Olympic Fakes

From steroids to music to politics, the Olympics are all about phoniness and this recent story merely confirms the truth. Nobody at any level of organization really cares about sport or competition or human achievements or international goodwill or anything like that. What they care about is selling the advertiser’s products and getting great seats for themselves and their relatives and their friends in high office for the gold medal hockey game.

What were they thinking? They were thinking, wouldn’t it be great if we could run the sound of the orchestra through a digital link to the PA system instead of through those darn microphones and mixers that just don’t seem to ever make it sound…. you know… just kind of nice. And what if an orchestra member makes a mistake? And hell, Obama did it. And — better yet– we can use a more photo-genic orchestra, which could simply mime the performance. Fabulous!

It’s despicable. But what’s really despicable is the way they act after they are caught: well, what’s wrong with it?

Well, if there isn’t anything wrong with it, why not tell everyone that you are broadcasting a recording instead of a performance? That the performers you see on the screen didn’t even perform on the recording. Why don’t you just can the orchestra all together?

Why ban steroids? If audiences get a bigger thrill from seeing records broken than from seeing a mere race, why not cheat?

Don’t forget — you and I are paying for these people to conduct these obscene rituals of mass manipulation and self aggrandizement. We are paying for it.

And hurray for Bramwell Tovey, the conductor of Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, for refusing to give in on the issue.

At Seventeen

Janis Ian wrote “At Seventeen” in 1973, at the age of 22. She was already somewhat well-known for an earlier protest song, “Society’s Child”. “At Seventeen” — it seems astonishing to me now– became a huge hit, on the pops singles charts, eventually reaching #1.

Here’s a bit of interesting trivia: Janis Ian appeared on the very first episode of “Saturday Night Live” and performed this song.

I don’t know of any other song like it. How many singer-songwriters would write and perform these lines:

And murmur vague obscenities
To ugly girls like me, at seventeen.

About the same number as those who would write a song like “Donald and Lydia”.

The song, if you’re not familiar with it, is about the judgments teenagers make about each other, about “those of us with ravaged faces/lacking in the social graces”, about excluding those who fall short– those who are too short or clumsy for basketball, who never receive valentines, and never get to hear those “vague obscenities”– the most rich and allusive line in the song. It is suggested that the beauty queens will get their comeuppance:

So remember those who win the game
Lose the love they sought to gain
In debentures of quality
and dubious integrity

The small town eyes will gape at you
In dull surprise when pain in due
Exceeds accounts received
At seventeen.

I’m not sure what that means. That the love you get for being beautiful is of “dubious integrity”? Temporary? Transient? I thought the song would have worked better if the “small town eyes” were “gaping” at the wrecks of the lives of those who were excluded because of their “ravaged faces” and who found solace in other places, like drugs, self-abasement, whatever. And I’m not sure that just because you’re beautiful you can’t have true love.

Either way– “exceeds accounts received”– is a clever line. Either way, your punishment, your suffering will never be the amount you deserve. Oh how badly we want to cling to the idea that you do deserve what you get. In almost all the movies about people with disabilities who overcome monumental obstacles to “succeed”, the person with the disability is glamorized. They are disabled, but beautiful, or charming, or peaceful and quietly stoic, like Michael Oher in “Blind Side”. They make you feel good because you tell yourself that you would have behaved decently to this poor, unfortunate soul.

Would we behave as decently to unfortunate souls who don’t have anything lovable about them? Who don’t agree to be the “canvas” upon which we paint our own virtue?


John Prine, an indispensable artist, wrote the song “Donald and Lydia” in 1971, and it appeared on his brilliant first album “John Prine” (which also included “Sam Stone”, “Flag Decal”, and “Hello in There”–three other great songs).

Here’s a taste:

Lydia hid her thoughts like a cat
Behind her small eyes sunk deep in her fat
She read romance magazines up in her room
And felt just like Sunday on Saturday afternoon.

Lydia and Donald are both ill-equipped to have any kind of success in society. They are unattractive, socially inept, and they know it. They’re like Janis Ian’s seventeen-year-old girl– desperate for a shot at love.

They are as real as your right hand, but they are very, very rarely the subject of music or song or film, in our society. We’re too busy selling phony stories that worship women like Leigh-Ann Touhy (Blind Side) while short-changing the very people she wants to help by reducing them, as they say, to “canvases upon which we paint the image of our own virtue”.

Lydia is just plain fat. Donald is just one of “too many”, a private first class in the army.

There were spaces between Donald
And whatever he said
Strangers had taught him to live in his head
He envisioned the details of romantic scenes
After midnight in the stillness of the barracks latrine

Donald and Lydia find each other– in their dreams. In a flight of fancy, Prine imagines them reaching out from their homely little enclaves of self-doubt, across the ether and flotsam of human insensitivity, to find each other and connect in some mystical, orgasmic union of lost souls.

They made love in the mountains
they made love in the streams
they made love in the valleys
they made love in their dreams
and when it was over
there was nothing to say
’cause mostly they made love from 10 miles away.


There are very, very few movies that deal honestly with the harsh facts of life for people like Donald and Lydia and girls with “ravaged faces”. Since most of North America believes that the function of entertainment is to allow you to escape from your dreary little life into fantasies…

Perhaps the best, still, is Paddy Chayefsky’s “Marty” (1955), about a likeable Italian American butcher with no illusions about himself or his prospects.

Great Dialogue (from “Roger Dodger” 2002)

Roger: You can’t sell a product without first making people feel bad.
Nick: Why not?
Roger: Because it’s a substitution game. You have to remind them that they’re missing something from their lives. Everyone’s missing something, right?
Nick: I guess.
Roger: Trust me. And when they’re feeling sufficiently incomplete, you convince them your product is the only thing that can fill the void. So instead of taking steps to deal with their lives, instead of working to root out the real reason for their misery, they go out and buy a stupid looking pair of cargo pants.

Janet Jackson’s Nipple

Apparently the exposure lasted about 9/16 of a second. Janet Jackson’s breast.

Not very long– you would think. But long enough to require a stern response from the guardian of public morals, the Bush Administration’s FCC.

Meanwhile, prime-time television continues to broadcast an unending stream of knifings, shootings, beatings, and torture. All shown tastefully, of course, so as to not cause offense. “24” tells us that torture works: the bad guys immediately tell the truth, even when the torturer has no idea what the truth is and, well, will just have to take the victim’s word for it because there is no time to lose.

This may sound strange, but was it ever so clear that the U.S. government wants to encourage young people to enjoy depictions of violence and abuse and hatred? By all means– let’s prepare our youth for a world in which we will ask them to kill and torture and destroy on behalf of our national interest. Of course it does. Think about all the episodes of “24” and “Lost” and “Dexter” which incurred not the slightest censure or approbation of the U.S. federal government: torture may not be nice but sometimes it’s the only way to find out if someone is hiding an inhaler (“Lost”, Season 1). The government pats TV on the head: that’s cute. It’s nice that our children learn to regard sadistic serial killers as redeemable if they only focus their efforts on suspected criminals (“Dexter”). The audience is assured– as it can never be in real life– that the victim deserved it.

Actually, shows like “Dexter” encourage you to feel that it is right and good to commit the same atrocity we find so reprehensible when committed by our enemies. Even for someone who is a little inured to the raging hypocrisies of television, this show reaches a new level of nauseating deviance: Dexter, a psychopathic serial killer, is actually heroic. I don’t understand why, even in post-9/11 America, there has not been a furious outcry about this show.

And it’s cute that the authorities torture people because, of course, then they instantly tell the truth, as on “24”. How does Jack know it’s the truth? The only possible explanation is that he read the script; there is nothing in the set of facts supplied to us by the story that would justify his belief that he has now heard “truth” and that the victim is not just saying whatever he thinks will make the torture stop;.

And I’m not sure “children” doesn’t include the infantile half of the U.S. population that regard it as their birthrate to carry guns and drive Hummers and biggie-size their fries if they damn well feel like it.

