Spoiler Sport

My biggest hope for this year (even surpassing my hope that "Ocean's Twelve" doesn't suck) is that John Kerry wins the Presidential election. Given that, I'm going to say something very contrary to what most liberals are saying these days: I have no problem with Ralph Nader running again.

You see, even though his ego has seemed to surpass his ideals lately, I still like Ralph. He has been a champion for the common good for a long time now, and he has rightly earned his place in history. I also think he would be dandy as president (though his current foreign policy experience roughly equals Dubya's when he moved into the White House). Do I think he has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning? No. This is not the year for a third party candidate to run and win. That year may not even come in our lifetime. That doesn't mean, however, he shouldn't run. Democrats have been saying that he could repeat the debacle in 2000 by siphoning enough votes from their candidate to make the election too close for comfort.

First off, I don't think that will happen. One of Gore's biggest problems in 2000 was that he agreed too much with Bush, particularly in the debates. Voters who wanted someone different went to Nader. This year, such a comparison is not easily made with Kerry and Bush, and Nader is having trouble getting on the ballot in as many states as before. Nader will make a dent, but nearly as big as in 2000.

Second of all, the Democrats really have no place to complain. Why? Two words: Ross Perot. Let's look at the numbers:

1992 Election Results
Clinton - %42.93
Bush - %37.38
Perot - %18.87

1996 Election Results
Clinton - %49.24
Dole - %40.71
Perot - %8.40

As I much as I liked Clinton, it needs to be recognized that the man owes a great deal to Perot for throwing a wrench into the works. He probably would not have been elected were it not for Ross, and I'm sure that the name of Perot has become pariah within the Bush family.

I mentioned above that Nader would not make as big a dent the second time around. The Perot analogy bears that out. One could guess that half of those who voted for Perot the first time had come down from the dizzying excitement of third party revolution and conceded that their votes would be wasted on Perot a second time. This, combined with four charismatic years of Clinton, drew to the incumbent enough support that, even if Dole could count Perot's votes as his, Clinton would still (conceivably) win.

If we see a comparable exodus with Nader this time around, then odds are they will go to Kerry. Michael Moore, who has been Nader's most vocal supporter, has even gotten onto the Kerry bandwagon.

(Side note: I was going to make a crude joke about Moore being Nader's biggest fan...literally! Seriously, Nader has said as much in interviews that he's worried about Moore's weight and so am I. First of all, it's unhealthy. Second of all, it makes him look freakish at times when he's photographed, which is just that much more ammo for those who hate him. Finally, how does he expect to run down these GOP geezers for interviews in his next documentary if even eighty year olds can outpace him?)

There is one last point to make. It's been noted in numerous articles that Bush supporters with deep pockets have been throwing a lot of money into the Nader campaign for the purpose of repeating 2000. Republicans have also been submitting signatures in order to get him on the ballot in several states. Obviously, he cannot help who signs his petitions. But he can reject the money for what it represents. If his running has the effect of repeating 2000, then so be it. That is how the system works, for better or for worse. However, for him to take money from those who have no desire to see him win is wrong on an ethical level, and Nader should clearly see that.

Nader used to run on ideals and it was THAT Nader I was referring to when I said he'd make a great president. The man I see today, however, is more cryptic. Has power corrupted him to the point where he'll take any money that's offered and accept any publicity he can get? It looks that way. If that's the case, then a win for Kerry will be doubly as sweet come November, for he will have defeated not one but two opponents with shady motives and ruthless ambition.

Don't touch anything. The paint is still wet.

"Acrentropy" has now become a symphony in blue, and a little easier on the eyes than the previous template. I found this new one, called "Snow and Ice", on the Blogskins website. I give special thanks to its author Nakaithus, who created an elegant and simple layout that was perfect for me. New posts to come, including my two cents about Ralph Nader. Stay tuned.

Review: "Juggernaut" (1974)

You know, I'm not a drinker by any means, but when that classic question comes up of "What three people, living or dead, would you love to have dinner with?", I usually respond that I would have an all-night bender with Peter O'toole, Richard Burton and Richard Harris. Not only did these bohemians contribute some extraordinary charm and talent to films in the sixties and seventies, but they also seemed like they would be a LOT of fun to hang out with.

Harris, who passed away last year, will be best remembered by the current generation as Albus Dumbledore. But way back when, He was able to hold the attention of audiences without a fuzzy beard and half moon glasses. In "Juggernaut", he plays an explosives expert who is air-dropped onto a cruiseliner that has been sabotaged with identical bombs throughout the ship. Occasionally, the film drops away from his efforts to follow the London police in their pursuit of the bomber. In addition to these action-packed plotlines, we have a third that deals with a nervous crew as they talk and wait for the terror to be over.

Predictably, the best part of the film is the bomb diffusing. Unlike similar films, there are no digital timers counting down and although there is a "which wire do I cut" moment, the experts have to do a lot more before they get to that part. You see, each intricate bomb is identical and all of them are sealed inside steel drums. Harris's team splits up and work on several bombs simultaneously as directions are communicated over walkie-talkie. Not only is this practical, it also ratchets up the tension and dwindles his team down before long.

Back on the mainland, a pair of recognizable faces lead the pursuit for the bomber: Superintendent John McCleod (Anthony Hopkins aka Hannibal) and a representative for the cruise line, Nicholas Porter (Ian Holm aka Bilbo). Their pursuit of the man who's so confident as to leave taunting messages inside the drums for the diffusers is typical enough, but still exciting. There is also pressure by higher authorities to pay the ransom and be done with it, which makes for some tense exchanges. It reminded me of "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3", which should be reviewed on this site any day now.

The mini-plots concerning the passengers can tend to drag. I'll give points to the director for making these people as ordinary as possible, but that doesn't necessarily make them interesting. An exception to this is Shirley Knight as an American woman having an affair with the ship's captain, played by Omar Sharif. Knight, who has popped up more recently in "As Good as it Gets" and "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood", is really a striking presence in terms of beauty and intelligence. Watch her as she interacts with the activities director late in the film. She's simply wonderful to watch.

And then, again, there's Harris. His Anthony Fallon follows a familiar Harris character pattern: a brilliant individual who also tends to be a stubborn bastard. Harris is interesting enough in small character studies. One can imagine how well he shines in such an intricately well-plotted thriller. Harris is the man, and if I were to ever come across his spirit, the first thing I'd do is buy him a Guinness.

Seven out of Ten

A Crack in the Shell

I had a busy weekend (for me, anyway). The next big thing for Acrentropy is a template change, which I'm searching for right now. Expect to see the switch within the next day or two.

So, Mr. Cream Cheese Frosting, we meet again.

Mrs. Mosley and I have been on a diet for over three weeks now. We are both overweight and have tried over and over to lose with poor results each time. Eventually, we found a method that plays to our strengths and has proven very effective. Simply, we record every single thing we eat during the day on a website account, including all the nutritional information. Most of all, we watch the calories, and make sure we don't go over our allotment (2200 a day for me, 1600 a day for her). So, by meticulously tracking this information, we keep ourselves in check and it has resulted in astounding weight loss for both of us. I call it the Anal Retentive Diet.

Anyway, yesterday was a stressful day for both of us at work, so we decided to splurge a little and visit this fancy restaurant nearby called The Brick. She had the Scallops and I had the Sirloin (Sorry, no Chicken Caesar on the menu), which were both very tasty. Then we decided to split a dessert, which we chose to be carrot cake. This slice of cake ran $5.00 so, for a restaurant like this, I expected something pretty puny. The slice they eventually brought out was the roughly the size of a toaster.

We both dug in and found that it was gooooooooooood (yes, I think a dozen o's accurately describes it). Both of our bodies, having been deprived for so long, rediscovered the absolute decadence of sugar again. Of course we've both had sugar during the diets, but never in this sinful amount. The frosting really got me and, 15 minutes after we finished it, I had a major headache starting. I'm not saying it wasn't worth it (it definitely was), But it's amazing how your body reacts to something you used to have every day but have now decided to prohibit it from.

There's no really big moral here, folks. I guess I'm just saying it was a kick-ass carrot cake.

Review: "Oleanna" (1994)

There are some screenwriters in Hollywood who have made their career out of being distinctive from everyone else. I don't mean unique subject matter, necessarily, but the way characters talk. Quentin Tarantino is said to have started the trend of characters talking incessantly about pop culture, though his imitators are so numerous so that it's no longer his individual trademark. One screenwriter whose scripts will never be mistaken for anyone else's is David Mamet.

"Oleanna" was the fourth film Mamet wrote and directed. It was originally a stage play concerning just two characters: A college professor named John (William H. Macy) and his student named Carol (Debra Eisenstadt). In the midst of purchasing a house, John has several long conversations with Carol in his office. The conversations specifically concern a grade she received, but it is also about his teaching methods and his character in general. Through some ill-chosen words that John says, Carol becomes convinced that John made a pass at her, and she lodges a complaint against him. For John, it only gets worse from there.

When I first starting hearing about Mamet, the biggest comment I heard was that his dialogue was very natural sounding. Folks, this is a load of crap. Don't get me wrong, I like most of what I've seen of Mamet and the dialogue is often great. But natural? No. It has a rhythm that is almost musical when spoken by the right actors, but it's not like any conversation I've heard. One particular trait to Mamet's scripts is the focus on a particular item by the characters. The name of the item is often repeated ad nauseum so that the word is ringing in your head after its all over (i.e. In "Glengarry Glen Ross" it's "The Leads", In "Heist" it's "The Gold"). There really is no such item in "Oleanna", but the dialogue is still pure Mamet.

The biggest problem here is Eisenstadt. According to the IMDb, the role was originally played on stage by Mamet's wife, Rebecca Pidgeon. Having seen her in action in other Mamet films, I think she would have done a much better job. As it is, Eisenstadt is completely wooden for the entirety of the play. She speaks lines without any motivation and comes across as quite dense. At first I thought this might be because she is playing a young girl in college who is still awkward and naive. In the second half of the film, the character goes through a change by obtaining confidence and strength, yet her delivery of the dialogue is unchanging.

From what I've read of the stage play, the major reactions from audiences can be divided along gender lines. The play is commentary on sexual harassment and political correctness. For that perspective, I think the play is interesting. But, once again, I also think Eisenstadt's performance sinks it. I can summon up no sympathy for the character, and this is not because I'm male. I think Macy's character is a bit of a shmuck himself, but at least he's convincing. Eisenstadt sounds as if she's playing a tooth in the school play about gum disease.

Because even bad Mamet is pretty good, I recommend this for his fans. For all others, do yourself a favor and rent Glengary Glen Ross (with the provision that you're not offended by constant swearing). It's a great Mamet script that is performed by such greats as Jack Lemon, Al Pacino and Kevin Spacey. Now those are some guys who can deliver dialogue.

Five out of Ten