From ABC:
Family vacation comedy ‘RV’ drove the box office this weekend, bringing in about $16.4 million to pass the acclaimed Sept. 11 drama ‘United 93,’ which debuted in second place.
‘United 93′ depicts the heroic passengers who tried to fight their hijackers on Sept. 11 before crashing in rural Pennsylvania. The film brought in about $11.6 million, according to box office estimates released today.
Last week you heard the cries of “It’s too soon!” and “America isn’t ready!” and yet, it turns out that we were. Numbers don’t lie. This weekend Americans went to box office and resoundingly declared that they were ready to see another tepid family comedy starring Robin Williams.
I for one am surprised. As a lot of critics have pointed out, it’s been almost a decade since Robin Williams last filmed a comedy. But when you consider what some of those films actually were - “Patch Adams,” “Flubber,” “Bicentennial Man,” “Fathers’ Day,” and “Jack” - well, this weekend’s result is very, very surprising.
I just didn’t think Americans were ready.
Also, many thought the movie would be too difficult for sensitive viewers to handle. After all, it takes an unflinching look at a very different time, though it was not so long ago. A time when the idea of filling a recreational vehicle with gasoline was a real option for the average American, and not something reserved for the very rich or very reckless. RVs average 7-10 miles per gallon, after all. Such an unflinching depiction of that pre-Iraq mentality was something I thought we wouldn’t be ready for until at least the end of the decade. I was wrong.
Further, the RV lifestyle is not without its grotesque complications, and the film refuses to blink in portraying what CNN calls “enough feces gags to make constipation sound like a viable lifestyle.” Many didn’t think our nation was ready to laugh at sewage so soon after Katrina. Many, it turns out, were wrong.

[Poo: What a concept!]
Finally, RV was lacking in any kind of conceptual safeguard against Robin Williams being… Robin Williams. One cannot stop Williams, but one can hope to contain him by constructing a story that provides an excuse for his “wacky” “improvisations” - a rationale, if you will, for why he’s rapid-firing ironic non-sequiturs in the faces of the other characters and in defiance of anything germane to the plot. So the audience could say, “Oh, I see why he’s suddenly talking like a crazy Arab/gay stereotype/John Wayne/ squeaky child; it’s because he is actually a robot/genie/ man-posing-as-a-mouthy-old-lady/ child-trapped-in-an-adult-body/ nutty professor! That explains it, kind of!”
“RV” offers no such Wiliamsproofing. In fact, it looks like the kind of role that we forgive Steve Martin for taking (again and again) because we know that he’s probably only one Lichtenstein away from completing a set. I don’t know that Williams has any such higher calling, and I doubt we’ll all someday be able to view his collection. [In fact, I doubt we’ll ever really want to know what that “collection” actually is….] If one was going to watch Robin Williams in “RV,” one was going to have to accept his hijinx without the comfortable buffer of a high-concept excuse for his behavior. We pundits didn’t think America could stomach that. Not yet.
We pundits, as I’ve pointed out, were way off base. We underestimated America’s strength, its resolve, and its recuperative powers. This weekend, Americans stood up and said “It’s not too soon. We are ready. Bring it on!” And with the kind of determination that made our nation great, they marched into the theaters and absorbed the repeated blows of 98 minutes of “RV.” And they emerged into the bright daylight stronger, unbowed, and somehow wiser. Defiantly, they walked out of those theaters, bloodied but smiling, looked right in the face of Hollywood and spat, “Is that all you’ve got? That was nothing.”
Take that, nay-sayers. Take that, pundits. America is bigger than that. America is strong. Particularly in the stomach area.





84 comments
Sharon
May 1, 2006 at 3:23 pm
1Isn’t this an uncredited remake of Lucy & Desi Arnaz’s “The Long Long Trailer”?
Stephen
May 1, 2006 at 3:24 pm
2I take it, then, that you were one who stood up and said you were ready? I admire your bravery. I don’t think I will ever be ready for that!
Some fears I guess I will never get over.
Sharon
May 1, 2006 at 3:43 pm
3And is the line “Let’s roll!” uttered by anyone in “RV”? I believe that’s been copyrighted or trademarked or patented now–possibly all three.
Mary
May 1, 2006 at 4:15 pm
4Wow! America is much stronger than I thought. I couldn’t watch an RV being gassed up with out yelling “Gashole!!” [I’ve got to stop doing that
]
dee
May 1, 2006 at 4:47 pm
5The first time I heard the premise of this movie I thought it was eerily similar to this. So eerily similar, if I were Albert Brooks I’d be calling a lawyer.
Eric
May 1, 2006 at 5:54 pm
6Well my wife and I went by Mega Plex Movie theater this weekend and I’ll tell you the best we could find was Ice Age II. We opted for shopping at Baby’s R Us.
If America can stomach $15 movie tickest, $10 for 8oz of carbonated carcinogenic copper cleaner and $20 for the 60 gallon barrel of popcorn, then does watching this movie say something about the taste in movies?
Need I say more?
Patty
May 1, 2006 at 6:08 pm
7OK, think about it: The ads are intended to make you want to see the movie, so they’re supposed to be using the funniest parts, right? The ads for this movie weren’t even mildly amusing, so what was enticing people to the theatre? A chance to be surrounded by a bunch of juveniles endlessly repeating the bathroom jokes? YEAH! I want to spend my hard earned money on that!!!
cooper
May 1, 2006 at 6:44 pm
8Well, I must say, I was not even remotely aware of a new Robin Williams movie on the horizon. I won’t be going to a theatre to see it. My strategy for viewing movies is to read the reviews in several papers and then months later, when a particularly well thought of movie comes out on DVD, I will rent it and watch it @ home. Otherwise, I find something else interesting to do. I know, I’m not being a good patriotic and God-Fearing American unless I spread my money around, but fuck it, I’ll just go to Hell.