But one thing that cannot be permitted: the sight of a woman’s breast! As at the 2004 Super Bowl. For 9/16th of a second, as determined by a lower court. Our children will imagine the sickening, disgusting things that are done to a woman’s breast, like kissing and caressing and fondling and suckling!

Since it is scientifically proven that children imitate what they see on TV, this must be stopped, at all costs. CBS must be fined $500,000 or more to ensure that they won’t do it again. America will be pure again, and safe for Rush Limbaugh.

 

The Homogenized Enterprise

“It tells the story of a reckless 23rd-century youth named James T. Kirk (played by Chris Pine) who enrolls in the Starfleet Academy, driven in part by the death of his father, a starship officer who sacrificed his life for his crew.” NY Times Article on New Trek Movie, April 28, 2009

Ho hum.

So his father sacrificed his life for his crew. And Kirk is “reckless”. Shocking! How on earth do those TV people dream up these ideas? It’s almost as daring as a new one-hour drama on doctors, or police. Or even lawyers. I’ll bet Kirk proves to be tough but “with a heart”. I’ll bet he argues with Spock and the audience discovers, hey ho!, that ignoring logic and science is a lot more fun than making reasoned judgments based on proven facts. A lot more entertaining too.

There was at the core of the original Star Trek– I refer to year 1 of the original TV series, an overt humanism that I liked. The multi-racial crew has become a cliché today– but where do clichés come from? Someone broke the mold first, and “Star Trek”, in 1965, truly did boldly go where no man had gone before– they even had a Russian navigator! And let’s not forget television’s first interracial kiss, between Kirk and Uhura.

The later Star Trek– by that I include most of seasons 2 and later– is just plain embarrassing.

Hard Boyled

Over 30 million people have now been duped into watching the video of the frumpy middle-aged woman who can sing. Everyone is astonished. Who would have thought a frumpy middle-aged woman could sing?!

Who would have thought anyone would be surprised that a frumpy middle-aged woman can sing?

Either the average person is far more dull-witted than ever previously imagined, or we are all fooling ourselves. You’re at a talent show. You watch various attractive young people march across the stage, with varying levels of talent. Then you see a frumpy middle-aged woman. You think– obviously she has no talent.  Right.

In fact, any reasonably astute person would have likely thought, she’s certainly not here for her looks. Obviously, she must be able to sing.

Now, this is a program which introduces emerging talents and then processes them like hamburgers through the obscene rituals of fashion makeovers, stylists, image consultants, deportment experts, etc., with the goal of rendering them into mental frumps– celebrities. Why the real frumpy woman? To convince the viewers that they are not like those shallow, crass people who only appreciate art if it is packaged in sexy, youthful flesh. No no no– I don’t judge people by their appearance– only by their abilities.

And after Susan Boyle has had her meaningless moment on the stage, these same people will go back to choosing the singer with the biggest bosom, and only watching movies that star sexy young Hollywood starlets. Except for Meryl Streep movies– because she is the Susan Boyle of Hollywood films: the exception that proves we are decent, intelligent people after all. We like serious actors. My enjoyment of their films is a badge of culture and good taste. I’m glad you know that. Besides, Meryl Streep may be flat-chested but she is sort of pretty. She’s prettier than Mrs. Doubtfire.

Now, it has occurred to me that my enjoyment of obscure films by Japanese directors like Ozu might be taken for the same thing. I’ve had that reaction before: you can’t seriously like “Late Spring”– it’s excruciatingly slow moving and, it’s black and white. Or, more likely, “I watched that film you were so hot about– I couldn’t believe how boring it was!”

It’s probably true. Though I must admit, it’s not that much fun at work to casually mention, at lunch, that I watched an obscure Japanese film last night.

You just do that to make us think you’re smarter than we are.

Yeah, that’s what you get.

What I liked about my college experience is that it was one of the few times in my life when most of the people I hung out with respected elite artistry, drama, and music.

Nowadays, the elite is there to be mocked, even by the elite.


The Inevitable “Make-Over”

The latest: Susan Boyle has undergone a modest “make-over”, using a local hair stylist instead of a fancy one from the big city. The idea is to make it more digestible for the average viewer to maintain the illusion that they appreciate her for her voice and don’t care at all about the fact that she looks like a real person.


The Un-Boyle

Diana Krall seems like a perfectly fine lady. She looks very nice. She gets a lot of airplay on the CBC.

She is the opposite of Susan Boyle. Diana Krall looks absolutely ravishing– if your taste runs to big-boned blonde Visigoths– but, truthfully, is a rather average singer.

Norah Jones is in the same category: really, a mediocre singer with a pleasant voice, and, most importantly, a pretty body.

Just think– if you could combine Susan Boyle’s voice with Diana Krall’s looks, you would have the perfect entertainer. Right? Wrong. Nobody really cares about the voice part. Diana Krall has the only advantage that matters already in hand.

And actually, Susan Boyle’s singing talents really are quite over-rated as well.

Best TV Shows of All Time

All right, I just kind of whipped this up for fun.

Time Magazine calls “Lost” one of the 100 Best TV series of all time. It may not be as big a compliment as you think: the list includes “Leave it to Beaver” and “Friends”, “Oprah” and– ready for it? — “The Price is Right”. What is #1? There is no #1– it’s just a list of 100.

But, this leads me to question, what are the best TV series of all time? Off hand… [Additions 2011-03]

1. The Wire (without a doubt)

2.1 West Wing
2. Hill Street Blues
3. Mad Men (years 1 & 2)
4. Larry Saunders Show
5. All in the Family
6. Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour
6.1 Orange is the New Black
7. St. Elsewhere
8.1 I Claudius
8. 30 Something
9. 60 Minutes
10. Dick Van Dyke Show
11. Saturday Night Live
12. Seinfeld
13. Sex in the City
14. This Hour has Seven Days (Canadian)
15. Ed Sullivan
16. Twilight Zone
17. Alfred Hitchcock Presents
18. Odd Couple
19. Barney Miller
20. Star Trek (Year 1 only!)
20.1 The Bold Ones
20.2 WKRP in Cincinnati
20.3 The Tudors

Television: Lost

I’ve been watching the first season of “Lost” for the past few weeks. What a concept: a plane crash-lands on a tropical island and the survivors struggle to survive. Supernatural events intrude. The hunky stars sport perpetual five o’clock shadows. An attractive woman falls for a guy who’s no good for her. The castaways gang up on an unpopular dissident and torture him. He doesn’t mind being tortured.

It’s a combination of “Gilligan’s Island” (without the humour) and “Survivor” (without the circus master) and the computer game, “Myst” (without the tedium). It debuted in 2005– after 9/11. The makers of the show claim that everything will make sense when the series ends in 2011. Including the torture? I don’t believe them.

It’s hard to buy into a drama when the characters act inexplicably for inexplicable reasons. This is not a comedy though it has moments when you have to laugh out loud– Jack carrying firewood around, for example, for the obvious purpose of looking like he has a reason for existing at that particular moment other than to hold a conversation with Hugo. Sawyer enjoying a few moments of torture for no logical reason at all. Sayed marching around trying to organize a fascist police state. All the key male leaders with the only guns marching off into the jungle to look for Ethan the day after he surprised them by coming up from the beach instead. An anonymous extra is attacked and killed.

And everyone assuming, for no really logical reason, that Ethan was up to something nefarious with Claire just because his name wasn’t on the manifest. Don’t airlines officials make mistakes? Don’t people have middle names? And then everyone carrying on at the beach strangely unconcerned about the fact that a pregnant woman has been kidnapped by the same man, after he even tried to hang Charlie.

Did you think Charlie was dead? As from time immemorial, none of the regulars die. At least not yet. Sort of diffuses some of the tension, doesn’t it?

And let’s not forget about Mike’s girlfriend’s husband who leaves Mike’s son in Sydney to fly all the way to Los Angeles to tell Mike– in person– that he can have custody of his son. This is a strange, context-less world of spontaneous dramatic lurches and unmotivated passions. It’s a world in which no one, in the author’s mind, has any existence outside of their scenes. They find a mysterious door. They obsessively chip away at it for days while the rest of the islanders complain about not having any meat. Then the door disappears from consciousness, as does the pork, while amnesiac Claire falls in love with the most annoying castaway of all– Charlie. Everyone on the island only seems to be conscious of events in the script for that week’s episode.

So how on earth are the creators of the show going to explain anything when it comes to a conclusion in 2011? They seemly only dimly aware of what happened before the commercial break.

It is, by the way, a curiosity of Soap Opera that, for obvious and not so obvious dramatic purposes, women regularly fall in love with jerks. So Charlie and Sawyer attract the interests of the two most attractive women on the island. I guarantee you that if either of them ever consummate their desires for each other, neither will express the slightest concern about getting pregnant or catching a disease. Those things only happen many, many scripts from now.

If there is a consistent tone to the drama, it’s in the way sequences are sprung at the viewer like your annoying older brother sneaking up behind you and going “boo”. The polar bear would be far more sinister if it behaved more like a real polar bear, instead of announcing itself to it’s prey with a deafening roar. When a character is terrified by a sound, instead of seeing the source of the terrifying sound, we hear more sound effects and get the jerky, blurry camera movement . It’s as if they tried to dramatize the sinking of the titanic by by hosing a bunch of people sitting on a deck and spinning the camera around.

The castaways seem to be thriving in terms of food and health– unlike the first crew of “Survivor” who would have starved to death if the show’s producers hadn’t air dropped rice and other foods to the desperate “tribes”. Locke, in two days, acquired the hunting skills and acumen most people require years to learn. To hunt dangerous boar, no less! Even more remarkably, no one on the island seems to regard his rapidly acquired skills as amazing. Nor does anyone seem particularly grateful. Jin-Soo also seems capable of catching enough fish to feed 48 people. Think about that– how many fish would you need to feed 48 people? In fact, the utter lack of interest in explaining how the survivors are feeding themselves is breathtaking.

But where the series is most disappointing is in it’s utter lack of curiosity about how a group of 48 survivors would begin to organize themselves and relate to each other on the island– other than the incipient authoritarianism expressed by Locke and Jack and Sayed, who seem to believe that the others are all children who need to be herded to the caves or back to the beach or where-ever and told what to do.

Charlie murders Ethan in cold blood– there are no consequences for that kind of behavior in this society. In fact, the event seems to be regarded with the same seriousness as the missing pregnant Claire.

I would find it believable that there would be a few rebels and a few outcasts and a few natural leaders– but I find it unbelievable that everyone would just kind of hang around, eat, drink water, make fires, relieve themselves, and chat about that missing pregnant girl– what was her name again? Anyone see her lately?


What was the character doing before he entered the scene and began talking or inter-acting with another character, and then after the scene? Waiting to deliver his lines? In “Lost”, yes. And characters quite obviously undertake certain token tasks precisely so they can be paired with someone for some dialogue necessary to advance the story. Nobody has given much thought to who these characters are, what they think, how they live.

In a Mike Leigh film, for example, you immediately believe that character was up to something “real”– something his character would really be doing if this were a real world. Jack carrying firewood to the beach was so transparently contrived, I laughed out loud. What if the actor, instead, had developed an idea of what he was really doing– and worked it out in some detail. Better yet, what if the writers had thought of that first, and developed the character somewhat. Why on earth, for example, would Jin-Soo not have tried to simply get his watch back from Michael before attacking him? Why does Michael only seem to worry about Walt when it’s time to have a big scene of him worrying about Walt? Why on earth would Claire want to stay at the beach when the doctor is at the caves?

Most of the actions in “Lost”, in fact, seem to arise from the writer’s need to set up a dramatic confrontation of some kind, and most of the time they seem to be what a writer thinks the audience wants to see, rather than what he wants to tell.

