My Thoughts on WikiLeaks--A Wednesday Journal

All of us who are bloggers or on-line journalists care very much about the freedom to publish our thoughts and feelings.  We all have relied on the web to provide us with trustworthy and sincere forms of information in order to educate ourselves and give our own writing the ring of truth and authenticity. 


At the same time, all of us who surf the Internet, or watch TV, are sometimes amazed at the outrageous myths and lies that are allowed to pass publication unchallenged.  Many naive or willfully ignorant people actually believe the misinformation therein (disguised as fair and balanced), make their political decisions accordingly, and help to shape policy---often against their own best interests!


But when something comes along that exposes truths that government officials and others, for often self-serving reasons, spend a lot of time obfuscating, then truth becomes dangerous because it threatens their  livelihoods.  (And yet, no one is arrested for myths and lies...)


I have stewed for a while about the WikiLeaks "scandal". What made me pause was the virulence by which the leaked information, and founder Julian Assange, were savaged.  It drew aside the naive curtain of benign press and government and sounded an alarm: there must be too much to hide, apart from national security issues.  Governments and policies are being exposed for what they are: little more than global neighborhood gossip.


And so, since there is a lot of head-shaking among legal groups as to what "crime" has been committed, Assange finds himself wanted for sexual impropriety in Sweden.  This would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.


Assange has, in effect, revealed that the Emperor has no clothes.   Powerful people are being embarrassed, and those who create whole careers out of fashioning an image for themselves find they are in danger of having those images tarnished, stripped away.  Rather than creating a state of world emergency, the leaks seem to have the effect of clarifying the world, so that regular folk of better-than average intelligence can see what's going on, and demand efficient, common-sense solutions.  The powerful no longer have control of the source of their power: secrecy and misdirection.   One only hopes there are some juicy Leaks forthcoming about the financial industry.  


It makes me wonder why such "sensitive" information is committed to writing...It is as though there is some perverse wish to be discovered. 


I claim no expertise in the kinds of "secrets" that  preserve human safety, and how the revealing of that information puts people in harm's way.  But these latest leaks have the aura of a smoking gun, information we all have a right to possess, in order to make truly "informed" decisions.  Polititicians ought to be worried.


It harkens back to the Pentagon papers, which blew the lid off our involvement in Vietnam.  That's when people finally took to the streets.


I still believe in free press, and I believe in the press' ability to present facts honestly and without malice.  With WikiLeaks, we are seeing how Government's punitive action keeps the free press from being an independent watchdog and advocate for truth.  Lately, the press seems to have become duplicitous in Government deception (remember WMD's?).


I received an e-mail from Avaaz.org, a politically active organization that seeks to organize public opinion around dubious policies and acts of government.  I have shared it with you below, along with a list of valuable links for anyone who cares about freedom of expression and wants to keep current with news on the unfair crackdown on Assange and his organization:


___   ___   ___   ___  ___   ___   ___   ___   ___   ___   ___   ___

Dear friends,


The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.


Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower....

...WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.


The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues it has to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.


Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click below to join the call to stop the crackdown:


http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php?cl_tta_sign=2a008cd0b37ebf894605964c0338b6cd


Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why - because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it's up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.


With hope,
Ricken, Emma, Alex, Alice, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team.

SOURCES:
--Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm


--WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html


--Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5


--Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon


--"WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists" (PC World):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html


--US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)
http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with-wikileaks-containment/


--US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee


--WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditched-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next


--Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

"Apartment Zero", Colin Firth's 1989 Chilling Lead Role

Although Colin Firth is in high profile of late, with his well-liked portrayal of King George VI coming on the heels of his acclaimed role ( a very different George) in "A Single Man", his talent has been in evidence for decades.


I recently re-visited the 1989 thriller, "Apartment Zero" (on VHS tape!).  I recall seeing this in its initial release and wondering why it had not become more popular.  Martin Donovan, the writer-director, created a milestone lead character for Firth, who perfectly embodied him in intimate detail.


Firth's performance is the best depiction of infatuation and fatal attraction I have ever seen.  Every controlled breath, tentative delivery, and subtle change of expression made me feel like an accomplice in George's obsession with his new, and equally dangerous, male companion.

George is a lonely Brit residing in Argentina, where he lives in a private world of old movies and fastidious solitude.  He sees to the care of his emotionally ill mother, who has been committed, and for whom George has a pathetic attachment.  Although he is starved for human contact, he resents and avoids his eccentric but friendly neighbors.  To pay the bills, he advertises for a roommate to share his large flat. 

After a series of disastrous interviews with prospective candidates, in walks Jack, played by Hart Bochner, who immediately arouses George's romantic, James Dean-like fantasies.  Jack, however, has some terrifying secrets of his own, which the film reveals at a deliciously even pace.

While his attraction is never discussed in explicit terms, George curries Jack's favor, and goes out of his way to preserve an intimacy that Jack exploits, and ultimately finds ridiculous.  When that occurs, George goes over the edge, and the film's sense of quiet dread explodes into outright horror.

Bochner is hot as the manipulative and attractive terrorist who knows how to use his confident sexuality to charm anyone to his will, and delights in toying with his adoring landlord as well as the neighbors who will provide him cover.


But it is Firth who makes this unusual story work. He keeps the character sympathetic, all the while maintaining a simmering passion just barely below the surface.  For anyone who has ever had a secret, even forbidden, attraction to an object of admiration that one knows is hopeless, George's plea to Jack to never suddenly leave him, is peculiarly moving, because we can identify with it so completely. 

Firth expertly interprets the repressed physical attraction, the awkwardness of a man who lacks social skills, the jealousy of intrusive outsiders, and the final  rage at his betrayal, so well, that one may uncomfortably assume that Firth is not acting, but playing out a real-life conflict.  He is that good.

Muddled "Love and Other Drugs"

There is a great popular film somewhere that takes a satiric look at the complex issue of health care, how the aggressive and lucrative pharmaceutical industry is holding health care hostage, and how a self-centered industry professional falls in love with a woman whose suffering is at odds with his success.

Unfortunately, "Love and Other Drugs" is not that film.  To be sure, it introduces these elements, but treats them in the most superficial way, leaving a viewer confused about the film's intent, emphasis and tone.

What is this, exactly?  A love story between two troubled characters? An examination of how the medical field is stymied by big pharma? Perhaps a slapstick comedy, complete with lame sex jokes, and a homeless man who takes drug samples from a dumpster, becoming well enough for a job interview? Is this a story of the professional rivalry between two despicable salespeople? Or a look at the frustration of doctors who lose their idealism amid crushing bureaucracy?

I suppose the crux of the story is one disillusioned drug rep's hopeless efforts to help his beloved find a cure for Parkinson's disease.  Or maybe it's a chronicle of the rise of Viagra.  It also played like one big product placement for Pfizer (why?).


It is all of these, and none of these too.  It is a mess.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the handsome yet insecure workaholic who charms his way to the top and gets grounded by the love of a complicated woman who will need him more than he realizes. Anne Hathaway, playing that woman, is so good one believes her even when she is asked to deliver rapid-fire wisecracks.  Gyllenhaal, while always endearing, pushes this role too hard, and mugs for a laugh. But then, the script is as muddled and unsure as any I have seen of late, and the direction by Edward Zwick is similarly confused. 

It's a shame, because one occasionally catches a glimpse of a compelling conflict, some genuine romance, and a skeleton of what seems to have been inspired by the better parts of  topical movies like "Up in the Air".  I loved a scene (filmed in Chicago) in which Parkinson's patients relate their stories to a receptive audience.  I enjoyed the energy and irony in the scenes when Gyllenhaal is trained as a sales rep for Pfizer. But then his conquests and altercations become repetitive and embarrassing.  I also was intrigued by Hathaway's photo project, but then we never know what it is supposed to be, or what the final product is.  Similarly, Hathaway's character works with senior citizens who often take a bus to Canada to purchase cheaper prescriptions. 

But none of the threads goes anywhere...it's frustrating because the film swings wildly from scene to scene, as though someone messed up the screenplay and kept adding one ingredient after another until no one knew how to fix it.

Rather than concentrate on the insecurity of Gyllenhaal's character, as he fights to achieve his drug-sales quotas, we get an unnecessary backstory involving his disapproving family, and a subplot involving his younger brother. The latter is so unnecessary, and so out of line with the better intentions of this film, that it is painful, even offensive, whenever this character appears.  George Segal and the late Jill Clayburgh are wasted in brief appearances as Gyllenhaal's parents (If you miss the first five minutes, you will miss then entirely.)  And Oliver Platt, as Gyllenhaal's mentor and sales partner...well, I gave up trying to understand Pratt's appeal long ago.

Anne Hathaway is believable and touching as the young woman afflicted with incurable Parkinson's.  Her clear, large eyes and tender expressive face keeps one's attention glued to her.  Yet the filmmakers undermine her work.  How I wish the film narrowed its focus to the love story, while using the corruption of the health and pharmaceutical industries as a subtle commentary on the characters' fates.

It has been only five years since Hathaway and Gyllenhaal played a doomed married couple in "Brokeback Mountain".  The memory of that pairing hung heavily over this film, because "Love and Other Drugs" had almost none of the sensitivity of the former.  By re-teaming these two performers (who I like a lot, by the way) in a film that is snickering in its treatment of sex, body image and human anatomy, it was as though an attempt was being made to wipe out the memory of "Brokeback" once and for all.  

For me, a huge disappointment, knowing what this film could have been.

The Cubs--and Chicago--Lose Their Biggest Fan

Chicago got its first significant winter snowfall today, one day after the death of former Chicago Cubs third baseman, Ron Santo.


Baseball is a summer sport, and Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs, is a desolate place in the wintertime.  With today's snow, there seemed to be a hushed sort of disbelief at the passing of Santo, the quintessential fan, a man of unshakable faith in his team that has gone without a World Series championship in over 100 years. 

Santo, a legend around Chicago (even among non-fans), who was captain of the historic 1969 team which lost its bid to the New York Mets, who has spent the last two decades announcing the games on WGN radio, passed away from diabetes and bladder cancer in his home in Arizona. It was as though he waited to die so as not to interrupt the baseball season. Had Ronnie left us in the summer, in the midst of the madness and activity of the season, there would have been outpourings of emotion in the streets, tributes in the stadium and around the bars in Wrigleyville.

I don't write much about sports; I suppose of all major sports I can be considered mostly a fan of baseball. As a kid we went to many Cubs games at a time when Wrigley Field was smack in the middle of a questionable neighborhood, and safe parking was nearly impossible.  I took for granted that the heroes I watched almost daily on TV, and live at the park during Sunday double-headers, would be around forever. 


But when I heard of his death at age 70, I was stunned, silent, numb, like a part of my past was forever gone and never to be recaptured.  Mark (a rabid St. Louis Cardinals fan and Cubs rival), and even my mother, not a great sports enthusiast, reacted tearfully to the news.  


My sadness at his passing is as much for the loss of the man as it is for feeling an irretrievable loss of part of that happier, carefree aspect of childhood.

Santo had a colorful career and a solid record.  That he was never inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame defies understanding, and diminishes the honor for all involved.

Ronnie was not a seasoned broadcaster, but Chicagoans loved him because he was so free with his emotions, his innocent raw passion for his beloved team added genuineness, sincerity, so lacking in the generic patter of many professional sports announcers.  Many Cubs fans turned down the volume on their televisions during the games, turning up their radios to listen to the play-by-play of Ronnie and his on-air pal, Pat Hughes.  Every excited yelp, or dismayed groans of "aw no....aw geez!' said more than any in-depth analysis ever could.  We identified with that.  He sounded out what we felt.


I always remarked that Ron Santo would die happily the minute the Cubs won the World Series.  He made me believe that seeming impossibility was possible.  I am sorry that he never lived to see that moment of victory. 


During life's moves and changes, it hurts to lose an old photograph, a letter from a friend, an autographed baseball, or anything else that is a tangible reminder of how we once were.  Losing Ron Santo, and the promise of another season filled with hope, felt this way to me.  Even if you're not from Chicago, I know it is possible to understand this sense of loss...


At the end of the 1942 Gary Cooper biopic of Lou Gehrig, "Pride of the Yankees", as Gehrig finishes his famous farewell speech and walks off the field alone, soon to die, the yell of the umpire to "Play Ball!" gets me choked up every time.  There is nothing more poignant than the idea that life goes on.

The REAL King's Speech

Popular movies can still provide opportunities for me to explore people, history, and ideas that I might otherwise have never uncovered.  Good films continue to inspire me to my best efforts, bring me in touch with my better humanity, and allow me to identify with people that are not part of my everyday experience.  I am motivated to learn new things, and I have a catharsis of cleansing emotions.

This kind of cinematic experience is becoming rare for me in popular American film. 

Occasionally I will become fascinated by the advance press of a film yet to be released.  As you know, this year, for me, it's "The King's Speech".  A number of ingredients come together to heighten my anticipation and excitement.  In some cases, I love the the cast (the performers here are like my dream team); sometimes I admire the work of the director or writer; or maybe the subject matter is of special interest.

In the case of a film based on actual events or people, I enjoy doing some research prior to my initial viewing. First of all, it enhances my enjoyment ; and second, it allows me to study all aspects of the filmmaking and evaluate the choices made in creating the work before me on the screen.  Not to mention the satisfaction of a broader horizon.

I knew almost nothing about King George VI.  I didn't know about his lineage, the origin of his nickname "Bertie" (after Albert, one of his given names), the indifference of his parents and the cruelty of his caretaker, his emotional turmoil, his stammer...or even that he was the last Emperor of India!  He also introduced the beloved Corgi dogs into the Royal Family. I knew little about the circumstances around his "accidental" ascension to the throne. And I had no idea what The King's Speech was.

So I found a recording of the famous speech given by King George to his subjects on the eve of England's entry into WWII.  Unfortunately there is no film of the speech (that I was able to find).  The King's voice is almost a drone, expressionless.  But knowing the special challenges he encountered, and his terror of failing, it becomes poignant.

I'm slightly impatient with critics who have said that this will be a "stodgy film" appealing  to older members of the industry, that it is Oscar bait due to its coverage of a British royal family.  Royals are human beings, and this one has a compelling story to tell, that might generate honest emotion.  Maybe that's not cutting-edge, but it might be universal.

I dislike hearing that the film is already "fading", before it has had a chance to be seen by most.  At the very least, given the talent involed, it deserves a fair viewing.  I would not want to see the merits (or faults) of the film go ignored while it becomes like a football tossed about in a game of award one-upmanship, or a pawn in a manufactured battle of generations.

I hope readers will enjoy listening to the following recording of King George VI's speech, as we await the filmic recreation by Colin Firth and company.