Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Nichols At MoMA

NYTIMES.COM: Mike Nichols, Master of Invisibility
By CHARLES McGRATH -- Published: April 10, 2009
Photo by Tony Cenicola

MIKE NICHOLS, the subject of a two-week retrospective starting Tuesday at the Museum of Modern Art, is not an obvious choice for a place as artsy and highbrow as the MoMA film department. MoMA retrospectives tend to be awarded to brooding European auteurs — Milos Forman was the last one, and Bernardo Bertolucci is scheduled for next year — and not to commercial Hollywood directors who include on their résumé pop hits like “Working Girl,” “The Birdcage” and, just recently, “Charlie Wilson’s War.”

Except for a puzzling string of duds in the mid-’70s, almost all of Mr. Nichols’s movies have made money, and a few, like “The Graduate” and “Carnal Knowledge,” have been recognized as cultural landmarks. But because of their commercial shimmer, their way of eliciting exceptional performances by top-of-the-line stars, it’s sometimes hard to say what makes a Nichols movie a Nichols movie. They seem like vehicles for actors, not the director, whose stamp is in leaving almost no trace of himself.

************************************************
To read the rest of the article, click here.

It's interesting... I would've thought that "The Graduate", "Who's Afraid Of Virgina Woolf?" and "Carnal Knowledge" alone would have sufficient highbrow cachet to merit a MoMA retrospective. But they still made too much money? Sheesh!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Salinger At Ninety

NY TIMES: Still Paging Mr. Salinger
By CHARLES MCGRATH
Published: December 30, 2008

On Thursday, J. D. Salinger turns 90. There probably won’t be a party, or if there is we’ll never know. For more than 50 years Mr. Salinger has lived in seclusion in the small town of Cornish, N.H. For a while it used to be a journalistic sport for newspapers and magazines to send reporters up to Cornish in hopes of a sighting, or at least a quotation from a garrulous local, but Mr. Salinger hasn’t been photographed in decades now and the neighbors have all clammed up. He’s been so secretive he makes Thomas Pynchon seem like a gadabout.

Mr. Salinger’s disappearing act has succeeded so well, in fact, that it may be hard for readers who aren’t middle-aged to appreciate what a sensation he once caused.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Blogging: A Cautionary Tale (Excerpts)

"Back in 2006, when I was 24, my life was cozy and safe. I had just been promoted to associate editor at the publishing house where I’d been working since I graduated from college, and I was living with my boyfriend, Henry, and two cats in a grubby but spacious two-bedroom apartment in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. I spent most of my free time sitting with Henry in our cheery yellow living room on our stained Ikea couch, watching TV. And almost every day I updated my year-old blog, Emily Magazine, to let a few hundred people know what I was reading and watching and thinking about...

...The anecdotes I posted on Emily Magazine occasionally featured Henry, whom my readers knew as a lovably bumbling character, a bassist in a fledgling noise-rock band who said unexpectedly insightful things about the contestants on “Project Runway” and then wondered aloud whether we had any snacks. I didn’t write about him often, but when I did, I’d quote his best jokes or tell stories about vacationing with his family.

Henry, seemingly alone among our generation, went out of his way to keep his online presence minimal. Now that we’ve broken up, I appreciate this about him — it’s pretty much impossible to torture myself by Google-stalking him. But back then, what this meant was that he was never particularly thrilled to be written about. Sometimes he was enraged.

Once, I made fun of Henry for referring to “Project Runway” as “Project Gayway.” He worried that “people” — the shadowy, semi-imaginary people who read my blog and didn’t know Henry well enough to know that he wasn’t a homophobe — would be offended. He insisted that I take down the offending post and watched as I sat at my desk in our bedroom, slowly, grudgingly making the keystrokes necessary to delete what I’d written. As I sat there staring into the screen at the reflection of Henry standing behind me, I burst into tears. And then we were pacing, screaming at each other, through every room of our apartment, facing off with wild eyes and clenched jaws...

...As Henry and I fought, I kept coming back to the idea that I had a right to say whatever I wanted. I don’t think I understood then that I could be right about being free to express myself but wrong about my right to make that self-expression public in a permanent way. I described my feelings in the language of empowerment: I was being creative, and Henry wanted to shut me up. His point of view was just as extreme: I wasn’t generously sharing my thoughts; I was compulsively seeking gratification from strangers at the expense of the feelings of someone I actually knew and loved. I told him that writing, especially writing about myself and my surroundings, was a fundamental part of my personality, and that if he wanted to remain in my life, he would need to reconcile himself to being part of the world I described.

After a standoff, he conceded that I should be allowed to put the post back up. As he sulked in the other room, I retyped what I’d written, feeling vindicated but slightly queasy for reasons I didn’t quite understand yet."

Photo by Elinor Carucci.

To read the rest of Emily Gould's NY Times Magazine article, click here.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, May 19, 2008

A Methodical Construction Of Sprawling Adventure

"LONDON — Any writer who has struggled to 'do the words' would take heart from the self-effacing assessment written for himself by Ian Fleming, the raffish Englishman born 100 years ago this month who became one of the most successful authors of his time through the creation of the world’s best-loved spy, James Bond.

Fleming died in 1964, at 56, of complications from pleurisy after playing a round of golf in Oxfordshire though he had a heavy cold. But the real culprits were years of smoking up to 80 cigarettes a day, and a fondness for drink. Perhaps because of the difficulty he found in resisting life’s indulgences, he adopted a strict writing routine in his last 12 years, the period in which he wrote more than a dozen Bond novels that spawned the multibillion-dollar film franchise.

Rising early for a swim in the aquamarine waters in the cove below his idyllic Jamaican retreat, Goldeneye, Fleming tapped away at his Remington portable typewriter with six fingers for three hours in the morning and an hour in the afternoon — 2,000 words a day, a completed novel in two months, all the while keeping up the sybaritic lifestyle that led Noël Coward, a frequent guest at Goldeneye and no puritan himself, to describe the Fleming household as 'golden ear, nose and throat.'”

Photo: Horst Tappe/Hulton Archive — Getty Images

To read the rest of John F. Burns' NY Times article, click here.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, May 15, 2008

California Supreme Court Approves Same-Sex Marriages

SAN FRANCISCO — Gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco rejoiced Thursday over a California Supreme Court decision affirming their right to marry even as political leaders on both sides of the issue girded for an extended fight in the courts and at the ballot box.

“It’s just amazing to feel like I am a full citizen — I am not a second-class citizen,” said Christmas Laubrile, a nurse, who was with her partner, Alice Heimsoth. “I don’t have to sit in the back of the bus, and I don’t have to take second best.”

Among those celebrating were Gavin Newsom, the city’s mayor, who had set off a fair amount of the national debate over gay marriage in 2004 when he ordered the county clerk to issue licenses to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 couples married, though those unions were later invalidated by lower court decisions.

“What a day for San Francisco, what a day for California, what a day for America, what a day for equality,” Mr. Newsom said before a crowd of several hundred jubilant supporters at San Francisco City Hall.

Photo by Jim Wilson.

To read the rest of Jesse McKinley's NY Times article, click here.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Daniel Myrick: Success As Librating Force

“The Blair Witch Project,” the cult hit released in 1999, ends without ending, but the viewer is pretty sure that what follows after the abrupt camera cut is quite grim. And one of the people who never seemed to make it back from those dark, awful woods was Daniel Myrick, the film’s co-director.

Mr. Myrick spurned the Hollywood blandishments that came his way in the film’s aftermath, instead charting his own course, including a few straight-to-video projects that did not remotely approach the culture-tilting or commercial impact of “Blair Witch,” his first feature. But despite the jokes — and articles — about “The Curse of the Blair Witch,” Mr. Myrick never became frantic about the next big thing.

To read the rest of David Carr's New York Times article, click here.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Joe Simon, 94, Appearing At New York Comic Con

“'Living legend' is how Joe Simon is categorized on the list of special guests appearing at the New York Comic Con at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center this weekend. Mr. Simon, 94, has a different take on it. 'I call it the old-geezer table,' he said during a recent interview at his Midtown Manhattan apartment.

Mr. Simon will take part in the 'Legends Behind the Comic Books' panel at 3 p.m. on Friday, one of numerous events planned at the convention, a three-day celebration of all things comics.

Mr. Simon earned the 'legend' title with his partner Jack Kirby by creating Captain America, the superhero who arrived in December 1940, just in time to play a patriotic foil to the Axis powers. The cover of the first issue even has the good captain socking Hitler in the jaw.

For Mr. Simon and Mr. Kirby, though, the biggest blow came when they were dismissed from the series, which had been selling a million copies a month, in a dispute over royalties. The team moved to Detective Comics (today DC Comics), but Captain America stayed with Timely, the forerunner of Marvel Comics.

It’s a tale worthy of its own comic (and one of many inspirations for Michael Chabon’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, 'The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay'): On the frontier of a new industry, writers and artists creating scores of characters, but publishers profiting from them."

To read the rest of George Gene Gustine's New York Times article, click here.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 14, 2008

And Then There Were None: Ollie Johnston, 1912 - 2008

Ollie Johnston, the last of Walt Disney's legendary animators dubbed "The Nine Old Men", died today at the age of ninety-six. His work has inspired legions of animators, cartoonists and fans alike.

Condolences to his friends and family.

UPDATE: If you'd like to read Charles Solomon's New York Times obituary for Mr. Johnston, click here.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Roger Ebert Retires From Television

"WHAT is film criticism? This may sound like a lofty philosophical question, but I suspect to most people it has a down-to-earth, empirical answer. Film criticism is two guys (and usually it is guys) arguing: shifting in their seats, rolling their eyes, pointing fingers and interrupting, and every now and then agreeing. Or that’s the way it looks on television at least.

One of the guys who made it look that way, who made the crazy idea that movie critics could thrive on TV seem like a no-brainer, recently announced his departure from the airwaves. On April 1 Roger Ebert published a letter to readers of The Chicago Sun-Times that was essentially a farewell to the long-running, widely syndicated weekly program that has made him not simply the best-known movie reviewer in America, but the virtual embodiment of this curious profession.

But the real news in Mr. Ebert’s letter was his return to regular written criticism. A recurrence of cancer of the salivary gland in the summer of 2006 might have left him unable to speak — a problem recent surgery failed to solve — but he has hardly lost his voice."

To read the rest of A. O. Scott's article, click here.

Photo by Associated Press.

*************************************************************************************

Isn't that picture fantastic? It really kicks my already overactive nostalgia into overdrive!

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Al Jaffee, Still Folding In

"If you were young at any time in the last 44 years, you know the fold-in: the feature on the inside of Mad’s back cover that poses a question whose answer is found by folding the page in thirds. September 1978: “What colorful fantastic creature is still being exploited even after it has wiggled and died?” A picture of a garish butterfly, folded, becomes an equally garish Elvis.

The fold-ins these days are as full of youth culture as ever. (March 2008: “What major star has recently admitted receiving illegal career-damaging human growth injections?” And a picture that looks as if it’s going to be Roger Clemens folds to become Jamie Lynn Spears, pregnant.) So the first thing that strikes you when Mr. Jaffee greets you at the door of his studio on the East Side of Manhattan is his age. This man, still credibly negotiating the milieu of teenagers, is 87."

-- Neil Genzlinger, from his New York Times article. Read the rest here!

Photo by Librado Romero.

PS - Be sure and try the cool interactive fold-in retrospective!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Evidence Of D.B. Cooper?

"The worn parachute that children found while playing on their family’s property in rural southwestern Washington this month may be the one that D. B. Cooper used on that mysterious night in 1971 when he carried out what the authorities call the only unsolved hijacking in United States history.

Then again, maybe not." -- William Yardley, NY Times

If you're as curious as I was, you can read the rest of the article here.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 23, 2008

"They're Young, They're Beautiful, They Kill People"


"I was arguing with Jack Warner about 'Bonnie and Clyde,' and he said to me, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fine, kid, that's your opinion.' Then he says, 'You have your opinion, but you do know whose name is up on the water tower, right?' So I said, 'Yeah, hey, look, it's got my initials!' "

-- Warren Beatty, qouted from Geoff Boucher's great LA Times article about the genesis and impact of Bonnie & Clyde. Read it here!

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Lost Sleeping Beauty Art Comes Home

"A Japanese university plans to return about 250 pieces of original animation art to the Walt Disney Company that were mislaid in storage after traveling to Japan nearly five decades ago.

Disney said that the art — cels, backgrounds, preliminary paintings and storyboard sketches — was part of a collection that was handpicked by Walt Disney himself. It was sent to Japan in 1960 for a touring exhibition timed to the opening of the film 'Sleeping Beauty.' The exhibition opened at Mitsukoshi Department Store in Tokyo in May of that year and traveled to 16 other stores throughout Japan."
To read the rest of Charles Solomon's article, click here.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 10, 2008

A More Direct Route To Audiences?

NY TIMES: Giving the Outsiders a Say on Movies
By CHARLES LYONS - Published: March 10, 2008

Film enthusiasts vote at the box office on which movies succeed or fail. The idea behind a new Web site, Massify.com, is to give them a vote on which films are made in the first place, along with some say in the script and the casting.

Massify members (membership is free and anyone can join) are offered a platform to promote themselves and whatever current projects they are involved in, and are also eligible to vote on other users’ film ideas through online competitions in which members vie for financing and distribution from Massify and its partners.

And after granting money to winners of its online competitions, determined by popular user vote, the investors in Massify will maintain a financial interest in the films that originated there, and help produce and bring them to market.

Massify aims to encourage collaboration, but it is not a philanthropic enterprise. Like most Web sites, Massify wants to attract advertisers even as it faces the challenge of proving itself as a practical place for the film industry and the public to discover new talent. “We’re building an audience before the film is made,” said Kenneth Woo, one of Massify’s two founders.

Brett Icahn, Massify’s other founder, said: “Online networks should apply a democratic process to the creation of content, not just the distribution of it,” he said. “The Massify community crowdsources the best ideas, and elects the best actors. It’s more a production network than a social network, because it’s driven by a creative purpose.”

Massify’s 10 full-time staff members, most of them under 30, occupy a loft office on Cooper Square, near New York University.

Mr. Icahn is the son of the financier Carl C. Icahn, who is backing the venture, giving Massify an edge on many start-ups noted for their ebullience and optimism, not their cash flow.

And among aspiring filmmakers, cash can be highly alluring. Mr. Woo said that Massify has already offered members the chance to win a student grant, awarding Ryan Bemler, a Columbia film student, $10,000 toward a short film after Massify users chose his project in an open competition.

Massify’s second online competition is co-sponsored by an independent horror film distributor, After Dark Films, which will present the winning film as part of its ongoing series “Eight Films to Die For.” Massify members will develop the film using the Web site’s online tools; they are invited to participate in a pitch round, after which 10 semi-finalists will be chosen by popular vote.

Once a final idea wins the competition, a round of casting allows actors registered with Massify to upload audition videos and vie for the film’s four leading roles. Users select 10 male and 10 female semifinalists for each role; these actors are flown to Los Angeles for screen tests.

The top four male and female vote-getters win principal roles in the film, which will be produced by After Dark Films and directed and written by established professionals.

In theory, the notion of empowering people who are trying to break into the movie business by allowing them to contribute to the filmmaking would seem to provide a crack in a long-closed Hollywood network, where entrance is not always predicated on talent but access.

“It’s a new way of thinking,” said Eugene Hernandez, co-founder of IndieWire.com, the independent film Web site begun in 1996, who said he had only recently become aware of Massify. “It’s exciting — all these things happening at the same time. Maybe the dream of democratization can become a reality.”

Practice is another matter, however. It remains to be seen just how effective a cluster of people in their 20s can be at reinventing what the French critic André Bazin once called “the genius of the system,” referring to Hollywood films made during the classic studio era, roughly the 1920s through ’50s.

During those years, and still today, power flowed from top to bottom in vertically integrated studios. But Massify wants power to flow the other way around, to give the people at the bottom of an organization an opportunity to be involved in the decision-making.

Not everyone registered on Massify appears to be looking for that sort of responsibility. The site’s key tabs lead to areas for film pitches, roles, people, and competitions. Many users have posted their photographs and just want to be attract Internet friends, not necessarily collaborate on a film.

Not yet, that is. Some Massify members have also begun posting short video clips or trailers teasing feature films they are trying to make. Others have uploaded full-length screenplays, effectively circumventing traditional gatekeepers like agents, managers and studio executives.

“There will come a point,” Mr. Hernandez said, “when the dominant generation will have emerged — and they won’t be wedded to traditional models of success.”

*************************************************************************************

It's an interesting idea - combined with a video-sharing site, films could be chosen, created and distributed without studio involvement at all. I imagine if this takes off, though, it'll get quickly snapped up like YouTube.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 01, 2008

JLA vs. SAG

NY TIMES: A Film’s Superheroes Face Threat of Strike
By MICHAEL CIEPLY - Published: March 1, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Do five or so of the greatest superheroes in the universe have the power to make a movie these days? Warner Brothers is struggling to find out.

Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are among the biggest icons of DC Comics and are likely to be featured in the upcoming "Justice League" film.

In a Hollywood upended by labor strife — writers just ended one walkout, while actors are rumbling about another — the studio has been trying to begin production on a film based on the long-running DC Comics series “Justice League of America.”

The series unites Superman and Batman with Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and other extraordinary beings. Thematically, it shares an impulse with “The Three Musketeers”: one for all, all for one, their combined attributes stronger than any one superhero’s.

But nothing has been easy in a season when the usual difficulties of a globe-spanning, effects-laden production with a budget that could approach $200 million have become tangled in uncertainty over pending negotiations with the Screen Actors Guild. Around the industry, executives are wrestling with versions of the same dilemma: Should they go forward with movie projects that might be disrupted by an actors’ strike if shooting does not end by the guild’s June 30 contract deadline? Or should they wait, with the risk that prospective films will fall victim to afterthoughts and lost momentum?

Some of the movies working their way through that bind are Sony Pictures’ sequel to “The Da Vinci Code,” called “Angels & Demons”; Paramount and DreamWorks’ “Transformers 2”; and 20th Century Fox’s “Tooth Fairy.” “Justice League,” if it happens, will give Warner a summer blockbuster either next year or the year after. It could spawn sequels, like the Marvel-based “X-Men” series, which has taken in $1.2 billion at the global box office for 20th Century Fox. Just as important, the film could extend the appeal of Warner Brothers’ two caped mainstays, Superman and Batman, to lesser-known heroes (and inexpensive actors) who might then be featured in blockbusters of their own.

But Warner Brothers’ dreams of a widening stream of profits will come true only if the new film does nothing to detract from a continuing string of Batman movies, the next of which is “The Dark Knight,” set for release in July, or the Superman pictures, another of which is in the works for 2010.

In the past week the unlikely writers of “Justice League” — Kieran and Michele Mulroney, better known for Mr. Mulroney’s acting and his relationship to his brother Dermot Mulroney than for their uncredited work on “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” — were in Australia. They were consulting with the film’s director, George Miller, and revising a script that was being rushed to production when the writers’ strike hit in early November.

Warner Brothers executives declined to comment. And Mr. Miller, whose work has been as varied as “The Road Warrior” and “Babe: Pig in the City,” did not respond to requests for an interview. But several people involved with the film — who requested anonymity because of the studio’s policy of silence about a work in progress — said the revisions were part of a push to revive a project seen as crucial to broadening the studio’s rewards from its subsidiary DC Comics.

Six weeks ago, as the writers’ strike wore on, Warner Brothers, based in Burbank, Calif., halted the plans amid concerns that the screenplay did not quite meet the challenge of introducing a new series without undercutting the old ones. In effect, Batman and Superman would have to exist in two parallel movie universes without making the audience uneasy.

The studio allowed options to lapse on a cast of fresh, and relatively cheap, faces. Hired to step into superhero costumes were Armie Hammer, who has appeared on “Desperate Housewives,” as Batman; D. J. Cotrona, from the television series “Windfall,” as Superman; Adam Brody, of “The OC,” as Flash; the rapper Common as Green Lantern; and the fashion model Megan Gale as Wonder Woman.

Word that revered heroes would be played by relative unknowns raised howls on the Internet. Comic-book fans, a wary lot, “daydreamed about whether people from ‘The OC’ could fly,” in the words of one post on the movie site Joblo.com. Mr. Hammer, the great-grandson of the Occidental Petroleum Company chief executive Armand Hammer, was elsewhere referred to as “Frat-Man.”

But the ensemble had already bonded with Mr. Miller and one another on a trip to Australia, and the cast appears to be intact, even though the actors are no longer under contract.

“We’re having a long engagement, but sometimes a long engagement is worth the wait,” said Joan Hyler, who manages Mr. Hammer, speaking of her client’s standby status. As the writers’ strike ended a little over two weeks ago, some at Warner Brothers were still eager to get “Justice League” in production by mid-April, a start date that would almost certainly make the finished film available for the summer of 2009.

But studio executives now have a leery eye on the actors’ guild. The guild’s leaders will not conclude a survey of members’ concerns until the end of March, and have not yet scheduled negotiations that could provide a hint as to whether companies can expect a strike-free settlement along the lines of those with the writers’ and directors’ unions in the last few weeks. Guild leaders have been under pressure from some of the highest-paid actors, from the union’s longtime ally American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and from its own East Coast wing to get the talks going as quickly as possible.

So “Justice League,” while still moving forward, is not expected to start production this spring; a summer or fall shoot appears more likely, actors willing.

By then, the production may find itself leaving Sydney, where Mr. Miller made “Happy Feet.” According to a report this week in The Sydney Morning Herald, filmmakers and government officials have been embroiled in a debate as to whether the new film, with its enormous budget, would qualify for an incentive that provides a 40 percent rebate to Australian producers. If not, Warner — which has been discussing a financial alliance with Legendary Pictures, its partner on “The Dark Knight” and “Superman Returns” — may move the production to Canada or elsewhere.

The project’s title has also undergone some rethinking over time. According to some involved with the film, the word “America” may drop out, to make the film more palatable abroad, an ever more important consideration for the big studios.

If the movie is delayed, Warner Brothers will not be without heroics, of a sort, next year. Zack Snyder, who directed “300” for the studio, is finishing up his version of “Watchmen.” Set for release in March 2009, the film is based on Alan Moore’s revered graphic-novel series about flawed superheroes who become entangled in the difficulties of real life.

In Burbank, that story is a familiar one of late.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Fantasy Nerds Everywhere Suddenly, Inexplicably Aroused

NY TIMES: Master of ‘Rings’ to Tackle ‘Hobbit’
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER - Published: December 19, 2007

LOS ANGELES — Goblins, trolls and dragons were a breeze compared with the caustic clash of egos that kept “The Hobbit” in Hollywood limbo for years. But a settlement announced on Tuesday between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema holds the promise that peace will break out in Middle Earth and that fans could see the first of two resulting movies by December 2010.

The pact, which two people involved said was worth nearly $40 million to Mr. Jackson, ends years of litigation and acrimonious auditing over his share of the profits from the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Those movies grossed $2.9 billion worldwide, made Mr. Jackson’s reputation and vastly enhanced New Line’s stature among the major movie studios.

Though Sam Raimi has stated his interest, it is unclear who will direct the two Hobbit movies, but Mr. Jackson will not. Mr. Jackson and his producing and writing partners, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, are committed to making “The Lovely Bones” through 2008 and then he is directing “Tintin,” based on the Belgian comic strip, for Steven Spielberg.

But Mr. Jackson and his wife, Ms. Walsh, will be executive producers of the Hobbit films, and they will share with New Line the right to approve all creative elements: director, screenwriter, script, cast, filming location, even the visual-effects company used (as if there were any doubt that his Weta Digital would be chosen). “They can assure that the films will be made with the same level of quality as if they were writing and directing,” Mr. Jackson’s manager, Ken Kamins, said.

Settlement of the litigation freed New Line, which held the rights to make a “Hobbit” movie, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which has distribution rights, to cut a 50-50 financing deal: New Line will make the two films and distribute them domestically, and MGM will distribute them overseas. The untitled sequel is described as bridging the 60-year gap between the end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s “Hobbit” and the beginning of the “Rings” trilogy.

Despite the treasure involved — or perhaps because of it — the Jackson-New Line marriage grew testy by 2003, when Mr. Jackson began complaining about his share of the profits. New Line paid added bonuses, but Mr. Jackson nonetheless began an audit, which was said to particularly antagonize Bob Shaye, the studio’s co-chairman with Michael Lynne.

Warfare broke into the open in February 2005, when Mr. Jackson sued New Line over his audit, saying the studio was stonewalling his accountants. After Mr. Jackson told fans in a Web posting late last year that New Line had formally dropped him from “The Hobbit,” Mr. Shaye exploded on the Web, “He thinks that we owe him something after we’ve paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars.”

A thaw began some weeks later, Mr. Kamins said, when Mr. Jackson dined at the home of Harry Sloan, the chairman of MGM. It held distribution rights to “The Hobbit” and Mr. Sloan was desperate to get the franchise moving. By May, during the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Shaye joined a multiparty conference call; it was the first time they had spoken in about two years, Mr. Kamins said. “That call created a tone that really lasted into the fall,” he said.

If Mr. Sloan was motivated to spur a deal — he said the “halo effect” alone from “The Hobbit” could help attract talent and financing to MGM — Messrs. Shaye and Lynne of New Line were said to be facing a deadline of their own: their contracts as studio bosses expire in 2008, and the public combat with Mr. Jackson was a cause for frequent criticism. (Mr. Jackson at one point offered his “Lovely Bones” project to every major studio except New Line.)

The studio, meanwhile, has had a run of two years with only two hits, “Rush Hour 3” and “Hairspray.” Its costly “Golden Compass” opened to a disappointing $25.8 million gross in its first weekend.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Shaye admitted that he had taken some aspects of the dispute with Mr. Jackson quite personally, but he and Mr. Lynne insisted they had faced no pressure from above to cut a deal.

Mr. Lynne said, “No one told us we had to resolve it one way or another.”

*************************************************************************************

VARIETY: 'Hobbit' back on track as twin bill
New Line settles dispute with Jackson
By MICHAEL FLEMING
Posted: Tue., Dec. 18, 2007, 9:23am PT

"The Hobbit" is finally happening.

After settling a lawsuit with Peter Jackson on "The Lord of the Rings," New Line co-chairmen/co-CEOs Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne announced jointly with MGM chairman Harry Sloan that the way is clear to turn J.R.R. Tolkien's "Hobbit" into two live-action films.

The resolution clears the way for "Spider-Man" helmer Sam Raimi to direct. While Shaye said no creative alignments have yet been made, Raimi has long been interested -- as long as Jackson was involved or gave his blessing.

The studios hope to start production in 2009, shooting two films simultaneously and releasing them in December 2010 and December 2011. New Line will run production and distribute domestically, while MGM will release internationally. The studios will co-finance the films.

Jackson's Kiwi stages, post-production and visual effects facilities -- which he built to accommodate "LOTR" -- likely will be used to mount "The Hobbit." And New Zealand once again will be used as the visual backdrop for Middle-earth, this time to tell the story of how Frodo's uncle, Bilbo Baggins, ventured from the Shire and wound up taking the Ring of Power from Gollum.

The key to moving forward was settling all litigation between Jackson and New Line over funds owed the filmmaker for "LOTR."

Jackson and partner Fran Walsh filed suit in Los Angeles Federal Court in 2005, charging they were shortchanged in profit participation on "The Fellowship of the Ring." A bitter war of words set Jackson and Walsh in one corner, Shaye and Lynne in the other.

Jackson's next two directing gigs are both for DreamWorks. He optioned Alice Sebold novel "The Lovely Bones" and wrote the script with his "LOTR" partners Walsh and Philippa Boyens. He'll also team with Steven Spielberg to co-direct "Tintin."

While those commitments will keep Jackson from directing "The Hobbit," the settlement deal is helpful not only for Shaye and Lynne but also for MGM's Sloan, who helped put the parties together.

The contracts of Shaye and Lynne expire next fall. The studio has weathered several tough post-"LOTR" years, and its latest attempt at a fantasy trilogy, "The Golden Compass," has proved tepid. Pic has so far grossed just north of $40 million domestic, while drawing $90 million in offshore ticket sales. Though Hossein Amini has scripted sequel "The Subtle Knife," it's unclear whether the second installment of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy will go into production.

At MGM, Sloan planned to revive the studio with franchises. Dealt a setback when "Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins" went to Warner Bros. (MGM is suing financier Halcyon, claiming that its negotiation rights were violated), Sloan now has two plum titles to use as building blocks. Though Columbia distributes the James Bond film about to begin production, MGM gets the 007 franchise back after that, and Sloan said Daniel Craig is signed to a multipicture dseal.

"I give a lot of credit to Peter, Bob and Michael for putting their differences aside for a tremendous property that has an enormous fan base," Sloan said. "Between 'The Hobbit' and Bond, we're involved in two of the best-known franchises in the world."

Shaye and Lynne said while they have not yet gotten to shake hands with Jackson and Walsh, they consider the legal matter to be history.

"This is a complete resolution of all the disputes between us," Lynne said. "Obviously, there is extensive auditing on pictures that are successful. In our business, you can have differences of an accounting and legal nature that polarize people and get in the way of personal and professional relationships."

Shaye, whose barbed public comments toward Jackson once widened the gulf between them, said he was also relieved.

"Nobody likes contention," Shaye told Daily Variety. "None of us, not me, Michael, Peter or Fran, were happy that a dispute was destroying a fruitful and prosperous enterprise.

"All these lawyers were going crazy not letting the principals communicate directly, when we might have been able to solve this years ago. Movies are difficult enough to make without having a war going on," Shaye continued. "The settlement was done with the idea that the good spirit that nurtured the first three films can continue. I hope we can revive what was once a wonderful relationship."

Jackson was unavailable to comment beyond a statement and there was no comment about the size of his "LOTR" settlement.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in the statement. "The Lord of the Rings" is a "legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle-earth."

(Janet Shprintz in Hollywood contributed to this report.)

*************************************************************************************

"Mr. Lynne said, 'No one told us we had to resolve it one way or another.'"

Nothing except the oceans of money and piles of awards the "Rings" series has amassed! I figured something would get worked out eventually. Initially, I was worried about two "Hobbit" movies, but this is encouraging:

"The untitled sequel is described as bridging the 60-year gap between the end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s 'Hobbit' and the beginning of the 'Rings' trilogy."

That's fine with me! I was only concerned with padding (what I think is)
Tolkien’s most succinct and self-contained book in order to stretch it over two films.

Cool! Well, we'll see...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 10, 2007

Who's Laughing Now?

NEW YORK TIMES: Homemade YouTube Video Lands Singer in a Web Ad
By SARA IVRY - Published: December 10, 2007

If, as the song goes, video killed the radio star, then homemade YouTube heroes like Tay Zonday have put a hit out on traditional advertising.

In April, Mr. Zonday became an Internet phenomenon after he posted a no-frills video for the song “Chocolate Rain” on YouTube featuring his earnest delivery and his deep voice, which he likens to that of Paul Robeson and Barry White.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Zonday, a 25-year-old graduate student in American studies at the University of Minnesota whose real name is Adam Bahner, posted a follow-up called “Cherry Chocolate Rain.” But in this case, the flashier video was an ad. With a little help from the rapper Mista Johnson, Mr. Zonday extols the virtues of Cherry Chocolate Diet Dr Pepper, a soft drink that will be available nationally from January through April. (Since November, it has had limited marketing in four states.)

Soft drink companies have often based ad campaigns around pop singers, but they are usually mainstream acts like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears, not an online curiosity like Mr. Zonday, who does not have a record contract.

“We’re doing this to try to do something fun and different and connect with consumers who might not see more traditional media,” said Jaxie Alt, the director for marketing at Dr Pepper, which worked with True Entertainment, a production company, in August to approach Mr. Zonday about reworking “Chocolate Rain.” Neither Mr. Zonday nor Dr Pepper would disclose how much Mr. Zonday received for the "Cherry Chocolate Rain" video.

In the months since it has been up, the video for “Chocolate Rain” has had roughly 12 million hits. “I probably posted it like millions of other people upload themselves singing or doing ordinary things in their lives, and I think that’s very much part of our time, part of our culture,” said Mr. Zonday. “It’s not something one gives a whole lot of more thought to than sending an e-mail or making a phone call,” added Mr. Zonday, who has also landed a television commercial for Comedy Central.

The newer video, for “Cherry Chocolate Rain,” has more than one million hits so far. The newer song has the same melody as the original but different lyrics. The viral approach “was very, very deliberate from a marketing standpoint,” said Shari Solomon Cedar, True Entertainment’s vice president for programming. “Our task was to get something in front of a tech savvy, younger audience, to break through and bring awareness that way. That’s what we achieved.”

*************************************************************************************

We're encouraged to think that there was a fat payoff at the end of the chocolate rainbow, but I wonder. Since experienced screenwriters are struggling to get their fair share of internet revenue, I hope Mr. Zonday ran out and got an agent and/or an entertainment lawyer as soon as he got the call. I doubt I would have at his age, but I imagine one of the biggest reasons for trotting out YouTube posters is that it's a lot easier and cheaper to 'negotiate' with a grad student than a established recording artist. If the experiment works, I would imagine the gap between budget and revenue is huge.

If he did cut a good deal, more power to him! Student loans aren't getting any cheaper.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 12, 2007

'Dilbert' Becomes What He Mocks - The Boss

NY TIMES: The Tables Turn for Dilbert’s Creator
By BRAD STONE
Published: November 11, 2007
Photo by Thor Swift

THIS is yet another story about a clueless but obtrusive boss — the kind of meddlesome manager you might laugh at in the panels of “Dilbert,” the daily comic strip.

The boss in question operates an upscale restaurant serving California cuisine about an hour’s drive east of San Francisco. The restaurant, Stacey’s at Waterford, is in trouble — two decades of rapid population growth in the region has prompted an influx of national competitors like P. F. Chang’s China Bistro and the Cheesecake Factory.

While the chains have 30-minute waits for tables on weeknights, Stacey’s at Waterford has more jewel-tone microfiber chairs than diners, and is slowly but steadily losing money. To make matters worse, this befuddled manager has never run a restaurant before or even supervised another person’s work in more than 20 years. His greatest qualification for the job, one might say, is 17 years spent satirizing cubicle culture.

In other words, Scott Adams, the “Dilbert” creator and the progenitor of the multimillion-dollar Dilbert empire, is now a pointy-haired boss himself.

Mr. Adams had repeatedly vowed never to let it come to this, refusing for years even to hire a personal assistant to help with Dilbert-related projects. “I did a really good job not being a boss for a long time, and I was happy with that,” he said.

But never say never. A decade ago, flush with Dilbert riches, he and the restaurant veteran Stacey Belkin opened a restaurant called Stacey’s Cafe in downtown Pleasanton, Calif., a bedroom community of San Francisco. Five years later, they opened Stacey’s at Waterford in an unremarkable strip mall nearby, in Dublin, Calif.

Until this summer, Mr. Adams’s involvement consisted of signing checks, writing clever jokes for the menus and leaving big tips for the wait staff after his regular visits. Then a personal battle between Ms. Belkin and a former chef intensified just as the big feed chains began staking their claim on the booming exurbs — thrusting Dilbert’s creator into the middle of a managerial nightmare.

Stacey’s Cafe is smaller, in a better location and is regularly packed. But Stacey’s at Waterford, never profitable to begin with, was suddenly seeing a 10 percent decline in revenue. Ms. Belkin, who was running both restaurants, was overextended.

Mr. Adams, meanwhile, was dispatching his comic-strip responsibilities in just a few hours each morning. So, in July, he agreed to take over day-to-day operations of Stacey’s at Waterford, thus becoming what he has consistently ridiculed: a boss.

“I am highly experienced at making funny comics about managers,” he wrote at the time on his popular blog, dilbertblog.typepad.com. “How hard could it be to transition from mocking idiots to being one?”

Those in his 35-member staff at Stacey’s at Waterford can gladly answer that one. In interviews authorized by their generously self-deprecating boss, employees describe him as trusting and appreciative, full of off-the-wall ideas about how to turn around the business, and dramatically clueless about the harsh realities of the restaurant industry.

“I’ve been in this business 23 years, and I’ve seen a lot of things. He truly has no idea what he’s doing,” said Nathan Gillespie, the new, wise-cracking head chef, after discussing a recent dust-up with Mr. Adams over the grilled salmon filet. (Mr. Gillespie had experimented with what he called small changes to the dish; friends noticed them and told Mr. Adams, who admonished the chef that new dishes need to go through a formal review.)

Mr. Gillespie is still miffed. “He’s a really nice guy, but he relies on his friends’ opinions,” he said, lamenting that his boss’s friends probably think a chain restaurant has good pizza.

Emma Lewis, the lunch manager, describes Mr. Adams as someone who should be shielded from tough decisions the way a crawling infant needs to be protected from household hazards. “We laugh and say we’re not going to let him watch the Food Channel,” she said. “He’ll think he can run a restaurant.”

