Movie Review: Enough Said

In baseball, as in most sports, if you can’t remember anything about the umpiring crew, it generally means that they called a good game.   The same goes for most aspects of moviemaking.  When the work is done well, it magically disappears.  Well conceived costumes become clothing.  Well designed sets become places.  Effective props become things.  Most importantly, characters become people, and the screenplay dissolves into what those people do and say naturally, being true to themselves as they deal with the situations life brings them.  Achieving that magic, as difficult as it is, only results in the potential for a great movie, since the situations and interactions still need to be engaging, and we must understand and care about the people.

“Enough Said” succeeds in each of those aspects.

The fact that you are watching actors play roles from a screenplay falls away completely.  Instead, you are watching interesting people that you care about deal with fascinating situations.  Real life is unfolding before you.  There are laugh-at-loud moments, tear-jerking moments and awkward moments.  And they all ring true.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, whose comedic talent belies her significant dramatic depth,  plays Eva, a middle aged, divorced massage therapist with a daughter (Ellen, played touchingly by Tracey Fairaway) about to leave home for college.  Her married friends, Sarah and Will (Toni Collette and Ben Falcone, respectively) take her to a party where she meets both a potential client (Marianne, played by Catherine Keener) and Albert (James Gandolfini, in one of his final screen performances), who later asks around for her phone number.  For those of us who knew Mr. Gandolfini primarily as Tony Soprano, his endearing performance here showcases his versatility as an actor and exacerbates our sense of loss at his untimely passing.  The dedication that appears in the end credits is emblematic of the movie itself.  It is neither pretentious nor grandiose; just simple and heartfelt: “For Jim”.  

Eva and Albert, who has a college bound daughter of his own, hit it off on a first date that quickly evolves into a comfortable, playful relationship.  There is a quite predictable plot twist that challenges the relationship, but instead of milking it endlessly for cheap laughs the film simply allows the situation to play out in a manner true to the characters, giving us even more insight into their fears and insecurities.  There is a scene in which Eva is “caught” in a bit of a deception, and Ms. Louis-Dreyfus artfully resists the temptation to  ham it up, sitcom style, and instead reels us in with sympathy, not only because of the pain she is feeling at that moment, but also because we understand exactly why she had no choice but to place herself there.   We identify with and care about Eva, and the same goes for Albert and his reaction to the situation.  

In addition to the relationship between Eva and Albert, there are several interesting, evocative subplots involving Eva and Albert’s relationships with their daughters and their exes, Eva’s uncertain treatment of Ellen’s needy friend Chloe (Tavi Gevinson), Sarah and Will’s layered relationship with each other and with their maid and Eva’s daily travails at work.

In case we had forgotten, “Enough Said” emphatically reiterates that a movie can be hilarious without stooping to the laziness of gratuitous vulgarity, and can deal with sexual topics with restraint, maturity and intelligence.   The film is as satisfying as we genuinely hope Eva and Albert’s relationship will turn out to be.

Crapshoot

Each day we make hundreds of decisions.  All of them have consequences.  And those consequences affect our lives, some more meaningfully than others.

Maybe you decide to take a certain route home from work one evening.  And that decision may result in a shorter commute, or a longer commute.  Or getting stuck in traffic.  Or an accident.  And death.   Or maybe you decide to have lunch at a certain restaurant.  And end up in the hospital from food poisoning.

Maybe you decide to work at a coffee shop for a few hours to get out of your home office for a while.  Maybe you run into someone at the coffee shop, have a wonderful conversation with her, and wind up in a meaningful relationship.  Or maybe you get mugged on the way to the coffee shop, or run over by a bus.  

We make some decisions knowing that they will deeply affect our lives.  Selecting a college.  Taking a job.  Buying a house.  Beginning a serious relationship.  But we make many others thinking that they won’t make much of a difference.  And most don’t.  But some do.  And because of the nature of those seemingly inconsequential decisions, we make them lightly, without much analysis.  Not that analysis would help anyway, since the only way ostensibly inconsequential decisions become consequential is if something totally unexpected happens.  Something that analysis would not have considered.  Like a drunk driver happening to run a red light precisely when you were crossing that particular street on your way home from work.

So we have no alternative but to accept that we will never be able to accurately predict the results of any of our decisions beforehand, whether seemingly consequential or seemingly trivial.  

But wait.  There’s more.

We also need to consider that, even with the benefit of hindsight, we will never know if any one of our decisions was “good” or “bad” within the context of our intended result.  For example, you decide to go to a certain college, and end up satisfied with the education and overall experience you got there.  So you tell yourself it was a “good” decision to select that particular college.  But you will never know what would have happened had you selected a different college.  Or elected to not attend college at all.  So you really don’t know.

Another example: you get married.  No matter how your marriage turns out, you will never know what would have happened if you didn’t marry.  Or married someone else.  Since the merits of one result may only be measured against the merits of the alternative, which is unknown, they cannot be measured.  

And so it goes.  The same applies to every single decision we make.  We know the consequences of the path we took, and we can feel satisfied, dissatisfied or indifferent about them.  But we will never know the consequences of the path we chose not to take, and in the absence of that information there is no valid conclusion.

All we can do is play the probabilities.  Hope for the best.  And not obsess about what might have been.

He Thought She Should Know

Her new profile picture hit him like a kick in the stomach.  Not because she looked absolutely gorgeous (which, of course, she did), but because she looked so much like she did in 1978.  And in 1978 she was a huge part of his life, although she probably doesn’t remember.

He arrived at his Massachusetts boarding school in January of that year, happy to be on his own but also missing his friends from home.  The infamous Blizzard of ‘78 hit New England in February. He couldn’t believe how relentlessly cold it was.  Just walking from one building on campus to another was unbearable.  He got there in the middle of the school year and, being shy by nature, spent much of his time in the company of afternoon reruns on the black-and-white TV in his dorm’s common room.  He had no complaints though.  To him, the reruns were excellent companions.

But the best (or worst) part of any of his days came after enduring a 10 minute walk in the bitter cold to the mailroom at the Main Building.   Each tiny, gold colored mailbox had a window on the bottom, so as soon as he stepped into the room a quick glance was enough to determine whether what would follow would be a freezing, empty, lonely journey back to his dorm, or the delicious excitement of knowing that a letter.  From her.  Had arrived.

He never opened the letters at the mailroom, nor as soon as he got back to his dorm.  He always kept them in his pocket for the rest of the day, wallowing in the anticipation.  Butterflies in his stomach.  

Study period was from 8 to 10pm each evening.  During study period all students were required to sit quietly at their desks.  This was when he opened her letters, because he knew he would have plenty of time to read them, re-read them, and read them again, without interruption.  

The two of them were never more than friends.  They didn’t stay in touch after high school.  They went separate ways.  They’ve only seen each other a few times, in passing, during the past 30 years.  But during the time he spent in the Massachusetts hinterland, she was, without question, the most important person in his life.  She may never understand just how precious her letters were to him, or how much joy they brought him.  But he will never forget.  As was evident when a mere glimpse of her new picture took him back 35 years.  To those magical moments when he would walk into the mailroom.  And see a letter.  From her.

Always

From “City Slickers” (1991), written by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel:

Mitch: You ever been married?

Curly: Nah.

Mitch: Ever been in love?

Curly: Once.  I was driving a herd across the panhandle.  Texas.  And, uh, passed near this little dirt farm on about sundown.  Out in the fields was this young woman, working down in the dirt.  Just then she stood up to stretch her back.  She was wearing a little cotton dress, and, ah, the setting sun was right behind her, showing the shape that God had given her.

Mitch: What happened?

Curly: I just turned around and rode away.

Mitch: Why?

Curly: I figured it wasn't gonna get any better than that.

Mitch: But you could have been, you know...with her.

Curly: I’ve been with lots of women.

Mitch: Yeah, but you know, she could have been the love of your life.

Curly: She is.

From “When Will I Be Loved”, written by Phil Everly and first recorded by The Everly Brothers in 1960, but totally appropriated by the inimitable Linda Ronstadt in 1974:

I've been cheated

Been mistreated

When will I be loved

I've been pushed down

I've been pushed 'round

When will I be loved

When I find a new man

That I want for mine

He always breaks my heart in two

It happens every time

I've been made blue

I've been lied to

When will I be loved

In my mind she works at a dirt farm in the Texas panhandle.  She owns a cotton dress.  She likes to stretch her back in the late afternoon sun.

And she will never know that the answer to her musical question is: “Always”.

Movie Review - Jobs

I walked into the theater knowing full well that this was not the “real” Steve Jobs movie, the one for which Aaron Sorkin is adapting the screenplay from Walter Isaacson’s book.  Nevertheless,  I thought I’d enjoy “Jobs”, the Joshua Michael Stern film starring Ashton Kutcher and Dermot Mulroney.  I was wrong.  Far from enjoyable, the movie was difficult to watch.

