WRITER’S NOTE: This review was written in 2012. With the 2022 midterm elections now concluded, I thought it would be fun to revisit this one.
It will be interesting to see what people think of “Game Change,” assuming of course they can get past their own political prejudices while watching it. We have long since made up our minds about the former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and are either for or against her, but this HBO movie offers a more intimate look at her life which you won’t find on any episode of “Saturday Night Live.” Then again, this movie is not all about her, and it deals more specifically with how people are selected to become national leaders. While you may think it’s the Presidential candidate who makes the final decisions, that is not always the case.
“Game Change” opens with a scene from a “60 Minutes” interview Cooper Anderson did with John McCain’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), after the Presidential campaign ended in which he asks Schmidt if he regretted choosing Palin as McCain’s running mate. The look on his face is perplexing as if he wants to say yes, or maybe he is instead looking for a better answer so he can seem more thoughtful. Either way, we don’t find out his answer until the end, but we wonder about this question throughout.
Schmidt is seen as reluctant to join McCain’s Presidential campaign, but his respect for McCain eventually makes him a chief participant. But after McCain wins the Republican nomination, a bigger problem looms; the politicians he is considering for his running mate won’t help him overcome the excitement Americans have for Barack Obama. This leads his political advisers Rick Davis (Peter MacNicol) and Mark Salter (Jamey Sheridan) to suggest Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin who they see as a game changer. Even though Palin has not been Governor for very long, they believe choosing her will enhance McCain’s image as a political maverick. Sure enough, Palin energizes McCain’s campaign in a way few others could with her strong presence and conviction of purpose. But when it comes to world and political affairs, that’s where everyone, including Palin, comes to develop a severe case of anxiety.
Now I know Plain herself has made it clear that she has no interest in watching “Game Change,” but she is actually portrayed here with a lot of empathy. As played by Julianne Moore, Palin is sincere in her efforts in wanting to help McCain win the Presidency and is shown to be a loving mother and wife. Upon being introduced to the world, Palin becomes overwhelmed with the negative press thrown in her direction to where she’s not sure how to deal with it. There are scenes where she watches helplessly as Tina Fey does an impersonation of her on “Saturday Night Live,” and you can’t help but feel for her even if it made for some great comedy.
Speaking of Fey, after watching her do a flawless imitation of Palin, it seemed insane for anyone else to try and play Palin in a movie or skit (did you see Andy Samberg try to do it?). But Moore never stoops to impersonating Palin here, but instead inhabits her so brilliantly. The whole time we watch Moore in “Game Change,” we never see her acting but instead searching for what drives Palin in this political race and her life. I really felt like I was watching Palin here and not Moore as the actress seems to just float away and has let the former Governor of Alaska take over for her.
As the campaign rolls on, we see Palin rebelling against the advisers who tell her what to say, do, and wear. While part of us wants her to really listen to them, you can’t help but admire her for not wanting to put on an act for the American people. Deep down, we really don’t want to see politicians play us for fools as we always feel we can see right through their act. Would you be ever so willing to compromise the things you believe in just to win political office?
I love how Harrelson embodies Schmidt, a man who’s trying his best to handle a delicate situation which threatens to implode each and every day. Schmidt is a guy who thinks he can handle any problem thrown at him but ends up being confronted by one he cannot control. Seeing Harrelson’s eyes stare like daggers at Palin when she goes rogue is an unforgettable image as Schmidt eventually makes clear this is McCain’s show, not hers.
Ed Harris doesn’t look or sound much like McCain, but that doesn’t matter here. What he does accomplish is making McCain seem like an honorable politician trying to run a campaign which is not full of nastiness like the one George W. Bush ran against him in 2000. Seeing him grimace when his supporters start hating on Obama more intensely, calling him an “Arab” or a “communist,” is a painful sight as he realizes this is not the kind of race he ever wanted to be a part of. Harris is an actor who always delivers the goods, and he certainly doesn’t fail us here.
One performance which stands out here is Sarah Paulson’s as McCain adviser, Nicole Wallace. Paulson gives her role a wonderful complexity as her sincere dedication to McCain’s campaign is severely tested by her utter resentment of Palin. As much as Wallace wants to help Palin do her best, you can see in Wallace’s eyes that she is thinking, “is this the best we can come up with?”
“Game Change” was directed by Jay Roach who also directed the superb HBO movie “Recount” which dealt with the craziness of the 2000 Presidential election. As with that one, he attempts to make “Game Change” a balanced look at a politician and campaign we feel we know everything about already. Whether or not he has succeeded here is hard to tell because America is as politically divisive as it has ever been, and many people have been vocal with their criticisms even before they bothered watching this movie.
Roach show us history as if it were unfolding right in front of us, and he lets get us get all caught up in it. We all know the outcome of this election, but we still cringe when Palin makes mistakes like on the Katie Couric interview. Even if she didn’t have our support during the general election, seeing her suffer through a process which proves to be beyond anyone’s control is painful, and we want to see her overcome obstacles most people don’t get to experience. Regardless of what it is we’re watching we always find ourselves rooting for the underdog. As “Game Change” comes to an end, Roach keeps us on the edge of our seats as we wonder what Palin has up her sleeve next as she has long since proven to the world that she is nobody’s puppet.
Is “Game Change” accurate to what actually happened? It depends on who you ask. Both Palin and McCain have described it as inaccurate and based on a false narrative while Schmidt and Wallace have said it tells the truth and captures the spirit of the campaign. When all is said and done though, I’m not sure I care if it is because most movies “based on a true story” are usually not altogether accurate as dramatic considerations need to be taken into account. In the end, all we can do is hope for a compelling motion picture which holds our attention throughout, and “Game Change” certainly held mine.
Palin should at least be happy that she does not come off as the bad guy here. It’s really her political handlers who come off looking bad by throwing a barely tested Governor into a political minefield which is unforgiving and endlessly vicious. Long before the election ends, the handlers see that their thirst for victory has overcome their better judgment as they picked a celebrity more than a true candidate. This brings me to scariest thing “Game Change” reveals though which is a truth that many of us don’t want to see: that these days the news is nothing more than “entertainment,” and that celebrities seem more entrancing to the public than a thoughtful politician.
The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.
As someone who considers “The Sopranos” the greatest television drama of all-time, I was supremely excited to check out “The Many Saints of Newark,” which is a prequel to the television series which captivated audiences from 1999-2007. At the time, I did not have HBO, so I, unfortunately, didn’t catch the show on its original run. Upon working at Blockbuster, I was able to pick up the series on DVD. I now own the entire series on Blu-ray, and it only gets better with multiple viewings as there is the family drama, the therapy scenes, the crime element, and even moments of comedy. It’s a masterpiece.
With “The Many Saints of Newark,” we open up in the late sixties on a young Tony Soprano with his Uncle and mentor Dickie Moltisanti. Dickie is played brilliantly by Alessandro Nivola in a performance that is perfect from start-to-finish. Dickie is part of the DiMeo crime family. Other members of the family include Johnny Soprano, Junior, Silvio Dante, Paulie Walnuts, Pussy Bonpensiero, and Pussy’s father who is nicknamed Buddha. Some of the stand-out performers here include Jon Bernthal as Johnny Soprano, Tony’s father. Junior is played by the versatile Corey Stoll. Buddha is also played by the always entertaining comedian Joey Coco Diaz.
If you have never seen “The Sopranos” before, you will probably have a very difficult time understanding what is happening in the film. This is a film which was made for those who have watched “The Sopranos” and are familiar with the characters and all of their personality traits and even lines of dialogue. It’s been a while since I’ve watched the show, and it took me a moment to piece it together. Once I did, it was a nice trip down memory lane. Prequels can be hit-or-miss, and “The Many Saints of Newark,” for the most part, is a hit. It left me looking forward to hopefully future installments, which I’ve heard have been talked about by series creator David Chase.
During this time in Newark, there are riots breaking out after an African-American taxi driver is killed by a white policeman. One of Dickie’s runners, Harold McBrayer (Leslie Odom Jr.) is an African-American, and he’s getting sick and tired of being only a runner. He’s also taking part in the riots as he wants there to be equal footing for African-Americans to be able to do business as well. Since Tony Soprano doesn’t have a great relationship with his father, he looks up to Dickie Moltisanti. Tony is getting in trouble by smoking, drinking and gambling at school. It’s hard for him because his father is not exactly a model citizen, and his mother Livia (Vera Farmiga) is never satisfied and incapable of showing any affection.
