I stumbled on documentaries about the lives of each of these icons last night, and was overwhelmed with admiration for them, even more than I’d had for them years ago when they were more present in my consciousness.
When I was a kid, Joe Louis was still “the Brown Bomber,” the hero of our nation who had defeated the supposed great specimen of Aryan superiority, Max Schmelling, and saved our nation’s honor.
As I grew older, I knew of his tax troubles and his reputation for having supposedly squandered his wealth. And in the “revolutionary” 1960s, I was more than aware of his being viewed as an “Uncle Tom” (called that by Cassius Clay even before he became Ali, if I remember correctly).
But I always admired the guy, because as a kid he was celebrated in song and newsreels and magazines in a way that made him seem like a pretty humble and decent champion of all the people.
The documentary on his life that I stumbled on (I think it was on HBO) made the point that long before Jackie Robinson “broke the color barrier” in sports, Joe Louis did. (Of course Jack Johnson did too, even earlier, but not in the same groundbreaking ultimately unifying way that Louis and Robinson did).
What the film showed was how badly our country treated Louis, who not only became a symbol of African-American hope and pride, but also of our entire nation’s stand against Hitler and the Nazis and all they stood for.
He was “America’s champion”—for most whites just as much as he was the champion of black Americans. And when WWII broke out, at the height of his fame and money-earning power, he voluntarily joined the service and donated his time and money to defeating our enemies (already having begun donating all the proceeds of his fights to the fight against fascism, and then paying out of his own pocket for various entertainments and services for fellow enlisted men and draftees, etc. etc.)
Despite the fact that the armed services were still segregated, and he was treated like a second-class citizen, and that when the war was over and he returned to civilian life, the I.R.S. hounded him and compounded the interest on overdue taxes until the amount became insurmountable.
He withstood the humiliation of fighting long past his prime, just so the I.R.S. could come and confiscate the gate to pay part of the interest on his overdue taxes. He endured ridicule for his stint in “professional wrestling” and for various appearances and endorsements and uncomfortable attempts at an extremely self-conscious singing and dancing routine, but nonetheless gave it his best shot—all to pay the bills and the I.R.S.
But he also continued to stand up for his race. I had no idea, but learned from this documentary, that he was the first African-American to play in a PGA tournament. He fought the PGA leadership at the time—which had a prohibition on non-whites playing in any of their golf competitions—and got them to change their policy, opening up professional golf to black Americans.
I was also touched by the loyalty of his friends, including Frank Sinatra, who never forgot that when Louis was on top, still an icon, Sinatra asked him to join him in a show and offered ten thousand for Louis’s appearance, but because they were friends, Louis refused the money and did the gig for free.
Sinatra never forgot and made sure Louis never went hungry or homeless or without.
I don’t know, maybe it’s my age or my being a sentimental Irishman, but this film moved me deeply, and made me reassess my image of Louis and his importance in our history, not our sports history, but our cultural and political and social history. He was much more of a major figure in 20th Century “America” than I realized, and his story should be more widely known.
As should Pete Seeger’s. I thought I knew his story too, but the documentary on his life I caught on the local PBS station made me not only remember what I loved about the guy back in the day, but why he is such a giant figure in our history as well.
He almost single-handedly made music a major part of our political history and made folk music a popular movement and a common ingredient in all kinds of political and social and commemorative gatherings.
And, like Louis, he’s a decent, humble, principled guy, who too was hounded by our government only to be exonerated seventeen years after being banned from TV and radio. He never changed his position toward the government’s inquiries into his political beliefs and activities, standing on the principle that his vote and his beliefs were his personal business, not the government’s.
He too volunteered for service in WWII, but unlike Louis, Seeger never enjoyed or needed “the good life” that money and fame can bring. He built his home in the countryside of upstate New York, a cabin in the wilderness, where he and his wife raised their family (he now performs with one of his grandchildren) and well into his eighties is still spry and in good voice.
At the height of his fame and success, as a member of The Weavers, who had the giant hit of my boyhood “Goodnight Irene” (my mother’s and one of my sister’s names, so very popular in our house), he walked away from a weekly television show because he didn’t want to be indebted or controlled by the sponsor of the show (in those days most shows had one sponsor who made sure the product was pitched and censored anything that might offend consumers of that product, etc.).
At a time of life when most people have either settled into routine, or are going through some kind of midlife crisis, Seeger made a promise to his kids that by the time they were grown the Hudson River that they grew up by, would be clean enough to swim in.
He made that promise when the river was a toxic sewer. Everyone he talked to about cleaning it up said it was impossible, that the corporations that lined its banks and were the main source of the pollution would never change their ways and that the government would never make them.
But he built a beautiful sloop to cruise the river in. He figured it would attract people who’d want to get a closer look at the boat, and when they did, he’d start singing and get them singing (the thing he is best at and displays his humility most, that he cannot give a concert, whether to two people or two hundred thousand, without getting them to sing along with him) and slip in some lyrics about cleaning up the river.
And sure enough, he proved the naysayers wrong. Not by force, not through connections, not by the use of any political or financial power, just through the music and his personal example.
Kind of reminds me a bit of Obama’s power to move an audience and set an example, not perfectly and not through music, but through the power of belief, that an overwhelming, seemingly impossible change can occur, if you get people to believe in it and take action on it and persuade others to do the same.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
THE OLD DOUBLE STANDARD
Or triple or more—
—in the debate last night between Hilary and Barak, a debate which proved them both smart and not that far apart on the major issues, but for my taste proved him the more capable of actually achieving their shared goals, as well as the ones he disagrees with her on.
He’s already proven with his organizational efforts on the ground that he’s a capable and experienced leader, since his campaign should have been knocked out of the box right from the start by the supposedly far superior and obviously more experienced campaign organization of the Clintons.
But he’s also gotten better at articulating what makes him more capable of fulfilling his goals than she is of fulfilling hers, his capacity for unifying disparate factions and his ability to transcend the usual political partisan pettiness in order to create a more inspiring vision for getting things done.
As the beneficiary of the research of others, it has also become clear to me that the Senate records of Clinton and Obama clearly display their different approaches and which one is more effective.
Obama has co-sponsored many bills, some even with Clinton, in many areas of concern to me and I assume a lot of you—from keeping the administration from using the authorization to fight Iraq as an umbrella to attack Iran, to requirements for better fuel efficiency and other energy concerns, to addressing the mortgage crisis.
As one researcher pointed out in an article reprinted on E. Ethelbert Miller’s blog recently, for whatever reason, several of Hilary’s major proposed bills are sponsored only by her, whereas all of Obama’s are co-sponsored by a wide range of other Senators, including sometimes Hilary, and he has been more successful getting some of them passed than she has.
So I am convinced he will make the better president, accomplish more and do it more graciously, and truly be the unifier Bush Junior said he’d be and then turned out the opposite, and Hilary and McCain are obviously having a difficult time being.
But what my title for this post is about is something else that came up in the debate, the idea that Barak gets some kind of free ride in the media (if so, where are the articles touting his many accomplishments and his more than twenty years of public service and sacrifice to help others, etc.) and then he’s the one who gets confronted with the support of Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Black Muslims and a man who has in the past made a handful of comments that are anti-Jewish.
After the horrors of WWII, when it is estimated over six million European Jews were deliberately murdered, any form of anti-Jewish sentiment should be condemned and guarded against, lest it lead to anything remotely resembling that monstrous injustice.
But—so should other kinds of commentary and actions that support and/or encourage hatred and even violence against any group.
Because, as us history buffs know, there were six million other kinds of people who were also killed by the Nazis, one group of which—“Gypsies” or Romany people—were almost entirely eliminated throughout a huge swath of Europe, but have had no memorials built to their memory, or movies made about their plight, etc. etc. (nor much done about their continued oppression in some Eastern European countries where they remain second-class citizens etc.)
I am not denigrating nor minimizing the damage and destruction done to Jews by the Nazis, and by other anti-Jewish progroms, such as were carried out in Russia and other places.
But if Obama has to “reject” the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan because he has made anti-Jewish statements, actually anti-the-Jewish-religion statements, what of the basic tenets of the Black Muslim faith as it was preached when I was a young man, in which all “whites” were seen as less than human “devils” and the descendants of dogs, etc.
And what about the support of Mitt Romney from his fellow Mormons who up until 1978 believed that “blacks” were less than human and not able to ascend to their version of heaven, and who even now gather birth and death data on all of our ancestors in order to re-baptize (actually their ritual isn’t exactly “baptism”) their departed souls into the Mormon faith. I find that particularly offensive, the arrogance of it and the sneakiness of it. But I didn’t hear any questions to Romney about that, let alone other tenets of his faith that I find offensive.