On the other hand, employees also say he knows his limitations and combines deep trust in them with an instinctive ability to motivate people. They understand that to survive in this age of dominant restaurant chains, they must embrace some of his more unusual ideas and obsessions — but more on those later.

No one is more critical of his management skills than the humorist himself. “I’m quite sure I’ve succumbed to the pigeon theory of management,” he said. “Flying in every so often and dumping on everything.”

“THE most ineffective workers are systematically moved to the place where they can do the least damage: management.”

— Scott Adams

“The Dilbert Principle”

Mr. Adams, who turned 50 in June, has closely cropped, receding hair, spectacles and an unsurprising resemblance to his ink-drawn alter-ego. He is quick to recognize how the cynical cubicle-worker wisdom that propelled “The Dilbert Principle” onto best-seller lists is at work in his role as restaurant boss.

“Certainly I’m an example of the Dilbert Principle,” he said. “I can’t cook. I can’t remember customers’ orders. I can’t do most of the jobs I pay people to do.”

But restaurants, he says, are in his DNA. Before he was born, his family owned and operated a diner called the Blue Moon in Windham, N.Y., in the 1950s. In high school and college, he bused tables at resorts in the Catskills.

“I have no interest in ever stepping onto a sailboat,” he said. “But I walk into a restaurant and all my senses and interests are activated in a single moment.”

Enriched by the 1990s success of Dilbert, he indulged his obsession. After investing in Stacey’s Cafe, he started a company, Scott Adams Food, in 1999. Its first and last product was the Dilberito, a vitamin-packed meatless burrito with a wheat-based meat substitute intended to give workaholics a full day’s worth of nourishment.

The company placed the Dilberito in national supermarkets, but Mr. Adams now complains that rival food makers surreptitiously sent agents into stores to bury it on the back of shelves. He closed the venture in 2003, though he licensed the protein substitute to a food conglomerate and continues to draw small royalties.

Two years later, he curtailed speaking engagements after contracting spasmodic dysphonia, a rare brain disorder that robbed him of his voice for a year. Gradually, he learned tricks like altering his speech patterns or talking in rhymes, which let him regain some speaking ability, though his voice remains halting and wispy.

Today, he is married and a stepfather to two young children. He still awakes at 5 a.m., drawing his strip and producing books like “Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!” his most recent collection of entries from his blog. Cartooning now comes easily to Mr. Adams, who gets many ideas from readers via his Web site and draws strips in a few hours each morning on his computer. “I spend less time thinking about the strip than anything else I do,” he said.

So when the numbers on Stacey’s at Waterford started to go south, he had the free time to try to protect his investment. He declines to disclose exactly how much he has already spent or what the restaurant is losing. “The trajectory changed,” he said. “It was moving in the right direction and suddenly started moving rapidly in the wrong direction.”

“We needed a change in strategy.”

“THE purpose of a plan is to disguise the fact that you have no idea what you should be doing.”

— Scott Adams, “Dilbert’s Guide to the Rest of Your Life”

The linchpin of Mr. Adams’s strategy is the 50-person banquet room. “We are three banquets a week away from being on our way to riches and glory,” he said.

After taking over this summer, he hired an events coordinator who began attracting outings from local companies like Oracle, Chevron and Safeway, and introduced bonuses for employees who refer banquet business. He also turned to Dilbert fans for suggestions on how to use the party room, in a posting on his blog titled “Oh Great Blog Brain.”

The Dilbert faithful responded with more than 1,300 comments, mixing interesting ideas (interactive murder-mystery theater) with unlikely mischief (nude volleyball tournaments).

Mr. Adams asked his employees to read the comments and is now slowly trying some of them. The idea for Mommy Mojito Night, for example, originated on the blog and has met with initial enthusiasm from customers.

Along with such ideas, he also started indulging some odd, pointy-haired-boss-like obsessions.

He believes proper light is the primary factor in a restaurant’s success — not food, price, location, location or location. “With the right light, you look better and your date looks better,” he said. “That influences your impression of everything else.”

But when they designed their space, Mr. Adams and Ms. Belkin blundered by creating multiple, large floor-to-ceiling storefront windows that are now proving impossibly expensive to cover.

He always despised the light in the restaurant. So, skeptical employees in tow, he embarked on a surreal hunt for window coverings. One interior decorator after another suggested translucent curtains, or curtains that gather on the sides, or curtains designed to stay rolled up.

“Every meeting was the same conversation,” he said. “They couldn’t understand that the point was to have less light.” Roman shades would have done the trick, but they cost $50,000.

The project was temporarily shelved this fall, but not before it had become a source of comedy among the wait staff. “At this point, I’m sure he wouldn’t care if we put cardboard on windows,” said Kristina Jernigan, the bar manager.

More recently, Mr. Adams began plans to “Dilbertize” the restaurant. He hopes that adding more conspicuous references to his celebrity might create what marketers call a “purple cow” — that singular distinction that gets people talking.

The restaurant recently invited its bar patrons to draw on blank comic book panels; it will post the best efforts to its Web site, www.eatatstaceys.com. Mr. Adams also plans to add a flat-screen television to the bar and to run a constant loop of “Dilbert” strips on it. “For a fairly low investment, it becomes an automatic talking point,” he said.

But no one knows better than Dilbert’s creator that changes from above can stir fear and conspiracy among the troops. Converting the existing bar into a “Dilbar,” as employees called it, became the source of an uncomfortable rumor in the restaurant: that Mr. Adams would soon ask them to wear Dilbert-style white short-sleeved shirts and ties that curled upward.

“It is definitely not going to up our cool factor,” said a bartender, Brian Bundy, who believed that such a change was imminent.

Mr. Adams says he has no plans for such a requirement, and two employees deviously take credit for the starting the rumor. Still, many at the restaurant seem to think it’s a possibility.

“I bet you six months from now, you walk in here and see the ties,” said Ms. Lewis, the lunch manager.

Mr. Adams recognizes how such fears may have taken hold. “If you put that in context of my other bad ideas, it makes sense,” he said.

“LEADERSHIP is a flavor of evil. Obviously no one would need to lead you to do something you wanted to do anyway.”

— Scott Adams, “Dilbert’s Guide to the Rest of Your Life”

Mr. Adams tries to avoid the bad-boss stereotypes he mocks in ”Dilbert” and his best-selling books. Occasionally, he slips up. Trying to coordinate a conversation between a reporter and the dinner manager, Mr. Adams calls the employee on his off day and asks him to come in anyway. He agrees.

“I like to hire people with no life,” Mr. Adams said wickedly after the call.

That demanding streak is tempered by a more benevolent side: Mr. Adams generously tipped the entire staff after his 50th birthday party at the restaurant, though he’d spent part of the evening grousing that the lights were too bright.

In sizing up his own struggles as boss, he said: “The toughest thing is I have trouble being evil. I never punish mistakes, and it’s impossible for me to ask people to work harder. So my defense is to make sure people are happy about being here.”

Some employees, accustomed to hard-edged politics at other restaurants, think that this approach might further disadvantage Stacey’s in such a brutally competitive environment.

“He’s extremely loyal to people — in this business that can be deadly,” said Mr. Gillespie, the chef.

Mr. Adams shrugs off the possibility of failure at Stacey’s and said he has the money and willingness to keep trying new strategies until he finds one that works. “Any combination of things can help us,” he said. “If any of these new ideas take off, we’ll be fine, and if they won’t work, we can walk away from them and try something else.”

He adds that running a restaurant complements his life nicely. “It’s a source of stress, but it adds such richness and happiness to my life,” he says. “The problem with being a cartoonist is that if you don’t have someplace else to go, your life just gets so small.”

At the very least, Scott Adams is getting fresh insight into Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

A New Schulz Biography

NY TIMES BOOK REVIEW: Good Grief!
SCHULZ AND PEANUTS A Biography - David Michaelis.
Illustrated. 655 pp. Harper/HarperCollins Publishers. $34.95.
Reviewed by CHARLES McGRATH
Published: October 14, 2007

Toward the end of his life Charles Schulz, the creator of “Peanuts,” wished he were Andrew Wyeth. What Wyeth did was fine art, he grumbled, while he was just a newspaper cartoonist, a draftsman, whose work would surely not last. In fact, “Peanuts” is still read, in anthologies and compilations, by many more people than ever looked at a Wyeth, and Schulz’s was arguably the greater talent. He transformed the newspaper cartoon strip, busy and cluttered by the time he turned up in the late ’40s, by flooding it with white space, and by reducing his childish characters to near abstraction — huge circular heads balanced on tiny bodies — he rendered them far more expressive than their cartoon peers. The strip was able to register grown-up emotions, like anxiety, depression, yearning, disillusionment, that had never been in cartoons before. Instead of the “Slam!” “Bam!” “Pow!” sound effects that were the lingua franca of the comics, it employed a quieter, more eloquent vocabulary: “Aaugh!” and “Sigh.”

“Peanuts” was beloved by everyone: by hipsters and college kids (in the ’60s especially); by presidents (Ronald Reagan once wrote Schulz a fan note, saying he identified with Charlie Brown); by the Apollo 10 astronauts, who named their orbiter and landing vehicle after Charlie and Snoopy; by ministers and pastors, who read moral and theological lessons into the strip; by the suits in Detroit, who paid Charlie and the gang a small fortune to shill for the Ford Falcon. At its peak the strip reached 300 million readers in 75 countries; 2,600 papers and 21 languages every day. The various animated TV specials continue to top the Nielsen charts whenever they’re broadcast, and the musical “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown,” after selling out for four years off Broadway, is now a staple of high school and amateur theater productions — the most-produced musical ever.

The success of the strip, together with its spinoffs and an almost unending flood of cheesy “Peanuts” ware — calendars, bedsheets, wastebaskets, lunchboxes, “Warm Puppy” coffee mugs and the like — made Schulz an immensely wealthy man, rich enough to build his own ice rink. In the ’80s he was one of the 10 highest-paid entertainers in America, right up there with Oprah and Michael Jackson. In fact, if by artist we mean someone who paints or draws, it’s no stretch at all to say that Charles Schulz was the most popular and most successful American artist who ever lived. He was also, to judge from David Michaelis’s new biography, one of the loneliest and most unhappy.

We should have guessed, for as Michaelis points out, “Peanuts” was almost transparently autobiographical. There really was an unattainable Little Red-Haired Girl. Her name was Donna Mae Johnson, and she jilted Schulz in July 1950; he nursed the rejection, along with all the other slights he suffered from wished-for girlfriends, for the rest of his life. Charlie Brown, wishy-washy, disillusioned, but also secretly ambitious, was the artist himself, of course; and so were Linus, the oddball; Schroeder, meticulous and gifted; and, above all, Snoopy, with his daydreams, his fantasies, his sense of being undervalued and misunderstood. Violet, with her mean streak; and Lucy, bossy, impatient and sarcastic, were all the controlling, withholding women in Schulz’s life, especially his mother and his first wife, Joyce. Michaelis also goes in for a certain amount of psychologizing, but once you have the key it hardly seems necessary.

Michaelis’s last book was an exceptionally good biography of N. C. Wyeth (Andrew’s father), and his task here is both easier and harder. Wyeth was the practitioner of a dying, minor art form — he was the last of the great painterly illustrators — and if that earlier book had a weakness, it was that Michaelis barely bothered to explain why he deserved a full-length treatment. In the case of his Schulz biography, the importance of the subject almost goes without saying (though the author is at frequent pains to remind us, even so). Schulz was what so many lesser figures are carelessly said to be: a genuine American icon, who in his unassuming way deeply imprinted our culture.

On the other hand, N. C. Wyeth lived a large, big-themed life, with a tragic, Dreiser-ish subplot for good measure. (In his 60s, he became obsessed with one of his daughters-in-law and died in a railroad-crossing collision — probably by accident, but possibly by intention — with her son, his grandson, at his side.) Schulz’s much longer life (1922-2000) was, by comparison, bland and eventless — or at least the part that wasn’t lived inside his head, and except for the strip, he left few clues as to what was going on in there. Though he was one of the first to introduce psychological themes into cartooning, with Lucy and her sidewalk psychiatric-help booth, he was himself stubbornly unanalytical. His nature was as much a puzzle to him as it was to everyone else. “It took me a long time to become a human being,” he told a magazine interviewer in 1987.

People who knew Schulz always called him Sparky, the nickname given him at birth by an uncle, who shortened it from Spark Plug, the name of a woebegone race horse just recently introduced into the popular Barney Google comic strip. It was an almost comically inappropriate handle — there was nothing in the least scintillating about the young Sparky, who was small, shy, geeky — and also a fateful one, linking him to what from a very early age he determined to be his life work: to produce a syndicated daily comic strip.

Not that there were many signs he had a gift for it, or for anything else. Schulz was born and — except for a weird and awful two-year stint the family endured in the California desert — grew up in the working-class neighborhoods of the Twin Cities. His father, who was born in Germany and grew up with German-speaking parents, ran a barber shop (just like Charlie Brown’s dad). His mother, who never got beyond third grade, came from a clannish, depressive, hard-drinking Norwegian farm family and was one of those people who feel inadequate and superior at the same time. According to Michaelis, she could be distant, cool, even mocking and scornful, and he blames her for most of Sparky’s woes, especially his lifelong feeling of being insufficiently loved.

Schulz was raised in what sounds like a grim, even more isolated version of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon — a close-knit place ruled by church and family, where book learning was regarded with suspicion and where, far from being above average, children were discouraged from thinking too highly of themselves. Early in grammar school, Schulz was bumped ahead a grade, which guaranteed that for the rest of his school career he would always be the smallest, skinniest, most awkward kid in the class. Though a decent pickup hockey player, and a good enough golfer to play No. 2 on the school team, by the time he got to high school Schulz was so crippled with shyness he had become virtually invisible. “I wasn’t actually hated,” he said later. “Nobody cared that much.” His one chance for distinction was lost when some cartoons he had drawn for the school yearbook were unaccountably turned down — a rejection he never forgave, just as he never forgave all the girls who failed to notice that he had worshiped them from afar.

After graduation, Schulz’s shyness and insecurity rendered art school out of the question, so instead he took a correspondence course from Art Instruction Inc., the kind of place that used to advertise on the back of matchbooks. (He found the instruction so helpful that he eventually joined the faculty himself and years later went on the board.) In 1942 Schulz was drafted and, heartsick and terrified, left for boot camp only days after his mother had died. But he actually thrived in the Army and came back newly confident. He even began to go out with girls — though his idea of an appropriate dating present was a Bible. (All his life Schulz was the straightest of arrows: he didn’t smoke, swear or drink, on the grounds that neither did Jesus. The wine at Cana, the young Sparky used to claim, was nonalcoholic.)

In 1951, Schulz married Joyce Halverson, a 22-year-old divorcée with a young daughter from an ill-advised and short-lived marriage to a cowboy. He arranged to adopt the daughter, Meredith, and afterward always insisted she was his, even when the teenage Meredith began to poke around and ask nosy questions. To some degree it was probably a marriage of convenience on both sides, but for a while it was happy enough, and the Schulzes went on to have four children of their own. Sparky was an indifferent and often inattentive father and husband, though, because, self-absorbed and secretly harboring immense ambition, he was really married to his work. After a lot of rejections and false starts, he finally landed a weekly strip, called “Li’l Folks,” with the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and it was syndicated in 1950 by United Feature, which insisted that the title be changed to “Peanuts.” Schulz hated the name but went along, adding this to his ever-growing list of grudges.

Schulz had initially dreamed of an action strip but began drawing children because that’s what seemed to sell. The earliest strips hit what now seems the authentic Schulzian emotional tone — “Yes, sir! Good ol’ Charlie Brown. ... How I hate him!” — but it took a while for the drawing to evolve, for the heads to enlarge, the limbs to shrink.

“Peanuts” grew slowly at first; caught on hugely in the ’60s, when almost by accident it seemed to speak to everyone who was experiencing the generation gap; and then almost drowned in a licensing binge and flood of tchotchkes. Schulz said yes to everything, no matter how kitschy — toys, cards, books, sweatshirts — until even his fans began to complain he was selling out.

What saved “Peanuts,” Michaelis suggests, was the elevation of Snoopy into a main character in the late ’60s, and the way his boundless, almost surreal fantasy life frequently took over the strip, which at the same time was being pared down to a visual minimum: a scarf, a helmet, a doghouse indicated by just a few horizontal lines. Another thing that didn’t hurt was the gradual souring of the Schulz marriage. The family was living in Southern California by now, on a sort of private Disneyland with its own stables and miniature golf course and the ice rink (where Schulz like to hold court in the Warm Puppy snack bar) nearby. Despite his success, Schulz was prickly, lonely, depressed and increasingly subject to panic attacks; Joyce felt overburdened and underappreciated. Their feuds, their long bouts of coldness, inspired some of the most Thurber-like stretches of “Peanuts” — the strips where Charlie and Lucy seem to be locked in the eternal struggle of male and female, with the latter always wielding the upper hand.

As Schulz grew into middle age, he filled out, stopped wearing his hair in a buzz cut and discovered that he was actually attractive to women. He had one full-fledged affair, and in 1973, a year or so after divorcing Joyce, he married Elizabeth Jean Forsyth, 16 years his junior, whom he had met — where else? — at the ice rink. This second marriage was happier, in large part because Jeannie, as she was known, saw it her job to make it so. Schulz was often moody and withdrawn nevertheless, and was also compulsively flirty. The evidence suggests that his was essentially an arrested sensibility, locked in adolescent longing and self-absorption. But for a certain kind of artist this is not such a bad thing. Kipling and P. G. Wodehouse suffered, or benefited, from much the same condition: like Schulz, they were truly happy only when transported by their work. Schulz said once that if it weren’t for cartooning he’d be dead, and indeed he died within days of resigning from the strip because of ill health.

In another way, though, Schulz’s is a classic American story: the lonely, misunderstood genius who clings to his dream, finds riches and fame, and discovers that they don’t make him happy after all. He was like Gatsby or Citizen Kane. That he chose the comic strip as his medium links him, on the one hand, to such gifted, pioneering and equally misunderstood figures as Winsor McCay, creator of Little Nemo, and Krazy Kat’s George Herriman; and on the other, to current practitioners like R. Crumb, Chris Ware and the graphic novelist who goes by the name Seth, who is currently editing “The Complete Peanuts” for Fantagraphics (and who illustrated this review). These younger artists have a far warier relationship to popular success than Schulz did, but they share his themes of loneliness, of loss, of being unable to connect. Ware’s Jimmy Corrigan is in many ways Charlie Brown grown, while still an adolescent, to a premature old age. And Crumb offers a window onto what Schulz might have been like if only he had let the anger out.

Michaelis, who had the cooperation of the Schulz family, tells this story brightly and engagingly, if not always succinctly and without repetition. There is rather less than one might expect about the rich tradition of newspaper comics that spawned Schulz, and more than some readers might prefer about, for example, the patterns of metastasis in cervical cancer (the disease that killed Schulz’s mother). Throughout the book Michaelis maintains affection for his subject without losing sight of how exasperating and narcissistic he could be. And the smartest thing he has done is to pepper his pages with actual strips from “Peanuts,” dozens of them, usually without comment or footnote or even date: an appropriate strip just turns up in the middle of a paragraph that happens to be talking about something similar. Sometimes it’s an illustration, sometimes a wry comment. The effect is to continually remind us of why Schulz matters in the first place, and of the potential not just for humor but for feeling and eloquence in the odd and oddly persistent art form where he made his home.

Charles McGrath, formerly the editor of the Book Review, is a writer at large for The Times.
Illustration by Seth.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Marcel Marceau, 1923 - 2007

NY TIMES: Marcel Marceau, Renowned Mime, Dies at 84
By JAMES F. CLARITY and ERIC PACE
Published: September 24, 2007


Marcel Marceau, the wiry French mime who mostly performed as the chalk-faced Bip and did much to revive the art of pantomime, died Saturday in France. He was 84.

He died in the southwestern French town of Cahors, where he had moved after retiring from the stage in 2005, said Alexander Neander, a former student and personal assistant.

Since 1946, when he began his silent career, Mr. Marceau had performed an average of 200 shows a year, most of them abroad, where he was more highly praised than in his native France. His repertory changed little over the decades, but he played to full houses in the United States, Germany and other European countries, Australia and Japan, where he was deemed “a national treasure.”

“At a time when two generations of younger mime artists have rebelled against his brand of classical mime,” Anna Kisselgoff wrote in The New York Times in 1999, “Mr. Marceau remains a model, not a fossil. Anyone who has never seen the staples of the repertory with which Mr. Marceau has toured the United States since 1955 should beat a path” to his performances.

His acts included “Creation,” in which the start of the world began with a fluttering of his long fingers as fish and birds, and ended with Adam and Eve skulking out of Eden. In “Youth, Maturity, Old Age and Death,” he depicted in four minutes the joy and pathos of life more succinctly and dramatically than many novelists and playwrights were able to do in hundreds of pages. He began folded into himself, an embryo, then strutted boldly, then crumpled and knotted himself into shrunken death.

“The Tribunal” cast him as the accused, judge, jury and executioner. In another sketch, one of his hands played evil, the other good, twisting and struggling until they combined in prayer. In other staple sketches, he conjured an invisible wind to struggle against and an invisible cage to hold him in as he fought to escape.

It was during the New York theater season of 1955-6 that Mr. Marceau became, in a phrase he disliked, an international success. After a tour of Canada, he appeared in a program titled “An Evening of Pantomime” that opened Off Broadway, at the Phoenix Theater. The critics raved. Walter Kerr, writing in The New York Herald Tribune, said Mr. Marceau “should be snared with one of his own imaginary butterfly nets and trapped inside the proscenium of an American theater for the entire season, and perhaps for the rest of his natural life.”

The show was such a hit that it moved to a Broadway theater, the Ethel Barrymore, and went on to tour the country. Mr. Marceau would return to the United States every year for most of his career.

In 1970 the French government named him a Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur for cultural affairs. And in 1978 Jacques Chirac, then the mayor of Paris, established a subsidy for Mr. Marceau’s school for mimes, which went on to produce hundreds of performers.

Yesterday President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said of Mr. Marceau’s death, “France loses one of its most eminent ambassadors.”

Mr. Marceau, who could be voluble in interviews, once said of his pantomime: “Mostly I think of human situations for my work, not local mannerisms. There is no French way of laughing and no American way of crying. My subjects try to reveal the fundamental essences of humanity.”

A slender man who was 5 feet 9 inches tall, Mr. Marceau had just started out in mime when he invented Bip, the character who wore a stovepipe hat with a red flower. He was inspired in part by Italian commedia dell’arte, with the name playing off Pip in Dickens’s “Great Expectations.”

“This character Bip is a funny, sad fellow,” Mr. Marceau once observed, “and things are always happening to him that could happen to anybody. Because he speaks with the gestures and the movement of the body, everyone knows what is happening to him, and he is popular everywhere — Scandinavia, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Austria, wherever he has traveled.”

Mr. Marceau also painted; sketched lithographs, many of Bip; and wrote children’s books. He appeared in several movies, including “Barbarella” with Jane Fonda. He spoke just once in his performing career, in Mel Brooks’s “Silent Movie.” He said, “No.”

Marcel Marceau was born Marcel Mangel, of Jewish parents in Strasbourg, France, on March 22, 1923. His father, a butcher, was deported to a concentration camp by the Germans in 1944 and never returned. Marcel moved to Paris, with a new surname and false identification papers. Until the liberation of Paris, he worked in the Resistance, hiding Jewish children from the Gestapo and the French police, who helped round up Jews for deportation.

In 1944 he joined the French army, and the next year, while stationed in Germany, he gave his first public performance as a mime for an audience of some 3,000 American soldiers.

After the war Mr. Marceau attended the acting school run by Charles Dullin at the School of Dramatic Art in the Sarah Bernhardt Theater in Paris. He planned to become a speaking actor, but he studied under Etienne Decroux, a master of miming, who had taught the noted mime Jean-Louis Barrault. Mr. Barrault invited Mr. Marceau to join his theater company, and the rest was silence.

Success followed quickly. In 1949 Mr. Marceau formed his own company, and his reputation grew around Europe. His relationship with French audiences was more complicated. In 1955 at the prestigious Olympia Theater in Paris, performing on a bill between the young crooner Charles Aznavour and the jazz saxophonist Sidney Bechet, he received “the most caustic reception of his career,” according to the newspaper Liberation. The audience chatted during his performance. “He never understood the relative coldness of the French toward him,” the paper said.

But that year he toured North America and was lionized, giving rise to his worldwide popularity and even leading to a greater degree of esteem in his native France. In Hollywood he played to acclaim for six weeks and was proud that Charles Laughton, Marlon Brando, Gary Cooper and the Marx Brothers came to see him. Harpo Marx, also a silent performer, became a friend.

Mr. Marceau, who once compared himself to Picasso as an artist of enduring vitality, would continue touring internationally into his 80s, missing few performances and spending his off time with his family in a 300-year-old house outside Paris. He had two sons, Michel and Baptiste, by his first marriage, to Huguette Mallet, which ended in divorce. His second marriage, to Ella Jaroszewicz, also ended in divorce. He had two daughters, Camille and Aurélia, by his third wife, Anne Sicco, whom he later divorced. All four children survive him.

Up until his retirement in 2005, he continued to defend his art form and his contribution to it.

“Of course, I have had many imitators,” he said in a 1999 interview with The South China Morning Post. “And I am aware of the jokes about mime. But if you love your art, you just do it. Time will judge me.”

Katrin Bennhold contributed reporting from Paris and Campbell Robertson from New York. James F. Clarity, a longtime reporter for The Times, died last week.

*************************************************************************************

Best posthumous comment (origin unknown): "I wonder what his last gesture was."

Monsieur Marceau appeared right here in California some time ago, and even in his seventies, his performance was as vivid and assured as I'm sure it was fifty years earlier.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, August 12, 2007

The Violent Legacy Of Bonnie And Clyde


NY TIMES: Two Outlaws, Blasting Holes in the Screen
By A. O. SCOTT - Published: August 12, 2007

THE story of “Bonnie and Clyde” has been told so many times that it has acquired the patina of legend. It’s the kind of historical fable that circulates to explain how the world once was and how it came to be the way it is now: a morality tale in which the wild energies of youth defeat the stale certainties of age, and freedom triumphs over repression.

I’m not talking about the adventures of the actual Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, who robbed and shot their way through Texas, Oklahoma and adjacent states in the bad old days of the Great Depression. Their exploits have been chronicled in books, ballads and motion pictures, never more famously than in the movie named after them, which first opened in New York 40 years ago this month. The notoriety of “Bonnie and Clyde,” directed by Arthur Penn from a long-gestating script by David Newman and Robert Benton and produced by Warren Beatty, who also played Clyde, has long since eclipsed that of its real-life models.

The ups and downs of the movie’s early fortunes have become a touchstone and a parable, a crucial episode in the entwined histories of Hollywood, American film criticism and postmodern popular culture. “Bonnie and Clyde” was a scandal and a sensation largely because it seemed to introduce a new kind of violence into movies. Its brutality was raw and immediate, yet at the same time its scenes of mayhem were choreographed with a formal panache that was almost gleeful.

Their horror was undercut by jaunty, rambunctious humor and by the skittering banjo music of the soundtrack. The final shootout, in which Mr. Beatty and Faye Dunaway’s bodies twitch and writhe amid a storm of gunfire (not long after their characters have successfully made love for the first time), was both awful and ecstatic, an orgy of blood and bullets. The filmmakers seemed less interested in the moral weight of violence than in its aesthetic impact. The killings were alluring and gruesome; that the movie was so much fun may well have been the most disturbing thing about it.

As we endure another phase in the never-ending argument about movie violence — renewed by the recent popularity of extremely brutal horror films like the “Saw” and “Hostel” cycles; made momentarily acute by the Virginia Tech massacre last spring; forever hovering around the edges of dinner-table conversations and political campaigns — it’s worth re-examining this legend to see if it has anything left to teach us.

“Bonnie and Clyde” had its North American premiere on Aug. 4, 1967, at the Montreal film festival. When it opened in New York a short time later, the initial critical reception ranged from dismissal to outright execration. Leading the charge was Bosley Crowther, chief film critic of The New York Times, who attacked “Bonnie and Clyde” as “a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy.” Crowther’s short, merciless review — the film’s “blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is lacking in taste” — was followed by a Sunday column that made the case at greater length.

The most celebrated, and consequential, brief for the defense was longer still. In more than 9,000 words in the Oct. 21 issue of The New Yorker, Pauline Kael, then a freelance contributor, hailed “Bonnie and Clyde” as “the most excitingly American movie since ‘The Manchurian Candidate,’ ” which had come out five years earlier. Hardly an unqualified rave (“probably part of the discomfort that people feel about ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ grows out of its compromises and its failures,” she noted), Kael’s article instead made a sustained argument for the film’s status as a cultural event.

“ ‘Bonnie and Clyde,’ ” she wrote, “brings into the almost frighteningly public world of movies things that people have been feeling and saying and writing about. And once something is said or done on the screens of the world, it can never again belong to a minority, never again be the private possession of an educated, or ‘knowing’ group. But even for that group there is an excitement in hearing its own private thoughts expressed out loud and in seeing something of its own sensibility become part of our common culture.”

And so “Bonnie and Clyde” was the somewhat improbable vehicle — a period picture made, with some reluctance, by a major movie studio (Warner Brothers) at the insistence of an ambitious young movie star — by which a new mode of expression and a new set of values entered the cultural mainstream. The movie was quickly marked as a battlefield in an epochal struggle: between “the kids” and their stodgy, respectable elders, between the hip and the square.

According to the standard accounts, now duly taught in classrooms and rehearsed around baby-boom Elderhostel campfires, hip triumphed. By the beginning of 1968 the squares had been routed. Time magazine, which had run a dismissive review, put Bonnie and Clyde, as rendered by Robert Rauschenberg, on its Dec. 8 cover, accompanying an essay by Stefan Kanfer called “The New Cinema: Violence ... Sex ... Art.”

Crowther, after 27 years at The Times, retired. His place was taken by Renata Adler, a writer for The New Yorker who was not yet 30. Kael, already a contentious and influential figure in the world of movie criticism, joined the staff of The New Yorker, where for the next quarter-century she would reign as the most imitated and argued-about film reviewer in the English-speaking world. “Bonnie and Clyde” was nominated for 10 Academy Awards.

That it won only two — best supporting actress for Estelle Parsons and best cinematography for Burnett Guffey — may have helped to assure its enduring cachet. Too complete a victory would have led to a loss of credibility. Hip is, by definition, an oppositional stance that the embrace of the establishment can only compromise.

The products of the liberal Hollywood establishment — the earnest, socially responsible dramas that Crowther frequently championed and that Kael in particular despised — did not retreat in the face of a generational challenge mounted by “Bonnie and Clyde” (and also, less noisily, by “The Graduate”). The big Oscar winners that year were “In the Heat of the Night” and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” both movies about gray-haired, socially empowered white men whose prejudices are demolished by Sidney Poitier, at the time Hollywood’s all-purpose answer to America’s race problem.

At the height of the ’60s, the solution proposed by those movies — that basically decent men could work toward mutual understanding and respect — might have seemed wishful at best. The Oscar ceremonies took place on April 10, 1968, a week after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The summer before, “Bonnie and Clyde” had opened against a backdrop of rioting in Newark and Detroit. Part of the film’s mythology has been a product of that coincidence. American cities were burning, the war in Vietnam and the protests against it were escalating, and a new revolutionary consciousness was in the air, somehow shared by college students and third-world guerrillas, by artists and the urban poor.

As J. Hoberman notes in “The Dream Life,” his revisionist history of the ’60s and its movies, “ ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ popularized the attitude Tom Wolfe would derisively call ‘Radical Chic.’ ” Its hero and heroine exist in a state of vague solidarity with the poor and destitute — the banks they rob are the real enemies of the people, and they are admired by hard-luck farmers and sharecroppers — but they themselves are much too glamorous to pass as members of the oppressed masses.

They are not fighting injustice so much as they are having fun, enjoying the prerogatives of outlaw fame. They exist in a kind of anarchic utopia where the pursuit of kicks is imagined to be inherently political. In this universe the usual ethical justifications of violent action are stripped away, but the aura of righteousness somehow remains.

When pressed by his brother, Buck, about the killing of a bank employee — “It was him or you, right?” — Clyde mumbles that he had to do it, even though the audience knows there was no real question of self-defense. Later, Bonnie’s humiliation of a Texas ranger is justified because the ranger is such a brutal, reactionary authority figure. His subsequent pursuit of the criminals, in contrast, is treated as sadistic and irrational.

But the Barrow gang’s own sadism is evident when the outlaws kidnap a nervous undertaker and his girlfriend after stealing the man’s car. The couple turns out to be the very embodiment of square: He complains about his hamburger; she reveals that she lied to him about her age. These people are along for the ride, but they just don’t get it.

Not Getting It has been, ever since, the accusation leveled against critics of a certain kind of movie violence by its defenders. The easiest way to attack movie violence is to warn of its real-world consequences, to worry that someone will imitate what is seen on screen. The symmetrically literal-minded response is that because violence already exists in the world, refusing to show it in movies would be dishonest.

Neither of these positions quite acknowledges the particularity of cinematic violence, which is not the same as what it depicts. Even the most bloodthirsty moviegoer would be likely to leave a real fusillade like the one at the end of “Bonnie and Clyde” sickened and traumatized, rather than thrilled. The particular charge of that scene, and others like it, is that it tries to push the pretense — the art — as close to trauma as possible and to make the appreciation of that art its point. Missing the point is what marks you as square.

The Hollywood and critical establishments, both of them in the early stages of a generational upheaval, did not miss the point for long. “Bonnie and Clyde” was hardly the first picture to push against the limits of what was conventionally seen as good taste. But it conducted its assault in the name of a higher form of taste, fusing the bravado of youth with the prestige of art. It legitimized the connoisseurship of violence, which does not present itself as an appetite for cheap thrills, but rather as a taste for the finer things.

Thus the geysers of blood at the end of Sam Peckinpah’s “Wild Bunch” two years later could be savored for the director’s visual and formal audacity. The unflinching brutalities of ’70s movies like “The Godfather” and “Chinatown” became hallmarks of the honesty and daring of the New Hollywood. (At the same time the harsh, righteous vengeance unleashed in the “Dirty Harry” and “Death Wish” movies appalled many of the same critics who dug the radical chic of “Bonnie and Clyde.”)

By the 1990s, as a newer generation of filmmakers began to fetishize the glories of post-“Bonnie and Clyde” American cinema, stylized, tongue-in-cheek violence became a sign of rebellious independence. The ear-slicing sequence in Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” seemed like a deliberate attempt to replicate the kind of shock produced by the wildest moments in “Bonnie and Clyde,” but without the pretense of political or social relevance. This year the best-picture Oscar went to “The Departed,” a movie whose jolting, cold-blooded killings occasioned little objection.

And to raise objections at this point is, perhaps, worse than square. It seems philistine. But I can’t escape the feeling that, just as it has become easier since “Bonnie and Clyde” to accept violence in movies, and more acceptable to enjoy it, it has become harder to talk seriously about the ethics and politics of that violence. The link between real and pretend violence has been so completely severed that some of the ability of movies to offer a critical perspective — to elicit thought as well as gasps and chuckles — has been lost. We’ve become pretty comfortable watching the infliction of pain, and quick to laugh it off.

Don’t misunderstand: I still get a kick out of “Bonnie and Clyde,” but it’s accompanied by a twinge of unease, by the suspicion that, in some ways that matter and that have become too easy to dismiss, Bosley Crowther was right.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 20, 2007

My Favorite Fantasy Writer Passes Away

NY TIMES: Lloyd Alexander, Author of Fantasy Novels, Is Dead at 83
By MARGALIT FOX
Published: May 19, 2007

Lloyd Alexander, a National Book Award-winning author of fantasy novels for young people whose work was noted for its romantic locales, complex characters and barely concealed allegorical depictions of the struggle against tyranny, died on Thursday at his home in Drexel Hill, Pa. He was 83.

The cause was cancer, according to Mr. Alexander’s literary agency, Brandt & Hochman, which announced the death.

The author of more than 40 books, Mr. Alexander was best known for the five novels collectively called “The Prydain Chronicles,” published by Holt, Rinehart & Winston between 1964 and 1968. Set in a kingdom inspired by traditional Welsh mythology, the novels tell the story of Taran, a youth so humble he is not even a pig keeper but merely an assistant pig keeper. (The pig, it should be pointed out, is an oracular pig.)

Writing in The New York Times Book Review in 1966, the noted children’s author Jean Fritz reviewed the first three Prydain novels — “The Book of Three (1964), “The Black Cauldron” (1965) and “The Castle of Llyr” (1966) — together, calling them “fantasy in the great tradition.” She added: “Each of the books is a complete chronicle in its own right — exciting, highly imaginative and sometimes profound.”

