If you had to cast someone today to play the role James Stewart defined in Harvey (on stage as well as screen), it would be the fetching Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory‘s Sheldon. He’s set to do that this summer on Broadway.

From this interview, it’s clear he understands the part. And did I hear him say Carol Kane was in the cast? If so, kudos to the person who cast this play. She would be ideal as Veta Louise Simmons, the role which earned Josephine Hull her (much-deserved) Oscar.   [Alas, Kane will not be playing Veta Louise; in this production, that role went to Jessica Hecht.]

[chose to remove video which can be found here as the autoplay was annoying some of our readers.]

More often than not, casting is as important as story-telling in theater and film (some would argue it’s more important). And with the good script, assuming they remain faithful to Mary Chase‘s stage- and screenplay, those who make it to New York this summer will be in for quite a treat.

“You might think”, reports Oliver Knox  on Yahoo! News

. . .  that Barack Obama’s crazy presidential schedule makes it difficult for him to stay on top of popular culture. You’d be half-right. Quizzed on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, Obama slam-dunked a question about Kim Kardashian . . . .

“Which Kardashian was married for only 72 days?” co-host Joy Behar asked the president.

“That would be Kim,” Obama replied.

Via Jim Geraghty.  Meanwhile, at PJMedia, Tom Blumer reports:

An indicator of just how seriously the federal government’s financial situation has deteriorated (combined of course with the establishment press’s clear desire to emphasize “news” which might assist Dear Leader’s reelection effort) is that the dismal 2012 report released by the Social Security system’s trustees on April 23 received little attention. Viewed through that perverse prism, cash deficits which “will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply,” even before considering the $110 billion or so taken from “general (non-existent) revenues” during 2011 and 2012 to make up for the payroll tax cut, pale in comparison to the importance of higher priorities — like working up a 5,400-word report riddled with errors and distortions on what Mitt Romney was doing when he was a teenager.

The sad, under-reported truth is that three years into an alleged “recovery,” the long-term outlook for Social Security continues to crumble at an accelerating rate.

Via Glenn Reynolds.  Could find online any reports about the president’s plan to fix Social Security.  Or address the coming insolvency of Medicare.  Or a plan to put a dent in the national debt.

At 0:49 below, Audrey Hepburn demonstrates how gay Americans should have responded to President Obama’s statement on gay marriage yesterday:

Like everything with Obama, all we get is “words, words, words.”

This is not just a gay conservative talking.  Several voices on the left have found that there’s not much there there in the president’s sudden shift on same-sex marriage.  At the Gawker, John Cook calls the statement a “cowardly cop-out”:  ”it seems fairly clear from the network’s coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry.”

At the far left magazine Mother Jones, Adam Serwer reports that his colleague . . .

. . . David Corn spoke with an administration source and asked whether the president recognized gay marriage as a right. The official replied, “He has always said that it is a state issue, and he’s not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment, but he’s not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.”

Emphasis added.  He’s not bringing up legislation?!?  And all my left-leaning gay friends on Facebook are so giddy about the statement; Obama’s just leaving it to the states.

Shouldn’t they be insisting that he show us he loves us by putting some political capital on the line and backing legislation to make federal recognition of gay relationships a reality?

He’s like the guy who tells his beloved how much he loves her, tells her wants to get married, but refuses to buy a ring or set a date.

Just returned from seeing the Hunger Games.  I had thought that if I saw a late show on Monday night, I’d miss the crowds, but even though I got to the theater 10 minutes before the show was scheduled to start, only walked in the actual auditorium as the previews were starting.  There were lines at the Grove.  On a Monday night.  After 10 PM.

I had assumed most of the people in line were there to see the Avengers.  When I asked those in front of me — and around me, their responses confirmed my hypothesis.  The Avengers already has the record for best opening weekend.  It will soon join Hunger Games in the Top 100 all-time Box Office, adjusted for inflation — a real cultural milestone.

Movies that resonate as these do saw something condition about our times — or the human condition.

I had not heard of the Hunger Games books until the movie was released.  A classmate of mine from graduate school, a fellow student of mythology, encouraged me not just to watch the movie, but also read the books.  I determined to do just that — before seeing the films.  It seems Suzanne Collins, the author, had been a big fan — or at least been fascinated by the phenomenon — of the TV series Survivor — and had had enough exposure to Greek myth to have more than a passing familiarity of the story of Theseus, Ariadne and the Minotaur as well as that of hat of Iphigenia (sacrificed so her father could get favorable winds in order to sail to Troy to wreak vengeance on that city).

And there was even a Minotaur — several of them — in this movie.

At a later date, I hope to write further about this myth, but will note that some scholars (including yours truly) see the stories of Theseus and Iphegenia as cultural markers (not to mention the Binding of Isaac), signifying that they no longer sacrificed humans.  And archeological, anecdotal and mythological evidence indicates that human sacrifice was prevalent in many cultures.

I had intended to take time off from blogging last week, having, when I returned from the Bay Area, outlined a series of articles I would introduce and excerpt and devote the week to my mythological studies and laying the groundwork to start writing my fantasy epic (as well as other unrelated obligations), but then the Grenell story broke.  It was one of those stories that I knew I needed to address for a great variety of reasons, some evident, others not.*

I spent a good deal of time researching the story (and even trying to contact the man in question).

As a result, I didn’t have the time last week to focus on the matters to which I had intended to devote my time.  Hoping to take on those matters this week, I expect to slow down my blogging pace for the next few days.  (Ironically, one of the pieces I had planned was on Don Surber’s decision to stop blogging due to blogger burnout.)  I have a post planned on North Carolina’s Amendment One which I expect to post shortly, then may get a few short ones up later today, but do hope you understand if I am not posting at the pace to which y’all are accustomed.  And hope you understand why I only did two cursory post over the weekend–was nice not to feel obligated to write about politics.

Because sometimes when it comes to politics, I feel like Michael Corleone is The Godfather, Part III:

*Perhaps to address those not so evident ones in subsequent posts. Perhaps.

I am not entirely comfortable with the term, “catfight” in describing the confrontation between these two Titanesses of the silver screen–but best screen confrontation between women on screen was not as catchy — and quite clunky a title. Well, I found a better; it may lack the punch of the original, but at least I’m comfortable with it.

Here, we see Irene Papas, one of few actresses to actually get the woman whose face launched a thousand ships.  Helen of Argos, later of Troy, finally of Argos is a far more complex woman than the screen beauty portrayed in most screen versions of the Trojan War.  In a man’s world, she knows how to use her feminine charms to win her way, even if it means defying her patron deity, Aphrodite.  I do not say this lightly:  Papas is the greatest living actress.

And when the divine Miss Kate plays Helen’s erstwhile mother-in-law, Hecuba, in The Trojan Women their confrontation just sizzles.

In a war fought over Helen, Hecuba lost her husband and her sons, all that was dear to her. And in the clip above, we believe that when Hepburn, er, Hecuba, asks Menelaus to kill Helen, she really wants to see Papas dead.

The face launched a thousand ships, carrying warriors which would kill thousands of Trojan men.

Social media have allowed us to interact and connect in ways not possible just a decade ago.  They have made it easier for us to track down long-lost friends and to  learn about their present doings.  Even as I write this, I am chatting on Facebook with an Australian gay man who, like many of our readers, differs from the norm of our community; he reached out to me after discovering the blog.

Facebook has also allowed me to see a phenomenon I first witnessed when I came out in the 1990s, of the loneliness of many gay men, perhaps a loneliness paralleled among our straight peers, but one which, at times,seems unique to our particular situation.  And Facebook magnifies it.  Some men seek solace in identifying with a political group, fearing to differ in one iota from its ideology, lest their peers cut them off.  Others relate the most mundane items of their day, as if that will help link them to the outside world.

Here we have this means of instant (virtual) connection and yet all too many of us aren’t really connecting.

These observations have caused me to revisit some (somewhat) dormant ideas about loneliness — and that too human hunger for real connection, for friends who see us we are and in whose presence we feel part of the universe because to truly feel part of the universe, we must, all of us, feel some connection to our fellow man.  And not just the connection of their physical presence, but a meaningful bond where they delight in our idiosyncrasies — and they in ours.

