Often considered the greatest episode on the original Star Trek series, "The City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison also fomented decades of acrimony over the heavily revised script that aired on April 6, 1967. Ellison's original script was altered at the behest of Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry who did not consider it Star Trek enough. Ellison disavowed the episode in countless interviews over the years. His original script that earned a Hugo Award. The book includes the full original teleplay. Ellison's 60+ page introduction attempts to set the record straight. Admittedly petty at times, Ellison wants to call out every falsehood about the creation of the episode, most of his vitriol is aimed at Roddenberry who often took credit for "saving" Ellison's unfilmable script. The episode that aired focuses upon "The Guardians", ancient beings who oversee a time portal on the fringes of the universe. After a McCoy accidentally took some amphetamines he crosses one of the portals and changes history for the worse. Kirk and Spock also enter the portal and find themselves in the 1930s, trying to save their timeline. They meet Edith Keeler, a charismatic young woman who proselytizes for world peace. Kirk falls in love with Edith, but also learns that she has a certain fate planned for her that cannot be changed or there will be dire consequences for the future. The episode concludes with Kirk tragically standing aside as Edith dies to preserve the timeline. A great episode full of great themes and inspired acting from the cast, one may wonder: What was Ellison so upset about? First of all the teleplay is far more richer in theme and tone. Ambitious for 1960s episodic television, the script reads like a feature film. The original story involved drug dealing on the Enterprise and a more epic journey back to 1930 with some intriguing minor characters. Secondly, Ellison's dialogue is moving and philosophical. Not only a melancholy love story with Kirk and Edith, but also features some great dialogue between Kirk and Spock. The script also explores the influence of individuals upon history, courageous sacrifices made by the nameless who were never recognized, and even on the ultimate nature and fate and humanity. All these are expressed through Eliison's eloquent language. It's tempting to hope someday the script will be made as originally intended. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto would be ideal to play Spock and Kirk, but that will probably never happen. It's such a Kirk/Spock centered story, it would have be made at the expense of other cast members. Still, it would be a cool movie. The book also includes some extra revisions Ellison made and some reminiscences from the participants. A compelling read for Star Trek fans, but also for writers interested in writing for the small and big screen.
Over the past year there's been a lot of noise in social media on the Marvel Movies. Marvel fans took victory laps when Avengers: Endgame shattered Box Office records. Some film critics were highly cynical at the mania surrounding these films, especially the backlash of writing a negative review. Other voices from the film making community have also come out and have taken a beating on social media for it. So, what of it? Bill Maher made waves earlier this year when he decided to dismiss all comic book fans as spoiled children unable to deal with complexity. The reaction to Maher was justified, comics have played a positive role in countless lives. Maher's clumsy attempt to slam dunk on toxic fandom, which is a real thing, added little to the discussion. Comedian Marc Maron also lashed out against the Marvel movies on the Conan O'Brien show, completely echoing what Simon stated 37 years ago. Martin Scorsese dismissed comic book movies as amusement parks, which sparked a predictable flurry of twitter outrage.
When Return of the Jedi was released in 1983, the final film in the original Star Wars trilogy, it was considered a watershed moment in 1980s pop culture. The two most famous critics of the era Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel championed the Star Wars movies and praised the films for taking cinematic storytelling to the next level. Yet not all critics were thrilled. Pauline Kael was generally cool towards the trilogy. Speculative fiction writer and media personality Harlan Ellison despised Star Wars as a mockery of Science Fiction. Perhaps the most vociferous review came from John Simon who dismissed Star Wars as a film of "overwhelming banality." On a Nightline episode Simon squared off against Siskel And Ebert.
Simon was a cultural conservative who wrote for publications for National Review and New York Magazine. His film criticism was notorious for making light of actors' physical appearance. His brooding European perspective poured cold water on the enthusiasm of his peers for the wave of New Hollywood films during the 1970s.
Host Ted Koppel gave Simon the first word. He condemned Jedi as a "dehumanizing film" made for children or adults with a "child mentality," sarcastically adding many of his fellow critics lacked an "adult mentality." His argument was Star Wars made "children dumber than they needed to be" and that art should engage children on the level of reality, mentioning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as an example. Ebert responded by recalling the Disney films that inspired his imagination as a child, and that Star Wars was doing the same thing for the new generation. Siskel spoke of attending a screening of Jedi packed with kids having the time of their lives. Both viewed them as great works of art for children. But what about for adults? Simon noted special effects should not be the tail that wags the dog. Ebert cleverly responded by arguing all movies are a special effect, since the film goes through the camera and is projected onto the screen by light, it's the closest experience we have to a waking dream. When asked if Jedi should be considered great art, Siskel said a film should be judged by its aspirations - and in that sense Jedi was a great film. He compared it unfavorably to the forgettable 3D movie Space Hunter also out at the time. Simon suggested taking children to see Tender Mercies, a more adult oriented film that will give audiences more to think about. Watching the Nightline discussion now, both sides score some excellent points that take on a new meaning these days. Siskel and Ebert were correct in that Star Wars lit up the imagination of a generation. Yet Simon had a point that kids should be exposed to more complex stories. Perhaps the long view has proved him right. Think of the fallout from the prequel Star Wars films, the sight of endless ranks of young men who grew up with Lucas now going on extended rants how he stole their childhood. Toxic fan behavior has metastasized into online harassment on social media and other childish behavior (a remake of The Last Jedi). Petitions to rewrite shows longtime fans find offensive are a daily occurrence. Part of this stems from a pop culture no longer serving up the fantasies of young white men, but also from a preference for the spectacle above art. What we see are the child like mentalities Simon spoke of in 1983. I'm fine with Marvel Movies: they're well made, have created endearing characters, and are impressive feats of modern storytelling. But they never challenge an audience - and are almost chilling in their endorsement of the status quo. Do audiences want to be challenged by movies? Do we want movies that tell us something about our own reality. Going by the box office, the answer seems to be in the negative. So it's no wonder elder statesman of New Hollywood are lamenting they can no longer make the movies they want to make.
In the years following Ronald Reagan's presidency it was fashionable among his conservative disciples to claim his policies had single handedly won the Cold War. As James Mann argues in his book The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan, many of these same people disagreed with Reagan's decision to pursue arms control in his second term. While Reagan's critics on the left often portray him as an amiable tool under the sway of right wing ideologues, Mann argues it was Reagan's independence and decision to go his own way that helped bring about the end of the Cold War. Divided into four parts, the first explores Reagan's relationship with Richard Nixon. Despite his well documented character flaws, Nixon was an astute student of geopolitics and his detente policies of the 1970s reduced Cold War tensions by establishing frequent communication between the superpowers. Along his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger they attempted with mixed results to achieve a balance of power to keep the peace. They also believed the Cold War would last well into the 21st Century and the only way to prevent war was a live and let live diplomacy. Reagan was more of an anti-communist, he viewed the Cold War as one of ideals, an existential struggle between two economic systems. He was confident the Soviet system was not sustainable and the American system had a long term advantage. He felt detente legitimized an immoral system and was too status quo. Upon his election in 1980, at a point of high tension after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Reagan's rhetoric like calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" led to a tense first term full of confrontation. At the same time, the reality of nuclear war terrified Reagan. The Made For Television blockbuster The Day After shook him. In November 1983, NATO exercises known as Able Archer had the Soviets convinced attack was imminent and things got really scary for a few days. He believed the only solution was to eliminate all nuclear weapons, or at the very least reduce them. As he continued to lean towards arms control, those on the right became nervous. Meanwhile, the realists Nixon and Kissinger found Reagan's approach to be erratic. Through his research Mann uncovered Reagan used unofficial diplomacy, specifically the historian Suzanne Massie, who reported to Reagan on her travels through the Soviet Union. Massie provided him with insight on the culture and people of Russia, suggesting to Reagan the people were ready for a political change, she proved to be a valuable liaison and catalyst for the shift in Reagan's foreign policy. The ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 signaled to Reagan the time had come to reduce tensions. Younger and more open to new ideas, Reagan wanted to make him a partner in ending the Cold War. Meanwhile his advisers considered Gorbachev no different from his predecessors. Mann argues the two had mutual interests, for Gorbachev to implement his reforms, he would need to improve relations with America. Reagan wanted to leave behind a legacy in the midst of the Iran Contra Scandal. Much of the book deals with Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate where impelled Gorbachev to "tear down this wall.", which as Mann argues sped the process along of ending Communism in Eastern Europe. The final 18 months of Reagan's presidency were characterized by successful summits in Washington and Moscow. Standing in Red Square, Reagan disavowed his characterization of the USSR as an evil empire. With arms control moving along smoothly, he left office with communism on the cusp of collapsing in Russia. Mann questions the thesis that Reagan's increased military spending pushed the Soviets to economic collapse, arguing the problems in the Soviet economy were systematic and long term. Mann's portrays Reagan as a leader who desperately wanted peace, understood the dangers of nuclear war, and employed wise diplomacy to bring things to quiet conclusion. If he had listed to the right, the Cold War might have continued to escalate. If the realists had their way, Reagan would've stayed in status quo thinking. He also knew the power of rhetoric to inspire - and used it to reach across cultural and political barriers. Whatever one's opinion of Reagan's politics he did leave the world more peaceful than when he entered into office - and to do it he had to rebel against his base. A valuable and thoughtful account of Reagan's diplomacy. Mann, James. The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War. New York: Viking, 2009.
Pundits were quick to dismiss the Muller testimony last Wednesday. The "bad reviews" pointed to a lack of memorable sound bytes and smoking gun moments. Predictably, Trump declared total victory and downgraded Mueller for giving one of the worst performances in American history. There was chatter about "bad optics." After all, getting Trump for obstruction of justice was a little wimpy in the first place The hope that Mueller would be the new Elliot Ness taking down our modern day Al Capone never quite materialized (or will it). The contrast between Mueller's Establishment disposition and the shameless Trumpists were on full display.
Mueller's background is from a line of doctors, lawyers, military officers - pillars of the Establishment. Mueller attended the exclusive St. Paul's School in New Hampshire where John Kerry was his classmate - they played Lacrosse together. In the Tobias Wolff novel Old School, set at an elite private school in the early 1960s, the young men idolize Ernest Hemingway. His writing influenced their ideas on everything from romance to courage. There's a strong chance Mueller and Kerry both read Hemingway as students - and those books influenced them.
Twitter voices spoke of Mueller as a man out of his time. They're sort of right about that. He's 74 and never sought headlines or the media spotlight. After earning degrees from Princeton and NYU, Mueller volunteered for the Marine Corps and served in Vietnam, earning a Purple Heart and Bronze Star in the service of his country. Afterwards he graduated from the University of Virginia Law School and embarked on a career in law enforcement, becoming an expert on white collar crime and the criminal underworld. From 2001-13 he led the FBI during a tumultuous era, serving under both the Bush and Obama administrations.
It goes without saying the Establishment which groomed Mueller left a mixed legacy, yet one that looks like the height of statesmanship by today's standards. Many tomes have been written on the Eastern Establishment in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The Wise Men by Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas is one of the more sympathetic histories, referring to the group of men who transitioned America into a superpower after defeating Fascism. While they were white wealthy men who accrued all the privileges of their class - they also had an ethos of service and loyalty to America that went above partisan politics. The Marshall Plan to rebuild post-war Europe and decision to contain the Soviet Union shaped foreign policy for decades.
When Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to lead the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, his old establishment values were destined to come into direct confrontation with the Trumpers. They repeatedly slurred his name and dismissed the entire investigation as an elaborate hoax. That was on full display during the hearing as well. Those who despise everything Trump stands for (me included) had faint hopes Mueller would pull off a Sherlock Holmes and present overwhelming evidence of the President's high crimes. What happened was for more complicated and dealing with complexity within the 24 news cycle is not the media's strong suit. Perspective comes with time. In reality something did happen with long term consequences. Mueller made it clear the investigation never exonerated Trump (could be prosecuted after leaving office) and that Russian attacks are a real thing and will only get worse, the new normal in Mueller's words. Mueller's curious confrontation with the Trumpers mirrors the contradictions of the current moment. From the get go, Trump and his followers prided themselves on being unprincipled and crude, gleefully tapping into the darkest corners of the America psyche. Their open admiration for Putin's anti-liberal crusade makes them ideal bedfellows. For Mueller and the orphaned GOP "Never Trumpers", such a position would've been unthinkable a generation ago. Mueller's stoic retorts to the GOP grandstanding were tinged with melancholy and quiet defiance.
