The 5 Best Entertainers of Recent Memory

It used to be that at Christmastime, all of Hollywood's stars would come out to celebrate, and people would not want to pluck their own eyes out after being subjected to such detritus as only Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson could provide at Rockefeller Center with a disco ball.

What happened to those days?

Well, after watching the first five minutes of the classic Bill Murray comedy "Scrooged" (you know, with the movie where Lee Majors saves Santa, the star-studded "Christmas Carol" remake, and "Bob Goulet's Cajun Christmas"), I decided that I should pay tribute to some legitimately great entertainers. People whose worst career decisions were still more valuable to the viewing public than their absence. People who can be enjoyed by people of all generations (if not all age groups). I could condense the list down to about ten people, so here it goes.

5) Mel Brooks
Moses? The 2000 Year-Old Man? A Yiddish-speaking Indian chief? No contest! Brooks is a fantastic comic mind who has been able to be eclectic in target audience and subject matter, and in the realm of offense, has never discriminated. So from the wildly politically incorrect "Blazing Saddles" to the lighthearted Hitchcock tribute "High Anxiety" (a forgotten treasure), let's give him a hand. And a Pinto.

4) The (original) Who
If you just run down the list and read the names, this one won't make much sense, will it? But Daltrey and his fellows in The Who (Pete Townshend, John Entwistle, and Keith Moon) re-invented rock music, saving it from the stagnation of the mid-'60s pop movement and weathering all adversity (including the ever-burgeoning success of their original masterpiece, "Tommy," frequently regarded by the band as an albatross). Modern entertainment-- movie, music, poem, and elsewhere-- owes a tremendous debt to these four guys from the UK.

3) J.P. Patches
Okay, I've never been able to understand this phenomenon myself (I'm terrified of clowns), but there's no denying the impact Patches has had on the lives of millions of people, child and adult alike. To someone who can make so many people happy, this list was a cinch. 'Nough said.

2) Jim Henson
It should be a federal offense to hate on the Muppets (excluding the Fraggles, some of the characters from "Labyrinth," and a few unfortunate "Sesame Street" residents). Jim Henson-- the original performer of many of his Muppet creations, most notably Kermit the Frog-- was a man whose dream is forever reflected in the innocent exploits of his fantastically imaginative puppet characters. In fact, many of the lines in some of Kermit's "Muppet Movie" (1979) monologues are directly taken from Henson's philosophy-- he'd walk for three years straight to make unhappy people feel better. Quite frankly, seventeen years after his death, it still works.

1) Madeline Kahn
Kinda bizarre to start this list with Mel Brooks and finish with his frequent co-star Kahn, innit? Well, anyone who tells you Madeline Kahn has no chance of being known as the greatest performer ever was either lying or hallucinating. Brooks favored her, Gene Wilder, and Cleavon Little as the ideal trifecta of American entertainment. And over a decade after her tragic death, her comedy still provides satisfying jolts to the funny bone while her drama still has some intense power. A bad Madeline Kahn performance is like an ice-cream cone dancing on the sun: somehow, it just doesn't seem possible.

Just Something Quick to Remember (11/22/63)

It was exactly 45 years ago today when our last great president, John F. Kennedy, was gunned down in hatred by... someone (show of hands... who still thinks it was Oswald?)

I just think that it is important on this day to remember this great man. The 45th anniversary of his passing was, to my knowledge, signified only by a three-sentence blurb in the morning paper and tonight's premiere of Oliver Stone's 1991 classic "JFK" on AMC.

Well, today, we stand ready to inaugurate a new president-- an historic one, at that, whether you like him or not. The world is one great blue ball of turmoil-- crises are popping up now on a daily basis in every corner of creation. We face an economy in chaos, two wars stagnating in western Asia, and many Americans whose rights are being taken away at the leisure of voters-- to name a few in the USA.

Let us remember that JFK led our people through the Cuban Missile Crisis-- the nearly two-week period when everyone thought that the world was about to be blown to smithereens. Though I was not alive then, I do know that we have only the incredibly unpredictable forces of fate and fortune to thank for the fact that it didn't happen. Well, we have them, and this great man, who was shot in the head after being that rare President who actually achieved something and did the right thing.

On TV, Jackie Kennedy did not shed one tear over the assassination of her husband, but looking through archival images of her during this ghastly time, we can see why. She had the awesome responsibility of bearing America's grief. Crying is something America can't do. She was being strong for all Americans, past and present. So today, if the feelings or maybe even the memories of that terrible day bring you to the verge of tears, just stay on the verge. That is how we can best remember such a great man-- by being strong, and by simply remembering.

Social Conservative Meets Liberal Socialist

I abhor talking about politics with my family, since I am in a political minority therein, and never allowed to make a point without it being rudely and roundly discounted. But in a recent phone conversation with my brother, his comment "The socialists won the election" started one of the most heinously agitating discussions of my life.

He said that the only way we could have fixed the current economic collapse was-- in almost these exact words-- stricter federal guidelines for big business, which he called "communism."

Whoa!

As Americans, we can no longer afford to allow greedy corporate execs to act with blatant disregard for any code of legal or moral values. Twenty years ago, when Ronald Reagan raged through Washington stirred by the panic of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, we should have tightened federal restrictions on corporate America. If that means all-out Communism, then by all means, I am a Red!

First of all, it is a government's responsibility, and a primary one at that, to ensure that all citizens obey the law. So explain to me how big business owners are allowed to do whatever they want however they want to whoever they want! If you can tell me how the disconnect connects, then go a step farther and tell me how it is morally defencible.

Capitalism is a good system, and a great system for us with the distribution of our government. But all good things in moderation, folks! Unfettered capitalism is what ruined us. Placing federal restrictions to ensure that businesses act in a legally upright manner is not communism-- it's not even socialism. It's just good governing. If you have any questions, a good resource to answer those questions is the 1981 Warren Beatty movie "Reds." It is a docudrama that interweaves performances by the stars of the day with interviews from eyewitnesses to the Russian Revolution, and in both arenas, it clearly demonstrates the difference between our present situation's only cure (past or present) and rampant socialism.

Or, people could always-- and I know this is a radical suggestion-- think before they speak!

There's a Rainbow Disconnect in California

While Barack Obama's victory of the White House is a victory for intelligence, justice, and tolerance, it was intolerance that won this Election Day in California, with the approval of Proposition 8.

Gay marriage. The only social issue I can imagine being anywhere near as controversial is abortion. Proponents claim granting equal rights and equal recognition will lead to equality for all and the solidity of the institution of marriage. Opponents say the exact opposite. Which is right?

Honestly, the proponents have this one. Allowing same-gender couples the right to marry and to be legally recognized as "married" will lead to tolerance, a more solid end to injustice, and it will bolster the concept of marriage by granting its rights to all people. The truth is, I haven't found a single dictionary under the sun that defines marriage as union between man and woman. The only tome that touches on the subject is the Bible (noted for its multitude of vastly differing translations, rendering many of its more blurry admonitions suspect). And don't we have a thing in this country called "separation of church and state"? The country, while founded on Christian principles, was also founded on the belief that no single religious institution, no matter how powerful, had the right to force its doctrine on others.

Opponents will now say that the same rule would apply to gay marriage supporters, who are obviously forcing some kind of wicked, atheistic, liberal code on America's decent, god-fearing citizens. I would say to them-- what about all the Jesus-loving Christians out there who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc...? There are also Christian Straight-Allies. Besides, there is no religious backbone behind the pro-equality argument because the argument has no business being religious in the first place. If it were widely seen as a matter of church and state, same-sex marriage would be legal in this country.

Furthermore, Proposition 8 overturned an existing decision by the State of California's Supreme Court just a few months earlier. Is this simply the system of checks and balances at work, or an effort to undermine the democratic system itself for the will of a few hatemongers and the voters (most of whom are actually good people) whom they seduce with their scary, apocalyptic, apocryphal rhetoric?

The latter.

People have said that if gays can have many of the same rights as legally married couples, why push for the seemingly extraneous step of deciding what legal lingo to use to describe it? The answer is quite simple. It's not equality until it is equality in paper and in the real world. The Emancipation Proclamation was all well and good, but it was meaningless until every African-American in America was free.

I'd like to close by reminding everybody of the concept of "majority rule, minority rights." The majority need to find a way to have their will carried out without undermining (or, in this case, bait-dangling and pulling back in) the rights of the minority.

Decision No-Hate '08: Special Tuesday Edition

I'm sitting here at the best election-night party ever, and we're having a great deal of fun filling in the electoral college map state by state. So far, it's overwhelmingly blue-- it's amazing.

I'm also just thinking that I don't ever want this feeling to go away.