I could go into more detail with numerous backstories, but I don’t want to give away too much for those who are going into the film blindly. As you can tell by reading my review, which only touches on certain aspects of the story, there is a lot happening at once. In some cases, this is a bad thing. It is definitely a tale of two movies. The first hour of this two-hour movie is the weak link. When the film introduces us to teenage Tony Soprano, played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late, great James Gandolfini, it really starts to soar and take off. If the entire film was like the second half of the film, it would have been perfect.
One of the things I did not mention in my review is the dual-performance of Ray Liotta, as both “Hollywood Dick” Moltisanti and as Salvatore “Sally” Moltisanti. The “Hollywood Dick” persona is loud, aggressive, and rude. He marries a young Italian woman and treats her very poorly, which upsets his son Dickie as he saw the same behavior unleashed on his mother. Salvatore, on the other hand, is in prison and full of Buddhist wisdom, which seems to be a great source of comfort for Dickie when he’s conflicted on what is the right thing to do in certain situations and scenarios. Even though it’s the same actor, it’s two completely different performances.
In the end, “The Many Saints of Newark” is a film that almost reaches greatness, but the first half of the film is really hard to ignore. However, the second half left me with goosebumps and reminded me of why I fell in love with the show in the first place. The cast is also top-notch and incredible. My personal favorite performance of the film comes from Vera Farmiga. She really captures the essence of Livia and all of the drama and issues which came with her. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the performance by Michael Gandolfini. He’s not mimicking his father as Tony Soprano. It’s more about getting the little nuisances of the character and how he felt as a young teenager which led to his issues in the show as an adult mob boss. Everyone is great here, so if I’m leaving anyone out, it’s not intentional.
I must also talk about the look of the film. It’s shot perfectly with a great sense of time and place. Alan Taylor really gets the little things right. It’s a gorgeous film to look at with its use of blue tones. He left no stone unturned in making this film. The outfits worn by the characters are even spot-on, which shows how much thought went into this production. It was co-written by series creator David Chase. Since he spent so much time with these characters, it’s obviously a very personal project for him. While “The Many Saints of Newark” is not perfect, the scenes and performances that work really stand out and will leave hardcore fans of the show quite pleased. I think it will also leave them wanting more.
* * * ½ out of * * * *
Blu-Ray Info: “The Many Saints of Newark” is released on a single-disc Blu-ray from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. It also comes with a digital copy of the film. It is rated R for strong violence, pervasive language, sexual content and some nudity. It has a running time of 120 minutes.
Video/Audio Info: “The Many Saints of Newark” comes on a crystal clear 1080p High-Definition transfer, which is simply stunning and incredibly vibrant. The audio comes in a few different formats: Dolby Atmos-TrueHD: English, Dolby Digital: English Descriptive Audio, English, French, and Spanish. Subtitles are in English, French, and Spanish.
Special Features:
The Making of Newark
The Sopranos Family Honor
Deleted Scenes
Should You Buy It?
I really wrestled with whether I wanted to give this film three stars or three and a half stars. I’ll put it this way: the first hour of the film is a two-star movie, and the second hour is a four-star movie. I know four plus two equals six, so if you divide those two, you should get three stars. However, the second hour is so impactful and mesmerizing, I broke the rules of math and gave it three and a half stars. It left me with such hope and promise. Once I heard that music play at the end of the film and saw the look in the eyes of Michael Gandolfini, I said to myself, “I want to see more of THIS.” I imagine, as with anything which is popular and a prequel, the film is going to be polarizing to fans of the franchise. I completely respect that, as “The Sopranos” is a show which is very personal to a lot of people, myself included. As far as if you should buy the film, I would buy it if you are a hardcore fan of the show. If you watched the show, liked it, and never thought about it again, you can probably hold off on buying it for a little while. There are some decent special features here, but it seems like studios are really lacking with physical media special features these days. I can’t remember the last time I listened to a commentary track on a physical release.
**Disclaimer** I received a Blu-ray copy of this film from Warner Brothers to review for free. The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.
The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent Tony Farinella.
“Space Jam: A New Legacy” is a film which was doomed from the start for one major reason: certain people do not like LeBron James and have an agenda against him. Because they have these feelings, they were not going to like this film no matter what. Personally speaking, I have nothing but respect for James as an athlete and a human being. He has been a very charitable individual and someone who is very honest and giving. However, people have this obsession with comparing him to Michael Jordan and these films. The original “Space Jam” was released 25 years ago, and it’s not like it was a classic. Nostalgia wins over a lot of people as they pine over “the good old days.”
I have watched “Space Jam: A New Legacy” twice now, once on HBO Max and once on Blu-Ray. I enjoyed it on the first viewing, probably because I went into the film with such low expectations and allowed other people to get inside my head. I thought to myself, that was an enjoyable film for both young teens and older adults to watch together. After a second viewing, I must sadly admit it does not hold up very well as I see a lot of flaws. That being said, it’s not as bad as everyone makes it out to be with their ruthless bashing. It’s merely a well-intentioned misfire.
James plays himself, and he’s trying to be a good father to his son Dominic (Cedric Joe) by pushing him to be the best basketball player he can be, day in and day out. Dominic, however, is much more interested in video games, specifically developing them and trying to make basketball games more fun with style points and other cool features. In a flashback scene, we see how James was forced to throw away his Game Boy and focus on basketball, which is why he is this way toward his son. His fictionalized wife, Kamiyah James (Sonequa Martin-Green), is trying to get her husband to lighten up and take it easy on their son.
One day, James is dragged along into a meeting with Warner Brothers where they want to further his brand into other film and television avenues. James would rather focus on basketball and politely rejects their offer. This does not sit well with Al G. Rhythm (Don Cheadle) who believes James is just the right star to get in his Serververse called Warner 3000, which can put the basketball star into a number of Warner Brothers films and TV shows. The executives at the meeting are played by Sarah Silverman and Steven Yeun, and I wouldn’t have minded seeing more of them here. As a matter of fact, the best scenes in the film are the ones which take place in the real world and not in the “serververse.”
James is not afraid to have a laugh at his own expense, and this is part of the charm of this film. They talk about the fact he has been on three teams. He was great in 2015’s “Trainwreck.” He has charisma, and I could see a future in acting for him whenever he decides to retire. I’ve always found him incredibly likable. The heartfelt scenes with him work. However, when he’s recruiting the Looney Tunes or when he’s playing a game to win back his son from Al G. Rhythm, the film gets really bogged down.
Back to the plot for a moment; once James turns down the opportunity to work with Warner Brothers, Al G. Rhythm is none too happy and decides to brainwash Dominic into playing a game of basketball against his own father using his video game rules. I don’t think a children’s film should be this convoluted or long. Seriously, the film is almost two hours long.
Essentially, what you have here is three things in “Space Jam: A New Legacy:” First, you have James trying to get his team together to win his son back and get him back to the real world. The scenes with him trying to recruit the Looney Tunes are enjoyable to a point, but the filmmakers spent too much time on them. Second, you have the basketball game which features incredibly annoying and silly commentary from Ernie Johnson and Lil Rel Howery. This game is just ridiculous. Finally, the best scenes, as mentioned, are the ones where James gets to be a human being and not a basketball player spouting off cliches or a cartoon character. We needed more of this.
A lot of people were upset with all of the self-promotion Warner Brothers did for “Space Jam: A New Legacy” as far as showing off all of the properties they own such as Harry Potter and “Game of Thrones.” This, however, did not bother me, as if you have these things, why not show them off? I got a kick out of seeing Pennywise at the big basketball game. My issue is this film is too long, uninvolving and uninteresting. I felt they could have made an enjoyable, yet heartfelt, children’s film for the whole family to enjoy together as one. Instead, I can’t imagine kids understanding a lot of the technology terms, and it’s too foolish for parents to enjoy. It made money, so there was an audience for it out of curiosity I imagine. I was hoping for more use out of the many basketball stars featured here, but they are all quickly turned into video game characters. Everyone meant well here, but they tried to do too much when a simple and shorter approach would have been best.
* * out of * * * *
Blu-Ray Info: “Space Jam: A New Legacy” is released on a two-disc Blu-ray Combo Pack from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. It also comes with a digital copy of the film as well. It has a running time of 115 minutes and is rated PG for some cartoon violence and some language.
Video and Audio Info: It is released on 1080p High Definition with the audio coming in on Dolby Atmos-TrueHD: English, Dolby Digital: English Descriptive Audio, English, French, and Spanish. Subtitles are in English, French and Spanish as well.
