Movie/film suggestions.

Free HBO this week, so I killed two birds with one stone:  first bird was I watched Alto Knights (2025), and the second bird was I didn’t have to rent it.  The film portrays a version of the feud between Vito Genovese and Frank Costello and concludes with a version of the Apalachin meeting of 1957.  Robert Deniro played the roles of Genovese AND Costello.  I am not crazy about that kind of technique, but I guess he pulled it off.   

@gano , and back to The Brutalist and my comparison to a Russian novel and me saying I had only read one (Russian novel) from start to finish, I wonder if it is a coincidence that the novel was Crime And Punishment?

The Wizard Of Lies (2017), starring Robert DeNiro as Bernie Madoff and Michelle Pfeiffer as his wife (Ruth) was quite well done and rather fascinating.  I cannot imagine living in a world where people treat a million dollars more casually than I treat one hundred.  

And I made a passing reference to Phil Spector (2013) before in this thread, but I’ll mention it again because HBO is featuring it, and comcast has seen fit to give me free HBO this week.  Al Pacino played the starring role of Phil Spector, and as an Al Pacino fan, this was one of my favorite performances by him (Donnie Brasco and Scent Of A Woman are way up there on my list as well).  The movie focuses on Spector’s defense in the first trial which ended in a hung jury, and presents an alternative theory to that of Spector sticking the barrel of a .38 special in Lana Clarkson’s mouth and pulling the trigger. 

Helen Mirren played his lead attorney who started out quite skeptical but later became convinced of reasonable doubt.  Jeffrey Tambor was also cast as Bruce Cutler, the attorney who got Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren) to represent Spector.  What I found interesting was that Rebecca Pidgeon was cast as Dr. Fallon who I believe (because I have not rewatched the movie yet) was a consultant for the defense.  I found that interesting because on Pidgeon’s Chesky produced CD, The Raven (1994), she performs a hauntingly beautiful cover of Spanish Harlem.

The Brutalist (2024) with Adrien Brody, Felicity Jones, Guy Pearce  was a long movie (over 200 minutes) and I had not intended on watching the entire movie in one sitting, but it was kind of like a book that keeps you turning pages and you don’t put down because you want to see what happens next and where it ultimately winds up going.  After it was over, I did think that maybe it was based on a true story, but a cursory google came up with AI saying "no."  However, it was an interesting movie that dealt with historical events.

And speaking of Adrien Brody, I always thought that Summer Of Sam (1999) was a fantastic movie with a good cast that included Brody, John Laguizamo, Mira Sorvino, Mike Starr, Ben Gazzara, Jimmy Breslin and Spike Lee who had an acting role and I believe he also directed the film.  It’s been quite a while since I’ve watched it, but it was one I wouldn’t have a problem watching again.  

I was looking for any other Adrien Brody movies that I thought might be interesting, and of course the star studded The Thin Red Line (1998) came up, but the one I thought was more thought provoking was Detachment (2011) with a cast that also included James Caan and Lucy Liu.  Brody plays an educator who makes a career of substitute teaching, and in this setting he is subbing at a low achieving high school  where most of the students don't have any desire to be there or to learn anything.  In this dark film with a secondary underlying dark layer (which was not a comedy although James Caan did elicit a snort of laughter from me two or three times) he tries to do the right thing and although he does see some results, there are also what seem to be two major backfires. It really appears as if there will be no redemption whatsoever at the end, and imo it would have been more impactful if there wasn't, but the ending offers a glimmer of something that the viewer can make up her or his own mind on how heart warming it actually is.

@gano , I do not know why I was drawn into The Brutalist . . . but I was. (I was surprised that AI told me that it was not based on fact, thanks for clearing that up.)  As far as DeNiro goes, I think he has gotten better with age, and I’d say the same for Pacino.  I forgot about Glengarry Glen Ross, yes, a great movie, but Heat?  A typical good guys/bad guys bang bang shoot ’em up that although I have been told was based on fact, came off as totally and completely unrealistic to me.  Good special effects and cinematography though.  I’ve watched it once completely start to finish, but have not ever been able to get through another complete viewing.

I like that he is very consistent, no weird embarrassing roles like De Niro would do. 

How about Dick Tracy?

As far as Detachment, what I didn’t say about that was that it had too many unrealistic depictions of events in it to be what I would consider a real good movie, but since I was on a Adrien Brody kick at the time, I threw it in there.  Not a great movie, but an okay watch.

