Directors Guild Awards Bring Vindication for 'Kennedys' Miniseries
It would be an understatement to say that “The Kennedys” began as a very rough road for Jon Cassar and everyone else involved in the production of the miniseries about the presidency of JFK, starring Greg Kinnear as President Kennedy and Katie Holmes as Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy.
Dropped like a hot potato by the History Channel, the eight-hour series was quickly picked up by Stanley Hubbard’s Reelz Channel, and since it aired in April 2011, it has shaken off the initial controversy attached to it and has become a huge awards magnet.
Perhaps the final vindication came when Cassar, well-known for his work on “24,” won the Directors Guild Award Saturday night in Hollywood in the prestigious movie for television/miniseries category. Cassar had previously won the DGA in 2006 for directing “24.”
Patty Jenkins took the drama trophy for directing the pilot of AMC’s "The Killing" and Robert B. Weide scored the comedy prize for the legendary "Palestinian Chicken" episode of HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm." Other television winners included Glenn Weiss for musical/variety, “65th Annual Tony Awards”; Neil P. Degroot, reality program, for “Biggest Loser”; and Amy Schatz, children's programming, for “A Child’s Garden of Poetry.”
William Ludel took the DGA for an endangered species, daytime serial, for “General Hospital” and Noam Murro won in the commercial category for, among others, spots for Heineken, DirecTV and Volkswagen.
One of television's most famous faces hosted the non-televised ceremony, with Kelsey Grammer taking over the duties long performed by legendary comedian Carl Reiner.
The show has a bit of a unique format among kudofests. Each of the feature film directors up for the top prize is lauded by a colleague or co-workers involved the project at hand, and bestowed with a golden medallion, giving currency to the throwaway line that "it's an honor just to be nominated."
It's a crowd-pleasing tactic as well, and a chance to lobby the picture further down the awards path to the Oscars.
Ben Kingsley, who plays director Georges Melies in "Hugo," gave a moving introduction to the film's director, Martin Scorsese, who then received a standing ovation, presumably just for being Martin Scorsese.
Another George, Clooney, was the one to present "The Descendants" director Alexander Payne with his DGA medallion. Ever the gentleman, Clooney, who has been ubiquitous on the awards campaign trail with recognition for his lead role in that film, and for producing, directing, co-writing and acting in "The Ides of March," was careful not to overshadow Payne when it came to photo ops.
Kathy Bates, who plays Gertrude Stein in Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris," was tapped to do the honors for Allen, who is notorious for rarely showing up at Left Coast awards presentations. In a rare turn of events, he spoke to the crowd of industry peers in a previously taped bit explaining why -- saying that his funny facade, the nebbishy, neurotic Jewish guy from New York, disappears once he has to mingle with people, because he really has nothing to say.
DGA President Taylor Hackford lauded the also absent David Fincher for “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.”
It was “The Artist’s” freshly and French-ly talkative, charming co-starring duo, Berenice Bejo and Jean Dujardin, who regaled the crowd with memories of making the silent film, directed by Michel Hazanavicius. They said that after multiple takes of the tap dance routine, he told them simply that it was “pretty good,” but to “smile more.”
After his win of the trophy, the trio had nothing but smiles on their faces, and after Dujardin’s surprise lead actor SAG win, presumably they will keep them through the Academy Awards.
Falling in Love With, and At, the Movies. What I Said to an Oscar-Nominated Actress. To Which Your Reaction Will Be -- I Promise You -- No, He Didn't Really Say That. But Yes, I Really Did
I’m in love with the movies.
I like TV, but I’m in love with the movies.
Ever since I was a kid, the experience of being in a theater when the lights go down and the 20th Century Fox logo appears and its fanfare starts to blare, has been magical for me.
Not only the Fox opening, but any of the other major studios as well.
Even the Embassy Pictures logo.
Especially the Embassy Pictures logo.
In early 1968 I had just turned 16. I was alreadly in love with the movies. But that was when I fell seriously in love with someone in the movies.
The movie was “The Graduate,” and I fell head-over-heels for Katharine Ross. I’d never seen her before, nor ever heard of her. The sister of one of my best friends told me she was a model and had been on the cover of some magazines.
So I went to my public library the next day and did some research and found some magazine covers she had done. I went into the stacks and, with sweaty palms, tore two of the covers off and stuck them in my pocket.
I read as much as I could about her. One article said her birthday was Jan 9. Oh. My. God. That’s my birthdate too. No matter that the year of her birth was 12 years before mine. Clearly we were meant to be together.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. That this was just some schoolboy’s crush, not real love. Are you kidding me? Would I have spent some of the ensuing years going to see “Hellfighters,” “Fools” or “Get to Know Your Rabbit” (starring Tommy Smothers) if this was only a minor crush?
Any movie she was in, I saw. I read that she had been living with Conrad Hall, who had photographed “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” which starred Paul Newman, Robert Redford and Ross. Then I read that she wasn’t living with Hall.
I heard she lived in Trancas. No, I didn’t go out there looking for her -- though I thought about it.
Fast-forward 10 years or so. I’m happily living with my girlfriend in Santa Monica. I’m on the phone talking to one of my friends -- Andy Moore -- who had gotten a summer job on the Warner Bros. lot. He'd been there for a few weeks and started reading to me a list he’d written down of stars he’d spotted.
I shot straight out of my seat when he mentioned the last name on his list. Katharine Ross.
“When did you see her?”
“Yesterday. She’s making this movie called ‘The Swarm.’ ”
“Can you get me a pass to get on the lot.”
“Sure. Why?”
“I love Katharine Ross.”
At that point I think he mentioned something about the fact that a number of her movie choices were’t too good.
I wasn’t listening.
Two days later I was on the Warner's lot. Fortunately, the scenes being flimed that day were on outdoor sets and not inside a closed-to-visitors soundstage.
The scene Katharine Ross was in involved her being in a car that stopped suddenly. After the last “cut” I moved closer and found myself right next to her as she was just standing by the car.
“Miss Ross?”
She turned and smiled at me. My knees buckled. My God, she was even more stunningly beautiful in person.
I introduced myself. I told her I was a fan. I gave her a short story I had written in which she was a character.
I said one more line to her. She laughed.
At that moment the director of the film, Irwin Allen, came up to her. Next to him was man about Ross’ age. Very handsome. Dressed to the nines.
Allen introduced him as one of the top surgeons around.
From that moment on, she only had eyes for this surgeon. I watched them for a few minutes and then walked away.
Though I had included my contact information with the story I gave her, I never heard from her. A few years later I read that her place in Trancas burned down. Fortunately, no one was hurt, as I recall. But I figured my story -- which, of course, I had decided she had kept -- went up in flames.
Later she married Sam Elliott.
I write about this now because somewhere along the way I read that her birthday was actually Jan 29, not the 9th. So her birthday would have been yesterday.
Here’s looking at you, kid.
Oh, yeah, that last line I spoke to her? I looked into those exquisite brown eyes and I said, “You know, if we ever got together, you could be Katharine Ross Ross.”
And she laughed. Swear to God.
Here's Who Should REALLY Own the Dodgers
From Mark Cuban to Larry King to Magic Johnson, Orel Hershiser and Joe Torre, the list of people interested in owning the Los Angeles Dodgers reads like a who’s who of high-powered money men and sports celebrities. Among the former are supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, real-estate developer Rick Caruso, and hedge fund guru Steve Cohen.
As a native Angeleno who has vivid memories of going to his first Dodgers game in the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1958 when I was 6 years old, I’d also love to own the Dodgers.
As would my close friend Danny, whom I first met in nursery school.
I’d imagine there are several million of us here in L.A. who would love to own the Dodgers.
Most of us are very unhappy with the way current Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has screwed things up.
The only thing we’re short of, as individuals, is about a billion and a half dollars or so.
Collectively, though, we do have some financial clout.
Given that these are the times of the Occupy Movement, with its slogan that “We are the 99%,” I’m surprised that there has not been more of a groundswell for citizen ownership of the Dodgers.
In fact, back on June 15 last year the L.A. City Council, on an 8-2 vote, approved a resolution encouraging public ownership of the team.
In an article about the June vote, TheCityMaven wrote, “Developer Stanley Stalford is the man behind OwnTheDodgers.com. ‘I think the number one problem facing the Dodgers today is fan apathy,’ Stalford said. ‘There’s 10,000 people (fewer) in the stadium each night. The best solution to the worst problem is fan ownership.’ "
Here’s what Stalford says on OwnTheDodgers.com:
With every ticket we buy. With every hot dog we eat. With every car we park. Working people struggle to support a legendary team in our City -- the Dodgers. A family day at the stadium is a financial hardship. But we do it. And all we expect in return is a team we can be proud of, and the players a great franchise deserves. But now we are embarrassed.
Our hard earned dollars are being used for inflated salaries for family members, opulent homes, jets and messy divorces. Our team is being sacrificed for life style. We need to take over our team. We need to Own The Dodgers. And it can be done.
It has been done in Cleveland. It has been done in Green Bay. We can offer inexpensive shares in the team so that every working person can proudly say they own part of the Dodgers. Public ownership will create a debt-free Dodgers. This alone will create tens of millions of dollars each year in free cash flow. Imagine what improvements can be done with this money. A World Series championship is in our future.
Let's stop the laughter.
Let's Own The Dodgers.
On another page on the site Stalford talks about what happened in Cleveland:
In 1998 the Cleveland Indians owner sold 40% of the Team to the public, via an IPO. 4,000,000 shares were sold at $ 15 per share. Commissioner Bud Selig approved this transaction. The IPO was successful, and for years the Indians operated as a public/private entity.
Stalford then writes on his site that paying about $800 million for the Dodgers by selling 2 million shares to the public for $400 each should do the trick. Unfortunately, it’ll cost about twice that amount to get the team.
But I’d still love to see the public do it.
In my mind, the model isn’t what happened with the Indians, but what they've done in Green Bay.
As freelance writer and ESPN.com contributor Patrick Hruby wrote on the ESPN site a year ago, “Since 1923, Green Bay has been the only publicly owned, nonprofit major professional sports team in the nation. And that doesn't just make the franchise a charming anachronism, or the answer to a barstool trivia question. It makes them an example. A case study. A working model for a better way to organize and administer pro sports.”
Hruby explains, “All profits are invested back into the team. As such, Green Bay's board of directors is mostly motivated to: (a) remain solvent; (b) field a competitive team. They're not driven to make money for the sake of making more money … .
“To put things another way: Because the Packers are publicly owned, they are the only NFL franchise to open its books. According to the team's most recent income statement, Green Bay's operating profit -- that is, the money the franchise made after expenses -- fell from $34.2 million in 2007 to $9.8 million last year, largely due to increased player costs.”
Hruby then adds: “Other league owners -- who do not disclose their finances -- like to cite this decline as evidence that pro football's financial model is broken. In reality, it only suggests that their business is less lucrative. Fact is, the Packers still earned nearly $10 million -- almost five times what they earned in 1994, and plenty of money for an organization whose top priority isn't the bottom line.”
So here’s my plan, short and sweet. Given the time constraints -- first-round bids are already in, but other bids will still be accepted -- we need someone to buy the team and then sell it to us, the public.
Who would go for such a seemingly cockamamie -- but actually quite smart -- scheme.
My vote is Eli Broad. I don’t personally know Mr. Broad. But I do know that he’s been a great friend to the city of Los Angeles with an unmatched record of philanthropy. A lot of what he’s done here has been connected with the world of art, and I’ve read that he’s said he’s not interested in owning the Dodgers.
But maybe he’d be for this idea of the public owning the Dodgers as a nonprofit, like the citizens of Green Bay own the Packers. And he has the resources to buy the team and then turn around and sell it to all of us.
Mr. Broad has a proven record as someone who cares deeply about the future of L.A. What better way to help ensure that future than by having a baseball team that those of us who live here can once again be most proud of.
Time is short on this, but it can be done.
Eli, will you at least think about it?
ELEVATOR CONFRONTATION AT NATPE! TVWeek and the National Enquirer. What REALLY HAPPENED! The SIZZLE in the HOTEL BEDROOM. Real Boobs! We Tell All
(Miami Beach) -- Monday afternoon here at the annual NATPE convention at the Fountainbleau Hotel, I found myself in an elevator with someone I instantly recognized from his appearances on TV: Barry Levine, the executive editor and director of news at the National Enquirer.
Intrepid reporter that I am, I quickly blurted out, “So what brings the National Enquirer to NATPE.”
Levine, 52, said, “We’re trying to sell a TV show.”
That immediately got my attention. As the elevator stopped high above ground level, I followed Levine out onto his floor.
He began telling me about the show. We must have looked like a couple of middle-aged boobs just standing there chatting, when Levine mentioned to me that he had a DVD of the sizzle reel they had made to sell the show, and asked me if I wanted to accompany him to a hotel bedroom to watch it on a computer.
As we walked down the hall to the hotel bedroom -- accompanied by a colleague of Levine’s -- he told me more about the show. While long connected with print, at one time Levine worked at “A Current Affair,” so he’s not a stranger to the machinations of TV.
At one point Levine said the National Enquirer was hooked up with CBS’s Eye Too Productions for the series, but now they were on their own.
Citing two of the Enquirer’s more well-known stories, he mentioned their exclusives about Tiger Woods' mistress Rachel Uchitel and John Edwards' love child. The idea behind the National Enquirer TV show is to produce a weekly reality series -- most likely for cable, Levine said -- that would go behind the scenes of these kinds of stories.
Camera crews would go out with reporters as they investigated these stories, and that would be primarily the focus of the show. The Enquirer version of a procedural. I immediately thought “Absence of (er, “With”?) Malice” meets “CSI,” minus all the scientific mumbo-jumbo.
Part of the sizzle reel features reporter John Blosser, a real character who’s been with the Enquirer for decades. Proving to us his journalistic integrity, he shows off a shoulder tattoo that says “The Truth.”
Blosser then proceeds to tell how, during a stake-out, an Enquirer photographer finally got a shot of Tiger Woods in a rehab facility. As bad timing would have it, the opportunity to take the photo happened while the photographer was peeing in a cup (don’t ask); Blosser proudly tells us that the shot was taken without the photographer "spilling a drop.”
In the reel another Enquirer reporter breathlessly explains how she was able to rifle through a hotel trash can and find a baby’s used diapers. The soiled diapers were later taken to a lab and were used to help establish that the baby was John Edwards’ love child.
But wait, there’s more!
In a description of the show that Levine is giving out to potential partners here at NATPE, he’s written that there’s also “a former pre-med student from the Midwest [who] finds herself working in Hollywood as a rookie tabloid reporter. The young blonde is determined to learn on the job but she’s constantly battling herself -- knowing fully well her reporting could destroy the careers and reputations of the story subjects she pursues!”
Levine also writes about Blosser that he “appears more comfortable working the trailer parks for sources than the he is at the five-star hotels he frequently finds himself staying it.” I must say, seeing Blosser in the sizzle reel, this description seems to capture him exactly.
Levine’s prose continues: “Producers and shooters will be embedded with the Enquirer reporters as they develop sources, run down leads, go on stakeouts and, in the end, confront their prey -- all the time knowing that their editor wanted the story 'yesterday'!
“Along the way, they may have to convince sources to take lie-detector tests [you see one taking just such a test in the sizzle reel] -- and the practice of ‘checkbook journalism’ will be there for all to see -- as some sources will demand pay for what they know.”
At this point I did NOT -- I repeat did NOT -- ask Levine to pay me anything to write this. And, of course, nothing was mentioned about some remuneration once he sees how this column turns out. How dare you!
Back in 2010, Levine and the Enquirer got a lot of publicity (articles in The New York Times, GQ, etc.) when the tabloid submitted some of its stories about Edwards for a Pulitzer Prize. (They didn’t win.)
But clearly Levine’s heart is really much more in the journalistic highlands. He told New York Magazine in 2010, “My dream was to be part of the era from 'The Front Page,' when guys wore press cards in their hats and did all sorts of crazy stuff to their competitors, when journalism was larger than life.”
“When newspapermen were right out of 'Deadline -- USA' and 'His Girl Friday' and all the old movies. That's the journalism world I wanted to be a part of. I couldn’t find it in mainstream journalism, but it existed in the tabloids.”
Now Levine hopes he'll be able to capture that world on the Enquirer TV show, and that some cable network will be interested.
It seems like a good possiblity for a number of cable outlets. A companion to a Kardashian? A lead-in to Paula Zahn on ID? A lead-out after Nancy Grace on HLN? Anywhere on OWN (oh, stop being such a snob, Oprah!).
But maybe where the show would fit best would be on ABC Family, once a week after an episode of the “700 Club.” Talk about fair and balanced …
The Golden Globes Telecast: The Classiest Raunchy Edition We've Seen in Awhile
It was the second coming of Ricky Gervais to the emcee podium of the Golden Globe Awards, or actually, the third. After last year's controversial performance, people forget that the British comedian also hosted the 2010 edition of the kudocast.
The hyped-up fascination of who he would offend this year paid off again in the ratings, with Nielsen estimating that about 16.8 million viewers tuned in to Sunday night's NBC telecast.
But mirroring his insistence that Johnny Depp was on recreational drugs, Gervais apparently took some recreational nice pills before the show. With a few exceptions, his jabs just didn't have the bite that aroused such vitriol last year from the likes of insult target Robert Downey Jr.
Trashing Kim Kardashian and comparing her unfavorably to Kate Middleton? Standard fare for any standup comic. Dissing Eddie Murphy for bailing as host of the Oscars but saying “yes” to “Norbit?” Fair game. Asking Depp if he’d even seen “The Tourist,” a film he’d trashed last year? Amusing.
The wrath of Ricky, despite endless promos touting it, turned out to be pretty toothless during one of the few gigs where it's okay, and even expected, to drink on the job. After reading the rules he was supposed to follow, like no profanity (yeah, right) and no jokes about Mel Gibson, he quickly followed up with an innuendo-laden rant about Jodie Foster's (film) “The Beaver,” which the actress/director seemed to take in good humor by giving a thumbs-up from her seat in the Beverly Hilton ballroom.
Similarly, evoking sexual innuendo and insults, he lashed into Madonna in his introduction to her as a presenter, which she quickly turned around to bash him. "Ricky, if I'm still like a virgin, why don't you come over here and do something about it? I haven't kissed a girl for a long time. (Pause.) On TV," she said--as he ran back and forth behind her on stage.
It was one of the funniest moments of the show, which, despite its reputation for raunchiness saw its share of dignified moments, starting with Christopher Plummer's acceptance speech as supporting actor for his role in the little-seen film "Beginners," and continuing with Helen Mirren and Sidney Poitier’s presentation of the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement to Morgan Freeman.
There were other Oscar-worthy acceptance speeches as well, not surprisingly, from those who have taken home those more "esteemed" trophies—as Gervais called the grand dame of award shows in comparing it to the Globes—like Kate Winslet (for the lead role in HBO’s “Mildred Pierce”) and Julian Fellowes for PBS’s “Downton Abbey.”
Hollywood Foreign Press Association voters went all in for quality television, awarding new and niche shows and their stars golden statuettes. “Homeland,” “Boss,” “Episodes” and “Enlightened” thus have frontrunner status on the road to the Emmy Awards, while critical and popular favorite “Modern Family” added to its trophy case with the prize for best television comedy and “Game of Thrones” scored with a win for supporting actor Peter Dinklage.
But back to the show. Seth Rogen drove the lewd scale to a new low when he took the stage as a presenter with actress Kate Beckinsale and promptly remarked upon being unable to contain his physical arousal. (That must have been on the same teleprompter that wasn’t there for Rob Lowe and Julianne Moore—resulting in their ad lib of cold reading for Steven Spielberg.) She never regained her composure as they proceeded to present an award.
Who would have guessed that in addition to Gervais’ planned profanities, Meryl Streep caused a bleep when she apparently uttered an expletive upon realizing she forgot her reading glasses as she took the best actress prize for her role as Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady.”
Leave it to the ever suave, sophisticated, savvy two-time winner of the night, “The Descendants” star George Clooney to be both funny (coming out on stage with Brad Pitt’s cane, making fun of Michael Fassbender in “Shame”), and touching (complimenting best actor rival/friend Pitt on his humanitarian work).
If there were any residual effects of the anti-French sentiment from the Bush era, the people behind the burgeoning awards powerhouse "The Artist" dispelled it with their charm in receiving three Globes, including the top prize as best comedy/musical.
As that black and white art house film is showing the world, sometimes silence can be golden--and Rogen could surely take a lesson from that.
Reportedly the Kindle Is Selling Like Hotcakes. Hmm. Is It Really? This Is the Best Absolutely True Story I've Heard Recently
If free can lead to significantly more sales in a real dollars and cents way, one wonders why it’s not a strategy adopted more often.
For example, you can get a “starter” iPhone from AT&T for 99 cents right now -- and they were giving it away for free a little while ago. That’s because AT&T really makes its money with its data and voice service plans, not from the hardware.
So why aren’t more companies following this strategy? Maybe they are and we just don’t know it. Which leads me to my favorite story that I heard at a party I attended over the recent Christmas holidays.
A small group of us were talking about how hot the Kindle has been, even before the latest version, the Fire, came out.
One member of the group then said. “My son recently graduated college. He got a Kindle. All was fine for a few months, but then something broke on it, and the service folks at Amazon told him to send it in to get repaired.
“He did, and then several weeks later he got a box from Amazon. He opened it, and it was a new Kindle. But then he got ANOTHER box from Amazon, and it was ANOTHER new Kindle.
“Then he got another one. When the boxes finally stopped coming, he had FIVE new Kindles. Five. Can you believe it? My husband and I told him to send the extra ones back. But he didn’t want to. He said he wanted to give the extra Kindles to his friends.
“We warned him that if Amazon realized their mistake and wanted the other Kindles back, they might not take too kindly to him saying he had given them away. We told him it would be his financial headache, not ours.”
The man standing next to her took up the story from here: “So he gave my son one of the Kindles. All he told my son was that if it broke, don’t send it back, because he was worried that then it might be traced to him and it would open up a whole can of worms.
“So everything is fine for about six months. But then the Kindle he gave my son broke. My son either disregarded the instructions not to send it in to get fixed -- or forgot about that instruction. In any event, he sent it in to get fixed.
“Sometime later he gets a brand new Kindle from Amazon.
“Then he gets another one. He was hoping they’d send him more, but he only got two. He gave me the extra one.
“I can’t wait until it breaks.”
It's the New Year's Holiday: Time to Cuddle Up in Front of the TV and Watch Some Fun Movies. A Suggestion. And Yes, It Really Is the Kind of Movie They Do Not Make Anymore. The Man with the Touch
Of all the genres of movies, the hardest to make just might be the sophisticated comedy. Much easier to make the in-you-face “Hangover” movies, or “Something About Mary.” They are funny for sure, and pretty high on the crass level as well. “Bridesmaids” was hysterical, but its humor was not particularly of the high-minded or light-of-touch variety.
Judd Apatow, probably the king of American film comedy these days, has been quoted as saying that his favorite movie is Mel Brooks’ “Young Frankenstein.” That sounds about right. And “Young Frankenstein" is a very funny movie. It’s a terrific spoof of horror films, and, if you’re in the right mood, will have your sides hurting as you cannot stop laughing at its puerile inventiveness.
Brooks makes comedies that are excessive because he’s clearly touched with lunacy and as audiences, we’re forever grateful.
But I want to direct your attention to a man who was known for making great comedies not because he was touched, but because he had a touch. He seemed to have some sort of magic wand, and once he waved it over his production team, they would all be anointed with a cleverness, a worldly-wise thoroughly adult manner that was both funny and irresistibly pleasing.
It’s the opposite of vulgarity, but, like pornography, it’s something that’s instantly recognizable.
I am speaking of a movie-maker who died 67 years ago. His name is Ernst Lubitsch and there’s a wonderful opportunity to see one of his best movies this weekend.
TCM is showing Lubitsch’s not often seen “Trouble in Paradise” at 3:30 in the afternoon on Friday, Dec. 30 for those of you who live in the Eastern time zone (12:30 Pacific Time). If you can’t watch it live I would urge you to record it for later viewing. It’s a delightful choice to watch on New Year’s Eve, cuddled up next to your significant other.
“Trouble in Paradise” was made in 1932, which wasn’t that long after sound movies took hold in Hollywood. It stars Herbert Marshall as a thief and Miriam Hopkins as a pickpocket. The third leg of the romantic triangle is Kay Francis, who plays the owner of a perfume company.
Here are some comments by movie critics about “Trouble in Paradise”:
David Kehr: "The bon mots fly and an elegant immorality abounds, while beneath the surface the most serious kinds of emotional transactions are being made."
Andrew Sarris: "This movie seemed to have everything: the grace and elegance of the twenties, the egalitarian conscience of the thirties, the visual wit of the silent cinema, and the verbal wit of the talkies."
A longtime commentator on American culture, the late Alistair Cooke, once said, "I have played ‘Trouble in Paradise’ to three different generations over the past forty years or so, to the delight of all of them.".
One cannot write about Lubitsch without a few words about his most important collaborator, screenwriter Samson Raphaelson. Here’s this from an essay about the movie from the DVD release put out by The Criterion Collection. Says pop culture critic Armond White: “ ‘Trouble in Paradise’ never turns mushy—and never slows down—due to Lubitsch and screenwriter Samson Raphaelson’s cosmopolitan insight about the capriciousness and fluidity of romantic attraction. It is among the most astute movies ever made about the joys of sex even though it is, primarily, a sparkling abstraction. Each character’s cultured civility only covers up criminal, sexual, human instinct. Within their tuxedos and stain gowns, they reveal animal appetites, recognizable weakness and enviable wit.”
As you watch this movie, know that Lubitsch and Raphaelson collaborated on another movie, 13 years later, that is also a true must-see comedy gem—perhaps the best comedy about relationships ever made: “The Shop Around the Corner” starring Jimmy Stewart, Margaret Sullavan and a marvelous cast of supporting players.
“I feel sorry for people who have never seen an Ernst Lubitsch movie; they are missing such delights,” filmmaker and critic Peter Bogdanovich wrote on his website earlier this year. “There is no way to really describe what exactly it is that makes most of his pictures so charming, funny, human, stylized, unique.“
Bogdanovich then added a comment with which I wholeheartedly concur: “If more people were enjoying Lubitsch movies, they would be happier, more hopeful.”#
NOTE: If you do not subscribe to TCM, hope is not all lost. If you DO subscribe to Netflix’s streaming movie service you can order up, instantly, Lubitsch and Raphaelson’s “Heaven Can Wait.” This 1943 enchantment has nothing to do with Warren Beatty’s 1978 “Heaven Can Wait" (which itself is a remake, but not of the Lubitsch film).
Simon Cowell Talks to TVWeek as the 'X-Factor' Finale Is Soon to Air. What Cowell Will Do About the Sing-Offs Next Season and What He Thinks About the Judging on 'American Idol.' And What TVWeek Thinks Should Happen to Host Steve Jones
The four judges and three remaining contestants on Fox's “The X-Factor” held a press conference on the set of the show at CBS Television City on Monday, Dec. 19, 2011, and I attended to find out what Simon Cowell intended to do next season with the screwed-up judging of the sing-offs.
So during the press conference I told Cowell that it seems to me, judging from the emails we get, the way he’s got it set up where the public eliminates one person each week is working. However, the part where the judges eliminate another person is not working. You’re going to deadlock too often, and the judges are not picking the person who does the best in the sing-off. Are you thinking of changing how that works for next season, I asked him.
To which Cowell replied, “Absolutely not.” Then he spoke specifically of the week Nicole froze up, sent the process into deadlock, and Rachel Crow got eliminated from the show, despite the fact that she clearly sang better than Marcus Canty in the sing-off. “If that week had worked, in the way I believe the process should work … the judges could have saved [Rachel]. The fact it went to deadlock means that that week the process didn’t work.”
Then Cowell criticized Nicole, saying, “If everyone had done their job properly that week, then this format would have worked really well. So I’m not going to change the system, I’m just going to suggest that we do a better job when we do it in the future.”
As I’ve previously written, Cowell himself was equally guilty of screwing up the process this season.
Entertainment Weekly’s Adam Vary then asked a good question about the problem with groups on the show, noting that a group had, for the first time, finally made it into the finals of the U.K version of “The X-Factor” this season, after the show has been on-air there for almost a decade.
Cowell replied, “Within two years, a group will win this show. Because I think I know the kind of group who could win the show like this. And if they walk in the door, they’ll win. Guarantee it. I can feel it.”
Paula Abdul was the mentor of the groups this season, and I liked what she put forward for next season. It’s an idea she said a number of viewers have suggested to her: “Maybe if each judge/mentor had one group, and we each had one female, one male, and one over-30, that would help solidify more interest in groups.”
Cowell also addressed the high expectations he had for the show this season that it didn’t reach. For example, he predicted that out-of-the-box it would have “Idol” like ratings, and “The X-Factor” hasn’t come close. “I think I probably came here a little too cocky, but I am cocky by nature. I had come off the back of a massive hit in the U.K., had the adrenaline (and) couldn't wait to put the show on here, and it is going to take a little longer than I thought.”
He also vowed that the show would improve next year.
Given Cowell’s ego and his will to succeed, it makes me want to definiltely check out the show again next season.
After the formal press conference was over Cowell and I spoke for a few minutes. He said he was glad I had asked about the judging of the sing-offs and again vowed they’d do it better next season. We also spoke for a moment about the judging on “American Idol” last season.
I said I thought the judges, in an effort to make the show more positive for the contestants, had mostly just given us mealy-mouthed platitudes. Cowell seemed to agree, commenting that he thought viewers would eventually turn to “The X-Factor” to see him and his cohorts if “Idol” continued in that direction.
Of course the problem there is that too much of the judges' patter on “The X-Factor” is sniping at the other judges. Like at “Idol,” I thought that even our ol’ reliable truth-teller -- Cowell -- had too often not given honest assessments of the performances this year on “The X-Factor.” Each judge is too leery of critically assessing the performance of those he or she mentors.
Maybe that’s something Cowell will tweak for next season as well. Part of that process would be replacing Nicole and host Steve Jones. In fact, there are stories all over the 'net today that Jones will indeed be history next year, though no on-the-record sources are quoted in any of the stories and Cowell has previously said that decisions about who will return to "The X-Factor" next season have not yet been made.
Jones -- I've yet to find one viewer who likes him -- is more awkward to watch on TV than the last most awkward person to watch on TV, Dan Rather when he anchored CBS's nightly newscast.
"What's the frequency, Steve?" I know, I know, you don't have a clue.
Finally, a Weekly Show That's as Much an Adrenaline Rush as Was '24.' It's Unscripted. And God Is the Star's Co-Pilot. We Say Hallelujah Whenever God Brings Us TV This Good. Can It Sustain This Pace? Also, More of 'X-Factor' as It Continues to Implode
One of the pleasures of "24" that made it such a hoot for a lot of us was the fun we had yelling back at our TV screens at some of the impossible scenarios with which the show presented us.
Well, in our household, yelling back at the TV has reached new highs in decibel levels in the past month and a half or so as we’ve found another weekly show that’s driving us crazy while simultaneously giving us quite an adrenaline rush.
It’s unscripted and it’s coming to us from an unusual source: The mile-high city, Denver.
It’s Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos. Tebow and the Broncos are not just already THE sports story of the year, they’re the underdog story of practically any year. Tim Tebow is Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He’s Tom Laughlin in “Billy Jack.” He IS "Rocky."
Tebow can do anything. Of that I am convinced. He’s Jack Bauer in any number of impossible can’t-get-out-of situations that he then gets out of.
Jack had a cell phone, Chloe, and a big-caliber gun at his side. Tebow claims only God, a pigskin and a terrific offensive line. And I thought Bauer was unreal.
For the uninitiated, please consider these facts: The Broncos started the season by compiling a record of one victory and four losses. Tebow played, but he wasn’t really made the team’s full-time quarterback until game six.
The Broncos have now won six games in a row, and are in first place in the western division of the AFC.
Now, here’s the really unbelievable part: Tebow has led the team to victory all six times in game-winning drives that have taken place either in the fourth quarter or during overtime.
Being based here in L.A. I have the advantage — as do the millions of others who live here — of being that most fun-loving of enthusiasts, the freelance pro football fan.
That's because we haven’t had an NFL team here in L.A. for years. So I sorta go with the flow, and glom onto the most alluring team of any one season.
The last time I did that with any enthusiasm was in 2007, when I became a fan of Eli Manning and the New York Giants. They faltered as the season wound down — lots of yelling at the TV then — but recovered and ended with a terrific run, winning the Super Bowl.
But baby, I’m B-A-C-K! Just try and rip off my brand-new blue and orange No. 15 jersey that I’m now wearing on any given Sunday, and you’ll have a fight on your hands.
Here are some stats from Vegas on the Broncos run, emailed to me by RJ Bell of pregame.com:
The Broncos have won 6 straight games. If you started with $100, and let it ride
on Denver to win each of the 6 games, you now would have won $38,450.
Prior to being favored Sunday vs. the Bears, the Broncos were underdogs in their previous 5 games, becoming only the third team since 1978 to win 5 straight games as underdogs in each.
The game played yesterday (Dec. 11, 2011) was another Tebow special that had to be seen to be believed. Bottom line: The Bears were leading, 10-0, with just over 2 minutes remaining in the game. The Broncos caught the Bears and then won in overtime.
The Bears’ Marion Barber was criticized for two critical miscues that helped the Broncos' cause. In one, he stepped out-of-bounds, stopping the clock when the Broncos were out of time-outs, and in the other he fumbled, which led to Tebow being able to position the Broncos to win the game during the overtime.
But having watched the Broncos during this implausible streak of theirs, I'm convinced that if it weren't Barber, it would have been someone else. Fate is the hunter, as the saying goes.
This coming Sunday the Broncos are 6-point underdogs to the Patriots.
Ha!
Tebow and me and the Broncos have got ‘em right where we want ‘em.
____________
As I have previously written, “The X-Factor” loses all credibility when the show has sing-offs and then the judges ignore who sings best during a sing-off. It happened again last week. Better than linking to a video of what happened, here’s a words-eye view by the Washington Post’s most talented TV reporter and columnist, Lisa de Moraes. If you’re not regularly reading Lisa, you should be:
We are at the time of the results show where they have a sing-off between two contestants. The judges then eliminate one of the two. Last week it was Marcus Canty again and, for the first time in a sing-off, 13-year-old Rachel Crow.
De Moraes writes:
Because of this week’s Pepsi Challenge snafu, the X-testants had to use their survival songs on Wednesday night, and we’re in for two repeat performances. For Marcus that’s “I’m Going Down” – only this time his non-microphone hand is going wild for emphasis. In Rachel’s case it’s “I’d Rather Go Blind,” and it’s even better than the first time she sang it. Rachel clearly aced this round and now we’ll hear from some real industry pros, who know true talent when they hear it: the mentors. Just kidding!
LA, Marcus’s coach, informs viewers, “I am a man of principle.” And by “principle” he means he will vote, not based on the best performance, but based on who’s on his team. So LA votes to send Rachel home, and we hope that’s a lesson to little Rachel about “principles.”
Simon is brief. “What’s the point of even saying anything …Marcus you’re going home.”
Paula: “The one who really blew me away was Rachel Crow.” She votes to send home Marcus.
So now we have one vote for principles, and two for talent, and it’s down to Nicole.
Nicole weeps, Nicole stammers. Nicole presses her temples with her bejeweled, perfectly manicured fingers.
“Okay, I can’t made this decision, because I’ve been up there, and love and adore both of you,” Nicole wails while making it all about her. Nicely played, Nicole!
“I have to go to deadlock,” Nicole emotes, meaning the contestant with the fewest votes from the public will go home.
So the tally is: two for talent, one for principles, and one for not understanding the rules.
Too Tall [host Steve Jones] informs Nicole that there is no option called “not making a decision.” To throw it to deadlock, is to make a decision to vote to send home Rachel, tying the mentor votes at 2-2.
Nicole looks annoyed — TTS is cutting in on her Big Moment.
“I don’t want to have to say that,” Nicole snaps. “I don’t want to -- I’m just going to have -- Yeah, I don’t want to send you home, I just don’t --.”
She does the two-handed finger-quote: “The act I have to send home is Rachel.”
Steve, who’s not so dumb as he looks, then proceeds to steal Nicole’s big scene, announcing that, based on Nicole’s act of idiocy, he’s now required to send home the act that got the fewest viewer votes, that act being:
Rachel Crow.
Little Rachel falls to the floor and starts bawling like the little girl she is. Some day Rachel will realize how lucky she is to get out of her X-commitments and one step closer to being free to go out and sign a deal to become the next Disney kid star. Poor little Rachel is now thinking that people don’t like her. Too Tall Steve has gotten down on his knees near Rachel and is finally a proper height.
To read De Moraes' entire column -- which is terrific -- please click on the link above.
Next season -- "The X-Factor" has already been renewed -- a decision needs to be made to eliminate the possibility of a deadlock. If the show's producers don't want to hire a fifth full-time judge (or, conversely, go down to three judges), at the very least they need a "guest" or "alternative" judge for the results night (or for the entire season) who will beak any deadlocks without going to the public's vote (which already votes one contestant off a week).#
Rick Perry's Debate Gaffes Make For Choice Comedy. However, What He's Chosen to Say About Gays, Sadly, Only Points Out a Tragic Flaw in His Character
Sixty-six years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forests of Western Europe, Allied forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the Battle of the Bulge. And in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th Division of Patton’s Third Army came under fire. The men were traveling along a narrow trail. They were exposed and they were vulnerable. Hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy.
And during the firefight, a private named Lloyd Corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine. Dazed and trapped, he was as good as dead. But one soldier, a friend, turned back. And with shells landing around him, amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring Private Corwin to safer ground.
For the rest of his years, Lloyd credited this soldier, this friend, named Andy Lee, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone. It was a full four decades after the war, when the two friends reunited in their golden years, that Lloyd learned that the man who saved his life, his friend Andy, was gay. He had no idea. And he didn’t much care. Lloyd knew what mattered. He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life. It was his friend.
The recounting of this true story is from a speech President Obama delivered a year ago, when he signed the legislation ending the military’s policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Later, I heard Lloyd’s son, Miles, talking about his dad and Andy and gays in the military on the public radio show “The Story.”
Miles put a fine exclamation on the issue: “Valor has no sexual orientation.”
Texas Governor Rick Perry must have been absent in Sunday school the day that was taught. Or, perhaps more likely—and sadly—it was a lesson that wasn’t taught in the Sunday school Perry attended.
We know how Perry feels about this because of what he says in an ad he’s just released in Iowa, as he coddles—and cuddles up to—the evangelical vote there.
Here’s how the ad—titled “Strong” by the Perry campaign—opens: “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”
I’m not even going to address the rest of what Perry said about our kids, nor what he says in the rest of the ad, which you can watch at the bottom of this column.
But it’s not the only slur against gays he’s delivered lately.
Earlier this week both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave impassioned support to gays. Clinton gave a speech that “equated gay rights with women’s rights during a speech in Geneva,” reports ABC News. That same article said, “In a memorandum released today, Obama said foreign aid should be used by U.S. agencies operating abroad to 'promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons,' including combating the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct by foreign governments, along with protecting LGBT asylum seekers and refugees.
“ ‘I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world, whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation,’ Obama said in the memo.”
The report also tells of Perry’s reaction: “ ‘Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights. This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop,’ Perry said in the statement. ‘Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money.’
“ ‘But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea,’ Perry said. ‘This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many [Americans] of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.’ ”
I would posit it’s Perry who's out of touch with America’s values.
For example, a number of conservative commentators have said they are OK with gays in the military. When asked about it on ABC’s Sunday morning news show “This Week,” conservative commentator George Will said, “For people of [Matthew Dowd's] son's generation, being gay is like being left-handed. ... The Supreme Court has a famous phrase it used in some opinion, the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society. Clearly these are evolving, and the case is over, basically."
In a column posted in June 2010, on the site “View From the Right,” Lawrence Auster quoted Washington Post conservative Robert Knight as follows:
“Charles Krauthammer, who has written some of the best critiques of Obamacare and the rest of the left's assault on America, is also aboard the gay express. He's smarter than God. So, too, are Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover and American Spectator columnist Phillip Klein, all of whom have called for repealing the military ban. Mr. Klein called it a ‘no-brainer.’ No arguing with that.
“The silence of other talking heads is deafening while Democrats ram through their immoral assault on our military. So I have a couple of questions for these pundits: First, given that you've warned us repeatedly about many dangers of the left, why are you embracing the centerpiece of their war on American values? Homosexual activism is the spear point of the larger cultural blitzkrieg. Without Judeo-Christian morals, liberty and freedom cannot thrive, as observers from Tocqueville to Adam Smith to George Washington have warned. Or just visit any inner city where socialist sexual values have prevailed.”
I’m sorry, but what crap. Supporting gay rights does not violate Judeo-Christian values. Supporting gay rights does not mean liberty and freedom cannot thrive—just the opposite, in fact.
Back in the days of Congress’ Communist witch hunt of the 1950s, Lillian Hellman wrote a famous letter to a congressional committee saying that she refused to testify about other people who she believed had done nothing wrong. The sound bite for all time was “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”
But Hellman also wrote in that letter, “I was raised in an old-fashioned American tradition and there were certain homely things that were taught to me: To try to tell the truth, not to bear false witness, not to harm my neighbor, to be loyal to my country, and so on. In general, I respected these ideals of Christian honor and did as well with them as I knew how. It is my belief that you will agree with these simple rules of human decency and will not expect me to violate the good American tradition from which they spring.”
Human decency demands that Perry and those of his ilk stop their incessant attack on gays and those who support ending discrimination based on someone’s sexual orientation.
Obama and Clinton are right on this one. Their stand IS the moral one, and is the one that’s right for the country.
OurTvSpace.com commented on
