Election 2024: How Taylor Swift is Another in the Endless Line of Pointless Electoral Battles Over Celebrity

 

I have spent as little time of the last twenty five years away from both cable news and social media, something I pride myself on. That doesn’t mean I can avoid the batshit conspiracy theories that are basically the pride and joy of conservative media  when it comes to the elections. From Hilary having Vince Foster murdered to the Swift Boaters to Hunter Biden I’ve heard them all – and I disregard them as noise.

Now while all of you leftists are taking victory laps, I need to emphasize your theories are just as nuts. That W won in 2000 when his brother was governor of Florida (an election where most of you were voting for Nader), that Ohio was rigged so that W would win reelection over Kerry, and some of the more recent historical ones such as the idea that the ONLY reason Reagan beat Carter was because he convinced Iran that they would get a better deal from his administration if they didn’t release the hostages until AFTER the 1980 election. I’ll be honest that one was crazier than anything I’d ever heard said about Hilary. I also don’t like when the parties close ranks around their leaders and argue partisan attacks as conspiracy theories. In hindsight I’m not thrilled that the Democrats closed ranks around Bill Clinton, whose history makes him look pretty much like a sexual predator, was the victim of a Republican witch hunt. Don’t worry, the left’s not defending him anymore. Not because of the sexual harassment but because his Presidency was too conservative for their ideals. Priorities, you know.

But I have to say the one that is currently circulating has to be some kind of record. Now I’m not going to watch the Super Bowl next week because I don’t like football, but according to Fox News, it has been rigged so the Chiefs can win the game. After which Taylor Swift will apparently run on to the field, kiss Travis Kelce (or maybe have celebration sex, I’m not sure) do an impromptu version of the Eras Tour, and at the end give an impassioned speech urging all of her fans and every single person who is watching to vote for Joe Biden this November. This apparently will cause millions of Americans, none of whom had no minds of their own, to reject their long-sworn beliefs and cross party lines to give Biden the biggest landslide in history ten months later.

Now I know how crazy this sounds just by writing, but I’m also just as sure that if this exact series of events does not take place, there will be a sizable contingent of leftists who are infuriated at Taylor Swift for not seizing the opportunity.

I’ll get to the reason why, like everything else that has to do with celebrity today, both sides of the political spectrum clearly have misread Taylor Swift’s power, but before I get there, this is as good a time as any to talk about the perceived influence celebrity has on electoral politics.

Ever since Frank Sinatra campaigned for JFK in 1960, the Democratic Party has had this conception of Hollywood that basically comes down to the following:

1.        Celebrities are extremely popular and carry influence.

2.      We need many people to help us win elections.

3.      If we are close to Hollywood, we will win more elections.

Never mind that Sinatra campaigned with JFK because Peter Lawford at the time was one of JFK’s in-laws or that Sinatra could not help JFK carry California. Never mind that Sinatra was rejected by the Kennedys immediately after the inauguration and became a Republican. The Democrats have held to this myth ever since.

 

There is no proof in the last sixty years that the presence of Hollywood has ever helped the Democratic Party. On the contrary, it does more to make them seem elitist with the mainstream voters. Shirley MacLaine was a member of the California delegation for George McGovern in 1972; McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. Warren Beatty was one of Gary Hart’s closest friends; that never got Hart’s campaign of McGovern  or his two subsequent campaigns for the Democratic nomination anywhere. Reagan’s ‘speech’ for Goldwater didn’t help prevent an LBJ landslide and it took sixteen years – and a near complete rejection of all things related to Hollywood – for Reagan to win the White House. In my lifetime I have never seen the influence of Hollywood help any candidate win the Presidency. I will acknowledge that Oprah’s backing of Obama might have helped him with the Democratic primary; given the circumstances of the 2008 election, I’m unconvinced it would have been a factor in him winning the Presidency.

And having seen so many campaigns involving celebrities and politicians on either side of aisle, all the presence of a celebrity on the trail ever does, is make the politician look even more awkward and out of touch by comparison. The movie stars or singers often will too, to be sure, but they have enough charisma that they can wash it off. The political figures always look like hanger-on’s desperately hoping to glean coolness by association. The idea of Joe Biden on the same platform with Taylor Swift and anyone even thinking that she would even talk to him under other circumstances is laughable.

The reason the Republicans are obsessed with the idea is fundamentally entirely the Democrats doing. All of this has nothing to do with whether Democrats agree with anything celebrities do or say; they are only doing this for the money. There’s also the fact that, given conservative media’s knee-jerk reaction to anything any major celebrity does as ‘destroying America’  that they do this not so much for hope of popular support but to get in the heads of Republicans and conservative media. Honestly every time any Fox News commentator says anything about Hollywood, they’re playing into Democrats hands: they know it’s the easiest way possible to get a temporary ally without any work and that’s the kind of thing they like.

And when it comes to Taylor Swift, the Democrats – and interestingly the left-wing – could not give a damn what they actually think. This is the heart of what the conservative media and Republicans have never truly gotten about the relationship between celebrities and so many Americans. They’re not going to like them more because of their values; if anything, the opposite is true. If celebrities don’t have values that leftists and identity groups like, they will reject them.

I need bring up no more clear example of this than J.K. Rowling. An entire generation of children grew up loving her books and films while so many on the Christian right considering a godless harridan because she was, in their minds, promoting an ‘agenda that did not have Christian values’. I remember that many parent’s groups wanted her books pulled from shelves in libraries across America throughout the 2000s.

Now a new generation of young people – who either know nothing about previous attacks on Rowling’s and just as likely would not change their opinion if they did -  want the writer ‘cancelled’, not because of her books but because of her views on the transgender communities. I’ve read many posts and I have little doubt many would want to see the Harry Potter books pulled from school libraries, if not outright banned. The fact that these books take place in the midst of a magical world that deals with battles involving prejudice, racism and bigotry is an irony they will ignore if it does fit their world view; if anything, they would use it as an example as to how clueless Rowling is about the world and another reason her books should be banned.

All of the Sturm und Drang about Swift has nothing to do with Taylor Swift but rather what both sides want from her. For all the public persona Swift has, she has done very little to express views on politics or social issues – something, it’s worth noting many on the left are angry with her about. In essence she is Schrodinger’s celebrity: both sides are obsessed with her more about what she might represent, rather than what she actually thinks.

There’s no evidence, for the record, Swift has any political clout at all. In 2018, she actively campaigned for Phil Brissenden, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee against Marsha Blackburn. Blackburn won in a landslide – I think the margin was about ten percentage points. If Swift couldn’t convince voters to come out in her home state, there’s no evidence she has similar clout in a general election: something everybody on both sides of the political spectrum seems to have forgotten.

But let’s engage in some magical thinking. Suppose this scenario that the right is so sure will happen starts to play out. The Chiefs win, Swift comes down to kiss Kelce and shouts to the millions watching – to vote for Nikki Haley. “Us Southern belles have to stick together against the patriarchy!” she might shout. (I’m guessing; I know nothing about Swift at all, even in regard to her music.)

Now I know the leftists are shouting: Taylor would never do that! She’s registered as a Democrat. I’d ask: “How do you know she’s just not a Never-Trumper?” She’s from Tennessee, which as you love to remind us is a deep red state and Swift is, as you have repeatedly said, the only good person to come out of it. For all you know, she spent her years when she was becoming a singer listening to Rush on the radio and watching Tucker Carlson. After all, according to ‘reliable sources’  that’s what the people in ‘that part of the country’ all do.

But she tweeted about being pro-choice!, you cry. How do you know she’s not a fiscal conservative? After all, she is a billionaire, something you love to point out in your articles praising her. She has as much reason to want to have tax breaks as all the other rich white people you spend your time berating.

I realize I have reached a level of absurdity here but that’s the point of this article that both sides have to fundamentally grasp about all celebrities, not just Taylor Swift. There has never been any evidence that a celebrity’s personal views have any electoral effect, and that’s the way it should be. Not just for politics, but for all of us. I say that this someone who spends most of his time following Hollywood for a living; the only things I care about a celebrity are about the work they do and the level of their performance. Anything else is background noise. If you truly believe that the only reason you should watch a celebrity’s work or reject it is because of how they think on a certain issue, you seriously don’t seem to have a grasp of any part of art.

I speak only for myself on this, but I’ve never cared. Would I be upset to learn if Bob Odenkirk was a secret MAGA follower or if Phoebe Waller-Bridge voted for Leave? A bit. But I’d get over it and it certainly wouldn’t change what I thought about how much I loved their work in Better Call Saul or Fleabag.

I can not for the life of me get why so many seemingly intelligent people tend to use what celebrities think about a certain issue or their politics and use it to argue that they themselves are representative of everything that’s wrong with society. Should I stop watching Chapelle’s Show because of his views on transgenders? Should I not watch Monty Python reruns because John Cleese has taken views that are more conservative than I like? Should I not enjoy Dead Man Walking because Susan Sarandon has taken an anti-Israel view? Should I stop watching The Good Wife reruns because Juliana Margulies has taken an anti-Palestine view? Should I never watch any episodes of Ray Donovan because Jon Voight supported Trump in his first two campaigns for President? And most importantly, should all of these celebrities not ever be allowed to work again because they have expressed these views, something they are more than entitled to do in a society with freedom of speech?

I know the answer this question already. Because whenever I pose an article acknowledging support for their rights to their opinions, I am called a bigot myself and worse guilty of holding the same opinions these celebrities have.  There should be a point separating celebrities and their work. This generation, social media and political extremism have made this all but impossible.

I don’t pretend to have the answers. But I have a suggestion to both Republican and Democrats in regard to everything involving celebrities.

First Democrats. If you want to break the impression that you are not the party of coastal elites, making campaign stops with film stars, TV stars or pop stars is not the way to do it. It hasn’t worked for you in sixty years; it’s not going to magically start working any time soon.

Next, Republicans. You’ve got a lot of problems. A lot. But you have to stop letting Hollywood occupy so much space in your head rent-free. Hollywood – and honestly everything regarding celebrity – is as fiscally conservative as it always has been. They’re still doing the same thing they’ve done for 100 years; they’re following the money. Every time you make a big stink about something like this, you really make the job easier for the Democrats and the left, something I’d think you’d have learned by now (but I get that’s not going to change any time soon.)

And finally to everybody, Taylor Swift is not the swing voter you think she is. Many of the people who follow her are under eighteen and can not vote yet. The idea that they are distributed evenly enough to swing the balance in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is so laughable, I don’t know why anyone thinks its buyable. I know the last eight years have thrown everything we thought we knew about politics out of proportion but the idea a pop singer could convince blue collar voters to vote by singing ‘Shake It Off’ shouldn’t be plausible. And trust me, if she ever appears on the same stage as EITHER presumptive nominee, they’ll both look thirty years older, something neither side wants to remind their base about.

That said, enjoy the Super Bowl. Me, I’ll be doing what I always do, watching alternative programming and waiting for  it to end. I’m curious to see if Tracker is any good.

 

 

 

A Celebration of Jeopardy Writers, Part 2: How The Writers Make Jeopardy Champions EARN Their Money in Big Tournaments

 

I mentioned in my introduction to the series that often when former champions return to the show, the writers like to torture them. Let me rephrase (though not in the form of a question.)

I imagine that the thought process every time a Tournament of Champions is approaching  by the writers is something along the lines of this:

“Ok. These people are good and have already proved themselves. We would be remiss if we just let them waltz to the money. Besides they’ve already shown how good they are against ordinary clues. We have to challenge them.”

And I imagine the champions have to know going in this will be the case. They’ve already had to go through another series of cram sessions to prepare again and this time they have to work on categories that they were weak on before on the very real possibility that they will come up again. If the stakes are for $100,000 (or $250,000) we have to be prepared for that.

And that is for a Tournament of Champions. When it comes to Tournaments where the grand prize is a million dollars (or even half a million as the Jeopardy Masters is), the writers will no doubt up their game still further. It has certainly been the case for myself in the five super tournaments I have watched in the last twenty years. No matter how much more knowledge I had gleaned in the intervening years, no matter how well I knew the show, somehow the writers found a way to prove how lacking I could be – and why the champions had been so good in the first place.

There are countless ways the writers have proven this ability over the past twenty years but I think the most effective way to do so would be to use one of the examples that is quintessentially Jeopardy: the categories that use wordplay and by extension how they are modified.

Let’s start with a category that is so prototypically Jeopardy  you might very well have forgotten that it was a Wheel of Fortune category first: BEFORE & AFTER. Indeed, the Jeopardy category was actually done as a tribute to Wheel of Fortune when Pat Sajak guest hosted on April Fools Day and Alex Trebek hosted Wheel of Fortune.

The writers took the category and then ran with it to the point it was regular. By the time of the Million Dollar Masters, it was practically a given that it was going to show up, which it did in the third quarterfinal match. Here is a sample clue:

“Walt Whitman poem about the group that sang: ‘Love Will Keep Us Together.”

“What is O Captain My Captain and Tenille?”

These kinds of responses will almost always illicit laughter and that was the case here. But because this was a Million Dollar Tournament waiting in first semi-final was BEFORE, DURING & AFTER.

We’d already seen this tried out in the 2001 Tournament of Champions to what was somewhat messy success. And Alex was pretty sure no one was going to pick it right away. It turned out to be the second category picked in Double Jeopardy.

Let me give you the kind of clue they were giving out for $1600:

“A 19^th century Sioux leader who damages porcelain as a labor union representative.”

When Bob Harris rang in, he had to sound it out:

“What is Sitting Bull in a China Shop steward?”

Initially these clues were getting laughter. By this time every time a contestant came up with a correct response, they were getting huge amounts of applause.

In 2005, we got a different variation on this clue in the semi-finals of the Ultimate Tournament of Champions: SECRETARIES OF STATE BEFORE & AFTER. Here’s the $1200 clue: “Clinton’s first Secretary of State who went ‘Sailing’ to No. 1 on the pop charts in 1980.” “Who is Warren Christopher Cross?”

There was also another category they were fond of that came up: QUASI-RELATED PAIRS. For the uninitiated, these are two separate clues where the references don’t make sense but together they form a famous pair. This actually came up a couple of times in the Tournament so let me give you some examples:

“Presbyterian Protestant reformer & the author of Leviathan.”

Who are Calvin & Hobbes?

“One kestrel and one yeti.”

“What are a falcon and a snowman?”

Here’s a couple from that same category in the quarterfinals.

“Scalds and footballer Marcus.”

“Who are Burns and Allen?”

“Skullcap and Mr. Rhodes.”

“What are Beany and Cecil?” (Ask your grandparents, kids.)

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention this one. Ever since it debuted in the early seasons all Jeopardy champions loathe SPELLING categories. Understandably, this is a tough game as it is: the last thing you want to do is lose money because you got a letter wrong. Once prominent in regular play and tournaments, it’s appearance has become rarer. But in the Ultimate Tournament of Champions, they brought it back…with a twist.

BRITISH SPELLING BEE. As Alex put it: “You have to spell your response…the way the British do.” A variation on this category came up recently but I’ll give you some highlights.

“The equivalent of our own Donald Rumsfeld, the UK’s Geoffrey Hoon is the minister of this.”

What is D-E-F-E-N-C-E?

Lovely Rita of Liverpool knows this unit of measure is 39.37 inches.

“What is M-E-T-R-E?”

To their credit none of the three champions misspelled a word. That didn’t mean they resented its existence any less.

I will move now to the Battle of the Decades where we got more of the same. There was actually a 2-LETTER SPELLING category but in all cases the contestants often forgot they had to spell and in several cases, they were not easy two letter words. Here are a couple that Tournament veteran Frank Spangenberg got right:

“A British interjection, or a genre of skinhead rock.”

Frank: “What is O-I?

And for $2000:

“Scrabble players loooove this basaltic lava.”

Frank: “What is AA?” (And we do actually.)

Some clues involving wordplay are odder than you’d think. In the first game we got in the Jeopardy round VALLEY GIRL SPEAK. Chuck Forrest did very well in this category:

For $400: “6-letter word for what you did when you fed the furnace.”

“What is stoked?”

$600: “Adjective for old, twisted hands or knotty wood.”

“What is gnarly?”

For $800: “Adjective applied to differently abled 14^th century conqueror Timur.”

“What is lame?”

And no Chuck did not do an accent.

Competitors from the 1990s had to deal with another odd category: MAKE A FAMOUS PHRASE. All of which were odd:

“A fighter pilot with at least five kills who’s carrying heavy debts.”

Shane Whitlock knew it was: “What is an ace in the hole?”

But the one that impressed everyone for $2000:

“Result when a player at each poker table has raised an opponent one fowl.

No one could come up with it.

Alex: “You’re gonna love it. What is “there’s a chicken in every pot?”

Bob Harris actually applauded the writers for that one.

The contestants in the 2000s had to deal with a category that requires some explanation. For years on the show there had been categories which were variations on RHYME TIME in which you had to give two words that rhymed however odd. Around the time of the Battle of The Decades they came up with a variation they would roll out for Tournaments like this: TRIPLE RHYME TIME. And to show you how diabolical the writers could be, here’s the $1600 clue:

“Vestments of Thumper, the new head of the monastery.”

Stephanie Jass, a seven day champion rang in with: “What is a rabbit abbot…cabot?” Incorrect.

Roger Craig rang in, paused and said: “What is skunk monk…” I assume he was coming up with trunk but that would have been wrong. It was actually rabbit abbot habit. This category has plagued Jeopardy champions ever since as we’ll see.

There were a couple of other categories that demonstrated the cleverness of the writers which I’ll hit on a little later but the one that was the most intriguing in this tournament came in the quarterfinals. WHEEL OF JEOPARDY! In it they arranged the correct response as a puzzle on the board of the show and then gave a clue to take the contestant the rest of the way.

Dan Pawson 9 Game winner and the winner of the 2009 Tournament of Champions did very well in this category. Here’s the $1200:

“A friendship is born of common discomfort:

M _ _ _ _ _

__V__

___P__Y

“What is misery loves company?” At home, I could not solve any of the puzzles.

