Tony Klinger

In my other blog at http://bcreativelimited.blogspot.com/ I wrote yesterday about the politics behind the film W and other films like it, particularly from this film’s director, Oliver Stone.

At a time when America is limping towards the newly elected President Elect Obama you would think it was a potentially great time for a gifted director to make the definitive film about his predecessor, but this is neither that film nor that director.

This film is the totally biased political hate message from Oliver Stone to all those he considers neo Conservative.

“W” takes viewers through Bush’s sometimes bizarre but always busy life — his many apparent trials and tribulations as he struggled to come out from the giant shadow cast by his ultra successful and high achieving family, particularly his father, his namesake, the first President George Bush who had been gifted at everything he touched, being a heroic Second World War pilot, successful in business, and in politics and as head of the CIA. It was a great deal to live up to and George W found it a challenge he couldn’t live up to for the first part of his life.

The film shows this is in colorful detail and Josh Brolin is especially good at portraying this part of George W’s life. The story flashes back and forth in time as we also see George W as President dealing with the Iraq war as it unfolds. It is this aspect of the story that appears politically loaded which comes across in strange ways. Some of the scenes between the major players in the inner circles of the US government portray everyone as neo conservative fanatics, weak willed or weak minded. This is when the film sinks into caricature rather than any kind of attempt at accuracy.

The film is at its best, and that really isn’t great, when it demonstrates how George W found both his wife and his faith, and of course the critical days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

Leading the all-star cast is Josh Brolin (”No Country For Old Men”, “American Gangster”) as the eponymous character who is joined by James Cromwell (”The Queen”) as George H.W. Bush. He always gives a good performance, and this is no exception, but he is let down by the screenplay by Stanley Weisser that calls for us to accept, at its centre, an implausible relationship between the two Bush men. In fact with the screenplay being so implausible, unfunny and wooden we are compelled to examine the cause for this fault. It is the filmmakers over heated desire to assassinate the character of George W never mind any facts that might hinder this aim.

It’s hard not to parody Stone’s version of super pumped up right-wingers but experience tells us not to attempt to parody a parody. It’s a pity that Stone had never learned this lesson. With these faults at the core of the film it can never work on a human level, who is there to care about in this film, in fact who is real enough to warrant our attention for good or ill?

Elizabeth Banks (”The 40 year Old Virgin”, “Meet Dave”) is fine as Laura Bush, but, and I am sure this is no accident; she is much portrayed as a Stepford Wife. Ellen Burstyn (”Requiem for a Dream”) is excellently cast as Barbara Bush. Toby Jones (”Infamous”, “Frost/Nixon”) is a very convincing Karl Rove, but I suspect this is more to do with the fact that he’s a terrific actor than anything about the accuracy of the portrayal.

Thandie Newton (”Crash”, “RocknRolla”) is totally unconvincing as Condoleezza Rice because she portrays her as some kind of Bush pet idiot, and that simply is not plausible. In fact, any awards that Thandie was given for Crash should now be taken back for the awful acting and accent she gives us here.

Ioan Gruffud (”Fantastic Four”) only has one sequence as Tony Blair and demonstrates none of the charm or charisma that clearly was one of the reasons he was so highly regarded by the non-British leaders he encountered.

The supporting cast includes some wonderful actors such as Richard Dreyfuss who are all fine but almost all of them seem to be taking part in an attempt to demonstrate just how stupid the team around Bush is rather than either entertain us or simply tell us an engaging story.

All of the technical work is of the usually excellent standard we take for granted and I am glad to note that the ageing of the cast as the story unfolds is handled better than it sometimes is. The problems here come from the sometimes cartoon characters in the script by and the direction of Oliver Stone. They are both so determined to lampoon the President they forgot he is a real man who was elected and re-elected. If your film says he is such an idiot what does that say for the many millions of Americans who voted for him?

As always when I write something political about a left leaning artist such as Oliver Stone, as I did yesterday, that questions the politically correct accepted truths of the political left, in either the UK or the USA, this brought a deluge of e-mail. Mostly from the right-wingers who agreed with what they perceived to be my fellow traveling credentials. There was also the odd criticism of me, from the left, castigating me for my being right wing. I am, I hope, much more complex than this, but that is another story.

I respectfully point out that I was criticizing the immorality of the lies used by propagandists for either side of the political equation, I was not expressing favoritism in either direction, just my bias against liars pretending to be seekers of truth in an almost documentary style, when they are, in fact, biased story tellers with a political agenda they are determined to pursue.

Today we remember the millions of our people who gave everything on behalf of us all in the many wars that have been the cruel price of democracy.

Many of our finest have died, almost too many to count, and even more were horribly maimed for the rest of their lives, and this continues today. They suffer for us.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns fell silent to signal the end of the carnage of the First World War, in the year 1918, 90 years ago, but still remembered.

Millions died, and since that terrible war have come other bloody conflicts, including the Second World War, in which more uncountable millions perished.

I am proud, very proud, of the part my countrymen and women played in the wars and conflicts over the last century. My country might not always have been right, but we remember the outstanding and unbending bravery of the people who served their country and the protection of liberty so well.

From the battlefields of the Somme to Dieppe to the Falklands, Malaysia and currently Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands of nameless other places our servicemen and women sacrificed their lives so that we could enjoy our future, comfortable in our freedom.

If we are ever to try and avoid the disasters of the future we must learn from the dreadful mistakes of the past. But while we recognize the negative we must never lose sight of the magnificence of the lions that were the best of us. We thank them now and forever.

Today was supposed to be a calm writing day for my book. I have signed the contract which stipulates the first draft will be in their hands electronically by Friday week, and I was feeling pretty confident. That was before the publisher’s editor, with the name of Lucien, wrote me an e-mail asking me for a bunch of stuff he requires for the book shops, NOW!

They want anecdotes, bullet points, cover design ideas, title suggestions and strap lines. Don’t they understand I journeyed up the Mount Olympus of the publishing world to step away from the hurly burly of the rat race, and here I am scuttling around on my little treadmill.

I have no idea what I shall do, but having had a lifetime of meeting and beating schedules, both creative and financial, I shall find a way to say something pithy, and just in time.

It does truncate this column a bit, because it was going to be on the subject of my wall hangings, and now it might sound a bit mad, my reasons for them, if I don’t give you the full background.

Here in the West Wing of Klinger Towers, where I look out over the vast rolling acres of my back lawns I like not to be distracted by the horses or other wildlife, nor do I want anything too beautiful in my capacious study.

So I don’t allow the present Mrs. K in the room, her being just too beautiful, and in reality the lawns are not too big, and the room is quite cosy and tight. Best described in bijou descriptions as intimate. In fact, once you’re in here you need to keep trim or you won’t be able to make the turn to get out.

On my walls are a selection of pictures, posters and awards that either I or my late father won. Happily we did win quite a few, and its great when one catches your eye and sparks a happy memory. It inspires me, the knowledge that we can achieve anything we want if we set our mind to it. I guess, in a much bigger way, that’s what Barack Obama feels right now, and all those people who have been treated as something less because of the colour of their skin, the way they talk or look, or their religion. He proves that anyone can do anything.

When I still kept a formal office I had a different set of pictures on those walls. I keep them in storage now. They were to remind me of the films, the people and the deals I should have avoided. In every case the temptation to repeat the same mistakes did recur, and the pictures made sure I was able to resist. I think a wise and successful person is someone with ability, energy and the common sense not to repeat the same mistakes.

Mistake number one would be my taking another office when someone tempts me to do so, and that means those pictures will have to remain in storage!

This is meant as a send up title, but you can bet that there will be readers who don’t get the joke, or simply don’t think its very funny. My publishers suggested that I needed to come up with another title for my book, and a front cover idea, and for suggest read, GET ON WITH IT!

I saw Quantum of Solace, the latest James Bond film that just opened. Of course, you must accept my comments in the context of this film being a smash hit. After all, what do we, the audience know, when the box office numbers are so big, and contradict what we see with our own eyes. But having seen the film I still don’t really know what the title or the story was all about, and quite frankly, don’t care.

The truth is that the latest 007 offering comes up short on its James Bondness.

Where were the unique “Bond” ingredients we all love? For sure we all enjoyed some great Bond type action, and Daniel Craig has added to the thrill quotient with his sublime physicality. The man is a human pinball, I don’t know how he is still in one piece after some of the most dangerous stunts every performed by a leading man on screen.

The women are still beautiful, sexy, charming and available, and no red blooded man would say no in the unlikely eventuality of being alone in a room with such well rounded and alluring girls.

The script, music, photography, costumes, make up and hair are all fine, but none are great, and that’s the case with a lot of the parts making up this whole. They just are not exceptional.

Worst of all the direction is just a bit heavy handed, Marc Forster, is a really good technician, but not a great artist. He doesn’t, this time around, demonstrate a lightness of touch that Bond demands. To capture the hearts and imagination of a wide Bond audience you have to bring some charm to the event, and there is none in this stolid, somewhat stodgy concoction. The film feels long but actually is shorter than many recent Bond movies, and this is a very bad sign.

Daniel Craig is still a fine choice for the role of Bond, but he wasn’t well served by this screenplay or director.

Another fault with the film’s story structure is that it has Judy Dench as M, Bond’s boss, popping up all over the place to confront Bond. I stand at the front of the line of Dench admirers for her acting ability, but it simply made no sense in this story for M to be swanning around all over the world and it resulted in some very poor situations for the film.

I don’t want you to read this thinking that it’s all bad, far from it, the action sequences are electrifying in parts, and dizzying in others. It also seems as if Bond has cornered the market in climbing up and down buildings without the need for stairs, and this alone is probably worth the price of admission for younger parts of the audience. The car chase sequence is amazing, but you do find yourself thinking of other films like this which are out there these days, and cover the same kind of territory. Most clearly the rival for this market is now the team making the Bourne film franchise. It would be a very good idea for the Bond people to go back to their own roots before they allow Bond to become just another action flick series that will soon die from a lack of warmth at its human core.

Bond has become predictable, a bit too worthy and dark. It would be wonderful if someone reminded the cast to smile.

Now about that title…I know, I’ll write a list.

I was sent this Q & A by a friend from South Africa (thanks John) and I wanted to share it with you. It sums up banking, then and now.

First published in British magazine “Punch” on April 3,  1957:

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in  references to reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.
Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.
Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.
Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.
Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.
Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.
Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the  banks.
Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.
Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.
Q: But you’ve just said it! If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable  to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to  someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s  the same $100 isn’t it?
A: Yes, but….
Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any  money at all?
A: Theoretically……
Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they get  their Reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.
Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest. Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their  profit.
Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that………
Q: When I lend them my $100 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.
Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.
Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.
Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again! If I hadn’t wanted to  draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.
Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be  glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.
Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.
Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have some other customers money.
Q: But suppose he wants his too….and they’ve already let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.
Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A: I wouldn’t say that.
Q: Naturally. Well, if there’s nothing else you think you can tell me….?
A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account!
Q: Just one last question.
A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn’t I do better to go off and open up a bank?