I received a note the other day from my pal, the fine scientist and guitar-playing motorcycle mechanIc Dr. Greg Van Buskirk. I was going to reply earlier, though I explained that if other major news broke I'd have to push what I had to say back -- and given this administration, it was likely that some major story would break. Just two hours later, Trump invited Putin to the White House. And didn't even tell his Director of National Intelligence first. And then the Cohen tape story broke. And then...
Hey, I've even put aside the story from yesterday of Trump suggesting he might pull the security clearances from the country's top former-intelligence chiefs, because I wanted to finally have a chance to get back to the good Dr. Buskirk. Hey, what's one more national security debacle these days? Anyway, Dr. Buzz had written to me about a conversation he'd had with a Trump-supporting friend -- "I was challenged the other day to 'admit' one good thing he had done: the challenger had several, all of which from my POV ranged from not very good to horrible (not wishing to rank them, I'll leave them to your imagination). Net-net... I could not think of a single thing. Not one. He could have come close with at least starting a dialogue with North Korea, but again that feels like rewarding an arsonist for putting out his own fire. And the follow-up has shown how woeful he was in negotiating (for which he was given abundant warning). Help me out, Bob, so that next time I'm challenged, I can at least feel "fair and balanced"? There are a great many good ways to reply, but here's the answer I'm going with at the moment -- "If to total surprise of all his parishioners the happily-married pastor of your church turned out to have secretly murdered 120 people, embezzled church money for orphans with his mistress, participated in neo-Nazi rallies that fire-bombed Jewish synagogues and black churches, and funded international terrorism, what earthly difference does it make if I can name three times he did nice things, or even two dozen, like planting a lovely healing garden for the community??? "But fine, OK, here's one good thing this administration has done -- Trump pardoned the boxer Jack Johnson posthumously. There, you have it. But just to be fair, here's even a bonus positive thing: Trump created a task force to promote U.S. agriculture. And yet another, Trump issued a memorandum that all pipeline used by the government must be 'Made in the U.S.A.' So, good for him! Also, to his credit, Trump reunited 40 immigrant children out of the 3,000 he ripped from their parents. And he also has helped rejuvenate investigative journalism. So, hey, there's five nice things Trump has done. "Okay, here's the deal: Trump has done positive things. He smiles at people who compliment him. He plays golf well. He wears well-tailored suits. All of his positives are lovely, and they are each of them shiny objects that bedazzle his supporters as he secretly murdered 120 people, embezzled church money for orphans with his mistress, participated in neo-Nazi rallies that fire-bombed Jewish synagogues and black churches, and funded international terrorism, all the while putting Russia's interests over those of the U.S. "Okay, semi-quips aside, he may have actually funded international terrorism with his money-laundering, particularly in Azerbaijan through Iran's Revolutionary Guard. But why quibble on the details. "But even all that isn't the problem. The problem isn't even Trump and whether I can name things he did that were nice. It's that Republican elected officials have been enabling all the truly horrible things, many fascist and dangerous to America that Trump has been doing since taking office. "But fine, Trump likes cheeseburgers. That's nice."
0 Comments
The other day, I posted a video of the wonderful presentation at last week's ESPY Awards on ESPN for the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. It was given to the over 300 young women who, as little girls, had been abused Olympic gymnastic doctor at Michigan State University, Larry Nasser, and spoke up to help get him convicted for life. Emotional as the presentation was, with dozens of women after women walking out on stage, I knew something was missing because the video only began moments before the women appeared. I saw that the ESPYs were going to be repeated last night, so I recorded the broadcast and fast-forwarded to that moment. Indeed, there was more. Much more. It was a 9-minute film that was powerful, moving, horrifying, and yet ultimately uplifting for the women's survival. Wonderfully done. And here is that short film, missing only the impactful, live introduction by presenter Jennifer Garner. And to complete the story, here again is what followed, as the stage filled up with a great many of those women, along with the three excellent, brief speeches. Oddly enough, speaking of Disney and the gala concert for RIchard M. Sherman over the weekend, here's one of the songs done at that show, "The Whimsey Works." Though it's performed by the man who sang it on Saturday, Robert Yacko, this video is not from the concert but rather two years earlier in what was a new revue, L.A. Then and Now. Sherman wrote both the music and words for this song, an affectionate piece about Walt Disney and the Disney Studios. My friend Ken Levine has a terrific website, which is well-worth checking out here. Ken is a remarkably talented and versatile fellow -- including writing extensively for M*A*S*H, Cheers, and Frasier, as well as many other TV series, co-creating a couple of sitcoms, Almost Perfect and New Wave Dave's, writing several films with his partner David Isaacs, among them Volunteers with Tom Hanks and John Candy, directing, writing plays and even being a major league baseball announcer for the Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners. (Really. He wrote a wonderful funny book about that experience, called, It's Gone!...No, Wait a Minute..., which you can get here, among his other books. )
Ken devotes Fridays to Question Day from his readers. It's very entertaining and informative, with great inside insight to Hollywood and especially TV. This past week, someone posed a number of questions that included, "Why do many people in Hollywood hate Disney?" Ken noted that he wasn't certain though postulated a few reasons, all which tended to center on them being so big and successful and being an easy target. I do suspect that's involved, but I think he's being too kind here. For starters, it's important to know that "many" doesn't mean all. Nor does it necessarily mean most. There are a great many people in Hollywood who have long adored Disney Studios. Or tolerate them, or see them as just another studio, no worse or better. But for those "many," I think the question being asked only landed on the surface. Many people don't just hate Disney, they've called it Mouschwitz. That speaks to something other and deeper than being an easy target for its success. To be fair, much of the reaction to Disney comes from many decades ago, under different regimes than today. It's still not beloved, to be sure, though I think the Mousewitz past has at least lessened. Two stories that speak to people's response in Hollywood to Disney. This in no way is even remotely a definitive view on the subject. But it does offer a primer on the subject. Back in 2007, there was a WGA informational meeting about a contract offer the studios had just made to writers during the Guild strike. It was held in the Writers Guild Theater, and there as a panel of members from the Negotiating Committee on the stage. One member of the committee gave his reasons for accepting the offer, noting that he thought it was the best one the Guild would get. When it came time for the opposing argument, a fellow looked out at the auditorium of writers, and began his explanation of why people should turn down the offer and wait for a better deal, asking with great certainty a very basic question -- "This is a negotiation. That was their first offer. When was the last time you were in a contract negotiation and someone offered you a worse deal when they came back to you the second time?!" It seemed a reasonable position...but then from the very back of the theater came a shout from someone, "DISNEY!!!" Since it was in the rear, most people couldn't hear it. There was laughter back there, and what was said got passed along to the rows in front of it. More laughter erupted, and it got passed down again. Then more laughter, and what was said kept getting sent down the rows of the theater. The poor fellow on stage couldn't hear what was being passed along, and had no idea of why there were gales of laughter at something he said, rolling down the theater like a wave. Eventually, the laughter reached the first row. He leaned over to ask what people were laughing about. Hearing the answer, a big smile broke out across his face, and he sat back, leaned into the microphone and said, "Okay, I'll grant you that one exception..." And again the room broke out into roars. Now, that's a studio with a reputation. The second tale is a more personal one. It took place during my dark days of being a movie unit publicist. Back in 1992, Disney was preparing to make the sequel for Sister Act, and I had applied for an interview to their PR department. The interview went fine, and near the end they asked me what my weekly rate was. I told them -- it's what I'd been getting paid for several years, a bit more than the Publicist Guild basic minimum but notably less than some of my far-more experienced friends. It was a very fair and reasonable rate. They said, "We only pay..." whatever the amount, was, which was a whopping $50 less a week. I smiled, and said something along the lines of, "Well, I assume my rate is okay then." And without an ounce of flexibility, they replied that, no, THAT was their rate. Period. They didn't negotiate. They didn't pay more. Not even a mere $50 a week more. Again, keep in mind, this was Disney Studios. They really could have afforded the $50 more. To be clear, this meant a couple of things. One is the obvious that they were egregiously parsimonious skinflints. But the other is more subtle and probably more important. It meant that the very best unit publicists who got paid (and deserved) a great deal more money than Disney ever paid were unlikely to take such a big cut from their standard rates and therefore never worked for the studio. And so, Disney got good, but second tier talent. (I include myself in that later category as a publicist.) P.S. I didn't get the job, but that's okay. The point here is -- if they had wanted me, if I was the person they thought was best, they were nonetheless willing to go with someone else who wasn't their first choice over $50 a week. They wouldn't have even split the difference for $25 a week. What these stories speak to is not just being pathologically cheap, but a reputation the studio had all around, not being willing to pay for the best. As a result, most of the best best talent avoided them. And so a lot of their product was solid and professional but not always the most vibrant. To be clear, they got some highly talented people for turning out Disney Product, who knew how to do that inside-out, better than anyone in the industry. And that's no small skill, and something not everyone can do. But when it came to branching into other areas, the studio didn't go there. That's in part why for several decades Disney put out product that was profoundly mediocre and bland and the studio was floundering, succeeding mostly are its past. Finally, they had some changes in management over the years, and things changed. Not everything. They still were tightfisted with a nickel, though less so, and still had more overlord overseeing than most other studios, having to do everything The Disney Way. That didn't always work, but with the new changes, it at least finally worked a lot better than in the past, and they've developed some strong material in more recent years. The Mousewitz attitude was another matter, and is much too long and involved to get into in full. But the short version is that...well, let's just say that Disney had fewer people working there who practiced the Jewish faith and were of color than the other studios. Was the reputation as deeply deserved over the decades as some felt? Perhaps not -- or perhaps so at least in the earlier years of the studio. I couldn't say with certainty. But whether it was "as deeply deserved" or not, there most definitely was a different atmosphere when you walked on the Disney lot than elsewhere. In many ways it was a wonderfully charming place to visit (and still is), but it felt more like you were visiting fraternity row on a 1950s college campus than a working studio. As I said, much of this is from the past. Some of it the very distant past. But not all of it was from another era, just some years before. And they've largely gotten beyond that. But -- that history is very much part of the attitude towards Disney that takes a long while for an industry to get over. And requires an effort by the studio itself to get over. And much of it is over. But not all, some remnants of tight fiscal control, tight management control, tight creative control, and even still a touch of the "We're Disney, so we can do what we want, and if you don't like it you can go anywhere" attitude. By the way, not all of that is a bad thing. Some of it's smart, and a very good way to run a major corporation, which shows in a great deal of their often excellent product -- when kept in perspective. And in control. But there are aspects of it that can also be draconian and short-sighted, especially when tied to a history. The point being that there are actual substantive reasons people "hate" Disney. More so in the past, but still today. Some of that is because they're so big and successful and an easy target. Some is unfair. But some of it is specific and valid, which they brought on themselves. A month ago, I wrote on this site about an upcoming tribute concert in Beverly Hills for songwriter Richard M. Sherman, in honor of his 90th birthday. With his brother Robert B. Sherman, the two won a couple of Oscars and wrote songs for such movies as (most famously) Mary Poppins, as well as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Happiest Millionaire, The Jungle Book, Tom Sawyer, and much more, including a couple of Broadway musicals (Over There and Busker Alley), and even the pop hit "You're Sixteen" (which had a couple of hit recordings, including one by Ringo Starr.) And their most-heard song is probably, "It's a Small World" from Disneyland. You may have read about or seen online videos from a similar tribute concert last month at the Motion Picture Academy, which was star-studded. This at the Wallis Annenberg theater last night was far-less studded, mostly made up of singers you wouldn't likely know, though there were a few of note. And it was all very well-done, and a pleasure. With the material they had to work with, it would be hard not to be. It was not a flawless evening, nothing bad but mostly with a bunch of oddities. However the overall quality put the quibbles in the background. It was very well-produced, ran extremely smoothly, and the songs were a treat. There even was one big dance number, extremely well-done, recreating the production number, "Charlie's Place," from the Broadway musical Over There. As I said, there were a few recognizable singers. Brent Barrett is a Broadway performer, who I've even included in a video on this site here he is the singer opposite Michael Jeter in the show-stopping number from the show Grand Hotel, for which Jeter won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical. Barrett did a lively rendition last night of "I Wanna Be Like You" from The Jungle Book. Pop star Melissa Manchester was held until the last number before the finale, singing a lovely version of "Feed the Birds" from Mary Poppins. Keala Settle -- who sang the Oscar-nominated song, "This is Me," in last year's, The Greatest Showman, sang a couple of songs, including a rousing rendition of "There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow," which the Sherman Brothers wrote for the 1964 New York World's Fair. (Oddly, though it came only four songs before the end of the evening, she was the only performer I noted didn't stick around for the finale. It's possible she had some other engagement to get to, though that's hard to imagine.) But the most fun may have been Johnny Whitaker -- that's how he was introduced, even though it was 45 years after he starred in the movie musical Tom Sawyer (and the TV series, A Family Affair) -- and he sang, "If'n I Was God," from the film, and was terrific, getting a huge ovation. It was a cross-collection of songs, which was both a strength and weakness. The strength was that I much-appreciate hearing a wide range of their songs, even the lesser-known ones from movies like The Slipper and the Rose, The Tigger Movie, The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band and some other pastiches that Richard Sherman wrote himself or with others. Some were extremely good, others less so, but it there was still a liveliness to them. But that also meant that a lot of their best work (for my taste) didn't get heard. For instance, they didn't perform the song "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (though did at least play the music in the overture) and in fact only did one song from that popular score. And they only had two verses of just a single song from The Happiest Millionaire, which was their big follow-up movie musical to Mary Poppins (and the last movie Walt Disney produced), which has a terrific score. And although the orchestra played a sort of overture to Mary Poppins, they only sang three or four songs from the Sherman's most-famous movie. In fact, though the concert was titled, "Supercalifrajgillistic!", they didn't even sing that number in full, only a couple verses as part of a medley of songs with funny, made-up words. The evening's selection wasn't bad at all -- as I said, I enjoyed the mix -- but it was just...well, a bit odd. I know there are limitations in an evening like this, but I think a few extended medleys would have been in order, and at the very least they could have started the evening with some big known-song to give things a better kickstart than the two lesser-known "okay" pieces they had. To be clear, the audience seemed to enjoy it all. Because it was fun. Just...well, a bit odd. (I did speak to some others, who felt the same as I did.) Some of the other highlights was a fun rendition of "Let's Get Together" from The Parent Trap, which was a bit of a pop hit in 1961. "She Has a Way/He Has a Way," from their musical Busker Alley -- performed here by Brent Barrett and Darcie Robert -- was extremely good. And there was a wonderfully lively version of "You're Sixteen" energetically sung wildly by Linda Hart. (In what was either pure chance, or smart directing by Bruce Kimmel, and I suspect the latter -- this is a song that in its two hit recordings was both sung by adult men, and though I know it's about a young man singing about his girlfriend, in today's environment the song could risk coming off poorly. But with a woman singing it -- and SO enthusiastically in explosive love -- about her boyfriend, it got over that hurdle.) The lesser-known performers were all very talented, and ranged from terrific to -- well, I'd call it "Disney princess bland." My personal preference is a bit of texture in singing, but I can't complain about the professionalism and enthusiasm of it all. On other oddity, but I understand it. They had an orchestra, the L.A. Lawyers Philiharmonic, which did a very nice job performing an overture -- but then sat on stage most of the evening while a talented five-piece combo accompanied the songs. The orchestra did play during the big dance number and for the second act opening medley of Mary Poppins. But for the rest of the evening, you just had this good orchestra sitting there onstage doing absolutely nothing. My guess is that -- as working lawyers and judges, which the conductor explained -- they have full-time jobs and didn't have the time to rehearse 30 songs, just these three pieces. And it was also likely too cumbersome to get everyone offstage and then back on (at least in the first act). So, it was probably easier to let them sit there, all night. But it was just...well, a bit odd seeing them in their chairs doing nothing. Perhaps they could have dropped a curtain in front of them or something. Not a problem, and most-happily they did a good job when called on. (Also odd -- throughout the evening they would display on the back wall big images of the movie posters for the movies they were performing a song from. It was a smart and good touch. But oddly, they only did this for about 25% of the songs. The rest of the time, the back wall was completely blank.) The biggest oddity of the night had nothing to do with the show but rather how the ticket situation was handled. It was all free (impressive to say the least), but they later sent out emails that you had to pick up your first-come, first-serve seats by a half-hour before the show or they'd actually give them away to stand-by. And even at that there was no guarantee you'd get in the theater, but instead an outdoor patio with the TV screen. I was fine, thankfully, with good seats -- thanks to my friend Adam Belanoff who wisely showed up early to get the seats before going to dinner! -- but it was a bit of a mess. (I heard one disgruntled patron ask an usher, "Is it always this disorganized??" And the kid replied, "I don't know, this is my first day here.") I'll leave it at that. But all in all, it was a lovely evening -- the good much-outweighed the quibbles -- and Richard Sherman at the end seemed wonderfully happy about it all. I did have one chuckle at that. It came when the Beverly Hills Mayor told Sherman said that he had two "Special Surprises!!" from him -- the first was a proclamation wishing him a happy birthday (no, not a Richard Sherman Day or a street named after him, considering that the brothers went to Beverly Hills High, after all..., just a happy birthday proclamation) and a Key to the City, and then the second "Special Surprise!!" was a birthday cake. All I could think was, "That's very nice, and quite affectionate, but maybe tone done the "two Special Surprises!!", since you do understand this fellow has won two Oscars, is in the Songwriting Hall of Fame, has and been given the Presidential Medal of Honor. Still, it was his home town, and Richard Sherman seemed very pleased by it all. And so was the audience. And it ended with Richard Sherman's granddaughter Amanda Wolf singing "It's a Small World" joined later by the cast. But the song they sang wasn't how it was originally written. As Sherman has explained, it was originally a prayer for peace and played slowly, only later going up-tempo. Here he is playing it that way -- how they first wrote it. He and his brother were right. Or write. The guest this week for the 'Not My Job' segment of Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! is the grandson of famed oceanographer Fabien Cousteau, who is an accomplished oceanographer himself. It's a very entertaining, lively interview -- at times pretty funny -- but the best part is the topic for the 'Not My Job' segment. Host Peter Sagal always tries to come up with some topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the guest's profession, but still have some odd overlap. And they show nails it wonderfully this time.
|
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
|