Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (Branagh by Dear_Prudence)
Doctor Who:

Casting news: Cut just in case it's considered spoilery. )

Harper Lee: when you're a dead writer of note, your letters will be published sooner or later. These sound as if they contain some gems, including this reaction to Obama's inauguration:

In one letter, dated 20 January 2009 – the day of Barack Obama’s inauguration – Lee wrote to Itzkoff: “On this Inauguration Day I count my blessings … I’m also thinking of another friend, Greg Peck, who was a good friend of LBJ. Greg said to him: ‘Do you suppose we will live to see a black president?’ LBJ said: ‘No, but I wish her well.’”

Well, what do you know: LBJ, female black president predictor? Am trying not to be depressed at the thought of what Harper Lee and Gregory Peck would say to the current occupant of the White House. Otoh, Lyndon Johnson (at full power, unhindered by depression) - let loose on the Orange Menace could have been quite something, because Johnson could out vulgar anyone any time, was excellent at destroying people in his way and above all could whip the Senate into shape. Also, [personal profile] muccamukk, Gregory Peck fan extraordinaire, did you know he was buddies with LBJ?

Meanwhile, in depressing reality:

Leaked White House Memo detailes more war on women's health

Because general war on women isn't enough, it seems the Orange One has picked a fight with a soldier's widow and a Congresswoman both last week. You know, I don't get (much of) the US re: soldiers. In no other country I can think of is there such a cult like reverence for "our boys" in everyone's (independent of party) rethoric and such a lack of care for veterans with ill health (unless, of course, they're politically useful generals) and families of dead soldiers in reality. Anyway, good article on the subject of the widow in question: Myeshia Johnson stands up to Donald Trump.

Lastly, the Mary Sue has an article looking back on The Stepford Wives. (The film based on Ira Levin's novel.) I think what gives it - and the trope it coined - its enduring power is that the disturbing answer it provides do the "what do men really want from women"? question is today still all too plausible. No, of course not all men. Etc. But enough.
selenak: (The Doctor by Principiah Oh)
Because fannish life sometimes loves me, I've just found out that Bryan Cranston's stage performance as LBJ will be filmed for tv. Exceeeeeellent news for us overseas fans.

Due to the Big Finish offerings this last week, I've sampled a lot more audios. Among the most memorable ones:

Spare Parts (Fifth Doctor & Nyssa): one of the most famous ones, by Marc Platt; an origin tale for the Cybermen (original Mondas version) in the mode of Genesis of the Daleks (i.e. Doctor experiences critical point of development of already established antagonist, becomes involved with local population who have no idea of their fate). Most Five adventures I've listened to until now tended to be more optimistic than their tv counterparts, but this one has the Fifth Doctor in very familiar tv horrified-by-ghastly-goings-on-without-being-able-to-stop-them mode. Though on tv the Mondasians would have been less or not likeable at all, whereas here they are, which makes what happens to them extra tragic.

Protect and Survive (Seventh Doctor, Ace and Hex): part of the lead up to the events from Gods and Monsters and Afterlife, but also a self-contained story that really went under my skin. It was produced while Sylvester McCoy was busy filming The Hobbit, so it has minimal Doctor participation (though what there is of him is crucial, and it wouldn't work without that part), making a virtue of necessity. Ace and Hex are - due to circumstances that get gradually revealed to them and the audience - trapped in the most ghastly time loop possible. Because, like Ace, I was a teenager in the 1980s, the scenario in question, i.e. a nuclear war does happen and the survivors slowly die of radiation sickness, is intimately familiar. I don't think anyone who grew up after 1989 can understand how very real that possibility was and how it was part of your subconscious and your dreams/nightmares. Including the official info material of what to do just in case (and knowing that actually, these tips are pointless), which is used to great effect here. Mind you: this is not a "big" war story but a very intimate one - just four people (Ace, Hex, and two guest characters) plus the Doctor in absentia (he's missing at the start of the story, and only present in flashback in the third part, though that flashback not only explains what's been going on but packs the biggest emotional wallop re: the Doctor's terrifying side when dealing with enemies since I first saw what happened to the Family (of Blood) at the end of the episode of that name. It's one of the sharpest examinations of the ethics of such actions in Doctor Who, and yet also shows exactly why they happened. The acting by Sophie Aldred and Philip Olivier is top notch and makes you empathize with Ace and Hex to the nth degree.

