Love Lessons brought to you by Taxi Driver

By Hayley Dyer

Red flags. They pop up in every relationship – usually quite early on, like when you’re minding your own business at work, wearing a classic Diane von Furstenberg wrap-dress, and in walks a nicely dressed man who is intent to woo you. Now, Betsy, think about it… what kind of man walks in off the street and says “Hey! I saw you from my cab and thought that you were hot and would you like to go to dinner? I won’t take ‘no’ for an answer.” Betsy, a weirdo does shit like that. I know you’re slightly scared and slightly charmed, but seriously, you should listen to your Wellesley-groomed instincts and just say no to the guy.

When he takes you on your first official date, he’ll be wearing the same outfit he wore the day you met him. Betsy, that’s strange! He doesn’t own a different jacket? You show up wearing Hermès and cashmere, and he’s wearing the same damn coat. His big red jacket is a big red flag.

He will take you to an adult theater in a seedy part of town and you’ll let him know that you’re uncomfortable (AS YOU SHOULD!) but you’ll still go in because you kind of like him and think he’s charming and he gave you a Kris Kristofferson record(!) and you are hopeful that this is just a misstep in what will be a very successful relationship. Betsy, unfortunately the dude doesn’t get social norms and what you see is what you get! GET OUT OF THERE! And Betsy, you finally do jump up and leave the theater – but Betsy, if you had just paid attention to the previous flags, you would have saved yourself some time and embarrassment. Kudos to you for saying “Boy Bye!”

A few months later you will hear that he’s been in a vicious shoot out with a pimp and thug-lord. “Wow, I hope he’s doing okay,” you will think. “Wow, he’s so brave!” In all actuality, he’s a crazy dude who is certifiably INSANE and you should forget you ever knew him or that he ever said anything sweet to you at all. FORGET IT, GIRL!

Photo credit: servingcinema.com

After a few weeks of over-thinking about him, you will have changed your mind about everything you have ever thought about him. “Oh he was sweet!” “He’s not that bad!” “He may have made me watch porn in a theater on our first date, but wow, he saved a child-prostitute and that kind of cancels out all the bad!” Betsy! Get a grip!

Even though you’ve seen the red flags, you’ll ignore them and seek him out. One sticky New York night, you’ll crawl into his cab like none of the crazy ever happened. Oh Betsy, you’re just asking for trouble! You’ve decided that the pursuit of love is more important than listening to your very knowledgeable, rational brain.

It’s tough, but ladies, I urge you to take stock of the red flags in your life. Recognize the signs and try to stay strong – leave the crazies and insomniacs to clean the back seats of their cabs while you strut off into the sunset.

What Happened with Suicide Squad?

By Daniel Fox | @danielfox85

I’m writing this about 20 minutes after the final credits rolled on my viewing of David Ayer’s Suicide Squad, the Warner Brothers and DC Comics summer tent-pole centered around a group of villains who are coerced to work together for the benefit of the government.  I needed to write this as soon as I could, because to put it frankly, I’m pissed.  I’m really pissed.  If I was a cartoon character, my face would be tomato red with steam coming out of my ears.  Suicide Squad might be the biggest mess of a movie that I’ve ever seen, a poorly constructed film from top to bottom.  There isn’t one aspect of this movie that I couldn’t criticize.  I think I’m so upset because the potential for this film was sky high.  You’re getting Harley Quinn on-screen for the first time ever, a Jared Leto version of The Joker, David Ayer writing and fresh off directing two great films in End of Watch and Fury, and Will Smith seemingly accepting an ensemble role.  Those aspects combined with really great trailers set my expectations high.  After reading the overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics I went in with lowered but reasonable expectations, solely thinking that this was another critical attack on a DC Comics movie and that it couldn’t really be that bad.

Throughout the film, characters ridicule one another for their lack of guts or heart, often referring to each other with certain profanity centered around the male/female anatomy.  It’s ironic because I feel like that derision should’ve been pointed at the movie as a whole, because this movie had no heart, no guts, and no soul.  It feels as if the people at Warner Brothers had a really good idea (and it really is a good idea) and ended up rushing along a product without ever really giving it time to develop.  The result is a plotless mess, poor character development, and zero emotional connection.  When you’re playing around with the antihero trope in comic book films, the movie is no good unless the audience can find some redemptive quality for the antihero.  We need a reason to root for them, to believe that in their heart they want to do the right thing.  Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool do this very successfully; the former through the characters’ search for friendship and acceptance, the latter through the title character’s drive to do anything to get back to the woman he loves.  Suicide Squad knows it must do this, otherwise we are just watching bad people doing evil things and that’s not what comic book films are about.  Its main problem is it simply fails at this miserably, and when it finds even a little spark of an emotional connection it comes almost 90 minutes into the two-hour film.  Hey Deadshot, you really want to be a positive influence in your daughter’s life?  Maybe give up that whole killing people for money thing and be a dad.  Harley Quinn, you really want love?  Maybe falling for the psycho clown isn’t the best choice.  Hey Rick Flag, if you love your girl so much, maybe convince her not to turn into an uncontrollable witch. What the hell did Captain Boomerang or Killer Croc even bring to the table?  I think we saw Katana cry for her lost husband for about two seconds, that was nice.

