“MAKE IT WORK!”

Posted on by
14

It’s an understatement to say I’m not a fashionista. It’s an overstatement to suggest that I spend any real time picking my clothes. I may know about Dior and Michael Kors and Lagerfeld, but my real designers are Champion and Fruit Of The Loom. My daily wear consists of sweats and sweatshirts unless I have to leave the house–in jeans and a variation of a t-shirt.

So what’s a schlub doing watching Project Runway for ten years? Certainly not for Heidi Klum’s Auf Wiedersehen as she thins the herd of wannabe clothing designers. Tim Gunn’s warmth has started to feel pro forma and his wardrobe choices bizarre. Worse, I really don’t like Nina Garcia, the longest lasting judge.

There’s more to dislike. The fact that producers have input on who stays and who goes, based, I’m sure, more upon the personality of particular contestants than merit. That’s a big one. Also their decisions about who stays and goes based upon that single week’s showing as opposed to a body of work over time—or so they say.

What draws me to Project Runway is my opportunity to watch the creative process. Sure, I can read a great book and marvel at the author’s creativity. Same with movies, plays, art, and good TV (which is not an oxymoron). But those things are done deals, finished products to admire and analyze from the outside. Following the process of creation—complete with its ideas, false starts, aha moments, adjustments, is endlessly fascinating—be it designing clothes, cooking (The Iron Chef), house renovation (Property Brothers), or even the art of the sale (Selling New York, etc) continues to be one of my greatest pleasures. It makes me feel better struggling with my job of channeling it from within.

Another example: Tuesdays I go to Music Maker Studios (http://musicmakerstudios.com/) for my sax lesson followed by a session playing in an ensemble. There are times when one or the other of our group really gets it going and improvises the hell out of a song. Just listening makes me incredibly happy. It’s as if a muse is in their head. Which it probably is since my best writing occurs when I’m just scribbling down the movie in my mind.

Somewhat similar, I remember watching a YouTube clip of a policeman in the middle of a crazy busy intersection on his box and using his arm signals and body motions as if conducting a world class orchestra. Perhaps he was. What is certain is everyone who passed him by caught at least a glimpse of “performance art.” Call me crazy, but I find moments like that spiritually uplifting.

The point? Exposing myself to others’ creative processes is nourishment for my own. My Tuesday nights will never turn me into a Stan Getz, but I’ve listened and learned to play better. And more importantly, write better.

Years ago, I wrote a post, “Writing From The Heart,” (http://zacharykleinonline.com/personal-experience/writing-from-the-heart/) which was an attempt to identify the place my best writing comes from. That column still holds true, but I’ve learned through music, the cop (and Heidi) that immersing myself in other peoples’ creativity enhances and informs my own.

What’s nice about this realization is its compatibility with my political beliefs. We really don’t stand alone as individuals but are interconnected to others. We build upon and are inspired by people who came before or work beside us in ours and other fields. Seems like a simple idea, but in these Randian times even simple gets blowback.

Sadly, all too many in the arts would vociferously defend their work as theirs. And it is, though from where I sit, never only theirs.

So fellow writers and artists, musicians and policemen, and everybody who gives a shit about being creative—you are not alone. It makes sense to remember that. Makes all the solitude a little easier to take.

“Your chances of success are directly proportional to the degree of pleasure you derive from what you do.” Michael Korda

“…MY KINGDOM FOR A HORSE”

Posted on by
14

 

The telephone woke me out of a deep sleep so I was annoyed.

“Who the hell is this?

“I’m terribly sorry, but I’m calling from Great Britain and, due to circumstances, had to ignore the time difference. I do so apologize.”

“Who are you and what’s so important?”

He told me his name, asked me not to publish it, but to refer to him as a representative of The Richard lll Society.

“What does anyone from The Richard lll Society want with me?”

“Mr. Klein…”

“Zach, please.”

“Zach. It’s not just anyone who wants to speak to you. Indeed, no one from the Society, actually.”

“Then why the wake-up call?”

“Mr., excuse me, Zach. You must have read about the recent discovery of Richard III’s remains.”

“Yes?”

“His Majesty has requested that we immediately fly you to the University of Leicester for an audience. An interview, if you will.”

That got me off my back and sitting up as Sue cocked her head quizzically.

“Me?”

“His Majesty has enjoyed your Interviews With The Dead Series and believes you to be fair, and willing to present his words accurately.”

“It’s going to take some time to make arrangements…”

“Everything has been taken care of. In fact, your plane to Birmingham Airport leaves at 6 A.M. There will be a car at your house in about, about an hour and a half. I’ll meet you at Birmingham and we’ll drive directly to the University.”

After I hung up, I felt a wave of annoyance at his, their, presumption that I’d be willing to just pick up and leave.  It quickly passed as I realized how right they’d been. It’s good to be the King–even if you’ve been dead for 528 years.

THE INTERVIEW:

Exhausted from a five-hour transcontinental cram of British history, I sat in a quiet room  in one of the University’s libraries. Then the king was wheeled in on a cart.

Richard lll:  “Thoust form appears as I feel–bone tired.”

Me:  “You’re worse for wear, I’d say. Will we be able to conduct the interview in modern English? It would make it much easier for me and my readers.”

Richard lll:  “Of course. I’ve spent many years quietly listening to the world change above me. Though I must warn you, I might slip into a few ‘thou’s’ and other common phrases used during my lifetime. Centuries old habits are quite difficult to break.”

Me: Thank you, Your Majesty. I’ve certainly been following your excavation with great interest…”

Richard lll:  “They really did a marvelous job. Just their persistence was quite amazing–especially given my reputation. Or, the slander of my reputation, that is.”

Me:  “All of it?”

Given who/what I had as an interviewee, I had no facial expressions to help decipher emotional undertones. I’d have to rely on his voice to glean what his feelings might be.

Richard lll:  “That’s actually quite a difficult question. ‘Tis true I was forced to kill to acquire the Crown, but it truly was my Crown to acquire. It wasn’t I who decided that the True and Honorable King Edward lV’s marriage to Elizabeth was illegal. Nor was it I who declared their children illegitimate and barred from succession.”

Me:  “But you did murder several people on your way to the Crown.”

Methinks I hear a royal chuckle.

Richard lll:   “And all the wars, assassinations, ‘regime building’ since?’ Is that not murder to wear a Crown? Truly, I did kill four people. Hardly a slaughter and faced no other opposition to my crowning. It was that damnable Shakespeare, or should I say Edward de Vere, that frightened Earl who wouldn’t even disclose his name, who truly turned me into a monster. Which, of course I wasn’t. I repeat, four people. ‘Tis thus a slaughter? Dost that suggest mass opposition to my Kingship? How is it that few will acknowledge that my ascendency halted a potential civil war?”

I was still stuck by his calling Shakespeare Edward de Vere.

Me:  “The Earl of Oxford?”

Richard lll:   “The 17th Earl of Oxford to be precise. Of course it was de Vere who turned me into a deformed hunchback with a withered arm. ‘Now is the winter of our discontent.’ My Posterior–if I still had one. Lies, all lies, though well written lies, I must admit. Surely you don’t think an uneducated minstrel could write about me–scurrilous as the writing might be. Or perhaps you believed it to be Marlowe?”

Clearly Shakespeare, or de Vere, touched a royal nerve. If he still had any.

Me:  “I’ve never had a horse in that race.”

Richard lll:   “Thou means?”

Me:  “I was never concerned by who wrote Shakespeare’s work.”

Richard lll:  “Perhaps if you had been subject to hundreds of years of relentless attacks due to de Vere’s vicious fictions, you might have had, as you say, ‘a steed in that race.’

Me:  “So you deny murdering your nephews too?”

Richard lll:   “Deny? Of course I deny! Think, please. History is in the eye of who writes it and it was that ever-scheming Henry and his minions who did the writing. The Tudors’ rumoured and schemed and plotted throughout every day of my reign. Who would you expect to be accused?”

His bones began to rattle as his fury mounted.

Richard lll:  “Think! Why would I kill them? They were no threat to me; I was the legitimate Monarch. I was close to their mother Elizabeth throughout my entire reign, my entire life! Now, think again! Who were they a threat to? To Henry! Is it not surprising that no formal accusation was ever made? Henry never even produced the bodies of the dead princes for public mourning and a state funeral. Why not, if they had been slain by my hand? Because it was Henry’s henchmen who murdered them! Yes, Henry VII even brought a Bill of Attainder against me, yet no mention of the princes was made. Curious, n’est pas?

Me:  “How could Henry have killed them, King Richard?”

Richard lll:  “I would most certainly suggest that those who want the truth, and can handle the truth, take a close look at John Russell, my oft disloyal Chancellor. The mistake I made was simply ridding the Court of his person–instead of the earth!  But then de Vere and all his eloquent lies…”

Me:  “You certainly hate him, don’t you?”

Richard lll:  “Of course! He turned my hunger of justice, my reformation of our legal system, my love of country so grand I was willing to die for it into a distortion of me and my life. Even a cursory glance at my short reign will show my losses, sacrifices, my attempt to keep peace that went for naught. No English Monarch has died on the battlefield since I!

Me:  “There certainly has been a distortion about what you looked like, if this facial reconstruction is at all accurate.”

Richard lll:  “It’s quite accurate. As is the fact that while my posture was not true, I was certainly no hunchback. But I really must return to the ugliest stain upon my reputation. The princes. While true that recent historians at least argue about the truth, it took a mystery writer to discern it. Yes, The Daughter of Time, though incorrect about the murderer, speaks to my complete innocence.”

Me:  “You read The Daughter Of Time?”

Richard lll:  “Listened. A book on tape, as the moderns say.”

Me:  “Well, I certainly understand your concern about those murders if what you’re saying is to be believed.”

Richard lll:  “If!. If? If I were still among the living I’d…Dammit, man, read Sir Clements Markham. Read Horace Walpole. Read Jeremy Potter. Yes, read Josephine Tey!  If you still have doubts, return and again we shall talk.”

I could hear his weariness and decided to respect it.

Me:  “If I might be permitted one last question?”

Richard lll:  “Most assuredly.”

Me:  There seems to be a fight brewing about where to place your remains. Leicester wants to re-inter you in the city’s cathedral, but York is petitioning to have you there. Do you have a preference?

Richard lll:  “After all this time, how could I not? Though I can’t blame modern Leicester for my horrific squashed burial box, and the University did take the time to find me, I prefer York. It is my homeland and where I belong. Though I imagine they’ll do with me what they wish. I’m used to that.”

Me:  “Thank you for this interview King Richard. I never expected it.”

Richard lll:  “‘Tis a pleasure Klein, if only for an opportunity to stretch my legs. I do fervently hope you’ll be clear about de Ville’s monstrous lies. They have kept me awake for half a millennium.

‘The caricature of the last Plantagenet king was too grotesque, and too grossly opposed to the character derived from official records. The stories were an outrage on commonsense…My own conclusions are that Richard III must be acquitted on all counts of the indictment.’  Sir Clements Markham (1906)

‘Richard proved himself an energetic and efficient king’ with a proper concern for justice and the impartial administration of the law. ‘No one familiar with the careers of King Louis XI of France, in Richard’s own time, or Henry VIII of England in his own country, would wish to cast any special slur on Richard, still less to select him as the exemplar of a tyrant’. Charles Ross (1981)

Z D 30 HULABALO, HUH?

Posted on by
20

“A rose is a rose is a rose.” So is an action flic, but Zero Dark 30, the film about the hunt for, and capture of, Osama Bin Laden, has raised hackles throughout the entire political spectrum. As if a rose is not a rose. A friend sent me a review by Rabbi Brant Rosen (http://rabbibrant.com/2013/01/21/zero-dark-thirty-my-shalom-rav-review/), which covers most of the criticisms aimed at Z D 30, so I’ll use as a foil to write about the film and its controversies.

According to the rabbi, the movie opening with the words, “Based on firsthand accounts of actual events,“ means it’s “insidious” not to be historically accurate. Sorry, I think “based on” signals the viewer that what we are seeing is not a documentary but rather a fictionalized account of a true story. Countless films, books, and plays use “based on” as a jump-off and rarely get blasted.  So why is this night…?

In his post Rabbi Rosen continues: “From an artistic point of view, I can say without hesitation that I was riveted by ZDT from beginning to end. Kathryn Bigelow is clearly one of our most talented American directors, particularly in her ability to construct a film with a palpable sense of documentary realism. In so many ways she, along with screenwriter Mark Boal, and her entire filmmaking team had me in the palm of their collective hand.

Which is why I also found ZDT to be a morally reprehensible piece of cinematic propaganda.”

Perhaps Rosen feels that the movie’s ability to blur fact and fiction worked too well, but that ultimately should be a compliment, not a criticism.

Rosen complains that the use of 911 call recordings from the September 11th attacks was purely manipulative. Since the movie is about the hunt for Bin Laden it should have begun with the chase. Problem is, Rosen didn’t write the screenplay. The screenwriter, Mark Boal, chose to frame the context with the reason for the hunt and, while the voices from that day are chilling, his decision was dramatically sound. When you think about it, films, books, art, and entertainment are inherently manipulative. Even those that purport to be objective—including journalism.

Rosen then moves to the issue of concern to many, including government officials: Z D 30 glorifies the use of torture by graphically showing it and suggesting torture yielded important information. Of course there was torture. It was well known government policy, euphemistically “enhanced interrogation techniques.” But glorification, or even endorsement? Frankly, I think those scenes are Rorschach tests that tell as much about the viewer as anything else. In reality, the movie makes it quite clear that the essential clues in finding Bin Laden came from painstaking detective work and not torture—a fact often overlooked by those who complain about “glorification.”

I saw the film’s take on torture as a pretty accurate picture of reality. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Also, as Michael Moore pointed out in an interview, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/michael-moore-zero-dark-thirty-torture_n_2552123.html) the real question about torture isn’t whether it “works” or doesn’t. Torture is a moral question and, in his opinion (mine as well), it is wrong. Z D 30 neither condemned or glorified. It showed. Perhaps the rabbi might have felt better if the movie began after President Obama outlawed the use of torture just as he wanted it to begin after the attacks?

Rabbi Rosen formulates, “Beyond this issue (torture), ZDT is dangerous for an even more essential reason. As Peter Haas pointed out in a recent piece for the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/dont-trust-zero-dark-thirty/266253/) it represents a new genre of “entertainment” he calls “embedded filmmaking.”

Near as I can tell embedded filmmaking seems to mean that Bigelow and Boal had “special” access to government information that raised concerns, including some by senators, that the Obama administration had granted that access for political reasons. According to the Inside Movies’ writer Anthony Breznican (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/08/28/zero-dark-thirty-documents/) this simply isn’t true–though a CIA official did spend forty minutes with the two. In fact, careful perusal of related documents shows no indication that anyone in the administration helped shape the movie, despite that forty minute meeting.

But more importantly, even if “special” access were true, so what?  Does the rabbi remember Woodward and Bernstein? Would he have called them embedded journalists because of their connection to Deep Throat?

I’m no fan of the relatively recent phenomena of wartime embedded reporters. In fact, I despise it. But that doesn’t mean I think every story to come out of Iraq and Afghanistan was simply government sponsored propaganda. And I don’t think Z D 30 is either.

Finally, Rabbi Rosen points out that “The CIA and the U.S. government are the Good Guys, the innocent targets of terrorist violence, the courageous warriors seeking justice for the 9/11 victims. Muslims and Arabs are the dastardly villains, attacking and killing without motive…Almost all Hollywood action films end with the good guys vanquishing the big, bad, villain—so that the audience can leave feeling good about the world and themselves—and this is exactly the script to which this film follows.”

Duh. If Z D 30 does what virtually every action film does, what’s Rosen’s point? Why pick Z D 30 to complain about? On top of which, no one I know who has seen the film recounts walking out feeling “good about the world and themselves.” And, as far as portraying Arabs and Muslims as bad guys, what films about Dessert Storm, Afghanistan, or Iraq hasn’t? From the moment cowboy pictures hit the screen, it’s been us against them. A huge aspect of our culture has been based upon that idea.

Truth is, I believe the firestorm about this movie is over the top. Over the top political correctness from progressives and over the top from those on the right who holler about Obama propaganda.

I left feeling I’d just watched one hell of a thriller. Two and a half hours flew by without one butt squirm. The story was well framed, the characters well drawn. Jessica Chastain was amazing and believable in her role as Maya the obsessive agent who is unable to let go of her hunt for Bin Laden. Indeed, the last scene shows Maya alone in an H-130 aircraft and, when asked where she wants to go, the tears begin to flow. Her twelve year obsession resolved, she doesn’t have anywhere to go. But I also left the theater grappling with the issues the rabbi raised regarding torture, our government policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the sense—or lack thereof—about spending the time, money, and people power to track down and assassinate one individual. Issues raised, but not simply answered, by a film based upon a true story.

Zero Dark Thirty grabbed me, held me, and made me think. You really can’t ask much more from any movie.

“A book is a mirror; if an ass peers into it, you can’t expect an apostle to look out.” ~G.C. Lichtenberg

CONVERSATION WITH KING:

Posted on by
8

I recently had the good fortune of spending time with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since today is a celebration of his life and accomplishments, I believe it appropriate to publish the interview. We met in Providence, Rhode Island, in a quiet room off the lobby of the Biltmore Hotel. Only about 5′ 6½” his stocky build lent size and gravitas to his presence.  He wore a dark brown suit with a thin tie and settled into the couch with a contented sigh.

MLK:  “Good to be here. Don’t get around much anymore.”

ME:  “Dr. King, I was surprised you asked to meet me in Providence.”

A small smile danced across his face.

MLK:  “I knew it wasn’t terribly far from your home–mine either.

ME:  “You know, I was pretty nervous thinking about talking to you. I feel I’m in the presence of a truly great human being.”

MLK:  “I hope you aren’t nervous now. As you can see, we both have two arms and two legs.

ME:  “Dr. King…”

MLK:  “Martin, please.”

ME:  “That might be tough, sir.”

A flicker of annoyance flashed in his bright brown eyes.

MLK:  “This interview isn’t going to last very long if you insist on calling me ‘sir.’ I much prefer to be seen as a person, even a dead person. I’m getting tired of being a larger than life figure.”

ME:  “Okay, s.., excuse me, Martin, but speaking of larger than life, what do you think about your monument?”

MLK:  “I’ve always thought of myself as a kinder and friendlier looking man than the one made from that stone. I appreciate the thought and effort, but find the strife it’s caused from its conception onward…”

ME:  “Pretty ironic.”

MLK:  “Very much so. I’d rather my legacy be framed in social progress.”

ME:  “In your wildest imaginings, did you ever think this country would have a Martin Luther King holiday?”

MLK:  “Of course not, although being assassinated helped, I suppose. But at the time of my death, my approval rating was around 30 percent.”

ME:  “You kept track of approval ratings?”

MLK:  “Ahh, another shock to your fantasy about Saint Martin? As a writer who came along after me once wrote, ‘The medium is the message.’ While I don’t entirely agree with that message, it was important to understand how others saw me if I wanted my words and actions to mean something.”

ME:  “Why only 30 percent, though?”

MLK:  “I’m tempted to suggest that you ask the respondents, but I’ll give it a try. It was a moment in time when traditions were being challenged. When the vast majority of Americans were confused, upset, and bewildered by what was taking place around them. Stokely had rejected my non-violent approach toward change by calling for Black Power and aligning himself with the Panthers. So there was real fear among White people about Negro leaders.  But I think what angered many people in 1968, including allies and friends, was my linkage of civil rights, the Vietnam war, support of unions, and a guaranteed income for everybody as the way to end poverty.”

ME:  “Do you feel your non-violent approach was vindicated by the election of a Black President. Progress as a result of your efforts?”

King smiled widely before he spoke.

MLK:  “It’s certainly progress but needs to be understood within a larger context.”

I nodded for him to continue.

MLK:  “In the long run, the most important aspect of Obama’s presidency may be less that he is a Negro than the coalition he put together to be elected. I believe he was able to mobilize the constituencies needed to work for significant and progressive change. I’m hopeful that coalition will continue to act in concert. People of color, as we’re now known, young people, White people, women, unions, Gays.  All were instrumental in Obama’s election.”

It took me a moment to realize the sound coming from the couch was laughter.

MLK:  “Which is why those groups are so angry with him.  He surely isn’t a progressive.  Which is also why people who believe in real progress must understand that change comes from the ground up and not top down.”

ME:  “You sound like a member of the Occupy Movement.”

MLK:  “I really don’t belong to groups anymore.”

ME:  “But it does sound like you support their cause though many people criticize their lack of organization, that their outdoor compounds were just magnets for drug addicts and the homeless.

MLK:  “Causes is more accurate. And I do believe if they are to become relevant organizational development is essential, but the other criticisms–those sadden me. Homelessness in a land of this wealth? Drug addiction without real treatment alternatives? A justice system that metes out different punishments for drugs that White and Black people use? Worse–a country that turned its mentally ill onto the streets by closing down homes and institutions while spending billions for multiple wars? Those are tragedies and that’s why the broadest possible progressive coalition–including addicts and the homeless–is needed to foster real change.”

ME:  “People point to the election of President Obama as evidence that we, in the U.S. live in a “post-racial” society.  What’s your take?”

King’s bulky body shook and this time there was no confusion about his laughter.

MLK:  “From where I listen, the words often used are ‘level playing field.’ That, and ‘post racial’ are ways to ignore the injustice that runs rampant throughout this society. Simply look at life expectancy: white males live about seven years longer on average than Black men. White women live more than five years longer than their Black counterparts. Although researchers have suggested that genetics accounts for the differences in health and not health care access, that notion has been debunked. Wages? As recently as 2010 median annual earnings of Black men were 74, 75 cents to a White male’s dollar. Less than the Constitution’s original 3/5ths valuation.

I began to ask another question but King shook me off.

MLK:  “The issues facing our country are deeper than simply race–though race is certainly not simple. The issue of color is interwoven with economics and economics affect more than just people of color. It affects the White woman and her children who live in a holler without clean water, or no water at all, the laborer whose pensions have been destroyed by the upper class even as the upper class generates enormous amounts of money for itself, the government worker who no longer has the right to collective bargaining, the middle class who struggle to pay exorbitant college tuition. I could continue.

ME:  “You seem pretty up to date on what’s taking place here.”

MLK:  “I have plenty of time on my hands.”

ME:  “So if you were able to return would you still be as committed to non-violence given everything you just described?”

MLK:  “Absolutely. Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. It doesn’t require murder. A society formed from blood inevitably leads to more blood. We need nothing else than to look at history for confirmation.”

ME:  “Most people don’t believe this world capable of non-violence. To use your words, ‘we need nothing else than to look at history for confirmation.'”

King smiled.

MLK:  “You’ve lost your nervousness. Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”

ME:  “You didn’t have a chance to climb the stairs.”

MLK:  “The assassination just strengthened my belief that a society built upon blood never leaves that blood behind–which makes it so important that change is engendered non-violently.”

Dr. King stood and I popped off my chair.

MLK:  “I’m not interviewed much these days. Thank you.”

ME:  “Are you kidding? This was an honor.”

MLK:  “No, my friend, it was just an interview.”

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”
Martin Luther King

CRUISE’N: WITHOUT THE ‘N

Posted on by
20

The lights began to slowly brighten as the movie credits rolled onto the giant screen; Jack Reacher had reached its end. We stood and I could feel Sue’s eyes rake my face.

“Okay,” I said, “it was a bad movie and Cruise was wooden.”

There, I’d done it. Bared my neck and waited for her teeth. But she was kind. Must have been because it was our mini-honeymoon (mini-moon) in Providence. Still, I couldn’t help myself.

“I’m not crazy about him as an action hero either, you know.”

“I know,” Sue replied, her voice trailing off as if she wanted to say more but didn’t.

And there it was. An agreement to disagree, debate avoided. We’ve been having this “discussion” for decades and neither of us have given an inch, so this truce was really the best I could hope for.

Ever since Dustin Hoffman won an Academy Award for Rain Man in 1988, I’d become a Tom Cruise champion. I couldn’t believe they gave the Oscar to Hoffman while Cruise’s performance was rich, nuanced, with a real and believable arc.

I hadn’t been surprised by his ability. Nor was I surprised by his willingness to play against a super strong older actor. He’d done it before in The Color Of Money with Paul Newman and more than held his own. He would also do it again. A number of times.

Still Sue couldn’t understand why I believed he should have won Best Actor.

“Hoffman’s performance was terrific and Cruise is a lightweight.”

“What are you saying? You’ve seen Hoffman on talk shows. He damn near played himself in the movie.”

“It was different enough. And you still haven’t said anything about Cruse’s shallowness.”

“Because he isn’t!”

“I suppose not–if you reduce the idea of what being a man is to brash assertiveness.”

And so it has gone. When Cruise’s name comes up and I say tomato, Sue potato. Even when she actually likes one of his films.

But I haven’t come here today to bury Susan; I’ve come to praise Tom.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t much enjoy him in action pictures—though, I thought he was pretty good in Brian De Palma’s Mission Impossible. And the only thing I enjoyed about Eyes Wide Shut was Nichole Kidman. While I’m at it, I thought Days of Thunder was a clichéd story despite good performances by Cruise, Kidman, and especially Robert Duval—it was also another film where Cruise held his own working alongside a brilliant older male actor.

Sure, there are plenty of dogs in his portfolio. But when you look at the totality of his work I think it’s mission impossible to denigrate his acting prowess:

Top Gun where he fit the role perfectly.

All The Right Moves where moviegeeks.com said: “Tom Cruise shines as a high school football player desperately trying to land a college scholarship so he can leave his small town…” And rated the movie #18 in all time best football flicks. (Personally, I’d have rated it higher but that’s me. Yes, few can beat Dallas North Forty, but I never was a Knute Rockne or William Bendix fan—except for The Life Of Riley.)

A Few Good Men. The money line was shouted by Jack Nicholson, but once again Cruise was spot on with his portrayal of Lt. Daniel Kaffee and stood strong in the face of Nicholson’s performance and fury.

Jerry Maguire. “Show me the money!!” Nuff said.

And finally, what I consider his greatest role as Ron Kovic in the amazing film Born On The Fourth Of July. Cruise handled his part with Academy Award winning brilliance, hitting just the right notes throughout the entire movie.

There are many more, but I’d like to add just one cameo appearance in Ben Stiller’s Tropic Thunder. Whatever one thinks of the movie (frankly, I loved it, as dumb and crazy as it was) Cruise’s moments on camera as a Hollywood producer simply stole the show. The memory of his bald head bobbing as he danced around his Los Angeles office is forever burned into my brain.

I’m not Pauline Kael, James Agee, or Roger Ebert, so to cement my case, let me list the directors who have chosen to cast him in their films.

Franco Zeffirelli (Endless Love, 1981)

Francis Ford Coppola (The Outsiders, 1983)

Ridley Scott (Legend, 1985)

Tony Scott (Top Gun, 1986)

Martin Scorsese (The Color Of Money, 1986)

Barry Levinson (Rain Man, 1988)

Oliver Stone (Born On The Fourth Of July, 1989)

Ron Howard (Far And Away, 1992)

Rob Reiner (A Few Good Men, 1992)

Sydney Pollack (The Firm, 1993)

Cameron Crowe (Jerry Maguire, 1996)

Steven Spielberg (Minority Report, 2002)

Michael Mann (Collateral, 2004)

Robert Redford (Lions For Lambs, 2007)

I’m in some seriously good company.

When I showed this post to Sue, she quickly eyeballed my lists. “So?”

“‘So?’ What do you mean ‘so?’ Look at that list of directors. Look at the movies he’s been in!”

“He’s still shallow.”

I shook my head, searching for a comeback. All I could finally manage was, “but you’ll never forget him skidding across the floor only wearing BVDs in Risky Business, will you?”

Don’t forget Zach’s frequent consumer protection statement: I make stuff up. –Susan Goodman