The Blog

Michael Rowe: Why We (Still) Love New York

2009-12-04T20:42:18Z

New York, New York, you broke our heart this week. That's right. You smashed it into a million pieces. Like any long-term relationship where the spooning at night has become as natural as the snoring later, it took us a couple of days to fully assess the damage. Hell, who are we kidding? It took a couple of days to realize you were actually even serious.

We thought we were on the road to marriage. You were bright. You were beautiful. You were worldly. You were sophisticated. You had a way of welcoming us all, especially those of us who love New York passionately, but will never be New Yorkers, whatever our point of origin. You were everything we'd ever dreamed of. We were expecting to take it to the next level, make a real commitment. Grow old together. We'd even welcomed your eclectic family of outlying boroughs, towns, and cities. They were mispacha. They were famiglia. They had us at the "NY" before the zip code, because they made us think of you.

We had the ring in our pocket, New York, but you had other plans. This past Wednesday, your state senate defeated the marriage equality bill by a margin of 24-38. It wasn't even close. And later, when our friends asked us if we didn't see it coming, we looked at them blankly, with tears in our eyes, and said, "No, we really didn't. We seriously thought we were good together." Did we take you for granted? Is that it?

Come on, New York. This isn't you. You're better than that.

In the heart-stopping grief following 9/11, the world stood in awe of the way you pulled together as a city. You bore your grief with such stoic grace. Later, while flyover state preachers and opportunistic Washington politicians at the highest levels picked the gristle from their teeth and sniffed the wind for oil, blood, and billions, perfectly content to leverage your tragedy for their various economic, religious, military, and political agendas, you were already getting on with your life with dignity.

Later still, while late-night television carpetbaggers hawked everything from Ground Zero graveyard dirt to "9/11 commemorative coins," and necon Baba Yaga Ann Coulter hit a home run in the cruelty World Series by mocking 9/11 widows as "enjoying their husbands' deaths," you were inviolable.

There are so many reasons to love you, New York, besides the obvious ones.

For example, because a snowstorm in February in Central Park can be as beautiful as those autumn days when the air tastes like it was uncorked, poured from a champagne bottle, and the light in the Village on those fall afternoons rivals Paris and makes you want to be in love. Because after a time, the constant sussration of traffic and car horns affects us like the sound of waves on a beach at night. Because of the scent of the roasted chestnuts from the street vendors' carts tells visitors that they're "back home" in New York again. Because New Yorkers are expected to be rude and standoffish, but usually aren't. Because New York is about museums, galleries, theaters, and libraries, not megachurches.

Because, in New York, it wouldn't be hard to imagine disgraced beauty queen, home-video goodtime gal, and avatar of traditional Christian morality, Carrie Prejean, being given a thong-wedgie by gaunt poetesses, or intellectuals in dark turtlenecks, in the locker room at the New School the minute she opened her yap about "opposite marriage," because in New York it takes more than a pair of pageant-bought fake breasts, a fake tan, and a mean streak, to be any kind of success. Because New York is where smart people come to make a big life, not where stupid people go to become famous. Because New York is not La Jolla.

Because the Statue of Liberty has been a beacon of hope and freedom for generations of European immigrants who dreamed of a place where they could be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and raise their families with dignity, in the same spirit that their LGBT grandchildren and great-grandchildren do today, as they pursue the right to legal recognition of their families through equal marriage.

For many of them (including my maternal grandparents) that place was New York State. For the luckiest of them, it was New York City itself. Because over the course of your history, the multicultural, multinational, multiethnic, tributaries that have flowed into New York have formed one of the most vibrant and exciting cities on earth, and one whose citizens have somehow found a way to get along, as New Yorkers.

Because we believe that the true spirit of New York was articulated in the powerful, righteous, moral eloquence of Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson in the speech she gave about how her gay brother was forced to live and die in France because of the religious intolerance within his own family. Because we don't believe that the true spirit of New York was articulated in the craven pandering of Queens Senator Hiram Monserrate, who voted against equal marriage for LGBT couples, and was later involved in an altercation with his girlfriend that required more than 20 stitches over her left eye (and the senator himself sentenced to 3 years probation for assault) but left marriage in New York "traditional," ie: safely out of the hands of loving gay and lesbian couples seeking equal recognition for their families under the law.

And among the reasons we love New York is this one. We know that the best of you are appalled by what happened this week. We know you'll do a Google search for the names of the senators who voted against equal marriage for their fellow New Yorkers -- your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and friends. We know you'll remember them in the midterm elections, and we know you'll remind them of what they did. We know you'll tell them you'd like your reputation back.

You're the New Jerusalem, the shining city on the hill. If the rest of the country holds you to a higher standard on this issue, and feels this loss of yours personally, it's because, throughout history, you've been where some of the best and the brightest have gone to try make the American dream something other than just a dream.

You're New York, for God's sake. Don't let NOM's Maggie Gallagher use you, as she already has, to threaten other enlightened, pro-equality states come election time, like some toxic birthday clown with fistful of black balloons scaring children at the party.

You're a succulent apple, New York. Seriously. You're the best we ever had. You complete us. Let's see if we can move forward together. It's not worth letting this get between us just so Sarah Palin can feel like you're finally part of "the real America."

Cynthia Nixon: It's a Helluva State

2009-12-04T17:18:57Z

My girlfriend and I want to get married. Only thing is: it's not legal in NY State, where we live. So we started doing everything we could think of to reverse that. Including going up to Albany this past spring with two of our politico friends to speak to some Senators -- Democratic and Republican -- who were on the fence on the issue.

Wednesday's No vote on same sex marriage was supremely disappointing on a personal as well as a political level. Guess Christine and I can kiss that Waldorf Astoria wedding... Brooklyn Botanical Gardens wedding... Montauk Beach wedding -- you fill in the blank -- goodbye. But we have two things today we didn't have yesterday.

The first thing we have is clarity about who's with us and who's against us. And we'll remember those yays and nays for next November and for Novembers to come. And there will be consequences.

The second thing is a new ally. Her name is Ruth Hassell-Thompson. She is a Senator from the Bronx and Mt Vernon and she is fierce.

Our gang of four met with her last spring and she explained to us in depth, over a long and respectful meeting why she thought she was going to vote no on gay marriage. Senator Hassell-Thompson is deeply religious. She felt strongly that marriage always has been and always should be the union between a man and a woman.

But she is a careful, thoughtful person and you could see her weighing the issue again and again in her mind. And in her considering she stumbled across something in her personal experience that began to change her perspective.

She spoke about how her mother had been a deacon in their church at a time when previously only men had been deacons. And how controversial that had been. And how vehemently many people opposed her mother's appointment. And how none of those opposed could give any explanation for why her mother becoming a deacon was wrong, just that it was. Because it was new. Because it was shocking. Because it was an idea that took people a little time to get used to.

On Wednesday Ruth Hassell-Thompson voted yes.

She voted yes because gay people and straight people walked through her door in droves and wrote her letters and called her on the phone. And because she is a person of conscience. And because of one more thing that she didn't tell us in her office that day: because she has a brother who is gay.

I think of Ruth Hassell-Thompson and understand that citizen lobbying is important. So is getting involved with campaigns. So is contributing money. So is talking to your neighbors, and co-workers and family. More important than ever.

Because you never know when a simple conversation can help change someone's heart and mind. Because if we keep at it "they" will finally realize that we're just people like them. Because time is on our side.

Meantime, there's always Connecticut.

Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson: Keep Moving -- Flow

2009-12-04T16:36:28Z

The following is an excerpt from The 50th Law, adapted for HuffPost.

In the present there is constant change and so much we cannot control. If you try to micro-manage it all, you lose even greater control in the long run. The answer is to let go and move with the chaos that presents itself to you -- from within it, you will find endless opportunities that elude most people. Don't give others the chance to pin you down; keep moving and changing your appearances to fit the environment. If you encounter walls or boundaries, slip around them. Do not let anything disrupt your flow.

As infants, we were surrounded by many things that were unfamiliar and unpredictable -- people acting in ways that did not make sense, events that were hard to figure out. This was the source of great anxiety. We wanted the world around us to be more familiar. What was not so predictable became associated in our minds with darkness and chaos, something to dread. Out of this fear, a desire was born deep inside of us to somehow gain greater control over the people and events that eluded our grasp. The only way we knew how to do this was to grab and hold, to push and pull, exerting our will in as direct a manner as possible to get people to do what we wanted. Over the years, this can become a lifelong pattern of behavior -- more subtle as an adult, but infantile at heart.

Every individual we come across in life is unique, with his or her own energy, desires and history. But wanting more control over people, our first impulse is generally to try to push them into conforming to our moods and ideas, into acting in ways that are familiar and comfortable to us. Every circumstance in life is different, but this elicits that old fear of chaos and the unknown. We cannot physically make events more predictable, but internally we can create a feeling of greater control by holding on to certain ideas and beliefs that give us a sense of consistency and order.

This hunger for control, common to all of us, is the root of so many problems in life. Staying true to the same ideas and ways of doing things makes it that much harder for us to adapt to the inevitable changes in life. If we try to dominate a situation with some kind of aggressive action, this becomes our only option. We cannot give in, or adapt, or bide our time -- that would mean letting go of our grip and we fear that. Having such narrow options makes it hard to solve problems. Forcing people to do what we want makes them resentful -- inevitably they sabotage us or assert themselves against our will. What we find is that our desire to micromanage the world around us comes with a paradoxical effect -- the harder we try to control things in our immediate environment, the more likely we are to lose control in the long run.

Most people tend to think of these forms of direct control as power itself -- something that shows strength, consistency, or character. But in fact the opposite is the case. They are forms of power that are infantile and weak, stemming from that deep-rooted fear of change and chaos. Before it is too late you need to convert to a more sophisticated, fearless concept of power -- one that emphasizes fluidity and flow.

Life has a particular pace and rhythm, an endless stream of changes that can move slowly or quickly. When you try to stop this flow mentally or physically by holding on to things or people, you fall behind. Your actions become awkward because they are not in relation to present circumstances. It is like moving against a current as opposed to using it to propel you forward.

The first and most important step is to let go of this need to control in such a direct manner. This means that you no longer see change and chaotic moments in life as something to fear, but rather as a source of excitement and opportunity. In a social situation in which you want the ability to influence people, your first move is to bend to their different energies. You see what they bring and you adapt to this, then find a way to divert their energy in your direction. You let go of the past way of doing things and adapt your strategies to the ever-flowing present.

As part of this new concept, you are replacing the old stalwart symbols of power -- the rock, the oak tree, etc. -- with that of water, the element that has the greatest potential force in all of nature. Water can adapt to whatever comes its way, moving around or over any obstacle. It wears away rock over time. This form of power does not mean you simply give in to what life brings you and drift. It means that you channel the flow of events in your direction, letting this add to the force of your actions and giving you powerful momentum.

Manish Vora: Art Basel Versus Gossip Girl

2009-12-04T16:17:17Z

Could it be that the hit television show, Gossip Girl, will have a bigger impact on the future of the art market than the "largest, most important" annual art event in America"? I'm leaning in favor of Gossip Girl.

This week is undoubtedly important for the art world's governing elite. Each December, galleries, art insiders, press and collectors from across the globe descend on Miami for what is considered the most "important" week for the US art market. At the center is Art Basel Miami Beach (opened Wednesday, December 2), the sister fair of the annual gathering in Basel, Switzerland. At Art Basel alone, there are 250 galleries, over 1,500 artists shown and an estimated $250 million of sales.

At parties and dinners, connections are made, future shows are planned, loads of money are exchanged and new artists are declared the next hot thing. But what impact does the largest and most "important" event have on the interest and support of art across the country? Of the 150,000 people attending and those reading the art press, how many non insiders are being introduced to new artists or getting excited about a career in the arts?

And Scattered across South Beach and Wynwood there are more than 15 satellite fairs bringing another 1,000 galleries and 3,000 artists. In total, it is estimated that $500M+ of sales will occur by week's end and will draw in more than 150,000 people from across the globe. While the public can purchase tickets for every fair, the doors are still very much closed on the real action. Art insiders and the elite attend free VIP openings and each night get wined and dined at sponsored dinners and parties. The velvet ropes and lists come out as the established shake hands and those aspiring desperately try to join in. There are multiple events a night at places like the Standard, the W-South Beach, the Delano & Raleigh hotels.

By Thursday morning (one day into the fairs), the conclusions of the impact of this year's Art Basel will be in. Just twelve hours after the Art Basel Vernissage, the art press will have likely declared "attendance was strong, collectors were more prudent in their purchases, but sales were happening and were stronger than last year." The news for the rest of the week will likely be dominated by big name collectors making purchases and the celebrity round up of sightings and parties hosted by the likes of Lance Armstrong, Val Kilmer, Sylvester Stallone, Dr. Dre, Paris Hilton and the Olsen twins. Business will go on as usual and we in the art business will return to our homes in NYC, LA, London and Berlin.

So how is Gossip Girl, a show on the CW channel, having a greater impact on the art world than Art Basel? At a recent NYC art benefit, I found myself talking to a major Chelsea gallery owner, her teenage daughter and several of her friends (all fans of the show). Though these NYC girls are all too familiar with the art world, their peers in cities across America are not. What these girls and millions across America do share is a belief that these Gossip Girl characters are the hippest trend setters on the planet.

Though we certainly do not celebrate the ridiculous excess of these teenage television characters, making art accessible is something we believe is vital in getting people into the doors of our cultural institutions, studying art history and creating art. In the past two seasons of Gossip Girl, art and the business of art has never seemed cooler and more accessible to a young audience. The show's main upper east side characters, Serena, Blair and Chuck Bass engage in bidding wars at Sotheby's, live in penthouses decorated with contemporary art, date hot young artists and casually refer to artists like Kandinsky. The New York Times recently reported that the Richard Phillips works hanging above the bed of Chuck Bass is not a one sided love affair as the artist "admits he is addicted" to the show . Meanwhile the Brooklyn based Humphries family (the show's version of the middle class) own a Brooklyn gallery and Vanessa, who is often the moral compass of the show, works as a gallery assistant.

So while the pomp and circumstance of Art Basel -- and the Miami weather -- is a welcome break from New York City, perhaps the art world should consider taking a page from Gossip Girl and wooing a new generation of art aficionados.

In fact, new media (particularly Twitter) is making an impact at this year's Art Basel as many fairs, gallerists, bloggers and visitors are utilizing Twitter and text messaging (a la Gossip Girl) to send in comments that display live on Artlog.com

Amy E. Norquist: Sewer Overflows Are Expensive And Unsafe

2009-12-04T16:09:54Z

The New York Times last week revealed the frightening state of our nation's urban sewer systems and the real consequences to human health: over 20 million people each year get ill from drinking, fishing, and swimming in water contaminated with sewer overflow.

When most sewer systems process waste from humans and industry, they are treating it before it goes into our water bodies and drinking water. But most sewer systems are designed to take the untreated waste right to the treatment facilities via gravity. When it rains, the bad sewage (the Times article references a load of chicken heads as an example) is swept up with the storm water, bypasses the treatment plants and goes into the Hudson River, or the Puget Sound, or Santa Monica Bay or the Chesapeake. These are called "combined sewer systems" and when they fail it's called "combined sewer overflows," or CSO's.