Mr. Alexander won two National Book Awards. The first was for “The Marvelous Misadventures of Sebastian” (Dutton, 1970), the story of a young man, a princess and their flight from a repressive ruler. The second was for “Westmark” (Dutton, 1981), the first novel in a trilogy of that name, about a printer’s apprentice who falls in with a theatrical troupe.

In 1969, Mr. Alexander received a Newbery Medal from the American Library Association for “The High King” (1968), the final Prydain novel.

Lloyd Chudley Alexander was born on Jan. 30, 1924, in Philadelphia and reared in suburban Drexel Hill. Though neither of his parents cared for books, he had determined to become a writer by the time he was 15, captivated by Dickens and by the Greek and Arthurian legends that would inform his work.

He announced his career choice to his parents, who did not take it well. His father, a stockbroker, had suffered huge setbacks in the crash of 1929, and the prospect of a son scribbling in a garret did not inspire fiscal confidence. So after high school, at his parents’ insistence, Lloyd took a job as a bank messenger. The work proved useful, however, inspiring his first book, “And Let the Credit Go” (Crowell, 1955), a semiautobiographical novel for adults set partly in a bank.

After enlisting in the Army in 1943, Mr. Alexander was sent for training in Wales, where he came under the spell of the country’s brooding romanticism.

“It seemed I recognized faces from all the hero tales of my childhood,” he wrote in a memoir, “My Love Affair With Music” (Crowell, 1960). “Not until years afterwards did I realize I had been given, without my knowing, a glimpse of another enchanted kingdom.”

At war’s end, Mr. Alexander was sent to Paris to work in counterintelligence. There, he studied briefly at the Sorbonne and met his wife, Janine Denni, whom he married in 1946. She died earlier this month. Mr. Alexander is survived by five grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. His wife’s daughter, Madeleine, whom he adopted, also died before him. Information on other survivors could not be immediately confirmed.

In 1947, Mr. Alexander returned with his family to the United States, where he worked variously as a cartoonist, advertising writer, layout artist and magazine editor while publishing several novels for adults. In 1963, with his first children’s novel, “Time Cat” (Holt, Rinehart & Winston), he found his vocation. Mr. Alexander’s other books for children include the Vesper Holly series, about a spirited girl in 1870s Philadelphia.

His last children’s novel, “The Golden Dream of Carlo Chuchio,” is scheduled to be published in August by Henry Holt & Company.

For Mr. Alexander, the uses of enchantment were clear: fantasy, he often said, was a powerful way of talking about real-world injustice.

“In whatever guise — our own daily nightmares of war, intolerance, inhumanity; or the struggles of an Assistant Pig-Keeper against the Lord of Death — the problems are agonizingly familiar,” he said in his Newbery acceptance speech in 1969. “And an openness to compassion, love and mercy is as essential to us here and now as it is to any inhabitant of an imaginary kingdom.”

*************************************************************************************

A good friend of mine gave me 'The Chronicles of Pyrdain' series when I was a teenager. I didn't get around to reading them until I was in my thirties, but they held up so well, I place them alongside 'The Hobbit' as my favorite fantasy books. Now I can't help but make sure everyone within shouting distance knows about them. They're super cheap at Amazon, so pick them up for your favorite avid reader today!

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Jerry Falwell, 1933 - 2007

NY TIMES: Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority Founder, Dies at 73
By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: May 16, 2007

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the fundamentalist preacher who founded the Moral Majority and brought the language and passions of religious conservatives into the hurly-burly of American politics, died yesterday in Lynchburg, Va. He was 73.

His death was announced by Liberty University, in Lynchburg, where Mr. Falwell, its founder, was chancellor. The university said the cause had not been determined, adding that he died in a hospital after being found unconscious yesterday morning in his university office.

Mr. Falwell went from a Baptist preacher in Lynchburg to a powerful force in electoral politics, at home in both the millennial world of fundamentalist Christianity and the earthly blood sport of the political arena. As much as anyone, he helped create the religious right as a political force, defined the issues that would energize it for decades and cemented its ties to the Republican Party.

He came to prominence first as a religious broadcaster through his “Old-Time Gospel Hour” and then, in 1979, as the leader of the Moral Majority, an organization whose very name drew a vivid line in the sand of American politics. After the organization disbanded a decade later, he remained a familiar and powerful figure, supporting Republicans like George W. Bush, mobilizing conservatives and finding his way into a thicket of controversies. And he built institutions and groomed leaders — including his two sons, who will succeed him in two important positions.

Mr. Falwell grew up in a household that he described as a battleground between the forces of God and the powers of Satan. In his public life he often had to walk a line between the certitudes of fundamentalist religion, in which the word of God was absolute and inviolate, and the ambiguities of mainstream politics, in which a message warmly received at his Thomas Road Baptist Church might not play as well on “NBC Nightly News.”

As a result, he was a lightning rod for controversy and caricature. After the Sept. 11 attacks, for example, he apologized for calling Muhammad a terrorist and for suggesting that the attacks had reflected God’s judgment on a nation spiritually weakened by the American Civil Liberties Union, providers of abortion and supporters of gay rights. He was ridiculed for an article in his National Liberty Journal suggesting that Tinky Winky, a character in the “Teletubbies” children’s show, could be a hidden homosexual signal because the character was purple, had a triangle on his head and carried a handbag.

Behind the controversies was a shrewd, savvy operator with an original vision for effecting political and moral change. He rallied religious conservatives to the political arena at a time when most fundamentalists and other conservative religious leaders were inclined to stay away. And he helped pulled off what had once seemed an impossible task: uniting religious conservatives from many faiths and doctrines by emphasizing what they had in common.

He had many failures as well as successes and always remained a divisive figure, demonized on the left in much the way Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, or Jane Fonda were on the right. Even so, political experts agree he was enormously influential.

“Behind the idea of the Moral Majority was this notion that there could be a coalition of these different religious groups that all agree on abortion and homosexuality and other issues even if they never agreed on how to read the Bible or the nature of God,” said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron and an expert on religious conservatives.

“That was a real innovation,” Mr. Green continued, “And even if that’s an idea that did not completely originate with Falwell, it’s certainly an idea he developed and championed independently of others. It was a very important insight, and it’s had a huge influence on American politics.”

Seeds of Faith

Jerry Falwell was born Aug. 11, 1933, in Lynchburg. His ancestors there dated back to 1669, and his more immediate ones lived as if characters in the pageant of sin and redemption that formed his world view.

His paternal grandfather, Charles W. Falwell, embittered by the death of his wife and a favorite nephew, was a vocal and decisive atheist who refused to go to church and ridiculed those who did.

His father, Carey H. Falwell, was a flamboyant entrepreneur who opened his first grocery store when he was 22. He was soon operating 17 service stations, many with little restaurants and stores attached. He built oil storage tanks and owned an oil company and in 1927 began American Bus Lines, supplying old battery-operated movie projectors to show Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy movies to riders.

Later, he turned to bootlegging liquor, among other enterprises. His best-known business was the Merry Garden Dance Hall and Dining Room, high on a Virginia hilltop, which became the center of Virginia’s swing society. Carey Falwell, too, had no use for religion. He was left shaken forever by an episode in which he shot his brother to death. He became a heavy drinker and died of liver disease at the age of 55.

On the other hand, Mr. Falwell’s mother, the former Helen Beasley, was deeply religious. Every Sunday when he awoke, Mr. Falwell recalled, Charles Fuller’s “Old-Fashioned Revival Hour” was ringing out from the radio.

“It was my mother who planted the seeds of faith in me from the moment I was born,” Mr. Falwell said in his autobiography, “Strength for the Journey.”

What he saw in his own family, he said, was the battle between God and the Enemy, the malignant force just as real and just as determined to produce evil as God is to create good. It was the Enemy who destroyed his father and grandfather, he said, and God whose grace ennobled his mother.

In his telling, Mr. Falwell chose God on Jan. 20, 1952, when he was 18. It was an experience, he said, not of blinding lights and heavenly voices. “God came quietly into Mom’s kitchen” and answered her prayers, he said.

He declared his acceptance of Christ that night at the Park Avenue Baptist Church in Lynchburg, on an evening in which he also first saw the woman who would become his wife, the church pianist, Macel Pate. The next day he bought a Bible, a Bible dictionary and James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Two months later, he decided he wanted to become a minister and spread the word.

He transferred from Lynchburg College, where he had hoped to study mechanical engineering, to Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Mo. Returning home, he decided to start his own church, an experience that melded his mother’s faith with his father’s entrepreneurial instincts. He started the Thomas Road Baptist Church with $1,000 and an initial congregation of 35 adults and their families in an abandoned building that had housed the Donald Duck Bottling Company.

Mr. Falwell began building his church in 1956 much as he would build a political movement. Carrying a yellow legal pad and a Bible, he set out to visit 100 homes a day, knocking on doors to seek members. Soon after the church opened, he began a half-hour daily radio broadcast. Six months later, he broadcast his first televised version of the “Old-Time Gospel Hour.” He was struck by how effective the radio and television broadcasts were in drawing new members.

“Television made me a kind of instant celebrity,” he wrote. “People were fascinated that they could see and hear me preach that same night in person.” On the church’s first anniversary, in 1957, 864 people showed up to worship, and he felt he was on his way. The church grew. Anticipating the megachurches to come, it morphed into a social service dynamo, with a home for alcoholics, a burgeoning Christian Academy, summer camps and worldwide missions.

In 1971, Mr. Falwell established Liberty University, originally Liberty Baptist College, with the intent of making it a national university for fundamentalist Christians. The same year, when the “Old-Time Gospel Hour” began broadcasting nationally from his church’s sanctuary, he gained a national audience at a time when televised evangelism was exploding.

Political Action

There were reversals as well. A lawsuit in July 1973 by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission accused the church of “fraud and deceit” and “gross insolvency” in the selling of $6.6 million worth of bonds for church expansion and services. The charges were dropped a month later after a United States District Court found that there had been no intentional wrongdoing.

As the cultural passions and transformations of the 1960s and ‘70s swept the nation, Mr. Falwell, like many religious leaders, struggled with what role to play. He saw ministers joining the civil rights movement and was unimpressed.

“Preachers are not called to be politicians, but soul winners,” he said in a sermon titled “Ministers and Marchers” in March 1964. “If as much effort could be put into winning people to Jesus across the land as is being exerted in the present civil rights movement, America would be turned upside down for God.”

His position reflected his opposition at the time to the civil rights movement and his loyalty to a long fundamentalist tradition in which the faithful believed their role was to cater to the soul, not to the transitory tides of politics.

But Mr. Falwell said the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade, produced an enormous change in him. Soon he began preaching against the ruling and calling for Christians to become involved in political action.

In 1977, he supported the singer Anita Bryant’s efforts to repeal an ordinance granting equal rights to gay men and lesbians in Dade County, Fla. The next year, he played a similar role in California. He urged churches to register voters and for religious conservatives to campaign for candidates who supported their positions. He organized “I Love America” rallies, blending patriotism and conservative values; students at Liberty University produced their own upbeat presentations around the country.

As he told it, at a meeting of conservatives in his office in 1979, Paul M. Weyrich, the commentator and activist, said to him: “Jerry, there is in America a moral majority that agrees about the basic issues. But they aren’t organized.”

To Mr. Falwell, that suggested a movement encompassing more than just evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. He envisioned one that would also include other Protestants, Catholics, Jews, even atheists, all with a similar agenda on abortion, gay rights, patriotism and moral values.

“I was convinced,” he wrote, “that there was a ‘moral majority’ out there among these more than 200 million Americans sufficient in number to turn back the flood tide of moral permissiveness, family breakdown and general capitulation to evil and to foreign policies such as Marxism-Leninism.”

The movement, he said, would be pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-moral and pro-American — precisely the kind of broad agenda that could unite conservatives of different faiths and backgrounds. His agenda also included fervent support for Israel, even if his relations with Jews were often rocky; in 1999, for example, he apologized for saying that the Antichrist was probably alive and if so would be in the form of a male Jew.

The Moral Majority, he said, had a basic goal in building its membership: “Get them saved, baptized and registered.” He held up a Bible at political rallies, telling followers: “If a man stands by this book, vote for him. If he doesn’t, don’t.” Within three years of the Moral Majority’s founding, he boasted of a $10 million budget, 100,000 trained clergymen and several million volunteers.

In 1980, the Moral Majority was credited with playing a role in the election of Ronald Reagan and in dozens of Congressional races. The election gave resounding evidence of the potential of religious conservatives in politics. They themselves were electrified by their influence, but many others were alarmed, fearing an intolerant movement of lockstep zealots voting en masse for the preachers’ designated candidates.

A. Bartlett Giamatti, president of Yale University in 1981, accused the Moral Majority and other conservative groups of a “radical assault” on the nation’s political values.

“A self-proclaimed Moral Majority and its satellite of client groups, cunning in the use of a native blend of old intimidation and new technology, threaten the values” of the nation, Mr. Giamatti told Yale’s entering freshman class of 1985. He called the organization “angry at change, rigid in the application of chauvinistic slogans, absolutistic in morality.”

But many of those who defend mixing religion and politics, not all of them conservatives, say it is a form of bigotry to seek to deny religious conservatives their voice in the political process.

Mr. Falwell disbanded the Moral Majority in 1989, saying “our mission is accomplished.” But he remained a lightning rod. While running for the Republican presidential nomination against George W. Bush in 2000, Senator John McCain of Arizona characterized Mr. Falwell and the evangelist Pat Robertson as “forces of evil” and called them “agents of intolerance.” He soon apologized, but the remarks, believed to have alienated the party’s base, were seen as enormously damaging to his candidacy. The two men later reconciled. Last year, Mr. McCain delivered the commencement address at Liberty University.

For all the controversy, Mr. Falwell was often an unconvincing villain. His manner was patient and affable. His sermons had little of the white-hot menace of those of his contemporaries like Jimmy Swaggart. He shared podiums with Senator Kennedy, appeared at hostile college campuses and in 1984 spent an evening before a crowd full of hecklers at Town Hall in New York, probably not changing many minds but nevertheless expressing good will. He seemed “about as menacing as the corner grocer,” the conservative writer Joseph Sobran wrote in National Review in 1980.

Many experts say his role as a direct participant in politics may have peaked with the Moral Majority. Others, like Ralph Reed and Karl Rove, were even more successful in taking Mr. Falwell’s ideas and translating them into lasting political power and influence. But he never left the public eye, whether trying to rescue the foundering PTL ministry in the late 1980s, seeing his libel suit against Larry Flynt go to the Supreme Court or describing President Bill Clinton as an “ungodly liar.”

Culture vs. Politics

It could be argued that he affected electoral politics more than mainstream culture. The Moral Majority, for instance, began a campaign to “clean up” television programs in the 1980s, but no one viewed the initiative as a great success. After President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial, Mr. Weyrich wrote his supporters to say that maybe there was not a “moral majority” after all.

For all Mr. Falwell’s influence on the world stage, home always remained Lynchburg and his church. Last year the church moved to grand and vast new quarters in Lynchburg, with a membership of about 22,000.

Besides his wife, Macel, whom he married in 1958, Mr. Falwell is survived by two sons, Jerry Jr., of Goode, Va., who will succeed his father as Liberty University’s chancellor, and the Rev. Jonathan Falwell, of Lynchburg, who will become senior pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church; a daughter, Jeannie Savas, a surgeon, of Richmond; a fraternal twin brother, Gene, of Rustburg, Va.; and eight grandchildren.

To the end of his life, Mr. Falwell remained active at Liberty University, expanding the campus by buying surrounding land and erecting buildings. And he continued to participate in the political discourse, meeting with prospective Republican candidates for president in the 2008 campaign and inviting them to speak at Liberty.

He preached every Sunday and remained openly political in his sermons, declaring, for example, that the election of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the presidency would represent a grave threat to the country.

He surprised some critics, who felt his views on some social issues, like gay rights, had moderated over time.

But, at his core, he remained through his career what he was at the beginning: a preacher and moralist, a believer in the Bible’s literal truth, with convictions about religious and social issues rooted in his reading of Scripture.

So there was no distinction at all between his view of the political and the spiritual. “We are born into a war zone where the forces of God do battle with the forces of evil,” he wrote in his autobiography. “Sometimes we get trapped, pinned down in the crossfire. And in the heat of that noisy, distracting battle, two voices call out for us to follow. Satan wants to lead us into death. God wants to lead us into life eternal.”

Margalit Fox contributed reporting.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Maakies Comes To Television

NY TIMES: Guy Drinks. Bird Drinks. Guy Thrives. Bird Drinks.
By CHARLES McGRATH - Published: May 13, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. - IN certain New York artistic circles the cartoonist Tony Millionaire is famous for once, at the end of a very long night, having sex with a slice of pizza. This was in the mid-’90s, a period when Mr. Millionaire, who is large and striking-looking to begin with, used to favor lime-green leisure suits or a tuxedo with a bottle of vodka in the pocket. He would frequently end an evening by climbing on a table, removing his false teeth and declaring, “I am Tony Millionaire!”

The name is a pseudonym of course, though a former girlfriend used to claim it came from an Old French term meaning “owner of 1,000 serfs.” Mr. Millionaire — or Scott Richardson, as he used to be known — actually lifted it from an “I Dream of Jeannie” episode and printed it on a label for a party he attended in 1981. The tag stuck, and he now says, “If I ever hear anybody using my other name, it’s either my mother or my lawyer.”

These days Tony Millionaire is practically a brand name, attached to a syndicated weekly comic strip, “Maakies”; a series of comic books called “Sock Monkey”; the graphic novels “Uncle Gabby” and “Billy Hazelnuts”; and an animated cartoon, “The Drinky Crow Show,” which will make its first appearance on the Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim on Sunday night at 11:45. (Since Friday the episode has also been available on adultswim.com; whether there will be more depends on how this one goes over.)

Spun off from by the “Maakies” comic strip, “The Drinky Crow Show” is about an alcoholic, suicidal crow and his sidekick, a dim-witted libidinous monkey named Uncle Gabby, shipmates on a 19th-century whaling ship captained by a crusty Ahab type who happens to have a sexpot daughter. Like the strip, the cartoon is graphically elegant, done in a style reminiscent of early comics masters like Winsor McKay and Johnny Gruelle (who drew “Raggedy Ann”); the content, on the other hand, comes bubbling up from a part of the imagination that polite cartoonists lock away.

This first episode begins with a whoosh of crow vomit and ends with a squirt of bug excrement. In between there are floggings, decapitations and dismemberments, cannonballs that go right through characters, leaving perfect round holes, and one instance each of copulation between whales and between a fly and a cockroach. The hero, Drinky Crow, rescues the ship and Uncle Gabby, or half of him, anyway, with quick thinking and artistic enterprise — when he’s not blotto, that is, a condition indicated by a giant X where his eye should be and little bubbles circling his head.

This troubled, bibulous little bird is in many ways Mr. Millionaire’s alter ego and also his savior. He came up with the character in the winter of 1993, during an extremely low period in his life. He was living in New York then, and barely scraping by, as he had been since getting out of art school, by making architectural drawings of houses. But that winter his business had dwindled, and as he recalled recently: “My girlfriend said, ‘You’re not going to be able to pay the rent, are you?’ She said it would be better if I moved out, and so I was broke, sleeping on couches, begging food from friends. One night I went to this bar in Brooklyn, Six Twelve in Williamsburg, and on a napkin I started drawing a cartoon about a crow who got drunk and blew his brains out. The bartender said, ‘Every time you draw one of those, I’ll give you a beer,’ so I just kept drawing. He photocopied them, and pretty soon they became a kind of trademark for the bar. The bartender even made a Styrofoam model of Drinky Crow.”

Drinky’s fame eventually spread to The New York Press, the alternative paper, which commissioned Mr. Millionaire to do a weekly strip for $25 an installment. That in turn led to syndication and to freelance work for The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal and other mainstream publications. “That was the first time in my life I ever paid taxes, and I was a little worried that I was going to get in trouble,” he said. “But I got a good accountant, and he said, ‘Don’t worry, I’ll tell them you were homeless.’ ”

Though Mr. Millionaire has since branched out into books and television, the strip — two strips, really, one very slender one underneath the other — remains a cornerstone. “No matter what, I’ve got to get my weekly ‘Maakies’ out,” he explained. (The name is a nonsense word, chosen because Mr. Millionaire liked the way it looked; it rhymes with “car keys” pronounced with a Massachusetts accent: MAH-kees.) “That’s my soul. Without it I’d still be a bum, I’d still be drawing houses. I needed a deadline. That’s the code of the cartoonist: make the deadline.”

Among the fans of “Maakies” is Art Spiegelman, the author of “Maus.” “I really like the fact that there’s this disparity between the delicacy of the drawing and the coarseness and stupidity of the humor,” he said recently. “That goes back to a great moment in cartoon history.”

The strip also provides a window onto Mr. Millionaire’s background and influences. The shipboard setting, for example, owes something to his boyhood in Gloucester, Mass., where his maternal grandparents were both artists who frequently painted nautical themes. His grandfather also introduced him to the world of the classic Sunday comics, which often manifest themselves explicitly in Mr. Millionaire’s work, in strips, for example, that adopt the style of Mr. Gruelle, Rube Goldberg, V. T. Hamlin’s “Alley Oop.” The idea of a second strip running beneath the main one, and usually with no relation to what’s going on above, is something he borrowed from George Herriman, the creator of “Krazy Kat.”

Mr. Millionaire’s parents were both artistic too. His father was a designer, and his mother a junior high school art teacher. She forbade coloring books in the house, and when he was younger also talked him out of aspiring merely to be a commercial artist. “She said, ‘What, you want to paint pork chops on the side of cardboard boxes?’ ” he recalled, and then added, “In my mind there was never any doubt that I was going to do something artistic, and for all the hassles my parents gave me, they were always very encouraging: ‘You stupid idiot — it’s because of you it’s raining! You’re a great artist.’ ”

Mr. Millionaire, now 51, has been married for six years to the actress Becky Thyre, and they live with their two young daughters in a stucco bungalow in Pasadena, Calif. Thanks to health insurance Mr. Millionaire now has dental implants to replace the falsies. (The originals were knocked out in a car crash when he was a teenager.) And though he professes still to be a wild man of sorts, most of his boozing these days is notional, except for a few beers late at night while he works in his studio, drawing in ink with store-bought fountain pens he tweaks with a pair of needle-nose pliers.

The studio is a converted one-car garage that looks more like a consignment shop than an artist’s workroom. Some of his grandparents’ paintings hang on the wall, along with yellowing newspaper pages from the Golden Age of comics. There is a stuffed raccoon cat in the rafters, and antlers and a mangy head high on the north wall. A computer printer is hidden in an old radio cabinet, and tucked away in a corner is a scanner Mr. Millionaire uses to send his Drinky Crow drawings to the animators, who work in Transylvania.

The notion of turning “Maakies” into a cartoon occurred first to Eric Kaplan, who wrote for “Futurama” and “Malcolm in the Middle” and has lately been working on a series of full-length “Futurama” features. He said recently that because of his work in animation and production he had become interested in developing more projects that brought together striking design and unusual stories, and he heard about Mr. Millionaire from the cartoonist Peter Bagge.

Like a lot of TV people he was also aware of some Drinky Crow shorts on “Saturday Night Live” in the late ’90s. Six were made, and though only two were shown, they became legendary for their weird bleak humor. “What appealed to me about ‘Maakies’ was that it’s a distinct comedic world,” Mr. Kaplan said. “It makes you feel that you’ve gone to the well of Tony Millionaire’s imagination and let down a bucket. With the cartoon we’re going down into the same lava.”

Mr. Millionaire credits Mr. Kaplan, who wrote the script for the first “Drinky Crow” on Adult Swim for figuring out how to turn a series of four-panel cartoons into an extended narrative, and for teaching him that cartoon dialogue doesn’t always work when spoken. Mr. Kaplan says the process wasn’t as complicated as Mr. Millionaire makes it sound. “I went for a long walk with Tony, and I asked him why he was so depressed when he started drawing Drinky,” he recalled. “And I thought: ‘I can fill in a little of the psychology. He’s a frustrated romantic who’s had his heart broken. And Uncle Gabby is just a guy who wants to eat, have sex, get drunk. Drinky’s the more sensitive one.’ ”

He added: “As much as possible, we tried to take a certain way of looking things from Tony’s brain and put it on the screen. It’s a very pregnant premise — kind of in the past, kind of in the present. It’s about this world — it speaks to the horror of life.”

Getting the voices right, Mr. Millionaire said, proved to be more of a challenge than he imagined. A single actress nailed all the female parts, but they went through a couple of actors for Drinky before finally discovering one who sounded sufficiently sodden.

Even harder was getting the right look. The animation is computer generated, and originally it was too three-dimensional. “It looked like ‘Jimmy Neutron,’ ” Mr. Millionaire explained, adding that early versions of Drinky had him jumping up and down, strutting, clapping his hands. “I said: ‘No, no, no — he doesn’t do that! He has much less affect.’ ”

Eventually he and the animators devised a system whereby he took the computer-generated models and added by hand all the etchinglike details so characteristic of his work: the planks, the portholes, the texture of Gabby’s fur. “That’s why it looks like 3-D Sunday comics,” Mr. Millionaire said. “ I don’t know anything about animation, but I invented a whole new technique, Maakimation!”

Adult Swim, which has given us, among other innovations, “Saul of the Mole Men” and “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” with its talking milk shake, French fries and meat wad, does not observe the same rules as the rest of television. For one thing there are no seasons; shows come and go seemingly at random. As Nick Weidenfeld, Adult Swim’s manager of program development and a champion of “Drinky Crow,” explained recently, there are no focus groups, no pre-testing of a show. “We don’t go by the usual TV model,” he said. “For a new show, it’s more a question of: Does this feel right in terms of what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

What this means in practice is that for the time being there are no further episodes of “Drinky Crow.” The pilot will be shown Sunday night, and then by some process that seems in part mystical and in part based on viewer response, the network bigwigs will decide whether or not to order more. If the show is approved, Mr. Millionaire and Mr. Kaplan already have hundreds of new plots stored in their heads. “The ship can travel,” Mr. Millionaire explained. “It can go to Japan, it can go to the North Pole. It can sprout wings and fly to the edge of the universe if it has powerful enough rockets and the right fuel: alco-fuel.”

But what about poor Uncle Gabby, who at the end of Episode 1 is cut in half at the waist, with his spinal column dangling down like an extension cord and insects feasting on his blood? “The publisher complained that at the end of the first ‘Sock Monkey’ book, Drinky Crow burned the house down with everyone in it,” Mr. Millionaire said. “I told them, ‘It’s a cartoon!’ Next time they’ll all be fine.”

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Tragedy In Virginia

NY TIMES: 32 Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: April 17, 2007
Photos by Matt Gentry, Chuck Burton

BLACKSBURG, Va., April 16 — Thirty-two people were killed, along with a gunman, and at least 15 injured in two shooting attacks at Virginia Polytechnic Institute on Monday during three hours of horror and chaos on this sprawling campus.

The police and witnesses said some victims were executed with handguns while other students were hurt jumping from upper-story windows of the classroom building where most of the killings occurred. After the second round of killings, the gunman killed himself, the police said.

It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history and came nearly eight years to the day after 13 people died at Columbine High School in Colorado at the hands of two disaffected students who then killed themselves.

As of Monday evening, only one of the Virginia Tech victims had been officially identified. Police officials said they were not yet ready to identify the gunman or even say whether one person was behind both attacks, which wreaked devastation on this campus of 36,000 students, faculty members and staff.

Federal law enforcement officials in Washington said the gunman might have been a young Asian man who recently arrived in the United States. A university spokeswoman, Jenn Lazenby, could not confirm that report but said the university was looking into whether two bomb threats at the campus, — one last Friday, the other earlier this month — might be related to the shootings.

The university’s president, Charles W. Steger, expressed his “horror and disbelief and sorrow” at what he described as a tragedy of monumental proportions. But questions were immediately raised about whether university officials had responded adequately to the shootings.

There was a two-hour gap between the first shootings, when two people were killed, and the second, when a gunman stalked through the halls of an engineering building across campus, shooting at professors and students in classrooms and hallways, firing dozens of rounds and killing 30. Officials said he then shot himself so badly in the face that he could not be identified.

The university did not send a campuswide alert until the second attack had begun, even though the gunman in the first had not been apprehended.

Mr. Steger defended the decision not to shut down or evacuate the campus after the first shootings, saying officials had believed the first attack was a self-contained event, which the campus police believed was a “domestic” dispute.

“We had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur,” he said.

President Bush sent his condolences to the families of the victims and the university community. “Schools should be places of sanctuary and safety and learning,” Mr. Bush said. “When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.”

The Virginia Tech attacks started early in the morning, with a call to the police at 7:15 from West Ambler Johnston Hall, a 900-student freshman dormitory, as students were getting ready for classes or were on their way there.

Students said a gunman had gone room to room looking for his ex-girlfriend. He killed two people, a senior identified as Ryan Clark, from Augusta, Ga., and a freshman identified by other students on her floor as Emily Hilscher.

The shootings at the engineering building, Norris Hall, began about 9:45.

[Prof. Liviu Librescu and Prof. Kevin Granata were among the victims there, Ishwar K. Puri, the head of the engineering science and mechanics department, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.]

One student described barricading himself in a classroom there with other students and hearing dozens of gunshots nearby. Someone tried to force his way into the classroom and fired two shots through the door that did not hit anyone, the student said.

Scott L. Hendricks, an associate professor of engineering, was in his office on the third floor when he heard 40 to 50 shots from what sounded like the second floor. Mr. Hendricks said he had called 911, but the police were already on the way.

The police surrounded the building and he barricaded the door to his office. After about an hour, the police broke down his door and ordered him to flee.

“When I left, I was one of the last to leave,” Mr. Hendricks said. “I had no idea of the magnitude of the event.”

According to the college newspaper, The Collegiate Times, many of the deaths took place in a German class in Norris Hall.

“He was just a normal looking kid, Asian, but he had on a Boy Scout type outfit,” one student in the class, Erin Sheehan, told the newspaper. “He wore a tan button-up vest and this black vest — maybe it was for ammo or something.”

Ms. Sheehan added: “I saw bullets hit people’s bodies. There was blood everywhere. People in the class were passed out, I don’t know maybe from shock from the pain. But I was one of only four that made it out of that classroom. The rest were dead or injured.”

Heavily armed local and state police officers swarmed onto campus. Video clips shown on local stations showed them with rifles at the ready as students ran or sought cover and a freakish snow swirled in heavy winds. The police evacuated students and faculty members, taking many of them to local hotels. A Montgomery County school official said all schools throughout the county were being shut down.

Many parents and students questioned the university’s response to the two fatal shootings in Ambler Johnston Hall, suggesting that more aggressive action could have prevented the later and deadlier attack.

“As a parent, I am totally outraged,” said Fran Bernhards of Sterling, Va., whose daughter Kirsten attends Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, as it is formally known. “I would like to know why the university did not immediately shut down.”

Kirsten Bernhards, 18, said she and countless other students had no idea that a shooting had occurred when she left her dorm room in O’Shaughnessy Hall shortly before 10 a.m., more than two hours after the first shootings.

“I was leaving for my 10:10 film class,” she said. “I had just locked the door and my neighbor said, ‘Did you check your e-mail?’ ”

The university had, a few minutes earlier, sent out a bulletin warning students about an apparent gunman. But few students seemed to have any sense of urgency.

The university’s first bulletin warned students to be “cautious.” Then, 20 minutes later, at 9:50, a second e-mail warning was sent, saying a gunman was “loose on campus” and telling students to stay in buildings and away from windows. At 10:16, a final message said classes were canceled and advised everyone on campus to stay where they were and lock their doors.

Ms. Bernhards recalled walking toward her class, preoccupied with an upcoming exam and listening to music on her iPod. On the way, she said, she heard loud cracks, and only later concluded that they had been gunshots from the second round of shootings. But even at that point, many students were walking around the campus with little sense of alarm.

It was only when Ms. Bernhards got close to Norris Hall, the second of two buildings where the shootings took place, that she realized something was wrong.

“I looked up and I saw at least 10 guards with assault rifles aiming at the main entrance of Norris,” she recalled.

The Virginia Tech police chief, Wendell Flinchum, defended the university’s decision to keep the campus open after the first shootings, saying the information at the time indicated that it was an isolated event and that the attacker had left campus.

At an evening news conference, Chief Flinchum would not say that the same gunman was responsible for the shootings in the dormitory and the classrooms. He said he was awaiting ballistics tests and other laboratory results until declaring that the same person carried out both attacks.

He said accounts from students at the dorm had led the police to a “person of interest” who knew one or both of the victims there. The police were interviewing him off campus at the time of the shootings at Norris Hall. Chief Flinchum said officers had not arrested the man.

“You can second-guess all day,” he said. “We acted on the best information we had. We can’t have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year.”

Classroom buildings are not locked and dormitories are open throughout the day but require a key card for entry at night, university officials said.

Chief Flinchum confirmed that police found some of the Norris Hall classroom doors chained shut from the inside, which is not a normal practice. Some of the people hurt there were injured leaping from windows to escape.

Virginia imposes few restrictions on the purchase of handguns and no requirement for any kind of licensing or training. The state does limit handgun purchases to one per month to discourage bulk buying and resale, state officials said.

Once a person had passed the required background check, state law requires that law enforcement officers issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies. However, no regulations and no background checks are required for purchase of weapons at a Virginia gun show.

“Virginia’s gun laws are some of the weakest state laws in the country,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “And where there have been attempts to make some changes, a backdoor always opens to get around the changes, like the easy access at gun shows.”

Students are not allowed to have guns on the campus.

At Ambler Johnston Hall, where the first shootings took place, many if not most students had left and those who remained stayed close to their rooms by late afternoon.

Mr. Clark, the senior who was shot in the dorm, was a resident adviser who went by the nickname Stack on Facebook.com, was well liked and was a member of the university’s marching band, the Marching Virginians, students said. “He was a cool guy,” said one fourth-floor resident.

The shootings unfolded in an age of instant messaging, cellphone cameras, blogs and social networking sites like Facebook. As the hours passed, students who were locked in their classrooms and dormitories passed on news and rumors.

In one cellphone video shown repeatedly on television networks, the sound of dozens of shots can be heard and students can be seen running from Norris Hall.

The student who made the video, Jamal Albarghouti, a graduate student, said he was already on edge because of two bomb threats on campus last week. “I knew this was something way more serious,” he told CNN.

The shooting was the second in the past year that forced officials to issue an alert to the campus.

In August of 2006, an escaped jail inmate shot and killed a deputy sheriff and an unarmed security guard at a nearby hospital before the police caught him in the woods near the university. The capture ended a manhunt that led to the cancellation of the first day of classes at Virginia Tech and shut down most businesses and municipal buildings in Blacksburg. The defendant, William Morva, is facing capital murder charges.

The atmosphere on campus was desolate and preternaturally quiet by Monday afternoon. Students gathered in small groups, some crying, some talking quietly and others consoling each other.

Up until today, the deadliest campus shooting in United States history was in 1966 at the University of Texas, where Charles Whitman climbed to the 28th-floor observation deck of a clock tower and opened fire, killing 16 people before he was shot and killed by the police. In the Columbine High attack in 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before killing themselves.

The single deadliest shooting in the United States came in October 1991, when George Jo Hennard crashed his pickup truck through the window of a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Tex., then shot 22 people dead and wounded at least 20 others. He shot himself in the head.


Reporting was contributed by Sarah Abruzzese, Edmund L. Andrews, Neela Banerjee, Micah Cohen, Shaila Dewan, Cate Doty, Manny Fernandez, Brenda Goodman, David Johnston, Michael Mather, Marc Santora, Amy Schoenfeld, Archie Tse and Matthew L. Wald.

*************************************************************************************

LA TIMES: EDITORIAL - Too terrible for words
In the wake of such a horrific event as the Virginia Tech shootings, a respectful silence is best. April 17, 2007

IN THE BIBLICAL Book of Job, the anguished hero is visited by three friends who attempt to comfort him by drawing airy and sententious lessons from his agonies. Of course, they end up adding to his troubles; Job endures not only the real pains of grief and sickness but the indignity of having his suffering milked for rhetorical effect.

If only it were true that Monday's mass murder on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University was the kind of tragedy that moves us to quiet reflection. In fact, the shootings that killed more than 30 people and wounded nearly 30 others occasioned a blizzard of hasty conclusions, instant position-taking and the rehashing of old arguments. For the sake of the dead, for the sake of the living, and even for the sake of honoring this grim milestone — the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history — we should remember that there are times when silence is the best response.

Events like these are almost impossible to react to sanely. A group of people you don't know have been killed in a senseless crime. Too young to have established much of a past, they've been robbed of present and future; the weight of the offense, the rotten meaninglessness of it, makes it awkward not to have something to say.

So the ghastly death toll — perhaps inflicted by one man with a pair of semiautomatic handguns — becomes an obvious argument for enhanced gun control. Or, conversely, for the right to bear arms because Virginia Tech is a "gun-free zone," and the Virginia Legislature last year killed a bill that would have allowed students to carry guns on campus.

For those who support universities' in loco parentis functions, the school's apparently unconscionable delay in alerting the student body to the presence of a gunman on campus is at the heart of the tragedy. Then there's the male-violence angle, supported by a shooter's apparent rage at an ex-girlfriend. Most pernicious of all, perhaps, is the request to put the matter "into perspective."

"I have heard many such things," Job says. "Miserable comforters are ye all." No newspaper is in a position to criticize anybody for capitalizing on tragedy or taking convenient positions. There will be time for both in the days to come. But now is a time to respect, quietly, the tears and the pain of this terrible event.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Tainted Pet Food Alert

NY TIMES: Rat Poison Found in Pet Food Linked to 14 Deaths
By KATIE ZEZIMA
Published: March 24, 2007

Rat poison has been found in pet food blamed for the deaths of 14 animals, federal and New York State officials said yesterday, but they said they were unsure how it had gotten there.

The poison, aminopterin, a rodenticide that has not been approved for use in the United States or in Canada, was found in wet food manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario and distributed under more than 90 brands, including Eukanuba, Hill’s Science Diet and Nutro Natural Choice, and under store brands including Hannaford, Wal-Mart and Winn-Dixie. (A complete list can be found at menufoods.com/recall.)

On March 16, Menu Foods recalled at least 60 million cans of food manufactured from December to March.

The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets in Albany discovered the aminopterin in the last day or so, officials said. The substance, a derivative of folic acid, was used in past decades to treat cancer and to induce abortions.

Officials said they were unsure how the poison had gotten into the food and were testing individual components to narrow the source.

“At this point, we really don’t know where it came from,” said Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, part of the Food and Drug Administration. “We haven’t ruled out sabotage. We don’t have any leads that indicate that sabotage may have been an issue, but we don’t have any theories as to how it contaminated one of the ingredients in the pet food.”

At a news conference in Toronto yesterday, the chief executive of Menu Foods, Paul K. Henderson, apologized to the owners of pets that had died or become ill from eating the contaminated food but stopped short of saying the company had been negligent.

Menu Foods has said that it first heard reports of a problem from callers in mid-February and that nine cats died as a result of subsequent company taste tests. Mr. Henderson said the company had not identified the poison in its initial testing because it was so rare.

After the tests, the company notified the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, which also did not find the aminopterin. The food was then sent to the state laboratories in Albany, part of a network of federal emergency laboratories equipped to test for rare substances in foods.

Before the aminopterin was identified, officials had been focusing on wheat gluten as a source of the toxin. They have not ruled it out as a source, they said, and are working to identify where it originated. Menu Foods executives said the company had received some of its gluten from China.

Dr. Sundlof said that the gluten involved in the recalled pet food was not used for human consumption and that the F.D.A. had no reason to believe that the substance had entered the human food supply.

He had no information on whether Menu Foods’ suppliers had provided gluten to other companies, but he said the F.D.A. had contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a precaution.

“We certainly don’t think there are any risks to public health,” he said, “but we can’t rule out the possibility.”

Several lawsuits have been filed against Menu Foods, including a $51 million class-action suit filed in Ontario on Thursday. The company would not comment on the suits.

Dawn Majerczyk of Chicago filed a class-action lawsuit after her cat, Phoenix, died of kidney failure on March 17. “I’m very angry. They killed my cat,” Ms. Majerczyk said. “They used something that kills rats on the street into the food we trusted.”

Jeff Lindholm of Montpelier, Vt., said he was confused and angry after finding out that rat poison was in the food he believes sickened his two cats, Enda and Trea. The cats are at home and receiving subcutaneous fluids, Mr. Lindholm said, but he wondered how the poison would affect their long-term health.

“There’s a certain trust that food is food and poison is poison, and it’s not supposed to get mixed in together,” Mr. Lindholm said. “It almost would have been better if it was some weird chemical or mold.”

Federal and New York officials said they were fairly certain that the number of pets affected by the tainted food would rise.

A spokesman for Procter & Gamble, which sells Iams and Eukanuba, said it had added staff members to help pet owners calling its hot lines.

Thomas W. Vickroy, a professor of veterinary toxicology at the University of Florida, said aminopterin was similar to methotrexate, a drug commonly used to treat cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. In high dosages, it causes renal failure, which is what the pets experienced after eating the food, Dr. Vickroy said.

Bob Rosenberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the National Pest Management Association, said that yesterday was the first he had heard of aminopterin. Rodenticides kept near food are typically stored in secure bait boxes, Mr. Rosenberg said, and the poison itself is a waxy block that should not easily break up or taint the food.

“I’ve been tracking these things for 20 years,” he said, “and to the best of my knowledge, there’s never been an instance of rodenticide contaminating anything in the U.S. food supply.”

Dr. Ann E. Hohenhaus, chairwoman of the department of medicine at the Animal Medical Center in Manhattan, said aminopterin was rarely found in the United States and was not referenced in many case studies or textbooks.

“We have no experience with that drug at all,” Dr. Hohenhaus said. “I have out every chemo book I own trying to understand what’s going on.”

Danny Hakim and Christopher Mason contributed reporting.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

BREAKING NEWS: Director Doesn't Have Final Cut; Studio Head Re-Edits Film

NY TIMES: Film Has Two Versions; Only One Is Julie Taymor’s
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: March 20, 2007

LOS ANGELES, March 19 — In Hollywood creative differences among moviemakers often make for more interesting results on the screen. But rarely do those battles escalate so much that a studio takes a movie away from an award-winning director.

Such is the case — for the moment — with “Across the Universe,” a $45-million psychedelic love story set to the music of the Beatles, directed by Julie Taymor, the stage and screen talent whose innovative interpretation of the Disney animated film “The Lion King” is one of the most successful modern stage musicals.

After Ms. Taymor delivered the movie to Joe Roth, the film executive whose production company, Revolution Studios, based at Sony, is making the Beatles musical, he created his own version without her agreement. And last week Mr. Roth tested his cut of the film, which is about a half-hour shorter than Ms. Taymor’s 2-hour-8-minute version.

Mr. Roth’s moves have left Ms. Taymor feeling helpless and considering taking her name off the movie, according to an individual close to the movie who would not be named because of the sensitivity of the situation. Disavowing a film is the most radical step available to a director like Ms. Taymor, who does not have final cut, one that could embarrass the studio and hurt the movie’s chances for a successful release in September.

Ms. Taymor declined to be interviewed, but issued a carefully worded statement: “My creative team and I are extremely happy about our cut and the response to it,” she wrote. “Sometimes at this stage of the Hollywood process differences of opinion arise, but in order to protect the film, I am not getting into details at this time.”

Mr. Roth, a former Disney studio chief who proclaimed his ’60’s-influenced, artist-friendly ethos in 2000 by naming his new company Revolution Studios, is himself a director, of films like “Christmas With the Kranks,” “Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise” and “Freedomland.”

He said that Ms. Taymor was overreacting to a normal Hollywood process of testing different versions of a movie, something he has done many times before, including with Michael Mann’s “Last of the Mohicans.” He called his version of “Across the Universe” “an experiment.”

“She’s a brilliant director,” he said. “She’s made a brilliant movie. This process is not anything out of the ordinary. Her reaction through her representatives might be. But her orientation is stage. It’s different if you’re making a $12-million film, or a $45-million film. No one is uncomfortable in this process, other than Julie.”

And he warned that the conflict could hurt the movie. “If you work off her hysteria, that will do the film an injustice,” he said. “Nobody wants to do that. She’s worked long and hard, and made a wonderful movie.”

A spokesman for Sony Pictures Entertainment declined to comment, saying the project was developed by Revolution.

“Across the Universe” stars Evan Rachel Wood as Lucy, an American teenager, and Jim Sturgess as Jude, a British import, who fall in love during the turbulent 1960s. The movie, set to 35 Beatles songs, seems to spring from Ms. Taymor’s experimental sandbox, combining live action with painted and three-dimensional animation and puppets, and featuring cameos by Eddie Izzard, dressed as a freakish Mr. Kite; Bono, singing “I Am the Walrus”; and Joe Cocker, singing “Come Together.”

Ms. Taymor has been editing the film for the better part of the last year, after completing the shoot in 2005. An initial release date of September 2006 was pushed off.

Mr. Roth said he had been working with Ms. Taymor on and off during nine months of editing, and that the problem was merely one of length.

Under pressure from Mr. Roth and after test screenings, Ms. Taymor trimmed the film from an initial 2 hours 20 minutes. She told associates she considered the film finished.

Fights between visionary filmmakers and studios are nothing new. Orson Welles spent most of his career fighting with studios that took away his movies, editing options and even limited his film stock. And those fights commonly focus on the running times of movies, which, as critics have noted, seem to grow inexorably longer.

But it is rare for an executive to step in and cut the movie himself. Ms. Taymor was still making her own final edits to the film when she learned several weeks ago that Mr. Roth had edited another, shorter version. That version was tested last week in Arizona, to a younger audience than the more mixed test group than saw Ms. Taymor’s cut in Los Angeles on March 8, according to an individual close to the film.

Mr. Roth, who vowed never again to allow a director final cut after the disastrous 2003 Martin Brest movie “Gigli,” said that the various versions were testing well, but that he had a responsibility to find the most successful incarnation. “It’s ‘show’ and it’s ‘business,’ ” he said.

Ms. Taymor has been showered with numerous awards, including a MacArthur “genius” grant in 1991. The stage version of “The Lion King,” which currently has nine productions worldwide, is notable for Ms. Taymor’s unusual staging and the use of mechanical masks that make the actors seem like real animals. (Mr. Roth, who ran Disney at the time, admitted to having been skeptical about the masks but later told Ms. Taymor he’d been wrong.)

Ms. Taymor has had more mixed results in Hollywood. Her bloody Shakespeare adaptation, “Titus,” bombed at the box office, taking in just $1.9 million. “Frida,” in 2002, about the artist Frida Kahlo, was successful, winning two Oscars and a moderate financial windfall.

Mr. Roth said he believed that the current tensions would be worked out, and that Ms. Taymor would find the best, final version of the film somewhere between his own and her last cut.

But those in Ms. Taymor’s camp were more skeptical, saying the director was not inclined to make any more changes. Ms. Taymor herself struck a more conciliatory note in her statement: “I only hope that we will be able to complete the film we set out to make.”

*************************************************************************************

I know this sounds harsh - no one wants to have their work altered - but:

1) Ms. Taymor didn't have final cut in her contract;
2) She was working with someone well known for not giving final cut;
3) Her films don't make very much money.

If she wanted to have the last word on the film creatively, she didn't really set herself up for that very well.

It's interesting that the focus is on running time here, as 128 minutes isn't exactly
Erich Von Stroheims's "Greed". Pacing could be the key, since poor pacing can make 100 minutes feel like a century. I haven't seen it, so there's no way to guess at what merits or flaws "Across The Universe" might have.

In some ways, she might be luckier than most usurped directors - at least Mr. Roth has filmmaking experience himself, so the odds are better that he'll try to preserve the flow and intent of the story, as opposed to simply chopping out whatever he feels might be less commercial. Conversely, I'm not a big fan of his films, so maybe she isn't, either. I'm assuming it must be fairly common for him to be this hands-on, as I don't think $45 million is a risky, out-of-control budget these days.

It's hard not to be a little suspicious of articles that play so easily into the classic "beleaguered visionary" mold. The trailers behave as if "The Boyfriend", "Tommy" and "Moulin Rouge" never happened, so that makes me skeptical, too. At the end of the day, neither the "Lion King" musical nor "Titus" were a lot of fun for me, so pushing those "Protect the art" buttons isn't as effective for me as it might be.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 03, 2007

New York Times Designer Toy Article, 2004

NY TIMES: Cult Figures
By ARTHUR LUBOW
Published: August 15, 2004

On Sept. 29, 1999, in the Wan Chai neighborhood of Hong Kong, a line of people, snaking from the street to a fourth-floor showroom, awaited admission to an exhibition of 99 customized action figures by a young designer named Michael Lau. In the combustible world of Hong Kong trends, this was something seriously new. Transforming hard-plastic, 12-inch action figures into pop-culture icons -- that was a familiar pastime for Hong Kong toy collectors. It had even become a little boring.

But Lau's grown-up toys were different. Using bodies he scavenged from dolls like G.I. Joe and molding original heads, hands and feet out of hard plastic, Lau had created skateboarders, surfers and snowboarders, decked out in baggy shorts, camouflage jackets, tentlike sweatshirts and of-the-moment sneakers, adorned with chains, earrings and tattoos, their hair in dreadlocks or pressed beneath bright-colored caps. ''Street culture and hip-hop culture and skateboard style were coming up,'' Lau explained when I met with him not long ago in Hong Kong. ''The culture included fashion, music, graffiti. It seemed really fresh. It is just like a uniform -- people in Hong Kong and Tokyo and Britain and the States all look the same.'' Sharply observed, exuberantly imaginative, Lau's collection of 99 ''Gardeners'' (named for comic-strip characters that he created the year before) looked just like the local hipsters who were looking at them, or the way those people wanted to look.

Lau's 99 Gardeners inspired other Hong Kong comic-book illustrators, graphic designers and ad-agency artists to start making their own figures. While a few Japanese cult boutiques had previously issued some limited-edition collectible toys, the Hong Kong designers engendered a craze. Over the next five years, riding on the wings of the Internet, such ''toys,'' as their enthusiasts call them, spread from Hong Kong, first to Japan and then to the West. Typically issued in limited editions of a few hundred, these toys are meant not for play but for display. They are valuable enough that many buyers leave a new purchase untouched in its box, hoping to preserve its resale value, which for a sought-after toy can quickly double or triple on eBay. Prominent toy artists in Japan, the United States and Britain, as well as those in Hong Kong, attract devoted fans -- typically, young men in their 20's and 30's who are ready to plunk down $100 or $200 for a toy, a small fraction of the original cost.

At one of the main outlets for these limited-edition figures, the two-year-old Kidrobot, which has stores in San Francisco and New York, toys often sell out in a few days -- or a few hours. Limited editions in different colors, typically in runs of 100 to 500 units, can be made for particular countries or specific stores. The perception of scarcity fuels the designer-toy market. Savvy toy retailers know how important it is to heighten that anxiety, but they turn the pressure tactic into a game. ''There was one toy that was available only if it was raining out,'' explains Paul Budnitz, Kidrobot's president. ''Another toy was available on Mondays only. It makes it really fun. I suppose it is good marketing for everyone. Everything here sells out.''

Youth-oriented fashion and entertainment companies like Nike, Sony and Levi's picked up on the fad, sponsoring exhibitions and licensing the artists' figures. The trendsetting Paris fashion-and-design store Colette has staged two exhibitions of designer toys, the most recent in June. Over the summer, Visionaire, a New York art-and-fashion publication, mounted a gallery show of designer toys; it will devote a characteristically lavish issue to the subject in November, with dolls customized by fashion designers, including Karl Lagerfeld, Marc Jacobs and Dolce & Gabbana.

Grown-up toys are making it big. But the positioning of a factory-made toy as a limited-edition art object is a particularly delicate maneuver. For artists designing toys, commercial success is a potentially fatal problem.

A 34-year-old with a ponytail and the wispy suggestion of a goatee, Michael Lau looks like an artist, and he seems to think of himself as one too. Lau is one of six children born to a chicken farmer in Hong Kong's New Territories; the family later moved to a public housing project in the capital. They couldn't afford store-bought toys. ''I sculptured Yoda out of cheap soap or made furniture out of newspaper,'' he recalled, as we sat and talked in his apartment overlooking a soccer field. (He spoke to me in Cantonese, and his girlfriend, Mickey Cheng, acted as a translator.) A talented draftsman, he found work after graduating from high school as a retoucher in an oil-painting factory, as a window-display designer for a department store and, finally, as a ''visualizer'' at an advertising agency -- the person who converts a concept into a sketch or a storyboard.

The visualizer he replaced at the Japanese-owned agency was named Eric So, who had also grown up poor in Hong Kong. So and Lau shared an enthusiasm for G.I. Joe dolls. Customizing toys was pure play, a way of expressing artistic talents that they were pursuing more ambitiously by painting in acrylics. In 1996, each exhibited at the Hong Kong Arts Center. The next year, Lau won a drawing prize in Hong Kong for the most promising artist. His career was going well, but he couldn't tell where it was going. ''I am looking at so many references,'' he said. ''It is hard to be the best in any area. It is difficult to find a point to break through.'' Unexpectedly, playing with toys would become his vocation.

Long a center for toy production, Hong Kong factories were, in the 1990's, succumbing to competition from cheaper labor on the Chinese mainland. As toy manufacture declined in Hong Kong, toy nostalgia flourished. At the high end of the market were Japanese airplane models, original ''Star Wars'' figures and first-generation G.I. Joes. All of these were vintage or antique toys, which, in the toy world, usually means an item that dates from the 70's. That decade, in Asia as in America, glows like a distant golden age for those who were children then, and the iconic figures date from the era's movies (Darth Vader), cartoons (Ultraman and Gundam) and cereal boxes (Cap'n Crunch, Franken Berry and Count Chocula).

All the prominent players in the Hong Kong designer-toy scene began as collectors of vintage children's toys, driven by a nostalgia for childhood and a delight in quirky design. One of the biggest collectors, Neco Lo Che Ying, staged a flea market in the summer of 1996 for fellow enthusiasts to trade and buy toys, and invited a few friends, including Lau and So, to exhibit their collections of vintage toys. Two years later, Mr. Lo -- as he is generally known, in deference to his pioneering role and relatively advanced age (44) -- gave Lau and So space to display their customized creations. By then, So was obsessively making Bruce Lee dolls, sculpturing the heads so that they better resembled his martial-arts hero and accumulating old magazine photographs to recreate Lee's authentic 1970's outfits. Lau was doing something more original. For a photograph that became an album cover for a local heavy-metal band, Anodize, he transformed five G.I. Joe dolls into cartoony renditions of the band's members.

More than his art shows, the album cover made Lau an insider's celebrity. In 1998, old friends from the ad agency where he'd worked invited him to contribute a comic strip to a trendy magazine, East Touch. Lau's strip depicted kids dripping with tattoos and attitude. He named them Gardeners. ''They are a group of people with their own culture, and they ignore other people and enjoy what they're doing,'' Lau offers by way of explanation.

That spring, he and Cheng used the prize he won for most promising artist: a trip to Paris. It was his first visit to Europe. In France for three weeks, he discovered with delighted astonishment a book about Jean-Marie Pigeon, who makes stylized sculptures of Tintin and other comic-book characters. ''Coming back to Hong Kong, I thought maybe it would be a good idea to try to turn the Gardeners into a 3-D format, the Tintin face on top of action figures,'' he says. He spent two months completing 10 figures for the convention, which Mr. Lo was now calling Toycon. He finished at the last minute and then collapsed with a high fever. It was worth it: the response was ecstatic. He was so pleased that, for his next art show, he decided to expand the Gardener population. ''It was supposed to be a painting show,'' he observes. ''I said it was 'mixed media.''' Because the year was 1999, he made 99 figures, which he worked on for nine months. The show not only made Lau's name; it also positioned toys at the center of Hong Kong street culture.

There was only one problem. None of the 99 unique 12-inch figures were for sale. Twelve-inch figures are made of hard ABS plastic, which is solidified in an expensive mold -- making them too expensive to custom-fabricate anything larger than heads, hands or feet. Another way to produce plastic toys is the rotocast vinyl method: vinyl plastic is injected into a cheaper mold and spun, producing a hollow object, which is then painted. Although rotovinyl toys can't exhibit the fine detail of ABS plastic, they are far cheaper and easier to produce. Because the mold is less expensive, designers can reconfigure the entire shape; they then have the advantage of not being constrained by the 12-inch anatomical form. Looking to transform the designer-toy movement into something commercially viable, Lau landed on vinyl.

Collectible vinyl toys were popularized in 1996 -- eons earlier, in this fast-moving universe -- by Bounty Hunter, a cult boutique based in Tokyo that combined the production of limited-edition urban clothing with a fetish for 70's pop music. That year the design gurus behind Bounty Hunter began selling limited numbers of vinyl toys that bore a discernible resemblance to such cultural landmarks as Franken Berry or a sailor on the Cap'n Crunch box. On the day of a toy's release, devotees would line up for blocks outside the store; the next day, in the resale market, the sold-out toys would be going for several times their original cost of $50. Still, that was in the street-culture hothouse of Japan, and these toys were a promotion for the coveted Bounty Hunter brand. Lau wondered anxiously if small vinyl versions of his 12-inch Gardeners -- standing on their own artistic merits -- could fetch 150 Hong Kong dollars (about $19 U.S.). ''He was so worried,'' recalls Wong Kim Fung, a manufacturer of high-end toys. ''I said: 'If you can't sell, bring it to me. We sell for $180.' Of course, all sold. Eventually on eBay they are raised to $1,000 [$128 U.S.].''

Taking advantage of their proximity to factories on the mainland, some Hong Kong collectors were already manufacturing 12-inch hard-plastic designer toys, and easily moved into vinyl toy production. Among the first were Wong Kim Fung, who is known as Kim, and Howard Chan. Both were toy retailers who, in early 1999, brought to market G.I. Joe figures that they had customized and accessorized into Hong Kong riot-squad policemen. The market responded favorably, rocket-powering the launch of their toy manufacturing companies: Kim's Three Zero and Chan's Hot Toys.

For a brief, brilliant moment, the future seemed unbounded. Starting in 2002, there were three Toycons a year, each lasting three days and playing to packed houses. The indefatigable Lau would introduce two vinyl toys on every day of each Toycon. It was a profitable business. Although Lau declines to comment on his income, the arithmetic is rudimentary. ''If he made 500 pieces for each style selling for 500 Hong Kong dollars apiece,'' -- about $64 -- ''he makes 250,000 Hong Kong dollars for each,'' estimates Raymond Choy, a toy manufacturer. In a sellout of all six at Toycon, he would take in 1.5 million Hong Kong dollars ($192,000 U.S.). For three annual Toycons, that adds up to almost $576,000 U.S. The cost of making a rotovinyl figure is a small fraction of the sales price, and Lau's Toycon figures were less than a small fraction of his total production. He was well on his way to millions.

In 2000 Lau signed a three-year contract with Sony to license his Gardener figures in Asia; and with Sony's help, he mounted a five-city exhibition of the Gardeners in Japan. Eric So was right behind him, turning his hand from customized action figures to vinyl toys that, notwithstanding their experimental flair (spindly arms and legs, unorthodox magnetic attachments) clearly owe a debt to Lau. These high-quality rotovinyl figures based on street-fashionable youth became known as urban vinyl. Soon it was as if every ad agency visualizer and comic-book illustrator in Hong Kong were designing toys -- all of them hoping to make it big.

The most successful Hong Kong toy designer after Lau and So is a three-man collaborative that calls itself Brothersfree. The Brothers zeroed in on uncharted territory -- Hong Kong working-class life. Their first customized action-figure in late 2000 was the team leader of a construction crew, a type they would see from the bus window as they went to their jobs at ad agencies or graphic design firms. The extraordinary detail in the Brothers' high-priced action figures (averaging about $200) sustains their popularity: a bank robber carries individually wrapped bundles of printed bills; a war correspondent totes a camera with interchangeable lenses. The Brothers' later vinyl toys, at a comparably high price, have sold less well. Customers perceive value in detail work more easily than they see it in creative design. They also know that action figures, with highly wrought accessories, are much harder for bootleggers in China to knock off.

As the field became crowded, with some 50 or 60 designers in Hong Kong alone, newcomers needed distinguishing styles or gimmicks. After designing some hip-hoppish figures that came too close to Lau for commercial comfort, Jason Siu began making dolls that resemble (and, in some cases, function as) stereo speakers. ''I want to make it my symbol -- speaker is Jason, Jason is speaker,'' he explains. ''I want my work to be famous and popular.'' Elphonso Lam, who in addition to his day job as a comics writer is the singer and lyricist for a Hong Kong punk band, has designed a vinyl toy of a chain-saw-wielding ghost and action figures of punk musicians. He is releasing his band's next album with a toy and a T-shirt.

Another toy designer, Colan Ho, says he hopes that his robot and spaceman figures will generate interest in the characters in his sci-fi graphic novels. Simon Wong, who has designed fashion collections for Esprit and CK jeanswear, is producing 12-inch figures that sport bead-laced string purses and leather-faced down coats. (Recently he obtained ''original 1970's polyester'' to line a denim outfit.) ''The goal is to attract fashion companies that would want to collaborate with me to do something -- a promotion item to put in the window or give away as premium gifts,'' he says. He says he dreams of eventually having his own fashion line. Meanwhile, pursuing a better-trod path to fortune, the brother-and-sister team of Wendy and Kevin Mak -- children of a manufacturer of plastic water guns -- have concluded that their toys, known as 2da6, are priced too aggressively. They produced their first toy, a teahouse waiter, in late 2001, as an adjunct to an online game. The game collapsed, but the toys persist, despite anemic sales. ''The cost of all these figures is too high,'' Wendy Mak says. ''Our future plan is to go for mass production, to Toys 'R' Us or Kmart.''

The mist of money has changed the atmosphere of the Hong Kong designer-toy scene. With eBay, price appreciation that in the traditional collectibles or art market takes years can occur overnight. ''In Hong Kong you have all these companies now that are mass-producing but trying to make it seem as if they're putting out limited-edition collectibles,'' says Jakuan, a New York toy designer and collector whose 360 Toy Group, a quiet storefront on the Lower East Side with a vibe very different from Kidrobot's, has been displaying designer toys since 1999. ''The market is saturated. You don't know what's good and what's not. That's what killed the comic-book market and the 'Star Wars' toys market. I think they're deceiving the customers. They're trying to market it as collectible, when it's really just a toy.''

Raymond Choy, 39, is typical of the new breed of Hong Kong designer-toy manufacturer. Like Kim and Chan, he began as a collector, with a special interest in the American toys based on the X-Men. But right from the start, what really drove Choy was the speculative frenzy. ''I am hooked on it, because a toy starts as $9 and then it is $100 U.S.,'' he says. ''It is like business. EBay also is turning into a very big support for the toy revolution. I see in the magazines how toys can be so much money in the secondary market.''

Unlike Kim and Chan, who aspire to fulfill a designer's vision, Choy searches out new artists who will be willing to collaborate on a profitable toy. Like other manufacturers, his company, Toy2R, makes use of technological advances that permit a factory to interrupt a run to change colors and create limited editions. For most of the Hong Kong artists, however, limiting the edition was a way to present the product as an art object and to maintain quality control. At Toy2R, a limited edition is merely a marketing ploy. There are so many different versions of Toy2R's Qees that the profusion becomes bewildering.

At the very moment the designer-toy trend is building strength in the West, it is already flagging in Hong Kong. ''I don't really buy toys anymore,'' says Takara Mak, who goes by TK and is the 25-year-old founder of two trendy Hong Kong magazines, Milk and Cream. ''I still spend time going on eBay, checking out what's going on, but I don't have the time or the force behind me to say I have to buy them every week. You used to see a photo and say, 'I have to get that tonight.' I don't feel that way anymore. I still like them, but there's too many of them.'' TK is reclining in his studio, which he calls Silly Thing -- a converted ground-floor warehouse that could double for the loft in the movie ''Big.'' It is decorated with customized skateboards and the cardboard stand-up figures that normally reside in cinema lobbies. A tall cabinet is filled with vintage ''Star Wars'' toys, and a flat-screen Fujitsu monitor lies beneath a glass-covered cutout in the polished plank floor.

Just two years before, at the height of the Hong Kong toy craze, TK inaugurated Playground, a 36-page toy-focused insert in the weekly Milk. ''It was the first time somebody did something on toys on that scale in a fashion magazine,'' he says proudly. Last December, he downgraded his coverage of toys. ''We thought with Playground, people twisted the idea we had in the first place,'' he explains. ''We don't want people to take toys in the wrong way. People buy to resell them. It's more like an investment than a thing you want to keep.'' Designer toys, which initially incarnated a youthful alternative culture, have been subsumed by the ruling, money-driven Hong Kong ethos. Still, Tomm Wong, the mastermind of Playground, resigned his position as editor in chief of Cream to start a new monthly devoted to toys. In homage to Lau, he plans to call it Garden. ''We want to build up a culture of how to play with toys, not how to buy and sell,'' Wong says bravely.

The highly motivated Lau continues to produce vinyl figures at a breakneck pace. He is working his way through a complete vinyl edition of the Gardeners (12 have been issued so far), as well as inventing another series of characters that he calls Crazy Children. Resourceful and ingenious, he has explored the potential of vinyl, innovating with rough surfaces that resemble wood or cardboard and creating a group with removable attire. He maintains that the word ''toy'' is misleading. ''We went to the Saatchi Gallery in London,'' he says. ''It's all toys, but in big size. If it's miniature, it's toy. If it's large, it's art.'' Who can argue? The stainless-steel bunny and the floral puppy of Jeff Koons, the anatomically perverse manikins of Jake and Dinos Chapman, the oversize child's firetruck and the naked family of Charles Ray, the whimsical clog-wearing dog of Yoshitomo Nara: aren't they just Brobdingnagian toys that have marched into art galleries and pasted labels on the wall?

Toys don't exhaust all of Lau's artistic powers. Over the summer, he designed the program for a local production of ''The Glass Menagerie,'' and he says he would like to do a theater piece of his own. ''I want to go back to painting, but Hong Kong is not the place for painting,'' he says. ''I want to do animation, but the cost is so high and you have to include too many people.'' This year, he inflicted a grievous body blow to the Hong Kong toy scene: he stopped appearing at Toycon. ''It is very boring,'' he says. ''I repeat it eight times already. I want to make a change.''

Lau now exhibits his work in his own gallery, located on the sixth floor of a commercial building in a popular shopping area that is worlds away from the crowded stores of the Mong Kok toy district. One afternoon in late June, there were six small toys on display, each on a plinth in its own vitrine. Nine toys from the series were being offered for sale, priced at a little more than $60 apiece. (Some other Lau works were also available.) Hip-hop music played softly. An attendant spoke on the telephone behind a counter. There was nobody else in the gallery. ''This is not the main market for the customer,'' says Chan of Hot Toys. ''He can just keep the old fans. You cannot get the new customer.''

Lau appears less determined to attract new customers than to dissociate himself from his fellow Hong Kong designers. He is a prophet appalled by his disciples. ''These people are always saying that they are doing exhibitions, but it is just a trade show -- an exhibition to take up orders,'' he says. ''They're riding on my style. They're lucky. It's easier.'' A mention of 2da6 brings first a look of nonrecognition, then a grimace. Brothersfree he dismisses too. ''It's just building models,'' he says. ''It's a toy. It's not creative, it's just cooperation.'' His most surprising criticism is directed at So. Still friends (they play soccer together occasionally), the two men when together carefully avoid the subject of their work. ''I don't think Eric is an artist,'' Lau says, highlighting their genuine differences with a bit of hyperbole. ''Eric likes to build up a lot of relationships and be friendly with a lot of people. I just like to work. He is tired of making figures. I created over 300 characters. And he has created 20, and the style is not changing.

''In a very boring world, something happens and people hook on it, and Michael Lau created it,'' he says, speaking of himself in the third person. ''My aim is to challenge myself and not think of how famous I can be.'' Then, a little shyly, he asks, ''Is Michael Lau really famous in the West?'' Not so famous, he is told. ''I have to work harder,'' he replies.

Arthur Lubow is a contributing writer for the magazine. His most recent article was about the New York Philharmonic.

Correction: Aug. 29, 2004, Sunday Because of an editing error, an article on Aug. 15 about designer toys from Hong Kong and elsewhere misstated the relationship between the cost of manufacturing them and their retail price, $100 or more. The cost of making them is a small fraction of the sales price.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Two Hundred And Fifty Words

NY TIMES: Editorial - Overkill
Published: March 3, 2007

A famous hunter and outdoorsman recently voiced misgivings about people who use assault rifles to kill prairie dogs.

Everyone knows what a prairie dog is: a chubby North American rodent that lives in a communal burrow and grows to be about a foot long. “Assault rifle” is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises “assault rifle,” considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others’ rights.

That is a debate for another day. The question for now is whether the hunter, Jim Zumbo, deserved what he got after he wrote on his blog that hunters should shun what he called assault rifles — semiautomatics like the AR-15, a cousin of the M-16, and civilian knockoffs of the AK-47. “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.”

Until he wrote that, Mr. Zumbo was one of the most admired hunters in America, a widely read magazine writer with his own cable TV program and lots of lecture appearances and corporate sponsorships. He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots. His 250-word posting caused a huge eruption on gun blogs, and Mr. Zumbo instantly became their second-most-hated man, after the gun-control advocate James Brady. Even though Mr. Zumbo quickly disavowed his words and apologized, he lost his blog, was dumped by Outdoor Life magazine and was disowned by the National Rifle Association, after 40 years of membership. His corporate sponsors, including the gunmaker Remington, ditched him. His cable show was canceled. The N.R.A. issued a chilling statement warning Congress to take heed of Mr. Zumbo’s fate. By the time Blaine Harden told his story in The Washington Post, Mr. Zumbo was professionally dead.

The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves. You will find only a handful of postings suggesting cautiously that the overnight destruction of a man’s career might not be the proudest moment for the advocates of gun rights. One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 26, 2007

Oscar Night: The Departed Leaves The Podium With Gold

NY TIMES: ‘The Departed’ Wins Best Picture, Scorsese Best Director
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and SHARON WAXMAN
Published: February 26, 2007

HOLLYWOOD, Feb. 25 —Twenty-six years and seven snubs after his first Oscar nomination, for “Raging Bull,” Martin Scorsese finally felt the warm embrace of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on Sunday as he was named best director and his murderous mob thriller “The Departed” was named the best picture of 2006.

“Could you double-check the envelope?” Mr. Scorsese quipped after silencing a raucous standing ovation of whistling, whooping academy members.

“I’m so moved,” he said, accepting the directing prize. “So many people over the years have been wishing this for me. Strangers — I go into doctors’ offices, elevators, I go for an X-ray — they say, ‘You should win one.’ ”

Forest Whitaker won best actor for his performance as the cunning, seductive and savage Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland.”

“Receiving this honor tells me that it’s possible,” Mr. Whitaker said. “It is possible, for a kid from East Texas, raised in South Central L.A., and Carson, who believes in dreams, who believes them in his heart, to touch them and have them happen.”

Helen Mirren took best actress for her performance as a traditional monarch in a modern world in “The Queen.”

“For 50 years or more, Elizabeth Windsor has maintained her dignity, her sense of duty and her hairstyle,” Ms. Mirren said. “I salute her courage and her consistency, and I thank her, for if it wasn’t for her, I most certainly would not be here.”

Graham King, the only of three credited producers permitted to accept the best-picture award for “The Departed,” said, “To be standing here where Martin Scorsese won his Oscar is such a joy.” “Pan’s Labyrinth,” Guillermo Del Toro’s magical-realist fantasy set in 1944 Fascist Spain, received Oscars for cinematography, art direction and makeup at the 79th Academy Awards ceremony, but fell short of its ultimate prize, best foreign-language film, which went to “The Lives of Others,” from Germany.

Jennifer Hudson, the “American Idol” reject-turned-star of “Dreamgirls,” was named best supporting actress, giving two of the four acting awards to African-Americans. And Alan Arkin, the cranky, heroin-snorting grandfather in the bittersweet family comedy “Little Miss Sunshine,” won best supporting actor.

“Little Miss Sunshine” also won for its original screenplay by Michael Arndt, a former assistant to Matthew Broderick who had to wait seven years for his script to be produced. “When I was a kid my family drove 500 miles in a van with a broken clutch,” he said, explaining the source of his inspiration. “It ended up being one of the funnest things we did together.”

On a night in which several top awards came as no surprise, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary featuring Al Gore on global warming, won best documentary feature.

“I made this movie for my children,” said the director, Davis Guggenheim, his arm on Mr. Gore’s shoulder. “We were moved to act by this man.”

Mr. Gore took his moment in the worldwide spotlight to underline the film’s message. “My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis,” he said, adding that the “will to act” was a renewable resource. “Let’s renew it,” he said.

That film also won best original song, for “I Need to Wake Up,” by Melissa Etheridge, upsetting “Dreamgirls,” which had three songs in contention. Holding her Oscar aloft backstage, Ms. Etheridge quipped that it would be “the only naked man who will ever be in my bedroom.”

In a twist, “The Lives of Others,” which examined the Orwellian police state that was East Germany, won in something of an upset. The German director, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, thanked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California “for teaching me that the words ‘I can’t’ should be stricken from my vocabulary.”

The awards for Mr. Del Toro’s movie came on a night in which his and two other films by Mexican directors were up for a total of 16 honors. One of them, “Babel,” won for its original score by Gustavo Santaolalla, who also won last year for “Brokeback Mountain.”

“Happy Feet” was named the year’s best animated feature.

Accepting for best supporting actor, Mr. Arkin said that “Little Miss Sunshine” was about “innocence, growth and connection.” His voice cracking, he praised his fellow actors, saying that acting was a “team sport.” He added, “I can’t work at all unless I feel the spirit of unity around me.”

William Monahan won best adapted screenplay for “The Departed,” his transplantation of the movie “Infernal Affairs” from Hong Kong to South Boston.

An Oscar also went to Thelma Schoonmaker, the longtime editor to Mr. Scorsese. She saluted Mr. Scorsese for being “tumultuous, passionate, funny” as a collaborator. “It’s like being in the best film school in the world,” she said.

“Dreamgirls,” nominated for eight awards, the most of any film, also won for sound mixing. But Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto,” whose three nominations were caught up in the tempest caused by the director’s drunken, anti-Semitic rant last summer, was shut out.

Ellen DeGeneres made her first appearance as the host of the movie industry’s annual celebration of itself, on a night expected to have its share of pregnant moments. Three filmmaking titans — Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola — presentedthe award for best director.

Ms. DeGeneres said it had been a lifelong dream of hers to be host for the Oscars, rather than to win one. “Let that be a lesson to you kids out there: Aim lower,” she said, sounding a theme for the evening’s opening, which was designed to honor the many nominees, 177 in all, rather than focusing on the winners.

Ms. DeGeneres repeatedly ventured into the audience, at one point getting Mr. Spielberg to take a picture of her with Clint Eastwood, “for MySpace.”

And in a choice full of irony for industry insiders, Tom Cruise, who was thrown off the Paramount lot last summer by Viacom’s chairman, Sumner M. Redstone, gave the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award to Sherry Lansing, the former Paramount chairwoman who retired during a shake-up by Mr. Redstone two years earlier.

Backstage, Ms. Lansing said she had not known that Mr. Cruise was going to give her the award. “I saw him at an Oscar party a few days before, and he was sort of cold to me,” she said. Onstage, she said, he had whispered in her ear: “This is an honor. I really wanted to do this, you know how much I love you.” Ms. Lansing said she believed Mr. Cruise, who had a rough year before taking over management of United Artists, would be back to pick up an Oscar for directing or producing within five years.

Ennio Morricone, the Italian composer, received an honorary Oscar from Mr. Eastwood, who starred in the spaghetti westerns for which Mr. Morricone provided the unmistakable music.

The program began with a bouncy montage, directed by Errol Morris, of interview snippets with nominees reciting, among other things, the number of times they had come close to winning an Oscar. “Zilch,” said Peter O’Toole, of the number of times he had won.

Will Ferrell and Jack Black, leading members of Hollywood’s comedy rat pack, did a song-and-dance number bemoaning the paucity of comedic talent among the Oscar nominees. “I guess you don’t like laughter,” Mr. Ferrell sang. “A comedian at the Oscars is the saddest, bitterest, alcoholic clown.”

John C. Reilly, a past Oscar nominee, then stood up in the audience to remind them — in song — that he had been in both “Boogie and Talladega Nights.” All three then crooned that they hoped to go home with Helen Mirren, a best-actress nominee, who is in her 60s.

Breaking with tradition, the show’s producer, Laura Ziskin, best known for the “Spider-Man” franchise, rejiggered the lineup of awards to leave the marquee categories — best actor, actress, director and picture — for the end of the night. The first half of the show was front-loaded with technical and craft categories: art direction, makeup, sound editing and mixing, costume design and visual effects.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” won for visual effects; “Letters From Iwo Jima” took sound editing; “Marie Antoinette” picked up costume design.

The director Ari Sandel won best live-action short film for “West Bank Story,” a spoof on “West Side Story” with feuding Palestinian and Israeli falafel stands. “This is a movie about peace and about hope,” Mr. Sandel said. “To get this award shows that there are so many out there who also support that notion.”

The award for animated short went to “The Danish Poet,” written and directed by Torill Kove.

Mr. Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, a nominee for best actor (“Blood Diamond”), announced in the middle of the telecast that the program had offset its carbon emissions by buying energy credits. “This show has officially gone green,” Mr. DiCaprio said.

The Oscars adopted other conservation measures this year, such as using recycled paper for the Oscar ballots. “We have a long way to go, but all of us, in our lives, can do something to make a difference,” Mr. Gore said.

But Mr. Gore did not throw his hat in the ring, as the producers of his film, among others in Hollywood, had hoped he might. Asked if he had a major announcement to make, Mr. Gore said: “With a billion people watching, it’s as good a time as any. So my fellow Americans, I’m going to take this opportunity, here and now, to formally announce” — and the Oscars orchestra, right on cue, drowned him out as if he had droned on a second too long.

The Academy Awards capped a season in which the conventional wisdom has often been wrong, and actual wisdom has been in short supply. The big question before the nominations was how many Oscars “Dreamgirls” might win, and what film could compete with it for best picture. The only question after the nominations was, What happened to “Dreamgirls”?

Many theories were advanced, including misguided marketing and an abundance of hype, but the film’s director, Bill Condon, cut to the chase: “Maybe the Academy saw five films they liked better.” Whatever the reason, the film’s elimination left the race wide open to an array of films that took very different routes to the nomination.

“The Departed” rode a wave of box-office success and a plan to keep Oscar hype on the down-low, partly because many in the industry felt it was time to recognize the director Martin Scorsese’s lifetime of excellence. “Little Miss Sunshine,” a new take on the family road-trip movie, which won four Independent Spirit Awards on Saturday, was a film that no one in Hollywood seemed to want to make, but it connected with audiences to the tune of more than $94 million in worldwide box-office receipts. “Babel,” by contrast, left United States audiences cold while doing good business abroad, but connected with critics and was rewarded for a global, ambitious story by winning best dramatic feature at the Golden Globes.

“The Queen,” a small movie that managed to do everything right, managed to ride one of the year’s more remarkable performances — Ms. Mirren as a traditional monarch in a very modern world — to broad critical recognition. And after “Flags of Our Fathers,” another would-be Oscar hopeful, met with indifference, Mr. Eastwood and his studio, Warner Brothers, decided to release the film’s twin, “Letters From Iwo Jima,” before year’s end — and were rewarded with a best-picture nomination.

This appeared to be the most ethnically and linguistically diverse batch of film nominees yet, appropriate enough given that Hollywood’s foreign revenues now eclipse the domestic take by a significant margin. The Oscar slate included several films shot largely in languages other than English, most notably Mr. Eastwood’s “Letters From Iwo Jima,” in Japanese, and Mr. Gibson’s “Apocalypto,” in Maya dialects.

“Babel,” from the Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu, spanned three continents and five languages — Japanese, Berber, Spanish, English and sign — and two of its actresses, Rinko Kikuchi of Japan and Adriana Barraza of Mexico, received nominations. (Three films by Mexican directors were up for a total of 16 honors.)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Apple, Cisco Come To Terms

NY TIMES: Settlement Lets Apple Use ‘iPhone’
By BRAD STONE
Published: February 22, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 — Apple and Cisco Systems have decided that a name is not worth fighting over.

On Wednesday, the companies settled their dispute over the iPhone trademark. Six weeks ago, Cisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco over Apple’s planned use of the name for its much anticipated multimedia device, which combines the features of a mobile phone, an iPod and a BlackBerry.

Cisco claimed that it had owned the trademark since 2000 and was using it for a line of Internet-connected phones.

Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.

In addition, the companies said they would explore ways to make their identically named iPhone products work together “in the areas of security and consumer and enterprise communication.”

Representatives for Apple and Cisco said other terms of the deal would remain confidential. It is not known if Apple made a cash payment to Cisco, but intellectual property lawyers say some sort of payment is typical in these cases. It is also unclear whether Cisco had sold Apple the name iPhone outright and had then secured permission to use it itself.

But the deal appears to give a partial victory to both sides. Apple can begin selling its phone with the name that its strong-willed chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, seemed to prefer.

Cisco can also continue to use the name, and with the promise of interoperability, it might have some of the hype and magic surrounding Apple’s products rub off on its own less prominent offerings.

Hostilities broke out between the two companies last month, when Mr. Jobs announced the music phone at the annual Macworld convention in San Francisco.

Cisco, the networking company based in San Jose, Calif., was using the name to sell phones that can plug into a PC or connect with a wireless hot spot and make free calls over the Internet.

The two companies negotiated intensely over the trademark in early January. Executives had planned to make announcements concurrently at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and at Macworld, proclaiming the links between their iPhone products.

After talks broke down and Mr. Jobs announced his iPhone anyway, Cisco filed a lawsuit, saying that Apple’s use of the iPhone name constituted a “willful and malicious” violation of Cisco’s intellectual property. In response, Apple called the lawsuit “silly” and noted publicly that several companies besides Cisco were using the iPhone name.

Cisco’s lawsuit described covert Apple attempts to obtain the rights to the iPhone name. In September 2006, a corporation calling itself Ocean Telecom Services filed an application for the trademark based on earlier filings in Trinidad and Tobago. In its complaint, Cisco asserted that Apple was behind the efforts.

But while they flung legal accusations at each other, both companies faced significant pressure to settle. Apple’s iPhone will be released in June and will be available to customers of the AT&T wireless network, which was formerly known as Cingular Wireless. If Apple had failed to settle with Cisco and subsequently lost the battle in court, it could have been liable for financial penalties for each unit that it sold.

But Cisco also faced a strong incentive to reach a deal.

“Cisco had to provide access to the trademark to Apple if it wanted to achieve the highest value for the name. There was no potential second buyer who would have equaled Apple’s desire for the iPhone mark,” said Alan Fisch, an intellectual-property lawyer at Kaye Scholer in Washington.

He added that Cisco also faced the reality that consumers associated the name more with Apple.

“The iPhone name has been informally synonymous with an anticipated Apple phone for years prior to the product’s formal announcement,” he said.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Oliver Stone Grumpily Kicks His Dog

NY TIMES: Single Bullet, Single Gunman
By GERALD POSNER
Published: February 21, 2007

THE ability to use advanced forensics and minuscule traces of DNA to solve crimes, even cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans into armchair sleuths seeking to “solve” the unexpected deaths of people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith. But sometimes, old-fashioned evidence is as useful in solving puzzles as anything under a nuclear microscope.

Last weekend, a never-before-seen home movie was made public showing President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade just before his assassination. An amateur photographer, George Jefferies, took the footage and held onto it for more than 40 years before casually mentioning it to his son-in-law, who persuaded him to donate it to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. The silent 8-millimeter color film was of interest to most people simply because it showed perhaps the clearest close-up of Jacqueline Kennedy taken that morning.

But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves one of the case’s enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on Kennedy’s back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the report fabricated.

This is more than an academic debate among ballistics buffs. It is critical because if the bullet did enter where shown on the autopsy photos, the trajectory lines up correctly for the famous “single bullet” theory — the Warren Commission hypothesis that one bullet inflicted wounds to both Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas. However, if the hole in the clothing was the accurate mark of where the bullet entered, it would have been too low for a single bullet to have inflicted all the wounds, and would provide evidence of a second assassin.

For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy’s suit had bunched up during the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one would expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align perfectly, if the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt also had to have been raised.

Some previously published photos taken at the pivotal moment showed Kennedy’s jacket slightly pushed up, but nothing was definitive. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have done everything to disprove that the jacket was bunched. Some used grainy photos or film clips to measure minute distances between Kennedy’s hairline and his shirt, what they dubbed the “hair-to-in-shoot distance.”

The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip, as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady, Kennedy’s suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy’s suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet’s entry point.

While the film solves one mystery, it leaves another open: estimates are that at least 150,000 people lined the Dallas motorcade route that fateful day, so there must be many other films and photographs out there that have never come to light. Those who have them should bear in mind that even the most innocuous-seeming artifacts, like the Jefferies tape, can sometimes put enduring controversies to rest. As Gary Mack, the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum said the other day, “The bottom line is, don’t throw anything away.”

Gerald Posner is the author of “Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of J.F.K.”

*************************************************************************************

Shows what I know - the footage looked pretty innocuous to me when I first saw it. I have to say, the Stone film didn't convince me of its own theory, but I left feeling like the Warren Report couldn't possibly be right. Ockham's Razor strikes again!

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 19, 2007

Life After Rings At New Line

NY TIMES: For New Line, an Identity Crisis
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: February 19, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 18 — For six weeks in 2005, Robert K. Shaye, the founder and co-chairman of New Line Cinema, lay in a coma in a New York City hospital, fending off death from a sudden infection.

He survived, narrowly, and over many months quietly made his way back to health, a dizzying and unexpected turn for one of Hollywood’s mavericks.

Now Mr. Shaye, 67, is back to what he has done for nearly 40 years, running New Line, a midsize studio in a world of competitive behemoths, at a time when the company, owned by Time Warner, has been beset by rumors of dysfunction and executive change, and bedeviled by a slate of unsuccessful films in 2006.

That too is an unexpected turn for a studio that three years ago capped the phenomenally popular “Lord of the Rings” series with a best picture Oscar for the last installment, “The Return of the King” — a first for the studio.

Since then, according to both Mr. Shaye and Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the president of Time Warner, the studio has been financially successful, earning more than $100 million every year for the last three, largely in revenue from previous hits that continues to stream in through DVD and other post-theatrical sales. “New Line is very profitable,” Mr. Bewkes said in an interview. “We’re making money hand over fist.”

But in Hollywood and on Wall Street, some question the focus at New Line. After the success of “Lord of the Rings,” some had expected the studio to pursue a more ambitious agenda than the urban comedies and horror films of its past. That might have included pressing ahead with “The Hobbit,” from the “Rings” author J. R. R. Tolkien, to which New Line shares the rights.

Instead, Mr. Shaye has been trading insults with the “Rings” director Peter Jackson, while the studio has struggled to find a new breakout hit.

“I wouldn’t characterize it as financial crisis, even if they had a bad year,” said Harold L. Vogel, an entertainment analyst. “It’s more like an identity crisis. It’s a fair question: where do you go from here? Everyone has the same problem, whether you’re 90 or you’re 20. And they’re facing it now with a little more emphasis.”

If critics have observed that the studio seems distracted, there may be good reason. Mr. Shaye’s illness, the seriousness of which was not disclosed to the public before now, apparently derailed the studio for a portion of 2005 and affected the slate in 2006. And last year he took time to direct his own movie, “The Last Mimzy,” a family-oriented science fiction adventure (co-written by New Line’s president of production, Toby Emmerich) that will open in theaters next month.

In an interview in his office in Los Angeles last week, Mr. Shaye said that he had as much enthusiasm for running his studio as ever, and said he believed that this year’s releases would do well. “I started this company in 1967,” he said. “I still come to work every day. I still have the same passion I had then.”

Mr. Shaye acknowledged his disappointment in the studio’s performance in 2006, with duds like “Snakes on a Plane,” which cost $33 million to make and took in only that much in domestic theaters despite higher expectations, and “Tenacious D: ‘The Pick of Destiny,” the Jack Black comedy with a budget of less than $20 million, which took in a scant $8 million in domestic ticket sales.

“After last year I will take a more considered approach to the green-light process,” he said. “I will act as more of an adversary, or critic, of the decisions advocated by others.”

But he said the studio would continue to aim for its traditional zone of comedies and genre films, with a couple of highbrow dramas and one or two big-budget bets, in the range of $100 million and above.

For this year, those big bets include “Rush Hour 3,” the next in the successful series of martial arts comedies, and “The Golden Compass,” a fantasy adventure with special effects and a budget of $150 million, a potential new franchise for the studio.

The studio has also secured a $350 million line of credit in a financing deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland, giving it a financial cushion.

Mr. Shaye spoke in detail for the first time about the illness that almost killed him two years ago. In March 2005, he said he suddenly came down with a lethal form of pneumonia, from streptococcus A bacteria, similar to a rare illness that precipitously killed Jim Henson, the “Muppets” creator, at age 53 in 1990.

On the advice of a doctor, Mr. Shaye checked into NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital and was placed in a medically induced coma in the intensive care unit for six weeks. (In his film “Mimzy,” Mr. Shaye names one character Dr. Sherman, in tribute to one of his caregivers.)

He emerged from the coma and after two months in the hospital, he was permitted to go home to his Manhattan residence. Even then he took many months to recover, unable initially to walk for more than two or three minutes at a time, and slowly taking up work again.

But Mr. Shaye says he thinks more clearly now than he did before his illness. “It’s difficult to explain, but I have a clarity of thought and, I believe, of reason, which was one of the gifts” of his illness, he said. And, he added, “I certainly appreciate the normal functioning of life a lot more.”

One thing that has not been blunted by illness is Mr. Shaye’s temper, which flared last year when he was asked about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Jackson over profits from “The Lord of the Rings.”

Mr. Shaye, criticizing what he called Mr. Jackson’s “arrogance” and calling the director “myopic,” told Sci-Fi Wire: “I don’t care about Peter Jackson anymore.” He added, “He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he’s suing us for. He doesn’t want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we’ve paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars.”

Asked about the remarks last week, Mr. Shaye said that he made the statement “in a moment of emotion” but did not regret it. “I regret losing a friend,” he said, as he showed a visitor a Gandalf sword that Mr. Jackson had sent him as a gift, before the lawsuit.

A representative for Mr. Jackson declined to comment.

But the ill will has held up plans to make “The Hobbit.” Without specifically saying he would not make the film with Mr. Jackson, Mr. Shaye made it plain that he had no interest in working with difficult filmmakers. “Some directors are impossible,” he said. “Are there a few people I wouldn’t work with? Yes, but I won’t name names.”

And he would not comment on reports in the news media that the “Spider-Man” director Sam Raimi had been asked to direct “The Hobbit.” He said, however, that although there was no workable script yet for the film, he intended to release it in 2009.

The Hollywood rumor mill has worked overtime in debating the future of New Line, which has had to justify its existence repeatedly over its 40-year history. Some people have questioned, for example, why the studio that made Will Ferrell’s breakout hit “Elf” in 2003 has not made other movies with him.

Until now. This month New Line began production on “Semi-Pro,” starring Mr. Ferrell; Mr. Shaye said that Mr. Ferrell had not found material he wanted to make at New Line until now, and chose not to make a sequel to “Elf.”

And although the studio is now part of Time Warner, current and former executives said that it continues to operate much like a family. Mr. Shaye, the father figure of the group, described his partnership with his co-chairman, Michael Lynne, this way : “I’m emotion. He’s reason.”

But as in a family, some producers and agents complained of confusion in their business dealings with the studio. Several said they had made deals with Mr. Emmerich or another executive at the studio, only to have Mr. Shaye redefine the terms later.

An executive connected with the coming film “Rendition” said the same thing happened on that project, a big-budget production under way in Morocco, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon and Meryl Streep. Weeks after the producers closed the deal with the studio, said the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his business relationships, Mr. Shaye came back to them and placed additional conditions, like finding a financing partner.

In an e-mail message, Mr. Emmerich disputed that account, saying that Mr. Shaye had reservations about the script from the start.

Still, some agents and producers point out that the loose atmosphere at New Line can also lead to daring decisions, like the one that led to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

Mr. Shaye denied that any executive changes were in the works, and said that Mr. Emmerich would continue to run production, while Russell Schwartz would continue to run domestic marketing.

Mr. Bewkes, the Time Warner president, said that he regarded the three years of success with “Rings” to be an anomaly — albeit one that brought in well over $3 billion in revenue to New Line.

“The business they’re in is a combination of all those ‘little titles,’ which add up to a steady stream for the indie business, and occasional but pretty regular big commercial franchises, like ‘Rush Hour,’ ‘Lord of the Rings’ or ‘The Golden Compass,’ ” he said. “I feel confident about New Line’s future.”

And Mr. Shaye, whose contract is up in 2008, seemed to fully agree. “It’s never business as usual, because the business is unusual,” he said, adding, “but we’d rather work on movies than anything else — every one of us.”

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 18, 2007

The Police Prepare For Their Reunion Tour

NY TIMES: They Can Play. Can They Play Nice?
By JON PARELES
Published: February 18, 2007

NORTH VANCOUVER, British Columbia
IN a high-ceilinged studio at the Lions Gate film complex earlier this month, the Police were rehearsing for a very public first gig: opening the Grammy Awards broadcast last Sunday with their 1978 hit “Roxanne” before announcing a world tour the next day. Sting, 55, on bass; Andy Summers, 64, on guitar; and Stewart Copeland, 54, on drums, were working through a list of two dozen songs. For the first time in decades the Police would be back together for more than one night. “I’ve trapped myself back 30 years,” Sting said.

The old Police sound was a lean, nimble, pointillistic approach to syncopation and space that Mr. Summers called “the sound of tension,” and that tension sounded intact as the band kicked into “Message in a Bottle,” with its jumpy guitar riff and stamping beat. Half a minute later Sting waved the song to a stop. “Pick,” he said tersely, his voice slightly irritated. “It doesn’t work.”

Mr. Summers had been playing guitar with a pick, not his fingers as he used to. “You thought for a second that he wouldn’t notice?” Mr. Copeland cackled. Mr. Summers shrugged: “I played it with a pick all day yesterday, and he didn’t say a word.” He abandoned the pick, Mr. Copeland shouted “One! Two! Three! Four!” and in an instant the song was galloping forward again. It was just another moment of readjustment for three headstrong musicians rebuilding a tricky alliance.

Twenty-four years ago the Police ruled the rock world. Their seven-year career had been one unbroken ascent: each album outselling the last, each tour bigger. In 1983 they had claimed the mantle of the Beatles by playing Shea Stadium.

But as all three freely admit, their years as rock stars together were also years of bitter conflict, sometimes to the point of fistfights backstage. “We would be playing arenas and feeling the love pour onto us,” Mr. Copeland said. “And then you would come backstage, to the guys that mattered most, and feel the unlove.” From the beginning they had been three disparate personalities. Mr. Copeland is voluble and extroverted, Sting earnest and pensive, and Mr. Summers looks happiest talking about chord changes and guitar gizmos. What connected them was the music that they fought over most determinedly of all.

“We didn’t go to school together,” Sting said. “We didn’t grow up in the same neighborhood. We were never a tribe. There was friction for the right reasons. We care passionately about the music and we’re all strong characters, and nobody would be pushed around. So it was part of our dynamic. We fought cat and dog over everything.”

Although Mr. Copeland founded and named the Police, Sting quickly emerged both as the band’s voice and its hitmaking songwriter. But the band’s songs were simultaneously taut pop structures and improvisational melees, with Mr. Summers layering on complex chords and guitar effects, while Mr. Copeland’s drumming shattered and precisely reassembled the beat. As the Police worked up Sting’s songs, decisions were often made two against one. Sting grew to feel constrained.

“I wanted no rules, no limitations,” he said. “Bands that stay together have to toe the party line. And I wasn’t willing to do that.” And so, when the band wound up their 1983 stadium tour, Sting struck out on his own. “We were the biggest band in the world, by all intents and purposes,” he said. “And I just thought: ‘Well, this is it. After this everything else is just diminishing returns. I want another challenge. I want to start again.’ ”

In recent years each member has told his part of the Police story. Mr. Copeland made a documentary. Sting and Mr. Summers wrote memoirs. But the recollections are strikingly different.

Sting’s “Broken Music” dispatches the entirety of the Police’s glory years in just two pages. Mr. Summers’s “One Train Later,” by contrast, details an exhilarating whirlwind of tours and ends soon after the band’s breakup, which he calls an “open wound.”

“At the time there was a sort of numbness,” he said at rehearsal. “I don’t think I realized what was happening. I felt like I walked off a cliff and realized. ...” He looked downward, as if into a chasm. “It felt like a limb had been chopped off. It was like being deserted by a lover.”

Since that time Sting has remained a rock star, with multimillion-selling albums and well-publicized causes like rain forests and human rights. Mr. Summers has been leading groups on the jazz circuit, from clubs to festivals. Mr. Copeland established himself as a film composer (for directors including Francis Ford Coppola and Oliver Stone), and was coaxed back to performing by the jam band Oysterhead. No one had any reason to expect a reunion. “For years it was just, forget it,” Mr. Summers said. “Five years passed, 10 years passed.” Sting, in a radio interview, once called the prospect of reviving the Police insane.

And yet here they are: booked for arena concerts worldwide into next year, with some stadium dates on hold, just in case. The tour begins on May 28 in Vancouver and comes to Madison Square Garden on Aug. 1 and 3.

Band members had stayed in touch since 1983, but they only played together on a few brief and uncomfortable occasions. Then last year they all found themselves at the Sundance Film Festival, and later Mr. Copeland and Mr. Summers both attended the Los Angeles stop of Sting’s current tour. He is playing the lute songs of the Renaissance composer John Dowland. Mr. Summers and Mr. Copeland said they had both sensed a change. It was more than they had seen of each other in a long time.

“I was thinking, ’Well, now what do I do?’ ” Sting said in an interview in his hotel room. His lute was leaning against a wall. “Do another lute record? I don’t want to paint myself into that corner. Do I do another Sting record? What’s going to surprise people? What’s going to surprise me? Wow, can I really be thinking that?”

A Police reunion “just seemed right,” he said. “It felt right in the heart. I woke up, and I just had this instinct, just had this desire to call the guys up and say, ‘Let’s give this a go.’ ”

Actually his manager, Kathryn Schenker, made the calls. She sprang the idea on Mr. Summers and Mr. Copeland at a meeting where they expected to discuss plans for reissues of the five Police albums, which will mark the 30th anniversary of the band’s formation in 1977. “They were so shocked it wasn’t funny,” Ms. Schenker recalled. “They were so happy and excited but very, very, very, very surprised.”

The Vancouver rehearsal studio where they eventually reunited was a long way from the Police’s do-it-yourself beginnings in punk-era London. A film crew was on hand to make the inevitable documentary, with bright lights, makeup for the band members and a camera on semicircular tracks rolling around their setup. A caterer served lobster for dinner.

For pre- and post-rehearsal workouts there was a Pilates trainer who brought along with her a machine called, coincidentally, a Group Reformer. A beat-up guitar that Mr. Summers is playing isn’t the one that toured the world with him in the early 1980s; it’s an exact replica made by Fender, copying every nick, chip and scrape as well as the pickups (made by Fender’s rival, Gibson) and custom electronics inside. It’s part of a limited edition of 250 that sold out at $15,000 each — a measure of Mr. Summers’s lasting reputation among musicians and guitar geeks.

For all three band members, reuniting the Police wasn’t just a matter of relearning parts. They were also rebuilding a collaboration that had been as volatile as their music. “After 20 years we’ve all changed shape, and the pieces don’t quite fit together in the same way they used to,” Mr. Copeland said. “With the best of intentions, with the best of attitude, we were wanting to kill each other.”

Since they last worked together, all three had gotten used to being bandleaders and composers. “It would be much easier just to go in the studio and make a record with my band,” Sting said. “And it’s not just the musical stuff. It’s the social stuff, it’s the personal psychology stuff of going back to a marriage, returning to a dysfunctional marriage and making it better, making it work. I really want it to work.”

The Police had already had a few days of rehearsal before allowing a visit from an outside observer, and they had built a wary, joshing camaraderie. Sting, who at first had tried to lead the reunited Police by telling the others what to play, was still taking charge and picking songs to work on. But he was now prefacing his ideas with “I think” and “Perhaps” and “Do you think we might.” He and Mr. Summers hazed Mr. Copeland about wearing a sweatband; in turn Mr. Copeland would punctuate their discussions over abstruse chord substitutions with mock exasperation.

“Somewhere in the beginning of 2008,” Mr. Copeland said, “we’ll be playing the last show of this tour. And I’ve got $10 here that says Sting will suggest another chord for Andy to play.”

“And why not?” Sting said.

During a break Mr. Summers said: “I feel it all coming back, the whole thing. Some of it’s moronic, like wandering around being a rock star, and everybody going, ‘What do you need, what do you need?’ And I’m thinking, ‘Oh, yeah, I remember this.’ But it’s like getting into an old familiar suit. I feel all the old reflexes coming back.”

They were the reflexes of virtuosos determined not to become their own tribute band. “At the moment it’s an exercise in nostalgia, certainly,” Sting said, “but also trying to get something modern and something new out of this situation. That may result in another song. I can’t predict. I’d like that to happen. But we’re just trying to remember the chords at the moment.”

The sound the Police created in their seven years together — light-fingered but assertive, musicianly but unmistakably pop — hasn’t aged as fast as much 1980’s music, and it has been emulated by musicians from Fugazi to Tool to Incubus to John Mayer. “We were the greatest rock band in the world, and that’s the way we want to be,” Mr. Summers said. “And we still have enough ego to think that we can come back, probably just like all bands, and blow every other band out of the water.”

But not yet. “Right now we’re not incredible,” Mr. Copeland said. “We started out like a high school band last week. We got to be like a college band. Yesterday we started to sound like a bar band. Today we sound like, ’O.K., we could earn a living like this.’ But we are not yet playing like we deserve to play in a stadium. We’ll get there, now that we’re on the right track.”

Sting kept working to add subtleties to songs that he has been performing continually through the years. He described “Every Breath You Take” to the band, explaining why he wanted nothing flashy, just a subdued, metronomic beat. “To me it’s like a Bergman movie,” he said. “Nothing happens until two very violent acts. One is the bridge, two is the coda. But not a mouse stirs. It’s like a still life.”

Mr. Copeland interjected, “But there might be a lion, sir.”

“Yeah,” Sting said. “That’s me.”

For the Grammys the Police’s allotted television time would hold a tightly abridged “Roxanne.” A crew member was timing the song. “We’re going for a clean 3 minutes 30,” Sting said.

This “Roxanne” would mix the familiar and the exploratory, announcing both the return of the Police and their determination to be more than an oldies act. “ ’Roxanne’ needs a slightly new dress every night, a slightly different pair of heels to get me excited,” Sting had said earlier.

The first verse and chorus had the old Police attack. Then the middle floated into new, echoey improvisations before the end charged back into the chorus that used to have whole arenas shouting along. Here the big finale was followed by a brief silence and a call from the crew: “3:37.”

“What happens if we go over by seven seconds?” Mr. Summer asked. “Emasculation?”

“They’ll take a Grammy away,” Sting said.

“For each second over, you lose one,” Mr. Summers agreed.

“But that does leave us with another 16 or something,” Sting replied. (He has won 16 Grammys, including five as a member of the Police and one as the songwriter of “Every Breath You Take.”) A second runthrough ran 3:32.

“We only lose half a Grammy,” Sting said.

“We only lose Andy’s Grammy,” Mr. Copeland said. (The Police’s “Behind My Camel,” written by Mr. Summers, was named best rock instrumental in 1981.) Then he changed his mind, looking toward Sting: “Now wait a minute. You’ve got the most Grammys. So we start with Sting’s Grammys.”

“Easy, big guy,” Mr. Summers said.

Battles had been reduced to banter. The Police knew they would have to get along for a year to come. “I used to think that strife and struggle and tension were important in a band,” Mr. Copeland said. “I no longer believe that. And in fact this band has been rescued by our refusal to fall into strife and confrontation.

“When we arrived here in Vancouver, we had big musical problems. And we didn’t resolve them by shouting at each other, by getting angry at each other, by power plays, by any of that stuff. We resolved our musical issues by comity. The music was sick, and we had to use our social bond to get through and try different solutions to the musical problems.

“It sounds cool that angst, sturm and drang, produces music with fire. No. We’re going to get to fire by love. Because we love each other.”

Sting said: “There’s more compromise now. There’s more sense of, just relax and this will be O.K.” He paused. “So far.”

Labels: , , , , , , ,

The Newbery Medal Vs. The Word 'Scrotum'

NY TIMES: With One Word, Children’s Book Sets Off Uproar
By JULIE BOSMAN
Published: February 18, 2007

The word “scrotum” does not often appear in polite conversation. Or children’s literature, for that matter.

Susan Patron, the author of the book and a librarian, said the controversial word was just part of the character’s learning about body parts.

Yet there it is on the first page of “The Higher Power of Lucky,” by Susan Patron, this year’s winner of the Newbery Medal, the most prestigious award in children’s literature. The book’s heroine, a scrappy 10-year-old orphan named Lucky Trimble, hears the word through a hole in a wall when another character says he saw a rattlesnake bite his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.

“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much,” the book continues. “It sounded medical and secret, but also important.”

The inclusion of the word has shocked some school librarians, who have pledged to ban the book from elementary schools, and reopened the debate over what constitutes acceptable content in children’s books. The controversy was first reported by Publishers Weekly, a trade magazine.

On electronic mailing lists like Librarian.net, dozens of literary blogs and pages on the social-networking site LiveJournal, teachers, authors and school librarians took sides over the book. Librarians from all over the country, including Missoula, Mont.; upstate New York; Central Pennsylvania; and Portland, Ore., weighed in, questioning the role of the librarian when selecting — or censoring, some argued — literature for children.

“This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind,” Dana Nilsson, a teacher and librarian in Durango, Colo., wrote on LM_Net, a mailing list that reaches more than 16,000 school librarians. “How very sad.”

The book has already been banned from school libraries in a handful of states in the South, the West and the Northeast, and librarians in other schools have indicated in the online debate that they may well follow suit. Indeed, the topic has dominated the discussion among librarians since the book was shipped to schools.

Pat Scales, a former chairwoman of the Newbery Award committee, said that declining to stock the book in libraries was nothing short of censorship.

“The people who are reacting to that word are not reading the book as a whole,” she said. “That’s what censors do — they pick out words and don’t look at the total merit of the book.”

If it were any other novel, it probably would have gone unnoticed, unordered and unread. But in the world of children’s books, winning a Newbery is the rough equivalent of being selected as an Oprah’s Book Club title. Libraries and bookstores routinely order two or more copies of each year’s winners, with the books read aloud to children and taught in classrooms.

“The Higher Power of Lucky” was first published in November by Atheneum/Richard Jackson Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, accompanied by a modest print run of 10,000. After the announcement of the Newbery on Jan. 22, the publisher quickly ordered another 100,000 copies, which arrived in bookstores, schools and libraries around Feb. 5.

Reached at her home in Los Angeles, Ms. Patron said she was stunned by the objections. The story of the rattlesnake bite, she said, was based on a true incident involving a friend’s dog.

And one of the themes of the book is that Lucky is preparing herself to be a grown-up, Ms. Patron said. Learning about language and body parts, then, is very important to her.

“The word is just so delicious,” Ms. Patron said. “The sound of the word to Lucky is so evocative. It’s one of those words that’s so interesting because of the sound of the word.”

Ms. Patron, who is a public librarian in Los Angeles, said the book was written for children 9 to 12 years old. But some librarians countered that since the heroine of “The Higher Power of Lucky” is 10, children older than that would not be interested in reading it.

“I think it’s a good case of an author not realizing her audience,” said Frederick Muller, a librarian at Halsted Middle School in Newton, N.J. “If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn’t want to have to explain that.”

Authors of children’s books sometimes sneak in a single touchy word or paragraph, leaving librarians to choose whether to ban an entire book over one offending phrase.

In the case of “Lucky,” some of them take no chances. Wendy Stoll, a librarian at Smyrna Elementary in Louisville, Ky., wrote on the LM_Net mailing list that she would not stock the book. Andrea Koch, the librarian at French Road Elementary School in Brighton, N.Y., said she anticipated angry calls from parents if she ordered it. “I don’t think our teachers, or myself, want to do that vocabulary lesson,” she said in an interview. One librarian who responded to Ms. Nilsson’s posting on LM_Net said only: “Sad to say, I didn’t order it for either of my schools, based on ‘the word.’ ”

Booksellers, too, are watchful for racy content in books they endorse to customers. Carol Chittenden, the owner of Eight Cousins, a bookstore in Falmouth, Mass., said she once horrified a customer with “The Adventures of Blue Avenger” by Norma Howe, a novel aimed at junior high school students. “I remember one time showing the book to a grandmother and enthusing about it,” she said. “There’s a chapter in there that’s very funny and the word ‘condom’ comes up. And of course, she opens the book right to the page that said ‘condom.’ ”

It is not the first time school librarians have squirmed at a book’s content, of course. Some school officials have tried to ban Harry Potter books from schools, saying that they implicitly endorse witchcraft and Satanism. Young adult books by Judy Blume, though decades old, are routinely kept out of school libraries.

Ms. Nilsson, reached at Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango, Colo., said she had heard from dozens of librarians who agreed with her stance. “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship,” she said. “But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.”

“At least not for children,” she added.

*************************************************************************************

It's a good thing she added that last comment - she probably deflected hundreds of emails (citing James Joyce or Henry Miller) in a matter of seconds.

"...in the world of children’s books, winning a Newbery is the rough equivalent of being selected as an Oprah’s Book Club title."