I thought that Lions For Lambs was pretty good.  It had three rotating parallel stories going on simultaneously and a shorter flashback story.  Set in the period a few years after 9/11 while the subsequent middle east invasions/wars were happening, Robert Redford plays a professor in one of the stories giving counsel to a privileged and intelligent but lackadaisical student.  At the same time, in another story. Meryl Streep plays a journalist interviewing a GOP senator with a neocon world view played by Tom Cruise.  I enjoy Tom Cruise when he is out of his usual type cast roles.  In the other simultaneous story, two students (Michael Pena and Adrian Finch) that Redford had in his class prior are in Chinook helicopter over Afghanistan.   The brief flash back story shows the two students when they were in Redford’s class back before they joined the military and there is the contrast to be made.  Redford’s acting was strong in this movie.

. . . after reading your response/reaction, @gano , I engaged in further thought and I still cannot explain why I didn't mind watching The Brutalist.  I guess it struck me the way I imagine some old Russian novel would . . . twisting and dangling in a seemingly pointless and off beat way down seemingly pointless off beat paths, and I guess I just wanted to find out where the paths ultimately would end up.  I will say that I often watch a movie that I enjoy more than once, and I seriously doubt that I will ever watch this one again, but that still  doesn't mean that I found it to be a bad movie.

A couple of observations:  it struck me as unrealistic that the protagonist would be as productive as he was and also be an IV opiate user, but I guess there are exceptions to every rule.  I was left wondering if Zsofia's child was a product of interaction being forced upon her by Harry Lee Jr.  And the whole scene in which Van Buren Senior raped Laszlo left me clueless.  But leaving me clueless generally is not hard to do.

so she's guilty of drunk driving?

Court TV is calling that "a throw away."  She received the standard first time OUI conviction sentence--a years probation.

Thank you for your kind words, @gano ; "very intelligent" is no doubt a stretch, but I am sure "strange" may be appropriate.  Back to The Brutalist quickly:

generally if a movie starts to bore me and does not develop into something that is going somewhere relatively quickly, I don't hang with it very long before I am switching channels.  Therefore I have been thinking and wondering why I sat through two hundred and some minutes of this film in one sitting.  All I can say is that I guess the acting was good enough and to me the plot was believable (considering the historical period that it was based on) and there was something about the dark and depraved nature of the whole ordeal that the protagonist was enduring (and this is what makes me think of a Russian novel) that held my interest.  (And my experience with Russian novels is limited, but the only one that I did read had sort of the same effect on me, but did not leave me with the burning desire to read more of them.)

A successful story usually has to have a protagonist and an antagonist that create conflict (I'd say that they had that base covered) and the protagonist should be one that the viewer or reader truly cares about (or "gives a damn about what happens to him or her" as one critic once told me), and I confess didn't feel an exceptional amount of that. But although I did not feel a tight connection to anyone in the film, it kept me engaged and interested enough  to not turn it off. For me it was quite watchable, maybe even good, but nowhere near approaching great.  For me, anyway.

BTW, have you been following the Karen Read?  Jury is out and from the questions they have sent the judge, the annalists all feel ng on murder 2 is a done deal and the jury wants to go ng on manslaughter but they have some differences on DUI.  And, apparently the way the verdict sheet reads, if they hang on DUI then they also default to hanging on manslaughter?  Seems pretty messed up if that's the way it is, but I do not have a legal mind.  I know a couple of things:  I have no desire to live in Ma. (which is not on the table anyway), and if I did, I'd stay a long way from Canton.

Also, you can hit a large person in the snow from 15 foot with an SUV, 4 out 5 time he would survive - especially with the alleged injuries

. . . people have slipped and fell and sustained a brain injury that was serious enough to result in an intercranial hemorrhage that ultimately caused their death.  However, the commonwealth's own witness, the ME, would not testify that she thought the injuries were consistent with a mv/pedestrian accident.  Which, in my mind, was huge.  I don't have any experience in emergency medicine, but I would have expected there to be soft tissue trauma at the least, and quite possibly fractures.  Regardless of how I feel about the 3rd party theory, the way the evidence was theoretically found at the scene seemed suspicious, and although two things can be true at the same time, I did feel that there was reasonable doubt. 

I’ve been watching quite a bit of the retrial as it has been live-streamed, @gano , and Judge Cannone does seem to be prosecution friendly.  At least going by the number of objections for each side that she sustains and over rules.  But with that typed, I do not have a legal mind and I do not understand what forms the legal basis for these rulings that she makes.  The pod-casters seemed to be overwhelmingly biased for Read and against Cannone’s rulings, but I think their biases may make them an unreliable source.

