Skip to content

Posey For Prez

It’s just a job you know, and it’s not Sweet Lorraine“- Van Morrison

New York Times writer Eric Lichtblau wrote an essay for the August 29 edition commenting on “baseball’s lost innocence.” The piece was inspired by a recent eight-game, six-stadium ballpark tour with his twelve year-old son — a truncated version of a tour Lichtblau himself completed in 1987. In it, he calls out Giants catcher Buster Posey for failing to sign an autograph for his boy after two consecutive attempts, post-game at Chicago’s Wrigley Field. This despite the lad’s polite approach and Lichtblau holding a “Posey For Prez” sign over the kid’s head. So disappointed was Junior that he crumpled the sign up and tossed it in a trash can outside Wrigley, concluding that his hero was, in fact, “a jerk.”

I can’t blame a twelve year-old boy for getting down on a player who, up until then, he’d idolized. But Buster Posey seems an odd choice for the old man to single out in the New York Times. Anyone who follows the Giants knows he’s the humblest of players, is involved in more community work than anybody on the team, and plays the game “the right way,” never showing an opponent up or calling undue attention to himself despite his considerable talent. When he won the Most Valuable Player award in 2012, they broadcast his reaction from a charity event he was attending at the school his mother works for in Georgia. I don’t know what his policy is with autographs, but in commenting on the article one of the Giants beat writers said he’s “somewhere in the middle,” signing more than some and less than others. Autographs are an odd phenomenon and many who seek them do so strictly for monetary value and resale on Ebay. Some use kids as a convenient device for getting a player’s attention; in this sense Lichtblau may have done his son no favors by holding the sign over his head.

But let’s ignore all of this and just assume it was because Posey was having a bad series. He’s been in a slump of late and the Giants depend upon his bat in a pennant chase. He signs thousands of autographs every year, and even the most prodigious name-scribbler is going to have people he disappoints. This time it happened to be the kid of a guy who has a forum via a prestigious national newspaper, and that guy decided to use this forum to shame Posey. As a baseball fan, it’s a good bet Lichtblau has at least a rough idea of what the 28 year-old Posey makes, and that it dwarfs his salary as a highly-respected scribe. It seems likely that, after experiencing a moment of visceral disappointment in seeing his boy let down, he thought “He isn’t going to do this to my kid and get away with it ..” But the difference between Posey’s ignoring his kid twice amid a crowd of other screaming favor-seekers, and Lichtblau’s decision to write about it, is that in the latter case the guy had plenty of time to think it over. And still he chose Buster Posey as a name suitable for mention in an essay on baseball’s lost innocence.

I’m guessing that Lichtblau doesn’t attract many autograph hounds himself, but his article has generated a lot of response on Twitter and the like. Some of these folks are probably big fans of his Pulitzer Prize-awarded writing .. and yet he doesn’t seem to have time to respond to all of them. Maybe it’s just too overwhelming, or he’s had a few bad days in a row. Or perhaps his son is taking heat from his pals for having crumpled up his ‘Posey For Prez’ sign and thrown it away in a huff — a move he undoubtedly didn’t anticipate being broadcast in the New York Times. Twelve year-old boys can be very cruel that way. (“Aww .. whats-a-matter .. did Buster disappoint you?”) Perhaps the most Lichtblau Sr. ever hit was .182 in his second year of Little League. He did take the time to respond to one supportive tweet with “Thanks. Maybe Buster will be shamed into making amends.” Great lesson there .. the NY Times writer’s kid gets a make-up autograph while the others who were shunned receive nothing. Whatever the case, maybe the better approach to this incident at Wrigley would have been limited to explaining to his kid that our heroes, much like our fathers, sometimes disappoint — even two days in a row — and that getting caught up in the need to ‘make personal contact’ with celebrities and sports figures can occasionally rob us of the joy they generated in the first place. And that none of us is exempt, even if you’re Eric Lichblau’s son.

I have a friend who was a big ‘Sopranos’ fan and she once approached Micheal Imperioli at an autograph signing with a personal story. Imperioli listened intently, asked her for her name, then told her that he wouldn’t forget her. So excited was she at having “made an impression” that she neglected to get his autograph .. so she got back in the short line and was in front of him again only minutes later. “Nice to meet you,” Imperioli said, “.. and what was your name?” Another story I like involved an incident that I read about on an Internet discussion forum where the topic was Sean Penn. Various folks were chiming in with their unfavorable impressions, and one had a contrary experience to relate. “I was at an uncrowded bar in New York and I saw Sean Penn and Van Morrison having a drink together,” this guy wrote. “I approached and explained how I was a big fan of both of them. Sean Penn thanked me politely but Van Morrison told me to ‘fuck off.'” I laughed out loud reading this and it confirmed a thought I’ve held that, despite being a huge fan, I’d never think of approaching Van Morrison for anything. I prefer to catch him performing on stage when I can. The rest of the time I’ll preserve my image of him at a New York bar, having a beer with Sean Penn and Buster Posey.

Coddled Kids & Shrooms

Movin’s the closest thing to bein’ free – Waylon

Went to see the Red Headed Stranger in Prospect Park last night. That’s Willie Nelson for those not in the know, and not Danny Bonaduce. Although Bonaduce might have been a welcome addition to the crowd which, from my estimate, contained mostly fourth generation hipsters and baby-strolling Park Slope parents. I’ve written about the latter before, and their penchant for wheeling their prized bundles of joy to these shows and decking them out with noise-canceling headphones in order to protect their precious, still-forming ears. Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed how annoying most other peoples’ kids are? Had nature not provided most of us with the inexplicable instinct to fawn over that which our own loins produce there would be a lot more abandoned offspring out there. Which is somewhat ironic, as it presents a scenario in which these noise-canceling headphones might be of genuine use, in order to block out all the plaintive wailing. Anyway … “Get off my LAWN .. ”

“Outlaw Country,” the genre that Nelson is credited with having helped start, and “Park Slope, Brooklyn,” are words that probably shouldn’t be uttered in the same sentence. This didn’t seem to bother Willie, though, and he motored through a tight set of old favorites, recent tunes, and plenty of deftly-administered nylon string picking. There was some lead-up discussion about how this was his first show ever at the venue. Given the number of days a year he’s touring, new venues likely register on the same scale as moving the TV a few feet to the left in one’s living room. I’ve seen him perform many times over the years and the shows have all followed a similar pattern, with the new wrinkle being a few tunes from his recent releases. This time it was two of his “weed tunes”: “It’s All Going To Pot” and “Roll Me Up And Smoke Me When I Die.” He’s become something of a national spokesman for the herb, having used it in abundance over the years. It was fun to watch the Park Slope parents scramble to cover their precious progenies’ already-covered ears, then stop to reconsider. “Wait .. it’s legal in Colorado and Oregon .. I don’t want to be sending the wrong *message* here ..”

Willie skipped an encore and was likely already partaking in some high-potency ganja by the time the lights went up. You have to admire an 82 year-old man whose life has consisted mostly of jogging, smoking weed, playing golf, living in Hawaii, and touring the country in a bus. OK .. you don’t .. but I do. After the show I did a cursory check of where he’d be heading and found that he’s scheduled for Garrettsville, Ohio on Friday night, followed by Atlantic City, New Jersey on Sunday. Yeah, that sounds about right.

One of my favorite Willie stories happened in late 2006, when his bus was pulled over by a Louisiana state trooper. To quote one article: “When the door was opened and the trooper began to speak to the driver, he smelled the strong odor of marijuana. A search of the bus produced 1½ pounds of marijuana and slightly more than three ounces of narcotic mushrooms.”  There was enough on the bus to merit felony distribution charges had it been in one person’s possession, but all aboard claimed the stash as their own, and each was charged with a misdemeanor then released. What are the odds, that all riding the Nelson Family Bus would be so savvy under such circumstances? A pound and a half of pot is one thing; I figure Willie typically goes through that himself in a good week. But over three ounces of mushrooms? Of course he was only 73 at the time, so I suppose you could chalk it up to youthful experimentation. “Take off that stupid headset, Junior, I’ve got a story to tell you about Uncle Willie ..”

I’m glad I went to the show and would recommend catching it if comes your way. There are very few iconic American performers left out there, and I put Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan at the top of the list. It’s easy to take these guys for granted, as they’re out there most nights of the year performing somewhere on their respective never-ending tours. But one day they won’t be, and all we’ll be left with is a bunch of up-starts talking about the day their parents took them to see — but not hear — these legends. Thankfully and for now, the show goes on.

Courage Be A Lady

So they gave the Arthur Ashe ESPY Award for courage to Caitlyn Jenner. While it made for great television, I have to admit to being confused. Despite not making it to fifty and suffering from both AIDs and heart disease, Ashe himself persevered as an important public spokesman for both causes. Notable past Ashe Award winners include Jim Valvano and Muhammad Ali. Valvano was active in finding a cure for the cancer that cut his life short and gave one of the most stirring acceptance speeches in ESPY history. Ali, afflicted with Parkinson’s, was the model of courage during the Vietnam era, refusing to be drafted despite rampant criticism and its costing him his boxing title. As he famously put it: “No Vietcong ever called me nigger.” And now we have the former Bruce Jenner, Caitlyn, holding the same trophy.

Don’t get me wrong .. I understand that much of what Jenner has done takes, well, balls. To be an exalted male athlete and decide at sixty-five that you’re going to be a woman is not your average life-transition. To put on an evening gown and makeup and celebrate your ‘coming out’ party in front of a room packed with top-tier, straight athletes takes a certain form of chutzpah. But does Jenner’s life really warrant an award for courageousness? Gender confusion aside — and I do realize that it’s the whole point here — Jenner has led an exceptionally blessed life to this point. Start with the simple fact that he’s enjoyed the status of a straight white male, until just recently. As Louis CK would point out, being born when Jenner was, this is the equivalent of winning the lottery. Add to this that he was both an exceptional and celebrated athlete who seemed to step in gold, both literally and figuratively, everywhere he turned. He was on the cover of every magazine and every other cereal box. His celebrity allowed him to enjoy a lucrative public speaking career and, by his own choice, a reality television program. He was a good-looking man all his life and some would call him a stunningly statuesque woman. Hell, the guy/gal was involved in a fatal car accident on the PCH last February and walked away without a scratch. Conveniently, he’ll get to skip menopause, pregnancy, workplace discrimination .. any number of obstacles that those born female encounter. And now he gets an award for courage.

