Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Stiller Time

For a third week, Night at the Museum tops the charts.

In Theory

Today, the notion of hip-hop music as an art form is considered absurd, but one must keep in mind that this wasn't always the case. In fact, a little over a decade and a half ago, one hip-hop album in particular garnered attention and acclaim for its fierce innovation, lyrical creativity, and good old-fashioned excellence.

The Low End Theory was the second album from the New York-based group A Tribe Called Quest, whose debut, 1990's People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm, joined the 1989 De La Soul CD 3 Feet High and Rising as welcome departures from the gangsta posturing, unrelenting misogyny, and anti-police militancy that defined hip-hop at the time. With Theory, Tribe not only fulfilled the promise suggested by Rhythm, they also set a standard that was apparently too high for most of their successors in hip-hop to live up to.

Quest members Q-Tip, Phife Dawg and Ali Shaheed Muhammad exhibit virtuosity on every track, from the dreamlike "Excursions" and the acerbic "Butter" (a hilarious condemnation of extreme female vanity) to the bleak urban-poverty chronicle "Everything Is Fair" and the bitter music-industry analysis "Show Business." The witty, sometimes mind-bending lyrics are complemented by sleek jazz notes; "Versus from the Abstract" features an outstanding contribution from the legendary Ron Carter.

Listening to Theory is equivalent to watching a film with a flawless script, world-class performances and impeccable direction. The CD works on every emotional level: the sheer joy of "Vibes and Stuff" and "Jazz (We've Got)," the paranoia of "Fair" and "The Infamous Date Rape," the high hilarity of "What?" and "Rap Promoter." There is not an ounce of fat on the album; Theory reveals Quest as a group that has succeeded in its endeavor for excellence.

The Low End Theory was a landmark achievement for hip-hop, and it's regrettable that thug-rap outpaced it in terms of pop-culture influence. Quest managed to follow Theory with the equally excellent Midnight Marauders, and a handful of artists (most notably Digable Planets in their 1993 debut, Reachin': A New Refutation of Time and Space) attempted to match Theory's greatness, but by the late-1990s, thug-rap had become irreversibly dominant, and the so-called "jazz rap" phenomenon defined by Theory had been dismissed as a fad.

Perhaps if Theory had become the template for American hip-hop, the genre's reputation wouldn't be nearly as negative as it is now. The Tribe went on a Quest for quality, and achieved their goal in grand style. What would hip-hop be like today if more artists had decided to follow in their footsteps?

Kicking A Man When He's Down

Can't they let the late US Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist rest in peace?

The Last Temptation

Will 2008 be the year that Christianity goes secular?

Although similar claims have been made about the 2000 and 2004 elections, the next Presidential election will unquestionably be one of the most consequential in United States history. A significant factor in this election will be the left's effort to finally achieve a goal it has pursued for decades: convincing a majority of Americans that liberal "social justice" and traditional Christianity are one and the same.

For years, the left has pushed the notion that a permanent welfare state, social "nonjudgmentalism," environmental eccentricity, staunch pacifism, and wealth redistribution are virtues consistent with the teachings of Jesus. On the surface, the left-wing endeavor to associate salvation with "social justice" has been a disaster. However, a closer look reveals that the left has, unfortunately, had some traction in this effort.

Despite vigorous and virtuous attempts on the part of the Republican Party to reach out to African-Americans of faith, the black church, sadly, remains a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party; the left has propagandized far too many Christians of color into believing that the GOP is inimical to their interests. The left has also made inroads into the American Catholic Church, convincing scores of believers that the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life and marriage are invalid and obsolete.

Having seized political control of large numbers of church-going African-Americans as well as a significant share of the American Catholic population, the left will now wage a propaganda offensive focused on the evangelical voters who supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004. These voters were outraged by the moral vacuity of the Clinton Administration, and refused to support Al Gore, who famously declared that Clinton would be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all-time right after he was impeached in December 1998. However, now that six years have passed since Clinton left office, the left is anticipating that Clinton's moral faults are no longer prominent in the American consciousness, thus giving "progressives" an opportunity to emphasize the alleged moral failings of Bush.

The left will seize upon the difficulties in Iraq and in post-Katrina New Orleans, presenting these controversies as "proof" that the GOP is a party that has abandoned Christian principles. They will slander the party as an institution of iniquity, accusing the GOP of tending to the wealthy's needs and ignoring "the least of these," blasting the party for supposedly investing in wars instead of the poor. They will declare that Jesus wouldn't stand for "two Americas," wouldn't ignore the "cries" of the "polluted" earth, wouldn't give "tax cuts to the rich"--and, of course, wouldn't have led us into an "unjust" war.

Will it work? Don't assume it can't, not with the Democrats running Congress once again, not with the relentless media glorification of left-wing Christian Barack Obama (to say nothing of the positive coverage given to Christian celebrities with politically correct views), not with an electorate seemingly uneasy about our chances for victory in Iraq. Republicans must be on guard heading into '08: the left's propaganda channels will relentlessly promote the idea that Jesus is an antiwar progressive, and that "authentic" Christians cannot vote for the GOP. Old-school Democrat propaganda put Bill Clinton into office fifteen years ago. The GOP must fight to ensure that new-school Democrat propaganda--i.e., demagoguery with a "religious" imprimatur--doesn't affect the outcome of next year's election.

UPDATE: Bill O'Reilly on the culture-politics complex.

The Gold Standard

March 24 will mark the fifth anniversary of one of the more memorable events in recent American pop-culture history: the twin Oscar wins of Denzel Washington and Halle Berry for their respective performances in Training Day and Monster's Ball.

Both Washington and Berry deserved their wins--although I had actually predicted that they would both lose! I assumed that Sissy Spacek would win Best Actress for her performance in In The Bedroom, and that Russell Crowe would win a second Best Actor Oscar for his work in A Beautiful Mind. I reasoned that Spacek was a lock because her film was released by Miramax (remember, this was during an era in which performances in Miramax films almost always won Oscars, usually as a result of relentless promotion by then-Miramax chairman Harvey Weinstein), and that Crowe would score a back-to-back triumph because of rumors that Washington was intensely disliked in Hollywood.

Berry's acceptance speech was quite controversial at the time; her decision to emphasize her status as the first African-American Best Actress Oscar winner, and her declaration that such a victory would lead to increased opportunities for women of color in Hollywood, provoked reactions that largely split along racial lines. (I thought Berry was quite misguided to assert that black actresses as a whole would benefit from her win; only her career would be helped by her victory.)

Washington's acceptance speech was also controversial, not because of anything he said but because of the actions of Julia Roberts, who announced his victory and then proceeded to act as though she had co-won the Oscar. While Roberts did advocate on Washington's behalf in the weeks prior to his win--she famously stated that she could not fathom living in a world in which she had a Best Actress Oscar and Washington didn't have a Best Actor statue--she effectively denied Washington his time in the spotlight. Roberts' enthusiasm for Washington's achievement was understandable, but her obnoxiousness was not.

Washington is still a box-office powerhouse, while Berry has survived failures such as Catwoman. They were top-notch talents prior to their victories, and remain so today. Hollywood has more than its fair share of people known for their vanity and insanity, but at least there was one night in which the Best Actor and Best Actress statues went to performers whose class wasn't an act.

Freedom Of Speech

Former Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran could become a talk show host sooner than we expected... More from Dan Kennedy and the Boston Herald.

UPDATE: More from the Boston Herald, Boston Globe and Bryan Maloney.

SECOND UPDATE: Still more from Bryan Maloney.

"I Always Feel Like...Somebody's Watching Me!"

Keeping an eye on the new governor of Massachusetts.

UPDATE: Don't forget to make the excellent blog Cape Cod Living "appointment reading" as well.

No Love Lost

Drama for Barack Obama? More from the Washington Post.

UPDATE: Barack speaks!

Presidential Letters

President Bush on the new Democrat Congress. 

THIEVES IN THE TEMPLE

Boston's black clergy disgrace themselves by embracing the profoundly secular Massachusetts Governor-elect, Deval Patrick. More from the Boston Globe.

In Poor Taste

In July 1999, American Pie shocked Hollywood by knocking off Will Smith's Wild Wild West to become the top film at the box office. The sex comedy about four teenagers who are determined to lose their virginity before they graduate high school became one of the summer's surprise hits.

American Pie was a memorable film largely because of the performances of the female stars--Mena Suvari, Shannon Elizabeth, Alyson Hannigan, Tara Reid and Natasha Lyonne. The actresses brought a depth and warmth to Pie that made the film stand out from other movies of its genre.

I wasn't interested in seeing Pie when it first came out, but on a friend's recommendation I went to see the film in August 1999. I came away impressed by the actresses' charisma and talent, and was convinced that these performers would dominate Hollywood in the 2000s.

Sadly, that hasn't turned out to be the case. In fact, it's fair to say that the five female stars of Pie have failed to live up to their tremendous potential. Suvari, who followed up her performance in the film with a standout turn as the object of Kevin Spacey's desire in American Beauty, wound up appearing in such bombs as Loser, Sugar and Spice and Beauty Shop. Elizabeth ended up in such unwatchable garbage as Tomcats. Lyonne had a critically acclaimed turn as a sexually confused teenager in 2000's But I'm A Cheerleader, but since then has become "famous" for her offscreen behavior. Hannigan, arguably the film's most charismatic performer, is still a fairly prominent name, but has yet to reach Reese Witherspoon-style megastardom.

Then there is truly unfortunate case of Reid, an underrated talent who has never received her just due. Reid is one hell of an actress; after Pie, she delivered a galvanizing turn as a date-rape victim in 1999's Body Shots, and was the best thing about Robert Altman's otherwise forgettable 2000 film Dr. T and the Women. Since then, however, her career has been damaged by such bombs as My Boss' Daughter and Josie & the Pussycats, not to mention her own brushes with tabloid infamy.

I'm not sure why these actresses never gained the "main-event" status merited by their talent. Perhaps if the film had been made a few years later, they would have achieved the legitimate "star" status enjoyed by the likes of Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley. The female stars of Pie were all engaging performers, and it's regrettable that their careers ended up more sour than sweet.

The Wedding Planner

Is the state of Massachusetts one step closer to banning gay marriage? More from the Boston Herald, Hub Politics, Jon Keller and Dom Bettinelli.

UPDATE: More from the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, New York Times, the Washington Times and Scott Allen Miller.

The Death Of Journalism

The New York Times kills a tree to tell us something we already know: most pop musicians are liberals.

Black and White Movies

Isn't it amazing what happened to all the old movie theatres in Boston?

Think about it. The Pi Alley theatre downtown closed its doors in August 1987, and is now a restaurant. The Beacon Hill theatre, located just a few blocks from Boston City Hall, ceased operations in November 1992 and became a Copy Cop; it's now unused space. The Paris cinema, famous for being the place where all of Woody Allen's movies opened, was shuttered in February 1993 and is now a Walgreens.

The Charles cinema, located next to Massachusetts General Hospital and quite popular in the 1970s and 1980s (such films as Jaws, the first three Star Wars films, and E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial began their Boston engagements there) closed its doors in October 1994. Just a year and a half later, the Cinema 57 (also a fairly popular theater at one point, as it frequently featured Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris films) went out of business.

In February 2001, the Nickelodeon theatre, long a favorite of Boston University students, became a memory (the building itself was torn down two years later). In November 2001, the Cheri theater, which had become the city's most popular theatre in the wake of the Charles' demise, shut down; business had dropped off substantially after a new, thirteen-screen theatre opened near Fenway Park, and the opening of another large theatre near Boston Common (a theatre owned by the same company that owned the Cheri) doomed the older theatre's chances for survival.

In January 2005, the last of the city's "older" theatres, the Copley Place (which actually opened in February 1984), went out of business and is now a Barneys. The Fenway and Boston Common theatres are now the only two commercial theatres left in the central Boston area (another theatre, the Circle, is located a few blocks from Boston College).

It's interesting that despite Boston's notoriously troubled racial history, no one ever made a big fuss about an unusual occurrence that took place prior to the closing of most of these theatres. With the exception of the Paris, the Nickelodeon and the Copley Place, the theatres that eventually went out of business would suddenly start running blaxploitation-style films in the months leading up to their shutdowns. The Pi Alley, which usually ran comedies and horror films, out of nowhere shifted to running such films as Krush Groove. The Beacon Hill, which in the late-1970s and early-1980s was an "arthouse" theatre, began playing such films as Boyz N The Hood; in January 1992, a shooting took place during a nighttime screening of Juice. Similar "unconventional" programming choices occurred at the Charles, Cinema 57 and (to a lesser extent) the Cheri right before all three theatres went out of business.

It's hard to believe that these "odd developments" escaped the notice of the city's press corps. Didn't it strike anyone as odd that so many of these theatres would suddenly start running "urban" films just before the decision was made to put them out of business? This happened too many times to be an accident. Why didn't anyone in the press ask if this was some sort of "unofficial" policy--dumping "urban" films into certain theatres so as to make these theatres "undesirable" in the minds of certain Bostonians, thus making these theatres easier to shut down without much public protest?

I can't say for certain if these "unusual" programming choices were an example of Boston's racist past, but it does merit some investigation, does it not?

The Running Man

Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney moves closer to becoming an official Presidential candidate. More from the Boston Herald.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Times, New York Times, Boston Herald and Boston Globe.

No Longer Ready For Some Football

Denver Broncos star Darrent Williams passes away at 24. 

The Way Forward

This month marks the 21st anniversary of the first observance of the federal holiday honoring the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This day is usually marked by stories analyzing just how far society has advanced in terms of racial equality since Dr. King's 1968 murder, and just how far society still has to go before we fully achieve Dr. King's dream.

Since these stories are almost always filled with the usual liberal pessimism on race, I fully expect the press to miss the significance of two events that, in different ways, have moved society forward in terms of race relations--the election of Deval Patrick as Governor of Massachusetts, and the recent decision by Michigan voters to outlaw public-sector racial quotas.

Patrick's election destroyed the image of Massachusetts as a cesspool of Northern racism. For years, the state was defined by the 1970s busing controversy and such racial embarrassments as the 1989 Charles Stuart hoax. The Bay State was seen as a place where only whites could be comfortable; people of color who moved into the state were frequently warned that they would be walking into a hostile social climate.

With Patrick's election, the assertion that Massachusetts is a uniquely racist region has lost all credibility. While legitimate arguments can be made about Patrick's politics, it's hard to deny that his election is beneficial in the sense that it confirms the Commonwealth's evolution in terms of racial acceptance. For years, Massachusetts was injured by the perception that the state's white residents didn't like minorities. With Patrick's election, the state's reputation has been healed.

Healing of a different sort took place in Michigan last November, as voters overwhelmingly decided to reject the bigotry of racial preferences. Despite staunch opposition from left-wing special interests and supposedly "progressive” activists, the state's electorate decided that MLK was right to believe that people should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Michigan voters courageously followed the lead of their counterparts in California and Washington state, who decided (in 1996 and 1998, respectively) that discrimination for purposes of "diversity" was just as invidious as discrimination for purposes of hate.

Ward Connerly, the conservative civil rights activist who spearheaded the California, Washington state and Michigan anti-quota efforts, will likely never get the respect he deserves from the "progressive" press for working to make Dr. King's dream a political reality. The "progressive" press has a markedly different vision of civil rights, one that believes that racial preferences are "necessary tools" to construct social equality. Unfortunately for the media elite, it is Connerly who holds the moral high ground, for he correctly asserts that the only way American society will ultimately conquer racism is by treating each and every American as an individual, not as a member of a competing group.

Republicans in Massachusetts weren't thrilled by Patrick's victory, and Democrats in Michigan were surely outraged by the decision to quash quotas. However, let's look beyond partisan politics for a moment. Patrick's Bay State victory and the elimination of racial preferences in Michigan are significant steps in the advancement of American society toward the realization of Dr. King's goal.

Did he not stand for Americans being judged as individuals and not as members of groups? In Massachusetts, the electorate refused to reject Patrick because of the color of his skin, and in Michigan, the electorate decided to reject discrimination based on the color of one's skin. People can disagree with Patrick's liberalism or Connerly's conservatism, but it must be acknowledged that, for different reasons, their achievements moved America closer to the goal of racial harmony.

On April 4, 1968, it seemed impossible that America would ever come together. Even in January 1986, the idea that Dr. King's vision would ever be achieved seemed unfathomable. Yet, in the wake of the election results in Massachusetts and Michigan, it seems that true racial equality is indeed on the horizon, and that the hard work of Dr. King and so many others is finally beginning to pay off.

Heavy Is The Head That Wears The Crown

How will history judge Deval Patrick?

Much like his mentor Bill Clinton, the Massachusetts Governor-Elect is sure to keep one eye focused on history once he assumes the reigns of power. The man who famously said he wouldn't blow the election must now take pains not to blow his tenure as the state's chief executive.

Despite the current forecast, the State House will be sweltering once Patrick takes over. The progressives who backed him in early-2005 will demand complete ideological obedience. The independents who rejected Kerry Healey will insist that he live up to his promise of scorning politics as usual. The Republicans who warned of the dangers of one-party dominion will carefully examine his actions for evidence of Mike Dukakis-style arrogance.

Patrick will have to deal with Massachusetts reporters who gave him fairly positive coverage during the campaign but who will have to subject him to strict scrutiny in order to counteract charges that they're in his back pocket. The national press will also keep a close eye on him, due to the belief that he could influence the 2008 Presidential election.

Last, but certainly not least, Patrick will have to deal with the specter of race.

As has been pointed out incessantly, Patrick is only the second elected African-American governor in United States history. He assumes office during a time in which African-American Democrats do not have the greatest political reputation.

Thanks largely to the "legacy" of such figures as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Cynthia McKinney, African-American Democrats are now commonly perceived as bitter, ethically compromised, divisive figures who scream racism at the drop of the proverbial hat. Of course, there are exceptions to this political rule; Illinois Senator Barack Obama has become a celebrated figure in American politics in part because he is not perceived as an "old-school" African-American Democrat. However, the negative perception of African-American Democrats remains a liability for "progressives" of color who aspire to a future in politics.

Will Patrick be able to reshape the perception of African-American Democrats? Patrick's history of divisive statements and dubious accusations of racism would seem to indicate an ideological affinity with "old-school" political thinking. However, Patrick's closeness with Sen. Obama suggests that he sees the merits of the "new-school" approach.

One can argue that Patrick's election in and of itself indicates a rejection of the "old-school" Sharpton/Jackson/McKinney approach. However, in this case, winning is not enough. Patrick has to demonstrate true inclusiveness as governor; if he shows an extreme distaste for all things non-liberal during his tenure as the state's chief executive, he will lose the support of non-ideological independents (i,.e., those who voted for him because they had grievances with the "Romney/Healey administration") and thus ensure his defeat in November 2010.

Patrick can either set a new standard, or lower the current one. He can demonstrate that a Democrat can evaluate ideas without ideological prejudice--or he can be the left-wing automaton his most fervent supporters want him to be. He can be a true voice of independence--or he can bow down in subservience to the State Legislature. He can be a tolerant, open-minded leader--or he can be a scorn-filled, contemptuous ideologue.

History is watching Deval Patrick.

Will he stand up to the scrutiny?