Happy 5th [April Fool's Day] Birthday to Flying Houses

Today is April Fool's Day and also the birthday of Flying Houses.  We turned 5 today.

It is always a good time to consider our achievements over the past year.  Consider this my MD&A.

First of all, we cracked 30,000 all time page views.

Second, we cracked 2,000 monthly page views in March 2013, demolishing the previous month's record by nearly 700.  This may or may not have been a "pop" instituted by Jeffrey Toobin's "retweet" of my review of The Oath.

Among the highlights of the past year, The Bond Project remains most prominent.  More than 25 posts were made on this topic.  Flying Houses will be making our 250th Post very soon and we expect it to be a special one.  But we would not be at this point if not for the hard work of Jay Maronde, who has proven himself to be an expert on James Bond.  With the Die Hard Project currently in progress, I cannot thank Jay enough for his contributions.

I also want to thank Emily Dufton for her excellent review of IQ84 by Haruki Murakami.  This was one of the finest pieces of literary journalism/criticism that I have read in recent years, and I am deeply honored that I was able to present it here.

I also want to thank our most recent contributor, J. Alexander Gibson for his review of The Defining Decade, and not just because I post it in the waning days (16 left to go) of my twenties: I feel that these types of books (non-fiction or sociological theory) are potentially the most rewarding ones to review because real life experience, as opposed to the trait of being "well-read," colors the interpretation of a text in more "useful" or "tangible" ways.

I want to thank the BLS Advocate for allowing me to write my column and also post those columns (in their un-edited form) on this blog.  Those comprise an additional 22 posts or so, and again, without those we would not be knocking on the door of 250.

My hope is that by April 1, 2014, I will be gainfully employed, and will have cracked 300 posts and 75,000 page views.  Those may be ambitious projections, but I believe they are within reach.

Apart from those reviews already linked to above, here are what I consider to be the "greatest hits" of April 1, 2012 - April 1, 2013:

#1: NIED #9: Not in Love (Legally)  (posted 4/4/12) - This is a column about people seeking their spouses in law school.  Notable because some anonymous commenter on BLS Advocate just wrote, "you poor, poor thing," after reading it. (I tend to wonder whether that comment was a legitimate expression of sympathy or a passive-aggressive jab.)

#2: The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon (posted 5/13/12) - This was the first book I was able to review by Thomas Pynchon, and it was an excellent read.  Highly recommended, though it does not quite make the list of the "best books reviewed on Flying Houses list" (which you may find in my Profile).

#3: Discourse on Method by Rene Descartes (posted 6/1/12) - Understandably not the most popular post, but an original one as reviews on Flying Houses of philosophical texts hold the potential for enormous intellectual rewards.

#4: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller (posted 6/27/12) - Important because (a) it is named one of the "best books reviewed on Flying Houses" and (b) it is the first of many reviews of graphic novels that were undertaken over this past year.

#5: Big Sur by Jack Kerouac (posted 8/20/12) - Important because it is one of the last works of literature reviewed before the beginning of my 3L year, which brought great changes.  An entertaining review, and a book worth reading if one is interested at all in Kerouac.

#6: Skyfall (JK); Skyfall (JM) (posted 12/3/12) - Dueling Reviews of the newest Bond, our film criticism at its height.

#7: The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (posted 12/15/12) - Maybe I didn't do so well in my classes because I was so wrapped up in this book.  Notable as good "background reading" on certain cases in First Amendment law, provided at the end of the review.   Also notable for making the "best books" list.

#8: Superman: Red Son by Mark Millar (posted 1/1/13) - Notable for being such an outstanding work of art in the graphic novel medium.  A personal favorite from the year and an entrant on the "best books" list.

#9:  My Bloody Valentine - m b v (posted 2/16/13) - The album that took 22 years to release created a ton of music journalism--this was my little drop in the bucket.

#10: Die Hard with a Vengeance (JM) (posted 3/20/13) - This movie is an underrated classic and deserves to be seen by more members of the general public.  I include it as #10 as a way to sign off this post, as we are still meandering in the territory of the Die Hard Project and will soon complete it.

Thanks to all of our readers and thanks especially to those that have left comments.  You have helped to make this blog a success.  It may not be the greatest way for me to make money, but I feel that a substantial public interest has been served, and I will continue to do my best in providing excellent content for years to come.

Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts - Mark W. Smith (incomplete)

Note: This is Not the "Disrobed" Written by Judge Block, and I Would Much Rather Read that One

by Jack Knorps

Perhaps the problem with America is that we don't really give deference to the voices that speak in opposition to ours.  It pains me, greatly, to leave that scarlet word "incomplete" in the title of this post (I  have not had an "I" since Proust, je pense) but Mark W. Smith is no Mark E. Smith and I can hardly bear to waste anymore of my time reading this book.  I got through 33 pages.  I thought it would be a fun review to write, but I was wrong.

I have written at length on the "right" and the "left" swinging of the Court, but this book is a waste of my time because it is dated!  It was published in 2006.  If Smith did not get his wish then I'm sorry for him, but from his writing he appears to be an extremely radical conservative.

In the basement of the Brooklyn Law School library, there is some graffiti in the men's bathroom.  In the handicapped stall somebody wrote, "My s*** feels like: -a Scalia opinion (painful and offensive)."  I don't know who wrote that (it wasn't me--Scalia actually amuses me more often than not and I find him to be charmingly erudite, if politically "unattractive"), but if they are a terrorist then we should find him and torture him by forcing him to read this book.  That would be perfectly constitutional, actually. (I think.)

This book is dated because it opens up with Smith's Blackberry blowing up over Harriet Miers' failed appointment to the Court to replace Justice O'Connor (how charming to think, by the way, that there might have been a Justice Miers rather than a Justice Alito--Alito may be just about as conservative as you can get before entering lunatic land, but he is a much better writer than Smith--more respectable, at least).

This book has a chapter called "No More Souters."  I can guess what it says.  I didn't get that far, nor did I get to the titillatingly-titled fourteenth chapter, "Do You Sodomize Your Wife?" I made it to the first mention of Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, and I stopped:

"Just look at how liberal justices decided when to use the power of the courts--and when not to.  In Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), for example, the Supreme Court upheld an Oklahoma law preventing opticians, as opposed to licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists, from fitting lenses to eyeglasses.  In short, the Court rejected any suggestion that opticians or their patients had a right to enter into a voluntary economic transaction without the blessing of the state.  In his opinion, Justice William O. Douglas concluded, 'The day is gone when this Court uses the [Constitution] to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought...."For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the Courts."' (emphasis added).
Yet it was the very same Justice Douglas who a decade later wrote the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, striking down laws that restricted the sale of contraceptives.  Apparently, in the eyes of Justice Douglas, only economic conservatives needed to 'resort to the polls' when government regulators curtailed their liberties; social liberals could absolutely resort to the courts 'for protection against abuses by legislatures.'  Justice Douglas and the rest of his left-wing cronies on the high court obviously took to heart Emerson's line that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.'
Liberal justice William Brennan approved of the same double standard.  As constitutional scholar Bernard Schwarz explained, Brennan practiced 'judicial deference in the economic realm' but 'believed that the Bill of Rights provisions protecting personal liberties imposed more active obligations on the judges.  When a law infringed upon the personal rights the Bill of Rights guaranteed, Brennan refused to defer to the legislative judgment that the law was necessary.'
Why should Justice Brennan defer to government actions in the economic realm but not in the social or personal realm?  What about the constitutional guarantees to the right to keep the fruits of your own labor?  Did the Framers of the Constitution jettison the original Articles of Confederation to guarantee the 'fundamental' and 'unalienable' rights to abortion and buggery and the right to be free from hearing the words 'under God' uttered in the Pledge of Allegiance?" (31-32)

Actually Douglas used the words "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," which, yes, is part of the Constitution, but does not comprise the entirety of its text.  And Smith perhaps does not seem to worry about rogue "eye doctors" that would create things like the Opti-Grab and make people go cock-eyed.  But plenty of people try to practice law without a license.  I am sure that Smith would not worry about rogue "baby doctors" that would perform "back-alley abortions with coat hangers"--no, we can have every baby carried to term, and if the mother is irresponsible, well she can put it up for adoption, I guess.  Shame on her--she should at least need to suffer for 9 months and we should DEFINITELY BRING MORE PEOPLE INTO THIS WORLD BECAUSE IT'S GREAT!

