The First Step.

Last night, the House passed the first major Health Care legislation in a century. It was quite a fight, an exciting one to witness and remember. Is it the Health Care Reform Bill I wanted? No. Did important provisions relating to access and choice get left out? Yes. Did the health insurance companies benefit? Yes. But... did... we... begin? Yes.

I was disappointed when one by one, important reform items like a public option got left out or compromised. I cringed when the Right to Life Stupak group brought anti-abortion language front and center with its demands that President Obama repeat in an Executive Order what already is law before they would vote yes. This was political posturing for re-eletion purposes in their districts and I did not like it. But in the end, a step was taken and it was poignant that Rep. Dingell from Michigan whose father gaveled into law Medicare legislation 45 years ago lived to see his father's dream of healthcare for all Americans become a reality. There isn't a Republican or Democrat that would or could reverse Social Security or Medicare now and soon that will be the same for this legislation. People can now get and keep health insurance. It is a beginning.

I find this even more interesting if you look at some history on this issue. Remember, this is not the first time there has been an attempt to get health care for every American. Many have asked, if the Republicans wanted reform, why didn't they do it? They had eight years under Bush to do so and they did nothing. But maybe this got through because it really is a Republican piece of legislation disguised in Democrat's clothing. On this point, I discovered an interesting historical perspective commentary on Taylor Marsh's political website (http://www.taylormarsh.com/).

Marsh writes:

From throwing the American people into a system without any choice, providing private insurance companies with new customers, to using women’s rights to get it done while progressive Democrats enabled it to happen, what Democrats have done is produce a Republican health care bill that Richard Nixon would have loved.

From Steve Pearlstein back in August 2009:It was back in 1971 and President Nixon was concerned that he would once again have to face a Kennedy in the next year’s election — in this case a Kennedy with a proposal to extend health care to all Americans. Feeling the need to offer an alternative, Nixon asked Congress to require for the first time that all companies provide a health plan for their employees, with federal subsidies for low-income workers. Nixon was particularly intrigued by a new idea called health maintenance organizations, which held the promise of providing high-quality care at lower prices by relying on salaried physicians to manage and coordinate patient care.

At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon’s proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

(con't from Marsh...) Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans—or at least large numbers of them—should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.

Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government “takeover” of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance. Republicans always say they are against “socialized medicine.” Not only is this bill nothing like a “single-payer” health system along Canadian or British lines. It doesn’t even include the “public option” that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government.

… [...] You could argue that Democrats have learned from Republicans. Some might say that Democrats have been less than true to their principles.

But there is a simpler conclusion: Democrats, including President Obama, are so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing to try a market-based system and hope it works. It’s a shame the Republicans can no longer take “yes” for an answer.

And my final thoughts.....Just like everyone agrees that it took a Republican (Nixon) to open the doors to China, maybe it took the Democrats adopting a Republican healthcare plan for this reform to pass. Isn't it ironic that a health care bill more in keeping with Republican ideas was passed by Democrats without a single Republican vote?

Oscar cometh!

Very soon now, that night is coming. I am always excited , then frustrated and ultimately disappointed mainly because the actors I want to win usually don't. Things will not be different this year. I have given it over to Jeff Bridges winning and I am ok with that. I really think the best acting was done by Colin Firth in A Single Man but Bridges is right behind him and he has history on his side. Hopefully, Firth will be back.

It is the supporting actor category that is difficult. The dark horse here is Plummer and many people are coming late to the table with The Last Station which is too bad. It is a gem of a movie made so by brilliant acting across the board. Only Paul Giamatti could not completely leave his own skin behind. James McAvoy continues to impress me. He can deliver the emotionally love starved, sexually repressed lover so well. (remember Atonement?) I really like him---best of all the young actors out there. But this movie belongs to Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer. They are exquisite. I have watched Christopher Plummer for over 30 years first as a stage performer out of Stratford, Canada and then in television and movies. He is always good and sometimes great....this is his best movie work. He disappears into Tolstoy and delivers the human being behind the historical legend. Mirren, as his wife, chews up the scenery and makes it her character's own.

