Archive for the ‘Pop Culture/TV criticism’ Category
Internet Memes Aside, Can Anything Stop US Gun Violence?
Folks, I’m still much more sick than well, so I hope this post will make sense. But I’m so tired of watching talking heads discuss various efforts in Washington, D.C., to curb gun violence as none of them seem to really understand what’s at stake.
What’s worse is the latest Internet meme, which goes something like this:
Right-wing gun owner (it’s always someone from the right, as if there are no left-wing gun owners, a logical fallacy): I told off a bunch of granola-eating hippie chicks at the sports bar yesterday!
Right-wing gun owner’s friend: Really?
RWGO: Yeah! I told those hippies that if an intruder was in their house, dammit, they’d want a gun and they’d want it fast!
RWGOF: Yeah? Then what happened?
RWGO: They agreed, put their tails between their legs, and left. How about that?
First off, this meme has got to go for a number of reasons.
- It states the problem in extremely simplistic terms.
- RWGO always wins, because the granola eating hippie chicks are always stupid and can’t reason their way out of a paper bag.
- There’s never any mention of those legitimately trying to curb the spread of gun violence in the United States, such as the various police departments, elements of the U.S. Armed Forces (especially the National Guard and the Army Reserve), and the Border Patrol agents . . . because guess what? Curbing illegal guns coming in from Mexico, which has been mentioned many times on Fox News and other right-wing media sources, is also part of stopping the spread of gun violence!
Look. The National Rifle Association has a much bigger media and lobbying presence than they probably deserve. And the NRA’s stated message on curbing gun violence in this country (such as what happened in Aurora, CO, in Arizona, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School) is this: “The only way you can stop a bad man with a gun is by having a good man with a gun right there.” Which is, in and of itself, an extremely simplistic message if you come right down to it.
There has to be a better way. And I’m thinking that as the United States Senate couldn’t even come up with a simple agreement on background checks — something 86% of the country supports (including most Republicans and gun owners of all political persuasions) — we’re going to have to look outside the Congress to do it.
So whom should be we looking at, if the Congress is not capable or qualified to study this issue? (Or perhaps even to ask the right questions, if the recent debate on the various amendments is any judge. Mind, I appreciate principled objection, but so many of the legislators who voted against the background check legislation seemed like the blind leading the blind.)
Perhaps we need to look at the various police departments, to start with. What do most sheriffs suggest when it comes to gun violence? Do they think background checks will help? (Why, or why not?)
Next, there is one thing most of my right-wing friends have agreed with from day one, and that’s that everyone who owns a gun should be properly trained. I think that mandating a certain number of hours at the firing range for all gun owners (but most especially new ones) might be something various state legislatures can pursue. And if you want to be stationed in a school (or you’re already a teacher, principal, or the like), taking an extra course on how to deal with pressure situations would not be amiss.
Because taking the training may at least help curb the incidents where someone who isn’t trained has a gun, and it goes off. (Like Plaxico Burress.) Sometimes, no one is hurt when this happens, but most of the time, someone is hurt or killed.
Finally, there needs to be a determination of what kinds of mental illness are the most dangerous. One of the very few decent points I’ve heard from any right-wing pundits is that mental illness is a slippery slope. Grief is often classified as a mental illness (it isn’t); having panic attacks is classified as a mental illness (which isn’t anywhere near as severe as someone overtly psychotic); someone who’s bipolar but always takes his/her medicine is still mentally ill, but has a controlled illness — and should not that person have a gun if he or she wants one?
Back to the Internet meme, though.
If someone came up to me in a coffee house, or in a sports bar, and said to me, “Hey, Barb! I know you don’t like guns, but if someone was in your house and had a gun and was ten feet away, wouldn’t you want one?,” do you want to know my answer?
“Hell, no, I don’t want one!” I’d say. “I’d rather have a baseball bat. That’s something where, even if the intruder gets it away from me, I’d at least get one good whack in — and it might even work to knock that gun out of the guy’s hand.”
Because, really. I know I don’t like guns, I’ve not been trained to use one, and even if I went and learned at a rifle range or whatnot, I’d still be way below par because it’s really not my skill. (Plus, hello? I have carpal tunnel syndrome. This wouldn’t make it easy for me to control a firearm. Just sayin’.)
At any rate, what I’m trying to get at is that somehow, the left and right are now so polarized that Internet memes, like the one I discussed before, are taken at face value by many of my right-leaning friends. And that’s as wrong as someone saying, “Background checks will get rid of all gun violence!,” something my right-leaning friends would automatically abhor (and rightly).
At this point, I don’t know what the hopes are for an honest dialogue among regular, honest Americans of all political persuasions. I tend to think that way too many of my left-leaning friends don’t know any right-leaning people (or if they do, they don’t see any value in most of what they say), and that it’s the same way for my right-leaning friends — they see very little value in whatever their counterparts on the left (or in the center) have to say.
That’s sad. That’s even shameful, considering how we as a country were founded because of a bunch of ornery dissenters.
But it’s where we’re at. And because I’ve seen this Internet meme one too many times in the past twenty-four to forty-eight hours, I just had to speak up and say, “This meme is stupid. Can’t we all use some logic, and just figure out a solution to these problems already?”
Because one thing’s for sure. Our Congress is not about to do thing one about it.
———
Note: This is a heavily divisive issue. Many of my friends on both sides have hair triggers and are extremely upset. I want a dialogue, something that hasn’t yet occurred at the national level — I’d like to know what, if anything, aside from better training for people who own firearms might offer some hope to those who’ve lost loved ones to gun violence.
Further note: Comments must be polite, or they will be deleted. (You have been warned.)
Plagiarism, Pt. 2 — Zakaria Cleared, Reinstated by Time and CNN
Well, folks, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised — yet I am.
It appears that Fareed Zakaria, who blatantly plagiarised from a column by the New Yorker’s Jill Lepore for his most recent column at Time magazine, then got suspended last week from both CNN and Time (my earlier blog post about this is here), will resume his jobs in September.
Here’s tonight’s article from the Huffington Post, which states:
Fareed Zakaria is off the hook at both Time magazine and CNN after he admitted plagiarizing a New Yorker column last Friday.
The upshot of the article is, Time and CNN both have agreed to let Zakaria keep his jobs even though Zakaria most definitely plagiarised from Lepore. Zakaria’s employers view this as an “isolated” incident, even though Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic pointed out back in 2009 that Zakaria had also plagiarised him without attribution.
Basically, Zakaria is getting away with doing something unconscionable, merely because he is a celebrity. This should not be tolerated, but apparently in today’s hyper-conscious celebrity culture, the bigwigs at Time and CNN just don’t care.
And by refusing to can Zakaria due to his plagiarism, it’s obvious that journalistic ethics — writerly ethics — have gone out the window at both CNN and Time. Despite the fact that they’re supposedly devoted to the news. Despite the fact that they should wish those who report the news for them will be honest, fair-minded, and at least have the common courtesy to properly attribute their sources.
I’m shocked that Time and CNN have chosen this course. They’re both news-oriented organizations. The people who work for them should be above reproach.
Yet Zakaria no longer can be considered above reproach, if indeed he ever was — which is why he should’ve been fired without delay no matter how high-profile he is and no matter how much of a celebrity, either.
By retaining Zakaria despite his blatant plagiarism, both of Zakaria’s employers have proven that the almighty dollar matters far more to them than the truth. Or ethics. Or even common sense.
Even in this day and age, wrong is wrong — and we all know that what Zakaria did is plain, flat wrong.
Usually, committing blatant acts of plagiarism is the one thing that can get a reporter, host, or “basic writer” fired without an appeal. It’s utterly wrong that Zakaria didn’t even have to sweat a little bit before he found out that he would, indeed, keep his jobs.
Instead, it appears he got what amounts to a “get out of jail free” card from his employers.
That’s wrong.
That’s shameful.
And it should not be allowed to stand. Period.
Hard Luck Blues: Keith Olbermann Fired by Current TV
Tonight, I found out that Keith Olbermann had been fired by turning on what I thought was going to be Keith Olbermann’s news program on Current TV, “Countdown,” and finding former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer in his place. Spitzer did not explain what he was doing there.
Perturbed, I turned to the Internet and found out that Olbermann had been fired by Current TV because of “unexcused absences,” including the day before the March 6, 2012 primary (which must, by elimination, be March 5, 2012). Here’s a link to the story on Yahoo News, which explains what Spitzer’s doing there:
And here’s a link from Forbes Magazine, which says that Olbermann is so mad, he’s gone “ballistic” over his ouster:
Here’s Olbermann’s statement, as quoted by the Forbes article:
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain.
In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.
Here’s a relevant quote from the Forbes.com article (explaining what Olbermann said in his press release in simpler terms):
To paraphrase: Whatever happened, the fault is every bit Gore’s and Hyatt’s and not one scintilla mine. I merely created my best show ever and selflessly said nothing while my bosses broke promises and ultimately let me go because they’re cheap bastards. The whole world knows (“it almost goes without saying”) that Gore and Hyatt are dishonest and I’m honest, and I’m suing their asses, and here’s some unrelated dirt on them, just for good measure. Poor me. My only mistake was to trust the rats. I humbly apologize.
Forbes follows this up by asking tonight’s burning question: Where will Keith Olbermann work next, considering he’s burned his bridges with Fox TV, MSNBC, Current, and ESPN (among others)?
But I think they’ve missed the point entirely. I’ve watched Olbermann for years; I didn’t like how he treated Hillary R. Clinton while she was running for President (some of his comments then were inexcusable), but other than that he’s a principled man who obviously takes pride in putting together a great show. His show, his staff, and even his substitute hosts are first-rate; while I never enjoyed having to watch David Shuster or Bill Press sub for Olbermann, they always did an outstanding job.
In addition, Olbermann was hired to help put together other shows for Current TV; since he was hired a year ago, Cenk Uygur, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and former Gov. of New York Spitzer have been brought on board. Olbermann had to take some time (I’m not sure how much) to get the Uygur show up to speed (Uygur had a show previously on MSNBC for a few months, so that probably wasn’t too taxing), then probably much more time to get former Gov. Granholm ready to host her own show as she’d had very little experience on the air — and most of that as a commentator, not as a host. (Come to think of it, before her show “War Room with Jennifer Granholm,” I’m not sure Gov. Granholm had any experience as a host at all.)
Then, factor in the health problems that most people who’ve followed Olbermann’s career know he has — these are a bad back, and periodic headaches (they may be migraines, maybe not, but definitely aren’t good — they’re due to an accident using mass transit years ago) — and the fact that Olbermann’s widowed mother is getting up in years and probably has many health issues of her own to deal with.
So do you see what’s really going on here? Olbermann had a great deal on his plate; he was developing shows and getting them “ramped up and ready to go” while keeping the quality high on his own show at the same time. This may have been enough additional stress to exacerbate his back problems (and the headaches, which I’m more aware of because of things Olbermann hasn’t said rather than what he has). And who knows how much Olbermann’s mother has needed him in the past year — if it’s been extensive, how can anyone blame him for that?
And all of that might explain what Current’s now calling his “excessive absenteeism.” (I’d be willing to bet this is at least part of it.)
This is why I call Olbermann’s latest endgame the “hard luck blues.” Because this time, unlike the last (which I blogged about here), I truly think Olbermann’s problems were brought on by one thing: stress. He’d taken on more responsibility than ever before; as he’s known for being meticulous, irascible, and a perfectionist, how could Al Gore (who owns Current TV) have expected Olbermann to behave any differently? (Especially as their own advertising on-line for “Countdown” says that Olbermann is known for his “provocative” commentary and is “journalism’s . . . most outspoken voice?”)
How can Current TV, or Al Gore in particular, honestly say they didn’t know what they were getting when they hired Olbermann? Especially using namby-pamby language like this (quoted from the Yahoo article):
Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.
And from what I recall from when Olbermann was signed by Current TV last year, he had as close to an iron-clad contract as is known to mankind, which might be why his lawyer, Patty Glaser, is saying tonight that:
“Keith Olbermann’s termination is baseless,” she said. “We will sue them for their improper conduct. They made a bad decision; they can expect a bad result.”
Lawyers are never this emphatic unless they’re absolutely certain they’re right.
So here’s the upshot, folks: I’m actually sorry for Keith Olbermann tonight. Despite his millions of dollars, his high-fashion suits, and his “provocative” commentary, he’s been fired twice in two years. And that has to hurt, no matter who you are.
Odds and Ends, TV-show style
Folks, the last week I’ve been dealing with something unusual: I have a writing and editing job where I’ve been hired to “pinch hit” and fix someone else’s manuscript. The book is non-fiction and is well-sourced and well-researched; what I’m doing my best to do is get it ready for publication. It’s going to take me at least two and a half more weeks, possibly three full weeks, to get this done; this will take me away from everyday blogging, but what’s to do? (This is a paying job, while blogging isn’t. :sigh:)
That being said, I have wanted to write about many things, but only have the time to touch on them briefly. So here we go.
First, if you’re not watching NBC’s “Smash” yet, you should. The singing by Katharine McPhee and Megan Hilty is superb; the writing otherwise is good and holds my interest. (“Smash,” if you haven’t heard about it or seen it yet, is about a whole bunch of people trying to ready a musical based on Marilyn Monroe’s life and bring it to Broadway. Hilty is a buxom blonde who looks more like Marilyn, while McPhee has more of Marilyn’s vulnerability.) This is one of the better TV shows I’ve ever seen about the artist’s life from nearly every perspective (including the writers of the show, the lyricist, the singers, actors, dancers, and producers), and for the most part “Smash” rings true to life.
