Documentary review: "Into the Deep"

(Note: This review has spoilers)

"Into the Deep," a documentary about the 2017 sex-torture murder of a journalist aboard a private submarine in Denmark, is both revealing and disturbing — as well as seriously flawed.

If the combination of "sex-torture" and "private submarine" in one sentence isn't enough to convince you that this is a bizarre story, let me assure you that "Into the Deep" goes, um, even deeper into one man's depraved mind.

That man is Danish inventor-entrepreneur Peter Madsen, who was eventually convicted of the murder of Swedish journalist Kim Wall while the two were sealed alone on his self-built submarine.

Madsen was working to build a rocket that he hoped would take him into space, and had drawn in a cadre of young volunteers to help him. As the movie shows, he was at turns charismatic, manipulative and an outright liar. Documentary maker Emma Sullivan was there to film much of his work, and this movie is the result. 

Peter Madsen

When you consider that this is a movie that includes discussions of torture, beheading and limbs being sawed off, it's notable that the most chilling moment may actually be a monologue by Madsen that Sullivan smartly saves for the end.

Eleven months before the murder, in an interview with Sullivan, Madsen launches into an impromptu lecture, saying "psychopaths exist among us." 

There are, he says, "human predators that walk around and grab people and use them and throw them out, used." He adds, "There is the possibility that you have simply come upon a human predator."

The movie certainly illuminates the story behind the murder —  especially if, like me, you knew little about it before — but it also has some stunning holes.

While Sullivan digs deep into Madsen's mind and also shows the emotional turmoil of those who worked with him, the movie bizarrely tells us almost nothing about Kim Wall. For much of the film, she is referred to only generically as "the journalist."  It is as if Wall is merely a prop as the narcissistic murderer soaks up all the attention.

We get multiple scenes of volunteers who worked with Madsen expressing their shock that he killed someone, but we hear nothing about who Wall was or how her death affected her family and friends. It is a stunning and offensive omission. . 

The second hole is less serious, but not trivial. The movie gives Madsen a forum to complain about how his former employers, Copenhagen Suborbitals, supposedly mistreated him. His bitterness runs through the film. So what is the response from Copenhagen Suborbitals?  There is none. There is no indication that Sullivan ever asked them. This omission is even more stunning when you know that Copenhagen Suborbitals was located immediately adjacent to Madsen's company. All Sullivan had to do was walk next door.

Rushed Judgments: Vote no on Long Beach's Measure Q

 There are 52 races and ballot propositions for Los Angeles County voters at the 2022 general election. No person can possibly make informed judgments on so many items. So I'm spending 5 to 10 minutes looking at each issue and sharing my decision. 

--------------------

Measure Q would raise taxes on people who own property in Long Beach to pay for a long list of public school upgrades, repairs and construction. For someone owning a million-dollar home (and in 2022, in Long Beach, a million-dollar home is shockingly average), this will cost $600 a year.

This is a tough one for me because I believe in a strong public school system, but I am also disturbed at how frequently the Long Beach Unified School District comes to taxpayers begging for money. Just six years ago, the district asked for (and got) $1.5 billion in bonds. Now it's asking for another $1.7 billion.

I don't claim to fully understand what's going on, but this does raise questions about how well the district manages its money. We already pay for schools as part of our annual taxes, so why these extra demands? LBUSD gives a generous benefits package to employees (it pays 100% of healthcare premiums for most of its workers), but it can't set aside money for school construction and repairs? .

Even with those concerns, I probably would have voted for Measure Q except for one thing. Several years ago, LBUSD abruptly locked up all its school playgrounds, preventing children from using them during evenings, weekends and summer.

No one questions the need to keep schools secure during the instructional day, but for generations, children and families in Long Beach have been able to use the playgrounds during non-school hours. Many children, including my own, learned to ride their bikes on school playgrounds, a much safer venue than on the street. This was a great option for park-poor neighborhoods, since every part of the city at least has a school.

But now those playgrounds sit empty behind locked gates during evenings, weekends and summer. Yes, the school district has since decided to occasionally open some playgrounds for limited hours on some Saturdays, but it's a far cry from what's needed.

Not only does this locked-gate policy deny kids a place to play, it disrespects the taxpayers who paid for those playgrounds. It sends the message that LBUSD isn't a true partner with the community. 

Rushed Judgments: Vote no on California's Proposition 1

There are 52 races and ballot propositions for Los Angeles County at the 2022 general election. No person can possibly make informed judgments on so many items. So I'm spending 5 to 10 minutes looking at each issue and giving you my decision. 

No matter how you vote on Prop. 1, one thing is for sure: It won't matter. Prop. 1 is going to pass easily no matter what anyone says or does.

That's because Prop. 1 is aimed at enshrining the right to abortion in the California Constitution, and a strong majority of Californians support abortion. And since the Supreme Court invalidated Roe v Wade, the passion to support abortion rights in California is stronger than ever. 

So if I had half a clue about the phrase "pick your battles," I would just ignore this proposal and move on. 

No one has ever accused me of having a clue, or even half of one, so let me outline the reasons that Prop. 1 is a bad idea. 

First, you're being played. Abortion is already legal in California, so why this proposition? There's a lot of evidence that the Prop. 1 is a political ploy by the Democratic Party to increase turnout at the election. Bring a hot-button issue to the ballot, the logic goes, and liberal voters will show up.

You may not mind being a political pawn, but you should be concerned about the vague wording of Prop. 1.  The short measure says, "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

Read that a couple times (if you can get past the bad grammar) and you'll notice a few things. For one, while proponents state that this measure is about abortion, its could have a lot wider impact.  Abortion and contraceptive access are only listed as examples of "an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions."

The bill's opponents say this measure will override state law and allow late-term abortions. Proponents deny that. Here's the deal: No one really knows because the measure is so vague. 

What else is included? Could this have an impact on in-vitro fertilization, pregnancy leave, or sex-change operations? Who knows?

If we're enshrining a right in the state constitution, shouldn't we be clear what it does?  If we don't, we will leave it up to judges to decide what it means.

Yes, I know a lot of us our outraged over abortion law changes in other states. But that doesn't mean we need to rush a vague and poorly written constitutional amendment into the California constitution

How about if we just take a breath, step back and write a clearly written measure that clearly states what we want. 

Rushed Judgments: Baron, Barreto, Chang, Lyons, Hammond, Hare for judge

There are 52 races and ballot propositions for Los Angeles County voters to decide on in the 2022 general election. No voter can possibly make informed judgments on so many items. I'm spending 5 to 10 minutes looking at each issue and giving you my half-baked decision. 

There are six Los Angeles Superior Court judgeships on the the ballot. For five of the six races, the Los Angeles Times and Metropolitan News endorsements agree. Conveniently, the five people endorsed were also my choices in the primary. Done. 

The one race of "contention" is for office No. 70, where the Times endorses Holly Hancock and the Met News says Renee Yolande Chang. The Los Angeles Daily News endorsed Chang in the primary but hasn't said anything about the general election. I chose Hancock in the primary. Is there any reason to change? 

It's a close call. As a public defender, Hancock probably leans more toward defendant's rights. As a prosecutor, Chang probably leans toward victim's rights. 

 Frankly, there's a not a lot to go on in this race, but the Met News endorsement from the primary seems the only substantive look at the race, and they chose Chang. So I'll go with Chang.

So my suggestions:

Office 60: Abby Baron

Office 67: Fernanda Maria Barreto

Office 70: Renee Yolande Chang

Office 90: Melissa Lyons

Office 118: Melissa Hammond

Office 151: Patrick Hare