Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

April 9, 1926


For some reason, April 9 was a rather tough day to find a subject for in the Tuesday Timeline.  None of the sites that I usually visit to get ideas for Tuesday Timeline subjects really had anything of interest to talk about.  So, for this week, I had to get rather creative, and search the depths of the Internet for a subject that would even remotely get people talking.

I think I’ve managed to do it though.

Welcome to the April 9 edition of the Tuesday Timeline...and like always, we’re going to take a look at other events that took place on this date in history before getting into the real meat of the matter.  So, here’s a refresher course for all of you on April 9 history beginning with...

1413 – Henry V is crowned King of England

1440 – Christopher of Bavaria is crowned King of Denmark

1860 – Edouard-Leon Scott de Martinville makes the oldest known recording of an audible human voice with a phonautograph machine

1865 – Robert E. Lee surrenders Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia, putting an end to the American Civil War.

1867 – The U.S. Senate ratifies a treaty with Russia for the purchase of Alaska by a difference of one vote

1917 – Canadian Corps execute a massive assault on Vimy Ridge in the early stages of the Battle of Arras

1945 – The United States Atomic Energy Commission is founded

1957 – Egypt’s Suez Canal is cleared and opened to shipping

1965 – The Houston Astrodome opens its doors for the first time, and the first indoor baseball game is played there

1967 – The very first Boeing 737 makes its premiere flight

1991 – Georgia declares independence from the Soviet Union

1992 – Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega is found guilty of drug and racketeering charges and is sentenced to thirty years in prison

2003 – Baghdad, Iraq falls during the Invasion of Iraq, culminating in the statue of Saddam Hussein being knocked to the ground by Iraqi citizens

2005 – Prince Charles marries Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony at Windsor’s Guildhall

We also have some celebrity birthdays to mention in this space, so allow me to wish Kay Adams, Hannah Gordon, Dennis Quaid, Kate Heyhoe, Marc Jacobs, Margaret Peterson Haddix, Mark Pellegrino, Paulina Porizkova, Jeff Zucker, Cynthia Nixon, Tricia Penrose, Austin Peck, Jacques Villeneuve, Spencer Rice, Jenna Jameson, Rachel Stevens, Keshia Knight Pulliam, Yoanna House, Jay Baruchel, Ryan Clark, Jesse McCartney, Kristen Stewart, and Elle Fanning a happy birthday today!

Oh, and there’s one more birthday that I have to mention in this blog entry.  Now, depending on who you are, you may decide to wish him a happy birthday, or you may want to condemn him for being a dirty old man!  My own personal thought is that I’m gonna wish the dude a happy birthday.  I have no beef with him, and I’m sure that most men will likely have the same opinion.


The age this man is turning?  Well, he’s turning 87 today, making his date of birth April 9, 1926.

This man ended up creating one of the biggest selling magazines all over the world, and he has celebrated his success with a huge, lavish mansion that he shares with a whole bunch of beautiful bunnies.

But, I’m not exactly talking about the bunnies that you might find at a pet store or out in the wilderness.  I’m kind of referring more along the lines of these bunnies.


Playboy bunnies.

Yes, today’s blog topic is all about Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy magazine, who turns 87 years old today.

Now, I’m just going to come out with it right now.  The picture of the Playboy bunnies is probably the extent of how “adult” this blog will be for today.  I don’t mind talking about adult subjects, but I also want to keep this blog somewhat PG rated so that a wider audience can view it.  Therefore, if you’re expecting to see pictures of half-naked people in this blog, well, you won’t find them here.

But what you WILL find is a biography on our birthday boy, because regardless of what your feelings are towards him, his lifestyle, and his magazine, you cannot deny the fact that he has had one hell of a life and one hell of a story.


Hugh Hefner was the first of two children born to Glenn and Grace Hefner in Chicago, Illinois.  His family life was described as conservative, Midwest, and Methodist, according to Hugh himself.  After graduating from Steinmetz High School in 1944, he spent the next two years writing for a military newspaper before graduating from the University of Illinois in 1949 with a B.A. in psychology, and a double minor in art and creative writing. 

Interestingly enough, all three subjects could have been put to great use in what would inevitably become his future career...but we’re getting ahead of ourselves here.

He got a job at Esquire Magazine as a copywriter shortly after his graduation from the University of Illinois, but when he was denied a raise of five dollars, he left Esquire in 1952.  Hefner decided that if he couldn’t make it big as a copywriter for an established magazine, he would create his own!

So the following year, after getting a loan from the bank, selling and mortgaging some possessions, and getting a group of investors to fund his venture, he launched the magazine that would not only change his life, but the lives of millions of teenage boys who snuck the magazines into their bedrooms...

...not that I would know anything about that, mind you.  

Initially, the magazine was originally meant to be called “Stag Party”...but somehow that didn’t have such a nice ring to it, so the name of “Playboy” was given to Hefner’s creation instead. 

The first issue was published in December 1953 (although the publication was undated when it first came out), and the star of the issue was Marilyn Monroe.  The magazine contained photos from the 1949 calendar she posed for – and some of the shots were in the nude.  Hefner put the issue together in his own kitchen, and opted not to date the magazine as he had his doubts that there would be a second edition of the magazine.  But when the Marilyn Monroe issue sold over fifty thousand copies, Hefner knew that he had a hit on his hands.



TRIVIA:  The cover price for Playboy Magazine in 1953 was a mere fifty cents.  In 2002, near mint copies of the magazine were selling at auction for FIVE THOUSAND BUCKS!  That’s quite the increase in value!


I also have some information on how the iconic logo for Playboy Magazine (the bunny) was created.  It was designed by artist Art Paul for the second issue of the magazine.  Oddly enough, the bunny design was originally to be used in the magazine as an endnote, but soon became the official mascot of the magazine.  Hefner himself chose the bunny as a mascot because he felt that bunnies were frisky and playful...certainly adjectives that could be used to describe some of the models who posed inside the magazine.

But, you know...believe it or not, Playboy magazine was more than just Playmates of the Month and nude photos.  There were also some interesting articles and sketches included within each issue as well that got notoriety.  Mind you, nobody I knew actually remembers reading the articles, but they were there.

Just to give you an indication as to the people who contributed to the magazine’s text section, have you heard of an author named Ray Bradbury?  His novel, Fahrenheit 451 was serialized over three issues of Playboy Magazine between March and May 1954!  Shel Silverstein (of “Where The Sidewalk Ends” fame) routinely provided illustrations and cartoons that were included within the pages of Playboy Magazine.

And, can we talk about The Playboy Interview for a second?  You would be stunned to find out the huge names that Playboy Magazine have secured for an official interview over its near sixty years of publication!  Alex Haley (of Roots fame) interviewed both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.!  Former United States president Jimmy Carter was interviewed by Playboy Magazine in 1976, where he candidly confessed to committing “adultery in his heart many times”.  And, an interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono appeared in the January 1981 issue of Playboy Magazine...which ended up being one of the last interviews that Lennon would give prior to his December 1980 death.

Here are just a few more facts about Playboy Magazine in general...


The best selling issue of Playboy Magazine to date?  November 1972, with Pam Rawlings on the cover.

Believe it or not, Playboy was the very first gentlemen’s magazine to be published in Braille!  The first issue of Braille Playboy was published in 1970.

Playboy Magazine was banned from the Republic of Ireland for thirty-six years, until 1995!

Nancy Sinatra, Samantha Fox, Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, and Belinda Carlisle all posed for Playboy at one time.  So have Kim Basinger, Drew Barrymore, Denise Richards, Shannen Doherty, and the late Farrah Fawcett.

Believe it or not, an urban legend circulated around for many years surrounding the iconic Playboy logo.  For a twenty-three year period, the “P” in Playboy had a number of stars included within it or around the letter.  It was widely believed that the stars were some form of ranking system that Hefner used to rank the Playmate of the Month!  In actuality, the stars represented the advertising region for the printing of each magazine! 


But, come on here...we all know that Hugh Hefner was (and continues to be) a ladies man.  But he wasn't always such a...well...a playboy!  His first marriage was to a woman named Mildred Williams, and the two got married in 1949.  The marriage spawned two children, Christie (who would later take over the company in the 1980s, staying in the position until 2009), and David.  The marriage lasted for ten years before breaking up in 1959, but what was interesting about it was that Mildred confessed to Hugh that she had an affair with another man before they tied the knot, which devastated Hugh completely.  In fact, Mildred reportedly felt so guilty about betraying his trust that she actually gave Hugh permission to sleep with other women while they were married!!!  




Maybe that was the catalyst that caused Hugh to morph into his bathrobe wearing, pipe smoking, bunny-chasing persona for good?  At any rate, with the divorce finalized by the time the Swinging Sixties kicked off, Hugh began dating a plethora of women.  He allegedly slept with many women over the years, and some of his most famous partners were Barbi Benton, Brande Roderick, Tina Marie Jordan, and Holly Madison.  He also would get married twice more.  He was married to Kimberley Conrad for twenty-one years, fathering two more children in the process.  But, although the marriage lasted between 1989 and 2010, the couple had been separated since the late 1990s.  He is currently married to Crystal Harris.




Crystal was 26 when she married Hefner.  Hugh himself was 86.  That would mean that Crystal is feasibly old enough to be his granddaughter!!!  Not that either one seem to care either way.

So, therefore, it may seem like it would be too easy to label Hugh Hefner with the label of 'dirty old man'.  And, in my opinion, that would be the easy way out.  Because Hugh Hefner has also done a lot of good as well, as far as I'm concerned.  Some of you might be looking at me in complete shock, but consider this.

Hugh Hefner is incredibly supportive of all marriages and unions, including gay marriages.  Some of you might not agree with his stance, but I applaud his taking a stand, as I too believe in equal rights for all.

He actually held fundraising events to preserve historic landmarks in the Hollywood area, including the revitalization of the famous Hollywood sign.  He raised $27,000 alone for the project, and even purchased the letter "Y" at an auction to ensure that the sign be preserved.  

