The New Yorker Hearts Jon Stewart

So catching up on some Daily Show reading - aka reading the posts on Television Without Pity - I found the following New Yorker article from 2002.

The article included some information that even I, a die-hard TDS fan, did not know. It also gave some personal background on Jon that gives him a bit more depth than just the jokey anchor of a fake news show.

However, I must admit "The Daily Show with Poopy Joe, The Rodeo Clown" does have its appeal, no matter what Jon says...

I Heart Jon Stewart

To copy from the new movie, "I Heart Huckabees", I have been feeling the need to loudly and proudly declare my love of Jon Stewart and the entire Daily Show cast and crew.

I've been an avid watcher of TDS since the days that good Ol' Craiggers sat behind the desk with his careful coiffure and asked his 5 questions. And things were good. Not great. Great started in 1999, when a short self-effacing Jewish guy took his place behind the desk, and political satire was changed forever.

It was not until the 2000 Presidential Election that the Daily Show really took off. In a moment of prophecy, they dubbed the Election "Indecision 2000", not knowing that come November real news outlets would be using the same term with all sincerity. The consistant commentary on the hypocrisy and outrageous bs of the election and campaign process won the Daily Show the Peabody award. And the hearts of devoted viewers. They managed to secure guests such as John McCain, Bob Dole and even Vice-Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman. And in the end, though the entire election seemed a farce, it was the Daily Show that seemed to be one of the winners that wasn't chosen by the Supreme Court.

In the past 4 years, the Daily Show has made a name for itself as the source for snarky, pointed commentary on everything from the war in Iraq to celebrity foibles. The various "correspondents" are allowed to be off the wall and openly eccentric. Jon is left with the job of playing the straight man, the one who is just amazed that not everyone realizes what comes out of their mouths. This is not to say that Jon isn't funny--he is without a doubt one of the funniest straight men around. He plays off the insanity of the correspondents beautifully and seems to be the sole voice of reason.

During the Democratic Convention, Jon appeared on Nightline with Ted Koppel and what ensued can be categorized as a problematic interview at best. Koppel seemed to be upset that a growing number of people were getting their news from the Daily Show. As Jon pointed out, TDS is a FAKE news show, a comedy show not a newscast...though that has nothing to do with the issue of the show's credibility, which Koppel also seems to take issue with. Jon's comment about the inability of today's news anchors to mediate, giving Democrat and Republican pundits free airtime to just spout their partylines (" That was Coke and Pepsi talking about beverage truth") is a theme much discussed on TDS. Jon seemed to encourage Koppel to try and cut through the BS that he deals with, albeit without the humor, but Koppel wanted none of that. Self-effacing as always, Jon ended the interview by referring to himself as the dancing monkey.

I recently located the following report from the Annenberg Center for Public Policy. It includes a lot of numbers and demographics that are somewhat interesting. But proving most interesting is the fact that Daily Show viewers are more aware of politics and oddly more informed about politics than those who watch Leno or Letterman, and in fact have "higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers." I hope Koppel is eating his heart out. The study goes further is assessing that not only is the Daily Show equal in meting out jokes about both the Dems and the Republicans, but TDS also uses a higher level of humor, usually criticizing policies rather than just making the typical "Bush is dumb" joke.

This past weekend's Emmy Awards were only putting the rubber stamp of approval on a show that I have known for years to be top of the game. All that's left is to sit back and enjoy the their coverage of the rest of the 2004 election and all the news, events, happenings, and occurrences that go on all around this crazy world of ours.

Finally Getting It Right

With a few minor exceptions, for the first time in a long time, the Emmys got it right.

Instead of going with the old standbys, the performances that might have once been stellar but are now old hack or the shows that while still entertain are no longer fresh and exciting, the Emmys have ushered in a new era for TV recognition.

It was an evening of finallys for several of the categories. After a season that would make anyone's head spin, "The Sopranos" finally won for Best Drama. Probably an emotional vote as well as a deserved one, Sarah Jessica Parker won for Best Lead Actress in a Comedy for "Sex and the City", a show which also picked up a Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy for Cynthia Nixon who's character Miranda just seemed to bloom during this last season. (And she ended Doris Robert's winning streak.) And though not exactly the same sort of "finally", "Frasier" ended this season, finally allowing someone other than David Hyde Pierce to be able to win a Best Supporting Actor/Comedy in the future.

The biggest finally was the recognition of "Arrested Development", which won Best Directing/Comedy, Best Writing/Comedy, and Best Comedy Show. Throwing off the shackles of conventional sitcoms, "Arrested Development" lacks a laugh track and has no problem allowing the viewer to despise or seriously pity pretty much every character on the show. Describing the show as "offbeat" or "quirky" doesn't do it justice. These wins come at a crucial time for the show; even though it has become a cult favorite and critical darling, the ratings are still very very low. FOX has renewed it for a second season, but the hope is that these Emmys boost the ratings and let everyone involved breathe a bit easier about being kept on the air.

On a side note, "Arrested Development"'s win was made all the sweeter since I met one of the actors this past weekend. While browsing in one of LA's many malls, I saw Tony Hale, aka Buster Bluth. Not only was he a total doll and seemed to be genuinely happy to be recognized, but he introduced me to his wife who was also seemed happy to talk to me. I think I gushed a bit too much about how much I love the show, but I guess for a show that has been on the verge of cancellation for months, there no such thing.

The 2 shows which seemed to dominate the Emmys were "Angels in America" and "The Daily Show", both deservedly so. "Angels in America" was a stunning mini-series that, while slightly dated, still resonantes as a stunning work that interweaves fact, fiction, and a searing look at AIDS and the connectivity of the human race. "The Daily Show"'s political coverage during this oh so politically tumultuous time made it an easy choice for this year's pick. Not only is Jon Stewart my fake boyfriend, but the show has some of the best and most pointed humor around. Though they constantly claim to be "fake news" and they are, "The Daily Show" is still the leader in credibility in today's media glutted society. Thankfully, the Emmy voters agree.

As for the show itself, it was OK. Gary Shandling tried his best not to embarrass himself and overall I think he succeeded. Most of the presenters seemed to be able to read and without any dance or musical numbers, the Emmys are far more watchable than the Oscars.

De-Lovely Is Anything But

In "De-Lovely", the latest Cole Porter biopic, Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd age gracefully through time as the strains of Porter's music are heard playing subtlety in the background. Unfortunately that is the only graceful or subtle thing about this movie.

An earlier picture based on Porter's life, "Night and Day", had Cary Grant playing the renowned bisexual party boy, but the movie glossed over the more prurient and lascivious details of Porter"s life, never going so far as suggesting that maybe he liked boys more than girls. "De-Lovely" was billed as the movie to correct that misconception, with Kline kissing members of both sexes. However what ended up on the screen was a lifeless as "Night and Day" was sexless.

More problematic than anything else was the frame story, a contrivance that puts any other movie contrivance to shame. Jonathan Pryce shows up at Cole Porter's apartment late one night, as the old composer is tinkering on his piano. Turns out Pryce's character is directing a musical based on Porter's life and he wants Porter around during "rehearsals" to verify authenticity. Of course Pryce really isn't a director and the musical really isn't being made. It's a sort of "Our Town" look-back at Porter's life in musical theater form. This overarching plot machination loses its appeal as soon as it's introduced. By the end of the movie when the entire cast is brought back out for the finale, it is just preposterous.

We are treated to a whirlwind account of Porter's first meeting with Linda (Judd), the divorcee who would become his wife and muse. Their early romance was light, airy, and terribly boring. Even Porter's self-outing to Linda was an understated bore. Their marriage is portrayed as one of sexual convenience -- with Porter preferring men and Linda preferring no one -- and though there seems to be a deep and abiding friendship full of mutual respect, the lack of chemistry between Judd and Kline completely de-romanticizes any aspect of their relationship.

As Linda and Cole's marriage progresses and as Cole's career escalates, the audience is treated to today's pop stars performing Porter's witty music. Alanis Morrisette, Sheryl Crow and Elvis Costello do their best to bring Porter's music to the modern listening public, but the numbers lack zest. Though their voices are sufficient for the material, the productions are too lifeless to make that matter. Going one step further, the poorly crafted script has various characters tossing around lines that quote the titles of Porter's songs, creating a new movie-going experience: the anticipation to cringe. A grinning Porter would wink at an Adonis and slyly remark "Let's misbehave". This happened to frequently to be believed or tolerated.

Kline is a fine actor and did his best with the material at hand. He handles Porter's devastating accident without resorting to melodrama and does his best to retain his own dignity throughout the film. However Judd's portrayal of Linda was only adequate and she was constantly overshadowed by her beautiful costumes. Supporting characters come and go and never make much of an impact.

It is a shame that a life as rich and full of scandal and excitement as Porter's is served by such a weak film. In the sway of showing Cole Porter as the sexually active man he was, the movie's producers forgot to make him interesting. Perhaps in 50 years we'll be treated to a biopic that remembers to do that.

September 11, 2004

Everyone kept saying that it had been such a beautiful day.
And it really was.

The sky had been an insane shade of blue, the air was crisp yet tinged with the heat of summer, and it just seemed like an incredibly pleasant and cheerful Tuesday.

Of course we all know that even the most beautiful weather can't change our fate.

I was privileged enough to have been in NY on September 11th 2001. Despite a few years here and there on the West Coast, I have lived in New York most of my life. I grew up in Greenwich Village and learned to ride my bike in Washington Square Park. I saw my first wildlife in the Bronx Zoo. I had my heart broken on 116th Street and Broadway and put back together on 14th Street and 8th Avenue. The seminal moments in my life happened on that small island, tying me to it forever, whether I like it or not. Were I not in my city on such an important day, I would have felt cheated. If I can rejoice with New York, I should cry with it too.

Two months after the attacks, I had to be down by Ground Zero for some reason or another. I looked at the buildings still covered by the Trade Center's dust and it hurt. We were still wrapped up in the realization that New York City transcended whatever mere description we could come up with. More than just a collection of concrete, brick and glass, more than the biggest melting pot on Earth, more than a worldwide center of commerce, culture, and ingenuity. What 9/11 showed us was that New York was far more than the sum of its parts and everyone who lived there and everyone who loved all the well-walked streets, was connected by that intangible something. Marveling at the progress made in just a few short months, I found myself choked up by a rare moment of love and respect for my fellow man and for the City’s ability to rise above such pain. Subsequent visits to Ground Zero have done nothing to lessen that first sudden pang of connection.

The time of our greatest pain was the time of our greatest triumph and it was glorious to be a part of it.

However, necessity demanded I leave and two years ago I moved out to California.

People here talk about 9/11 the same way they talk about any tragedy they see on the news, it's horrible, it's sad and it happened elsewhere. I have ceased trying to make people understand what September 11th meant to New York or to me. I am simply talking another language.

Now, in 2004, for the second year in a row, I was outside of NY on September 11th and it just felt wrong.

I was lucky enough not to lose anyone during those attacks, though I came close. I am constantly in awe of my own good luck, having turned down a job on the 100th floor of one of the Towers just three months before they fell. Still I managed to forget that Saturday was the 3rd anniversary of 9/11 till much later in the day. Even now I feel the shame of my ability to forget. I walked around the mall near my house Saturday afternoon, and no one there seemed to remember either. People sat by the fountain, shopped for clothing, ate al fresco, and just spent a lazy Saturday trying to ignore the oppressive September heat. I was no better, having gone to the movies and spent several hours at the bookstore reading graphic novels.

It was later that night when I sat down to immerse myself in a night of bad cable that the importance of the date hit me. Several programs about those who died and those who didn't were on air. I spent an hour watching families of firefighters, cops, and stockbrokers remember their loved ones and touch whatever belongings were found at the site with reverence and a palpable bittersweetness. Children, parents, siblings, and spouses all emanated hurt and loss. So many people's lives were irrevocably changed and too many families were devastated. Survivors retold stories of unimaginable horrors, of unfathomable sadness and of inconceivable bravery. Everyone remembered a day at the beginning of Fall and at the end of our innocence. I sat and listened to it all, every agonizing memory. I sat in awe of the survivors and I sat in wonder at New York's ability to withstand such a deep and grievous wound. I sat and remembered it all.

And I ached for my city.