If you love aviation and travel, you would probably find yourself drawn to shows like CNN's Business Traveler, or Aircraft Investigation and every other movie related to being stuck in an airport.
It is no different with the human drama wrapped in an air disaster called Flight.
Robert Zemeckis' movie got some validation with a Globes nod, but Denzel Washington didn't quite make the cut.
Sure he was compelling. A drunk and a user who lies and flies. You kind of feel for him, yet worry that the guy driving your bus may be just the same.
One of the moral questions asked was: what if it was that state of perfect storm of being drunk and having cocaine in the system that save 99 lives on that plane? Would that conduct be justifiable?
The movie was sensational on the onset.
A big close up of a woman's boob in the opening scene. Really people? And they find two men kissing in public more offensive?
And then the incredible turbulence that most of us would not experience in our traveling lives. Having said that, I was on a flight with some turbulence and the pilot literally (like in the movie) flew the plane into clear skies. Yay SQ pilots!
That was followed by the big climax. The boom and the uh-oh.
Co-pilot loses control. Plane goes into a nose dive. Denzel somehow manages to speak in full sentences (yeah, mmm black box recordings of real plane crashes aren't as eloquent). He flips the plane, and yet his shirt is still perfect. And even though in real time it would have been seconds, he is able to say "Are we gliding? We are gliding!" in a happy way like he won the Golden Globes and got an Oscar nomination.
And then, the crash.
Sorry church steeple. Sorry people who look like doomsday cult followers that run for cover. Mayhem without the fireball.
I have to admit it: the 3D is impressive. You get the gist of the disaster without having to look into the back of the bus. And the wonderful smartphone 'footage' taken in landscape mode, by a witness on the ground, is naturally stunning.
The movie stopped being sensational from that point.
I really wanted to like this movie. But somewhere between the plane crash and the final NTSB hearing, I went into day dreamland and my iPad. Which is not what film makers want to hear.
I sometimes think that Hollywood tries really hard to break its so called 'formula'. So in comes the 'indie' film type existential angst, internal struggles and accompanying camerawork.
What that did for Flight was bring the original boom to a bust.
Having said that, if one is looking for the truth in the movie, it is most evident in the end.
 |
| Scene where the character stops lying |
When faced with the moral challenge of committing a colleague's reputation to hell (posthumously) and allowing her to take the fall for something he did, Denzel's character (and now it is back to the Hollywood test audiences results), chooses to come clean.
 |
| James Frey, another Liar on Oprah |
He ends up in jail, and turns a James Frey style new leaf.
Formulaic yes. People buy movie tickets to walk out encouraged and positive about life. Can't blame the studio.
However, the director and writer was strategic to show the sincerity of the character's repentance in a closing scene of him in a support group in prison. And (formula alert), he is rewarded for his 'the truth shall set you free' moment with his son's revived respect and love.
Well.
Let's try real life shall we?
 |
| Lance Armstrong and Oprah on OWN |
Lance Lance Lance Lance Lance.
Lance Armstrong's interview with my Earth bound Spiritual Queen, Oprah was sensational.
And I would argue, calculated.
It was so convenient that information of the interview leaked out before its broadcast. Was it from OWN's camp to drum up more interest than it was already going to get? Or from Lance's camp to hint at his coming out party?
Whatever it is, the reactions during and after the global broadcast came fast and furious.
CNN anchor Piers Morgan, who himself has been accused of lying in the phone hacking scandal in the UK, declared on Twitter that Lance was a 'worse lying, doping cheat in the history of sport'. His detractors may accuse him of being a worse lying cheat in the history of journalism too. People may forget that his entry into the US market was supported by his friend Simon Cowell, when things got too hot in London for him and his career was in jeopardy. (note to Oprah: there is a pattern where deceitful men have turned to you to get America wide validation...mmmm but when someone shows you who they are the first time, believe it. Learned that from a wise woman.)
But I digress.
CNN's Anderson Cooper had panelists on standby on his A360 show during the confessional broadcast. Nearly all of them basically said that Lance was still not completely honest. His confessions to the Queen of TV was clearly prepared, perhaps rehearsed and very mindful of the names he wanted to bring up or protect.
During a USADA interview, Lance Armstrong admitted he recognized the potential loss of income and reputation, but also said that he was more concerned about the loss of faith his believers had in him.
During Oprah's interview, what stood out was what seemed to be a regret that Nike's 70 million deal flew out of the window in a day. Less so about the lives he destroyed.
And then there was the talk about unequal penalties. Lifetime ban versus 6 months for the rest of them. There is a failure to see the severity of what he has done. Let the punishment match the crime?
And then there was the desire to return to competitive sport. Of course Americans are a very forgiving bunch, especially towards people who 'come clean'. (Think Tiger Woods). But the fact that he would even think he deserves the opportunity, in the face of perjury and fraud, alludes to a sense of denial.
Oprah has met and talked to just about everyone (except me). And her EQ has no ceiling limits. The great thing about her though, is that she lets the story reveal itself and leaves it to the audience to decide for themselves (unlike a CNN anchor, who on one hand I respect for his passionate views on gun control, but also think he force feeds his agenda down people's throats).
I think Oprah would have sensed that this man was prepared and rehearsed and there was still something...not quite right. Something global audiences have also apparently drawn from the interview.
So. Flight and Lance Armstrong.
While Denzel's character was fully remorseful, which was cinematically captured in closing scenes, Lance does not come across as that. The former gave up his security and safety to protect the memory of someone he knew, Lance was forced into the open by years of investigation.
It is one thing when one's choices are one's own and do not affect others. But Lance has made choices that have crushed others. Intentionally, willingly, without remorse. As they say, if he wasn't caught, he probably would have gotten away with it.
So on one hand, Denzel's character is fictional. And the audience has the benefit of an epilogue scene to show the sincerity of his actions.
Lance Armstrong is real life. And he has no closing scene to show his actions are sincere.
For now though, it is probably safer to err on the side of caution and not trust his deeds on Oprah's show. If you can believe that even his choice of a lavender shirt (The Color Purple) was a calculated move, you can trust that his scheming days are not over.
Perhaps Hollywood will do a biopic on him and include an epilogue scene.
By then though, that epilogue scene would have been prewritten by the truth told by time.
.jpg)
