Any TV commercial that makes me laugh out loud simply has to be good, and this one takes the lead– starring one of my all-time favorite fictional comedy characters in a series of such spots. Not to mention, to my satisfaction there’s an automobile involved here of course, while perhaps these new laughs will indeed trigger some sales– we’ll see. Meanwhile, if only I can figure out where to score myself that fantastic suit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_Up3zrKjE
If the question were: “Is ‘Modern Family’ the funniest new show on television?”, then indeed the answer would be a solid yes! (“30 Rock” is no longer, after all.) This might not be the promo’s pressing question, however, but rather a fan’s obvious takeaway. In any case, it seems we’ll be hearing a lot of “yes” this season!
“The Nixon presidency is endlessly fascinating, and his taped conversations, even now, are shocking, revealing and addictive.” (7/31/13)
Two out of three’s not bad, so I contemplated in reaction to these words in The New York Times.
The “new” audio-visual elements are indeed revealing, launching any interested viewer onto a potentially addictive historical journey. Shocking, no. Still, despite its expected and obvious editorial slant coupled with some peculiar musical selections, “Our Nixon” is well worth the watch.
Then, what Ben Stein has to say seems well worth the read. After all, there’s of course more than one viewpoint to consider along the journey, whatever descriptive terms one might employ.
It can’t be me– I wasn’t born after all. While I’ve always assumed the attractive, likable and allegedly self-absorbed Warren Beatty was the honoree, we’ve just been reminded once again that the mystery has never quite been solved. Nonetheless, one of my all-time favorite, now-classic songs is back in the news this week– Jeannie Moos-style to boot– prompting that same old question that Carly Simon has yet to answer after more than 40 years! You probably think this song is about… well, someone worth revealing, don’t you?
He departed suddenly, perhaps in an instantaneous cut to black akin to the presumed demise of his famous character. The actor who delivered us television’s most likable mobster has been taken in a flash. Six years after the last of Tony Soprano, we now say goodbye to James Gandolfini, gone all too quickly.
Actress Jean Stapleton reached her 90th birthday this past January, a fact of which I was aware well before her death last Friday. Check out this helpful source to see if any of your classic favorites are still with us!
A good 99 out of 100 television ads pass me by unnoticed, at least on any day without a Super Bowl. From time to time however comes one that bucks the trend. In this case a head-turning new car model teams up with a tuxedo-clad gentleman and one of my favorite singing voices of all time, altogether grabbing my attention just as intended. After all, anything “classic” wins with me– the nostalgist at heart– even as I remain unlikely to purchase the product at hand. Bottom line: I’m sold– but not– while delighted that the classic is back.
“Really? So THAT’S how it happened?! What a letdown.” At least this was my first line of thought. Moments later my second mental train departed, leaving me reassuring myself: “Oh, ok. Maybe this really was the right way to do it after all. I suppose this season finale does make sense when you think about it.”
And now– dare I say– it makes even more sense to call it quits. While certainly the last person to want to say this, I must be realistic, as too should any true series follower. Larry Hagman is dead, and so now is J.R. Ewing. The villains have been rounded up if not eliminated. Points of peace have been reached, at least among the principal players. And speaking of Principal, Victoria will not be stopping by. J.R. executed his masterpiece while voluntarily extinguishing himself. Ultimately slipping past any killer’s hands, he dictated the manner of his death– and with justifiable reason. While a disappointment this long-in-coming revelation initially seemed, the most fitting sendoff it settled in to be.
After 35 years, it’s time now for “Dallas” to be done, for good. J.R. and all that comes with him have been laid to rest, so it seems. How could it– and why should it– go on? There’s only so much nostalgia to be milked, which could soon wear painfully thin. Unfortunate as it is to have to say, I believe we best lay all the Ewings to rest on this momentary high note.
The much-anticipated cameos came, and respects were properly paid. The scheduled demise of the character appropriately trailed the unscheduled death of the actor. Now comes yet another new chapter of the saga, as the plot of present-day “Dallas” charges full speed ahead in his memory. J.R. Ewing may be as dead and gone as Larry Hagman in body, but even from beyond it appears he’s steering the course for his family. Thankfully his “work” is living on, at least through the remainder of season two! I for one am looking forward to the grand revelation of J.R.’s so-called “masterpiece,” pieces of which any “Dallas” nostalgist might be able to predict.