(He was also given a Star on the Walk of Fame in 2009.)

And, Hugh Hefner is also a huge advocate in freedom of speech, and has donated millions of dollars in his fight to preserve that freedom.

All in all, not a bad track record.  With his contributions to preserving history and his support for equality, you can almost overlook the fact that he married someone sixty years younger than he is...almost.

But, he ended up building a huge empire with a simple magazine idea.  Controversy aside, he's living the American dream...in more ways than one.

Happy birthday, Hugh Hefner.

Monday, April 08, 2013

The Towering Inferno


This might seem like a bit of a strange question to open a blog entry, but how many of you have a plan of escape if a fire were to break out at your home or your workplace?

If a fire were to break out, and you found yourself trapped inside a burning building, would you know what to do in order to get out alive?

By all accounts, every household should have at least one smoke detector somewhere inside (preferably closest to the sleeping areas of the home), and every household should have at least two exit plans. Whether you leave out the front door, the back door, or busting through a window and climbing out, if the building is on fire, get out!

The same thing applies to your workplace as well. I can only speak for my own workplace, but we have a definite plan in place to get all of the customers and employees out of the building safely. There's at least two dozen emergency exits located within the store that I work at, and my store regularly does safety checks on the dozens of fire extinguishers that are located throughout each area. I've even been at the store when the fire alarm accidentally got pulled, and we were forced to evacuate the store. Everybody in the store left in a quick fashion, and we all met up at our designated spot. Needless to say, if a fire ever did break out in the store, I would probably have a very good chance of surviving.

Of course, this is also a store that is built in a fairly open area and is only one story.

Picture this scenario. Imagine being trapped inside of an office in a high-rise building, or a suite in a 40-story hotel. If a fire were to break out somewhere in that building, would you know what to do in order to get out of there alive?

It would not be much of a problem if you happened to be on a floor that was below the source of the blaze. All you would have to do is head towards the closest stairwell and run as fast as you can down to the nearest exit below. Being above the fire poses a whole new set of problems, as you're more or less trapped.
In a lot of cases, it would be easiest to run up the stairs to the roof and just stay up there until the fire is put out. But if that's not an option, the most important thing that you should probably do is stay calm, and try to keep a straight head about it all. Mind you, if you're actually in a situation where the building that you're in is ablaze...well, let's face it...you'll instantly go into panic mode regardless.

Of course, there are some things that you must never do if you expect to survive being trapped in a burning building. Stand near a water source and keep dousing yourself with water. This might buy you some time until firefighters can reach you. And, do NOT use any elevators to get out of the building. Otherwise, you might end up like these toasty warm people...



If that image seems a bit familiar, it's because it's a screenshot of today's Monday Matinee subject...and it's connected to my opening spiel about what to do if you're trapped in a high-rise building while it is burning down.



Today's topic? The 1974 disaster film, “The Towering Inferno”, directed by Irwin Allen.

The movie was released on December 14, 1974 and was a co-production between Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox. It was also a movie that took much of its inspiration from two novels - “The Tower” by Richard Martin Stern (which I have not read), and “The Glass Inferno” by Thomas M. Scortia and Frank M. Robinson (which I HAVE read, and highly recommend).



The film is set in San Francisco, California, where the dedication ceremony for The Glass Tower is set to take place. The high-rise is a massive office building, complete with a restaurant/dance hall on the 135th floor, and measuring at 1,800 feet in height is the tallest building in the world.



(Or at least it was at the time that the film was shot...the CN Tower would be fifteen feet taller when it opened to the general public in 1976.)

Now, the building was supposed to be at the height of quality and luxury, and as the partygoers arrived in full force to celebrate the grand opening of the building, none of them were aware that in order to complete the building, a lot of corners were cut...particularly with the electrical system.



So, when the exterior lights of The Glass Tower were switched on as part of the opening ceremonies, the action overloads the circuits, which causes a fire to break out on the eighty-first floor of the building. Thanks to the highly flammable materials located throughout the building (as well as people lacking common sense, as the people in that elevator in the image above showed), the fire quickly spreads between floors, and put the lives of thousands of people above the fire at risk.

In order to make the film as believable as possible, the film boasted a star-studded cast, some of them being real Hollywood legends. Among the cast were...

Steve McQueen (San Francisco Fire Chief Michael O'Hallorhan)
Paul Newman (Architect Doug Roberts)
William Holden (Builder James Duncan)
Faye Dunaway (Susan Franklin, engaged to Roberts)
Fred Astaire (Harlee Claiborne)
Jennifer Jones (Lisolette Mueller)
Richard Chamberlain (Electrical Engineer Roger Simmons)
Susan Blakely (Patty Duncan Simmons, daughter of Duncan)
Robert Wagner (Public Relations Chief Dan Bigelow)
O.J. Simpson (Chief Security Officer Harry Jernigan)

(Kind of weird how O.J. Simpson played a security officer given everything that happened two decades after this film was shot, huh?)

I will say that for 1974 standards, this film had some fantastic special effects. Watching the film almost 40 years after it was made, it still looks incredibly crisp and clean. And, the film ended up winning three Academy Awards – Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, and Best Original Song.



(In the case of Best Original Song, the song was “We May Never Love Like This Again”, which was performed by Maureen McGovern. It wasn't the first disaster film she provided music for either...two years earlier, she sang the theme for “The Poseidon Adventure”.)

I've actually got loads more trivia for this film as well...but if you expect me to reveal the ending for this film...well, I'm unfortunately unable to because I never reveal endings. All that I will say is that not all of the main characters of the film make it out alive. I'll show you a couple of examples, but not all of them. I really want you all to watch this movie for yourselves because it really is fantastic.

Here's what I can tell you...

01 – Apparently this was one film in which William Holden, Steve McQueen, and Paul Newman all wanted top billing! William Holden was eventually refused top billing, and settled for being the third name listed in the credits, but with there being a stalemate between the other two, the decision was made to have both names at the top of the movie poster going diagonally, so that depending on the direction in which you looked at the poster, both men would get top billing. Kind of a petty argument if you ask me, but whatever.



02 – The movie was actually the inspiration behind the 1976 song “Disco Inferno” by the Trammps.



03 – If the woman jumping out of the window after she catches on fire looks familiar, she is actress Susan Flannery, who went on to star as Stephanie Forrester on “The Bold and the Beautiful” from 1987-2012.



04 – This was Jennifer Jones' last appearance in a motion picture. Her character was paired up with Fred Astaire's character, and they danced together in the scenes that took place at the Promenade Room. Her performance earned her a Golden Globe nomination.

05 – The principal photography of the movie was completed on September 11, 1974. This is a rather eerie fact, given that twenty-seven years later, many people who were in the World Trade Center in New York City were faced with the same frightening situation that the people in the film experienced.

06 – Steve McQueen refused to give any interviews while he was on the set. In contrast, Paul Newman simply requested not to be “surprised”.

07 – Director Irwin Allen employed some rather unconventional methods when it came to nailing the perfect shot. He actually fired a gun into the ceiling in order to get the reaction shot of several people screaming in shock!

08 – Both Paul Newman and Steve McQueen were paid the same exact salary - $1.5 million plus 7.5% of all box office profits (which must have made both men very, very rich, given that it made $140 million total!)

09 – Speaking of sharing, did you know that Steve McQueen insisted that he and Paul Newman had the same amount of lines of dialogue in the script? Wow...McQueen kind of came across as a male diva here!

10 – Several actors who appeared in “The Poseidon Adventure” also made cameo roles in “The Towering Inferno”. From water to fire in just two years! Kind of makes you wonder what gluttons for punishment these actors were!

11 – Jennifer Jones was not the only actress considered for the role of Lisolette. Olivia de Haviland was offered the part first, but she declined. But de Haviland would later appear in the box office bomb, “The Swarm”.

12 – Believe it or not, a real fire broke out during the filming, and Paul Newman found himself assisting the real firefighters in putting the blaze out!

13 – Paul Newman also did the majority of his own stuntwork, as did Steve McQueen.

14 – There were 57 sets used during the course of the film. By the time filming ended in late 1974, only eight remained intact. The rest were destroyed by fire or water damage.

15 – The scenic elevator that is seen in the film? It's actually one of two that could be found at San Francisco's Hyatt Regency hotel.



16 – When the film was released in 1974, the First Interstate Tower in Los Angeles, California was completed. Fourteen years later, a fire would destroy five of the middle floors at the building. The Los Angeles Herald actually did a feature on the fire, comparing the real fire to the fictional Glass House building in “The Towering Inferno”. Fortunately, only one person was killed in the Los Angeles fire, as compared to dozens in “The Towering Inferno”.

17 – Paul Newman's son, Scott, had a role in the film as a firefighter.

18 – Recognize the young boy that Lisolette tries to help during the film? That would be then-fourteen year old Mike Lookinland...otherwise known as Bobby from “The Brady Bunch”.

19 – Faye Dunaway's role was originally offered to both Katharine Ross and Natalie Wood.



20 – Here's another interesting fact about Faye Dunaway, as told from the perspective of stuntman Ernie Orsatti. Apparently, Faye Dunaway was not exactly the most reliable of actresses, often showing up late for filming, or even skipping days of filming altogether. It wasn't until William Holden reportedly threatened Faye to shape up her act that she began to make her scheduled call times.

21 – A fire broke out in a Manteca, California movie theatre while the film was showing! One of the few things that survived the blaze was the movie poster!

22 – John Williams composed the entire score for the movie.

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Rico Suave


I'm going to share something with you all. It's a secret in regards to the Sunday Jukebox entries that I have done for nearly two years now.

For the most part, the artists that I have featured in the Sunday Jukebox are artists who I highly respect in the music industry. Any time that I have done an album spotlight on an artist (Huey Lewis and the News, Simply Red, Janet Jackson), I've done this because I have a hard time selecting just ONE song to spotlight because I admire the artist a lot. Any other Sunday Jukebox entry has featured a hit that I have in my own personal music collection, or it happens to be linked to a personal event that I have experienced.

I am really trying to find an instance in my blog where I have actually featured a song in my blog that I have absolutely despised. Not even the entry that I did on Rebecca Black's “Friday” was that scathing. Sure, “Friday” is far from being my favourite song, but at the same time, I know that Black was only in her early teens, so I didn't want to be too hard on her.

Well, I'm gonna change things up for a week. Today's blog subject will be on a song that I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to. I'm surprised that the song even became a hit! It wasn't a number one hit by any means...it only peaked within the Top 10. And, as far as I'm concerned, that was generous.

It's also a song that seems to have divided opinions. On one hand, the song was ranked at #9 on VH1's list of “100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders”. On the flipside, the song was also placed on Blender's list of the 50 Worst Songs ever, ranking in the thirty-seventh position.

To be fair though, the song did have its innovations that helped it stand out. It had a rather catchy beat (which was borrowed from the 1984 Daiquiri single “Chamo Candela”), and it was one of the few songs released that contained lyrics in both English and Spanish. In all honestly, I can't really think of anyone else who had hit songs with both English and Spanish lyrics other than Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin.

Unfortunately, the lyrics are the main reason why I cannot stand listening to the song. I'm not skilled in Spanish at all, and can't understand the Spanish portion of the song. Any Spanish I learned, I learned from watching the American version of “Sesame Street” (the Canadian one taught us French instead). I attempted to enter the Spanish lyrics into a language translator that I found via Google, but the translations ended up making me more confused. It's just as well though. I have plenty of ammunition with the English lyrics, which are cheesy at best, and mildly offensive at worst...depending on how offended one gets.

So, who performed the song in question? Well, it happens to be this guy.



Um...wait a minute...that's not who I mean. That's GERALDO. I wanted GERARDO.



That's better. This is Gerardo Mejia, the Ecuadorian-born singer whose family relocated to California when he was just twelve. Before he broke into the music business, he had a couple of minor roles in the films “Can't Buy Me Love” and “Colors”. At some point, he signed a recording contract with Interscope Records in 1990, and at the tail end of the year, he released his debut single...the single that we'll be discussing today.

So, why don't I post the video right now, let you watch it, and then we'll have a discussion over why I'm not a fan of the song.



ARTIST: Gerardo
SONG: Rico Suave
ALBUM: Mo' Ritmo
DATE RELEASED: December 5, 1990
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS: #7

Okay, so here's your first Spanish lesson of the day, courtesy of the translation site that I located on Google. When you translate the title of the song into English, “Rico” becomes “Rich”, and “Suave” becomes “Smooth”. So, loosely translated, the song title is “Rich and Smooth”, which if you listen closely to the English lyrics could be two adjectives that Gerardo uses to describe himself!

And, apparently if that is the case, that must mean that Gerardo has a rather high opinion of himself! But, that's only my interpretation of the lyrics...I could be wrong.



But let's go with this train of thought as we examine the lyrics...well...the English ones anyway.

Just listening to the song, and watching the music video which shows a scantily clad Gerardo dancing alongside even more scantily clad women, it's become clear that the song is all about how Gerardo believes that he is God's gift to women. Take a look...

I don't drink or smoke ain't into dope
Won't try no coke, ask me how I do it, I cope
My only addiction has to do with the female species
I eat 'em raw like sushi.

Okay, so let's recap. It's commendable that he's not one of those guys who is into heavy drinking, smoking cigarettes, or popping pills. He's very much sober and clear-headed in this song...which is why the part about him eating women raw like sushi is so freakin' disturbing!!! Not in my wildest dreams would I even compare a woman to a piece of cold, raw, fish. Not exactly the most romantic visual, huh?

Anyway, if you thought that was bad...just keep reading. It gets much worse.

There's not a woman that can handle a man like me
That's why I juggle two or three
I ain't one to commit, you can omit that bit
You pop the question, that's it.

Commitment phobic is apparently Rico Suave's middle name. I mean, why would he settle down with just one woman when he can string a whole bunch of them along and keep them from knowing that others exist? Believe me, I know the type, and have known a couple of “players” in my lifetime. You know the guys I mean? The ones who are so preoccupied with feeding their egos by dating a string of beautiful, gorgeous women at the same time just so they can boast of their conquests? Yeah, that's the image that I get when I read those lyrics. I'm certainly not suggesting that Gerardo is that kind of person today or even back when his career was just starting out. The song could have very well been an exercise in irony, like Madonna's “Material Girl” video. Whatever the case, the song's message is not a very good one.

Just based on my own experiences, I could never be one who would try to see two women at once. Heck, I'll be brutally honest...I have trouble even getting a date with ONE woman! And, yet Rico Suave can get however many he wants. Sometimes, life just ain't fair. What's even more infuriating is that he seems to treat them as if they're nothing more than prizes. No love, no affection...and definitely no ring. And, it would take a decade and a half before Beyonce came along and boasted that if he liked her then he should put a ring on it.