On a cheerier thought, today is the 3rd Anniversary of W’s “Mission Accomplished” photo op on the aircraft carrier. Life isn’t fair, or his presidency would have been rolled up right there and then, and we could have gotten on with a new election. Balls, the unfairness of it all!
Sharon
May 1, 2006 at 6:55 pm
9I used to go to the movies devoutly … religiously even. I made fun of people who waited for the video and the rented it at Blockbuster. And now I are one. Except that, since I work in a library now, I don’t even rent them anymore.
I belonged to NetFlix for several months, and that was a pretty good deal. But once I became an established customer, the discs didn’t come [seemingly] overnight anymore.
cooper
May 1, 2006 at 8:06 pm
10Sharon, “since I work in a library now, I don’t even rent them anymore.” One of the many perks of that particularly cushy government job. Some people have all the luck.
Sharon
May 1, 2006 at 8:16 pm
11Indeed! But it’s a perk that anyone can take advantage of. All you need is a library card. I highly recommend it. It not only expresses your belief that the idea of “public” institutions (or public anything) is still an idea with value, it also stikes a blow for good old America thriftiness. (Not to be confused with “truthiness.”)
piglet
May 1, 2006 at 8:27 pm
12One of the things that I got with my psych degree (unfortunately, a job was not among those things) was the memory of some interesting experiments in operative conditioning. It seems that if you give a monkey a treat less and less often, he will stick to the original behavior that got him a reward like nobody’s business. This explains the lure of gambling AND going to bad movies - one day you are going to laugh like you did that one time during Young Frankenstein or Spinal Tap or maybe that one episode of Mork & Mindy (I don’t know). Even though you keep getting hurt, you will not give up because laughing feels so goooood and you want to laugh so baaaaad (at something besides a Bushism, which is more like weeping).
Ann
May 1, 2006 at 8:33 pm
13I will never be ready for this movie. Ever.
madbard
May 1, 2006 at 8:39 pm
14What to see…. a paean to gas guzzling vehicles or an homage to American resiliancy? (Which film is which is left as an exercise for the reader.)
David
May 1, 2006 at 9:01 pm
15Gonna put my eyes to good use and watch the amazing Stephen Colbert tonight.
deb
May 1, 2006 at 10:07 pm
16Yikes, dude. Way to miss the biggest comedy story of the millenium.
The jester looks the king right in the eye….and spits.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811
ginny
May 1, 2006 at 10:34 pm
17Heh, we were already talking about that in the openest of threads. But the transcript will be appreciated by those with slow connections!
Adam Felber
May 2, 2006 at 1:30 am
18Deb -
I promise you I didn’t miss it.
David
May 2, 2006 at 12:23 pm
19Adam beat me to the punch. I was going to say that there is no way in hell Adam missed Stephen Colbert’s Mark Twain/Ambrose Bierce/John dos Passos/Adam Felber/add your favorite American satirist moment.
Landis
May 2, 2006 at 1:16 pm
20I haven’t seen RV yet, but I’ll probably watch it on DVD when I’m in the mood for a silly movie. I don’t think anyone was EVER under the impression that this was anything but. It looks funny if you’re into that kind of humor and at times I certainly am.
I once went to a City Arts and Lectures featuring Steve Martin talking about ‘Funny Numbers’. He was being interviewed by a guy from the math department at Berkeley (Stanford?) because he had just written a book where the protagonist is obsessed with numbers (The Pleasure of my Company). It turns out that Robin Williams was in the audience and Mr. Martin called him up on stage. The two of them went back and forth for the rest of the night and the poor interviewer just watched with the rest of us. Mr. Williams may do potty humor with the best of them, but he can also do very intelligent humor too (Mobius Stripper was a favorite).
Flight 93? No thanks. Not only not yet, but not ever. Maybe some who were involved with the movie wanted to honor those who were killed, but I’m not interested in participating with anyone attempting to profit from those events. To me it’s like all the car dealerships that put old fire trucks with extended ladders and huge flags on thier front lot after 9/11 (they’re still there 5 years later trying to play with our sense of patriotism and sympathy). It’s so wrong I can’t even stand to look at it. I just flip them off every time I drive by.
Thanks for the link to Stephen Colbert’s performance. Painful to watch, but oh so good. It’s absolutely amazing how there’s no mention of it in any of the mainstream news sources. I’ll bet it gets more play in the coming week. It should.
Sharon
May 2, 2006 at 1:22 pm
21Landis,
From what I’ve read in the blogosphere, the MSM gave Colbert’s monologue one paragraph at most, possibly two, and downplayed it. On the other hand, W’s performance with his doppelganger got rave reviews in the MSM, but I haven’t found a clip of it on the Web yet. (It sounds pretty creepy, but I’d like to see it anyway. If anyone knows where it’s available, please post it.)
David
May 2, 2006 at 1:53 pm
22Landis,
I agree about Robin Williams. The man has the full range, from idiotic potty humor all the way to stuff that requires turbo-charged intelligence. Man would I love to have been in that audience.
And amen to your comments about truly base commercial exploitation of patriotism. Those kinds of car dealers are patriots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are followers of the teachings of Christ.
Steve
May 2, 2006 at 2:37 pm
23Re: Colbert’s gig at the Washington Prom, I saw it and thought that while the criticisms were, of course, dead on target, Colbert’s timing and delivery stunk. It reads far better than it plays.
“Stunk” is too good a word for the “audition tape” bit.
Colbert as faux O’Reilly may have jumped the shark.
Robin Williams was a guest on The Daily Show last week (to promo his RV stinkeroo). He wore a “The Decider…” tee shirt and riffed on that for most of the appearance.
Now that was funny.
