Swinging with Swingtown

Twisting the night away -- Picture courtesy of CBS

by blogSpotter

What is America coming to? I’ve now caught 3 episodes of CBS’s new dramedy Swingtown, and I have to say we're headed in a shocking direction. Now, I couldn’t be too shocked or I wouldn’t have sat through 3 complete episodes. Swingtown is set in an upscale Chicago suburb in the mid 1970’s. The website summary talks about 3 couples exploring “new attitudes and choices” at the “precipice of change”.

In fact, the title tells it all – Swingtown is about 3 couples discovering that they can “swing” with each other. Yes, in the sexual sense of that word. Set against the polyester, disco backdrop of the 1970’s, this show purports to show the swinging attitudes that we had back in the 70’s. Bruce and Susan Miller move across the street from libertine couple Tom and Trina Decker. At a block party, the Millers get drawn into the Decker’s tawdry web. In last week’s episode, the web caught more victims of moral indecision – the Miller’s old friends, the Thompson’s, stumbled upon the Decker’s wife-swapping shenanigans at a vacation cabin. 

The only problem with the show’s concept is that this facile situation never existed – it’s a 70’s that never was. If anything, the freewheeling 2000’s with Craig’s list and Internet chat rooms would be much more an accurate setting for this debauchery. But I digress with this line of judgmental thoughts … the show is immensely entertaining. In some ways, it reminds me of soft core, woman-oriented pornography. All we lack is someone spilling wine on the lap of the pizza delivery boy. 

The show actually redeems itself a little bit (from the credibility standpoint) with the plot lines of the children. The Miller’s daughter has a nascent affair developing with her teacher and the Thompson’s son is helping a neighbor girl with a dysfunctional mother. The attitude of Swingtown is much like that of Desperate Housewives. It’s a wink-wink dramedy that’s much likelier to elicit laughter than serious critique. 

If your moral senses are easily offended, do not tune in on Thursday nights. The American Family Association and the Parent’s TV Council have both already moved to protest this show and boycott its advertisers. Swingtown is the creation of Mike Kelley, who’s already played with our moral compass in shows like Big Love and Rome. If you can enjoy something with about the depth and credibility of a Harlequin romance, (but heightened giggle factor), by all means tune into Swingtown.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Deep Space with William Shatner

Resistance is futile -- Picture courtesy of Thomas Dunne Books

by blogSpotter
I just finished listening to William Shatner's autobiography, Up Till Now. I'm interested in Shatner as an actor in general, and not just as the commander of the Enterprise. But -- I do have some Trek trivia below. Shatner grew up in a religiously observant Jewish family, in Montreal, Quebec. His father was a clothing manufacturer and his mother was a homemaker. Shatner received a business degree from McGill University in '52, and broke his dad's heart by saying he wanted to be an actor. Dad assumed that Billy would follow him in the clothing trade.

Shatner started out selling tickets and managing a dinner theater; from there he managed to transition into some acting roles. He joined the Montreal Shakespeare company after a bit and landed a role in Henry V. He says that in one show he actually forgot his lines and had to have them whispered from the stage hand. His delivery this night was halting and full of pauses – the critics loved it and thought it was deliberate. Later in Star Trek, the same halting style emerged as he struggled to remember lines – again interpreted by audiences as deliberate drama. It very nearly became his signature style.

Kirk did any acting role he could get. He was on Playhouse 90, Twilight Zone and many other 60’s shows. He played cowboys, psychos, villains and many other roles. He had no particular interest in science fiction or space when he was tapped to play Captain Kirk in Star Trek at age 35. The role was first offered to Lloyd Bridges and Jack Lord but they demanded too much money. Shatner thought the role was too serious, so they decided to lighten up the role for contrast with Spock. Nimoy and Shatner had a tepid relationship at first but grew to be friends later on. Both were Jewish men who could relate to their characters’ treatment as outsiders.

In the 90’s, various cast members wrote bios where they’d say how they “hated Shatner”. Shatner apologizes in his own book for being an egomaniac control freak – didn’t mean to be. In later years, Shatner had much fun reliving his role and interacting with Trekkies. He even wrote a sci-fi series, Tek Wars, that garnered a lot of publicity. To publicize Tek Wars, Shatner did a stint of professional wrestling. Don’t ask how these relate, they really don’t. Shatner’s other career highlights have been TJ Hooker, the Giant Head on 3rd Rock, priceline.com spokesman, and an Emmy-winning role as Denny Crane on Boston Legal.

Shatner has been married 3 times, including a very troubled 2nd marriage to an alcoholic woman who drowned in their backyard pool. He says it was the greatest personal devastation he ever had to deal with. Overall, Shatner is a delight to listen to – he is witty, irreverent and completely spontaneous. He’s abundantly willing to look silly or have fun at his own expense. One must note – his music albums Transformed Man and Has-Been are serious efforts, no laughing allowed. Also, he will not disclose whether he’s wearing a toupee; it’s for the reader to find out.

© 2008 blogSpotter

From D-List to A-List

Kathy and Wozniak -- Picture courtesy of Bravo

by blogSpotter

Who is Kathy Griffin?

Kathy Griffin is the horribly inappropriate, take-no-prisoners, hilarious comedienne from Bravo’s Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List. Last night, I caught a rerun from December 2007 where Kathy was preparing for a Times Square New Years show with Anderson Cooper. She has a small staff of writers, PR people, and a makeup artist that probably should be paid double for what they must endure. She tries out all her new material on them and scolds them for various infractions (not laughing hard enough at her jokes or behaving “unprofessionally” at a prior event). Her elderly Mother is a frequent visitor – Kathy shocks her with suggested jokes about Jesus.

Shock and Awe is Griffin’s weapon system of choice. She was raised Catholic, but scandalized the church at the Emmys by saying that “Jesus can suck it – he had nothing to do with this award”. Viewers the world over were waiting for lightening bolts to strike.

In a subsequent episode, she was dating the plumpish nerd Steve Wozniak, cofounder of Apple. Steve was a good sport about many things and accompanied Griffin to a Producers Award ceremony where she was nominated; she was up against 60 Minutes and Planet Earth. Upon losing to Planet Earth, Kathy booed publicly. On the limo ride back, she made disparaging remarks about Planet Earth, its inspiration planet Earth, and Oprah her nemesis who recommended Planet Earth. I’ve seldom laughed so hard.

On the ride over Wozniak programmed her iPhone to use 3rd party apps, and Kathy looked simultaneously amused and annoyed …like “What kind of nerd IS this guy. I don’t care how much money he has, nobody can be that dweeby!”. At least she didn’t say it outright which is out of the ordinary for her.

Kathy will say and do almost anything for a laugh. I think underneath the salty language and horrifically accurate verbal assaults, there lurks a nice person. She entertained the troops in person in Iraq, and that is no small contribution. Her charm is that she’s very unmoored and says what many of us are thinking. As she picks up momentum, Ms. Griffin is frequently in A-List company – her level of wit and energy demands nothing less.

On another topic -- Deleted Blogs

Way back in 2005 I wrote Blog Writer Edit Thyself. In it, I talked about occasions where I've taken the blue pencil to my own writing. If a blog is off topic, too intimate or shows poor writing quality I'll give it the axe (sometimes after it's already been published a couple of days). I failed to elaborate on a couple of things in Edit Thyself. Here are two more things I have to watch for as a writer...

Deadly factual -- I tell other people not to give me an article which is a simple recitation of facts. If the reader wants bare facts, they can look at Wikipedia or an almanac. The blog article should be shaded with opinion which reveals some the author's own personality. That personality may be quirky in some way but must come out. The article should either entertain or challenge the reader to think about something. It should never just be factual regurgitation. In spite of my saying that, I've delivered blogs that were DOA -- dead on arrival (and dull). In the extreme situations, they were axed. This isn't really a news outlet either; there are op-ed pieces on recent news events, but there should be a strong opinion component mixed in with the news item. The blog article should give us some of the blogger.

