Blog

Category: Television

Harry Morgan, 1915-2011

7 December 2011

An American actor who was the son of Norwegian immigrants, Harry Morgan, has died at the age of 96, according to news reports. The man who portrayed Colonel Sherman Potter on the CBS television series M*A*S*H appeared in more than 100 movies, including as the judge in the film adaptation of the stage play Inherit the Wind with Frederic March and Spencer Tracy. For me he’ll be remembered foremost for playing policeman Joe Gannon to Jack Webb’s honorable Sgt. Joe Friday in the TV series Dragnet (1967). The series, based on real cases in the Los Angeles Police Department, was a counterpoint to the rising New Left. Dragnet was a clear, sternly dramatic repudiation of the cultural spread of the Hippies. Mr. Morgan’s Joe Gannon was an observer to the wrongs, caretaker to the victims, comrade to the hero, and a devoted investigator in pursuit of justice with regard to the Hippies’ most vile crimes and moral transgressions.

Though I watched it with my Korean War veteran dad, and found the writing intelligent and the plots often involving and sometimes poignant, I never looked forward to his show M*A*S*H, in which from 1975 to 1983 he played the commander of the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital unit in Korea during the Korean War. It was always so joyless and depressing and there was a resignation and defeatism about it that reflected the Korean War’s unresolved status and foreshadowed late 20th century American appeasement of our enemies. His character in particular represented pragmatism; the medical unit’s leader embodied the American anti-intellectual.

But Col. Potter was apparently Mr. Morgan’s favorite part, according to an interview for the Archive of American Television, and like his character, the Detroit, Michigan-born actor had a horse named Sophie; he raised quarter horses on a ranch in Santa Rosa, California. After playing varsity football and serving as senior class president, he attended the University of Chicago, where he studied law and theater, and he made his Broadway debut in 1937 in the original production of Clifford Odets’s Golden Boy. He moved to California in 1942, where he eventually signed a motion picture contract with 20th Century Fox. His movies include The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) with Henry Fonda, High Noon (1952) with Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly, The Teahouse of the August Moon (1956) with Marlon Brando and Glenn Ford, Inherit the Wind (1960), in which he played the small-town Southern judge hearing arguments against Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in the fictionalized version of the Scopes monkey trial, and the grand epic How the West Was Won (1962) with Jimmy Stewart and Debbie Reynolds. In that picture, Harry Morgan portrayed Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. He also appeared in Support Your Local Sheriff! (1969) with James Garner and Walter Brennan, The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) with Tim Conway and Don Knotts and the 1987 spoof of Dragnet featuring Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks. Harry Morgan lived in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles.

Permalink | Posted in Movies, Obituaries, Television

TNT Previews Dallas Reboot

1 December 2011

The long-running CBS prime-time soap opera Dallas gets a reboot next summer and Turner Network Television (TNT) is Texas proud of how it’s shaping up. Sample the new version in an extended trailer here. It’s pretty impressive, repeating the same basic family structure as the groundbreaking 1978 oil drama about the Ewing family that owns and runs a ranch called Southfork. Here, a couple of the previous series’ tykes are all grown up into good boy/bad boy rivals just like J.R. and Bobby Ewing were and I suspect the show’s success will hinge on the youths’ casting and acting abilities. They look too practiced, polished and “Hollywood” to me, and the women don’t have nearly the drive that their predecessors did (at least in the promotional clip) but time will tell. What it looks like they got right is the sense of scope and character and it might turn out better than the CBS show, made by Lorimar, which was dark, sinister and cruel. The photography here looks grand and Patrick Duffy, Larry Hagman and Linda Gray return to their original roles. J.R. still has his untamed eyebrows, Bobby’s still clean-cut and who knows if Sue Ellen has beaten her battle with the bottle. If the 21st century Dallas focuses on the men who drill for oil and aim to make money and the women who love them, and possibly their eco-minded Ewing counterparts, as the promo clip hints, it might just create enough tension to work. The series is scheduled to premiere in summer 2012.

Permalink | Posted in Home Entertainment, Television

TV: Hot in Cleveland 2

17 November 2011

After taking a look at the second season of TV Land‘s half-hour comedy, Hot in Cleveland (read my review of the first season on DVD here), which starts its third season on Nov. 30, I must say that it’s habit-forming. Though it winds up with a ridiculously over-the-top bachelorette party in anticipation of one of the characters’ wedding, the raunchy show holds up. Kind, romantic writer Melanie (Valerie Bertinelli) gets a column in Woman’s Day, vain actress Victoria (Wendie Malick) gets a spot on All My Children, sarcastic cosmetic technician Joy (Jane Leeves) gets a gig with the governor of Ohio and elderly Elka (Betty White) gets a courtroom trial and, in the funniest episode, goes underground in an Amish community. Guest stars include Leeves’ former Frasier castmates Peri Gilpin and John Mahoney, Bertinelli’s former TV mom Bonnie Franklin and Mary Tyler Moore as Elka’s cellmate. Other guest stars are a who’s who in classic comedy: Buck Henry (Heaven Can Wait), Carl Reiner (Dick Van Dyke), George Wendt (Cheers) and comedian and Tonight Show with Johnny Carson staple Don Rickles in a finale episode surprise. Also featured: John Schneider (Dukes of Hazzard), rocker Huey Lewis, Jon Lovitz (The Hoax) as a homeless man, underwear model Antonio Sabato, Jr. as a gay bar stud, Amy Sedaris (Strangers with Candy) as the governor’s wife, Sherri Shepherd (30 Rock) as a horny judge, Doris Roberts (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Jennifer Love Hewitt (Party of Five) as Victoria’s vain, well-endowed daughter. Some things work, some things don’t (Wayne Knight’s expanded character role does not) and most of the laughs reinforce the women’s bonds without coming at the expense of men, good taste and good values. It’s raunchy but, at the center, sarcastic Hot in Cleveland evokes the Rust Belt Midwest it sends up: good work ethic, cheerful if biting humor and four tough but tender individuals holding on to shared middle class values in difficult times. Of course, it’s sillier than that, with soap opera plot points involving lost children, prisoner pen pals and adopted dogs, but the redemptive theme comes through. Part of why the show succeeds: unlike most of what’s on TV, it doesn’t feel rushed and, like Frasier, which was far superior, it bases the humor on what ought to be taken seriously and it doesn’t always go for the joke.

Permalink | Posted in Home Entertainment, Television

Interview: Jon Winokur

8 November 2011

Jon Winokur (pronounced winne-kuhr) is a writer’s writer and the author of numerous books on writing and other topics, including The Portable Curmudgeon, Advice to Writers and his newest book, The Garner Files: A Memoir, written with 83-year old actor James Garner. We talked about his books during a recent conversation.

Scott Holleran: How did you approach James Garner as a subject?

Jon Winokur: As the subject, he is there, bigger than life—the subject approaches you. You know that guy up there on the screen and you think he’s a nice guy. Well, he’s even better—and that’s after taking two years of researching his life. He was there. He writes the book for you. Much of The Garner Files writes itself.

Scott Holleran: Is it mostly based on interviews?

Jon Winokur: Yes, with him and with friends and colleagues and quite a few interviews with family members. It’s a wonderful clan, by the way; there’s a certain dignity and honesty about them.

Scott Holleran: So you created the narrative?

Jon Winokur: Yes. It was easy to do because I’ve known him for 25 years. With a lot of famous people, you think you know them and you don’t. But Jim pans out.

Scott Holleran: That’s impressive. You’ve got his tone down just right—

Jon Winokur: —sometimes, I’d find myself putting down a word and saying, ‘oh, no, that’s not a Garner word.’

Scott Holleran: Did you have an outline?

Jon Winokur: Yes, because I had put together an outline for the book proposal, which I had to tweak a little bit. But this is a departure [for me]. I’d never done a memoir or anything biographical. There’s autobiography, there’s biography and there’s memoir. The distinction I make is that autobiography has to cover all the details and a memoir is from the subject’s perspective. A memoir is subjective—and an autobiography strives to be objective.

Scott Holleran: Did you have a theme?

Jon Winokur: I think the theme emerged. I don’t think it’s helpful to say ‘insert scene here’; [the theme] will be organic. A couple of themes emerged. One is his sympathy for the underdog, which informs his work, his personal relationships and his politics. It’s probably unavoidable to point to his being abused as the source of at least some of that empathy.

Scott Holleran: How did you get the job?

Jon Winokur: I published The Portable Curmudgeon in 1987—it was a tiny first printing—and it came out and was doing OK. At that time, someone had suggested that I get an unlisted telephone number because sometimes a writer get some bizarre responses. So I said, ‘why? I’m lonely. Let them call me,’ and one day I got a call and heard, ‘this is Jim Garner. I’m an actor.’ And of course I knew who he was. Then he said, ‘What kind of a curmudgeon has a listed telephone number?’ Apparently, he had been in the hospital and he had been depressed. [Comedians] Bob Newhart and Dick Martin had sent him my book and he said he wanted to thank me because the book had cheered him up. That was that, until about a month later. The phone rings at 9 o’clock at night and a friend told me that [Mr. Garner] was reading from my book on The Tonight Show. It put my book on the map and sales shot through the roof. It in effect gave me a career. He and I kept in touch—he would send wine from his vineyard for Christmas—and about two years ago we were having lunch and I heard myself asking ‘how come you’ve never written a book?’ And he said because he thought no one would want to read it. I thought and thought about it and I wrote this letter and brought out all guns for writing a memoir. His manager called and said OK. I guess he felt safe with me.

Scott Holleran: What’s your favorite line in the book?

Jon Winokur: There’s a line he quotes from Murphy’s Romance, something like, ‘When I’m pushed, I shove.” He doesn’t go looking for a fight. But, by golly, if you wrong him…

Scott Holleran: How did you primarily relate to Mr. Garner—as his friend, observer, partner?

Jon Winokur: As the most extraordinary human I’ve encountered. The things he’s done anonymously for countless people—the endless goodwill—comes up whenever I mention his name. I always get the same response: “Oh, I love him.” In one of the TVQ categories [a measurement of a celebrity’s cultural influence] he’s still in the top ten. He’s wonderfully skilled. He could have been a pro golfer or a pro race car driver, and he has a great intelligence that I don’t think always comes through. Jim’s really good at whatever he chooses to do—the Grand Prix drivers [working on the movie] say he could have raced and beat some of the pro drivers. He’s just an amazingly quick study. He could sit in the makeup chair and learn the script right there. He learned how to memorize lines from his first acting job in [the stage production of] the Caine Mutiny Court-Martial. He played a judge and he had no lines but he was paid by the producer to run lines with Lloyd Nolan and Henry Fonda and he told me that he learned to use the lines as building blocks—building one line on top of the other—and he said the trick is that you don’t go from one to the next without learning the first line. ‘You don’t learn lines,’ he told me, ‘you learn thoughts’. He’s the most easygoing person I’ve ever worked with—he applies his work ethic—and he was always there. The only negative thing he ever said in our two years was when I brought him the [book jacket] cover. He didn’t say anything and, finally, he said, ‘I don’t like it.’ I asked why and he said ‘your name is too small.’ So they made it bigger.

Scott Holleran: Maverick or Rockford Files?

Jon Winokur: Maverick. Because I’m that old—I was ten [years old] when it came on. There was Mad magazine and there was Maverick.

Scott Holleran: What’s your favorite James Garner movie?

Jon Winokur: I’m going to agree with him—The Americanization of Emily [1964]. I love [screenwriter] Paddy Chayefsky’s work. The script and the way Garner handles it is amazing. But the role was a huge departure for him.

Scott Holleran: Did you watch any of the movies together?

Jon Winokur: Yes. We watched a few, such as Skin Game. He likes to watch Grand Prix for the racing. We were watching Support Your Local Sheriff and that’s when he told me he was imitating Henry Fonda in My Darling Clementine when he was sitting with his feet propped up.

Scott Holleran: Are you surprised by the media’s emphasis on the book’s salacious aspects?

Jon Winokur: No. [Pauses] Maybe a little bit.

Scott Holleran: Does it surprise you that Mr. Garner adores The Notebook?

Jon Winokur: Not at all. Because it’s his best work and I think he thinks so. He loved working with [director] Nick Cassavettes and Gena Rowlands and I think it was one of those shoots where everything fell into place. He cried in that movie; it’s one of the few movies he cries in, the others are The Children’s Hour and Promise. He hadn’t planned to do it. He said he was going to take his cue from [Ms. Rowlands]. I think he was a little out of control and it turned out OK.

Scott Holleran: Did you co-write the memoir’s “outtakes”, too?

Jon Winokur: Yes. Those are based on interviews, basically edited versions.

Scott Holleran: Did you meet and interview Doris Day?

Jon Winokur: I talked to her on the telephone. She was amazing. The most amazing was Lauren Bacall.

Scott Holleran: Do you have any other memoirs planned?

Jon Winokur: I have had some nice feedback from people in the [entertainment] industry, and from Simon and Schuster.

Scott Holleran: What is the impetus for Advice to Writers?

Jon Winokur: My first [non-self] published book, Writers on Writing, was a collection I had been amassing since I was 13. Advice to Writers [stems from] my attempt to try to figure out how to write.

Scott Holleran: Any new works in progress?

Jon Winokur: I don’t like to talk about it because when you talk about it, you discharge the energy. I am working on a pre-proposal. I can say it’s non-fiction.

Scott Holleran: Who are your favorite writers?

Jon Winokur: George Orwell. I like the essays on politics and the English language mostly and the short stories, especially Shooting an Elephant. He was on the right side of the Spanish Civil War [against the fascists] but he wasn’t taken in by [their enemies] the Communists. He was right about poverty and capitalism and he lived by his principles—he renounced his modest inheritance, which may be part of the reason he died at age 45. I also like Christopher Hitchens, Joan Didion—just her Zen-like brevity—Kurt Vonnegut, who’s the most magical, whimsical writer. Also Charles Bukowski and Jack Kerouac.

Scott Holleran: Any curmudgeonly thoughts on the late Andy Rooney?

Jon Winokur: I tried to interview him for one of the Curmudgeon books—and he refused, thereby verifying his curmudgeonliness. He served a great purpose—he was a gadfly and he was certainly a curmudgeon. He was 92. I’m sorry to see him go.

Scott Holleran: What’s the difference between a curmudgeon and a cynic?

Jon Winokur: That’s a good question. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that a cynic knows the price of everything—and the value of nothing. A curmudgeon knows the value of everything. Curmudgeons are offended by the lack of value—they’re fighting the good fight for truth, justice and the American way; their crankiness comes from being disappointed from the lack of quality around them. They are hurt easily—they’re very fragile and they need the misanthropy to protect themselves. In [The Garner Files], Jim calls himself a Tootsie Pop. Hard on the outside, soft on the inside.

Permalink | Posted in Books, Interviews, Movies, Simon & Schuster, Television

FCC Case Against CBS Rejected

4 November 2011

In a victory this Wednesday for freedom of speech, an appeals court rejected the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to punish CBS for airing an expressive portion of Janet Jackson’s broadcast performance during the 2004 Super Bowl. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled by 2-1 (CBS Corp et al v. FCC, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 06-3575) that, by imposing a penalty, the FCC “arbitrarily and capriciously” departed from prior policy that exempted “fleeting” indecency from sanctions and that the FCC “improperly imposed a penalty on CBS for violating a previously unannounced policy”.

The FCC released an antagonistic and harsh statement that says the federal agency is disappointed by the decision and intends to use “all the authority at its disposal” to force broadcasters to serve the public interest when they use the so-called public airwaves. A CBS spokeswoman said the network hopes the FCC will “return to the policy of restrained indecency enforcement it followed for decades.” The FCC fined CBS $27,500 for each of the 20 stations it owned when part of Janet Jackson’s anatomy was accidentally and briefly exposed during the halftime performance.

In 2008, the 3rd Circuit voided the fine, but that decision was vacated when the Supreme Court in 2009 upheld the FCC policy in a case brought by Fox News’ parent company, News Corporation, though that 5-4 ruling did not decide whether the policy was constitutional. In this week’s decision, Judge Marjorie Rendell said that the FCC had maintained a “consistent refusal” to treat fleeting nude images as indecent for 30 years, and that there is no justification for punishing CBS, according to Reuters. No word on whether the FCC will appeal the ruling. CBS and News Corporation are outstanding examples of businesses that refuse to sanction their own demise and both companies deserve credit for defending their free speech against the United States government’s censorship. The FCC should not exist because the agency is fundamentally inconsistent with freedom of speech in the first place. But this week’s Philadelphia court decision, which goes to show that fighting on principle is good, practical business, is better than the alternative.

Permalink | Posted in Freedom of Speech, Law, News, Television

Books: James Garner’s Memoir

1 November 2011

Tall, dark, handsome, accessible and humorous, actor James Garner (The Notebook) bridges the generational gap between classic and modern Hollywood and his memoir, The Garner Files, written by Mr. Garner with Jon Winokur (November, Simon & Schuster, $25.99), is a delightfully rich, short reading endeavor. After his Christian Scientist mother died from uremic poisoning in a botched, illegal abortion, the young Oklahoman suffered with his two brothers under his negligent, drunken father and the woman his father married: a brutal thug of a stepmother, who raped his grade school-aged brother and repeatedly beat Mr. Garner, making him wear dresses and go by the name “Louise.” He left home at the age of fourteen. One of the distinct qualities about this short, breezy account, which is warm and entertaining and told in Mr. Garner’s familiarly clipped tone, is his honesty. It is all too rare for a man in today’s anti-male culture, let alone a man’s man such as Mr. Garner, to call a woman out as his oppressor.

“Red was a nasty bitch,” he writes. “She enjoyed beating the bejesus out of us…she’d fly into a rage for no reason and hit us with whatever was handy, whether a stick or a board or a spatula.” Something snapped inside and, at that point, the child fought back. “I flattened her with one punch,” he writes. From there, the youngster fled that house, played football, dropped out of school, went back, and wound up as the first Oklahoman to be drafted into the U.S. Army for the Korean War. Combat against the Communist North Koreans and Chinese offers some of the most intense reading material in The Garner Files.

He was awarded with two Purple Hearts before returning to the United States and settling in Los Angeles to become an actor. Working in pictures and on television, he starred in the tongue-in-cheek Maverick television Western, which mocked heroism, which he admits, became a hit and took on Warner Bros. in a dispute that nearly cost him his film career. “The truth is, I wasn’t thinking about anybody but myself,” he writes. Another break came thereafter with The Great Escape, a classic, rousing World War 2 movie, and he built a solid track record of B-movie and genre success in a range of pics that played on his good looks and wry sense of humor. While filming The Great Escape in Munich, West Germany, he admits that he compared German cops to Nazis in an interview and writes that co-star, rival, friend and next-door neighbor Steve McQueen (The Thomas Crown Affair) used to race the movie’s swastika-emblazoned motorcycle all over Munich “just to annoy the Germans.”

James Garner pulls no punches, confessing that he is a conflicted liberal Democrat with anger issues, calling McQueen a Republican who wound up on Nixon‘s enemies list and was like a delinquent younger brother and adding that Charles Bronson (Death Wish) was a “bitter, belligerent SOB.” He expresses enormous respect for writers, particularly the late Paddy Chayefsky (Marty, Network), whom Mr. Garner says got his name in the Army when Chayefsky lied to an officer about being part Irish so he could say he was going to mass to get out of KP duty. Though James Garner is an unabashed liberal and environmentalist, he tells how the Democratic Party urged him to soften his position in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion in a bid to get him to run for governor of California in 1990.

Other highlights include exciting automotive racing stories of his epic film, Grand Prix, his astute business and production decisions and scars (seven knee operations) in making The Rockford Files for NBC, fighting Universal, and the Polaroid commercials with Mariette Hartley. On the business of Hollywood, which he calls dishonest, petty and ageist, he writes: “Late in his life, Fred Zinnemann, the Oscar-winning director who gave us From Here to Eternity, High Noon, and A Man for All Seasons, had a meeting with a young producer who didn’t know who Zinnemann was.” “‘Well, Mr. Zinnemann,’ said the young man, ‘What have you done?’ Zinnemann’s reply? ‘You first.’

For his part, Mr. Garner observes of today’s Hollywood moguls: “Most of them have been to business school or law school, sometimes both, but as far as film goes, they have no creative talent at all. Their opinions aren’t worth a damn, so they go with the numbers….In negotiations, their goal is to get the best of you, not to make a good deal for everybody involved. I’ve never understood that.” And this is from an actor and producer who’s made millions from smart, lucrative deals. Other tidbits include this and that about working with Julie Andrews, Marlon Brando, Clint Eastwood, Doris Day, Mel Gibson (“Mel and I got along fine. I didn’t know that he hates Jews and everybody else.”) and both Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine on his first serious dramatic role, an adaptation of Lillian Hellman’s stage play about teachers rumored to be lesbians, The Children’s Hour.

His thoughts on his least and most favored movies range from hilarious to poignant (he adores The Notebook) and his advice for Hollywood talent is spot on for everyone: “What’s yours is yours, and you should go after it.” But what’s fun is fun, too, and in The Garner Files: A Memoir, happily married father James Garner, whether remembering taking on his stepmother or the studios, writes that he’s had what seems like a helluva, hard-earned good time.

Permalink | Posted in Books, Movies, Simon & Schuster, Television

Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr., 1919-2011

28 October 2011

“If you can put a number on it, then you know something,” the late Arthur C. Nielsen Jr., who died earlier this month, reportedly said his father once told him. If you use or refer to metrics, analytics and box office statistics, you are cashing in on Mr. Nielsen’s work, because he was president and chairman of the A. C. Nielsen Company founded by his father. The Nielsen Company pioneered gathering, reporting and analyzing consumer data and it still dominates such information in the entertainment industry, especially television. Arthur Nielsen, whose life began and ended in Winnetka, Illinois, became president of his father’s modest television statistics firm in 1957 and he was named chairman in 1975. According to newspaper obituaries, he took the business from making under $4 million a year to $680 million in annual revenue. The World War 2 veteran, who served as a major in the Corps of Engineers, was assigned during the war to construct a building that would function as a place to operate a machine. The machine’s purpose? To generate highly complex tables that would calculate for accuracy the metrics of firing huge artillery guns. Nielsen was fascinated and became a passionate exponent and innovator of what the company called a “measurement science.” Among those innovations are of course the famous Nielsen ratings that continue to define, frame and shape television markets. Whether they know it or not, future practitioners and pioneers in entertainment industry statistics analysis, such as my former business partner, Box Office Mojo founder Brandon Gray, gained enormous value from Mr. Nielsen’s work. He leaves behind much more than the world’s leading market research business. Art Nielsen, as he was known to his colleagues, ran, fostered and kept re-creating a technology-based business that advanced our understanding of the arts and business. Gaining knowledge of what people choose to consume helps us learn why they consume it, which helps artists produce richer, more compelling work for people to consume. By taking measure of what people consume, Nielsen’s distinguished career improved both the art of business and the business of art.

Permalink | Posted in Business, Obituaries, Television

Books: I Want My MTV

26 October 2011

A new book, I Want My MTV, written by Craig Marks and Rob Tannenbaum and subtitled The Uncensored Story of the Music Video Revolution, goes on sale tomorrow and it’s just plain fun for those of us who remember those songs and images in the early 1980s. Even for those who weren’t around or don’t like rock, TV or music videos, it’s fun and informative, strictly as silly, casual reading material, with quick, profanity-laced snippets about the cultural influence of Music Television, otherwise known as MTV. Most of the major videos, rock stars, 80s’ bands and personalities are here, and the book is an unstructured, disorganized mess without a single narrative, just short, compiled paragraphs of interspersed interview excerpts with executives, producers, artists and others, so I advise readers to just flip through it and make good use of the index (which lacks music video titles). But for all its flaws, one gets a sense of the early days of this remarkable cable television channel, created by media executive John Lack, who says here that he conceptualized MTV as “video radio”, an idea he pitched over and over.

Today, MTV bears no resemblance to its free airplay origins, which revived and/or propelled the careers of The Police, Stevie Nicks, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Olivia Newton-John, and Duran Duran, among others including comedian Denis Leary, choreographer, singer and ex-American Idol judge Paula Abdul and, notably, movie director David Fincher (The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), who started in videos (see his innovative work on bringing The Motels’ Martha Davis to life in billboards in their video for “Shame”). MTV and those five original “veejays” tapped into and catapulted an exciting and energetic New Wave of rock and pop music and I Want My MTV (the free channel’s original slogan) shows it off here with delightful abandon. Much of the material amounts to gossip about sex and drugs, though Stevie Nicks talks openly about trying to kick the cocaine habit in Corona del Mar while shooting Fleetwood Mac’s classic 1982 video for their song “Gypsy”, and the candor and straight talk is striking about some of the most iconic and exceptional videos. For example, just after director Russell Mulcahy talks about Elton John’s “Im Still Standing” being “super, super, super gay”, he refers to the homoeroticism of Billy Joel’s “Allentown”.

The next entry is Billy Joel talking about “Allentown”: “I watched it the other day for the first time in a while. Now, Russell was a brilliant director. But I didn’t realize until I watched it again how gay that video was. It’s really gay! There’s a shower scene with all these good-looking, muscular young steel workers who are completely bare-assed. And then they’re all oiled up and twisting valves and knobs. I’d completely missed this when I was doing the video. I just thought it was like The Deer Hunter.” There are dozens of these tales, with Pat Benatar talking about learning the dance for “Love is a Battlefield”, Rod Stewart refusing to come out of his trailer, Christine McVie in her trailer for hours, and many more about classic tunes and videos. Among those interviewed: Journey, Cindy Crawford, Timothy Hutton (he directed “Drive” for The Cars), Janet Jackson on her late brother Michael, Chris Isaak, Guns N’ Roses, Conan O’Brien, Hall & Oates, Tom Petty, Phil Collins, Michael Mann and Jerry Bruckheimer. After an initial rummaging, I Want My MTV probably belongs in the bathroom for every adult (it’s definitely not the kids) to enjoy, but there are some hilarious and interesting facts here about the modern history of rock, television and our dumbed down culture, which is not entirely MTV’s fault. In those early days, the best music videos were original, enjoyable and occasionally inspiring pop and rock shorts.

Permalink | Posted in Books, Culture, Music, Penguin, Television, Visual Arts

Update: 2012 Republicans

18 October 2011

As an advocate for secular republicanism, none of the 2012 presidential candidates are acceptable. Each candidate, including the President, who has indicated that he intends to run for re-election, fails to grasp, ignores, or explicitly opposes individual rights, capitalism and a rational foreign and domestic policy. But, unless we suffer a catastrophic attack or descend into anarchy or civil war before November of 2012, someone will be elected president of the United States. So, after watching tonight’s Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, sponsored by the generic Cable News Network (CNN), with its snickering media celebrity moderator, Anderson Cooper, I’ve decided to update my take on the 2012 Republicans. My criteria for serious candidates: who will be the least opposed to individual rights?

My first summary was posted in August, before businessman Herman Cain was a factor in the campaign. Whatever the merits of Mr. Cain’s candidacy, and I have reached out to his campaign and requested an interview with the talk radio host, he is defined by his 9-9-9 tax reform plan and I must say those three digits represent a more honest effort at solving the nation’s urgent and severe economic problems than all three years of the Obama administration’s schemes combined. From my perspective, he is certainly flawed and he makes mistakes. I’m reading his new book, This is Herman Cain! but I already know that he opposes a woman’s right to an abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and he supported government controls of economics such as the Bush administration’s so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other interventions. He has praised former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, serious errors in judgment, and in tonight’s debate he made a Main Street vs. Wall Street distinction which evokes class warfare, pitches a false dichotomy (which an opponent exploited in reply) and alienates potential donors. The populist line diminishes the record of achievements in Mr. Cain’s business and government experience when he ought to be demonstrating an understanding of finance and economics and proving that he’s capable of defending Wall Street (and capitalism) against New Leftists. Herman Cain should ditch the Main Street vs. Wall Street differentiation and proudly wear the pro-capitalist badge, which fits his ‘happy warrior’ persona. Mr. Cain is generally pro-capitalist, as far as he understands capitalism, and he’s apparently decent on foreign policy. He is also gaining experience in campaigning. When he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier today that he would consider trading so-called hostages for Islamic combatants, he took it back in a post-debate interview on the same network. This candor is what propels Herman Cain, whom polls show is within striking distance of presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney and capable of winning victory over Barack Obama. Despite his drawbacks, and because he seems sincerely committed to fighting jihadist Islam and repealing ObamaCare, I might vote for Herman Cain.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a conservative religionist first elected in the wake of the defeat of the Clinton health care plan in the 1990s, serves a constructive function in the debates as foil to major candidates. He has some good lines, especially on Iran and jihadism, and he once advocated Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) but otherwise his record is abysmal on rights and capitalism and he insists that the nation is based on faith, family and tradition, so he is an advocate of theocracy and deserves no further consideration. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who adopts a kind of robotic approach to public speaking, has the same problem. She’s good on certain issues, such as her steadfast opposition to socialized medicine (ObamaCare), but she does not follow reason. Like Santorum, and all the major candidates (including Obama), she has no consistent, coherent political philosophy and she take facts on faith. Bachmann’s thinking is seriously impaired. Ditto for Newt Gingrich, a true has-been legislator with a bankrupt philosophy whose time came and went with not a single major accomplishment; as Speaker of the House following an historic House victory after Americans roundly rejected the Clinton health care plan in 1994, Gingrich, heavily hyped by conservatives and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, fully squandered the opportunity to slay Big Government. Mitt Romney was right to point out in the debate Gingrich’s hypocrisy on health care reform, as Gingrich has consistently supported and advanced government intervention in medicine. The narcissistic Baby Boomer, another conservative religionist who proposed faith and prayer as the primary presidential prerequisite in tonight’s debate, is not to be trusted to do anything positive.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who prays and deprives himself of food as a means of governing, is a bully and it showed in the debate. He was shockingly condescending to Mr. Cain, belligerent to others, and I don’t have much to add to what I said about him in August. He is the most anti-intellectual candidate. His sparring partner, Mitt Romney, is a slick, pompous fraud who enacted the earliest incarnation of ObamaCare with the conservative Heritage Foundation, as I have pointed out on my blog (and as early as 2007 in a response to health policy analyst John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Romney is a wreck, possibly the worst presidential candidate in terms of individual rights and capitalism. It’s obvious that President Obama is destroying America. But Mitt Romney and his brand of counterfeit capitalism will make it worse. Speaking of going from bad to worse, there’s Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a rambling, anti-war, Christian libertarian who could win the election and ruin the country. Paul (and his son Rand) seeks to appease the nation’s jihadist enemy and combine the worst elements of various philosophies including the New Left, libertarianism and conservatism. He’s an anti-war hippie, an anti-American appeaser, an anti-abortion rights, anti-Israel, anti-capitalism mongrel mixture of nearly every rotten idea in the last century. His protege, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, whom I interviewed earlier this year, might be better, because he’s apparently a secular candidate for more capitalism, but he, too, goes batty on the issue of the war.

With maneuvering by states for early primaries, and widespread dissatisfaction among Republicans with the media, the establishment and the pre-ordained candidates, I think the campaign is active and wide open and, while I am not a political scientist, I see that it is possible under certain scenarios that the Grand Old Party’s nomination may go to the floor of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. These are ominous times and anything can happen: economic collapse, foreign invasion, catastrophic attack, assassination, dropouts, third party candidacies, backroom deals and more. The outcome of the 2012 presidential election will affect the nation at a crucial point in our history and the current field of Republican candidates offers more of the same failed policies and ideals. They are all contaminated and stained with the residue of a bankrupt philosophy, a stew of contradictory ideas, based on bad premises such as altruism and collectivism. Individually, most of the candidates do not think clearly, and whatever decent positions they hold are meaningless because they may be misapplied, tossed aside at the first test of reality, or abandoned in the name of faith, feelings or the spur of the moment. The GOP candidates do not offer what we desperately need: a consistent, bold and realistic vision for achieving a secular republic based on individual rights.

Permalink | Posted in Politics, Television

TV: Stephen King Talks Horror

25 September 2011

This October, TCM ushers in a month of what it calls classic horror films with an all-new special, A Night at the Movies: The Horrors of Stephen King. The one-hour special features horror novelist Mr. King in solo appearance, talking by himself over stills, clips and scenes from various horror films. The TV special is interesting even if you’re not a horror fan, and I am not (as I wrote about in this book review of another thought-provoking product about horror movies, Shock Value). The program is scheduled to premiere on TCM, which I write about so often I’m giving it a special blog category, Monday, Oct. 3, at 8 pm (ET/PT).

In the program, Stephen King discloses that Walt Disney’s Bambi (1942) was the first movie that scared him, and he goes on to comment, very briefly in each case, on motion pictures that made an impression on him as a writer: Francis Ford Coppola’s Dementia 13, George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) among others. With Snatchers, which was remade in the 1970s and the 1990s, King notes that most intellectuals regard it as a warning against so-called McCarthyism while he believes the filmmaker intended it as a warning against fascism, specifically National Socialism. I think Stephen King, whose writings I do not consume, is right. Mr. King has other cogent and candid remarks on Blair Witch Project, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Wolf Man (not a horror movie, he says), Paranormal Activity, and The Amityville Horror. He points out that Rosemary’s Baby and The Omen are what he calls fundamentally religious movies and discusses seeing The Exorcist with his wife. He also notes that Nightmare on Elm Street blurs the distinction between the conscious and the subconscious and dramatizes that “reality is a nightmare.”

Don’t expect him to talk about the writing process, though he covers most of his own works, from Salem’s Lot, adapted for television by the vile Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) to Cujo, Carrie, Misery and Dead Zone. Discussing Brian De Palma’s 1976 version of his novel Carrie, King says he wasn’t even invited to attend a screening and, when he did see it, it was a double feature with Norman, Is That You?, a black-themed film, and he was surprised that the predominantly black audience responded to Carrie. On what sounds like his favorite novel-based performance, King says: “The only actor or actress that won a major award for anything that was based on my work was Kathy Bates for Misery, and she certainly richly deserved that Oscar. But Dee Wallace probably deserved to be nominated for Cujo as much if not more than Kathy Bates. It’s a performance that grows in my eye every time that I see it. It was an absolutely terrific job.” He has nothing positive to say about director Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey) who decimated King’s novel, The Shining, in a 1980 picture with Jack Nicholson that bombed. King acknowledges the horror movie genre’s misogyny and decries what he calls torture porn, though the special ignores or glosses over truly repulsive, anti-man pictures such as I Spit on Your Grave and the Saw movies, and others, such as The Last House on the Left.

His most thoughtful comments are on the psychology of horror as a genre for fiction and film.

“I think that the shelf life of horror films is limited in terms of the emotional response of the viewer,” he says. “The first time that you see Night of the Living Dead, you’re absolutely riveted. The second time, you’re scared. The third time, the film has lost something essential that it had the first time. Now people continue to go back and see Night of the Living Dead, but what they’re experiencing isn’t horror at that point. It’s the memory of the horror that they felt the first time they saw it or the second time they saw it.” Admitting that the genre is fundamentally based on the emotion of fear, he compares the desire to watch horror with the inclination to look at a grisly car crash on the side of the road; you slow down and look, he says, because you’re reinforcing the fact that you’re OK, by confirming that the victims are not. Stephen King, whose writings include The Dark Half, Pet Sematary, It, and other horror classics, concludes that horror appeals to the worst, not the best, within us, and he observes that the more worried and fear-driven the culture, the more horror movies show up.