Holy Forgiveness

A long time before I was born, the Beatlemania craze swept the world and for many, it was the end-all-be-all of musical existence. It seemed that you couldn't go anywhere without seeing, hearing or reading about the Beatles. They were literally everywhere and you could not escape them. Their popularity was so far reaching and universal that many realized that people, especially the youth of the world, knew more about the Fab Four than they did about anything else. Put in that context it's easy to understand why John Lennon said that (at that time) the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Now as you can probably imagine, that didn't go over too well with those more in tune with the religious persuasions. In fact the Vatican denounced the Beatles following John Lennon's comment back in 1966. It's sad to think that Lennon's comment was taken in the wrong context. Knowing what I know about the Beatles and about John Lennon, I'm sure the statement was meant to convey his feeling that due to unexpected popularity, people seemed to be more interested in hearing the Beatles than they did their preachers at church on Sundays. He probably wasn't wrong. I mean I think the trend continues today; how many times do you hear kids these days complain about having to go to church on Sunday?

Some might argue then that the responsibility of the Beatles should have then been to act as spiritual guides to get others to believe in religion more than they did rather than inadvertently encouraging them to turn away. But as is often the case with such statements, it was taken in the wrong context and for over 40 years the Vatican had continually denounced the statement as being blasphemous. But now the Vatican suddenly declared that they no longer banned the music of the Beatles and they have even spoken the praises of the groups numerous hits. I guess maybe they rediscovered the great music of the group along with so many others this year with the re-release of their entire record collection and with the release of the game "Rock Band: Beatles".

How Quickly the Mighty Fall

You've undoubtedly heard the old adage, "the bigger they are the harder they fall?" Well if you have then you'll likely agree that no one has personified that statement better in recent history than golf icon Tiger Woods. After the discovery of his 'secret life' and the eventual joke that his life has seemed to become, Woods announced that he will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from the golf tour. With the announcement of this decision he suddenly became an anathema to all the company's for whom he was endorsing products and now it seems that perhaps he will never again recapture the luster that once surrounded him. But why is that? Why is he so different now than he was before his SUV hit a tree and the whole sordid tale of his private life came tumbling out?

What is it about celebrity that is so fleeting? One moment you can be the poster child for everything that is good and in the next you are being treated like the scum you find floating on top of a swimming pool that hasn't been cleaned in a long while. Tiger Woods was long viewed as a model of hard work and perseverence. He earned his place as a champion in golf by working at it. He wasn't like many other players who are at the top of their game in their respective sport who mouth off about as often as they win. Woods was humble and soft-spoken and a man who played well even when he wasn't at his best. He's had his highs and lows throughout his career and it was part of what made him a household name when he first burst onto the golfing scene.

Parents in particular liked to (apparently) use him as an example of what hard work and dedication could get you. They liked to tell their kids to emulate Woods and become someone 'respectable' like him. Now I say 'apparently' because now that this scandal has broken (and continues to break) it appears that parents are all up in a huff about the fact that Woods has 'done this'. I would simply ask why parents are using complete strangers to be inspirations for their kids in the first place. Tiger Woods's public persona was no doubt a model for many to want to emulate but the private life is where the problems lay and now that the private has become public, there is the suddent and fierce desire to break any and all ties to Woods. Now parents are behaving as if Woods has betrayed their trust somehow and are all ready to show their disdain for his actions and transgressions.

But what surprises me is that people still believe that what we see in public of celebrities is how they really must be in private as well. Celebrity is a fleeting thing and what has become apparent to me as the Tiger Woods 'situation' has continued to evolve and grow worse is that as quickly as we like to build up a celebrity, the public loves to tear them down just as quickly if not faster. Gone are the stories about how he worked hard to achieve the level of success he's achieved; now Woods serves more readily as a punchline for jokes than anything else. And to think, a simple car accident is what led to the disclosure of all these problems to the public.

I think any celebrity out there needs to take notice and be wary. I say this because there are undoubtedly many many more out there with similar (if not worse) transgressions out there and it can take something so small to let it out. What celebrities (be they sports stars or entertainment personalities) need to take notice that if someone as admired as Tiger Woods can suddenly become a bane to companies and the like then it's no different for anyone else. As much as we love our public figures, we love tearing them down since I guess it makes us (the general public) feel a little better knowing that the people we see on television or playing in the big game are not so different from us. That can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Is This Really News?

These days I tend to dread watching the news but it's not for the reasons you might think. These days it seems that we tend to get hung up on news items that have no business being news items. Since the State Dinner held for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a few weeks ago now not much news has been made about what was discussed between the President and Singh. Rather the media appears to be more focused on Tareq and Michaele Salahi who 'crashed' the party and have raised a stink that has long after the party ended. After the initial 'who is to blame' finally died down a bit now comes news that the couple will be subpoenaed to testify before Congress as to why they attended the party when they were clearly not invited. What I'm beginning to wonder is whether this is being blown up to even larger proportions simply because this pair was making headlines and were set to appear on a reality show 'The Real Housewives of DC'?

I don't understand why they are the issue. Shouldn't the issue be how they managed to penetrate security in the first place? The Secret Service is tasked with keeping the President and First Family safe so then why are we focusing our news on whether or not Salahi's phone did or did not die before receiving the call that informed him that he and his wife were in fact not invited to the party. What does it matter? This is something that the investigative committee needs to find out; I don't need to know about it, at least not every single day.

For example today there was a major article in the Washington Post about how Michaele Salahi is listed as being part of the Washington Redskins Cheerleader alumni even though she never cheered at a single game. She claims she did even though she can't say with whom, she can't furnish any proof and in reading interviews with other cheerleaders it was clear that she couldn't cheer either. If nothing else at least we know she (and her husband apparently) are very good at manipulating their way into fancy situations. When I checked out the headlines this morning I was surprised to see that before many other important (in fact even more important) stories was the headline about the Salahis and Tiger Woods.

Speaking of Tiger Woods; again I ask the question, why should I care? I understand that Woods is a public figure so his case will obviously garner more attention than the average person's may have but still, it's his personal problem between he and his wife. I don't need to listen to recordings of his cell phone calls or see copies of mails he sent to various women. There are more important things to discuss and talk about. And it's not just the entertainment or sports media focusing on the story either; the amount of time that Fox News (the self-proclaimed bastion of 'fair and balanced' news) has covered these two stories to such a degree that it reminds me of the time that Anna Nicole Smith passed away from a drug overdose. I remember that they spent 45 minutes (45!!) covering her death. I know it was 45 minutes because I was at the gym that evening and that's how long I was on the treadmill.

So many times these days we start seeing headlines that have no business being there. Certainly these are noteworthy news bits but they are noteworthy and not newsworthy (in my opinion). I don't think it's worth looking into to the degree that many media outlets are. Granted there aren't very many 'feel good' stories out there and the disappointing news about Tiger Woods's "indiscretions" are going to tarnish the good-boy image he had garnered over the years, it still doesn't justify the time that is spent on this case. Rather than worrying about world events we seem to be focused on entertainment news. Definitely a step that should make us all a little worried.

Let the Posthumous Adulation Continue

Several months have passed since Michael Jackson suddenly passed away from a prescription drug overdose. At that time he was working on getting ready for a comeback tour that was meant to cap off his return to music but the end of his touring career. Having toured extensively with the Jackson 5 and then again as a solo artist Jackson's career had seemed to fizzle towards the mid-nineties when his medical conditions and allegations of sexual abuse against children plagued him. It seemed that perhaps Jackson's time had passed and so he decided to try for one last major concert series. Anticipation was running so high that tickets had been sold out virtually before they were even on sale. It seemed that there would be no stopping this excitement but once he passed away, fans of Michael Jackson were left with nothing but their memories. Or were they?

Expectedly, sales of almost anything and everything Michael Jackson shot up. Albums of Jackson's available on iTunes and at traditional stores sold so quickly after so long that stores had trouble stocking up enough to keep pace. Albums which were suddenly thrown together from rehearsal sessions or from demo tapes were being gobbled up like turkey at Thanksgiving. It seemed that death had suddenly erased all the stigma attached to 'liking' Michael Jackson and made it okay to enjoy his music and his videos again. I remember when he was still extremely popular in this country as well. His videos were eagerly anticipated and always pushed the boundaries (in a good way). These days it seems that that form of expression is reduced to something to run between reality shows on MTV.