An Obama victory is within grasp! The results are just coming in for Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio, and Obama's won most of them so far. Actually, it feels a little bit like watching your beloved little child ride his bike for the first time. My boy's doing it... he's doing it!

This won't be a very involved post, but I just thought I should commemorate the most important Election Day of recent history with a special Tuesday post. Let's be honest-- it'll take a miracle for McCain to win at this point (knocking on wood). Anyway, this feeling of hope-- whether or not it will soon prove false-- has really, for me, validated the frustrating experience of missing the voting age restriction by exactly two months. Maybe good sense can prevail in the modern republic....

Robert Stigwood: The 'Wood, the Bad, and the Ugly

Is it right to shove a creative executive genius into the shadows because of a few wrong choices he or she made?

Let's investigate.

The producer of many films-- from "Gallipoli" with Mel Gibson to one of my own personal favorites, "Tommy"-- and founder of the Robert Stigwood Organization (RSO) is a man called (shockingly) Robert Stigwood. In the seventies, he produced a slew of musical & music-genre movies that left a great and lasting impact on pop culture in general and the industries of music and film. Some of these films included "Jesus Christ Superstar" (1973), the first filmed rock opera, "Saturday Night Fever" (1977), an absolutely unmitigated blockbuster, and "Grease" (1978), the most commercially successful movie musical of all time.

However, in the world of people who have way too much free time on their hands (of which I am a proud, card-carrying member), he is the target of a great deal of criticism because of a few blunders.

These blunders are generally categorized as "Tommy" (1975), "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (1979), and "Grease 2" (1982), but let's also not forget his collaboration with Rupert Murdoch, the second-tier King of Ill Repute, on "Gallipoli."

I held a round-table discussion (as I said, too much free time) some months ago about what Mr. Stigwood had really done wrong. Joining me were a guy whose second-favorite movie of all time was 1973's "Superstar," a young woman who was with us because she was waiting for her boyfriend to get back home and let her into her apartment, and a guy who had no idea what we were talking about-- our moderator. "Superstar" man (let's call him "Tyler") brought up the point that "Sgt. Pepper" was the worst example of blatant, over-the-top grandiosity in Hollywood history, second only to Joseph L. Mankiewicz' "Cleopatra," which was so big it nearly bankrupted Fox. Lockout Girl ("Mary") likened his Murdoch association with collaborating with the enemy before a huge war, then proceeded to list offenses against every movie he was involved in producing-- except "Evita."

She called "Tommy" a glorified Vegas roadshow, "Superstar" a confused and hard-to-follow mess of Biblical misinterpretation, and "Grease" a kind of plague responsible for unleashing John Travolta's dance moves upon the unsuspecting world.

The facts.

"Tommy" director Ken Russell was not allowed to do a second Who film for a reason: his interpretation of one of rock's crowning achievements was, according to many critics, made up of nothing but expensive costumes, distractingly annoying synthesizer background music, and Ann-Margret writhing around in chocolate/soap suds/beans. The band said that Russell did not get the point of "Tommy" at all; his vision was of a world where money trumps everything, even family values and the need to care for the vulnerable. Note: Russell was the bad guy.

(Sidebar: "Tommy" is still one of my all-time favorites. It is a largely epic story that still has good ideas, good performances, and at-the-very-least-half-decent versions of some of rock's most famous songs.)

The idea of 1973's "Superstar" is a play within the play. This is established very definitely in the film's opening scene, in which a group of hippies travel out into the middle of the Israeli desert and dress in mostly Biblical costumes, followed by a re-enactment of the story. It is adequately paced, well-worded, and sure-footed... does that spell "hard to follow" or "messy"? If there is anything wrong with it, it is the placing of eclectic twentieth-century music (everything from rock to ragtime) in 1st-century Judea, which can be blamed (if blame is sought) on Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, the writers, not Stigwood, the producer.

But John Travolta is pretty disturbing.

Anyway, everyone makes bad choices. And aside from the criminally under-regulated Hollywood studios of Yore, who did Stigwood's bad choices (let's just call them "Grease 2" and "Sgt. Pepper") really hurt? For crying out loud, they're movies, Mary!

Robert Stigwood, you can sleep easy (although I doubt your resumee has been keeping you up nights).

Sidenote to my reader(s): You must go to my Followers link and investigate the Eviville blog you will find there. It is ingenious. So in-joy it.