The Grammys Need To Recognize Four Great Artists as Lifetime Achievement Honorees
When I was growing up the Grammys meant less than zero to me and my friends. We paid them no attention whatsoever.
Here’s an example of why. In 1965 some of the nominees for Best Folk Recording were Bob Dylan, Harry Belafonte, Miriam Makeba, Woody Guthrie and Peter, Paul & Mary.
And the Grammy went to Gale Garnett for “We’ll Sing in the Sunshine,” which was more pop than folk and definitely lightweight.
Over the years, however, the Grammys -- which will be telecast this Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012 -- have grown up and have made more relevant choices.
Beginning back in 1962, the Grammys did a better job with its first four selections for Lifetime Achievement Award: Crosby, Sinatra, Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald.
In the 1970s the Grammys only bestowed the Lifetime Achievement accolade three times, to Elvis, Louis Armstrong and Mahalia Jackson.
But starting in 1986, realizing that there were many more performers deserving of Lifetime kudos, the Grammys began naming multiple honorees every year, a mix of current artists and those who have passed on.
This year, for example, the Grammys have singled out the Allman Brothers Band, Glen Campbell, Antonio Carlos Jobim, George Jones, the Memphis Horns, Diana Ross and Gil Scott-Heron as “performers who, during their lifetimes, have made creative contributions of outstanding artistic significance to the field of recording."
Thus far the Grammys have recognized 142 individuals and groups for their lifetimes of achievement, including such disparate talents as Cab Calloway, the Carter Family, Pablo Casals, John Coltrane, Perry Como and Cream.
Here’s a trio I suggest be included in next year’s group for this prestigious honor: Emmylou Harris, Gram Parsons and the Louvin Brothers.
I thought of this group this week as I devoured a new book: “Satan is Real,” by Charlie Louvin with Benjamin Whitmer. Its subtitle is “The Ballad of the Louvin Brothers.”
The brothers were the massively talented alcoholic Ira Louvin -- who died, ironically, when the car he was driving was struck by a car driven by a drunk driver in 1965 -- and Charlie Louvin, the book’s author, who died at age 83 in January 2011, two months after he and Whitmer finished the book. The book was finally published last month by the Igniter Literary Group division of HarperCollins.
How talented were the Louvin Brothers? The authoritative Grove Dictionary of American Music says they were “probably the greatest traditional country duo in history.” Kris Kristofferson nails it when he says, “The legendary Louvin Brothers’ hauntingly beautiful Appalachian blood harmony is truly one of the treasures of American music.”
How crazy was the life of Ira Louvin? Once, when he and his third wife, Faye, were drunk in their bedroom, and Ira was trying to strangle her with a telephone cord, she managed to grab a small gun that Ira kept under his pillow, and shot him in the arm. And then in the chest. And then three more times in the back. And then, “for good measure,” once more in the front.
As Charlie writes, “Lucky for him, none of the bullets went deep enough to hit his vital organs.”
The day after the shooting, Charlie says he heard an item about the incident on Paul Harvey’s national radio newscast: Harvey said, “Ira Louvin and his wife were up drinking last night, and she shot him six times with a .22 pistol. Then she told the police, ‘If the blankety-blank don’t die, I’ll shoot him again.' And then Harvey gave one of his little pauses like he did and continued, ‘And he ain’t dead yet.’ “
Ira recovered and lived for two more years before he was killed in the auto accident.
By the time of the accident, Ira’s alcoholism had so taken its toll on Charlie that they were no longer singing together.
But before that happened they made beautiful, haunting harmonies. As Charlie writes, “It baffled a lot of people how we could change parts without nudging or winking at each other. [Ira would] take the high lead and I’d do the low harmony under it, and he knew exactly when my part would get too high for me just like I knew when his would get too low for him, and we could change in the middle of a word.”
Part of the reason they could do that, Charlie adds, “is that we were brothers. There’s no one that knows your weaknesses like a brother.”
Later in the book Charlie talks about Ira’s biggest weakness, his drinking. Ira was the older of the two brothers and took most of the beatings from their father when they were kids.
Writes Charlie, “People always said that it was like Ira was trying to get even with somebody when he drank, and maybe Papa was the one he was trying to get even with. And maybe he was trying to get even with Mama and me a little, too, for never stopping those beatings. And maybe we deserved it.”
A lot of us probably would not know of the Louvin Brothers today if weren't for Emmylou Harris, who has championed their music during her entire career.
I’ve seen Emmylou Harris perform many times. Even got to meet her once. Back 30-35 years ago, she and her pal Linda Ronstadt gave an afternoon outdoor concert at UCLA. As I was leaving the show I went by a room in a building whose door was open, and I saw Harris inside presiding over a small after-party. I went into the room and immediately was asked to leave by a PR person. I begged to stay and he finally said, “OK, but under one condition. That you don’t try to talk to Ms. Harris.” I readily agreed and the moment I saw that he was distracted on the other side of the room I made a beeline for Emmylou.
I said, “Hi. I’m a big fan. I just want to thank you for keeping alive the music of the Louvin Brothers. And of Gram Parsons.” She was about to say something in reply when the PR thug came up to me, firmly grabbed me by the shoulder and threw me out, saying, “Jesus, I told you not to talk to her.”