Once he passed away it seemed that everyone was eager to show they still 'loved' Michael Jackson which strikes me as very hypocritical as he had more or less become the butt of everyone's jokes over here. Whether it was his numerous surgeries, his outlandish dressing up, his public disguises which never really disguised anything or his efforts to have children of his own, the jokes never seemed to stop. It was probably the low point in his life when he had to appear on television to reveal what indignities he was put through in the course of investigating the sexual abuse allegations against him. All of this meant that Michael Jackson was not ever really taken seriously anymore. His contributions to music were left to the curb like a load of trash and no one seemed to care.

Even news of his comeback tour were considered something of a joke. People were curious whether Jackson still had the moves considering he hadn't been on tour or performed publicly in years but still, it wasn't taken seriously. And now that he's gone and people are back to 'loving' him, we choose to make ourselves feel better by flocking to the theatres to see a film thrown together to 'celebrate' his last venture for entertainment. Combining concert footage and interviews the film "Michael Jackson: This is It" is a look at the preparations that had been going on in relation to his planned concerts. Some argue that it only shows the good side of the ordeal but nothing of the accusations that Jackson was abusing prescription drugs or that the promoters were working him too hard.

But then again that's not the point is it? It's not meant to look at the truth right now. We all want to remember why we liked him and not why we made fun of him. People want to see the film because they feel then that they'll have been back with him, enjoying his music before he passed away. And like little lemmings we'll flock to the theatre to see it because it's a 'tribute' to the artist. If that's a tribute or it's meant to reinforce the admiration someone has for the music then that's hypocritical too. If you like someone's music you should like it all the time and not just when the public says you should. I'm not going to go to see the movie. I have enjoyed Jackson's music for years and will continue to do so. I don't need to pay money to see a movie that celebrates his contributions to music. I will always listen to his music. It's too bad that some of us will shell out money just to make ourselves feel better.

Shah Rukh is a Khan

U.S. flags are being burned. Protests are being held outside of the U.S. Embassy. Politicians are demanding that the government seek to potentially implement a 'tit-for-tat' policy against Americans. And of course, celebrities are up in arms against a 'slight' against one of their own brethren. No I'm not talking about a situation brewing in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm talking about the incident this past weekend where noted Bollywood mega-star Shah Rukh Khan, was detained for several hours at Newark's Liberty International Airport after his name appeared on the no-fly list. Despite attempts to explain who he was and what the purpose of his visit was (he was on his way to Chicago to lead the Indian Independence Day parade). After communication was finally established between the Indian Consulate and the State Department, the situation was cleared up and SRK was allowed to proceed but the incident has left a very bad taste in many people's mouths.

What has enraged most Indians is that someone of Shah Rukh Khan's stature was treated so shoddily in a foreign country. And while I feel the frustration and anger that many feel I don't think it justifies behaving the way many of the people are. Politicians within India are calling for a tit-for-tat policy. Why does the government need to step in and harass Americans just because an Indian actor was harassed? And besides, didn't the Indian government already do a wonderful job of that when they attempted to arrest Richard Gere when he kissed Shilpa Shetty a year or two ago? Here is an actor who has done a great deal for the Dalai Lama and who has enjoyed every trip to India who then went overboard and kissed Shilpa Shetty and the next thing you knew, his effigy was burned, his photos hit with shoes (a major insult) and he was nearly forbidden from returning to the country. Thankfully common sense prevailed and he was allowed to return though I'm not sure he has since.

But people who don't know Shah Rukh Khan from Genghis Khan are probably wondering what the big deal is. Well to put it in perspective, just imagine Brad Pitt showing up in London and subsequently being detained and questioned because his name resembled the name of someone on a terror watchlist. That's precisely the reason that SRK was detained the way he was. Now no one has ever indicated that the terror watch list is a perfect thing. I mean just ask Senator Edward Kennedy. In 2004, Kennedy was denied permission to board a flight because his name was supposedly on a terror watchlist. Now I would venture that it's safe to say that if a person of repute here in the United States is detained for being on that list, is it any surprise that an Indian actor might undergo the same type of detainment?

I think what is further enraging people is the sense that SRK was thrown into a prison and locked up. The images of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib Prison flash before people's eyes and they think that he must have been tortured until his release. I hate to break the news but that's not what he went through. He was inconvenienced and treated this way because of his name. Now Shah Rukh Khan conjures up many things to many Indian movie fans but for the average Joe who is working security at an airport, it probably doesn't mean all that much at all. Sure in Bollywood we have Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Salman Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, Sohail Khan, Irfan Khan and a host of others, it is common. Over here in the United States I can't think of a single mainstream actor with the name Khan. I don't mean to imply that it was therefore right of the Transportation Security Agency to detain him but neither do I think it's any surprise.

I am ashamed that someone of repute like Shah Rukh Khan had to undergo such treatment when he was visiting our country but in the name of safety and security, he suffered more because his name is Khan than anything else. I wouldn't call it racism or discrimination. I would call it bad luck that Shah Rukh Khan has the name Khan and that it is probably what flagged him on a terror watchlist someplace. In India he and other major celebrities can often bypass security due to their stature and standing in public but over here they are just another face. Perhaps there is some resentment over the fact that they aren't recognized over here but I can imagine that happening to tons of other actors as well. I mean if it can happen to a Kennedy, I would imagine it could happen to anyone.

Another Sad Day for Hollywood

It's been a tragic year for Hollywood. So many of the industries luminaries have been passing away at such a steady clip that I sometimes wonder when this will end. The latest loss was one that particularly saddened me and that was the loss of writer/director John Hughes. Now for those of you who don't know, John Hughes was the man whose teen films and comedies in general helped form the nucleus of the 80's movie output. To give you a smattering of his films, they include: "The Breakfast Club", "Sixteen Candles", "National Lampoons Vacation", and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" to name a few. What set him apart, at least in my mind, was the fact that though the teen movie is nothing new, what Hughes did with the genre was make it honest and enjoyable and something most of us could relate to.

Hughes wasn't what you would consider a 'Hollywood insider'. He lived and worked in Illinois close to his Chicago roots. Though he was often mis-characterized as a recluse who preferred to live and work in Chicago, Hughes was very much prevalent in the Hollywood scene. When asked why he preferred Chicago to the typical Hollywood locations he explained that it allowed his teen actors (and actors in general) to focus on the work they needed to do. It allowed them to concentrate on the roles and characters they were taking on and it often showed in the films he created. I remember seeing "Sixteen Candles" and "The Breakfast Club" long before I was in high school and I simply remember thinking that if this was what high school was going to be like then I had better be on my toes.

Though "Sixteen Candles" was more of the out and out comedic of the two films, it nonetheless tackled some of the issues that many teens go through in those awkward high school years. Not that I was the Geek (Anthony Michael Hall) though I came pretty darn close at times. Similarly with "The Breakfast Club" (a film that has been making the rounds again recently on HBO and such on cable) it dealt with the issues of social norms and character types in high school and how none of us can really fit into the roles people assume for us. As the movie concludes, though outwardly we may fit a certain character-type, on the inside we are all one and the same. It was a powerful message that resonated with me when i first saw the film but continues to resonate with me even so many years after my high school days.

Despite the fact that most of his films are now at least 20 years old, they still hold relevance to what is happening today. I also find them to be a lot more honest and the characters in them to be less superficial than many of the characters we see in many of the current crop of teen films. Though there may be the occasional film that relates the stories of teens in an honest manner these days, it doesn't occur without some comparison to a Hughes film. Even when his films didn't deal with teens directly but rather with the everyday person, they managed to do so in a manner that didn't try to be blatantly hilarious or over the top. The humor in Hughes films came from the fact that much of what was happening could actually happen in real life.

