First off, all hail Pixar. Not only did they completely change the animation paradigm, they did it while adhering to compassionate business practices (like loyalty to employees, the social workplace and an emphasis on product and creativity over profit) and by pushing the boundaries of both fields. There aren't a lot of companies who can say they started with George Lucas before moving to Steve Jobs, and then tangled with Disney and came out on top. Don't be fooled by Disney's acquisition of Pixar - they negotiated from a position of strength, held fast, and ended up with an unbelievable deal. Quite a feat.
But this isn't about how cool Pixar is - I don't think I can begin to express that - but about their movies and an attempt to pick my favorites. There are so many good ones, even great ones, that nailing down the best is daunting. It did present, however, an opportunity for my first ranked list on this blog. Rather than trying to establish criteria - there are too many - each movie will be in its spot on the list for its own reasons. The Top Five, in reverse order:
5. The Incredibles - As really the only Pixar to use only human protagonists - albeit with humans with superpowers - this is also the first to put the main focus on the family. The various relationships - sibling, parent and spouse - are all explored without being obvious or heavyhanded, no easy thing. I also love that it manages to make fun of not one, but two, genres without becoming farcical or a parody, somehow sending up and paying homage to both comic books and spy films all at once. But if that isn't enough, they also manage to put a neat new spin on the idea of how superheroes fit into society, bringing a kind of witness protection idea into play that is very original. It is also yet another new style of art and animation that not only fits the purposes of the film perfectly, but is both striking and gorgeous. The stark lines, outsize scale and almost caricature-like character drawings combine for a really fresh and beautiful look. Think of things like the lava wall in Syndrome's hide-out, Mr. Incredible's work-out sequence and Dash's run through the jungle. So cool. It is also very funny, and maybe most in some of the secondary character's performances like Jason Lee as Syndrome ("You got me monologuing!") and Sam Jackson as Frozone ("Woman! Where's my supersuit?"). But it is its treatment of all family themes - the ones above plus Jack-Jack, the babysitter and parents finding childcare while they "work" - that makes it standout for me.
4. A Bug's Life - Without a doubt the most underrated of the Pixar canon, this movie probably suffered from coming between Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and while the two Cars movies received less critical favor, A Bug's Life made less money domestically than any other Pixar. That said, it has a great original premise and story. An ant colony under the sway of protection-racket grasshoppers being rescued by a troop of circus bugs led by the geeky colony loser? Come up with that in an idle moment. It also has a fantastic ensemble cast, with Oscar winner Kevin Spacey, fellow A-listers David Hyde Pierce and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, old school comedians Phyllis Diller and Madeline Kahn, lesser-known but brilliant character guys Richard Kind, Dave Foley and Brad Garrett, stars-to-be Denis Leary and Hayden Pantierre, and of course, John Ratzenberger. Top to bottom I think the best cast assembled for any animated film, surpassing even the Toy Stories, Monsters, Inc., and Nemo. Then there is the amazing and brilliant application of scale, especially in the scenes away from the colony, that is so cool and creative, and how it fits into the jaw-dropping animation throughout. But the bottom line for me on this is that I laugh harder and more often than in any other Pixar.
3. Up - This might make the list just for the opening sequence, which is a great short film unto itself, but it has so many appealing elements it just can't be denied. It is easy to focus on the love story between Carl and Ellie, which is beautiful and touching, but I was more drawn to the relationship between Carl and Russell. It juggles the massive generation gap, the always difficult topic of a missing father-figure, the conflict between Carl's stubbornness and Russell's capriciousness, and their reluctant affection all deftly and intelligently. Then it manages to take a pervasive Pixar theme, the spirit of adventure, to new and wonderful heights. You could almost feel like running off to Argentina with only your Wilderness Explorer backpack would be a pretty good idea. It had a great villain (played to the hilt by no less than Christopher Plummer), a talking dog we could all relate to ("Squirrel!") and a classic Pixar curveball in the mute but so expressive prehistoric bird Kevin. And as always with this amazing studio, it is funny and beautiful. A triumph of mixing disparate elements into a coherent and moving whole, it is only the second animated film to be nominated for Best Picture, and the sole Pixar film to be.
2. Toy Story - Very hard for this not to number one, just because it was such a game changer. In 1995 we just had not seen anything like it, and it so thoroughly changed the paradigm that it is hard to remember. Disney had been doing great animated films for a very long time - almost sixty years at that point! - but Woody and Buzz were just new. The look, the feel, the style - all different. It took the celebrity voice to a new level - Robin Williams in Aladdin back in '92 seemed the exception until Lion King in '94, and even Broderick, Irons and Jones et al didn't all add up together to match Tom Hanks. Remember that he won his two best actor Oscars in '94 and '95, so for him to be doing voice work at the same time was just huge. And Tim Allen was a TV star in his own right, with "Home Improvement" at the peak of its popularity. It was also just such a great concept: our toys are alive when we're not around. Genius. The last thing, and one that is easy to forget because we have become used to the standard of greatness that this movie established, is the animation itself. I urge you to watch it again, and try to put it in context of there not being any other Pixar movie. The richness of the backgrounds, the attention to detail (the army men are a great example) and the insane natural flow of movement is truly staggering. For the record, I actually enjoyed Toy Story 2 more, but not enough more to move it down the list.
1. WALL-E - Just love, love, love this film, for so many reasons: the anthropomorphization of that little cube is the best ever done. I think all they learned in the previous eight films about bringing the inanimate to life or making the non-human human came to full bloom with WALL-E.; the number of themes - the love story, the ecological subtext, the role of nostalgia in our lives, the captain's rediscovery of self, the sub-romance between John and Mary, WALL-E as a revolutionary leader, even the great mini-story of MO - that all interweave into such a beautiful tapestry is just amazing; and the vision of the future, letting us not forget that this is a sci-fi movie (it won a Hugo, Nebula and Saturn awards), is original and striking. But it is the heart of the film, the love story, that puts this one in the top slot. The way that it is set-up and developed is both classic and beautiful. The fact that EVE only finds out about his devotion inadvertently is great - and hysterical, his innocence is almost painfully endearing, and that his love manifests in his desire just to hold hands is irresistible. I have heard it accused of being overly sentimental, but I felt that movie in all the right ways, and I am just a sap anyway. I am not alone in my assessment either. Time magazine put it at the top of its "Best Movies of the Decade" list and I couldn't agree more. And not for nothing, I think the "dance" scene with WALL-E using the fire extinguisher is just achingly beautiful and ranks among all such musical vignettes, in all film, not just animated.
There it is. I have to say that while I am never short of opinion, narrowing that list to five and putting it in order was just flat-out hard. Many people will be unhappy with both omissions and inclusions here, but it is a tribute to Pixar that it has produced so much film over the years that people have loved and been inspired by. Like I said, all hail Pixar.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Get 'er done
With apologies to Larry the Cable Guy, here is short list of stuff that just needs to get done.They have some things in common. They all have massive popular support, are just good common sense and would provide multiple benefits to the country. The other things they have in common are what keep them from being done: bull-headed bipartisan politics, bureaucratic inefficiency and lack of will.
Infrastructure - You have only to travel even casually in this country to know that it is falling apart. We have unsafe bridges, our roads are more pothole than road, our water, sewer, gas and electrical (been through a storm recently?) lines are substandard, and our airports are embarrassing (James Fallows described flying from Tokyo to NY like going "from the Jetsons to the Flintstones") but not as bad as our railways, which are just a joke. And how can we do anything about education if our physical schools are unusable. There are some scary studies out there, and I am not in any way claiming this is easy, but here is one quote from an expert: "The big picture is that we invested massively 50 years ago and more or less haven't done anything of comparable magnitude since." We buy new cars every five years but don't work on the roads in fifty. The part of this one that also sticks out is that it would provide countless jobs that cannot be sent overseas.
Veterans benefits - There are veterans dying while waiting for benefits. Lots of them. And even if they aren't dying they are waiting months and months to get what they have been promised. We call our vets heroes - and they are - but waving flags and holding parades (while nice, but not done nearly enough) are not what these people need. How can we possibly be okay with asking them to go to war and not take care of them when they come home? One of the horrible ironies of this issue is that because we are so much better at saving lives on the battlefield - a good thing - we now have more vets with catastrophic injuries needing care. And they, and their families - are waiting months to get it. That strikes me as being sad and wrong at best, probably immoral and certainly unforgivable.
Education - There is an argument that says the vast majority of our current problems stem from our growing ignorance. And I couldn't agree more. We fall behind more and more every year in every possible measure of the effectiveness of our educational system. And what could possibly be more important? We cannot be expected to act with reason if we do not have enough education to understand what is reasonable. One of the reasons we are so good at voting against our own best interests is that we are incapable of recognizing those interests. In another painful irony, we are in the great information age - you have an incomprehensible amount of information at your fingertips - but are getting dumber because we are no longer being taught to think. That's what school is for, and our schools are failing. Not because of our teachers, but they, like our vets, are considered heroes but treated like second-hand citizens. And it should be exactly the opposite. Lee Iacocca, randomly enough, said it well: "In a completely rational society, the best of us would aspire to be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something less, because passing civilization from one generation to the next ought to be the highest responsibility anyone could have". But how will we get to the completely rational society?
Same sex marriage - More Americans support this than oppose it, and the people who oppose it tend to be old white guys. Honest. At what point do we stop being irrational and start being, just a little, progressive? Gasp! If a great number of young, educated people among a broad cross-section of America think it is okay, when do they get to push forward the thinking of the small, narrowly-based group that is clinging to an out-of-date and ignorant paradigm? The part about this that I really don't get is how same sex marriage - as some opponents claim - undermines "traditional" marriage. A gay couple being wed has nothing to do with my marriage. If it did I wouldn't want anyone to get married because too many marriages make mine less special. Besides, any institution that fails half the time has no high ground on which to stand and make judgments. And check this out. States that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates than those that don't. I'm pretty sure that is the opposite of undermining.
Gun control - I have gone on at length in other posts about this issue, so do not want to repeat myself. Look my gun control posts for more ranting on the subject than you probably want. But this issue's time has come, it actually came long ago, but now that is seems to at long last have some real traction, we cannot let it slip away again. Please remember that the second amendment has nothing to do with this, even NRA members support much of what is proposed, no one is coming to take away anyone's guns and that the idea that any of us are safer with more guns is just nothing but dumb. But if you remember anything, please, please remember that in the eleven weeks since Sandy Hook almost 2,300 people have died by guns.
We need to exert our national will, if there still is one, to make these things happen. it is time to insist upon it.
Infrastructure - You have only to travel even casually in this country to know that it is falling apart. We have unsafe bridges, our roads are more pothole than road, our water, sewer, gas and electrical (been through a storm recently?) lines are substandard, and our airports are embarrassing (James Fallows described flying from Tokyo to NY like going "from the Jetsons to the Flintstones") but not as bad as our railways, which are just a joke. And how can we do anything about education if our physical schools are unusable. There are some scary studies out there, and I am not in any way claiming this is easy, but here is one quote from an expert: "The big picture is that we invested massively 50 years ago and more or less haven't done anything of comparable magnitude since." We buy new cars every five years but don't work on the roads in fifty. The part of this one that also sticks out is that it would provide countless jobs that cannot be sent overseas.
Veterans benefits - There are veterans dying while waiting for benefits. Lots of them. And even if they aren't dying they are waiting months and months to get what they have been promised. We call our vets heroes - and they are - but waving flags and holding parades (while nice, but not done nearly enough) are not what these people need. How can we possibly be okay with asking them to go to war and not take care of them when they come home? One of the horrible ironies of this issue is that because we are so much better at saving lives on the battlefield - a good thing - we now have more vets with catastrophic injuries needing care. And they, and their families - are waiting months to get it. That strikes me as being sad and wrong at best, probably immoral and certainly unforgivable.
Education - There is an argument that says the vast majority of our current problems stem from our growing ignorance. And I couldn't agree more. We fall behind more and more every year in every possible measure of the effectiveness of our educational system. And what could possibly be more important? We cannot be expected to act with reason if we do not have enough education to understand what is reasonable. One of the reasons we are so good at voting against our own best interests is that we are incapable of recognizing those interests. In another painful irony, we are in the great information age - you have an incomprehensible amount of information at your fingertips - but are getting dumber because we are no longer being taught to think. That's what school is for, and our schools are failing. Not because of our teachers, but they, like our vets, are considered heroes but treated like second-hand citizens. And it should be exactly the opposite. Lee Iacocca, randomly enough, said it well: "In a completely rational society, the best of us would aspire to be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something less, because passing civilization from one generation to the next ought to be the highest responsibility anyone could have". But how will we get to the completely rational society?
Same sex marriage - More Americans support this than oppose it, and the people who oppose it tend to be old white guys. Honest. At what point do we stop being irrational and start being, just a little, progressive? Gasp! If a great number of young, educated people among a broad cross-section of America think it is okay, when do they get to push forward the thinking of the small, narrowly-based group that is clinging to an out-of-date and ignorant paradigm? The part about this that I really don't get is how same sex marriage - as some opponents claim - undermines "traditional" marriage. A gay couple being wed has nothing to do with my marriage. If it did I wouldn't want anyone to get married because too many marriages make mine less special. Besides, any institution that fails half the time has no high ground on which to stand and make judgments. And check this out. States that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates than those that don't. I'm pretty sure that is the opposite of undermining.
Gun control - I have gone on at length in other posts about this issue, so do not want to repeat myself. Look my gun control posts for more ranting on the subject than you probably want. But this issue's time has come, it actually came long ago, but now that is seems to at long last have some real traction, we cannot let it slip away again. Please remember that the second amendment has nothing to do with this, even NRA members support much of what is proposed, no one is coming to take away anyone's guns and that the idea that any of us are safer with more guns is just nothing but dumb. But if you remember anything, please, please remember that in the eleven weeks since Sandy Hook almost 2,300 people have died by guns.
We need to exert our national will, if there still is one, to make these things happen. it is time to insist upon it.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Titan the Third
Back to my musical pantheon with the third Titan, Peter Gabriel. It has been a bit, so if you want to get up to speed on this whole pantheon and titan thing, check out pantheon parts one and two.
Picture this: circa 1977, I am around 12 and am playing D&D with my brother and his friends. (Aside - big thanks to brother and company for letting the kid brother in their world since they were actual teenagers at the time.) The DM is a big time music guy - I can still picture his massive record collection - and keeps an amazing soundtrack going in the background. He puts on a record by a band I had never heard of - Genesis - called, unlikely enough, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. While I certainly had no idea at the time why it blew my mind, it most definitely did. What I also didn't know was that while I was getting my first dose of Prog Rock, more importantly, I was getting my first dose of Peter Gabriel. (Not for nothing, that day was also the first time I heard Dark Side of the Moon. Jeez.)
Jump to probably 1981. I am into making mix tapes - one of the many reasons I love "High Fidelity" so much - and am raiding my brother's music collection. In the intervening years I have still not developed my musical tastes very much, and have only very cursorily examined Gabriel's music. But then I discover "Family Snapshot" and it is a revelation. The idea that lyrics and music could link in such a powerful way and tell such a story had largely gone over my head until that song knocked open the doors to that world. But I still hadn't clued in to the bigger Gabriel picture.
I was aware, like we all were, that he was out there doing wild stuff - mostly thanks to "Shock the Monkey" on MTV - but wasn't actively following or examining his music. Flash forward to 1986 and the "Sledgehammer" video taking MTV by storm (more on that in a minute). I was as amazed by the video as everyone else, but I still didn't get it. But I do remember when I finally did. It was beautiful SoCal day, I was tooling around Santa Monica with my girlfriend of the time and we stopped by MusicPlus at the corner of 14th and Wilshire so she could pick up So. We popped it in the cassette (!) player of her Range Rover and headed for Malibu. It took us a bit to get it going because she wanted to fast-forward to "Sledgehammer" but I had a thing about listening to records in order out of respect for the artist and producer (I was learning) so by the time we got it sorted and playing we were turning on to PCH (Pacific Coast Highway). That was when "Red Rain" broke on to my consciousness like one of the waves we were watching break on the beach. The rattling high-hat riff, the tumble of the bass and rumble of the drums, all swelling to that waterfall of the first chorus - it felt like a new world of music. I dug into his music with a vengeance and played my copy of So until it broke and then bought a new one. Even then, though, my appreciation for Peter Gabriel had not truly blossomed.
He was not a prolific touring guy, at least not during this period, and for one reason or another I had never gotten to see him live until, jump again, 1993 when my then wife-to-be took me to see WOMAD (again, more later) and I learned about his power as a performer. His set was at the very end of a long, hot day and there were FAR too many people packed in front of the stage where he was to perform. The standing crowd was flowing and surging and I actually began to fear for all of our safety, to the point of working our way to the light tower to have a place to hold on when the crowd finally broke. The tension was very high, the crowd was grumbling and I though we might be in trouble. And then Peter came out. He spoke a few words, the band broke into "Steam", and tension and fear was forgotten. And it was more than just the relief and joy that he was playing. His presence was simply awesome. The only front man I have ever seen that compares - and I have seen Jagger, Daltrey, Elton, Vedder and Bono - is Freddie Mercury, and he is the greatest of all time. (It didn't hurt that Kate Bush was also there that night and she joined in on a version on "In Your Eyes" that squeezed your heart.)
I relate this chain of vignettes about how Peter Gabriel became a Titan to try and convey a sense of how much impact he and his music have. But I have to also try to flesh out his greatness in more objective ways.
The bulk and scope of his music is staggering. Even if you leave his Genesis work out of it - which is no small achievement unto itself - it is hard to measure what he has done and how far he has come. The arc of his eight solo studio albums is enough to merit Titan status, but that doesn't consider his award-winning film scoring and soundtrack work, his collaborations (Scratch My Back is only the most visible of his astonishing list of partners) and things that defy categorization like OVO, the music he did for London's "Millennium Dome Show". And then there is, one of my favorites, New Blood, some of his earlier music reinterpreted for orchestra. But even his massive music canon only scratches the surface of his creative output.
He has always been heavily into visual media, and while his music videos are ground- and record-breaking (it put Aardman on the map and "Sledgehammer" is still the most played video in MTV history), he has also pioneered new kinds of album art, dabbled in avant-garde film making and even delved into video game production and interactive music. And to know he is into visual production you have only to see him on tour. We got to see him in 2003 and it stands as one of the best - if not the best - shows of my life, with a dizzying array and variety of effects, some stark and simple and others wildly over the top and innovative. It must say something about the scope and range of both his music and performance that the gamut of emotions I experienced during that show ran from unbridled joy through aching sadness with stops at wonder, melancholy and hilarity along the way. I cried at least twice. Not your average concert.
Peter Gabriel is acutely aware of the connections between different creative avenues and processes, and how those connections can break down boundaries. He combined that with his love of world music by founding The World of Music, Art and Dance (WOMAD). It is sad that America can't seem to get it's head around WOMAD, so it hasn't done well here, but I was lucky enough to attend one of their festivals and had a literally life-changing experience there. He also had a reported project in the works (which I'm sorry to say I think must be defunct) to create a creative theme park for adults that sounded just remarkable - would love to have seen that!
And if all that isn't enough for you, he is a dedicated and passionate human rights activist. He has been heavily involved with Amnesty International, founded WITNESS, and helped found and heavily funds The Elders. He has done so much and is so active it is hard to keep track of it all, but he has received numerous humanitarian awards including the "Man of Peace" from the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. And in an age when good causes are sometimes hard to distinguish from good publicity, he is wonderfully humble about his success in the field.
Is all the stuff not related to his music a pre-requisite for Titan status? No, but it sure does go a long way. And besides, he would be a Titan for me if all he ever did was make his particular style of amazing, joyous, moving, original, wondrous, beautiful music.
Titans so far: Gabriel, Townshend and Young.
Coming up - last but not least! - X.
Peter Gabriel
Picture this: circa 1977, I am around 12 and am playing D&D with my brother and his friends. (Aside - big thanks to brother and company for letting the kid brother in their world since they were actual teenagers at the time.) The DM is a big time music guy - I can still picture his massive record collection - and keeps an amazing soundtrack going in the background. He puts on a record by a band I had never heard of - Genesis - called, unlikely enough, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. While I certainly had no idea at the time why it blew my mind, it most definitely did. What I also didn't know was that while I was getting my first dose of Prog Rock, more importantly, I was getting my first dose of Peter Gabriel. (Not for nothing, that day was also the first time I heard Dark Side of the Moon. Jeez.)
Jump to probably 1981. I am into making mix tapes - one of the many reasons I love "High Fidelity" so much - and am raiding my brother's music collection. In the intervening years I have still not developed my musical tastes very much, and have only very cursorily examined Gabriel's music. But then I discover "Family Snapshot" and it is a revelation. The idea that lyrics and music could link in such a powerful way and tell such a story had largely gone over my head until that song knocked open the doors to that world. But I still hadn't clued in to the bigger Gabriel picture.
I was aware, like we all were, that he was out there doing wild stuff - mostly thanks to "Shock the Monkey" on MTV - but wasn't actively following or examining his music. Flash forward to 1986 and the "Sledgehammer" video taking MTV by storm (more on that in a minute). I was as amazed by the video as everyone else, but I still didn't get it. But I do remember when I finally did. It was beautiful SoCal day, I was tooling around Santa Monica with my girlfriend of the time and we stopped by MusicPlus at the corner of 14th and Wilshire so she could pick up So. We popped it in the cassette (!) player of her Range Rover and headed for Malibu. It took us a bit to get it going because she wanted to fast-forward to "Sledgehammer" but I had a thing about listening to records in order out of respect for the artist and producer (I was learning) so by the time we got it sorted and playing we were turning on to PCH (Pacific Coast Highway). That was when "Red Rain" broke on to my consciousness like one of the waves we were watching break on the beach. The rattling high-hat riff, the tumble of the bass and rumble of the drums, all swelling to that waterfall of the first chorus - it felt like a new world of music. I dug into his music with a vengeance and played my copy of So until it broke and then bought a new one. Even then, though, my appreciation for Peter Gabriel had not truly blossomed.
He was not a prolific touring guy, at least not during this period, and for one reason or another I had never gotten to see him live until, jump again, 1993 when my then wife-to-be took me to see WOMAD (again, more later) and I learned about his power as a performer. His set was at the very end of a long, hot day and there were FAR too many people packed in front of the stage where he was to perform. The standing crowd was flowing and surging and I actually began to fear for all of our safety, to the point of working our way to the light tower to have a place to hold on when the crowd finally broke. The tension was very high, the crowd was grumbling and I though we might be in trouble. And then Peter came out. He spoke a few words, the band broke into "Steam", and tension and fear was forgotten. And it was more than just the relief and joy that he was playing. His presence was simply awesome. The only front man I have ever seen that compares - and I have seen Jagger, Daltrey, Elton, Vedder and Bono - is Freddie Mercury, and he is the greatest of all time. (It didn't hurt that Kate Bush was also there that night and she joined in on a version on "In Your Eyes" that squeezed your heart.)
I relate this chain of vignettes about how Peter Gabriel became a Titan to try and convey a sense of how much impact he and his music have. But I have to also try to flesh out his greatness in more objective ways.
The bulk and scope of his music is staggering. Even if you leave his Genesis work out of it - which is no small achievement unto itself - it is hard to measure what he has done and how far he has come. The arc of his eight solo studio albums is enough to merit Titan status, but that doesn't consider his award-winning film scoring and soundtrack work, his collaborations (Scratch My Back is only the most visible of his astonishing list of partners) and things that defy categorization like OVO, the music he did for London's "Millennium Dome Show". And then there is, one of my favorites, New Blood, some of his earlier music reinterpreted for orchestra. But even his massive music canon only scratches the surface of his creative output.
He has always been heavily into visual media, and while his music videos are ground- and record-breaking (it put Aardman on the map and "Sledgehammer" is still the most played video in MTV history), he has also pioneered new kinds of album art, dabbled in avant-garde film making and even delved into video game production and interactive music. And to know he is into visual production you have only to see him on tour. We got to see him in 2003 and it stands as one of the best - if not the best - shows of my life, with a dizzying array and variety of effects, some stark and simple and others wildly over the top and innovative. It must say something about the scope and range of both his music and performance that the gamut of emotions I experienced during that show ran from unbridled joy through aching sadness with stops at wonder, melancholy and hilarity along the way. I cried at least twice. Not your average concert.
Peter Gabriel is acutely aware of the connections between different creative avenues and processes, and how those connections can break down boundaries. He combined that with his love of world music by founding The World of Music, Art and Dance (WOMAD). It is sad that America can't seem to get it's head around WOMAD, so it hasn't done well here, but I was lucky enough to attend one of their festivals and had a literally life-changing experience there. He also had a reported project in the works (which I'm sorry to say I think must be defunct) to create a creative theme park for adults that sounded just remarkable - would love to have seen that!
And if all that isn't enough for you, he is a dedicated and passionate human rights activist. He has been heavily involved with Amnesty International, founded WITNESS, and helped found and heavily funds The Elders. He has done so much and is so active it is hard to keep track of it all, but he has received numerous humanitarian awards including the "Man of Peace" from the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. And in an age when good causes are sometimes hard to distinguish from good publicity, he is wonderfully humble about his success in the field.
Is all the stuff not related to his music a pre-requisite for Titan status? No, but it sure does go a long way. And besides, he would be a Titan for me if all he ever did was make his particular style of amazing, joyous, moving, original, wondrous, beautiful music.
Titans so far: Gabriel, Townshend and Young.
Coming up - last but not least! - X.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Top Ten TV
Isn't alliteration fun? TV is one of my favorite dichotomies. It can be so bad, just downright execrable, but when it is good it can really be wonderful. So it's list time - 10 Best TV Shows Ever. Some helpful but not definite criteria: longevity, impact, creativity, originality, and universal appeal. Can you watch it again and again? Did you long for the next episode and feel empty when it was over? Did it move you? To have a workable group I did not include news, late-night, so-called reality or sketch/variety shows - script driven TV only. The usual disclaimers: this is my list so is inherently subjective; but not just about me - how the show fared in the world and its impact play a role; it is unranked.
1. "M*A*S*H*" - Even though I say unranked, this really is probably number one. While eleven seasons might have been a couple too many, there was still some amazing stuff going on right to the end. This show was a little bit of everything. It was comedy, using anything and everything to get laughs. High and low wordplay, slapstick, sight gags, irony - all were in play. It was social commentary, willing to take on hard social issues unflinchingly and with candor. Not enough to just talk about war, it looked at alcoholism, sexism, racism, PTSD, marital infidelity, and really anything else you can think of. I think only "All in the Family" compares for courage to ask questions. It was drama, able to scare, horrify or move to tears at the drop of a hat. In short, it made you laugh, cry and think, which for me is the brass ring of TV. But that just deals with the writing. The characters, and the portrayals of them, are arguably the greatest collection ever. From the amazing Harry Morgan as Col. Potter to Jamie Farr growing Clinger from minor side part to a complex and interesting featured role. At least two of those parts - Larry Linville's loathsome Frank Burns and Gary Burghoff's remarkable Radar - were so good the actors almost ruined their own careers by creating characters from which they could never be separated. One other part of MASH's genius was that the structure allowed for so many one-off characters to act as catalysts and instigators. And they had the sense to recognize when one of those characters was worth turning into a semi-regular like Sydney or Colonel Flagg. I would rather watch an episode of MASH that I've seen ten times before than 99% of TV that I haven't.
2. "Friday Night Lights" - If there were a separate category for "best show that no one watched" this gem would run away with it. I realize that I am biased, the show being about a coach after all, but I stand by this show. I recently began watching the series again from the beginning, and three of the first four episodes brought tears to my eyes. It manages to dramatize the little things in life - which is really most of life if you think about it - without pandering to teen angst or going over the top. This show also clung to its style - the handheld (but not endlessly bumping and swooping of some lesser shows) camera work and flexible dialogue providing intimacy and verisimilitude - in the face of misplaced criticism, and it allowed a whole group of shockingly talented actors, young and older, but especially young, do some astonishing work. And I can think of very, very few shows whose writing was so good that I honestly didn't know which way things were going to go in the end. That is a rare and powerful thing.
3. "The West Wing" - Thank you Aaron Sorkin. This show went beyond brilliant. It has often been criticized for being "too smart". Huh? When did being smart people talking smart and making us all smarter become bad? Like MASH, it had that amazing ability to combine drama, comedy and commentary into one powerful and moving package. And it was better even than MASH in doing all those things without preaching. There were times I didn't even realize how much thought was being provoked until days later when something would click and I'd have a great "Oh, now I get it" moment. Also another great ensemble that grew and changed and shifted without ever missing a beat.
4. "The X-Files" - This is the first show in my memory that reached that weird cult status that seems so much more common now. If you watched the show, you were somehow in and hip and were able to endlessly discuss and debate and speculate about what this or that meant, what might happen next, or whether Scully and Mulder would ever get together. And it was so much fun. Creator Chris Carter did a great job of interweaving an episodic feel, a la "The Twilight Zone" with a serial story line. Then there was also that great sense of suspense created by not just the whole extraterrestrial question, but with the constant shifting of villains and heroes. Is it real and a cover-up or is Mulder crazy? Whose side is The Smoking man on? Hell, whose side is Skinner on? And I loved the fact that the makers were willing to, about once a season, just get downright silly and make fun of themselves. And in full disclosure, I am probably swayed by the fact that I still have a crush on Scully. Not on Gillian Anderson, mind you, but Scully. Sigh.
5. "Cheers" - Yet another great ensemble, this show was just flat-out funny. I can scarcely remember an episode that didn't make me laugh out loud. While many of its characters were painted with a somewhat broad brush - could Woody be that dumb? - you rarely found them unbelievable and couldn't help but be drawn in to their unlikely camaraderie. The dialogue was sharp without being unreal, and it was easy to feel like you could go to your own neighborhood tavern and find a similar crew. It also was able to grow over time and add in characters or storylines that sustained rather than thinned the existing cast. If they hadn't been able to do that we never would have had Frasier, both the "Cheers" character and subsequent wonderful spin-off. I also found it to be one of the few shows that was good outside of it's normal setting. I feel very few shows do that well, but can remember a number of episodes outside the bar that were great.
6. "The Sopranos" - My favorite thing about this show is what it is about - family - and what it is not about - the mob. Think about it. The show focused more on the interactions between Tony and his family than it ever did on their business. It was superbly written, beautifully shot and the actors were just wonderful. It was like a contest between Gandolfini and Falco to see who could throw down the best performance. And how excellent was it that guitar great Little Steven Van Zandt was just too cool as Silvio? Oh, and not for nothing, I absolutely love the much-criticized ending. The show had never, its entire run, been about single moments, big denouements or cliff-hangers. It was about everyday life, even if your everyday life includes dodging FBI wire-taps, calculating the vig and whacking Big Pussy. It was about family and it was great.
7. "The Simpsons" - If doing it longer than anyone - longest primetime scripted TV series in history and over 500(!) episodes - isn't enough, they also have done it better than most. Not as fanciful as "Futurama", as twisted as "Family Guy", as crude as "South Park" or as wry as "King of the Hill", it has elements of them all and is remarkable in its ability to cross over between family and grown-up entertainment. But to compare it only to other animated series is to do it an injustice. While it obviously couldn't exist outside its drawing, it can be compared to even the best live-action comedies and come out on top. It is both high satire and toilet humor, balancing the best and worst of our comedic needs and has been the proving grounds for at least two generations of some of our greatest comedy writers.
8. "Miami Vice" - I expect this to be the most scoffed at of my selections, but what a great freaking show. Forget the clothes, the hype and Don Johnson's sexiest man in America shtick. Not only was it exceptional crime drama - well-written with tight arcs and compelling characters - it was entirely new in the way it was produced and shot. Michael Mann raised the TV ante by blowing out production values, camera work and visual effects and TV has never been the same since. Much of what we now take for granted in our TV shows in terms of look and feel is attributable to the "Vice look" and, for better or worse, we now expect more from TV than pre-Vice. Without "Miami Vice" there is no "Sopranos". It also pioneered the use of broadcast music (it became quite the coup for modern artists to have a track on the show and the list of music celeberities involved is long and impressive) and was the first show to be shot and mixed in stereo. And since I still hear scoffing out there, did you know it was actually nominated for fifteen Emmys its first season?
9. "ER" - There is a decent chance that when you start dropping names like Michael Crichton (creator) and Steven Spielberg (executive producer) you are on to something. The champion of all the medical dramas, it featured a startlingly good cast -the names George Clooney and Julianna Marguiles might ring a bell - and previously unseen realism. But one of the things I loved about the way it was written was how sneaky it was with its use of a seemingly secondary character - Noah Wylie's wonderful Carter - as the catalyst that moved all the "major" characters (Greene, Peter, Doug Ross and Susan in the beginning) through the stories. It survived many changes and losses, and though it probably lost its way towards the end of its run, it was impressive in its staying power. I also dig that it was one of the first shows shot in widescreen even though it didn't appear that way widely until well into its run.
10. "Northern Exposure" - This is my wild card because it is somehow overlooked despite it's success, respect - a bunch of Grammys - and popularity. The best thing that happened to this show was when it got over Joel and started focusing on the residents of the fictional Cicely, Alaska. A more eclectic and compelling collection of characters I defy you to find anywhere on TV: Ed the half-native foundling and budding filmmaker; Maurice the retired astronaut land-baron; Marilyn the native stoic and Joel's receptionist; Chris the ex-con DJ and philosopher; Ruth-Anne the widow merchant; and the wonderful December-May couple of Holling the salt-of the-earth but insecure tavern-owner and Shelly the semi-ditsy but actually whip smart waitress. It had all the things I love in many other shows on this list - comedy, drama and social content - but what puts it on this list is how totally original and creative it was. I have yet to see another show quite like it and I miss it a lot. And I wish KBHR and "Chris in the Morning" was real.
Honorable mention in no order: "Friends", the "Battlestar Galactica" reboot, "Glee", "Buffy", "Alias", "Quantum Leap", "Law and Order", "Cosby", "All in the Family". Without the restrictions above "The Tonight Show", "Flying Circus", "Sixty Minutes", "Laugh-In", "Whose Line", "Rocky and Bullwinke" and the "Carol Burnett Show" would have certainly been under consideration.
Snubs I expect people to complain about: "Seinfeld" (didn't dislike it, just wasn't impressed), "Lost", "24" (just never saw 'em).
1. "M*A*S*H*" - Even though I say unranked, this really is probably number one. While eleven seasons might have been a couple too many, there was still some amazing stuff going on right to the end. This show was a little bit of everything. It was comedy, using anything and everything to get laughs. High and low wordplay, slapstick, sight gags, irony - all were in play. It was social commentary, willing to take on hard social issues unflinchingly and with candor. Not enough to just talk about war, it looked at alcoholism, sexism, racism, PTSD, marital infidelity, and really anything else you can think of. I think only "All in the Family" compares for courage to ask questions. It was drama, able to scare, horrify or move to tears at the drop of a hat. In short, it made you laugh, cry and think, which for me is the brass ring of TV. But that just deals with the writing. The characters, and the portrayals of them, are arguably the greatest collection ever. From the amazing Harry Morgan as Col. Potter to Jamie Farr growing Clinger from minor side part to a complex and interesting featured role. At least two of those parts - Larry Linville's loathsome Frank Burns and Gary Burghoff's remarkable Radar - were so good the actors almost ruined their own careers by creating characters from which they could never be separated. One other part of MASH's genius was that the structure allowed for so many one-off characters to act as catalysts and instigators. And they had the sense to recognize when one of those characters was worth turning into a semi-regular like Sydney or Colonel Flagg. I would rather watch an episode of MASH that I've seen ten times before than 99% of TV that I haven't.
2. "Friday Night Lights" - If there were a separate category for "best show that no one watched" this gem would run away with it. I realize that I am biased, the show being about a coach after all, but I stand by this show. I recently began watching the series again from the beginning, and three of the first four episodes brought tears to my eyes. It manages to dramatize the little things in life - which is really most of life if you think about it - without pandering to teen angst or going over the top. This show also clung to its style - the handheld (but not endlessly bumping and swooping of some lesser shows) camera work and flexible dialogue providing intimacy and verisimilitude - in the face of misplaced criticism, and it allowed a whole group of shockingly talented actors, young and older, but especially young, do some astonishing work. And I can think of very, very few shows whose writing was so good that I honestly didn't know which way things were going to go in the end. That is a rare and powerful thing.
3. "The West Wing" - Thank you Aaron Sorkin. This show went beyond brilliant. It has often been criticized for being "too smart". Huh? When did being smart people talking smart and making us all smarter become bad? Like MASH, it had that amazing ability to combine drama, comedy and commentary into one powerful and moving package. And it was better even than MASH in doing all those things without preaching. There were times I didn't even realize how much thought was being provoked until days later when something would click and I'd have a great "Oh, now I get it" moment. Also another great ensemble that grew and changed and shifted without ever missing a beat.
4. "The X-Files" - This is the first show in my memory that reached that weird cult status that seems so much more common now. If you watched the show, you were somehow in and hip and were able to endlessly discuss and debate and speculate about what this or that meant, what might happen next, or whether Scully and Mulder would ever get together. And it was so much fun. Creator Chris Carter did a great job of interweaving an episodic feel, a la "The Twilight Zone" with a serial story line. Then there was also that great sense of suspense created by not just the whole extraterrestrial question, but with the constant shifting of villains and heroes. Is it real and a cover-up or is Mulder crazy? Whose side is The Smoking man on? Hell, whose side is Skinner on? And I loved the fact that the makers were willing to, about once a season, just get downright silly and make fun of themselves. And in full disclosure, I am probably swayed by the fact that I still have a crush on Scully. Not on Gillian Anderson, mind you, but Scully. Sigh.
5. "Cheers" - Yet another great ensemble, this show was just flat-out funny. I can scarcely remember an episode that didn't make me laugh out loud. While many of its characters were painted with a somewhat broad brush - could Woody be that dumb? - you rarely found them unbelievable and couldn't help but be drawn in to their unlikely camaraderie. The dialogue was sharp without being unreal, and it was easy to feel like you could go to your own neighborhood tavern and find a similar crew. It also was able to grow over time and add in characters or storylines that sustained rather than thinned the existing cast. If they hadn't been able to do that we never would have had Frasier, both the "Cheers" character and subsequent wonderful spin-off. I also found it to be one of the few shows that was good outside of it's normal setting. I feel very few shows do that well, but can remember a number of episodes outside the bar that were great.
6. "The Sopranos" - My favorite thing about this show is what it is about - family - and what it is not about - the mob. Think about it. The show focused more on the interactions between Tony and his family than it ever did on their business. It was superbly written, beautifully shot and the actors were just wonderful. It was like a contest between Gandolfini and Falco to see who could throw down the best performance. And how excellent was it that guitar great Little Steven Van Zandt was just too cool as Silvio? Oh, and not for nothing, I absolutely love the much-criticized ending. The show had never, its entire run, been about single moments, big denouements or cliff-hangers. It was about everyday life, even if your everyday life includes dodging FBI wire-taps, calculating the vig and whacking Big Pussy. It was about family and it was great.
7. "The Simpsons" - If doing it longer than anyone - longest primetime scripted TV series in history and over 500(!) episodes - isn't enough, they also have done it better than most. Not as fanciful as "Futurama", as twisted as "Family Guy", as crude as "South Park" or as wry as "King of the Hill", it has elements of them all and is remarkable in its ability to cross over between family and grown-up entertainment. But to compare it only to other animated series is to do it an injustice. While it obviously couldn't exist outside its drawing, it can be compared to even the best live-action comedies and come out on top. It is both high satire and toilet humor, balancing the best and worst of our comedic needs and has been the proving grounds for at least two generations of some of our greatest comedy writers.
8. "Miami Vice" - I expect this to be the most scoffed at of my selections, but what a great freaking show. Forget the clothes, the hype and Don Johnson's sexiest man in America shtick. Not only was it exceptional crime drama - well-written with tight arcs and compelling characters - it was entirely new in the way it was produced and shot. Michael Mann raised the TV ante by blowing out production values, camera work and visual effects and TV has never been the same since. Much of what we now take for granted in our TV shows in terms of look and feel is attributable to the "Vice look" and, for better or worse, we now expect more from TV than pre-Vice. Without "Miami Vice" there is no "Sopranos". It also pioneered the use of broadcast music (it became quite the coup for modern artists to have a track on the show and the list of music celeberities involved is long and impressive) and was the first show to be shot and mixed in stereo. And since I still hear scoffing out there, did you know it was actually nominated for fifteen Emmys its first season?
9. "ER" - There is a decent chance that when you start dropping names like Michael Crichton (creator) and Steven Spielberg (executive producer) you are on to something. The champion of all the medical dramas, it featured a startlingly good cast -the names George Clooney and Julianna Marguiles might ring a bell - and previously unseen realism. But one of the things I loved about the way it was written was how sneaky it was with its use of a seemingly secondary character - Noah Wylie's wonderful Carter - as the catalyst that moved all the "major" characters (Greene, Peter, Doug Ross and Susan in the beginning) through the stories. It survived many changes and losses, and though it probably lost its way towards the end of its run, it was impressive in its staying power. I also dig that it was one of the first shows shot in widescreen even though it didn't appear that way widely until well into its run.
10. "Northern Exposure" - This is my wild card because it is somehow overlooked despite it's success, respect - a bunch of Grammys - and popularity. The best thing that happened to this show was when it got over Joel and started focusing on the residents of the fictional Cicely, Alaska. A more eclectic and compelling collection of characters I defy you to find anywhere on TV: Ed the half-native foundling and budding filmmaker; Maurice the retired astronaut land-baron; Marilyn the native stoic and Joel's receptionist; Chris the ex-con DJ and philosopher; Ruth-Anne the widow merchant; and the wonderful December-May couple of Holling the salt-of the-earth but insecure tavern-owner and Shelly the semi-ditsy but actually whip smart waitress. It had all the things I love in many other shows on this list - comedy, drama and social content - but what puts it on this list is how totally original and creative it was. I have yet to see another show quite like it and I miss it a lot. And I wish KBHR and "Chris in the Morning" was real.
Honorable mention in no order: "Friends", the "Battlestar Galactica" reboot, "Glee", "Buffy", "Alias", "Quantum Leap", "Law and Order", "Cosby", "All in the Family". Without the restrictions above "The Tonight Show", "Flying Circus", "Sixty Minutes", "Laugh-In", "Whose Line", "Rocky and Bullwinke" and the "Carol Burnett Show" would have certainly been under consideration.
Snubs I expect people to complain about: "Seinfeld" (didn't dislike it, just wasn't impressed), "Lost", "24" (just never saw 'em).
There is the brink . . .
. . . and there is the abyss. Let's talk sequester, or the just the latest so-called cliff, crisis, emergency, whatever. First of all, it is crucial to remember that all of these crises that the government is supposedly facing are self-created. These brinks - the debt-ceiling crisis, the fiscal cliff, the sequester - are all cut from whole cloth to create false emergencies to in turn create fear and panic to use for leverage. Next, remember that they can choose, at any time, to step back from these brinks. They choose to walk up to the edge of the cliff and they can choose to step back. But they choose instead to hold the economy - our economy, yours, mine, ours - hostage to further other political goals. A metaphor:
Two guys are in a plane, but can't decide who is going to fly it. There are controls at both seats so they fight over who gets to actually handle the flying and pick the course of the plane. Let's even go further and say that they both want to the same place - let's say Disneyland - but one wants to approach from the north and the other from the south. Same ostensible goal, polar opposite methods. They fight and they argue endlessly, and the plane is flying in circles. They realize they don't have enough will of their own to come to a compromise - maybe approach from the east - so they decide to create some tension, some fear, some outside motivation to come up with a way to get to Disneyland. So they put the plane in a steep dive, headed straight toward the ground, and swear that if they can't come to an agreement they will just let the plane crash and be destroyed. That is the sequester - or any other phony brink - as a slightly tortured metaphor. Pretty stupid, right? Let's torture it some more.
First off, let's add to this that the plane is a jumbo jet and we are all passengers. If Disneyland is a booming economy with low taxes and full employment (maybe I should have used heaven instead) and the plane is our budget and spending, everyone agrees that letting the plane crash - good word choice - is a bad idea. And by everybody I mean Republicans, Democrats, non-partisan groups, us. And by bad I mean disastrous, horrible and devastating. As in the economy, which even though it is in recovery (and don't let anybody tell you different) is still very fragile and would be crushed by this.
The second is that what these theoretical pilots don't want us to know is that there is not a single thing preventing them from just reaching out, grabbing the controls and pulling us out of the dive. The legislation that was put in place in 2011 - the Budget Control Act - is self-imposed and can just as easily be un-imposed. They've done it before and in fact do it with alarming frequency.
Another catch is that the pilots would rather continue to argue over whose idea it was in the first place than find a solution. If there was any humor to be found in this, it might be in the image of bursting into the cockpit to find out why we're in a crash dive only to have the pilots say "He did it!", "Did not! He did it". Laurel and Hardy as government leaders. As to the answer to whose idea it was, yes, the President proposed a version of, and signed the final, bill. The Republicans, however, who are trying to blame it on Obama to the extent of the absurd "#obamaquester", actually altered the original proposal - removing the tax increases that would have partially balanced the broad cuts (big surprise) and voted overwhelmingly (unanimously in the House) in favor. So to say it was "Obama's idea" is disingenuous at best. I would call it bullshit.
The third catch is in the details as to who is going to be hit by these cuts. Everyone is screaming about how it will gut the military - which by the way was the Republican contribution to the bill, to replace tax increases with military cuts, shocking in and of itself - when it is in actuality far more potentially damaging to non-defense programs. The OMB figures the cuts will amount to about 13% defense and 9% non-defense. But when you compare the two - the bloated military budget versus the many underfunded programs also under the ax - my guess is that HeadStart taking a 9% hit will hurt a lot more than the Pentagon taking 13%. So what gets cut? Foodstamps, unemployment, Medicare, police, fire, air traffic controllers, etc. To be fair, they will also be furloughing many members of the military - especially in the civilian work force - but is that better? I doubt the people being laid off think so. When the plane crashes we all burn. Expect that the pilots probably have parachutes.
Lastly, the act of taking us to the brink does damage even if they don't let us go over - which they probably won't. Just putting the plane in the dive is bad. You stress the wings and engines, you waste time and fuel and you scare the crap out of the passengers. (The last one is probably the point, but another topic altogether.) The markets, employers, and banks are all already responding to this brinksmanship, and only in negative ways. Not to mention how it makes us look - like idiots - to the international community. "Who is flying that bloody plane anyway?"
Metaphors aside, the question has got be be why? Why are our leaders willing to do so much damage? Damage that will be felt not on paper, but in the daily lives of the people whom the leaders are supposed to represent and serve. Picture the family breadwinner who is on unemployment because their company downsized during the recession. Picture how much they hate receiving that check instead of working, and how hard it has been to feed their family on a fraction of what they used to earn. All bad, and we can argue over what created that all-too-common scenario later. Now picture that check being almost ten per cent smaller than it was before the leaders elected to represent them willfully and without reason took us to another brink and then let us go over. Why? I don't know, and I am not sure they do either. But I fear it is only one more manifestation of a larger truth: we have lost our way.
Two guys are in a plane, but can't decide who is going to fly it. There are controls at both seats so they fight over who gets to actually handle the flying and pick the course of the plane. Let's even go further and say that they both want to the same place - let's say Disneyland - but one wants to approach from the north and the other from the south. Same ostensible goal, polar opposite methods. They fight and they argue endlessly, and the plane is flying in circles. They realize they don't have enough will of their own to come to a compromise - maybe approach from the east - so they decide to create some tension, some fear, some outside motivation to come up with a way to get to Disneyland. So they put the plane in a steep dive, headed straight toward the ground, and swear that if they can't come to an agreement they will just let the plane crash and be destroyed. That is the sequester - or any other phony brink - as a slightly tortured metaphor. Pretty stupid, right? Let's torture it some more.
First off, let's add to this that the plane is a jumbo jet and we are all passengers. If Disneyland is a booming economy with low taxes and full employment (maybe I should have used heaven instead) and the plane is our budget and spending, everyone agrees that letting the plane crash - good word choice - is a bad idea. And by everybody I mean Republicans, Democrats, non-partisan groups, us. And by bad I mean disastrous, horrible and devastating. As in the economy, which even though it is in recovery (and don't let anybody tell you different) is still very fragile and would be crushed by this.
The second is that what these theoretical pilots don't want us to know is that there is not a single thing preventing them from just reaching out, grabbing the controls and pulling us out of the dive. The legislation that was put in place in 2011 - the Budget Control Act - is self-imposed and can just as easily be un-imposed. They've done it before and in fact do it with alarming frequency.
Another catch is that the pilots would rather continue to argue over whose idea it was in the first place than find a solution. If there was any humor to be found in this, it might be in the image of bursting into the cockpit to find out why we're in a crash dive only to have the pilots say "He did it!", "Did not! He did it". Laurel and Hardy as government leaders. As to the answer to whose idea it was, yes, the President proposed a version of, and signed the final, bill. The Republicans, however, who are trying to blame it on Obama to the extent of the absurd "#obamaquester", actually altered the original proposal - removing the tax increases that would have partially balanced the broad cuts (big surprise) and voted overwhelmingly (unanimously in the House) in favor. So to say it was "Obama's idea" is disingenuous at best. I would call it bullshit.
The third catch is in the details as to who is going to be hit by these cuts. Everyone is screaming about how it will gut the military - which by the way was the Republican contribution to the bill, to replace tax increases with military cuts, shocking in and of itself - when it is in actuality far more potentially damaging to non-defense programs. The OMB figures the cuts will amount to about 13% defense and 9% non-defense. But when you compare the two - the bloated military budget versus the many underfunded programs also under the ax - my guess is that HeadStart taking a 9% hit will hurt a lot more than the Pentagon taking 13%. So what gets cut? Foodstamps, unemployment, Medicare, police, fire, air traffic controllers, etc. To be fair, they will also be furloughing many members of the military - especially in the civilian work force - but is that better? I doubt the people being laid off think so. When the plane crashes we all burn. Expect that the pilots probably have parachutes.
Lastly, the act of taking us to the brink does damage even if they don't let us go over - which they probably won't. Just putting the plane in the dive is bad. You stress the wings and engines, you waste time and fuel and you scare the crap out of the passengers. (The last one is probably the point, but another topic altogether.) The markets, employers, and banks are all already responding to this brinksmanship, and only in negative ways. Not to mention how it makes us look - like idiots - to the international community. "Who is flying that bloody plane anyway?"
Metaphors aside, the question has got be be why? Why are our leaders willing to do so much damage? Damage that will be felt not on paper, but in the daily lives of the people whom the leaders are supposed to represent and serve. Picture the family breadwinner who is on unemployment because their company downsized during the recession. Picture how much they hate receiving that check instead of working, and how hard it has been to feed their family on a fraction of what they used to earn. All bad, and we can argue over what created that all-too-common scenario later. Now picture that check being almost ten per cent smaller than it was before the leaders elected to represent them willfully and without reason took us to another brink and then let us go over. Why? I don't know, and I am not sure they do either. But I fear it is only one more manifestation of a larger truth: we have lost our way.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Greatest Sport
Volleyball. I know, I know, this is long overdue. For those of you who don't know me, volleyball is my career, my obsession and one of my great passions. But why? Because it is the greatest sport.
Here are some of the things that make volleyball great:
- it is reactive. The pass responds to the serve, the set to the pass, the hit to the set, the block and dig to the hit, the set to the dig . . . see where this is going? All those open skills flowing into one another forms a beautiful chain of execution that you just don't see in any other sport.
- it requires a broad skill set. Even specialized players need to be have all the basic skills. The big hitter/blocker still needs to be able to pass and set and the Libero to be able to play the ball over. And frequently a player will have to use multiple skills in a single rally.
- it is a game of rebounds and deflections. The only time you can hold the ball is before you serve. The rest of the time you are just changing its path to the next player so they can do the same thing. Again, the only sport like that. Even in soccer you can settle the ball before you need to kick it again and the "one-touch" is remarked on and admired. In volleyball everything is a one-touch.
- it is so varied. In even the average play you get the subtle precision of the pass, the soft offering of the set, and the power and fury of the hit and block. The ebb and flow between such contrasting elements is exciting and beautiful.
- it ain't over until it's over. Even with rally scoring the potential for a team to come back from even the biggest deficits is great. You gotta love sports with no clock.
- it is a great balance between continuous action and mind-numbing boredom. I love the flow of soccer and rugby, but it can be nice to be able to look away. On the other end of the spectrum, the ball being in play for less than 10% of the time you watch (baseball and football) is just silly.
- it takes a team. There is very little room for individual dominance in volleyball. In most team sports it is still possible for a dominant player to act independently and succeed. Not in volleyball. The vast majority of points in volleyball are scored by a combination of three different players touching the ball. Even in doubles both players play the ball almost every time.
- it is unique. I put this last because while many of the things listed above can be found in other sports, I cannot think of any other sport of which all those things are true.
While this is a nice pile of evidence in support of volleyball's greatness, it is only the facts of the game and only the beginning of why I love it so much. But it will have to do for now as not only do I still need to explain why it is better than other sport - and I will! - I have not yet begun to expound on its beauty and poetry.
But it really is the greatest sport.
Here are some of the things that make volleyball great:
- it is reactive. The pass responds to the serve, the set to the pass, the hit to the set, the block and dig to the hit, the set to the dig . . . see where this is going? All those open skills flowing into one another forms a beautiful chain of execution that you just don't see in any other sport.
- it requires a broad skill set. Even specialized players need to be have all the basic skills. The big hitter/blocker still needs to be able to pass and set and the Libero to be able to play the ball over. And frequently a player will have to use multiple skills in a single rally.
- it is a game of rebounds and deflections. The only time you can hold the ball is before you serve. The rest of the time you are just changing its path to the next player so they can do the same thing. Again, the only sport like that. Even in soccer you can settle the ball before you need to kick it again and the "one-touch" is remarked on and admired. In volleyball everything is a one-touch.
- it is so varied. In even the average play you get the subtle precision of the pass, the soft offering of the set, and the power and fury of the hit and block. The ebb and flow between such contrasting elements is exciting and beautiful.
- it ain't over until it's over. Even with rally scoring the potential for a team to come back from even the biggest deficits is great. You gotta love sports with no clock.
- it is a great balance between continuous action and mind-numbing boredom. I love the flow of soccer and rugby, but it can be nice to be able to look away. On the other end of the spectrum, the ball being in play for less than 10% of the time you watch (baseball and football) is just silly.
- it takes a team. There is very little room for individual dominance in volleyball. In most team sports it is still possible for a dominant player to act independently and succeed. Not in volleyball. The vast majority of points in volleyball are scored by a combination of three different players touching the ball. Even in doubles both players play the ball almost every time.
- it is unique. I put this last because while many of the things listed above can be found in other sports, I cannot think of any other sport of which all those things are true.
While this is a nice pile of evidence in support of volleyball's greatness, it is only the facts of the game and only the beginning of why I love it so much. But it will have to do for now as not only do I still need to explain why it is better than other sport - and I will! - I have not yet begun to expound on its beauty and poetry.
But it really is the greatest sport.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Senate Fail
It is time to get pissed. Okay, this is by no means the first time I've been pissed at Congress, but I'm really pissed. The topic if my wrath? The filibuster of the confirmation of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. If you haven't heard about this, here is the short version. After the usual hoop jumping - a full investigation, vetting and general inspection of everything he ever said, wrote or thought about national defense - they held hearings, asked all the questions and decided yes, he is qualified, and voted in cloture that he should be confirmed - 58 ayes is enough. Then four republican - I will not dignify the designation with a capital letter in reference to these clowns - senators (John McCain, Lindsay Graham, ?? and ???) decided they weren't okay with the idea and put a filibuster in place to prevent the vote. Why does this royally piss me off? Let me count the ways. It is:
- irresponsible. Remember the 60,000 plus troops still in Afghanistan? The simmering nitro in Syria and Iran? The upcoming NATO meetings? The changes taking place as we speak throughout the military? Seems like a Sec'y of Defense might be a good idea? I would think so. Did they forget that Leon Panetta has already packed up, said good bye and is outta here? I doubt it. And let us not forget that they did this the day before the Senate heads off for break! Criminally irresponsible.
- dishonest. At least two of these bastards - McCain and Graham - said publicly that while they were considering the idea, they would NOT actually do it. But that was three days ago and what good is a promise anyway? And Graham had the gall to claim it wasn't a filibuster. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, etc. Was Hagel great in the hearings? No. But was there anything brought up to call his qualifications into question? No. Did he get a majority of votes? Yes!!
- without precedent. Never, not ever, in the over two centuries they have been doing this, as anyone ever filibustered a cabinet nominee. People have been denied, removed their names from consideration and been removed by the President, but never have they been held up like this. Ever. Can I be clear here? NEVER. Remember that this is the law of the land as per our constitution. He is the President's choice, he has a majority of votes, he gets the job. Except this time because these four guys say no. Four! Four chest-thumping, finger-wagging, flag waving hypocrites who freak out if someone else has the temerity to suggest that the constitution is not perfect as the sacred framers wrote it. But they can ignore two hundred years of precedent and senate guidelines because they didn't get their way.
- pointless. It actually isn't because they didn't get their way, but because they are petulant obstructionist punks. This is the image I can't get out of my head: a four-year-old, having just been told no, holding his breath, stomping his feet and throwing things even though he knows it won't change anything. But he can't help himself because he is only four and a brat. At least two of these asses have even said they will probably confirm him after the recess. So why not do it now to avoid being irresponsible? They haven't even actually given an clear reason why they're doing it to begin with. The closest anyone has come is to say hey want more information about the attack on Ben Ghazi. Huh? That would be State, not Defense, but they slid Kerry through his confirmation like he was greased.
- petty. Since there isn't any professed justification that holds water, perhaps there are some other possibilities. How about they just hate President Obama so much they just can't abide the thought of him getting something he wants (Kerry was their idea). Or maybe they hate Hagel because he turned on them - don't forget that the guy they are torturing like this is a former Republican senator. Could they be stalling? The more time they waste on a done-deal confirmation the less time they have to spend actually legislating. I am reluctant to go with that one because while they are certainly underhanded and unscrupulous enough, it would betray an ability for long-term thinking that I think might be beyond them. I'm going to go with all of the above and because they are small-minded and mean.
Let's see. Irresponsible, petty, pointless, dishonest and without precedent. Shall we just use that as the new definition of Republican for simplicity's sake? But lest you chalk this up as just another liberal rant, I must point out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - Democrat - also has to be called to task for this as well. This wouldn't even have been possible if when he had the chance to change the rules to prevent such ignominious perverting of the senate guidelines he had shown a little spine. He decided instead to put in place a "handshake rule" or "gentlemen's agreement" with Mitch McConnell that this kind of crap would stop. Gutless, which unfortunately is too often the case with Democrats lately. Then again, what he is mostly guilty of is trusting these asshats. But did we really expect such as these to honor a handshake or behave like gentlemen? I didn't and am in no way surprised.
But I am pissed.
- irresponsible. Remember the 60,000 plus troops still in Afghanistan? The simmering nitro in Syria and Iran? The upcoming NATO meetings? The changes taking place as we speak throughout the military? Seems like a Sec'y of Defense might be a good idea? I would think so. Did they forget that Leon Panetta has already packed up, said good bye and is outta here? I doubt it. And let us not forget that they did this the day before the Senate heads off for break! Criminally irresponsible.
- dishonest. At least two of these bastards - McCain and Graham - said publicly that while they were considering the idea, they would NOT actually do it. But that was three days ago and what good is a promise anyway? And Graham had the gall to claim it wasn't a filibuster. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, etc. Was Hagel great in the hearings? No. But was there anything brought up to call his qualifications into question? No. Did he get a majority of votes? Yes!!
- without precedent. Never, not ever, in the over two centuries they have been doing this, as anyone ever filibustered a cabinet nominee. People have been denied, removed their names from consideration and been removed by the President, but never have they been held up like this. Ever. Can I be clear here? NEVER. Remember that this is the law of the land as per our constitution. He is the President's choice, he has a majority of votes, he gets the job. Except this time because these four guys say no. Four! Four chest-thumping, finger-wagging, flag waving hypocrites who freak out if someone else has the temerity to suggest that the constitution is not perfect as the sacred framers wrote it. But they can ignore two hundred years of precedent and senate guidelines because they didn't get their way.
- pointless. It actually isn't because they didn't get their way, but because they are petulant obstructionist punks. This is the image I can't get out of my head: a four-year-old, having just been told no, holding his breath, stomping his feet and throwing things even though he knows it won't change anything. But he can't help himself because he is only four and a brat. At least two of these asses have even said they will probably confirm him after the recess. So why not do it now to avoid being irresponsible? They haven't even actually given an clear reason why they're doing it to begin with. The closest anyone has come is to say hey want more information about the attack on Ben Ghazi. Huh? That would be State, not Defense, but they slid Kerry through his confirmation like he was greased.
- petty. Since there isn't any professed justification that holds water, perhaps there are some other possibilities. How about they just hate President Obama so much they just can't abide the thought of him getting something he wants (Kerry was their idea). Or maybe they hate Hagel because he turned on them - don't forget that the guy they are torturing like this is a former Republican senator. Could they be stalling? The more time they waste on a done-deal confirmation the less time they have to spend actually legislating. I am reluctant to go with that one because while they are certainly underhanded and unscrupulous enough, it would betray an ability for long-term thinking that I think might be beyond them. I'm going to go with all of the above and because they are small-minded and mean.
Let's see. Irresponsible, petty, pointless, dishonest and without precedent. Shall we just use that as the new definition of Republican for simplicity's sake? But lest you chalk this up as just another liberal rant, I must point out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - Democrat - also has to be called to task for this as well. This wouldn't even have been possible if when he had the chance to change the rules to prevent such ignominious perverting of the senate guidelines he had shown a little spine. He decided instead to put in place a "handshake rule" or "gentlemen's agreement" with Mitch McConnell that this kind of crap would stop. Gutless, which unfortunately is too often the case with Democrats lately. Then again, what he is mostly guilty of is trusting these asshats. But did we really expect such as these to honor a handshake or behave like gentlemen? I didn't and am in no way surprised.
But I am pissed.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Riff on SOTU
Here lies the first of a new type of post: the riff. Not the Berber people or file format, or even Tony's buddy in West Side Story, but the "improvised verbal outpouring", thank you Webster. Different from my other posts how? Trying not to expound in any detail and with less forethought, just letting fly. I am inspired by last night's State of the Union.
Thank you Mr. President! Loved the way he took it straight to the congress in so many ways and was actually willing to say, in not so many words, "Why the hell can't you get this done?" and "What the hell is wrong with you?" Great.
Earning the minimum wage full time leaves you under the poverty line?! Holy blubbering hell! So what is the point of the minimum wage? To figure out what the minimum is that people will still work for? Madness.
Boehner looked like he had eaten something he didn't like, which now that I think about it is probably close to the truth. And I while I loved seeing him squirm, I also found it infuriating that he couldn't clap, much less stand, for stuff that you just can't in good conscience not support. Oh wait, unless it is supported by the President, in which case you are obligated to oppose it. I wish the president had spent a little more time on how party can't come before progress.
Who were the three women who looked so aggrieved when he called for the Fair Pay Act to be passed? Maybe some of the republicans who opposed the Violence Against Women Act. So you think women should be beaten and paid less than men for the same job? What?
Infrastructure!! How is this not a complete and total no-brainer? Let's see:
- we desperately need to put people to work, especially in the blue collar sector
- our highways, bridges, railways, dams, schools, etc are falling apart.
- businesses have said they will keep their operations in America - or bring them here! - if our infrastructure was better.
Get on with it!
Also on the list of things republicans should be shamed for not supporting: early childhood education. How can you not support that? And not because there is overwhelming evidence - not conservative anecdotal, I-think-I heard-that-somewhere, Faux news evidence but hard empirical data - that says it has one the great rates of return that we know of (as in it is a GREAT way to spend money) but because it is intuitively obvious. Should all little kids have access to a good pre-school? When someone asks you that, you say yes! Not if Obama thinks it's a good idea.
Groundbreaking idea: instead of assuming the only way to balance the budget is to shrink or eliminate programs of a certain type, let's see if we can waste less money by being more efficient. Why didn't we think of that? Another crazy idea: people who serve in the military should ALL get the same benefits for themselves and their families? Mr. President, you crazy!
People who live in a Democracy should get to vote? Uh, yeah. The Congress should be able to hold the economy hostage while they forward an extremist agenda? Uh, no.
And a great big "Hallelujah!" for the emotional outpouring for the need to move on gun control. They deserve a vote indeed. Brought tears to my eyes.
As thrilled as I was by the President's speech, and that really is the word for it, I also stand amazed that so many of the things that I was thrilled to hear him propose or support are not already in place. It is a tale of two emotions: joy that he is supporting these things in tension with horror that he has to. And that is underlined by much of the analysis being of this vein: "it is great that the President is proposing this but naive to think it will ever get through Congress." Oy. How weird to be hopeful and discouraged all at the same time.
But yay!
Selah.
Thank you Mr. President! Loved the way he took it straight to the congress in so many ways and was actually willing to say, in not so many words, "Why the hell can't you get this done?" and "What the hell is wrong with you?" Great.
Earning the minimum wage full time leaves you under the poverty line?! Holy blubbering hell! So what is the point of the minimum wage? To figure out what the minimum is that people will still work for? Madness.
Boehner looked like he had eaten something he didn't like, which now that I think about it is probably close to the truth. And I while I loved seeing him squirm, I also found it infuriating that he couldn't clap, much less stand, for stuff that you just can't in good conscience not support. Oh wait, unless it is supported by the President, in which case you are obligated to oppose it. I wish the president had spent a little more time on how party can't come before progress.
Who were the three women who looked so aggrieved when he called for the Fair Pay Act to be passed? Maybe some of the republicans who opposed the Violence Against Women Act. So you think women should be beaten and paid less than men for the same job? What?
Infrastructure!! How is this not a complete and total no-brainer? Let's see:
- we desperately need to put people to work, especially in the blue collar sector
- our highways, bridges, railways, dams, schools, etc are falling apart.
- businesses have said they will keep their operations in America - or bring them here! - if our infrastructure was better.
Get on with it!
Also on the list of things republicans should be shamed for not supporting: early childhood education. How can you not support that? And not because there is overwhelming evidence - not conservative anecdotal, I-think-I heard-that-somewhere, Faux news evidence but hard empirical data - that says it has one the great rates of return that we know of (as in it is a GREAT way to spend money) but because it is intuitively obvious. Should all little kids have access to a good pre-school? When someone asks you that, you say yes! Not if Obama thinks it's a good idea.
Groundbreaking idea: instead of assuming the only way to balance the budget is to shrink or eliminate programs of a certain type, let's see if we can waste less money by being more efficient. Why didn't we think of that? Another crazy idea: people who serve in the military should ALL get the same benefits for themselves and their families? Mr. President, you crazy!
People who live in a Democracy should get to vote? Uh, yeah. The Congress should be able to hold the economy hostage while they forward an extremist agenda? Uh, no.
And a great big "Hallelujah!" for the emotional outpouring for the need to move on gun control. They deserve a vote indeed. Brought tears to my eyes.
As thrilled as I was by the President's speech, and that really is the word for it, I also stand amazed that so many of the things that I was thrilled to hear him propose or support are not already in place. It is a tale of two emotions: joy that he is supporting these things in tension with horror that he has to. And that is underlined by much of the analysis being of this vein: "it is great that the President is proposing this but naive to think it will ever get through Congress." Oy. How weird to be hopeful and discouraged all at the same time.
But yay!
Selah.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Required reading not on the list
Sometimes you need a great book that isn't a Great Book. There are dozens of lists of the greatest books, with various criteria, but I'm not talking about those books. These are the others: books that you can go to again and again, or books that you only read once but stick with you forever; books for laughing, crying, thinking or just being amazed by; books that you think everybody, just everybody, should read. They might not be great literature, but rarely are they not well written. They have characters that come to life, settings that feel real and somehow they just move you. You know books like these. Here are some of mine.
"The Once and Future King" by T.H. White - An easy-going adaptation of the Arthur legend, it is part politics, part philosophy and all joy. Falls into the category of "some of the most important things I learned. I learned form this book" and should be required reading for anyone running for office
"Jitterbug Perfume" by Tom Robbins - Many Robbins books fit this bill, but this is the one I come back to the most. Mystical, magical and sweeping, it teases and boggles and is all Robbins. You'll never look at a beet the same way again.
"The Great Santini" by Pat Conroy - One of our greatest living authors, in my not-so-humble opinion, Conroy is a true wordsmith. I have had to re-read passages in his books because I was so taken with the turn of phrase and use of language that I wasn't actually following the plot. This one stands out for the depth of character and sheer power.
"Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card - Also on my Top Five All-Time Sc-Fi List, it is science fiction that transcends the genre and is filled with politics, sociology, philosophy and tells two great stories. I learn new things from this book every time I read it.
"Lonesome Dove" by Larry McMurtry - An epic western that was also made into an excellent TV mini-series that I highly recommend. An amazing collection of characters on a grand adventure, it can be brutal at times I dare you not to be moved.
"The Stand" by Stephen King - A very difficult book to define by genre, it is parts horror, fantasy, sci-fi, adventure and thriller. Apocalyptic themes and a pile of great characters, it is no casual read. But it is entirely compelling, and whatever else might be said about King, it must be said that the man can write.
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" by Hunter S Thompson - Unfortunately appropriated by the party and drug culture, it is actually a biting and insightful look at a changing America and just a great read. At times prophetic and often hysterical it is a piece of genius that has been dismissed by people who should read it and misrepresented by many who have. By no means Thompson's best, it is a microcosm of his work, a writer whose genius was often obscured by his persona.
"The Travis McGee Books" by John D. MacDonald - I didn't pick one because you can and should read all twenty-one of them. Nobody did the mystery/thriller better than MacDonald and hanging out with Travis - an honorable knight-errant with a penchant for introspection - is both refreshing and challenging. Amazing tidbits of wisdom and philosophy on anything and everything are liberally sprinkled throughout, and you get to also listen to the lessons of Meyer, my all-time favorite "sidekick". Beware, though, that these books look and feel like pulp but can surprise you with depths unexpected. Travis has a great Wikipedia entry.
"Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach - Fable and homily hidden in a novella, it is simple and eloquent. I first read it when very young and loved that I was his namesake. It has in recent years been sucked - tragically and undeservedly - into the morass of spiritual self-help claptrap, but while it can border on smarmy and preachy, it is a wonderful book with a lot to say. It is also quite beautiful.
I try not to explicitly elicit comments here, but I really would love to hear about some of your personal "great - not Great - books". Chime in so we all have more to read.
"The Once and Future King" by T.H. White - An easy-going adaptation of the Arthur legend, it is part politics, part philosophy and all joy. Falls into the category of "some of the most important things I learned. I learned form this book" and should be required reading for anyone running for office
"Jitterbug Perfume" by Tom Robbins - Many Robbins books fit this bill, but this is the one I come back to the most. Mystical, magical and sweeping, it teases and boggles and is all Robbins. You'll never look at a beet the same way again.
"The Great Santini" by Pat Conroy - One of our greatest living authors, in my not-so-humble opinion, Conroy is a true wordsmith. I have had to re-read passages in his books because I was so taken with the turn of phrase and use of language that I wasn't actually following the plot. This one stands out for the depth of character and sheer power.
"Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card - Also on my Top Five All-Time Sc-Fi List, it is science fiction that transcends the genre and is filled with politics, sociology, philosophy and tells two great stories. I learn new things from this book every time I read it.
"Lonesome Dove" by Larry McMurtry - An epic western that was also made into an excellent TV mini-series that I highly recommend. An amazing collection of characters on a grand adventure, it can be brutal at times I dare you not to be moved.
"The Stand" by Stephen King - A very difficult book to define by genre, it is parts horror, fantasy, sci-fi, adventure and thriller. Apocalyptic themes and a pile of great characters, it is no casual read. But it is entirely compelling, and whatever else might be said about King, it must be said that the man can write.
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" by Hunter S Thompson - Unfortunately appropriated by the party and drug culture, it is actually a biting and insightful look at a changing America and just a great read. At times prophetic and often hysterical it is a piece of genius that has been dismissed by people who should read it and misrepresented by many who have. By no means Thompson's best, it is a microcosm of his work, a writer whose genius was often obscured by his persona.
"The Travis McGee Books" by John D. MacDonald - I didn't pick one because you can and should read all twenty-one of them. Nobody did the mystery/thriller better than MacDonald and hanging out with Travis - an honorable knight-errant with a penchant for introspection - is both refreshing and challenging. Amazing tidbits of wisdom and philosophy on anything and everything are liberally sprinkled throughout, and you get to also listen to the lessons of Meyer, my all-time favorite "sidekick". Beware, though, that these books look and feel like pulp but can surprise you with depths unexpected. Travis has a great Wikipedia entry.
"Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach - Fable and homily hidden in a novella, it is simple and eloquent. I first read it when very young and loved that I was his namesake. It has in recent years been sucked - tragically and undeservedly - into the morass of spiritual self-help claptrap, but while it can border on smarmy and preachy, it is a wonderful book with a lot to say. It is also quite beautiful.
I try not to explicitly elicit comments here, but I really would love to hear about some of your personal "great - not Great - books". Chime in so we all have more to read.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Christian or Bust
As mentioned earlier, I am an atheist, as in "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings", thank you Dictionary.com. That doesn't quite cover it as there are many types of atheism - implicit and explicit, positive and negative, etc. - and many arguments for and against. You can be practical or theoretical, actively deny gods, embrace secularism or just follow logical arguments. While I have spent a good deal of time on the topic, for the establishment and understanding of my own beliefs and for sheer intellectual curiosity, I do not have overly complicated reasons for being atheist. Am I one hundred per cent positive that there is no god? No. There is no irrefutable proof that god does not exist, but I am more inclined to accept that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence than to accept that it does with the same lack of evidence. Easy. But where does that fit into religion? That is where it all gets FUBAR and when I get bent out of shape. In specific right now it is in my growing discomfort with my place in this so-called Christian nation.
First of all, is it really? Over twenty percent of Americans do not identify as Christian, including other religions and non-believers like myself. Is there some threshold that allows us to be a "something" nation? Is it a majority (in which case we could be called a female nation), two-thirds (we can almost still be a white nation), three-quarters (then we could be an urban nation), or what? I imagine if you used any of those monikers - imagine the male response if people started referring to the US as a "female nation" - the people not included in the title would be unhappy. Well, I for one, am unhappy at being told I live in a "Christian nation". Says who? This manifests in many ways, but a few have stuck out for me recently:
- the US government is supposed to be secular. When I tuned in to watch President Obama's second inaugural, I did so with great glee and anticipation as I was thrilled he was re-elected and really admire the man. But I was more than a little put off by the amount of god and religion injected into the proceedings. I don't go to church by choice, and don't expect to find myself there at a government event. And in contrast I can't imagine it would have gone unnoticed of an atheist had talked atheism. The religious right would have gone nuts!
- Sunday should be just another day. It is the Sabbath for Christians only, and not even a majority of them attend church regularly (see study cited above), but Sunday is by default a day off for everybody because the Christians say so. There are still a great many places in this country where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays because of faith-based blue laws, and the NCAA allows faith-based member institutions to mandate scheduling changes due to "no-play Sundays" rules.
- it is hard to get elected if you aren't Christian. Remember the over 20% of American adults who are not Christian? Well in the US congress the same demographic is 9.8%. So much for a representative body. A presidential candidate who was perfect in every other way and somehow appealed to both parties would never be elected if he was an atheist. It is one of the very few issues that crosses party lines.
- the pledge of allegiance. Don't start with that "one nation under god" shtick. That phrase was added in 1954 during McCarthyism and to differentiate us from the godless communists. It only avoided being made unconstitutional by a technicality, and its continued inclusion frankly pisses me off. Loyalty to country and patriotism have nothing to do with religious faith and wouldn't it be nice if we would stop confusing political systems with belief systems.
It is not that I am against Christians being able to practice their faith, only that their practice of it not become the de facto practice for all of us. We are supposed to be an inclusive nation, and take justifiable pride in that we want people to have religious freedom. Shouldn't that freedom include NOT practicing at all, and being able to take part in the secular portions of our society without having that religious practice thrust upon us.
My point is that there are a whole bunch of Americans that do not identify as Christian that by default get identified as such when we refer to America as a "Christian" nation. And I am tired of the idea that I am less of an American for being an atheist.
First of all, is it really? Over twenty percent of Americans do not identify as Christian, including other religions and non-believers like myself. Is there some threshold that allows us to be a "something" nation? Is it a majority (in which case we could be called a female nation), two-thirds (we can almost still be a white nation), three-quarters (then we could be an urban nation), or what? I imagine if you used any of those monikers - imagine the male response if people started referring to the US as a "female nation" - the people not included in the title would be unhappy. Well, I for one, am unhappy at being told I live in a "Christian nation". Says who? This manifests in many ways, but a few have stuck out for me recently:
- the US government is supposed to be secular. When I tuned in to watch President Obama's second inaugural, I did so with great glee and anticipation as I was thrilled he was re-elected and really admire the man. But I was more than a little put off by the amount of god and religion injected into the proceedings. I don't go to church by choice, and don't expect to find myself there at a government event. And in contrast I can't imagine it would have gone unnoticed of an atheist had talked atheism. The religious right would have gone nuts!
- Sunday should be just another day. It is the Sabbath for Christians only, and not even a majority of them attend church regularly (see study cited above), but Sunday is by default a day off for everybody because the Christians say so. There are still a great many places in this country where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays because of faith-based blue laws, and the NCAA allows faith-based member institutions to mandate scheduling changes due to "no-play Sundays" rules.
- it is hard to get elected if you aren't Christian. Remember the over 20% of American adults who are not Christian? Well in the US congress the same demographic is 9.8%. So much for a representative body. A presidential candidate who was perfect in every other way and somehow appealed to both parties would never be elected if he was an atheist. It is one of the very few issues that crosses party lines.
- the pledge of allegiance. Don't start with that "one nation under god" shtick. That phrase was added in 1954 during McCarthyism and to differentiate us from the godless communists. It only avoided being made unconstitutional by a technicality, and its continued inclusion frankly pisses me off. Loyalty to country and patriotism have nothing to do with religious faith and wouldn't it be nice if we would stop confusing political systems with belief systems.
It is not that I am against Christians being able to practice their faith, only that their practice of it not become the de facto practice for all of us. We are supposed to be an inclusive nation, and take justifiable pride in that we want people to have religious freedom. Shouldn't that freedom include NOT practicing at all, and being able to take part in the secular portions of our society without having that religious practice thrust upon us.
My point is that there are a whole bunch of Americans that do not identify as Christian that by default get identified as such when we refer to America as a "Christian" nation. And I am tired of the idea that I am less of an American for being an atheist.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Pantheon continued
The next Titan in my personal music pantheon is Pete Townshend. But before I go on to praise Pete, let me reiterate the parameters of this pantheon. These are just my personal faves, not to be confused with the greatest or most important, or any measure by which they are compared to the other giants. If I was doing that I would be remiss in leaving out people like the Rolling Stones, Dylan, Hendrix and the Mighty Zepp. But I'm not, so get over it. On to Pete.
There are many things it is easy to know about Mr. Townshend that easily bring him into the discussion of the greats: The Who, "Tommy", "Quadrophenia" and "Live at Leeds" alone are a resume that tops all but the most elite, but there is oh so much more. We can start by fleshing out just that short list:
- "Live at Leeds" is amazing in many ways, not the least of which is that it managed to capture the mayhem of The Who's live act, which always bordered on chaos while hardly ever actually falling apart. They had established themselves as a rock force and were touring in support of "Tommy", where they recorded over thirty shows on the US tour and eight more in the UK. But even though they had high-quality multi-track recordings, there were no notes of which recording was which show was which, so with no time to re-sort and compile and with bootleg recordings already a force in the industry, the decision was made to record the two Leeds shows on a mobile eight track, which Pete then edited on his personal eight at home. The result was described by the NY Times as "the definitive hard-rock holocaust' and "the best live rock album ever made."
- "Quadrophenia", both the album and the film, is a remarkable distillation of Pete's soul-searching in the wake of success, an outpouring of his need to reconcile the four disparate personalities of the Who, his ongoing spiritual journey as a follower of Meher Baba (see more on this huge influence in Pete's life and music here, and his continuing need to push the boundaries of rock. Pete says: "I wanted everyone who listened to the album to find themselves and their own story in it". And not for nothing, Pete traveled all over the UK with recording equipment finding sounds and dialogue to be the perfect additions to the music. It is remarkable, and only the more so for it being the second time he had attempted such a thing. The first being:
- "Tommy", a rock opera. A what?! If that isn't enough, even if it hadn't been done before, it is also, according to Pete, an attempt to "describe the disciple/master relationship and, in a Hermann Hesse-style saga of reincarnation, to connect the last seven lives of that disciple in an operatic drama that ended in spiritual perfection." Got that? Not your average rock anthem. And if the album isn't enough, it was intended from the beginning to be performed, which it most certainly was, and it spawned orchestral versions, a film and a Tony-winning stage show (yeah, Pete won a Tony for best original score). The NY Times called it "rock's first formal masterpiece" and Life magazine said: "For sheer power, invention and brilliance of performance, "Tommy" outstrips anything that has come out of a recording studio."
By the way, the three things described above are all in what Pete thinks of "Act One" of his life, as outlined in his autobiography "Who I Am", which is so bloody good that it starts to feel like piling on. He can write, too? Sheesh. But what about acts two and three?
The thread that runs through all three acts is, of course, The Who. but while I obviously can't cover Pete without covering his band, I can't do them justice while focusing on him. So please read about this amazing group here. They were simply put, for a time, the biggest, baddest, loudest rock band in the world. Can you say "Who Are You", "Baba O'Reilly" and "Won't Get Fooled Again"? And there was no Who without Pete. Remember that he wrote most of the songs, sang a surprising bunch of them, did a vast amount of recording and engineering and was - and still is, of what's left - the creative center of the band. He describes the process of writing for and to the specific and idiosyncratic talents of his three mates and it really gives an you appreciation of what Pete meant to The Who. And while there is Who music that I truly love - "Love Reign O'er Me", "The Seeker" and "See Me" leap to mind but are only a few - my favorite music of Pete's come from his solo career.
A thing I love about Townshend's solo arc is that it is so personal. He never divorces his life from his music and hearing it evolve with him and reflect his personal changes feels like a real gift. And this seems like a good time to mention that it is semi-amazing that Pete could function at all considering some of the things he has faced. Horrible child abuse, massive problems with addiction of various kinds, losing a litany of friends and family to tragic causes, and, in a vicious irony, being accused and investigated for child porn and pedophilia, make for an impressive pile of hardships that could have been anyone's undoing. But his creative force never diminished and he poured out a catalog of music that defies the term. Even if you only look at his original studio solo albums - which is to miss the massed genius of the three "Scoop" records and "Iron Man" - you can find pure rock fun like "Face the Face" and "Jools and JIm", experimental instrumental stuff like the Meher Baba tracks on "Psychoderelict", and poignant melodies like "Slit Skirts" and "I Am an Animal". The precision, the power and the pith of his lyrics are all undeniable and merely build on the fantastic instrument work beneath them. Can you tell I like his songs?
Speaking of instruments, Pete plays keyboards, mandolin, violin, banjo, accordion, drums and, oh yeah, guitar. He is on any number of top ten guitarists lists and was a true innovator - e.g. he invented the Marshall stack. So he can play. He has also been on the leading edge of recording and engineering throughout his career, building and modifying endless studios and boards, and always trying to find new and better ways to record and reproduce - down to the actual physics of sound - the music he was creating.
Other random but notable stuff:
- editor for the London publishing house Faber and Faber
- tireless charity worker, not just playing concerts, which he does endlessly, but organizing, contributing to and serving a number of charities, most focusing on drug rehab and children
- adapted the children's book "The Iron Man" into a musical, a version of which eventually became the animated film The Iron Giant
- has done all kinds of internet based work including Lifehouse Method and Eelpie
- continues to work in theatre with "The Boy Who Heard Music" - which actually was produced in workshop at Vassar's Powerhouse Theatre - and his current project Floss.
There is more - there is always more with Pete - but I think my case has been made. Put Peter Dennis Blandford Townshend on the list of Titans.
So far:
Neil Young
Pete Townshend
Next up:
Peter Gabriel
Pete Townshend
There are many things it is easy to know about Mr. Townshend that easily bring him into the discussion of the greats: The Who, "Tommy", "Quadrophenia" and "Live at Leeds" alone are a resume that tops all but the most elite, but there is oh so much more. We can start by fleshing out just that short list:
- "Live at Leeds" is amazing in many ways, not the least of which is that it managed to capture the mayhem of The Who's live act, which always bordered on chaos while hardly ever actually falling apart. They had established themselves as a rock force and were touring in support of "Tommy", where they recorded over thirty shows on the US tour and eight more in the UK. But even though they had high-quality multi-track recordings, there were no notes of which recording was which show was which, so with no time to re-sort and compile and with bootleg recordings already a force in the industry, the decision was made to record the two Leeds shows on a mobile eight track, which Pete then edited on his personal eight at home. The result was described by the NY Times as "the definitive hard-rock holocaust' and "the best live rock album ever made."
- "Quadrophenia", both the album and the film, is a remarkable distillation of Pete's soul-searching in the wake of success, an outpouring of his need to reconcile the four disparate personalities of the Who, his ongoing spiritual journey as a follower of Meher Baba (see more on this huge influence in Pete's life and music here, and his continuing need to push the boundaries of rock. Pete says: "I wanted everyone who listened to the album to find themselves and their own story in it". And not for nothing, Pete traveled all over the UK with recording equipment finding sounds and dialogue to be the perfect additions to the music. It is remarkable, and only the more so for it being the second time he had attempted such a thing. The first being:
- "Tommy", a rock opera. A what?! If that isn't enough, even if it hadn't been done before, it is also, according to Pete, an attempt to "describe the disciple/master relationship and, in a Hermann Hesse-style saga of reincarnation, to connect the last seven lives of that disciple in an operatic drama that ended in spiritual perfection." Got that? Not your average rock anthem. And if the album isn't enough, it was intended from the beginning to be performed, which it most certainly was, and it spawned orchestral versions, a film and a Tony-winning stage show (yeah, Pete won a Tony for best original score). The NY Times called it "rock's first formal masterpiece" and Life magazine said: "For sheer power, invention and brilliance of performance, "Tommy" outstrips anything that has come out of a recording studio."
By the way, the three things described above are all in what Pete thinks of "Act One" of his life, as outlined in his autobiography "Who I Am", which is so bloody good that it starts to feel like piling on. He can write, too? Sheesh. But what about acts two and three?
The thread that runs through all three acts is, of course, The Who. but while I obviously can't cover Pete without covering his band, I can't do them justice while focusing on him. So please read about this amazing group here. They were simply put, for a time, the biggest, baddest, loudest rock band in the world. Can you say "Who Are You", "Baba O'Reilly" and "Won't Get Fooled Again"? And there was no Who without Pete. Remember that he wrote most of the songs, sang a surprising bunch of them, did a vast amount of recording and engineering and was - and still is, of what's left - the creative center of the band. He describes the process of writing for and to the specific and idiosyncratic talents of his three mates and it really gives an you appreciation of what Pete meant to The Who. And while there is Who music that I truly love - "Love Reign O'er Me", "The Seeker" and "See Me" leap to mind but are only a few - my favorite music of Pete's come from his solo career.
A thing I love about Townshend's solo arc is that it is so personal. He never divorces his life from his music and hearing it evolve with him and reflect his personal changes feels like a real gift. And this seems like a good time to mention that it is semi-amazing that Pete could function at all considering some of the things he has faced. Horrible child abuse, massive problems with addiction of various kinds, losing a litany of friends and family to tragic causes, and, in a vicious irony, being accused and investigated for child porn and pedophilia, make for an impressive pile of hardships that could have been anyone's undoing. But his creative force never diminished and he poured out a catalog of music that defies the term. Even if you only look at his original studio solo albums - which is to miss the massed genius of the three "Scoop" records and "Iron Man" - you can find pure rock fun like "Face the Face" and "Jools and JIm", experimental instrumental stuff like the Meher Baba tracks on "Psychoderelict", and poignant melodies like "Slit Skirts" and "I Am an Animal". The precision, the power and the pith of his lyrics are all undeniable and merely build on the fantastic instrument work beneath them. Can you tell I like his songs?
Speaking of instruments, Pete plays keyboards, mandolin, violin, banjo, accordion, drums and, oh yeah, guitar. He is on any number of top ten guitarists lists and was a true innovator - e.g. he invented the Marshall stack. So he can play. He has also been on the leading edge of recording and engineering throughout his career, building and modifying endless studios and boards, and always trying to find new and better ways to record and reproduce - down to the actual physics of sound - the music he was creating.
Other random but notable stuff:
- editor for the London publishing house Faber and Faber
- tireless charity worker, not just playing concerts, which he does endlessly, but organizing, contributing to and serving a number of charities, most focusing on drug rehab and children
- adapted the children's book "The Iron Man" into a musical, a version of which eventually became the animated film The Iron Giant
- has done all kinds of internet based work including Lifehouse Method and Eelpie
- continues to work in theatre with "The Boy Who Heard Music" - which actually was produced in workshop at Vassar's Powerhouse Theatre - and his current project Floss.
There is more - there is always more with Pete - but I think my case has been made. Put Peter Dennis Blandford Townshend on the list of Titans.
So far:
Neil Young
Pete Townshend
Next up:
Peter Gabriel
Friday, February 8, 2013
Their hypocrisy is showing
Everyone has the capacity to be a hypocrite. We don't do it on purpose, mostly, but it is certainly a very human capacity. I have railed against guns here and elsewhere, demanding activism and change, but have done very little outside that railing except sign some petitions and e-mail my congress. Bit hypocritical. But the rampant, over-the-top raging hypocrisy seen in American politics today is a different beast altogether, especially on the right. Here are some examples:
- they only insist on respect for the President when it is their President. Remember when journalists and others were digging into the possibility that George W. Bush might have blown a little grass, or worse, when his National Guard service was under scrutiny during the 2004 campaign? Do you also remember how republicans in Congress went apeshit over it? They did, including statements on the floor condemning anyone who would dare impugn the reputation of a sitting president and demanding that even if you don't like his policies you must respect the office. Where are they now with the sitting president being compared to Hitler, called a socialist/communist/Marxist (which is funny in and of itself since many of the people making these comparisons seem to think that those are all the same thing), or worse. None of them are speaking out against Drudge or O'Reilly (who ironically enough actually chastised someone for not respecting the office, but that was for interrupting him, not calling him names) or, more shockingly, trying to rein in their own colleagues of whom Paul Broun is the most glaring and extreme example. (Do some digging on this assclown - it will blow your mind. But I digress.)
- they are Pro-Life and Pro-death. They craft legislation to protect the unborn (calm down people, I am not debating abortion, at least not right here) but also continue to support the death penalty. There are definitely ways to reconcile this seeming contradiction - convoluted and questionable ways - but not when you are using the "sanctity of human life" argument for one and ignoring it for the other. Not to mention the inherent hypocrisy on just the pro-death side of the argument: if you choose to kill someone we choose to kill you. What?
- they rant about the "law of the land" when it supports their arguments - 2nd amendment to prevent gun control, filibuster (don't get me started on this one) when they are in the minority - but trample and manipulate those same laws when they don't - gerrymandering congressional districts for voting and to try and change electoral college guidelines.
- they stomp their feet and pound their chests about tradition and values (the very definition of conservatism after all) when it suits them but are more than willing to overthrow those same ideals to get what they want. A very recent example of this came up this week when they threatened to filibuster Hagel's confirmation even though it has never been done, no matter how much they hated the nominee.
- they accuse the democrats of being financially irresponsible but they are the party to hold the American economy hostage - the debt ceiling, the so-called fiscal cliff and sequestration - to forward other goals. Now that's irresponsible.
- they tolerate questionable sexual behavior in their own ranks far more than across the aisle. Anthony Weiner was drummed out of office for tweeting naughty photos (not illegal) but Ken Calvert gets caught by police with a prostitute with his pants down - literally (illegal), but still proudly serves in Congress.
I could go on, but my indignation is getting in my way and I am discouraged by how easy it was to populate this list and how easy it would be to keep going. I had thought of closing with "Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?" but the clear answer is no.
- they only insist on respect for the President when it is their President. Remember when journalists and others were digging into the possibility that George W. Bush might have blown a little grass, or worse, when his National Guard service was under scrutiny during the 2004 campaign? Do you also remember how republicans in Congress went apeshit over it? They did, including statements on the floor condemning anyone who would dare impugn the reputation of a sitting president and demanding that even if you don't like his policies you must respect the office. Where are they now with the sitting president being compared to Hitler, called a socialist/communist/Marxist (which is funny in and of itself since many of the people making these comparisons seem to think that those are all the same thing), or worse. None of them are speaking out against Drudge or O'Reilly (who ironically enough actually chastised someone for not respecting the office, but that was for interrupting him, not calling him names) or, more shockingly, trying to rein in their own colleagues of whom Paul Broun is the most glaring and extreme example. (Do some digging on this assclown - it will blow your mind. But I digress.)
- they are Pro-Life and Pro-death. They craft legislation to protect the unborn (calm down people, I am not debating abortion, at least not right here) but also continue to support the death penalty. There are definitely ways to reconcile this seeming contradiction - convoluted and questionable ways - but not when you are using the "sanctity of human life" argument for one and ignoring it for the other. Not to mention the inherent hypocrisy on just the pro-death side of the argument: if you choose to kill someone we choose to kill you. What?
- they rant about the "law of the land" when it supports their arguments - 2nd amendment to prevent gun control, filibuster (don't get me started on this one) when they are in the minority - but trample and manipulate those same laws when they don't - gerrymandering congressional districts for voting and to try and change electoral college guidelines.
- they stomp their feet and pound their chests about tradition and values (the very definition of conservatism after all) when it suits them but are more than willing to overthrow those same ideals to get what they want. A very recent example of this came up this week when they threatened to filibuster Hagel's confirmation even though it has never been done, no matter how much they hated the nominee.
- they accuse the democrats of being financially irresponsible but they are the party to hold the American economy hostage - the debt ceiling, the so-called fiscal cliff and sequestration - to forward other goals. Now that's irresponsible.
- they tolerate questionable sexual behavior in their own ranks far more than across the aisle. Anthony Weiner was drummed out of office for tweeting naughty photos (not illegal) but Ken Calvert gets caught by police with a prostitute with his pants down - literally (illegal), but still proudly serves in Congress.
I could go on, but my indignation is getting in my way and I am discouraged by how easy it was to populate this list and how easy it would be to keep going. I had thought of closing with "Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?" but the clear answer is no.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Long form laughing
As a follow up to the stand-up list, here are my top ten comedy films. As usual, no order, purely personal.
1. Young Frankenstein - Maybe my funniest ever. The ensemble - Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Cloris Leachman, Madeline Khan, Peter Bolye, Teri Garr - might be the all-time greatest. Then it also has Kenneth Mars as "Inspector Kemp" and a fantastic cameo by Gene Hackman as "Blindman". I start chuckling before the "Putting on the Ritz" scene even starts and am a puddle by the time it ends. A leader in the family quoting category: "Could be worse . . . could be raining."
2. Airplane! - Spawned an entire genre, changed Leslie Nielsen's career and boldly went where no one else had gone. I think an argument can be made for it changing what could be funny and many a modern comedy filmmaker owe their career to the Zucker brothers. And don't call me Shirley.
3. Monty Python and the Holy Grail - I have heard it said that you either get it or you don't, but if you don't get it I feel bad for you. The Pythons were special and more needs to be said about them than would work here, but Grail was a great step onto the world stage for Brit Wit and was a no-brainer for this list. Cut to the prisoner clapping in the dungeon at Camelot.
4. Caddyshack - Crude, yes, and broad, but to put Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Rodney Dangerfield and the underrated Ted Knight in the same movie is to make a funny movie. Even the gopher is funny. It is only disappointing in that "Carl" and "Ty" didn't get more than one scene together. "Cannonball coming!"
5. Princess Bride - Its ensemble rivals Young Frankenstein but is more a collection of lesser known or under appreciated geniuses. Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Chris Guest (the moment where he runs from Inigo wipes me out), Chris Sarandon and Wallace Shawn are all great and Andre the Giant is inspired. It, too, has a fantastic cameo in Billy Crystal and contributes heavily to the family quote library.
6. Ferris Bueller's Day Off - Probably the crown jewel of writer/director John Hughes' phenomenal teen canon. Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles are up there too but Ferris has a broader appeal and isn't quite as over the top. People quote this movie and don't even know it. Alan Ruck's "Cameron" is a personal favorite. You know he's also in Speed? Random.
7. Raising Arizona - It can be hard to reconcile this hysterical little offbeat classic with No Country for Old Men, but if you use Fargo as a bridge you can see how the Coen brothers got there. It is one of my favorite examples of great actors being great comedic actors. Nic Cage (stop hating and think Leaving Las Vegas and Adaptation instead of ConAir and Ghost Rider), Holly Hunter and John Goodman are awesome. And how can you go wrong with "The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse"?
8. Blazing Saddles - I questioned including two Mel Brooks films, but funny is funny. This showcases Gene Wilder's flawless timing, and letting Harvey Korman and Cleavon Little loose in such a send-up is brilliant. And it lets some wonderful character actors - Slim Pickens, David Huddleston, John Hillerman - show off their comedic chops. And not one but two great cameos - Dom Deluise as "Buddy Bizarre" and the big screen debut of All-Pro defensive tackle Alex Karras as "Mongo". (Just found out Karras died last year, may he rest in peace. Sad.) Richard Pryor worked on the screenplay. Amazing fact: Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein both came out in 1974. Thanks, Mel!
9. Sleeper - Lots of folk prefer Woody Allen's more so-called intellectual humor, but this movie wipes me out. It gives play to Woody's gifts as a physical comic and gets to have a good time with futuristic themes. Favorite line: "I haven't seen my analyst in 200 years. He was a strict Freudian. If I had been going all this time I'd almost be cured by now."
10. A Fish Called Wanda - Letting Kevin Kline loose with two Pythons not only worked out well for Kline - best supporting actor Oscar - but made for a remarkably funny movie. And it has the world's greatest apology. Yay!
1. Young Frankenstein - Maybe my funniest ever. The ensemble - Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Cloris Leachman, Madeline Khan, Peter Bolye, Teri Garr - might be the all-time greatest. Then it also has Kenneth Mars as "Inspector Kemp" and a fantastic cameo by Gene Hackman as "Blindman". I start chuckling before the "Putting on the Ritz" scene even starts and am a puddle by the time it ends. A leader in the family quoting category: "Could be worse . . . could be raining."
2. Airplane! - Spawned an entire genre, changed Leslie Nielsen's career and boldly went where no one else had gone. I think an argument can be made for it changing what could be funny and many a modern comedy filmmaker owe their career to the Zucker brothers. And don't call me Shirley.
3. Monty Python and the Holy Grail - I have heard it said that you either get it or you don't, but if you don't get it I feel bad for you. The Pythons were special and more needs to be said about them than would work here, but Grail was a great step onto the world stage for Brit Wit and was a no-brainer for this list. Cut to the prisoner clapping in the dungeon at Camelot.
4. Caddyshack - Crude, yes, and broad, but to put Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Rodney Dangerfield and the underrated Ted Knight in the same movie is to make a funny movie. Even the gopher is funny. It is only disappointing in that "Carl" and "Ty" didn't get more than one scene together. "Cannonball coming!"
5. Princess Bride - Its ensemble rivals Young Frankenstein but is more a collection of lesser known or under appreciated geniuses. Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Chris Guest (the moment where he runs from Inigo wipes me out), Chris Sarandon and Wallace Shawn are all great and Andre the Giant is inspired. It, too, has a fantastic cameo in Billy Crystal and contributes heavily to the family quote library.
6. Ferris Bueller's Day Off - Probably the crown jewel of writer/director John Hughes' phenomenal teen canon. Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles are up there too but Ferris has a broader appeal and isn't quite as over the top. People quote this movie and don't even know it. Alan Ruck's "Cameron" is a personal favorite. You know he's also in Speed? Random.
7. Raising Arizona - It can be hard to reconcile this hysterical little offbeat classic with No Country for Old Men, but if you use Fargo as a bridge you can see how the Coen brothers got there. It is one of my favorite examples of great actors being great comedic actors. Nic Cage (stop hating and think Leaving Las Vegas and Adaptation instead of ConAir and Ghost Rider), Holly Hunter and John Goodman are awesome. And how can you go wrong with "The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse"?
8. Blazing Saddles - I questioned including two Mel Brooks films, but funny is funny. This showcases Gene Wilder's flawless timing, and letting Harvey Korman and Cleavon Little loose in such a send-up is brilliant. And it lets some wonderful character actors - Slim Pickens, David Huddleston, John Hillerman - show off their comedic chops. And not one but two great cameos - Dom Deluise as "Buddy Bizarre" and the big screen debut of All-Pro defensive tackle Alex Karras as "Mongo". (Just found out Karras died last year, may he rest in peace. Sad.) Richard Pryor worked on the screenplay. Amazing fact: Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein both came out in 1974. Thanks, Mel!
9. Sleeper - Lots of folk prefer Woody Allen's more so-called intellectual humor, but this movie wipes me out. It gives play to Woody's gifts as a physical comic and gets to have a good time with futuristic themes. Favorite line: "I haven't seen my analyst in 200 years. He was a strict Freudian. If I had been going all this time I'd almost be cured by now."
10. A Fish Called Wanda - Letting Kevin Kline loose with two Pythons not only worked out well for Kline - best supporting actor Oscar - but made for a remarkably funny movie. And it has the world's greatest apology. Yay!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)