.jpg)
This t-shirt will be a giveaway next month. Still trying to come up with an idea for a contest where I can showcase it...
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Radio, Retirements, and Gone are the Good 'Ol Days
Rob Feder's column in the Chicago Sun-Times this morning noted that one of my favorite radio programs is losing its longtime host.
Rick O'Dell, a compadre from my very early days in Chicago radio at the old WCLR (now WTMX), started The Sunday Lite Brunch twenty-one years ago. Smooth jazz was in its infancy and Rick created a warm and comfortable place to be on Sundays whether you chose to sit on the couch and read the paper with him or get out and bike through the neighborhood. Rick left WCLR for WNUA and carried Lite Brunch with him, helping to brand 'NUA as one of the top, if not the top, lite jazz stations in the country.
Rick's departure from the show leaves him free to pursue other projects at the station but it reminds me of the changes I've seen recently in Chicago radio.
Barry Keefe, my old boss at 'CLR and then 'TMX, left the station recently after thirty-some years reading morning drive news.
Across town, WLS radio fired a handful of people, several of them friends and former co-workers, and decimated a professional news organization. Fortunately, John Dempsey and Jim Johnson remain in place but I know from first-hand experience how tough it is to anchor news in a shop without enough manpower. I going to guess it's a bit like being a fighter pilot who's told that, in addition to the flying, he now has to do all his own maintenence. Oh and load the bombs while you're at it, willya?
Of course, change is nothing new in the radio business . For years, WMAQ radio (670) gave WBBM (780) a decent run for the all-news audience in Chicago. Working there was the most fun I had in the business. 'MAQ shut its doors in 2000. A number of 'Q vets moved over to 'BBM; some left radio for public information posts with the city.
Now Sam Zell has taken over the Chicago Tribune and I'm watching to see how, if at all, his people will change WGN Radio (720). An industry leader with a great clear-channel signal, its loyal listeners keep 'GN at the top of the ratings but, with new management comes new philosophy and new approaches to doing business. I don't expect to see an upheaval in programming at 'GN but Zell will surely tinker with it. Maybe that's a good thing.
What disappoints me about radio in Chicago, and elsewhere, is that its lost its punch. Whether it results from staff downsizing, low morale, or just a lack of energetic direction from the bosses, radio doesn't "break" news any more. I seldom hear even a new angle reported on old stories. Real street reporting, the chase for exclusives, even the first breathless reports from the scene of a four-alarm fire, seems to be left to TV. Radio follows when it can. That's not to say some radio reporters aren't out there digging. But they aren't given nearly the support they deserve for their efforts. And that sentence isn't exactly breaking news, either.
Years ago, I was writing copy for a newscast at a station where I worked in Kansas, listening as a station secretary lead a high school tour through the newsroom. She pointed out the on-air studios and the police scanners and the newswire machines and to us "hard working newsguys" and then pointed to a stack of newspapers sitting on a shelf. "And those are the day's newspapers," she said, "where they get the news they report."
Unfortunately, I think that was a prediction of where radio news is headed.
Rick O'Dell, a compadre from my very early days in Chicago radio at the old WCLR (now WTMX), started The Sunday Lite Brunch twenty-one years ago. Smooth jazz was in its infancy and Rick created a warm and comfortable place to be on Sundays whether you chose to sit on the couch and read the paper with him or get out and bike through the neighborhood. Rick left WCLR for WNUA and carried Lite Brunch with him, helping to brand 'NUA as one of the top, if not the top, lite jazz stations in the country.
Rick's departure from the show leaves him free to pursue other projects at the station but it reminds me of the changes I've seen recently in Chicago radio.
Barry Keefe, my old boss at 'CLR and then 'TMX, left the station recently after thirty-some years reading morning drive news.
Across town, WLS radio fired a handful of people, several of them friends and former co-workers, and decimated a professional news organization. Fortunately, John Dempsey and Jim Johnson remain in place but I know from first-hand experience how tough it is to anchor news in a shop without enough manpower. I going to guess it's a bit like being a fighter pilot who's told that, in addition to the flying, he now has to do all his own maintenence. Oh and load the bombs while you're at it, willya?