The script took all sorts of liberties with the story it's based upon, but that was not the issue. Neither were the film’s vast number of minor inaccuracies.  Liberties and inaccuracies abound in movies based on real events, and they do not necessarily ruin those movies.   Recent case in point: “The Social Network”, where Aaron Sorkin started out with a hollow, disjointed book and crafted a coherent, wildly entertaining screenplay that widely deviated from fact yet accurately captured the essence of the characters and the story.  One of Mr. Sorkin’s most important gifts is his ability to “get” things, whether they be the inner workings of the White House, the production of a weekly live TV comedy show or nightly sports show, or, really, whatever else he chooses to write about.

“Jobs” the movie simply doesn’t “get” Jobs the man, and it certainly doesn’t “get” Apple the company.  Mr. Kutcher lumbers through the part, earnestly putting in his best effort, but is clearly out of his depth and comes across as a mediocre impersonator who is able to mimic a couple of Mr. Jobs’ superficial expressions but has no hope of even understanding his true personality and motivations.  Josh Gad as Steve Wozniak is another misguided casting choice whose portrayal of Woz misses the mark.  J.K. Simmons as Arthur Rock and Dermot Mulroney as Mike Markkula are solid but unable to transcend the material.  Only Giles Matthey, as a young Jonathan Ive, rings true to his character and absolutely nails Mr. Ive’s voice and accent.

The story of Apple is long and complex, and distilling it into a 2-hour movie is a daunting matter. The decisions regarding which parts of the story to focus on, which to glance over and which to ignore completely are critical to capturing the essence of the story and properly developing the characters.   Many of the choices made in “Jobs” were ill-conceived, for example the omission of Mr. Jobs’ involvement with Pixar, the failure to even mention Ron Wayne, the third original partner in Apple Computer, Inc., and, most glaringly, the failure to include Mr. Jobs’ visit to Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) in 1979, which was instrumental in informing his concept of a graphical user interface.  The movie seems to attribute Mr. Jobs’ entire vision about what the personal computer could be to an LSD trip.  

But the execution of the scenes Mr. Stern chose to focus on also generally failed.  The dialogue was stilted and awkward, and Mr. Kutcher’s almost comical attempts to ape Mr. Jobs’ walking style and facial expressions were distracting.  Although the story progressed pretty much chronologically (with the exception of the initial scene), and montages were used to condense time, in many cases there was simply not enough information provided about what happened during the condensed or skipped time to provide a proper foundation for the major scenes, resulting in confusing non sequiturs.  Production values were sub-par, giving the movie a cheap, made-for-TV feeling despite cinematographic gimmicks that were widely used in an attempt to achieve a quality look.   

People familiar with the story of Steve Jobs and Apple will leave this movie frustrated that it told the story in an incomplete and, more importantly, superficial manner without the depth, nuance and subtlety that would have brought true insight into the events and characters.  And people who don’t know the story coming in will leave totally confused about Steve Jobs and Apple.

I can’t wait for the Aaron Sorkin film.  In the meantime I think I’ll re-watch “Pirates of Silicon Valley”.  Maybe Mr. Stern and Mr. Kutcher should, as well.

The Default Human Condition

Although I neither believe in nor practice any religion, I respect the beliefs of those who do.  Yes, I have difficulty understanding how they reconcile their beliefs with the realities of the world we live in.  Yes, I despise the manipulative, self-serving nature of many institutions of organized religion. Nevertheless, I feel I’m in no position to judge anyone’s beliefs, as did the Founding Fathers, hence the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the same rarely applies in the inverse.   As long as there has been religion, believers have vilified non-believers, and that despicable practice continues unabated. Thinly veiled disapproval of irreligion is even embedded in cherished traditions and everyday idioms. Absurdly, the terms “God-fearing”, and “church-going”, among others, are considered compliments.  Politicians everywhere make a point of conspicuously attending religious services, and insert clichéd religious references (“God bless America”) in their speeches.  Faith and religion are typically considered “good”, while atheism and non-belief are considered “bad”, despite the fact that religion is simply not a part of the lives of a large and growing percentage of us.  Such is the stigma attached to atheism that many non-believers actually feel guilty about their non-belief, and go through religious motions simply to stay within the acceptable boundaries of their social circles.

In what can only be described as stunning irrationality, religious belief is widely considered the default human condition, and non-belief an aberration, logic (and Occam's Razor) be damned.  

By any reasonable rationale, non-belief should most certainly be the default human condition. Why is it not?  

The obvious answer is that religious organizations seized upon the inexplicable nature of much of the world to construct faith-based belief systems which allowed them to exert control over their flocks through fear.  Non-believers presented a threat to this control, and were therefore vilified. What we see today are the remnants of that historical vilification.

Another reason that comes to mind is the erroneous but widely held belief that religious people, since they ostensibly adhere to a value system, pose less of a threat to society than “loose cannon” atheists, so society tends to favor the religious.

I believe there is an additional, more nuanced reason for the irrational disparagement of non-belief.

Religion means having an opinion.  A strong opinion.  An opinion of such strength that it exists and thrives despite its lack of evidentiary foundation and factual support.  Irreligion means the absence of an opinion due to the absence of facts supporting one.  Religion is zeal.  Irreligion is indifference.  So then, religion, particularly religious zealotry, or fanaticism, attracts opinionated people.  People who are fervent about their beliefs, certain that there is no valid alternative to their opinion, and ready, willing and able to thrust their beliefs upon others.  Although zealots represent a small percentage of religious people, they are vocal, visible and influential opinion leaders.  And fanatics are capable of extreme acts in support of their beliefs.

The uncertainty and indifference inherent in atheism attracts a different crowd, far less fervent, more open-minded.  Less opinionated.  There is no such thing as an irreligious zealot.   No one has crashed an airplane into a building in the name of atheism.  Abortion clinics are bombed by religious fanatics, but churches are not bombed by secular fanatics.  Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jews throw stones at those who do not share their beliefs about the Sabbath.  Irreligious Israelis do not throw stones at the Orthodox.

So, irreligion should be the default human condition, but isn’t because its nature attracts people less fervent than those attracted by religion, and the zealous are more influential than the indifferent.

Not exactly a great commentary on the human condition.

You Really Must Think I'm Stupid

So you give your 16 year-old son Justin permission to drive your car one night, with the understanding that he is to go with a group of friends to a local mall to watch a movie and get a bite to eat.  You trust your son, so you rest easy that night and turn in early in your Los Angeles home, confident that Justin will operate within the guidelines given him.

The next morning, Jake, one of Justin’s friends, is unexpectedly at your door.  He wants to talk to you. The two of you sit down.  He was with your son last night.  The group did not go to the mall.  Instead, they drove to Las Vegas.  Got a room at the Bellagio.  Spent half the night in the casino, and the rest partying with prostitutes in the hotel room.  Jake was part of the group and ended up in Las Vegas, but instead of joining Justin and the others at the casino he decided to take a bus back home to L.A., sleep for a few hours, knock on your door and come clean.

You are deeply disappointed by your son’s dishonesty and his abuse of your trust.  You thank Jake for bringing Justin’s misbehavior to your attention.

Later on that morning, Justin wakes up, checks his phone and realizes that Jake ratted him out, not only personally and directly to you, his father, but also publicly on Twitter.  He stews about it for a while, unsure about how to proceed.  He finally decides on a 2-pronged action plan.  First, he tweets that Jake has broken the code of friendship and should immediately be ostracized.  Second, he comes to you and says, “I realize that I went a bit overboard last night.  What I did was OK, because I know what I’m doing and nobody got hurt, but I recognize that it’s not enough for me to be comfortable with my actions; you need to feel comfortable with my actions as well.  I also recognize that I may need more oversight.  Anyway, I have a few ideas about ways in which I can improve things, and I will implement them as I see fit.”

You say, “I never thought you would betray my trust this way, particularly since when you were younger you specifically criticized this type of behavior.  In fact, your strong opinions against abuses of power were instrumental in making me feel comfortable about loaning you my car.   I’m counting on you to make the necessary corrections, but in the meantime both you and I owe a debt of gratitude to your friend Jake, who called our attention to this situation.  Were it not for him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Thanks to Jake you’re at least addressing the issue and taking actions you yourself agree are necessary and important.”

Justin’s response: “No, I was totally going to take these actions anyway.  Jake is neither my friend nor yours.  He’s our enemy and if I ever get a hold of him I will beat him to a pulp.”

“Justin”, you say, “you really must think I’m stupid”.

Cast

                  Jake …............................................................................ Edward Snowden

  Justin ….......................................................................... President Barack Obama

You (the father) ….........................................................The American People