Obviously the "Mueller will save us" narrative was unrealistic. Does that mean The MuellerReport should be tossed aside? Absolutely not. As time passes, the Report will take on a new resonance. We know the shape of things to come if all this continues. The threats facing democracy are deep rooted and resurgent. Mueller's pursuit of the truth will hopefully not be the last gasp of democracy, but a written record that some still care about the facts.
The 1970s and 1980s were the apogee of the family sitcom: Allin the Family, Little House on the Prairie, Good Times, The Cosby Show, and many more. Among them was Diff'rent Strokes (1978-1986), a sitcom with a contrived, but well meaning, premise. Wealthy and affable businessman Phillip Drummond (Conrad Bain) adopts two African American boys to keep a promise he made to their mother who worked as his housekeeper. The two boys, Willis and Arnold are 13 and 9 and elated about going from rags to riches, but also have mixed feelings about the privileges foisted upon them. Mr. Drummond's teenage daughter Kimberly as played by Dana Plato was also a series regular for the show's run. Early seasons consistently produced good episodes, at least by 70s sitcom standards. They never shied away from controversial issues, the early seasons dealt with busing, racism, class disparity, racial profiling, and identity. Gary Coleman became an instant pop culture sensation and carried the show for eight seasons. Watch Coleman's debut on Good Times and I dare you not to laugh, the kid had real acting chops. Willis was more skeptical and took longer to warm to his new lifestyle so far from Harlem, a recurring theme of the early seasons. As the seasons pass by there's a sense of the doomed liberalism of the Jimmy Carter era morphing into the lopsided Reagan 80s . The progressive sentiments of the early seasons shifted into a Reagan era status quo. Story lines focused on moral issues instead of social ones. Pop Culture references and celebrity cameos also became a bigger part of the show. Much of the focus shifted to Arnold's adventures at school, while Willis is usually seen getting ready for a date or hunched over a desk studying for exams in the latter seasons. In season 5 Mr. Drummond marries a TV Fitness instructor (very 80s) and takes in her young son Sam, obviously there to replace Arnold (now a teenager) as the young jokester. There's something moving in the way a sitcom (as many others of it's time) tried to take on every serious topic imaginable. Bullying. Prejudice. Episodes on sexual predators, drug and alcohol addiction, and every issue on the news were common. Nancy Reagan appeared on the show to tell the kids to "just say no." Muhammad Ali traded insults with Arnold, Kareem-Abdul-Jabaar played a teacher, and Janet Jackson played Willis's girlfriend. The eight seasons are a treasure of pop culture collective memory. Whenever Diff'rent Strokes comes up in conversation, the tragedies surrounding the show's cast members are what most people remember. Dana Plato had a troubled history with the show, reduced to occasional appearances after a pregnancy and a follow up career plagued by drug and alcohol abuse. She passed away in 1999 at age 34. Todd Bridges had many public encounters with the law but managed to get his life together. He's the last surviving member of the cast. Gary Coleman found life after the series especially difficult, reduced to cameos in low budget movies and reality television. To be a TV star in the 1970s was something akin to indentured servitude: movies got all the accolades, but TV stars were the grinders. Long days, financial improprieties, predatory adults, all thankless work for the masses watching the box. Coleman suffered from a kidney condition through the show's entire run, requiring dialysis 3-4 times a day, adds a subtle heroism to how he carried each episode. For its final season Diff'rent Strokes moved to ABC, a shadow of what it used to be. The series farewell deals with Arnold working for the newspaper and breaking a story on a steroid ring at his school. Arnold's discovered a passion for writing - suggesting a follow up series that never happened, sort of a Lou Grant set at a High School. With the third season of Stranger Things now running on Netflix that's set in 1985, there could be no better time to revisit Diff'rent Strokes to satisfy your 80s nostalgia fix. Here's some recommended episodes for beginners: S1E1 - "Movin In" The first episode with Arnold and Willis adjusting to life on Park Avenue. S3E1&2 - "The Bank Job" Two part episode that finds Arnold and Willis taken hostage. Think Dog Day Afternoon as a sitcom. S3E14 - "The Bus" White parents are outraged over forced busing laws to integrate their "safe" schools and of course Arnold and Willis are at the center of it. S5E24 - "My Fair Larry" Andrew Dice Clay shakes up the Drummond household. Enough said. S5E1 - "Arnold Meets Mr. T" Perhaps the most 80s episode ever.
