|
From the archives. We have a new Piano Puzzler with contestant Kate Lamberton of Hanover, PA. I didn’t have a clue with the composer style, though I was surprised that my only guess was in the right genre and nationality. However, I did get the hidden song pretty quickly.
0 Comments
Mary Badham is not a name most moviegoers recognize – even many who have seen and adore To Kill a Mockingbird. But she was the 10-year-old girl who played ‘Scout’ and got a supporting actress Oscar nomination for it. She actually had a bit of a career as a young actress after making the movie in 1962 – including This Property Was Condemned with Robert Redford and Natalie Wood, and even was in the last-ever episode of The Twilight Zone. But acting was never her driving interest, and she’s been largely retired for 56 years, other than a small cameo role in a small, reasonably-charming independent movie Our Very Own in 2005 (which I’ve seen) after the filmmakers actively pursued her, and (to my surprise) a TV movie thriller, Erasing His Past in 2019. But that’s it. And she’s never done theater. Until now. And is it ever a theatrical debut. Opening just the other day, she’s now appearing at the Kennedy Center in Aaron Sorkin’s stage adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird. As the expression goes – boy, howdy. That’s a stage debut. Sorkin’s play opened on Broadway in late 2018 with Jeff Daniels starring as ‘Atticus Finch.’ It was a big success but had to shut down because of COVID, though he returned to the role when the play re-opened on Broadway. It also started a national tour with Richard Thomas in the lead. Badham had seen the play on Broadway and loved it, but had no thought of actually being in it. However, the producer went all-out to get her involved. And finally she agreed, She’ll be playing the role of ‘Mrs. Dubose,’ who is the Finch family’s strong-willed, racist neighbor.  It’s not a major role, but an important one, most especially because of the character’s interactions with an often-confrontational ‘Scout.’ A Washington Post article on the production describes how “mind-bending” it is for actress Melanie Moore who plays ‘Scout’ in the play and shares scenes with Ms. Badham who originated the role 54 years earlier. (Unlike the 10-years-old that Badham was in the film, Moore plays the character over a range of ages and is 30.) “In rehearsals, I would do things and make her laugh,” Moore says, “and she would come up to me and say, ‘Oh, that was so Scout when you did that.’ Moments like that brought me so much joy. I felt like I was really bringing something to the character that she felt like she recognized and also surprised her. But I can’t think too hard about yelling things at the original movie Scout as Scout myself.” If you don’t remember the character of ‘Mrs. Dubose’ well, here’s a scene from the movie -- I haven’t seen any reviews yet of the production at the Kennedy Center, though have come across a couple of articles about her being in the show. This one here in the Washington Post is a pretty good, detailed one. There’s also a long podcast interview with her by the entertainment reporter for local Washington, D.C. station, WTOP which I’ll link to below. But this is a brief, 40-second preview that’s highly-worth checking out because of a moment at the very end which will melt the hearts of fans of the movie. Presuming you have a heart One of the things that stands out in her WTOP interview were her glowing words about Gregory Peck, who played her noble father ‘Atticus Finch’ in the film – but also of Brock Peters, who played ‘Tom Robinson,’ the man her father was defending. “What you saw on screen is what we got at home,” Badham said. “I would go home with the Pecks on the weekend. We became very close and stayed friends right up until he passed. He was an Atticus. He really was. He was so kind, generous, intelligent, well-read and just a very good role model for me because I lost my parents very early in my life.” In fact, since Badham lost her parents young, Peck became almost a real-life father figure to her. “My mother died three weeks after I graduated high school and Daddy died two years after I got married,” Badham said. “He [Peck] would take the time to pick up the phone and call: ‘How are you doing, kiddo?’ … Whenever I was in Los Angeles, I’d go to their house. It was a very close relationship. He and Bernice picked up where Mother and Daddy left off.” It turns out, too, that she stayed in touch with Brock Peters over the years and was sort of mentored by him. “Brock and I did a symphony program together … in Kansas where they played some pieces of music [from the movie], then between the music we would tell little behind-the-scenes stories … things that happened off-camera,” Badham said. “I had my daddy, I had Gregory Peck and I had Brock Peters. Those three guys were my male role models.” By the way, if one does know the name “Badham” in relation to movies, it’s more likely her older brother, John Badham. He became a director and a very successful one, making such movies as Saturday Night Fever, WarGames, and Blue Thunder. In fact, he’s still directing, mostly TV these days. She tells a funny story on the podcast about his reacting to her making To Kill a Mockingbird. “All he ever wanted to do was be in film and theater, that was his goal, he studied at Yale, working hard, beating his brains out to make it,” she said. “He gets a call from my mother, ‘Baby sister is going to be in a movie.’ He’s like, ‘What?’ Fast forward, ‘Baby sister has been nominated for an Academy Award,’ and I don’t think he’s ever forgiven me!” As a bit of a sidenote, I was intrigued for an odd personal reason by Mary Badham talking on the podcast about the film’s famous Halloween ham costume. “It was made out of chicken wire and paper machete,” she said. “Our set manager made it [and] wanted to try it on me to make sure it would fit OK. When he did, it went right down and I couldn’t see out of the eye port, so he had to rig up a harness in there. It was so wide, it was a little difficult to maneuver around in it very easily, but we managed.” Why this stood out for me is that many years ago, I was a tourguide at Universal Studios. And on Halloween, the tourguides were all encouraged to wear costumes. Now, one of the tour controllers, who sent out guides when a tram was ready, was a young woman named Spanky, and everyone there knew that her very favorite movie in the entire world was To Kill a Mockingbird, which was a Universal movie. (We guides would always point out the Boo Radley house when the tram passed by – Boo Radley played by a young Robert Duvall). And as it happened and fate intervened, Spanky herself was very small, less than five-feet. So, what several tourguides did was go to the studio’s massive property warehouse where props from Universal movies over the decades were still stored. And they asked if by any remote chance the warehouse still had the ham costume?? And…it did! The guides explained why they wanted to borrow it for a few hours – and the warehouse manager had a heart and love of movies, and actually gave permission. So, they sneaked the ham costume up to the tour center, and in a joyous ceremony presented it to Spanky to wear on Halloween. She not only was overcome with bowled-over emotion – but even better, she fit in it! And for the rest of the day, this overjoyed young woman went around for Halloween wearing Scout’s real ham costume. But this is all about Mary Badham, who wore the ham costume for the first time when she was 10 years old. And is now making her stage debut at age 69 in the stage version of To Kill a Mockingbird at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. What a stage debut. No word yet if she’ll continue on the national tour with the show. But if she is when it comes to Los Angeles in October, I will do everything I can to make the show my second to attend during the pandemic. Here's the full podcast interview with her for Jason Fraley of WTOP. And the beat goes on. With another very impactful day of public testimony of the Jan. 6 Select Committee hearing.
Before it all began though, I absolutely loved Adam Kinzinger’s opening statement which I’m sure was directed precisely at Republicans who have demonized him. So, I thought it was brilliant for him to point out that he fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how when he decided to run for Congress, he felt that like he had risked his life defending the country, we should expect elected officials, at the very least, to risk their jobs to defend the country, especially since that doesn’t compare to soldiers risking their lives. It was a magnificent prologue. Because it not only spoke about himself in a devastating put-down to angry Republicans, but it also spoke to elected Republicans in Congress who have been craven and risked nothing to defend the country. I also loved the video montage of former Attorney General’s explaining their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. And how the job was just that, not to defend the president. And that if there was a conflict, they would resign. All of them – Attorney General after Attorney General after Attorney General. It was great “show biz,” but even more it was superb politics. Because there’s really no argument against it. As for the witnesses and their testimony, it seemed that the day was more focused and structured than other days. And was especially impactful for that. I think that this structure was because, unlike previous hearings, it was pretty much focused on one, specific event, albeit with a few detours. But by being about pressure from Trump to use the Justice Department to push his Big Lie, and with the three witnesses all pretty much being in the same room at the same time, and overlapping one another and confirming one another, it added great force to what was being said. My favorite line in through all the Select Committee investigation this has been acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue’s put down of Trump’s hoped-for choice to become new Attorney General, the woefully unqualified Jeff Clark, saying right to his face in front of Trump. “Yes, you’re an environmental lawyer. Go back to your office, and we’ll call you if there’s an oil spill.” In their own ways, the three were as good witnesses as Rusty Powers two days before – pointed, emphatic, willing to speak the truth against relentless push-back and the risk of losing their jobs, and each telling almost the same story, confirming it over and over and over. Unlike