I still think Meryl gave the best performance of the year but Mirren is right behind her. So when Sandra Bullock takes the Oscar, expect a universal shrug from all of us who know better.

Best Picture is just a crap-shoot. Not one of the nominated films really deserves the title of the Best and I cannot tell you who should be there either. I think films right now are at a cross-roads. 3-D, digital, and the Internet are transforming the film-making process changing everything. Do you really think Avatar will play well on your IPhone? This latest technology must be similar to when talking pictures and color came into the mix. Who knows what will be used to make a movie 10 years from now. While we are impressed by technology, nothing replaces a good story and for that, we need good writers. Unfortunately it is the toughest profession and the least appreciated. So put the nominated movies into a hat and draw one. Who cares?

And the Best Director winner will be Kathryn Bigelow who probably deserves it and because she will be the first woman to win an Oscar in this category, I will be pleased. I just wish she had a better understanding of the women whose shoulders she stands on when she accepts her Oscar. All the unknown, unrecognized amazing women who not only worked in the film industry but led the way only to be tossed aside and ignored once it was recognized as a money maker. Anyone ever heard of Frances Marian? No, of course not.

Have fun Sunday.....

Movies to remember (and forget) (Update)

Ok....I think I can finish my movie comments. I cannot call these remarks of mine any kind of actual reviews because I am really only giving a quick personal comment and recommendation. If you did not, read my previous blog for quite a few of the movies out now and especially those on the Oscar track. I mentioned then I had not yet seen a few of the favorites and I forgot to mention Quenton Tarentino's Inglorious Bastards so I will start with it.

Inglorious Bastards is really worth seeing. It is quirky in a very creative unique way which is why Tarentino remains a favorite with young film-makers. Brad Pitt is proving himself as an actor and one with a sense of humor. This is not your usual Nazi, WWII movie. It surprises you and makes you smile every now and then. Not bad.....

Crazy Heart is really a very good movie. It is a nice example of how good acting can lift a very ordinary script. Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal do just that. I was very skeptical of them, the knee-jerk May-December relationship storyline and the boozy protagonist who turns it around. We have seen this so many times that the thought of even going to this movie bored me. I was wrong. Jeff Bridges deserves the Oscar (and I am still hoping for Colin Firth) and I am pleased his Lady Maggie got a nomination. Bridges does more than ordinary acting to deliver this story of survival and while you do not like him initially, you find yourself rooting for him by the end. This will play well on the small screen too.

Of the movies nominated for the Oscar, Up, the animated film is nice and fun to watch but should not be in the best picture category, not because it is animated but because it is not that good. Take the family and enjoy but the word "pleasant" is all I have for you.

The other surprise is District 9 (should have been Star Trek), a futuristic drama that explores prejudice and bias except rather than gender or race, it is an alien society here on earth, separate but equal. Well, probably not equal. I can recommend this movie and I think you will like it. Again, if there is an Oscar nominee slot for a SyFy kind of movie, Star Trek is the better choice.

An Education is a movie I put off seeing because the relationship is between an older man and an underage girl. I think it is wrong to call this a relationship but the makers of this movie do everything they can to make it ok. The man is quiet, nice, pleasant and respectful. He does not rape her, he respects her and obliges her guidelines of conduct. Dress it up anyway you want, it is still illegal for a man over thirty to have sex with a woman under 18 and no matter how you minimize it, this man is a predator playing a game with a girl and her parents; one he has played many times before and his victims are getting younger. The fact that sex doesn't actually occur until her 18th birthday is putting lipstick on the pig. It is still a pig and he is still a sexual predator. I wish critics would not praise this kind of movie that sends all the wrong messages to young girls and definitely not honor it with an Oscar nomination. I cannot say anything about the acting because who cares? I do not want to give it any more space or thought than I already have.

The White Ribbon-- this is the only foreign film nominated that I have seen and it is very, very good. Michael Henecke who also directed Cache presents a Hickok's kind of "Who Done It?" crossed with the eerie "Children of the Corn". From the very beginning the lack of color and a winter environment sets an ominous tone that stays with you throughout. One terrible thing after another happens in the small rural village but no one knows who is behind the events and everyone is suspect. There have been a lot of discussions about the rise of Fascism as a theme for the movie but who knows. For a thorough review, go to Rogerebert.com.

I still did not see everything....haven't seen Precious nor A Serious Man but I will keep trying.

The Meaning of Massachusetts

If you didn't think the Kennedy era was over, you know it now. Just as he kept it going, Ted took it with him. The last Kennedy magic dust was sprinkled on Barack Obama. There was nothing left for Martha Coakley in the recent senatorial race in Massachusetts and Scott Brown won. At first, I thought he was part of the UPS Brown mailing commercial and who knows what the electorate up there in Massachusetts have gotten for its Junior Senator. What does this mean?

Everyone, especially Republicans, are quick to declare it a defeat for Obama, Health Care Reform, and the policies of the Democrats. They are much better than the Democrats on delivering their message but I am not buying it. Massachusetts is like every other state mired in debt and government corruption. I have been saying for more than a year, just vote every incumbent out until the message is clear. Being elected is a gift and a service not a place to sell yourself and lie about what you stand for. We need leaders not leaners on special interests but people who can stand up and say no to increases in spending and taxes. This is not being a Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal...it is being a responsible public servant. It is about who pays your check not lines your pockets. And Massachusetts is no different from New York, or California or Florida. Give the electorate a new, fresh, unknown and good looking face and they are ready to toss out the old, bring in the new. This didn't start yesterday, it began a couple of years ago with an unknown senator from Illinois.

And it is especially discouraging to me but women are not winners in this new knee-jerk voter election process. Part of this fresh face electorate is a throw back to a thinking that men are better, more reliable than women even when the facts say otherwise. Take a look at Massachusetts if you don't believe me. Who is Scott Brown?? What we know is he is a pleasant, good-looking young man who says he is a Republican although he compared himself to JFK frequently when campaigning and courted the Independents by not mentioning his Republican base (all 12% of it). His opponent was an experienced Attorney General but a plain, rather serious looking person who did not light up a room. Brown says he won because of this government's policies on terrorism....really. All I have heard is that he would oppose Health Care Reform and that he would vote against the present bill but you already appear to be back-pedaling. Maybe Massachusetts will be surprised when they find out who they elected. I, for one, do not think the message is clear.

And a little footnote, let's pretend a woman presented herself for a Senatorial candidate and when she was young, she posed naked for a centerfold, did a little shop-lifting and on the night of her election, offered up her two daughters to anyone who might be interested because they were "eligible." Do you think she would ever get elected or even nominated to anything??? But Scott Brown did all of that and it was glossed over as youthful indiscretions....I bet there is more in that closet of his.

Good luck Massachusetts and New York and California and any other state ready to throw out the incumbents.

Movies to remember (and forget)

It is that time of year....the award season when we get to see a few good movies and a couple of exceptional ones. Problem this year is where are they?? I do like a few but remain fairly unimpressed and I am not sure why. The movies that we are hearing a lot about and gradually getting to see since I do not live in a major movie market are sometimes interesting but awesome is a word I can leave off the page. Let's take a look at those mentioned for the awards....dare we say Oscar? And they have to come up with TEN nominees...what a year to make that decision.

The Hurt Locker-- This is a very good movie and I love it that a gritty war movie was directed by a woman...Go Kathryn....although I heard somewhere that she wouldn't let her movie be screened at a film festival that focused on women film-makers because she really doesn't want to be included in that group niche. I guess she forgot what sex started this business of making movies where it is her ex-husband's shadow she is still trying to get out from under. Anyway, this movie is worth seeing but it does reminds me of any one of several episodes of "24". Lots of close-ups of sweating men and big explosions. Nothing new is explored in this movie but a familiar story line is delivered well.

