because The Hurt Locker is a film and not a hybrid movie-cartoon. I saw Avatar in 3D and thought it spectacular entertainment. It was a magical experience and would see it again on the big screen. But that attribute alone does not mean it was a great movie worthy of Best Picture status.
Judging from the box office, the public does not fully appreciate the genius of The Hurt Locker. People who have been in war zones, like the screenwriter and this writer, probably view this film differently that those who have not. The complex relationship between the three leads is what this movie is about, not the riveting action scenes. To be sure, a series of missions are the narrative heart of the movie. Critics may see this as repetitive and unnecessary, yet they are needed to illustrate the evolving and abrasive relationship between the three men. The portrayal of the war itself is apolitical although many argue otherwise; the power is in the relationships, not the action narrative.
The small part set in the supermarket is a rare instance of pure cinematic wonder; powerful and complex in what it conveys yet so simple. To me it rates along with my all time movie scene favorite in the war genre, the scene in the taxi and the front lawn in the opening moments of The Best Years of Our Lives. If anything, just watch the first 30 minutes of this film, you will not be disappointed.
The reason this film has grossed only $15 million thus far(Alice in Wonderland grossed over $100,000 on the first weekend) is that it is an unsparing and dark film about an unpopular war. As during the Great Depression, fluff movies were generally very successful for obvious reasons. Do yourself a favor and see this movie. I watched it in the theatre and at home on a large flat screen and it was just as powerful the second time around.
I was driving along Mission Gorge Road Sunday past and drove by a store that was advertising a deli sandwich for $1.99. While this may appeal to stretched consumers, the idea of pricing-to-survive troubled me. The Dow closed Friday over 10,500 and I presume will continue a slow march toward prosperity, no matter how ephemeral.
The two numbers speak volumes about where we have landed. I know I am fortunate enough to be in the lifeboat; but I am not so short-sighted to believe the drownings going on around me do not have the possibility of swamping my boat.
The health care debate sharply illustrates this divide. Those who have versus those who do not. No matter the scope of a final bill, which I believe will come to pass, the health care issue is a proxy for a larger question, deeply rooted in the past century. Since the end of World War II, domestic social and economic policy decisions have really been an ongoing struggle over the scope and survival of the New Deal. This country has never adequately framed a permanent national consensus on the Fed’s role in our daily lives.
Some New Deal policies are firmly institutionalized such as unemployment benefits and Social Security. The New Frontier added Medicare to the mix and I can imagine the howling amongst the GOP faithful if that program went away.
So why is it that legions of recipients of New Deal and New Frontier largess are charter tea-baggers? Sadly the answer is those in the boats do not want anymore company.
At last Mr. Obama realizes that there is no crossing the aisle on health care reform. It is clear the administration will be forced to craft a bill unilaterally and force it through Congress. This will please few people but at least it will be viewed as some progress and provide the Democrats with some political cover this fall.
The debate on this issue highlights a concern I often have; we are probably too democratic for our own good. Minority rights, granted by the Constitution, are what has always set us apart, the tyranny of the majority has never been accepted in this land. (OK, I know we locked up the Japanese during WWII and so on, but for the most part, we have zealously protected the rights of small groups) In the global world, I am beginning to think we need to adjust our vision as to what constitutes an adequate level of control over majorities. We now have the tyranny of the minority in place.
Health care costs are going to make life difficult for our business community in the global marketplace. I give the President credit for his professorial long-term view; he sorely misjudged our willingness to sacrifice for the future of this country. We want it now. And we want someone else(?) to pay for it.
The thinly veiled public relations exercise going on in Washington today over health care reform reminds of a story about Benjamin Franklin. As you may recall, Mr. Franklin, always a master of self-promotion, invented a machine powered by heat that made enough noise to convince passersby that he was working on projects well past midnight. In his autobiography, he boasted that this device greatly improved his reputation amongst bankers and other community shakers.
I think the President needs to eschew these Franklin-meetings and seize the bully pulpit. He should look to Mr. Truman for inspiration; that President was faced with a similar nihilistic Republican Congress. He labeled them the “Do Nothing” Congress and rode that slogan to victory in 1948.
I realize people are sick of name-calling, but it is time to clearly define the teams and their goals. Health care reform is complicated and probably will not pay dividends for years. But we have to start somewhere. Consider this fact; when India’s Tata first rolls their cheap sub-compact down the assembly line, the costs to build that car starts at zero. Ford’s Focus, on the other, starts down the line with about $7,000 of expense to pay for past retirees, a large portion of which is for health benefits. Something has to be done to lavel this playing field.
I have finally made peace with my new reality. And it is probably yours as well. All of us are facing a new era of working longer, harder and for less money. If you are looking for someone to blame you are missing the point. What we are seeing is a return to normal global economic patterns. The play is the same, only the characters are playing different roles.
Thomas Freidman last week referred to us as the “grasshopper generation”. Americans are used to feasting on the bounty left by the Greatest Generation. We have collectively failed to work or save enough. The home equity line became our dope; the banks the corner drug dealer.
The great post-war era of prosperity is over. We shot ourselves in the foot when we discovered Italian shoes and Volkswagens. It has been downhill ever since. Only we could not see it coming. Regaining that time is not going to happen. Auto workers cannot expect to retire at 50 with a boat and cabin on the lake. Public sector workers are not going to be quitting early either, our governments are equally bereft of largesse.
The Tea Party people are perhaps the most misguided of all. This crisis is not about feckless bankers, government debt or big-spending politicians. This problem is more about the rise of other countries; whose npeople not used to feeding on the wealth left by their predecessors. They are by nature more hungry and more willing to work harder. What we first need to realize is that the Cleavers have left the room. The sooner we do that the sooner we will regain our footing.
The President yesterday fired another salvo in his battle with the nation’s largest banks. He wants to make sure taxpayers get paid back for the bailout. The recent spate of excessive bonuses set off this proposal.
I do not think the size of executive compensation is really the issue here. The problem is that the gang of pirates at the helm of the private financial system have little incentive to loan money. They are making piles of profits by doing very little; borrow for nothing and buy Treasures and make the spread.
They get this rare privilege because they are supposed to grease the wheels of the economy with credit. This is not happening. The frustration in my business is over the top. Banks are behaving poorly again, only this time they have gone too far the other direction.
What happened to the era of conservative bankers? You know, those guys with three-piece suits in the black and white movies? They were dull, prudent and knew the difference between good and bad credit risks.
These guys go from loaning money to people with no jobs to not loaning money to people with good jobs and credit. The President is going after them with this new tax of banks. If the tax does not survive Congress, he still may get his way. Perhaps the 50 largest banks will heed this shot over the bow.
The cyber-fracas now going on between Google and the Chinese is perhaps a preview of how future wars between major powers will be fought. Bytes will replace bullets. It will be more important to produce hackers than high school guards.
I believe the last conventional war was fought in Korea. Terrorism and hacking are most likely to be the weapons of choice in this century. It cost far less to educate and army of cyber-warriors than it does to develop F-22s. Unfortunately for America, these new warriors have the potential to level the playing field among nations, erasing much of our current security advantages.
No one can nor wants to challenge this country on a conventional battlefield. The attack on Google was not a Pearl Harbor, but we had better pay attention to it. Our collective safety now more than ever will depend on educated workers who can design cyber-shields and airport screening devices.
It is ironic that most defense-hawks in this country would rather spend money on the tools of war and not on how to educate those who can design the new tools. Just over fifty years ago we rose to the challenge from Moscow and beat them to the moon. This was done by a concerted government-funded national effort to teach science in the schools.
We ignore this cheap lesson from the Chinese at our own peril. Wiser heads know we cannot rest on past victories. This country, since 1980 so focused on short-term rewards and low taxes, had better dig deep and start pouring money into our schools.
Google’s decision to leave the China market is interesting on several levels. Western business interests have pursued the Holy Grail of ‘The ChinaMarket’ for the past 150 years. No one power or one interest has ever found much enduring success there with the exception of the Brits and the Portuguese. The lure of all of those consumers will probably bring Google back but for now their stand is a curious mix of politics and money. I want to give Google some credit for having a sound corporate moral compass but the skeptic in me says otherwise. In the end, I think there will be some compromise that will be difficult since both sides need to save face. Both parties can benefit from each other, eventually they will reconcile.
Perhaps Google never really understood the centuries-old methods of doing business in China. Even during periods of national weakness, the size and complexity of that society dictated doing things more the Chinese way.
Yesterday I noted that it is important to appreciate the difference between banks and bankers. Think of the latter as a close-knit economic guild. Because of this, they can move freely from bank to bank, collecting bonuses and options along the way. No where is it remotely important to actually perform well.
If you doubt this, just check the roster of those at the helms of the nation’s financial institutions. Much in the mode of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, this group of pirates has been ‘rehabiliated’. No matter the scope of their past and endless financial missteps, all has been forgiven. The inmates are back in charge.
The President assumed his pardon would carry with it some form of obligation. But thus far, the ex-miscreants have slyly thumbed their nose at our leader. They are chastened to be sure, but they have discovered a vital truth: it is not necessary to loan money to make a bank profitable. Just borrow at the discount window for nothing and sit on treasuries.
I know it is prudent that alcoholics should avoid bars, but we need credit in this economy. The President must either accept the reality of a very slow economic recovery or be ready to endure the slings and arrows from Fox News when he is forced to semi-nationalize the banks.
Today’s U-T business section featured a real retro-headline, “Finally,good news on 3 fronts”. Unfortunately below the fold was this grim header, “Del Mar Heights office building sold at great loss”. These headlines are emblematic of our times. True the economy is improving for some people, but for others, it remains a train wreck.
The Administration still has no core philosophy when it comes to this financial crisis. The President does not want to take the kind of measures that may be required. I think he either needs to let the market (meaning the banks) work out the real estate problem or fully wade into the lending business. Lurching about in the middle probably is going to make matters worse. I am a real fan of this guy, but perhaps some of his critics have it right.
Bankers have little incentive to help out the rest of us. You may note I used ‘bankers’ and not banks. The former, a group of freebooters, are doing just fine thank you. But more on that later.