Powers, though, I didn’t get the sense that they would vote for Trump again if given the chance. Though in today’s Republican Party, that’s sadly hard to tell. In fact, Neal Katyal did make a great, and angry point afterwards on MSNBC that as great as their testimony was – why were they silent during the second impeachment? And as Ari Melber followed immediately after, they all did great and important duty at the time – but were AWOL after, for whatever reason only they know. And as impactful as the days testimony was – and it was unrelenting and powerful -- it has to be viewed stepping back so one can see major news of the day about the DOJ search of Jeff Clark’s home. I thought that Chuck Rosenberg on MSNBC had an important clarification to the reports about the “raid” on Clark’s home. He clarified this wasn’t actually, officially “a raid” as it was being called, it was law enforcement implementing a legal warrant signed by a judge after being given compelling evidence of a crime. It was critical to say that and make clear that this wasn’t the FBI Gone Wild. And then he added that whatever the reason for the warrant and how it was handled, “This is not a good day for Jeff Clark.” And all the better when we heard later in the day that during the search, Clark was outside on the street in his PJs. A wonderful image. More to the point, the moment I heard the news story of the search warrant on Clark’s home, my first thought was to write a friend who’s been concerned that Trump isn’t being investigated. I said that I was sure he’d agree with me that there’s no way the DOJ would do this if they weren’t investigating Trump. As it turns out, later in the day Neal Katyal said on MSNBC that this was “The hugest news available to us. Much bigger than the hearing today.” And then he added, “To me, it’s unthinkable that there isn’t an investigation of Donald Trump” – almost word-for-word what I wrote in my original note, though he actually knows what he’s talking about and gave all the legal reasons why it was so. And it was fascinating – in a long investigation for which we thought we know all the people involved – to see news reporters and analysts stunned by the introduction of a new name they’d never heard, Ken Klukowski. It turns out he worked with Jeff Clark to draft the letter to Georgia officials that was intended to push claims of fraud. And further, the previously unknown Klukowski worked with Trump attorney John Eastman in the pressure campaign against Vice President Pence. And I was very glad that they finally addressed the members of Congress who asked for pardons – though after the big build-up, the presentation of it was a bit matter-of-fact. Though it’s still got a lot of attention and brought about a bunch of panic-tweets from several of those named. In fact, I was particularly pleased because I’ve actually been holding on to a link for the tweet that Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) sent a few weeks ago after his name came up at the hearings when he wrote that any suggestion he asked for a pardon was an “absolute, shameless, soulless lie.” So, I linked to that and finally got a chance to reply, “Apparently your definition of "absolute, shameless and soulless lie" means different from what you think. As it happens, Cassidy Hutchinson was under oath under penalty of perjury. You tweet. But feel free to testify under oath! Or just say, "Oops." By the way, there was one, very small comment that leaped out to me that didn’t get commented on. It was in video of a speech Trump made where he says something like how lawyers and politicians are prepared to fight. And he then adds “and other parties.” I know one that can explain away all these “other parties” as supposedly being any number of Republican officials or the general public acolytes who were prepared to fight – but it sure seems from what we know that “other parties” prepared to fight meant groups literally prepared to fight, like the Proud Boys. And the best Republicans can offer is – we should have had our people on the committee. Yeah, ya think??! As I noted in an article here last January that this was McCarthy’s most stupid mistake. Man, is it ever showing that to be the case. To the country’s benefit. In fact, I think the luckiest people yesterday were the Supreme Court Justices who voted to throw out New York state’s law requiring a concealed gun permit. Their ruling got buried by the news of the day. Though before the hearing started, I was happy by the very angry public and state reaction so far. And I’m sure, as it has a chance to stand alone in the light of day, will engender even more anger. It may be that between this and abortion the furious public will be driving how many Democrats campaign. But if the Supreme Court ruling was going to be overshadowed by anything, I'm glad it was such a strong day by the Select Committee. I had one other takeaway from the hearings yesterday. As far as politics go, I don't particularly like Adam Kinzinger. He's quite conservative, less so than the most over-the-edge on the farthest right, but a very solid conservative who (according to Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com) voted with Trump 91.7% of the time. I certainly admire him beyond measure for his courage and strength standing up for defending the Constitution and democracy against the fury of his party, even to the point of not running for re-election. It's deeply, profoundly impressive. But his politics are not even close to mine. But -- they most definitely are the politics of his party. And as I watched this young, eloquent, smart, very conservative, thoughtful Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, what I thought was: this is who the GOP has pushed out of their party. This seriously impressive man, regardless of my own politics, had a long future in the Republican Party, the very-real chance of becoming a senator and a party leader. But because he stood up to the defend the Constitution, Republicans pushed him out. It's the same in many way with Liz Cheney, whose credentials are different, but has a deeper legacy in the party and is even more conservative. The GOP pushed them out of the party. Because that's who the Republican Party is today. A party that enables ble racism, white supremacy, corruption, two impeachments, swindlers, 31,000+ documented lies and, ultimately, fascism. Earlier this week, in honor of the first day of Summer, I posted a couple recordings of Nat King Cole singing his big hit, “Those Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Days of Summer.” (If you missed it, you can find them here.) When I did a little research before writing the piece, I was boggled to learn that the song was actually based on a German song, “Du spielst ‘ne tolle Rolle.” After tracking down the original, though, I realized that as surprising as it was, it almost made a bit of sense, since the music has a German beerhall, “oom-pah-pah” sensibility to it. The original song was written by Hans Carste in 1962, the year before Nat King Cole released his recording, that had new lyrics by Charles Tobias. The music is essentially the same, though in the German original, right after the brief introduction, there is different music prologue that doesn’t occur in the subsequent American version. The omission is an improvement, at least for the English words. Maybe not in Carste’s original, though. I have absolutely no idea what the German version is about – though I do seem to hear the word “bikini” in it, same as in the English-language song. So, perhaps there’s an overlap in themes. (Clearly, there is no German word for “bikini.” Either that, or the songwriter felt that “hammerschmittenvergblotten” didn’t scan properly to fit the music.) I ran the title through a translator program, and it came back “You play a great role.” It seems unlikely that that’s perfectly accurate, though a lively song with the word “bikini” in it and the word “play” at least seems reasonable. If we’re lucky, our website’s resident German scholar and home-care products scientist Dr. Gregory Van Buskirk might chime in with a word or two what the German original is about. And yes, of course I wouldn’t leave you hanging. And so, to prove I’m not lying, here is the German original, “Du spielst ‘ne tolle Rolle” performed by Willy Hagara. I suspect though that this photo of the fellow in a business suit on the telephone is the songwriter Hans Carste. As for the words at the top, “Schön ist diese Abendstunde,” my handy translator says that that means “The Evening Hour is Beautiful.” UPDATE: And yes, Dr. Buzz came through. Here's what Greg Van Buskirk, our expert on such things, wrote back to me elsewhere: I sometimes use an online site, deepl.com, for getting the translation better than with with Google Translate with long texts. Didn't really need it, but here's how it translated the song: You'll play a great part in the memoirs That I'll write one day, I swear to you. I've got plans for my old age All I need is a pen and paper Don't be surprised if I tell you today I'm writing a book, and the main character is you. You'll play a great part in the memoirs Because you've done a lot of things with me. I saw you strolling through Milan in a bikini I saw you dancing on a table I saw you boxing with a friend of the Mangano* Compared to that Brigitte Bardot is a small fish. You're going to play a great role in the memoirs I'm going to write, believe it or not You'll play a great role in the memoirs. In a few years, you'll be the talk of the town! *The actress Silvana Mangano (1930-1989) was then - in 1963 - at the zenith of her fame. Today, unlike her compatriots Claudia Cardinale, Gina Lollobrigida and Sophia Loren, she is completely forgotten. # I knew I went to the right place when calling on the eminent Dr. Van Buskirk. I'm curious how he used a translation site since the song was audio -- my guess is that he did extra credit work and tracked down the German lyrics. A very different song, indeed -- an homage to a beautiful woman. But hey, it's good to know that I was right about hearing the word "bikini" in there -- the only word, it seems, that made it to the American version. So, yesterday, I wrote glowingly about Republican Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers who testified openly and honorably and impressively about his dealings with Trump and the pressures put on him to break the law, undermine the Constitution, as well as Trump publicly lying about him earlier that day – and having to face threats from angry mobs stirred up by Trump.
