Counterfeit Woodstock

Counterfeit Woodstock

I was too young to recall the day Oswald got shot on live TV,

but I’ll never forget the frigid Monday night 17 years later.

A lot of dreams were killed that night, many other things too

Four kids from Ohio made it to the wake, carried there as if on a string.

Jeffrey remarked it felt like the last movie, the last rock and roll show,

the last waltz before doomsday all rolled into one.

Allison spotted Bill Murray smoking a cigarette.

Will thought of Zapata’s army gathering one last time.

Then it began to snow. And everyone sang.

T-Rex (Puttin' Out the Good Vibes)

Steven Spielberg's America by Frederick Wasser
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A well written but slight overview of Spielberg's films up to 2008. Wasser places Spielberg's filmography within the context of the shifting sociological and political landscape of 20th Century America. The overarching narrative traces Spielberg's beginnings in television and rapid rise in Hollywood with the release of Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Influenced by New Hollywood style of the 1970s, Wasser argues Spielberg's mainstream tastes paved the way for his domination of pop culture during the 1980s. While his suburban epics and action adventures with Indiana Jones appeared to be in sync with the zeitgeist of Reagan's America, Wasser traces a growing political awareness in Spielberg's work. By engaging with history in The Color Purple, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan , and Munich he's asking audiences to reexamine the past and present. His sci-fi films Minority Report and War of the Worlds dealt with a post 9/11 world. My main criticism with the book is that all these films deserve much deeper analysis beyond historical context (even that seems short on depth). Some of Wasser's conclusions appear superficial, stuck between Spielberg's naysayers and proselytizers. For example, Wasser contends Schindler's List appealed to audiences because it celebrated capitalism? Too much Fredric Jameson for my taste. At the same he champions Minority Report as a modern masterpiece, which I would agree. Overall a good overview of Spielberg's long and fascinating career and a good starting point for identifying some key themes and motifs, but lacking in razor sharp analysis.


View all my reviews

Book Review: The City on the Edge of Forever: The Original Teleplay by Harlan Ellison

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. 

The Marvel Movie Debate

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.

Book Review: The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War by James Mann

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.

Friday Night with The Who at the End of a Decade