Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bodyslamming, Trump in Europe, the great Mollie Hemingway (you are hereby ordered to buy her new Encounter Broadside Trump vs. The Media right now), the lies we tell ourselves about terrorism (thanks John Kluge), and Peter Robinson once hung out with Roger Moore. No, we didn’t know that either. Happy summer, everyone.
Music from this week’s podcast: Nobody Does It Better (The Spy Who Loved Me) by Carly Simon
The all new opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a review too! And for Peter’s sake: JOIN RICOCHET TODAY.
Hill, @EJHill.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Well said, Rob, regarding Trump in Riyadh.
I see conflicting accounts of the Montana reporter incident. So much is commonly exaggerated these days. Does “body slammed” refer to him merely being pushed hard toward the floor? Does “hands on his neck” refer to hands briefly on his collar during the shove, rather than any real danger of strangulation? Did the politician grab the back of the neck — a great way to control someone without threatening injury? Or was he genuinely violent?
The reporter’s supposed behavior reminds me of a little kid saying “I’m not touching you!” while putting fingers in the face of another kid. That’s just a pathetic lawyer game and something parents don’t put up with because it’s blatantly disrespectful and aggressive. If a reporter sticks a mic in someone’s face and/or blocks a person’s way, persisting in this aggessive behavior even after being refused an interview, then the fact that he’s “not touching you” is inconsequential. He’s deliberately refusing to respect another person’s liberty and his behavior should not be tolerated.
Americans were better off when not every uncivil incident resorted to police and lawyers for resolution. If a security guard forcibly stopped a reporter who was physically harrassing and obstructing someone, then I doubt y’all would complain. A security guard has no more rights of force than the people he protects, only more responsibilities. We can and should enforce civility without government involvement (to a degree, obviously).
Whether or not this particular incident in Montana is a good example of that, I don’t know.
Love CHARADE (and I wish Hollywood would turn out movies like that today, and stars like Cary Grant), and I’m glad that much of what I said was fake news, however, I disagree with your characterization of GOLDFINGER as “camp.” Some of the Moore installments were campy (not as campy as Mike Hodge’s FLASH GORDON, for example, or the Shumacher BATMAN flicks, but still campy).
GOLDFINGER is a lighthearted and frequently witty adventure film, often tongue-in-cheek, but never campy. In fact I’d say it strikes the same tone as RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Would you consider *that* film campy?
If the candidate had barrelled past the reporter and maybe bumped shoulders with him roughly while ignoring the man’s persistently shouted questions, that would’ve been one thing — acceptable “Alpha” behavior on the part of the candidate. No problem. But grabbing the guy by the throat, or even the collar, and throwing him to the ground? And then (according to not just the reporter but also witnesses from Fox News) raining punches on the guy? That isn’t just rugged “Alpha male” behavior, that’s psychopathology. It is sick, out of control behavior, and not acceptable in a candidate, or — God help us all — a sitting Congressman.
No, that’s certainly not acceptable.
So much emphasis has been made on the “body slam” when the punches are the real story. Prevous accounts I had read claimed the reporter didn’t mention being punched until others introduced the accusation. Hence my confusion.
I don’t mean to be blasé about it, so let me try again.
If Gianforte beat on this reporter in a hot rage, justifiably angered or not, it was inexcusable and he should be punished.
That said, Montana voters responded appropriately if they delayed his punishment to elect a Republican over a Democrat. To do so does not condone the violence, does not promote similar behavior or risk its integration into law, and rightly prioritizes the general welfare of the states citizens until he certainly becomes subject to punishment.
It is also not inappropriate to reflect on other elements of the situation, such as the frequent incivility of reporters and the need to enforce standards.
@filmklassik, I think we’re talking past each other. I don’t disagree with you about Goldfinger as its own movie. I’m talking about it purely as compared to the other Bond pictures (for whatever reason, this is how everyone judges these movies), in which case, I think it kind of takes on its camp value retroactively. Most of its signature features like the gadgets, the traps, the gimmicky henchmen were very impressive at the time, I’m sure, but they’re silly clichés now, and unfortunately, the movie isn’t aware of that. So, I think it dates less well than the more self-referential and spectacular ones, and it doesn’t come of as well as the more straightforward entries as a pure spy thriller.
Judging it on its own merits, it’s obviously a much better film than, say, Dr. No, which is utterly forgettable aside from being the first Bond flick. The relative rarity of the low-tech, hard-nosed entries in the series, however, means time ends up being a little kinder to the latter than the former.
I don’t, it could also be that, despite his entries being the best on balance, I’ve never been enamored of Connery in the role.
And they try to tell me NeverTrump doesn’t exist anymore! ?
@jameslileks thinks people should grow a thicker skin about the gratuitous NeverTrump carping? Well, then, grow a thicker skin about being called NeverTrump. Or stop the gratuitous, redundant, silly, indulgent (and worse) NeverTrump carping. Problem solved!
Regarding the Trump tough talk about Iran in the presence of the Saudis: it is simply not true that the Saudis are bigger problems than Iran. Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world. The Saudis are close behind, but do it in the shadows, mostly. The difference today is that our previous President has managed to set up Iran as an actual geopolitical adversary who will likely have nuclear weapons soon, whereas we have a leash on the Saudi military and they are freaked about Iran. George Bush’s “our friends the Saudis” and “Islam is a religion of peace” was always, at the very least, flaccid. However, I was a bit surprised at the slant Rob’s criticism of Trump’s comments on Iran considering Rob tends to present himself as sophisticated in the ways of Realpolitik.
As for the “body slam” violation of the newly elected representative, perhaps it presents a teachable moment. The Republican leadership might want to investigate past standards before seating him. For instance, in concert with Senate, they could refuse to seat him for this assault (for which he has not been convicted), and the Senate can expel Al Franken for throwing a chair at Michael Medved a few years ago. Seems proper.
I have no doubt that many NeverTrumpers from the pre-November days are sincere in their insistence that they’re pulling for him now. Speaking for myself, however, I will never, ever — if I live to be a thousand — NEVER be able to scrub away the vile memory of “I don’t know David Duke” and “I prefer soldiers who don’t get themselves captured” and “Bush and Cheney lied us into war — they LIED!” and Trump’s reply to allegations that Putin had people murdered (“So has America!”) and his insinuation that Ted Cruz’s father may’ve helped murder JFK and I am making myself sick just writing all this. The mind reels.
The fact that the party of Lincoln and Reagan could have nominated a thug like him is almost beyond comprehension.
Equally incomprehensible: People who point to the fact that Leftism is a cancer on Western civilization as some sort of inducement to rally behind a thug. Unreal.
I’ve always been less susceptible to “datedness” than other people, which is perhaps why most of the movies I love were made before 1990. (I guess I have an old-school sensibility). And on the basis of what I look for in a Bond movie — tight plotting, witty dialogue, narrative ingenuity, and good old fashioned excitement — GOLDFINGER tops the list.
Now having said all that, it definitely comes up short in the stunt and sex department. Later Bond movies had more elaborate action set pieces, and — with Jane Seymour and Carole Bouquet, especially — lovelier Bond girls. (Although Honor Blackman ain’t exactly Ruth Gordon).
But by any other standard, GOLDFINGER remains the quintessential and most enjoyable Bond flick. It just fires on all cylinders.
And yeah, for sheer elan and charisma, I can’t imagine a better Bond than Sean Connery.
But for what it’s worth, I know a lot of smart people besides Rob Long who think the series is peaking right now, and that Craig may be the best actor to ever play the role.
Yeah, Like I said, the Bond films are weird. There are so many of them, and the series is so formulaic it’s hard to distinguish one from another, it’s hard to take any particular entry on its own terms. It’s more like judging individual seasons of a TV show than anything else. Truth be told, none of them are great movies, and even the worst ones are still watchable and entertaining. I mean, the Delta between Casino Royale and Goldeneye is really not that great, but the endless nitpicking and debates over them remains a pasttime more entertaining than the pictures themselves.
Fine by me. Since that won’t actually happen, and the guy won an election fair and square, he can be seated and drummed out of the Republican party, and people on the right can stop sticking up for this conduct.
Since that apparently won’t happen, those people who do countenance this kind thing can have the decency not to act surprised when the cultural backlash comes quickly and decisively.
Fine if you don’t want to support President Trump because he doesn’t meet your high moral standards or esthetic standards or whatever you mean by repugnant creep. Stand by in horror and watch. Regardless of your motivation, you will bear some responsibility for enabling the Democrats in destroying the culture. Since I have Grandchildren Democrats destroying the culture takes a high psychic toll on me and I have a visceral response to enabling those Democrats.
Three words for Mollie’s comity of the past: Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. (Oops, make that four. Damned conjunctions.) A major backfire, of course, but I’m pretty sure heated idiotic arguments over problems that are either easily solved, impossible to solve, or largely imaginary have always been a feature of our political system. From Burton Folsom’s FDR Goes to War it appears that not even facing global catastrophe makes our elected representatives lighten up on each other and anyone they think they can write off as a vote. Somehow we’ve muddled through.
As I was taught, many years ago, in the Army: “Salute the uniform, not the man.”
I’m not saluting Pres. Trump. I’m saluting “the principles for which we stand.”
As I am learning each day, much to my chagrin, the Republican Party stands on very shaky legs on those principles.
That doesn’t mean that I would “rather stand by and watch in horror as the Democrats seize power than link arms in solidarity with a repugnant creep like the sitting President.”
Pres. Trump was my 17th choice among the Republican aspirants in the primaries (“Where have you gone, Jim Gilmore? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you? Wu wu wu”) and twice I didn’t vote for him.
I don’t experience much “heavy psychic toll” (and, man, I hope you are OK) about Pres. Trump. If I believe he is right, I will support him. If I believe he is wrong, I won’t support him. If I believe he is a “nut job” (his words about James Comey). ???
Pres. Trump may be a creep, but he’s our creep. That’s not my preference.
I hoped that our country was learning a lesson on the need to elect people of high character, experience, and wisdom. This past Presidential election has rather dashed that hope.
Hope dribbles eternal.
“Whatever I mean by repugnant creep”? I wasn’t aware it was so ambiguous, but let me demystify it for you so you can decide for yourself if my standards are unreasonably high. My opinion? I think my bar is rather low, actually.
For one thing, to avoid being a repugnant creep, you can’t go around saying you don’t respect U.S. soldiers who get themselves captured during wartime, because that’s vile. For another, you can’t go pandering to white supremacists (“I don’t know David Duke, I don’t know David Duke…”) or react to charges that Vladimir Putin had his own citizens murdered by saying, “America does the same thing!”
That’s the kind of evil rhetoric I’d expect from a neo-Marxist like Noam Chomsky. Also rather Chomsky-like is repeating the twisted Leftist meme that George Bush and Dick Cheney lied us into the Iraq war (“They LIED!”)
And maybe you shouldn’t imply that your political opponent’s Dad was involved in the Kennedy assassination. That’s more than just vile (although it’s that, too), it is bugnuts crazy.
You want to say that no candidate is perfect? You are absolutely right. Mitt Romney… George Bush Sr. … George Bush Jr…. Ronald Reagan… they all had flaws. Everybody has flaws. Abraham Lincoln had flaws.
But being flawed and being a creep are two completely different things. And those examples I mentioned above there? Those aren’t flaws, they’re pathologies — symptoms of a diseased mind — and I can’t believe you would support a man who exhibits them, however vile his Left wing opponents are.
Once again, I have to respectfully disagree. For me, GOLDFINGER is one of the greatest pure adventure movies of the last 60 years. It knows what it’s about, and does it to a turn. Almost perfectly, in fact. (Maybe RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is just as much fun. Maybe).
But I agree that most of the EON Bonds aren’t particularly wonderful. In fact there are only 4 or so I never tire of watching: GOLDFINGER (Duh), FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and CASINO ROYALE. Another 10 or so have their good points, and the remainder are all but unwatchable (these include all the Brosnan flicks and most of the Craigs, and of course A VIEW TO A KILL).
I think the first James Bond movie I watched was You Only Live Twice with Sean Connery. I was a little different than the typical viewer my age. I had actually, starting at the age of around 10, read many of the Ian Fleming novels, including Live Twice, and I did notice the differences in plot between the two.
Anyway, Bond was a part of my adolescence. But I lost interest in the movie versions, because I was enough of a fan of the books and the movies were too different.
I did check out the Roger Moore Live and Let Die and I enjoyed it for what it was. And actually, I was familiar with Roger Moore, because I had watched the television show, The Saint, which when you came down to it, was not that much different than his Bond portrayals.
Speaking of movie villains does anybody remember the movie Klute (1971)? That was the one where Jane Fonda played a call girl. The killer, Peter Cable, who menaces her in the climax (played by Charles Cioffi, as shown in the thumbnails) fit the Hitchcock-ean archetype of the monster who speaks in reasonable terms.
The photo of Rob Long in the artwork for this podcast reminds me of him.
Bond:
On GA-6:
More money has been poured by the Dems into this race than any other Congressional Race in history. The Democratic candidate is running on a conservative platform (he is lying). There were a bunch of GOP candidates dividing the vote.
Not sure why none of the experts could mention this. Guess gets in the way of it being Trump’s fault.
A fine and chilling movie, and arguably Fonda’s best-ever film performance. (She’s a great actress and a despicable human being)
But I have to disagree with your assessment of John Cable. I wouldn’t call that character “Hitchcockian.” Most of Hitch’s villains are good-humored and often charming — even when they’re plotting murder. Some are downright suave. Think of James Mason in NORTH BY NORTHWEST and Ray Milland in DIAL M FOR MURDER. And think of the benign old grandpa (the actor’s name escapes me) in SABOTEUR and of course George Sanders in REBECCA. And then there’s Claude Raines acting like a lovestruck schoolboy in NOTORIOUS.
But Cable is an iceman from the get go. And his final scene with Fonda (when he’s playing back the audio “snuff tape” of one of his victims, who Fonda’s character knew) remains among the most disturbing in film history.
In short, Rob Long — brilliant, likable, effortlessly funny — could easily be a Hitchcock villain. (Or hero, for that matter). But not John Cable.
It’s actually rather amazing, considering that the Broccoli Bond franchise is 55 years old, that this is the first Bond to go. RIP Sir Roger.
I respect your honest position.
Of course you’re right about this. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was beaten very nearly to death…on the floor of the Senate itself.
Comment deleted by minions of the Great Tyrant.
Well, @filmklassik, your position does have the virtue of being honest. One can debate whether your position is more principled than prissy. Be that as it may, although you clearly impugn all levels of support for Trump as at best booboisie, at least you don’t stoop to the Nordlinger level of comparing him and his supporters to Nazis (unless I missed it).
But yours is not really the NeverTrump standard that bothers either NeverTrump critics or the likes of @jameslileks. Your total disdain for Trump as a human being makes it hard for anyone who does not share your view to take anything you say seriously, either about Trump or his policies. And that likely shouldn’t bother you, because those folks are beneath you anyway.
But @jameslileks actually wants to participate in the conversation. And well he can. But again, he won’t be taken seriously if his substantive criticisms of Trump’s policy behavior is prefaced by gratuitous and redundant carping about Trump’s unworthiness as an individual.
I am not always the biggest fan of Mrs. Hemingway, but her description of NeverTrumpers was economical and accurate, quite brilliant, really. I was genuinely surprised to hear it bounce off the impenetrable James with a thud, though I suppose I shouldn’t have been.
The main difference, Peter, is that back in the day there was considerably more overlap between Left and Right. The ven diagrams intersected more — at least where bedrock values were concerned. The Dems and the GOP could agree, for example, on the idea of American exceptionalism (Does anyone seriously believe Truman and JFK didn’t think we were the cat’s whiskers?)… And I don’t know how much abortion was being seriously debated back in 1948. My guess? Not very much… And was gay marriage even on the table until 15 minutes ago?…Was burning the flag?… And who besides Lenny Bruce and 5 or 6 Beatniks objected to “under God” being added into the Pledge of Allegience?…
There was also broad agreement about the Middle East (Israel was in the right; those wishing to destroy her were in the wrong)… and marriage (a worthy institution)… and religion (the family that prays together, etc…)… the list goes on.
And yes, race did divide us, unfortunately, and maybe a few other things did as well. But for the most part — and in most areas — Left and Right could lay claim to a set of common values.
Those days are gone, of course; never to return. I guess Vietnam marked the beginning of the end of all that.
I doubt Jay Nordlinger has done that either. Is there a vocal minority of racists within the Trump camp? Of course there is. Just ask Ben Shapiro, whose volume of antisemitic hate mail reached epic proportions when he started his nightly jeremiads against the Donald. But that doesn’t mean the typical Trump suporter bears any love for David Duke or Richard Spencer. (Hard to imagine anyone less Nazi-like than Dennis Prager).
And I expect Jay knows that.
I always pictured Rob smoking a calabash. Or a hookah.