Around the Web

• “We are only 50 percent of the way to knowing what trees really do for us,” says botanist Lester Rowntree in Jill Jonnes' article about the role of trees in the life of the city
• "I've never had colleagues in the sense that I do here," says Jonathan Lethem who's headed for liberal arts college bliss at Pomona (I wondered if he planned write a book that doesn't take place in New York but, alas, this article says his next book is set in Queens)
• I've made my picks for Slate's Oscar Pool game
• "By the time I got around to Vampire’s Kiss and then Bad Lieutenant and now this movie, Drive Angry and then also Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, I had realized that I’d developed my own style and process and school of acting which is called Nouveau Shamanic. That’s the new style of acting and at some point I’ll have to write a book.” -Nicholas Cage (!), quoted by Movieline

 

"Chicago School" of 80's Cinema

In any genre, it's hard to make a movie that will age well, but it's particularly difficult to make a mainstream comedy that lasts. Some jokes lose relevance and Hollywood is by no means averse to recycling successful gags, characters, set-ups and plot devices. A few great movies can survive this borrowing (e.g. "This Is Spinal Tap"), while some good ones lose a bit of their luster (I think I would have enjoyed "Risky Business" more if I hadn't seen its premise copied and updated by "The Girl Next Door").

Now, I've heard the criticisms about 80s pop culture, but, in my view, the decade produced a remarkable number of mainstream comedies that stand the test of time. Flicks that come to mind include "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Farris Bueller's Day Off," "Trading Places," "The Blues Brothers" and of course, "Groundhog Day." One of the reasons I think these movies last is that they tend to couple sarcasm with an essentially optimistic view of the human spirit.

These movies were not generally heavy on political content, it would be a mistake to consider them to be totally sympatico with the "Morning in America" thing going on. The dean in "Animal House" (okay, technically 1979) is basically a Nixon figure. The protagonists in these movies are often savvy, worldly types given to making sarcastic jokes. You could maybe argue that these movies dealt with big issues superficially, but I have yet to see a PSA that hits me like the end of "Planes, Trains..." They aren't perfect or even that elegant, but I think these movies tend to hit on something resonant.

"Groundhog Day," in my view, is one of the best of this genre. Here's an interesting article that talks about how adherents of various religious traditions (Eastern and Western)  find echoes of their philosophies in the film.

Then again, maybe, as a Reagan baby, I'm just being sentimental...

* I used the term "Chicago School" because many of the people involved have Chicago ties (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, the brothers Belushi, John Landis, John Hughes).  Even some of the relevant Canadians (John Candy, Dan Ackroyd) have ties to the Toronto satellite of Chicago's "Second City" troupe. This also has a useful connotation: the Midwestern and Canadian cultures are stereotyped as earnest. And for those keeping track, they also have strongly Progressive elements.

Around the Web

• An interview with Contested Will  author James Shapiro (the Shakespeare guy from the previous post)
• NY Times article on the passing of H. Edward Roberts, the inventor of the personal computer (and an alumnus of Oklahoma State University)
• Joshua Green (at The Atlantic) suspects Larry Summers is on his way out
• Senator Coburn (R-OK) surprises the folks back home with interesting thoughts on Speaker Pelosi and Fox News

The problem is fundamentalism not scrupulosity

In an interesting essay for the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Steve Asma argues that, for an increasingly large group of secular upper and middle-class liberals,  environmentalism has assumed on the guilt-inducing role once held by religion.  At first glance, this argument seems like a something torn from the pages of an Ann Coulter book. And, if history is any indication, it's ripe for selective quoting by the climate change skeptics.  Still, these objections, in and of themselves, don't amount to much in terms of refuting his thesis.

This is not to say that Asma gets it right.   Specifically, his emphasis on "green guilt" seems misplaced.  He seems to think that most in his latte-sipping cohort (his stereotyping, not mine) lead lives of constant self-denial, constantly flagellating themselves (emotionally, of course) for not composting as much as they should.  He even ends his article by encouraging his fellow green-conscious liberals to "temper their fervor" and basically stop feeling so damn guilty all of the time.

Now, I have trouble imagining that there is a substantial element of the population that is taking our environmental situation too seriously.  Perhaps Asma is part of a very small group of exceedingly admirable people, but I think for more people, environmentalism mimics religion in a much more self-serving way. I suspect that it is more common for the upper-income, green-conscious crowd to use environmental concerns as a pretext for personal indulgence. It would certainly feel better to spend 40% more on locally-grown, premium foods if the alternative is morally objectionable.  Likewise, I doubt many Motel 8s are LEED-certified.  

In most cases, I think these purchases of environmental indulgences are inadvertent.  But a lot of people inadvertently use religion to sanction indulgence also.  Generally-speaking, the problem isn't people taking their values too seriously, it's people applying them too narrowly.

Is this a Golden Age of (Scripted) Televsion?

When people talk about the Golden Age of Television, they are usually assumed to be talking about the post-War era (unless you are with my friends from college, in which case it is assumed one is talking about the "Transformers" era). And, generally speaking, I think it's fair to call this period a "Golden Age;" it's nearly impossible to deny that for all sorts of cultural and historic reasons, this time period (late 40s to early 60s) was a really interesting and important time for television.

Still, having thought about TV a bit during this weekend's awful weather, I think you could make a strong case that the last ten years have been something of a second (or maybe third?) Golden Age of Television.  At the very least, I think you could say it's a Golden Age of Scripted television.

Consider some of the shows and miniseries that have aired or mostly aired in the past decade (I don't regularly watch all of these but I've seen a few episodes of most of them): The West Wing, The Wire, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, BattleStar Galactica, Flight of the Conchords, 30 Rock, The Office, House, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Sopranos, Deadwood, Lost, John Adams,  and Mad Men.

In short, lots of rich, well-written dramas, fresh comedies (often off-beat or satirical) and several shows with remarkably high production values.

If you accept the premise that this is a Golden Age, I can think of a few possible and mostly pretty obvious reasons:

1. Networks can now pick the low-hanging fruit with relatively cheap reality TV options, so there is less need to try and fill prime-time spots with dramas and comedies that don't show exceptional promise.
2. The trend away from the laugh-track.  Think "The Office," "30 Rock," and "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
3. DVD sales have created a secondary market for high quality television programming.
4. Shows with well-constructed plots, like Lost" (which I never got into, but can understand the appeal of), and interesting, well-written characters, like "House," seem to make almost as much money in DVD sales as they do in advertising sales.
5. More segmentation in the marketplace.  It seems even network shows like "West Wing" and "Friday Night Lights" have been given leeway to find and satisfy a particular niche, instead of being continually under pressure to post "E.R."-level ratings.
6. More premium cable programming.  This is closely-linked to #5.  Networks like HBO, Comedy Central and AMC can put out programs like "John Adams," "Deadwood," "The Wire" and "Mad Men" precisely because they don't have to be all things to all people.

A few more reasons might be posted later (work beckons).  I'd be interested to see if this Golden Age pet theory holds up on second consideration and what other people think.

Kevin,

Thanks for getting this up and going. I'll kick things off with one of my favorite topics, movies. Specifically, the Oscars. All pretty much predictable, except I just can't wrap my head around Sandra Bullock as Best Actress. I would compare this to Marisa Tomei winning for "My Cousin Vinny," except that was only a supporting Oscar and Tomei has gone on to prove she can actually act (see "In the Bedroom" and "The Wrestler").