Sure, you could rationalize every single move by every actor in the series– doesn’t change the fact that none of the characters’ actions arise from any particular insight into anything and nothing they say seems very expressive, to me, of anything other than the superficial requirements of the plot.

Check this: what else has J. J. Abrams done. Answer: “Armageddon”. “Alias”. Alas.

What “Lost” really needs, to liven up the drama, is for an exchange like this– think about it:

Jack: Wow. You guys ask me to be a leader but then you won’t listen to me.
Hurley: Who made you leader?

“Smothered” on PBS

PBS recently showed a documentary (“Smothered”) on the struggle between Tommy Smothers and CBS brass over content of the “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” shown on CBS from  1967 to 1969.

You might have expected a fairly ideological blast at the network heavies for crassly suppressing the free-spirited higher consciousness of the rebellious 60’s but the film is actually fairly nuanced and even-handed. For example, it shows us that CBS actually permitted Pete Seeger– who had been blacklisted during the McCarthy era– to appear on the show. And then it excised “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy” for it’s allusion to Johnson in Viet Nam: “and the old fool said ‘to push on'”. And then, after the Smothers Brothers protested to the print media, allowed them to show it after all. Clearly, CBS brass was concerned about getting flack from someone– the White House, most likely– about a song that slyly and cleverly attacked the Viet Nam War and Lyndon Johnson himself. Yet, in the end, they let it go on.

The contract Tommy Smothers signed with CBS gave him “creative control” over the show, so CBS was clearly not within the spirit of the agreement to continue, through the life of the show, demanding cuts and excisions based on it’s own programming and practices code. On balance, however, the documentary is not shy about pointing out Tommy Smothers’ own ornery contrariness over the issue. Certainly, he wanted cutting edge writers and comedians, and he wanted the show to be daring and relevant. But he also seemed to actively court controversy and at times he was clearly arrogant about his own perceived power– “The Smothers Brothers” shockingly ousted long-time champion “Bonanza” from the No.1 spot in the television ratings.

You come away with the impression that CBS wasn’t all that bad. They allowed Joan Baez to appear, but cut out her comments about her draft-dodger husband. They nitpicked a lot. Maybe they expected Smothers to eventually just give in and self-censor: “oh, they’ll never let us do that anyway, so let’s take it out”, which is what most television people did. Tommy Smothers astutely observed at one point that America liked to have some dissidents on TV to show that they were a broad-minded, tolerant country… but not in prime-time.

“The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” never used canned laughter or applause, and treated their guests with respect. Tommy Smothers recruited some the best young comedic talent in the business, including Rob Reiner, Mason Williams, and Steve Martin, and clearly influenced the development of Saturday Night Live a few years later.

And it was one of those young talents– David Steinberg– that finally drove CBS over the edge, with a “sermon” on Jonah and the Whale. Knowing that CBS would never allow the sketch (after a torrent of angry letters about an earlier, similar sketch about Moses), Tommy Smothers refused to turn in the tape of the show early enough to allow CBS censors and the affiliates to preview it. CBS used the technicality to cancel the show. The Smothers Brothers sued CBS for breach of contract and eventually won.

By the way, the documentary left out the funniest line of the Moses sketch. Moses stands before the burning bush and God asks him to remove his sandals. But the ground was hot and burned Moses’ feet. And for the first time in the Bible the words “Jesus Christ” were uttered.

How about that– more than 30 years later, I still remember that line.


Don’t forget– Bill Maher’s show “Politically Incorrect” was cancelled when he said something that really was politically incorrect (that the hi-jackers of the planes on 9/11 were, whatever else you say about them, courageous). And in spite of the fact that conservatives would love you to believe that it is the liberals, the feminists, and so on, who promote political correctness, it is almost always, in fact, the conservatives who ban and censor and harass those who disagree with them. (After all, one of the liberal values that conservatives dislike is the attitude of tolerance of diversity.)

Do you think James Dobson would ever have Naomi Klein on his show? Would Liberty University ever invite Hillary Clinton to speak?  Would John Hagee offer a spokesman for the Palestinians to discuss his views on Israel?

Anne Coulter might like you to believe that the liberals in control at some universities won’t invite her to speak because she is so, so… controversial. No, it’s because you’re a feather.

Marty

I played “Marty” in high school, in a play “cutting” that we did for drama class. I seem to remember that we put it on somewhere, for other students, for parents… I can’t remember. I remember make-up and props. It must have been some kind of talent show. I think Jane Hunse played Marty’s mother. I cannot remember who played Clara. I wish I had a video.  If your child, today, played “Marty” in a school play, you would absolutely have a video forever to remember what it looked and sounded like.

Who was Clara?

The scene we did was that of Marty’s mother urging him to go out, to the Waverly Ballroom, because her son-in-law says it’s “loaded with tomatoes”. Marty ridicules the notion. “That’s rich.” His mother keeps after him until he finally explodes, telling her that he has come to accept that whatever it is that women want in a man, he doesn’t have it, and he’s sick of having his heart torn out by thoughtless girls who don’t even do him the courtesy of returning his calls. He doesn’t want to get his hopes up only to be let down again. He won’t go.

But he finally gives in, puts on his blue suit, and goes. Sure enough, more heartbreak and disappointment. But then… he meets a girl named Clara, a school teacher, who is– to put it kindly “average looking”. But Marty likes her. She’s nice to him and easy to talk to. She likes him too. They go out. They have a good time. Marty thinks it’s promising, but his buddies think she’s a dog, so he doesn’t ask her out again.

Even worse, his mother’s friend warns her that once Marty finds a girl, he won’t have time for her anymore. She suddenly realizes that she could be replaced. She reverses herself and discourages him from asking Clara out again.

Marty gives in and doesn’t call Clara back. But after one too many nights hanging out with his friends, who seem to have no idea of what to do with themselves, Marty comes to his senses and calls Clara back and asks her out again.

“Marty” won an Oscar for best picture, proving that good guys sometimes finish first. Ernest Borgnine says it made his career– a lucky stroke– the role was intended for Martin Ritt. Ritt couldn’t take the role: he had been blacklisted.

There are thousands of films that make you feel good about cops torturing and murdering criminals, and thousands of films that will trick you into thinking you are a good person because you feel warmly towards a minority or a disadvantaged person because, in the film, they are portrayed as brave and smart or  attractive and grateful and they look like Sidney Poitier or Will Smith. A lot of films will try to convince you that Sandra Bullock doesn’t really think she is attractive and that Morgan Freeman is black and that Bruce Willis sits around and drinks beer in his spare time.

But how many films do you know of require you to identify with a short, pudgy, ugly, unattractive butcher who is lonely? How many of you out there are short, ugly, working-class schmucks yourself? I thought so.


“Marty” is written by Paddy Chayefsky and directed by Delbert Mann.

Obama’s Dobson

What’s the big deal? This story will last as long as the media can milk it, and then on to the next “scandal”. What is Jeremiah Wright if not nothing more than Barack Obama’s James Dobson?

James Dobson loves George Bush and regularly instructs him on who to nominate to the Supreme Court and who to appoint Attorney-General and whether or not God loves torture (he does– because he also likes spanking). Dobson is a crackpot neo-Victorian Puritan who has made himself extremely wealthy by easing parent’s consciences about controlling every aspect of their children’s lives until they get married and, maybe, move out of the home.

Like Wright, he says a lot of stupid things and Bush is as careful as Obama will be about associating himself too closely with the weirdo. Unlike Wright, Dobson is secretive and shrewd and hides from the public, but loves to name-drop in his radio addresses, bragging about calling up Bush and straightening him out regularly about the Lord’s will about this and that. Why is this not a scandal? Because it’s not a hot story. The Wright story won’t be hot in a few months either, because Obama has clearly distanced himself from his former pastor.

As if Dobson isn’t weird enough, we have Reverend John Hagee, who seems to believe that the U.S.’s main reason for existence is to supply Israel with military equipment, and a pulpit for his chubby son to practice on so he can inherit the family racket. John McCain hasn’t been asked to distance himself from this whacky supporter. Why is Obama being savaged for a similar relationship with Wright?

As others have noticed, there is a peculiar kind of coordination going on in the conservative pundits community on this and other stories. The story arrives through a blog or Youtube video or something, and then suddenly all of the conservative commentators, like a pack of jackals, dig into it and spin it the same way. I doubt they actually call each other first– it’s more like they just keep tabs on the spin of the day and join in as appropriate, and this gives the marvelous effect of the story being much bigger and far more significant than it really is. We saw that kind of spin during the Clinton impeachment, when, one after the other, they all suddenly seized on the idea that it was not the sex that was so impeachable, but the fact that he lied about it. Well, if they all say it, it must be true.

If you noticed that, you may also have noticed the coordinated approach to Hillary Clinton lately: she’s great. They love her. They thought she was crass and brassy and nannyish, but now they can see that she really is a very astute, refined woman who might make a great president. They are doing this because, as loyal Republicans, they want to be sure the Democrats put the best candidate forward in November. Right. Of course.

Very interesting. Who would the Republicans really rather have running against McCain this fall? I think conservatives think it’s Hillary, and I’m not sure they’re right. But when Irving Kristol stoops to praise Senator Clinton, you may want to dust off those Willie Horton posters. Is John McCain so lame that he would use his best weapon against Obama now? Why haven’t they gone after Clinton’s murky financial status, or feminist ideology, or flip-flops on Iraq? Because they didn’t think about it yet? Why are they even bothering to attack Obama when the primaries haven’t even ended?

*

Finally, Karl Rove is famous for a particular stratagem that has worked very well for failed Republican politicians: take your own greatest weakness, and accuse your opponent of having the same defect. That way, when he gets around to pointing out your biggest deficiencies, it will sound like “no, you’re a big fat liar”. The Republican responds: “I said it first!”

So you go after Kerry’s war record. You accuse the Democrats of “partisanship” during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominees. You claim they are trying to cheat the voters in Florida out of their votes. You accuse them of mudslinging.

And so Bush, astoundingly, attacks and blames the Democrats for the recession his administration has steered us into. Wow. That’s smart politics.

This may be the year the voters stop buying it. Maybe not. We can hope.

In the meantime, as I mourn the transmogrification of John McCain into Bush Jr. Jr., and marvel at the delusional persistence of Hillary Clinton, I observe that this is the most ridiculous and ineffective election system in the Western World. The whole thing should start in August of this year and end in November. And even that is too long.


Just How Evil is James Dobson:

(From Wikipedia)

From Wikipedia:

On June 242008, Dobson publicly criticized statements made by U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama in Obama’s 2006 “Call to Renewal”[65] address. Dobson stated that Obama was “distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview.”[66] On October 232008, Dobson published a “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America” that proposed that an Obama presidency would lead to: mandated homosexual teachings across all schools; the banning of firearms in entire states; the end of the Boy Scoutshome schooling, Christian school groups, Christian adoption agencies, and talk radiopornography on prime-time and daytime television; mandatory bonuses for gay soldiers; terrorist attacks across America; the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv; the conquering of most of Eastern Europe by Russia; the end of health care for Americans over 80; out-of-control gasoline prices; and complete economic disaster in the United States, among other catastrophes.[67] In the days after the 2008 presidential election, Dobson stated on his radio program that he was mourning the Obama election, claiming that Obama supported infanticide, would be responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn children, and was “going to appoint the most liberal justices to the Supreme Court, perhaps, that we’ve ever had.”[68]

Dobson is an intelligent design supporter and has spoken at conferences supporting the subject, and frequently criticizes evolution,[69] contrary to the teachings of his Christian denomination, the Church of the Nazarene.[70] In 2007, Dobson was one of 25 evangelicals who called for the ouster of Rev. Richard Cizik from his position at the National Association of Evangelicals because Cizik had taken a stance urging evangelicals to take global warming seriously.[71]