Of course, change is nothing new in the radio business . For years, WMAQ radio (670) gave WBBM (780) a decent run for the all-news audience in Chicago. Working there was the most fun I had in the business. 'MAQ shut its doors in 2000. A number of 'Q vets moved over to 'BBM; some left radio for public information posts with the city.
Now Sam Zell has taken over the Chicago Tribune and I'm watching to see how, if at all, his people will change WGN Radio (720). An industry leader with a great clear-channel signal, its loyal listeners keep 'GN at the top of the ratings but, with new management comes new philosophy and new approaches to doing business. I don't expect to see an upheaval in programming at 'GN but Zell will surely tinker with it. Maybe that's a good thing.
What disappoints me about radio in Chicago, and elsewhere, is that its lost its punch. Whether it results from staff downsizing, low morale, or just a lack of energetic direction from the bosses, radio doesn't "break" news any more. I seldom hear even a new angle reported on old stories. Real street reporting, the chase for exclusives, even the first breathless reports from the scene of a four-alarm fire, seems to be left to TV. Radio follows when it can. That's not to say some radio reporters aren't out there digging. But they aren't given nearly the support they deserve for their efforts. And that sentence isn't exactly breaking news, either.
Years ago, I was writing copy for a newscast at a station where I worked in Kansas, listening as a station secretary lead a high school tour through the newsroom. She pointed out the on-air studios and the police scanners and the newswire machines and to us "hard working newsguys" and then pointed to a stack of newspapers sitting on a shelf. "And those are the day's newspapers," she said, "where they get the news they report."
Unfortunately, I think that was a prediction of where radio news is headed.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Heroes and A Story of War
If asked to point out my heroes before today, I would have said cops and firefighters in general and my former runnin' and gunnin' cop partner, Ken Pierce, in specific. Ken's a brave and scrappy mo-fo who's finished fighting crooks and now wages a close up and personal battle with the debilitating effects of diabetes.
But today, I have a new hero. His name is Marcus Luttrell.
I met Marcus over lunch. He's a big, broad-shouldered, tough young man with a Texas twang and a horse wrangler's hard handshake. Passing him on the street, you might mistake him for a professional football player, his stiff gait that of a quarterback sacked once too often. He is attentive and polite when addressed directly. He is articulate. He answers most questions with a crisp, "Yes, sir." Yet, there is an aloofness to him, a wary caution, and his eyes are those of someone who has been physically and emotionally devastated and who has yet to fully climb back up from the abyss.
Marcus is a former Navy Seal who had his reconnisance team blown out from under him by the Taliban in Afghanistan. They died. So did sixteen other Spec Ops guys who headed in to rescue them.
Marcus documents his incredible saga of courage and loss in the book, Lone Survivor, The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10. At lunch today, he told us that story with the same combination of wry humor and self-deprecation he'd probably use talking to buddies in a bar, mixed with the no-nonsense manner of an after-action report. Four men against a Taliban force of over 100. Multiple wounds from AK-47 and RPG fragments. Shrapnel in his legs. His tongue bitten half off. His team members, including his best friend, cut down.
He also offered respectful, but forceful, criticsm of those leaders who assign special ops teams to a theatre of war, yet hamstring them with rules of engagement that prevent them from properly carrying out the work the military has spent millions of dollars training them to do.
"Go on about your lives. Let us do our job," he told us. "Turn your backs if you must. Send us over, let us do our jobs and we'll come back and it will be done. Any war is winnable if you're willing to do what it takes."
His words echo those I hear from veteran street cops. The bad guys know the rules we have to follow and use them against us. They know what we can, and can't do. For God's sake, let us do what you pay us for.