As for other shows I’m watching (mostly “on demand” as my schedule permits), I’m enjoying the police procedural “Awake.” This is about a detective (played by Jason Isaacs) who lost part of his family in a car crash; in one reality, his wife lived and his son died, while in the other, his son lived and his wife died. The detective slips between realities whenever he goes to sleep, and to say the least, he’s confused — he’s actually seeing two psychiatrists (one in each reality). This is an interesting show that I haven’t yet figured out, but I love the SFnal concepts (the parallel worlds issues).
Of course, I’m keeping an eye on “Dancing with the Stars,” especially as Green Bay Packers wide receiver Donald Driver, 37, is among the cast (dancing with Peta Murgatroyd); last night, head judge Len Goodman actually admitted that he’d “undermarked” Driver during the first week’s performance, something Goodman has never said before on DWTS. Here’s a nice article from Yahoo about Driver, in case you’re interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-driver-talks-football-injuries-versus-dancing-damage-162452356.html
As for how Driver did last night? He danced a quickstep; he was light on his feet and his “frame” (how he stands and holds his partner) was much better than most of the other football players who’ve competed on DWTS before, at least when we’re talking about the second week. (Everyone improves at different rates, but Driver’s starting out well.) I enjoyed his performance and felt it was one of the better ones of the entire evening.
My prediction for tonight? Driver will be safe.
My guess at the bottom two? Mostly likely it’ll be Melissa Gilbert and her partner, Maksim Chmerikovskiy (those two were a tad undermarked last night as their dance was probably the most difficult of the entire evening, but the difficulty also made it much harder for Gilbert to interact with the audience, which is part of the reason for the lower marks) and Martina Navritalova and her partner, Tony Dovolani, with Navritalova going home. (The Chicago Tribune has a good, but short, analysis of what happened with Navritalova last evening; take a gander here.)
Finally, the other show I’ve been watching since it debuted is the ABC fantasy “Once Upon a Time.” Here, an evil queen has banished every storybook character known to man to our world — and to the town of Storybrooke, Maine. Only a few people know what happened, including Emma Swan (Jennifer Morrison, late of “House”), Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold (Robert Carlyle, perhaps this show’s “breakout star”), Storybrooke’s mayor Regina (Lana Parilla), who is none other than the evil queen herself, and Regina’s adopted son, Henry (Jared Gilmore) — Emma’s natural child, given up for adoption at birth — who has a storybook that gives enigmatic hints as to who these people really are. But Emma doesn’t wholly believe, partly because the people Henry says are her parents are the same age she is, and partly because she wasn’t raised in Storybrooke at all — she was found along the side of a road.
The pluses to “Once” are that there’s some really great acting — particularly by Carlyle as Mr. Gold, who keeps everyone guessing as to whether he’s a good guy, a bad guy, or simply in it for himself — and some interesting storytelling. The minuses mostly have to do with the fact that the storytelling is not linear; episodes jump back and forth in time, and we get hints weeks before things actually happen in our “real” world that something is drastically wrong with whatever character is featured this week.
But this seeming weakness has been turned into a strength, mostly because of how Carlyle lights up the screen as the amoral “Mr. Gold.” Due to his uncertain loyalties, viewers get to see him nearly every week; he’s a constant source of mischief, humor, and oddly enough, genuine pathos. Very few actors would be able to do what Carlyle is doing, and I seriously hope when the next time the Emmys come around, he gets serious consideration as best supporting actor.
Other than that, I’m mostly awaiting the second season of “Game of Thrones,” same as most SF fans. (Isn’t everyone?)
DWTS Week Eight: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Tonight, there were only five stars left on “Dancing with the Stars” to battle it out for spots in the semi-finals next week. These stars are Nancy Grace with pro partner Tristan MacManus, Rob Kardashian with pro partner Cheryl Burke, Ricki Lake with pro partner Derek Hough, Hope Solo with pro partner Maksim Chmerikovskiy, and last but not least, J.R. Martinez with pro partner Karina Smirnoff. The dance levels varied widely, and so did the performances, but everyone did as well as they possibly could.
That said, it’s time for some serious critiquing.
Best of the night: J.R. Martinez/Karina Smirnoff. I’ve said this before, but Martinez is so good that he often looks like a male pro until he makes a mistake, or has his body in a position a male pro would not take. Martinez is the class of this field, and he had an outstanding night tonight.
Prediction for tomorrow: Safe. (Easily.)
Second best of the night: Rob Kardashian/Cheryl Burke. Kardashian moves stiffly and doesn’t pick his feet up off the floor very often, but he’s shown the most improvement. Both dances tonight were good.
Prediction for tomorrow: Probably safe. (Should be, but may not be depending on the strength of his fan base.) If he hits the B2, he’ll go home.
Third best of the night (tie): Ricki Lake/Derek Hough. As always, Hough’s choreography was outstanding, but Lake is hurt and it’s very easy to tell. She was good, but not outstanding; Kardashian was actually a little better, and he has far less talent than does Lake.
