More on Rudy Giuliani

I remember economist/Objectivist Richard Salsman during the 1996 Presidential primaries suggesting during a Q and A that it is so important to weaken the religionists’ impact on the Republican Party, to return the GOP to its more secular identity of the pre-Reagan past, that it is essential to vote for any secular, nontheocratic Republican in the primaries, even if he is a big-government liberal. At the time, he recommended voting for Arlen Specter.

This is another reason why, if we are to have any hope for the Republican Party, which is still the less Marxist/statist/collectivist of the two parties, Rudy Giuliani is the best choice of GOP candidates running now, and even any expected to consider running within the year (e.g., Newt Gingrich). Giuliani is not very religious and strongly supports the separation of church and state.

Yes, as New York Mayor, in the negative column, he welcomed terrorist Gerry Adams, and yes, at times he got government too involved in areas that are not part of its proper function, and yes, he persecuted and prosecuted Michael Milken many years ago. However, in the positive column, he also has been very strong in defending illegal immigrants from deportation, protecting women’s right to have an abortion, he justly and boldly threw terrorist Yasser Arafat out of a concert to which he hadn’t been invited, and according to Wikipedia:

“When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal suggested that the [9/11] attacks were an indication that the United States ’should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause’, Giuliani asserted,
There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it… And one of the reasons I think this happened is because people were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism. So I think not only are those statements wrong, they’re part of the problem.

Giuliani subsequently rejected the prince’s $10 million donation to disaster relief in the aftermath of the attack.”

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani#_note-62
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/rec.giuliani.prince/

How many other politicians do you imagine would reject a Saudi’s ten million dollars and give a Palestinian leader like Yasser Arafat the boot? These are very strong indications that Giuliani understands the principle of justice and will act in a non-appeasing manner as President. His positive treatment of Gerry Adams conflicts with these other actions and does trouble me, however.

Steve Forbes, who is usually pro-capitalism in his economics and who is, like Giuliani, very conversant with history, has signed on as a consultant to Giuliani. I think this is a good sign, as Giuliani has not in the past supported Forbes’ Flat Tax idea, but is now embracing it, according to the New York Times. The “FairTax” or National Sales Tax replacing the income tax is probably a better idea, but Forbes’ Flat Tax is the next best thing and a step in the right direction. Overall Forbes is an excellent choice for economics advisor.

By the way, did you know that there is an openly atheist Congressman? It’s Pete Stark, Democrat of California.

See: http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html

I'm Still Here

I haven’t been blogging for awhile but I will be doing so again.

I am taking a TV writing class taught by a professional TV writer, and I will end up with a pilot script by the end of it. It’s loosely based on my first screenplay which I had put aside as needing more thought and improvement. I suddenly realized that a TV series format could be perfect for the content of the first half of my feature. Stay tuned for more on that. So far I’m thrilled with the response to my work in the class. Of course it’s “impossible” to sell a pilot but one has to try.

Some of the many topics I have thought of blogging about are the Presidential candidates for USA Election 2008 (So far I don’t see any better candidates running or likely to run than Rudy Giuliani, despite his shortcomings–he understands and knows the facts of history, and I believe he would implement a foreign policy of self-defense; he firmly stood up against Arafat and a Saudi royal in his mayoral career–and I think it’s important that he gets early and consistent support so he has a chance to win), the Broadway show Mary Poppins (I would give it a mixed review; the storyline makes less sense compared to the movie, Mary leaves the household in the middle–that’s not what I came to see–yet Mr. Banks blames her anyway for causing all the trouble, some of the songs have lost their oomph and rhythmic pacing, the orchestra is too small, the wife has become a victim instead of a confident suffragette, and there’s an overall psychotherapy-session feeling, but it has lovely and thrilling moments nonetheless and is very entertaining), and the movie Breach (I liked it–how strange that a man can compartmentalize his knowledge to such an extent, evading the results of his misdeeds, disconnecting his religious beliefs from his actions, etc. Great acting by Chris Cooper, and adequate acting by Ryan Phillippe. The book on Robert Hanssen surveyed his entire career but the film just portrays its last days, an effective choice).

Well, I guess I don’t have to blog on those topics any more. But feel free to reply with comments and I’ll clarify anything too sketchy above.

Meanwhile, I have to get my tax materials to my accountant before he gets overburdened by last-minute submissions, and I am trying to get a lot of computer-related technical stuff done (I always procrastinate on that, I’m just not a computer-oriented person although I am glad they were invented).

Updates From Zigory

Here’s my brief comment regarding the report in The New York Times on January 14, 2007, that Randall Wallace is writing a two-hour screenplay for the Atlas Shrugged movie:
A two-hour movie cannot convey anything substantial about the 1084-page novel’s plot, drama, and ideas. It would be like reading an outline for a proposed movie. It would be less fulfilling than Cliff’s Notes. A better idea would be to take a 100-page segment of the novel and dramatize it, without pretending to represent the whole novel. My hope is that Randall Wallace will be greedy enough to want three paydays instead of one, and write a trilogy after all.

About The Zigory Show with Hugh Fink: The Solid Vox web site (http://solidvox.com) and all of the Prodosphere sites are changing servers and Prodos is going through toil and trouble to make them all work correctly.

When that is taken care of, my very enjoyable, funny and informative interview with comedian/producer/writer Hugh Fink will go online at http://zigory.solidvox.com. After that, more Zigory Shows are on their way. I’m keeping with the Performing Arts/Show Business theme as it is one of my main areas of interest and expertise. I am currently planning interviews with people known for their work in Old Time Radio and in animation.

Emmy-Winner Hugh Fink on The Zigory Show

In another Zigory Show about the art and business of entertainment, I recently interviewed Hugh Fink, a stand-up comedian, television writer and producer who has won an Emmy for NBC’s Saturday Night Live. He has also taught comedy at UCLA. This new episode of The Zigory Show will soon be available for listening and downloading on www.zigory.solidvox.com.

He was the subject of an article in the New York Times on October 17, 2006 about his plan to perform at his alma mater that went awry due to an attempt by authorities to alter his routine. We discuss this incident in the Zigory Show interview.

An article about David Spade’s Showbiz Show, with quotes from Hugh, its creator and producer, appeared in the New York Times on September 15, 2005 (reprinted in its entirety elsewhere on September 28, 2005) and Hugh is also quoted in a Times article about Saturday Night Live on January 2, 2005.

I have known Hugh since our college years at New York University. It was great fun catching up with him and fascinating to hear his views on what makes something funny, what is the most important element in writing good comedy, the different types of humor, what one motivation he believes all comedians have in common, and the steps of his career so far from class clown to stand-up comic to writer-producer. We discuss today’s edgy humor and what value it can have, what are its disvalues when mishandled, and compare it to softer, lighter comedy such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Whether you agree with his opinions or not, he is a knowledgeable, experienced professional in comedy whose comments are of interest to anyone with a curiosity about entertainment and humor.

(To contact Zigory please email me at zigory@comcast.net.)

Kingdom of New York City

King Bloomberg and his Merry Board of Health Fascists now dictate restaurant recipes in all of New York City’s 24,000 food establishments.

What’s next, a gendarme in every home’s kitchen making sure at the point of a gun that you don’t cook with trans fats?

See http://www.nysun.com/article/44691 . Also see excellent comment by Dr. Mark A. Hurt at http://www.nysun.com/comments/3902 .

George Reisman wrote a good blog post on the topic of food-choice freedom at http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/12/you-cant-have-trans-fats-because.html#links (although his request that libertarians become more like Objectivists is at best futile). He paints a vivid and believable picture of where this trend toward violating freedom of choice is headed — a snapshot of what life may be like one day soon — and what principles must be upheld as inviolable, in order to prevent it.

On my previous blog post topic, did you know that Rudy Giuliani had stepped down from the Baker-Hamilton commission (Iraq Study Group) early on? Here’s a good editorial about Baker vs. Giuliani: http://www.nysun.com/article/44790 . I continue to support Giuliani for President in 2008 unless an even stronger candidate comes along.

Iraq Study Group's Terrible Idea

Today’s bipartisan report by The Iraq Study Group regarding the Iraq War makes the exactly wrong recommendation: Talk to and negotiate with Iran and Syria. In other words, give them credibility.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16068589/ .

Iran and Syria’s actions have been purely evil, consistently. Why pretend they will change now? Just “hope” they suddenly turn sane after being psychopaths? They are not simply psychopaths, but psychopaths on principle due to their beliefs! This hoping and wishing for the best is not a good plan if you want to live — or live free.