Steve
May 2, 2006 at 3:16 pm
24Another thought regarding Colbert. I wonder if he didn’t have his Eartha Kitt moment at the Prom.
For those with too short a memory to recall, the singer Eartha Kitt basically ended her career here in the US when she criticized LBJ’s misbegotten Vietnam War at a luncheon at the White House. According to Wikipedia she made Lady Bird weep. Why she wept, I don’t know, but I’d hope that it was because of her husband’s misdeeds.
Landis
May 2, 2006 at 3:29 pm
25I just wish I could have gotten a tape of Robin Williams and Steve Martin going back and forth. It was amazing.
Sharon - I saw the Bush Twins bit (or clips of it) at Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605010005). I have to admit that parts of it were quite funny.
I also agree that the ‘audition tape’ was a bit too drawn out, but I don’t think the rest of his performance stunk. I’m frankly amazed that he was able to do it at all - staying in character thoughout.
Ann
May 2, 2006 at 3:47 pm
26Don’t worry, Steve–Colbert is having the opposite of an “Eartha Kitt moment.” The public is absolutely loving him for this.
I agree that the audition tape skit was too long, but the rest was brilliant. His timing seemed off only because there was so little laughter, but he wasn’t really performing a stand-up routine. He was delivering a deadpan dissection of the fraud perpetrated by the White House and aided by the press corps. He has nerves of steel!
Sharon
May 2, 2006 at 4:09 pm
27“…delivering a deadpan dissection of the fraud perpetrated by the White House and aided by the press corps. He has nerves of steel!”
You said it, Ann! He hit the target every time. There weren’t a lot of reaction shots, but the few that were, were priceless. Those people should be uncomfortable.
siobhan
May 2, 2006 at 4:10 pm
28Landis - another City Arts event a few years ago featured Calvin Trillin and Robin Williams. It was one of those occasions where you’re laughing so hard that you want them to stop being funny for just a moment so you can catch your breath. I managed to record it from the broadcast, and used it to soothe many vile commutes. The very funniest moment of the whole evening was a strictly visual bit of humor, and just hearing the gales of laughter was enough to bring it back and crack me up.
As for Colbert’s delivery being off, I think it was just… well, I don’t want to say nerves, but a kind of tightening up knowing what the reaction was going to be from some in the audience - and especially some on the podium. Even though a lot of people around the country (like us) were ecstatic, he had to have it running through his head that this was a potentially career-destroying performance. It can’t be easy to stay loose under those circumstances.
SeattleDan
May 2, 2006 at 4:11 pm
29Oh,I kind of enjoyed the Helen Thomas bits in the audition tape,but I agree, it was not the highlight of Colbert’s performance.
Maximum Bob
May 2, 2006 at 4:59 pm
30I heard the Calvin Trillin/Robin Williams show on KQED-FM. I expected funny, and it was, but the pleasant surprise was that Calvin Trillin was more than able to hold his own with Mr. Excess Nervous Energy.
I also heard the show in which Steve Martin was interviewed by the Berkeley prof. The poor prof proved that it’s mighty tough to be a good straight man; it gave me new-found respect for what Carl Reiner contributed to those 2000-Year-Old-Man routines.
Steve
May 2, 2006 at 5:25 pm
31Maximum Bob: Calvin Trillin and Robin Williams? Oh, gracious. Two of my favorite people. Is there a podcast?
siobhan: As I think I’ve posted somewhere else, I agree about the reasons for his timing being off. It was a Tough Crowd™. He didn’t just go after W. He laid into the poodledog “press” corps, as well. It wasn’t exactly a Laff Riot.
The public may have loved his act (that is, those of us who either watch C-SPAN religiously or streamed or downloaded the video) but remember that Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, the same collection of weak willed b—–ds that cut Mary Mapes off at the knees for her Killian Memos reporting (IMHO, much more believable than we were lead to believe by their kangaroo court “investigaton”) and sent Dan Rather off into Coventry for the same.
Landis
May 2, 2006 at 5:26 pm
32siobhan - Any chance you can share or point me in the right direction?
Speaking of City Arts and Colbert - he was there and interviewed not too long ago. It was pretty good. You can catch it as a Podcast from SF Gate.
cooper
May 2, 2006 at 5:59 pm
33Ann, “He has nerves of steel!”? No, I’m sorry - balls of steel. That was an amazing feat of courage. Steve has it right about the Tough Crowd. Steve Colbert put a sharp stick into everybody’s eye in that room - much deserved by each and everyone - so I’m sure it was hard to keep the rhythm going. Hat’s off!
waterfowler
May 2, 2006 at 6:16 pm
34The only thing Colbert did was show his lack of class…and now I’m wondering about some of y’all…There is a time and a place for everything (Ecc. Ch. 3)…
Sharon
May 2, 2006 at 6:22 pm
35There is a time and a place for everything (Ecc. Ch. 3)…
And the WH Correspondent’s Dinner was Steve Colbert’s God-given time and place, by God! God has annointed Steve Colbert to speak for all those Americans who have been silenced, marginalized, and accused of treason since January 2001.
Julia
May 2, 2006 at 6:37 pm
36I have yet to figure out why this dinner is televised. Everyone keeps saying it’s an occasion for the press and the gov’t to relax and take off the boxing gloves (okay, back when the press HAD gloves) — either play the game behind closed doors, or stop pretending it’s a private performance.
I found it difficult to watch due to the very high tension level in the room - but very funny.
As for Robin Williams - I much prefer him unscripted. But then he hasn’t asked my opinion lately. (Neither did you, come to think of it.) Oh, and I’m with Ann and Landis on the other one - hell will freeze solid first.
Adam Felber
May 2, 2006 at 6:37 pm
37Here’s my take on the Colbert thing:
It was brilliant and courageous as hell. Not always funny, perhaps, but a splendid thing. The way he kept bulling ahead as if he was doing well and getting laughs is perhaps my favorite part of it.
