smoking gun

the last two times i went to the theatre were to see thank you for smoking and the inside man. these films have a 77 percent and 86 percent 'cream of the crop' rating on www.rottentomatoes.com.
unfortunately, both films are not very good.
smoking is an arrogant and cynical film about a tobacco lobbyist. the lobbyist encounters various ethical quandaries involving, among others, his son, ex-wife, bozo katie-holmes journalist, boss, etc.
insider is a denzel doing sam jackson in the negotiator, which might be the better of the two. what is lacking from lee's competent film is the absence of a film-gris antagonist (perhaps the clive owen character?). it is consumer-friendly spike lee, however there are undertones that are critical of the, shall we say, establishment.
the script plays with these innuendo. jodie foster plays a nyc political 'consultant' with ties to the mayor and bank executives—embodiment of the establishment's shadowy but transparent elements. the entire film is allegorical in this sense; each character are players in a pseudo-intellectual fusion of marxist class hierarchy and down-home new-world-order conspiracy talk.
there's denzel, human nature; foster, the shadowy dealbreaker; clive owen, the robin-hood vigilante; christopher plummer, chedda'; the cops, cops; the masses, masses; etc.
unfortunately there aren't enough of these small moments for the two-hour, nine-minute feature. once again, the 'cream of the crop' ain't up to the chop.
ma of the village voice is probably the highest-profile critic to dump on smoking, which says more about the films broad support than, say, atkinson's credentials. he does note that no individual in smoking actually lights up a cigarette. i can't remember, but i believe there's only one instance in the insider where a dude lights up. of course, michael mann and russell crowe probably were chaining during the entire shoot. for the record, smoking in smoking would have gotten FFT's health advisory stamp of approval; insider, no way.
ebert, a longtime lee supporter, gave the film a two and one-half, which in itself justifies a link. ebert, in post-crash parade mode, is quick to point out in his review that he recognizes the difference between a sikh and an arab. thanks, roger.









tapes 'n tapes, clap your hands and say yeah or calexico?