What could account for such illogical wrong-headedness on the part of supposedly intelligent, wise, accomplished men? It is the influence of their own religious beliefs, specifically its focus on altruism and forgiveness. It is also a long trend of intellectuals teaching moral relativism or equivalence, or the doctrine of diversity, which denies one’s right to make distinctions between cultures, including distinctions between good and evil! We are taught to put blinders on rather than see the full picture with utter clarity.

What To Do In Iraq? Ralph Peters' New View

I haven’t followed Ralph Peters’ columns closely, but I understand he has in the past supported the Iraq war in part because overthrowing a dictator and establishing “rule-of-law democracy” is “noble” (not because it could be in America’s defensive self-interest). On November 2 in USA Today he wrote, “I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. I believed that Arabs deserved a chance to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Middle East.”

Recently Peters seems to have had a change of heart, and has realized that American self-interest is the priority. In his most recent editorial, he even emphasizes the importance of well-defined terms to aid in thinking logically, and the importance of a well-defined, self-defensive purpose in war.

In his November 30 column in The New York Post, he writes regarding the inaccuracy of calling the Iraq situation a civil war, “In a civil war, you have clearly defined sides struggling for political power, with organized military formations and parallel governments.”

He writes that instead, “the violence in Iraq comes from overlapping groups of terrorists, militias, insurgents, death squads, gangsters, foreign agents and factionalized government security forces engaging in layers of savage religious, ethnic, political and economic struggles - with an all-too-human lust for revenge spicing the mix….No military lexicon offers a useful term to describe the situation in Iraq.

“This matters. We not only speak, but think, in language. To communicate effectively, we must describe things efficiently. Agreeing upon its name is essential to a deeper understanding of any phenomenon. Nouns are the handles with which we grip reality.”

This of course is true. But the words I think he’s searching for are “anarchy” and “altruism” (as in American self-sacrifice). Anarchy results in part from an ineffective government with no Constitutional commitment to defending liberty, and no philosophical basis in the culture for defending individual rights.

So what do we do now in Iraq? To his credit, he does not support Bush’s altruistic idea of staying there, taking no aggressive actions, allowing our soldiers to die or get wounded day after day, until the Iraqi government says they don’t need us anymore.

Peters writes, “The administration and Congress have to face a fundamental question: Which result is more important - preserving Iraq as a unified state with a facade of democratic government, or protecting our own national-security interests?

“The two priorities now conflict. Really taking on our enemies - not least Moqtada al-Sadr and his legion of thugs - would require us to defy the elected Baghdad government we sponsored. To kill those who need killing to pacify Iraq and re-establish our ascendancy would mean that we would again become an outright occupying power.

“Not that it really matters, but doing what it would take to win would also tear up our permission slip from the United Nations.

“On the other hand, the prospect of endlessly shoring up a corrupt, divided Iraqi government unwilling to protect its own citizens, and to do so at a cost in American blood, would be a far more immoral course than ordering our troops to kill the butchers who’ve been assassinating them and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.”

Note that he uses the term “immoral” correctly; he is saying that altruism and the sacrifice of Americans to a corrupt Iraqi government is immoral. He is calling for our troops to actually take action against the “butchers,” saying it is the more moral course. (It is hard to believe–but plainly true–that our troops are literally prevented from taking such action! They are just supposed to stand there and be targets, apparently.)

Peters begins his conclusion with these words:

“A fundamental problem is that the mission in Iraq remains vague. And vague mission statements are not conducive to military success.

“Generalities won’t do. Let’s tell our troops precisely what we expect of them: Are they there to defeat our enemies, or just to buy time with their lives in the forlorn hope that something will go right?”

In fact, according to President Bush, our troops are there to altruistically assist the democratically elected Iraqi government (that includes Communists and Islamic Theocrats) in any way they want, for as long as they want, because democracy (i.e., unlimited majority rule) is some kind of holy thing, the same holy thing that put into power Hitler in the 1930s and Hamas in 2006.

Peters ends with these sensible words: “And let’s not lose sight of the incontestable fact that, while being liked in the Middle East would be nice, being feared by our enemies is essential…we need to remember that, whatever else our government does or fails to do, its ultimate reason for being is to protect Americans and American interests.

“Saving the dubious Maliki government is a secondary concern, at most. The uncompromising defeat of our enemies is what matters.”