Photo Credit: suicidesquad.com

The only redemption, if found, is in a nice five-minute scene at the beginning of the final act when all the characters take a break to enjoy a quick drink in the bar.  Through this we finally get some nice and real conversation between characters, and I felt a tiny little tug on my heart strings.  Easily the best part of the film is Jay Hernandez’s character arc for El Diablo.  When he tells the story of how he caused his own family’s demise because of this ability he was born with was pretty moving.  You really felt bad for him, and the CGI effect of the dancing flame was pretty awesome.  You finally understand his pacifistic stands throughout the first couple acts of the film, but by the time we finally get that connection it’s way too late.

Really quick thought on Jared Leto’s take on The Joker.  I want to cut him some slack because coming after Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning turn was almost an impossible task.  Also, he’s barely in the movie; if you have seen the trailers then you’ve pretty much seen all of his scenes.  His take was definitely more of the psycho serial killer Joker, which hasn’t really been done before on-screen.  So, all in all, I think I would definitely be interested in a Batman movie starring Affleck, Leto, and Robbie if they could get the right script and director.

So what could have been done differently?  Get rid of the entire second act, it was absolutely useless.  Change the main villain to the Joker and get rid of Enchantress completely, as that creates conflict with Harley Quinn having to choose between her life and her love.  Move the bar scene to the first hour instead of the second hour.  Those are just some of the choices that could’ve possibly salvaged this trash of a movie.  For now, it’s safe to say that Suicide Squad is a complete failure.  However, given that the film just smashed the August box office record despite horrible reviews, we should be getting a sequel in 3-4 years.  Hopefully that sequel can take the quality concept behind Suicide Squad and make something amazing.

Picture Perfect or Window Dressing

RELATIONSHIPS IN A SOCIALLY NETWORKED AND CELEBRITY CULTURE OBSESSED SOCIETY

By Donna Arp Weitzman | Author of Cinderella has Cellulite and Other Musings of a Last Wife

Is it true that no level of stature can assure immunity to the problems of life?

Often dubbed America's first couples of Billboard’s Hot 100 chart, alt-rockers Gwen and Gavin, country music's Miranda and Blake, and hip hop stars Bey and Jay all have presented Facebook perfection.  Comforting their adoring fans with million-dollar smiles, luxury cars, and merger mania, America’s first’s flaunted spousal fame. Their televised harmonious duets personified a single symmetry, convincing little Cinderella’s to pay attention when Michael Jackson advised Paul McCartney to "keep dreaming."  Or to replay Barbra belting out, "Someday My Prince will come."

Should we blame these American pop music power players or hold a grudge with Miss Piggy for cutting Kermit's "ties that bind?"  How dare our society stoop so low that we allow a "white trash" porker to declare "love is dead!"

Have Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram forced the notion of picture-perfect unions?

Photo Credit: Getty Images

With our 24/7 lives presented in Technicolor, displaying our very best smiles, flaws are no longer permitted. More Facebook followers demand more fictionalized fairy tales.  There is no longer a place for crooked teeth. Perhaps meeting people online, sleeping with our newfound friend on the first date, and falling too fast exacerbates quick splits. Is society embracing the perfect couple because we embrace love too much, or are we simply embracing the idea of love?

Like married couples at large, these larger-than-life lovers are possibly drawn so close to each other that they start to see themselves in the others face. The theory is that a married couple begins to look alike. However, in the world of 21st century window dressing, it is easy to redecorate.  Window sills left open too long begin to rust.

But, pretty pictures like pretty windows often hide what’s inside.  Do idolized couples offer little to prepare us for life's complications?  Coached, counseled, stylized couples injure our psyches and invade our desires. Is watching celebrity weddings breathlessly as each star declares eternal faithfulness setting the stage for any lapse to be a collapse? Perhaps Kim and Kanye should revise a postnuptial agreement stating, "we'll only promise to do the best we can."

As fickle fans, we deserve better leadership in love. Tired, beleaguered Dr. Phil attempts to prepare us often touting to be married is to be in flux.  Feelings change, moods change, and lives change. Love leadership might be effective by celebrating each other's shortcomings; we would have no surprise by Bennifer’s demise. In the new world of doing the best we can, there'd be no more “nannygates”.  We'd easily forgive our mate peeing in the toilet while we brush our teeth.

Until we accept that there are likely few halcyon days in a duet, I dare say we'll continue to want the right thing to happen.  Our emotions desire the beautiful people to win.  Underneath, we have little faith to believe it to be true, but we still want it.  Sleeping Beauty does not divorce her Prince!

Lovers need leaders, and it appears the only visibly perfect union left lives in a big White House.

But, if Cinderella truly does have cellulite, and Miss Piggy is a demanding diva, can it be long until we see frayed edges on America’s first couple?  Will Michelle declare Barack as difficult?  Will President Obama chastise his missus for morning breath? The perfect circle enveloping Mr. and Mrs. O might become a little lopsided with an impending tear?

As Americans, let's not only pray for our nation but let's pray for our President to consciously couple. However, if there are clouds in their coffee, perhaps Michelle and Barack should prepare us by putting it out there.  Have a big-ole fight in front of us all; scream, kick, slam a few gilded doors, and for God's sake, put it all on YouTube!

Café Society – Summer Blockbuster Review

By Collin Lotter | @CLotter64

That's right, in the midst of huge juggernaut summer blockbusters such as Star Trek Beyond, Jason Bourne, Ghostbusters, and The Legend of Tarzan, the movie I wanted to review the most was the new Woody Allen enterprise Café Society!  One thing I really appreciate about Woody Allen in the twilight of his career is that with each passing summer, despite the recycled popcorn blockbusters that cloud our movie calendars, we usually get a one-weekend firewall of originality and storytelling of the purest form via his movies. Before we dive into his latest effort with Café Society, let us ask the question we are all thinking… How does he do it?? It’s mind-boggling that a man at the mere age of 80 can write and direct his own movies, producing hit after hit routinely. It is seriously like clockwork, down to a formulated science, that a man like Woody Allen can take a new ensemble cast, setting, story and direction and have it ready for the masses to enjoy every calendar year. There is no question that Woody has his loyal sycophants and his lightning rod critics, due to off camera personal life choices, but no one can deny the effectiveness as a director and the likeability of his movies for every generation. If you analyze his filmography any director would kill to have a slew of hits such as Blue Jasmine (for which Cate Blanchett won the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2014), Magic in the Moonlight, To Rome with Love, Midnight in Paris, Whatever Works, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona. This run of films, accomplished in only the last eight years, is incredibly impressive.

Photo Credit: screencrush.com

With all this being said, and considering the pedigree stated above, I was a little apprehensive going in to see Café Society. The reviews have been solid, but not overwhelmingly great. Also a confession; I am not a huge fan of Jesse Eisenberg or Kristen Stewart, nor do I really gravitate towards Blake Lively movies, and I feel a little jaded toward 1930s/1940s Old Hollywood movies after Hail, Caesar! became my least favorite Coen brothers movie in ages. Unless Steve Carell had another Foxcatcher performance in him, I was nervous that this movie would not meet even minimal expectations. However, after walking out of the theater, I felt satisfied and fulfilled with another solid Woody Allen movie. Let me state it definitely did not blow me away, and it’s no Blue Jasmine, Vicky Cristina Barcelona or Midnight in Paris (all recent hits for Allen), but Café Society really is an enjoyable watch; it’s funny, fast-paced and well-performed. The backdrops of Old Hollywood and Manhattan are electric considering the budget, and the satire in the film is really enjoyable.

Café Society is certainly a period drama depicting the glamorous life of a Hollywood agent in the ‘30s, but it's also a family drama portraying the life of a Jewish family doing their damnedest to make it in the Bronx.  The story, set in the 1930s, follows a young Bronx native named Bobby (Eisenberg), who moves to Hollywood to work for his uncle, Phil Stern (Carell), a film mogul and agent to the stars. Stern's secretary, Vonnie (Stewart), agrees to show Bobby around town and get him adjusted to the glamorous life as he starts networking with the who's who of tinsel town. Bobby begins to develop feelings for Vonnie who is actually already in a secretive and forbidden relationship. After all three characters make some life-altering decisions Bobby is tempted by the idea of either chasing Vonnie in Hollywood or returning to New York where he could find a life as a family man, running a high society nightclub he inherited from his gangster brother (Corey Stoll).

The truth about this movie, after digesting it, is it really does play like any other Woody Allen movie. Café Society is not groundbreaking by any measure and may not have a huge foothold during the awards season stretch early next year. However, this feels like a semi-passion piece that Allen wanted to make, serving almost as an indirect love letter to the Hollywood that he grew up idolizing.  All the name-dropping of the major “A-list” movie stars in this film prompts the thought that this was the glitz and glamour crowd that he wanted to rub elbows with as an impressionable kid growing up in the blue-collar part of New York City. No one can really fault him for giving us a peek into what motivated him at an early age and his visions of what might be if he pursued a career in the motion picture business. Here we stand, nearly 50 years of what has been an incredible career, and we are most pleased that he did make that decision to give Hollywood a try.

Guns N’ Roses Reunited – A Review of the 2016 “Not in this Lifetime Tour”

By Sami Al-Awadi

I had to get tickets once I first heard about the potential and possibility of a once in a lifetime event for me. It was the concert I’d waited my whole life for. Axl, Slash, and Duff together again on one stage playing through the Guns N’ Roses catalog. By the time I was old enough to even go to concerts, the seminal ‘80s hard rock combo was already a memory, and I had said for decades I would spend whatever it took to see them if and when the time came.

Two weeks ago, Sunday night, the time had come. At Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, following a stirring warm-up from Alice in Chains, “Guns” took the stage for what would be a spirited, nearly three-hour travelogue through their well-known archive of slammers, plus some deeper delves into their massive catalog, as well as a few inspired surprises.

Though the buzz in the air was extremely noticeable and people were jacked beyond belief and drunk out of their minds to see the band finally take the stage again in their final headlining tour (most likely), the extreme excitement was brought down by a venue not really apt to handle a major rock show. Confession; as a resident of New York City, I rarely make it down to Philadelphia (though it's a short train ride) and this was my first experience in Lincoln Financial Field (I’m a Cowboys fan, not an Eagles fan), but this stadium really was meant for football and not a hard rock show. Unless you were in the pit or maybe the first 20 rows on the floor of the Guns N’ Roses concert — a very, very small percentage of the audience that the massive stadium held — your eyes were on the big video screens the whole night. Or they were on your phone that was pointed at the big video screens. Or your view of the stage was obstructed by a sea of people in front of you with their glowing phones pointed at the big video screens. Also, it’s not like the sound was great (it was downright awful in some sections), so suddenly the idea of paying $20 or $30 or even $50 for a simulcast concert in a movie theater doesn’t seem like such a terrible idea, assuming there’s beer.

Photo Credit: gunsnroses.com

However, there was no denying that the band still has a huge stage presence and the fans are loyal as hell to hear their favorite anthems.  My personal preference was to hear strictly hits from the incredible debut studio album Appetite for Destruction, GnR’s most successful CD to date. Although, I will admit after initially cringing when Axl proclaimed they were going to play a couple songs from his version of the band’s latest release Chinese Democracy, I actually enjoyed the two singles they played off that record. The anthology of great songs and albums are well represented and the rabid fan base was well compensated hearing every great song including “Welcome to the Jungle”, “Paradise City”, “November Rain”, and “Sweet Child O’ Mine”.

One thing was clear even from a young-minded fan (in respect to the band’s heyday) about the band’s personnel, and that was the idea that Axl has not aged as well as Slash. Axl needed to take a lot of breathers and pauses during the three-hour marathon. His effort was commendable, but nature has obviously taken its course with him and the constant Mick Jagger-like energy was not apparent. Slash, on the other hand, is still as sharp and effective as ever with his amazing guitar solos/riffs. Slash would often lead off every anticipated hit with an extended intro or a crowd-pleasing outro. The concert featured a quick ten-minute guitar solo that would serve as a mini intermission for the rest of the band and then lead in to the great hit, “Live and Let Die”. The crowd roared in approval and I was no different, because in my short lifetime, few guitarists can hang with Slash and the monster guitar influence he has brought to the 80’s/90’s music scene.

In closing, the band ended with an extended version of the song “Paradise City” that was capped off with a huge fireworks show that culminated over the football stadium. The crowd went nuts, the band seemed grateful, and memories were captured for all on hand. Don’t kid yourself, the following morning on the train back to NYC, I was jamming to the G N’ R catalog on my iPod ready for the work week to begin, still buzzing after the show.  

What Happened to Network Television?

By Daniel Fox | @DanielFox85

Eleven.  That is the number of total Emmy nominations garnered by the major television networks (ABC/NBC/FOX/CBS) within the major categories (Outstanding Drama/Comedy Series, as well as all acting categories drama/comedy) for 2016.  Out of those eleven nominations only two are in dramatic categories, with both nominees in the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series field (Viola Davis for How To Get Away With Murder and Taraji P. Henson for Empire).  The remaining nine are in comedic categories with almost all the nominations being dominated by two shows in Modern Family and black-ish.  Just for some perspective at how legitimately shocking that number eleven is today;  in 2006, a mere decade ago, the number of nominations for major networks in those same categories was thirty-five.  That’s almost a 70% decrease in nominations in just ten years!  That year also happens to be the last time a major network’s television drama (FOX’s 24) won an Emmy for Outstanding Series.   If the major network television shows were a stock, you would be trying to sell like crazy.  However, the big four networks are still the most watched channels, with the highest viewership and ratings (as CBS is bound to tell you during every commercial break).  In fact, out of the fifty highest rated shows of the 2015-16 TV season, all but nine of those shows could be found on the major networks (only one of those top fifty shows is on a premium cable network, I’ll let you guess which show, but here’s a hint… it has dragons).  Why is this the case?  Have we as a society just completely sacrificed quality programming for mindless entertainment?  Maybe this is just frustrating me on a personal level because in Honduras my only access to TV spoken in the English language is via those four major networks (I also get HGTV, so a special shout out to Fixer Upper as you guys save my Tuesday nights).  If I want to watch the latest episode of Mr. Robot, then I have to scour the internet until I find an episode to download (yea I said download, don’t judge, you know you are still using your parent’s Netflix account).  With my internet capability that only takes about two hours.  Anyways, I just want to know why this happened.  Why I’m stuck with ShondaLand instead of LOST?  Why NBC thinks an entire night of Chicago-themed shows is a good idea instead of creating the next The West Wing?  So let’s examine a couple theories together.

Photo Credit: obsev.com

Theory #1- “Artistic Freedom”

This is probably the most popular theory out there, but it’s also the one I probably agree with the least.  The theory basically is that television showrunners prefer to go to a premium cable network like HBO or basic cable programming like FX or AMC, because those networks give them the best avenue to tell the story they want to tell, and more importantly how they want to tell it.  If an auteur feels like the best way to tell their story is by incorporating language, violence, or sexual situations, then those networks are most likely to give them the freedom to do so.  Also, those same networks are mostly recognized as being very hands-off in the creative process.  For example, HBO basically told Nic Pizzolatto to create season two of True Detective however he saw fit; from the scripts, to directors, to casting, all of it was placed in Pizzolatto’s hands without outside interference.  The perception of mainstream networks is that any show is constantly under the watchful eyes of network executives, often with a network executive being exclusively assigned to a series to serve as the overseer during the creative process.  If they feel like something is not going to work, or doesn’t align with what the network wants, they can immediately tattle on the showrunner to the higher-ups.  Personally, I can understand the desire for showrunners not to have outside interference on their projects, but in reality “carte blanche” is rarely handed out in the entertainment industry.  Even when it is, it often turns back disastrous or at least disappointing results.  Artistic freedom has to be earned, I’m fairly certain that most HBO executives were examining Game of Thrones much more closely five years ago than they are for the final two seasons.  I also don’t buy the part of the theory that states that shows need the elements of violence, language, or sexuality/nudity to properly tell their story.  Can those elements help advance a certain plot point?  Yes, but it feels like way too many times those elements are used simply because they can be used.  Like did we really need to see someone naked every twenty minutes in True Blood?  Of course not.  Does The Wire need to drop consistent F-bombs to really communicate the Baltimore Police and drug/gang cultures?  I’ve heard people argue that it makes the shows more realistic, as you would expect to hear that kind of language in real life.  I understand that, but I personally don’t agree that the quality of the show would suffer with the language being slightly dialed back to fit the standards of a network television audience.  I really think Veep would be the most successful comedy on network television if they could cut back on the language.  But again, it’s all about what the showrunners feel like they need in their shows to tell the best version of the story they want to tell.  As long as that’s the case, they will continue to run to the avenues where they can find that freedom.  It’s really only natural.