Prediction for tomorrow: Bottom 2, will be retained for semi-finals. (Once again, if Kardashian hits the B2, he’s gone.)
Third best of night (tie): Hope Solo/Maksim Chmerikovskiy. They danced better than I’ve ever seen them in both dances. They received the “kiss and make up” edit, and the “most improved dancer” type of remarks; they’re not going anywhere.
Prediction for tomorrow: Safe.
Fifth and last: Nancy Grace/Tristan MacManus. I really like MacManus, as I’ve said before; he is a consummate professional, and he has done the best job he — or anyone else — could’ve done with Grace. Ms. Grace is stiff and does not move well, and by this point she is badly outclassed by the competition. This is not merely due to her age (she over 50) or how short she is, or that she’s a fuller-figured woman. (I am a big, beautiful woman myself, so I don’t really care about that.)
Nope, it’s none of that.
Purely and simply, it’s a combination of two things:
1) I don’t like her attitude toward her pro — she seems to be blaming MacManus for why she hasn’t improved, not realizing that at some point natural talent (or the lack of it) has to apply. Maybe Grace would do better at some of these dances if she had more time to study it — that’s almost surely the case — but her complaining about her busy schedule and then saying that MacManus “doesn’t have a full-time job” was just wrong. (Doesn’t Grace realize that teaching her anything has to be the toughest full-time job MacManus has ever had?)
2) Her tango was, at best, tepid. She was given better scores than she deserved, and better comments, too, in her first dance, probably because the judges had seen Grace do the jive last week and knew she was terrible. Her second dance, the “instant jive” (all of the couples had to do this), was awful despite the best efforts of MacManus to showcase her in a positive light; it was so bad that head judge Len Goodman actually told Grace that her time at DWTS was just about up. (I kept expecting him to add the words that usually follow those, “Don’t let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.” But he didn’t; he left those words unsaid.)
Prediction: B2. Will go home. MacManus will breathe a sigh of relief, and so will those of us who watch DWTS.
But my predictions are just that . . . I’m not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent, either, so it’s possible that someone else will go home instead.
What do you think, America?
DWTS Non-Shocker: David Arquette Goes Home
Is it just me, or did the fact that David Arquette went home tonight on “Dancing with the Stars” rather than Nancy Grace seem like a total anticlimax?
Last night, I predicted that if Arquette hit the bottom two (called the B2, for short), he’d go home because I believed his fan base was most likely lower than either Grace or Hope Solo. Arquette danced better, in my opinion, than either Grace or Solo, but in a reality show competition, how many people are willing to vote for you is the major thing that either keeps you in or sends you home (that’s what I mean by a fan base).
Consider that Solo is one of the best-known female athletes in the world as she’s the goalie for the United States of America’s national soccer team. So you’d figure she probably has a much bigger fan base than Arquette and Grace, as she did not hit the B2 tonight.
As for Grace, while she’s really not a good dancer, she has two things on her side: her partner, Tristan MacManus, who many DWTS fans have taken to as he’s a delightfully low-key presence, and her own show on HLN (formerly CNN Headline news), where she’s actually called in to her show and asked her viewers to text her number to keep her in.
This week, we were told who was definitely in the B2 — sometimes, they only say “one of these two really is in the B2, while the other may or may not be” — and it was definitely Arquette and Grace. This means that Grace’s huge fan base probably won’t be enough to save her next week, considering by any objective measure, Solo’s should be far higher — and the other three dancers (including Rob Kardashian, of all people) are all much better than Grace, so are likely to outscore her by plenty.
What I know from watching DWTS for years is this: when a good dancer who’s improving is booted “too soon” by the viewers (this was Arquette’s role tonight), the judges get tough the next week on the undeserving person (or people) who stayed instead of him. Grace’s time should’ve been up several weeks ago but she’s outlasted several better dancers, now including Arquette; watch for the judges to be in an uproar next week and give Grace the extremely low scores she’s likely to deserve no matter how much the judges approve of her pro.
My Take on Hallowe’en DWTS Episode
Well, Chaz Bono is gone, but in my opinion, “Dancing with the Stars” could’ve used him and his partner, Lacey Schwimmer tonight during their Hallowe’en episode. They would’ve been a great help, as they always brought the entertainment first, last, and always.
This was a Hallowe’en episode, so the hair and make-up and song choices all reflected that, with the song choices actually hindering several couples. Still, it was a show that mostly entertained, with a few really low spots.
Here we go, first with the “solo” dances (as two group dances followed at the end of the show):
David Arquette and Kym Johnson: He did OK. Arquette is a bit manic for my tastes and he got ahead of his choreography; if he were a musician, I’d tell him he was rushing and to stay behind the beat rather than in front of it. (Johnson, of course, was great, as she always is.) ** Edited to add: Score was a 24.
Rob Kardashian and Cheryl Burke: Surprisingly good tango, though they drew a fairly easy song for it, the theme song for “The Addams’ Family.” Kardashian’s form was good and he stayed in character. (Burke, of course, was wonderful, as she always is.) They scored a 25.
Derek Hough and Ricki Lake: They danced a paso doble to the song “Dream (or a Beautiful Nightmare),” and the choreography was excellent. (Hough’s always is.) Lake is hurt, and it showed; Hough did a lot of dancing around her. They were given a 27, the best score of the night for the solo dances, which probably was deserved as no one really danced up to his or her potential.
Maksim Chmerikovskiy and Hope Solo: Danced a samba, of all things, to “Werewolves of London.” Decent samba. Solo looked more relaxed this week; she was helped in rehearsal by one of the “Troupe” dancers, Teddy (he often dances on Tuesday evenings with other pro dancers) because Chmerikovskiy has a broken toe. (Note that I enjoyed Bono and Schwimmer’s samba much better than this, and yet this got a better score.) They scored a 24.
Nancy Grace and Tristan MacManus: They drew an impossible song, “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” They had to try to do a jive. Grace is OK with a slower tempo in most disciplines, but her jive was really awful. It scored a 21, which was far too high; really, it deserved something like a 15. (MacManus was cute, and competent, and I enjoyed watching him. He does not out-dance his partner and tries hard to showcase her. May he be back next season with someone who has more dancing talent than Grace.)
J.R. Martinez and Karina Smirnoff: They had the nearly impossible task of dancing a tango, of all things, to the “Ghostbusters” theme. Smirnoff’s choreography was inventive, but Martinez didn’t look right as he danced — his back was out of position, I think, and his legs were too bent. That said, he still danced better than any of the non-pros this evening and did more actual work than anyone else, too . . . they scored a 25, and were underscored.
Next, it was time for the team dances. First, they had to pick teams; “Team Tango,” which featured Martinez and Smirnoff, picked Grace/Rogers and Arquette/Johnson. The team choreography here was really good — better than I’ve seen in many a season for these team dances — but every solo was a bit off. (Martinez, again, was the best of the three, by a lot.) Arquette rushed, again, and was visibly ahead of Johnson most of the way. Grace looked better at this than she did in the jive even though she’s not yet danced a tango, and may not if she goes home tomorrow as she should (being the weakest celebrity dancer left). They scored a 23, which was added to the individual scores for all three couples.
Then, there was “Team Paso,” which was led by Lake and Hough. Hough actually did the picking here, and chose Solo/Chmerikovskiy (to avoid Chmerikovskiy having to dance with Smirnoff, his ex-fiancée) and Kardashian/Burke. Solo, predictably, had trouble learning the choreography, and Hough stepped in to help her learn it when Chmerikovskiy was too frustrated to teach it to her. (This was one of the few times in quite a number of seasons that I’ve seen Hough do anything of the sort. Solo learned it when Hough taught it to her; this makes me think at least some of why Hough has such a high opinion of himself is due to knowing he has great skill in teaching and choreographing — which indeed is the case, though I wish he could be a little humbler about it.) The individual routines here were the highlight; all three couples did their best in those (Kardashian looked a bit lost, but up against two pros like Hough and Chmerikovkiy, that means Kardashian actually did very well and the judges knew it; they even said so), though to be fair, I don’t think these dances between the pairs were as difficult for both partners (in the tango, both partners must dance well or it looks awful; in the paso, only one partner — the male — must dance well or it looks awful). This dance scored a 26, which was added to each individual dance team’s total.
My predictions for definitely safe: Martinez and Lake
Probably safe: Kardashian and Arquette
My predictions for bottom two: Grace and Solo, though Arquette, if he lands in the B2, probably goes home as it seems to me he has a lesser fanbase than either Grace or Solo.
Dancing with the Stars Update: Chaz Bono Voted Off
Folks, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me any that Chaz Bono was voted off earlier tonight during the “results” portion of “Dancing with the Stars,” but it does sadden me.
As I said last night in this post, I believed Bono wasn’t given enough credit for what he actually did during his tango.
Now, was Bono’s tango with professional dance partner Lacey Schwimmer a flawless dance? Of course not. But it was interesting, entertaining, and I think Bono performed it to the best of his ability.
There were plenty of performances last night that didn’t entertain me half so much as Bono’s, including that of soccer star Hope Solo and her professional partner, Maksim Chmerikovskiy. Chmerikovsky had a well-publicized rant that I won’t reproduce here that went to the effect that Solo is being asked to do more than “other contestants, who are only judged on effort” (Chmerikovskiy said this tonight during DWTS, which is why I was able to reproduce it nearly word-for-word) — more or less calling out Chaz Bono and possibly Nancy Grace, as Grace has to be the worst dancer left now that Bono is gone (Grace also has half the charm and less than half the personality of Bono; what she does have is a cute partner, Tristan MacManus, though Schwimmer is a beautiful woman and has a following of her own due to several seasons on DWTS and a season on “So You Think You Can Dance” years ago).
I chose to focus on Bono rather than Chmerikovskiy’s rant because to me, as a performer, what Bono was going through was obvious. He had just done his best; it wasn’t perfect, but he did something way outside his comfort zone, and aside from his partner Schwimmer (and maybe the rest of the cast, who all seemed to love Bono like he was a long-lost brother), Bono got no appreciation for it. That judge Bruno Tonioli called Bono a “cute little penguin” didn’t sit well with Bono, as we saw during tonight’s results episode, where some of the “behind the scenes” stuff from last evening was played — Bono said that he was tired of being called “some fat troll who’s dancing with the beautiful girl” (referring to his partner, Schwimmer, who really is a beautiful woman) and that Tonioli, in particular, kept saying this about Bono.
I know that hosts Tom Bergeron and Brooke Burke-Charvet were worried that Bono would lose it on stage due to how angry he was due to last night’s comments from head judge Len Goodman and Tonioli, but Bono was gracious. He thanked the cast of DWTS; he thanked them for the opportunity, and said that his whole mission was to give others the idea that there could be a “different kind of man,” at which point Schwimmer hooted and hollered in obvious support. (Good for her!)
I think Bono acquitted himself well on DWTS and I really enjoyed watching him dance. I also believe Schwimmer should be commended on three fronts: she helped Bono learn to dance, she helped Bono withstand the criticism of being DWTS’s first ever transsexual contestant, and she was honest with him about his ability and his strengths from the first.
I hope Bono realizes what Schwimmer has done here, as it goes well beyond a teacher who’s proud of her pupil. Schwimmer actively supported Bono and treated him just like any other guy; she saw him as male (which, of course, he is), she saw him as worthy of praise and criticism just like anyone else, and she did what she could to help him withstand the unnecessary criticism she knew he was likely to get from some of the judges.
Now, Bono also made one other point in those revealing “after-the-Monday-dance comments” — he said that the bigger women (referring to Nancy Grace and Ricki Lake) were praised for losing weight, but that his weight loss had gone unobserved and/or uncommented on. Schwimmer definitely seemed to understand this; she’s had large, male partners before (Kyle Massey immediately comes to mind) and she knows from her own father, Buddy Schwimmer, that bigger men can indeed learn to dance and dance very well.
I hope that Bono will take away three things from his DWTS experience:
1) He has made a true friend, Lacey Schwimmer — and her friendship is worth having.
2) He learned how to dance several dances (cha cha, rhumba, tango, samba, quickstep, and one more).
3) He has a winning personality and the ability to persevere amidst a huge amount of psychological and physical strain.
If he keeps all of that in mind and dwells on what he did right rather than the DWTS judges commentary, the world could indeed be his oyster.
Performances, Chaz Bono, and DWTS
This week on “Dancing with the Stars,” it was Broadway Week — meaning every star had to do a ballroom dance of some sort to a Broadway song and also put some “Broadway inflection” into his or her routine. Chaz Bono and his professional partner, Lacey Schwimmer, drew the tango — not an easy thing to dance to a Broadway tune — and the theme to Phantom of the Opera.
Now, I’ve written before about my liking for Chaz Bono before; I believe what he’s doing, in being open about his past gender identity struggles and being the first transsexual contestant ever on DWTS, is a very good and empowering thing. I also think that as a heavier person, he dances well and shows that it’s a complete myth that “big people can’t dance.”
His routine tonight to “Phantom” was a tough one; his partner, Lacey Schwimmer, told him early on that he’d have to “step it up” and do more difficult choreography — that the “super-basic” routines he had learned up until now wouldn’t work. (Note that last week’s samba routine was not all that easy; what I think Schwimmer was referring to was the rhumba routine and some of the routines before that, which were at the most basic level.) I think this was difficult for Bono to hear, but he handled it, learned his routine, and performed it well.
Then came the judges, who were more critical than Bono had anticipated (they were about what Lacey Schwimmer expected, though of course I’m sure she’d hoped for better); they said that the role of the Phantom “did not suit” Bono (both head judge Len Goodman and judge Bruno Tonioli said this pretty much word-for-word, while judge Carrie-Ann Inaba said it in a slightly kinder way, referring to the “challenge” of acting a character that is not your own), that the dance of the tango wasn’t fiery enough or precise enough, and that Bono altogether “lacked the sense of menace” that a dance like this requires (Goodman, again). No mention was made of the fact that Bono danced most of the dance in the half-mask of the Phantom; no mention was made that Bono’s movements were sharper and crisper than they’ve ever been, and that the form of the dance was preserved throughout.
As a performer myself (though not a dancer or actor), I’ve been there. So I have some words for Chaz Bono that I hope he’ll heed tonight: “Mr. Bono, please, do not listen to the harshness of these critics. You have to understand that as a performer, not everyone is going to appreciate what you do, and you can’t do anything about that. You can only control what you can do — which you did, as you danced the best I have ever seen you on the entire season of ‘Dancing with the Stars.'”
Or, in other words — I think the critics, while they’re certainly correct about the forms of the dance and maybe had a point about being more emphatic in your movements (the only way you could possibly have been more “menacing,” it seems to me, behind the Phantom’s half-mask, is to be very direct, cutting, and emphatic), are flat wrong about how you danced.
Look. Your partner, Ms. Schwimmer, is correct about the way the judges will act. This is just what they do; some of it is for effect, because they want to make a better show — and some of it is just how they are overall.
Schwimmer knows this; she’s been dealing with these same judges now for several years. All of her training is meant to help you withstand their criticism; she is an exacting teacher, yes, but also a kind and honest one. She isn’t known for cursing or being upset with her pupils, in the main; she’s known for being able to teach anyone — including Steve-O of “Jackass” fame while he was just “getting clean” after finishing up some rehab for alcohol and drug addiction — to the point that her partners actually learn the dances, rather than just the routines.
Do you know what that means? You’ll remember how to rhumba years from now. You’ll know how to do the cha cha cha. You’ll understand the tango, and be able to do it again once you’re off the show — that’s because she does teach the “super-basics” as well as the flourishes a show like “Dancing” requires, because she wants you to understand the dance as well as perform it.
The upshot of all of this, Mr. Bono, is this — it was very hard for me, as a viewer, to watch your face fall once you’d performed your routine to “Phantom of the Opera.” I didn’t like seeing that, because that made me think that you’ve forgotten the most important person in the equation — you — and are basing your opinion of yourself on what other people think rather than what you think about yourself.
Granted, this can be very tough to do as a performing artist. I have been there (I once had someone criticize my oboe playing who had listened to three hundred clarinets in a solo-ensemble music contest; it was the one and only year I didn’t go to the state contest in high school — I was the only oboist this judge heard all day, too, which made it all the more unfair) and I know how difficult it is.
Here’s another example for you: I once had a saxophone lesson when I was going for my Master’s degree where I asked my professor, “Did I do anything right today?”
His answer was, “Of course! But if I don’t tell you what you did wrong, how will you ever improve?” (Note that I was an “older” Master’s candidate, going for my Master’s past age thirty because I believed in myself and felt I still had a chance to improve my playing and perhaps work in my field. I still believe that if my hands co-operate, I will be able to once again get back to where I should be and I really wish to work in my field, which is performing, teaching, and composing music.)
This is why I have great sympathy for you doing something so far out of your “comfort zone,” because you obviously believe it’s the right thing to do.
I think what Lacey Schwimmer is doing by giving you criticism about how to improve your dancing and your overall performance is meant so you can take the criticism, incorporate it into your performance, and become a better dancer. It certainly is not meant to wound you (even though it hurts, and badly, at the time).
As a performing artist (no matter how long I’ve had to be idle due to my carpal tunnel syndrome and other issues), I know that when fifty people compliment you, but one is highly critical, you tend to remember the one person who was so critical like it’s a burr under your skin. I can only imagine what it must be like to hear yourself be criticized like that by three judges on national TV.
I know that I, as a viewer, saw both improvement and personality in your dance. And I believe that as a performer, you did your job, because you did the very best you possibly could — you lived up to everything your teacher asked of you — in the best way you possibly could do it.
So what I’d like most to tell you is this: keep on dancing, Mr. Bono. You’re doing a fine job; you’ve learned a lot; you’ve hung in there and you’ve done everything in your power to improve and you have, indeed, shown improvement. And while your overall likeability is one of your greatest strengths, do you know what your best strength is? Your perseverance.
So keep on keepin’ on, and non illegitimi carborundum.
———
Oh, one other thing: if I listened to “the critics” regarding my saxophone playing (now that I can’t do as much as before, or at least as quickly as before), I’d not even be making the attempt to play. So yes, improvement must be taken into consideration here — which is why every single week, I’ve voted for Chaz Bono and Lacey Schwimmer and it’s why I plan to keep doing so.