Five Slices of Happiness

Parting shots (or, is it, thoughts) for 2011...

Deadman: The spirit of murdered circus aerialist Boston Brand, also known as Deadman, has been knocking around the DC Universe for over 40 years. Though he's long since found his killer, Brand is still called upon to place a finger on the scales of justice by the mysterious cosmic entity Rama Kushna. Though he's typically been presented as more of a supporting character, the past year has been something of a renaissance for him. I didn't really enjoy the series Brightest Day, in which he played a major role, but his storyline in the new anthology series DC Universe Presents (part of the "new 52") is very compelling. Also, DC has started reprinting the characters early stories in trade paperback this year, and a second volume is coming out early in 2012.

Hugo: I've heard some people say that Martin Scorsese made a lot more of the film history elements of the story than were originally in the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret. Not having read the book yet, I can't say, but even if that's the case it seems like it's as it should be. Emphasizing certain aspects over others is often an essential part of making a good adaptation (as opposed to transcription) of a story from one medium to another, and it's hard to argue with the results. Under Scorsese's direction, Hugo works not just as an adventure story and window into another world but also a beautiful love letter to the director's preeminent passion.



The Ladykiller (by Cee Lo Green): I was a few months late to this party, as the album came out in 2010. Maybe I didn't think there was more to it than "F--- You", but whatever my reason was I was wrong. This was the best soul record I've heard in a long while. Putting this on shuffle with my Philly Soul collection and Al Green's album Let's Stay Together us a recipe for musical happiness.

Operation Mincemeat (by Ben Macintyre): The story behind Britain's unusual World War Two plot (aka "the man who never was") to deliver faked secret documents into the hands of German leaders prior to the allied invasion of Sicily using a corpse as the courier has as many plot twists and colorful characters as a Dickens novel. The fact that it all really happened is further proof of the old saying about truth being stranger than fiction.


Thor: This was a good year for comic-book heroes jumping into the movies, even if some of the results were mixed. Green Lantern has always been a favorite of mine, but the film version was a bit lacking in some areas. Thor, on the other hand, was satisfying not just as an adaptation of the comics but also as a story in its own right. Kenneth Branagh got strong performances out of the whole cast and managed to hit the right balance between quiet character-focused moments and rousing spectacle. By the bittersweet ending, I was ready for the next chapter. It's a shame Branagh won't be directing Thor's next solo story, but I have faith that next year's film version of The Avengers won't disappoint thanks to Joss Whedon.

In Praise of Sir Bob

Earlier today, I saw a "news" story which purported to be about a group of African musicians who decided to record a response to the charity song "Do They Know It's Christmas?" by Band-Aid. The African musicians apparently said they hoped that their somewhat belated response to the 1984 single, entitled "Yes We Do", would free up Band-Aid's leading figure Bob Geldof to concentrate on a variety of more current concerns such as the following...

“Like Do they know about climate change in America? Or did Kim Jong-il have time to write down the abort codes for the nukes before he died? Or perhaps he can revert to the time-honoured classic – ‘Tell me why I don’t like Mondays.”

While the item was most likely a joke, it ties into an ongoing - and rather under-informed - strain of discussion about the song and the relief efforts related to it. While I personally like "Do They Know It's Christmas?" and see it as a continuing reminder of how fortunate we are in America and Europe, I appreciate why some people don't like it. What I don't like, however, are cheap shots which try to portray Geldof as some kind of clueless dilettante who did the song to soothe his conscience and walked away. To put it mildly, that view betrays a remarkable ignorance of the facts.

More than 25 years after the Live-Aid concert, the Band-Aid Trust continues to do significant relief work in Africa. More to the point, Geldof always recognized that the money generated by the song was no more than a "band-aid" on a larger problem and thus has taken the time to understand the impact of broader issues like debt-relief on the prospects for long-term prosperity and self-sufficiency among African nations. In recent years, Geldof has been among the most vocal non-politicians lobbying world governments to address these problems.

