News Satire Roundup: January 18-21

Monday, January 18 – In a perfect world, the idea of anyone hosting an MLK Day “Fun Shoot” would exist only in satire, but unfortunately… Still, the new “You Couldn’t Find One Black Person to Run This By?” segment was great.  With Republican and Democratic debates last week, we got double the coverage.  The clips of Sanders’s epic side-eye were fantastic, and I liked the footage of both debates spliced together.  I always enjoy “What the Actual Fact,” and although I didn’t think the fact ratings were quite as funny tonight, Jessica did a great job in Desi’s stead.  I especially loved her comments on Trump’s trouble with severely overestimating numbers of Muslims.  The interview with Making a Murderer documentarians Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardiwas pretty good.  Both seemed a bit shy in front of the camera, but Trevor did well balancing the two guests, and his obvious for Making a Murderer was fun.

Tuesday, January 19 – Some good Trump stuff tonight, especially the clips of him pandering to evangelicals at Liberty U – calling his own book “second” to the Bible was ridiculous, and his scripture reading was something else.  In the Parliament story, I like that they agreed it was silly to actually vote on banning Trump from the U.K. and decided to spend the session mocking him instead.  Roy’s field piece, on the idea of betting on presidential elections, was amusing.  The concept of getting fantasy football players to apply their sports-stats obsession to learning about political candidates reminded me of a bit from Trevor’s African American, where he compared Americans’ knowledge of sports to their knowledge of the economy.  I like that the show brings in occasional musical guests, although Jess Glynne wasn’t my favorite.  I’m not quite sure why; the song was definitely catchy, and her voice was good, but it didn’t really connect with me.

Wednesday, January 20 – Just a slam dunk show for me.  I loved everything about it.  The story about Sarah Palin’s speech endorsing Donald Trump was a thing of comic beauty.  The cold open skit was fun, and I loved Trevor’s utter bafflement and delight at the absurdity of the speech.  I particularly liked his observation that some of the presidential candidates know as little about U.S. politics as he, the “outsider,” does.  Hasan’s segment parodying frenetic, high-octane finance shows like Mad Money was hilarious – it hit just the right notes of that special brand of insanity, and the little touches, from the classic stockbroker outfit to the chart of rising Vicodin costs, were perfect.  The interview wasn’t especially heavyweight, but I’ve liked Gael García Bernal for a number of years, and he and Trevor were fun discussing Mozart in the Jungle (as well as, naturally, the sexiest orchestra sections.)

Thursday, January 21 –The segment on Iranfelt a bit hodge-podge, especially since the situation with the captured sailors was resolved more than a week ago (that sounds callous; I just mean, why cover it now instead of then?), but there were some good bits here, and I’m all for Trevor calling out Ted Cruz’s trigger-happiness.  I enjoyed Jessica’s field piece on the campaign to change the racist town seal for Whitesboro, NY (loved her reaction to learning the town name.)  That seal was crazy, and it’s cool that the show’s initial dig into the story gave it some national coverage that helped spur change.  The interview with Marlon Wayans, promoting 50 Shades of Black, was fun.  I’ve never felt any sort of urge to see a Wayans Brothers movies and don’t plan to start, but he’s a natural showman who came armed with some pretty funny anecdotes.

Joy (2015, PG-13)

I’m not sure if I’ve been less impressed with David O. Russell’s most recent work or if, for me, his films follow a law of diminishing returns.  Because, in my view, The Fighter > Silver Linings Playbook > American Hustle> Joy.  Now, the margin on those first three are fairly close, but overall, I thought Joywas just all right.

Joy epitomizes “life of quiet desperation,” or at least, she would if it weren’t for the “quiet” part.  She’s been languishing in a dead-end job while raising two children, taking care of her delicate mother, putting up with her directionless ex-husband, and wrangling her obstinate father.  However, the creative spark within her hasn’t died, and Joy sets out to change her circumstances by making and marketing a revolutionary new mop of her own invention, attacking every hurdle she meets along the way.

I wouldn’t say it’s a bad movie, not at all.  Certain aspects of it are pretty great – I really like seeing Joy’s initial conception of the Miracle Mop and her refusal to accept defeat in the face of her many obstacles (including members of her family constantly undermining her business decisions or telling her she can’t do it – gems, the lot of them.)  The main relationships between Joy and the characters who are actually supportive of her – chiefly, her grandmother Mimi, her best friend Jackie, and her ex-husband Tony – are really enjoyable to watch, and the depiction of the early days of home shopping programs is fun.

That said, I definitely get bogged down by the unpleasantness of most of the other characters in Joy’s life.  Their relentless negativity bothers me, especially since Joy is the only one of them trying to accomplish something; they’re not doing anything, so they don’t have much room to talk.  I get that a character needs to struggle before she can succeed, but by the umpteenth scene of Joy’s dad, mom, or sister blaming her for all their problems without suggesting any solutions of their own, I was awfully fed up.  Additionally, the script feels a bit too on-the-nose sometimes – too much telling, not enough showing.

Jennifer Lawrence does well as the “down but not out” Joy, carrying the film with steely grit.  I have to say though, that to me, she feels too young for the role.  I’m also not sure I’d necessarily call the performance one of the top five for leading actresses this year; I think Lawrence may be on her way to the Streep treatment of being a regular nominee most years that she’s in even a vaguely Oscar-ish movie.  (Don’t get me wrong – she’s reliably good, but I probably would’ve given her nomination slot to Charlize Theron for Mad Max:  Fury Road.)  The film also features Russell faves Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper, along with Isabella Rossellini, Virginia Madsen, Dascha Polanco (Daya from Orange is the New Black) as Jackie, and Jimmy Jean-Louis (the Haitian from Heroes.)  I’m not familiar with Édgar Ramírez, who plays Tony, but I like him a lot here.

Warnings

Swearing and some drinking.

Concussion (2015, PG-13)

I’m not normally one for sports movies that aren’t The Mighty Ducks, but this one jumped out at me.  To be fair, it’s more of a sports-adjacent movie that shows the potential human cost of the American football machine.  Overall, while I enjoyed the film, I feel it’s not quite as good as I wanted it to be.

When Dr. Bennet Omalu, a Nigerian pathologist working at a hospital in Pittsburgh, finds the body of a former Steeler lying on his table, he’s drawn into a medical mystery that will pit him against one of America’s most powerful sports industries.  Despite the deceased football player’s well-documented mental instability in recent years (he died from self-inflicted wounds,) Bennet sees no apparent damage or disease in the brain.  Digging deeper, he discovers the link between the repeated concussions suffered by football players and gradual mental deterioration.  It’s a truth the NFL is most definitely not ready to hear.

My main critique with this movie is that it feels a bit listless, and I’m not entirely sure why.  The story is by turns fascinating, shocking, and heartbreaking, and all the actors turn in good performances.  Something in the direction, maybe?  This may sound weird, but the feeling I come away with is that the movie as a whole isn’t as invested in the story as its individual parts are.  It’s like it doesn’t quite add up.  Which is too bad, because, like I said, that story is kind of amazing.  While I knew that the “concussions are really bad for your brain” connection was made much more recently than it should have been, it hadn’t occurred to me that the NFL would try to cover up.  I hadn’t thought of them bullying or attempting to discredit the man who discovered that connection, although it’s obvious in hindsight.  After all, it’s like the smoking/lung cancer link – an obvious horror, but one that’s remarkably inconvenient for an incredibly-profitable industry.  I guess I’d never thought of the NFL like that, but it makes sense.

The film is great at showing the suffering of these men, who don’t know why they’re going crazy.  They and their families are portrayed with the utmost care, and we see the toll of the damage the NFL is trying to deny.  Another successful aspect, for me, is the depiction of both the subtle and blatant xenophobia Bennet experiences.  On an ordinary day, he encounters people who treat him like an outsider, and when he goes up against the NFL (what’s more American than football?), the distrust and discomfort turn vicious.  I would imagine that, in real life, some of the hatred thrown Bennet’s way was even uglier, but the remarks and slights we do see are still all-around awful.

Will Smith does an excellent job as Bennet (again, you’d think the Academy would’ve eaten this up – a real person, an underdog against a giant corporation, and a fake accent.)  I love the calm, quiet way that he goes about his work, and the fortitude with which he stands his ground when the NFL pushes back is extraordinary.  The wonderful Gugu Mbatha-Raw is mostly wasted as Bennet’s love interest, but Alec Baldwin, Mike O’Malley, and David Morse are very good in supporting roles and there’s a brief appearance by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Eko from Lost.)

Warnings

Thematic elements, disturbing images, violence (including self-harm,) and language.

The Big Short (2015, R)

Watching the trailer for this best picture nominee, I was getting slight American Hustle vibes.  In the film’s opening moments, I saw shades of The Wolf of Wall Street.  Ultimately, though, it that stands quite well on its own and doesn’t need comparisons.  This film is its own animal, and it does a fairly difficult job with a lot of skill, humor, and creativity.

In the years leading up to the housing crisis of 2008, there are those who see the writing on the wall and ready themselves to profit from the crash.  Even as everyone insists that real estate is bulletproof, a handful of men start buying “shorts” on mortgage bonds, essentially betting against the housing market.  Part opportunists, part investigators, and part Cassandra from Greek mythology, they get a picture of just how deep the behind-the-scenes corruption goes.

After seeing this movie, I feel like I actually kind of understand the convoluted financial shell-gaming that was going on at this time.  The film does a phenomenal job explaining the basics of mortgage bonds and shorts for laymen, and what’s more, it does it entertainingly.  Fourth-wall-breaking devices guide us through the bank talk, including voiceover narration, asides to the camera, and a few winking “Here’s celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain to explain all this CDO business…” detours.  This tells us what we need to know without grinding the movie to a halt.  Our main voiceover man, Big Bank d-bag Jared, acknowledges that even thinking about mortgage bonds probably makes us feel bored or stupid, which is just the way the banks like it.  (I also really like it when the fourth wall is broken to comment on the true-story aspect of the piece – for example, when Jared interrupts an especially-crazy moment to assure us that “that really happened!” or when small-time investors Jamie and Charlie takes some time out to explain that an implausibly-neat transition was in fact fabricated for narrative fluidity.  It reminds me a little of the kind of stuff Tom Stoppard does in a lot of his historical works.)

The acting is fantastic, although given the way the trailer loses its mind over the cast, that’s no surprise.  The standouts are supporting-actor-nominated Christian Bale as the brilliant outside-the-box thinker Michael (I should point out that Michael is an Aspie, and Bale’s depiction of that feels very lived-in and naturalistic) and Steve Carell as Mark, a jaded idealist with anger management issues.  The film also features Brad Pitt and a very funny Ryan Gosling, along with the terrific Hamish Linklater, Max Greenfield (what’s this New Girl you speak of?  he’s still Deputy Leo from Veronica Mars to me,) Melissa Leo, and Karen Gillan.

As great as the movie is, though, it’s kind of a hard one.  Seeing the characters plant the seeds for their future big payoff, you can’t help but remember that they’re banking on the collapse of the housing market and all the turmoil that went with it.  Yes, they’re the underdogs profiting off of the banks’ greed, fraudulence, and outright stupidity, but in the end, we know that the banks got their golden parachutes while millions of people lost their homes, jobs, and/or savings.  The film does address this conflict, but I was still pulled out of it a few times just to feel disgusted at the characters for recognizing such a broken system and only looking to profit from it.

Warnings

Swearing, drinking, sexual content (including strippers,) and general unethical behavior.

The Paleface (1922)

Given the subject matter of this short and the fact that it was the 1920s, it can be a little uncomfortable at times, which knocks off some points in my overall regard for it.  That said, it has some great humor, the narrative is put together well, and while it’s insensitive, it’s not nearly as racist as it might have been (yes, that last point is pretty faint praise, but it’s true.)

The members of a Native American tribe, having been cheated by some greedy white businessmen, are being forced off their land.  Three guesses as to who comes along when the chief orders his people to kill the next white guy to show up?  Yep, Buster the daydreamy lepidopterist wanders in and finds himself receiving a chilly welcome.  Ultimately, though, once the initial chasing and attempted executions blow over, Buster joins the tribe and helps them in their mission to retain their land, declaring that “us Indians must stick together.”

We’ll start with the race stuff – I’ve mentioned it before, but it bears repeating.  The short has definite race problems.  While I understand that, as the star, of course Buster is going to be important, his involvement with the tribe feels White Savior-ish.  There’s also the fact that most (all?) of the Native Americans are played by white actors in redface, including perennial costars Big Joe Roberts as the chief and Virginia Fox as the girl (who’s barely even there – Snow White and the Seven Dwarves lays better groundwork for Prince Charming, and he’s in, like, two scenes.)  This would’ve been standard industry procedure at the time – as such, it’s uncomfortable, and it definitely bugs me, but it’s very much a product of the era.  As far as the depictions of the Native Americans themselves go, for me, the only really serious infraction is when Buster cheats death through some quick thinking and they think he’s a god.  Verynot cool.

Other than that, it’s mildly insensitive throughout, but I don’t think it’s overtly racist.  After their early antagonism with one another, Buster and the Native Americans are clearly the “good guys” against the evil white land developers, and I enjoy the way Buster plays around with mixing the cultures.  Once he joins the tribe, I like the feather in his porkpie hat and what appear to be slap shoe moccasins.  Buster “conducting” a war dance is really funny, as is his pulling one tribe member aside to practice his footwork.  And as for Buster evading/outwitting the Native Americans when they’re chasing him in the early scenes, this is exactly the sort of stuff Buster pulls all the time.  He makes white cops, rivals, and thugs look foolish by besting them with silly tactics, so why not do the same with Native Americans?  Not to mention, mistaking him for a god aside, they’re fairly on the ball.  There are a couple of fun scenes where Buster thinks he’s gotten the upper hand, only to realize they’re totally onto him.

So what about the rest of the short?  Some great moments and very funny stuff.  The asbestos suit is a stroke of genius, I love the final gag, and there’s some impression action, including an epic tumble and an actual 85-foot freefall.  The little comic touches are really effective; I love the whole tribe lifting the chief onto his horse, Buster’s puzzled “is it raining?” gesture when an arrow appears as his feet (ha!), and Buster trying to punch a butterfly will always be hilarious.

Warnings

Slapstick violence and some racial/cultural insensitivity.

New Companion Musings

(Can't really include a picture of a character who doesn't exist yet, so let's just have a lovely photo of Twelve beckoning the soon-to-be newcomer aboard.)

So, Doctor Who is in the market for a new companion.  Smart money is, of course, on a young, attractive woman from the U.K. in the 21^st century.  I’m hopeful that whoever we get will be wonderful, as so many companions are, and I’m excited to see Twelve’s dynamic with someone new.  Here are some general thoughts on what I would and wouldn’t hope to see.

At this point, it’s likely a pipe dream, but I’d lovesomeone non-contemporary and/or non-local.  Two of my favorites are 18^th-century Scotsman Jamie and descendant-of-off-world-colonists-from-the-future Leela.  You hear various arguments on why the companion should be a contemporary human.  “They’re the audience surrogate” – I can relate to people from different times/places.  “We need a connection to present-day U.K. so we can set stories there” – trouble’s going to find its way to Earth no matter what, and then we get the fun of a companion who doesn’t understand our society.  On that note, “You get bogged down having to explain everything” – first, anyone of good companion stock is a quick study, and second, so what?  Who doesn’t like seeing Leela fixated by a yoyo or Jamie calling an airplane a “flying beastie?”  And then, there’s, “A full-time alien companion would spend too much time in makeup every week” – leaving aside the fact that tons of other sci-fi actors have done it, there are enough humanoid aliens in the Whoniverse that a drastically-different appearance isn’t a must.  There you go, no more excuses!  Bring on the non-contemporary companion!  But seriously, folks…

I get the complaints about the lack of male solo companions, but personally, I’m not into it.  Not because I think that sort of Doctor-companion duo wouldn’t work, but because I wouldn’t want the show to have zero women in the regular cast (I’d be more open to it with a hypothetical female Doctor.)  Really, though, I love a good team TARDIS, and I’m all about mixed companion company.  I really like it when companion teams are picked up in different places/times – even just companions who don’t already know each other.  Don’t get me wrong, I like Amy and Rory, and Ian and Barbara are my jam, but I love the raggedy-little-surrogate-family feel of companions from different backgrounds joining the Doctor and becoming delightful friends together.  There’s a nice mix of personalities, experiences, and skill sets, and it opens up the range of possible interactions.  The new series has played with this (the Nine-Rose-Jack episodes, the Paternoster gang,) but always in the short-term or as recurring flavor.

