Why are artists so liberal?

Beyond a doubt, most of the actors in Hollywood lean liberal. In fact, I suspect that most artists, anywhere, lean to the left. Since "Hollywood" the industry is composed of film, television, and music, the business of Hollywood is maintaining a flow between artists and marketplace. So, more than probably any other industry or town, it is concerned with the artistic temperament. New York has fabulous theater, publishing, and a healthy television industry, but is primarily the economic center of America.

Even though actors are merely a fraction of the production crew of any film or television show, many of the people behind the scenes: craft services, writers, directors, prop and costuming...are also artistic types. Above them you get MBA types (producers, execs, etc.) and above those you have the people running the multi-national conglomerates buying up everything in sight. I'd say the actors lean way left, and the business types calling the shots lean right.

Personally, I think that the hunger for cash on the part of the congloms overrides everything. But the actors are the only people most folks know. They're the ones who go on the talk shows and so forth, and they certainly drive public opinion of what "Hollywood" is like. The question of why so few Right-leaning actors/directors are willing to put up their own money to produce a pro-Iraq movie (actors DO use their own money. Mighty rarely, but remember "Passion of the Christ"? Mel Gibson made about half a billion dollars on that one.) I know of no profitable film that Hollywood hasn't tried to duplicate. Nature of the beast.

People who think that such a film would be profitable but are not interested in betting their own money on it...well, that's interesting. Don't know quite what to say about that. Clint Eastwood can make any damned movie he wants. I doubt VERY seriously that he worries that "people won't want to work with him anymore." Maybe they don't think there is profit in it, and aren't willing to take the loss? Clustered production deals would raise the money--but then if the film bombed, you've lost clout and gained nothing.

I'm really not sure what's going on there...

But the question is: why do artists lean left? I think that you have to start with basic definitions of "Right" and "Left." Needless to say, if you let either side define the other, the results wouldn't be pretty. As I probably lean Left at this point in my life, I can't claim to be above this. But I'll try, by defining "Conservative" as looking backwards to the strength of proven past performance, and "Liberal" as looking forward to the possibility of a shining future.

Unfortunately, we have to live in the Present, not the past or future, so anyone who is too attached to either is, from my point of view, missing the point. If we accept this definition (and hopefully, it is equally supportive and denigrating of either side) then artists would seem to be those who are trying to take current reality apart to create something new. Actors, writers, directors, etc.--they thrive on the image that has not been seen before, the new combination of emotions, and so forth. Quite commonly, executives complain that the artists are naive children, while the artists complain that the executives are brainless Nazis. Sound familiar?

The only problem, as far as I'm concerned, is between the people on either end who don't get the joke, and think that their end is superior. Each then accuses the other of the exact same crap that THEIR side does when upset. A perfect example: take a look at the Primaries. Clinton's supporters were no more "Conservative" than Obamas, but as they began to get desperate, their attacks sounded just like the Republicans. The PUMA sites are just pitiful, venom and yearning mingled into a truly toxic brew. I wish them healing. I mean, these women are suggesting that Obama is flying home to Florida to POISON his grandmother, because she can verify that he wasn't born in the U.S.

Good Lord.

Each side accuses the other of stealing elections, of playing dirty, of harboring bigots, of being disloyal to the American dream, of not caring about the poor, and so forth. Each side produces its statistics and experts to try to "prove" these charges.

Could you have an artist class that was MORE conservative than the general population? Possibly, if, for instance, there was a major artistic movement that proclaimed that some period in the past produced the superior art, so that everything was measured by what has come before. I'm sure it's happened in the past, and will again.

And will we ever have a time when the blue-collar workers, executives and CEOs are, on average MORE liberal than the average American? I really don't know. It would take a better political theorist than I am to figure out how that might fit together.

What I do know is that, should Obama win, he's really got his job cut out from him in terms of bringing the country together. I'm pulling for him. I grasp the tight-rope he's had to walk his whole life, and that if he didn't learn to care for both sides, he would be torn apart emotionally. He may be uniquely suited to bring America back together after seasons of damn-near civil war.

Or not. We'll see.

The "Goldfinger" Defense

ﾠ

ﾠ

One of my favorite expressions comes from a James Bond novel, "Goldfinger." It goes: "Goldfinger said: "my friends in Chicago have a saying, Mr. Bond. Once is Happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time, it's enemy action."

ﾠ

I kinda feel that this applies to my reaction about Colin Powell. There is no doubt that he shamed himself in the whole WMD thing. But the REASON his presentation to the U.N. worked is because people trusted him so much--in other words, no matter what you think of him, he hadn't had a pattern of lying up until that point. I believe that it is possible to make a case for Powell being misled and coerced. That he was, in effect, a Good Soldier doing what his Commander In Chief told him. Easy to imagine Bush saying "I've got sources of information I can't even discuss with you. You have to trust me on this one, Colin. Your Commander is asking you to go out and protect the American people."

ﾠ

Some such scenario makes sense to me, absent a pattern of prevarication on other issues. I consider it "happenstance" instead of "enemy action." So I was thrilled to hear his endorsement of Obama, and sat back to see who would leap to a racial conclusion first. Proving, in my mind, that that person has racial problems.

ﾠ

Does race influence my support of Obama? Sure. But if I thought his opponent was 1% better, it wouldn't. If Obama was white, I'd still vote for him. And if he'd been white, given the same approximate birth circumstances, his history would have been different, but he'd still be thought of as a wunderkind. And the election wouldn't even be close.

ﾠ

ﾠAnd I'd bet anything that the tolerance is a hell of a lot tighter for Powell: maybe .1%? Because it is possible to take the position that even if everything else looked even, the social power of electing a non-white President is difficult even to convey. But black people didn't flock to Obama because of his race: they didn't flock to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes. Nor did Powell endorse one of them. Blacks flocked to Obama because he inspired them--spoke to them in a language they could understand, and was sufficiently brilliant that they began to hope that he might not only win, but actually be a fine president (not embarrassing us, if you understand what I mean.) Remember that initially Hillary Clinton got more of the black vote.

ﾠ

So when people say "It was race" about Powell, in my mind, all they're really saying is: "Race is the most important thing to me--it MUST be the most important thing to these black people. And Powell is a traitor for turning his back on the White Man who put him where he is."

ﾠ

Listen to Limbaugh and the like, and notice just how little it took for Powell to turn into a nigger.

ﾠ

Oh, I'm sure much of this is unconscious. But if the flock of white officials, editors, pundits and voters who vote for Obama can do that on the basis of his intellectual and leadership qualities, why not Powell? Or are they saying that EVERYONE is voting for Obama because of race? I kind of suspect that there is a touch of that, and that, again, it is racism so tightly wrapped that it simply is considered the status quo. All my life, I've heard (some) white people saying such things about ANY black man running for office, getting jobs, whatever: "there was a more qualified white man. Blacks just vote for their own, and all these whites are nigger-lovers."

ﾠ

There is something sadly satisfying about watching the Republicans flinch as the flat rocks flip over, and the ugliness comes crawling out: bear cubs (!) murdered in effigy, exhortations to murder, accusations of traitorous behavior, claims of Manchurian Candidate-hood, claims of "palling around" with terrorists (sounds like they went fishing every Saturday morning, doesn't it?), calling a Harvard scholar a "street" person, and on and on.

ﾠ

"I just don't know who Obama is!" some white folks bleat. What a crock. Can you tell me where McCain went to elementary school? Where his father was from? How many of you know his middle name? How many Americans do you think could answer those three questions off the cuff?

ﾠ

The media crawled up Obama's ass with a microscope, and people still make this absurd comment. I know coded language when I hear it.

ﾠ

There are many, many good reasons a Conservative (or even a liberal) might not want to vote for Obama. But I am frankly hearing a level of vitriol that I just don't remember.

ﾠ

This thing could cause REAL damage to the Republican party, and I don't want that. I believe that two healthy parties (maybe more) are vital to this country. But the same people who crowed over that 33% rate of negative racial attitudes among Liberals have no comment at all about the fact that that number would have to be about 47% among Conservatives. And without looking at that, and the way homophobia has been stoked on the Right, and asking the hard, hard questions about how human bigotry is so intractable...and why so much of it is collected in the Republican Party...you can't fix the problem.

ﾠ

You CAN'T. And if you stay in denial about it, then the very worst aspects of your party and ideology are going to take over, and it won't be pretty to watch. If you look at the lack of minorities in the Republican party (aren't you embarrassed by the rallies, even a little?) and basically take the position regarding lack of brown faces on the Right: "Oh! It's because minorities are too stupid and brainwashed to know what is good for them" (which, basically, in one form or another is the ONLY answer I ever heard for this phenomenon from Republicans) then in order to protect a perfectly sane and intelligent set of beliefs about how a society should be governed, taxes should be gathered, and morals maintained (note I said sane and intelligent--I didn't say I agreed)--you are allowing yourself a MASSIVE blind spot. Massive. And it's warping your reality maps.

ﾠ

I am quite, quite certain there are equal problems on the Left. Probably, they have to do with moral and cultural relativism taken to the point of cultural suicide. But as I see the shape of how this is shaking out, I felt a real need to try to speak honestly to my Conservative brothers and sisters out there. If you react to this with denial, or finger-pointing, you've missed the point. At no time have I suggested that Liberality is better--although I think that for the next eight years it is more appropriate, in the sense of balancing the scales. If you just try pointing out all that is wrong with the Democrats, you are pointing at my runny nose while your cancer runs wild.

ﾠ

Someone is going to have to wake up, and notice that you can't just "ignore" race (it cracks me up when people say: "I don't see race." Right. And I don't see gender. Or hair color. Trust me: if you don't consciously see it, your hind-brain does. And all that is necessary for racism to flourish, is for us to consciously pretend that it doesn't exist. The bigots of the world are just drooling for us to stop paying attention. Trust me. ) they your party will begin to implode. And that won't be good for anyone.

Patch, Patch, Patch

What an interesting world it must be from Rush's POV. On Friday, he's accusing the Democrats of making everything about race. On Sunday, Colin Powell endorses Obama, and the first thing out of Rush's mouth is to say the endorsement was just about race. Right. Ahh...then why not Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or even Alan Keyes?

ﾠ

Then George Will and others said the same thing. Including that thing about race being an advantage. My honest, polite assessment: you can't believe that Race is an advantage to Obama without holding at least an unconscious belief that blacks are somehow inferior to whites, on average. Yes, that's exactly what I think.

ﾠ

I can see many, many reasons someone might not want to vote for Obama, reasons that are intelligent, honorable, reasonable. But I also know that bigots, and those holding negative feelings toward black people are looking for reasons not to vote for him, and that my antenna should twitch at LEAST 33% of the time.

ﾠ

ﾠPowell's comments:

1) "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim."

2) "I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists."

3) "John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."

##

I note the "nondiscriminatory" comment, and will take it at face value. O.K.--whatever problems McCain has with Obama, I will not consider race one of them.

##

Now, you can discount this, and I'm sure many of you will. Or you can grant it, keep your political and economic beliefs, but still take a stand against the bigotry and ignorance in your own party. If enough of you do, you have a chance of attracting more of the black vote. As long as you stay in denial about this, you don't have a prayer.

ﾠ

Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help out here.

##

I look at most exercise as generating energy, but yoga seems to unlock it and make that energy available. It is also important to note that exercise will mis-align your body in selective ways: it is trying to upgrade you to being a higher-output machine. But if you don't realign your body, especially your joints, tendons, and skeletal structure, you will accumulate micro-trauma wear and tear, and your body falls apart sooner. Tai Chi, yoga, Pilates, and other disciplines have much to offer in this regard. The Five Tibetans is very very good for the time expended, but I DO notice that if I do the Tibetans without other yoga, when I return to the yoga my joints "pop" a bit, and I can feel some muscle imbalances.

ﾠ

What's that line from "10"? "After 40, it's all patch, patch, patch..."

"W" (2008)

ﾠ

ﾠ

I think I know why there haven't been movies supporting the Iraq War: it was the WMDs. The initial reason for going there was about 80% WMD, and if they'd been found, then a movie could be made that was supportive and congratulatory. But their absence is a HUGE embarrassment. No one who supported the idea is going to be happy about talking about it in a film. Now...if we "win" and withdraw "victorious" then there's a happy ending. WW2 films were made while we were still in the war, yes, but there was full expectation that "The Yanks" were going to kick ass, and the notion that we were teh good guys there was totally undisputed.

ﾠ

Suggesting that "Hollywood" won't let such films happen betrays a lack of understanding about how movies get made and distributed. A 10-million budget film could be put together with Stallone, Eastwood, and Willis' pocket change, let alone the production deals each of them have. If one of them starred, it would get SOME distribution, even if only the kind of distrib deal given to ego projects. If there was then a positive audience response, Hollywood, being the whores they are, would make more.

ﾠ

The only question to ask yourself is, why won't Conservative actors put their fortunes and careers on the line for their beliefs like Liberal ones? They have the motive, means, and opportunity...and don't do it. Vanity projects get made all the time. Why not one about Iraq? My suspicion: as badly as anti-Iraq films do at the box office, pro-Iraq film would do even worse. There is simply nothing much entertaining about this. It isn't a "good war" in most people's minds, costing more in lives, time, and treasure than we were told. We're kept away from the body bags and funerals, and the Iraqi fatality total is something the media would put front and center, 24/7, if "they" were really that Left-leaning.

ﾠ

I don't believe that Righties are moral cowards. Why they don't pool their funds and make a film, if that's what they really believe, is beyond me. But money talks in this town...make no mistake. I think that's the closest thing you can come to truth about it.

##

Saw "W." yesterday. It is hardly a masterpiece, but it is certainly Oliver Stone. It doesn't demonize him, and it's portrait of his father suggests that Bush Sr. is a genuinely Presidential man. But I watched some people walking out of the theater, and I don't think they were going to the snack bar. It clearly takes the position that Bush was not qualified for the job, and made mistakes a more prepared man would not have made. I wouldn't enjoy it if I was a Bush fan. Stone clearly wanted to get it out before election day (feels a little rushed at times) probably both for the profit and the cultural influence. I'd only give it a "B." If I was a Republican who still believes Bush is a great president, unless I had one hell of a sense of humor, I'd probably stay away.

But Josh Brolin deserves an Oscar nod.

Miracle At St. Anna

If Mozart had been born in the Kalahari, he'd have been known as the best drummer in his entire family.

#

(SPOILERS)

Saw "Miracle at St. Anna," Spike Lee's new joint, yesterday. There's a masterpiece lurking inside that mess somewhere, but it wasn't on the screen. Spike is a real artist, with mastery over the basic and advanced filmic language, used to express his own view of the world. He is dancing to his own beat, and for those of us on the outside, it's a mixed bag.

ﾠ

In "St. Anna," an elderly postal employee blows away a customer. Investigating police find a million-dollar statue head in his apartment, missing from Florence since WW2. A reporter tries to discover why and what. You know the drill.

ﾠ

Most of the movie is a flashback demonstrating the lives of the "Buffalo Soldiers," an experimental combat brigade made up of blacks, and commanded by whites. The entire film starts with images of John Wayne from "A Bridge Too Far," Spike's announcement that he's about to get into Hollywood's face for excluding blacks from heroic war movie roles.

**RECAP FOR THOSE NOT PAYING ATTENTION**

(And remember, those of you who will insist that it's "just Hollywood"--

1) According to most accounts, a majority of the talent working in Hollywood is Liberal Democrat

2) The percentage of Democrats who have negative views of black people is 33%

3) The percentage of white Americans with such negative views is 40%.

ﾠ

THEREFORE, Hollywood is MORE likely to create positive images than America is likely to want to consume them.

**END RECAP**

The trouble is that Spike is carrying heavy damage, for all his brilliance. This really shows up in the arena of sexuality, most especially black-white relationships. It is so strange to watch John Leguizamo with his black girlfriend in the beginning of this film. Or Ed Norton with Rosario Dawson in "25th Hour"--sexy, naturalistic, lovely scenes. I can't remember the last time Spike gave us something like that with two black people. And a black man with a white woman: Sex is shown as uncomfortable, erotic without romance, and often tied to violence if not death. He is REALLY messed up on this count, and watching how even a BLACK director gets programmed culturally is part of what makes me reject the "Hollywood is more racist than the rest of America" argument.

ﾠ

(And don't ring in the "Americans voting for Obama" argument. It ain't a popularity contest. An election is more like hiring a plumber. You don't much care about the race of the guy unstopping the toilet: you just want the shit off the floor. Doesn't mean you want him dating your daughter)

##

Anyway, Spike seems to have a profoundly depressive streak. "St. Anna" often feels like a succession of static shots, punctuated by his trade-mark full-screen face shots. He SEETHS with pain and resentment. And will someone keep this brilliant director away from writing scripts? I had very little sense of location and perspective, the writing was often pedantic, and tension was a sometime thing. Oddly, a couple of the performances were even fuzzy--and Spike is a WONDERFUL actor's director. I think he just cared too much.

ﾠ

He wants to make up for a century of films that exclude those of dark hue, or confine them to secondary and degrading roles. And I think that the fire burning inside him has produced some of the most exciting cinema of my lifetime--he has a unique and precious vision.

ﾠ

But as a commercial film-maker, his passion interferes with the narrative, and his pain disrupts the natural flow of human emotions ("in 'Bamboozled' he missed such an obvious relationship between the tap-dancer and the executive that I couldn't believe what I was seeing. In the HISTORY of Spike Lee films, I'm not sure there has ever been a relationship between a black man and woman I would covet. One I would want my own children to have. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe in the background somewhere, but not in the foreground with a "Boy meets Girl, Boy loses Girl, Boy gets Girl" variety. And that is CENTRAL to the survival of a species, and is CENTRAL to the literature of every culture on this planet. The lack of this precious imagery is no accident, although I'm pretty sure it's unconscious).

ﾠ

(MORE SPOILERS)

ﾠ

And...there have certainly been other war films in which almost everyone you care about dies. "Saving Private Ryan," for instance. But

1) The concept of patriotism as natural and healthy is never questioned. In "Anna," the question of fighting for a country that does not consider you fully human is raised.

2) Men die for Ryan, but he not only survives, but thrives: we see his children and grandchildren. The single survivor of "Anna" lives alone, with no apparent children: his genetic line dies with him.

3) There has been, by my count, one other major film dealing with black soldiers in wartime. As opposed to THOUSANDS dealing with white soldiers. "Glory." And they all died in that one.

##

What you've got here is the most successful black filmmaker in history, and apparently he is tone-deaf to certain delicacies of the human condition. My best guess is that he is extraordinarily sensitive, hides that under bravado, but deep inside the anger and fear has burned away some of his wiring. Just the way I see it.

Murky, metaphysical, maddening, brilliant and confusing, I wanted terribly to love "St. Anna." And was frustrated that I could not. It's scope and ambition are "A" level. But the overall execution is "B-"

##

Anyone see where the Republican group did a picture of Food Stamps with a picture of Obama with Watermelon and Fried Chicken?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/local-gop-group.html

ﾠ

Of course, there was no racist intent. Of course. Nor at calls for his death at rallies, or jokes about it on Fox. Nope, nothing wrong here (as the Sharp Cereal Professor used to say.)

##

And McCain was great at the comedy event yesterday. His timing and delivery were excellent, better than Obama's, although I liked Obama's material a little better. The Hollywood version of this story is that McCain awakens from his slumber, realizes he's been over-handled and misserved by his advisors. For the next two weeks he gives us the McCain we saw eight years ago, and gives Barack the race of his life.

ﾠ

And then, of course, loses gracefully. by a hair.

ﾠ

Little More Light Today

ﾠ

ﾠ

McCain was FAR better last night than he was in the first debates. Sharper, more aggressive, but also more respectful (it actually seem to take effort, but he DID look Obama in the eye), and I think that he may have won (by a narrow margin). He obviously knew this was his very last chance, and didn't leave anything in the locker room. Looked healthier, too. Good for him...and good for America. I want both candidates to bring their very best, so that people can make informed decisions.

#

Does anyone remember McCain's emotional reactions during the primary more clearly than I? I would love to hear that he treated his other opponents with the same disdain he demonstrated toward Senator Obama. While I think it would be a nightmare to have a president with such poor emotional control (diplomacy, anyone?) I would frankly prefer to think he's generally angry and hostile than...well, bigoted. I mean, he fits the profile (age, gender, voting against MLK day, refusing to meet Obama's eyes, refusing to shake his hand, body language furious, etc.) but I actually used to like McCain. I would hate to put him in that category, although I could still respect him as a human being. So...was he like that in the Primaries, and I just didn't notice?

#

Really, all I see here is that the country moves from one polarity to another--it's natural and healthy. To elect a Republican...ANY Republican, is to reward the R-Party for the last eight years of governance. Those who believe they've done a good job will vote that way, as is their right and responsibility. The rest of us should vote for the Democrats. Maybe Nader. The President has long, long coattails, and will pull a lot of other officials along with him. Even if McCain is the best candidate, he hasn't specifically repudiated Bush, hasn't drawn the clear distinctions that would convince me he wouldn't fall into some of the same mistakes in the future. I mean--those of you who agree with the Iraq War, please understand that SPECIFICALLY what I would want is someone who would NOT have gone in. I want a President who sees the world as I do, and is at least as smart as I am.

#

Fox News. What a bunch of cowards. Now that it seems increasingly certain that the Right will lose big, you can feel Fox edging back toward the center. Rush Limbaugh was LIVID this morning that Fox didn't lie and say McCain knocked it out of the park. He came VERY close to saying that Fox should have lied. Wow.

#

I talk about visualizing the three triangles every morning and night. Body (appearance, energy, function), Mind (Career--earning the amount I've set for myself per day), and Spirit (my relationship with my sister Joyce, Jason, Nicki, and Tananarive. Visualize myself sitting in a semi-circle with them, and addressing each relationship in turn.) A couple of days back, I had a VERY hard time lining up the three triangles so I could "look right down the middle". Now, they're starting to line up. Cool. My take on this is that I'm getting more relaxed with the Hannibal project. We'll be recording the voices next week. That's the "Mind" aspect: exercising skills and opening doors. "Body" is going great. Using Jeff Martone's H2H circuits, the Five Tibetans, yoga, and martial arts...I'm learning how to balance them so that I don't overtrain. I'll know more about how my body is functioning after the BKF workout tomorrow night. And Spirit? Most of my family stuff is going great, and my heart is happy.

#

Saturday, Nicki and I will drive up to Paso Robles to watch her mom Toni in a dramatic reading. Looking forward to both the drive and the chance to hang out with the Youngs--an absolutely fabulous family. Love them to pieces, really. And Toni's brother Pat is one of my favorite guys in the world. He's a terrific family guy, martial artist, and a seriously hard-working, decent, good man. Should be fun.

War, Inc.

ﾠ

Revamped my office for efficiency over the weekend. Still need a really good office light, but things are looking better.

##

I figure McCain will either go after Obama hard--which Barack definitely goaded him into, daring him to bring up William Ayers, or he will back off and be measured and polite. Personally, I hope he does the second--it will be better for him. This smells like a big, juicy ego trap set for McCain, who is known to have a temper (which probably explains why he wouldn't meet Obama's eyes...although the question of why Obama and not any of McCain's primary opponents triggered this response is a multiple-choice test left to the interested reader.)

ﾠ

But he's crushed himself with independents, who view the choice of Sarah Palin to be pretty much naked political maneuvering. I know that if Obama had chosen someone like her as VP, I would have lost faith in his judgement. I feel sorry for the Republicans trying to defend her. I think that a year from now, they'll be able to laugh and admit they were appalled. Now, of course, they have to fight like hell. I put no stock in anything any of them say about Palin until after the election. And I'm sure that, given the same situation, just as many Dems would have held their noses and pretended to be happy. One of the reasons I don't like this game.

#

The first chunk of my work on the Hannibal series is done--turned in three scripts. T and/or I wrote two of 'em, and a good guy named Stan Berkowitz wrote the other. Today I have to get two of those scripts ready to be recorded on Monday. After that I have to take my last whack at SHADOW VALLEY--I've got a manuscript back. And after that...well, at the end of the month I'm taking ten days off, going to Florida for the election (I will have voted by mail) and then off to Antigua for a writing conference and vacation with T. Jason will be with his gramma and grandpa. A little privacy? Priceless.

#

First thing at night, first thing waking in the morning, I visualize a triangle representing my goals in all three arenas. Some days its easy to visualize, some days its murder. It was murder this morning. Ah, well...job stress, maybe.

#

Saw John Cusack's "War, Inc." yesterday. He actually plays the same hit-man he played in "Gross Pointe Blank" set in a near-future scenario of a "Rollerball" corporate world. He's apparently been keeping up his kick-boxing: there is a VERY sweet 1-against-5 fight scene, and clearly, it's actually Cusack doing most of it. Funny, oddly sweet, not entirely successful but a great time. I'd give "War, Inc." a "B".