Media Matters

      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 after Beau had passe

      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 effective r

      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.        Consi

      Let's face it: we can take just so much of "TRUMP ON TRIAL." All day, every day. Yet some people like me watch it anyway so we won't miss something important. No matter: we are still going to miss a lot. The primary reason why is obvious. The trial is not being televised.       At last: we got a break a few nights ago, on MSNBC's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O' Donnell. No, TV cameras didn't suddenly appear to broadcast the proceedings in the New York City courtroom.  But long-established newscaster O'Donnell changed the way we experienced the event. His verbal introduction placed the viewers in the court itself, along with Donald Trump, Judge Merchan, the lawyers, jury, newspeople, and every other appropriate person. Particularly, we followed the day's witness, Stormy Daniels, as she entered and took a seat. O'Donnell's description was so precise and comprehensive, that we were able to picture her clothes, posture, demeano

      Each year there are lots of traditional TV programs that give credence to American culture. Some are entertaining and exciting, remaining in our memory. But there are some which are pretty boring.  Last week, however, President's Biden's "State of the Union" and the "96 th  Academy Awards" did not put the average viewer asleep like examples from the past.      There were many reasons why, such explanations being somewhat similar. Because TV is a visual medium, the images we saw in the two productions were unusually arresting this year. This is not  suggesting that President Biden's speech resembled a Broadway play, for instance, even though the female Congressional members wearing white clothing did garner attention and convey a theme like a Broadway show.       Simply stated, the images at the Oscars were the best in years. The reason was rather obvious, communicating the adage, "Less is more."  The set was uncomplicated and did not atte

       This past summer's lineup of movies presented an interesting challenge, especially for two of them. Thus, amid the myriad of fantasy, adventure and horror offerings ( like  " Indiana Jones: The Dial of Destiny," "Spider - Man: Across the Spider-Verse," and "Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning" ), the two most popular films essentially defied such classifications: BARBIE AND OPPENHEIMER. ( However, we can't deny that, obviously, "Barbie " could still be described stylistically as a fantasy ). Despite stylistic matters, this critic also wondered how these movies' distributors had the guts to even think about releasing both of them at the same time.     Yet various considerations aside, there remains the fact that "Barbie" is very different from any of writer Baumbach's other works.   And therein lies an important conclusion: we discover that Baumbach is an innovative, imaginative and inspiring filmmaker.      At leas