If there’s any “story” here, however, it is that the media didn’t make a story about it. It was pretty extreme, and right in the President’s face.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is the left clamoring about the media underreporting it. I think that’s somewhat silly for two reasons:
1) It is almost completely inconceivable that anyone with even the slightest leanings towards liking President Bush will enjoy this. Quite the opposite: Several of my friends, intractable liberals though they are, said that they sort of felt bad for Bush while watching this. Even I found it uncomfortable at times. Why on earth would we want to ensure that the whole country sees it?
2) I’ve said it here before, I’ll say it again: compulsive “biased media” bashing belongs in the same box as “pontificating about values,” “claiming God’s support,” and “”calling someone’s patriotism into question.” In other words, the box of sleazy Republican strategies that we Democrats adopt at our peril and to our detriment. Even if we occasionally feel we have a right to ‘em.
That game does not need to be played. One does not have to infer a conservative bias or scream about a complicit media in order to make noise about Colbert’s performance. Sadly, I’m seeing quite the opposite.
And again - the more we join in the now-reflexive bloodsport of media-bashing, the more we help discredit the institution of journalism in the public eye. Sure, maybe WE know that most journalists are actually honest people doing a great job. But when was the last time any of us took the time to write that? What effect do you think that has on the public? And who do you think benefits most from the public perception that you can’t believe what you read in the newspaper?
It ain’t us.
———
Anyway, that’s where I am with the Colbert thing. I loved it, and I love his show, and I have a couple of friends who write for him whom I’m very proud of and happy for. But making a stink about the media failing to report on this makes no practical sense whatsoever.
siobhan
May 2, 2006 at 6:58 pm
38In terms of the crowd shots, who’d have expected that the one guy to roll with it and laugh at himself would be Scalia?
Landis
May 2, 2006 at 7:16 pm
39I don’t think it’s any right-wing bias is the reason of underreporting this issue, I think it’s the fact that they’re embarrassed that much of the sting was directed at them. Why would I want to point out somebody making fun of me?
But I think the Media Matters article I noted above points out the difference between the coverage you get when President Clinton gets roasted and when both President Bush and the media gets roasted together. “That’s not funny”, “It’s not a story”. May be true, but it does merit at least a paragraph or a couple seconds on all the articles that comment about the event.
I’d say these guys got stung and the truth (no matter how exaggerated) hurts.
cooper
May 2, 2006 at 8:15 pm
40Sister Sharon, I also believe that God Almighty Himself annoint Brother Colbert to throw snakes into that den of inequity. Halalulah and amen! Yes indeed, a time for everything…
Fouler, wonder no more. I am a freethinker, unencumbered by superstition, mob rule and archaic, curious books of “Faith”. Quoting scripture gives me the fantods. But you knew that, didn’t you?
cooper
May 2, 2006 at 8:17 pm
41oops… “annointed”. I get too passionate, sometimes.
Sharon
May 2, 2006 at 8:33 pm
42“den of inequity” — I like that!
Harold
May 2, 2006 at 9:10 pm
43Waterfowler, I think Colbert’s performance was entirely appropriate for the venue. Hell, Bush provided the setup lines – over the past 5 years 3 months and two weeks or so. All Colbert did was provide the ironic punch lines.
You want a lack of class? Try Bush on his hands and knees crawling around the Oval Office looking for WMD’s, while our soldiers were getting blown to bits in Iraq on the same fruitless search. That was his big joke at the WHCD a few years back. And the punch line to that is there were no WMDs to be found, our soldiers are still getting blown up in Iraq, and Bush got re-elected instead of impeached.
I think there’s probably been one more staffing change at the White House. Whichever staffer said “Hey, there’s this Conservative comedian who has a talk show, he’s really funny, let’s invite him to deliver the keynote address!” probably doesn’t work there anymore.
David
May 2, 2006 at 9:32 pm
44Felt sort of sorry for Bush? I’ll have to chew on that one. I would feel sorry for him as a fellow human being if something happened to one of his children. But feel sorry for him for getting the truth full in the face? Nah. I’m just sorry that he is probably incapable of being influenced by reality or of being ashamed of who he is or what he has done.
Yes, I do praise good journalism, including both e-mails to the journalists and occasional letters to the editor for particularly insightful pieces. I have thanked Helen Thomas on three different occasions for pieces she has written. She has expressed appreciation. I do think it matters that they receive thanks when they do a good job.
And I do think you are right, Adam, about who loses more because of the public perception of journalists. I think the same goes for lawyers. It is even true for members of congress when they are all tarred with the same brush.
Meanwhile, I don’t care if people thought Stephen Colbert was funny. I think much of the tension had more to do with, “Wow, did he just say what I think he said,” which was NOT followed by “That’s not true.” Did anyone boo him?
And finally, if they can’t take a joke, fuck ‘em. Onward, Stephen, into the re-invention of Jeffersonian democracy. Leave the people who couldn’t handle a dose of truth to wander about in their sheltered worlds. You delivered on the promise you make at the opening of every Colbert Report.
cooper
May 2, 2006 at 9:52 pm
45Sharon, you think I maybe should have used “den of iniquity”? Okay, I’ll slow down and spellcheck in the future. It’s hell growing old…
cooper
May 2, 2006 at 9:56 pm
46siobhan, you think Scalia was laughing at himself or chuckling about how his “boys” will be tuning up Colbert later with their Sicilian Sluggers?
Jay
May 2, 2006 at 10:45 pm
47Robin Williams was on a show called Inside The Actor’s Studio. An amazing tour de force which I recommend highly. There is a bit in the middle where he borrows a scarf from a woman in the audience and just riffs for five minutes or so. I wish I could think half that fast.