At least now I know a new member of the family is on the way. Naturally the spot for the 2014 CLA grabbed and held my attention. Otherwise, with nods to a band of mischievous senior citizens, a supremely confident young Audi driver, and the indelible words of the late great Paul Harvey, the entire lot this year struck me as rather lackluster. While Tide did amusingly remind us that “no stain is sacred,” my overall impression remains.
So comes and goes another colorful installment of Super Bowl commercials. I’m left with just about as little to say as last year, with nowhere near as much to applaud as two years ago. This time around the game itself proved the more interesting show, close but not close enough as it turned out for San Francisco!
Who’d have thought two or three decades ago that we’d be watching a brand new episode in January 2013? Then, who’d have thought such an event would be happening after the death of the show’s iconic star and irreplaceable centerpiece?
Season two of “Dallas” is off and running. Of course Larry Hagman passed away last November, midway through production of this second round of new episodes. As such tonight’s premiere is bittersweet. We get to see a severely aging J.R. a few more final times, knowing there’s no negotiation on his departure.
As the latest storylines rapidly spin beyond the point of even remote belief, and as we dare not blink in keeping up with exactly who’s one-upping who among the entire corrupt lot, the biggest question will certainly keep all true “Dallas” fans tuned in over the course of the next few weeks: Just how exactly will J.R. exit?
Blink I did not, as in paying close attention to the series of quick frames during the closing credits, my eye caught precisely what was placed there to be found. Apparently we’ll be seeing some more “old” faces this season. J.R.’s swan song, which began tonight, looks like it will grow into a well-attended event. While I could have waited, now under the circumstsances I can’t wait.
His Latest Entrance Before His Final Exit
From the smiling reminder that standard schtick works– thanks to Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig– to the sobering reminder that we all are aging– thanks to Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger– to the intellectual reminder that a well-written speech always wins– thanks to Jodie Foster– the 70th Annual Golden Globes certainly presented us with a series of memorable moments. Most of all perhaps, we’re reminded that the fabulously never-lagging duo of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler can be upstaged– if only for a moment– by one, and only one, figure bigger than the two of them combined, otherwise known as “Hillary Clinton’s husband.”
A Surprise Appearance
Hosts Who Never Fail
There’s a big difference between involvement and commitment, and J.R. Ewing once spelled it out. “Like ham and eggs. The chicken who laid the egg is involved, but the pig the ham came from is committed.”
And now, the eldest Ewing brother has died. I learned this late last night. Upon awaking this morning, unlike for Pam with Bobby, I realized to my dismay that what has just occurred is not a dream.
How fitting that Larry Hagman passed yesterday not only in the city of Dallas, but during a time of reprising his legendary character so many people know and even more of us love. In the final year of his life he had the rare yet celebrated privilege of resurrecting his iconic TV role, that which secured his unmatched place in the world while leaving diehard fans yearning for more of their favorite mischievous-yet-endearing schemer.
In 2012 he was back. Now in the same year he’s left us. This ironic timing seems the most comforting and appropriate way for him to make his long-in-coming exit. Hagman died on Friday, November 23, much to our collective sadness, taking with him of course the one and only J.R. Ewing.
When he lived to see his 80th birthday in September 2011, I was delighted. In fact I breathed a sigh of congratulatory relief, mindful that his serious health challenges over the years rendered this milestone quite a feat. Then when the new “Dallas” finally premiered last summer, seeing Larry Hagman as J.R. Ewing once again after so many years was no less than amazing. Who’d have predicted that a longtime smoker and hard drinker a few breaths from death upon his 1995 liver transplant would live to reprise his infamous role in 2012?
Of course Larry Hagman had aged, almost sadly so. While his tongue continued to lash out those fantastic “J.R.-isms” in this year’s “Dallas” episodes, his body clearly was not keeping pace with his revered wit. Though trying not to admit it, I had a sneaking suspicion he was not long for this world. Like all his fans, I was thankful he had made it this far and managed not just the involvement, but commitment, to give it another go.
And one more round– the now-certain last round– is yet to come. Again, Larry Hagman died in Dallas while bringing J.R. back to season two of the new “Dallas” series. Exactly how prepared for his death the writers and producers of the show were– and just how smoothly and acceptably J.R. will make his final exit— remains to be seen once the series returns in January. Perhaps an appropriate contingency plan was already in place. Maybe J.R.– and Larry– thought ahead to this inevitable moment. After all, while I’m far from the only fan to mourn his death, I certainly can’t be the only one unsurprised.
