Saturday, June 30, 2012

IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A BOND

A guide to this blog's James Bond marathon can be found right here.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
Directed by Lewis Gilbert
Written by Roald Dahl
Premiered 12 June, 1967

PRE-TITLE SEQUENCE
You Only Live Twice boasts one of the few openers that directly ties in to the movie about to follow, but that's not what stands out, not to me. For me, the main importance of the fifth Eon Productions Bond movie is that it's the one where the franchise became out-and-out ridiculous, after two largely real-ish adventures and two somewhat more flamboyant and fantastic but still essentially plausible movies. And that gets started pretty much right from the the start, as we see a U.S. two-man space vessel in the fictitious Jupiter Program get captured by a bigger space capsule that opens up like a giant metal space whale to snap it up, before vanishing off NASA's radar. This is immaculately dumb, with visual effects that are obviously every bit as costly as they are unconvincing, and the overall tone is unmistakably, "Do you believe this just happened? No, of course not. But do you care? Damn right, you don't care."

And as one who much prefers the Bond films when they are at their most ridiculous - a conversation that we'll be sure to have many times throughout the Roger Moore years, when we get to them - I find all of this utterly entrancing.

So entrancing, indeed, that when we switch gears to the next scene - yes, still before the credits - it lets some of the steam out: the U.S. thinks the Soviet Union is responsible, the Soviet Union claims to have no idea, and the U.K. happens to agree that, whatever is going on, the Russians aren't to blame (one of the tiny little moments you find scattered around the franchise where some attempt at demonstrating British independence of American leadership in the Cold War; by and large Bond eschews these touches, though, it's not like Cubby Broccoli wanted to adapt John Le Carré novels, or he'd have done so). And it's all very talky, but the British representative at whatever summit we're watching has some good news for all of us: MI6's man in Hong Kong is on the case. And of course that man is James Bond, in Sean Connery's fifth and last consecutive spin with the character, before taking a one-film vacation. No surprise, Bond is rubbing up against a pretty girl (Tsai Chin); the surprise is that as soon as he turns his back, she calls in goons who shoot him dead with machine guns. The local British authorities arrive just in time to pronounce him dead, as he bleeds out all over the bed. Okay, so none of us actually believe Bond is dead - check the title - but it's still a pretty gread "duh-duh-duh!" moment, and I will confess to all of you that this whole sequence, absent its necessary but annoying exposition belch, appeals to me far, far more, for wholly superficial reasons, than it has any reason to. My favorite among the Connery films.

pretitle_4half
Rating: 4.5 Union Jack Parachutes


TITLE SONG
So far we've had two jazzy instrumental pieces with plenty of sex and sass, and two pop/jazz hybrids sung by people who give the impression that they only expect to get paid if they manage to burst a lung on the final note. For number five, then, we get... a ballad. And not even a sultry, raunchy ballad like some of the ones to follow - just a moony, simpering ballad with music by John Barry and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse, performed by Nancy Sinatra (never a favorite of mine), who can't do much but give in to sudsy romantic tosh like "Love is a stranger who beckons you on / Don't think of the danger when the stranger is gone". I don't mind saying, I always get pretty damned antsy before this endlessly short little tunelet wraps up. A real pity: Barry's work scoring the movie is extraordinary, a strong candidate for best overall Bond soundtrack ever, up to and including his reprises of this very song. But gad, it is dull and limp.

song_2
Rating: 2 Shirley Basseys


TITLE SEQUENCE
A distressing mixed bag. Maurice Binder's very first gesture is enough to convince you that he's about to whip out the best title sequence yet: Bond's blood all over the sheets dissolves into a bright red graphic element that is vaguely Asian in no particular way, suggesting spreading blood and a fan in equal measure. It slowly zooms towards the viewer, and then- that's just it. There's no "then". As will shortly become quite obvious, Binder has one idea that he is desperately in love with here, which is to zoom in and out with various compositional elements: that fan-thing, in different colors, or still images of Japanese women looking askance at us, or half-silhouttes of naked girls. Zoom in, zoom out, zoom in. It's the best and worst possible accompaniment to that song: just as rote and boring, and it's kind of hypnotising in an irritating, sleep-inducing way. And yet, interspersed with all of the one-note shuffling of still images, there are background shots of lava flows that are nothing short of gorgeous, and which attain a still different kind of abstract beauty from the things in front of them zooming in and out. Not enough to keep the thing from being on the wrong side of average, but certainly, it gives it a certain flair.

title_2half
Rating: 2.5 Silhouetted Women


THE PLOT
1964's You Only Live Twice is the first Bond movie adapted from a novel written by Ian Fleming during the film franchise's existence; that novel was in turn the last one published during the author's lifetime, and I am tempted to say that it is my favorite - actually, that's probably not true at all, there's far too much bland racist disparagement of the Japanese for that to be the case (even by the racially nightmarish standards of the Bond franchise, YOLT stands out); but what it does with Bond himself is certainly rather fascinating stuff, that couldn't be duplicated in the movie on account of it having a great deal to do with the situation at the end of the previous novel, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which would turn out to be the next movie, as promised in the end credits here (a promise also made in Thunderball during its initial run, but events dictated otherwise). It would have been better for both films if the order had been switched, but there's no helping it 45 years later.

In the event, You Only Live Twice would strike a bold new direction for the franchise, on account of being the first Bond movie that leaves very, very little of its source novel intact. Author Roald Dahl - aye, the noted children's author, a friend of Fleming's - was obliged to invent most of the plot out of whole cloth simply in order to have a plot, out of the fogginess of the mood- and location-driven book. And thus it is chiefly thanks to Dahl that the franchise ended up going to those absurd, ridiculous extremes I was talking about before, for after all, Dahl was no stranger to the absurd and ridiculous in his prose, though the form that his unique style took when filtered through the Bond universe isn't necessarily recognisable.

Anyway, here's what we've got: Bond faked his own death in order to throw SPECTRE of his track - for MI6 believes that the international terror group is behind all of this space mayhem - and freeing him up to explore Tokyo unmolested. When his first contact, British agent Henderson (Charles Gray), ends up dead minutes after they meet up, Agent 007 is forced into a series of desperation moves that lead him to Japanese secret agent "Tiger" Tanaka (Tetsuro Tamba), and his lovely aide Aki (Akiko Wakabayashi). Together, the three quickly track things back to Japanese industrial concern Osato Chemicals, and back from there to an isolated island that is, for unknown but fairly obvious reasons, receiving shipments of rocket fuel. In order to get Bond closer to this island, Takata arranges to have the British spy disguised as a Japanese fisherman, newly married to local girl - and Takata spy - Kissy Suzuki (Mie Hama). Bond and Kissy are able to infiltrate the SPECTRE lair hidden inside a dormant volcano, there to learn that SPECTRE's leader, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Donald Pleasance), has been orchestrating the whole scheme in order to trick the U.S. into declaring war on the Soviet Union, a job he performs at the request of a third party (China, presumably; it's not made clear) for a staggering sum of money. Bond naturally foils this plot at the last instant, but not before Blofeld makes a dramatic escape.

It lacks elegance, certainly. And the story slows down greatly right after it hits the one-hour mark (this movie comes in a few minutes under two hours, the shortest Bond movie for decades into the future), and doesn't pick up again for a solid quarter of an hour. But still, I admire the crazy bigness of it, truly the most ambitious scheme we ever see SPECTRE attempt. Later Bond films would get loopier and even more over the top in their excessive villainy, but frequently lapse into outright caricature: You Only Live Twice strikes a careful balance between the insane and the credible that only occasionally tops towards the former.

plot_4
Rating: 4 Stolen Nukes


THE VILLAIN
Here he is, the grand leader of all evil in the world of the Connery-era Bond films, Ernst Stavro Blofeld revealed as more than just a hand petting a white cat. And out of the several actors who have played him - all of them good - Donald Pleasance's interpretation is my favorite in a walk; he may even be my single favorite Bond villain, though revisiting some of the ones I haven't seen in a while could change that. Regardless, Pleasance's approach to the character is a fascinating and compelling one: his Blofeld is irritable and amoral, he speaks in an accent that cannot be placed on a map, but suggests a Chris Nolanesque, darker & edgier take on Elmer Fudd; he is half psychopath and half ruthless bureaucrat; and he has an ecstatically weird way of petting his cat's head.

The overall impression is of a true, merciless bastard, colorful without being a cartoon, crackling with high-strung energy that causes rather nasty damage to whomever he touches. Other Bond villains are more credible threatening to the viewer; none is more of a frightening, palpably deranged menace. If nothing else, his delivery of the line "Kill Bond! Now!" in a strangled, shrill shriek, is one of the most disturbingly vicious things that has ever been done by any bad guy in this whole franchise.

villain_5
Rating: 5 Evil Cats


THE GIRL
From the sublime to the... well, to the simply flat and bland, honestly. Convention holds that the "actual" Bond Girl in this picture is Kissy Suzuki, who has almost no screentime and barely any lines; she is a considerably smaller presence than Aki, for certain. That said, I do like her better as a character, for reasons that will become clear when I discuss Aki's place in the story; Hama doesn't get enough exposure for me to feel comfortable describing her performance, but she wears a bikini well, and holds the distinction of being the first Asian to pose in Playboy, as a direct result of her role here. She's got a bit of sauciness to her, but she is, on the whole, the very definition of a non-entity.

girl_2
Rating: 2 White Bikinis


THE HENCHMAN
There are two candidates, but one of these, Mr. Osato (Teru Shimada) of Osato Chemicals, makes only a small blip before his boss offs him. Leaving us with SPECTRE's No. 11, Helga Brandt (Karin Dor), another in the line of ice maidens who sleep with Bond on their way to trying to murder him. She is, all things considered, a pretty average representative of the form: Dor's performance doesn't really help matters. She does, however, get a rather good "now I shall leave you to die alone, Mr. Bond" moment, and she's the first character in the franchise to die in a tank of piranhas. And for this, we must pay her our respects.

henchman_3
Rating: 3 Metal-Plated Teeth


THE SECONDARY GIRL WHO ENDS UP DEAD
"In Japan, men come first, women come second", goes a line from this movie so outrageously sexist (and fully endorsed by the movie's POV, by the way), that all Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery had to do to was repeat it to get a laugh. And boy, oh boy, does Aki embody that philosophy: depicted as being capable in every way, smart, physically strong (but not, it must be said, well-acted; in her brief screentime, Hama manages to seem far more robust in the personality department than Wakabayashi can demonstrate with a half of a movie to play with), and she still not only willingly but enthusiastically submits to Bond's whims in what is probably the most casually sexist movie in the Bond canon: bathhouses, giggling Japanese women around every corner, and all the perfunctory sex a superspy could want. And then she dies in bed, because Bond rolls around in his sleep. It's a flimsy death for a character who is defined at every turn by being a cheerleader for a sexist Brit's idea of the sexual paradise that is Japan.

secondgirl_1half
Rating: 1.5 Golden Corpses


ACTION SEQUENCES
Now we're talking. You Only Live Twice is the most action-heavy of all the Connery Bond films, and while it's still not up to the modern expectations of action cinema, it's the first Bond film that cannot be reasonably called "dated" by anyone interested in being honest. I suspect it's not an accident that the film's second unit director - AKA, the director in charge of most of the stunts - was none other than Peter Hunt, editing his fifth Bond movie in a row, and the last; there is a very clear eye to how to best frame the action and then piece it together for maximum impact. This is best displayed in one of the film's two biggest setpieces, a dogfight between four helicopters and a dinky little gyrocopter, a terrific combination of aerial cinematography, savvy editing, score (a fantastically-timed statement of Monty Norman's "James Bond Theme" in full), and some really dodgy models. Oh well, you can't have everything.

Even better is the film's massive climax, in which the massive SPECTRE lair (see below) is flooded with ninjas - ninjas, mind you - as things explode and people run around, and we see huge spaces absolutely filled to the brim with incident. It is the best of the several "small armies fighting each other while Bond tries to stop a doomsday device" sequences in the whole movie, thrillingly cross-cut and staged with an eye towards creating the most garish, exciting spectacle that could be managed. And in one absolutely terrific accidental moment, you can see the cat on Donald Pleasance's arms freaking right the fuck out - those explosions were real, my friends.

action_4half
Rating: 4.5 Walther PPKs


GADGETRY
There's not much, but it's pretty terrific stuff. For starters, we have in that selfsame gyrocopter, "Little Nellie", one of the absolute coolest toys Bond ever got to play with, tricked out with everything you could cram onto its wee frame, delivered by a petulant Q to Japan. And in case you miss the Q Labs sequence that is thus cut out, Tanaka gives Bond a tour of his ninja school, and it plays out mostly the same way, particularly when Tanaka shows off his exploding cigarettes that, naturally, end up playing a huge role in the third act. It's wish-fulfillment stuff at its most sensible and useful, and the only problem I have is that, frankly, the most fun of the gadget scenes is watching Desmond Llewelyn bitch at the actor playing Bond in that film. And it simply doesn't happen here.

gadget_4
Rating: 4 Easily-Riled Welshmen


THE FIENDISH LAIR (and other sets)
Do you want to know the moment that the James Bond franchise switched from being, ultimately, spy thrillers, to being, ultimately, lifestyle fantasies? Because I can tell you when it happened: it's when we get our first great big lingering wide shot of the inside of SPECTRE's rocket base inside a dormant volcano, complete with retracting roof in the crater: not my favorite of Ken Adam's stupidly massive sets that the franchise would bring us, but it's undeniably the game-changer. An impressionistic Fort Knox in Goldfinger; a sexy yacht in Thunderball; that's sandbox stuff next to the places Adam wold go in the future, and it all comes down to that volcano lair, so big your mind simply shuts down trying to imagine what kind of soundstage could accommodate it; so big you convince yourself that it's a model, and those are model monorails and model workers and model cranes. But oh, no, those people are moving like people, like actual human beings in a giant motherfucking volcano lair set, and you're right back to being mind-boggled. And then you start to notice the touches: the sleek, menacing stairs, and the viciously shiny monorail, and the rough edges of the volcano wall, and it starts to become obvious that this isn't just a big set, it's a detailed set too. It was designed and built, and it physically existed And that, boys and girls, is why I will never love CGI.

The volcano isn't the only great set in the movie, just the most awe-inspiring. We have, by my count, at least two other triumphs of design: Tanaka's industrial-chic bunker, and the offices of Osato Chemicals, a hybrid of traditional Japanese lines and impersonal bureaucracy that ends up looking sinister, even before we know just what's going on. Oh, and Blofeld's office with a steaming piranha pool. I certainly don't want to give any of these sets short shrift; I love them all. They just have the misfortune of being in the same movie with the ohmigod VOLCANO.

lair_5
Rating: 5 Volcano Fortresses


ELEGANT LIFESTYLE PORN
There's quite a lot of ways we can call Bond's life pornographic; the one that You Only Live Twice is most concerned with is alcohol. Jesus, but does Bond ever show off how much nice stuff he drinks in this movie: practically cumming in his pants when he has just a slight taste of actual Russian vodka, and later pronouncing the phrase "Siamese vodka" like he just discovered a cache of kiddie porn in the villain's safe; complimenting Tanaka on the exact decimal point at which the Japanese spy is serving his sake; and accepting a glass of '59 Dom Perignon with a little twinkle that communicates as clear as clear can be, "I would have sex with you, young woman, but not nearly as much sex as I intend to have with the bottle you're holding." And in a hilarious, unscripted moment, Henderson offers him a martini stirred, not shaken; Charles Gray simply fluffed the line, but Connery's reaction is a priceless study in off-the-cuff acting, effortlessly communicating "I shall be a polite guest, but oh how unhappy it makes me" pain.

Oh, and he wears nice clothes and fucks no fewer than four beautiful women. Still: booze.

elegance_4half
Rating: 4.5 Vodka Martinis


APPEARANCE OF "BOND. JAMES BOND."
There is none, a dismaying fact that I had forgotten.


BEST QUIP
HELGA BRANDT: "Mr. Osato believes in a healthy chest."
BOND: "Really."


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Whenever I spend a long time away from the Bond franchise, as I did before starting this marathon, it's always You Only Live Twice that suffers most in my memory, largely because the things I tend to remember Bond films by (the title song and credit sequence, the Q scene, the girl) are all really lousy in this one. But that's no reflection on the film itself, which is a very special entry in the franchise: the film where all the experimentation of the first four movies coalesced into the ecstatic slurry of chauvinism, fantasy, expensive action sequences, and ludicrous design that would define the James Bond series into the 21st Century.

For this, I think we owe three people most of all: Dahl, for writing such a warped conflict in the first place; Adam, for straight-up not giving a shit about propriety or even feasibility when he designed that volcano set, and Lewis Gilbert, whose direction emphasises, at all times, the spectacle and scale of the movie at the expense of characters or even spy action. If Terence Young made Bond films that were classy and brutal, and Guy Hamilton was largely responsible for the lighthearted japing, Gilbert is the one who made Bond films epics, for good or ill - for every one of me who enjoys the splashier Bond films precisely because of how openly they are dumb escapism, there is someone who lacks the darker, more violent Bonds because they have more realistic stakes and emotions. Regardless, it was Gilbert's hand that set the series in this direction, and we must acknowledge his influence at least.

That all being said, and as much as I love individual pieces of the movie very, very much, You Only Live Twice is somewhat less than the sum of its parts. Much of this has to do with Connery, who, two years after peaking with his version of 007 in Thunderball, was palpably losing interest in the character, and the humiliatingly ineffective yellowface he has to sport for a short while couldn't possibly have made things any pleasanter (they certainly don't make it easy on the audience); his imminent retirement, such as it was, is certainly not very surprising, nor even obviously for the worst, if the trend from Thunderball to YOLT was to continue for a third movie.

With Connery half-way checking out, that leaves only Pleasance able to make all that much of an impact amongst the film's humans; as I said, Gilbert is too intoxicated with the size of his production to worry much about the people in it. And that, maybe, is why we get such perfunctory moments with series regulars Q, and M (Bernard Lee), and Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), all three of whom could just as easily not have shown up at all, for the value they add to the proceedings. For that matter, the business of moving M's office to a submarine, the first time he'd be compelled to relocate, serves rather to underscore how arbitrary his presence is, rather than stress his indispensability, as would be the case in latter films with similar gags.

So it is, then, a shallow Bond film; redeemed primarily by how magnificently energetic it all is. And it is massively energetic; this is its saving grace, that and the fact that Connery has enough gravity to him that even in the midst of over-the-top spectacle, the film never floats away. Indeed, despite showcasing arguably his worst performance in the franchise to that point, You Only Live Twice perhaps serves as the best argument for why Connery is the definitive James Bond: he is what keeps it real even in its fantastic modes. There will be plenty of time to discuss the issue of wacky Bond vs. serious Bond as we move forward, but this actor, in this movie, manages to unite those two threads tightly and give us a movie that is silly and thrilling in turn: not as balanced as Thunderball, maybe, in that regard, but still much more satisfying across the board than a lot of Bond films would tend to be in the future. And since his subsequent returns to the character were largely degraded and ineffective for reasons both within and outside of his control, I think this is the best place to pay tribute to that terrific thing Connery did for five movies, giving us a gentleman spy at his most entertainingly synthetic, and his most grubbily believable. Let that be the legacy of You Only Live Twice: from here on, that precise alchemy would never be exactly recreated, and ever future Bond film - the greatest and the worst - would suffer for it.


OVERALL SCORE
42.5/60

Successful Fiction Begins With a Great Concept



Joe’s excellent post on the magic words “What if?” got me thinking about the crucial importance of concept.

I was going through some old files the other day and came across this little scrap of paper from several years ago. I remember it well. I was on a trip to talk with my publisher at the time, Zondervan, and to pitch some projects.

I had an idea that had been chugging around my brain for awhile. It was based on two things. First, an uncomfortable encounter with someone from my past who was insistent on edging back into my life.

The other was the plot of one of my favorite novels, The Executioners by John D. MacDonald (basis of the Cape Fearfilms).

I put those two items together. This is a great method of coming up with plot ideas, by the way. Dean Koontz has been a master at this. For instance, Midnight,one of his best thrillers, is a cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Island of Dr. Moreau. Koontz even references those titles in the book itself, to “wink” at the readers who recognize the plot lines. But the characters and setting are original creations. 

Anyway, I was in the hotel room in Grand Rapids and jotted this:

How far will a man go to protect his family? For lawyer Sam Trask, it's farther than he ever thought possible. Because when an unwelcome presence from his past comes calling, bent on the destruction of his family, Sam must leave the civilized corners of the law and journey into the heart of darkness.



Not bad for an on-the-spot jot on Holiday Inn note paper. The concept was the basis of my novel No Legal Grounds (2007), which became a bestseller and is still one of my favorite thrillers.

The reason: concept. If you don't get your concept solid and simple from the start, you're likely to wander around in soggy bogs and down random rabbit trails.

A writing teacher once told me that the most successful movies and books are simple plots about complex characters. I think he has something there. You should be able to articulate your concept in a few lines.

A self-centered Southern belle is forced to fight for her home during and after the Civil War, even as she fights off the charms of a handsome rogue who looks exactly like Clark Gable.

To get back home, a Kansas farm girl has to kill a wicked witch in a land full of Munchkins and flying monkeys. Aided by a scarecrow, a tin man and a lion with issues, she faces dangers aplenty along a yellow brick road.

A vigilante nun cleans up the streets of L.A. Sinners beware. (Okay, I know, shameless. But it truly defines Force of Habit for me, and will for the entire series).

A simple, strong concept is your anchor, your floodlight in the darkness. It will keep you focused and writing scenes with organic unity.

In real estate, it's location, location, location.

In fiction, it's concept, concept, concept.

Make sure you know yours before you start writing.

***
I will be taking students from their concept through “sign post scenes” up to indestructible structure at my upcoming 2-day writing seminars. Would love to have you. Details can be found here.

New Google Maps Symbols in Action


Darren Wiens has created a quick demo of the  new Symbols feature in the Google Maps API.

Hinton Nordic Centre Ski Trails uses an arrow symbol and animates the arrows along a polyline. The polyline is shown on top of a custom overlay map of the Hinton Nordic Centre. The animated arrows are used to show the direction of the actual ski trail.

Symbols can be one of 5 predefined shapes or you can use SVG path notation to create your own symbols. Here's an example I made of symbols made with SVG path notation. This map includes symbols in the shape of the six states and territories that make up Australia.


You can add event listeners to symbols. In this example I included a tooltip to name each state (mouse-over a state to reveal its name). I could also have added a listener to open an information window when each state symbol was clicked.

If you zoom the map the state symbols will stay the same size - so the symbol will become relatively bigger or smaller than Australia on the map. I could add an event to rescale the symbol when the user zooms the map but I didn't in this example to emphasise how symbols act differently to map overlays. 

Hey, Ms. blog, WTF?

Thursday night, the gang did theme posts. They each found a piece of critical film writing and then they offered their thoughts:






  • As you can see from the titles, some focused on films, some on actors.  I enjoyed all of them.  Ruth's Valentino post was a complete surprise.  A happy one.


    Not happy at all?

    Me with Ms. blog.  For some reason, Ms. blog has been posting but has refused to post about the death of Nora Ephron.

    Women's Media Center finally wrote about her today.

    Today is when C.I. wrote "Parades, memorials, a 2-year-old Iraqi girl dies" which included:




    Related, as a woman and a feminist, I try to highlight women as much as possible here.  But I'm not interested, for example, in a piece by an idiot who talks about "our boys" with PTSD.  I'm especially not interested when the idiot writing that sexist b.s. is a woman.

    I'll be the bitch when it's required.  I'll, for example, piss off friends who are working on the mural above.  That's fine.  Someone needed to step up, I'll do it.  But at this late date, why am I having to step up and point out that female service members suffer from PTSD?

    At this late date, why?

    I can remember early in the war attending Congressional hearings and my spine would stiffen as some male member of Congress would say "our boys" or "men" and ignore the women serving.  The awareness on women in the service is now so great that rarely do you hear that in a hearing anymore and, if you do, the member of Congress usually rushes to quickly ammend "and women" to his statement.

    So why at this late date do I have to be the one to point out that "our boys" with PTSD is insulting and inaccurate as well as highly sexist?

    Mother Jones and others have picked up on that awful article.  They have no standards.  I still have a few left and I'm not noting that garbage.  By the same token, we'll gladly note the Feminist Majority Foundation when it has something to say about women but I'm not interested in when they use their organization to pimp a man (not going to carry the crap about ObamaCare -- and I find it very interesting that they can issue that and post on that but they've yet to note at Ms. blog that Nora Ephron passed away -- I find that very interesting, very sad and highly disturbing). In an ideal world, every entry here would include a non-community member feminist.  But we don't live in an ideal world.  We live in a world where Ms. magazine, Women's Media Center and other feminist outposts decided not to say one damn word when Naomi Wolf began attacking two women who may have been raped, when Naomi Wolf began insisting that shield laws shouldn't apply to rape victims, etc.  She should have been told to sit her ass down.  Everyone should have done what Ava and I did -- point out Naomi's own involvement in a gang rape (laughing the morning after with the rapists and refusing to stick up for the woman because she didn't want to be considered a lesbian).  Instead, they played dumb and, in doing so, hurt the feminist movement.



    I agree.  It's disgusting.  Ms. blog should have covered the death immediately.  Nora Ephron contributed to the feminist movement in many ways.  Was she perfect?  Hell no.  None of us are.  She was a pioneer and she deserved to be noted.  Shame on, Ms.

    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Friday, June 29, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, the Congress hears that a Status Of Forces Agreement was need in Iraq, how can you do oversight when you can't move around in Iraq, the political crisis continues, and more.

     "First," declared US House Rep Jason Chaffetz  yesterday morning explaining the purpose of the
    Committee, "Americans have the right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second Americans deserve efficient, effective government that works for them.  Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights."


     Chaffetz is the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National  Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations which held a hearing on Iraq.

    Appearing before the Subcommittee on the first panel were: US State Dept's Patrick Kennedy, Peter Verga and USAID's Mara Rudman.  Panel two was the US Government Accountability Office's Michael Courts, the State Dept's Acting Inspecting General Harold Geisel, DoD's Special Deputy Inspector General for Southwest Asia Mickey McDermott, USAID's Deputy Inspector General Michael Carroll and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen Jr.




    Chair Jason Chaffetz: The State Dept has greatly expanded its footprint in Iraq. 
     There are approximately 2,000 direct-hire personnel and 14,000 support contractors 
    -- roughly a seven-to-one ratio.  This includes 7,000 private security contractors to 
    guard our facilities and move personnel throughout Iraq.  Leading up to the withdrawal, 
    the State Dept's mission seemed clear.  Ambassador Patrick Kennedy testified that the diplomatic mission was "designed to maximize influence in key locations."  And later 
    said, "State will continue the police development programs moving beyond basic 
    policing skills to provide police forces with the capabilities to uphold the rule of law.  
    The Office of Security Cooperation will help close gaps in Iraq's security forces 
    capabilities through security assistance and cooperation."  This is an unprecedented 
    mission for the State Dept. Nonetheless, our diplomatic corps has functioned without
     the protections of  a typical host nation.  It's also carried on without troop support that
     many believed it would have. As a result, the Embassy spends roughly 93% of its budget
     on security alone.  Without a doubt, this is an enormously complex and difficult mission.  Six months into the transition, the Congress must assess whether the administration 
    is accomplishing its mission?  While the State Dept has made progress, it appears to be 
    facing difficult challenges in a number of areas. The Oversight Committee has offered 
    some criticism based on their testimony today.  Including the Government Accountability Office noting that the State and Defense Dept's security capabilities are not finalized.  
    The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction states that, "Thousands of 
    projects completed by the United States and transferred to the government of Iraq 
    will not be sustained and thus will fail to meet their intended purposes."  The Defense 
    Dept's Inspector General's Office explains that the lack of Status of Forces Agreement 
    has impacted land use agreements, force protection, passport visa requirements, air 
    and ground movement and our foreign military sales program.  And the US AID Inspector General's office testifies, "According to US AID mission, the security situation has 
    hampered its ability to monitor programs. Mission personnel are only occassionaly 
    able to travel to the field for site visits."  Embassy personnel have also told Committee 
    staff that the United States government has difficulty registering its vehicles with the
     Iraqi government and Iraqis have stood up checkpoints along supply lines.  According 
    to one embassy official, the team must dispatch a liason to "have tea and figure out 
    how we're going to get our trucks through."  These are just some of the challenges 
    the State Dept is facing in Iraq today.  Perhaps as a result of these conditions, Mission 
    Iraq appears to be evolving.  In an effort to be more efficient, the State Dept is evaluating 
    its footprint, reducing personnel and identifying possible reductions.  This rapid change
     in strategy, however, raises a number of questions. Are we on the right track?  Are we redefining the mission?  What should we expect in the coming months?  And, in hindsight,      was this a well managed withdrawal?


     The first panel was a joke in so many ways.  Someone please convey to the State Dept that they
    don't look 'manly' offering football allusions to Iraq.  With all the people -- Iraqis, Americans, etc. -- it's really beyond insensitive for State to show up and try to talk football.  There have been far too many deaths for anyone to see this as a game or match and you'd think the diplomatic arm of the government would grasp that on their own and wouldn't need that pointed out.  In addition to the unneeded sports comparisons and examples, there were also the answers which could be honest only if you agreed to ignore the facts. US House Rep Blake Farenthold became Acting Chair where we're doing our excerpt.

     Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  I just have one more question so we'll just do a quick
     second round of questions. Ambassador Kennedy, you mentioned the Baghdad police
     college annex facility as one of the facilities.  It's my understanding that the United States' taxpayers have invested more than $100 million in improvements on that site. It was intended to house the police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's 
    currently being downsized.  And as a result of the State Dept's failure to secure land use rights the entire facility is being turned over to the Iraqis at no cost.  The GAO reports 
    Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all of the sites that it operates. Can you say with confidence that those sites now operating without leases or agreements will not be turned over to Iraq for free as was the case with the police development program?  And what would the cost to the US taxpayer be if they were to 
    lose without compensation all of those facilities?


    Patrick Kennedy:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  First of all, the statement that has been -- 
    that you were reading from about we are closing the Baghdad police development center because of a failure to have land use rights is simply factually incorrect.  We have a land 
    use agreement for that site. As part of the program -- the police development program -- there are periodic reviews that are underway and my colleagues who do that -- it's not 
    part of my general responsibility on the operating side of the house -- engage in reviews
    on a six month basis both internally and with the government of Iraq.  It was always our 
    plan to make adjustments to the police development program  over time.  But the 
    statement that somehow we have wasted or had everything pulled out from under us because of lack of a land use agreement is very simply false. For our other properties
     in Iraq we have -- we have agreements for every single property we have in Iraq except 
    for one which is our interim facility in -- in Basra which is simply a reincarnation of a
     former US military there. But even in that regard we have a longterm agreement that 
    was signed with the government of Iraq by Ambassador Negroponte in 2005 in which 
    we swapped properties with the government of Iraq and they are committed to provide 
    us with a ten acre facility in-in Basra of our mutal choosing. And so we are covered, sir. 

     He said it.  Too bad it wasn't accurate or, for that matter, truthful.  We'll jump over to the second
    panel.

    Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  Mr. Courts, Ambassador Kennedy and I got into a 
    discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities 
    we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest 
    eport as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?
    Michael Courts: What Ambassador Kennedy may have been referring to that for 13 of 
    the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes. 
     But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use 
    agreements or leases. 

    Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  Alright so I'm not -- I'm not a diplomat.  So what does
     that mean?  They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that 
    basically what those are?  Or is there some force of law to those notes?

    Michael Courts: Well the notes are definitely not the same thing as having an explicit agreement.  And as a matter of fact, there's already been one case where the Iraqis 
    required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites.  And that was at one of the 
    sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much 
    more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.

    Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  Alright, Mr. Carroll, I would also like to follow up a 
    question I had on the last panel about the use of Iraqi nationals in overseeing some 
    of our investigations of it -- does that?  I mean, what's your opinion that?  Does that 
    strike you as a good idea, a bad idea or something we're stuck with because there's 
    no alternative? It seems like Americans would be a little more concerned about how 
    their tax dollars were spent than the Iraqi nationals who are the receipients of those 
    tax dollars.  That's kind of a fox guarding the hen house, it looks like. 

    Michael Carroll: [Laughing]  Well I-I personally I think it's a - like-like Ms. Rudman said 
    it's an additive sort of step.  We would do the same thing. For example, in some of the 
    places where it's absolutely prohibited because of security what we will do is contract 
    with a local CPA firm -- primarily out of Egypt -- and do a very comprehensive agreed 
    upon procedures document that they will go out and they will take pictures, they will 
    ask questions, they will do what we would do if we could get there. So I think that it 
    what Mara is talking about as well.  I don't see it as a problem.  In fact, I see it as an 
    adjunct to and it's not a replacement for USAID contracting representatives and technical representatives actually getting out and ensuring that the work is actually being done. 
     That's not what these people are doing.  What these people are doing is just going out, 
    doing some monitoring and observing.  But it does not replace what the 
    responsibilities are for the Americans. 


    Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright. Thank you very much.  And I'm not sure if I 
    want to address this to Mr. Courts or Mr. Bowen -- whichever one of you seems 
    most eager to answer can take this.  I haven't been to Iraq.  My information in the
     field of what it's like on the ground there is based on the things that I've read and 
    the reports that I've seen on television.  But a good many of our facilities are in 
    metropolitan areas including the capital Baghdad and I'm concerned that we are 
    struggling getting food and water to these folks in a safe manner.  I mean, what's 
    the procedure?  Is the food delivered?  How -- how is that handled and why is it a 
    problem in a metropolitan area? There are hundreds of thousands of people in
     these cities, Iraqi nationals, that need to be fed.  Obviously, it's more complicated 
    than just going down to the Safeway but I mean how is that handled?  And why is it 
    such a problem?


    Stuart Bowen:  The State Dept, as Ambassador Kennedy indicated, continued the LOGCAP contract after the military withdrew in December and thus the process for bringing food
     into the country continued as well and that is via convoys that come up from Kuwait.  
    There have been challenges.  That checkpoint has been occasionally closed.  There 
    have been security challenges with regards to those convoys and other reasons that 
    the shipments have been intermittent and has led to an occasional shortage of certain
     food stuff at the embassies.  [Former US] Ambassador [to Iraq James] Jeffrey emphasized repeatedly this spring his desire to move towards local purchase but that's been slow.




    Is it wrong to note that the State Dept's Patrick Kelly was not honest with the Subcommittee or
    that he chose to ignore the questions asked?  He wanted to insist (falsely) that there were leases
    on all the Iraqi property currently occupied by the US diplomatic mission.  Again, that is not truthful.



    In addition, he wanted to insist that turning over a facility the US taxpayer had spent over a million
    dollars on was normal and natural.  It was neither.  US taxpayers, if asked, might have said, "Hey,
     turn it over to an Iraqi orphanage or youth project."


    Or, noting the huge amount of widows due to  the war, might have said, "Turn it over as a facility for women and their children to live in."  But the same taxpayer that had no vote in whether or not to go to war got no vote in how to spend millions in Iraq..



    Patrick Kennedy declared, "It was always our plan to make adjustments to the police development program over time."


    That actually may be true.  (Or it may be another lie.)  But the fact is, the US State Dept refused to share the plan with Congress or the office of the Special Inspector for General Reconstruction in Iraq.  Kennedy might hope we forget that -- and certainly many in the press will rush  to assist him -- but those of us present at the hearings held in the last months of 2011 remember the State Dept refusing to answer questions.




    The State Dept is not an fiefdom, though Patrick Kennedy appears to believe it is.  They are
    answerable to Congress.  It's a real shame that all these issues were not nailed down in real time.

     If  you're confused or playing stupid, the reason it was not nailed down is many Democrats agreed to give the White House a blank check and they weren't even concerned with what figure might be written in on that blank check.  That's not just me.  Let's note Stuart Bowen's testimony to the Subcommittee yesterday about the State Dept's refusal to provide concrete answers:



    Stuart Bowen:  I testified before this subcommittee in November 2011 about our 
    concerns regarding the Department of State's planned multi-year, multi-billion-dollar 
    Police Development Program [PDP].  I raised two overarching issues that threatened
     the PDP's success.  First, the Defense Department had not adequately assessed the 
    impact of its own six-year police training efforts, and thus a key benchmark for 
    future planning was missing.  And second, State had not sufficiently planned for the 
    program, either on the policy or logistical fronts.  It is now beyond dispute that the 
    PDP planning process was insufficient.  It should have produced specific program 
    goals, a time frame for accomplishing those goals, the anticipated total cost for the 
    program, the expected scope of required resources, and a method for measuring
     progress.  The process fell short in each of these areas.  Further, to succeed, the 
    PDP required close collaboration and support from the Government of Iraq.  But
    the GOI's support has been weak, at best. 

     That's why we have the problem we do now.  In other comments? Tim Arango of the New York Times   was attacked by the US State Dept for his writing.  His writing ( "U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police") was about what the State Dept was discussing.

    He did not attempt to predict what would happen or how it would play out.  We've already noted
    Tim was correct and accurate in his reporting.  We'll note that his reporting only stands stronger
    after the Thursday hearing.  If Victoria Nuland had any class or character, she'd apologize publicly
    to Tim Arango for the attack she launched on him.
     Before we go further, we should fall back to the last hearing Jason Chaffetz chaired that we
    covered.  That's December 7, 2011 and from that coverage, we'll note this:

     Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Before recognizing Ranking Member [John] 
    Tierney, I'd like to note that the Defense Dept, State Dept, USAID and SIGAR will not 
    have IGs in January.  In May of this year, I wrote the President asking him to move 
    without delay to appoint replacements.  That letter was signed by Senators [Joe] 
    Lieberman, [Susan] Collins, [Claire] McCaskill and [Rob] Portman, as well as [House 
    Oversight Committee] Chairman [Darrell] Issa and Ranking Member [Elijah] Cummings
     and Ranking Member Tierney.  I'd like to place a copy of htis record into the record.  
    Without objection, so ordered.  To my knowledge, the President has yet to nominate 
    any of these replacements, nor has he responded to this letter.  I find that totally 
    unacceptable.  This is a massive, massive effort.  It's going to take some leadership
     from the White House.  These jobs cannot and will not be done if the president fails 
    to make these appointments.  Upon taking office, President Obama promised that his administration would be "the most open and transparent in history." You cannot 
    achieve transparency without inspectors general.  Again, I urge President Obama and 
    the Senate to nominate and confirm inspectors general to fill these vacancies  and
     without delay.
     Why is Geisel, who was at that hearing in December, billed as an "acting" anything?  Is the White
    House unable or just unwilling to fill these slots?

     For many of us, the inaction reminds us that Barack Obama, as a member of the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee was over Afghanistan in terms of subcommittees but never called a hearing
    on the topic.  Someone appears to love credits in the yearbook, they just don't want to work for them.


    This can be seen also with regards to the failed nomination of Brett McGurk for US Ambassador to Iraq.


    There is still no one else nominated for the post.


    Before the e-mails and sex scandal broke, before the ethics questions sprung up, it was always clear that McGurk was an iffy nominee to be confirmed.  The White House apparently planned for no one else to be needed.  So they still haven't named a new nominee.  This issue came up in yesterday's State Dept press briefing. Victoria Nuland was asked about Iraq.

    QUESTION: Just a general question. I know you've addressed this in bits before. But Iraq 
    with the Embassy there, it's been a month since Ambassador Jeffrey has gone. Obviously
     his named successor has withdrawn. In terms of the operations of the Baghdad Embassy, is everything up to speed? Is it – are there difficulties now going on without an 
    ambassador there?

    MS. NULAND: Well, it's always important to have the President's representative in the 
    person of an ambassador. That said, we have a very strong and capable chargé there, 
    Robert Beecroft. His relationships with Iraqis across the spectrum are broad and 
    deep, as they are with principals here in Washington. So the mission goes on, and we 
    are continuing to work with Iraqis across the spectrum to try to encourage them to 
    work together on the political issues that divide them. And of course, we maintain a 
    broad economic relationship and a security support relationship.

    QUESTION: Sure. I know it's a White House issue largely, but the idea of having a new 
    nominee --
     MS. NULAND: Definitely a White House issue.


    Yesterday's hearing was different from many other Congressional hearings: It actually got some
     press attention.  Iran's Press TV (link is text and video) opens with, "The US authorities have
    discussed a new plan to secure them a long lasting presence in Iraq by spending millions of dollars to upgrade a US embassy compound in the war-torn country, Press TV reports."
    I don't think Press TV's out on a limb with that statement.  I think a strong argument can be made-- based on the hearing -- for what the outlet is claiming.

    Yesterday, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reported, "The State Department is planning to
     spend up to $115 million to upgrade the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, already its biggest and most expensive in the world, according to pre-solicitation notices published this month."
    However, I'm surprised that they missed the bigger point.
    I'm not surprised the US press missed it.  Once upon a time, the US press lulled themselves to
    sleep with sticky thighs over the thought of 'maverick' John McCain.

    The press crush on the senator hit the rocks when newbie frosh Barack strutted onto campus.  Which is a real shame since the once-madly-in-love-with-John press could now be penning, "John McCain was right!" columns.
    I'm not saying he was right.  John McCain and I disagree completely on the war.  But he's been
    attacked over and over for comments about a residual US military force in Iraq.  The big news out
    of the hearing was that the inspector generals pretty much all agreed with the non-present
    Senator John McCain.
     What you heard from the second panel repeatedly was that the State Dept was unprotected
    and that cost overruns really couldn't be controlled with the State Dept's inability to check their own projects.


    While Carroll thought Mara Rudman (USAID) hiring 25 Iraqis to supervise US reconstruction projects provided a set of eyes on these projects, there's so much more going on in Iraq.   You had statements from DoD's Mickey McDermott about how the lack "of a post-2011 Security Agreement or Status Of Forces Agreement was affecting aspects of its operations.  Key areas cited by these officials as being impacted included: land use agreements, force protection, passport/visa requirements, air and ground movement, and FMS site stand-up.  The precise impact of these command concerns with respect to achieveing short and long-term OSC-I goals is unclear.  However, having a formal, follow-on Security and Status Of Forces Agreemens was perceived  to have value potentially in clarifying and stabilizing Iraqi government support for day-to-day OSC-I operations, and would benefit longer-term relationship building."
     Again, the statements should have led the press to note that McCain -- ridiculed as crazy and out of  it -- actually can find support for his assertion that there are elements that supported extending the SOFA.  (The military did support that.  We've noted that repeatedly.  Testimony to Congress by
    various generals have made that clear.  But what happened here is that people whose job it is to
    analyze made comments that backed up the claims John McCain was making.)
     Violence continued in Iraq today.  AP reports Balad saw one, two, three bombings "in quick
     succession" today.  AFP notes, "Gunmen shot dead four anti-Qaeda militiamen in central Iraq on
    Friday, while a roadside bomb killed an Iraqi soldier, security and medical officials said."  Reuters adds,  "Police colonel Hassan al-Baldawy said at least six people were killed and 45 wounded" in a combination of suicide and motorcycle bombings.  AP adds that four other Sahwa were wounded  in the Diyala attack.  Sahwa are also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (and "Daughters Of Iraq" for their female counterparts).  Alsumaria notes that the assailants used machine guns to
    fire on Sahwa.  At the April 8, 2008 Senate Armed Services hearing when Gen David Petraeus,
    then the top US commander in Iraq, was explaining Sahwa.

    In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of 
    Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as 
    well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their 
    neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads.  These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced 
    violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of 
    their monthly contracts."  Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to 
    avoid being beat up. 
    How much lunch money is the US forking over?  Members of the "Awakening" Council 
    are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars).  By Petraeus' figures that 
    mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month.  $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost".

     This was the second day in a row for attacks on Sahwa.  As Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reminds of 
    yesterday's violence,  "In Iraq's northern central province of Salahudin, gunmen attacked a checkpoint manned by government-backed Awakening Council group members in the city of Samarra, some 110 km north of the capital, killing two group members before they fled the scene, a local police source told Xinhua."
    Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes of  yesterday's violence,  "A wave of attacks in and around the
    capital city of Baghdad pointed out that the war in that nation is still very much going on, with or
    without the US occupation forces, leaving 38 people killed and over 140 others wounded."
    Laith Hammoudi (AFP) reports on what happens after the bombings:
     

    Piles of concrete blocks, clothes and furniture are all that remain of many of the makeshift houses in Imam Ali slum after an explosives-packed car tore through the area on June 13, claiming the lives of seven people and leaving more than 20 families homeless.
    The blast has left the Shiite area's impoverished residents mourning relatives and 
    neighbours, and struggling to rebuild their shattered lives.
    Hussein said he looked for houses to rent but the cheapest one he found was 150,000 Iraqi dinars ($125) per month, and it was in poor condition and would have required significant repairs.

    Abeer Mohammed (Institute for War & Peace Reporting via McClatchy Newspapers) offers, " Iraqi politicians from across the ethnic and religious spectrum agree that the recent wave of attacks targeting Shia Iraqis appears to be a deliberate move by extremists to reignite the sectarian conflict of past years."
     There's also conflict -- in what things say they are going to do and what they acually do.  Among their reports is this one on the Ministry of Electricity's Inspector General declaring there are fake contracts for $3 trillion dinars.  If the news seems familiar, it's because fake contracts and the Ministry of Electricity seem to go hand in hand.  Dropping back to the August 12, 2011 snapshot:



     Political intrigue continues in Iraq as well.  For example,  Al Mada reports that the Sadr 
    bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds 
    in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake contracts worth billions. There were two main responses. First, many stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament did. Second, 
    the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell. It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature.
     Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also 
    a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya 
    was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made.  Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli (The Middle East Media Research Institute) offers an analysis of what happened:

    In July of this year, the Ministry of Electricity signed a contract with a Canadian company, CAPGENT, for $1.2 billion for the construction of 10 power stations with a production 
    capacity of 100 megawatts each. The company was registered in Vancouver, Canada. It 
    also signed a second contract with a German company, Maschinerbrau Halberstadt, for
     €500 million ($650 million) for the construction of five power stations with a production 
    capacity of 100 megawatts each, to be completed within 12 months from the time a line
    of credit was extended. It now appears that the two companies are fictitious, and had the contracts been executed they would have would have constituted a monumental case 
    of fraud involving senior officials of the Ministry of Electricity.

