All You Need Is 'Love?'

This is sounding cooler and cooler all the time. To be honest, when I first heard about it, I imagined a bunch of Vegas dancers doing a typical Vegas show set to Beatles' songs. But apparently, it's much more than that. Check out this article- Betting on the Beatles in Vegas The Beatles take Las Vegas tonight. The only question is, will all the participants get along, or will their legendary feuds get in the way of a spectacular night? Not only are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr due in town tonight for the premiere of Cirque du Soleil’s “Love” at the Mirage Hotel, but so is George Harrison’s widow Olivia Harrison and son Dhani, John Lennon’s first wife Cynthia and her son Julian as well as Yoko Ono and her son Sean. If it comes off, this would be the first-known gathering of these people anywhere at any time. And — as you may gather — this is not a happy family. Ono and McCartney barely speak, if at all. Ono and Cynthia Lennon have been enemies since Ono obstructed Julian Lennon’s access to his father’s estate for a long time. A raft of other celebrities are scheduled to show up, too, including Blondie’s Debbie Harry (fresh from her nasty appearance at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame dinner), Prince, Tony Bennett and Las Vegas’ first lady from the Rat Pack days, Phyllis McGuire. But the Cirque du Soleil show is called “Love,” as in “All You Need Is Love,” and maybe the good feelings about the show’s success, not to mention the money it will generate for the Beatles, will heal old wounds. Anything is possible here in Las Vegas, where the nighttime temperature right now is a drowsy 94 degrees Fahrenheit. “Love” is unique for many reasons, not the least of which is the price tag. It cost $120 million to rebuild the Mirage Theater when Siegfried & Roy left after their tiger accident. The show itself cost $30 million, we were told yesterday, with about $15 million more in production costs. That doesn’t include the price of licensing the Beatles music and original recordings, something that had not been allowed before this production. Previously, theater or film producers could only try to get the rights to re-record the Beatles’ music. “Love” is a first in that includes the original recordings. For purposes of theater staging, the recordings had to be “tweaked” by their original producer, Sir George Martin, and his son, Giles. Among the records used in the 90-minute show: "Hey Jude," "Something," "Here Comes the Sun," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," "Eleanor Rigby," "Help" and "A Hard Days’ Night." But to make those recordings work with Martin’s approval wasn’t a simple process. He balked at some of the ideas. A reggae version of "Hey Jude" was rejected. The egos were difficult to deal with, director Dominic Champagne told us yesterday, “but everybody was interested in the music.” Martin played bits of what they were doing for everyone in London from time to time. ”What have you done now?” they’d ask in mock horror. The show, says Champagne, is actually hanging on "Get Back," the first song all parties agreed would be included. And that’s kind of interesting, because “Get Back” features the late Billy Preston — who is not in the show. “We knew we’d start with 'Get Back,' but then we had to think about what it meant,” he said. “We had to go back from there to the beginning, and then work through the Beatles’ story.” Although some early songs are used, most of “Love,” is drawn from their later, more sophisticated works, like "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band," Champagne said. Meantime, how “Love” came about is a story of serendipity and good and bad luck. Apparently George Harrison — who never gets enough credit for his creative brainstorms — approached Guy Laliberte, the company’s founder, with an idea of some kind of collaboration. When Siegfried & Roy was suddenly forced to close down, the Mirage reached out to Laliberte, who brought in the idea of a Beatles show. The project has not transformed this hotel, which had lost its trendiness. The hotel, which once sported an indoor rainforest, now seems energized as Beatlemania seeps into every area. Originally, the plan was to use the existing theater, but then Champagne and his crew got the idea from “Get Back” to mimic the movie it appeared in, "Let it Be." Thus, the show is designed to look like the London rooftop where the final concert in "Let it Be" was performed. The theater has been reconfigured into a round, so that the audience feels like they are on other rooftops watching the concert, Champagne said. The result is a whole new theater, and one not easily renovated again. Cirque du Soleil and the Mirage are obviously confident that have a hit on their hands. Indeed, “Love” is the talk of Las Vegas right now. “We think it will be here for a long time,” Champagne said yesterday. If nothing else, it will bring the Beatles to a whole new audience. The director told us yesterday that when he started rehearsing with the cast of 63, many of them didn’t know much about the greatest rock band in history. “They said, I know one of them is dead,” he reported. “Most of them are 22 or 23 years old. They didn’t know the songs.” And that will change, too: Capitol is set to release a soundtrack for “Love” in November, just in time for Christmas. A new wave of Beatlemania is on its way.

Our Favorite Villains

In his book Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and sometimes Zeppo, Joe Adamson notes that the bad guys in A Night In Casablanca (1946) are Nazis. He goes on to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "The Nazis, though recently defeated, were about to embark on a long and eventful career as the most convenient villains in cinema, one that will probably stretch far into the next century."
Man, he wasn't kidding. It would be almost impossible to list all of the movies in which Nazis were either the main adversaries or a major part of the story, right up to present day. Films as diverse as the Indiana Jones series, The Blues Brothers ("I hate Illinois Nazis"), and The Boys From Brazil all mine the same territory when it comes to the bad guys.
The fact that so many talented actors/writers/directors/producers, from Irving Thalberg to Mel Brooks to Steven Spielberg, have been Jewish I'm sure has something to do with it. But I think the larger reason is that to most people with a sense of history, Hitler and his minions personify evil with no redeeming virtues. Once in a blue moon, there is a sympathetic portrayal of a Nazi character but such portrayals are few and far between.
Mel Brooks in particular seems to have a fixation on Nazis that borders on obsession. It almost seems to be some sort of ongoing therapy for him to mock and ridicule them, and at his best, he does so very successfully, as in The Producers, with its wonderfully warped Broadway show, 'Springtime For Hitler.'
On the serious side, there is an enduring storyline in thrillers and mysteries that the Nazis are still among us, still worshipping Hitler and still plotting to rule the world. Perhaps they, using the 'convenient' theory Adamson mentioned, are more allegorical than authentic, an easily recognizable embodiment of evil that is always there to threaten us.
I think it says something about cinema and human nature in general that Nazis have been able to fit into so many kinds of films, from the wildest comedies to the most serious and scary flicks. Maybe there's something cathartic in it for all of us, not just Mel Brooks.

Bond, James Bond

I've always been like this; I'll get on a kick of watching a lot of films with a certain actor, or a certain series like 'Star Trek' and then once I'm sated, I'll move on to something else.
And yeah, at the moment, it's 007. I remember somebody saying once that they couldn't stand Laurel and Hardy because they did the same gags over and over. And an L&H fan came back with, that's exactly why I love them so much... I look forward in each of their films to seeing Oliver fuming and fiddling with his tie and Stan at some point bursting into tears.
I don't think that's a bad analogy for most long-running series of films. The James Bond movies certainly have a long list of recurring situations and characters, running gags if you will, and I really believe that explains at least in part the series popularity and longevity. In fact, there are so many, it must have been rather daunting for the screenwriters and producers to come up with new and interesting plots while still incorporating all of them. I say 'must have been' because the latter-day Bond films have downplayed, changed or done away altogether with certain continuing aspects.
I definitely fall into the 'Sean Connery was the best 007' crowd. Roger Moore was too foppish, too hard to take seriously, even given that many regard the series as a spoof. The others, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan (leaving aside George Lazenby for the moment) have been okay, but only okay. As the series itself has been lately.
Connery made Bond a real character, in a way that the others haven't been able to. Beyond that, the early 007 films are fresh because they were establishing all those trademarks alluded to above; things that were still funny and exciting before they became a bit stale.
The obligatory opening scene featuring a fight or teaser of what was to come; the just-as-obligatory meeting with M and brief flirtation between Bond and Moneypenny; Q showing off the latest gadgets; the almost cartoonish villains and the outrageously named women, from Pussy Galore to Plenty O'Toole and beyond; and on and on.
There was a consistency to those early films. We all looked forward to seeing our favorite bits and the minor variations on them. And it's to the series creators' credit that they kept coming up with fresh ideas as well for so long.
All formulas eventually become tiresome for all but the most hardcore fans. I saw a Pierce Brosnan 007 a while back... I couldn't even tell you the name, but it was such a cookie-cutter movie. Bond is chastised by his superiors for being a throwback; Bond seduces some beautiful woman; Bond gets in some ridiculous contraption and dispatches a lot of bad guys. Nothing wrong with any of those situations as such, but there was no imagination, no humor, no energy. Before, there was a cleverness, unique to the Bond films, that made all the tried-and-true bits seem both new and familiar. Which is a hard trick to pull off.
And it brings me back to thinking Connery was key to the series success. He embodied the character of James Bond in a way that the other actors haven't. They're just actors playing a role. Connery gave you the impression that if you met him in real life, he'd be just like 007.

more odds, more ends

Myspace or Blogger? I had something I wanted to look up on a Myspace site and I couldn't access it unless I started my own page, which was easy enough. So now I have one. It seems more like a teenybopper thing... I don't think I'll use it much. But it was free, so what the heck.

