Boy, howdy, this is an incredibly eloquent EIGHT MINUTE takedown by former NFL star Shannon Sharpe that covers the full landscape of Trump and the NFL -- not just critical of Trump, but even how the football league has responded to it, including his best friend.  It's a "Take no prisoners" analysis, pointed and in-depth, pulling up facts and details of a range of issues from the past two years.

This comes on a show he co-hosts on Fox Sports 1, Undisputed with Skip Bayless (who I'm not a fan of) and Joy Taylor.  It's not often you see a show let someone go on for eight full minutes.  But I suspect that either everyone in the control booth was so mesmerized by the quiet, focused, growing passion of his words, or the director said, "If anyone touches the board and cuts him off, you're fired."
​

This is another of those baseball videos that even people who hate sports can love.

Last night in St. Louis, the Chicago Cubs were playing the St. Louis Cardinals.  In the second inning, Jedd Gyorko of the Cardinals hit a pop foul that was drifting towards the stands.  The Cubs shortstop Addison Russell raced all the way across the field to the short brick wall and gave up his body, diving into the stands to try and make the catch.  (All the more notable to Cubs fans since he had just come off a six-week stint on the Disabled List with plantar fasciitis in his right foot.)  The ball ended up out of his reach -- though he did come up with something: his arm covered in nachos.  A fan, Andrew Gudermutch, had carefully pulled his tray  out of the way when he saw the Cubs shortstop barreling towards him -- what he didn't count on, though, was Russell leg go flying, after which the nachos did, as well.

At the time, I thought how fun it would be if Russell, after getting back to the dugout between innings, had word sent to the guy that he'd pay for a new order of nachos.  Russell took that idea and ratcheted it up several notches.

The second inning ended, and the Cubs went to the dugout for their turn at bat.  They scored three runs in the top of the inning, and then took the field in the bottoming of the third.  But when all the Cubs ran out on the field to their positions...Addison Russell headed over to the stands, like a waiter -- holding a tray of nachos and cheese sauce, which he delivered to Gudermutch!

While the delivery has gotten all the attention, something else impressed me more.  While you'd think it would be the fan who'd be so pleased that he'd thank the ballplayer first, it's actually Russell himself who took the initiative of reaching out and offering his hand to shake with the guy.  Not shabby.  And when Gudermutch asks to take a selfie with Russell, he happily agrees and poses and waits for the guy to set up the shot with the nachos and his girlfriend in frame -- now that may not seem much, and just a normal, polite thing to do...but remember: there's a baseball game going on, and Russell's team has long been on the field warming up.  So, it struck me as exceedingly thoughtful of Russell to stick around for the shot.

It turns out that the Cardinals management had bought Gudermutch a new order of nachos.  He was, after all, trying to get out of the way.  So, he ended up with a double serving.  The Cardinals' came fully loaded, Russell's with cheese sauce only...

As for the Cubs' delivery, that turns out to have been the team manager Joe Maddon's idea.  Russell later explained why.  "You don't get in front of a man and his nachos," he said. 

What's fun, too, is that announcers for both teams began referring to Andrew Gudermutch as "Nacho Man" through all this.  At one point, the Cubs announcer noted how his girlfriend, "Nacho Woman doesn't seem all that pleased by this."  And clearly, word of all that got back to the guy, because by the time the game was over, he'd already created a new Twitter account for "Nacho Man" and tweeted the photo.

Obviously, Nacho Woman got short shrift in the photo, but it wasn't like they had all that much time to set up the photo or take another one.  Not to worry, she got plenty of face time on TV.

Russell told the Cubs website about the play.  "Initially off the bat, I was thinking I could make the play. I really didn't get a sense of where the fence was. It looked like [outfielder Ben Zobrist] wasn't anywhere close. I didn't see the fence and collided with it and got all nacho'ed up."

As for stopping to have the photo-op with Gudermutch, he added :

"Normally, I don't do that but being the case of me being nacho'ed all over and my cleats even, so I was like, you know what, why not? Once in a lifetime experience."

And now that you're up to speed about all that happened, this is a video of the entire sequence edited together.  It begins with the aftermath of Addison Russell's dive, so you can see the messy result, and then goes into an instant replay that got things there.  Eventually, they add in later the part with Russell making his food delivery appearance.

And best of all, the Cubs won 10-2, clinching at least a tie for the National League Central Division title.
​

Let's head back to What's My Line?, which we haven't gotten to for a while and another Mystery Guest.  This time it's Debbie Reynolds, for her second appearance on the show.  It's great fun, since she goes All Goofball and utterly confuses the panel with her well-intentioned lunacy.

I worked with Bob Costas briefly on the movie, BASEketball from David Zucker, that starred Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park.  The times I got to talk to Costas -- on the set and at his home over the phone -- were a joy.  He's a very smart, thoughtful, funny guy who's also very devoutly religious, but never wears it on his sleeve, but keeps it largely to himself.  He talked about it a bit on the set, in private, yet never once made an issue of it.  There was some concern how he'd react to some of the outlandish things the filmmakers wanted him to do, some of them a bit crude, but he never flinched.  He was fine with it.  It was all for the joke.  In fact, he only had one small request for something to be cut, and that had absolutely nothing to do with his faith or personal beliefs about anything, but was only because of how it related to a family member of his that he felt uncomfortable doing.  (The filmmakers happily made the cut for him.)  He was a pleasure of a guy to talk with, open and friendly and very smart.

He also endeared himself to me when I had to call his office at his home in St. Louis to get some background material on him before the movie filming began.  I expected to talk to his secretary, but it turned out she was off that day, and Costas didn't get a temporary fill-in and answered the call himself.  We had a very enjoyable talk, and then I asked about him faxing me the information I needed.  He said he'd be happy to get it to me, but wanted to know if I could wait a day.  Sure, not a problem at all.  It turned out that because his secretary was out, he, Bob Costas -- two-time Emmy Award winner, eight-time National Sportscaster of the year, member of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Hall of Fame, 12-time host of the Olympics -- acknowledged that he was a technical Luddite and didn't know how to use his fax machine.

All of which brings us to his appearance yesterday on CNN, when he was asked to comment about the controversy surrounding Trump's slamming of NFL players as being a "son of a bitch" and calling for them to be fired, for protesting the killing of Blacks.

Costas, being Costas, is profoundly eloquent in his response -- and would be if it had been in a prepared address. That it is an extemporaneous response to a question is remarkable.

As I mentioned last week, I wanted to write something about Valerie Plame, but other news stories jumped in ahead of her in line. Coming out of the weekend, I now have the time. And I'm glad that I waited because it turns out that there is now an update to it all.  I'll get to that in a bit.  But first --

As you may have seen, there was an online article by Phil Giraldi, “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars” that was criticized for being uncomfortably anti-Semitic.  Among many other things, it included such passages as – “the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter.”
 
But what has gotten all the attention is not the article itself, but that it was retweeted and supported by Valerie Plame.  In the comment section to the article, rather than take the opportunity to explain that her retweeting was all a mistake, she instead doubled-down -- and as a result, someone followed this up by posting an earlier tweet she had sent in 2014 to the same author in which she said that his then-article explains “why I still hate Israel” and is “well-put”.  I did a check to see if maybe her account had been hacked, but unfortunately I came across an article about all of this in The Hill, which makes clear that this was indeed really her, and includes more detail from her why she supported it.
  
And this was all on the High Holy Day of Rosh Hashanah which just added such a warm whimsy of timing to everything.

I did read some defenses of the original article, attempting to explain why it was just stating the facts and really wasn't anti-Semitic at all.  Some tried to see the brighter side about it, that it wasn't even about "Jews" as a group, but more an indictment of AIPAC.  There are a lot of problems with all these efforts, though, whether well-meaning or otherwise.  One problem, for instance, which leaps out is that the author specifically singled out a handful of people who were all Jewish and made it about "the Jews" driving America's wars.  Additionally, far from just AIPAC being the center of the piece, they really are only an "also, by the way" in the article, buried later and bunched in with two other organizations. The bottom line is that the title of the article is quite clear -- it doesn't refer to just a few people, it doesn't refer to AIPAC, it says: "America's Jews are Driving America's Wars."

Moreover, the article includes comments like, "Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries." (The good news is that the individual donors were not described as "hook-nosed" and "greedy.") The reality is that the author could have talked about it being the neocons driving policy. Or he could have talked about The Heritage Foundation driving policy. But he didn't -- he talked about "the Jews" driving policy.  He could have talked about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump, their Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of States, NSC Directors, and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not only driving policy but directing policy and actually, literally running the wars. Indeed, if Bush/Cheney/Trump listen to advice, it's their choice who they bring into their circle for opinion in order to support their own aims  But the author didn't -- he talked about "The Jews" driving policy...and "The Jews" controlling the media. All he left out were the horns.  The author could have asked, "Does the Heritage Foundation drive America's Wars?" But he didn't.  He made it about "the Jews."  And further, though he's writing only about the Iraq War, and possible war with Iran, he indicts Jews on a much wider landscape for driving "America's Wars."   

And there was Valerie Plame retweeting the article, offering her support of it and then doubling-down when asked about doing so.  And there was Valerie Plame praising the same author, Phil Giraldi, three years ago and writing how that piece in 2014 showed why she still hated Israel.

To be fair, after enough criticism came down, Ms. Plame did finally back off and offer an apology, which I expected, and it’s a reasonably good one, very self-critical.  On the surface.  The problem is that before reading it, I felt it would need to pass higher standards for a normal apology because of the other things she previously said in defense of her comments, as well as that earlier 2014 tweet, "This is still why I hate Israel." Just throwing yourself prostrate and saying you're so sorry for retweeting doesn't explain the larger perspective that concerned many people.

And this is before even getting to the update of it all, which I'll get to in a moment.

(By the way, I fully acknowledge that there are some American Jews who were prominent on the neocon far right who supported the Iraq War and would like to see war with Iran. BUT -- that's hardly indicative of "American Jews." And it leaves out all the Christians who supported the Iraq War.  And all the Jews who opposed. So, before reading her apology, I hoped it would covered all of that.)

And as I said, at first glance the apology is very repentant, indeed very mortified -- on the surface.  But there's a very good article on Ms. Plame's apology in Mediate which addresses some of my very concerns, and feels as I do that the apology may not be as genuine as it appears, in that it doesn't address previous comments she's made. But beyond what they write and even more to the point -- at the centerpiece of her mea culpa she says that she screwed up by not reading the article close enough. And y'know, fair enough, that's certainly possible -- but the problem is that Valerie Plame is a former CIA analyst for goodness sake! And even for laymen the blistering anti-Semitism in the piece was incredibly hard to miss...even if you only got as far as the title. If you got all the way to...well, the first paragraph, you saw the author include a quote asked of him that should have set off even more warning bells, "...we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu".  And even after she was first criticized for retweeting the article, she defended it. So, while what she wrote has proper words one looks for in a good apology, I remain wary.

Which brings us to the update I've mentioned, and back to the original article itself, that Ms. Plame says she didn't read close enough -- the one with the headline "America's Jews are Driving America's Wars."  How truly bad was it?  That's where the update comes in.  On Thursday, the original article by Phil Giraldi now added an "Update" that says --

"On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that 'America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars' was unacceptable." 

And CIA analyst Valerie Plame says she just didn't read the article close enough.

By the way, in criticizing The American Conservative for its actions firing Giraldi and defending his article as not being anti-Semitic at all, Giraldi (or whoever wrote the "Update" make things worse for himself.  It continues --

"The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi."

When you're using the similarity between your words and Pat Buchanan as proof that you aren't anti-Semitic, you know you're in a losing cause, in a sinking boat with no paddle.  That's like quoting Ronald McDonald to show you don't like burgers.  To be very clear, the criticism of Pat Buchanan being anti-Semitic didn't start with the first issue of The American Conservative -- or end there.  It was a pit stop.

But Valerie Plame says she didn't read the article close enough.  And maybe she didn't.  The problem is that it didn't take a very close reading.  Especially if you're on record of already loving the author's similar writing on the same subject.

When the Giraldi article was initially published, I wrote to my friend Rabbi Jack Moline, who not only is on the Board of Directors here at Elisberg Industries, but almost more importantly is president of the Interfaith Alliance, and I was curious about his reaction to it all.  After a few days silence, he wrote back yesterday, and what he noted was --
 
"I was offline for the holiday and shabbat. But, yeah, Plame's escapade is on my radar. My take, in general, is that whenever 'the' precedes your accusation -- as in the Jews, the Blacks, the Muslims -- you just might be a bigot. If you went there, you need to do more internal work than, 'OMG, I am SO embarrassed!'"

When someone in the public eye passes away, the media will ask other celebrities who knew the person for a comment. Usually, they get a very nice, simple few sentences about how highly the friend thought about the deceased and what a sad loss it is.

I came across this 2012 video by chance yesterday.  It's Ron Howard talking to Entertainment Tonight after learning that day that Andy Griffith had died.  And they don't get a few warm sentences from him -- they get four wonderful minutes, tender, thoughtful, insightful, eloquent and lovely. And the only reason the clip is four minutes is because they edited it down.

By the way, it shouldn't go overlooked that they had worked together almost half a century early, when Howard was just a little boy -- and stayed in touch all that time since.  They did work together on occasional "reunion" events for The Andy Griffith Show, but this clearly was just a strong friendship.  And not just between the two of them, but he talks about his father staying in touch with Griffith all that time.
​

I saw Hamilton yesterday at the Pantages Theatre in Los Angeles.  I enjoyed it, it’s very well-done, and I’m glad I went.  But I didn’t love it at the level the squeals of delight made clear the audience did.  (That's one of the tangential things I do love about the show -- that it's brought a young audience to the theater.)

I'm glad that people do love the show.  It's a very good musical and deserving of its praise.  And any reasons my appreciation doesn't hit the same level has little to nothing to do with how others react.  It's certainly a phenomenon, and I understand most of the reasons:  it's vibrant and invigorating, and Lin-Manuel Miranda's work writing the book, music and lyrics is impressive -- and the show about something that resonates with people today, in large part an immigrant who defies all convention, overcomes hurdles, and becomes important in the politics of the nation.

And I did like and appreciate all that.  And liked much of the songs, and thought the performances were solid, all done with very good staging over what is mostly a bare stage, with props brought in and out, and a great deal of movement.

To explain the "however..." is not to suggest I didn't like the show.  As I said, I did like it, quite it bit.  And even loved some of it.  It is to be as clear as possible why, while liking it, I didn't respond with the adoration I'm aware of from others.

For all I did enjoy about the show throughout, it's also a sung-through musical, with almost no dialogue, and that's just not one of my favorite styles.  A few shows have been able to pull it off wonderfully for my taste (most notably Sweeney Todd), but in general -- for me -- I find that dialogue can usually bring out the drama, humor and subtext of a scene better than singing everything.  Songs tend to be at their best, for me, when they highlight a moment of emotion that exceeds the spoken word, but not so much when they're getting across conversation.  (For the sake of perspective, I like Les Miserable, but am not enamored of it, for this same reason.) That's a general comment, and there are many exceptions, not just for whole shows, as mentioned, but also for extended sequences within a show.  But for the most part, I find sung-through musicals a bit surface in getting across their story, while accepting that they often can have a spirited pace from the full-fabric of wall-to-wall music.  And accepting that some people absolutely love them.

Also, and this is especially personal, I don't have a good ear for picking out rap lyrics.  It's not that I don't like the songs or their driving pace, but rather than I personally have a difficult time making out all the words.  (When I read books, for instance, I often like to pause, consider the phrasing, sometimes even flip back to check context.  I certainly don't do that with songs, of course, but it's sort of the way my mind works, listening to structure and craft, as much as context.)  That's hardly the songs' fault, but it's a reality for my reaction.  As a result, I missed a good portion of what was being said here.  I had a far-better time with the ballads, love songs or more standard material.

Not helping this was that I didn't think the sound system or acoustics at the Pantages were as ideal as I would have wished them.  So, that impacted even more my hearing the details of what was going on.

In fairness, I did hear plenty.  And I liked much of it.  The first two songs are quite enjoyable, "Hamilton" and "My Shot."  And King George's song, "You'll Be Back" (which is a traditional comic number) is terrific.  I also very much enjoyed "Burn," sung by Hamilton's wife Eliza, burning his old love letters in building heartbreak after he writes a public mea culpa to put off accusations of bribery, when an affair he had has caused him to pay blackmail and threatens to come to light.  It's a very good song, and movingly performed by Solea Pfeiffer.

But for all the cleverness and drive of much of the lyrics -- that I heard -- some quite intricate and at times, amazingly ingenious, I also found more of the lyrics ordinary and forced than I prefer, sort of pushed out to fit the driving pace of the rap. They're often very effective for the sensibility of the songs, but as structured numbers there are too many false-rhymes for my taste. (I take rhyming very seriously -- if you're going to rhyme, that's the point, do so.  Don't come close.  When I hear a false rhyme, even when it works well, I'll often think the moment I hear it, "Oh, he couldn't come up with an actual rhyme," and it takes me out of the moment, never a good thing.)

Having said all this, what I will also try to do now, after having seen the show, is listen to the cast recording of Hamilton and have a lyric sheet with me, so that I can follow-through it all and get a better grasp on what all is there.  I have absolutely no doubt that there will be much about it that I will appreciate far more.  (In fact, my suggestion to anyone who plans to see the musical is that they do this beforehand, listen to the cast recording a few times to become familiar with it. Usually, I'm loathe to do such a thing, preferring to "discover" a new show as it was intended, but I think it would help here.  For that matter, it seems to have been the case with much of the younger audience, which appeared to be thoroughly familiar with the songs and often cheer material as it began.)

I liked the second act more than the first.  That's not "damning with faint praise" -- I thought the second act was pretty good, dealing with the founding of the government and early years of formulating the United States.  And it did a strong job dealing with intertwining characters, romance, betrayals and politics, The first act is mostly about the Revolutionary War period, and I found it a bit perfunctory.  Like when Hamilton meets the man who will become the Father of Our Country, and they basically sing -- I'm exaggerating here, but not much -- , "General Washington, I'm Alexander Hamilton," "I've heard good things about you, you're hired."  (This also relates, in part, to what I said above about songs not always being as effective as dialogue.)  To be very fair, I completely understand that trying to encapsulate the Revolutionary War in one act is a monumentally thankless task, and they handle it with an expansive flair that's energizing.  But daunting as the challenge is, it was their choice to tackle it, and the first act was too brusque for me. 

(I don't mean this at all snidely, and hesitate to include mention for that reason, but I think it adds perspective, that Stan Freberg managed it in his classic The United States of America.  Yes, that was a parody, and a record album, and he wasn't dealing with rich emotions and human intricacies. So, it's hardly close to a fair comparison. But the point is that Freberg. using dialoge and song, managed it, and in much less time.  And yes, of course, there are many things in the first act that Hamilton manages far better than Freberg.)

I have a feeling that I would have been more involved with the show had I seen it with Lin-Manuel Miranda in his original starring role.  Not that Michael Luwoye wasn't good -- in fact, he was very good, as were almost all the performers.  But having himself written the difficult songs, I sense that Miranda knew them inside-out and they likely flowed naturally from him, which is critical with the unrelenting flow of rap.  But with some of the performers here, it just seemed like they were at times fighting to get the rhythm and pacing of some of the raps out properly, and it occasionally took me out of the moment.  And a show, while always better with "The Best" cast, shouldn't rely on that cast to get everything across effectively.

(Okay, one cast quibble. The actor who plays Lafayette, Jordan Donica, does so weeez such a beeeg gartooneeesh French agzennnt that almost the only word I got was "Lafayette."  He doubles as Thomas Jefferson and is far better there, though a bit too fopishly over-the-top for my taste, though I suspect that's how the character is written.)

To be very clear, which I fear might be lost at this point, even having had my disclaimer above, I really did like the show.  And also loved parts of it.  Why I've gone into much more explanation of the various things that didn't grab me personally is because the show has become such a phenomenon that I find it less important here to say all the reasons why I liked it (which have rightly been written about and praised extensively elsewhere for several years since its opening), than it instead being far-more explain myself, explain the reasons why while I quite liked it I wasn't up in the rafters with much of the rest of the audience.  This here is not why I didn't like the show -- I did like it (as I trust has come through) -- but why my appreciation didn't reach the exalted level of so many others.

It's personal.  And much of it even has nothing to do with the show itself, but my own limitations, not to mention theater acoustics.  I get why it's such a hit, and I'm glad for it.  And I'm glad I saw it and had a good time.  There's much memorable about it.  And it's an impressive work.  I just -- personally -- like many other shows I've seen more.  Personal taste and all.

Here's a scene from the show's presentation at the 70th annual Tony Awards, the Battle of Yorktown.  And oddly, though happily, I think it pretty much supports all that I said above, because I like this performance much more than this number done at the Pantages.  It's clearer, crisper, with better sound and with a smooth performance by Lin-Manuel Miranda, and a Lafayette I could actually understand.
​

Hmm, okay, so let's get this straight. Trump is happy to call a black NFL quarterback a "son of a bitch" and say that someone like that should be fired for exercising his 1st Amendment rights -- while also telling us that there are some very fine people who march with the Nazis and KKK.  The more he speaks, the more I think that the whole "He's a white supremacist" narrative has a chance of building up steam...

It speaks volumes about how little Ann Coulter is thought of these days when she can call for "Death Squads" against immigrants, and pretty much no one cares.  And yes, she did actually say that.  You can read it here.  Though you might want to wear protective eye gear so that your eye balls don't sear off.  And maybe have a barf bag handy.

It would be fascinating if a monumental mass of NFL players all protest Trump calling one of their members a "son of a bitch:and on Sunday kneel in support of their fellow-member. In fact, here's hoping that happens. The protest, to be clear, would not be against the Anthem or Flag, but of Trump.

It's been pretty clear to me for a while that the GOP push for this insane TrumpCare bill -- that is opposed by pretty much every major health care organization and the insurance industry -- has nothing to do with health care. It's that by repealing the Affordable Care Act, hundreds of millions of dollars will be freed up, allowing Republicans to cut corporate taxes.  And now come reports that big GOP donors are telling senators that is precisely what they want.

Still waiting on Trump to finally at least mention the wildfires that devastated the Pacific Northwest. And it would be really nice if he made clear that he actually had serious concern and was taking action for Puerto Rico almost being wiped off the map.  Never mind that it's a U.S. territory and 3.5 million American citizens live there.

I've long-thought that the Republican push for repealing the Affordable Care Act is just bizarrely counterproductive for the GOP.  It only has something like 12% support in the country.  If Republicans do get this latest attempt passed (which has had far-more angry criticism from both the healthcare and insurance industries), there will be overwhelming outrage from the public, including from their base which may be hurt more than anyone.  

Joe Scarborough said something similar on his MSNBC show on Thursday.  “Have that process, have those hearings, let the senators, let the congressmen hear who is going to be hurt by the bill, instead of just seeing this in stories six months after a bill passes.  I promise you, Republicans, you’re the ones that are going to pay in the end. You think I’m being a son of a bitch right now? No, you should listen to me. What you’re doing is radical, and you will end up paying horribly in the end. I don’t know what pressure you think you are under right now (but) wait until you go back to your voters supporting this bill. It’s inhumane.”

How quaint that Mr. Scarborough used the very same "son of a bitch," as Trump, though in his case without being stupid or a bully.  I guess it's the phrase of the week.

The best tweet of last night came from Teresa Kaepernick, mother of Colin, that quarterback who Trump slammed yesterday.  She wrote, "Guess that makes me a proud bitch."

By the way, this whole TrumpCare bill is a rock-and-a-hard place for Republicans. If the pass it with only 12% approval and throw 30 million people off healthcare, the public (including their base) will take it out on them.  But if they don't pass it, their base will be furious that they did nothing.  What they should have done is continue the bipartisan work that Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray were doing to fix issues in the Affordable Care Act.  It would have pleased the public -- though upset their big donors.

Between Trump calling for the firing of an ESPN host and also an NFL quarterback, it seems like he's going in the wrong direction with the whole job market thing.  Maybe he just misses hosting The Apprentice.  As for suggesting that the NFL quarterback should be fired, someone should tell Trump that thus far no team in the league has hired him.  So, it's almost like he got his wish.

And that's the news.  Or as much of it as I can bear typing about at the moment...

Last night, I watched a wonderful little film on DVD that was released earlier this year, Wakefield.  It stars Bryan Cranston and Jennifer Garner, based on a fascinating short story by E.L. Doctorow (who wrote Ragtime and Billy Bathgate).

Cranston is really the core of the story though and he gives a gem of a performance.  Basically it’s about a man having what could best be described as a massive midlife crisis and runs away from his family – except he hides in the attic of their coach house garage and watches his wife and two kids from there.  (There’s more, but that’s the focus of the story, told entirely from his perspective.)

To give full credit to Garner, she gives a very good performance as her character has to range from anger at her husband not getting back to her, concern at his disappearance, the challenge of having to take new responsibility for the family, deciding whether to move on with her life and more, -- most of it done in a sort of "pantomime" since Cranston can't hear much of what she's saying.  Though Cranston still is the omnipresence in everything.

A major challenge of the film is to take such an unbelievable premise -- a husband living in the family's garage for such a long period and not only not being discovered, but simply surviving -- and make us accept it.  And the film pulls it off, coming up with a thoughtful, well-crafted development.  I'm sure this was a hurdle in the Doctorow short story, as well, although in that literary form so much is left to the reader's imagination that I suspect a great deal of the gaps are filled in.  A movie is more literal, so the demands of making this "real" are likely higher.  And that makes it all the more impressive how successful the effort is.

The movie was written & directed by Robin Swicord who wrote the screenplays for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Matilda, Memoirs of a Geisha, and Little Women, among others, and both wrote and directed The Jane Austen Book Club.  (She also wrote a charming little film, Shag, that oddly enough I wrote the presskit for back in my dark days in PR.)

By the way, among her other credits, she co-produced Matilda, Little Women and the actress (and writer) Zoe Kazan.

Because of the psychologically claustrophobic nature of the story -- even though a lot of it does not take place in the garage attic -- this is a difficult film to capture properly in a trailer.  But I thought they did a solid job, given the inherent hurdles.