And, as if that last set of lyrics didn't confirm your stance that the song is sleazy, you haven't seen anything yet! Take a look at the last set of English lyrics that we'll be focusing on today.

So again don't let my lyrics mislead you
I don't love you but I need you
Would you rather have me lie
Take a piece of your pie and say bye
Or be honest and rub your thighs?

Oy vey...where to start with this one?

He doesn't love her, but he needs her? Wow...what a classy guy, huh? I suppose that in the world of cheaters and players, this dude is mui bueno, but in my eyes, he's a real perro.

(And, yes, I did have to look up the spelling for the Spanish words. In English, I'm wonderful with spelling. In Spanish, I'd fail a spelling test.)

Perhaps what's even more disturbing are the last three lines of this verse. Either way, he doesn't really come off all that great. In one option, he's basically point blank telling this woman that he doesn't love her, and he won't want to have anything more to do with her after their rendezvous together, but yes, she can rub his thighs to her heart's desire because that's how he rolls, and she's just going to have to learn how to accept it.

Okay, we get it dude. You're god's gift to women. Your skin-tight jeans and 90's style mullet makes you absolutely irresistible.

Oh, but wait. He could lie to them all in his quest to get lucky. He could take what he wants giving her false pretenses that he really does love her, and he really wants to be with her forever and ever and ever. And, once he gets what he came looking for, he'll scurry off into the night looking for his next conquest, leaving the girl he was just with all confused wondering what just happened.

Because that's SO much better...

Wow, you know something...this song upon closer inspection is actually a lot worse than I thought it was. I'm almost afraid to try and translate the Spanish lyrics and try to make sense of them!!!

Can you tell I'm absolutely shocked that this song was a #7 hit? Though, I suppose songs with worse messages than that have hit the top of the charts since then.



At any rate, “Rico Suave” ended up being Gerardo's only big hit. He did have another Top 20 smash with “We Want The Funk” (which was a partial remake of “Tear the Roof Off the Sucker” by Parliament) in 1991, but when his second and third albums flopped on the charts, Gerardo decided to put his focus on working behind the scenes of the music industry. He became an A&R executive for the very record company he joined as an artist, and he was responsible for signing another artist who used both English and Spanish in his lyrics.



Enrique Iglesias would have only been known as the son of Julio had Gerardo not taken a chance on him back in the late 1990s. Since signing on to Interscope, Enrique has had several hits charting including “Bailamos”, “Rhythm Divide”, and “Hero”.



But, then again, Gerardo also signed Bubba Sparxxx...so I'll leave it to you as to how well he's done as a scout for new talent.

And, that's our look at “Rico Suave”...which admittedly is a song that I'm not a fan of.



Now, Weird Al's “Taco Grande”? That's good stuff!

Saturday, April 06, 2013

Siskel & Ebert - A Tribute


The entry that I am going to be making today is one that is bittersweet.  On one hand, it details one of my favourite Saturday traditions, but on the other hand, it is very sad because both of the men who hosted this program are now deceased, and I’ve come to the conclusion that another part of my childhood is forever gone.

For a lot of kids, Saturday mornings meant that you could watch as many cartoons as you could stomach.  And, I’ll be the first to admit that I myself was one of those kids.

What about Saturday afternoons and Saturday evenings?  What did we do then?

Well, most of us probably went outside for the rest of the day.  And, certainly I was also one of those kids who played outside in the backyard.  But there was also one particular show that aired on Saturdays that the whole family enjoyed watching, and it had to do with the subject of movies.

Let’s face it.  At some point during our day, we’re going to be exposed to dozens of film trailers for upcoming features.  Some of them are animated cartoons, some are action films, some are erotic thrillers, and some of them are creepy, scary, horror movies.  Whatever the genre, there are always a boatload of film critics that will get invited to advance screenings of the movies, and they are paid good money to give the films an honest review.  Sometimes the film absolutely wows them.  Sometimes the film garners a mediocre response.  Sometimes, the film is completely torn apart, ripped to shreds, and are given reviews so scathing, winning a Golden Raspberry Award would actually be less painful!

Of course, film reviews are rather subjective.  Depending on the critics, sometimes they get it absolutely right, and other times, you find them to be complete hacks.  But, that’s part of the joy of being a movie critic.  You’re essentially sharing your own opinions about a certain film with a wide audience, essentially telling them what movies to watch, and simultaneously, which films to avoid like influenza.

Believe me...I know how hard it is to review a film.  When I was in college, I reviewed a few films for my school newspaper, and I found it an incredibly difficult job to do.  I wanted to keep an open mind, but also be somewhat respectful in any criticism that I gave out to avoid looking like a complete jerk.  Try it sometime.  You’ll quickly discover that giving a fair, but honest review to a film is harder than it looks.

In my opinion, the best film critics are the ones who don’t just simply offer their opinions about a film.  They also have the facts or knowledge to back up their claims.  They might do research on other roles that the actors and actresses in the film have done and compare it to the new piece to see if they have fine-tuned their craft.  They might watch the film more than once to make sure that they know it inside and out.  They might even be so passionate about their own opinions that they might get into heated arguments with another critic to prove their point.  And, if they were lucky, their arguments might be convincing enough to sway the opposing critic onto their side!

In the case of these two former film critics, this was certainly the case.  When they agreed with each other, they happily chatted about it, explaining why they felt this way.  But if they had a disagreement, it could get quite heated.  What was interesting was that even though they often battled each other verbally on screen, when the cameras were shut off, the two men had each other’s permanent respect.  When that partnership came to a sudden end in 1999, it was a sad day in the film industry.  And, just a couple of days ago, the other half of that partnership breathed his last breath.


This is the story of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.


Although both men were born and raised in the state of Illinois, both had their own distinct career trajectories before they first crossed paths in the 1970s.  Eugene Kal Siskel (b. January 26, 1946) grew up in the Chicago area, having to live with his aunt and uncle after his parents died when he was just ten.  He graduated with a degree in philosophy from Yale University in 1967, and studied writing under the tutelage of John Hersey, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author.  It was through Hersey that Siskel landed a job writing film reviews at the Chicago Tribune.


Roger Joseph Ebert (b. June 18, 1942) was born and raised in Urbana, Illinois, and his love for journalism began as a sportswriter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois.  He was also very interested in writing science fiction fandom, and claimed that he learned everything he needed to know about being a film critic from MAD Magazine!  Maybe that’s why his reviews tended to be a smidgen on the acerbic and sarcastic side at times.

Ebert was a very bright student, taking university level courses at the University of Illinois while finishing up the necessary high school courses needed to earn his diploma.  After graduating from high school in 1960, he continued his studies at the University of Illinois while continuing to work for the News-Gazette as a reporter.  Upon his graduation from Illinois in 1964, he attended the University of Cape Town in South Africa for a year, and had planned to attend the University of Chicago to earn his PhD.  He even took on a job at the Chicago Sun-Times as a writer to support himself while he was taking classes.  But when the newspaper’s film critic left the publication, an opportunity presented itself to Ebert.  It made such an impression that when Ebert was forced to choose between earning a PhD and continuing with the newspaper as its film critic, he decided that being a film critic was more rewarding.

So, how did Siskel and Ebert end up crossing paths?


It all began in 1975, when a television show began airing on PBS, entitled “Opening Soon at a Theater Near You”.  The premise of the show was simple.  Two critics from opposing newspapers would sit down, watch some short movie clips from the newest releases that week, and hash it out.

So, naturally, because the show was taped in Chicago, it made sense to have the hosts of the program be from two rival newspapers.  So, who better to host the show than Siskel of the Tribune, and Ebert from the Sun-Times? 


It was here on this show that the long-associated trademark of Siskel and Ebert was born.  Whenever either critic loved the movie, they would give their approval by holding their thumb in an up position.  When the critic disliked the film, they would stick their thumbs downward.  In a lot of cases, the decisions were split, allowing people to make up their own minds as to whether the film was worth watching.  But in most cases, the thumbs showed the way.  If a movie was excellent, it would get TWO THUMBS UP!

And, well...if a film completely sucked, then it would be TWO THUMBS DOWN!

Of course, the show would have been incredibly dull had both men agreed/disagreed on everything and held hands at the end of every episode singing Kumbaya.  Roger Ebert wrote about his professional relationship with Siskel in a column that he wrote back in 1999, and as you’ll see, it wasn’t exactly sunshine and roses at first.

“We both thought of ourselves as full-service, one-stop film critics. We didn't see why the other one was quite necessary. We had been linked in a Faustian television format that brought us success at the price of autonomy. No sooner had I expressed a verdict on a movie, my verdict, than here came Siskel with the arrogance to say I was wrong, or, for that matter, the condescension to agree with me. It really felt like that. It was not an act. When we disagreed, there was incredulity; when we agreed, there was a kind of relief. In the television biz, they talk about "chemistry." Not a thought was given to our chemistry. We just had it, because from the day the Chicago Tribune made Gene its film critic, we were professional enemies. We never had a single meaningful conversation before we started to work on our TV program. Alone together in an elevator, we would study the numbers changing above the door.”

As time passed, the animosities and personality conflicts between the two men began to transform into a deep and profound friendship.  Sure, Siskel and Ebert maintained their professional rivalry, but their personal relationship together was filled with chemistry and respect.  And, Ebert would later make the following statement in the same 1999 column.

“...no one else could possibly understand how meaningless was the hate, how deep was the love".

The two men hosted the program for seven years, and in those seven years, the series changed its name to “Sneak Previews”.  The two men left the program in 1982 following contractual differences with the network that produced the series, and while “Sneak Previews” lasted an additional fourteen years before its cancellation in 1996, it didn’t quite rank as high in the ratings as it once did with Siskel and Ebert at the helm.  The very year that Siskel and Ebert left “Sneak Previews”, they began hosting “At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert”, produced by Tribune Entertainment.  They stayed on with the program until 1986, when both of them left following a dispute with Tribune.  Later that year, the duo began their longest-running series yet, with “Siskel & Ebert”, which debuted in syndication on September 13, 1986.


And, it was on “Siskel & Ebert” that some of the duo’s most heated arguments took place.  There was no physical violence of course...it was “Siskel & Ebert”, not Jerry Springer.  But their verbal barbs and raised voices certainly helped keep the show on the air for a dozen years.  Again, when they disagreed, they certainly let everyone know it.  


Just have a look at their 1987 review for “Full Metal Jacket”, in which Siskel loved it, but Ebert hated it.


And, even when they DID agree, they still found a need to argue about it!  Have a look at their review for 1997’s “Boogie Nights” if you like.


But, one thing that they were both was stubborn.  In the twelve years that “Siskel & Ebert ran, there was not a single instance in which Roger Ebert backed down on his opinions.  He might nod and give Siskel a little bit of credit for a point in which he didn’t consider, but he never once changed his mind.

As for Gene Siskel?  Well, there was that one incident back in 1996 when “Broken Arrow” came out in which Roger Ebert’s opinion apparently was strong enough to make Siskel CHANGE HIS MIND!   Don’t believe me?  Have a look for yourself by clicking HERE!  It is definitely something to be seen!

Throughout it all, the partnership of Siskel and Ebert endured, and millions of people counted on hearing their opinions on various films in deciding whether it was worth paying full price for, or waiting until Tuesdays when tickets were only half price.  I’ll even be the first to admit that I’ve made decisions on what movies to watch based on what Siskel & Ebert have said about them.  For the record, I always saw Ebert’s reviews as being slightly more useful than Siskel’s, but I will also say that Siskel did know what he was talking about as well in a lot of cases.

I imagine that a lot of people took Siskel and Ebert’s reviews for granted, expecting that they would be around forever to critique movies well into the twenty-first century.  So, when Gene Siskel was admitted into the hospital in late 1998, we all believed that he would be just fine.  Unfortunately, that was not to be the case.  Gene Siskel was diagnosed with having a brain tumour, and required surgery to have it removed.  He survived that surgery, and for a while, he would host the show with Ebert via telephone.  He did return to the program for a bit, but was forced to leave the show once more to undergo another round of surgery in hopes of getting rid of the tumour for good.  The last show that he and Ebert would host together aired on January 23, 1999, and Siskel had high hopes of returning to the program in the fall, joking that there was no way that he would let Roger have more screen time than he.


Tragically, Siskel never did get to come back.  Less than a month after his final appearance on Siskel & Ebert, Gene Siskel died of complications from a second surgery on February 20, 1999.  He was just 53 years old.

Roger Ebert dedicated the next scheduled show in Gene’s memory, playing old clips and interviews of Gene at his prime.  But even though Gene had passed away, Roger Ebert kept the show running, searching for a new co-host to take over Gene’s spot.  In 2000, film critic Richard Roeper was named as Ebert’s permanent new co-host, and on September 10, 2000, the show was renamed “Ebert & Roeper and the Movies”.  The show’s name was shortened to “Ebert & Roeper” in 2002, and the partnership lasted until 2006.  I will say this.  I remember watching Ebert & Roeper when it first came on, and I’ll definitely say that Ebert and Roeper worked well together.  And, I’m also giving Roeper a lot of credit and praise for taking over Siskel’s spot near flawlessly and giving it his all in his reviews.  But, Ebert & Roeper was no Siskel & Ebert.  The partnership was good...but it was incomparable to Ebert’s previous working relationship with Siskel.

But right around the time that Ebert & Roeper began airing, Ebert was experiencing health issues of his own.  In 2002, he was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and underwent radiation treatments in order to get rid of the tumours that were developing.  However, complications from these treatments would lead to emergency surgery in 2006, which prevented Ebert from being able to speak properly.  Efforts to reconstruct his jaw bone lead to permanent facial disfigurement, and Ebert was forced to leave the show in 2007.  Roeper remained until the summer of 2008, and following a series of guest co-hosts, the show was permanently canned in 2010.


Although Ebert was unable to give verbal reviews, he continued to do online reviews, and continued writing his column.  And he continued to write until his death two days ago on April 4, 2013, at the age of 70.

With the passing of Roger Ebert, it truly marks the end of an era in the world of film reviews.  There were simply no two reviewers who had as much chemistry and knowledge of the movie industry as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.  With both of them now deceased, future generations will never really know just how influential they were to the film industry.

But you know, I’d like to picture them now the same way that an Internet image that has been floating around cyberspace the last couple of days has done beautifully...an image that is poignant and wonderful at the same time...a real touching tribute to both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert if ever I saw one.


And, to close off this look on Siskel & Ebert, I have one final piece of trivia on both men.

SISKEL TRIVIA:  Gene Siskel loved the 1977 film “Saturday Night Fever” so much that he actually bought the white suit that John Travolta wore in the film at a charity auction!

EBERT TRIVIA:  Though Ebert had stated that 1941’s “Citizen Kane” was his all-time favourite film, he later admitted that his REAL favourite film was 1960’s “La Dolce Vita”, and that his favourite actor and actress were Robert Mitchum and Ingrid Bergman respectively.