Close plays Albert Nobbs, a shy waiter at a once high-tone 19th-century Dublin hotel. The gender-bending role itself is usually a good Academy Award bet ( think Hillary Swank’s “Boys Don’t Cry” or Felicity Huffman in “TransAmerica“). But neither the performance nor the film feels gimmicky. The earnest character portrait is infused with such quiet. but potent emotion. Close–with cropped orange hair–doesn’t exactly look like a man. But she doesn’t look like a woman either. She looks, as one of the hotel patrons says, “Like the strangest little man.” If they only knew.

Indeed, it’s that strangeness that draws you in. Why is Albert, who was born a woman, living her life as a man? The answer isn’t as simple as the cruel economics of the era. While it’s true unmarried women had few options, that’s not the whole story. There’s a tragic story–one I’ll let you discover as the film unfolds–that underscores Albert’s furtive little life, one always shrouded in fear of exposure.

Still, Albert seems content to all but fade into the Victorian wallpaper. That is until he meets a brash house painter Hubert Page, played by the magnificent Janet McTeer ( also Oscar nominated as Best Supporting Actress) Hubert, too, was born a woman, but left her husband and made a similar choice to live as a man. The only difference: Hubert lives in domestic bliss with his “wife,” a sweet dressmaker.

This revelation opens dormant desires in Albert. The savings he’s squirreled
away might be used to purchase a tobacco shop; a wild-eyed maid might make a nice wife. We watch Albert tentatively venture into the world with new hope.

Close has kept this project, based on a short story by George Moore, published in 1918, close to her heart for decades. She starred in an off-Broadway production in 1982 and has been trying to get a version up on the screen for years ( she also co-wrote the screenplay and song). And that intimacy and obvious affection for Albert is evident. In other hands, the character could come off mawkish, a sentimental wax work. But director Rodrigo Garcia guides his star in a deeply felt inner journey.

The film is fascinating, the supporting players including McTeer, Brendan Fraser, Mia Wasikowska and Brenda Fricker all add color to what could be seen as a drab little story. But it is ultimately Close’s performance that makes the film so captivating. A performance like this is so rare in its power and raw, emotional beauty, it almost defies description. You simply have to watch Close’s eyes and you’ll see Albert’s misery, longing, kindness all wrapped up in a single glance.

There’s a grander takeaway, too. “Albert Nobbs,” isn’t just a sad and complicated story about one person searching for acceptance and normalcy. It’s also a study in human nature and humanity. Most of the characters–the rich patrons and the servants–are all pretending to be something they’re not. Sound like someone you know? We all hide behind social masks sometimes. To get past the mask, to dig deeper, taking in the real person, gifts, warts, and all, therein lies the true thrill and honor of knowing another human being.

Speaking of honors, I hope Glenn Close is proud of that Oscar nomination. And award yourself the honor of watching “Albert Nobbs.”

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

BITAHR is a non-profit organization which ambitious goal is to eliminate commercial sexual exploitation. The event, Fighting Trafficking Through Film, organized in collaboration with The Suffolk University Law School, will be held at the Modern Theater at Suffolk University in Boston. The three days forum will showcase domestic and foreign films about sex trafficking. BITAHR has also invited speakers to the international event. More than 40 guests speakers will participate in the forum’s discussions to share their own experiences and perspectives, and to help define coherent strategies to fight human trafficking both domestically and globally. The speakers will include politicians, authors, survivors, and international activists against human trafficking. Among them will be Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Kathryn Bolkovac, Representative Eugene O’ Flaherty, Rachel Lloyd (survivor and author), and  Siddharth Kara (UN adviser on human trafficking). BITAHR’s Executive Director, Rebecca Merrill, took the time to give News Junkie Post an exclusive interview.

Gilbert Mercier: What triggered originally your interest in fighting human trafficking?

Rebecca Merrill: I was driven by the impact that “The Day My God Died”, a film featuring Anuradha Koirala and Maiti Nepal, had on me both personally and professionally. After nearly a year of research, and the development of my own documentary during law school, I had the opportunity to sit with Anuradha and to discuss life’s passion and how it often drives one’s career. During that meeting, Anuradha admonished me to listen to my heart and to open my ears. Her voice was delicate but commanding as she asked me simply: “How can you not be passionate when you listen to the stories of these women and girls? How can you not do something about it?” Those words, the stories had a lasting impact on my academic studies and now professional life. Alas. I think it is a wonderful complement to pair the human voice and images with the research and theory.

GM: Sex trafficking is a multi-billion global business which is getting more and more controlled by large organized crime networks and no longer by small time local pimps. Do you think we need a global strategy to fight such sophisticated criminal organizations, and if so what would you recommend?

RM: Absolutely. Second only to drug trafficking, human trafficking is the largest criminal industry in the world, and it is the fastest growing. We need a holistic and multifaceted international strategy just to keep up with the growth of the industry, never mind to eradicate it. There are numbers of non-profits, agencies and individuals doing great work around the world. That said, we really need national governments and law enforcement agencies to work together against trafficking. We need governments to recognize that victims of human trafficking are victims in need of social services, not criminals subject to detention and deportation. There are circumstances where return to countries of origin is appropriate, but agencies have the responsibility to ensure return isn’t directly into the hands of the victim’s traffickers. All too often, victims are simply deported to the countries from which they were recruited, most often subjecting them to the same vulnerable circumstances and a mixture of societal shamming, family rejection and condemnation, and an inability to rejoin the workforce. Moreover, the circumstances giving rise to vulnerability are not typically eliminated but rather exponentially and detrimentally worse. If  governments worked together to provide victims with social services after exploitation abroad and at home, re-exploitation would not be such a threat. In addition, while we are seeing an increase in transnational crimes of exploitation, the “independent contractors”, if you will, still operate and regularly increase in number. This can be linked in large part to economics. Where there is a profit, particularly of the margin available through CSE ( Commercial Sex Exploitation), entrepreneurial criminals will find a way.

GM: Some countries, such as Germany, have legalized prostitution. Do you think it is a valid approach to end sex trafficking?

RM: No. I cannot recognize the legalization of prostitution as a valid way to end the sex trade. Legalization would not end modern-day slavery; it would simply empower pimps to continue manipulation and exploitation with less likelihood of identification because the line between “legal” and “illegal” would be so fuzzy. The rationale for legalizing prostitution is relatively easy to understand. Legislators, often pushed by well meaning advocates, may believe or accept that prostitution will happen regardless of legalization and, if legal, the laws will at least document the industry and license the “workers”, making it theoretically easier to provide healthcare and other services to prostituted women. There is also the feminist argument that a woman should be “empowered” to do what she wishes with her body, including selling sex. These arguments are flawed. Legalizing prostitution does not reduce the enormously harmful physical and psychological effects that being sexually exploited inherently caused. Women and girls who engage in prostitution do not choose to do so. The idea that prostitution is a choice does not take into account that in order to choose something, one needs to have several options to choose from. The majority of those in the sex trade- admittedly not 100 percent- in countries where prostitution is legal and illegal alike, are vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation due to a complex set of circumstances often including economic desperation, unrest or instability in homes or even communities or countries, psychological manipulation and more, not because it is a viable choice.

GM: Traffickers make an extensive use of the Internet and even of social media site to lure, recruit and exploit victims. Should this type of activities be more closely monitored by law enforcement agencies with perhaps the help of anti-trafficking organizations, such as yours, acting as a network of whistle blowers?

RM: It is true. Traffickers may use social media sites to recruit underage girls into commercial sexual exploitation. Once recruited, sites like Backpage.com are used to advertise sex with the exploited individuals – children and adult alike. The illegal age of children is disguised using language like “youthful”, “fresh”, “barely legal”, “tight body”. The Internet provides anonymity for the exploiting pimps and endless “choice” and anonymous shopping and exploiting for johns who are purchasing sex. In some areas, ordering sex is easier and cheaper than ordering a pizza. Screen names and pseudonyms make it harder to identify and prosecute pimps. In addition the “handles” provide protection for johns from the negative stigma that buying sex should carry. In reality, companies that facilitate this type of exploitation like Backpage, for instance, are just as guilty as the pimps that exploit minors, because they too, are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off the sale of the bodies of very young girls. Not only should law enforcement agencies monitor this type of behavior, they should shut down websites. The problem is that regardless of our pointing out that commercial sexual exploitation is happening online, the criminal facilitation must be prosecuted and punished. In addition, advertisers must take some responsibility – if they voice their opinions by pulling ads and affecting the facilitators’ bottom line profitability.

GM: In a phone conversation we had sometime ago, you mentioned that we are living in a “hyper-sexual” world fueled by popular culture, online pornography etc, and that it could be one of the reasons why a substantial number of men seek commercial sex or indulge in “sex tourism”. Can you please elaborate on this?

RM: Of course. Over the past few decades we have seen a shift from the most risque magazines including one spread with a suggestively clad woman, to a society where pre-adolescent boys see literally hundreds of thousands of images of nudity before they even reach middle school. When sex education comes in the form of magazines, the Internet, song lyrics and popular culture instead of from teachers and parents, it can be a very confusing topic for young men and women alike. By hypersexualizing children at a disturbingly young ages, we have diminished the gap between buying the idea of sex in the form of a magazine subscription or a calendar to buying the act of sex in a massage parlor, in a hotel or car, or even in one’s own home. When we see so many sexual images of women in circumstances that suggest that they are happy naked, exposed, in sexually dominated manners, we are normalizing the notion that girls and women should be dominated, subordinated and subject to sexually violent and aggressive behavior. These progressive and persistent images make it harder to believe that exploited are victims. Moreover, products like “loungerie” or “lingerie for girls” for four to six year old girls feed into this idea of children as sex objects and “sexy” as ideal for children.

GM: A cynical view of commercial sex, and a stereotypical rationalization of it, would be to say that prostitution will never be eradicated because it is “the oldest profession in the world”. Do you think, one day, men and women will be able to free themselves from the sick correlation between sex and money?

RM: It is true that commercial sex has existed in various forms over centuries throughout most if not all countries. It is also true that women have historically been subjected to oppression, domination and silencing. I am not sure that as a society we will ever be able to eradicate the correlation between sex and money. It is my hope, however, that as this topic becomes a priority for the feminist movement and society at large- and as women everywhere continue to fight for equal opportunities- that one day women and girls will have sufficient opportunities that they will not be so vulnerable to coercion and forced to prostitution. Females need sufficient opportunity to utilize their skills and abilities in a productive way that positively contributes to society. It is also our organization’s goal to spread awareness- in collaboration with a global coalition- such that it minimizes demand by educating purchasers on the harmful, long-term repercussions their exploitative conduct has on children, families, and the community.

GM: In countries of origins for victims of traffickers, socio-economic factors play a huge role. Does your organization reach out to local organizations in human trafficking hubs such as Cambodia, Nepal, the Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Nigeria and Ghana?

RM: We are cognizant of trafficking atrocities around the world and do our best to spread awareness about it in each and among all countries. We are mindful, however, that to utilize our resources effectively we cannot work in every country or every issue in the complex effort to combat trafficking. We focus most intensely on domestic trafficking, that which happens within the borders of the United States. We are also working in conjunction with a Congolese-US NGO, Promote Congo, on a program that will focus on aid for girls and boys being trafficked for labor or sexual exploitation in the artisanal mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

GM: Do you think, realistically, that human trafficking can be one day abolished and how?

RM: At present human trafficking is extremely profitable for exploiters. If we apply a standard cost benefit analysis, we can see that the economic benefits of human trafficking far outweigh the miniscule risk(cost) of being prosecuted and the repercussions that might follow. As long as human trafficking is extremely profitable, criminals will continue to take the calculated risks. To reduce the occurrence of sex trafficking we must continue to raise the cost associated with prosecution, so that the risk of being caught and punished is no longer worth the economic benefits of trafficking while simultaneously reducing the revenue. To achieve this, we must change the way society looks at trafficking. We must realize that the victims of this exploitation are just that-victims. Instead of thinking of labor trafficking as poor individuals deserving of unfair labor standards or girls that “wear too much make-up” or “parade around in provocative clothing” as criminal prostitutes, we must identify these exploited people as victims and publish the traffickers. Without this identification, victims will continue to be plagued with negative stigmas, fear and vulnerability-some of the factors that very likely led to the exploitation at the onset.

GM: It is your organization’s first film forum. Do you have other events in preparation?

RM: BITAHR 2012 Film Forum: “Fighting Trafficking Through Film” is the second annual forum. Our first forum in December 2010 engaged audiences in compelling discussions. We also host periodic benefit concerts called (human) Traffic Jams, where we use music to bring together a community of young adults to raise awareness for the cause and begin a conversation that we hope continues throughout circles of friends, students, colleagues, neighbors, families, and more. This ongoing dialogue shines a light in what is currently hidden in plain sight-the commercial sexual exploitation of people. We also screen individual films throughout the year followed with gripping panels of experts in the field, again to generate a critical conversation and a reverberating call to action to end human trafficking. This March, we will host a conference on International Women’s Day entitled “Ending Impunity for Sexual Violence”. In addition, we will host a three part film series on organ trafficking in collaboration with a local university.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one and two (from top down) by Gilbert Mercier, other photographs and illustrations courtesy of BITAHR.

 

Muckrakers are important. They are good for society. They open our eyes to the underbelly of our lives. They often take us places where the average person either refuses to go or has no inclination to explore. More often than not, muckrakers lack style and art. Style suffers because what they want us to know is often more important than how they present it. Their interest is to expose injustice or evil, usually by revealing everything about the iniquity they are uncovering.

Muckrakers are usually investigative journalists who are interested in reform. They are watchdogs fierce in their approach to what is right, what is wrong. Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbell were seminal muckrakers, who, because of their tenacity and strong ethical principles, were able to effect change where none seemed possible before they became involved in a cause that moved them to action.

 ”Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory,” the documentary film by Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky about three men accused of murder, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, known as the West Memphis Three, is a muckraker’s delight. It recently had its world premiere on HBO in January 2012.

The filmmakers have been following this story for HBO since 1996 when they produced “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” followed by “Paradise Lost 2: Revelation in 2000.”  This is the third, and possibly the last of their documentaries on the subject, but the way this story keeps changing shape, and because the story still has life, you never know what will come next.

In 2011, after 18 years in prison, and the start of a new trial because of newly discovered DNA evidence, the state and the defense got together and created a plea deal for the accused men. They were allowed to plead guilty but to maintain their innocence. Once done, they were set free. But they have not been exonerated of the murders. Lawyers and support groups are working to properly clear their names of all guilt and a new trial is still possible.

 Though powerful in its heart, as art, the film has many problems. Terribly edited and poorly shot for the most part, it relies too much on local TV coverage of events surrounding the three then young men accused of killing three 8 year olds those many years ago. The film makes me think of an express train running out of control as it courses down what feels like an endless track. There is no voice-over narration and as such, the narrative comes from interviews and TV news reports. Though this technique is limiting, I can live with that.

 The filmmakers are so enamored with the idea that their cause is right, they seem unable to decide what information to leave in, what to leave out, and how to edit the interviews to allow the audience a better understanding of events. I doubt whether the filmmakers purposefully created a film where passion is the operating dynamic at the expense of quality and coherence. Because I cannot get inside the heads of the filmmakers, it is impossible for me to know if that was the case. But, I feel they rushed to put the film together. It is as if they felt they had to get it done before things change again, something they kept running into over the years. That is the reason why there have been three new versions of the story since 1996.

 I am sure than Berlinger and Sinofsky would say that my criticism is wrong. In making the film, or any film, there has to be a time when the audience can take a breath, when passion pauses and reason rises. It is as if the filmmakers are so anxious to convince us of the moral values of their cause, they forget that judicious editing would have helped the audience understand the information and process it better. In the film, sound bites are sound books. Mostly the local TV news spots move the narrative along with occasional headlines and the odd cutaway, but, in some cases, unless you know the story very well, you will not understand what the cutaway image means.

In most cases in a film, cutaways allow us to seamlessly move inside a sound edit. Here they fail either because the cutaway shot has nothing to do with the sound edit or it is so obtuse that only the editor who made the cut understands what he or she did. There is also a prurient strain to the film because most of the participants are what we would prejudicially call “rednecks,” not well-educated men and women, the poor of the poor. A strong film about underdogs gives people in the establishment an opportunity to appear sacred by exposing them to the profane, a place where they rarely go or spend much time.

 Nominated for an Oscar as one of five in the class of 2011, if heart and soul are all that matters, this film has a good chance of winning. Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are muckrakers. But in his film, they are not very good artisans. The passion that rules the story and the care for the victims is what makes people admire the film and makes the film worth seeing. As far as filmmaking goes, I think the producers, as experienced as they are, need a course in Filmmaking 101.

That devastating news will fuel Deborah’s undoing and ultimately prove her salvation. “Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus” chronicles her emotional downward spiral from angry adolescent to volatile drug addicted young criminal, and her triumphant recovery and reinvention as an advocate, speaker and writer.

During a chat last week, Deborah discussed the arduous, but cathartic writing process as well as her future hopes for her Non Profit, The UnPrison Project, that sends her all over the country speaking at women’s prisons and conferences.

Ironically, Deborah first fictionalized her story and shopped it as a novel. Remember this was some years back when all those phony memoirs fell off the shelves in the wake of the big James Frey fake memoir Oprah betrayal brouhaha. “Once they ( editors and agents) heard it was a true story, they kept saying it should be a memoir, but I didn’t want any part of that.”

So she put it away for a while. But our stories have a way of nagging at us, until they just spill out, no matter the anguish. ” It’s not like my story is ever far behind. I can relive the whole thing in a minute. But I wrote through a lot of wet pages,” she concedes. “I had to peel the real story out of the novel.”

And the real story is one of the most raw and riveting books I’ve read in recent memory. As a writer and a teacher and creativity coach who works with writers, I am blown away by Stein’s authentic voice; there’s nothing sentimental or apologetic about it. Here, give a listen to an excerpt from one of her presentations, and you’ll hear what I’m talking about.

It’s that unconditional love of her parents, as well as the education and opportunity to develop her creativity that save her. In case you were wondering, this is where the tutus in the title come in. As a young girl, Deborah is introduced to dance and loves it, but thinks a girl born in prison is unworthy of the elegant art. That’s one of the many heartbreaking revelations. Another is when, as an adult, she finally returns to tour Alderson and is ushered into the very cell where she spent her first year of life. Her visceral reaction stirs an emotional tsunami that took me by surprise in the middle of Starbucks ( that’s okay; it gave me a chance to share the book’s potency with a few fellow patrons). There’s also a beautiful reconciliation scene with her mother, so long in the coming, it will likely pull at your heart.

“Most of the women–whether they have any real education or not–are thirsty for change. They know they need it. They want to believe it’s possible,” Deborah says. “And I know having an education helped me change. It gave me a way to get out of my head, a new way to look at the world. I know it can do the same for so many others.”

And there are certainly many to help. The facts about women in prison are staggering. Women are the fastest growing population in U.S. prisons, with over 1 million serving time; that’s 1 % of the female population. 75% of these women are mothers, most with kids under 18. 2.3 million minor children, most under 10, have a parent behind bars. Between 4 and 7 % of women entering prison are pregnant. The majority of incarcerated women are sentenced for nonviolent drug offenses and over 85% are in drug and alcohol abuse programs.

I’m not passing out Get Out of Jail Free cards; so the hardliners who usually toss cyber tomatoes at me about now, can hold their fire. But there’s got to be a better way, folks. So many people languish in prison for excruciatingly long sentences, often for crimes largely against themselves. As a society we have to change this,. Somehow, some way. Even some red meat Republicans are starting to see the wisdom of sentencing and prison reform, even if that change of heart is propelled by the fiscal bottom line, it’s a start.

Speaking of starts, as part of the UnPrison Project, Deborah Jiang Stein would like to fund college scholarships for the daughters of prisoners at Alderson and eventually other prisons. “I want to give them and their children a way of reframing their world. the way I’ve reframed mine.”

Of course, you don’t have to have a prison story to be affected by this book. I think everyone can relate to the powerful grasp secrets can have on a person, the emotional lockdown they can slam on a vulnerable psyche. It’s the sharing of those secrets, whether to the world or just yourself, that is so liberating and transformative. That’s why writing can be therapeutic. And reading a book that gushes rage and regret in equal measure with reconciliation and hope can illuminate the strength and grace of the human spirit. “Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus” is one of those books.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

In case you did not know it, SOPA in everyday English is Stop Online Piracy Act. Its main supporters are in Hollywood, TV, big music, and other major entertainment. Its opponents are the largest Web companies and the legions of naïve people who believe the passage of such an act would impede their right to freedom on the Internet.

For the moment, SOPA is in the official wastebasket where Washington bills go to die when so much of the public rises up to shout it down. Now our esteemed lawmakers believe SOPA, though necessary, needs clarity and better direction. It is hard to argue with the failure of the original bill. It is not worth the effort to try to pass that bill and to have big entertainment, big Internet and everyone else against it for different reasons important to each.

Do not be deceived by the millions who signed online petitions to scrap SOPA. The so-called little guy, Mr. and Mrs. grassroots, is simply a pawn in the hands of the big Internet boys who control the WEB. Do not be deceived by the black banner atop Google in protest of the bill. Just because you signed an online petition, keep in mind that the battle is still between the bigs: Hollywood and TV versus the Internet giants. It is not so much that one is against the other as much as it is how does each side best get what it wants, absolute freedom on the Internet versus controlled use for big entertainment and how it presents online what it believes it owns.

I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if the property is weak or poorly conceived. You may ask, who is not. I am against the theft of who I am when cookies ingest everything about me when I spend time on the Web. Everyone else should also feel this way, but people do not. Thus, companies such as Amazon and others are hypocrites because all they are doing is protecting their own turf. I am against hypocrisy but who is not, you say. Many who are on both sides of the argument are hypocrites because they try to hide the reality of Web commerce under the guise of freedom.

I do not believe what anyone on either side of the debate says. Both sides are using the average person, however good or bad his or her creation is, to advance its concept of freedom and ownership. They are working hard to hide one’s history on the Web and how it affects sales of products and sales of ideas.

We should all be for creativity. Many people I know agree that creativity is a gift and one of life’s joys. The Internet is the greatest platform for creativity ever. It opens enormous possibilities for anyone to post what he or she believes is their contribution to humankind. I am not arrogant when I say that most of what is on YouTube, other file sharing sites and found in millions of blogs is not very good. It is usually drivel and laughable in that we laugh at the effort, not at its humor or sense of fun. Most of what is in cyberspace is not worth my time. Attack me if you want. Please. But realize first, that just as not everyone can be a professional athlete, not everyone is capable of creating something that has lasting value. Just because you can post anything you want on the Internet for which you usually receive no pay, the act of posting does not give the work value.

We live in a society where sharing is free, especially in the world of social media. On social network sites free is the operating value system. It is the new normal, what people expect because the Internet is there for all to use as they wish, they think. Only one’s time is at stake. It strikes me that for the current generation, sharing and ignoring personal ownership is often more important than personal achievement. Many pundits believe that owning the copyright to a personally created work is a sin. If they could, they would eliminate copyright. They want to limit its length based on the idea that everyone should benefit from a copyrighted work even if they do not compensate its owner. Everyone, that is except the person who created the work.

Creating anything – art of any kind, a widget, an app, you name it — is hard work. If I create something on my own using my own time and money, or, better yet, with someone else’s money why should I not profit from or share in the profits from my enterprise without fear that someone will steal what I created. I do not subscribe to the idea that better creation will result based on earlier work. Why do the users and distributors of everything on the Web believe they should have a free ride of the back of my creative endeavor? Using another person’s work is fraudulent.

I come from a culture, or a time not too distant from the one we are living in, that believes you should own all or most of what you make with your mind or your hands. That is not the norm today. A certain amount of pleasurable, yet evil anarchy exists on the Web. There is a shoot first and ask questions later attitude toward what people own. If someone sees something they like, they post it for all to see, to possibly enjoy it without regard to its copyright. Then, if there is a complaint, they apologize, they take down the video, the photo, the written work, and everyone seems satisfied except the person or group who created the entity in the first place. The damage done, the violator gets an insignificant punishment or none at all, and goes out for another latte. Such is life.

Let me be clear. I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if and when – most of the time, by the way – it has almost no value to most people. Whether it is well conceived or poorly done, I have to admit it has value to its creator. I am against the unbridled, underhanded use of my personal information and creativity without my permission by either big entertainment or big Internet.

The voice of the creative community must make itself heard. Despite being unorganized, the creative community cannot allow those who use the Internet for gain of any kind to dominate ownership. Whatever replaces SOPA must be worth the journey or else anyone who thinks the Internet is free, however anyone uses it, had better think again.

It’s been thirty years, but Meryl Streep may have to make room for that elusive third Oscar. With Tuesday’s announcement of the Academy Award nominations, the heralded actress’ brilliant portrayal of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady” (already a Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice winner) is the front runner for the coveted statuette. But with the most impressive roster of Best Actress nominees in recent years, her win is not a slam dunk. Streep’s stiffest rival will likely be her “Doubt” co-star Viola Davis who delivered a heartachingly beautiful performance in the far more popular film “The Help.” And Davis–who was nominated as Supporting Actress for her role in “Doubt” ( and received a Golden Globe shout-out from Streep) has yet to score Oscar gold, something the Academy likes to spread around. An unlikely groundswell of support could also garner Glenn Close her first Oscar for the poignant, but little seen “Albert Nobbs,” a film the actress has been trying to get made for over fifteen years.

Check out the Oscar site for a complete list of nominations. I’ll have more on surprises and snubs in all the categories, as well as predictions, later.

But for now, let’s delve into “The Iron Lady,” and the case for Streep. Phyllida Lloyd’s film is more a character study ( and a complex and compassionate one) than a history lesson. Lloyd aims for the personal over the political. And she’s received some flack for that, mostly from British critics and historians.

Some are perturbed by the release itself. Unlike many biopics, the subject is still alive. At 86, Baroness Thatcher, the woman once simultaneously reviled and revered, for her decades’ long steely leadership, has become a recluse, isolated by growing dementia. The current British Prime Minister David Cameron recently denounced the timing of the film, saying it was “insensitive” and could have waited “for another day.”

But for those of us interested in a powerful and elegant character portrait, there is little to disappoint. And the British film community is certainly forgiving; she just won the British Academy Award. And for good reason. Streep conquers the role of Thatcher, capturing her nuances with the actress’s uncanny, signature perfection. She doesn’t engage in a mere impersonation, but embodies Thatcher’s very essence. It’s not just the coiffed hair, the carriage and the characteristic tone of voice. It’s the the agility Streep demonstrates as she seamlessly dips in and out Thatcher’s razor-sharp persona to an ailing, aged woman recounting her hey day that is so astounding and mesmerizing.

The film opens with Thatcher as an octogenarian, her once “blotting paper memory,” evaporating in the wake of of a series of strokes. She’s seen cracking an egg for her husband, Denis who has died, but still appears, engaging in very lively discussions.

Streep’s Thatcher slips in and out of consequential scenes, hinting at her remarkable rise to glory, but not dwelling on it.Still, there is enough politics to put Thatcher’s life in context and give viewers unfamiliar with her impressive tenure ( 1979-1990; the longest in modern history) more than enough political substance to hold onto. The war over the Falkland Islands forms the crux of her rise to success, as Thatcher fiercely stands up to Parliament’s “Old Boy’s Club.” We also see her political kinship with President Reagan and witness her downfall as the bitter battle with the unions propels her anguished exit from No. 10 Downing Street.

At heart, though, Lloyd’s “The Iron Lady” strives to unveil the woman behind the steely iron facade.

As dementia begins to set in, we are given glimpses into Thatcher’s relationship with her husband, played by the wonderful Jim Broadbent ( who handled similar duty opposite Judi Dench in the lovely Iris Murdoch bio-pic “Iris“)and her children, Carol (Olivia Colman), who helps care for her, and Mark, who lives in South Africa and whom the audience never sees.

As she goes about packing up Denis’ belongings for charity, the elderly former Tory leader is swept back to the time when she was a young woman – the daughter of a grocer, and an ambitious Oxford grad with evolving political aspirations. We also get charming peaks at her courtship with young Denis Thatcher and their marriage during tumultuous times.

I know purists have quibbles with the timing, accuracy, even the style. But, Lloyd has turned out an artful and entertaining movie, one that offers great personal insight into a fascinating woman. And while I can’t guarantee Streep will take home her first Oscar since the “Sophie’s Choice” win in 1982, her fierce and nuanced performance is bound to get your vote.

The 84 annual Academy Awards will air live on ABC on Sunday, February 26.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.
 

Sunday’s Golden Globe hat trick should send more folks to see “The Artist.” It’s not just the accolades–for Best Picture, Actor and score– but the exuberance the winners exuded. That very quality is at the heart of this unlikely commercial success.

Okay, it is mostly silent, in black and white and foreign, But Michel Hazanavicius’ “The Artist” is an elegant fanciful valentine to the movies. And while I can’t guarantee anything, I’m guessing, like mine, your heart will dance.

Set in Hollywood’s tender age,between 1927-1933, “The Artist” is about Hollywood’s transition from silent movies to talkies. It focuses on the relationship between the handsome, narcissistic George Valentin (the charming and oh, so expressive Jean Dujardin), a beloved movie star, and Peppy Miller (the lovely Bérénice Bejo),a young actress on a quest for stardom. The opening sequence takes place at the premiere of George’s latest adventure film, in which he appears with his scene stealing Jack Russell terrier and outrages his co-star as he takes a self-centered bow before greeting a gaggle of adoring fans on the sidewalk outside the theatre.

George and Peppy have a fleeting meet cute scene that will become significant later. She lands a small role in one of his films. They dance, fall in love and part before uttering their love. Just like in an old romantic movie.

Then sound crashes Hollywood’s party and the movie business is transformed. George confronts the crisis in a surrealistic comic sequence that follows him as he hears objects around him making noises. Passing girls chatter, a feather falls with a mighty explosion, but George remains silent, and, as he perceives himself, unspeakable. Like Chaplin he decides to buck the trend and continue making silent films, writing, directing and even financing his own work.

Hazanavicius borrows unapologetically from “A Star is Born,” showing George’s career in free fall and Peppy’s glamorous ascent. Vintage movie buffs will recognize glimpses of the ill-fated romance between silent film god John Gilbert and Greta Garbo, as well as homages to Douglas Fairbanks, Gene Kelly, and scenes from “Citizen Kane, ” “Singin’ in the Rain,” “ and Vertigo.”

Dujardin and Bejo deliver witty and wonderful performances, evocative of classic Hollywood romances. And James Cromwell, as George’s devoted chauffeur, and John Goodman as a gruff studio boss, add delightful support. Uggy, who plays George’s Jack Russell, and almost walked off with a Golden Globe himself, joins the ranks of Rin Tin Tin and Asta as classic canine companions.

An instant classic, “The Artist” will certainly make noise at the Oscars, too. But by then, you’ll know what the commotion is all about. Really, go see it. It’s apt to delight you more than any other movie in recent memory.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

You can’t run away from your problems. But in Alexander Payne’s world you can take them on a road trip. Actually, it’s sort of a requirement. The director’s signature cinematic contrivance, a hallmark in “About Schmidt” and “Sideways” (which garnered him a Best Original Screenplay Oscar) is at play again in his latest, “The Descendants.” This is Payne’s most emotionally authentic film to date. George Clooney, who already nabbed Best Actor honors from the National Board of Review, is also at the top of his emotionally wrought game as a Matt King, a man hit by the thunderbolt of sudden tragedy. Clooney is so unhinged, he even manages to convince us that he’s not as gorgeous as he is ( and he is, even unshaven and clad in an array of bad Hawaiian shirts). That alone could score him Oscar gold.

The story–based in a novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings– opens with Matt making promises to his unfaithful and comatose wife ( lingering in limbo following a boating accident). A wealthy, extremely well-landed Hawaiian lawyer, Matt, the self-described “back up parent, the understudy.” must now step up to the parenting plate. And the guy’s got his work cut out for him. Alexandra,the older girl (Shailene Woodley) is 17 and full of teenage rage; she’s the one who fills Dad in on Mom’s infidelity. And let’s just say: she’s not exactly in a forgiving mood. Woodley–who stars in the ABC Family channel’s “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” delivers a fiercely authentic performance.

The entire supporting cast is, in fact, stellar. Robert Forster is particularly powerful as Elizabeth’s angry, frustrated (and frustrating) father. Amara Miller, as the younger daughter Scottie, acts out with the appropriate amused confusion of a precocious 10 year old. And Beau Bridges as Matt’s shrewd hippie cousin has a beautiful turn in a hideous Hawaiian shirt. But would it have killed Payne to give poor Michael Ontkean ( “Making Love,” “Twin Peaks“) one lousy line?

Matt may be on the precipice of grief, but he’s also in the midst of another family saga. Descended from Hawaiian royalty, Matt seems to be the only one among his clan with a working work ethic; most of the cousins have devolved into a group of layabouts and fortune-hunters. Good thing, then, that he’s the one controlling a family trust that owns 25,000 valuable acres on Kauai, and it’s up to him whether it’s preserved or sold to developers. And–just like in real life–crisis or no, Matt must deal with responsibilities.

And so, Matt and his girls meander along the luscious Hawaiian landscapes, handling both family crisis and pressing family business. They track down his wife’s elusive lover ( the annoyingly affable Matthew Lillard.) They get some unlikely help from Alexandra’s boyfriend Sid (Nick Krause). I wanted to stop and kick the grating stoner out of the car a few times. But Sid turns out to be wiser than he looks. And therein lies the beauty of “The Descendants.” Much of life is awkward and uncomfortable. And we all must face tragedy and crisis. No matter the beauty of the back drop or the people wearing the bad clothes. And we often get through the tough times with the people on hand; and they’re often the most unexpected.

The film’s not perfect. Payne takes his time getting us to fairly predictable destination. But he takes us on charming and heart-wrenching detours. Watch for an awkward scene near the film’s end featuring Judy Greer– as the wife of Matt’s wife’s lover– punctuated with vexatious compassion.

It’s the wayward malaise that makes “The Descendants” so moving. Like life, it is a messy tapestry woven together with the imperfections of humanity. No wonder, along with Clooney’s NBR Award, the film has racked up a slew of nominations from the Golden Globes,Screen Actors Guild and Critics Choice, among others. Trust me: Oscar won’t be far behind.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

I know I risk having gingerbread, or worse, vats of eggnog, hurled at me. But I have a love-hate thing going with It’s a Wonderful Life. The thing is: back in the days before cable offered hundreds of stations with nothing on, every channel seemed to run the Frank Capra classic on an endless loop. So excuse me if I got a little jaded and avoided the iconic Christmas movie for years.

But I recently saw it on TV. And it looks like love again. The sweet, heart-warming tale of a small town bank owner who takes on the greedy, heartless tycoon, Mr. Madoff… uh, Potter, and is loved by all he’s ever met, feels oh, so comfy again. Not to mention Capra’s heavy hand serves up a hearty spoonful of divine intervention with a spicy dollop of progressive ideals. Of course, neither stopped Glenn Beck from trying to hijack the classic last year, with his laughable reinterpretation seen through an Ayn Rand unregulated free-market ideological prism and message of Christian conservatism. Hey, whatever gets on your Merry.

But you know what? Wonderful Life is still not my favorite seasonal offering.

That honor has always gone to Christmas in Connecticut, Peter Godfrey’s 1945 holiday trifle.

Barbara Stanwyck stars as an early faux Martha Stewart who finds true love on her phony honeymoon. Only it may not be with her fake hubby. Here’s the screwball set up: she’s a magazine columnist who’s supposed to write about hearth and home… only thing is she doesn’t have either. And when her publisher–the funny and formidable Sydney Greenstreet–demands she host a navy hero for Christmas, her scam risks reveal. Until her insufferable beau offers his convenient farm and a makeshift marriage. It’s corny–even for that era–but a delightful, kitsch confection that is a perfect complement to a late night peppermint schnapps infused hot cocoa. Great co-stars include Reginald Gardner, Dennis Morgan and the ever adorable, S.Z. “Cuddles” Sakall.

Other faves:

Comfort and Joy: No, not the Lifetime movie featuring Nancy McKeon, but Bill Forsyth’s rarely shown 1984 holiday treat.

This one–just out on DVD from the BBC– stars Bill Patterson as a Scottish disc jockey who finds his world unravelling after his girlfriend leaves him and he unwittingly gets embroiled in the nefarious ice cream truck underworld. This is a quirky confection from the director of Gregory’s Girl. By the way, Dire Straits master Mark Knopfler provides the score.

Scrooge:I’m talking about the 1970 musical starring Albert Finney in a broad and beautiful–okay hammy–performance.

In a crowded field of many fine Christmas Carols, this one stands out for me because I remember seeing it at Radio City with my grandfather when I was a little girl. And the whole day with Pop–from getting to circumvent the line because he knew the management–to watching a movie and a live show with the world-famous Rockettes ( fill your fruitcake, Trudi!) in that majestic theatre, is indelibly etched in my memory as one of the sweetest days of my life. But even without that experience, the film, directed by Ronald Neame,boasts much. There are stellar performances by Alec Guinness as Marley’s Ghost and Kenneth More as Ghost of Christmas Present. The sets courtesy of Terry Marsh are luscious. And though a tad uneven, Leslie Bricusse’s score, offers bright spots including: “Father Christmas,” “I Hate People” and the effervescent show-stoppers, “I Like Life” and “Thank You, Very Much.”

The Man who Came to Dinner: This 1941 comic classic stars Monty Woolley as an acerbic radio commentator who slips in front of an unsuspecting Mid-Western family’s house, and stays for the holiday season, threatening litigation while he turns the household upside down.

Bette Davis in a rare genial part, co-stars as the insufferable brute’s love-struck assistant. She falls for the local newspaper editor; he plots to foil the affair. Other wacky characters parade through the busy house. Small star turns by Reginald Gardiner,Jimmy Durante, and the great Mary Wickes. Based on the Kauffman-Hart Broadway hit (which was based on their friend radio commentator/columnist Alexander Woollcott). Directed by William Keighley. An ironic footnote: many years later, during a NYC hotel strike, Bette Davis insinuated herself into a Connecticut family’s home for months. That real-life episode is chronicled in Elizabeth Fuller’s funny and charming memoir, Me and Jezebel.

Miracle on 34th Street: The Original! And only the 1947 original.

It’s been remade twice–in 1973 and 1994– and neither holds a Christams candle to the classic which earned Edmund Gwenn an Oscar as Kris Kringle playing himself in Macy’s and going on trial to prove his Santa suit is filled with the real deal. This delightful holiday romp opens on the famed Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade ( and usually ushers in the Holiday movies on Turkey Day)and captures the growing ( in the 1940′s!) materialism of Christmas, conquered, of course, by faith, love, and child-like wonder. Maureen O’Hara, John Payne and a young Natalie Wood all offer terrific performances in George Seaton’s movie the studio thought so little of, it released it during the summer! But, unlike It’s A Wonderful Life,which was an initial box office flop–this one scored a miracle–and was re-released for the Holiday season.

There are others, to be sure, including: The Bells of St. Mary, Holiday Inn and recent hits Home Alone and Love Actually. But I’d rather start watching than rattle off more. Bet you didn’t know: every time a bag of pop corn is popped, a movie critic earns a box of Raisinets.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

During the Holiday Season Hollywood fetes movie fans with a cornucopia of its best films. And before the Oscar dust settles expect Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” to receive its share of accolades. Leonardo DiCaprio will, no doubt, top many award nomination lists for his formidable and surprisingly moving portrayal of the oft-reviled and enigmatic legendary F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover. It’s the versatile actor’s best shot at scoring coveted Oscar gold since his edgy turn as Howard Hughes in Martin Scorsese’s “The Aviator.”

Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black ( who won an Oscar for his “Milk” screenplay) serve up a pretty standard bio-pic, flashing back and forth in time as the aged Hoover recounts his memoir to a young agent. But considering the format, there are quite a few details that are never revealed about Hoover’s family, particularly the cause of his father’s infirmity. This seems important considering Hoover’s domineering mom ( a delightfully crushing turn by the ever winning Judi Dench) often refers to his “restoring the family’s good name.”

The pressures on young “Johnny” are evident from a young age. He grappled with a speech impediment, though Eastwood, wisely avoids dwelling here, to circumvent comparisons to last year;’s Best Oscar winner “The King’s Speech.” The young Hoover is also friendless, secretive and ambitious. All traits that clearly served his meteoric rise up the F.B.I. ladder.

As the story continues back and forth, Hoover grows both the Bureau and his “enemies” files. And while what passes for his personal life is shrouded in shame and secrecy, he forges a “special” friendship with his number two Clyde Tolson. Arnie Hammer, who offered splendid comic relief as the cheated crew team twins in Fincher’s ” The Social Network” last year, is Oscar-worthy himself as Tolson, shading a tricky performance with elegance and longing. The film doesn’t exploit the rumored affair. There is, in fact, only one kissing scene, and that one starts as fever-pitch scuffle set off, by of all things, the mere mention of romance with screen queen Dorothy Lamour.

There are intense scenes with Robert F. Kennedy and amusing commentary about Richard Nixon, who Hoover declared “crazy and paranoid.” Not to worry, the Kettle had the exact same words for the Pot. And Naomi Watts adds a nice turn as Hoover’s faithful secretary and friend Helen Gandy, who may have done more for her boss ( and less for history) than Rose Mary Woods could ever have endured.

The entire film is shot with deliberately and oddly dark lighting; I’m guessing Eastwood’s heavy-handed homage to the darkness of the times as well as Hoover’s inner struggles. The make-up, unfortunately, ranges from effectively realistic to overtly silly depending on the actor and angle ( the characters age from 1919 to 1972). The film drags in spots and leaves some questions unanswered. The latter, though, is fitting, I suppose, considering the elusive nature of his subject’s life.

While it may not rank next to “Million Dollar Baby” or “Unforgiven,” as one of Eastwood’s best, it’s a nice rebound after last year’s disappointing “Hereafter,” . Add “J. Edgar” to the inspiring 81 year old director’s bountiful file. And add it to your list.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.