defrog: (Default)

Jimmy Carter is gone at age 100. And the internet is full of what you’d expect in this day and age in terms of tributes, damnations and other hot takes.

For me, I should start by saying that I was 12 when Carter took office, so inevitably much of what I remember about his term at the time was all the jokes about peanut farming and his brother Billy. And this brilliant comedy album.






Which is why I I’m not that emotionally invested in his legacy, and why for years I felt it was ironic that he went on to be more respected as an elder statesman than a President.

And having grown up with the truism from historians that his presidency was a failure, it’s been educational to see some of the Carter apologetics being posted over the past ten years or so. And the more I've read about him, the more I realised that his term hasn't been retconned so much as assessed more fairly with the distance of time. Which is usually how it works.

I’m not especially convinced of the more hagiographical takes on his presidency, but I think it’s fair to say Carter was an average POTUS – he did some good things and some not-so-good things. And much of his legacy is down to bad luck as much as anything else – as others have pointed out, 1976-1980 would be a tough period for any POTUS.

In the end, Carter comes across to me as someone who was nobody’s fool, but was also a decent person with good intentions who was almost too honest to be President.

Which is why he sounded like a good deal in 1976 when the other option was Jerry Ford, who was a castoff of the Nixon Gang. But by 1980, most people apparently preferred someone who could act like an honest President rather than actually be one.

We’ve apparently devolved since then – nowadays, ppl prefer a POTUS who don’t even bother to hide his dishonesty. Maybe that’s why looks so good Carter in retrospect now. That said, Carter built up plenty of goodwill with his post-POTUS career, so maybe there’s more to it than being nostalgic for an anti-Trump.

Still, the contrast is stark.

Meanwhile, the left or right of Carter will insist that he was a horrible/evil POTUS because [insert hyperspecific grievance here], or out of the usual ideological purity. Even some people on the far left still haven’t forgiven him for that one thing that pissed them off.

Well, there will always be ppl like that. Carter would say a prayer for them. Which just goes to show.

Anyway, I think we were lucky to have Carter when we had him, if only because it shaped the statesman to come. Respect.

Looking forward to Trump trying to make this all about him.

Trust me,


This is dF

defrog: (Default)
 You know of course that Rush Limbaugh is gone. You also know that many people are dancing on his grave singing hallelujah. You might be one yourself.

 

I am not hear to dance upon his grave, as I’m generally not into grave-dancing. Actually I normally wouldn’t post anything at all, but as a political junkie who worked in radio (to include news/talk radio around the time that Limbaugh and conservative talk radio in general was ascending*), I feel compelled to say something.

 

And that’s only really because of this piece by Conor Friedersdorf dunking on conservatives who have been giving Limbaugh credit for advancing conservatism in America throughout his career. Friedersdorf argues this isn’t true. Many liberals have responded along the lines of “oh yes he jolly well did”.

 

It’s possible many of the latter group didn’t read past the standfirst. Friedersdorf is specifically referring to “conservatism” as the political and economic ideology championed by the likes of William F Buckley and Milton Friedman – the general ideology of small govt, free trade, balanced budgets and personal responsibility. Friedersdorf argues that conservatism as defined above has been on the decline since Reagan left office, and while Limbaugh kicked off his career pushing a Reaganesque conservative agenda, he eventually abandoned it (as did the GOP in general) in favor of the current GOP ideology of culture wars, manufactured outrage, lib-pwning and the defense of Straight White Christian America at all costs.

 

Therefore, Friedersdorf says, Limbaugh was never the champion of conservatism that modern conservatives make him out to be.

 

And ... well ... okay.

But ...

 

The question, I suppose, is whether conservatism can be fairly and accurately defined strictly as an economy-based political ideology.

 

I don't think it can.

 

For one thing, you have social conservatism, which has been around in the US for a long time but became a serious political force in the 1960s and went mainstream during Reagan’s term, thanks in no small part to the rise of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. From that point on, the GOP spent as much time talking about traditional “family values” (and the alleged left-wing agenda to destroy them in favor of turning American children into gay Commie Satanic baby-killing multicultural dope fiends) as they did about free trade and tax cuts. By the mid-90s, social conservatism was inseparable from economic conservatism as far as GOP ideology was concerned.

 

While Limbaugh was never a conservative Christian in any meaningful sense, he was definitely onboard with social conservatives in terms of their basic political stances, even if he mainly used them as a way to bash liberals over the head. (Fact: Limbaugh was triggering libs before triggering libs was cool.)

 

Meanwhile, by the time Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution brought their Contract With America™ to Congress in 1994, the GOP had adopted a noticeably and increasingly more aggressive tone in its rhetoric – they weren’t just opposed to liberal policies, they were ANGRY about them. Anger and indignant outrage increasingly became the default setting for the GOP as the party tapped into (and encouraged) the anger, fear and frustration of their mostly white base that lived in fear of liberals turning the US into Cuba, or whatever they thought the Radical Liberal Agenda™ was. The other side of the aisle was no longer mere opposition – it was the Enemy of America. The GOP became less interested in bipartisanship and more interested in demonization, polarization and obstruction.

 

By perhaps no coincidence, conservative talk radio was expanding fast by exploiting that particular fear, and Limbaugh was leading that charge. Things took off from there, and now here we are in an era where the GOP is now the Trump Party that lives in a universe of alternative facts where libs are demonic anarchists who stole the election and are out to cancel white culture etc and so on.

 

So basically I’m not convinced by the argument that Limbaugh didn’t advance “conservatism” in the Buckley/Friedman sense, because that’s too narrow (and slightly dishonest) a definition of what “conservatism” has become. Friedersdorf kinda touches on this, and acknowledges that the GOP is no longer the party of Reagan in an economic-policy sense. But the party of Reagan was also the party of social conservatism, which Limbaugh and the GOP exploited to varying degrees of intensity for the last 30+ years to the point that the resulting culture war is now the dominant ideology. The economic side of GOP conservatism is now limited to ensuring that rich people live as tax-free as possible and this will somehow benefit the rest of us. (Spoiler: it won’t.)

 

Ironically, of course, many people who call themselves conservatives in the modern 21st Century sense still tend to fancy themselves as liberty-loving tax-cutting small-govt Reaganites. But at least some of those are from the conservative intellectual crowd who lost their usefulness around the time that Sarah Palin became a household name. They’re also being disingenuous – the GOP hasn’t embraced any meaningful form of economic conservatism or fiscal responsibility for decades. Even Reagan raised taxes, and he also more than doubled both the deficit and the national debt. In my lifetime, the deficit had only even gone down during Demo admins, not Republican ones. (There are complicated reasons for this – I'm just saying.)

 

Limbaugh himself occasionally complained about this and went after who he considered to be RINOs. But he ultimately went along with it, I think, because the Loud Angry White Populist schtick of the GOP suited his radio style. He was always a demagogue and an outrage merchant, and he delighted in stoking white fear of a black planet under Obama. Trump was the first President to successfully trade in the kind of xenophobic white-identity insult comedy that Limbaugh had pioneered. 

 

Rush is often credited with countering the alleged liberal narrative of the Mainstream Media™, but it’s more accurate to say he helped create a new conservative narrative for an alternate universe that only ever made sense if you never questioned it. Which of course was part of Limbaugh’s whole brand – his loyal “dittohead” audience openly bragged about believing every word he said without question, if only to make the libs scream in frustration.

 

Limbaugh didn’t do that on his own, of course – he had help from fellow radio hosts, Fox News, right-wing bloggers and the GOP in general. But his dittohead army was arguably the rock upon which the Trump Party built its alt-realty church.

 

So in my opinion, Limbaugh didn't just help advance conservatism in America – he played a role in transforming it to the ugly hateful beast it is today.

 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, etc.

 

*FULL DISCLOSURE: I worked at a news/talk radio station from 1994 to 1996 in Southern Illinois, but we didn’t carry Limbaugh’s show. Our mainstay was Chuck Harder, who at that time tended towards centrist populism of the kind you typically heard from Ross Perot, Pat Choate and Ralph Nader. He also entertained Clinton conspiracy theories.

 

Radio silence,

 

This is dF

DIVER DOWN

Oct. 10th, 2020 12:03 am
defrog: (Default)
Eddie Van Halen is gone. And, well, Van Halen were such a fixture of the pop culture landscape I grew up in that it's impossible not to blog something about him. 

So this is where I tell you that my first exposure to Van Halen was a fake radio show.

To explain: when I was in 9th grade or so, I had aspirations to be a radio DJ. So did an erstwhile friend of mine named Barry, and we would get together every so often to record a “radio show” on cassette using my cheap Memorex tape recorder placed next to the stereo speaker. We called ourselves KCBQ for the sole reason that he had somehow acquired a cassette of station ident jingles made for a station called KCBQ.

Anyway, we would play music from our combined record collections, and one day he brought over the debut album by some band I’d never heard of called Van Halen. We played “Runnin’ With The Devil” for the show. Musically I liked it, and they clearly had a sound that wasn’t quite like anyone else out there. But it would be awhile before I got into them. Most of my subsequent exposure to them was passive – I’d hear them on the radio, and my heavy-metal sister got a copy of Fair Warning and wore out the needle on it in her room.

My main resistance to them wasn’t the music so much as their “party hardy” image, which was very not my thing in high school. Also, while Eddie Van Halen was clearly a talented guitar player, I was already listening to widdly-widdly guitar solos from the likes of Alex Lifeson, Brian May and Tony Iommi, so for me he didn’t stand out that much, except for his guitar tone, which (along with speedy double tapping and spandex) became standard issue for every hair-metal band from LA, for better or worse.

But VH were worlds better than most of the bands they inspired, largely because they had a sense of humor and sounded like they were having a good time, which won me over eventually. What impressed me about Eddie VH wasn’t his chops (good as they were) but that he clearly loved playing so much that it came through in his music. Frankly they all looked like they were having fun up on stage, and it was infectious.

Which may be why my favorite VH anecdote is the one where a young teenage Rollins saw them upstage the headliner, Ted Nugent.

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I never saw them live. I’m referring to live concert footage here.]

Anyway, yes, VH were all over my teenage landscape by the time 1984 came out, and as good as they were, the ubiquity, the tabloid drama and their “party hardy” rock star status made them increasingly incompatible with the punk and college radio bands I discovered in the mid-80s. So perhaps it’s as well that Diamond Dave quit when he did. And being a fan of neither Sammy Hagar nor Extreme, I don’t really care for the post-Dave VH models.

But I listen to the VH classics on a fairly regular basis now, and have a better appreciation of just what they accomplished and why Eddie VH is so revered as a guitarist.

For example, one of my favorite VH songs is “Unchained” – not just for the Ted Templeton cameo, but for the weird off-kilter riff Eddie VH plays during the verses. It’s such an unobvious thing to be doing in a song like this.



For extra Eddie VH, why not enjoy this track of him blues-jam duelling with Brian May until he breaks a string?



Happy trails,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is gone. I have thoughts:

 

1. I’ve always been amazed and impressed at how RBG became an icon for so many people in the sense that I can’t think of any other Supreme in my lifetime that had a fanbase like hers. Granted, that’s largely to do with the fact that she built up her rep as a champion of gender equality and human rights well before she made it to the SCOTUS bench. Still, it’s hard to imagine people getting this stoked over, say, Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas.

 

Or even Sandra Day O’Connor, who famously was the first woman ever to make Team SCOTUS. I remember what a big deal it was when her nomination was confirmed, and there’s no doubt she paved the way for RBG, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And if you believe her biographer, she did more to protect abortion rights than she generally gets credit for. But she doesn't get nearly the love and adoration that RBG gets.


I'm not entirely sure why this is – though I would put good money on the likelihood that social media has something to do with it. RBG was nothing if not meme-able, especially as she seemed to become increasingly indestructible in her old age.
 (Also, you know you've made it when you become a recurring character on SNL.)

It's also possible the growing urgency of gender issues as the Christian Right (and their mission to overturn Roe v Wade at any cost) grew more powerful also made her presence on the bench more important, especially with the left/right balance of SCOTUS shifting in favor of the right.

 

Whatever the case, I don’t think we’re going to see a Supreme this famous or beloved for a long time yet – certainly not if Trump gets another four years. 

 

2. I’ve also found it amusing that her nickname is based on a gangsta rapper that (I would presume) at least some RBG fans may not be fans of, or even have heard any of his songs. I could be projecting there. But we do live in an age where people wear concert t-shirts of bands they have never seen live or even listen to, so, you know.

 

Anyway, great nickname.

 

3. As for what happens next, that’s a whole other post and it’s going to take me a little time to get that written – and it seems that particular story is fast-moving. So I’m gonna need a little time on that.

 

Superstar (that’s what you are),

 

This is dF

defrog: (Default)
Terry Jones has passed away and it’s very sad, not least because he’d reportedly been suffering from severe dementia the last few years.

If you haven't guessed by now, I’ve been a Monty Python fan pretty much since high school (so 35 years or so, then). It’s hard to pick just one of his wonderful performances and characters, so here’s a less obvious choice. The Meaning Of Life may not have been Python’s best film, but this is arguably the best bit in that film.



I also ought to mention that Jones was impressive beyond Python – he was also a scholar of medieval history and a writer of children’s stories. Somewhere on my shelves is a copy of one of his fairy-tale books, Fantastic Stories, as well as his novelization of Starship Titanic (a computer game created by Douglas Adams) and a collection of his newspaper columns ridiculing George W Bush, Tony Blair and their War On Terror. 

“What really alarms me about President Bush's "war on terrorism" is the grammar. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? It's rather like bombing murder.”

Anyway, between Jones and Neil Innes (the “7th Python” who passed on a few weeks ago), I’ve been revisiting a lot of Python lately – particularly the record albums (most of which I have), and much of it actually within my head, because I listened to them so much when I was younger that I memorized a great deal of them.
 
For those I didn’t memorize, I still have little snippets of them rattling around in my brain, some of them buried so deep that when they occasionally resurface, I don’t remember exactly where they came from.

Such as this sketch from Matching Tie and Handkerchief, which features professors discussing medieval farming practices in the form of reggae, call-and-response glam rock and bombastic rock opera.

Terry Jones isn’t in this particular sketch, but Neil Innes is – he was responsible for writing and performing the music parts, and it’s yet another example of just how brilliant he was at musical parody. The songs here are necessarily short, but no less entertaining.

On a broader note, only Python could think of combining a radio program on medieval agrarian history with Top of the Pops. And if anyone could release a music album about legal frameworks for 12th-century farming and make it enjoyable, it's Innes, innit?



Sowing with as many oxen as he shall have yoked in the plough,

This is dF

defrog: (Default)
Stan Lee is gone, and even if I wasn’t late to the game, I don’t know what I could say that hasn't already been said.

My own experience is similar to others of my generation – by the time I started reading superhero comics, Stan Lee wasn’t writing so much anymore, and pretty much all of his creations had been taken over by other writers. But I knew who Stan Lee was via the Marvel editorial pages – “Stan’s Soapbox”, et cetera – and I was aware that he was the guy who had thought up these characters. I wasn’t a fan of all of them, but I did like Spiderman, the Hulk and X-Men, among others.

I’m pretty sure it’s no coincidence that these were the characters that seemed to struggle with an inability to fit into society for various reasons. A lot has been written about how Stan’s greatest contribution to comics was adding a layer of human complexity to the Marvel universe – just because you have superpowers doesn’t mean people will like you or your life will be better. I don’t know if I consciously thought of that while reading Spiderman or Hulk, but it was definitely core to the X-Men comics.

Obviously, not everything he did was great (Nightcat comes to mind – and that Backstreet Boys cartoon). On the other hand, I admired his ability to come up with character ideas almost on the fly – many wouldn't work, but his ethos seemed to be that no idea is too outrageous or outlandish, because who knows, it might actually work.

So yeah, I think he’s earned his rep as one of the greatest visionaries of comics.

To be sure, he had his critics. Which brings me to Bill Maher and his silly op-ed about how it’s somehow Stan Lee’s fault that Trump is president because comic books make you stupid. Or something.

I can’t add much to what Neil Gaiman has already said in one tweet – Maher is clearly trolling with a very old argument that anti-comics people have used for decades, so his argument is not only invalid, it's not even original.

Also, it’s hard to take Maher (who presumably only reads intellectual books) seriously when he goes around claiming that vaccines cause autism.

And so much for Bill Maher.

Nuff said,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
John McCain left us last month. I’ve been preoccupied with other things, but I did have a few comments.

1. Personally, I’ve always had respect for him. Which is not to say I’ve always agreed with him, or that he’s always made good choices (see: Sarah Palin). But he came across to me as someone who didn’t just follow the bullet points – he actually put some thought into the issue at hand, and would actually take the time to listen to your views and respond to them. Which is preferable to the hyperpartisan batshit nonsense that the rest of his party has embraced. Sure, his maverick reputation was overstated and his “Straight Talk Express” was mostly a gimmick. But there was a certain amount of truth behind both.

Admittedly, my assessment of McCain’s politics has to do with the fact that I’m not a party guy per se, and I’ve always figured that if you’re pissing off the extreme hardline wings of both parties, yr probably doing something right. McCain did that, and that’s fine by me.

2. That’s why I felt in 2000 that if he had managed to win the nomination and the presidency I would have been okay with it. My philosophy of POTUS elections has generally been that if my preferred candidate doesn’t win, the winner should ideally be someone who isn’t too far from the center and can at least try to be a unifying figure and work with the opposition (assuming the opposition is willing to do likewise). I think McCain would have been such a POTUS. He certainly would have been better than the one we ended up with in 2000.

3. That said, I was less sanguine about a McCain presidency in 2008 – partly because he admitted having never sent an email (which I seriously felt ought to be a basic requirement to be POTUS in the 21st Century), and partly due to his running mate.

Some people have argued that we basically have McCain to thank for Trump because he gave Sarah Palin a national platform to demonstrate that what the conservative base really wanted in a POTUS was a clueless, xenophobic demagogue whose sole qualifications for office were blatant political incorrectness and insulting liberals. But I don’t think it’s fair to pin that on McCain – the Tea Party/MAGA base was already there, as was Fox News, the Koch Brothers and Breitbart, etc, and the GOP had been quietly courting them for years. Given all the Obama conspiracy theories and racist memes already in circulation during the 2008 campaign, I think the GOP would be exactly where it is right now, sooner or later, with or without Palin as poster girl.

4. Granted, selecting Palin wasn’t exactly good judgment on McCain’s part (which he would later admit). On the other hand, when McCain was handed a golden opportunity to exploit conservative xenophobia over Obama’s heritage, he refused. And he got booed for it, if memory serves. But he didn’t change his answer even when he saw it was backfiring. The same can’t be said for most of the rest of the GOP. So I have to give him points for that.

5. As an aside, it’s interesting in retrospect to note that one of the main arguments against voting for McCain in 2008 – namely his age, which meant that Sarah Palin was “one heartbeat away from the presidency” (translation: if McCain dies in office she gets to run the country) – turned out to be unfounded. Turns out McCain would have lived long enough to serve two full terms. So it goes.

Of course, we can never know that for sure, and given the pressures of the job, his health might not have held up as long as it did. I’m just saying.

6. This article in The Guardian is a pretty good overview of McCain’s many personal and political contradictions. Put simply, he was a complex person and he leaves behind a complex legacy that doesn't fit into anyone’s oversimplified partisan socio-political litmus test. He did good things, he did bad things, and he did neither consistently, but he did most of them out of what seemed to be a genuine desire to change things for the better. And if it wasn’t genuine, he was extremely good at faking it.

7. As for his funeral, it says a lot that he received such a huge send-off. And yes, it also says a lot that Trump wasn’t invited (at McCain’s own behest), and why should he be, all things considered?

And as for Meghan McCain’s dig at Trump, I think she’s more than entitled. 

Half-staffed,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
Art Bell is gone, which means finally he may finally find the answers he was looking for.

If you don’t know, Bell was the late-night talk radio host of Coast To Coast AM, in which he and his guests and callers explored UFOs, aliens, Bigfoot, various supernatural and paranormal phenomena, and government cover-ups of all the above. Bell was X Files before X Files was cool.

When I worked at a news-talk radio station in the mid-90s, we ran the first couple of hours of his show before sign-off. And having grown up at a time when some of the big best sellers were written by Erich von Daniken, Charles Berlitz and Hal Lindsey – and where TV was running programs like Kolchak: The Night Stalker and Project UFO – I had a soft spot for Bell’s subject matter. Granted I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but I admit I'm fascinated with the theories themselves. And frankly, compared to the political shows we ran in the afternoon, Bell was by far the sanest person in our line-up.

The secret, I think, was that he was very open minded and willing to let callers talk about all kinds of weird things, but he also knew when to reign them in or push back when even their own internal logic started to unravel. He could generally tell when people really believed what they were saying and when they were making it up as they went along, and he wasn’t afraid to call them out on it – yet he did it in a calm and reasonable way. He didn’t yell at or insult anyone – at least not while I was listening. Maybe he did in later years, but from what I understand he had the same style from beginning to end.

Which isn’t to say that everything he said was true. But he could at least make it sound plausible, more often than not.

Of course, some people blame Bell for not only convincing people that conspiracy theories and UFOs are real, but laying the groundwork for people like Alex Jones and the alt-right. Personally I don’t think that’s accurate or fair. People believed in UFOs and govt conspiracy theories long before Bell picked up a microphone. He gave them a voice and a platform, but the internet would have done that eventually anyway.

And in any case, conspiracy-theory radio really has its roots in the rise of rabid conservative talk shows in the early 90s. If you want to pin Alex Jones and alt-right batshit fact-free outrage radio on anyone, pin it on Rush Limbaugh. He pretty much invented both the format and the business model.

By comparison, I think Bell was relatively harmless, both in terms of the subject matter and the way he handled it. Again, I only listened to him from the early 90s to 1996, so I don’t know what his latter-year broadcasts were like, but at least during that time, Bell wasn’t a loud angry demagogue out to exploit populist anger exclusively in favor of a specific political party. He was more like a radio version of Charles Fort, keen to explore the unknown and unexplained, and convinced that the world is weirder than we think and – to a coin a phrase – the truth is out there.

I want to believe,

This is dF

THE FALLEN

Feb. 1st, 2018 05:57 pm
defrog: (Default)

I found out yesterday that Mark E Smith passed away last week.

It probably says a lot that I somehow totally missed this on my various social media feeds – hardly anyone seemed to notice outside of the UK. Which I guess makes sense because The Fall were never more than a minor cult sensation in the US – you either heard them on college radio or you didn’t hear them at all. Certainly that was how I found out about them – and that wasn’t until 1994 while I was working in a college radio station.

Anyway, point being, Smith wasn’t a household name in America, so of course it's no surprise that most stateside media outlets apart from say Rolling Stone or Pitchfork didn't think it was worth mentioning. I think even Grant Hart’s death got more coverage. He didn't even make the Grammys "In Memorium" section (though I suspect Smith would probably see humor in this – and to be fair, neither did Grant Hart, or Holger Czukay for that matter, which just goes to show how relevant The Grammys are to music).

It might be as well – Smith wasn’t exactly a loveable guy, and his musical output was uncompromising, snarling batshit poetry that, let’s admit, probably made sense only to him.

And yet that was what was so great about The Fall – Smith may have been a savage musical dictator with alcohol/anger management issues who couldn't sing, but by God he somehow made it work – not every album, certainly, but more often than not. The final two band lineups from 2006 to last year ensured that The Fall went out on a high note – last year’s New Facts Emerge was one of my favorite new releases, and probably their best since Your Future Our Clutter.

Love him or hate him, he was a true original who truly believed in what he was doing – you could never mistake him for anyone else, and we’ll probably never hear the likes of him again.

FOR PROMOTONAL CONSIDERATION: At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to cash in, my band project Banana Deathmuffins once recorded a song that was sort of a Fall tribute, albeit an unintentional one. We were coming up with something to accompany a John Bonham drum track for a music project started by a friend, and it was only after we finished it that I realized we’d been unconsciously channeling our Fall influences.

Listen:



You may disagree, and fair enough. Anyway, it's fair to say we probably owe Mark a pint for this.

To say nothing of John Bonham.

Live from the Witch Trials,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)

If you read science-fiction/fantasy, or know/follow people on social media who do, you know that Ursula K Le Guin is gone.

The fan tributes have been pouring in, illustrating clearly just how big a deal she was as a writer and how influential her writing has been on multiple levels. (Jo Walton has written a fine tribute on that score.)

Consequently, I don’t feel qualified to write a tribute because I’m pretty late to the Le Guin game.

I only started reading her work a little over three years ago – four years, if you include my aborted attempt to start with The Dispossessed. So not only am I late, I couldn’t even get through the first two chapters of one of her most acclaimed books before giving up on it.

And I don’t have an explanation for either. I’ve seen Le Guin’s name on the sci-fi racks of bookstores for as long as I can remember, but somehow I wasn’t inspired to pick them up. I don’t think it was because of her gender – I’ve never consciously avoided female writers, and there were several from the genre that I liked even back in the 80s.

Looking back, I suppose maybe it was because I had some specific ideas of what kind of SF/F I liked when I was a teenager, and Le Guin’s take on SF/F didn’t fit in that particular window. And once I was old enough to expand that window, it had actually expanded way beyond genre fiction – so much so that I stopped reading SF/F for a long time because I felt it was too narrow and I wasn’t getting anything out of it. In retrospect, it seems obvious that my mindset was a lot narrower than the genre was.

Similarly, when I tried The Dispossessed the first time, I wasn’t mentally prepared for it, even as I approached it as a reader with comparatively broader horizons. That happens sometimes – I’ll try an author for the first time and it won’t click for whatever reason. Then I’ll try again later and it’s magic – it’s like, “Okay, I get it now.”

In this case, it turned out to be The Left Hand Of Darkness that was my gateway to Le Guin’s vision, and it absolutely blew me away. Several Le Guin books later (all of which I liked), I tried The Dispossessed again and it blew me away too.

And so it goes.

Most of the tributes I’ve read mention her Earthsea books as her greatest (or at least most popular) work. Personally I like her SF books more, if only because fantasy is a genre I lost a taste for a long time ago, but the Earthsea books are also good (or at least the first three – I haven’t read the rest yet, but I intend to).

So there’s another testament to her talent – she actually made me enjoy books in a genre I’m not that into.

(Speaking of Earthsea, here’s a fun fact: The person who finally convinced me to try Le Guin was the priest of my church – he’s a big fan of the Earthsea books and has cited them in his sermons to make a point. The irony that Le Guin was a solid atheist is not lost on me.)

I haven’t read that that many of her books to make any kind of informed comment. But I will say that based on what I have read, perhaps her greatest talent was bringing something new to the table. She didn’t stick to the genre tropes, and more often than not used them mainly for lumber to build something different, or at least to say something worth saying.

So I don’t have any stories about her being an influence or an in-depth familiarity with her entire body of work. What I can say is that she was an extraordinarily gifted writer who wrote a couple of the best books I’ve ever read, and who has yet to disappoint me. And one good thing about getting started on her late is all the books I’m looking forward to reading now. I’ve already ordered copies of The Lathe Of Heaven and the first three novels of the Hainish cycle to start with.

Better late than never,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
You probably have heard that Charles Manson passed away.

Which is mainly worth blogging about for a couple of reasons: (1) I’d rather forgotten about him, and (2) Manson’s strange role in the pantheon of pop culture. At least for my generation.

To be clear, he was a dangerous lunatic who deserved to stay in jail until he died. Which he did. I remember that whenever he came up for parole, the TV media would do a bunch of stories about it and the general consensus was: of COURSE keep him locked up.

They would also do TV interviews with Manson, who was, among other things, what they call “good television”. His interviews were a mix of stand-up comedy and Dadaist performance art. Which is how Manson sort of imposed himself upon the pop culture landscape as the world’s most dangerously entertaining mass murderer.

At least for those of us either born after the Manson Family murders or too young to remember them. We knew all about it either from the book Helter Skelter or the TV movie based on it. We knew it was a true story, and yet it was presented in the narrative form we usually associate with fiction. And the story had all the hallmarks of a Hollywood thriller.

Which is why ultimately – and perhaps inevitably – we reduced Manson to a cartoon villain.

This song by legendary Nashville hardcore band Rednecks In Pain sums it up well.



Or, if you like, this Ben Stiller sketch.



Which is not to minimize the horror of the Manson murders. It’s just that for those of us who came of age after the 60s were over, it didn’t have the same kind of impact that it did on people who were, say, high-school age or above when the murders happened, especially in the context of the cultural revolution America was undergoing at the time. Also, to be honest, by the time I knew who Manson was, serial killers were a thing (Zodiac killer, Son Of Sam, etc) and Jim Jones had his followers commit mass suicide in Guyana. So while the Manson murders were horrifying, they didn't exactly stand out.

That said, strange as it sounds, Manson was one of those monsters of society who was always present in the pop culture landscape, even if he was mainly just lurking in the background muttering to himself. The weird charisma he exerted on his followers also had an effect on those of us who were repulsed by him – a madman with the ability to make you question yr own sanity if you weren’t careful.

Or is that giving him too much credit?

Anyway, when I think of it, I wonder if maybe it was a good thing that he became a cartoon character for many of us. True Evil wants you to take it seriously. It wants you to be afraid. It hates being laughed at, being mocked. And in the end, we laughed at Manson. And in doing so we made him powerless to frighten us.

There’s a lesson there, perhaps, especially in this day and age where various groups of people are trying to frighten us into accepting their agenda.

FUN FACT: One of the many legends of Charles Manson is that he once auditioned for the Monkees TV show. Turns out that’s not true.

Helter Stupid,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
As you know, Adam West is gone.

Like a lot of people, West was a pop culture icon of my childhood thanks to the syndication of Batman. And whatever his qualities as an actor, he was perfect for the role – too perfect, perhaps, although West was able to reconcile himself with it. And that’s good.

Also, like a lot of people, he was my first Batman experience – in my case, it was the TV show that led me to read the comic books, rather than the other way round. And of course there will always be debate about how “authentic” West’s Batman was – after all, the whole show was meant to be ironic camp fun for 60s hipsters who laughed at Batman’s ultra-square demeanor.

And yet it wasn’t. While the show was essentially conceived as a sort of superhero sitcom, they were serious about Batman’s squareness, if only because he was meant to be the sane centerpiece of an insane crooked world of flamboyant supervillains, and a counterpoint to Robin’s youthful impulsiveness to do what feels right vs what is right – even if it’s a detail like pedestrian safety or being too young to legally enter a nightclub.

Here’s one way of looking at it – college-age hipsters watched it in the 1960s and laughed at Batman’s goody-two-shoes squareness. Primary school kids in the 1970s like me watched the reruns and saw Batman as the ultimate role model – the guy who stands for justice, defends the defenseless, obeys rules and laws (apart from the ones against vigilantism, of course, but who thinks of that when yr eight?), and generally does the right thing for the Greater Good of society.

In other words, we didn't see the irony – we saw the superhero we thought Batman was supposed to be. And we aspired to that. As you do when yr a kid.

Of course we grew up, and in my case I did see the goofy, hokey side of it all (and as Mark Hamill has pointed out, it says a lot that West was able to play the role for laughs and seriously at the same time).

By that time, too, we had The Dark Knight and characters like Wolverine, the first of many bad-ass superheroes who were perfectly fine with killing bad guys and delivering snappy one-liners while doing it – which Adam West’s Batman would never have done in a million years.

Don't get me wrong – gritty realism and graphic violence has its place in comics. I liked Frank Miller’s take on the Dark Knight, and it’s an aspect of the character worthy of exploration, and one that has been explored well, possibly to the point of ad nauseum. But it’s just one aspect of a multifaceted and contradictory character. And West’s Batman is arguably at the core of the character – he may be an orphan who dresses up like a bat to punch the crap out of criminals, but he is also grounded in a very clear sense of right and wrong, and there are lines he will not cross.

Naïve and oversimplistic? Probably. But why not? For my money, superhero stories don’t have to be “realistic” in order to be entertaining or meaningful. They also work as basic good vs evil stories where good generally wins, eventually – and does so on its own terms rather than stooping to the level of evil. And the “terms” can be generally defined as what we think of as ideals of morality, citizenship and justice – where crime never pays and the bad guys never get away with it, but ensuring that without breaking the confines of a fair and impartial justice system. The fact that the real justice system is neither fair nor impartial – to say nothing of the fact that vigilantism technically is by definition extrajudicial – is beside the point. Classic superheroes tended to operate according to the principles of that system regardless of whether the system itself did or not.

We need stories like that, just as we need stories that focus on what happens when the system fails us. Because I don’t think you can really appreciate the significance of the latter without appreciating the aspirations of the former.

Also, as Neil Gaiman intimated in a Riddler story, the former is just more fun. And it’s evident we’re starting to see a backlash at least in DC films that have gone for gritty realism vs Marvel’s lighter approach. I personally love the Nolan Batman films, but that was a specific cycle of films. There’s no need to make the whole universe like that. Anyway, you know you’ve gone too far with the Dark Knight angle when the Lego films are making fun of you.

I suppose some might point to Joel Schumacher’s Batman and Robin as proof that light-hearted cartoony Batman doesn’t work. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, partly because Schumacher went against the expectations of franchise fans at the time who expected Tim Burton’s version, but also because the problem with Batman and Robin wasn’t the one-liners, overacting villains and cartoon sound effects – it was a bad story, too many supervillains, a very clumsy and forced attempt to shoehorn Batgirl into the franchise and Robin basically acting like a petulant jerk.

So, anyway, respect to Adam West for helping create a square, straight-edge Batman that we could look up to and yet not take too seriously, all at once.

Go West,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
Chris Cornell is gone.

And of course I have to blog about that because the very first time I heard Soundgarden … I wasn’t that impressed.

Not that I thought they sucked. Far from it. I just didn’t quite get what they were doing.

This was 100% my problem. I was writing album reviews for the college newspaper at the time, and I was very heavily into punk and underground music at the time. The way it worked was, the local mall record store would let me take a couple of new records home to listen to, and then I would choose which one I thought made enough of an impression (good or bad) to write about, then bring them back.

One week, one of the options was Soundgarden’s Loud Love. I forget what the other album was, but I wrote about it instead, because I could at least get a handle on it. I really didn’t know what to make of Soundgarden – they were long-haired guys with no shirts on and they sounded (to me) like a heavy Led Zeppelin tribute band. I suppose they didn’t fit within my narrow punk aesthetic so I kind of blew them off.

Less than a year later, some friends turned me on to Nirvana’s first album, Mudhoney and Mother Love Bone from someplace called Seattle. I liked them a lot. Then someone else reintroduced me to Loud Love again, and I gave it another chance and THEN it clicked. I got it. And I was both amazed at the music, at Cornell’s vocals, and at myself for being so thick as to not like it on first listen.

I tended to do this a lot when I was younger. (Heck, I probably still do it now.) There was a long list of bands I didn’t really “get” the first time I heard them, but give it a year and I’d hear them again and go, “Wow, this is great, what was I thinking?”

Anyway.

Here’s a true story: I saw Soundgarden live when they were promoting the Badmotorfinger album. My best friend and I drove from Clarksville, TN to Nashville to watch them open for Skid Row. The played for something like 40 minutes and absolutely blew the roof off the dump. We danced in the aisle and as soon as Soundgarden finished their set, we got out of the building before Skid Row could get anywhere near the stage.

It’s probably the only time in my life I ever paid full price for a concert ticket just to see the opening band.



That’s Soundgarden, of course. As for Cornell himself, I admit I didn’t buy his solo stuff, but I did like the first Audioslave album – it was basically Rage Against The Machine with a new lead singer, but it blended perfectly.

Even his James Bond theme song was pretty decent. That was a surreal pop culture moment for me as well, having grown up with Bond films, where one of the big deals about any new film was who would they get to sing the theme song – at one time, it was a sort of a career signpost signaling you’d finally made it. That arguably stopped being true by the time The Living Daylights came out. Still, they didn’t give the job of singing the latest Bond theme song to just anyone. Anyway, Cornell wasn’t an obvious choice – if you were going to go with “former grunge singer does Bond theme” atall, I’d have thought Eddie Vedder would be yr go-to guy.

In any case, admit it – “You Know My Name” was arguably the best Bond song since Duran Duran’s “A View To A Kill”.

Anyway, he was one of the iconic singers of my college years, and I’m saddened and shocked to hear he’s gone so soon.

Say hello 2 heaven,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
As you all know, Mary Tyler Moore is gone.

I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been said – she was a TV staple of my childhood, and I do remember that final episode and what a big deal it was.

And with everyone talking about how revolutionary the show was in terms of featuring a female lead who wasn’t a housewife, I suppose it had some kind of background effect on me in terms of learning that women can be independent and have careers like anyone else. Which sounds obvious today, of course, but in 1970 this was still a new concept for many people. (So was the idea of putting a divorced female character on prime time TV, which was apparently the original premise, which CBS rejected.)

Anyway, among the tributes pouring in to MTM, some people have been posting covers of the show’s theme song.



The one I’ve known for years is, of course, the Husker Du version.



Then there’s the Joan Jett version.



You've probably heard both of those in the past week. 

But odds are you haven’t heard the Sammy Davis Jr disco version.



Or the Nashville Country version by Sonny Curtis (who. Incidentally, sang the original TV version).



Now that I’ve heard both, I still prefer the Husker Du/Joan Jett versions.

Yr gonna make it after all,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
And so 2016 is done.

Here’s how a lot of people feel about it.







Here’s how I personally feel about it:

1. I do think that on some kind of objective or non-partisan level, 2016 wasn’t a great year, particularly for the West. After all, it was the year of a particularly noxious US election – easily the most soul-sucking and joyless of any election I’ve ever followed – bookended by the deaths of major cultural icons like David Bowie and Carrie Fisher, and punctuated by hate-fueled mass shootings, terrorism, and a deterioration of race relations, among other things. And it was a year where politicians successfully exploited fear, loathing and xenophobia to gain power, stoking higher and higher levels of fear and distrust between groups of people.

2. However, it’s fair to say a lot of this was artificially amplified by hyperpartisan broadcast media, blog sites and social media feeds packed with hyperbolic batshit negativity memes (which in itself is an objective indicator that 2016 was a drag).

3. So it’s weirdly appropriate that the “Fuck You 2016” meme shooting around the internet is itself a hyperbolic batshit negativity meme – for far too many people, that was their default setting in terms of media consumption and online interaction.

4. But it is hyperbole. This article from NPR and this article from WaPo make a good case for this. Also, this article from the Smithsonian provides historical perspective on the “worst year ever” meme. 

5. Granted, the extent to which it is hyperbole will depend on yr specific circumstances. For example, if yr just sad that yr candidate lost the POTUS election, that's just post-election blues amplified by the emo/fear aspects of this specific election. However, if you live in Flint, MI, or if yr an African-American whose family member was killed by police despite being unarmed, or if yr a Muslim who just watched a guy win the presidency by promising to treat you as an enemy of the state, or if yr hometown is Aleppo – etc and so on – then absolutely you’ve earned the right to say that 2016 was a terrible year. 

(On the flip side, if yr a Trump fan, a member of the KKK and/or a Wall Street player – or if you were simply someone who was not directly impacted by any of the above trends and/or don't really care about those who were – then 2016 may have been good year for you, barring any personal circumstances.)

6. In terms of historical perspective, 2016 was lightweight compared to – say – the years that contained political assassinations, the Holocaust, the Inquisition or the Black Plague. And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in terms of pure statistics, 2016 actually showed promise in a lot of areas. So like the NPR article mentions above, a lot of the dithering over 2016 is more about perception than reality.

7. Others have pointed out – and I agree – that calendars are artificial constructs for tracking the passage of time, so it’s kind of silly to treat 2016 as a bad year that we need to get out of the way. It doesn't work that way.

8. On a related note, people made a lot of hay about 2016 being a bad year for celebrity icons. I think that’s a combination of the relevance of specific icons and also the age at which some of them passed on – Gene Wilder and Leonard Cohen (both in their 80s) were sad but not too surprising, compared to relatively younger people like Prince, Carrie Fisher, George Michael and possibly even Bowie.

But sorry to say, we’re going to see more of that in 2017 and every year from here on in. The actors, musicians, artists and other heroes whose work meant something to us when we were kids are mortal like everyone else, and sooner or later, it’s time for them to go. Knowing this doesn’t make it less painful when they do go, obviously. The point is that 2016 wasn’t some cursed year – it just seemed that way in the context of all the other crappy things going on.

9. By the way, for the people who have been joking that they hope 2017 is the year that Death stops killing the good celebrities and starts targeting people who “deserve it” (Trump being on the top of the list, followed by Ted Nugent, Scott Baio, Mike Pence, Ann Coulter, etc): not funny. Not to me.

Bring it on,

This is dF

REBEL GIRL

Dec. 28th, 2016 12:02 pm
defrog: (Default)
And now Carrie Fisher is gone.

And somehow this pic just seems appropriate.



I don’t know what I can add to everything else being said about her. Obviously she was part of my pop culture landscape with Star Wars – Leia was one of the first female characters I saw onscreen who wasn’t a frail damsel in distress. She was smart, tough and funny.

Fisher was also a good writer (I’ve only ever read Postcards From The Edge, but it’s a very funny book), and a funny person. I also loved the fact that she brought her dog Gary along to interviews.



It’s sad that she’s gone, but it’s good that she was here. Not only did she embody one of the great female icons of my generation, she also did a lot of good works offscreen by talking about her addiction and mental illness issues. (One of my family members is a recovering alcoholic who has also been diagnosed as bipolar, so I’m not a disinterested bystander in the that regard.)

In closing, I’ll honor her request to report that she died the way she wanted to go – drowned in moonlight and strangled to death by her own bra.

A princess in a world full of dragons,

This is dF

EDITED TO ADD [29 Dec]: And a day later, her mom Debbie Reynolds has also passed, because that's how 2016 rolls. 

defrog: (Default)
Well, I can’t post something about George Michal and not do the same for Leonard Cohen, who did a Bowie last month by releasing a great new album on his birthday and passing away shortly afterwards.

The title track is very apropos – not just of Cohen’s passing, but 2016 in general.



It’s a high note to go out on – even this late in the game, Cohen still had a way with words and imagery. Helping things out here are the musical arrangements via son Adam Cohen, which are in some ways the kind of minimalist background typical of a Cohen album, but with some striking variations from the formula here and there. It’s made a lot of Best of 2016 lists, and it will likely make mine as well.

Ironically, when Cohen passed, most of the media focus wasn’t on the new album but his back catalog, specifically that song, which everyone knows thanks to Jeff Buckley’s cover version (which I blogged about ages ago – note that the YouTube links are all busted). I can understand that – after all, Cohen was one of the best singer-songwriters of his time, so it’s only right to focus on the classics that earned him that rep.

My own introduction to Cohen was via – of all things – the Natural Born Killers soundtrack, which featured two songs from his album The Future. I liked the songs, but even then I didn’t realize his songwriting reputation until the Tower Of Song tribute album came out. That album is a mixed bag, but it encouraged me to check out the source, and I’ve been an intermittent fan ever since – I say “intermittent” because to be honest, not every Cohen album is a winner, and a little Cohen does go a long way for me.

Still, if you need a song, he had a tower full of ‘em.

Here’s one my favorites that that isn't that one.



I’m sentimental if you know what I mean,

This is dF
defrog: (45 frog)
And so 2016 gets one more boot in with George Michael.

I have to confess, I’m one of the few people on the planet who wasn’t a big fan. Which is not to say I don’t think he was talented. He was a fine singer and a showman, and I can prove that with this video of him performing with Queen for a Freddie Mercury tribute/AIDS awareness fundraiser.



Sure, he’s no Freddie Mercury, but c’mon, no one was except Freddie. And in many respects Freddie was no George Michael.

That said, I was never really into Wham!, who I found to be a bit silly and pretty to be taken seriously. I’ll admit too that by the time I became aware of them, my musical tastes were more solidly in classic/heavy rock territory. And by the time George went solo, I was firmly in Punkville and turned off by Michael’s ubiquity. So … you know.

Now that I’m older and wiser (okay, older), I still can’t say I’m a fan, but it’s easier to see why Wham! were as big as they were, and why George ended up an even bigger pop star on his own. One thing I didn’t realize in the 80s was that Michael wasn’t just a pretty face being handed pro pop songs to sing – he wrote most of his own songs (both in Wham! and solo), and 30+ years later, his hits are still in circulation – one of them now being a staple Christmas song, albeit one that’s now going to have some extra emotional heft, seeing as how he passed on Christmas Day.

Anyway, here in HK he had his share of fans. And inevitably, one of the classic stories making the rounds here is the time that Wham! became the first Western pop group to play in mainland China.

It’s actually a fascinating story in terms of how they managed to land the gig (to include their manager screwing Queen out of the gig by portraying Freddie Mercury as kinda gay – hmmmm yes …) and how the audience had to be careful not to be seen having an unacceptably good time, etc.

Respect.

Guilty feet have got no rhythm,

This is dF
defrog: (license to il)
I should probably post something about Fidel Castro, if only for posterity.

Obviously a lot of people are assessing his legacy via their own narrow political filters. For some people on the Left he was a symbolic hero with good intentions who gave Conservative Self-Righteous America the finger for decades – oh, and great healthcare system. For some people on the Right he was an evil, ruthless murderous Commie dictator (just like Obama) and not at all like (say) Vlad Putin (admirable) or Saddam Hussein (not a Commie, great terrorist killer).   

I think it's fair to say that Castro was all of these things. For me, however, Castro was mostly a cartoon character in American pop culture.

For context, I was born in 1965, well after the Communist Revolution in Cuba and the Bay Of Pigs incident. By the time I was aware of “the news” and the existence of geopolitics in the mid-70s, Castro was more a comedy staple than Terrifying Communist Menace On America’s Doorstep. Even with the Cold War still raging, Castro wasn’t an actual threat to America so much as an irritant for right-wingers annoyed that anyone could get away with setting up a Damn Commie regime just 90 miles off the coast of this great nation, etc.

So by the time I was aware of who Castro was, my image of him was more like this.

 

 

 

Of course, as I got older, I learned about the details of his regime, which are far more nuanced and complex than either side cares to admit. But really Castro has always kind of remained a television news character – like Reagan, Yasser Arafat, Mikael Gorbachev and others. So I didn’t take him all that seriously.

Which is probably why by the 1990s – like a lot of people – I thought the US ban on trade and travel with Cuba to be anachronistic and pointless. Sure, dictatorships are bad, and life under Castro was pretty bad for a lot of people.

On the other hand, by then I was very aware that the US govt has always been selective about which dictatorships are bad. And frankly by the 90s it was pretty clear that the US sanctions that were meant to isolate Castro and hasten the demise of his revolution simply weren’t working. At all. They weren’t working all the way up to the time that Obama put an end to them.

I guess that’s why on a purely objective level, it’s hard not to be impressed with Castro a little. He was a genuine cult of personality who started his own banana republic and defied the world’s biggest superpower right up to the end of his long natural life. The US couldn’t kill him (and don’t think they didn’t try). They couldn’t squeeze him economically. Nothing worked. (The going joke now is that the CIA finally got him by getting him to die of old age.)  

Still, yes, murderous dictator, etc. For all of the US’s hapless failings regarding its foreign policy on Cuba, no one should be glossing over the fact that Castro was pretty ruthless and heavy-handed as dictators go. You could argue that his predecessor Batista was worse, but let’s not pretend Castro’s opposition got off light.

Anyway, he’s gone, and now many Cubans are hoping that, with reformist brother Raul in charge, the country can move forward somehow and join the 21st century.

There is one hitch, of course.

Cuba libre,

This is dF 

defrog: (Default)
Gene Wilder is gone, as you probably know.

I should probably say something – partly because I’m a fan of many of his 70s films, but also because the very first film I remember seeing in a cinema was Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory.

Or at least it’s the first live-action film I remember. My parents may have taken me to see a Disney film or two (which would have been either The Jungle Book and/or The Aristocats), but I have no memory of that. But I vividly remember going to see WW&TCF. I was six when it came out, and I remember the contrast between the darkness of Charlie’s world (especially the scene where Slugworth tries to recruit him as an industrial espionage agent) and the bright Technicolor world of Wonka, and I remember the fates of the bad kids, and the twisted horror of the psychedelic riverboat scene (which scared the hell out of me).

And of course I remember Gene Wilder alternately singing, chattering and shouting his way through the picture. Wonka was the first movie character to stick in my head. He’s been there ever since, though it wasn’t until I was older that I realized just how well-constructed a character Wonka was, and how a lot of that was down to Wilder’s brilliant performance.

And then came his work with Mel Brooks – The Producers, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein – and Richard Pryor (the first two films, anyway).

By the 80s, I’d lost interest in Wilder after he seemed to just want to do sentimental romantic comedies, a genre which has never really interested me. The Woman In Red in particular seemed to cement his image as the Lionel Richie of Hollywood comedy – politely inoffensive romantic man in a cardigan – at a time when I was getting into horror movies and punk.

But I still enjoy watching him in his 70s heyday. I used to joke that he was one of the Great Shouting Actors Named Gene of my generation (the other one being Gene Hackman). But it’s intended as a compliment.

Incidentally, one Wilder film I’d recommend that isn't a Wonka or Mel Brooks film is The Frisco Kid (1979). You may want to approach with caution because (1) it got mixed reviews and (2) I haven’t seen it for over 30 years. But I remember liking it at the time. If nothing else, you get to see a younger Harrison Ford play cowboy.

Pure imagination,

This is dF

Profile

defrog: (Default)
defrog

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 31

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 2nd, 2025 04:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios