There is a good article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times by Catherine Saillant and Dan Weikel about Kevin James (not the actor), the sole Republican running for mayor in Los Angeles. It's of most interest to those in L.A., of course, though it holds value for a lot of general political discussion in the ether today.
At issue in the piece is how the populist, upbeat campaign that James is running is at odds with his words and actions as a conservative radio talk show host. For instance, they note that he is now chastising his opponents for being slow to act on climate change. Which sounds lovely in a progressive way. However, his pre-mayoral statements slammed the concept. Among other things, he wrote an article on the conservative website Townhall.com that ridiculed Democrats as "global warming wimps" who use the it for political gain. (Something he himself clearly is doing now, to a "T".) And he trashed the phrase "carbon footprint" as nothing more than "code for limitless government intrusion into every detail of your life." The article also explains that on his conservative radio show, James "consistently opposed Democratic proposals for a 'path to citizenship." Obviously, this is a position that might play really poorly with the huge Latino population in the city. Now that he's running for mayor of that city, however, candidate James says he supports some form of naturalization, and also supports the California version of the Dream Act. Quite a change. The question here -- and not just in Los Angeles, but politics in general -- is how much of these turnarounds are actual growth and changes in belief, and how much is pandering to the public to hide your true views? It's a situation we have begun to see a lot in recent years where conservative candidates spout angry, bombastic slams to appeal to their far right base and the Tea Party corporation supporters, ginning up hatred and fear to get their party's nomination, but when then moving to face the general electorate, they suddenly see the light. This phenomenon was most prominently seen in the presidential campaign when a Mitt Romney top adviser went on TV to famously explain that now that the primaries were over and Mr. Romney had won the Republican nomination, he could get a do-over and start from scratch, like an "Etch-a-Sketch." And the result was that Mitt Romney seemed to reverse all of his most controversial right-wing positions, to the point where you didn't know what he stood for. The thing is, with such candidates like this and in particular Kevin James here, there is the blurring of did they evolve their views, or are they trying to flim-flam the public. And if the latter, was Mr. James lying to his radio audience just to get listeners, or is he lying now to the electorate just to get votes? I don't know if Mr. James or similar candidates have had Great Revelatory Conversions. But my guideline for such things as this are twofold: 1) how many of their positions have they suddenly changed, and 2) more importantly, how in depth do they explain the reasoning that caused their change, so that we can not only believe the change, but feel comfortable that they won't revert in the next cycle and every cycle, when it's convenient. At the moment, Kevin James doesn't appear to be doing a great job on either account. But him aside, it's always good to stay wary. It's a hypocritical world out there. Be careful...
0 Comments
I’m guessing you don’t tend to expect exciting sports replays from...badminton. This is the exception -- “It's time for him to lead this effort as the commander in chief of this country.”
-- Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), speaking on "Face the Nation" about President Obama and the sequester This has now become the latest strategy by the Republicans in Congress, as the deadline for the sequester and its draconian cuts nears, to the point of barreling down on them. It's referred to as the "Please help us from ourselves" Gambit. Or the "We've drove into this forest, but we can't find our way out, could you please tell us the way out" Strategem. It should be noted that the last time President Obama try to lead an effort as commander in chief of this country, Sen. Ayotte was one of three Republican senators leading to effort to block the president's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, ultimately helping start the first filibuster in the history of the United States of a Defense Secretary cabinet nomination. So, her admonition to Mr. Obama would ring oh-so-less hollow if she actually stood behind her own words. One would think, too, that it went without saying that it's hard to miss that the President of the United States actually has been leading the effort to avoid the sequester, making proposals of balanced budget cuts and revenue increases for many weeks. The problem has been that Republicans in Congress have said "no" to all that and are insisting on cuts only. Whimsical, too, is the reality of how many Republicans has chastised the President for supposedly wanting to be a "dictator" and acting like a "dictator" and trying to force his way on Congress as a "dictator" -- yet here, when they've dug themselves into a hole that they can't get out of, they're now admonishing him to tell them what to do. The only thing more adorable than all this are the Republicans trying to re-name this as "Obama's Sequester." Because apparently they've forgotten that they negotiated the terms, voted for it of their own free will, and the Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said that "I got 98% of what I wanted." But this a different tactic entirely. This one is known as the "He made me do it" Maneuver. Of course, it's known as that by eight-year-olds. Back in 1997, I drove down to the La Jolla Playhouse to see the world premiere of a new musical called Harmony, which hoped one day to make it to Broadway. It was based on a real-life troupe, the Comedian Harmonists, who were a mixed-religion group (though mostly Jewish) of comics and "close harmony" singers in pre-war Germany of the late-20s and early 1930s. They were hugely popular -- not only in German and then throughout Europe, but they toured the U.S. and even made 21 movies, all of this under obviously profoundly difficult conditions. Eventually, they fled to America, though some returned to Germany. The individuals all survived the war, but became largely forgotten. However, in 1975 a 4-hour documentary was made about them in Germany that renewed awareness and interest. They even won an Echo Award in 1998 from the country's record academy, Deutsche Phonoakademie. And an award-winning film, The Harmonists, was released in 1997, which was named Outstanding Feature Film at the German Film Awards. (You can hear an audio clip of the group here. It's in German, and there's a clip of them singing the same song in impeccable English, but this version if sung faster and more intricately.) That 1997 of the film was the same year I headed to see the stage musical based on the group. Making it all the more intriguing was that the score of the show was written by, of all people, Barry Manilow, with the book and lyrics by his writing partner Bruce Sussman. The musical Harmony was quite good. In fact, the first act was absolutely wonderful. There were some issues in the second act that wasn't as cohesive, though it was still enjoyable -- and given that this was the show's very first effort, it was an impressive start that I'm sure could be addressed and fixed "on the road," which is what happens with pro-Broadway tryouts. The cast was strong, as well. I remember being particularly pleased to find when I opened the program that one of the female leads was played by Rebecca Luker, a wonderful performer whose many credits included starring as the lead on Broadway in the revivals of The Sound of Music, The Music Man, and Show Boat. I didn't recognize other names at the time, but several went on to much success. Danny Burstein was nominated just last year for a Tony Award in a revival of Follies (and years later, he and Ms. Luker got married...) and Casey Nicholaw became a Tony-nominated choreographer for Monty Python's Spamalot and then won a Tony for co-directing Book of Mormon, which he also choreographed (and was nominated for), and received Tony nominations, too, as choreographer-director of The Drowsy Chaperone -- which featured Danny Burstein in the cast. But what stood out most was how good the score was. I don't mean it as a back-handed compliment when I say that it didn't sound at all like a "Barry Manilow" musical. Barry Mannilow's pop music is all personal taste -- some people love it, some not. My point is that he sublimated himself and clearly chose to write music out of his comfort zone, songs that fit the story and characters and time-period spot-on, rather than music that he'd been writing for years and could easily have done comfortably. If you heard an album of Barry Manilow pop music, there's a reasonable chance you could pick it out as "Hey, that's Barry Manilow." If you heard the score of Harmony, it's not likely you would have. It -- and Bruce Sussman's lyrics -- were wonderful. In fact, for many years, Manilow wouldn't even perform the songs from Harmony in his concerts. He wanted to keep them separate, for people to hear Harmony and think of it was a real Broadway musical, not a "Barry Manilow show." Alas, the musical hasn't made it to Broadway yet. It's possible that they haven't solved the second act to their satisfaction, though I've read of financing hurdles. I have no idea, though I keep reading that Barry Manilow continues to have hope that Harmony will make it to Broadway. Obviously he hopes that, but from what I saw back in 1997, he has every reason for that to be a realistic hope, at least on creative grounds. Eventually, Manilow did face reality and recorded an album with songs from his two musicals (the other being Copacabana, that did make it to Broadway). I assume his decision to finally record songs from Harmony himself was to keep attention on the show and also let the songs finally have a life. And he does now often perform one of the songs from Harmony in his concerts, as well, a number titled "Every Single Day." In fairness, despite what I said above, "Every Single Day," is the one song in the show that does sound like a Barry Manilow Song. It's a power ballad, as the expression goes. But just know that it fits the moment in the show so perfectly that my recollection at the time of first hearing it in San Diego wasn't that it stood out as incongruous, like, "Oh, yeah, okay, there's his Barry Manilow number," but rather a love song that was absolutely right for the character and what he needed to say right then. The musical arrangement was also much more subtle, intimate, and deeply personal than the one now-used (and used appropriately, I think) for a Big Barry Manilow Moment in his concert that gets his fans cheering. It sounded enough like something from the 1930s, not a modern-day, 1997 chart-buster. Plus, it's really a wonderful song. Forget the bombast of the arrangement. It's a heart-felt number with rich music and tender lyrics. Moreover, there's a very interesting thing about watching Barry Manilow perform it, compared to how he performs all his other songs. If you didn't know the history, you might not notice, but it's there for all to see. When Barry Manilow does "Every Single Day," he doesn't "sing" it -- he performs it, as if it was being done on stage in the musical of Harmony. His pauses and expressions and body language aren't the Concert Manilow emoting for the crowd, much as you might think it. That's an actor in a musical bringing the number to life, once again. If you like Barry Manilow, but have never heard "Every Single Day," I think you'll love this. If you're not a Barry Manilow fan, put aside the big arrangement as much as you can and listen to it as the song it is from a Broadway musical. But above all, as anyone watches this, it should be clear -- even from the fact that he takes the time to simply set up the song -- how meaningful the number is to the performer singing it. Every once in a while, the management here wants to remind people of our lovely gift shop. Why is beyond me, because we always seem to be out of stock of most of the items, like Elisberg Industry official mugs, hoodies (which research shows the ladies seem to like), football helmets, and commemorative coins. However, we do have a supply of the novel A Christmas Carol 2: The Return of Scrooge, which Amazon is graciously storing for us, since our own warehouse is inundated with an oversupply of company stationery that has our corporate name misspelled. ("Elsibury Industories.) Our invoice records show that the paperback is only $6.95, and the Kindle ebook is just $2.99. But that must be a mistake. Who would ever foolishly sells books that low? Though it's probably the same guy who keeps forgetting to stock our gift shop. We're also wondering why we're supposed to be selling a book about Christmas two months after the holiday -- when it's hit 80-degrees in Los Angeles. But management's memo says, "If something is funny, it's funny, for God's sake. Whatever the freaking month. You think if you watched A Christmas Story in July you wouldn't laugh?" Mind you, we can't vouch for the quality of the text, since no one here has read it, though it does have lovely cover art, which seems to be at least worth $6.95, let alone $2.99, if that's actually what it's selling for. The memo includes one other admonition from management. We quote it, so as to get their words right, and not get in trouble for screwing around with anything, or having the legal department take us to court. They say --
"If anyone has already read the book, but not yet written a Customer Review on Amazon, it would be appreciated if you do so. Hopefully you won't give it just one star, but if you do, that's between you and your God. All religions are honored. If you're an atheist, then your decision is between you and your rock." Actually, I had no intention in the slightest of writing the traditional Post-Oscar Reaction Thoughts. In part, I should note, that's because like always I recorded the broadcast and fast-forwarded through, so my opinion of it as a TV show isn’t especially valid. But this morning, I got an email from a friend who asked, “So, what did you think of the Oscar show?” and I felt obligated to answer. And since I typed all l this out already, I felt that so much effort shouldn’t go to waste.
A little has been tweaked here from the email, but most of it is the same random, off-the-top of my head jumble. Your thoughts may vary. On the awards side, I thought the results were basically fine. I don’t care one way or another about who won -- they're all doing just fine with their careers and are already making their next movies. I liked Argo a lot, though I didn’t think it a “Best” Picture. As movie, I felt Lincoln was solidly better. But Argo was a perfectly solid choice, so good for it. I just think it just lucked out a bit by being in a year when there was no real, clear, ahead-of-the-pack standout. That said, even though I don’t really care all that much who wins anything, there tends to be one award where I really do hope someone wins. And this year it was Best Supporting Actor and Christoph Waltz, simply be he wasn’t just wonderful, but I think gave get Django Unchained the vibrancy people associate with it. In Quentin Tarentino’s acceptance speech, he noted that if his movies are remembered, it will be for the characters – and that character played by Christophe Waltz was one of the best supporting performances I’ve ever seen. So, I was very glad he won. (My only quibble is that I don’t think he was really a “supporting” actor. It was largely a buddy picture, and he was the equal star. The only justification is that he’s not really in the third act. So, I can kind of accept it. But really, I think he was one of the leads, to the point where he’s almost THE lead, pushing the story the whole way. As for the production – I thought Seth MacFarlane was hit-and-miss, but overall I liked his edginess, even when some jokes flopped in questionable taste. What I particularly liked (as a writer) is how they cleverly protected themselves for when they did do something that might cross the line. For instance – The use of Captain Kirk was funny, but more importantly, it was Really Smart because it let them tell the audience beforehand that “We know this will be in bad taste.” It doesn’t make something less questionable, but it softens the blow, a lot. Without doing that, it means going out and cheerfully singing, “We Saw Their Boobs,” and people getting offended that “You think that’s funny???” But by saying ahead of it, “This is something that offended all the women of Hollywood,” it allows people to watch and know that you’re at least aware it’s dicey. That doesn’t mean people can’t be offended by it, but they won’t also think (on top of that) that you believe everyone should love it, which strips away some of the wall that you know you’re building. (By the way, I liked the number, though but I don’t know if that’s a Guy Thing. But – the reason I liked it is because I don’t think it was intended to make fun of women, but rather make fun of producers and studios who make the decisions that they want to see women’s breasts. That said, the passage about all the movies Kate Winslet has bared herself was hilarious.) Similarly, I liked that the writers prepared come-backs for jokes they knew crossed the line. That is Really Smart, too, because it a) immediately stops the hisses, b) gets laughs, and c) makes some people think, “Y’know, he’s right.” And without doing that, you’d standing there as the audience is muttering or hissing, which would be all that people remember, and it’s really hard to get the momentum going after that. But planning a quick comeback (and I’m 100% sure they were planned) lets you move past that. For instance, the joke about Mel Gibson’s racist rants got mutterings, but it was so smart to come back with, “Oh, so you’re on his side now?” Which gets people to think, “Oh. Yeah. Right. It was racist rant.) The only joke, for me, that wasn’t necessary was the one about Lincoln. But even there, the comeback was brilliant. “Too soon? I should let you know I have some Napoleon jokes.” I liked that they used a LOT of musical numbers, making the show seem more entertaining (to me) than most. I’ve yammered about stuff like that for years. That said, I question the specific choices. To be clear, I liked what they chose and "the stars dancing" – but how they used the songs was another matter. If their “theme” this year was the music of Hollywood, they could do better than two classic songs in the opening number, but rather a montage. Or if they were going to salute “movie musicals,” they could do better than bring out the casts of three recent musicals and let them sing for 10 minutes. What they sang and did was great – but it was a poor salute to Hollywood musicals. (And just to quickly reiterated a note I posted earlier, I I think there was an inside, subtle joke in the very opening of the show, for the music playing when MacFarlane made his entrance to face the auditorium full of Hollywood's gorgeously-gowned, tuxedoed and bejeweled elite. It was from the movie -- The Happiest Millionaire. (The song, by the way, is called, “What’s Wrong with That?” Which, given the edgy jokes to follow, might have been part of the joke, as well.) The James Bond tribute was a great idea, and fairly entertaining, and smart thing to do. But to use up three minutes with only Shirley Bassey singing “Goldfinger” was odd. Bring out half a dozen singers of past Bond themes and let them ALL sing a medley. And I thought it odd not to have the actual actors who played Bond come on stage. And, of all people associated with James Bond over the years, have Halle Berry introduce the montage. (And in the short montage itself of the history of Bond moments, there were three clips of Halle Berry. I do not think of Halle Berry that much when I think of James Bond movies. And further, when they showed the classic “step out of the water in a bikini” moment, they used hers first, and the famous original with Ursula Andress second. I don’t get it) Someone either had a big crush on her, or was close friends with Halle Berry’s agent. And -- they didn't bring out all the actors who played James Bond??? Or any of them? There was only one thing I thought was a very unfortunate choice. After the “In Memoriam” montage, letting Barbara Streisand talk about Marvin Hamlisch, which I thought lessened the attention on all the others. And then, as she sang “The Way We Were” (which was an obvious, but terrific choice), they kept up a photo of Hamlisch – and Hamlisch only – the whole time. It really made it seem a tribute to Marvin Hamlisch and all those other legends who died, screw ‘em. Usually, they sing over the montage. But if they wanted to give Streisand all that airtime – fine, but at least use the screen in the background to re-run the video, so that everyone continued to be equally memorialized, or better yet, show a new montage with the “lesser” people who died during the year, even if they would only be in the background. I fast-forwarded through the acceptances, but for me, the best one I heard was easily Daniel Day Lewis. A man not known for humor and whimsy. (I also loved the first line from “Argo” producer Grant Heslov, standing on stage with his Oscar between George Clooney and Ben Affleck. “I know what you’re thinking. The three sexiest producers alive.”) Last comment. For me, the person who came off best for the night was Jennifer Lawrence. Again, not someone know for the lightness and cheery humor. But every time they cut to her, she seemed so joyously happy, about everything. And she gets points, too, for graciously participating in that pre-recorded “Boob” number, and humorously so, cheering herself for being an actress who hasn’t shown her breasts. And she not only became memorable by tripping, but having a self-effacing comeback. And her speech was unjaded and seemed deeply heartfelt, without being maudlin. Okay, I’ll stop at that. I thought that overall their heart was in the right place to make the show more an entertainment, even if some of the choices fell flat. So, I thought it was a pretty good show – though all of my comments come with the caveat of having fast-forwarded through and not actually seeing the whole show. Your mileage may differ. |
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
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|