Category Archives: Media

Not That There’s Anything Wrong with That

 

Related imageLike life, the presentation of entertainment awards is not always fair.  I still bristle every time I think about the 1970 Academy Awards.  Despite the fact Midnight Cowboy took home the Oscar for best picture, best director (John Schlesinger) and best adapted screenplay (Waldo Salt), Dustin Hoffman’s portrayal of Ratso Rizzo was deprived of the best male performance award when John Wayne won for playing himself in True Grit.  Hoffman’s cinematic achievement was of particular note when viewed side-by-side with his big screen debut two years earlier as Ben Braddock in The Graduate.  

There are two reasons this outcome may not have been the injustice it appeared to be.  First, both Hoffman and Jon Voight (playing Joe Buck) were nominated for best actor and may have divided the vote among Midnight Cowboy’s devotees.  Second, this was Wayne’s third nomination (previously as Davy Crockett in The Alamo and as Marine Sargent John Stryker in Sands of Iwo Jima).  After 43 years on the silver screen and 170 roles in movies and television, perhaps Wayne was more deserving of a lifetime achievement Oscar, but this was the way his peers chose to honor him.  (CINEMA FOOTNOTE:  Midnight Cowboy is the only X-rated film to win an Oscar for best picture, although it would barely garner an R rating 50 years later under today’s standards.)

As I watched the Emmy’s last night, I wondered if there was a totally different reason members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences decided who would take home the prized statuette, particularly in the acting categories.  Before I make the case, let me say I did not see all of the performances, and of the ones I did see, none of the nominees were unworthy of consideration.  I just wondered if something else was going on.

Were Academy members trying to use this venue, the one time each year they have an international television audience to celebrate, not just the their art, but their values?  Despite its occasional flaws, the entertainment industry has become the voice of diversity and social justice in the era of Donald Trump.  Did voters look at the list of nominees and anticipate who might give the more compelling acceptance speech?  Consider the following four examples.

Jharrel Jerome for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie/Jerome portrayed Korey Wise in “When They See Us,” the story of the Central Park Five .  Only by winning the Emmy could Jerome introduce the actual subjects of the story as the “Exonerated Five.”  One more reminder Trump has still not apologized for calling for their execution.  I am not sure Jerome’s performance topped those of Jared Harris in “Chernobyl” or Hugh Grant in “A Very English Scandal,” but I am confident they do not hold a grudge against the Academy for giving Jerome the stage.

Michelle Williams for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series or TV Movie/Few viewers of her starring role as Gwen Verdon in “Fosse/Verdon” were probably aware of her demands during the series’ production, but I have no doubt Academy voters did.  As with Jerome, did they ask, “Is this a chance to share an important lesson we have learned with a broader audience?” If so, Williams delivered.

So thank you so much to FX and Fox 21 Studios for supporting me completely and paying me equally. Because they understood that when you put value into a person, it empowers that person to get in touch with their own inherent value. And then where do they put that value? They put it into their work. So the next time a woman – and especially a woman of color, because she stands to make 52 cents on the dollar compared to her white male counterpart – tells you what she needs in order to do her job, listen to her, believe her. Because one day she might stand in front of you and say thank you for allowing her to succeed because of her workplace environment and not in spite of it.

Billy Porter for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series/Porter became the first openly gay black man to win an Emmy for his role as Pray Tell in “Pose.”  Did Academy members hope Porter would make the connection that the presence of authentic characters, not stereotypes or caricatures, of all genders, colors and sexual preference/identity can be teachers and role models.  If not, his acceptance speech made the point anyway.

We as artists are the people that get to change the molecular structure of the hearts and minds of the people who live on this planet. Please don’t ever stop doing that. Please don’t ever stop telling the truth.

Peter Dinklage for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama/If you questioned whether Dinklage would win an Emmy for the fourth time as Tyrion Lannister on “Game of Thrones,” you were mistaken.  Despite his four foot four inch frame, he stands tall among his peers as a representative of the entertainment community.  Once again last night, he did not disappoint.

 I have no idea what I’m about to say, but here we go. I count myself so fortunate to be a member of a community that is all about tolerance and diversity, because no other place could I be standing on a stage like this.

And no one, except Fox censors were shocked when he referred to the GOT cast and crew as “10 years of the most incredible, talented, funniest motherfucking (bleeped out) people–hey, it’s over, I don’t care–I’ve ever been lucky enough to work with.”  That too was a message, about loyalty to and faith in one’s co-workers, not self-interest.

So, sometimes it is not a question of whether the BEST man or woman wins.  A better question is whether the RIGHT one does?  Last night the moment eclipsed the performances, and even if there were artistic injustices, I’m okay with it.  Sometimes life is unfair.  But on occasions like this, we should echo Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The King of Politics

 

Image result for the king of comedyAs some of you may already know, I co-host a monthly film series called “Cinema and Conversation” at our local book store.  Last night, I screened the 1983 Martin Scorsese movie, “The King of Comedy.”  It stars Robert De Niro as a wannabe stand-up comic Rupert Pupkin, who dreams of being on “The Jerry Langford Show,” the equivalent of a comic’s highly-sought breakthrough appearance on “The Tonight Show.”  Although favorably received by critics, it was a commercial failure, grossing only $2.5 million and it now ranks #6,644 on the all-time box office revenue list.

As I told last night’s attendees, you have to look at this movie from two perspectives.  First, it is a an example of how a talented filmmaker can turn a simple premise into a compelling theatrical experience through brilliant casting and understated directing.  At another level, “The King of Comedy” may be the most profound movie of the last 50 years, foretelling a future culture which did not exist when the film hit theaters in 1983.  Below the surface, “The King of Comedy” is a parable about a divided America in the Trump era.

This is not about Donald Trump’s self-serving interests, general character or policies.  You know how I feel about those.  This film explains why some of us view him as a villain and others see him as a hero.  When Pupkin (De Niro) gets a chance to share his dream with Langford (portrayed by Jerry Lewis), the talk show host gives him the following advice.

I know it’s a hackneyed expression, but it’s the truth, you’ve got to start from the bottom…It looks so simple to the viewer at home, those things that come so easily that are so relaxed and look like it’s a matter of just taking another breath.  It takes years and years and years of honing that and working that.

Pupkin’s response, “I don’t mean to interrupt you, but there’s a problem.  I’m 34 years old.”  Undeterred, Pupkin takes an unconventional, questionable path to getting his 15 minutes of fame.

Now close your eyes and visualize the same scene in my forthcoming remake, “The King of Politics.”  Trump shares his dream of becoming president of the United States with a former commander-in-chief (a hologram of Ronald Reagan) who advises him:

I know it’s a hackneyed expression that in America anyone can grow up to be president.  Look at me.  But it’s not that easy.  It’s not like anything you’ll ever experience.  But you can prepare yourself by first being a mayor or governor.  Or even president of the Screen Actors Guild.  It takes years and years and years to understand how government works.

Like Pupkin, Trump interrupts Reagan.  “But there’s just one problem, I’m 72 years old.”

I tip my hat to screenwriter Paul D. Zimmerman for virtually inking the script for my Trump bio-pic.  Why?  Because Trump IS a modern day Rupert Pupkin.  When Langford tries to exit the conversation with Pupkin, telling him to call his secretary, Pupkin mistakes the brush-off as encouragement.  When his phone calls are not returned, he goes to Langford’s office where the assistant (Shelley Hack) echoes her bosses admonition you do not start at the top.  The normal process is for the show to send a talent scout to watch you perform.  But Pupkin has never tested his material before a live audience.  To which the assistant replies:

As soon as you start working again, call and we’ll send someone down to check out your act.

Still believing he is destined to the be the new king of comedy without prior evidence of his talent or appeal, Pupkin goes on a journey of increasingly aberrant behavior to achieve his goal.  Sound familiar?

Like Pupkin, Trump is never dispirited by those who give him the cold shoulder or make jokes at his expense such as the ones delivered by President Obama and Seth Meyers at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner.  It only hardens his resolve to succeed.  And as the reincarnation of De Niro’s character, he crafts an unconventional and increasingly unethical, if not illegal, campaign which gives him his more than 15 minutes in the national spotlight.

But I digress.  This post is not about Trump.  It is a simple and rational explanation for the chasm which divides his supporters and critics.  For 38-40 percent of the country, Trump as Pupkin is an improbable success story.  It is as film critic Scott McCauley suggests of the Scorsese version, “…a saga of start at the top grandiosity.”  Trump believes he deserves to be at the apex of the political world just as Pupkin sees himself as the new king in the realm of entertainment. And both Trump and Pupkin prove it by beating the odds.

As for the rest of us?  It is not as though we believe there is only one way to earn the keys to the White House.  That every candidate needs to pay their political dues before becoming chief executive of the United State. After all, I vaguely remember supporting a wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator named Barack Obama.  In his manifesto for governance, he self-described his mission as audacious.  The difference, of course, is in this latter case, Obama’s success was not fueled by foreign interference, paying off porn stars or promoting hate of others. Although Obama’s rise was accelerated, it did not rest on shortcuts.

SPOILER ALERT.  Scorsese’s portrait of an overachiever concludes at the protagonist’s moment of ultimate success.  But the last scene is perhaps a harbinger of things to come.  Pupkin is silent in front of his adoring fans.  Is he merely basking in the glow of his new-found notoriety?  Or was he a one trick pony?  Was his rise the story?  Will his audience grow tired of him if there is no second act?  The demo tape he makes is called, “The Best of Rupert Pupkin.” It is equivalent to an actor receiving an Oscar for lifetime achievement after his or her first cinematic role.

Stay tuned for the sequel, “The King of Politics: Part II,” coming to a theater near you next November.

For What it’s Worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Serenity Now

 

Joe McGinniss showed America that politicians are sold like products.  And we loved it.

~David Greenberg, Politico Magazine, 2014

Image result for selling of the president 1968In The Selling of the President 1968, McGinniss documents how a team of media advisers used television to convince America there was a NEW Richard Nixon.  Among them was Harry Treleaven, a Madison Avenue guru who came up with “Nixon’s the ONE!” and devised a campaign strategy based on image, not issues which he claimed just bored voters.  And Roger Ailes, a relatively unknown local television producer in Cleveland, was responsible for the television spots which portrayed Nixon as the calm in the storm of Vietnam, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, and the Chicago riots during the Democratic convention.

There is just one problem.  Money and PR can, as they say, “put a shine on a turd,” but it is still a turd.  And eventually the consumer recognizes that fact, and no amount of subsequent marketing can produce repeat purchases or referrals.

Dr. ESP, how can you say that? If you are correct, Nixon should not have won again in 1972.  True in theory, but that year both major parties offered their respective flawed candidates.  And as they also say, “Better the turd you know than the one you don’t know.”  And a few dirty tricks did not hurt Nixon’s cause.

I share this moment in political history because the analogy of candidate as product explains both Trump’s electoral college victory in 2016 and his inability to expand his base since then.  Consider the following business case I wrote during my tenure at Miami University based on a friend’s experience with a new product line.

In 1997, his company licensed the Chuck E. Cheese brand to produce and sell frozen foods in grocery stores, not unlike Boston Market or P. F. Chang.  He hired a marketing consultant to conduct mall intercept surveys of women who were observed shopping with children ages three through twelve, the target market for the branded items.  Seventy one percent of the respondents said they were extremely or very likely to purchase the product.

Initial sales exceeded projections.  However, there was an immediate drop-off, particularly in repeat purchases.  It was not the quality of the products.  Or ease of preparation.  The primary issue was family disruption.  Many parents reported older children had no interest in the product and often made fun of their little brothers and sisters.  You can just hear the sing-song teasing.  “The little baby has to have Chuck E. Cheese.”  The product could have been the best thing since sliced pizza, but it was still not worth the ensuing sibling altercations.

