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.
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.
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.
It has been nearly a week since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the nominees for 2015 films in the next Oscars telecast on February 28. This will be the 89th annual Academy Awards ceremony, the most prestigious and important night for the motion picture industry centered in Hollywood. It also happens to be one of the few awards shows I tend to watch as much as I can: they easily run overtime. So, what do I think of the nominations this year?
For the past three years, after Roger Ebert passed away, I have been attempting to see movies that I know will be excellent. That fortunately results in getting to look at movies year round that are quite good and are easily Oscar caliber. That is not to say there were some clunkers I saw this past year, but they were few and far between. In this regard, I was able to see many of the nominated movies this past year; the most recent of which is the Lenny Abrahamson movie Room, which I highly recommend though it is not for the faint of heart. A great deal of these movies that I saw have one thing in common: the filmmakers and people involved with these movies are lily white mostly. Half of the films I saw this year only had white people. This was not a choice of mine; the fact is the bulk of what is considered best in 2015 were what we may consider white movies. There are exceptions: the newest Spike Lee masterwork Chi-Raq, Straight Outta Compton, Creed, possibly Sicario, and I would surmise Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Those movies dealt with issues and people that are minorities. Let it be known, I have not yet seen Quentin Tarantino's new film The Hateful Eight.
I want to take notice of Chi-Raq for a moment. Any one that has seen Spike Lee's latest joint would immediately consider this not only among the best of 2015, yet perhaps Mr. Lee's most coherent and innovative movie in recent years. I tend to think all of Spike Lee's movies, including recent films like Oldboy, are interesting and innovative. By the way, I hope the three hour plus director's cut of Oldboy is released soon enough. Back to Chi-Raq, it was a marvelous film; Teyonah Parris is a star in the making, Nick Cannon can actually act, and anytime Angela Basset, Jennifer Hudson and Samuel L. Jackson appear in a movie of this sort you know to expect some of the best method acting around.
And I watched it on Amazon Prime.
Yes, Amazon Prime. Indeed, Jeff Bezos of Amazon teamed with Spike Lee's 40 Acres And A Mule Filmworks along with Roadside Attractions in financing this film. Rather than what would be perceived as a one time deal; online streaming and financing is going to be the future of how we view movies. We are seeing this in the realm of American television, wherein Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, YouTube, Apple and other providers are not only distributing shows; these businesses are financing newer talent and taking the risks to produce quality series that networks are not prone to carry. As a result of the web's omnipresence, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (Golden Globes) and the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (Emmys) have allowed web shows to qualify for their respective awards.
Up to now, there has not been a need for the Oscars to look at this web presence. However, that is going to change; what with Chi-Raq being shown on Amazon and Netflix co-financing Beasts Of No Nations, a movie I have not yet seen. Rest assured, as the trend continues for most multiplexes to show only the movies guaranteed to fill the box office, more important and thoughtful films will be exhibited online first. And I am sad to say, this will affect African-American cinema; notably non-action based films by African-Americans. It is already a rare sight when a black culture film like Dear White People is able to be released to theaters nationwide, much less been seen willingly by white people. I mentioned that when I saw that movie, which by the way also starred Teyonah Parris, there were about a dozen or so in the theater seeing it; maybe two people in there were white, including me.
This brings me to something that has been brought to my attention, along with others recently. The membership of the Academy happens to be some 80% white, and 76% of that 80% being men. The average minimal age for most Academy members is 60. As well, as much as we do not like to admit this, nearly all Academy members have not gotten over the end of the New Hollywood era; that period of time when the studios and their parent companies allowed free reign in what movies were made. Thus, the voting members tend to look at awarding people from that time (1963-1993) or those that remind the voters of that time period. A noble and understandable gesture; yet it has been 23 years since what I consider the end of New Hollywood, when Steven Spielberg changed course in his movies starting with Schindler's List. I hope to explain why I think it marked an end of an era later on.
It is rather obvious that, in this post Roger Ebert, post movie house era of films, AMPAS will need to alter their membership and outlook. There have been small steps recently, including Spike Lee receiving an honorary Oscar and Cheryl Boone Isaacs becoming the first female African American President of the Academy. Yet those are just small measures; far more important will be issues pertaining to qualifications for movies shown online or on demand first. This will go along with a greater emphasis on independent films and more avant garde choices. Perhaps there will be a newer New Hollywood that can emerge.
That being said, what are my Oscar predictions? Well in short, I thought the best movie of 2015 was the Tom McCarthy directed Spotlight. Quite obviously, Spotlight is a movie that fits the paradigm of what New Hollywood represented, and has the ability to show risk taking in a blockbuster or nothing environment. It is my hope that Spotlight wins Best Picture, Tom McCarthy wins Best Director, and Mr. McCarthy along with Josh Singer win Best Original Screenplay at least. I would like to see Leonardo Dicaprio win Best Actor in The Revenant, and I do hope Brie Larson or Soairse Ronan win Best Actress in either Room or Brooklyn, respectively. I have not yet seen the Charlotte Rampling movie 45 years, yet I do consider Ms. Rampling to be one of the more iconic screen presences in her lifetime. I think Rooney Mara should win Best Supporting Actress in Carol, though I have yet to see the Quentin Tarantino film The Hateful Eight which nabbed Jennifer Jason Leigh her first nomination. Mind you, I did like Rachel McAdams in Spotlight. And this might be a bit controversial; yet I think Tom Hardy is most deserving of a Best Supporting Actor win in The Revenant. Though of course, Mark Ruffalo is a great actor himself, particularly in Spotlight.
Best Adapted Screenplay is a bit of a push: I liked what Emma Donoghue accomplished in writing her own screenplay to Room based on her novel. I was also amazed at Adam McKay and Charles Randolph adapting Michael Lewis' book The Big Short into an impressive film. Either one would be fine by me. Best Cinematography should go to Roger Deakins who shot Sicario, though I would also think John Seale for his involvement with Mad Max: Fury Road would be a wise choice. Best Editing should go to Margaret Sixel who edited Mad Max: Fury Road, though I was impressed with Tom McArdle and his approach to cutting Spotlight. And I would like to see Carter Burwell finally win an Oscar for his musical score used in Carol.
There are of course other nominees and other categories to consider. And I will be doing that in the week or so running up to the February 28 awards ceremony. Right now, these are my inferences and hopes for who will take home the prize. Just to let it be known: I will be watching and I do hope to either live blog the event or perhaps even record my reactions on video while it is still ongoing. I commit to not delaying the live blogging like what happened last year; albeit that was also due to getting laid off from my previous job the day after last year's Oscars. This time should be quite different.
One other thing I want to mention. I am a subscriber to YouTube's Red paid membership site. I am pleased that I can see content that otherwise would be restricted or ad driven on the free site. None the less, I am hoping YouTube Red will be allowed to start streaming movies through the subscription service. As of now, some movies of importance are allowed without paying extra. Most of these films though are of this quality.
These are the sorts of films I watch when snow weekends are here.
One more week until the first primaries: stay tuned for my thoughts,
Something has been on my mind for a while now. It deals with breakups and reunions. I suppose this started when the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced 5 of their inductees for 2016. Of the 5, only Steve Miller is going in individually. Albeit, this will be the first induction for Dr. Dre when the rap super group N.W.A. get inducted this year; Dr. Dre will likely go in on his own shortly after. So that leaves us with three active bands that could reunite with past members.
Cheap Trick in its current incarnation (Robin Zander, Rick Nielsen, Tom Pettersson and Dax Nielsen) are probably going to reunite with an original member (Bun E. Carlos). Of course, this will not be easy; Carlos' interview with Rolling Stone magazine explains why.
Chicago will be for this one time reuniting with Peter Cetera. Indeed, Mr. Cetera has been willing to initiate the summit.
Deep Purple is the clear uncertainty. I am not sure if they will perform, and obviously Ritchie Blackmore is someone that will make sure bridges stay burned.
With that in mind, a similar hypothetical reunion is taking place at Coachella in April. This is to go with the actual LCD Soundsystem reunion James Murphy has decided. I am speaking of course on the purported Guns N Roses reunion. For any GNR fan that is anxiously waiting for Axl Rose and Slash to be on the same stage in 23 years: do not hold your breath. We will know it when we see it.
Like minded people come together when it appears joining forces will be most beneficial to create magic. And there are times when someone decides to get involved with a budding or established project, hoping to improve upon the concept and add their input. And yet, it only lasts for so long.
I think back to the era of the great american songbook; when Broadway was the place to be to hear new standards in song craft along with acting. It was also the time when movie musicals were the highest form of entertainment for the masses. It was an era of songwriting partnerships, buoyed by the likes of Rodgers and Hart along with Kern and Hammerstein. The partnership of Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart was one of the better songwriting tandems for some 24 years. By all means, Rodgers' melodies and Hart's sophisticated lyricism were the standard for proper collaborative songwriting. And yet, Lorenz Hart had some difficulties in his life: namely not freely revealing his sexuality and coupled with his chronic alcoholism. Just before Hart died in 1943, the Rodgers and Hart partnership had ended due in no small part to Richard Rodgers no longer finding the nerve to put up with Lorenz Hart's increasing erratic behavior. Sadly, the loss of the partnership and Hart's mother earlier in the year prompted Mr. Hart to go on a two day drinking binge which ended in his death on an operating table on November 22, 1943.
Though not having the same amount of years or even exclusivity, Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II were frequent collaborators for some 15 years. By that point, Kern had the most impressive lyricist to work with and Hammerstein had the most interesting composer to be involved with. That partnership ended at about the same time the Rodgers and Hart team disbanded, albeit Jerome Kern had other partnerships and interests to attend to. Thus in 1943, Oscar Hammerstein II became the lyricist for a project Richard Rodgers had started with Lorenz Hart but later needed to be changed. The ensuing musical was Oklahoma. For 17 years onward, Rodgers and Hammerstein held a partnership that eclipsed their other collaborations with other songwriters. Several great musicals came from this tandem; not to mention a considerable amount of songs to add to the great songbook.
Rodgers and Hammerstein's partnership ended in 1960 when Hammerstein passed away from stomach cancer. Throughout the remainder of his life, Richard Rodgers would collaborate with other noted lyricists. And yet, while the songs were quite good, Rodgers never did reach the same heights as he did with Hart and Hammerstein. Yet in a way, the fact that two well established and acclaimed songwriters teamed up and eclipsed their past partnerships was a better fit to combine their fine artistry.
I then think back to a band that formed in the late 1960's and were making inroads with an increasing popularity by the middle 1970's. It was 1974-1975 and Genesis had completed a 2 LP concept album that is still considered their peak of creativity: The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway. The making of the album was not an ideal setting to begin with, wrangling over the writing and creative process. Yet in all fairness, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, like much of Genesis' output up till then, was pretty much Peter Gabriel's idea. Indeed on The Lamb, Gabriel wrote the liner notes and story, wrote all lyrics except for one song which Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford wrote, wrote half of the title track with Banks, composed music for a few songs solely (namely The Carpet Crawlers), helped in producing the album and being credited with, along side singing, voices and flute "variations on the above and experiments with foreign sounds". By that it meant, Peter Gabriel either overdubbed and/or played live every instrument and new soundscapes at any given point.
Starting around Thanksgiving and continuing through May 1975, Genesis went on tour with an elaborate stage show; which was fully functioning maybe 20% of all the shows. They performed the whole album live and in sequence, buoyed by Gabriel's singing, costume changes and iconic stage presence. This created a long simmering schism between Steve Hackett, Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford and Phil Collins on one end and Peter Gabriel on the other end. That may not be entirely fair to say this: Gabriel and Hackett collaborated often enough and Banks, Rutherford and Gabriel began their music careers as schoolchildren. And, despite what some may say, Gabriel and Collins were quite chummy with each other. Still, the concerts and ensuing media attention focused on Peter Gabriel to the exclusion of the other Genesis members. As well, a schism had emerged with respect to the band's approach of their songs and albums through 1975. It still persists, with some of the Genesis members (namely Tony Banks) having clear reservations on the Lamb yet applauding everything else; while Peter Gabriel feels Supper's Ready and The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway (the whole album and tour) were the high watermarks of his Genesis years and not thinking as highly on the other songs and albums.
The tour ended in early May, and with that so did Peter Gabriel's tenure in Genesis. Steve Hackett left in 1977 based on similar artistic differences approached regarding Wind And Wuthering. In all honesty, the four man lineup and the three man lineup were more commercially rewarding and artistically interesting. I happen to like all Genesis eras, including the Calling All Stations late 1990's period when Ray Wilson was in the band in place of Phil Collins. Indeed, I think Genesis were able to last as long as they did due to averting a band implosion with Gabriel leaving when he did. I also feel Steve Hackett was able to expand his horizons by leaving Genesis.
And then of course, there is Peter Gabriel. It has been 41 years since Mr. Gabriel left Genesis, and not once has he felt the need to go back. Indeed, since 1979, although it has been hinted at, Peter Gabriel when he performs live does not perform any Genesis song. Honestly, he does not need to. Peter Gabriel's influence and excellence has eclipsed the influence and excellence of Genesis, a feat that does not often happen. Look at it this way: Peter Gabriel has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice; with Genesis in 2010, and on his own in 2014. He did not attend the Genesis induction, yet accepted and performed at his own induction four years later. In fact, the presenter, Chris Martin, mentioned Genesis a lot more than Peter Gabriel did (once in his speech, in passing.) And that is quite alright, in part because a reunion of the classic lineup of Genesis involving Gabriel has no chance of ever happening.
Even when there are reunions of the five, as can be seen in the documentary Sum Of The Parts; everyone is quite nice and all, yet Banks, Rutherford and Collins pretty much have no intention of willingly allowing Gabriel and Hackett to be the lead figures in detailing the history. Heck, Steve Hackett's post Genesis work was completely overlooked in the documentary. And it felt like the interviewees were going over Peter Gabriel's individual works only because they really had to. I can remember watching it on Showtime and the obvious realization that the Genesis that made The Lamb have no intention of ever reuniting in full probably sunk in more than any other time.
Those are just two examples. In the end for both examples, the breakup of one partnership signaled the beginning of more fruitful experiences with either other partnerships or more often finding greater rewards and artistic merit as individuals. I can understand that as well. Not long ago, I became involved with groups and organizations that came at the right time for my growth and experience. It went all so very well; this included some really great days and events to remember. Everything went into an orderly and functioning process that involved budding friendships and a sense that the partnerships would last .
And then I woke up...
When I did, then and now, newer options came about. And it became clear that the partnerships and groupings had ended. Reluctantly or with hope, we realize that we must change partners yet again
Do not worry, fellow readers. I am still here and still blogging; perhaps that long-awaited video and multimedia output for future essays and commentaries will happen. What I mentioned is relative to a a community involvement that has run its course. This weblog has not and will never run its course!
Talk to you all sooner than later,
Robert
PS. The Oscar nominations were announced two days ago. And yesterday, I saw The Revenant. I will have a lot more to say on these matters shortly.
On Wednesday, the National Baseball Hall Of Fame, dedicated to presumably honor the greats in Major League Baseball and American Baseball at the highest levels, announced the results of the vote taken late last year by the BBWAA. The BBWAA are the organization of sports writers devoted to covering MLB and making their slack-jawed opinions known whether we want them or not. Every year, a select number of recently retired ballplayers who have been inactive for at least five years are voted by these writers to receive this prestigious honor. And in most cases, ballplayers that deserve the honor are routinely denied the honor of having a day devoted to them and a permanent plaque in Cooperstown, NY.
For 2016, only 2 ballplayers will receive a plaque. These players are Ken Griffey Jr., one of the better center fielders of the 1990s and early 2000s who totaled more than 620 home runs and a slew of personal records; and Mike Piazza, perhaps the best hitting catcher of his era with over 420 home runs and 2600 hits. Being from New York, most of the attention is on Piazza getting in; more so now since he will go in as a Met. By the way, Junior Griffey is going in as a Mariner, but that was a given. It is all well and good, until you realize the amount of ballplayers and off-the-field leaders who are not in the Hall of Fame, either still alive or since passed away.
I was going to provide a list of these oversights, yet that will be for another time. Suffice to say, these oversights, brought forth by a collection of sportswriters and self-proclaimed moralists who think only the purest of pure shall be granted induction, have greatly delineated most people's interest in the Hall of Fame beyond a regional level. I will have more to say about this one day. It might though be a multi-part examination of the Hall of Fame which I know few of you have interest in reading about now, so perhaps in the summer this will suffice.
Now, onto a more lively and exciting Hall of Fame discussion. One day after the Baseball Hall of Fame announced their inductees, the Pro Football Hall Of Fame announced the 18 finalists for their Class of 2016. The 8 inductees will be revealed at the NFL Honors one day before Super Bowl 50, February 6, 2016. Now right then and there, the reveal carries a lot more weight in the NFL than MLB cares to be involved with. As well, the 18 finalists are of such great importance that any of these finalists could be inducted this year and no problems would be had for who went in and who did not. The 18 finalists are:
Morten Andersen
Steve Atwater
Don Coryell (1924-2010)
Terrell Davis
Edward DeBartolo Jr.
Tony Dungy
Alan Faneca
Brett Favre
Kevin Greene
Marvin Harrison
Joe Jacoby
Edgerrin James
John Lynch
Terrell Owens
Orlando Pace
Ken Stabler (1945-2015)
Dick Stanfel (1927-2015)
Kurt Warner
With that in mind, discussion these next few weeks will turn to who gets inducted, when we are not following the playoffs and being armchair quarterbacks. As I mentioned before, 8 of the 18 finalists are likely to be inducted. 4 of them are certain locks. These would be Brett Favre, Ken Stabler, Dick Stanfel and Edward DeBartolo Jr. Stabler and Stanfel made it to be Senior Committee nominees, and Debartolo Jr. is the Contributor nominee; that means three of the eight slots are to be reserved for these specialized candidates. I am certain all three will go in. It also goes without saying that Brett Favre is a certain lock, and I need not explain why.
