The not-so-long road to redemption

Former NBC sportscaster Marv Albert, who pleaded guilty to a sexual felony misdemeanor charge by his accuser, Vanessa Perhach, last month and was given a year’s probation, began his road to redemption Nov. 7 in an interview with Barbara Walters on “20/20.”

Whether the public will embrace Albert the way they forgave actor Hugh Grant for his arrest a few years ago for soliciting a prostitute is still too early to predict. Grant’s scandal it seems has not affected his acting career.

I never thought the day would come when America would stoop to the level of what director Oliver Stone was trying to say with his fictional biographical film, “Nixon” (1995). There is one scene in particular, even if it never happened, that says everything about this country when it comes to celebrity’s and politician’s downfalls.

The scene has James Woods Bob Haldeman and J.T. Walsh’s John Erlichman talking privately shortly before the president fires them.

Haldeman tells Erlichman that if Nixon had told the public three things about his role in the Watergate burglary in 1972, “the public would have forgiven him.”.

“I was wrong. I covered up. I’m sorry,” Haldeman says.

Today, it is those three sentences that makes the public sympathize with people like Albert who are divided in opinion on what happened.

As the 1996 presidential election drew closer, a couple friends of mine and I argued about why we are or aren’t going to vote for Bill Clinton or Bob Dole. I kept telling a friend of mine even though him and I agree what President Clinton did in the 60s was wrong such as dodging the draft, smoking grass, and cheating on his wife, not everyone else felt the same way because he admitted it. My friend refused to see the point I was trying to make in the discussion and said society is in an “immoral abyss.”

Then another friend of mine threw the JFK thing back in my face saying, if I don’t like Clinton, why do I have a library of Kennedy books in my room?

“As much as you like JFK, that man wasn’t perfect,” he said. “And neither is Clinton.”

I admit I have a weakness for famous writers and had JFK not become president, he might have probably pursued political journalism.

The fact is Kennedy’s stories of adultery, well known in the press at the time but never reported, illnesses, and ties to organized crime did not come out until after he was assassinated. That is the reason why society still holds high regard for JFK as a young, catholic president and family man.

The problem I have is society no longer cares about what a celebrity or politician did in the past. They don’t care about right and wrong. Who cares if Clinton is being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones? The public feels what is important is we have a president who has charisma and knows how to sell himself to the public. A president must have a personality.

Along with that I suppose is we are all human and make mistakes. Politicians and celebrities are no worse. They shouldn’t be put on a high pedestal as people who could do no wrong. Doing that will only destroy the high regard believers may have had.

I was surprised to hear of Albert’s arrest earlier this year. Much the same way, I and everyone else was shocked that O.J. Simpson was accused and acquitted in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman.

I have no doubt a few years from now, Marv Albert will be back on the air possibly doing sports again or maybe even hosting his own radio show. But that will not erase all the supposed stories of cross dressing and rough sex the public heard about during the short trial. Albert said on “20/20” half the stories reported didn’t happen. The scandal, however, is like a police record. It doesn’t go away and it is permanent.

“I realize there will be skeptics, no matter what I say here or elsewhere,” Albert told Walters in the interview. “I know that this is a stigma that will be out there. I have to be able to deal with that and I am a big boy and I have to deal with it.”

©11/19/97

Death renews interest in fading star’s career

It ever fails.

The moment a shocked public learns that a major celebrity met an untimely death, hundreds of adoring fans race to the book, music, and video stores in search of anything this person had accomplished in their all-too-short life.

The most recent case was when country/folk singer John Denver died Oct. 12, 1997, in a plane crash. The only memory I had of Denver was when I saw him on a TV special with the Muppets back in either the late 1970s or early 1980s. I still haven’t seen his 1977 debut movie, “Oh God”, and I had only heard two of his songs on the radio; “Sunshine” and “Rocky Mountain High.”

But last month, a television commercial promoting the late singer’s double compact disc collection of his greatest hits reminded me that I had heard more than just two lyrics over the years from “Annie’s Song” to “Thank God I’m a Country Boy.”

It was at that point (and NO I am not ashamed to admit this) that I bought one of Denver’s greatest hits on CD. A search that was meant with slight disappointment when I learned two days after the singer’s death that all his music at Best Buy and Blockbuster Music were sold out.

