Author: John Ostrander

So, the first Presidential Debate of 2012 is over. Romney appears to have won it, President Obama mostly didn’t show up, and moderator Jim Lehrer took an early retirement. So what’s the big take away from the event?

Mitt Romney wants to deep fry Big Bird.

What Romney actually told Lehrer was “I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS,” adding, “I like PBS. I like Big Bird. I like you, too.” Earlier this year, he told Fortune magazine “Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf.”

Of course, the fact is that the government doesn’t borrow from other countries specifically to pay for NPR and PBS. They borrow mostly to pay for the war in Afghanistan or, as they have in the past, the war in Iraq which they did to a very large degree. As Neil deGrasse Tyson trenchantly tweeted, “Citing PBS support (0.012% of the budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500 gig hard drive.”

But let’s leave that aside for a moment. Let’s leave aside all the policy wonk moments and the substantive issues and who lied and how much. This is a pop culture column so let’s focus on the pop culture moment – Sesame Street. Big Bird. That’s what they’re really talking about on Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere. And the message is that Romney wants to kill Big Bird.

That’s not what the man said. Agree with him or not, he doesn’t think that public funds should go to fund public television. I don’t happen to agree with him (any of you who don’t understand that I’m a liberal and support President Obama haven’t been paying attention) but I understand his view.

It seems to me that the comment was an off-the-cuff remark made in an almost jocular manner. After months of preparation (some would say years), Romney appears to have made an off-the cuff-remark and shot himself in the foot with it and then inserted the foot in his mouth. From the response, you’d think that Big Bird had replaced the eagle as our national emblem. And a reasonable question is – why?

One of my favorite moments in Oceans 13 (the second best of the Ocean films) is when a very irate Al Pacino is telling a very cool (as always) George Clooney that he’s going to get some guys after Clooney’s Danny Ocean and they know how to really hurt a guy. I’m paraphrasing all this but Ocean replies, “I know all the same guys you know and they like me better.”

That’s the deal here. Romney personalized his opposition to funding certain endowments. He could have left his point with the concept that he didn’t think the federal government should help subsidize things like PBS and, hence, Sesame Street. Instead, he adds Big Bird’s name to the conversation. A whole generation has grown up with Big Bird. Moms have planted kids in front of Sesame Street for several generations. They trust it. And the message that got carried was that Romney will make it go away.

Romney doesn’t get the impact of Sesame Street or of Big Bird. He certainly didn’t grow up watching it (neither did I; different generation) and maybe his kids didn’t, either. It’s not of real value to him and so he sees no problem if it disappears. Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere are suggesting that it matters to a lot of people.

To paraphrase Danny Ocean, we know Big Bird, Governor Romney, and we like him better.

MONDAY: Mindy Newell

Movies are full of great lines and memorable quotes. Some are even wise and insightful, but some are just filled with stupid wisdom. I have in mind John Wayne’s line in John Ford’s 1949 western classic She Wore A Yellow Ribbon: “Never apologize and never explain – it’s a sign of weakness.”

It sounds great and even may make sense within the context of the story; Wayne’s character is a military commander and the troops need to obey the commanding officer without question so apologies and explanations could interfere with that. Unfortunately, some people take it out of context and take it literally and try to apply it to everyday life.

I have in mind the GOP and Mitt Romney over the past few weeks. The candidate shoots from the lip about the death of our ambassador in Libya in order to score political points. He gets his facts wrong. Then a surreptitiously filmed video made at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser for Romney held in Boca Raton emerges. In it, among other things, he dismisses 47% of the electorate as lazy and dependent on the government and says they will never vote for him. If you missed it, you can see it here.

The best “explanation” Romney made on the latter was that he phrased it “inelegantly.” Someone in the GOP camp has taken John Wayne’s movie wisdom very much to heart: never apologize, never explain. It’s a sign of weakness. The title to Romney’s 2010 book is “No Apology.” It’s also part of what appears to be the GOP strategy: attack, attack, attack. They’ve also taken to heart a line from the movie Patton: ‘We’re gonna keep fighting. Is that clear? We’re gonna attack all night, we’re gonna attack tomorrow morning. If we are not victorious, let no man come back alive!”

