BEFORE: If there's any silver lining at all in this pandemic, and I'm not saying that there is, because it's a terrible, terrible thing, it's that people who are usually busy workaholics are spending more time with their families. Well, yes and no, because they're being told to stay away from older and more vulnerable family members, but hey, more time at home with the kids for some people! Just keep the kids away from Grandma and Pop-Pop. Jeez, if they had pitched this thing as a paid "stay-cation" for everyone, there might not be as many people who are anxious and stress-buying groceries. For me, I'm looking at more time at home, I'm catching up on TV, watched the whole second season of "Kidding" on Showtime this weekend, and I'm going to try to play through a bunch of video-games.
More good news, I was able to drop by the office with all the screeners, so I cherry-picked the 8 or 9 discs that are going to make it possible for me to keep up with my chain, I know I can at least make it to Mother's Day now. I can't celebrate Mother's Day with my mother, but at least I can watch a couple appropriate movies in her honor. Now the bad news, I can't really go back to that office, it's shutting down for three months, that's the plan for now, anyway. So come April 1 I'll have to either file for unemployment or find some way to do other work from home - which is tough because right now I don't know if that studio will re-open at all. It's a bit like that "Twilight Zone" episode where the last man alive on earth finally has all the time to read all the books he wants, and then he breaks his glasses. I've got plenty of time, but without income, can I afford to just stay at home and watch all my movies?
Again, trying to look at the positives here, I'm no longer constrained by time limits, so if I want to watch two movies a day, I can do that, or cram 40 into a month because I just got the chain the way I want it, and I don't want to cut anything. I was thinking I could re-arrange the chain to avoid films that aren't streaming yet, but now I don't have to, not until I have to connect Mother's Day to Father's Day somehow. And I can save some money now, some of these films (like today's) would set me back $5.99 on iTunes, or $6.99 on Cable On Demand. Those costs add up quickly after a while.
John Lithgow carries over from "Late Night" - how could I resist putting two films with him next to each other, especially when they both are about the production of television, and both are also connected to the #metoo movement?
THE PLOT: A group of women take on Fox News head Roger Ailes, and the toxic atmosphere he presided over at the network.
AFTER: This is one of the two films I scheduled for March that has an enormous cast - "Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood" is the other. And the two films link together, they share two actors, I think. But that would be a huge waste to watch them back-to-back when I can squeeze another six films in between them. Don't worry, I'm going to get there before the end of the month.
Obviously, this is both an important topic and a very sensitive subject, so first off, kudos for getting this film made, and for shining a light on what went down behind the scenes at the toxic environment of the Fox News Studios. It's unfortunate that the situation there was anything but unique, and it's comforting in some small way that Roger Ailes and many other rich corporate fatcats got what was coming to them over the last few years. The entire industry felt the effects, and Harvey Weinstein got his, and in TV news alone down went Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly, Les Moonves, and then of course there were the high-profile cases among actors and filmmakers.
It's something of a complicated issue, though - at least I thought it was, then for a while it seemed like maybe it wasn't, and now that I've watched this film, I think I'm back on calling it complicated. Because while "Bombshell" sheds a light on just how much of a perv and a snake Roger Ailes was, it was also a toxic environment all over Fox News, and Ailes might have been at the center of it all, but he was surrounded by enablers and a system that made his harassment and abuse possible, and I think you have to take a look at all that, too. I mean, you're talking about a system that's putting images out there on TV every day, and there's a primary concern about how people look - therefore there's an impetus to put prettier people on camera, but beauty is subjective, so who decides what constitutes pretty? Someone has to come along and say "Yes" to this person and "No" to that person, and then if that person has a fondness for blondes over brunettes, or nice legs, thin waists, etc. it becomes a slippery slope, and then before long you've got the news equivalent of "Charlie's Angels". I'm not justifying this line of reasoning, just saying I understand how they got there.
Secondly, Fox News has always had a conservative slant - and preaching those good ol'fashioned Amurrican values meant, to some degree, the tired Christian mantra about women being subservient, men being in power and writing the rules that help them remain in power. So, being a woman working at a place like Fox News, what did they THINK was going to happen when they tried to advance in the company? The system was stacked against them from the start, by men like Ailes who saw them as eye candy at best, and sex objects at worst. But here I've got to be careful, because I don't want to sound like I'm victim-blaming, or slut-shaming, or whatever it's called now. Still, I have to wonder JUST a bit why this bad behavior of Roger Ailes went on for SO LONG without anybody calling him on it. I know, I know, he was a man in power and he used that power and influence to keep all his victims quiet, and that was very wrong. But perhaps he should have been taken to task for his harassment and abuse sooner, and that happened because nobody was willing or able to call him out for it. The situation turns out to be a bit more complex than I thought.
The film sort of implies - through shots where all three featured harassed women (Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, and another who's apparently a fictional amalgam of several women) are together in the same elevator - that perhaps if these women had only confided in each other, perhaps Ailes' harassment would have been stopped sooner. At least, I think that's what these shots are meant to imply - quite honestly, a dramatic shot of three women in an elevator, NOT talking to each other doesn't really say much, so perhaps if it doesn't mean what I think it means, then it's just lazy filmmaking.
Similarly, we only see one example of harassment, where Ailes asks the amalgam character to lift up her skirt, so he can see her legs. Then he asks her to raise it higher. All the other incidents occur off camera, and I'm not sure if this was for the sake of decorum, or to maintain a sense of uncertainty or suspense, or again, perhaps just consitutes lazy filmmaking. It should be "show us, don't tell us". We do see Ailes' harassment of Gretchen Carlson, because most of this didn't take a sexual form, it was Ailes watching her show and then berating her for not wearing enough make-up, or showing enough leg, etc. I'm very torn on this issue, because of the way that the film chose to present the harassment to us, it's not always in a matter-of-fact way, there's a lot we hear about second-hand, and that's a bit of a red flag. But perhaps it also mimics most harassment cases, where there isn't any photographic or video evidence, and prosecutors have to rely on witness testimony alone. But this is a FILM, and it's a visual medium, so not being able to see what happened is a bit of a problem.
The other side of that argument goes that this is a film about someone who took advantage of women, put them on display as sexual objects, made sure that the prettiest women (in one man's opinion) got on camera. But isn't that also what a film director does? Weren't these actresses asked to do, essentially, some of the same things that Roger Ailes asked women to do? There's a whole montage at one point with actresses playing Fox news anchors, and they're in their underwear, putting on Spanx under their low-cut dresses. I know some sacrifices need to be made to tell the story properly, but one has to be careful to not commit the same sins. And this is coming from me, a guy who generally appreciates beautiful actresses - however I admit that there's still a systemic problem inherent in this story-telling industry, based on showing a little more skin to get the audience's attention.
The film also follows the non-traditional formula of films like "The Big Short", with Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly here talking directly to the audience about how things work (or fail to) at Fox News. This is all valuable information for both fans and haters of that network. We learn that Fox News didn't support Trump at first, in fact they were working hard to discredit him in the early days of the 2016 Presidential campaign. Then something changed (maybe due to his growing popularity, and the increased chance that he could win) and after Megyn Kelly hit him hard with tough debate questions about his misogyny and mis-treatment of women, there was that infamous set of tweets where Trump said she had "blood coming out of her...wherever" - Fox News stood behind their anchor for a while, but soon after that, she was sacrificed and Trump became the network's golden boy.
I actually tuned in to Fox News for a short time the other day, because I've been watching the virus response coverage late at night - I tried MSNBC for a while, but they switch over to reruns of "Dateline" at about 2 am. The ridiculousness I saw on Fox News with regards to the Corona virus was beyond belief, Jeanine Pirro was connecting it to Mexican immigration at the U.S. southern border (umm, from everything I've heard, there's no connection there, in fact Mexico so far has had fewer cases than the U.S.) and then Greg Gutfeld came on to try to comfort Americans, by reminding us that things are still great in America, we still have Necco Wafers and the best ketchup in the world. Are you kidding me? This is a time to be very concerned about the pandemic outside our windows, and he's running down a list of consumer products he likes? Get your priorities in line, please!