Special Features:
First Quarter: Game On
Second Quarter: Teamwork
Third Quarter: Out of This World
Fourth Quarter: The Looniest
Deleted Scenes
Should You Buy It?
I can’t recommend “Space Jam: A New Legacy” as a purchase. I can’t imagine it will get any better with multiple viewings. As mentioned in my review, I enjoyed it as nonsensical fun the first time around. On the second viewing, I saw a lot of holes in the film. The special features are pretty lacking as well. The film is very colorful and bright. I feel like they could have made a good film as LeBron James is a superstar and box-office draw. For as many haters as he has, he does move the needle, and a lot of people do care about him. He can also act! They just needed to give him a better script. He’s a smart guy, and I’m very surprised he didn’t notice a lot of these flaws when he read the screenplay. He has shown a knack for making good decisions with his business ventures, but he missed out with this one. I’d rent it at Redbox if you are curious about it. Just know this: It’s not nearly as bad as everyone says it is. It’s just run-of-the-mill and forgettable.
I guess it was inevitable that David Chase would eventually revisit the world he created with “The Sopranos,” one of the greatest television shows ever. Vince Gilligan did the same with “El Camino,” the sequel to his acclaimed series “Breaking Bad,” and now Chase gives us “The Many Saints of Newark,” a prequel to “The Sopranos.” But while “El Camino” proved to be excellent, this prequel ends up being nowhere as enthralling as even the average “Sopranos” episode. As much as I wanted to like it, I came out of it feeling rather disappointed.
“The Many Saints of Newark” comes with the tagline “Who Made Tony Soprano?” But while Tony is a major character, this movie focuses more on a violent gang war which takes place during the 1960’s and 1970’s in Newark, New Jersey. The main character of this piece is Dickie Moltisanti (Alessandro Nivola), a soldier in the DiMeo crime family who is also Tony’s uncle. As the story begins, Dickie and Tony are welcoming Dickie’s father, “Hollywood Dick” Moltisanti (Ray Liotta) who has just arrived back in America with his new Italian wife, Giuseppina. On the surface, everything and anything seems possible to all the characters, but we know eventually that everything will come crashing down upon them before they know it.
A pivotal moment occurs for Dickie at one point (you’ll know it when it comes), and he ends up visiting his dad’s twin brother, Salvatore “Sally” Moltisanti (also played by Liotta), in the hopes of doing some good deeds which will absolve his soul. It is during these conversations where Salvatore tells Dickie, “Pain comes from always wanting things.” This reminds me of what Mr. Spock once said on the original “Star Trek” series:
“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”
Salvatore comes to discover this the hard way. While he is serious about doing good deeds, some of us may remember how the road to hell is paved with them, and this is certainly the case here.
The screenplay, which Chase wrote with Lawrence Konner, paints a rich canvas for everyone to work with as it confronts the racial strife in Newark back in the 60’s and 70’s. We watch as African Americans riot against the racist police who abused a black taxi driver just because he was black, and it serves as a depressing reminder of how many still will not learn from history as America remains engulfed all these years later.
At the same time, Chase, Konner and director Alan Taylor, who directed many of the best “Sopranos” episodes, have given themselves too much to work with. While they have vividly captured a turbulent past, the screenplay lacks a center for which to hang everything on, and the movie ends up dragging far too often. As a result, I found my attention wandering in a way I never would have during any “Sopranos” episode.
There is a subplot involving Harold McBrayer (Leslie Odom Jr.) who has returned to Newark to start his own black-led crime operation. The actions of his gang lead to some moments of truly shocking violence which “The Sopranos” was known for, but this does little to alleviate the times where this prequel drags as no one seems to be able to balance out this subplot with all the other varying storylines.
I also got to say there are far too many obvious odes to “Goodfellas” throughout. Maybe I am a little biased because Martin Scorsese’s 1990 crime classic remains my all-time favorite movie, but seeing Ray Liotta getting his head smashed into a steering wheel several times over just takes me out of the story for no good reason.
For me, I was hoping “The Many Saints of Newark” would focus more on Tony Soprano as he is presented here as a young adult, and it was fascinating to see how intelligent he was even when he does not apply himself at school. A lot of this has to do with the performance of Michael Gandolfini, son of the late James Gandolfini who originated this iconic role. It is tempting to say Michael got cast because of resemblance to his father, but he did in fact had to audition which was smart. From start to finish, he does a tremendous job of showing Tony to be a confused kid who struggles to find meaning in his life as he is forced to deal with an absent father and an ineffectual mother. As a result, it is no wonder he looks up to his Uncle Dickie, the only one adult who seems to be looking out for him. Michael is terrific and, more importantly, he makes this role his own.
It feels like it has been far too long since I have seen Alessandro Nivola in anything. I still remember him best for being Nicolas Cage’s brother in “Face/Off” and for playing the guy dumb enough to steal some velociraptor eggs in “Jurassic Park III.” But he is excellent here as Dickie Moltisanti, a man who wants to do some good deeds after having performed a number of heinous ones. Still, Dickie is a man whose passions typically get the best of him, and Nivola is great at showing the constant struggles he endures while struggling with a lifestyle which could see him get killed at any moment.
Indeed, there are many great performances throughout. While some have no choice but to inhabit younger versions of “Sopranos” characters to where they offer mere impersonations of them, others are a bit luckier. Vera Farmiga is tremendous as Livia Soprano, the same role made famous by the late great Nancy Marchand, to where if she decided to utter “I wish the lord would take me,” I would have been perfectly fine with that. In addition, John Bernthal makes for a very tough Johnny Soprano, Corey Stoll is excellent as Junior Soprano, and it is fascinating to watch Michela De Rossi as she makes Giuseppina Moltisanti evolve effortlessly from one scene to the next.
I do have some reservations, however, when it comes to Liotta, or half of Liotta anyway. As “Hollywood Dick” Moltisanti, he overacts to a painful degree as he tries to look and sound older than he really is. Watching him as this character was a bit unnerving, and thankfully this character disappears from the proceedings early on.
But as the incarcerated Salvatore Moltisanti, Liotta brings an understated menace, the same kind he utilized in “Unlawful Entry,” which makes his performance one of the most compelling here as he dispenses advice which everyone around him would do best to take seriously. Plus, I love how the actor does not have to do much to show how serious Salvatore is about jazz. Seeing him stare at a Miles Davis vinyl record shows the kind of heaven this character seeks in life, and that’s even if it doesn’t bring a smile to his face.
And in a series where the dead characters are still hovering the lives of the living, I liked how Michael Imperioli returns to narrate this movie as Christopher Moltisanti as the character attempts to illustrate how Tony Soprano became Tony Soprano. There’s even a scene when Tony first meets Christopher as a baby, and it proves to be ahaunting sign of things to come.
Look, if you are a fan of “The Sopranos,” you are bound to see “The Many Saints of Newark” at some point. What we got here is not a bad movie, and I am thankful that it is not the kind of prequel which hurriedly tries to tie everything together to match up with the events of the show. Still, despite some strong writing and performances, this movie is unbalanced and is nowhere as enthralling as a “Sopranos” episode should be. It sucks to call this a missed opportunity, but it is what it is. There is a lot to admire, but not enough to enjoy.
And if you are interested, yes, Alabama 3’s “Woke Up This Morning” is featured here. It would be blasphemy for any “Sopranos” episode or movie to be absent of it.
* * ½ out of * * * *
WRITER’S NOTE: “The Many Saints of Newark” is the latest film to be released theatrically while simultaneously being given a month-long streaming release on HBO Max. I have long since found this form of release to be counter-productive as, while it may benefit HBO Max, it completely devalues the theatrical experience. While the COVID pandemic is still a big thing, I truly believe this type of release is one of the main reasons as to why “The Suicide Squad,” “Cry Macho,” “Malignant” and this prequel are dying quickly at the box office. I shudder to think what this will do to “Dune” and “The Matrix Resurrections” as they are being released in the same way, and these two movies demand to be seen on the silver screen. The sooner this simultaneous release pattern ends, the better.
It is September 9, 2021, and I knew exactly what I needed to do: have breakfast and watch the first trailer for “The Matrix Resurrections.” But of course, breakfast would be second as this particular trailer could not come soon enough. All I can say is, wow! Keanu Reeves, looking more like John Wick than Neo, is back. Lana Wachowski is back. Carrie-Anne Moss is back, and no, she does not look to be playing a grandmother here.
The first thing I want to point out about the “Resurrections” trailer is how excited I am at how part of this movie takes place in San Francisco. It all looks so beautiful here, and it feels like it has been forever since anyone shot anything there. Part of me expected those digits to descend down the screen, but the trailer instead opens up with Thomas Anderson (Reeves) talking with a therapist (played by Neil Patrick Harris) about these strange dreams he has been having. From there, we see him taking what I guess are anti-depressants, and they are blue pills. And one other thing, Harris is wearing blue glasses in his session with Thomas. Coincidence?
What blew me away about this trailer was that it has a unique look to it. Sure, there are many images from the original featured, but “Resurrections” is made to look like its own thing and not a simple repeat of what came before. While its story line feels a bit similar to the original as Mr. Anderson is slowly waking up to the world around him, there is a different feeling this time around.
Quite wisely, this trailer only tells us so much about what we will be seeing this December. Lana Wachowski is not about to give everything away which is smart, and we are left to ponder the reality this sequel takes place in. As a result, I am left with a string of questions I am eager to see answered:
Will this sequel take place following the events of “Matrix Revolutions,” or is this a whole new timeline featuring the same characters?
Is Thomas Anderson (a.k.a. Neo) too woke to use a cell phone while in an elevator?
Why does Neo recognize Trinity but Trinity does not recognize Neo?
Will the bullet time effects be utilized frequently in this film?
Is Morpheus, now played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, meant to be a younger version of the character previously played by Laurence Fishburne?
Is this a prequel instead of a sequel?
Christina Ricci is co-starring in “Resurrections,” but did we see her in this trailer?
Is Thomas/Neo dumping those blue pills into the sink meant to be smack in the face to big pharma?
Do we really want to see this on HBO Max instead of on the big screen where it belongs?
Was Keanu Reeves shooting the fourth John Wick movie while filming “Resurrections?” Is this why Neo looks like John Wick?
Is Trinity pregnant with Thomas’/Neo’s baby? Well, whatever the case, she certainly does not look to be a grandmother in this installment.
With Johnny Klimek and Tom Tykwer taking over music scoring duties from Don Davis, will Juno Reactor be along for the ride as well?
Lastly, why is everyone stunned that Laurence Fishburne does not appear in this trailer? For crying out loud, it was announced he would not be appearing in it ages ago! Besides, he will be reunited with Reeves in the next John Wick sequel, so stop complaining!
Suffice to say, I am as excited for this sequel as I am for “Halloween Kills.” As a result, I need to keep my expectations in check as they can be easily ruined for all the wrong reasons. I have enjoyed all “The Matrix” movies, and I include the third one even though its ending really sucked. With this trailer for “The Matrix Resurrections,” we look to be getting something as striking and visually spectacular as the original which wowed us back in 1999. I cannot wait, and I am about to say something I have not said in years: Christmas can’t come soon enough!
The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent Tony Farinella.
“Bad Education” is the kind of film that would have worked very well in theaters if not for the current Covid-19 pandemic based on the star power of its two leads, Hugh Jackman and Allison Janney. As a reviewer, however, I’m happy to watch it on any platform. As usual, HBO delivers quality programming which stands out from the pack. When it comes to delivering the goods, Jackman gives his best performance, in my opinion, as Dr. Frank Tassone.
When the audience first meets Dr. Tassone, he comes across as probably the nicest, most caring, and thoughtful superintendent known to mankind. He goes above and beyond for his students, the parents, and everyone who works for him. He is the definition of the first one in the building and the last one to leave. He’s also very particular about his weight, appearance, and presentation. But beneath all of this, there is a very dark side to him that is sociopathic, cunning, and very conniving. I can’t imagine too many actors would have been able to handle the juggling act of playing everyone’s favorite superintendent one minute and a conman behind closed doors the next as well as Jackman. Thanks to his hard work and the efforts of Pam Gluckin (Allison Janney), the Roslyn Union Free School District on Long Island is rapidly growing. The numbers are good, people are making money, and everyone is happy.
However, when it comes to handling success and money, all it takes is one slip up for everything to be exposed to the public. “Bad Education” is based on a true story, and it makes you, as an audience member, wonder how this could have happened and why it got so out of hand. I won’t spoil any of the details for you in terms of what happens to Pam Gluckin and Frank Tassone, but as they say, truth is stranger than fiction. This is a film I would have gladly paid money to watch on the big screen. There are moments of dark comedy in this adult drama, and they work perfectly. What makes it even more surreal is the fact their empire was brought down by a young journalism student played by promising young actress, Geraldine Viswanathan (“Blockers,” “Miracle Workers”). There is also great supporting work from Alex Wolff, Rafael Casal and Ray Romano.
However, there are two major reasons this film is such a success. One of the reasons is the performances from Janney and Jackman. Let’s focus on Janney first here, as she delivers a tough, no-nonsense performance. Pam is unapologetic about what she is doing, and Janney portrays this perfectly. Even when Pam is at her worst and it seems like the cards are stacked against her, Janney shows off a side of her that is not going to go down without a fight. Jackman gives a meticulous and detailed performance which does not have a single false note. Much like his character, every single aspect of his performance is well-thought out and serves a purpose. As mentioned earlier, it is the best Jackman performance I’ve ever seen. He can really do it all as an actor.
It was mentioned in the review that, as an audience member, you wonder how this successful school district allowed themselves to get so over-the-top with their own personal needs and financial gain. As noted on the back of the Blu-ray, it was the largest public-school embezzlement in U.S. history. The fact the characters are so fleshed out, and the story is told in such a smart, entertaining, and unique way just adds to your enjoyment level of this film. If you don’t have HBO, or even if you do, this is a film that is worth owning on Blu-Ray. It’s dramatic, sad, funny, and shocking.
Blu-Ray Info: “Bad Education” comes to Blu-ray courtesy of Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. It is also available on DVD as well. “Bad Education” has a running time of 109 minutes and is not rated.
Video Info: The film is released on 1080p High Definition 16×9 2.4:1. While I was very happy to be able to watch and review this film on Blu-Ray, I must admit it is not a perfect Blu-Ray. During random scenes, there are moments of splotches and grainy images. While it is disappointing, Blu-ray is always my preferred method of viewing a film as opposed to DVD, so I was able to overlook it. For the most part, it is a stellar looking Blu-ray with minor flaws.
Audio Info: “Bad Education” comes on a DTS-HD Master Audio: English 5.1 soundtrack with subtitles in English. The audio is superb on this release.
Special Features: The Blu-ray comes with three special features: “Based on a True Story,” “The Perception of Perfect,” and “Hugh Jackman & Allison Janney – Virtual Conversation.” My only problem with these special features is they are all under five minutes. I would have liked if they were a little bit longer as this is such a unique and compelling true story.
Should You Buy It?
“Bad Education” is a film I’ve been telling friends to see ever since I watched its debut on HBO a few months back. On a second viewing, I received even more enjoyment out of this film. As they say, the devil is the details, and this film touches on something that was completely unknown to me before watching it. After watching the film, it made me want to learn more about the true story behind it. If you are looking for a smart, funny and well-crafted adult drama with a lot of bite to it, you will enjoy the hell out of “Bad Education.” This is the type of smart entertainment HBO is known for, and they deliver the goods with this movie. I can’t say enough great things about the performances by the two leads, especially Jackman. At times, I felt sorry for Dr. Tassone, even though he is selfish, as Jackman brings a humanity to this character. This film is definitely worth owning and picking up on Blu-ray.
**Disclaimer** I received a Blu-Ray copy of this film from Warner Archive to review for free. The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.
Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo are two of the people at the center of “The Case Against 8,” Ben Cotner and Ryan White’s documentary which takes a behind the scenes look at the historic federal lawsuit filed in an effort to overturn California’s discriminatory ban on gay marriage known as Proposition 8. These two have been together since 1998, and Katami is a fitness expert and small business owner while Zarrillo is the general manager of a theater exhibition company. We watch as they make their case about why they deserve the same rights as anyone else who wants to get married, and we revel in their victory which makes for a genuinely happy Hollywood ending of sorts.
I had a great time talking with Katami and Zarrillo when they were in Los Angeles to talk about their involvement in “The Case Against 8” back in 2014. For the two of them, this was a case which was supposed to last at least a year, but it ended up going on for five.
Ben Kenber: When this project started this project started, obviously you had no idea of what kind of documentary this would turn out to be. What was your reaction to having these documentary filmmakers, Ben Cotner and Ryan White, follow you around all the time?
Jeff Zarrillo: We knew that it was really important the story get told because our story, and Kris (Perry) and Sandy (Stier’s) story, is the same story of thousands and thousands of people around California and beyond. So, Ben and Ryan coming on board to memorialize it was a great way to make sure we could put a film together that would help inspire people and help educate people who might be on the fence. Or it might inspire the young kid who is sitting in his room watching this movie, and his parents are out in the living room and they don’t know if he or she is gay, and he looks at this film and says, “Wow! I can do this too! It’s going to be okay.” I think the young people that have yet to fall in love will watch this movie and become inspired to fall in love regardless of their sexuality. So, I think with Ben and Ryan coming aboard to do all this, to put a period on the sentences, they have a stake in the outcome too. They are two gay men living in California who would love the opportunity to get married, so I think we always knew that they would take good care of the story, protect the story and tell the truth of our lives and also the lives of so many other people.
Paul Katami: I echo what Jeff said. I mean you go walking into the world of the unknowns. Our focus was the case and no one could’ve ever imagined the twists and turns that it took. But at the time it’s a testament to Ben and Ryan, and they said that this is an important venture. This could be a landmark case, this could be a teachable moment for people, this could help other states and potentially people around the world understand that when there’s an injustice like Proposition 8 you must fight it. You must be at the front end of it because we were on the back end of it when we got into this case. So, it was a testament to them to say that we are going to be putting forth the time and the effort and the commitment for however long it takes, not knowing what the third act is and not knowing how this is going to end. I think it’s a true testament to them in saying regardless of win or lose, it’s an important story to tell because it will get people talking about the truth of the matter. I think that’s the goal of a good documentary which is to just represent the truth. No angle, no hard-hitting, this is just telling the truth of what happened. And much to what Jeff said, I believe that that person who may be in the middle of this subject matter, we preach to the choir all the time, but we want to find that unexpected ally. So maybe that person is going to sit in their home in their living room, and they don’t have to publicly affirm or deny anything. They can just sit and understand what the truth of the subject matter is based on this case. To us that’s a benefit beyond anything we ever dreamt about when they first approached us.
BK: Is there anything you wish was included in this documentary that wasn’t?
JZ: That’s a good question. I think the movie is so well done and well edited that there are moments where you think, “Wow! I really would have loved to have seen that” like the moment where we get the decision. But I think that Ben and Ryan have done such a good job of using the footage they had, and Kate (Amend) did such a great job editing it that you almost feel like you’re in the room with us. You can imagine Ted (Olson) sitting there with this tie over his shoulder, or you can think of Paul sitting in the courtroom and his knee going up and down and me telling him you need to stop. You almost feel like you were there with us. So, there were parts that we wish were there, but they are typically the parts where the cameras weren’t allowed to be. So, everything else was told very well, and to have 600 hours of footage and filter it down to an hour and 45 minutes and still have a really strong progression in narrative from beginning to end I think is really a testament to their abilities as filmmakers and Kate’s ability as a really strong editor.
BK: Did the thought of being surrounded by cameras make you hesitant to be in the documentary?
PK: A lot, but ultimately, I think in the back of our minds we knew the most important camera that was following us was the one that was going to tell the story. And so many times you have a private moment, just a totally private moment, and you look up and there would be Ben or Ryan behind a camera and you’re like, “Wow I didn’t even know you were in the room,” which is also the testament of a good filmmaker that they are going to capture the truth that way. You don’t ever feel like you have to be on. You can be yourself so they made us feel very, very comfortable along the way with the process. They funded this completely on their own. These filmmakers were behind the cameras, and there might have been just one camera on you, one person in a corner of the room for five hours, and at the end of the day you’d look up and be like, “Wow, we just went through deposition in preparation and Ryan’s been standing there the entire time with the camera on the shoulder or making sure focus and sound was right.” So, talk about being dedicated to the film (laughs) because some of that testimony prep is just not exciting. So, you’re aware but you’re not aware in a way, and I think that was the beauty of it because you see sometimes people dealing with the media who are in their face. They need a response in the moment, and sometimes that’s not the most genuine thing because you are reacting to what you feel you need to say or need to do. Their (Ben’s and Ryan’s) cameras were the most important ones, but they were not always in our faces. They were always capturing the truth of the moment.
BK: What I like about this documentary is forces you to look at the specifics of the case and the people involved. When Ted Olson was announced as the lead attorney in the case against Proposition 8, there were a lot of objections as he is considered a conservative and also represented George W. Bush in the “Bush v. Gore” case. What was your initial reaction when you heard that Ted Olson would be representing you in this lawsuit?
JZ: Well it’s very funny. Again, we’ve had these coincidences throughout this whole process, but I (swear to God) had just watched “Recount.” I had never seen it, and for some reason I had seen a pop up on HBO and I TiVoed it and watched it, and within the month we were a part of this lawsuit. So, I knew that I could probably sit down at the dinner table and have a great conversation with David Boies (who represented Al Gore in “Bush v. Gore” and was also representing the couples in this case) about everything we agreed on, but with Ted Olson there were probably very few things we would agree on. That really underscores how important it was to have both of them there because it stripped away all of that. This has always been a partisan issue, so the fact that they became involved stripped all that away regardless of the reactions that Ted got from his conservative friends and colleagues. But I really just love the fact that it really just underscores that this is more about equality and it’s more about being an American than being a Democrat or a Republican. And Ted is one of the sweetest grandpas you will ever meet.
BK: What kind of effect has the documentary had on your life so far?
PK: For us it’s kind of an out of body experience. During the case, it was really about work. It was about making sure that we worked to do what we needed to do for the case to be our best to make that goal happen, and then going right back to our everyday lives and work as well. So, there’s really no ego attached to it, but when you see the film at a festival and someone comes up to you afterwards and says I’ve been affected this way by this film, and it’s always been positive, you think of the power that you have in your own life and with your own voice. Because five years ago it was just Jeff and Paul in Burbank speaking on the couch about what we could do to speak out and do something and make it different. And five years later we are watching it in a documentary film after a legal battle at the Supreme Court of the United States. So, to me, I think in terms of how it affects us is that it affects us by saying you don’t need a legal battle to make a difference. You don’t need to have this major platform or media or a documentary. You can make a difference by just making a decision to saying yes to something in your own home or community, to stand up and protect yourself and present yourself and people like you because that’s all that we did, and we got lucky. We merged with an effort with people who put their lives on the line to start this movie way back when, and it’s a much easier time for us to do it now. We feel very lucky and blessed, but we also hope that the film can then inspire someone else to do the same. Continue taking the torch forward.
BK: This lawsuit took five years to come to a full conclusion. But when you began it, how long can the lawyers say it was going to take?
JZ: 18 to 24 months.
PK: Yeah, and no testimony (laughs). Don’t worry about it; you won’t even take the stand.
JZ: No trial, it’ll all be a series of motions that will be filed. You’ll have to stand there and make a few appearances, but that would be it. But then Judge Walker decided to have a trial, and we really understood what having a trial meant and how important it would be to have a thorough record and presentation of evidence and experts. And really, how much that trial showed the way that the evidence being on our side versus on their side, it made all the other things worth it.
BK: When the defendants presented their evidence which argued for Proposition 8, a lot of it became kind of comical…
PK: There was no evidence (laughs).
BK: Oh right, sorry about that. There was one point that was brought up called gender disorientation pathology, and I literally started laughing.
PK: But this just goes to show you that that is a perfect example of why we had to bring the Proposition 8 campaign to court. Can you imagine that you could just write this and then disseminate it and say this is the truth? And that’s not even the worst of it. That’s actually mild. Junk science was made up and then purported as truth, and then people vote based on that. So, you take that to the court of law and you say “prove it.” Where did you find this? And the answer is that “we found it on the internet.” It’s laughable, right? But it’s also so angering because good people were swayed into believing something that was untrue for your benefit and to the damage of other peoples’ lives. Its embarrassing is what it is. People laugh at it because it’s ridiculous, but then talk to the people who lost partners of 30 or 40 years during this process before they were able to legally marry and how their lives have been destroyed because of the prohibitions to federal law and federal protections and to state laws and state protections. To them it’s not funny at all. We laughed too (at the defense’s arguments). We were like, are you kidding? It’s a funny part of the movie, but that’s how idiotic it is. You sit there and go, oh my God! Of course, you laugh and you laugh at David Blankenhorn and you laugh at these moments where you’re like, really? It’s responsible procreation? Jeff’s sister-in-law said, “I was really offended by that,” because she had to artificially inseminate. And she’s like, “Well does that mean that I’m not responsible? That I’m not a responsible person? I’m married, I want to have a family, and I want to be responsible to this institution.” So, it’s laughable, but at the same time it’s angering.
BK: I remember watching that Proposition 8 commercial on television where the little girl comes home and tells her mother that she got told a story about how she can be a princess and that she can marry a princess too, and I remember thinking “are you kidding me?”
JZ: People live in this world of sound bites and instant information because with working families and moms coming home late and dads coming home late and you’re helping them (the children) with homework and you’re getting them fed, this is how you are getting your information; on bumper stickers and 30-second campaign ads, and that’s why they work.
BK: The documentary really covers your side of the case more than the other side. Did you want to see more of the other side presented, or are you happy with how it all turned out?
JZ: We’ve had that conversation with Ben and Ryan too, and I think we are all in agreement that this is really, at the heart of it, a love story. It’s a story of two couples. The other side didn’t have any arguments anyway, and it would just take away from why this is such a strong argument on our side. I think just by adding David Blankenhorn and his evolvement, I think that certainly helps. By the time the documentary was made, we didn’t know about Chuck Cooper’s evolvement with his daughter being a lesbian and he’s planning her wedding now. That may have been interesting to have in the movie, but it came out well after the documentary was already done.
PK: David Blankenhorn has this really awesome evolution afterwards. Believe it or not, the case that he went into to try to support the proponents of Prop 8, he came out understanding better what it was about. He went through the process quite publicly. The film doesn’t say this is right and this is wrong. The film says this is what happened and this is how it ended because of what’s right.
BK: It’s astonishing that Proposition 8 ever made it onto the California ballot, but it’s even more astonishing that it took so long for it to get overturned.
JZ: Judge Walker actually admonished the lawyer for the Attorney General at one of the hearings early on before we even had a case. He asked, “How does this get on the ballot with this language?”
BK: The movie ends on a great note with you and Jeff getting married, and it’s a wonderful moment because you see all the joy in the room. That is what it’s all about.
PK: That’s exactly right. We say that all the time. Getting married to Jeff doesn’t change the institution of marriage and it doesn’t harm any kids anywhere. It only benefits our lives and the people that we touch with our lives, and when you see that joy and you see that much relief after being damaged for so long like a second-class citizen, I think it’s hard for anyone to say you don’t deserve that. Believe what you want to believe in your home, I guess, but you don’t go try to enact a law because of it to help prohibit other people from the same rights that you have.
I very much want to thank Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo for taking the time to talk with me. “The Case Against 8” is now available to own, rent and stream on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.
“The Case Against 8” is a highly in-depth documentary about the historic federal lawsuit filed to overturn the discriminatory (and completely unnecessary) ban on marriages for gay couples. This fight for marriage equality went on for five years, and filmmakers Ben Cotner and Ryan White were there for it all as they went behind the scenes with the legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson (the same two lawyers from the “Bush v. Gore” case) and the four plaintiffs named in the suit. HBO aired the documentary on June 23, 2014 which coincided with the first anniversary of the Supreme Court rulings which restored marriage equality to California and ended federal discrimination against gay couples under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
I was very excited to talk with Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, two of the plaintiffs in the case, when they arrived in Los Angeles in 2014 to talk about “The Case Against 8.” We see them both getting married at the documentary’s beginning, and it’s a wonderful ceremony to watch. But then came the passage of Proposition 8 which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, and their marriage was soon declared void. After five years of fighting for marriage equality, Kris and Sandy succeed in getting married again and they are still trying to adjust to the reality of that.
Ben Kenber: When the idea of the documentary came about, was it something you were initially open to or were you hesitant to participate in it?
Kris Perry: Well we were a little hesitant about media in general at the beginning of the process. We didn’t know how it would turn out, we didn’t know what was going to happen, and we knew people would be opposed to marriage equality and they might direct it at us personally. So we were pretty reticent about media, but the filmmakers were sort of in a different category. They obviously were supportive of Sandy and I and everybody on the team. The obviously had good intent, they were incredibly trustworthy and thoughtful and supportive, so we always felt like they were different and they did something different than what a lot of people did which was just cover a minute or two here and there. They lived through it all with everybody and I think that sets them apart and made them special for us, so we were really happy they were around actually.
Sandy Stier: They became invisible very early on which is kind of interesting. They were very quiet so they set up the cameras quietly everywhere and they were such sweet guys. It was easy to accept them being there, and they also seemed protective of us in some really nice ways. I always felt like they wouldn’t include anything that we didn’t feel comfortable with, and they were very open to our perspective and what we felt okay with being in it or not. And also, on some level, I don’t really believe they would make a documentary or that it would really even happen because we had no idea what would happen with the case. We didn’t expect it to be as big a deal as it was, and I thought these nice guys are here filming and that’s great. They might make a documentary, but it’s probably kind of a long shot that it’ll be something that’s that big of a deal. So I know that sounds kind of crazy but I thought that they were so sweet and I hope that this works out okay for them, but I kind of thought that they were wasting their time.
BK: Is there anything that you wish was included in this documentary but wasn’t for one reason or another, or are you perfectly happy with the way it turned out?
KP: We’re very happy with it. We were just on a panel with the editor (Kate Amend) the other night, and somebody asked her that question because she looked at all 600 hours and was the one with the job of deciding what was in or out and had to fight with Ben and Ryan about what they wanted in. Her answer I thought was beautiful as she said, “Now that I’ve seen it this many times, I think I wouldn’t change one bit of it. I wouldn’t put anything in that I took out, and what’s in is what should have been in.” I was happy to hear her say it because she saw everything and we never did and yet I think it couldn’t be longer, it couldn’t have more in it, and I think they made some beautiful decisions.
SS: I think they did certainly a fantastic job, and we will never really know about all the footage that they have. I’m sure we would be kind of blown away by some of what they have that we will probably never see. The one thing is when I watch our wedding, I loved the way they captured it but hoped so much that are four boys would’ve been there that day we got married, and they couldn’t be there. It’s always a reminder of how we had only one out of the four and that was just painful, but they could not have done a better job putting it together and making it make sense. It’s a complicated case to make sense of and they did a great job of weaving it together.
BK: The voice of love speaks louder in this documentary than any other voice that’s featured in it. What was it like watching your wedding as it is presented here?
KP: It’s great. I mean who gets to see their wedding on a full screen in a movie theater with Dolby? That’s like a really lucky thing. I like seeing Sandy’s face again because it really was such a blur that day and there was so much happening and there were so many people including the Attorney General and all the people standing there all of a sudden. To be able to focus just on the person I was marrying was like, “Oh right, that was what was happening too.” There were the two of us and then there was everybody else, but you get pulled into that everybody else part. So I like how easy it is to focus on the two of us in the way that they included it in the film, but you can see everybody else too. But they are not the point of the wedding.
SS: To see all the people that were there supporting us at our wedding, it’s a rare wedding where you don’t know most of the people. But that’s how it happened. It’s kind of fun to see all those faces again.
BK: Now that the documentary is finished, what effect do you think it has had on your life so far?
SS: So far I think it has been a wonderful gift to us to go back and see people and see how it comes together and relive it. Every time we get to relive it slightly differently and focus on a different part of the film. It’s been a very positive impact on us so far. I think it that what will honestly be a little weird is that once it’s on TV on HBO, there are all these people we don’t know who will see it and they peer into your lives. People are in your kitchen with you and at your child’s graduation, and it’s just an odd thing knowing that so many people we don’t know will have been viewing our lives. But it’s okay.
KP: Yeah, I really think it’s been positive so far. The people who have seen it like you who have come in and say, “Wow, I didn’t realize how much was going on because I didn’t track it every day,” I’m really glad for someone like you that’s open to looking at the bigger story. It gets interesting again, and now when you hear about Utah or you hear about Pennsylvania or Illinois you’ll go, “Wow! Now I know what it takes to fight something in court. Now I know what it takes to be a plaintiff.” It gives you new perspective.
BK: What was your first reaction when you found out that Ted Olson, the lawyer who essentially gave us George W. Bush as President, would be representing you in this case?
KP: Skepticism maybe a little bit. But the people that found him and wanted him to do it and hired him are some of the people I respect the most. The political efforts of Chad Griffin and Rob Reiner and Bruce Cohen and Dustin Lance Black, I just thought these are guys who have seen so many battles and have tried to win so many rights that, if they think Ted’s the guy, who am I to question their wisdom? And they were right; he ended up being a terrific champion and still is and will continue to be. So I just was relying on the jury of peers that we had before we met.
BK: We’re so quick to judge people based on political beliefs, and I’m really getting sick of that. One of the great things about “The Case Against 8” is that it strips away partisan politics and forces us to get beyond our own biased beliefs to fight for what’s right.
SS: Yeah, and I think on some level that highlights the fact that we have politicized almost every argument in our country as though they are political arguments and they aren’t. Issues of marriage equality, why is that a political argument? Why are so many other issues… Why do they need to be political arguments also? So the more we can get out of that realm, the more we can actually make progress.
BK: The lawyers representing you at one point talk about how they’re getting more grief from the gay and lesbian groups than the conservative groups, and it shows how the mob mentality can take over on either side of the political spectrum. The documentary aims to be saying that need to be open to people and what they have to offer, and that’s even if you don’t agree with their belief system.
KP: Yeah. I think getting away from the ballot box and raising money for political campaigns and people saying things in political campaigns that aren’t even true and winning is necessary. I think it was the right time to go on to a new path and try to create a new way to solve that problem, and I think it was a better path. It’s harder on some levels as it takes forever. Campaigns are over in a year, and this was a five-year effort so everybody can’t do it but maybe everybody won’t have to.
BK: What are your plans for the future?
SS: Well when we were in the case it was always that and doing that in addition to our lives. Back then we were raising kids and working, and now the kids have launched basically. They take a lot less time. The youngest kids are in college and the older kids are grown-ups so we’re no longer actively parenting on a day-to-day basis, but we both have very big and busy careers that need a lot of attention and a lot of focus. So that’s our immediate thing to just get back to work and make work a huge priority, and we both in our work do a certain amount of advocacy as well. Kris still works in early childhood education advocacy at the federal level now. I work on public health and systems and policy so we want to get refocused on that, but in terms of the issue of marriage equality, the fight’s not over. We don’t have marriage equality in 50 states, so there is a lot more work to be done to the degree that we can help advance that cause in those states. We are absolutely happy and very motivated to participate, and beyond that there are so many other issues. There is employment discrimination, there are still a lot of issues around LGBT rights and, beyond rights, quality of life. It’s just something that I think Kris had a great a-ha moment when she talks about the quality of life as an LGBT kid and what it does to you to feel like you don’t have the same options and that your life is less than others. There’s a lot of work to do.
BK: Do you still encounter a lot of obstacles in life or do you feel like you are on a good path now?
KP: I think because it matters so much to get married and stay married, you have to work at it. You have to work really hard at being grateful that you have that, and you have to keep making it work because circumstances are changing all the time. Even having a situation where we had kids or we don’t, that’s an obstacle. And we don’t know what the future holds. There could be some hard things and you have to keep the bond strong, and we’re just lucky we got married. We are still trying to believe that, you know? That took so long and we’re still digesting the fact that we actually got married.
It was a real pleasure to talk with Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and I wish them the best in life. “The Case Against 8” is now available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.
The documentary “The Case Against 8” focuses on the historic federal lawsuit which was filed to overturn Prop 8, California’s discriminatory ban on gay marriage. Its directors, Ben Cotner and Ryan White, spent five years filming the plight of two couples (Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo) who were plaintiffs in this case as well as Ted Olson and David Boies, the lawyers in “Bush v. Gore,” who represented them. The documentary made its debut on HBO back in 2014, and it gave us an in depth look at what went on behind the scenes with these people as they fought for marriage equality.
I got to speak with Cotner and White in 2014 when they were in Los Angeles, California for “The Case Against 8” press day. Cotner has served as an executive at Paramount Pictures and Open Road Films, and he has worked on the films “An Inconvenient Truth,” “American Teen” and “Side Effects.” White produced and directed of “Good Ol’ Freda” which is about Freda Kelly, The Beatles’ longtime secretary, and “Pelada” which follows two soccer players as they travel around the world. They were both very open about the challenges and surprises they encountered while making this documentary.
Ben Kenber: The lawsuit was supposed to last only a year or so, but it ended up going on for five years. You couldn’t have known how everything would turn out, but did you have a clear idea of how you wanted this documentary to play out?
Ryan White: No. We began filming in 2009 right after the case was filed, but more just to cover our bases in case it became something big. We were lucky to get Ted (Olson) and David (Boies) on board, and they recognized also that if it snowballed into something bigger, it might be important to have a video record of it. But we filmed for three or four years without even knowing whether we had a film, or at least whether we had a third act or not. It was when the Supreme Court granted cert in December 2012, that was when we really sort of launched into hyper drive and realized that we have to finish our film. We had six months to edit it, but also that we would have a really great ending no matter which way it went.
BK: And you did end up with a great ending.
RW: Well we were very lucky in a Hollywood fairytale type of way (laughs).
BK: What surprised you most about making this documentary?
Ben Cotner: I think one of the things I was most surprised about was how open the plaintiffs and the lawyers were with us in sharing their lives. When we first went in there we had never met them, so it was really important for us to spend a lot of time gaining trust with them and for them to be comfortable with cameras around. Ryan and I intentionally didn’t have big camera crews. We shot everything ourselves so I was surprised that we were able to slip in and out of rooms for these incredibly confidential meetings and they let us do that. That was really, truly, as a documentary filmmaker, such a gift and such an exciting opportunity for us because we would get to see things that were happening that other people involved in the case weren’t able to see.
RW: I mean it’s a surprise where we are now in the country with the climate on marriage equality and what’s happening with states right now. When Prop 8 passed I think only two states had legalized gay marriage at the time in California was the third so it was relatively normal that things like Prop 8 could pass, and now it’s pretty abnormal. Even in the reddest of red states we are seeing federal judges saying that the constitutional bans/the state bans are unconstitutional, so I would’ve never expected in 2008 when we began this film that we would be at this point which feels like a tipping point.
BK: There is some attention paid to the defendants. Did you ever get any pressure to put a little more focus on them as well, or did you feel that they got enough focus?
BC: The title of our film is “The Case Against 8” because we really wanted to tell a character piece, a journey of these people to overturn this law that was affecting them. I think in doing so we spent so much time behind the scenes with these people that it would’ve been deceptive of us to pretend to be giving fair attention to the other side. At the same time, we wanted to be very respectful and not villainize them. So it really wasn’t that we were setting out to make them look bad. I think we wanted to present the best of their arguments that we could see as they were presented in court and be very true to what they said, which I think at the end of the day we were. Their lead witness, David Blankenhorn, we approached when he changed his mind about same-sex marriage very publicly. He agreed to an interview which we thought was really interesting, so we could actually see some of the perspective of somebody who was, at the time, on that side during the trial. It wasn’t that he was a hateful person. He would say there was some animus in their belief that gays and lesbians shouldn’t have the right to marry, but it wasn’t because he was trying to be mean to anybody. He was essentially a nice guy. As he said, he just hadn’t gotten to know people. So for us it was important to be as fair as possible to them but not pretend that we were going to make a film about whether gay marriage was right or wrong and be fair to both sides. It really wasn’t about that for us. It was telling these characters’ stories.
BK: You had 600 hours of footage when you finished making this documentary. What was it like editing that down?
RW: A nightmare (laughs). No, it’s fun editing it down but it’s also a nightmare at the same time. Ben and I shot the footage ourselves so we were intimately familiar with what we had shot, but we hadn’t looked at it for many years. When we would shoot on tapes and we would put them into safety deposit boxes. We didn’t look at the footage. Our agreement with the legal team was we wouldn’t put a film out until the case had resolved, so we didn’t even look at the footage until we knew it was going to the Supreme Court and then we only had six months to finish a film. So it was a really fun, sort of nightmarish process to have to go through all that footage and figure out what we had and how we could put it into a cohesive narrative, but that’s where all the chips fall into place. Our main editorial goal was to balance a legal story with the human story. If you look at the structure of the film, it leads in and out of legal intricacies with the lives of the plaintiffs, and that was sort of the balance that was always the goal to strike. Hopefully we did in the end.
BK: Was there anything in this documentary that you wanted to include that you were unable to for one reason or another?
RW: It would have been great to have footage of the Supreme Court just to get to see them in action. I liked what we were able to do with the scene and hearing their voices is amazing. I can picture it myself, and as an audience member I would love to be able to picture those nine justices in action.
BC: There were some very special, intimate moments with the plaintiffs such as the day after they testified. Everyone left the courtroom and went into this sort of back secure elevator that was closed to the public, and everyone that was involved in the case was in there including us. And as soon as the elevator doors shut everybody burst into chairs. Those little special moments that, because you’re in a courtroom you can’t be filming, I think it would’ve been great to have. But fortunately there were plenty of other joyful moments that we could put in the film.
BK: I was talking with another documentary filmmaker recently and she talked about respecting the space in terms of keeping a certain difference from your subjects. Do you think you were able to pull that off?
RW: I think it’s inevitable in a film like ours that lasts for five years that’s so personal and with issues that are personal to Ben and I, we are gay Californians, that it’s hard not to have a respect for their bravery. Also, seeing them go through the wringer during this case, it’s hard not to feel invested in what happens to them. So we tried to be very respectful of telling their story faithfully, and also if there were things that they didn’t want to be part of the process we were respectful of that, but to their credit that was very few and far in between. I think one of my favorite parts of the film right now is that we are releasing it, and Ben and I are not holding cameras anymore. This morning we were all in the same room and we got to spend time with them without any of us working. It’s just getting to enjoy being together because we did become friends with them during the process. We adored both of their families, we wanted them to get their fairytale ending, and we were thrilled filming their weddings so I think it’s just about finding a balance between respecting their privacy and also trying to make a great film. We obviously had a lot of respect for them as people and families.
BK: One of the things I love about this documentary is how it peels away at political labels.
RW: Thank you. That’s our goal. That’s what we wanted to do.
BK: Ted Olson was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, and he is the same guy who basically gave us George W. Bush as President of the United States. What was your first reaction when you found out that he was going to be taking this case?
BC: We were definitely surprised. We knew who Ted Olson was, and he is one of the most famous conservative litigators in the country. At the time, Dick Cheney was probably the only prominent conservative who was speaking openly for same-sex marriage. When he took the case we were surprised, but then once we got to know Ted we understood a little bit more why. He was never really opposed to it and he believes in equal protection of the law and always has believed that. But what was so great about it was that we could look at the issues not in a political way and not in a partisan way. We could look at the facts and we could look at what scientists were saying. Preeminent scholars from around the world came and testified about what the real science and statistics say, and individuals like Kris, Sandy, Jeff and Paul could speak to their experience and how it affected them in a very real way. So I think it allowed those stories to be heard in a way that never had happened before.
RW: Yeah, and the case was engineered around stripping politics out of it. We sort of tried to mimic that in our film because we could have concentrated on a lot of political things. We didn’t want to make a traditional social issue film about one side’s opinion on an issue and the other side’s opinion on an issue and try to draw a conclusion from it. That just wasn’t our goal. Our goal was to tell human stories, and that is the trajectory of two couples. This isn’t a movie about gay marriage being right or wrong. It’s just watching what these two couples were put through and the extraordinary circumstances they had to go through. Most straight people propose, get married in a year and it’s very routine. That’s what they grew up thinking is normal, and these two couples didn’t go through that. They went through a completely rigorous zig-zag way of getting to their fairytale ending. So I hope that that’s what the film’s take away is; just human stories rather than the political things that just sort of overwhelm the issue.
I want to thank Ben Cotner and Ryan White for taking the time to talk with me. “The Case Against 8” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.
Memories of hanging chads and confusing ballots permeate our consciousness years after the heavily contested 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. We saw this played out on the networks with all their furious coverage, but with “Recount” we get a look at what went on in the campaign offices while this election fight went on to get a picture of what they each felt was fair and just.
How you view “Recount” may depend on what side of the political spectrum you have placed yourself on. I’m not sure how accurate this movie is to the real events, but I imagine it is pretty close. Coming out of it, you may feel it values one candidate over the other. But in the end, “Recount” is not so much a movie about the fight to get candidates elected as it is about the fight for democracy. It is a fight for all the voters to be heard, and also a scary tale of how the fate of the Presidency can end up in the hands of a powerful few instead of America as a whole. Hopefully, this is something that we all collectively hope we never have to live through again.
“Recount” was directed by Jay Roach, best known as the director of the “Austin Powers” movies. Here, he directs a large cast of superlative actors who take the roles of many people we know well from the 2000 election and gives us a strong case of why many still thank Al Gore was robbed of the Presidency. Both Gore and Bush are basically supporting players here, and we only see them from the backs of their heads or in news footage of them during the campaign. The movie is more interested in what went on behind the scenes of the election and of the different fights made to get to the truth of who won the Florida electoral votes.
Even though we all know how this ended up and who got elected, the movie is still riveting in the same way “Apollo 13” was. The filmmakers are not so much interested in the general way things happened as they are in the specifics of the election. We see brilliantly shot examples of how chads in ballots could not be broken off as they were designed to. The opening shot of the movie shows how easily confused some Florida residents are when they are trying to vote, and yet it is not altogether clear how to vote for Gore so that you don’t accidentally vote for Pat Buchannan. The moment where one of Gore’s campaign workers rushes up to him before he is about to make his concession speech on the night of the election is scary as we all feel like we are running alongside him. Even after all these years, we have a strong emotional reaction to the thought of Gore conceding the election.
At the head of this star-studded cast is Kevin Spacey who gives one of his best performances as Ron Klain, Gore’s legal advisor on the campaign trail. The day before the election, it is presumed Gore is going to win, and Klain is offered a job in Gore’s new administration. Klain ends up turning it down as he feels it is not the way he wants to spend the next eight years of his life. But when it becomes clear there are clear inconsistencies in the voting in certain Florida counties, Klain goes right into action to make sure all the votes are recounted, as the margin of victory is only off by just over a thousand votes. Klain is aided by a large team of political strategists from Michael Whouley (Denis Leary) to Warren Christopher (John Hurt).
Spacey makes it clear from the start that Klain is an idealist more than anything else about the way the political system works. What he does throughout the movie is not motivated by his desire to see Gore become President, as he even admits he is not even sure he likes Gore, as it is by the desire to see all the votes counted and to not have any of them thrown out for different reasons like those rejected ones which contain the similar names of convicted felons. Because the election was so close, we can see in Spacey’s eyes how this election is much too important for anyone’s vote to be cast aside.
We also get great performances from actors like Ed Begley Jr. who plays David Boes who passionately fought for the recount to continue when testifying at the Supreme Court. Another great one comes from the always reliable Tom Wilkinson (“Michael Clayton”) who plays James Baker who fights on behalf of George W. Bush to turn the election his way. Wilkinson plays Baker as being idealistic in his own way, and he is almost as idealistic as Klain is for the democrats. Bruce McGill is also great here as Republican lobbyist Mac Stipanovich who is brought in to persuade Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to stop the recount.
Speaking of Katherine Harris, who by the way wanted nothing to do with “Recount,” she is played here in a brilliant performance by Laura Dern. With makeup, which brings up harsh memories of Faye Dunaway in “Mommie Dearest,” Dern gives us a Katherine Harris who is not dumb, but who is oblivious to what is going on around her. Harris says she is following the law, but never really questions those around her as to what their true motives are. Dern is one of the best actresses working today, and this movie is a good reminder of this fact.
The other thing to note about “Recount” is how the actors do a great job of inhabiting their roles as opposed to impersonating people we have become all too familiar with. The trap of playing real life people is many actors end up playing them from the outside in instead of the inside out. It takes a group of well-trained actors to play these roles, and who are not mere impressionists or mimics. Mimicry is a cool art, but it doesn’t work in a movie like this one.
Roach does a great job of putting us back in the year 2000, and he makes you a witness to all the events to where even though you know how this race ended, you still hope and pray for a different outcome. He also shows how each candidate has to be grateful for the dozens of people and hundreds of supporters who helped them get to where they ended up. The truth is we haven’t had many movies recently which have looked at the people who work so hard for the politicians they support, and these people need to be thanked for all they do. They can’t stay behind the scenes forever. They need to be seen for who they are.
In the end, “Recount” is not so much a movie about how Gore got screwed out of an election he won the popular vote on. It’s not even about if Gore lost the election. It is about how democracy was lost in the 2000 election, and of how many voices were rendered irrelevant for reasons which were not altogether justified. The final scene of the warehouse where all those uncounted votes is haunting, and it feels like an outtake of the scene from “Raiders of The Lost Ark” where the Ark of the Covenant got stored in a factory holding hundreds of boxes which all look alike. The real victim of this election was all the voters were not heard, and this left a shadow over George W. Bush’s presidency which will never be erased.
It also serves as an important document of this moment in history which we can never forget. We need to remember what happened so it never happens again.
The Ultimate Rabbit 