(br) wrote: Interesting for Those Who Wouldn't Be Interviewed When I started at Evergreen in 1998, one of my new friends informed me, in grave tones, about the murders Clinton had been responsible for back in Arkansas, when he was governor. They sounded so over-the-top that I simply couldn't believe they would possibly be true. I didn't argue the point, though, because I didn't know enough about it. In the years since, I have become steeped in conspiracy theory. I know at least a dozen groups who killed JFK. I know about the explosive re-bar planted at the WTC. (Oh, don't you wish I were making that up?) I know about the wheat we traded to the Soviets so they wouldn't rat us out about Apollo. I know now where to research the bogus claims, and I know now how obvious some of them are. I'm also, I think, less polite on the subject. Heck, at the time, the only conspiracy theories of which I was aware were the Kennedy ones. To be fair, there couldn't be WTC ones yet, because it [i]was[/i] 1998. But I didn't know, couldn't imagine, that people honestly doubted the Moon landings. The funny thing was that my friend still actually liked Clinton quite a lot and didn't understand the Lewinsky thing any better than I did. I suspect every politician, no matter their stance, has a group of crazies who want to do whatever they can to bring them down. Look at the crazy "Obama is a secret Muslim who isn't even a US citizen" people. (Yes, I actually know one of those.) However, I think Clinton is where they really started getting going on a national scale. It's the ease of communication, I guess. At any rate, the extreme right wing took a real estate scandal where no one ever really proved wrongdoing and turned it into a media circus that involved a sex scandal the special counsel wasn't even supposed to be investigating. Oh, sure. Clinton lied under oath on the subject, though I just read an interesting legal argument that it wasn't actually perjury. (Turns out it only counts as perjury if the lie is at all relevant to the case.) The man was not perfect, but there were a lot of people who had small, petty reasons to go after him in the way they did. Now, you may have noticed a slight left-wing bias in my reviews. I won't deny it. What would be the point? But I'd like to think that there are Republicans out there who consider the whole thing a waste of public funds--and time. Just as I, in fact, think it's an abuse of power for any boss to have that kind of relationship with any employee, and how much worse when that boss is as powerful as Clinton was. It's hard for the employee to be at all objective in that situation. And if they'd gone after him on that, I might have had more sympathy for the cause. Other than that, though I think the whole thing was only really the business of three people--Bill, Hillary, and Monica. The fact that it suddenly wasn't, I think, has a lot to do with a changing perception of how much privacy the President has and a peculiar American morality. It also, let's be honest, made the man an awfully easy target. The man is no dummy. He is just, at times, lacking in some basic common sense. The film itself also has a slight left-wing bias. No one will ever doubt that, not least because the special features on the DVD include a segment of Clinton himself speaking at the premiere of the thing. However, in the credits, it lists people they requested interviews with who denied them. It's amazing how many of the names are of figures who spent eight years fighting Clinton, actively trying to get him out of office. Or, if not the full eight, a [i]very[/i] vocal fraction thereof. I like to think that shows balance of another kind, though I've no doubt people will disagree with me on the subject. I do, however, think the film did a good job of showing how intense the Republican drive was. They claimed the investigation was "independent," but if you look at the names and backgrounds of those involved, it appears that "independent" is a synonym for "Republican." As with most politically themed movies, I doubt this will actually change anyone's mind about anything. Except possibly one thing. In certain circles, I think Clinton has a reputation as someone who coasted on charm. Not unlike the reputation of our last President, frankly. However, if you sit and watch that segment of Clinton talking, it's very obvious that he knows a heck of a lot about history and politics. He doesn't come off as scripted--in fact, he response to at least one person in the audience, and unless he's pulling a Uri Geller, that can't be scripted. However, he is able to make clear points with historical background seemingly on the fly. Our Presidents have all been scripted for an awfully long time. The good ones, the best-spoken ones, are often the ones whose notes you can see on various drafts of speeches making slight alterations--but it becomes very clear that the speech as a whole was written by someone else. The last President who famously wrote all his own words was Lincoln; the office of Presidential speechwriter hasn't been around much past that. But it's clear that Clinton can talk well. It's clear that his education made an impression on him.
(br) wrote: One of the best produced police crime dramas of the early 1970s, tough, gritty and taut, it concerns Buddy Manucci, played vividly by the late Roy Scheider who delivers a compelling performance as the head of a secret elite undercover police squad called 'The Seven-Ups,' who is investigating a series of mobster kidnappings for ransom by two men masquerading as plain clothes cops