Look, we still don't know how long this pandemic will be affecting us - will restaurants and bars re-open in two weeks, two months or two years? When will life return to something close to normal? One thing that everyone needs to admit is that Trump waived off the virus concerns, failed to act quickly, demoted the pandemic response team, and finally broke the economy, just like he's broken everything he's ever touched financially, from Trump University to Trump Air to Trump Steaks and his casinos, etc. In 2016, I figured SOMETHING bad would happen after Trump's election, due to his arrogance, prevarication and complete lack of experience - it was just a matter of time. Well, now we know exactly how bad things under Trump can get. Even if he somehow pulls out of this, I don't think he can blame this one on the Chinese, so please tell me that he's now got zero chance of re-election. All the hardcore Trumpers, when presented with evidence of his inactivity, harassment, and treasonous behavior, have always been able to fall back on, "Yeah, but the economy's doing great!" Well, that's no longer the case, we could be looking at a recession, 20% unemployment, and the stock market's in the toilet. So, um, without the economy doing great, what exactly are his good points?
"Sic semper tyrannis" - I have to keep thinking about this. It means "Thus always to tyrants," and suggests that all people who abuse their power will or should fall from power. Roger Ailes is dead, Harvey Weinstein's in jail and has the corona virus, now we just have to work on Trump.
The most fun I had with this film was checking out who they got to play each Fox anchor - the hair and make-up (and occasionally, prosthetic effects) used to make actors resemble the real anchors is very good. Charlize Theron in particular became a dead-ringer for Megyn Kelly, but Kidman as Gretchen Carlson required a little more imagination on the viewer's part. Casting Richard Kind as Rudy Guiliani was particularly inspired, though - the actors playing Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera also ended up having uncanny resemblances.
Also starring Charlize Theron (last seen in "Long Shot"), Nicole Kidman (last seen in "The Portrait of a Lady"), Margot Robbie (last seen in "Mary Queen of Scots"), Allison Janney (last seen in "I, Tonya"), Malcolm McDowell (last seen in "In Good Company"), Kate McKinnon (last seen in "Rough Night"), Connie Britton (last seen in "Professor Marston & The Wonder Women"), Liv Hewson, Brigette Lundy-Paine (last seen in "The Glass Castle"), Rob Delaney (last seen in "Deadpool 2"), Mark Duplass (last seen in "Darling Companion"), Stephen Root (last heard in "Superman: Unbound"), Robin Weigert (last seen in "Pawn Sacrifice"), Amy Landecker (last seen in "Dreamland"), Mark Moses (last seen in "Paranoia"), Nazanin Boniadi (last seen in "Ben-Hur"), Ben Lawson (last seen in "No Strings Attached"), Josh Lawson (last seen in "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues"), Alanna Ubach (last seen in "Still Waiting..."), Andy Buckley (last seen in "Lady Bird"), Brooke Smith (last seen in "In Her Shoes"), Bree Condon, D'Arcy Carden, Kevin Dorff, Richard Kind (last seen in "Gilbert"), Michael Buie, Marc Evan Jackson (last seen in "Can You Ever Forgive Me?"), Anne Ramsay, Jennifer Morrison (last seen in "Star Trek Into Darkness"), Ashley Greene (last seen in "Wish I Was Here"), Ahna O'Reilly (last seen in "She's Funny That Way"), Lisa Canning, Elisabeth Röhm (last seen in "Joy"), Alice Eve (last seen in "Before We Go"), Katie Aselton (last seen in "Book Club"), P.J. Byrne (last seen in "Home Again"), Spencer Garrett (last seen in "House of Sand and Fog"), Tony Plana (last seen in "Roman J. Israel, Esq."), John Rothman (last seen in "Adam"), Tricia Helfer, Madeline Zima, Lennon Parham (last seen in "The House"), Brian d'Arcy James (last seen in "X-Men: Dark Phoenix"), Holland Taylor (last seen in "Town & Country") with archive footage of Joe Biden (last seen in "The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley"), George H.W. Bush (last seen in "Get Me Roger Stone"), Rudy Giuliani (last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Walter Mondale (last seen in "The Front Runner"), Richard Nixon (last seen in "Bad Times at the El Royale"), Ronald Reagan (last seen in "Hands of Stone"), Donald Trump (last seen in "BlacKkKlansman"), Eric Bolling, Steve Doocy, Lester Holt (also last seen in "Get Me Roger Stone"), Bill O'Reilly (ditto), Brian Kilmeade (last seen in "Fahrenheit 11/9"), Seth Meyers (also carrying over from "Late Night"), Shepard Smith.
RATING: 6 out of 10 glass desks
No comments:
Post a Comment