Flip Flop (Seventh Doctor and Mel): this one is on one level very clever experimental storytelling - there are four "episodes" like on the usual Big Finish audio adventure, but they form two stories which can be listened to in any order because they're both self contained and completely interlocked, taking place at the same time on two parallel time streams. I have mixed feelings about it, though, not because the production doesn't pull it off - it does, and Bonnie Langford as Mel proves again that with a decent script she can be as good a companion as any -, but because the scenario in one of the two timelines is something that strikes me as an almost perfect fundamentalist right wing dream/nightmare scenario, and as such very ill fitting with Doctor Who (especially not with the Seventh Doctor era). The two different timelines hinge on the arrival of a slug-like species called the Slithegee at a human colony planet, where they occupy one of the moons and ask it should be given to them, since they're refugees. In one scenario, the President grants them the moon; in the other, spoilery stuff happens and an all out war with the Slithegee is the result. The paranoid right wing fantasy scenario is the first one, as the Slithegee proceed to take over the system, accusing any humans resisting the gradual take over of hate speech (that expression gets flung about a lot) and discrimination, and thirty years after their arrival own nine tenths of the planet while the humans live in ghettos, and Christmas is renamed Slimetide in the name of religious toleration etc. In short, it's the dystopia as prophecied by current right wing fanatic complaining of "political correctness gone mad", and the Slithegee are presented as uniformly revolting without any positive quality whatsoever, insisting on being the victims all the time while in actuality outnumbering and oppressing the humans. Just about the only thing which saves it from being anti-immigration propaganda is that the other timeline, where there was war with the Slithegee instead, is an equally dark dystopia, because there the Slithegee were defeated, but the planet became poisoned by the warfare, and the surviving humans have become a fascist dicatorship prone to commit massacres on each other.

Incidentally, while both scenarios are incredibly dark, the tone of the episodes isn't grimdark at all but more Blackadder like; lots of mistaken identity gambits and ridiculing of self important bureaucracies (both of the fascist humans and the Slithegee, depending on the timeline). It makes for a clash of tone and content that's sometimes effective and sometimes just plain weird. But really, the most disturbing thing is the feel of the Slithegee-Takeover-Timeline scenario. So: points of experimenting with the format and exploring the possibilities of time travel/fallout from altering history tropes in a very creative way, but I don't think I could bring myself to listen to it again.
selenak: (Claudius by Pixelbee)
Wherein Our Antihero finally reaches the White House, but as Vice President, is profoundly depressed by the experience and then experiences a classic reversal of fortune. I'm not just kidding or making Bryan Cranston jokes when I say the whole thing reminds me of Breaking Bad, season 4, because Walt there does spoilery stuff. ) Now Robert A. Caro emphasizes not once but twice that in all his decades of research he has found nothing to suggest Johnson had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination, but otherwise there are certainly parallels.

