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.

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

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

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

And the Oscar goes to...

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,

Robert

And then I woke up...

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.

A tale of two Halls of Fame

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.

More coming; stay tuned,

Robert