Writing this review is like shooting fish in a barrel.  The part about Romer v. Evans is priceless.  Jeffrey Toobin may write books about the Court that read like "Con Law for Dummies," but Disrobed is truly written for the lowest common denominator--that is, someone that does not consider the other side's position because they know they're right.

It is quite funny, however, to think of this book as dated though it was published just seven short years ago.  Smith probably blew his brains out when Obama won the election and put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Court.  Or at least he probably got really bad migraines for a while.

I am guessing, however, that Smith did not lose very much money in the Great Depression, Part Two (the first of which he asserts was drawn out--not ameliorated--by the New Deal), but he does believe that allowing banks to fail back in the day was a bad thing--not sure how he could get what he wants.  Reading this is like listening to Rush Limbaugh.  One is saddened that people who are obviously capable of publishing a book, or speaking for hours on end and entertaining millions of people, can have their voices heard so loudly, and can propagate such myths and fool the masses into believing whatever sounds good for their agenda

I love the part in Romer v. Evans where Scalia references the Chicago Cubs (I think I have written about this on Flying Houses several times before) and talks about how gay law schools are.  I had to skip ahead to "No More Souters" to make sure that Smith was not in fact gay because then he might actually be ridiculously clever--but I guess I am wrong:

"But now we know the kinds of judges we need to look for--principled conservatives who want to protect traditional American rights and values and who will focus on results rather than merely process--how do we find our Judicial Reagans?  As any of my ex-girlfriends can tell you (and certainly as any of Bill Clinton's can), a woman knowing what she wants in a man is a far cry from her actually finding one who meets those criteria.  It's the same with conservatives who are selecting judges: There's no guarantee we'll appoint Judicial Reagans just because we have certain qualities in mind." (124)

I have a serious problem with people that like drama for the sake of drama or fighting for the sake of fighting.  There is a book called "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" and Justice Douglas made a similar point in Points of Rebellion: let us keep fighting because we don't know what else we are supposed to do with ourselves.  There is a civil war going on in this country, but it is hidden, and for good reason: it would tear families apart.  Many of my friends are conservatives--or libertarians--which I believe is just code for "reputable Republican."  Smith repeatedly refers to the "loony left."  But writers like him give Republicans a bad name.  I can agree to disagree, but I am not going to write an entire book accusing my enemies of being insane and taking the Supreme Court to task.  It's a foolish endeavor.  It has been foolish for me to read this book and waste my time with it.

I will say that the book--while written extremely poorly--at least uses pretty decent grammar.  It is more than I could say for Pygmy, but I am sure that even the "terrorist kid" in that book (or whatever he is) is a nicer person than Smith seems to be.

"Do You Sodomize Your Wife?" was apparently asked to Justice Scalia at NYU Law.  Smith says that Scalia "does not argue that sodomy is good or bad, fun or unfun, moral or immoral, or anything of the kind.  He instead believes only that such questions should be resolved through the democratic process, not by a small cadre of unelected judges."  (210)

That may be so but Smith does not give Scalia's answer to that question, which was probably quite witty--instead, Smith just calls the question an "intellectually vapid query" and focuses on the question itself rather than the answer: which is that Congress does not equal Democracy--Congress may be called democracy but it should be clear to any high school student that the democratic process is controlled by moneyed interests and the Court is really our last resort to protect against tyranny--and moneyed interests do not always respond to the increasingly diverse needs of Americans.  I personally prefer a world where I have a choice between The Strand, Barnes & Noble, and Borders, but I guess I'll probably be able to find something decent at Barnes & Noble anyways....

I have said all I can about this book.  I regret checking it out because it forces me to make a terribly unattractive statement: it's okay to stop reading a book if you think it sucks (or if it just makes you so angry that you feel you have wasted your time).  Now I really have to go study Crim Pro, Sec Reg, Tax, the MPRE, and whatever other fun stuff I do.  Luckily I do not need to "take a side" in these activities.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #20: Sticker Shocks and Certificates

In this column, I addressed sadness over a bad report card.  I also wrote about business law classes and law school grading mysteries.

NIED #20: Sticker Shocks and Certificates             

By Christopher J. Knorps

In keeping with the tradition of being an open book when it comes to grades, I must confess that my 3L Fall Semester was my worst academic performance in law school.  Over the first few days of the “sticker shock” I suffered after reading the results, I searched for a reasonable explanation:

(1)    The Professors did not adjust the curve upward for the two classes I took that had less than 39 students and that I got C+’s in.

(2)    I had the same “first exam” jitters for Accounting for Lawyers that I had for Criminal Law—only getting 3-4 hours of sleep before a 9 AM exam.

(3)    I didn’t appropriately allocate my time on the First Amendment exam.

(4)    I didn’t put in enough time to ensure that I knew the material cold (or that I could do the mathematical calculations that I’d be expected to know in Corporate Finance).

(5)    I never fully understood all the permutations that the different intestacy regimes for Trusts & Estates would implicate (though this was the least disappointing grade).

(6)    The clinic professor didn’t really pay attention when she gave students a “P” or an “HP.”

(7)    The other students in the class were just too damn smart (or the professors taught the class too damn well).

(8)    The other students getting Business Law Certificates are too damn smart.           

Also I had no friends that wanted to study with me.

Most likely, all 8 of these explanations, taken together, explain my precipitous drop.  However, I think the last two are the most important.  #7 was true for First Amendment (Araiza is an excellent professor, and while I would never brag about that grade, I am sure that everyone in the class left it with a very good understanding of the material).  #8 was true for Corporate Finance and Accounting for Lawyers (I would also add that, as a left-handed person forced to handwrite knuckle-smearing page-smudging-notes and struggle to keep up with the pace of the class, I was at a disadvantage).  Corporate Finance is a required course for the Business Law Certificate, and nobody in their right mind would take Accounting for Lawyers unless they are getting the Business Law Certificate (while not required it is “strongly recommended”) or taking a general Business Law Curriculum route. 

Certificates have their critics.  They say, “Nobody is going to care if you got a Certificate and you get to list it on your resume.”  However, I “trusted the school” in deciding to do this.  I felt that if I took these courses, then I would have the basic skills necessary to enter a number of different areas embedded within the general “business law” wheelhouse.  Perhaps it will have served me well to “punish myself” (in a sense) and learn this material, but it remains to be seen.

Some people may read this column and think I am dumping on all the other students that don’t take the Business Law Certificate.  They might think I’m implying that the Business Law kids are the really smart kids in the school.  But there are kids that are brilliant when it comes to Criminal Law, Intellectual Property (which, it is perhaps worth noting, seems much less popular than I thought it would be coming into law school), and Tax too.  But I must admit that I haven’t dug deeply enough into these areas (have not delved at all into IP, regrettably) to really know the kids taking the advanced courses.

Brooklyn is not a very highly-ranked school, but we suffer outside of the New York region because people do not recognize the intellectual quality of our students.  I have repeatedly said that I have never been surrounded by such an intelligent peer group in any other academic context in my life (and I think my previous schools were all more “prestigious”).  And I think that holds true for most of us.

