Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: March 18, 1961

Perhaps no star demonstrates the change in popular culture over the last 60 or so years more than Ingrid Bergman.

In 1950 there were fewer stars bigger than Bergman, who had appeared in a string of hits including Intermezzo, Casablanca, Joan of Arc and The Bells of St. Mary's, and had won an Academy Award as Best Actress for Gaslight.  She then became involved in a scandal - an affair with director Roberto Rossellini (they were both married to other people at the time) which left her pregnant, and her reputation in tatters.  Her adultery got her denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate (as "a horrible example of womanhood") and disinvited from The Ed Sullivan Show, and she remained in something of an exile even after winning her second Oscar in 1958 for Anastasia.  It wasn't until 1958, when she made a triumphant appearance as a presenter at the Oscarcast, that she returned to the American spotlight, and even then the lengthy ovation she received from the audience was controversial - some felt it amounted to a tacit endorsement of her past behavior.

This week, Bergman prepares for a rare television appearance, in the drama Twenty-Four Hours in a Woman's Life* on CBS Monday night.  Gilbert Millstein's profile only alludes to that scandal, remarking that "in the last two decades, she has been successively praised, blamed, boycotted, picked over, analyzed, adjured, sympathized with, litigated over and clasped once more to the public breast without any noticeable erosion." Bergman herself says that "Everybody feels that you belong to them.  I would have liked to have my own problems in peace, but it was not to be and I could not change any of it."  Having played a nun in The Bells of St. Mary's and a saint in Joan of Arc led people to view her not as a woman, but through the prism of the roles she played.

*Written by John Mortimer, better known as the creator of Rumpole of the Bailey.

SOURCE: HADLEY TV GUIDE COLLECTION

And that is just one of the ways in which we see the massive cultural changes over these years.  It's hard to imagine, for example, that the public, cynical as they now are, would feel so betrayed by an actress' personal life.  For that matter, adultery itself doesn't have the cache it used to, Tiger Woods notwithstanding.  The old saying, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" seems to be more true now than ever. Hugh Grant's indiscretion a few years ago was played mostly for laughs, and probably helped Jay Leno's career more than anything else.  With the advent of reality television to go along with the fanmags, embarrassment and public ostracism are things of the past.

The fallout over Ingrid Bergman's scandal was probably excessive (didn't the Senate have anything better to do?) but it came from a period in time when there was a common moral code, a sense of right and wrong that was generally accepted by a majority of the public.  If people lacked charity in their reaction, it could be said that their hearts might have been in the right place.

Ultimately, though, it's time to live and let live.  Ingrid Bergman, her elegance and her talent, are back - and we're the more fortunate for it.

Read the rest here. ◙

On Governess Brewer's Veto: Wrong for Arizona, and The Dangers of Deviancy Actions

The recent veto of toughening the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Arizona by Governess Brewer (see picture at left) was very disturbing.  The Family Research Council called it one of the dirtiest wars in liberalism, where the press used its powers to distort the bill.  Freedom of the press, built on religious liberty, has been destroyed because speech control, part of this Administration's accomplishments in the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act, took place in the advancement of propaganda against it.

One disturbing phrase I have read in recent debates between the Biblical and Humanist Worldview was made by a law professor working now with the Obama Administration, Chai Feldblum, who has publicly said “sexual freedom trumps religious freedom.” Now let's take the worldview of the Left to its full extent regarding this bill, and ask yourself what you would do in light of what has happened in other states that led to Arizona legislators proposing this bill.

Suppose a printer, a devout Southern Baptist, has a printing company, and the company actively is printing Bibles for various churches in the community (most likely a Public Domain version, not one of the numerous copyrighted versions that have appeared in the late 20th century to the present), church order of worship, newsletters for various churches in their community, and flyers for various speakers that come to churches.  Then, there comes a sexual deviancy activism group attempting to bring their “flock of lions” rally (if you remember the nickname of a minor league hockey team and the nasty rivalries in a Southern state in the late 1990's to early 2000's, you will understand the reference – the rivalry was downright nasty at times – the older of the two clubs still exists today and is Boston's AA affiliate today with the team president being a player during that era, and I'll never forget a road game I traveled that went into overtime in the playoffs and the reaction hotter than any football rivalry at the time) to the city, and they ask the printer to print flyers for the event.  The printer inspects the flyer and notes both child pornography other explicit material being featured in the file he was sent, and refuses to print such.

Now that's the issue in question.  None of the major professional sports federations that offer authentic and replica jerseys will permit customised jerseys to feature X-rated custom text.  And a business has a right to refuse printing indecent material if they refuse.  The sign outside the shop specifically says “We reserve the right to refuse printing explicit material or if it is against the law.”

But the deviancy activists sue, demanding the printer print the material.  Their claim, as would be made in the courts, is “Sexual freedom trumps religious freedom, and there are no religious exemptions, as Administration officials have stated.”

Seriously, folks, that is the issue.  Does a Bible publisher have a right to deny a sexual deviancy organisation the right to print child pornography on their printing presses?  Even though child pornography is against the law (and duly so), we know that activists will press to declare even that ban to be illegal and will use courts to advance their cause.  The deviants will almost certainly use the “sexual freedom” chant to force their agenda, and with numerous court victories, will work on their wins against Christians to advance their cause.  And in many states where marriage was redefined by courts or city-state dominated state legislators, the first line attacked is always churches and their related organisations, as we have seen with Catholic Charities and with other groups with adoption and foster care agencies.  At a recent Citizens for Life event, a former Massachusetts resident informed me that after court-ordered redefinition, they pushed sexual deviant couples to the top of the adoption and foster care line, and Bible believers were sent to the end of the line, which effectively allows for deviants to run rampant and perform child abuse on the children they exploit by adopting or caring that they cannot be prosecuted because of “sexual freedom,” as they demand.

It is religious freedom, and this type of issue, that the ill-fated Arizona bill that should have been signed, except for the massive CNN and MSNBC propaganda push that had the tell-tale signs of the CCCP, was designed to protect the Bible publisher from having to print X-rated material they refuse to print.  People need to wake up and understand how sexual deviancy activists are stopping to advance their cause, and prosecuting anyone whose worldview opposes theirs is the signature of the New Tolerance:  Accept Our Worldview Or Be Prosecuted, endorsed by Dear Leader via the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act and his minions of supporters, especially those of no faith that put him over the top.  And thanks to humanist teachings in schools, that group is sadly growing.  What gives for this New Taipei City native whose formative years was spent in parochial schools teaching a Biblical worldview?  Am I headed to jail for refusing to cave to humanism?

Those of us who believe in God's Word should not be treated, as Dear Leader and his minions demand, as teams that play on Al Jazeera instead of being on NBC in the English football pyramid.   ◙

US-USSR hockey, 1960 Winter Olympics

A little late perhaps, but I just ran across this footage today: CBS' coverage of the first period of the US - USSR hockey game at the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley, CA, with - I believe - Bud Palmer at the mic for the play-by-play.  (There are several versions available; this one appears to be the complete game.)

A few observations: first, Bud Palmer isn't exactly an unbiased announcer, is he?  But I always enjoyed listening to his work.

As was the case with the 1980 Miracle on Ice, this isn't the gold medal game; the medals were decided based on the overall record of the teams in the medal round.  The US finished with a perfect 5-0 record in that round, followed by Canada at 4-1, and the Soviet Union at 2-2-1.  The US actually clinched the gold with their 9-4 victory over Czechoslovakia the next day.  (By the way, the corners on the ice surface are really deep, aren't they?  It makes the rink look almost rectangular.)

And did you notice the sunshine streaming across parts of the ice and the crowd?  Olympic regulations of the time required all events to be held outside (or, more precisely, they couldn't be held "under a roof"); thus, Blyth Arena  was constructed with one complete side open (the one facing the camera).  The Olympic rings were attached via cables, and ropes were hung down in an effort to cut down on the sun's glare on the ice.  I don't know how you all feel about it, but I think it's kind of neat.  And with the success of the NHL's Winter Classic, why not have all the skating events outside?  The arena in Cortina for the 1956 games did this to great effect.*

*Not to mention it's appearance in the James Bond movie For Your Eyes Only.


Al Michaels, eat your heart out!  ◙


Cross-posted at It's About TV!

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: March 4, 1961

Raymond Burr was on the cover of TV Guide at least a dozen times, between Perry Mason and Ironside, not to mention his turn as Pope John XXIII.  There's very little new to be written about him, and we know that much of what we've already read will turn out not to be true.  There are a couple of things that remain consistent through all these stories, however: that Ray Burr is a very private man, and that he's a mensch to work with.

Richard Gehman's profile of Burr this week alludes to his life as "one long series of heartbreaking tragedies," most of which didn't actually happen, but there's a significant line in this section, in which Gehman remarks that "few of Burr's friends know anything about him."  It's likely that, in retrospect, what they did know of him might not have been so.  Lest you think I'm hammering Burr, I'm not, or at least I don't mean to.  It is, however, impossible to write about him without picking up these small pieces, which appear in so many articles about him, and contrast them with what we've since learned about him.

Raymond Burr is one of my favorite actors, just as Perry Mason remains one of my favorite series.  And the comments from Burr's colleagues on Mason demonstrate why he was so well-liked on the set.  He's a practical joker, for one thing, his favorite victim being Barbara Hale, who plays Mason's devoted secretary Della Street.  He's good to the crew, with "a desire for everybody to be happy, to be wanted and to belong," leading one person to refer to the Mason set as "the happiest company in Hollywood."

He's also loyal, and not afraid to fight for what he believes in.  When William Talman, who plays Mason's nemesis Hamilton Burger, was suspended from the show following a morals charge (later dismissed), Burr was outraged and fought CBS constantly until Talman was reinstated.  And Ray Collins, who plays Lt. Arthur Tragg, remained listed on the opening credits even after his health prevented him from appearing on the show.  This was, of course, also at Burr's "request."

This article is the first of a three-part series on Burr's life; subsequent parts will go into detail on the more dubious assertions about Burr's past.  In later years, articles will elaborate on these events, but they'll also discuss Burr's devotion to visiting American troops in battle areas, and his continuing commitment to his colleagues. A mensch indeed.

Read the rest here. ◙

Wish I'd Written That

Now that the Olympics are over, maybe it's safe to share what I really think.  From Paul Lucas at Uniwatch:

Hmmm — artistry, theater, glitz, glamour, storytelling. Those are all perfectly valid terms, and they do indeed seem to be central to figure skating’s ethos, and even its scoring rules, which are completely subjective and include grades for “Composition and Choreography” and “Interpretation and Timing.” All of which reinforces a simple point I’ve been making for years (and feel obliged to make again, now that the winter Olympics are taking place):

Figure skating is not a sport.

Paul goes on to answer a few objections he knows people might have to his opinion - or, as I would put it, statement of fact:

Having winners and losers makes skating a competition, not a sport. Lots of things are competitions but not sports: ballroom dancing contests, battles of the bands, chess tournaments, American Idol, video games, fantasy baseball leagues, Uni Watch design contests, bake-offs, and so on. At least one of those things is athletic, but none of those things is a sport, and neither is figure skating. 

(Of course, we could probably say that about half the events in today's Winter Olympics, but never mind that.)

Read the whole thing here.  ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 24, 1979

The last time we saw James Arness,he was patrolling Dodge City as Marshal Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke.  He's now on a different network, ABC, in a different role, Zeb Macahan, on a different show, How the West Was Won. But Arness remains a larger-than-life star in a genre that's been very good to him: the Western.

Westerns used to dominate television - in 1959 alone there were 26 of them.  But there hasn't been a successful one since - when? Brisco County, Jr.?  That was a quirky series that really tried to transcend the genre to make it more relevant to the 21st Century, but perhaps it was too far ahead of its time, and it only lasted one season on Fox.  Firefly?  That was another series that Fox didn't really get, and it too ran only one season.  It was a blend of the old West and the new West - space. For all its sci-fi trappings, though, its sensibility was the Western.  Then there are the modern-day Westerns, from Walker, Texas Ranger to Justified to Longmire, but those are programs that I'd say are set in the West geographically more than philosophically. Little House on the Prairie had a good pedigree, Michael Landon having been one of the stars of one of the last big-time Westerns, Bonanza.  Doctor Quinn probably qualifies as a Western in spirit as well as setting, but that strikes me more as soap opera than horse opera.

How the West Was Won wasn't what you'd call a long-running success, but it's one of those shows that seemed always to be on TV one way or another.  It started as a TV-movie in 1976, The Macahans, then had a go in miniseries format the next season, before becoming a regular series for 1978 and 1979.  As the notoriously reclusive Arness sits down for his "one and only" interview of the new season, he explains to Dick Russell the difference between his two titanic characters.  Machaan, he says, is a man from "an era when men were the law unto themselves," making their own rules, taking advice only from themselves.  Matt Dillion, on the other hand, "was the opposite - a guy who not only had to see that the laws were carried out, but live by them himself.  He had to do the right thing." Arness took this code to heart, as "Miss Kitty," Amanda Blake, recalls: "He didn't want Matt to make a mistake."  She wondered why he couldn't be "on the other end of the pole" even once.  "Might've been interesting.  But Jim would never hear of it."

How the West Was Won gives Arness a chance to live out a different kind of Western hero, one closer to his own persona - the rugged outdoorsman, less restrained and buttoned up than Dillon.  But the strength of Dillon, and of James Arness the man, remains paramount.  In real life, as a close friend confides, Arness "really believes in the law of the West - what's right is right, and wrong is wrong; there are no grays."  It's impossible to not see this quality in Arness, and perhaps that had to do with the end of the Western.  As the 50s morphed into the 60s and 70s, society was less confident, less able to tell the difference between right and wrong, more willing to see the shades of grey that Arness was unwilling to acknowledge.  The kind of self-assuredness of a Matt Dillon or Zeb Macahan threatens people at times like this, people who lack that kind of knowledge of themselves, and when confronted with it they often shut their eyes to it.  By the time the public was again ready for that kind of television hero, as Steven Stark comments in Glued to the Set, the maverick cowboy had been replaced by the maverick police detective.

How the West Was Won leaves the air in 1979, and James Arness will return to Gunsmoke, making five TV-movies between 1987 and 1994. His own foray into police procedurals, McClain's Law, has a brief run in 1981-82.  Arness' character, Jim McClain, is described as an "old-school" cop; but when it comes to taking the bad guy to school, nobody does it better than the heroes of the Old West, the ones James Arness plays so well.

Read the rest here.  ◙

This Just In

United States Currency Declared Worthless following Canadian Conquest. 