Also, while I understand the calls for someone like Osgood or Ashildr (both of whom are pretty great,) I’d prefer someone (someones?) new.  I’d like a companion that I haven’t met before, bringing the usual companion tropes to the table but having a distinct personality for me to fall in love with, like I have so many times before.  In addition to the usual qualities – clever, brave, compassionate, good-humored – let’s find someone who really gets Twelve, likes him, and rolls with his Twelve-ishness.  I want to see the Doctor and his new companion having so much fun.

Note:  not that it will ever happen, but I’d gladly put aside my non-contemporary-human, companions-who-don’t-already-know-each-other, and someone-we-haven’t-seen-before wishes for a young-adult Clyde and Rani companion team.  The Sarah Jane Adventures was so lovely, and I’ve liked the idea of these two as companions forever.  I would be all over that.

Thoughts on the 2016 Oscar Nominations

I have yet to see most of the big Oscar contenders this year, although I’ll do what I can in the coming weeks to change that.  As usual, we have some old standbys, some pleasant surprises, some underachievers, and, like I mentioned yesterday, some institutional racial bias.  Business as usual?

I’ll start with the best picture nominees I haveseen, both of which fall into the “surprising but incredibly well-deserved” category.  Mad Max:  Fury Road and The Martian are both up for the top prize and a handful of other awards, including best direction and a number of design awards for Mad Max (most of which it really ought to win) and best actor/adapted screenplay nods for The Martian.  No love for Charlize Theron, my glorious Furiosa, unfortunately.  Still, I love “non-Oscar-film” Oscar films, and I’m glad to see these two movies get some recognition.

Last year, I pointed the disparity between men and women from best picture nominees in the lead acting categories – i.e., the best pictures were a major boys’ club.  Interesting circumstance this year, with only two nominees in either category up for their work in a best picture contender.  For the men, we have Matt Damon in The Martian and Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant, and for the women, there’s Saoirse Ronan in Brooklynand Brie Larson in Room.  I imagine this is partly due to a few ensemble-heavy movies in the best picture category, like The Big Short and Spotlight, as well as films with strong acting whose overall regard didn’t live up to their early buzz, like Joy and The Danish Girl.

Speaking of The Danish Girl, both it and Carol predictably got acting love, with acting nods for each film’s central couple.  Carol also has an adapted screenplay nomination and is, I hear, a magnificent film, but I hope that when Oscar time comes, there’s not a bunch of talk about the “great year for LGBTQ movies.”  We’ve seen this before, in 2006 with Brokeback Mountain and 2011 with The Kids are All Right and Black Swan (really?), and it feels a bit self-congratulatory.  1) Two prominently-nominated films don’t make a pattern, and 2) isn’t Hollywood’s penchant for salivating over straight/cis actors playing LGBTQ characters a little othering?

And yes, #OscarsSoWhite.  For the second year in a row, every single one of the twenty performers in the acting categories is white.  That’s weird.  I’d assumed Will Smith would be up for Concussion(though I’m not sure who I would’ve booted to give him a slot – lots of Oscar catnip in the lead actor category,) and Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation seemed like a sure thing.  For that matter, I’m really surprised that Beasts of No Nation didn’t get a best picture nod.  With only eight films up for the award, there was more room in the category (this goes for Carol too, even though it’s not relevant to the PoC topic.)  Besides that, it was extremely well-reviewed, and the heavy subject matter is exactly the sort of thing the Academy normally loves.  In fact, it’s exactly the sort of thing the Academy normally loves about Black movies in particular.  How is it that Beasts of No Nation isn’t this year’s Selma or 12 Years a Slave?  Did the Netflix release kill it?  In total, only two major PoC-made films got any recognition, and ridiculously, both managed to get their single nomination for seemingly the only white people involved (Sylvester Stallone for Creed and the white screenwriters of Straight Outta Compton.)  Over the next six weeks, I’ll be seeing/reviewing what Oscar movies I can, but I’m also hoping to send some love to films like these that didn’t get nominated as they probably should have.