The Passage of Power starts with the presidential campaign leading up to 1960, in which Johnson entered almost absurdly late, given that this was his life long goal. Caro suggests two main reasons for this: firstly, precisely because this was the life long goal and this was the hour; some last minute insecurity. Secondly, good old hubris; Johnson thought he had it locked, because as majority leader in the Senate, he controlled many of the worthies of the Democratic Party, and the competition were Stevenson, who'd lost two campaigns already, Stymington, whom nobody knew on a national level, and Kennedy, whom Johnson saw as a lightweight, in office only via his father's money, with no track record of his own. So there was no need to go through all the gruelling primaries. Caro then argues that Johnson, rare in his political life, made several miscaculations at once: for starters, he underestimated that the election process was changing, and the influence the new medium television had (whereas Kennedy was one of the first politicians who really understood what you could do with tv). And secondly, he seriously underestimated John F. Kennedy. Given that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, are in a way the antagonists in this book, as well as two of the most important "new" characters, I'm all the more impressed that Caro manages to maintain his top quality fo three dimensional characterisation with them. JFK's image has varied between dead hero and no good playboy in the tons of volumes written in the decades after his death; here in Caro's book, he comes across as more than just a pretty face and Sorensen-written inspiring words; Caro points out that all those illnesses, especially Addinson's disease, which the Kennedys were so keen to hide because they conflicted with the healthy athletic image appealing to the voters, actually made a positive point about the level of willpower Kennedy had, since he hardly spent any day in his life without physical pain and yet never complained about it. And of course he was very good at thinking on his feet and making unscripted quick retorts, which was a great advantage when campaigning. If "The Path to Power" gave an extended history on the Hill Country of Texas and "Master of the Senate" on the US Senate from the Founding Fathers onwards, the extended flashbacks in Passage of Power are first on JFK and then, later, on Bobby Kennedy.

The whole Kennedy saga is of course even in my part of the world pretty familiar in the outlines, but not from LBJ's point of view. What Johnson thought the Vice Presidency, once he'd lost the nomination itself and Kennedy had made his offer, would be be like if Kennedy won was essentially what Dick Cheney got with George W. Bush: Johnson, als the older and experienced politician with all the connections, would virtually co-rule and dominate, since the younger man was there courtesy of Dad's money anyway, and not because he could actually do stuff. He was very quickly disillusioned, and not just by the Kennedys; the first time when he visited his old domain, the senate, which as Vice President he had to anyway, according to the eye witness descriptions Caro quotes he intended to basically continue as majority leader (making his actual successor are mere prop), which was met by indignation from the senators who'd previously bowed to him. When he visited the cloakroom where he'd made many deals, he was ignored. This turned out to be tone setting for the next three years. Vice President sounds like a frustrating office in any case, but Caro points out that Johnson saw more of Roosevelt - in terms of actual meetings and shared personal time, not in terms of Roosevelt having general meetings with Congress delegations - when he, LBJ, was a young Congressman in his 20s than he did of Kennedy during Kennedy's entire time in office when he was Kennedy's VP. He'd gone from one of the most powerful men in Washington to a joke figure with no influence on anyone, and soon everyone knew it. There is one episode Caro singles out that illustrates this crystal clear: when Sarah T. Hughes, a sixty-four-year-old lawyer and longtime Johnson ally was suggested by LBJ in early 1961 for a Federal District Court judgeship, the reply from the Justice Department (headed, of course, by Robert Kennedy) was that she was too old, since they were trying to get younger judges on the federal bench. Quoth Caro:

In turning her down, however, the Kennedys had been unaware of a salient fact: Ms. Hughes was an ally not only of Lyndon Johnson but of Sam Rayburn. (...)(A)after several months Robert Kennedy realized that a bill important to him, one that he had expected to make its way smoothly through the House Judiciary Committee, was in fact making no progress at all. He asked Rayburn for an explanation - and got it. "That Bill of yours will pass when Sarah Hughes gets appointed," the Speaker said. Bobby explained that she had been ruled too old for the job. "Sonny, everybody seems old to you," Rayburn replied. Ms. Hughes' appointment was announced the next day. Rayburn's remark - and Hughes' appointment - had occured while Johnson was on an overseas trip for the President. When he returned, O'Donnell sas, "You never saw such an outrage. He went through an act which is beyond belief with the President and me. 'Mr. President, you realize where this leaves me? Sarah Hughes now thinks I'm nothing.' (...) The outrage was understandable. In the Evans and Novak summary, "The Speaker had demonstrated that he possessed enough power to make the Attorney General waive the age requirement" - and that Johnson didn't.

Being thought of as nothing, as the preceding volumes demonstrated, was just about the worst thing that could happen to LBJ. Flash forward to November 22nd, 1963: Johnson automatically became President the moment JFK died, so there was no real need for him to be sworn in, let alone be sworn in in Dallas, other than the symbolic one. However, not only did he insist on the ceremony taking place in Dallas, he also requested a specific judge: Sarah Hughes. (Who, I hear, to this day is the only female judge to swear in a President.)

Caro does make you feel sorry for Johnson through the almost three years of humiliation and powerlessness, but he never lets you forget Johnson himself had been an expert in humiliating people (and would be again). He also doesn't fall into the easy trap of playing to stereotypes in oder to win sympathy for his subject (those rich kids and poor Lyndon from the Hill Country): Robert Kennedy's darker side - the ruthlessness, the ability to hate on a match with Johnson's - Caro calls theirs the biggest blood feud in American 20th century politics - gets described, but so do his better qualities (the ability to question his own judgment, instinctive sympathy for underdogs (and actions following up on this). As someone who has read a great deal of biographies in her time: it's a rare thing if a biographer bothers to do that with people who aren't their main subject.

And then, of course, we get to Dallas. Caro builds this up like a thriller, making a good case that Johnson might not have been on the 1964 ticket and in any case had a financial scandal hanging over him through his protegé Bobby Baker, so he likely was at his most depressed and hopeless. And then, everything changes. From the moment Kenny O'Donnell tells him at the hospital that Kennedy is dead, Johnson-the-depressed-VP is gone and Johnson-the-Master-Politician has returned, taking charge, organizing the transition, and then, once back in Washington, getting bills languishing for now leven months through the house with breathtaking speed. He had very practical reasons for this: 1964 was an election year, and because of his powerlessness in the preceding years, his time as Master of the Senate had already been forgotten by the public in as much as they knew about it in the first place. If he wanted to do more than serving out the rest of JFK's term, he needed to impress, and to impress fast. And impress he did. (This included the African-American leaders of the five key civil rights organizations, with whom Johnson promptly had a strategy coordinating meeting; quoth Martin Luther King, "LBJ is a man of great ego and great power. He is a pragmatist and a man of pragmatic compassion. It just may be that he's going to go where John Kennedy couldn't.") The description of Johnson doing his cajoling, intimidating and bargaining and the bills being passed through during his first seven weeks in office make the last part of the book exhilarating to read, but Caro also foreshadows, inevitably, Vietnam, a subject his next book will deal with. He ends this volume at what he suggests may have been Johnson's finest hour: turning a tragedy which would have been the trigger of a terrible national and international crisis (especially if anyone had openly accused the Russians or the Cubans of having plotted Kennedy's death) into the beginning of a series of direly needed reforms, managing to work with people who'd openly ridiculed and despised him (for now; everyone was aware that should Johnson win an election in his own right, things might get different very quickly) instead of giving into the urge for vengeance (except for one case, and even with RFK, he limited himself to one thing), and using all his experience for the best.

Vietnam isn't the only thing he foreshadows. As in his introduction to his first volume on Johnson, Caro argues that while Nixon did much of the damage on how an US President was perceived in his country, the loss of the automatic reverence and respect for the office started under Johnson. Caro seems to regard the loss of "the respect and reference for the institution" as a tragedy, which I'm not sure I concurr with, not to mention that when I visited the US for the first time at age 14 as part of a student exchange programm, it was the year of Reagan's reelection, and the Reagon adoration in my host family and their friends was as uncritical as they come. Which bewildered me. Anyway, I should think it's good if a head of state isn't automatically revered because he's the head of state, if he - or she! - has to earn that respect first. Be that as it may: this multivolume biography is incredibly compelling, and I can only hope Mr. Caro survives to complete the last part, seeing as he's 76 already. In his books, he describes Johnson's habit of absorbing the people who worked for him; I wonder whether he ever feels this happened to him, too?
selenak: (Breaking Bad by Wicked Signs)
Because my local library has both I - "The Path to Power" - and III - "Master of the Senate", but not II - "Means of Ascent". Nonetheless, after finishing "The Path to Power" I could not wait and went straight to the Senate years. Caro's LBJ saga has that effect. Having just finished the third volume, I look at today's New York Times, and lo and behold, another article asking essentially why Obama can't be more like Lyndon B. Johnson. Quoth the NYT:

