Sunday, March 22, 2009

Gone Too Soon: Natasha Richardson (1963-2009)

I didn’t want to believe the story on the New York Post’s website the night of March 17, 2009 when they reported that Tony award winning actress and film star, Natasha Richardson, 45, was brain dead and was on life support at New York’s Lenox Hill Hospital; the result of a brain injury she sustained during a skiing accident while on vacation with family the day before in Quebec.

I had a couple good reasons not to trust the story in the Post.

For starters, the newspaper was the only media outlet to report the tragedy when no one else at the time had confirmation.

The other reason why I refused to accept what eventually became the truth was not only because of how unexpectedly sudden the tragedy had happened. It was because I never saw Natasha Richardson as a movie star, at least not in the sense that she made any noteworthy blockbusters or was always on the radar of the tabloid entertainment press stirring up senseless controversy.

Looking over Richardson’s filmography, I had only seen her in one movie, the little seen World War II drama and box office failure, “Fat Man and Little Boy” (1989), which starred Paul Newman and Dwight Schulz; the star of NBC’s “The A-Team” (1983-1987).

The role was a minor one for the Tony award winning actress who was 25 at the time in which she played the doomed mistress of Schulz’s J. Robert Oppenheimer; the architect behind the building of the atomic bombs eventually dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that brought about the end of World War II in 1945.

Looking over her celebrity photos on the internet sometimes posing with her husband/actor Liam Neeson (the two starred together in the 1994 film, “Nell”, and married soon after), I saw Richardson more as a beautiful, elegant, happy, vibrant working mother of two boys who not only donated time to such notable charities as the American Foundation for AIDS Research (her father director Tony Richardson died in 1991 from the disease), but also put her family and kids first before work.

“I want my sons to be my top priority,” Richardson was once quoted saying in People.

Those celebrity photos as well as her work on the stage and screen are now images frozen in time.

What makes her death most upsetting is how it could have been avoided to begin with. The first reports said the actress was talking and joking saying she felt fine after taking a fall during a skiing lesson and refused medical treatment when paramedics were called in the first time. The situation, however, grew worse within the time she started having headaches. Suddenly, the idea of dying from what didn’t seem like a nasty fall but what is now, according to the autopsy done by the New York medical exam two-and-a-half-hour injuries caused by a blunt impact to the head sounds too much like a cruel unfunny joke.

My first reaction upon hearing her life threatening injury, given how people in this country want cheap nationalized health care the way Canada and other countries do is I have to wonder if her skiing accident had happened here in the states, would she have stood a chance.

In a USA Today article, Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre which represents six of Montreal’s hospitals in Quebec, was quoted saying the drive from the Mont Tremblant ski resort where Richardson was staying at is two-and-a-half hours from the nearest hospital.

“It’s impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is…driving to Mon Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a two and a half hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city,” Rezak said. “Our system isn’t set up for traumas and doesn’t match what’s available in other Canadian cities, let alone the States…and many other developed countries.”

Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe, the first treatment center Richardson was taken to does not specialize in head traumas, Rezak said. Moreover, Quebec has no medical helicopter system unlike the United States.

“Not being airlifted directly to a trauma center could have cost Richardson crucial moments,” Razek said. “A helicopter is obviously the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B.”

Then there is the question, despite my refusing to believe that helmets prevent brain injuries much the way I don’t believe seat belts in cars save lives in auto accidents, why wearing a helmet has never been made a mandatory requirement whether you are a beginner or an experienced skier.

According to an unnamed staff member at Mont Tremblant, Richardson was offered a protective helmet during her ski lesson but declined.

“We are heartbroken that we didn’t do more to persuade her to wear one. A helmet would have cost her just ten dollars (Canadian),” the unnamed staff member told the British newspaper, The Sun. “Every skier is encouraged to wear a helmet, especially beginners like Natasha. But it is not legally enforced, and they can always refuse.”

The issue of what could have been done to save her is probably not what is on the minds of Richardson’s prominent acting family of both the stage and screen who include her sister, Joely Richardson, and their mother, Oscar winning actress Vanessa Redgrave, right now. They are not mourning the loss of a star but a daughter, sister, and a beloved and devoted wife of two boys.

Their personal loss and ours is like a nightmare. You wake up only to find out there is still no happy ending. It is just so…heartbreaking.

©3/22/09

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Booze at Six Flags is a roller coaster of trouble

I have always wondered how police officers can tell when a person behind the wheel is driving drunk, even in a residential zone. For me, to figure out when a person is driving drunk is when I am on the highway and I see some idiot racing past me zigzagging between lanes at 80 miles an hour or more without using his turn signal.

I witnessed such a case coming home from work driving down 635 Tuesday night. Some idiot in an SUV way up front was going at an uncontrolled 80 miles an hour or more veering from lane to lane, going left to right and back to the left again with no turn signals. It was amazing that no one got hit. What was even more astounding was how the driver managed to keep from hitting the white poles on the left side.

I said to myself, "If this guy kills someone, I really hope it's just him and no one else."

I was not only furious with the moron, but even more upset in wondering where the police officers were. It amazes me at how they always are around Galloway and Town East in Mesquite for speed traps in their little "constable" cars waiting to catch someone going over 30. Yet after midnight when someone is creating a hazard, there are no Dallas police to be seen. All they do is wait for someone like me driving a "red" car because the color "red" stands out from other cars.

As if watching this wasn't enough, that same night I saw a story on the Channel 4 news' website about a 2-year-old boy who was critically injured in a crash by a drunk driver, who already had a long history of driving drunk. Doctors said the toddler, who is on life support, had 80 percent of his brain destroyed.

The next day, I read that Arlington's Six Flags Over Texas and Hurricane Harbor may begin selling beer in late March.
When it comes to alcohol consumption, I hate beer. I hate it. I hate the taste of it so much that I look at it as nothing more than urine (given its yellow color) mixed with yeast that causes people to develop giant guts. Granted, when it comes to margaritas or rum and coke, I can drink like a fish but at least I do it responsibly. If I am out with someone at a restaurant or bar and I want to gulp down four or five margaritas with no qualms about the $5 price tag, I'll do it as long as the other person stays sober and gets me home alive.
When it comes to drunk driving, I will never understand how former jailbirds convicted of DUIs can sit there and boast about how they've done time in the slammer, like they are proud of it. I do not know how I will react if I ever run into someone who not only boasts about how they did jail time for a DUI but killed someone in the process.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. I do not care if the police officers caught them just once and don't do it again. There ought to be a no-second-chance law. If you get caught driving drunk, you will never be allowed to get behind the wheel the rest of your life and if you wind up killing someone, then you get sentenced to life in prison with no parole.

When it comes to granting alcoholic licenses to amusement parks like Six Flags Over Texas, city councils should take into consideration the number of alcohol-related fatalities and how more could occur if beer is served.

That's what Carl Fors of Fort Worth-based Texas Sober tried to prove during hearings with the Arlington City Council over the past year in an article in The Dallas Morning News. Fors said children make up a larger percentage of the crowd at Six Flags than they do at such entertainment venues as Ranger's Ballpark and Texas Stadium.

Granting Six Flags an alcohol license would automatically signal more alcohol-related incidents, including fatalities, Fors said in the article.

Six Flags spokeswoman Sharon Parker was quoted in the article saying other entertainment venues sell alcohol.

"Our sister park in San Antonio, as well as other entertainment venues throughout the state of Texas, have proven that you can serve beer - and in some cases other mixed beverages - and still provide a family-friendly atmosphere," Parker said.

I don't see how a family friendly atmosphere can be promoted if alcoholic beverages are sold in the park, even if it is at designated areas only. I wonder if anyone will feel differently if someone in the Six Flags area is killed by a drunk driver who had consumed alcoholic beverages while at the park?

With Six Flags Over Texas and Hurricane Harbor being well on their way to selling alcohol, what is next? Selling it at movie theaters? It is bad enough I must deal with inconsiderate patrons who bring their one-year-old babies to the theater and allow them to cry throughout the whole movie. Just imagine what the atmosphere might be like if beer was served. I have a feeling patrons would have no problem paying the $5. They pay $5 anyway for a large drink.

What it all boils down to is money over safety. Amusement parks are more concerned with making a dollar. The ones who suffer are not going to be the patrons who shell out their cash to get plastered. It will be the ones who do not drink and who could become potential victims of someone else's recklessness.

©3/10/09

Monday, March 2, 2009

Rourke’s Best Actor loss causes right wing conspiracy theories to take flight

Something was eating away at my insides the minute I learned that Sean Penn, and not Mickey Rourke, had won Best Actor at the 81st Annual Academy Awards Feb. 22 for his performance as the late political gay activist Harvey Milk in the biopic, “Milk.”

I couldn’t put my finger on what it was that was troubling me. I suppose it could have been my stomach telling me it wanted to be fed.

Ok, which was part of it, but that was not the main issue at the time. The first thought that came to mind upon hearing Penn’s name and given that the lead character he plays is homosexual, was didn’t the gay community and AIDS sufferers get their day in the sun already at the 1994 Oscars when Tom Hanks won for his performance in “Philadelphia” (1993) playing an AIDS stricken lawyer fired by a conservative law firm?

“Was that not enough,” I asked myself.

It was really irritating me that I couldn’t figure out why Rourke, whom I and most everyone else who has seen him in his tragic comeback role as Randy “The Ram” Robinson in The Wrestler, and whom most believed would win Best Actor, lost to Penn.

In an Entertainment Weekly readers’ poll taken the week after the ceremony, 46 percent say Rourke should have won over the 37 percent who were for Penn, while 26 percent say the biggest surprise of Oscar night was Penn winning.

I got my answers a day later when I came across bighollywood.breitbart.com, a conservative website that gives readers the right-wing perspective on what liberal Tinseltown stands for. From there, the conspiracy theories flew, and I cannot say they were not illogical.

“Hmmm…why did Mickey Rourke win Best Actor in every other award ceremony besides this one,” wrote Brett Joshpe on the site. “As I said, the Academy punished Mickey for his gratitude towards President Bush for keeping our country safe from Islamofascism/terrorism. Instead, it chose to award its biggest donkey, Sean Penn.” Another writer on the site named “Mr. Wrestling IV” wrote how he knew already there was no way Rourke would win the Oscar.

“I knew this was never going to happen, that the Academy would never vote for a guy who said he was “not one of those who blames Bush for everything,” and that they vote for Sean Penn because of his political stances, not in spite of them, as Penn likes to pretend,” Mr. Wrestling IV wrote.

Rourke, who, at one point, left acting to pursue a boxing career, has always been one to not shy away from his opinion, even if it means ticking off everyone in Hollywood.

“Actors should shut up about politics because they tend to be ill-informed finger-pointers who just cozy up to some flavor-of-the-month liberal, you know,” he once said.

I am not going to argue with him on that one, after all look at who we now have as president.

As early as 2006, Rourke defended Dubya for the war on terror.

"George is doing a hell of a job during very difficult times, more power to him. Screw all them people who don't like him," Rourke said.

He came to Dubya’s defense again during the former president’s remaining days in office in January this year.

"President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation," the actor said in an interview with GQ magazine on dealing with the 9/11 and terrorism. "I don't give a (expletive) who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem. I am not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This (expletive) between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, does not it. It is too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I do not think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

I would find it rather ironic, no, strike that. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the reason Rourke lost to Penn had more to do with his defense of “Dubya” than spending the last 20 years burning all his bridges with everyone in Hollywood.

I was really looking forward to Rourke’s acceptance speech on Oscar night if he had won, which most likely would have been filled with some colorful language that would have had ABC censors worried. I shed no emotion unlike everyone else in the audience who had tears in their eyes when the late Heath Ledger’s name was announced winning as expected, his best supporting actor nomination as The Joker in “The Dark Knight” posthumously. I cannot say the same if Rourke had won and dedicated the gold statue to his 18-year-old pet Chihuahua, Loki, who had just recently passed away and who he credits for saving his life. I understand where Rourke is coming from, being a dog owner myself who is also caring for a sick pet with heart disease and was just told by my vet that my 12-year-old Lhasa Apso named “Mad” Max, has maybe six to eight months to live, give or take if the medications he is on work.

Instead of awarding an actor who had been through the depths of hell, much of it his own making contemplating suicide and going through a divorce among them, and made a comeback, “Hollyweird” not only chose to award an actor who had already won once, but at the same time, made it into a political issue when it came to California’s Proposition 8 and how the state restricted the definition of marriage to only opposite-sex couples and eliminating same-sex couples’ right to marry.

To quote Sean Penn, thank you “you commie, homo-loving sons of guns.”

I am not going to argue that Penn didn’t deserve the award. If this had been a different year and both actors were not competing in the same category, I would have been all for Penn winning. By the same token, I am a little displeased that “Milk” has not been released in the Mesquite and Garland area theaters close to home and is only showing at art house theaters to where I got to drive 30 minutes out of the way just to see a two-hour film. For all I know, perhaps Mesquite residents don’t want a movie about a gay activist playing in the same theater where “Friday the 13th” is showing.

My problem with Penn winning is, like Michael Moore’s acceptance speech for “Bowling for Columbine” (2002) bashing President Bush at the 2003 Oscars, instead of having the win be about awarding the performance or the movie, it was about the individual promoting their own cause and personal agenda.

“For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time that for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes as they continue that way of support,” Penn said. “We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

It is bad enough that the Academy Awards are no longer about American films getting top recognition and that we have no Titanic’s, no Godfather’s, no Star Wars, no Schindler’s List’s, to root for on Oscar night. Whatever happened to giving an Oscar to an actor or actress because of their performance? I thought Oscar loves comeback stories when it comes to out of sight stars returning to the spotlight with a critically praised performance.

As far as who the real winner was on Oscar night, there is only one and that is the actor who didn’t win.

I have always believed that awards are not everything. They may be accomplishments, but they are material things at most. You do not take that stuff with you to the grave when you die, you know.

Rourke summed it up best to Barbara Walters about what winning the Oscar would mean if he won.

“Personally, it would mean a great deal to me,” he said. “It would be a tremendous honor. It would sum up a whole comeback thing I guess in a material kind of way. But in the big picture, you cannot eat it, you cannot (expletive) it, and it will not get me into Heaven.”

Thank you, Mickey Rourke!

©3/2/09