From The Jump

Happy Leap Day.

Leap Year is designed so, over time, the year doesn't get out of whack.  We don't want sweltering weather during Christmas. Or do we?  Does it really matter?

First, of course, a society has to have days of the year and last long enough so they notice something is going on.  And then they adjust--by adding a day or even a month (such as the Chinese and Hebrew calendars) if you wait long enough.

But imagine the months revolving over different seasons.  It takes generations, but eventually summer will be winter and vice versa.  What would be so wrong with that?  Might even be fun.

Then, of course, there's the issue of those born on Leap Day.  They only get a true birthday every four years.  Here are a few of these poor people:

--Director William Wellman
--Baseball player Pepper Martin
--Hockey star Henri Richard
--Actor Dennis Farina
--Politician Bart Stupak
--Serial killer Aileen Wuornos
--Rock flautist Ian Anderson
--Motivational speaker Tony Robbins
--Law professor (and friend) Eugene Volokh
--Rapper Ja Rule

So happy birthday, all.

She'll Take Manhattan

I just read Roz Chast's Going Into Town: A Love Letter To New York.  It's cartoonist Chast's idiosyncratic guide to New York City (mostly Manhattan).  While not exactly a cartoon book, it is copiously illustrated, so fans will be pleased.

It's essentially a guidebook Chast created for her kids who grew up in the suburbs.  She figures people who don't know the city need advice to get around and enjoy everything the city has to offer.

Various chapters discuss things such as how the city is laid out (mostly a grid), the fun stuff you see just walking around, how to deal with the subway, what the apartments are like, and so on.

It can be read as a collection of quirky musings and delightful cartoons, or it can actually be used as a helpful (if limited) guide to those from out of town.  Either way, worth checking out.

Saul Called

Better Call Saul is back for its fifth season.  While I still don't think it has the heft or excitement of Breaking Bad, it's still better than most TV out there.

I've seen the first two episodes.  The premiere starts with Cinnabon manager "Gene" being made by a taxi driver from Albuquerque.  Gene's first instinct is to flee (which gives us a short scene with the late Robert Forster), but he decides he'll stick around and deal with the problem himself.  So more action than usual will be happening in the present. (And the guy who spotted him is played by Don Harvey, an old friend of mine from college.)

The best thing about this season is we've (finally) got Saul Goodman, full blown. Jimmy McGill was tired of being Charles' loser brother, so he's going out on his own. In the past, Jimmy was a master of fast-talk and scams, and he's putting all that to good use. Meanwhile, Jimmy and Kim, though still living together, seem to be growing apart. How much longer can this relationship last? (And Kim is one of the variables in the equation--we know where most of the leads will end up, but not her.)

In the other half of the show (the two halves can't fully join, since Saul will not know who Gus is when he meets Walter White), Gus and Mike seem to be on the outs.  Gus has got some plan afoot--of course--and can use a man like Mike, but Mike is not thrilled he had to kill Werner. Gus's main problem is Lalo Salamanca.  Lalo isn't stupid, and knows Gus is up to something.  What he doesn't know is Gus already has a man on the inside--Nacho--who's feeding him info.  We also know that Gus will win this battle--one problem with the show is while the particulars aren't clear, Breaking Bad has shown us where things will end up.  The main variable in this half of the story is Nacho.

Anyway, good to have the show back.  Nice to finally have something to watch on Mondays.

It's All BS From Now On

Looks like Bernie Sanders has the nomination. Let's put it another way: the path to defeating him is slim and getting slimmer by the day.  The latest Dem debate had the candidates taking shots at him, though it seemed like too little too late. (Why did they waste the previous debate trying to bring down Bloomberg, who wasn't even on the ballot yet?)

Sanders has won the vote in all the contests so far and has a significant lead in the national polls.  And, due to the bandwagon effect (which is a bizarre effect when you think about it), appears to be getting stronger.  That's why a week from now it'll likely be over.

Is there a reasonable scenario where he doesn't take it?  Just barely.  First, he has to lose South Carolina on Saturday and then lose a few states (especially California or Texas) on Super Tuesday.  Right now all that seems unlikely.

The Democrats seemed to think they had time to coalesce behind a moderate candidate, but that's not how the momentum of politics works.  You need to do more than win your "lane"--you've got to make sure the guy in the other lane isn't getting too far ahead.

Not to get ahead of myself, but let's assume there are no major surprises and it's Sanders versus Trump.  A lot of people are saying Sanders can't win.  Maybe they're right, but weren't they saying that about Trump four years ago?

For one thing, while Sanders' rhetoric can be pretty wild, and he's got a radical past, it's not as if his politics are that different from the "moderates" he's facing.  Sometimes he goes a bit further, perhaps, but how many of his policies does his party completely disavow?  They (as well as Sanders) are too busy disavowing the policies moderates held ten or twenty years ago.

When it gets down to one-on-one, anything can happen, and the American public isn't generally that ideological.  Bernie, like Trump, is an economic populist.  His policies and talking points thrill a lot of people--especially the young vote, 18-29.  They were born after the Cold War, so capitalism versus socialism doesn't mean much to them.  More important, they're just starting out and don't have a lot of money, and here's a guy promising college will be free, health care will be free, etc. (not to mention the rich will pay for everything).  And Sanders seems to be playing well with the Latino vote, too.

In addition, there are a whole bunch of people who will vote for anyone with a D in front of their name, and a whole bunch of people who'll never vote for Trump.  It's true, there are more than a few voters who reject Sanders' socialism--particularly among white suburbanites--but if he can get enough of his voters to the polls, it won't take much to turn around some of the close losses that brought down Hillary.

Who knows?  I certainly don't.  Maybe Sanders will turn off certain states he needs to win, but perhaps he'll excite certain states that Trump needs to win.  Should be an interesting race.

GH

George Harrison was born on this day in 1943.  He died, way too young, in 2001.

The Beatles wouldn't have been The Beatles without every single member.  George was the "junior" partner, being the youngest, and the third composer after John and Paul.  But he made his mark, as a guitarist, singer and songwriter.

Would Have Been

Abe Vigoda would have been 99 today.  Except he died in 2016.  He was known for years as one of those guys everyone thought was dead, but wasn't (until he was).  There'd been rumors of his death going back to 1982.  There was even a website created to tell people if Vigoda was alive or dead.