And what about Bush Junior’s and other Republicans endorsements by religious fundamentalists who have said much harsher things about “gays and lesbians” or about Catholics (remember when Junior spoke at Bob Jones University while the school’s website and founder still referred to the Pope as “the anti-Christ” and “Satan”?).
Bill Clinton was the first president to not side with the Brits against the Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland in their struggle for equal rights, so why wasn’t every other presidential candidate before and since Bill Clinton questioned about their support of policies that oppressed and even murdered “my people?”
And what about all the anti-male remarks from many prominent women who support Hilary? She should have to reject them. Etc. etc.
Okay, okay, you say, that’s still not as bad as what happened to the Jewish Europeans in WWII. True. Little besides the way the Nazis also went after Gypsies and “gays” and “Communists” can compare with what happened to European Jews then.
But that doesn’t excuse what happened to Palestinians who weren’t Jewish, after the creation of Israel, and during it, and since. Yes, I condemn Hamas and their supporters lobbing bombs into Israel, and suicide bombers that blow up innocent civilians in Israel, children and old folks and anyone for that matter. I condemn any violence, other than in self-defense, but even that becomes questionable as an excuse for it.
Obviously Hamas and its supporters claim self-defense, because Israel, on our dime, is able to overwhelm the Palestinians with military might, which has meant keeping Palestinians from returning to or reclaiming land taken from them by Israel, being subjected to the time consuming humiliation of passing through checkpoints to get from their homes to their fields or to their relatives or to the doctor or wherever, while Israeli settlers are escorted and protected as they drive down newly built roads with no hindrances to and from settlements on land taken from Palestinians, etc.
And it’s true the Israeli military often targets (also in what it considers “self-defense”) precisely just those militants who take part in attacks on Israel, but they sometimes miss and kill scores of innocent civilians, children and babies and pregnant young mothers and old ladies and men, etc. So why shouldn’t the support of those in the American Jewish community that support Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and others, also be questioned in these debates?
We all know the answer to that. There are not a lot of Palestinian-American organizations making major contributions to political parties and campaigns, or coordinating policy agreements and military and monetary support etc. for their cause.
I don’t begrudge the so-called “Israel lobby” in this country, or its success. We Irish-Americans mostly ignored the troubles in Northern Ireland or if we followed them and were concerned, either didn’t know what to do about it or contributed to organizations that often ended up financing IRA violence (claimed to be “self-defense” as well).
But I do begrudge the double and multiple standards shown by the media, in the debates and out of them, that decries the support of anyone who has badmouthed the Jewish faith or community but ignores the support of those who have badmouthed other communities just as sensitive if not as well organized.
And by the way, the big fear in Israel is that Arabs will at some point outnumber Jews even there (as they are a much faster growing population, which is true everywhere, not just in Israel). But because of the Nazi atrocities, Israel has many defenders around the world, and particularly among U. S. politicians, who support a government that does all it can to preserve the dominance of the Jewish faith and of those who identify as Jews in a part of the world where that becomes more and more problematic.
But this is true around the world. Ireland, because of the economic boom that’s been going on there since the 1980s, is having its own debate about the nature of Irish citizenship, since the country has been overwhelmed with immigrants from Eastern Europe (from what I hear most churches in Ireland now have Masses in Polish and all church literature printed in Ireland now is published in both English and Polish) and from elsewhere (as Irish friends and relatives point out, there are many “people of color” in the small towns of the West of Ireland where before there were none, a development I find positive, but not everyone there does, not because of “racism,” which may be some people’s motivation, but mostly because of the fear that Ireland is losing it’s particular character and unique culture to some globalized hybrid, etc.).
And similar situations, as we know, are occurring and increasing in England, Italy, Japan, and many other countries whose “native” populations are diminishing while that of immigrants is growing. It’s what the Serbs are raging about in our recognition of Kosovo, an area that the Serbs once thought of as their ancestral homeland but are now a minority in, as the mostly Islamic Albanian population has outgrown them, etc.
There are well-intentioned people on all sides of these issues, as there are ill-intentioned ones. We need someone with the calm assurance Obama has developed to take the lead in addressing these and other 21st century issues, and with his experience as someone who is a product of these developments. I must admit, I have some hope it can be done, or at least begun, with him in the oval office.
—in the debate last night between Hilary and Barak, a debate which proved them both smart and not that far apart on the major issues, but for my taste proved him the more capable of actually achieving their shared goals, as well as the ones he disagrees with her on.
He’s already proven with his organizational efforts on the ground that he’s a capable and experienced leader, since his campaign should have been knocked out of the box right from the start by the supposedly far superior and obviously more experienced campaign organization of the Clintons.
But he’s also gotten better at articulating what makes him more capable of fulfilling his goals than she is of fulfilling hers, his capacity for unifying disparate factions and his ability to transcend the usual political partisan pettiness in order to create a more inspiring vision for getting things done.
As the beneficiary of the research of others, it has also become clear to me that the Senate records of Clinton and Obama clearly display their different approaches and which one is more effective.
Obama has co-sponsored many bills, some even with Clinton, in many areas of concern to me and I assume a lot of you—from keeping the administration from using the authorization to fight Iraq as an umbrella to attack Iran, to requirements for better fuel efficiency and other energy concerns, to addressing the mortgage crisis.
As one researcher pointed out in an article reprinted on E. Ethelbert Miller’s blog recently, for whatever reason, several of Hilary’s major proposed bills are sponsored only by her, whereas all of Obama’s are co-sponsored by a wide range of other Senators, including sometimes Hilary, and he has been more successful getting some of them passed than she has.
So I am convinced he will make the better president, accomplish more and do it more graciously, and truly be the unifier Bush Junior said he’d be and then turned out the opposite, and Hilary and McCain are obviously having a difficult time being.
But what my title for this post is about is something else that came up in the debate, the idea that Barak gets some kind of free ride in the media (if so, where are the articles touting his many accomplishments and his more than twenty years of public service and sacrifice to help others, etc.) and then he’s the one who gets confronted with the support of Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Black Muslims and a man who has in the past made a handful of comments that are anti-Jewish.
After the horrors of WWII, when it is estimated over six million European Jews were deliberately murdered, any form of anti-Jewish sentiment should be condemned and guarded against, lest it lead to anything remotely resembling that monstrous injustice.
But—so should other kinds of commentary and actions that support and/or encourage hatred and even violence against any group.
Because, as us history buffs know, there were six million other kinds of people who were also killed by the Nazis, one group of which—“Gypsies” or Romany people—were almost entirely eliminated throughout a huge swath of Europe, but have had no memorials built to their memory, or movies made about their plight, etc. etc. (nor much done about their continued oppression in some Eastern European countries where they remain second-class citizens etc.)
I am not denigrating nor minimizing the damage and destruction done to Jews by the Nazis, and by other anti-Jewish progroms, such as were carried out in Russia and other places.
But if Obama has to “reject” the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan because he has made anti-Jewish statements, actually anti-the-Jewish-religion statements, what of the basic tenets of the Black Muslim faith as it was preached when I was a young man, in which all “whites” were seen as less than human “devils” and the descendants of dogs, etc.
And what about the support of Mitt Romney from his fellow Mormons who up until 1978 believed that “blacks” were less than human and not able to ascend to their version of heaven, and who even now gather birth and death data on all of our ancestors in order to re-baptize (actually their ritual isn’t exactly “baptism”) their departed souls into the Mormon faith. I find that particularly offensive, the arrogance of it and the sneakiness of it. But I didn’t hear any questions to Romney about that, let alone other tenets of his faith that I find offensive.
And what about Bush Junior’s and other Republicans endorsements by religious fundamentalists who have said much harsher things about “gays and lesbians” or about Catholics (remember when Junior spoke at Bob Jones University while the school’s website and founder still referred to the Pope as “the anti-Christ” and “Satan”?).
Bill Clinton was the first president to not side with the Brits against the Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland in their struggle for equal rights, so why wasn’t every other presidential candidate before and since Bill Clinton questioned about their support of policies that oppressed and even murdered “my people?”
And what about all the anti-male remarks from many prominent women who support Hilary? She should have to reject them. Etc. etc.
Okay, okay, you say, that’s still not as bad as what happened to the Jewish Europeans in WWII. True. Little besides the way the Nazis also went after Gypsies and “gays” and “Communists” can compare with what happened to European Jews then.
But that doesn’t excuse what happened to Palestinians who weren’t Jewish, after the creation of Israel, and during it, and since. Yes, I condemn Hamas and their supporters lobbing bombs into Israel, and suicide bombers that blow up innocent civilians in Israel, children and old folks and anyone for that matter. I condemn any violence, other than in self-defense, but even that becomes questionable as an excuse for it.
Obviously Hamas and its supporters claim self-defense, because Israel, on our dime, is able to overwhelm the Palestinians with military might, which has meant keeping Palestinians from returning to or reclaiming land taken from them by Israel, being subjected to the time consuming humiliation of passing through checkpoints to get from their homes to their fields or to their relatives or to the doctor or wherever, while Israeli settlers are escorted and protected as they drive down newly built roads with no hindrances to and from settlements on land taken from Palestinians, etc.
And it’s true the Israeli military often targets (also in what it considers “self-defense”) precisely just those militants who take part in attacks on Israel, but they sometimes miss and kill scores of innocent civilians, children and babies and pregnant young mothers and old ladies and men, etc. So why shouldn’t the support of those in the American Jewish community that support Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and others, also be questioned in these debates?
We all know the answer to that. There are not a lot of Palestinian-American organizations making major contributions to political parties and campaigns, or coordinating policy agreements and military and monetary support etc. for their cause.
I don’t begrudge the so-called “Israel lobby” in this country, or its success. We Irish-Americans mostly ignored the troubles in Northern Ireland or if we followed them and were concerned, either didn’t know what to do about it or contributed to organizations that often ended up financing IRA violence (claimed to be “self-defense” as well).
But I do begrudge the double and multiple standards shown by the media, in the debates and out of them, that decries the support of anyone who has badmouthed the Jewish faith or community but ignores the support of those who have badmouthed other communities just as sensitive if not as well organized.
And by the way, the big fear in Israel is that Arabs will at some point outnumber Jews even there (as they are a much faster growing population, which is true everywhere, not just in Israel). But because of the Nazi atrocities, Israel has many defenders around the world, and particularly among U. S. politicians, who support a government that does all it can to preserve the dominance of the Jewish faith and of those who identify as Jews in a part of the world where that becomes more and more problematic.
But this is true around the world. Ireland, because of the economic boom that’s been going on there since the 1980s, is having its own debate about the nature of Irish citizenship, since the country has been overwhelmed with immigrants from Eastern Europe (from what I hear most churches in Ireland now have Masses in Polish and all church literature printed in Ireland now is published in both English and Polish) and from elsewhere (as Irish friends and relatives point out, there are many “people of color” in the small towns of the West of Ireland where before there were none, a development I find positive, but not everyone there does, not because of “racism,” which may be some people’s motivation, but mostly because of the fear that Ireland is losing it’s particular character and unique culture to some globalized hybrid, etc.).
And similar situations, as we know, are occurring and increasing in England, Italy, Japan, and many other countries whose “native” populations are diminishing while that of immigrants is growing. It’s what the Serbs are raging about in our recognition of Kosovo, an area that the Serbs once thought of as their ancestral homeland but are now a minority in, as the mostly Islamic Albanian population has outgrown them, etc.
There are well-intentioned people on all sides of these issues, as there are ill-intentioned ones. We need someone with the calm assurance Obama has developed to take the lead in addressing these and other 21st century issues, and with his experience as someone who is a product of these developments. I must admit, I have some hope it can be done, or at least begun, with him in the oval office.
CHECK THIS OUT
Thanks to Terence Winch for passing this link on. (It should probably say "white women in art" and many of my favorites are missing, but even so, it's pretty mesmerizing.)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDIN’ ME RALPH
The one person most responsible for the past seven and change years of the dark force in charge of our country—Ralph I’m-only-in-it-for-the-ideals Nader—is running again as an independent because—why?
If it isn’t “ego” what is it?
And if you voted for Nader in 2000, and therefore contributed to the Florida debacle that allowed the Bushies to use their connections on the Supreme Court to throw the election, what would be your excuse for voting for him again?
The three candidates still viably in the race—McCain, Obama, and Clinton—all support programs and have made policy statements that often align with and sometimes totally agree with many of Nader’s positions. So why is he in it?
In 2000, he kept trying to make the point that there wasn’t any difference in the two parties, something I too stated when I was young and naïve enough to think that if Hubert Humphrey was elected in 1968 and gradually pulled us out of Viet Nam, it wouldn’t make a difference if Nixon was elected and did the same thing. I wanted Eldridge Cleaver for president!
Of course Nixon did more damage than just continuing that war for several more years, he escalated and expanded it and thereby directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands more people for a cause that in the end “we” lost! (And the dire consequences that were supposed to ensue never happened, i.e. Viet Nam remained independent of China and is still under the rule of the party we were fighting and spent so much money and human lives trying to defeat and we’re now completely friendly with them! What a @#$%^ waste!).
As well as the other problems created by the Nixon years, and now the Bush Junior years, that may well have been avoided or handled less expensively (in lives and treasure) by Humphrey or Gore.
So whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected makes a big difference. And if anyone votes for Nader, after the calamities of the last seven years, caused in a large part by Nader supporters, they should spend eternity in Dante’s seventh circle of Hell.
PS: Isn’t it interesting that the right-wingers, Republican and otherwise, including some among my friends who leave endless diatribes as “comments” on my blog or the people they’re echoing on rightwing radio and TV, isn’t it interesting that they pretend to stand for specific standards and principles except when they get in the way of grabbing or holding on to power? (i.e. the rightwing Supreme Court justices who constantly argued in favor of states rights against the federal government all of a sudden reverse that principle in the face of Florida’s wanting to continue straightening out the vote count in the Gore-Bush debacle, and in the process also go against majority rule, et-endless-cetra.)
If it isn’t “ego” what is it?
And if you voted for Nader in 2000, and therefore contributed to the Florida debacle that allowed the Bushies to use their connections on the Supreme Court to throw the election, what would be your excuse for voting for him again?
The three candidates still viably in the race—McCain, Obama, and Clinton—all support programs and have made policy statements that often align with and sometimes totally agree with many of Nader’s positions. So why is he in it?
In 2000, he kept trying to make the point that there wasn’t any difference in the two parties, something I too stated when I was young and naïve enough to think that if Hubert Humphrey was elected in 1968 and gradually pulled us out of Viet Nam, it wouldn’t make a difference if Nixon was elected and did the same thing. I wanted Eldridge Cleaver for president!
Of course Nixon did more damage than just continuing that war for several more years, he escalated and expanded it and thereby directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands more people for a cause that in the end “we” lost! (And the dire consequences that were supposed to ensue never happened, i.e. Viet Nam remained independent of China and is still under the rule of the party we were fighting and spent so much money and human lives trying to defeat and we’re now completely friendly with them! What a @#$%^ waste!).
As well as the other problems created by the Nixon years, and now the Bush Junior years, that may well have been avoided or handled less expensively (in lives and treasure) by Humphrey or Gore.
So whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected makes a big difference. And if anyone votes for Nader, after the calamities of the last seven years, caused in a large part by Nader supporters, they should spend eternity in Dante’s seventh circle of Hell.
PS: Isn’t it interesting that the right-wingers, Republican and otherwise, including some among my friends who leave endless diatribes as “comments” on my blog or the people they’re echoing on rightwing radio and TV, isn’t it interesting that they pretend to stand for specific standards and principles except when they get in the way of grabbing or holding on to power? (i.e. the rightwing Supreme Court justices who constantly argued in favor of states rights against the federal government all of a sudden reverse that principle in the face of Florida’s wanting to continue straightening out the vote count in the Gore-Bush debacle, and in the process also go against majority rule, et-endless-cetra.)
Monday, February 25, 2008
TEN QUICK REACTIONS TO THE OSCARS
1. THE HIGHLIGHT: Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova winning best song for their “Falling Slowly.”
2. NEXT BEST MOMENT: Glen Hansard’s acceptance speech for above.
3. THIRD BEST MOMENT: John Stewart bringing Marketa Irglova back out to have her say, because the orchestra cut her off before she could speak.
4. STRANGEST MOMENT: Tilda Swinton acceptance speech for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in her one-long-sleeved gown and neon orange hair, saying she was giving it to her agent, without whom she wouldn’t be there, and generally seeming to be in a different world than the rest of Hollywood last night.
5. INTERESTING FACT: Did anyone else notice that none of the winners in all four acting categories came from the U. S.? (Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Colliard, Javier Bordem, and Tilda Swinton).
6. ANOTHER INTERESTING FACT: In the film montage commemorating the deaths in the movie business over the past year, there were more agents and producers and people (men) identified as “executives” and others on the business end of “the business” than all the previous Oscars combined (or so my memory insists), and yet many others, including actors and directors and others on the creative side were left out (e.g. Brad Renfro etc.).
7. THE FILM MONTAGES SUCKED: John Stewart was funny as usual, but the show itself seemed incredibly unexciting because the film montages seemed to be have been made at the last minute by someone who doesn’t particularly like film or montages. Seeing as how the Writers Strike would have made film montages the easiest thing to have produced months ago, that seems odd and strangely self-destructive.
8. BILL CONTI SHOULD RETIRE: Part of the reason the show seemed so slow and unexciting is that Bill Conti’s orchestra conducting was like something out of a bad 1950s variety show. When the strings came up at the end of Hansard and Irglova’s performance of “Falling Slowly” and began to drown them out I wanted to shoot the TV set, since their performance was another HIGHLIGHT of the show, except for the orchestra overwhelming a lovely, true, unique creative moment with loud schmaltz.
9. BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT: for me was the Coen brothers winning “best adapted screenplay” over really difficult and much more successful adaptations, like the one for THE BUTTERFLY AND THE DIVING BELL.
10. SMALLER DISAPPOINTMENTS: for me was NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN winning the brothers a directing award and the movie winning best film. The first half of the movie, as I’ve said, was pretty brilliant, but not more so than all other movies last year. And the last third of the flick is so poorly realized… Wouldn’t it have been cool to see LARS AND THE REAL GIRL or THE BUTTERFLY AND THE DIVING BELL or JUNO or other perfectly realized movies win over this flawed attempt at honoring the cynicism that has permeated this country ever since the “dark force” took over almost eight year ago?
2. NEXT BEST MOMENT: Glen Hansard’s acceptance speech for above.
3. THIRD BEST MOMENT: John Stewart bringing Marketa Irglova back out to have her say, because the orchestra cut her off before she could speak.
4. STRANGEST MOMENT: Tilda Swinton acceptance speech for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in her one-long-sleeved gown and neon orange hair, saying she was giving it to her agent, without whom she wouldn’t be there, and generally seeming to be in a different world than the rest of Hollywood last night.
5. INTERESTING FACT: Did anyone else notice that none of the winners in all four acting categories came from the U. S.? (Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Colliard, Javier Bordem, and Tilda Swinton).
6. ANOTHER INTERESTING FACT: In the film montage commemorating the deaths in the movie business over the past year, there were more agents and producers and people (men) identified as “executives” and others on the business end of “the business” than all the previous Oscars combined (or so my memory insists), and yet many others, including actors and directors and others on the creative side were left out (e.g. Brad Renfro etc.).
7. THE FILM MONTAGES SUCKED: John Stewart was funny as usual, but the show itself seemed incredibly unexciting because the film montages seemed to be have been made at the last minute by someone who doesn’t particularly like film or montages. Seeing as how the Writers Strike would have made film montages the easiest thing to have produced months ago, that seems odd and strangely self-destructive.
8. BILL CONTI SHOULD RETIRE: Part of the reason the show seemed so slow and unexciting is that Bill Conti’s orchestra conducting was like something out of a bad 1950s variety show. When the strings came up at the end of Hansard and Irglova’s performance of “Falling Slowly” and began to drown them out I wanted to shoot the TV set, since their performance was another HIGHLIGHT of the show, except for the orchestra overwhelming a lovely, true, unique creative moment with loud schmaltz.
9. BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT: for me was the Coen brothers winning “best adapted screenplay” over really difficult and much more successful adaptations, like the one for THE BUTTERFLY AND THE DIVING BELL.
10. SMALLER DISAPPOINTMENTS: for me was NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN winning the brothers a directing award and the movie winning best film. The first half of the movie, as I’ve said, was pretty brilliant, but not more so than all other movies last year. And the last third of the flick is so poorly realized… Wouldn’t it have been cool to see LARS AND THE REAL GIRL or THE BUTTERFLY AND THE DIVING BELL or JUNO or other perfectly realized movies win over this flawed attempt at honoring the cynicism that has permeated this country ever since the “dark force” took over almost eight year ago?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
SONGS THAT MAKE ME SMILE
I was driving around the Berkshires a few days ago, scanning radio stations looking for something to listen to when the song “Afternoon Delight” came on. Even though I wasn’t that crazy about it when it first came out, I found myself smiling, and even singing along.
I couldn’t stop grinning.
So last night when I needed something to help me fall back to sleep after being woken up by some loud voices in the alley between my bedroom window and the Indian restaurant next door, I came up with an alphabet list of songs that make me smile when I hear them:
AFTERNOON DELIGHT (Starland Band?)
BLUE MOON (Elvis Presley’s Sun Session version, when he kind of yodels in falsetto)
CLOUDBURST (Lambert, Hendricks & Ross)
DON’T LET IT BOTHER YOU (Fats Waller)
EPISTROPHY (Eric Dolphy on his LAST DATE lp)
FILTHY MCNASTY (Horace Silver’s original recording)
GHOST OF A CHANCE (Thelonious Monk solo)
HARD NEW YORK DAYS (aka SAINTS, by Terence Winch and Celtic Thunder)
I’VE GOT A GAL IN KALAMAZOO (the original Glen Miller band recording)
JUMPIN’ AT THE SAVOY (Count Basie’s version)
KICK OUT THE JAMS (MC5)
LAY IT DOWN (Lonnie Mack)
MY FOOLISH HEART (Bill Evans version on his WALTZ FOR DEBBY lp)
NEARNESS OF YOU, THE (Nat Adderly on his NAT TO THE IVY LEAGUE lp)
OOH CHILD (The Five Stairsteps)
PURE IMAGINATION (from the original Willy Wonka with Gene Wilder)
QUEEN OF THE SLIPSTREAM (Van Morrison)
ROCKY RACCOON (The Beatles)
SO WHAT (from Miles Davis KINDA BLUE lp)
'TIS A GIFT TO BE SIMPLE (the Shaker song incorporated into Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring)
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LOVE (Barry White and Love Unlimited)
VOLARE OH OH (? Can’t remember his name)
WINDY (The Association)
X?
YOUV’E GOT A FRIEND (Carole Kibng’s vocal on her song)
ZIPPITY-DOO-DAH (Johnny Mercer’s vocal on his tune)
I can think of others as well, but what about you? Any songs that always make you smile when you hear them?
I couldn’t stop grinning.
So last night when I needed something to help me fall back to sleep after being woken up by some loud voices in the alley between my bedroom window and the Indian restaurant next door, I came up with an alphabet list of songs that make me smile when I hear them:
AFTERNOON DELIGHT (Starland Band?)
BLUE MOON (Elvis Presley’s Sun Session version, when he kind of yodels in falsetto)
CLOUDBURST (Lambert, Hendricks & Ross)
DON’T LET IT BOTHER YOU (Fats Waller)
EPISTROPHY (Eric Dolphy on his LAST DATE lp)
FILTHY MCNASTY (Horace Silver’s original recording)
GHOST OF A CHANCE (Thelonious Monk solo)
HARD NEW YORK DAYS (aka SAINTS, by Terence Winch and Celtic Thunder)
I’VE GOT A GAL IN KALAMAZOO (the original Glen Miller band recording)
JUMPIN’ AT THE SAVOY (Count Basie’s version)
KICK OUT THE JAMS (MC5)
LAY IT DOWN (Lonnie Mack)
MY FOOLISH HEART (Bill Evans version on his WALTZ FOR DEBBY lp)
NEARNESS OF YOU, THE (Nat Adderly on his NAT TO THE IVY LEAGUE lp)
OOH CHILD (The Five Stairsteps)
PURE IMAGINATION (from the original Willy Wonka with Gene Wilder)
QUEEN OF THE SLIPSTREAM (Van Morrison)
ROCKY RACCOON (The Beatles)
SO WHAT (from Miles Davis KINDA BLUE lp)
'TIS A GIFT TO BE SIMPLE (the Shaker song incorporated into Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring)
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LOVE (Barry White and Love Unlimited)
VOLARE OH OH (? Can’t remember his name)
WINDY (The Association)
X?
YOUV’E GOT A FRIEND (Carole Kibng’s vocal on her song)
ZIPPITY-DOO-DAH (Johnny Mercer’s vocal on his tune)
I can think of others as well, but what about you? Any songs that always make you smile when you hear them?
Friday, February 22, 2008
THANKS TO E. ETHELBERT MILLER'S BLOG FOR THIS "QUOTE OF THE DAY"
"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then serverd 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."
- George Will (The Washington Post, 2/21/08)
- George Will (The Washington Post, 2/21/08)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
