There's unfortunately been a lot recently written about Monty Python member Terry Jones who is dealing with a type of dementia which makes it difficult for him to talk. I had the chance to cross paths with him several years back around 1983 when I was working at Universal Studios and we released Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. One of my duties was working with college press, so we held a screening for them, and had a Q&A with the members of Python who were in town, which I moderated. (Those present were Terry Jones, Eric Idle, Graham Chapman and Terry Gilliam.) I wish I remember specifics of that day, but I don't. I wish too that there was a recording of it, but there isn't. But what I do remember is that I was surprised how friendly Eric Idle was, because from afar he seemed to me as a bit edgy. And I also remember how far-and-away the nicest of the Pythons in attendance was Terry Jones. He was friendly all day, he was friendly during the Q&A. He was just simply personable and a joy, always accommodating and warm. (It is not surprising that his closest friend on Python was Michael Palin, who has the reputation of being perhaps the nicest of the group, something borne out by my friend Rob Hedden who made an award-winning documentary on the making of the movie Brazil, which Palin was in, and who said Palin was as friendly and gracious as one could hope for. I wrote about it here and embedded the full, wonderful documentary. So, the idea of Michael Palin and Terry Jones together in a world of niceness has always made me smile.) Terry Jones has written a lot of books for young people, and one of my favorite is his Fairy Tales. There were stories he made up and told to his children at night, and then wrote them down. It is an utter joy, and I highly recommend it. Even if you don't have children. One story, for example, is about a rain drop which goes around bragging as it falls from the sky that it's the best rain drop in the word, near perfect, crystal clear, just a completely glorious rain drop, the most beautiful ever. And then it hits the ground and becomes a part of a puddle. One admonition: if you do get the book, take the advice in his introduction and read it out loud. Even if there's no one else in the room. As he says, they stories were meant to be told aurally, and as good as they are when read, but burst alive when spoken. I think it's out of print, but you can get the book here. You can also go to the crowdsourcing page here if you're interested in helping get the third book in his medieval adventure series published. Rather than show one of a great many clips of Terry Jones performing, or his film directing, I thought that if I can't show me interviewing him, I can at least show someone else doing it -- and letting you see what a simply warm, personable fellow he is. Here he is then for 15 minutes talking with fine interviewer George Stroumboulopous on Canadian TV.
0 Comments
As long as we have presidential debates on the mind, I want to mention that there is a TV documentary making the rounds of PBS stations throughout the country about one of the men at the center of the very first presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon -- Newton Minow. Yes, yes, I know, the occasionally-mentioned father of the oft-mentioned here Nell Minow.
In fact, I wrote about the documentary when it first appeared on his local Chicago PBS station, WTTW, who made the show, "Newton Minow: An American Story," and wrote about it here. If you live in the Los Angeles area, the documentary is finally arriving here tonight. It will air on KOCE at 7:00 PM. And if you miss it, or live elsewhere, you can watch the whole thing by clicking on the link above, since I was able to embed it in the article. Two things first:
For many months, since Donald Trump got the nomination at the RNC, I have been writing that the presidential debates would likely be the most significant thing in the race because they would not only show that Hillary Clinton has a breadth of knowledge and experience, but also that Donald Trump literally does not know anything about a great many issues. I've said too, repeatedly, that Hillary Clinton would use the debates to relentlessly tell Donald Trump he was wrong, because Trump is insecure and can't take criticism (especially from a woman), and she would try to make his head explode. I noted, as well, that when he participated in the GOP primaries, those were really more like circus melees than actual debates, and he faced almost no criticism in them because he was saying what the GOP base believed, which meant he wasn't used to being in a real debate and being refuted. And second, on Monday afternoon, right before the debate, I wrote the following to a friend -- "I think he’ll start out fairly strong for a half hour, maybe even an hour. But then her pounding on him will start to have an impact. I don’t think he’ll necessarily go haywire. But I do think it’s FAR, FAR, FAR more likely that he will than she will. I don’t expect him to say anything that baits her. She’s been attacked for 30 years, there’s nothing he can say that she hasn’t heard. And she went through 11 hours of being attacked by House Republicans. The question is if she will come across as so serious to the degree of becoming distant, or be more involving. I suspect she knows really well all about who she’s debating, so she’ll come across well, but we’ll see. But he absolutely can be baited. And she will be doing it ALL night." Hey, I tries not to steers ya wrong... CNN did a poll of people who watched the full debate. The participants skewed Democratic by 15 points. But the results were heavily in Clinton’s favor, by a far greater margin than the "skew." Almost double, in fact. Respondents said that Hillary Clinton won the debate 62-27%. I do think that Donald Trump started out reasonable well. Not to the degree of running away with the debate or necessarily "winning," but he presented himself well and forcefully. He interrupted too much, but if something like that is done well, it can show an aspect of strength. Here though it was done a bit ham-fistedly. As were many of his asides, which he insisted on chiming in. One of the best examples (or worst, depending on your point-of-view) came when Ms. Clinton pointed out that many sub-contractors and employees of Trump companies had been stiffed and not paid. To which, Donald Trump replied, for some unknown bizarre reason, "That was good business." So much for the "Donald Trump cares for people like me" mantra... This unfortunate aside was just as bad as later when Hillary Clinton talked about the assumption from past records that Donald Trump hasn't paid any taxes in recent years. (Wonderfully giving a litany of very personal reasons why not...) And rather than saying, "That's not true, I've paid a lot of taxes," Trump instead answered, for some unknown bizarre reason, "That makes me smart." Forget all of the policy problems for Trump -- which were many, like rambling answers on nuclear bombs and something about Japan -- these two, unnecessary, clueless asides about purely personal matters showed precisely what I was talking about, that Donald Trump can't take personal criticism and would always have to chime in, always, always, no matter how unfocused it may be. Or how problematic for him. If it's about Donald Trump, he has to talk about himself. And that's why and how she kept baiting him all night. It didn't help either when about halfway through the night, it all went kablooey. Whether Donald Trump didn't have the stamina he's been trying to chide Hillary Clinton about, or had no answers left in the tank, or couldn't muster up the interest, or got what actors call "flop sweat," his actions onstage and disjointedness got so bad that social media and some analysts wondered if he was on drugs, whether legally medicinal or cocaine. Personally, I just think that's Donald Trump, especially when challenged and criticized (and by a woman, no less). But whatever the cause, it wasn't pretty. On MSNBC, Republican strategist Steve Schmidt called Donald Trump "incoherent" and "babbling." And "off the rails." Even Republican strategist Nicole Wallace described Trump's "complete incoherence on foreign policy." On "Fox News," even they acknowledged the debate didn't go well for Trump. There was one thing Donald Trump had to do on Monday night. One. It was what Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan did in their first debates -- just show voters that he could be seen as president. If a candidate can do that, it can turn an election around. Donald Trump not only did not do that, he probably caused a lot of concern for many people. And that's the point. As I said yesterday morning, what I thought about how the candidates did doesn't matter, nor does it matter what Clinton or Trump supporters thought. Those votes are settled. The only thing that mattered was what undecided voters thought -- and what moderate Republicans who were uncomfortable with being identified with Trump thought and were looking for a very public reason they could use to justify not voting for him. And I tried to watch the debate from that perspective as much as possible. And from that perspective, I think Donald Trump was not able to do the one thing he had to do. Be seen as someone who can be president. And as a result, that's a very big problem when you're someone who's running for president. The race is not over. Nor close to being over. Polls are still tight, although Secretary Clinton is generally ahead by 3-5 points. And there are two more presidential debates to recover from (though I think the problem there will continue to hold for all the reasons I've been writing for months. Donald Trump will not pivot to become presidential because Donald Trump doesn't have it in him to be other than who he is, which is not presidential, but a racist, misogynist, sociopathic, egomaniacal, hate-filled bullying con man. Who literally does not know anything about a great many issues. And isn't going to become a world expert in three week, nor does he have it in him to especially try. Worse, he'll probably come out knowing he has to show he's better than last time when he got pummeled, so he may likely go into attack mode, which is about as non-presidential as Donald Trump gets, ignoring the one thing he as to accomplish with the debates. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if in the next debate he actually pulls out of some orifice what he afterwards said he was a gentleman about for not bringing up this time, the affairs by Hillary Clinton's husband -- something that not only would completely turn off undecided voters, but which Secretary Clinton will now be even more prepared for, since he just gave away some of his strategy...something Donald Trump has always said a good negotiator should never do...) But there still is more of the election to come, and six weeks to steady the ship, and be stronger at the next debates. However this was a big, new hurdle Trump built for himself. A problem when you're behind and don't need even little hurdles. After the debate, MSNBC showed a soundless argument in the Trump camp as they were leaving the facility. It was later reported to be that Donald Trump was complaining there had supposedly been a "problem" with his microphone. And he wondering if it was done on purpose. No, really. Forgetting that I doubt if any viewer in the world heard anything close to a "problem" with Donald Trump's microphone, when that is a candidate's take-away after a presidential debate, it is not A Good Thing. There's so much to comment on and dissect about the debate -- like Trump's mythical "400 pound" guy on his bed who supposedly might possibly have hacked into the DNC headquarters, or Trump chiding Ms. Clinton for actually preparing for the debate, while his own lack of preparation was the foundation of his deeply-problematic night, or him stumbling around trying to explain what he meant about Hillary Clinton not looking presidential, or his almost literally stumbling around and fidgeting and sniffling and guzzling water (boy, howdy, I'll bet "Little Marco" Rubio got a chuckle out of that one, and more. But as the bottomline look at the event, is a pretty core sense of what went on during the debate. And for Donald Trump it most decidedly wasn't pretty. Because, more than perhaps most anything, he didn't look presidential. On this week's "Not My Job" segment of the NPR public affairs comedy quiz show, the guest contestant is actress Kristin Chenoweth. Host Peter Sagal's interview is a bit more thin than most, though it takes a funny turn near the end -- and the specific theme of the quiz is hilarious, which you can tell she finds a hoot. In fact, the quick is a bit...well, snarkier than usual, and all have a fine time with it.
And so, here it is. The first debate. And at the core of all the reaction afterwards about who "won" will be the question of expectations. Did one candidate fail to meet expectations? Did another exceed expectations? Theoretically, a candidate could do much better in the debate, but if their opponent beat "expectations" then that could, bizarrely, make him or her the seeming-winner.
It seems pretty clear that the candidate with the most expectations -- and by far the most -- is Hillary Clinton. In large part that's because she has vastly more experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, and Donald Trump has...well, none. (And in part, too, that's because the Trump campaign has been playing the Expectation Game by downplaying his preparation to the point of it being almost non-existent.) In one regards, this is odd, since whether or not Donald Trump "won" his GOP primary debates, it's pretty clear that that he swamped his opponents, whereas Hillary Clinton battled Bernie Sanders very closely. So, you might reasonably think that expectations for Donald Trump should be higher. But they're not. The expectations are that Hillary Clinton should do much better, because she's more knowledgeable. But here's the deal. Here's what I think about expectations and where those expectations should sit. I believe that if someone wants to be President of the United States and has become the nominee of their party, then my expectations are that that candidate should be absolutely, completely, fully 100% prepared and ready in a debate for the presidency. In fact, I'll go a step father. "Well, he's new to this" or "She has more experience than him" or "He doesn't know as much as her" should not only carry zero weight in lowering expectations...it should be a significant detriment. Being new or inexperience or ill-informed is not a chit one should be able to cash in when trying to become President of the United States. The job not only is incredibly hard, it's phenomenally important. You're running to become Commander-in-Chief of the American Military, the Chief Executive of the United States, and the Most Powerful Person in the World. "Don't expect me to be ready or even all that good" when it comes to defending why people should vote for you just doesn't even begin to cut it. We don't just "expect" you to be good. We demand it. And by "we" I don't mean everyone in the United States -- but the entire world. Expectations? Seriously? I expect both candidates to be brilliant, I expect both candidates to know exactly what they're talking about, and I expect both candidates to show how they stand up under pressure. That's what I expect. And I hope it's what everyone expects. It should be. And if someone doesn't expect that from a candidate for President of the United States, then you might want to consider not voting for them because the job is far too important for amateurs. Will that happen? Will both candidates be spot-on ready for the Oval Office tonight? Well, the devil is in the details. Here's what I think will happen. I think that Hillary Clinton will relentlessly, politely, and pointedly chide Donald Trump for saying things all night that are wrong -- whether they're wrong because of being lies or he's just misinformed -- because she knows he is insecure, and so thin-skinned he can't take criticism, and the more she tells him he's wrong, especially the more a woman tells him he's wrong, the greater chance of his head exploding. I think, too, that Hillary Clinton will not get baited by Donald Trump into over-reacting or be caught off-guard by a question she can't answer. I say that because she stood up to Republican Congressman out to do everything they could to crush her for 11 hours, and was investigated by the FBI who reported that she did nothing to justify any charges, and she has been slammed for 30 years by the Republican