CSO's are the single biggest source of pathogens for many urban bodies of water (including Santa Monica Bay on the west coast where I'm spending my Thanksgiving holiday weekend.) The warning bells about sewers and the insufficient infrastructure have been ringing for decades. Though not the best for holiday table talk, it is critical that there is more discussion about new solutions in order to avoid the continuing circular logic of our current ones. Only by seriously looking at new paradigms (or spending billions and billions more on construction than we need to) can this stinky problem be solved.

Too much weight is currently put on the need for more "infrastructure," meaning more pipes, more engineering, more disruption, more trying to control the flow, especially when it combines with rain. (It is as futile a solution as holding back the waters of Lake Ponchartrain during a major hurricane.) These "end of pipe solutions" represent the traditional approach to solving a problem caused by too many people paving over too many acres.

So what can better solve the problem with our sewers? The most obvious -- and most affordable--solution is bringing vegetation back into the cities that paved over green space to get there. Green roofs can dramatically reduce runoff and sewage overflows. Green roofs--roofs covered with living plants, which are, by the way, beautiful -- as opposed to ones made of tar or other impervious materials, absorb water and are a less expensive way to capture water than trying to control it through end-of-pipe ideas. Nature becomes a bigger player, acting as the engineer. Building owners benefit and so do municipalities who have to spend much less on controlling their storm water.

Green roofs also can indirectly effect the entry of heavy metals, nitrate, diesel soot, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrocarbons and pesticides into local waters by decreasing CSOs.
Green roofs would keep at bay the 27 billion gallons of raw sewage and polluted storm water that stream into New York Harbor each year. More than 16,000 acres of rooftop -- 19 Central Parks -- could be covered in living plants, insulating the city and its residents from rising temperatures, energy costs and an overtaxed and outdated storm water management system. Green roofs last 20 to 75 years longer than conventional ones. And, for good measure, they improve air quality and provide habitat to endangered butterflies and bees, and arguably improve humans' experience of the world by providing more visually accessible green space.

New York City talked a good game about green roofs but decided to spend its millions of dollars of our federal storm water stimulus money on traditional structures -- building more man-made holding tanks -- instead of looking at what is really the cause: lack of vegetation. Isn't that what got New York, Miami, Los Angeles (and countless other major cities) into trouble in the first place?

Green roofs are not only the economically superior strategy but their additional benefits are huge: reducing Co2 and particulate matter, and flooding cities with beauty instead of contaminated storm water. Looking even further -- and more globally -- down the road, scientists at Columbia University (NASA's Goddard Institute) have concluded that the combination of planting more street trees along with Green roofs looks like the best single mitigation strategy for the effects of climate change in urban areas.

Len Berman: Top 5 Sports Stories

2009-12-04T14:37:33Z

TGIF everyone, here's my Top 5 for December 4, 2009 from Len Berman at www.ThatsSports.com.

1. Quick Hits

* Tiger Woods and his wife have reportedly reworked their prenup so that she gets immediate cash and a bigger buyout if and when she splits. And rumor has it Woods paid off Rachel Uchitel to keep mum. Good thing he's a billion dollar athlete so he can afford all this hush money.

* The Jets are undefeated in Canada. They beat Buffalo in Toronto last night 19-13. But quarterback Mark Sanchez hurt his knee. So now both knees are dinged up.

* The Red Sox have yet another shortstop. Toronto's Marco Scutaro.

* Oregon beat Oregon State 37-33 to earn its first Rose Bowl in 15 years.

* Get me rewrite! January's issue of Golf Digest has a cover story, "10 Tips Obama Can Take From Tiger."

2. Crime and Punishment

So here's how the Tiger Woods careless driving ticket will play out according to Top 5 subscriber David R. "I am an attorney in Florida, familiar with traffic court. He will not be pleading guilty, paying $164 or getting 4 points. A junior associate at the firm he retains will enter a not guilty plea and the case will go to trial. Woods will not attend the trial. There will be no witnesses to testify against him and the judge will grant the lawyer's motion to dismiss the ticket for lack of prosecution."

Whew, what a relief. I wouldn't want Tiger to have to actually face any music.

3. End of an Era

There will never be another feel good football story out of Hofstra like wide receiver Wayne Chrebet overcoming all odds to make the Jets. Hofstra has eliminated football just like Northeastern. The economy strikes again. Will there come a day when only players from football powerhouses will make the big time?

4 Friday Mailbag

Clearly Tiger Woods dominated your emails. From S.D. "Just like Kobe and a lot of others, we continue to embrace these people as role models instead of rich immature children... By the time this is through Elin should have enough settlement money to buy Sweden."

Many of you couldn't resist sending jokes. From Bob G. "Woke up this morning feeling pretty good. I realized I can outdrive Tiger."

When I talked about Ari Fleischer helping the BCS to tidy up its image, I joked that "if he could help explain what President Geo. W. was doing, the BCS should be a piece of cake." I received this response: "Hey! I'm a subscriber...Taken with a sense of humor - I always enjoy reading your updates. It's the best, fastest one minute in sports reporting. Signed, Ari Fleischer."

Editor's Note: Ari likes what W. did, and what I'm doing. Is that a compliment? But seriously, happy to have Ari on board.

As for Charlie Weis making over $1 million per win at Notre Dame, J.M. points out: "Weis was a bargain. For their money, the Yankees paid Carl Pavano $4,438,888.89 per win."

And C.M. wrote: "I went out and bought a Mets ornament for my tree this weekend. It's broken. Go figure......"

5. Health and Fitness

We close things out with our tip of the week. It seems in Britain, some women executives are injecting botox into their heels. For beauty? Nah. Helps them get through the holiday party season wearing high heels. It costs them $400 as opposed to a gel-filled pad which runs $3.30. Hey it's the holiday season..... talk about expensive stocking stuffers!

Happy Birthday: New Jersey Nets part-owner Jay Z. 40.
Bonus Birthday: Supermodel Tyra Banks. 36.

Today in Sports: What a guy! Latrell Sprewell was suspended one year for choking his Golden State Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo. 1997.
Bonus Event: The beginning of one of the greatest comebacks in history. General George Washington says goodbye to his officers at the end of the Revolutionary War and departs New York to leave public life. 6 years later he's sworn is as the nation's first President. 1783.

I have a book signing for The Greatest Moments in Sports (New York Times Best Seller) in Port Washington N.Y. at the Dolphin Bookshop tomorrow at 1pm.
Have a great weekend everyone!

Brad Balfour: Director Paul Schrader's Controversial Holocaust Film Is Presented At The Israel Film Fest

2009-12-04T14:33:53Z

For veteran director/screenwriter Paul Schrader seeing his film Adam Resurrected appear in this year's Israel Film Festival in New York is a little like coming around full circle. Originally released here almost a year ago, his strange surreal little black comedy of a film starred Jeff Goldblum as a sort of insane concentration camp survivor. Set in an Israeli psychiatric hospital after the war, Glodblum's character Adam tries to cope with surviving and recovering his sanity.

Though the film received mixed reviews and limited exposure, Schrader will not only receive a special presentation of it at the 2009 Israel Film Festival in New York -- which kicks off Saturday evening -- but he will be honored with the IFF's Achievement in Cinema Award during the opening night Awards Gala being held at the SVA Theatre (23rd Street and 8th Avenue).

While the 63-year-old Schrader began his career as a critic, he quickly segued into writing then directing. His list of credits include Taxi Driver, Blue Collar, Raging Bull, Cat People, Mishima: A Life In Four Chapters, The Mosquito Coast, City Hall, American Gigolo, Patty Hearst, Auto Focus, Affliction and The Walker among the more than 30 titles he has either written or directed.

In its 24th year, founder Meir Fenigstein's Israel Film Fest, has brought to this country a fascinating survey of an ever-evolving cinema and has succeed in touring these film in several cities include NYC. Running from December 5th to 13th, 2009, the festival showcases 28 features, docs and shorts. For further info on the IFF program and ticketing go to israelfilmfestival.com.

Q: This film reminds me of Philippe De Broca's King of Hearts.

PS: King of Hearts is a sweet film. [Adam Resurrected] breaks the two rules of Holocaust cinema, which is why it's controversial for many people.

If you think about it virtually every film you've seen on the holocaust is: 1) based on fact -- [that] these things actually happened, and 2) it's reverential -- all those poor people, they suffered so much.

This is not based on fact. There never was a hospital like that, or a commoner/prisoner relationship like that, and it's not reverential. [The book] came out in 1968 in Israel, right at the same time as Catch-22, Slaughterhouse Five, and all of those books written by guys who were in a war looking back after 20 years with a very jaundiced cynical eye at those experiences. That's the literary tradition that this book comes out of. So it is not really out of the holocaust tradition as much as it is out of that kind of literary tradition.

Q: Do you think that Israelis perceive this film differently than the general Jewish population or Americans?

PS: We premiered it at the Haifa Film Festival, and I was really expecting a possible negative reaction. But the response was very good. The book was viciously attacked when it came out, and it wasn't until it was championed in the West that the Israelis started to realize how good it was.

Q: Why is this film important to tell now?

PS: The metaphor of the man who used to be a dog who meets a dog who used to be a boy is a metaphor for recovery and survival; that's what struck me. It's informed by the holocaust, but it could've been informed by other traumas too -- anything that required him to live like a dog to survive. That's what grabbed me.

I'm not Jewish and certainly didn't think the world needed another holocaust film from me, so I didn't see myself as the logical candidate to be doing this. But then I started reading it, and as soon as that thing with the dog came, I went, "Wow this is cool."

Q: What is it about you that can do this? You get it...

PS: Well I don't know that part of the question. I know what attracts me. I get bored very easily. I find most movies boring. I go to movies and ask, "How do they stay awake making this?" They made this movie before, I've seen this movie before, how did they stay awake?

Anything that doesn't bore me I think is doable because it's keeping me awake. This particular story had been passed on by several of the usual suspects in Hollywood because they didn't think it was doable. That never occurred to me because I had never seen this before so of course it was doable because it was fascinating, it was interesting.

Once you have a situation that is fresh, then you sort of believe in it and it becomes normal. So you do end up with protagonists that haven't been in other movies before. There's not been a guy like Adam [Stein]; he's rather new to movies. What interested me is that I haven't seen a movie about this guy before.

Q: You've established yourself as a writer/director. This one you didn't write, you received the script. Did you have any input after you received the script?

PS: Of course, I'm a writer. The script was good but it was long -- it was by a first-time writer [Noah Stollman] -- so I had to take some length out of it, about 20 pages, and in doing so, you take ownership. It's Noah's script, but I have ownership too. That's just in pre-production, but once you get to production every script is rewritten in rehearsals. And then, to some degree, it's rewritten on set too... not nearly as much as some people think, but to some degree.

Q: Yoram Kaniuk, the author of Adam Resurrected, is still alive?

PS: Yes, miraculously. I've seen him quite a bit. He died a few years ago and then he wrote a book about being dead. And he'll describe himself as, 'Hi I'm Yoram Kaniuk who once was dead but now am alive.' That's the way he talks. He was in a coma for six weeks. And he came back to life.

When I first met him I didn't think he'd live to see the film, but he has improved. He's quite an extraordinary guy. He loves this film. He has been a huge champion of this, which is very flattering since the film is something else but does not have the reach and the complexity and the brilliance that the book does.

Q: You got handed a project that was once thought of for Orson Welles. Did you ever think in your head, how would Orson Welles approach this film?

PS: I don't know at what point in his career. I have a feeling it was in the back end of his career. But I know he wanted to do it with Bette Davis. And to see him and Bette going around barking like dogs, I think I would've paid for that [laughs]!

Q: Why did you think Jeff Goldblum would make a good dog?

PS: On the very first read [of the script] I was sitting in my living room on page 70, and my wife walks through so I said, "You know, I'm reading the script now and there is an actor who was born to play this role." She said, "Who is that?" And I said, "Jeff Goldblum was born to play the role I am now reading."

I didn't know Jeff. I said, "He has lived his entire career to play this role." That's how strong it hit me. So when I first met with the producer, I said, "You know there is an actor who was born to play this role." Of course he wasn't too excited when I said Jeff's name because that makes his job harder. We went to some other actor and as far as I was concerned I was happy they passed on it. Finally we ended up with Jeff.

Q: Is it because he has that sort of smarmy attitude?

PS: He's an entertainer, he's a showman. Plus he's tall, Jewish -- he's like a big Jewish prince -- and the right age. It's interesting to play him at his real age [56] because he always plays someone youthful-looking. So it was interesting to actually show the lines and crevices in his face.

Q: How does Jeff feel about it? He's not mad at you for showing that?

PS: No, no. Jeff is the perfect soldier.

Q: It was a no-brainer to have Willem Dafoe as the Nazi.

PS: That was a favor. Nobody likes to play Nazis. They wanted a name, so I just had to pick up the phone and say, "Willem, I'm going to ask you a favor." The German financer did not want a German to play that role. So we needed an American name, and that meant calling up a favor. So that meant Will.

Q: That was a bizarre plot twist with the nurse. I wanted to see more of that.

PS: She's fabulous. Ayelet [Zurer] is like the biggest star in Israel, but she's really famous for being vulnerable. She was the wife in Munich. So this is not really what she's good at, she's good at being soft. This was kind of a change for her. But I really felt that we had to hold onto that. Even though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at times, but then not everything has to make sense. It makes some kind of sense.

Q: It hits all your marks. It's got a little bit of that brutal side and perverse eroticism. You must've had fun with shooting some of those scenes where she's with the dog. But it must've been tough to get it right.

PS: It was not fun for her [Zurer], she did not like that. So that was a little bit of a problem because she was doing it knowing it was the right thing to do, but she wasn't doing it because... she had to really be talked into doing this film.

Q: Would you agree that Adam Resurrected is also about survival?

PS: Yeah, although in some ways, if it was up to him [Adam] he would be dying. I'm just an old dying clown, let me die. Dr. Nathan Gross [Derek Jacobi] is the one who brings that boy... why is that boy in the hospital? He's not there because he's a camp survivor. He's there because he's Gross' special project. Then Gross finally gets interested in survival.

Adam resists survival. He doesn't know what to think about that boy. It's fascinating because he loves that boy but he hates that boy, he's jealous. And when the boy finally climbs to defense and can speak, his reaction is "beat him up!"

Q: How do you explain the relationship between him and the nurse?

PS: She was somehow attracted to this sick dying clown, and when he became healthy he was not of interest to her anymore.

Q: Was that part of what she thought was her therapy?

PS: I don't know. It's not her movie. Actually her movie would've been an interesting one. But it's not her movie. I can't say I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was her movie.

Q: There's something special about this being set in Israel.

PS: When I first got this script it was set in Palm Springs. The book is in Israel. The producer moved it to Palm Springs because he was under the impression that no American director would come to Israel and shoot it. And I said, "Why is this thing in Palm Springs?" So we moved it back.

Q: The pervasive qualities of Israel are an important part.

PS: I'll just tell you one last quick story. Yoram is writing this and he's out in the desert, and he comes across a sign. On it says: "on this spot will be built the town of Arad." So he said, that's pretty cool, I think I'll take my imaginary mental hospital -- because no hospital like this ever existed -- and I will put it in this imaginary town of Arad.

After the book came out 10 years later, after they had built a mental hospital in Arad, they invited him over and they said, "You built the first mental hospital in Arad and now we built the second one!"

Q: What do you think people should take away from this film?

PS: I don't know. The complexity of survival I guess. It's not always the contradictions of things that are interesting; he loves the dog and he hates the dog, I'm sane, but it's boring, I'm crazy but I'm dying.

Contradiction is the heart and soul of character and drama. You're always looking for it. I loved her so much I hit her; that's character. I loved her so much I hit her again; that's even more character.

So if you're always looking for contradiction, people say: "Okay you gave us contradiction, now take contradiction away." No, you can't take contradiction away. Part of the fun of it is that the contradiction never really quite goes away.

When people had different ideas about what the ending of Taxi Driver meant, somebody asked me, wasn't I upset? And I said no, that's perfectly acceptable. I would be more upset if everybody had the same opinion of what it meant.

[To see an extended version of this interview, go to: filmfestivaltraveler.com and click.]

Mitchell Bard: I'm Not in a New York State of Mind, Thanks to 38 State Senators

2009-12-04T01:23:28Z

But now I need a little give and take/The New York Times, The Daily News/It comes down to reality And it's fine with me 'cause I've let it slide/Don't care if it's Chinatown or on Riverside/I don't have any reasons I've left them all behind/I'm in a New York state of mind
- Billy Joel, "New York State of Mind," 1976

I am often in a New York state of mind. After living most of my life in New York, I recently moved to Madison, Wisconsin, to go back to graduate school. But being a New Yorker is a strong part of my identity. Which only made it harder to accept the New York State Senate voting down a gay marriage bill on Wednesday (my birthday of all days). Eight Democrats joined all 30 Republicans in shamefully telling millions of New Yorkers that they are less deserving of rights in the State of New York.

There is a viral video making the rounds in which a man, speaking directly to the camera, attempts to shoot down the arguments against gay marriage. While, obviously, I agree with the bulk of what he has to say, the issue is far, far simpler to me.

I look at the issue in legal and constitutional terms. (I may not practice law anymore, but I can't seem to put my legal education and short time practicing completely behind me. I guess it doesn't help that my wife is also an attorney, so the law is always buzzing around me.) And when you look at the gay marriage question through this lens, it is easy to see the anti-gay marriage folks for what they are: religiously fueled bigots.

Marriage has two essential elements to it. First, it is a union recognized by most of the world's major religions as being between a man and a woman. Second, and completely separate from the issue of religion, marriage is a contract between two individuals recognized by the 50 states. You will note that I identify the second element as completely separate from the first one because of a nifty little amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the first one, in fact) that reads, in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Thanks to more than a century of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, we can safely conclude that, among other things, the First Amendment prevents the government (states are bound by the First Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War) from enforcing religious decisions in carrying out its business. As such, it is not incumbent on the states to enforce religious laws on marriage, nor may the states force religious leaders to carry out certain policies that violate their faiths.

So there is religious marriage (based on the rules of a couple's faith) and state marriage (essentially a civil contract under which certain rights and responsibilities become enforceable under state law).

Now, there is no doubt that many American religious leaders feel that the marriage of two men or two women violates the rules of their faiths. While I can't support their bigoted views, I would be quick to defend their right not to marry two men or two women. That is a decision the state has no place getting involved in. And religions are not bound by any responsibility to treat their followers fairly or to extend them equal rights. If Catholics do not want to let women become priests, or if Orthodox Jews do not want to allow women onto the bimah (altar) during services, or if any other religion chooses to extend fewer rights under the rules of the faith to one group or another, that is the right of those religious institutions to do so. It's up to the members of the religious institutions to decide if they want to be part of a religion that discriminates in these manners.

But the government doesn't enjoy the same leeway as the religions. In fact, the Constitution, federal law and state law are filled with provisions that assure just the opposite, that every American should be treated equally under the law. So if a state decides to grant the right of two men or two women to marry, that is the state regulating state business (and I would argue it's both the legal and moral obligation of the state not to pick and choose to whom it extends these rights and responsibilities). The state isn't telling any priest, reverend, rabbi or imam to marry two men or two women, nor is it requiring the religions to accept the couples as being married under their faiths (in the same way that if a Jew and a Baptist are married by the state, the state doesn't require Orthodox rabbis or Baptist ministers to recognize the marriage in their faiths).

In other words, religious marriage is the domain of the religions, and state marriage is the domain of the states. And under the First Amendment, the states are not supposed to force religious rules on its people, nor are they to interfere in the beliefs of the religions. Seems simple enough.

In light of the understanding of the two elements of marriage, what can be a rationale for opposing gay marriage? You can't say it violates your religious beliefs, because nobody is asking you to change, in any way, your religious beliefs. Nobody is asking you to accept the gay marriages in your church, or for your religious officials to perform same-sex marriages. No, the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is because you believe that gay men and lesbians do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. It's really that simple. Everything else is just a smoke screen, a way of diverting attention from the bigotry at the heart of those who oppose same-sex marriage.

The only senator to have the balls to stand up in the New York Senate and speak against the same-sex marriage bill (which had overwhelmingly passed in the New York Assembly), even though 38 of them eventually voted against it, was Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx, and his remarks made clear how intellectually bankrupt the anti-same-sex-marriage position is. After Sen. Eric Adams of Brooklyn, noting the secular job of legislators, said that when he walks into the senate chamber, "my bible stays out," Diaz, a pastor, declared in response, "That's the wrong statement. You should carry your Bible all the time."

(Some of Diaz's exploits include being sentenced to probation in the 1960s after being arrested for possessing heroin and marijuana and getting investigated by the FBI for corruption in 2007. He serves as a nice reminder that being religious does not necessarily mean that you behave ethically and morally.)

In other words, Diaz was happy to impose his religion-based belief that homosexuals were not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals under the law on all New Yorkers as part of his duties as a New York State senator. Note, he didn't reference state law. He referenced the bible.

What is it to be an American if you do not support equal rights under the law? And when you clear away baseless threats that legalizing same-sex marriage somehow has an effect on how religions handle marriages in their faiths, all that's left for those opposed to same-sex marriage is bigotry. It's really that simple.

One of the few bright spots of the debate was the remarks of Sen. Diane Savino of Staten Island, who told a funny story about the explanation she gave a pedicab driver of why she supports same-sex marriage. She explained to him they could go to City Hall and get a marriage license, even though they just met and were in no way ready for such a serious commitment. She then offered what I think is as elegant and simple a point as anyone has made about same-sex marriage:

"We in government don't determine the quality or worthiness of people's relationships. If we did, we would not issue three-quarters of the marriage licenses we do."

Again, there are two marriages: one recognized by religion and one recognized by the state. I'm not asking the religions to open their minds, but I am demanding that the states (or at least, in this case, New York State) provide all of their citizens with equal rights. Because as Sen. Savino makes clear, the state has no business in judging the two people that step forward to ask for a license to marry and avail themselves of the rights and responsibilities the state offers to married couples.

As much as Senators Adams and Savino make me proud to be a New Yorker, legislators like Diaz make me wonder what has happened to my beloved state. I think it's time for New Yorkers to stand up and tell the 38 senators that voted to deny equal rights to millions of New York citizens that they don't represent the beliefs of true New Yorkers. That would put me back in a New York state of mind.

Robin Canter: Human Rights Humiliation

2009-12-03T23:33:40Z

When is the last time any of our state and federal law makers actually read the U.S. Constitution? Yesterday, New York State rejected gay marriage legislation, claiming that New York residents were either too preoccupied to concern themselves with human rights and/or that most major religions do not condone it.

Last time I checked, the foundation of our democracy is based on, among other things, the separation of church and state. Religion is a cherished personal freedom, never meant to be restricted or used as the basis for legislative policy-making. If the tenets of our major religions are invoked (as by Sen. Ruben Diaz) as a rationale for limiting the rights of US citizens, perhaps we should take a closer look.

Why are we allowed to still eat beef, pork or shellfish, when these are banned in many holy books? Drinking alcohol and even tea or coffee is similarly forbidden. I see no calculated and well-financed referendum baiting going on against Starbucks or McDonald's. "Do not dishonor your parents" and "do not commit adultery "should be familiar phrases to everyone. If the first were law, all of our teenagers would be in jail. If the second were law, we would have to convert the entire state of Alaska into our own version of Siberia during Stalin's years at the helm.

Religious leaders such as Sen. Diaz and Richard Barnes of the NYS Catholic Conference perceive this human rights humiliation as an affirmation and vindication of the perceived belief that marriage is narrowly defined as between a man and a woman. Is this the sacred bond that produces a 40-50% divorce rate? Is this the Catholic Church whose many burdens includes those of the unending litany of priests who abuse other people's children and father their own out of wedlock? I suggest they open their history books and turn to the chapters on the Civil War and the civil rights movement, women's rights and earning the right to vote, and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. These were all unpopular ideas, opposed by many, and ultimately championed by the triumph of humanity and equanimity. How about focusing on the Bible's benevolent and merciful lessons, such as treating others as you would have them treat you.

How did something so very basic become so lurid and convoluted? This is about love, commitment, responsibility and legitimacy. We have families, we celebrate births and mourn deaths, we work hard, we obey the law and we pay our taxes. There have been gay couples for as long as there has been life, and I don't think we can pin anything on them except frustration. We are Americans who want to serve this nation proudly, stand before our friends and family in love and tell our children that we are worthy and, for better or for worse, married.

Emma Ruby-Sachs: Straight Brooklyn Couple Applies to Annul Marriage Because Gay Marriage Still Not Legal

2009-12-03T21:18:00Z

A couple in Brooklyn is looking to challenge the legitimacy of straight marriages in light of the recent New York Senate vote against gay marriage rights. Their strategy: apply for an annulment.

An annulment is usually reserved for marriages where there is no consummation of the marriage (yep, that means sex), insanity, fraud or one or both members of the couple entered into marriage while under duress. Unlike a divorce, it claims that the marriage was never viable and legal or that the situation has changed so significantly through no fault of either member of the couple that the marriage must be dissolved.

But this week I was invited to join a Facebook group run by Rachel Murch D'Olimpio and Matthew D'Olimpio: New York residents who are going to apply for an annulment on the grounds that their marriage contract violates constitutional equality guarantees and is thus void. The group already has over 700 members.

Legally, their approach has some promise. Contracts freely entered into can be deemed void if they contravene public policy. There is an argument -- one that has been successful in Iowa and California -- that giving marriage rights to straight couples and not same-sex couples violates the right to equal protection of the laws. This is not new reasoning.

However, usually the courts require the applying individual to prove that they are, in some way, being denied equal protection of the laws of the state. Rachel and Matthew are fully protected. It's their friends and fellow New York residents who are being denied their rights.

But striking down a contract for being contrary to public policy provides more flexibility than the strict constitutional analysis courts have previously engaged in on this matter. Courts can assert, in some cases, that acts are contrary to public policy simply because they create any effect on society as a whole that is undesirable. For example, contracts promoting the sale of babies are considered contrary to public policy. While offending the moral character of many, selling infants may not actually cause concrete harm (this is, in fact, an argument put forward by famed legal scholar Justice Richard Posner).

New York's courts may choose to use the annulment challenge as an opportunity to hear evidence on the social harm marriage discrimination causes for the entire state -- gay and straight residents alike. There are plenty of arguments to support this assertion. Inequality breeds social division and resentment. Children of same-sex couples denied marriage rights suffer psychological harm. Residents in same-sex committed relationships arbitrarily bear greater tax burdens. The list goes on.

All to say, Rachel and Matthew have a slim chance of success. But whether or not they win in the end, their campaign to stand in solidarity with LGBT New Yorkers certainly warms the heart. And today people in New York State need a little heart warming.

Patricia Zohn: Culture Zohn: Les Contes d'Hoffmann (Tales of Hoffmann), or, a Four-Way Gets Complicated

2009-12-03T20:07:47Z

Bartlett Sher, the director of South Pacific revival just next door to the Met Opera is finished with the wash-that-man-right-out-of-my-hair mission and onto a trickier task: washing that man out of four different pretty heads in Les Contes d'Hoffman. Once again, we visit the tragic love affairs of the 19th Century, only this time, it's not one, but four girls and a guy. Those are not the kind of odds that generally appeal to me. Jacques Offenbach, the composer, actually died before he finished it which may say something about how tough the piece was to conceive or more likely how difficult it is to manage so many women at the same time.

Sher says he is interested in the "outsider" themes that Contes offers up which makes his take on the opera unconventional -- yet because the opera was never finished, each director who has taken it on (including Roman Polanski) brings his own outsider backstory along with him. Offenbach therefore provides the template and the rest is up for grabs. Also, it is stories, not one linear story -- and we all know that can either work very well, or feel like you're at four different events.

The libretto has its roots in ETA Hoffman, he of Nutcracker and Coppelia fame, a writer who seems to have been fascinated with dolls coming to life and getting themselves into a heap of trouble. There's one in Contes also, but let me not get ahead of Charles Fabius, former director of artistic programming of the Paris Opera, whom I invited to help me lay out the complexities.

All photographs by Ken Howard for the Metropolitan Opera/Contes d'Hoffman

CZ: Contes was an unfinished opera. Offenbach was coming off a lifetime of operettas. What were his impulses and why did he never finish?

CF: Wildly popular for his politically satirical and sexually "risque" operettas (imagine SNL set to music), Offenbach had developed an inferiority complex towards the great 19th Century Grand Opera composers such as Meyerbeer, Verdi, Wagner and Gounod, who were all the rage in Paris. Offenbach considered himself just as great a composer, an in hindsight, maybe rightly so. By the time his publisher Choudens finally got him a serious gig at the Opera Comique (not quite Palais Garnier, but better than nothing) , Offenbach was already old and sick. Sensing that he would only have one chance, he kept hesitating, changing and reworking the material for Les Contes d'Hoffman.(The Tales of Hoffman) He died before he could even complete the orchestration. Guiraud finished the job and the premiere was a triumph.

CZ: Offenbach drew on the same source material as the ballet Coppelia -- the doll that becomes a woman and real enough to fall in love with. (ETA Hoffman also wrote the Nutcracker story). He presents four very different sides of women. What were they and were they drawn from his personal experience?

CF: The four women in the opera can be seen as four aspects of the "eternal female": the virgin, the whore, the Barbie doll and the Diva. The lead character, the dashing young poet Hoffmann, subsequently falls for all four of them (this is pre-eHarmony!), but loses them just as quickly, seeking comfort in wine and music...for sure, this story appealed to Offenbach, who had numerous, much talked-about affairs with his own Operetta Divas.

CZ: Why do you think there is more than one female singer cast? Couldn't one singer, like Netrebko, handle all four roles?

CF: I wish!..Funny, when the Met announced it plans for the new Hoffmann with Anna Netrebko, I simply took it that she would sing all four parts (sing three to be exact, as the Diva Stella is merely a silent appearance). I mean, if anyone could do it, she would, and she would bring the house down! Olympia, Giulietta and Antonia each require a different type of voice, but, all three have been sung by a single soprano before (i.e. Beverly Sills, Joan Sutherland, Mary Dunleavy), even if it usually meant transposing down some of the doll's music. With the four "Vilains" (Hoffman's dark alter-ego) already being sung by the same baritone , the opera gains in psychological density if narrowed down to a "menage a trois" between two lovers and a doom-laden inner voice. That said, Netrebko, who is as much a stunning as a cool-headed opera diva, probably realized that she would bring down the house regardless even if appearing for only 45 minutes as the endearing Antonia (for whom Offenbach wrote some of his best music), and crossing the stage as Stella. So, for the same end result (and the same fee?!), why even bother...?

CZ: Is Bart Sher up to the task of tackling what sounds to be a complicated opera? He has done a rollicking Barber of Seville for the Met and of course, just next door, the perfect revival of South Pacific. But doesn't Contes represent a real challenge for a director?

CF: Contes is tricky with its fragmented, loosely related acts. Some directors are better at one story than at another. Olympia's act (Coppelia in the Ballet world) is usually the "easier" one, Giulietta's, however, often ends up as a Carnival of Venice traffic jam. Few directors have been able to pull all stories together in one phantasmagoric dream sequence, like something between New Moon and Rebecca. I have high hopes for Sher, based on the ominous stage magic he created in Joe Tuner's Come and Gone.The question remains whether his sensibility and great care for detail will pay off on the vast stage of the Met, and whether he will have been given enough rehearsal time to stage all those complicated chorus scenes...

CZ: Recently, a new version of Tosca at the Met elicited resounding boos. As someone who was not a veteran of the Zeffirelli version, I found it haunting and beautifully sung, if a bit funky in Act 2 (seeing a three way faux fellatio as a curtain raiser at the Met was certainly unexpected). Does Sher risk everything by presenting a new version of Contes?

CF: Sher not only starts out with great credits, but his productions are never sensational just for the sake of it. He tends to stay faithful to the original material. At least, in spirit. So, I do not foresee a scandal "a la Bondy". And, if Sher lives up to expectations, these Contes could be the absolute highlight of the season, and a welcome cash cow for the Met for years to come.

Contes d'Hoffman appears tonight, and Dec 7, 11, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and Jan. 2 at the Met.

Fern Siegel: Stage Door: A Streetcar Named Desire

2009-12-03T17:53:09Z

"A woman's charms are 50% illusion," says Blanche DuBois in the classic play A Streetcar Named Desire. But Cate Blanchett's bravura performance of the fragile, overdramatic Southern belle in Tennessee Williams' masterpiece is the real deal. The current revival at BAM, through Dec. 20, is a shattering production, stripped to essentials.

The part of Blanche is the role of a lifetime -- and most of us know her from watching the Oscar-winning Vivien Leigh battle Marlon Brando as her brutish brother-in-law Stanley Kowalski. However, each generation renews its poetry and despair and this production, which originated at the Sydney Theatre Company, where Blanchett and husband Andrew Upton are the artistic directors, is notable on two fronts.

First, this is Blanchett's show. From the moment she steps on stage, her nerves shot, her dignity held together by fierce illusion, our eyes never leave her. Director Liv Ullmann keeps the focus on Blanche -- even when the action shifts elsewhere.

Second, while the setting is post-war New Orleans, it's sans the ornate latticework or other symbols of a decaying French Quarter. Ralph Myers' design and Nick Schlieper's lighting are reminiscent of an Edward Hopper painting; the sickly pink walls of sister Stella (Robin McLeavy) and Stanley's (Joel Edgerton) apartment evoke American poverty, rather than fading Southern gentility.

And fading is the operative notion here.

Blanche and Stella, heirs to Belle Reve, the family's Mississippi plantation, have lost their inheritance due to male debauchery and illness. Stella, who left home years ago, has, like Stanley, chosen lust over tenderness, animal instincts over artistic pursuits. By contrast, Blanche, a former English teacher, exclaims: "I don't want realism. I want magic!" But no conjurer can quell her loneliness or return the first bloom of youthful allure. She's acutely aware that her fabled sexual prowess is aging -- and survival depends on finding any suitable man to rescue her.

Unlike Stella, Blanche mourns the loss of civility and the family home, which, alongside dodgy liaisons, have forced her to the French Quarter. Here, in the two-room flat of her "executioner," streetwise Stanley and a slatternly Stella grunt out their existence, enduring blows and brutal desire in equal measure.

It's here that Blanche's madness will manifest, though Stella's marriage is viewed as a form of madness by Blanche. Williams has erected a striking polarity: Stanley and his "apes" will survive; Blanche, sorely in need of understanding and help, will be devoured by their cruelty and blindness. Even Mitch (Tim Richards), Blanche's seemingly sweet but pawing beau, will fail her at the critical hour.

Blanche can only "depend on the kindness of strangers," another illusion in Williams' arsenal of betrayals. In this brave new American world, might makes right. Streetcar is the playwright's eulogy for ravaged beauty -- and while it takes Ullmann time to locate, her cast rises to the challenge. Edgerton's beefy Stanley has a menacing, occasionally magnetic presence, while McLeavy's Stella is competent rather than noteworthy. Still, this is Blanchett's moment -- and she makes the most of it.

Len Berman: Top 5 Sports Stories

2009-12-03T17:16:44Z

Happy Thursday everyone, here's my Top 5 for December 3, 2009 from Len Berman at www.ThatsSports.com.

1. Quick Hits

* Tiger Woods finally admits "transgressions."

* Congratulations New Jersey Nets! Nobody does it worse. They lost to Dallas last night 117-101 to start the season a record 0-18.

* 34-year old Allen Iverson signs back with the Philadelphia 76ers.

* Bottoms up! The NBA is looking into Ron Artest's admission that when he played for the Chicago Bulls he would drink Hennessey cognac at halftime. (The breakfast of champions, no?)

* O Canada! It's the Jets and Bills tonight in Toronto on Thursday night football.

2. Better Late than Never

Tiger Woods' people finally woke up. Maybe it was the latest woman to come forward claiming an affair. He finally admitted to "transgressions" in a statement on his web site, and "letting his family down." He went on to basically say it's a private matter and leave him alone. He is absolutely right. He doesn't have to issue statements about the most intimate details of his "failings." But if he had "pulled a Letterman" and made a similar statement on camera a few days ago, he would have spared himself a world of grief. Can we now finally say end of story? Nah. Tiger is fresh meat for the media.

3. Journalism 101

I found subscriber John G's email about the Tiger Woods affair provocative. "The real shame to me is the demise of your profession. It was a mere 37 years ago that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein took down a powerful, two term president with diligent, truthful reporting. In 37 years we have gone from that to TMZ, the paparazzi, blogs and unsubstantiated innuendo?? Pathetic in my opinion... Enough is enough..."

John, the only question I have, is don't these "journalists" give the public exactly what they want? If there wasn't a market to peddle their wares, they wouldn't exist.

And to my Top 5 subscribers, if you want to read some truly great journalism passed along from subscriber Dan F. check out the GQ article on concussions and the NFL from earlier this fall. Here's the link.

4. The Good Old Days

Maybe that means before computers. In the last couple of days two NBA players have been fined for tweeting during games. Uh, don't they have something else they should be thinking about? And Grady Sizemore of the Cleveland Indians is lawyering up after somebody stole suggestive pictures of him from his girlfriend's email and posted them on the Internet. Other than the ability to receive Len's Top 5, the Internet is "the devil's workshop!"

5. Organization of the Month

As we start December, November was a helluva month for PETA. First they chastised an NBA player for swatting a bat that was flying around the basketball court, and now they want the University of Georgia to replace their live bulldog mascot with either a robot or a costumed character. Can't wait to hear what they have in store this month. By the way one of my favorite Spanning the World moments was when an opposition player scored a touchdown and the Georgia Bulldog ran over and bit the guy in the end zone. You never heard a peep from the People For The Ethical Treatment of Running Backs.

Happy Birthday: Miracle '69 Mets third baseman Wayne Garrett. 62. Did I mention that the Miracle Mets are featured in my new kids book The Greatest Moments in Sports?
Bonus Birthdays: A couple of talented actresses were born on the same day, same year. Daryl Hannah and Julianne Moore. 49.

Today in Sports: Baseball lowers the pitcher's mound by 5 inches to help the offense. Why didn't they just give all the hitters steroids? 1968.
Bonus Event: Plop plop fizz fizz oh what a relief it is. Alka Seltzer goes on sale. 1931.

