Thursday, March 24, 2011

Elizabeth Taylor

  I learned of Elizabeth Taylor's death late yesterday afternoon.  Like so many fans, I felt saddened and, of course, older. There was an excellent extended obituary in today's New York Times by the late Mel Gussow, written in 2005.  Obviously, the Times (and doubtless other newspapers) has obituaries on famous people already written and "ready to go" when the death actually occurs.  What was interesting was reading a posthumous obituary, written by someone whose own death preceded that of his subject--in this case by more than five years.  The photograph on the front page shows Miss Taylor at her most beautiful, probably taken when she was in her late twenties or early thirties.  The black and white head and shoulders photo could not, of course, do justice to those beautiful violet eyes, let alone her ample bosom.
  When I was a pre-pubescent boy of eleven, I was asked by a more mature lad of twelve whom I found more attractive, Marilyn Monroe or Elizabeth Taylor.  Aware that this was a "taste test," I knew I was supposed to choose Miss Taylor, but to me, it was no contest.  Although unaware of it at the time, I'd already been hard-wired for brunettes, and in that category, not even Gina Lolabrigida or Sophia Loren--great beauties in their own right--could hold a candle to Elizabeth Taylor.  In any event, Taylor and Monroe were the reigning American beauties of the early 50's and neither choice could have been wrong.  I suppose that Miss Taylor exuded a kind of sophisticated elegance to which Miss Monroe neither sought nor achieved, although one could argue that Marilyn's appeal (at least in choice of husbands) was felt by our very best athlete (Joe DiMaggio) and most prominent playwright (Arthur Miller).  (Tennesse Williams was exempted from that universe by virtue of sexual preference, but he certainly recognized Miss Taylor's qualities by selecting her to play at least two of his movie heroines.)
   Miss Taylor (she, apparently, hated being called "Liz," so I will refrain from so addressing her) was married eight times (twice, as is well known to the same man--Richard Burton) and admittedly loved not wisely, but too well.  The marriages I remember most were those to Michael Todd, whose name I knew best as the producer of "Around the World in Eighty Days," and Eddie Fisher, his successor in interest.   I saw a pregnant Miss Taylor beaming at the Oscars, accompanied by Todd, and envied him for putting her in the condition for which I would have so gladly substituted as an adolescent surrogate.  When Todd tragically died in the crash of his small private plane, she was the beautiful, grieving widow with whom all America sympathized.  In a blog from last September, I wrote about the passing of Eddie Fisher, who was headlined in one obit as "Princess Leia's father."  For those readers too young to remember,  Fisher had been a teen-aged heart-throb almost on the scale of Elvis Presley, who succeeded Fischer as America's most popular vocalist.  Apparently, Miss Taylor, who was informed of Fisher's death by his daughter Carrie (she of the above Princess Leia reference), wept over his passing.
