No Vaccination for Stupidity

Al Cohen

Al Cohen contracted Polio in 1939, at the age of 15. Only 1 out of 200 people who get the disease show severe symptoms, and Al was one. He spent time in the hospital, and in an iron lung. He lost muscle strength, and was unable to move.

Even after recovering, he never fully regained strength in his arms and shoulders. From 1939, until his death in 2006, he couldn’t raise his hands over his head. When World War II broke out, he was unable to enlist in the military, and was instead confined to a department store window, where he read the war news to passersby.

Jonas Salk developed the first truly viable vaccine for Polio in 1952.  Too late for Al to have lived a normal life.

It wasn’t all bad for Al. One could certainly make the argument that were it not for these events, he’d have never met Marilyn Melnikoff, and would have never become the man I knew as “Grandpa”.  He was a warm, funny guy. Brilliant, and ahead of his time, in many ways.  I loved him a great deal, and one of the most memorable things about him was that he never let his physical impairment define him, or really even limit him much of the time. He did what he wanted, and he did it on his terms. Except for having green towels. Marilyn wouldn’t allow that.

Still… I can’t help but wonder what his life would have been like had that vaccine been available to him. Maybe he doesn’t marry Marilyn. Maybe he joins the Army and dies in Northern Africa. Either scenario would have made it very difficult for you to read this blog right now, since I would never have been born, but even as much as I love my life, a part of me is sorry he never had those options.

Whenever I read about people opposing vaccines, I think about my grandfather, and what he’d say today if he heard someone willingly rejecting the very treatments that could have completely changed his life.

I have to believe he’d feel as I do… That the anti-vaccination movement is ridiculous and baffling and really damned scary.

Some claim that vaccines cause autism, and those people are wrong, but even assuming for a second it was true, the idea that tetanus (deadly), or polio (potentially crippling), or smallpox (deadly) are preferable to autism is patently absurd.  I know that Autism can be very challenging to manage in some cases. Some kids have a true difficulty communicating. Some have impairment when it comes to relating to the world. Autism is not something to be taken lightly, but even if it were caused by vaccinations, Autism isn’t deadly.  Is the completely mythological chance of your child maaaybe developing autism with potentially exposing them to measles or diphtheria or polio?

Some folks are philosophically against vaccines for a variety of reasons… because they don’t think it’s right that “big pharma” gets rich off of them, or because they don’t want the government or pesky doctors telling them what to do, or because they read somewhere that homeopathic remedies were better… You know what I say to that? Express your convenient, hipster libertarianism on your own time, and stop risking the lives of others. No matter what you can think of, someone is getting rich from it. Your toilet seat? Someone patented that design.  If you don’t like taking the advice of doctors on a public health matter, about what else is it okay to ignore them? If your kid had cancer, would you give them chemo? It’s real easy to roll the dice with the measles, because who fucking gets measles anymore, right? Well… as it turns out, more people all the time, because of dumbasses like you.
Read that link. Read those statistics. It’s NOT FUNNY, and yet we have websites like THIS pretending that it’s no big deal because hardly anybody dies from it. Seriously. That’s what it says. Only read it if you plan on getting furious. By the same logic, let’s just throw 3 million kids in a tank with sharks, because only 500 of them will die, so what’s the big fucking deal?

When I was a kid, I remember that we weren’t allowed to show up to school without proving that we were vaccinated. Nowadays, every state has their own list of exemptions, ranging from religious to philosophical, allowing parents to bring their unvaccinated children to school. My aunt posted a meme on Facebook that essentially said “If my kid can’t bring peanut butter to school because your kid is allergic, why can you bring your unvaccinated child to school?” It’s not often that I see a meme and think “Damned right!” but that’s what I thought. How in the world are schools allowing potentially infected kids to come to school. Freaking Disneyland was the epicenter of a fucking measles outbreak. DISNEYLAND.

“Well, it’s not even 100% effective in all people, so why risk the side effects?”

Good question… There’s something called “Herd Immunity” and it works for everyone, vaccination resistant or not, as long as a large enough portion of the population has been inoculated.

“Oh, well then… I’m good, right? Because even if I don’t get vaccines, enough other people have!”

Well, no. That’s not how society works. There are enough uneducated rubes like you running around to ruin it for everyone. All a virus needs is one hospitable host to keep perpetuating its life. When the community is 99% vaccinated, even with varying degrees of efficacy, the chances of that virus finding that 1% are very low. As it is now, we’re at 84%. That means that out of every 100 people a virus comes in contact with, it can infect 16. Now say those 16 people go to 16 other groups of 100… Now we’ve got an EXPONENTIAL exposure, and FUCK YOU.

“Well… my kid got some unexplained illness, and she was vaccinated shortly before she got sick, and even though doctors insist they’re unrelated, I know in my gut they are connected. They have to be, because there’s no other explanation.”

Let’s talk about coincidence for a minute… well, not really coincidence as much as the obsession with “Why”, and our inability as a society to accept that some things have no explanation. The inability to accept coincidence. This belief is not based on evidence, but rather the lack of evidence of anything else. That’s not the way science works. That’s the way religion works. Do not endanger everyone else, because you can’t accept that coincidences happen.

------

The more I think about it all, and the people actively deciding to go without vaccinations for themselves or their children, the angrier I get. Well… Angry isn’t the right word. Embarrassed.

There’s that joke since 9/11 where whenever we Americans do something particularly decadent someone says “this is why the terrorists hate us”. Well… This actually IS why the terrorists hate us. Have you ever heard of a more American thing than actively rejecting preventative treatments that millions of people in the world, not only have no access to, but would do anything to get?

That is embarrassing. 

It makes me ashamed to live in a place so privileged that people would even think to reject all scientific advancement in exchange for a quick spin around WebMD message boards, and the arrogance to believe we’re somehow immune just by virtue of our wealth and national comfort. We’ve lived in a world free from these illnesses for so long that we’ve become complacent in our privilege, and if you’re not going to vaccinate your kids, you’re rolling the dice for all of us.  

One of my dearest friends, Melissa, send me this link. I encourage you to read it, but there’s one passage I want to share, because this (understandably terrified) father says it perfectly.

"You have stood on the shoulders of our collective protection for too long. From that high height, we have given you the privilege of our protection, for free."

Weeping for Clowns

From Esquire Magazine

My whole life I’ve looked for exceptions to the “comedian who’s secretly in pain” rule.  I’ve always wanted to be the funniest guy. When Chris Farley lived, I delighted in his self-effacing style and his willingness to lean into his physicality, so to speak, and embrace that he was a big dude.. I appreciated that acknowledgement of the obvious. Yeah, I’m a big guy, and I can be funny, and THAT’S why people will like me. It’ll be funny when I fall or break a chair... When he died, even at age 15 or 16 I saw a little too much of myself in the fat guy who would do anything for a laugh, and I even got scared when my eyes were opened to the relentless abuse he inflicted upon himself through drugs and booze and all manner of things. He was clearly a guy who wasn’t as confident or happy with himself “Chris Farley the Funny Fat Guy” as I’d always wanted him to be. I’m sure another generation felt the same about John Belushi.

I probably didn’t think about Robin Williams all that much over the past 10 years, but when I heard about his death, from an apparent suicide, I was struck with sadness I couldn’t have predicted. I was saddened over his death, but especially so over the manner. And, if I’m honest, not entirely shocked.

It’s nothing I’d ever said to anyone. Mostly because I don’t think people sit around talking about the funny guys who are most likely to off themselves. I’m sure there’s someone somewhere who would have guessed drug overdose (Robin Williams’ struggles with addition were well known), but suicide always comes out of left field, even when you look back and say “All of the signs were there.”

There was something desperate about his comedy. Someone on Grantland said as much during one of the tributes, and they put it perfectly… he always seemed afraid of losing the audience, even as they were erupting with laughter over one of his bits. While many were brought to tears of laughter by his antics, I was always at least a little unsettled. There was something about the incredible, relentless drive of words and consciousness that always made me uneasy. I used to watch Letterman pretty regularly, and when Williams would come on, I’d watch the first couple of minutes in hopes that he’d tone down his spitfire stream, and usually would flip channels halfway through the interview. I just couldn’t ever get past the idea of how incredibly tiring he must have been being so ON all the time.

He was clearly the most talented guy in almost any room he was in, but there was never a moment he didn’t seem to be begging for everyone’s approval. It makes me unbearably sad to think that this man, who made millions of people laugh, and cry, and feel, and *seize the day*, was able to do those things so powerfully and magically for everyone around him, but couldn’t connect those reactions with the reality of how truly loved that made him.

It’s not uncommon for addicts to talk about how they lacked *something* or couldn’t get enough of *something* and the drugs were a surrogate for what they really needed… I have to wonder what it was that Robin Williams couldn’t get.

Of course, it never really matters how much other people love you if you can’t love yourself. What a trite and annoying cliché, but also perhaps tragically true. I just wish that every kid who fell immediately in love with the mania and genius that was Genie in ‘Aladdin’, or Peter in ‘Hook’ … every teenager who wished they’d had a teacher as dynamic as Mr. Keating in ‘Dead Poets Society’, or a nanny like Mrs. Doubtfire, or a therapist like Sean Maguire in ‘Good Will Hunting’ … I wish all of those people whose lives were so profoundly enriched by his talent and warmth and empathy and just… utter goddamned fire… were able to transfer just one pinch of that back to him, so he could truly feel it. So maybe that could have penetrated the inscrutable shell that is depression and isolation that he apparently felt through a lot of his life. Unfortunately my rudimentary understanding of that kind of depression tells me that the more you’re told how much you’re loved, the deeper your own hole can feel. “Why don’t I feel about myself  what other people say they feel about me?”

It makes me unbearably sad to think that this man, who made literally millions of people laugh, and cry, and feel, and *seize the day*,  was able to do those things so powerfully and magically for everyone around him, but couldn’t connect those reactions with the reality of how truly loved that made him.

Looking back you see it… He was always searching for that key to whatever riddle he believed he was, and all of his roles were just new attacks at his own personal Rubicks Cube. He never quite found that key, so he kept manically plugging away and plugging away and I guess he finally just decided to peel off the colors, and solve himself that way.

I sincerely hope that, if there’s an afterlife, he’s found the peace and fulfillment that eluded him in life. I’ll continue to find joy in his performances. To revel in the unbridled perfection of Genie. To well up at his warm, passionate, inspiring Mr. Keating. And I’ll wish he’d taken to heart the words of his own, Oscar Winning role in Good Will Hunting:

“You'll have bad times, but it'll always wake you up to the good stuff you weren't paying attention to.”

No Joy in Mudville

Liar. Cheater. Scumbag.

I remember when I was a kid, I loved to listen to my dad tell stories about all manner of his memories from when he was a kid.

He'd tell me about the amazing powers of The Green Lantern, and about playing pick-up basketball at the old JCC with the road teams who were in town to play the Cincinnati Royals, and about how he accidentally shredded his brother's foot in the spokes of his bike.

I loved all of them. I ate them up. I soaked them all in...

My favorite stories were always about baseball. Probably because I was utterly obsessed with the sport.

I made my dad help me recite the top home run hitters of all time. "Hank Aaron 755. Babe Ruth 714. Willie Mays 660. Frank Robinson 586."  He used to tell me that Johnny Bench could hold a million baseballs in his hand. He would tell me about how getting Joe Morgan for Lee May made the the Reds the greatest team of the 1970s and among the greatest teams ever.

I remember watching TV when Pete Rose came back to town to re-sign with the Reds. I was 4 years old and I remember seeing the footage of Pete's car coming across the bridge. I will never forget going with my mom to the game BEFORE Pete broke Cobb's record. I made a sign. Pete went 0 for 4.

The first poem I ever wrote was about the 1994 strike. The Reds winning the 1990 World Series still, 23 years later, counts as one of the 10 greatest moments of my life. Maybe that's sad, but I guarantee I'm not the only one.

 I would throw ball after ball against the wall of my grandparent's house. Always aiming for the small square my grandpa had drawn in blue crayon. Always pretending to be Mike Schmidt, who was, in my opinion, the greatest third baseman ever. I held that opinion even then, because some time in 1984 or 85 my dad and I were watching the Reds play the Phillies, and my dad pointed out Schmidt at the plate. He said "This guy is really good. He hits a lot of home runs.". Then Schmidt homered. It was like he could do it on command. It was like my dad made it happen. Baseball is magical, I guess.

No... I don't guess. Baseball IS magical. There's no 9 part Ken Burns documentary on Football... As much as we all love football, it isn't (and will never be) baseball.

And now, I'm not sure baseball is baseball.

Look... I realize I'm late to this party. The McGwires and Sosas and Bonds and Palmeiros and Giambis and all of those guys who stood there and pointed and pretended to not speak English and dissembled and claimed ignorance... they are the ones who put doubt in the mind of every fan. They are the ones who shattered the sacred records and spat on the legacies of Roger Maris and Hank Aaron and every other player who achieved their astronomical records legitimately.

Then... after all of those bombs dropped over and over... Starting with Raphael Palmeiro (outed while I was driving back from the Baseball Hall of Fame induction weekend with my dad and the Brawny Hombre) and capping off with Barry Bonds, there were swaths of legends felled by allegations, assertions, and often direct evidence of their cheating. It was a dark time, to be sure. We had a single-season and career homer champion whose numbers are questioned.  In 1998 there was this incredible home run race to 62 homers by two separate men, often regarded (along with Cal Ripken's longevity streak) as the moment baseball resurrected herself from the ashes of a horrible players strike. Only 5 years later that same chase could arguably be seen as nothing more than a slap in the face to Roger Maris and his family.

Numbers we hallowed our entire lives were being surpassed by these hulking behemoths with clubs, and as quickly as they shattered the records, they were outed as being cheats. Baseball fans everywhere could no longer hold on to the one thing they'd always had as an advantage over the fans of other sports. The statistics. The beautiful, simple statistics.

I thought we were going in a better direction. Power numbers went down to more historically consistent levels in conjunction with new drug testing policies. More and more players were openly in favor of cleaning up the sport.

And yet... Here comes Ryan Braun. A player with prodigious power and offensive polish who'd tested positive late in his MVP season and insisted he was innocent. He dragged the name of the tester through the mud. He pulled out all of the legal stops on his league-allowed appeal, and HE WON. He won his appeal on some very nebulous technicality, and he returned to the field none-the-worse for wear the next season. Don't even get me started on the "coincidence" that the owner of the team for whom Braun plays also happens to be the commissioner of baseball. How that's not a conflict of interest I'll never know.

Now, today, he was suspended for the rest of the season based on some apparently damning evidence in some report and it must be pretty clear, because the Great Appealer isn't appealing. He's now admitting to some "mistakes".  

Apparently he's just the first domino in a long line of suspensions and bombs to come. Alex Rodriguez is on the list. A-Rod is currently 6th on the all time homers list, and was up until last year the single biggest contender to pass the other cheater, Barry Bonds for the record. It's very likely now that he'll never come close, and maybe won't ever play again.

You know... none of this is news. None of us are surprised anymore. I'm certainly not.

I'm just sad. I'm sad that the stories my dad told me as a kid are somehow laced with asterisks now. I'm sad that every number has to be questioned and scrutinized. I'm sad that heroes like Hank Aaron and Roger Maris are no longer the official holders of those iconic records. I'm sad that when the dads of my generation tell their kids about the great players they watched growing up, that the most exciting ones were cheaters.

I love Tony Gwynn and Greg Maddux as much as anyway, but the players who I pretended to be on the diamond, the ones who drew me to the game I love, were the mashers and the flame throwers and a lot of those guys are liars.

Baseball better figure it out fast, because this shit bums me out. It's gotta end. We've gotta have the purity of our game.

2013 Oscar Predictions

I have all kinds of things I want to blog about, and as sometimes happens in those kinds of situations where I have a ton of stuff to say, I find myself not blogging at all.

It's very frustrating.

I decided that with The Oscars on tomorrow night, and me having seen an inordinate number of the movies involved this year, that I should weigh in. Of course, with only having until tomorrow to make the predictions, here's what I'm going to do... I'm going to get those out of the way, and then once I feel like I have the time I'll talk about things like:

"Why the girl from Beasts of the Southern Wild is the most impressive marionette in history, but decidedly not an actress."

"Why Les Miserables is a hugely impressive movie that had absolutely no chance to make everyone happy."

or

"How I'd be fine with 7 of the nominees for Best Picture actually winning. Also Hell is frozen over."

Those are for another, simpler time.

Without further ado, my Oscar Predictions along with who I believe should win.

Best Original Screenplay:
Should Win: Django Unchained
Will Win: Django Unchained
Comments - Tarantino is a master on the page. I love his turn of phrase. There will be people who are turned off by the profanity, but.. you know... fuck 'em.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Lincoln
Comments - I love Tony Kushner, and while some people didn't love how densely written Lincoln was, it takes an expert touch to write period dialogue that also conveys a lot of ideas without getting boring. Kushner nails it.

Visual Effects
Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Comments- A lot of folks didn't like The Hobbit, but the effects are great. They're also probably the only thing that doesn't suffer a little from the 48fps. Still... Life of Pi had a ridiculously lush feel, and also featured a CGI tiger that was extremely convincing. Also...a  better movie, by a lot.

Animated Short Film:
Should Win: Paperman
Will Win: Paperman
Comments: It's one of the most romantic shorts I've ever seen, and has a great visual style to boot.

Best Original Song:
Should Win: Skyfall
Will Win: Skyfall
Comments... c'mon.. It's Adele.

Best Score:
Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Lincoln
Comments: It's a toss-up for me between the two, really, but I absolutely loved the Life of Pi music throughout, and John Williams' music from Lincoln is only the 10th or 11th best thing about that movie.

Best Foreign Language Film:
Should Win: I have no idea
Will Win: Amour
Comments... Think about it... The movie is nominated for Best Picture. It's not gonna win that, but doesn't that sort of automatically make it the best Foreign Language movie?

Film Editing:
Should Win: Argo
Will Win: Lincoln
Comments- I wouldn't be surprised if this goes to Zero Dark Thirty, because that movie has much snappier editing, but Argo was so well cut together, I don't think anything else was close this year. Heart-beating. Still... Lincoln's gonna take it, because I'm basically predicting that Lincoln's gonna take a lot of these close calls.

Documentary Feature:
Should Win: I dunno
Will Win: Searching for Sugarman
Comments: I have no idea... i'm a bad Cinema Junkie who didn't see any of these.

Directing:
Should Win: Steven Spielberg
Will Win:  Steven Spielberg
Comments: Had Tarantino or Affleck been nominated, this might be a different discussion, but since they're not I have to believe Spielberg has this in the bag, and probably should.

Cinematography
Should Win: Django Unchained
Will Win: Lincoln
Comments: Look... this is very close, but I personally prefer the more stylish Django to the more epic/cinematic Lincoln. If Lincoln wins, I won't be bummed, but I'd be more excited about a Django win.

Animated Feature Film
Should Win: Wreck-it Ralph
Will Win: Wreck-it Ralph
Comments: If it was just about the animation itself, I'd be totally down with Paranorman or Frankeweenie, but I just found the story and writing of Wreck-it Ralph to be so well done, that it wins. It's not like it looked shabby, either. It was really beautifully realized. (PS... i loved Brave also, but no chance.)

Supporting Actress
Should Win: Anne Hathaway
Will Win: Anne Hathaway
Comments: Seems like this one is already done, because she's won (and annoyed) at every award show so far. I am a big Amy Adams fan, and I'd love to see her win for something some time, because I think this is now the 3rd nomination for her, but it's not her year. The Master was too bizarre, and Anne Hathaway just crushes too hard.

Supporting Actor
Should Win: Christoph Waltz
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones
Comments: Man... what a field, huh? All former winners. DeNiro!! I liked all of these performances except maybe Hoffman (I just hated The Master, kinda). Still... the real show was Christoph Waltz playing a truly memorable character. I loved his performance. Tommy Lee Jones was great, too, though and for the bigger winner overall. I'd be shocked if he doesn't win.

Best Actress
Should Win: Jennifer Lawrence
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence
Comments: I'm fine with any of these women winning except for the kid. That's a whole other blog. Jennifer Lawrence is awesome, and definitely the best part of the movie. I kinda feel like she's got the momentum, and she's as deserving as any of these ladies.Except the kid. She's more deserving than the kid.

Best Actor
Should Win: Daniel Day Lewis
Will Win: Daniel Day Lewis
Comments: This one is tough for me, because I could definitely make a real argument for 2 of the other guys. Joaquin Phoenix was by far the most interesting part of The Master, and he is one of my favorite kooky actors out there. Hugh Jackman was almost unsung (ha!) in Les Mis, but as the Beefy Padre said "Oh yeah? Well YOU do it." That guy did a very strong job with an unbelievably difficult character. Still.. Daniel Day Lewis gave a performance that, if you ask me, is a one-in-a-generation performance. Years from now people will still talk about that performance in that movie.

Best Picture
Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Argo
Comments: As I mentioned at the top, I truly believe that 7 of the 9 nominees are excellent enough that I wouldn't be mad if they won. Any one of those 7 would have easily been the top choice ahead of The Artist last year. (The 2 others being Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild, one of which just has no chance, and the other isn't really all that good respectively. ).

Still... When all is said and done, I say that the argument can truly only be made for 3 of these. Lincoln, Argo, and Django Unchained. In 30 years, these are the 3 that'll be debated as being "All timers". And if I'm being honest with myself I just have to go with Lincoln. It was affecting, beautifully acted, and tightly written. It was directed by a living legend, led by a performance by another living legend, and written by one of the great playwrights of our generation. It's as close to a no-brainer as I can think of, and yet...

I think Argo will win. It's got the momentum. It's a movie that gives a giant tip of the cap to the movie industry. It's exciting, smartly directed, and is just super in its own right. Do I think it should win? No. Will my feelings be hurt? No. It's awesome.

Now... Let's see how wrong I am tomorrow.

Our Rights and What's Right

I apologize for the time I've taken away from blogging. I moved across the country and found a new job and blah blah nobody cares... Anyway, nothing seemed all that important to talk about, but then today a young man made a little visit to a grade school in Connecticut and shot a whole mess of innocent people.

Now I have something to say.

The other day, after Bob Costas was nearly lynched for having the audacity to suggest that guns shouldn't be so easy to get sometimes, I went on Facebook.

I found a discussion between two of my friends. One suggested that guns don't kill people any more than cars do, and that ultimately it's the people doing it, and why don't we take away the cars since they're also deadly... The other friend said something that I wholly agree with in equating cars and guns is a false equivalency, because while cars (or knives or ropes or whatever else) can be used to kill, they ultimately have a different primary purpose, whereas the purpose of a gun can only truly be one thing. To wound, maim, or kill.

He's right, of course, and that's the reason I don't understand the people out there laboring so adamantly to fight against gun control.

I simply don't see how a logical, evolved person would in good conscience hold out this “right” to have guns as this completely impregnable thing that can't ever be questioned.

Oh wait... I should be totally clear.

I like guns. I am not opposed to private gun ownership. I have considering purchasing one of my own on numerous occasions, even recently. I've gone to shooting ranges. I've enjoyed popping off a few rounds targeted at silly paper plates.

I'm not advocating taking guns away from sane people. Guns, themselves, aren't the problem. It is possible to own a gun safely and responsibly.

Still... I think there are some big things to talk about here that go beyond my personal preferences and freedoms. The public good is at stake here.

So what about that good old 2^nd Amendment?

Essentially the amendment itself says that the people have the right to bear arms, and that this right cannot be infringed upon.

Seems pretty cut and dry, but there's also this part about militias. Oh, and this other part where it's about it being a right only when crucial to the security of a free state.

Really, it's not all that clear what it all means. You know what IS clear?

The US Constitution, along with the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791.

Here are some facts about guns in 1791...

Guns in 1791 WOULD

• ...be made by a gunsmith.
• ...have rudimentary rifling.
• ...be single-shot weapons.
• ...be loaded through the muzzle.
• ...fire by means of a flintlock.
  

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

• ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
• ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
• ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
• ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
• ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
• ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
  

Had the 3 guns carried by the shooter in today's violence been the “Arms” our founding fathers had in mind, he'd have killed 3 people at most. That's assuming the guns didn't malfunction. That's assuming he wouldn't have missed otherwise. That's assuming he walked in with all 3 guns loaded and ready to fire.

Once those 3 shots were done, he likely would have been subdued by one of the many bystanders while he tried to re-load the muzzles and that would have been that. A horrible tragedy to be sure, but nothing like what transpired today.

My point?

The founding fathers didn't have 9mm automatic handguns in mind when they gave everyone the right to “bear arms”. They weren't governing based on the possibility of a sociopath with a Bushwacker opening fire in a kindergarten class.

So you know.. maybe we don't lean so hard on this 2^nd Amendment? Maybe I'm wrong.

But let's just say I am wrong, and Thomas Jefferson and everybody else would have been totally cool with assault rifles.

Should WE be okay with them?

I know that some guns are cool, and some guns are fun to shoot. I get it, totally. I get that it's fun to go to a gun show and buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle, you know... just to have it.

You know what, though?

Maybe YOUR fun isn't what matters. Or mine. Or anyones. Maybe the safety of the people as a whole is more important than your desire to own a cool gun. It's all just dick measuring, right? The need to own a bigger and badder gun than the person next door.

 

You want to “protect” your family? I'm down with that. I just don't think you need an AK-47 to do it. A simple .38 revolver can do that just fine if a gun is the way you want to do that.

What? You need more than 6 shots to protect your family? What fucking gang did you piss off? If we're being honest here, if you're in a situation where 6 shots isn't enough, maybe you're into some shit a little deeper than you should be. I dunno.

So okay.. lets say that Glock is really necessary for your protection. Do you need 5 of them? You only have 2 hands, and maybe you should consider using one of them to open the back door and run like hell.

That's really what I'm getting at here...

I'm not against guns.

I'm against owning a dozen guns. I'm against the ridiculous loophole that allows people to buy a gun from a gun show without a background check. I'm against people making a big deal about those background checks, because it infringes on your rights to wait a couple of fucking days for your “recreational M16”.

I'm sad that you need to take classes before they give you a license to cut hair, sell real estate, drive a car, ride a scooter, and bartend, but you don't need to take a gun safety class before you can buy one.

A lot of people are going to blame a lot of things for this shooting, and you know, we'll probably never know whether the guy got a little too bored killing digital people in a video game, or if he was listening to too much metal, or any of the other bullshit things that are always blamed. One thing we do know? If he didn't have easy access to guns, those people would still be alive.

I think it's time to look at ourselves. Just because we may have the right to bear arms, does that mean we should bear like... all of them at once?

I'm sure there are people who will argue that the government shouldn't have this kind of say over what we do. That tightening up on gun control will simply start the ball rolling and give the feds the foothold they need to start taking away other rights.

It's a risk I'm willing to take to prevent another day like today.

Something about Lolo

I don't know if you've been following the Olympics, but if you have, you likely know of Lolo Jones.

There are probably at least a couple of things you know:

1) Lolo Jones is very, very attractive.
2) Lolo Jones didn't win a medal.

There are probably at least a couple of things you've heard:

1) Lolo Jones is a product of the USA Marketing Machine.
2) Lolo Jones is not a very good hurdler.

The things you know are 100% true. Lolo is extremely attractive. Like... crazy good looking. She's in phenomenal shape, and she's pretty too. She also didn't win a medal for the second Olympics in a row. The first time she was leading with one hurdle to go, and she fell. The second time she ran cleanly but was beaten and came in fourth.

The things you've heard are another story.

It's probably true, at least to some degree, that Lolo has enjoyed a distinct level of fame reserved for exceptionally pretty athletes in glamor athletic events. If I'm thinking about marketing US Olympians to the American people, I'd probably see her and think about featuring her as well. This is, decidedly, not her fault, and not her issue. If McDonalds wants to pay me to be in their ads, I'm taking their money too.

What isn't true in the very least is that she's not a very good hurdler.

If you're making that statement as a simple reaction to her lack of a win, that's an insane exaggeration. This isn't Highlander. There can be more than one very good, world class, hurdler. Not only does it disrespect her, but it disrespects her opponents as well. Just because she wasn't the best on this particular day, or even if she's never been the absolute best, to say that she's not any good is patently insane and stupid.

Factually, it's also just wrong. She's a multiple time indoor track champion. She runs the 100 Meter Hurdles in under 13 seconds regularly, and the 100 meter dash in under 12. That's really fucking fast.

Just because there are women who are faster (the total number of which could be counted on 3 fingers) doesn't mean that her skills or her abilities are less impressive.

The frustration comes, I believe, out of the fact that someone along the way decided to bring her to our collective attention as a superstar, and for the most part those people usually are superstars. The fact that she is merely exceptional and not the best has seemingly turned the media, and in turn many people who aren't paying attention or thinking about her actual achievements, against her.

Let me be clear on this point... That is NOT on her. That's on us. That's on the media. It's not her responsibility to "live up to" the hype. She may not have discouraged the hype, but what track athlete would? Track stars are, by nature, insanely confident. Personally, I think it's a shame that we, as a culture, feel the need first create stars, and then tear them down if they don't entertain us the way we want.

Lolo Jones is the 4th fastest hurdler in the world. That's pretty fucking amazing.

While we're talking about how fucked up our world is (with the Olympics as the looking glass), let's talk for a minute about Gabby Douglas.

Again, I assume that if you've been watching the Olympics, you know who Gabby Douglas is... For those of you needing a reminder, she's a 16 year old girl who also happened to have won the women's gymnastics all-around gold medal.

This Gabby Douglas has now been criticized by 2 groups within the American people (at least) that I'm aware of...

I saw her criticized on Fox News (...) because during the individual all-around competition she wore a pink outfit as opposed to something representing America. She was essentially accused of having some sort of American self-loathing, or something. Or that she was embarrassed to be an exceptional American, so she subconsciously wore "unAmerican colors".

This?? Is total, fucking, bullshit. It is. It's just sitting there LOOKING for something to criticize. Last I checked, nobody was unsure of where she came from, and she stood and held her hand over her heart during the National Anthem. The fact that she wore pink doesn't make her a commie. In fact, I'm fairly sure commies hate pink. . Nastia Liukin, the actual Russan-born American, won the 2008 all-around gold wearing... PINK. Did anyone mention this? I don't know why people are looking for reasons to criticize this amazing teenager.

The other point of criticism came from a much more disappointing place.

Gabby Douglas has been criticized in the black community, because she didn't fix her hair "black enough". Oh... did I forget to mention that Gabby Douglas is black? Instead of being proud of her a a teenager who won a gold medal for her country, people can't leave the poor girl alone. I don't want to get into the history of black women's hair in the US. I don't much care. I don't care if she shaved her head. I don't care if she wore braids. I don't care if she added a weave. I don't care if she straightened it. It's 100% irrelevant. She's an exceptional athlete, who seems to handle herself in an exceptional manner, and her hair is totally fucking beside the point.

I am so sad that we have a girl who can potentially serve as a role model for Americans everywhere. Boys, girls. Anyone. She's a teenager who can be held up as a success as opposed to being famous for being on some horrible MTV show.

I'm offended that we're not celebrating her success more.

This isn't my last blog about the Olympics. Over on Facebook, I made the statement that Michael Phelps is clearly the greatest Olympian ever, and while many people agreed, other people vehemently disagreed. Or at least felt like it was a fun debate (It totally is!), so....

Over the next couple of days I'm going to formulate my own little greatest Olympian tournament, and we'll break it down. I hope that I can be open enough to not crown Phelps automatically.

Talkin' Broadway with The Muchacho

"George! Get this mother effing spider off me!!!!"

There was a time when I was one of those musical theatre people. You know the kind I’m talking about. I was ALWAYS debating what the best musicals were. Or at least what my own personal favorites were.

That was a long time ago. These days, I don’t hang with many musical theatre folks, so I’m relegated to talking extensively about drywall, and corning wear, and wet willies, and how fucking hot it is outside. It’s not that none of my friends like musical theatre. Maybe it’s just that making unnecessary lists is a thing we all do in our early 20s and after a while it just gets old. Maybe it’s because there hasn’t exactly been a huge number of game-changing musicals over the past decade or so.

My theory? At least for me, the two most prominent venues for glorifying musical theatre have done the exact opposite. Glee and Smash are both horrific television programs which intend to show how awesome musicals are, but mostly just show how awful people can be. It’s kind of forced me to take a bit of a break from the greatest American art form.

NO LONGER!

After having a brief conversation with the Tofu Muchacha (and perhaps more with myself than anything), I’ve decided to revisit an old discussion I used to have and list my favorite musicals. My list is weighted toward the modern. There’s not a lot of obscure stuff. It’s just a straightforward list of shows that mean something to me, and have kick-ass music, and sometimes I just dream about being in them.

So… Without further ado..

The Beefy Muchacho’s Top 10 Favorite Musicals.

Honorable Mentions:
Bat Boy – I was first introduced to Bat Boy about 10 years ago while I was teaching at a local high school. We were really interested in doing it, but we couldn’t get the rights, so we ended up doing Godspell. That turned out really well, but I was always a little disappointed we couldn’t do Bat Boy. It’s just so weird and quirky and fun. It has a huge helping of “silly” in there. Also it’s twisted and perverted. It’s totally awesome. Hidden under all of that silliness and quirk, though, is a very challenging score with some exceptionally fun songs to sing. My personal favorites include the quartet at the end of Act 1 and this really beautiful section of a song toward the end of the play where the mother and father sing this gorgeous harmonic duet for about 4 measures. It’s just a neat piece of music. People should do it more.

Hair – I was in Hair a couple of years ago, and I spent most of the time thinking “This is the dumbest, weirdest show ever. Why do people like this?” Of course, I was in the unenviable position of playing “The Man”, and I wasn’t part of the tribe and I didn’t have a ton of fun stuff to do. I was playing the square over and over. It wasn’t until the show started to really come together, and I had a chance to really listen to the songs, and really pay attention to what was happening in the scenes I wasn’t in to appreciate Hair for what it is… It’s an archeological piece. It’s a time capsule. It’s a perfect window into an important, altering moment in our country’s history. Yeah, it’s bizarre. Yeah, some of the songs are really stupid (The musical version of Hamlet’s “What a Piece of Work is Man” speech is especially ridiculous), but there are also some really interesting moments. The song “Frank Mills” where this sweet hippie girl sings a love song to this dirty biker she met once for a minute is one of the sweetest songs in musical theatre. Oh… also? It fucking rocks. There are some great, great rocking musical theatre songs. “Aquarius”, “Hair”, “The Flesh Failures”, “Let the Sun Shine In”…. those songs are extremely catchy, and really fun. I’m especially fond of the titular “Hair”. That song is badass.

Chidren of Eden - I’ve always felt that there’s this unspoken thing where you’re either a Sondheim person or a Schwartz person. They are the two most successful composers of musicals of the last 50 years (along with Webber). I think that I am one of the few people who fall somewhere in the middle of the two. The thing I love most about Stephen Schwartz are his harmonies. He creates some of the most soaring, beautiful choral harmonies, and I think Children of Eden has the best ones. I played “Father” in Children of Eden a while back, and while it was a lot of fun, and a huge challenge, I was always a little disappointed, because I didn’t get much opportunity to participate in the great harmonies. The finale is such a lovely song, and the build into the a capella section is one of the prettier pieces of music in all of musical theatre in my opinion.

Godspell - I really had a hard time choosing between Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. I realize there’s no rule that says I have to choose just one, but to me they’ll always be compared because they came out around the same time, lay people confuse the two, and they are so clearly telling the same story but from different world views. I think that ‘Superstar’ would be amazing to be a part of (there are like… five parts I’d love to play), but ultimately the thing that sets Godspell apart for me is that there’s just this way that it manages to connect with the audience on an emotional level. It’s one of those shows where the actors become very close if it’s done right. That closeness comes through. It’s a team effort in a way. I also think the music of Godspell is just so much fun, and has so much life. It doesn’t hurt that I’ve been a part of two productions of it that were both particularly positive experiences for me. It’s just a great show.

South Pacific – Rogers and Hammerstein has a tendency to be viewed as passé for “inside” theatre people, and I think that’s like an art student saying they like Picasso, or a musician saying that The Beatles are their favorite band. They might be dinged for being unoriginal, and they might be snickered at by their fellow art and music majors, but you know what? The reason those things are passé is because so many people for so many years listed their work as being their favorite. They’re just good. That’s all. South Pacific is a classic. It’s Rogers and Hammerstein at the top of their games, churning out a dozen memorable, enduring songs (“Some Enchanted Evening”, “Wash that Man Right Outta My Hair”, “I’m in Love with a Wonderful Guy”, “Younger Than Springtime”, “Carefully Taught”, “There’s Nothing Like a Dame”, “Bali Hai”.) I mean… these songs are all musical theatre classics. The show is powerful, and entertaining, and a damn lot of fun to be in. The production I was in at Jenny Wiley Theater was one of the most fun times I’ve had on stage. It was just a great time.

Okay… and now the tough part. Ranking my 10 favorite musicals of all time... In order ending with my all time favorite musical.

10 - The Last 5 Years – It’s certainly on my list of shows I’d like to be in. I love Jason Robert Brown’s music. I love his lyrics. I love that he writes pretty much exclusively for the Baritenor in his lead roles. I could have picked a few of his shows, but this one stands out to me as his best, and also his most heartbreaking. He has this great knack for infusing great emotion into his work, and it’s obvious he was conflicted when he wrote this auto-biographical work about his failed marriage. The most creative part is that it shows the progression of the relationship from the perspective of both characters (man and woman) but their stories go in reverse. At the beginning of the show, the relationship is starting for the man and ending for the woman. There are so many good songs here, but it’s hard not to fall in love with “The Next 10 Minutes” where the stories of both people intersect and they sing the one and only true duet of the 2 person show. It’s a very powerful theatre experience.

9 - West Side Story – If I were a dancer, I’d probably have West Side higher. If I were a tenor, I’d probably have it higher too. I’m definitely bitter that I have a tough time singing Tony’s songs. Look… This is probably the most technically perfect musical ever created. It’s got the score by Leonard Bernstein. The Lyrics by Sondheim. The source material by Shakespeare. The original choreography by Jerome Robbins. It's just spectacular. The only real downside is that this show tends to be mounted by people who don't quite get how difficult it is, and don't quite get how important all of the factors are. The music is very difficult to sing, so sometimes groups will cast it with the best singers, and the dancing suffers. There are people who cast it to showcase dancers, and the music suffers. The acting almost always suffers. Believe me, though... As soon as you see a cast that can sing, dance, AND act the show. It's amazing.

8 – Little Shop of Horrors – I distinctly remember singing “The Dentist Song” while playing on the playground in 2^nd or 3^rd grade. For whatever reason, Little Shop spoke to me from a young age. I think it was the first time it registered to me that a musical could be funny and dark. It’s possible that The Dentist is the first role I ever wanted to play. I remember riding around in my mom’s car and listening to the cassette tape of Little Shop over and over and over. Clearly my mother loved me a lot, because damn. I knew EVERY word of that show. It’s just so funny and smart, but at the same time, the tunes really stick with me. Far more than other “funny” shows. Not that those shows are bad, but I feel like Little Shop really paved the way for a slightly more irreverent strain of Broadway musicals. If you follow me… I’m essentially saying that without Little Shop of Horrors, there would be no Urinetown, Avenue Q, or even The Book of Mormon. It’s absolutely classic.

7 – Assassins – I know it’s blasphemous to many, but I’m not a huge Sondheim fan. I mean… I like several of his works, and I acknowledge the skill he has, but it’s mostly not my thing. I far more gravitate toward the melodic rather than the wordy. There are a couple of exceptions, though, and easily my favorite of all of Sondheim’s shows is Assassins. It’s the perfect combination for me of my love of history, my love of musical theatre, and my love of dark material. There’s nothing to dislike about Assassins. It’s clever, it’s got some truly touching and emotional music. It’s bitingly funny. It has provided me with more than one victory at a trivia night, because who else would know who the hell Samuel Byck was? The scene in the Dallas Book Depository is one of the most chilling scenes in all of theatre, even if it’s playing fast and loose with one of the worst moments in our country’s history. I’m not as fond of the cast of the more recent revival with Neil Patrick Harris and Mario Cantone and Michael Cerveris. I much prefer the version with Victor Garber and Terrence Mann. It’s one of the better cast recordings ever.

6 – Big River – Man… this is getting really, really tough. I think it’s safe to say that on a given day I could potentially list any of these next 6 as my favorite all time musical, and I likely wouldn’t argue…with myself… Anyway, Big River is awesome for several reasons… First, the source material is one of the most important, entertaining, and touching books ever written. (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn). Second, the songs are uniformly either catchy as all hell (“I, Huckleberry Me”, “Guv’ment”, “Hand for the Hog”, “When the Sun Goes Down in the South”) or beautiful (“River in the Rain” “Waiting for the Light to Shine”) just plain moving (“Worlds Apart”, “You Oughta Be Here with Me”, “Leavin’s Not the Only Way to Go”, “Free at Last”), or even exciting (“Muddy Water” “Waiting for the Light to Shine (Reprise)”). It’s probably the only soundtrack I own where I’ll listen to it straight through every time. I never want to skip a song to get to another. Third, I think it provides some of the most interesting visual possibilities of any show. It’s perfect for outdoor stages. Fourth, it’s got a lot of personal, emotional connection for me as it was one of my all-time favorite experiences in a show as a teen. It’s just a wonderful show. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing several wonderful productions, and even being in one of those.

5 – Carousel – This breaks my heart, because I honestly expected it to end up higher. I have some very sentimental reasons for loving Carousel so much, but I first want to talk about the more factual reasons for it being great; I don’t think anyone would deny that Rogers and Hammerstein were one of the great musical theatre writing teams of all time. They created several of the truly great musicals ever. Some were very, very broad and commercial (Oklahoma!, The Sound of Music, Cinderella), some were more political (The King and I, South Pacific), but one was the perfect combination of a beautiful story, a little serious message-delivery, and insanely gorgeous music. That, of course, is Carousel. From the very beginning, Carousel is a masterpiece of music. The opening sequence where the overture plays and the carousel is assembled on stage in a dance is one of the most beautiful sequences in anything. There are so many great moments and memorable characters, but of course, none greater or more memorable than Billy Bigelow, who is arguably one of the more unsympathetic, or at least… morally ambiguous… main characters in Broadway history. I remember seeing the national tour in Cincinnati around 1995. It was the revival staging and design, and I went into it thinking I would be bored, and I was the absolute OPPOSITE of bored. It was magical.

On a personal note, when I needed to write my senior one-act about a figure in theatre history, I chose Broadway legend John Raitt (Bonnie’s dad). He was the original Sid in The Pajama Game. The 2^nd Curly in Oklahoma, and famously the original Billy Bigelow. I couldn’t find any information on him at all, really. This was before Wikipedia, and there were no biographies about him like there was about Ethel Merman or Sondheim. There was just… nothing. I wasn’t sure where to turn, and I was getting close to changing streams and choosing another person entirely. I had one final recourse, and I had no expectation of it yielding anything close to a result. I called Information and asked for “John Raitt, Fullerton, California”.

I was connected and an old man answered the phone.

I said “Can I speak to Mr. John Raitt, please?”

He said: “Speaking.”

I said: “Is this John Raitt the actor?”

He said: “I prefer to think of myself as a singer.”

After that, a lot of the conversation was a blur, but I can tell you that it lasted 3 hours. I explained to him my project. I asked him a million questions, many of them pretty personal. I asked him what it was like to work directly with Rogers and Hammerstein. I asked him what it was like to sing their amazing music. He was unbelievably gracious. It was truly one of the more amazing experiences of my life. At the end of the conversation, he asked me for my address. A couple of weeks later I received a letter from him, wishing me luck on my project, and a signed headshot.

How could I not love Carousel just a little bit extra after an experience like that?

4 - Ragtime. This one is a little simpler, I guess. The first time I saw Ragtime, with the original cast in their pre-Broadway run in Toronto in the Summer of 1997, is the single most insanely awesome production of something I’ve ever seen. Audra MacDonald. Brian Stokes Mitchell. Marin Mazzie. Peter Friedman, Mark Jacoby. All of them really. It was a truly incredible show. And one of the great, most special things about that experience was that because it was so new, nobody knew a thing about it. How often can you go into a show completely unaware of what you’re about to see? It could have been tragically bad. It could have been unwatchable. Instead, I got one of the most arresting, moving theatre watching experiences I’ve ever had, featuring what is easily the most stacked cast of performers I’ve ever witnessed in person. I loved it so much, and talked about it so incessantly for the next 10 months that when my Dad, Dee Anne, and I went to New York the next Spring, there was no way we couldn’t see it. I got to see the original cast TWICE.

Of course, as with everything with me, I have personal connections to this show. I was in a production of it in the Fall of 2003, and while I was woefully too young, I had the privilege of playing Tateh. For a multitude of reasons, it was among the more memorable shows I’ve ever done, and while not all of those memories are entirely positive, it was a show I felt honored to be in at the time, and it just felt like we were doing something really cool. It was.

3- Les Miserables - Listen… I know that at least to some degree, loving Les Mis is a bit of a cliché along the lines of loving Phantom of the Opera (I don’t, particularly.) There’s just a huge swath of musical theatre nerds who grew up listening to Les Mis over and over and over again. I’m absolutely one of them. It’s become one of those things where every person has sung every song. A lot of Musical Theatre programs and companies won’t allow you to sing a song from Les Mis for auditions, because for a while there that’s all they heard.

Here’s the thing, though… It really is something spectacular to behold. Of all of those big spectacle shows from the 80s, I believe that Les Mis holds up the best. Better than Cats. Better than Phantom. Better than Miss Saigon. It’s got these huge themes and huge set pieces, and every song ends on a 30 second glory note that will PROVE that Colm Wilkinson is a fucking MAN damnit. Like, for real. If I told you that I didn’t spend a good amount of my youth dreaming about one day playing Javert and singing the absolute shit out of ‘Stars”, I’d be lying to you.

It’s the ultimate “Singers Musical”. While “A Chorus Line” is the ultimate dancer musical and Avenue Q is the ultimate puppetry musical, and “The Life” is the ultimate hooker musical, Les Mis is the absolute peak of Singing Masturbation. Not to be lewd or anything, but there’s not a girl on this Earth who didn’t drop everything to sing “On My Own” or “I Dreamed a Dream” if they ever wanted to be on Broadway. It just didn’t happen.

Frank Wildhorn attempted to make a cottage industry around singer-masturbation shows, but Les Mis is the all-time champion.

That is not, in any way, to diminish what it does exceptionally well, and that is make the audience totally melt at about 9 different points. It’s an incredibly moving show, with moving music, and if performed by talented people who do it justice, it’s one of the best things to go spend 4 hours seeing. It’s great.

2 - Rent - It’s possible that I’ve spent more time thinking about Rent than any other show. I’ve debated the merits of it with people I respect, and I’ve discussed the sticky-wicket that is mounting new productions of it. I’ve thought about that original cast and how almost all of them have moved on to being big stars because of it. I’ve blogged about it at least twice.

The thing about Rent is that it speaks to us. It features music that is visceral and kind of dirty, and slightly unedited. (much like this blog), and it was born of a genius who died too soon, and ironically NOT from the virus that Rent talks about so candidly. It is THE musical of my generation in terms of what it meant to be a musical theatre nerd in the mid 1990s. I’ve talked about how it was a given that if it was put on the radio at a nerdy musical theatre party that without exception every person there would BLAST out the words to every single song. It means a lot to us aging Generation Xers. It tells the story of struggles and being an artist and dealing with losses in a positive way. Remembering the good. In a way it’s the opposite of Slackers or Reality Bites where the whole thing was centered on this malaise and apathy. The characters in Rent FEEL everything around them. They’re all raw nerves. It’s a very youthful, hopeful, idyllic show, and it makes me remember that time in my life.

I said last year, after seeing CCMs insanely good production of it, that I’d always been of the opinion that it should never be done. No production can reasonably expect to be favorably compared with the original, and that there was no show in Broadway history where the original was so KNOWN. So memorized by every person who would care. It could be argued that The Book of Mormon is headed down that road.

I’m starting to move away from that a bit, in that I do think it can be done, and maybe even SHOULD be done. It’s a time capsule from that time in our lives, so it’s important. I just hope that the next one I see does something totally out of left field. That’s what I crave now in my musical theatre viewing. I want someone to take a look at Jonathan Larson’s brilliant piece of art and say…

“I can do this in a new way. I’m going to make people think about this show differently than they have for the last 16 years.”

I hope it happens soon, because it’s too amazing a show to let it sit on a shelf.

1 - Spring Awakening… Weren’t expecting that, were you?

I’ve seen Spring Awakening two times. The first was a national tour where I wrote two long, wordy-ass blogs about how blown away I was. Considering I’m so succinct most of the time, you have to know how much I was set on my ear by Spring Awakening the first time I saw it. It was a revelation for me.

I’d listened to, and LOVED the soundtrack for a solid 6 months before I saw it, but I think that more than any other show I can think of, you can listen to the songs and have no real idea of what’s happening in the show without the visual context to support it. In a way, I love that about it. It’s the evolutionary grandson of shows like Oklahoma! Which famously integrated the musical for the first time 50 years before. By “integrated”, I mean that it was really the first major production to have the songs progress the story. Before that, most musicals were a hodgepodge of popular songs by Cole Porter or George Gershwin where something happens… a character sings a semi-related song… and then things happen some more.

Spring Awakening is the first musical I can recall where the lyrics forward the story, but ONLY when taken in as a smaller part of the whole. The dance, and the staging, and the full performances. It’s the MOST integrated show I can think of in that way.

That’s all very technical, I guess, but what can I say? The show moves me.

In another way, Spring Awakening is the next generation’s Rent. There’s this exciting, innovated portrayal of youth that talks about another side of growing up. It’s so much about the unknown and how dangerous half-truths can be. It takes on large themes like those, and makes me think about them in a different way.. . It also handles tiny moments, and it does so in this painful, elegant manner. It’s crushing to see how the small, seemingly minor choices of people have repercussions.

The second time I saw it, (in a production at CCM), I realized that what I loved most about it was the intimacy of it. We watched it in the studio theater where I could see every facial expressed the pain and confusion and wonder and love of the characters. It’s a show that is meant to be done in a closet. It’s works on such a personal level when you can see every crease of an eye or flick of a grin. The scenes between Melchior and Wendla, especially, take on this whole other feel when you can see the trepidation and excitement in their faces as they discover that they love each other.

Honestly, I could go on and on about it. I have done so in the past. It’s just a wonderful show with killer music and innovative dancing and staging. I truly love it.

If you asked me tomorrow what my favorite musical is, I may or may not say Spring Awakening, but as I went through this exercise today, that’s the show I landed on, and I am pleased with my choice.

It's a "Gut" Thing.

I’m 32 years old.

There are very few people who’d say that is “Old”, but I feel it sometimes, nonetheless. I rarely think about that in most of my life. You know… aside from the occasional “Wow… the kids who start high school this year were born the year I graduated”, there aren’t a lot of real life reminders.

The one thing that always gets me, though, is sports. I’m confronted with reminders every day. I think about how if I were a major league baseball player (my short-lived childhood dream), I’d likely be declining out of my prime by now. I think how I vividly remember the 1992 USA Basketball team, and how that was 20 years ago, and how every single one of those players is long retired. I remember guys like Allen Iverson, Shaquille O’Neal, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza… where I remember their entire careers from beginning to end.

And now…

Barry Larkin is in the Hall of Fame.

Barry Larkin was my favorite Red growing up. He was the best (or 2^nd best) player on every Reds team for my entire childhood. His career spanned, almost exactly , the same years I spent in school. I started 1^st grade in 1986, his rookie year. I graduated college in 2002, his 2^nd to last year. I saw him play more games in person than any other player. He was the most recognizable player of the only championship team of my lifetime.

Now… he wasn’t my first favorite Red. That honor goes to Johnny Bench or Pete Rose or maybe Mario Soto, but those guys weren’t my players. They were my Dad’s players, and since I want(ed) to be like him, I adopted the players he admired. Pete Rose’s rookie season happened when my dad was 9 years old. Pete Rose was my Dad’s Barry Larkin.

Barry Larkin was the first favorite Red of MY time as a baseball fan.

I’ve had a long running argument with my best friend (The Brawny Hombre) about whether Larkin deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. I always took the “Pro” in that fight, and maybe aside from the overwhelming numerical support for my argument, there was always something else. Something unquantifiable.

The Brawny Hombre always made the statement that it was more of a “gut” feeling that told him Larkin wasn’t a hall of famer, and I made the same argument for him.

You see, for me…Barry Larkin WAS baseball for me, growing up. He was the guy I wanted to hit like. He was the guy who carried me through the dark end of the Marge era. He was the guy who led the most exciting teams of my life, the 1990, 1995, and 1999 Reds teams. He was the guy who ALWAYS got on base, who ALWAYS made right base-running decision, who ALWAYS got to the ball in the hole. He was Barrrrrryyyyyy LARK-innnnnnnnnn. Through all those years, the Reds had other good players. Eric Davis was electrifying. Chris Sabo was a fun flash. Jose Rijo was a reliably strong starting pitcher. Rob Dibble was Aroldis Chapman before Aroldis Chapman... and was completely insane. Reggie Sanders…Paul O’Neill… Ken Griffey Jr… Sean Casey. God forbid, Adam Dunn.

None of them held quite the same place of esteem in my heart and mind that Barry Larkin did… Does.

It’s a sign that I’m getting older that a player came up, rose to greatness, declined as all players do, retired, and achieved his place in the Hall of Fame, and I remember it all. I loved it all.

I can’t think of a player I’ve rooted for as hard as I rooted for Barry Larkin. Maybe, one day, another player will come along to grab my imagination. It’s going to be difficult. I’m a jaded old adult now. I’m not as prone to idolatry.

Maybe that’s as it should be. When my dad talks about his favorite baseball moments, he invariably talks about The Big Red Machine. The team of his youth. Baseball is a kid’s game afterall. My teams were Larkin’s teams. My favorite player was Barry Larkin.

And now Barry Larkin is in the hall of fame, validating the 10 year old kid who would scream and yell and cheer for his hero at Riverfront Stadium all those times.

And damn… I’m old.

Not So Magical

One of the more nuanced moments of Magic Mike

I went to see Magic Mike.

Alone.

My period didn’t spontaneously begin.

That is not to say that I would go out of my way to see it again (I wouldn’t), but I want to talk about it for a bit. I also want to talk about the looks I received when purchasing my ticket, the snickers I got from the hoard of teen girls in the audience (for a Rated R movie!) as I walked in to the theater, and the looks of amusement and/or the audible surprise from literally everyone I’ve told about my experience.

First, let’s talk about this movie… It wasn’t that great. Not because it was chock full of greased up, mostly naked dudes. I mean.. it absolutely is chock full of greased up, mostly naked dudes, but I feel like those greased up, mostly naked dudes are not why the movie isn’t great.

The movie wasn’t great because almost all of the characters are dicks (figurative ones… sheesh).

The dramatic arc is pretty weak. The 2 major conflicts are both telegraphed from miles away. (What? The girl who they identify ONLY as trouble actually IS trouble? You don’t fucking say.) Neither of the major conflicts are particularly concerning, because one of the main characters you are mostly supposed to dislike, and the other is better off anyway.

They try to establish the Channing Tatum character as this care-free playboy, jack of all trades, artist or whatever. Instead, he’s written as clingy. You never actually see him creating his art. You never see him being good at his other various jobs. They do their best to establish him as a dude getting his life together, but for all the money he supposedly makes in all of his jobs, his well-established nest-egg is pitifully small. Basically, the character you’re supposed to like the most for all of these reasons is really only likeable because he’s Channing Tatum.

The first love interest, played by Olivia Munn, is an amoral “free spirit” who starts off fairly likeable and gets to be a cartoon. The second love interest, played by the daughter of newly appointed Disney Studios head Alan Horn, starts off overly stern and officious, and then just seems to change her mind. (I especially liked how her “boyfriend’ is immediately established as a douche. Like… you don’t like him immediately, and that seemed cheap.

Some stuff happens.

Then it just ends. It’s supposed to be cheeky (no pun intended), and naughty, and all “whatever, we’re rated R”. It mostly just comes across as an excuse to display the undeniably impressive abs of several 2^nd tier Hollywood actors.

The main laughable thing is that Matthew McConaughey is getting some sort of bizarre “best supporting actor” buzz. That’s totally insane, and a clear attempt to try to bring legitimacy or… something…. to a movie that really should just embrace the silliness.

I feel like if the movie was directed by someone else, I wouldn’t be cutting it down as much. If it were directed by Joe Johnston or some anonymous rom-com director, I think my issues would be framed a little differently. It really is just a silly movie full of eye candy for both sexual preferences (there are a lot of boobs in the movie, and it is my suspicion that there are even more that will be in the unrated version).

Unfortunately, the movie was directed by Steven Soderbergh. The same guy who directed Traffic. Ocean’s Eleven. Contagion. Movies with real points of view. Movies that are more than just a bunch of greased up dudes showing their asses (literally). The man was the first person in 60 plus years to be nominated for Best Director twice in the same year. I had higher hopes is all. Unfortunately, something got in the way, and I’m not quite sure what it is. There’s a nugget of a good movie somewhere in there. Maybe we just needed Don Cheadle to show up and cause some trouble. In an inexplicable British accident.

Overall… I give the movie a C-minus. Could have been much better.

Let’s talk for a minute, though, about the way the movie has entered our collective consciousness. Somewhere along the way, it’s been adopted by horny women (it’s really the era of Horny Women, isn’t it? What with Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey ) and gay men. That’s cool, you know… Everybody needs a movie to grab their attention. I just can’t think of another movie in my memory that has been so completely coopted that literally any other demographic of audience member risks ridicule.

I’ve gone to dozens of movies by myself. In fact, I mostly prefer it. Also, I don’t care if people think I’m gay. The people who need to know my sexual preference know it, and the rest of the world is free to speculate. I just think it’s weird that something as silly as a movie could even at all inform my sexuality.

Let me pose a question for you…

If there were a sports movie about a male swimming star… would that be off limits to sports fans because of the dudes in speedos? What about a movie about Greco-Roman wrestling?

I understand that some gay men and straight women might like to check out the greased up dancing dudes, and that’s cool. What if I just wanted to see a movie by the director of one of my favorite movies of the past 12 years? What if I have a thing for Olivia Munn? If a movie is good, I have no problem with seeing naked guys. It’s no different than straight women and gay men being subjected to the naked women who have proliferated movies for like… ever.

I hate it when I ramble… Here’s my point.

I think it’s time to stop assigning movies, people, songs, whatever to various groups. If I want to enjoy a Judy Garland movie, I should be able to without jokes and giggles. If a woman wants to go by herself to see some movie about football (Not a rom com that features football players) she should be able to without people throwing her a sideways eye. If a gay man wants to write a blog about hockey, he should be able to without fielding the numerous “but… I thought you were gay” questions. (Is that even a question?)

Of course, to make strides, we all have to play the game. We have to break down the walls of taboo.

We must go see fluffy ab-porn movies if they look remotely entertaining.

Just maybe not this one. Because it was dumb.

Coming Soon to the Blog: My Top 10 Broadway Musicals (I'm really throwing that gaydar for a loop today, I bet.