Tom Cruise on The Huffington Post

Tribeca Film: Free Flick Fridays: Pieces Of April

2009-11-25T14:00:00Z

This weekend, take a break from your own family (dys)function to check out Katie Holmes in Pieces of April. It's a Thanksgiving classic, now available for free on Hulu.

Pieces of April

dir. Peter Hedges (2003)

Remember when Katie Holmes was a winning young actress-to-watch? Ah, yes, the Halcyon, pre-Cruise days of The Ice Storm and Go and Wonder Boys...

Into this mix falls the charming Pieces of April, a story of family dysfunction and East Village squalor, with Holmes as the bad-girl black sheep prodigal daughter, living in sin with her dreamboat boyfriend (Derek Luke). In his directorial debut, Hedges (who literally wrote the book, and screenplay, on eccentric families with What's Eating Gilbert Grape?) tells two alternating stories: one of April trying to cook a turkey in her tenement of an apartment, meeting her neighbors (like Sean Hayes) along the way, and one of her family's journey to the Thanksgiving table, punctuated with pot-smoking (from April's mother, played by Patricia Clarkson in an Oscar-nominated performance), elderly grandmas, and petulant, "good" daughter whining from a young Alison Pill.

The set-up may be sitcom-lite, and the dated early days of digital filmmaking look doesn't help, but Hedges delivers a rather moving film that just may capture the spirit of Thanksgiving, exploring the way a makeshift community can happen, the way that families can fracture -- be it a druggie daughter or a mother's losing battle with breast cancer -- and the way that people get through these struggles, with something close to grace.

Cross-posted with Tribeca Film.

Bulls Escape On Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz Film Set

2009-11-23T09:00:07Z

MADRID — Seven bulls being used on the set of a film starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz have broken free in Spain and slightly injured two people.

Cruise and Diaz were not at Sunday's rehearsal. The actors are scheduled to arrive in the city of Cadiz in southwest Spain for the filming of the "Knight & Day" movie next weekend.

Mike Ragogna: Standing on One's Principles: An Interview With Ron Reagan

2009-11-12T04:00:57Z

Ron Reagan is the son of a president and, weekdays on Air America, he's a voice of reason for many listeners who are trying to navigate the complexities of national and global concerns. Known for his progressive views and politics, Ron took a few moments to discuss some of the more pressing issues of our time and gave a shoutout to Elvis Perkins.

Mike Ragogna: When did The Ron Reagan Show begin broadcasting on Air America?

Ron Reagan: It would have been a year ago September, we started with an hour show.

MR: How did that come about?

RR: I had been at the Republican convention in Minneapolis, they (Air America) asked me to come there and be part of their coverage. I'd been doing some things with Mark Green who had a weekend show, a wrap-up kind of thing. I did some of those with him, so he invited me to the convention, and I spent a few days there doing shows. At the end of the week, they asked if I wanted to do an hour show for them, and I said sure, my having been between gigs at the time.

MR: How much time passed between then and when your first show aired?

RR: They said, "Can you start Monday?" and this was Friday evening. I said, "I guess I can, am I going to have a producer?" I met my first producer on the phone Monday morning, the day we launched the show. Not a lot of prep time to get things together, but it slowly evolved, and by the beginning of this year, I think it was in February, we went to the regular three hour format.

MR: Who's backing you up behind the scenes?

RR: Tina Nole, my executive producer, came on board in February, and Shelley Osterberger, the associate producer, came on during the summer.

MR: When you discuss topics, you've been very respectful and gracious to callers and guests with opposing points of view, although it's pretty clear where you stand on the issues. How do you find the patience to deal with your more challenging guests and callers?

RR: I'm not much of a yeller, I don't really get particularly offended or affronted when somebody takes even an extreme position that's opposite mine. I'm not a big one for personal attacks or rudeness. When somebody crosses a line where it's going beyond just stating their extreme viewpoint, like attacking me in a personal way, well then I'll take exception to that and come back at them.

But I don't see any purpose in yelling at the civilians who call in to the show. These are just folks calling in, regular folks, they're not professionals at this or anything. You know, some people have weird ideas, and it's often more interesting to tease out those ideas. For instance, we had a guy call in, and we were talking in general about the ramifications of the off-year elections. The subject of Maine's Question #1 on marriage rights for gay couples came up, and he was violently opposed to allowing gay couples to marry. I asked him, "Well, what would the harm be?" "It's terrible! It's an abomination! These people and their deviant lifestyles..." He was from Massachusetts, and I said, "That's you're opinion, but I want to know what negative consequences YOU'VE felt because of gay people being allowed to marry."

Then he went off again on how terrible gay people were which was all irrelevant, and at that point, he crossed the line and started talking about a Jewish/gay conspiracy. I was like, "Okay, now I've heard enough from you, now we can leave you alone because the entire audience knows that this is the kind of person who is opposed to allowing gay people to have the same civil rights as everybody else." This was a guy where there was no end to the bigotry. If I kept scratching, we'd find racism, we'd find everything else, and I think it was more useful, in a way, than me jumping all over the guy and telling him what an idiot he was. That would have been easy enough to do, but it would have been less educational for people.

MR: When you go home after a day of calls like that, how do you process it?

RR: That kind of stuff doesn't really wear on me at all. I admit it's pretty tiring doing a three hour show, where, generally speaking, it's pretty much ad lib five days a week. That's tiring for anybody to do. But dealing with folks like that is not really a problem. They don't wear on me, I'm aware that those people are out there, that's no secret, I've run into them before and I'll run into them again. They don't really suck the energy out of me. They're more amusing, in a way, and I guess a little depressing, too, but that stuff doesn't bother me.

MR: What are your thoughts on the defeat of Question #1?

RR: We've talked about it on the show before. I would put to the audience as a question whether people in this country should be allowed to vote out civil rights for others. I mean, if a majority of folks in a given state decided they didn't want free speech anymore, should they be allowed to eliminate free speech in their state? I think that most people would say no, and I see marriage rights for gay couples is pretty much in that territory.

This is a fundamental civil right that everybody in this country enjoys EXCEPT one group of people--gay folks. I don't think that should be left up to the vagaries of politics, out-of-state financing, dishonest campaigns, and the various lies that are told by opponents of civil rights. I think it's too fundamental. There's nothing in the Constitution that implies or says that gay people should be treated any differently than anybody else, and that's the document we should be relying on when we look at this.

It's no coincidence that people who want to deprive or keep gay people from having this civil right generally have to change their state constitution to achieve that. They have to literally write-in a specific amendment to their constitution that singles out gay people for this exclusion, and the fact that it's exclusionary is the point. These idiot arguments that come up about, "Well, if we allow gay couples to marry, then we have to allow polygamy and bestiality and things like that"--beyond the stupidity of these arguments--it's quite obvious that in the case of polygamy and bestiality, those laws are not exclusionary in any way. They apply to everybody. No one can marry more than one person. But when we're talking about gay marriage, then we're talking about an exclusionary law. Everybody can get married in this country to the person of their choice except gay people, they're excluded. That's a very different thing, it's an apples and oranges kind of situation.

MR: With all the ignorance and fear out there, it seems that the only way issues like this are going to be resolved is through the court system, and ultimately, by the Supreme Court. But that might not be such a good thing because of some of its hard right judges.

RR: Well, you've got Scalia who's a radical fundamentalist Catholic on the court. You've got Roberts and Alito who also have an agenda, though it might not be as socially extreme as Scalia's. I think they're more interested in protecting the rights of corporations and things like that. I mean that's why they were installed on the court. But yeah, you're quite right, it's not a gimme on the Supreme Court. It could very well be one of those unfortunate five-four decisions that would come down the wrong way.

MR: What do you think, if any, were the messages from last week's election?

