A few weeks ago, someone on social media posted a comment about something in the news at the time where people stood around doing nothing while a person was being hurt.  I noted the song "Outside of a Small Circle of Friends" by Phil Ochs that was released in 1967.

The song was inspired by the 1964 death of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed outside her apartment in New York City, while her neighbors ignored her calls for help.

What's always stood out with this song is the harsh words being sung in counterpoint to the incredibly chipper music and arrangement.

Phil Ochs was a wonderful folk singer who never quite hit the same heights of his better-known contemporaries, though had a solid career.  I remember thinking that it was a shame I never got to see him, but he had very sadly committed suicide several years earlier.  And then, one day in grad school at UCLA, I saw a poster for a concert on campus with...Phil Ochs!!  Needless to say, I went, and it was excellent.  But to make the story even more weird, a few years after that, he did commit suicide.

Anyway, this is that song.

The other day, I mentioned a flop 1968 musical that Vincent Price starred in called Darling of the Day, and posted the video of Price performing a song from the show.  I thought I'd dive in a little deeper and also post a few songs, since it's an interesting musical.  It has an excellent pedigree, and one of the best scores I've heard for a flop musical.  But it was a flop.  And a big one only 31 performances.. 

​Darling of the Day is based on a fun 1943 movie, Holy Matrimony, worth checking out, that starred Monty Wooley and the legendary Gracie Fields.  The writer of the film, Nunally Johnson,, had a long, acclaimed which included such movies as The Grapes of Wrath (for which he got an Oscar nomination), The Three Faces of Eve, The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, The Dirty Dozen and The World of Henry Orient -- and he got an Oscar nomination for the screenplay of Holy Matrimony.  And he also wrote the original script for the musical, though apparently it got rewritten a lot, and he took his name off.  What I’ve read is that the show was fun, but it had some book problems, and that Price is better on the album than on stage where he wasn’t as comfortable.  Though a friend saw it on Broadway and said it was a lot of fine.  I also saw a local production in Chicago and had a good time, as well.  But also, the show was badly hurt by opening during a newspaper strike, so no one saw the reviews which was crushing.  It also opened in 1968, when Broadway musicals were slowly transitioning into rock, and this was not that in the slightest, so it likely hurt.

Still, although it got mixed reviews, the fact that it got as many raves as it did (many quoted on the cast album) speaks well for such a major flop.  Which points to being hurt by the newspaper strike.  For instance, there's this one from the well-regarded critic Richard Watts of the New York Post who wrote -- ‘…thoroughly delightful. It has charm, tunefulness, humor, imagination, a good book, impeccable taste and a handsome production. Mr Price is convincing and charming as the artist in hiding… a superior musical comedy!’  Not bad for 31 performances.
 
As for its pedigree, the score is by Yip Harburg (who wrote the lyrics to Finian's Rainbow and The Wizard of Oz) and Jule Styne (Gypsy, Funny Girl, Bells are Ringing and much more), and it’s terrific.  To be clear, it's not a classic score, and has its flaws, But for a flop musical that ran only 31 performances, it’s especially impressive.

Besides which, the show starred Vincent Price.  And also Patricia Routlege.  Her name may not be especially well-known, and though she was famously in a lot of Broadway flops, she was good enough to keep getting hired for them.  And had a strong career in her native England.  Furthermore, even though Darling of the Day only ran for 31 performances...she actually won the Tony Award as Best Lead Actress in a Musical.  And today, a lot of people know her as the star of the BBC/PBS series, Keeping Up Appearances, playing 'Hyacinthe." 

(On purely personal level, one thing I also like about the cast is that a supporting role of a Cockney friend of Routledge's character is played by British actor Teddy Green.  As people who read this site a lot know, I'm a major fan of the British musical Pickwick that starred Harry Secombe.  Teddy Green was in that original production, as Pickwick's valet, Sam Weller.)

The main character in Darling of the Day is a famous artist in Victorian England who hates high society and moved far away to a South Seas island years earlier.  When the Queen decides to knight him, he has to return to England, much to his annoyance.  But on the trip back, his butler dies, and there’s a mix-up, since no one knows what the artist looks like, and people think the butler is the artist who died, and that he’s the butler.  There’s a romance, and suspicion he’s alive when a new painting he’s done shows up. And other folderol, including the artist's romance and then marriage to a lower-class woman who doesn't realize she's actually married to a member of the aristocracy.  It’s fairly enjoyable.  The book it’s based on it called Buried Alive.

As I said, I saw a local 2005 production in Evanston, which has a bit of an interesting background.  It turned out that a director got the rights from the estates to rework some of the issues in the book, cut a couple songs, add a new one that had originally been dropped from the how, and use alternate lyrics that Harburg had written for one number.  I thought most of the changes were fine, though I prefer the original lyrics of the song that had its words changed.  And the courtroom scene at the end isn't great -- but then, it's not great in the movie either.  If you’re interested in the full story of the updated version, I came across article on it in Playbill, and it turns out that that production I saw was the very first one of the new adaptation.
 
