Search This Blog

Monday, February 10, 2014

007 Feature #6 - "Casino Royale" featuring Craig...Daniel Craig

I can't believe that it has come to this, but we're in our final week of the special 007 feature that I have kept going in the Monday Matinee feature over the past six weeks.



Since the beginning of the year, we've had a lot of fun reminiscing about all things Bond.  And, of course, we've had a lot of fun comparing and contrasting the half dozen men who have been lucky enough to play the role of James Bond in film. 

Just to recap, here are the previous entries in the special 007 Monday Matinees - dating all the way back to January 6.

007 Feature #1 - Dr. No featuring Connery...Sean Connery
007 Feature #2 - On Her Majesty's Secret Service featuring Lazenby...George Lazenby

And, here we are.  The sixth and final entry in the series featuring the sixth - and as of 2014 current - actor to play James Bond.  And, the casting of this new Bond is an interesting story.

But to begin this story, why don't we take a trip back in time to 1995 - the same year that Pierce Brosnan debuted as James Bond in "GoldenEye".  When Brosnan was given the role, his contract was for four films in the James Bond series.  And over a period of seven years between 1995 and 2002, Brosnan honoured his commitment to those films.  Many people suspected that because Brosnan's films did quite well at the box office that he would extend his contract.

However, Brosnan was also quite the observant fellow, and he noted that the longer Roger Moore stayed in the role of James Bond, the worse the movies got.  By the time Roger Moore retired as Bond in 1985, he was already pushing sixty, and 1985's "A View To A Kill" was considered one of the worst films of the entire Bond franchise from a financial standpoint.

So with Pierce Brosnan turning fifty years old himself in 2003, he decided to leave the franchise after 2002's "Die Another Day" because he didn't want to have the same thing happen to him as it did with Roger Moore.  Brosnan's resignation from the Bond series was made official in February 2004.  Shortly after that, the casting process began for the next movie in the Eon Production series.

And, according to Bond producer Michael G. Wilson, there were a long list of actors just waiting to take Brosnan's place.  It is rumoured that Croatian actor Goran Visnjic was one of the top contenders for the role, and certainly he does have the right look for James Bond.  Unfortunately, he didn't have the right voice, as his heavy Croatian accent prevented him from mimicking a proper British accent.

Sam Worthington was considered as well, but quickly passed over.  And Henry Cavill was only twenty-two when he auditioned for the part of James Bond - which was WAY too young for the role.

(Keep in mind that Connery and Lazenby tied for the youngest James Bond ever - as both of them were thirty when they filmed their first films.)

But then a new name surfaced that had film producers intrigued.  A name that was linked to other projects such as "I Dreamed Of Africa", "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider", "Road To Perdition", and "The Jacket".  A casting choice that was not without controversy.



Yes, the casting choice of Daniel Craig as Bond was quite a story.  Believe it or not, Craig had been offered the role of James Bond in 2004 - the same year that Brosnan officially handed in his resignation.  And, believe it or not, Craig refused at first.  He had felt as though the Bond formula had gotten quite stale and stagnant, and he believed that a typical Bond film followed the same exact formula which did not interest him at all.

However, Craig changed his tune when he was given the script for Eon's twenty-first film in the series.  When he read the script, he instantly took on the role, and in October 2005, the official announcement was made that Daniel Craig would become the sixth actor to play Bond.

And, boy oh boy were people initially angry about it.  For one, the previous actors were all suave, debonair, and dark-haired.  This Bond was blonde!  And, apparently something as simple as a different hair colour was enough to make people furious.  Many people took to the Internet and voiced their displeasure - even creating a website entitled "Daniel Craig is NOT Bond".  Can you believe that?  Even British publication "The Daily Mirror" ran a piece with the headline "The Name's Bland - James Bland".

Ouch.

Despite all of these detractors and people planning on boycotting any Bond films with Daniel Craig in the lead role, I decided to give him a shot.  And, upon retrospect, I'm really glad I did.  Not only did I feel that Craig did the role justice, but after watching him as Bond, he is easily ranked as my second favourite Bond of all time (admittedly, nobody can touch Sean Connery in Bond perfection, but Craig came close).

So, as of 2014, Daniel Craig is still the current Bond.  And so far, he has made three films in the series.  There was 2006's "Casino Royale", 2008's "Quantum of Solace", and 2012's "Skyfall".  And, believe me when I tell you that I had a tough task in choosing which film I was going to spotlight in this final Bond feature.  All three of the films are stunning - two of them ending up in my list of my own personal favourite top 10 Bond films.

I eliminated "Quantum of Solace" right away - not because it was a bad film (it most certainly wasn't), but because it's the one film of Craig's three that I liked the least.  And "Skyfall" would have been a decent choice as well.  Adele did win an Academy Award for the theme song, and as of 2014, it is the highest grossing Bond film, the second highest grossing film of 2012, and the eighth highest grossing film of all-time. 



But, there's a couple of reasons why I decided to choose 2006's "Casino Royale" as the film to conclude this look back on the history of 007.



Firstly, the symbolism (whether it be intentional or not) was glaring.  The film is called "Casino Royale" (and much of the movie does take place in a casino), and one of the games that is played in casinos is "Blackjack" (sometimes called Twenty-One).  And, wouldn't you know it?  This film happens to be #21 in the series!  Coincidence?  I think not.

And, secondly, this film marked a little bit of a reboot of the series, with the film being all about how James Bond's career as a MI6 agent began.  This, despite the fact that Judi Dench reprises her role as "M" from her time in the Brosnan series of films.  Ah well, it's James Bond.  I suppose we can tweak the continuity just a smidgen...especially when you consider that James Bond should really be in his eighties had he aged chronologically.

Now, I hear some of you saying - wait a minute.  Wasn't there already a Bond film called "Casino Royale" that was released sometime in the 1960s?

Well, yes...and no.

It is true that a movie called "Casino Royale" was released in 1967, with Charles K. Feldman as producer and David Niven as "Bond".  And, it is also true that Feldman had gone to Bond producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman to have the movie made as part of the Eon Productions series of films.  After all, Feldman did hold the movie rights to Ian Fleming's "Casino Royale".  The problem was that Feldman couldn't reach an agreement with Broccoli/Saltzman, and as a result, he opted to turn "Casino Royale" into a sort of parody of the previous Bond films - with disasterous results.

Flash forward nearly forty years, and "Casino Royale" was given a new lease on life...as well as a more serious plot line with Daniel Craig slipping into Bond's familiar black tuxedo.

Now, just exactly what that plot is...I cannot say.  Much.  After all, this is a Monday Matinee.  And, if you've followed along with this blog for the last two and a half years, you know that I never reveal movie endings on Monday Matinees.  But, just so you have a little bit of a Cliff's Notes version, I'll share some tidbits.

Firstly, don't be alarmed by the fact that the first few minutes of the film are in black and white.  It's supposed to be this way.  And, to be honest with you, the cinematography is excellent in that scene.  Really sets the mood for the rest of the film (which is in colour, I should note).



Secondly, I'm really enjoying the casting choice of Eva Green as the Bond girl in this film - Vesper Lynd.  She is probably one of the better casting choices for Bond girls in recent years, and she certainly can hold her own in this movie.  But without spoiling it for you, let's just say that Bond girls only appear in one film and one film only...and her role at the end of the film is...well, let's just say that she goes out fighting.



Thirdly, the primary antagonist is played by Mads Mikkelsen - who goes under the alias of "Le Chiffre".  For those of you who are fluent in French, you know that the word "chiffre" in English means number.  And, in the film, "Le Chiffre" is a banker, which means that he is involved in a - pardon the pun - number of activities that have to do with finances...which most often than not are illegal in nature.  He also uses his gift of numbers to manipulate poker games to his advantage.  And, needless to say, there is a prerequisite card game or two featuring Le Chiffre and Bond.

Fourthly, keep an eye out on actor Giancarlo Giannini, who plays the role of Rene Mathis.  His character is confusing.  Very confusing.



And, finally, for the female readers of this blog, this scene is sure to give you heart palpitations.  Easily one of the most recognizable scenes in recent Bond films for sure.



And now, let's get to the backstage gossip of "Casino Royale"!

1 - Apparently Vesper Lynd was based off of a real-life World War II resistance fighter named Christine Granville.  Allegedly, Granville and James Bond creator Ian Fleming had a brief affair!

2 - This was the very first Bond film since 1962's "Dr. No" that did NOT feature any dancing nude women in the opening!  - mind you, the credits that DID feature them were silhouetted!

3 - There's a suit that Daniel Craig wears towards the end of the film.  It is actually an exact replica of the suit that Sean Connery wore in "Goldfinger" - the only difference being the colour.

4 - If you cringed during the scene in which Bond crashes an Aston Martin DBS car, you have every reason to.  In order to get that scene right, three Aston Martin cars were completely destroyed.  Total cost?  Almost one million dollars alone!

5 - Daniel Craig gained 20 pounds of muscle in preparation for this role.

6 - Other actors up for consideration of the role of James Bond included Alex O'Loughlin, Julian McMahon, and Gerard Butler.

7 - Audrey Tautou of "Amelie" fame was almost given the role of Vesper Lynd in the movie (which admittedly would have been a good casting choice as well), but she decided to film "The DaVinci Code" with Tom Hanks instead.

8 - Daniel Craig is the first person to play Bond who is younger than the film series.  The Bond film series started in 1962.  Craig wasn't born until 1968.

9 - The first Bond film not to feature Miss Moneypenny in any capacity.  She would not return until 2012's "Skyfall", in which she was portrayed by Naomie Harris.

10 - This film also didn't have a "Q" - the first Bond film to have no "Q" since "Live and Let Die".

11 - Had Pierce Brosnan returned to film "Casino Royale", it would have cost producers an estimated $30 million!

12 - The first James Bond film to be based on a full Ian Fleming novel since 1979's "Moonraker".

13 - About a week after filming wrapped up on "Casino Royale", the 007 Stage burned down in July 2006 - the second time that a fire had gutted the area.  The first fire happened just before "A View To A Kill" began production.

14 - It took six weeks to film the opening parkour scene.

15 - Would you like to know the real identity of "M"'s secret affair - a.k.a. the naked guy in bed with her during one scene?  That would be the film's transport co-ordinator.

16 - Would you believe that Daniel Craig was actually offered the chance to buy a bootlegged copy of "Casino Royale" in Beijing just two days after the film's November 2006 premiere?  Unbelievable!

17 - "Casino Royale" reportedly made a huge impact on one former Bond actor.  Roger Moore loved it so much that he bought a copy on DVD as soon as it became available!

18 - Daniel Craig performed a lot of his own stunts in the film...which lead to some very painful injuries.  Watch the film, and you'll understand what I mean.

19 - The film's theme song was recorded by Soundgarden vocalist Chris Cornell - the first male artist to sing a Bond theme since a-ha recorded 1987's "The Living Daylights".

20 - When Barbara Broccoli called Daniel Craig to let him know that he had won the part of James Bond, he was grocery shopping.  He subsequently abandoned his cart full of groceries and promptly celebrated the good news with a round of martinis...presumably shaken, not stirred.

21 - This film is the longest running film of the entire Bond series - running at a length of 144 minutes.

And, that's a wrap!  I hope you enjoyed this special six-part series of James Bond movies.  I will forever be a huge fan of all things Bond, and I will always hold a special place in my heart (and DVD collection) for the many different 007 films in the series.

So, in the grand scheme of things...what does my list of Bond actors look like from most liked to least liked?  And, what is my infamous Top 10 list of all-time favourite Bond movies?

Well, I'll share my list...and feel free to share yours.

First...my favourite Bond actors.  From best to least best. 

1 - Connery...Sean Connery
2 - Craig...Daniel Craig
3 - Moore...Roger Moore
4 - Brosnan...Pierce Brosnan
5 - Lazenby...George Lazenby
6 - Dalton...Timothy Dalton

(NOTE:  Lazenby would have surpassed Brosnan had he made more movies...and although I have developed a new appreciation for Timothy Dalton as Bond, he still remains at the bottom of my list.)

And, now...my Top 10 list of Bond movies.  #1 shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but my list contains at least one film from the top four Bonds, anyway.

1 - DR. NO
2 - GOLDFINGER
3 - CASINO ROYALE
4 - SKYFALL
5 - GOLDENEYE
6 - THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
7 - LIVE AND LET DIE
8 - THUNDERBALL
9 - TOMORROW NEVER DIES
10 - ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE

Thanks for being a part of this special series of Monday Matinees!  And to leave you, one final video.



Sunday, February 09, 2014

That's What Friends Are For

It's the all-music weekend this weekend, and for this week's Sunday Jukebox, we're going to be featuring the perfect song to represent the spirit of "BLACK HISTORY MONTH".  After all, today's song features three of the world's most celebrated singers of African-American origin teaming up together to sing a ballad about the wonders of friendship.

Now, here's a little bit of a pop quiz for all of you before we go right ahead with today's featured #1 single.  Don't worry.  You won't be graded on your answers here.

Okay.  Here's question number one.  Which singer - who happens to also be a cousin to the late Whitney Houston - began her career in the 1960s with such classic hits as "Walk On By", "Do You Know The Way To San Jose?", and "I Say A Little Prayer", and is easily considered to be one of the more popular vocalists of her time.  Sure, she kind of lost some points with her whole Psychic Friends Network pimpage...and, sure, she did file for bankruptcy in 2013...but hey, thankfully her music is mostly what this singer is defined by.  Do you know who she is?

Question #2.  This lady rode the "Midnight Train To Georgia" all the way to the top of the charts...and beyond!  She had hits both as a solo artist, and as the leader of a band of people known as the Pips.  Her career has spanned a total of five decades so far, and she also holds the distinction of singing one of the many James Bond themes that have been released over the last few years.

Question #3.  Now, this is a guy who didn't let a little thing like losing his sight stop him from having a successful career as an entertainer.  Beginning his career when he was just a child, this "little" guy grew into one of the most successful singer/songwriters of all time.  With hits like "Superstition", "My Cherie Amour", "I Just Called To Say I Love You", and "Part-Time Lover", as well as a duet that he did with Paul McCartney, this man proved that he had the goods to back it up.  Although he hasn't had any hits on the charts in recent years, he can still be found singing and performing at various events today.

So, pencils down everybody.  Have you got your answers ready?

Well, if you answered Dionne Warwick for Question #1, Gladys Knight for Question #2, and Stevie Wonder for Question #3...congratulations.  You've successfully passed the pop quiz.  Well done, everybody!

And, as it so happens, today's Sunday Jukebox entry features all three of these singers recording a song together along with British rock/pop legend Elton John.  The song hit the top of the charts in January 1986, and stayed there for a number of weeks until February, when it was dethroned by Whitney Houston's "How Will I Know".



Sadly, this single also marks the final time that Dionne Warwick, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder ever had a #1 single on the Billboard Charts.  But, given the concept of the song, as well as the reason behind the song being recorded in the first place, I think it was very much worth it.

So, are you ready to take a look at the song that was on the top of the charts twenty-eight years ago this weekend?  Have a look!



ARTIST:  Dionne Warwick and Friends
SONG:  That's What Friends Are For
ALBUM:  Friends
DATE RELEASED:  December 1985
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS:  #1 for 4 weeks

Yes, today's blog entry is all about the power of friendship.  And, it also happens to be a song that was used to raise awareness for a worthy cause.

Come to think of it, 1985 was a huge year for charity singles.  I think the whole movement kicked off with Band-Aid's 1984 Christmas single "Do They Know It's Christmas", and by the end of 1985, there were music fundraisers popping up all over the place.  In 1985, U.S.A. for Africa released the #1 single "We Are The World".  In Canada, we had "Tears Are Not Enough" released that same year.  And, I'm sure that if you were around in 1985, you watched at least a portion of the famous "Live-Aid" performance of July 13, 1985 or "Farm-Aid" in September of that year.

I suppose that 1985 could be considered the most charitable year of the 1980s.  And certainly, millions of dollars were donated to each of the causes.



Well, in late 1985, both the United Kingdom and the United States decided to organize a recording session for several artists to record a single entitled "That's What Friends Are For" as a way to raise money for AIDS research.  Since the discovery of AIDS in 1981, people became alarmed at the number of people who were dying from the disease, and everybody agreed that a cure must be found.  So, the idea to release a charity single to raise money for the research necessary to eradicate AIDS from the world was a very good idea.

The song "That's What Friends Are For" wasn't exactly a brand new song.  It had been written by legendary singer/composer Burt Bacharach and Carole Bayer Sager, and had been previously performed by Rod Stewart for the soundtrack of the 1982 film "Night Shift".  Now, Rod Stewart's version failed to make an imprint on the charts that year, but nevertheless, that song was the one that was picked.

Now, why this song was chosen, I don't exactly know.  But my speculation is that the song's lyrics were particularly poignant, especially considering what cause the song was championing.  I was born the same year that AIDS stories first began to surface in the media, and I know that when the world first heard about it, they panicked.  These days, we all know that AIDS can only be contracted through sexual intercourse and sharing used drug needles (and prior to 1990, through tainted blood transfusions).  But back in the early 1980s, not a whole lot of people understood what AIDS was.  They thought that it was highly contagious and an instant death sentence if you happened to contract it.  Many people back then mistakenly believed that if you so much as even touched someone who was HIV positive, or drank out of the same can of Pepsi as someone who was HIV positive, or kissed someone who was HIV positive that they would contract the disease like that. 



I can only imagine how scary it must have been for people who were infected with HIV back in the 1980s.  Because of the stigma associated with the disease, often people found themselves battling the disease alone as many people who couldn't understand or refused to understand simply walked away.

I think that was the reason why that song was chosen.  That no matter what kind of person you were, and no matter if you were HIV positive or had full-blown AIDS, you were still deserving of friendship and you were still deserving of love.  Certainly a great message, even though it did take a number of years after the song was released before it came across.



So, with the song chosen for the charity single, the next step was finding artists who would take part in the recording.  And, as it so happened, many of the artists who were chosen had previously worked together before!

I mean, everybody knows that the partnership between Dionne Warwick and Burt Bacharach is legendary.  After all, he wrote many of the songs that helped Dionne Warwick become such a huge presence on the 1960s pop charts.  But did you know that Stevie Wonder and Elton John had also previously collaborated together?



That's Stevie Wonder playing harmonica on Elton's 1983 single "I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues"!

With the final line-up of the single being Warwick, Wonder, John, and Gladys Knight, the single was finished on time to be released both as a single, and as a track on Dionne's 1985 "Friends" album.  And, do you want to know just how much money was raised with the charity single?

How does three million dollars sound to you?  Now, I know that $3 million doesn't seem like a whole lot to you right now - but in 1985, it was certainly worth its weight in gold.

And, considering that having the status of HIV positive is no longer the death sentence it once was - with many people being able to live more than two decades after their initial diagnosis these days - well, I would say that the single release certainly was a part of that research.  Who knows?  Maybe in fifty years or so, a cure can finally be found one day.

And, I guess it's also important to note that the message of the song - the song about friendship - applies to all kinds of people no matter what your age, gender, sexual preference, skin colour, religious background, or political affiliation.  If you're willing to let love and friendship into your heart, then there's no reason why you aren't deserving of it.

Saturday, February 08, 2014

50 Years Ago Tomorrow...

You know, I've decided to switch things up a smidgen for this weekend.  I know that today is supposed to be the day in which I was supposed to feature a Saturday Smorgasbord entry - which for the second Saturday of the month typically features some kind of toy or game.  But given that a momentous event is set to take place this weekend, I've decided to change the topic of the blog just for this weekend only.

(Well, that, plus I can't think of a video game or board game to feature in a blog topic this week.)

So, I'm going to explain what I'm going to be doing this weekend.  They say that music is one of the most universal languages in the whole world.  Practically everywhere in the world (except for maybe Antarctica) uses music in some format.  Whether it be for leisure, for performance arts, or for background music at fashion shows, you have to admit that the world would be a really dismal place if there were no music.

And, as it so happens, this weekend there's going to be an event that takes place that is slated to be huge.



On Sunday, February 9, 2014, CBS is planning a very special tribute to The Beatles by having a television event featuring artists of all genres and backgrounds performing classic Beatles hits.  And, naturally, the special can't be complete without a special reunion between the two surviving members of the band - Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr.  Now, mind you, if you watched the Grammy Awards two weeks ago, you know that Paul and Ringo already performed together on that awards broadcast.  But this Sunday's performance is something special.



For it will take place on the fiftieth anniversary of the day that The Beatles made their very first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show - which naturally took place on February 9, 1964.

Now, granted, The Beatles had made it big in their native UK two years prior to that in 1962.  But when Beatlemania struck across the pond and McCartney, Starr, George Harrison, and John Lennon departed that plane to walk on American soil for the first time as a band - I can only imagine that it must have been a huge day.

So, I've decided to devote today to that very special performance, as well as showcasing a song that the band released that was actually topping the American charts at the time the band made their American debut.

So, I suppose the next question is...why are you doing the feature today and not tomorrow - when the actual anniversary took place?

Interesting question.  One that I can supply an answer to.

Because I'm simultaneously celebrating "BLACK HISTORY MONTH" this February, and because I already made the promise to feature #1 hits by African-American artists all this month in the Sunday Jukebox entries, I can't very well just go against that promise that I made.

So, that's why I'm doing the Beatles feature today!

Now, admittedly, I am too young to remember that iconic Ed Sullivan Show performance.  That performance was fifty years ago, and I am only thirty-two.  However, I do know quite a lot of people who were old enough to watch and appreciate that performance for what it was.

You see, both of my parents were born in the mid-1940s.  My mom just missed out on being a Baby Boomer by a couple of months, but my dad was one of the very first Baby Boomers, being born in 1946.  If my math is correct, this would mean that my father was 17, and my mother was 18 when The Beatles first made their debut on American television.  That was right around the average age of the audience who were lucky enough to watch them live on the set of the Ed Sullivan Show.

So, I thought...why not ask them what they thought of the performance?  After all, they were there.

Unfortunately, my father couldn't help me.  Not only did he not watch the performance, but he didn't really care for the style of music that The Beatles played.  He was more content listening to Hank Snow, Patsy Cline, and other 1960s era country artists whose popularity were measured by how loud they twanged their guitar strings or how high their hairstyles reached.

My mom on the other hand...she loved The Beatles.  In fact, I think it was through her that my sisters and I all developed our own love for the Fab Four.  And, she did watch that performance on television live...one of the seventy-three million people to do so that night.

Well, much to the chagrin of my late grandfather who absolutely despised The Beatles, that is.

Of course, my mom didn't really go as crazy for The Beatles as other girls her age did.  She didn't have this obsession with Ringo Starr or Paul McCartney as other fans did (though admittedly I went through much of my early childhood believing that my sister was named after a Beatle - she wasn't).  Still, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, and she absolutely enjoyed the whole show.

In fact...if you click HERE, you can watch that performance as it happened some fifty years ago, as well as two other appearances that the band made on February 16 and February 23, 1964. 

That's right!  The Beatles were such a huge hit that they appeared on the following two episodes of the Ed Sullivan Show as well!  Remember, the first appearance of the band is at the beginning of the clip and starts with the song "All My Loving" - a song that actually became a #1 hit single in Canada!

But "All My Loving" is not going to be the featured song choice for today.  Believe me, if I could have found enough information on that song, I easily would have made it so.  But today's song choice is an important one because on all three of the Beatles' appearances on the Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964, they closed off each set with the same song...a song that appropriately enough was at the top of the charts at the time.



ARTIST:  The Beatles
SONG:  I Want To Hold Your Hand
ALBUM:  N/A (was initially a single-only release)
DATE RELEASED:  November 29, 1963
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS:  #1 for 7 weeks

NOTE:  Although the song was initially single release only, it has since appeared on several Beatles records - including the "1" compilation.



NOTE 2:  The single pressings for "I Want To Hold Your Hand" contained different B-sides, depending on your nation of origin.  Europeans received "This Boy", while North Americans listened to "I Saw Her Standing There".

Now, this single holds the distinction of having a couple of firsts.  It was the very first single to reach the top of the American charts.  It was the first Beatles single to be recorded using four-track equipment.  And, it was one of the first cases in which this song kept another song recorded by the same artist off the top of the charts for weeks (in this case, the song "She Loves You").  Amusingly in the UK, the opposite took place, with "She Loves You" keeping "I Want To Hold Your Hand" off the top spot!

Anyway, the song was written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney in 1963 at a time in which McCartney was dating actress Jane Asher, and when McCartney was staying at a guest at Asher's parents' home, located at 57 Wimpole Street in London.  It was at that address that Lennon and McCartney penned the lyrics of the song.  In September 1980 - three months before Lennon's death, John Lennon was interviewed by Playboy Magazine, and he described the songwriting process for the song like this.

"We wrote a lot of stuff together (McCartney and I), one on one, eyeball to eyeball.  Like in 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'.  I remember when we got the chord that made the song.  We were in Jane Asher's house, downstairs in the cellar playing on the piano at the same time.  And we had 'Oh you-u-u/got that something...' And Paul hits this chord [E minor] and I turn to him and say 'That's it!' I said.  'Do that again!'  In those days, we really used to absolutely write like that - both playing into each other's noses."

Fourteen years later, Paul McCartney confirmed that this was the case in an interview he did in 1994;

"'Eyeball to eyeball' is a very good description of it.  That's exactly how it was.  'I Want To Hold Your Hand' was very co-written.  It was our big number one; the one that would eventually break us in America."

And, boy did that song take off.  Though the US release of the single was held off until December 26, 1963, once it was, it took almost no time at all for the single to rise all the way up to the top.

But here's one final story to share with you all.  Initially, the single was to be held off until early 1964, which would have coincided with the date that The Beatles made their American debut.  But then a fourteen year old girl got involved after hearing a clip of the song, and before you know it, she managed to get the ball rolling.  But why don't I just post a snippit of an interview given by that then fourteen-year-old girl, Marsha Albert?

"It wasn't so much what I had seen, it's what I had heard.  They had a scene where they played a clip of "She Loves You" and I thought it was a great song...I wrote that I thought the Beatles would be really popular here and if [deejay Carroll James] could get one of their records, that would be great!"

Turns out that James - who at the time was working for Washington DC based radio station WWDC - took Albert's suggestion to heart and actively pursued the station promotion director to get the British Overseas Airways Coproration to send the station a copy of what was then the Beatles' newest single, "I Want To Hold Your Hand".  Not only did the station get the record, but because they got it in at a reasonable time, Carroll James called Marsha Albert at home and told her that if she could get to the station by five o'clock in the afternoon, he would let her announce the record live on air!  




You don't need me to tell you what happened next, do you?

Anyway, that's our look back at The Beatles and the fiftieth anniversary of the night they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show.  Tune in this Sunday at 8:00pm for the special anniversary celebration which will feature both McCartney and Starr.




It's just a shame that John Lennon and George Harrison won't be there.  Alas, maybe they will be in spirit.

Friday, February 07, 2014

Episode Spotlight - "The Quilt" from "Family Matters"

How many of you out there know the ancestry of your family? 

I mean, just think about it for a second.  There are now dozens of websites out there (Ancestry.com perhaps being the most successful of the lot) that allow a person to trace their entire family history just by entering the names of a few key people in your life.  Even "Friends" star Lisa Kudrow came up with the idea for a television series which had celebrities tracing their roots in a show called "Who Do You Think You Are?"

I'll admit that I've never really gone on any of these sites before, but I do know quite a bit about my family heritage.  Sure, none of my family members ever went off to serve in a war, nor did the create a better bread box.  But I do know that thanks to a little bit of questions and a lot of history projects, I know that I could consider myself to be quite worldly.

(Seriously, I'm considered a Heinz 57 with all the different nationalities flowing through my lineage!)

But when I was doing those history projects - one example coming to my mind was back in the ninth grade in which our teacher had us interview someone who lived through "The Great Depression" - we couldn't simply log onto the Internet to find all of that information out.  Keep in mind that when I was in ninth grade, Windows '95 was the hottest computer software going!  And, I have now dated myself quite badly.  Why do I keep doing that?

Anyway, since we couldn't get answers from Google (it didn't exist back then), and since books could only offer so much when it came to generic history, we had to rely on the stories and legends that had been passed through the family from generation to generation.  Some of those stories are actually told by the elders of the family.  Other stories are passed down through family photo albums, letters and postcards, or diaries...much like some of the electronic ones that I've been doing over the course of this blog's existence.


And sometimes, stories are told from a particular piece of art, or an article of clothing.  Or even something as simple as a quilt.

As far back as I can remember (keeping in mind that I've only lived a grand total of three decades plus a third), quilts have been at the centerpiece of many families history.  Every patch on the quilt tells a story, and in some cases, each square was made by a particular family member and passed down from generation to generation.  The bigger and more elaborate the quilt was, the louder it spoke, so to speak.

I can't say that we have any sort of quilt like that in my family.  I can't even really say that we have ANYTHING like that in my family.  Maybe my dad's seventy year old guitar comes close?  I don't know.

Well, in today's Friday Night in the TV Guide entry, we're going to be taking a look at a television series that actually aired on Friday nights.  It's going to be a special episode spotlight too, with the special guest star of the show being...a quilt.

But not just any quilt.  A quilt with a lot of history.  And, while I would have liked to have been able to find clips of the episode so I could post them here, I came up empty.  So, I'm going to have to rely on my descriptive abilities on this one.  But that won't be too difficult as I remember the episode very well.

And, because February is "Black History Month", I thought that this episode spotlight was a great one to pick.

Today we'll be taking a look back at the television series "Family Matters", specifically the first season episode "The Quilt", which originally aired on December 8, 1989.





Now, I see some of you groaning and shaking your head in annoyance.  I don't blame you.  "Family Matters" did very quickly turn into the "Steve Urkel" show, and by the time the series wrapped, it was like watching a skit on "MAD TV".  A really, really BAD skit on "MAD TV".  I can understand the decision behind elevating Steve Urkel to main character status.  Jaleel White did have the charisma to keep that role going on for as long as he did, and for a time, Steve's shenanigans were amusing to watch.  But his shtick got old, real fast, I ended up tuning out in frustration.

That said, one of the reasons why I loved the first season of "Family Matters" so much is because it was relatively Urkel free.  I mean, yes, Steve Urkel was introduced in season one - as a recurring character.  But it wasn't until episode twelve of the first season.  This episode is the eleventh.  So, if I tell you that "The Quilt" episode doesn't feature Steve Urkel at all, would you consider sticking around?  I hope so.

Anyway, those of you who did watch the series "Family Matters" know the premise.  It was a spin-off of "Perfect Strangers", which featured elevator operator Harriette Winslow (JoMarie Payton), her police officer husband, Carl (Reginald velJohnson) and their three children, Eddie (Darius McCrary), Laura (Kellie Shanygne Williams), and Judy (Jaimee Foxworth).  Also living in the household were Carl's mother, Estelle (Rosetta LeNoire), Harriette's sister, Rachel (Telma Hopkins), and Rachel's son, Richie (Bryton McClure).

Kind of resembles "Full House" a little, doesn't it?  I always did wonder how so many people could fit inside a tiny little house.




So, anyway, in this episode of "Family Matters", the Winslow family is engaging in an activity that a lot of sitcom families end up doing for laughs.  They hold a garage sale.  And, you know, at first the sale just seems like the B-plot of the episode...especially when Aunt Rachel happens to come across an old saxophone up for grabs at the sale, confiscates it for herself, and attempts to play it - annoying everybody else in her family in the process.  Sounds forgettable right?

Well, why don't we move ahead to the A-plot of the episode.  The one in which the Winslow kids are trying to decide what to sell at the garage sale.  I don't remember what the specifics are though as to their eagerness for helping out at the garage sale, but I want to think that they were given the promise that everything they sold themselves, they were allowed to keep the money for.  I don't know if that is even correct, but I know there's some explanation for Laura being quite the saleslady.





In fact, when a woman comes around the sale and has her eye on a quilt that happens to be lying around, Laura makes the sale, and the woman walks away very happy.  And, Laura is very happy that she sold something at the sale.

But do you know one person who is NOT happy?  Mother Winslow.  Turns out that quilt has been in the family for many generations, and was actually not meant to be sold at all.  A heartbroken Estelle tells Laura that the memories and the stories that the quilt had within every stitch and square of fabric were absolutely priceless, and she is devastated that it is now in the hands of somebody else.  And as Estelle goes into her room to cry about her missing quilt, Laura begins to realize that she made a terrible mistake, and sets out to try and track the quilt down.

Sure enough, the quilt is found rather quickly.  The woman who bought the quilt is an art dealer who owns a gallery in the heart of Chicago's art district.  And, the quilt is at the forefront of the display in the gallery's main lobby.  It also has a price tag worth way more than the original price that the woman paid Laura for...a price to the tune of hundreds, if not thousands of dollars!

So, that's her plan.  Buy pieces of art at low prices, and sell them for insanely high prices, detailing the value and worth found within each piece as a selling point.  My, my, capitalistic art gallery owner, you do play your cards right, don't you?

Alas, our impeccably dressed gallery owner is sympathetic to the 12-year-old Laura's pleas to give back the quilt, but she is not willing to let her little investment go so easily.  I honestly don't remember if the woman actually offered to sell back the quilt to the Winslow family for the new price that was on the quilt or not, but for some reason I seem to recall that this is the case.  It's been years since I've seen this episode, so my memory is still a little bit fuzzy.

But one thing that does stand out is Laura's reaction when she is told that the woman doesn't want to give back the quilt.  She breaks down in tears and practically begs her to reconsider.  Keeping Mother Winslow's words about how valuable the quilt is to the family, she practically recites Estelle's lecture to the art gallery owner, who slowly comes around and becomes more willing to negotiate.

By negotiate, I mean that she gives the quilt back without any hassle.  Who knew that tears sometimes DO work?

Anyway, the episode concludes with Laura giving Mother Winslow the quilt back, and a relieved and overjoyed Estelle thanking Laura profusely - even though Laura was the one who caused this problem in the first place.  And as the episode ends, Mother Winslow tells everyone the stories behind how the quilt was created, and fades to black.

Again, I wish I only had more examples to show you of this episode...but it's worth a look.

Thursday, February 06, 2014

The Three-Month Thursday Video Blog Experiment

So, three months ago, I began filming a series of video blogs for the Thursday Diary entries, and part of the reason why I decided to go that route was to see how it would go initially.  Being one who is chronically camera-shy, and who used to hide whenever cameras were present, I decided to try this experiment out for at least three months so I could become more familiar with the idea of putting more of myself out there, and to try and overcome a long-time fear of public speaking, brought upon by a failed seventh grade speech, and several botched job interviews over the years.

So, what has this little experiment taught me about myself?  Well, I'll tell you.  But this time, I'm taking a break from filming a video and I'm going to write it out.

(Mainly because I forgot to charge my recording device, and it is now nearly dead.  I have it on the charger now though.)

This doesn't mean that I am going to quit doing the video blogs though.  I have a great idea for one next week.  But this week, I'll explain why I did the experiment here, and what I hope to change in any future videos.



February 6, 2014

You know, I sometimes miss doing these handwritten Thursday Diary entries.  As I type this, it's been three months since I last wrote anything in a Thursday Diary entry.

(And, no...that Wednesday piece that I did yesterday doesn't really count.)

You see, right around the time that I began the video feature for the blog, I had just gotten an iPad mini which unbeknownst to me had the capability to film videos.

(And, yes...even though I do work in the electronics department of the store I work at, I really was that clueless about electronics...seriously.)

Anyway, when I discovered that little feature, I thought I would use it to my advantage.  That's what made me decide to change the Thursday Diary entries to the Thursday Video Blog entry.  I never intended to make it a permanent change, I just wanted to try it for a couple of months or so.  And, there's a couple of reasons why I wanted to do this.

1 - I wanted to allow all of the readers of this blog to put a face - and a voice - to the words that they read in this space.

2 - I wanted to overcome my fear of public speaking.

And, when I first began doing these videos, I admit that I was a little bit green - the term used for inexperienced actors in the world of Hollywood.  And, well, three months later, I'm still very much a sickly shade of turquoise.  I guess it's probably a good thing that I never really seriously considered acting as a career goal, because if that were the case, I would probably go down to Hollywood expecting to achieve fame and fortune, but instead settling for a lifestyle which involves serving flapjacks and Belgian waffles to other struggling actors at the International House of Pancakes.

But I can honestly say this.  The more videos I did, the more comfortable that I got with doing them.  I no longer stutter as much as I used to.  I'm able to choose my words more carefully.  And, I think I've certainly shown that I can come up with things at the spur of the moment without looking like a dork.

Well...okay, at least in MY mind, I don't sound like a dork.

But, you know, looking back at the past video entries that I've done, I know there are some things that I need to work on.

First, I should probably plan out what I'm going to say before I film it...like maybe have a script ready to look off of while I film so I don't say um and oh one time too many.

Secondly, I should have a stop watch available to time my videos to just a few minutes in length.  Maybe once upon a time, a fifteen minute video was deemed a little on the short side, but I have to face it...when you're competing with sites like Vine, where its users can tell a story in six seconds or less, I know I'm fighting a losing battle.

(Seriously, I don't know how you people can even film a coherent video in just six seconds.  I tip my hat to all of you for sure!)

And lastly, I have to tell myself to relax every once in a while.  I mean, in most of the videos, I think I sounds spastic, or I talk too fast, or do all sorts of little nitpicky things that make the video not as effective as it probably should be.

I mean, I know what we say.  We are our own worst critics.  Believe me, I know exactly what I'm saying with that statement.  But I'm slowly working on that aspect of myself.  I suppose it's good timing too, since I have a potential situation going on in my own life where I will have to present myself in some sort of interview process (it's not anything like a job interview...more like an interview relating to something within my job...if that makes sense).  And, surprisingly enough, my video projects - as interesting as they were to film- have done exactly what I had hoped for.  They made me become a better public speaker.

Well, at least, I hope they have.

So, anyway, that's all I have to say.  And, I'm going to say that this is NOT the end of this experiment.  As I said, I have something very special planned for next week around this time. 

Now, I won't say too much more than that, but I will bid you adieu on this, the 993rd post that I have typed up for this blog.

993...what an interesting number.  

Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Why I Don't Do Drugs (except maybe caffeine)


This week in the Whatever Wednesday column, I've drawn the PROFESSOR PLUM card.  So, that means that I will be doing a Thursday Diary entry...only on a Wednesday.

And, for a special treat, this will be a diary entry that will actually read like a diary entry.  After doing video blogs for nearly three months, I decided that I would try my hand at a hand-typed blog...just so I haven't lost my touch.

As far as the subject matter...well...let's just say that it was inspired by recent events.

February 5, 2014

Okay, so I'm sitting at home a couple of days ago incredibly sick with a gastrointestinal bug, and I pretty much spent the better part of 48 hours in bed downing liberal amounts of flat Canada Dry in hopes that I'll be able to keep it down somehow without feeling the need to hurl.  Unfortunately, during the height of the flu bug (which for me was Super Bowl Sunday), this was not the case.

But when I was feeling a little bit better, I decided that I would spend an entire day watching a movie marathon on both my DVD Player and my laptop computer inside my bedroom.  Hey, I suppose there could be worse ways to spend a whole day, right?

Well, as it so happens, one of the movies that I decided to watch that day was the 1998 film, "Patch Adams", which was based off a true story.

Now, as some people may already know, the film starred Robin Williams as the title character, and the entire film is a retelling of the real Patch Adams' story, which depicts how he became a doctor despite being admitted without an undergraduate degree, and how he ended up using his sense of humour to become a very respected physician.






Admittedly, I didn't mind the film all that much, even though critics tore it to shreds.  It was quite a nice film, and I thought the casting was quite good.  But I also remember that this film was one of the first ones that I recall seeing the acting talents of Philip Seymour Hoffman.  And Hoffman, who more or less played the foil to Robin Williams' "Patch Adams" character was very good in the role, and I remember when I first watched him on "Patch Adams" when I first viewed the movie in high school that I would be seeing a lot more of him on the big screen in the years to come.

Boy was I right, too!  I estimate that he appeared in more than a dozen films over his career from "Almost Famous" to the successful "Hunger Games" films.  And, he also won an Academy Award for his work in "Capote", making him definite A-list material.





That's why it almost seems unbelievable that this wonderful, gifted actor is now dead, passed away at just 46 years old on February 2, 2014 from a heroin overdose.  A genuine talent in Hollywood gone forever because of drugs.

It seems to be a waste, doesn't it?

And yet, Philip Seymour Hoffman was hardly the first person to die from a drug overdose.  It was nearly two years ago that pop singer Whitney Houston was found dead in her hotel room after a drug overdose.  Elvis Presley was also found dead of a drug overdose.  And, can you believe it's been over twenty years since River Phoenix died because of drug abuse?  My, how time flies.


Even entire bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers had their own struggles with dealing with drugs and maintaining their sobriety.  In 1992, Anthony Kiedis even wrote a song about the struggle, and that song ended up becoming a sort of signature hit for them.





And what I find really disturbing is the amount of coverage that the media designates towards these people's personal struggles, and their attempt (sometimes numerous attempts) to become sober again.  I mean, one thing that I have always found fascinating in a disturbing way is just how shows like, say "Entertainment Tonight" actually launch FBI-like investigations into how some of the more popular celebrities who have died actually died, and how they go and interview stars as they are promoting events at the red carpet how they feel about them now that they're gone.  But do Nancy O'Dell, Rocsi Diaz, or Rob Marciano actually care about these people while they were nearing rock bottom?  Of course not!  If anything, they were actually using the people's pain to try and get high ratings for their programs.  And, as far as I'm concerned, that's deplorable, and one of the main reasons why I can't stand these shows.

(BTW, I actually had to google the names of the current hosts of Entertainment Tonight, as the last time I watched the show, Mary Hart was still on it.)


And, don't even get me started on Dr. Drew's "Celebrity Rehab".  There is no excuse that can possibly justify having cameras in a rehabilitation center while people are trying to understand why they are addicts, and why they are trying to get clean.  I mean, yes, one argument is that by watching these people detox, it might deter some people from even doing drugs again - which granted I suppose is a good point.  But there's also the part of me that finds it incredibly intrusive, and absolutely disgusting that these people are put on display for entertainment purposes while they are at the most critical point of their lives.  To me, that's not entertainment.


And, it appears as though the celebrities who have appeared on that show have not really had that much success.  In the case of people like Mindy McCready, Mike Starr, and a couple of others, they have actually either died of drug use or ended up committing suicide after the taping of the shows.  Bad form, Dr. Drew.


But you know, seeing all of these once promising stars lives be stolen away by drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, or even alcohol gives me the very reason why I will never use drugs myself.

I mean, sure, I'm not rich and/or famous.  I'm a thirtysomething who works retail and writes on the side.  But do you think that my creativity and writing skills would improve by using drugs?  Hell no.

(And, by drugs, I mean the heavy ones.  I admit that I do use caffeine in some beverages, but I'm trying to cut down on that.)


I've never done crack.  I have never done crystal meth.  I've never done heroin.  I've never even smoked pot (mostly because the smell of pot makes me want to vomit...and even so, I've never had the desire to).  I've never even smoked a cigarette.

I have had alcohol, but the last time I remember getting a buzz from it, I was in my early 20s...and let's get real.  Most of us in our early 20s experimented with alcohol.  But I very rarely drink it now because I don't really need it.  


Heck, even when I was recovering from my gall bladder surgery, I only used painkillers the one day because the pain post-surgery was far easier to handle than the pain pre-surgery.

Now, this doesn't mean that I am completely sheltered over the dangers of drug abuse.  I have seen some people get so involved in it that they have completely changed, and became so unbearable to be around.  Sadly, I have a few members of my extended family that battled alcoholism (and because I respect my family's privacy, I won't name names).  In some cases, they got better and sober.  But in other cases, the addiction sent them to an early grave, completely and totally isolated from their spouses, their children, their siblings, and even their parents.

They died completely alone because they prioritized the drugs above everything else.  And, to me that is absolutely heartbreaking, and a fate that I don't ever want to see happen to me at all.

I guess in some ways, the avoidance of temptation can be just as hard as battling your way out of an addiction.  Though I can't recall any instance in which drugs have tempted me, I have seen people really struggle with their dependencies.  And, I think the most frustrating part about that is that no matter how good your intentions are, and no matter how many interventions a person's family and friends stage in hopes of their loved one receiving treatment for addiction, in the end, it has to be up to the person to want to get help, and realize that there is more to live for than drugs.


And sadly, as in the case with Philip Seymour Hoffman and others like him, all the money and fame in the world couldn't save his life.

And, I think that's one of the final reasons why I avoid drugs.  Drugs have the tendency to kill you.  And, once you're dead, you can't get a second chance.

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

February 4, 1983

Okay, I think I'm now starting to get over this nasty flu bug that I have had over the last couple of days, so hopefully this will be the last blog entry that I will be posting late for a while.  I tell you, if there is a flu shot available for the flu that makes you nauseous and vomit, do get it.  It's not fun.

Anyway, we have a Tuesday Timeline entry to get to.  It's February 4, and as you scroll down the list of notable events, you may notice that one of them is highlighted in link format.  If you click on it, you'll be taken back to an entry of the past that I did during "Black History Month" last year.  It would have been the entry that I would have liked to have done today, but since I already featured it, I very well couldn't do that, right?

Anyway, enough with the chit-chat.  Let's take a look at all the events that took place throughout history on this date.

1169 - A massive earthquake strikes the Sicilian coast, causing tens of thousands of injuries and deaths

1703 - In the city of Edo (now named Tokyo, Japan), as recompense for avenging their master's death, 46 of the 47 Ronin commit seppuku - ritual suicide

1789 - George Washington is unanimously elected the first President of the United States of America

1794 - French legislature abolishes slavery throughout all territories of the French Republic

1797 - The Riobamba earthquake causes 40,000 casualties in Ecuador

1825 - The Ohio Legislature authorizes the construction of the Ohio and Erie Canal and the Miami and Erie Canal

1846 - The first Mormon pioneers make their exodus from Illinois towards Salt Lake Valley


1936 - Radium becomes the first radioactive element to be made synthetically

1941 - The United Service Organization (USO) is founded as a way to entertain American troops stationed in combat

1945 - The Yalta Conference takes place at the Lividia Palace in the Crimea

1960 - "Rent" composer Jonathan Larson (d. 1996) is born in White Plains, New York

1967 - Lunar Orbiter 3 lifts off from Cape Canaveral's Launch Complex 13

1974 - Patty Hearst is kidnapped by The Symbionese Liberation Army

1976 - An earthquake kills more than 22,000 people in Honduras and Guatemala

1980 - Ayatollah Khomeini names Abolhassan Banisadr as the next Iranian president

1987 - Liberace dies of AIDS at the age of 67

1992 - A coup d'etat is lead by Hugo Chavez against Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez

1998 - 5,000 people are killed in an earthquake measuring 6.1 in Afghanistan

2004 - Mark Zuckerberg founds the social network site Facebook

2005 - Actor and playwright Ossie Davis passes away at the age of 87

So, basically, looking at all the statistics of the world, apparently February 4 is the date in which an earthquake is most likely to happen.  Good to know.

Now, let's have a look at celebrities blowing out candles on their cakes today.  A happy February 4 birthday to Porky Chedwick, Janet Waldo, David Brenner, Gary Conway, George A. Romero, John Schuck, Dan Quayle, Alice Cooper, Michael Beck, Lisa Eichhorn, Pamelyn Ferdin, Jenette Goldstein, Clint Black, Michael Riley, Gabrielle Anwar, Rob Corddry, Michael A. Goorjian, Oscar De La Hoya, Natalie Imbruglia, Cam'ron, Gavin DeGraw, Kimberly Wyatt, Bug Hall, and Carly Patterson.

So, what date will we be going back in time to this week?



Well, we'll be going back in time thirty-one years to February 4, 1983.  And in the world of music, it was a sad day as we said goodbye to a woman who had real talent.  And with her death, it brought forth a public service announcements of sorts regarding the dangers of eating disorders.



It was on this date thirty-one years ago that singer Karen Carpenter passed away at the age of 32 due to complications from battling anorexia nervosa.

Now, most of you probably know the early story of Karen Carpenter.  She was born in New Haven, Connecticut on March 2, 1950, and she and her brother Richard formed the 1970s pop duo known as "The Carpenters".  In fact, below, I've posted one of their biggest hits so you can get reacquainted with just how gifted a singer she was.



ARTIST:  The Carpenters
SONG:  (They Long To Be) Close To You
ALBUM:  Close To You
DATE RELEASED:  May 15, 1970
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS:  #1 for 4 weeks

Yes, the Burt Bacharach/Hal David composition first recorded by Richard Chamberlain was covered by The Carpenters and reached number one during the summer of 1970...the first of several hit singles by the duo.  And, certainly Karen Carpenter had one of those voices that could make anybody take notice.  She had natural talent, and she had all the makings of having a career in show business that could have lasted her several decades.

So, what exactly happened that cut her career so tragically short?



Well, it all began when Karen was in high school.  During Karen's junior high school years, the family made the cross-country move from Connecticut to Los Angeles - specifically the suburb of Downey.  By the time she entered Downey High School as a freshman in 1964, Karen had already possessed incredible musical talent.  She was not only a great singer, but she was also a piano prodigy, having learned how to play when she was just a young child.  Therefore, when she was given the glockenspiel to play in the school's concert band, she was less than impressed.  In fact, when she saw friend Frankie Chavez on stage playing the drums, she managed to convince the band conductor to let her play the drums instead, which he agreed.  Right around this time, Karen and Richard Carpenter began making their own demo projects, hoping to make it big in the music world following graduation.

However, it was also right around this time that Karen Carpenter began doing something else that would ultimately halt her career permanently.  You see, Karen began dieting when she was in high school, and at first, she had consulted a doctor about losing weight the right way, so he recommended the Stillman Diet, which included a diet of lean meals, eight glasses of water a day, and no processed, fatty foods.

Now, here's the thing.  At her peak weight, Karen Carpenter was reportedly 145 pounds.  And, to me, that actually sounds like a really healthy weight - especially for someone who was five feet, four inches tall, as Carpenter was.  But after going on the diet, Karen managed to slim down to 120 pounds by the time The Carpenters were beginning to climb the charts.

Now, had Karen's weight stayed around the 120 pound mark, it likely would not have sparked much concern.  The only problem was that Karen simply didn't stop dieting.  By September 1975, she had plummeted down to 91 pounds...which was way too thin for her body type.

And by the time the 1980s had arrived, Karen's personal life had taken a turn for the worse.

Because of Richard's addiction to Quaaludes, Richard was forced to go into treatment in 1979, and Karen tried to make a departure from her soft rock career by teaming up with record producer Phil Ramone to create a solo dance/disco album...but the album was shelved in 1980, and the album would remain unheard until six years after Carpenter's death.  And, her marriage to Thomas James Burris in 1980 was in ruins after Karen had discovered that he had gotten a secret vasectomy - which had hurt her as she had always wanted children of her own - and the couple had split for good by the end of 1981.



Now, whether or not this added stress was a factor or not in regards to her developing anorexia nervosa is not known...but I suppose that it certainly could have been the final straw for her.  By the beginning of 1982, she underwent therapy and counselling for her health issues, and around this time, she recorded her final song, "Now".  After taking thyroid replacement medication and laxatives, Karen's weight continued to dwindle to dangerous levels, and after feeling dizzy and experiencing an irregular heartbeat, she was concerned enough to tell her psychotherapist and was admitted to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City as a patient in September 1982.  She was attached to an IV drip, which caused her to gain back thirty pounds in just eight weeks.  But by then, it was too late, as the sudden weight gain proved too much for her already weakened heart from years of crash dieting and skipping meals.

Karen had hoped to have another chance of re-igniting her career.  At the beginning of 1983, she had already made plans to record another album with her brother Richard, finalize her messy divorce, and move ahead with her life.  But sadly, on February 4, 1983, Karen collapsed at her parents home and was pronounced dead twenty minutes later.



The cause of death?  Heartbeat irregularities leading to heart failure caused by chemical imbalances linked to anorexia nervosa.

Karen Carpenter's funeral was held just four days later, and in addition to her family and estranged husband, more that one thousand people paid their respects including Dionne Warwick, Olivia Newton-John, Petula Clark, and Dorothy Hamill.

But while Karen's death was absolutely tragic and should have never have happened, it did bring more awareness to the disease known as anorexia nervosa.  Celebrities such as "Growing Pains" actress Tracey Gold, and Diana, Princess of Wales came forward with their own admissions that they battled the disease themselves, and many television shows also featured storylines that featured a character struggling with eating disorders themselves.  Some examples that I can think of right off the bat are "Beverly Hills 90210", "Full House", and "Saved By The Bell: The New Class".



Still...no matter how much awareness had been made since that very sad day...it still won't bring Karen Carpenter back.