Great story in the Post the other day about George Austin Hay, who balanced working for the federal government and acting in the theater and movies. He sounds fascinating--he knew Gene Kelly, Alfred Hitchcock, Paul Newman, met Marilyn Monroe, and made promo films for the military.
Here's a man you just want to sit down and talk to for a long time.
Tangentially related, here's a fun video of Julie Andrews and Gene Kelly! Man, talk about people you want to hang around with. (If you haven't read Julie Andrews's book, go read it. Fascinating, really.)
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Beyond the dugout
It seems to me that Tom Verducci wanted to write a book about the Yankees' recent history. It makes sense--they won four World Series in five years, lost it dramatically the year after, and then changed the way the team ran in the quest to continue the glory. The Joe Torre years. I have this image of Verducci pouncing on Torre as soon as it became official that he wouldn't be a Yankee again, convincing him to do a book.
I started The Yankee Years thinking that it would be about Torre. Oh, how foolish I was. I read 477 pages and don't feel that I really know Torre any better than I did before I began the book. This book is the story of the Yankees as a team, with a lot of quotes from Torre. But there are also a lot of quotes from David Cone, Jason Giambi, and Mike Mussina.
(Side note: If you like baseball books, go read Living on the Black, about Mike Mussina and Tom Glavine in 2007. It's a great read.)
Verducci does some things really well. The chapter on steroids in baseball is great. He does a fantastic job tracking the problem from the early days, describing how it was allowed to grow, showing the connections between the teams. If you want a good description of steroids in baseball, read Chapter 3 of this book.
I also found the depiction of George Steinbrenner fascinating. You see the imperial side, the crazy side demanding nothing but wins. But the book also shows his softer side. You see a good relationship with Torre. You see Steinbrenner anxiously hiding in the clubhouse during playoffs, unable to watch.
(And God knows I agree. I actually was not able to read the sections on Game 7 of the 2001 World Series or any of the 2004 ALCS.)
But other things grated. People tend to accuse the Yankees of buying their championships, which certainly is a case that could be made for much of the Oughts. But the 1996-2000 teams? That was a homegrown, low-cost ("low-cost") group. It was a great group of guys. A group who were incredibly talented, who clicked well, who complemented each other. So when Verducci credits their run to a "desperation to win"? Yeah, no. There's a lot of debate about the importance of chemistry on teams, but no team wins because they're desperate to. They might lose because of it; the book even mentions the problems of a team being tight and trying too hard. Ask guys playing on the Red Sox before 2004. I'd imagine they would say that they were desperate to win. It didn't help once they reached the post-season.
And then there's Jeter and A-Rod. I like Jeter. I like A-Rod, probably more than a lot of people. Verducci, I'd say, does not like A-Rod. A-Rod was bad for the clubhouse. A-Rod sucks in clutch situations. A-Rod tried too hard to sound good. A-Rod hits home runs when they don't matter. A-Rod wins MVPs, but can't come through in the post-season. Of course, we'll ignore that those numbers that got him the MVP also helped the Yankees make the playoffs. A-Rod won't speak up in team meetings to encourage the other players. Who apparently don't like him, but he should be a leader, you know, like Jeets! Verducci tells a story about A-Rod going over to Jeter's house. Rodriguez wanted to watch a game, and asked Jeter where the baseball package was on his tv. Jeter doesn't have it. And somehow, A-Rod comes across badly. Because wanting to watch baseball is wrong, somehow. The story is told fairly neutrally, but it comes in the midst of a description of The Selfishness of A-Rod, so of course Rodriguez looks bad. Throughout the book, there are little jabs at A-Rod, and it just grates.
Jeter comes off beautifully. For all I know, there really is nothing negative about the guy. Verducci mentions in passing Jeter's less-than-stellar defense, and completely ignores the question of whether Jeets should've moved to third when Rodriguez joined the club. But exploring that may have put Jeter in a negative light, and Jeter is like a son to Torre, so I doubt we'd see that.
My other big problem with the book is how it deals with baseball stats. Verducci postively fawns over the transformation of the Red Sox. He goes on about how the league changes around the Yankees, finding players who aren't valued, living the Moneyball dream. But then, when Cashman comes in and starts focusing on stats, when he suggests that Torre (God forbid!) field a lineup with high on-base percentage guys at the top of the order, that's portrayed as just being crazy. Cashman suggests something based on (eww!) numbers, but he ignores what Torre knows about these guys. You know, by watching. Which is it?
The book ran longer than it needed to, but it was an interesting look into the Yankees clubhouse for Torre's years. At times, the bitterness bleeds through, though. A number of times, Verducci writes something like, "And the Yankees haven't won a World Series since." Now, I could understand "And the Yankees never won a World Series under Torre again" (which he did, a couple of times). But really, Tom Verducci? It's just foolish to write that "never." With the Yankees, in particular. The book is copyright 2009. On November 4 of that year, the Bombers dated the book.
I started The Yankee Years thinking that it would be about Torre. Oh, how foolish I was. I read 477 pages and don't feel that I really know Torre any better than I did before I began the book. This book is the story of the Yankees as a team, with a lot of quotes from Torre. But there are also a lot of quotes from David Cone, Jason Giambi, and Mike Mussina.
(Side note: If you like baseball books, go read Living on the Black, about Mike Mussina and Tom Glavine in 2007. It's a great read.)
Verducci does some things really well. The chapter on steroids in baseball is great. He does a fantastic job tracking the problem from the early days, describing how it was allowed to grow, showing the connections between the teams. If you want a good description of steroids in baseball, read Chapter 3 of this book.
I also found the depiction of George Steinbrenner fascinating. You see the imperial side, the crazy side demanding nothing but wins. But the book also shows his softer side. You see a good relationship with Torre. You see Steinbrenner anxiously hiding in the clubhouse during playoffs, unable to watch.
(And God knows I agree. I actually was not able to read the sections on Game 7 of the 2001 World Series or any of the 2004 ALCS.)
But other things grated. People tend to accuse the Yankees of buying their championships, which certainly is a case that could be made for much of the Oughts. But the 1996-2000 teams? That was a homegrown, low-cost ("low-cost") group. It was a great group of guys. A group who were incredibly talented, who clicked well, who complemented each other. So when Verducci credits their run to a "desperation to win"? Yeah, no. There's a lot of debate about the importance of chemistry on teams, but no team wins because they're desperate to. They might lose because of it; the book even mentions the problems of a team being tight and trying too hard. Ask guys playing on the Red Sox before 2004. I'd imagine they would say that they were desperate to win. It didn't help once they reached the post-season.
And then there's Jeter and A-Rod. I like Jeter. I like A-Rod, probably more than a lot of people. Verducci, I'd say, does not like A-Rod. A-Rod was bad for the clubhouse. A-Rod sucks in clutch situations. A-Rod tried too hard to sound good. A-Rod hits home runs when they don't matter. A-Rod wins MVPs, but can't come through in the post-season. Of course, we'll ignore that those numbers that got him the MVP also helped the Yankees make the playoffs. A-Rod won't speak up in team meetings to encourage the other players. Who apparently don't like him, but he should be a leader, you know, like Jeets! Verducci tells a story about A-Rod going over to Jeter's house. Rodriguez wanted to watch a game, and asked Jeter where the baseball package was on his tv. Jeter doesn't have it. And somehow, A-Rod comes across badly. Because wanting to watch baseball is wrong, somehow. The story is told fairly neutrally, but it comes in the midst of a description of The Selfishness of A-Rod, so of course Rodriguez looks bad. Throughout the book, there are little jabs at A-Rod, and it just grates.
Jeter comes off beautifully. For all I know, there really is nothing negative about the guy. Verducci mentions in passing Jeter's less-than-stellar defense, and completely ignores the question of whether Jeets should've moved to third when Rodriguez joined the club. But exploring that may have put Jeter in a negative light, and Jeter is like a son to Torre, so I doubt we'd see that.
My other big problem with the book is how it deals with baseball stats. Verducci postively fawns over the transformation of the Red Sox. He goes on about how the league changes around the Yankees, finding players who aren't valued, living the Moneyball dream. But then, when Cashman comes in and starts focusing on stats, when he suggests that Torre (God forbid!) field a lineup with high on-base percentage guys at the top of the order, that's portrayed as just being crazy. Cashman suggests something based on (eww!) numbers, but he ignores what Torre knows about these guys. You know, by watching. Which is it?
The book ran longer than it needed to, but it was an interesting look into the Yankees clubhouse for Torre's years. At times, the bitterness bleeds through, though. A number of times, Verducci writes something like, "And the Yankees haven't won a World Series since." Now, I could understand "And the Yankees never won a World Series under Torre again" (which he did, a couple of times). But really, Tom Verducci? It's just foolish to write that "never." With the Yankees, in particular. The book is copyright 2009. On November 4 of that year, the Bombers dated the book.
Monday, June 14, 2010
I don't love farce THAT much
I'm not going to say much about last night's Tony Awards. The plays looked way more interesting than the musicals--I'd love to see all of the plays up for Best Play.
The low point, though, was clearly Catherine Zeta Jones's "Send in the Clowns." Weird pauses, insane head gestures, overacting...no. No no no no no. Some people are trying to say that it makes sense in the context of the show, but I've seen A Little Night Music and no, it doesn't. HERE'S how you do "Send in the Clowns":
Yeah, I still need to get the horror of CZJ's version (and her WIN! NO!) out of my head. I think I know what will help...
Mmm. Much better. (I LOVE "All I Need Is the Girl"! Hearts, Matt Morrison!)
The low point, though, was clearly Catherine Zeta Jones's "Send in the Clowns." Weird pauses, insane head gestures, overacting...no. No no no no no. Some people are trying to say that it makes sense in the context of the show, but I've seen A Little Night Music and no, it doesn't. HERE'S how you do "Send in the Clowns":
Yeah, I still need to get the horror of CZJ's version (and her WIN! NO!) out of my head. I think I know what will help...
Mmm. Much better. (I LOVE "All I Need Is the Girl"! Hearts, Matt Morrison!)
Monday, June 7, 2010
It's all over the second we ride up Troy's bucket
Great story in the Washington Post today about the 25th (!) anniversary of The Goonies.
When I was in Oregon for Thanksgiving last year, we drove over to Astoria, and I insisted on doing my own little Goonies tour. I actually saw the owner of the Goonies house (she was taking out the garbage). If I had known she'd be so cool about it, I totally would've asked for a tour!
(I was glad that it was my dad who walked to the house with me. He'd never seen the movie, so didn't know that he should've asked me to do the Truffle Shuffle.)
Anyway, good times. I'm kind of bummed the museum hadn't opened yet when I went out there, but what can you do?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
All about preparation and deprecation
A while back I took an online Jeopardy! test. Things lined up for me, and I actually did well enough on the test to get contacted about a follow-up audition, which involves an interview, a mock game, and, God help me, another test. I've decided I need to prep for this (and if you are an expert in a particular field, feel free to pass helpful information my way!), and, naturally, have decided that the best way to prepare is to read Ken Jennings's book Brainiac: Adventures in the Curious, Competitive, Compulsive World of Trivia Buffs. Hey! It has some questions in it.
But, really, it's a history of trivia woven with the story of Ken Jennings's Jeopardy! run. When writing about his time on Jeopardy!, Jennings needs to walk a fine line. If you're reading the book, you obviously know why Ken Jennings is famous. And when he writes about appearing on the show--particularly when he writes about the early games, when his goal was to win one game, and the games that were close--it would be really easy to come across as falsely modest. But he doesn't.
He comes across as really, really likeable.
He totally owns up to his nerdiness, explaining how he got that way, admitting that he was ashamed of it at certain points in his life. He's amusingly self-deprecating (not obnoxiously self-deprecating), and he outlines his thought processes enough that you're always on the same page as him. (Insert rimshot here.) He writes about how he felt bad about the people he beat--and again, it comes across as very genuine. Obviously he couldn't be all, "Ha ha, SUCKERS!" in the book, but that he acknowledges his advantages (comfort with the buzzer, etc.) and that luck is involved is good to read.
If I didn't already like him, I would've been won over when I got to page 179. He write about his relationship with Alex Trebek. Because of the rules regarding contestants interacting with anyone who has access to the questions, Jennings and Trebek weren't allowed to interact other than what you saw on screen. Jennings himself wondered whether Alex was annoyed with him (his musings about the producers freaking out about his streak are pretty funny). Which leads to this:
Awesome. I highly recommend this book. Also, I kind of want to be friends with Ken Jennings now.
But, really, it's a history of trivia woven with the story of Ken Jennings's Jeopardy! run. When writing about his time on Jeopardy!, Jennings needs to walk a fine line. If you're reading the book, you obviously know why Ken Jennings is famous. And when he writes about appearing on the show--particularly when he writes about the early games, when his goal was to win one game, and the games that were close--it would be really easy to come across as falsely modest. But he doesn't.
He comes across as really, really likeable.
He totally owns up to his nerdiness, explaining how he got that way, admitting that he was ashamed of it at certain points in his life. He's amusingly self-deprecating (not obnoxiously self-deprecating), and he outlines his thought processes enough that you're always on the same page as him. (Insert rimshot here.) He writes about how he felt bad about the people he beat--and again, it comes across as very genuine. Obviously he couldn't be all, "Ha ha, SUCKERS!" in the book, but that he acknowledges his advantages (comfort with the buzzer, etc.) and that luck is involved is good to read.
If I didn't already like him, I would've been won over when I got to page 179. He write about his relationship with Alex Trebek. Because of the rules regarding contestants interacting with anyone who has access to the questions, Jennings and Trebek weren't allowed to interact other than what you saw on screen. Jennings himself wondered whether Alex was annoyed with him (his musings about the producers freaking out about his streak are pretty funny). Which leads to this:
Despite all the quality time Alex and I have been spending together lately, he still seems a little chilly, as if he's rooting against me. Is this just part of his constant saltine-dry impartiality? Does he think I'm bad for the show? Does he dislike sharing the spotlight with a sidekick? Or is he just plain sick of me? I feel like passing a junior-high mash note up to his podium. "Dear Alex. Do you like me? Check one. Yes/No."
Awesome. I highly recommend this book. Also, I kind of want to be friends with Ken Jennings now.
Friday, May 7, 2010
I could be your girlfriend
There was a period of time where I read a lot of Office fanfic. But I also quite enjoyed fanvids. This was during the Pam-Jim-Karen triangle, and one of my favorites was to Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend":
So much, I loved this video. To the point that I downloaded the song and still love listening to it.
Anyway, years go by. After Kristin Chenowith's recent stint on Glee, I found myself back on YouTube, looking for fanvids of Olive and Ned from Pushing Daisies. (I liked Chuck, sure, but there's no way she and Ned could have a real relationship. Plus, I have a ginormous soft spot for unrequited love. So I shipped Ned and Olive.) And what do I find? Same song:
Whee! I'll pretend it isn't totally lame that this completely made my night.
And holy crap. There are at least three for Veronica Mars, which is kind of odd, because of these shows, it's the one that really doesn't have much of a triangle. Sure, there are times that people get between Logan and Veronica, but most of the time, it's their own issues that are the problem, not other people. I don't care, though. LoVe videos are right up there with Jim/Pam ones for me.
So much, I loved this video. To the point that I downloaded the song and still love listening to it.
Anyway, years go by. After Kristin Chenowith's recent stint on Glee, I found myself back on YouTube, looking for fanvids of Olive and Ned from Pushing Daisies. (I liked Chuck, sure, but there's no way she and Ned could have a real relationship. Plus, I have a ginormous soft spot for unrequited love. So I shipped Ned and Olive.) And what do I find? Same song:
Whee! I'll pretend it isn't totally lame that this completely made my night.
And holy crap. There are at least three for Veronica Mars, which is kind of odd, because of these shows, it's the one that really doesn't have much of a triangle. Sure, there are times that people get between Logan and Veronica, but most of the time, it's their own issues that are the problem, not other people. I don't care, though. LoVe videos are right up there with Jim/Pam ones for me.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Sounds as reasonable as "milk poisoning"
I was volunteering at Ford's Theatre today and, because it's National Park Service Week, there was a little table set up with information about Lincoln sites around the country, and I wound up doing Lincoln trivia with some of the rangers. It went like this:
Ranger: What did Lincoln's mother die of?
Me: Vampires!
Yes. I am reading Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Why? (It's pretty good, BTW.)
Ranger: What did Lincoln's mother die of?
Me: Vampires!
Yes. I am reading Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Why? (It's pretty good, BTW.)
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The problem with Audrey
I saw Little Shop of Horrors again last night and again quite enjoyed it, but it made me realize how much one aspect of it bothers me. The aspect can be summed up with the line from "Suddenly Seymour": "He purified me."
Ugh. I understand that Audrey has low self-esteem. But the whole thing is just icky. When the urchins (and also, "urchins"? They're teenage girls! At least call them "hoodlums," like I did when I lived across the street from a group of hooligans who liked to hang out on the street) suggest that she date good-boy Seymour, Audrey's all, "I can't, I have a history." In fairness, one of the girls points out that everyone has a history. Audrey's, however, is a bit more tawdry than your average, though, and thus is not deserving of a nice guy like Seymour.
On the one hand, Seymour never, ever judges her for her past or her choice in men. When she reveals that she used to work in a seedy bar, he doesn't care. But on the other hand, Audrey is a completely passive character. She doesn't do an active thing in the entire play; things just happen to her.
So, I don't know. The word "purify" consistently makes me shudder, to the point that it's hard for me to deal with that song, despite how cute Christopher Kale Jones and Jenna Coker-Jones are in it.
Ugh. I understand that Audrey has low self-esteem. But the whole thing is just icky. When the urchins (and also, "urchins"? They're teenage girls! At least call them "hoodlums," like I did when I lived across the street from a group of hooligans who liked to hang out on the street) suggest that she date good-boy Seymour, Audrey's all, "I can't, I have a history." In fairness, one of the girls points out that everyone has a history. Audrey's, however, is a bit more tawdry than your average, though, and thus is not deserving of a nice guy like Seymour.
On the one hand, Seymour never, ever judges her for her past or her choice in men. When she reveals that she used to work in a seedy bar, he doesn't care. But on the other hand, Audrey is a completely passive character. She doesn't do an active thing in the entire play; things just happen to her.
So, I don't know. The word "purify" consistently makes me shudder, to the point that it's hard for me to deal with that song, despite how cute Christopher Kale Jones and Jenna Coker-Jones are in it.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Darn good tv
A bit belated, but the other day was the 20th anniversary of the debut of Twin Peaks. And thinking back, there is NO WAY that 11-year-old me should've been watching that show. I actually can't think of Bob without getting freaked out.
I would like to go back and rewatch. I'd probably limit myself to daytime viewing, but it'd be cool to see how well it holds up and whether 31-year-old Barb is as fascinated by the weirdness as 11-year-old Barb was. I feel like I may have less patience for that than I did back then.
But then, it does have Kyle McLaughlin.
So, for your enjoyment, Sesame Street's take on it. (I find it hard to believe that Sesame Street did this. Did it make ANY sense to the kids watching?)
I would like to go back and rewatch. I'd probably limit myself to daytime viewing, but it'd be cool to see how well it holds up and whether 31-year-old Barb is as fascinated by the weirdness as 11-year-old Barb was. I feel like I may have less patience for that than I did back then.
But then, it does have Kyle McLaughlin.
So, for your enjoyment, Sesame Street's take on it. (I find it hard to believe that Sesame Street did this. Did it make ANY sense to the kids watching?)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
When climbing meets the Blitz
I'm fascinated both by mountain climbing (well, reading about it) and Britain during World War II, so The Fall was a slam dunk for me. It jumps between contemporary England and Wales and World War II, as we meet climbers Jamie and Rob and their mothers. Rob travels to Wales after Jamie's death and reflects on their lives; Mawer weaves that story with the story of their mothers, Meg and Diana, during WWII.
The sections about Meg and Diana in London during the war really brought that period to life for me in a way that other books and movies haven't been able to. The day-to-day realities of the Blitz were there as an organic part of the story, not as a lesson.
Mawer also handles the mountain climbing sections well. I've read a number of books about climbing, and again, he writes the sections in such a way that brings the experience of climbing to life. I admit that I have a tendency to skim over long descriptions of things like climbing, but I didn't do that with this book.
There are some weak aspects. Mawer draws some characters very clearly, but others--major characters--remain a mystery. Though I enjoy that he leaves a lot of things ambiguous, there are some character actions that are completely lacking. On initial read, it's easy to ignore, but deeper inspection of character motivations leave the reader wondering.
The plot, also, is nothing particularly new. The bringing together of mountain climbing and WWII may be new, but the stories of Meg, Diana, Rob, and Jamie are nothing you haven't seen before. And the end of the story hardly comes as a surprise.
But it's all so well written, it doesn't matter.
The sections about Meg and Diana in London during the war really brought that period to life for me in a way that other books and movies haven't been able to. The day-to-day realities of the Blitz were there as an organic part of the story, not as a lesson.
Mawer also handles the mountain climbing sections well. I've read a number of books about climbing, and again, he writes the sections in such a way that brings the experience of climbing to life. I admit that I have a tendency to skim over long descriptions of things like climbing, but I didn't do that with this book.
There are some weak aspects. Mawer draws some characters very clearly, but others--major characters--remain a mystery. Though I enjoy that he leaves a lot of things ambiguous, there are some character actions that are completely lacking. On initial read, it's easy to ignore, but deeper inspection of character motivations leave the reader wondering.
The plot, also, is nothing particularly new. The bringing together of mountain climbing and WWII may be new, but the stories of Meg, Diana, Rob, and Jamie are nothing you haven't seen before. And the end of the story hardly comes as a surprise.
But it's all so well written, it doesn't matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)