Friday, September 23, 2016
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Years Go By, Memories Linger On
I can remember that day. It was a warm, sunny and eventful day for myself, as I was into my second week of being a student at Hofstra University. I had morning classes, and had just finished an English Literature course which would be followed by a Political Science course. It was about 9:30 am that I and my fellow students and professors heard the first reports of two passenger airliners crashing into both World Trade Center towers. None of us in the room knew what to make of the events, although for myself I did remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. So for me it did not come as much of a surprise to hear of a second incident, this time more fatal than the first. After a few minutes of discussion regarding our thoughts on the developing matter, a student in the nearby building barged in to announce that a plane had crashed the Pentagon. There were unconfirmed reports of a bombing in the Washington Monument and a car bomb going off at the State Department; thankfully those turned out to be false.
We and others went to the nearby Bits N' Bytes on campus to watch the news reports coming in. When I got there, the South Tower collapsed 1 minute later. Within less than a half hour after that, the North Tower collapsed. All told, with the WTC, Pentagon and a plane crash in Shankesville, Pennsylvania; some 3,000 or so people lost their lives that day. This included hundreds of NYPD and FDNY officials. The date has been etched in my memory for the last 15 years; September 11, 2001. I personally did not lose anyone that was family or close friends that day, yet I knew of far too many that faced an irreparable loss. My father, who had only retired from the FDNY two years prior, lost several firefighters that he personally knew, including at least a select few from his same ladder company.
For myself, I got home at my usual time, and got back to attending classes the next day. Life went on, although my perspective of life had irreversibly changed on 911. I suppose for many, including those younger than me, a day such as the one 15 years ago had its purpose and is looked at as part of a history lesson: maybe life to them has always felt the way it seems now. Yet, I guess you would have needed to be there during the years, months and even days before 911. Bill Maher in his book of essays "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden" I think put the 10 years or so before 911 to its proper meaning; the Seinfeld decade. Yes, much like the famed Jerry Seinfeld sitcom, the era 1991-2001 was one of trends and scandals and ideals and innovations that, with few exceptions, did not matter in the slightest. How low did it get? In my opinion, 1998 was the nadir, a year in which the world and particularly Americans were so fixated on President Bill Clinton's affairs with other women. In case you forgot, Pres. Clinton was impeached though not convicted for lying to a purported grand jury over an extramarital relationship (which was just oral sex) that any sane person would also deny until caught red handed. As a confirmation of the abject stupidity of the year, Time Magazine had as its People of the Year not only Pres. Clinton, yet also Kenneth Starr; the independent counsel and Iran-Contra figure who quickly faded into academia obscurity.
Well, if the 90's were the Seinfeld decade, it can be said that 911 was the Seinfeld series finale. All those incidents that were trivial came to nip us in the bud, and the consequences of our collective carelessness came to fruition that day. For myself, the rest of 2001 was in effect my social political and economic awakening. I had realized that all I was interested in, from the Clinton sex scandals to the Rep. Gary Condit incident to which politician had an interest in pop culture, meant not one thing. I had probably started the awakening earlier in the year when I registered to vote and started watching Meet The Press with Tim Russert every Sunday, though I was in that phase of in one ear and out the other with the issues at hand. That all changed after that September morning. Many that know me know my ideas and beliefs regarding 911 and the years afterwards. I am not here to regurgitate what I am aware of and what I feel on this matter. I will mention that on every Election Day from 2001 onward, and on many Primary Days in recent years, I have voted. For every elective office and proposition on any given ballot. And I'm voting this Election Day as well.
The 2016 election however has been concerning to say the least. Not least of which is the growing reality of a low turnout followed by a perceived apathy among the voting public. And if it is not apathy, it is certainly a desire to be selfish in approach and temerity. I am not pleased with this degradation of the issues both foreign and domestic that need to affect a campaign for any elected office. Believe me, many may not care; but there are those that will do the caring for them, and will inevitably make life worse for the uncaring. If that means the United States loses its influence on geopolitical issues to a number of developing countries, then that is the fate the US has chosen.
Of all the purported lessons and legacies 911 was supposed to exemplify, none that have appeared in nearly all publications and media are feasible and none are worthwhile. For myself, 911 provided only one lesson to be learned, though it is a big lesson: we have been and continue to be willingly conned. When we stop caring, we should not be surprised that the void left in the socio-political structure will be filled by people and ideas that do not give a flying fig about you. I am sadly seeing this again, which in these times will lead the populace on a path to ruin. That is what we should remember when we remember 9 11. Simply stated, all need to be aware and involved in our social political and economic world of whom we are and what we need to become. We would be living in a better and more humane world if people stopped caring about their trivial matters and started focusing on the betterment of all in their lives and those that will come after we leave.
As a unique addition to this blog, which I need to write on more often, I can remember a time when popular music and rock music took stands on issues that needed to be addressed. I rarely hear anything close to a protest song these days. Here are some that I can remember hearing after 911 and the years that followed which mattered for me in artists stating the truth.
And of course many more .
Not the end of the matter, only the beginning,
Robert
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Monday, June 20, 2016
Bush Swerve coming right up!
You can learn a lot on life without ever really focusing on the matter at hand. One of my most favorite recurring sketches on Sesame Street, namely the Jim Henson years, was Grover the Waiter. It usually took place at Charlie's Restaurant, and involved Grover agitating his main customer, Mr. Johnson. The sketches, which branched outside of Charlie's, would involve Mr. Johnson ordering something, and getting something entirely different from Grover. And it didn't always mean food; often Mr. Johnson would be delayed of his appointment by Grover. Now, these sketches needed Grover to muck up Mr. Johnson's plans in order to make an educational point, and it was always difficult to hate what Grover was doing because he is so fun and lovable and adorable. None the less, Mr. Johnson always got the swerve handed to him, eventually ending with him fainting. I do have some examples of Grover twisting Mr. Johnson's needs and wants from old YouTube videos.
I was thinking about this recently in light of the past week in our political world. Now for myself, I should be enthralled; Sen. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she is leading in the polls, and my vote for her was counted. In other news, all other campaigns are doing their part in self-immolating their campaigns. Donald Trump, for one instance, is becoming unhinged and has now realized he got in to this campaign way over his head. As I said, I should be happy about this; yet I know something is up. The elite of this world of ours are not going to allow populism and chaos to erupt when there is plans for Continuity of Government. In the mind of David Rockefeller, the goal of elite immortality supersedes all other needs of a population. And Donald Trump knows this all too well.
There is not going to be a Clinton vs. Trump election this year. See, here is what has happened. Earlier last year, President Bill Clinton phoned Donald Trump, and during the conversation convinced Mr. Trump to throw his hat into the ring as a Republican candidate for President. What Pres. Clinton and Mr. Trump were doing, as were their families, was a long-term approach in steering the Democratic nomination into Sec. Clinton's hands. To that, the stated goal was to convince President Barack Obama to not disrupt the return of the Clinton people in leading the DNC. Pres. Clinton, like many of us, have admiration for Pres. Obama yet feel abjectly disappointed in both Obama's policies and need to make everything a campaign. Indeed, Bill Clinton felt Mitt Romney should have won the election in 2012. It was also their opinion, as well as mine, that Pres. Obama was helping to prop up all other Democratic candidates and potential candidates (Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vice President Joe Biden) in order to dilute Sen. Clinton's chances at the nomination.
On the side of the GOP, putting Donald Trump to the lead in polls and eventually the nomination was being utilized for ulterior motives by President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and yes any Republican named Bush. You see, Jeb Bush was supposed to be given the nomination easily. And yet, a number of Republicans were aghast by this idea. So, how does the Bush family get their way? By allowing Donald Trump to run roughshod over all other Republican candidates! Yes, Bush 41 and Bush 43 allowed for the Trump insurgence to happen, so that their long term plan gets implemented.
Here is how it works: Jeb Bush is taken out of the race for now. Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination, while Sec. Hillary Clinton wins the DNC nomination. Since the Bushes are the only family the Clintons seemingly must adhere to, Sen. Clinton is given more than enough information and talking points to start the seed in having people in the Republican Party think twice about their initial Trump support. Letting Mr. Trump get unhinged by his own foibles is an added bonus. Give it at least another week from now, and many more Republicans will be calling for a do-over on the nomination; and this includes voters that pulled the lever for Trump.
What Donald Trump fears the most, along with harm to his family, is a full public audit of his finances. Mr. Trump is a rich and powerful man, but he is not that rich and powerful. As I write this, the GOP, the Bushes and the world elite have Mr. Trump's financial records. It is not my business, but the revelations might prove embarrassing. I am convinced that soon enough, or it may have happened already, Donald Trump will be will be told to meet privately with Pres. George H.W.Bush, and other elites. In a deal that may not be refused, Trump will be told to end the campaign for President P.D.Q. (Bach:), else the Trump tax records and business ties with the Clinton family will be made public. As part of this deal, in addition to spinning the end of the campaign however he sees fit, Mr. Trump will be awarded anywhere from $150 million to a near billion and the Trump University case will be settled out of court. Of course, Donald Trump will need to take the money and run; he just might need that $150 million at least.
So who becomes the nominee for the Republicans then? Why it is the only candidate endorsed by two past Republican Presidents: Jeb Bush! But wait, the GOP does not want Bush. Well, a lot can change when you are in a state of regret. The GOP is now willing to have as their nominee the person they had chosen from the onset. As it will be, the Convention will become a Bush love fest, there will be no riots, and Jeb Bush will take the lead in the polls along with whoever is the Vice-Presidential nominee.
And the Coup de Grace; Jeb Bush will become the 45th President of the United States. I know, we all think it will be Sen. Hillary Clinton, and it should be Sec. Clinton. Yet it will not be happening. Putting Jeb Bush as the GOP nominee effectively ends the advantages the Clinton campaign has so far. And as I mentioned before, the Bush family allow for when and how the Clinton family will be world leaders. At this time, due to Hillary Clinton's relative lack of trust among the public, her age (69 on October 27), perceived scandals and health; a decision has been made that Jeb Bush will be given the Presidency. These sorts of deals have happened before. In the Terry Reed book regarding the Bush Sr. Iran Contra deals, Compromised, it was mentioned that in light of Judge Lawrence Walsh's indictments of senior Bush Administration officials and the ensuing drop in polls; a meeting between Bush 41 and Pres. Clinton took place. In that meeting, Bush 41 allowed for Pres. Bill Clinton to get elected in exchange for Presidential Pardons of senior Bush Administration officials and a ceasing of Iran-Contra investigations and public revelations. Do not be surprised that 24 years later, another meeting and understanding has been made regarding the elections. Only this time, it will be Jeb Bush that becomes the President in exchange for the Republican party to cease any investigations and perceived problems regarding the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family.
I can already hear from many of those in the alternative right wing internet media their opposition towards this done deal. Many, such as the fraudulent Mike Rivero, are claiming that if Trump is not nominated, the GOP will have handed the vote to Clinton. Frankly, the Paul bots have now become the Trump bots. Never mind the fact that Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's campaign manager, was fired today. You will not hear the Trump bots mention that. Heck, their Trump offense has considerably been weakened. They cannot anymore defend the indefensible. So, all this talk of riots in Cleveland, the GOP tanking, low turnout, etc. is only talk. You watch as Jeb Bush becomes the nominee the latest by the day before the RNC Convention starts. And you want to know a little secret: those that are decrying this done deal today will vote for Jeb Bush on election day. Because clearly their hatred of Sen. Hillary Clinton, which is a microcosm of all that they hate about themselves (is that not right, Mike Rivero?), and their mentality which is ABC (Anyone Besides Clinton), they will privately yet gladly vote for Jeb Bush. You want to know why? It is because these same people 16 years ago voted for George W.Bush for the Presidency, thinking that all would be well for themselves and the country in their utmost selfish behavior. We all know what happened one year later. And for a while there, the alternative media began to see the error of their ways. None the less, the alternative media can never shake their right-wing ideals.
Well, you heard it here first. Jeb Bush is the Republican Presidential Nominee after Donald Trump has self destructed by choice and by design. Did any of you honestly think a Bush would be rejected for the nomination? It was always supposed to be a Bush vs. Clinton election. I had hoped that Clinton would prevail, yet I am convinced a deal was made to put Jeb Bush in the White House. This has got to be the most impressive Bush Swerve in my political memory; rivaling the numerous swerves Vince Russo thought of during his years with WCW and TNA. And those swerves put an end to my watching wrestling on a weekly basis. And yet, I am not sure if we are Grover or Mr. Johnson in these situations.
I just realized I need to upgrade the blog to show video and audio files. Just Google Grover and Mr. Johnson, and see what you think. Also, I hope to eventually upload my own videos. There is a lot more to come, and there is already something in the drafts that needed to be held over so I could mention this done deal.
Talk to you soon,
Robert
PS. A Blogger exclusive, for now. Some of my favorite Grover and Mr. Johnson sketches.
The swerve is always revealed where you are least aware of it.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Happy Anniversary So.
Hi there!
A number of years tend to arrive and then depart without giving much thought. Interestingly, as I get older, many social and cultural artifacts that seemed new and exciting now are looked at as old and hopefully lasting; along with the hope that younger people can enjoy and be amazed at what we were and are still amazed at.
I point this out because this week, May 19 to be precise, marks 30 years since the release of the landmark Peter Gabriel album So. Years go by and the album becomes more and more ahead of its time and beyond its time. It is also one of the few albums I will listen to from back to front a number of times during the year. Either to mark a special occasion, notice new textures and soundscapes I had neglected to hear before, to see how far Peter Gabriel has come since then, and in a way to remember the time and the significant impact this one album/video/tour had. Indeed, looking at this from a 2016 perspective, we do not seem to have a collective knowledge and liking of when an artist releases a new album or music video that everyone that is a fan of art and pop music, knows and likes. There may be only a small number nowadays, such as Kanye West, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift and Radiohead to name just six.
Even back in the 1980's, an album would drop and the album and artist would be the talk at the water cooler for months on end. Mind you it would not be everyone talking about this, yet if a good album was out it was analyzed and discussed continuously. So was one such album. This gem of a Peter Gabriel album came under the right circumstances. It was the peak of MTV's influence as a cable network for music lovers, along with a burgeoning era where the introduction of the Compact Disc allowed people to hear music as clear as could be and as easily as could be. It came during the New Wave 80's, what I would consider as the second British Invasion of singers and bands. Mr. Gabriel's preferred rock and roll classification, a hybrid of Art/Progressive rock fused with World, Pop and Soul influences, was experiencing a sort of revival and retroactive recognition thanks in large part to Art Rock being a New Wave precursor. As well, many artists by this time had grown to expand their sound with the latest synthesizers and electronic sequencers and engineering equipment. In effect, you could have an orchestra right at your fingers when playing a keyboard.
Not only were the circumstances in the industry ripe for So, this came at an important time for Peter Gabriel himself. It had been 11 years since he left Genesis, and during that time Mr. Gabriel had released 4 self titled albums along with a live album and a soundtrack album based on the movie Birdy. He had also done notable tours and started the world music festival WOMAD. Using the latest studio and keyboard technologies available, and with an interest in doing more slightly pop songs, and the creation of Mr Gabirel's home studio Real World; So took about a year to complete. Indeed, a number of stories to tell on how the album was made was later put forth as an installment of the long-running documentary series Classic Albums. I particularly like those anecdotes Daniel Lanois speaks of in enticing the completion of some songs. What came out was perhaps Mr. Gabriel's highest selling and most accessible album to date. So brought Peter Gabriel a few years at least as being on league with the pop and rock giants of the time; the album sold 9 million copies and went 5 times platinum in the US, peaking at number 2 on the Album harts in the US and number 1 in the UK. Two tours came out of this album; Conspiracy of Hope, which went to numerous stadiums and had numerous artists for social and political awareness. And This Way Up, Mr. Gabriel's own tour which got him to perform in arenas and stadiums worldwide.
Interestingly, Genesis had their first number 1 album with Invisible Touch that same year; and Steve Hackett, who had left Genesis in 1977, achieved a top 20 hit with When The Heart Rules The Mind collaborating with Yes guitarist Steve Howe. This was a good year to be a fan of either Peter Gabriel, Steve Hackett, Genesis or any combination therein. I will get to those other albums in a later time. Right now, I think an analysis of So is of interest. Perhaps the best way to do it is to go track-by-track.
- Red Rain: A brilliant and abstract beginning to a great album. In a lot of respects, Red Rain melded Peter Gabriel's earlier experimental songs with a greater emphasis on lyrics and structure. Lyrically, Red Rain was supposed to be the thematic element in a story Mr. Gabriel had conceived of earlier in his career, Mozo. Much of the details have never been released, but Mozo would have involved a flood in a village caused by supernatural elements. The song itself, possibly a metaphor for nuclear fallout and/or AIDS, has some of the most impressive keyboard playing Gabriel was utilizing at that point; mainly due to some cutting edge synths and pianos like the Fairlight CMI, Yamaha pianos and Sequential Prophet synthesizers. I also am impressed with the distinctive bass playing of Tony Levin, heard throughout the album. A good opening song that is still played regularly at Mr. Gabriel's concerts.
- Sledgehammer: This was the big hit, going number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 (and dethroning Genesis' Invisible Touch no less!). And yes, it still holds up. A very impressive song which is impressive in stating in no uncertain terms "let's have intercourse". It came with an impressive music video which I still think is one of the best of the era. Not much more can be said that has not already been said; just watch the video and be amazed once more.
- Don't Give Up: It is equally a great Peter Gabriel song along with a great Kate Bush song. It is a duet, and one of the better duets I have heard. A song regarding the problems and personal frustrations unemployment and an economic downturn has on a family, with the optimistic slant that a better tomorrow may be ahead. If you ever get to hear Don't Give Up live, it gets very lively towards the end. The song, along with others on the album, have personally helped me during periods when I was done on myself.
- That Voice Again: Only recently starting with the Back To Front tour has That Voice Again been performed live. None the less, it is an impressive piano driven song which deals with the longing of being back with a loved one. Fortunately, the lyrics Mr. Gabriel wrote do not go through obvious cliches and are well versed.
- Mercy Street: Influenced by the writings and life of Anne Sexton, Mercy Street is a precursor for the trip-hop and House/Trance movements, in my opinion. A good song to start Side B on the Vinyl edition.
- Big Time: The other top 5 chart topper off of So, Big Time has held as one of Peter Gabriel's most accessible pop songs. Only towards the end does it delve into double entendres ("bulge in my big big big..."); the rest is a biting commentary on making it in the industry and overindulging on life's pleasures. I always thought this was Mr. Gabriel taking a subtle yet impressive dig at his old band Genesis, since by that time they had become arguably the biggest band of the era. Phil Collins, in particular, was everywhere: there was his Genesis moniker and there was his solo ventures. Indeed, Phil Collins recently said in an interview with Classic Rock magazine's Prog spin-off that he got more money while Peter Gabriel got the acclaim and recognition, such as his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction in 2014.
- We Do What We're Told: influenced by the experiments in brainwashing done by Dr. Stanley Milgrim and the 37 patients who did not submit, this has the least lyrics yet is possibly the most unnerving song off of So. It is also a distinctive ambient work.
- This Is The Picture: A collaboration with Laurie Anderson and Nile Rodgers which is at times funky, at times abstract, and yet so unique. This song was the first one to be performed in the This Way Up tour, one of the highlights of the show as can be seen in the Live in Athens 1987 concert film.
- In Your Eyes: 30 years have passed, yet In Your Eyes is quite possibly one of the best love songs of that time and of all time. Indeed, of the many Peter Gabriel songs out there, In Your Eyes has been covered and re-interpreted the most, and has been heard in so many different occasions. Who could ever forget its usage in the Cameron Crowe gem Say Anything, with John Cusack holding his boombox to win the love of Ione Skye. Or its place in Mr. Gabriel's concerts as at least the third to last song on the set list. And note, the song was not entirely a hit on the charts, yet became one after the fact. In Your Eyes is great on its So version, yet is unique when performed live, including added lyrics and a world influence brought to the forefront, which was most known when involving Youssour N'Dour.
To summarize, the Peter Gabriel album So is one of the most important albums of its time, and might be considered among the best 100 albums released in my lifetime. I actually own the 26th anniversary box set, which with the album and audio and DVD features and the book enclosed is a gem in and of itself. And for Mr. Gabriel himself, So was a watershed in many ways. His first no. 1 album, first no.1 song, the most MTV Video Music Awards given to Sledgehammer and him being given the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, a Grammy nomination for Best Album (losing to Paul Simon's Graceland), over 6,000,000 copies sold, 6 music videos released with 5 of them being alongside the best of that time, and over the years a reputation that has only grown.
This was also an important landmark for Peter Gabriel because So was the album that ended any debate as to whether he was better in Genesis or on his own. While I think both eras and artists are equally important, and indeed it should be known that Genesis did get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame themselves in 2010 with Mr. Gabriel going in 4 years later, So was the album that eclipsed Gabriel-era Genesis. And yes, it does mean that as much as we may wish for a miraculous epiphany, there is no way that the classic Genesis lineup of Peter Gabriel, Steve Hackett, Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford and Phil Collins will get back together again. As can be seen in the 2014 BBC documentary Sum Of The Parts, there is still subtle yet bitter tensions when the five of them are in the same room. But you know what, Mr. Gabriel does not need Genesis to prove his artistry and influence. He has been able to do it on his own, and exceedingly well. Indeed, Peter Gabriel may be the one in Genesis that might get knighted one day, or receive a Kennedy Center Honor if so chosen.
You see, this is a clear reason of the need for artistry and creativity, and its important in our everyday lives. So and many other albums and artists may not have got me to be doing music (my voice is just adequate and I can barely play a keyboard), but it was there for me and many to discover and have as a memory of our times and a reassuring comfort when life was down. The best art and creative artists can do that and do it well, when the bulk of the art from that era and any era for that matter is disposable and not worth our time. To that I say for this specific art and album, thank you and great job Peter Gabriel. And Happy Anniversary!
PS. Best of luck to Mr. Gabriel on his upcoming tour with Sting, titled Rock Paper Scissors. It should be interesting.
One journey to a trip down memory lane,
Robert
Oh and here is the album in all its influential glory.
And some music videos to tide you over.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Before the broadcast: Revolt of the Inductees.
Codifying an art form into legitimacy is in theory an interesting way of at least allowing the art form to become highbrow culture. One way to do this is by presenting awards and treasures for what we may consider the best in one's respective fields and ideals. In effect, the highbrow worlds intertwining business, commerce, governance, academia, history and medicine can use their theoretical stamps of approval on one such aspect of pop culture. Rock and Roll and/or Pop Music is one such field. How do you know if what you are seeing and hearing is Rock and Pop? Well, I tend to agree with David Byrne when he mentions that a rock concert has so many interactions going on with the artists and audiences involved. If you are required to attend in formal attire and play the music with notation in hand; not to mention make no personal gestures between audience and artists and, most importantly, do not make the show unique in your own way if dealing with no longer living writers; then you are watching a classical performance. Which by the way is quite fine, albeit much of the music and performances you will see and hear resonate from a time long gone and rather ancient.
There may come a time when certain forms of contemporary songwriting and music playing is given the same revenance and acquired taste given in classical music. I suspect we are seeing that somewhat in Jazz music of the big band era (Glenn Miller, the Dorsey Brothers) and Broadway show tunes. And yet, the Rock and Roll era has been around since the early blues era of the 1930's and has no sign of slowing down. It does show signs of changing formats and popularity, but the idea of the now still stands. So you can imagine what we collectively feel at this time every year when the annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony comes around. And in 2016, this was the induction ceremony when the inductees that appeared more or less told the Nominating Committee, Jann Wenner, Play-Tone (Tom Hanks' production company) and the sponsors to go screw themselves with the rough end of a pineapple.
Yes, it actually happened, and apparently the brass at the RRHOF are unable to do a thing about it. This year inducted were N.W.A. (I assume Dr. Dre will be inducted on his own later on), Deep Purple, Steve Miller, Chicago, Cheap Trick and Bert Berns (1929-1967). I would like to focus on the leading four inductees in 2016 for this essay. Each of them had issues with the Hall this year. The family of Bert Berns did not have any issues pertaining to Berns' posthumous induction, nor did Cheap Trick have any explicit problems. I will say that Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Nielsen did thank the Rock Hall for limiting the amount of tickets so that Nielsen's family did not need to find seating for what will be his 9 grandchildren.
Perhaps the most obvious band drama this year came from Chicago. You would not think this would be the case, seeing that many of the band members are still together after some 49 years in the business. Well, just for a moment forget about who showed up and notice who was not there. Many of you will say Terry Kath, and of course you would be right; although his daughter did accept the award on his behalf. Mind you, Terry Kath died in a tragic accident in 1978.
I'm namely referring to Peter Cetera in who did not show up. Knowing Chicago's history and a great deal of what went down with Cetera and the rest of the band during the 1980's, it was a certainty that he would not show up. You can't say Peter Cetera didn't try to get a reunion going. However, it appears that issues stemming from their 1981-1985 era when David Foster was their producer and collaborated with Cetera on songwriting, not to mention their resurgence of the time, is still a mixed blessing on the rest of the band's part. Rightly or wrongly, that era did happen; and rightly or wrongly, Chicago has not been the same since Terry Kath died and Peter Cetera left. I am also aware that financially Cetera is wealthier than the current version of Chicago put together. So jealousy abounds.
If any band inducted this year were known to have personality issues, it would have to have been Deep Purple. Let's get this out of the way: Ritchie Blackmore did not show up. Apparently Blackmore did not consider the idea of showing up, nor did the current band want him there. And yes, Rod Evans wasn't there either, Mr. Evans wouldn't be caught dead as it were showing his face in public relating to anything Deep Purple; not after the fake Deep Purple of 1980. None the less, it appeared that the producers of the show and the RRHOF basically wanted to induct Deep Purple first and shorten the speeches of the living inductees who were there and limit the amount of songs to perform just to get it over with. Glenn Hughes has come out and pretty much confirmed these theories.
N.W.A. did show up, including Dr. Dre for the first of what will be 2 inductions (Dre will go in on his own a couple years from now as a Non-Performer). The living inductees were willing to perform with someone well known doing Eazy-E's impressive rapping. However, the Rock Hall and the producers of the show had other ideas as to how performances and reservations would be approached. Needless to say, both sides were at an impasse; and as is customary in certain matters, N.W.A. accepted and gave their speeches yet did not perform.
Okay, so issues with bands and groups; not a surprise. It does become a surprise when an issue arrives regarding an individual artist. In this year, Steve Miller may have done us all a great service. Though quite honored and accepting of the induction, Steve Miller did expose a number of odd choices and hypocritical matters pertaining to how the RRHOF operates and the issues regarding the induction ceremony.
This was during the induction acceptance speech. After performing, Miller had some words to say in a press interview.
There has indeed been more to discuss about the events and revelations from last week, both from Steve Miller and regarding the flawed structure of the Nominating Committee and the voting process at large. In a later essay, one in which I will cross-post alongside my involvement with the Future Rock legends website, a lot more will be said regarding how to effectively reform the RRHOF. I think in essence it needs to be similar to how we at FRL promote our Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project.
Tune in to this station,
Robert
There may come a time when certain forms of contemporary songwriting and music playing is given the same revenance and acquired taste given in classical music. I suspect we are seeing that somewhat in Jazz music of the big band era (Glenn Miller, the Dorsey Brothers) and Broadway show tunes. And yet, the Rock and Roll era has been around since the early blues era of the 1930's and has no sign of slowing down. It does show signs of changing formats and popularity, but the idea of the now still stands. So you can imagine what we collectively feel at this time every year when the annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony comes around. And in 2016, this was the induction ceremony when the inductees that appeared more or less told the Nominating Committee, Jann Wenner, Play-Tone (Tom Hanks' production company) and the sponsors to go screw themselves with the rough end of a pineapple.
Yes, it actually happened, and apparently the brass at the RRHOF are unable to do a thing about it. This year inducted were N.W.A. (I assume Dr. Dre will be inducted on his own later on), Deep Purple, Steve Miller, Chicago, Cheap Trick and Bert Berns (1929-1967). I would like to focus on the leading four inductees in 2016 for this essay. Each of them had issues with the Hall this year. The family of Bert Berns did not have any issues pertaining to Berns' posthumous induction, nor did Cheap Trick have any explicit problems. I will say that Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Nielsen did thank the Rock Hall for limiting the amount of tickets so that Nielsen's family did not need to find seating for what will be his 9 grandchildren.
Perhaps the most obvious band drama this year came from Chicago. You would not think this would be the case, seeing that many of the band members are still together after some 49 years in the business. Well, just for a moment forget about who showed up and notice who was not there. Many of you will say Terry Kath, and of course you would be right; although his daughter did accept the award on his behalf. Mind you, Terry Kath died in a tragic accident in 1978.
I'm namely referring to Peter Cetera in who did not show up. Knowing Chicago's history and a great deal of what went down with Cetera and the rest of the band during the 1980's, it was a certainty that he would not show up. You can't say Peter Cetera didn't try to get a reunion going. However, it appears that issues stemming from their 1981-1985 era when David Foster was their producer and collaborated with Cetera on songwriting, not to mention their resurgence of the time, is still a mixed blessing on the rest of the band's part. Rightly or wrongly, that era did happen; and rightly or wrongly, Chicago has not been the same since Terry Kath died and Peter Cetera left. I am also aware that financially Cetera is wealthier than the current version of Chicago put together. So jealousy abounds.
If any band inducted this year were known to have personality issues, it would have to have been Deep Purple. Let's get this out of the way: Ritchie Blackmore did not show up. Apparently Blackmore did not consider the idea of showing up, nor did the current band want him there. And yes, Rod Evans wasn't there either, Mr. Evans wouldn't be caught dead as it were showing his face in public relating to anything Deep Purple; not after the fake Deep Purple of 1980. None the less, it appeared that the producers of the show and the RRHOF basically wanted to induct Deep Purple first and shorten the speeches of the living inductees who were there and limit the amount of songs to perform just to get it over with. Glenn Hughes has come out and pretty much confirmed these theories.
N.W.A. did show up, including Dr. Dre for the first of what will be 2 inductions (Dre will go in on his own a couple years from now as a Non-Performer). The living inductees were willing to perform with someone well known doing Eazy-E's impressive rapping. However, the Rock Hall and the producers of the show had other ideas as to how performances and reservations would be approached. Needless to say, both sides were at an impasse; and as is customary in certain matters, N.W.A. accepted and gave their speeches yet did not perform.
Okay, so issues with bands and groups; not a surprise. It does become a surprise when an issue arrives regarding an individual artist. In this year, Steve Miller may have done us all a great service. Though quite honored and accepting of the induction, Steve Miller did expose a number of odd choices and hypocritical matters pertaining to how the RRHOF operates and the issues regarding the induction ceremony.
This was during the induction acceptance speech. After performing, Miller had some words to say in a press interview.
There has indeed been more to discuss about the events and revelations from last week, both from Steve Miller and regarding the flawed structure of the Nominating Committee and the voting process at large. In a later essay, one in which I will cross-post alongside my involvement with the Future Rock legends website, a lot more will be said regarding how to effectively reform the RRHOF. I think in essence it needs to be similar to how we at FRL promote our Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project.
Tune in to this station,
Robert
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Throwing It All Away: Sports Edition
Thanksgiving 2009: it was not a great Thanksgiving on a personal level, as it was the first Thanksgiving since my parents made it known to me and my brothers that they were separating. It also came at a pretty low point in my life: a time which changed a year later once I received my first paying job. None the less, 7 years have passed and Thanksgivings since then have been quite wonderful. This is despite my parents not being together. Thanksgiving 2009 may have been a bad day for myself and my loved ones; yet for someone else that day was a day of no turning back.
It is now the weekend of the Masters tournament, perhaps the most impressive PGA Tour event that takes place in the United States. The weekend also correlates with my mother's birthday, who has now turned 60 years old. So obviously, as was the case earlier in the year when my father turned 60, I find it more important to celebrate a milestone for my parents. Even so, there have been times this weekend that I have been looking at the results of this year's Masters. And it looks impressive, as right now Jordan Spieth may be on his way to a second consecutive green jacket; an impressive feat for a golfer younger than me and quite possibly destined to become much like is golfing idol, one Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods.
I remember when he came onto the professional golf scene back in 1996. Woods had been the most celebrated amateur and wunderkind in the game since Bobby Jones. Seeing an opportunity after winning three straight U.S. Amateurs and the NCAA Golf Championship, Tiger Woods turned pro in 1996 at age 20. Immediately, Woods became the dominant golfer of his time. I can easily remember a Sunday in 1997 when my family from my father's side and I were watching the Masters. It was a game for the ages, when Tiger Woods won his first of 14 majors convincingly. We were all impressed with this budding and gifted athlete and an impressive beginning to a dominant and lucrative era in golf.
As the years went on, Tiger Woods went on to define the late 1990's and 2000's in athletics. To list his accomplishments on this blog would take a while, and by now you already know of the accomplishments. Yet, Tiger Woods has been in a professional slump after an impressive 2013 season where he had five PGA wins. Injuries have taken a toll, along with a younger crop of golfers and several chokes on the golf course. Right now, Woods has 79 PGA Tour wins, second only to Sam Snead with 82; and he has won 14 Majors, second only to Jack Nicklaus. Quite honestly, Tiger Woods would have surpassed those records by now. And yet, those records seem more out of reach than at any point of time in his life.
So what happened? Well, Bill Simmons in his essay collection The Book Of Basketball (2009) had mentioned in his ranking of Chris Webber as the 72nd greatest basketball player a reasoning as to why Mr Webber did not go far in his potential. Simmons believes that at a certain point, as early as the 1993 NCAA Championship Game when Michigan lost to North Carolina, Chris Webber felt the need to have a do-over in his approach to the game . Well, life is not like a video game; there cannot be a reset button nor even a chance to shut off the console or computer when things do not go the way it is supposed to. I feel that Tiger Woods would like to have a do-over or rather a mulligan on that Thanksgiving night in 2009. In particular, I think he would like to go back and not get into that car crash just outside his house after arguing with his wife and mother of his children Elin Nordgren when she found out about Woods' affairs and sex addiction.
I know when news broke of the car crash that it just seemed so bizarre and unseemly for Tiger Woods. Many those first couple of days were asking what happened. Well, grappling with the separation of my parents I knew what exactly happened immediately. And so indeed did many observers. Relations he had fell apart, and Woods was in need of putting the needs of his children first. It is to Tiger Woods' credit that he has become a doting and important father .
Yet in the golf world and the world at large, Woods' car crash and reduction to merely good golfer and for three years now a relic and cautionary tale was unprecedented. Now, years before I and others saw something similar with David Duval winning the Open Championship in 2001 and completely collapsing in his professional career. We felt that golf wise, Duval had it all and he threw it away. Perhaps we now feel the same regarding Tiger Woods. There is surprisingly a good deal of personal similarities Duval and Woods have; not least of which is them being doting and important fathers nowadays. I suppose though golf without Tiger Woods is becoming more and more a reality that we may need to face.
An athlete's peak and winning streak will end eventually. None the less, I would hate to be the one that says the best golfer in my lifetime failed to live up to his potential. Yet, what do we expect when we see our athletic greats as real life superheroes. disillusionment is inevitable when the one who can do no wrong is found to be a mere flawed human not unlike ourselves.
Catch up with you soon,
Robert
It is now the weekend of the Masters tournament, perhaps the most impressive PGA Tour event that takes place in the United States. The weekend also correlates with my mother's birthday, who has now turned 60 years old. So obviously, as was the case earlier in the year when my father turned 60, I find it more important to celebrate a milestone for my parents. Even so, there have been times this weekend that I have been looking at the results of this year's Masters. And it looks impressive, as right now Jordan Spieth may be on his way to a second consecutive green jacket; an impressive feat for a golfer younger than me and quite possibly destined to become much like is golfing idol, one Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods.
I remember when he came onto the professional golf scene back in 1996. Woods had been the most celebrated amateur and wunderkind in the game since Bobby Jones. Seeing an opportunity after winning three straight U.S. Amateurs and the NCAA Golf Championship, Tiger Woods turned pro in 1996 at age 20. Immediately, Woods became the dominant golfer of his time. I can easily remember a Sunday in 1997 when my family from my father's side and I were watching the Masters. It was a game for the ages, when Tiger Woods won his first of 14 majors convincingly. We were all impressed with this budding and gifted athlete and an impressive beginning to a dominant and lucrative era in golf.
As the years went on, Tiger Woods went on to define the late 1990's and 2000's in athletics. To list his accomplishments on this blog would take a while, and by now you already know of the accomplishments. Yet, Tiger Woods has been in a professional slump after an impressive 2013 season where he had five PGA wins. Injuries have taken a toll, along with a younger crop of golfers and several chokes on the golf course. Right now, Woods has 79 PGA Tour wins, second only to Sam Snead with 82; and he has won 14 Majors, second only to Jack Nicklaus. Quite honestly, Tiger Woods would have surpassed those records by now. And yet, those records seem more out of reach than at any point of time in his life.
So what happened? Well, Bill Simmons in his essay collection The Book Of Basketball (2009) had mentioned in his ranking of Chris Webber as the 72nd greatest basketball player a reasoning as to why Mr Webber did not go far in his potential. Simmons believes that at a certain point, as early as the 1993 NCAA Championship Game when Michigan lost to North Carolina, Chris Webber felt the need to have a do-over in his approach to the game . Well, life is not like a video game; there cannot be a reset button nor even a chance to shut off the console or computer when things do not go the way it is supposed to. I feel that Tiger Woods would like to have a do-over or rather a mulligan on that Thanksgiving night in 2009. In particular, I think he would like to go back and not get into that car crash just outside his house after arguing with his wife and mother of his children Elin Nordgren when she found out about Woods' affairs and sex addiction.
I know when news broke of the car crash that it just seemed so bizarre and unseemly for Tiger Woods. Many those first couple of days were asking what happened. Well, grappling with the separation of my parents I knew what exactly happened immediately. And so indeed did many observers. Relations he had fell apart, and Woods was in need of putting the needs of his children first. It is to Tiger Woods' credit that he has become a doting and important father .
Yet in the golf world and the world at large, Woods' car crash and reduction to merely good golfer and for three years now a relic and cautionary tale was unprecedented. Now, years before I and others saw something similar with David Duval winning the Open Championship in 2001 and completely collapsing in his professional career. We felt that golf wise, Duval had it all and he threw it away. Perhaps we now feel the same regarding Tiger Woods. There is surprisingly a good deal of personal similarities Duval and Woods have; not least of which is them being doting and important fathers nowadays. I suppose though golf without Tiger Woods is becoming more and more a reality that we may need to face.
An athlete's peak and winning streak will end eventually. None the less, I would hate to be the one that says the best golfer in my lifetime failed to live up to his potential. Yet, what do we expect when we see our athletic greats as real life superheroes. disillusionment is inevitable when the one who can do no wrong is found to be a mere flawed human not unlike ourselves.
Catch up with you soon,
Robert
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
2016: The Grand Theft Auto election
These past few weeks have been rather problematic and somewhat difficult to write about. You see, I am a Democrat, and have been one since I turned 18 years old back in 2001. Each year for the last 18 years, I have voted every Election Day, and recently in a many Democratic primaries in New York, I can remember the first person I voted for was Thomas Suozzi for Nassau County Executive. I was very proud and satisfied with that vote; and I hope to be satisfied this November when Mr. Suozzi hopefully gets elected to Congress, likely in turn deposing Republican Rep. Peter King.
And yet, something has changed rather drastically in this concurrent election cycle. The Republican party seems to be turning more populist and leftward; the Democratic party feels like it is coasting by. Perhaps we are assuming a victory for Sen. Hillary Clinton is a given, at least that was the intention as early as a year ago. An so, I am left every week looking at primary results and just being flabbergasted. Sure, Sec. of State Clinton is leading the Democratic primary results. But as we all know, Donald John Trump (I will not mention his whole name henceforth:) is leading the polling , the raw votes, and the amount of states and delegates won for the Republican primary. At this stage in the election, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, as certain as Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. We will then, as a nation, be in uncharted territory. The likelihood of a Clinton victory is lessened when Trump is in the picture.
How did this come to be? I have y reasons, some of which I feel need to be shown by me posting a video one day. None the less, I have begun noticing some truths and ideals being presented regarding our lives through rather unique means. One of the better social and political commentaries utilized has been the Grand Theft Auto games. Most recently, there is Grand Theft Auto V and GTA Online, a game I got for Christmas 2014 and still have yet to finish. Sorry to say that; gaming is an interest, not my life. What I have gone through either by playing the game or watching YouTube videos is a startling discovery on the Donald Trump campaign. In my opinion, Donald Trump reminds me in one form or another of Jack Howitzer.
For those unaware, Jack Howitzer is basically the one important celebrity in the GTA universe who has never gotten over the end of the 80s and early 90s. In one of the better non-gaming elements in GTA V, you can watch TV and see Jack Howitzer in a reality show attempting, and failing I might add, in staging a comeback. At one point, his agent says that some of his ideas for a movie will not work and that it is not the 1980s anymore. Howitzer's response is funny yet sad:
"The 80s are never over. I'll say when the 80s are over. The 80s are never over. You just don't turn off the 80s!"
In point of fact, did I not tell you that Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman were bound to do a CNN documentary miniseries about the 80s, since the 60s and 70s were already done? Well, it is happening and will be televised later next month. It seems for many the 80s were the halcyon days. I am here to point out that days and eras of the past were not always that good. Indeed, tomorrow is not as bad as it seems.
Yet, Donald Trump, along with many of his supporters and others intrigued by him, feel they want to return to a bygone past that resembles the 1980s for all intents and purposes. And whether that be in the business and junk bond prototype, the redneck prototype, the corporate Hollywood prototype, or as is quite likely the Miami Vice/Scarface prototype; people are lusting for this past.
I suppose we all can understand why. Go for a walk in your neighborhood and you will see a microcosm of the haves, the have-mores and the never-will-haves. There is an increasing amount of the latter category the deeper one looks. People in that category were sold from birth to now the concept of "The American Dream". In short, if one works hard, sacrifices as much as can be, and is obedient to many; financial and emotional success will come. Well, we all know it is a lie. In the structure that the United States is governed today, many will be sold a bill of goods promising everything and delivering little. The best we can do for our selves and our loved ones is to follow the paths that have been both chosen for us and we ultimately decided to embark upon. More importantly, being educated and becoming smart will go a long way in living a better life.
With little to do and practically nothing to show, what can those at the bottom of the food chain do? Well, not much that will not eventually harm them and their loved ones. Do not be alarmed when I say this: it becomes easy for someone to have unprotected sex, self-medicate with alcohol and unregulated drugs, steal money, get involved with petty crimes, turn rightward in social-political thought, become more greedy and protective of assets, and quite honestly make life a miserable hell for themselves and their loved ones. Not all that I have mentioned will happen; but at least one will, if even only for a brief time.
This however is nothing new. A fragile economy, distrust in leadership, threats of wars and chaos, and an overall fear of changes will cause people to react, and not in a manner that will be evolving. The reaction, if I were to put a visual aide to this, would be as follows:
For those unaware, this is video of a young woman on the autistic spectrum having a meltdown. For people on the spectrum such as myself, these sorts of actions are not condoned but are always bubbling under the surface. There is of course no excuse for this behavior, yet at times it cannot be helped but to let it happen.
Many in this life are prone to these sort of meltdowns, albeit not in the way that is much too obvious. A simple vote of refusal to submit to a changing world, or at worst an out-and-out revolt involving violence, is the more sophisticated format of a tantrum. And since violence is never the answer, voting for a reactionary conservative party and its people is the equivalent of a personal meltdown. It goes deeper than these reactionary measures. In short, many would like to subconsciously return to their childhood and their perceived innocence. Point being, the conservative movement can trace its individual origins to a certain point in a person's life when criticism and consequences were not life altering. Be honest with yourself; it has always felt this way.
The 2016 election for the American Presidency has been one in which sadly all political parties are pandering to the idea of a better tomorrow with little sacrifice and consequence. Obviously, the Democratic primaries are a lot more realistic in telling prospective voters the truth. The Republican Party is offering their prospective voters an I.O.U. which will not be enacted upon.
As I write this, it has been a little under 18 hours since the false-flag attack at an airport in Belgium. Already both leading parties and their front runners are asking for increased military and counter-intelligence to combat this purported terrorism: although I agree with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton that we should not be demeaning an entire religion and its practitioners. Donald Trump and Sen Ted Cruz on the other hand have been condemning innocents in each of their own unique styles. Each time a false-flag inside job happens, we need to ask: who benefits? I am sad to say that each time, who benefits are the war profiteers and their enablers mainly in the Republican Party. It only adds to the conservative mindset that is bent on enforcing their will and their leaders on us all by Election Day. I am particularly concerned that there will not be an election in which domestic and everyday life issues will be at the forefront: we know that on those all too immediate issues, the Democratic Party will win. Once division and fear are presented, the Republican Party eventually wins. We cannot have that happen. And neither should we be allowing the internet media tell us otherwise and go all out for Trump. Now, I find Donald Trump preferable to all other Republicans for sure; that does not mean I will vote for him. Yet I think there will be many that will, although I can be sure in the immediate aftermath of a plausible Trump Presidency that regret and shame will take place within a year. That is if there is no false flag in the interim.
My thoughts, prayers, and condolences go to the 35 or so individuals that were killed in this false-flag attack and the loved ones they have left behind. As well, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford passed away today at 46 after suffering from cancer these past two years. I was never a fan of Councilman Ford's politics and really felt he could be an asshole at times. Heck, Mayor Rob Ford may have paved the way for Donald Trump to be where he is now. None the less, Mayor Ford was an entertaining figure, and will be missed.
At least these infamous times did not involve the nuclear football.
More coming, stay tuned,
Robert
PS. Please vote in the New York Primaries on April 19. The stakes are too high to not be involved.
And yet, something has changed rather drastically in this concurrent election cycle. The Republican party seems to be turning more populist and leftward; the Democratic party feels like it is coasting by. Perhaps we are assuming a victory for Sen. Hillary Clinton is a given, at least that was the intention as early as a year ago. An so, I am left every week looking at primary results and just being flabbergasted. Sure, Sec. of State Clinton is leading the Democratic primary results. But as we all know, Donald John Trump (I will not mention his whole name henceforth:) is leading the polling , the raw votes, and the amount of states and delegates won for the Republican primary. At this stage in the election, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, as certain as Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. We will then, as a nation, be in uncharted territory. The likelihood of a Clinton victory is lessened when Trump is in the picture.
How did this come to be? I have y reasons, some of which I feel need to be shown by me posting a video one day. None the less, I have begun noticing some truths and ideals being presented regarding our lives through rather unique means. One of the better social and political commentaries utilized has been the Grand Theft Auto games. Most recently, there is Grand Theft Auto V and GTA Online, a game I got for Christmas 2014 and still have yet to finish. Sorry to say that; gaming is an interest, not my life. What I have gone through either by playing the game or watching YouTube videos is a startling discovery on the Donald Trump campaign. In my opinion, Donald Trump reminds me in one form or another of Jack Howitzer.
For those unaware, Jack Howitzer is basically the one important celebrity in the GTA universe who has never gotten over the end of the 80s and early 90s. In one of the better non-gaming elements in GTA V, you can watch TV and see Jack Howitzer in a reality show attempting, and failing I might add, in staging a comeback. At one point, his agent says that some of his ideas for a movie will not work and that it is not the 1980s anymore. Howitzer's response is funny yet sad:
"The 80s are never over. I'll say when the 80s are over. The 80s are never over. You just don't turn off the 80s!"
In point of fact, did I not tell you that Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman were bound to do a CNN documentary miniseries about the 80s, since the 60s and 70s were already done? Well, it is happening and will be televised later next month. It seems for many the 80s were the halcyon days. I am here to point out that days and eras of the past were not always that good. Indeed, tomorrow is not as bad as it seems.
Yet, Donald Trump, along with many of his supporters and others intrigued by him, feel they want to return to a bygone past that resembles the 1980s for all intents and purposes. And whether that be in the business and junk bond prototype, the redneck prototype, the corporate Hollywood prototype, or as is quite likely the Miami Vice/Scarface prototype; people are lusting for this past.
I suppose we all can understand why. Go for a walk in your neighborhood and you will see a microcosm of the haves, the have-mores and the never-will-haves. There is an increasing amount of the latter category the deeper one looks. People in that category were sold from birth to now the concept of "The American Dream". In short, if one works hard, sacrifices as much as can be, and is obedient to many; financial and emotional success will come. Well, we all know it is a lie. In the structure that the United States is governed today, many will be sold a bill of goods promising everything and delivering little. The best we can do for our selves and our loved ones is to follow the paths that have been both chosen for us and we ultimately decided to embark upon. More importantly, being educated and becoming smart will go a long way in living a better life.
With little to do and practically nothing to show, what can those at the bottom of the food chain do? Well, not much that will not eventually harm them and their loved ones. Do not be alarmed when I say this: it becomes easy for someone to have unprotected sex, self-medicate with alcohol and unregulated drugs, steal money, get involved with petty crimes, turn rightward in social-political thought, become more greedy and protective of assets, and quite honestly make life a miserable hell for themselves and their loved ones. Not all that I have mentioned will happen; but at least one will, if even only for a brief time.
This however is nothing new. A fragile economy, distrust in leadership, threats of wars and chaos, and an overall fear of changes will cause people to react, and not in a manner that will be evolving. The reaction, if I were to put a visual aide to this, would be as follows:
For those unaware, this is video of a young woman on the autistic spectrum having a meltdown. For people on the spectrum such as myself, these sorts of actions are not condoned but are always bubbling under the surface. There is of course no excuse for this behavior, yet at times it cannot be helped but to let it happen.
Many in this life are prone to these sort of meltdowns, albeit not in the way that is much too obvious. A simple vote of refusal to submit to a changing world, or at worst an out-and-out revolt involving violence, is the more sophisticated format of a tantrum. And since violence is never the answer, voting for a reactionary conservative party and its people is the equivalent of a personal meltdown. It goes deeper than these reactionary measures. In short, many would like to subconsciously return to their childhood and their perceived innocence. Point being, the conservative movement can trace its individual origins to a certain point in a person's life when criticism and consequences were not life altering. Be honest with yourself; it has always felt this way.
The 2016 election for the American Presidency has been one in which sadly all political parties are pandering to the idea of a better tomorrow with little sacrifice and consequence. Obviously, the Democratic primaries are a lot more realistic in telling prospective voters the truth. The Republican Party is offering their prospective voters an I.O.U. which will not be enacted upon.
As I write this, it has been a little under 18 hours since the false-flag attack at an airport in Belgium. Already both leading parties and their front runners are asking for increased military and counter-intelligence to combat this purported terrorism: although I agree with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton that we should not be demeaning an entire religion and its practitioners. Donald Trump and Sen Ted Cruz on the other hand have been condemning innocents in each of their own unique styles. Each time a false-flag inside job happens, we need to ask: who benefits? I am sad to say that each time, who benefits are the war profiteers and their enablers mainly in the Republican Party. It only adds to the conservative mindset that is bent on enforcing their will and their leaders on us all by Election Day. I am particularly concerned that there will not be an election in which domestic and everyday life issues will be at the forefront: we know that on those all too immediate issues, the Democratic Party will win. Once division and fear are presented, the Republican Party eventually wins. We cannot have that happen. And neither should we be allowing the internet media tell us otherwise and go all out for Trump. Now, I find Donald Trump preferable to all other Republicans for sure; that does not mean I will vote for him. Yet I think there will be many that will, although I can be sure in the immediate aftermath of a plausible Trump Presidency that regret and shame will take place within a year. That is if there is no false flag in the interim.
My thoughts, prayers, and condolences go to the 35 or so individuals that were killed in this false-flag attack and the loved ones they have left behind. As well, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford passed away today at 46 after suffering from cancer these past two years. I was never a fan of Councilman Ford's politics and really felt he could be an asshole at times. Heck, Mayor Rob Ford may have paved the way for Donald Trump to be where he is now. None the less, Mayor Ford was an entertaining figure, and will be missed.
At least these infamous times did not involve the nuclear football.
More coming, stay tuned,
Robert
PS. Please vote in the New York Primaries on April 19. The stakes are too high to not be involved.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Oscars 2016: the unintentional CB4 sequel
Way back in 1993, just after departing Saturday Night Live, Chris Rock starred in and co-wrote a pretty underrated comedy/musical on the hip-hop/r & b music scene of the day; not to mention a look at African-American culture as perceived by black people thinking of how white people saw them. It was named CB4; and was ostensibly a parody and homage to Dr. Dre and N.W.A and Public Enemy along with other like minded artists. Typical of audiences at the time, CB4 was give good write up yet meager box office. It did not even matter that Phil Hartman was in this movie, as were a litany of important African-American celebrities. Few Caucasian audiences saw CB4, nor even bothered to understand the social commentary within the laughter.
So we flash forward 23 years, and it is the night of the 88th annual Oscars, or Academy Awards if you are more perfunctory. I watched it, and I was quite impressed with Chris Rock throughout the night. I also applaud the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in their commitment to be more diversified in their minority outreaches. Yet, here is the rub: and mind you, I do say this being a white Caucasian man of 33. As the night went on, the knowledge of the current African-American issues and the white counterparts were becoming a bit much. Now, it was supposed to become a bit much. However, it appeared that we were watching a real life CB4 occur.
By that I mean, a lot of what was mentioned was brilliant and thoughtful. None the less, for every two brilliant observations, thee were at least the same amount of questionable and awkward moments. Once again even the awkward moments were unintentional, yet there they were. For instance, was there a need for Stacey Dash's appearance? I am not so sure putting forth an appearance from a rare Republican-oriented celebrity was successful. Also, while I do applaud the quick and important pledge drive for audience members to donate $65,000 for the Girls Scouts; it did come on the same night a number of African-American artists, including Ava Duvernay, were hosting a fundraiser in Flint, Michigan in support of alleviating the poisoned water crisis. The donated totals for that fundraiser were less than the amount of money donated to the Girl Scouts on Oscar night.
In addition, when the three young Asian-American men were presented as members of Price Waterhouse Coopers, I think the joke fell flat on its face. Fortunately, that is about the only missteps I had noticed. Pretty much everything else was on point and rather hilarious. What might be found as awkward are moments I thought were brilliant. Now, there is a big difference between the Oscars and the Grammys: in the Oscars, the awards matter along with the show. Indeed, the awards make the show and always have.
Well, I was not 100% on my predictions. Indeed, some of my predictions were way off. So, you may be wondering, what do I think of these newly minted award winners? On the surface, I have few to no complaints whatsoever. None the less, were I to go category by category, here is what I would consider of these award winners.
Best Visual Effects: I was genuinely surprised to see Ex Machina win. A damn good movie, one in which I hope more people will look at in the near future. It was amazing how Alicia Vikander looked in that movie.
Best Film Editing: No surprise it went to Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Makeup and Hairstyle: Once again it was Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Production Design: Mad Max: Fury Road won the award. I had an idea it would go that route.
Best Sound Editing: it was Mad Max: Fury Road once again. I of course am quite pleased with the decision.
Best Animated Short Film: This was one of the biggest surprises of the night. I was expecting World Of Tomorrow to have won the award. In its place the Oscar went to Bear Story, which is unique in it is the first Chilean movie to receive an Oscar of any sort.
Best Live-Action Short Film: The award went to Stutterer, a short film which I was not certain would win the Oscar. I was not expecting it, and indeed I have yet to see the short film. Hopefully it is well made.
Best Documentary Short Subject: I was hoping Claude Lanzmann: Spectres Of The Shoah would have taken the all important prize. Seeing as how Shoah is one of the most important movies in recent memory, one would have thought a recognition by the Academy would suffice after a considerably long wait for recognition. None the less, the award and perhaps some financial funding for the film makers' next project was given to A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness. I did indeed get to see the documentary when it was on HBO, and it is quite compelling. In point of fact, the reaction to A Girl In The River is promising, with the hope that honor killings in Pakistan will be eliminated. Perhaps I should have taken the impact of a documentary on a government as more important than a legacy of a great film and its astounding director.
Best Costume Design: I was hoping Sandy Powell would have received her Oscar for her impressive designs in Carol. Alas, the award went to costume designer Jenny Beavan for her designs used in Mad Max: Fury Road. I have no complaints on this matter, as the designs were quite important to the visual aspect of Mad Max, all four of the films to be precise.
Best Sound Mixing: I was under the assumption that Gary Rydstrom would have received another Oscar due to his involvement in Bridge Of Spies. None the less, the award went to Chris Jenkins, Gregg Rudloff and Ben Osmo for their sound designs utilized in Mad Max: Fury Road. This marked the sixth award Mad Max: Fury Road won, the most of any movie. And again, it was quite an important aspect for one of the bravest action movies to come in at least my lifetime.
Best Documentary Feature: I was really expecting the Joshua Oppenheimer film The Look Of Silence to be honored. Interestingly, the award went to Asif Kapadia and James Gay-Rees for their film Amy. Sadly, I have yet to see this interesting documentary on Amy Winehouse; on that matter, I had thought the Nina Simone biographical documentary What Happened, Miss Simone? would have taken the award. Perhaps I should now see Amy.
Best Animated Film: Interestingly, I did get to see Anomolisa just before the Oscars. And I was equally impressed and even emotionally floored with Charlie Kaufman's newest movie. Heck, I think Tom Noonan should have gotten a Best Supporting Actor nomination, and you will know why once you see it. None the less, I was pleased when Pete Docter won the award for his movie Inside Out. Do go see Inside Out, both children and parents. You will not regret the experience.
Best Foreign Language Film: No surprise, it went to Laszlo Nemes and his debut movie Son Of Saul. I have only seen clips of this movie, so I do hope to get to see the full movie fairly soon.
Best Original Score: In a rather touching and meaningful gesture, Ennio Morricone won his First Oscar outside of an honorary one for his work in The Hateful Eight. I still have not seen that movie yet, though I have listened to the score and it is fantastic. I am not certain if it is among his best, though an award of this magnitude is legitimate.
Best Original Song: I thought it was a given that Lady Gaga and Diane Warren were to win the Oscar this year. Gaga's performance of Till It Happens To You had me in tears. In a surprising move, Sam Smith won the Oscar for his song The Writing's On The Wall, as heard in Spectre. It is a decent song, and I do commend Sam Smith for his interesting writing and performing. Yet, it is far from being even among the best James Bond songs. In my opinion, this one is.
Best Cinematography: Well, Emmanuel Luzbeki won his second Oscar involving The Revenant. Well deserved, though I am now wondering if Roger Deakins will ever receive an Oscar now. Yet, that is irrelevant, as Luzbeki is one of the best DPs in the business these days.
Best Original Screenplay: I am extremely pleased that Tom McCarthy won this award for Spotlight. I have been impressed with McCarthy's prowess ever since he was involved with The Wire; and we can now see that early period pay off well.
Best Adapted Screenplay: In a rather brave and ballsy move, Adam McKay won for the screenplay based on Michael Lewis' book The Big Short. I thought it was quite an impressive storytelling technique and was pleased with the overall messages displayed. Indeed, The Big Short has led me to reconsider McKay's other films, both with Will Ferrell and on his own. Mr. McKay is a very socially and politically keen filmmaker.
Best Supporting Actor: I was hoping Tom Hardy would have won and I was expecting Sylvester Stallone to win. So you can imagine that it came as a complete surprise to see Mark Rylance win for his involvement in Bridge Of Spies. I liked Bridge Of Spies and consider it to be one of Steven Spielberg's better films from his more recent period. I was also impressed with the screenplay which involved the Coen Brothers. Indeed, Mr. Rylance stood out in a role which marks only the second time an actor won for a Steven Spielberg film.
Best Supporting Actress: I thought Rooney Mara sould have been the winner, and while I did not see The Hateful Eight I did see Jennifer Jason Leigh in her moving role in Anomolisa and hoped an Oscar would have come for her. Instead, it went to Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl. I have yet to see that movie, and am aware that not everyone thought it was great. I did however see Ex Machina, and was impressed with Ms. Vikander in that particular role. So for me, I feel Alicia Vikander won mainly for her role in Ex Machina, rather than The Danish Girl. In that regard, I can easily justify her Oscar win.
Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio at long last won an Oscar in The Revenant. Though I still think the Academy should have nominated more worthy candidates along with DiCaprio, including Michael B. Jordan, Abraham Atta, the cast of Straight Outta Compton, Jacob Tremblay and David Thewlis to name a few; Mr. DiCaprio deserved this Oscar and I a pleased with it. To think, it has now been 25 years since he became a known actor, starting with one of the Critters movies. How far we come.
Best Actress: I liked Cate Blanchett and Saoirse Ronan in their movies, and think Charlotte Rampling is an underrated performer. Yet I was happy to see Brie Larson win for her role in Room. It is a most brilliant movie, and deserves the accolades it has received. My only regret is that Jacob Tremblay was not nominated for Best Actor, and Joan Allen for Best Supporting Actress. Of course Ms. Allen is well known, and I expect Ms. Larson and Mr. Tremblay to be well involved in films for years to come.
Best Director: for the second year, the award went to Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu for his film The Revenant. Mr. Innaritu is one of the most visually impressive filmmakers around today, and The Revenant was quite the master work.
Best Picture: many times, a Best Director win means a Best Picture win. So I was by the end of the night expecting The Revenant to collect the top prize. Instead, Best Picture went to Spotlight, produced by Michael Sugar, Steve Golin, Nicole Rocklin and Blye Pagon Faust. I have said before that Spotlight was the best movie I saw in 2015, and I am pleased the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thinks the same way. By the way, it is still in theaters and now on demand, as are many of the movies discussed in these past essays. Do see them, and especially go see Spotlight.
Well, those are my thoughts on the Oscars this year, where social and political matters were rightfully at the forefront of the awards and ideas were presented. I must say this needed to be published earlier. None the less, I have been attempting to conjure what and how to respond to this ongoing political problem we call the 2016 Presidential Primaries. It did make its way to the Oscars, of course. None the less, we now have nine months for the election to take place. And at some point, this will be warranted to be said when all heck breaks loose.
A more playful of the famous words Martin Lawrence uttered in Bad Boys 2.
Take care and more political discussions to come,
Robert
PS. By all means, do go see CB4. It is rather good and still topical.
So we flash forward 23 years, and it is the night of the 88th annual Oscars, or Academy Awards if you are more perfunctory. I watched it, and I was quite impressed with Chris Rock throughout the night. I also applaud the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in their commitment to be more diversified in their minority outreaches. Yet, here is the rub: and mind you, I do say this being a white Caucasian man of 33. As the night went on, the knowledge of the current African-American issues and the white counterparts were becoming a bit much. Now, it was supposed to become a bit much. However, it appeared that we were watching a real life CB4 occur.
By that I mean, a lot of what was mentioned was brilliant and thoughtful. None the less, for every two brilliant observations, thee were at least the same amount of questionable and awkward moments. Once again even the awkward moments were unintentional, yet there they were. For instance, was there a need for Stacey Dash's appearance? I am not so sure putting forth an appearance from a rare Republican-oriented celebrity was successful. Also, while I do applaud the quick and important pledge drive for audience members to donate $65,000 for the Girls Scouts; it did come on the same night a number of African-American artists, including Ava Duvernay, were hosting a fundraiser in Flint, Michigan in support of alleviating the poisoned water crisis. The donated totals for that fundraiser were less than the amount of money donated to the Girl Scouts on Oscar night.
In addition, when the three young Asian-American men were presented as members of Price Waterhouse Coopers, I think the joke fell flat on its face. Fortunately, that is about the only missteps I had noticed. Pretty much everything else was on point and rather hilarious. What might be found as awkward are moments I thought were brilliant. Now, there is a big difference between the Oscars and the Grammys: in the Oscars, the awards matter along with the show. Indeed, the awards make the show and always have.
Well, I was not 100% on my predictions. Indeed, some of my predictions were way off. So, you may be wondering, what do I think of these newly minted award winners? On the surface, I have few to no complaints whatsoever. None the less, were I to go category by category, here is what I would consider of these award winners.
Best Visual Effects: I was genuinely surprised to see Ex Machina win. A damn good movie, one in which I hope more people will look at in the near future. It was amazing how Alicia Vikander looked in that movie.
Best Film Editing: No surprise it went to Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Makeup and Hairstyle: Once again it was Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Production Design: Mad Max: Fury Road won the award. I had an idea it would go that route.
Best Sound Editing: it was Mad Max: Fury Road once again. I of course am quite pleased with the decision.
Best Animated Short Film: This was one of the biggest surprises of the night. I was expecting World Of Tomorrow to have won the award. In its place the Oscar went to Bear Story, which is unique in it is the first Chilean movie to receive an Oscar of any sort.
Best Live-Action Short Film: The award went to Stutterer, a short film which I was not certain would win the Oscar. I was not expecting it, and indeed I have yet to see the short film. Hopefully it is well made.
Best Documentary Short Subject: I was hoping Claude Lanzmann: Spectres Of The Shoah would have taken the all important prize. Seeing as how Shoah is one of the most important movies in recent memory, one would have thought a recognition by the Academy would suffice after a considerably long wait for recognition. None the less, the award and perhaps some financial funding for the film makers' next project was given to A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness. I did indeed get to see the documentary when it was on HBO, and it is quite compelling. In point of fact, the reaction to A Girl In The River is promising, with the hope that honor killings in Pakistan will be eliminated. Perhaps I should have taken the impact of a documentary on a government as more important than a legacy of a great film and its astounding director.
Best Costume Design: I was hoping Sandy Powell would have received her Oscar for her impressive designs in Carol. Alas, the award went to costume designer Jenny Beavan for her designs used in Mad Max: Fury Road. I have no complaints on this matter, as the designs were quite important to the visual aspect of Mad Max, all four of the films to be precise.
Best Sound Mixing: I was under the assumption that Gary Rydstrom would have received another Oscar due to his involvement in Bridge Of Spies. None the less, the award went to Chris Jenkins, Gregg Rudloff and Ben Osmo for their sound designs utilized in Mad Max: Fury Road. This marked the sixth award Mad Max: Fury Road won, the most of any movie. And again, it was quite an important aspect for one of the bravest action movies to come in at least my lifetime.
Best Documentary Feature: I was really expecting the Joshua Oppenheimer film The Look Of Silence to be honored. Interestingly, the award went to Asif Kapadia and James Gay-Rees for their film Amy. Sadly, I have yet to see this interesting documentary on Amy Winehouse; on that matter, I had thought the Nina Simone biographical documentary What Happened, Miss Simone? would have taken the award. Perhaps I should now see Amy.
Best Animated Film: Interestingly, I did get to see Anomolisa just before the Oscars. And I was equally impressed and even emotionally floored with Charlie Kaufman's newest movie. Heck, I think Tom Noonan should have gotten a Best Supporting Actor nomination, and you will know why once you see it. None the less, I was pleased when Pete Docter won the award for his movie Inside Out. Do go see Inside Out, both children and parents. You will not regret the experience.
Best Foreign Language Film: No surprise, it went to Laszlo Nemes and his debut movie Son Of Saul. I have only seen clips of this movie, so I do hope to get to see the full movie fairly soon.
Best Original Score: In a rather touching and meaningful gesture, Ennio Morricone won his First Oscar outside of an honorary one for his work in The Hateful Eight. I still have not seen that movie yet, though I have listened to the score and it is fantastic. I am not certain if it is among his best, though an award of this magnitude is legitimate.
Best Original Song: I thought it was a given that Lady Gaga and Diane Warren were to win the Oscar this year. Gaga's performance of Till It Happens To You had me in tears. In a surprising move, Sam Smith won the Oscar for his song The Writing's On The Wall, as heard in Spectre. It is a decent song, and I do commend Sam Smith for his interesting writing and performing. Yet, it is far from being even among the best James Bond songs. In my opinion, this one is.
Best Cinematography: Well, Emmanuel Luzbeki won his second Oscar involving The Revenant. Well deserved, though I am now wondering if Roger Deakins will ever receive an Oscar now. Yet, that is irrelevant, as Luzbeki is one of the best DPs in the business these days.
Best Original Screenplay: I am extremely pleased that Tom McCarthy won this award for Spotlight. I have been impressed with McCarthy's prowess ever since he was involved with The Wire; and we can now see that early period pay off well.
Best Adapted Screenplay: In a rather brave and ballsy move, Adam McKay won for the screenplay based on Michael Lewis' book The Big Short. I thought it was quite an impressive storytelling technique and was pleased with the overall messages displayed. Indeed, The Big Short has led me to reconsider McKay's other films, both with Will Ferrell and on his own. Mr. McKay is a very socially and politically keen filmmaker.
Best Supporting Actor: I was hoping Tom Hardy would have won and I was expecting Sylvester Stallone to win. So you can imagine that it came as a complete surprise to see Mark Rylance win for his involvement in Bridge Of Spies. I liked Bridge Of Spies and consider it to be one of Steven Spielberg's better films from his more recent period. I was also impressed with the screenplay which involved the Coen Brothers. Indeed, Mr. Rylance stood out in a role which marks only the second time an actor won for a Steven Spielberg film.
Best Supporting Actress: I thought Rooney Mara sould have been the winner, and while I did not see The Hateful Eight I did see Jennifer Jason Leigh in her moving role in Anomolisa and hoped an Oscar would have come for her. Instead, it went to Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl. I have yet to see that movie, and am aware that not everyone thought it was great. I did however see Ex Machina, and was impressed with Ms. Vikander in that particular role. So for me, I feel Alicia Vikander won mainly for her role in Ex Machina, rather than The Danish Girl. In that regard, I can easily justify her Oscar win.
Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio at long last won an Oscar in The Revenant. Though I still think the Academy should have nominated more worthy candidates along with DiCaprio, including Michael B. Jordan, Abraham Atta, the cast of Straight Outta Compton, Jacob Tremblay and David Thewlis to name a few; Mr. DiCaprio deserved this Oscar and I a pleased with it. To think, it has now been 25 years since he became a known actor, starting with one of the Critters movies. How far we come.
Best Actress: I liked Cate Blanchett and Saoirse Ronan in their movies, and think Charlotte Rampling is an underrated performer. Yet I was happy to see Brie Larson win for her role in Room. It is a most brilliant movie, and deserves the accolades it has received. My only regret is that Jacob Tremblay was not nominated for Best Actor, and Joan Allen for Best Supporting Actress. Of course Ms. Allen is well known, and I expect Ms. Larson and Mr. Tremblay to be well involved in films for years to come.
Best Director: for the second year, the award went to Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu for his film The Revenant. Mr. Innaritu is one of the most visually impressive filmmakers around today, and The Revenant was quite the master work.
Best Picture: many times, a Best Director win means a Best Picture win. So I was by the end of the night expecting The Revenant to collect the top prize. Instead, Best Picture went to Spotlight, produced by Michael Sugar, Steve Golin, Nicole Rocklin and Blye Pagon Faust. I have said before that Spotlight was the best movie I saw in 2015, and I am pleased the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thinks the same way. By the way, it is still in theaters and now on demand, as are many of the movies discussed in these past essays. Do see them, and especially go see Spotlight.
Well, those are my thoughts on the Oscars this year, where social and political matters were rightfully at the forefront of the awards and ideas were presented. I must say this needed to be published earlier. None the less, I have been attempting to conjure what and how to respond to this ongoing political problem we call the 2016 Presidential Primaries. It did make its way to the Oscars, of course. None the less, we now have nine months for the election to take place. And at some point, this will be warranted to be said when all heck breaks loose.
Take care and more political discussions to come,
Robert
PS. By all means, do go see CB4. It is rather good and still topical.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Predicting the 2015 Oscars, Part 2
Now that we have gotten the lesser known but equally important Oscar categories out of the way, I think it is time to look at the other categories. These categories are the ones everyone will be talking about by Monday morning.
Best Costume Design:
Not going to win: The Danish Girl
Might contend: Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant
Nominees to look for :
Sandy Powell, Carol
Sandy Powell, Cinderella
I believe Sandy Powell will win Best Costume Design, and it will be for Ms. Powell's impressive designs for Carol. I honestly cannot see this award going to another costume designer for this year, as Ms. Powell was excellent last year.
Best Sound Mixing:
Not going to win: The Martian
Might contend: Mad Max: Fury Road, The Revenant, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Nominee certain to win:
Gary Rydstrom, et al., Bridge Of Spies
At this point in the film industry, Gary Rydstrom may just be the most important and innovative sound engineer today. And clearly Mr. Rydstrom was innovative yet again for his designs used in Bridge Of Spies, particularly in the 5.1 mix I heard in the theater and on Blu-Ray.
Best Original Song:
Not going to win: Simple Song #3, from Youth
Nominees to look for:
The Weeknd, et al., Earned It, from Fifty Shades Of Grey
Anohni Hegarty, et al., Manta Ray, from Racing Extinction
Lady Gaga and Diane Warren, Til It Happens To You, from The Hunting Ground
Sam Smith, et al., The Writing's On The Wall, from Spectre
I happened to like Earned It and Manta Ray, even though their respective movies left much to be desired. Then again, The Weeknd is quite the good singer, and Anohni is someone that will likely get more notice stateside. I happened to like Spectre, and of course Sam Smith is one of the best singers out there today.
None the less, Till It Happens To You happens to be one of Lady Gaga's most impressive songs; to say nothing of it being one of Diane Warren's best too. I expect Gaga's performance to be one of the highlights of the show, as it was last year and most recently at the Grammys. Indeed, Vice President Joe Biden will be introducing her performance in advocacy of the rights of victims of sexual assault. And having seen The Hunting Ground, I am convinced this is the right way to honor the movie with a great song.
Best Documentary Feature:
Not going to win: Amy, Cartel Land, What Happened, Miss Simone?, and Winter On Fire: Ukraine's Fight For Freedom
Nominee certain to win:
Joshua Oppeneimer, et al., The Look Of Silence
Joshua Oppenheimer has brought forth a most amazing documentary that is a perfect companion piece to his 2012 film The Act Of Killing. I was most particularly impressed with the involvement and reporting taken place to expose the darker secrets of the 1965 purge of communists in Indonesia. This documentary will certainly win.
Best Foreign language Film
Not going to win: Embrace Of The Serpent, Theeb, and A War
Nominees to watch:
Danize Gamze Erguven, Mustang
Laszlo Nemes, Son Of Saul
Son Of Saul will win best Foreign Language film this year. It is not even close. A rather innovative debut for Laszlo Nemes which I think will be looked at as one of the defining movies of 2015, and perhaps a defining anti-war movie.
Best Animated Film:
Not going to win: Boy & The World and Shaun The Sheep Movie
Nominees to watch:
Charlie Kaufman, et al., Anomolisa
Pete Docter, et al., Inside Out
Hiromasa Yonebayashi, et al., When Marnie Was There
I still have yet to see Anomolisa, and hope t see it fairly soon. None the less, I thought Inside Out was one of the best films of 2015, and the best Disney and Pixar created in quite some time. Inside Out will in all likelihood be the recipient of a much deserved Oscar. By the way, if you have children; have them see Inside Out with you. It will be beneficial for the young and old.
Best Original Screenplay:
Not going to win: Bridge Of Spies
Might pull off an upset: Straight Outta Compton
Nominees to watch:
Alex Garland, Ex Machina
Pete Docter, et al., Inside Out
Tom McCarthy, et al., Spotlight
I was completely blown away by Tom McCarthy's writing in Spotlight. However, what Pete Docter accomplished with his team in creating Inside Out is astonishing. It resonates to anyone that has seen this movie, and I hope that Inside Out can be a positive influence on anybody that is in a depressive state. Again, I was completely impressed with the very intelligent writing.
Best original Score:
Not going to win: Thomas Newman, Bridge Of Spies
Contenders for the Oscar:
Carter Burwell, Carol
Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight
Johann Johannson, Sicario
John Williams, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
I have not yet seen The Hateful Eight, yet i did get to hear excerpts from Ennio Morricone's score. It is quite good, and might win the Oscar. I think that my sentimental pick would be John Williams, perhaps the most important composer of his field; apart from Mr. Morricone and Carter Burwell. None the less, the score to any Star Wars movie is of such importance, that without it the movies fall apart. So I am hoping John Williams will win the Oscar; yet I will not be upset if it goes to an equally deserving composer.
Best Cinematography:
Roger Deakins, Sicario
Edward Lachman, Carol
Emmanuel Lubezki, The Revenant
Robert Richardson, The Hateful Eight
John Seale, Mad Max: Fury Road
John Seale quite honestly should win Best Cinematography, in recognition of a most impressive and groundbreaking action-adventure film. None the less, at some point Roger Deakins needs to get his much deserved Oscar. I do wonder if Sicario will be the movie to end the streak. It was shot very well too.
Best Adapted Screenplay:
Not going to win: Drew Goddard, The Martian: from the Andy Weir novel.
Contenders for the Oscar:
Adam McKay et al., The Big Short: from the Michael Lewis book.
Nick Hornby, Brooklyn: from the Colm Toibin novel
Carol: adapted from the Patricia Highsmith novel,, initially named The Price Of Salt
Emma Donoghue, Room: adapted from her novel.
All four contenders are worthy of an Oscar. I would like to see Emma Donoghue win this important award, particularly in adapting her own novel to an excellent movie. Truthfuly though, I would hope that Adam McKay and his team win the award for their highly intelligent and multi-layered script of The Big Short.
Best Supporting Actor:
Not going to win: Mark Rylance, Bridge Of Spies
Contenders for the Oscar:
Christian Bale, The Big Short
Tom Hardy, The Revenant
Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
Sylvester Stallone, Creed
I personally would like to see Tom Hardy win Best Supporting Actor. Mr. Hardy's presence in The Revenant was just completely astounding, and he held his own. I also really liked Mark Ruffalo, whom I consider one of the better actors that can be involved with socially conscious films.
Yet, I think Sylvester Stallone will take home the Oscar this year. Creed was one of the more pleasant surprises in 2015: a worthy follow up and an important addendum to the Rocky movies. And Sylvester Stallone did a tremendous role which was surprisingly poignant once more. Indeed in light of Tony Burton (Duke in the Rocky movies) having passed away just recently, I am convinced that Mr. Stallone is going to receive his long deserved Oscar.
Best Supporting Actress:
Not going to win: Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl; and Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs
Contenders for the Oscar:
Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Rooney Mara, Carol
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
Again, I have not seen The Hateful Eight yet; but I do like Jennifer Jason Leigh and would be pleased with her winning. Having mentioned that, I was particularly impressed with Rooney Mara in her role in Carol. In my opinion, this is a stunning role that I would hope gets Ms. Mara an Oscar.
Best Actor:
Not going to win: Bryan Cranston, Trumbo; Matt Damon, The Martian; Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs; and Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl.
Going to win:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
This is the one virtual lock for the Oscar season this year. Mr. DiCaprio is long deserving of an Oscar, and honestly the competition this year is not as impressive. Yet, Leonardo DiCaprio should prepare for his well deserved gold statue.
Best Actress:
Not going to win: Jennifer Lawrence, Joy
Contenders for the Oscar:
Cate Blanchett, Carol
Brie Larson, Room
Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years
Soairse Ronan, Brooklyn
I have yet to see 45 years, though I do like Charlotte Rampling. Having mentioned that, in a rather tight and impressive category, I think Brie Larson should win Best Actress this year. It was quite revealing and impressive.
Best Director:
Lenny Abrahamson, Room
Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, The Revenant
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
It would be a ballsy and brave move for George Miller to win the Oscar. I would hope Tom McCarthy gets this Oscar and some much deserved acclaim. Yet, I will not be surprised to see Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu win a second consecutive Best Director Oscar. A.G.I. is one of the most impressive and unique filmmakers of his or any era. The Revenant certainly proves this ideal.
Best Picture:
Not going to win: Steven Spielberg, et al., Bridge Of Spies, and Simon Kinberg and Sir Ridley Scott, et al., The Martian
Could pull off an upset:
Brooklyn
Room
Spotlight
Contending to win it all:
Brad Pitt, et al., The Big Short
George Miller, et al., Mad Max: Fury Road
Arnon Milchan and Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, et al., The Revenant
Once again, the ballsiest and most brave choice would be Mad Max: Fury Road. My personal choice would be Spotlight. None the less, the likely and more interesting Best Picture may be The Revenant. Perhaps AMPAS is awarding Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu The Revenant and from last year Birdman due to the oversight of not honoring 21 Grams and Babel years ago; both of those movies having become modern classics. Having mentioned that, Birdman and The Revenant are likely going to be modern new classics for many years to come.
I note this is last minute. None the less, this is before the show begins. So, now on with the show! My responses to come in a timely manner.
Happy viewing,
Robert
Best Costume Design:
Not going to win: The Danish Girl
Might contend: Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant
Nominees to look for :
Sandy Powell, Carol
Sandy Powell, Cinderella
I believe Sandy Powell will win Best Costume Design, and it will be for Ms. Powell's impressive designs for Carol. I honestly cannot see this award going to another costume designer for this year, as Ms. Powell was excellent last year.
Best Sound Mixing:
Not going to win: The Martian
Might contend: Mad Max: Fury Road, The Revenant, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Nominee certain to win:
Gary Rydstrom, et al., Bridge Of Spies
At this point in the film industry, Gary Rydstrom may just be the most important and innovative sound engineer today. And clearly Mr. Rydstrom was innovative yet again for his designs used in Bridge Of Spies, particularly in the 5.1 mix I heard in the theater and on Blu-Ray.
Best Original Song:
Not going to win: Simple Song #3, from Youth
Nominees to look for:
The Weeknd, et al., Earned It, from Fifty Shades Of Grey
Anohni Hegarty, et al., Manta Ray, from Racing Extinction
Lady Gaga and Diane Warren, Til It Happens To You, from The Hunting Ground
Sam Smith, et al., The Writing's On The Wall, from Spectre
I happened to like Earned It and Manta Ray, even though their respective movies left much to be desired. Then again, The Weeknd is quite the good singer, and Anohni is someone that will likely get more notice stateside. I happened to like Spectre, and of course Sam Smith is one of the best singers out there today.
None the less, Till It Happens To You happens to be one of Lady Gaga's most impressive songs; to say nothing of it being one of Diane Warren's best too. I expect Gaga's performance to be one of the highlights of the show, as it was last year and most recently at the Grammys. Indeed, Vice President Joe Biden will be introducing her performance in advocacy of the rights of victims of sexual assault. And having seen The Hunting Ground, I am convinced this is the right way to honor the movie with a great song.
Best Documentary Feature:
Not going to win: Amy, Cartel Land, What Happened, Miss Simone?, and Winter On Fire: Ukraine's Fight For Freedom
Nominee certain to win:
Joshua Oppeneimer, et al., The Look Of Silence
Joshua Oppenheimer has brought forth a most amazing documentary that is a perfect companion piece to his 2012 film The Act Of Killing. I was most particularly impressed with the involvement and reporting taken place to expose the darker secrets of the 1965 purge of communists in Indonesia. This documentary will certainly win.
Best Foreign language Film
Not going to win: Embrace Of The Serpent, Theeb, and A War
Nominees to watch:
Danize Gamze Erguven, Mustang
Laszlo Nemes, Son Of Saul
Son Of Saul will win best Foreign Language film this year. It is not even close. A rather innovative debut for Laszlo Nemes which I think will be looked at as one of the defining movies of 2015, and perhaps a defining anti-war movie.
Best Animated Film:
Not going to win: Boy & The World and Shaun The Sheep Movie
Nominees to watch:
Charlie Kaufman, et al., Anomolisa
Pete Docter, et al., Inside Out
Hiromasa Yonebayashi, et al., When Marnie Was There
I still have yet to see Anomolisa, and hope t see it fairly soon. None the less, I thought Inside Out was one of the best films of 2015, and the best Disney and Pixar created in quite some time. Inside Out will in all likelihood be the recipient of a much deserved Oscar. By the way, if you have children; have them see Inside Out with you. It will be beneficial for the young and old.
Best Original Screenplay:
Not going to win: Bridge Of Spies
Might pull off an upset: Straight Outta Compton
Nominees to watch:
Alex Garland, Ex Machina
Pete Docter, et al., Inside Out
Tom McCarthy, et al., Spotlight
I was completely blown away by Tom McCarthy's writing in Spotlight. However, what Pete Docter accomplished with his team in creating Inside Out is astonishing. It resonates to anyone that has seen this movie, and I hope that Inside Out can be a positive influence on anybody that is in a depressive state. Again, I was completely impressed with the very intelligent writing.
Best original Score:
Not going to win: Thomas Newman, Bridge Of Spies
Contenders for the Oscar:
Carter Burwell, Carol
Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight
Johann Johannson, Sicario
John Williams, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
I have not yet seen The Hateful Eight, yet i did get to hear excerpts from Ennio Morricone's score. It is quite good, and might win the Oscar. I think that my sentimental pick would be John Williams, perhaps the most important composer of his field; apart from Mr. Morricone and Carter Burwell. None the less, the score to any Star Wars movie is of such importance, that without it the movies fall apart. So I am hoping John Williams will win the Oscar; yet I will not be upset if it goes to an equally deserving composer.
Best Cinematography:
Roger Deakins, Sicario
Edward Lachman, Carol
Emmanuel Lubezki, The Revenant
Robert Richardson, The Hateful Eight
John Seale, Mad Max: Fury Road
John Seale quite honestly should win Best Cinematography, in recognition of a most impressive and groundbreaking action-adventure film. None the less, at some point Roger Deakins needs to get his much deserved Oscar. I do wonder if Sicario will be the movie to end the streak. It was shot very well too.
Best Adapted Screenplay:
Not going to win: Drew Goddard, The Martian: from the Andy Weir novel.
Contenders for the Oscar:
Adam McKay et al., The Big Short: from the Michael Lewis book.
Nick Hornby, Brooklyn: from the Colm Toibin novel
Carol: adapted from the Patricia Highsmith novel,, initially named The Price Of Salt
Emma Donoghue, Room: adapted from her novel.
All four contenders are worthy of an Oscar. I would like to see Emma Donoghue win this important award, particularly in adapting her own novel to an excellent movie. Truthfuly though, I would hope that Adam McKay and his team win the award for their highly intelligent and multi-layered script of The Big Short.
Best Supporting Actor:
Not going to win: Mark Rylance, Bridge Of Spies
Contenders for the Oscar:
Christian Bale, The Big Short
Tom Hardy, The Revenant
Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
Sylvester Stallone, Creed
I personally would like to see Tom Hardy win Best Supporting Actor. Mr. Hardy's presence in The Revenant was just completely astounding, and he held his own. I also really liked Mark Ruffalo, whom I consider one of the better actors that can be involved with socially conscious films.
Yet, I think Sylvester Stallone will take home the Oscar this year. Creed was one of the more pleasant surprises in 2015: a worthy follow up and an important addendum to the Rocky movies. And Sylvester Stallone did a tremendous role which was surprisingly poignant once more. Indeed in light of Tony Burton (Duke in the Rocky movies) having passed away just recently, I am convinced that Mr. Stallone is going to receive his long deserved Oscar.
Best Supporting Actress:
Not going to win: Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl; and Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs
Contenders for the Oscar:
Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Rooney Mara, Carol
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
Again, I have not seen The Hateful Eight yet; but I do like Jennifer Jason Leigh and would be pleased with her winning. Having mentioned that, I was particularly impressed with Rooney Mara in her role in Carol. In my opinion, this is a stunning role that I would hope gets Ms. Mara an Oscar.
Best Actor:
Not going to win: Bryan Cranston, Trumbo; Matt Damon, The Martian; Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs; and Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl.
Going to win:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
This is the one virtual lock for the Oscar season this year. Mr. DiCaprio is long deserving of an Oscar, and honestly the competition this year is not as impressive. Yet, Leonardo DiCaprio should prepare for his well deserved gold statue.
Best Actress:
Not going to win: Jennifer Lawrence, Joy
Contenders for the Oscar:
Cate Blanchett, Carol
Brie Larson, Room
Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years
Soairse Ronan, Brooklyn
I have yet to see 45 years, though I do like Charlotte Rampling. Having mentioned that, in a rather tight and impressive category, I think Brie Larson should win Best Actress this year. It was quite revealing and impressive.
Best Director:
Lenny Abrahamson, Room
Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, The Revenant
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
It would be a ballsy and brave move for George Miller to win the Oscar. I would hope Tom McCarthy gets this Oscar and some much deserved acclaim. Yet, I will not be surprised to see Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu win a second consecutive Best Director Oscar. A.G.I. is one of the most impressive and unique filmmakers of his or any era. The Revenant certainly proves this ideal.
Best Picture:
Not going to win: Steven Spielberg, et al., Bridge Of Spies, and Simon Kinberg and Sir Ridley Scott, et al., The Martian
Could pull off an upset:
Brooklyn
Room
Spotlight
Contending to win it all:
Brad Pitt, et al., The Big Short
George Miller, et al., Mad Max: Fury Road
Arnon Milchan and Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, et al., The Revenant
Once again, the ballsiest and most brave choice would be Mad Max: Fury Road. My personal choice would be Spotlight. None the less, the likely and more interesting Best Picture may be The Revenant. Perhaps AMPAS is awarding Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu The Revenant and from last year Birdman due to the oversight of not honoring 21 Grams and Babel years ago; both of those movies having become modern classics. Having mentioned that, Birdman and The Revenant are likely going to be modern new classics for many years to come.
I note this is last minute. None the less, this is before the show begins. So, now on with the show! My responses to come in a timely manner.
Happy viewing,
Robert
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Handicapping the Oscars, Year 2
On February 28, 2016, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will present the 88th annual Academy Awards; better known as the Oscars. The past year in movies, 2015, was a watershed year in that matters pertaining to how films are distributed and what types of films should get nominations will the focal point for a discussion on the future of the industry. In all fairness, I am not too certain what will be the future of Hollywood; though I suspect movies will always be around because it is the art form that has shaped our society for some 100 years now.
It is with this idea that I bring forth for the second year my thoughts on the nominations for each Oscar category, and who I think is most deserving of a statue. Having seen many of the nominated movies, I can certainly attest to these films deserving of a nomination or perhaps even a win in their respective categories. Think of this as a continuation of what Siskel and Ebert had done every year with their hour-long special If We Picked The Winners. And yes, every category will be looked into.
Best Visual Effects:
Ex Machina
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
I am hoping the visual effects team from Star Wars: The Force Awakens gets the award. Yet I was quite impressed with the practical effects used in Mad Max: Fury Road.
Best Film Editing:
The Big Short
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
Spotlight
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
In the same result as we see in Visual Effects, I would like to see either Star Wars: The Force Awakens or Mad Max: Fury Road take the prize. A good action adventure film needs to have a competent and dedicated editor or editors to make the perfect cut for a movie. These two films are clear examples of how editing is needed to make an audience enthralled with what they are seeing.
Best Make-Up and Hairstyle:
The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window And Disappeared.
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
I am more inclined to see The Revenant win this award. The most impressive Make-Up jobs tend to be the ones that seem most realistic. This is not to take away Mad Max: Fury Road in its approach to Make-Up and Hairstyle; yet The Revenant was more interesting.
Best Production Design:
Bridge Of Spies
The Danish Girl
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
I would be pleased for either Mad Max: Fury Road or The Revenant winning this all important category. Though I would prefer The Revenant due once again to its realistic approach to designs.
Best Sound Editing:
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Sicario
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Sound Editing is quite an important award in the process of cutting and splicing soundscapes and audio to enhance a movie. How I see it, the Revenant did best in the approach to Sound Editing. I was quite impressed with the results.
Best Animated Short Film:
Bear Story
Prologue
Sanjay's Super Team
We Can't Live Without Cosmos
World Of Tomorrow
I was very impressed with World Of Tomorrow. Indeed, it is quite possibly one of the better experimental animated films to come out in recent years. It is a near certainty that World Of Tomorrow will win Best Animated Short.
Best Live Action Short:
Ave Maria
Day One
Everything Will Be Okay
Shok
Stutterer
Shok seems to be the most interesting Short Subject to win this award. It is a very good period piece regarding the war in Kosovo in the 1990s.
Best Documentary Short Subject:
Body Team 12
Chau, Behind The Lines
Claude Lanzmann, Spectres Of The Shoah
A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness
Last Day Of Freedom
I am hoping that Claude Lanzmann: Spectres Of The Shoah wins this category. Shoah, though extremely long even for a documentary, is one of the better movies to have been released in some 40 years. This seems to be the most proper way of rectifying the oversight.
Now that is part one of my look at the Oscar nominees this year. The remaining categories are a bit more thorough to consider and thus, since this took me a while to finish, I have decided to present a part two which will be posted shortly.
More to come; stay tuned,
Robert
It is with this idea that I bring forth for the second year my thoughts on the nominations for each Oscar category, and who I think is most deserving of a statue. Having seen many of the nominated movies, I can certainly attest to these films deserving of a nomination or perhaps even a win in their respective categories. Think of this as a continuation of what Siskel and Ebert had done every year with their hour-long special If We Picked The Winners. And yes, every category will be looked into.
Best Visual Effects:
Ex Machina
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
I am hoping the visual effects team from Star Wars: The Force Awakens gets the award. Yet I was quite impressed with the practical effects used in Mad Max: Fury Road.
Best Film Editing:
The Big Short
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
Spotlight
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
In the same result as we see in Visual Effects, I would like to see either Star Wars: The Force Awakens or Mad Max: Fury Road take the prize. A good action adventure film needs to have a competent and dedicated editor or editors to make the perfect cut for a movie. These two films are clear examples of how editing is needed to make an audience enthralled with what they are seeing.
Best Make-Up and Hairstyle:
The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window And Disappeared.
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
I am more inclined to see The Revenant win this award. The most impressive Make-Up jobs tend to be the ones that seem most realistic. This is not to take away Mad Max: Fury Road in its approach to Make-Up and Hairstyle; yet The Revenant was more interesting.
Best Production Design:
Bridge Of Spies
The Danish Girl
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
I would be pleased for either Mad Max: Fury Road or The Revenant winning this all important category. Though I would prefer The Revenant due once again to its realistic approach to designs.
Best Sound Editing:
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Sicario
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Sound Editing is quite an important award in the process of cutting and splicing soundscapes and audio to enhance a movie. How I see it, the Revenant did best in the approach to Sound Editing. I was quite impressed with the results.
Best Animated Short Film:
Bear Story
Prologue
Sanjay's Super Team
We Can't Live Without Cosmos
World Of Tomorrow
I was very impressed with World Of Tomorrow. Indeed, it is quite possibly one of the better experimental animated films to come out in recent years. It is a near certainty that World Of Tomorrow will win Best Animated Short.
Best Live Action Short:
Ave Maria
Day One
Everything Will Be Okay
Shok
Stutterer
Shok seems to be the most interesting Short Subject to win this award. It is a very good period piece regarding the war in Kosovo in the 1990s.
Best Documentary Short Subject:
Body Team 12
Chau, Behind The Lines
Claude Lanzmann, Spectres Of The Shoah
A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness
Last Day Of Freedom
I am hoping that Claude Lanzmann: Spectres Of The Shoah wins this category. Shoah, though extremely long even for a documentary, is one of the better movies to have been released in some 40 years. This seems to be the most proper way of rectifying the oversight.
Now that is part one of my look at the Oscar nominees this year. The remaining categories are a bit more thorough to consider and thus, since this took me a while to finish, I have decided to present a part two which will be posted shortly.
More to come; stay tuned,
Robert
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Bots 2.0: The Trend Reversal
Nine years ago, in 2007, I became aware of a internet trend that lasted quite a while. It was in February of that year when I went on to Alex Jones' primary website Infowars. For quite some time, even to a certain extant now; I would frequent the site and become immersed in getting the truth out regarding 911, the Middle East, and honestly the machinations of what Mr. Jones names the globalists. On that specific day, Dr. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican member of the US House of Representatives on and off from March 1976 through late 2011, had come on the program to discuss future plans. Those plans included running for President of the United States in 2008; this time solely as a Republican, as opposed to running in 1988 on the Libertarian line.
This prompted Alex Jones to declare that Dr. Ron Paul, admittedly a rare political figure well known as an expert on foreign policy, finance and medicine; was the only choice for President that would fix everything. That was not exactly what he said, but it was effectively what was said. Pretty soon, virtually every important alternative internet website and political weblog was clamoring and begging people to vote for Dr. Paul. I never took the bait. How I saw it; if a Presidential candidate is going to offer you every wish your heart desires, nothing will ever be delivered. If a candidate does not promise anything, yet offers realistic solutions; that candidate is who you need to vote for. It also seemed patently absurd that the voting public would replace a Cheney-Bush Republican Presidency with a Paul Presidency from the same political party. The only reason Dr Paul was anti-war, I deduced, was due to the knowledge of America's finances being in a collapsing stage. Dr. Paul not once has ever, to my knowledge, opposed many of these Middle East conflagrations on a moral merit solely. As well, Dr. Paul's libertarian viewpoint on economic policy is equivalent to an old polemic on political ideologies:
A liberal will see a homeless person and provide him money, food, a coat, and/or a gift to alleviate his plight.
A conservative will see a homeless person and give him a book and/or pamphlet of religious and conservative writings. That is if the conservative does anything about the plight. of the homeless person.
A libertarian will see a homeless person and will ask that a wall be built in front of and in back of the homeless population so that he does not have to see them when he next walks down the street. In short, out of sight out of mind.
Not surprisingly, it turns out that nearly the bulk of the internet media were libertarian minded. And lo and behold, they found Dr. Ron Paul as their champion. The internet was awash with incessant pandering to the Paul family and their advancement in our political world. Dr. Paul and Sen. Rand Paul have taken this hero worship and ran with it unabashedly. However, their policies can be debunked and ridiculed if one takes the time to actually do it. In 2007, I believe Dr. Paul's campaign cratered when he appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert and Mr Russert was quite proficient in poking holes at Dr. Paul's policies. In 2012, Dr. Paul's campaign began to fail yet again when this time prominent Democrats like Mayor Ed Koch forcefully examined the perceived Anti-Semitism inherent in the Paul family; which then got other Democrats to publicly give Dr. Paul the same scrutiny as any other Republican.
However, it was in the 2012 Presidential Campaign that the internet media lost any and all sense of objectivity in effectively forcing Dr. Ron Paul into the Republican nomination at any price. It started with the contested results at the Iowa Caucus, which I will admit had been won by Sen. Rick Santorum in a rather dubious manner. Any momentum the Paul campaign had was neutered the next week in New Hampshire. Dr. Paul came in third at best, and Mitt Romney began his ascension to winning the GOP Nomination in states won, delegates and the national popular vote. In a related matter, the Paul family could deal with Mr. Romney as the Republican nominee as opposed to all the others; even Sen. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney. But of course, the internet media, so much in the tank for Dr Paul for over 5 years by that point, would have none of it. When the primaries were completed and before the RNC convention, numerous YouTube figures led by Matt Larson and similar bloggers led campaigns to have Dr. Paul become the nominee by packing the delegates with Paul supporters. The theory of this being that the delegates to each state would be those that voted and campaigned for Dr. Paul; and thus, in their own accord, would unilaterally place Dr. Paul as the candidate and not the rightful winner of the primary in former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. This was a complete fantasy, one in which I and many other political science people knew would never work. It would have been a brokered convention by any other name; and voters would defect from the GOP in droves.
But even then they were still not done. Days after the convention, Michael Rivero of What Really Happened led a call for Dr. Ron Paul to declare an Independent Presidential run and announce it on his Labor Day week appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I remember the calls and theories presented by these internet media types like Mr. Rivero throughout 2012; and was both amused and concerned over the more fantastical theories and hopes that had accumulated during the course of the year. Well, by that point I had enough of at least Mike Rivero's tomfoolery. Just before Dr. Paul's appearance on Leno, I wrote Mr. Rivero an e-mail telling him to effectively grow up and accept the loss. I clearly asked him a question which no answer was needed: did Rivero and co. want to have the Paul family in a rather volatile and bitter Holiday season if Dr. Ron Paul ran as an Independent while Sen. Rand Paul already endorsed Mitt Romney? I would like to think that email helped in stopping Mr. Rivero's absurd thinking on these matters. Neither WRH or other websites continued to drink the spiked punch afterwards, barring Ryan Dawson who has become rather embittered over the years.
Four years alter, and I am seeing this happen again. Yet surprisingly this time, it is not the Republicans that are in this pickle. It sadly is the Democrats. For the past 16 years, if not more than that, the heir to the throne of the Democratic party and by extension the heir to leadership has been Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton. I am one that believes Hillary Clinton should have run for President in 2000 rather than get elected to the US Senate: that way, everything that has happened in these past 16 years would not have happened. After the 2012 election, which involved both Pres Obama and Mitt Romney resorting to e-vote fraud and resulted in a 50%-48% Obama victory; the immediate reaction should have been to allow Sec. of State Clinton to obtain the Presidency by Election Day 2016. And for a while there in late 2012 and early 2013, that narrative was being utilized. In fact, one YouTube poster projected that there would be two-term Democratic Presidents through at least 2048. It would start with Sen. and Sec. Of state Hillary Clinton, then Sen. Cory Booker, then Chelsea Clinton and finally Malaia Obama. That seems about right, and I would be accepting of this lineage.
However, the current President, Barack Obama, is not pleased. For one, it it meant that two Clintons and Sen. Booker would get elected before the next Obama was elected. Secondly, Hillary Clinton works in a different outlook than Democrats coming from Obama's coattails. So what has followed, I think, has been for three years now a purging from within the Democratic Party of continuity. Starting with the Boston Bombing inside job, the Democrats have been loosing the social political and economic narrative; resulting in net losses for Democrats in elections. This accumulated in 2014 when the Senate went to a 54-46 Senate Majority. By the way, the Senate elections in 2016 are projecting a 52-48 Republican majority, a far cry from last year when it was assumed the Democrats could easily regain the Senate and perhaps even reach 60 Democratic Senators.
Knowing this, the Democratic Party would gain momentum and relevance with a Clinton Presidency. And yet, it has not been the typical GOP gawkers that have been problem for the Clinton campaign, as it would be expected. No, this time it is an insurrection of Democrats not ever having engaged in realpolitik. For instance, there is Sen. Bernie Sanders running for the nomination and putting forth votes that are a mirage of ideas at best. There is former Sen. Jim Webb running an Independent bid which, while not going that far, will put a dent in Election Day votes. There is Vice President Joe Biden, who based on what Clinton insider Larry Nichols has recently been saying, is running a shadow campaign for the Presidency just on the off chance that an indictment is handed out to Hillary Clinton over the fake e-mail scandals. There is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has not endorsed anyone yet precisely because Sen. Warren believes she is best qualified to be President. There is Gov. Jerry Brown from California whom has never been a Clinton ally. And yes, there is Pres. Obama, who has not endorsed anyone yet.
The immediate focus, and by all means the Paul family for the Democrats this year, is Sen. Bernie Sanders. As I type this on the day of the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Sanders lost Iowa by only a tenth of a percent and is looking to win New Hampshire. Now, as I said before, President Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire but went on to winning the Presidency in 1992; in 2016 I would suspect Hillary Cinton to easily win New York, California, South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina and many other states; enough to effectively seal the deal by early May when New York has its primaries. Yet, I am not entirely seeing it this year. Instead, I am seeing a second attempt at dismantling the rightful heir to the throne in Sec. of State Clinton by fellow Democrats. It is known that the Republican Party could theoretically be content with a Clinton Presidency, as they were under Bill Clinton's time in office. We all know hat a Sanders Presidency will involve complete political gridlock. If you think nothing is being done now, wait until a four year long standstill reminiscent of The Zax.
Now that I finish this, I am noticing that Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders have won their respective primaries in New Hampshire. Both of them have them won by landslides, which is more than 10% of the difference between first and second. While I still think these outcomes will be corrected next week, I am not pleased with these results. As well, when the tide does turn, we will be seeing Sanders supporters getting even more obtuse and wanting their candidate at all costs. I am telling you all: Sen. Bernie Sanders being the nominee will mean Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent. And when that happens, you will have Trump, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or even (gasp!) Jeb Bush as our President come election day. We will be in ruins before this year is out.
We simply cannot afford another 9 11 or worse to occur. We also cannot be the one developed nation to treat their women as fourth class citizens. This needs to change soon.
I will have more to say in the days to come,
Robert
This prompted Alex Jones to declare that Dr. Ron Paul, admittedly a rare political figure well known as an expert on foreign policy, finance and medicine; was the only choice for President that would fix everything. That was not exactly what he said, but it was effectively what was said. Pretty soon, virtually every important alternative internet website and political weblog was clamoring and begging people to vote for Dr. Paul. I never took the bait. How I saw it; if a Presidential candidate is going to offer you every wish your heart desires, nothing will ever be delivered. If a candidate does not promise anything, yet offers realistic solutions; that candidate is who you need to vote for. It also seemed patently absurd that the voting public would replace a Cheney-Bush Republican Presidency with a Paul Presidency from the same political party. The only reason Dr Paul was anti-war, I deduced, was due to the knowledge of America's finances being in a collapsing stage. Dr. Paul not once has ever, to my knowledge, opposed many of these Middle East conflagrations on a moral merit solely. As well, Dr. Paul's libertarian viewpoint on economic policy is equivalent to an old polemic on political ideologies:
A liberal will see a homeless person and provide him money, food, a coat, and/or a gift to alleviate his plight.
A conservative will see a homeless person and give him a book and/or pamphlet of religious and conservative writings. That is if the conservative does anything about the plight. of the homeless person.
A libertarian will see a homeless person and will ask that a wall be built in front of and in back of the homeless population so that he does not have to see them when he next walks down the street. In short, out of sight out of mind.
Not surprisingly, it turns out that nearly the bulk of the internet media were libertarian minded. And lo and behold, they found Dr. Ron Paul as their champion. The internet was awash with incessant pandering to the Paul family and their advancement in our political world. Dr. Paul and Sen. Rand Paul have taken this hero worship and ran with it unabashedly. However, their policies can be debunked and ridiculed if one takes the time to actually do it. In 2007, I believe Dr. Paul's campaign cratered when he appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert and Mr Russert was quite proficient in poking holes at Dr. Paul's policies. In 2012, Dr. Paul's campaign began to fail yet again when this time prominent Democrats like Mayor Ed Koch forcefully examined the perceived Anti-Semitism inherent in the Paul family; which then got other Democrats to publicly give Dr. Paul the same scrutiny as any other Republican.
However, it was in the 2012 Presidential Campaign that the internet media lost any and all sense of objectivity in effectively forcing Dr. Ron Paul into the Republican nomination at any price. It started with the contested results at the Iowa Caucus, which I will admit had been won by Sen. Rick Santorum in a rather dubious manner. Any momentum the Paul campaign had was neutered the next week in New Hampshire. Dr. Paul came in third at best, and Mitt Romney began his ascension to winning the GOP Nomination in states won, delegates and the national popular vote. In a related matter, the Paul family could deal with Mr. Romney as the Republican nominee as opposed to all the others; even Sen. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney. But of course, the internet media, so much in the tank for Dr Paul for over 5 years by that point, would have none of it. When the primaries were completed and before the RNC convention, numerous YouTube figures led by Matt Larson and similar bloggers led campaigns to have Dr. Paul become the nominee by packing the delegates with Paul supporters. The theory of this being that the delegates to each state would be those that voted and campaigned for Dr. Paul; and thus, in their own accord, would unilaterally place Dr. Paul as the candidate and not the rightful winner of the primary in former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. This was a complete fantasy, one in which I and many other political science people knew would never work. It would have been a brokered convention by any other name; and voters would defect from the GOP in droves.
But even then they were still not done. Days after the convention, Michael Rivero of What Really Happened led a call for Dr. Ron Paul to declare an Independent Presidential run and announce it on his Labor Day week appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I remember the calls and theories presented by these internet media types like Mr. Rivero throughout 2012; and was both amused and concerned over the more fantastical theories and hopes that had accumulated during the course of the year. Well, by that point I had enough of at least Mike Rivero's tomfoolery. Just before Dr. Paul's appearance on Leno, I wrote Mr. Rivero an e-mail telling him to effectively grow up and accept the loss. I clearly asked him a question which no answer was needed: did Rivero and co. want to have the Paul family in a rather volatile and bitter Holiday season if Dr. Ron Paul ran as an Independent while Sen. Rand Paul already endorsed Mitt Romney? I would like to think that email helped in stopping Mr. Rivero's absurd thinking on these matters. Neither WRH or other websites continued to drink the spiked punch afterwards, barring Ryan Dawson who has become rather embittered over the years.
Four years alter, and I am seeing this happen again. Yet surprisingly this time, it is not the Republicans that are in this pickle. It sadly is the Democrats. For the past 16 years, if not more than that, the heir to the throne of the Democratic party and by extension the heir to leadership has been Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton. I am one that believes Hillary Clinton should have run for President in 2000 rather than get elected to the US Senate: that way, everything that has happened in these past 16 years would not have happened. After the 2012 election, which involved both Pres Obama and Mitt Romney resorting to e-vote fraud and resulted in a 50%-48% Obama victory; the immediate reaction should have been to allow Sec. of State Clinton to obtain the Presidency by Election Day 2016. And for a while there in late 2012 and early 2013, that narrative was being utilized. In fact, one YouTube poster projected that there would be two-term Democratic Presidents through at least 2048. It would start with Sen. and Sec. Of state Hillary Clinton, then Sen. Cory Booker, then Chelsea Clinton and finally Malaia Obama. That seems about right, and I would be accepting of this lineage.
However, the current President, Barack Obama, is not pleased. For one, it it meant that two Clintons and Sen. Booker would get elected before the next Obama was elected. Secondly, Hillary Clinton works in a different outlook than Democrats coming from Obama's coattails. So what has followed, I think, has been for three years now a purging from within the Democratic Party of continuity. Starting with the Boston Bombing inside job, the Democrats have been loosing the social political and economic narrative; resulting in net losses for Democrats in elections. This accumulated in 2014 when the Senate went to a 54-46 Senate Majority. By the way, the Senate elections in 2016 are projecting a 52-48 Republican majority, a far cry from last year when it was assumed the Democrats could easily regain the Senate and perhaps even reach 60 Democratic Senators.
Knowing this, the Democratic Party would gain momentum and relevance with a Clinton Presidency. And yet, it has not been the typical GOP gawkers that have been problem for the Clinton campaign, as it would be expected. No, this time it is an insurrection of Democrats not ever having engaged in realpolitik. For instance, there is Sen. Bernie Sanders running for the nomination and putting forth votes that are a mirage of ideas at best. There is former Sen. Jim Webb running an Independent bid which, while not going that far, will put a dent in Election Day votes. There is Vice President Joe Biden, who based on what Clinton insider Larry Nichols has recently been saying, is running a shadow campaign for the Presidency just on the off chance that an indictment is handed out to Hillary Clinton over the fake e-mail scandals. There is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has not endorsed anyone yet precisely because Sen. Warren believes she is best qualified to be President. There is Gov. Jerry Brown from California whom has never been a Clinton ally. And yes, there is Pres. Obama, who has not endorsed anyone yet.
The immediate focus, and by all means the Paul family for the Democrats this year, is Sen. Bernie Sanders. As I type this on the day of the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Sanders lost Iowa by only a tenth of a percent and is looking to win New Hampshire. Now, as I said before, President Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire but went on to winning the Presidency in 1992; in 2016 I would suspect Hillary Cinton to easily win New York, California, South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina and many other states; enough to effectively seal the deal by early May when New York has its primaries. Yet, I am not entirely seeing it this year. Instead, I am seeing a second attempt at dismantling the rightful heir to the throne in Sec. of State Clinton by fellow Democrats. It is known that the Republican Party could theoretically be content with a Clinton Presidency, as they were under Bill Clinton's time in office. We all know hat a Sanders Presidency will involve complete political gridlock. If you think nothing is being done now, wait until a four year long standstill reminiscent of The Zax.
Now that I finish this, I am noticing that Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders have won their respective primaries in New Hampshire. Both of them have them won by landslides, which is more than 10% of the difference between first and second. While I still think these outcomes will be corrected next week, I am not pleased with these results. As well, when the tide does turn, we will be seeing Sanders supporters getting even more obtuse and wanting their candidate at all costs. I am telling you all: Sen. Bernie Sanders being the nominee will mean Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent. And when that happens, you will have Trump, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or even (gasp!) Jeb Bush as our President come election day. We will be in ruins before this year is out.
We simply cannot afford another 9 11 or worse to occur. We also cannot be the one developed nation to treat their women as fourth class citizens. This needs to change soon.
I will have more to say in the days to come,
Robert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)