Hot fudge movie

    What's your favorite food? Mine is the hot fudge sundae. I don't eat one every day. I don't remember the last one. Was it in the nineties? No idea. What I can remember was my first  sundae at Ferrell's in Phoenix in 1973. I remember the many sundaes I had with my family as a kid, and some of the restaurants where we had them. That's because the combination of ice cream, whipped cream and hot fudge are just so darn good it's a sensation that stays with you ( except for that last one apparently).
    I bring this up to make a point. Favorite and best are not always the same thing. No one over the age of fourteen or fifteen is likely to claim that hot fudge sundaes are excellent food. They are not fine cuisine. They're not even healthy.
     I got to see a lot of films during the film festival last week. The best of the bunch was Graduation . The film was set in Romania with a great story to tell, a tremendous cast, and brilliant direction and editing. I loved it, but it was not my favorite of the festival.
     Favorite goes to Maudie. It lacked some of the polish of many of the other films this year. Acting talent didn't extend very far down its cast list. It was the hot fudge sundae among the many gourmet meals on offer. But this sundae was one of the rare ones that is actually good for you, and it was the film I'll remember most.
     Maud Dowley was born in Nova Scotia in 1903. She suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis from an early age. Throughout her sixty seven years it progressively twisted and destroyed her body causing near constant pain, but it did not have the power to destroy her spirit.  Maud loved to paint. She painted the simple rural world of Nova Scotia's Annapolis valley in a simple charming style that would make her famous, becoming Canada's most beloved folk artist. The movie "Maudie" covers her adult years as she leaves the stifling influence of her family to begin a new life with the village's least eligible bachelor, the fish peddler, Everett Lewis. Everett has issues. He was not the easiest fellow to get along with. The community had good reason to avoid him. Maud sees someone else in him, though it takes most of the rest of her life to bring out this slightly better version of Everett.
     That's the story, and I'll admit it's a good one but "Maudie" has more than just a good story going for it. There's a secret weapon. Her name is Sally Hawkins. Sally, who plays Maud ,in my opinion, is the most remarkable actor of her generation. If you saw her in Mike Lee's "Happy go Lucky" when it played at an earlier Telluride Film festival, or the brilliant realization of Jane Austen's "Persuasion" made for BBC television in which she starred, you have some idea what I'm talking about. You don't see her on screen all that often, she carefully chooses her roles,  but when you do , there's a thrill in store watching her hitting performance notes  you scarcely knew existed. To strain my operatic analogy a little further, she is the coloratura among fellow singers who learned everything they know about music listening to pop tunes. She's the Bartoli in comparison to contestants of a reality show talent contest. I guess I'm trying to say she stands out.
      There's a danger in watching movies like Maudie, or reading books about people similarly challenged. It's certainly jarring ,and maybe a little depressing, to realise that people without your advantages have gone so far while you're holding in place.  Overcoming obstacles becomes habit for some. Avoiding them becomes habit for others. I know that seems obvious. So why did I have to dope slap myself while coming out of this movie, as I was reminded of these simple facts for the ninehundredth ever forgettable time?
       Maud's life is  testament to the power of perseverance, also of love. Her love for life itself was evident, also her love of painting, and her love for Everett, undeserving as he was. She really had nothing going for her. A realist would have just crawled into a corner and wait for the sweet release of death. That she made life sweet instead, for herself, for her husband, and for anyone touched by her art, is some kind of miracle. It's the sort of miracle that ought to shake you right down to your most basic assumptions. Can you ask much more of a movie than that?

Politics and paranoia

   I've been thinking back on the Clinton campaign of 1992 , and contrasting it to the one of 2016. Admittedly we're talking about two different Clintons, but it's still a comparison worth making. In my memory that was a far more civil election, kinder and gentler, to borrow a phrase from the era.
    I'm going to leave the Trumpster out of this equation as far as possible. That's not to defend him or his proposals and rhetoric. I intend the opposite. He's just so far beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that he should be dismissed out of hand. I'd rather consider the campaigning style of Hillary. 
     In 1964 historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an essay for Harper's, later expanded into a book, entitled" the Paranoid Style in American Politics". He was writing about the Goldwater campaign  that year. Goldwater ,according to Hofstadter, drew much of his support from conspiracy theorists on the right who were all too willing to believe the worst about their political opponents.  Hofstadter may have forgotten that this paranoia thing works both ways. Maybe he just ran out of space. I can understand that as a occasional essayist myself. He might have pointed out that the Johnson landslide that year was largely the result of his campaign painting Goldwater as a raving lunatic and a warmonger who couldn't be trusted with America's considerable military might. Did paranoia play a role in that election? Oh yea!
     So going back to 1992, did Bill Clinton accuse the elder George Bush of secretly wanting to drag us into war, or drop atomic weapons on our enemies, or disenfranchise large swathes of our population through voter reform,  eliminate Social Security, or any other of these reliable shibboleths from the Democrat playbook? I don't recall any of that. I remember a very smart campaign manager deciding that those approaches were a little timeworn and frayed, and anyhow would have a hard time sticking to this opponent. Afterall, we already knew George Bush. The campaign was primarily over the economy. It asked in who's hands should it to be entrusted? The people chose Clinton. You may remember he didn't do that bad a job with it either, though it hurts to say so.
      The Clinton of this presidential campaign is a little different, or is it the times that have changed? She can, and does criticize the economic plans and track record of what's his name, and contrast those with her own,  but there's lots of the other stuff too. The sad part is that her opponent gives her so much ammunition. He can't help himself. I mean that. He really is unable to help himself or control himself. In our entire history we may never have seen a candidate for high office like this one. Like a child that's been chewing on lead paint flakes from the windowsills all his life, there's no impulse control in him, no judgement, little reason or self awareness either. Shouldn't she be running on that?
      Instead it's back to the playbook. Republicans are racist, anti-environment, religious bigots, authoritarian, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, just whateverphobic. If you can name a phobia, they've probably got it. It's a wonder they find the courage to get out of bed each morning. In this century, the old chestnuts of the paranoid playbook return from the grave, are dusted off and polished, and low and behold they work as well as ever.
      I'm not against name calling if the name fits. I can't stand it when the only reason for bringing it out is that it works. You score a few points but have poisoned the process. Worse than all that, you've decreased social trust, and confidence. Scapegoating, conspiracy mongering, stereotyping are all back in style and that's too bad.
     Imagine politics minus paranoia. It's easy if you try. How about honest policy discussions? How about giving the other side credit wherever credit is due? How about not demonizing them, or always ascribing to them the lowest motivations when other options are available? It goes without saying that this plea is meant for everyone. My side is hardly blameless. I've been an avid listener to political talk radio for decades. I can hardly listen anymore because I can't stand the  unfair accusations and stereotyping that are so commonplace lately. My paranoia tolerance is failing me. These days I limit my listening to NPR, and the few radio shows that still respect fair play, and tolerance, John Batchelor for instance, and Armstrong and Getty.
      I'm imagining politics with respect and tolerance right now. I pick up the newspaper and strangely ,it's not there.
      Fly high GB.