Canada celebrates, US mourns, after historic announcement

OTTAWA, ON -- Fresh off the surrender papers signed by President Obama on 21 February 2014, the Royal Canadian government has ordered United States currency declared worthless and all such fraudulent currency burned. 

"It is important that with this historic surrender of a nation that their currency be declared worthless," said officials at the Exchequer. With that the only currency permitted in the newly conquered territories will become the Canadian dollar.

Why do we choose sides?

Rod Dreher wonders why we feel compelled to pick a side in Ukraine:

Do you know who the good guys and the bad guys are in Ukraine? I do not. In Egypt, I was not sorry to see the Morsi government overthrown, but one should not be under any illusions that the Egyptian military are the good guys. Why do we have to pick a side? Are we sure we know enough about what’s going on there to do so? Some of us might; one of this blog’s readers is in Kiev, and he has clear and firmly held opinions about the Yanukovych government. I respect that, but it is clearer to me that America does not need to be picking sides in this fight than it is which side we should pick.

Well, the first thought that came to my mind is that we choose sides because we live in a culture today that forces us to choose sides.  The mentality is everywhere.  We love our sports, and we apply its terminology to everything.  Politics becomes a horserace, and it matters less whether a candidate can articulate an issue than it does that he’s scored points, he’s landed the knockout punch, he’s pulling away from the field or falling back into the pack.  Nobody wants to know about the substance of what’s discussed – they just want to know who wins and who loses.

ESPN’s motto on many of its shows is “embrace debate.”  Doesn’t matter what the issue is, there have to be two sides, and they have to be heard out – often at the top of their lungs.  Even if you don’t have a strong feeling one way or another, you take a side, because that’s what makes good television – and good entertainment.

Reality programming dominates television.  And what is it about reality shows that most often appeals to the viewers?  You have a winner and a loser.  And the viewer must take sides; no sane individual would watch a show like Survivor without developing a rooting interest for or against someone – for that’s the other side of the coin.  If you can’t find someone you like, someone to root for, find someone you hate, and root against them.  It’s just as much fun – try it.

Everything is personal.  You either agree with me, or else.  Whether it’s politics, religion, sports, restaurant cuisine: if you disagree with me, it invalidates not only your opinion on that issue, but on everything else as well.  See it on Facebook, read it on Twitter, it doesn’t matter if it’s your battle or not – the important thing is to choose a side, and make sure everyone else knows which side you’re on.  And if they’re on the other side, judge them for that.

Given all this, is it any wonder that we feel compelled to take sides?  Armed conflict is, for us, another form of entertainment.  War is a spectator sport, to be viewed on television in-between highlights of the Olympics and scenes from the most recent argument on Capitol Hill.  We take sides on those, why not on war as well?  It’s a zero-sum game; there has to be a winner and a loser, and Americans love a winner.

Remarkably, for a culture that seems reluctant to view morality in terms of black-and-white, we seem to have no qualms about doing just that when it comes to choosing sides.  It’s hard for us to believe that both sides in a conflict can be “the bad guys.”  The Egyptian rebels fighting to bring down Mubarak must be right; after all, isn’t Mubarak supposed to be a dictator?  So let’s support them, and the fact that there are some pretty bad dudes among them – well, we’ll look the other way on that.

We abhor a vacuum.  Even in a situation such as Vietnam, where antiwar sentiment was rampant, it’s not as if people refused to join sides.  Many of the antiwar activists were openly rooting for the Vietcong, and the conflict between pro- and antiwar sides became as much of a battle as the war itself.  Not choosing a side – there’s just something un-American about it.

We lead with our hearts, not our heads.  We’ve Oprahfied the way we look at foreign policy every bit as much as we have everything else in our world.  Who’s the scrappy underdog, which side has the most malnourished refugees, let’s cheer on the plucky rebels raging against the big bad machine.

You see how absurd this all is?  So when Rod asks this question – and I think it’s a very good one, a very telling one – why should we be surprised at what the answer is?  It is, after all, the world we created for ourselves. And after all - it's just entertainment, isn't it?  ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 20, 1965

When we think of Burgess Meredith, we tend to associate him with the Penguin in the original Batman, or as the hapless librarian in the Twilight Zone episode "Time Enough at Last," or perhaps as the veteran cornerman in Rocky, for which he received an Oscar nomination.  But in February 1965, he's co-starring with James Franciscus in the high school drama Mr. Novak, where he plays Principal Martin Woodridge.

Meredith has come to the series in its second and last season, as a replacement for the ailing Dean Jagger, who was forced to leave due to an ulcer.  It is hoped that Meredith's character will inject some tension into the series; Jagger, as Principal Albert Vane, had been more of a father-figure, and Woodridge's introduction figures to inject some conflict with the idealistic Novak.  (It doesn't work, or at least not enough to boost the ratings; Meredith appears for 17 episodes, after which the show is cancelled.)

It's considered quite the coup to attract Meredith to series television; he'd previously turned down series such as The Travels of Jamie McPheeters, and is known much more as a Broadway actor and director. His TV guest shots, including four appearances on Twilight Zone, have been memorable, but he's well aware of the difficulties facing veteran actors.  "Let's face it, I live high," he tells Dwight Whitney.  "I raise jumping horses, Kaja [his wife] flies airplanes.  The younger people don't know who I am.  And that, in this day and age, is essential."

So Novak is not the show that will bring Burgess Meredith to prominence among the younger generation. But just wait a couple of years, and that will change. . .

View the rest here.  ◙

Television and advertising executives, holed up in Urban America, ignore the Heartland

Listening to Sean Hannity Friday evening on the way to a Baroque Soloists concert in regards to the departure of Jay Leno from Comcast had me taking notes that came to fruition after reading backlash over advertising that has aired during the Games of the XXII Winter Olympiad that has advanced sin peddling of sexual deviancy.  Mr. Hannity's comments on Mr. Leno resonated with the advertising push to advance same-sex “couples” that we've seen in both Super Bowl XLVIII and the XXII Winter Olympiad since they are intertwined.

Mr. Hannity noted how Comcast management in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, and Connecticut were out of touch with what plays in Middle America, and it was that attitude that led to Mr. Leno's dismissal.

When I though about it, I see the excessive push for sin and the controversy over the Coca-Cola advertisement during Super Bowl XLVIII (it has since been edited), and I see the same issue.  The advertising agencies that script, cast, and produce the advertisements have more control over the ad than the company paying for the ad.  And similar to the Comcast issue with Mr. Leno, the management of the advertising agencies are in the same major cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, et al) and what may play in the large cities, where the city-states that decided the 2012 elections are located, is not something that will play again in Middle America.

When you think about sexual deviancy activism (why is it being stuffed in your face as a way to show victory via Autogol), it will play in San Francisco, Seattle, and urban areas stuffed with cash by Tim Gill and others, but it does not play in the Heartland, as we have seen with arrogant urbanites trying to force their agenda down when a clear supermajority opposes them.  The urban areas are more likely to be loaded with people of no religious faith, which support the cause, and helped put the President over the top.  I'm sick of seeing the sexual deviancy group acting as if they own the world now to protest President Putin.

But seriously, Mr. Putin makes a serious point.  How would parents like it if sexual predators and deviants were allowed to push their propaganda in school and recruit the children?  We have seen the results of sex predators attacking children, and it is not pretty.  The Russian law makes perfect sense, in effect protecting children from being bombarded with propaganda advancing heinous behaviour we are taught in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 is wrong and sin.  Yet we have schools in the States trying to recruit new predators.  The Russians have made it clear we must defend our country against the Dan Savages of the world who rely on tactics such as cybersquatting on a Catholic politician and resulting in him losing every election since the cybersquatting tactic began, especially since his name is being used for X-rated material I cannot discuss.  How far worse can it be now?  I support Vlad here.

Reminds me of a music video over 20 years ago: ◙

Владимир Путин is right about Banni

Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it," was posted on letterheads of the parochial school where I was raised.  It effectively warns us that teaching children from a Biblical worldview matters.

Meanwhile, the President's decision on his Delegation to the Olympic Games raised furore, as he chose sexual deviants in an attempt to advance his humanist, anti-Christian propaganda that we have seen throught his Presidency, a complete opposite to the previous Administration, whose Olympic delegations have featured a man who made the Great Outdoors into his business, the man who would have painted the CCCP locker rooms for USA-CCCP game pink, baseball's Iron Man, and winners of the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500.

His reasoning was to protest Russia's law that prohibits sexual deviants and their from teaching propaganda promoting their sinful lifestyle that is against nature's law and nature's God, as David Barton called it in our SC Citizens for Life Proudly Pro-Life Banquet last month, to youth.  The law makes sense when you think of it from a Proverbs 22 perspective.  What the Russians said in the law that has the President and others protesting was children must be kept safe from harmful propaganda being pushed by activists that want to normalise and promote ideas that are against God and the things He established such as pedophilia and the entire playbook of sexual deviancy activists; agenda.  As the old saying goes, "O be careful of your eyes (and ears) what to see (and hear)."

Protecting children from the filth of propaganda pushes is crucial, and that's what the Russian law in question does.  Children should be trained on a solid Biblically based moral ground, and when when Russia has it right and the President has it wrong, we have a country on the downfall.  We have seen the results of rewarding child molesters in college (Sandusky), and we cannot pass the bill that would reward child molesters as a federally protected class;  we must teach the standards our Founding Fathers were taught, not the humanists. And now look at the push to force Olympians to conform to humanist worldview, and in effect abolish Christianity.

This morning following my morning workout, I saw a report on Common Core, or as an educator calls it, “Commie Core,” as it is also a fight against textbooks attempting to advance filth. The newfound federalisation shows its true colours in advancing left-wing propaganda when mathematics books were used to sell home the liberal point that Vice President Gore should have won the 2000 election. I saw after being forced to leave parochial school by family, in the first of the years at the same school as The Governess when I was bullied to submission physically, the math books were promoting Environmental Propaganda of the Greens. Folks, this problem isn't new -- but we cannot be pushing left-wing propaganda in our textbooks, especially math books.  It is the intentional dumbing down that has helped other nations surpass us, and make us the laughingstock of the world.

What will liberals think next to advance their propaganda and make us into the New CCCP?  Sadly, Владимир Путин is right about the absurdity of the sexual deviancy activists.  They, however, are making a protest because they want to force their view of the world that would shut churches down.   ◙

Shirley Temple Black, R.I.P.

From the May 4, 2013 edition of "This Week in TV Guide" at It's About TV:

The former child star, now all of 30 years old, is the host and occasional star of Shirley Temple's Storybook, airing on NBC.  She'd retired twice from acting, most recently at 21, having made 33 movies and more than $3,000,000. Since then she's been Mrs. Charles Alden Black, married with three children, but she's never really been that far from the public eye.  Dolls, storybooks, and TV repeats of her movies have ensured that Shirley Temple will always be an American icon.  She relates a story of how her mailman, "a darling old man about 70, said to me, 'Mrs. Black, does Shirley Temple live here?'  And I said, 'Why yes, I used to be Shirley Temple.' 'Oh, my!' he cackled. 'You used to be my favorite movie star - when I was a little boy!'"

Shirley Temple Black has led probably one of the most successful lives of any former child star. Although Storybook ended after two years, she continued to make television appearances, then became involved in politics (she'd always had an interest in current events), ran unsuccessfully for Congress, served as a representative to the United Nations, and was appointed U.S. ambassador to Ghana and later Czechoslovakia.  She survived breast cancer and was one of the first celebrities to speak openly about it.  And the name Shirley Temple is still - and will continue to be - magic.

In a day when most child stars seem to wind up on the police blotter as often as in the movies, when many others fade into obscurity or struggle with a lifetime of psychological problems, Shirley Temple stood apart. She was a movie star, mother, patriot, diplomat - and she did it with panache.  She was an individual who could remind the hardest politician that he was now in the presence of a real star, and her name alone brought back a wash of memories to generations who'd grown up with her and had passed her down to their children.

Shirley Temple was an American icon.  She may have died today, at the age of 85, and she will be missed, but she'll not be forgotten. ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 11, 1961

Until a few years ago, the most I could say about Peter Gunn was that Craig Stevens played a suave private eye, and it had one of the coolest themes of all time.  Now, to know that I had to have seen it at some point in time, probably many years ago, before I was old enough to understand Lola Albright.  But then I was able to get the complete series on DVD - and then I got Lola Albright.

[Pause while heartbeat returns to normal.]

Albright plays Edie Hart, the singer who's also Gunn's girlfriend. She works out of a bar called Mother's, which doubles as the place where Gunn meets his clients and conducts his business.  She's a smart, sassy character* who's graced with some snappy dialogue, every bit Gunn's equal in the scenes in which they're matched.  She has a fine singing voice, doing her own vocals in the occasional set pieces at Mother's.  She exudes an adult sexiness that makes it impossible to take your eyes off of her when she's on screen.  And she's a likable character, as is Gunn, making this one of the easier private eye shows to watch.

*Gunn's nickname for her was "Silly."

Off screen, Lola Albright has some things to say about what she sees as an unreasonable invasion of her privacy since her divorce from actor Jack Carson.  "To tell the truth, I'm sick and tired of the line 'Does Lola get what Lola wants?'*  Every magazine and newspaper seems to leap on it as though discovering it for the very first time.  I am equally sick and tired of the line 'Lonely Lola.'"  Such are the curses of having an alliterative name, it would appear.  "If my name were Betty, I'd be two cliches to the good."  She struggles with the line between personal and public; while she understands the sacrifices of privacy that are part of stardom, she wonders "why does the press have to go so far?  Why do they print things you never said, things they make up out of a blue sky?  Why do they twist what you say into meanings you never meant?"  Lola also denies she's dissatisfied with her role on Gunn; she likes how Edie got her own place in the third (and final) season, a plot devise that gives her a chance to sing more.  "I don't want to dominate the show and I certainly don't want a series of my own."

*If you're unsure of the origin of the line, watch this.

People who work with her have nothing but good things to say.  Frank Stempel, who was her ex-husband Carson's manager, says that "Even now that she's making good money, she doesn't really know what it is.  She goes out of her way to help people.  She'd give away her last dime if she thought it would help somebody."  Press agent Bill Stein remembers how when his wife was in the hospital, "Lola must have called me a dozen times offering to come out and take care of the two kids while I was working.  If you know her, you like her."

Peter Gunn, which ends its three-year run at the end of the current season, is probably the high point of Lola Albright's career, although she's hardly a recluse once the series ends, appearing in several big-screen movies and is a steady presence in guest roles on TV through the 80s.  But there's no disagreeing that in a genre that often produces more than its share of annoying characters, Peter Gunn's Edie is one of the most enjoyable; in fact, after you've watched her in a few episodes, you'll probably be singing these words as well:



Read the rest here. ◙

Wish I'd Written That...

"The loss of the classical vernacular in architecture was inevitable, but tragic: we invented new ways for cities to look, and invented them all at once for everywhere, and the world did seem to be a different place that shook off the sodden caul of history. On the other hand, the new styles aged and died before our eyes, requiring new ones, and we remade things again, and again, ending up with style with no other purpose than catching the magpie-eye of the bauble hunter, appreciating the building for itself and nothing more. The Building of Tomorrow spends most of its life grousing in an ever-growing number of Yesterdays; the styles of our accumulated history brings the past right into the present and reminds us of the baggage we carry, the things we were. There’s not a classically-influenced church you couldn’t imagine with the Pope walking up the aisle. There’s not a modern spare church where you’d be surprised if someone took the pulpit and said 'I’d like to talk to you about term life insurance.'"

James Lileks 2/5/14   ◙

Olympics Preview: Interview with Marc Ryan, author of From Berlin to Beijing and London: A Look at TV and the Olympics

My interview this week at It's About TV is a return engagement with Marc Ryan.  Back in November we talked about his book on TV coverage of the JFK assassination; this time we discuss his book From Berlin to Beijing and London: A Look at TV and the Olympics.  I think you should take a look at it, but then I'm prejudiced.

But did you know that the first telecast of the Olympics was the Summer Games in 1936?  Yep, it's true.  And you would have known that if you'd read my article here. ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 4, 1967

Dale Robertson is my kind of guy: plain-spoken, to the point, conservative.  The star of ABC's The Iron Horse, and previous Western series such as Tales of Wells Fargo and Death Valley Days, "believes in income taxes but thinks that they should be a flat 25 percent with no limit on how much the high rollers can make."*  He also believes that the troubled urban areas such as Harlem can be rehabilitated by installing some pride of place, perhaps an early version of the "Broken Windows" theory, and that anyone fortunate enough to have the kind of life he has - a loving wife, obedient children, and three square meals a day - should be able to "do anything on God's green earth he sets his mind to."  No wonder that Robertson was out campaigning for Ronald Reagan during his successful 1966 run for Governor of California.

*Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, as I've said more than once.

It's not a surprise to learn Robertson's values; a graduate from Oklahoma Military Academy, joined the Army right after Pearl Harbor, fought with Patton's Third Army in Europe.  Nor is it a surprise to read Robertson's opinions in TV Guide, or that a man with them is the star of a new series.  It's not quite so common today, however, to find conservatives in the industry so outspoken.  As Clint Howard (brother of Ron, and formerly of Gentle Ben) said not too long ago, “I always tell younger conservative-minded people that they better mind their P's and Q's and remember that you want to have a career."  This isn't a judgement on my part, by the way, just an observation. Of course TV Guide, a conservative publication, gives voice to conservative actors.   And there are still conservatives in Hollywood today - they're just a little harder to find.

On the opposite end of the political spectrum, Sunday night features the premiere of one of the most notable, controversial series of the 60s: The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.  Once upon a time I reviewed a DVD release of season 3 of Smothers Brothers.  Upon looking back at it, I find I didn't think much of it, which doesn't surprise me since I didn't think much of the show when it was originally on, just as I never thought much of the Smothers Brothers themselves, other than as a testimonial on just how far one could get in the entertainment business without much talent.

But here we are, at the very beginning.  The Brothers are coming off a mildly amusing sitcom in which Tom played an angel (no typecasting there), not to mention a fairly successful stand-up act, and numerous appearances on various television shows.  Their opening night lineup is amazingly conventional, with Ed Sullivan (welcoming them to the Sunday night lineup; they immediately followed Ed's show), Danny Thomas, Jim Nabors, and Jill St. John.  The ad accompanying the show promises a "riotous new series,*" with "daffy ballads and oddball humor."  Sounds pretty innocuous, doesn't it?  As I mentioned in that review, for all the shouting about the Smothers Brothers, their show was actually pretty conventional, and when it's removed from the topical context it's actually kind of stupid.

*I don't know what CBS was expecting from the show, but I doubt they thought the biggest riots would come from the network's relationship with their stars.

Nonetheless, that innocent listing is exactly the kind of thing we like to look for here: an advertisement for a historic program, with no hint as to what lies ahead.  The Smothers Brothers were, in my opinion, far more influential in terms of the precedent they set for the shows that followed them than they were with their own show.  One thing's for sure, though - the times, they were a 'changing.

Read the rest here. ◙

Wish I'd Written That

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

 - John Adams, second President of the United States, 1798  (H/T) ◙

National Anthem, yes - Halftime, no

The NFL has made a smart move for the National Anthem during Super Bowl XLVIII in East Rutherford, New Jersey in Renée Fleming.  Just across the Hudson is the home of the great Metropolitan Opera, and why not give America's Soprano the right to do the Anthem prim and proper?

But the halftime show and Bruno Mars?  Give me a break.  The idea of big name pop figures doing the Super Bowl Halftime was a byproduct of successful counterprogramming by Fox in 1992 with a raunchy, Saturday night-night show airing during CBS' coverage of Super Bowl XXVI halftime, and the loss of viewers from CBS, forced the NFL to make changes.  Ten years after the worst fiasco in Super Bowl history with heavy fines, is it time we end this practice?  Surely I would have wanted an exposure of La Belle Renée and bass Keith Miller (a former Bronco himself), heldentenor Lawrence Harris (ex-Titan), and tenor Ta'u Pupu'a (drafted by the Browns but never played because of an injury) with an all-star orchestra trying great opera scenes would have been much better!   ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: January 29, 1966

I'm generally not one to make hay of other people's misfortunes, but there's a line in Robert De Roos' cover story profile of Pat Crowley that shouts out for contextualization.

The actress, currently starring with Mark Miller in NBC's Please Don't Eat the Daisies, is talking about her marriage to attorney Ed Hookstratten.  De Roos asks her if the marriage, now eight years long, will last now that she's working on a weekly series.  "It sure is," she tells him.  "We are Catholics and there is a little solidity there."

That sounded like such a refreshing attitude to me that I immediately went to Google, to find that the Hookstrattens had divorced sometime in the 70s or 80s - Crowley remarried in 1986, to producer Andy Friendly.*

*Fun fact: Andy Friendly's father is legendary TV newsman Fred Friendly; his brother, David Friendly, was nominated for an Oscar in 2006 as producer of Little Miss Sunshine.

I hasten to say here that I have no knowledge of why Crowley and Hookstratten divorced, and I don't want to play either a pop psychologist, a pop marriage counselor, or a pop theologian.  But one of the many tragedies of the Catholic Church in the latter half of the 20th Century - particularly the post-Vatican II turmoil, which reached a peak in 1968 with Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae - is the breakdown of basic Catholic beliefs.  By the late 60s, Catholic doctrine had become a smorgasbord; if you didn't like what one priest had to say on birth control, for example, you could shop around and find a priest who would readily sanction it.  Similar situations existed for everything from premarital sex to divorce and remarriage to a whole host of previous elements of Catholic teaching that had rarely been questioned.  Inevitably, this kind of confusion among the faithful led many to doubt the Church's sincerity, authority, - what have you.  Bottom line: no solidity.

Again, I have no reason to think that this might have had any role to play in Pat Crowley's divorce from Ed Hookstratten. But I do think it's part of this blog's narrative to fit these kinds of things into the larger cultural environment.  The 60s were already a period of flux by now, and they were headed toward even more cataclysmic change. Understanding the climate of the times (even though the insufficient space here hardly scratches the surface) puts little moments like this into some sense of context.  It even adds, I think, a note of poignancy.

*Hookstratten, Elvis Presley's personal attorney, represented The King in his divorce from Priscilla, which certainly suggests mixed feelings regarding divorce.  

Read the rest here. ◙

Thoughts from the Pro-Life banquet

David Barton at Wallbuilders spoke at our 2014 South Carolina Citizens for Life March for Life banquet, which moved to the catering hall next to the State Fairgrounds this year and had an interesting series of notes that came from our banquet:

1.  American Exceptionalism.  There is a Divine Creator.

2.  Inalienable Rights Come from God.  They are endowed by their Creator.  Alexander Hamilton sand they are not to be rummaged, and written by God, and an antecedent to all government was in Genesis 9 (the laws God gave Noah).

3.  Government exists to protect inalienable rights.  James Wilson said Human Life is protected by the Common Law, and the Seventh Amendment protects that.  As we heard, "If they won't protect your life, they won't protect your money."

4.  There is a Fixed Moral Law.  Blackstone's law journals were among the first law journals written for this very country.  The laws of nature and nature's God apply, as shown in Psalms 19 and Romans 1.  In the eyes of the early era, the murder of children in the womb and sexual deviancy are against nature, in violation of fixed moral laws, and what is happening when we pass laws against nature violating fixed moral law?

5.  Consent of the Governed.  What does it say when one activist judge decides he is the superlegislator?  We are seeing it with Proposition Eight in the Autogol Strategy, which can be used to strike down pro-life legislation if an Attorney General is pro-abortion.  That is the bigger hazard we have when tiny loud minorities that oppose Moral Law impose their will to advance an agenda.

In the words of Mr. Barton, a secular government cannot be a limited government, as we are clearly seeing now.  In Grigsby vs. Reib (1913), governments promoted the security of the family.  But that collapsed in the 1960's and since that era.

The truth is that civil government has grown out of [proceeded from] marriage. . . . [Marriage] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. (from Grigsby vs. Reib)

Mr. Barton spoke at both the dinner and the march, though the latter was affected by rain.

Pictures from the South Carolina Citizens for Life March for Life
(click to enlarge)

Forty-one years later, we still march on, defying how the Supreme Court stripped the right of life in "fixed moral law" away. ◙