Preachy and sanctimonious -- Granted that I have an opinion and would love to sway you my direction, I don't want to finger wag. Neither do I want to come across as judgmental. I'm not your mother and if I should ever find myself on a soap box, somebody needs to push me off. If someone wants moralizing lectures, he can go to Sunday School or spend a week with his parents. I just wrote and deleted Consider the Lilies of the Field, concerning work-life balance. It's a valid topic but one that is better served in a Human Resources brochure, not here. I presumed to criticize the priorities of someone I don't know, thereby compounding preachy with judgmental. So Lilies got the axe too.

It doesn't seem like such a tall order, but grammar and spelling are the least of the blogger's gotchas. I'm my own editor, so I'll periodically have to wield the axe when I get out of line. :-)

© 2008 blogSpotter

Woolf Man

George and Martha go at it -- Picture courtesy of Warner Brothers Pictures

by blogSpotter
I just watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, a ground-breaking 1966 movie, with its frank dialog and sexual suggestiveness. The last time I saw it was probably 30 years ago, and there are many details that I've forgotten. Woolf is a black comedy, centering on the alcohol-fueled, dysfunctional relationship between George, a 40-something history professor and Martha his harpie, angry wife. Both of these people would be recommended to AA or the Betty Ford Clinic nowadays; for the purposes of this movie at least, their nasty invectives flow as freely as the ever-present alcohol. They have an innocent young couple, biology professor Nick and his wife Honey, over for cocktails. The middle aged George and Martha wage verbal war on each other and create collateral damage by drawing Nick and Honey into their bitter battle of wits. I won't give away what all happens, but I do think the movie is hilarious if you can get past some of the sad implications. The movie has inspired many knock-offs -- see if you can catch essentially the same couple on episodes of Will and Grace, American Dad and Seinfeld.

Since the original play came out in 1962, critics have suggested that Edward Albee, an openly gay man, really intended this to be a play about two gay male couples. Part of this comes from the fact that both couples are childless, and the fact of Albee's own admitted sexual orientation. Part of it I fear is an undercurrent of phobic preconceptions that still exist 46 years later. You see, George is an acerbic, witty snipe -- nearly the equal of Martha for vitriolic insults and comebacks. Most people have trouble seeing a straight man in this mode although I've encountered several such men thru the years. The Seinfeld spoof even picked up on this by implying that their "George" character was in a secret love affair with another male novelist.

Elizabeth Taylor nailed the role of Martha, and I've always wondered if the role wasn't pretty close to her real persona. In fact, she and Richard Burton had a pretty rocky relationship thru the years -- George and Martha might be an apt metaphor for the relationship of the actors portraying them. Some people have looked for some kind of symbolic meaning in the protagonists' names -- George and Martha. They happen to be the names of our first President and his wife. I have to say it's a bit of a stretch. The movie was filmed in black and white which seemed edgy at the time; I'd like to see it now in color, to better appreciate four of the industry's finest actors in their prime.

If you happen to catch Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf on the TV schedule some night, make time to watch it. Aside from stimulating discussions about denial and bitchiness, it's damn good cinema.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Fermi Revisited

Enrico Fermi, a man of many thoughts -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I haven't written a blog that was really "out there" for a while, so I thought I'd broach a science topic. This one is a little past mixed with future.

Enrico Fermi was a Nobel Prize winning Italian physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. He was a brilliant quantum theorist; he immigrated to New York in the late 1930's due to the rise of Mussolini and threats against academic freedom. Also his wife was Jewish and they feared for the whole family's safety. In America, he made many great contributions -- Time magazine ranked him as one of the 20 greatest scientists in the 20th century. Tragically, Fermi died at 53 from stomach cancer contracted in experiments with radio active material. One of Fermi's most celebrated contributions is more in the domain of pop culture than hard science. In 1950, Fermi originated "Fermi's Paradox" -- a speculation about other intelligent life in the universe.