What are the best solutions to the Iraq situation? There are probably a few. One is Peters’ idea of becoming an “occupying power,” and unleashing our military to smash the enemy within Iraq, but also (my own addition) imposing a constitutionally limited government.

Another idea is to juxtapose two actions nearly simultaneously: Withdraw our troops from Iraq and the next day launch massive attacks on Iran, including nuclear facilities, government sites, Islamic fundamentalist schools and terrorist training sites. Overwhelm the totalitarian Islamists. Warn the other nations to shape up or we’ll strike them. Then when the dust settles, give moral and intellectual support–not military support–to a promising group trying to establish an individual rights-respecting government in Iran.

Well worth viewing or listening to is Yaron Brook’s “Democracy vs. Victory” on the Registered Users Page of http://www.aynrand.org/. First register, then see http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_ari_events and go to the right side and click on Free Online Video Selections, Registered Users Page.

Brook shows that victory and defending America is not President Bush’s plan at all. As hard as this once may have been to believe, it is made chillingly obvious by Brook.

Chuck McCann on The Zigory Show

My latest interview on The Zigory Show was a delight to conduct, and recommended to you if you have an interest in the entertainment business and especially the history of comedy and the early days of children’s television. My guest was Chuck McCann, and you can hear the interview online at www.zigory.solidvox.com right now!

Chuck McCann is a veteran Hollywood comedian and actor, who created many children’s television shows primarily in the New York area in the 1950s and 1960s, where I first encountered him.

I watched him probably from my birth until he went off the air when I was about 6, as he performed with puppets, played The Great Bombo (an inept magician and escape artist), portrayed a large Little Orphan Annie, Dick Tracy, and many other characters. He was a student and friend of Stan Laurel and has often portrayed Oliver Hardy on television.

A highlight of my conversation with Chuck McCann is his commentary about Stan Laurel the man, and the influence of Laurel and Hardy on later comedians.

He is the voice of numerous cartoon characters including Duckworth on “DuckTales” and The Thing on “The Fantastic Four.”

He directed and performed in a feature animated film called “The World of Hans Christian Anderson” and he played W. C. Fields in the 1982 TV movie biography of Mae West.

He starred in “The Projectionist,” appeared in “The Heart is a Lonely Hunter” and several Mel Brooks films, and added his spark to numerous TV commercials. It was a great pleasure to speak with Chuck, and to thank him for being part of my happy childhood memories.

Here is the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) filmography on Chuck McCann: CLICK HERE (over 100 listings!): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564841/ .

My interview with Chuck McCann is at http://zigory.solidvox.com .

“Atlas Shrugged” Movie: Whither will Randall Wallace Lead Us?

After I wrote my post about Angelina Jolie being cast in “Atlas Shrugged”, Variety reported that Randall Wallace, writer of “Braveheart” and “Pearl Harbor”, and writer-director of “Man in the Iron Mask” and “We Were Soldiers”, will write and direct “Atlas Shrugged”.

I am only familiar with “Braveheart”, which was decent, and heroic, if somewhat convoluted and ultimately conveying a tragic/malevolent-universe view. I have also heard that “Man in the Iron Mask” was worthwhile. But “Pearl Harbor” was considered mediocre and historically inaccurate by most critics and people I know who saw it. Because of the less than ideal “Braveheart” and the fact that Wallace majored in religion at Duke University, I am less enthusiastic about him than I was about James V. Hart as the screenwriter. For example, I suspect that all of the explicitly atheistic and anti-religion ideas will be removed from the story.

However, James V. Hart is still listed on www.IMDB.com under “Atlas Shrugged” as one of the writers along with Wallace, so perhaps they are collaborating, which may help the overall script quality and faithfulness to the novel.

The good news is that Wallace is as Hollywood “establishment” as they come, more successful than Hart, and with Angelina Jolie automatically makes “Atlas Shrugged” seen as a major motion picture with great box office expectations (by those people who don’t already know how commercial the story is even without famous names attached). The two of them also assure a huge amount of publicity. Wallace’s association with the currently friendless Mel Gibson in two films, and with the highly successful but critically berated “Pearl Harbor”, may bring negative publicity, but publicity the movie will get.

Interestingly, Jon Voight, Angelina’s father, played President Roosevelt in “Pearl Harbor”.