It was a lesson to me, and remarkably admirable. And then later, after all that, Mr. Bowers said that if Trump runs again in 2024 against Joe Biden, he would vote for Trump. Sigh. Albeit with grinding teeth, clenched fists and stomach churning. He says he likes what Trump did "before COVID." Well, that’s just swell of him, but – y’know, what about during COVID? And after -- and what about during, say, the Insurrection?! Rusty Bowers saying he still supports Trump because he liked the job he did "before COVID" is like still supporting Harvey Weinstein because you liked his work producing movies "before he attacked women." Or still supporting Saddam Hussein because you liked his leadership before the whole genocide thing. Or still supporting Bernie Madoff because you liked his investment advice before all that embezzlement stuff. Or that you still support Al Capone because you liked him before that fuss on St. Valentine's Day. Years ago, I saw a 10-year-old kid interviewed after his team lost in the Little League World Series. He said, “If it wasn’t for the fifth inning, we would have won.” Well, yes, that was true. Unfortunately there was a fifth inning. It’s part of the game. And it counts. Just like Trump ignoring COVID counts, and suggesting you drink bleach and don’t wear masks counts. And the whole, pesky Insurrection to overthrow democracy and the govern counts. But Rusty Bowers is willing to ignore all that, throw it all out, just like the 10-year-old kid wanted to throw out the fifth inning. There are two problems with this: one, the 10-year-old kid knew you can’t throw out the fifth inning, and two, Rusty Bowers isn’t 10-years-old. Never mind that Rusty Bowers thought Trump was great before COVID when he took children away from their parents and put them in cages, demeaned Mexican and Muslims (Asians came later, after COVID), massively increasing the national deficit and being impeached twice – once before COVID, once after. But that’s a separate matter, that’s his opinion of what “great” is, and so be it. But it’s all the “during COVD” and “after.” Mr. Bowers also said he hasn't been watching the hearings. Well, there's an informed voter! For a statehouse Speaker. Me, if I knew I was going to testify under oath before a House committee on live television before the American public, I think I might want to have an idea what was going on. And I’m not even the Speaker of the House of any state. And this from a man who gave absolutely great testimony, superb, noble. A man who had written in his journal at the time of the pressure and attacks on him that “I don’t want to be a winner by cheating.” Who spoke at length about how deep belief in God informed his life. And how he believed the U.S. Constitution was “divinely inspired.” Apparently believing in the "divine inspiration" of the Constitution only goes so far, when you’re okay voting for a man who tried to rip it to shreds. Apparently, it’s part of your honor code to not want to be a winner by cheating – but you’re okay voting for someone who himself is desperately doing all he can to win by cheating. But that's today's GOP. Party over country. Even if it means undermining the “divinely inspired” Constitution, lying, threatening mob violence and fascism. Regardless of your own personal standards against all that. And so another person testifying against Trump has said he'd still vote for him. First, Bill Barr -- and now (despite his very blunt testimony, being lied about and death threats), Rusty Bowers. A friend of mine who grew up down the block tried to put it in a different perspective and reminded me that “some of our parents’ Republican friends admitted that they would have voted for Nixon again if they could.” I wrote back that that was true. However -- none of them testified under oath before the House of Representatives about how Nixon tried to pressure them to break the law and enabled mobs to threaten their own lives and lied in public about what they had said and staged a coup to overthrow the government. Also, most of Nixon's crimes at the time were only widely known on the surface, not how deeply they went into undermining democracy, which only came to wider light later, in some cases much later. Nixon’s crimes (to some Republicans) were that he lied to the public and was forced to resign, unfairly. That's far different from the perception of Trump's actions. Even if they support everything he’s done, almost all of it is right there on the surface for all to see in the shining light of day. And still, for all that with Nixon and some people saying they’d still vote for him if they could, the Republicans were crushed out of office in the next election in massive droves by the outraged public, including enough Republicans. There was a landslide in 1976 was Jimmy Carter won the presidency, and Democrats won big majorities in the House and Senate. That's not the case now. To be clear, a Republican still willing to vote for Nixon (if they could) or even today willing to vote for Trump is something I understand. I think it's ghastly, but I understand it. But this with Rusty Bowers (and Barr and other Republicans who literally know in detail all that went on, were threatened and have had to personally deal with it in a range of ways) is the point here and something separate. That’s today’s Republican Party. Where even the most admirable of witnesses willing to testify under oath about all the wrong that Trump did to overthrow democracy and the United States government and threaten your own life – is still okay with that. And okay with fascism. This is not about Trump. This is about what the Republican Party is today. Willing to willing to close their eyes to attacks on democracy, the Constitution (even one "divinely inspired" as Powers said) and the rule of law, and enable racism, white supremacy, corruption, two impeachments, swindlers, 31,000+ documented lies and, ultimately, fascism. |
Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
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
November 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed