TRUMBO ~ The Film

This film about Dalton Trumbo, one of the "Hollywood Ten" promises to be an important documentary. Trumbo was a very talented screenwriter, who was blacklisted by Hollywood due to his political beliefs. His, and many people's, lives were ruined, at least financially, if not more, by the tacts of the McCarthy era. It's too bad that this subject is not publicized more, and that the present generation has never even heard about the horrors of McCarthyism. Communists were demonized, just as people, who are not of Judeo-Christian belief, are demonized today.

Movie Review
Trumbo (2007)NYT Critics' Pick This movie has been designated a Critic's Pick by the film reviewers of The Times.
June 27, 2008
When an Eloquent Voice Was Stilled in Hollywood
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
Published: June 27, 2008

Peter Askin’s stirring documentary “Trumbo” gives you reasons to cheer but also to weep. It makes you lament the decline of the kind of language brandished with Shakespearean eloquence by Dalton Trumbo, the blacklisted Hollywood screenwriter, in his witty, impassioned letters excerpted in the movie.



Some of those letters, collected in the 1999 volume “Additional Dialogue,” are delivered as forceful dramatic soliloquies by a battery of distinguished actors including Joan Allen, Brian Dennehy, Michael Douglas, Paul Giamatti, Nathan Lane, Liam Neeson, David Strathairn, Josh Lucas and Donald Sutherland.



Another cause for lament is the shortness of historical memory in today’s climate of infinite distraction. Why chew on the unhappy events of six decades ago when you can drool over pictures of Brangelina or get lost in the latest video game? Anyway, who cares what happened way back then?



But we should care. If the story of the Hollywood blacklist and the lives it destroyed has been told many times before, it still bears repeating, especially in the post-9/11 climate of fearmongering, of Guantánamo, of flag pins as gauges of patriotism.



“Trumbo,” which Dalton Trumbo’s son, Christopher, adapted from his own 2003 Off Broadway play of the same name, is much richer than its source, which originally starred Nathan Lane as Trumbo. It is a portrait of this notoriously cantankerous and combative writer as a noble champion of free speech who was willing to lose everything to defend his principles.



Beginning in 1950, Trumbo spent 11 months in prison for defying the House Un-American Activities Committee three years earlier by refusing to identify colleagues in the movie business who, like him, had dabbled with Communism. Trumbo joined the American Communist Party in 1943.



Before his blacklisting, Trumbo, who died in 1976 at age 70, was one of the most successful Hollywood screenwriters of the 1940s, with credits that included “Kitty Foyle,” “A Guy Named Joe” and “Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo.” With the blacklist, he became the most famous member of what came to be called the Hollywood Ten: writers and directors who had flirted with Communism during the Depression and World War II, when the Soviet Union was an ally and the horrors of Stalinism were yet to be revealed.



The movie’s clips of the Congressional tribunal in which the elite of Hollywood were publicly interrogated by a sneering kangaroo court are as shocking as ever. After the hearings, producers and studio heads met at the Waldorf-Astoria to draw up the Waldorf Statement, which banned the Hollywood Ten from working in movies; henceforth they were pariahs.



A devastating Trumbo letter read by Mr. Neeson blames the producers more than Congress for the effectiveness of the blacklist, because they could “apply the only lash that really stings — economic reprisal.” Their livelihood denied them, the Hollywood Ten were financially ruined and socially ostracized.



One of the saddest letters (read by Mr. Strathairn) is Trumbo’s outraged protest to a teacher at his daughter Mitzi’s school when Mitzi found herself shunned by her peers after word circulated about her father’s history. The funniest letter (read by Mr. Lane), addressed to Christopher, is a hilarious high-flown disquisition on masturbation, an activity that Trumbo pursued as a youth with terrible guilt and fear of the consequences.



Interwoven among the letters are clips from television interviews with Trumbo, including one in which he calls the verdict “contempt of Congress” a just one because contempt was exactly what he felt. There are also home movies; personal reflections by Christopher and Mitzi; and revealing scenes from postblacklist movies like “Papillon,” “The Sandpiper,” “The Fixer” and “Spartacus” in which Trumbo used his characters as explicit moral and political mouthpieces.



Trumbo emerges as a fervently resolute, highly literate man of principle who, along with the other members of the Hollywood Ten, cited the First Amendment, protecting free speech, and not the Fifth, protecting self-incrimination, as his defense.



After his release from prison, Trumbo and his wife, Cleo, moved with their children to Mexico, where he soon exhausted his reserves. He returned to California, living as anonymously as possible, and resumed screenwriting for low pay, using pseudonyms (13 in all).



Two of those screenplays won Oscars: “The Brave One,” in 1957, for best writing of a motion picture story, was awarded to the fictional Robert Rich and went unclaimed. (Trumbo was finally given his award in 1975.) In 1954 he won in the same category for “Roman Holiday,” under the name of a friend, the British screenwriter Ian McLellan Hunter, who had fronted for him. The Oscar was presented posthumously to Cleo Trumbo in 1993.



In 1960 Trumbo finally received screen credit for his work again when Kirk Douglas, the star and a producer of “Spartacus,” and Otto Preminger, the director of “Exodus,” overrode the blacklist. The documentary’s biggest lapse is its failure to show exactly how they did it and the risks they took.



If only the movers and shakers of Hollywood 13 years earlier had stood together like the slaves in “Spartacus” and all claimed to have been Communists, the blacklist might have been averted. But they didn’t. Fear can make people instant cowards and informers. Resisting it may be the ultimate test of character.



Today few would dispute Trumbo’s assessment of that very dark period: “The blacklist was a time of evil, and no one who survived it on either side came through untouched by evil.”



TRUMBO

THIS IS CHARLEY

This is a touching video about a wonderful, somewhat disabled cat, who has a very loving family. I want to cry for joy every time I watch it.

BIG BROWN'S REAL VICTORY

Maybe Big Brown's real victory will be getting stables to STOP drug abuse in the racing industry, not that I think they're doing it for humane reasons, but it is a step in the right direction.

Big Brown’s Owners Say Stable Will Go Steroid Free


By JOE DRAPE
Published: June 23, 2008
The owners of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown, saying they want to lead the way to the elimination of performance-enhancing drugs in horse racing, announced Sunday that they would immediately begin withdrawing all steroids and any unnecessary medications from their horses.

Michael Iavarone, a co-president of International Equine Acquisitions Holdings, said that the more than 50 horses owned by his stable would be drug free by Oct. 1, and that he would pay for tests to be administered by state or track veterinarians before and after each of their races to prove it.

“I know Big Brown or any of our horses do not need this stuff to win,” he said. “I’m not worried about an uneven playing field, either. The cost of the drug tests are a small price to pay for the integrity of the sport. I’m urging other owners to join us, and let’s turn the game around.”

Iavarone said Big Brown’s trainer, Rick Dutrow, backed the self-imposed ban on all medications perceived to be performance-enhancing. The stable’s horses will run on the legal antibleeding medication Lasix when necessary, however.

It was Dutrow who put steroids and performance-enhancing drugs front and center during Big Brown’s failed run for the Triple Crown this spring when he acknowledged that Big Brown had been receiving steroid injections in the months before the Derby. Dutrow later said that Big Brown had last received the drug on April 15.

Big Brown’s owners, known as I.E.A.H., also came under scrutiny when they said that they intended to create a $100 million horse fund that would operate like a hedge fund, then struck a deal to sell Big Brown’s breeding rights for about $60 million.

Last Thursday, a Congressional subcommittee lambasted the sport for lax drug policies, faulty breeding and an emphasis on greed over transparency in a hearing titled “Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: The State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse.”

One member after another told witnesses, who included owners, breeders and veterinarians, that if they did not clean up their sport, Congress would reopen the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, which provided the legal basis for wagering on horse races across state lines. Last year, such wagering accounted for 90 percent of the $15 billion wagered on thoroughbred races.

“I was moved by the hearing and I saw one witness after another say they wanted zero tolerance on drugs,” Iavarone said. “Someone has to take the first step. We want other owners to join us immediately. Racing can’t wait for state laws or house rules or Congress. What we have to get this done is the integrity of the people involved in the sport.”

I.E.A.H. has had some notable success on the racetrack in its few years of existence. So far in 2008, I.E.A.H. horses have won more than $5.7 million in purses and won at a 23 percent clip. They have also captured prestigious races in Dubai, where the rules against drug use are the most stringent in the world. In fact, Dutrow, in written testimony submitted to the subcommittee, cited his horses’ victories in two $1 million races there as evidence that his stable could thrive in a drug-free environment.

It was the on-track euthanization of the filly Eight Belles after she finished second in the Derby, and Dutrow’s admission that he injected Big Brown with the anabolic steroid Winstrol, that have fueled the Congressional and public scrutiny of horse racing.

Before the Belmont Stakes, Dutrow said he had taken Big Brown off Winstrol, last administering it in mid-April. When Big Brown was eased at the far turn and loped home in last place, his performance fueled speculation that the colt’s previous unbeaten record had been the result of drug use.

Beyond damaging Big Brown’s reputation, the stunning loss in the Belmont cost I.E.A.H. at least $50 million in the breeding shed and in future marketing deals, Iavarone said.

If Big Brown, a bay colt, never raced again, he might attract $40,000 to $75,000 for a breeding session versus the $100,000 to $200,000 he would have earned as a nobly defeated Triple Crown challenger or the 12th horse to sweep the series.

Iavarone said he was going to ask racetracks and Daily Racing Form to print in their programs that horses owned by I.E.A.H., and any owner who adopts the policy, be listed as drug free.

Iavarone also said that if any of his horses failed the drug test that I.E.A.H. intends to pay for, the company would return the purse money.

More Articles in Sports »Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times.
Ads by Google what's this?

Romeo and Juliet by Prokofiev

This ballet by Kenneth MacMillan is one of the most stirring, romantic pieces of theatre I've ever seen.

Eva in Hungary

Eva writes that she and Wes are happy, and doing fine. She sent some pictures of herself with her father and a niece (I guess). Her father is picking cherries from the tree he had planted. They look delish.

La Sylphide

This is a "white ballet" (Swan Lake, Giselle, Les Sylphide, etc.) and has the same ephemeral beauty that most "white ballets" share.

`La Sylphide' revisits roots of ballet
Sunday, June 08, 2008
BY BANNON T. BACKHUS

KALAMAZOO -- Next weekend, the Farrell Ballet Theatre will perform ``La Sylphide,'' one of the most renowned and influential ballets of all time.

``La Sylphide'' tells the tale of a soon-to-be-married man's obsession with a sylphide -- a spirit of the air -- and the ultimate price he pays for his relentless pursuit of her.

``It's been the most challenging ballet we've ever tackled,'' said Sher Marie Farrell, founder and artistic director of the Farrell Ballet Theatre. ``But that's precisely why we did it.''

Farrell and the rest of her company have been preparing since January for their production, which involves using about 50 costumes -- each custom-made -- and will feature two male dancers from the Grand Rapids Ballet Company.

``La Sylphide'' is largely responsible for creating the look and feel of what many associate with ballet, and the historical significance of the work is one of its aspects that appealed to Farrell.

``It goes back to the roots of ballet,'' she said. ``And for me to be able to delve into that part of dance history is something I found to be very exciting.''

The excitement also extends to the dancers.

``It's just a beautiful ballet,'' said Amy Osment, who will perform the role of La Sylphide. ``I'm more of an emotional person, and this ballet really allows me to feel my part and really get into my character, and that makes performing in it very joyful for me.''

``Everybody has made huge leaps artistically and technically,'' she said. ``It's been great in pulling us together as a strong company.''

Also exciting to the dancers is the chance to share ``La Sylphide'' with audiences.

``We really want the community to come and see this,'' said Heather Baker Root, who will perform the role of a sister sylphide. ``This is something that people don't get to experience a lot of in our very isolated, technology-driven society, where you can sit at home and have a virtual life.''

Root feels that ``La Sylphide'' offers something for everyone.

``This ballet expresses the universal desire to reach out for a dream, and I think everyone can relate to that,'' she said.

Ballet

``La Sylphide'' -- Presented by Farrell Ballet Theatre

Previous | 1 | 2




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

Maya Plisetskaya in Swan Lake

This is still the best Odile I've seen. Even without the 32 fouettes. The quality of the dance is exceptional.

ELECTION

From the New York Times ~ June 6, 2008



VOTES BY NUMBERS


By NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON
Published: June 6, 2008
IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.


This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii.

That remarkable success left me wondering what result this method would give if I applied it to the 2008 presidential race. So I examined the past six weeks of polls, taken in 19 important states, that separately pitted Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain. The polls were compiled by realclearpolitics.com and include states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

I followed the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley: in states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie.

In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. Kerry’s states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.

In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clinton’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.

In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.

In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does.

Poll results can shift, as Mrs. Clinton learned over the past year. The conventions held by both parties usually give candidates a bounce in the polls. Heavy campaigning in close states can swing the sentiments of undecided people. And political gaffes can turn voters away from one candidate and toward another. But these effects would show up monthly in the polls and be duly tracked by this method. The important point is that right now, Mrs. Clinton is ahead of Mr. McCain, and Mr. Obama is behind him.

Two questions arise in the face of this result. Whom should the Republican candidate prefer to run against to maximize his party’s chances of retaining the White House? And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?

The median method has gotten us this far. The political analysts need to take it from here.


Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and the author of “Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries,” is the host of “Nova scienceNOW