The movies are making a comeback now that the Pandemic seems to be receding. They’re slowly showing up in theaters now, but I was surprised that we were the only couple in the theater module showing this interesting saga of the late Anthony Bourdain. I’m a bit surprised that the theater survived for a year and a half sitting fal

Anthony Bourdain is a fascinating man who tried and failed to traverse the path between success and happiness. He opined right from the beginning that he had no particular talent for anything, yet progressed to a globally revered mega-personality propelled by dumb luck and kismet. He progressed from a line cook to a chef because of his writing skill he never recognized. Then, on the basis of his New York Times best seller “Kitchen Confidential”, producers liked his style and took a shot at trying him for a TV travel series featuring menus from the places he visited. After some gyrations, his Peabody winning CNN show (Parts Unknown) ran 11 seasons and was still in progress at his death in 1018 at the age of 61.

Not commonly made public but Anthony had seriously personality disorders including long time heroin addiction and cocaine dependence. “You know, something was missing in me, some part of me wanted to be a dope fiend,” he confesses in one scene. He very much didn’t understand how to make sense of his ascendency to what he considered undeserved celebrity. He had an open-ended passion for life that manifested in his overwhelming need to experience new places, looking for answers that remained camouflaged. His first wife of 30 years divorced him due to his impossible travel schedule. He married again and sired a beautiful daughter but this relationship also faltered due prolonged absence. At the time of his death he was involved with a younger Italian girl.

The film eloquently captures Anthony’s passions and then sadly explores his descent into a kind of madness that ultimately drove him to depend on the journey as a destination. He was a man with no boundaries but the exploration of them was always destined to fail. The food was only a small part of the aura. The thrust was how he injected his unique personality into his visits to 93 countries. He’s said to have circled the globe over 20 times in his TV career, but in the end, it wasn’t where he went in life, the substance was what he left behind, this very deftly explored in this excellent documentary.

Anthony’s quest for happiness seemed doomed from the beginning, as the journey thereof never stayed on the tracks. He had an unfortunate “imposter syndrome”, that he didn’t deserve any of it and it could all vanish in a heartbeat for no particular reason. His quest for fulfillment continued to scour the globe looking for the next commodity that would make him happy or answer his existential questions. Numerous friends and colleagues offered their assessment of Anthony’s slow descent into suicidal madness and detailed their powerlessness to interdict it.

One of the saddest and most poignant of his film appearances near the end was of him sitting at the head of a table full of jubilant partygoers, all eating and toasting, Anthony looking alone and forlorn. It was very clear at this point that this wasn’t going to end well.

The subject of suicide in the face of success was handled delicately in the film. I think, in the end that success is a fragile thing and if built on iterations of insecurity, will eventually collapse. Anthony built a fragile empire built on a house of cards. He suspected his talent and his pain were inextricably linked. The crash was inevitable but lasted longer than it might have on a platform of sheer force of personality before it began to crumble.

Roadrunner is a sad exploration of inevitable ruination the likes of which began many years before the fact. Like Anthony opines, had it not been for dumb luck and being in the right place at the right time, it could have, maybe should have happened much earlier, or maybe it could have all been a vaporous dream. It’s a very good film, recommended by me. I give it four of five Saigon sidewalk lunches (Photo 1)

By the way, the film details a number of cities Anthony visited, each of which I have set foot on at one time or another. An oil painting that I purchased from a sidewalk artist in Kowloon, two sailing Junks in the harbor between Kowloon and Hong Kong hangs in my living room. It’s picking up dust now, losing some of its luster so I guess I’ll have to have it cleaned (Photo 2).

David Crippen, MD, FCCM

Difficult to make what amounts to a docudrama about a subject so very much larger than life. Reviews have reflected this fact for the production, but lead player Rami Malik (from Mr. Robot on cable) is getting serious Oscar buzz, and deservedly so. He has Freddy’s moves nailed.

The actual production is getting OK reviews, especially from the Oracle, Rotten Tomatoes. Not bad or even mediocre but “good”. Maybe damned by faint praise. The production is clearly a celebration of the inimitable music of Queen, trying hard to avoid the stigma of just another rocker, felled by various forms of tragic disease.

I’m pretty familiar with the history, having read several books on the subject, and I can assure you that the film does a pretty good job of relating it. But the film belongs to Malik who really brings Freddy to life; the rest of the cast in various supporting roles. There are a lot of flaws in the history that the film glosses over, but like “Catch-22” (1970) it’s far too complex to squeeze into a two-hour movie.

One of the centerpieces of the film is Live Aid, constructed by Bob Geldolf of the Irish group the Boomtown Rats, said at the time to be the largest group of paying customers to a rock concert in history. ~ 100,000. This concert said to be televised to 40% of the world’s population, estimated incoming revenue of eventually 150 million Pounds. Everyone who’s anyone in Rock was there but also some noteable absences (Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Billy Joel…..)

Rami Malek watched Liza Minelli’s performance in “Cabaret” (1972) as inspiration for Freddy’s moves but a British choreographer actually coached him for many hours. All the music in the film was backing tracks except “Another one bites the dust” is which the movie band actually played their own instruments and sang. Malik’s voice was mixed with the real Freddy and Canadian singer Marc Mertel.

Through his entire life, Freddy proclaimed Mary Austin as the “love of his life” even after she married elsewhere and had a child by another man. She stayed close to him for his entire life. When Freddy died in 1991, he is said to have bequeathed her half his entire fortune. She is said to live in his home in London today.

As of 2005, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, Queen albums have spent a total of twenty-six years on the UK Album Charts, more time than any other musical act. In 2006, Queen’s “greatest Hits” album was the all-time best-selling album in UK Chart history, more copies than its nearest competitor, the Beatles’ “Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band”  album. Inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2001, the band is the only group in which every member has composed more than one chart-topping single, and all four members were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2003

Bassest John Decacon left queen immediately after Freddy’s death and never played with the band again. He remained friends with all. Best of my recollection, Brian May is named number 5 by Rolling Stone of the top ten guitarists in the world. Queen went on to play with two lead singers, Paul Rodgers of “Bad Company” for a while and finally ending up in the past few years with Adam Lambert of “American Idol”. They’re considered a nostalgia band now.

The film portrays several songs from Live Aid in 1985, but there is a glaring omission. They missed Freddy singing “Love of my life”, he originally wrote for Mary Austin.  Brian May appears on stage sitting in a chair playing an acoustic guitar and Freddy sings with nothing else but that simple accompaniment. At some point, he finishes a stanza, then stops, looks out into the vast audience and quietly proclaim: “I still love you”, then turns and walks off the stage. The audience want completely nuts.

Watch for the real Freddy and the real band performing during the closing credits.

I think the production is stellar, well photographed and well edited. There are glosses and mistakes in the history, but that’s OK. It isn’t a “real” documentary. The real star of this film is Rami Malek who I think absolutely nailed Freddy as much as is humanly possible.

Recommended by me.

I give it four of five overbites.

“A star is born” (2018)

Loosely the fourth version of the same drama that began in 1937 with Janet Gaynor (her only color film) and Adolph Menjou. Followed by a second version with Judy Garland and James Mason in 1954 (Judy Garland was the same age as Lady GaGa), followed by a third version in 1976 starring Kris Krisopherson and Barbara Streisand, for which Streisand received an Oscar for best original song (Evergreen).

The fourth version stars Bradley Cooper and Lady GaGa (Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta) and it has been upgraded an amazing amount of detail. Bradley Cooper decided to play and sing live, necessitating extensive vocal training for him. For his role, Bradley was extensively trained in guitar and how to present himself like a musician for a year in his basement by Lukas Nelson, son of Willie Nelson. For Bradley’s stage performances, he’s backed by Lukas Nelson and his band “Promise of the real”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T17dAHtMB_s

Now comes the real blast- Bradley Cooper learned his extensive lessons well.  He emerges with world class lead singer chops and…….Lord have mercy……the “moves” of an incredible country rock singer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdjNm9UzjoY

Lady GaGa noted on some talk show that she didn’t know who the character with plain hair and no makeup was. She had to work to find that character as she considers her life as bleach blond, a ton of makeup and lots of outrageous clothes. But in the end, the two come together to make an amazing connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSbzyEJ8X9E

The story line takes the same form as the other iterations; the girl goes on to emerge as a Britney Spears clone with fairly predictable outcome.

The film is magnificent. Very watchable. Highly recommended by me.

I give it five fresh faced Allys

An expertly matched young Soviet couple extensively trained in espionage, martial arts and whatever else it takes to “pass as Americans”.  Six (season) years of plotting, manipulating, ferreting out political and military secrets to benefit the Soviet Union (in the Cold War 80s), disguises and always one-step ahead of the FBI. Complex issues of loyalty, principle and betrayal- ultimately leading to an inevitable crisis climax.

But those years unexpectedly assimilated them into American life more than either thought, concurrently running a business and creating a family. A male bonding between two lonely men playing cat and mouse, neither understanding the inevitable consequence.

And then, following the inevitable betrayal from a peer, it was over, leading to one of the most emotional, heart breaking hours in television history.

The season ender (Season 6, Episode 10- May 31, 2018) cascaded into 11 minutes of confrontation and emotional chaos between the Jennings and Stan. The painful decision to abandon innocents forever and a shocking scene literally as far as a border, literally and metaphorically, accompanied by the U2 song “With or Without You” (which was perfect.)

There is no killing, no guns, and no violence. There is only the stage set for whatever might come next. Henry tearfully stares off into the distance as hears the truth sitting on a hockey bleacher. Paige knocks back a shot of cold Vodka in a “safe house”, quietly awaiting what comes next.  But we don’t know what will come next, only that there will be a next we’ll never see.

Philip and Elizabeth stand by the side of a road in front of the Moscow State University, glancing out over the city. They made it home, but where is home? They willbe forever haunted by their choice to leave the children behind.The life they grew into is gone and they no longer recognize their new home. Last words spoken (in Russian): “We’ll get used to it”. We see the end of all their stories but we have no idea of their future and we probably never will.

The Americans is one of the top five valued TV series ever created. The finale is steeped in quiet but wrenching emotional turmoil.  Not a dry eye in the house. I seriously doubt if we’ll ever see anything like it again.

Parenthetically, the Director was very astute in picking parts of the soundtrack. I have created a brief youtube of two clips from the finale, each with a sound track that worked actually perfectly. First is from the hauntingly beautiful “Brothers in Arms” (Dire Straits- 1985). The second with “With or without you” (U2- 1987), perfection for that particular portion of the film.  You really don’t need to know much about what’s progressing in the film clip, just watch and listen to how the music clip infiltrates and adds texture to the clip. I’m using these clips and some others in my music class at Pitt in July.

https://youtu.be/G6tQinDddjM

If you can find the episode (S6E10) I highly recommend watching it. You really don’t know much more about what came before to enjoy the mastery of it.

Stephen Spielberg is an interesting director. Over the years he’s terrified us (Jaws), invoked science as reality (Close Encounters…), made Harrison Ford a superstar (Indiana Jones X 2), viewed the love of a child for a space creature (ET), had dinosaurs chasing the park visitors (Jurassic Park), depicted war as it really was (Saving Private Ryan) and brought viewers to sober reflection (Schindler’s List). The list goes on. He is the highest grossing director in history. Two Oscars and five nominations.

“Ready Player One” would not seem like a typical Spielberg effort, but he’s proven to be extremely imaginative over the years. I think Spielberg looked into the future and saw that CGI (Computer Graphic Interface) is going to be a permanent vision of film. I think he figured that this being the case, why not make a film that combines typical Spielberg story line quality with totally state-of-the-art computer graphics as a point toward the future. Spielberg is successful in “Ready Player One”. He hits both nails on the head, presenting a high quality story line with truly amazing graphics, especially in the 3D version.

The storyline, set far in the future involves an adolescent boy who escapes the desolation of the real world by a virtual reality game called “Oasis” in which any player can be anyone he wants, anywhere he wants in a fantasy world that’s as real as the player wants it to be. The original creator of this game (played by Mark Rylance) dies, but before his death understood that the game and the world needed to be protected from corporate suits that would do what Comcast is currently doing to the Internet. He established a game where only the smartest of potential players could possibly get to the end and inherent the ownership of the virtual world, saving it from the suits.

The interface between real humans and their virtual reality counterparts is fascinating. The graphics of the virtual world is spellbinding. The characters are well played, the production is immaculate and, of course, the direction is pure Spielberg. There are tips of the hat to many 1980s zeitgeists and I loved the 80s soundtrack.

Parenthetically, I waited to the end to see the cast and I recognized exactly one name. The wonderful actor (my age) Mark Rylance in a throw away role in which he did well anyway. I recognized none of the other actors that reminded me that am approaching three generations removed from them. I picked up a “People” magazine in my dentist’s waiting room and I knew exactly none of those people focused in it.

The professor in my Pitt class asked the youngsters if they had ever seen “Dr. Strangelove”. Not one hand went up. Even Rolling Stone, a magazine I have had a subscription to since it was a tabloid in the 60s (I wrote an article for them once), is now filled with musicians I never heard of or have not the slightest interest in. I only have two channels on my satellite car radio. 60s and 70s. I’m slowly but most assuredly drifting off into the sunset, filled with irrelevancy.

It’s a really good film. Recommended by me.

“The Post” is fairly dry history made more interesting by putting two world class actors Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep together with Steven Spielberg. Other major players include Bob Odenkirk (“Better Call Saul”) and Matthew Rhys (“The Americans”). It’s the story of how the press handled the infamous “Pentagon Papers” in 1971, leading to one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in modern history.

June 30, 1971- Justice Hugo Black: ” Madison and the other Framers of the
First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly
believed could never be misunderstood: “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom . . . of the press. . . .” Both the history and language
of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to
publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or
prior restraints”.

The production and, of course, direction of the film is immaculate. Hanks and Streep are the world class performers that they are. It all comes together to form a very convincing potboiler, but the real history of Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is diluted somewhat by the drama surrounding owner of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham’s quandaries as to whether to go against Nixon et al, who promised to destroy the paper. Frankly, I think the producers of the film thought the hand wringing Kate Graham was more interesting than the Papers, especially in this era where women want to be portrayed as more decisive than they have been portrayed in the past. Of course, Streep does a masterful job.

But I thought the history of the Pentagon Papers is much more interesting and not explored fully in the film. The film actually starts with the collection of the Papers but the history behind that collection is important. Accordingly, what follows is an explanation (by me) that lays out the real history of how the Pentagon Papers came to be. The film then explains their importance in terms of the attempt by Nixon to undermine a free press. The film does a good job of that.

So, brace yourselves, here is a mercifully brief history of what happened that set the stage for Daniel Ellsberg copying the 7000 or so pages that describe in detail how the American public was systematically lied to regarding a conflict no one believed could be won but refused to quit and appear as “losers”. If you understand the history, the film makes more sense.

————————————-

The history behind the “Pentagon Papers” (Daniel Ellsworth, 1971) The 19th and early 20th century were the years of colonialism, powerful countries conquering and occupying foreign areas mainly for the purpose of acquiring natural resources. Following World War II, the Japanese overthrew the French Colonial regime but were overthrown in 1945 by Ho Chi Minh and it’s military arm, the Viet Minh. The anti-communist State of Vietnam was established under Bao Dai in 1949.

Ho Chi Minh extended the conflict to unite Vietnam under communism until the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 the French departed Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accord of 27 April 1954, agreements were made granting Vietnam independence from France. On July 20, 1954, the countries attending the Geneva Conference agreed that there should be a cease fire and a partition line at the 17th parallel should be established to separate the powers and that free elections should be held to establish reunification in July of 1956. This accord was signed only by the French and the (Northern) Viet Minh, who were assured of winning any such election because of their national popularity. However, the United States (under then President Dwight Eisenhower) and the anti-communist portion of the country in the south, under it’s president Bao Dai refused to sign the accord, essentially guaranteeing free elections would not occur.

The communist influenced north under Ho Chi Minh then continued active warfare against the south to unify the country under communism. This was the beginning of President Dwight Eisenhower’s influence in the evolution and revolution of Vietnam. Eisenhower was very wary of what’s popularly been called the “horizontal spread” of communism, a political culture anathema to the United States. This notion was created following the Soviet Union’s violent annexation of numerous border states following World War II. Eisenhower and others believed that if Vietnam were allowed to unify under communism, it would be impossible to curtail the spread to other neighboring countries. Eisenhower didn’t want to be accused be accused of having lost Indochina to the Communists as Truman had lost China after communists had been successful in capturing that country.

Accordingly, Eisenhower began that strategy of military assistance to the anti-communist forces in the southern area of the country under Ngo Dinh Diem who refused to hold national elections. He had previously assisted French military actions in the action before Dien Bien Phu. Eisenhower’s role in the evolution of Vietnam as a country is important for the following reasons:

1. His fear of the spread of communism overwhelmed the premise that countries should have the right to self-determinism, and that they may freely choose outcomes not necessarily friendly to all other countries.

2. His “cold war” bias obliterated the fact that he was supporting a brutally repressive regime, at least as unacceptable as and probably worse than any communist regime.

3. Eisenhower continued the political objective began by Truman in 1950 to contain the spread of communism by providing military assistance to the non-communistic forces.

In 1955, Eisenhower provided the Military Assistance Advisory Group” to train the South Vietnamese troops. This action begins the “official” military action in Vietnam and American soldier deaths from this point on are memorialized in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. In 1967 and especially 1968, the Democratic Party in the United States was in turmoil over the Vietnam conflict. The 1968 Democratic Convention on Chicago escalated to a full-scale riot, contributing to the spin off violent activists. Bowing to increasing criticism of the war effort, especially following the violent Tet Offensive in January of 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew his candidacy for the 1968 election.

The assassinations of and Martin Luther King on April 4,1968 and Robert F. Kennedy on June 6, 1968 further threw the Democratic Party into shambles. Nixon shrewdly assessed the situation as amenable to a Republican candidate to gain a strong portion of the voting public looking for stability in the country. This was a correct assessment. Running on a “unite the country” and “End the Vietnam conflict (Peace with Honor)” platform, Nixon was elected by a wide margin against his opponents Hubert Humphrey and Alabama Governor George Wallace who may have split the Democratic vote. When Nixon took office on January 20, 1969, the war was extremely unpopular in the United States and there were violent protests against it, including attacks on military installations and providers of military supplies.

In mid-1969, Nixon began negotiations with North Vietnam to find a peaceful solution. Peace talks began in Paris but did not produce any significant accord. Meanwhile, Nixon had approved secret bombing missions in North Vietnam and also in Cambodia. Every month that elapsed between Nixon’s promise to end the war and its continuation resulted in hundreds of American troops killed. The tragic massacre at My Lai in March of 1968 and the shooting of four students at (then) Kent State College on May 4, 1968 sparked International outrage as to American conduct during the war.

The Nixon administration was viewed as callous and indifferent to the escalating outrages related to the deteriorating war effort. In 1971, Daniel Ellsburg, a former State Department operative and anti-war activist, surreptitiously copied a study prepared by the Department of Defense showing that the Johnson administration had systematically lied to the public and congress about the potential for the Americans to actually win the war. Nixon was aware of the content of these missives and reacted by trying to obtain an injunction for their publication, which failed via the Supreme Court.

The so-called “Pentagon Papers” revealed that the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, had progressively misled the public regarding reality of the war intentions and possible outcomes, especially Eisenhower negating the Geneva Accords of 1954. However, Nixon reasoned that the actions of past presidents might soften his own actions. Ellsburg was important also as he provided the incentive for Nixon to break the law in search of future “leakers” of sensitive government documents, eventually leading, of course, to the Watergate drama. The film is world class good. It gets four and a half Hairpieces. Could have explained the history a little better.

David Crippen, MD, FCCM
Professor Emeritus
University of Pittsburgh (Ret)