"Planes, Trains and Automobiles" is one movie that comes to mind. The road trip that Steve Martin and the late John Candy take across the United States is made all the more funnier because you could imagine these types of things happening to someone. Perhaps it's nostalgia at having lived part of my life in that era or perhaps it is just a fondness from having grown up with those films but there's definitely something different about those films versus what we get today. Someone once compared Ferris Bueller to a teen James Bond and what made that appealing to many of us who grew up with that film was the fact that unlike James Bond, whatever Bueller did was at least someone plausible (though I grant you the karaoke scene during the parade is a bit more than I would believe) but it was a sign that teens could be equals to adults in the real world.

Perhaps I'm reading more into these films than I should. Perhaps it's just that I feel bad that we lost Hughes at the relatively young age of 59 from a sudden heart attack but whatever it is, I know that his movies will be a legacy that will live on for many years to come. Though we continue to move past the decade he so epitomized in his films, we can still look back on them and laugh. Not just at the hair or the clothes or the phrases that they used but at the situations; because those situations are as funny today as they were back in the 80's. John Hughes will sorely be missed and my one hope is that the way to remember him will be to remember his films, not by jumping on the current Hollywood trend of simply remaking it, but seeing the original films themselves. They will stand the test of time.

Remembering an Inspiration

Eighty years ago today, Kishore Kumar, the famous playback singer and actor was born in what is presently known as Madhya Pradesh. Coming from a family of actors including his elder brother Ashok Kumar and his youngest brother Anoop Kumar, it seemed only natural that Kishore Kumar himself would enter into films as well. However his first love was music and despite not having any formal training whatsoever in singing, Kishore Kumar was determined to make it in the industry. With the assistance of his brother Ashok Kumar, Kishore Kumar landed smaller roles in films and managed to sing a few songs before finally making it as a playback singer. But for me, he will always remind me of the songs I used to listen whenever we went on trips someplace.

Music has always been an integral part of my life and my appreciation of Hindi music from years past comes from people like Kishore Kumar. Despite not having been trained as a singer it astounds me at the range and versatility he showed throughout his career. In films like "Padosan" he could sing a melodic love song before turning around and singing a tuneful 'duel' against Manna Dey in the classic 'Ek Chatur Naar' which showcased not only his dynamic range but his comic sense as well. And to me that comic sense is what made him most special. I think it's safe to say that all of us like to laugh but the one thing that always made me appreciate Kishore Kumar's songs and comic acting as well was the natural way in which it seemed to flow from him. His wildly expressive face and his hilarious sounds meant to underscore the humor made it all the more a pleasure to watch him.

One of the films I grew up watching (even though I didn't understand a word of Hindi and the copy we had didn't have subtitles) was "Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi". In it not only does Kishore Kumar provide playback for himself but also presents some of his best comic work that I can recall seeing. Many actors will say that comedy is much harder to do than serious or dramatic roles and I for one can believe it. But in seeing Kishore Kumar's performance in "Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi", I couldn't help but think how easy he made it seem.

Though he acted off and on throughout his career and even though he sang playback for many actors up until his death in 1987, it's probably his songs from the earlier part of his career that mean the most to me since I have been hearing them for so long. In the years since his loss (over 22 years now) many have attempted to replicate his voice and his creative spark but none have really been able to do it. There are few artists who are ever truly irreplaceable and special but I do believe that Kishore Kumar was certainly one of them. He may be gone but his comic timing, his wonderful voice and the impact it has had on so many will ensure that we remember him for many many more years to come.

The 'King' is Dead

I think it's safe to say that most people were stunned by the news last week that singer and world-mega-star Michael Jackson passed away after going into cardiac arrest. Although the exact reasons behind his death will not be known for certain until his autopsy results are released, one thing for certain is that suddenly there will be a tremendous outpouring of emotion (both positive and negative) that will attempt to portray a man who was both adored and despised depending on who you ask.

Now perhaps 'despised' is a very strong word but there is no denying that the media did a tremendously good job of portraying Michael Jackson in as negative a light as was possible at the height of the accusations leveled against him. Whether the allegations were true or not, there were plenty of videos or editorial commentary going around to convince even the most skeptical person that perhaps there was some truth to the rumors. And in a very fell swoop, whatever other impact he may have had on the world was swept aside (particularly here in the United States) as it seemed that many people wanted to forget about him. I mean for years, you could probably count on your hand the number of times you would hear a Michael Jackson song on the radio. Sure at Halloween you'd hear "Thriller" until you got sick but when else would you ever hear him sing?

There may have been the occasional tribute to him here in the States with people singing his songs on shows like "American Idol" but on the whole people had reduced him to a caricature of what he once was. More than the music people chose to remember and bring up his love of exotic animals or the fact that he portrayed himself to be a perpetual child. Never mind that he did tremendous work for HIV/AIDS research and awareness around the world or that he raised millions for charity, what remained in the collective consciousness of the media was the accusations of molestation. I think he became a poster child for what could happen when someone becomes famous around the world, and not necessarily in a good way.

I remember seeing his concerts on television being broadcast from Europe and seeing how much love and affection these kids had for him over there. I don't think I'll ever be able to understand how much his music meant to so many people around the world. Don't get me wrong, I think his songs are among the very best and no matter how lame it may seem to many people, I think he's still one of the most creative artists out there. But what seemed to happen to him later on was that as society transitioned into the 1990's and grunge and the whole hip-hop movement made it's way into the mainstream, he lost his identity.

One could maybe say that that was part of the reason he kept coming up with new looks or styles. Sure he had medical problems that affected his outward appearance but rather than sympathizing with the man he remained a caricature for people to make fun of. It's unfortunate now that the positive message many are attempting to place on him is now coming after his death. In life after these accusations came to life it was hard for anyone to speak of him without mentioning the accusations against him in the same breath. Now he has suddenly again become an object of adoration and appreciation. Some say that people believe death can absolve people of all the wrong things they've done in their life and while that may be, I think it's more illustrative of the media taking someone and tearing him down when he's at his lowest point and then using his death as a means of boosting their ratings.

Where Are the Protestors Now?

For anyone who missed the Oscars or who hasn't seen the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" yet, you probably won't recognize the little girl pictured at right. She's Rubina Ali, a child from the Mumbai slums who was cast in the role of Latika (as a child) in the film and since the skyrocketing success of the film (not to mention multiple awards around the world including the Oscar) she has become quite famous. Yet despite this newfound fame, Rubina remains in the slum where she and her family have lived for quite some time. Shortly after the popularity of the film began to take off, there were loads of protests, none louder than those coming from India.

The protestors complained that the filmmakers (read that to mean non-Indian westerners) had exploited the children and had made what amounted to 'poverty porn' in an effort to highlight only the negative parts of India. It's gotten so bad now that backlash against the film and its success has resulted in many of Bollywood's luminaries declaring that the word 'dog' should no longer be used in Indian cinema. Now perhaps it is petty or a bit of jealousy but whatever it is, it's a bit ridiculous. Despite the fact that the filmmakers paid the children in the film and have set up trust funds or set aside money for their education, many in India protested the fact that the filmmakers still hadn't done enough. Time and again the word exploitation was being thrown about and often to deaf ears that didn't want to hear anything to the contrary.

Flash forward a few months and read the latest news. According to reports, the father of Rubina Ali has now been accused of brokering a deal to illegally sell his daughter to a 'buyer' in Dubai for 200,000 British pounds (or over $300,000). Though there is some skepticism as to whether this is just accusation or it's the truth, I find it funny that the reports are coming more from the Western media and not so much from the Indian media. Is this not true exploitation of the highest order? Isn't it exploitation to take a child and bump the price from 50,000 to 200,000 simply because "this is an Oscar child"? Rubina's 13-year-old sister Sana Ali reportedly left the house recently to live with her biological mother because the father apparently didn't want her around the house anymore given the fact that Rubina is worth more.

Now perhaps all this is heresay and sensationalism that is not true. Giving the father, Rafiq Quereshi the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he's not really interested in 'selling' or giving away Rubina, but then besides denying allegations, why isn't anyone else saying anything? Why aren't Indians jumping up in protest and stating that this is wrong and that the child is once again being exploited? Certainly the life of the child has been changed since being exposed to the world in a high profile movie but I think it brings to light the fact that there is a certain amount hypocrisy in people. If it's something seemingly done by an outsider then it is exploitation, if it is something done by an Indian than is it only a shame and something to tsk-tsk at? I don't think so. I certainly hope that there isn't any truth to the accusations against Quereshi but if they are then I would wonder if the vocal majority who shunned Danny Boyle and western filmmakers will shun the actions of Quereshi just as loudly.

Responsible Blogging

As I stated in my blog yesterday, there is probably no bigger star in India than Amitabh Bachchan and if you don't believe that then you need to go to his blog and you need to go very soon. Bachchan has had a fan following almost as loyal or faithful as any organized religion in the world and with it comes a certain sense of responsibility, at least in my mind, and in seeing the way some readers comment on Bachchan's blogs, I would think (and hope) that he would feel the same way. Now before backlash begins on whether or not I think Bachchan is truly as compassionate or caring as he appears to be, I would like you to think about how his blog has been used in recent days.

Blogging is probably the easiest way for someone to get their thoughts or expressions out to the rest of the world whether other people want to read it or not. Next month will be three years since I began blogging and I can honestly say that I didn't think I would be doing it this long. Bachchan titles his blogs by simply stating the day number that it's been since he began blogging and by my count, he is nearly up to one year since he established his blog. In that time I think he's done a marvelous job of letting people have at least a glimpse into his personal life and it has probably made those who adore him love him all the more and those of us out there (like me) who knew only a little about him, learn a whole lot more. Still, being the mega-celebrity that he is it's not surprising that he has been the target of protests and spats himself.

Some of the comments or blogs he has written have sparked what can only be described as 'comments wars' in the comments section of his blogs. Take for example the time someone commented on his blog on his experiences during a concert series here in the United States last year. One of the commentors wrote about how he was disappointed in the fact that despite paying through the nose for an opportunity to meet Bachchan after the show he was not given the chance and held Bachchan responsible. Thereafter the counter comments began and by the end there were calls for this 'non-believer' to be forgotten and ignored for ever having doubted Bachchan. If you would read some of the comments that this discussion sparked you get a better understanding of how much adulation there is for Bachchan and how unhealthy it can be.

To consider someone a 'non-believer' smacks of religion. Is it wrong to question Bachchan or what he writes? If he has a problem with it then why allow comments in the first place? Take for example the recent posting he made where he simply took a comment on his blog regarding he and his family being recognized while out for dinner in New York very recently. Bachchan talked about how he was sequestered in an Italian restaurant in New York by international fans. A reader merely commented that Bachchan was full of himself for telling what he considered to be an egotistical story about how famous he and his family are. Instead of replying to the reader, Bachchan posted a reprint of the comment on his blog and then asked a rhetorical question to the rest of his readers as to what their opinion was regarding that comment.

Open the floodgates because here comes the comment torrent. Tons of people want to voice their opinions which is good but then there are some who take their beliefs a little too far. Take for example a reader who wrote that "Jesus was martyred and so was Gandhi-ji." Now I grant you that Bachchan is important for many reasons to a lot of people but to compare him to Christ or M.K. Gandhi? Please. Here is the perfect opportunity for Bachchan to step in and respond to these statements as well. He cribs about how he is often wrongfully portrayed by sections of the media (and right he is to protest) but then he also goes on to 'smear' others he doesn't necessarily agree with. Now it's fine for him to use his blog as a means of getting his opinion out to the people but when he sees comments like these comparing him to Christ, I think he has a responsibility to come out and tell people that that's not who he is. Yet there is silence.

Are we to then take this to mean that he doesn't have a problem with comments like that but if someone makes a negative observation they need to be publicly castigated? True the reader did question his integrity and sincerity by boldly stating that everything Bachchan wrote about the incident at the Italian restaurant was a lie but rather than responding in calming tones, Bachchan merely let his readers do the badmouthing for him. It's rather convenient for him that way. He can let others voice what he wants to say without fear of anyone in the media coming back and accusing him of doing anything untoward. In a way it strikes me as being an abuse of the power and influence he most certainly has over people. He shouldn't abuse it that way because as he always states, he is better than that.

Celebrities or Demigods?

Let me preface this blog by admitting that I'm not the world's biggest fan of Indian ultra-star Amitabh Bachchan. I admire some of his work and I think he is talented in certain roles but I don't consider him by any means to be the end-all-be-all actor and person that he is often made out to be. That being said, let me continue. I know that I'm rather late to the whole blogging thing but still, I've been blogging for about the last two years now and I can say that it's certainly helped me keep up the practice of writing. Lots of people say that if you want to be a good writer you have to keep writing and so I've been writing blogs nearly every day for the past two years. I've had over 10,000 visits from all over the world and have made over 500 posts.

I honestly don't know just how many people happen upon this blog and stay to read some of the contents when they do happen to find it by mistake. Usually the search strings tie into some key phrase that I've used in one of my blogs and that leads to a record number of hits. I remember getting over 200 hits in one day when I had blogged on the discovery of a new planet last year. I got the hits because when you did a Google search for the planet's designation, my blog was the first hit on the list. Take that NASA! Still, luck and happenstance likely have a lot to do with people finding my blog. Not so with Amitabh Bachchan, the Indian star who has started his own blog several months ago. On his blog he does what most bloggers do and that is relate his experiences during recent trips or events; talks about his thoughts on certain issues; and answers questions that some of his fans leave on his site.

Now a small time guy like me doesn't get very many comments nor do I expect them but usually the comments I receive are statements of agreements or the occasional refutation of what I've been ranting about. This is fine as I don't expect everyone to agree with every single thing that I say but in the case of Amitabh Bachchan, his comments reveal a slight more... well... disturbing side to his readers. Now as I've said, Bachchan is a household name in India as he's been a big star in Bollywood films going on four decades now. In recent years his appeal seems to have exploded and the number of people literally singing his praises can be seen on his blogs. They range from the mundane about how the reader thinks Bachchan is the greatest to the ludicrous such as the post that was made on his blog earlier this week by a disgruntled concert goer. Now to clarify quickly, Bollywood concerts aren't real 'concerts' per se. They are usually songs from popular movies of the time being sung live by the actual singers or cover artists with the stars themselves lip-syncing and dancing live. (An interesting side-note... I don't think the Indian media would have wasted even a column of news over the Chinese lip-synching 'controversy' at the Opening Ceremonies seeing as how no Bollywood star in today's market would ever consider singing their own songs a la the Hollywood stars of something like "Mamma Mia").

So apparently one of Bachchan's now former fan-for-life readers, Mr. Parag Gandhi, posted an angry comment regarding the fact that he shelled out nearly $600 for tickets and a chance to meet Bachchan and his fellow artists at a show in San Francisco. Mr. Gandhi also flew from his home to San Francisco just to see the show and due to miscommunication and an apparent 'dis-interest' from Bachchan and company, did not even get to meet the artist. Mr. Gandhi proceeded to then rail against Bachchan and his ilk over their apparent willingness to 'step on the public that built them up'. Now kudos to Bachchan for responding to the comment in such a public fashion when he wrote up his response. He indicated that such 'arrangements' with the producers of these shows are not the responsibility of the artists but of the producers of these shows and though they make an effort to meet all fans, they don't have an indication of when these incidents are supposed to occur. He apologized to Mr. Gandhi and indicated that rather than blogging about his mother on her death anniversary, he chose to respond to a former fan-for-life. And therein lies my problem.

I was intrigued by the whole discussion about this blog and the comments so I went online to check it out myself and I was rather appalled at how Bachchan was treated on this site. Not that he was insulted or bad-mouthed but he was praised like... I don't even know how to describe it. But it was almost as if he was infallible. He was perfect. He was humble. He was the greatest (though I would argue that title still belongs to Muhammed Ali). In essence, he was being treated like a demigod. Not quite God, but God-like and I find it to be something very much prevalent in our Indian culture and that is hero worship. Now I'm not saying that paying respect and acknowledging our elders is a wrong cultural tie, but this 'bowing down' in reverence to celebrities is a bit much. Take a show like "Sa Re Ga Ma Pa" which is somewhat akin to "American Idol" and when the music director judges reap praise on participants, they are quick to go and touch their feet in respect and treat it like an acknowledgement from some 'higher authority'.

That's fine, there's nothing wrong with it if it is genuine respect but sometimes it borders on excess and frequently it falls quite far across the line. And then the line that many of these commentors on Bachchan's blog take almost seem so familiar or friendly it's as if they are ordering him to do something now that he's responded to his readers. What do I mean? Now that he's shown how 'big' he is by writing about his former fans as opposed to his late mother now his fans are piling on the insults to Mr. Gandhi for making his comments and lauding Bachchan for being the bigger man and answering his jibes. Forget the fact that Bachchan then goes on to challenge Mr. Gandhi to prove that he even did some of the things he claims in his letter such as producing Bachchan's 1993 concert or being roommates at one time with his son. I doubt very much that Mr. Gandhi will respond now that he's been insulted quite vehemently on the site.

It shows just how much Bachchan's fans are willing to fight and defend their ultra-star and to what lengths they are willing to go to show their devotion. According to Mr. Gandhi's post (and this must be taken with a bag not a grain of salt) that one of his friends spent in excess of $20,000 to meet and speak with Bachchan at the same concert only to be left crying at the wayside. My question is who the Hell is Amitabh Bachchan for you to even consider spending $20,000 to meet him? Wouldn't you rather put that money away for your kids college funds? Wouldn't you rather use that money to pay off your debts? Wouldn't you rather use that money for so many other things rather than the chance to spend ten minutes with an actor? I have met some stars from Bollywood and for the most part they have been quite low-key and very reserved and humble. I'm not saying that Bachchan isn't all of these things but people in general need to be reminded of that fact. He's only human albeit a very famous human but human nonetheless. Don't make him a God.

Campaigning Turns Pretty?

I'm sure many of you are probably thinking that today's blog title is an indication that all the candidates for our presidency have suddenly turned nice and are playing nice and are telling the truth and are agreeing to run a fair and honest campaign right? Well get out of your Utopian landscape and return to reality. No. The 'pretty' I'm referring to is the ad that perennial party-girl and reality show star Paris Hilton released this week in response to her image being used in ads by Republican Presidential nominee John McCain.

John McCain's ad, released sometime in the previous week (depending on your location around the country) equates Barrack Obama's popularity to being a 'star-of-the-moment' type of phenomena which is then linked with images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears at various gala events. The implication being made by the ad is that Obama is just a fleeting star who is popular now but doesn't have the wherewithall to be a true and decent leader for our country. Though her parents have previously supported McCain, Hilton's mother made statements to the press that she was upset that McCain would use her daughter's image that way. Paris herself, not one to shy from any spotlight, siezed the opportunity and released her own ad in which she doesn't name the nominees but the implication is enough.

Hilton refers to McCain as the 'crinkly-haired old guy' and Obama as 'the guy for change'. In the ad, Hilton refers to McCain's age frequently by showing images of 'old people' from movies and television including "The Golden Girls" the Crypt-keeper and Yoda among others. She also takes a moment to put her own spin on both McCain's and Obama's proposed energy reform bills. Of course her solution (using the best of both worlds) is something else that will likely only see reality within the confines of a Utopian world (once again) or at least in speculative fiction books like the type written by Harry Turtledove or Newt Gingrich.

Though I'm not devout fan of Hilton myself, I think her creating this ad will probably do more for both candidates than anything they may be attempting at this time. The race for the White House is neck and neck and will only get closer until November unless one candidate makes such a huge faux pas that there is no recovery possible. Though the race is close in the polls, I've never been one to trust what they tell you. When you're sitting at home and a pollster calls to ask who you would vote for, you have to do nothing but vote over the phone. You don't have to wait in line and fill out forms or any such thing. Contrast that with voting in reality and you have to stand in line, show IDs several times, wait in line again and then cast your ballot. Most young people don't do that so even though the youth may be firmly behind a particular candidate, it doesn't mean anything if they don't go out and vote.

I'm also a big proponent of voting. You don't have the right to complain if you don't exercise your right to vote. If you have the right, it's your obligation to go out and vote. The sacrifices of so many lives in Vietnam was one of the main reasons that the voting age was eventually reduced to 18 so that people being ordered to fight in Vietnam could at least have the opportunity to choose what leader sent them there. It's telling when you have the largest voter turnout in California history to vote Arnold Schwarzenegger into the Governor's seat several years back. Though there is debate over whether or not he's a good leader for the state or not, he won on his platform but also because he was a celebrity. That's not to imply more votes would go to Hilton if she was even capable of being on the ballot but sad as it is to say or even think, if Hilton endorses one candidate or another, I'm sure there are many a love-struck guys out there who would run to the voting polls in November.

Hilton wisely doesn't show preference to either one of the candidates though it's clear she's lashing out at McCain for his use of her image as a flash-in-the-pan celebrity. Perhaps though the good to come out of her ad is that everyone will see how ridiculous and ill-conceived so many of these ads being put out by the real candidates actually are. Rather than pushing solutions or telling what they can do, the ads that are put out there are often meant to insult the opposition by offering snide remarks made by smug sounding announcers. It's a vicious campaign and since as long as I can remember, they've only been getting worse. I'm skeptical in my hopes for a cleaner campaign but who knows what will happen. I'm hopeful that if an airhead like Paris Hilton can make such a bold and thought-provoking statement then perhaps the candidates themselves will too.

Paula's Lost It

I've acted in a few plays onstage in my time and though I'm not a professional, I've had a few instances where a scene didn't go according to plan and it was up to those of us on stage to try and salvage the situation. It can be awkward and uncomfortable but sometimes you can just manage to cover up the mistakes before the audience has a chance to realize that anything's gone wrong. It's harder when you have someone making a huge gaffe in front of an audience of millions on national television and when the people sitting around you on television can do nothing but look on in horror as you continue rambling and dig yourself farther into a hole. That's precisely what American Idol judge Paula Abdul did this past Tuesday night on the show.

Let me break the story for a second and provide some background. Now I'm not a regular watcher of American Idol but I caught a few episodes this season and remembering the old stories about how mean Simon Cowell could be and how ditzy Paula Abdul behaves, I decided to check it out once in a while and I've come to some conclusions. Simon can be mean but I think his observations are astute and though they can be harsh, he doesn't try to coddle the contestants like Randy Jackson or Abdul attempt to do at times. I remember seeing the audition of Taylor Hicks two years ago and thinking to myself that this guy wasn't bad. Randy and Paula applauded him at the time and while Simon was complimentary he observed that though he was good, he wouldn't be very successful if he won the contest. When the others took exception to that fact, Simon pointed out that Hicks, while talented, didn't have the looks or charisma to be successful compared to previous contestants. And indeed, Taylor Hicks was one of the few winners on the show who hasn't been as successful.

So Simon is mean but smart. Paula Abdul... well... I won't call her stupid though she isn't helping her case with some of the things I have seen her do. She's a judge who can claim to have been a famous singer and has made money from albums and song hits but lately she seems to be going off on the deep end. Her comments are often meandering and incoherent, almost as if she is having trouble connecting two thoughts together. At times, her comments basically boil down to whether or not the contestant was dressed nicely or not (most of the times she believes they are) and then professing just how much she loves them. Now this is great and all but at times it just comes of as pandering to the audience. Of course the audience is another case. Most of the time they turn the singing competition into a contest to determine which contestant is cutest and therefore worthy of winning. Again, Taylor Hicks may have been the exception but every statistical survey has outliers.

I won't say that American Idol is in my list of favorite shows and while it's nice to hear some of the talent in our country singing their hearts out week in and week out, I honestly watch it for the comments from the judges more than anything else. Simon tells it like it is (or at least how he'd like it to be) and Paula? Well... Paula just says whatever she says hoping that it makes some sense to someone. Her comments on Tuesday left a lot of interpretation to be made. For the first time, the judges were asked to withhold their comments until after the remaining contestants had sung two songs. Of course, after all five remaining contestants sang their first songs, they were lined up and the judges were asked their opinions on the songs so far. Paula started off fine but then started talking about Jason Castro's second song. Only problem was that he hadn't sung his second song yet. There was a moment where the entire room was silent and then the laughter began. Paula admitted to being confused with her notes but even then, no matter how ditzy, she's got to realize that people have only sung one song. The show hadn't lasted that long. The question now is, how long will Paula last. There are rumors that she'll leave the show but I don't think they'll do that. While Simon adds the controversy with his callous statements, I think Paula adds to the comedy.

Remakes: The Paintings

Well it was bound to happen sooner or later I suppose. Given that Hollywood seems to be stuck in a rut of remaking or 're-imagining' older films for the past few years, it should come as no surprise that this trend is starting to 'branch out' a bit and no I'm not talking about television. Television has been on that trend for a very long time; movies are starting to catch up and now so are famous paintings. Apparently artists in California have used computer software and celebrity images to recreate famous paintings by classic painters like Van Gogh or Rafaello but have used celebrities as the models for some of the main characters within the paintings.

Now some will call this move sacrilege while others will applaud the effort to make classical paintings more appealing to a new generation of people. Funny how that has a tendency to be the catch all rationale to re-visit and often re-vamp (all too often horribly) the original concept. Now I'm not against the idea of revisiting or revamping some idea but there should be a need for it. The painting included in today's blog is Raffaello's famous painting of Madonna (the Biblical icon not the singer) but in the newer version it is a painting of Natalie Portman as Madonna. So what? Well the reasoning some give to support this is that at least now people will be more inclined to see the painting. I disagree. Now people will see the painting and remember it for being the portrait of Natalie Portman. There is another painting of Van Gogh (his famous self-portrait) which has been 'updated' with Bruce Willis' image.

Inherently there's nothing wrong with this but I just think that people who see these paintings first will be hurting themselves from an appreciative standpoint and I say this from experience from what happened with the movies. When the newer "Star Wars" movies were released in 1999, there was a general consensus among kids that the newer films were far superior in terms of effects than the original ones. What kids fail to realize is that when the original films were released in 1977, 1980 and 1983 they were considered cutting edge and ahead of their times. Now it's true that George Lucas has the money to go back and make these films in the same style and slickness as the newer films but is there a need to? I think it's important to see the contrast and appreciate the originals for what they were. In 1977 the technology didn't exist to do the things that were done in the newer films but so what? It was still stunning and amazing and in some ways, a lot more realistic than what was so very obviously computer generated in the newer films.

So what does that little side bar have to do with these paintings? Simple. If you don't know or appreciate what the originals were like, you're doing yourself a disservice by 'appreciating' these images. They are not homages to the originals, they are attempts to divert attention from what was original to what has been remade into something more familiar. Natalie Portman may portray Anne Boelyn with some gusto but is she an appropriate Madonna? I don't know, but I would rather appreciate the original version of the Madonna than this remade version. Images such as this are often appealing because you can't relate to them on such a deep level. When you see the painting of the Madonna on its own I find it more appealing because she is a person so far back in time that any accurate images of her are long since lost. The painting may not be accurate but the anonymity it affords the viewer is what makes it more appealing. Now when you look at it you're likely to remember Madonna as Queen Padme Amidala of Naboo. Perhaps the child in her arms isn't baby Jesus but rather young Luke Skywalker. Not the same painting anymore is it?

And the Oscar Goes To...

The Oscars aired on television last night; the first awards show that was held since the Writer's Guild of America came off of their three month strike. And while several other awards shows did get cancelled, it was nice to see that things got resolved before the Oscars were set to air. While some of the other awards shows that we get subjected to may be more entertaining due to their format, there is something different about the Oscars. More than the glitz and the glamour it is often about rooting for the movie that you liked most of all. Most years you will find movies that you have seen but there are some years, as was largely the case this year for many people, the major categories were full of movies not everyone, in fact very few people, had seen.

I don't think it's due to the fact that these movies are bad or that they deal with subjects that people aren't interested in but its more because these are movies that are a bit 'off the beaten trail'. In other words, most of the movies that were nominated were those that weren't wrought with major explosions or action sequences. There were no thrilling car chases (for the most part) or special effects-filled action sequences and so predominently they weren't the typical summer schlock that fills the screens and that allow you to check your brain at the door. These were the movies that were limited to a smaller number of screens or theatres for shorter durations and that was mainly because they were tailored more for the true movie fan rather than those of us who enjoy a mindless summer blockbuster. That's not to say these movies are snobby or not worth seeing but I think the people behind them knew that these weren't the type of movies to break box office records.

I remember the 1998 Oscars when "Titanic" won in almost every category that it was nominated in. It seemed that the movie could do no wrong that year. It also happened to be the one movie that everyone had pretty much seen at least once that year. Teenage girls had apparently seen it too many times to count making it one of the most profitable Best Picture winners in recent years. A lot of people at that time, at least the ones who can be truly called 'movie insiders', felt that this was a signal of a disturbing trend and that was the preponderance of summer blockbusters on a cinematic art form and if a movie like "Titanic" could win when compared to other great films that came out in that period, were the movies truly being judged on artistic merit or on popularity. It was like being back in high school and that wasn't going to stand. At least not exactly in that way.

Since then, most of the Best Picture and major category winners have been deservedly awarded. I can't say that I've seen every Best Picture and acting award winners but I know that when I see these films I come to understand why they were nominated in the first place and why they won in the second. But when do we see these films? Generally we end up seeing them when they're on DVD and therein is the problem that many of the writers had. I don't think "There Will Be Blood" or "No Country for Old Men" was even close to where "Rambo" was in terms of box office income or to the "Hannah Montana" movie but then again it was never expected to be. It will likely make tons in DVD rental and sales and that was the problem most writers had. Not all of them were privy to earning money from that income and as a result they felt they were shortchanged.

I think they deal they brokered will make for a more equitable arrangement for them and I hope they don't feel slighted to have to resort to striking again because despite what many in Hollywood think, if it isn't for the writers, they are just actors standing around on fancy sets in fake clothes. You can't have great acting like we've seen this year without great writers and they are the true winners at this years Oscars in my book. With such a diverse variety of stories and challenges for actors, they truly help showcase the talent and creativity that is there in Hollywood. Sure the majority of us enjoy pure entertainment films which require no thinking at all, but every once in a while, it is great to see acting that isn't a special effect.

"Telephoning" Death

I'm sure as kids we have all played some version of the game Telephone. That's the game where you get people all lined up and the first guy whispers a message to the second and so on and so forth. By the time the message reaches the end of the line, there are so many variations and changes that it isn't even close to the original statement anymore. So what does this have to do with the tragic death of Heath Ledger yesterday? Well as the media was so quick to catch on, Ledger was one of those actors in Hollywood who led what could be termed 'a boring life'. He was a stellar actor who showed his diversity in a variety of roles from "Brokeback Mountain" and "The Patriot" to the forthcoming Batman sequel "The Dark Knight". In spite of fame and the apparent trappings that go with it, Ledger never made the news for having crashed his car after a night of partying or for coming out of rehab with drugs in one hand. Ledger apparently led a normal life so much so that the media seemed hell bent on finding something or the other to bring some 'spice' to the story.

As I watched the news last night in the gym, a few hours after the story broke that Ledger had been found dead in his apartment, I watched in grim fascination as rumor after rumor was spread out there in an effort to get the public 'the facts' of the case. Thus began a macabre game of telephone with the media playing amongst themselves. First came the fact that Ledger was indeed dead. Then came the fact that he had been found with a bottle of pills next to him. Next speculation began running around the fact that perhaps he was secretly a druggie but had done an outstanding job of covering it up. Reporters on the scene and in the studio began having conversations regarding the number of times Ledger had been in rehab. According to the entertainment reporter he hadn't ever been seen in rehab but there were unconfirmed reports that perhaps he had been at one time or another. Rumor now becomes fact, at least at that moment. Someone else makes the statement that he was found in Mary-Kate Olsen's apartment. Blatant lie but it's interesting because she's a celebrity just like him. It would have been good for the media and tabloids had it been true. It would have made an already tragic situation all the more Hollywoodized.

Rumor upon rumor expanded and within an hour or so of the story first hitting the air, reporters were still searching for that confirmation that if not a drug overdose, Ledger committed suicide. I find it sickening that it wasn't only tabloid news programs going through this process of scandalization but major news services as well. Has Hollywood become so jaded as to think that if someone dies and untimely death, it is for any other reason than accidental causes? Perhaps Ledger was deathly allergic to a substance in the medicine he took. It wouldn't be the first time that the medical community has fouled up on perscribing someone a medication not realizing that it could have deadly results for someone taking it. Contrast this to the recent death of actor Brad Renfro. I'm sure many of you out there are wondering who he is. If you recall the movie "The Client" starring Renfro as a child who knows the location of a murdered mob boss who hires lawyer Susan Sarandon to defend him from the scrupulous state's attorney, that was Renfro. He starred in several movies that gained him noteriety as well but his death was marred by the fact that he was known to do drugs and had a record.

Though not as prominent or reputed an actor as Ledger, Renfro's death was also tragic but because he wasn't as famous and died a death 'fitting' for someone doing drugs and the like, it was quickly passed on. Ledger's death apparently needs some more drama and so there's been this rush by the media to find out exactly what happened and until the facts are known, they are desperate to make up their own facts or use rumors until substaniated. The real tragedy in this is that the loss of a fine actor will be overshadowed by the fact that there are rumors about his supposed 'darker life' of drugs and alcohol abuse. It may not be true at all, but the media has already succeeded in planting the seeds of doubt in the public's mind. I hope that the rumors end up being false and that the media approaches with equal vigor the call to bring the truth to light. If he died an accidental death due to the sleeping pills he took then the responsible thing to do is clear his name and ensure that the public knows it.

Do Celebrity Endorsements Really Help?

As much as the latest Presidential candidates are lining up for their run for president, so are their supporters. Soon yards will be filled with posters proclaiming support for one candidate or another and the airwaves will be filled (even more than they already are) with the sound of political messages about this, that, and the other thing. It is the season. It's also the season for celebs to start coming out in force to offer up support to the candidates that they like. Though celebrity support is nothing new really, it is something that has gained a lot more attention in the media over the past decade or so. I still remember the star-studded inaugural gala that was held for Clinton during his first and second terms in office. Hollywood loved him (for the most part) and so they made no mystery about it.

Now celebrities work just as hard to endorse the candidate of their choice simply because many of them have realized that by supporting a presidential hopeful they have an open road into the government in order to attempt and garner support for their individual charity or projects of interest. I mean if I were to approach the White House with a proposal to ban the sale of shrimp cocktails across the United States I would be laughed at. Now if Tom Cruise came to the White House and did the same thing, he'd at least have a few minutes to talk about it before possibly being laughed out of the room. But what other reason do politicians have to run to celebrities for support? Well the money is a big thing. When you're a star in Hollywood so rather than throwing that money away on a new car or billion dollar mansion, why not blow some of it on the future of the country? But does it really help?

Celebrity support is common place these days but I'm curious if it really has an impact on a voter. I mean I may be a big fan of Robert DeNiro but just because he says candidate A is better than the rest of the pack doesn't mean I'll necessarily agree with him. Heck, I may even disagree with him to the point that I may start liking him less as an actor and that could certainly affect his draw at the box office. I mean my money won't be lining his pocket if I don't necessarily like the candidate he backs. But really speaking then why do they do it at all? I have come to think that it's for those people out there who are the ones keeping the stories of Britney Spears latest meltdown or Paris Hilton's latest escapade from finally dying a well-deserved and long-overdue death. It's because there are probably more people out there who are familiar with what Paris Hilton did last week than there are who know what is happening in other parts of the world.

If it has nothing to do with movies or entertainment in general people could generally care less. Don't believe me? What about Arnold Schwarzenegger's run for governor the first time around? Do you ever recall reading about how there was record voter turnout? Why? Did people suddenly wake up and realize that by voting they have a say in the way their government runs? Of course not! That sort of mass outbreak of common sense would signal the coming Apocalypse and I certainly don't think we're there yet (at times it seems we may be getting closer). No, the record voter turnout was simply because people were interested in voting for the Terminator (now known as the Governator). If it becomes possible for Schwarzenegger to run for the Presidency I'm sure he'd win simply because despite his possibly not having any knowledge of world events, at least the country would be happy knowing their president can bench press the president of any other country.

We are becoming more and more obsessed with celebrity news at times that I find it distressing. I'm not saying that we should take more interest in the problems around the world and be cognizant of any and all of it but a little less attention on whether Britney Spears will get to keep her kids or not would be greatly appreciated. After all who cares? She's such a screwed up person right now that I feel allowing her to have custody of her kids would damage their minds more than any drugs could ever do. Celebrities can certainly make the case for our future leaders. I mean though I may not support whosoever Robert DeNiro supports I may like the candidate Clint Eastwood is in favor of. After all, if Dirty Harry says that candidate B is the one he's voting for then who am I to argue? Right punk?

I think that's why so many candidates these days run around for support from celebrities. Obama is happy that Oprah is on his side but at ever political rally that she attends with him, the audience isn't there to see Obama as much as they are hopeful that perhaps Oprah will suddenly grab the microphone and announce that she's giving everyone at the rally a brand new car! At least maybe that's what Obama is possibly hoping. I mean all the fans of the old show "Walker: Texas Ranger" are probably ecstatic that Chuck Norris is supporting Mike Huckabee. That means that they in turn will support Mike Huckabee. That type of blind devotion and faith in the 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' of celebrities is what many of these politicians hope for. They hope that they can get enough fan recognition to gain that edge in the election. It may have been effective in the past but the last few years have led many to become cynical and so they are more interested finding out more about a candidate rather than letting Barbara Striesand sing them their choice. I think it's for the better that way.

Celebrities Say the Darnedest Things

I will admit that I am also in awe of celebrities. I mean to the rest of us they are actually living a life we dream about. Or at least the life that a vast majority of us dream about. I say a vast majority because there are some who get so disgusted with the latest celebrity gossip that they shut the radio off in the car in disdain or they hurl objects at the television to no avail. Thankfully I am not one of those more because it's pointless but also because I don't want to risk damaging my television. Still, celebrities are often good for a chuckle, simply because they sometimes say things which are meant to be deep but come out sounding so inane that you truly begin to appreciate the talents of movie directors and screenplay writers who make some of these dunces sound absolutely Shakespearean.

To give you an example, Lindsey Lohan finally checked out of rehab this month. Either she's finally learned her lesson or the facility just wants to get rid of her so that they can get rid of the dealers who followed her in. In either case, she's out now after having spent a month or so attempting to clean herself of her addiction to drugs and alcohol. Naturally this is Earth-shattering news so the media was on hand to find out how Ms. Lohan felt after her long duration stay at the facility. Lindsey, the epitome of ironic quotes replied with this gem of a statement. "Rehab was a sobering experience." Now some people may be wondering what in that statement I find ironic and it's the fact that she basically followed a principle that was drilled into the heads of students in schools for ages. It still is I believe and that principle is never to use the word you're defining in the definition. That means that if asked to define the word definition, I wouldn't say that it means to define something. That answers without really answering.

In the case of Lindsey's answer she's saying the same thing. Of course rehab was a sobering experience. That's the whole point of rehab isn't it? To get you sobered up to the point that you stop making a mockery of your life and career in the public's eyes. Perhaps it's her attempt to 'make good' on the fact that her career is in trouble following her recent relapses compounded with problems in her past. She was chewed out by studio heads for acting in an unprofessional manner. Still, she's from a crop and generation of celebrities who take celebrity to another level and use it as an excuse to act like a total clod. I mean on the one hand in films and/or television they may act like angels and in real life they are often hard-charging abusive and abused Hellions. That right there is another ironic feature isn't it?

Still, celebrities are what the public craves and the media does its best to cover the topic for us. I mean even respected news networks cover celebrity news with as much pathos as is found in their coverage on the war in Iraq. I mean when Anna Nicole Smith died there was constant coverage on channels such as Fox News. When Paris Hilton was to be returned to prison there was a helicopter hovering over her house to watch the entire process. It was nice to see that her roof was in fine condition. I suppose perhaps the media was hoping that Hilton would suddenly seek to become infamous in addition to being famous and drive one of her expensive cars down south to Mexico. Still, with the gas mileage that some of her super-cars get, she probably wouldn't have made it very far.

But celebrities, even the ones who claim not to want attention, still do and say things that are meant to grab attention. Remember OJ Simpson claiming that he wouldn't rest until he found his wife's killer(s) after he was found not guilty in his murder trial? What about Paris Hilton claiming that she would open a home for recently released women prisoners so that they have a chance to get back on their feet? I guess she's doing 'research' by hitting the party circuit. How about George Clooney ranting against the media attention he gets to the same media hoping that the media will understand he wants to be left alone? Do you see a trend here? I guess it's necessary for some of these stars to remain prominent but they also deserve some modicum of privacy and not everyone is willing to give them that. They are just ordinary people too and they desire some amount of normality in their lives. They just don't often get it. Still, when they continue to offer up silly phrases like "rehab was a sobering experience" then I tend to wait for the latest crop of news too.

The World is at an End

Perhaps my title for today's blog is a bit extreme but sometimes I begin to wonder if the sign of the Apocalypse isn't going to be the Four Horsemen but the continuation of the news that propagates the airwaves these days. I guess in some ways, news about crazy celebrities such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan tends to take away from the near constant focus on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the state of the economy, the state of some of the other nuclear powers in the world and the fact that there is no end in sight for many of these issues. I guess we have some desire to see that while the world is messed up as it is, there are people in it who are even more messed up than we are. At least that's my theory on why we're obsessed with them and celebrities in general.

Still, if recent events in the news are sign enough that something foul is afoot in the world then I don't know what is. I mean Britney has been through rehab about ten times now (perhaps not that many exactly but you know what I mean) and in that time she doesn't seem to have learned anything. Earlier this week a judge ordered her to clean up her act otherwise he would turn custody of her two sons (are these kids going to be messed up or what?) to her ex-husband, Kevin Federline. That right there is a sign of the coming Apocalypse if nothing else. Not that fathers don't have the rights to their children but that a judge is actually thinking of giving custody of children to an even bigger child. A couple of years ago it was a joke to think that Kevin Federline was anything other than a slacker whose career in rap music lasted about as long as OJ's hunt for the 'real killer(s)' of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman's killers.

At one point in the not too distant past, Federline was viewed as the man least likely to be a good father and now judges in our legal system are threatening to turn full custody of children over to him. Now those kids are going to be really really messed up. Speaking about messed up. What about Paris Hilton and her efforts to create a foundation and home for ex-convict women? I mean she made a vow after doing hard time in her small cell that she was going to take the experience and do it for good. Her partying ways were done and she had a newfound respect for her life and what she had. I guess she lost it again. In the time since going to prison, she's been hitting the partying circuit harder than before though she probably isn't attending as many parties as she previously did. I guess the public isn't supposed to pay attention to that.

And what about Lindsey Lohan? At one time she was touted as the original Dakota Fanning or the new Anna Pacquin or Natalie Portman and now she's more or less just the next Britney Spears. After numerous trips to rehab, court, and other places too disturbing to mention, Lohan continues her efforts to clean up her act and salvage her career. On the set of some of her previous movies she made diva actresses like Jane Fonda look like saints in comparison. Showing up late and getting a stern letter of warning from the head of the studio (that's like a personalized letter from the Principal) regarding her conduct, Lohan has been taking a bullet train to the end of the line. Never a good sign. Still, despite taking drugs while in rehab, some of her fanbase still longingly supports her and fights for her no longer being singled out for bad behavior. She was framed I suppose.

I guess it's like they say, history repeats itself. About ten years ago OJ was making the news for allegedly killing his wife and then taking off in fear that he would be sent to jail. The gloves didn't fit so the jury did acquit. Now he's back in the news again. This time for stealing sports memorabilia from a hotel in Las Vegas. Of course he says he didn't do it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary but still, he maintains his innocence. I guess the dialogues that Johnny Cochrane had him memorize during his murder trials are still stuck in his mind. I guess that is one skill he learned during his days as a serious actor in the "Naked Gun" series of movies. Still, if this is just one sign of history repeating then that means we will be inundated with more Southern celebrity news. That truly is the newest level of Hell isn't it? Write on that Dante!

OJ: Juicing the Past

It was the summer of 1994. I remember my family and I had gone out for dinner. It was a few weeks before school started up again and I was officially going to be a senior in high school and my brother would be entering my high school as a freshman. We were seated in an area that had several televisions but the sound was drowned out by the general din of the place and the music that was conveniently played to create atmosphere though how people are supposed to keep food down with schmaltzy love songs in the background is beyond me. But I digress. We are just finishing dinner when we see what appears to be a scene out of the movie "Speed".

A white Ford Bronco is racing down a highway, apparently in California and it is being pursued by cops. Thinking that perhaps this is just a regular old police chase, we leave and head home. Turning on the TV there we find the same story is all over the news. Apparently OJ Simpson, whose ex-wife had been murdered several weeks earlier along with a friend of hers, was fleeing from the police after he claimed that no one would believe him or that he was innocent. There was a sort of macabre desire to watch simply because no one seemed to know what would happen next. Simpson apparently had a gun but would he kill himself or shoot his way to freedom. He returned home and eventually was arrested and thus began the trial that was lambasted and ridiculed and that lasted for my entire senior year and most of my first semester in college.

Like it or not, the trial divided the country along racial lines with people claiming that Simpson was being treated unfairly because of his race. Be that as it may, there were so many other problems in the case that no one came out looking good. The criminal case resulted in Simpson being declared not guilty while the civil trial several months later returned a verdict of guilty. However, the civil trial was meant as more of a show to prove that the chain of evidence was sufficient to convict him. Again, whatever the case, whether he was guilty or not is for the individual to decide and not me. Still, after the trial, Simpson proclaimed that he would continue his hunt for the killer or killers of his wife and her friend. He immediately went to play golf. It's been a decade since this whole thing happened and still no results.

However Simpson did have time to write a book. In the history of mankind there have been multiple good ideas. Sliced bread is definitely one of them along with velcro. The wheel is also quite important as far as ideas go too. But when half the country believes you to be guilty and the other doesn't, why fuel a fire by writing a book about how you would have perpetrated the murder of your wife and her friend if, for the sake of arguement, you would have done it? Doesn't this sound like nothing more than a desperate attempt to get back into the limelight after your career and reputation are ruined? It sounds just like that to me. Simpson continues to claim his innocence and has stated that this book is only meant to provide the reader insight into how he would have done it.

Now this just strikes me as very odd. Supposing for the sake of arguement he's writing this to prove that he would have been much more methodical than the actual perpetrator of the crime. He sat through hours of testimony and evidence about how the murder was supposedly done. He had evidence of the murder in his house and he knows where and when mistakes were made. Of course the book will present a case where none of these mistakes are made. He's had a decade to plan out and use 20/20 hindsight to make his decisions clearly. I guess Simpson thinks that perhaps people will read the book and say, "Wow! The original murder was sloppy, Simpson would have been more like a ninja. Less mess, quick death." Somehow I don't think that's what the reaction of most people will be.

Bookstores and many publishers have stated that this is a truly stupid idea and that it's ridiculous to even contemplate the rationale behind wanting to publish this. Families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (her murdered friend) have stated that this is sort of like OJ confessing his crime. Perhaps it is a sanitized version of the truth but I am again wondering what the point is. The people who think he's guilty will still think he's guilty and the people who think he's innocent will still think he's innocent. To go across racial lines is something we're not really capable of doing. I mean look at the semi-mixed reactions to footballer Michael Vick's crimes.

Whatever his motivations for wanting to write the book, it's clearly for nothing more than making a quick buck or two. I honestly can't think of anyone who would be interested in reading a book like this. The case has been out of the public's mind for a long time. While it was culturally significant in terms of clearly defining race relations in this country, it wasn't a landmark case that changed the course of history in this country like Roe vs. Wade or Brown vs. The Board of Education. It was simply a case of a man who apparently had a mountain of evidence against him being found not guilty through extremely fine defense work. This is nothing more than Simpson's attempt to stir controversy and make a few bucks on the side. I guess it beats pan handling.