teocalli

It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.

George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely "difference maker" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, "Good Time Charlie" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.

When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits." No argument there.

But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?

Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising "Charlie's Team."

The on-screen "Team," is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the "Team," Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.

For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually "Charlie's Team" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.

That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...

Even though the initial outcome for "Team Charlie" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely "covert," the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to "Mission Accomplished."

As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, "The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it." Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).

Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, "We f&%ked up the end game."

Again.

Last night the Fox Television Network premiered a new scripted/reality hybrid series that asks the question: "Would you trust a bikini model to deliver the news?"

Dumb question. Just take a look at this anchorwoman's chest and you will see what "fair" and "balanced" really means.

Lauren Jones plays herself as the breathtakingly beautiful and buxom bimbo who is hired by a Tyler, Texas TV station to increase ratings. A former "Barker Beauty" on THE PRICE IS RIGHT and a featured WWE Diva, Ms. Jones is the hottest thing on the boob tube since Pamela Lee Anderson. Guys -- if you are looking for a high-def hard-on, ANCHORWOMAN is the place to be.

Virtually the entire cast is comprised of the actual KYTX-TV news staff whose reaction to the hiring of Lauren is mixed at best. This includes, of course, Stormy the Weather Dog whose wardrobe helps deliver the forecast. Stormy and staff are remarkably solid in their on-camera performances and the cinema verite style of Director Mark S. Jacobs adds an air of credibility to the proceedings.

During the thirty days of production this broadcast news stunt resulted in six half-hour episodes, with the first two airing back-to-back.

You might ask, "What's next?" So far there has been no word whether ANCHORWOMAN will be renewed. If not, I do have a suggestion. How about going one step farther and replacing Greta Van Susteren with Penny Pittman? (See CHATTERBOX, 1977)

Just like Fat Man, the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945, "Fat Man" filmmaker Michael Moore drops his own 21 kiloton bomb on the American Health Care Industry in his latest pseudo-documentary, SiCKO. Make no mistake, this is a provocative, powerful, persuasively structured polemic that blasts privatized health care providers and their profiteering agendas. Moore's manipulative machinations hit the mark and, surprisingly, they do so with far more heart than hostility.

Over 500 hours of footage was shot during the making of SiCKO. Moore has deftly edited this down to a running time of approximately 120 minutes -- it is time well spent. Especially effective and poignant is the footage taken in Cuba where Moore first tried to get a number of ill Americans free and much-needed medical attention at Camp Gitmo ("the only place on American soil with universal health care.") This, of course, failed -- but not without making a key point and doing so with both humor and pathos.

Moore and his fellow Americans, including three 9/11 rescue workers who have been unable to get their medical needs taken care of in the U.S., then head for Havana where everyone is treated for free. The sheer audacity of orchestrating something like this is what "Fat Man" does best -- it's definitely worthy of a fine Montecristo Panetela and a ice-cold Mojito at the very least.

For more on Moore, go to www.needtovent.com.

Thanks to a fortuitous set of circumstances and the largess of some very good friends, Lynda and I were invited to attend a special preview screening of the latest feature film based on the life of Truman Capote.

Talk about deja vu...

Yes my fellow cineastes, this coming weekend writer/director Douglas McGrath's INFAMOUS will be released in several major cities. It's arrival in selected theaters comes approximately one year after Philip Seymour Hoffman's Academy Award winning portrayal was being projected on thousands of screens nationwide, and not only is the central character the same, both films cover precisely the same period in Capote's life albeit in considerably different fashion.

This, of course, begs the question: Is INFAMOUS worth seeing?

The answer is yes.

Like CAPOTE, INFAMOUS is also a compelling study of the complex and tortured relationship between the famous writer and Perry Smith, one of the two murderers convicted of the brutal slaughter of a well-to-do Kansas farm family. The overall tone, however, is lighter, with numerous scenes of Truman spending time with his "Gotham glitterati" and, especially, some very funny moments when Capote, accompanied by his closest friend, Nelle Harper Lee, first arrives in the Sunflower State. But make no mistake, the ending is a powerful one that draws the conclusion that the strong, emotional bond Truman formed in prison with Perry ultimately brought about not only the destruction of Capote's career, but the destruction of his soul as well. "I've come to feel with deep heart-sickness that there were three deaths on the gallows that night," says Lee, and one cannot help but believe this is true.

The cast is excellent. Toby Jones' portrayal of Truman Capote is riveting and is possibly a better imitation than Hoffman's more nuanced performance. For my money, they are both superb -- had INFAMOUS come along first, Toby Jones might have been nominated for an Oscar as well. Sandra Bullock, as Nelle Harper Lee, will surprise even her harshest critics. She certainly holds her own in comparison with the marvelous Catherine Keener. Sigourney Weaver, Isabella Rossellini, Peter Bogdanovich (as Bennett Cerf), Jeff Daniels and Daniel Craig (as Perry Smith) all deserve special mention as well.

Amazingly, Gwyneth Paltrow reportedly earned a staggering $3.6 million to play Peggy Lee singing a three minute rendition of "This Thing Called Love" in the opening scene. This makes Ms. Paltrow the highest paid actress ever for a cameo appearance. The scene is important, it establishes the concept that sadness often lurks beneath the spotlight, a theme which will increasingly pertain to Mr. Capote as the film proceeds. Still, this was money clearly wasted in a film possessing outstanding production values throughout given its relatively low budget.

True, the ground being covered is virtually the same as we've seen before. So what? I recall having traveled the same hiking trail more than once and I inevitably discovered something new and different on each trek. The same analogy holds for these two feature films; both are extremely well made and both provide interesting and enlightening insight into a fascinating and talented personality.

Robert A. Nowotny needtovent.com

My favorite musical group is the incomparable Feo Y Loco -- "The World's Most Politically Incorrect Band." Among their many salaciously satirical songs is "Why Do I Need You When I've Got My Hand?" In a similar fashion one can say to Hollywood's myopic moguls "Why Do I Need You When I've Got My HANDSHAKE?" For fans of independent cinema everywhere, THE GUATEMALAN HANDSHAKE is exactly what movies should be and all too often are not.

I've long been a huge fan of Todd Rohal (you can call me Vornado if you want). His short films comprise an eclectic body of work that has been honored at film festivals from coast to coast. In this, his brilliant feature film directorial debut, Rohal once again creates a maddening milieu for a host of Felliniesque characters to inhabit. Shot in Pennsylvania, HANDSHAKE is populated with some of the most quirky, heartwarming, poignant characters this side of the Susquehanna. I call this Pocono Pathos for lack of a better description. It is, yet again, a visionary viewpoint unique to this rising star -- a Rohalian world of folksy fun and fastidious fantasy where the Tilt-O-Wheel is probably the only thing seen on the level.

In the tradition of his short films, Rohal continues to push more envelopes than the U. S. Postal Service in incorporating almost every cinematic trick imaginable to further his vision. This is risky business, indeed, but in the hands of a consummate filmmaker like Rohal the gimmicks work and the end result is more surprises than even March Madness can generate. Whatever you do, do not blink or you will surely miss something. HANDSHAKE requires Visine viewing -- one screening is definitely not enough to catch everything being thrown you way. Even the closing credits are fun: "When in Pennsylvania, please take the time to visit Three Mile Island." You gotta love the sentiment.

The production design by Jim McNamee and Sage Rockermann is noteworthy for not only the overall cheery look of the film, but for the many fun little extras they have meticulously embedded in scene after scene. Cinematographer Richie Sherman crisply lenses the whole thing. In fact, all facets of this production deserve kudos given the extremely low budget. Producers Marissa Ronca, Jason Orfanon and Nicholas Panagopulos have clearly put every penny on the screen.

As you must surely have gathered by now, THE GUATEMALAN HANDSHAKE is a must-see for anyone who enjoys cinematic creativity and sagacious story telling. If you are tired of the boring, banal "blockbuster" fare fostered on the local Bijou, do yourself a favor and seek out this little gem. Compared to GUAT, the studios don't know squat...

Robert A. Nowotny needtovent.com

It is way too early to select the leading candidates for the next Oscars or Emmys, but THE DUKES OF HAZZARD is the undisputed front runner for the Schiavo -- a new award given to the most lifeless, brain dead movie of the year. I counted a grand total of two scenes that were mildly amusing. Throw in the unexpected cameo appearance by Rip Taylor in the closing credits and you still have less bang for the buck than a non-sale item at Cabela's.

To put things in perspective, this movie is so bad it rivals WHAT DREAMS MAY COME as the all-time worst motion picture experience ever. I thought that DREAMS, the Technicolor pap smear that defines the word pretentious, would never be challenged. It has been now...

Robert A. Nowotny needtovent.com