Understanding that, I found it very hard to watch the 1964 Bette Davis movie Dead Ringer, a film where the screen siren plays twin sisters, with the less financially fortunate Edith Phillips murdering her more wealthy sister Margaret in order to assume her identity and live in luxury.  As soon as Edie commits the crime, then puts on her sister’s clothes and goes to her house, all I could think about was how miserable her new life would be, no longer able to spend time with the Karl Malden‘s Jim Hobbson, the cop who truly appreciates her–cut off not just from him, but from her friends in the bar she manages.

I just couldn’t believe that anyone, well into middle age, with real friends would want to give them all up for a chance at riches.  And yet some people do.

After all, what is wealth if you have no one with whom to share it? (more…)

That’s what this caption suggests:

Just started watching the first season of Game of Thrones on DVD and have not just been impressed, but have actually been blown away by the production quality of the miniseries.  This is not to say I have some quibbles with the sets (don’t remember there being palm trees in King’s Landing), but just to appreciate what the production designers, etc. have accomplished, creating a truly believable (and fantastic) medieval world.

Last night, I watched Episode 5, The Wolf and the Lion, where we see the first stirrings of romance between Gethin Anthony‘s Renly Baratheon and Finn Jones‘s Knight of the Flowers, Loras Tyrell.  Unfortunately, their, well, intimate moment lacks much evidence of emotional intimacy.  Instead of the two men sharing a kiss, the former suffers the latter to shave his torso.

This would have been the appropriate place to show a same-sex kiss rather than at a political rally.

“Apparently“, writes Rob at JoshuaPundit, “Rush Limbaugh meant what he said when he told his listeners, ‘Those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine, we’ll replace them.‘”

The conservative talker, who has apologized for slurring a woman who defended the administration’s contraception mandate, is taking in stride the handful of companies no longer advertising on his program:

Less than an hour after AOL officially became the eighth company to pull its ads from Limbaugh’s radio show, the conservative host cracked a joke [then] continued his broadcast in typical, pontificating fashion. . . .

While the conservative host said that the advertisers’ disaffiliation was a “shame,” at the end of the day he just doesn’t care.

“Those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine,” Limbaugh continued. “We’ll replace them. It’s simple, really.”

You know the Limbaugh-haters should have left well enough alone when the talker apologized.  I think that’s called quitting when you’re ahead, right?  Well, as they continue to demonize the popular broadcaster, his standing among conservatives will only strengthen.

Rush is not the only conservative to see a coordinated attack backfire.  Seems that HBO, despite massive promotions, had trouble scrounging up an audience for “Game Change”.  Only a handful of its subscribers, writes John Nolte, “bothered to tune into one of the most hyped movies in the history of television. Glitzy, glamorous premieres, all kinds of free publicity through the cable news outlets, controversy galore, and yet ‘Pawn Stars’ kicked its ass.”  He quotes the Washington Post:

One massive marketing and GOP-undies-bunching campaign later, the unveiling ofHBO’s Sarah Palin flick, “Game Change,” attracted 2.123 million viewers Saturday night at 9. HBO says “Game Change” brought in the biggest original-movie opening crowd in about eight years.

To put the audience in perspective, that’s slightly fewer people than sat down the next afternoon at 2 to watch a rerun episode of History’s “Pawn Stars” (2.129 million viewers). (more…)

On Saturday, reports Tina Korbe, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich “called out the double standard of the mainstream media” referencing “ABC’s new TV show, ‘GCB,’ based on the novel ‘Good Christian Bitches.’”  She cites this Politico report:

“Here’s to show you the biases of the elite media, look at the new show that’s on that has the word ‘Christian’ in it and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in Muslim,” Gingrich said. “And ask yourself, is there any network that would have dared to run a show like that and you know the answer is not a one because anti-Christian bigotry is just fine in the entertainment industry but they have to be very protective of Islam.”

Just watch Sergeant York, the 1941 film the earned Gary Cooper his first Oscar.  The very versatile Walter Brennan snagged his fourth Oscar nod for his portrayal of Pastor Rosier Pile, an honorable clergyman who helps Cooper find a path to God and stands by him as he wrestles with the merits of taking up arms for his nation.  Or the 1954 Oscar winner, On the Waterfront where another versatile actor secured an Academy nomination for playing a priest, the strong moral center of an incredibly powerful film.

Why do we no longer see any TV shows with similar upstanding ministers — and members of their flock who live by the teachings of their faith and treat their fellows with dignity?

How about even bringing in gays, you know, like a gay man who moves out on his boyfriend when he finds that that latter had been cheating on him.   He has to move in with his brother who, once a wastrel, saw the light when he fell for a fetching Evangelical (or Mormon?) woman.  The brother initially refuses to put him up in their guest house because of  his “lifestyle,” but his wife presses him to show some Christian compassion.

Their pastor (or Bishop, if they’re Mormon) acknowledges that he is wrestling with church doctrine on sexuality and encourages the (straight) couple to treat the gay relative decently, to encourage him to come to church.  (And, heck, maybe the gay guy “at sea” since his relationship falls apart, talks to said minister who, through the young man, realizes that one man can truly, romantically love another.)

And we’ll add in a happy gay couple who can’t put our hero up because they’re taking care of the mother of one of the men–and trying to adopt.  So, we’ll balance the happy religious couple with the happy gay couple.

(more…)

Perhaps, it’s because Kirk Cameron is not an elected official that I didn’t make much of his comments earlier this month, calling homosexuality “unnatural“, even, as he put it, “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”  He has a right to his opinions. And we have a right to challenge him on them.

The fact that so many have raised such a ruckus over his remarks shows how far we’ve come since he was at the peak of his celebrity.  His hit TV series Growing Pains ended its run in 1992, five years before Ellen DeGeneres’s coming out made the cover of Time magazine.  Today, homosexuality has become so mainstream that we barely bat an eyelid when a celebrity comes out.

Had he made offered similar comments at that time, his notions would have generated far less controversy.

Not just that, most of us are secure enough in our sexuality that we don’t feel threatened by a one-time teen hearth throb’s contrary opinions.

Something else to bear in mind:  the night Mr. Cameron offered his opinions on homosexuality, fewer than half a million Americans tuned into Mr. Morgan’s show.  More than twice that number were watching the openly lesbian Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.  Ellen De Generes’s daytime talk show draws nearly three million viewers.

And that’s the real change.  These “out” lesbians anchor television programs and continue to flourish in the open market.  So, let Mr. Cameron speak his mind; his opinions won’t undo the social changes of the past twenty years.

I’m no fan of George Clooney; he’s not a very good actor, bland in (most of) his movies and smug in his personal appearances.

That said, in one aspect, he is far superior to many celebrities.  He remains pretty upfront about wanting to remain single.  He doesn’t dissemble for the sake of his image.  I had heard that he tells his girlfriends not to believe the media hype about their relationships and to trust instead to his own commitment to avoid attachment.  He doesn’t want to lead them on, encouraging them to enjoy dating, but not to get their hopes up about marriage.

On that score, he’s a man of integrity.

It is perhaps his reluctance to marry and his single status which has lead some to speculate about his sexuality.  But, the guy isn’t gay.  That said, the rumors don’t bother him:

He’s long been the subject of rampant tabloid speculation over his sexuality, but George Clooney says he doesn’t mind.

. . . .

“I think it’s funny, but the last thing you’ll ever see me do is jump up and down, saying, ‘These are lies!’ That would be unfair and unkind to my good friends in the gay community,” Clooney said. “I’m not going to let anyone make it seem like being gay is a bad thing. My private life is private, and I’m very happy in it. Who does it hurt if someone thinks I’m gay? I’ll be long dead and there will still be people who say I was gay. I don’t give a sh*t.”

It’s commentary like this that make me warm to the guy a bit.  He wants to keep his private life private (which is at it should be) — and is content enough with his own life that he doesn’t care what other people say about him  — an indifference to which we all should aspire.

