzgerald must have seen when he conceived the character. Would it have been terribly unfair if Leo had taken home the gold statue for "Wolf of Wall Street"? Perhaps not in the same year  Matthew McConaughey won for "The Dallas Buyers Club," though even McConaughey might have had trouble outdoing Leo rant-for-rant. When he jumped on that desk to deliver his hysterically funny rant, did it cross anyone’s mind that he was cribbing from the scene in "Total Eclipse" 18 years earlier?) In the lead-up to the ceremony, I heard some carping about DiCaprio’s worthiness for the best actor award.  Is his work in "The Revenant" the best he’s ever done?  Perhaps not, but then he wouldn’t be the first actor to receive an Oscar for work that wasn’t his best performance. Was Paul Newman’s in "The Color of Money"? Dustin Hoffman’s best performance certainly wasn’t in "Rain Man"; in fact, I’ll give Tom Cruise the nod over him for that one. Was Pacino’s best in "Scent of a Woman"? Denzel Washington in "Training Day"? The real surprise, when we look back on DiCaprio's career so far, is that this is the first Oscar he's won. But given the power he now wields at age 41 and his uncanny ability to select directors and roles, it’s almost scary to think what he’s capable of doing in the next 10 years or so.“Tom Cruise,” film critic David Thomson wrote in a 2010 tribute, “is 48.  At that age, Gary Cooper had just made 'The Fountainhead,' Bogart had done 'The Big Sleep,' and Montgomery Clift … well, he was dead.” Leonardo DiCaprio is 41, and he has done more good work than Tom Cruise had at that age. In fact, DiCaprio had done more great work by age 31, by which time he had already made "This Boy’s Life," "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape," "Total Eclipse," "Romeo + Juliet," "Titanic," "Catch Me If You Can," "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator" and "The Departed." Now that DiCaprio has won his first Oscar on Sunday night (of five nominations) it might be time to toss this question out: Is Leonardo DiCaprio the greatest movie star ever? Has he given more excellent performances in more critical and financial hits than Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Cooper, Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington … or anybody? Before you answer that question, consider that since turning 31, you could add to DiCaprio’s film list "Blood Diamond," "Shutter Island," "Inception," "The Great Gatsby," "The Wolf of Wall Street" and, now, "The Revenant." Over the last 20 years, there have probably been bigger box office stars, but surely DiCaprio would have topped Cruise and Johnny Depp if he had played it safe with "Mission Impossible" or "Pirates of The Caribbean" or some other bloated and predictable franchise film.  No other star with DiCaprio’s kind of leverage has taken such enormous chances  — and scored such enormous payoffs. In his first professional job at age 5 – or so the legend is printed  –  he was kicked off the set of "Romper Room" for being disruptive.  The next 15 years or so may seem like the inevitable arc of a gifted child star – commercials that practically made his face recognizable before high school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oA3S... In his teens, a slew of parts in TV shows and bad movies like "Critters 3" followed. Lots of teen actors have similar careers.  The astonishing part for DiCaprio was what came next. When he was 18 he was cast as the stepson of a psychotic bully played by Robert De Niro in "This Boy’s Life," based on Tobias Wolff’s memoir about a teen coming of age. De Niro was astonished by the kid’s talent and assurance. According to Martin Scorsese, De Niro told him, “I'm working with this young kid. He's really good. You should work with him sometime. His name is DiCaprio.” "This Boy’s Life" was released in 1993.  In that same remarkable year, DiCaprio stole scenes from another veteran movie actor, Johnny Depp, playing his autistic younger brother in "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?" Janet Maslin wrote in the New York Times, “But the film's real show-stopping turn comes from Mr. DiCaprio, who makes Arnie's many tics so startling and vivid that at first he is difficult to watch … The performance has a sharp, desperate intensity from beginning to end.” Playing Arnie earned him his first Oscar nomination. Someone – I don’t know who since many people claim to be the first to say it – later asked rhetorically, “Didn’t this kid have an awkward phase?” In 1995 he stole scenes from another Oscar winner, Gene Hackman, in the Sam Raimi western "The Quick and the Dead." The same year he starred in "The Basketball Diaries," playing a junkie so convincingly that Newsday’s Gene Seymour wrote, “He’s too good an actor to be a star.” A gay teen, an autistic, a gunfighter and a junkie – all roles he took on before his 21st birthday. David Thomson wrote of Tom Cruise’s daring when he signed on for Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 masterpiece (Thomson’s word) "Magnolia": “By agreeing to play Frank Mackey, leader of a hysterical male cult yet also the lost son of a great parable of lost angels, Cruise showed the courage I think we all grant him.” I’m not sure Cruise showed all that much courage in accepting the role, but it was daring and he was very good. But in 1999 Cruise was 37 and DiCaprio 21. How much courage did it take for Leo to play Arthur Rimbaud opposite David Thewlis’ Paul Verlaine in "Total Eclipse"? (Directed by Agnieszka Holland, most recently of "The Wire" and "House of Cards.")  DiCaprio’s performance is an astonishing piece of work, one of the few times on film when an actor’s personality has suggested the spirit and depth of a great poet. With all due respect, it was simply beyond the range of River Phoenix, who was cast for the part but died before filming began. A scene where he stands on a table and rants while trashing the work of a roomful of established (and now mostly forgotten) French poets is a bit of breathtaking bravado. It is so far beyond the range of Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp or any other American film actor of our time as to make you wonder if it’s not the greatest performance ever by so young an actor. It’s one of the greatest and, amazingly, least seen film performances of the last 50 years. Popular young actors are supposed to spring out of television series or so-called franchise films and then slide into a comfortable stretch of sequels, occasionally veering off into “character” parts as they settle into middle age. But Leo was already doing the character roles before "Titanic" launched him into superstardom in 1997. If Thomson was correct in commending Cruise’s courage for playing a part that might be seen as a version of himself (and Thomson was correct, I think), then how much courage did DiCaprio, then 24, show in 1998 playing a snotty, self-absorbed hedonist – surely the perception of Leo often proclaimed  in supermarket tabloids – in Woody Allen’s "Celebrity"? The film was surely an inspiration for the HBO series "Entourage"; look closely in "Celebrity" and you’ll even see Adrian Grenier in Leo’s entourage. Four years later, he was as smooth as Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief" in Spielberg’s "Catch Me If You Can" (but Grant was 51 when he made that film).  The comfortable cool that emanates from this performances is 180 degrees from his Rimbaud in "Total Eclipse," but the two performances have one thing in common: You can’t think of any other actor who could have played the part as well. 2002 also saw him begin his collaboration with Martin Scorsese in "Gangs of New York," where he attempted the only mountain he could not scale, a matchup with Daniel Day Lewis. But DiCaprio was 27, and I wouldn’t rule out a closer showing should the two be paired again, particularly if DiCaprio gets to play a role more fully written than Amsterdam Villon. After "Titanic" became the most popular movie ever made, DiCaprio seemed to mock his own success in words that didn’t come from any publicist: "I had no connection with me during that whole 'Titanic' phenomenon, and what my face became around the world … I’ll never reach that state of popularity again, and I don’t expect to.” He’s taken roles like the one in "Revolutionary Road" because the character, he said, “was unheroic and slightly cowardly.” (Though no doubt he wanted to work again with close friend Kate Winslet.)  What’s amazing is how many roles since "Titanic" have resulted in financially successful films despite such daring choices as "Inception." “Once upon a time” writes Thomson, “Cruise would have been in 'Inception.'”  True — but he wouldn’t have been as good, and he would have shrunk when paired with Tom Hardy.  There was, of course, that otherwise unwatchable sludge of a Clint Eastwood film, "J. Edgar," a movie that he surely must have known had no chance at the box office regardless of how good DiCaprio was. Then there was his turn as Baz Luhrman’s "Gatsby." Suspend, for the moment, all questions of what you thought of Luhrman’s interpretation of Fitzgerald’s novel and admit, at least this: When DiCaprio turns on the balcony, extends his hand and says, “I’m Gatsby,” you saw for the first time what Fitzgerald must have seen when he conceived the character. Would it have been terribly unfair if Leo had taken home the gold statue for "Wolf of Wall Street"? Perhaps not in the same year  Matthew McConaughey won for "The Dallas Buyers Club," though even McConaughey might have had trouble outdoing Leo rant-for-rant. When he jumped on that desk to deliver his hysterically funny rant, did it cross anyone’s mind that he was cribbing from the scene in "Total Eclipse" 18 years earlier?) In the lead-up to the ceremony, I heard some carping about DiCaprio’s worthiness for the best actor award.  Is his work in "The Revenant" the best he’s ever done?  Perhaps not, but then he wouldn’t be the first actor to receive an Oscar for work that wasn’t his best performance. Was Paul Newman’s in "The Color of Money"? Dustin Hoffman’s best performance certainly wasn’t in "Rain Man"; in fact, I’ll give Tom Cruise the nod over him for that one. Was Pacino’s best in "Scent of a Woman"? Denzel Washington in "Training Day"? The real surprise, when we look back on DiCaprio's career so far, is that this is the first Oscar he's won. But given the power he now wields at age 41 and his uncanny ability to select directors and roles, it’s almost scary to think what he’s capable of doing in the next 10 years or so.“Tom Cruise,” film critic David Thomson wrote in a 2010 tribute, “is 48.  At that age, Gary Cooper had just made 'The Fountainhead,' Bogart had done 'The Big Sleep,' and Montgomery Clift … well, he was dead.” Leonardo DiCaprio is 41, and he has done more good work than Tom Cruise had at that age. In fact, DiCaprio had done more great work by age 31, by which time he had already made "This Boy’s Life," "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape," "Total Eclipse," "Romeo + Juliet," "Titanic," "Catch Me If You Can," "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator" and "The Departed." Now that DiCaprio has won his first Oscar on Sunday night (of five nominations) it might be time to toss this question out: Is Leonardo DiCaprio the greatest movie star ever? Has he given more excellent performances in more critical and financial hits than Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Cooper, Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington … or anybody? Before you answer that question, consider that since turning 31, you could add to DiCaprio’s film list "Blood Diamond," "Shutter Island," "Inception," "The Great Gatsby," "The Wolf of Wall Street" and, now, "The Revenant." Over the last 20 years, there have probably been bigger box office stars, but surely DiCaprio would have topped Cruise and Johnny Depp if he had played it safe with "Mission Impossible" or "Pirates of The Caribbean" or some other bloated and predictable franchise film.  No other star with DiCaprio’s kind of leverage has taken such enormous chances  — and scored such enormous payoffs. In his first professional job at age 5 – or so the legend is printed  –  he was kicked off the set of "Romper Room" for being disruptive.  The next 15 years or so may seem like the inevitable arc of a gifted child star – commercials that practically made his face recognizable before high school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oA3S... In his teens, a slew of parts in TV shows and bad movies like "Critters 3" followed. Lots of teen actors have similar careers.  The astonishing part for DiCaprio was what came next. When he was 18 he was cast as the stepson of a psychotic bully played by Robert De Niro in "This Boy’s Life," based on Tobias Wolff’s memoir about a teen coming of age. De Niro was astonished by the kid’s talent and assurance. According to Martin Scorsese, De Niro told him, “I'm working with this young kid. He's really good. You should work with him sometime. His name is DiCaprio.” "This Boy’s Life" was released in 1993.  In that same remarkable year, DiCaprio stole scenes from another veteran movie actor, Johnny Depp, playing his autistic younger brother in "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?" Janet Maslin wrote in the New York Times, “But the film's real show-stopping turn comes from Mr. DiCaprio, who makes Arnie's many tics so startling and vivid that at first he is difficult to watch … The performance has a sharp, desperate intensity from beginning to end.” Playing Arnie earned him his first Oscar nomination. Someone – I don’t know who since many people claim to be the first to say it – later asked rhetorically, “Didn’t this kid have an awkward phase?” In 1995 he stole scenes from another Oscar winner, Gene Hackman, in the Sam Raimi western "The Quick and the Dead." The same year he starred in "The Basketball Diaries," playing a junkie so convincingly that Newsday’s Gene Seymour wrote, “He’s too good an actor to be a star.” A gay teen, an autistic, a gunfighter and a junkie – all roles he took on before his 21st birthday. David Thomson wrote of Tom Cruise’s daring when he signed on for Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 masterpiece (Thomson’s word) "Magnolia": “By agreeing to play Frank Mackey, leader of a hysterical male cult yet also the lost son of a great parable of lost angels, Cruise showed the courage I think we all grant him.” I’m not sure Cruise showed all that much courage in accepting the role, but it was daring and he was very good. But in 1999 Cruise was 37 and DiCaprio 21. How much courage did it take for Leo to play Arthur Rimbaud opposite David Thewlis’ Paul Verlaine in "Total Eclipse"? (Directed by Agnieszka Holland, most recently of "The Wire" and "House of Cards.")  DiCaprio’s performance is an astonishing piece of work, one of the few times on film when an actor’s personality has suggested the spirit and depth of a great poet. With all due respect, it was simply beyond the range of River Phoenix, who was cast for the part but died before filming began. A scene where he stands on a table and rants while trashing the work of a roomful of established (and now mostly forgotten) French poets is a bit of breathtaking bravado. It is so far beyond the range of Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp or any other American film actor of our time as to make you wonder if it’s not the greatest performance ever by so young an actor. It’s one of the greatest and, amazingly, least seen film performances of the last 50 years. Popular young actors are supposed to spring out of television series or so-called franchise films and then slide into a comfortable stretch of sequels, occasionally veering off into “character” parts as they settle into middle age. But Leo was already doing the character roles before "Titanic" launched him into superstardom in 1997. If Thomson was correct in commending Cruise’s courage for playing a part that might be seen as a version of himself (and Thomson was correct, I think), then how much courage did DiCaprio, then 24, show in 1998 playing a snotty, self-absorbed hedonist – surely the perception of Leo often proclaimed  in supermarket tabloids – in Woody Allen’s "Celebrity"? The film was surely an inspiration for the HBO series "Entourage"; look closely in "Celebrity" and you’ll even see Adrian Grenier in Leo’s entourage. Four years later, he was as smooth as Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief" in Spielberg’s "Catch Me If You Can" (but Grant was 51 when he made that film).  The comfortable cool that emanates from this performances is 180 degrees from his Rimbaud in "Total Eclipse," but the two performances have one thing in common: You can’t think of any other actor who could have played the part as well. 2002 also saw him begin his collaboration with Martin Scorsese in "Gangs of New York," where he attempted the only mountain he could not scale, a matchup with Daniel Day Lewis. But DiCaprio was 27, and I wouldn’t rule out a closer showing should the two be paired again, particularly if DiCaprio gets to play a role more fully written than Amsterdam Villon. After "Titanic" became the most popular movie ever made, DiCaprio seemed to mock his own success in words that didn’t come from any publicist: "I had no connection with me during that whole 'Titanic' phenomenon, and what my face became around the world … I’ll never reach that state of popularity again, and I don’t expect to.” He’s taken roles like the one in "Revolutionary Road" because the character, he said, “was unheroic and slightly cowardly.” (Though no doubt he wanted to work again with close friend Kate Winslet.)  What’s amazing is how many roles since "Titanic" have resulted in financially successful films despite such daring choices as "Inception." “Once upon a time” writes Thomson, “Cruise would have been in 'Inception.'”  True — but he wouldn’t have been as good, and he would have shrunk when paired with Tom Hardy.  There was, of course, that otherwise unwatchable sludge of a Clint Eastwood film, "J. Edgar," a movie that he surely must have known had no chance at the box office regardless of how good DiCaprio was. Then there was his turn as Baz Luhrman’s "Gatsby." Suspend, for the moment, all questions of what you thought of Luhrman’s interpretation of Fitzgerald’s novel and admit, at least this: When DiCaprio turns on the balcony, extends his hand and says, “I’m Gatsby,” you saw for the first time what Fitzgerald must have seen when he conceived the character. Would it have been terribly unfair if Leo had taken home the gold statue for "Wolf of Wall Street"? Perhaps not in the same year  Matthew McConaughey won for "The Dallas Buyers Club," though even McConaughey might have had trouble outdoing Leo rant-for-rant. When he jumped on that desk to deliver his hysterically funny rant, did it cross anyone’s mind that he was cribbing from the scene in "Total Eclipse" 18 years earlier?) In the lead-up to the ceremony, I heard some carping about DiCaprio’s worthiness for the best actor award.  Is his work in "The Revenant" the best he’s ever done?  Perhaps not, but then he wouldn’t be the first actor to receive an Oscar for work that wasn’t his best performance. Was Paul Newman’s in "The Color of Money"? Dustin Hoffman’s best performance certainly wasn’t in "Rain Man"; in fact, I’ll give Tom Cruise the nod over him for that one. Was Pacino’s best in "Scent of a Woman"? Denzel Washington in "Training Day"? The real surprise, when we look back on DiCaprio's career so far, is that this is the first Oscar he's won. But given the power he now wields at age 41 and his uncanny ability to select directors and roles, it’s almost scary to think what he’s capable of doing in the next 10 years or so.

Continue Reading...

VP Joe Biden speaks out at Oscars against sexual abuse: “We must and we can change the culture”

Joe Biden has certainly put his foot in his mouth more than his share of times. But his Oscar appearance was pitched just right, as he spoke about sexual assault. This could have gone very wrong, but he delivered it just right. "I’m asking you to pledge: I will intervene in situations when consent has not or cannot be given," he said. "Let’s change the culture. We must and we can change the culture so no abused woman or man like the survives you will see tonight ever have to ask themselves, 'What did I do?' They did nothing wrong." "I’m sincere. Take the pledge." He directed the audience to ItsOnUs.org to find the pledge. Biden led into a stirring performance by Lady Gaga -- herself a survivor of sexual assault -- who performed the nominated song she co-wrote with Diane Warren, "Til It Happens To You" (from "The Hunting Ground") with other survivors onstage with her. It was one of the night's best moments — the live audience gave a rousing standing ovation: via GIPHYJoe Biden has certainly put his foot in his mouth more than his share of times. But his Oscar appearance was pitched just right, as he spoke about sexual assault. This could have gone very wrong, but he delivered it just right. "I’m asking you to pledge: I will intervene in situations when consent has not or cannot be given," he said. "Let’s change the culture. We must and we can change the culture so no abused woman or man like the survives you will see tonight ever have to ask themselves, 'What did I do?' They did nothing wrong." "I’m sincere. Take the pledge." He directed the audience to ItsOnUs.org to find the pledge. Biden led into a stirring performance by Lady Gaga -- herself a survivor of sexual assault -- who performed the nominated song she co-wrote with Diane Warren, "Til It Happens To You" (from "The Hunting Ground") with other survivors onstage with her. It was one of the night's best moments — the live audience gave a rousing standing ovation: via GIPHY

Continue Reading...