P.S. I just found this quote from co-executive producer Karen Baldwin saying “Atlas Shrugged” may not be a trilogy, and that Randall Wallace was hired to revise the screenplay, but may not be the director:

http://www.dailynews.com/entertainment/ci_4537477

”We’ve hired Randall Wallace (”Braveheart,” “We Were Soldiers”), and he’s going to revise the script, so we’re letting Randy and his writing determine how many movies there will be…Ideally we’d like to have the script so we could be in preproduction in the spring.” She added that a director won’t be confirmed for the Lionsgate project until the script is complete.

I dislike the premise that the decision on one versus three films is at the mercy of Randall Wallace’s desires. This means the producers are giving Wallace the power to make decisions the producers should be making. Clearly a single film is not going to be adequate to convey even a tiny percentage of the story. I think Wallace’s clout will cloud the minds of the producers.

If Wallace wants a bigger payday he will want to write three screenplays, so there is the hope that will be an incentive towards a trilogy.

The World According To The Taliban

Shortly after September 11, 2001, I attended a concert by the prolific and accomplished songwriter and guitarist Richard Thompson. He was long ago a major component of the English folk rock band Fairport Convention, along with the late Sandy Denny (”Who Knows Where The Time Goes” is their most famous song). He wrote “Crazy Man Michael” and “Farewell, Farewell”, among others, for Fairport Convention. After leaving the band, his songs included “Valerie”, “Persuasion” and “I Misunderstood” and he recently released a mini-survey of the last 1000 years of popular music on CD and DVD.

At the concert, I was still shell-shocked and wondering if, after buying a home in New Jersey the previous month, I should sell it and buy another one much farther away from New York, so that I could survive any future attacks on New York City by Islamic Fundamentalists (I still am considering that move, but for now we are staying).

During the concert, Richard Thompson introduced a song with comments of sympathy for what we in the area have been going through, and said he had recently written the song to show the Taliban’s view of the world. I found the song to accurately encapsulate the frightening-to-ponder attitude of anti-Western death worshippers such as the Taliban. I was moved by the performance as it was the first satire I had heard and it was an emotional relief to contemplate the evil we face via satirical jabs for the first time. It shows the mystic’s feelings-based rather than reality-and-reason-based philosophy as experienced psychologically by a Taliban. I understand that Thompson considers himself a Muslim, but obviously he doesn’t take the fundamentalist view.

Here are some of the lyrics to that song, which eventually appeared as “Outside of the Inside” on his CD entitled “The Old Kit Bag” in 2003.

A few lyrics from “Outside of the Inside” by Richard Thompson:

“…what’s the point of Albert Einstein
What do we need Physics for? …
Shakespeare, Isaac Newton
Small ideas for little boys
Adding to the senseless chatter
Adding to the background noise
Hard to hear my oratory
Hard to hear my inner voice

Van Gogh, Botticelli
Scraping paint onto a board
Colour is the fuel of madness
That’s no way to praise the Lord
Grey’s the colour of the pious
Knelt upon the misericord.

There’s a message on the wind
Calling me to glory somewhere”

The Zigory Show will make you hungry!

On my latest edition of The Zigory Show, I interview Michelle Steffens, who has been a chef at Bobby Flay’s Mesa Grill and Bolo restaurants in New York, and who operates her own catering business in New York and New Jersey. She talks about the business and pleasure of food, with anecdotes from her career, and tips on making your own dishes more flavorful.

You may listen to this podcast at http://www.zigory.solidvox.com/ right now!

Thanks for listening!

Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart

These are my comments on the news from Variety that Angelina Jolie has signed to play Dagny Taggart in Howard and Karen Baldwin’s movie version of Ayn Rand’s great novel “Atlas Shrugged”. Can Angelina Jolie do the role justice?

I have only seen Angelina Jolie act in one movie, “Girl, Interrupted”. She won an Oscar for her supporting role as Lisa Rowe, a patient at a mental hospital who knows all the angles, in order to manipulate the staff so things go her way. For example, she finds ways to repeatedly escape the mental hospital, view secret files, get away with forbidden activities.

I read Susanna Kaysen’s original, short nonfiction book dealing with her bout with “borderline personality disorder”, and the film expanded rather than condensed the story. In the same way, Angelina Jolie had to create her character’s attitude and mannerisms by studying and integrating the clues from the script, and I think she did an outstanding job with that. There is very little in the original memoir about Lisa.

