Vera Lynn was one of the most beloved singers in England -- for a lot of reasons, but in particular her recording of "We'll Meet Again" during WWII was renowned. Here it is, which I post for a reason which I'll get to in a moment. The reason is because it turns out that Vera Lynn is still alive at the age of 98. And here she is singing "We'll Meet Again"...just five years ago, when when was 93. This is from a TV interview in 2010. It's a little disconcerting to have the interviewer, Marlies Claasen, singing but I suspect that that was necessary sort as a prompt to get Dame Vera to sing along. She doesn't seem at all reticent, and in fact appears quite happy to join along -- I just get the sense that she wouldn't likely have done it on her own. (The subtitles come from this being done for Dutch television. The country was honoring people who helped liberate the country in 1945. And though Vera Lynn of course didn't do that, her voice and this song were part of the soundtrack of that effort.)
0 Comments
For those keeping track with your official Elisberg Industries scorecard, I have now officially passed the 1,200-page mark. That means that are only a paltry 255 pages to go...
Things aren't looking good for Napoleon at this point. He's taken Moscow, but I have a feeling that events aren't going to proceed the way he's planning. A few notable characters have bitten the dust, some in the war, some elseways. It should not come as a shock that these include princes, princesses and counts -- since basically all the main characters are princes, princesses and counts. I've been running around a bit this morning, but I can't let the day pass without at least commenting on some initial thoughts about the news from the Supreme Court, upholding the Affordable Care Act.
I was particularly pleased to see that at the center of the Court's decision is something I've written about -- that though the one passage in question was slightly ambiguous, there were several other passages in the law that showed clearly its intent. And that was at the heart of the majority opinion. This decision is notable for a couple reasons. The first is that the decision didn't squeak through, 5-4, but rather passed by a more substantive margin of 6-3, and the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Not that the margin had to be "more substantive" or that the Chief Justice had to write the majority opinion. But it's just a further indication of how much firmer the ground under the ACA is becoming. Which leads to the second notable point: this is the second challenge to the Affordable Care Act and both have passed approval by the Supreme Court. So, although there will always be people complaining about the law -- and most any law -- the complaints hold far less weight for those claiming that the ACA is supposedly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, which determines whether something is constitutional or not, has now said, "Yes, it is" -- and said so twice. No doubt there will be those insisting that "The fight isn't over" and the GOP will still talk about repealing the law. But of course, talk is cheap, and often empty. The longer the Affordable Care Act is in operation, the more the public is shown to appreciate it and its benefits -- and the more it's shown how much money the ACA is actually, in very real numbers, saving. Until the day comes when Republicans show they have an alternative to the Affordable Care Act -- and an alternative that is better -- these empty words are just not going to fly. Consider how we saw the groundswell of anger on the possibility that 8 million people might lose their coverage. Imagine now if EVERYONE thought the entire country would be long their coverage. I'm sure the "fight" isn't over -- just as I'm sure those fighting will be shooting themselves in their collective feet. Long ago, I wrote about how the biggest mistake Republicans made was calling the Affordable Care Act not by its actual name, but instead "Obamacare." For a party that since the day of his inauguration met to try to diminish everything that President Obama would do, what they ended up doing here was firmly tying his name to what will likely be seen as his Administration's greatest accomplishment. And they not only gave it that name, but the name itself, "Obama" and "Care" forever clarify that very fact -- that Obama cares. By the way, Republicans did have one victory from all this. If the section of the law had been overturned, intense focus would have been put on the GOP to come up with a way to address the hole it would have created. And as history has shown, they don't have an answer for that. So, voter outrage would likely have risen in 2016 against the Republican Party. As a result, though Republican politicians might be speaking publicly about their "disappointment," the reality is that they are also, in some regards, probably breathing a sigh of relief. This is not the place for, once again..., defending the ACA and all its benefits, and contradicting complaints about costs. I've done that repeatedly on these pages, and further, and mostly, it's not my place to defend something that is the law of the land and has twice been upheld by the Supreme Court. The bottomline is that the Affordable Care Act remains the law. I have no doubt, too, that the ACA will change, as all laws do over time. And having said that, my guess is that the biggest changes over time will not be cut backs, but rather ts expansion.
Okay, I've made it to Chicago. The elves say that the homestead is still in one piece, so that's good. And the flight was fine, but completely full to the point of them asking if there were any takers for a later flight. My favorite though is when they're so full that they say, "as a courtesy" they'll send any carry-on bags as checked luggage with no charge. I always feel it's no courtesy, since it's the airlines themselves that caused the problems by charge for all checked luggage...which is why most people carry everything on board. If a plane is so full with carry-on bags that the airline wants me to check mine, I'll be happy to do so if they offer me something as compensation. And "a courtesy" doesn't cut it.
Traveling through airports, though, made me realize that this story is all the more appropriate. A couple of weeks ago, when traveling through Tampa International Airport to Texas, six-year-old Owen Lake lost his utterly beloved stuffed tiger, Hobbes. His parents told the sad little-boy that Hobbes was on an adventure. Little did they know, he actually was. The parents contacted lost-and-found at TIA and...well, here's what happened. Lots of good moments in the report, but my favorite moment comes near the end when Owen explains how much he really, really loves Hobbes. (Note: the news reporter mentions to the anchor that "We need some good news after Game Six." He's referring to the Stanley Cup Finals, where the Chicago Blackhawks beat the Tampa Bay Lightning.) P.S. What the story doesn't mention is that, in addition to taking pictures of Hobbes's adventure, the airport also sent out a bunch of tweets from Hobbes about his day. To see a few of them, click here and scroll through the article. I'm off to Chicago on a scouting trip, hoping to find new things to write about -- as well as eat deep dish pizza and Chicago-style hot dogs, along with watching Cubs games. Okay, that and my dad's 94th birthday.
The elves have promised to keep an eye on the corridors to make sure the refrigerator stays well-stocked, the halls keep clean, and the steam generator keeps running. We'll be resurfacing in the early evening, but that's Chicago time, so maybe earlier where you are -- depending on where you are... The other night, I finally got around to renting the movie Cake that stars Jennifer Aniston as a woman dealing with severe chronic pain following a devastating accident, and how she has to come to terms with whether to push on with her life. It was terrific, with a screenplay by Patrick Tobin that's really smart and trusting of the audience, having very few false moves, and that even brings touches of humor, albeit sardonic. The direction by Daniel Barnz is crisp and insightful. But at the center of it all, Jennifer Aniston was absolutely great. Every year, the Oscars always have their oversights, the most notable of which are referred to as "snubs." And above that, on occasion, are the "inexplicable." I know that most omissions are not at all oversights or snubs, since there are only five spots available, and if there are five nominees deserving of being included, others simply have to be left out. Having said that, I find Aniston not getting a nomination to be inexplicable. She got a SAG nomination as Best Actress, and one for the Critics Choice and the Golden Globes. And it's not like she's a little-known actress who slipped under the wire. And the Oscars tend to love actors who play characters with a disability. But above all, this is a tour de force performance, utterly unlike what she's deeply known and loved for, and it's not that she's the lead, but she's the core of the film, in pretty much every scene, with only a few exceptions. Sometimes, a person can be passed by because of their “Big Star” status, but I don’t think that's the case here, because Hollywood loves that sort of thing, and even has a history of giving Oscars to for it, like Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts. Both wonderful performances, but hardly as gripping as what Aniston did. (Or more famously, John Wayne – though I’m less-convinced than most that that was the “travesty” some think, giving him the Oscar just because he was John Wayne. It’s a great, uncharacteristic character performance that holds up.) So, who knows why not? Maybe it was simply a case of being such a small movie that not enough people saw it. Was it a case of other simply being better? I looked at the list of those who were nominated, and while I didn't see all the performances, I saw enough to know that this was leaps and bounds ahead of some. (Again, this isn't just my opinion, she got nominations from SAG, Critics Choice and Golden Globes.) Well, so be it. Whatever the reasons, it's moot. The bottomline is that the film is extremely good, and the performance wonderful. The script is full of subtleties, with hints of what the main character, Claire, was like before the accident. For me, the most telling scene is her thoughtful, almost dismissive nonchalance at learning someone she trusted has stolen her purse, not even wanting to go to the police. By the way, I would have loved the film and her performance under any condition, but it was especially impactful to me because my mother lived with chronic pain for about 60 years. (She had polio and then post-polio.) So when Aniston was always spending so much time lying down, and the difficulty with which she’d get up, and the ever-so-slight tightening of her face when just moving her body too quickly, and the winces when the car she was in would go over a bump, and more, all of that was so impeccable and rang so true. (I learned not to jam on the breaks when driving with my mother and coming to a stop sign. Instead, you anticipated the sign and almost glided to an almost-imperceptible stop.) the Aniston nailed it brilliantly. (The difference with the character of "Claire" is that my mother did-not-complain her entire life. It was her life, and she accepted it and moved on. Even when the post-polio came maybe 40 years later after polio had long-since weakened her back muscles -- post-polio is something that affected the neck muscles so that one's head isn't strong enough to raise up and instead droops, only returning to a natural position when you sit. When walking, she either go with her head down, or tilt it to the side, or push her head up and hold it there. And no complaints at at all, none, and none after a stroke, or macular degeneration, or anything. It was sort of stunning to watch her my entire life and see the remarkable example she set. The closest I ever heard her complain about a lifetime of discomfort was at one point I said to her, “Mom, after having polio, and post-polio, and a stroke, and macular degeneration…do you ever think of looking up to the sky and saying, ‘Okay, God, I get it. You can move on and find someone else now?” There was a long silence, and then, in a voice that was almost like a quiet shrug, she said offhandedly, “Yeah.” That was the closest ever to a complaint. She was this small, maybe about 5'2" fragile lady of about 90 pounds, who was the strongest person I knew.) All the more reason to admire Aniston’s performance. She really got it right. So, as much as I loved the performance on its own merits, I couldn't not bring my awareness of how spot on she handled the role and didn't miss a beat the whole way through. Know that the movie isn't "a downer." It has it's sadness, and it's about dealing with a difficulty. But as I said, there are touches of humor, but ultimately it's about, as Aniston put it in interview, "choosing life." Here's a brief clip. Notice the subtlety of movement in body and facial expression that Aniston gives. even to the point of lightly touching the wall for balance -- very true to life -- and the challenge of simply taking a heavy object from a bag. The scene comes from later in the movie, as she's started to move forward, and she goes back to visit the therapist (played by Felicity Huffman) who had earlier kicked "Claire" out of her pain support group for being too negative. (That should give you some idea of the character, and the sardonic humor...) It's her second visit to the therapist after that dismissal -- the first being a very passive-aggressive scene when "Claire" needed some private information and threateningly strong-arms the therapist warmly to get it, |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|