Avatar--Let's talk about the elephant in the living room and the Golden Globe winner...I always say the Globes give out awards so the Oscars don't have to. And this is one. I did like this movie and recommend it to everyone. Make sure you see the 3-D version because it is quite a ride. I loved the visuals, the colors, the beautiful animals, people and landscapes---you know, sort of like watching "Earth" or "Oceans." The story-line (yes, there is one) is so thin it could have been the winner of the 5th grade writing contest. And going along with the premise that if something worked once, do it again, this movie, like Titanic, has a love story too but honestly, no one really cared.

Invictus--Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story and the choice of Morgan Freeman to play Mandela was a no-brainer but Matt Damon?? I smell a package deal from an agency trying to raise money for this project. But really, did this movie have to suffer for all of us to learn that Matt cannot do an accent. I kept thinking who else? Who would you have liked to see in that part? I believe (at least partially) that the success of any movie is determined once the casting is over. If they had found someone, maybe even an unknown, who could have delivered that important role we would have the Oscar winner. Freeman was impeccable and Eastwood put together a taut movie which isn't easy when you are doing a biopic but it was like watching a great show and one of the leads is singing off-key throughout. I think they tried to limit Matt's dialogue and edit out what they could but the role was too important and it was a dead weight drag on an otherwise very good movie.

Young Victoria--This is the surprise movie for me. After all, I thought I had seen the best with Helen Mirren and Cate Blanchett. But, Emily Blunt held her own and better yet, she created a very likable, fully multifaceted character. She had a lot of help from Paul Bettany and other greats in cameo roles but this movie told a good story with great visuals, beautiful costumes and good acting. The camera work was creative by providing a bird's eye view of the massive coronation/wedding scenes that we usually see through a long lens showing us thousands of extras in ornate halls. I liked this one more than I thought I would.

Nine---Unfortunately, the individual parts are better than the whole with Daniel Day Lewis leading a talented cast through a lot of special moments. Who wouldn't want to see Penelope Cruz at her sexiest and Judy Dench showing us again her range and a little cleavage? Lewis reminds us again why he is a great actor becoming so Italian, you forgot he is a Brit. All the actors strut their stuff and it is fun to watch. I would say go see this on the big screen so the movie can hold your attention because the story doesn't.

Lovely Bones-- Roger Ebert found this movie "deplorable" and not because of the acting or cinematography. It is the message he did not like and I think I agree with him. Peter Jackson proves once again he can make a movie that is beautiful to watch even if it is about the brutal murder of a 14 year old girl but why? The acting all around is fine and Saoirse Ronan shows us she has more than one role in her besides Atonement. She is quite good as is Stanley Tucci but this is one story better read than seen.

Up in the Air---What can I say.....this is a very interesting story delivered by very competent actors with nice editing but I didn't care. It is a good movie, not great and without Clooney, it wouldn't have made it this far. He is the Cary Grant of our time and always a pleasure to watch. He will never play a really awful person and that will greatly limit his career. Then again, Cary did okay, didn't he?

The Single Man---This is the only movie I have watched this year that really moved me. (I haven't seen Precious yet) I credit Colin Firth for that. I (and many other women) have always loved to watch him in all his romantic, self deprecating roles but this one is different. It is a career best and in my opinion deserves the Oscar (And no, I haven't seen Crazy Heats yet either) This movie is about grief and loss of a loved one. Firth is superb in his stupor, his rage, and his stillness. Words are not necessary because he uses his body and face to deliver his despair. It is a sad and beautiful movie. Good work, Tom Ford.

It's Complicated----Now I really had fun watching this movie. It was a romantic comedy for the more "mature" among us. And, I suspect, all of us who have gone through a divorce must linger at least once over the thought that maybe, just maybe it could have all worked out. Alec Baldwin has Jack Benny's comedic timing blood coursing through his veins. And Meryl Streep is his match. What fun! Forget the critics....go and enjoy.

The Blind Side--While I am discussing movies that you will like (and the critics didn't) this is another one. Oh yes, it is predictable and many times even trite but Sandra Bullock manages to go to the edge of becoming too sappy, stopping just in time. Good for her. One critic said she actually did a part well without tripping or a prat-fall. True, but the accent came close. Still it is one I can recommend.

Sherlock Holmes---Robert Downey Jr. has another franchise hit. With Iron Man and this, he can write his own ticket in Hollywood. It may be easier to talk about why this movie didn't work than why it did because the acting, story line and special effects were very good but for me, there were problems. I am a lover of the Holmes' stories--great for your deductive thinking processes. The movie remembered to include the early clues to solving the mystery; they were just concealed really well, so Sherlock (Downey) had to periodically talk us through them with quick visual flashbacks. This helped the movie remain true to the Doyle writing technique we all love but it was, at times, confusing. The pace of the movie was either fast or faster and that is the opposite of the real Sherlock Holmes who is pensive and thoughtful. They sped it up for the younger set which did not work for me. Still worth seeing but not Oscar worthy.

Star Trek--Most people have forgotten about this movie but it really was one of the best last year. Why? Because it realistically and faithfully re-started this well known franchise. This movie was all about the story and everything from the actors to the costumes, to the cinematography supported that goal. It worked and worked well. Loved the use of "our" Spock to make the generational connect and that evil guy from Heroes as the literate, more highly evolved species we know and love as Spock. This is one that will hold up and should be nominated.

So there are twelve---a few listed below I have not seen yet so maybe I might add another movie to the list. I guess the Academy can get to ten but it won't be easy. I have not reviewed any foreign or animated films here but I may do so in another blog.

DID NOT SEE.....yet!!

The Serious Man

Precious

Crazy Heart

Ignore the column you received

If you got a blog about mammograms, ignore it....it was a draft and posted by mistake...lots of errors etc....the real post will be on its way tomorrow.

Mammogram (spoiler alert)

Just heard about the new guidelines for getting a mammogram and guess what, you can wait until you are fifty!!

My first reaction was how far ahead of the curve I was because that is when I got my first.....then as I listened to the NBC "expert" (yes, the quotes are what you think) say how the studies now show there is no proof that doing it sooner than age fifty saves lives. Forty has previously been the standard. Also, there was a hint during the news report (fear factor spoiler alert) that there was a possible downside from the radiation you are being exposed to by having those 10 mammograms in your forties.

That is when I said ---wait a minute!! First, mammograms have been around for over 40 years. While mammography started in 1960 it wasn't until 1976 that it became the standard screening device for breast cancer. And, just now they want us to believe they have accumulated enough data to make this new recommendation and suggest a possible radiation danger. Second, why now and if ten x-rays cause over-exposure to radiation, better warn those football players who probably have at least one xray a year for ten or more years of playing that sport. Third, whenever something just doesn't make sense or "add up" I remember the words of a very wise woman..."follow the money." Let's see... what do you think annual mammograms for women in their forties cost insurance companies? Will they now refuse to pay for this procedure for women in their forties calling it unreliable or experimental??

Is it possible that this information is just now being released to reduce costs and increase profits for the insurance companies (after all they are spending billions in ads opposing health care reform) or it is true and then, the question is, what took them so long? Does it really take over 40 years to collect data? I was opposed to having a mammogram for years (my forties actually) and I used to say to my doctor I would have a mammogram when men's testicles were crushed by a machine to determine prostrate cancer because I was sure no man would tolerate what we women did (and still do) without objection. Men actually can have a blood test to determine prostrate cancer. Why can't women??

I have never been convinced of the value of mammograms and now that the validity of the procedure is being questioned, maybe it is time for women to get involved and really take a good look at this procedure. After all, it is a part of our bodies that we allow a machine to flatten like a pancake, sometimes causing bruising or other damage. Maybe we need to ask why?