So that leaves 4 finalists to be inducted. Here is how I see the direction this will go. From what I gather, the four I would choose to go along with the obvious locks are as follows:
Kurt Warner: I do realize we are talking about inducting three quaterbacks getting in one year. However, there have been no quatrerbacks inducted since 2006; so the Hall of Fame is in need of ending the quarterback drought. Warner's backstory and accomplishments speak for themselves I believe.
Kevin Greene: when Kevin Greene retired after 15 years following the 1999 season, Mr. Greene amassed 160 quarterback sacks. Not only was it the third best total of that era; it was and still is the most sacks by a linebacker. Only Lawrence Taylor came closest with 142 sacks. Nine times during his career, Kevin Greene led his team in sacks, and had been a pivotal component in being a defensive leader for playoff teams. It is often hard to pick which team Greene made the most impact for, though I think it was the LA Rams. None the less, Kevin Greene was clearly one of the more consistent linebackers and defensive play makers of his time, and should finally get the long sought induction this year.
Tony Dungy: starting as an effective assistant coach, and then becoming a most impressive head coach with the Bucs and Colts; Tony Dungy had an impressive track record in turning around piss-poor teams and making them playoff contenders. The results are impressive: 148 wins, 10 seasons of 10 or more wins, only one losing season, only two seasons not making the playoffs, three conference championship games, and in 2007 winning Super Bowl 41. With that, Dungy became the first African-American head coach of a Super-Bowl winning team. Not only that, Tony Dungy was and still is an important mentor and role model to his players and active in numerous charitable activities; not to mention his impressive transition to NBC's football coverage and analysis.
Marvin Harrison: never the flashiest player, Marvin Harrison went on to become one of the better wide receivers in the game. Along with perhaps the best wide receiver in Colts history. To this day, Harrison holds the record for the most receptions in one season, set in 2002 with 143. He also had nine seasons of 10 or more touchdowns and 1000 receiving yards, 4 seasons of 100 receptions, only one season in playing less than 10 games, 188 starts out of 190 games played, 1,102 receptions, 128 touchdowns and 14,580 yards. Harrison is also part of the most accomplished quarterback to wide receiver tandem in NFL history along side Peyton Manning. And yes, he did win a Super Bowl as well.
Once again, I presume these will be the eight inductees announced next month. I do think there will be five finalists that could also get selected this year which would not surprise me.
Terrell Owens: though having never won a Super Bowl, and not as consistent in his later years than his 49ers tenure; Terrell Owens was quite the good wide receiver. Owens was also one of the best characters in the game as well, complimenting his 153 touchdowns and numerous records of importance.
Terrell Davis: he only played 7 seasons, and then only the first four were fantastic. Yet I keep mentioning this opinion: the Denver Broncos do not win back to back Super Bowls without Terrell Davis, who came and went as if he were a bright comet. Very comparable to the shortened career of Gale Sayers, whom by the way went in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot though never appearing in the playoffs. If Sayers is in, Davis should go in one day.
Alan Faneca: a great Steelers offensive lineman similar to Mike Webster and Dermontti Dawson. Faneca also had 11 fumble recoveries and started 201 out of 206 games played. As well, for a retired player, Alan Faneca looks much better today than in his playing years.
Orlando Pace: Pace was the leading fulcrum in guiding the greatest show on turf during the halcyon era of the Rams. He started 165 out of 169 games played and recovered 9 fumbles along the way.
Morten Andersen: the all time leader in games played, points, field goals, points after touchdowns, field goals of at least 50 yards, and holds the team records for kicking in both the Saints and the Falcons. Andersen became the prototype for the idea of the kicker to be the deciding factor in not only a win for a team, but also an identity.
I think Steve Atwater may be waiting at least another year. Don Coryell might get a posthumous induction, though Coryell not having been to a Super Bowl is a bit of a damper. John Lynch will get inducted one day, though it may take a few years. Edgerrin James will likely go in one or two years from now. And Joe Jacoby is a candidate that could be a surprise inductee, though I am just not seeing it this year.
Well, those are my thoughts on the two different Halls of Fame. Truthfully it is really only the Pro Football Hall of Fame that my focus was on; not a surprise since I am more interested in football than baseball.
I have also been informed that this marks one year since I started this weblog page. To all that are continuing on this journey with me; I offer my heartfelt thanks and appreciation. 2016 is promising to be a very intriguing year and one full of newer possibilities and avenues to show my opinions. I hope you will like what is coming next.
I want to show you some recent Public Service Announcements that were authorized by the New South Wales governmental premiership in Australia. The first three are separate YouTube videos.
The next two are a bit difficult to embed, so here are the direct YouTube links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoSudhJJE58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NLUSDlUvcE
Now here is a compilation of all three videos.
Now, if you did not know any better, you would think the sloth ads espousing the need to cut sodium from your diet, recognizing the signs of crippling depression and telling people that it is okay to come out of the closet were the real ads. Well, those ads were fake PSAs created with good intentions by YouTube user quolism. The Actual three ads in the 2 minute compilation are the ones which, I think still. are being shown throughout Australia.
Let it be known; I do not use weed, nor any other drug for that matter. None the less, weed is among the least problematic of drugs. At worst, weed is basically a crutch with little purpose: apart from having a craving for foods, getting momentarily buzzed, aiding some medical issues and slowly but surely making someone feel odd. I can think of far worse drugs and tranquilizers:
Tobacco one can find at a store, which causes cancers and health problems.
Alcohol, particularly if used daily.
Cocaine
Heroin
Meth
Quaaludes
Prescription medicines used beyond and above the needed amount; including over the counter medicines.
Crack cocaine
Indeed, the outdoor party commercial shows everyone except the sloth with an alcoholic drink of some kind. You would think the ad would have showed the problems of drinking a bit much.
Clearly, the NSW government have little idea of how to do effective anti-drug messaging. What should be sober ads are shown to be pretty damn funny. As I said, the Stoner Sloth campaign dropped the ball on these messages. And to think, the ads could have been more interesting and more worthy.
Last week, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced who were the five top vote getters in the Performers category for their class of 2016. This means these five artists are definitely getting inducted, with perhaps more to come in other categories. The five artists are:
N.W.A: This will be the first of two inductions for Dr. Dre; I expect him to get inducted on his own, probably as a Non-Performer in a couple years time. Also going in as part of N.W.A. will be Ice Cube, Eric "Eazy-E" Wright (1964-1995), MC Ren, DJ Yella and Arabian Prince.
Chicago: Including the inductions of Terry Kath (1946-1978) and Peter Cetera.
Deep Purple: Inducted would be Ritchie Blackmore, Ian Gillan, Jon Lord (1941-2012), Roger Glover, Ian Paice, David Coverdale, Glenn Hughes, Steve Morse, Don Airey, Rod Evans, Nick Simper, Joe Lynn Turner and Tommy Bolin (1951-1976). Not included is Joe Satriani; he was never really a member of Deep Purple and is more than likely to get inducted one day on his own, probably as a Sideman.
Steve Miller
Cheap Trick
Since the announcement, there have been a number of bone headed moves and odd reasons given for why this is the leading artists for induction next year, and other issues that come with the territory of the RRHOF. Indeed, on Sunday, the webmasters at Future Rock Legends posted on their blog page 20 questions regarding this year's named inductees and the future of the RRHOF. It is intended to be posted in public so that those that run the Hall of Fame (Jann Wenner, Jon Landau, Joel Peresman and Greg Harris to name four) can provide the answers and give transparency in their voting and induction methods.
I should come out and say this: I doubt any of the four, including Jon Landau but especially Jann Wenner, will answer these questions. For myself, having been a regular poster and participant in elections on the Future Rock Legends website, I figured that since no one in the leadership will likely respond; here then are my answers to these questions.
My assumption as to why there are only five Performers inductees instead of six, which is still small since we at FRL have inducted seven Performers per year into our Rock Hall Project: This may have been suggested by HBO along with Play Tone (Tom Hanks' production company) to have the telecast go within 3 and a half hours and attempt to lessen the editing of speeches and performances. The ceremony is not broadcast live. It does indeed revert back to a sense of creating a massive backlog that I had hoped was starting to ease since 2012.
Perhaps only having 5 inductees as Performers will in turn shorten the ceremony, subsequently fitting the time alloted for the HBO telecast.
The Barclays Center is quite the state of the art arena, one that is indeed expanding in importance since the New York Islanders have now called Barclays home. As well, Jay-Z owns a percentage of the arena; perhaps this is a second test run for when Jay-Z one day gets inducted in the arena he calls home turf.
I am rather aghast that Nick Simper, Steve Morse, Don Airey, Joe Lynn Turner and Tommy Bolin are not yet listed as inducted members of Deep Purple. I do think, if there are no goof ups, this was an intentional act by the hall of fame for a particular reason. Mark II and III are fully in, yet Mark I are 4/5ths in mainly as a way to somehow entice Rod Evans to show his face in public after 35 years. Well, that is not going to happen; and here is why.
To discuss this stupid and asinine move would be an essay in itself. Suffice to say, Ritchie Blackmore in particular became so incensed that he and the band's attorneys cut off Evans' royalties. Yes, Blackmore has a problem with most people but he does have a legitimate gripe against Evans. As do most Deep Purple fans.
Steve Miller, under himself or as part of Steve Miller Band, has always had the focus be upon him. This is most true once Boz Scaggs went on to do his own thing. I can hardly name off the top of my head every person involved in the Steve Miller Band, and neither in fact can most RRHOF voters. So, the easiest and most honest route is to induct Steve Miller, and not the backing Band whichever it may be.
It is absolutely certain that bands with complicated memberships seem to have more trouble getting inducted than bands with clear lineups, even if only classic lineups. It is perhaps one reason why King Crimson is not yet inducted, and the same goes with Megadeth. Those are just a couple examples.
I do not who these "experts" might be to determine honorees in a band. I wold not be surprised if these "experts" include someone's father's sister's brother's nephew's cousin's doctor's roommate. In other words, a complete unknown.
The fan poll, I think, is utilized as a way to determine who will be inducted. Since 2012, most of the Performers inductees per year from 2013 onwards has been determined by who eventually gets to be on the fan ballot. For 2013 and 2014, 4 out of the top 6 on each fan ballot was inducted. In 2015, it was 5 out of 6. In 2016, it is 4 out of 5. As well, each artist that led the fan ballot (Rush, Kiss, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble, and Chicago) all got inducted. It appears that more often than not, the fan ballot is what determines the sort of inductees that will be presented in each class. It would not surprise me if the official 'experts" that receive a ballot also vote on the fan ballot.
As has been determined in post October 15th voting and voting on the Future Rock Legends website, Yes and Janet Jackson respectfully led each poll and by all rights should have gotten inducted. However, I believe it was determined that 2016 would be the year for classic rock and a high percentage of 1970s based acts. In particular, since Chicago, Steve Miller and Cheap Trick were first time nominees, lifelong fans of these artists who also are tech savvy elected to bot the voting. Most of the bot votes went to Chicago. Now, I do not have a problem with Chicago getting inducted, nor any of the named inductees so far. Yet I do think the RRHOF allowed the tainting of the vote to be enacted primarily to enforce a Peter Cetera reunion with Chicago at least.
As I mentioned before, the fan vote adds a lot more teeth if, and I think it has happened, people with an actual ballot get to also vote on the fan ballot. So that one vote on the fan ballot ideal gets tossed aside when Voting Committee members place their votes online on the fan ballot for all to see.
I do not think in past years this sort of chicanery was utilized. In 2015 though, it may have been used on an experimental scale in order to legitimize fan support for an induction of Paul Butterfield and The Paul Butterfield Blues Band. Since the Butterfield experiment proved a success (and mind you, I felt he should have gotten in before he passed away), it seemed that this experiment could be utilized to have fan support be named for at least a few of the nominees. The fact that by October 15 Chicago received some 20 million votes, most of it by bots, and two months later the inductees were announced shows that this ballot was completely flawed.
