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.