Author Archive

Enabling Celebrity Dysfunction (I Blame Oprah)

Just when it looks like Roman Polanski has re-set the bar for personal behavior so low that it’s practically subterranean, the late John Phillips comes along and somehow finds a way to slink underneath it.  Maybe.  Maybe, because his accuser is his own daughter Mackenzie Phillips, a drug addict since the mid-70s who is currently peddling her sordid tale of incest, heroin and general dysfunction to anyone with a lens and a microphone.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Perhaps this junkie, who by her own admission had a decade-long affair with her own father starting at age 19, is not the most reliable witness.  On the other hand, considering the Hollywood community’s frantic defense of noted pedophile Polanski, it’s not too difficult to imagine how Mackenzie and her rock star father might have figured, “Well, we’re here, we’re high, we’re horny.  What’s some shared DNA between stars?”

I blame Oprah.

Oh, I blame Mackenzie Phillips too.  The law has a wonderful concept called “joint and several liability,” which recognizes that several wrongdoers can all be jointly blameworthy even if they do different awful things.  Mackenzie Phillips is a narcotics-gobbling pervert; the manifest evil of her father does nothing to lessen her own guilt for the smoldering wasteland she has made of her charmed life.  That is, assuming even a portion of her accusations against John, some of which her sister backs up (which itself is mind-boggling), are true.

But Oprah’s blameworthiness is based not on committing the underlying evil but on exploiting it, celebrating it and normalizing it.  That YouTube clip was not selected at random.  It’s an ad, and it’s selling degeneracy.  Watch as it strings along the viewer with tantalizing tidbits like “My father shot me up for the first time” and an anecdote about a lecherous Mick Jagger while leading up to the big score, the hook, the catharsis, the promise of a heartrending confession of incest, some tears, Oprah’s soothing words (aided by the currently sleek Valerie Bertinelli) and a final absolution right there on daytime television.

You screwed your dad for a decade while in a drug-fueled haze, but you came on my show and confessed, and your sins are washed away.  Go in peace, my child.  You are absolved.

No.  It’s long past time to end the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex’s power to grant indulgences.

There’s this powerful tool out there that for too long has been stashed away in our society’s attic.  It’s called “shame,” and it serves a wonderful purpose: it helps prevent people from doing horrible things by ensuring they understand that when they do horrible things, society will treat them like people who have done horrible things.

Mackenzie Phillips ought to be ashamed of herself.  She should be hanging her head in shame, not hanging out in studios getting sucked up to by TV nimrods:

Ladies and gentlemen, Mackenzie Phillips, who as an adult, shot smack and banged her dad – thanks for sharing your amazing journey!

But shame is so old-fashioned.  It makes people feel bad.  And who wants to make people feel bad?  Probably those mean old conservatives who have nothing better to do.  No, it’s easier to simply normalize dysfunction, to rationalize wrong, to mainstream evil.

You get to be the good guy, the nice guy.  You get to be Oprah.

That’s how the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex works.  The Complex encompasses talk shows, tabloids, web sites – anything that embraces the dysfunctional, caresses them, pats them on the head, assuring them they are blameless while displaying their dysfunction for our amusement.  And by doing so, the Complex whittles away at the differences between the dysfunctional and the functional until they can’t be told apart.

This requires a rejection of judgment.  Oprah would never be judgmental.  That’s too emblematic of a narrow-minded worldview where all you see are black and white instead of moral relativism’s gauzy, comforting gray.

As we know, judgmental is the worst thing you can be.  Mao can kill tens of millions, but who are we to judge?  We light up the Empire State Building to celebrate his creation.

Now, on the other hand, take Sarah Palin – well, feel free to judge the hell out of her.

The smack-addled bimbo who nailed her pa for a decade – no, she’s the real hero.

Right and wrong are troublesome concepts because they impose limits on what one can and can’t do.  This is against everything that the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex stands for, because if people start judging those they see wasting their lives and their talents on drugs, alcohol, perversions and all manner of other debauchery, then the circus is over.  When Lindsey Lohan sobers up, the party ends.  When the mutants from the Springer-type talk shows stop living like the crew from Deliverance, the gravy train derails.  And the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex depends on a never-ending supply of new human train wrecks.

The task of bringing down the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex falls to us.  You have a remote that goes with that big screen.  Up near the top is a red button.  When some degenerate comes on your screen, supported and approved of by media demigods, spouting off about how being a stripper is empowering, push that button.

When a checkout-stand tabloid tempts you with the tale of some Hollywood hunk’s extracurricular three-way action, reach past it, grab some Tic-Tacs, and pay your bill.  Home-wrecking isn’t funny or fun and don’t let your good money go to support it.

When you walk through Barnes & Noble, walk right past Mackenzie Phillips’s paean to perversion and grab something else, anything else.  Just leave her book right there between the unsold stacks of Spellbinder: The Essential Speeches of Al Gore and The Carter Sutra: Jimmy and Rosalind’s Illustrated Guide to a Sexually Satisfying Marriage.

We’ll know we’re winning when Oprah asks Mackenzie Phillips just what the hell she was thinking.  When the ladies of The View come to a rare consensus that she ought to be ashamed of herself, then we will know the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex is collapsing.

Maybe Mackenzie Phillips and Roman Polanski have done us a favor.  They’ve given us a glance at the dark, sick places where the Celebrity Dysfunction Complex would take us.  Now, the question is whether we will choose to follow its lead down into the murky depths, or turn and climb back up into the light.

No Comments


‘Law & Order’ Jumps the Shark

The only surprising thing about hearing that Law & Order was going to take on the Bush administration over “torture” is the realization that Law & Order is still on the air.  This car-wreck of a series has been bouncing around NBC’s schedule since the first Bush administration doing the impossible – making lawyers look even worse.  Thanks, guys.

a93_20_1

Law & Order’s mysteries are as unpredictable as where the sun will come up tomorrow morning.  In a typical episode, when the cops arrest a gang member you can safely bet the climatic trial denouement will reveal the real killer to be either the wealthy corporate executive,  the ambitious conservative politician or the hypocritical Christian preacher.  You know, kind of like in real life.

So now Law & Order is taking on the new Bush administration and, by extension, all of those who have fought so hard to keep our country safe from terrorism since 9/11.  I’m in awe at these iconoclastic artists’ bravery and courage in forthrightly expressing exactly the same views held by all of their friends and associates.  Taking risky, edgy stands like this can put you in physical danger – for instance, you might be hugged to death by your fellow-traveling industry peers. 

Legally, the whole theme of the episode – that a former government lawyer’s legal opinions on what constituted “torture” under various statutes and treaties can give rise to criminal liability in a state court case – is a joke. Little things like the rules of evidence, basic criminal procedure, the Supremacy Clause, and several dozen other rules, statutes, and Constitutional doctrines would never allow this “case” to exist in the first place.  But the more important point is the bigger issue – the whole notion of prosecuting lawyers for their legal opinions is unbelievably short-sighted and dangerous to our democracy.

The episode makes a great deal of hay from the wicked Bush lawyer’s attempts to determine exactly what conduct is permitted and not permitted under the potentially applicable legal authority – which the writers refer to “[a] surgical parsing of words to draw hair-splitting distinctions.” 

Uh, guys – after 20 years of shows, you should probably know that drawing close distinctions is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do.  But now, for cheap political advantage, your bright idea is to persecute attorneys who get the answers to tough legal questions “wrong” – at least, wrong in your opinion.  And this is not some clear-cut, un-nuanced (and I thought you leftists loved nuance) issue.  The application of the Geneva Conventions and US law to the fact pattern presented by war on terror detainees is far from crystal clear – which is why lawyers were analyzing the issue in the first place!

Here’s the rub.  Parties change, but principles remain the same.  If you think it’s a really smart idea to prosecute conservative lawyers when you believe they get the wrong answer, think about what happens to the liberal government lawyer who opines that the law forbids an aggressive interrogation of a terror suspect after that failure to perform an aggressive interrogation keeps us from preventing another 9/11 – or worse.  Then think about what happens when the Republicans come back into power in the aftermath of that disaster and decide to prosecute that liberal attorney for manslaughter resulting from his negligence in offering that legal opinion.   Heck, maybe some members of the prior Democratic administration ought to be prosecuted too for good measure – isn’t that the logic you would find regarding Bush administration officials on the Huffington Post?

Sound ridiculous?  Yeah, I would have thought so too, until liberals started about talking about prosecuting conservative lawyers for their legal opinions and maybe even some of our past political leaders as well.  Like I said, parties change but the principle of prosecuting your predecessors, if we are foolish enough to let it become established, will not.  If you want to tear this nation apart, it would be hard to think of a more effective way to do it.

Law & Order has once again managed to rip a critical story from the headlines, but it’s not the story its writers think.  It is the story of one of the stupidest and scariest trends in American politics today – the criminalization of political opposition.  And, for the sake of our country, we should hope that this lousy episode of a lousy TV show is the last we hear of it.

No Comments


Revisiting An Old-Fashioned Newspaper: We’re Not Missing Much

There are still these things called newspapers out there. Yeah, I was surprised too – I gave up hardcopy papers way back when dissent was still patriotic. But out for a Sunday lunch at one of our favorite places in lovely Manhattan Beach, I noticed the front section of the Los Angeles Times lying forlornly on a counter between the napkins and the hot sauce. Someone had left it behind. The price being right, I decided to see what I’ve been missing.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The first thing I found was a long story on how the conservative movement is struggling to prove that it is not infused with racism. I was unaware of that the burden of proof is upon the accused to demonstrate its innocence, but then I remembered what I was reading. The banner picture of Joe Wilson summed up the way the article would combine dubious preconceptions with the lamest kind of liberal conventional wisdom and ignorance of the most basic elements of the conservative movement.

I never got the memo on racism – and I had thought I was on the vast right-wing conspiracy email list – so I was unaware of the turmoil and self-examination within the movement that the Times uncovered. I thought our consensus response to these idiotic racism accusations was pretty much along the lines of “Nice try at changing the subject, dudes. Now, let’s talk about death panels.”

I read further and found two vivid examples of terrible racist manifestations at the very highest levels of the conservative movement. An aide to someone in the Tennessee state government circulated a stupid drawing and the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos, California, sent out an email with a dumb joke last winter. That nailed it. I went right up to my bookcase, past the works of Hayek and Buckley, to the shelves reserved for the works of the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos and tossed them all out. I mean, it took several trips to get them all out to the recycle bin, but I wasn’t having that kind of filth in my home even a minute more.

I have to agree with the Times – the conduct of the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos last winter demands some serious soul-searching. We need to stop with all this fuss over healthcare, cap and trade and the rise of socialism in general and really focus on the issues that the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos has brought to the fore. Now, where is my sackcloth and ashes blazer?

I looked up and asked my wife if she was aware of a racist undercurrent within conservatism. She thought that was nonsense, but she’s Hispanic, so how would she know?

Then there was another article about how the President is staying out of the “racist” debate. The Times noted he has stated the majority of opposition to his liberal policies is not based on racism. It’s nice that he doesn’t believe that most of the reason people oppose his policies is not due to a damning character flaw. The problem is that his statement also implies that somewhere between 1% and 49.9% of the reason people oppose his policies is due to a damning character flaw. I would have asked him how much is, but maybe that’s why I’m not a reporter for the Times.

The Times also reported on Los Angeles schools increasing class sizes because of the budget crisis. For a bunch of liberals, the Times crew does not seem very interested in root causes. A key root cause they overlooked is the sweetheart union contracts that inflate salaries and pensions while crowding fresh blood out of the classrooms.

The sole purpose of public employee unions is to protect the incompetent from the threat of accountability. But the unions have nothing to fear from the Times, which lapped up and printed every sob story they could find. Poor high school honors students, stuck in a class of 45 students – it’s worse than Guantanamo Bay. But aren’t they in that class in the first place so they can get into college and be in a lecture hall with 200 students? I’m just asking – because the Times sure didn’t.

So I asked my wife if she thinks 45 students is too much in a high school honors history class. She thought she could handle 45 honor students and that the kids who want to learn are going to learn anyway, but she was only a teacher for 13 years, so how would she know?

I flipped to the op-ed pages purely from morbid curiosity and I was not disappointed. Doyle McManus had a piece warning that the clock is ticking on Iran. Apparently the plan is that when time runs out this time, we will threaten them with further concessions. For the Times, this was a relatively conservative position – usually their contributors think the answer to the Iran problem is for us to apologize and slip into burkas.

There was also an op-ed by a women’s studies researcher – surprise – who thinks that the very best way of ensuring the safety of women is to ensure none of them have a gun to use to protect themselves. Since men, who people who buy into the women’s studies line of nonsense think are the root of all evil, are generally bigger and stronger than most women, one might ask if this might not have the effect of putting women at the mercy of their tormentors. But no one will ask that in the Times.

So I asked my wife what she thought of giving up the right to own firearms. This is a woman who informed me that I simply did not own anywhere near enough guns. Naturally, I immediately asked for her hand in marriage. But she actually believes in the Second Amendment, which the Times probably thinks makes her crazy and racist too, so what does she know?

There was more stuff in the Times, but not that much more. The paper was noticeably smaller and lighter than I remember it being back when I paid for it. It’s almost like no one’s reading it anymore. I finished my cheeseburger and left it behind for the next guy. Even free, the Times just isn’t worth it.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Movies We Like: ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ (1959)

There was a time when an “adult film” meant a movie by, for and about adults, not a tawdry tale of some tatted-up, dead-eyed 19-year old with daddy issues numbly coupling in front of a video camera for the gratification of leering, backward-hatted frat boys and twitchy loners with DSL.  They don’t make many truly adult films anymore – to see what you are missing, a good place to start is 50 years ago with 1959’s Anatomy of a Murder. 

befed0452d0e2195_landing

Let’s start with the cast:  James Stewart.  George C. Scott.  Lee Remick.  Eve Arden.  Ben Gazzara.  Even Big Hollywood’s own Orson Bean in a supporting part as a doctor who plays a key role in the story.  If you love movies, you only needed to get to the word “George” before you were adding it to your NetFlix queue.

The plot is simple.  Small-town lawyer Paul Biegler (Stewart), who is more concerned with fishing than his practice, is talked into meeting Army lieutenant Fred Manion, who is sitting in jail for the murder of the man the soldier claims raped his wife Laura (The hotter-than-hot Remick).  Beigler takes the case, and faces off with Claude Dancer (Scott), the ace prosecutor sent in from the big city to chalk up yet another conviction.   There is much more to the story – the movie is a brisk two hours forty minutes long – but there’s no sense in going into the details here.  You just need to know this:  Jimmy Stewart goes up against George C. Scott in court.  Case closed.

a67febfe82d020b4_landing

The sparks fly in the courtroom under the direction of Otto Preminger, the enfant terrible of 50s and 60s Tinseltown, but the interesting part (at least for a lawyer) is that the film covers all aspects of the trial, in and out of the courtroom.  Cases are often won not in front of the jury but hunched over a dusty book of old cases (or, today, in front of a computer screen looking at precedent online), and Anatomy doesn’t hesitate to show the hard work involved in putting up a defense. 

That sounds dull as dirt, but Anatomy is anything but.  Stewart is helped by his burned out, alcoholic mentor Parnell, played perfectly by Arthur O’Connell.  His character is funny, irascible, sad and, in the end, redeemed.  O’Connell even manages to steal scenes from Jimmy Stewart while snagging a best Supporting Actor nomination for himself (Stewart and Scott both earned Oscar nominations as well).

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Preminger was known for the pushing boundaries, and he does it again here.  This was 1959, and audiences must have been in for a shock not only hearing a frank discussion of topics like sexual climax and seminal fluid on the big screen but hearing it come from the mouth of George Bailey himself.  But it’s not exploitation – it’s reality, and there is nothing wrong with adults viewing adult subject matter.  If only films today were brave enough to put forward an ambiguous character like Laura Manion – perhaps a rape victim, but perhaps something else.  They’d be picketed by bitter, snarling feminists furious over the movie’s rejection of easy archetypes and easier answers.  And almost no studio today would risk the ending either – an ending that is a perfect fit for what comes before. 

The beauty of Anatomy is how it never treats its audience like children.  Its characters are fallible – sometimes they drink to excess, smoke, have questionable morals and lie, but the movie expects the audience to understand that human beings are not purely black and white.  That audience had come through three terrible wars and the Great Depression.  They knew something about real life even if most of what Hollywood was putting out was sanitized and saccharine.

11de33be1f1458ac_landing

If Anatomy was being remade today, those twit studio suits would probably try to push Josh Hartnett as Beigler, Scarlett Johansson as Laura, and some kid from a CW TV series about vampires as the accused.  It’s sad that there are so many mediocrities out there today, and sadder that the suits don’t even realize it.  No matter how hard she tried, the pretty but vacant Johansson could never get anywhere as close to down and dirty as Lee Remick does here.   And there’s no comparison in life experience – Stewart flew B-24s over Dusseldorf; Harnett looks like he bursts into tears when he runs out of his Axe body spray. 

The only problem with Anatomy in my book is the music.  It’s jazz, and aficionados of that art form hail Duke Ellington’s soundtrack as a masterpiece.  But if you feel that jazz is like a colonoscopy for your ears, the musical interludes can be downright painful.

It’s been a summer of sequels to lumbering blockbusters that should have never been made in the first place, twee romances between self-consciously awkward 20-something nerds, and big screen adaptations of “graphic novels” that demonstrate why generations of parents past declared comic books a pernicious waste of time.  Now give  Anatomy of a Murder a look – it is a reminder that not all films are aimed squarely at the half-wit demographic.

No Comments



SetPageWidth