Some may say Jolie was playing herself, but whatever she did, it is a memorable and vivid performance. Within the mental hospital’s patient society, she is their leader, by being aloof and focused on her own needs (rational or irrational). I can see within this characterization, that Jolie has the potential to be the personification of nonconformity, of individualism, in a rational character as well. I believe what draws her to play Dagny is that aloof independence and driving ambition, that passion to pursue what she wants.

In the character of Lisa in “Girl, Interrupted”, Angelina Jolie was able to convey a type of selfishness, a driven pursuit of what Lisa would consider her values, and also a total disregard for the opinions of others. Yes, the character of Lisa is mentally disturbed, but it is what Angelina Jolie found within that character that I believe motivates her to play Dagny, and shows that she is capable of playing Dagny.

To sum up, based on viewing “Girl, Interrupted,” I can see that Jolie is able to show a driven, selfish pursuit of values, as well as total independence/nonconformity, a complete disregard for the opinion of others.

She isn’t the physical type I would have chosen for Dagny, but she is far from “wrong” for the role.

I’m not saying I expect the movie to be good; I will wait and see. But there is reason to believe it may be decent, even thrilling and worthy of the book, as the screenwriter James Hart wrote the film version of Carl Sagan’s “Contact”, which I thought was a good screenplay, and the producers Howard and Karen Baldwin were involved with “Ray” which I didn’t see yet, but have heard from reliable sources was very good. Both are thought to be films respectful of their source material–in the case of “Ray”, the facts of Ray Charles’ life.

Also, I have heard that the Baldwins are planning to produce “Atlas Shrugged” as a trilogy. This will allow it to have a chance of suggesting the scope of the story. No movie or trilogy will recreate the book word for word, as the book is too long, and no one should expect that.

The only film that I know of that recreated a normal-length novel almost word for word, was the 12-episode miniseries of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited”.

My Favorite Halloween Movies (A Bit Early)

Elizabeth of the Elizabethan Blog (www.elizabethan.thinkertothinker.com) asks me for a list of good movies for Halloween. Interesting question. Halloween is one of my favorite holidays. Some of the following I haven’t seen since childhood or my teen years, but I am fairly certain they are all worthwhile. If you don’t mind intelligently scary films, or humorous ones, as opposed to simple shockers full of gore, here are my Halloween recommendations:

1. “Frankenstein” and “Bride of Frankenstein” (don’t see one without the other), directed by James Whale with Boris Karloff. Catch a brief glimpse of one of my favorite character actresses, Una O’Connor, as Minnie, in an early scene.
2. “Dracula” directed by Tod Browning with Bela Lugosi.
3. “The Other” by Tom Tryon, directed by Robert Mulligan (recently released on DVD).
4. “Psycho” directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
5. “Something Wicked This Way Comes” by Ray Bradbury (although in the movie they ruined the ending of the novel by deleting the most important scene–the discussion of how to defeat the villain).
6. “Burn, Witch, Burn” a/k/a “Night of the Eagle” by Fritz Leiber and Richard Matheson.
7. “Bell, Book and Candle”.
8. “The Nanny” with Bette Davis.
9. “The Innocents” with Deborah Kerr.
10. “Two on a Guillotine” with Dean Jones.
11. “The Sixth Sense”.
12. TV Special: “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”.
13. “Rebecca” directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
14. “Freaks” directed by Tod Browning, with a cast of real ones, will give you chills.
15. “The Unholy Three” directed by Tod Browning, with Lon Chaney.
16. “The Unknown” directed by Tod Browning, with Lon Chaney. Pointlessly horrifying, but that’s what you want on Halloween, right?
17. “Eraserhead”. To experience a true nightmare as if you are having troubled sleep, no one has captured a bad dream on film as well as David Lynch did with “Eraserhead”. It’s not elevating or enlightening. It’s slow, nonsensical, sometimes boring and awful in many ways, but it gives you the feeling of being asleep and having your worst nightmare ever, if you want that feeling on Halloween.

For a comedic Halloween film, my wife recommends “Arsenic and Old Lace” with Cary Grant, but I haven’t seen it yet. I’ve heard good things about an animated version of Ray Bradbury’s “The Halloween Tree” but I haven’t seen that either. And you can’t go wrong with Rod Serling’s “Twilight Zone” TV series, most episodes of which I have seen and loved.

Also be sure to visit The Haunted Mansion at Walt Disney World or Disneyland if you live nearby.

Golden Age Quality Movies Being Made Today

I don’t like much about today’s popular culture, but I find gems in the hay at times, especially because I look for them. On the negative point, looking at the promotional “Fall Preview” specials about the new television season (for example, the special shown by The CW which is the merging of The WB and UPN “networks”), I find that instead of making me eager to see programs being advertised, including ones I may have wanted to see, the promotional preview makes me want to avoid those shows. These TV previews, and many movie trailers that screen in theaters, feature tasteless dialogue or activities, loud music, quick and unintegratable editing, and unappealing, ignorant or pessimistic sarcastic characters. I suspect some of the programs and films aren’t as bad as the previews make them seem. Why the promos are made to send away people like me — an employed, college-educated male in my 40s married with children, with an interest in the beautiful, the thought-provoking, the informative, the dramatic and the delightful in my TV or movie viewing — I don’t understand. One would think I’m in a good demographic.


Meanwhile, turn to TCM (Turner Classic Movies) and you are in another world. The presentation, the introductions by Robert Osborne, the short films and documentaries between features, and above all the movies themselves are elevating, quality experiences. The movies by and large are from the 1940s back to the 1920s, the Golden Age.


Well, today, although there seems an endless stream of films with titles and subjects like Beer League, or the latest horror/slasher series, one can still find films and TV series that would not seem out of place among the classic movies of the 1930s or 1940s.


If you are looking for 21st Century movies that would feel perfectly at home among the Golden Age films, I can recommend two. They have in common that they are period pieces, and that they both coincidentally feature actor Paul Giamatti. One is Ron Howard’s “Cinderella Man” from 2005, and the other is the new film now playing at your local theater, “The Illusionist”.


You can rent “Cinderella Man” on DVD, and see a beautiful tale of a man with consistent honesty and an unshaking faithfulness to his moral code and his deepest values as he struggles to survive in a boxing career during the Great Depression.


“The Illusionist” is the inspiring story of an Austrian magician so brilliant at his illusions that he is the object of a prince’s envy while he is adored by the public and respected by the police chief hired to investigate him. The plot contains some twists that are fun to observe.


Here are some other recent films with that Golden Age quality: “Kate and Leopold” with Hugh Jackman, “Apollo 13″ by Ron Howard, “Schindler’s List” and “The Pianist” for vivid views of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust, “Cinema Paradiso”, “The Sixth Sense” and “The Lord of The Rings” Trilogy. Although they have their flaws, the recent Star Wars prequels, especially “Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”, are of Golden Age quality as well. Beyond those, I would add the “Star Trek” films and TV series. Also, although it’s too dark and convoluted, “Dark City” with Kiefer Sutherland is a fascinating and stylized Good vs. Evil tale with imaginative plot ideas, visual effects and settings, a/k/a production design.


On television, what I’ve seen of “Smallville” and “Law and Order” usually impressed me in a similar way. Many have recommended “24″ but I haven’t seen it yet.

Easy To Understand Messages at Islamist Protest Rallies

An acqaintance of mine informed me about these images from an Islamist protest rally in London. These images apparently have been around for awhile but I had not seen them until now, because they were not publicized in American media at all. The signs state, for example, “Be prepared for the REAL Holocaust!” and “Freedom, go to hell!”

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
Snopes confirms the photos are not altered.

If it weren’t such an important issue, it would be laughable that the U.S. media refuses to publicize these messages from Islamist protest rallies (so as not to offend with the truth?), and that the Israeli and U.S. governments still haven’t obliterated the terrorist-supporting anti-Western leaders in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and their weapons and armies, and their progeny like Hezbollah and Hamas. What more motivation and justification do they need, after the many “we will attack and destroy you” comments of Iran’s President and other Islamic leaders. It’s especially horrible that Israel quit their self-defense war against Hezbollah too soon, simply handing the enemy a “win”. I suspect the United States pressured them, and I know Europe did, for “diplomatic” reasons.

See these links for more:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49865
Mushroom Cloud on the Way

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40338
Islamic Leader Hails Chechen Attack

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/
ahmadinejad/index.html

Iran’s President’s comments.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php
Iran says wipe Isreal off the map.