Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Bush vs. Bush

My cynical side never believes anyone who is unreservedly pleased with any of our elected (or wanna-be elected) officials. When I hear anyone say that their guy is 100% honest, smart and moral, I think the person saying this is lying — certainly to me, maybe even to himself. Even with the candidates we decide are good enough to support, I think we wind up pretending that his flip-flop on certain issues isn't a flip-flop; that his sleazy business dealings are spic-and-span; that his fund-raising activities don't have the distinct aroma of taking bribes. When it's Our Guy, we rationalize, ignore the evidence, and find an innocent explanation for that which was a character-defining felony last week when we caught the opposition doing it.

I rarely believe that people saying George W. Bush is a great leader really believe that. I think they just think he's the guy in the position to take the country where they want it to go, so they'll back him and pretend. Some of them are probably also pretending he's taking the country where they want it to go. I have a ultra-right wing friend who for years has been lecturing me that deficits are the tool of Satan and that any public servant who runs one should be executed. When Ronald Reagan increased the National Debt, my friend developed a long, tortured explanation (it had something to do with percentages of G.N.P.) as to why that debt was not really a debt. But when I ask him about the current financial projections, he can't even come up with a rationale. He has to change the subject.

All of this is a way of recommending a very sharp piece that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart just did about George W. If you don't like Bush, you'll laugh because it confirms everything you believe about the man, and does it in a way that's hard to deny. If you do like Bush...well, you might laugh but you'll also wince. Because just as Reagan supporters had to ignore his imaginary facts and his abominable record as a family man, followers of the previous Bush had to ignore him lying about Iran-Contra and taxes, and Clinton fans had to ignore his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and fund-raising follies, supporters of the current Bush have to ignore stuff like this. (RealPlayer is, alas, required.)

• Posted at 7:19 PM · LINK

Today Show Tale

Spinsanity — which is as close to the "last word" as anything you'll find on the web — has debunked the story of Tim Robbins being cut off during his appearance on The Today Show. I think we'd already figured out here that it didn't happen, but their confirmation settles it for me.

• Posted at 8:40 AM · LINK

Obnoxious and Disliked

Ben Varkentine is the latest of several to ask what I think of the announcement that a new TV-Movie is to be produced of one of my favorite musicals and movies, 1776. Answer: I don't know what I think. I suppose it depends on how well it's done. The 1972 movie was apparently an utterly faithful version of the original Broadway show, and it's wonderful. But one of the great things about theater is that shows are open to reinterpretation. Ethel Merman was said to have given one of the all-time classic performances when she played Mama Rose in Gypsy, but that didn't preclude Angela Lansbury from doing a version that many preferred. Other versions have not been without value. It is certainly not inconceivable that a new version of 1776 might be wonderful on its own terms.

Which is not to say I'm over-optimistic. The whole show runs about three hours. If, as one might expect, they try to do it in a two-hour slot with commercial breaks, that will mean cutting almost half the show. I have no idea how that could be done and still keep the wonderful way in which the obstacles to the Declaration of Independence are slowly chipped away, one after the other. The casting will presumably require "names" and no star leaps to mind as ideal to play John Adams. I'd love to see Kelsey Grammer play John Dickinson but even if they could afford him and he could find the time, it's still a supporting role. Some of the Internet discussion groups that talk of musicals are already assuming it'll be Victor Garber in one of those two roles, and I would imagine he could be very good.

But who knows? Some in those groups are already writing off the whole project as a disaster before one bit of casting has even been announced. I think it would be nice if we waited until they actually make the film before we review it. I'm certainly willing to enjoy a new version.

With one caveat. Most of these TV-musicals are filmed in Canada. I really think it would be a shame if the story of how the United States of America was founded was filmed anywhere but in the good ol' U.S. of A.

• Posted at 12:35 AM · LINK