To my mind, that’s the problem. Your opponent is not just a political opponent; they have become the enemy who must be vanquished at all costs. These political operatives engage in a political equivalent of a scorched earth policy. Anything that might be of use to the opponent must be destroyed by any means possible.

Last week, the Veterans Jobs Corp Act of 2012 failed to pass in the Senate. The GOP justification for it was that they didn’t feel it was properly funded; the war that put these soldiers in harm’s way and that the GOP okayed was also not properly funded but that was all right. The GOP also kept up their filibuster that prevented Obama’s $447 billion dollar jobs program from even reaching a vote.

The basic reason for both failures is that the GOP doesn’t want anything that might reflect well on President Obama this close to the election. Never mind that veterans might benefit, never mind that ordinary middle class citizens might benefit, the key was to make sure that the President didn’t benefit. The GOP announced four years ago that they intended to do everything they could to make Barack Obama a one term president and they have worked hard at it. They will never apologize for that because, to them, that would be a sign of weakness, as would compromise.

Except – apologies are not a weakness. No person and no nation is 100% correct 100% of the time. When you have done or said something wrong, the brave thing, the strong thing, is to apologize for what you’ve done wrong. Ali McGraw’s character in Love Story famously said, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Anyone who has been in love, who has been in a relationship, knows this is another bit of stupid wisdom. If you’re stubborn, if you have to be always right, then good luck to you and that relationship. The political equivalent seems to be “Politics means never having to say you’re sorry.” That’s also boneheaded.

Look, I’m not naïve. I was raised in Chicago and I know how rough and tumble a game politics can be. I understand that, if you don’t get elected, you can’t institute any of the changes or programs that you think would be good for the citizens of this country. However, if your only goal is to get elected, to beat the opponent by any means necessary, then you have no program, you have no vision, for this country other than winning. All you’re going to have is the next election and you’ve provided the next opponent with the game plan and blueprint for how to conduct it – win by any means necessary. All you can then do is keep fighting and governing falls by the wayside.

Everyone makes mistakes. I have my own thoughts and beliefs that I try to put into practice but I never assume they were written on tablets of stone and handed down to me by a deity. I do the best I can and, when I’m wrong and see that I’m wrong, I try to apologize. I’m not as good at it as I should be. I do, however, approach things with the possibility that I could be wrong and a philosophy of never apologizing, never explaining, attack attack attack, does not allow for that possibility. And that’s why, in my opinion, it’s stupid wisdom.

To quote Dennis Miller back when he was more sane, “I could be wrong. . . but I doubt it.”

MONDAY: Mindy Newell

As I’ve said before, I enjoy movies most in the theater, on the big screen, where they were meant to be seen. Yeah, you run the chance of having rude fellow audience members who are talking or have their heads buried up their electronic asses with their cell phones, but I minimize that by going to a lot of matinees. One of the (few) perks of being self-employed and, besides, it feels like I’m playing hooky.

Since I like the big screen experience, I like the Imax experience. That’s a big big screen and usually great sound as well. My Mary and I went to see The Dark Knight Rises there. Imax costs more but I felt it was really worth it.

I also like to see old movies on the big screen and have seen a number, including Casablanca and The Searchers. In upcoming months, there will be one-night showings in movie theaters of The Bride of Frankenstein, E.T.  and To Kill a Mockingbird. I know all of them well but the chance to see them in a movie house will be a treat.

Recently, to celebrate the arrival of Raiders of the Lost Ark on Blu-ray, the film was issued in the Imax theaters, initially for one week only but since extended. Did I and my Mary go to see the first and best of the Indiana Jones movies? Oh, you bet! This is the film that, far more than Star Wars (IMO), made a star of Harrison Ford.

One of the things I really wanted to see was that giant marble that chases Indy during the opening sequence. Yup, it looked every bit as cool as I thought it would. The other great set pieces looked great in Imax as well – the fight around the plane that’s supposed to fly the Ark out of Tanis, Indy going after the truck (“Truck? What truck?”) and that whole action sequence inside, outside, and below that truck.

I also saw things I didn’t appreciate before. The landscape surrounding Indy and the others where he threatens to blow up the Ark was in greater detail, as was the climatic sequence where the Ark is opened.

It still has all the great lines and tropes “I don’t know. I’m making this up as I go.” Shooting the scimitar-wielding thug. “Trust me.”

And, of course, it still has Marian, Indy’s romantic foil and partner. What the next two films largely lack is Marian. She’s his equal and she brings him down to Earth. Indy’s pursuit of the Ark can make him an asshole; his pursuit of Marian makes him human. The best part of the most recent film was re-uniting him with Marian. Lots of dopiness in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull but bringing back Marian was worth the price of admission, as far as I’m concerned.

While the film was a fine transfer, there were some problems. Some of the close ups in dark rooms were hard to see and muddy and, for me, not all the characters were always as sharp and clear as I might have liked. Part of that, I’m sure, is that the film was never meant for Imax and that film technology has really improved since Raiders was first made.

One thing I didn’t expect and was really impressed by was the sound. Imax generally has amazing sound and I was hearing incidental sounds all around me that I had never heard before. I don’t know if that will be part of the Blu-ray package but I hope so.

Of course, intact were some of the things that never made sense. Our intrepid hero gets over to the Nazi sub and climbs on to the conning tower. If it submerges, however, he drowns. And if it stays on the surface, the sub’s captain should be up on the conning tower. The sub travels quite a ways according to the map in the movie so this always strained my credulity. And how does Indy get himself, Marian, and the Ark off the Nazi island towards the end? Never addressed.

However, this is all more than counterbalanced by the fact that this is just a plain fun movie. One of the best action adventure movies out there with one of John Williams best scores. Lots of humor, top notch performances, and it just grabs you by the eyes and doesn’t let go.

As my Mary and I were leaving the theater, another couple – in their thirties – were also leaving. The young woman said she really enjoyed it and then said she had never seen it before. I was envious. What a great way to get introduced to a great movie.

MONDAY: Mindy Newell

One of the pleasures of the Internet and of Facebook in particular is that sometimes old friends find you or you find them and you get a chance to re-establish old bonds. One such for me is David Downs who I knew in my Loyola University theater days. Recently, he was asking about my writing and about writing plays and I realized – by Gum! – there was a column in it. Thanks, David!

I’m essentially self-taught as a writer. I’m not putting down writing classes or seminars; I’ve taught some myself. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, however, the theater was my writing school. Much of what I’ve learned about writing comes from my days in theater. I was an actor, a director, a playwright, a sometimes techie, a teacher and occasional inept producer.

My sense of structure comes from the theater and my work as a playwright, an actor, and a director. All three demanded that I be able to break down a play, to comprehend where the conflict lay and how the action built to a climax, how it paid off. The acts break down into scenes and the scenes into beats. A beat can be described like a heartbeat – ba-DUM, ba-DUM. It’s an action/reaction, usually between two characters but it can be one character (witness Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” soliloquy) or even two groups of characters.

Beats build into scenes with their own mini-climaxes, which in turn lead into acts with their own climaxes, which in turn lead to the play’s climax. What a character does is determined by their motivation; something that drives the character. Not just something they sorta kinda want to do, but what they need to do. There may be more than one motivation and they may be conflicting within the character. Sometimes the characters will think they want something but, underlying, there is something they want more and they learn that in the process of the story.

I learned from theater that everything is defined by action and that includes the dialogue. No one ever just talks – they confirm, they deny, they ask, they reject, they explain, they lie, they oppose, they attack, they defend and so on and so on. How they express themselves reveals something about them as characters. Do they hide behind words? Do they not know how to use words? What is the rhythm of their speech? Do they use long words? Do they use short sentences? Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter but his characters do not all speak in the same way. How characters speak reveals themselves as people, often in ways they don’t expect. It happens in every day life; that’s why it works in theater or in writing.

From Shakespeare I also learned how theme should be tied into plot – hard wired in. It’s not something that you overlay; it’s not the “moral” of your story. On any given topic, it’s hard to tell what Shakespeare “thought.” That’s because he was so brilliant at exploring and expressing different and even diametrically opposite points of view. What his characters said on different topics fit because in the plot it was appropriate at that moment to advancing that plot. It was deciding their actions and those actions drove the play.

Case in point – in that same “To be or not to be” speech I mentioned earlier, Hamlet is trying to decide whether to kill himself or not. He debates the pros and cons with himself. He’s trying to determine his course of action. If it’s just declaimed as a beautiful piece of poetry or philosophy, it misses the point. It needs to have an urgency, a real sense that Hamlet just might kill himself if he can’t find a reason why he shouldn’t.

I’ve learned other things from other playwrights – Samuell Beckett and Harold Pinter taught me about economy of language. George Bernard Shaw was very good at wedding social issues with bright characterization and very clever dialogue.

I also learned a lot of Improvisational theater. My sometime writing partner, Del Close, taught many, many classes in Improv and I was privileged to be in some. He taught as well as directed at Second City for a couple decades before moving to the ImprovOlympics. Del was famous for hurling chairs at actors if he felt they were going for the funny. He wanted them to go for the true because, as he often said, “Reality is far funnier than you can ever hope to be.” He wanted the moments that would reveal situations and characters.

He also wanted us to “start in the middle and go on past the ending.” He wasn’t interested in “all that boring exposition crap” and he wanted to see what the next moment was beyond what should have been the end of the story. He wanted the next day after “happily ever after.”

One of the really big things I took away was how little exposition we really need to get into the story. Much less than most writers would think. Assume the readers can keep up. Stan Lee did that with many stories; he’d start you in the middle of a fight and promise to catch you up as he went. He did, too.

From the theater I learned to do without explanation. Don’t tell the reader what to think or feel; let them think and feel and then tell you. Character is to be found in contradiction; don’t try to resolve the contradictions – explore them. I learned all this from constant repetition until it has sunk deep into me; it becomes second nature.

It comes down to this. If you’re going to be a writer, then write. Don’t talk about it, don’t just think about it – do it. A lot of what you write at first may be twaddle. That’s okay. Write the crap out of your system and keep improving. I believe I’m a good writer but not yet as good as I can be and I hope that never occurs until the day I die.

There is no one system or course of instruction that works for everyone; there’s only what works for you. This was my path. Find one that works for you.

MONDAY: Mindy Newell

Last week in this space  I discussed some political incidents, namely Rep. Todd Akin’s comments about women and rape, Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) who talked about how heterosexual sex doesn’t result in AIDS, and how Texas Judge Tom Head talked about how Obama’s re-election could result in Civil War. I said, “Individually, they are incidents; link them together and they’re a narrative.” Let us examine that further.

Our lives are filled with narrative. Elements are selected, others are omitted, some are highlighted and some are downplayed. That’s how a story is put together; what’s important to the narrative we’re telling? Does that make it untrue?

No. Not all elements, not all facts, are pertinent to a given narrative. An honest narrative attempts to get at a truth; a dishonest narrative tries to obscure it.

We all create narrative. I was listening to David Eagleman on NPR; he’s a neuroscientist with what sounds like a fascinating book – Incognito: The Secret Lives Of The Brain that I’m getting. He said (and I’m paraphrasing but I think I got it right) that our mind takes in all the different stimuli that our senses give us and, in order to make sense of the world around us, creates a narrative – our version of reality. It’s why so many different people can experience the same thing and walk away with a different narrative about it – a different reality. It’s not a lie; it’s a different interpretation. It’s one of the reasons we create stories – in order to share our realities and see if they match up with anyone else’s reality.

CNN columnist L.Z. Granderson does a masterful job of creating a narrative as he links Akins comments to the GOP platform that rejects all abortions without exception. As the Brits would say, I think it’s “a fair cop.” Akin’s comments illuminate the thinking behind the GOP plank. The GOP VP candidate, Paul Ryan, co-sponsored bills Akin put up to ban all abortions. That’s relevant.

Akin went on in his comments. “But let’s assume that maybe that [the female body closing down] didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.” In that statement, what element is missing? The woman who was raped. That’s the element left out of Akin’s narrative because it’s not part of his reality and it’s left out of the GOP plank because its not part of their narrative, their reality, as well. The woman who was raped is not an important part of their equation.

The narrative in this case becomes that all of these stories, taken together, is how the GOP right wing thinks. You can sell that story. I could sell that story to an editor. Can the Democrats sell it to the voters? We’ll see.

MONDAY: Mindy Newell

Back in 1986, I was selling DC Comics on the idea of the Suicide Squad. At the time I proposed it, the Squad would be a relatively subversive idea: the U.S. government would use supervillains on covert ops that were deemed in the national interest. Unofficial, unseen by the public, doing dirty work.

Between the time I sold DC on the idea and when the first issue debuted (May 1987), the Iran-Contra Affair, also known as Irangate, broke out. In it, the Executive Branch of Ronald Reagan’s White House were illegally selling guns to Iran and using the proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan Contras that had been banned by Congress via the Boland Amendment. So the U.S. government was engaged in illegal covert action already. Once again, reality made me look like a piker.

Reality has a way of doing that. There are things that happen in so-called “real life” that I would find it hard to sell to an editor.

Let’s take Rep. Todd Akin (Republican, Missouri), who is running for the Senate seat in that state. He famously said last week that, in the cases of “forcible rape” that pregnancy isn’t likely because “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” (The New York Times covered the whole incident pretty well here. This is not some backwater goofball; he’s a six term congressman and is, or was, a member of the House Science Committee.

I don’t think I could sell an editor a character who believed something that fundamentally flawed. It is too much of a caricature. And yet it’s real.

Let’s take another case. Back in January, Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield, a Republican, claimed that it was virtually impossible for heterosexuals to get AIDS. I guess he never heard (or cared) about how AIDS has ravaged Africa – or, for that matter, America. Okay, this one I might get past an editor but again I’d be close to caricature and parody.

And down in Texas, Judge Tom Head said if President Obama is elected to a second term, it could cause a civil war. “He’s going to try to hand over sovereignty of the United States to the U.N. We’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.” He added: “Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ’em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say, ‘You’re not coming in here.'”

The judge says he was quoted out of context but you can see a video of it here. He was quoted exactly. And he wasn’t foaming at the mouth or kidding; he’s was very matter of fact about it. And the interviewer is just sitting and nodding and going “Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.”

Again, I don’t know if I can sell him as a character to an editor of fiction. I’m not sure I could sell his scenario to an editor. There are too many logic flaws in it. A fantasy should have a least some element of reality in it and this is just paranoia.

What links them all? They’re all right wing Republican conservatives with strong Tea Party connections. Individually, they are incidents. Link them together and they’re a narrative.

We’ll talk more about that next week.

MONDAY: Mindy Newell

The late great newspaper columnist, Mike Royko, once observed of the Chicago city council (I’m paraphrasing), “I never said it was the most politically corrupt council in the world; I said it was the most theatrically politically corrupt council in the world.” There is an inherent theatricality and drama in politics; more so in an election year and a lot more so this election year.

It can also make for good television. Or not, depending on the show. Let’s look at three that are running this summer.

The first is the six episode Political Animals on USA on Sundays at 10 PM. It stars Sigourney Weaver and has a pretty stellar cast, including Ellen Burstyn, Carla Gugino, Vanessa Redgrave and Ciaran Hinds. Weaver plays a (very) Hillary Clinton-esque character, once married to a philandering Southern president (Hinds), then a failed candidate for her party’s presidential candidate, and then Secretary of State to the guy who beat her. She also has two sons: one a hard working straight arrow who is also her chief aide and the other a gay man with lots of problems including substance abuse.

I was really looking forward to this one and now I don’t know if I’ll finish watching the series. It’s more soap opera than anything else and relies too much on the Clinton comparisons to the point of making it predictable. Ciaran Hinds is a wonderful actor (as seen in the wonderful Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day and many other films) but he’s a caricature in this as Weaver’s Bill Clinton-esque husband. He’s more buffoon than anything else and makes Weaver’s character look stupid by her constant return to him.

There’s also stupid plot twists. Weaver’s character, Elaine Barrish Hammond, has decided to run again for president against her boss, the sitting president. That’s never worked for any candidate and she would know that (in fact, it’s pointed out to her in the show); she would become persona-non-grata within her own party and this character is supposed to be politically astute. And I can’t fathom the reason she would do it.

Also, it’s her gay son who has all the emotional problems and drug abuse and that’s so stereotyped. It would have been a lot more interesting if the gay son was the top aide and the straight son who had the emotional problems but that’s not the choice they made.

If I was Hillary Clinton, I’d sue.

Over on HBO, The Newsroom is on the same day and time and it’s Aaron Sorkin’s latest foray into television and it has all of Sorkin’s strengths and weaknesses. Whether you like it or not may be determined by whether or not you like Sorkin; I do so I’m enjoying myself.

The series is set in the newsroom (fancy that) of a nightly news hour show set on a mythical cable news network. Jeff Daniels (who I have long enjoyed as an actor) plays the starring role of Will McAvoy, the anchor who had been coasting too long until he answers a question honestly on a panel. His boss, Charlie Skinner (played by Sam Waterston who is plainly having a good time with this part) brings in McAvoy’s former girlfriend (and lost love), MacKenzie MacHale (played by Emily Mortimer) as McAvoy’s new producer and she shakes him up to the point where he becomes Keith Olbermann (sorta). I should also mention that the head of the network is played by Jane Fonda, the former Mrs. Ted Turner, who is also having too much fun.

Cannily, the show is set in the recent past (within the past two years approximately) that allows Sorkin to comment with a perspective of time passed. He has described it as a “political fantasy” enabling him to show how he wished things had been reported. Yes, that allows him to preach but, in general, his politics and mine coincide so I enjoy it.

I do have my problems with the show. Too many of the female characters get addled in ways that their male counterparts don’t. The exception appears to be Jane Fonda’s character thus far, but we’ll see. From what I’ve read, Sorkin had a traumatic break-up with a girlfriend and it appears to be factoring into a lot of his work. For me, the plusses far outweigh the minuses on this show. It’s been renewed for a second season and I’ll be there.

In passing, I’ll mention Boss on Starz, featuring Kelsey Grammar as the mayor of Chicago. You would think this would be a natural for me, Chicago boy that I am and raised during the era of the first Mayor Daley. I bailed after a few episodes. Too sudsy.

My last selection is Suits which is in its second season on USA Thursday nights at 10 PM. It stars Gabriel Macht, Patrick J. Adams, Rick Hoffman and the spectacular Gina Torres, who you’ll remember from Firefly. This is less about the world of politics and much more about office politics as practiced in a high-level law firm. I think someone once said ”All politics are personal” and this is very much the case here.

Patrick J. Adams plays Mike Ross, a brilliant college dropout who winds up working for Harvey Specter (Macht) even though he doesn’t have a law degree, a fact that both of them conceal – which is illegal and, if it got out, would do serious damage to the firm. The office, sexual, and romantic politics are all high level and so is the writing and the performances. Of the three series I mentioned here, this is far and away my favorite. The characters, all of them, are a mixture of faults and virtues. This is not a bunch of people I would have thought I would ever identify with but I wouldn’t miss a single episode.

Oh, and there’s also Donna, Harvey’s redheaded secretary, played with élan and brio by Sarah Rafferty. She’s hot, she’s brainy, she’s sharp with a line and it’s worth tuning in just to see her. All the female characters are really strong, especially Gina Torres as Jessica Pearson, the managing partner of the firm who is beautiful, smart, and sometimes utterly ruthless and scary.

So you can vote with your remote and, as we say in Chicago, remember to vote early and often.

MONDAY: Mindy Newell