As for the project you cite … this seems like dirty pool on the part of the state.
Density requirements are rational things to have in some cases. I don’t see why they should be dissolved because of, at most, a decades-old dead letter elsewhere on the deed.
“a lot of them are still here”
Because they have been illegal for 60 years (and legally unenforceable for 20 years prior to that) … for the covenants still to be there, the property can’t have changed hands in those decades, which I suspect almost all commercial properties (and most homes) have.
ARE there any such properties today? I’d be shocked if there’s a double-digit number in all California.
Now at AFISilver for a film event I got the day off work to go to …. the only chance to see both parts of MY UNDESIREABLE FRIENDS back-to-back (they were each shown apart at the weekend)
6 … first hour of set up drama utterly fails; second hour of actual car racing is terrific.
He can live
It’s my #1 for the year, but don’t you think it also, compared to the Carpenter (or George Romero if you want an even earlier antecedent), mich more openly wears Significant Themes Present Here on its sleeve (though that would HELP it with AMPAS).
You’d lose a lot, but two of his films could be staged as plays with only very light reworking.
Taking a chance on friend’s panegyrics … the Chinese auto-racing blockbuster PEGASUS 3 … you better be right @simonsaybrams.bsky.social … more than your esteem in my eyes may be at stake!!!
Reupping for day crowd … I officially caught up with The Film That Beat RAGING BULL. It wasn’t even as good as RAVING BULLY
vjmorton.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/l...
Another of the films I saw at the weekend besides COOK THIEF, which is an all-time favorite, was ORDINARY PEOPLE. Which is not.
vjmorton.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/l...
But yes, the article was worth reading and on the pure merits persuasive that Coogler *deserves to* win (Helene and Bruno aren’t up, durnit). But to quote Clint, “deserve got nothin to do with it.”
And no, I don’t believe a-priori that a jury *of 2026 film-industry professionals* (as distinct from a jury of 1950s Southerners judging a literacy test) is an any way reluctant to award a black person. It just sometimes doesn’t work out and three is too small a sample size to rebut that presumption
I think you’re being over-rationalistic about something that is (1) a democratic vote (2) on something that is not objectively definable. Those who said “Chazelle won for LALA LAND for reasons X or Y” were just spitballing or gestalting, not establishing a binding precedent like a Supreme Court case
Reupping for the evening crowd … Albert Spica as a forerunner for DJT in some amazingly specific amd factual ways.
UGH ... should be "(AS these sorts of things..."
(3) I think your case for why Coogler should win is (and these sorts of things can go) persuasive. But to say — "If a Black filmmaker still can’t win Best Director under these circumstances" — is overstating matters. The verb should be "doesn't"; not "can't."
[Fin]
(2) the key line is here (and it's the second iteration). Two or even three is simply far too small a sample size to draw any meaningful generalizations precisely because (as you also noted elsewhere) every annual contest has its own dynamic.
(1) I don't think the quote to which I reacted negatively was presented out of context. It is after all your walkoff line. And the graf higher up about others' reaction is incorrect. It's not the opposite argument; it's the same one (if Coogler loses, it's because of race) just put in negative form.
I have a couple reactions that will take a couple posts to work out ... but separately, to establish my bona fides, this was my year-end poll ballot; note what's present and what's not
OK ... I'll take your word and look.
Nothing can redeem that cited quote, if it is accurate and in context.
So the meaning of “I wrote about you” is …?
Not falling for it … (and rejecting any psychologization)
How many illicit affairs …
“then we can’t pretend” it’s not racism
Not clicking THAT
I find a surprising 2026 analogue to The Thief in Peter Greenaway’s THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER, which I saw at the weekend.
vjmorton.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/a...
Changes in theatrical market also mean that middlebrow, adult message-movies are much more rarely seen in the wild now, so the pool is shallower. And then they don't get Oscar nominations, so no cachet, so don't get made. Hard to tell which dog wags what tail (or which is chicken and which is egg).
FWIW, his latest ain't much (but still a 6; and I could see loving it if one likes the path it takes in last 15 mins or so)
Even after I named AFIRE the #1 film of 2023😔
Also, tto get even more pedantic, one reason the use of "whom" is fading is greater willingness to engage in preposition stranding ... "never ask who the bell tolls for." But if one DOES yoke the object and the preposition, the nominative sounds barbarous. "Never ask for who the bell tolls"??