Tracey has gotten me kind of interested in the World Cup, and since American football is still a while away, I've been finding out bits and pieces. And today, I watched the US and Italy play. First time I think I've ever watched a soccer game (as we call it) from start to finish. The teams played to a draw, which I gather was much better than was expected for the Americans. They were tough and aggressive (to the point of having two players ejected) and so were the Italians (they had one kicked out for a blatant foul) but in any event, it was nice to see our team not give up and keep on trying, after what I understand was a disastrous first game against the Czech Republic. But I have to say, I seriously doubt this will take the place of the NFL for me.

Tomorrow's Paul McCartney's birthday, the much anticipated, much written about, much dreaded 'When I'm 64' birthday. And of course it's Father's Day. More on that tomorrow.

The pic is of Collective Soul's Ed and Dean Roland visiting Iraq for a concert sometime in the last year.

Racer X

Undeniably, Racer X is the least understood driver on the Formula 1 racing circuit. Both feared and revered, he inspires rumors that whenever he competes, crashes are sure to occur. A facemask used to conceal his true identity further shrouds him in mystery, only adding to his reputation as a jinx.

Unbeknownst to Speed (and his family), Racer X is really his older brother, Rex Racer, a fact we are frequently reminded of throughout the long series. Long ago, while competing in a race, Rex crashed a car Pops built. Subsequently he ran away from home when Pops told him he lacked the necessary experience to race professionally. Aided by his mentor, Kabala, Racer X hones his driving skills, learning how to drive on “tortured roads and broken trails.” After this internship, he becomes a professional driver.

Along the way, he adds “secret agent” to his resume. He uses his experience as a racecar driver as cover for his primary occupation at the Paris-based International Police.

what if?

Brother Joe says I have spoken or written in the past about what the Beatles might have sounded like had they continued into the 70's and even the 80's. I'm not sure I remember doing this, and it presupposes a lot of things, not least of which is that John Lennon hadn't died. But it is an interesting suggestion so I'll take a whack at it.
As I mentioned on Joe's blog, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine what the next couple of albums after Let It Be and Abbey Road might have sounded like; just take the best of the band members' solo work and construct your own Beatles albums, like I did there.
A book Tracey got me for Christmas a couple of years ago had a chapter devoted to this very subject. In that writer's opinion, the passing years would not have been kind to them, either in the type of material they would have produced or public acceptance of it. In other words, a decline would almost have inevitably set in, and while the Beatles would almost certainly have continued to be very popular, the era of instant #1 albums and singles would have come to an end.
I would agree with at least the last part of that theory. In fact, it was happening already, to a degree, just before they split up. While their last album and single in the US shot to the top of the charts as always before, in England, they were fading, if only slightly. 'Let It Be,' (the single) failed to hit the top, and 'Something/Come Together' only made it to #4. To say 'only' shows just how high expectations for the band had become.
The writer went on to speculate that the Beatles would have ended up sounding like ELO or Supertramp. It's easy to buy into this, especially since Jeff Lynne of ELO has worked with both McCartney and Harrison and produced the two 'new' tracks on the Beatles' Anthology series in 1995, which indeed bore many of the hallmarks of ELO.
But had the Beatles somehow, miraculously, stayed together, I think the answer lies elsewhere. The only realistic possibility it seems to me would have been much broader collaboration with other musicians than had been the case in the past. They had tried it on occasion, with Eric Clapton on the White Album, and Billy Preston on the Let It Be sessions, and particularly the single 'Get Back' which actually was credited to 'The Beatles and Billy Preston,' something that shocked a lot of people. But that was the direction they were going. And if you read some of the transcripts of conversations among the four (of which hundreds of hours exist) from Let It Be, it's clear solo work was inevitable. At the same time, John and George spoke of 'preserving' the Beatles.
So what might have worked would have a been a series of albums, by what perhaps could have been called 'The Beatles and Friends,' one issued every couple of years or so. You could have had two or three cuts by the Beatles themselves, enough again to 'preserve' the band and the integrity of the project, and then the rest of the cuts would be various permutations of the group and outside musicians. For instance, one track could feature just John and Ringo and perhaps Klaus Voorman on bass, as was the case on some of Lennon's early solo work. Another would be a teaming of George, Eric Clapton and Billy Preston. Paul might choose to work with Denny Laine or by himself. Other potential collaborators would include Harry Nilsson, Jim Keltner, Jesse Ed Davis, Elephant's Memory, Badfinger, and after that, who knows? David Bowie or Bob Dylan?
In my opinion, even if you could somehow magically take away all the bad feelings surrounding the break-up, John Lennon would never have agreed to stay in a band sounding like ELO or Supertramp that just cranked out hit singles, no matter how catchy or popular they might be. Paul, George, and Ringo, maybe. It wasn't Lennon's cup of tea; he'd been there, done that, and wanted to move on. He might, however, have gone along with 'The Beatles and Friends.'

odds and ends

Approximately two-thirds of the world's people drive on the right side of the road, and one-third on the left.
Despite what many Americans might think, only four European countries still have left-side driving: the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta. All island nations.
Sweden was the last hold-out on the European continent. In 1955, a referendum was held and 83% of voters voted against changing from left to right. Nonetheless, in 1963, Sweden's parliament passed a law making the change. The change went into effect in 1967.

Men in Ancient Egypt typically shaved their heads; no surprise there. In addition however, many would place small scented wax cones on their heads that would melt slowly in the desert heat... an early form of deodorant?

The Monkees released their final album, Changes, in 1970. By this point, they were down to two members- Davy Jones and Micky Dolenz. One single, 'Oh My My', made it to #99 on the Billboard chart. The album itself did not chart. The running joke at Colgems, their record label, was that eventually the band would be down to one member, who would release an album called The Monkee.

Harpo and Chico

I remember when G3 was little, we used to watch a lot of movies, cartoons, music videos, you name it; and of course I love the Marx Brothers films and whenever he was in the mood for one and I asked him what he wanted to watch, he'd say, "Let's watch Harpo and Chico." Never Groucho. Just Harpo and Chico. I always thought that was funny and telling.
I wasn't introduced to the Marxes until I was well into my teens and so Groucho was always my favorite, but I can see how a 7 or 8 year old would prefer the other two. Harpo in particular has such a direct and childlike style of humor, kids will inevitably think he's the funniest, with his boundless energy and wild sight-gags. And Chico was pretty straightforward too, the good-natured but mischievous foil to Harpo more often than not.
They had so many great routines together over the course of their thirteen films together, it's hard to pick the best. But again, using G3 as a reference point, I remember a couple in particular that always made him laugh.
In 'Duck Soup,' Harpo and Chico play a couple of spies of dubious loyalty; their front is Chico's peanut stand outside of Groucho's office, where, before they switch sides, they have Groucho under surveillance of sorts. At one point, Harpo walks up and Chico wants a progress report. "Hey, come here," the faux Italian says. "What-a you find out about Firefly? You spy on him? You no spy on him? Why you no speak? All-a time I speak, you no speak. I..." By this point, Harpo has picked up a bag of peanuts and begins idly shoving them into Chico's mouth, which results in one of their famous fights, where Harpo feigns a punch and then kicks Chico in the rear.
The other scene, in 'Duck Soup' as well, finds the two of them making a report to their boss, who wants information too. Chico is a fund of useless information, telling their superior they spied on Groucho but he wasn't home, then they spied on the wrong person, then they went to a baseball game, etc. "But what about Firefly?" their boss finally asks him. "Did you bring me his record?"
Chico produces a phonograph record which the boss takes and throws high up into the air with the anguished cry, "No, no!"
And Harpo pulls a pistol from his pocket and blasts it to pieces, as though he was skeet-shooting.

Chico was usually overshadowed by his two more famous brothers, but he was the bridge between them. The wonderful chemistry among the three could not have happened without him. He was the straight-man for Harpo more often than not, but then Groucho was usually the straight-man for Chico, odd as it seems. And when he played the piano in his brash and unique manner, it is every bit as entertaining as the comedy scenes, partly because in addition to being musical interludes, they are comedy scenes as well. Chico may seem at times a standard-issue dialect comedian, but there's more to his character; he is so completely off into his own world, oblivious to criticism, absolutely unshakeable about what he says or thinks no matter how absurd it is that it makes him a hilarious and oddly endearing personality.

Harpo was the last of the great silent comedians. He has been overshadowed too; not by Groucho or Chico, but Charlie Chaplin, who set the standard. Being part of a team, Harpo couldn't hope to match Chaplin's celebrity, but he certainly matched that great comedian's talent. His recklessly inventive sight gags and his alternately impish and bizarre behavior really struck a chord with audiences, in ways that most would find hard to explain. No reaction of his is ever normal-sized; if he's happy, his expression is one of hyperbolic delight. If he's sad, he's like a kid who's been sent to bed without his supper AND lost his pet puppy. There is something immediate and basic about his actions that we can all relate to.

And aside from all that, they really make me laugh. Okay, I'm off to watch 'Horse Feathers' again.

What is brain?

Kathy is studying Latin; I am deep into my own research, namely going through the library of 'Star Trek' episodes. Some of these I haven't seen in years and now I am getting down to the worst of the worst. Almost all are from the last season.
'Plato's Stepchildren' I watched the other night. Talk about weird. Worth watching if for no other reason than to see Kirk and Spock as Tweedledum and Tweedledee doing a little dance. Shatner and Nimoy must have felt they were back in acting school; impersonating animals, feigning marionette movements, singing... and the priceless scene of Kirk slapping himself into submission.
'Day of the Dove,' 'Elaan of Troyius,' 'Let This Be Your Last Battlefield'... they all have their moments, good and bad. Mostly bad. I think what sets the third season apart is that it reflects the sixties so much more than the previous two seasons. Racial prejudice, the Vietnam War, male/female relationships etc. all come into play and are subject to very thinly disguised and not very subtle treatment and commentary.
Having said that, there are worthwhile bits in almost all the episodes. 'Day of the Dove,' for example, might have been seen as incredibly liberal at the time, but today seems rather even-handed. Same with 'Let This Be Your Last Battlefield.' Yes, there are heavy-handed lectures about war and bigotry, but they are directed at both sides, really.
And then there's 'Spock's Brain.' This one stands apart. It is probably the episode that Gene Roddenberry always feared would someday be made. And as he had stepped back from day to day supervision of 'Star Trek' by this point, sure enough it was.
It is the worst kind of grade-z sci-fi and it harkens back to some of those awful low-budget SF films of the 50's. Its tried-and-true premise would have fit right in- a planet controlled by air-headed but gorgeous women; this being the 60's, they wear mini-skirts and thigh boots. You almost expect them to break into 'These Boots Were Made For Walking.' But no, they only spout dialogue like, "Brain and brain! What is brain?"
The poor stupid men of the planet (hey, at least both sexes are idiots) call the women 'givers of pain and delight.' Subtle, no? As is this exchange between McCoy and Kirk-

McCoy- I'm sure you noticed the 'delightful' aspects.
Kirk- Yes, I certainly noticed those delightful aspects.

Cue rimshot. And then the final scene is a real howl... McCoy must put Spock's brain (hence the title) back into his head. He succeeds, without disturbing the Vulcan's distinctive hairdo in the slightest. Dr. McCoy, Master Hair Stylist. But does he do nails as well?
Anyway, one thing that has occurred to me as I watch all of these Treks, the good and the bad, is that hardly any are completely one or the other. Most of the best still have a few cringe-worthy lines or scenes, and even the worst have their good moments.

media

I did my own little poll the other night and the question was, "Which best describes your opinion of the American news media?"

The choices were-

1- They generally do a good job and are even-handed
2- They have a negative bias to most things
3- They report everything
4- They don't report everything
5- They report everything but selectively and with their own slant

Last time I checked, 17 people had voted. One person chose #1, one #2, none #3, two #4, and thirteen picked #5. People could also leave comments and without exception, they each had a bone to pick with the news media and a specific story or stories that they found fault with.

I deliberately tried not to pose this in liberal or conservative terms, and the answers I got back were from both persuasions. There should be no surprise in the conservative reactions, but liberals as well were unhappy. If there was a common theme, it was that the establishment media are full of self-importance, frame stories to suit their own purposes, and pat themselves on the back WAY too much.

One interesting response was from a woman who was frankly offended by all the press coverage of the CBS news crew in Iraq, two that were killed and the other injured. She asked why they warranted headlines and why Iraqi casualties are often glossed over.

Another mentioned frequent mistakes and wrong assumptions made by the press and that except in a very few high-profile cases, such as the NY Times reporter caught blatantly making up stories, corrections and apologies are few and far between and usually buried if published at all.

This of course wasn't a scientific survey in the slightest. I suspected the results would be critical of the media but I was surprised at how lopsided it was. The group of people I put it to was a pretty good mix, young and old, liberal and conservative.