You have to wonder about people in politics who define themselves by their animosities.  Some people seem to spend the better parts of their day obsessing about Sarah Palin and other right-wingers who figure prominently in their demonology.  If you really hated this accomplished reformer, why would you want to subject yourself to seeing her picture every day on your wall calendar:

WTF stands for Winning the Future, right? We conservatives tend to put up Ronald Reagan Wall Calendars — not those mocking Jimmy Carter.

It’s not just the publishers of this wall calendar who obsess over the former Alaska Governor. As Byron York reported last month, “‘Game Change,’ the movie version of the 2008 campaign best-seller that premieres” next week on HBO, has a peculiarly Palin focus:

The book, by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, focused equally on the bitter contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the troubled McCain-Palin ticket that went down to defeat in November ’08.

But the movie is about just one topic: Sarah Palin. Director Jay Roach jettisoned most of the book’s riveting political story so he could focus on the tumultuous period in which John McCain chose the then-governor of Alaska as his running mate. (more…)

In his Preface to the 1982 edition the C.S. Lewis Anthology, On Stories: And Other Essays on Literature, Walter Hooper contrasts the featured essayist with “literary critics” who

. . . were encouraging readers to find in literature almost everything, life’s monotony, social injustice, sympathy with the downtrodden poor, drudgery, cynicism, and distaste: everything except enjoyment.

Everything except enjoyment.  This idea came to mind as I watched excerpts from the Oscars — a few hours after the telecast — and delighted in the success of Hugo and The Artist, the latter winning the lion’s share of the big prizes, including not only Best Picture, but also best actor for Jean Dujardin and best director for Michel Hazanavicius.

The film may offer no great insight into human nature, save to show that we enjoy a happy ending, celebrating instead the joy of making movies — and of telling stories.  Unlike other critically acclaimed films of recent days, it did not stint on enjoyment.

Indeed, it seemed that, as he paid homage to silent film, Hazanavicius kept his focus on crafting an enjoyable film — and entertaining his anticipated audience.  You leave this film with a smile on your face.

Let us hope that the idea of a movies which telling such a simple, sweet story and delights an audience regains the traction it once enjoyed in Hollywood.

. . . where union bosses are the bad guys?

Just saw Super 8. Now, to be sure, I enjoyed the flick, was a fun, very well-made popcorn movie, but once again, the villains come from the armed forces. It’s not just the military; it seems that all too often businessmen, particularly oil tycoons, are villains in a great variety of films.

Wonder why that is?

I did not watch the State of the Union last night.  Instead of hearing a speech by a man of little accomplishment and great acclaim, I went to see a movie about men of great accomplishment and little acclaim, Red Tails, about the Tuskegee Airmen and their valor in World War II.

All I can saw is get yourself to the cinema and see this movie (and make sure to bring a handkerchief).

It’s cheesy and has, particularly at the outset, some really clunky dialogue, but later on, there are also some great lines.  And some amazing scenes.  In the end, you forget cheesiness and focus on the story, the hotshot pilot who just wants to shoot down Nazis, his commanding officer who has trouble with the booze.

Some of the film’s flaws, like those in our friends, make the film more endearing, like the imprisoned American officer who can’t disguise his Australian accent — or Cuba Gooding Jr.‘s attempt to imitate Douglas MacArthur by dramatically clenching his teeth on a curved pipe.  (Perhaps because Gooding is such a likable guy, he can get away with this — and, in my eyes, he does.)  In the end, it’s just a feel-good story about a group Americans who want to serve the country even as some in their country’s leadership question their ability to serve.

The pacing of the film is such that you’re drawn into the story and easily forget its shortcomings.  Director Anthony Hemingway focused on making it an action film, starting in the air rather than tell us about the Tuskegee program.  It is not as great a film as Glory to which I’m sure it’s been compared, but it doesn’t need to be.  It entertains us, it moves us — and reminds us of some forgotten men of the greatest generation, men who helped defeat one of the greatest evils of all time.

This is why they make movies.

Perhaps the main reason I posted my rant yesterday on my travails of LA traffic was because they had so drained me of the creative that had nourished me previously in the day. After dashing out my Iron Lady post, I just couldn’t focus.  And that lack of focus caused me to wonder about the town I now call home and the industry I once aspired to join.

