_Definitely, Maybe_

[septimus_...@q.com]

While rewatching _Definitely, Maybe_ with perhaps 1/4
of my attention (I work at home a great deal), I am
reminded how often we are let down by our presidents.
The film marks the first time Rachel Weisz becomes a
great actress, even though her Ivy-Leaguer role is
small and she has already won an Oscar for _The Constant
Gardener_ (which I didn't think all that highly of).
It is really a romantic comedy, but a superior one;
the backdrop is the politics of the Clinton years, with
the protagonist being one of the "War Room" junior
volunteers who got Clinton elected but got horribly
disillusion about his moral shortcomings. Another
allegory about Clinton is the much-underrated _The
Big Brass Ring_, starring William Hurt, Miranda
Richardson, Ian Holm, and Irene Jacob, based on an
Orson Wells screenplay. The acting is just phenomenal
in this film. The critics crucified it because the
director and writer Hickenlooper (just died recently)
and F.X. Feeney dared to change Well's script. I
just saw it recently again. The film is dated -- now
there is no issue about a draft-dodger and someone
with a hispanic name being elected to presidency.
But it is a beautifully written and acted film.
Miranda Richardson is better here than even her
similar, Oscar-nominated role in _Damage_.

What would a movie about Obama be like? I have not
had any illusion about Obama. He might have been a
JFK, but even JFK didn't have enough executive and
parlimentary experience and wouldn't have gotten many
legistrations through if it weren't for LBJ. Obama
did ask for ordinary citizens to sacrifice, a necessity
JFK did, either. He is an impressive orator and writer,
but writers are solitary creatures seldom suited for
public offices. In a way, I wish he is more Hemingway
than Shakespeare. We need less flowery adjectives and
phrases, we need direct, unadorned action.

---------------------------------------------------------

I remember the elation of Clinton's victory (I was just
coming back from France that day!) and the subsequent
let down too. But it was nothing compared to Ronald
Reagan's downfall. I used to be a huge Reagan fan, because
my father was one. I was shocked by the revelations about
Iran-Contra. Not only was Reagan a crook and a lier, he
was a deeply evil man -- selling arms to both Iraqis and
Iranians to have them kill each other. There can't be
anything worse than that. Iran-Contra is why I never
believed there would be any weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq during the Bush II invasion. Republicans not only
routinely lie about national security matters, they think
they are entitled to it, that the are doing the nation a
favor by lying.

Where is the movie about Iran-Contra, about my disillusionment?

[septimus_...@q.com]

Let me quickly retract that statement about Reagan
"selling" weapons to Iraq. That's clearly not
true (I don't know how I misremembered such a thing).
Iraq doesn't use American weapon systems. U.S.
support was more indirect, possibly including the
supply of non-U.S. manufactured weapons.

But Iran-Contra proved that Reagan was a crushing
disappointment. Nothing Clinton did could remotely
be compared with Reagan's middle-east adventures.