RR: I don't think we can read the tea leaves and say because democrats lost the Virginia and New Jersey governorships that this portends all sorts of awful things for the mid-term elections. I don't think you can really say that there's that connection. On the other hand, I do think that the people widely, across the political spectrum, are becoming terribly dissatisfied with status quo governance in Washington, D.C., right now. I think you saw that, to some extent, even in the Tea Party stuff earlier this year. Now, some of these people were just, you know, kind of Glenn Beck idiots with their Nazi signs and all that kind of stuff. But there were people who were drawn in because they were upset, for instance, by the bank bailout and the lack of transparency at the Fed. I can't argue too much with that, they're not wrong to be worried.

I think with health care, we find progressives who are very disenchanted with the approach of this administration and, certainly, the approach of Congress to health care reform. It's really as if these people are bending over backwards to try and make as ineffective a piece of legislation as it can possibly be. You know, we've got people shouting about the public option being a government takeover of health care...hell, it's not even going to be available to most people. I mean, you and I, if we have health insurance through our jobs, we can't sign up for the public option. This is going to apply to maybe twelve million people in America. It seems to me this is the worst kind of incrementalism, and I think people are looking at that and wondering if our government is capable of dealing with really big problems that are all coming down the pike at about the same time.

MR: What would you say are some of those problems?

RR: Look at the environment, economic issues, social issues, health care of course, war and peace... We've got lots on the plate and it's pretty serious stuff, and we don't seem to be able to man-up and do something about it. And you think the health care fight was ugly? Wait 'til we get to Cap & Trade. We've got a bunch of people in Congress who are still denying that global warming even exists! These are Flat Earthers that we're having to deal with here. It's a little depressing, and it doesn't bode well for the future.

MR: Do you think that we've got a president who can tackle some of these issues?

RR: There's no question that this administration is a vast improvement over what we had before. My God, from torture to everything else, not only were they evil, but they were incompetent and evil at the same time. So yeah, I'm a supporter of Obama, I wish him the best, I think his impulses are good. My question--I think it's a question that many people on the progressive side have--is, does he have the stones to see this thing through?

He's not really a progressive democratic politician. He is a centrist democrat. He's cautious, he always has been. If you look at his history, it's one of always reaching across the aisle, always looking for the bipartisan compromise which can be fine in its place. But he's not as "left" as some people on our side thought he was during the election, and so we're seeing the real Barack Obama here--a cautious, centrist, pragmatic politician. That can often get the job done, but I'm a little nervous at this particular time in history, with all the problems we have facing us, that that approach really isn't going to get the job done. I think he's wasting a lot of time--a lot of time--with this reaching across the aisle stuff. He had to make the gesture, had to let people know that he would try in good faith with republicans; but we're long past the point where we realize that these people aren't reaching back. They just simply want him to fail. If they're reaching back at all, it's to stick a thumb in his eye, so the time for that stuff is just about over.

MR: And so many in Congress seem to be under the thumb of the lobbyists and corporations who have made large donations to their campaigns or causes.

RR: Let's not be naïve here. When you see that someone is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars over a few years to their campaign PAC or whatever from a certain industry, they're getting that money for a reason. People don't just hand politicians money because they kind of like their haircut or the way they wear a suit. They want something for that money. If you want to know the main thing we can do to put a stop to that? Campaign finance reform. Let's take the money entirely out of politics. If you get pulled over by a cop for speeding and you try to give him a twenty dollar bill to get off, well, if he's crooked, he'll take it and let you go. But you're really courting arrest there. That's bribery of a public official. Well, why isn't it bribery of a public official for individuals or corporations to hand them bundled checks for their political action committees. It's the same kind of thing here, and we need to eliminate that entirely.

MR: Challengers to reform insist this is a Freedom of Speech issue.

RR: Money is not speech. If you want to go out and campaign for somebody, speak on their behalf, tell everybody that you think they'll be a great congressman or president or whatever. You're more than entitled to do that. But giving them money is not the same thing. Money is property, money is a bribe, it isn't support, and that's what needs to be eliminated. There needs to be a level playing field and a regular manor in which we elect officials where everybody, maybe who've gotten enough signatures on a petition or whatever, can get on the ballot. Then you all play by the same rules and you have the same amount of money to work with. Free television time would be a good thing for TV advertisement...we give the broadcast networks our public airwaves for a song. They're supposed to do a public service in return--that used to be the news shows that they would produce. Well, you know, they can start giving politicians free ad time during election years for a certain period as part of that public service so that (politicians) won't feel pressed to spend billions of dollars buying time on the networks that should be free. This is how we can elect public officials in this country. It's an important thing, and the broadcast and cable networks can get on board with that. If we can have a level playing field for various sports teams, we certainly can have it for political races as well. Just take the money out of the system entirely.

MR: But sometimes a level playing field can work against you, like when the media gives equal weight to both sides of a story no matter how ludicrous one side might clearly be.

RR: Yeah, that's the fallacy of "fair and balanced." It's turned into literally, "Well, we have two opinions here--Joe says the world is flat, Bob says the world is round, YOU be the judge," instead of pointing out that one person is full of s**t, and the other person actually has it right.

MR: And there's so much damage being done and ignorance being propagated as a result of that approach.

RR: There have always been these carny barkers in American life. There have always been the crooked tent preacher or whoever who's getting people all riled up about stuff. Limbaugh and Beck are just those kind of clowns. There's not much you can do to stop that. It's not that they're promoting ignorance as much as the American public--actually, a fairly small percentage of the public--buy into this crap. You know, come on people...wake up! The Limbaughs and the Becks are charlatans. They're entertainers who are there to make money and nothing else. I don't even know that Glenn Beck believes half of the stuff he says, and he's just taking advantage of people's ignorance and gullibility and stupidity. Are people that naïve and stupid that they're going to be taken in by fools like this? Well, apparently some are. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

MR: All of this seems even more ridiculous in the face of real discussions we need to be having on dangers like global warming.

RR: Indeed, global warming is a perfect example of just the kind of problem that American politicians seem incapable of dealing with. It's long term, it's incremental, it's not going to show up in a big explosion tomorrow that knocks down buildings on the southern tip of Manhattan. We've got to think long term, and we've got to actually deprive ourselves of stuff. We're going to have to change our lifestyle, we're going to have to make do with less in certain instances, at least temporarily. And it involves nature instead of just people politics and money politics and things like that, and that's something that Congress also has a very difficult time dealing with. These are people who spend way too much time indoors...they need to get out a little more! They forget that nature doesn't really care what your political agenda is, nature doesn't really care that Jim Inhoff doesn't believe that the atmosphere is warming up. Nature is gonna do what it does regardless. The laws of physics are the laws of physics. But these people don't seem to get that, they think they can kind of spin nature their way somehow. It ain't gonna happen, you know?

MR: Sure, global warming is important, but what music are you listening to?

RR: I've been playing a lot of Elvis Perkins in my car on the way to work. My wife is very good about finding new stuff, I'm a little more boring when it comes to that.

MR: What are some of your favorite classic acts?

RR: I still will throw a little U2 on every once in a while, and I still enjoy The Beatles. My wife and I were talking about Sgt. Pepper the other day and what a great song "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" was. We were trying to remember the lyrics. We had them all mixed-up and had to go online to find them.

MR: You sort of were introduced to America through your Saturday Night Live appearance in 1986, right?

RR: Yeah, that's pretty true.

MR: Your Risky Business parody is considered one of the show's best moments.

RR: I was a little reluctant to do it at first, I didn't want to be a conduit to ridiculing my parents. I knew, of course, there would be some fun poked at them, but I didn't want it to be vicious and mean and be a part of that. But I was assured I would have veto power over any of the skits if they got out of hand, that I could pull the plug on them. But it worked out well, it was a lot of fun. It was a good cast, and everybody was real nice.

MR: Were your parents okay afterward?

RR: Yeah, I think they were a little confused, they didn't understand the Tom Cruise thing. They'd never seen that movie, and they had no idea why I was in my underwear. So I had to explain to them that whole Tom Cruise bit and all. I was actually wearing three pairs of jockey shorts by the time we did the live show. The NBC censors said, "You can't go out there with just one pair of jockey shorts. God knows what might happen, he's moving around and dancing, we can't just have something fly out of there. Have him put another pair on!" I put two pair on and when we did the live show after we did the dress rehearsal, the edict came down, "He needs another pair!" So I had three pair of jockey shorts on just to be sure that nothing untoward happened.

MR: Having been a president's son, did you ever feel obliged to steer your career towards politics?

RR: No, from the time I was a little kid and exposed to politics, I pretty much knew that I was not interested in leading that kind of life. I'm just not that kind of person. There's nothing about that life that appeals to me. I guess it's an attractive enough notion to be in a position to get things done, that would be fun and challenging. But I'm no good at asking people for money, to get back to our campaign finance angle. It's not me, it's not my personality, it's not my life.

MR: You're probably contributing more by choosing the path you did.

RR: You do what you can do I guess. As I've told people before, I can't really be elected to any high office because I'm an atheist, and as we know, Americans won't elect an atheist to any high office. And I don't think I'd be a very good local politician because I don't know anything about local issues most of the time. You don't want me running your city or being in charge of your utilities or any of that.

MR: With all the current disillusionment in the way our government has been run for so long, what is your advice to anyone entering politics who wants to make a real difference?

RR: Well, cinch it up real tight because you're going to be buffeted by the forces of compromise, and I'm not talking about political compromise. I'm talking about compromise in principle. You can see some people in Congress today like Anthony Weiner from Brooklyn, New York, talk about health care, and, you know, Alan Grayson. He's ruffled some feathers, I know, and he gets right up in people's faces, but he seems to be doing stuff from the heart. There's Bernie Sanders, I talk to him a lot on our show. He seems to have his head screwed on right. These are people who follow their own principles, and they've probably gone about as far as they're going to go in politics being members of Congress. I would look to those folks who have identified principles they're willing to run on and stand on and do so consistently.

I was alarmed back in 2004 after the presidential election with Bush being re-elected. Nancy Pelosi, I believe it was, came out and said, "Well, the democrats have to sit down and decide what principles we really want to focus on." I thought, "My God, this is a woman who is in her sixties, she's been in government for a long time, and she's now saying we have to identify the principles that are important to us? Didn't you do that before you ran the first time?" What is wrong with THAT picture. So I would say identify those principles before you run. Make those the reasons you want to run, don't approach a career in politics as a sort of, "I'll see what happens when I get there, and I'll make it up on the fly," or anything like that. You need to know what you're all about before you set out on that first campaign.

MR: Congressman Alan Grayson sure did invigorate the health care debate with his passion.

RR: All too often, democrats play this soft game where it's always, "My friend across the aisle." Decorum is fine, but the fact of the matter is, half the time, they're not your friend, they don't wish the best for you, and half the time, they don't wish the best for the American people either. It's time to stop playing footsie with some of these people. There are some destructive forces out there in government, and they need to be confronted, and they need to be revealed for what they are. The corruption has to be exposed, the disinformation, the lies that are coming, health care being the obvious example--death panels, and all that kind of stuff. I mean that was such an obvious lie that was being told, and it needs to be exposed and those people need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. No more of this "my friend" and "we differ on..." kind of stuff. How about, "Congressman or Senator So-And-So is telling you a lie." If THAT'S the truth, it needs to be spoken.

Matthew Filipowicz: Tom Cruise Talks About Beating Disobedient Scientologists

2009-11-11T15:39:13Z

As you may have seen, the New York Daily News is reporting that a top lieutenant in the Church of Scientology is claiming that Tom Cruise offered to:

Personally "beat the living [bleep]" out of disobedient Scientologists

Leading Scientologists, and Cruise's lawyer have disputed the claim. And now, in this exclusive video, Tom Cruise himself discusses the explosive charges. Take a look.

Ex-Scientologists: Threat Of A Tom Cruise Beatdown Used Against Disobedient Members

2009-11-08T06:10:07Z

Did Tom Cruise offer to personally "beat the living [bleep]" out of disobedient Scientologists?

Cruise's lawyer and church spokesmen vigorously dispute the claim, but a former high-ranking Scientologist official says he "documented" that church leader David Miscavige once asserted that Cruise would lend his "Top Gun" muscle to do just that.

Alan Singer: "Show Me The Money"

2009-10-29T10:30:03Z

In the movie Jerry McGuire, football wide receiver Rod Tidwell demands that his agent, "Show me the money!" Some people who responded to recent blogs wanted me to provide more evidence to support my claims. Here it is.

Is Michael Bloomberg buying votes? You be the judge. According to the New York Times, since Mayor Moneybags has been in office, the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem and the Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral in Queens each received over seven million dollars in city contracts. In addition, Bloomberg gave personal donations of over $1,000,000 to Abyssinian Baptist. The pastors of both churches are prominent African-American men who are endorsing Bloomberg for reelection. I guess I did not ask Bloomberg for enough money when I offered to sell Mayor Moneybags my vote.

Will Arne Duncan bring a "revolution" to the way our schools operate? According to the same edition of the Times, based on his Chicago "experience" all we will get is more of the same. Duncan in Chicago and Bloomberg in New York believe in "Shake and Bake." Shake it up, close failing schools and reopen (bake) them with new names and somehow things will get better. It turns out that a University of Chicago research report showed that reading and math scores of students in failing schools actually declined because of the disruption in their education when schools were closed. While the study found students who transferred to more middle-class schools did perform better on standardized tests, students who transferred to similar schools with high concentrations of minority youth from poor families did just as poorly in school. What a surprise!

I have also received some more great responses from readers that were sent directly to me.

CUPCAKE WARS

Don Gilson-

I love the fact that at 5 year old your grandchildren have role models in their lives who care enough about them that they teach them how to stand up for themselves and fight back. Those are the lessons we should be teaching our students and children. I have been blessed with the unique opportunity to teach in inner-city schools and then come and get a "real" education at Hofstra at the young age of 53. I coach football and I am now able to ask my players, what are you comfortable doing? I no longer tell them we are going to do things a certain way. I ask them what they are comfortable playing? Now I am all for educating young men and women about eating right and living healthy lifestyles, Lord knows I can use some help and education on this topic myself!

However, I would prefer my politicians spent less time trying to dictate what should and should not be allowed, regarding cupcakes and cookies, and their sale and consumption in public schools, and more concerned about the injustices that befall many people who happen to be the in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and oh yeah, the wrong skin color, religion, or sexual orientation, etc. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg should redirect some of his money that is spent on commercials, trying to win an election that everyone already knows is already bought and paid for, I wonder if he had to bribe anyone with cookies and cupcakes, towards trying to really get to know and understand the students, that are his constituents, and that will some day lead the great City of New York.

I spent way too many years of my life thinking I knew what was best for everybody else and not enough time listening to what others had to say. The creator after all gave us two ears and only one mouth. There are worse things for students, whether living on Long Island, New Jersey, or in New York City, to be doing than eating cupcakes. If I knew at 5 years old, not 53, that my voice, along with my ability to listen, and my ability to speak out againist injustice, were of equal importance, well I can't even imagine how different my life would have been. Long live sugar!!!!!!!!!!

LEAVE THEM BACK!

Andra Milletta-

Another detestable aspect of the Mayor's retention policy, when it was first implemented, was his desire to hold back as many as 15,000 third graders simply because they scored a 1 out of 4 on either the state's LA or math test, when it was the first time in their lives they were taking such a high stakes test (and we know the quality of the test was poor). A friend of mine who is savvy in statistics pointed out that if he succeeded (and he didn't in holding back so many) he would create an artificial bump in the 4th graders' scores the following year, which would serve him well in his bid for reelection. This, more than just about anything, has made me so furious that I can't even stand the sight of his frog-like face on the cover of New York magazine this week.

By the way, at the time, my students teaching third grade (many of the NYCTFs) told me the principals were in such a panic about this policy that they were ordered to drop all regular instruction and just do Kaplan test prep in the weeks leading up to the test. Now our kids are living on a diet of Kaplan and Sylvan more than ever. It's a disgrace. Thanks for your great posts! Huffington lucked out.

Ann Tarantino-

When I was a little girl in grammar school, a boy who was left back (I remember him so well) was razzed, ridiculed and totally embarrassed by unconscionable, insensitive kids (and there were many) who didn't go with the "Do unto others" thing. As I am sure you know kids can be really mean and they were. My heart went out to this kid and I made sure to talk to him and be extra kind to him. What this school system needs is a curriculum that actually teaches human beings what it means to be human and to treat each other with respect. And I think you have to start with educating the parents, who are so out of control and so caught up with the wonder of their wonderful offsprings who are ----heads. Well, not all of them but, society has to definitely make a huge turn around for us to ever hope for a better world. It just seems so hopeless with all the ills of the world that we will ever see a bright future. Guess I am a little on the down side today. Sorry. Have a terrible ache in my jaw, that doesn't seem to want to get better even after I have had two teeth pulled that were supposedly causing the ache. Ah, sweet mystery of life. I like Mayor Moneybags - he only takes one dollar a year as salary.

BIZARRO BLOOMBERG

Mel Grizer -

How come the media (including Bizarro Bloomberg) almost totally overlooked Bloomberg's visit to the Orthodox & Chassidic community in Borough Park with that low life Giuliani to stir up some racial division and fear? Giuliani warned that if Bloomberg were not re-elected, the city would revert to the crime, fear and disorder including a pogrom that existed before the great savior, RG, came to power. Is this an implication that Thompson is cut from the same mold as Dinkins, the demon that Rudy vanquished? Bloomberg accomplished a few good lifestyle things: the smoking ban, trans-fat posting, calorie charts in fast food restaurants, bike lanes (mostly middle class oriented life style issues, although beneficial to everyone) and crime statistics remain low. However, "stop & frisk" police tactics based on racial profiles continued undiminished since Giuliani's time. NY leads the nation in the number of these stops. Bloomberg has also worked to diminish the racial polarization on the political level which was the hallmark of the Giuliani administration.

So why does he choose to go to Borough Park with Giuliani? He could have gone after those votes stressing what he considers to be his positive record. He has already stated that Giuliani would be a good governor. Of course rich Republican Bloomberg, could help build a campaign to replace an inept African American Governor with our hero, RG. History may just repeat itself.
P.S. The taxpayers could save some money by allowing the 2 Bernies (Madoff and Kerik) to share one cell for the next 150 years

DUNCAN/OBAMA AND SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION

Tarik Samuel -

I agree with the points you made and I feel as though educational training is hard to instill without first-hand experience. We could all study the philosophies of teaching or the psychology of children and still become lousy teachers without having that important experience. It is also the job of the parents to make the jobs of teachers easier by supporting their children and their education.

Joanne Gallipoli -

I do not believe that a "New Teacher to be" can possibly get the experience needed simply by reading books or observing in a diverse schools or student teaching for one semester. I have been a teaching assistant for 11 years now and I honestly feel this experience has prepared me better then most of my graduate courses. Don't get me wrong the combination of the classroom experience, coupled with my education has provided me with the latest techniques and theories and has prepared me even further. However, my real knowledge has come from being in the classroom. It has given me the opportunity to become familiar with the curriculum in various subjects. Additionally, working with a diverse number of teachers, has enabled me to learn different techniques of teaching. What works and what doesn't. One can reflect on the year and determine what teachers are effective and who's style you wish to avoid. I would not object to new teachers working 2 or more years as teaching assistants to gain that exposure before moving on to a teaching position. Secretary of Education Duncan has to make changes in order to justify his job as do most public officials.

Jack Zevin-

I applaud your letter, and I would like to sign on to the different revolution, too. But what can we do with this culture? They've been after us for a long time, and have been slowly creeping up on reducing the whole enterprise to a bottom line spread sheet. What is ironic is that an African American President and a Democrat is continuing Bush's policies and Duncan (who I recently heard give a canned pablum speech in DC) is sharpening his hatchet. But who knows, maybe this will set off some change, maybe we won't be the cash cows any more. That's the one line I agree with and wouldn't it be wonderful not to be mediocre but great successes like our military, our bankers, and our leaders!!!!! You have actually inspired me to start writing what my wife calls 'crank' letters (which I used to do all the time but have give up for the fabulous 90s/00s). More power to you, but I would love something practical to do. Where is the left? Where are educators with backbone? I have seen few, how about you?

Is Scientology A Cult? Is Paul Haggis The Next Martin Luther?

2009-10-28T12:19:41Z

It's been a tough stretch for Scientology. The church founded by the late science fiction writer (and great prophet/odd duck/complete kook -- take your pick) L. Ron Hubbard in 1953 was dinged nearly a million bucks by a Paris court on Tuesday after convicting six leaders of the French branch of Scientology of organized fraud in duping recruits out of lots of money.

Christian Bale's 'American Psycho' Inspiration: Tom Cruise

2009-10-22T14:00:43Z

We hope that no one is really as soulless as Patrick Bateman, but Christian Bale's performance in 2000's 'American Psycho' was so frighteningly believable he must have had some real-life inspiration. Turns out Bale studied Tom Cruise's mannerisms to bring the clean-cut murder addict to life.

The movie's director, Mary Harron, revealed in an interview with BlackBook:

We talked about how Martian-like Patrick Bateman was, how he was looking at the world like somebody from another planet, watching what people did and trying to work out the right way to behave. And then one day he called me and he had been watching Tom Cruise on David Letterman, and he just had this very intense friendliness with nothing behind the eyes, and he was really taken with this energy.

Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!

Bronson Pinchot: Bette Midler Is A B**ch, Denzel Is Cruel, Tom Cruise Homophobic

2009-10-21T16:01:17Z

Bronson Pinchot has been best known for his role as Balki on the sitcom "Perfect Strangers" and his role in the "Beverly Hills Cop" movies, until now.

Pinchot gives a lengthy interview to the AVClub (via DListed) in which he recounts his career and gives brutally honest memories of his costars. Some are kind, some are harsh, and the whole thing is worth reading. Some samples are below.

On working with Tom Cruise in "Risky Business":

We thought Tom [Cruise] was the biggest bore on the face of the Earth... He was tense and made constant, constant unrelated homophobic comments, like, "You want some ice cream, in case there are no gay people there?" I mean, his lingo was larded with the most... There was no basis for it. It was like, "It's a nice day, I'm glad there are no gay people standing here." Very, very strange.

Years and years later when people started to torment him with that, I used to think "God, that's really fitting, because he tormented a lot of people as a 20-year-old."

On working with Denzel Washington in "Courage Under Fire":

Denzel Washington was behind the incredibly cowardly bullshit of "This is my character, not me." He was really abusive to me and everybody on that movie, and his official explanation was that his character didn't like me, but it was a dreadful experience. I spent my salary on time with my shrink just for helping me get through it... The script supervisor on that movie said it's like watching somebody kick a puppy. He was so vile.

On Bette Midler's treatment of director Hugh Wilson during "The First Wives Club":

Bette Midler was such a bitch to him. While he was directing, she would be rolling her eyes, pantomiming with her favorite actors, and she made it very difficult. And he was at his wit's end. He was actually a very nice man, but she was very unkind to him on that movie.

But it's not all bad. Bronson adores Tom Hanks:

He is a wonderful and genuine and lovely and down-to-earth person. I don't know how he does that. I first met him when he was doing his spate of not-successful movies. There was a period in the '80s when he did The Man With One Red Shoe and Joe Versus The Volcano and all those movies that weren't doing well, and that's when I first met him, and I would run into him on and off over the years. Then two years ago, I did a play with his wife, and there he was at his absolute height. He's always been a delightful person, so it's not really true that big stars need to be driven and repulsive, because he's anything but.

Read the whole thing here, for Eddie Murphy, Mischa Barton and "Perfect Strangers" memories.

Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!

Tom, Katie & Suri Attend Secret Scientology Party

2009-10-20T17:43:01Z

Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and daughter Suri reunited with John Travolta and wife Kelly Preston -- plus over 4000 other Scientologists -- at a massive party in England on Oct. 16, Usmagazine.com has confirmed.

Suri Cruise Drinks Starbucks, Wears High Heels (PHOTOS)

2009-10-12T18:13:23Z

First we spotted Suri Cruise strolling around Boston wearing high heels.. Now this weekend she's drinking coffee!? I didn't know she was 3 yrs old going on 30!

UN's Forest Protection Scheme At Risk For Crime And Fraud

2009-10-06T14:11:58Z

Experts on all sides of the debate, from international police to politicians to conservationists, have warned this week that the scheme, called Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (Redd), may be impossible to monitor and may already be leading to fraud. The UN itself accepts there are "high risks".

Tom And Katie's Jog Boston

2009-09-21T16:01:41Z

Fresh off a plane from Australia where she has been filming her latest movie, there was no sign of jet-lag when we spotted Katie Holmes and hubby Tom Cruise out for an early morning jog in Boston today.

Tom is in town for his new flick, Wichita, in which he stars alongside Cameron Diaz.

Ed Martin: TV Tirade: Ellen DeGeneres on "American Idol," Kanye West on MTV, Jay Leno in Primetime and the End of "Guiding Light"

2009-09-17T11:03:00Z

The new television season officially begins on Monday -- and it can't get here soon enough. Perhaps the excitement of all those new shows, some of them quite promising, will take my mind off the bad decisions and boneheaded moves by network executives, powerful show-runners and ego-crazed celebrities that have dominated the medium in recent days.

My growing dismay began last week with the announcement from Fox that Ellen DeGeneres will fill the judges' seat recently vacated by Paula Abdul on American Idol. Perhaps I should pin the cause of this distress on Abdul herself for deciding to leave the show that so grandly revived what had been a career on the slide and made her very wealthy in the process. Of course, Paula's self-created public persona is that of a foggy ditz, so it really wasn't out of character or all that surprising for her to do what she did. But how can the executives at Fox allow the producers of Idol to bring DeGeneres on board? It seems so wrong in so many ways. As we learned during Idol's problem-plagued eighth season -- which succeeded only because of its terrific contestants, a group collectively more talented than any since Season 4 -- the four-judge format simply does not work!

Since its start in 2002 as a humble summer series, Idol has been all about making stars out of unknowns, and that has held true for contestants, host and judges alike. (The American viewing public had never heard of Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson or Ryan Seacrest before Idol began.) Idol has never been and should never be a platform for a star of DeGeneres' magnitude. And then there is the matter of her qualifications. I am a big fan of Ellen. I think she has richly deserved every Emmy she has won for her daytime talk show. But when it comes to music and to Idol she's just another fan! What does she know about offering valuable advice to aspiring singers? I seriously do not want to hear her make jokes (or add humorous banter of any kind) after performances. That will get old wicked fast. Idol should have reverted to the three-judge format, with Cowell, Jackson and Kara DioGuardi remaining in place. DioGuardi deservedly received much harsh criticism for her wildly uneven contribution to the show last season, but as one-third of a relaxed trio (rather one-fourth of a harried quartet) perhaps she would have benefited from the breathing room and finally stepped up. For me, the arrival of Idol in January is the most exciting television event of the year. I hope Fox and friends haven't effed it up.

(On a side note, I caught the sold-out American Idols concert at the Harbor Yard Arena in Bridgeport, Conn., last week and was knocked out by the talent on stage. Michael Sarver, the first to go among the Top 10, has improved dramatically since he left the show and could have a fine career in country music. The immensely popular Danny Gokey was nothing short of spectacular and should have as successful a career as Carrie Underwood now that he has signed with a country label. Yes, he was that good. Idol winner Kris Allen was ill that evening and could not perform, though he did come out on stage to personally apologize. That made the performance by runner-up Adam Lambert the grand finale of the show. To say he didn't disappoint would be the mother of all understatements. Lambert was electrifying -- the energy he generated on stage could barely be contained in the venue, which seats 10,000. I can't imagine how Allen or anyone else could have followed him and not appeared diminished. Lambert is a super-nova. This guy knows what it takes to be an entertainer. Maybe Idol should have signed him as the fourth judge!)

Continuing with my mounting TV despair, count me among the masses that may forgive but will never forget the extremely bad behavior of Kanye West at last Sunday's MTV Video Music Awards. What an ass! I have twice interviewed Taylor Swift at the CMT Music Awards in Nashville and found her to be one of the friendliest, smartest and most articulate young performers I have met during my 25 years working in and around the entertainment business, so perhaps I am overly sensitive to West's wacked behavior. But what a terrible thing for him to do to a girl who has risen to the top of her profession by doing everything right, in front of millions of her young fans, not to mention his own. MTV isn't without fault here. I don't know if West was drunk when he bullied his way onto the stage, but I have seen the footage of him swilling cognac straight from the bottle on the red carpet before the event, in front of hundreds of cameras. Where were his handlers? Where was the network? Where was security? Why was that allowed at an event that is targeted as much to teenagers as any other demographic?

West's pitiful display of egregious disrespect for all (including himself) proved to be a blessing for MTV, because it enjoyed the highest ratings in five years for the VMAs and unprecedented post-Awards publicity; ABC, because its daytime talker The View had previously booked the sublime Swift for its live Tuesday telecast; and especially NBC, because its bold and brazen experiment in primetime reconstruction, The Jay Leno Show, launched the day after the VMAs with West as a previously confirmed guest. West had been booked solely to perform (with Jay-Z and Rihanna) but was understandably asked to sit for a jiffy-quick interview during the debut show's second half hour. Believe what you will about Jay Leno's unexpectedly high opening night numbers -- millions tuned in for no reason other than to see how West would comport himself less than twenty-four hours after his public disgrace. Unfortunately Leno flubbed what could have been another Hugh Grant opportunity, never once asking West the question to which everyone wanted an answer: Why the hell did you do it?

The low energy of the West interview segment fit right in with the astonishing lack of excitement that characterized Leno's first hour as a primetime entertainer, a big disappointment well documented by almost every TV critic of note. Unlike most of those reviewers I did watch Tonight with some regularity during his 17-year tenure and thought it was lively good fun. Comparatively, I found his Monday night premiere to be shockingly dull, beginning with the inexplicably subdued title sequence. Indeed, it was such a humor vacuum that even the always reliable Jerry Seinfeld couldn't deliver the funny. (The canned appearance by Oprah Winfrey via satellite was arguably the low point of the night.) It was about as much fun as watching someone moving a pile of sand from one side of a room to another, one grain at a time.

Someone suggested to me that Leno and his crew need time to get comfortable with their new gig. I replied that the new gig isn't all that different from the old, except for the uncomfortable looking blue chairs in which Leno now conducts his interviews, and that after a 17-year warm-up Leno and his producers should have been on their game right from the start, seeing as their arrival in primetime is supposed to change the course of television history and all.

Night two showed some signs of improvement, so maybe we should throw out the first pancake, as they say. Leno was a little looser and his monologue more up-to-the-minute, though he still looked somewhat lost on that giant new stage, which affords none of the critical intimacy of his old Tonight Show environs. It's as if he's working in a half empty warehouse. (What is it with NBC and jumbo studios? Conan O'Brien seems totally adrift in his ginormous new arena.) Tuesday's guest comic, Jim Norton, was not particularly funny, but his segment wasn't as difficult to sit through as Monday's mishap featuring Dan Finnerty at a car wash. Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz were entertaining guests in their live remote from a movie set in Worcester, Mass.

But I'm still a long way from satisfied. Critics who complain that The Jay Leno Show is too much like The Tonight Show with Jay Leno are wrongheaded. The new Leno needs to be more like the old Tonight before O'Brien and his crew steamrolled over it.