As far as whether it looks good or bad for Ms. Read, yesterday near the close of deliberations the analysts were mostly saying it was looking way good for her, and they were basing that upon the questions that the jury had sent to the judge.  As deliberations continue today, the analysts seem to be hedging their bets by a little bit.

Personally, until yesterday, the best I thought she was going to get was a ng on 2cond degree murder and another hung jury on manslaughter (and I wasn’t giving DUI any thought until yesterday), but the way it sounds is as if Ma. defines 2cond degree murder  (and I am going to paraphrase based on my possibly flawed understanding) as any intentional act that is reckless enough that a reasonable person should understand could result in death.  Meaning, to me, that if one was hauling ass down a two-lane highway at 120 mph and a fatal accident resulted, this would meet that criteria for 2cond degree murder.  If I am understanding the definition in Ma. correctly.

Regardless of that, I still think 2cond degree murder was a deliberate over charge by the commonwealth with the strategy being to make it more palatable for the jury to find her guilty of manslaughter.  But I could be mistaken about that as well.  

@immatthewj If it's a hung jury and another trial will happen, that's not good for her. There seem to be some jurors who can't acquit her so there may be a conviction and the judge can come up with a harsh sentence. That's what I mean by not looking good for her. 

Well, what the analysts were saying yesterday, @gano , is that the questions the jury sent to the judge seemed to make them (the analysts) feel that the charge that they were hung on was the DUI (or OUI as they apparently call it in Ma), and that's why they felt it was looking good for her.  As in:  it's not perfectly ideal, but she can live with OUI a lot easier than with 2cond or 3rd degree murder.

But this is the wrinkle I do not understand, and I am not going to spend too much time attempting to understand it, they are also saying that the way the verdict form is constructed they cannot hang on OUI without hanging on manslaughter.  Which I agree is not good, but, still better than guilty of manslaughter and bond revoked and do not pass go and go directly. . . .

With that typed, they have been discussing a revamped verdict form today, so I am not sure whether they have rectified that problem.  The analysts are saying that the verdict form is confusing and that this is not the jury's fault, and being confused myself, I tend to agree.  I will repeat that I do not have a legal mind, nor have I ever served on a jury, but I would think that it should be possible to just have each charge stand by itself and each charge could be answered with a guilty or not guilty or undecided (meaning hung).  But from what some of the legal minds are saying, is that Ma. does certain things differently.

@immatthewj on the OUI charges: she was drinking with cops, driving a cop to a another cop’s house with a drunken party, maybe it should have been their job to not let her drive?

This has been discussed by some of the analysts, @gano , and they have surmised that this may be why the jury may be having problems reaching consensus on the OUI.  Of course, this is all conjecture on their part, including on what actual charge the jury is having problems with.  All the analysts are going by is the questions that the jury has submitted to the judge.

On Ma. and specifically on this trial:  at least they have allowed cameras.  I have too much time on my hands and I do not use it productively so therefore I have been watching podcasts of coverages of trials that I find interesting.  Prior to the Karen Read trial, I was following the trial of Richard Allen (down the hill murders) in Delphi, In., and in that one the judge allowed NO cameras.  Therefore, all that was available there were the reports from the podcasters who were able to get in and take notes, and Judge Gull designed the rules pertaining to them getting in to be extremely rough/draconian.  There were podcasters who seemed to feel that a miscarriage of justice was going on, and without getting into all the details, that may or may not have occurred, but the thing is--no cameras so all we have to go on is the opinions and notes of the podcasters.  (And Nancy Grace, of course, but I find no value to her obnoxious bellowing.)

So as I typed, at least cameras are allowed in this trial.   And I will also say that the more of this stuff I watch, the happier I am that I personally have never been seriously entangled with the legal system.

I can't freaking wait, just acquit her already!

There was the false alarm a while ago, but now Vinnie P. from Court TV is saying that "the word on the street" is that a verdict is in. . . .

. . . verdict is in!

I am not convinced that she is innocent, but I believe that reasonable doubt exists.  I guess the jury did also.  When I first started watching this retrial I would have put my money on a deadlock being the best she would get.  I would think that she is experiencing an incredible relief.

As I typed, @gano , I believe that there was reasonable doubt.  Apparently the jury did as well.

@gano I am not going to divert this thread to another trial after this post (the KR trial discussion evolved from a discussion about crime movies that were supposed to be set in Boston) but after the verdict, Court TV panned over to the Laurel Glen murder trial, aka "the preppy murder trial", which I don't know anything about and have no intention of following, but the prosecutor is questioning this preppy kid who was filming the altercation that evidently resulted in a murder, and this kid must have answered "I do not recall," about 20 or 30 times in the ten minutes or so I have been listening to it.  I don't know why that struck me as amusing or worth mentioning, but it did.  Okay, I will type no more about this.

I am watching NBC Boston, the defense team was graceful to say the least. 

She was represented by professionals, @gano .  She was fortunate for that.

 I am not a huge fan of all lawyers but I won’t politicize it

I understand that, @gano , but if you need one . . . well, you need one.  I am thinking that for the last few years Alan Jackson may have been Karen Read’s best friend.

Personally, I thought she had an uphill climb in front of her.

@immatthewj I would say take a break from the court channel. It could be aggravating. Half of the world lies and they would do it on the stand too.

Yeah, @gano , you are right; I am not going to follow this one.  But for some reason it just cracked me up hearing this spoiled looking/sounding kid say, "I do not recall," so many times.  The kid’s first name is Tanner, not that this is relevant to anything at all.

Okay, NOW I won’t say anything else about it.  But Jesus!  He just said "I do not recall" at least six more times!  He just said it two more times when I was typing that last sentence! Ha ha!

@gano , connecting all of this back to the movie thread, and alluding back to Al Pacino’s performance in Phil Spector, I just discovered (via youtube) that Karen Read’s lead attorney, Alan Jackson, was the prosecutor in the Phil Spector murder trial.  

And, as we had been discussing Black Mass (and crime in Boston), here is an interesting youtube from 2013 of Hank Brennan when he was talking about his defense of Whitey Bulger.  Just some interesting trivia is all.

Hank Brennan/Whitey Bulger

In my opinion, Matt Damon is a talented and versatile actor, and although I do not like all of the movies he has been in, I have thoroughly enjoyed some of them.

One that I thought he did an excellent job in was The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) which also featured  Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law, Cate Blanchett, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and some musicians (trumpet player Guy Barker, Perico Sambeat/alto sax, Byron Wallen/cornet).

Syriana (2005) was a Matt Damon movie that I enjoyed even more than The Talented Mr. Ripley; Wiki says that the movie "was  loosely based on CIA agent Robert Baer's memoir, See No Evil." George Clooney played the CIA agent, Bob Barnes (who was apparently intended to represent the real life CIA agent Robert Baer) and also featured Chris Cooper, Christopher Plummer and Amanda Peet who plays the role Of Matt Damon's wife.

BTW, was WHM’ wife, the female in the Seinfeld episode when she was attractive in the light but very unattractive in the dark?

@slaw , I could not remember whether I had seen Edmond or not (it turned out I have) so I watched the first couple of scenes, and I did recognize Macy’s wife as actress and female vocalist Rebecca Pidgeon.  I haven’t seen many of the movies she has been in, but she did play a consultant for the defense team in Phil Spector (which I thought was an excellent movie) and she had an instrumental role in State And Main which was an okay (basically a comedy of sorts) movie.  I do remember the episode of Seinfeld you are alluding to; however I did a google and she was not credited with acting in any Seinfeld episodes.  I own her Chesky CD, The Raven (1994) which is a well produced/recorded CD and she does a beautiful cover of Spanish Harlem on that disc.

@gano , I remember you explaining the reasons that you did not like The Departed, and after I googled it and discovered that a lot of it was not actually filmed in Boston, that did knock it down a notch on my list.

But, I really enjoyed the actors, including Matt Damon as the corrupt Ma state trooper.  What I appreciate about Matt Damon is how he can portray an actor that gives everyone the warm and fuzzies (Will Hunting or Private Ryan . . . and this kind of role is not at all my favorite) or a quite despicable character (such as Mr. Ripley or the corrupt trooper in Departed) or just some type of character who comes off as not extraordinarily good or bad but just flawed to some extent and believable.  His character in Syriana worked for me on that level.

Based on your opinion of his performance in The Departed, I take you would not cast him to play Michael Proctor in the Karen read movie? I don't think I would either.  Maybe Amy Ryan as Karen Read. . . .

Is the movie being cast already?

Probably only in my mind, @gano . 

I agree with you that Matt Damon plays a good warm and fuzzy lawyer, and I did think of him in that role, but definitely not for the Hank Brennan role.  Damon's past performances as a lawyer also strike me as a bit too warm and fuzzy for Alan Jackson, but I also think that he is a skilled enough actor to pull off whatever they hand him.  Maybe Michael Keaton for Hank Brennan?  For some reason, Karen Read made me think of Amy Ryan.

You are killing me, @gano .  I guess this means that George Clooney doesn't work for Alan Jackson?

If you leave the casting to me @immatthewj you can be in charge of the script 

You might have to throw in me putting the soundtrack together, @gano .

That is one more than I thought you would be agreeable with, @gano ; but actually I want to load it up with Bob Dylan.  Jeremy Renner might work in that role . . . I am not sure as of yet.  However, I have been thinking about Michael Proctor, and how about Cole Hauser for his part?

I was just kind of joking about Dylan.  Actually, I am not sure I see/hear much of a soundtrack for the movie.  I think that I recall from one of the documentaries (probably dateline) that she said that she thought that she had the stereo blasting as she pulled away from 34 Fairview.  Aerosmith would probably be a good choice.

A lot of those Boston cops and Ma state troopers appear as if they have the extra Y chromosome (the Navy SEAL look).  I was kind of thinking about an actor who looks as if he could meet that criteria.

I guess I'll give you Affleck for director, Eastwood would be my idea of a hard no.

I see the movie as happening in flashback scenes.
 

I think we are obsessed with this.

It would be an epic, @gano .

(Would you consider Alec Baldwin for Hank Brennan?)

I like Baldwin and see him as another versatile actor (I really liked him in The Departed), @gano , but shortly after I posted I reconsidered.  Not because I think the actor playing Brennan has to have a "British look", but I think he has to have an authentic "Boston sound."  (For example, Brennan’s trademark "lawer" for law/"sawer" for saw.)  After thinking about it, Baldwin seems to be a bit too polished for that role.  But I did like what he used to do on SNL when he was portraying you-know-who.

I typed a novel and it got lost

I hate it when that happens.

@gano , I have never been to Boston; I have not even been in and out of their airport.  But the vivid and colorful manner you describe the impact that Boston had upon you intrigues me.  

As far as Brennan versus Jackson during the trial, although Brennan's physical appearance was always impeccable with every hair in place, I was wondering if the jury would be prejudiced in his favor as he seemed to me to come off as what I perceived as "being Boston," as opposed to Jackson, who had been described as the "California celebrity lawyer" (which I thought might be off putting to the jury).

No, I have not seen A Deadly American Marriage; I did just find it on 'on demand,' and unfortunately it is only accessible via Netflix right now.  The blurb about it looked interesting (I love true stories) and I could see my way clear to a 48 hour rental, but I am not doing Netflix.  I will keep my eye on it, and if it becomes a rental or available via some free streaming service, I will jump on it.  Thanks for the suggestion--I am always open to watching a good movie.

@immatthewj do not stop with casting suggestions. I enjoy shooting them down :)

In that case, @gano :

we have got to give Rebecca Pidgeon a part!  She is from Cambridge and she is not exactly what most would consider a big name. I see a few roles she could play that include Jen McCabe or Kerry Roberts.  She is way too old for the part, but I think she would really crush the part of the Canton cop who got hired by the Boston PD, Kelly Devers.  I think Rebecca Pidgeon could recreate that hostile witness attitude, but, as I typed, she is too old.

Back to Brennan--I know you are going to shoot this one down, but I bet Matt Dillon would fit in real well for that.  But he is not from Boston. . . .   Maybe Brennan would agree to play himself?

I totally enjoyed Kill The Irishman, @slaw , I think I may have commented on it after I watched it.  I don't think I finished Iceman.  Maybe it was too depressing for me, I cannot remember.

@gano , this is my last casting suggestion--I promise.  I know you aren't into a start-studded production, but I was watching Very Scary People on HLN a while ago (they were doing a doc on BTK) with Donnie Wahlberg narrating, and I couldn't help but thinking he (Wahlberg) might be a good Hank Brennan.  A Bostonian who doesn't present as exceptionally flashy, and he sort of has Brennan's look.  Put him in an expensive suit and have his hair styled immaculately and I think he could pull it off.

Re: Matt Dillon. I adore him. I should hate him for being so good looking but somehow he is so modest I can’t. He has such a range I wonder why he is not cast more?

@gano , have you seen Haunted Heart (2024)?  I watched it last night after I thought of Matt Dillon for the Brennan role, and I really enjoyed it.  It wound up going somewhere different than where I thought it was going when it started.

Anyway, the reason I thought of Matt Dillon for Brennan, was his (Matt Dillon's) ability to come off as devious in a gruff way.

And David Aaron Baker played Alan Jackson.  What a turn-about of casting that would be.  Out of curiosity, @gano , what did you think of Al Pacino as Phil Spector?  I truly enjoyed his performance, but I have noted that we don’t always agree when it comes to actors and movies.

As far as the whole Phil Spector thing, I came away from that movie thinking he may well have been factually innocent.  Later on down the road, on public radio, I was listening to an interview with someone about Phil Spector, and this person was talking about how well known it was that Spector liked to pull out guns and point them at people, and it was just a matter of time before one went off.  Who knows.  But if all one had to go on was the movie, I thought that a compelling defense was presented (which assumed the hammer was back and front sight caught on teeth causing finger to depress trigger, and lack of blood spatter).  However, forming opinions and judgements on solely the basis of a movie would be a mistake.  Unless it was a very good movie, such as the one we were working on.

As far as Haunted Heart, I won’t throw any spoilers out (except to say that there is a twist), but if you appreciate Matt Dillon's acting, you will enjoy this one.  And speaking of Matt Dillon, how about Wild Things(1998)?  I don’t think that it has been mentioned yet on this thread, but that was another movie I found to be truly enjoyable with a great cast.  Bill Murray has added something good to almost every movie I have seen him in. 

@slaw 

"Iceman" is darker. 

This may have been why I didn’t finish it.  I like dark, but I think Iceman out-darked me.  Another one I cannot watch anymore is Casualties Of War (1989) because it depresses me so badly.

Love Bill Murray. He’s great along with Melissa McCarthy in..."St  Vincent"

I have been a big fan of Bill Murray since the early days of SNL.  I remember way back thinking that The Razor’s Edge (1984) seemed to be a bit out of character for him.  Scrooged (1988) is an X-mas classic in my mind, and the films Mad Dog And Glory (1993) and Kingpin (1996) would not have been nearly as good as they were without him. 

But my very favorite movie with Bill Murray in it was Rushmore (1998) with Jason Scwartzman and a pretty good supporting cast and a good soundtrack.  It made me literally laugh out loud several times, but beyond that, it was deeply layered with themes and characters.  IMO it was a magnificent movie and Bill Murray was at his best in it. I am pretty sure that I listed it earlier in this thread as one of my all time favorites. I actually cannot say enough good about that one.

A while back ago I did rent St. Vincent (2014) and I may have to see if I can get it (for free next time) again, as for some reason I do not remember much about it.  I do not remember McCarthy’s role (which is bad on me, because she is generally fantastic), but I do remember Naomi watts and I also seem to remember a nursing home being in part of the story. 

@gano , I am glad you got back to me on both of these:

I do not have a strong feeling whether he was innocent or not. I think putting a loaded gun in someone’s mouth is risky enough to warrant a conviction. It’s kind of like Baldwin and rust, you cannot play with a loaded gun, and call it an accident if t goes off.

well, if the movie is accurate, Spector’s defense contended that Lana Clarkson put Spector’s .38 in her mouth, which alarmed him to the extent that he yelled out at her, which startled her to the extent that she jerked her pistol hand out and the front sight caught on her upper front teeth but her trigger finger kept going back, hence, the handgun discharged.  That is how the film portrayed his legal defense anyway.  The defense as depicted by the film also brought into question the lack of blood spatter on Phil Spector, who, if he had actually stuck the pistol in Ms. Clarkson’s mouth, would have been in very close proximity.

But with all that typed:  it was only a film maker’s representation, and I believe in the opening sequence it stated something to the effect that it was not intended to be an accurate representation.   Or something to that effect.  And I will also allude to that interview I mentioned earlier (I wish I could remember who it was with) and the person being interviewed saying that Spector’s behavior with firearms was, to say the least, bizarre and unsafe, and tragedy was just a matter of time.  So I don’t know.  As I typed a few times in this thread, I loved the movie and what Pacino did with his role.  And didn’t Rebecca Pidgeon to a beautiful cover of Spanish Harlem?

I was going to get back to you about Rust as well, particularly after you typed that you had just watched Phil Spector.  I remember you made a reference to Alec Baldwin and Rust several posts ago, and I have an opinion on that subject as well (surprise).  I actually like guns and am quite familiar with them.  I suppose I am what one might refer to as "a well armed liberal."  (It’s not a political thing with me--when I was growing up in Montana, all my friends had firearms and so did I, and I still have an appreciation for them and still enjoy going to the range.  I don’t hunt anymore, and I never will again, and now I wish I never had, but that’s another subject and I am not going to get into it any time soon.)

So as far as Rust:  Alec Baldwin was an actor on a movie set and someone handed him a loaded revolver.  I don’t know this for sure, but I don’t think Baldwin had much familiarity at all with guns (of any kind) and I think he probably just saw them as nothing more than authentic looking toys that are used as props to make movies with.  And I would think that this probably holds true for a lot of actors that make movies where firearms are an integral part of the script.  And a negligent discharge occurred that resulted in a lethal and tragic accident.  I do not know how live ammunition would have got on a movie set where the script probably involved actors without firearm training pointing operational firearms at each other, but (and I am stating this objectively and NOT to defend Baldwin) that is where I think the real culpability lies.  And I do not know that this completely absolves Baldwin or not in my mind.  I don’t know if firearms familiarization and safety training for all actors who handle guns in a given movie is a production requirement or not--I am thinking it is not, but I guess maybe it should be.  When I was in my early teens I had to take a hunter’s safety class, and one of the first rules was something to the effect of treating every gun as if it was loaded and not to point a gun at anything that you did not want to "destroy" (I believe "destroy" is the updated language that is now used), and these are good rules, but if they adhered to them on movie sets, it would certainly effect the quality of movies, and imo, not for the better. Maybe they should only be allowed to use firearms that have been disabled, as in no firing pin or the chamber modified/blocked in some manner that would prevent a round from being chambered, although that would also prevent them from firing blanks at each other.  And, even if they went that route, if live rounds could make it on a set, who is to say an operational firearm couldn’t make it as well, even though prohibited?

. . . I missed this, @gano 

I have no doubt Spector was  "crazy". I don’t know if he was a decent human being before his decline/bipolar diagnosis, but being mean is not a crime. He should not have had a gun. (and I could go on about who else should not have a gun, and have my comment deleted)

but you are correct, he should not have had a gun, let alone as many has he did have.  There is a BATF form (I just googled it and it is 4473) that has to be filled out and then a background check completed prior to successful purchase from a FFL dealer, and some of the questions that have to be answered correctly regard use of certain drugs, PFAs, felonies, and psych diagnoses.  For some of these questions, there is a record that would come up on the background check, and for others, the honor system applies.  I suspect a psych diagnosis might meet the latter  criteria due to laws related to medical records and privacy.  And then of course, there is always the straw purchase option.  Someone with Spector's money and influence could have probably easily have paid someone to make the purchases for him.  A lot of ways to get around it, which does mean that a lot of people that own guns shouldn't be allowed to.

@hce1 , welcome to the movie club within the audio club!

Gus Van Zant: Drugstore Cowboys and Good Will Hunting were mentioned above, and I second those recs. Also excellent: To Die For (written by Buck Henry, with stunning performances by Nicole Kidman, Joachim Phoenix, Matt Dillon), Paranoid Park, Elephant, Milk, Finding Forrester

Although I don't pay enough attention to directorial credits I like some of your movie choices and there are a couple I am not familiar with (Paranoid Park, Elephant) but I'll do some googling and if they look interesting enough, I'll check 'on demand.'  I remember being mesmerized by Drugstore Cowboys not only because I like Matt Dillon, but also because, in my misguided youth, a few years before it came out, I had known someone who acted as a middleman for someone else (who I never met) who specialized in the Drugstore Cowboy thing.  Although I think it was a short career.  

And coincidentally, quite recently I watched The Trials Of Pamela Smart.

Baldwin was the producer of the film. 

Yes, and I thought of that after I posted that reply.  As well as being an actor on the movie set, he was also one of the producers.  So I guess that needs consideration as well.  If your kid is playing with another kid in your house and they come across a loaded firearm in the house and one kid shoots the other kid, as the homeowner and firearm owner I imagine that you are going to be in trouble.  So considering that, I suppose an analogy could be made between Baldwin and the negligent homeowner.

But maybe that comparison is apples to oranges.

Regardless, he was also an actor in the movie.  And actors are all the time pointing weapons at each other as part of the various scripts.  So if an actor is handed a firearm loaded with live ammunition and someone gets hit, who's to blame?  The actor or whoever loaded the firearm with live rounds and handed it off?

Baldwin was both producer and star, and why on Earth was live ammo even anywhere near the set??!!

In my mind, @thecarpathian , this is the six-million-dollar question.

Well, possibly so, @gano , and there is no point in us going circular, but as I previously typed, he was an actor on a movie set where actors routinely are pointing guns at one another. (I suspect that these actors are basically taking it for granted that the guns they are being supplied with are not loaded with live rounds.) However, I realize that they were not rolling at the time and that Ms. Hutchins was not an actress on the set, and perhaps that bears consideration as well.

@gano 

3. when someone requests a gun, they have to hand it over to someone who looks at the magazine. Preferably 2 people, one after another. Then s/he can hand it back to the actor

Well, theoretically I believe that would be the job of the armorer, who, in this case, was Hannah Gutierrez Reed.  And I believe she took the fall.

4. why can’t they use fake guns?

I am about as tech-retarded as one can be, but I would assume that in this day and age of quite advanced AI, that something like that could be done and a shooting scene could be made to be quite realistic thanks to the magic of technology.  But I truly don’t understand that tech stuff.

Back when I was an airline mechanic I once worked in a shop where there were some guys with what I thought were some pretty wacked out ideologies. Which is the polite way of referring to the subject.  Anyway, they were into Civil War re-enactments, and one of them was telling me about one where someone slipped in some live ammo.  I don’t remember all the details, or even if it was a local re-enactment, but I said, "Good thing it wasn’t a Vietnam War re-enactment," which this guy didn’t think was as humorous as I did.

But that brings me to the movie Heat which you once mentioned you really enjoyed.  How about that last full-auto shoot-em-up scene?  I really don’t know what kind of special effects and graphics went into that, but just think if it was done with real guns and blanks (which maybe it wasn’t) and someone slipped in a 30 round mag loaded with live rounds into one of those ARs . . . wow.  Anyway, I suppose that scenario isn’t actually viable, as without getting too esoteric, I believe when they shoot blanks out of something in semi or full auto, they have to use special devices fitted to the muzzle which directs the muzzle gases backwards to work the action of the firearm.  (I think that’s how it works, anyway.)  So although the intention is not safety, it would work out as such.  Except for the operator of the particular firearm involved, in whose case it might be catastrophic.

@hce1 , I did some scrolling on my TV and I can get Snowpiercer for free (Tubi) but I am generally not a huge fan of the futuristic stuff.  But I may give it a whirl anyway, when the time is right.  I am going to watch the trailer after I finish this.

However, I did watch the trailer for Elephant, and that looks to be a fascinating movie.  (It looks to be coincidentally appropriate considering the ongoing discussion at the moment and the current events unfolding as I type.) Unfortunately, I guess I will have to buy it for $9.99 as it is not accessible as a rental.  But it looks good enough that I may go that route anyway, even though I am generally opposed to that on principle.  But 10 bucks won’t break the bank, and there are rentals that go for that much.

Since I am on a Matt Dillon kick at the moment, I am kind of planning on watching American Dreamer (2022) tonight, as I can get it on Peacock which I am presently subscribed to and just haven’t got around to unsubscribing from yet.

Actually, a blank is a fully functioning cartridge without the bullet.

But you see, @thecarpathian , what the action of a semi or a full auto requires to function is the gases from the combustion within the cartridge portion of the round routed back into the bolt.  On a direct impinged AR15, for example, the path of the exhaust gas is through an orifice in the barrel that runs directly above the rifled portion of the barrel.  Versus, for another example, the AK47, which routes the gas into a cylinder directly above the barrel where it drives a piston that operates the action.  (A M1A also has a smaller cylinder with a piston that is located below the barrel.)  And then, of course, you have the blowback principle where the force exerted on the cartridge portion of the round pushes it (the cartridge) back, and that is what racks the action and leaves it ready for another shot.  This is common with handguns.

So what this means, is if the bullet is not traveling down the barrel IN FRONT OF THE GAS (as in a blank), the gas has no reason to route back and recock the action after firing the first shot as the gas is simply expelled out the muzzle (and obviously NOT back into the action).  That doesn’t mean a semi auto cannot fire blanks, but as opposed to operating in the semi auto mode, but it needs to be manually recocked after each shot.  Hence, a modification (some type of obstruction) needs to be made to the muzzle so the gas will be routed back where it needs to go.  BUT, if a live round happened to be introduced to that scenario, I would think that the result would be a catastrophic barrel failure.

I will point out that although I own several semi autos, I do not and never have fired blanks out of my semis or my firearms that are not semiautos, nor do I have any desire to fire blanks, so what I know about this is from what I have read on gun forums.  However, if you understand how a semi-automatic functions, and you think about it, that does make sense.  If that explanation up above does not make sense, I’ll try again, just let me know.  No sarcasm intended.

@gano , have you seen American Dreamer (2022)?  Matt Dillon has a major supporting role, and he kills it.  Excellent.

  . . . going back to the differences between a direct impingement AR and an AK variant (a "piston gun"), that is why the DI AR is considered a "dirtier" firing gun.  Possibly one of the reasons that in the early days of the AR, they had a rep for being a bit unreliable.  However, that has all been worked out, and the DI AR is an extremely efficient platform, and quite a few years ago, they started making piston ARs.  However, all of my (ARs) are DIs.  From what I have read, there were other reasons that the early ARs were unreliable, and part of the reason was the government insisted on using a round for that weapon system that was not compatible with the way the system operated best.