A MISSING AMERICA

Interview with Vivian Howard from A Chef's Life

2014-12-02T18:24:00.004-05:00

This interview was originally published at The Peabody Awards website.

“A Chef’s Life” follows Vivian Howard and her family as she runs a farm-to-fork fine dining restaurant in the North Carolina low country. Each episode offers warm and detailed glimpses into traditional southern cuisine, the farmers who grow the food, and way of life from which these recipes emerge. The show has a extremely loyal following with fans that immediately began expressing their enthusiasm and support on social media. We thought that it would be good to talk to Vivian about the recent Peabody Award announcement.

Matt Shedd: How did the idea of turning your work into a television show come together?

Vivian Howard: The whole thing was prompted by a morning I spent watching 4- 60+ year-old men make kraut from collards in their back shed, something they had done once a year their whole lives. Out of this experience, I became fascinated with documenting the food and farming traditions of my region and approached Cynthia HIll, a friend as well as a documentary filmmaker about helping me with the project. Having grown up in the same area, she was drawn to the idea, so we set about telling the story of our region’s food ways through the lens of my life and community.

It was not an initial intention to have my restaurant work be a part of the story. Rather, Cynthia and Derek Britt (a producer on the show) recognized the need for that dynamic.

MS: What really strikes me about your show is that it demonstrates that reality television can be very good. Rather than reaffirming the caricatures that we often see of southerners in television, your show offers us a more intimate and nuanced glimpse of the people you interact with. I see it as a kind of positive response to a lot of the reality TV shows out there. How much was this part of the plan from the beginning?

VH: It was an absolute goal of ours from the beginning to represent the people of the American South as well as the restaurant business in a more subtle fashion. Both are popular subjects in reality television and both are often terribly misrepresented. Unfortunately there are real-world implications that stem from the portrayals on reality television, so our hope was to tell an earnest story about both worlds.

MS: How does an episode come together? For example, is it something that you and director Cynthia Hill spend a lot of time brainstorming and talking about, or is it more of an natural process of filming your day-to-day life and seeing what comes out of it?

VH: Basically we pick a season’s worth of ingredients, 13 of them. And we shoot the story of each ingredient in six major ways: farm/purveyor, traditional application/community, modern application/restaurant, family, “confessional,” and cooking demo. We try to make sure the ingredients make sense seasonally and all the other logistics just kind of fall into place organically.

MS: The news of “A Chef’s Life” winning a Peabody Award seems to have generated a lot of enthusiasm from your fans. What do you think it is about the show that connects so strongly with people?

VH: I think people connect to “A Chef’s Life’s” sense of family, place, struggle, imperfection and vulnerability. You touched on the trouble with so much of reality television, and I think our series proves especially refreshing for folks, given its juxtaposition among its “peers.”

MS: What does winning a Peabody Award mean to you, and how do you think it will impact the show going forward?

VH: First of all, winning a Peabody blew all of our minds! Much of the core group who made Season 1 did so without being paid and without any guarantee anyone would ever see their work. So the fact that we’ve received what we all consider to be the most prestigious award in television, is just way way out there for us.

We spent the better part of the last two years trying to bring on board brands to underwrite the series. We’ve quite literally been working to convince folks of “A Chef’s Life’s” value, and we hope that this recognition will help tip the scales for us.

MS: A lot of these traditions and foodways that your show celebrates are dying out. Obviously your show is a positive step in trying to preserve them, but overall, how do you have hope for the future of traditional southern cuisine?

VH: Our show is just one of many spokes in a wheel going round in pursuit of preserving food traditions. From renewed interest in canning and pickling, to the fact that farming is once again seen as a “cool” thing to do, there are a number of signs that show our culture’s urge to connect to the hands-on way we once set the table.

Will my family go back to having annual hog-killings and preserving all of our meat for the winter? Probably not. But it’s my hope that an understanding and respect for these skills will not be entirely lost.

MS: How has your life changed since becoming the star of TV show with such a loyal following?

VH: Primarily my role at the restaurant has changed. I have a lot of new responsibilities…you could also call them opportunities. The days of coming in at 9am, cooking till 5pm, working service and going home day in and out seem to be on the wane. We have a tremendous number of folks traveling a great distance to eat in the restaurant, and they all want to talk to me. So when I’m able to be at Chef and the Farmer during service, I find myself walking around the dining room and talking instead of cooking. Don’t get me wrong, I like talking. It’s just different.

MS: Can you give us any hints about what we can expect from the upcoming season?

VH: Season 2 takes the same approach and tells the story of ingredients like turnips, ramps, chicken, blueberries and butter beans, but it’s true to the trajectory of my life, so we travel a lot more. I cook a career defining meal at the Southern Foodways Alliance Symposium in Oxford, Mississippi. My children turn 3, and my mom shows me how to cook turnip greens to death. We end the season with myself and a few of our long-time staff from Chef and the Farmer cooking at the James Beard House. It’s going to be a lot of fun to watch.

In Treatment: HBO's Emotional Breathrough

2014-12-01T19:48:00.001-05:00

This article was originally published on the Peabody Awards website.

Although not usually listed alongside The Sopranos, Deadwood and The Wire as one of the immortal HBO programs, In Treatment was both daring in form and relentless in its examination of the human heart.

The series was an American adaptation of an Israeli series, BeTipul. Gabrielle Byrne starred as therapist Dr. Paul Watson. During the first season in 2008, the episodes of the series were televised every weekday for eight-and-a-half weeks so the viewer got a chance to follow Paul’s typical work week. This added up to a staggering 43 episodes in the first season. On Monday through Thursday the audience followed Paul and four separate clients as he tried to guide them through their own crises. The series was then taken to another level of complexity by the Friday episodes, where we got to see Paul undergoing his own “treatment” with his former, and now estranged, mentor (played by Oscar and Emmy-winning actress Dianne Weist). Throughout the three seasons of the show, Paul goes through his own process of self-discovery, negotiating personal problems that are as every bit as frightening and overwhelming as those of his clients.

The second season had 35 episodes but HBO did not air the episodes every week night as they did during the first season, and the third season dropped down to 28 episodes with Paul seeing three clients and enlisting the services of a new therapist played by Amy Ryan, a familiar face from bothThe Wire and The Office. Even after dropping down to four new episodes a week, rather than five, In Treatment produced more than twice the number of episodes than the average cable TV show.

In addition to the format of daily visits with clients, the freedom that HBO gives its storytellers allowed for something truly special in this series by taking the viewer inside the characters’ own painful processes of self-discovery. The characters tell their own stories through the vulnerable self-exposure that comes out of their therapy sessions. Viewers follow both the clients and the therapists as they go through the twists and turns of denial, transference, lust, jealousy, clarity, relief, guilt and all the other accompanying emotional states that emerge during in a therapist-client relationship. In short, In Treatment is gripping and sometimes devastatingly powerful television. It is perhaps one of the medium’s most thorough examinations of the therapeutic process.

As the Peabody Board slyly observed when awarding the show after its second season, “The secret pleasure of In Treatment is that it gives us a voyeuristic look into the mysterious world of psychoanalysis where we can imagine ourselves through the troubles of others.”

TV Icon James Garner Dies at 86

2014-11-29T16:16:00.005-05:00

Originally published on the Peabody Awards websites.

James Garner, a leading man among leading men, passed away at the age of 86.

He was the star, of not one, but two, iconic American television series, Maverick and The Rockford Files. Neither of these won Peabody Awards, but Garner’s influence on TV is unmistakable and was instrumental in ushering in our current golden age of the anti-hero.

Bret Maverick was a gambler with a good heart, and although he and his brother Bart (and later, his cousins Beau and Brent) were faced with moral dilemmas, they tended to fall on the side of justice. Having the hero in a Western TV show even slightly blur the clear moral lines that the genre was famous for was pretty daring stuff for 1957.

Despite Maverick’s devil-may-care wit and tough talk—like his much more vulgar and far more ruthless descendant, Deadwood’s Al Swearengen—Maverick often found himself begrudgingly doing the right thing. And also like Swearengen, he was a Western protagonist who preferred to use his wit since he was no good with a gun.

Garner’s ability to play the conflicted hero would be explored even more in his other signature role of Jim Rockford from 1974 to 1980. Creator of The Sopranos David Chase traces a direct line of descent from Jim Rockford to Tony Soprano. Chase wrote twenty episodes of The Rockford Files and said that it taught him “that your hero can do a lot of bad things. He can make all kinds of mistakes, can be lazy and look like a fool, as long as he’s the smartest guy in the room and he’s good at his job. That’s what we ask of our heroes.”

Garner’s masterful portrayal of the morally suspect Jim Rockford, eased America into letting a higher level of bad behavior into our living rooms: from the cold-blooded murderer Tony Soprano, to the philandering Don Draper and meth-cooking kingpin Walter White. But Garner was capable of a much wider range than simply playing the self-interested, reluctant hero, as evidenced by the two made-for-TV movies he helped to earn Peabody Awards in the mid-1980s.

In 1984’s Heartsounds, Garner was part of an all-star lineup, starring alongside Mary Tyler Moore and guided by the television wizard Norman Lear as executive producer. The Peabody Board recognized Garner's performance in the winner's citation: “James Garner and Mary Tyler Moore portray Harold and Martha Lear whose lives were disrupted and permanently altered by the nearness of death. Both Moore and Garner turn in captivating performances and take full advantage of a lean and emotionally powerful script.” The Peabody Board members summarized their high praise for the production by labeling the TV movie a “presentation of unusual compassion and emotional impact.” Just two years later, Garner led another impressive cast, featuring James Woods and Piper Laurie, in another Peabody Award-winning TV movie, 1986’s Promise.

In this production, Garner played an estranged son who finds himself having to care for his brother (Woods) who suffers from schizophrenia and epilepsy to keep a promise to his recently deceased mother.

Although both of these films show Garner diving head first into much deeper emotional depths than his famous TV roles, it was just a further unveiling of what was there the whole time in the lighter, comedic parts.

As both Bret Maverick and Jim Rockford, the two characters’ cavalier wit were always balanced by Garner’s soulfulness that he let sit just below the surface. That was what made the characters endure. A heartfelt “rest in peace” to a TV star of the highest order. They don’t make ‘em like James Garner anymore.

Peabody Winning-Doc Website HOLLOW Gets Screening at U.S. Capitol

2014-11-29T16:12:00.001-05:00

Originally posted on the Peabody Awards website.

Winning a Peabody Award has different results for different programs. In many cases, the award is a sign of approval from the Peabody Board about a program that is already widely known. Shows like Breaking Bad and Key & Peele are already on major networks with significant advertising budgets behind them, but the Peabody seal of approval signifies that the show has gone beyond mere entertainment to telling a story that matters.

However, for lesser-known shows, a Peabody win means exposure to a much larger audience. For example, one of this year’s surprise winners, the 26-second viral video titled “A Needed Response,” had been viewed just over 3 million times right before it was announced as a Peabody winner. Since the announcement, that Youtube video has now been viewed over 9 million times—an over 200% increase.

In addition to bigger exposure and better opportunities, sometimes, just sometimes, a Peabody Award will get a U.S. Senator to host a screening of your program in the Capitol building. HOLLOW, an interactive documentary, won a Peabody Award this year. In addition to bringing more people to the webpage to experience this hybrid documentary film/website, the Peabody immediately caught the attention of Senator Joe Manchin, who represents the county that the documentary depicts. Director and project organizer Elaine McMillion Sheldon got the following tweet from the Senator:

Congratulations @emcmillion on winning a 2014 Peabody Award for your extraordinary project, @hollowthefilm. http://t.co/Mx2wBn1mT6— Senator Joe Manchin (@Sen_JoeManchin) April 3, 2014

She immediately responded, and eventually the Senator agreed to host a screening. On July 22, an interactive documentary with less than half the budget than is typical for a project like this, will be playing at our nation’s Capitol building.

Like all success stories after they’re complete, HOLLOW's Peabody win and screening at the capitol now seems inevitable. At least, that’s the case from an outside perspective. Sheldon has a different narrative. “When I applied for the Peabody Award I thought, ‘You know what, this is probably a total waste of time, but I gotta try.’” Two-and-a-half months later, she was out getting a bagel when she checked her phone and saw Hollow next to House of Cards. “The Peabody Award, more so than any other award or any other funding that we’ve gotten, has really gained the respect from people that we needed to, including Senator Joe Manchin.”

HOLLOW is a difficult website to explain. Sheldon describes it as “a non-linear piece where you can choose your own experience.” If that’s a little confusing, she boils it down even more to the simple phrase: “the more you scroll, the more you explore.” Sheldon wanted to make visitors “active participants” in the life of McDowell County. “It’s not allowing you to just sit back and watch,” she said, “but actually encourages you to participate.” Throughout the process you meet 30 people from McDowell County, a place that is emblematic of rural America.

McDowell has been losing residents in a steady stream since the mid-twentieth century, facing significant economic hardships and losing its young people who leave to find work in more populated areas. She decided to focus on McDowell because is the only county in West Virginia where every single town is losing people.

From the start, Sheldon was passionately invested in giving a richly textured portrait of the county. She wanted to help present the challenges facing rural America, but she wanted to avoid the negative stereotypes we tend to have: cliched narratives of dying towns whose main streets are lined by abandoned buildings with broken windows. “I knew that this would be an area very sensitive to a documentary” she explained.

Her plan was to get the people involved in telling their own stories. “I come from journalism and linear filmmaking, so that was my first idea, let’s go in and make a documentary, but I realize that this should be more collaborative, and that they should feel that they have some ownership over this and be a participant and not just be a subject.” So to do that, she interviewed 75 residents and ended up training 20 of them to shoot footage and take their own photographs of their lives in their hometowns. Having the would-be subjects become the filmmakers allows for a surprisingly intimate experience of resident’s day-to-day lived experiences. “It was really about redefining not only their stories but the future of their community, and I can’t do that. I’m an outsider, so I really wanted them to be on board.”

When residents started handing over their footage, Sheldon and her team worked hard to build a website that would fit well with the content. She emphasizes that they always focused on the stories before the technology, but she’s quick to acknowledge that the technology was helpful in getting it the attention it did: “I think a lot of the attention and support can really be traced back to the fact that this is a new form of storytelling,” Sheldon said. “There’s been a lot of films made about dying technologies made through the linear form but they’ve never been able to attract this type of attention, so I’m really thankful that we took some risks with technology so that we can get this amount attention for the residents there.”

West Virginians, pls join me & @emcmillion 4 this special event on July 22. RSVP to HollowEvent@manchin.senate.gov pic.twitter.com/a0Eq9mrZUN— Senator Joe Manchin (@Sen_JoeManchin) July 14, 2014

Now that the project is complete, Sheldon says the most important thing is for people to hear the stories from McDowell County. She’s encouraging residents to come up to the Capitol for the screening with Senator Manchin. She believes that their presence will send a strong message that these residents (and newly minted filmmakers) are invested in changing the future of McDowell County and that there is hope for other rural areas facing similar challenges.

The screening took place on July 22 from 6 to 8 pm at the Congressional Auditorium and Atrium in the Capitol Visitor Center. The event is open to the public but an RSVP is requested. If you are interested in attending, send an email to HollowEvent@manchin.senate.gov. Hollow (trailer) from Hollow Interactive on Vimeo. Hollow is an interactive documentary that explores the stories of small-town America through the eyes of Appalachians. Experience Hollow at hollowdocumentary.com (use Google Chrome).

The Sitcom Comes Out: "Ellen" Makes Way for “Will & Grace”

2014-11-29T10:21:00.004-05:00

Betty Hudson and Ellen DeGeneres accepting a Peabody Award for "The Puppy Episode"

Originally published at the Peabody Awards website as part of a series celebrating series of pieces throughout June celebrating LGBT Pride Month.

Entertainment has a way of nudging social change along, and comedy is a particularly powerful tool in this regard, as Jordan Peele pointed out at this year’s Peabody Award ceremony. Sometimes comedy does this through biting satire that dismantles outmoded prejudices, a la Richard Pryor, Stephen Colbert or the aforementioned Key & Peele.

But there are also sitcoms, which seem to have a different way of bringing about change. In this format we usually see a more gentle cultural transformation at work. The non-confrontational style of a typical sitcom lets viewers see that new or even opposing ideas aren’t as threatening as they initially seemed. (There are exceptions to this, however. Among them are the more abrasive satires in the vein of All in the Family, Married with Children, or The Simpsons and its many descendants). By simply allowing the characters in a network sitcom into our homes week after week, what was once perceived as a threat may slowly dissolve. The interactions we witness between the family members, friends, or coworkers on a show feel more like listening to our friends as opposed to a standup comedian who is more likely to put their finger directly on the sore spots of our prejudices.

However, some issues are so divisive, like the cultural warfare surrounding being openly gay in the 1990s, that even broaching this topic in a sitcom can lead to a huge backlash. Sometimes it also leads to great television.

Ellen DeGeneres’s sitcom Ellen won a Peabody Award specifically for “The Puppy Episode,” a landmark two-parter in which viewers saw the lead character of a primetime TV show come out of the closet. But that coming out took longer than that one-hour of television—it was a season-long progression that played out both within the show and in real life. It started when Ellen and the writing staff felt the show needed a new direction. ABC initially suggested something safer, like Ellen getting a puppy. Ellen and company decided to sail out into more dangerous waters than the trials of new pet ownership. News of Ellen’s character coming out was leaked to the press and throughout the season, the show made winking references to the character’s sexual orientation, increasing the attention around a show that until that time had relatively unremarkable ratings.

The media frenzy surrounding Ellen’s character coming out was further charged by speculation on whether or not DeGeneres would come out as well. When making talk show appearances to promote her new comedy album “Taste This,” DeGeneres refused to answer questions about her sexuality in interviews, which only heightened the public’s interest.

DeGeneres even slyly commented on this increased attention to her personal life by playing herself during a memorable episode of another Peabody Award-winning program, “The Larry Sanders Show.” In the episode, the fictional talk show host played by Garry Shandling tries to coax Ellen into coming out on his show in order to boost his ratings. She refuses, of course, and in the hands of these two comedic masters—who both can make excellent use of a long, awkward pause—hilarity ensues. Ellen Degeneres on The Larry Sanders Show

Two weeks before “The Puppy Episode” aired, DeGeneres finally set all speculation about her own sexuality to rest by appearing on the cover of Time magazine next to the headline “Yep, I’m Gay.” Then, on April 30, 1997, a staggering 42 million viewers tuned into “The Puppy Episode” to see Ellen’s character tell her therapist (played by Oprah Winfrey), her love interest (played by Laura Dern), and the supporting characters on the show the same news.

The two-part season finale, which originally aired on April 30, 1997, was controversial at the time, but feels incredibly gentle 17 years later. Ellen’s struggle is almost entirely with herself, as she comically fumbles toward learning how to accept what she realizes she can no longer suppress or deny. It also remains thoroughly enjoyable and genuinely funny—a difficult task for a genre that tends to age quickly because of the abundance of cultural references. The show also featured additional guest stars Billy Bob Thornton, Demi Moore, k.d. lang, Dwight Yoakam, and Melissa Etheridge.

That night may have been a huge rating success, but Ellen only lasted one more season after dropping in the ratings from 30th to 42nd place. The bold career move didn’t leave DeGeneres with many options afterward either. Talking about the episode years later, she said the controversy was still so thick that she didn’t work for three years after her show was cancelled. Even Laura Dern says she was exiled for a year-and-a-half for the crime of playing Ellen’s love interest.

Despite the heavy price they paid, something had changed. Only a few months after Ellen’s cancellation, Will & Grace premiered. This sitcom went a step further by featuring two characters who were openly gay from the beginning. Looking back, it’s surprising that it lasted. It was off to a slow start, pulling in similar numbers in its first season and coming in #40 in the ratings with just about 12.4 million viewers a week. But NBC executives must have felt a cultural shift in the air. In the 2001-2002 season, it reached #9 in the ratings, proving that a show could have openly gay main characters and be a hit at the same time. It is also the show remembered by many as helping to change people’s minds about LGBT issues. For example, in the interview when Vice President Joe Biden announced that he supported gay marriage, he cited Will & Grace as a major influence in changing people’s attitudes on the issue. So, Will & Grace got the credit for changing American culture from the VP, was eventually a ratings success, and made much more money through syndication and DVD sales than Ellen ever saw. But without Ellen bridging the gap, it seems impossible that Will & Grace could have gotten the traction that it did. DeGeneres fought that battle first, although fighting seems a strong word for somebody as thoroughly gracious, likable, and embraced by middle America as Ellen now is. She made it possible for a hit show like Will & Grace, and later Modern Family (another Peabody winner), to follow in her wake.

All these years later, it’s hard to believe that DeGeneres had to pay the price that she did, but she is now again a constant presence in popular culture and not primarily as a gay rights icon but as a comedian and talk show host who happens to be gay. Her sexuality hardly even seems to come up these days. She divided America, won her detractors back over, and also won a Peabody Award in the process.

Harvey Milk and The Castro

2014-11-29T10:10:00.002-05:00

Harvey Milk, the central figure in both The Times of Harvey Milk and The Castro

Originally published on the Peabody Awards website, as part of the Peabody Awards series of pieces throughout June celebrating LGBT Pride Month.

San Francisco’s Castro district and the area’s icon and patron saint, Harvey Milk, commonly known as “the Mayor of Castro Street”, will forever be associated with the struggle for gay rights in America. Their entrance on the national stage in the 1970s brought gay life into the public eye in an unprecedented way.

There are two Peabody Award-winning documentaries point to the significance of this man and the community from which he emerged. One focuses on Milk specifically and the other on the entire Castro district, but the two subjects are so intertwined that they complement each other as wonderful companion pieces.

The Times of Harvey Milk

It has been 30 years since the release of The Times of Harvey Milk. This Peabody Award and Oscar-winning documentary told the story of the man a full 24 years before Sean Penn would win the Oscar for his dramatic portrayal of him in Gus Van Sant’s biopic.

The Peabody Award winner's citation describes the documentary as “the story of the extraordinary rise to power of Harvey Milk, an openly-gay camera store owner who became one of San Francisco’s most well-known political leaders, and his assassination at the hands of Dan White.” The Peabody Board in 1985 admired the portrayal of the man, commending the film for its nuanced depiction that moved beyond hagiography that made use of “the testimonies of allies and adversaries” to look at the “varied and sometimes opposing points of view of the man and his movement.”

Thankfully, significant efforts have been made to preserve this groundbreaking documentary that tells the story of a man far ahead of his time. The Criterion Collection released a digitally restored version of this rich documentary in 2011 featuring extra interview clips, audio commentaries from the director, editor and photographer, and footage from the film’s 1984 premiere in Milk’s very own Castro district. The Library of Congress also chose to preserve the film int the National Film Registry in 2012.

The Castro

Premiering on PBS 16 years ago this month, this documentary shows the transformation of San Francisco’s Castro district from a quiet, working-class, immigrant neighborhood to the internationally recognized “gay hometown.” As one of the interviewees in the documentary says, “What we were doing is creating our own gay versions of the entire world—in a much more fabulous way.”

The film gives a multi-faceted view of the neighborhood and how gay men and women came from all over the country to build a community that would have lasting ramifications for gay rights. The audience sees the rise of the gay community in the Castro from an underground subculture to becoming “the crossroads of a social and political movement”, as the Peabody Board described it.

We also get to see how the community dealt with continued challenges like the assassination of icon, activist and politician Harvey Milk and surprisingly light sentence given to his killer. The film also features several first-hand accounts from what it was like during the AIDS crisis in the Castro, or as the film calls it, “ground zero.”

The Peabody Board praised this film for “presenting an informative, pointed and provocative look at one one San Francisco neighborhood [and] reveals how it became the cornerstone for an entire movement. The documentary was produced by KQED, a PBS station in San Francisco, and you can find out more about the film and how to order it at their website. The Castro: a PBS Documentary from James Yager on Vimeo.

Interview with Haroon, Creator of Burka Avenger

2014-11-29T09:37:00.004-05:00

Haroon Rashid, Creator of Burka Avenger, a burka-clad super heroine

Originally published on the Peabody Awards website.

One of the recipients of the most recent batch of Peabody Winners is Burka Avenger. It is the first Pakistani-produced full cartoon series, and it is bold, direct, and a sheer delight. The action centers around Pakistani school teacher Jiya, who is also the titular super heroine fighting for “justice, peace and education for all.” The first episode is available to view online for free, and we have featured it on the show’s award page.

The Peabody Award winner’s citation describes how Jiya “dons a magical cape at night to right the wrongs around her, from the ban on girls going to school, to child labor abuses, to environmental degradation,” striking a perfect tone as “part Catwoman, part Muslim ideal.” The brains behind the show is Aaron Haroon Rashid, but he is known better as Haroon, a Pakistani singer and composer who has sold millions of albums internationally. He was gracious enough to answer my questions about what it’s been like to be behind such an innovative and exciting project like Burka Avenger.

Matt Shedd: How did you come up with the idea for Burka Avenger?

Aaron Haroon Rashid: As a musician many of my songs touched on social issues such as corruption and interfaith peace. Living in Pakistan, many of the issues are staring you right in the face and you can’t ignore them. I became interested in producing and directing a movie about 6-7 years ago. I began writing stories and short-listing ideas. It was important for my story to be more than just entertainment. My goal has always been to address issues, make people think and help change hearts and minds. In 2010 I read about girls schools being shut down by extremist elements in Pakistan. Like most people around the world and in Pakistan I was appalled. Pakistan has one of the lowest rates for female literacy and this was the last thing we needed.

I started imagining a teacher fighting back. The idea for Burka Avenger grew from there. She is a schoolteacher in her everyday life but disguises herself in a Burqa-like costume to fight the baddies. I have always been anti-guns and I wanted to reinforce the message that the pen is mightier than the sword. So her weapons are books and pens. Literally she clonks the bad guys over the head with books. Her motto is “Justice, peace and education for all”. Instead of a movie it ended up being an animated TV series which worked out great because there is hardly any local entertainment for children. The Burka Avenger is a great role model to the kids of Pakistan and the show’s women empowerment themes and importance of education for girls are essential. The show imparts these great messages and morals without being preachy.

MS: You already have a very successful career as a musician, composer, performer and producer, but now you are the creator of a groundbreaking cartoon that’s having a very positive global impact. Tell me about how you made the jump from being a musician to creating Burka Avenger.

AHR: People in Pakistan were surprised when I created and directed Burka Avenger. For many years I had been known mainly as a successful singer and performer.

However, from the very beginning, I played an active role in the production of my music videos. The very first song and music video I ever released was directed by me and became the first music video from Pakistan to make it on MTV-Asia. As my music career took off I had the opportunity to work closely, over 15 years on my music videos, with some of the best directors in the country. Some were large-scale music videos shot across Pakistan and the world at exotic locations such as the Pyramids in Cairo. Eventually I focused on producing and directing my own music videos. The creative side, dreaming up ideas for interesting song themes or ideas for music videos is part of what I have been doing for many years. So I had a lot of fun developing the Burka Avenger characters, story and scripts.

MS: The show received positive reviews here in the U.S. from places like NPR, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, Think Progress and many other outlets as well. How would you describe the response in your home country of Pakistan?

AHR: The show has been very well received in Pakistan and the press in Pakistan was also very positive. Most of the news stories coming out of Pakistan are very negative so this was one of the rare positive stories. Pakistanis are proud that such a high quality animated show was produced here in Pakistan. Currently the show is running on the Geo Network in Pakistan. This is the 3^rdbroadcast of the whole first season (13 episodes of 22 minutes). The series airs every Sunday and is currently the slot leader. By slot leader I mean it is the most watched show in the country during it’s time slot. Surprisingly during the repeat on Sunday night at 11pm it is also the slot leader. This means adults are watching the show too.

MS: Can you tell us how you’ve handled negative feedback about the show?

AHR: Most of the negative feedback came from people who had not actually watched the show and just made assumptions based on the title of the series. Sometimes the press would approach me with all sorts of strange questions and then I realized they had not actually watched the show itself. I started asking the press to watch an episode before coming in to interview me. Of course the whole tone and vein of questioning changed after that and mainly they would be gushing about how they loved it. So the moral is don’t judge a book by it’s cover or in this case don’t judge a burka by it’s cover.

MS: What were some of obstacles that you faced trying to get this show made?

I came up with the idea and story in 2010 for a Burka Avenger movie. I realized that a movie right off the bat would be too large an undertaking so I came together with a team of game programmers and artists and started working on an iPhone game. I decided the game needed an animated promo/back story for youtube. When that two minute animated promo was complete it was so good that I realized we had all the resources right there in Islamabad to do a whole animated TV series.

However, an animated TV series (a full season of 13 episodes) like this had never been done before in Pakistan. I couldn’t just hire people who had already worked on a project like this. We had to research and figure out the best animation production pipeline on our own. We certainly learnt a lot and now for Burka Avenger season 2 we have streamlined the production pipeline immensely and kicked the production values up a notch.

Starting in 2012 the energy crisis in the country kicked in full swing. In a 24 hour period we get 12 hours of power cuts. A lot of our time was spent making sure we had generators and UPS’ running. When those failed due to excessive load we were left with no choice but to come in on the weekends to make up the lost hours during the week. Recently we bought a mammoth generator so hopefully no more issues on that front.

MS: In another interview that you did, I saw that everybody who works on the show is from Pakistan. Do you have any thoughts on the current state and the future of media entertainment in Pakistan?

Rather than outsource the Burka Avenger series I decided to take the plunge and set up my own animation production company, Unicorn Black in April 2012 in Islamabad, Pakistan. I set-up a recording studio, programming/design department and an animation studio in-house. We did scripts, storyboards, voice-overs, sound design, music score, animation, lighting/rendering, compositing and editing etc all in house which gave us a lot of control over the final product.

Pakistan has a thriving media industry but is mainly focused on soaps and political talk shows and news. There is little to no local children programming and there is very little on television that focuses on education or sending out social messages. With literacy rates in Pakistan below 50% and so much work to be done I feel it is important for shows to be more than just pure entertainment to help get the country back on the right track.

I think the future for media entertainment in Pakistan is very bright. Recently there has been a revival in the cinema with several locally made record-breaking blockbuster movies released in the last year. We have over 80 TV channels now but nearly half of them are news channels. Often the real life news in Pakistan involves more drama and entertainment than anything one could dream up.

MS What does winning a Peabody Award mean to you and the rest of the people who work on Burka Avenger, and what do you think this means for the future of the show?

Winning the Peabody Award is a huge honor. We worked very, very hard and we put a lot of thought into the series. My team would often stay late and work weekends to try and meet deadlines. So many talented people worked on the series from script-writers to actors to musicians to artists and animators. It is a great feeling for the whole team to be honored like that. This is a positive boost and has definitely spurred us on. Burka Avenger winning the Peabody Award was headline news in Pakistan.

MS: What sorts of adventures can we expect Jiya/The Burka Avenger to get into going forward?

She continues her adventures in Season 2. There are so many issues and topics that we can touch upon. In a new episode, Jiya, in her teacher role, helps spread awareness of the importance of the polio vaccination and as Burka Avenger she fights the bad guys when they try to kidnap the polio workers and destroy the polio vaccines. Again this is a real life issue and very current. Many polio health workers have been killed in Pakistan. Some of the topics we touch upon sound very serious, but they are packaged in a wonderful story full of fun, adventure, comedy and action.

Links:

Diversity in the Spotlight on SNL: From Richard Pryor to Sasheer Zamata

2014-11-29T08:52:00.002-05:00

Originally published on The Peabody Awards website.

Saturday Night Live, which won Peabody Awards in 1990 and 2008, has been at the center of public conversation about diversity. But the recent hiring of three African American women—Sasheer Zamata as a performer as well as Leslie Jones and LeKendra Tookes as writers—is just the most recent turn in a conversation that began in the show’s infancy. After lampooning themselves in November by having guest host Kerry Washington play a series of famous black women, the show held an unusual mid-season audition specifically for black female comedians. It’s too early to say if the addition of these women will significantly increase the show’s ability to give voice to people of color. Zamata received a good amount of screen time in her first episode, but her parts were very light on dialogue. That said, the fact that she appeared in numerous sketches in her first episode is an auspicious start in itself. Whatever the outcome, it seems NBC and Lorne Michaels are very aware that America is watching to see how the new job works out for their new staff members. Kerry Washington helped SNL lampoon their lack of diversity in November. But this situation isn’t new for SNL. The show has been dogged by diversity problems since its beginning. My colleague Noel Holston recently wrote about landmark TV shows from the 1970s—a period where he shows that TV finally caught up with the rest of the 60s. Watching the selections of the shows he included, it’s clear that racial tensions that came to a boil in the streets during the 60s finally started spilling into American living rooms through iconic TV characters. All in the Family, The Flip Wilson Show and Roots are just three examples of how TV was finally taking the conversation about race relations beyond the newsreel and into scripted television. The Flip Wilson Show, which directly presented viewers with a uniquely African American comedic sensibility, was second in overall TV ratings in 1970. And just one year later, the curmudgeonly and satirically racist Archie Bunker would critique regressive white middle class attitudes about race as the number one rated show for four consecutive years—spawning The Jeffersons in the process. And then later in the decade came Roots (1977), the miniseries that broke all previous ratings records for the most-watched entertainment program of all time while looking directly at the horrors of slavery. NBC’s The Today Show plays highlights from Zamata’s SNL debut. In this era of unprecedentedly honest examinations of race on TV, it’s surprising that SNL, which premiered in 1975, had relatively little to contribute to America’s conversation about race at a time when TV series were actually having a lot of success doing so. NPR’s TV critic and Peabody Board member Eric Deggans says that from the beginning, the show seems to have squandered opportunities to be more inclusive, and ultimately…funnier. “I think that other than those two bright spots of Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy, the show has a history of either downplaying, ignoring, or not realizing how important it is to have people of color represented in the cast.” From the beginning, the writers didn’t seem to know how to use the sole African American cast member of the original cast, Garrett Morris. Morris was part of the original cast from 1975 to 1980, but his tenure was seen largely as being relegated to typecast roles. His fate in the early years of the show became a warning to future African American cast members. Eddie Murphy even used his name as a verb, saying he didn’t want to be “Garret Morrised” into the background. And, of course, Murphy had a much different fate than Morris. He became the exception to the rule: an African American performer that used the show as a launching pad to superstardom. Chris Rock on the other hand became a household name only after he left SNL, owing his mainstream success to his HBO vehicles: The Chris Rock Show and his series of explosive standup specials. And even when the show did seem to stumble into success with a sensation like Murphy, Deggans remarked to me that it was stunning to him that they didn’t seem intent on trying to replicate that success. “It seems like the show has never really valued the comic voices of non-white people,” Deggans told me. “From the outside, that’s how it looks. I’m not sure if that is really the case, but that’s how it looks.” In response to this apparent indifference to diversity on SNL (and elsewhere), In Living Color ran from 1990 to 1994 showcasing a cast of mainly black comedians on the more subversive Fox Network. The title itself can be read as a protest of the mostly-white tradition of SNL comics.

Looking back at the show during the 70s, it’s particularly surprising that they passed up the opportunity to use Morris’s abilities (as well as adding other cast members of color) to comment on racial issues. The show seemed perfectly positioned to do so, given their intentionally irreverent tone and the late night timeslot. Also, All in the Family already evidenced the possibility for ratings dominance while addressing race relations—and did so during an even more restrictive prime time environment no less.

But as mentioned above—there was at least one major bright spot during the show’s initial years: Richard Pryor’s episode in the first season. Even this feat couldn’t be accomplished without much gnashing of teeth. To bring Pryor’s biting racial commentary to the stage, even just for one night, Lorne Michaels endured a long-fought battle with NBC execs. Joe and David Henry’s recent book on Pryor gives a fascinating backstage look at the struggles Lorne Michaels had to go through to actually secure Pryor’s appearance. (This section of the Pryor bio is excerpted here in Salon). The account goes into detail about the most famous sketch from that appearance: Chevy Chase and Pryor’s “word association” sketch which devolves into the two characters slinging racial epithets at each other. According to the Henrys’ account this sketch came directly out of Paul Mooney’s experience of what he felt was racism on the part of NBC. The network forced him to undergo an interview with NBC execs and Michaels before allowed to write for Pryor’s episode, a step that both Mooney and Pryor interpretted as overtly racist. Mooney said that sketch that he wrote reflected how he believed NBC was treating him, like Chase’s character using the pretense of an interview to berate him, Mooney believed the sketch just verbalized what was actually going on when the network was sizing him up.

Here’s how the Henrys’ book quotes Mooney on the significance of the sketch: “It’s like an H-bomb that Richard and I toss into America’s consciousness. All that shit going on behind closed doors is now out in the open. There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. The N-word as a weapon, turned back against those who use it, has been born on national TV.” The real life racial tensions behind Pryor’s appearance gave birth to this legendary moment of live television in 1975—a moment I’m not even sure they could get away with on the show now. Watching this dynamic (and hilarious) social critique that almost didn’t happen because of the network’s discomfort with Pryor, we can only wonder at the show’s potential had people of color been given more of a voice from the beginning.

That said, with the hiring of Sasheer Zamata, Leslie Jones, and LaKendra Tookes, the show is now perhaps better positioned than ever to begin incorporating non-white voices in earnest. The fanfare around their addition has created a stage where people are paying closer attention than ever to the show’s decision about racial representation. It might just be the necessary pressure-cooker that could give birth to comedic moments as explosive as Pryor’s nearly 40 years ago.

Top 5 Films from the 2000s

2012-03-01T12:42:00.001-05:00

by Jacob Meindersee

After a long hiatus from list making (you can check out my Top 5 Action Sci-Fi Movies from the 80s written last year if you feel so inclined), I am back with another. Like all lists, this one is subjective and says more about me than it does these movies. Yes, I think they are good. Great in fact, but I don’t want to just tell you what I think are the “best” films from last decade. I want to provide a balanced and personal list that gives you a sense of what was meaningful and important for me during the 2000s. If I am successful, hopefully they can mean something to you as well. Watch one, two, or all of them in succession, but don’t think of this as just a list, but rather as a guide. Basically, I want you to trust me.

DONNIE DARKO (2001) Dir. Richard Kelly: Let me begin by saying that Donnie Darko is underrated. This might sound strange considering its devoted cult following and general high esteem, but the movie is a near-perfect articulation of teenage angst and the splendorous horrors of modern suburbia. Yet, despite these themes, it doesn't fall into the schmaltzy trap of over-eager self-importance that ensnares films like American Beauty (1999). Despite seemingly indulgent moments, like Donnie's insistence that life is complicated and can’t fit into the simplistic categories of fear and love, it all comes off as real and authentic, with a self-awareness that doesn't undercut itself. Like Nicholas Ray’s Rebel Without a Cause made 56 years earlier, Donnie Darko is a true expression of the inner turmoil and gnawing insecurity that comes along with being a teenager in the suburbs. The existential questions are powerful and confront the reality that our actions have consequences, even if the depth and force of those consequences are never fully understood. On top of all this, the movie features time travel, jet engines falling on houses, and a life-size demonic bunny named Frank that is both marvelous and creepy as hell. The movie features witty yet scathing banter between Donnie and various authority figures, and too many great lines to put down here. This is one of my all-time favorites, and we need more of these mid-budget creative works.

1 ANTICHRIST (2009) Dir. Lars Von Trier: Antichrist is difficult to watch, and one of the most deeply disturbing films ever made. It caused a stir at Cannes when it debuted there, as critics and reviewers debated whether or not the suffocating misogyny and genital mutilation were artistically valid or just perverse torture porn. One of the more thoughtful and less polemic reviews claimed it was one of the most profound representations of mental illness ever conceived on film, and it is widely known that it spawned from Von Trier’s crippling and life-threatening depression. Yet, unlike Ingmar Bergman’s penchant for art as catharsis, there is no redemption in Antichrist. It is uncompromisingly bleak and hopeless. Issues of gender and patriarchal domination make this a good object for intellectual inquiry, but Von Trier is not a cerebral filmmaker, and we can only understand his subject by experiencing it. He plunges deep into the madness and pain, and we can’t help but go along with him.

1 NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) Dirs. Joel and Ethan Coen: This was a difficult choice, because I feel like I had to choose between this and P.T. Anderson’s There Will be Blood. Both these films slugged it out during the Oscars, and are two of the most critically lauded films of the 2000s. They are inextricably linked, and I felt I had to either put both of them in or choose one. Made for ultimately arbitrary reasons, my decision is clear. No Country for Old Men is incredibly violent, and relentlessly attacks the Western mythology of the righteous gunslinger who saves the day. In this cruel world, honor and virtue can be bought for a price, and chaos and chance are its most powerful shaping forces. The movie poses so many questions and leaves virtually all of them unanswered, which is part of what makes it so great and difficult to understand.

1 IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (2000) Dir. Wong Kar Wai: Of all the films on this list, this is the one I am least familiar with. Yet, it is clear that this beautiful representation of love, infidelity,and shifting identity is a triumph in merging high-art aesthetics with real, heartfelt narrative and visceral passion. Repetitive images and sound sequences are used to great effect, making In the Mood for Love true poetry in motion.

INLAND EMPIRE “A Woman in Trouble” (2006) Dir. David Lynch: Another difficult choice because I couldn't justify putting two David Lynch films on this list, and thus had to choose between Inland Empire and Mulholland Dr. A difficult choice indeed, but I feel good about going with Lynch’s lesser known masterwork. It is, after all, his magnum opus and one of the most ambitious and exhausting films I've ever seen. While focused in and around Los Angeles and Hollywood, Inland Empire is more than a movie about movies; it is a tireless intrusion into the systems of patriarchal oppression and abuse embedded in film and television, and an examination of the horrors that arise when we explore the darkness in the back of the studio and peel back the protective layer of the screen. From giant bunnies reenacting tropes of 50s sitcoms, to a girl alone in a dingy hotel room, weeping and watching what we are watching on a small television, and Laura Dern transitioning from a millionaire Hollywood actor to a low-class woman with her own history of violence, David Lynch’s twisted vision shows how things can go horribly wrong and yet fit perfectly into place. The film is brutal and the threat of violence is ever-present and haunts the viewer throughout. Lynch is relentless, incisive, and at his disturbing and jarring best. You will cry and shudder, and when it ends you will know that something has happened.

Honorable Mention--WALL-E (2008) Dir. Andrew Stanton: I want to add this to the list, if only to give it some variety and perspective (I am subtly disturbed by the fact that my list features violent, existential, and male-dominated films). But the thing is, Wall-E happens to be a really good movie. I would be surprised if anyone who has seen it and thought about it for two seconds would disagree. Yes, it is a kids movie, but it is smart, beautifully crafted, narratively engaging, and emotionally real. There is no dialogue during the first half and, against all reasonable expectations, we are led to believe in the love between two robots who can only say each other’s names. Wall-E pulls it off. Throw in a trenchant social critique and you have a winning formula. As a side note, the movie got a lot of criticism for not appealing to kids, but that says more about how little our society expects from children than it does about this movie. If kids don’t connect with Wall-E, it is probably because they have been spoon-fed mindless talking animals and sentient mushrooms or other such nonsense their entire lives. Kids are people too, they are smarter than we give them credit for, and they deserve quality just like we do.

Okay, clearly this “honorable mention” was just an excuse for me to rant. Sound off in the comments section below regarding any onerous or morally unjustifiable omissions.

The Greatest Intro/Disappointment Ever?

2012-02-26T12:00:00.001-05:00

by Jacob Meindersee
I have a complicated relationship with HBO's True Blood. On the one hand, I can't get enough, and on the other, I just want it all to stop and to have never existed. And yet I watch and watch and watch until it invades my soul with constant oppressive Sookie-ness, and even more oppressive vampire sex, and I feel like dying and curse the day I ever picked up this vile thing. Still, I keep watching.

See, complicated. And yet, what really frustrates me is not that I am forced to consume such copious amounts of soft-core vampire porn (the term "forced" here is pretty strong, but it is honestly how I feel, and I am not sophisticated or determined enough, at least at the moment, to analyze why), it is that I sincerely believe that True Blood could be great, that its potential far exceeds its faults, and I keep going back, hoping that it will capitalize on its own prospects. Of course, I am disappointed, and yet that hope is reanimated at the beginning of every episode during the opening credits. This intro promises the devastation and back-woods redemption of the dirty south. It promises real, meaningful engagements with racism's sordid history and present. It does promise sex, but also the inveterate objectification and deep sadness infiltrating smelly bars and sweaty strip clubs. It promises forgiveness and blind religious redemption. Suffice to say, it promises so much, and yet delivers so very little. Thoughts?

Jeremy Lin and Discussions of Race

2012-02-23T12:51:00.001-05:00

by Jacob Meindersee

Jeremy Lin is an Asian-American who has hijacked the NBA and the larger sports world, thus instigating the "Linsanity" media firestorm. In addition to providing a legitimate "feel-good" sports story, his unexpected emergence has made race relevant in many media outlets and online conversations, and Lin, who has endured a career filled with racial taunts and prejudices, has become the object of several racial epithets done in the name of "good sport." In the clip below, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless discuss the recent firing of an ESPN employee, and the suspension of another, for using the phrase "Chink in the Armor" when discussing Jeremy Lin and the New York Knicks' defeat at the hands of the New Orleans Hornets last week.

This conversation in all of its multifarious forms should be taking place, and Stephen A. Smith, a sports and culture commentator I generally like and admire, confronts it head-on. He begins the back-and-forth with Skip by saying that there is a general lack of understanding when it comes to racial issues that stems from over-sensitivity, and he puts much of the blame for this on the black community. The overall message here, I think, is that we as a culture should be more willing to forgive those who cross racial boundaries in a moment of weakness or carelessness. This is an issue that goes far beyond this one instance of Jeremy Lin (Stephen A. admits as much), and Smith makes a valid point. None of us are perfect, and we should temper our tendency to go for the jugular when real, flawed human beings make mistakes, racial or otherwise. He seems to engage in thoughtful and meaningful inquiry, even if I take issue with some of his points.

One of the problems I have here is that Stephen A. Smith takes the "N-word" off the table for discussion. Or rather, that he distinguishes "the N-word" from other racial epithets by stating that the use of it is in all ways inexcusable, which, of course, it is. This is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Smith says "the N-word" instead of "nigger." This could either be because of his own conviction or the potential fallout from using "nigger" on-air (especially considering the recent firing for what Stephen A. Smith deems a minor racial offense), but the assumption is that there are a variety of racial epithets which, while offensive, are not as offensive as "the N-word." "Chink" is offensive but forgivable. "Nigger" is not. This bears itself out by the fact that the people in this video have no problem saying "chink," yet constantly use "the N-word" as opposed to its more vulgar counterpart. The assumption is that "nigger" carries with it a history of oppression that "chink" does not. Now, I am not interested in having a debate about which racial minority has suffered more, African-Americans or Asian-Americans. It is unproductive and insensitive to each group. What I want to point out is that Stephen A. Smith's assertion that one racial epithet (the N-word) is more legitimately offensive than another (chink) creates an unfair hierarchy that privileges one group of oppressed peoples over another. To me, this belies the very real racial history of the Asian-American community, and the hate, pain, and oppression that a term like "chink" carries with it, much in the same way "nigger" denotes its own history of oppression.


What I have outlined here is only the beginning of the segment, and there is a lot more interesting stuff that both Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless discuss. It is worth sitting through the whole thirteen minutes. I welcome any comments, and hopefully we can engage in a meaningful dialogue about these complex and difficult issues. I would love to get your thoughts on this, and if I have been offensive in any way regarding this admittedly sensitive subject, please, let me know.

Examining Boardwalk Empire and an HBO-ian Aesthetic

2012-02-16T13:20:00.000-05:00

By Jacob Meindersee

Boardwalk Empire is a fine show. It does so many things right, from the obvious, top-notch acting, to the narrative pacing and often scintillating set and costume design that makes 1920s prohibition era Atlantic City pop and sparkle. I burned through the first season and will be anticipating the second. Needless to say, I am at least marginally hooked. Yet, the show is not "great" (and yes, I understand the complex meanings behind such evaluative terms, at least I think so). Just really good. Almost too good, in fact. Perhaps annoyingly so, as I found myself agitated at moments throughout the series, most often at the end of episodes, even as I moved directly onto the next one in the season, seemingly unable to get enough. The frustration lies in what appears to me as a ham-fisted acknowledgement of what makes a typical HBO hour-long drama "good," or at the very least, successful. As opposed to something truly creative, such as The Wire, Boardwalk Empire follows a very conventional (by HBO standards) script for commercial and critical success, as evidenced by its many accolades. This formula has become so standardized and mainstream (again, by HBO's standard) that, while difficult to articulate, it is plainly evident when it appears on screen. I don't really know what to call this elusive criterion of evaluative judgement, and for a lack of a better term (and I sincerely acknowledge that any term you can think of would probably work better) I have decided to call it an HBO-ian aesthetic, an admittedly academic and ultimately unhelpful descriptor that betrays my own inability to adequately describe and name the phenomena I observe.

Nucky Thompson, looking at something.

We see this aesthetic throughout Boardwalk Empire both in the musical interludes that take us into the subjective worlds of the show's many characters, and the slow, dialogue-rich narrative that explodes in rare moments of gratuitous violence, but it is nowhere more evident than in the countless shots of Steve Buscemi, who is admittedly brilliant in just about everything, standing still and expressionless while somberly looking at things. Whether that "thing" is a baby in an incubator, the meaning of which materializes as the season progresses, the open sea, or nothing in particular, the point is, we have seen this kind of thing before; HBO drama, white male protagonist with the world on his shoulders, ready to crack at any moment, who gains brief yet powerful insights into the nature of things through concentration and uninterrupted eye contact. The comparisons to The Sopranos are both obvious and seemingly endless, and Nucky Thompson is clearly modeled after Tony, lurking family issues and all. The episode where Nucky burns down his renovated childhood home that he recently gave to a family in need was the same kind of cathartic and destructive selfishness that Tony exhibited all the time.

HBO knows how to produce a quality product, and Boardwalk Empire, it seems to me, is the perfect articulation of a formula that has been cultivated and nourished for at least the last decade and a half. Is Boardwalk Empire derivative? Maybe, but it could also just be damned good imitation, with some original flourishes thrown in (see Michael Shannon as radically religious, excessively violent, and self-flagellating Prohibition Agent). The distinction between derivative and imitative, however, is probably not very important, and I'm not even sure how to draw such lines in the sand. What I do know, is that I sincerely like Boardwalk Empire (how could I not?), and yet, I can't help but be annoyed at how polished it looks(see the sickeningly glossy and flawless intro). It knows its good, and perhaps that is what keeps it from being great.

Why We Need George Carlin

2012-02-14T17:08:00.000-05:00

Carlin's 1992 HBO special JAMMIN' IN NEW YORK is as real as it gets. It's on Netflix Instant Steam, and I've embedded the Youtube clip of the show full below. Don't mind the Russian (?) subtitles. Or take this opportunity to brush up on your Eastern European languages.

When a culture is sedated, sometimes we need someone to yell at us. Carlin gets his fists bloody right away. The man has a heart for humanity bigger than most, and like all great funnymen, exposes unspoken frustrations I didn't have the vocabulary to name yet--about government, war, showy displays of so-called intellectualism, etc. etc. He stings my conscience and even his airplane jokes make me lose it. That's why he's one of the greatest. He was a full person who genuinely cared.

Trust me. You'll like it.

Arthur Alligood: Update on the Man That's Still Looking for the Wind

2012-02-13T01:22:00.000-05:00

Hey friends,

I'm posting an article about Nashville songwriter Arthur Alligood. I wrote the article below this past summer for NO DEPRESSION. I was taking a break from the blog at the moment, and although I published it here as well, I think a lot of our readers missed it.

This guy's got some heart. Here's a cool video documenting some of the early successes. I've got my eye on this guy. Check him out. He's writes solid songs and has a disarming honesty in his delivery. In the tradition of Hank Williams, injected with a relentless, hard-earned optimism. Let's help this man make it big. His work is going to touch a lot of people. Hard to find sincerity like this in a world gone wrong.

-Matt

by Matt Shedd

Originally published on 7.13.2011 at
NO DEPRESSION: The Roots Music Authority

A well-written song caught on record always sounds effortless. Before the final product is presented though, like any craft, it’s usually nothing but damn hard work. Arthur Alligood’s songs convey this sense of ease about writing and recording, but a careful listener realizes that sense of ease only evidences Alligood’s skill. Fortunately, this skill isn’t going unnoticed.

Alligood recently participated in the International Songwriting Competition, placing as 1 of the 15 finalists among some 15,000 entries. But Alligood did not take too long of a pause to celebrate this victory. Following the contest, he went on his Highway Robbery Tour throughout the South and up the East Coast. And as if that wasn’t enough to keep the Nashville native busy, Alligood also released his newest album, I Have Not Seen the Wind, on March 15 of this year.

The singular quality with Alligood’s most recent album is its consistent reliance on craft over studio effects; songwriting over showmanship. The songs on I Have Not Seen the Wind arise as strong, tested constructions that stand up under several listens. A meticulous craftsman, Alligoodhas a refreshing ability to resist throwing too much instrumentation or too many words into one song. Lyrically the emphasis remains on sturdy and restrained expression, avoiding self-indulgence and false country twangs. Alligood puts together arrangements that are more than inviting, and his vocals are robust but consistently understated, not overwhelming the integrity of the song.

I Have Not Seen the Wind and Alligood’s earlier albums are available to stream online (www.arturalligood.com). Previous to this year’s Wind, he released a six song acoustic EP titled “Full Circle” in 2009, and 2 lps: “Formerly” (2006) and “Under the Gray ” (2008).

Alligood’s résumé indicates that his hard work is beginning to open up new opportunities, which means that we can almost certainly be expecting more from him soon. I contacted him via email to find out what he has on the docket for the upcoming year:

"As far as my upcoming plans I am booking pretty heavily right now for the Fall. Mostly dates in the Southeast and on the East coast though I am working on a run of shows in the LA area for October. My main objective for the rest of the year is to play as much as I can while networking with tons of other songwriters. Co-writing is a possibility, but I'm not going to press the issue too hard."

Wonder Woman: Avatar of Truth

2012-02-10T19:52:00.001-05:00

Hey friends. This is one of our most popular articles written by contributor Jacob Meindersee. It engendered a warm reception from the "super readers" of the comics community. We always appreciate your feedback. It always warms our hearts. I'm not being sarcastic; I really try to avoid that.

On a different page, I'm in Denver at the moment in a hotel room. Hotel's love making it hard for a guy to smoke. 5 flights of stairs for a cigarette. I understand, I understand. But man, you non-smokers sure enjoy making it hard on us. Alright, enough. Let's hit it.
Stay tuned for updates...
-Matt
...
By Jacob Meindersee

Before I begin talking about Wonder Woman, I should preface this discussion by saying that I am not what Douglas Wolk terms a “super-reader.” Meaning, I have not read the thousands of comics necessary to understand the convoluted back-stories of superheroes or the esoteric references to such back-stories which litter contemporary comics. Really, I am just a guy who has a modest stack of about fifty comics somewhere in my apartment which are a holdover from a very short period of my childhood. Yet, roughly twenty years later, I am steadily coming back to the comics fold, albeit as an outsider. Like any comics novice, I cut my teeth on Watchmen, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, as well as works such as Maus and Persepolis. Recently, however, I have been able to engage a wider variety of comics through a graduate seminar on superheroes. It is here that I have been introduced to Wonder Woman, also known as Diana Prince, who is a truly complex and, in many ways, difficult character. As opposed to Superman whose fight for truth is linked with justice and the American way, and Batman who is a mortal super-man who lurks in the dark and defends the weak by wreaking havoc on the evil, Wonder Woman’s mission is one of peace and the courage to look unflinchingly within oneself. While I have read only three Wonder Woman stories so far, I feel compelled to share my thoughts on this interesting figure. The particular work I would like to focus on is a four-part story written by Gail Simone and drawn by Terry Dodson and Bernard Chang called The Circle, which deals, among other things, with a vital component of Wonder Woman’s superpowers and persona; truth.

This aspect of Wonder Woman is connected to what might be the strangest weapon I have come across in any medium; her magic lasso which makes people tell the truth. While this lasso is connected to themes of dominance and submission which go back to the very genesis of the character, its connection to truth invites further exploration. As Mercedes Lackey makes clear in her introduction to The Circle, “the lasso not only compels its captive to tell the truth; in Diana’s hands, as the Avatar of Truth herself, it compels its captive to see and confront the truth.” This is a very astute observation, and the difference between simply telling the truth and confronting it is a subtle, yet powerful, one. This difference is evident when Wonder Woman ensnares a hulking, presumably mutated, Nazi warrior and forces him to relive a childhood filled with abuse and violence. While this confrontation with truth brings what has been the quintessential image of evil since World War II to tears and submission, the point of this is not torture, but empathy, compassion, and forgiveness. Wonder Woman makes this clear by saying: “Even for him I follow the Amazon code when facing a vanquished foe: punishment for the adult…/empathy for the child…./Even for him” (46). This reaction is particularly poignant considering how Nazis have become the object of American fantasies of violence for quite some time; from the early days of Wolfenstein to Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. Considering this, Wonder Woman’s empathy is truly exceptional, and the depth of her compassion most likely exceeds that of even the most sensitive reader. Put quite bluntly, she is simply better than we are.

Yet, as opposed to Superman who seems to represent a completely unattainable perfection, Wonder Woman struggles just like we do. This struggle is prevalent throughout The Circle, as her adherence to the Amazon values of peace and compassion are put to the ultimate test as she avenges the persecution of her mother Hippolyta. While Wonder Woman eventually conquers her rage and reestablishes moral fortitude, the story constantly poses the question of what would happen if she turned the powers of truth on herself instead of her enemies. Would she be as virtuous as she thinks she is, or would she be horrified at what lurks beneath the surface? Nowhere is this tension more evident than on the last page of the story where she confronts the mystery of her birth: “I am an avatar for truth… yet I have never taken the time to shine that light on my own making” (102). While the possibility that Wonder Woman is not as virtuous or innocent as she seems is an interesting question to ponder, in many ways it is the wrong one to ask, because part of her virtue, at least in this story by Gail Simone, is that she constantly confronts this potential reality. In this sense, Wonder Woman is virtuous because she questions her own virtue and motives and is not afraid to confront the scariest parts of herself. This also touches on what I see to be one of the most captivating components of her character, which is that she has the amazing capacity to be powerful and vulnerable at the same time.

When reading Wonder Woman’s stories, I am confronted by this same fear, and it takes a powerful work of art to compel someone to look deeply within themselves and confront what’s there. I aspire to this kind of courage and honesty, and the allure that it might be attainable is what makes Wonder Woman such a powerful moral figure. I know there is more to be said here, and if any of you happen to be “super-readers ” or Wonder Woman aficionados, I invite whatever insights you wish to offer. On the other hand, if this was your first serious introduction to Wonder Woman, please, go read one of her stories.

Sources

Wolk, Douglas. Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean. DeCapo Press. 2007.

Gail Simone, Terry Dodson, Bernard Chang. The Circle. DC Comics. 2008

Comic Mike DeStefano Opens Up about HIV and His Wife's Death on Marc Maron's WTF Podcast

2012-02-08T20:35:00.002-05:00

Late Comic Mike DeStefano

Hey everyone!

If you’re just joining us, along with preparing for the launch of the A MISSING AMERICA magazine, we are still running the updates on most weeknights, while we develop our first couple issues. Some posts will be from our archives, but we also are planning to slip in some new articles for you too.

Just to keep you in the loop, we are not strictly writing about comedy. That's just where we’re at in this moment as we complete the ICONS OF AMERICAN COMEDY issue. Anyway, that's enough for now.
...
Comic Mike DeStefano on HIV and His Wife's Death By Matt Shedd

It's been nearly a year since comic Mike DeStefano passed away from a heart attack after living with HIV for years, and after overcoming a heroine addiction that started at the age of 15. Some might recognize DeStefano from recieving fifth place on NBC's Last Comic Standing. His upbringing in the Bronx gave his act a tough wiseguy exterior, but his charm, which some people miss, is the ability to let his vulnerability come through the cracks of that exterior when he talks about his faults and mortality.

I was introduced to DeStafano recently via Marc Maron's WTF Podcast (I know I've said this before, but it's worth the $2 media pass to listen to just this episode. Do it!) Maron, as is his gift, provides DeStefano the space to talk openly about his HIV, his thwarted plan to commit suicide, his heroine addiction, and more.

Below I’ve pasted a touching performance from Mike DeStafano, "Fanny's Last Ride," which he describes on WTF, as a piece that he's particularly proud of. He makes a point in the interview of explaining how proud he was of this piece, as he should’ve been. Rest in peace, Mr. DeStefano.

Elvis and Eddie Murphy: The Sacred and the Shameful

2012-02-08T00:01:00.000-05:00

Nixon publicly appointed Elvis to monitor drug activity within American borders.
To quote Bob Dylan, I wouldn't trust either of them.

By Matt Shedd

In 1977 that black cloud famously gathered over Memphis when the world was scandalized to discovered the king of rock and roll as a corpse, collapsed in his vomit. America had not wanted to see the collapse for so long, what the devotees found traumatic should not have been so shocking. I believe the same applies for Michael Jackson. Many of us must have been lying to ourselves pretty hard over the course of his tortured life--which we were painfully implicated in--to be as shocked as we were.

5 years after Elvis's death--I can't tell whether that's a long time or a short time--Eddie Murphy lampooned the older and bloated Elvis in his huge special DELIRIOUS. But the point is: everything sacred has a shelf life.

When you watch the clip, notice that Murphy makes it abundantly clear when he moves from laughing with Elvis, and acknowledging the power of his performance, to laughing at Elvis. He feels justified in the joke, or at least, he feels safe making it, because the public had turned on Elvis. Whether this is an act or critique or malicious, I'll leave for you to judge. But I will say, we could similarly make a joke about Murphy slipping into self-parody as his career moved into The Nutty Professor era.

To understand the significance of this thunderous approval of Murphy's impression, we have to realize the extent of Murphy's popularity at this point. Chris Rock--who early in his career won the favor of Eddie Murphy and was taken under Murphy’s wing early on--claims there’s never been a comedian that was as big as Eddie Murphy was. His genius for impressions serve him better on the stand-up stage than on the silver screen. He comes across more natural here than in his later film career. (That said, if you decide to watch the whole special, posted at the bottom, there are several jibes at homosexuals that seem particularly out of place in 2012, and are seemingly cruel for 1982 even. Murphy later in his career publicly apologized for his insensitive gay bashing.)

Nietzsche's famously succinct description of the concept of the sacred as the things at which we cannot laugh. The approval and huge laughter Murphy gets from making fun of fat Elvis is telling. Even something as sacred as Elvis had only a five years before the older Elvis became a punchline. He was Johnny Carson's bag during the "fat and 40" years, but his death, like usual, restored a certain aura to America's biggest icon of the 20th century.

Murphy can joke about old Elvis because public perception had shifted in the five years after his death. Whatever you may personally feel about the Elvis of the 60s and 70s, it has become alright to make fun of older, which isn't even that old, Elvis (I'm guilty; working on appreciating the 60s and 70s more.) But even the young Eddie Murphy, who seems to have a lot of misguided feelings about homosexuals, gives young Elvis the love and adoration that his early performances coax out of nearly anyone who gives them chance. Case in point:

The honesty and vulnerability has something to do with sacred I think. What exactly, I’m not sure, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.

(Also, below is the entire DELIRIOUS special. Beware of angry gay jokes.)

Note: This article was revised on 2/19/2012 in response to a comment from Tom Schreck. My gratitude goes out to him, despite a tone that I took to be unnecessarily hostile. I asked for it though: the first draft took some glib shots at Elvis. And we made our peace. You can read Tom's thoughtful open letter in the comment section on the original post--including some friendlier back-and-forth, featuring ND's own Michael Helwig, or as a separate post on his blog: http://tomschreck.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/elvis-in-the-70s/

Paul Mooney and White Guilt

2012-02-06T18:49:00.000-05:00

By Matt Shedd

A Missing America is going to be doing short daily posts like this while we continue to get ready for our first magazine issue. A MISSING AMERICA will then continue the daily updated blog feature alongside with the separate magazine issues with longer articles. Thank you for your patience, and stay tuned for our daily updates.
Paul Mooney dishes out some bitter medicine. I've never heard white jokes that are both so funny and scathing at the same time.

Just watch the beginning of his 2002 stand-up special ANALYZING WHITE AMERICA. I almost don't feel I need to say this, but some will be offended. If you're familiar with Mooney's humor from Chappelle's Show and other places, this shouldn't be a shock. If you're white, try not to shut the window until the clip's over. But if you have to...well that's okay too, I guess. Paul Mooney doesn't care either way.

Interestingly enough, while I watched the whole special, Hulu aired the commercial below. I thought it was a sketch that was part of Mooney's critique. It's not. Just Mandy Moore being a philanthropist in Africa. I'd love to hear his thoughts on Hulu interrupting his critique of white America to air this commercial:

In 2007, Mooney did another special, KNOW YOUR HISTORY: JESUS WAS BLACK; SO WAS CLEOPATRA (2007). He repeats some of the jokes, but there's plenty of new, and biting material on KNOW YOUR HISTORY, available now on the Netflix instant view. On Chris Rock's list of favorite standup specials, he confidently states, "This show [KNOW YOUR HISTORY] has more edge than anything you're ever going to see." He's right.

I posted the 2002 special, ANALYZING WHITE AMERICA, below via Youtube rather than Hulu, so that the show won't be interrupted by Mandy. If you watched the above clip, you could go ahead and skip the beginning.

He does a full hour, and he kills. Enjoy.

Elvis's "Heartbreak Hotel": Desire and Dead Ends

2012-02-05T19:47:00.000-05:00

By Matt Shedd
Originally published April 19, 2011 at A MISSING AMERICA and NO DEPRESSION (While we spend the weekends cooking up new ideas, we're going to be reposting archived articles on the weekends. We hope you enjoy it!)

I decided to be disciplined about at least one thing today: 10 times in a row I listened to "Heartbreak Hotel," Elvis' first #1 single with its accompanying B-side "I Was the One" on my record player that needs a new needle. There is a method in this madness: I was trying to get as close as possible to listening to Elvis' first nation-wide single the way I might have heard it then: getting the only two songs widely available on Jan. 27, 1957 and listening to them, and listening to them. more...>>>

"Heartbreak Hotel," as many probably already know, was Elvis' first release with RCA. It was the record he chose to put out when all the gears were greased and was quickly moving from Southern sensation to national icon and cultural demigod of sorts (or as Greil Marcus writes in Dead Elvis: "America's perfect metaphor for itself.") He was now officially managed by the new, sometimes despicable and always opportunistic Colonel Parker. He had also moved from the small Memphis-based Sun label to RCA, who had the capability to produce the number of records the Colonel was betting Elvis could sell. And the Colonel was right. In hindsight, other major historical events--a boom in television production and sales, a more affluent white youth culture, race relations coming into national attention in a big way--seemed arranged to shoot Elvis into the national spotlight.

Around the same time Mae Boren Axton and Thomas Durden wrote a song based on a suicide they read about in the paper. The dead man left this as a note: I walk a lonely street. From that chilling story Axtone and Durden wrote Elvis's first national hit.But aside from the backstory, the performance is frightening and desperate while keeping you on this side of despair. Just like the blues, the fact that your singing means you know you still got something keeping you going. But like the blues, Elvis voice suggests he sees through it all in this performance, his voice quavering: I'm so lonely, baby.

Millions heard that plea for love, and after that they couldn't get close enough. All the while, Bill Black's walking you down that lonely street with the saddest bass line you ever heard, and then Scotty Moore's solo cuts just like a knife or a woman walking away.

Then the B side. I try never to forget the B sides; it's easy to miss them sometimes. "I Was the One" is a resentful little number as sharp as what Bob Dylan would shoot through radios nine-and-a-half years later with "Like a Rolling Stone." You feel that familiar hurt and all-around ill will pouring though "I Was the One." It's the sting of being the center of somebody's world and then you're not. And you can't do anything to make anybody want you back. And that drives you mad, and all the speaker can do is repeat that I was the one.

In his nationwide record debut, Elvis' voice evinces that he sees past the fame and notoriety he's already claimed and the unprecedented amount he's going to receive. He sees that it's all just ashes, dust, loneliness, and being left behind in these songs. And he keeps going on with a wicked grin, like most great artists, driven to become something nobody could imagine yet, and that we still have yet to fully understand.

For more on the gritty details of Elvis's early style, in all its glorious low-class and vulgarity, you can check out a my recently published article in the inaugural issue of Chitrolekha International Magazine on Art and Design.

Matt Shedd is a featured contributor at No Depression, editor of A Missing America, and Graduate Teaching Fellow at the University of Oregon.

matthewpaulshedd@gmail.com
www.twitter.com/MattShedd
www.facebook.com/amissingamerica

50/50: Seth Rogen Coming of Age

2012-02-04T22:19:00.001-05:00

About halfway through, 50/50 really sunk its hooks into me, in the heartwarming . It's a rich film with full characters and massive heart. Seth Rogen gives a fully rounded dramatic performance, significantly sharpening his chops as an actor. But don't worry, he is still smoking a lot of pot and sleeping with girls way out of his league. I've already said too much, and I don't want to gush. But you might cry. (I might have.)

It's not giving anything significant--or anything that you don't realize within the first five minutes of the film--to tell you that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character breaks up with his ice cold girlfriend relatively early on. The scene posted below is the catharsis after the breakup;.when I heard Roy Orbison playing in the background while they destroyed her painting, I could tell this movie was going to be much different than I anticipated.

If you haven't seen the film, you should watch it. You'll like it.

Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, and America's Most Dangerous Word

2012-02-03T21:08:00.001-05:00

Update on remodeling: We are coming along nicely as you can see. We're still messing around with the format, so suggestions are welcome. Other than that there isn't too much news. Again, if you are having trouble viewing anything or if you have feedback for us, don't hesitate to use the comment section. But to tease your appetite for our upcoming "Icons of American Comedy Issue" (date still TBA)--I've embedded two famous clips of Richard Pryor and Chris Rock performing stand-up.

I wanted to try and spark a discussion on Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, and their different approaches to that very emotionally charged racial slur. (Before you post angry comments, realize that I'm aware of the sensitive nature of addressing this issue as a white male. Also know that I'm approaching this as an observer and not providing any conclusive ethical statement on these comedians' artistic choices.)

Both Richard Pryor and Chris Rock have nuanced views on the word, but working at different cultural moments, they both come to very different conclusions. I was recently struck how Pryor and Rock, although seemingly taking opposite positions on the appropriate use of the word "nigger" (Pryor publicly retired the word from his act in 1982) actually come closer in their views on the word than they initially appear to be.

LIVE ON THE SUNSET STRIP (1982)

Pryor describes his reaction to visiting Africa

After the great Richard Pryor returned from a trip to Africa, he devoted a chunk of his set to explain why he no longer uses the word, and how he feels that by using it we are perpetuating a racist worldview that was fabricated by whites to begin with. Pryor's decision to drop the word from his act was fueled by his feeling that he couldn't personally conceive of it being used without being a slur. The decision was controversial in its own right, upsetting his friend and collaborator Paul Mooney, a comedian known for his brilliant racial commentary. You may recognize Paul Mooney from his prominent role in Chappelle's Show as a writer and an actor. Mooney still served as the main creative consultant for LIVE ON THE SUNSET STRIP, despite this significant difference of opinion about the very word that had been a centerpiece of Pryor's act on albums like "That Nigger's Crazy."

However, Chris Rock drops that particular bomb quite frequently, (I'm avoiding typing the actual word as much as I can, in efforts to avoid being one of those "hip white people" Pryor complains about). And of course, Rock is very aware of the debate surrounding the word, and certainly Richard Pryor's perspective. He is so familiar with Pryor's use of the word, that I think the way Rock describes the term isn't that much different than how Pryor conceives of it.

Rock sees the negative and hurtful associations tied to that word, and uses it to articulate what he calls the "Civil War" within black America. The word allows him to explain his perspective on a major cultural division that perpetuates racism. Rock chooses to use the word "nigger" as a slur to distinguish--for black people and white people--what he perceives as the productive and destructive aspects of black culture.

As I mentioned before, my own lack of experience with having this explosive word pointed at me, precludes me from having too much of a say in whether I think this is "right" or "wrong." But I do think that the clips--placed back-to-back--make for an interesting history of the most dangerous word our culture has produced.

Thoughts? Reactions? I've written enough now. We want to hear from you!

Walter Benjamin on Paul Klee's ANGEL NOVUS

2012-01-24T21:57:00.000-05:00


Angelus Novus, Paul Klee, 1920. Copper etching plate. "A Klee drawing named 'Angelus Novus' shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe that keeps piling ruin upon ruin and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress." -Walter Benjamin, Ninth Thesis on the Philosophy of History

Straw Dogs...

2012-01-11T19:07:00.000-05:00

Sam Peckinpah’s 1971 classic Straw Dogs is known for its brutal, yet aestheticized, violence. While everything builds up to the final showdown at the house, the decisive moment occurs earlier with the rape of David Sumner’s wife, Amy, which sets the film on an unalterable course. This scene is both important and perplexing, and I would like to inquire into its meaning, despite the unpleasantness of such an endeavor.

A movie about masculinity, Straw Dogs is unflinching in its portrayal of manhood as a fundamentally violent enterprise. Even accounting for the rape scene, the single most disturbing moment might be when David clutches Amy’s throat during the final attack and promises to break her neck if she opens the front door and lets the intruders inside. This is the apogee of David’s masculine transformation and reveals the inherent brutality of such a process. Yet, despite Peckinpah’s apparent misogyny, there is a way his portrayals of feminine weakness highlight the systems of control and aggression that dominate patriarchal societies. The rape scene in Straw Dogs, as well as the one in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, highlights the helplessness of women in a brutal, masculine world. It also shows the one tool patriarchy gives to women to combat this violence, their sexualized bodies. This is why the women being raped in the two aforementioned movies have the appearance of enjoying it, and why Amy bares her breasts to the roofers in Straw Dogs; it is the only way for them to attain a semblance of control in a system that continually denies it. It is also why Amy needs David to exert his own patriarchal control over the men who work for him. Without this masculine exertion, Amy is powerless to protect herself, and her rape is a direct result of her husband’s impotence.

Mr. Peckinpah is a complicated person, and certainly not a shining example of feminism at work, yet his portrayal of the helplessness of women under the threat of rape provides insight into the patriarchal mindset and its vast networks of power, domination, and control. It is what makes the rape scene in Straw Dogs so disturbing, and difficult to understand. Rather than an aesthetic celebration of violence, the rape goes straight to the core of patriarchal oppression, in all of its ugliness.

The 2011 remake of Straw Dogs directed by Rod Lurie misses this fundamental aspect of the original. Yes, rape is always disturbing, but attempting to probe the inner-workings of such an act of violence is even more so, and this is what the remake forgets. A behind-the-scenes documentary about the making of the film explicitly states that its creators reworked the rape scene to eradicate even the hint of female pleasure. I certainly can’t fault the movie for this choice, it is an admirable one, but it is also a microcosm of the film itself, which is ultimately without substance, despite its best intentions. In the end the film has very little to say, which makes it a forgettable, if not completely failed, remake of a classic.

Charlie Parker Sketches #3: Embraceable You, Irreplaceable You

2012-01-10T19:34:00.000-05:00

Article also featured on NO DEPRESSION: THE ROOTS MUSIC AUTHORITY

Charlie Parker recorded his completely unique take on
George and Ira Gershwin’s Embraceable You for Dial on October 28, 1947. Returned to New York after 16 month haze in California, which included a stay at Camarillo State Mental Hospital, a parting with Dizzy Gillespie, new developments in bop, and for Parker, a period of debauchery and genuine insanity. He was later sent back to New York, chaperoned to the airport by Dial producer Ross Russell.

Whatever wounds and embarrassment Parker carried into the NYC's Dial recording studio, he nevertheless still wielded the influence to assemble a formidable lineup. His quintet in those days consisted of well-respected bassist Tommy Potter and pianist Duke Jordan, alongside the now--and even then--deified figures of Max Roach and Miles Davis (brought in from Julliard, as what Russell calls “Charlie’s first and last choice on trumpet.”). Parker was near the peak of his creative powers. Parker quickly reestablished himself in New York as an expert saxophonist, junkie, drunk, and cunnilingust, constantly making explicit sexual advances towards the women in clubs. A man with deep appetites that were linked together in a desire for transcendence, of any kind--whether sublime or piecemeal. Whatever was available was what came next.

Dial had moved its operations relating to Parker eastward to accommodate the musician’s relocation. Bird and the Quintet captured six classic takes in a mere four hours. Russell later described the session as a “scene of undistracted and concentrated creativity,” and Parker’s difficult behavior and unending demands were accepted as the cost of genius. Two hours after getting a fix in the bathroom of Dial’s New York studios, Parker recorded on of the his most celebrated pieces from this period--his extensive revision of George and Ira Gershwin’s Embraceable You.

Embraceable You clearly demonstrates that Parker’s versions of standards are essentially original compositions. Russell, whose relationship with Parker was tumultuous to say the least, calls the performance on this track, “one of the famous ballad improvisations in fifty years of jazz discography.” Elaborating on the track’s breakthroughs, Russell writes: “From the pretty, sentimental original melody of Embraceable You, Charlie created a new and finer melody. [...] In the third measure...the phrase comes to rest on a significant note, a marvelous B-natural (the thirteenth). With that essential B, Charlie invests Embraceable You with his own magic.” Elaborating on the complexity of Parker's "magic" on Embraceable You, jazz and blues historian Ted Gioia writes: "A musicologist could spend a hundred pages trying to describe what Parker tossed out in almost as many seconds. But it's better just to sit back and enjoy this example of the great altoist playing at the top of his game." Critically regarded as a masterpiece, the genius of this track share's little more than the title with George Gershwin's original masterwork.

To get a sense of Bird’s sense of the blues and ability to inject a tune with melancholy, by way of contrast take a listen to Judy Garland’s version from the 1943 version of Girl Crazy, embedded above. An enjoyable musical romp no doubt, but Bird’s improvisation and grasp of the darker sides of longing and despair are nowhere present in Judy Garland’s captivating naivete and sunny demeanor. The two versions serve as inverses of one another, with Parker once again using the outlines of something familiar and even gentle to take post-war America into deep and untouched and hidden desires. The embraceable “you” becomes that longed for thing to take us out of wherever we’re at.

Matt Shedd

1/10/12

(See the rest of the Charlie Parker Sketches)

Follow MATT SHEDD on FACEBOOK and TWITTER

Contact Matt via email: matthewpaulshedd@gmail.com

The Charlie Parker Sketches #2 - "Parker Is"

2011-12-24T18:17:00.000-05:00

Also published at No Depression: The Roots Music Authority

Moose The Mooch by Charlie Parker on Grooveshark

(Play while reading.)

Charlie Parker is the now that dries metaphysics into dust. Careening between elation and nothing-at-all, a virile intoxication, a force of nature with gold streaming through his veins.

Going out West and just staying, spending his airfare home on junk, drifting on the sea breeze, the hapless American explosion. Parker could toss off a masterpiece like “Moose the Mooch,” and in a state of pure joy, name said masterpiece after a much-sought-after West Coast smack dealer.

Parker is endless spinning always on the margins of maintaining control, and then losing it. Walking into a hotel lobby naked and crazed, setting a bed on fire with lit cigarette, sharing his most beautiful notes with a cow in an open field on the side of the highway.

Parker is always getting somewhere, always in style. The subject is the throbbing American cities, and it is sung with the voice as seductive as a siren.

Parker is American instructions on how to exist that knocks you senseless with pleasure, full of satisfaction of its own perfect image. The roots of the modern American city, true roots music, tricky to pin down, grounded in the truly original African American self-confidence and nobility.

Playing a record always casts a spell. In the way that Jimmie Rodgers’ blue mountain yodel takes us to empty spaces and train cars, Charlie Parker takes you to Walt Whitman’s bustling dream of the U.S., foresees Woody Allen’s Manhattan, lands you in the backseat speeding across America with Jack and Neal.

Parker is America’s youthfulness raging out of control and still hitting all the beautiful notes.

12/24/11

Matt Shedd

See all the Charlie Parker Sketches

Twitter.com/MattShedd

AMissingAmerica.com

matthewpaulshedd@gmail.com