I have saved the worst of the recent network bungles for last, in part because it has yet to happen. Friday will bring with it the end of Guiding Light, the longest-running scripted series in television history. From its humble beginnings as a radio serial in 1937 thru the dawn of the digital era, and without ever ceasing production, GL brought compelling entertainment to generations of families. It survived the Great Depression, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the assassination of a president, years of riots in our cities and calamitous protests on our campuses, Watergate, the resignation of a president, multiple recessions and energy crises and natural disasters, the Gulf War, 9/11 and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other national and international hardships and challenges. But this one of a kind broadcast entity couldn't survive the calamitous machinations of the current executive regimes at CBS and Procter & Gamble Productions. Working together, those well-compensated folks couldn't come up with a way to continue this precious and historic franchise -- not even via low-cost webisodes or basic cable movies.

Guiding Light wasn't just another soap opera. It was an American treasure, and it deserved much better. So did its millions of faithful fans.

To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to the JackMyers Connection Hotline.

This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com.

Tom Cruise: I Was Never Asked For A Sex Refund (VIDEO)

2009-09-16T15:06:10Z

Sex with Tom Cruise is....a good investment?

On his show Tuesday night, Jay Leno peppered Cruise with a series of sexual questions, starting by asking whether he has ever been to a strip club.

"Actually I never have been, ever," Cruise said. Sorry to disappoint you."

Cameron Diaz, his costar in the upcoming movie 'Witchita,' added, "It's kind of hard to be Tom Cruise and go to a strip club."

Leno dismissed him a liar then moved on to the next question: "I know you're a pilot, what are you better at - flying or sex?"

"You know what, I don't know," said Cruise. "I try to excel in all areas and I've never been asked for a refund, so I don't know."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!

Meredith C. Carroll: The Fading Status of Glamour Gulch

2009-09-15T07:00:00Z

Despite finishing third in this summer's Tour de France, seven-time champion Lance Armstrong remained the big man on campus in Aspen, Colorado, because his son was born a few weeks prior to the start of the race at Aspen Valley Hospital. The cycling legend's presence around town put Aspen back into the conversation as a getaway for the rich and famous.

Other than Armstrong, it appears as if former gossip page mainstay Aspen has fallen from the A-list to the zzzzzzzz-list. Once known as the snowy playground of the Hollywood elite, in recent years the mountain hamlet's celebrity ski conditions have seemed more like mashed potatoes than champagne powder.

One of the area's most legendary dwellers, Goldie Hawn, is more famous lately for being the mother of actress Kate Hudson than anything else. The 1969 Academy Award-winner, whose last memorable hit was likely nitrous oxide in the dentist's chair, complained to The Aspen Times in 2008 that the paparazzi in town had gotten so bad during the holiday season, "They're right on top of you...they follow you wherever you go. It's an insult to your being."

What Hawn might have found more troubling than the paparazzi, however, is that they were probably harassing her so she'd move out of the way, as she was blocking the money shot of her tabloid staple daughter, who was walking next to her.

Melanie Griffith, a recent cover girl for Aspen Peak magazine (ironically and otherwise known as the glossy where Hollywood careers go to die), is an Aspen stalwart. Her husband, Antonio Banderas, who has seemingly done more Nasonex commercials than films, has become best known for being the voice of an animated cat (albeit an adorably feisty animated cat, Puss in Boots) who gets third billing behind an ogre and an ass.

Until a few years ago, Griffith's ex-husband Don Johnson maintained an Aspen-area address, too. But when the tip jar in a neighborhood bar put up a sign asking for contributions to help pay off Johnson's debts at local grocery and liquor stores, the one-time Miami Vice and Nash Bridges star must have taken that as a sign that it was time to move on and out.

More people went to see Aspenite Kevin Costner play with his band at local music venue Belly Up (capacity: 450) in July than his last film, Swing Vote. Homeowner Jack Nicholson is most likely to be featured on Entertainment Tonight only when yet another scantily clad twenty-something is spied helping him stumble out of a nightclub with his belly hanging out over his pants.

Mariah Carey makes her annual 12-minute pilgrimage to Aspen each year at Christmastime, smiles for the cameras outside the Louis Vuitton and Buccellati boutiques and then glides over the slush and ice in her 6-inch stilettos and one-piece mink-lined snowsuit back to her private plane at Sardy Field. Regardless, since her new album's release date has ominously been pushed back twice, it's unlikely Aspen or anything else other than her bra will be getting a boost from her presence.

A smattering of Kennedys find their way to Sardy Field every year, too, but they don't garner the same kind of buzz in Aspen as they do in Hyannis Port (although at 7,890 feet they probably get a better buzz). The Kennedys' Cape Cod neighbor, Martha's Vineyard, continues to maintain its spot as an A-list resort with celebrity denizens like Larry David and Ted Danson.

While Danson has yet to duplicate the kind of success he had on "Cheers," Bill and Hillary Clinton are his frequent houseguests, and they'll always be A-list. Plus the Obamas vacationed on the Vineyard last month, and a visit from a non-working, sitting president is a guaranteed shot of adrenaline to the status of any town (with the exception of Crawford, Texas).

With Ralph Lauren, Oprah Winfrey and Tom Cruise (couch-jumping Scientologist or not, he's still A-list) calling it their (second, third, fourth or fifth) home, Telluride is solidly an A town, too. So is Vail, just because it is.

Neighboring resort and perennial Vail shadow, Beaver Creek, had longtime local Gerald Ford, putting both the resort and the president squarely on the B-list. (You sort of actually have to be elected to something with the word "president" in the title and actually serve a full term in order to be considered an A-list president).

Park City has Robert Redford, but any halo effect of his A-list ranking on the town is canceled out by D-listers like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan who invade the Wasatch Mountain burg for the swag suites during the Sundance Film Festival. Sun Valley is A-list all the way with Tom Hanks, Clint Eastwood, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher and Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

At least Aspen has Lance. His bronze showing in France might not have landed him on the cover of Sports Illustrated, but he'll show Puss In Boots who's the man on the washed-up streets of Aspen.

Meredith C. Carroll writes a weekly column for The Aspen Times, Summit Daily News and Santa Monica Daily Press.

Bryan Farrell: An Inglourious Basterdization of History

2009-09-05T15:49:32Z

In one of the most memorable scenes from Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, Brad Pitt's character gives his army of Jewish soldiers a pep talk so rousing audiences can't resist whooping with excitement after he says, "We're in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin."

But audiences aren't the only ones cheering. Critics are eating up Tarantino's revenge fantasy just as eagerly. Roger Ebert gushed over the film, writing, "He provides World War II with a much-needed alternative ending. For once the basterds get what's coming to them."

Even the actors have gotten in on the retribution game. Melanie Laurent, who plays the film's main protagonist, told reporters she was happy to be "the face of the Jewish vengeance," while Eli Roth, who plays the head-smashing character known as "The Bear Jew", described the film as, "kosher porn, something I have been fantasizing about for a long time."

Tarantino, however, has shirked the "revenge fantasy" label, saying, more generally, "I like that it's the power of the cinema that fights the Nazis." He's clearly not the only one in the film industry. Over the past year Hollywood has treated us to an assassination attempt on Hitler and an armed Jewish uprising in Poland.

We have become enchanted, perhaps more so than ever, with the idea that the Nazis could only have been defeated by brute force, when it has been argued by a number of historians that the horrors of war itself may have been what sparked the Final Solution. Chronology suggests that it was not until the end, when Germany was suffering great defeats on the battlefield and seeing its cities torched to the ground, that extermination programs were enacted.

Movies, arguably more than any medium, reinforce the belief that superior violence was the only way to take down Hitler. For instance, the Hitler in Tarantino's film becomes a confounded and frustrated mess when he hears of the Basterds brutal exploits. In reality, however, Nazis were actually relieved when the resistance turned to violence because it gave them an excuse to use more drastic and suppressive measures. According to military historian Basil Lidell Hart, who had the unique opportunity to interview German generals imprisoned in Great Britain after the war, "other forms of resistance baffled them" because "they were experts in violence, and had been trained to deal with opponents who used that method."

Such a finding suggests a surprising truth about WWII: nonviolence, of the kind Gandhi practiced, was used successfully against the Nazis. For all the films about WWII, only a handful have depicted nonviolent resistance. Some of the best stories, however, have not yet been told on the silver screen, though not for lack of drama.