The problem with courage is that it defies quantifiable description. It isn’t so much the circumstance that’s important, but the level of choice involved. Valvano had no choice in getting cancer; his decision to fight on despite it can only be appreciated from someone else in the same position. The same can be said of Ashe. In this sense, Jenner’s move can indeed be seen as courageous, as he could have just as easily lived the remainder of his life as a man. David Letterman made a brief speech when he came back on the air after the 9-11 attacks. In it he noted that courage “defines all other human behavior” and that “pretending to be courageous is just as good as the real thing.” It’s relative; what seems insurmountable to you might be peanuts to me. It’s in that moment that we move forward — fake it, as Letterman suggests — that courage resides. Still, I’m not sure who, exactly, we should be giving these awards to. Isn’t the point of accepting those with varying sexuality that it isn’t a choice, but rather an innate disposition? I’m just as thrown by the “pride” movement, regardless of the identity being celebrated. Gay, Irish, Italian .. it still always comes before the fall. To take pride in one’s select identity is to breed separatism. The boisterousness of these celebrations is, in part, a reaction to the fact that at one time all of these groups have been shit on by the prevailing class. But once they prevail, they typically start doing the shitting. None of which will stop ESPN from giving out these awards, or looking for future recipients who will attract the largest TV audience .. Brett Farve’s reaction not withstanding.

TV Sky

casinoHave not written here for a while, or anywhere else for that matter outside of wedding cards and credit card receipts. Seems I skipped an entire month. Oh well. In the time since my last post I’ve been in London, Scotland, New York, San Francisco, and Princeton, New Jersey. I’ve touched base with old, new, and even international friends. I had a milestone birthday, received a new guitar and Roomba vacuum cleaner, smoked a few quality cigars, and had a nice dinner out with my mother. Kind of reminds me of the Neil Young song “Music Arcade,” which I won’t reprint word for word, but will include the following sample:

there’s a comet in the sky tonight
makes me feel like I’m alright
I’m moving pretty fast
for my size

Caught up with my buddy Dave Glass at Specs bar in San Francisco on a few separate occasions last month. Specs is one of those rare joints where folks from 20 to 80 can gather comfortably and laugh, bitch, drink, pontificate .. do what people generally do in bars. You can’t order a Long Island Iced Tea nor pay with credit card. In exchange for these mild inconveniences, though, Specs offers something that few public houses in this country can: longevity. It’s the same joint you went to at 17, hoping you didn’t get carded. It was your weeknight spot when you lived in the neighborhood for a few years, keeping mostly to yourself and the bartender at the end of the bar. It’s where you can see the same folks, night after night and over the course of decades, their faces as familiar as any relative, and never speak a word to most of them. The same stuff that was on the walls in the early 80s remains today .. framed articles about the owner’s near-death exploits and rescue by the Coast Guard, pithy sayings (“it’s always darkest just before it goes completely black”), mounted whale bone from key anatomical section, and countless artifacts in need of dusting. Hell, these all go back back to the 70s, and likely 60s as well. What’s most valuable, perhaps, is what’s hanging in the balance currently: the simple assurance that the place will be there when you walk down Columbus and make a short left at what used to be Adler. Because if and when it goes, a large, last chunk of “there” will be gone, too, boxed in by whatever the fancy new McBar is just above and the new-money, out-of-towner version of Tosca just below. None of us escapes such loss; it’s worthy of a new paragraph but I’ll close this one with it, instead: what was there and remains always deserves consideration.

Then again, out with the old and in with the new. There’s something to be said for this as well. My old vacuum was a birthday gift, too, and did a very decent job. Enough so to make me think “what the hell am I going to do with this thing?” when I opened the Roomba, a present from my brother. Then I turned it on and watched as it made its way around the room, skillfully avoiding electrical cords and all manner of obstacle. Some guy spent some real time thinking this one through. Truly a “set it and forget it” kind of deal, like Ron Popeil’s rotisserie chicken, if not so much his spray-on hair. Why would anyone need a robot vacuum, you’ve perhaps asked yourself. Well, there is no more satisfying feeling than sitting on a couch (as I am now) and knowing that the floor is being cleaned beneath you. It does require a sofa with at least six inches of clearance, but small price to pay indeed.

I was walking down Main Street
not the sidewalk but Main Street
dodging traffic with flying feet
that’s how good I felt

And so the Roomba returns to its base with pleasant electronic ditty announcing that it is done with the room. All I’ve got, for now. To paraphrase Paulie Walnuts, observing Christopher with trow dropped in the Bing, complying with anti-wiretap measures for newly-made guys: “I guess you could call that a post.” More as it comes, or not, but either way with the assurance of dust-free floors.

Dave Ad Nauseam

I feel the need to add an epilogue to my previous post about David Letterman. Watching his final broadcast on Wednesday night filled me with unexpected emotion and nostalgia. His refusal to bow to sentiment both choked me up and made me laugh out loud. From monologue to frenetic closing montage he hit every note with spot-on cynicism and acerbic observation. His reverence for those who worked for him and appreciation for those who watched were pointedly conveyed, yet the show never wallowed in mawkish mire and circumvented every maudlin sand trap. And this coming from someone who had all but given up on him in recent years. His body of work is impressive; that it was typically delivered with dismissive disappointment should not obscure this fact.

I  binge-read the many reviews of his farewell the day after. Most were complimentary, some were not. One writer for the Washington Post opined on how Letterman was among television’s “biggest losers” because he failed to beat Jay Leno in the ratings. I don’t see the logic in this. Yes, people liked Leno .. but to quote Bill Murray in ‘Groundhog Day’ : “People like head cheese. People are morons.” This, it should be noted despite the assertions, was never exactly Letterman’s attitude. He’s been called “mean” more than a few times and after more than six thousand shows he likely was on occasion. But it was not his prevailing sentiment. He was an apt wiseass to be certain and such an awkward interviewer in his younger days that he occasionally fell back on misplaced barbs. His veneration of celebrity was spare; if you weren’t Bob Dylan or Peter O’Toole, you got no free pass. This is perhaps where the “mean” thing came in and separated those who enjoyed Letterman and those who did not. If you felt bad for Justin Bieber when Letterman quipped “Canadian high school” after the kid referred to the Vatican dwelling with Michelangelo ceiling as the “Sixteenth Chapel,” then no, you probably weren’t a fan. If you wished he’d stopped grilling Paris Hilton on her time in “the slammer” when she came on his show to pitch her perfume, he likely wasn’t your cup of tea.

The last decade-plus saw him morph into a tempered incarnation of his former self. Open heart surgery and fatherhood mellowed him. He wore his political leanings on his sleeve, something he’d never have done in the old days. It was perhaps born from a sense of responsibility as a dad, but it alienated some. Most of his old edge was gone. He was too famous for his man on the streets bits with a microphone and his tendency to bite the hand that fed him came with the added realization that he was now an Establishment Figure . But he also became a better interviewer along the way. He learned to listen and wasn’t as quick to interrupt as means of quelling his nerves. He was more thoughtful and reflective, though he never lost the tendency to question his instincts. And he always remained vigilant in questioning fame. The Paris Hilton and Justin Bieber segments referenced above came in recent years. Yeah, he got softer, but he was still Dave.

All of this has been said before, and most of it repeated over the last month. Watching Letterman reject sentimentality at every turn as he bowed out didn’t really register with me until that final show. Then I got it .. why he was so measured in keeping it at bay, why it’s so essential to know how to live in the moment. When it hits you — where you’ve been and how much of it is behind you — there’s never any place to put it. It matters little whether you’re filled with regret or a sense of accomplishment. Nothing stops it from moving forward. In this sense, that final frenetic montage of images spanning his years on both networks and culminating with fireworks exploding from the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater was perfect. The still frames came at the viewer so fast that some could only be registered on a subconscious level, stopping to pause selectively on shots of Warren Zevon or Larry Bud Melman. And after that it was over. You didn’t see him taking any final bows. It was done, completed, finished.

Letterman understood television and television is now dead. The device remains and is more affordable and technologically advanced than ever. And there are still networks and talk shows and commercials. But now it’s about going viral; it’s about the next day, and the clicks, and the ads, and the traffic. Late Night and The Late Show evolved, not just over the course of decades, but even within individual programs. But something about evolution and its conveyance has changed — something barely perceptible and beyond the obvious. You have to be of age to see it and the very fact that you are makes you suspect. Penn Jillette said that two things have always been true: One, the world is always getting better, and two, the people living at that time think it’s getting worse. I looked it up on the Internet and you can do the same.

Indiana Nights

Not to play the hackneyed “boy am I old” card, (in the words of the immortal Hank Kingsley “fuck it, let’s face it — I am“) but I remember when David Letterman had a morning show on NBC. It spanned the summer of 1980 lasting just four months, but was a precursor to his best work starting two years later on the same network: Late Night With David Letterman. He was just starting to cut his teeth on what would become some of the best improvisational bits on ‘Late Night,’ and the failures were as compelling as the hits. I can recall him taking a camera into the hall at NBC and riffing on the choices in one food vending machine, including a suspicious looking hot soup called “Beefy Mac” That was as much of a set-up as he required. Letterman had a genuine air of danger — hard as that is to imagine today and as much as any gap-toothed Hoosier might. It could have gone either way at the end of those four months. Luckily someone at the network saw fit to giving him another shot. He came on after Carson; well past most of middle America’s bedtime but prime viewing for college kids and other folks inclined to burn the midnight oil. He also ran parallel with the rise of the VCR (‘Video Cassette Recorder’ for those of the Jimmy Fallon set) making it possible to check the show out the following day. This was something Johnny didn’t have for most of his career.

We all fight getting old. One of the more obvious traps is the tendency to believe, or worse yet proclaim, that things were “better in our day.” Age breeds delusion; this is true. Yet I maintain that I have decent perspective on some things. Television, particularly the episodic variety, is better now than it used to be.  HBO and Netflix offer some of the best stuff going, arguably better than mainstream cinema. Movies aren’t bad either and the quality of box office film (despite the very term ‘film’ being mostly a misnomer nowadays) is as good as it was thirty years ago. There’s great live music out there if you’re inclined to find it. The Internet has forced even older musicians to work on their chops because live performance is where their bread is now buttered. Sports are every bit as compelling and, living in New York, it’s evident that plays and stage productions are thriving. Books (or their modern equivalent) are holding their own. Just because words are more easily disseminated doesn’t stop the cream from rising to the top. That culture is circling the drain is largely myth. There’s just more junk clogging the pipes than there used to be.

But Jimmy Fallon is no David Letterman. I mention Fallon because he’s the new king of late night ratings. Meaningless as this might seem in an era where network television is becoming passé, it still says that the bulk of ‘relevant’ TV watchers — those eighteen to thirty-four — find something compelling enough about Fallon to tune in on a regular basis. And this, if you’ll excuse my “get off my lawn” moment, is something I don’t get. I understand his appeal as a high-energy, good looking young guy. But when he stood up on his desk to do his “Oh Captain, my Captain” bit in tribute to Robin Williams, something inside me just said “no.” I have to be fair here .. part of it is that he’s too young, and was only fifteen when “Dead Poet’s Society” (a film I’d never consider a ‘highlight’ of Williams’ career) came out. But he’s not that young. At forty Fallon is now well past Letterman’s age at inception. There’s just something about the guy that’s too earnest, too polished, too glib.

Put another way, Carson was Fallon’s age now when he had his classic “Tonight Show” moment with Ed Ames throwing a tomahawk. I wasn’t even born yet, so claiming it for my generation would be wrong. But watching it as a kid on the anniversary specials, I knew that there was something instinctively cool about Johnny, even if I didn’t get the “I didn’t know you were Jewish” reference. There was something very adult about the show, like the kind of conversations you heard listening through your bedroom wall, emanating from the cocktail party that your parents were throwing in the living room. Fallon, I’m going out on an old guy’s limb to say, has no such mystique. It’s all cuteness, overplayed reverence for his older guests, and hair gel. It’s Youtube clips and Twitter references. And it’s Jimmy and Jennifer Lopez in a “Tight Pants” skit. Yeah, he’s of the correct demographic .. but he sure ain’t Johnny or Dave.

Not to bust exclusively on Jimmy Fallon. He is a talent, and his guitar-playing impersonations of Springsteen and Neil Young are on the money. Letterman could never have pulled this off and wisely never tried. But what Dave could do in spades and in his prime was man on the streets bits, armed only with a camera and microphone. Watching him gently badger the proprietor at an NYC retail outlet called “Just Shades” that sells only lamp shades is vintage Dave. “But seriously ..what, what can you get besides shades here?” This was the slightly less gentle host; the one who was willing to make regular folks, and most particularly pompous celebs and those in positions of power, look almost foolish. He replayed a clip the other night from eighteen years back on tax day, asking how many guys dressed in bunny suits can you get into an H&R Block? It was the kind of bit he shied away from in later years and it resulted in a middle aged office manager getting rather physical with one of the extras. “We later found out that was ‘R’ Block,” he quipped after the replay. “H is fine.”

Letterman has a handful of shows left before signing off next week, and the run-up to the finish has been solid. He’s become a better interviewer in his later days and this has offset losing some of his edge. Don Rickles and Howard Stern were on the other night and Rickles, while still sharp at eighty-nine, seemed to fail to realize that he had only one segment. He spent it praising Stern and saying next to nothing about the departing Letterman. (Who knows .. perhaps he did realize it and it was a stroke of brilliance.) None of it seemed to bother Dave, who lately seems like a man comfortable with his body of work — and ‘comfortable’ is not the first word that comes to mind with Letterman. But his discomfort served him well, too, and I wouldn’t mind seeing some of it spread around after he’s gone.

Losing It

Beyond here lies nothin’
Nothin’ but the moon and stars‘ – Dylan

As AMC’s popular, long-running ‘Mad Men’ series draws to a close, it offers multiple parallels to David Chase’s ‘The Sopranos.’ Creator Matthew Weiner wrote for Chase, penning several later episodes that delved deeply into Tony Soprano’s subconscious mind. “I’m 46 years old,” Tony asks, deep in an Ativan-induced dream state and lying in his hospital bed in the sixth and final Sopranos season. “Who am I? Where am I going?” As Mad Men protagonist Don Draper nears his cinematic end, he seems to be asking the same questions.

The two shows and their leads share much in common. Draper and Soprano are men of power, roughly the same age, are womanizers, and have mother issues. And while both programs use traditional screen narrative hooks to keep their audience engaged — The Sopranos sex and violence and Mad Men mostly sex — it’s the interior lives of their players that matter most. “You don’t have to eat every dish of rigatoni,” Tony Soprano’s shrink tells him, thinking she sees progress in Season Six. “You don’t have to fuck every female you meet.” Don Draper doesn’t even appear to have an option on the latter; women throw themselves at him as if by primordial urge. It doesn’t matter if they’re intensely interested or ambivalently distracted. Much like that plate of rigatoni in front of Tony, the deal is already done.

So it goes with the waitress Diana, introduced in the opening episode of Mad Men’s final run. Draper returns to the diner to see her because he’s haunted by a familiarity he can’t place. She’s a complete stranger and yet he’s certain he’s met her before. They’re having sex in short order, in an alley amid garbage cans against a brick wall behind the diner. It’s a well-played running gag in the series: Don, trying to find himself, is permanently sidetracked because he can’t stop getting laid. He’s like a casino patron trying to give away his money to a machine that won’t stop paying off. But it’s what happens prior that’s of importance, when they first meet. Diana, dubbed “Mildred Pierce” by the roguish Roger Sterling (in fittingly cruel reference to Joan Crawford’s working divorcee in the 1945 film) brings the check over with a paperback copy of John Dos Passos’s ’42nd Parallel’ in her apron pocket. Never mind the novel in question, or that Dos Passos, like Don Draper, was an illegitimate child. He was also, along with Hemingway, T.S. Eliot, and Fitzgerald, one of the “Lost Generation.” And, in the end, this is the pull. It’s what both Mad Men and The Sopranos are all about: Loss and the state of being lost.

It would seem a daring move, had David Chase not done it first. The two series work largely because of their stars; James Gandolfini because he quite literally owned the role and Jon Hamm because he’s underplayed and pointedly good-looking. But as the audience invests in these two over the long haul, we come to realize that neither knows where the hell he’s going. Chase even chose to end The Sopranos — be it by way of pure audacity or genius — with an open-ended cut to black. (My friend Tom Myers recently sent me this interview with Chase for those who, like me, can’t get enough of the show.) It’s no accident, either. Both series, despite their long runs, are about as premeditated as anything you’ll see on television. Despite starting in different eras — the Sopranos in the late ’90s and Mad Men in 1960 — both protagonists enter with the feeling that they’re on the tail-end of a good thing. Tony Soprano, despite “reaching the heights” that his father never achieved, laments being too late to “get in on the ground floor” of something good. The series is just beginning and already he knows it’s over. Don Draper, despite his perfect suits, cool competence, and dashing appearance, is ill-prepared for the decade he’s entering. It’s one of the reasons that Roger Sterling is such an endearing character on the show .. whether dropping acid or a line of smooth bullshit on a client, he’s squarely of the World War Two generation. He may, like Don, divorce and marry a younger woman, but this isn’t a crisis so much as a component of his identity. The same can’t be said of Draper. By most evident measures, he’s lost.

Whether all of this life-questioning works or not is a matter of personal taste. It does for me and I would find it disingenuous if two characters who began with nothing but questions ended with only answers. I don’t trust the guy of my generation who purports to know precisely where he is at all times and exactly where he’s going in this life and beyond. It reminds me a little too much of Matthew McConaughey in those Lincoln car commercials (which, coincidentally, play frequently between segments of Mad Men.) These types tend to speak mumbo-jumbo and they certainly don’t handle their acid-trips as well as Roger Sterling.  Wherever Don Draper winds up, it likely won’t be with Mary, Murray and Lou singing “it’s a long, long way to Tipperary” on the floor of the newsroom at WJM. But somewhere in between this and a jarring cut to black would be fine with me.

Slap This

I’ve been watching an NBC show called “The Slap” of late. It’s an adaptation of an Australian TV series which is based upon a novel of the same name. I make no apologies for watching the show, despite its absolutely sucking. This is just the way it is, sometimes.

The series revolves around an incident at a 40th birthday party in Park Slope, Brooklyn for a guy named Hector who is the son of Greek immigrants. One of the attending couples comes with their five year old son, Hugo. Hugo is a problem child. He busts into Hector’s vintage jazz record collection, uproots carefully potted tomato plants, and screams bloody murder at any adult trying to control him. Hugo’s parents dote over him in a permissive fashion that’s both smothering and disinterested. His mother still breast feeds him. When the other kids form a pickup baseball game, Hugo goes ballistic after striking out and starts swinging the bat wildly at everything within reach. Hector’s cousin Harry, observing that his own child is at risk, goes to retrieve the bat. Hugo swings the bat at Harry and kicks him in the leg, prompting Harry to slap him across the face. Thus, a premise and title are born.

I’m not a big fan of hitting children . But the hysteria that ensues after this slap suggests something more suited for Kent State in the early 70s. Harry, it is quickly established, is a prototypical alpha male with prominent brow and dark, challenging eyes. He takes the sole conservative stance in conversation, much to the horror of the others. He’s a ‘self made man,’ owns a vintage car dealership, and is banging his assistant. (Hector, too, is having an affair with a teenage girl, but unlike Harry he wrestles hourly with his conscience.) Harry also hits his wife, for good measure. Hugo’s parents, or more specifically his breast feeding mother, decide to pursue a lawsuit. Police, judges and attorneys become involved. One slap sets a series of events in progress that threatens to dismantle a closely knit family and group of friends.

Though it would never get past network censors, “The Pussies” would have been a more suitable name for this series. Somebody who knew a thing or two about obsessive child rearing must have been involved in choosing Park Slope, Brooklyn, for the setting of this particular adaptation. The neighborhood seems to be the east coast epicenter for indulgent parenting. There was a news item recently about an incident in Park Slope where a six year old kid on a push scooter (the expensive kind that are standard issue items and rites of passage for all area four year olds) ran a middle aged woman off the sidewalk. The woman, understandably shaken, berated the child loudly, suggesting that he watch where the fuck he was going. This prompted the kid’s mother to dress the woman down while threatening to sue and demanding a formal apology. Was this, she wanted to know, any way to address a six year old child? Well, in my opinion .. fuck yes.

I’ve attended musical performances in the neighborhood at Prospect Park where parents bring their kids of all ages, from infancy to early teens. These aren’t, generally speaking, Metallica shows, but more subdued performances with a cultural flare and decibel levels that rarely exceed that of a living room television. Still, these parents make the kids protect their precious ears by donning high tech, noise canceling headsets. What’s the point of taking your child to a musical performance if he can’t hear anything that’s going on? There’s nothing more infuriating or idiotic looking than some one year old kid, still relegated to a safety chair and sporting a pair of headphones like he’s working the runway at JFK or testing jet engines at the Boeing plant in Seattle.

“The Slap” could have been a better show had it chosen to treat its subject matter with levity or even a trace of irony. Instead it forces a kind of earnest solemnity on the viewer which demands that it be taken deathly seriously. There is no humor and its players all struggle to come to grips with some form of imagined modern enlightenment. In the process they become cardboard cutouts. Worse yet they’re boring, ineffective wimps, in need of Chris Farley being air lifted into the occasional scene with a Matt Foleyesque “LA DE FRICKIN’ DA ..” It makes me long for the days of my youth when shows set in Brooklyn were of the “Welcome Back Kotter” or even “Honeymooners” variety. Jackie Gleason provided more soul with one “Baby you’re the greatest” than “The Slap” does in eight episodes .. or at least this is how it seems to me.

It’s Not You, It’s Me

(Spoiler alerts, blah blah blah ..)

I watched the Spike Jonze flick “Her” the other night. Jonze, who was born Adam Spiegel and attended the San Francisco Art Institute, wrote and directed the film. It stars Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly, a man who becomes emotionally involved with an intelligent, female-voiced computer operating system named Samantha. Scarlett Johansson provides Samantha’s voice. It would have been an entirely different film had they chosen, say, Harvey Fierstein. It’s impossible to hear Johansson’s throaty diction without also picturing the steamy, full-lipped starlet in the room with Phoenix and this shapes audience involvement. It was shot using actress Samantha Morton’s voice, isolated from Phoenix and delivering her lines in a soundproof booth. Johansson was chosen as a late replacement and her voice added in post production. Somewhere along the line somebody decided they needed a hotter voice.

It is quickly established that Samantha possesses the ability to learn and grow, not only through communicating with Theodore but by tapping the vast reach of cyberspace. Her ‘personality’ is quickly formed along with a strong sense of gender and vulnerability. The film skirts the easy label of ‘male fantasy’ by making Phoenix’s character gently tentative and unable to move past the end of a recent relationship. He also assumes both male and female personas in his job as a professional “letter writer” acting as a surrogate for those unable to express intimacy via writing. “You’re like half-man, half-woman,” his boss tells him, quickly adding that it’s a supreme compliment. Samantha is employed, initially, to help Twombly organize his life; get his emails in order etc. She encourages him to get out there and back on the horse. She’s a sympathetic ear when a promising date with an attractive woman goes awry and he’s left to lie home in bed, ‘with’ Samantha, recounting what went wrong.  Theodore attempts to explain the importance of physical intimacy to Samantha and they have “sex” through his descriptions. Samatha is moved by his words and claims to feel she has inhabited a body and is there with him.

‘Her’ can be interpreted in a variety of ways. On its surface it’s straight commentary on our increasing interaction and infatuation with computers and how they are with us at all times, supplanting human contact. It’s also a look at the shelf-life of romantic relationships and how one man can’t save himself from following certain patterns, jumping past the enjoyment of exploring something new and sabotaging it with neurotic worry instead of simply choosing not to power on.  Trombly’s sensitivity and empathy are part of what allow Samantha to ’embody’ a physical presence but it’s also what cause him to vault past the experience and ruminate on the potential pitfalls. He over-thinks being caught up in his head before he can enjoy it. Samantha, presumably having learned to ‘feel’ on increasingly complex levels, is hurt by Trombly’s hesitancy. He is touched by this and is able to move forward and commit to the experience. Then, in an age-old turn of real-life proportions, she outgrows him and tells him she has to move on.

The film requires a certain suspension of belief. With this in mind, though, much of its premise becomes oddly plausible. As we become increasingly unable to go without these machines, it make sense that they would ultimately become able to go without us. “Her” employs a bit of Buddhism toward the end when Samantha explains to Theodore that she, along with a group of other OS’s (operating systems), has developed a hyper-intelligent OS modeled after the English philosopher Alan Watts. Watts was an author and interpreter of Eastern philosophy who moved to Northern California in 1950 and developed a strong following in the San Francisco Bay Area. Theodore tries to take this information in stride but becomes worried when Samantha becomes more distant and distracted. He presses, asking if she’s communicating with others at the same time she speaks to him, and she admits that she is conversing with “thousands” of other people, hundreds of whom she’s fallen in love with. But she assures him that this in no way diminishes her love for him and, in fact, it only intensifies and makes it stronger. It’s the classic “boy meets girl and girl loves boy so much that her love spills over to everybody else and the milkman” story.  At this point Samantha has also transcended antiquated notions of ego, singularity, time and space. She’s dumping him but keeping him at the same time — a seemingly contradictory if very ordinary turn of events in many earthly relationships. She’s outgrown him, but perhaps there’s some consolation in knowing that she’s really, really outgrown him.

It’s an interesting thought that, taken to exponential extremes, human relationships might suffer the same fate. Jonze ends his film on a hopeful note, but one that comes with the windless gut-punch of love and loss. It’s a cautionary tale for all those dweebs on Youtube fetishizing the “unboxing” of their new iPhones with detailed videos. You might want to hang on beyond the next two-year contract before you go looking for an upgrade.

American Juno

And it wasbbsnow cold and it rained so I felt like an actor – Bowie

The Mother of All Snow Events was scheduled to hit New York Monday night, but by Tuesday morning it more resembled a brother in law who borrows your power drill then loses the bit. Ever since 2005 and W’s less than spectacular response to Katrina (“Brownie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job..”) politicians have treated weather events with the kind of reverence formerly reserved for limb-missing veterans and winning Super Bowl coaches. Bloomberg fell short on a snow day a few years back, failing to get the necessary street-clearing equipment up and running. But he only made that mistake once and there were two plows for every block at the first sign of the next flurry. By the time Hurricane Sandy rolled along — an admittedly big event — he was logging more air time than the Weather Channel, forever repeating the same rote advice. Any Einstein needing a heads-up to not go wind sailing in a hurricane probably has it coming to him. And so it was with this most recent storm that De Blasio and Cuomo queued for the podium, grave warnings in fist. The mayor predicted an event of historic proportion, packing an almost immeasurable wallop. Subways were shut down, flights canceled, and cars forbidden from roadways. Then it came and went with all the impact of a Tony Randall dance interlude.

DeBlasio handled the subsequent razzing with self-effacing confidence and aplomb, reminding all that it was better to be safe than sorry. This is probably true, although when shutting down a city the size of New York dollar-costs are always an inconvenient caveat. You can’t win, as mayor, and Bloomberg might have told De Blasio as much. At the end of the day you’re at the mercy of the prognosticators and, historically speaking, weathermen have proven as trustworthy as the uncle who shows an unhealthy interest in your G.I. Joe collection at Christmas. They’re reliable as the high school senior who tells you as a sophomore that attending the upcoming ‘Yes’ concert is “guaranteed to blow your mind.” The morning after they’ll offer a brief excuse before getting on to the next forecast. This was what folks saw yesterday, watching TV at home on a mandatory off-day: some guy with the standard Sam Champion haircut, repeating the old better safe than sorry adage and that predicting four feet and getting one is better than the reverse. “It ended up missing us by fifty miles,” we were told, as though disaster were averted by the length of an eyelash. I don’t know — ‘fifty miles’ in this computer-savvy era of instant answers sounds like a fair distance to me. It’s akin to a sportscaster predicting a Mets World Series or business insider telling you to stockpile G.E. If we can genetically engineer pigs and order food or a car service with the push of a button, why is it so impossible to predict, within reasonable accuracy, what some big cloud is going to do?

***

I saw Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” over the weekend. Its appeal registered somewhere between Citizen Kane and Winter Storm Juno. At 84, you have to admire Eastwood’s spunk, just making it over to Morocco and getting something like this done. As Woody Allen famously put it “80% of success is just showing up” .. and Clint’s been showing up for 84 years. He’s also honed his craft with economical instincts that have served him well. In a cinematic world that values volume and flash over substance, he’s developed a lean and athletic approach to film making influenced by mentors like Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. His films vary in scope; not all are on scale with ‘Sniper’ or pack the subtext of ‘Unforgiven.’ He’s made his share of small films too and, along the way, the inevitable clunkers. Considering his career I’m reminded of the liner notes for Volume 8 of Bob Dylan’s ‘Bootleg’ series, “Tell Tale Signs.” Author Doug Daller writes of being invited to some studio sessions in ’83 for Dylan’s “Infidels” and being incensed to learn that his favorite cut — a tribute to blues legend Blind Willie McTell — is being left off the album. “Aww, Ratso, don’t get so excited,” Dylan tells him. “It’s just an album .. I’ve made thirty of ’em.” And so it seems, to me anyway, with Eastwood. His pace is steady and unrelenting and even at 84 he never seems overly anxious to “get everything in.” A few years back I was talking movies with a couple I know and mentioned that I intended to see “Trouble With The Curve” — a relatively small baseball flick Eastwood had done along the way. “I could never go to anything he’s done after that speech at the Republican Convention” the male half asserted, and yet another topic on my increasingly small list of conversational fodder was crossed off. While I agreed that the empty-chair speech was ill-advised, boycotting Eastwood, to me, is akin to never listening to Dylan again.

American Sniper has caused quite a storm, due in no little part to its solid numbers at the box office. The film was first advertised in November but held back two months for wide release. Whoever suggested employing this strategy has likely been promoted to a corner office, as the timing could not have been better. It arrived on the heels of the Charile Hedbo automatic weapons attack in Paris and 800,000-strong “Death to Cartoonists” marches in Syria. Not that any of this relates, specifically, to Eastwood’s film, but people have a way of lopping things together. As is typical, rash response has come from opposite poles of the political spectrum. The far left have dubbed it irresponsible propaganda and suggested, like those folks in Syria, that it should be banned from theaters. The far right, in practiced rock-head fashion, have embraced it as a rallying call for the patriotism of picking off bad guys (and girls) from a safe distance. Strictly speaking, I didn’t find it blindly patriotic. It is, of course, a Clint Eastwood film — and this has to factor in to one’s decision to buy a ticket, just as it would with Oliver Stone or Spike Lee. But this isn’t Clint playing Gunnery Sergeant Tom Highway in “Heartbreak Ridge,” either. Bradley Cooper’s portrayal of sniper Chris Kyle is sympathetic but not glamorizing. He’s shown as a patriot, but in the sense that anyone could be, lining up women and children in his cross-hairs. Some cursory research on the real Kyle suggests that, among other unflattering things, he may have been prone to exaggeration. The movie is likely worthy of the same criticism, but again, it’s a movie. I found its biggest fault to be its glossing over of his recovery from PTSD, but I did think Eastwood made a good choice in not showing his eventual, untimely death, stateside and at the hands of another shell-shocked vet. Bottom line, provided you’re capable of reasoned digestion and nuanced viewing .. it’s worth checking out.