Archive | history RSS feed for this section

A New York Legend (6)

12 Dec

December 12, 2011

Hello everyone, time for your New York Minute.

Nostalgia is a funny thing. No matter how good your life is or what state the world is in, it was always better some other time. Believe it or not, some day in the future someone will look back on his life and, with a wistful look in his eyes and the thin line of a tear drying on his check, say that he misses the good old days of 2011 when Occupy Wall Street violently clashed with the police, The Real Housewives were on every channel, and wonder why they don’t have great comedians like Russell Brand anymore. Trust me, wait and see. And yeah, another New York Minute and another shot at Russell Brand. He’s not funny.

A lot of people today are nostalgic for the 1970’s and I’m not sure why. New York was dirty, crime was way up, the subways were covered with graffiti, the city was broke, and every other day one union or another was going on strike. Even the 1970’s didn’t like the 1970’s, it was nostalgic for the 1950’s. Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, American Graffiti, all were set in the 1950’s.

And so was The Lords of Flatbush.

Seriously, was the the worst trailer you have ever seen?

Released in 1974, it was the story of a gang of leather jacketed teenagers from Flatbush, Brooklyn. The teens, played by Perry King, age 26, Sylvester Stallone, age 28, and Henry Winkler, 29 years old, is a coming of age story starring three guys who came of age long ago. They steal cars, shoot pool, hang out, fight, and do all the things you’d expect a Hollywood version of a 1950’s gang to do. It is a good film, and some parts of it were actually shot in Brooklyn. The school scenes were filmed in Lincoln High School in Coney Island. I know that school very well, but that’s a New York Minute for another time.

The only problem with the movie is the totally misleading title. A bunch of greasers from the 50’s? Sorry, no. Ask anyone over a certain age and they’ll tell you that the real Lords of Flatbush were the Brooklyn Dodgers.

In baseball, the Brooklyn Dodgers have reached mythic proportions. Anyone who was a Brooklyn Dodgers fan in the 1950’s is a fan for life, despite the team’s moving to Los Angeles in 1958. Fans were passionate about the players, and even non-baseball fans will recognize some of the names, like Jackie Robinson, Pee Wee Reese, and Gil Hodges.

My mother and my uncle were Dodger fans growing up, and for some reason my grandfather was a New York Giants fan. It wasn’t like the Mets and Yankees rivalry today, baseball was personal then. The Dodgers were underdogs, they were Brooklyn guys, they were us and we were them. Not me, I wasn’t born yet, but you know what I mean. The Yankees were in the mix too and they had passionate fans but the Dodgers had a blue-collar working stiff image that people responded to. And they were local guys, from Flatbush. So my mom, my uncle, and grandpa were a tight-knit family but sitting around the table talking baseball was a different story. Dodgers fans and Giant fans did not mix. I have no idea how my family survived.

So the baseball debate raged in my family’s first floor apartment on King’s Highway and into the mix a real Brooklyn Dodger was added. Sandy Koufax briefly lived in my family’s building. Yes, my mom knew Sandy Koufax.

165 wins and only 87 losses, an ERA of 2.76, and 2,396 strikeouts. Inducted in 1972, Sandy Koufax is true Baseball Hall of Famer. He threw four no hitters, won three Cy Young awards, and was the league’s MVP in 1963.

Those of you who follow my blog  know that I am a former teacher and I recently finished a nine-week series about my former life. I taught for ten years in a particular school and it happens to be the same school attended by Sandy Koufax when he was a rising high school baseball star. Even decades later it was still a big deal.

So my family has a six-degrees sort of connection to Sandy Koufax and yes he is a legend in the sport, and yes he famously refused to pitch the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on a Jewish holiday, and yes he is revered in baseball circles but again, nostalgia rears its head.

Great athletes do not great people make, and while I am not saying that Sandy Koufax is in any way a bad man, the facts are that when he was young and living in my mother’s apartment building he was, I don’t want to say rude, but he never spoke to any of his neighbors. I don’t mean he turned down autograph requests and refused to give free tickets to the games, I mean he never said hi when you passed him the halls. And decades later, when I sent him a personal appeal on behalf of my high school’s yearbook he never replied. But to be fair, neither did Larry King, who also attended that school.

And while I am name dropping, over the years the school I taught in was also attended by artist Peter Max, Sopranos actor Steven Schirripa, singer Vic Damone, sitcom creator Gary David Goldberg, Paul Sorvino, Rhea Perlman, and my father, among many other famous alumni.

Fred Wilpon, owner of the New York Mets attended that school. Say what you will about him and his team, but when we sent him a letter asking for a donation for the yearbook he actually sent us a donation. Most people never got back to us.

Today the legend of the Brooklyn Dodgers is carried on by the New York Mets. The blue in their uniforms is taken from Dodger blue and their new stadium is a replica of the Dodger’s old stadium, Ebbet’s Field.

Too bad they are such a lousy team. And before you complain, yes, I am a long-suffering Mets fan. And no Mets fan knows nostalgia like we do. Say “1986” to any Mets fan and you’ll get a reaction.

In a few years you may even be nostalgic for this New York Minute.

Spotlight: Peter Church and Radio’s Revenge

7 Dec

December 7, 2011

Meet the Renaissance Man, Peter Church. When I contacted him about being part of this spotlight week, I gave him carte blanche, as I did everyone. I didn’t know what I would get, but I knew it would be good. As you will read below, Peter Church (known in certain quarters as Jello Again!- and bonus points if you get the reference) is an actor. He appears on stage and video and lends his considerable vocal talents to performing original audio dramas for Radio’s Revenge.

Peter has spent the last six years as a repertory actor for The Classical Theatre Project (Toronto), logging thousands of performances in productions of Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, Othello and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

According to him, the idea for Radio’s Revenge started a couple of years ago with a desire to perform old-time radio scripts on stage for the entertainment of senior citizens. His principal duties around the podcast are as writer and actor. He’ll occasionally step in to help produce, edit and/or direct but those hats are more often worn by his creative partner, Sean Doyle. In other words, he’s taken something I’ve long wanted to do and actually made a go of it. I’m jealous, but on the other hand I am not nearly as talented.

Another one of the good guys, Peter has taken time out of his busy (and I mean that, the man is busy) schedule to give us the essay below. After reading it, I knew that this had to run today, December 7th: Pearl Harbor Day. While WWII is sometimes considered a high point in American patriotism and spirit, it also led to some awful propaganda and stereotyping. So while you recall the tragedy of the sinking of the USS Arizona and think about the soldiers from around the world who died in what was arguably the last great and just war, take a second out to think about what Peter has to say about our culture.

Find him online at www.twitter.com/radiosrevenge and look for him on Facebook here.

 Stereotypewriter.

The issue of racism, sexism, and other cultural insensitivities in vintage entertainment is nothing new.  I’m sure most of us have all heard of instances where a group of people wants to remove the N-word from “Huck Finn” or ban a Bugs Bunny cartoon made in 1941.

“Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips,” 1944, removed from circulation by Warner Brothers. Copies of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection containing this cartoon were recalled and replaced with another cartoon after a very small number of complaints.

I’ve often engaged in this debate and it seems to me that most reasonable people hold a rather moderate position on the subject.  People that appreciate the importance of Art don’t seem to want to sanitize our History.  Likewise, most people who understand History do not seem to want to censor its Art.  I suppose Art and History are actually two sides of the same coin since, at some point, Art actually becomes a way of recording History.

An example of this came a couple of years ago when I was attending the Silent Comedy Short-Film Festival in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  The curator started by describing some racist content in one of the upcoming shorts from the 1920’s, where a white guy spills molasses on himself and is mistaken as a black guy, and a black guy gets flour on himself and is mistaken as a white guy.  He went on to explain that he was having second thoughts about sharing it as part of the festival and wanted the audience’s opinion on the subject.  The audience (about 200 people) unanimously voted for the film to be presented as originally planned.  At the end of the screening, during a talkback session, the consensus seemed to be that it would be irresponsible NOT to revisit offensive material from our past.  How else can we learn from our mistakes?  If we hide our past, or pretend that it’s blemish-free, then we start to re-write our history and can’t properly or honestly build our future.

Woof, woof, woof.

What I’m wondering now is – what does all this mean for someone like me – someone who creates modern comedy based on, or inspired by, vintage entertainment?  In my case, I write and produce radio plays in the setting and style of broadcasts from the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s.  The scripts are light and fun and need to be suitable for airing on a small-town radio station.  Of course, like the short-film described above, our source material include racial and gender stereotypes that can be abrasive to modern sensibilities.  Here are just a few arbitrary examples:

Radio is a faceless medium and therefore the audience has very little context for who we are or what we do.  As a modern writer, who presumably knows better, do I have a social responsibility to let bygones remain as bygones?  When we live in a culture that regularly produces “shock jocks” and “gross-out comedies”, where is the line between poking fun at nostalgic conventions and simply enflaming current sensitivities?

As an unofficial centre of American Art & History, I’d love to hear answers.  Please post a comment and let me know what you think.

Radio’s Amos and Andy