Harris learned about the Louvin Brothers primarily when, as she has said, she basically learned about country music from Gram Parsons. The late Parsons, himself a legendary figure in country-folk-rock, discovered Harris when she was singing in Washington, D.C., years ago, and they sang together for a short period. Parsons tragically died of a drug overdose at age 26 in 1973.
As Charlie Louvin writes in his book, "One guy I probably owe as much to as anybody is Gram Parsons. Unfortunately, I never got to meet him, but he was a Louvin Brothers nut. When Ira and I were playing with Elvis on that one tour [with him] that we did, we stopped in Waycross, Georgia, and Gram, who was only nine years old at the time, was in the audience. He went on to work with three or four rock and roll groups, and every time he'd con 'em into playing a Louvin Brothers song or two. ... He was responsible for introducing the Louvin Brothers music to a great number of people. His first recruit was Emmylou Harris, and I can't say how much she's helped me over the years."
In fact, Charlie and Harris did some duets. And an album released nine years ago, "Livin', Lovin', Losin' -- Songs of the Louvin Brothers," which featured Harris and a plethora of other artists, won a Grammy as Best Country Album.
As he neared the end of his life, Charlie said he was always asked whether he and Ira ever thought their songs would still be played and loved 60 years after they were written.
His answer was nah, "we were merely trying to make a living, that's all we were trying to do.#"
In his book Charlie Louvin writes that "I think my favorite song on the [gospel] album ['Satan Is Real'] is 'Are You Afraid To Die?" In fact, it's one of my favorite Louvin Brothers songs ever." Here's Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowell, accompanied by Albert Lee, on the Louvin Brother's classic secular song "If I Could Only Win Your Love" Gram Parsons recorded a number of Louvin Brothers songs, but I've chosen to post a song influenced by the Louvin Brothers lyrically, structurally and harmonically but written and performed by Parsons and Emmylou Harris. It's called "In My Hour of Darkness" from Parsons' posthumously released album "Grievous Angel." The third person accompanying Parsons and Harris in the harmonies is Linda Ronstadt.
Shazam! Super Bowl Broke Ground in Media Technology, but Halftime Show Was Deja Vu
Even as the New York Giants pulled off a thrilling come-from-behind, down-to-the-last-play win over the New England Patriots in Indianapolis, what Super Bowl XLVI may be remembered for nearly as much are its record ratings for the NBC broadcast, the M.I.A bird flip during the Madonna halftime show and the Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial.
With :30 spots going for a pricey $3.5 million each, the majority of those that seemed to resonate most were for cars -- Matthew Broderick reprising his iconic Ferris Bueller role for Honda, Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno shilling for Acura, an overweight dog running to get into a new Volkswagen Beetle, the Audi vampire party commercial -- along with Super Bowl party-perfect snack foods and beverages, like Pepsi, Doritos and M&Ms. Then, defying easy categorization, except for possibly “hot, sexy, heavily tattooed athletic bodies sell,” there was David Beckham in his skivvies for fast fashion retailer H&M.
The 46th edition of the NFL championship game also marked a digital milestone, with the gridiron play, halftime and more than one third of the commercials being “Shazamable.”
For those not familiar, Shazam is an audio/music recognition app for smartphones that made its name in the music industry before integrating its second screen experience into several television shows last year. It provided users with exclusive content and free songs for several awards telecasts, dramas and music competition programs -- and it’s clearly making major inroads into the TV business with its Super Bowl foray.
The U.K.-based company offered its users chances to download videos, enter sweepstakes and donate to charity and says the spot that received the most interaction was for Best Buy, which conveniently featured its founders, Chris Barton and Avery Wang, talking about innovations in mobile technology.
Movie ticketing site Fandango also experimented with a Super Bowl commercial for the first time. For Universal Pictures’ upcoming action-adventure film “Battleship,” viewers saw a call to action that linked them to the company’s mobile app. There, they could sign up for alerts that will notify them when tickets are available at their local theaters and could enter a contest to win five years’ worth of free movie tickets.
As television moves from a passive, sit-back-on-the-couch experience to a more interactive one, trailers for upcoming films are the perfect opportunity to get bodies in paid seats. "The campaign was highly successful for us, and we look forward to supporting all of our studio partners with on-air FanAlert promotional opportunities on more films in the future,” says company spokesperson Harry Medved.
It just wouldn’t be a complete Super Bowl halftime show without some controversy, and sort of, but not really, like Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” from eight years back, the one from XLVI happened in less than a blink of the eye.
During Madonna’s performance of her new single “Give Me All Your Luvin,” with guest stars Nicki Minaj and M.I.A., the latter pulled out a fourth-grade gesture, flipping off the massive audience, estimated at that point to be 116 million people, with her middle finger -- for some unknown reason other than she could.
NBC and the NFL, which is solely responsible for the content of the halftime show, apologized, saying the gesture could not be obscured in time. Apparently, if the FCC decides to fine NBC for indecency, the British rapper would be responsible for monetary damages for her finger wag. TMZ and other news organizations are reporting that she signed a contract with the NFL to indemnify it in the case of such a circumstance.
You may recall that CBS was hit with a $550,000 FCC fine after Jackson's nipple exposure in a song and dance routine with Justin Timberlake -- to this day a mystery of whether it was inadvertent or purposeful -- but that the fine was eventually thrown out by a federal appeals court.
In the court of public opinion, we can use another finger to describe M.I.A.’s behavior: thumbs down.
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.
OurTvSpace.com commented on
