"TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS: IT CAN BE LIKE A MOVIE"

     If you usually report on Media and Politics, you may currently have "Writer's Block.  I know I do. Trump's first one hundred days has taken over most topics in journalism ( including subjects found on blogs ).  Meaning very few interesting and provocative issues remain to be covered. Or writers, like lots of Americans, find themselves too upset, preoccupied and confused to deal with issues of the day. 

      In desperation, I start watching films more than usual on TV's TCM ( Turner Classic Movies ). It's a habit I have had for years, although this time, the malaise surrounding our current state of government seems worse than ever. I ask myself a salient question:  Does viewing motion pictures help relieve my anxiety over tariffs and immigration and loss of jobs? And most recently, defunding of Public Media ( namely PBS and NPR )?
     The answer is "NO."
     Except for two movies I accidently saw:  1979's "Poltergeist" ( co-produced by Steven Spielberg ) and 1982's "All That Jazz" ( written, directed and choreographed by Bob Fosse). Simply put, they were  similar in their non-chronological style, skips in time and space and themes about family disorder /interaction between life and death. All in all, feelings of disorientation pervaded both real life during Trump's one hundred days and the films themselves.
     In particular, "All That Jazz" combined a sense of realism that also reminded us of dreams and fantasy. Thus we have opposition and disorientation. Another contradictory example  showed dance sequences that were full of vitality and life, the dancers using their entire body to give meaning to their movements. But inanimate objects, like bowler hats and gloves, also become alive. In Fosse's world,  animate and inanimate items are one and the same.
     It's no wonder both Trump's one hundred days and  two films, particularly, represented similar feelings to me. Art and life can be one.






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ON TV: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAY, BUT HOW YOU SAY IT"

      If Abraham Lincoln were running for President today, he would probably not win. Why? Because his TV presence would do him in. He was too tall, too gawky and too unshaven to project an effective presidential image. Moreover ( according to newspaper accounts at the time ), his voice was too high, and his posture was pretty awkward.      Some things never change. We shouldn't forget that during the first TV debate in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon, physical appearance played a potent part by giving Kennedy the edge. For example, the color of Nixon's suit didn't offer enough contrast, and he "faded" into the background.      Which brings us to the recent debate on June 27 between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump where "delivery" continued to be essential (especially regarding Biden). It's also curious to note that Biden's 2008 debate "performance" when he ran against Sarah Palin for Vice President focused on delivery.  ...
Read more

"WE ARE FAMILY" AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

      Real life on TV is often more dramatic than fictional enactments; political events have proven the point time and time again. Consider the national nominating conventions where visual images have become part of our media legacy. Remember when Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with Al  and Tipper Gore, broke into spontaneous dancing at the conclusion of Clinton's 1992 Acceptance Speech. As audience members, we were witnesses to  a movement of optimism and joy. At the 2000 Democractic Convention, Gore again provided a lasting visual image as he kissed his wife so passionately that even she seemed overwhelmed. So were we. Potent images of family continued in 2008: Joe Biden embracing his son, Beau, after being introduced as the Vice Presidential nominee. A silent, salient moment passed between them as they looked into each other's eyes: a defining moment between father and son that said more than any speech could. That picture remains in our memories, long afte...
Read more

"WORDS STILL COUNT IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION"

      Six years ago, one of this critic's first "Media Matters" article highlighted what was important in political speech making. Until then, daily political broadcasts were often boring, even during election campaigns where candidates' personalities were at the forefront. What people said was not particularly cogent. What individuals looked like or sounded like was. Subject matter was not salient. Charisma was.      Nowadays it appears that language is what counts, although It's true that Biden's "performance" became the most important element in his debate with Trump. While aspects of delivery ( like gestures, posture and facial expressions) will always matter, WORDS will always remain a relevant consideration. Various recent examples prove the point.      To start with, Trump's and Vance's use of words are particularly dramatic, colorful and provocative. As such, they conjure up images in the minds of the listener, which is an e...
Read more