The Films of 1949 (part one)

During this past summer I got on a kick of throwing random old movies (mostly American films from the 1940s and 1950s) into my Netflix pile. I stumbled upon an Anthony Mann film called Border Incident (shot by the incomparable John Alton), and I dug it. I was impressed by the hard edge of the story of the underbelly of the people-smuggling trade along the California-Mexico border. The film didn't shy away from ruthless characters, violence or social commentary. It had that sharp black and white I love (even in the exterior shots) and Alton's telltale contrasting light and dark visual composition. A fine film, nothing superlative but a top notch B movie, a melodrama with elements of crime thriller. But I was knocked out by Howard de Silva as the bad guy. His command was superb, lightening the character's ruthlessness with an easy-going charm and good humor, and I wandered if that was perhaps the finest performance of 1949. So I've since been on a kick of watching films from 1949 to measure it all up.

Well, right off the bat, it was not the single finest performance. That hosanna belongs solely to Broderick Crawford in All the King's Men. I've long thought that Crawford's performance is probably the finest ever in the history of film! What he does is singularly unique to his skills (he never gave another performance nearly as fine), it fits the part of the bumpkin turned political powerhouse perfectly and he is the beating heart of this film--he alone is what makes the film worth watching. To test this thesis, compare and contrast Crawford to the great Sean Penn's lackluster turn in the lame remake from a few years back. I didn't give the remake much of a chance because frankly the original was driven by fine performances and was otherwise a fairly overrated film, so I had no high hopes for another attempt at it. I've heard nothing but good things about the original novel and I can imagine it being a novel too good for a film adaptation.

It is worth noting that All the King's Men won Best Picture, Best Actor (Crawford) and Best Supporting Actress (Mercedes McCambridge) but it did not win Best Director or Best Screenplay (both of which went to Joseph L. Manckiewicz for A Letter to Three Wives). Why is this worth noting? Because Best Picture is often the film that was the most popular or made more money than anyone would've thought possible or the film that captured the temporal zeitgeist, and is usually not the best picture or the one that will age well. When a film is really a badass accomplishment then it takes the other prizes as well. In this case, the power of the performances drove it to a popularity that the film itself did not merit. A Letter to Three Wives was a much better film, for example, which is why it took the 'artistry' prizes even if it didn't take the top award. (Don't fret for Manckiewicz: he came back the next year and won Director and Screenplay again and took Best Picture all for All About Eve, one of those rare Best Picture winners that really was the best picture!) And actually how The Heiress didn't win Best Picture that year, anyway, I don't understand.

More to come…

Russell 2000 (Oct 31-Nov 7)

......... 537.52 (10.31.8) ...................... 505.79 (11.7.8)......
............................-31.83 for the week.......................

This week's economic events

Nov 3-7

Construction Spending Sep (-0.3%)
ISM Index Oct (38.9)
Auto Sales Oct (3.8M)
Truck Sales Oct (4.1M)
Factory Orders Sep (-2.5%)
ADP Employment Oct (-157K)
ISM Services Oct (44.4)
Initial Claims 11/01 (481K)
Productivity-Prel Q3 (1.1%)
Average Workweek Oct (33.6)
Hourly Earnings Oct (0.2%)
Nonfarm Payrolls Oct (-240K)
Unemployment Rate Oct (6.5%)
Wholesale Inventories Sep (-0.1%)
Pending Home Sales Sep (-4.6%)
Consumer Credit Sep ($6.9B)

Wilshire 5000, 11.7.8

Thoughts on the first Thursday in November

Obama won. Should we all be proud as Americans? Dude, every time there is a smooth and peaceful transition of power it should make you proud to be an American. That's what makes America great!

'Change' doesn't really get me all jazzed up as a cultural buzzword. Its worth noting that at least half of the elections in American history were run on 'change', there's nothing older than change in American politics. Liberals in general want to use the government as a tool for social change but I think that's just a poor model: our founding fathers left us with a system intentionally designed to move slowly and to be above anyone's control. Change comes from society itself, not government, so I'm not sure exactly what it is Prez-Elect plans to do or even what his acolytes want him to do. To some the mere election of a black man is a bold step forward, but to me its just a historical inevitability that I happened to witness, somehow I'm not so blown away. I've seen 2 space shuttles go down in flames, the Berlin Wall get raized and the Red Sox win the World Series, I've had a busy life on that level. A 'black president' is just so much symbolism that doesn't illuminate anything to me. Barak Obama is a real person, not a symbol, and he may well make a fine president. I hope he does.

I don't think America's racial problems will be in any way changed by an Obama administration and as I blogged previously, any worthwhile social change will come from Mrs. Obama and the little girls, not the political paterfamilias. And to that end I'll go ahead and predict that Michelle Obama will be staggeringly popular--more even than Laura Bush, who was pretty staggeringly popular herself--and that she'd do well to simply ignore the right wing media. The left-y media will fawn over her for years to come and the Fox News crowd ain't ever gonna be swayed so I see little reason to even acknowledge them. I don't see her like Hillary, with her own political ambitions, rather I see her more like Eleanor Roosevelt: an impassioned, intelligent woman who will use her celebrity to speak out on causes for rest of her life. (Weird shift here) I never thought JFK Jr would run for office, I think he would've been content to run his magazine and be a political bigwig on the media side rather than actually getting in the meat grinder of politics. Similarly Michelle Obama will be a beloved first lady for the rest of her life now and that's probably way more useful for social change that being a senator from Illinois or trying to bigfoot the Democratic party.

Barak, on the other hand, will be fighting the left wing media throughout his administration. They will hold his feet to the fire in a way that he won't particularly much appreciate since he's convinced he got to this office solely on his own merits and without sucking up to his press corps. The right wing media will of course never warm to Obama and they'll gladly give succor to Congressional Dems who find themselves at loggerheads with the executive, but realistically I don't think they'll be that influential on him. Again, the Fox News crowd ain't ever gonna be swayed, so Obama needn't spend too much time trying to win them over (in an abstract sense, that is, here and there courting the right will present itself as politically effective).

I don't care about race. I never did. Skin tones in human beings range from very light to very dark and none of them are adequate representations of what any given individual may be like. I've met plenty of black people that I liked and plenty I didn't; I've known way more white people that I didn't like than all the other races combined I would suppose. I've never felt compelled to like or dislike anybody based on race (or gender, nationality, religion, etc.). None of those things make you good or bad, the conditions you react to and the choices you make are what you are and black people and white people are just as likely to make good choices as bad ones.

That said, I did have one racial moment during this campaign. One. While watching Obama give his coronation speech at the Dem convention, I made a kooky observation: his wife is black, he married a black woman. Barak Obama had a white mother, was largely raised by his white family, spent most of his time in white neighborhoods, white schools, surrounded by white chums and colleagues. The bulk of his self-identity, other than the face staring back at him in the mirror, would've been white. But he fell in love, courted and married a black woman. At that particularly moment that struck me as an odd choice, perhaps a brave choice or a cynical one, but an unpredictable one nevertheless. I don't blame the guy, I think she's pretty hot and I'm sure she's smart, kind and lovable in the way we all can be. The observation isn't 'racial' so much as 'sociological', it seems like he would've married a white woman. That's it, for all the talk or subtext about race, it never really much occurred to me that Barak Obama was anything more than a politician running for president.

Now he's president. Hey, I'm just glad the election's over! Its not an easy world he finds himself in. The economy, despite what politicians continually try to make us believe, isn't really controlled by the government. Oh, it has its sway here and there but for the most part its you and me getting up and going to work every day that shapes the economy into what it is. Will Obama being in the Oval Office make us all happier, more productive citizens? It might, hard to quantify but its not without its influence. Will his black skin save us from disaster? No. Will his black skin bring ruin to the Republic? No. His 'blackness' is now officially over, he's got to govern the same way the 43 white dudes before him did. (And he better keep his eye on Vladimir Putin...)

As for 'change', well I just finished reading The Last Hurrah by Edwin O'Connor, a marvelous political novel about an old timey mayor making one last bid for re-election. (spoiler alert) In the end he's bested by unknown upstart whose single finest moment was a TV appearance with his wife and kids and a dog they rented for the occasion (because their real dog was considered much too un-lovable). As the lighter side of the news reports on the Obama family shopping around for a new lovable pooch to join them in the White House, I can't help thinking that all this 'change' reminds me of a novel written 50 years ago.

Thoughts on the first Tuesday in November

I know the blogosphere breathlessly awaits the endorsement of Eat Your Vegetables, so here it is. But first:

I won't be voting tomorrow. Truth be told, I think Democracy is overrated. Why? Because it leads to elections. Oh, to be sure, democracy is the least dangerous thing out there but it has its weaknesses. A propensity toward deficit spending is a trait fairly unique to democracies, for example. Think about that on Tuesday as your voting for a guy guaranteed to be out of a job in 8 years.

I should say I grew up in a strict Libertarian household and two things have remained ingrained: free markets are what it is all about and I've never been a partisan. In consideration of the economy the government is merely another agent trying to carve out for itself what it can from the collective production, just like the New York Knicks, Outback Steakhouse, General Dynamics and you and me and everyone when we know. It needn't be worshipped or feared. We should let the government do what it needs to do and get on with our lives, much as we do with the New York Knicks or Outback Steakhouse. The way to keep it manageable is to keep it minimal.

But this embarrassing partisan silliness we get barraged with every 4 years--this is the drawback of our form of government! Our national 'debate' gets hijacked by two extraordinarily wealthy corporations (Democrats, Republicans) who have colluded together to maximize duopolistic control of the processes of government. They overwhelm the collective consciousness with slickly packaged empty rhetoric larded with logical fallacies and call them 'issues'. Then they break us off into rigidly divided ethnic and cultural sub-groups and tell us how to vote. Frankly, I think it all sorta sucks.

Both of the parties are fundamentally flawed: the Republicans want unlimited economic growth but they don't want anything to ever change; the Democrats want unlimited personal expression but somehow they don't see that as a function of living in a thriving economy. Republicans think money just gets made and we gradually buy more expensive brands until we die. Money gets made because people are doing new things, they want new products, new experiences, they want improvement and progress. Money don't get made where things don't change! Democrats see the economy has something invented by and presided over by the government and that merely sitting in the seats will give you the power to spend on all the shit society 'needs'. But that just isn't how it works! The government prints the money but they don't create the value for the money, do you see? We do that! It is our products and services that are building the economy, not government fiat. When the government takes our money, it burns most of it in overhead--just like any other business or entity that exists in the physical world. The difference is the government doesn't go out of business so it has no incentive to ever do anything the right way. So Democrats enact policies that purport to help people but actually just raise prices. They love sticking it to the rich so much that they never notice the poor are paying more too.

So the system is creaky, the parties piss me off and in the end, I don't like either of these guys. I wasn't enthralled by either of them at first: McCain's too old, Obama's too young. But I didn't dislike either of them too strongly either. They both seem fine to me, this wasn't one of the more agonizing elections of my lifetime, I don't fear for the Republic whoever wins. But I will say as the campaign wore on, I liked McCain less. He strikes me not as a liar but as a man that'll ride what advantage is tossed to him. He'll say what he needs to say to be elected--not to the people, but to the hand-greasers behind the scenes. I don’t distrust McCain, I just don't like him that much. I don't think I like Obama any more than I did when I first saw him but he hasn't really had to do much this year. His fight with Hillary was faux, man, he had her whooped early. And McCain, too, was beaten soundly during the debate season, so Obama had little to do but hone his speech-making.

Obama is a smart guy, sure, I can dig that. But I had plenty of professors I wouldn't vote for, plenty of people I respected that wouldn't necessarily have made wise decision makers or been as cool in real life as they look when well-prepared. Smart people don't always make the best leaders. That's not an indictment of Obama, just of the notion that his smartness makes him worthy. I don't suppose it does, this country has had plenty of jackass idiot leaders. He's a fine public speaker and I can appreciate that. To be composed on stage requires composing back stage and he is a fine writer, his imagery and narrative style are perfectly pitched and he reads his audiences well. My one piddling complaint: when he's trying to ride the applause and talk through it, he has a tendency to get just a bit too close to the mic and the sound gets distorted. This leads to a melancholy realization though: I suspect that as Prez, he won't be making those soul-stirring speeches quite as often or effectively. That style is fine for abstractions like 'change' but not so good for dancing through the tough press conferences--or do you suppose no one will die in hurricanes any more with Prez Obama around to protect us? He's notoriously unpopular with his own press crew, his toughest opponent will be the media once he's in office. His race will neither save him or hurt him. It'll be the grandest non-issue in our nation's history.

So who would I vote for if I voted? I guess I'd vote for Obama. McCain just doesn't have anything to offer at this point. My thinking for most of the summer was that McCain would win and Obama would come back at defeat in 2012. If Obama truly is a 'change' than he'd still be a change in 4 years. I think I favored giving him some more seasoning before sending him to the White House. But 4 more years in the Senate would probably doom him politically: look what's it done to Joe Biden--far more qualified than any of these people and they've got him hidden away lest he embarrass himself! And what's 'seasoning'? McCain has been seasoning away all these years and look where its gotten him: a ride on the Bob Dole Express!

It’s a new era. For all the 'change' we've been promised I've got a feeling its gonna be a lot of the same. And right wing radio is gonna be louder than ever, you know? Is that a good thing?

Russell 2000 (Oct 24-31)

......... 471.12 (10.24.8) ...................... 537.52 (10.31.8)......
............................+66.40 for the week.......................

This week's economic events

Oct 27-31

New Home Sales Sep (464K)
Consumer Confidence Oct (38.0)
Durable Orders Sep (0.8%)
Crude Inventories 10/25 (493K)
FOMC Policy Statement
Chain Deflator-Adv. Q3 (4.2%)
GDP-Adv. Q3 (-0.3%)
Initial Claims 10/25 (479K)
Employment Cost Index Q3 (0.7%)
Personal Income Sep (0.2%)
Personal Spending Sep (-0.3%)
Chicago PMI Oct (37.8)
Mich Sentiment-Rev. Oct (57.6)

Wilshire 5000, 10.31.8

Tuesday's almost here

Looking back over some old journals, I came across this election-era chestnut from way back in 2004. You're in control, you are the decider, its good stuff. Bush's 'Money Walk' is my favorite.

Debate 2004