FERMI'S PARADOX

Basically it says, "Why aren't they here". Fermi postulates that if intelligent life was a natural, random occurrence anywhere in the universe there surely would've been other planets that preceded us in establishing advanced civilization. These advanced civilizations would surely have developed interstellar space flight; even with current speed/technology limitations it seems we would've seen their spaceships cavorting around us. But we haven't. Why not? Various naysayers have challenged Fermi's assumptions. Maybe they exist in a different "fold" of space-time, maybe they don't look like anything familiar, etc. In spite of others' objections I think Fermi had a point, and I could embellish it with my own speculation.

BLOGSPOTTER'S PARADOX

An advanced civilization (let's say, 1 million years advanced beyond us) would probably not limit itself to interstellar flight. It would probably engage in planetary engineering whereby whole solar systems could be manipulated, even manufactured for the service of intelligent life. We would not only see their space ships flying by, we'd see their artificial, macro-planetary structures through telescopes. Much as putative Martians could infer earth intelligence based on buildings, highways and power lines, we could infer a distant intelligence based on symmetrically aligned planets, non-spheroid objects and other evidence of intelligent tinkering. But ... we don't see any of that. At best, we've seen a couple of planets circling distant stars in what might be a "life belt". But we have no real evidence, no stirrings of life in any of these places.

THEY'RE ALREADY HERE

BlogSpotter will put forth another speculation and this one is really out there. It's more to kick around and abuse than really take as a concrete idea:

The Earth itself is a portal for intelligence (all intelligence) within the universe. Somehow, any creature which achieves a certain level of organization and self-awareness finds itself here. Thus you have creatures that look alien right here among us -- insects in particular. Viruses, bacteria any manner of biotic entities -- end up in Earth's bionosphere. The idea is that planet Earth is somehow a collection point, maybe a sought-after destination for sentient beings. The obstacles of space and time might be overcome by a sci-fi contrivance, maybe a worm hole. I have not a shred of proof for any of this, but it would be the making of a good sci-fi story.

In all seriousness, it looks like Earth is the only planet where life is happening. Maybe it is a gateway, a portal of sorts and we have yet to figure out why. I do think there are other possibilities. Some Fermi critics said, "Maybe you're not looking for the right sign -- your criteria is too limited". There is some merit to that. I can close by saying "Something's afoot" but I have the humility to say I don't know what, how or why. I'm not going to make up a story or concoct a religion to explain any of it, unless there are royalties involved. :-)

© 2008 blogSpotter

Obamanable

Alas poor Yoric, it looks like Obama -- Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
John McCain said yesterday that Obama is where he is because of TV Pundits and Democratic Party elders. I can't help but think he's right -- Obama's success is less due to grass roots efforts than to a media firestorm led by the likes of Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews. Commentators are supposed to maintain objectivity; Matthews and Russert have barely been able to contain their glee at the events as they’ve unfolded.

I can give a brief run-down of things to question about Obama ...

o He prevaricated in Audacity of Hope. The book was fact-checked by a major Chicago news outlet and came up about half true. The book's title was taken from a sermon of Jeremiah Wright -- the minister he has since disowned for political convenience.
o Obama didn't pay his parking fines in college. While very minor, to myself and others it's a reflection of character. The people I know personally who didn't pay fines were arrogant, flaky or dishonest -- sometimes an unappealing combination of all three.
o Tony Rezko, a notorious Chicago contractor implicated in kickbacks has been one of Obamas biggest supporters.
o Jeremiah Wright, Obama's minister of 20 years, has made highly inflammatory anti-American, paranoid statements about HIV, 9/11 and other things.
o Michelle Obama is on record for making statements that are exceedingly cynical and unpatriotic.. "For the first time, I'm proud to be an American".

Beyond all of this, there is something in Obama's demeanor that yells, "Used car salesman!". He's superficially handsome and glib -- somebody that might sell us a bill of goods but that's about it. There are other black statesmen (Jessie Jackson, John Conyers) who have gravitas and experience, minus the smarm, that would serve us far better. There is a painful political correctness that’s set in, where people wanting to make cautionary remarks fear being cast as racists.

2008 is going to be a year where I sit by in slack-jawed amazement as the same electorate that gave us 8 years of the knuckle-dragging Nazi now goes 180 degrees the other direction and gives us a glib fibber. I think maybe Plato and the French Revolutionaries were right -- rank and file people are incapable of making informed, mature judgments about anything. When we start electing our leaders based on GQ style or superficial traits, Democracy is dying. In today’s, DMN, Mark Davis suggests that Hillary put her campaign in neutral for the summer. Come back to Denver and see if the Super Delegates still support Obama after 12 weeks' elapsed time. I'm hoping she does that, because the alternatives to me seem Obamanable.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Sex Returns to the City

The sassy, classy ladies return -- Pictures courtesy of New Line Cinema

by blogSpotter
Before launching into my movie review, I’d like to comment on a couple of other current events. The Democratic National Committee decided this weekend to count only half of the Florida/Michigan delegates much to the dismay of Clinton’s campaign. Clinton is challenging the ruling, and one can only hope that it goes the all the way to Denver. Speaking impartially of course. :-) Scott McClellan’s bombshell book, “What Happened”, is still causing reverberations. I had some sympathy for the man until I found out he may support Obama in 2008. Now the press hounds, talking heads and GOP haunchos will just have to have their way with him.

NBC's Today Show had a segment about SUV's this morning. A young man has tired of paying $80 every 3 days to fill his 2002 Ford Explorer. He tried to sell it, but can only get $3,000 -- half of it $6,000 Blue Book value. He owes $8,500 on the note. To all of of this I have to say, "Duh!" Why weren't Americans concerned all along about the extreme impracticality of these SUV's? They pollute and gobble other resources (steel, glass, plastics) in addition to gobbling oil. The gluttony of both the producers and consumers is meeting with its proper fate. It was "written in the wind" as the prophets of Gaia might say.

SEX (and the city)

I was too cheap to pay for HBO when this TV show was in its original run from 1998 to 2004. However, TBS graced us with back-to-back airings of the entire series (minus the R-rated scenes) in syndication, since 2004. Loosely based on Candace Bushnell’s New York Observer “Sex” column, SITC tells the story of four reasonably liberated career women who are navigating the social mores of the late 90’s. We have Charlotte, the sweet traditionalist, Miranda the cynical lawyer, Samantha the libertine publicist and Carrie the sensitive writer.

In its 6 year run, the show was actually about way more than merely sex – it was about life, career choices, friendship, priorities, aging and many other things. The show was seen as an estrogen-filled hour of female entertainment, but there is actually enough variant material that men could easily find it watchable too. In fact, there were dire predictions that only women would flock to the movie’s Dallas premiere. Wrongo – there were quite a few men (yes, a lot of them gay).

Speaking of the premiere, SITC just came back to us as a movie in 2008. It was a 4-year reunion with all our favorite characters and their boyfriends/husbands. The main plotline is a contrivance – Mr. Big gets cold feet and stands Carrie up at their overly orchestrated wedding ceremony. But overall, the real point is to get all these sassy ladies back in a trendy restaurant, wearing Vogue fashions and cracking wise. Hope I’m not spoiling to much to say that everything works out in the end. The only shocker was a fairly graphic scene of Steve and Miranda having make-up sex.

I saw the movie at the North Park AMC, and it was a boon to every business around. Luna, Kona Grill and TGIF were all having specials on Cosmopolitans and Skye Vodka. Every bistro was overflowing with boozy Carrie wannabe’s, tag-along boyfriends and gay men (maybe fulfilling the role of Sanford). SITC is a cultural touchstone – it says a lot about our evolving social and sexual world. The movie made for a rollicking Friday evening; a good time was had by all, catching up with old friends.

WEEKEND TAKE

SITC earned $55.7 million on its opening weekend -- roughly twice what distributors thought it would earn. To misquote Helen Reddy, "They are women hear them roar!". There is no shortage of chick flicks in Hollywood-land, but SITC probably strikes a note of savvy, stylish superficiality that other chick flicks miss. With this kind of money, Carrie may edge Rambo and Iron Man right out of the picture.

© 2008 blogSpotter