I used to hate Philadelphia. Until sometime around last weekend.
I think it had much to do with a best pal from high school, who went to Philadelphia to attend Drexel University and then largely dropped out of my life. I remember visiting him and resenting everything from the passage of time to the dirt of what I thought was a small-town city.
But last weekend I did not see so much dirt. I saw gorgeous architecture and received fantastic service in restaurants and saw Kathleen Turner play the late, great Molly Ivins in a play called “Red Hot Patriot: The Kick-Ass Wit of Molly Ivins.” The show’s running at the Suzanne Roberts Theatre, home to the Philadelphia Theatre Company, on South Broad. The show is directed by David Esbjornson, who keeps thing moving along well during a one-act, 75-minute running time. I love that running time.
I also love both Turner and Ivins. Let’s take Turner first. She’s a fine film actress, but she really shines on the stage, where she’s even more physically imposing and gives amazingly nuanced performances. She wuz robbed of the Tony a few years ago when she was starring in an unforgettably good “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.” Now she’s playing Ivins, not as a caricature but as a larger-than-life woman who knows that she’s in danger of becoming a caricature.
“Red Hot Patriot” has some weaknesses as a play. Maybe more than some. At least there’s not a lot of silly set-up and effort to make this into something it isn’t, but then again the writers, Margaret Engel and Allison Engel, seem most interested in reminding us who Molly Ivins was, and why she mattered. Still does. She was known for her wisecracks—she gave President George W. Bush the nickname “Shrub” and she famously said of Republican Rep. Jim Collins that if his “IQ slips any lower, we’ll have to water him twice a day.” So we get laughs from Ivins, ones she really wrote, and a sense of what is was like to live in the shadow of a domineering (and downright mean, from the looks of things) father. In the final, fantastic few minutes of the show, we also get a sense of the loneliness of an activist/writer’s life and the unpleasant reality that we are not living up to the standards Ivins set for us as citizens.
I’m reading a book now called “Molly Ivins: A Rebel Life” by Bill Minutaglio and W. Michael Smith, so I was overly prepared for the play. I found myself thinking that “Red Hot Patriot” was too much of a mixed bag (lotsa mixing of Texas political history and bad Republican presidents and the Ivins biography) and not enough of any one thing, but certainly I appreciated seeing Turner center stage, looking and sounding fabulous. Working together across the normal barriers of time and life and death, Turner and Ivins team up to remind us of the importance of speaking up and speaking out.
“Red Hot Pat” winds up being a bit more moving than it deserves to be, both because of the woman who inspired it and the woman who presents it. Both women astound me. Both were worth a trip to Philadelphia, my new favorite weekend getaway spot.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Tweet Time
Okay, I gave up last week and started Tweeting.
I felt like I had very little choice. And as if time had run out on my non-Tweeting days.
After all, the idea had been in my head for many months. Almost a year ago, at a reunion weekend event at the J-school at Columbia University, I went to a great seminar on using social media. A former prof of mine (and so many others), Sree Sreenivasan, argued that Twitter was a powerful tool for journalists. I understood his theory, but was worried about another time-eating technology that would eventually aggravate me. I mean, Facebook has pretty much taught me to hate the friends of my friends and, on a bad day, my actual friends.
In terms of Tweeting, I just made it under the New York magazine wire. I started last week and today the magazine is out with a cover story about Tweeting in the big city. Is this one of those things where the trend is over by the time the mainstream media takes note of it?
I don't know, but so far I am in awe of my fellow Tweeters. I shoulda picked dumber people to "follow" on Twitter, since the hyper-articulate and funny folks I selected intimidate the heck out of me. These writers tend to pack an awful lot of meaning into a few words. I'm a little jealous. Yes, I mean you, Kim Severson and Susan Orlean and Ruth Reichl and there are even some men worth following.
I'm hoping, through Internet osmosis, to learn their ways. For my Tweets and all my writing.
I felt like I had very little choice. And as if time had run out on my non-Tweeting days.
After all, the idea had been in my head for many months. Almost a year ago, at a reunion weekend event at the J-school at Columbia University, I went to a great seminar on using social media. A former prof of mine (and so many others), Sree Sreenivasan, argued that Twitter was a powerful tool for journalists. I understood his theory, but was worried about another time-eating technology that would eventually aggravate me. I mean, Facebook has pretty much taught me to hate the friends of my friends and, on a bad day, my actual friends.
In terms of Tweeting, I just made it under the New York magazine wire. I started last week and today the magazine is out with a cover story about Tweeting in the big city. Is this one of those things where the trend is over by the time the mainstream media takes note of it?
I don't know, but so far I am in awe of my fellow Tweeters. I shoulda picked dumber people to "follow" on Twitter, since the hyper-articulate and funny folks I selected intimidate the heck out of me. These writers tend to pack an awful lot of meaning into a few words. I'm a little jealous. Yes, I mean you, Kim Severson and Susan Orlean and Ruth Reichl and there are even some men worth following.
I'm hoping, through Internet osmosis, to learn their ways. For my Tweets and all my writing.
Monday, April 12, 2010
O’Connor’s Call to Arms
Last week former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor came to town, just a couple of days before her former job was back in the news with the announcement of John Paul Stevens's retirement.
When she was delivering her message, though, O'Connor had something different on her mind: how much an independent judiciary matters to America.
Even if most Americans have no idea what that means.
In remarks to the New York City Bar a week ago tonight, O’Connor laid it on the line in a straight-to-the point lecture at the bar headquarters on West 46th Street. She said Americans don’t much understand why it’s important for judges to be independent—and she called for an education campaign to change that ugly fact. This is one woman who is not happy with the study showing that two-thirds of Americans know the judges on “American Idol” but only 15 percent can identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
“I say to you, New Yorkers…you have some work to do,” O’Connor said, urging the state to change its merit selection system. O’Connor weighed in against the election of judges, something that still happens throughout the U.S. “No other nation in the world has chosen to elect its judges,” she said.
O’Connor, 80, had some other complaints too: the “flood of money” that comes into judicial elections and the lack of civics classes for young people.
In 2008, O’Connor said, more than $5 million was spent in a race for the Alabama Supreme Court. At least one survey showed that 70 percent of the American people think judges are affected by campaign contributions—and more than one-quarter of judges themselves think the same thing. In her remarks, O’Connor spoke more than once of the courtroom being a much-needed “safe place” where citizens can expect their grievances to be heard fairly.
Another stat: one-third of Americans cannot name the three branches of government. “We can’t have that. That’s amazing,” O’Connor said. “We have to do something about it.”
What to do? O’Connor would like to see states switch away from elected judges, but more than that she called for a massive education effort. That would include old-fashioned civics lessons, but delivered in a 21st-century manner. She recommended www.ourcourts.org, which includes games about civics. She said the games have been a hit with young people.
“The interesting thing,” O’Connor said,” is that while they’re having fun, they’re learning. They don’t even know that they’re learning.”
O’Connor was introduced by New York’s own Judith Kaye, the former chief justice of the Court of Appeals. Kaye called O’Connor “practical and principled.” Then O’Connor went on to prove as much.
When she was delivering her message, though, O'Connor had something different on her mind: how much an independent judiciary matters to America.
Even if most Americans have no idea what that means.
In remarks to the New York City Bar a week ago tonight, O’Connor laid it on the line in a straight-to-the point lecture at the bar headquarters on West 46th Street. She said Americans don’t much understand why it’s important for judges to be independent—and she called for an education campaign to change that ugly fact. This is one woman who is not happy with the study showing that two-thirds of Americans know the judges on “American Idol” but only 15 percent can identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
“I say to you, New Yorkers…you have some work to do,” O’Connor said, urging the state to change its merit selection system. O’Connor weighed in against the election of judges, something that still happens throughout the U.S. “No other nation in the world has chosen to elect its judges,” she said.
O’Connor, 80, had some other complaints too: the “flood of money” that comes into judicial elections and the lack of civics classes for young people.
In 2008, O’Connor said, more than $5 million was spent in a race for the Alabama Supreme Court. At least one survey showed that 70 percent of the American people think judges are affected by campaign contributions—and more than one-quarter of judges themselves think the same thing. In her remarks, O’Connor spoke more than once of the courtroom being a much-needed “safe place” where citizens can expect their grievances to be heard fairly.
Another stat: one-third of Americans cannot name the three branches of government. “We can’t have that. That’s amazing,” O’Connor said. “We have to do something about it.”
What to do? O’Connor would like to see states switch away from elected judges, but more than that she called for a massive education effort. That would include old-fashioned civics lessons, but delivered in a 21st-century manner. She recommended www.ourcourts.org, which includes games about civics. She said the games have been a hit with young people.
“The interesting thing,” O’Connor said,” is that while they’re having fun, they’re learning. They don’t even know that they’re learning.”
O’Connor was introduced by New York’s own Judith Kaye, the former chief justice of the Court of Appeals. Kaye called O’Connor “practical and principled.” Then O’Connor went on to prove as much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