Is that not what the product called Donald Trump has done to America?  During the campaign, his mall intercepts with targeted consumers were arenas with supporters in MAGA caps.  But now he is constantly present in our homes, our extended families and our communities.  And the back and forth cacophony between supporters and resisters is the equivalent of sibling teasing.  It gets old very quickly and continues to irritate over time.

In the aftermath of every era of disruption, Americans yearn for a “return to normalcy,” a phrase coined in a 1920 speech by Warren G. Harding in response to World War I.  Some pundits refer to the recent decline in Trump’s approval rating as the result of “Trump fatigue,”  something it took the Bushes and Clintons decades to achieve.  Colorado Senator Mike Bennett even promised if he becomes president there could be weeks without our hearing from him.  He, like many of us, look forward to a day when we no longer need Frank Costanza’s relaxation cry “SERENITY NOW” as our mantra.

America may have been born by revolution, but it survives and grows through evolution.  Take Medicare for All as an example.  Some day America may have a national health system.  But not tomorrow.  Universal coverage is a worthy goal toward which we were making uneasy progress.  Less than a decade ago Republicans made repeal of the Affordable Care Act a winning campaign theme.  Today, a majority of voters support it.  Maybe we take the next step by adding a public option to reach those still without coverage.  I understand the arguments against the for-profit insurance industry.  But you do not change the world campaigning.  You change it when you govern.  And to govern, you must first get elected.

Which brings me to a final point.  Jill Biden was on the right track, but the way she raised the specter of her husband’s electability makes me wonder if she’s been spending too much time around Joe.  Last month in New Hampshire she urged voters to back her husband even if they consider another candidate to be “better” on the issues.  It would have been more appropriate to present a vision of the policy process in a Biden White House.

We have exceptional candidates running for the nomination and they have presented a range of ideas to improve the lives of every American.  And no one should expect them or their perspectives to disappear if they are not the nominee.  The difference is that when Joe is president, all of those same people will still have a voice.  Because we all agree on the goal whether we are talking about economic opportunity, social justice, health care, climate change or making our country and cities safe.  And Joe knows the way to get there is by bringing more people into the conversation.

Which brings me back to 1968 and Harry Treleaven who I believe misread what was happening.  Issues do not bore voters.  They care a lot about issues but in the abstract.  They want better schools for their children.  Or lower drug prices.  Or assurances they will still have their jobs.  They respond to the vision not to detailed solutions.  Take immigration as an example.  If you believe illegal immigrants are taking your jobs and terrorizing your neighborhoods, you do not care if Trump steals funds from projects that benefit service men and women to build his wall or that he inhumanely separates infants and children from their parents.

Tomorrow night, when 10 candidates again take the stage, they would be wise to play to the voters and not to the pundits who do not view the election with the same prism as the general electorate.  When asked about health care, I hope they remember you cannot make a case for any specific solution in 90 seconds.  Remind voters, those without insurance AND those currently insured, why universal coverage is important to both.  Whether the answer is ACA 2.0 or Medicate for All is not important.  All that matters is that today the financial burden of health care for the uninsured falls largely on subsidies embedded in premiums paid by the insured.  That’s not right and we will fix it.

Then use the four years we give you to convince us of the best way to get there.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Hens in the Fox House

 

If you have either read Gabriel Sherman’s The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News-and Divided the Country or watched the Showtime mini-series based on the book, you know Ailes believed Donald Trump’s occupancy of the Oval Office was dependent on his network’s coverage of the 2016 election.  The most telling moment comes in Episode 6 when Ailes calls Trump following the latter’s attack on Fox debate moderator Meghan Kelly and his pledge never to appear on Fox News again.  Ailes reminds Trump, “We can make you or break you.”  Not surprisingly, Trump calls into Fox and Friends the following morning.

Nice story!  But like most everything else associated with Trump it is just not true.  How do I know?  For three and a half years Fox News and the White House have been attached at the hip and not once has Trump’s job approval rating equaled 46.1 percent, his share of the 2016 popular vote.  For most of the Trump era, that figure has hovered between 38 and 42 percent.  Giving Ailes and the Fox News team the benefit of the doubt, they can and did help deliver a sizable share of Trump voters in 2016.  No small accomplishment.

Image result for jimmy fallon trump hairSo where did the other four to eight percent come from?  Hens chasing the Fox News ratings.  The mother hen was NBC.  As I have previously documented, the Peacock Network became the normalizer-in-chief thanks to Trump’s hosting Saturday Night Live, his appearance with David Feherty on NBC’s Golf Channel, and the now infamous guest spot on the Tonight Show when host Jimmy Fallon played with Trump’s hair.

But NBC was not alone.  All of the major networks chose schmoozing over newsing.  They would interview Trump without fact-checking or challenging him on many of his most outlandish and clearly inaccurate statements.  For example, when Trump declared he had no business dealings with Russia, not once was he asked directly, “Mr. Trump, then how do you reconcile that with your son’s 2008 statement at a New York real estate conference,  ‘In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.’?”

Equally damning were the occasions when news organizations never followed up on Trump promises to clarify situations raised during the campaign.  When questions arose about Melania Trump’s immigration status upon arriving in the U.S., Trump assured attendees at an August 9, 2016 North Carolina rally, “She has got it so documented.  She will hold a news conference over the next few weeks to address the issue.”  We are still waiting.  And it took four yours for Ms. Trump to admit she LIED when she claimed to be a college graduate with a degree in design and architecture from a university in Slovenia.  On August 31, the reference was removed from her bio on the White House website when it was discovered she dropped out after her first year.  I wonder if Melania’s philosophy of honesty is, “Be late than be never.”

I chose this example because since January 2017,  Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (drum roll) “has investigated possible cases of immigration fraud that resulted in U.S. citizenship, sending 95 of these cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution and denaturalization.”  (Source: Bipartisan Policy Center).  In June 2018, Francis Cissna, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services,  told the Associated Press, “We finally have a process in place to get to the bottom of all these bad cases and start denaturalizing people who should not have been naturalized in the first place.”  I wonder if they have a hotline you can call if you know someone who might have lied on their citizenship application.

The bottom line?  It is not what the Fox does.  It is what the hens do.  Step ONE: Stop lobbing soft-boiled eggs.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

When Symbols Become Cymbals

The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from the truth.

~Nate Silver/FiveThirtyEight.COM

Two totally unconnected news stories this week affirm how much we have been distracted by the noise when we should be focusing on the signal.  The first started as a joke and ended up making national news.  The second involved actions by a local school teacher.  However, as Carl Jung reminded us, synchronicity runs deep.  There is always a connection or narrative if you just look for it.

Story #1:  Rename a Segment of 5th Avenue After Barack Obama

It began when Los Angeles resident Elizabeth Rowin, noting how cities often rename streets to honor individuals for their achievements, e.g. Cesar Chavez Avenue in her home town, created the following petition on MoveOn.org.

We request the New York City Mayor and City Council do the same by renaming a block of Fifth Avenue after the former president whose many accomplishments include: saving our nation from the Great Recession; serving two completely scandal-free terms in office; and taking out Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind September 11th, which killed over 3,000 New Yorkers.

And the block referenced in the petition just happens to be between 56th and 57th Streets which includes Trump Tower, a move that a Scottish tweeter Donald McKenzie described as, “Poetic Justice or what…?”  In line with U.S. Postal Service guidelines the building’s mailing address would become “725 President Barack H. Obama Avenue.”  One can only imagine the Twitter-storm which would blow through mid-town Manhattan if the change was approved.

Poetic justice?  Yes!  Clever?  Absolutely.  Helpful in returning to a state of normalcy and sanity after the reign of terror led by Donald the Destroyer and Moscow/Massacre Mitch?  Not likely. So why did I just use nicknames or include a PhotoShopped movie poster which was triggered when I started drafting another potential blog post about values and institutions Trump has castrated in the last two and a half years?  Because it’s fun and a hard habit to break.  So let me get one more out of my system before getting serious.

Sesame Street lesson of the day based on the regular feature where Ernie sings, “One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others.)”  During the song, Ernie holds up three images.  Melania.  A medical deferment.  And a map of Greenland.  As the song ends, several Muppets blurt out in unison, “We know.  We know.  Greenland can’t be bought!”

While I hope you enjoyed the comic interval, it does nothing to achieve the goal of a Trump-less White House.  And unfortunately, news media which are more interested in ratings than reporting news will spend more time on Tweets and Greenland becoming the 51st state (because Montana isn’t white enough?) than on the impact of Trump and EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler (aka former lobbyist for coal producer Murray Energy) gutting the Endangered Species Act.

Changing Trump Tower’s address may bring some momentary mental relief to the 250,000 plus petitioners who have added their names.  But it is just noise.  Imagine if, instead, that same quarter of a million people went out and each registered two or more new voters.  That would send a signal.

Story #2: Teacher Shames Students for Not Standing for Pledge of Allegiance

On the second day of class at First Coast High School in Duval County, Florida (metro Jacksonville), a biology teacher posted the following hand-written note on the white board in his classroom.

THINK: We had about a half million Americans die in our Civil War, which was largely to get rid of slavery. There are no longer separate water fountains and bathrooms in Jacksonville for “white” and “colored,” as Mr. Goodman remembers from the 1960’s. We had an amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing women the right to vote. We have had a Black president, the superintendent of Duval Schools is a Black woman. Mr. Fluent, our principal, replaced a Black man, Mr. Simmons, who is now a D.C.P.S. administrator.

MY POINT? You are all extremely lucky to be living in the U.S.A. If you refuse to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance or our National Anthem, are you revealing maturity and wisdom? Actually, you are displaying the opposite. (As some pampered arrogant celebrities and athletes tend to do.)

The missive appeared because one or more students on the first day of class chose not to stand during the pledge of allegiance despite the fact Duval County’s Code of Student Conduct includes the following.

Pursuant to Florida Statutes, students have the right not to participate in reciting the pledge. Upon written request by his or her parent, a student must be excused from reciting the pledge, including standing and placing the right hand over his or her heart.

There is no question who is the “You” in the second paragraph.  Despite efforts by the “fine people on both sides” believers to defend the teacher, every reference why “You” should feel lucky refers to evidence that America has made some progress in atoning for the nation’s original sin slavery or previous suppression of women’s rights. Nothing about America’s economic miracle even though white households make up 96.1 of the top one percent.  And how unfortunate the teacher suggested the students were lucky instead of highlighting the individuals responsible for changing the cultural landscape. A good argument STEM education without exposure to the humanities produces technically trained workers who lack critical thinking skills.

But even the “lucky” reference was too subtle.  Just to make sure his students understood he added the parenthetical reference to “pampered arrogant celebrities and athletes.”  Where could he have possibly come up with that language? Image result for trump hugging flagThis is what happens when the measurement of one’s sense of patriotism is based on symbols and not actions.  Trump can thumb his nose at the Constitution and tell natural born citizens to go back to where they came from.  But as long as he literally hugs the flag and tweets about athlete protests despite the fact they are protected by the First Amendment, we are distracted by his cacophony of noise and ignore the signals.

In contrast, kudos to Stacey Abrams.  While the media spent their energy speculating whether she would throw her hat into the presidential fray, she chose to devote her energy ensuring every citizen’s right to vote is protected and preserved.  On Friday, Melanye (not a typo) Price penned an opinion piece in the New York Times which included the following.

I and all my friends wanted her to jump into the presidential race. Instead, she’s doing something more important. She’s creating an apparatus to fight voter suppression across the country, a prize that’s essential to a fair and functioning democracy.

This is what I would call true American patriotism.  As for the teacher at First Coast High School, I say to him.  “Why do I feel LUCKY?  Because there are still individuals like Stacey Abrams who rise above the noise and send a clear signal what makes the United States of America a truly great nation.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP