Tag: Los Angeles

By on

The problem with nuanced explanations about emotionally charged situations is that people are getting pretty worked about it. People are seeing violence on the streets of Los Angeles. Saying things like we are handling the situation, the protesters are mostly peaceful, the president is breaking all historical protocol on how these situations are handled is fine when people are discussing budget deficits. It is all together a different story when you have rioters on the streets. The only appropriate answer is this is a big problem and we welcome all the help we can get.

Unfortunately the ever crafty Donald Trump doesn’t do nuance while Gavin Newsom can’t stop himself from trying to explain the unexplainable. Yes, this is a shit sandwich but it isn’t a lot of shit and we can get rid of shit if the President would only leave us alone to do our jobs. Don’t get me wrong, Newsom is absolutely right but sometimes being right doesn’t stop someone from looking ineffective in a dangerous situation.

Some of the protesters have gone over the line. Yes Trump provoked it and this certainly needs to be said but not by a man who has rioters loose in his state. Other people can point that out. Newsom needs to blunt an effective attack on his competence.

Admittedly Newsom is in a difficult situation. Trump is taking advantage of a situation he created. This doesn’t matter when police are under attack and cars are being set on fire. Newsom is already, somewhat undeservedly, trying to remove the egg from his face based on the January fires that devastated portions of the city. He does’t need more damage to his competence.

Middle-class people disapprove of rioting. They also have a tendency to vote. They might prefer, no matter how much they hate the man, a person who says this is wrong, the people who should take care of it aren’t taking care of it and I will take care of it as a better person for the job over someone giving a nuanced explanation of why there are rioters in his state and why he doesn’t need the President’s help.

So maybe, for the time being, a better plan would be to say I welcome the President’s help in getting this situation under control and immediately try to start working with Trump on containing the violence. This gives Trump some impetus to work with Newsom on resolving the problem.

Plus it might make things awkward for Trump who would then be forced to work with local authorities on a town they know well. If he preferred to go it alone. Newsom can say he tried to work with Trump but his assistance was declined. Thus, if things go South, and given Trump and his cronies penchant for going off half-cocked about things, it would probably go South pretty fast without the co-operation of Newsom and local authorities, then Trump would be holding the shit sandwich while Newsom could shrug his shoulders and say he tried.

There is a potential for blood in the streets because Trump and his cronies seem to be looking for a way to assert control. Unfortunately the potential for blood is already there. I don’t know about you but it sounds really dangerous for two different armed groups independently trying to put down a small riot than to have one co-ordinated force. Worse still it would be Democrat fighting Republican in the streets.

No doubt, this wouldn’t be a win for Newsom but it certainly would be better for him than looking like an incompetent ninny.

By on

I want to recommend a movie called Under the Silver Lake without steering you wrong. First, it isn’t Citizen Kane. There are some real problems with the movie particularly the bone headed treatment of woman — almost all the women are good looking eye candy scantily clad, topless or nude. They are primarily there to please the male gaze. The plot is convoluted, possibly non-existent which is weird because there seems to be a plot that is always moving but not necessarily forward and perhaps not side to side or backwards either. It is way too long. The movie is clearly aimed at young men with thwarted artistic ambitions — a very limited audience indeed. The lead character, played by Andrew Garfield, is kind of creepy even though he is, for lack of a better word, the hero of the movie.

Despite all of this, I did enjoy the movie and am thinking about days after seeing it. So there is something there. I am just not sure how to describe in such a way that anybody would understand. The movie is definitely not for everyone but I, for one, kept thinking this is an interesting enough ride for me to stay on board. There is no need for spoiler alerts because there is too much going on for anyone to connect the dots to a cohesive plot even if you have seen the movie.

It comes as close as I have ever seen of capturing the offbeat weirdness that is LA. A weirdness that is both sinister and oddly cheerful. Everyone is a performance artist and a member of a secret conspiracy whether they want to be or not. David Robert Mitchell, the director, is fan of Alfred Hitchcock and this movie is definitely a homage to him. There are hints of other old movies throughout the film.

The plot sort of is this: the hero is completely distracted from the very real possibility of being evicted from his apartment to investigate instead the disappearance of a woman he met just once. Because no one can explain where she is, he becomes enmeshed in probably unrelated conspiracies from a nut who seems completely rational at times but has an answer for the hero’s every question which makes him sound believable even though you know he is crazy. There are adolescent hooligans keying cars, gurus, nuclear fallout shelters, comic book shops, parties that absolutely anybody can walk into if they have the right cookie, secret codes that lead to maps found on the back of cereal boxes, blind folded journeys through Griffin Park lead by a homeless man wearing a paper crown, and a naked women wearing an owl mask who could be a notorious murderer. Do you get it?

It’s funny, sad and frequently unbelievably artificial while also being genuinely LA.