  But, marriages apart, Elizabeth Taylor lives on through her movie roles.  While she won Oscars for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe (which I saw) and "Butterfield 8" (which I didn't), those are not her most memorable roles to me.  She was at her unattainable peak at 19 in "A Place in the Sun," the 1951 movie of Dreiser's "An American Tragedy."  She was the rich man's daughter for whom the upwardly socially mobile Montgomery Clift forsook his pregnant everywoman, Shelley Winters, and ultimately paid the price of sin (and crime).  Watching this movie, you can feel Clift's pain, years before Bill Clinton popularized the expression.  I felt it, too.  Some years later, in "Suddenly, Last Summer," Miss Taylor again played opposite Montgomery Clift (as a grant-seeking psychiatrist) and Katherine Hepburn. This time, she played the beard of a doomed young man named Sebastian, who literally got eaten alive (no kidding) by a band of natives on a beach to which he was accompanied by Miss Taylor.  The movie is among Tennessee Williams's lesser, but more sensational efforts, most memorable for the white, skin-tight bathing suit Miss Taylor wore, complete with plunging neckline, in which she aroused more libidinous interest for my cohort of teen-agers than the most explicit pornography was to do less than ten-years later for the next.
      I saw Elizabeth Taylor at a charitable event in 1982, an evening memorable for me because I had the opportunity of visiting with another legend, the late Lena Horne who had just concluded her Tony-award winning show, "A Lady and Her Music."  She was gracious, friendly, and astonishingly beautiful at sixty-five.  Sadly, Miss Taylor, at fifty-one, had not held up as well.  Struggling with her own battle to control her weight, she was surrounded by a fawning retinue of three or four men and women, desperately applying powder to her lined and aging face.  I write this not to speak ill of the dead, but to underscore the shock I felt at seeing her, finally, and flawed, "in the flesh."  I suppose that one of the drawbacks of being the most beautiful woman in the world--and she was--is that it is a designation which is, by its nature, fleeting.  Like a former heavyweight champion of the world who has become become fleshy and ungainly in middle-age, so Miss Taylor found herself confronted by the battle of time, the one fight that is impossible to win.
    But that painful memory is supplanted by my visions of her on the silver screen, a legacy that she has left us all; for when I see her as, say, Maggie the Cat (in Williams's "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"), she makes one pause in disbelief at how even Paul Newman (as her tormented--and sexually conflicted-- husband) could have resisted her incomparable beauty.  It is equally important to mention that Miss Taylor was universally regarded as a kind and caring person, beloved by fans and friends alike.
    In the "Critics Notebook" that accompanied Gussow's obituary, Manohla Dargis began her reminiscence of Elizabeth Taylor's movie career with a sentence that is a fitting ending to this piece:  "The last movie star died Wednesday."  Indeed.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

   The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ("the Hall") recently announced its 2011 Class of inductees, and among the new members are Neil Diamond, Tom Waits. Dr. John (AKA: Mac Rebennack), Darlene Love, and Jac Holzman. The main point of this blog is to congratulate the Hall on these new additions, and say a few words about the inconsistent selection criteria employed by the Hall over the years.
   Darlene Love, of course, was one of the Crystals ("He's a Rebel") and was part of Bob B. Soxx and the Blue Jeans, who did the great cover of "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah").  (Trivia question: which other 2011 inductee has recorded a Disney classic?  Stay tuned.)  Love will forever be associated with Phil Spector and his "wall of sound," and songs like "Da Doo Run Run." She sang the best version of  "River Deep, Mountain High," I've ever heard, and it remains a still under-appreciated rock classic.
  Tom Waits is an enormously talented and indiosyncratic musician.   He is the composer of "Jersey Girl," and while an "acquired taste," he, like good scotch, is a taste worth acquiring.
   Jac Holzman was the founder of Electra Records, and introduced the music world to such greats as Judy Collins, the late Phil Ochs, Carly Simon, the Doors and many others.  (While he didn't introduce the world to the great Josh White, he greatly increased White's exposure to a new generation of blues enthusiasts.)  The face that Josh White has not been admitted to the Hall as an "early influence" is a glaring omission.  Ask any blues guitarist worth his licks.  As for Holzman's taste, just look through the Elektra catalogue of the 60's and 70's, and you'll find it a folk and folk-rock who's who.
   Dr. John is a great New Orleans musician, whose piano playing and singing carry the tradition of Dixieland jazz to a new audience, all while advancing his own, unique style.  Listen to him sing "Making Whoopie" (with Ricki Lee Jones), the old Eddie Cantor staple, and you'll know what I mean. That said, a rock and roller he ain't.
   Last, but far from least,  is the long-overdue induction of Neil Diamond.  The Hall requires a performer to  have a twenty-five year reign as a musician before becoming eligible.  They sometimes gets a little too "purist" for my taste, and bend over backwards to honor people who can hardly lay claim to being rock and rollers.  Miles Davis and Johnny Cash were great musicians, but rock was not their genre, nor did they have much influence on the development of rock qua rock.  Look, Tony Bennett, nd Ella Fitzgerald have each made immeasurable contributions to American popular music, but no one should seriously bemoan their absence from the Hall.  Based on his Brill Building credentials, Neil Diamond could have made the Hall as a songwriter alone.  Among other songs, he wrote "I'm a Believer," for the Monkees.  Speaking of the Monkees, their omission from the Hall strikes me as an oversight.  To be sure, they were an "invented" group, an admitted knock-off of the Beatles, and created for TV.  Even so,  they recorded "Last Train to Clarksville," "Daydream Believer," "Pleasant Valley Sunday," and enough other good songs to qualify.  While we're looking at overlooked performers, where' are Carly Simon and Linda Ronstadt? Even Carole King (whose blockbuster "Tapestry" remains one of the great rock albums of all time, is not in the Hall as a performer.  Yes, I know she made the hall with (ex-husband) Gerry Goffin as songwriters, but, come on, she is certainly a performer worth recognizing!  Getting back to Diamond, the fact that so many of us grew up singing and dancing to his songs shouldn't be a disqualifier. Please don't dismiss him as more of a "pop" singer than a rocker.  If so, why is Bobby Darin in the Hall?  Diamond's "You Don't Bring me Flowers" (in fairness, hardly rock and roll),  remains one of the most poignant, adult laments I've ever heard.
    As for other notable omissions, Meat Loaf (and lyricist and pianist Jim Steinman) created the great "Bat Out of Hell" as a reaction against what it saw as the "wimping out" of rock in favor of the folk-rock crooners James Taylor, Jackson Browne and the like.  While I greatly admire Taylor and Browne, doesn't Meat Loaf deserve a shot?  As for the oldies' Carl Perkins and Gene Vincent had basically one-hit each, and made the Hall.  If these country singers made it, what about the multi-talented Kris Kristofferson.  Isn't "Me and Bobby McGee" as worthy as "Be-Bop a Lula?" And as for old rock n' rollers, where pray tell, are the Cleftones? (Oldsters like me fondly remember "Little Girl of Mine," "Can't we be Sweethearts, "You, you, you," and others.  They were real street corner singers.)
  So, two cheers for the Rock  and Roll Hall of Fame.  You usually do get it right,  but sit back one night and give a listen to the people whose songs should be considered knocks on the door.  It may be hard to believe, but Rolling Stone (long considered the rock bible), originally dissed, Elton John, Billy Joel, and the Eagles!  Now they're in the Hall, where they belong.  More importantly (as my son Jason points out), these artists--and their songs--have stood the test of time.
  I believe the Hall should have a "veteran's" committee, like the Baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown, which periodically reviews (and corrects) earlier oversights.  As someone present at the creation of rock and roll, I've always believed it is an emotional music, something that you feel.  While rock criticism has its place, don't rule people out who know how to write the kinds of songs people enjoy hearing.  They came not just from the Brill Building, but from Nashville, St. Louis, Tupelo, New Jersey and Hibbing, Minnesota.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The Tale of the Blue-toothed Mouse

Okay, if you saw the title of this, say, twenty years ago, you might have thought it to be a strange fairy tale, or, perhaps, the title of a bad Science-Fiction novel.  But since this is D.A. 2011 ("Digital Age"), you know what I speak of is an Apple bluetooth mouse, a critical accessory to my new (and, in other respects, terrific) MacIntosh Desktop  OS X 10.6.6.  When I first set it up and installed all the software, the wireless mouse and keypad worked fine.  Soon, alas, I saw a "battery low" indication on the computer.  I disconnected the bluetooth mouse and plugged my old trusty "USB" mouse, which worked just fine.  Since there are nice features peculiar to the bluetooth mouse, I brought it into the local Apple store, and sought the guidance of one of their resident "geniuses." While he had no explanation for  the quick wear-down of the factory supplied batteries, he did suggest that the solution lay in my  purchasing an Apple charger and four Apple rechargeable batteries to obviate the likelihood of the batteries wearing out in the future.  This, I was told, could be had for a mere $29.00.  Why such an accessory was not included in my otherwise state of the art (and pricey) computer, was not explained, apart from the obvious fact that such needed accessories are yet another reason for Apple's extraordinary success.
       Imagine my surprise when the rechargeable batteries did not help my bluetooth mouse move the dormant arrow on my computer screen.  I reluctantly reconnected my faithful "USB" mouse, which worked just fine, and charged my "rechargeable" batteries overnight.  The next morning, sad to say, the supposedly reinvigorated batteries failed to get a rise out of my impotent bluetooth mouse.  I went on-line and typed in my problem (as described above), not once, but twice.  I was then told that an on-line"genius" could answer my question if I agreed to a $38 fee.  Now, I have both the original plus an extended warranty I purchased for the product, and found the "offer" of the $38 charge for a covered service was adding insult to injury. (Permit me, please, a brief  digression on Apple marketing.  Given the $29 cost of the re-charger and the $38 fee for the promised assistance of the on-line "genius," one can't help but wonder about the process by which Apple decided on what to charge for these products.  It's like the old gimmick of charging $19.99 to make it seem less than $20.00.  I wonder who the "genius" is who suggested those odd prices.)
     Reluctant to pay for Apple's on-line assistance, I opted to patiently wait my turn to speak to a real live Apple person.  When he at last came on the phone and announced his name as "Hal," I couldn't help but flash on the Kubrick's  "2001."  He was, however, "real," and, as luck would have it, couldn't have been nicer.  He assured me that there would be no charge for his assistance.  After trying numerous tests, he couldn't figure out why my keyboard should work and my mouse remain hiding in its digital hole.  Excusing himself to consult his supervisor, he returned to have me disconnect, than reconnect my bluetooth software.  At long last, my bluetooth mouse regained its teeth, and I am typing the very blog you see with its assistance.
    Much is made about the impatience of the younger generation and how they now lack the attention span to write a e-mail let alone a ("snail-mail") letter, and how they can barely skip from tweet to abbreviated tweet  (one is reminded of the old Speedwriting subway ad "If u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb & hi pay").  I think this is a bum rap. After having navigated (in the digital equivalent of hunting and pecking) my way around my computer, iPod, iPad, Blackberry, and fax/printer/copier/scanner, and having to endure seemingly endless waits to establish human contact (including, in its preposterous extreme, trying to call a number to get assistance on an inoperable computer only to be advised by the voice robot--just before disconnecting the call-- that I should seek assistance by going on-line), I have nothing but respect for the endurance of  the younger generation.  They have to have inexhaustible patience to endure the waits, end-runs, misdirections, and dead ends that are the way-stations of cyber-space.  Bravo, young folks!  In an earlier day, I would have called or written the President of the company in question and--after being foisted off to an earnest underling-- been able to more easily air my complaint (and vent my frustrations).  With luck, I would have received a coupon redeemable for an industrial sized box of Cheerios.
    Now, even the telephone company (or, more accurately, companies), utilizes voice robots and refers you their websites when you attempt to get information relevant to a device which, after all, is meant to facilitate oral conversation.  If there is one type of business that you might expect to have retained person-to-person contact, it would have been the telecommunications industry. Believe me, if they want to communicate with you to, say, expand your services, they know how to reach out with a human being and contact you in the middle of dinner by phone.
    But, in the spirit of being wary of getting what you wish for, after waiting to speak with a friendly representative from (fill in name of company), you may wind up having your horizons broadened by a polite young man or woman from Calcutta, who hasn't the slightest idea of how to address, let alone, redress, your problem.  LOL,
                                            John
    



Sunday, March 6, 2011

Page Tools - Google Share Button

Page Tools - Google Share Button

Duke Snider, R.I.P.

         Whenever he returns to Brooklyn on his trips east, my old friend, fraternity brother (and unreconstructed Brooklyn Dodger fan), Don Burris, loves to point out the vacant lot in Flatbush on 17th Street (between Tennis Court and Albermarle Road) which was once home to Edwin Snider, illustrious Brooklyn Dodger center-fielder and "Silver Fox," best known as "Da Duke of Flatbush." In a (slightly "on its heels") neighborhood of apartment houses, the lot was once the only private home on the block.
       The Duke died on February 27, 2011 at the age of 84, leaving only Willie Mays as the surviving member of the greatest municipal triumverate of center-fielders the baseball world will ever know.  (I could have said "has" with certainty, but say "will"with some confidence, given the unlikelihood of any city ever again housing three major league baseball teams.)  But New York was, for much of my youth, such a town, and Giant, Yankee and Dodger fans would (and often did) fight to defend their choice of Willie, Mickey, or the Duke as the premier center-fielder in baseball.  As a lifelong Yankee fan, I  pretend to no objectivity on the point, but admit that statistics can be arranged to support any of the three as the best.
      "What?" I can almost hear you say in shock. After all, in its listing of the 100 best players of the 20th century, "baseball bible," The Sporting News, listed Willie Mays as #2, with Mantle trailing at #17, and Duke Snider, a respectable, but distant #83.  "How," you ask, can the Duke, though good even be spoken in the same breath as his fellow hall-of famers?  Batting skills apart, the Duke, like Mantle and Mays, was an excellent fielder. Though much is made of of Mantle's speed, and Mays's arm, it is easy to forget the skill with which Snider patrolled centerfield; his arm a rocket, overshadowed only by the thunderbolt of his right-fielder, Carl "Skoonj" Furillo.
       It was not for nothing that Snider earned the sobriquet, "Duke."  Prematurely grey in his 20's, Snider cut a handsome and dapper figure, both in and out of uniform.  He broke in with the Dodgers in 1947, and was an early champion of Jackie Robinson, and one of the first players to scotch a petition circulated by Fred "Dixie" Walker urging players to refuse to play with Jackie.  The Duke was a great clutch hitter, twice tying the then World Series record of four homers in a single series.  (While Reggie Jackson and Chase Utley have since broken that record with five, no one has ever hit as many as four twice.)
      So yes, statistics will argue that--despite the fact that Snider's lifetime batting average of .295, trails Mantle's .298 by only three points, and Mays's .302 by seven--Willie and Mickey stand head and shoulders over their Brooklyn counterpart.  But consider this: in the critical "Wins above Replacement," category  (which measures the value of replacing a player with a nondescript minor-leaguer) from 1953-1957, Snider's 8.55 beats Mantle's 7.3, and trails Mays's 8.62 (time adjusted for his having missed the '53 season due to military service) by a mere .07.  Consider further this question about the the 1950's.  Who would you say (not only among the three, but across a baseball landscape including such stalwarts as Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Ted Kluszewski, Yogi Berra, and Eddie Mathews) led the majors from 1950-59 in (a) home runs and (b) runs batted in?  The answer for both (a) and (b) is Duke Snider.  Who'da thunk it?  A bunch of aging Brooklyn Dodger fans (like my wife, Riki--although she's ageless), that's who!
    Sportswriting (and sportswriters) have changed.  The peccadilloes of our heroes have long been the stuff of sports headlines. Mickey Mantle, by his own admission, was an habitual alcoholic and womanizer, and the Duke was found guilty of tax-fraud for not disclosing income from baseball-card shows. Even Willie Mays was banned from baseball for a short period due to his connections with a gambling casino.
   When Snider was traded by the (by then Los Angeles) Dodgers, it is said that Don Drysdale wept. So did the ("'buked and scorned") Flatbush faithful.  Let's face it, (apart from moving to L.A. along with the turncoat Giants), the Dodgers had already set a precedent of sorts, when they prompted Jackie Robinson's retirement by trading him to the (gasp!) Giants.  While baseball loves to wallow in nostalgia, it is clearly revisionist, as the sport is (and has always been) a strictly bottom-line venture.  But enough about baseball as the business that it is.  I choose to look at it with the rose-colored glasses through which my youth always seems, well, rosier.
    About fifteen feet from the computer on which I'm typing this blog, there is a section of wall that is my shrine of baseball memorabilia.  By far its most treasured photograph is one taken from an old-timers day at Shea Stadium.  It is an autographed picture of the four best center-fielders to ever play for New York Teams.  It is Willie, Mickey and the Duke (and, oh yeah, a guy named DiMaggio).  Of the four, of course, only Willie survives (and long may he live!).  The others live on in the memories (however distant) of our sun-dappled youth, when we sat in the bleachers and screamed our lungs out for the best center-fielder in New York--whoever that might have been.  For many--and not without reason--it was the Duke of Flatbush.