Marcia G. Yerman: The Rehabilitation of Eliot Spitzer

2009-12-03T15:31:13Z

All of a sudden, he seems to be everywhere. I first saw Eliot Spitzer weighing in as a talking head on the MSNBC Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan. After repeated appearances there, The Chris Matthews Show - one of the station's top-rated programs - booked him. Perhaps because of his former moniker as "The Sheriff of Wall Street," he has been sought out to discuss the failings of the big boys in the stock market and banking sectors. As Matthews repeatedly called him "governor," I wondered what the exact protocol was for retaining your title even after you have resigned in disgrace.

For those who may have forgotten, I offer a short primer. Eliot Spitzer served as the New York State attorney general before taking up residence in the governor's mansion on January 1st, 2007. He stepped down on March 17th, 2008. A week earlier, a New York Times article related how Spitzer had been the patron of a prostitution ring. The information came to light during a federal wiretap that was put into place when Spitzer's bank reported money transfers that appeared suspicious. Questions were raised about the possibility of bribery funds. It was learned that Spitzer had spent $80,000 for the services of prostitutes over a period of time that included both his tenure as attorney general, and as governor.

In November 2008, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia announced that no federal charges would be filed against Spitzer. Garcia concluded that after a thorough investigation, no evidence had been found that Spitzer -- or his office -- had misused public or campaign funds for prostitution. Garcia said, "We have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter." Not every one saw it that way. Sunny Hostin, a legal analyst for CNN and former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., wrote an opinion piece asking, "Why did feds give Spitzer a pass?"

Now, a year later, Spitzer has been securing public speaking engagements in a range of venues. At Harvard University (Spitzer is a graduate of Harvard Law School) on November 12, Spitzer participated in a panel about "policing Wall Street." It was part of the school's public series exploring "ethical issues in public life." In an article by Katie Zezima, "Spitzer Talks About, Well. Ethics," the reporter quoted Washington lawyer Lily Mazahery, also on the panel, as saying "she was outraged when she heard Mr. Spitzer was speaking."

In my hometown of New York City, Spitzer popped up as the moderator of a debate about American foreign policy and Israel with Alan Dershowitz and Jeremy Ben-Ami (November 21). Attending the event, I questioned why Spitzer had been chosen for this role. When Spitzer mentioned that Dershowitz had been his professor at Harvard Law School, I contemplated if that were the connection. A simple Google search yielded an enlightening clip of Dershowitz defending Spitzer. In the interview, Dershowitz suggested that Spitzer's involvement with prostitutes "was a private matter." He chided the American public stating, "Let's not exaggerate this...Let's not make more of this than it is."

As a writer who focuses on women's issues, I opined in March 2008 that the Spitzer imbroglio was an opportunity to look at prostitution, human trafficking and related matters with a seriousness of purpose. At the time, those who felt the most severely betrayed by the governor's actions were the activists who had stood with Spitzer when he signed the Legislation to Prevent Human Trafficking into law in June 2007.

That's the visceral image that resonates for me when I see Spitzer reclaiming a public role. Perhaps in addition to his expertise on corruption in the Wall Street sector, Spitzer has something even more valuable to offer the public. He could be a leader in a conversation about prostitution, human trafficking, and what drives the demand for these services.

That's a story I would look forward to covering.

This article originally appeared at WomenMakeNews.

Technorati Profile

Mark Green: Why 60 Senate Votes? Why Should 10% Veto 90%?

2009-12-03T14:53:44Z

Who elected Joe Lieberman the president of health care? Abuse of the filibuster and special interest money may still combine to stop health care reform and stop America from becoming a 21st century society. This perfect storm requires big changes.

As the Senate begins its historic floor debate on health care this week, let's glance at history.

To reach unanimity at the Constitutional Convention, the 1787 "Connecticut Compromise" created a House of Representatives allocating seats by population (favoring big states) and a Senate allocating seats by state (favoring small states). That was one thing when states were somewhat similar in populations, not now when California is 68 times the size of Wyoming. So today each California senator represents 68 times the number of people as a Wyoming senator. Or 10 times that of each Connecticut senator, like, say, Lieberman.

At the same time, the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution and is merely a rule of the Senate. To end debate and allow a majority vote on a bill used to require 67 votes, which changed to 60 votes in 1975. But this rule violates at least the spirit of the Constitution which specifies those very few instances -- treaties, impeachment, among others -- that alone require a two-thirds super-majority vote. And it used to be invoked sparingly in less partisan times -- an average of once a year in the 1950s but 139 times by Republicans in 2008.

The result? Only 10% of Americans living in 20 small states have nearly the votes needed to continue a filibuster and kill any essential health care reform - or any policy reform for that matter. 10% can, in effect, veto 90%, something the Founders never desired or expected.

It gets worse than that.

The campaign finance system (notwithstanding 1974 post-Watergate reforms and the McCain-Feingold soft money restrictions) still allows special interest money to flow to special friends in the Congress -- like the insurance industry's affection for Lieberman -- to make sure that such members throw monkey wrenches into the legislative process on big ticket items as health care.

So today any one grandstander -- given that the Democratic Caucus has exactly the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture -- can make up any justification to become a George Wallace standing in the school house door successfully saying "no!" Lieberman, for example, has adamantly opposed any public option saying that it would add to the deficit and waste taxpayer dollars, although the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has shown that it won't. Economically, a public option is no more radical than the "yardstick competition" of public power companies since the 1930s or Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. Running out of plausible arguments, Lieberman now just asserts that it's "an unnatural and dangerous appendage to health care reform."

The problem is not the hollowness of his arguments but the political fact that he has the power to sink the public option or other popular reforms because of an Achilles heel in our system -- two of them really. The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is a tyranny of the minority.

While most Americans are riveted either by the debates on Afghanistan and jobs -- or perhaps by Tiger Woods and the White House party-crashers -- the far more consequential problem represented by No-Joe goes without much notice. But a democracy tied down by the double Gordian Knots of money and filibuster threatens to assure that America fails to keep up with modern trends and needs. For only one example: how many more jobs will we lose to countries whose workers have their health care subsidized by the state? That should be part of any Jobs Summit.

Since there's no possibility that small states will ever agree to a constitutional amendment to weaken their power in the U.S. Senate, what options exist for Majority Leader Harry Reid on the health care bill in particular or in the Senate generally?

Campaign Finance Reform? One is radical campaign finance reform so that big corporate interests don't compound the problem of the filibuster. Unfortunately it appears that, if anything, America is headed in the opposite direction given the imminent Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United, which I will discuss in a separate blog post next week.

Reconciliation? Second, if health care fails this go-around with "only" 58 or 59 votes, Reid should consider using the so-called Reconciliation route next year which allows budget bills to be enacted by simply majority vote. This would eventually require the Senate Parlimentarian to rule on what parts of the current health care bill qualify as in effect budget bills. That would be legislatively problematic but still possible.

55 not 60? Third, by agreement between the Senate leader and the vice president sitting as presiding officer, the Senate at the start of the next session in January, 2011 could reduce the number required to cut off debate ("vote cloture") from 60 to 55, which would be the difference between minority rule and minority rights.

Republican critics will loudly complain that Reconciliation would violate Senate tradition and reforming the filibuster would be a "nuclear option" risking a breakdown in Senate business. But isn't their recent incessant use of the filibuster an undemocratic violation of tradition and a slow-motion nuclear option that, in effect, vetoes the results of the '06 and '08 elections? If 67 votes for cloture could shrink to 60, why not to 55? And speaking of tradition, what was wrong with an era in which, when Senators say they want to keep debating, they would have to keep debating, like the filibuster of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

This month's health care debate is about not only the health care of Americans, but also the health of the American democracy itself.