I think it's a little bit better than that. It might be the same in financial terms, but in terms of prestige... it's not even close. A Newbery medal is the highest honor a children's book can get. It means (and I know this sounds funny, but you know what I mean) your book is "Make Way For Ducklings" good. You're in the pantheon.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Toyota Enters NASCAR

NY TIMES: The Jingoism 500
By MICHAEL YAKI
Published: February 17, 2007

TOMORROW, ordinary citizens will be bracing themselves against the howling sound of Japanese engines throttling up and bearing down on their beloved American heroes. No, it’s not a squadron of dive-bombing Zeroes re-enacting Pearl Harbor. It’s the Daytona 500, the kickoff to the Nascar season, and for the first time in Nascar’s history Dodge, Chevy and Ford will be joined by ... Toyota.

Japan’s biggest car company, which is poised to overtake General Motors as the largest car manufacturer in the world, has entered the hallowed tracks and pit rows of that most American of race circuits, the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing. But to hear some Nascar fans talk, when those engines fire up it will be Dec. 7, 1941, all over again.

The war metaphors have been brought to the fore by Jack Roush, a prominent racing team owner. Mr. Roush has said that “we’re going to war” and that he’s preparing himself “for siege.” He has accused Toyota of having bought its way in, of raising the costs of owning a team and generally spoiling the pot. Other Nascar columnists, pundits and fans, even a Web site dedicated to being “against racing Toyotas,” have chimed in against the auto maker’s entry into Nascar.

Nationalism and pride in one’s country can be admirable traits. Nationalism, however, is the razor’s edge in the American psyche, where just a push turns it into xenophobia. Nascar, like so many professional sports before it, may soon be faced with a situation where deliberate ignorance of simmering prejudice is not an option.

I am an American of blended Asian ancestry, including Japanese, and a certain insult — a word as odious as its counterpart for African-Americans — sets me off. That word has been flying fast and furious in many Nascar-related forums and chat rooms. It offends me so much I cannot even abbreviate it here. One person wrote that “we don’t need any foreign nameplate in Nascar.” Others have taken up the “if you love them so much go live in Japan” theme and, curiously, wondered that if the Iraqis built a car would drivers of Japanese cars “become fans of the terrorists?”

The drivers hired by Toyota have been subject to the same opprobrium. Dale Jarrett, whom Nascar has named one of the 50 greatest drivers in its history, has been called a sell-out. Michael Waltrip, a Daytona winner, has been invited to “leave America” with his Japanese truck. (His recent woes at Daytona, including accusations that his team was cheating during qualifying, have only increased the vitriol.) Nor have the up-and-comers Brian Vickers and Jeremy Mayfield been spared. In blogs and on fan sites all have been characterized as traitors for driving “rice burners.”

Although team owners like Joe Gibbs and Rick Hendrick have welcomed the competition from Toyota, Nascar itself has said little during the rants and grumblings, apparently hoping it will all die down. That is unacceptable. There are, of course, Asian-American Nascar fans, and several of Nascar’s races are held in California, the state with the highest population of Asian-Americans.

Nascar’s goal has always been to ensure competition from inside the cockpit, not on the outside. It is all about devising a race where one variable — human skill at 200 miles an hour — is prized above all. When I watch the races (I am a fan; my mother-in-law is an uber-fan), I am fascinated by the men and the occasional woman maneuvering around banked tracks at speeds I cannot fathom with the touch of scrimshaw masters. I am not thinking of a Chevy Monte Carlo or a Dodge Charger or a Ford Fusion — or a Toyota Camry. I am watching Jeff, Junior, Tony, Mark and all those others with the courage, talent and sheer guts it takes to withstand, much less win, a 500-mile race when my legs cramp up after a leisurely two-hour drive.

Nascar’s roots in the South’s “good ol’ boy” mentality are a part of its lore and charm that cannot be denied. Movies like “The Dukes of Hazzard” and “Talladega Nights” both spoof and glorify its origins. Its partnership with the American auto industry is also a part of this history, born in the myth that you can drive the same “stock” car that Richard Petty drove to victory. But Nascar has become a global superbrand, still undeniably American yet ubiquitous enough for the world’s best — not just auto manufacturers, but racers like Juan Montoya, the Colombian who has dominated Formula 1 — to want to test its drivers and its superspeedways.

More than 20 years ago, this country feared that Japan would take over American industry. It didn’t happen. But today the Big Three are still on the ropes and, combined with Chrysler’s recent layoffs, a Toyota victory in one of Nascar’s events could reawaken latent fears of Japanese domination. We cannot forget that in 1982 a young Chinese-American, Vincent Chin, was killed in Detroit because two autoworkers assumed he was Japanese. Apparently there remain embers just hot enough to re-ignite the flame of racism.

You can be pro-American, and you can declare that Americans should buy American cars. But doing so involves a degree of hypocrisy. Today an “American” car could have been assembled in Mexico, or had most of its parts manufactured offshore. And Dodge, part of the Chrysler brand, is owned by Daimler of Germany. Yet I don’t hear anyone disparaging the patriotism of the racers driving Dodges. It’s another indication that the opposition to Toyota is rooted not in patriotic pride, but racism.

Along with millions of others, I will watch the Daytona 500 tomorrow. There would be nice symmetry if the Great American Race also meant that in the arena of race relations, Nascar, like all major professional sports, were to take measures to reject the appearance and insinuation of intolerance and prejudice in its ranks.

Michael Yaki is a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

*************************************************************************************

You can be pro-American, and you can declare that Americans should buy American cars. But doing so involves a degree of hypocrisy. Today an “American” car could have been assembled in Mexico, or had most of its parts manufactured offshore. And Dodge, part of the Chrysler brand, is owned by Daimler of Germany. Yet I don’t hear anyone disparaging the patriotism of the racers driving Dodges.


Exactly.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 10, 2007

On Fame And The Audience

NY TIMES: Why Did We Watch? The Answer Isn’t Pretty
By CARYN JAMES
Published: February 10, 2007

Becoming famous is relatively easy: Anna Nicole Smith was born with a beautiful face, a big smile and a voluptuous body she was happy to bare for Playboy. Staying famous for nothing much is hard work, and that is the real story of Ms. Smith’s life and death. Her desperation for fame was so raw that she didn’t mind being the butt of the joke if it helped maintain her place in the spotlight. Her career started out tacky, went downhill from there and ultimately says more about the culture’s fascination with celebrity than it does about Anna Nicole Smith.

While most stars play a clever cat-and-mouse game with the media, Ms. Smith’s sport was Extreme Fame. Her sense of how to court attention was simply to show up, pose and practically say, “Come get me, use me.” In that blatant desire for publicity she embodied the ultimate symbiosis of celebrity: between an individual who acted as if life out of the spotlight were worthless, and a press and public eager to indulge her craving for attention.

But without any actual career to back up her claim on the public, the question becomes: why did we watch? The unsettlingly vapid reason: because we could. She was a glittery spectacle who offered guilt-free voyeurism, as we watched her dramas with drugs and weight and inheritance laws. And the lesson of her fame is that there is no lesson.

All the attempts to justify her fame that have flowed in since her death on Thursday are hollow. She was not Marilyn Monroe; the closest Ms. Smith came to a real movie career was a small role in the spoof “Naked Gun 331/3 : The Final Insult.” She was not a rags-to-riches inspiration; most little girls don’t dream of growing up to be Playmate of the Year, marrying an 89-year-old billionaire and fighting for his money all the way to the Supreme Court. And she was not a cautionary tale; she courted attention too relentlessly to seem innocent or deluded.

There was the ring of truth in what her mother told “Good Morning America” yesterday: that her daughter said, “If my name is out there in the news, good or bad doesn’t matter, good or bad I make money, so I’m going to do whatever it takes.” It says a lot about the bubble Ms. Smith lived in that even her mother, Virgie Arthur, communicated with her daughter through the media. On “Good Morning America,” Ms. Arthur said she had tried to warn her estranged daughter about her drug use, and had done so by appearing on the Nancy Grace show.

Ms. Smith’s lust for fame coincided with a media explosion she could exploit. After her weight ballooned, and her modeling career declined, she latched onto the reality television craze. But her two seasons of “The Anna Nicole Show” on E! revealed how inept she was at shaping an image. Her speech was slurred, her voice was whiny, her manner was demanding, and the curiosity that fed the ratings quickly dissipated. She seemed beyond pathetic by 2004, after she became a diet-product spokeswoman and showed off her newly slim body in another slurry appearance at the American Music Awards.

Her story took an indisputably tragic turn in September, when her 20-year-old son, Daniel, died days after Ms. Smith gave birth to a daughter. Yet even then she couldn’t rise above the lurid nature of her fame. She sold photographs of her son and newborn in the hospital room where he died to In Touch magazine; even now, video of her Caesarean section is available on YouTube.

And soon an ugly paternity battle over the infant broke out in a flurry of media interviews, with two men claiming to be the father: Larry Birkhead, a former boyfriend, and Howard K. Stern, Ms. Smith’s longtime lawyer and confidant. (He seemed glued to her on the reality show.) It’s no surprise that Mr. Stern announced his fatherhood on “Larry King Live,” with Ms. Smith by his side.

The messiness of her death — its unknown cause, the continuing legal battles about the inheritance and the little girl’s paternity — have made its aftermath just as media-centric as her life, with cable news channels trotting out a parade of casual former boyfriends, sometime-friends and estranged relatives.

Donna Hogan, Ms. Smith’s half-sister, talked to Larry King on the phone about her forthcoming book (announced long before Ms. Smith’s death), predictably called “Train Wreck: Anna Nicole Unauthorized.” Ms. Hogan said she hadn’t seen her sister in about a decade.

And while commentators are struggling to find meaning in her life, the responses to her death in the hours just after it was announced may more accurately reflect the public attitude toward her as a joke who drew gawkers rather than fans.

Many reactions seemed to defy the usual courtesy of not speaking ill of the dead. A post by the Web site Wonkette.com said, “the dope-addicted floozy Anna Nicole Smith keeled over dead in a Florida hotel about an hour ago,” a fast turnaround of irreverence even for the Internet. Geraldo Rivera on the Fox News Channel put the blame for Ms. Smith’s sorry life on Mr. Stern, saying, “He’s a pimp,” who sold her to the media. (What does that make her?) And even Larry King, the friendliest of anchors, told Wolf Blitzer that Ms. Smith was “not the smartest person in the world” before praising her good humor and good heart.

The news of her death brought the inevitable jolt that comes when anyone dies suddenly at 39. And there is the inescapable tragedy of a 5-month-old left without her mother. But Anna Nicole Smith’s fame is as sad and shallow in death as it was in life, just as much of a tawdry compact between her and us.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, February 08, 2007

This One's For Anita

NY TIMES: A Story in Every Box
By ALEX KUCZYNSKI
Published: February 8, 2007

TIFFANY & Company has long enjoyed a gilded reputation, conferred by its association with the happy things in life: engagements, weddings, babies, trophies, retirements, anniversaries and romantic Hollywood movies. Most notable among the last category is “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” the 1961 version of the 1958 Truman Capote novella. In the movie, Holly Golightly and the writer find the cat and decide to get married and live happily ever after.

But in the book, the cat is lost forever and Ms. Golightly ends up at some unsavory, unmentionable station in life. The ending is ambiguous, but I always thought we were supposed to think she becomes a hooker.

Capote hated the movie. In his version, life isn’t accompanied by a soppy Henry Mancini soundtrack but by a vacuum of sorrow, failure and self-deceit. Critical Shopper has long made a study of whether Tiffany, the store, and Tiffany, the embedded romantic image in the mind of the consumer, might be just as different.

Over the last decade, Tiffany has been the victim of its own success, first building up its inexpensive silver lines, like the Return to Tiffany bracelets and necklaces, to attract younger customers, then raising the prices when the store wound up attracting too many younger customers, devaluing the Tiffany name. (Maybe it was the scene in “Legally Blonde” with Elle Woods wearing nothing but a bikini and her Tiffany heart jewelry that pushed the store over the edge.)

Facing competition from high-end jewelers — not to mention the luxury designers getting into the jewelry business — Tiffany underwent something of a face-lift, both physical and ideological. The new message is bring on the bling.

Tiffany operates in more than 100 locations in 16 countries, but the celebrated Art Deco flagship is best for observing the human animal in its ritual courtship dance. On a recent weekend afternoon, the second floor was crowded with couples cautiously circling the counters of engagement rings. To me, they all looked too young to be getting married; some of the men were wearing varsity letter jackets.

I credit the store for its gentle displays here: the most inexpensive rings — prices start at $1,090 for a ring with a round .18 carat diamond — seem to be presented in the clearest, brightest lights. This is not intended to make these rings seem bigger; rather, it makes them appear to be just as important as the icebergs down the counter — say, the round 10.5 carat diamond ring that sells for $1.12 million.

The face-lift has entailed refreshing the wood paneling and adding some modern touches, like a wide staircase between the third and fourth floors, over which hangs a brushed-steel and crystal chandelier. Some new jewelry lines are now offered, like the pieces by Frank Gehry, hired by Tiffany in 2005, but those I found — squiggly bracelets, metal mesh bracelets and earrings studded randomly with pearls — would appeal to an artier crowd than Tiffany attracts.

There is some inexpensive silver jewelry, like that at the Charm Bar on the third floor. But the charms for the choose-it-yourself bracelets are limited to letters and Tiffany Roman numerals, which may explain why the place was deserted. The only other charm bracelets are prefabricated versions with dogs and golf clubs. It seems pointless to offer charm bracelets with such a tantalizing lack of variety.

On the third floor, I tried on some Paloma Picasso pearl earrings ($1,250) and a Cruella DeVille-esque pearl and black onyx necklace (also $1,250) and engaged in a lengthy conversation with the saleswoman about feeling empowered in one’s 40s. (Translation: you can wear pearls and not necessarily look like the elder Barbara Bush.)

The staff members are, as you would expect, unremittingly polite. On the fourth floor, I watched a young woman with a rumpled Bloomingdale’s bag pore over silver key chains for half an hour with a patient clerk. “No, he doesn’t have this many keys,” she said, passing over one, her chin in her hand. “We could engrave this one,” the clerk offered, showing her another.

While Tiffany has sold millions of diamond engagement rings, many of its customers would pay a surcharge for the blue box because it represents trust and quality. What most people want when they celebrate their marriage is the manufacture of perfect memories, and for them the blue box is as essential a part of the wedding tradition as a white veil. In the marriages I’ve observed that began with a blue box, there is a kind of assurance that buying your ring at Tiffany inures you from bad marital juju, as if the union were protected by the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. But if things don’t work out, those kinds of expectations in marriage make for the bitterest of ends.

Over the last 10 years, I’ve visited Tiffany possibly a dozen times and put the Web site through its paces. I registered there when I got married, and on that count, it fared beautifully. When my china pattern was to be discontinued, the company sent me three letters asking if I wanted to buy more before it was no longer available. But the best test, I thought, would be to see if an earring I left there for repair in 2002 was still at the store.

So much time had passed that Tiffany’s customer service department has moved to another floor. It had been so long that people I know have met, gotten engaged (with that little blue box), married, had a child and already divorced. It had been so long that I had lost all the paperwork stating my ownership of the earring.

On a Sunday afternoon last month, I sat waiting in the confessional-like carrels of the service department, expecting to be told that the small Schlumberger turquoise earring (a gift) had long been remanded to the bad, anonymous place where all unclaimed repaired earrings go. But after five minutes of gentle tapping at her computer, the attendant summoned me. It had been sent to an outlying warehouse, but they had it.

“This time, why don’t we send it to you?” she said. “I think we’d better not wait for you to come pick it up again.” And so they did, free of charge. A happy movie ending, to be sure.

Now, if only I can find the other earring.

*************************************************************************************
  • Tiffany & Company 727 Fifth Avenue (57th Street); (212) 755-8000
  • ATMOSPHERE: Depending on the day, either bank-vault quiet or carnival-esque. Between 5 p.m. and closing on Valentine’s Day is “a real hoot,” one clerk said. “The men come in sweating and screaming, ‘Do you have anything heart-shaped?’ ”
  • SERVICE: Reliable and gentle.
  • PRICES: A silver chain for a Tiffany charm, $50; 64-carat pear-shaped diamond earrings, $6.5 million.
  • OVERHEARD CONVERSATION: “Honey, I love you a lot, but not three-quarters of a million dollars’ worth.”

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

An Astronaut's Life In Free Fall

NY TIMES: From Spaceflight to Attempted Murder Charge
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: February 7, 2007

Like most of today’s astronauts, Lisa Marie Nowak worked in relative obscurity — even last July, when she took the spaceflight that she had spent 10 years at NASA hoping for.

She is famous now, the smiling image of her in astronaut gear a sharp contrast with her police mugshot, a woman with wild hair wearing an expression of personal devastation.

She is charged with the attempted murder of a woman she believed to be her rival for the affections of a fellow astronaut. Police officials say she drove 900 miles to Florida from Texas, wearing a diaper so she would not have to stop for rest breaks. In Orlando, they say, she confronted her rival in a parking lot, attacking her with pepper spray.

Captain Nowak was in disguise at the time, wearing a wig, the police said. She had with her a compressed air pistol, a steel mallet, a knife, pepper spray, four feet of rubber tubing, latex gloves and garbage bags.

Those who know her say they are mystified. “I was in shock,” said Dennis Alloy, 43, of Tysons Corner, Va., a friend and high school classmate. “When I knew her, I couldn’t imagine an evil bone in her body.”

Many inside and outside the space agency are wondering how the problems of Captain Nowak, who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1985 and served in the Navy before joining National Aeronautics and Space Administration, were not detected before this. Many are also wondering whether the “Right Stuff” image of astronauts has been tarnished, or if that image somehow confused technical excellence with emotional stability.

“Like any other people, they’re human,” said George Abbey, director of the Johnson Space Center when Commander Nowak was selected for the astronaut corps, who recalled her as “an outstanding candidate.”

Captain Nowak, 43, was arrested at 4 a.m. Monday at Orlando International Airport, the police said, after attacking the other woman, Capt. Colleen Shipman of the Air Force.

According to the police report, by Detective William C. Becton, Captain Nowak said that she had not intended to harm Captain Shipman and that she believed that “this was the only time she was going to be able to speak” with her. The compressed air pistol she carried “was going to be used to entice Ms. Shipman to talk with her,” according to the report.

Detective Becton wrote, “When I asked Mrs. Nowak if she thought the pepper spray was going to help her speak with Ms. Shipman, she replied, ‘That was stupid.’ ”

According to the police report, Captain Nowak said she saw Captain Shipman, 30, as a rival for the affection of Cmdr. William A. Oefelein, a fellow astronaut. She told the police that she and Commander Oefelein, whose NASA nickname is Billy-O, had “more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship.” Commander Oefelein, 41, is divorced and has two children.

Tuesday was a day of confusion and quickly shifting events. Captain Nowak, a married mother of three, was brought before a judge for arraignment at 8:30 a.m. Two of her fellow astronauts — the chief of NASA’s astronaut office, Col. Steven W. Lindsey of the Air Force, and Capt. Christopher J. Ferguson of the Navy — were there to offer support.

The judge had agreed to release Captain Nowak on $15,000 bond on charges of kidnapping and battery, but the police added a charge of attempted murder, and bail was increased to $25,000.

Captain Shipman is seeking a protective order against Captain Nowak, according to documents posted on the Web site of The Orlando Sentinel, which broke the story Monday night.

In Orlando at the end of the day, Captain Nowak posted bail and later in the evening was fitted with an electronic ankle bracelet so her movements could be monitored after her return to Houston.

“She’s is going home,” said her lawyer , Donald Lykkebak.

Captain Nowak and her husband, Richard, a flight controller for the International Space Station, live with their children in a two-story brick-and-glass home in Houston.

Few neighbors there wanted to talk about the case, but one, who asked that his name not be used, said the couple had an argument in November with raised voices and the sound of breaking china.

No one was home on Tuesday.

A statement from the family last night on the Sentinel Web site said that the Nowaks had been married for 19 years but that Captain Nowak and her husband “had separated a few weeks ago.”

Earlier in the day, Michael Coats, the director of the Johnson Space Center, said in a statement: “We are deeply saddened by this tragic event. The charges against Lisa Nowak are serious ones that must be decided by the judicial system.”

Mr. Coats said Captain Nowak was “officially on 30-day leave and has been removed from flight status and all mission-related activities.”

How could a person involved in such a case rise within the space agency, which is famous for its psychological screening of astronaut candidates?

Nick Kanas, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, who has studied astronaut psychology, said that the screening occurs only at the very beginning of the process and that once an astronaut has gotten through the front door, the formal psychological evaluations give way to evaluation of job performance. Psychological counseling is available but not mandatory, he said.

“We can screen out very serious stuff, but we can’t always predict the future,” Professor Kanas said, and “people change over time.”

Captain Nowak first came to the space program in April 1996 and finally flew aboard the space shuttle in July 2006.

During the 13-day flight of the shuttle Discovery, which was launched on July 4 of last year, she operated the robot arm during spacewalks with her crewmate Stephanie D. Wilson, earning them the shared nickname Robo Chicks.

As an astronaut she performed roles including capcom, the astronaut who communicates with orbiting space station crews.

Professor Kanas said that most astronauts went through the experience of finally reaching space and came out well but that “for some it’s very difficult to adjust” to seeing the abrupt end of something they have worked so hard to achieve.

“These people are extremely well-suited, by personality and training, to deal with the stresses of being in space,” Professor Kanas said. But, he added, “that doesn’t mean that they’re not vulnerable to emotional problems, or problems in their relationships.”

Today’s astronauts find themselves in a world much less glamorous than the original crews. While the Mercury Seven raced Corvettes, today’s family-oriented fliers are likelier to tool around in minivans. They spend much more time in suburbia than in orbit, and there are no more ticker-tape parades for the returning heroes.

Some former officials of the space program said that romantic thoughts and even love triangles were not unknown to the program but that it was up to management to watch carefully and intervene.

Mr. Abbey, the former Johnson Space Center director, said, “You’ve got some hard-charging people, and you need to manage them.” Problems like this “don’t happen overnight,” and so “you have to be sensitive to what your people are doing.”

Now and then on his watch, he recalled, “I stepped in, and people weren’t happy about it,” he recalled, but it was important to tell them that “what you’re doing is not a personal thing for you — it’s affecting a lot of people around you, and affecting your performance.”

Christopher Kraft, NASA’s original flight director, said he was surprised. If someone was slipping toward such trouble, Mr. Kraft said, “your fellow crew members would pick that up.”

Captain Nowak’s use of a diaper on the long drive to Florida is no mystery to astronauts. Mike Mullane, a retired astronaut, said many astronauts wear a device — “we call them urine collection devices” — during launching, landing and spacewalks, “when you’re in a pressure suit and cannot get to a toilet.”

Other mysteries in the case could be more persistent. Michael Stone, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, said he was struck by the thoroughness of Captain Nowak’s preparation, which he said was generally “a guy thing.”

“It’s extraordinarily rare for a woman to do this type of a crime,” Professor Stone said. He said the more customary response was to try to kill the object of affection, as Jean Harris shot Herman Tarnower in 1980. “This is really close to unique in the annals of female crime,” he said.

Ralph Blumenthal, Rachel Mosteller and Maureen Balleza contributed from Houston, Melody Simmons from Baltimore, Sonia Chopra from Orlando, and Stefano Coledan from Cape Canaveral.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Ennio Morricone's First U.S. Concert

NY TIMES: The Maestro of Spaghetti Westerns Takes a Bow
By JON PARELES
Published: January 28, 2007

FOR many filmmakers through the years, a certain kind of pilgrimage to Rome leads to the opulent parlor of the composer Ennio Morricone. It’s the place where he has discussed grand concepts and crucial details, and often unveiled new themes on the piano, for the distinctive film scores he has written over the past four decades, from “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” to “The Mission.” There are more than 400 of them, though he hasn’t kept count.

Next Saturday Mr. Morricone, 78, makes his long-overdue American concert debut with 200 musicians and singers at Radio City Music Hall. It is the beginning of a triumphal month in the United States that will also include festivals of his films at the Museum of Modern Art and Film Forum, and the release of a tribute album, “We All Love Ennio Morricone” (Sony Masterworks), with performances from Bruce Springsteen, Renée Fleming, Herbie Hancock and Metallica, among others. On Feb. 25 he will be presented with an honorary Academy Award for lifetime achievement, atoning for past omissions. After five nominations, he has never won.

Massimo Gallotta, the promoter who is producing the concert, has been working for more than a year to present Mr. Morricone’s American debut. “It was strange for me that Morricone had never performed here in the past,” Mr. Gallotta said. “He agreed right away. And then I was lucky about the Oscar, the CD, everything.”

Mr. Morricone has given concerts periodically in Europe, including a December performance that drew 50,000 people to the Piazza del Duomo in Milan. At Radio City he will lead the 100-piece Roma Sinfonietta orchestra, along with the 100-member Canticum Novum Singers.

Everyone except Maestro Morricone, as he is called in Rome, considers him startlingly prolific. Along with his hundreds of film scores, he has composed a sizable body of concert music like “Voci dal Silencio” (“Voices From the Silence”), a cantata he wrote in response to “the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and all the massacres of humanity all over the world,” he said. He will be performing that work on Friday at the United Nations, at a concert welcoming the new secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.

“The notion that I am a composer who writes a lot of things is true on one hand and not true on the other hand,” he said in an interview at his home, speaking in Italian through a translator. “Maybe my time is better organized than many other people’s. But compared to classical composers like Bach, Frescobaldi, Palestrina or Mozart, I would define myself as unemployed.”

Maestro Morricone is a flinty, pragmatic character, but one who marvels at what he called “the strange miracle of music.” He looked like a bespectacled businessman, wearing a sport jacket, dark trousers, white shirt and tie. He greeted any generalizations about his work with a shrug, or a terse, “That is up to the audience to decide.” But through the years he has created music that is as memorable as the films it accompanies, and sometimes more so.

Audiences respond to the operatic sweep of themes like the ones he wrote for “Cinema Paradiso” and “Once Upon a Time in America.” Musicians prize the ingenuity of his writing: the unexpected harmonic turns, the odd meters (even in tunes that seem to be marches), the use of silence and wide spaces between instruments. Meanwhile hipsters and producers delight in the almost sardonic themes he wrote for films like “Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion” and the striking, sample-ready timbres he has invented.

For “1900” he wrote a score that encompasses Italian folk songs and dance music as well as symphonic arrangements. “He is someone with two identities,” said Bernardo Bertolucci, that film’s director. “One is the composer of contemporary music, and the other is this composer of big epics, this popular music for movies. All his life he has been trying to nourish one identity with the other one, and it is as if the two voices were enriching each other. He has a great capacity of harmonizing in himself.”

Maestro Morricone’s parlor, in a palazzo with a view of the Campidoglio hill in the center of Rome, is a Baroque room so large that the grand piano is almost lost amid the lavishly ornamented chairs, couches and tables. A small silver frame holds a family photo full of children and grandchildren. (He has three sons and a daughter; one son, Andrea, is a composer, and another, Giovanni, is a film director.)

At one corner of the room, a doorway leads into the office where Mr. Morricone writes his music. An unobtrusive movie screen, big enough for some multiplexes, can unroll down one wall of the parlor. On the other walls an antique tapestry of the abduction of the Sabine women is flanked by surreal, turbulent 20th-century paintings full of striking colors and brooding shadows.

The room’s mixture of elegant history and menacing modernity echoes the qualities that have made generations of directors — from Sergio Leone with “A Fistful of Dollars” to Terrence Malick with “Days of Heaven” to Roland Joffe with “The Mission” to Giuseppe Tornatore with “Cinema Paradiso” and “Malèna” — seek out Mr. Morricone.

He composes not at the piano or on a computer but at an imposing desk in his writing studio, amid shelves of books, LPs, CDs, tapes and DVDs. On a coffee table supported by a realistic rhinoceros is a neat stack of score paper with all the parts for an orchestra written in pencil: Mr. Morricone’s next batch of soundtracks.

His extensive background in classical music can be heard in his swelling love themes and in his meticulous orchestrations, which can suggest the stateliness of the 18th century or the eerie dissonances of the 20th. Unlike younger film composers who create their music as studio recordings rather than manuscripts, or who hand off their themes for others to arrange, Mr. Morricone writes full scores and conducts them himself.

“He doesn’t have a piano in his studio,” said the director Barry Levinson, who commissioned Mr. Morricone for “Bugsy,” a soundtrack nominated for an Academy Award. “I always thought that with composers, you sit at the piano, and you try to find the melody. There’s no such thing with him. He hears a melody, and he writes it down. He hears the orchestration completely done.”

Mr. Morricone grew up playing trumpet like his father, who worked in jazz bands and opera orchestras; sometimes Ennio substituted for him at gigs. While studying trumpet and composition at the Conservatorio di Santa Cecilia in Rome, Mr. Morricone was also arranging and sometimes writing pop songs. His film scores invoke centuries of popular music, from tarantellas and polkas to psychedelia, lounge pop and avant-garde jazz.

Mr. Morricone has also experimented constantly with timbre, using surf-rock guitar or jew’s harp, panpipes or synthesizer, wordless voices or exotic percussion. For the beginning of “Once Upon a Time in the West,” he persuaded the director, Mr. Leone, not to use conventional instruments at all: just amplified ambient sounds, from the creak of a swinging sign to the screech of an arriving train.

He pushes instruments to the extremes of their ranges and dynamics, and voices too. For “Navajo Joe,” he drew yowls and shrieks from the singers he hired. “When they finished recording, they were crying because what had been done sounded so terrible to them,” Mr. Morricone said with satisfaction.

His approach, he said, reflects his education and his era. “I have studied the expressive methods of the entire history of musical composition,” he said. “At times I turn more toward light music, at times I turn more toward serious music. I mingle things, and sometimes I turn into a chameleon. We are living in a modern world, and in contemporary music the central fact is contamination, not the contamination of disease but the contamination of musical styles. If you find this in me, that is good.”

In the films that established his reputation in the 1960s, the series of spaghetti westerns he scored for Mr. Leone, Mr. Morricone’s music is anything but a backdrop. It’s sometimes a conspirator, sometimes a lampoon, with tunes that are as vividly in the foreground as any of the actors’ faces. The sound of an ocarina, the humble potato-shaped ceramic flute, made his name in the 1960s in the theme for “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.”

That theme was typical Morricone: a tenacious melody put across by an unlikely, unpretty, arresting combination of instruments. “I always follow an idea,” he said, “and if an idea tells me I’ve got to use strange combinations of instruments, then I do what works.” For Mr. Morricone the plan was simple. “I wanted to differentiate three timbres — the good, the bad and the ugly,” he said. “A silver flute, sounding sweet, is the good. The ocarina is the ugly. And the bad is the voices of two men singing together, off key.

“I should not be revealing this,” he continued. “These are family secrets.”

Metallica has been using “The Ecstasy of Gold,” from the same movie, as its entrance music since 1983, and performs its own version of the piece on the new tribute album.

“To me his music is just absolutely inspirational, corny as that may sound,” said James Hetfield, Metallica’s singer and guitarist. “He has taken so many risks, and his music is not polished whatsoever. It’s very rude and blatant. All of a sudden a Mexican horn will come blasting through and just take over the melody. It’s just so raw, really raw, and it feels real, unpolished. You hear mistakes in it, and that’s just great — if they are mistakes. Who knows? There’s so much character in it, and I appreciate that in such a polished world of soundtracks.”

After he became known for Mr. Leone’s spaghetti westerns, Mr. Morricone went on to write for every imaginable genre: crime films like “The Untouchables,” historical epics like “Burn!,” horror movies like “The Thing,” art films like “Teorema,” even an occasional comedy. He has worked with virtually every major Italian director after Fellini, as well as a long international list.

Mr. Morricone chooses his commissions based almost entirely on his trust in the director, he said. “Sometimes I read the script, sometimes I read the main part of the story, and sometimes I just watch the film when it’s done and that’s it,” he said.

“When you work in cinema, you can’t exclude anything,” he added. “Lately I have scored a film, and the film had not been shot yet. It was just being shot, and I just heard the director’s story of the film. This is not as negative as it seems to be, because it gives the composer the possibility to just express music — music and only music.”

Mr. Levinson said that unlike many film scorers, Mr. Morricone does not want to hear the temporary music many directors use while shooting. He watches a movie without accompaniment and takes notes, sometimes coming up with themes immediately. “They usually give you less time than necessary, but I usually ask for a month,” he said. “When I have to compose I have no holidays. I write every day. And Saturday and Sunday are even better, because the phone doesn’t ring that much.”

Mr. Morricone is wary of having too much music in a film. “It’s useless,” he said. “After a while the audience loses track, and you cannot appreciate the psychological idea and aim that the music has.”

He often presents himself as the servant of the director and the film. “Time is the element they have in common, music and cinema,” he said. “You have to take into account the actors, the plot, the intention of the director and the story you are going to score.”

But he is more than a functionary. His own personality, what he has called a “musical calligraphy,” comes through. “A composer is conditioned by the film, but he has to find a way to overcome these limits,” he said. “And how does he do this? Through his musical culture, through his great passion for musicians of the past. And doing it time after time, little by little it becomes a style.”

Is his own story in the music? “That’s a romantic idea of composing, that there is autobiographical inspiration in things,” he said. “Some composers, perhaps, they see a woman and say, ‘I’m going to write something extraordinary because I’m thinking of her.’ ”

And has that happened to him? He scowled. “Niente,” he said emphatically. “Never.”


An article on the front page of Arts & Leisure today about the composer Ennio Morricone incorrectly lists Enya among the performers on a tribute album to be released in February, “We All Love Ennio Morricone.” She does not appear on the album.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Sing A Song Of Bush

NY TIMES: State of the Union: Another Take
By RANDY NEWMAN
Published: January 24, 2007

Randy Newman, the singer, songwriter and composer, performed this song at Carnegie Hall in 2006. It will be released soon online. This is an abridged version.

A Few Words in Defense of Our Country
By Randy Newman

I’d like to say a few words
In defense of our country
Whose people aren’t bad nor are they mean
Now the leaders we have
While they’re the worst that we’ve had
Are hardly the worst this poor world has seen

Let’s turn history’s pages, shall we?

Take the Caesars for example
Why within the first few of them
They had split Gaul into three parts
Fed the Christians to the lions
And burned down the City
And one of ’em
Appointed his own horse Consul of the Empire
That’s like vice president or something
That’s not a very good example, is it?
But wait, here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition
They put people in a terrible position

I don’t even like to think about it
Well, sometimes I like to think about it

Just a few words in defense of our country
Whose time at the top
Could be coming to an end
Now we don’t want their love
And respect at this point is pretty much out of the question
But in times like these
We sure could use a friend

Hitler. Stalin.
Men who need no introduction
King Leopold of Belgium. That’s right.
Everyone thinks he’s so great
Well he owned The Congo
He tore it up too
He took the diamonds, he took the gold
He took the silver
Know what he left them with?
Malaria

A president once said,
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”
Now it seems like we’re supposed to be afraid
It’s patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That’s what terror means, doesn’t it?
That’s what it used to mean

[To the first eight bars of “Columbia The Gem Of The Ocean”]

You know it pisses me off a little
That this Supreme Court is gonna outlive me
A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world
To find me two Italians as tightass as the two Italians we got
And as for the brother
Well, Pluto’s not a planet anymore either

The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye.

*************************************************************************************

O boy O boy! I can't wait to hear the song! Too bad the article doesn't say where it'll be available, or when...

UPDATE - NONESUCH.COM:
The song will be available exclusively at iTunes on January 30. I've also included the section that the Times cut out, printed here in red.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, January 20, 2007

The Times' Vermont Journal

NY TIMES: Warm Days and Hard Times in Snowmobile Land
By KATIE ZEZIMA
Published: January 20, 2007

CHESTER, Vt., Jan. 18 — For 24 winters, Bev and Butch Jelley, owners of the B&B Mobil station here, have provided legions of snowmobilers with fuel and chili. But this year the kitchen is quiet, and the snowmobiles are nowhere to be found.

Snowmobile clubs and the businesses that cater to them are having their second bad year in a row in many parts of New England, as warm weather has turned flakes to wet blobs and left trails a grassy, rocky mess.

Conditions are improving for clubs in Northern Maine, which received a foot of snow this week, and are getting better in parts of the Northeast Kingdom in Vermont and the North Country of New Hampshire, both of which received snow this week.

But elsewhere, snowmobile clubs are seeing memberships decline, meaning a drop in the dues used for trail maintenance. The lack of riders is severely affecting restaurants and gas stations like the Jelleys’, which laid off much of its winter staff and is closing on Sundays to save money.

“It’s horrible. We’ve been here 24 years and have never closed on a Sunday,” Mr. Jelley said. “We need snow for snowmobilers. That’s what we depend on in the winter; it’s 99 percent of our business.”

Pat Budnick, owner of the Motel in the Meadow, has a sign saying “Think Snow” in the reception area.

“I’m down $3,000 from last year in January, and so far that’s just 18 days,” Ms. Budnick said. “We haven’t had one snowmobiler, because the trails aren’t open.”

Ann Shangraw, president of the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers, which oversees local clubs and distributes money for grooming trails, said fewer than 5,000 memberships had been sold so far this season. The association, known as VAST, normally sells about 30,000 memberships annually, Ms. Shangraw said.

“Our budget is membership-driven,” she said, adding that the association distributes about $800,000 annually to clubs. “We are a wealthy association until the end of this year. We are by no means folding, but at the end of this season we will be thinking about programs and services to cut.”

Ms. Shangraw said snowmobiling brought $553 million annually to Vermont, according to the association’s last economic impact study.

Local associations are also trimming their budgets. Dick Jewett, president of the Chester Snowmobile Club, said that all of the club’s trails had closed and that he had not had occasion to use its snow-grooming machine, which sits in his garage. The club, he said, gets $10 from VAST for every mile of trail it grooms.

Mr. Jewett said that the club had 489 members last year, and that as of Sunday, only 110 riders had joined so far this year. Because of budget concerns, the club will probably do away with two scholarships it gives out, he said, and look for other ways to trim its budget.

“It’s the second year with light snowfall,” Mr. Jewett said. “In order to survive, we’ll have to make cuts.”

In Maine, registrations were down by a quarter, said Bob Myers, executive director of the Maine Snowmobile Association, but the state just received snow, and people plan to snowmobile this weekend, Mr. Myers said.

Bill Cost, owner of Inn by the River in The Forks, Me., said he and other business owners were trying to salvage the season. Mr. Cost, who helps maintain trails, said the region recently got about a foot of snow, roughly one-third of what it takes for good snowmobiling conditions. He expects heavy use this weekend.

“It’s been devastating, absolutely devastating. It has a huge trickledown effect,” said Mr. Cost, who had to lay off four employees because business was slow this year and last. “We’re holding our breath, hoping the cold and snow continue.”

Here in Chester, Benny’s Power, which services cars and sells snowmobiles, has three years of unsold stock out back.

Chris Gansz of Full Throttle Motor Sports in Warren, N.H., and a member of the Asquamchumauke Snowmobile Club, said he could not get rid of his inventory of used snowmobiles.

“No one is buying sleds. I couldn’t sell a used sled to save my life right now,” Mr. Gansz said. The club, he said, is worrying about money.

“We’re all scratching our heads wondering how we’re going to pay for the groomer this year,” he said. “Our checkbook is taking a pretty good hit right now.”

John Plante, president of the Sno-Bees Snowmobile Club in Barre, Vt., has not given up hope.

“We’re waiting, praying, for snow,” he said.

*************************************************************************************
Shows what I know - I thought most people swapped out snowmobiles for those four-wheeled ATVs a long time ago. Here's hoping business picks up!

Labels: , , ,

NY TIMES: Denny Doherty, 66, Mamas and Papas Singer, Dies
By BEN SISARIO
Published: January 20, 2007

Denny Doherty, a founding member of the 1960s folk-pop band the Mamas and the Papas, died yesterday at his home in Mississauga, Ontario. He was 66.

The cause was not immediately known, his daughter Emberly said. But she said her father had recently suffered kidney failure after surgery for a stomach aneurysm.

With chiming guitars and rich, meticulous harmonies that could be tinged with darkness, the Mamas and the Papas became one of the most popular and influential American bands of the era between the Beatles’ arrival and Woodstock. Their enduring hits, like “California Dreamin’,” “Monday, Monday” and “Dedicated to the One I Love,” mixed the gentle jangle of folk with a rock backbeat and sweet, layered pop vocals.

Though John Phillips was the group’s principal songwriter, Mr. Doherty sang most of the male leads, in a clear, friendly tenor that he occasionally punctuated with rock ’n’ roll growls. In “California Dreamin’,” the group’s first hit, the singers harmonize about being stuck among the brown leaves and cold gray skies of winter, and pining for sunny respite. But Mr. Doherty’s lead on the verse suggests that his wishes may go unfulfilled:

Well, I got down on my knees

And I pretend to pray

You know the preacher likes the cold

He knows I’m gonna stay

The song was released in late 1965 after the group signed with the Dunhill label. After stalling at first, it entered the charts the next year in the dead of February — with particular popularity in the Northeast — and reached No. 4.

The Mamas and the Papas, who were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998, were one of the first major rock groups to include both women and men in equal performing roles, with Mr. Doherty, Mr. Phillips, Michelle Phillips and Cass Elliot striking an image of casual, collegiate friendship. In reality, they were a destructive tangle of love affairs, accompanied by plenty of drugs and alcohol.

“It was an untenable situation,” Mr. Doherty said in an interview with The New York Times in 2000. “Cass wanted me, I wanted Michelle, John wanted Michelle, Michelle wanted me, she wanted her freedom. ...”

In 1968, the Phillipses divorced and the group dissolved, but it had a brief reunion in the early ’70s.

Though the Mamas and the Papas became associated with Los Angeles, the group had its origins in the Greenwich Village folk scene of the early ’60s. Mr. Doherty, who was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, was playing in a group called the Halifax Three. After it broke up, he joined Ms. Elliot’s band, the Big Three, which changed its name to the Mugwumps and went electric.

Mr. Phillips, meanwhile, was playing in the Journeymen with Ms. Phillips, and after the Mugwumps disbanded, Mr. Doherty joined them in the New Journeymen. With Ms. Elliot in tow, the new group went to St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands to rehearse, and eventually moved to Los Angeles. (The whole picaresque history, with shout-outs to former band mates like John Sebastian of the Lovin’ Spoonful, is recounted in the group’s “Creeque Alley,” a No. 5 hit in 1967.)

Mr. Doherty, who used some of the riches the group collected to buy a house in the Laurel Canyon section of Los Angeles that had once been owned by the Hollywood actress Mary Astor, released two solo albums in the early ’70s and starred in a Broadway show, “Man on the Moon,” written by Mr. Phillips and produced by Andy Warhol. It began performances in late 1974 and closed five weeks later.

Ms. Elliot died in 1974, and Mr. Phillips died in 2001.

The Mamas and the Papas had another reunion in the early ’80s, with Mr. Phillips, Mr. Doherty, Mr. Phillips’s daughter Mackenzie and Elaine (Spanky) McFarlane.

After returning to Canada, Mr. Doherty pursued his acting career, starring in “Theodore Tugboat,” a popular children’s television show produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Company, which ran for most of the 1990s. As the only human on the show, he played the character of the Harbor Master, introducing each segment. It was broadcast on about 200 PBS affiliates and was shown in 80 countries.

Mr. Doherty also developed an autobiographical stage show, “Dream a Little Dream: The Nearly True Story of the Mamas and the Papas,” starting it in Halifax in 1999. He performed it Off Broadway at the Village Theater in 2003.

In addition to Emberly, Mr. Doherty’s survivors include another daughter, Jessica Woods, and a son, John Doherty, also of Mississauga; and three sisters and a brother.

*************************************************************************************

Sorry if I'm bringing you down with all of these obituaries, but I grew up with Art Buchwald columns in the newspaper, and listened to my parents' Mamas and the Papas records drawing in the sun room on weekend afternoons. Their harmonies were fantastic - have a listen if you don't believe me. I was a little entranced by Michelle Phillips, too - she was gorgeous!

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Exactly!

NY TIMES: Editorial - Safe as Milk?
Published: January 6, 2007
The Food and Drug Administration’s assessment that food from cloned animals is safe to eat is a victory for biotech companies and a loss for everyone else. Like many decisions on the cutting edge of agricultural technology, it was hurried along in a way that is more sensitive to political and economic pressure than to the long-term welfare of animals, humans and the world they inhabit. Asking whether cloned meat and milk are safe is not even the right question. The right question is, why clone at all?

Approving food from cloned animals will create another food-labeling nightmare and the same aggressive litigation that usually blocks any attempt to tell consumers where their food comes from.

But cloning has much worse consequences. It marks a revolutionary shift — from the relative randomness of sexual reproduction to the apparent uniformity of asexual reproduction. Because cloning creates genetically identical animals, it will shrink the gene pool on which agriculture rests, and any drastic shrinkage in genetic diversity creates enormous health risks for a species.

Cloning isn’t just a matter for the F.D.A. to decide. It is up to us as a society to decide as well. We should be asking much broader questions than the F.D.A. is able to. Who will cloning benefit? What will it do to the health of the animals themselves?

But the most important question of all may be this one: Are we willing to judge the suitability of new technologies in ways that fully address their ethical and biological complexities? Or are we doomed to give in to politics and the bottom line?

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 01, 2007

A Touching Appreciation

NY TIMES: From Father to Son, Last Words to Live By
By DANA CANEDY Published: January 1, 2007

He drew pictures of himself with angel wings. He left a set of his dog tags on a nightstand in my Manhattan apartment. He bought a tiny blue sweat suit for our baby to wear home from the hospital.

Then he began to write what would become a 200-page journal for our son, in case he did not make it back from the desert in Iraq.

For months before my fiancé, First Sgt. Charles Monroe King, kissed my swollen stomach and said goodbye, he had been preparing for the beginning of the life we had created and for the end of his own.

He boarded a plane in December 2005 with two missions, really — to lead his young soldiers in combat and to prepare our boy for a life without him.

Dear son
, Charles wrote on the last page of the journal, “I hope this book is somewhat helpful to you. Please forgive me for the poor handwriting and grammar. I tried to finish this book before I was deployed to Iraq. It has to be something special to you. I’ve been writing it in the states, Kuwait and Iraq.

The journal will have to speak for Charles now. He was killed Oct. 14 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his armored vehicle in Baghdad. Charles, 48, had been assigned to the Army’s First Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Tex. He was a month from completing his tour of duty.

For our son’s first Christmas, Charles had hoped to take him on a carriage ride through Central Park. Instead, Jordan, now 9 months old, and I snuggled under a blanket in a horse-drawn buggy. The driver seemed puzzled about why I was riding alone with a baby and crying on Christmas Day. I told him.

“No charge,” he said at the end of the ride, an act of kindness in a city that can magnify loneliness.

On paper, Charles revealed himself in a way he rarely did in person. He thought hard about what to say to a son who would have no memory of him. Even if Jordan will never hear the cadence of his father’s voice, he will know the wisdom of his words.

Never be ashamed to cry. No man is too good to get on his knee and humble himself to God. Follow your heart and look for the strength of a woman.

Charles tried to anticipate questions in the years to come. Favorite team? I am a diehard Cleveland Browns fan. Favorite meal? Chicken, fried or baked, candied yams, collard greens and cornbread. Childhood chores? Shoveling snow and cutting grass. First kiss? Eighth grade.

In neat block letters, he wrote about faith and failure, heartache and hope. He offered tips on how to behave on a date and where to hide money on vacation. Rainy days have their pleasures, he noted: Every now and then you get lucky and catch a rainbow.

Charles mailed the book to me in July, after one of his soldiers was killed and he had recovered the body from a tank. The journal was incomplete, but the horror of the young man’s death shook Charles so deeply that he wanted to send it even though he had more to say. He finished it when he came home on a two-week leave in August to meet Jordan, then 5 months old. He was so intoxicated by love for his son that he barely slept, instead keeping vigil over the baby.

I can fill in some of the blanks left for Jordan about his father. When we met in my hometown of Radcliff, Ky., near Fort Knox, I did not consider Charles my type at first. He was bashful, a homebody and got his news from television rather than newspapers (heresy, since I’m a New York Times editor).

But he won me over. One day a couple of years ago, I pulled out a list of the traits I wanted in a husband and realized that Charles had almost all of them. He rose early to begin each day with prayers and a list of goals that he ticked off as he accomplished them. He was meticulous, even insisting on doing my ironing because he deemed my wrinkle-removing skills deficient. His rock-hard warrior’s body made him appear tough, but he had a tender heart.

He doted on Christina, now 16, his daughter from a marriage that ended in divorce. He made her blush when he showed her a tattoo with her name on his arm. Toward women, he displayed an old-fashioned chivalry, something he expected of our son. Remember who taught you to speak, to walk and to be a gentleman, he wrote to Jordan in his journal. These are your first teachers, my little prince. Protect them, embrace them and always treat them like a queen.

Though as a black man he sometimes felt the sting of discrimination, Charles betrayed no bitterness. It’s not fair to judge someone by the color of their skin, where they’re raised or their religious beliefs, he wrote. Appreciate people for who they are and learn from their differences.

He had his faults, of course. Charles could be moody, easily wounded and infuriatingly quiet, especially during an argument. And at times, I felt, he put the military ahead of family.

He had enlisted in 1987, drawn by the discipline and challenges. Charles had other options — he was a gifted artist who had trained at the Art Institute of Chicago — but felt fulfilled as a soldier, something I respected but never really understood. He had a chest full of medals and a fierce devotion to his men.

He taught the youngest, barely out of high school, to balance their checkbooks, counseled them about girlfriends and sometimes bailed them out of jail. When he was home in August, I had a baby shower for him. One guest recently reminded me that he had spent much of the evening worrying about his troops back in Iraq.

Charles knew the perils of war. During the months before he went away and the days he returned on leave, we talked often about what might happen. In his journal, he wrote about the loss of fellow soldiers. Still, I could not bear to answer when Charles turned to me one day and asked, “You don’t think I’m coming back, do you?” We never said aloud that the fear that he might not return was why we decided to have a child before we planned a wedding, rather than risk never having the chance.

But Charles missed Jordan’s birth because he refused to take a leave from Iraq until all of his soldiers had gone home first, a decision that hurt me at first. And he volunteered for the mission on which he died, a military official told his sister, Gail T. King. Although he was not required to join the resupply convoy in Baghdad, he believed that his soldiers needed someone experienced with them. “He would say, ‘My boys are out there, I’ve got to go check on my boys,’ ” said First Sgt. Arenteanis A. Jenkins, Charles’s roommate in Iraq.

In my grief, that decision haunts me. Charles’s father faults himself for not begging his son to avoid taking unnecessary risks. But he acknowledges that it would not have made a difference. “He was a born leader,” said his father, Charlie J. King. “And he believed what he was doing was right.”

Back in April, after a roadside bombing remarkably similar to that which would claim him, Charles wrote about death and duty.

The 18th was a long, solemn night, he wrote in Jordan’s journal. We had a memorial for two soldiers who were killed by an improvised explosive device. None of my soldiers went to the memorial. Their excuse was that they didn’t want to go because it was depressing. I told them it was selfish of them not to pay their respects to two men who were selfless in giving their lives for their country.

Things may not always be easy or pleasant for you, that’s life, but always pay your respects for the way people lived and what they stood for. It’s the honorable thing to do.

When Jordan is old enough to ask how his father died, I will tell him of Charles’s courage and assure him of Charles’s love. And I will try to comfort him with his father’s words.
God blessed me above all I could imagine, Charles wrote in the journal. I have no regrets, serving your country is great.

He had tucked a message to me in the front of Jordan’s journal. This is the letter every soldier should write, he said. For us, life will move on through Jordan. He will be an extension of us and hopefully everything that we stand for. ... I would like to see him grow up to be a man, but only God knows what the future holds.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 29, 2006

NY TIMES: Middle School Girls Gone Wild
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
Published: December 29, 2006

It’s hard to write this without sounding like a prig. But it’s just as hard to erase the images that planted the idea for this essay, so here goes. The scene is a middle school auditorium, where girls in teams of three or four are bopping to pop songs at a student talent show. Not bopping, actually, but doing elaborately choreographed re-creations of music videos, in tiny skirts or tight shorts, with bare bellies, rouged cheeks and glittery eyes.

They writhe and strut, shake their bottoms, splay their legs, thrust their chests out and in and out again. Some straddle empty chairs, like lap dancers without laps. They don’t smile much. Their faces are locked from grim exertion, from all that leaping up and lying down without poles to hold onto. “Don’t stop don’t stop,” sings Janet Jackson, all whispery. “Jerk it like you’re making it choke. ...Ohh. I’m so stimulated. Feel so X-rated.” The girls spend a lot of time lying on the floor. They are in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades.

As each routine ends, parents and siblings cheer, whistle and applaud. I just sit there, not fully comprehending. It’s my first suburban Long Island middle school talent show. I’m with my daughter, who is 10 and hadn’t warned me. I’m not sure what I had expected, but it wasn’t this. It was something different. Something younger. Something that didn’t make the girls look so ... one-dimensional.

It would be easy to chalk it up to adolescent rebellion, an ancient and necessary phenomenon, except these girls were barely adolescents and they had nothing to rebel against. This was an official function at a public school, a milieu that in another time or universe might have seen children singing folk ballads, say, or reciting the Gettysburg Address.

It is news to no one, not even me, that eroticism in popular culture is a 24-hour, all-you-can-eat buffet, and that many children in their early teens are filling up. The latest debate centers on whether simulated intercourse is an appropriate dance style for the high school gym.

What surprised me, though, was how completely parents of even younger girls seem to have gotten in step with society’s march toward eroticized adolescence — either willingly or through abject surrender. And if parents give up, what can a school do? A teacher at the middle school later told me she had stopped chaperoning dances because she was put off by the boy-girl pelvic thrusting and had no way to stop it — the children wouldn’t listen to her and she had no authority to send anyone home. She guessed that if the school had tried to ban the sexy talent-show routines, parents would have been the first to complain, having shelled out for costumes and private dance lessons for their Little Miss Sunshines.

I’m sure that many parents see these routines as healthy fun, an exercise in self-esteem harmlessly heightened by glitter makeup and teeny skirts. Our girls are bratz, not slutz, they would argue, comfortable in the existence of a distinction.

But my parental brain rebels. Suburban parents dote on and hover over their children, micromanaging their appointments and shielding them in helmets, kneepads and thick layers of S.U.V. steel. But they allow the culture of boy-toy sexuality to bore unchecked into their little ones’ ears and eyeballs, displacing their nimble and growing brains and impoverishing the sense of wider possibilities in life.

There is no reason adulthood should be a low plateau we all clamber onto around age 10. And it’s a cramped vision of girlhood that enshrines sexual allure as the best or only form of power and esteem. It’s as if there were now Three Ages of Woman: first Mary-Kate, then Britney, then Courtney. Boys don’t seem to have such constricted horizons. They wouldn’t stand for it — much less waggle their butts and roll around for applause on the floor of a school auditorium.

Labels: , , , ,

Oh, Shit

NY TIMES: F.D.A. Tentatively Declares Food From Cloned Animals to Be Safe
By ANDREW POLLACK and ANDREW MARTIN
Published: December 29, 2006

After years of delay, the Food and Drug Administration tentatively concluded yesterday that milk and meat from some cloned farm animals are safe to eat. That finding could make the United States the first country to allow products from cloned livestock to be sold in grocery stores.

Even if the agency’s assessment is formally approved next year, consumers will not see many steaks or pork chops from cloned animals because the technology is still too expensive to be used widely.

But the F.D.A.’s draft policy touched off an immediate storm of criticism from consumer groups, as well as some concerns from meat and dairy companies worried about consumer reaction.

“At the end of the day, F.D.A. is looking out for a few cloning companies and not for consumers or the dairy industry,” said Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group.

Mr. Mendelson and other consumer representatives argue that the science backing the F.D.A.’s decision is shaky and that consumer surveys show that most people are opposed to cloning animals, let alone eating them. Some also said that cloning causes harm to the animals involved and could pave the way for human cloning.

Opponents hope to bring Congressional pressure to bear to derail the policy before it becomes final or at least to require that such foods be labeled so consumers can choose to avoid them. F.D.A. officials said that it was unlikely that labeling would be required because food from cloned animals is indistinguishable from other food, although a final decision about labeling has not been made.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, yesterday called for a “careful, deliberative and open process” before cloned animals are approved for food.

The F.D.A.’s finding comes more than six years after the agency first decided to study the matter, after recognizing that the advent of cloned farm animals raised a food safety issue. After that study, the agency in 2003 gave a tentative approval to cloned animals for food. But the F.D.A. retreated after its own advisory panel found there was insufficient scientific backing for that conclusion.

This time, F.D.A. officials said they had substantial new data, which they presented yesterday in a nearly 700-page “draft risk assessment.”

The officials denied the contention from some critics that the policy was announced during a holiday week in order to reduce publicity, saying it had taken until now to analyze the data and obtain comment from other government agencies.

The assessment concluded that milk and meat from cloned cows, pigs and goats, and from their offspring, were “as safe to eat as the food we eat every day,” Stephen F. Sundlof, the F.D.A.’s chief of veterinary medicine, said in a telephone call with reporters.

Mr. Sundlof said that by law the agency could consider only the scientific issues, not consumer demand or the ethics of cloning.

While animal cloning has always been legal, since 2001 there has been a voluntary moratorium on the sales of milk or meat from such animals to give the F.D.A. time to study the matter. Some experts say that some products from clones or their offspring have probably nonetheless made their way into the food supply.

The moratorium will stay in place until the new policy is completed, after a 90-day period for public comment and additional time for the F.D.A. to review the comments. Mr. Sundlof said he could not say when the final policy would be ready, though it might be by the end of 2007.

Even then, the moratorium would remain for products from sheep, the F.D.A. said, because there was not enough evidence of their safety. No one has yet succeeded in cloning chickens or other poultry.

The finding was hailed by cloning companies, which have been struggling to build a business. It also drew praise from some farmers and breeders who have already made clones of their prized livestock but have had to pour milk down the drain and keep their meat off the market.

They say that cloning is just another breeding technique, like artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization.

“This just sort of lifts the stigma of the clones,” said Bob Schauf, a Holstein breeder and dairy farmer in Barron, Wis., who had two of his prized cows cloned. He said his family and the families of his employees have been drinking the milk from those clones rather than see it go to waste. But dairy marketers have expressed concern.

A survey conducted last summer by the International Dairy Foods Association, an industry trade group, found that 14 percent of women would turn away from all dairy products if milk from clones were introduced into the food supply. The association surveyed women because its research has found them to be the main household decision makers on dairy products.

The American Meat Institute, while saying yesterday that cloning was safe, also urged the F.D.A. to be cautious about approval “if most consumers are unwilling to accept the technology.”

A poll this month from the nonprofit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that while most consumers knew little about animal cloning, 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with it, with 46 percent saying they were “strongly uncomfortable.”

F.D.A. officials said no other country had yet approved food from cloned livestock, although some are considering it. That raised the prospect that American exports of milk or meat could be blocked by certain countries if they contain products from cloned animals. An official in the Washington delegation of the European Union said politicians and consumers in Europe would no doubt debate the issue.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director for food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said consumer groups would ask food companies, retailers and restaurant chains to shun products from cloned livestock.

That raises the possibility that some food companies will label their products “clone free,” just as some now label milk as not coming from cows injected with growth hormone.

Cloning involves putting an animal’s DNA into an egg thats own DNA has been removed. The resulting embryo, after being implanted into a surrogate mother, makes a genetically identical copy of the original animal.

But even if two animals have identical genes, they can turn out differently if those genes are turned on or off at different times. And studies have shown that patterns of gene activity are different in embryos created by cloning compared with embryos created by the fusing of sperm and egg.

These differences are presumed to account in large measure for the low success rate of cloning. Fetuses can grow unusually large, posing a risk to the surrogate mother. Many clones die during gestation or shortly after birth. Some are born with deformed heads or limbs or problems with their hearts, lungs or other organs.

But the F.D.A. said that obviously sick and deformed animals were already barred from the food supply. It added that clones that survived past the first few days “appear to grow and develop normally” and that healthy adult clones were “virtually indistinguishable” from noncloned livestock, making their meat or milk safe.

The draft assessment based its conclusions on an extensive review of scientific literature on cloning as well as on studies, some done by cloning companies, comparing the composition of the milk, meat and blood of cloned animals and conventional animals.

Mr. Sundlof said the agency also found that cloning “poses no unique risks to the health of animals” beyond those seen with other forms of assisted reproduction such as in-vitro fertilization. The frequency of problems is higher with cloning, however, perhaps because it is a newer technology. The first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was born in 1996.

The F.D.A.’s announcement, by paving the way for the end of the moratorium, could make it easier to persuade farmers and breeders to pay $15,000 to copy a prized bull or dairy cow.

“I think that this draft is going to provide the industry the comfort it needs,” said Mark Walton, president of ViaGen, a cloning company based in Austin, Tex., that has yet to turn a profit after five years.

Industry officials estimate there are now only about 500 or 600 cloned cows in the United States, out of tens of millions of beef and dairy cows. There are roughly 200 cloned pigs.

Experts say that cloning is too expensive to be used to make animals only to then grind them into hamburger or even to milk them. Rather, farmers and breeders are cloning prized livestock so they can then be used for breeding using more conventional means of reproduction.

That means that most food from cloning would come from the sexually produced offspring of the cloned animals. The F.D.A. said milk and meat from such offspring were safe, because any abnormalities in clones do not carry into the next generation.

The agency’s assessment did not include genetically modified animals, in which a foreign gene is introduced. The agency is still deciding whether to allow the first of those, a fast-growing fish, into the food supply.

*************************************************************************************

As you can tell, I'm not all that excited by this news. Like some of the critics in the article are saying, I don't see any clear gain in cloning cited by anyone - except the folks trying to make money from it.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

"Everything Is Wonderful": Gerald Ford, 1913 - 2006

Gerald Ford, 38th President, Dies at 93
By JAMES M. NAUGHTON and ADAM CLYMER
Published: December 27, 2006

Former President Gerald R. Ford, who was thrust into the presidency in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal but who lost his own bid for election after pardoning President Richard M. Nixon, has died, according to a statement issued late last night by his wife, Betty Ford.

He was 93, making him the oldest former president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who died in 2004, by just over a month.

The statement did not give a cause, place or time of death, but Mr. Ford, the 38th president, had been in and out of the hospital since January 2006 when he suffered pneumonia, most recently in October at the Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, Calif., for medical tests. He returned to his home in Rancho Mirage after five days of hospitalization.

“My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age,” Mrs. Ford said in a statement issued from her husband’s office in Rancho Mirage, also the location of the Betty Ford Center. “His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country.”

President Bush praised Mr. Ford for his contributions to the nation “in an hour of national turmoil and division,” in a statement released early today from his ranch in Texas.

“With his quiet integrity, common sense, and kind instincts, President Ford helped heal our land and restore public confidence in the presidency,” Mr. Bush said. “The American people will always admire Gerald Ford’s devotion to duty, his personal character, and the honorable conduct of his administration.”

Mr. Ford, who was the only person to lead the country without having been elected as president or vice president, occupied the White House for just 896 days — starting from a hastily arranged ceremony on Aug. 9, 1974, and ending after his defeat by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. But they were pivotal days of national introspection, involving America’s first definitive failure in a war and the first resignation of a president.

After a decade of division over Vietnam and two years of trauma over the Watergate scandals, Jerry Ford, as he called himself, radiated a soothing familiarity. He might have been the nice guy down the street suddenly put in charge of the nation, and if he seemed a bit predictable, he was also safe, reliable and reassuring. He placed no intolerable intellectual or psychological burdens on a weary land, and he lived out a modest philosophy. “The harder you work, the luckier you are,” he said once in summarizing his career. “I worked like hell.”

Gerald Rudolph Ford was born on July 14, 1913, in Omaha to Leslie Lynch King and Dorothy Ayer King. He rose to House minority leader in 1963 and served in the House until 1973, when Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned, and President Nixon appointed Mr. Ford to succeed Mr. Agnew.

When Mr. Ford took the oath of president in 1974, the economy was in disarray, an energy shortage was worsening, allies were wondering how steadfast the United States might be as a partner and Mr. Nixon, having resigned rather than face impeachment for taking part in the Watergate cover-up, was flying to seclusion in San Clemente, Calif.

There was a collective sense of relief as Mr. Ford, in the most memorable line of his most noteworthy speech, declared that day, “Our long national nightmare is over.”

Two years later, as he accepted the Republican presidential nomination and began a campaign that would end in his first failure in an election, Mr. Ford scarcely seemed to be indulging in hyperbole as he recalled what it had been like to take office as Mr. Nixon’s heir.

“It was an hour in our history that troubled our minds and tore at our hearts,” he said. “Anger and hatred had risen to dangerous levels, dividing friends and families. The polarization of our political order had aroused unworthy passions of reprisal and revenge. Our governmental system was closer to stalemate than at any time since Abraham Lincoln took that same oath of office.”

The pardon, intensely unpopular at the time, came to be generally viewed as correct. In May 2001, Mr. Ford was honored with a “Profile in Courage” Award at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston. Senator Edward M. Kennedy spoke and said he had originally opposed the pardon. “But time has a way of clarifying past events,” he said, “and now we see that President Ford was right.”

Mr. Ford’s decision to back the 1975 Helsinki Accords was furiously criticized in 1976 by both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They complained that it had legitimized the post-World War II borders in Europe. But in his book “The Cold War: A New History” (Penguin, 2005), John Lewis Gaddis of Yale wrote that the pact’s commitment to “human rights and fundamental freedoms” became a trap for the Soviet Union, which was facing ever-bolder condemnations by dissidents.

“Thousands of people who lacked the prominence of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov began to stand with them in holding the U.S.S.R. and its satellites accountable for human rights,” Mr. Gaddis wrote. The Helsinki process, he added, became “the basis for legitimizing opposition to Soviet rule.”

Mr. Ford also advanced negotiations for a new treaty to turn over control of the Panama Canal to Panama, though he slowed the process during the 1976 campaign and left it to Mr. Carter, his victorious Democratic opponent, to complete.

Both inflation and unemployment fell while he was in office. And he vigorously tried to control federal spending with vetoes of spending bills, starting his first week in office. In a matter of months, however, after the Democratic landslide in the 1974 elections, Congress began overriding his vetoes.

But that did not stop him from threatening to veto a measure, sought by Mayor Abraham D. Beame and Gov. Hugh Carey, offering a 90-day $1 billion line of credit to nearly bankrupt New York City in October 1975. “Ford to City: Drop Dead” was the front-page headline in The Daily News. The next month, the New York leaders went to Washington with a new plan with new controls on the city budget, and they got the short-term loans they needed.

Mr. Ford brought to his duties an indomitable self-assurance.

“I can recall no incident, either in the Congress, vice presidency or presidency, where I didn’t feel that I was prepared,” he said in retirement. “I felt more secure, more certain of myself in the presidency than at any other time.”

His steadiness showed through as a timely presidential attribute, but it was always that way with Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr. He was a man more fundamental than flashy, more immutable than immodest. He served undefeated through 13 elections to the House of Representatives and rose to be its Republican leader, yet in 25 years in Congress he did not write a major piece of legislation. He was overwhelmingly confirmed as vice president, the first to be appointed under the 25th Amendment, yet he owed his selection by Mr. Nixon to the likelihood that he would prove inoffensive in the job.

As president, he was quick to assert to Congress, in a play on words that nobody misunderstood, “I am a Ford, not a Lincoln.” If it was true, as was often said, that the Oval Office shaped the occupant, Mr. Ford resisted the temptation of the imperial. On an early trip as president to South Korea, he called American enlisted men “sir.” His prose was so pedestrian and his tongue so unreliable — he referred on one public occasion to the noble American “work ethnic” and on another to the disease of “sickle-cell Armenia” — that he became a favorite target of comedians.

Acts of Forgiveness

“I think it’s progress that the presidency has been humanized,” Mr. Ford remarked a few days before he left the White House. It might easily have been an epitaph.

He had sought to bind up the nation’s wounds as much by instinct as by design. One of his earliest acts, combining courage with forgiveness, was to announce before a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that he favored leniency for Vietnam-era draft resisters.

When Congressional Democrats suggested that he had obtained Mr. Nixon’s resignation by promising to pardon him, Mr. Ford did something presidents do not do: he went to Capitol Hill and testified, telling a House subcommittee, “There was no deal, period, under no circumstances.”

He invited to the White House individuals who had been excluded as political “enemies” in the lists kept by the Nixon administration. When Mr. Ford heard, as a Republican in Congress, that Mr. Nixon kept such a list, he said to an aide, “Anybody who can’t keep his enemies in his head has too many enemies.”

His decision to grant a full and absolute pardon to his predecessor stunned the nation. After going to church the morning of Sept. 8, 1974, Mr. Ford went on national television to announce that there would be no formal judicial retribution against Mr. Nixon. Then, apparently untroubled by his decision, he played golf.

“I felt then, and I feel now, if I was going to do it, it had to be clean, sudden,” Mr. Ford said months after he had left office. “It was a part of the healing process.” He paused a moment, smiled, and added, “It didn’t turn out to be quite as much of a healing at the time.”

Revulsion and disillusion exploded in editorial comments and angry telegrams to the White House. Mr. Ford’s biographer and friend, J. F. terHorst, resigned as White House press secretary rather than defend the pardon. For the rest of his term, Mr. Ford had to do the defending.

Those who were critical of the pardon, he said, “haven’t thought through what would have happened over the next 18 months, 24 months, 36 months; that whole episode would have been on the front page.”

He had expected some public criticism, he said, but it proved “far worse than I anticipated.” He insisted, however, in his 1979 autobiography, “A Time to Heal” (Harper and Row), and in conversations in retirement, that had Mr. Nixon been required to face indictment and trial over the many months of the Ford presidency, “all of the healing process that I thought was so essential would have been much more difficult to achieve.”

Hard Work, Honesty, Punctuality

Mr. Ford’s early circumstances made him an unlikely future president. He was born July 14, 1913, in Omaha to Leslie Lynch King and Dorothy Ayer King. Not for 17 years was he to learn that he had been christened Leslie Lynch King Jr.

When he was 2 years old, his mother divorced Mr. King and moved to Grand Rapids, Mich. She remarried, and her husband, Gerald Rudolph Ford, a paint salesman with an eighth-grade education, gave the boy his name in formally adopting him.

Gerald considered his mother “a human dynamo in a womanly way” and said she “probably had more friends than any woman I ever knew.” He revered his stepfather. Later in life, even in the White House, he would confront difficulty by wondering, “Now, how would he have done this?” It was perhaps the ultimate symptom of Mr. Ford’s uncommon commonness that he would try to approach the presidency after the fashion of a Grand Rapids merchant. What he respected in his stepfather’s manner was common sense.

His closeness to his stepfather was deepened, if anything, by the discovery that he was adopted and in particular by a brief encounter with his father.

It occurred at the age of 17, when he was a star on the state champion South High School Trojans football team, a 6-foot, blue-eyed blond with a husky voice and an infectious laugh. His mother and stepfather had told Mr. Ford that he was the product of a broken home, and the information did not appear to disturb him unduly. Mr. Ford went on with his schooling and, because the Ford Paint and Varnish Company was struggling to survive the Depression, with a job waiting on tables at Bill Skougis’s Restaurant. One day a patron in the restaurant stared at him and then told him, “Leslie, I’m your father.”

He was stunned.

Nearly half a century later, recalling the episode in an interview, Mr. Ford’s words remained drenched in bitterness: “It was shocking, in that he would intrude on a happy family life after he had neglected my mother and me by his refusal to pay what the court ordered him to pay as child support.”

In his 1994 biography of Mr. Ford, “Time and Chance” (HarperCollins), James Cannon wrote that Mr. King never paid the monthly child support ordered by an Omaha court after it found that he had beaten his wife, but that Mr. King’s father did pay the money his son owed. Those payments stopped when the elder Mr. King died, Mr. Ford wrote in his autobiography.

His father, Mr. Ford said in the interview, had “abandoned me for 6, 8, 10 years — I have forgotten how long; then he would seek to intrude on my family life, which was a happy one with my stepfather.”

“I really never forgave my father in a sense of totally forgiving,” Mr. Ford said.

Traditional Values

The home in which the future president was brought up, along with his three stepbrothers, was imbued with the values of family loyalty, thrift and patriotism.

On May Day one year, Mr. Ford and other students at South High saw another group of youths painting anti-American slogans on the steps leading to the school building. The group Mr. Ford was in, mostly football players, dashed over, grabbed the paint cans and, by one account, splashed the paint on the others.

Mr. Ford ran for president of the senior class in 1931 on, as he later used to recall with a laugh, the Progressive ticket. He lost, but he was never to lose another election until he sought a different presidency 45 years later as more of a conservative.

His basic philosophy involved fiscal prudence, strong national defense, suspicion of alien lands and a belief that citizens should earn a living rather than be given one. This, he said, was a legacy “from both my stepfather and my mother — hard-working, typical Middle Western individuals who had themselves been brought up in families that had comparable philosophical views.”

“It was that environment plus, I think, my own instincts, which go back, I believe, to the fact that I always felt you had to work like hell,” he continued. “I did. Whether I worked in the restaurant, whether I worked in scouting or whether I worked in school, I was always very conscientious.”

He did well enough to win a scholarship to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He applied himself with equal diligence to his studies and to football, and he worked as a dishwasher at the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity to help pay his room and board.