And it isn’t just music icons who die unexpectedly that a search for their various works becomes a nationwide manhunt. When actor Robert Mitchum died over the summer, I was one among several customers who was told by a video store clerk that the original “Cape Fear” (1962) and “Night of the Hunter” (1955) were on moratorium.

A couple days after Princess Diana died, used bookstores were cleaned out on anything that had to do with her and the royal family. All that was left on the front counter was the July 1997 issue of Vanity Fair wrapped in a sealed plastic see-through bag. The magazine, which cost $20, featured a cover story on the princess posing in a couple of expensive dresses scheduled to be auctioned off later that month at Sotheby’s in New York.

And whenever an actor, musician, or prominent figurehead dies young, it is a sure bet the tabloid TV shows and print journalists will end their televised tributes and commentaries saying how unexpected it was for the tragedies to happen to someone like Denver, who was on the verge of making a musical comeback or Princess Diana, who was beginning a new life apart from the Royal Family.

There is a painting I saw a few years ago at a custom framing store titled “Boulevard of Broken Dreams.” The portrait featured 1950’s icons Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, and Humphrey Bogart crowded around a counter where Elvis Presley tended bar.

It didn’t take me long to figure out the painting’s message. These beloved icons were stars who had gone before their time; a portrait of promises never fulfilled. If someone were to do an updated version of the painting today, Marilyn, Jimmy, Bogie, and The King would be joined by several people whose futures were cut short.

The list is endless from politicians like John and Robert Kennedy, musicians such as John Lennon, Selena, and Stevie Ray Vaughn to actors like John Belushi and River Phoenix.

Talents who left behind motivational speeches, writings, music, films, and charitable lifesaving causes. If you can’t get your hands on such memorabilia at the time of their deaths, wait a couple weeks or a month and the merchandise will be back on the shelves.

“Night of the Hunter” and “Cape Fear” were re-released on video a month after Mitchum died. And you can’t walk into a bookstore now without seeing two shelves of magazines and books dedicated to Princess Diana.

I have no doubt a month or two from now, music stores will be well stocked with John Denver CDs again.

And if not, I’ll just have to watch for the advertisement of that greatest hits collection I saw advertised on TV fast forwarding through dozens of commercials on the VCR while watching reruns of “The Rockford Files” and “All in the Family.”

©11/5/97

Future shock doesn’t

Out with the old...

Video cassette recorders, laserdisc players, television sets, 32-inch satellite dishes, cable TV, company modems.

All becoming a thing of the past soon to be replaced by better and more advanced technology.

At least that is my thinking. But people like my parents are another matter. They aren’t ready to give up their cable that continues to go out on its own every now and then much less their 15-year-old VCR that has to be repaired every six months. My parents also don’t understand how my generation (though I am not one of them) can spend hours on end in front of their home computers talking to strangers in chatrooms on AOL and cruising the Internet.

I believe it was Bill Gates who said kids, ten years from now, will be spending more time browsing the World Wide Web as either a form of entertainment or for education purposes instead of watching television.

In with the new!

Why send mail through the postal service and pay high long distance phone bills when you can email your friends and relatives in cyberspace? The only purpose the postal service will serve years from now is to send packages and maybe holiday cards and that’s it.

Where I lived in Chicago, cable television never really took off until a couple years after I moved to Dallas. Pay TV was already available in most of Texas as late as 1980. If homeowners didn’t care for cable, they could choose satellite television or direct TV. The first year I was here, almost every other house on the block had a satellite dish in their back yard making their homes look like personalized military defense systems.

Those dishes have disappeared now replaced by small 15-inch disks people can buy for as low as $250.00 and still pay almost the monthly equivalent of what cable costs.

Out with the old...

It isn’t unusual now to see hotels, service stations and even banks to have small satellite dishes placed on their roofs but it isn’t for entertainment purposes. The equipment is the cheapest and latest form of communication and the quickest way for companies with computer helpdesks to dial into places with technical problems instead of modems.

But the technology that has society most excited about is High Density Television sets known as HDTV. People who saw them firsthand at the Texas State Fair said the picture quality was crystal clear. The first sets, which are expected to be out late next year, will start at $5,000.

The only difference I can see with them is people will get to watch the nightly news, “Star Trek” and “ER” reruns in a letterbox theatrical format. Personally, I’ll wait until the government makes it a requirement for me to have one which will be in 2006 when the current technology on receiving programs will be obsolete.

In with the new!

What I am excited about are the new Digital Video Disc players, known as DVD, which arrived on the market last April. Of course, various pessimists I know at work wouldn’t embrace the format because the technology will meet the same fate as Betamax.

Because only a few distributors like Columbia/Tri-Star Pictures and Warner Home Video were the only ones going to the new format at the time, some of my coworkers said it made no sense to spend $500 and up on a player when only less than 100 titles were available much less the fact very few video stores were renting them.

That hasn’t stopped anyone else from jumping on the bandwagon. Although recordable DVD players are still a couple years away, Video Business Magazine reported in its Sept. 8 issue the number of players sold so far totaled 382,000 units.

And it didn’t take long for other distributors to take notice of recent sales. As a result, several companies including MCA Home Video and Disney are the latest companies who will start releasing titles on DVD before the end of the year. The reason for its rise in popularity is one, just about all the films available can be seen in both widescreen and pan-and-scan formats on what is the same size as a compact disc. And two, such soon-to-be released titles like Warner Brothers’ “Contact” (1997) and “Conspiracy Theory” (1997) will run for as low as $20 to $30 as opposed to the video cassette suggested retail price of $100.00.

What this means in the coming years for studios and video stores; provided the rental chains can produce something to keep customers renting films and not be taken over by pay TV’s “video on-demand”, is exactly as a friend of mine put it that DVD stands for. “Dollars for video distributors.”

What this will mean for consumers, however, is those who want the new technology are going to have to buy movies like the Star Wars, Star Trek and Godfather films all over again, whenever 20th Century Fox and Paramount Pictures decides to go the DVD route.

At least those people who have video libraries exceeding 200 titles plus can take comfort in the fact they’ll have more space at their house after tossing those cheap, flimsy wooden video cassette storage cases in the trash and selling their videos for money at some used bookstore.

©10/22/97

A conspiracy theory of his own

Everyone loves a conspiracy.

An outlandish word most everyone thinks about today whenever a national tragedy occurs. Ever since witnesses say they heard shots fired from the grassy knoll the day President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963, a swarm of doubt and paranoia has led Americans and the world to believe that behind every groundbreaking news story is a cover-up.

What happened to Princess Diana in August is the latest example. On the night the world learned she died in a car crash; a coworker said the whole thing was probably a plot.

He wasn’t the only one to conclude this. Took the news media less than a week to start reporting of possible conspiracy scenarios.

Shows like “Primetime Live” last month questioned driver Henri Paul’s behavior at the Ritz, who according to the hotel’s surveillance cameras acting like he is in complete control of himself. What the program didn’t tell viewers though is the known fact some people who drink can develop a high tolerance to alcohol without anyone knowing they are drunk.

And just when I thought French investigators were about ready to close the books on what was the most watched televised event since JFK’s funeral; blaming the cause of the crash primarily on Henri Paul and not necessarily the paparazzi, new stories are surfacing.

Now there are reports a second car may have been involved. French investigators have apparently found fragments of taillight covers near the scene believed to belong to a Fiat that might have hit the princess’ car from behind before the crash.

A story reported by the Associated Press Sept. 21 says a couple of “unidentified witnesses” say they saw “a small hatchback...near the smashed Mercedes” that raced away from the scene going about 70 m.p.h.

“My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there,” said British lawyer Gary Hunter who was quoted in London’s Sunday Times. “I am confident that the car was getting off the scene...it looked quite sinister.”

The fact Diana’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones can’t recall what happened in those final moments before the crash will only raise more questions than answers.

This comes as no shock considering the public still has doubts about a couple of “unresolved mysteries.”

Earlier this year, journalist Pierre Salinger released photos to the media of what he says was a missile believed to be in the sky shortly before TWA Flight 800 exploded shortly after takeoff last July. Salinger has since gone on record accusing the government, law enforcement agencies and the military of being involved in a massive cover-up.

His contention is the crash was caused by our nation’s armed forces who he thinks may have been in the area conducting military exercises at the time of the explosion.

A segment of “20/20” shot earlier last summer, however, showed the probability existed that a spark from a half empty fuel tank on the plane could have brought down the 747.

In the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, defense attorneys for suspect Terry Nichols will mention again that “John Doe 2” still exists or died in the explosion of the Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people two years ago.

This theory, however, much less the fact the terrorist act may have been the result of an international conspiracy, did not convince the previous jury who convicted bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh last June to die by lethal injection.

Even after the guilty verdict was read, however, people still didn’t believe McVeigh was the only one involved.

A poll taken in the June 16 issue of Time said 77 percent of Americans believe law enforcement officials have not apprehended everyone involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

The following week, an article in the June 23 issue, said militia groups sent out “reports of seismographic readings that pointed to two distinct explosions, 10 seconds apart on April 19, 1995.”

The article quoted a Washington State patriot leader saying, “Incontrovertible scientific evidence exists to refute the single-bomb theory.”

And so Princess Diana, like the JFK Assassination, TWA Flight 800, and Oklahoma City before her, is the latest in a long list of national tragedies people still continue to question that includes the deaths of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Marilyn Monroe, and the events surrounding Roswell, Watergate, Iran Contra, Whitewater and the Branch Davidian Siege in Waco, Texas.

Thank the tabloid television news media, the internet, liberal Hollywood and print journalism for all this.

Because of them, the word “trust” has not been a part of society’s vocabulary since 1963 and that is just as sad and tragic as the incidents themselves.

©10/8/97

The Star Wars Trilogy Special Editions - a combination of hits and misses

Now that the 20th anniversary of "Star Wars" has passed and audiences eagerly await the new set of prequels, the first one now officially set for release May 21, 1999, the debate can now begin on whether director George Lucas’ decision to add a combined 15 minutes of computer-generated effects to the trilogy was really an improvement over their original versions. In the cases of "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back", which I thought were flawless when first released in 1977 and 1980, the new footage is a combination of hits and misses.

It was great the way special effects wizards at Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic got Han Solo (Harrison Ford) to step on Jabba the Hutt’s tail as he walked behind the computer-generated jolly behemoth in what was one of the most eagerly anticipated scenes from "Star Wars: The Special Edition." Also, an improvement was the way the X-Wing Fighters approached the Death Star in the film’s climax in swarming attack fashion instead of following each other in a straight line.

Cloud City’s enhancement in "The Empire Strikes Back: The Special Edition" into the outer space resort Lucas envisioned it to be in the original version was also impressive but the added footage threw off music composer John Williams’ majestic soundtrack at the same time.

What I especially didn’t need was the infamous “Greedo shoots Solo” first sequence in "Star Wars: The Special Edition" before he is gunned down. It is clear the green alien is sitting across the table from Solo. But when he fires a laser bolt that hits the wall off in the corner, Greedo is not only unlucky as seen in the original version but also a very poor marksman in the new version.

The case of "Return of the Jedi: The Special Edition", which boasts almost two minutes of new digitally enhanced effects, is another matter entirely. The film, which was at times overlong and unlike the first two, geared more for children than adults, is actually a slight improvement over the 1983 version.

Though fans will no doubt savor new scenes of bounty hunter Boba Fett flirting with a couple of alien dancers shortly before he becomes lunch for a giant snake like head that now bobs in and out of the Sarlacc Pit while the heroes battle it out on Jabba’s sailbarge, the best thing about this special edition is it has no more dancing, singing Ewoks!!!

All right, so the little “furball” teddy bears as Solo appropriately called them still sing and dance but gone is the silly musical “yuck-yuck” sequence at the end. This time, Jedi’s ending is more dramatic featuring a new soundtrack showing celebrations of the Empire’s demise on Cloud City, Tatooine, and the imperial city of Coruscant which will be seen more in the prequels.

Despite the original version’s flaws, Jedi never lost sight of what all three films were really about; the loyalties of love and friendship shared by the heroes that even included the bickering droids, R2-D2 and C-3P0, and in the final installment, family bonding.

The film is still a visual marvel today in special effects from the imperial speeder bikes (perhaps the 21st century’s answer to police motorcycles) racing across the lush green forests of Endor to the chaotic, suspenseful space battle between the Rebels and the Empire. Scenes like this proved just how far Lucas had gone in technology since 1977.

Lucas, reportedly happy with the new changes he made to the trilogy, says these versions officially replace the originals, which reportedly won’t be released on video again.

But various entertainment magazines have also reported the director saying he wants his next three prequels to have the epic scope of movies like David Lean’s "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962).

Given those facts, it wouldn’t surprise me if Lucas goes back again when the 25th anniversary of the series comes up in 2002 and adds all the deleted scenes fans and science fiction magazines have been talking about over the years.

I wouldn’t be surprised if scenes detailing Luke’s relationship with his friends on Tatooine in "Star Wars", for example, and sequences in "The Empire Strikes Back" where the rebels, shortly before their escape on Hoth, release the ice creatures they had been holding to attack imperial stormtroopers are reinstated. And in "Return of the Jedi", there is a supposed scene where Darth Vader tries to contact Luke using the force in the film’s opening moments shortly after he arrives on the new Death Star to “motivate” the troops.

There is probably more than enough rolls of deleted scenes sitting in Lucas’ vault to last a couple of anniversaries.

©9/24/97

Who’s to blame for Princess Diana’s untimely end?

The tragic untimely death of Princess Diana over three weeks ago in Paris mentions the most difficult question Hollywood, the world, and the press must now ask. Who is responsible?

Was it the aggressive stalking photojournalists known as the paparazzi who caused the fatal accident as they relentlessly pursued the “people’s princess” and her new boyfriend Dodi al Fayed on motorcycles under the Place de l’Alma bridge that fateful night?

Or should the blame be on the driver, Henri Paul, who was behind the wheel of Diana’s Mercedes 600 going 120 mph at the time of the crash and whose lab tests indicate his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit by almost four times making it, what news accounts report, equivalent to a bottle and a half of wine?

As French Police and members of the British monarchy and Spencer families continue their investigations, it seems likely the paparazzi will be the ones to take the fall.

In one of the most damning comments made to the tabloid press that week, actor George Clooney congratulated the media saying how exhilarated they must feel about the accident.

“You’ve bought and paid for one of the greatest news stories of the year,” Clooney said. “And for your success, you should be held accountable.”

But it isn’t just the tabloid press and the driver who should share the blame. It is also the readers who shell their money out every week buying such filthy rags as The Star and The National Enquirer to find out the latest scoop. If it wasn’t the fact much of the public craves this kind of junk journalism, Diana might still be alive today and the paparazzi would be out of work.

It is unfortunate when the tabloid press says the First Amendment gives them the right to invade a celebrity’s privacy. The First Amendment, however, works both ways. The media can publish what they want but it is the public who has the final say on whether they find the material objectionable. And if they don’t like what was said or photographed, they don’t have to read it or they can launch a counteroffensive attack against the publications through boycotts and lawsuits.

As we can see, however, society is not all that fed up with the things the paparazzi covers. They love to read gossip and in the case of Princess Di, the tabloids delivered. Through pictures and words, the media had a lot of negative things to say about Diana Spencer ever since she burst onto the national spotlight and won the world’s hearts in 1981 when she married Prince Charles. We heard it all from her personal bouts with anorexia and bulimia to her messy divorce and tales of unhappiness.

But the press also captured the positive side of Princess Di, through such emotional, moving pictures and words of kindness as a protective loving mother and her willingness to help the suffering from the homeless and people afflicted with AIDS to her worldwide campaign against land mines.

We never saw those selfless acts of humanitarianism reported about on the front pages of the daily newspapers when she was alive. The articles could only be found somewhere on pages two and up while the tabloid press paid no attention to it at all. The focus of their stories was always on the juicy, lurid, scandalous details of her life because that is what sells magazines. Her brother Charles Spencer spoke of this when he delivered her eulogy Sept. 6.

“I don’t think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media,” he said. “Why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling. My own, and only explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum.”

The death of Princess Di is not going to change the way the paparazzi and the tabloid press hound celebrities. Nor will it stop society from buying the trash they publish every week.

If there is anything positive to come out of this is perhaps her death will send a message to the young about the hazards of drunk driving, speeding and the reason why cars come equipped with seatbelts. It is another worthy cause Diana probably would have immersed herself in sooner or later had she lived.

Perhaps even in death, Princess Di is saving lives.

©9/24/97