No doubt he will be missed terribly while remembered wonderfully. Personally, I will always cherish my good fortune of meeting Mr. Hagman professionally in 2003. No other individual figure holds a candle to him, decorated bon vivant that he was, realistically and fictitiously speaking. Likely no one ever will.
More than involved, Hagman remained committed to his work, his role and his unsurpassed persona, leaving us a timeless gift under his mantra, “Vita Celebratio Est.” For this we celebrate one great life. After all, like J.R.’s daddy used to say: “Where there’s a way, there’s a will.” Larry Hagman found and mastered both.
My first question came to mind before the film began to roll. Why, I asked, weren’t at least some if not all the actors from the first installment brought back to their roles for round two? The answer, or a portion of it, seems to have already been presented. Still, the business behind the making of a film certainly does not make the big screen’s overall continuity– or clearly lack thereof– any easier to swallow.
As always, my watching of the movie and the subsequent composing of my thoughts on it came before I endeavored to read any reviews. Now that the time has come to explore what others have to say, I myself have to say I’ve reached some points of agreement with the critics on Atlas Shrugged Part II.
It took me a while to get past the new cast, as I spent a good half of the movie comparing the current actors to those who played the same roles in Part I. My conclusion, alongside one unflattering review I’ve now read: Some were stronger this time around, most notably in my opinion Hank Rearden. Others plainly were not, foremost Hank’s wife Lillian, to borrow the words, “beamed in from a third-rate soap opera.” Francisco: Better. James: A draw. Dagny: Worse, amid more words written for me, even within a positive preview: “She certainly acts well… but she lacks the glamor and beauty of her predecessor in the role.” And it goes on.
Atlas Shrugged Part I, released 18 months ago, took place in 2016 and 2017, as indicated with date stamps throughout. Why then, I next asked myself, is no year attached to the days and months of Part II? For continuity’s sake, why not stay on the same stated time path? Continuity– again– does not carry Part I into Part II, disappointingly enough, drastic crew changes and production enhancements notwithstanding.
The storyline is reasonably clear; I followed the plot even more closely this time, if not for production value because I now feel I have an even deeper understanding of Ayn Rand’s complex and multi-layered story than I had upon seeing Part I. Still, not all moments are easily believable; in fact many remain a downright overstretch of the imagination. While a few intense and mind-triggering scenes boost the overall flow, too much of the acting comes off as shallow, rushed and unconvincing. The energy and cadence of the film remain high, as various punch lines either affirm or rattle our personal philosophies. And of course there’s Hank, powerful to a far yet unfortunate point. And it goes on.
Too many questions might force you to simply suspend belief in order to enjoy the story while processing its content. Why is most of the population of our country inexplicably absent? In this not-far-off doomsday fantasy-tempt-reality, is the majority simply at home and out of sight? How could the executive and legislative branches of government actually work together enough to pass such drastic and objectionable new laws? Have all the brilliant minds really disappeared, leaving but one to try to crack the code of what could be “the engine of the world?” Perhaps this is not the fault of any director, but rather that of the author herself. And it goes on.
For the viewpoints that surely spark controversy and incite argument, and despite the range of appreciation, shall we say, for the philosophy of Ayn Rand, this movie clearly invites you to think for yourself, amid alternating doses of reality and fantasy. Altogether, Atlas Shrugged Part II is securely worth the watch, even if– as proclaimed by the director himself– not for everyone. Read some more reviews first if you feel you must; there are plenty out there. Just take the good with the bad as I have, as you reach your own points of agreement and disagreement, ideally without prejudice, but with– dare I say it– a shrug or two of your own.
And it goes on. We’ve just begun to finally see who he is. Part III is yet to come.
Following my initial review, I watched and waited. And I was surprised and satisfied. The 2012 “Dallas” season finale seized nostalgia and hit it out of the park, at least for those of us who might see what’s really happening.
The heated exchanges between Bobby and J.R. took us back, while the sight of alcohol before Sue Ellen’s eyes triggered memories. We were even treated to but one extended scene with a very aged Lucy. Still, the final “surprise” twist of the season trumped it all, which for true “Dallas” fans should be no surprise whatsoever.
It’s all in the name, and this name is Rebecca. The coincidence sat in my mind throughout the season, as the name of actress Julie Gonzalo’s character did not go entirely unnoticed. As it turns out of course, there was never any coincidence at all. If this sort of gasp followed by thought followed by understanding is what producers of the TNT series intended, then I’m here to say they did one hell of an excellent job.
For those of you in need of a quick refresher: Rebecca was the name of Pam and Cliff Barnes’ mother; she died in a plane crash in 1983. In 1984 Cliff’s girlfriend Afton gave him the heave-ho and left town, returning in 1989 with a young “secret” daughter revealed to be Cliff’s. In the 1996 “Dallas” reunion movie, Cliff and Afton were reunited, and at this time Cliff finally met his now teenage daughter (her age accelerated just a bit), named Pamela Rebecca after her aunt and her grandmother. Are you still with me?
Sixteen years later, a character appears on the new “Dallas” series, named Rebecca. Low and behold, the season ends with the revelation this Rebecca is, yes, Cliff’s daughter. So again, if we think it out, there’s no coincidence and no surprise. The nostalgia by now is spinning out of control!
Naturally it gets more complicated, leading me to wonder what we the viewers are supposed to remember, and what the new show’s producers might want us to conveniently forget. Take that 1996 movie for one: Then-teen Christopher spent significant time with then-teen Rebecca, all the way to knowing that his uncle Cliff is her father, making her his cousin. And if he knew this in 1996, he would know it in 2012. So why would he marry his cousin? Or does Cliff have more than one daughter, if not more than one named Rebecca? Or is Gonzalo’s character merely impersonating someone named Rebecca, as was suggested in this season finale? Or are we supposed to forget the 1996 movie ever happened? Have I lost you?
If this all seems hard to follow, rest assured: The newest “Dallas” plots have been very hard for even me to follow. With layer upon layer of deceit and manipulation packed into a mere ten-episode story arc, there’s been no moment throughout the new series to blink without missing something. Unlike the old days of the 30-episode season with plenty of time for character and plot development, now everything happens fast. Then it gets either resolved or advanced even more quickly.
Storylines get rushed, various performances prove unconvincing, and the overall flow leaves something to be desired. This is the essence of “Dallas” in 2012. At the same time, as with any new ensemble the actors thankfully grew into their roles throughout this first season, while the overall energy ramped up as I grew a little– just a little– more comfortable with the overlapping complexities coming at us.
All the while we’re hooked by that damn nostalgia proving itself the driving force. From Miss Ellie’s gravestone to the former Ewing Oil offices, from John Ross mastering the ways of his father to a 63-year-old Bobby on his near-death bed (as opposed to a 36-year-old Bobby on his complete-death bed), we the viewers have been generously peppered for a second season of modern-day Ewing shenanigans, come January 2013. Perhaps Afton will appear to deliver us some answers, Rebecca’s mother after all. Among all else I can’t wait to hear how Cliff transformed from a cheap skate eating Chinese takeout in his average condo, into a high roller flying around on his own jet with a team to dispose of a body at a moment’s notice.
May the nostalgia continue, again for those of us who really know ‘Dallas” history and can manage to keep up. If you can’t, then why watch? At the end of the day, this series really is for us, the longtime all-knowing fans. And now we have the name “Rebecca” to lead the way into the next exciting chapter.
The focus… is on a younger generation, and the stories of the younger Ewings aren’t as captivating initially as catching up with J.R. and Bobby.” (Porter, zap2it.com)
It’s like The CW has moved into Southfork, and while they look good, they haven’t quite mastered what it means to be Ewings.” (Yeoman, screenrant.com)
“The new Dallas isn’t perfect – it certainly takes a little while to find its feet and not everything clicks straight away.” (Jeffrey, digitalspy.com)
“We could easily have before us any cheesy, unrealistic, poorly acted show made up of yet another generic collection of attractive-yet-dull, scheming-yet-scattered 30-something amateurs.” (yours truly)
My sentiments seem to fit right in among various others. As a lifelong follower of all-things-Ewing, I’ve both anticipated and questioned the premiere of this new TNT series for quite some time. And naturally I have a few things to say about it thus far, now three episodes in with episode four airing tonight.
I’ll of course be watching, and waiting– that is, waiting to see how my initial impressions develop and my overall outlook evolves. Answers to my questions would be helpful, but then non-answers keep us tuned in, right?
Watch the new “Dallas” for yourself and form your own opinion, either before or after reading my first review.
As speculation became anticipation over the course of several months– if not years– the big day is now just weeks away. Ole J.R. is on his way!
Were you “outraged” by any comments, jokes or insults floating around in the media universe yesterday? I most certainly hope you were not. If however you were, then you missed the “National Day of No Outrage,” brought to us by comedian Bill Maher via his op-ed last week.
“Let’s have an amnesty– from the left and the right– on every made-up, fake, totally insincere, playacted hurt, insult, slight and affront. Let’s make this Sunday the National Day of No Outrage. One day a year when you will not find some tiny thing someone did or said and pretend you can barely continue functioning until they apologize.” (Bill Maher, The New York Times, March 21, 2012)
Thank you, Mr. Maher. I could not agree with you more, except to take the practice a step or two further by instituting the same kind of national week, then even a national month, and so on and so forth until all “outrage” has been purged from everyone’s bodies! Then maybe– just maybe– personalities can freely say what they will, offend a few viewers or listeners along the way– which is par for the course– and wake up to see another day without a big chunk of everyone’s time wasted on yet another silly, forced apology. After all, with another nod to Maher’s reasoning, who wants to live in a society where nothing ever offends anyone? How utterly boring! And remember, there’s a big difference between being “offended” and being “outraged.” Think about this.
Until this time comes, at least we have Maher’s second piece of solid, sound and refreshingly simple advice to practice daily while learning to coexist:
“If you see or hear something you don’t like in the media, just go on with your life. Turn the page or flip the dial or pick up your roll of quarters and leave the booth.”
And that’s our coexisting opinion!
In the spirit of that famous TV theme line “girls were girls and men were men,” I’m thinking now of a time ever so long ago when “5’s were 5’s and 3’s were 3’s.”
Take 1987, during my just-beginning-to-learn-to-drive heyday of knowing my car models while imagining the one I wanted to have. The clear difference between BMW’s 3 Series and 5 Series could be spotted a mile away.
1987 BMW 3 Series
1987 BMW 5 Series
I’m afraid the same cannot be said in 2012, not even from a few feet away, let alone a mile. Upon my first glance of the “all-new” sixth generation 3 Series, I really did think I was looking at a 5. Only upon my surprise of seeing the trunk lid badge was I corrected.
2012 BMW 3 Series
2012 BMW 5 Series
Can you see an immediate difference? Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I wish we could still easily distinguish between a manufacturer’s major models. Unfortunately, as I’ve lamented before, everything looks the same. And here– modern-day technology notwithstanding– is yet another example.
And so the theme song finishes, as I too sing: “Those were the days!”
All the current hubbub over conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh and his inflammatory words concerns me, not so much over what he said about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke– which was indeed a stretch– but more so for the resulting behavior of his critics, the media and even the public at large.
Granted, Rush was out there on one of his typical audience-feeding rants, being his usual shocking, outlandish, offensive self, while perhaps using a less-than-accurate choice of words to describe Fluke. After all, maybe her sex life is monogamous, and who’s to know if she charges? Rush knew not what he was saying, as if this particular instance were unusual.
But guess what: That’s Rush. He’s a “media entertainer” of his own brand, catering to his distinct and loyal audience, shocking, outlandish, offensive– and in this case inappropriate– as he may be. None of these traits is illegal. I’ve listened to his program on occasion, and while a time or two I’ve grabbed onto a thread of his logic with which to agree, more often than not I’ve found him to be, for lack of a better term, crazy, his train heading straight for derailment. Not once, however, have I wished to see him stricken from the airwaves, nor in any way edited or silenced. If I tire of him, or find his topic du jour too unpalatable, I’ll change the station. Rush is who he is, and he has every right to be so, apology or not. What concerns me is how so many people believe otherwise. Why is this?
Enter Kirsten Powers. She just might be onto something with her take on the situation, as I find her talk of a partisan-based double standard worthy of some serious contemplation by all.
While all this is going on, I learned while in Los Angeles last week that the often-insensitive though widely popular “John & Ken” had been suspended from the air for speaking callously— if not accurately God forbid– of the late Whitney Houston. A situation unrelated to that of Rush, it stands in the same camp, that of punishing often-intentionally offensive media personalities for speaking their unedited minds. John & Ken, like Rush, enjoy a dedicated following of fans unlikely to be offended by anything they have to say. The irony here– and with Rush– is that all the uproar, protest, boycotts and calls for their heads come from those who wouldn’t want to listen to them anyway! Still, Rush pays the price, just as John & Ken do.
My concern remains. Silencing voices deemed too inappropriate, while calling for the type of “civil discourse” that some might say turns us into milquetoasts, not only undercuts media diversity, broadcast entertainment, range of thought and free speech, but more than all this furthers that slippery slope of punishing anything “offensive” or outside of the so-called mainstream. Insensitive speech, in whatever crude though legal form it might present itself, should not be shunned, but rather welcomed and used to further that much-desired discourse. If not this, then perhaps it can just be laughed at, shrugged off, and not taken so damn seriously!
Isn’t freedom of expression, offensive or not, what this country is all about?
Nothing stuck in my mind. Upon awaking this morning, I had to remind myself of what we had seen. Aside from the typical cuteness and expected creativity, on the whole I was underwhelmed. Unlike last year, when my favorite spots so entertained me that I watched them over and over again, the entire lot this time around just seemed rather dull, lacking those certain anticipated degrees of energy, attitude and pizzazz.
If for some odd reason you missed this year’s Super Bowl commercials– or if you want to see a certain one again– most are right here for your viewing pleasure.
Of course there were some clear standout moments, such as the reappearance this year– after last year’s absence– of the always flawless Betty White, following an only mildly amusing cameo by the sometimes funny Elton John. Then, history always wins in my book, with nods to Budweiser’s Prohibition spot, the NFL’s safety technology timeline, and even a “mature” Ferris Bueller! Altogether, out of the generally forgettable bunch overall, a car ad emerges as my favorite unsurprisingly enough, and not Clint Eastwood’s.
Audi was back, but not nearly as powerfully as last year. In the end, I’m left asking in disappointment: Where was Mercedes-Benz this time around? I guess I’ll watch last year’s MBZ Super Bowl spot one more time. After all, the Super Bowl commercials of a year ago are far more memorable than yesterday’s.
We knew she’d make it! Not only is she very much here to celebrate this remarkable occasion, but it’s quite obvious she’s smoothly sailing right past her momentous milestone with plenty of energy for life ahead.
And of course we knew there would be a big party, televised for all of us to enjoy, a modern-day version of her classic Dean Martin dinner roast. She undoubtedly deserves this honor, while her fans– including myself– love her for all she’s become as the most “golden girl” of all, the reigning senior queen of comedy.
May any of us who live to see this day for ourselves be as sexy, good-humored and sharp-witted as she. January 17 is the very day for us to say, as she sails on into yet another new decade:
Happy 90th Birthday, Betty White!
“With ratings not taking off, the show’s future is hitting some turbulence.”
The clever line quickly captured my attention during a news broadcast this morning. Suffice to say, I’m not all that surprised to now be hearing the current buzz surrounding the possible cancellation of ABC’s first-season prime-time show “Pan Am.”
Many of us appreciate historical period pieces, for the nostalgia factor certainly if anything else. In this case, an over-glamorized portrayal of air travel its 1960s heyday often captures the fascination of viewers born after, while likely churning a multitude of memories for those who lived through it. However, the initial question I had at the show’s premiere remains: Can this catchy program really build and sustain season-long story arcs, or will the show’s structure quickly reach its limits?
In any event, “Pan Am” is not cancelled, yet. Meanwhile, the power of social media could yet determine its fate, while I know fans who would be sorry to see it go. If the show does “crash” however, I’m sure the network has a few other threads of nostalgia it could pull to gain our viewership. Television is nothing if not turbulent!
It’s almost the view from my home, with one not-so-slight addition. (Scroll down a bit to “View of The Year” for comparison.) Unthinkable as such a skyline happens to be for this city in real life, this somewhat-famous image of San Francisco stands as one of my favorite! If only it were more than imaginary.
The film of course remains a classic in itself, one I happily watched again this past weekend. For an interesting and scenic dose of recent San Francisco history, both real and imagined, I do indeed recommend it!
Certain questions will forever remain unanswered. No time-leaping cinematic journey through the complex life of one of America’s most powerful yet complicated figures of history will ever put all the pieces together. We’re left to wonder, as perhaps well we should for the sake of ongoing argument and analysis. While this latest depiction surely rests incomplete in its overall life coverage– most do after all– the retelling of such infamous though calculatedly unproven historical details has made its way onto the big screen in a film very well worth your time and consideration. Simply put, go see J. Edgar.
Some unrealistic makeup notwithstanding, Leonardo DiCaprio pulls off a solidly believable portrayal of the enigmatic bulldog who for almost a half-century ran the department that grew to become during his reign the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While Director Clint Eastwood necessarily ignores many significant years and events, the history he does choose to cover maintains focus on the man of mystery who shaped and influenced– by means both good and not so good– federal law enforcement in this country.
Reality and Portrayal
There is no other J. Edgar Hoover. We already knew this. Still, as with so many high-ranking government officials, the daily struggle ensues between the personal and the public man. In Hoover’s case this may very well have been more than the average struggle, as Eastwood’s film steadily examines, and which no doubt draws us to the ticket window. Perhaps even more than his personal files for blackmail comes the unresolved fascination with Hoover’s sexuality. While the film unambiguously delves into this subject, it does so with a surprising amount of respect and restraint. In other words, the recipe is light on sexual behavior, heavy on conflicted emotional intimacy, all intertwined with another day on the job. His relationships are strong yet difficult, with his mother, with his colleagues, and certainly with the man he “needed.” This we see and see well.
Critics will call J. Edgar a disappointment– and they have— but as usual I believe in coming to my own conclusion. So should you. From unconvincing cameo portrayals of RFK and Nixon, to poignant moments with Clyde Tolson, to telling scenes with Hoover’s mother and the loyal presence of “Miss Gandy” throughout, all peppered with historical tragedy and even some splashes of Hoover-style wit and humor, this film demands our attention from start to finish. In the end, we’re left with that sense of wonder. If only Miss Gandy hadn’t been so faithful as to destroy all those personal files, I say! But of course, she did. Thanks to her, we’ll never know. Thanks to Clint Eastwood, we know a little more.
He made it! J.R. Ewing has hit his latest milestone, as Larry 
Hagman today turns 80 years old.
Now 16 years since Hagman’s well-publicized liver transplant, and 31 years after his character Ewing’s world-famous (though of course fictitious) gunshot wounds, the TV icon enters his new decade in the midst of reprising his infamous role. That is, a new version of “Dallas” is coming our way in 2012, as Hagman celebrates a big day he once thought he’d never see. I’m certainly thrilled that he is indeed here for it.
The eldest Ewing brother lives, in more ways than one. Happy 80th J.R.!
It’s been a while since I’ve mentioned her in writing. Still, she’s never far from my mind, as her music dominates my iTunes playlist. She is– and has been for years– my single favorite songwriter and musical performer of all time. As I’ve often said and still believe, she’s wonderful therapy– much less expensive that you’ll pay by the hour no doubt!
As such, I’m always delighted to read about Mary Chapin Carpenter in the news. Such coverage assures me she’s active, performing, and hopefully hard at work on her next album. I simply wish the East Coast “Hometown Girl” would pay a visit to California once in a while. In the meantime, her “intellectually powerful” music lives on!
The infamous dining room served as a nucleus of the show for five years, loudly so.
I’m sorry to see them go. At the same time, I’m not all that surprised. As storylines grew increasingly silly and often confused, key cast members dropped off while others appeared inconsistently. For the past year it’s been clear to both me and many others that the show was on the decline. How many more deep-seated family secrets could possibly be revealed? And how many more times could one’s paternity be questioned? By the season-ending episode one week ago, it seemed all the clearer that the Walkers have run their course.
Now it’s official. ABC announced last Friday the cancellation of “Brothers & Sisters” after a five-year run. Granted, various plots of late seemed rushed and certainly eye-roll inducing. The unpredictable appearance of various family members often proved disappointing. And the ongoing scattering of scandals, conflicts, revelations and “big” decisions, typically yielding a collection of “horrified” facial expressions, were growing tiresome.
Still, I would like to have seen where the Walkers went next, as this last season did turn out at least a few stronger moments. However, perhaps herein lies the problem: There may very well be no where more for them to go, at least not without further redundancy and ridiculousness. Five seasons and more than 100 episodes is an impressive run in television these days, while some famous programs in history have no doubt stayed around TOO long. This said, perhaps it’s better we’re saying farewell to the Walker clan before they’re completely ignored and forgotten.
Farewell, Walkers. For better or worse, you clearly brought a unique and distinct style to prime-time television that will be missed.
And that’s my faithful-viewer opinion.
Ryan R. Sanderson 