To Law School, Then to War

In those days, both his professional and athletic ambitions were mixed. He said decades later that “one of my great ambitions was to be captain of the Michigan football team,” the Wolverines, in his senior year. But someone else was chosen as captain. Mr. Ford, a center, was instead selected by his teammates as the most valuable player; he was gratified, though he often joked of having been named most valuable member of a losing team.

After he graduated in 1935 from the University of Michigan, he had offers to play professional football for either the Detroit Lions or the Green Bay Packers (at $110 per game). Mr. Ford remained fascinated with sports, but he chose the law, a subject that had appealed to him since high school. He enrolled at Yale Law School.

Political opponents would ultimately fasten on Mr. Ford’s sports background as a source of ridicule. President Lyndon B. Johnson, angered at a legislative development inspired by Representative Ford, cracked once that he had played football too long without a helmet. And despite his real skill at skiing and golf, a tumble on the slopes or a tee shot drive into a golf gallery would be seized on by the comedy show “Saturday Night Live” as a metaphor for a clumsy presidency.

If Mr. Ford’s mental cast was more often instinctive than imaginative and his approach to issues more tactical than conceptual, he was no intellectual slouch. At Yale, Prof. Myres MacDougal wrote in interview notes on the young student: “Very mature, wise person of good judgment. Informational background not the best but interesting, mature and serious of purpose.”

Initially, because he needed the income he earned as an assistant football coach and as a head boxing coach, Mr. Ford was so busy that he was not allowed to take law classes full time. He kept insisting he was capable of the dual schedule and was so persistent that he was allowed to become student and coach simultaneously in 1938. He finished in the top third of the class of 1941, with a B average.

He returned to Grand Rapids, and with a friend, Philip W. Buchen, who would later become his White House legal counsel, he set about establishing a practice specializing in labor-management matters. Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he joined the Navy as an ensign.

The war, more than anything else, was responsible for altering his outlook and inspiring him to pursue a career in public life.

At first, the Navy assigned him as a physical training officer to work with recruits on the grounds of the University of North Carolina. Mr. Ford kept applying for a transfer to a combat zone and kept being refused. Ever persistent, he applied anew and after a year of rejection was sent to the Pacific as a physical education officer on the U.S.S. Monterey, a light aircraft carrier.

By war’s end he had risen to lieutenant commander and won 10 battle stars for participating in engagements at places including Okinawa, Wake, Taiwan, the Philippines and the Gilbert Islands. Just before Christmas in 1944, he nearly lost his life when a typhoon struck the Third Fleet and, topside on the carrier, he came within inches of being swept off the deck.

An Internationalist Takes Office

Mr. Ford never adopted the domestic liberalism of a Roosevelt or, later, a Johnson. But the war experience broadened his view, changing him “from a passive isolationist to an ardent internationalist,” as he put it.

Having re-established himself in a comfortable law practice in Grand Rapids, Mr. Ford had a limited ambition at first. “I was 33, single, working and having a great time, playing lots of golf,” he said later. “All I was interested in was enjoying life and getting on with my law practice.”

But he kept reading a new magazine, World Report, to which he was a charter subscriber, and became an ever firmer advocate of the Marshall Plan of postwar assistance to Europe and an internationalist in a community of Dutch-origin conservative isolationists. He came to the attention of two forces: Republican reformers bent on taking control of the local party, and internationalists allied with Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, the Republican leader, who was also from Grand Rapids.

The incumbent representative from the Fifth District of Michigan was Bartel J. Jonkman, who seemed tailored to the district — of Dutch descent, Republican, conservative, isolationist.

“I knew I was meeting a formidable incumbent,” Mr. Ford later recalled, “who for many reasons should have won. And I shouldn’t have expected to win.” Typically, Mr. Ford did expect to win, though, and with but a smidgen of apprehension that the challenge might be taken up, he dared Mr. Jonkman to debate. “Fortunately, he did not,” Mr. Ford said.

Aided by President Harry S. Truman’s disputes with Congress, which kept Mr. Jonkman in Washington, Mr. Ford worked tirelessly and won the Republican primary in 1948 by nearly 10,000 votes. Then he easily won his first term in the House. He never received less than 60 percent of the vote during a quarter-century as the Representative from Michigan’s Fifth District.

A Candid Helpmate

Shortly before the 1948 election, Mr. Ford paused from his campaigning to march down the aisle of Grace Episcopal Church in Grand Rapids — by local legend, wearing one black shoe and one brown shoe — with Elizabeth Bloomer Warren, who had been divorced and was generally regarded as the most attractive single woman in the city.

Betty Ford had been a model and a fashion coordinator. For two years, in New York City, she had danced in Martha Graham’s troupe. She was, and remained throughout Mr. Ford’s public career, a remarkably open and candid woman, given to strong opinions on abortion, feminism and other issues and willing to talk about the radical mastectomy she underwent while in the White House. She encouraged the same outspokenness in the four Ford children: Michael Gerald, John Gardner, Steven Meigs and Susan Elizabeth.

Mrs. Ford also battled drug dependency, which began in the 1960s with prescriptions for pills to relieve pain from a neck injury, and alcoholism, which grew with her loneliness during Mr. Ford’s increasingly heavy travel schedule. In 1978, her family confronted her about her addictions, and, after initial denials, she finally admitted herself for treatment. Four years later, she helped dedicate the Betty Ford Center for Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation in Rancho Mirage, Calif., on the campus of Eisenhower Medical Center.

While Mrs. Ford reared their children, Mr. Ford rose doggedly from the obscurity of the House to the leadership of its minority. In his second term he won assignment to the Appropriations Committee, where he and other fiscal conservatives worked to curb government spending. By 1953 he was on such influential subcommittees as those dealing with funds for foreign aid and national defense; throughout the Korean and Vietnam Wars he was a stalwart supporter of American military intervention in Asia.

In the House

Bud Vestal, a reporter for The Grand Rapids Press, distressed Mr. Ford by noting in a biography that Mr. Ford “never authored a major program of legislation on his own.”

Mr. Ford’s explanation was that as a member of the Appropriations Committee, he “was pretty preoccupied with very important matters” and “didn’t have time, just as a pragmatic thing, to get involved in all the other pieces of legislation that others were writing or sponsoring or working for.”

His legislative activity more often than not involved fealty to Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon or obstruction of the liberal New Frontier and Great Society proposals of Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. For instance, Mr. Ford voted against a major housing assistance act in 1961 and fostered opposition to the Medicare program in 1965.

In a Congress that often seemed akin to a fraternity, he was nearly everyone’s friend. He was thus an ideal prospect for minority leadership. When younger Republicans were casting about in 1963 for a point man in their rebellion against their aging leaders, they settled on Jerry Ford.

The group installed Mr. Ford as chairman of the House Republican Conference, the third-ranking post in the minority hierarchy. His name came to more prominent attention later that year when President Johnson appointed Mr. Ford to the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In 1965, after the huge loss that came with Senator Barry Goldwater’s landslide defeat for the presidency the year before, the younger Republicans deposed Charles A. Halleck of Indiana as their House leader, supplanting him with Mr. Ford.

‘I Need Your Vote’

With the exception of an ill-conceived effort in 1970 to impeach Associate Justice William O. Douglas, a liberal member of the Supreme Court, after Senate Democrats had twice rejected President Nixon’s nominations of Southern conservatives to the court, Mr. Ford generally enlarged his circle of friends by establishing an amicable style of leadership.

When one or another Republican voted against the leadership’s wishes, some party stalwarts sought to persuade Mr. Ford to discipline the offender. There were methods that might have been used: transfer to a minor committee, elimination of funds for overseas travel, loss of campaign money. Mr. Ford said no.

“That’s counterproductive,” he insisted. “That person knows that he disappointed you. To rub it in makes it, the next time, literally impossible to get his cooperation. You can lose one battle, but the most important thing is to win the war.”

A leading House Democrat of the era, Representative Joe D. Waggoner Jr. of Louisiana, confirmed the technique’s success. “It’s the damnedest thing,” Mr. Waggoner said. “Jerry just puts his arm around a colleague or looks him in the eyes and says, ‘I need your vote,’ and gets it.”

An Elusive Dream

Visionary or not, Mr. Ford, as Republican House leader, worked to enlarge the minority, always pursuing the elusive dream of a Republican majority and, with it, the realization of his greatest political ambition, to be speaker of the House.

Asked in his retirement why he had coveted the speaker’s post, he replied:

“I thought, as a member of Congress, that would be the ultimate achievement. To sit up there and be the head honcho of 434 other people and have the responsibility, aside from the achievement, of trying to run the greatest legislative body in the history of mankind, I think, in an efficient and effective way, to tend to the people’s business, both domestic and foreign, to make sure, whatever legislation was required, to see that it was done. I think I got that ambition within a year or two after I was in the House of Representatives.”

For a decade he crisscrossed the country, downing chicken dinners in 200 or so cities each year, extolling this or that prospect for a House seat and trying diligently to build a majority. But the closest the Republicans came in his years as leader was the 192 seats they held after the 1968 elections. That was still 16 short of the majority that would have made him speaker.

Apparently destined to be the perennial leader of a minority, Mr. Ford promised his wife in 1973 that he would make one more effort, however forlorn, in 1974 at winning a majority and would then retire from politics in 1976.

“I don’t want to be a minority leader in perpetuity,” he told friends.

‘A Nice Conclusion’

On the night of Oct. 10, 1973, a few hours after Vice President Spiro T. Agnew rose in a federal courtroom in Baltimore to plead no contest to a charge of federal income tax evasion and simultaneously resigned the vice presidency, Mr. Ford was at his home in Alexandria, Va., trying to relax. The telephone rang; it was his old House ally Melvin Laird, now a White House counselor. Would Mr. Ford be interested in the vice presidency if it could be arranged, Mr. Laird asked.

“I suspect if I was asked, I would accept it,” Mr. Ford replied.

He turned from the phone, he later recalled, and told Mrs. Ford that “well, that would be a nice conclusion” for his career.

The next night President Nixon was the one who telephoned Mr. Ford’s home. He offered the vice presidency.

It was the first time that anyone had been nominated for the office under the terms of the 25th Amendment, which made the appointment subject to confirmation by both the Senate and the House. Much as Republicans had fixed on Mr. Ford as leader in 1965 because of his general acceptability, so Mr. Nixon chose him in 1973 to be vice president.

At the time, in late 1973, Mr. Nixon was locked in a legal duel with the Watergate special prosecutor and the Senate Watergate committee, refusing to yield documents and tape recordings that had been subpoenaed. Indeed, a few days after Mr. Ford was nominated for the vice presidency, Mr. Nixon dismissed Archibald Cox, the first special prosecutor, for insisting on pursuing legal remedies to gain access to the White House evidence, and accepted the resignation of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson, who declined to carry out the order to dismiss the prosecutor.

‘I Believed What I Was Told’

There were Nixon allies who thought Mr. Ford might, as vice president, serve as a buffer against the efforts to impeach Mr. Nixon that were precipitated by the events of that “Saturday night massacre” in October 1973. Mr. Nixon remarked once to former Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York, “Can you see Gerald Ford sitting in this chair?”

Mr. Ford accepted the nomination. “I thought,” he later reminisced, “well, if I could be helpful, I knew I could be confirmed. And it was a nice way to end a career. I wasn’t going to be speaker.”

He took it on faith, because he had been told privately by Mr. Nixon and others that the president was innocent of any involvement in the burglary at the Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972, or of complicity in the attempt to cover up the extent of the conspiracy.

Three days after the break-in, Mr. Ford had asked John N. Mitchell, the former attorney general and the 1972 Nixon campaign chairman, if the break-in had been authorized. As Mr. Ford recalled it, Mr. Mitchell “looked me right in the eye and said neither he nor the White House was involved.”

“I believed what I was told,” Mr. Ford once said, referring to the belief that Mr. Nixon was not involved in Watergate wrongdoing, “so my whole conduct as vice president was predicated on that personal trust.”

Because it was the first such occasion, Mr. Ford’s vice-presidential nomination prompted an extensive investigation of his background by as many as 400 agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His nomination was confirmed, 92 to 3 in the Senate and 387 to 35 in the House. At dusk on Dec. 6, 1973, to the thunderous applause of those with whom he had served in Congress, he strode down the center aisle in the House of Representatives to stand at the lectern, not as speaker but as vice president.

Mr. Ford took it upon himself as the heir apparent to try, initially, to make certain that Mr. Nixon would remain in office. In the eight months of his vice presidency he traveled more than 130,000 miles to speak up for Mr. Nixon.

As the House Judiciary Committee painstakingly assembled evidence on which its members would ultimately recommend three articles of impeachment, Mr. Ford proclaimed confidence in Mr. Nixon’s blamelessness, but privately he grew increasingly uncertain.

Growing Skepticism

The doubt was slow to take hold. In January 1974 Mr. Ford told an audience in Atlantic City that the impeachment movement was the work of “extreme partisans” who were trying to “crush the president” and in the process increase the Democratic majority in the Congress.

Alarmed, Mr. Buchen, Mr. Ford’s old friend from Michigan, and Senator Robert P. Griffin, another longtime Michigan ally, privately counseled Mr. Ford to be careful lest his faith be unrewarded and his loyalty further divide the country.

Thereafter, Mr. Ford loyally defended the president, but in his own words. The Nixon staff kept sending proposed texts to Mr. Ford’s office, but Mr. Ford’s aides toned them down.

Instinctively, too, Mr. Ford continuously and openly urged the president to demonstrate his innocence by yielding to Congress and the courts the Watergate tape recordings and documents that were being sought. When Mr. Nixon continued to “stonewall,” as the resistance came to be known, “it certainly began to raise some reservations” in Mr. Ford’s mind, he said, although he kept them to himself.

Gradually, even Mr. Ford’s defense of Mr. Nixon began to take a skeptical tone. At a Republican Party conference in Chicago, Mr. Ford explicitly attacked for the first time the attitude of the 1972 Nixon campaign organization, saying it had been led by “an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents.”

‘A Good Night’s Sleep’

At the end of July 1974, Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., then the White House chief of staff, made an urgent call to the vice president. General Haig advised him that a tape recording under subpoena by the special prosecutor — one of several that the Supreme Court had ruled could not be withheld by Mr. Nixon — would show conclusively that Mr. Nixon had tried to curb the Watergate investigation as early as June 23, 1972, six days after the break-in.

“That was the first concrete evidence that I had contrary to the assurances I’d had before,” Mr. Ford remembered.

For three days, as Mr. Nixon’s aides sought to persuade the president to make public the transcript of the June 23 tape, Mr. Ford continued to travel, saying nothing of the evidence.

The president did publish it. Although Mr. Ford was unaware that Mr. Buchen and others had begun making secret preparations for a Ford presidential transition, he began to wonder in the first days of August 1974 how soon he might be president.

On Aug. 6, Mr. Nixon assembled his Cabinet at the White House and declared that he would not resign. Mr. Ford, seated opposite the president across the massive Cabinet table, told Mr. Nixon, “I no longer can publicly defend you.” It was, for Mr. Ford, the loyal friend of the president, one of the most difficult things he had ever done, but, he told an interviewer, “with the development of the evidence, I had no other choice.”

Two nights later Mr. Nixon announced on national television that he would resign the presidency at noon on Aug. 9.

Mr. Ford and his wife watched the Nixon statement on the television set in the family room of their home in Alexandria. Then, despite the looming accumulation of pressures, Mr. Ford went to sleep.

That he could do so, with no particular difficulty, on the eve of the nation’s most unusual presidential transition, was illustrative. “My feeling is you might as well get to sleep” whatever the circumstances, Mr. Ford had said. “You’ll feel better the next day. If you’ve got a problem, you are better prepared to deal with it tomorrow. You sure can’t do much about it that night. It’s a blessing, really.”

The nation’s torment was on his mind as he spoke that next day, Aug. 9, 1974, of the import of his sudden inauguration as the 38th president of the United States, the first person never elected president or vice president to become president.

“I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots,” he said to the dignitaries in the East Room of the White House and to the millions of Americans watching on television. “I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will not shirk it.”

With an empathy that came as a relief after months of White House aloofness, the new president said: “This is an hour of history that troubles our minds and hurts our hearts. Therefore, I feel it my first duty to make an unprecedented compact with my countrymen. Not an inaugural address. Not a fireside chat. Not a campaign speech. Just a little straight talk among friends.”

He urged his countrymen to help him “bind up the internal wounds of Watergate” and then added:

“My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here, the people rule.”

The Man in the White House

Mr. Ford’s presidency was an extension of his own political personality: reactive rather than activist, instinctive instead of intellectual, humanistic but within the fiscal limits of conservative dogma.

Mr. terHorst, the biographer, puzzled over the seeming contradiction between the president’s personal and professional philosophies: “The problem with him — he doesn’t like to be kidded about it — but the fact is, this guy would, if he saw a schoolkid in front of the White House who needed clothing, if he was the right size, he’d give him the shirt off his back, literally. Then he’d go right in the White House and veto the school lunch bill.”

John Hersey, after spending a week in close observation of the president, wrote in The New York Times Magazine of April 20, 1975: “What is it in him?”

“Is it an inability to extend compassion far beyond the faces directly in view?” Mr. Hersey wrote. “Is it a failure of imagination? Is it something obdurate he was born with, alongside the energy and serenity?”

The answer seemed to be a belief — one Mr. Ford was schooled in if not born with — in the essential dignity of human struggle. “Everything didn’t turn to gold just because I did it,” he remarked. “I had this foundation, and I had been brought up with the training that — and this is an oversimplification, but I think it’s indicative — the harder you work, the luckier you are. And whether it was in such things as the Boy Scouts or athletics or academics, I worked like hell.”

There were those who contended, as did Richard Reeves, the author of a critical biography, that Mr. Ford had a “tragic gap” in his understanding of such crucial matters as the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. More common was the assessment of Mr. Ford as “innately decent.”

Executive Decisions

Mr. Ford disputed the notion that it required forceful, even harsh, character to meet the tests of the White House. He was asked once if a nice guy should be president, and answered: “Those who allege that you’ve got to be a mean, sinister, devious person to be president are just dead wrong. I don’t see how a president in his conscience could be that.”

He, too, could be forceful. He resented the accident of fate that had made him president as the nation watched South Vietnam and Cambodia — where so much of America’s human and economic treasure had been spent by three predecessors — fall to the Communists in 1975. Rebuffed by Congress when he sought a last-minute $972 million in aid to Saigon, Mr. Ford made it possible for 130,000 or more refugees to come to the United States.

When the Cambodian Communists seized the American merchant ship Mayaqüez in May 1975, Mr. Ford reacted with uncharacteristic emotion, sending United States military forces to recapture the ship.

The order was motivated in part by concern for national image. “We had just pulled out of Vietnam, out of Cambodia,” Mr. Ford said later, “and here the United States was being challenged by a group of leaders who were bandits and outlaws, in my opinion, and I think their subsequent record has pretty well proved it. And it was an emotional decision to tell the Defense Department we had to go in there and do something.”

Mr. Ford’s economic policies were traditional for Republican conservatives. He proclaimed, amid considerable White House ballyhoo, a campaign to “Whip Inflation Now,” complete with “WIN” buttons. Scarcely had it begun than mounting joblessness and the worst recession since the 1930s caused Mr. Ford to abandon the anti-inflation program and propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy instead of tax increases to dampen it.

Congress, meanwhile, reflected its dominance by the Democratic Party in a steadily increasing number of spending programs and expansion of the federal deficit.

Difficult Dismissals

In what may have been his most difficult personal decision — because it went against the grain of his personality — the genial man from Michigan also acted forcefully in his dismissal of Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger.

There were no known policy differences of consequence between Mr. Ford and Mr. Schlesinger. But their styles and characters never quite proved compatible, and the defense secretary, a bookish and occasionally dogmatic intellectual who later became secretary of energy to President Jimmy Carter, got on the president’s nerves.

“There was a tension,” Mr. Ford acknowledged later. “There was a personality problem.” Mr. Schlesinger, he emphasized, “is an honorable, decent person, but our chemistry doesn’t fit.” He did not need to add but did, “I’m not one that likes to fire people.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Ford did make another central personnel decision that troubled him: jettisoning Vice President Rockefeller from his 1976 campaign ticket. Mr. Ford did so even though he had declared, in nominating the former New York governor to be his vice president, that there was no one else in the country so well equipped to stand next in the line of presidential succession.

Mr. Ford eventually decided to seek a full term as president, something he had intimated in his testimony to Congress as nominee for vice president that he would be loath to do. He decided that a lame-duck president could not be effective in a political role. Besides, although he did not like to admit it, Mr. Ford and his wife, Betty, had grown to like the perquisites of the White House.

As a candidate to succeed himself — and, he hoped, thus legitimize his accidental presidency — Mr. Ford grew politically timid. It was apparent that he would be challenged for the Republican nomination by Mr. Reagan, the former governor of California and a politician far more conservative than Mr. Ford.

On the Campaign Trail Again

Mr. Ford responded by becoming ever more conservative in his political statements and by undertaking the same sort of aggressive, energetic campaigning as an incumbent that had marked his campaigns as a member of the House of Representatives. From early 1975 until the summer of 1976, Mr. Ford traveled from one corner of the country to another. Even two attempts on his life by unbalanced women in California in 1975 did not deter him.

On one of those trips, to Sacramento on Sept. 5, he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme, who had been a follower of the convicted killer Charles Manson. Mr. Ford was moving through a crowd in Capitol Park, shaking hands and waving, when a Secret Service agent saw Ms. Fromme’s arm and the pistol. She was subdued, and it turned out that while the gun was loaded there was no bullet in the chamber. She was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to life in prison.

The other attempt, by Sara Jane Moore, took place in San Francisco. A former Marine, Oliver W. Sipple, knocked a pistol out of Ms. Moore’s hand as she fired.

By the time Mr. Ford narrowly won the Republican nomination in Kansas City, Mo., in August 1976, he seemed to many of his political advisers to have diminished the value of his incumbency by traveling so extensively as to seem only another candidate. He was more than 25 percentage points behind the Democratic nominee, Mr. Carter, in the opinion polls. The economy was improving but not good. The Republicans’ identification with Mr. Nixon remained.

Mr. Ford reassessed the situation with his advisers. Together they altered his political strategy and style. He spent most of the campaign period hunched over his desk or greeting guests in the Rose Garden of the White House, trying to reinforce the image of incumbency and to stress his claims to having achieved “peace, prosperity and trust.”

Strides, Then a Stumble

In one of the most remarkable political comebacks in presidential campaign history, Mr. Ford nearly overcame adversity and odds. One late stumble, insisting in a debate that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” and that Poland was not “dominated by the Soviet Union,” halted the Ford surge.

In the end, his loss to Mr. Carter, the former Georgia governor, was narrow, by only 1,682,970 votes. Mr. Ford had 48 percent and Mr. Carter 50.1 percent.

But neither Poland nor a last-minute bit of bad economic news was central to his defeat. The Nixon pardon was.

Stuart Spencer, his campaign manager, said that polling data about the pardon had made it clear that “it cost him the election.” He said 7 percent of Republicans had either voted for Mr. Carter or stayed home because of the pardon, and it hurt with Democrats and independents, too.

Robert S. Strauss, who was Democratic National Chairman in 1976, agreed. He said Mr. Ford “was never forgiven for it.”

“People always assumed there was a deal, even though there was no evidence of one,” Mr. Strauss said.

Even so, Mr. Ford’s political recovery, although incomplete, reflected a positive aspect of his brief presidency. It indicated the extent to which he seemed to have re-established a sense of trustworthiness in the nation’s most visible and symbolic office.

One political aide said of those who voted for Mr. Ford, “They’re voting for something solid — a simple, honest, decent man.”

After the White House

In the years after he left the White House, Mr. Ford took on two new roles, senior statesman and newly arrived millionaire, with his characteristic easygoing manner and energy. He had become something of a one-man academic, political and business enterprise, and by 1983 his income was estimated to be more than $1 million a year.

Mr. Ford frequently criticized President Carter on economic and defense matters, but the attacks on his successor never grew bitter or personal. On some foreign policy issues, like the Panama Canal treaties, which his own administration had quietly sought, he supported his successor.

For three years Mr. Ford contemplated another race for the presidency. In 1975, he had told aides in the White House that “Reagan would be a disaster” as president. After Mr. Reagan won the 1980 New Hampshire primary, Mr. Ford told The New York Times that it would be “impossible” for Mr. Reagan to win a general election, and he cautiously invited Republicans to ask him to run again.

But the draft he invited never came, and Mr. Reagan cruised to the nomination. When the Republicans gathered in Detroit in 1980 to nominate Mr. Reagan, he asked Mr. Ford to be his running mate.

For hours, representatives of the two men, with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger acting for Mr. Ford, negotiated the outlines of a possible Reagan-Ford Administration, in which Mr. Ford would have been given extensive authority in making appointments and managing the executive branch. But the negotiators were unable to reach a formula that satisfied Mr. Ford’s desire to be more than a traditional vice president while also giving Mr. Reagan a free hand to govern as chief executive.

Mr. Ford nevertheless worked on the 1980 campaign trail for Mr. Reagan and his running mate, George Bush. Two months after the inauguration, Mr. Reagan sent Mr. Ford as his representative to China to reassure leaders there that Washington wished to continue improving relations.

The next October, after President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt was assassinated, Mr. Ford represented the United States at the funeral along with the two other living former presidents, Mr. Carter and Mr. Nixon.

For many years after he left office, Mr. Ford campaigned for Republican candidates. In the first few years, those appearances had to be accompanied by hefty charitable donations to his library and museum. He also continued to warn, “If we get way over on the hard right of the political spectrum, we will not elect a Republican President,” as he put it in a Times interview in 1998. He singled out the abortion issue, saying he was disappointed that his own “strongly pro-choice” views no longer seemed welcome in his party.

In August 2000, Mr. Ford appeared at the Republican convention in Philadelphia but was hospitalized for a week after a stroke.

As a result of Mr. Ford’s new income, the Fords enjoyed a way of life that contrasted with their modest existence when he was a congressman, establishing homes in Rancho Mirage, in the California desert, and at Vail, in the Colorado mountains.

In addition to attending fund-raising functions, teaching at the University of Michigan and giving 30 paid speeches a year, Mr. Ford bought interests in two Colorado radio stations and served on the boards of at least eight corporations.

He also supervised and participated in sporting events, mostly golf, including an invitational golf tournament bearing his name in Vail; promoted a Southern California real estate development; and helped advertise a commercially minted coin set commemorating the presidency. He even made his acting debut at the age of 70, portraying himself on an episode of the nighttime television soap opera “Dynasty.”

Asked in a 1978 interview about his life in retirement, Mr. Ford said that he was having trouble with chipping and putting in his golf game, but otherwise, “everything is wonderful.”

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

NY Times Obituary: James Brown

NY TIMES: James Brown, the ‘Godfather of Soul,’ Dies at 73
By JON PARELES Published: December 26, 2006
James Brown, the singer, songwriter, bandleader and dancer who indelibly transformed 20th-century music, died early yesterday in Atlanta. He was 73 and lived in Beech Island, S.C., across the Savannah River from Augusta, Ga.

Mr. Brown died of congestive heart failure after being hospitalized for pneumonia, said his agent, Frank Copsidas.

Mr. Brown sold millions of records in a career that lasted half a century. In the 1960s and 1970s he regularly topped the rhythm-and-blues charts, although he never had a No. 1 pop hit. Yet his music proved far more durable and influential than countless chart-toppers. His funk provides the sophisticated rhythms that are the basis of hip-hop and a wide swath of current pop.

Mr. Copsidas said that Mr. Brown had participated in an annual Christmas toy giveaway in Augusta on Friday but had been hospitalized on Saturday. After canceling performances planned for midweek, Mr. Brown on Sunday night got his doctor’s approval to perform on Saturday in New Jersey and on New Year’s Eve at B.B. King’s nightclub in New York.

Mr. Copsidas said Mr. Brown used one of his best-known slogans to convey his dedication to his fans: “I’m the hardest working man in show business, and I’m not going to let them down.”

Through the years, Mr. Brown did not only call himself “the hardest working man in show business.” He also went by “Mr. Dynamite,” “Soul Brother No. 1,” “the Minister of Super Heavy Funk” and “the Godfather of Soul,” and he was all of those and more.

His music was sweaty and complex, disciplined and wild, lusty and socially conscious. Beyond his dozens of hits, Mr. Brown forged an entire musical idiom that is now a foundation of pop worldwide.

“I taught them everything they know, but not everything I know,” he wrote in an autobiography.

The funk Mr. Brown introduced in his 1965 hit “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag,” was both deeply rooted in Africa and thoroughly American. Songs like “I Got You (I Feel Good),” “Cold Sweat,” “Get Up (I Feel Like Being a) Sex Machine” and “Hot Pants” found the percussive side of every instrument and meshed sharply syncopated patterns into kinetic polyrhythms that made people dance.

Mr. Brown’s innovations reverberated through the soul and rhythm-and-blues of the 1970s and the hip-hop of the next three decades. The beat of a 1970 instrumental “Funky Drummer” may well be the most widely sampled rhythm in hip-hop.

Mr. Brown’s stage moves — the spins, the quick shuffles, the knee-drops, the splits — were imitated by performers who tried to match his stamina, from Mick Jagger to Michael Jackson, and were admired by the many more who could not. Mr. Brown was a political force, especially during the 1960s; his 1968 song “Say It Loud — I’m Black and I’m Proud” changed America’s racial vocabulary. He was never politically predictable; in 1972 he endorsed the re-election of Richard M. Nixon.

Mr. Brown led a turbulent life, and served prison time as both a teenager and an adult. He was a stern taskmaster who fined his band members for missed notes or imperfect shoeshines. He was an entrepreneur who, at the end of the 1960s, owned his own publishing company, three radio stations and a Learjet (which he would later sell to pay back taxes). And he performed constantly: as many as 51 weeks a year in his prime.

Mr. Brown was born May 3, 1933, in a one-room shack in Barnwell, S.C. As he would later tell it, midwives thought he was stillborn, but his body stayed warm, and he was revived. When his parents separated four years later, he was left in the care of his aunt Honey, who ran a brothel in Augusta, Ga. As a boy he earned pennies buck-dancing for soldiers; he also picked cotton and shined shoes. He was dismissed from school because his clothes were too ragged.

He was imprisoned for petty theft in 1949 after breaking into a car, and paroled three years later. While in prison he sang in a gospel group. After he was released, he joined a group led by Bobby Byrd, which eventually called itself the Flames. At first, Mr. Brown played drums with the group and traded off lead vocals with other members. But with his powerful voice and frenzied, acrobatic dancing, he soon emerged as the frontman.

In 1955 the Flames recorded “Please Please Please” in the basement studio of a radio station in Macon, Ga. A talent scout heard it on local radio and signed the Flames to a recording contract with King Records. A second version, recorded in Cincinnati in 1956, became a million-selling single.

Nine follow-up singles were flops until, in 1958 a gospel-rooted ballad, “Try Me,” went to No. 1 on the rhythm-and-blues chart. Mr. Brown followed up with more ballads, although the Flames’ stage shows would turn them into long, frenzied crescendos. His trademark routine of collapsing onstage, having a cape thrown over him and tossing it away for one more reprise, again and again, would leave audiences shouting for more.

In 1960 Mr. Brown’s version of “Think” put a choppy, Latin-flavored beat — hinting at the funk to come — behind a sustained vocal and pushed him back into the R&B Top 10 and the pop Top 40.

Mr. Brown had his first Top 20 pop hit in 1963 with “Prisoner of Love,” a ballad backed by an orchestra. But before those sessions he had done a series of shows at the Apollo Theater in Harlem and the one on Oct. 24, 1962, was recorded. His label had not wanted to record the shows; Mr. Brown insisted. Released in 1963, “Live at the Apollo” — with screaming fans and galvanizing crescendos — revealed what the rhythm-and-blues circuit already knew, and became the No. 2 album nationwide.

James Brown and the Famous Flames toured nonstop through the 1960s. They were filmed in California for the “The T.A.M.I. Show,” released in 1965, which shows Mick Jagger trying to pick up Mr. Brown’s dance moves.

By the mid-1960s Mr. Brown was producing his own recording sessions. In February 1965, with “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag,” he decided to shift the beat of his band: from the one-two-three-four backbeat to one-two-three-four. “I changed from the upbeat to the downbeat,” Mr. Brown said in 1990. “Simple as that, really.”

Actually it wasn’t that simple; drums, rhythm guitar and horns all kicked the beat around from different angles. “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag” won a Grammy Award as best rhythm-and-blues song, and it was only the beginning of Mr. Brown’s rhythmic breakthroughs. Through the 1960s and into the ’70s, Mr. Brown would make his funk ever more complex while stripping harmony to a bare minimum in songs like “Cold Sweat.” He didn’t immediately abandon ballads; songs like “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World,” a No. 1 R&B hit in 1966, mixed aching, bluesy lines with wrenching screams.

Amid the civil rights ferment of the 1960s Mr. Brown used his fame and music for social messages. He released “Don’t Be a Dropout” in 1966 and met with Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey to promote a stay-in-school initiative. Two years later “Say It Loud — I’m Black and I’m Proud” insisted, “We won’t quit movin’ until we get what we deserve.”

When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in 1968, Mr. Brown was due to perform in Boston. Instead of canceling his show, he had it televised. Boston was spared the riots that took place in other cities. “Don’t just react in a way that’s going to destroy your community,” he urged.

By the late 1960s Mr. Brown’s funk was part of pop, R&B and jazz: in his own hits, in songs by the Temptations and Sly and the Family Stone, and in the music of Miles Davis. It was also creating a sensation in Africa, where it would shape the Afrobeat of Fela Kuti, the juju of King Sunny Ade and the mbalax of Youssou N’Dour.

Musicians who left Mr. Brown’s bands would also have a direct role in 1970s and 1980s funk; the saxophonist Maceo Parker, the trombonist Fred Wesley and the bassist Bootsy Collins were part of George Clinton’s Parliament-Funkadelic, and Mr. Parker also worked with Prince.

Through the early 1970s Mr. Brown’s songs filled dance floors. His self-described “super heavy funk” gave him No. 1 R&B hits and Top 20 pop hits with “Give It Up or Turnit a Loose” and “Mother Popcorn” in 1969, “Super Bad Pts. 1 & 2” in 1970, “Hot Pants” and “Make It Funky” in 1971, “Get on the Good Foot Pt. 1” in 1972 and “The Payback Pt. 1” in 1974. He provided soundtracks for blaxploitation movies like “Black Caesar” and “Slaughter’s Big Rip-Off,” and performed at the 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle” boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in Zaire.

The rise of disco — a much simplified version of Mr. Brown’s funk — knocked him out of the Top 40 in the late 1970s. But an appearance in “The Blues Brothers” in 1980 started a career resurgence, and in 1985 Mr. Brown had a pop hit, peaking at No. 4, with “Living in America,” the song he performed in the movie “Rocky IV.” It won him his second Grammy Award for Best Rhythm and Blues Recording. That year he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as one of its first members.

Meanwhile hip-hop had arrived, with Mr. Brown’s music often providing the beat. LL Cool J, Public Enemy, De La Soul and the Beastie Boys are among the more than 100 acts that have sampled Clyde Stubblefield’s drumming on “Funky Drummer” alone. In 1984 Mr. Brown collaborated with the influential rapper Afrika Bambaataa on the single “Unity.” He kept recording into the 21st century, including a 2002 studio album, “The Next Step.”

Mr. Brown maintained a nearly constant touring schedule despite a tumultuous personal life. During the 1970s the Internal Revenue Service demanded $4.5 million in unpaid taxes; the jet and radio stations were sold. His oldest son, Teddy, died in a car accident in 1973.

In 1988, intoxicated on PCP, he burst into an insurance seminar adjoining his own office in Augusta, then led police on a car chase across the South Carolina border. He was sentenced to prison for carrying a deadly weapon at a public gathering, attempting to flee a police officer and driving under the influence of drugs, and was released in 1991.

In 1998 after discharging a rifle and another car chase, he was sentenced to a 90-day drug rehabilitation program. He was officially pardoned by South Carolina in 2003, but arrested again in 2004 on charges of domestic violence against his fourth wife, Tomi Rae Hynie, a former backup singer. “I would never hurt my wife,” he said in a statement at the time. “I love her very much.”

She survives him, along with their son, James Brown II, and at least five other children.

In 1999, Mr. Brown made a deal to receive more than $25 million in bonds against advance publishing royalties. This year, however, he sought to refinance the bonds with a new loan. The banker who had made the original deal, David Pullman, objected to the terms, and Mr. Brown filed a lawsuit against him in July.

But Mr. Brown’s status as an American archetype had long since been assured. A definitive collection, “Star Time” (Universal), was released in 1991. He received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1992 and a Kennedy Center Honor in 2003, the same year that Michael Jackson presented him with a BET Award for lifetime achievement. In a 1990 interview with The New York Times, he said, “I was always 25 years ahead of my time.”

Labels: , ,