REFLECTIONS

Regardless of whether or not you are religious, the better aspect of holidays is that they drag you (sometimes kicking and screaming) into a reflective mode.

The Jewish High Holidays, for example, are frequently about atonement (with a bit of self-flagellation for added zest!).

Thanksgiving, when not about the stresses of travel, family expectations, digestive concerns and a bunch of eagerly begun but ultimately incomplete conversations, actively encourages reflection. Its origins, no matter how distorted by time and history, are rooted in something rather simple and smart, which is to give thanks for our blessings and to realize how much we have for which we should be grateful.

It is not easy in these very difficult times to do and the encouragement to do so, no matter how seemingly external, is welcome. Indeed, it is all so scary right now that we often take refuge in our misery, more comfortable with the demons we live with than the angels we don't recognize. After all, so many are out of work or have taken jobs that don't cover the bills and bring about endless frustration. Rent is dear and hard to come by, and the growth of living costs is in no way matched by growth in our income.

And so, sadly, people seem to have switched into an "every-man-for-himself" mode. You see this on the streets and public transportation, as people push past and knock into you without a word of apology. Employees, fearfully following the scripts of their employers' increasingly absurd and usurious policies, lose their humanity when dealing with customers in need. And clearly we're following an example laid out by the blatant bad behavior on Capitol Hill these days. It seems that winning or taking power is all that matters, to the extent that the real function of society--to care for ALL of us, especially those less well off--has fallen by the wayside. The social contract we all subscribe to is rendered meaningless when the milk of human kindness (let alone civility) has run dry.

So while Thanksgiving may appear to some as "outmoded" in its quaint gauntlet for appreciation, such thoughts are needed now more than ever. We need to be thankful for a safe place to live, which is not afforded to all. We need to be grateful for our health, which can change at any moment and, unless things are fixed soon, can lead us to physical and financial ruin in the blink of an eye. We need to appreciate our loved ones, the folks who love us NOT for our official role in their lives but for who we are, what we share of ourselves and what we give to each other. We should be thankful for mirth and music, for creativity and imagination, for loyalty and the ability to disagree with someone without a loss of respect. Depressions, both financial and emotional, threaten to bring us down individually and as a nation--we should be grateful to those who rally us, actively trying to find a solution, picking us up when we are at our lowest. I'm all for separation of Church and State, but the value of true humanity, that runs through all religious doctrine, should indeed be part and parcel of how we function as a nation and as a people. Those who trumpet values should examine real human costs first, before price tags.

Supporting one another costs little. A smile to someone across a commerce counter costs next to nothing, but gives so much. Civility takes extra effort, as does respect, but it is perhaps our most valuable commodity. On this holiday and all days, maybe we should be most grateful we have these gifts to give--and we should give of them freely. Nothing else shows the better aspect of humanity.

POWERFULLY BEAUTIFUL

It is funny how the world of art has viewed the human body--and men and women as objects of art. While men have for centuries dominated as the maestros--frequently choosing the female nude as their object of choice--women artists were kept under wraps and the male form was more often than not kept discreetly cloaked or clothed. (Not always, granted--but why, if I were to ask you to name a famous male nude, would almost everyone gravitate to Michelangelo's David? Isn't it because after that they get harder to recall and name?) And while classical artists would at times revel in the architecture of the human body (mostly female), modern artists have seemed almost prurient when it comes to the male form. All too often, the male nude has been relegated to the category of homo-eroticism. (This is not to negate gay art patrons, mind you, who've always recognized beauty regardless of gender.)

Commendably, in the past two decades female artists of many stripes, generations and ages have been revealed. (Yes, there are more than just Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo, wonderful though they are!) A whole new generation of fans have finally begun to realize that posing was NOT the only contribution women have made to art over the centuries.

But with changing times, modern artists have also begun to be willing to look at the beauty of the male form, not merely as part of the gay subculture, but as part of our willingness to accept our bodies as a source of pride. (What religious guilt has done will take centuries to repair!) Finally, both male and female artists have been willing to view and portray the male form in all its glory and come up with as many interpretations as they previously have for the female nude.

Firehouse Studio has come up with a stunning publication of contemporary male classical forms, entitled POWERFULLY BEAUTIFUL: Classically Inspired Living Painters of the Male Figure. It is a stunning and beautifully produced collection of paintings by a talented coterie of 29 male and female artists--sensual, colorful and often provocative, ranging in style from the photo realistic to post-impressionistic. With a foreword by Grady Harp and an afterword by David Jarrett, it is a magnificent new publication and a valuable addition to the modern library of 21st Century art and ideas--and well worth your exploration. Currently available in a surprisingly sumptuous paperback format, the book is distributed through Amazon.com and CreativeSpace (an Amazon subsidiary) and is a great addition to any personal or public art library. It is not only a celebration of classical painting of the male form but a celebration of active artists displaying enormous gifts in the service of the beauty around us.

In the interest of full disclosure--no pun intended!--I do indeed know one of the artists quite well, but then again, this IS a blog and I'm NOT a journalist here! But rather than take my advice on this, check it out for yourself at https://www.createspace.com/3382894 or on the "Powerfully Beautiful" Facebook page ( which is http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Powerfully-Beautiful/129778600457?v=info&ref=ts). And believe it or not, since this IS a blog, I can pass on a secret 10% discount code: BYJG6B5F.

POETRY FOR PETS

Over the past five years, as a founding member (and frequent writing and directing participant), I have regaled you with invitations to events presented by the sterling Playwrights for Pets, the organization that raises funds for animal shelters in New York City through staging theatrical readings, drawing on some of the best and brightest writers, actors and other artists.

And I am again. But this time is a bit different.

Oh, yes, there's certain to be wonderful writing. And the performers scheduled (Brian Fuqua, Laura Gillis, Jonna McElrath and John Moss) are superbly gifted performers who are veterans of numerous PFP benefits. There will even be wine & soft drinks, plus 45-minutes of entertainment. And all the money will go to benefit Animal Haven, who will also be hosting the event in their lovely Soho adoption, training and boutique space.

The difference this time: POETRY. Poetry, versus short plays, will be the literary format of the evening. (Not being a poet myself, I'll be sipping and enjoying like the rest of you!) Sue Yocum, Executive Director of PFP, has rounded up works from talented poets old and new to create what should be a most enjoyable evening. So if you are a pet person and want to spend a lovely early evening with a glass of wine and good company, you could either sit in your corner chair with a Cabernet and your cat OR you could come and help others who hope for a home where they can keep their master/mistress company. (C'mon, your pet can spare you for one night!)

Poetry for Pets will take place on Tuesday, October 27th at 7:30 at Animal Haven, 251 Centre Street (between Broome & Grand). Donations are $10. Reservations can be made by calling 718 -768-4213 or e-mailing to Sue@playwrightsforpets.com.

HAPPY AS A CLAM

This morning, eating my breakfast at Two Boots (my favorite haunt in Park Slope), I thought that at least for the moment I was "happy as a clam."

As I should be. Things could be better (on the employment front) but things could also be much, MUCH worse . . . !

And then, of course, it started . . . the brain, which hadn't dared to start prior to the first sip of iced coffee, lest it strain itself unnecessarily . . .

Just how happy is a clam?

Why are clams purported to be so damned gleeful?

Is it "low expectations"? Does a clam not expect that much--and therefore it doesn't take much to make one of them happy?

Do they keep life simple? Free from too much stress? Even before they end up on ice, are they staying cool?

And if they are successful at doing this--as most of us homo sapiens are NOT . . . are we then not even as smart as clams? Let alone, infrequently as happy . . . ?

Perhaps we should take a lesson from our mollusk friends and just keep our big fat bivalves shut . . .

Ah, to be as happy as a clam . . . discuss amongst yourselves . . . !

MANY FACES OF MERYL

I admittedly have not been dwelling in the camp who feel Meryl Streep can do no wrong. (I've frequently felt that she can . . . and does!)

Having followed her career studiously for many years (she is only a few years older than myself), I have fully understood her allure--after all, she is tall, attractive, smart as a whip, has a good ear, a great voice and, let's face it, quite a presence. She is understandably a major talent and it is not surprising that she is one of our most honored actresses. But there are times that I have found her self-conscious, mannered and, at times, overly self-congratulatory. There were certain films that I could feel her patting her own back, saying "good job, Meryl." Her prodigious technique may have been on display, but I also felt that her technique was showing. I won't bore you all with the roles I disliked--well, okay, I personally found her stilted, wilted and "in quotes" in SOPHIE'S CHOICE and SILKWOOD, among many others. (I can feel the angry hate mail being composed already, so hang in there a few more moments, if you will . . . )

Then there was a period where I felt she stopped taking everything (and herself) too seriously and just left herself alone, so to speak--instead of "working" it, she became the character just by trusting her own, perfectly wonderful instrument. She was remarkable as Karen Blixen (aka Isak Dinesen) in 1985's OUT OF AFRICA--although I think it's hard to be less than terrific in any film by Sydney Pollak. (And it was obviously a good year for her, as she gave an appropriately brittle and believable performance in the film version of David Hare's PLENTY. ) Somewhere around that time, a dingo ate her baby--but we'll just leave that be. In 1990, she was wonderfully real in the screen adaptation of POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE, playing a roman a clef version of Carrie Fisher. She was actually enchanting as Albert Brooks' inamorata in DEFENDING YOUR LIFE, a shamefully neglected and highly enjoyable film that ranks as one of her best (and his, too--he wrote and directed it, after all). And while others may debate its merits, the triumvirate of Meryl, Goldie Hawn and Bruce Willis made DEATH BECOMES HER a black comedy I can still watch again and again. This was a looser, freer, more fluid actress, skilled in comedy and still truthful.

Then she started taking herself too seriously again, beginning to assume the role of "elder stateswoman." Lots of clunkers--and lots of adaptations of famous books and plays that preyed on her vaulted, vaunted status to guarantee some box office gravitas. Many of them sank like a stone. (I remain particularly grumpy about the film version of the wonderful play, MARVIN'S ROOM.) She was serviceable as an action hero in THE RIVER WILD, but a bit overwrought in BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY and fun but slightly self-conscious in ADAPTATION. She was so-so in THE HOURS, giving the least luminous among some wonderful performances, and I would have been perfectly happy if she had retired after trying to outdo Angela Lansbury as the Mother from Hell in the remake of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. (Then again, only Liev Schreiber survived that film unscathed--ONLY ONLY ONLY WATCH THE ORIGINAL OF THAT ONE!!!)

As for THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA--okay, but she could have phoned it in (and maybe did). Mannered, perhaps, but at least she was using the mannerisms to her advantage. She was skillful but not especially interesting.

ANGELS IN AMERICA--much deserved acclaim, really nice work under Mike Nichols terrific direction of Tony Kushner's masterpiece.

I am charitably skipping MAMMA MIA--it would just be too easy . . . !

Haven't seen DOUBT yet. Have it ready to watch, but I'm scared--scenes I've seen look overwrought (and I absolutely loved it onstage with Eileen Atkins and Ron Eldard).

So a drum roll, please . . .

JULIE & JULIA . . .

now THIS is the role she should be winning Oscars for, a whole passel of 'em! She is amazingly believable, funny, touching and full of life as the beloved Julia Child, catching the mannerisms, voice and SOUL we all feel we know so well. You cannot take your eyes off her, she is such a treat and a pleasure to watch. It is my hope that THIS ends up being one of the roles she is most remembered for--she is as magnificent here as Julia Child was herself in life.

I must hasten to add that JULIE & JULIA is a sheer delight, even BETTER than most of the reviews might lead you to believe--and they were mostly positive. I was thoroughly entertained from start to finish, even moved to tears a couple of times! The estimable Stanley Tucci makes a terrific partner as Paul Child, and the scenes between Streep and Tucci are sexy, funny, romantic, and irresistible. I found myself wanting to stay at the movie theater all day. (Of course, it also was air-conditioned there on the hottest day of the summer!) But I also think the "Julie" section of the movie has been unfairly under-rated, especially given the splendid performances of the always delightful Amy Adams as blogger Julie Powell and the sexy support of Chris Messina as her husband, Eric Powell. (Julie's decision to cook every single recipe of Julia's MASTERING THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING and blogging about it is the impetus for the whole film--which is told in juxtaposition with how Julia Child became, well, Julia Child, and how her famous career and book were born.) Nora Ephron's direction and screenplay are self-assured and great fun, making this her best film to date (and certainly her best looking film to date as well). There are many, many terrific cameos by some of the best actors on both coasts, with special mention going to Frances Sternhagen and particularly Jane Lynch. (Lynch, playing Julia's sister Dorothy, temporarily hijacks the film in a terrific performance that makes you think Dorothy's life should be another film onto itself! The scenes with the two sisters are hysterical, priceless!) This film is one of the truly adult treats of the summer of 2009.

But yes, ultimately, the film belongs to Julia--and Meryl's wondrous portrayal. If I was ever going to fall in love with her, well . . . okay, to misquote a Tom Cruise film (don't get me started!!!) . . . Meryl, you had me at bon appetit!

FACEBOOK BUSKERS

As an admitted addict, I am well familiar with the professed desire--to quit or curtail one's Facebook habit, presence, etc. Feeling somewhat whorish, smirk-y, embarrassed, like I've imbibed entirely too much, said a bit more than I meant to, eaves-dropped on one-too-many conversations, I swear to go cold turkey, to clean up my act, to at least set a limit, a curfew . . .

Of course, I am a man of few traditional bad habits--I don't smoke, drink (one glass, cheap date) or gamble.

Ah, but give me an audience . . .

In these tough economic times, being on Facebook is like being a street busker--performing your act to the crowd that passes by, sometimes attracting attention, maybe even winning a crown or two from a generous onlooker, entertaining the masses . . .

And sometimes, with too much time on my hands, I will I.M., add the witty quip, upload my latest twisted animation or my newest antique photos, lovingly hand-tinted, all with the assumption that my "friends" on Facebook can't wait for another of my bon mots, my special treats . . . and sometimes, I get so disgusted with myself, the sheer unmitigated ego of it all! I suddenly want to hide in shame, thinking what a needy cuss I've become!

But then, if I'm truly honest with myself . . . I am born to entertain, it's what I do, or rather, what I love to do. I live for wit and words and visual arts--and sharing those experiences with an audience. Whether this is a good thing or not, for me or for the assumed audience, is irrelevant. It is what I do, as medicine is what a doctor does, rocket science is what a rocket scientist does, etc.

And in an age where it is tough to get produced, tough to get presented, tough to even make a living no matter what the field, Facebook is providing a soap box, a street corner for FREE (at least for now, thank God!), and the passersby can either watch or not, throw a coin in your cup . . . or not . . . and you can put your wares out there: your wit, your opinions, your visuals, your projects, your connections, your dreams . . . it may not shake up the world but at least you are putting it out there INTO the world, and who knows . . .

The street performer is slightly sad. We'd always wish him/her a better venue to make performance dreams come true. And like Bert in MARY POPPINS, we know that those chalk drawings, no matter how beautiful and inviting, will disappear with this afternoon's sudden rain burst . . . but for the moment, it is lovely and the fact that it is there for us, however fleetingly, makes life a bit more lovely for the moment . . .

NOT ALWAYS SO SIMPLE

One of life's paradoxes--the things that should be so simple, like love, are in fact the things we complicate most for ourselves. Is it our love of puzzles? Our need for self-torment? Or does fear simply make us so irrational that we can't get out of our own way?

No blogger has yet found the answer to this--but then again, the poets have been working on the issue for far longer! And thank God they have! And likewise, let's be happy that Mark Von Sternberg has written and directed a charming new film called LOVE SIMPLE, currently showing as part of the HBO Latino Film Festival.

On a shoestring budget, Von Sternberg has created a quirky valentine, lovingly shot in Park Slope (with even more love than Noah Baumbach's THE SQUID AND THE WHALE). In a story alternately humorous and tender, love appears to two battle-scarred romance seekers in a neighborhood laundromat, and it should be a match made in heaven--except that, ashamed of their personal baggage, both start off with simple lies that turn into elaborate ruses that ultimately become difficult for them to unravel. People lying when pursuing the object of desire is nothing new, of course--Shakespeare has earned a pretty penny with such a premise time and time again. We all fear we won't be received by our beloved if we are not shown in the most favorable light. But in LOVE SIMPLE, even as we understand the young lovers' fears, we find ourselves wanting to call out, "No! Just say the truth, or you'll regret it!" That Von Sternberg's directorial/screenwriting debut awakens such urgency in even slightly-jaded hearts (such as this viewer) is a lovely accomplishment indeed.

The young technical staff belies whatever inexperience they may or may not have with an amazingly good-looking film on a tiny budget, and it is lovingly scored as well. The cast, to a man, is perfection. As Adam and Seta, the young couple navigating love's bumpy course, Francisco Solorzano and Patrizia Hernandez are funny, prickly and lovely, and they receive able support from their almost Shakespearean comedic counterparts (and best friends), played by John Harlacher and Caitlin Fitzgerald. A surprising supporting performance comes from famed playwright and screenwriter Israel Horovitz, playing Adam's ailing father with a touching blend of warmth and despair, and the scenes between father and son are quite moving. An assortment of fine supporting players lend to the Brooklyn ambiance, but this is not just another New York story--trusting the truth in love will always be tricky, but it is something that ultimately must be done if love is to survive.

LOVE SIMPLE will be shown again on Sunday, August 2nd, in NYC, 3:30 PM @ Clearview Cinemas Chelsea Screen 7 (260 W 23rd St, between 8th & 7th Ave). It will also be screened in Los Angeles August 7-9th at the Feel Good Film Festival.

And yes, I do know these folks--but the beauty of a blog is that you don't have to recuse yourself for journalistic ethics. (And if I didn't like it, I just wouldn't bother to write about it!)

"Stupid" Word Usage

I unashamedly adore Ms. Whoopi Goldberg and further admit to being hooked on The View. I find her admirably sensible, funny, practical, and warmly honest. So I begin this "dispute" with love.

Whoopi has an aversion to use of the word, "stupid," and I both appreciate and understand that aversion. In a strange but perhaps unsurprising development in our culture, the f-word is commonplace, but to call someone "stupid" actually stings. ("Fool," another four-letter f-word, is also a conversation-stopper.)

The good news, I guess, is that words still have their meaning-- and the power to make people sit up and take notice. While cuss words come and go, they are meant to be disposable, ultimately. But real words have power. Real words are binding. Real words can sting.

Now, President Obama is coming under his usual daily dose of attack for his use of the word, "stupid", in condemning the behavior of Cambridge police in arresting Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an esteemed Harvard professor who was arrested and cuffed for breaking into his own house, even when he presented his I.D. (Apparently, the "absent-minded professor" had misplaced his keys during an overseas trip to China and needed to find a way into his own abode. Having had to search for my keys on a daily basis, I sincerely feel Prof. Gates' pain, as those things truly DO have a life of their own.) That the police responded rapidly to the burglary call from a neighbor is laudable, but that the police arrested Prof. Gates despite the evidence that this wasn't a crime, arrested him for disorderly conduct in his own home, did not read him his Miranda rights, and then refused to apologize for their mistake--WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THIS?

That Professor Gates is a highly-recognized and respected member of numerous communities shouldn't matter IF he had behaved badly--and only those at the scene would know what really went down. No member of ANY community should abuse those doing their civic duty, and lord knows the police need support in their actions and appreciation for the bravery they display on a regular basis. On the other hand, President Obama is absolutely right in pointing out that the degree of racial profiling informing the activities of law enforcement has statistically reached frightening proportions and politely ignoring this fact will not make it all go away. (As Whoopi sagely pointed out, it is also sad that neighbors don't get to know each other better--perhaps, had Professor Gates' neighbors taken the time to get to know him, they wouldn't have called to report a black man breaking into the house across the street.)

But to the word itself.

Asked a direct question, the President responded honestly, openly and directly with his opinion (which is in keeping with his style). He said the police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Professor Gates, given the evidence that there was no crime committed.

In looking at the definitions of the word, "stupid," one finds "lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind," and also "in a state of stupor, stupefied; stupid from fatigue." (see below for reference.) In short, acting stupidly is the action of one temporarily not at their best. It does not imply they are permanently or at all times deficient, but it does infer that they are not using their best judgment in the given circumstances. How much more correct can the President's usage be?

Also, just as parents have a right to bring a child up short when they've misbehaved, it is totally appropriate for the top law enforcement official in the country to reprimand his subordinates when those who serve in our name misbehave in the execution of their duty. (Especially when this behavior has been going on unchecked for far too long, to a degree that is practically an epidemic.)

Finally, it speaks to President Obama's character. I respect him for going to a friend's defense rather than taking the political high-ground, especially when this situation is not rooted in political gain. Reverend Jeremiah Wright was deliberately using his position and was keenly aware of the political consequences. Professor Gates was trying to get in his own front door. Barrack Obama, clearly, is a true friend, and as an African-American and as a friend, answered the reporter's question honestly, without "politico speak" and I, for one, appreciate that. (He further prefaced the remark, saying he did not know all the facts involved and was speaking from a personal response.)

Stupidity is the use of poor judgment.

For example, when the Republican Representative (whose name escapes me, sorry) was attacking Obama's health plan yesterday NOT by discussing its weaknesses but by saying how this would break Obama's power, further attacking the President himself and not the plan . . . I would say this was stupid, revealing an attack that was totally based in partisan politics and not on what is best for the health care of his constituency (a subject for another blog, another time).

Stupidity is today, when Sgt. Crowley, the officer in question, criticizied HIS boss (the President of the United States) for butting in. Stupid is Sgt. Crowley saying he will never apologize. He is 100% right for not apologizing for doing his job--but he is 100% wrong not to acknowledge that mistakes were made and that he could have handled things better in his position.

Reading the police account, it sounds like tempers and egos flared. When one has been travelling for hours and hours (back from China), one might be very fatigued and irritable. (I know I would be.) I suspect no one behaved in a sterling, clear-headed fashion that night. When President Obama refers to the behavior as "stupid," he is not casting aspersions. He has hit the nail squarely on the head in an attempt to insist that we all do better.

So Whoopi, my love--I still respect you, but I think one should use strong words when strong words are appropriately used.

---
References:

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"stupid." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 23 Jul. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid>.

American Psychological Association (APA):
stupid. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid