Spoiler Alerts!

May 16, 2016

WARNING: DO NOT READ THIS POST if you’re not yet caught up on the current sixth season of GAME OF THRONES through at least S6E3 and you care about whatever’s going to happen next. Also READ NO FURTHER if you’re a TVphobe or non-subscriber to HBO still slogging your way through the bloody but convivial George R. R. Martin source novels. In truth, the following essay is frickin JAM-PACKED with pop-culture spoilers, including the illustration below. Hear me, O reader: MULTI-SPOILER FRICKIN MEGA-ALERT!!

I was standing in line at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival behind a friend who had just seen Lars von Trier’s DOGVILLE elsewhere at the fest. She was talking to somebody ahead of us, and their conversation somehow wandered to Nicole Kidman, the film’s star. (I was flitting between that vocal thread and the one behind me, which included my wife and our hostess.) Then she said something like, “Yeah: it was so odd when Nicole killed them all at the end.” She caught my eye and realized, shit: I just ruined the ending for him. You have to be a bit of a masochist to watch much of any von Trier, but no, I hadn’t seen the flick quite yet. (I have now. It was indeed ruined, but not by her.)

Since my friend’s mortified facial expression showed that she was really sorry, it had just been an accidental slip of the tongue, I decided to have a little fun with her. I acted wounded and “retaliated” to try and make her laugh. “It was his sled! He thinks he’s his own mom: he’s frickin crazy! They mash up dead people and serve em as food! They didn’t go anywhere, they landed in future New York City! He’s been a ghost this whole time!” She knew exactly what I was doing in my mock rage, and judging from the giggles, she was amused as well as relieved. That had certainly been my intent.

But damn: a decade later, it’s harder than ever to keep secrets from the popular culture, and you don’t have to stand in a festival line any more to get pre-hipped. One day it will be impossible to prevent leakage, but that day has not yet arrived, and for proof I cite both HBO and Lucasfilm.

STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was so eagerly awaited that the producers even released photos from the table read. Yet by sternly restricting access and keeping mouths shut, they concealed a major plot point that caused an audible reaction in the theater where I saw it, and probably everywhere else too. (I’m withholding this spoiler in case you haven’t yet seen the flick, but you’d better hurry up, because missing STAR WARS might be illegal by now.) But the equally massive GAME OF THRONES machine also kept a corker to itself, for the better part of a year.

I thought readers of Martin’s “Song of Fire and Ice” novels had been quite courteous in keeping mum about surprises, beginning in the series’ first season. Most of the show’s rep company have now become household names, or at least household faces. But at the beginning the only actor many viewers recognized was Sean Bean, of the LORD OF THE RINGS movies. The single most shocking event of the first season was “Ned Stark”’s execution at the command of sadistic young tyrant King Joffrey. Plop went the head of the character we assumed was the star of the show, establishing THRONES’s grisly dictum: on this show, nobody’s safe. Thing is, though, readers of the source novels had well known about this twist, some for as long as twenty years. They also knew in advance how and when Joffrey himself would die. They knew about the carnage to come in the notorious Red Wedding. They knew why Tyrion Lannister (as played by Peter Dinklage, he became the real star of the series) would be forced to commit patricide. And lots more. The reading public is probably a small fraction of THRONES’s worldwide viewership, but it still largely remained silent, even amidst the din of the Internet. That’s remarkable restraint: maybe readers were so pleased to see such a faithful, gorgeous adaptation that they felt protective.

George R. R. Martin is a fine writer, but he’s also relatively, and notoriously, slow. It has taken him two decades to produce the five long, intricate novels which are the basis for GAME OF THRONES. (I would say six, since he seems to be very close to finishing the latest one, but he’s left at least two deadlines unmet, so we’ll have to believe it when we see it.) As the HBO series gained popularity over five years, it became evident that neither the network nor the showrunners could wait for the author to finish the cycle (and two of the books take place simultaneously, shortening the timeline even further). Though they have already made slight changes from the printed version of Martin’s story (for example, the bodies strewn in the Red Wedding include victims new to readers as well), in the current sixth season the tv people move past the published books. This year, for the first time, loyal readers are in the dark along with the rest of the audience.

The cliffhanging development at the end of last season was the assassination of fan heartthrob Jon Snow, played by Kit Harington. Dashing leading men have been dropping like flies on this series and there are precious few left. (Nobody is safe, sure, but if they ever decided to kill off Dinklage’s Tyrion, they might as well just pack up and close the store.) The last shot of the season finale showed Jon’s multiple stab wounds staining the white snow. Cut to black.

AAAUGH! screamed anguished viewers. He can’t be dead! Message boards and chat rooms erupted with resuscitative theories. But for the rest of the summer, for the rest of the off-season, up until about two weeks ago, the producers assiduously misled everybody and maintained a real-life fiction to rival their elaborate medieval melodrama. For it had been their plan to bring Jon Snow back from the dead all along. The magical Melisandre — who revealed her own surprise in the previous episode — incanted away in a scene so languid that it was parodied on the following week’s SNL. Some ritual smoke, a sexy sponge bath, and Jon Snow was good to re-go. In this day and age, though, it took a titanic effort to keep the secret until air time.

First, there was no mention of Jon Snow whatsoever within the production: his name was as taboo as Voldemort’s. Harington’s lines in typed Season 6 scripts were given only to “LC,” or “Lord Commander,” Jon’s rank in the Night’s Watch (don’t ask). As the questions arose immediately after last season’s murder, Harington asserted, “Jon Snow is dead.” Same message from anybody associated with the show. (It’s not really a lie, is it? He was dead.) Then somebody spotted Harington in Belfast, where his scenes are shot, wearing the Snow character’s hair and beard. “I have to play him as a dead body,” he demurred. The conspiracy was so vast that Entertainment Weekly, allowed in on the ruse, was on the stands with a “He’s Alive!” cover story less than a week after air. And now Jon Snow is roaming the land of Westeros again. Mission accomplished.


The EW cover. I put it down here “below the swipe” so people wouldn’t stumble onto it.

All that trouble just to surprise people? It was easier back in the day. To preserve the jolt of a lead character’s murder midway through PSYCHO (shaking up its audience just as Ned Stark’s beheading does), Alfred Hitchcock simply forced exhibitors to close their doors after the film began. Nobody admitted during the performance, as opposed to the come-in-any-time policy for most other movies. Theater managers were indignant at first, fearing the loss of casual walk-in business, but patrons waiting for the next show formed lines nearly everywhere, making PSYCHO look like a hit and then becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy as others got curious. All because Hitch was concerned that late arrivers wouldn’t understand why they weren’t seeing the star.

Is there a statue of limitations on revealing a plot twist? When I was working on the PSYCHO entry for GEORGE LUCAS’S BLOCKBUSTING, my editor objected to the line, “Because a key character does not survive PSYCHO’s halfway point…” He thought I was being too coy and wanted me to spell it out. But I strongly objected: even though most readers will know exactly what I’m talking about — the scene in question has entered general mass culture and is constantly lampooned — there are others who don’t, people who have never seen PSYCHO. It would be a disservice to Hitch to obviate his chance to startle. (P.S.: I won.) I hated so many reviews of Gus Van Sant’s PSYCHO remake because the critics assumed familiarity with the story. Why would you ruin a thriller that way? I already spoiled PSYCHO’s big reveal up there in the Sundance line, but this is different: I warned you fair and square. A pox on anybody who sneaks a spoiler in, and that goes double for online comments. Follow the lead of SIGHT & SOUND, the best film magazine there is, and warn people away from TMI.

Sometimes the secret is so sublime that journalists just naturally give it a wide berth. I never saw any mention of the big surprises in THE CRYING GAME or THE SIXTH SENSE before I saw them. Others seem to be fair game. The stunning development in MILLION DOLLAR BABY was all over the press, even in feature stories; a non-entertainment headline in a plane passenger’s newspaper spoiled it for me from across the aisle.

The horror writer Clive Barker remembers seeing PSYCHO one afternoon back in England. Blown away, he stuck around for a second showing. Two schoolgirls came in and sat in front of him. As Barker tells it, the second time he was paying more attention to their reactions than to the film itself. He says he couldn’t wait until one character went snooping in a creepy place toward the end — and the resulting shrieks from the girls didn’t disappoint. He appreciated Hitch’s unspoiled surprises on a different level. He knew what was coming — and that was the suspense.


May 5, 2016

51gjhcyg1lL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_My friend Doug Ross sent me a book out of the blue. (I love when that happens.) He’d been talking about this breezy, fascinating volume by a Cambridge economist, but “Cambridge economist” alone had my eyes glazing over. In mild exasperation he sent it my way, and 23 THINGS THEY DON’T TELL YOU ABOUT CAPITALISM, its listicle title, consigned it to my “maybe one day” pile. For some reason that day arrived, and do I owe Doug a round of applause. This thing is substantial, economically sound, and thoroughly accessible to us civilians (unlike Thomas Piketty’s work). It’s also fun and puckish in the way it gleefully destroys received wisdom on how profit-centered economies really work. “There is no such thing as a free market,“ Ha-Joon Chang begins (that’s Thing 1), and he’s just getting started.

Most politicians who yak about the “free market” actually mean, “free from those pesky regulations.” But as Dr. Chang points out, all developing economies, including that of the United States, have used regulation and protectionism to give domestic wealth a chance to emerge and then to preserve it. Most regulations aren’t apparent to us, he writes: we notice one “when we don’t endorse the moral values behind it.” To the rich world, identical tactics in struggling economies can seem unfair, but that is not how global capitalism works. This conflict between perception (“common knowledge”) and reality powers the entire book, which mainly consists of hole-poking into the fiscal piety of what the author terms “free-market economics,” or simply letting the “invisible hand” of the economy seek its own level. That is not what happens, never has been, and if any state or consortium actually tried to leave its market alone, the result would be disastrous.

Each discussion of the author’s 23 Things begins with a paragraph called “What they tell you.” As I read them, I was struck again and again: jeez, that’s exactly what I was taught! The next paragraph is the truth, “What they don’t tell you.” Finally, Dr. Chang explicates his conclusions with data, logic and common sense, all sourced and cited in notes at the end. Never does he outpace the lay reader, not even when one or another of his Things seems counterintuitive (Thing 4, “The washing machine has changed the world more than the internet has”) and deliberately invites scorn or disbelief until the author patiently proves his point.

The book’s brief 260 pages contain a wealth of upended “wisdom” and provocation. We do not live in a post-industrial age. The U.S. does not have the world’s highest standard of living, though its managers are paid too much, as are most workers in other rich countries. Africa is not doomed to perpetual underdevelopment. Financial markets need to become less efficient, not more. The trickle-down theory is a sham. Even after Communism, we still live under planned economics. People in poor countries are more entrepreneurial than those in rich countries. We are not smart enough to leave things to the market. And much, much more.

You will almost certainly disagree with at least a few of the 23 Things before Dr. Chang gets through with you, maybe even after. His institutional bias is certainly toward the collective and the global, and that’s all a right-wing radio host would need to cut him down. But there is no question that you will be made to think more rationally, and more planet-centrically, about “the things we know that just ain’t so.” What more can you ask of a book you can either ponder bit by bit, or devour in a single sitting?

The Stage, On The Page

April 12, 2016

The-Secret-Life-of-American-Musicals-by-Jack-ViertelThe Broadway musical is as American an art form as jazz or the blues, and it has patriotically survived the recent British invasion led by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh. The term “musical comedy” has become rather archaic, since we find very little humor (but there is some) in bombastic productions like LES MISERABLES or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Yet troupers are still singing and dancing on the Great White Way, and to record-setting business, too; the New York “legit” theater has never been healthier.

I know a few people who don’t like musicals on principle. It annoys them whenever a character breaks into the story to sing: it’s unnatural, unrealistic, even silly. (Now when a hobbit puts on a magic ring to turn invisible, they’re perfectly happy. But we all have our own contradictions, don’t we?) My niece, one of the most devoted Broadway fans I know, attends nothing but musicals. But to non-aficionados they’re all pretty much the same, distinguishable only by the setting or, more rarely, by the intrusion of a contemporary type of music (HAIR, RENT, HAMILTON). A devotee would certainly disagree, but how many of them have sat down and truly thought it through? Any presentation that demands the attention of an audience for nearly three hours has to lead it on some kind of narrative ride. My biggest takeaway from an eye-opening new book is how much commonality most well-made musicals share, even when very creative people are racking their brains for brand new ways to surprise and delight the folks in the seats.

There are general principles that most of the best, longest-lasting musicals observe, and they are deconstructed for you in THE SECRET LIFE OF THE AMERICAN MUSICAL by Jack Viertel. It’s packed with anecdotes and lore, authoritative without forgetting to be fun, the best general-audience guide to “how Broadway shows are built” (per the subtitle) that I’ve ever encountered. Mr. Viertel is senior vice president of Jujamcyn Theaters, one of the three big Broadway owner/producers (see more below), and he has also been a dramaturg and newspaper critic. Over a long career he’s worked with both the creators and the landlords, combining an expert’s breadth of knowledge with a fan’s appreciation and enthusiasm. I used to joke that I was the only straight man in New York who saves all his Playbills. Evidently I was mistaken.

“Building” a musical, no matter what kind, requires some basic materials. When the curtain rises, the audience immediately needs to know, Where are we? Who are these people? How can I tell them apart? And why should I care? From there, a remarkable number of classic pieces — including the current hottest ticket in the world, HAMILTON — use similar patterns to create interest and pleasure in their audiences. “It’s only in hindsight that the patterns emerge,” Mr. Viertel writes, and he takes pains to assure us that writers and composers are not working from a cookie-cutter template. But in his hands it’s amazing to compare creative solutions that achieve common goals. Not all hit shows follow these patterns, and not every show contains every single one, but there’s much more agreement on what the author calls the “classic chassis” than you’d expect at first thought.

The book is organized like a two-act show. From the overture to the curtain call, Mr. Viertel illustrates structure with historical examples, trivia, and backstage color told with savvy assuredness. He shows how the “song plot” advances storytelling: despite my friends’ distaste, there are perfectly valid reasons why somebody starts singing. We learn about the “I want” song, which establishes a difficult goal (like “My Shot” in HAMILTON); the conditional love song (there’s a dramatic reason it’s “If I Loved You” in CAROUSEL instead of just “I Love You”); the “noise,” which uses comedy and kinetics to recharge the audience in the third or fourth song slot (“Hasa Diga Eebowai” in THE BOOK OF MORMON); the song which is basically there so a big star can shine; the Main Event, sometimes called the “11 o’clock number”; and lots more. You find yourself nodding your head at aspects of the musical experience that you’ve frequently seen but never really noticed, like the Second Couple (Will Parker and Ado Annie in OKLAHOMA!, Nathan Detroit and Miss Adelaide in GUYS AND DOLLS) which provides counterpoint to, and frequently comic relief from, the romantic leads. It’s a little like finding out how a magic trick works, but the net effect is to make you appreciate originality even more.

razzleMr. Viertel’s book is about the show. A second one is about the business. RAZZLE DAZZLE by Michael Riedel recounts the colorful, sometimes oddball history of the people who own the Broadway houses and battle each other for the best bookings. Mr. Riedel has been the wildly popular theater columnist for the New York Post for nearly twenty years; he’s probably the second most influential journalist in the field, just behind the lead critic for the New York Times. He is impressively well plugged in, and has either witnessed or heard first-hand accounts of some hair-greying events in a wobbly industry that was almost snuffed out by the slow deterioration of its Times Square neighborhood by the mid-Seventies. Now, of course, Times Square, most notably the formerly notorious 42nd Street, has been transformed into a booming, profitable family destination — and the Broadway theater owners had a great deal to do with it.

A pause for some definitions. Despite how it sounds, the difference between a “Broadway” and “off-Broadway” production is not location, but the number of seats in the theater. Five hundred and above makes it a “Broadway” house, no matter what’s playing there. One hundred to 499, “off-Broadway.” Below 100, “off-off-Broadway.” At Lincoln Center, for example, the Vivian Beaumont Theater, current home to THE KING AND I, is “on Broadway.” Under the same roof, down one flight of stairs, is the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater, much more intimate and thus “off-Broadway.” And neither one of them is located in the Times Square “theater district.” So it’s the auditorium, not the address. There are exceptions, like Carnegie Hall, which usually hosts individual musical performances rather than scripted theatre; and the outdoor Delacorte Theater in Central Park, home only to two “free Shakespeare in the Park” shows each summer.

This distinction isn’t simply academic. As you have probably guessed, money is involved. The actors, musicians and backstage crew work under different contracts depending on the producer’s potential gross. Furthermore, some Broadway houses are physically much smaller than others, so they tend to book straight plays, where every cost is more modest, and those productions can certainly yield profitable hits too. But big brassy shows, in the largest theaters, are where the real money is and where the tourists flock. If you’re waiting for discount tickets at the TKTS booth in Duffy Square and you fancy a play, go straight to the far window. Non-musicals only. Nobody’s there. Smaller doesn’t equal worse: much of the most exciting theatre in New York, including a few reduced-scale musicals, is performed off-Broadway. But razzling-dazzling singing and dancing in Broadway-sized houses is what each of these books is overwhelmingly about.

Mr. Riedel chronicles the rise of the Shubert family, Broadway’s biggest landlord, beginning with its hardscrabble upstate origins and finally its brave move into New York City, where a loose consortium actually referred to as “the Syndicate” — its founders were the five largest theater owners at the turn of the century, who controlled the best houses in the biggest cities across America — intimidated its rube competition as surely as Vito Corleone and his boardroom peers. We watch the bold, determined Shuberts buy and build, and suffer its own clan’s fools as must any family-run company. On July 7, 1972, the feckless, drunken surviving Shubert was deposed as head of the Shubert Foundation, which legally owns the theaters, by family lawyers Bernard B. Jacobs and Gerald Schoenfeld. “Bernie and Jerry” then became responsible for the Shubert Organization’s greatest years, and for a notable era were the most powerful producers on Broadway. Mr. Riedel has the most intimate access to these people, and my main beef is that he gives the other players short shrift. But after all, the Shuberts are arguably where the action is. They are far and away the largest landlord, with 17 Broadway theaters. The competing Nederlander organization owns 9, and Jujamcyn (Mr. Viertel’s employer, which is mentioned here only in passing) has 5.

The colorful business story is interspersed with fascinating producers’-eye views of how a few landmark shows (at least in a business sense) made their way to the stage: EQUUS, A CHORUS LINE, DREAMGIRLS, CATS, NINE, CHESS, 42ND STREET, and more. Creative talents like Michael Bennett and Andrew Lloyd Webber deal with both adulation and ignominy before our eyes. And the long slog toward the desperately needed rejuvenation of Times Square — featuring Atlanta architect John Portman, he of the glass elevators, and his mammoth Marriott Marquis Hotel, which plants a gentrifying flag in the seedy district (its lobby is five floors above the hoi polloi at street level, and there’s a Broadway theater inside the hotel) — becomes a life-and-death struggle from the producers’ point of view. (“Where’s Broadway going to go? New Jersey?” asks a skeptical Mayor Ed Koch about the neighborhood.) Again, the book is too Shubertcentric: we also don’t get that close a look at interlopers like the Walt Disney Company, whose seemingly daft 49-year lease of the decrepit New Amsterdam Theater was the key to the revival of 42nd Street.

In the analog era I might have noted that some of the location description might be a little off-putting to people who don’t know New York City that well: I might have complained that there was no theater-district map. But everybody can locate these places on their frickin phones by now, so all you really need for SECRET LIFE and RAZZLE DAZZLE is a love for the American musical, and/or a curiosity about how it’s served to you. One’s for the notes. The other’s for the C-notes. But you can’t have Broadway without both of them.

Jim Dollarhide, 1952-2016

March 18, 2016

UnknownJim Dollarhide apparently died on Wednesday in a fire at his lakefront home in Madison, Mississippi. I say “apparently” because they found a body in the still-burning rubble of his 3800-foot house and Jim is missing, but it will require some dental examination to make sure. The firefighters said the “structure was fully involved” by the time they got there at 10:41 p.m. after an emergency call from a neighbor, and the upper levels had already collapsed. It’s almost certain Jim is gone. If I have to retract this piece, I will do so with great joy.

I’ve known Jim since my advertising days in the Seventies. He was the first filmmaker I got to spend quality time with. I like movies and all, and I even took some production courses in graduate school so I have some idea what it feels like to create a film, but this was the first guy I ever met who had already decided to make a living at it. To Jim, a beautiful image might be all well and good, but it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing: it has to move.

You meet lots of gifted photographers in the ad game, but they produce a different kind of art. The still shooter shows you an instant in time. The filmmaker shows you the passage of time. Jim had the eye for nifty composition which any good fotog possesses, but it was that third dimension, the depiction of duration, that fascinated and obsessed him.

Jim was a blue-collar filmmaker. By that I mean he was no rarefied sissy on location; he could get down and dirty in physical labor with his crew, made up of people he liked and respected. But he demanded professionalism and courtesy. Once my ad agency hired Jim to do some films and tv spots for Yazoo Mowers, those big-wheeled monsters built like tanks. I was the agency producer, meaning all I had to do was stand around and nod, and guzzle the occasional soft drink. But even with my light load of responsibility, it was the most horrible shoot I’ve ever been on. For two weeks it was steaming even by Mississippi standards (the grips showed me how to dip a neck scarf in Sea Breeze astringent and ice water to cool down the circulation), we were in a severe drought so most grass was brown and we had to figure out how to color it (the mayor had even forbidden people from watering their lawns), and too many of the setups were on undulating spreads that required time-consuming engineering to lay dolly track for smooth camera motion. But we made it through somehow, and celebrated with a wrap party at Jim’s house. I decided to buy each of the crew members a really nice knife to say thanks for going above and beyond. I guess I’d gone there too: one of them said, “This is the first time a producer ever gave me anything.” Jim was walking by, and over his shoulder came, “He gave you a job.”

Me, trying to look productive on that godforsaken Yazoo shoot. Jim is peeking out from my left armpit.

Me, trying to look productive on that godforsaken Yazoo shoot. Jim is peeking out from my left armpit.

Jim’s page on IMDb notes that he “founded a production company called ‘Imageworks’ two decades before Sony Pictures used the term.” I know it does because I’m the one who put it there. We were both running teensy little outfits in the Eighties and we had a symbiotic relationship. He was doing fewer commercials, which are tightly scripted beforehand, and more industrial films and longer documentaries, where he could call in a writer at the pre-production stage. The difference in our two companies was that Imageworks was hugely capital-intensive: Jim had to keep up with emerging technologies, so he needed new equipment all the time. He originally had one of those honking Steenbeck flat-bed editing decks, where to make an edit you physically snipped the film and spliced it back with tape, which is how movies had been cut since time immemorial. In those days some bigger houses were using a process called “negative to tape” for their first baby steps into online editing, but Jim had to separate wants from needs in order to survive in the more frugal environment of central Mississippi. Now the Steenbeck is as quaint a relic as the X-Acto knife, but Jim had long since moved on. It’s a shame that he largely missed out on the digital revolution of the past few years — shooting on location is cheaper and nimbler than it’s ever been before.

Jim not only loved his craft, he also loved his native state of Mississippi, but not in a Confederate way. He was a huge music fan and cherished the rich tradition of Mississippi Delta blues. He shot thousands of feet of B. B. King and became a good friend; Jim’s documentary plays every day at the B. B. King Museum in Indianola. After all the years slogging and working together for industry and commerce, I guess my favorite film of Jim’s is the scriptless HARMONIES: A MISSISSIPPI OVERTURE (1994), a labor of love and a piece of pure cinema that tells you everything you need to know about him in just 25 minutes. He was a kind, upstanding, talented man whose generosity of spirit mentored so many young men and women; their praises and tears are pouring in equally today. Goodbye, Jim. You were one of a kind, and you are already missed.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like The Donald?

March 11, 2016

UnknownScientists detected gravitational waves as black holes collided a billion light years away, verifying the final prediction in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but all anybody could talk about was Donald J. Trump. So let’s add to the cacophony!

After 2012’s bizarre Presidential primary season (I guess it’ll become known as Clown Car 1.0), Republican poobahs futzed with the schedule to make it easier to winnow the field in favor of a strong early candidacy. Individual billionaire sugar daddies, unfettered by contribution limits, were allowing asterisks like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to last far beyond their sell-by dates instead of dutifully joining the Tribal Council alongside Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. This was confusing the faithful, who are accustomed to receiving decisions from on high. Ever since Ronald Reagan challenged and nearly toppled Gerald Ford in 1976, which some felt softened Ford up for the Jimmy Carter insurgency, Pub candidates have tended to take their rightful turns in the captain’s seat after some pro forma sliming (see Carolina, South) to tone up for the general.

That was the plan, and it’s working like a charm. One problem, though. That strong early candidacy? This year, it’s not the candidate the big shots wanted. And they don’t know how to react.

Donald Trump doesn’t need to kowtow to wealthy enablers, but it’s not because he’s rich. (Compared to the Pub donor elite, he’s not that rich at all.) It’s because he’s a tv star famous for brute bellicosity, a bad-guy wrestler in a ring full of dog-whistling sissies. His tv persona makes decisions. He gets things done. He sucks the air out of a room and pulls all camera lenses toward true north. Never mind that most of his pronouncements defy any empirical sense: they cut to the heart of what impolite society actually feels in its gut of guts, and ratings go up whenever he yaps. Moochers, peaceniks, pointy-heads and tree-huggers have taken our country away from us (i.e., white males). Let’s reclaim it. Let’s bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age, kick Muslims out of the country, build a Great Wall of New Mexico. I pity the fool who messes with me, even if it’s the Pope. We’re as mad as hell, and we’re not gonna take this any more! Donald Trump doesn’t need a can full of expensive tv spots. According to the Tyndall Report, he gets nearly ten times the amount of network news coverage, also known as “free media,” as does his closest rival, Ted Cruz. This isn’t what the Koch brothers had in mind at all, especially since they might be forced to turn on the cash spigot that had Hillary’s name on it even before the Pub primaries are over.

What the heck do people see in Trump? For one thing, somebody who is finally calling bullshit, some of it well deserved.

Fifty years after the 1965 Voting Rights Act (recently emasculated by the Supremes 5-4), LBJ’s rueful prediction has long since come true, and the South has been delivered to the Republican Party. Whenever you hear “the party of Lincoln” and “Democrats supported the KKK,” understand that for most of the 20th century, it was the Democratic Party that was the stronghold of segregation and repression, thanks to its intransigent Southern wing. It’s all there in MASTER OF THE SENATE, Robert Caro’s magnificent chronicle of the era. But the winds changed after the party’s “betrayal” of Dixie, Richard Nixon gave his own clumsily euphemistic shove in 1968, Reagan furthered things along for the ruling class, and now the solid South is solid Pubs, complete with the attendant racism and xenophobia. Yes, I know most Pubs aren’t racists. But most racists are Pubs.

Now, for half a century this smoldering anti-Other resentment has been poked by the Pub party line. Rich people are actually good for the economy because they’re job creators; reduce their taxes and they’ll create even more. Lazy welfare bums play us for suckers. Democrats steal elections through massive voter fraud. Government is utterly incompetent (except for the military and the secret jackboots aching to confiscate your guns or invade Texas) and should butt out of our lives (except for the bedroom and the immigration office). Foreign policy should be built on fear, not respect. Universal health care is a job-killing, inflation-provoking catastrophe. And so on. At the extremes it’s even stranger. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists in order to get fat research grants. The earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, according to newly politicized evangelicals. Science itself is suspect because it’s all just theories anyway. The President (did you realize he’s black?) is a foreign-born Muslim, and he’s either “feckless” (a word the right has recently discovered) or an all-powerful imperial dictator. He’s even been called a “socialist Nazi,” a mutually exclusive term that nevertheless sounds wonderful if you happen to hate the POTUS.

Such propaganda has worked fine all this time, especially on the state and local level, about which too few voters care and at which there isn’t much informed opposition. It’s downright easy to pull this stuff off in times of prosperity, when things are managing to get better or people are at least treading water. America is an aspirational society, the land of opportunity, each citizen unencumbered by his class at birth. A humble thus-and-so can grow up to be a captain of industry, or even — dare he think it? — president of the United States. We let wealthy people off easy because in our dreams we too might be wealthy some day, either by dint of honest labor or a stroke of lottery luck. When we get rich, we want all those juicy tax breaks for ourselves so we can conserve what we have and battle those who threaten any portion of it, just as the big shots do today.

But recent times have not been prosperous for the American working class, despite what it says in the latest jobs report or the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Real wages are flat and have been for decades. Whatever leverage collective bargaining once provided has slowly dissipated into insignificance. Technology and lower-wage foreign workers are removing jobs from the economy which will never return. What’s different this time is that some people are beginning to look past the Other-directed fear and anger to perceive a new villain: the political long con that leaves them behind.

Election after election, guys in shirt sleeves and cowboy boots step up to the mike and promise to look out for the “hard-working American people.” But, once in office, time and again they join the plutocracy that keeps things humming along for the few American people at the top. One of the most beautiful whoppers is “trickle-down” economics, which holds that tax cuts for the richest people are stimulative because they provide more capital to build factories and hire workers. In fact, nothing trickles down: when the wealthy get a windfall, they save or invest it rather than buying goods or services. A tax cut for the middle class and lower would be injected straight into the economy in the form of spending; let’s call it “bubble-up” economics. Not only have “austerity” programs damaged research and education across the country, they also cause us to ignore the crumbling infrastructure whose urgent repair would instantly create thousands of badly needed jobs. Sometimes you just have to borrow money, as anyone who owns a house or car will attest, but the false equivalency of “my family balances its budget, the government should too” seems to squelch any long view.

So the working class is going nowhere while the wealthy continue to take the lion’s share of gains in productivity. And one day Joe Sixpack looks up and realizes the only thing he’s netted in the past two decades is affordable health care, and that came from a Kenyan Marxist! Jeez, the rich power brokers are part of the problem! Joe can get madder, which is why Trump has been so successful blaming our ills on outsiders, or more terrified: have you ever heard louder national shrieking than during the 2014 Ebola scare? Compare and contrast with shrugs over the latest mass slaughter (unless a foreigner was responsible).

This realization, while overdue, is widespread. That’s how you get the Bernie Sanders insurrection as well. “Income inequality” isn’t a partisan term, at least not this year. The feeling that one’s country is slipping away, formerly the key to manipulating older white guys, is beginning to be joined for different reasons even by educated younger people, the less fortunate of them awash in college debt and resentful about it. Thus they feel the Bern. But whether it’s calculated or an accident, Trump’s bluster has come along at just the right moment. This was Ted Cruz’s scenario: a pox on all their houses! But he didn’t count on somebody who could outshout him. Neither did Jeb!, Rubio, Christie (this was really supposed to be his role), Jindal, Walker, Perry — the growing list of The Fallen continues to grace the ceiling of Stephen Colbert’s sanctuary. If the Pubs are counting on a brokered convention, I can’t wait to see the torches and pitchforks that come out when they deny Trump from a smoke-filled room.

I don’t see how Trump can possibly win the general: there aren’t enough angry old white guys. But I couldn’t see how he could get anywhere near the Republican nomination either, and now he’s a whisker away. You know it’s true because you’re starting to hear Pub apologists say, hey, maybe he can bring our down-ballot guys a bunch of first-time voters! Low turnout historically favors Pubs, which is why they suppress voting with all their might and pray for apathy. (If too many Democrats boycott Hillary or just stay home, as is their wont, there’ll be only one candidate remaining.) But maybe this year is different. Maybe the Pubs need turnout. After all, if Hillary wins and the Senate flips, Mitch McConnell loses his gamble and she could install Abbie frickin Hoffman on the Supreme Court. That’s a base-energizin’ thought.

My guess is that Trump entered the race as a brand-building lark and is as surprised as anyone else that he’s gotten this far. But presidential races can mess with ya. Now, Trump thinks he can actually win. So does Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, I direct Cruz-fearing Pub mavens to the holy schadenfreude of Hosea 8:7: “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Don’t act like you didn’t see this coming. Even if you didn’t wake up until it was almost too late, this is still on you.

Breaking Kayfabe

February 1, 2016

28beal“Kayfabe” is the fourth wall in professional wrestling. It’s a code, a principle, the relationship of the pros to the audience. The “feuds,” the “unmaskings,” the “leave-town matches,” are portrayed as absolutely genuine. A magician must never reveal her method; neither must a wrestler give fans any indication that the matches are indeed scripted and staged. Two “feuding” wrestlers who are friends in real life must never be seen fraternizing outside the ring: they are damaging the fiction, ruining the con. They are “breaking kayfabe.”

Before the World Wrestling Federation was forced to admit in 1989 that it produced scripted entertainment — to avoid being regulated like a genuine sport — kayfabe was dead serious and almost inviolable, like the dark secrets of grizzled carnies. The scam was so good that the rubes bought it. So good that when I lived in Georgia in the early Seventies, I remember hearing the sports reporter read the evening’s wrestling results on late-night network-affiliate news broadcasts. It wasn’t that the sportscaster believed. But his viewers did. Some of them still do.

Kayfabe divides wrestlers into two types: “heels,” or bombastic, thundering bad guys who will goad, cheat and lie; and “faces,” short for “babyfaces,” or virtuous, humble souls who compete on athletic ability alone. A heel can change into a face, and vice versa, in a storyline called a “turn.” Many if not most serious fan-favorite topliners since WWF promoter Vince McMahon admitted kayfabe in testimony before the New Jersey state senate were once heels. A well-executed turn can make even wide-eyed kids love the guy they were booing just two weeks ago.

The Economist, which is wonderfully droll on U.S. news due to its cultural remove, has looked on the current Presidential race with amusement and amazement. It describes one candidate as having “built an outrageous public persona around his gargantuan ego…Uncertainty over whether this is self-parody or undiluted egomania is part of the act. [He] is to public service what professional wrestling, which he loves, is to sport: entertaining and ludicrously implausible, a suspension of disbelief for escapists, a crude deception for the gullible.”

You know who the paper is talking about. Of course you do. But what if wrestling isn’t an analogy at all? What if Donald Trump’s candidacy so far has been nothing more than kayfabe?

Trump has been a classic heel ever since he announced for president. The Economist isn’t the first publication to note that his campaign appearances resemble pre-bout interviews with a bad-guy wrestler. His ego knows no bounds. He bellows about how he’s the best, smartest, winningest, and his opponents are weaklings, boring, losers. He rails about immigrants and Muslims, he out-jingos Ted Cruz, he makes meanspirited fun of his opponents. He sucks up media air like a bad guy who knows people don’t go to the matches to find out what his face opponent will do. They show up to see the heel.

I got to thinking about this after an appearance by Keith Olbermann last year on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER. The two men were discussing Trump and Olbermann said when they met, Trump couldn’t have been nicer, kinder, or more considerate. It was all about your needs, he said: are you comfortable, can I get you anything? I was shocked when Maher seconded this appraisal. He had met Trump too, he said, and in the one-on-one setting, Maher had had the same reaction. I know what you’re thinking, and Olbermann said it out loud: either the blustery campaign persona or the respectful gentility is an act. But which one is it?

Could Trump be playing a heel to get attention and votes, beginning today in Iowa? (Remember, that’s what the crowds like.) Does he break kayfabe in private? Could he be planning a turn once he nails the nomination, and if so, could that storyline play to anyone beyond the gullible? Trump in the general: all of a sudden he’s a face? I hope I don’t have to buy a ticket.

2/3/16: A day or two later, somebody more verbally agile than I went here too.

6/7/16: And, incredibly, Trump IS the Pub nominee in the general. Unless the star chambers manage to do something about it before their quadrennial convention.

The Bloomberg Factor

January 28, 2016

bloombergpoint.banner.reuters.jpgThe new year’s most intriguing political development is the news that former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is quietly exploring the possibility of entering the Presidential race as an independent.

Bloomberg has always wanted to be President — along with Dick Cheney, he likes the idea of the office but hates the self-abasement required to get there — and you can’t blame him for considering a run just about now. To Bloomberg, who is difficult to pigeonhole on the rigid political spectrum of our day, the race for the Republican nomination is devolving into a mean-spirited circus, and two scary clowns are currently leading the pack. Should Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg would probably despair over the prospect of even more intractable gridlock than we have now. In a worst-case scenario — say, Sanders against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz — Bloomberg would see more than an opportunity: from his point of view, it might be closer to a necessity. But he can’t wait for clarity: he has to push the button long before the two nominees are chosen. Plus, Michael Bloomberg doesn’t like to lose.

Serious third-party Presidential candidacies in my lifetime have all had unintended consequences. The two most notorious were Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000. Both men siphoned away votes from a major party’s natural constituency, thus helping to elect the opposition: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But who might benefit and who might suffer from a Bloomberg-led ticket? It’s far less evident.

On the one hand, he’s a fat-cat multibillionaire (he’s way richer than Trump, and he got that way without a seven-figure loan from his father; he could easily self-finance a national campaign) with “New York values,” meaning, I guess, moderate positions on gun control, immigration, abortion, climate change and the like. A perfect target for Citizen Cruz. Then again, he has used the power of government as mayor to ban smoking in shared public spaces, an idea which has caught on as far away as Dublin, and he was just starting to pose ways to reduce the consumption of sugary sodas when the clock ran out. Those pesky nanny-state regulations, which successful businesspeople are supposed to hate. Bloomberg was also a welcome voice of reason during the trumped-up kerfuffle over the “Ground Zero mosque.” A few people carped about his making New York especially better for the especially better off, but he’s generally remembered as an effective mayor: he made other moderates like himself fairly pleased with his ideas and his courage.

There are plenty of Democrats who would vote for Bloomberg in a general election, especially if their party chose Bernie Sanders. It’s not that they don’t like the Bern, they just recognize that the good ideas he’s campaigning on would be impossible to enact without the kind of compromises that would wind up displeasing the Senator. Yes, what’s missing is the art of the deal. The good thing for Bloomberg is that Sanders has pretty much nullified any latent anti-Semitism: its not going to be an issue. You have to be some kind of king-hell bigot in this day and age to object to a candidate just because he’s Jewish, and those few serious knuckle-draggers vote Republican anyway.

Bloomberg has said that if Hillary Clinton were nominated, he’d be less inclined to run, and I can see that. Outside of a sitting veep, she is the best-qualified Presidential candidate in memory. Her views dovetail with Blooomberg’s reality-based pragmatism more neatly. She seems to understand how the federal government really operates, and knows where to push and prod. And she makes those scary clowns froth at the mouth.

If he had a crystal ball, Bloomberg’s decision would be easy. He made his fortune by predicting the future, correctly sensing a potential lucrative symbiosis between the financial markets and emerging power and speed in data processing at a time when his learned bosses and colleagues at Salomon Brothers thought he was nuts. But now he can’t. If he wants in, he has to act by early March. That would still give him time to get his name on the ballot in all fifty states, and the very first thing an independent candidate needs, even beyond a vast pile of money, is a ballot with his name on it. He won’t have time to analyze his chances in all but a few early-primary states. The GOP nomination, maybe both, could still be up in the air when summer rolls around. But you can bet his people are carefully studying the likely scenarios, because Michael Bloomberg wouldn’t be running to make a statement. He’d be running to win.

Statewide and national politicians depend on sugar daddies more than ever before. We all know that a few immensely wealthy donors have outsized influence over modern campaigns. Not necessarily by flooding the tube with commercials — that gets less and less effective each presidential cycle (hi, Jeb!) — but one sole megadonor like the Kochs or Sheldon Adelson or Cruz’s Robert Mercer can keep a campaign afloat and the staffers paid even after popular support has dwindled: look how Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum hobbled into oblivion way past their sell-by dates last time. Now we have self-funding candidates, and lots of them. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman were unable to parlay a wad into an office, but it’s not at all unusual to read that a newly elected governor was his own largest donor.

Trump’s big hook is that he’s so rich, no “special interest” can tell him what to do. Should he enter the race, Bloomberg could handily, er, trump this notion. But he has to jump in before anybody is nominated, and his independent candidacy could suck moderate votes from potential nominees Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Jeb!, Kasich. When you share such votes, you just might give an advantage to the fiery id of the political zealot, and hello, President Cruz. And if you divide electoral votes three ways, you might not even get a clear winner at all — throwing the 2016 Presidential election to the ineffable wisdom of that distinguished body, the United States House of Representatives.

%d bloggers like this: