I Call BS what it is-Bullshit!

I just read a phony attack on Oakland’s mayor that is billed as a new feature in the San Francisco Chronicle, “We Call BS” by Carla Marinucci. First of all, attacking Oakland from every angle and particularly its first woman, grassroots mayor is certainly nothing new for the Chron. It’s just everyday sport for them, not journalism, that is, but sport.

What’s really shocking to me is that a well-respected political reporter, a woman reporter,too, would reach into that old bag of tricks the Chron columnists love to use-stereotypes of Oakland-crime center of the world, little sister to the grand old dame, San Francisco, that quaint museum of a city across the Bay.

Maybe they’re afraid that if tourists find out we have a functioning Chinatown where people live and work, rather than that kitchy souvenir center that is all that is left of the old vibrant Chinatown, or a thriving Latino district that runs from Deep East to the Fruitvale, all the way to East Lake, where instead of hipster boutiques there are still taco trucks, wedding shops, and restaurants representing a wide array of cultures, not to mention, Uptown, Temescal, and the Grand Lake where some of the best cultural-fusion eating establishments-Asian, Black, Latino, Ethiopian,etc. can be found; AND we have a fun bar scene now-no need to worry about the bridge to SF. Why bother to go?

Back to the “Politics Blog, We call BS.” It should be renamed. BS R Us, no real politics here. This investigative piece contacted the White House, oh yeah they did, and found that that contrary to what the mayor said, she did indeed talk to the president and the attorney general. The president met with 18 mayors of cities with rising crime rates amongst its youth. Did she say she had an intimate chat with the prez? No, of course, not but Obama did show up and listen to all the mayors problems and solutions.

This is somehow BS. This is name dropping that she said she met with the President of the United States. Well, in fact she did and after the president left, they talked with the attorney general and his office, probably a total of hours. I very much doubt these folks invited mayors from all over the country to come to DC for a very brief chat.

As to the namedropping accusation, in what world does a mayor get to meet with the president who got his folks to invite her among other mayors, whom he sought out for their input, and she keeps it a secret?? If Jerry had been there instead of Jean, it would’ve been all, oooh, what did he say, and what was it like?

But our diminutive Jean Quan, the upstart woman who “stole” the spot from a bonafide big wheel Democrat, dare not brag, unbecoming to a woman. Is it particularly unbecoming, unseemly even, because she is an Asian woman? Oops, I better not imply that or I will get attacked by the folks who generally expect to be invited to certain places and take umbrage when the wrong folks are invited instead.

What did she get, what was the quid pro quo for her trip? Ms. Marinucci is a political reporter, no? Has she heard a little bit about the difficulty President Obama is in with a Congress who thinks he also doesn’t belong and won’t give him the time of day? Most of us wouldn’t be surprised, knowing the state of national politics, if he can’t get his hands on the funds we need to competently police our city, much less blame that on the Mayor….

So now that the BS calling columnists think they’ve got her down (guess they don’t know Jean Quan), they try for a kick to the head. Oh yeah, do you know the taxpayers footed this bill? Really, how horrible, inexcusable. Maybe she should’ve turned down an invitation to the White House, an invitation to talk about crime, crime folks; because some reporters think it’s a “jaunt.” I call crazy, sorry, that’s just crazy talk.

Wow, the final blow was Quan’s nerviness to remind folks at the fast food workers’ demonstration about the Civil Rights struggle and compare it with current struggles; and so the reporter says, for that the crowd turned on her. Watch the video, a couple of obnoxious people who have a bone to pick, heckled her and ignored the workers and their organizations to make their points. I saw one White guy who thought he was the most important person there yelling at her-but no BS on him, I guess.

So let me get this straight. The mayor was wrong to go to DC or should have waited until she could raise the funds privately, then wrong to talk about it, and especially wrong to believe that the President will do all he can to help our struggling cities. She further erred by recognizing the new generation that is fighting for their rights, economic and civic?

Is that true or is that just BS? Well, let’s call it what it really is, I call Bullshit!

In a World …..Where Woody Still Made Good Movies

I’m not a movie critic. Those guys seem to notice all the arcane details of how, what and who makes a movie with multiple references to genre and camera work. They call them films, but I prefer being entertained, occasionally seeing real life reflected, and sometimes even educated or enlightened.

I’ve been telling myself, and everybody else who’ll listen, that I’m never going to another Woody Allen movie. “To Rome with Love” should’ve been the last straw, but I kept reading that Cate Blanchett was not to be missed in “Blue Jasmine”-the title should have been enough to warn me off-so I went.

My movie-going podna-as the young folk say-was taken aback by the ending. “That’s it?” she said. Yep, that was it. The supposed remake of “Streetcar” left us cold and a bit empty with Cate’s overacting getting on my nerves as much as Bobby Cannavale’s gesticulating. I saw homes and views in San Francisco that I have never seen before, and I’m not sure they actually exist. Ok, I take that back, somebody lives on the edge of the City/Marin somewhere and has those beautiful if cliched views (if views can be cliched) of the Golden Gate Bridge.

If her acting had been all that Oscar-worthy as folks are saying, Blanchett would have been lying comatose in SF General, as many pills as she popped, by the middle of that opus. Did she demonstrate layers of emotion and vulnerability? She was vulnerable alright but since she was a character completely without depth, she could not show what was clearly not there. Come’on, people.

And then there was Sally Hawkins, Brit comedy star, playing the Salt of the Earth mom who on a grocery store cashier’s wage lives in a large, sunny flat somewhere in the Mission? Really?

I read a review that said that it was a welcome change from Woody’s constant chronicling of the 1% of the 1% to see him toast the working class. On the contrary, it is just the other side of the same coin to pretend to laud the noble working class when you can’t remember having met any of them since, maybe your 20’s, while glorifying their pureness of heart with your silly stereotypes.

But we who loved Woody must admit that a big reason for watching him flutter through his best films, was because of his arrogance and his witty put-downs of regular people-people who seemed happy, therefore, shallow. In those days he was good at promoting the struggling artists, comics, and lovers who couldn’t quite fit in because fitting in meant you had given up and given in. Now, all his leads are sad sacks who want to go back to some rosy era where they fought the good fight and won because, he made us think that misfits deserved to win or at least get the girl. More on that later.

After suffering through Blue Jasmine, I went, without much investment, to see Lake Bell, in her very own writing, directorial, and acting debut in the new film (oops there I go), “In a World.”

It reminded me most of the old Woody Allen-in the days when he made cute, somewhat nonsensical movies that made you laugh while identifying with the main characters, and sometimes made you think a little bit but just a little bit. “In a World” has all the sophisticated put-downs that literate underdogs make against the unconscious but conventionally attractive and, one assumes, conventionally successful, blonde American heroes.

The ending is a bit too pat in which family values win re “Hannah and her Sisters.” But like the old Woody,it’s full of a million little asides that are funnier than anything you’ve heard since, say, Sleeper, although it is not a fantasy like that one.

While the tone of all the characters’ dialogue is similar to that of the writer/director’s speaking style that’s as you would expect. But when you watch Woody’s movies with new, younger and much more attractive leads, you tire of them all sounding and looking just like Woody. They stutter, they flutter, they stammer and cast their eyes downward. That only worked with Woody because it was true to his nebbishy self.

What was never believable was his easy way with very attractive women but since he was making the movies, hey, that was his right. In Woody’s world, no one seemed ever to work either, much less consider how they’d pay rent on their beautiful and spacious apartments. Well realism was never his strong suit. I guess I can believe Woody with Diane Keaton who is just neurotic enough to have fallen in love with him.

But here’s the other thing. Woody gets big kudos for offering grown women starring roles, never mind that most of his women are either ball breakers or neurotic beyond basic-survival-believability or just stupid/naive, waiting for him to show them how to live; worse yet, everyone since Diane sounds like her. And please don’t tell me I’m the only one who’s noticed that.

So here’s Lake Bell, her own, nervous, flip-floppy self, but I believed her. The fact that she makes herself look conventionally unattractive when she has the big-jawed, broad-shouldered look that is currently considered very attractive, makes her all the more loveable-kinda like the old schlimielly (word?) guy Woody almost was, almost.

The best part is that she takes the subject of male-domination in the entertainment field, that of voice-overs-a field that has less excuse than most of being male-dominated-and skewers it. In the end she sort of wins out in a way that is just bittersweet enough to be satisfying without being silly.

So, ok, it’s a first film and has some sore spots, some useless vignettes, and a little too much general hand waving. Had it been made by Woody though, it would’ve been called a masterpiece as many of his recent ones have been called, except for “to Rome with Love” which most critics could barely bring themselves to review. “Midnight in Paris, a nice little movie, was called a comeback (the latest of many) to that level of film making. No, sorry, it was very cute but no “Annie Hall.” I liked it- then I forgot it.

Yeah, “In a World” will not stay with me for much longer but I was still moved by the struggling, funny, smart woman who was beginning to make her way in life and love. Sorry, I am no longer moved by Woody’s bitchy/greedy or conversely pure-minded but lost heroines anymore than I am by his phony class stereotypes.

And by the way, Blue Moon was the song playing when Jasmine aka Jeanette and Alec Baldwin met? Every time she said that I felt my head spinning so much that I got a crick in my neck. So I checked the internets, true to Woody’s nostalgia for the good ole, old days, it was written in 1934. The version I remember was made in 1961, but he just had to get that in, didn’t he? Couldn’t someone tell him that his Dixieland riffs and 30’s nostalgia music has become tedious and even jarring?

So, yeah, this time I really mean it, no more Woody shuffling around with the .5 percenters and occasionally slumming it in a $2500 a month apartment on the “bad” side of town. I look forward to female leads who are slightly goofy, with an edge of arrogance mixed with insecurity and, most of all, entertaining-if Lake Bell continues to make movies, that is, movies but maybe not films.