For the record, I do not receive a ballot and thus I am not on the Voting Committee. In truth, aside from known inductees who have a ballot and vote on it, along with several other names, I do not know every person who gets a vote. It very well could be hacks and lackeys. Sadly, I also do not see much gender diversity in who might be added to the Voting Committee. It is a bit sad, considering the gradual rise of female artists and pioneers in rock and pop music in the past half century.
I have know idea how and why Gary Dell'Abate received an official ballot. Being a Steely Dan fan and having an admittedly nice home theater does not say to me that this man needs a ballot.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has a gender diversity problem. By comparison, our most recent projected Rock Hall Project inductees, while not as much as I would like, inducted Mariah Carey and Pat Benatar this past October. By the way, Ms. Carey and Ms. Benatar have not yet been seriously Considered by the Nominating Committee as of yet. I would request the RRHOF conduct a special election and ballot for this coming new year consisting solely of female candidates and female inductees. Indeed, if I had a ballot for 10 female inductees, mine would look like this:
Mariah Carey
Pat Benatar
Janet Jackson
Whitney Houston
The Runaways
Siousxie Sioux
Carole Kaye
Joan Baez
Sister Rosetta Tharpe
Connie Francis
All were inducted into our Rock Hall Project, yet not the actual Hall of Fame. That is not right.
I tend to believe the NomCom should have final say on who will eventually be inducted. The Voting Committee apparently are best used as a recommendation body, not a voting body.
I would tend to believe that less than half of the 800 ballots were returned. Perhaps even lesser than years before after the fan vote bots locked in the fan ballot.
The voted were likely counted by a computer software of some kind. I also doubt that the voting ballot totals will be released to the public.
As mentioned before, it appears that the RRHOF wanted enforced reunions of three different groups (Peter Cetera with Chicago, Ritchie Blackmore with Deep Purple, Cheap Trick with their past drummer). The Cheap Trick reunion might happen, though it will not be easy. I doubt Ritchie Blackmore appears at the ceremony, and while Peter Cetera could entertain the idea of reuniting with Chicago for a final time; Mr. Cetera has not felt the need to reunite in the past 30 years. The Kiss reunion uncertainty in 2014 only involved One act. 2016 has Three acts that people want to see a reunion at any cost. As for N.W.A,, a reunion of surviving members, including Dr. Dre, has always been on the offering so no problem there.
We all assume the remaining inductees will be announced early in the new year. I am not sure who gets inducted through other means, though I assume they will generate a lot of needed buzz. I am guessing the RRHOF do not want a second Ringo Starr situation when the inductee that was not on a nominating ballot gets to be the headliner.
This may sound absurd, yet i think the RRHOF made the decision to scrap the Los Angeles location for one in New York due to the every several years weather pattern El Nino. A pattern in which the West Coast gets colder and wetter, and the East Coast remains wet yet far milder. We just noticed this peculiarity when on Christmas Eve, New York City was in the upper 60s. Fortunately, this will not last long and is expected to be considerably colder in the days and months and even years to come. I say years because after an El Nino there is a La Nina. Not to mention there has been a methane gas leak off the coast of California that has only been given nationwide attention on Christmas Eve: after 6 weeks of leakage! To give you an idea, methane is far more dangerous than carbon dioxide. So, environment, weather patterns and short sighted ideals have the ceremony now taking place in New York. Perhaps next year the ceremony will return to Los Angeles.
Well, since I doubt you will get official answers from Jann Wenner, Jon Landau and Co., I do hope these answers I gave will suffice. I was going to finish this before Christmas Eve; yet dinners, parties and a far amount of gifts I received made this get posted at this time, Leave it to the Holiday season to receive much desired gifts like new Roger Waters and David Gilmour films and albums, a new LP player, two more vinyl LPs and finally getting the Beatles on music streaming services like Apple Music. And that is just rock and roll and music related.
Any comments and/or questions are greatly encouraged and appreciated.
Some 12 years ago, a retired businessman and budding novelist was in the process of revising his political thriller "Bush 2004". His name is Dr. Lawrence Britt; the Doctorate was for political science. As a result of what the world was seeing in a rightward shift that was increasingly war-like and nationalistic, Dr. Britt wrote an article in Free Inquiry magazine taking notice of totalitarian dictatorships and adapted t what was happening in the US. The article, Fascism Anyone?, was posted and reposted to many different websites and was considered one of the defining political statements of 2003.
At its heart was what Dr. Britt considered the 14 defining characteristics of fascism. Interestingly, it was found that the Cheney-Bush administration had enacted all 14 characteristics. Although it would take another 5 years and the 2004 election to alter the course of leadership, people became aware of the growing nationalistic and fascist tendencies of the right wing in America. And now it appears we are witnessing this yet again; this time under the rubric of the Republican candidates for President. In particular, we focus on one Donald Trump; currently leading both the Primary and General Election polls (!). So, does Mr. Trump and his people and travelers define the 14 characteristics? Well let us have a look.
Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
Well, the slogan for the Trump campaign is "Make America Great Again", which is also followed by massive generalizations of important topics. The same goes true for many of the other Presidential campaigns in the Republican field, and some in the Democratic field included. We see this often in campaigns and rhetoric that invoke the United States as being something it is not. Any time I hear phrases such as "greatest country" and "freedom" applied to the US, I tend to respond in more thoughtful approaches. In short, the US is not, has never been and could never be the greatest country. Why is that? It is because America is currently at war.
Disdain for the importance of human rights.
This is shown in spades. Donald Trump, along with many right wingers, have managed to alienate and belittle any and every person that is not a white rich man. For myself, the Trump campaign has not shown even One ounce of dignity and support toward people with special needs, including individuals with Asperger's Syndrome and/or are on the Autistic Spectrum. Indeed, we have seen utter ridicule and belittling when these issues are brought forth. If this is how Asperger's Syndrome are perceived by Trump, other groupings are clearly given worse considerations.
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
The easiest sorts of scapegoats we have seen these past 14 years have been Arabs, Muslims, Islamists and Middle Easterners. At any point a false flag occurs, Arabs are given the immediate blame, particularly by the Republican Party. The knee jerk reaction these past weeks has been to tell any Muslim they are not welcome into the US. Donald Trump has been the sole candidate mentioning this proposal; yet you can bet your sweet bippy that Every Republican candidate is agreeing to this, even if they will publicly be against such proposals.
The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
The political class on the whole have never met a war they did not want. The Trump campaign seems intent on altering the current and future international policies of the US. Shockingly, there are worse Republican candidates that feel war is the first option of foreign policy. Rest assured, if we get a Republican president; we will be at war within one year of the election.
Rampant sexism.
Each and every campaign for the presidency on the Republican side has espoused anti-abortion, anti-women and sexist rhetoric. Donald Trump is obviously not someone that understands women. Being on your third wife is a big giveaway. This is to say nothing of espousing anti-abortion views that would easily reverse 100+ years of women's equality.
A controlled mass media.
We often hear that the mainstream media is liberal minded. Well, for each liberal minded viewpoint, I notice two conservative viewpoints given longer time to be presented. To provide a more potent example: Sen. Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter, may get a mention and some air time on the news channels if Sec. of State Clinton is on a campaign stop. Donald Trump, along with other Republicans, will have an entire half-hour at least devoted to whatever speech they are giving; and if not a speech, news coverage will be devoted to live footage of Trump attending the opening of a napkin. I would not be surprised if some form of payola among news organizations for access to the Trump campaign has been approved.
Obsession with national security.
An unfortunate rule of thumb present in ideal lacking campaigns is when your domestic policy is horrid or, worse, invalid; it is time to whip up the threat of the boogeyman luring at your front lawn. I find it disgusting that a great deal of people willingly fall for this malarkey; only temporarily gaining their sanity back when their money runs out. And as I mentioned before, it is easy to put blame on the other when the problem is and has always been the self.
Power of corporations protected.
Donald Trump has had the gall to put his name on most services and goods, including bottled water! While it would not be a surprise to see The Trump Organization expand in a Trump presidency should it happen, corporate expansion and claims of corporate person hood will be front and center in any Republican presidency. What is worse is many of these corporations provide non-informational goods and services that only provide benefit for the corporations. And none of these corporations give a flying fig about either you or me.
Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
The labor movement as it is now is rather fractured, as we see in unions and trade organizations splitting their endorsements for whom their leadership want to see become president. However, it is certain not one of the labor unions will support a Donald Trump presidency, and with good cause. Mr. Trump's business practices, or lack thereof, has caused stagnant wages and at least 5 businesses going bankrupt, while the Donald expands his riches.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Donald Trump currently leads the polling demographic in people willing to vote for him that were never university educated; to say nothing of those without a formal education of any sort. Incidentally, a dumb person tends to be far more religious than a smart person. Mixing those two, negative feelings arise when confronted with intellectuals and people involved in the arts; which also incidentally happen to coalesce as well. I should know, because for someone that is on the Spectrum, I do happen to think of myself as an intellectual and a patron of the arts in the limited scope I may have.
Obsession with crime and punishment.
This also extends to disdain for attorneys and simplification of laws and regulations to mere children's tantrums. The sorts of laws that are in the likeness of "well, if I cannot do this, then Nobody can!" Indeed, there will be an increase in people being charged for one thing while it is really for a matter of ignorant plebs wanting to be rid of someone that reminds them of their collective guilt.
Rampant cronyism and corruption.
With a name like Trump, we could expect nearly every member of the family to gain an executive cabinet level position. Not only that, we could expect business people to be appointed to governmental offices or even downright elected who have no clue whatsoever about public policy. As it is now, Donald Trump has no damn clue what he is talking about.
Fraudulent elections.
The votes and opinion polls are completely rigged for a number of candidates. Donald Trump has been polling at the top of national polls since July, and it is usually anywhere between 27% and 40% of the vote. Extend this to general election mode, and Donald Trump can pull off an election miracle at the last minute using e-votes and effectively buying his way into the presidency. Sure, it could be done by all sides, and we have seen this time and again most recently in the 2012 election when both sides used e-voting tactics to inflate votes. Yet, a man like Donald Trump with nothing to lose will stand to do anything to win a race and claim his perceived kingdom.
In short, of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism present in our lives; Donald Trump, his campaign, and much of the Republican field has sadly been confirmed to invoke all 14.
In a related matter, in the 10 years since Idiocracy was completed, some 30% of Mike Judge's observations and inferences have come true. This seems to be not a coincidence that we are witnessing a potential presidency of Donald Trump which may be just as problematic as a Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho presidency.
Knowledge will be our awakening. Ignorance, and will ignorance, will be our undoing. And yet, so few care about the ills and needs of our planet.
On a positive note for the moment, a worldwide treaty was drafted to reduce carbon emissions and reduce the impact of global warming. We now need to initiate the next important step and have a carbon tax. I say this because right now, it is night in the lower 50s in December. December weather needs to be below zero with snow. Otherwise, our children and their children will never know what Christmas was like.
I will be writing more sooner than later. Indeed, I will have a lot to say on my favorite movies, music, events, TV shows, websites and books for 2015 as soon as can be. Hope you are looking forward to these opinions, and you might be a bit surprised.
In my most recent post, I had expressed concern over what we have been seeing with respect to the elites of this world wanting to initiate a war against Syria, and eventually Russia. In all fairness, I was hoping most people would start waking up to the obvious false flags and emotional manipulation being used against them. And yet, days after another inside job, this time in San Bernardino, California; it appears that Americans, particularly the uneducated and gullible, are willing to get their war and violence mindset into full view. In response, functions in world governments and financial institutions, to say nothing of certain factions of the US Government, are more than willing to give them the rope to destroy themselves.
Many of you may be thinking "Robert, why is it you look at these events and think we are not told the truth?" I have ample reason to conclude these recent IS/Daesh/Muslim purported attacks are not what we are being told. When you look into any one of these purported acts of terrorism, the most important question to ask only consists of two words:
Who Benefits?
In each of these cases, it is never the people and groups publicly blamed for any such tragedy that will benefit. Indeed, the result is either their deaths or their arrest. Such is the matter of the married couple that supposedly were the perpetrators of the San Benardino shooting. So, with that out of the way, what and who is leading you to the abyss? By that I mean, since there are more gullible people than smarter free thinking people, their answer for their problems will become our problemsif left unchecked.
The more I think of this, the more I come to believe these false flags we have seen this year: the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Charleston, Chicago, San Bernardino, Paris, and others, are being managed and conceived not entirely by the current Obama leadership. No, I think much of these inside jobs have the hallmark of the New Conservative movement; alongside the financial dynasties and the ever omnipotent Mossad peeking by. The same sorts of groups and financiers that financed and authorized 9/11. It pains me to say this; yet I think these false flags are to continue until election day in the US next year. And in response, someone is getting the propaganda of being the savior of us all, yet again. Do I have to spell him out?
D-O-N-A-L-D T-R-U-M-P, oh no:(
Now of course, Mr. Trump is only one person, and cannot be the only person instigating these matters. Yet, every move to a fascistic and xenophobic nation, which is where we are at now, needs a public face. And that face is typically an educated loudmouth male who promises the moon and says stuff without consequences.
Pretty soon, within a day or so, I am going to do a retrospective commentary on a Lawrence Britt essay from 2003, "Fascism, Anyone?" I find that in 12 years the ideas presented therein apply at this time than it may have even less than a year ago. It is my hope that at least one person reading this will be certain to review their incorrect beliefs, and to think twice at least once more. In my lifetime, the world survived a number of politically conservative leaderships with our faced and lives intact. I honestly do not think we and the rest of the world can survive a Trump residency (pun intended).
Here is what I referenced in a section of the essay.
Quite honestly the best John Lennon song not by John Lennon. 35 years since Lennon died; 14 years since George Harrison died. If they were alive today, what would these two men think of us now?
My commentary o the Lawrence Britt article appears shortly,
Robert
PS. I just recently found out John Venditto won the recount to his 2015 Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor election bid. Why in the hell am I not surprised? Well, here is hoping Venditto is indicted post haste. It also says a lot about those that voted for this ne'er do well.
Lately I have been not talking about the social political world as much as I normally do. Mind you, this is not unusual; after Election Day of any given year, my focus of interests turn to smaller yet fruitful observations and ideals that are personally more important. Matters like the holidays (Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, November 30, World Aids Day, Star Wars Day/Steven Spielberg's birthday, Christmas), my five year anniversary of my first paying job and my three year anniversary of my return to the GAP program, Going over my favored movies, music, TV, Web and pop culture events; decorating my home and finalizing a wishlist. Infrequent visits to New York City. And most notably, my relationships with my family, friends, colleagues, loved ones and others I meet.
None the less, I do have dreams. A lot of them are abstract and involve a celebrity popping up at random times and inexplicable reasons. There are others that involve running from an impending disaster. Some of these dreams involve the aftermath of a WMD attack of some kind, usually a nuclear detonation. As often the case when such a dream or nightmare comes forth, I wake up in a sweat and feel momentarily odd; it quickly subsides. Yet the memory, or at least the feeling, lingers.
Be it macabre or an odd obsession, I have been looking at YouTube videos that relate to the aftermath and even the buildup to a nuclear confrontation. For instance, I have been looking at a mid-late 1970's series of public service announcements detailing the need to prepare and survive a nuclear holocaust in the UK. I find it disturbing, for a myriad of reasons. See for yourself.
This has prompted me to look at one of the first HBO TV movies, Countdown to Looking Glass. A rather disturbing fake news account on an impeding nuclear crisis.
How do we know it is only a TV movie? It stars Helen Shaver and Scott Glenn; you can also see Michael Murphy in a small role. Everything else feels like a news broadcast; it matters not that it seems like a Canadian newscast. It appears real.
In a form of symmetry that I find problematic, I have also been looking at Raymond Briggs' other well respected animated adaptation of one of his books. It should be The Snowman, though itappears to be recently When The Wind Blows.
If that was not enough, I found this hidden gem; Nicholas Meyer's Laserdisc commentary of his film The Day After. It is not present on the DVD, so this is rare. Admittedly, it does not hold up as a full indictment on nuclear weaponry unlike Threads or The War Game. Yet still it matters a bit.
With all of these videos seen and related matters, I keep thinking: why am I seeing these videos, and more importantly why is it that many of them take place during the 1980's? I suppose I can give an idea as to why this now concerns me.
Next year, a presidential election will take place. So will other elections. As I have mentioned many times, I am an ardent Sen. Hillary Clinton supporter. With a Clinton presidency again, I and others Know there will not be a nuclear catastrophe inflicted upon us all. Perhaps the same will go for any other Democratic or Independent candidate. There may be even a few Republicans that feel the same way. Yet, I am concerned we get certain Republicans elected that will harm us all. A Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz or even a Sen. Marco Rubio presidency will begin the process of a more agitated foreign policy. Indeed, a Carson or Cruz presidency, especially a Carson presidency, is a near guarantee of war as the First option.
I ask you: is it really a sane idea to elect a warmongering presidency? Is it a sane idea to go back to a policy of wars and uncertainty? Is it a sane idea to go looking for someone to blame, when it is obvious the blame is on you and I? I do not think it is a sane idea, and those that I talk with do not think it is sane either. Yet, despite assurances from many of my family, friends and loved ones stating that the people in the US will not fall into this trap; I have my concerns.
Perhaps in a year, this talk and these concerns will be for naught. And yet, though not often, I still have these dreams of impending doom.
I do want to end this essay on a more uplifting note. I had mentioned The Snowman, an animated British special from 1982 that is clearly one of the better Christmas tales committed to film. I found this video a while back; overdubbing the music and songs in a sequence of the animation with one of Steve Hackett's best songs after he left genesis. It fits perfectly well with the visual sequences you see herein.