Jay
David
May 2, 2006 at 10:45 pm
48Here’s the link to a comment on Talking Points Memo that seems like it needs to be part of the discussion re the MSM. It is worth remembering that the first organized assault on a mainstream journalist (at least the first I remember, reaching back into the 80s, was the well-orchestrated rightwing assault on Dan Rather, featuring things like the “Rather Biased” and “I Don’t Trust the Liberal Media” bumper stickers. I have to agree that when the entire profession is denigrated, we are the losers. But this does not lessen my contempt for editors, or the NYT that helped beat the drums of war in Iraq. That is where my anger comes from, but the NYT also carries one of the greats, Paul Krugman. Maybe the fault lies more in us (collectively speaking) for who we choose to listen to. Maybe the Founding Fathers were just naive. I honestly don’t know.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008345.php
Maximum Bob
May 2, 2006 at 11:41 pm
49The New York Times just posted an article on Colbert’s speech and the reactions to it.
Take particular note of the photo at the top, and of the Prez’s expression. Priceless.
siobhan
May 2, 2006 at 11:56 pm
50Fowler - if this wasn’t the right venue, what would have been? Two thirds of the country thinks Bush is running us off the rails, but he makes it clear in speech after speech that he doesn’t pay attention to polls and doesn’t really care what the people have to say. His staff won’t give him unhappy news. Protestors are kept out of his line of sight. The only way he will hear these other voices is if someone finds a way around the roadblocks and filters and manages to say it to his face.
That’s what Harry Taylor managed to do (how’s he doing now, Cooper?) and a few other since then. I notice that the much-ballyhooed less-filtered town meetings (hey! look at the risk the president is taking by answering unscripted questions!) have quickly faded from the scene.
It’s not comfortable to be criticized but it’s how you get better at what you’re trying to do. I learned that lesson from many years in art school. If a person can’t bear to hear that they’re not doing a stellar job, THEN THEY GODDAMN WELL SHOULDN’T RUN FOR PRESIDENT because they clearly didn’t read the job description.
On a purely practical level, it would help Bush to listen carefully to the opposition because it would help him sell his positions. If you’re armed only with talking points, you’re going to lose - people have already heard the talking points and it hasn’t convinced them. But if you listen to their arguments and respond to the points they’ve raised (rather than just raising your own points again), you indicate that you’ve thought this issue through, weighed the options and found the best course of action.
It’s unpleasant to feel this bad about the leadership of our country. I didn’t agree with Reagan and thought that Bush 41 was destined for mediocrity; hell, Clinton did stupid shit several times, too. But I never had the same feeling of watching the country I love go down in flames that I do now. Colbert’s routine was mild compared to my feelings. I don’t hate Bush. I just can’t wait until he and his pals get the fuck out of office and let this country get back on track.
hedera
May 3, 2006 at 12:27 am
51More quotes from history: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Where are you, Harry Truman, now that we need you?
If history repeats itself once as tragedy and the second time as farce, what is Dubya up to??
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 12:28 am
52Cooper, I thought “den of inequity” was a perfect description of the Oval Office and its occupant.
Adam, with all due respect, I have to disagree with one point that you made. The fact is that most of the White House press corps, which is who/what at least half of Colberts’ remarks were aimed at (and not all journalists), have been asleep at their posts for much of the past 5+ years. One of the notable exceptions, Helen Thomas, was banished to the hinterlands and only just recently has been permitted a question from time to time. The venerable NYTimes sat on at least one story for nearly a year which, if the public had known about it sooner, could have changed the course of the 2004 elections.
Freedom of the press is part of the First Amendment for a reason. Without it, all our other “freedoms” might as well be shit-canned. Thomas Jefferson said “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.” Two hundred and thirty years later, we have the worst of both possible worlds. Steve Colbert had the guts, and the balls, to say what more than half the country is thinking but either doesn’t have the guts or the forum to say with any effect. He got his opportunity, and he made the most of it. If only members of Congress had half as much courage.
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 12:30 am
53That photo’s a keeper, MBob!
waterfowler
May 3, 2006 at 12:56 am
54Siobhan, I “feel your pain”, or did when Bubba was in office, but I can’t see the flames from here. Also, I don’t think Bush could sell his position to y’all no matter what he did, so what would be the point of listening to the opposition? He’d just get the same Pelosi, Schumer, Moveon lines that we’ve already heard.
Coop, make sure you’re taking your medicines, you’ve been a little riled up lately.
waterfowler
May 3, 2006 at 1:19 am
55Sharon, It’s the 2nd Amendment that guarantees all of the others.
Harold
May 3, 2006 at 7:11 am
56Waterfowler, that may explain why Washington, D.C. is so screwed up. The second amendment, at least in its “Right to keep and bear arms” interpretation, is somewhat abridged in the confines of the Federal City.
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 7:34 am
57“I don’t think Bush could sell his position to y’all no matter what he did, so what would be the point of listening to the opposition?”
Indeed. What would be the point of listening to 68% (at last count) of the citizenry of this country? That would imply that we live in some kind of “democracy.” It’s not. It’s a dictatorship–he alerted us to his intentions during the 2000 campaign and afterward, for those who had ears to hear. Most news performers presented the statements as if they were jokes.
“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
– From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”
“I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.
– CNN.com, December 18, 2000
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.
– Business Week, July 30, 2001
Notice that it’s only a few letters’ difference from “decider” to “dictator.”
cooper
May 3, 2006 at 8:11 am
58siobhan, Harry Taylor’s just fine and will be out of traction and breathing on his own soon (kidding!).
fouler, I never miss taking my meds. Yummy, and so many of them!
MaxBob, thanks for the photo. I watched the performance in low res (dsl lite) and could never see a clear picture of Bush’s reactions to the routine.
Sharon, darling, if you have an opinion on something, let us know how you feel. Don’t be holding back, okay? I’m with you on all that, BTW.
“Den of inequity”. Adam, you’re a pro - should I copyright that before the sophmore @ Harvard reads your blog and puts it in her next book? http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/contest/steal_this_book_and_tha t_book_and_that_book.php
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 8:57 am
59Cooper, the feeling is mutual.
Note that all three statements were made well before 9/11/01. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out what’s going on here. I think too many people are expecting something overt, like a declaration of martial law, or jackboots marching in the streets, like Greece in 1974. Why be so dramatic? Much more effective to steadily chip away, chip away, ….. until one morning we wake up and realize that it’s too late.
“It’s the 2nd Amendment that guarantees all of the others.”
A lot of good a handgun is going to do me on that morning, huh?
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 9:03 am
60Correction: The Greek junta took place in 1967. I must have been thinking of Cyprus.
siobhan
May 3, 2006 at 9:40 am
61“Also, I don’t think Bush could sell his position to y’all no matter what he did, so what would be the point of listening to the opposition? He’d just get the same Pelosi, Schumer, Moveon lines that we’ve already heard.”
You’re right - he probably couldn’t sell many of his positions to me. (Believe it or not, there were a few that I could essentially agree with, but other people were making the argument better and were the ones who sold me.) And Clinton would have had a hell of a time getting you to agree with him on anything. That’s okay.
Where it makes the difference is in the vast middle ground. For all those folks who are still making up their minds, or who lean one way but haven’t locked in, he could be gaining some real ground. Earlier in his administration, he could rely on a certain amount of goodwill and say “trust me”. The goodwill has evaporated for a lot of people, and it’s damn hard to put your faith in these guys to make the right decisions.
I don’t care for talking point BS from Dems either; it would do them well to do some listening too. (MoveOn is a different matter; not being elected officials, I hold them to a different standard on the listening/blathering ratio.)
Harold
May 3, 2006 at 10:05 am
62Cooper, my roommate in college Freshman year printed out a “DEN OF INEQUITY” banner and hung it over our room. Even after I pointed out the mistake, we left it up.
David
May 3, 2006 at 10:56 am
63Waterfowler,
While I happen to appreciate the right of my sweetie to carry a gun when she has to drive one of the lonelier roads in Lake County late at night, I think you misunderstand the only thing that can protect us from an oppressive or misguided government. The use of guns, or any other form of violence, only insures that authorities can crush you with a vengeance (and if you think armed citizens can defeat the National Guard and US Army, you are truly delusional - the best that could be achieved is the disaster in Iraq).
Only the right to vote and have the assurance one’s vote is counted, and counted as cast, offers the possibility of protection from an oppressive government. Lacking that, as was the case when I was a young adult in my beloved South, the ONLY intelligent recourse is the one Martin Luther King, Jr. championed. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.
Enjoy your hunting, and whatever personal protection guns might offer you and your family. But get over the idea that guns are what protect Americans from their government, when protection is called for.
Julia
May 3, 2006 at 11:35 am
64With some more due respect - regarding the press - I heard an interview with a journalist last week (why are journalists interviewed?) who bluntly admitted that the press had dropped the ball on one or another of the messes of the last year or two.
He and the interviewer shook their heads, and then a few minutes later said the problem is the American public, who need to pick up the duties of citizenship.
The connection between the two - the failure of the press and the failure of intelligent action by the citizenry — appeared to escape them completely. I was furious.
Ann
May 3, 2006 at 2:40 pm
65Cooper, I agree that it took balls of steel (or was it brass? Titanium?) to think of saying those things in that venue, but I meant “nerves of steel” because Colbert didn’t falter when he got such a cold reception. But this discussion has gone way past anatomical metallurgy.
Of course Adam is right when he says that we shouldn’t contribute to undermining the legitimacy of the press, but it is disturbing when they fail to challenge what the government tells us.
This morning, my local NPR station interviewed a general with the American military forces in Afghanistan. First he listed several problems from before the invasion, such as Taliban control of the government and the oppression of women. Then he listed several factors that have improved. However, there was almost no correspondence between the two lists! It was like saying “This house used to have terrible structural problems, but the new furniture is beautiful.” And the interviewer didn’t call him on it at all, or ask for more details. I don’t want to hear spin about Afghanistan any more than I want to hear it about Iraq—we need and deserve the truth.
cooper
May 3, 2006 at 3:50 pm
66Ann, I found (non-anatomical) metallurgy to be a very interesting field. I could have stayed in engineering school and gotten my degree. I definitely would have been better off financially, but then I would not have experienced art school and all its charming and wacky denizens and I probably would have remained in the Baptist Church and voted straight Republican (just like ol’ Dad). Brrr! Life is full of seemingly inconsequential decisions that, in hindsight make all the difference. At least, that’s what I’ve found.
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 4:09 pm
67Ann, that’s a problem I’ve had with NPR news for several years, and one that we’ve brought up in this forum quite recently. They used to be right on top of things, always asking the logical follow-up question, asking again if it didn’t get answered the first time. I don’t hear so much of that these days.
Sharon
May 3, 2006 at 4:10 pm
68Cooper, you went to art school?! I wanted to go to art school, but my aunt put the kabosh on that idea–said I’d starve to death in a garret. Are you starving in a garret?
Adam Felber
May 3, 2006 at 4:11 pm
69“He and the interviewer shook their heads, and then a few minutes later said the problem is the American public, who need to pick up the duties of citizenship.
The connection between the two - the failure of the press and the failure of intelligent action by the citizenry — appeared to escape them completely. I was furious.”
I don’t disagree with you, Julia. I also don’t disagree with with Sharon (though she seems to disagree with me
).
I’d say, though, that “the connection between the two” seems to escape the citizenry as much as it escapes the press. And by “citizenry” I don’t mean “them.” I mean “us.”
We liberals take it as an article of faith that good times and a competent President made conservatives petty, shortsighted, lazy, and venal in the 90’s. What we don’t take responsibility for is our OWN version of that same effect in the 90’s. While a large faction of conservatives waged an all-out war on the integrity, perceived trustworthiness, and public faith in our press, liberals and moderates did…
…just about nothing.
The conditions that allowed such insane relativism, such muted skepticism - everything from the Iraq war to the Swift Boat veterans - have a lot of their roots in the 90’s, and not just in post 9/11 shock (as is so often alleged).
That’s it in a nutshell, as far a I’m concerned. We’re quick to condemn the conservative movement for debasing the press, quick to excoriate the press for allowing themselves to be debased, and completely unwilling to claim any culpability on OUR side for mostly just spectating the whole process.
So I’m not excusing the press’ oversights not ignoring their problems. Simply pointing out that we’ve bought a lot of the new conservative paradigm hook, line, and sinker, including the false us-and-them dichotomy between the press and ourselves.
cooper
May 3, 2006 at 5:11 pm
70Sharon, maybe… what’s a garret? Just kidding. No, I’m not starving in a rented attic, but probably because I use the engineering side of my brain more than the artistic side in any given day.
Your aunt was probably right, though, about art school. I find myself biting my tongue and then gently suggesting the more financially rewarding fields to my artistically inclined daughter (19 years old). Interior design, instead of collage or batik, that sort of thing. But whatever she chooses, its her life and she sees things through a different reality than I do. Bless her and may she make the all right choices in life. Yeah, just like I did. As if…
David
May 3, 2006 at 6:31 pm
71Watched Stephen Colbert’s Saturday Night Massacre again. I heard a fair amount of laughter of the kind one hears when an uncomfortable truth has been uttered in a context like that. There were also a lot of people who did not have sour looks on their faces. Some people seemed to really enjoy many of the jokes.
On the MSM, the very sad fact, whatever the reasons, is that we simply do not have a mainstream Jeffersonian fourth estate, although we do clearly have some terrific journalism, but one has to seek it out. It doesn’t occur on the front page above the fold. And it doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as it used to on NPR.
An even bigger problem is that the only thing that matters as regards an informed general citizenry is tv news. Print media reaches how many people?
And for those liberals who felt a twinge of sympathy for George Bush, I recommend Dahr Jamail’s latest post:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050306J.shtml
Hot Lips Houlihan
May 3, 2006 at 9:05 pm
72David, “69 is divine” - my favorite line from “MASH”, the movie.
Jay
May 3, 2006 at 9:09 pm
73Slate.com recently published a two part article by Jack Shafer Part 1, Part 2 about the Bush administration and it’s attitude toward the press and information. It’s germane to this thread and a worthwhile read.
Jay
David
May 4, 2006 at 2:17 am
74Jay,
Thanks for the links. And the CJR article linked in the second link was also quite germane.
Hot Lips,
I think you were played in the movie by a fellow Winter Park High School graduate. Good to hear from you. And while 69 is indeed divine, a friend in New Jersey had a JET 477 license plate, because, as he said, with 77, you get 8 more (dammit, I really was planning to clean up my act a little bit).
David
May 4, 2006 at 4:07 pm
75Hot Lips,
You are Cooper, aren’t you, in this incarnation?
On Saturday Night at The Dinner, Sidney Blumenthal has weighed in with a piece that is short and oh, so sweet.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050406K.shtml
Sharon
May 4, 2006 at 5:14 pm
76Holy shit, David. If I’d read the Blumenthal piece even a few months ago, I’d say that there’s no way BushCo could get away with prosecuting journalists, because the courts would throw it out, but I know better now. “Courts? We don’t need no steenking courts!”
Chuck
May 5, 2006 at 10:31 am
77This maybe off base from the Tangent, but I have a comment concerning your initial statement against Williams.
Williams movies seemed to me to always fall into 3 categories:
Philosophical: Bicentential Man, Being Human, What Dreams May Come, One Hour Photo, The Final Cut, etc.
Adult Comedic: Moscow on the Hudson, Jacob the Liar, Good Will Hunting, Patch Addams, Fathers Day
Family Comedic: Hook, RV, Aladdin, Flubber, etc.
While most of his philosophical selections have an existential bents, when I compare them to all the movies you have made…whoops!, sorry about that. Well when these are reviewed as a body of work, I have a problem understanding the vitrol against him.
I mean steve Martin is of course another Philosophy graduate existential commedian, who is excellent in his field. That said, while his writing is excellent, he has made his share of bombs and from what I have seen has not show as great an inclination to produce any body of “thinking movies” like Williams.
So to slam Williams in a way that seems to reveal an underlying ignorance of his body of work in order to make an obvious point is puzzling. Particulaly when compared to your body of movies that…whoops did it again.
Can you write better than Williams? While I have never seen Williams’ writing I would bet the farm on you in a heartbeat. Are some of his films clunkers? Name a current comedic actor who hasn’t made a clunker comedy yet. Then name a comedic actor who tries to make thinking films besides Williams.
I’m not a rabid williams fan, believe it or not, I follow all interesting entertainers the same way by comparing their body of work. I’m just curious about your reasoning here.
Adam Felber
May 8, 2006 at 6:35 pm
78Chuck -
I was a huge Robin Williams fan growing up, and I doubt I’d have gone into comedy if I hadn’t come across him. I played his album “Reality… What a Concept!” until my copy was no longer playable. I do not think I am ignorant of his body of work.
The point that was, I think, missed by you and several others is this:
This post was not about Robin Williams and RV. It was about “United 93.”
For satirical purposes, I had to highlight the worst of Williams’ excesses (and like everybody, he has ‘em), so I could point out why America might not be “ready” for RV. Ha?
Maybe not as funny as I’d hoped. But, looking back, this piece still amuses me. The headlines last week were full of breathless reports about how WELL “United 93″ did, how it turned out that the pundits were wrong, that America WAS “ready…”
… and in reality, it actually got beaten by a feces-oriented and critically panned Robin Williams comedy that is certainly not in your “thinking movies” category.
For those of you who thought I was too unkind to Robin Williams, I don’t know what to say. I didn’t think I was. Satire is risky, and explaining it, as you can see, is tedious.
Given those two facts, for you to come around here and insult me based on what you thought I was saying, and only then ask me what my reasoning was… well, that seems uncalled for and odd.
Chuck
May 9, 2006 at 10:56 am
79That’s an interesting response. For one I didn’t know that a satirist as skilled as you was as thin skinned. Also I think I did praise your writing in my comment. Maybe my high regard for your writing was not clear, I hope you will see it in this response.
I’m unsure as how I would otherwise pose my comment other than discussing what I thought you were saying and then ask if I was accurate. I think it might be a tad assinine to assume what you were thinking and I certainly couldn’t vouch for what others were thinking.
I agree that to explain satire undercuts its power, and to be frankly honest I believe you are a top satirist. Also, I would not so assume that I speak for some majority that my question in anyway reveals that maybe, just may be on this statement you missed the mark. Which of course if true would be a score of a zillion hits and you had one miss. Still, I am suprised that such a fascile talent as you is so sensitive to criticism.
Not further enrage you with more criticism, but as a reader who only has what I see on your site to base my comment on, I do not believe there was any other way to approach my comment about your understanding of Williams. I guess I could have made some snide remark about how your piece was just another of the many tired anti-Williams comments that shallow hipsters write. Similar to all those cheap laugh Shatner slammers, Jack Nicholson impresonators, Jim Carey slammers and the like. You know dull, unoriginal writers who go with the known target. They seem to revile Williams and any talent because they dared to bomb. I just figured you didn’t know any better, rather than you were lazy. I mean who won’t be slamming RV? Since you have always been original I made a mistake in understanding your motivation for choosing such a simple target as a family oriented, therefore unpredictably vanillia movie. Please accept my apology for my mistake.
I did not know you invited e-mail exchanges with your readers to discuss your actual reasoning behind a piece. I for one must say that the prospect of having such emails with a talented satirist would be great treat. You’re wit is frankly the reason I watch wait wait, and your satiric outshines the host of Le show. I put your writing with the old Woody Allen collections of short stories and of course with Steve Martin’s excellent work. As I know others have.
Which again makes me wonder why you get upset so easily, particularly when you have a book out and I do not.
Scooby
May 9, 2006 at 11:23 am
80Hey Chuck!
Blog comments are a terrible vehicle for expressing pathos.
I’m certain the criticism was mis-interpreted and perhaps mis-expressed on both sides.
Now, did you want a sugar or waffle cone?
Jim
May 9, 2006 at 1:07 pm
81I have been non-plussed by the breathless “are they ready yet” attitude of the correspondents covering this “breaking” story of the release of United 93.
Apparently we were ready in 2002, when the U.K. released the documentary “Lets Roll - The story of Flight 93,” and earlier this year with “Flight 93″ the television movie. Again, this is either another non-story, or the U.S. masses have short attention spans, or the news correspondents have short attention spans, or…..are generating buzz about a twice made made movie in order to increase box office sales.
Take yer pick.
Scooby,
Make mine an “unpredictable vanilla.” Thanks man.
Adam Felber
May 9, 2006 at 3:48 pm
82Chuck -
No harm done. And my apologies. Let me explain:
I suppose I’m sensitive to the particular criticism you offered because I DO work in Hollywood and I HAVE indeed written several screenplays.
They are very good screenplays.
Although one of ‘em was optioned (and re-optioned and re-optioned again) by Paramount, none of ‘em have been produced. So your sarcastic but probably-innocuous remarks like “when I compare them to all the movies you have made…whoops!, sorry about that…” touched a nerve, I suppose.
I’m sure that you thought you were merely pointing out that I, like almost everybody else, don’t have a large body of of cinematic work to critique. Unlike a lot of other people, however, it isn’t for lack of effort or ideas. In other words, you thought your comment was pointing to an empty set, when in fact it was pointing to months and months of hard and mostly unrewarded work.
As I said, no harm done. But since I did respond so vehemently, I thought I’d offer an explanation.
Murray
May 9, 2006 at 4:24 pm
83“Given those two facts, for you to come around here and insult me based on what you thought I was saying, and only then ask me what my reasoning was… well, that seems uncalled for and odd.”
Adam, when you get riled there’s no stopping you. Boy did you ever go “O’Reily” on his ass. I’ve never seen such such a major put down. I bet you crushed his spirit like a Bud can under an 18 wheeler.
David
May 10, 2006 at 1:31 am
84Sumbitch, this is like a quite literate version of Saturday night at the Beville’s Corner Bar (Beville’s Corner is a very small town in Sumter County northwest of the Green Swamp, the cultural anchor of the region), absent the compulsion toward reconciliatory civility in the Chuck v. Adam repartee, not to mention the fact that Beville’s Cornerites haven’t a clue what a repartee is, unless it’s some kind of a Kia.
Oh, yeah, I’m more inclined to place Adam in the tradition of Mark Twain. I most enjoy the fact that, as was the case with Stephen Colbert at The Dinner, his aim is deadly and the targets are ones that need holes shot in them.
Which reminds me: I see the pundits are pissed at Ray McGovern for daring to ask Rummy why he lied. Jon Stewart nailed their sorry asses tonight. Just give me Stewart, Colbert, and Felber, and I think I can survive this fucking insanity called the Bush administration.