    The two fraudulent cases came to light thanks to the personal efforts of Jawad Hashim, a former minister of planning in Iraq during the early Ba'thist regime in the 1960s and early 
    1970s. In a handwritten letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, datelined Vancouver, Canada, August 2, 2011, Hashim detailed the fraud.
    As a resident of Vancouver, Hashim decided to investigate the available information on 
    the Canadian company while he asked the former minister of economy and governor of
     the Iraqi central bank, Fakhri Yassin Qadduri, who resides in Germany, to investigate the identity of the German company.

    In related news, Ahmed Abbasi (Kitabat) reports over six billion dollars missing from the public
    funds and Abbasi wonders how this continues to happen, where are the courts, where is the
    Integrity Commission?  Meanwhile Alsumaria reports that Kirkuk is spending over 93 billion dinars
    on a water project to ensure potable water.  It's considered one of Iraq's largest water projects
     Turning to the topic of intrigue, Kitabat reports on rumors that the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad is
    coordinating with the Tehran-based government and Iraq's National Alliance and that they are using cell phones to monitor the movements of Iraqiya and other political rivals and that they are also listening in on phone calls.  If true, this is apparently part of an effort to keep Nouri as prime minister.

    A reported plan by the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al Maliki to call an early election is insignificant. He might be thinking of ways to end the current stalemate and hopefully get 
    a new and broader mandate. He might as well accomplish that since his opponents are 
    weaker and divided. But that surely will not solve Iraq's problems -- assuming that Al 
    Maliki does care.

    The real problem of today's Iraq is the attempt of one political faction to dominate the
     political landscape shutting everybody else out.


    As Al Mada notes today, Nouri is resisting appearing before the Parliament for questioning.  The Constitution is clear on this matter, as the Parliament has reminded Nouri. Alsumaria reports today that MP Mahma Khalil, with the Kurdistan Alliance, states that Nouri must bear responsibility for what is taking place in Iraq and that this is not about withdrawing confidence.  Alsumaria sees this as a retreat from the plan for a no-confidence vote.  It may be.  Or it may be someone grasping the p.r. effect.  Moqtada al-Sadr looks so much more reasonable than many because, since April, he has publicly presented a position (whether it's true or not) of, "I hope it doesn't come to this, only in a last resort . . ."  He has repeatedly noted that the entire process can be stopped by Nouri if Nouri will only follow the Erbil Agreement.  Again, Alsumaria may be interpreting things correctly.  But it's also true that Nouri's began lashing out and trying to win public opinion this week on the issue of the no-confidence vote.  This may be others following Moqtada's lead.  Al Mada reports today that the Kurdish bloc in Parliament is stating that even should Nouri survive the no-confidnece vote, this does not end the push for accountability. Kurdish MP Shwan Mohammed Taha states that, successful or not, the interrogation isn't the end of things.  He cites the Erbil Agreement and the need to return to it.

    In the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office issued  the following today:


    MONDAY: VETERANS: Murray in Seattle to Unveil New Mental Health Legislation
    Iraq and Afghanistan veteran will share his story of having his PTSD diagnosis overturned

    (Washington, D.C.) -- On Monday, July 2, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the 
    Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will hold a press conference at the Seattle Nisei 
    Veterans Center to discuss her new service members and veterans mental health 
    legislation, the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012.  This legislation comes as the Pentagon begins a comprehensive military-wide review, which Senator Murray urged [Defense] 
    Secretary [Leon] Panetta to conduct on diagnoses for the invisible wounds of war dating
    back to 2001.  

    The misdiagnosis of behavioral health conditions has been a constant 
    problem for soldiers at Madigan Army Medical Center, where to date over 100 soldiers
     and counting have had their correct PTSD diagnosis restored following reevaluation.  
    Stephen Davis, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran who had his initial diagnosis of PTSD overturned, will speak at the press conference with his his wife to share his experience.
    The legislation seeks to address problems with DOD and VA mental health care identified during multiple hearings of Senator Murray's Veterans Affairs Committee.  Specifically, 
    Senator Murray's Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012 would require DOD to create a comprehensive, standardized suicide prevention program, expand eligibility for a 
    variety of VA mental health services to family members, improve training and 
    education for our health care providers, create more peer to peer counseling 
    opportunities, and require VA to establish accurate and reliable measures for mental 
    health services.  More about Senator Murray's bill HERE.

    WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray
               Sergeant David Leavitt
               Sergeant First Class Stephen Davis and his wife Kim Davis
                Michele Smith, wife of Sergeant Shannon Smith
    WHAT: Press conference to unveil the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012
    WHEN: Monday, July 2, 2012
                1:30 PM PT
    WHERE:  Seattle Nisei Veterans Center
                    1212 South King Street
                     Seattle, WA 98144
                      Map
    ###
     
    Kathryn Robertson
    Specialty Media Coordinator
    Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
    448 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington D.C. 20510
    202-224-2834

    Friday, June 29, 2012

    ...COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY


    The superhero sequel is a peculiar beast. It is the nature of the sequel to be a chancy proposition, artistically at least: most stories really actually don't need the extra space to be told, and cinema history is littered with sequels that can't do better than feebly retread the same plot and conflicts as the original movie, or else strain so hard to find a new direction that they completely abandon everything that made the first one worth watching to begin with. But not the superhero sequel. There is, I suppose, no genre in all of commercial filmmaking as conducive to making a sequel as superhero movies: granting how few truly excellent blockbuster sequels there are in the first place, a startlingly large number of them are comic book adaptations.

    There is a very particular reason for this, and it was most elegantly demonstrated by X2, the first of the three truly magnificent superhero sequels of the 2000: origin stories. Or rather, the lack of an origin story. For some reason, no superhero franchise can bear to just start out by having the characters all existing and fighting villains and all that; we can have Indiana Jones or James Bond dropped into our lap and catch up with whatever we need to learn on the fly, but no, not Johnny "Ghost Rider" Blaze. We need to learn about that fucker's tragic past..

    And so it is that, instead of the super-powered ass-kicking that is the main draw of these films, the first movie has to dramatically present the act of taking the game board out of the box and setting up the pieces, as it were. As is typified by X-Men, a perfectly fine movie that doesn't really go much of any place and gets kind of boring as it introduces one character after another, until by the time we're all ready to go, there's just enough time left for one big fight and then the sequel hook. But then along comes X2 which is all rising action, fight scenes, and effects, and everything is right with the world.

    There are exceptions to this trend: movies that include the whole origin story as a first act and then present a mini-sequel all ready to go in the second half. And this is a worthy thing to attempt, but this runs the risk of making a film that is either overstuffed (Superman) or noticeably rushed (Iron Man), and this still gives us room for improvement in a sequel that is better able to pace itself (though this is emphatically not what happened with Iron Man 2).

    And so we have a remarkably dense list of superhero movie sequels that are either objectively or at least arguably better than their predecessor: Superman II, Batman Returns, Blade II, X2, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (a dreadful movie, but a considerable improvement on Fantastic Four), Hellboy II: The Golden Army, The Dark Knight (the third of the three magnificent sequels I mentioned earlier), The Avengers, and certainly not least, the second of the decade's truly wonderful superhero sequels and the reason we are all gathered here now, Spider-Man 2, a 2004 film that has been frequently cited not just as as better movie than the 2002 Spider-Man, but as the best superhero movie of all time (a claim that hasn't really been made much since 2008, but back in the day? People were absolutely nuts for it). And, sure enough, a big part of the reason why it works so well is because it doesn't have to spend an ounce of its energy setting up characters or situations: it hits the ground at ramming speed and, slightly over two hours later, collapses in blissful exhaustion.

    In all frankness, I don't personally like it as much as the first: in point of fact, I think Spider-Man (which played the "origin story in the first half, condensed three-act plot in the second" card) does a better job than any movie outside of Batman Begins of connecting the origin story so tightly to its main character's emotional arc that it never feels like an expository slog, as much of X-Men (or a really extreme example, like Green Lantern) does. There are other reasons, too, mostly little ones: it's not as much fun to look at, for starters, with director Sam Raimi and new cinematographer Bill Pope dropping the pop-art color scheme of the first movie for a much flatter, normal-looking palette, and - horror of horrors - replacing the sturdy, reliable spherical format of the first movie, with its compact 1.85:1 aspect ratio, for anamorphic widescreen, in its screen-stretching 2.35:1, and they did this for wholly defensible, pragmatic reasons: the main villain was too wide to fit comfortably in 1.85:1 compositions. But it doesn't change the fact that 2.35:1 is a bitch of an aspect ratio to compose for, and Raimi and Pope are only intermittently good at it, and even if that weren't the case, there's still no way to replicate the comic panel sense of many of the first film's compositions to that wide of a frame, and so it is that the most distinctive element of Spider-Man's visuals has been tossed aside capriciousl. I'm sorry, I know nothing's lamer than a rant about aspect ratios, but I've been carrying it around for eight years. Default anamorphic widescreen for every tentpole movie is one of my greatest bêtes noires, and, Jesus, Raimi had it right the first time, and then he threw it away, and that's not something to get over slowly, or for no reason.

    Like I was saying, though, little reasons. Spider-Man 2 is, by every yardstick, a great popcorn movie, and I do not hesitate even momentarily at the notion of calling both it and its precursor among the very best superhero movies ever made. And for every little reason that I like the first one better, there's a little reason I like the second one better, too: infinitely better CGI - it still hasn't aged as well as we might have hoped or assumed in 2004, but at least Spidey looks like he actually has weight and takes up physical space now; as a direct effect of that improvement, the action sequences are pretty much uniformly better, though I find the much-loved "battle on an elevated train" moment to be rather too busily edited to completely embrace it (it also looks unmistakably like Chicago in a film that pointedly takes place in New York, but I suppose that most people wouldn't notice and would care even less); and while the original film has a perfectly satisfactory narrative that makes good use of the canonical Spider-Man tropes - "with great power etc.", the travails of being an urban teen and geek - Spider-Man 2 starts off with one of the most intriguing internal character dilemmas of any modern superhero movie. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is failing in school, he can't hold down a job, his social life is dying, he's alienated his One True Love, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), and it's all because he spends half his time running around New York in blue and red tights, saving people from crime and mayhem, and being tarred as a thuggish vigilante because of it. Eventually, his resentment is so intense that he begins to psychosomatically lose his superpowers, right at the same time that New York is under attack from its second science-powered mad scientist in two years.

    Obviously, the notion of a young person with a special, but demanding, gift that ruins their personal life isn't completely fresh, nor was it in 2004; at the very least, it's the core theme of the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, hardly the obscurest cultural reference point at the time Spider-Man 2 became the highest grossing live-action film of the year. But it's still a bit challenging and mature for a film genre that even now hasn't grown very far out of the "damn that's super cool!" stage. No, it isn't super cool, the film tells us: it's a chore and a constant misery. Until, that is, it stops telling us: eventually, of course, Peter has to accept his fate and soldier on and have a great big showstopping fight on a train, and I'll never forgive screenwriter Alvin Sargent (along with scenarists Alfred Gough & Miles Millar and Michael Chabon) for making it quite so easy on Peter in the very last scene, effectively stating that the tug between duty and desire doesn't matter when you have a really cool girlfriend. But these are escapist entertainments, and the fact that the film spends so much time probing Peter's resentment of the very thing that makes him awesome is very much in its favor, regardless of how strongly it follows that theme through over the entire course of the movie.

    Naturally, all of these means that the B-movie ridiculousness of the first Spider-Man has to be scaled back; another little reason I prefer the first. Not that Spider-Man 2 isn't energetic and fun above all else: for it is. But there's a great deal that's more serious and heartfelt in this one: such as an excellent moments that ends the el train scene, in which a very battered and worn Peter is gently carried aloft by a group of commuters more concerned for the well-being of the surprisingly young and fragile hero than they are awestruck by how dramatically he just saved them. It is tremendously subdued and, briefly, melancholy. Or there's our villain this time, Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), who wants badly to do good, but is turned into a monster when one of his inventions, a set of python-like mechanical arms attached to his back, goes wrong and takes over his brain, making him a savage criminal (nicknamed Dr. Octopus, then just Doc Ock, in the press) who cannot control his own brutality. It's, frankly, kind of sad, and Molina plays it extremely well; well enough that it's not altogether fun to watch Spider-Man beat him up.

    Ultimately, that's why I prefer the first movie: it is more untroubled. The emotional stakes are lower, and there's hardly any realism. It's for these same reasons, mind you, that Spider-Man 2 is probably "better", and certainly its increased seriousness doesn't keep it from being fun, nor does it prevent Raimi from indulging in much more of his characteristically warped energy than he did in the previous movie, especially in ramping up the horror movie imagery: Octavius's wife, Rosie (Donna Murphy), reflected in the shard of glass that's about to kill her; or the low tracking shots and quick, jerking camera movements, and especially a quintessentially Raimi-esque shot following along as one of Doc Ock's metal arms zooms through the air, during his massacre of a hospital room. I am reminded, in comparing Raimi's direction of this film and its predecessor, with Tim Burton's work on Batman and Batman Returns: the first is a big-budget action movie that was clearly directed by its distinctive auteur; the second is an auteur's film that happens to be a big-budget action movie.

    So, Lord no, I don't want to imply that Spider-Man 2 isn't a fantastic popcorn movie. It is. My most serious reservation with the film in and of itself is that it cranks up the crises in Peter's life to the point that there's at least one subplot too many for it to handle; my pick is Mary Jane's engagement to newspaper publisher J. Jonah Jameson's (J.K. Simmons) astronaut son, which crops up long enough to cause Peter to be sad, and then wanders away until it comes back to give the film its needlessly distended finale. And, while nearly everybody in the cast, given a more complex screenplay, ups their game - Simmons gets more chances to snap like a screwball comedy character, James Franco has a much deeper (though under-explored) arc of his own to play with, and Dunst actually has a chance to act and react and play her own set of conflicted emotions, instead of just smiling and being the pretty unattainable girl who is suddenly attainable - Tobey Maguire seems a bit less flexible to me than he did in the previous movie, relying on a limited stock of emotions (now he's nervous! now he's kind of mopey! now he's angry! rinse, repeat), and while the character is still basic and iconic enough as to not require "acting", it does seem to suit his limitations a bit less perfectly here.

    But then, we have scenes of Spider-Man swooping around New York, with all the same energetic brio that Raimi, still in love with the character and still enacting what look very much like his childhood fantasies of being the character, brought to the last movie; and all is well with the world. And that's what these movies are still about, the first two anyway: the Silver Age sense of fantasy and possibility, the bright and enthusiastic sense that a decent guy, given the chance, can end up making everything okay both in the world around him and in his own life. It's the ultimate innocence and optimism of Raimi's first two Spider-Man pictures that sets them apart from nearly every other superhero movie and makes them as much giddy larks as they are genuinely sweet coming-of-age fables. For this, I shall love them long after the genre they helped shape and encourage has become just another one of yesterday's fads.