Marcus' audience was a mix of business people and military personnel in uniform, including Navy recruits bussed in by the USO as well as a handful of members of Army and Navy special ops teams. There was no sign, as far as I could see, of any Navy brass. Plenty of enlisted came to listen. Plenty of recruits. No Navy brass, at least not in uniform. No Admirals. No Generals from the other services, either. I wonder why.
I wonder, too, how many of those upright business folks, some of whom probably have the numbers of their senators and congressmen on speed dial for cocktails and golf outings, gave real thought to his message and how many dismissed it as just another enjoyable luncheon speech and left with an autographed book to take home and put on a shelf.
Beats me.
All I know for sure is that Marcus wrote "Never forget" as the inscription in my copy of his book.
As if I could.
But today, I have a new hero. His name is Marcus Luttrell.
I met Marcus over lunch. He's a big, broad-shouldered, tough young man with a Texas twang and a horse wrangler's hard handshake. Passing him on the street, you might mistake him for a professional football player, his stiff gait that of a quarterback sacked once too often. He is attentive and polite when addressed directly. He is articulate. He answers most questions with a crisp, "Yes, sir." Yet, there is an aloofness to him, a wary caution, and his eyes are those of someone who has been physically and emotionally devastated and who has yet to fully climb back up from the abyss.
Marcus is a former Navy Seal who had his reconnisance team blown out from under him by the Taliban in Afghanistan. They died. So did sixteen other Spec Ops guys who headed in to rescue them.
Marcus documents his incredible saga of courage and loss in the book, Lone Survivor, The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10. At lunch today, he told us that story with the same combination of wry humor and self-deprecation he'd probably use talking to buddies in a bar, mixed with the no-nonsense manner of an after-action report. Four men against a Taliban force of over 100. Multiple wounds from AK-47 and RPG fragments. Shrapnel in his legs. His tongue bitten half off. His team members, including his best friend, cut down.
He also offered respectful, but forceful, criticsm of those leaders who assign special ops teams to a theatre of war, yet hamstring them with rules of engagement that prevent them from properly carrying out the work the military has spent millions of dollars training them to do.
"Go on about your lives. Let us do our job," he told us. "Turn your backs if you must. Send us over, let us do our jobs and we'll come back and it will be done. Any war is winnable if you're willing to do what it takes."
His words echo those I hear from veteran street cops. The bad guys know the rules we have to follow and use them against us. They know what we can, and can't do. For God's sake, let us do what you pay us for.
Marcus' audience was a mix of business people and military personnel in uniform, including Navy recruits bussed in by the USO as well as a handful of members of Army and Navy special ops teams. There was no sign, as far as I could see, of any Navy brass. Plenty of enlisted came to listen. Plenty of recruits. No Navy brass, at least not in uniform. No Admirals. No Generals from the other services, either. I wonder why.
I wonder, too, how many of those upright business folks, some of whom probably have the numbers of their senators and congressmen on speed dial for cocktails and golf outings, gave real thought to his message and how many dismissed it as just another enjoyable luncheon speech and left with an autographed book to take home and put on a shelf.
Beats me.
All I know for sure is that Marcus wrote "Never forget" as the inscription in my copy of his book.
As if I could.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Crime Scene at the Library
My buddy and fellow author Linda Mickey (www.lindamickey.com) and I get to do a cool presentation to library audiences in the Chicago area a few times a year and it's not just a trick to sell books.
Aware of the public's fascination with forensic science shows like CSI and NCIS, we teamed up with a forensic scientist from the Northern Illinois Police Crime Laboratory to offer an hour of give and take about the role a real lab plays in the investigation of homicide. Linda moderates. I get a chance to play the police role as an evidence technician (in Illinois, police officers trained as evidence techs process the crime scene). Ken Pfoser, a DNA analyst, describes what happens when certain kinds of evidence arrive at his lab.
It's been a fascinating experience. One thing that amazes me is the number of people who attend. We've had as many as seventy to eighty folks turn out for a session. They ask terrific questions, too.
One of our goals is to dispel some of the myths television and movies create about crime scene investigation. Another is to showcase the incredible work done by forensic scientists and the advances made in the last few years in crimesolving technology. For example, just a couple of years ago it took months to process a DNA sample. Now, in critical circumstances, Ken tells us he could do the work in a week.
Most people are interested to learn that responsibility for processing what is often the largest piece of evidence in a homicide, the body, falls specifically to the coroner or medical examiner and not the crime lab. And that the morgue where autopsies are done is not next door to the crime lab, as it is on CSI. Many people are also surprised to discover that the lab's forensic scientists, except in unusual cases, seldom travel to crime scenes, leaving that work to the police evidence technicians (who are trained by crime lab personnel).
Another thing we note is that the science used on CSI is mostly real, not fantasy, but that CSI's writers manipulate the way it's used for dramatic effect. Ken says he hasn't yet found a machine that will not only spit out a DNA result but show the person's name, address, drivers' license picture and criminal history all on the same screen!
Aware of the public's fascination with forensic science shows like CSI and NCIS, we teamed up with a forensic scientist from the Northern Illinois Police Crime Laboratory to offer an hour of give and take about the role a real lab plays in the investigation of homicide. Linda moderates. I get a chance to play the police role as an evidence technician (in Illinois, police officers trained as evidence techs process the crime scene). Ken Pfoser, a DNA analyst, describes what happens when certain kinds of evidence arrive at his lab.
It's been a fascinating experience. One thing that amazes me is the number of people who attend. We've had as many as seventy to eighty folks turn out for a session. They ask terrific questions, too.
One of our goals is to dispel some of the myths television and movies create about crime scene investigation. Another is to showcase the incredible work done by forensic scientists and the advances made in the last few years in crimesolving technology. For example, just a couple of years ago it took months to process a DNA sample. Now, in critical circumstances, Ken tells us he could do the work in a week.
Most people are interested to learn that responsibility for processing what is often the largest piece of evidence in a homicide, the body, falls specifically to the coroner or medical examiner and not the crime lab. And that the morgue where autopsies are done is not next door to the crime lab, as it is on CSI. Many people are also surprised to discover that the lab's forensic scientists, except in unusual cases, seldom travel to crime scenes, leaving that work to the police evidence technicians (who are trained by crime lab personnel).
Another thing we note is that the science used on CSI is mostly real, not fantasy, but that CSI's writers manipulate the way it's used for dramatic effect. Ken says he hasn't yet found a machine that will not only spit out a DNA result but show the person's name, address, drivers' license picture and criminal history all on the same screen!
Monday, May 12, 2008
How I Use Violence
I agree with Raymond Chandler. A good way to spice up a scene is to have a guy with a gun come through the door.
What I don't care for is having the guy come in blasting, a shotgun in one hand, a machete in the other, killing everyone in the room and drenching the walls with their blood and brain matter. And doing it again and again for no reason.
Fictional violence is a transition not a destination.
Make it sudden, make it awful or unusual if you must to move the plot, and then show the result. And I don't mean blood soaking into the carpet. I mean the emotional outcome. The practical, real-life result. People die and people grieve. People get angry. People react. Make it awful, make it startling, end it and move along. Violence to me is like a good declarative sentence. It doesn't need modification by adjectives and adverbs of gore. What happens next is the important part. If it doesn't move the plot, get rid of it. Violence for the sake of a cheap thrill is meaningless.
In my first book, Deader by the Lake, my character shoots and kills a guy. He's affected by it. He sees a torture victim. And reacts. I describe what's probably the first drive-by shooting by helicopter. It isn't pretty but it doesn't linger. And the reader sees that there's collateral damage. Innocent people die, too. In Every Secret Crime, the violence is as real as I can make it. Consequences follow.
Violence always has its aftermath. To me, that's often where the real drama takes place.
High speed chases are fun in the movies, aren't they? Cars crashing into one another. All daring maneuvers and explosions. Let me tell you a story from real life.
As a deputy sheriff, I was involved in several high speed pursuits. One started when a guy drove off without paying for a tank of gas. Stupid reason for a chase but violence often results from stupidity. Three squads chased the guy down the interstate at 90 miles per hour. An officer in one of them tried to shoot out the guy's tires. Foolish given his offense but, just like on TV. A heck of an action sequence.
I was driving the third squad. What I remember is hearing the shots and how the offender sideswiped another car right in front of me. How the impact ripped open the drivers' door of that other car and sent the twenty-something mother of two sprawling onto the highway. I stopped my squad literally inches short of running over her head. Fortunately, her children were strapped into car seats and not injured. They screamed and screamed. For hours it seemed like. Then I got to tell her husband what happened. He was devastated. The woman didn't die but her recovery took months.
Cause and effect. Stupidity, action, reaction.
Violence doesn't happen in a vaccum.
That's why I write violent scenes. To examine what happens next.
What I don't care for is having the guy come in blasting, a shotgun in one hand, a machete in the other, killing everyone in the room and drenching the walls with their blood and brain matter. And doing it again and again for no reason.
Fictional violence is a transition not a destination.
Make it sudden, make it awful or unusual if you must to move the plot, and then show the result. And I don't mean blood soaking into the carpet. I mean the emotional outcome. The practical, real-life result. People die and people grieve. People get angry. People react. Make it awful, make it startling, end it and move along. Violence to me is like a good declarative sentence. It doesn't need modification by adjectives and adverbs of gore. What happens next is the important part. If it doesn't move the plot, get rid of it. Violence for the sake of a cheap thrill is meaningless.
In my first book, Deader by the Lake, my character shoots and kills a guy. He's affected by it. He sees a torture victim. And reacts. I describe what's probably the first drive-by shooting by helicopter. It isn't pretty but it doesn't linger. And the reader sees that there's collateral damage. Innocent people die, too. In Every Secret Crime, the violence is as real as I can make it. Consequences follow.
Violence always has its aftermath. To me, that's often where the real drama takes place.
High speed chases are fun in the movies, aren't they? Cars crashing into one another. All daring maneuvers and explosions. Let me tell you a story from real life.
As a deputy sheriff, I was involved in several high speed pursuits. One started when a guy drove off without paying for a tank of gas. Stupid reason for a chase but violence often results from stupidity. Three squads chased the guy down the interstate at 90 miles per hour. An officer in one of them tried to shoot out the guy's tires. Foolish given his offense but, just like on TV. A heck of an action sequence.
I was driving the third squad. What I remember is hearing the shots and how the offender sideswiped another car right in front of me. How the impact ripped open the drivers' door of that other car and sent the twenty-something mother of two sprawling onto the highway. I stopped my squad literally inches short of running over her head. Fortunately, her children were strapped into car seats and not injured. They screamed and screamed. For hours it seemed like. Then I got to tell her husband what happened. He was devastated. The woman didn't die but her recovery took months.
Cause and effect. Stupidity, action, reaction.
Violence doesn't happen in a vaccum.
That's why I write violent scenes. To examine what happens next.
Monday, May 5, 2008
A Little Celtic Celebration For You
Always a Celtic music fan, I recently discovered the delight of Celtic Woman and the raw energy of Bowfire. Thank you PBS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwV3CzbeHKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwV3CzbeHKU
Video Games and Real Violence
Over the last couple of days there's been an interesting thread on CrimeSceneWriter, a discussion site for mystery writers, concerning the connection between kids, video games and real-life violence such as the various school shootings.
It reminded me of an excellent book I read several years ago by Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a retired army ranger, psychologist and instructor at West Point who is the founder of the Killology Research Group (http://www.killology.com/). He is an expert in the field of human aggression and killing, particularly in war.
In his book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence, I especially recall him talking about the very practical connection between video games and real killing. Video games, now used by the military, are excellent at helping to develop eye/hand co-ordination in kids who may never have fired a real weapon before. This factored into one school shooting he discussed where the kid, an expert at video games but who had no familiarity with real rifles, had a kill ratio much higher than one would expect for a first time shooter.
Ever since I covered the Columbine massacre, I've become interested in the subject of school violence. I don't agree with those who claim that, by themselves, video games, violent movies and/or books cause kids to act out in a violent manner. I think that's akin to believing pornography alone causes rape. Like rapists, young people who shoot their fellow students are motivated by a myriad of experiences. Often they include tacit permission by teachers, parents and peers who ignore or excuse pre-killing behavior such as writing bizarre but carefully researched violent stories (a Mississippi boy wrote a highly detailed paper about poisoning his family. His teacher gave him a good grade. Afterward, he killed his family with cyanide stolen from a school lab), making threats (one child planning a school shooting had scrawled "Everyone must die" and "Kill everyone" on his bedroom wall) creating violent videos (the Columbine duo did so prior to their rampage--and got a good grade), and even the three indicators of sociopathic behavior in children that, taken together, are known as the homicidal triad: bedwetting, firesetting and cruelty to animals or other children. The U.S. Secret Service calls ignoring such behavior giving "permission to proceed." I wholeheartedly agree.
But FBI studies also reveal that "fascination with violent media" is something all of the school shooters had in common. That includes video games. Have you checked out your local arcade or, worse, what the games are like on your child's computer or X-Box? Many of them call for the user to commit random violence and receive points based on their number of kills. They also feature simulations of blood and gore that are often quite realistic. One of the key elements for me, however, is the complete lack of empathy the games foster regarding collateral damage. No thought is given to stray bullets (or massive explosions) killing innocent bystanders.
That latter point was brought home to me several years when I covered a drowning . Police believed there might have been two victims after a boat capsized on a small lake north of Chicago. Witnesses reported seeing two men, both drunk, stealing the rowboat and paddling out into the lake where it overturned. One body turned up. A half hour or so later, I found the second alleged victim in a sandwich shop/video arcade. Shoes still wet, he said he swam away from his acquaintence, went home, took a quick nap and then went to buy a sandwich and play some games. When I asked why he didn't try to help the other man, he said, "I didn't know him that well, and he was scared and yelling loud enough I figured somebody would hear him."
And then, grinning and joking after the camera and tape recorder had been turned off, he went on to say something even more chilling:
"Besides in (whatever the game) if a car next to your target blows up, you don't try to save the people in it. You just save yourself."
All of this might prompt a reader to ask, as some have already, "If you're so worried about real violence, how come you write violent books?"
We'll take that up in my next post.
It reminded me of an excellent book I read several years ago by Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a retired army ranger, psychologist and instructor at West Point who is the founder of the Killology Research Group (http://www.killology.com/). He is an expert in the field of human aggression and killing, particularly in war.
In his book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence, I especially recall him talking about the very practical connection between video games and real killing. Video games, now used by the military, are excellent at helping to develop eye/hand co-ordination in kids who may never have fired a real weapon before. This factored into one school shooting he discussed where the kid, an expert at video games but who had no familiarity with real rifles, had a kill ratio much higher than one would expect for a first time shooter.
Ever since I covered the Columbine massacre, I've become interested in the subject of school violence. I don't agree with those who claim that, by themselves, video games, violent movies and/or books cause kids to act out in a violent manner. I think that's akin to believing pornography alone causes rape. Like rapists, young people who shoot their fellow students are motivated by a myriad of experiences. Often they include tacit permission by teachers, parents and peers who ignore or excuse pre-killing behavior such as writing bizarre but carefully researched violent stories (a Mississippi boy wrote a highly detailed paper about poisoning his family. His teacher gave him a good grade. Afterward, he killed his family with cyanide stolen from a school lab), making threats (one child planning a school shooting had scrawled "Everyone must die" and "Kill everyone" on his bedroom wall) creating violent videos (the Columbine duo did so prior to their rampage--and got a good grade), and even the three indicators of sociopathic behavior in children that, taken together, are known as the homicidal triad: bedwetting, firesetting and cruelty to animals or other children. The U.S. Secret Service calls ignoring such behavior giving "permission to proceed." I wholeheartedly agree.
But FBI studies also reveal that "fascination with violent media" is something all of the school shooters had in common. That includes video games. Have you checked out your local arcade or, worse, what the games are like on your child's computer or X-Box? Many of them call for the user to commit random violence and receive points based on their number of kills. They also feature simulations of blood and gore that are often quite realistic. One of the key elements for me, however, is the complete lack of empathy the games foster regarding collateral damage. No thought is given to stray bullets (or massive explosions) killing innocent bystanders.
That latter point was brought home to me several years when I covered a drowning . Police believed there might have been two victims after a boat capsized on a small lake north of Chicago. Witnesses reported seeing two men, both drunk, stealing the rowboat and paddling out into the lake where it overturned. One body turned up. A half hour or so later, I found the second alleged victim in a sandwich shop/video arcade. Shoes still wet, he said he swam away from his acquaintence, went home, took a quick nap and then went to buy a sandwich and play some games. When I asked why he didn't try to help the other man, he said, "I didn't know him that well, and he was scared and yelling loud enough I figured somebody would hear him."
And then, grinning and joking after the camera and tape recorder had been turned off, he went on to say something even more chilling:
"Besides in (whatever the game) if a car next to your target blows up, you don't try to save the people in it. You just save yourself."
All of this might prompt a reader to ask, as some have already, "If you're so worried about real violence, how come you write violent books?"
We'll take that up in my next post.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Trashy News, Trashy People and One Terrific Movie
I could care less if a faded and jaded country star ever had an affair (while underage or at any time) with a big time baseball player. If a teenage Disney sensation slaps her fans in the face by posing for a trashy cover on a national magazine. It makes no difference to me if flashy actresses and kinky socialites flame out on drugs and booze or if an actor in a respected crime series tanks his career with heroin and a pharmacopia of other substances. Frankly, none of those stories merits any longer mention than I've just made of them here.
We create icons in this country like shooters posting paper targets on a range and blast away at them with the same stony-faced glee. The difference is, target shooters just want to throw a little lead and punch a few holes, while many of us ache to see celebrity careers shredded.
When I first became aware of Robert Downey Jr., he was already self-immolating with drugs and I dismissed him as just another burnout who'd be found with his brain pan-fried in an alley some day.
After tonight, boy am I glad he went straight.
Iron Man is a damn fine movie but, more than that, it's a testament to a guy who showed up all of us who wrote him off as just another Hollywood loser.
Iron Man has heart. It rockets along from the opening scenes all the way to an after-the-credits bit that, while downplayed, suggests a terrific sequel is in the works. Downey Jr's Tony Stark is a pleasure to watch if for no other reason than the absolute boyish wonder evident on his face when he brings his super creature alter-ego to life. In much the same way as he resurrected his career.
Heres to a guy who deserves the round of applause he received in the theatre tonight. Thanks for bringing us a new hero. On your terms, not ours.
We create icons in this country like shooters posting paper targets on a range and blast away at them with the same stony-faced glee. The difference is, target shooters just want to throw a little lead and punch a few holes, while many of us ache to see celebrity careers shredded.
When I first became aware of Robert Downey Jr., he was already self-immolating with drugs and I dismissed him as just another burnout who'd be found with his brain pan-fried in an alley some day.
After tonight, boy am I glad he went straight.
Iron Man is a damn fine movie but, more than that, it's a testament to a guy who showed up all of us who wrote him off as just another Hollywood loser.
Iron Man has heart. It rockets along from the opening scenes all the way to an after-the-credits bit that, while downplayed, suggests a terrific sequel is in the works. Downey Jr's Tony Stark is a pleasure to watch if for no other reason than the absolute boyish wonder evident on his face when he brings his super creature alter-ego to life. In much the same way as he resurrected his career.
Heres to a guy who deserves the round of applause he received in the theatre tonight. Thanks for bringing us a new hero. On your terms, not ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)