Some might observe here that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Others may prefer to comment on the relative merits of walking the walk as opposed to merely talking the talk. Either way, most individuals have a ways to go before they can say they've done as much as Geldof has to help people in Africa.

When Moore Is Less

A few weeks ago, Michael Moore made a speaking appearance at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor across the street from what used to be Borders' flagship store, aka Store #001 for old Borders folk. As anyone who's seen Moore's film The Big One knows, Moore has a complicated history with Borders and that certainly came through in his remarks.

I wish I could say I was surprised that Moore trotted out the same old nonsense about how Borders sought to "eliminate the independent bookstore." That canard was tired back in the mid-90s when I worked for Borders and hasn't improved with age. At its peak, Borders sought to be the best bookstore in America in terms of selection and service. If that service involved calling the local bookstore down the street to see if they had what a customer wanted, that was part of the deal.

Like many people, Moore confuses coincidence and correlation. In Moore's view, the fact that independent book and music stores went out of business in markets where Borders opened automatically means that Borders somehow willed their demise.

This reductive view ignores that in many places those stores thrived and sometimes even expanded - at least until the rise of Amazon (but that's another store). More significantly, it fails to recognize that the stores that succeeded did so because they evolved to meet their customers' needs, while those that didn't do so are the ones that failed. This should be totally obvious, even to someone with an agenda like Moore, because it's ultimately the same principle that defined Borders' collapse.

I've enjoyed some of Moore's films and agree with him on many things. As a filmmaker and social commentator, though, he's a one-trick pony, foregoing any attempt at a nuanced debate in favor of bludgeoning. Unfortunately, that particular trick isn't getting any better with age.

Godwin's Law Revisited

Let it never be said that the views of the Republican party don't evolve. Judging by recent comments from Florida Congressman Allen West, the GOP has realized that it's wrong to compare their political opponents to Adolf Hitler. Certainly, the fact that West still compared democrats to Nazis (and not just any Nazi, Joseph Goebbels no less) shows that "the party of Lincoln" still has a way to go, but we should applaud their effort and use this as a teaching moment. Remember, regardless of your political affiliation, the only people you should compare to Adolf Hitler are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. It's the same principle that dictates that the only artists who've proved remotely worthy of being labeled the "new Dylan" are Elvis Costello and Bruce Springsteen. Comparison can be a useful tool for making sense of the world around us, but in the wrong hands things can get ugly.

So It Goes

It always amuses me when a book or other media event that's supposed to be revelatory turns out to be completely unsurprising. This is the case with the new biography of Kurt Vonnegut So It Goes. I'm simply puzzled by the way numerous reviewers seem to be treating writer Charles J. Shields' account of some darker corners of Vonnegut's life as if it will somehow redefine the world's opinion of the man and his work.

This is just ridiculous, because no one who's actually read one of Vonnegut's novels should be shocked by the idea that the author wasn't a particularly nice person. That he passionately expressed deeply humanistic values in his work is beside the point. He may have hoped for the best, but this was a man who had directly experienced some of the worst history had to offer. Taken in context, the only shocking thing is that he had enough faith in humanity, however compromised it was, to even care about such things.

In any case, whether the stories in this new book are true or not (at least some of them are in dispute), it doesn't change one word of the books that made the author famous. With that in mind, my general reaction to the discussion surrounding this book is that it calls to mind one of Vonnegut's most famous quotes. In the introduction to Mother Night, while discussing the moral of the story, Vonnegut writes, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." So it goes.

A Very Special Christmas

In general, I enjoy the Christmas specials that work their way into TV schedules between Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve. Even though some of them display attitudes that are a bit outdated, for the most part their charm shines through. There is, however, one very odious exception - Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer.

Some would have you believe that Rudolph is a story of outsiders triumphing over adversity. They would be missing the point. The heroes of Rudolph, both the titular character and his orthodontia-obsessed friend, don't triumph so much as they find themselves grudgingly accepted once the majority realizes that they can benefit from them in some way.

Most of the characters in the program are disparaging of Rudolph and his nose, but the majority of my contempt is reserved for Santa. Rather than being accepting of Rudolph's difference, Saint Nick is so focused on notions of conformity and racial purity that he more or less encourages others to make fun of Rudolph driving him away into the harsh wilderness. Despite all that the young reindeer goes through, Santa only accepts him into his inner circle when he realizes that Rudolph's mutation can be exploited to his advantage. For this reason, not to mention a generally weak repertoire of songs, Rudolph is the one Christmas special for which I make no effort to hide my disgust for the way it emphasizes all the wrong values.

Star Wars: The Hidden History (Episode +/-BBY)

Let me preface this by saying that it's hard to refute the idea that anyone who writes and directs something like the Star Wars movie Attack of the Clones deserves all the flak they get. That said, there is something off-putting about the way over-zealous Star Wars fans, stinging from a perceived betrayal on the part of George Lucas, seem intent on denying him any credit for the parts of the film series that are almost universally enjoyed.A recent piece from Cracked.com about pop culture visionaries who get too much credit is just one fairly public example. This is especially pronounced when it comes to The Empire Strikes Back, where everyone tries to present the film as being good in spite of Lucas rather than because of anything he did. What makes this so comical (and asinine, really) is that the two elements that people most often cite are absolutely down to Lucas.

The first thing people point to is the screenplay, without a doubt the best script of of all the films, where all credit is given to Lawrence Kasdan. Kasdan wrote some of the best screenplays of the 1980s, but he wasn't the only person with a hand in that script. The first draft was written by Hollywood veteran Leigh Brackett, and though it's unclear just how much of her work is reflected in the final version, she shares credit with Kasdan. And though Lucas does not receive screenplay credit, it's documented that he was involved in writing at least some of the drafts and, as the story credit indicates, the credited script-writers were working from his framework.

The other one is the directing. The late Irvin Kershner was one of Lucas' professors at film school and had a good reputation for working with actors. That point is key to why Lucas hired him for what he clearly intended to be a more character-driven chapter in the saga. When people talk about the performances in Empire being much better than they would have been had Lucas been directing, they're somewhat missing the point. The performances were better because Lucas hired the right man for the job and let them do that job.

There's no question that the prequel trilogy was a disappointment or that much of that disappointment derives from Lucas decision to write and direct those movies himself rather than work with collaborators of the quality he had on the earlier trilogy. What doesn't hold up to scrutiny, though, is the idea that the failings of the more recent productions somehow invalidate the quality of Lucas contributions to the earlier ones. There's lots worth criticizing, but there's no need to make things up because you feel that Lucas' later work somehow tainted your childhood.

Raising Cain

I agree with Herman Cain. Talking about a politician's sex life is a distraction from discussions of the serious issues Americans are facing. How that pertains to Cain, however, is a mixed bag. Even measured against the low standards of discourse among the GOP presidential field, it was unclear that he had much to contribute to that discussion, with or without distractions, on either international or domestic issues. The other key point, to which Cain himself seems oblivious, is that he could have avoided these distractions if he'd been a bit more careful about what he was doing with certain parts of his anatomy (or asked to have done as the case may be). In short, he has no one to blame but himself.

Authority Always Wins

It doesn't matter how good your spam filtering is, there's always going to be some bit of nonsense that slips through to your inbox. A case in point can be found below, reprinted exactly as written.

===>
As I perused the FM radio dial this morning, my ears were assaulted by an attack on the social order masquerading as popular song. This puerile screed perpetrated by an unkempt ruffian who I believe to be called John Lion or some such nonsense bemoaned the fact that his efforts to fight authority ended in failure. I vaguely recall the song from decades ago, though, neither the song nor its misguided message have aged particularly well. Though this "song" is as unworthy of serious analysis as it is to be played on publicly owned airwaves, I will pose one simple question. Has the singer, who I gather also has the dubious distinction of having written this trash, ever considered that the reason "authority always wins" is because he's clearly some sort of filthy hippie draining America's life-blood with each feeble attempt at social commentary? I rather doubt that his sort is capable of that sort of insight, which is clearly the purview of the unjustly maligned 1%. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some insider trading to arrange.

Bat$hit Crazy

Michele Bachmann may have slipped from the top tier of Republican Presidential candidates, but there's no doubt she serves a valuable purpose. More so than any lower tier candidate, she makes the people polling ahead of her seem coherent and sane (dare I say it, presidential) in comparison. Her issues with factual accuracy are pretty well documented, and more recently she's raised her game with her latest comments about gay marriage while campaigning in Iowa.

Upon first reading that Bachmann told the president of an Iowa high-school's Gay-Straight Alliance organization that gay people can get married, I assumed that her train of thought had simply derailed again. Reading the report of the event by the Des Moines Register, however, makes it clear that she's moved beyond simple errors of fact into a reality of her own.

After declaring that all Americans have the same civil rights and that the government's role is to protect those rights, she then addressed a question about gay people getting married. "They can marry a man if they're a woman," she explained succinctly. "Or they can marry a woman if they're a man."

Perhaps Bachmann truly sees no contradiction in the idea that a group of people who supposedly have the same rights and privileges as all Americans have to submerge their identities to enjoy those rights. Alternatively, she wouldn't be the first politician to say something simply because they think it will help them get elected. Either way, it's a vision of America that leaves a lot to be desired.

Driven to Tears

Over the weekend film critic Roger Ebert posted on his Facebook page that his new movie review show had been pre-empted in many PBS markets by stations getting an early start on their December pledge drives. Not surprisingly, this prompted a variety of negative comments about public TV fundraising. When it comes to public television there’s probably nothing more contentious than pledge drives.

That viewers don’t like them is a given, but they're not alone. I know quite a few people in the PBS ecosystem both personally and professionally, and my sense has always been that they’d rather be doing something else with their airtime as well. Unfortunately, that's not the world we (or PBS) live in. Government support of public television is constantly under siege, frequently the target of partisan hatchet-men like New Jersey governor Chris Christie who cut funding to the the state's public TV network as much because he didn't like their coverage of his administration as for any legitimate fiscal reason.

Against that backdrop, pledge drives are likely to remain a necessary evil for the foreseeable future, because viewer contributions can literally be the difference in being able to keep the lights on, let alone license programs they need to fill the portion of their schedule the national network doesn't provide. Emotional reactions aside, though, there's one key fact that gets overlooked about PBS fundraising. During pledge drives there's typically about 20 minutes of fundraising per hour. When you break it down, this is basically the same amount of time taken up by ads in an hour of programming on a commercial network. Sure, that concentrated burst of pitching can feel a bit long, but it’s all for a good cause.

Shades of Thankful

Hosting- It's been 15 years since I first spent Thanksgiving with my wife and her family. This year will be the second time we've hosted her family. Some may see hosting their family for Thanksgiving dinner as a cause for stress. For me, though, the combination of not having to travel and not having to worry if I have another glass of wine makes it a golden-brown opportunity to enjoy a holiday that (whatever you want to say about its origins) seeks to put our hearts in the right places.

Family Is Thicker Than Blood- It wasn't until I started spending Thanksgiving with my wife's family that I truly appreciated and enjoyed this holiday. Being an only child, it's a strange turn of events that marrying into a family where my wife is the youngest of seven siblings is what finally made me feel like I belonged in one.

Music- There are definitely songs I can do without this time of year ("Donde Esta Santa Claus?" comes to mind), but "Fairytale of New York" and "Do They Know It's Christmas?", not to mention the Pearlfishers' Christmas album, are always in season for me.

Work- Not only do I get to work with some terrific people, I get paid to watch TV. Score!

The Sweetness of Light- The leaves are both off the trees and out of my gutters. I'll probably have to replace at least one strand, which means a trip to the store which I'd rather avoid this time of year. I'll probably swear a lot (an awful lot). However, when I see the lights as I get home from work, it'll be worth it.

Penn State Used To Teach People About Dumb Questions

I try to maintain my belief that there's no such thing as a dumb question, but the Penn State sexual abuse scandal has certainly tested that view. No figure in this situation has pushed the limits of this belief than the now-infamous Mike McQueary. The accounts of what Mike McQueary saw and did that night in March 2002, when he testified that he saw former Penn State assistance coach Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy, have gotten more confusing and seemingly contradictory over the past week or so.

With that in mind, I wonder if perhaps the ripple effects of that night are largely the side effects of a dumb question by Mike McQueary. Perhaps his reaction when seeing Sandusky and the as-yet-unidentified boy in the shower was to say, "Pardon me, Jerry. Would you mind taking this clearly underage boy somewhere else and finish @$$-raping him there, so I can go home with a clear conscience?"

If true, and there's nothing in the Grand Jury presentment to say it couldn't be, it would be safe to say that there's at least one dumb question in the world. Thank you, Mike McQueary.

Frank About Miller

I think it's fair to say that Frank Miller was a polarizing enough figure in comics when he was at his peak in the mid-to-late-80s. That polarization seems to have reached full fruition based on some of the content of his website. Among the recent postings are a dismissal of the Occupy participants as "nothing but a pack of louts, thieves and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness" and his feelings about the value of propaganda such as that contained in his recently released graphic novel Holy Terror. On the latter front, his point seems to be no-one complained about the propaganda element of the acclaimed Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams run on Green Lantern/Green Arrow, which Miller calls a "left wing screed", so what's wrong with portraying a thinly-disguised version of Batman (the book was originally developed as a Batman story) tackling Al Qaeda. Reading Miller's postings and the comments that follow in reaction, reminded me of my recent posting on the topic of civility and the way the internet in particular works to short-circuit it. Miller is happy to portray the entirety of the Occupy movement as "spoiled brats" who don't comprehend the threat that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda represent from a shielded online vantage point, but one wonders what he'd have to say if he was face to face with Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen who was critically injured by police or any of the other veterans who are part of the protests. Likewise, I can't help but wonder if the people commenting on the posts who are attacking either Miller or each other would have the same venomous attitude if they were in the same room. The internet can be a useful tool for communication, but like any tool its effectiveness will always depend on how people use it.

The War to End All Wars Will Be Televised

As I write this on 11/11/11, we honor the men and women who have given some part of their lives and perhaps even their entire life in military service. And while it's clearly proper to honor all veterans today, it’s also appropriate to remember the historically roots of the holiday as Armistice day, commemorating the end of hostilities in World War One on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. Because the impact of “the war to end all wars” on America was relatively modest compared to both our allies and enemies, it’s hardly surprising that it doesn’t hold the same place in our national psyche as other conflicts.

However, in Britain, which lost hundreds of thousands of men, this conflict seems to have much more resonance as shown by its portrayal on television. Having the privilege of being paid to watch British TV for a living, I’ve seen quite a few on-screen depictions of the First World War. Among the most powerful was 1979’s Testament of Youth which aired on Masterpiece Theatre and recounted the true-life experiences of Vera Brittain, who not only served as a nurse in hospitals that attended to the war wounded but also lost her fiancé to the war.

Perhaps the true mark of the war’s impact, though, is seen in the way it’s depicted in two decidedly lighter programs, Upstairs Downstairs and Black Adder. In Upstairs Downstairs, both the aristocratic James Bellamy and the family’s footman Edward Barnes are wounded, and it’s no surprise that the depiction of their hurt is quite affecting. The treatment in Black Adder, on the other hand, would probably surprise people.

Though Black Adder is mostly known (and loved) for its parodies of historical settings, this edition managed to tread the line between the comic and the tragic better than any TV program since the early years of M*A*S*H. Like M*A*S*H, Blackadder Goes Forth uses comedy to depict the folly not just of one particular conflict but also war in general, exemplified by this exchange between Captain Blackadder and Private Baldrick in the final episode.

Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Private Baldrick: But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Captain Blackadder: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

Private Baldrick: What was that, sir?

Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.

The episode ends with Blackadder and Baldrick going over the top to presumably meet the same fate that over 600,000 other British men did. It remains one of the BBC’s finest hours (or rather half-hours) and a textbook example of how comedies can deal with serious topics without sacrificing their central mission to entertain.

Querying McQueary

Let me preface this by saying that I wrote this before hearing the announcement of Paterno's firing by Penn State's board of trustees and that much of what follows relates to allegations rather than material that's been proven in a court of law. On the latter point, since I'm inclined to believe these allegations, I will refer to them here in a way that reflects my belief. To the former point, events in State College in the wake of the announcement suggest that it's going to be a while before the passions surrounding the decision and the terrible events leading up to it die down.

Of the many things that trouble me about the terrible events at Penn State is the fact that so many people are raking Joe Paterno over the coals but making excuses for the actions, or rather lack of actions, by the graduate-assistant whose 2002 report has emerged as such a major part of the scandal. That graduate-assistant, who's been identified as former Nittany Lions player Mike McQueary, is currently an assistant coach at Penn State. McQueary's story, now a matter of public record, is that he witnessed former Penn State Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy but did nothing to stop it. The Grand Jury report that led to the charges in this horrible situation specifically describes McQueary as a credible witness, so it seems reasonable to take this account of his actions at face value and assess them accordingly.

By that standard, McQueary's actions are at least as deserving of criticism as those of any school administrator. McQueary didn't have to get into a physical confrontation with Sandusky, though, one imagines that an athletic 28 year old would be capable of physically conveying his intentions to a man 30 years his senior. He didn't have to lift a finger. He only had to say something then and there to stop that child, the still unidentified "Victim 2", from being hurt further.

Instead, it appears that he opted to walk away while the rape of that boy apparently continued. The idea that McQueary was so shocked that he couldn't do anything is as much a cop-out as any excuses being made for Joe Paterno. You can legitimately argue that Paterno should have done more beyond his initial report to Penn State administrators, and the coach's decision to step down is at least a tacit admission of that.

Perhaps if Paterno had done more, other boys would have been spared from harm. We'll never know for sure. What is known, though, is that by refusing to even open his mouth at the time to stop a child from being raped, Mike McQueary did much less than the minimum of what was called for in the situation.

Those Jedi Love A Certain Point of View

Obviously, no infringement of the copyrights of Lucasfilm or the BBC is intended.

Standing Pat

Lately I've been trying to look at people whose political views I disagree with, both public figures and people I encounter personally, through a wider lense. Rather than dismiss them out-of-hand for their views, I've tried to consider the factors that shape those views and see them as a whole person rather than an odious walking viewpoint.

Obviously there are exceptions, especially in the still thriving sector of dictators, tyrants and Michelle Bachmann. Then, there are the people who come out with comments that make attempts at being fair and balanced (as people commonly understand those terms) impossible - people like Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan's views had always been troubling, but a touching eulogy he'd given for one of my wife's former co-workers from Borders put a slightly different spin on the man. That was over a decade ago and, though Buchanan hasn't run for President since 2000, he continues to do and say things that make any effort at not demonizing him futile at best. Among the latest examples is a passage from his book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? In the book Buchanan reveals some curious ideas about national identity when writing about the era of legally enforced segregation.

"Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans."

Perhaps it slipped Buchanan's mind that the line that follows "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance is about "liberty and justice for all". In any case, the only surprising thing about these views is that Buchanan chose to express them publicly. Then again, one imagines that someone in his position knows who his audience is and what will push their buttons. It's theoretically possible that Buchanan doesn't hold these views and only put them in the book for the benefit of that audience - and his bank account. I wish I could decide which is worse.  

Lives of Python

Making a movie based on actual events, especially controversial ones, is a tricky business. Even for talented (and well-intentioned filmmakers) the conflict between presenting events truthfully and dramatically often tips the balance one way or the other. This often results in films that for all their accuracy are dramatically inert. If the film is also about well-known comedians, the ante is upped because there’s also an expectation of some good laughs along the way. With that in mind, I wasn’t quite certain what to expect of the recent BBC film Holy Flying Circus, which dramatizes the controversy surrounding the release of Monty Python’s film The Life of Brian in the late 70s.

I’d seen a preview trailer that looked promising, especially when it came to the casting of the members of Monty Python, but as any paying customer knows great trailers are no guarantee of a great movie. Thankfully, in this case, the trailer was only the tip of a wonderful iceberg. I really loved this movie. Aside from the casting of the film, which again was tremendous, what made the film work was its wholehearted embrace of Monty Python’s style of oddball detours and sharp verbal wit to make its satirical point without sacrificing the dramatic thrust.

To accomplish the latter point, the writer Tony Roche wisely focused on the friction between John Cleese and Michael Palin. The way in which their very different responses to the controversy over the film ultimately leads them to the same position to defend it is what drives the film. That’s not to say that the other Pythons don’t get their moments, but the sparks between Cleese and Palin are what makes the film work. And it’s because of those sparks that the conclusion of the film ends up being far more emotionally involving than I ever expected. I won’t say how and why, because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone when/if the film finally makes it to America. Going back to the earlier question about accuracy, it bears mention that the depiction of events here is reputed to be at odds with the actual events, but frankly whether that's true or not really doesn't matter so much in the context of a drama where Stephen Fry shows up in the role of God. The bottom line is that it's  a strong drama, and if you’re a fan of Monty Python I think you’ll find this film to be a terrific tribute to the group and one of their most beloved works.

Keeping Up With Reality

Is anyone really surprised by the impending divorce of reality TV superstar Kim Kardashian and NBA non-superstar Kris Humphries? I'm guessing not based on the number of questions being asked about whether the 72-day marriage that followed the wedding that seemed to get nearly as much attention as April's royal wedding. When I saw Kardashian's mother responding somewhat indignantly to that question, it struck me just how lacking in self-awareness that family seems to be. Does she not realize that that a key reason questions about how authentic her daughter's marriage is stem from the fact that the only person in the family who's famous for an actual accomplishment, Olympic champion Bruce Jenner, is a rather late addition to the family who's not biologically related to the majority of the kids?

Still, the situation could be cause for some degree of optimism. Even assuming the Kardashian/Humphries marriage was genuine, things like this invalidate any claims that allowing gay people to marry somehow compromises the "sanctity of marriage". That's not to say that the Santorums of the world (referring here to the person rather than the "Google problem" that bears his name) won't continue to argue otherwise. It just means there's more reason to hope their screeds will fall on increasingly deaf ears.

September 31st?

Anyone who doubts that editorial standards at major newspapers are slipping should turn to page A3 in today's Washington Post. The story about lobbyist donations to GOP presidential candidates includes a graphic that purports to show donations through "September 31st" of this year. I know it's impolite (perhaps even pompous) to criticize grammatical errors in the Internet age, but I really expect more from the Post.

Having and Wanting

When I first heard about the long-rumored plans for a TV and/or movie continuation of Arrested Development, I didn’t actually realize I was hearing about them. A friend had posted a reference to there being “money in the banana stand” on Facebook, and I simply assumed he had been watching his DVDs of the show recently. 

Since learning that there was more to that posting than a trip down memory lane, my feelings have taken a surprising turn, considering how much I love the show. My initial enthusiasm has since given way to a worry that news of the new installments are actually worse news for fans than its original cancellation was. As much as fans like me might hope otherwise, it seems almost impossible that the new exploits of the Bluth family can live up to our expectations. Arrested Development will always be better as a fantastic comedy that was cancelled before its time. Equally, it stands as an ideal symbol of broadcasters chasing the lowest common denominator in the short-term rather than finding a way to leverage a passionate fanbase for quality programs in the long-term. 

If there’s a lesson anywhere in here, I suppose it’s a fairly unexciting one. Having is never as good as wanting, especially when what you want is more of something that was already perfect.