I still have to believe that I would have done better if I had taken “fun” courses like I did last year (i.e. Interviewing and Counseling, Trial Advocacy, Employment Law, Business Reorganizations—all B+s through A’s).  And if all you care about is your GPA, then I highly recommend you just take courses that interest you, and don’t push yourselves to take big survey classes unless you are doing it for the Bar Exam.  Some people tend to say, “That sounds awful!” when I tell them I take Securities Regulation or Federal Income Taxation or Corporate Finance or Accounting for Lawyers.  And my GPA and class rank are now, officially “weak,” and there is nothing I can do about it.  But I remind myself that I have been learning something “new.” 

It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between class rank and area of concentration or certificate field.  I would venture a guess that the Business Law kids would be highly-ranked, but then again I am sometimes accused of allowing my experience to cloud my judgment.  Regardless, a study should be made. 

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L earning a Business Law Certificate.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy and constitutional law.  He is organizing a 2^nd Annual Open Mic this Spring with the proceeds going to Sanctuary for Families.  Please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in performing.  

NIED #10: BLS Student Audit 2012 - PSG Cuts, Tuition Hikes

As we near the end of law school and the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress column (there will be 24) I wanted to double-check and be sure that every column I had written for BLS Advocate would also be included on Flying Houses (because it is no secret that I often feel my words being ripped from my throat and twisted in just the slightest way to make way for a completely different interpretation).

My guess is that I forgot to post this column (which was written April 7, 2012) because I posted my Presidential Speech when I ran for President of the Student Bar Association last year.  Also, I was a bit nervous about posting it because BLS Advocate was in its first year and there were concerns about taking away perfectly good traffic from that site.  I think 10 months later, it is safe to post.  I also think a lot of students don't really care (or even know) about the way this school used to be, so I post this as a refresher.  

Note however that some commentators felt the need to break out the "hatorade" on BLS Advocate.  I ask that you please refrain from duplicating that experience.  If there was anytime that my "popularity" at the school hit an all-time low, it was certainly around the time of this column.  I have nothing against BLSPI and I feel that if I spend $450 to have dinner with Geraldo, then I am entitled to make light of the situation....Also I was corrected about my use of the phrase "Hobson's Choice" but I am leaving it in because I still think it's being appropriately used.

Moreover the situation is even more frustrating now than it was for me then--keep in mind that this was before the NIED column "On the Cusp."

Last week, a few representatives from the American Bar Association set up in the Moot Court room from 5:00 – 6:00 PM on a Monday.  They wanted to hear students’ opinions of our law school.  How many of us showed up?  I don’t know—7?  8?  I know that when I arrived I was the 4^th. 

                I used this opportunity to lobby for a napping room, and for a broad mandate to all law schools that class sizes must be reduced if the legal market can ever hope to be fixed.  BLS may or may not already be implementing such a mandate—and the size of next year’s 1L class should help determine that.  I also mentioned a brief story about the public service grant from last year. 

                If you were here, perhaps you remember the one day “push” to get a petition signed by as many students as possible.  Perhaps you remember our argument—that we had counted on the $5,000 being there for the summer for which we applied—and to remove it with the simple explanation that “the government cut our funding,” when there are plenty of other ways to make up for an $800,000 shortfall (the approximate cost of providing $2,000 extra per student) does not indicate a willingness on the part of the administration to really help students manage the cost of law school.

                BLS may, or may not have inflated their “9-months after graduation employment” numbers.  Big whoop.  So has everyone else.  BLS participated in the merit scholarship “scheme” where falling beneath the 40% mark in your class meant a reduction in your scholarship. Big whoop.  Some schools are even tougher—33% was my barrier everywhere else.   BLS may, or may have not, participated in “scholarship stacking,” which is a vague practice that involves packaging all of the highest “scholarship earning” students in the same section, or same larger section, first year.  This is more evil than fair, but difficult to prove (though not impossible).  And I do know that Section 16 from last year [2010-Ed.] is a powerhouse. 

                New York Law School’s case is getting dismissed.  Brooklyn’s case is getting dismissed (I’m calling it right here) because they can’t allege anything truly audacious—their only hope is the “scholarship stacking” argument—but even that might fly as a reasonable business judgment.  BLS is a 501(c)(3) and it should not care about profits.  But this is the #65 law school in the nation, and keeping such a high public profile costs a lot of money.  The cleanest way to make up for the shortfall without harming any existing funding or expenses is to raise tuition. 

                Tuition increased from $46,610 to $48,416 this year [$49,976 this year-Ed.].  3Ls did not bear the cost of the increase—but 2Ls did [3Ls, I think, did bear the cost of the increase this year--note the "I think" because this is not a formal Complaint-Ed.].  And 1Ls find themselves in the fortunate position of a smaller class by 100 students, and the unfortunate position of being the final class to have the 40% scholarship renewal barrier imposed upon them.  

                It is worth noting that I have not seen any student movement to reinstate the $5,000 summer PSG.  It is a fact of life that we accept.  I would like to argue that it is not unreasonable for us to seek this additional funding.  With the new system, students may be tempted to work 25 hours per week at the internship and 15 hours at some other place that might pay and make up for the shortfall.  This may include non-legal work like in a restaurant or something, and the school is not exactly encouraging students to do this, but they should know that students will be doing this, and that these sorts of jobs are not going to make them look any more attractive to prospective employers.  Thus, students are left with a choice – work 40 hours a week at one place – 15 of those for free – or try to make up the difference.  The school should not force students to make such a Hobson’s Choice when it is clear that other funds may be easily diverted to the cause (look, for example, at BLSPI, and how they fund scholarships….by getting students drunk and convincing them it’s a really good idea to spend $900 to have dinner with Geraldo, or $3,000 with the commissioner of the NHL….).  The result is that students need to think more creatively and do even more legwork to best avoid financial disaster.  But I hate students that complain about how busy they are.  We all are.  Get over it. 

BLS is not the only law school to hike its tuition, and it has to stay competitive.  We cannot blame BLS for everything, but we can try to urge it to be different from other schools and implement some really original policies.  It’s my hope that the change will be coming soon. 

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at BLS.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  You may find his other work at flyinghouses.blogspot.com.  Like Jamie Moyer, he believes that people should never count themselves out.  You may fail, and fail, and fail, and people may call you a freak and a loser who doesn’t know when to call it quits, but when you are still pitching at age 49 in the Rockies starting rotation, you will have the last laugh.    

The Bond Project: The End?

The Bond Project Wrap-Up

by Jay Maronde

                Well Dearest readers, as we’ve come to the end of a very long road, I would personally like to offer my extreme thanks to the entire Broccoli Family and the EON productions team, and also to the original spymaster himself Ian Fleming, for without this cadre of genii  none of this could have ever been possible. I, however, would most of all like to thank my fantastic editor Mr. Jack Knorps because again without his tremendous encouragement and editing none of this could also be possible.  Now having considered all this, my tremendous, gracious, and wonderfully understanding editor Mr. Knorps has asked me to write this wrap up. To wit: how could I refuse such a wonderfully respectful request from such a dear friend?

              Now, I initially thought that this wrap up would be much easier as we had earlier discussed a formal interview sort of context. During the course of our interviews it quickly became apparent that the big question most of all would be a ranking, a full and complete ranking of all the films. This is extremely difficult for me, like asking a parent to choose their favorite out of 23 children, and then rank the rest, so there was simply no way I could complete this task just off the top of my head. I assured my dear editor that I would sleep on this scenario and do my best to rank them. 

              I also want to note that my initial idea for this article was more of a “best of” type compilation, so please continue to read even after you reach the final end of the ranking because I think some of my favorite gems may come later on, but without further ado…

#1 Quantum of Solace

                If you read my reviews it was probably most apparent that this was my favorite. Director Marc Forster set out with a very specific goal of making a tight, hard-hitting action film that was “like a bullet.” Forster’s vision for this shorter, hard-hitting Bond is perfect for what is the only direct sequel in the entire franchise. Further, his allusions to other great films (including the demise of the lovely Strawberry Fields) comprise some of the finest filmmaking  in the entire Canon. (Less charitable review here)

#2  Skyfall

                Bond 23, the movie whose formerly impending release inspired this entire series of reviews, was more than worth the wait. The actors are fabulous. Dench and Bardem are the biggest snubs of this season’s awards shows' nominations. If the film were only slightly shorter I would have probably made it #1--it's really a personal preference (and a strong one) that I feel all films should be short so as to force the director to really tell his story concisely. But Skyfall is nonetheless amazing, I saw it in the theaters numerous times, and I will probably wait in line to purchase the Blu-Ray on release day. It was the first Bond to be filmed in large format, and if you still have the chance I would highly suggest viewing it in IMAX as it’s totally worth the extra cost. Bond simply cannot ever be big enough, and Skyfall Is a huge film that such an epic Canon deserves. (Slightly less charitable review here)

#3 Casino Royale

                I know, I know, I know, “How could I put all three Daniel Craig Bonds right at the top of the list?” No, I'm not just obsessed with the newest things.  Daniel Craig’s portrayal of Bond is beyond reproach! He is fantastic, and in this film during a discussion with M, Bond asks, “So you want me to be half monk, half hitman?” For me this statement is at the crux of why Daniel Craig is so fantastic in this role: he’s so fucking cold I want to offer him a cup of tea.  Like geez--warm up a just little bit!  He's so cold and so perfect that it makes you ask yourself: what you would be like if you killed people every day for your job?  I feel like Craig asks himself this question every morning before filming Bond. This film could have easily been number one on the list except for the fact that if you are to watch it without watching Quantum immediately afterwards you are left feeling almost a little empty inside.  (Equally charitable review here)

# 4 Goldfinger

                The man with the Midas touch! This could easily be Sean Connery’s finest Bond.  It’s the first time we see the DB5.  It has Oddjob and Pussy Galore. It has Jill Masterson covered in gold in a scene which was so iconic that it’s been referenced by other films in the series. The Shirley Bassey theme is delightful and unforgettable, and I think what really makes me choose this of all the Connery Bonds is that he seems so comfortable in the role, he’s smacking asses and really playing the role as a classic cad, in way that all other Bond’s up till Daniel Craig have tried to emulate.

#5 From Russia with Love

                Classic early Bond. Watching this film you can easily realize why the franchise has become so successful. Connery is young and lithe, and the scenery and sets are fantastical in a way that the franchise is still seeking to emulate.

#6 Thunderball

                The Tom Jones epic theme song is outstanding--it's honestly the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of this movie--but a close second is that this is the only Bond film ever to be completely remade. The remake, NeverSay Never Again, could be the worst thing ever to happen to the James Bond franchise and if I were forced to include that tripe in my evaluation it would easily be the very last film on this list, as the essentially-bribed-Sean Connery was sooooo old in the remake that the Health Clinic should have been a convalescent's home*. The original film was very good though, and for the time the special effects were beyond reproach: the underwater sequences are still a blueprint for those making underwater films.

#7 Dr No

                The original Bond. Sean Connery & Ursula Andress. Nuff said.

#8  A View To a Kill

                This could be the most under-appreciated Bond, and as such I wanted to rank it highly. The movie suffers from one glaring flaw: it was the very end of the Roger Moore era, and Moore is beyond geriatric.  Not even all the best plastic surgeons in the world could make him look any younger. That being said, Christopher Walken not only is fantastic but completely redeems all of the film's other flaws.  He’s so perfect, and he's so evil in a way that only Walken could be. Further, the sets and locations are remarkable and very memorable.

#9  Moonraker

                Again, I hate to rank the Roger Moore Films so highly, but the fact that the producers brought Jaws back, coupled with the outstanding scenery, sets and plot (Bond & Jaws save the world while in outerspace) really does it for me. Also many many people I know always say Moonraker is their favorite, as it in some ways is one of the more "approachable" Bonds.

#10  Diamonds areForever

                The sets, scenery, and characters are exquisite. Plenty O’Toole is a super classic Bond girl name. The reason I put it here is Connery was a little bit past his prime and the “camp” value is a little too high for me.

#11 You Only Live Twice

                I like Connery, I really do, But the only notable parts of this film are Ken Adam’s ridiculously amazing volcano set, and Bond’s Adventures one the mini chopper “Little Nellie.” The Volcano makes up for a lot though, and without a doubt a critical entry in the Canon.

#12 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

                Telly Savalas is downright fantastic and easily the best of the Blofelds. Everyone hates George Lazenby, but I personally think he's great as Bond: his athleticism, youth, and enthusiasm shine through.  The problematic and singular reason why this very important film ranks so low on my list is Diana Rigg’s distaste for Lazenby.  It is so palpable throughout the whole film that it's almost like someone wrote “I was promised Sean Connery” across her face.

#13 GoldenEye

                Pierce Brosnan’s first entry into the World of Bond was a fantastic restart for the series. He was my initial Bond, and GoldenEye was the first Bond I ever saw. The women of the film are utterly perfect in their roles, the plot was ahead of its time as Republican presidential candidates were still discussing EMP’s during this past election cycle. And while I don’t necessarily like Bond in a BMW, the use of the Z3 is still considered the world’s most successful cross promotion ever.

#14 Live and Let Die

                Blaxploitation Bond!  Everyone loves Jane Seymour but me; I just don’t feel as though she's dynamic enough to be a Bond Girl. However, as much as I hate Moore I feel this movie is critically important to history as it’s a very British take on the entire Blaxploitation genre and provides an important historical perspective from an outside viewpoint.

#15 Octopussy

                I really liked this movie, and if Brosnan been able to take the role, it would have been much higher on this list. Again, Moore’s aged-ness is completely distracting. Q has an amazing role, and the India scenes are wonderful. And let’s be honest, Bond diffuses a nuclear bomb in the middle of a circus while wearing a clown suit.

#16  The Living Daylights

                I like this film, I even like Timmy Dalton (a great deal actually).  I like the plot, I like the girl (she always brings back very strong feelings of the epic Daniela Bianchi in From Russia with Love), but unfortunately, the villains are like some sort of bad joke, and not even all the great “sledding in a Stradivarius Cello case” scenes can make up for villains that can barely even make you laugh.

#17 The Spy Who Loved Me

                I feel like the initial Jaws film should have been a little higher on this list, but I completely loathe the plot and the Bond girl. Roger Moore is hard pressed to get any love from me.

#18 Licence to Kill

                I wish I could rank this movie higher on the list as Carey Lowell is easily one of my favorite actresses ever, and the opening scene where Bond sky-hooks Sanchez’s plane is epic to the point that Christopher Nolan borrowed it for his new Batman trilogy. Benicio Del Toro alone makes the film worth watching, but the concept of having Bond quit, (almost exclusively so Bond can pursue a villain the British would have no jurisdiction over) is too contrived for me.

#19 The World is Not Enough

                I really like this film also. I really wish I could put it higher on this list. Brosnan makes it look way too easy, Denise Richards (while a gorgeous Bond girl) is a horrible actress, and a villain who is not dead even with a bullet in his brain, but is a complete sucker for love,  is just too much for me to swallow.

#20 Die Another Day

                AKA BUY ANOTHER DAY. Everyone hates the Vanish, but I think for Bond to have an invisible car is cool. My problems are essentially that we have already seen the space laser plot, that there is too much early CG looking very bad, and the rampant cross promotion really detracts from the film. I’m also told the Korean being spoken is atrocious.

#21   For Your Eyes Only

                I  hated this movie. I Loathe Roger Moore. I don’t think that this film makes much sense at all.

#22  Tomorrow NeverDies

                You Only Live Twice part 2.

#23  The Man with the Golden Gun

                I hated this film. A lot. I really, really, really, hate the way Roger Moore beats up women to increase his macho factor in this movie.  The only redemption is Hervé Villechaize.

___________________________________________________________________________

*I have idea what Mr. Maronde is getting at by this statement but I felt the need to include it.  -JK

Palo Alto - James Franco

I sat on his couch and he went over to his writing desk.  He opened a drawer and pulled out a few pieces of paper. 

                “This is the first story I want to publish,” he said to me, “Think it will be easy?”

                “Because you’re already famous?”

                “Read it.  Give me your honest opinion.”

                I read it, and I liked it.  It reminded me of a few stories I had read by Richard Lange.  The protagonist was suicidal, so that was one point in its favor.  There were hints of aberrant sexuality, so that was two points.  There was a fair amount of drug use in it, so three points.  I finished it, and looked over at him, who was hunched over his coffee table, breaking up weed to put into a bong. 

                “What’s your diagnosis?”

                “I think you’ll be able to publish it.  Everyone is going to think you’re a doofus, but if they read the story it will shut them up.  I think you have the potential to be one of the most singular artists of our generation.”

                “I’m not trying to monopolize all of the entertainment mediums; I just want to improve my writing skills.  I also want more people to read literary fiction.  I think my fans already are readers—but if I can get just a few more people reading—maybe my books could snowball into others—and I could help to end this massive ignorance threatening to destroy our world.”   

                “I just want to write because it’s fun,” I said.  “I don’t expect to change the world.”

                “Bono wants to change the world,” he said.

                “Are you like Bono?”

                “I’m not bigger than Bono, but I do aspire to raise my cultural cache to his level.”

                “And that involves ending hunger, war, poverty, environmental destruction?”

                “If you have the ability to make good things like that happen, why wouldn’t you?”

                “He doesn’t have the ability,” I said, “And neither will you, and neither will I.  Obama doesn’t even have it.  Nobody can save the world now.  Apple owns the world.  Digital cable companies own the world.  Maybe Verizon owns part of the world.  The only way the world could be saved would be the disappearance of these products.”

                “I think you’re going a little overboard,” he said as he handed me the bong.  I hit it.  He did the same and then he asked me:

                “What was your favorite part of the story?”

                Random question.

                “When the guy says, ‘don’t you ever get jealous of those girls in pornos in the middle of all those dicks?’  So hilarious.” 

                He laughed, and after a beat promulgated, “That was kind of when I realized how much more freedom there is in literature.  I mean, this could be adapted into a short film, it could, but most movies don’t have dialogue like that.  I don’t like how movies make everything seem cooler and easier—I want to represent reality in its fullness.”

                “You know, I have the exact same goal.”

                “Can we stop talking about work for a second?  It’s making me nervous.” 

-"Storyteller," Part II, Chapter 5 

This is an excerpt from my third novel, which I could not complete before starting law school.  I am looking forward to returning to it in about 9 months but I am afraid it will no longer be so topical.  I felt it was useful to include this in my review of Palo Alto because it pretty much sums up the way I felt about it--that is, the way I thought I would feel about it back in April of 2010, and it was published in October 2010.

The story referenced above is "Jack-O,'" which is the final story in the collection.  This was published in Esquire in March of 2010 and it was titled "Just Before the Black" back then.  It may serve as a barometer of the general quality of all of the stories in Palo Alto: it is "pretty good."  

I stop short of calling it "excellent" for several reasons.  My primary complaint with the collection is that the narrator in (almost) every single story is affirmatively dumb.  Or, if not dumb, at least stupid or irrational in some really obvious way.  Now this is to be expected, as Franco's subject matter is, generally, adolescence. Perhaps the narrator in "Lockheed," a girl who does not like math but who is very good at math because her father tells her to be, is the most intelligent.  She works at Lockheed Martin for a summer internship and her job sounds exactly like the type of thing that high school interns would do:

"My job was to watch old film reels of the moon.  There were hundreds.  I worked in a cold, windowless basement.  The reels would run from one spool to another on this old machine that looked like a tank.  I was supposed to record blemishes and splices in the film.  Sometimes the moon was full; sometimes it would get a little more full as I watched.  Sometimes the film was scratched so badly it skipped, or it broke.  I was in the basement forty hours a week.  I watched so many moons."  (15)

She starts to get bored and starts drawing while she does her moon studies at Lockheed.  She works for a man named Jan, and he notices that she has been making some drawings, but does not seem to care.  Later, he offers her an anecdote that is probably one of the better pieces of "advice" in the book:

"'I did these when I was at school,' he said.  'I wanted to be artist.  But it was no good.  It is no good to be artist.  I practiced every day, eight hours a day.  Then I could draw like Michelangelo.  Then what?  There is already Michelangelo.  I realized there was nothing more to do.  In science, there is always more to learn.  Always more.'

I didn't look at him; I looked at his pictures.  I felt very lonely.  I pictured him and his wife, alone at a long table, eating some bland Swedish food, not talking.  The only sounds were from the utensils hitting the plates, and the squish of their gentle chewing.

'So, he said, 'You see.'  He reached over and shut the portfolio to punctuate the 'You see,' but I didn't know what to see.  Then I looked at him.  He stood there and looked at me.  We were so awkward."  (16-17)

Later she witnesses some kind of fight at a party at a kid's house in Menlo Park.  The fight is the "climax" of the story, and is fairly well-done.  "Lockheed" is thus one of the better stories in the collection.

But if forced to pick the absolute best, I would have to say that "April" a 3-part story that is 33 pages long, is the best in the collection.  "I Could Kill Someone," while suffering from perhaps the worst title in the book, comes next in terms of quality (I know it can be hard to give good titles to things and so I am forgiving when it comes to that aspect of creative writing).  Finally, "Chinatown," another 3-part story, though only 16 pages long, fills out the top three in the collection (a mon avis, bien sur).

If you add up the content of those stories (and include "Lockheed") then it is about 85 pages and the book is 195 pages long.  So that is another reason I say the book is "pretty good" (if 170 pages were of this quality it would be "excellent").  But it is very important to point out that I read this entire book in one day.  And it is also striking that I took it out from the Brooklyn Public Library (the day I got my card) along with The Rules of Attraction by Bret Easton Ellis, another book I similarly read quickly on an airplane trip (that one from NYC to Paris; this one from NYC to Denver).  

There is a very strong connection between these two books, and it is almost as if Franco's characters are the same as in The Rules of Attraction--just a few years younger, a little bit dumber, and generally from poorer families (Palo Alto does not equal Beverly Hills, or the other rich suburban L.A. upbringings of Easton's characters).  

In fact, one of the "praise" quotes on the back spells this out further--Ben Marcus wrote, "Think Bret Easton Ellis, Dennis Cooper, Kathy Acker.  Or better yet, just think James Franco."

I will admit that I once purchased Ash Wednesday by Ethan Hawke (at the Printer's Row Book Fair in Chicago at a discount) and would like to use a line that my younger brother suggested, but I cannot.  Without having read that book, though I would say Ethan Hawke is, myyyyyyyyyyyyyyy second favorite fiction writer-cum-actor.

A couple quotes before ending this review seem fitting, or else people may still continue to write off this "second career" as an exercise in pure dilettantism.  It is important to note at this time, when the debate on "school violence" is peaking, that Franco seems to hit at the very core of the problem in more than one story.  While I have previously suggested that the Internet is to blame for every ill that has felled our society over the past dozen or so years, Franco's story takes place in the pre-Internet era.  And while I certainly appreciate the references to Street Fighter II, The Legend of Zelda, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, "gangster rap," Menace 2 Society and Boys in the Hood, and other influential artifacts of the 80s-90s, Franco shows that my explanation is far too simple-minded to be taken seriously:

"This is Brent's joke: 'What's the difference between a faggot and shit?' I didn't know the answer.  'Nothing, you fucking faggot.'  He told that joke one time, and then kicked my foot to trip me into dog shit on the quad lawn.  I didn't fall, but everyone thought it was funny.  

Brent says I'm a faggot because I quit the football team freshman year.  I asked him about it and that's when we had our first little scene.  

'You think I'm a fag because I quit the team?' I said.

He stopped.  He had his usual black San Diego Chargers hat on backward.  His long face looked suprised, and the one stoned-looking eye opened a little bit more.

'You are a fucking fag,' he said.  He looked like he was getting a little emotional about it.  I could see it in his retarded eyes.

'Why do you think that?' I said, and my voice trembled.

'I don't think it, you are!'  Then he walked off.  It's weird, but I think it's because he was going to cry.  After that he always called me a faggot."

"After the locker room I decided that Brent needed to die.  He was never going to get smarter, and he was a bigot.  And I couldn't stop thinking about his acne-corroded flesh being opened, and his thin racist blood matting the hair of his beastly body.

I was standing over near the underpass next to the school where people smoked.  Some people called it the Bat Cave.  

'You really want one?' said Barry.  Barry was my friend.  He was chubby and lovable, and Mormon, and smoked pot and loved John Bonham.

'Yes,' I said.  'I want one.'

I wanted a gun.

Barry couldn't get me one, but he knew a guy who could." (170-171)

The story does not have a happy ending or a sad one, and fails to provide any easy answers.  But it is clear that the stupidity of teenagers--going both ways in terms of typical bigotry and the other in terms of intellectual snobbery--is a serious problem that is not easily solved, though the increased awareness of the devastating effects of bullying and the passage of criminal laws on the matter have been steps in the right direction.  

There is still, however, the problem of simply "giving up" and taking others down with you:

"'What do you think about that suicide?' I said.

'I think the parents made him do it,' said Teddy.

'He was Asian,' said Ivan.  He was on the other side of Teddy and I couldn't see him.

'What does that mean?' I said.

'That they worked his ass like crazy and pressured the shit out of him.'

'Do you think it hurt?' I said.

'For a second,' said Teddy.  'But if it's all going to be over anyway, then why does it matter?  Pain only matters if it's prolonged.'  Ivan was sucking long on the joint, then he said, 'If I was going to kill myself, I wouldn't waste it.  I would do a bunch of crazy shit first.  Maybe kill some people I didn't like and take 'em with me.' 

We all thought about that.  Then I said, 'Wouldn't it be better to do a bunch of crazy good things before you died instead of killing people?'

'Like what?' said Teddy.

'I don't know.  Give your life to save a bunch of kids or something.'

'But that's what you're supposed to do every day, not if you're suicidal,' he said.  'If you're suicidal you're probably only thinking of yourself.'

I drank the syrupy alcohol.  

'I try to be good,' I said.

'Me too,' said Teddy.

'Fuck good people,' said Ivan, and we laughed.  

We finished the joint and I gave them both cigarettes.  The stars were dots between the branches.  On the other side of Teddy, Ivan started carving in the tree with a knife.  He carved SUICIDE RULZ.  Teddy was next and wrote FUCK GUNN.  They told me I had to write something.  

'I feel bad, the tree is so old.'

'Fuck you, said Ivan. 'Do it.'

I drew a heart.  It was hard to make it round because of the bark, so it was jagged on one side." (137-138)

In summary, I have to say that this book is "pretty good"--but maybe even a little better than that.  Though it was not "excellent" and I am not going to run around telling everybody that Franco is the greatest living American artist in his prime, I do have to say that he is certainly one of the most interesting.  And I am very happy that our works seems to coalesce.  The quotation above from my incomplete third novel, and the tangent that the novel goes on, were not made without considered judgment.  Palo Alto is a collection of "linked" short stories that could be a novel if it wanted to be--not unlike my first novel.  It has taught me that my first novel is not a total failure, but could be much more "digestible" if converted into something of a similar product.  My second novel basically deals with the same themes as Palo Alto and attempts to portray the same "period" of psychological development.  Moreover this book is a paean to the community in which he was raised, as is S/M.  And the third novel posits the life I might have led if I had gotten into the MFA program at Columbia and entered in the Fall of 2007, when it was certainly possible that Franco could have been my classmate (or friend).  

I hope that he continues to write because it is important for people to realize that subjective human experiences are not always best told through the objective lens of a camera.  It is also clear that Franco has a  very good sense of humor about himself, which is important in an undertaking such as this:

"'Picasso started off painting in a classical style, but it was only after he had mastered the masters that he broke tradition and became Picasso.  He knew he had all the skill of Raphael at age sixteen, but that wasn't enough.  Technical skill is never enough.  He needed to find his voice.  We all have a voice or a style, but it takes practice, practice to find it.  The technical stuff needs to become second nature.'  Everyone agreed with this part too.  Wilson said quietly to me, 'You remind me of Sylvester Stallone.'  I stopped drawing.  Wilson went on: 'I used to go to art classes with him.  He was always trying to break away from classical form.' 

One of the ladies spoke up.  'Sylvester Stallone, the actor?'

'That's right.  He's a huge art enthusiast and not a bad artist either.'  Everyone was surprised and talked about it for a bit.  Someone said that underneath all that muscle he was actually a really intelligent guy.  'He did write Rocky, after all.'" (122-123)

Stallone did receive his BFA from the University of Miami in 1999, but this excerpt may be apocryphal.  Regardless, Franco's enthusiasm for literature is not likely to be questioned by anyone.  Though I would not be surprised if I am in the minority in my praise of this work.  I judge it according to the standards of my former classmates in creative writing classes.  If one of them had submitted such materials, I would have put them in the class of the top three or four (among the 70 or 80 total) that deserved to have their work published.  Unfortunately, not all of us have the advantage of taking classes taught by Amy Hempel, Michael Cunningham, Gary Shteyngart, Jonathan Lethem, or Dave Eggers.  Or Joyce Carol Oates for that matter....   

Skyfall - Dir. Sam Mendes (The Bond Project #23 - JK)

Skyfall (2012)

Dir. - Sam Mendes

Perfect Bond

by

Jack Knorps

On the evening of Saturday, December 1st 2012, at roughly 6:35 PM, my friend and I tried to catch the 6:50 showing of Skyfall at the United Artists Theater on Court Street in Brooklyn.  There was a long line outside the theater, but the show was not yet sold out.  As we approached the front of the line, it sold out.  We were able to get tickets for the next night's showing at 6:50.  Skyfall had opened on November 9, 2012.  Perhaps it is unsurprising that it was still selling out by this point (indeed this is a major movie theater in Brooklyn) but it may also indicate just how good of a film it is.  It was fortunate that we were able to get good seats on Sunday night at about ten minutes before the start time.  It would have been fantastic to see it on an IMAX screen too, but that is not so affordable to us at this moment.  Regardless, if you have the opportunity to see Skyfall before it leaves theaters, I highly suggest you do so--the film demands viewing on a big screen.  

As previously noted, my knowledge of James Bond is not so great but for my editing of the reviews of my colleague Jay Maronde, who suggested this project for Flying Houses.  Indeed today marks the apotheosis of the Project, and I can only write credibly about the last three Bond films.  I loved Casino Royale and found Quantum of Solace inscrutable.  So the only question I can answer is, where does Skyfall rank amongst them?

It is certainly better than Quantum of Solace.  My colleague Mr. Maronde may disagree with me on that score (I have yet to edit--or even read--his review of Skyfall but I presume it cannot bypass its predecessor in his mind since he stated it was the best of the Bonds), but this film is much easier to follow, longer, more epic, and more star-studded.  Casino Royale is great--but Skyfall is better.  It is the best Bond film I have seen and indeed I remarked to my friend that it should be the last Bond film (though it will not be) because I think it is, frankly, impossible to top.

Okay, maybe the song "Skyfall" by Adele is not the best theme song in the Canon and that is one area where the Franchise could improve ("Another Way to Die" or "Die Another Day" or "The World is not Enough"--amongst others--were better...) but it's still a pretty good song.

The pre-credits sequence involves another fantastic chase sequence--notably on motorcycles over the rooftops of the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, and then on a train where Bond commandeers a.tractor-trailer to demolish Volkswagen Bugs and bust through another train car for entrance.  And the final shot of the sequence may come as a shock to audiences.  Of course they will not be tempted to believe the filmmakers would actually do that, but it is a powerful moment nonetheless.  This was one of the few moments in the film I found confusing--that is, the explanation for it later--but it cannot besmirch the inherent perfection of the rest of the film.

This is a difficult film to review because one is wary of giving away too much of the plot.  All I will say is that, when I would tell friends that I was going to see Skyfall, they would all respond, "Enjoy it--it's great."  Everyone seems to have seen it (this review may be pointless - but I have my duties).  Another friend compared it, interestingly, to The Dark Knight Rises.  I can see that.  Both are very long (though Skyfall is shorter by a good twenty minutes) and deal with the idea of the film's hero "losing a step."  Also the villains are perfect "foils."  Both have incredible stunts and special effects and explosions and acting and directorial prowess--but Skyfall is better than The Dark Knight Rises (I would say Skyfall and The Dark Knight are equivalent in terms of greatness--thus I believe this film deserves to be nominated for Best Picture).  At the very least, Dame Judi Dench and Javier Bardem deserve to receive nominations for Best Supporting Actor and Actress (Dench might even qualify for Best Actress as this is M's biggest role yet - but many might disagree about the "requisite centrality to the film" component of that award).

Craig is as good as ever, playing a Bond ravaged by alcohol and substance abuse, who may not be up to the task this time.  Of course we know better than that, but Bond does make his share of mistakes in this story.  As my friend remarked, the girls always seem to end up getting killed....

Bond goes from Istanbul to a Caribbean island (or perhaps some other similar locale) to London to Shanghai to Macau and then to another mysterious island, then back to London and finally to Scotland.  All of these scenes are great, but the best scene in the film is Javier Bardem's entrance.  Indeed this was the one part of the film that you can tell, from being in a sell-out theater, that the audience loves.  

Sam Mendes is most famous for directing American Beauty.  The legacy of that film I think shows that it benefited most from really good timing--it was the right sort of movie to win Best Picture in 1999.  So maybe Mendes was just in the right place at the right time, but it shouldn't take away from his skill as a director.  Road to Perdition was, okay, not a total bore, but nowhere near as compelling.  I did not see Jarhead or Away We Go though both are based off works of semi-creative-non-fiction.  Revolutionary Road was something of a return to American Beauty territory, but I found it just "okay" also.  (To conflate the stars of those films and the eras they depicted, I preferred Catch Me if You Can to that...).  So I would say Skyfall is his best since American Beauty.  But to continue....

Bardem's entrance is a long shot.  Bond is tied to a chair and the elevator door opens up from the end of a cavernous room filled with a massive collection of computer networking wires. Bardem walks out and delivers a long monologue about how his grandmother owned a small island and how they figured out to get rid of the rat infestation problem there.  There is a very slow pan until Bardem is, basically, on top of Bond.  As I said this is a tough film to review because I am wary of spoiling it but I will just say that the dialogue in this scene is probably the most priceless dialogue I have heard in any Bond film, or almost any film at all.  In particular, when Craig responds, "What makes you think this is my first time?" there was a huge roar of laughter.

My colleague has stated that Bardem may be the greatest Bond villain ever, and I cannot disagree.  He is strangely gentle, but he has a serious motive.  He is extremely clever but sometimes acts astonishingly irreverent (as during the chase sequence in the Tube Station in London).  

Albert Finney makes a great appearance in the film for the final act--which is quite emotional and moving.  Ralph Fiennes also turns in a quality performance as a British government official "advising" M. whose trustworthiness or "understanding of what it's like to be in the field" remain a question mark through most of the film.  Naomie Harris as the "main Bond girl" Eve also plays a good sidekick to Bond in a few scenes and emerges in the final scene as a familiar character we thought might have gone away but whose past has just been re-imagined (and whose future may indeed be different).  Unfortunately Jeffrey Wright does not appear as Felix Leiter but one imagines he may return....

Whatever happens at the Oscars next year, Skyfall deserves to go down as amongst the very best in the history of Bond films.  Of course I need to see about 20 more to make that claim credible, but I would be quite surprised indeed if hardcore Bond fans did not all put it in the top 5, if not the top 3, or #1.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #17: Preemption

As previously promised, this is NIED column #17 on Preemption.  It is primarily intended to address preemption in the Law Review context--but truth be told I did not make it onto a Journal at our law school and so my analysis of the preemption concept may not square with the wisdom of such fortunate students.  However, preemption arises in other contexts, and the episode that this column describes is in fact true.  Nevertheless, at this point I have serious doubts that the friend of my friend was telling the truth when he said he was "really tired because he was out partying with Lindsay Lohan the night before."  I have heard stories of people that simply make things up on Facebook and claim they are friends with celebrities.  I have no patience for these types of persons and do not want anyone to consider me as being "on that level."  I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I do indeed have serious doubts that Ms. Lohan will be interested in a contract (paying perhaps $100) for the lead female role in Batman in Brooklyn.  Regardless, if she happens to come upon this post by some serendipitous act, I would be very interested indeed in discussing the project with her.  While my time and funding are at all-time lows, my creativity, I think, is at an all-time high.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress No. 17: Pre-Emption

                I recently heard that a friend of a friend had been hanging out with Lindsay Lohan all night. A few days later, Lindsay Lohan was on the news, apparently the victim of an assault in a Manhattan hotel room. 

                Before the assault though, I told my friend, “Look.  Hynes is no longer able to be in Batman in Brooklyn.  It would have been exciting to have him, but we can’t.  But.  If we can get Lindsay Lohan. This film will be incredibly important.  It will be her comeback.  And it is made all the more perfect by my Parent Trap Redux (due about November 18, 2016) – which specifically abrogates the Parent Trap remake.  Give me five minutes with her and I guarantee I can get her to sign on.”

                Previously I had been formulating the idea for the opening shots of the film. It opens with a shot of the new World Trade Center and the Brooklyn Bridge, 50/50 in composition. There would be many more shots. Still shots. Landmarks around Brooklyn. There would need to be music in the background. I thought Dum Dum Girls would be appropriate. I thought “Jail La La” would be appropriate.

                A couple days after that, the assault occurred, and a news item on Pitchfork discussed a new film that Lohan will appear in. It is directed by Paul Schrader (screenwriter of Taxi Driver, director of a dozen other vaguely-acclaimed films) and written by Bret Easton Ellis (uber-hipster). The preview consists of still shots taken around Los Angeles while a Dum Dum Girls song plays in the background.

                I weep.

                I get into trouble when I write about journals, but I must comment upon Preemption.  Many students complain about not being able to write about the topic they want to write about. But there are many topics that occur to me.  They occur whenever I observe a phenomenon in real life (say, for example, psychiatrist liability post-Tarasoff with the “Batman in Aurora” incident as the intro).  They occur whenever I do research for an internship (say, for example, establishing a BAC threshold for marijuana DWIs).  They occur whenever I do my reading assignment for the next day (say, for example, that holographic wills should be admitted in more states).  They do not occur when I actively try to think of a good topic to write about (say, for example, the effect of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare spending).

News flash: I did not make a journal. I wrote a 40 page paper with 188 footnotes though. 

I saw one journal article that had 350 footnotes though. 

It wasn’t good enough for the open note competition. So I am revising it.

But I found, when I did my preemption check, that I was, essentially, pre-empted by two articles.  (Briefly, my article was on the Temporary Help Industry. It was extraordinarily ambitious, but the reason stated for its rejection was that its personal elements detracted from its legal analysis. Understandable.) One addressed unemployment benefits for temps, and the other was basically the same as my article except it was longer and didn’t contain the personal element (and I quoted from it liberally).

                And so we cannot write about that topic—or rather, we just have to “tweak” our topic so that it’s “original” but we may have to focus on a tangential issue that we don’t find as intriguing—because somebody else got there first.

                It is almost like in Manhattan when Woody Allen asks Michael Murphy why he deserves to go out with Diane Keaton.  Murphy says, “I liked her first,” to which Allen replies, “What are you, six years old?” It’s almost like the Great Journal Editors in the Sky are saying, “You couldn’t possibly do a better job, so you can’t write about the same thing.”

                The obvious analogue here is copyright law—but I will not purport to know anything about that since (due to my own great fault and misfortune) I have not been able to take that course.  But I know that it is not okay to steal someone else’s idea.

                I suppose that the rationale underlying preemption is that we do not want to encourage law students to write articles that have little hope of being published, because a journal would not want to publish a duplicative article.  But as far as I am concerned, so long as the article updates an old article, it should not be pre-empted (as indeed mine was not, written as it was in 2009, before the real effects of the financial crisis had been more clearly reflected in reality).

                Which leads to my final point: since the past 5 years have involved a significant social upheaval, preemption should not be a problem, because this “Great Depression Part Two” affected almost every sector of the economy and American life in general—to the point that articles taking stock of its aftermath should not be struck down by the Preemption Hammer.

                Unfortunately for me and Ms. Lohan, the film industry doesn’t even pretend to be fair.  If the legal industry at least wants to give the appearance of fairness, it needs to be changed from the bottom up, and that means journal reform—as vague as it may sound.  I may not make the same film I want to make due to pre-emption, but law students should not be pre-empted from writing the articles they want to write. 

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  He has been told not to be defensive about his failure to obtain journal membership, but he cannot stay quiet in the face of injustice—particularly when it rains down upon him.    

Quantum of Solace - Dir. Marc Forster (The Bond Project #22 - JK)

Quantum of Solace (2008) 

Dir. Marc Forster

                

Inscrutable Bond

by 

Jack Knorps

                Quantum of Solace epitomizes the reason why I have not been keeping up on the Bond films that have come out during my lifetime (eschewing the Dalton Bonds as I was six at the time of the last one, there have been six, and I would say I have seen 3 (GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies each counting for ½ as I watched them as “background noise”)): it is too difficult to follow.

                Of course, this is a sequel to Casino Royale, and picks up where that film left off, and begins with a fantastic chase sequence, again, which may or may not be similar to the one in Licence to Kill and/or The Dark Knight Rises.  Regardless, the stunt work is not a problem for the film (nor do I think it has ever been an area where the Franchise has suffered).  

                I do want to pause for a moment to question why the Bond films must not be Rated R.  Clearly, the subject-matter is R-rated.  There is an extraordinary amount of violence in the films, as well as sexual tomfoolery.  But, Bond does not curse.  The lack of the F-word keeps them PG-13.  So kids can see it, and here’s a prediction: Skyfall will kill during its opening weekend.

                But do kids really understand what is going on in this movie, or do they just like big explosions and cool stunts?  That’s my problem.  Even if you take out the “adult” subject matter, the Bond films are meant to be seen and understood by adults that can appreciate the political commentary they offer, as their plots always revolve around foreign affairs.  Given that Bond is an English agent, it is even more difficult for Americans to understand the purposes of his missions.

                While watching this film, I reflected upon watching films with my older sister.  My older sister often asks a multitude of questions during films with only slightly complicated plots.  If she were to agree to watch Quantum of Solace, I do not think she would make it through 30 minutes.  And she would miss 77 minutes and probably be no worse in her Bond knowledge.

                It is significant that Casino Royale runs an epic 144 minutes and this film clocks in at a “suitable” 107.  Maybe I just like long movies, but for some reason Quantum of Solace feels like it is missing something.  My guess is that this is attributable to the unique quality of the Craig Bonds: Skyfall is apparently the last film of a trilogy.  Perhaps the closure that always seems to be lurking in Quantum of Solace, holding over from Casino Royale, will finally be delivered in Bond #23.

                The villain in this film, Dominic Greene, seeks to acquire a desert in Bolivia from a Bolivian Dictator.  The Dictator tells him that he is wasting his time—many people have tried to find oil there in the past to no avail.  Greene does not seem to care.  He offers his services—which, if I recall correctly, involve paying off government officials so that the Dictator may continue his reign—in exchange for ownership of this desert land.  The agreement is made, and Greene is happy-go-lucky.  He is also, apparently, a philanthropist, who is a strong advocate of environmental protection and sustainable energy.  This may or may not have to do with “Quantum.”  Later he claims that the world’s most valuable resource is held in this desert.  Perhaps that resource is Quantum.  I cannot tell.  Later, in a scene that law students may appreciate, he coerces the dictator into signing a contract with his company, which owns 60% of the clean water supply of Bolivia.

                Now, Greene is played by an extremely capable actor.  At first, I recognized him as a French actor, but I could not place him.  Looking him up on IMDB, I found that he is probably most familiar to American audiences due to his stellar performance in, incredibly, another film reviewed on Flying Houses.  The actor is Mathieu Amalric, and if The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is any indication of his talents, then I can only conclude that he was not given a very good role by the screenwriters.  True, he is an interesting villain, because generally we do not think of environmental advocates as villains.  (Perhaps this is some kind of political statement too, but that would go too far).  The problem is that he is not believable as a violent person.  He makes threats, but he does not carry them out.  I don’t even remember if he dies in the movie or not. 

                On that note, Paul Haggis wrote the screenplay along with Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.  Now I will not comment on the latter two, but I am sure they are capable.  And I will not blame Haggis totally, because Casino Royale is really quite an excellent film, but Haggis is most famous for writing and directing a certain Oscar winning film that jacked its vague title from a David Cronenberg vehicle.  Many people decried Crash for capitalizing on “hidden racist sentiment” that may or may not still be a factor in present-day Los Angeles, but Haggis won again next year with his screenplay for Million Dollar Baby, a film that was much more appreciated—particularly for its “twist.”

                Furthermore, Marc Forster directed this film.  Now, Marc Forster has a pretty good track record.  I never saw Finding Neverland but it was apparently quite good, I found Monster’s Ball to be quite compelling, and while Stay was basically a “non-starter,” now that Ryan Gosling is an A-lister, more people might have seen this film by now, and they should because it’s quite interesting.  This is to say nothing of The Kite Runner or Stranger Than Fiction (only the latter of which I’ve seen, and which is light entertainment, but not offensive).  I just have to admit that Forster does not seem to be the best director for this film.  Nor was it the best script. 

                Craig himself is good, and still icy—if not icier.  The Bond Girl, played by Olga Kurylenko, is quite beautiful, and vows revenge against the Bolivian Dictator for crimes he committed against her family in her childhood.  She is more than adequate in her role, and one of the better parts of the movie—but unfortunately if you compare her performance to Eva Green’s in Casino Royale, you will see how much better that film was than this one.  Judi Dench is also good as M, though I was quite confused when she apparently got shot and then showed up in the next scene looking very healthy without any kind of explanation—perhaps there was a pithy line thrown out that I missed. 

                I believe I have said all I can about Quantum of Solace.  It’s not a terrible movie, but it’s not a terribly exciting movie either.  It is rather confounding, but I suppose if we are to view these Craig Bonds as a Trilogy that it is necessary to view so you will not be lost when you see Skyfall.  Perhaps the best thing about Quantum of Solace is its theme song sung by Jack White, which is consistent with Bond playing to the trends of the times.  If I have to attach a “rating” to my two reviews here, I would give Casino Royale 3 ½ stars, and Quantum of Solace  2 ½ stars (I would only give it 2, but the ½ comes from the theme song as well as the potential for intrigue for Skyfall—that is, the hope that they have saved their best for the last).