Theory #2- “Advertising vs. Subscriptions”

This theory is centered on how these networks make the thing that really matter most to them, and that’s not ratings, Emmy awards, or critical acclaim.  It’s money.  Just as a refresher, online streaming services and premium cable channels pay for their programming through subscriptions, while networks (and by extension the basic cable channels that are under their umbrella) pay for their programming through advertising.  The goal of any business is to offer a product that a consumer wants/needs at the most efficient price possible.  So the root of the problem of network television quality is completely evident solely based on who is providing the revenue.  Subscriber networks are making shows for subscribers, they are making shows that they believe people are going to be willing to pay for.  It’s the same principle behind movies, studios want to make a film that they believe is going to bring in the highest profit possible.  Therefore, the HBO’s of the world can focus more on the quality of the show in terms of what they believe anyone is going to be willing to pay money to watch every month.  On the other hand, networks are forced to create a TV schedule that they believe is going to satisfy their primary customers, and no that’s not us sitting at home, it’s the advertisers.  It’s not a stretch to say that big business runs big networks, and that directly influences what we see on our primary channels every night.  Networks want eyeballs, as many eyeballs as possible.  The higher the ratings, the higher prices they can set for their thirty second commercials.  Simple supply and demand, if the demand for that channel/show is very high, that results in a higher price for commercials.  It’s why the Super Bowl is not only the event with the highest commercial prices, it’s also the event that networks pay the most for the right to televise, because they know the incoming advertising revenue is worth the expense.  This is why the big four networks are dominated by shows they know are going to draw the most viewers; sports, reality programs, and serialized/formulaic dramas and comedies.  So to quickly summarize, the President of NBC doesn’t really care about Emmy nominations or the quality of his shows as he’s currently too busy swimming in his Scrooge McDuck styled bank vault full of all the advertising revenue of the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Conclusions

So what do you really think is the cause of the decline of network television programming?  In reality, it really is probably the cause of the two paragraphs above… along with a combination of a million other things.  Maybe TV simply just got really big, as we’ve gone from an era where my mother could only watch a few channels in her home, to where I got to grow up with hundreds of different options.  Who knows?  But I would really like to see networks forgo the almighty dollar and start focusing on the quality of the shows they are putting out there, as opposed to how much money they can gain.  It was frustrating for me to watch a show like Parenthood or Hannibal that were great pieces of art, but struggled to survive on network TV because they couldn’t pull in reality show ratings.  It’s why NBC will never move Mr. Robot from the USA Network (which is owned by NBC Universal) to NBC, even though they easily could make that change overnight.  Because there can be only one ruler of network television, and as long as money talks, it’s going to have the last word.

Politics: Best Drama on Television, or Is It the Best Comedy?

By Donna Arp Weitzman | Author of Cinderella has Cellulite and Other Musings of a Last Wife

One would have to be in the Sahara covered with ant-infested sand not to have been bombarded by the characters at the Republican National Convention this past week, all vying for increased absurdity.  What most dismays many of us is that these later centuries Roman Empire-types actually believe their own bullsh-t!

The politicians' clichés and platitudes ooze like greenish puss from fresh wounds.  Certainly as Americans, we are wounded, and assuredly the Donald picks and prods at our scabs.  Every policeman gunned down stabs our heart, every innocent American mauled or killed injures our psyche, and what heretofore startled us now just disgusts us.

Then, adding insult to our traumatized souls, the politicians preen like newly feathered peacocks, marching to their own self-aggrandizing two-step.  The media begs for lapdog status, hoping we, the pitiful public, will tune in for the show.

It's difficult to imagine that our early public servants wouldn't wince at the theatrics of today's digitalized, media-centric political arena.  Obviously, early America had its John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson, but it is likely that these aristocratic stud horses at least had some policies and platforms that aided our nascent republic.

But, as the playwright, Noël Coward put it, "the show must go on."  And a spectacle it is!  

Photo Credit: nj.com

The big no-no that many Americans are making is simple.  We still believe that politicians should be intelligent, well-informed, articulate, balanced and good-hearted.  I feel ants crawling on my head. Maybe completely burying it is the only way to rid myself of creepy, crawly disconcerting feelings. There is something to say for having our heads buried in the sand!

No, even as discouraged as I am with the plasticity and vacant platforms; the utter lack of substantive policy discussions and the amateurish performances of pseudo-sincere caring, I occasionally plop in front of the television and silently hope for a real leader.  Is there an honest Abe among us?

Has our dearth of leaders become so desperate that at conventions and rallies, it is necessary to have our politicians’ lucky sperms speak? Although, the offspring have proven they can be less boring as they have divergent gene pools from different spouses.  Diversity makes for better character actors.

Thursday night at the RNC was the "capper."  Beauty and brains with Ivanka, followed by the beast, Donald.  Did it live up to the hype?  The opinions of the televised pundits largely depended upon their professed allegiance to either party.

The DNC debacle (hopefully not debauchery) begins next week.  This will likely be a parade of panderers much like pagans to royalty.  Hillary's performance is perfected in every way excepting her yell, which even the best voice coach hasn't tempered.  The lack of voice talent could cost her valuable votes, so she stays in her star trailer and rehearses, low, calm and soothing, much like a mother bear wrapping her cubs in warmth and love.  Try again!

It promises to be another long week.  Are we Americans really this gullible and desperate?  God knows we need leadership.  The giant sucking sound at the White House began decades ago.  There are rumors told by big dog donors spending the evening in the Lincoln bedroom that his ghost has been seen with tears in his eyes.

The drama and comedy of politics is as old as man.  Romans seemed particularly skilled at its theater.....”Et tu, Brute?”  Gone are the days in which American politics elicited awe and wonderment from the public, displayed wonderfully by the critical acclaim of the film The American President and the television series The West Wing.  The arrival of the 24-hour news cycle and more skeptical politically inspired entertainment options such as The Ides of March and House of Cards signify that we are all aware of the highly practiced sham that is the political show.

But, we Americans do love the show.  Here's a couple of playbills:

PLAYBILL 1

The Donald:  The Czar

Melania:  The Empress

Ivanka:  The Royal Daughter----heir apparent, much like Queen Elizabeth after King George

Two Sons----Male Trump bobble heads

Tiffany:  possibly a spare to the heir?

Senator Ted Cruz:  the spoiler----this character has some cojones

Chris (I'm disappointed) Christie

Governor Pence:  Clean Up Crew

PLAYBILL 2

Hillary:  Catherine the Great as Empress

Bill (two roles):  Peter the Great and Grand Duke Peter

Chelsea:  Young Catherine the Great

Monica Lewinsky:  Marta, Peasant Girl and Peter the Great’s Lover

Much like a William Shakespeare performance, this show may be a dreadful tragedy, (take your pick; Hamlet, King Lear, MacBeth) or could turn out to make America laugh again just like Sir William’s comedy, Much Ado About Nothing!

Game of Thrones: Winter is Here and the End is Near

By Logan Cutter | @cuttypants

In a word, the theme of this season’s Game of Thrones was “rebirth”.  Many prominent characters found a renewed existence by filling the void left by past characters that have since been relieved of their roles, usually a result of their brutal murder.  While some characters found rejuvenation by getting back to who they were at the outset of this story, others were simply brought back to life.  Among those who experienced a revival this season, for better or worse, were Jon Snow, Arya Stark, The Mad King (Queen), The Hand of the King (Queen), The King in the North, The King Slayer, The Hound, Theon Greyjoy and Uncle Benjen.

That’s not to say we didn’t lose a ton of characters and experience major carnage throughout the realm as usual.  When the dust finally settled this season we had lost Reek, The Prince of Dorne, The Warden of the North, The Lord of the Iron Islands, Osha, Rickon’s dire-wolf, Bran’s dire-wolf, No One, The Three Eyed Raven, Hodor (coming to a concert venue near you), the Blackfish, the Waif, the Sons of the Harpy, the youngest Stark, Smalljon Umber, the last known giant, the bastard Bolton, Grand Maester Pycelle, Lancel Lannister, The Lord of Highgarden, The Queen Consort, The Knight of Flowers, The High Sparrow, The King of the Andals and The Lord of the Crossing.

Photo Cred: HBO

The North

Fans only had to wait two episodes (and observe a 200-year-old witch’s bed-time ritual) before getting what we were anticipating all GoT off-season, the resurrection of Jon Snow.  We were also treated to our first major victory for the Starks when Sansa and Jon 2.0 triumphed over Ramsay Bolton in “The Battle of the Bastards”, one of the most visually striking battle scenes in television history.  The Starks finally took back their ancestral home and exacted revenge on some of the houses who had grievously wronged them.

Bran’s flashbacks to the Tower of Joy finally revealed the decades-long theory that Jon is not actually Ned’s bastard child, but is in fact the bastard son of his sister.  It is known by a select few in the realm that Lyanna had a love affair with Rhaegar Targaryen (Dany’s deceased older brother) while betrothed to Robert Baratheon.  The exact lineage of Jon was not perfectly spelled out but it was insinuated that Jon is a descendant of Targaryen and Stark blood. 

What does this mean for Jon?  The long term impact is hard to decipher.  He’s technically not the blood of Ned Stark and therefore shouldn’t be the King in the North.  Show creators have hinted at an ancestral lineage conflict between Sansa and Jon throughout season six and this will only add fuel to that fire.  As of now, only Bran seems to know the truth of Jon’s lineage but I’d bet that at least one of the realm’s most crafty deviants knows the truth about Jon and will try to use the information to take him down.

Speaking of things coming down, we can infer from Jon’s farewell to Edd (now acting Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch) that the Wall will crumble next season.  Dialogue is never wasted in Game of Thrones, no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time.  There is too much story to tell and not enough screen time for wasted words.  Usually these conversations subtly foreshadow a future event.  A perfect example occurred earlier this season when Olenna says to Cersei, “You’re surrounded by enemies.  Will you kill them all yourself?”  Harmless conversational hyperbole, right?  Not so much.  Jon’s last words to Edd, “Don’t knock it down while I’m gone”, were not just a lighthearted goodbye between friends.

So far the Starks are the only great house to take the threat beyond the Wall seriously.  That likely doesn’t change next season with all that is going on in the south.  The north will stand alone against the undead army until Dany’s war has ended. 

Photo Cred: HBO

King’s Landing

The power struggle for the throne in King’s Landing culminated in a plotline annihilating blast orchestrated by the show’s new number one villain, and now current Protector of the Realm, Cersei Lannister.  The freshly minted holy alliance between the crown and the faith went up in flames along with The High Sparrow and nearly all of the Tyrell’s.  The opening scene of the season finale was one of the best scenes in show history in regards to tension building and shock value.  The Mad Queen has lost all traces of humanity and black is now the only color in her wardrobe.  Even Jaime, who’s regained his Lannister edge, looks at her sideways after discovering she executed the same exact plot he foiled during the Mad King’s command.

Long may she reign?  No.  After fully embracing the dark side and with Lannister storm troopers in tow, Cersei’s coronation seemed to be her last hurrah.  She’s ruined almost every alliance her father worked so hard to forge.  She’s grossly outnumbered by the forces headed directly for her throne and she’s fresh out of weapons of mass destruction.  Then there’s the prophecy that so far has been completely accurate, which predicts her death at the hands of the “Valonqar” (little brother in High Valyrian).  Not exactly good for longevity.  Who will be the one to choke the life from her?  Jaime, Tyrion?  Both now have cause and each would be a fitting way to end this Queen’s story.  Season seven will be her final act.

Photo Cred: HBO

Essos

Dany escaped her Dothraki captors in style and eliminated their entire leadership structure in one fiery swoop.  In that same swoop, she united and inspired all the Dothraki Khalasars to follow her, multiplying her army exponentially.  After quelling the uprising of the slave masters in Meereen, she parlayed all of the hate and destruction the Lannister’s have spread throughout Westeros into a few new alliances -- Dorne, Highgarden and the Iron Islands.  She’s also acquired the other necessary pieces, loyal advisors and a thousand ships, in readiness for the fight for the Iron Throne.  The parting scene this year was Dany’s massive armada sailing straight for Westeros, fulfilling her vision laid out in the opening episodes of the first season.

Her military force is ginormous and no living army in Westeros can oppose her now that she has half of its great houses rallied to her cause.  She should be able to wrest the throne from the Lannister’s rather quickly through Fire and Blood before turning her gaze toward the north.

Then there’s Arya.  She dropped out of assassin school, spurned the aberrant life that the faceless men laid out for her and whipped The Waif in single combat.  In the end she didn’t choose to be “no one” and once again became Arya.  She arrived back in the familiar wetlands she traversed during earlier seasons and slit Walder Frey’s throat; a cathartic moment for fans of the Stark’s revenge campaign.  Beric Dondarrion, Thoros of Myr and The Hound, all yet to be crossed off her kill list, are conveniently together in one location.  Expect her to be infiltrating their camp early on next season.

Say goodbye to Essos, all eastern plotlines have moved across the Narrow Sea to the Seven Kingdoms.

This season went a long way in clearing up George RR Martin’s master plan to conclude this great narrative.  Many storylines converged and chaos wiped others off the board entirely.  Watching these characters adapt and develop has always been the best part of Thrones and we only have two more (shorter) seasons left to see where they end up.  I can’t wait.

Spring Breakers – An Unheralded Pop Art Masterpiece

By Michael Copeland | @M_Copeland

I am fascinated by Spring Breakers.

At its very surface, it’s hollow; you could even call it dumb. What on earth is Harmony Korine trying to say here? Surely it’s a commentary, a satire. This thing is so empty! Why does everyone speak like they’re texting or tweeting? No one has any depth. No one spews great insight into the human existence… is the filmmaker 16 years old?

I admit I had some of these thoughts when I first saw it in theaters four years ago, and I could certainly sense that the majority of the audience felt the same way. I’ve watched it with friends several times since, and it’s apparent that it’s a consistent feeling among first-time viewers.

For me though, what kept me from filing the film away as “immature," was the strong imagery Korine was giving us. The cinematography is top-notch, and every shot seemed to be intentional and finely-tuned. Not to mention, the eerily-hypnotic score by the great Cliff Martinez was a force to be reckoned with. A “dumb movie” doesn’t have this kind of craftsmanship. The sequence with the Alien character (played brilliantly by James Franco) performing Britney Spears’ “Everytime” on the piano while the four female leads (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson and Rachel Korine) dance in ski masks, holding automatic weapons, is an absolute show-stopper. The scene serves as a montage, and identifies the moment when the girls “break bad.” The performance intertwines several slow motion sequences of violence, and aesthetically tips us off to Korine’s point: this is the world seen through the eyes of today’s youth, and this is the soundtrack to it.

Photo Credit: variety.com

The movie plays like a great pop song, with repetitive dialogue (“spring break. spring break foreverrrrrr”) and brightly lit, oversaturated cinematography. Neon colors are a major player in this film, and matched with an abundance of Skrillex and Cliff Martinez’s pulsating synthesizers, the movie does a great job of presenting commentary as a music video. Excess, celebrity, the American dream, the search for true self — Korine is interested in these ideas and their relationship to a generation raised on MTV. What results is a great piece of pop art that will completely knock your socks off if you look closely.

I have many favorite sequences in this film, but my number one is the scene where the girls rob the local restaurant in an effort to pay for their spring break adventure. It’s one long shot from the vantage point of the driver, as she circles around the restaurant. We witness the crime take place from a distance until we meet up with the rest of the clan on the other side of the restaurant after they finish the caper. It’s absolutely amazing.

This film isn’t for everyone, but even for those who write it off as empty, subconsciously they know it’s in the hands of a visionary. It’s too well-crafted to be thoughtless. And perhaps after the initial viewing, some of you won’t care to watch it again with a sharper eye, and that’s okay — hell, that may be the Harmony Korine misfire that will ultimately hold the film back from standing the test of time: too large a focus on “the culture” — but if you’ve ever passed by this movie on sales racks and turned your nose up at it over the cast and the title, I urge you to give it a chance. It’s a very strong voice with a very strong vision.

Billions – Showtime’s Best New Flawed Success

By Collin Lotter | @CLotter64

The Clash of the New York City Titans or perhaps the Battle of the Billionaires has been played out via television or film time and time again on every different network. So when Showtime launched the hyper promotion whirlwind of their next venture, Billions, many of us apathetically claimed that we would tune in. I was no different than all the skeptics, even with my fanfare towards Damian Lewis’ television roles in the past such as Major Winters in Band of Brothers or Sergeant Nicholas Brody in Homeland. On top of that, anything that Paul Giamatti is attached to is usually going to get a sample from me. Unexpectedly, the movie Arbitrage with Richard Gere had been one of my favorite movies in 2012 and this show seemed to resemble it in more ways than one with the familiar Manhattan backdrop.

The pilot episode was well-made and served its purpose to introduce the cast of characters and the backgrounds from which the white-collar battle will be forged. Although, I would be lying if I said that it particularly captivated me and had me salivating for a second episode. Quite frankly, it was very “meh” but I enjoyed the acting and the relationship between Giamatti’s character Chuck Rhoades and his wife Wendy (Maggie Siff). Wendy is in a compromising position, employed as the in-house performance coach at Axe Capital, and thus is a trusted confidant of the ambitious hedge fund manager Bobby “Axe” Axelrod (Lewis). This irritates Chuck to no end as the main criminal he wants to bring down for the United States Attorney’s office in NYC employs and compensates his wife. It also sets Chuck’s manhunt back that Axelrod is one of the most beloved power figures in the city. He donates huge to the New York Police and Fire Departments, the arts scene in Manhattan, and treats his employees and their respective families like his own. Eerily similar to his Homeland persona, you can’t really decide whether to root for or against Damian Lewis as he plays the benevolent villain so well.

Damian Lewis as Bobby Axelrod - Photo Credit: Jeff Neumann/Showtime

As I continued the season in its entirety it was easy to conclude that by no means is this a perfect show. Some of the dialogue is over the top and the scenarios are extremely heightened for dramatic effect. However, I can see why it was such a big success for the Showtime network because in many components it's a lot of fun. Sure, it’s hard to relate to these characters and the top one percent issues they face, but some of that contributes to the fun the show is to watch. Living in Dallas, this is how I envisioned the infamous Mark Cuban/SEC fight from a couple years ago in which I really wanted Cuban to skate free of all insider trading allegations. This show is no different, as in many cases I want Axelrod to get the upper hand on Rhoades along with his defense team. Unlike the previously mentioned Arbitrage, where Gere is a full-fledged villain with so few redeeming qualities, Axelrod is a family man and good to so many people because he came from humble beginnings. He seems loyal unless you give him a reason not to be and he is a genius with how he can twist a personal benefit into a devious act and rationalize it to make it sound philanthropic.

The charm of this show lies in the form of a total guilty pleasure; not because it’s cheaply made and corny, rather, because the allure of it functions as lifestyle porn with fast cars, day trips to Canada to see Metallica perform, McMansions in the Hamptons, and 40-foot yachts spotlighted throughout to woo the viewer. The primary reason to watch Billions is to watch Giamatti and Lewis snarl at each other, then launch long-distance strikes against one another. Chuck, tired of bringing down small-time white-collar criminals, wants a big fish, and Axe is one of the biggest fish of them all. If Chuck can bring down Axe, it will prove he's serious about stopping financial crime. You get caught up in the chase and the constant chess match between them.

Paul Giamatti as Chuck Rhoades - Photo Credit: Jeff Neumann/Showtime

For all of its flaws (most notable to me being that it is a pretty hollow show in its core, as far as a voice) Billions seems to offer enough to the casual fan. The show doesn't dive into any groundbreaking knowledge regarding politics, economies of scale, or social injustices… it really just displays a billionaire’s empire being threatened by a vengeful attorney with personal implications on the line. The show’s acting perseveres throughout with great performances and banter between Giamatti, Lewis, Siff, and also secondary characters like Lara Axelrod (Malin Akerman as Axe’s wife) and Bryan Connerty (Toby Leonard Moore as Chuck Rhoades’ right-hand man). The characters make it fun and worth the viewers’ time and interest. Ultimately, Billions seems like a safe investment for Showtime for the near future.