For better or worse, Johnson represented the high-water mark for American presidents pushing through sweeping legislation — not just the Civil Rights Act, but the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the Fair Housing Act and major measures on immigration, education, gun control and clean air and water. No president since has approached that level of legislative success (...).Still, few things irritate Mr. Obama and his team more than the comparison to Johnson, which they consider facile and unfair. The notion that Mr. Obama should exert more energy in cajoling, bargaining and even pressuring lawmakers is a common assessment on both sides of the aisle, but it remains unpersuasive in the Oval Office, despite Johnson’s successes.

Having read the two volumes indicated above, I can see both the critics' and Obama's pov. Leaving aside the difficulty of comparing very different eras in general, the LBJ method to gain power contains just about every unsavoury trait politicians were ever accused of, from the moment he invents campus politicis in San Marco, Texas, onwards. (Something he himself later proudly refered to as a "Hitlerian operation".) Sycophantic flattery for authority figures, bullying, blackmailing, shaming, breaking of people NOT in authority, ruthlessly cutting off allies and friends the moment they stop being useful, you name it, he did it. And that's before we get to the non-political vices like frequent cheating on his wife (once with the mistress and later wife of a best friend, thereby managing to cheat on two people at once), and constant verbal humiliation of said wife in public while she was steadfastly devoted and adoring. But, on the other hand: in between being appalled at LBJ, horrible human being, it's impossible not to be awfully impressed by LBJ, Ultimate Answer To Political Competence Kink, especially when it just so happens his interests and the public interests coincide. This starts when he's a 21 years old secretary for a Congressman in the midst of the Big Depression, with Hoover still President and thus nearly no government help for the poor available, except for young Lyndon getting support for WWI veterans anyway, kicks into high gear during the Roosevelt years when he's a Congressman getting electricity for the poorest regions in Texas and leaves one slackjawed when he's minority leader in the Senate and manages to look the just victorious Republicans who via Eisenhower conquered the White House and Congress look divided and unpatriotically backstabbing their own President, then, after the Democrats are the majority again and Johnson is hence majority leader, managing to get the first Civil Rights Bill since 83 years through the Senate without losing his Southern support and without anyone filibustering. In between, of course, he uses that competence to feed noble idealists like Leland Olds to his fnancial backers in Texas by destroying the man completely via using the anti Communist hysteria, wins the goold old boys network by being racist with them, and frames a dear mentor and fatherly friend as a traitor in order to become Roosevelt's point man in Texas instead. In sort, the ultimate Slytherin, though the people Caro interviewed, not having had the chance to read Harry Potter yet make a Dickens comparison (Uriah Heep, if, you know, Dickens had let Uriah win and also be socially popular with a great many people once he's past university; Caro presents ample quotes about how Johnson, when not bullying or flattering, would charm people and be a terrific raconteur).

(But leaving this larger-than-life-Slytherinness aside: One of the things that made Johnson the ultimate poltiical insider, who knew exactly where all the bodies were buried and where to apply pressure points, what inducements to offer and what trades, was that he worked his way up on the political ladder and that of course goes straight against the "I'm a noble outsider coming to clean up Washington" image and narrative which every recent presidential candidate from both parties tried to sell. So given Obama was a senator only a brief time, I don't see how he could apply the (in)famous Johnsonian "Treatment" to unwilling Senators to the same degree if he wanted to.) (Doesn't mean he couldn't try a modified version, of course.)

As I mentioned in another entry, Caro is great with providing context. So in Volume I, you get first a lengthy description of the Hill Country in Texas, its history and its people, before baby Lyndon on page 66 of the paperback edition makes his appearance. And in Volume III, you get a history of the US Senate from the Founding Fathers onwards until page 105 before Our Antihero enters it. Said history, btw, made clear to this non-American that the current situation where nothing ever seems to get done isn't an anamoly due to the Republicans vowing to say no to each and every Obama-suggested bill, but the rule, whereas the situation during Johnson's years in the Senate where he shorted the time during which bills were discussed from an avarage of nine days before his time to sometimes not even a day and got those he wanted to get passed passed was the anomaly. All of which reads very suspenseful, whether it's Johnson's grandmother the frontierwoman hiding from Comanches with her baby's diaper pressed agains the baby's mouth to keep it silent or the Senate putting a reality check on General MacArthur in the Truman years. Something that makes the reader trust Caro as a biographer is that he presents quotes and sources when talking about that most tricky of elements in a non-fiction book, thoughts and emotions, instead of just stating without explanation that Johnson thought this or felt that. Occasionally he frames it as a rethorical question (a la "Did he feel that....?"), but he then does provide a witness for said assumption. When his narrative directly contrasts with a Johnson statement about his own life, he explains in detail and again with quotes why he disagrees. (For example: apparantly pre Caro all the Johnson biographies described him as popular at college. When first encountering a classmate who offered a negative description of college era Lyndan instead, Caro wrote it off as jealousy due to Johnson's later success, but then found not only a lot of other corroborating witnesses but also the yearbooks with their extremely unflattering descriptions.) He also devotes equal narrative space to Johnson wielding power in a destructive way (poor Leland Olds) to Johnson being a legislative mastermind, and keeps the supporting cast, so to speak, three dimensional as well: thus Richard Russell is a terrible for civil rights not least because with his dignified demeanour, he offers a seemingly benign facade to what is actually a horrifying set of racist beliefs (not to mention a brutal track record as governor of Georgia before the Senate), making them palpable to other Senators; but also a principled believer in the constitution and willing to take risks for it, as during the MacArthur episode. Lady Bird Johnson at times comes across as a second Faithful Griselda as a wife, taking just about any humiliation with a patient smile, but also is steely enough to be able to manage her husband's office at Congress when LBJ was doing his WWII military service. There are vivid characters like Helen Douglas, the liberal congresswoman Johnson had a longer affair with who'd end up unseated by Richard Nixon, or Sam Rayburn (that would be the fatherly congress mentor whom Johnson once framed in order to get in with Roosevelt but whom he managed to win back regardless, and whom he routinely greeted with a kiss and "Mr. Sam, my beloved".) Very importantly: Caro gets into detail about just how dreadful the situation for people of color was in the US and about the black civil rights movement, without which Johnson would never have had an incentive to change his tune, so any white saviour trope is avoided.

Considering that at the very start of the first volume that his goal with this was to describe just why it came to be that the Johnson presidency offered both the Great Society - all those marvellous laws that cemented Johnson's standing as, as the late Ted Kennedy, by no means an unconditional admirer, put it, the last progressive President and the greatest after Roosevelt - and the Vietnam War, with Johnson leaving the White House to the chants of "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?", I get the impression that his main argument is Johnson's personality for both. The irony that Johnson, liberal user of the N-Word, whose first speech as a Senator starts with "We of the South" and reassures all the Dixiecrats he's completely on their side, ends up doing more for Black civil rights than any US President other than Lincoln, is possible because his racism isn't a matter of principle and deep conviction, so to speak, but of ruthless expediency, which meant he could shed it when it was no longer expedient for becoming President. But a personality - "unencumbered by philosophy or ideology" - also has no principles to restrain itself from an expanding war in order not to look weak.

Though this is speculation on my part; Caro hasn't reached the Vietnam War yet, and I haven't reached Johnson's Vice Presidential years, which are covered in the most recently published volume which I'll read next. While regretting ever more I'm unable to watch Bryan Cranston play Johnson on the stage. If ever an actor was made for such a part...
selenak: (VanGogh - Lefaym)
On a somewhat more cheerful note, I managed to get my Rarewoman ficathon story done, which meant a return to an old fandom I haven't been writing in for eons, and that proved to be joyful and relaxing. Thus fortified, I started Robert Cara's multivolume The Years of Lyndon Johnson biographies reccomended to me several times over, and so far, Robert Caro strkes me as the best type of biographer: one who sets his subject in the context of the era said subject is living in, and one who while unafraid to show his subject's (massive) dark side also describes, in great detail, amazing achievements. So you get, for example, young LBJ the college election stealing sinister breaker of people, blackmailer and sadist described in detail by former fellow students, while simultanously getting young LBJ the inspiring teacher who (because he had to finance being at college to begin with, took teaching jobs in between terms) teaches Mexican-American kids to speak English and is still remembered with fondness and awe.

I'm also going to watch Cap II again in a few hours, because I was that much entranced by the movie. It feels odd, though, when going through other people's reviews and realise, not for the first time, that 99% of them contain a good deal of capslocking and "feels" (still dislike that word; am a proponent of "feelings" all the way) about Person In The Title, which wasn't what made the movie for me at all. I mean, I'm sorry for SPOILER, given what happened to him, but it's the vague kind of general sympathy that comes with the awful situation of someone whom, as a person in general, you don't have feelings about one way or the other. I seem to be that way with all the Sebastian Stan characters, be they Jefferson in Once Upon A Time, Jack in Kings, or TJ Hammond in Political Animals. As most of the fannish output in the various fandoms tends to be centered around Stan's characters, this puts me always in something of a looking for needles in haystacks position when trying to find fanfic that's not about any of them. One day he and Tom Hiddleston will be in the same film/show, and then there will be nothing for me at all in terms of fic dealing with everyone else whom I'll invariably be more interested in.
selenak: (Breaking Bad by Wicked Signs)
This morning there was an interview with Bryan Cranston in the NY Times, about playing Lyndon B. Johnson in All The Way. It's a good interview, and I knew this was his upcoming project, but somehow I'd missed out on the fact this was a theatre play, not a movie or tv miniseries. Which is great for theatre goes in New York but sad for transatlantic me, who thus won't get to watch Cranston in said role. And I'd love to: Cranston bringing out all the ambiguities, the flaws and virtues of Johnson surely will be awesome to behold.

The other reason why I'd have been looking forward to watching the film or tv product this isn't: it wouldn't, couldn't fall into the two categories American dramas seem to when featuring a President in a prominent role: if Nixon, then a tragic villain, if Lincoln, then a noble saint. Johnson's reputation has had its ups and downs, but seems to have settled for "Great Society Awesome, Vietnam Bad" as far as his presidency is concerned, and "Most efficient Senator and Democratic Leader in the Senate Ever/Totally Not Above Stealing If He Needed To" for the decades before that. I remember Ted Kennedy in his memoirs calling him the best American President post-Roosevelt, but even his enemies seem to agree that Johnson, for good or ill, got things done. The Cranston article summarizes: But in 2014, the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty, with anniversaries of two other Great Society triumphs, the Voting Rights Act and Medicare, a year away, Johnson endures as something far more interesting and even inspiring: the last and perhaps greatest of all legislative presidents, with his wizardly grip on the levers of governance at a time when it was still possible for deals to be brokered and favors swapped and for combatants to clash in an atmosphere of respect, if not smiling concord. And before that: The story of a ruthless president who got things done — without blinking at the costs and compromises — reminds us that partisan gridlock doesn’t have to be a permanent condition.


There is a pointed if unspoken comparison here to the current President. In all the non-Republican criticisms of Obama (and non-foreign: in my part of the world, he and the entire US government are currently under fire for something else altogether), the constant red thread seems to be that he's too aloof and hands-off to mingle with anyone in Washington outside his inner circle; that something like "the Johnson Treatment" (which, Wikipedia tells me, was the nickname for Johnson's tried and true method of cajoling, intimidating, flattering and terrorizing - whatever worked - Congressmen and Senators alike) would be unthinkable. (Ditto for Clinton-style arm-pressing and socializing.) To which the defense in the recent New Yorker profile of Obama was that in the current climate, with the Republicans so dead set to object to anything from the government, it wouldn't be of use anyway. Which is probably true, but it strikes me that one reason why types like Johnson wouldn't even make it to the presidency these days (except the way LBJ did, i.e. as Vice President taking over from a suddenly dying incumbent) is that both Republican and Democrat candidates harp on presenting themselves as outsiders to the Washington scene. No matter how accurate or not, every candidate spins it like he/she is the noble saviour from outside, untainted by poisonous inside politics and corruption, and voters reward that. That the result isn't change but even more obstruction and inertia isn't really surprising, if you think about it.

Now, the recent Lincoln did show some political manoeuvring and cajoling and showed Lincoln as savvy in addition to being noble, but it still couldn't resist te occasional half profile shot where you expect him to have a halo because of the way he's lighted, and also, being the President who ended slavery and was assassinated means you don't have to convince the majority of the audience he was a good guy. Johnson, otoh, has the Vietnam albatros around his neck, and that's before you get into conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination or more reliable tales about his intimidation tactics which make him sound like the Gene Hunt of Presidents. (Phlipp Glennister for Johnson if the play is a success and comes to London?) And then, it's impossible to end his story on a triumphant note for anyone: he leaves office, Vietnman gets even worse, America gets Nixon, and the days of major liberal laws being passed and being put into practice, are over for the next few decades. In conclusion and back to the beginning, I'm really curious about this play, and endlessly frustrated I won't get to see it.
selenak: (Alex (Being Human)  - Arctic Flower)
I'm currently at a conference in Marburg, which is a lovely medieval town that is known for, in no particular order, harboring a saint (Elizabeth), an inquisitor (Konrad) and the Brothers Grimm. (When they were studying, for two years. Jakob had a few sharp words about the place, but then he did about most things, and the house is exactly the type of timbery old house you expect the Grimms to have lived in.) Alas, the internet at my hotel is very wavery and throws me out every time I attempt to upload photos, so none of that until I'm back in Munich. (Also no tv, for obvious reasons.)

However, link time. Iron Man 3 yesterday brought to mind Being Human's hilarious set of webisodes set between episodes from its last season, as Alex declares her intentions towards Robert Downey Junior in this one. (My favourite tiny detail is that Tom has seen Iron Man and Hal has not, as opposed to the other way around. Also, as I recall, one of the BH writers in a post show interview told the story about how Alex fulfilled her RDJ dream, which they couldn't film for "budget reasons". (Read: RDJ too expensive. :)

The benefit of now being able to read Twitters: finding out about Bryan Cranston's next role will be now that Breaking Bad has wrapped up filming (though we fans will have to wait until August for the episodes, sigh). He's signed on to play Lyndon Johnson in a film called All the Way re: fatal decisions regarding Vietnam. Which I'm looking forward to see. LBJ with his contradictions (civil rights reforms and Great Society on the one hand, Vietnam on the other, the political professionalism and the crudity) is a great character for Cranston to play.

Here, someone lists their reasons why Darla is the best vampire in the Buffyverse. Some of which I'd even agree with (which usually doesn't happen when the internet makes lists about my favourite characters).

And lastly, the British trailer for the Whedonian Much Ado offers more details than the American one and makes me wonder more fervently than ever when we'll get to see the film in Germany.

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  1234 5
67 89101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 9th, 2025 09:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios