Classic Film and TV Cafe: A Fever in The Blood (1961)

Source: Classic & TV Cafe- Angie Dickinson- Efrem Zimbalist.

Source:The Daily Review

A Fever in The Blood is a picture of courtroom drama and political cinema, intrigue, and ambition. You have three powerful influential ambitious men who want to be the next governor of their state, which is never named in the movie. A sitting city judge, (played by Efrem Zimbalist) a district attorney, (played by Jack Kelly) and a sitting U.S. Senator. (Played by Don Ameche) And while all of this is going on you have high profile murder case involving a successful local businessman and his separated dead wife. With the husband being accused of the crime.

And you also have the adorable, gorgeous, and sexy Angie Dickinson, who has a smaller but very important character in the movie as the wife of Senator Alex Simon (played by Don Ameche) who is more interested in Judge Leland Hoffman (played by Efrem Zimbalist) and sees her husband as too power hungry and ambitious, as well as somewhat shady. I mean the cast and characters alone should get you interested in this movie. Unless you just hate courtroom dramas and fictional political films.

You have this local murder case in an unknown city with the District Attorney Dan Callahan (played by Jack Kelly) deciding to prosecute the case himself instead of assigning the case to one his top deputies. Because again Callahan wants to be governor of this mysterious state that will go nameless simply because it is never announced what state this movie takes place in. You have Judge Leland Hoffman who only gets this case assigned to him because he does his own wheeling and dealing ( I hate that expression) And Senator Alex Simon who is probably the favorite going into to win his unknown party's nomination for governor, but knows this murder case could be the boost that his top two opponents need to win the nomination. And actually ends up bribing Judge Hoffman in the Judge's office to let the case go.

There's a lot of backroom inside politics in this movie. That any great high profile drama has. The movie is also over two-hours but more than worth the time to watch it. Especially if you just like seeing Angie Dickinson in a great movie and she's had several. Not a movie for people simply looking for romantic comedies and softball humor. There's a good deal of humor in this movie, but a lot of that involves Don Ameche, as well as how Jack Kelly and Efrem Zimbalist in the courtroom. With the District Attorney accusing the Judge of ruling against him for political reasons. Great movie for political junkies such as myself but also for people who like courtroom dramas and even soap operas.

Source: Classic Film & TV Cafe- Angie Dickinson

Classic Film and TV Cafe: A Fever in The Blood 1961- Angie Dickinson & Efrem Zimbalist

Sundance Now Doc Club: Heidi Fleiss- Hollywood Madam

Source:The Daily Review

Did Heidi Fleiss break the law? Well prostitution is illegal in Los Angeles, California and the United States and that is the business she had. So of course she was guilty of breaking the law and Los Angeles and the Feds were simply doing their job when they had her arrested and later convicted of running a prostitution ring. But again what is she guilty of? Prostitution, which is the selling of consensual sex. Between a prostitute and a client. The prostitute is paid for having consensual sex with their client. Generally the prostitute is a women and the clients tend to be men. And where Heidi comes in is that she's guilty of running a business that involves the selling of consensual sex. Not running a hitman operation , or selling immigrants, money laundry, or any other business where innocent people are hurt simply for doing their jobs.

So Heidi ends up doing about two years in prison in the late 1990s for running a business where a consensual service for payment is involved. She wasn't in prison for murder, rape, assault, bribery, child pornography, child prostitution, where innocent people are hurt by predators and intentionally so. She did time in a Federal prison for selling a service that two people consensually agreed to. And ends up taking resources from the criminal justice system. Law enforcement, prostitution and prison, at taxpayers expense, money that could have been used to put away, gee I don't know, about dangerous criminals. I'm not an expert on Heidi Fleiss, but I believe a big reason for why California and the Federal Government, went so hard at her, is because she was so good at it. And perhaps looking to make an example of her.

Heidi, wasn't called the Hollywood Madam for nothing. She was not only based in Los Angeles, but had a lot of L.A. clients in the Hollywood industry. Including Charlie Sheen, who in 1997-98, wasn't exactly at the height of his career. Dealing with alcohol and other drug addictions and when he was working doing movies that flopped. That is how you become a millionaire as a madam by working in Hollywood and getting confidential agreements with their clients. Because no one wants to go to jail, especially for consensual sex. Is Heidi an angel, I don't think she even looks like one, let alone is one and has personal issues with how she deals with people. But we're not talking about a criminal who hurt innocent people for either money, or because she enjoys hurting people. And this not someone who should have been in prison for what she was involved in.

Video Detective: The Seduction Of Joe Tynan (1979)

SourceThe Daily Review

The Seduction of Joe Tynan is one of the best political movies I’ve ever seen and it reminds me a little bit of the Ted Kennedy-Jimmy Carter 1979-80 Democratic race for president, which I’ll get into later. Alan Alda plays Senator Joe Tynan from New York, who has solid Progressive Democratic credentials. Who is in love with his job and wants to move up and be a national player in the party if not President of the United States.

What separates him from Senator Ted Kennedy is that Senator Tynan, actually wants to be President. Ted Kennedy ran for president in the 1980, because he didn’t like where the country was going with the bad economy and everything else, didn’t think President Carter was progressive enough, but more importantly he felt some obligation to the progressive wing to run for president and put another Kennedy in the White House.

Joe Tynan, loves the president, loves campaigning, loves politics. I would say loves his kids back in New York as well, just not enough to make them a major priority as far as attending their major events. And I would say likes his wife a lot and perhaps loves her and is attracted to her, but doesn’t have much respect for her and sees her as bit of lightweight, at least as far as the people he deals with in Washington. And I believe this comes out pretty clearly in the movie as far as how Tynan talks about his wife whose played by the adorable and funny Barbara Harris.

What makes Tynan a strong potential presidential candidate is that the President a Democrat, has a U.S. Supreme Court nominee up. Who is a bit of a right-winger, at least on civil rights issues and supported forced segregation in the past, who comes from Arkansas. And that puts Senator Tynan in a tough position of having to consider taking on the leader of his party.

Joe Tynan, doesn’t want to take on the President and his Democratic Leadership in the Senate, but he’s not going to support right-wing Supreme Court nominee who supports forced segregation either. Especially since he’s looking at running for president himself. And is approached by civil rights and labor lawyers in the party who want him to vote against Supreme Court nominee. And is approached by Karen Traynor. (played by Meryl Streep)

Who is one of the Democratic activists trying to bring Tynan to their side and oppose Edward Anderson (played by Maurice Copeland) who is the Supreme Court nominee. She gets Tynan real evidence that he’s against civil rights with video of a speech that he gave in the 1960s and that’s how Senator Tynan comes out against Anderson. Which pisses off his close friend Senator Birney (played by Melvyn Douglas) who is a close friend of Anderson and a big supporter of him.

What you have in Joe Tynan is a workaholic who has become a career politician whose always focused on politics and always looking for the next big move in his career and when he’s not doing that and takes any free time, he does it with people other than his wife and family. Starts an affair with Karen Traynor, becomes a national player and hero in the Democratic Party, decides to run for president without even talking to his wife and kids.

Who starts off the movie having basically everything he wants and has everything going for him as a young influential U.S. Senator who can move legislation. But sees an opening to furthering his political career and jumps on that and in the process almost loses everything that he has. I think this is a very good movie about an ambitious workaholic career politician who is never completely happy and satisfied. And is always looking for more, even if it means losing everything that he already has.

TIME: Blog: Lilly Rothman: See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970

Source:The New Democrat

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society. Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s. American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing. You would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine. But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.

Nixon & Kissinger (1995) The Ending of The Vietnam War

Source:The New Democrat

I saw this movie last night in preparation for this blog and I gotta admit, I like this movie more than I did twenty-years ago when I saw it for the first time. Back then I guess I was under the impression that this movie was simply about the relationship of President Richard Nixon and his top foreign policy and national security adviser Henry Kissinger. And I guess that would’ve been interesting enough, but this movie is much deeper than that. They cover most of 1972 and the Nixon Administration trying to end the Vietnam War one way or another that year. And before Election Night 1972 if all possible.

This movie is basically about the last days of the Vietnam War. When the end of that war was declared and when both countries were officially no longer at war. And after the war was officially over in late 1972 or early 73, the last two years became about how to successfully get all American personal out of Vietnam and prepare for our next relationship with the new Communist Republic of Vietnam. And Henry Kissinger who at this point was President Nixon’s National Security Director the head of the National Security Council and not Secretary of State yet, was in charge of these negotiations.

This movie also covers the personal and professional relationship of Nixon and Kissinger. How Nixon being the paranoid man that he was and how jealous of all the good publicity that Kissinger was getting. While the American press was never a fan of Dick Nixon and him becoming President of the United States didn’t help the press in how they felt about him. According to this movie the Nixon White House wanted to use Kissinger and take advantage of what they brought to the White House, but at the same time make it look like Kissinger was just taking orders. And not actually running foreign policy. This is a very good, but unfortunately short movie about two of the most fascinating and brilliant people to ever serve in the U.S. Government.

Source:The New Democrat

The Merv Griffin Show: Video: Jack Lemmon & Jane Fonda on China Syndrome in 1979

Source:The New Democrat

Jack Lemmon to me at least and I bet a lot of other people who knew him and are familiar with him would say was that he was a professional comedian who didn’t do standup. At least on a regular basis, but his sense of humor, timing and spontaneity when it came to humor and his improvisation was great and gave him comedic abilities. That are about as good as we’ve ever seen in Hollywood. The man deserves to be in Comedy Hall of Fame if there is such a thing. And you see a lot of that in this interview without a script. Merv Griffin giving him questions that aren’t even intended to have humorous responses. And Jack answering the questions seriously, but using humor to make his points.

I covered China Syndrome last night, but they really did a great movie and made a great movie about a subject that by 1978 and early 1979 I’m not sure a lot of Americans were thinking about and were worried about. Which was nuclear power and what could happen when nuclear power plants aren’t managed well enough and where profits are put ahead of safety. Which is about as progressive or socialist even as you’ll ever hear me talk. But this was movie that had to be done and let people know about this issue. And again Three Mile Island happens just a month after this interview was conducted in early 79.

China Syndrome wasn’t saying that nuclear power was bad or that corporations were bad. What they were talking about was the dangers of nuclear when it is not managed properly and the potential consequences that can come when it is not managed properly. And in an area like Los Angeles with roughly fifteen-million people with four-million of the city and eight-millions in LA County that is a lot of people who could potentially be seriously injured with injuries that they’ll never recover from. If not killed if you have a major nuclear power accident. And that is what this movie was talking about.

Stacey Anderson: Video: The China Syndrome 1979, A Movie That Became a True Story

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

If you are familiar with Three Mile Island and then you see The China Syndrome, I think you would leave the movie thinking, “wow that could actually happen”. Because the Three Mile explosion which happened at a nuclear power plant outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in March of 1979 happened about two months after The China Syndrome came out in January or February of 1979. China Syndrome is not about a nuclear power plant explosion, but about what could potentially happen at a plant like that if it is not run properly, lets say.

There is a bad vibration at a nuclear power plant in Southern California just outside of Los Angeles and the plant knows about it and decides to if not cover it up, play it down so they don’t get any bad publicity or have to deal with regulators about it. A news anchor and cameraman at a local TV knows something is going on and believes the power plant is not giving the whole story. But their boss’s don’t want to go any further in the story and risk a big lawsuit. Kimberly Wells played by Jane Fonda and Richard Adams played by Michael Douglas decided to look into the story anyway. And that is how this story gets going.

Jack Godell played by Jack Lemmon is a shift supervisor at the power plant and knows something seriously went wrong at the power plant. And he also knows his company is not giving the whole story, but is reluctant at first to say what he knows and believes to the media. Jane Wells finds Jack at the bar and they get to know each other and she gets to open up a little bit about what he knows about what happened at the power plant.

So this is what this movie is about where a nuclear power plant had it been any worst would’ve caused serious destruction of Southern California, at least like getting hit by a nuclear missile. A company knowing that if this story breaks, they would not only lose millions and probably a let more, but get sanctioned by the U.S. Government and other authorities. Two somewhat inexperienced media people looking for a big break and a big story all coming together in one story.

Jane Wells is at best a soft news personal story reporter who covers personalities and the goings ons at supermarkets and amusement parks and other things. Who doesn’t want to do that forever and wants to become a hard news reporter and anchor. This is the story that if she gets it and does a good job will get her off of soft news. And she and Jack are the main two characters who break this story and shed light on what really happened at the power plant. And this is a great movie about how deadly nuclear power plant leaks and explosions can be. And very realistic especially if you are familiar with Three Mile Island.

The Hollywood Reporter: Victims of Hollywood's Blacklist

Source:The New Democrat 

I don’t think there’s anything more Un-American and Un-liberal democratic as punishing people simply because of what they believe and their politics. But that is what the U.S. House of Representatives decided to do in 1946-47 and they had a bipartisan coalition to do that. And they had help from the Hollywood industry itself to try to stamp out as people that they saw as Un-American because they had socialist if not communist leanings. These actors, writers, directors and other people weren’t punished because they were doing bad jobs. But because they believed in a more socialistic and collectivist society for America.

Its one thing to disagree with one’s politics and I’m certainly not a Socialist or a Communist and how supporters talk about communism I’m having a hard time telling the difference between communism and socialism. But it’s another thing to say that person or those people are bad simply because they believe there shouldn’t be rich or poor and that we need a more collectivist society and economy where everyone can do well and where there is no rich or poor. They weren’t talking about tearing down the liberal democratic form of government in America and replacing it with an authoritarian state.

If you truly love America and what we stand for as a country, then you love and believe in Freedom of Speech with almost no exceptions. The right for people to believe, think and say what they believe. Without it costing them job opportunities simply because of what they believe. Doesn’t mean people can’t be questioned, criticized and even contradicted over what they believe because that is part for free speech and debate. But you simply don’t blacklist people can cost them jobs simply because of their political beliefs. You judge them based on how good they are for the job that they are a candidate for and their qualifications for that job.

Matthew Hormann: The Hollywood Ten, 1950

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t want to sound overly partisan here, but this was one of the ugliest anti-American, anti-liberal democratic, illiberal periods in American history. Where Americans were judged by who they associated with and political causes they supported and political candidates they may have endorsed in the past. Instead of being judged by their character and how they conduct themselves and the jobs that they do and what they contribute to America. And this period of the late 1940s early 1950s look like how elements of today’s so-called Tea Party treat Americans that don’t believe the way they do and share their culture and political values.

This period between 1947 or so when Republicans won back Congress both the House and Senate up until Senator Joe McCarthy’s so-called investigation of supposed Communists in the U.S. Government is Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage Neoconservative Utopia. They accused Americans of supporting things that they claim that they don’t. Which is fascism and telling Americans that they disagree with politically that they are Un-American simply for exercising their constitutional rights of Freedom of Assembly, Speech and Thought. As well as privacy which has never been popular with the Far-Right in America anyway.

People in Hollywood were simply denied jobs and the ability to earn a living simply because of who they may have associated with in the past and political candidates they may have endorsed. Not because of movies that they made or roles that they played and how they played them and how they made movies. But what they did in their personal and free time. Endorsing political candidates that members of Congress both in the Republican Party and Democratic Party and executives in Hollywood saw as dangerous. And this is one of the ugliest periods in American history both in Hollywood and in the U.S. Congress.

Jnuss Bau: The Hollywood Blacklist: 1947-1960

Source:The New Democrat 

The late 1940s and all the way up to at least the mid-1950s or so was one of the most fascist illiberal and anti-liberal democratic periods of our time. I think elements of today’s Tea Party and the Ann Coulter’s of the world would’ve loved to be alive back then. Because it was a time when an American could be perceived as being a bad person simply because of who they may have associated with in the past. Especially if you were on the Far-Left in America and at the very least had socialistic and communistic leanings as far as what people like that would want to accomplish for America. A more collectivist and equal society.

This is not what America is supposed to be about. We are supposed to be that liberal democracy liberal society free society that the rest of the world wants to mimic. Where everyone has the right to be themselves and believe in what they believe whatever that they may be and be able to associate with whoever they choose to just as long as we aren’t hurting any innocent people with what we are doing. But if you were around back in the late 1940s and 1950s and you were an adult and you were somewhat Far-Left politically and you worked in Hollywood, that is not the type of country that you saw. You saw a country where you could be viewed as guilty and immoral simply because of people you associated with and your political beliefs.

Were there Socialists and Communists in Hollywood back then, I’m sure there were and probably still today. At least when it comes to Democratic Socialists especially if you look at a lot of Hollywood’s political films. But just because someone’s political views are out of the American mainstream and puts them on the Far-Left or Far-Right in America doesn’t automatically make them bad people. And it shouldn’t cost them jobs either. Which is what happened to the Hollywood Ten back then members of the movie industry who lost jobs and whose reputations suffered simply because of their political views. Or their perceived political views, or people that they associate with, or had associated with in the past.

Charlie Rose: George Clooney in 2005 on Goodnight & Good Luck

Source:The New Democrat

This is one reason why I’m definitely a big fan of George Clooney, besides his great sense of humor and charm, but his intelligence and knowledge about the issues that he likes to film about. Ed Murrow and the Ed Murrow-Joe McCarthy battle in the 1950s over communism and fascism. Who knows Ed Murrow so well and this story so well and you see that in this interview and in the movie. And you also see how much he respected Ed Murrow and how big of a thug and fascist that Senator Joe McCarthy was in the 1950s. Even if Ann Coulter is never smart enough to see that.

Ed Murrow knew how dangerous Senator McCarthy was in the 1950s and represented everything that America is supposed to be against and something I believe a large majority if not most Americans are against, which is fascism. And this blog covers fascism from both the Far-Right and Far-Left because it hates fascism. People telling others what it means to be an American and a moral person. Or how we should talk about certain groups of people and who we should communicate with each other.

Ed Murrow and his See it Now team knew exactly what they were up against and that the person that they were up against. And the fact that Senator McCarthy was a member of Congress and could use his power as a Senator to try to punish CBS News and the broader CBS network with their licensing and fines and everything else. And CBS News of course knew this as well which is why they weren’t fully behind Murrow and Fred Friendly. But it believed it was a fight worth taking on for the future of speech and other freedoms that Americans tend to take for granted. And they were very skillful how they took on McCarthy.

C-SPAN: Goodnight & Good Luck (2005

Source:The New Democrat. 

What I didn’t cover yesterday was how important Ed Murrow was for network hard news and what he meant for it. It was almost like the man was physic and could see what network news would look lets say fifty-years later. He could already see news moving in a more tabloid and entertainment oriented direction. And that news being combined with entertainment. He wanted to run and anchor a hard news show that dealt primarily with hard news. Which is exactly what CBS News the gold standard for network news for the next twenty years starting in the early 1960s became.

What Murrow said was that he knew what entertained Americans and what they wanted to see and get entertained. What he was saying was that he wanted Americans to also get what they needed to know. Why their country and world operates the way it does and why that is important to them. That Americans could have their desserts, but that also should have their entrees. Their meat and potatoes before they have their ice cream and cake. Ed Murrow was a hard news man working for primarily an entertainment network. Which is what CBS was primarily in the 1950s. Which of course changed with CBS News and CBS Sports in the 1960s and ever since.

And this whole time period with CBS executives telling Murrow and Fred Friendly that they want entertainment and with McCarthyism going on in the U.S. Senate and other big news stories of that era was the perfect way to show how entertainment competes with hard news at TV networks. Murrow saying that he knows that Americans want to see Ed Sullivan and Leave it to Beaver and whatever else. But you got these big stories going on that affect the future of America that are frankly more important. And they have to be covered and shown too.

Lionsgate: Video: Goodnight and Good Luck (2005)

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

If I had to rate Goodnight and Good Luck on a scale of 1-10 with ten being the highest, I would give it a 9-9.5. And I saw the movie again a couple of nights ago in preparation for this blog. The only reason I wouldn’t give it a ten, is because it was a ninety-minute movie about one of the most important times during the Cold War between America and Russia and their allies on both sides. This movie should’ve been at least two-hours if not three and they would’ve been able to cover so many more aspects about the McCarthyism in the 1950s.

If you are familiar with the 1950s in America and the so-called red scare about communism and Communists in America, then you are also familiar with U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy and the Army McCarthy hearings that supposedly investigated supposed Communists inside of the U.S. Government. A complete fishing trip inside of an empty bathtub, because Chairman McCarthy and his team didn’t have much if anything to go on. Other than guilt by association. Senator McCarthy saw this as his ticket to the White House after President Dwight Eisenhower.

Edward R. Murrow the anchor and managing editor of CBS News’s See it Now, the CBS nightly newscast before the CBS Evening News, knew what communism was and who were the actual Communists. Because he covered World War II in Europe. And didn’t believe that Americans who weren’t Communists should be stuck with the label of Communists. And he and Fred Friendly and their team at See it Now, without having the backing of CBS News and the broader CBS network, decided to go after McCarthyism and expose Joe McCarthy for what he was. Which was a political opportunist and a right-wing fascist. Who saw Americans who didn’t look at the world the way he did as Un-American.

Murrow and Friendly expose Joe McCarthy for what he really was by going after him the way any good news organization would. By using the truth against McCarthy. Using his own words and documents against the Senator. And with Murrow doing a nightly editorial after their reporting on the McCarthy hearings about dangerous fascism and guilt by association is. And George Clooney who plays Fred Friendly and David Strathairn who plays Ed Murrow, do a great job of showing who the real Friendly and Murrow and the See it Now crew take down Senator Joe McCarthy.

Gingery Oddity: Video: HBO's The Newsroom: Maggie on Michelle Bachmann and Christianity

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

What the Maggie character from The Newsroom didn’t mention and perhaps didn’t think of, is that perhaps Representative Michelle Bachmann’s whose career in Congress will be over in just a few weeks, (counting the days, can’t wait) that perhaps Michelle believes her own propaganda. See I’m not sure if the distinguished Representative from Minnesota is an escaped mental patient, someone who should be committed, but because she’s married to Markus Bachmann who perhaps should be committed as well, or is not smart enough to see that her dear wife needs professional help. Or is a complete idiot who believes her own, lets say propaganda about “God wants me to run for President”.

You know not all politician’s are liars. Which is as difficult to believe that it never snows in Minnesota, or the New York Yankees aren’t from New York, or there isn’t a lot of oil in Texas. But there are politician’s that are simply flat nuts or complete morons, or perhaps in Michelle Bachmann’s case a case of both. And yes there are politician’s that lie, well their mouths off, who the only way to know what they think and know about anything, at least important is to always have them on truth serum. I’m just throwing it out there that there are politician’s who are nutty or dumb enough to actually believe their own words and aren’t always lying.

Network 1976: Ned Beatty: 'The World is a Business'

"The world is a business", scary thought at least from my perspective that business's and corporations, as well as government's, not trying to sound like a Socialist here, but government's at least to a certain extent are in the business of making money as well. Whether it is for their country or their own personal interests, depending on the country. And everything that government's and private enterprises do around the world has something to do with money. Where to invest, what to invest in, how to pay their bills, who to hire and how many people to hire, how to pay for their employees and at what costs.

These are all decisions that government's make as well and what the Howard Beale character was saying in this movie played by Peter Finch, is enough. That we the people so to speak shouldn't take that anymore and have more freedom over our own lives and not be dictated to by corporation's. That we watch too much TV, don't read enough, aren't educated enough and that we need to do is to standup and fight back and not see so many companies turn into so few with all of the mergers. Which weakens competition when their aren't as many companies in business. And what the Ned Beatty character was saying, "you're messing with the forces of nature". Meaning the forces of business and he wasn't going to allow for that.

Wag The Dog (1997)

Source:The Daily Press

The late 1990s was a crazy and fascinating time for many reasons politically and other things and also one of the best periods for Hollywood as far as making movies. Some of my favorite movies of all-time come from 1997-99. Wag the Dog 1997 being one of them, Jackie Brown 1997 being another as far as I'm concern the best Quentin Tarratino movie of all-time. Out of Sight 1998 being another one, Primary Colors 1998 another one of my favorite movies. Cop Land 1997, The Big Lebowski 1998 maybe my favorite comedy of all-time with a great comedy duo in Jeff Bridges and John Goodman. Very Bad Things 1998 another very funny movie, Wild Things 1998 very funny.

But one movie in particular because it fit in perfectly with the times especially politically. The Monica Lewinski scandal breaks in January 1998 the same month that the Pope visits Cuba which I doubt made the United States Government very happy especially with their embargo policy of Cuba. And also when President Clinton was probably at his most popular. Wag the Dog came out about a year earlier, in the Summer of 1997, two American embassies in East Africa were bombed and then America attacks both Sudan and Afghanistan. 

Because the Clinton Administration believed that the Sudanese Government had a role of the African bombings. Again we attack Afghanistan as well that same month August 1998, but here's the thing and why Wag the Dog is so relevant. That movie is about people working for the White House creating the appearance of a war in order to get the media and people's attention off the latest sex scandal of the President.

After America attacked Sudan and Afghanistan by sending in missile strikes, Republicans in Congress Senator Dan Coates of Indiana whose generally a pretty rational and responsible person, right away questions whether the missile strikes had something to do with the Lewinski scandal. And was done as a distraction just like in the movie Wag the Dog and even said something to that effect. "I wonder or I hope this is not a Wag the Dog moment for President Clinton". The movie came out just a few months before the Lewinski scandal broke. Wag the Dog is a movie about the President being in trouble with another sex scandal. He's a popular President up until the scandal and looks like he's flying to reelection.

But the scandal breaks and of course his opponent in the race a U.S. Senator played by Craig Nelson try's to make the most out of it. Senator Nelson lets say is way down in the polls and is looking for anything he can to break through. Someone in the White House calls in a veteran big shot political strategist to deal with the scandal played by Robert DeNiro and he gets the idea that what the President needs is a distraction. To get the country's attention off of the sex scandal and comes up with the idea of a fake war and hire a Hollywood producer played by Dustin Hoffman to put this show together. 

Wag the Dog is a great movie for several reasons, one because of how relevant it is, perhaps not realistic though especially in the information age. And this movie did come out in 1997 as far as them being able to cover up a fake war without the Defense Department, CIA or someone knowing about it. But it's still a very funny movie, well written and a great cast Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Bill Macy, Ann Heche, Craig Nelson, Dennis Leary and others. And how desperate that these politicos were to save a Presidency and would even create a fake war to do that.

Axel Reyes: Kennedy (1983)

Source:The Daily Press

There have been several movies about John F. Kennedy. Because even though he only lived forty-six years there were so many things that went on in his life that were worth writing and filming about. Like his Navy career, what he did right after that trying to decide what he would do the rest of his life. His first campaign for the House of Representatives in 1946, his time in the House, he was a bit of a playboy there. 

And not very disciplined, but of course he had the great name and was such a charming man and likable. His friendship with Richard Nixon in the House and later in the Senate. Sen. Kennedy's name and charm was good enough for him to keep his job in the House and then even running for the Senate in 1952. His first Senate campaign of course being elected the same year that Dwight Eisenhower.

Jack Kennedy was elected to the Senate in 1952 and served in the last Republican Congress until 1995 with the Gingrich Revolution. Jack Kennedy's time in the Senate, where he becomes more serious and takes the job seriously and puts in the time and work because of course he had bigger goals, Sen. Kennedy writes a book in the Senate Profiles in Courage where there was some controversy about whether Sen. Kennedy wrote the book or was the book written by Ted Sorenson one of his Senate staffers. 

Adali Stevenson the 1956 Democratic nominee considers Sen. Kennedy as his Vice Presidential nominee which would've been a disaster for Sen. Kennedy. Because GOV. Stevenson lost to President Eisenhower in a landslide and Kennedy wouldn't of made much of a difference. I believe Hollywood for the most part has done a very good job with Jack Kennedy with making movies about him. 

Unlike Oliver Stone with Richard Nixon, they haven't tried to cover Jack Kennedy's whole life with one huge movie. They've broken his life up in several stage. There was one mini-series alone  I believe shown by CBS about the Kennedy's relationship between them. Especially Jack and Bobby with union leader Jimmy Hoffa. Another movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 from 2000, another movie about Sen. Kennedy's involvement in Civil Rights. A new Mini Series in 2011 about the Kennedy Presidency, a movie about Jack Kennedy's navy career.

You could make another movie about Jack Kennedy's Congressional career or the great presidential election of 1960 that featured Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon between two future presidents. Or another movie about the Bay of Pigs Crisis in 1962 the failed attempt to oust Fidel Castro as President of Cuba. There are so many things that happened in Jack Kennedy's life that are fascinating that are worth making public either by book, TV or movie that trying to cover the whole life in one movie or mini-series is too much, because you're bound to miss something. 

The Kennedy mini-series from 1983 with Martin Sheen is a pretty good, but not great mini-series. And it focus's just on the Kennedy Presidency, starting on Election Night 1960 when of course Sen. Kennedy is elected President in one of the closest presidential elections of all- time beating of course a sitting Vice President who worked for a very popular President in Dwight Eisenhower beating Dick Nixon in 1960, a very long election night. Sen. Kennedy finds out that he's just been elected President 6 or 7 the next morning. Jack Kennedy deserves several movies about him, all focusing on different aspects of his life.

Richard Pryor Show: The First African-American President (1977)

Source:Official Richard Pryor- showing America the first African-American President, more than 30 years before it's time.

“President Richard Pryor. Richard Pryor President.

The Richard Pryor Show was an American comedy variety show starring and created by Richard Pryor. It premiered on NBC on Tuesday, September 13, 1977.”

From Official Richard Pryor 

I think this photo is from the Tim Reid portion of this clip, where Tim Reid plays a Black-Nationalist reporter and he and President Pryor are saluting each other.

Source:Drop Three Improv- Richard Pryor playing the 1st ever African-American President, in 1977.

Source:Richard Pryor Show

I’ve never been to Fantasy Island, but now I think I know what it looks like. An African-American President of the United States, not the Federal Republic of Nigeria, but of America in 1977. Sorry, don’t believe it, but hey this is TV where fantasies almost look real. Where the good guy always get’s the bad guy and where the underdog in most cases always come through and wins the big game or the big battle. And where little unknown people become the heroes and save the day.

Barack Obama was a sophomore in high school when this show came on the air in 1977. That failed after four episodes, but not because it was a bad show, but because it was dealing with subjects that most Americans and I bet regardless of race, weren’t ready to deal with it. I mean the 1970s when we are talking finally desegregating schools to the point that African-American kids were bused halfway across town so they can go to a mostly Caucasian schools in the name of racial justice.

The mid and late 1970s is where I believe a lot of Caucasian-Americans who weren’t racist, but thinking it was no longer the 1960s and the civil rights era was over and that things would go back to normal the way it was in the 1950s. And that because of the civil rights laws of the 1960s and the Great Society and everything else, that African-Americans got what they deserved with that progressive legislation and that nothing else needed to be done. Which even thirty-seven years later that sounds like garbage. And what Pryor and others were trying to do was to show more Americans that more work needed to be done.

I’ll give Richard Pryor credit for one thing in this skit. If we could have a peanut brain, I mean peanut farmer as President of the United States in Jimmy Carter, why not an intelligent man with perhaps the quickest and sharpest wit of all-time who just happens to be African-American as President. I mean seriously, who would you rather have as President, the peanut brain or the intelligent African-American. I think the choice is clear. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Warner Vod: Video: All the President's Men (1976)

Source:The Daily Post

If you like movies based on true stories, then All The President's Men is a great movie if you like movies with great writing, then All The President's Men is a great movie. If you like movies with great casts, then All The Presidents Men is a great movie. If you like movies with clever quick-witted humor, then All The President's Men is a great movie. If you're interested in current affairs, politics and American history, or you're a junky about those things like myself, then All The Presidents Men is a great movie. There are so many reasons to see this great movie, this movie being the best movie at least as far as I'm concern in Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman's career. And I would add Jason Robards, Jack Warden and Ned Beatty, Jane Alexander to that list all great actors. 

All The President's Men is about the Watergate scandal that happened in 1972 when people working for the Nixon campaign broke into the Watergate building in Washington where just so happens where the Democratic National Committee Headquarters is located. They did that I'm guessing to dig up dirt on Sen. George McGovern President Nixon's opponent in 1972. I doubt they were there to steal wooden pencils or use the bathroom (call it a hunch). And how President Nixon covered up a story that he had no involvement in as far as the operations. But he did cover it up which is an Obstruction of Justice and how two basically no name reporters covered this story for the Washington Post.

Bob Woodward played by Robert Redford and Carl Bernstein played by Dusty Hoffman and If you're a fan of mystery's, then All The President's Men is a great movie. Even though Woodward and Bernstein aren't cops or private detectives, they are newspaper reporters covering a story that fell into their lap basically. The Watergate scandal was probably the dumbest political scandal that ever happened in the Federal Government. And there are plenty to choose from, because first of all it was illegal, it wasn't done by professional criminals. President Nixon got reelected in a landslide winning forty-nine states and around sixty-percent  of the popular vote despite Watergate.

So naturally what does Dick Nixon try to do. Being the great politician and brilliant man that he was, not trying to be funny here, he covers it up, he covers up a scandal that he had nothing to do with and had he just released everything that the White House had and let the FBI do their jobs, Watergate is nothing more than another Washington crime story handled by the Washington Police, President Nixon completes his second term and probably goes down as a great president depending on how he dealt with a weakening economy and the movie All The President's Men is never made. 

I saw All The Presidents Men for the first time when I was in junior high seventh or eighth Grade and didn't have much of an interest in politics at the age of thirteen or fourteen. Which may seem shocking considering how much of a political junky I am now. But I knew I really liked this movie by then and have seen probably twenty times since twenty plus years later because by the time I was eighteen, I was already a political junky keeping up with Congress and the Clinton Administration. I already new I was a Liberal Democrat by then. And this is one of those movies for me, thats worth seeing twenty plus times for the reasons I just laid out.

Movie Clips: Primary Colors (1998)

Source:The Daily Press

I saw the movie Primary Colors in the spring of 1998. Doesn't seem that long ago, but that's a different story with a long time friend of mine from high school who'll go nameless. And we saw it for free because my friend worked at a movie theater, one of the few perks of being friends of him. And I looked forward to seeing this movie, because it reminded me of a real life Southern politician another New Democrat. The real Liberal Democrats, who's a political hero of mine, who had the ability and vision to do great things. But lacked personal discipline, made too many mistakes for someone with his intelligence who also had a strong take charge attractive wife played by Emma Thomas. Who've could've been very successful on her own.

The question being could her husband be successful on his own. Same question in this movie Primary Colors was full of scenes that looked like the real person I'm talking about and if you've seen the movie and follow American politics, you probably already know who I'm talking about. And the movie was also based on this real life person, liberal governor from the South who culturally fit in very well with his state and the broader region. Who didn't have any Federal Government experience, not even serving in the military. Who despite being a Southerner, fit in very well with people outside of that region especially Northeastern and Hollywood Democrats who have a lot of power in the Democratic Party if not run the party.

The main politician in Primary Colors the character played by John Travolta, great actor and a very funny man GOV. Jack Stanton running for President, had the strong wife that I was talking about. Started running for President in New Hampshire with a very small budget and staff, just like the real life person. Had a sex scandal that involved a long time friend of the Governor, had really smart political strategist also from the South played byBilly Bob Thornton. Again long time friend of the Governor just like the real life person, veteran politicos as well a young people on his staff. Just like the real life person and there was a question of whether GOV. Stanton evaded the Vietnam War Draft just like the real life character.

There was a primary debate where GOV. Stanton had a big moment to win the debate just like the real movie. There was a campaign event, where GOV. Stanton was able to connect with the audience his I feel your pain moment just like the real movie. When GOV. Stanton basically told the audience that "I know times are tough, but I can't promise you the jobs you lost are coming back. That its time that a lot of American workers go back to school and learn other trades". Which also happened with the real life character. And of course the comeback kid moment in New Hampshire where GOV. Stanton does well enough in New Hampshire to keep his campaign going.

Of course the real life person I"m talking about is Bill Clinton who back in 1991-92, when he was running for President was Governor of Arkansas and was a Liberal Democrat ,but in the true sense. Progressive sure, but also understood the limits of government and the New Deal and Great Society. And that government has to be more responsible with tax revenue and of course all those situations that I just laid in the movie actually happened with Bill Clinton or were very similar. 

Very intelligent, but not very discipline, strong intelligent wife with Hillary Clinton. Small budget and campaign in New Hampshire, memorable debate where he takes in Jerry Brown. The campaign event where he feels the senior citizens pain and walks up to her and hugs her. The sex scandal with Jennifer Flowers, the story of whether Bill Clinton dodged the Vietnam War. Great Political Strategist Jim Carville all of these things being true. 

Primary Colors was based on Bill Clinton and his 1992 campaign for president where of course he was elected president. And also based on a book by author Joel Klein that was fictional with different names for the characters. But still based on a true story and they both did a very good job and this was a very entertaining movie.