Party, and there she is, standing on the debate stage, the first woman nominee for President of the United States. I am sure, as well, that not everything Hillary Clinton says will satisfy everyone, even her supporters because she's a flawed candidate. She'll have some answers that aren't wondrous and will seem evasive. And other answers that show a sweep breadth of knowledge and insight. And across the aisle, Donald Trump will show his deep lack of awareness on so much that is critical for a president to know. And not only will not everything Donald Trump says will satisfy everyone, but much will concern many. That said, his most devoted acolytes will love everything he says because if they haven't been turned off by now by his racist attacks on Muslims and Mexicans, and by his misogynistic attacks on women, and by his insults against war heroes and Gold Star mothers and the disabled, and by his refusal to provide his tax returns and on and on and on and on, there's no reason to think they won't love every single world out of his mouth, whether the truth, factually wrong, or an intentional lie. And I don't think that the moderators will bring some of these problems up during the three debates, but if they don't then Hillary Clinton will. I think Donald Trump will be glib and theatrical and occasionally make an effective point, mostly about threats to America -- something we're all aware of, not Donald Trump alone -- but overall during the course of all three debates (not just this first alone) to be unable to withstand the glare of reality, because ultimately he doesn't know more than the generals, is not smarter than everyone and does not have a secret plan for anything, and when there's no foundation to your building, it will show. I think that over the three debates, they will show that Donald Trump is not ready to be president because he has demonstrated throughout the campaign he actually doesn't know about what a president must know. And over three debates, with an opponent pointing this out repeatedly, I don't think he'll be able to hide that. But that's why there are three debates. We'll find out. And that's critical to remember: this is not a "one debate" dance. There are three, so there will be a cumulative effect of them all. I don't think this single debate tonight will be a blow-out for anyone, the greatest impact will build over the three. But -- if it is a blow-out, the only candidate I can see that happen for is Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump showing the world, one-on-one, that he is too scary bad an alternative. I don't think that will happen tonight, but it's far, far, far more likely to than it happening to Hillary Clinton. And it's also critical to keep in mind one other thing: what's important here is not what I think about who did well, or what Republicans or Democrats think. Those opinions and votes are pretty locked-in. What matters is the 5-10 percent of moderate undecided voters who are still trying to figure out who they think should be President of the United State. And I think one other group matters: Republican voters who are uncomfortable with their support of such a racist, misogynist as Donald Trump, but can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton. And if there's enough problematic on stage that gives them cover to know they can't vote for this Republican and justify it in a way others would understand, they are far more likely to decide that they just can't vote for a Republican, than a Democrat committed to Hillary Clinton deciding at this point that they can't vote for her. But mostly...back to the beginning of all this -- I expect the absolute best from both candidates. And if anyone believes that low expectations is a selling point to be President of the United States, I expect them to be disillusioned by the real world. It wasn't a great day in sports. First, the tragic loss this morning with the death of Jose Fernandez, the 24-year-old star pitcher for the Miami Marlins, from a boating accident. He was hugely talented and very well-liked, with a significant future, after repeatedly risking his life to defect from Cuba, finally reaching the United States in 2008 after four attempts. And now tonight comes word of the passing of Arnold Palmer, about as big a legend in all of sports as anyone. As timing would have it, I am right now reading a book on golf, A Good Walk Ruined by John Feinstein, and just this morning I read a long passage he had on Palmer. The short version is that Palmer's legend was not just on being a great golfer or charismatic on television, but that he was so well-loved in the clubhouse among other golfers. That he always made clear he owed golf much more than it owed him -- and it owed him a lot. He always wanted to be seen as "one of the guys," no matter how much a legend he was. And he was seen as one of the guys -- and a legend. Feinstein notes that Palmer's father was a club golf pro, the kind of person who has to be available to all the club's members and be gracious to them all and listen and pay attention to them. And that Palmer's attitude as a pro had that same demeanor. Always friends, always having time for other pros. Always gracious with the young, beginning players, thanking them for taking the time to come talk to him. Here's a short, six-minute documentary on the impact Arnold Palmer had on golf and its growth on television. And a fond farewell to him and Jose Fernandez. The comparisons are different, but the loss both deep. |
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
|