Meals From The Marketplace

            Many Democrats have been relishing the extended run of “Saturday Night Live”-like performances that the Republicans have been providing via their extended presidential nominating process.  If the cast of characters the party has paraded around the country for the last six months hasn’t been the actual actors on the venerable NBC comedy show, it certainly has been a reasonable facsimile of them.

            Watching one after another of the candidates play the fool has led many Democrats to believe their man is in a strong position to secure a second term when the votes are counted this fall.  But they are deluding themselves if they continue to be lulled into that sense of security.

            The actual election figures to be a nail-biter, perhaps even resulting in another popular vote winner losing to the Electoral College winner, as we saw in 2000.  Here are some of the reasons that prediction is far more plausible than you may think:

1)      Anybody but Romney will turn into Anybody but Obama – Yes, most of the rank and file Republicans who are voting in these primaries and caucuses would rather not have Mitt Romney as their candidate.  Their reasons range from the perception that he isn’t a true conservative to his seeming insincerity to his inability to project a “real human” image on the stump to his “cult” religion.  But those concerns will pale in comparison to the real goal they have in the general election.  And that goal is to defeat Obama.

The 35-40 percent of the country that aligns with the Republican Party wants nothing more than to limit Barack Obama to a single term, and they will rally around their nominee like flies to horse manure once the primary season is over. 

2)      It’s the Economy, Stupid – While recent news on the economic front has been generally favorable, the fact remains that unemployment is still over eight percent and not likely to get much lower.  In fact, as the ranks of those seeking work grow (as they did last month and will for much of the rest of the year), the rate is very likely to bump up a bit, even with continued good job growth.

The simple reality is that many voters will decide whom they vote for based on their feelings about the current state of the economy, and 8.5 percent unemployment (or higher) will spell big trouble for any incumbent.

And so will high gas prices, such as we are seeing now.  True, the president cannot control these prices, but most voters won’t care if they are paying four dollars or more for a gallon of gas come the fall.

3)      Afghanistan – Yes, he got bin Laden, and yes, he’s kept the country free from terrorist attack, but most Americans are sick of the war and recent events don’t make them feel any better.  Whether for good reasons or bad, Obama has been hawkish on the war, following the advice of his military advisers from the onset of his presidency.  When voters start wondering if the country is in another Viet Nam, the incumbent president is going to be in trouble.

4)      Money – Don’t look now but a lot more money is pouring into these primary campaigns than the country has ever seen before.  With the Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, campaign financing has become open field for the country’s wealthiest individuals via the so-called Super PACs.  As a result, the big financial advantage that Obama had in ’08 will be a distant memory this year.  He’ll be lucky if he and his Super PACs can match the Republicans’ versions of the same.  And that fact leads to the next concern team Obama should have.

5)      Swift-boating – The Republicans invented this campaign tactic, and they are still the masters of it.  It consists of telling a lie often and convincingly enough that voters believe it.  They used it to defeat John Kerry in 2004, with many voters really believing that he was a war coward (or, even worse, a traitor), rather than the war hero he was.  They’ll use some version of it again this year, and the Democrats won’t return fire with fire because, well, because they’re Democrats.

6)      The Electoral College – Bona fide election prognosticators already know that the election will be won or lost in eleven or twelve key “battleground” states.  Those states could swing either way, and which way most of them (or those with the majority of electoral votes) go will determine the ultimate winner of the election.

The math isn’t all that complicated, as Tim Russert proved with his mini-chalkboard on election night back in 2000.  The key number is 270, which is the total a candidate must amass to win the election.  (In 2000, George W. Bush, with the Supreme Court ultimately awarding Florida’s 25 votes to him, had 271.)

With the Democrats dominant in the Far West and the Northeast, and the Republicans in control in the South and much of the heartland of the country, each party’s candidate can count on close to 200 Electoral College votes (absent a landslide, which no one is predicting this year).  The swing states comprise the remaining 125 to 150 votes, and Obama is at risk in most of them.

Democrats like to say that they have any number of different plans on how to get to 270, but all of those plans require the president to win a number of those swing states, and none of those states are in the bag or figure to be so until all the votes are counted.

It’s true that Obama won most of the swing states in 2008 on his way to a mini-landslide 365-173 Electoral College victory, but some of those were very close and are considered near locks for the Republicans this fall.

            And so, Democrats should stop their chuckling.  The Republicans may look pretty inept right about now, but in six months they’ll have a nominee who will be a formidable opponent to Barack Hussein Obama.

            When Rush Limbaugh was just a local talk show host in Sacramento (on AM station KFBK from 1984-’88), he wasn’t all that sure about a lot of things.  His politics were conservative, but they were unrefined enough that he regularly engaged with a U.C. Davis political science professor (Larry Berman) who would take him to task for his ignorance of U.S. history and its implications in the then-current political environment.

            After many of these on-air conversations, Limbaugh would say something like, “Hey, what do I know?  I just want to be a rich Republican.”

            That he wasn’t all that up on the details (either as to history or current events) shouldn’t have been any great surprise.  His formal education ended after one year of college when he dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University, which he had reportedly only agreed to attend at all because his parents had insisted he give college a try.

            Prior to his Sacramento talk show, Limbaugh had been a disc jockey for a couple of years on two Pittsburgh stations (the GM of the second fired him and told him he should work in sales), and just prior to the Sacramento gig he had been the promotions director for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. 

            He was hired by KFBK to replace the late Morton Downey, Jr., who was a fiery conservative who had a history of getting himself in trouble for making outlandish and unsupported statements about political figures and issues.  Limbaugh’s early period on the station was far less vitriolic.  He would state conservative positions, but we’re talking about the days when being conservative meant saving social security by increasing taxes.  In other words, he was, in terms of the politics of 2012, a flaming liberal.

            I recall, in particular, one series of shows Limbaugh aired from Washington, DC, where he spent a week trying to build ratings.  (The station made a big deal of the shows, proclaiming in promotional ads that Limbaugh would be talking to the country’s “real policy makers.”)  He did get a few interviews with Senators and the like, but most of what he asked was of the human interest variety, like “what’s life like when you’re a Senator?”

            It was the typical small-town hick sounding star-struck while trying to act like a seasoned vet. 

            But Limbaugh figured out the game quickly enough, and by 1988, having built, during his four years at KFBK, a sizeable following, and having honed a more definitive (if simplistic) enunciation of his conservatism, he was hired by a major broadcaster to take his show nation-wide.  By 1991, his show was being carried on 650 stations across the country.

            And the last two decades have been all Rush, as he has dominated the talk radio format and been the model that others on the right have cloned themselves after. 

            But Limbaugh’s dominance isn’t confined to the hard-right “infotainment” that he provides.  He has become the leading voice for the Republican Party’s rank and file (the base of the party that is in the process of picking a presidential nominee).  And, as such, he often appears to be dictating, rather than mouthing, the party’s talking points.

            All of which makes the current imbroglio that Mr. Limbaugh has brought upon himself that much more intriguing.  In defaming a young female law student (Georgetown’s Sandra Fluke) in the grossest of terms and with the most repulsive forms of “humor” (solely because she testified to a gathering of Democratic members of Congress), this man from humble beginnings and of meager intellectual credentials has created a firestorm of opposition to his views on contraception and to his party’s apparent hostility to women.

            That Limbaugh chose to engage at all on this issue is strange enough.  He obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about (not that he’s ever felt constrained by his own ignorance in the past), since he equates contraceptives (the “pill”) with sexual promiscuity.  In fact, his comments suggest that he believes the pill works for women the way Viagra works for men, a “take only when you are going to have sex” medication that only sexual libertines and profligates use.

            Limbaugh may well be a sicko (define that word however you like) as some have suggested.  Be that as it may, he would almost certainly now be off the air (either on a long-term suspension or just plain fired) were it not for his massive following (estimates of his weekly radio audience are as high as 20 million listeners).

            Still, in the aftermath of the deluge of his offensive and despicable attacks on Ms. Fluke last week (delivered on three successive days), two developments bear watching.

            The first is the status of his program’s sponsorship. By the end of last weekend, even with his less than abject “apology” (“I used the wrong words in my analogy of the situation”), he had temporarily lost nine sponsors for his show.  Should that trend continue, or become permanent, Limbaugh will quickly find himself an unemployed “rich Republican.”

            But the more interesting and potentially significant development has been the reaction of Republican Party leaders to his intemperate remarks.  House Speaker John Boehner, the nominal, if not actual, leader of the national party, called Limbaugh’s comments “inappropriate,” to which conservative pundit George Will, expressing obvious disgust, replied, “Using the salad fork for the entrée at dinner is inappropriate.”

            Mitt Romney echoed Boehner’s tepid response, as did Rick Santorum.  What are these would-be-presidents and party leaders afraid of?  Is Limbaugh really too big to take on or at least scold? 

            The sad answer is that he is, at least if you are trying to avoid the opprobrium of the “ditto-head nation” that swears allegiance to Limbaugh.  Viewed sympathetically, that would be the kinder and gentler explanation.

            The less charitable one would be that, as in all matters of substance and policy in the world of conservatism these days, Rush Limbaugh really does say what most Republicans (both those serving in public office and those electing them) actually believe.

            The Academy Awards are fun if you don’t take them too seriously.  Over the years many a completely forgettable film has gotten the top award while others that live on decades later have been rejected by the fickle voting members of the Academy.

            This year the entire process of selecting the best film got shaken up yet again, with not five, not ten, but nine films nominated.  If you didn’t know the reason, you might have thought Herman Cain had dictated the number.

            Actually, the nine nominations were the result of a complicated new nominating system that recognized both films that had wide support (having received a lot of votes in the initial balloting) and those that had what might be called a fervent, if less widely appreciated, following (having received a sizeable number of first-place votes).  I could go into greater detail on the process that was used this year, but you aren’t reading this column to learn higher math.

            Rather, I want to offer, as I do every year, how I would have voted, assuming the nine films that were nominated were my only choices.  And, just to complete my entirely subjective take on the year in film, I’ll finish by noting the one film that wasn’t nominated that might have really been the best of the bunch.

            So, to take the nine in reverse order, let me first dispense with the four that really weren’t deserving of the recognition they got with the best picture nomination.

            “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” was the worst of the lot.  I assume the book is a lot more interesting and meaningful, but the movie struck me as a 9/11 story that cheapens the historical event and doesn’t even contain a meaningful payoff for the story it does tell.

            I could (and will) say the same thing about “The Help” and “Moneyball” (having read neither of those as well).  The former may have been well-intentioned, but it was really just a glorified soap opera built on a serious topic.  The strong acting by the fine cast wasn’t enough to overcome a weak script.  And “Moneyball” wasn’t inside baseball enough to work as a thinking-fan’s film and wasn’t exciting enough to appeal to non-baseball fans.  Nice work by Brad Pitt didn’t elevate the significance of the film.

            Woody Allen has made a slew of great movies, but “Midnight in Paris,” despite its surprising box office success, isn’t one of them.  I am a devotee of Allen and would never besmirch his genius, but this film, thoroughly enjoyable and even inventive as it is, doesn’t come close to the pathos of “Annie Hall” or Manhattan,” or the brilliance of “Crimes and Misdemeanors” or “Match Point,” or the charm of “Hannah and Her Sisters.”

            Of the five that did deserve their nominations, I’d place “The Artist” as the least impressive.  Don’t get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoyed the film, found it delightfully inventive and loved the closing dance scene.  But it’s pretty much a one-note samba as movies go, light, very light, on plot (unless you’ve never seen “All About Eve” or any of its many remakes) and while nostalgia is hardly a bad thing, nothing about the silent film era was captured with anywhere near the depth of understanding that Martin Scorsese explored in “Hugo.”

            “War Horse” is cinematically majestic, with the look and sound of Spielberg all over it.  That’s both a good and not-so-good thing.  The good is just watching it, as the great horse of the title passes from one owner to the next while the First World War is shown from all sides.  Some scenes are absolutely exquisite, even breath-taking.  But the not-so-good is the over-bearing John Williams score (yes, it’s great music, but can we not notice it in every scene?) and the sappy ending that makes it just another feel good movie that could have been much more.

            Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” is the most frustratingly ambitious and brilliant attempt at breakthrough film-making in years.  At its best it is awesome, a personal reflection on everything about our existence that is both terrifying and glorious.  But the family story, such as it is, that forms the heart of the film, is unfocused, and the bookends around it can easily be labeled pretentious.  Still, it’s a work of art, flawed but worth great praise nonetheless.

            And that leaves Scorsese’s “Hugo” and Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants.”  Either would have been completely acceptable choices as the best film of the year, but my vote would have been for Payne’s heartfelt masterpiece.  While Scorsese’s film is brilliantly conceived and produced and is a much more sincere paean to the early days of film-making than “The Artist,” it is just a little too easily wrapped up and sweetened, which may be why it was foolishly marketed as a children’s film.

            “Descendants,” on the other hand, tells a real story with real people who are shown with all their flaws as they struggle with real-life drama.  And its ending, while not sorrowful by any means, just feels right, natural, and therefore beautiful.  “The Descendants” is a film to cherish more than admire, which is how I’d describe “Hugo.” 

            I’d happily see either one again, and certainly hope to add both to my library when they are released on video.  But where “Hugo” goes for the head, “Descendants” hits at the heart, which, for me, gives it the edge.

            So that’s how I’d rank the nine films the Academy did end up nominating and how I would have voted for the big prize.  But I promised to name the film that should have been nominated and maybe even been picked as the best of all.

            And that film is “Beginners,” the little gem by Mike Mills that starred Ewan McGregor, Melanie Laurent, and the great Christopher Plummer.  This one came and quickly went last spring and thus wasn’t appreciated by a wide audience.

            It’s a story about growing up, whether you’re in your thirties or your eighties, and I loved it.

(Note: This column was prepared by E. Haig, the Sacramento-based performing arts critic whom Ed Telfeyan most admires.)

            The annual Hollywood love-fest, otherwise known as the Academy Awards Show, brought back host Billy Crystal (for the ninth time, but first since 2004), and made the most of his presence by playing up the comedy while discounting the massive production numbers that have made it so bloated in recent years.

            The need for a change was obvious.  The ratings for the show have been in decline, and with the movies nominated for the big awards also not gaining much traction with mass audiences, the fear was that the show would fall from its perch as the most watched prime time show of the year.  (The Super Bowl doesn’t figure in this category, since it is primarily a Sunday afternoon event.)

            As awards shows go, Oscar is still the biggie, but last year’s effort to draw in a younger viewing audience (with co-hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway putting viewers to sleep with their boring attempts at repartee) was a complete flop. 

            And so, after first choice Eddie Murphy withdrew as the announced host, Crystal was hurriedly called and whisked out of “retirement” to renew the routine he had perfected in his earlier turns at the job that Bob Hope owned back when Oscar was the only significant awards show.

            The show began with Crystal again injecting himself into key scenes from the best picture nominees.  This trademark opening montage is always a hit, and this year was no exception, with the George Clooney kiss to Crystal (in place of the dying wife in “The Descendants”) the funniest of the redone scenes. 

            He then appeared in person on the big stage, where he repeated another bit that has become a Crystal tradition – singing made-up lyrics that spoof many of the nominees.  It was a great start to the show, and that level of humor and good feeling was continued for much of the night.

            The show benefitted greatly from the apparently conscious decision to drop the big song and dance numbers.  Not having to perform the nominated songs (curiously, there were only two this year, both from animated films) certainly helped.  While some songs from movies have become standards (“Moon River,” “Over the Rainbow,” “The Way We Were”), we could certainly have done without the performance of “It’s Hard Out There for a Pimp” (the 2005 winner), and most recent winners have been eminently forgettable.

            The one big production number this year was provided by the Cirque du Soleil folks.  Their rendition of a “typical night at the movies” was a real showstopper, although, for our tastes, it would have been more impressive if the camera had stayed focused on the full stage, instead of intermittently trying to highlight certain parts of the three-ring performance to the exclusion of others.

            Another camera snafu occurred when the honorary Oscar recipients were recognized.  All three (Oprah Winfrey, this year’s winner of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award), actor James Earl Jones (lifetime achievement award) and Dick Smith (long-time make-up artist) were all seated together in one of the second level loges in the big hall.  The camera briefly showed them acknowledging the standing ovation they received, but then it quickly panned the audience, never to return to the three honorees.

            Crystal reappeared throughout the evening to offer more humor.  Of these bits, the best were his improvisational “what they’re thinking,” where he gave funny thoughts to the stars shown on screen.  The pre-taped “first focus group” (of the initial reaction to “The Wizard of Oz”) also engendered a few chuckles.

            Among the presenters, Robert Downey, Jr. had a good bit with Gwyneth Paltrow.  Downey came on stage with a camera crew following him and claimed he was making a documentary while Paltrow feigned first confusion, then frustration and finally dismissive disgust.  Another funny pairing featured Emma Stone and Ben Stiller, with Stone acting like a star-dazed rookie and Stiller an impatient veteran at presenting an Oscar.  Stone got the last laugh, reminding Stiller of the ridiculous Na’vi (from “Avatar”) make-up he wore when presenting the best make-up award two years ago.

            Other highlights and items to note included the interspersed pre-recorded comments by recognizable actors on a variety of subjects (including their memories of their first movie-going experience and what makes a memorable movie); Sandra Bullock’s two sentences in Mandarin Chinese (with a German accent) introducing the best foreign film nominees; the exquisite dress donned by Jennifer Lopez (boldly featuring a V-cut décolleté that was eye-popping); and the lovely rendition of “What a Wonderful World” by Esperanza Spalding and the California Children’s Choir while the “In Memoriam” segment played on the giant screen in the hall.

            The acceptance speeches were notably shorter this year, with Meryl Streep delivering the most articulate and Octavia Spencer the most emotional.  Thankfully, there were no heavily partisan political speeches, and the seven-second tape delay was only needed once, when an apparently inebriated co-producer of the feature-length documentary winner (“Undefeated”) had a run of words made inaudible by the network censors.  (Whatever he said was not detectable to our lip-reading efforts.)

            As for the rest, there were a bunch of awards, as Ed Telfeyan reports and comments on elsewhere this week.  For our part, let’s just say this wasn’t the worst Oscar show we’ve seen, and, in fact, was far better than it has been in recent years.

            Call it progress and hope the trend continues.