My first thought was about the nature of inspiration–how, for example, the movie Falling Down came to be. Had a writer, delayed on his way to a meeting, thought to just turn off his car and just storm away? Perhaps he related that thought to a producer. And that fellow said he had experienced the same thing. The story grew from there, with that experience, being stuck in traffic, becoming the spark that ignites all a man’s festering frustrations.

My second thought related to the woman I had seen the previous day, throwing a temper tantrum at a gas station. Did she work in the industry? Had she been so frustrated by traffic? Had it turned her creative energies from imagination into aggravation? Could traffic account for the decline of originality in Hollywood? (On a personal note, I love driving cross country because there’s something about traveling the open road which fosters creativity; stop-and-go traffic, on the other hand, seems to have the exact opposite effect.)

Finally, as I cooled down, I thought of LA traffic as a metaphor for life. Sometimes you’re stuck in what Dr. Seuss dubbed “The Waiting Pace“. And you make yourself better equipped to face the frustrations in life in the attitude you adopt to facing the frustration of waiting in LA traffic where your life seems on hold — and opportunities seemingly distant and difficult to reach.

Yesterday, while pumping gas, I saw a woman melt down when unable to fill her Lexus SUV with gas. I silently mocked her. Today, I sympathized with her.

Maybe she had had the kind of traffic I did today and the challenge of self-serve gasoline was the straw which broke the proverbial camel’s back. Driving to meet my friend at the Century City Mall (where we were slated to see The Iron Lady), I changed into the left lane on Santa Monica Boulevard to pass a slow moving cement mixer, but failed to advance in traffic when cut off by a slow-moving delivery truck — which later tried to turn left onto Beverly without first changing into the turning lane.

Road work then slowed my progress further. Leaving the parking garage after watching the movie, I was stuck behind a woman who couldn’t figure out how to use the automated exit machine. And I couldn’t back out because the driver in the car behind me wasn’t aware of the problem.

Because of road work, I avoided Santa Monica Blvd on the way home only to find traffic moving to a crawl on Olympic. I so appreciated the scene at the beginning of the 1992 Michael Douglas movie Falling Down when his character, stuck in traffic, simply turns off his car’s engine and walks away.

Screenwriter Ebbe Roe Smith must have experience many journeys like the one I experienced today.  Sometimes, you really just feel like turning off the car, leaving it in the road and walking away.

Just got back from seeing an early show of The Iron Lady with a conservative friend.  Both of us agreed that the film lacked a political agenda and indeed largely put Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism in a positive light.

The problem of the film was not its politics, but its storytelling.  It seemed more an exercise in acting than a appreciation for a strong woman.  The filmmakers didn’t put that most successful prime minister into the context of her times nor seem to have any notion of narrative structure.  Indeed, the story of this great Briton’s life was lost in the framing device, that of an old woman experiencing mild dementia.

The frame overwhelmed the picture.  Director Phyllida Lloyd just spent too much time on two or three days in the life of a declining octogenarian–more than half the movie (or so it seemed).  The details of Mrs. Thatcher’s biography, played as if mere episodes from her memory, with few placed into a context which helped explain her times, her rise and her accomplishments.

All that said, Meryl Streep was brilliant in the title role.  At times, it seemed we were watching vintage clips of the Iron Lady herself.  And you did believe she was a doddering old woman.  Good acting, certainly, but true to Mrs. Thatcher’s actual state?  Unlikely.

The rest of the cast was uneven.  Jim Broadbent was fine for the aged Denis Thatcher who appeared in hallucinations of a befuddled old lady, but he didn’t appear any younger in the scenes set during his wife’s turn as Prime Minster.  That said, Harry Lloyd who played Denis in his younger years was first rate — and indeed looked a lot like a silent star with a similar name–Harold Lloyd (but imdb has him as a descendant of Charles Dickens and not the acrobatic thespian).

The movie is well worth your time if you want to see the full range of Streep’s talent, but will provide little help in understanding the greatness of the most successful post-war British Prime Minister.