Books and Films (History, Supreme Court, Trump)

John Adams Book

I enjoyed Lindsay M. Chervinsky's book on George Washington's Cabinet (not cabinet). Easy reading, informative, nicely formatted (my eyesight might be going in my not-that-old age or too many books have too small print) historical reading. I had hopes for her book on John Adams.

It didn't work for me. The formatting did not help -- smaller print and harder to read. This makes the book seem longer than it already is (it is over three hundred pages without notes). 

The content was okay but it is overly detailed general history. The book is sold as an explanation of how John Adams "made" the presidency. I got through around a third and it was just a trudge and too much of it was simply a history of the time. 

It isn't about "John Adams" as such. We learn about him along with various other things. Some of the details, including Jefferson coming off rather badly, are interesting. Still, it was too much of a trudge.

Not needing to read it for an assignment, I moved on.

Jeanne Moreau & The Supreme Court Again  

We recently talked about The Lovers, a Louis Malle film starring Jeanne Moreau, and how it reached the Supreme Court. They later had a second positive experience, Viva Maria!, this time Brigitte Bardot co-starred with a supporting role for George Hamilton (was he speaking French?). 

Viva Maria! is about two "Marias," one a half-Irish freedom fighter, who helps to accidentally invent the striptease (a PG version). The "PG" was enough for Dallas to label it as not suitable for young people. 

They eventually (after an hour or so of lighthearted content, after a pre-credits sequence) get involved with a Latin American revolution. Things continued to be not too serious though by then I was bored.  

The film was fun but not enough for me to watch it for two hours. Malle knew enough to not give us two hours in the first film. Anyways, the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on vagueness grounds.

The opinion seems somewhat tediously long but does its job. At one point, a lesson for free speech and trans challenges these days, it flags how the statute is a model of sorts for others. So, stopping it is important.

The opinion does drop this bit at one point:

Moreover, a local exhibitor who cannot afford to risk losing the youthful audience when a film may be of marginal interest to adults - perhaps a "Viva Maria" - may contract to show only the totally inane. The vast wasteland that some have described in reference to another medium might be a verdant paradise in comparison. 

The First Amendment interests here are, therefore, broader than merely those of the film maker, distributor, and exhibitor, and certainly broader than those of youths under 16.

Again, there are later cases, some around today, where an attempt to "protect the children" can lead to burdens on adults. Justice Harlan alone dissented.

The opinion leaves open the possibility a clearer statute could limit material that would be acceptable to adults. Douglas/Black denies that should be possible. 

I'm wary about suggesting nothing can be denied to ten-year-olds, even if it's hard to see even "obscenity-lite" would warrant blocking everyone under sixteen from watching this film. But, yes, IF we allow that, the rules better be very clear. 

Melania Trump: Oh So Liberal

Melania Trump has an autobiography. 

It is unclear where she will go to promote it. Will she be on Stephen Colbert's show and get to meet her impersonator?  I have my doubts.   

There are a few surprises, including a strong pro-abortion rights stance. She also, perhaps suitably given her background, supports immigrants. 

Melania says she generally wishes to only privately disagree with her husband. Why change now? Well, there can be various reasons, including helping her husband or (can be both) grifting. 

I praised Liz Cheney in a separate discussion. I don't think Melania Trump is quite ready to be cheered on. But, hey, if she wants to support Kamala Harris ...