Which finally brings us to the score.  As I noted, I posted one of the song previously, video of Vincent Price singing "I've Got a Rainbow Working for Me" in costume here.  These are five other selections.
 
The overture is so enjoyable that it convinced my dad to join me at that Evanston show.  Much as he liked musicals and loved the work of Styne and Harburg, he wasn't anxious to drive out to Evanston to see a very small community theater production of a flop show.  And my mother wasn't able to go that night.  But I asked them to listen to just a few minutes of the overture -- and they ended up listening to the whole thing, and my dad said he was much better than he expected, so he agreed to go. 

Yesterday, I read a tweet from the MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell that I thought was so hilariously lunatic that I posted what I believed was a pretty benign quip.

But manl  At the moment, it has gotten around 2,500 "Likes.:

And far too many wing nuts insisting that, oh, no, it's Dominion who should be terrified of the discovery process.  Because there's so much proof against them.  Like in Michigan where they found voter fraud.  And why would Mike Lindell countersue twice if he didn't have the evidence?  And the Trump lawyers had their cases dismissed by they didn't have standing.  And Democrats couldn't get anything on Trump, so they're going after him this way.  And yabba yabba yabba yabba on and on and on yabba yabba endlessly.  (One person added to the yabba quotient by insisting Sidney Power has never backtracked and strongly defends the charges she made, 

I didn't answer everyone -- there were far, FAR too many.  And responding to them all would be like playing megalomaniacal version of Whack-a-Mole.  But a few stood out, and I did reply.  Generally, I only replied once because then you get sucked down the rabbit hole into oblivion.  So, I'd answer, explain too that I didn't debate delusion, and offered a fond goodbye. And then muted them.

The general thrust of my answers were:

The State of Michigan did an official audit -- by hand -- in the county in question and determined it was not a machine error at all, but a human error by a clerk...and the vote total was 100% correct.  Read the news.

The Trump Team lost 60 cases, and in those that were dismissed it was because what they were offering as "evidence" didn't have merit -- not because they didn't have standing.  Courts have standards that must be met in order to offer evidence to be considered, or else lawyers can be sanctioned.  Read the news.

Sidney Powell's lawyer filed a brief in court about her statements making those charges that "reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact."  Read the news.

The Mueller Report said that there was collusion -- but it couldn't be proven by a legal standard because there also was obstruction which blocked investigators from the evidence.  Read the news.

And a majority of the U.S. Senate (including Republicans) voted to convict Trump, though two-thirds is required.  Read the news.

And no charges were ever filed against Trump when in office because the Justice Department has a guideline that says you can't charge a sitting President with a crime.  Read the news.

But mainly, as for Mike Lindell, the very person who started this all --.the reason he countersued is because he is nuts.  For starters, just look at the statement that was the whole point of my original tweet:  that Trump would be back in office by August!!!

Okay, so, honestly, how in the world is that supposed to happen??  How?!!!  Seriously, how does Mike Lindell actually believe Trump will be president again in only four months???  For starters, any lawsuit that challenges the election results won't likely even be heard by August.  And that doesn't taken into consideration that all 50 states have certified the results.  But lets create a monumental fantasy world where a lawsuit is actually filed (none has been yet, of course.)  And after motions to dismiss and debate about that, the trial is granted to go forward by the court.  And discovery, finding jurors, and hearing witness all take place in just days.  And after a very fast deliberation, that the verdict goes goes in Trump's favor.  All within just four months.

Do these people not think there would be...oh, an appeal?  And that after that long process, whatever the verdict is, it would not get appealed to the Supreme Court?  But that if it actually did, the Justices would call an immediate session and decide on whether or not to hear the case?  And would then agree to hear it immediately.  And that the lawyers would have to start without time to prepare?  And it would only take days?  And the Justices would deliberate for a few hours -- and decide in favor of Trump, who would be sworn in the next day??!  All so that he could be back as president by August?

Seriously?  Or do they just think a district court will make a quick, emergency rule on behalf of Trump, and everyone would agree that, okay, that settles that, and the next day Trump would be president?

As I said, I think it's fair to refer to Mike Lindell as nuts because we're only using his own words 

And no, you don't get to use the Trump Gambit of "Oh, no, he didn't actually mean that, you're taking his words literally, and he doesn't mean they're actually literal.  It's just sort of the general idea.  'By August' just means some other vague, distant time."  Like, perhaps November, 2024.

And yes, I actually did reply to a lot of people with a combination of these responses.  Not most, thankfully, but far too many.  And the answer to "Why in God's name did you did that?" is basically..."I don't know.  Probably because it was a slow day.  They were so stupid that it was easy.  And it probably annoyed them.  But I don't know.  We're still in a pandemic, and I'm still sort of sheltering at home, what else would I do to fill up my time?"

And I did, thankfully, eventually give up reading them.  Though had to fight responding when my eye did spot a loony reply scroll by.  (That's the downside of getting thousands of Likes or replies -- you still have to look to see if someone is writing to you for a completely separate reason... And since you do give up looking at everyone, any of these separate tweets stand a good chance of being missed.)

I don't particularly regret answering the people I did.  Not a great choice, but okay, it was sort of fun, if too numbing.  And it's who I am.  But what I come closer to regretting is posting that first quip.

Closer to regretting -- but not enough regret to not do it again.  Besides, it mostly got a tidal wave of positive comments, which were a treat to read.

And in truth, I really do look forward to Mike Lindell's testimony under cross-examination.  As someone responded in one of those many positive replies, they should put it on pay-per-view.  It would take in a bundle.

A few weeks back, I mentioned that the paperback edition of Fay Wray and Robert Riskin:  A Hollywood Memoir by my friend Vicki Riskin was just being released.  It's a wonderful book about her parents -- the star of King Kong and the Oscar-winning screenwriter of It Happened One Night, along with Meet John Doe, Lost Horizon and You Can't Take It With You.  You can find the book here.

What I also noted was that she would be doing a Facebook Live conversation about the book, and it was terrific.  Vicki is a smart, accomplished person on her own -- a former president of the Writers Guild of America and former president of Human Rights Watch, as well as a former practicing psychologist...and yes, that's a lot of "formers," but she's got a lot of "currentlys," as well, including that she's on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch.-- and one of the most gracious people I know.  So the talk was charming and interesting, with a great deal of insight to go along with the interesting tales of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Fortunately, the video of the Facebook Live event is available, and I've posted it below.  All the stories aren't just about her parents (though those are fascinating), but is wide-ranging.  For instance, happily she tells my favorite story from the book which is not about her parents, but the writer Jo Swirling, one of her father's best friends, who was the book writer of the musical Guys & Dolls.  It's a really funny tale about his time at Columbia Studio and a run-in with the reviled studio head Harry Cohn.

By the way, if you do watch and stick with it all the way through, I have a sort of hidden guest-appearance.  They ask for questions from viewers, and I sent one in very early on.  Because they don't get to the questions until much later, I thought they were going to overlook it, especially since I could see they were getting a lot of questions in the interim.  But happily, they not only asked my question, but it was the first one.  Vicki had talked about her mother's unhappy marriage, but wasn't clear that she was referring to her first marriage, so I asked if she could clarify it.  When she got the question, she was so happy for it, thrilled for the chance to explain what she meant.  Later, I sent her an email and explained where that question had come from.

So, here's the conversation.  If you like movies and especially movie history, I highly recommend you give this a look for 15 minutes or so.  And you might find yourself sticking around for the whole thing.

I know a lot of friends have been periodically ordering takeout from restaurants during the pandemic.  And I understand why, and that they've been safe.  And I understand the interest in supporting restaurants.  I haven't done so, though.  It just wasn't worth the health risk to me.  I knew it was likely safe, but I also knew I was fine cooking at home.

I did order takeout once at the very beginning of the shutdown.  There's a good pizza place a couple blocks from me, and I wanted to give them my business.  So, I ordered a pizza and walked over to pick it up.  But I think that was last February, and I haven't eaten restaurant food since, for over a year.

Until yesterday.

As I've written here, I've had my two vaccinations, and the two week waiting period has ended.  And my friend, the inveterate Chris Dunn has had this two shots, as well, and passed the waiting period.  And that set up the idea of getting together to order takeout at some place, and bringing it back to one of our homes and eating it there, perhaps outside.  Therein lies the tales.

Not long before the pandemic, Chris introduced me to a new restaurant, Hotville Chicken that was one of the leaders of a new style of food being introduced into the Los Angeles area.  It's called "Nashville hot chicken," and basically is fried chicken served very moist and with a particular hot and spicy bread coating.  Hotville has its direct history in Nashville, coming from the family that invented the style, rather than being just a local restaurant participating in the trend. 

​​​And its reputation was high.  Los Angeles magazine rated them as the best in the area. And the New York Times even wrote about the place -- very well, noting that "the result is juicy, seasoned to the bone, crisp and crimson.".  And yes, it's hot.  Hotville has four levels of heat, and double-check that you've been there before if you ask for just the second hottest level.  (I think they may have a fifth level that's off the menu.) The New York Times article begins this way --
​

It was very good.  Very friendly, as well.  I got The Shaw sandwich, which is a chicken breast in a substantial bun, some pickles, a side of kale slaw -- and a mound of seasoned fries, for $12.  I think I ordered it at the second level of heat -- fairly mild but with a good kick.  But I also love chicken wings, so I ordered their small portion to take home.  And tried the level three head.  The "small" is four massive wings, and was absolutely wonderful. And definitely hot, but no uncomfortably so.  But good to have water at hand.

The place is a bit of a drive in the Crenshaw district of Baldwin Hills, located in a large shopping mall.  But I was looking forward to going back.  And then the pandemic hit.  Fortunately, Hotville Chicken was able to survive because they have a small outdoor patio, and there's a big park nearby with tables.  Plus, it's a food that travels well.

By the way, this is The Shaw.  To be clear, the photo makes it look like a small slider, so you get two.  In fact, it's a big chicken breast, a bit larger than your fist, and you just get one.

Anyway, after my second vaccination, and as I neared the two-week mark, I wrote to Chris about going back after he had his own second shot and two-week waiting period.  His response was, "How about going next Thursday."  Hey, good enough for me!

The restaurant inside was blocked off, but they seemed to be doing respectable business.  It was slow when we got there early -- which was the point of going early -- but by the time we finished eating on the patio, there were half a dozen people waiting for their orders.

I ordered the same this time -- The Shaw sandwich and chicken wings to go -- although Chris and I both had now graduated to that third heat level (what they call Music City Medium).  The heat level was great, it was definitely necessary to have water at hand, but not "burning."  That said, Chris discovered one issue worth noting -- while dining on Music City Medium was fine, when you put your face mask back on (which also makes it really hard to drink water...), the lingering heat really kicks in.  Fortunately, he finished first, so I learned my lesson from him, took my time, and drank a lot of water after the meal.  All was well.  For me, at least.

And I look forward to the chicken wings for my next meal at home.  (Again, I'm not sure if the photo does them justice, but each wing is about six inches across.)

Anyway, going there -- or anywhere, for my first trip to a restaurant in a year -- was a total joy.  On the one hand, it was a weird experience, actually ordering from a restaurant.  On the other hand, I just fell right into it, and it seemed totally normal.  Even Chris's legendary "four stories" (which he explains are the only four he knows, and so "Stop me if I've told you this one...") were a treat to hear again.  And contrary to his insistence, he's added new stories, as well.  What helped, too, was that it was delicious – and getting extra to take home. 

(Total digression.  One new Dunn story came after our conversation moved to Billy Wilder.  I mentioned having seen Wilder at a Writers Guild event for a Q&A after one of his movies screened, and I repeated a story he told about Sabrina that William Holden had co-starred in.  Chris mentioned tracking down this video from the 1978 Academy Awards.)

Back in 2001, I saw a Serbo-Croatian movie, No Man's Land at an “awards screening, since it had been nominated for an Oscar as Best Foreign Language Film.  Also nominated that year was Amelie, that was not only wildly popular, but one of the most successful foreign language films ever.  Most people knew Amelie.  No one had ever heard of No Man’s Land.  In fact, most people who saw Amelie absolutely loved it.  (Not all, there was no gray area, some people hated it for the overly-sweet nature of the main character.  But by and large, audiences loved the movie, which is why it was only of the most successful foreign language films ever.)

Every once in a while, I would come across a discussion about the Oscar office that pool people were having, trying to decide what to vote for.  What tends to be traditional in most such pools is that people mark down their choices on the bulk of the awards, but "Best Foreign Language Film" is used as the tie-breaker, since most people haven't seen any of those nominated, and so it's like tossing a dart blindfolded.  Although that year, a lot of people had actually seen Amelie -- or at least heard about it.  And so that's what they were voting for as their tie-breaker. 

(In fact, to this day, 20 years later, I am absolutely certain that there are a great many people who have never seen Amelie, but know about it.  And equally certain that most people have never even heard of No Man's Land.  Furthermore, there was a Broadway musical a couple of years ago based on Amelie, which I saw in Los Angeles and thought was wonderful, in fact I liked it more than the movie.)  

However, when I was in one of those Oscar office pool conversations, I'd say, "No, pick No Man’s Land.’”  Everyone would looked at me like I was absolutely nuts, because they knew that Amelie would win.  But I just liked No Man's Land that much.  The thing is, it was just that I liked it that much -- I explained that to those in the group that I I had seen No Man’s Land at an awards screening where the audience was made up of people who actually vote for who wins the award, and I said the reaction of those people, who actually vote for the awards, was so visceral that you could feel it in the room.  And I reiterated that people should vote for it in their office pool.  And they still looked at me like I was nuts.  They had seen Amelie and loved it.  Or knew about it and how extremely successful it was because others loved it.
 
This is where I note that I was right -- that No Man’s Land, in fact, did win the Academy Award as Best Foreign Language Film. And a lot of people afterwards said to me, "Er, isn't that the movie you said that I should pick in my office pool to win the Oscar and beat Amelie?"  Yes, I would answer, it was.
 
Here's the oddity of all this and my love for the film.  To this day, as much as I’ve praised No Man's Land, I’ve never told anyone the plot.  And I won’t here.  That’s because it has a twist that’s so great that to tell the plot would give that twist away, and the discovery of that twist is too brilliant.  Here's how brilliant the twist is -- when I was at that original screening and saw where I thought maybe-possibly the story was going, I remember the hairs on my arm tingling because if the story did go there, it would be SOOO great.  Yet I hoped that it didn’t go there, because what I also thought was, “If it doesn’t tell that story, I’m going to go home when this is over and write a story with that twist myself.”  But it did go there.  And it’s so smart and so clever and so well-done.
 
I mention all this because for years it wasn’t available (at least it wasn't included for free in any streaming service).  But the other day, I just checked several of the video services I subscribe to, and although No Man Land wasn't available for a very long time -- one of the added frustrations for my not talking about the plot to anyone -- it is actually available these days for streaming on Amazon Prime!  If you subscribe to Amazon Prime and are interested in watching it, a caveat:  make sure to watch the 2001 movie because there are others with the same title.  (There's even a new one this year for Hulu.)  And this one is about the Bosnian War.  But don’t even read the description, out of risk of them giving anything away.  
 
The only thing I will say is that the first 10 minutes looks like it’s an ordinary war film, although a very well done one, so you might wonder what’s the big deal.  Just know that it is not an ordinary war film.  The direction of the story changes after those first 10 minutes, and it's extremely good.  Just know, though that that change of direction is not the plot twist.  That comes later.  At which point, it then goes off to another level.

Know, too, that if you're someone who avoids foreign language movies because you don't like reading subtitles, No Man's Land won't likely have that same hurdle for you.  That's because, even though it’s a foreign language film, much of it centers around the United Nations inspection unit that's on the ground there during the war, and therefore when all the sides meet, they speak in English.  So, about a third of the movie is in English.
 
(And it even has one British actor in it who you might recognize, Simon Callow.  He’s had a long, admired career.  Among a great many things, he was in Shakespeare in Love as the theater manager, and in Four Weddings and a Funeral -- playing the flamboyant Scotsman for whom they had the funeral.  And has done a one-man stage show about Charles Dickens’ life.  In No Man’s Land, he plays one of the representatives from the U.N.)

A sort of postscript to all this is that my 93-year-old aunt was looking for things to stream during the pandemic, and so I brought up No Man's Land to her last week.  She'd loved foreign films for a lifetime, but at this point has put them in the back seat since she's one of those who now doesn't prefer to read subtitles if there are other films to watch.  But I explained to her about the U.N. subplot and all the English, she streamed it -- and became the first person in 20 years I could actually talk about the movie to!  And happily, she thought it was excellent.  So, I'm off the hook with her, after pushing it so hard...

Usually at this point in an article I'll embed the trailer.  However, in this case, I will not be posting the trailer for No Man's Land.  That's because as good as the trailer is, as solid a job as it does giving a pretty good sense of the movie, it also gives away much too much of the plot and gives away the plot twist.  (I don't criticize them for it, though, since as I said, it's impossible to tell the story properly without doing so.)  But it does show that the movie is not only dramatic and tragic as war is, but also absurdly funny in large parts.  I should mention, too, that in addition to the Oscar, it also won best screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival.

It's only an hour and 37 minutes, too, so it flies by.

After all this praise, I hope it can live up to that.  But I think it can.  I really love the movie.  And it’s been tough loving it for 20 years, but refusing to tell anyone anything about the story.  
 
For those who access Amazon Prime movies on your laptop and then hook it up to your TV with an HDMI cable, this is the link here to find it.
​

​Another St. Patrick's Day annual tradition -- and for decades, by the way, long before the Internet thing, as a personal tradition -- this is the song, "Ring to the Name of Rose," performed here by a school glee club.

Now, I know that on the surface it appears that I'm posting this because of its connection to the Irish Rose.  And that's a good theory, and a reasonable connection.  And it holds, but then, if that was solely the case I'd probably instead post the song, "My Wild Irish Rose."  In fact, I'm posting it because today, St. Patrick's Day, is the birthday of my grandmother -- and her name was Rose.

Family history dating back to 1895 being what it is, when my Grandma Rose was born, there's an uncertainty if there was any St. Patrick's Day connection to my grandmother being named Rose because of the day.  The general assumption (other than from my grandmother) is "no," but that's not a sure thing.  However, what is sure is that my grandmother absolutely loved being born on St. Patrick's Day, and the connection that her name was Rose.  So, that's good enough for me.

By the way, there's another interesting thing about this song -- who wrote it.  It's a lovely, sweet number, and not remotely the kind of song we associate with the loud, boisterous work of its composer-lyricist -- best known for "You're a Grand Old Flag," "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Give My Regards to Broadway."  That would, of course, be George M. Cohan.
 

And here's a bonus video -- it's the song performed from the original cast album of the Broadway show George M!  which is based on the life of George M. Cohan.  This is part of a four-song medley, and "Ring to the Name of Rosie" comes around third.

(Note: despite what the person posting this below writes, that is not Bernadette Peters in the first song of the medley.  She was indeed in the show, as Cohan's younger sister Josie, but this first singer is Jill O'Hara, whose character Agnes Nolan becomes Cohan's second wife.  Just to throw in a tidbit of Broadway history, only a few months later, Jill O'Hara -- a fine name on St. Patrick's Day -- graduated from this small role to starring in the musical Promises, Promises, and with co-star Jerry Orbach introduced the hit song, "What Do You Get When You Fall in Love?")
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbYMMx_xlvk

A month ago, I wrote an article about what I thought Democrats should do about the filibuster.  You can the whole thing here if you missed it or want a refresher, or loved it so much you want to read it again and again, but if none of those fit your preferences, the core point was this --

"For the longest time, as I've heard Democrats complain about the filibuster and wanted to get rid of the rule, I've argued against that.  I understood what was being complained about and why, but my feeling was that the problem wasn't with the filibuster, but how the rule had changed and been abused over the years.  

"Once upon a time, if you wanted to filibuster, you had to literally stand up, not ever take your seat and talk.  Or pass along the right to talk to someone else -- but they would have to stand and talk, not sit down, no bathroom breaks.  It not only was a physical challenge, but it showed to the entire country who specifically was filibustering and blocking the Senate from moving forward, keeping legislation from passing.  There was both a physical challenge and political risk to filibustering.  You had to stand and talk."

And what had prompted me writing the article was an op-ed in the New York Times written by two eminent lawyers -- Burt Neuborne, a professor at New York University Law School, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (and my Northwestern University roommate Jim Backstrom's debate partner).  The foundation of their argument, "Make the Filibuster Difficult Again," was the very point I've been making for years -- you don't have to get rid of the filibuster, just make it hard to do.  Like it initially was written and intended.

After writing my piece here, I spent a lot of time on social defending my position against those who simply thought the only solution was the end the filibuster.  And it was "a lot of time" because pretty much most of the people on social media who responded thought I was wrong.  Actually, I don't think anyone rose up to say, "Hey, that's a great idea!  Way to go!"  So, "pretty much most of the people" shall herein be defined as "all."  While ending the filibuster is something that I think does make sense. and I'd be fine with it, I don't think it's the "only" solution.  And further, I thought and still think a whole month later, that for several reasons, one of which has nothing to do with the rule itself, dealing with the filibuster that way makes the most sense.

(That "other reason which has nothing to do with the rule itself" is that I think changing the rule this way could possible help convince Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema -- who are both against ending the filibuster, which kills the idea in the Senate -- that this is something they could actually support.) 

I bring all this up because I was thrilled to see Chris Murphy say basically the same thing on Rachel Maddow’s show last night -- and then Norm Ornstein said something similar on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show that followed.  And that afternoon, Chris Van Hollen said it, too, on one of the MSNBC daytime shows.  Ornstein's two suggestions were much more detailed than what anyone said, including me, and both were fascinating, but as involved and intricate as his ideas were, the principle beneath them was the same as everyone's – keep the filibuster, but make it much more difficult and with a consequence.  And everyone also made the same point that dealing with the filibuster this way had the added benefit of that they might possibly satisfy both Senators Manchin and Sinema.
 
Whether it will happen, who knows.  I don’t hold my breath.  But it was still nice to see.

Bear with me, there's a point to this all that I think will make it worthwhile, even if you're one of those who doesn't like the subject at hand.  And that subject is the banjo.  So, there are probably plenty of people reading this who do fall into the category of not liking the subject at hand.

​I admit it, I like the banjo.  As I've written here, I've gone to the Topanga Banjo and Fiddle Contest for many years.  I have a bunch of bluegrass albums.  When I was a little one of my parents' best friends in Chicago moved to California, and a big going-away party was thrown for them, with the music "California, Here I Come" playing as the family entered.  It was from an all-banjo album that my folks had bought for the occasion, and I loved playing it beforehand.  (I remember there was a riverboat on the cover.)  When I came to California decades later for grad school, I got back in touch with the family -- they'd stayed in periodic touch with us over the years.  And when I went over to their house for the first time, one of my first questions was if they still had that banjo album.  It was a crushing blow to learn that, after several moves over almost 20 years, they did not.

I not only like the banjo -- I have one.  I even learned to play it.  I took group lessons at the wonderful McCabe's Guitar Shop, where I bought the banjo, in Santa Monica.  (Wonderful because they also have music concerts in the back, and I've seen the great Tom Paxton there twice, as well as Steve Goodman, among many shows I've seen there.)  By the way, I didn't learn to play the banjo well, mind you -- though I'm not sure if many people can tell about those who play the banjo, one way or the other.  But I did learn.  The past tense is the operative semantics here, since I haven't played my banjo in a long time, and I've pretty much forgotten.  This may be a blessing to my neighbors, but it's a disappointment to me.  I suspect if I took a refresher course I'd be reminded reasonably quickly, but I just haven't gotten around to that for a long while.  And if I do so, I'll be all the more happy about it because my banjo is in very good shape, and I simply like the thing.

There, proof positive that I actually do have a banjo!  Not that the proof is necessary -- after all, who would lie about saying they owned a banjo?  But that's Old Betsy.  (To be clear, until this moment I never referred to my banjo as "Old Betsy" -- or any other name.  But it fit the occasion.

That said, as much as I love the banjo, I came across the live-concert piece a couple days and thought it was terrific.  It's called, "Songs That Should Never Be Played On the Banjo."  Making it all the more fun is that for people who, for 40 years or more have heard about Livingston Taylor, younger broth of James, but never actually hear on perform -- good news, this will be your chance.

A couple of notes:  Fun as this is, I don't agree with him that all these songs are ones that shouldn't be played on the banjo.  A couple of the songs actually have a sort of folk sensibility to the them, in their original version, and they sort of fit the banjo, even if just a little bit.  Though most of them don't fit at all and are pretty funny.

And also, know that although this says it's seven minutes, it's not.  As I said, this was performed live in-concert, and it comes at the end of the show, so there are about two minutes of him given thanks and appreciations to a range of people

The other day, I got into an discussion with someone and quoted a line from one of my favorite movies -- a film that is also a favorite of my friend Myles Berkowitz, although a great many people not only don't like it even remotely as much as we do but pretty much hate it.  It's the 1990 film, Joe Versus. the Volcano, that starred Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and was written and directed by John Patrick Shanley, who won an Oscar for writing Moonstruck and years later wrote and directed Doubt, based on his Broadway play for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.  Also, Steven Spielberg was one of the executive producers.

After having referenced the movie in my conversation, I realized that the young woman likely hadn't heard of it, given that Joe Versus the Volcano was released 31 years ago, and so I later sent her the link to an article I wrote back in 2008 for the Huffington Post that's about not only why I dearly love the film, but why most people who hated it were wrong.  To be clear, I don't mean subjectively wrong, since of course everyone has their personal taste and if someone dislikes the movie, so be it, but empirically wrong, because what I've found over the years is that most people who hate Joe Versus the Volcano do so because they miss the point of the movie -- even though it's a point that Shanley explains to the audience in the very first thing you see on screen.  And then tells you again what the movie was in the very last thing you see on the screen.  And if you miss that, which he tells you (!), then you end up watching a totally different movie than what it actually is.  And likely hate it -- albeit for the wrong reason.

Anyway, to go along with the article I also tracked down the trailer to the film, and decided to watch it myself again, just for the heck of it.  And it's one of the rare trailers that actually gives a pretty good idea of the movie.  In fact, it even includes Shanley's line that begins the movie and tells you what it is.  The trailer was wonderful, so I decided to post it here.  And as long as I was going to post the trailer, I figured I might as well dive in and first re-post that original article from the Huffington Post.

By the way, there's a sort of addendum to this all.  John Patrick Shanley most recently wrote and directed the movie, Wild Mountain Thyme, that was released a month or two ago.  It starred Emily Blunt, Jamie Dornan, Christoper Walken and Jon Hamm.  I thought it was wonderful, for many of the same reasons I loved Joe Versus the Volcano -- not as good, but still a pleasure.  And Myles thought so, too.  Again, the movie flopped bigtime.  And again, Myles and I were right.  Though not for the exact same empirical reasons as with "Joe," but close.

?Okay, then, here's the article from December 30, 2008.  Followed by the trailer.  (By the way, if the bit-part actor with one line at the 1:10 mark seems somewhat, maybe familiar in his native island make-up, that's Nathan Lane very early in his career.  I suspect that he and Shanley, who as I noted is a Broadway playwright, knew other from their New York stage work.)

I highly recommend you track it down on Netflix or Amazon Prime.  You may not like it -- but if so, you'll dislike it for the right reason, personal taste.  Not because you didn't realize what it was.  But then...you may love it.

Because it's great.

                     The Best Flop Movie:  “Joe vs. The Volcano”
 
 
One of the pleasures of this holiday movie season is the film, “Doubt.”  Not because it’s so wonderfully done – which it is, on every level – but because it’s allowed the great, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright John Patrick Shanley the opportunity to once again direct a movie.
 
Therein lies the tale.
 
John Patrick Shanley is an accomplished writer best known to the public for his Oscar-winning screenplay of the movie “Moonstruck,” as well as his Tony-awarding winning play, “Doubt.”  In between them, he made his movie directing debut with “Joe vs. the Volcano,” an offbeat comedy he also wrote that has the distinct honor of being the only movie to star Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and flop.
 
Given that the other two are “Sleepless in Seattle” and “You’ve Got Mail,” that’s quite an accomplishment.  Especially consider the executive producer was Steven Spielberg.  And yet – flop it did.  Huge.
 
It shouldn’t have.  And it killed Shanley’s directing career.  And it shouldn’t have done that, either.
 
I've discovered that life is divided into two groups – those who utterly hate "Joe vs. the Volcano" and those who absolutely, unequivocally love it.  And it's about 90-10 against.   I’m with the 10%.
 
BUT...this is one of the few, totally subjective, personal opinion matters when I feel comfortable saying that I'm right – and right for an objective, demonstrable reason.  And this reason is that most people who so-dislike the movie not only missed the point – but it's a point that John Patrick Shanley wrote in black-and-white.  I don’t mean metaphorically wrote.  I mean he literally wrote it in black-and-white.  Plastered it across the screen.  And people miss it.
 
A moment first to explain “Joe vs. the Volcano.” It concerns a man who’s feeling miserable with his life, lost, adrift, when three things happen:  he visits a new doctor, he meets a wealthy industrialist, and three women cross his path.  As a result, Joe makes an outlandish decision to alter his life and heads off on his adventure to accomplish it.
 
As I’ve meandered through my days and tried to sneak the movie into the conversation of  polite society, the main complaint against “Joe vs. the Volcano” is that it's stupid and silly and unbelievable and ridiculous and over-the-top.  And it's perceived that way because the movie is very crisp, very stark and looks very realistic.  And if viewed realistically, the movie IS stupid and silly and utterly ridiculous.  BUT --
 
In the first image of the movie (and this is not giving anything away, because it is the very first thing you see), Shanley tells the audience in black-and-white that this is not supposed to be viewed realistically.  The very first image of the movie is a graphic with the words, "Once upon a time, there was a man named Joe..."  
 
Okay, here’s a pop quiz:  what stories begin "Once upon a time..."?  They are – well, okay, you know the answer – fairy tales!!  In fact, to nail this point home further, Shanley creates yet another, similar image that reiterates This Is A Fairy Tale.  I won’t mention that one because it does give away a major plot point.  But it’s as blatant as the first, all the more so because it’s a major plot point, and even harder to miss.  And just as hard to misinterpret.
 
Stories that begin "Once upon a time" and have that other, second image are fairy tales.  Pure and simple.  And Shanley is telling everyone that that's how you should look at this story.  As a magical fairy tale.  And if you DO look at it that way – like you're watching a tale by Hans Christian Anderson, or the Brothers Grimm, or Aesop, or whatever – then the goofiness of the movie, the off-beat icons, the intentionally repeated images, the stylized patter, the fantastic occurrences (like 'brain clouds'), life-changing bolts of lightning, and one actress playing all the different women who show up throughout Joe’s life, all of these fairy tale circumstances fit together and make perfect sense.  This isn't the real world, it's a fairy tale world.
 
I've watched the movie at least eight times, and almost each time I see more images and points I missed before. 
 
One example – the movie has a recurring image of a crooked line, but it's always blended into other images and easy to overlook until repeated viewings.  It's the logo for the company where Joe works.  And it's the same patterned path that the lemming-like employees take as they drudgingly march into the factory.  And it's also the pattern that we see at a distance that the island natives take when they are walking up the volcano.  And then Joe even makes a comment about how his whole life has been walking a crooked path.  So, it all comes full circle and fits impeccably together.  The movie is full of richness like that.  All part of the fairy tale world that is consistent with itself.
 
Recently, I cautiously mentioned “Joe vs. the Volcano” to my friend Myles Berkowitz (mentioned in these pages previously for his deeply thoughtful, encyclopedic and outspoken reactions to…well, just about anything), and it was with great relief to discover how completely thrilled he was to find another soul who loves the movie as much as he does – and he’s seen it 20 times, making me look like a piker.  That he agreed with everything I'm saying here is not offered as proof, just that the mutual and independent thought by a highly-perceptive fellow was comforting.
 
To be clear, it's of course possible to dislike this movie, any movie because you think it's not well made.  No question.  Or because you don’t like fairy tales.  To each their taste.  What I'm saying, however, that my experience is that that's NOT why people ever say they don't like "Joe vs. the Volcano."   (And boy, have I talked to a lot...)  They don’t comment on the characters, dialogue, plot structure or craftsmanship.  No, all they say is, "It's so stupid, it's so unbelievable."  If people accept the movie for what it is and still don't like it -- fair enough.  I have no quibble with that.  My point is that I've never found that that's why most people don't like it.
 
It is my experience that most people don't like “Joe vs. the Volcano” because they totally miss the point.  They miss that John Patrick Shanley has told them, blatantly, clearly – this is a fairy tale.
 
That returns us to my pleasure at seeing the movie “Doubt,” which Shanley directed, based on his play. 
 
Regardless of what one thinks of the story of “Joe vs. the Volcano,” it’s still a beautifully directed movie.  (The breathtaking scene when the full moon rises above the ocean may possibly be my favorite scene in any movie, ever.)  But the way Hollywood works, if a movie flops, executives in charge believe the movie has to have been poorly directed.  That's an attitude so small-minded and wrong.  Same thing conversely with the screenplay of a flop, or an acting performance.  All can be wonderful, but a movie fails for many reasons, and often they are unrelated to quality, talent and craftsmanship.  And that's why I said I was so pleased that John Patrick Shanley got another chance to direct with "Doubt” – and is now demonstrating what I knew years ago, that he's not just a tremendous writers, he’s a wonderful director, as well.
 
For those who get that “Joe vs. the Volcano” is a fairy tale but simply don’t like it – so be it.  For those who wish to continue dismissing the movie for all the wrong reasons, it’s your right to be completely wrong and not realize it.  But for those with an open mind, go back and watch "Joe vs. the Volcano" again.  And for those who’ve never seen it before –you’re in for a treat.  But the only thing to keep in mind when you do watch it is –
 
You are watching a fairy tale.  About being adrift in your often-strange life and following a crooked path to get to where you are finally supposed to be.
 
And that’s why “Joe vs. the Volcano” is the best flop movie.  Without a Doubt.
​