I was a fan of Abe, who appeared in hundreds of TV shows and movies, but is best known as Fish on Barney Miller (and Fish) and Tessio in The Godfather.  He also used to show up regularly for bits on Conan O'Brien's show.  I remember once Robert Duvall was a guest, and Duvall and Vigoda performed the "uncut version" of their scene in The Godfather.

Today also would have been the 65th birthday of Steve Jobs.  Except he died in 2011.  I think we can agree he accomplished a lot for a somewhat short life.

The question some have asked is how much more would Apple of done if he were still around.  Impossible to know, but would it have made any difference?  Apple had been up and down during Jobs' life (as had Jobs), but things were running pretty smoothly by the time he left.

Finally, Mitch Hedberg would have been 52 today.  Except he died in 2005.  He was one of the best comedians of his era.  Only 37 at his death, he was a drug casualty.  Not entirely shocking, since much of his image and stand-up material was built around drugs.

Thus, his line "I used to do drugs.  I still do, but I used to, too."

Even more of his jokes were about food (which may be related to drug use):

My friend asked if I wanted a frozen banana.  I said "No, but I want a regular banana later.  So, yeah."

My friend said "You know what I like?  Mashed potatoes." I was like "Dude, you gotta give me time to guess."

Rice is great when you're hungry and want to eat 2000 of something.

And many more.

Whose Story?

There's a new production of West Side Story on Broadway.  It's a radical interpretation created by cutting edge director Ivo van Hove that does away with the original choreography, removes the too cute song "I Feel Pretty" and is done in 100 minutes without intermission.

Yet the controversy surrounding it is about something else.  Cast member Amar Ramasar, who plays Bernardo, was involved in a scandal at the New York City Ballet--he allegedly sent sexual photos of his girlfriend to another dancer.  He was fired then reinstated at the Ballet, but protestors at West Side Story claim he's a sexual predator who needs to be removed from the show.

But that's not what I'm writing about.  It's this line in a piece on the story in Variety that fascinates me:

"West Side Story," which began previews in December, arrives on the Great White Way over 50 years after Stephen Sondheim's original production.

"Stephen Sondheim's original production"?  Since when was it his production.  When the musical opened in 1957, Sondheim, who'd never had a show on Broadway before, was decidedly the junior partner in the team that brought West Side Story to life.

You had internationally famous composer Leonard Bernstein creating the score (including the lyrics at first).  You had Broadway veteran Arthur Laurents writing the book.  You even had young Harold Prince, who'd already been involved in a number of hits, producing.  Sondheim was brought aboard late in the game, and his contributions were often ignored by the reviewers.

Above all, you had Broadway and ballet virtuoso Jerome Robbins in charge. In fact, there was a notable (and sometimes mocked) credit on the poster stating "Entire production directed and choreographed by Jerome Robbins" with a box around it.

Robbins might have been an egomaniac, but it was his innovative approach that helped make the show what it was (and is).  Yet today, with Sondheim being the biggest Broadway name around, suddenly it's his production.  Now that's some revisionism worthy of Ivo van Hove.

Happy Anniversary

It's been ten years (!) since I put up the following post.  It's nothing special, but the comments are, in that this is the only time we've ever received a comment from a celebrity (if it's real).  Go, Krysten!

Monday, February 22, 2010

Major League Screwup   

There's promotional material for the new comedy She's Out Of My League (which I can't find on the internet) that has a number above the face of each character. I've seen it on walls, I've seen it on billboards.

See, the movie is about a 5 who dates a 10. And that's what it has on the billboard. So far, so good. But beyond the two leads, the rest of the numbers don't make any sense.

For instance, actor Nate Torrence, who's a funny-looking guy (by Hollywood standards) is an 8. Meanwhile, Krysten Ritter, former model who's a babe and a half, is a 7.

This isn't rocket science. Or Rocket Science. The whole point of the movie is judging people by looks--why would they get this wrong?

PS It was filmed in Pittsburgh, a city I believe New England Guy knows well.

DFW

David Foster Wallace was born on this day in 1962.  A highly respected author, he suffered from depression and committed suicide in 2008.

His best known work is the novel Infinite Jest.  But that's over a thousand pages.  Let's try something shorter to remember him by.

How about this--his commencement speech at Kenyon in 2005, "This Is Water."  I don't know that much about Wallace, but it gives a good idea of how he thought.  It was later stretched out and published as an essay.

AA

Let's celebrate Ansel Adams' birthday. I'd have to call him the most famous black-and-white landscape photographer of the American West because I can't name any others.

They are beautiful photographs, but I'm glad we've got color now.

 

 

Come On People Now

There does seem to be more polarization in American politics than there was a generation ago.  Regardless of why it's happened, a lot of people would like to tamp down on it. Thus we have a new book, Contract With America: Ten Reforms To Reclaim Our Republic by Neal Simon (yes, Neal Simon).  Here, according to an article by Morton Kondracke (yes, Morton Kondracke), are those reforms.

1)  Open Primaries
2)  A nonpartisan Federal Debate Commission
3)  A constitutional amendment limiting Senators to two terms and Representatives to three terms
4)  Disclosures of political donations over $100
5)  The article does not list a #5
6)  Ballot access to any candidate with more than 5000 signatures
7)  Independent, non-political commissions to redraw district boundaries
8)  Ranked-choice voting
9)  New House and Senate rules to encourage cooperation
10) A culture of unity where Repubs and Dems treat each other as adversaries, not enemies

Let's not go into how difficult it might be to get legislation passed for most of these items, and just ask would these ideas help.

My guess is probably not.  A few of them might be vaguely useful (and some harmful), but the problem of polarization seems to be one of substance, not procedure, and these solutions are pretty much all procedural.

Yes, it's true many--probably most--Americans are more in the middle than party politics would indicate.  But the bases of each party are always going to have a lot of power, and as long as the bases are large enough, and as far apart as they are now, the politics of the time is likely to reflect that split.  And note that some politicians will try to appeal to the "middle" while others will try to appeal to the far end of the spectrum.  If the people are annoyed enough at polarization, let them pick the middle people.

There's also the question would a newer, less partisan America be better.  I'd like the rhetoric to be toned down, but if more bipartisanship means both sides get together to pass a bunch of laws, for all we know that'd be a solution worse than the problem.

More Than Peter

Some authors are remembered for their body of work, some for their one masterpiece.  J.M. Barrie is the latter.  While tremendously successful in his day, almost all his work is forgotten, except for the creation known as Peter Pan.  Lisa Chaney's fine biography of Barrie, Hide-and-Seek with Angels, helps restore some of the balance.  Yes, she spends more time on Peter Pan than anything else, but it's only one part of Barrie's life and work.

Barrie's was a rags to riches tale.  Born in 1860 to a poor Scottish family, his hard work and talent led to an improbable rise.  He started in journalism, churning out countless stories and rising through the ranks.  But he had other aspirations, and eventually became a popular novelists and playwright.  He started with tales of old Scotland, but broadened his style and subject matter as he went along.  Yes, he's today remembered as the creator of Peter Pan, but Chaney claims he was the most successful writer of his day.

By the time the play Peter Pan was produced in 1904, he was already widely read through books such as The Little Minister (1891) (later a successful play) and Sentimental Tommy (1896), and had become a top name in British theatre with hits such as Quality Street (1901) and The Admirable Crichton (1902).  But even though he had written about fantasy and childhood before, no one was prepared for the 1904 stage production of Peter Pan.

For one thing, is it play for children or adults?  And what sort of plot it is that features lost boys having exciting adventures?  And it was expensive, with fancy sets and costumes, and state-of-the-art effects (including flying, of course).  But from the start, audiences were enchanted.  Peter Pan hasn't left us since.  Partly because Barrie kept redoing the play, as well as his novel version, throughout the rest of his life.

Barrie always flirted with his leading ladies, and even married one, Mary Ansell, in 1896. But it was a childless and, apparently, sexless marriage.  Barrie did, however, have lengthy sessions of play with the boys of the prominent Davies family who lived nearby.  Barrie, as was his way, burrowed into the family, becoming a sort of uncle to both the pleasure and consternation of the Davies.  And it was out of this playtime that Peter Pan was born.

After Peter Pan, Barrie was far from written out, creating plays such as Dear Brutus (1917) and Mary Rose (1920).  But life was getting harder. Not only was it more difficult to find inspiration, but the two parents of the Davies family died young, leaving Barrie to help support the boys. And then two of the five died, one in WWI, the other of drowning (though it might have been suicide).

In his last years Barrie was rich and honored, but he never fully grew up (he was short, barely 5' 4", by the way), and always longed for the days when imagination could take over.  Not that that was his message--his work is more subtle than that. Peter Pan never grows up, but it's both a blessing and curse.

CC In The Mix

As readers know, I tend to watch TV with the CC on. (Except for live shows, where the CC gets so far behind it's painful.) I was recently watching the undistinguished comedy The Tunnel Of Love (1958), starring Doris Day, Richard Widmark and Gig Young. (The same year Day and Young appeared in a far better comedy, Teacher's Pet.) In it, there was an amusing error.

Widmark needs a thousand dollars from next-door neighbor Young.  Young replies "You couldn't squeeze a thousand buck out of me if you put me in a Waring mixer." Except the CC typist heard this as "You couldn't squeeze a thousands bucks out of me if you put me in a whirring mixer."

It's not an obscure reference.  The Waring blender has been around a long time, and was well-known enough to be cited in Warren Zevon's 1970s song "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me."

She really worked me over good
She was a credit to her gender
She put me through some changes, Lord
Sort of like a Waring blender

(When Linda Ronstadt recorded the song she changed the gender but kept the rhyme.)

I just checked and Waring blenders are still widely available.  So why didn't the CC person know about them?

PS  In another line, Richard Widmark refers to his next-door neighbor "Bill Paxton." Every now and then you hear a famous name in an old movie before the name was famous.  I recently saw another film from the 50s referencing "Chris Farley." And another where a character introduced himself as "Don Adams."

Conventional Thinking

Since the rules were changed in the early 1970s to give the people more say in picking presidential nominees, brokered conventions have been a thing of the past.  But some are starting to think the Dems might just have one this summer.

The primary system, in general, fights against this.  It's a long road and it takes money, so those with little hope tend to drop out early, leaving a few candidates and, generally, one clear leader who ends up with a majority of delegates. (There are a couple billionaires running this time around who have all the money they need, but there's still no evidence anyone can buy enough votes to make a difference.)

But if polling stays steady (which it probably won't), the vote is split enough that we may get that brokered convention.  Sanders has become the clear leader in polls, but it's not yet overwhelming--he's not above 30% nationally.  Meanwhile, there are four other candidates in double figures--Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Warren.  And there are a couple others--Klobuchar and Steyer--who could possibly cause trouble.

The key, I think, is to have enough states won by someone not named Sanders.  Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa and New Hampshire, but over the next two and a half weeks, we've got Nevada, South Carolina and then Super Tuesday.  If Biden (or any other candidate, though right now Biden does best in the polls) can win a handful of states, and Sanders finishes third or lower a number of times, it may still be a race. (And note the states are not winner-take-all--15% of the vote can get a candidate delegates.)

The key would be at least three (four would be better) serious candidates sticking around so no one can easily get half the delegates.  But then, even a strong plurality would probably end things pretty swiftly at the convention--if Sanders comes in averaging 40% of the vote and has 40% of the delegates, and no one else is close, I can't see the Democratic party easily denying him the nomination (though it might be fun to see them try). It's not just that he'd have the leverage--it's the idea of what would happen if he were denied.  His supporters would probably go nuts, and many might refuse to vote in the general election.

But right now it's still unlikely.  Let's wait and see till after Super Tuesday.  (Would it be fun to start with Super Tuesday?  So much fun that neither party wants to do it.)

Needs More Review

Someone sent me this piece in Narional Review on the effect of American films on the Soviet Union.  It's by Steve Volynets, who grew up there.  Before too long, I noticed a mistake.

Speaking of Beverly Hills Cop, Volynets claims Eddie Murphy was given "free reign." A common enough error, but still, should someone have caught it.

Then, next thing you know, I see a reference to "Carry Grant." For anyone even slightly familiar with Hollywood history, this is unforgiveable.

A little bit later, there's a discussion of "Jet Lee." Wow.  I gave up at that point.

The piece seems to be an extra, part of the magazine's blog, but don't they have minimal editing standards?

Trendmongering

One way or another, you've got to write a lead-in to your article, but it should still make sense.  Here's how Dennis Harvey starts his Variety review of The Ren & Stimpy Story:

For many the 1990s were the Age of Irony, with hipster cultural touchstones like Spy magazine and the TV show "Strangers With Candy" helping make snark the preferred flavor of the day.

Hmm.  First let's take Strangers With Candy.  For one thing, I wouldn't call it a cultural touchstone.  But even if it was, it only ran from 1999 to 2000, with most of its episodes airing in 2000, so it's hot the greatest representative of the 1990s.

Then there's Spy magazine.  Maybe it can be called a cultural touchstone, but it started publishing in 1986, and I'd say its glory years were the early ones.

Furthermore, Spy wasn't particularly ironic.  Satire, yes, but irony? In fact, their March 1989 cover story was "Isn't It Ironic?" and featured Chevy Chase making air quotes.  They were complaining, not celebrating, that the 1980s were an ironic age.  So Harvey is off both substantively and chronologically.

For A Song

I just read Rob Kapilow's Listening For America, a book where he gives an in-depth look at a number of tunes from the Great American Songbook.  In particular he takes two songs each from eight of the greatest songwriters of the twentieth century: Jerome Kern, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Harold Arlen, Richard Rodgers, Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim.

The songs are mostly classics--"Summertime," "All The Things You Are," "Cheek To Cheek," "Over The Rainbow" and so on.  Occasionally, he'll pick a tune that's well known but not the biggest hit--"I Wish I Were In Love Again" and "I Can Cook Too," for example.  He uses these sixteen songs, discussed in chronological order, to tell a larger story of the development of American music over the years.

Kapilow is a composer and musician who hosts NPR's What Makes It Great?, a show that dives into various pieces of music, so Listening For America is, in a way, a continuation of this work.  But it also leads to the biggest problem with the book. (I've got some minor problems but we'll leave them alone.)

Each chapter deals with a different song, and Kapilow prints many measure of music to illustrate his points.  This is already a bit difficult since I don't have a piano on hand to play along with the book.  But worse, to compare to the brilliance of the actual composition, he often creates versions of the songs as if they had been written without imagination.  I can sight read them and get some feeling for what he's getting at, but essentially this is a musical demonstration without sound.  For this alone, it's hard to recommend the book.

Unless it's the book on tape.  Now that would work.

Justice For Jussie

A special prosecutor in Cook County is indicting Jussie Smollett on six charges, including filing false police reports.  We all remember the Smollett story from last year--the claim of a hate crime that soon appeared to be a hoax--and I suppose a lot of people are glad he won't so easily escape justice.

But isn't this a case of double jeopardy?  Last year, all charges were dropped in the Smollett case.  It seemed bizarre, and created some outrage, but no matter how it happened, Smollett got off.  Perhaps he had connections, perhaps the prosecutor had odd motives, but it was an official act.

Now the claim is the procedure was irregular.  Apparently state's attorney Kim Foxx recused herself and handed the case to her second-in-command, Joseph Magats (really, Magats?).  The claim is Foxx didn't have the authority to delegate her duties to someone else.

Okay, let's say that's true.  Then isn't the solution to investigate Foxx, and decide what's to be done with her?  Is it fair to let a defendant off and then a year later say we screwed up, let's try again.

In fact, it seems likely there would have been no further investigation if Smollett hadn't been a national story.  If it were just any other case, no one would have questioned the dismissal, or at least there would have been no special prosecutor appointed.  But what different should the notoriety of a case make?

Let's say it's true--Smollett committed a crime and, through connections, got away with it.  It may not be fair, but that's no reason to create a precedent where Cook County gets two bites at the apple.

Take It For Granite

The primary season has become quite enjoyable.  All the swings--almost daily--and no one has any clue yet how things will turn out.  My main hope, as in 2016, is for a brokered convention, but the system works pretty hard against that.

So tonight's New Hampshire primary should be a lot of fun. You know what they say--Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents.  Not that that means anything, it just sounds good.

I'll enjoy the outcome no matter what, since pretty much anything that happens will be surprising. (Not that I consider it all a comedy. Eventually, one of all these people will get the nomination and have an excellent chance of becoming president.)

What we've got is a battle between "progressives" and "moderates." (The quotes may seem cheap, but I don't see that much difference between them.) In the leftist slot, it's Bernie and Warren.  For the centrist position, it's Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden.

The first battle seems almost over.  Bernie won the Iowa vote and is positioned to win big in New Hampshire, with Warren far behind.  If she fails here, it might be the end.  The question would then become can the Dem establishment take Sanders out.  It may seem simple--if they could just get behind one candidate--but that's what people said about Trump.

The most amazing sight so far this season is the fall of Biden. He'd been ahead from the start, and allegedly represented the establishment. But his disastrous finish in Iowa, not to mention his campaigning since, has him potentially facing fifth place in New Hampshire.  In fact, he's already conceded the state and is hoping that Nevada and especially South Carolina will be his firewall. He's still polling well in those places, but such polls are volatile, and if he loses big twice, will anyone want to stay with him?

It seems after Iowa that Buttigieg became the standard bearer for the center, and he will likely finish a solid second behind Sanders.  But Klobuchar seems to be on her way up in the ever-changing polls.  If she can manage third, will that give her the momentum to eventually take on the other moderates?

Then, of course, there's Bloomberg and his bottomless wallet waiting in the wings.  A lot of people have tried the strategy of sitting out the early races, and it's never worked.  I still don't think it will work for Bloomberg, but it'll be fun to see him give it a shot.

Oscared

Here are my impressions as I watched the Oscars. (Sort of live blogging after the fact.)

We start with a production number.  It's nothing much.  It includes some political comments because, as we all know, the Oscars aren't here to award artistry, but to teach the viewers important lessons.

Steve Martin and Chris Rock (not the hosts--there is no host) come out and do some passable jokes.  This includes some stuff about the politics of the Oscars that are more political than funny.

Brad Pitt wins best supporting actor.  Lock of the night.  Even he has some stupid political comment about the impeachment trial. He gave such a good speech at the Golden Globes.  What happened?  He thought it was time to get "serious"?

Toy Story IV wins best animated feature.  A predictable and unimaginative choice.  Then I get a phone call and miss a bunch of the show, but nothing important, I assume. This is the part where they give out minor awards (often with big political speeches) and sing some of those awful nominated songs.

Okay, I'm back. Time for best original screenplay.  Some good choices here.  Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won win for Parasite.  Sort of what I expected.  They bring up a translator for their speeches.  Does this win mean the film will take best picture?  Hollywood thinks it has a better script than its main competitors, 1917 and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.

Now, best adapted screenplay.  A very competitive category, which makes it more interesting than most awards this night.  Taika Waititi wins it for Jojo Rabbit.  As I predicted.  (Tonight only foreigners win for their screenplays.  Has that ever happened before?)

Live action short film.  I saw them all in one show.  None were great, but I'm rooting for The Neightbors' Window.  And it wins!  Did Shia LeBeouf pronounce it "The Neighbors' Widow"? LeBeouf presented the award with his costar in The Peanut Butter Falcon, who has Down syndrome, and I think he got it right.

There's some stuff with the cast of The Conners commenting live on the Oscars.  I don't watch the show and this little bit (promising they'll be live on primary Tuesday) didn't make me want to watch.

Now the award for production design.  Hollywood is good at this, and the nominees are well chosen. The winner is Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  The right choice, though I don't think it means anything regarding the big awards.

Now costume design, another category with fine nominees. It's worth noting they're all period pieces--you want to get nominated, make clothes from another era. I suppose the most likely winner is Little Women, since it's the oldest period piece with the most noticeable costumes.  And Little Women wins.

The first hour is over, and to be honest, it didn't feel like an hour. Maybe it was the phone call.

Another musical number.  I think all the musical numbers should be done in a one-minute medley (preferably during a commercial).

Best documentary. If American Factory (produced by the Obama's) wins, which is likely, we can expect a huge political speech (as opposed to an average one from most of the others). Mark Ruffalo comes out, one of Hollywood's most politically committed stars. Fitting.  I'd like to see Honeyland win since it was something different (even if it didn't always feel like a doc) but, predictably, American Factory wins.  Here we go.  Hey, the winner shouts out for Buckeyes.  Okay, now I'm mad.  The speech goes on about how working people have it harder and harder.  Really?  She wants the workers of the world to unite.  Where have I heard that before?

Now best short doc.  Why does this come second?  The winner is Learning To Skateboard In A War Zone (If You're A Girl).  I didn't see these docs, so I have no opinion.  A decent (political, of course) speech that includes a mention of Frank Capra.

Best supporting actress.  Some interesting choices, though everyone knows Laura Dern will win.  And she does.  She thanks her parents, which is nice, since between her and them, they had a bunch of Oscar nominations and this is the first win. (Tomorrow is her birthday.) This will likely be the only win for the much-nominated Marriage Story.

Lin-Manuel Miranda comes out to introduce a montage about music in movies.  I agree, it's very important. So what?  Then out comes Eminem to perform "Lose Yourself" from 8 Mile.  What is this, the Grammys?  The sound goes off for portions of his number, since apparently we can't handle Eminem swearing.  I got a better idea--cut this whole sequence from the show and save the audience ten minutes.

Now sound editing.  The winner is Ford v Ferrari.  Lotsa engine sounds in that. (By the way, it's fun to go to Wikipedia to see how quickly they update their Oscar page after the winner's announced.) Now sound mixing.  What's the difference between this and sound editing?  No one knows.  I'd expect 1917 to win, since it's got splosions.  And sure enough, it does win.  The Academy is sharing the wealth.  So far, seven of the nine nominees for best picture have won an Oscar.  And Joker will almost certainly take one.  The only one to miss out will be The Irishman (which months ago may have been the favorite for best picture).

Randy Newman performs a musical number.  This is not a bonus to me. Newman!

Now we get a rapped recap of the show so far.  Bring back Randy Newman.

Time for best cinematography.  One of the biggest below-the-line awards.  Some major nominees, no obvious winner, though I would guess 1917.  And sure enough, it's Roger Deakins (who's been nominated 15 times in the past 25 years) for 1917.  Is this going to be 1917's night?

And now editing--as important as cinematography.  1917 is not nominated--maybe because there was no editing.  Have no idea who'll win.  It's Ford v Ferrari (with two editors).  Fair enough.  (I guess racing pictures have memorable editing.)

Tom Hanks comes out to discuss the new AMPAS building and we hit the two-hour mark.

There's an ad for The New York Times promoting a false view of history.

Cynthia Erivo performs the song from her film Harriet.  I take a bathroom break.

Rebel Wilson and James Corden come out dressed in their Cats costumes.  Nice touch.  The award is for visual effects.  It goes to 1917, which is winning a bunch of technical awards.

Now makeup and hair.  Ray Romano makes a joke about Joe Pesci that's bleeped. Some interesting choices here, though I don't think 1917 should get this one.  Seems more like a chance for something like Bombshell, and sure enough, that's what wins.

Except for some music awards, the rest of the night are big ones.  The next award is best international feature film. (Honeyland is nominated again, though it won't win.) To no one's surprise, Parasite takes it.  How could it not, as it's the only nominee here also to be nominated for best picture.

Elton John comes out and sings the terrible new song he wrote for Rocketman.  I suppose it's the favorite to win the Oscar.

Now we talk a bit about some honorary awards.  Who cares?  Next, Brie Larson, Sigourney Weaver and Gal Gadot come out and talk about women in Hollywood.  We finally get to the award for best score. Some big names here, including John Williams, Alexandre Desplat and two Newmans, Randy and Thomas.  But the (undeserving) winner is first-timer Hildur Guonadottir for Joker.  Note this means every best picture nominee except The Irishman has won an Oscar.

Best song.  Wouldn't it be great if they could all lose?  The absolutely predictable winner is Elton John and Bernie Taupin's "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again." The venerable songwriting team actually give nice speeches.

Ten minutes from now we'll pass the three hour mark.  The show is only scheduled for three hours, but no one in their right mind thinks they won't run over. Besides, if they just wanted an entertaining show, they could cut it down to two hours.  Maybe ninety minutes.

Spike Lee comes gives out the director's award.  There's no clear favorite, and Bong Joon-ho takes it.  Maybe a slight surprise over Sam Mendes. (And a third chance for his translator to get the spotlight.) Does this mean his film will take best picture--that would be his fourth Oscar in one night.  The only person who's done that is Walt Disney. Bong thanks the others nominees, especially Martin Scorsese (who can use some help tonight, since his film is being skunked).

Steven Spielberg comes out to introduce the In Memoriam segment. I would get rid of a lot of stuff, but I suppose this part is worth keeping.  Billie Eilish sings "Yesterday."  It starts with Kobe Bryant. Okay.

We've hit the three-hour mark. What's left?  Best actor, actress and picture.

Time for best actor.  Some good nominees, but I think everyone knows Joaquin Phoenix will win.  The only question is how bizarre/political his acceptance speech will be.  JP wins.  He says he wants to use his voice for the voiceless. Uh oh.  He gives a speech about human rights, and speaking out for equality.  Didn't he just win an award for starring in a movie?  Now he's saying we're plundering the natural world, including inseminating cows.  And taking their milk.  He wants love and redemption (hard to argue with that).  He's starting to break down.  I could comment more but let's just leave him alone.

Okay, best actress.  Renee Zellweger is the strong favorite. (Which means Scarlett Johansson will be that rare thing among actors--a two-time loser on Oscar night.) The winner is...Renee Zellweger.  She gives a more conventional speech than Joaquin Phoenix, but that was inevitable.  She talks about how heroes inspire us, and lists a fair number of them.  I guess Judy Garland was sort of a hero, though I would hope people don't follow her example too closely.

Finally, best picture. Parasite and 1917 seem to be the favorites, but who knows how the votes will split?  It truly is an open race.  And the winner is Parasite.  I suppose the earlier awards hinted at that.  Bong Joon-ho wins his fourth Oscar.  This is the first foreign language film to take best picture.  They turn the lights off too early but then turn them back on when the audience objects.

And that's the night.  Only 35 minutes over. It was a so-so year for movies, but the choices made weren't awful.

Oscar Oscar Oscar

Been a busy week, hasn't it.  And now it's time for the Hollywood ceremony that's been making traffic miserable out here for the past week, the Oscars. Figured I might as well give you my picks and guesses.

Best Picture

When there are nine choices, votes can split in interesting ways.  The Irishman seems to have lost its luster,  Joker will get its reward elsewhere.  Jojo Rabbit and Ford v Ferrari don't quite have the heft.  I'm not sure if Little Women or Marriage Story have enough backing.  So it's probably between 1917 and Parasite, with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood perhaps peeking through.

I'd guess it'll be 1917.  It seems to have the momentum.  Personally, none of them stands so high above the others, but I guess I'd pick Once Upon A Time, for all its imperfections.

Best Director

As in Best Picture, I think the battle is between Sam Mendes and Bong Joon-ho.  I'm going to flip a coin now...congratulations, Bong Joon-ho, it was tails, you win. (1917 is all technical anyway.)

If I were voting, it'd be between Todd Phillips, who made something special of Joker, and Quentin Tarantino.  I think I'd lean toward Phillips.

Best Actor

Some fine performances here, but I think it's clear the Joaquin Phoenix will take it. And I'd vote for him.

Best Actress

It looks like Renee Zellweger will take it for her portrayal of Judy Garland.  I suppose that's okay, though I might lean toward an actress who played another real person, Charlize Theron.

Best Supporting Actor

Some good work here, not to mention all illustrious names.  But the easy winner--for the Academy and for me--is Brad Pitt.

Best Supporting Actress

An interesting mix.  It looks like Hollywood will give it to Laura Dern.  My choice would be Kathy Bates.

Best Original Screenplay

Once again, you've got the three top films for Best Picture, and it could be any one of them, but I'm guessing Hollywood will figure this is the place to give Quentin Tarantino his Oscar for Once Upon A Time. Why not?--he's won two writing Oscars before (and none for direction).  Though Parasite has almost an equal chance.  I'd vote for Quentin.

Best Adapted Screenplay

A less impressive category than Original Screenplay, and also the toughest to call.  It's a chance to give Greta Gerwig or Taiki Waititi an Oscar, since neither got a director's nod.  I'm guessing one of them will win--let's go with the latter.  The Two Popes is certainly a writer's script, but I don't think enough people are excited.  And The Irishman seems to be fading.  You can't rule out Joker, and I think that's the one I'd vote for.

OBit

This is weird.  Orson Bean has died.  But not of natural causes.  The 91-year-old comedian was hit by a car in Los Angeles

I've always been a fan of Orson Bean.  I first knew him as a character who showed up on a lot of game shows.  To Tell The Truth, Match Game, Password, The $10,000 Pyramid, you name it, he did it.  He also appeared on a lot of talk shows, and came across as a fairly witty guy.  Eventually, I discovered some of the work that made him a celebrity in the first place.

He started out in stand-up comedy in the 1950s.  I remember a story (I think he told Johnny Carson) about how he became popular doing Victor Borge material.  He left town for a week and when he got back a friend greeted him at the train saying "some new guy stole your Victor Borge routine!"

If you want to hear the sort of (original) stuff he did as a successful comedian, check out (if it's available) his excellent comedy album I Ate The Baloney. Released in the late 60s, it includes stories and songs.

He got attention as an actor for appearing in the Broadway revue John Murray Anderson's Almanac (1953), receiving a Theatre World Award.   He went on to star in Broadway shows such as Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?* (1955) and the musical Subways Are For Sleeping** (1961), for which he got a Tony nomination.

Bean also appeared in many TV shows starting in the 50s (when so much TV was done in New York).  I suppose his best-known appearance in his early years was his work in the title role of the Twilight Zone episode "Mr. Bevis."  Around the same time, he made a notable appearance as an expert witness in the highly-regarded movie Anatomy Of A Murder (1959).

He went on to do numerous guests shots in TV shows and supporting work in movies, along with all his game show and talk show appearances.  It wasn't until the 1990s that he became a regular on a TV series, playing Loren Bray in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

You never knew where he'd show up. In the last 20 years, when he was in his 70s and 80s, he kept at it, doing guest appearances on shows such as Two And A Half Men, How I Met Your Mother, Modern Family and Superstore, not to mention 23 episodes of Desperate Housewives.

Probably his greatest late-career performance was in Being John Malkovich (1999).  He plays Dr. Lester, who hires John Cusack to do filing for his business.  We eventually discover Lester has a lot more on his mind.  Bean takes the quirky dialogue of writer Charlie Kaufman and knocks it out of the park.

Orson Bean was never a big star, like the recently deceased Kirk Douglas. But he made his mark.  He was a unique personality, and I don't remember any appearance of his I didn't enjoy.

*The play has little to do with the movie version adapted by Frank Tashlin and starring Tony Randall (though both feature Jayne Mansfield). The original was written and directed by George Axelrod, and is a satire of show biz where the hero sells his soul to the devil who acts like an agent, only taking 10% at a time.

**While there was a lot of talent behind Subways, it got mediocre reviews. But it was the recipient of one of the most famous publicity stunts ever.  Producer David Merrick found seven people who shared the names of the top New York theatre critics. He invited them to see the show then took out an ad with their raves.  No one was fooled for long (if at all) but it was the talk of the town for months.  The show still lost money.

They Know It's The End Of The World

I just watched Good Omens, a six-episode Amazon and BBC miniseries.  It's based on a novel by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (which I haven't read) and was written by Gaiman.

The story is about Aziraphale, an angel (Michael Sheen) and Crowley, a demon (David Tennant), who have been on Earth since the Garden of Eden.  They've become friends over the years, though they're not supposed to.  But since most angels are in Heaven and most demons are in Hell, no one keeps too close a tab on them.

But now the Son of Satan--the Antichrist--has been loosed on the world and, with the help of the Hell Hound and the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, is supposed to bring about the end of the world.  Both Heaven and Hell have been looking forward for 6000 years to the war that will follow, but Aziraphale and Crowley have come to enjoy Earth and would rather it didn't happen.

On top of which, Crowley screwed up the handoff of the baby Antichrist.  He was supposed to be given to the wife of the American Ambassador, but instead ended up with an average family living in the British countryside.  So the kid grew up not knowing who he is, and now that he's coming into his power it's unclear how he'll react.  Also in the mix are the accurate predictions of a witch from a few centuries back which have been guiding her descendants, and a witch hunter who isn't quite sure what he's doing.

The show is quite enjoyable, though sometimes a bit heavy on the whimsical humor.  And you're really not sure how things will end up (though you suspect they'll work out for the best). Sheen and Tennant are fine, and the supporting cast--including Jon Hamm, Miranda Richardson, Michael McKean and Bill Paterson (not to mention the voices of Frances McDormand, Brian Cox and Benedict Cumberbatch)--is solid.

I wouldn't call it a classic, but it's a fun show, well worth looking into.

KD

Kirk Douglas has just died, one of the people who helped define what it meant to be a movie star.

Born Issur Danielovitch, he grew up in New York, the child of poor Jewish immigrants from Russia.  Handsome and with tremendous drive, he decided to be an actor. Even before doing his stint in WWII, he was appearing on Broadway.

After the war, he was just the type Hollywood was looking for, and before he was 30, had a leading role in The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers (1946).  He continued to do notable supporting work in Out Of The Past (1947) and A Letter To Three Wives (1949).  He was ready for stardom.

That came with Champion (1949), where he played a boxer, but not just any boxer--this one was a heel.  That was Douglas's specialty.  Not necessarily bad guys, but protagonists who had an intensity that often edged over into questionable moral character.  Champion got him his first Oscar nomination.

From 1950 on he was a major player and gave a fair number of major performances. In the 50s alone that includes Young Man With A Horn, Ace In The Hole (one of my favorite Billy Wilder films), Detective Story (working with Wyler), The Big Sky (from Howard Hawks), The Bad And The Beautiful (another Oscar nomination), 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Lust For Life (another Oscar nomination), Gunfight At O.K. Corral, Paths Of Glory (one of Kubrick's best) and The Devil's Disciple (Kirk takes a shot at Shaw).

During this time, he became friends with Burt Lancaster, and they made a number of films together, including, of the above, Gunfight and Disciple.  Also, he started Bryna Productions (named after his mother) so he could develop his own projects.

In the 1960s, though still a big star, he was starting to settle into older, less physical roles (though I wouldn't have told him that).  He also went back to Broadway to take the lead in a production of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. (Later, his son would own the rights and make an Oscar-winning movie--but not let his father, a bit too old, star in it.)

Anyway, 1960 started with bang with the epic Spartacus.  Behind the scenes, he removed director Anthony Mann and brought in Stanley Kubrick.  More significantly, he hired screenwriter Dalton Trumbo and gave him credit, helping to end the blacklist.

Other 1960s movies: Lonely Are The Brave (which he sometimes called his personal favorite), Two Weeks In Another Town (sort of a sequel to The Bad And The Beautiful), The List Of Adrian Messenger (working with John Huston), Seven Days In May, In Harm's Way and Cast A Giant Shadow. (He also made The Brotherhood (1968), a flop that made Hollywood wonder if films about the mafia could do well.)

By the 1970s, he was in his 50s, and not the action star he'd been. Also, a new Hollywood was making a different style of film and featured a different style of acting.  Douglas was still a name, but the old days of the studio era were long gone.

His films from this point on tend to be less notable (The Villain, Saturn 3), but he still did some interesting work. In particular I'm a fan of The Fury, a wild Brian De Palma action/horror film.  Some thought Douglas was getting a bit long in the tooth for this sort of role, but I think he's great.

In his later years, he made less appearances and generally did character roles.  Though who can forget his Chester J. Lampwick, the true creator of Itchy and Scratchy, in The Simpson's episode "The Day The Violence Died"?

In these years he also had a bit of a literary career.  He published an excellent autobiography, The Ragman's Son, in 1988.  It sold well, and he ended up writing ten other books, both fiction and non-fiction.  My favorite is I Am Spartacus!, the story of the many problems in the making of the film.

And finally, in 1996, Hollywood righted a wrong, presenting Douglas with an honorary Oscar.

He also had some tough times.  In 1991, he was seriously injured in a helicopter crash.  Apparently the event made him more spiritual. Worse, in 1996, he had a stroke.  But that didn't stop him from appearing at the Oscars in 2011 and the Golden Globes in 2018.

Kirk Douglas lived a long life.  And no doubt his films will live on even longer.

By The Numbers

As I write this, the numbers from Iowa are still incomplete.  Nevertheless, the overall results are becoming clear.  Of course, we've got the ridiculous Iowa system which gives us four numbers--the first round, the second round, the state delegates and, finally, the delegates who'll attend the national convention.

One thing is clear--the top three in Iowa were Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren.  It would seem the biggest vote-getter is Sanders, while Buttigieg may have the most state delegates.  Meanwhile, Biden, who was the frontrunner in polls for a long time, just didn't impress.  He barely finished ahead of Klobuchar.

Yet, it's worth noting these are the five who can move forward, at least for now, from the Iowa fiasco.  I don't see how Yang or anyone below him can last much longer.  Okay, there are the rich guys trying to buy their way in--Steyer and Bloomberg.  They're not the first to try this strategy, but it hasn't worked yet.

The main question, seems to me, is where will the voters go when some of the Big Five start dropping out.  After New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina, if you're getting single digits in votes and the money is drying up, even if you don't quit the voters will quit you.

Which is why the second round of Iowa is fascinating.  Without a big enough percentage in the first round, your voters have to go to a candidate who is still viable.  This is how Buttigieg was able to get more delegates than Sanders.

So perhaps the way to look at it now is will the Dems go "moderate" or "far left."  Sanders and Warren are seen as on the left, while Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar (and Yang) are seen as, comparatively, moderate.  When (and if) enough people drop out, will the voters stay in these areas, or will they cross?

This is a tricky analysis.  Four years ago many thought Trump would lose, despite early wins, since he wasn't getting majorities.  If all the other voters were against him, they might move to a single anti-Trump candidate, but it sure didn't work out that way.

But if it's simply do the Dems want a Sanders type or a moderate, right now the numbers are close, but would seem to indicate a moderate can take it.  But maybe it'll matter who drops out and when.  If Warren drops out early, realizing it isn't her year, will that help Sanders, or are her voters too angry to do that?  And what if Biden gets enough encouragement in the next few primaries to keep going, while Buttigieg won't drop out either.  (And let's not forget that Buttigieg allegedly has trouble with the African-American vote, which may cause him big trouble before too soon.) And when Klobuchar drops out, who does that help?  Questions for another day...and that day comes in less than a week.

First Chance

As I write this it's past 3 am in Iowa and everyone is still waiting for the results.  The app needs to be checked, making this the worst launch since Obamacare.

Rumor has it that Sanders won, and Warren and Buttigieg are also in the top three.  If true it's not surprising that Sanders is on top, since he was big four years ago and you don't need a majority with so many viable candidates running. (You've also got the odd caucus system--isn't it time to get rid of it?)  Also, his message resonates with young voters, who tend to not have lot of money.

In any case, many are saying if longtime frontrunner (which means nothing until the voting starts) Biden finishes poorly, he's toast. But is that true?  First, of course, no matter how things turn out in Iowa, will the massive screw-up mute the effect? More important, is Iowa that a big a deal?  Sure, it's better to win Iowa than not, just like it's better to score the first touchdown in the Super Bowl.  But it's not decisive.

In fact, if I were living in New Hampshire, I might like to send Bernie a message. Though Sanders is from Vermont, so he may be a favorite son.  Okay, then, how about Nevada and South Carolina?  Maybe that's where the anti-Bernie voters will take a stand.  The trouble is will Sanders is guaranteed to get a decent chunk of the voters, so will the others find a candidate to coalesce behind?

Anyway, it's a fun start.  Let's hope the race continues to be so entertaining.

Good Bye

So The Good Place has ended.  Softly.  The final episode was sentimental and, truth be told, not especially funny.  But it was fitting.  Spoilers ahead.

Years ago, when I heard about the premise--the adventures of a woman who goes to heaven--I didn't see how it could work.  Heaven is a place where everything is okay.  Where's the tension?

But the creator of the show, Michael Schur, had a plan.  The woman, Eleanor (Kristen Bell), was sent to heaven by mistake, so she has to fight to keep it a secret.  Each week the plot would thicken as she did more and more to keep up the charade.  And then, in the first-season finale, the ultimate twist--she's not in the good place, and all that she's been going through is actually her punishment.

The show could have ended there (and since The Good Place never had good ratings, it might have).  Instead, the plot kept twisting and turning, with Eleanor and her Good Place friends going through many iterations of their torture, then breaking into the bad place, then being sent back to Earth, then going back to the afterworld where they try to get the rules changed and argue the case for humanity.

In the penultimate episode, the four (along with former demon Michael (Ted Danson) and not-a-girl, not-a-robot Janet (D'Arcy Carden)) are sent to the actual good place.  And they have to fix that as well.

So the final episode was all about how they finally decide, after a long stay, to leave everything behind.  It makes sense, and certainly gives a feeling of closure.  But it does go back to the original problem I had--where's the tension in the good place?  In addition, the show had spent so much time dealing with moral problems that they had to deal with these ultimate questions.  There were still gags, to be sure, but they took a backseat.

It was a bittersweet ending, and we did feel, along with the characters, that we'd taken quite a journey.  But it's good it's over.  There really wasn't anywhere left to go, both plot- and comedy-wise.  So let's say goodbye to The Good Place.  52 episodes that are unlike any other show ever on TV.  With the commercials removed, that's around 20 hours.  Those who wish to binge can catch up in a one-day marathon.

AG

Let's say goodbye to Andy Gill, guitarist for and co-founder of Gang Of Four.  He was also a pretty good producer.

He's Rick James

If Rick James were alive, he'd have turned 72 today.  I guess that's a good enough reason to listen to "Super Freak" one more time.