Requiem for a Dream (review w/spoilers)

I haven’t absorbed the movie Requiem for a Dream in enough detail to give a thorough review, but I can give some impressions of it from two viewings. The primary feeling I got from the movie is hopelessness. There is no redemption in RFAD. From the first moments of the film, you know that the lives of its characters are sad and wretched, and the strong impression that they won’t be going anywhere but down is quickly validated.
This is a terrific movie nonetheless, and I think if you can handle the subject material and some graphic scenes of violence and sex (especially towards the end), you can’t help but carry this movie with you. Both Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly do great work, but Ellen Burstyn really walks off with this movie. Maybe it’s because hers is the most sympathetic character and her destruction is so unbearably sad, but that’s true because of Burstyn’s brilliance. Marlon Wayans is also exceptional in a smaller role; he should do more dramatic work in the future.
This is ranked #46 on IMDB. Definitely deserves to be in that neighborhood, although some reviewers say it doesn’t measure up to Trainspotting. I haven’t seen that one yet, but Trainspotting would have to be almost unbelievable great to top this.

Damage Control, etc

Mickey Kaus continues to have fun with this story. Unfortunately, he’s probably right about the transient nature of the bounce; it’s likely a result of Ah-nold trying to “terminate” the scandal with a quick mea culpa, as well as the high level of disgust at the LA Times for spending several weeks specifically to dredge up this kind of crap.
It’s not that I don’t think that the women are lying, although the fact that four of the six won’t identify themselves, and all six never availed themselves of the legal system, does not give me confidence. Arnold himself acknowledged that he’s done something, after all. And the incidents in the report are all ugly. But for crying out loud, after all the screeching the Times did over the Clinton sexual peccadiloes (that occured while he was in office, with staff underlings, on the public dime) being blown out of proportion and none of our business, what the hell were they doing spending all that money specifically to dig up this specific kind of dirt?

David Kay’s report explained in better detail

Power Line’s Big Trunk has posted an e-mail he received from author Dr. Laurie Mylroie that explains more about the David Kay report. Go now and read the entire message, and while you’re at it check out all of Power Line. It’s a great blog.
Also, they have an entry two posts below the Mylroie e-mail with a link to an article in the Sun, a British newspaper, on the Kay report.

Defending the indefensible

Allen Barra defends Rush Limbaugh in his recent contretemps over Donovan McNabb. I think Barra is all wet on this one. McNabb may not have fulfilled his potential at Philadelphia, but he’s hardly to blame for being the leading rusher on a team that can’t run block or pass block worth a damn. Besides, the point isn’t whether McNabb is overrated; he probably was, but expectations have come down quite a bit for him. However, Limbaugh’s assertion that the media deliberately overrated him as a sort of affirmative action program is just too much to swallow. There is hardly a dearth of black quarterbacks in the NFL these days, and they don’t need the press to make them feel good about their performances.
ESPN made a mistake in hiring Limbaugh, and Limbaugh made a mistake in taking the job. Normally I respect Limbaugh’s intelligence even if I disagree with him, but in this case he was a fool. At least he seems to have wised up. I wonder how long it will be until Allen Barra does the same.

Damage control (cont)

The fallout continues, or sort of. Arnold’s back on the campaign trail, being greeted by cheering fans — er, voters — but after his apology and non-acknowledgement of the Hitler reference (from almost 30 years ago!), he’s keeping his mouth shut. As a strategy, this is probably as much of a winner that he’ll come up with at this point of the campaign. I wonder, though, if a third shoe is being prepared for the Sunday edition…
Arnold may be under attack, but the LA Times appears to be suffering the damage . Susan Estrich gets her shots in from the editorial page of the LA Times itself:

So this is the October surprise? The Los Angeles Times headline that Arnold Schwarzenegger groped and humiliated women? … But none of these women, as The Times emphasizes, ever came forward to complain. The newspaper went looking for them, and then waited until five days before the election to tell the fragments of the story. What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that’s wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.

Debra Saunders, the Chronicle columnist who is a rare conservative voice in San Francisco, responded in Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes:

“[I]t makes our profession look horrible. To look at something that’s 20, 30 years old, that’s just not fair and not relevant,” Saunders said. “If you have to go back to the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s to make your point, maybe it’s not a point.”

Also in Media Notes, LA Times Editor John Carroll defends his decision to run the story, arguing in part that “We’re in the business of publishing, not concealing. ” Kurtz apparently didn’t ask Carroll whether the Times is in the business of creating news, or why the Times never reported on the Gray Davis story in 1997. Isn’t a candidate — who at the time was a public office holder — who physically attacks his staff worthy of some investigative reporting?
Back in the LA Times, Steve Lopez carries the home team’s water with a funny but deceptive column:

“It doesn’t matter,” Beers said of the allegations. She said Arnold’s misbehavior happened a long time ago. (Actually, the latest incident reported was in 2000.) Besides, she said, Clinton’s scandal took place while he was in office. True, but Clinton also had a willing participant, unlike Arnold.

Lopez conveniently seems to forget about Kathleen Willey and Juanita Brodderick (thanks to Mickey Kaus and Mona Charen, respectively). But he does relate a funny story about Arnold’s speeding and his Nissan Sentra that I can support, having owned a Sentra years ago.
UPDATE: Just perused Hugh Hewitt’s blog and found this nugget:

Readers of the report on Arnold Schwarzenegger in this morning’s Los Angeles Times should ask themselves when did editorial standards change at the paper. In January 2001, the Los Angeles Times censored a George Will column because it contained a reference to Clinton victim Juanita Broadderick.

No permalink available for the post, but it was written 10/02 at 10:55 am.