In the All-Star Tournament, which featured a newer breed of players, the writers chose to do some variations on their word play with broader themes. In the Jeopardy round of the first match, they gave us ‘B’ORDER COUNTRIES, which combined geography as well as the alphabet. Alex Jacob, six game winner as well as the winner of the 2015 Tournament of Champions, did very well here:

$800: “Paraguay. These two.” “What are Bolivia and Brazil?

$1000: “India: Burma and these other two.” “What are Bangladesh and Bhutan?”

Brad Rutter, who had been dominating these tournaments since the Ultimate Tournament of Champions, faced a lot of problems with Alex. His luck got no better when he was facing off against him in the next game, though Brad did do well in a different kind of wordplay category: THAT’S A MOUTHFUL!

$1600: “On May 23, 1618 3 guys were tossed out of a castle’s windows in what is known as this, sparking a Bohemian revolt.” Brad knew it was the defenestration of Prague.

$2000: “Horace’s phrase for ‘words a foot and a half long’ gave us this adjective meaning “given to using long words.” Brad knew it was sesquipedalian. I mention these two clues because the Double Jeopardy round was one of the worst Brad had played in a very long time – and it almost cost his team the game.

In the Jeopardy round of the Wild Card game Alex, Pam Mueller and Roger Craig had to deal with a real mix of wordplay: “FROM THE ‘PEN’ OF WEBSTER’S THIRD”:

$800: “Prudent only in small matters.” Pam knew it was pennywise.

$1000: “The shaded region surrounding the dark central portion of a sunspot.”

Alex knew it was the penumbra.

Strangely enough BEFORE & AFTER didn’t show up in any form in either the All-Star Games or The Battle of the Decades.

This brings us to the Jeopardy Masters where a new generation of Jeopardy super champions had to meet were about to come head to head with these kinds of categories. An idea of what was in store came in the Jeopardy round of the quarterfinal with a new kind of word play category SPOONERISM PAIRS.

For those who might not know, spoonerism are a term from an English professor named Spooner who had a habit of inverting the first letters of words that to give them different meanings. Indeed there was a clue on this in Jeopardy tournaments before: “A well-boiled icicle’ instead of a well-oiled bicycle’ and a scoop of boy trouts rather than a troop of boy scouts.

Matt Amodio, Amy Schneider and Andrew He got a hit what they were in for when Andrew picked the 1000 point clue in that category:

“Contesting with a prevaricator and igniting a blaze.”

No one could come up with: “What are fighting a liar and lighting a fire?” This category gave a lot of trouble to the contestants even on the 200 point clue.

“A grand overall scheme and a stucco guy.” Amy blundered it before Matt came up with: “What is a master plan and a plaster man?”

In the interest of ‘fair play’, the writers gave Sam Buttrey, Mattea Roach and James Holzhauer another wordplay category that seems to come up only in these kinds of tournaments: BUILD YOUR OWN SPY NOVEL TITLES. Mattea and James had little problem with them:

1600 points: “The + a city in southern Afghanistan home to Ahmad Shah’s tomb + a chess opening involving a sacrifice:

Mattea: “What is The Kandahar Gambit?”

2000: “The + the last name of Lincoln’s Secretary of War + a disaster (originally a type of bottle)

James: “What is The Stanton Fiasco?

For the record these clues are tough when they come in easier versions; in this tournament, they were nearly impossible. I honestly don’t know how Mattea and James figured most of them out.

A few games later, Sam, Amy and James had to deal with DON’T CONFUSE THE TWO. We’ve gotten variations on these before, where the contestant usually had to just come up with one suggestion. This time the writers were asking for, well, maybe this will help:

1200 points: “Language or jargon used by lawyers & a language used or people of Sri Lanka.” James: “What are legalese and Sinhalese?”

1600: “A mineral of which ruby is a type and a difficult problem or puzzle.” Sam: “What are corundum and conundrum?”

In James next game, against Matt and Mattea, we got 2-LETTER RESPONSES. Spelling was not involved, but it did not make it easier.

2000: “Signifying negation or absence, it’s the response to the famous koan: “Does a dog have Buddha nature?” No one knew the answer was mu.

The 800 point clue was a source of amusement: “A 1979 paper by Sandra Schecter argued that this interjection is a central part of Canadian identity.” James rang in ahead of Mattea (a resident of Toronto: “What is eh?”

James had one of his finest hours on the Masters in a later appearance against Matt and Amy. The category was ENDS IN A DOUBLE VOWEL. He managed to run the category and a lot of those clues, which is a limited category to begin with, were not easy:

1600: Woody growth of the Phyllostachys genus. Somehow James got this reference to bamboo.

2000 was even more obscure: “Marking the transition to the sacred, it’s the gate of a Shinto shrine.” James knew it was a torii.

In the last quarterfinal match Matt Amodio ran into a Daily Double in a category called FAMOUS NAME OVERLAPS: “The 3-named British P.M from 1916 to 1922 and the 3-named American scientist granted a 1925 patent for cosmetics made from peanuts.” “What are David Lloyd George Washington Carver?” I don’t know Matt managed to get all the names in one breath but it earned him 5000 points and cemented a runaway for him.

In the semi-finals the new guard had to deal with such problems as TRIPLE RHYME TIME and BEFORE, DURING & AFTER. This newer guard had more trouble dealing with them then their predecessors, even James Holzhauer who’d had experience with these categories before, struggled. But a different kind of trouble came in THE 2 SAME-SPELLED WORDS. Ken reminded them they needed to say both pronunciations.

Mattea did well in this category, getting three clues correct. The 1000 point should so the reasoning

“To propel a boat & to have a quarrel.” “What are row (ROE) and roe (r-OW)

When Mattea, Matt and James faced off in the finals, even the word play was getting tougher. Mattea found a Daily Double in Double Jeopardy of Game 1 in 3 ‘SY’LLABLE WORDS.” In a distant third, Mattea bet the 7200 points they had:

“A lack of blood flow to the brain & a drop in blood pressure cause this, the medical term for fainting.” Mattea knew it was syncope, doubled their score and would be in a position to challenge James going forward.

The final game had the mother of all variations of a Jeopardy standard. CROSSWORD CLUES has come up in some form in almost Jeopardy tournament and I’d thought I’d seen every variation. But in Double Jeopardy we got one I did not think possible

CROSSWORD CLUE ‘AE. I don’t know how many words you think belong with these two vowels (if you could think of any) but, well:

2000 Points: Norse deity group (5 letters) James thought it was the Aemir, when it apparently was the Aesir.

James got redemption for 1600: “Windy type of harp” 7 letters.” What is aeolian?” No I hadn’t heard of either of these terms; I’m not sure I’d ever even seen them in Jeopardy before.

It takes a special kind of talent to come up with these kinds of clues and it takes a special kind of contest to know how to answer them. Both writers and players have more than been able to meet the challenges.

This concludes this part of the tribute to the Jeopardy writers. I may very well revisit the subject as we get closer to the Tournament of Champions and the writers remind us of the ways they have fun.

 

 

 

Lost Rewatch on VHS: The Little Prince

 

Before we get started a small detail. There are some disagreements between Lostipedia and Finding Lost during Season 5 as to which characters certain episodes of the season are centered on. Both sources agree that this episode centers on Kate, but Nikki Stafford also believes that this an Aaron-centric episode. In this case, I believe her version is correct. The evidence points to this because Aaron is involved both in the scene that opens the episode, is critical to much of the action off the island and we see him being born on the island during one of the flashes.

However the clearest proof the episode is focused on Aaron is the title. Like many episode of the series the title is based on a famous book. Sometimes the literary references on Lost are direct (Catch 22, Through the Looking Glass in Season 3) sometimes more obscure (The Shape of Things To Come last season) but here the reference is the most deliberate. Aaron is a young blond child who was born in a strange place like the title character in the beloved children’s classic. Just as important to the story is ‘taming’. This reference refers to how, when the little prince meets a fox, the fox tells about taming as belonging to someone. It’s clear even in the first flashforward how much Aaron has tamed Kate in such a short time – so much so that she has decided that she will pretend to be his mother from this point forward.

Unlike the lie the Oceanic 6 told – that Jack asks Kate help perpetuate -  this lie becomes a far greater reality than the truth. It was very clear in Season 4 that Kate’s relationship to Aaron was truly devoted and in a way that seems to have surprised even her, something that she is good at in a way that is real. The fact that Jack drunkenly berated her on it was the blow that severed their relationship for good – and it’s very manipulative of Jack that he chooses to use her desire to protect him as a way to get back into her good graces.

We’re back in LA after spending the previous episode with Desmond in London and Kate has reunited with Sun to try and figure out how to learn who’s after Aaron. The episode turns as much as how people are more than willing to manipulate Kate to their own ends – and while they are all diametrically opposed, they all revolve around her relationship with Aaron.

The mumbling about Kate that went on throughout the series turned very vicious in this season for reasons that even now are incomprehensible to me. The parallel that comes to mind the most is, sadly, the way that so many fans of Breaking Bad began to hate on Skyler White almost the moment the series began, first for being too naïve, then for standing in the way of Walter White’s villainy in order to protect her family and then eventually taking on a villainy of her own. There were fans of Kate in the early days of Lost, mainly because people thought that Jack was far too harsh to her and how good she was when the chips were down. This was always counterbalanced by the fact that she was always trying to run away and refused to pick a side between Jack and Sawyer.

Now that the action is about to return to the island, people starting to grumble about how selfish Kate was being. It wouldn’t become clear until they ended up going back to the island how irrationally the fans loathed her. Paradoxically , I think there might very well be more cause to dislike her in this episode because Kate’s desperation to protect her son has left her open to not doing the rational thing here.

As was clear at the time and has been reported throughout numerous sources, nothing that Dan Norton does is legal or could happen that quickly. Under normal circumstances this would be impossible to do and it would take weeks, if not months for the threats that Norton is trying could play out in real life. It’s clearly not a weakness in the plot when we learn that Norton is Ben’s lawyer because he knows that and she does any of these actions the public pressure would be enormous and she would not want exposure. The hole in the plot comes in the fact when you realize that Kate immediately goes on the run…instead of talking to an attorney. Which as we saw in Eggtown was willing to represent her for the duration of her trial. Even if he was just a criminal lawyer he could have easily pointed her to another lawyer who could have told her the same thing, made assurances that this was nonsense, and tell Norton that this is all a bluff.

Now we all know Kate’s de facto mode is to run, and its telling that until Sun called her yesterday she didn’t seem to have a plan on where to go next. So in this episode she acts not at all like the smart and savvy Kate we’ve known for four seasons, but like a panicky, clueless woman, following her worse impulses. Admittedly that has been Kate’s Achilles heel when on the run, she cares too much about hurting people. But you’d think after everything that happened she’d have figured that part out.

So she goes to Sun and leaves Aaron with her. Sun is, as we immediately see in the first scene, clearly not interested in protecting Kate or Aaron, but using her to get to Ben. When Jack calls her in a panic, Kate clearly doesn’t want to deal with him – she ignored his call back in The Lie – but her concern for Aaron overwhelms her and she gives in. Her decision to follow Norton to the motel is just as foolish, considering it doesn’t lead her to his client. It is not until she has ended up at the marina and comes face to face with Ben that she finally realizes the truth about who’s behind this – something that it’s clear Jack never suspected.

Watching Jack in this episode is incredibly painful because everyone else is looking at him like he’s worshipping the devil (which isn’t that far from the truth). Sayid tells Jack point blank the only side Ben is on is his own. Jack knew this when he was on the island and the fact that he’s decided to ignore it shows how far he’s fallen. When he goes to see Kate, it’s ostensibly to keep her safe but we all know he still thinks he can find a way to persuade her to go back with him. There’s a very good chance that, as much as he cares for Aaron (when he tells her ‘Aaron’s my family too’, it’s probably the most honest thing he says) part of him is thinking that if he can ‘fix this’, Kate will trust him and go with him to see Ben.

The look on Evangeline Lilly’s face, followed by the outrage in her tone and she goes after Ben, is one of the highpoints of her work in Season Five. It’s been clear since Through the Looking Glass that she has been trying to forget everything that happened the day they left and being face to face with Ben would be a nightmare even if she had not realized that Norton was his attorney.

I have to say that Ben’s actions involving Norton and Aaron truly make me question whether he is the evil mastermind we all think he is. It’s clear that his actions were meant to manipulate Kate and that her first action would be to run, probably towards Jack. What’s harder to understand is how he thought that would encourage to go back to the island. Unlike the other Oceanics Kate has a physical reason not to come back and going after it in order to take what Ben assumes will be a one-way trip to the island shows how little Ben understands human nature. (Then again, Ben’s never had the best idea of what it takes to be a parent in the first place.) Considering that Ben has never been very good at manipulating Kate compared to the rest, he must really have been depending on Jack on being able to sell it. That faith is clearly misplaced.

It's telling that in the final scene in LA, five of the Oceanic 6 are in the same place for the first time since the rescue but they are just as isolated from each other as before in their goals. Sayid has no interest in listening to anything Ben has to say, Kate looks like she wants to kill both Jack and Ben, and Sun is about to leave Aaron in her car with the purpose of shooting Ben. Hurley may be about to be released from prison but he clearly has no interest of going back either. It seems impossible the Oceanics will ever get on a plane again.

Which is not encouraging for the people left behind. Charlotte eventually regains consciousness but Dan finally reveals what he has been withholding since Charlotte’s first nosebleed – the time jumps are affecting them neurologically. Charlotte has been suffering the worst of the symptoms but while the episode proceeds Miles gets a nosebleed and at the end of it so does Juliet.

Locke didn’t have a reason to bring everybody back to the island before but now he does. He leads everybody on a path to the Orchid with the logic that whatever Ben did started there, and that might be the best way to stop it. While that is based in reality, his certainty that the only way to stop is to bring the Oceanics back is based in little more than his faith – something that Sawyer knows all too well has little basis in reality. Locke acknowledges as much when he says he has no idea what he’s going to be able to say to make them want to come back but at this point the crisis is quickly starting to catch up with them.

The critical flash takes place during Do No Harm. There are certain nitpicks to be sure, but I think they’re deliberate. When the light shoots up to the sky, it’s meant to represent the light in the hatch being turned on but as we know that’s not what it looked like in Deux Ex Machina. (It might have seemed that way from Desmond’s perspective but no one else during that episode noticed a giant flash of light in the sky.) However, if we assume that the flashes are there for the purpose of Locke to experience them, I think this is symbolic. At the time, Locke took that flicker as a bright flashing sign that he was on the right path. Now, he has come to realize it was not a sign, and just a light. By making the light bigger than it appears Locke now knows that it was a signpost but not the journey.

More importantly Sawyer ends up seeing Kate helping Claire give birth to Aaron. This is symbolic not only in the context of the episode but to Sawyer. He saw many sides of Kate throughout the first four seasons but this was one of the few sides of her he never did and it is a reminder not only of what he thinks he has lost for good but for the fact that he may have never really known her at all. That he chooses to open to Juliet about this fact in a way he never did to Kate – or really anybody before – not only shows us how Sawyer has begun to grow emotionally but is foreshadowing for what will happen later in the season.

When the next flash happens they are in the future, but we’re not sure how far. (Again this is foreshadowing for something that will happen later this season.) The outrigger gunfight is one of the mysteries in Lost that will never be fully resolved though if you’re a true fan of Lost, I think we all have our suspicions as to who did it. (Seriously Darlton, you couldn’t have had one reference in the season finale?)

But the critical moment of the episode – indeed, the most important moment of Season Five so far – comes when the French teams finds a man washed up on a piece of wreckage, and it’s none other than Jin. My heart leapt when I saw this happen when I saw it the first time. I realize I should have had some faith – Daniel Dae Kim had appeared in cast photos for Season Five and his name had been on the opening credits since the season began – but given how so much of Lost involved flashbacks and time travel, I suppose I had begun to wonder how seriously the writers were taking the idea. And I was so overjoyed I clearly missed the boat (heh heh) when it came to the fact that the team that had rescued Jin were the French team that had included Rousseau. The fact that Melissa Fairman would be playing her in Season Five would naturally throw you off; Mira Furlan was a great actress but there’s no way she could play someone that young and innocent. (Hmmm. The Rousseau’s are played by actresses with the same initials. Never noticed this until now. Well, don’t mistake coincidence for fate.)

It is now clear that a reunion of some kind is happening in the next episode. Jin will soon be reunited with his fellow survivors and now Sun will have a reason to come back to the island. The question we have at the end of the episode is, will she kill Ben first?

Note: From this point, I will resuming looking at the series from VHS recordings. The last recording of the episode starts with a preview of the intriguing but cancelled too soon The Unusuals.)

Feud Season 2 Review: Capote Vs. The Swans Is The Answer To My Prayers

 

 

In 2017 as the Golden Age of Limited Series officially took off Ryan Murphy, already the king of anthologies and FX, blessed us with Feud: Better Vs. Joan. Over eight episode we saw the saga of two of the greatest actresses of all time,  rivals for thirty years and now trying to revive their careers. We saw through the saga of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford’s collaboration on What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, one of the all-time classic films, the story of old Hollywood, the end of the old guard, the toxic masculinity that pervaded it and how two women who could have been ruling the silver screen spent their lives destroying each other. Led by two of the greatest actresses of all time, Susan Sarandon and Jessica Lange, it was an incredible work of art. However, it came out in the midst of three other legendary works of limited series – including Big Little Lies, which had another assemblage of great actresses – and went home empty handed on Emmy night.

Murphy, one of the most prolific writers in TV, planned a follow-up for years. Initially, the second season was supposed to tell the story of Charles and Diana and Matthew Goode and Rosamund Pike were cast in the title roles. But it never came to fruition. Honestly that probably was for the best: The Crown was in the midst of putting Charles and Diana at the center of its second half and it’s impossible to imagine Murphy and his co-writers coming up with anything nearly as good as what we got from Peter Morgan.

Finally late in 2022 Murphy finally announced the second installment, and after all of the work stoppages in Hollywood the first two episodes finally premiered on FX this Wednesday. Titled Capote Vs. The Swans, it is the saga of Truman Capote’s last novel Answered Prayers. A barely fictionalized version of New York society and Capote’s first major work since In Cold Blood,  a publication of an excerpt from Esquire horrified the people who knew who it was based on. Capote spent the rest of his life trying to finish the work but he died without it ever seeing print. The novel was not found in the aftermath of his death, and this version of Feud tells of his relationship with the women who inspired the novel and what might have been the reason it never saw the light of day.

First we must talk about Capote. Truman Capote has already been memorably portrayed on film and television multiple times, most famously when Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for playing him. The most memorable versions of his story involve his relationship to the writing of In Cold Blood. In both Capote and Infamous,  we learn that Capote spent six years working on what would be the first truly great non-fiction novel but the experience was so emotionally draining on him that he never completed another book. Hoffman’s portrayal showed a sympathetic Capote but also a man willing to manipulate the killers long enough to say he was on their side so he could get them to confess the crime for his novel. He also had to wait for them to be executed for it to have an ending. As it approaches the end Capote tells his friend Harper Lee he couldn’t have done anything to stop this. Lee (played by Catherine Keener) tells him: “Maybe not, but you didn’t want to.”

Much of the first two episodes show Capote in the aftermath of the publication of In Cold Blood. Truman Capote the writer is basically gone, and in his place is Truman Capote, the society legend. Played by Tom Hollander, one of ‘the gays’ famously trying to kill Jennifer Coolidge in the most recent season of The White Lotus, this version of Capote is barely hanging on by the time we meet him. He has not published a novel since In Cold Blood, he is constantly getting drunk and his longtime companion Jack Dunphy (Joe Mantello) can barely be around him. He’s also hanging around his ‘manager’ John O’Shea (Russell Tovey)  who he met in a bathhouse and has since convinced to work for him. Yet despite his frailties and erosions by alcohol, this Truman Capote has become more rigid and more unpleasant. At the start of the series the only people who he is hanging on to his women – or the Swans as he calls them.

Truman Capote fits the classic definition of  ‘a walker’. For most of the twentieth century and well past it, rich wives or widows, in the absence of their husbands, would frequently have a younger man on their arm, and frequently that individual was homosexual. Capote managed to have that same layer because he was the only man these rich and lonely women had who offered them companionship and a kind ear and asked for nothing in return. This is clear in a flashback to 1968 when Capote responds to a call of Babe Paley (Naomi Watts) who tells him that her husband William Paley (Treat Williams in what would be his final role before his tragic death) has publicly humiliated her. At this point she knows their marriage is a sham and she has overlooked his many affairs but in this case his latest encounter with Happy Rockefeller has put her in a position she does not think she can ignore. Truman offers solace, tells her she’s not going to leave him, gives her some kind of pill and gets into bed along side her.  It’s important we see this scene because it’s the only time in the first two episodes he does not seem to have an agenda.

By 1978 he has become a fixture among the wives of the rich and powerful. He and John have lunch with three of them Babe, Nancy ‘Slim’ Keith (Diane Lane) a socialite who had already been married to Howard Hawks and Leyland Hayward by this point and C.Z. Guest (Chloe Sevigny) and actress and fashion icon.

While they are eating when John goes to the bathroom they all tell him that John is too good for him and that he is not the kind of man he should be with. However during this meal Ann Woodward (Demi Moore)approaches him and berates him in public. In an earlier flashback where Capote first dined with the Paley’s, he told them all that Woodward shot her younger richer husband and that the family covered it up as an anecdote. Woodward tells him that this was pure invention and that they were once friends and wants to know why he did this to her. Truman looks at her and tells her that ‘he heard she once called him a f-- and I wanted to show you what a f— can do.” He says this with no remorse, even after she throws a drink in her face. The Swans tell him he is playing with fire. They don’t know that on the way home John will tell him to write about them and that he will very quickly do just that.

When the excerpt is published Babe feels the most betrayed and when she goes to dine with Slim she learns that Woodward killed herself upon reading the excerpt. Slim tells Babe that they have to unite in order to destroy Truman whose betrayal is worse than the ones he is relating.

By this time you’ve heard of the actors in this cast and you will want to watch anyway. Calista Flockhart shows up in the next episode as Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy’s younger sister and Molly Ringwald is playing one of Johnny Carson’s ex-wives and that on its own might be enough to persuade you to watch even if you know absolutely nothing about the women involved or even Capote. I’ll be honest the cast alone as well as the subject matter was enough to draw me in and considering how much of the episodes involve old Hollywood and society (David Selznick and Jennifer Jones showed up in the first episode; we saw flashes of Peter Sellers and Phyllis Diller in the next), all of which are things to draw me in. But the series has, at its foundation, the relationship between Capote and Babe who after what happens in the first episode he spends the next episode trying to earn his forgiveness.

At this point it’s easier to feel sympathy for The Swans,  despite the fact that they are  essentially members of the one percent and Capote is an eternal outsider. Jon Robin Baitz, the playwright and screenwriter who is the main writer of the saga (he also was the showrunner of the frequently superb Brothers & Sisters) argues that these women were vulnerable because of the betrayals by their husbands. This is clearly true in Babe’s case, who when she reads the excerpt blames Bill for the fact that she was so lonely she turned to Truman for companionship and he betrayed her to. At a luncheon with four of the Swans in presence, most of them are horrified at how much joy he seemed to relate in describing their menstrual functions. Babe is also dealing with a diagnosis of cancer and is trying to face her mortality: she keeps deciding whether she should forgive Truman but remains firm when Jack comes to see her twice, practically begging.

Hollander plays Capote as if he has increasingly lost who he was. Even in his younger days there are signs of the vicious nature of his personality: he has no problem relating the saga of ‘Bang-Bang’ Woodward to dinner guests in Florida and even less trouble writing about in what will be his excerpt in Esquire. In the second episode the Swans have begun their scheme to exile him from society, refusing his phone calls and gifts and we see him increasingly drinking more and more.

What remains unclear – and very well still may be by the end of this series – is why Capote did it. Did he think he was invincible? Was he so desperate to reclaim his genius that he did not care who he hurt doing so? Was he so self-destructive that a part of him wanted to do this? Not even he seems sure. Talking to C.Z. he tries to argue that it was ‘just a book’ and that he hoped that it would be viewed as a work of fiction. It’s also clear that there was clearly some great guilt at what he was doing. Early in the second episode he is shooting his scenes for Murder By Death (and has to get drunk in order to do so ) and while he is filming his scene, he begins to hallucinate all the women he has wronged. At a disastrous Thanksgiving, he sees an image of his mother (Jessica Lange again) who tells him why he did it and that now it’s time for him to kill himself. “You’re practically there already,”  she tells him. He says he has no intention of dying yet but during that dinner he berates John in front of the table and John nearly beats him to death. Because of his sexuality Capote was always an outsider (we see him going to the bathhouses in the first episode) but by the time of Breakfast at Tiffany’s he’d finally made it in. Did his experiences writing In Cold Blood drive him to this or what is who he was to begin with?

Based on the first two episodes of Capote Vs. The Swans, I’m grateful for the scrapping of the Charles versus Diana idea. Even before The Crown came along that had already been a subject of many movies (Watts herself had played Diana previously). The subject here is far closer in spirit to Bette Vs. Joan and because it is more obscure, more interesting. As is frequently the case with Murphy’s work, the women always dominate the screen and just as with American Crime Story, we get a picture of the world beneath the subject matter. It’s taken seven years, but getting the second season of Feud, well, my prayers have been answered and I think the viewers will be too.

My score: 4.75 stars.

Emmy Watch Phase 3: The People's Choice Awards (No, Seriously They Deserve It This Year.)

 

I have spent much of the last twenty years pretending the People’s Choice Awards do not exist. Not because I don’t respect the people, but because mass consumption and my field rarely coincide.

But after the MTV Movie Awards starting giving nominations for TV – and after some of their nominations and awards began to correlate with the Emmys – I realized it might be worth giving at least a casual look at it.

As you’d expect it still doesn’t have much correlation – until this year. Perhaps it is due to the strike, perhaps it is due to the shifting tides of Hollywood, but there are actually some nominees among most of the shows make me think either the people are getting smarter or the critics are getting dumber,

Then  again when you consider some of the major movies nominated include Oppenheimer and Barbie which is expected, and Killers of the Flower Moon and Asteroid City, which are not – maybe the latter is true. Hell, the People were willing to give more room for Are You There God? Its Me Margaret which is actually a choice the Oscars should have made. They even nominated Natalie Portman and Charles Melton for May December along with Margot Robbie. When the People’s Choice Awards make the Oscars look bad…Well, one thing at a time. Let’s concentrate on TV.

 

THE COMEDY SHOW OF THE YEAR

Abbott Elementary, Ted Lasso, The Bear and Only Murders in the Building. That’s actually not shocking. Saturday Night Live isn’t either. I have to give them credit for nominated Never Have I Ever which the Emmys have ignored as well as Young Sheldon. I guess I can overlook And Just Like That…Asking for the People to nominate Poker Face might too much.

DRAMA SHOW OF THE YEAR

The Last of Us, Grey’s Anatomy I expected. Succession and The Morning Show? The people have good taste. Law and Order: SVU and Grey’s Anatomy are still getting nominated by the ASTRA’s. But give them credit for nominating Ginny & Georgia and Outer Banks which people love but the Emmys don’t.

SCI-FI FANTASY SHOW OF THE YEAR

You expect to see Ahsoka and The Mandalorian here. Loki was nominated by the Critics Choice Awards. Black Mirror is beloved by everybody and Ghosts might actually get nominated for Emmys this year. Secret Invasion really shows the pull of Marvel. Though I will give credit to them that they didn’t nominated Obi-Wan Kenobi which puts them one better than the Emmys.

BINGEWORTHY SHOW OF THE YEAR

Skipping the reality shows, I’ll go with Jury Duty, Beef, The Crown and The Night Agent. The last three shows I would not expect the People to consider watching much less binge. Queen Charlotte has her favorites and maybe I should watch Summer I Turned Pretty.

 

MALE TV STAR OF THE YEAR

I imagine Steve Martin must be thrilled to be getting the people’s love at this point – though again this puts the People’s Choice one up on the Emmys. Kieran Culkin, Jason Sudeikis and Jeremy Allan White are all magnificent, but let’s not kid ourselves Pedro Pascal has this one down cold. Tom Hiddleston makes sense. Samuel L. Jackson really doesn’t. I’ll let Outer Banks slide

 

FEMALE TV STAR OF THE YEAR

And I have even fewer notes. How can one complain about Selena Gomez (who again the Emmys ignored) Quinta Brunson, Hannah Waddingham, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston or Ali Wong? Mariska Hargitay has been an Emmy winner and I’ll let Rosario Dawson take this because, honestly, I thought she should have gotten an Emmy nod for at least two previous series.

 

COMEDY TV STAR OF THE YEAR

Gomez, Martin, Brunson, White, Sudeikis, Wong, Waddingham and Bowen Yang. The Emmys should do this good a job.

 

DRAMA STAR OF THE YEAR

Aniston, Witherspoon, Culkin, Pascal, Hargitay and I figured Bella Ramsey would be hear out of fairness. Ice-T probably should be getting a lifetime achievement award.

 

TV PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR

What would it mean if Meryl Streep won this prize? Would she even show up?

This seems to be more in the supporting wing, though there is a good group. Jon Hamm is here for The Morning Show, Steven Yeun for Beef,  Ayo Edebiri for The Bear, Billie Eilish for Swarm, Storm Reid for The Last of Us (I guess Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlet weren’t eligible) and honestly Matt Bomer for Fellow Travelers is more than I would have dared hope for. I’ll let Queen Charlotte go.

 

SHOW OF THE YEAR

Grey’s Anatomy and SVU for the networks, Only Murders in the Building, Ted Lasso and The Bear for comedies, The Last of Us for Drama and Saturday Night Live. I think I can forgive Vanderpump Rules.

 

Honestly are the people getting smarter? Saltburn is part of the acting nominees and Color Purple is here for Drama. I realize that Cocaine Bear and Five Nights at Freddy are among the nominees too and there are still whole categories devoted to nominating Phase Five and Transformers. But maybe the people do know something we mere critics don’t. Or maybe they’ve finally caught on to how nice it is not to always have your intelligence insulted.

I’ll deal with some of the awards later on and my predictions for SAG-AFTRA later this month.