Last year, on the day of the Oscars, I wrote the following, about a quest I've been on. A long while back, I was on a mini-mission to get the Motion Picture Academy to open their Oscar broadcast with a particularly wonderful song that, though it had a bit of shelf-life in country music (reaching #10 on the country charts), I figured they wouldn't know. I actually came close -- not to accomplishing my task, but having access to making the suggestion -- when my former boss at Universal Studios, Bob Rehme, was made president of the Academy. Alas, I didn't have the contact information that would have helped and didn't make the effort -- which probably wouldn't have been too difficult, even it was before Google searches -- to track it down (hence never getting beyond being just a "mini-mission"). The idea time has long-since passed, since the group who sang the song, the Statler Brothers, have retired, and also some of the references in the song -- while many are still classic -- aren't all likely as impactful on today's audience. Still, it's a very fun song, and would make an enjoyable number in the middle of the broadcast, sung by a cobbled-together quartet of movie stars singing. Or the Statlers themselves could come out of retirement. They did briefly a couple years ago for an event when elected into a country music Hall of Fame. But no, that's not going to happen. But it doesn't stop me from at least presenting the song on the day of the Oscar broadcast. So, here it is -- one of the most affectionate and clever songs I've heard about movies. And it fits perfectly into the portfolio of "list" songs that the Statlers were so well-known for. Indeed, the name of the song is "The Movies." There's one change from previous years. When I've posted the song in the past, it was a video with Jimmy Fortune who had replaced Lew DeWitt who'd had to retire for health reasons. But I've found a video with all four original Statlers, all the more notable since it was Lew DeWitt (on your far right, with the guitar) who wrote the song. [Note: Since posting this article, the video below seems to have been removed. However, here's a link to the version with Jimmy Fortune that I've posted in the past.]
0 Comments
There was an Oscar controversy this year when the Motion Picture Academy announced that they would only be presenting two of the five Best Original Song nominees -- which was just such a bizarre decision, taking out one of the few actually entertainment moments of the broadcast. That decisions appears to have been happily reversed, but it prompted to think this would be an appropriate video today, with the telecast tomorrow. It's also wildly fun. This is a montage of ever Academy Award-winning Best Song from 1934 through 2017! A few things worth noting: One is that I found it interesting how many songs are now seen as standards that most people likely have no idea were in movies, let alone won the Oscar. Also, the Oscar-winner for 1949 was in the news just a few months ago -- which I suspect will surprise people that it had won an Oscar. (Also, note in the clip that in the original version, it is sung two different ways, contrary to the controversy.) And finally, the little kid singing with Frank Sinatra in the 1959 winning song is Eddie Hodges, who three years earlier starred on Broadway as the lisping Winthrop Paroo in The Music Man. One other thing stands out -- songs clearly were a whole lot more central to movies up until about 15 years ago. So, during the last couple of days, we've seen the following news stories with one notable thing between them in common.
A domestic terrorist amassed a massive arsenal of weapons with the intent to shoot Democratic officials and members of the press. A North Carolina election won by the Republican candidate was determined to be a case of fraud, and the results were overturned with a new election to take place. A federal judge said that prosecutors, including current Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, broke the law in a plea deal for a despicably heinous sex case concerning Jeffrey Epstein. What all these three stories have in common is the total silence by Trump and the Republican Party. The party of Law and Order, Family Values and Morals. Silence. Crickets chirping. If the terrorist had been someone with dark skin or with foreign ancestry, or from another country, I think it likely (based on his history) that Trump would have instantly been sending out tweets about the dangers to America and the need for his wall. And Republicans would have supported him. Instead, Trump only finally responded after two full days when asked about it. And all he said is that it was "a shame." And that he had no further comments until he had his final briefing on the subject in a couple hours. Waiting for an initial briefing, let alone a final one two days later, is not part of the Trump DNA or history. Further, when asked if he felt any responsibility for his language, the man who talks about "shith*les," grabbing "p*ssy," Adam "Sch*tt," "Enemies of the People" and much, much, much more and worse said that he thinks his language has been "nice." For years now, and especially the past two, Republican officials -- and especially Trump -- have cried about "election fraud" when there have been an almost insignificantly number of cases found. But here, where there was profound, actual election fraud, not a single word from Republicans. The only real difference is that was perpetrated by a Republican. And it was very real and substantial, not just impacting a few meaningless votes, but affecting the result of an election. For years now -- actually, no, for decades -- Republicans have tried to claim the Crown of Purity and Virtue, and smear Democrats and liberals for wanton immorality. But when a disgustingly sick case comes along about a Republican and, most especially, that it concerns a member of the Trump cabinet, the most that Trump can say only when asked is that Alex Acosta has done a good job as Labor Secretary, but he doesn't know about what happened before. Not knowing hasn't stopped him from commenting on horrible news before. And further, one would think that when vetting his Labor Secretary that this is the sort of thing that should have been deeply investigated (since the plea deal was on the record, in fact Acosta was even asked about it at his confirmation hearing), but perhaps did know. And yet for all three of these story -- silence. By Trump and Republican officials. Total, deafening silence. Until questions were imposed on them. And even then, nothing. Platitudes. Gee, I don't know. Let me wait and see. Total, unadulterated silence. All of which speaks disgusting, repulsive volumes. And all of which, again, points to none of this being about Trump. We have long known who he is. Rather, this is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who enable him and allow it to all continue.. A story got released this afternoon that the Justice Department says there are no plans for Robert Mueller to deliver his report next week. As readers of these pages know, I’m not surprised. As I wrote in article yesterday, I noted why I didn’t think the rumors were true. What I do think is possible, though -- totally a guess -- is that we might get some new indictments next week. There's been an odd occurrence, which could be a total coincidence -- or not -- of Mueller releases some form of news when Trump is out of the country on some pointless, but problematic mission. Purely an idle thought on my part, but we'll see...
The Mystery Guest on this very early episode of What's My Line? is Bette Davis. Two things stand out: the first is the funny voice she uses to hide here highly-recognizable one. And the other is that this episode is so early in the show's life -- from 1952 -- that while Bennett Cerf is on the panel, he's not in his traditional seat at the end. It's a shame that there's no chat afterwards, but it's still very enjoyable. You can jump right to it at the 17:28 mark.
Yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend who was bewildered by the White House announcing that they were going to have a Climate Change panel. The only thing he could figure was that it had some connection to the liberal Green New Deal, but didn't know how. Maybe that they were trying to get ahead of it.
I said he was likely right for the foundation, but I doubted the reason. Given that Trump doesn't believe in Climate Change, it didn't seem probable that he was now on board. More likely is that they didn't want it to gain any steam and want some way to try and discredit it. Then came this story later about the man reported to be Trump's choice to head the committee, William Happer, a Princeton professor. One would think that his disbelief in Climate Change would be the worst and most damning part of the story. But this is the Trump administration, so of course there's more. And that "more" is (and I swear this is true, there's video of him saying it) he compares reaction towards deniers to how Nazis treated Jews! Yes, really. Okay, look, for starters, the mere fact that as a Climate Change denier he is simply...well, alive should be proof enough that such a view of the Nazi treatment of Jews is reprehensible. That beyond this he's also a tenured college professor is just bonus evidence. Of course ultimately he appears to be a perfect choice by Trump, given that he seems adept at denying pretty much anything he finds inconvenient. At the very least, though, I do think we have our answer for why the committee. And Option #2 looks like a winner. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|