richardhowe.com

The following entry is being cross posted from Jack Neary’s own blog, “Shards”.

So I saw THE FIGHTER recently. Not a bad movie. Not a great movie, by any means, but not bad. I think the movie would have had more teeth if it had gone whole hog and admitted it was about Dicky and not Micky. I’m from Lowell, but I have had no interaction with any of these guys, so my observation is simply as a moviegoer. And if the movie had been about Dicky, then it could have turned on that phone call when Dicky discovered that Micky had listened to him about the approach to the Vegas fight. That happens, Dicky is redeemed, he cleans himself up, the movie is about him. On the other hand, I’m sure Dicky’s story was a bit under-told, and perhaps his redemption might not be as viable as Micky’s achievement. I don’t know. Still, Bale wins the Oscar, over Jeremy Renner, who received the only Oscar nomination scored for a better movie, THE TOWN.

I am from Lowell, though, and I have to say this…

Watching THE FIGHTER prompted me to watch HIGH ON CRACK STREET, the searing, 59-minute documentary that is a crucial part of the plot of THE FIGHTER. Because it’s a short film, you won’t find it on Blockbuster or Netflix. But you can find it very easily online, and you can watch it for free on your computer.

So if you see THE FIGHTER….

…and then you see HIGH ON CRACK STREET…

…and you are from Lowell…

…then you can’t be very happy about the way Hollywood has depicted your city.

Sure, both stories, interwoven as they are, are legit and worth telling.

But, my God…are these films the city’s cinematic legacy?

Sure, Ricky Gervais’ THE INVENTION OF LYING showed scenes of Lowell at its nicest. But it did not acknowledge the name of the city. So that doesn’t count.

I’ve written a play about Lowellians, entitled THE PORCH. Perhaps sometime, some theatre in Lowell will stage it. So far, one has rejected it. Too bad. I think folks in the area would appreciate its message of hope and friendship. But I can’t help at the moment.

The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

President Obama’s SOFU address was a good speech, not a great one. There were moments that were inspirational, but there were also moments that were, dare I say it, boring. In all, however, he was setting the right tone – bipartisan – and right course – centrist. Some conservatives wish this could have been his first SOFU. Liberals might rightly ask, yes, but what does he stand for? I think he stands as a practitioner of politics as the art of the possible. And even the centrist vision he has articulated is going to be difficult to implement.

I like Obama’s tying America’s competitiveness to our innovation and creativity in “this generation’s Sputnik moment.” I like that he stuck with the importance of education, infrastructure investment and clean energy. There’s an appealing symmetry in proposing to fund investment in clean energy, tomorrow’s fuel, by eliminating subsidies for oil, yesterday’s. But one person’s investment is another’s budget buster. And the reality of our dependence on fossil fuel is a lot more complicated that green energy advocates admit.

Obama wasn’t afraid of fellow Democrats in recognizing that reining in entitlements – Social Security and Medicare – over the long haul is essential to reduce the deficit. And he wasn’t afraid of Republicans in suggesting that, while it’s important to eliminate silly or intrusive regulations, he’s not going to back off of regulations necessary for safety or consumer protection. In other words, we’re still going to have an activist government, as Michael Gerson of The Washington Post points out.

Comprehensive immigration reform is still on the table, and the President even got a round of applause from Arizona Senator John McCain, who was for immigration reform before he was against it, as a 2010 candidate. And he isn’t going to cave to the push to repeal health reform, though he allowed as how he’s open to improving it, even flirting with some unspecified tinkering with malpractice insurance. He also gave a nod to corporate tax reform, noting that, by eliminating tax loopholes, the tax rates could be lowered.

Need I say “devil is in the details?” Obama’s speech lacked specificity about hard choices to be made, as economist Robert Samuelson points out. What are the trade-offs that will be necessary to get anything done, especially in this stage of the presidential election cycle?

Obama rightly read the national mood delivered in last November’s election results and no doubt is doing what Bill Clinton did after Newt Gingrich et al “shellacked” him in 1994. But beyond the comfort of his moving to the center and embracing bipartisanship, there’s probably not much to go to the bank on in the rhetorical flourishes of the State-of-the-Union address.

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments section below.