One of the beauties of the multi-channel cable/satellite world we now enjoy is the chance to go back to see the shows that we remember as kids.
Classics like "All In The Family" still hold up. Others don't.
I tried injesting an episode of "Route 66" on a Friday night a few months ago on "Me TV". Despite the classic theme song and the premise of two jobless guys going rogue in a hot car along a stretch of American highway in the early 60's, the show turned out to be...well, really boring. The dialogue went on forever. Shots lingered way too long for our modern tastes (count how long the camera lingers on ANYTHING these days in a modern television drama--our short attention spans can't deal with visual loitering). The storyline wasn't all that compelling, and I found myself flipping channels about halfway in.
Maybe I just didn't see the right episode. In fact, there's one that I'm now dying to see. It's the one that was supposed to air the night of November 22nd, 1963 but never made it to air for reasons both obvious and subtle.
The networks suspended regular programming that afternoon as word of President Kennedy's shooting and eventual death dominated the day. CBS, which aired "Route 66", went non-stop news right in the middle of my mom's favorite soap opera, "As The World Turns". Walter Cronkite read wire copy over the "CBS News/Bulletin" slide until the newsroom studio camera could be warmed up (they weren't plugged in and on-air ready when the first word hit New York--an oversight that would never be duplicated again). As the situation grew more tragic, the obvious decision was made: CBS and other networks stayed with the story until sign-off that night. It stayed that way right through the Kennedy funeral Monday afternoon.
One of the Friday night prime-time casualties was this episode of "Route 66". And, because of it's storyline, it never saw the light of day, even after the President's murder. That's because the show was about an attempt on the life of a visiting Arabian dignitary who was paying a visit to Niagra Falls, a man targeted for death by a gunman using a rifle. Apparently, there was even a scene involving a motorcade.
CBS, according to the link above, apparently thought it was a little too much, too soon. The series got cancelled at the end of the season, and the episode stayed in the closet.
You may already know the back-story on "The Manchurian Candidate"--the 1962 classic about a miltiary man programmed to kill a presidential candidate. Frank Sinatra starred in it, and legend has it that he had the clout to have it pulled from distribution after Kennedy's death. The myth was that he was so shaken by the similarities between the movie's plot and what had happened to JFK that he didn't want it shown anymore. That's what I thought, too, until I did a Snopes check and found out otherwise. "The Manchurian Candidate" did, indeed, fall off the face of the Earth after the assassination, but the murder had nothing to do with it. It was timing, combined with Sinatra's personal business interests.
The "Route 66" coincidence is eery--what are the odds of a show with such a plot line being on a network's prime-time schedule the very night of one that a political assassination would happen earlier that very day? That pegs the creepy-meter. There were only three networks back then, so the viewer's plate was hardly as full as it is today with it's satellite and cable options.
Maybe, some Friday night, this very episode will pop up on Me-TV or on one of the other nostalgia networks. And, even if the shots linger too long and the dialogue seems a bit wooden, I'll stick with the show the whole way, knowing the compelling backstory and incredible coincidence that no Hollywood writer could've imagined.
It's no surprise that the Milwaukee Brewers traded away J.J. Hardy.
It's mildly beyond the pale that they got a center fielder for him, instead of a pitcher. This means that Mike Cameron will be free to go wherever the free agent trail takes him. It also says that Hardy wasn't going to get G-M Doug Melvin the kind of starter he craves. Light-hitting shortstops don't draw big name arms in return, especially when it's a seller's market for those blessed with spare hurlers.
What jumped off the page when I read Tom Haudricourt's blog on the deal was the use of the word "speedster" in describing newly acquired Carlos Gomez, late of the Minnesota Twins. "Speedster", in baseball parlance, means "one who steals bases" which is something his new team was reluctant to do in 2009.
Reluctant, meaning "deathly afraid".
Gomez pilfered 33 sacks in '08 before playing his way into reserve status last season because, no matter how fast you are, you can't steal first base. He was hitting just .199 the first month of last season before grabbing pine.
Hardy's heir apparent, Alcides Escobar, stole 42 bases at Nashville before his call-up last summer. Corey Hart is one of the fastest, smartest base runners on the club. Rickey Weeks can pick 'em up and put 'em down, too. One could assume that, with the addition of Gomez to the line-up, the Brewers are finally going to turn on the after-burners and start putting the pressure on the defense by running more.
I don't think that's going to happen, unless someone totally rewires Manager Ken Macha's head this winter. Macha adores the long ball and always has. I can't see him changing his ways, no matter what.
Unless, of course, Melvin and owner Mark Attanasio make it a condition of employment. Attanasio isn't afraid to manage via the phone, and maybe he got sick of sitting Miller Park all those warm summer nights watching runners die on the bases. Scoring runs wasn't a Brewer problem in '09, but I've always maintained that the issue was WHEN they scored. Yovani Gallardo was on the wrong end of four shutouts last season, some of the 1-0 variety. That shouldn't happen to your staff ace, not with this kind of lineup.
Maybe Melvin likes Gomez for what his speed will mean to the Milwaukee defense--you need a burner in center, and it wasn't Gomez' glove that paved his way to the bench in the Twin Cities. He was deemed good enough to take Torii Hunter's place, and that's quite a compliment.
The same-old/same-old no longer applies with the Brewers. When a matinee idol and 2007 All Star can be peddled after a bad season, you know Melvin's dealing digits are twitchy. I'd be happy to see if the changes include a switch in Macha's offensive approach--I don't think the longball and on-base aggressiveness are mutually exclusive--but I have my doubts.
We won't know until April. And, by then, who knows what this team is going to look like?
Could there be a more docile game than a women's college soccer match?
Au Contra ire.
If you weren't watching closely, it's the same player pulling ALL of this crap, including the hair of her opponent. That would be number 15, New Mexico's Elizabeth Lambert who I definitely don't want to irritate but DO want on my side in my next bar fight.
No word yet from the NCAA about dicipline, if any.
They've done it for five years, but Friday night's salute to veterans by the Milwaukee Admirals at the Bradley Center takes on renewed poignancy in light of the Fort Hood shootings.
What happened yesterday won't be lost on those who attend--veteran and civilian alike.
The Admirals have a way of striking the right chord at the proper time. They started their home slate by saluting local heroes from over the summer, folks like Mayor Barrett and burn victim D-J Harper.
And now comes tonight's salute to veterans and active military personel.
The shortest measurement known to man is "the New York minute."
So, it should come as no surprise that, to a Big Apple denizen, nine years equals "a long time."
That's how long it's been since their beloved Yankees won a World Series, the drought ending Wednesday night when the Pinstripes finished off the Philadelphia Phillies in six games.
It's no secret to anyone who follows the game that Yankees fans consider the championship a birthright, not a privilege. A season that doesn't end with a champagne shower in the New York clubhouse is a waste, requiring the gnashing of teeth, the rolling of heads and the expenditure of even more cash.
Last season, when the Yankees didn't even make the playoffs, a fleet of Brinks trucks was dispatched to the hinterlands, arriving in Milwaukee with enough cash to lure C.C. Sabathia from the Brewers. Also answering the siren song of the samolian was A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixiera. With three swipes of a pen, New York secured 40 per cent of it's starting rotation and arguably one of the game's premier first basemen.
This is the game, people--not between the lines, but in the front offices where most teams have to abide by spending limitations. The affluent, like the Yankees, pay the penalties that come with exceeding the salary cap and refurbish their rosters with the game's top stars. Bottom-feeders are left to hope that the Yankees are tossing more good money after bad.
Unfortunately for them, it didn't work out that way.
What happened in those nine years since the Yankees won? Here's who made it to the Fall Classics in between:
2008: PHILADELPHIA/TAMPA BAY
2007: BOSTON/COLORADO
2006: ST. LOUIS/DETROIT
2005: WHITE SOX/HOUSTON
2004: BOSTON/ ST. LOUIS
2003: FLORIDA/YANKEES (THE MARLINS WON)
2002: ANAHEIM/SAN FRANCISCO
2001: ARIZONA/YANKEES (THE SNAKES PREVAILED)
The Yankees beat the crosstown Mets in 2000 for their last title.
No one complained about baseball's salary structure when the D-backs, Angels, Marlins, White Sox, Cardinals and Phillies won. The Red Sox are considered a big money franchise but get a pass because their World Series success is relatively new-found. Tampa Bay's pennant in '08 was seen as a validation of the current system, proving that a team doesn't have to buy it's way in. Houston's appearance was the first in Astros' history. Anaheim spends, but like the Red Sox, the Angels were considered a cursed franchise before winning it all in 2001. Florida? The Marlins shelled out huge bucks on the first championship in '97, disbanded the team and have become a factory for the discovery and refinement of good, young talent.
What's my point?
Yankees fans are impatient. And, while flawed, MLB's financial set-up is fine. Yes, the team that spent the most won the most in 2009. That hasn't been the case for nine years, which is too long for Yankees fans but a nice window of opportunity for more fiscally prudent teams to prove their worth on the field. Minnesota still trots out competitive rosters. The Brewers have had a decent run of late, thanks to a new owner who started allocating limited resources better while honing a farm system that provided the team with most of it's starting eight. Those who have...spend. The Yankees do, with success. The Cubs have, and still falter. The Orioles went on binges and haven't been to a World Series since '83.
A level financial field would be nice, but I don't see it happening. Big market teams cultivated their competitive advantages through sheer numbers and media opportunities. There may come a day when the smaller markets who can't come up with talent of their own have to fold. Baseball is nothing if not a free market. No one is guaranteed a place at the table.
Racing is having it's problems--the Milwaukee Mile can't even find a promoter. The GMO had to fold it's tent--can you name a game that was more flush with cash than golf a few years ago? The Wave almost tanked. Yet the Brewers drew 3 million fans, even though the team was no longer competitive after the 4th of July. MLB is still a hot, affordable ticket. Well-run teams will survive. The ones with money just have more wiggle room.
The Brewers weren't, and wandered around baseball's desert for some 26 years before getting another playoff shot.
If nine years is "forever" to a Yankees fan, how would they have ever coped with that kind of wait? We'll probably never know, so long as New York pockets remain so deep.
With the arrival of ABC's "V" comes much buzz, great anticipation, and a very strange analogy: a Chicago Tribune review says the remake of NBC's old series about aliens who come to Earth as allies but put down roots as dominators is--are you ready for this--a take on our current President, Barack Obama.
Just when you thought you could dive into prime time to avoid partisanship (unless, of course, you watch Fox or MSNBC after dinner).
I haven't watched Tuesday night's premier yet but plan to this week. Here's the Tribune's review, and I'd love to hear from anyone who saw the to see if you make the same connection.
Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.
The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."
So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?
Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.
"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," observes one character. "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."
The bandwagon in this case is conspicuously saucer-shaped. "V" starts with the arrival of a couple of dozen ships from outer space, piloted by creatures who look like humans except a lot prettier. "Don't be frightened," says their luminously beautiful leader Anna (Morena Baccarin, "Serenity"). "We mean no harm."
The aliens -- who become known as V's, for visitors -- quickly enthrall their wide-eyed human hosts.
A handful of dissidents hold out against the rapturous reception given the V's. Some are simply uneasy, such as the youthful priest Father Jack (Joel Gretsch, "The 4400"), who sharply criticizes the Vatican's embrace of the V's as divine creations: "Rattlesnakes are God's creatures too."
With or without the political sheen, "V" is sweeping television storytelling at its best. Whether you choose to view it as a blood-and-guts war story, a spy thriller (unlike the original show, these V's are perfect replicas of humans, so you never really know who might be sitting beside you at the bar), a high-stakes family drama (as households divide over the intentions of the V's), a religious allegory (the V's make a crippled man walk, filling up churches again) or just a sci-fi throwback to the days of "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" and "The Thing," "V" is irresistible. This bandwagon is definitely worth jumping on.
Her classic plays as the credits roll at the end of this past Sunday's episode (the spoiler alert is wailing as I write this--you may want to come back if you haven't watched the show although I promise to give away no major plot developments) and boy, does it ever fit.
Even casual fans of the hit AMC series knew going in that Sunday's episode was going to deal with the Kennedy assassination--as I said in a previous blog, it's that time of the season. There was a time when November 22nd would pass with nary a mention in the media, but it seems that Kennedy's murder got renewed traction right around the time Oliver Stone's "JFK" came out and the tires never lost grip.
"Mad Men" delved into events of the day in past seasons but never has an outside sitaution so thoroughly dominated an episode. The t-v is a constant companion as the characters try cramming their lives into the the few dead spots in the news coverage. If you were a kid back then like I was, you remember seeing your parents cry, perhaps for the first time. You remember them being stuck for answers when you asked, "What's happening? What does this mean?" Being just six, I figured the murder of a President was just another t-v show that would play out in a neat 60 minutes on the tube, just like "Gunsmoke" or "Burke's Law". I even thought they'd bury JFK the same night he died, right after taking the casket off Air Force One. I couldn't believe that Mike Wallace was on television early Saturday morning instead of my beloved Shari Lewis and Lambchop--what's the big deal, I'd ask my dad? Why are they telling the same story over and over? He seemed disappointed that I wasn't staying in the house to watch the wall-to-wall coverage, choosing instead to go out and play. I remember him telling me that I was missing history. Maybe it's latent guilt that turned me into the freak about the story that I am today.
As good as "Mad Men" is, I expect it to only get better now that the series is past JFK. Creator Matt Weiner led many to believe that he wouldn't touch the assassination but instead, he let it take an episode over. It was the right thing to do, because that what the event did to the adults who lived through it.
There's a school of thought that says the 50's ended with Kennedy's death. If true, then the 60's now begin for Don Draper/Dick Whitman and the rest of those who orbit around his characters. Civil rights, Viet Nam, the Beatles and so much else lie ahead. If Weiner gives them the same treatment he gave theKennedy story, we're in for some really awesome Sunday nights.
I have a simple credo when it comes to creatures: they can have everything outside my home, but nothing on the inside.
I guess San Antonio Spur Manu Ginobili is a like-thinker.
It's Saturday night and the Spurs are hosting Sacramento. A bat swoops down from the rafters, causing a stop or two in play.
Enter Manu and his "Hands of Death".
PETA is predictably upset, saying it takes a small man to kill a four-ounce bat. To them, anything short of stopping the game until the bat died of old age would be unacceptable.
All four pro sports are going which is either a blessing or a distraction, depending on your point of view. The air is crisp and refreshing. Leaves put on their annual show. Kids are back in school and the daily routine is enjoined once again. At night, there are new shows to discover and old favorites to celebrate.
And, if you're a JFK assassination freak like me, it means a new spate of documentaries.
The History Channel seems to churn out a couple of new ones almost every month. They cranked out two in October, and there's one I really, really like.
"JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America" is a rather wooden title for such a fresh look at what happened the day Kennedy died as well as the days, months and years that followed. What makes it different is that there's no narration: the events are shown as they happened, through the lenses of the cameras that were there. The link above will take you to YouTube where you can watch as much of the series as you want.
Included are reporter stand ups and out-takes, like the one a very young Dan Rather does in the days before JFK's Texas arrival. There's off-air stuff, too, showing what was happening as cameras rolled and no one was watching. One such instance provides an eerie bit of foreshadowing--a reporter does a stand-up inside the Dallas Police Department, showing Oswald complaining as he's being led to a line-up the day after the assassination. The tape keeps rolling after the shot is done and the camera is being pulled into a hallway. As the lens swirls as it dollies away, you see the spot where Oswald would be murdered by Jack Ruby in less than a day, before that mundane hallway would serve as a backdrop to history.
You see the chaos in the corridors of the police department as reporters are given unfettered access to Oswald while in custody...the very thing that allowed a guy like Jack Ruby to blend into the mob and kill Oswald two days after his arrest. You hear his denials, see his attitude, and are left wondering why the accused assassin's constant requests for legal counsel are ignored right up to his murder.
What you DON'T get is anyone's after-the-fact assessment. The reporters and analysts you see and hear are in the moment, doing their job as the event was happening. You'll hear things that history would later prove wrong, and you'll see others that are still being debated to this very day.
It's four hours long, and the first two are the strongest, starting in the days before JFK got to Dallas and ending with Oswald's shooting. Part Two goes from his death to where we are today. It's still a better than decent documentary and a revealing look at how t-v did it's job when cameras were still on wheels, pictures were still black-and-white, and newspapers were still considered the news source of record.
Don't go in expecting the same old video and newsreel clips you've seen over and over again. I thought I'd seen it all until I watched "3 Shots". The most jaded assassination buff will find new stuff here, and I think the documentary is compelling enough so that even the marginally interested will hang, at least for the first two hours.
Give it a try when you aren't dealing with leaves, or if you've gone through everything on your DVR. It's not feel-good television, to be sure, but I think you'll be glad you saw it. It's an old story, told by the same eyes but with a very different perspective.