One such story begging for a film adaptation, is told in a book by Philip P. Hallie called, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed: The Story of the Village of Le Chambon and How Goodness Happened There. The setting, much like the opening of Inglourious Basterds, was a small farming community, nestled in the mountains of south-central France. But unlike the French farmer in Basterds, the people of Le Chambon openly and successfully protected Jews and other peoples fleeing from Nazi oppression. By the end of the war, they had saved an estimated 5,000 refugees, approximately 3,500 of whom were Jews.

Their success was in large part due to a charismatic young preacher named André Trocmé, who led an operation that hid Jews in the homes of peasants and poor farmers, as well as seven boarding houses located in the center of town. Financial aid came from outside the village and in most cases Jews and other refugees were housed for the entire German occupation.

Trocmé also founded a private school on his strong belief in nonviolence that taught, among other things, conscientious objection, internationalism, fellowship and peacemaking. As a result, when a representative from the Vichy government came to visit the town, he was met with a letter from students declaring their intent, as Trocmé would later put it, "to protect persecuted people whenever and wherever they could."

The Chambonnais made good on that promise. When Vichy police arrived to start arresting Jews, they found themselves outsmarted. A plan to hide the Jewish population in the thick woods that surrounded the village had already gone into effect. The police scoured the area for three weeks and managed to make only two arrests before leaving. Over the next three years, under complete German occupation, the Nazis carried out only one successful raid, thanks to the townspeople's dedication.

Most, if not all, European countries have their own stories of nonviolent resistance, but they so rarely get attention. Thanks to Tom Cruise, more people know about the failure of Operation Valkyrie than the actually successful Danish resistance. It's not as if the story of ordinary people systematically stifling the Nazis through acts of industrial sabotage and general strikes, as well as saving 8,000 Jews by covertly sailing them to neutral Sweden is lacking in excitement.

The same goes for the story of a Bulgarian bishop, who along with local farmers, threatened to lay down on the train tracks to prevent Jews from being deported, which in turn convinced the Bulgarian government to back down from Nazi demands, saving 48,000 Jews from the concentration camps. Not even the grim ending of Defiance, which claims that the destructive actions of the film's protagonists and their guerrilla movement helped ensure tens of thousands of Jewish descendants, can truly match those bloodless results.

Clearly, people love watching movies about WWII. It gives them the chance to see good triumphing over evil. But nothing says we have to stick to the same stale and misleading storyline that violence is what saved us from the Nazis.

Tarantino once said, "I loved history because to me, history was like watching a movie." Perhaps it's time for him to do us all a favor and next time indulge his love for history instead of his fantasies of revenge.

John Farr: The Dimming of Star Power in Hollywood

2009-08-21T16:42:06Z

Today's New York Times carried a revealing article titled "A-List Stars Flailing At The Box Office", which raises some pressing questions facing the movie business today.

Lo and behold, industry insiders are shocked (shocked!) and mightily troubled by the revelation that Hollywood's top stars are not opening films the way they used to.

Could it be that Denzel and Julia no longer merit guaranteed twenty million dollar paydays with every picture? And if so, what precisely has happened?

Here's my own theory: the buying public is not as stupid as Hollywood executives seem to believe. You can get away with feeding audiences substandard product propped up by big names for a while, but in the absence of quality and perceived value, the inevitable happens: you start gradually but inexorably to lose your audience.

This is about as old and basic a marketing rule as you can find, and what Hollywood sells is not immune from it. And a good thing too.

In the midst of all the West Coast hand-wringing, several other factors are floated about: foremost among them, that movies face more competition from other sources of entertainment, and that in light of this, movies are a less important part of most people's lives.

That's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it? I don't think you can blame technology for making movies less important. I think you must blame the movies themselves.

As critic A.O Scott recently attested, Hollywood is relying increasingly on tried and true, youth-targeted formula films to prop up their bottom lines.

Is this focus a sound long-term strategy? I doubt it.

It makes you think: no wonder movies seem less important- the ones Hollywood really pushes aren't even intended for anyone over 21!

And those releases that might appeal to a broader audience- many featuring those big buck names like Crowe, Hanks, and Sandler- are not working so well.

Another hard and fast rule of the film business: no star can prop up a fundamentally inferior vehicle, much less a string of them.

And in my albeit somewhat biased view, our current crop of box-office draws, by virtue of their relative magnetism, are even less equipped to do it than were their more modestly paid predecessors during Hollywood's Golden Age, and directly after.

This comparison only makes the ridiculous pay packages earned by today's top movie names all the more obscene.

If you objectively gauge today's actual on-screen star wattage to what existed in prior generations, and factor in relative compensation adjusted for inflation, you see clearly that the problem is out of hand.

Though I love movies old and new, and have the website to prove it, for me Cary Grant most always trumps George Clooney, Brando in his prime outshines Sean Penn, and McQueen always seems more riveting on-screen than Brad Pitt, while Barbara Stanwyck most assuredly wins my vote over Julia Roberts.

But let's acknowledge that this view may be purely generational, or simply a matter of taste. Even if you believe today's star power burns as brightly as ever, the fact remains that the industry still pays its mega-stars many, many times what past generations have earned.

A conservative guess-timation would suggest that top star Clark Gable in the old studio system might have made about one-tenth of what Russell Crowe now takes in annually. As recently as the seventies, Paul Newman might have earned about a quarter of what Tom Cruise would receive today.

It's also worth noting that neither Gable nor Newman felt themselves badly used at the time- they both lived extremely well, and deserved to. But their pay-checks were more in line with the actual value they brought to the industry. (Actually, in the case of stars locked into studio contracts, you could make the argument they were under-valued.)

This perspective makes it clear that Hollywood needs to re-think their whole business strategy, and fast. Business as usual will no longer cut it.

I still believe the feature length film is potentially the most powerful popular medium we have. To re-capture its relevance, Hollywood will need to take more risks, make smaller, better films which appeal to a broader swath of the public, and on the cost side, dramatically re-adjust star salaries.

Those who don't accept it will risk being replaced by smart, talented up-and-comers who recognize the new reality.

Ultimately, the industry must take a longer view beyond next quarter's P&L, recognize that most of their output today is too safe, stale and familiar , and in response, put the focus back on making movies that reward their coveted viewers' time and attention.

Easier said than done, I know, but remember that Hollywood has been forced to reinvent itself before, most memorably in the late sixties and early seventies. Undoubtedly, with the right leadership, they can do it again.

Dramatically cutting top stars' inflated salaries is only a beginning- but a necessary one.

For close to 2,000 outstanding titles on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.

To see John's weekly video recommendations, go to www.reel13.org

Brad Pitt Calls Tom Cruise's Nazi Flick 'Ridiculous'

2009-08-21T08:05:15Z

As far as Brad Pitt is concerned, his new film Inglourious Basterds is the be all and end all of Nazi movies.

"The second World War could still deliver more stories and films, but I believe that Quentin [Tarantino, director] put a cover on that pot. With Basterds, everything than can be said to this genre has been said," Pitt tells the German magazine Stern. "The film destroys every symbol. The work is done, end of story."

Mark Pasetsky: Sherri Shepherd Lost 41LBS, Alyssa Milano Wedding, TomKat Fight: The New Celeb Weeklies!

2009-08-19T08:42:07Z

Diets, weddings and big fights!

The all new celebrity weeklies hit newsstands today -- and there is something for everybody.

Which is your favorite cover of the week? The worst?

Sound off below in the comments section!

We kick it off with OK! Magazine* - which features Sherri Shepherd's dramatic weight loss. The View star shows off her new bathing suit body. She lost 41lbs and went from a size 16 to a 6. Plus, she did it without surgery!

In other news, Jon Gosselin's ex is calling him a dirtbag, according to Life & Style**. Apparently, Jon took this mystery ex out on cheap dates to fast-food restaurants and used her for sex. Making matters worse? He dumped her by text - which is so 2009.

In happier couple news, Alyssa Milano tied the knot this weekend -- and her striking wedding photo is the cover of People Magazine.

Visit CoverAwards HERE for this week's UK and Australia tabloids.

Making a return to the celebrity weekly cover spotlight? It's Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes on InTouch Weekly, which is reporting the once happy couple is happy no more. They're even fighting in public.

Meanwhile, the latest Us Weekly cover is good news and bad news for Jennifer Aniston. The good news? Angelina Jolie is not on this cover. The bad news? Renee Zellweger is -- and even she is now capable of stealing Jen's boyfriends. Poor Jen. She can't catch a break.

Star Magazine's latest effort features Jennifer Love Hewitt and other stars who beat cellulite. The tab is serving up 5 fixes and says you don't have to diet or go through lipo. (I still don't get why anybody would play tennis in a bikini.)

Visit CoverAwards HERE for this week's UK and Australia tabloids.

Mark Pasetsky is the editorial director of CoverAwards, which is best known for featuring the latest magazine covers from the U.S. and around the world.

*Mark Pasetsky is an editorial consultant for OK! Magazine and **the former Editor in Chief of Life & Style Weekly.

Visit CoverAwards HERE for this week's UK and Australia tabloids.

Michael Shermer: The Case for Libertarianism

2009-08-13T10:27:56Z

Anyone who follows politics on a regular basis through the standard channels of talk radio, talk television, newspaper editorials, magazine commentaries, popular books, blogs, tweets, and the like, knows the standard stereotype of what liberals think of conservatives:

Conservatives are a bunch of Hummer-driving, meat-eating, gun-toting, hard-drinking, Bible-thumping, black-and-white-thinking, fist-pounding, shoe-stomping, morally-hypocritical blowhards.

And what conservatives think of liberals:

Liberals are a bunch of hybrid-driving, tofu-eating, tree-hugging, whale-saving, sandal-wearing, bottled-water-drinking, ACLU-supporting, flip-flopping, wishy-washy, Namby Pamby bedwetters.

The stereotypes are so annealed into our culture that everyone understands them enough for comedians and commentators to exploit them. And like many stereotypes, they both have an element of truth to them that reflects an emphasis on differing moral values. According to the University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in fact, such stereotypes reflect five foundations of morality upon which liberalism and conservatism are based:

1. Harm-Care (do not harm others, people should be cared for)
2. Fairness-Reciprocity (justice and equality for all)
3. In-Group Loyalty (we live in a dangerous tribal world so we need national unity)
4. Authority-Respect (tradition, faith, law-and-order)
5. Purity-Sanctity (sex, drugs, rock'n'roll)

Over the years Haidt and his colleagues have surveyed the moral opinions of over 23,000 people from Western nations all over the world, and have found a consistent difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals are high on 1 and 2 (Harm-Care and Fairness-Reciprocity), but low on 3, 4, and 5 (Loyalty, Authority-Respect, and Purity-Sanctity). Conservatives are roughly equal on all five dimensions, although place slightly less emphasis on 1 and 2 and slightly more on 3, 4, and 5.

In other words, liberals question authority, celebrate diversity, often flaunt faith and tradition in order to care for the weak and oppressed, and they want change and justice even at the risk of political and economic chaos. By contrast, conservatives emphasize institutions and traditions, faith and family, nation and creed, and they want order even at the cost of those at the bottom. Instead of viewing the left and the right as either right or wrong (depending on which one you are), a more reflective approach is to recognize that liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral values.

An example of the tension between these moral values can be seen in the 1992 film, A Few Good Men, in which Jack Nicholson's character -- the battle-hardened Marine Colonel Nathan R. Jessup -- is being cross-examined by Tom Cruise's naive rookie Navy lawyer Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee. In the context of Haidt's moral dimensions, I think of Kaffee as the liberal and Jessup as the conservative. Kaffee is defending two Marines accused of killing a fellow soldier at Guantanamo base in Cuba. He thinks Jessup ordered a "code red," an off-the-books command to rough up a lazy Marine trainee in need of discipline, and that matters got tragically out of hand. Kaffee wants individual justice for his clients; Jessup wants freedom for the nation even at the cost of individual liberty, as he explains:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. ... You don't want the truth because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post."

Personally, I tend more toward the liberal emphasis on individual fairness, justice and liberty, and I worry that overemphasis on group loyalty will trigger our often divisive inner tribalisms. But ever since 9/11 I am grateful to all the brave soldiers who have stood a post and allowed me to sleep under the blanket of freedom that they have provided for us all.

Is there a way around this dilemma, a political position above and beyond the traditional left-right spectrum? There is. It's called libertarian. Libertarian? I know what you're thinking:

Libertarians are a bunch of beater-driving, fusion-food eating, pot-smoking, porn-watching, prostitution-supporting, secession-mongering, tax-revolting, morally-indecisive anti-government anarchists.

Yes, like the other two stereotypes, there is some element of truth in this one as well. But, basically, libertarians are for freedom and liberty for individuals, and yet we recognize that in order to be free we must also be protected. Libertarianism is grounded in the Principle of Freedom: All people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. Of course, the devil is in the details of what constitutes "infringement," but there are at least a dozen essentials to protecting from infringements our basic freedoms:

1. The rule of law.
2. Property rights.
3. Economic stability through a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system.
4. A reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country.
5. Freedom of speech and the press.
6. Freedom of association.
7. Mass education.
8. Protection of civil liberties.
9. A robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states.
10. A potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by other people within the state.
11. A viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws.
12. An effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.

These essentials incorporate the moral values embraced by both liberals and conservatives, and as such form the foundation for a bridge between left and right.

Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, an adjunct professor at Claremont Graduate University, and the author of The Mind of the Market.

Disgrasian: The Red Dawn Remake: The Chinese Are Coming! The Chinese Are Coming!

2009-08-10T19:25:28Z

Red Dawn was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It starred my girlhood crush, C. Thomas Howell. It was released in 1984, a year after The Outsiders, and it reunited three of that movie's cast members: Howell, Patrick Swayze, and Darren Dalton. Red Dawn was, in fact, a lot like The Outsiders, only this time, the kids were armed with machine guns and RPG's instead of knives and chains, and they were fighting a much bigger enemy than the Socs.

It was also a movie about America being invaded by the Soviets (and the Cubans), and group of all-American teens who become freedom fighters in the resistance against them. If you watch it now, the story seems much more about the mujahideen in 1980's Afghanistan than it does about America. But it seemed so plausible at the time--to me, especially, as a child--that we could be invaded by the Soviet Union, because we were still firmly in the grips of the Cold War, and Russia was our enemy.

A Red Dawn remake is in the works, scheduled to begin production in September. Most of the principal cast has been confirmed, the latest addition being Connor Cruise, 14 year-old son of Tom Cruise. Remakes are generally never as good as their originals, but what really worries me about the Red Dawn remake is that the foreign invaders this go-around are apparently going to be...Chinese.

This isn't entirely surprising, given how much cultural anxiety people feel these days about China taking over everything. Shoot, I even wrote a post two years ago during all of that China toy-recall hysteria and gave it this label: "I Smell a Remake of Red Dawn Only This Time the Invaders Have Slanty-Eyes."

But this is 2009 and not 1984. Everybody knows that if the Chinese are going to take over America, they're not going to do it by military force--they're going to do it by buying up all of our real estate! Which, I suppose, is less exciting cinematically than guerrilla warfare. But I do wonder how the filmmakers are going to pull this off, if there's any way to do Red Dawn with a Chinese enemy without it being totally racist?

All I can say is we'll be keeping an eye on this remake. One very skeptical slanty-eye.

Connor Cruise, Tom's Son, Joins 'Red Dawn' Remake

2009-08-10T11:56:35Z

Josh Hutcherson, Isabel Lucas, Connor Cruise and Edwin Hodge are the newest Wolverines to join MGM/UA's "Red Dawn" remake.

They join Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki in the revamp of the 1984 action movie about a group of teenagers who form an insurgency when their town is invaded -- this time by Chinese and Russian soldiers.