In case anyone ever doubted the essential "cool" of Sesame Street, here's Little Richard to nail it down while performing one of the program's signature tunes:
The Savage Hearts - Radio Silence (Savage Trax)
21 hours ago
"Art is not and never has been subordinate to
"I will not do that which my conscience tells me
Shadows of Knight
I know I've mentioned here before that my favorite TV show is the original Maverick series, which I remember fondly from when I was a kid. Every ten years or so, it would pop up again in syndication, and I'd become reacquainted with Bret and Bart, and such recurring characters as Dandy Jim Buckley, Samantha Crawford, and Gentleman Jack Darby; but those revivals were always short-lived. When I upgraded my cable service earlier this year I was thrilled to discover that among the new channels I'd have access to was Encore Westerns, which airs episodes of Maverick three times a day in their original order. I've been burning the episodes to DVD, so that when it inevitably goes off the air again, I'll still be able to get a regular fix (I just need five more episodes, all of which are scheduled over the next week!). Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up is that I've been watching episodes in the morning while I ride my stationary bike, and I've become somewhat obsessed in trying to figure out which of the Maverick brothers-- Bret, Bart, or Brent-- was older. There are plenty of episodes where Bret and Bart both appear (they generally rotated appearances), and at least one where Bart and Brent are together (I'm not considering Beau, because he was a cousin), but not once have I detected a single clue, through dialogue or anything else, to signal which is the elder sibling. To me, Jack Kelly, who played Bart looks a tad older than James Garner (Bret) and Robert Colbert (Brent), but that's hardly definitive. Likewise, since Garner preceded Kelly as the star of the show, there's a perception that he's older, but again, hardly compelling proof. I'm tempted to check the actors' ages at the Internet Movie Database, but that seems a cheat. If the evidence is there in the show, I want to find it... as if I needed another reason to keep watching.
This is one that I only discovered years after its heyday, but it was always a treat to run across Our Boarding House (created by Gene Ahearn, and later done by Bill Freyse). I guess boarding houses were kind of a relic of the first half of the twentieth century (Moon Mullins was also set in one), which gives the strip a real nostalgic air. But the real appeal is the great character of Major Hoople, the lazy blowhard proprietor of the house whose wife did all the work while he regaled the tenants with his various theories and tall tales.
During the week, Our Boarding House was a single panel cartoon, but even with that limited space Ahearn and Freyse did a good job of conveying the setting, without sacrificing the rather long-winded dialogue, especially by the Major.
Everyone in the strip looks and sounds like a real person-- not that the style is very realistic, but the artwork conveys a sense of place and time and character that rings true.
In a lot of ways (visually especially), this strip reminds me of Gasoline Alley, but with the emphasis on a more adult perspective of the world, one that's a little cynical and cognizant of how likely it is that one might not always realize one's dreams. But in a humorous way, of course.
Major Hoople's neverending self-importance also suggests a kind of courage in the face of adversity, or anyway, in the face of an otherwise mundane existence, and there's something almost inspiring about that.
I can't think of a contemporary counterpart to Major Hoople or Our Boarding House; maybe it was such a product of its unique times that it's themes wouldn't make much sense to contemporary readers, but I doubt it. There are still people who dream big despite their limitations, and you'd think there'd be a way to incorporate that into the comic page. Idon't know-- given the space alloted to current strips, maybe it's just a situation where there's no room for the expansive bloviating of a character like the Major. Too bad.
Some years back, a Chinese restaurant opened in Dillon. The place was so busy at first, that they actually ran out of food after a couple of days and had to shut down so they could re-supply (after hearing raves from friends, I showed up the day they were closed). After the novelty wore off, business calmed down and I would go there once every other month or so, usually with a pile of papers to grade. I would plow through my work munching on egg rolls and kung pao chicken from the buffet. But then the food took a turn for the worse, becoming greasier and saltier, and I stopped going at all. This afternoon though, I had some grading to do, noticed that there were a fair number of customers in the place (generally a good sign), and thought I might give it another try. My lunch was better than I remember from my last couple trips, but still nothing special. Actually, the Egg Drop Soup (one of the buffet offerings) was probably the highlight of the meal, garnished with some fried noodles and augmented by a couple of egg rolls. Really though, it was mostly a case of low expectations being easily met, and I imagine it'll be a long time before I go back.
"...I know that society may be formed so as to exist
I believe that satire is really only effective if the target is both deserving and substantial enough, and the goal of the barb is to actually make a po0int and not just generate a laugh. A show like Saturday Night Live too often goes for the cheap and easy shot, and rarely hammers the real culprits (or the right actions by those culprits), and it certainly doesn't represent an actual, thought out perspective of its own; Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are better on the first point, but again, one would be hard-pressed to say with certainty what, if any, constructive political goal is evident in their skewering of others' misplaced pomposity. That isn't meant as criticism, and certainly not an argument that they aren't funny (I even find enough to laugh at in the recent seasons of SNL to tune in just about every week), just a reason for why I think they fall short of qualifying as true satire.
Alright, let's try something a little different this week. The above is a cropped picture of a baby member of the family (that is, the person was a baby when the picture was taken). Who do you think it is? Put your guesses in the comments section (all correct answers will be acknowledged, but the first correct answer get special extra credit).
"El" Second and Third Avenue Lines; Bowery and Division Street, Manhattan (1936)
I really like The K Chronicles by Keith Knight (posted every Wednesday at salon.com). It's sharp, funny, and more often than not rings true, whether he's addressing a political issue (as in the above strip) or a more personal one (often on the travails of first-time parenthood). I think he's on to something about the odd double standards that seem to apply in current political discourse, and I don't just mean each side giving their respective extremists a pass (check out this recent poll data). It's the quick dismissal of not the substance of a statement, but its source (often basing the decision on a stereotype promoted by some demagogue). For some reason we'll only acknowledge someone's credibility if we suspect they see things our way. Maybe it's always been like that, but I know that we have passed long periods in our history where it was possible for people of different partisan sympathies to sit down and talk to each other, and in fact, often reach compromises for the general good of the country without the rancor that dominates today. Why does it have to be like that? I'm glad that someone like Knight can find the humor in this recent trend, as it suggests to me that perhaps we aren't too far gone.
Last Saturday I went to see the new Steven Soderbergh movie, The Informant! Soderbergh is a real hit or miss artist, though he always turns out something interesting. The Informant! is one of his more entertaining efforts (it reminds me, in tone if not plot, of his earlier Out of Sight), but also offers something of an intellectual kick as well. Matt Damon plays the titular snitch, a high level executive in a massive corporation engaged in all kinds of nefarius shenanigans. Based on a true story, it hints at how the corruption of big business infuses the entire system, while any efforts to clean things up get hung up on the inevitable revelation that no one can be trusted to come entirely clean. A lot has been made of the jokey soundtrack music by Marvin Hamlisch, and it's seeming incongruity with the more serious dimensions of the film. But in the end, it's perfectly appropriate: either Soderbergh is saying that all you can do is laugh, or, alternatively, admit that the joke is on us-- "us" being the poor saps who are ultimately victimized by such institutional graft, which continues regardless of what happens to those few who happen to be caught. There was a time when I thought that films like this might shake people up enough to do something about the problems they expose; but as time goes by, it's hard not to think most viewers will merely see it as an evening's entertainment, maybe applaud at the end and go home and forget it. I'd like to think Americans haven't lost their capacity for deserved outrage, but I no longer harbor the illusion that it can be sparked by a movie, even one as good as this. Which I guess means the joke really is on us.
"The natural liking for the false has several causes:
My little sister Elizabeth turned [mumble, mumble, mumble] today, and here's hoping she had a great day: big cake, lots of presents, a favorite meal, etc. etc. The above may not be the most recent picture I could've posted, but I think it captures her essential "Lizzie-ness" and may even be one that many reading this had not seen before, or anyway recently. So have a great day Liz, and here's wishing all your days are just as good!
I wrote earlier in this space about my experiment to make some 16 Bean Soup from scratch, and how it didn't turn out quite as well as I'd hoped. Well, yesterday, I decided to experiment a bit with the remaining leftover soup to see if I couldn't improve it. First, I broke in my new blender and ground the stuff down to the consistency of a rather loose oatmeal. Before switching on the blender, I dropped a half slice of Swiss cheese into the mix. After heating up the result, I dropped a dollop of sour cream into the bowl, swirling it into the creamy soup. Success! The result was much better than the original, and it only goes to show that almost can be improved by the addition of cheese (thanks to Mom for the suggestion!).
You'd think that, if an item is featured on a menu as a popular favorite that it would actually be, you know, good. I had lunch yesterday at the Staggering Ox, a well-known Missoula eatery that I've been to a number of times before. Their specialty is the clubfoot sandwich, which is pretty unique and quite tasty. It's trademark feature is a roll that resembles a ribbed tumbler, with its bready innards removed and replaced with sandwich fillings (meat, cheese, lettuce, etc.). They also promote their French Onion Soup on the menu, and so I decided to try a bowl along with my sandwich (and you can only get a bowl, no cups, and it's kind of pricey). It was almost the worst bowl of onion soup I've ever had (that dishonor goes to a place here in Dillon that shall remain nameless). The onions did not appear to have been carmelized, the broth showed no evidence of spices, and the melted cheese on top seemed to be of the individually wrapped, processed Swiss variety. What a disapointment! Luckily my Turkey Clubfoot picked up the slack so the meal wasn't a total washout. I wonder if I just hit them on a bad day or something. Surely no one would order the stuff I had more than once, and it that were the case, wouldn't they have dropped it from the menu long ago?
When I was a kid, the then Buffalo Evening News did not publish a Sunday edition, and so published a color comics section on Saturday afternoon instead. On Sundays, we picked up a copy of the Courier-Express, and so we got a second weekend dose of color comics. Of course the two competing papers had completely different line-ups, and part of my memory is of the respective layouts of the two sections. Blondie was always the lead strip on Saturday, and Bringing Up Father had the top of the page on Sunday; we got Terry & the Pirates and Superman on Saturday, Steve Canyon and The Phantom on Sunday; They'll Do It Every Time on Saturday, There Ought to Be Law on Sunday-- you get the idea. The reason why I mention all this is because, try as I might, I can not remember which section hosted Otto Soglow's The Little King. I find it a sure sign of its singular quality that it stands alone in my memory that way.
Since it was mostly a pantomime (the King himself never talked), I recall that this was an early favorite since I didn't require anyone to read it to me. Soglow's little vignettes were easy to follow and understand, and their whimsical nature still entertains me.
I later learned that the character of the Little King started out in panel cartoons for the New Yorker, and I can see a connection between Soglow's work and that of someone like James Thurber, at least in the incredible economy of their artistic style. There's also something highly modernistic about much of Soglow's work, which is related to his simple, one might say stream-lined, compositions.
One doesn't often see Soglow listed in conjunction with George Herriman (Krazy Kat), Cliff Sterrett (Polly and Her Pals) or Charles Schulz (Peanuts); but if he's not quite in that top tier of comic strip creators, he's certainly not very far behind.
"The pleasure and delight of knowledge and
Here's a nice picture of cousins Natalie and Nicky. The question I have for you will sound familiar: at what event was the picture taken? Be as specific as possible, and post your answers in the comments section.