Search This Blog

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.

Monday, February 03, 2014

007 Feature #5 - "GoldenEye" featuring Brosnan...Pierce Brosnan

This is going to be a huge challenge for me to write this blog entry today because as I type this entry out, I am battling the dreaded stomach flu.  It came on all of a sudden too, which stunned even me.

But I suppose that it couldn't be helped.  The flu is going around a lot where I live.  I suppose that it was only inevitable for me to catch it.  And, while I won't go into detail over how badly I feel, I'll just say that having the flu is by no means glamourous.

So, I hope you'll understand why I probably won't be making this blog entry as jam-packed full of trivia information as previous entries.  My hope is that next week, I'll be recovered enough to end this special series of James Bond themed entries with a bang.



What, you think a little thing like a gastrointestinal bug is going to stop me from writing an entry?  Of course not!  This is week #5 in a six-week look back at all things Bond.  Each week, I've been taking a look at one of the Bonds, as well as what I think was their best movie.  For the list up to this point, here's links to the other postings.

007 Feature #1 - Dr. No featuring Connery...Sean Connery


And, for this week's edition, the Bond that is the subject of mixed opinion.  Some absolutely love him, others can't stand him.  My own opinion of Bond #5 is exactly the same as Bond #3.  I loved his earlier movies, but didn't care for his later ones.  Not that any of the movies that he did were horrible.  I didn't mind three of the four of them.  But when it came to choosing the film that I would spotlight featuring Bond #5, I tended to go for one of his earliest ones.

And what's interesting about Bond #5 was that he was actually supposed to be Bond #4, but due to NBC deciding to keep him on contract to "Remington Steele", he ended up losing the gig to Timothy Dalton in 1986.



Nine years later though, Pierce Brosnan would come to have a second chance to play Bond.  And beginning in 1995, Pierce Brosnan became the fifth actor to play the role of James Bond after Timothy Dalton resigned from the role one year earlier.

And the story behind the departure of Dalton is almost as interesting as Brosnan being given the part.  You see, Timothy Dalton was actually committed to three films in his contract.  We already know that two of those movies were "The Living Daylights" and "Licence To Kill".  It was widely considered that Dalton would honour his third film commitment shortly after "Licence To Kill" wrapped up, and the third film project would be released sometime in 1991.

Unfortunately, neither Dalton nor the Albert R. Broccoli were prepared for the events that lead to Dalton resigning.  Because "Licence To Kill" was the lowest grossing Bond film in America, people began to speculate that the film franchise was in trouble.  To add to the drama, MGM/UA (the company that sponsored and distributed the Bond series) was sold to an Australian broadcasting group known as Qintex - at which point, Qintex would merge with French production company Pathe.  Meanwhile, Danjaq - the parent company of Eon Productions had launched a lawsuit against MGM/UA because the Bond back catalogue had been licensed to Pathe, which planned on broadcasting the entire Bond series on television around the world without Danjaq's approval. 

Because of these legal disputes, Dalton's contract was left in limbo, and the film release date was pushed back from 1991 to 1994!  Although the screenplay had been completed for the film by Michael France, the waiting proved to be too much for Dalton's patience, and he resigned from the series in April 1994. 

So, with a new Bond being required to finish the film, the choice was really a no-brainer.  Since Brosnan had already been promised the role in 1986 (before the "Remington Steele" debacle), it was decided that he would take over the Bond franchise, which he did from 1995 until 2002.

Now, here comes the tricky part.  Brosnan did four films in the series.  Which one would I feature?

Well, as I stated before hand, I liked Brosnan's early films, but not so much the later ones.  1999's "The World Is Not Enough" was okay, but I never did like Denise Richards as a Bond girl for whatever reason.  Nothing against her acting ability, but perhaps my opinion may have been clouded by the fact that Richards once played a girl who had a crush on Slater in "Saved By The Bell".  And 2002's "Die Another Day" relied too much on CGI animation to really tell a coherent story - although Rosamund Pike's portrayal of Miranda Frost was excellent, and I didn't mind Halle Berry as Jinx either - though Madonna should probably never do another Bond theme again.

So, we're left with 1995's "GoldenEye" and 1997's "Tomorrow Never Dies".  Both films are quite excellent, and in my Top 10 list of Bond films, both of these are in that list.  But as good a movie as "Tomorrow Never Dies" really was, I decided to go with "GoldenEye" as the subject of discussion for three reasons.



First, the theme song is wickedly cool.  Tina Turner singing a song written by Bono and The Edge from U2?  Pure awesomeness.  And whoever did the title design for these opening credits was a genius.



Secondly, this film actually does a great job incorporating Brosnan into the Bond franchise, and the casting choices were fantastic all around.  Sean Bean, Famke Janssen, Izabella Scorupko, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Cumming, and introducing Dame Judi Dench as the first female "M" was brilliant!

And, thirdly..."GoldenEye" was supposed to be the final film that Dalton would have made had he stayed on with the franchise.  I admit that it would have been interesting to see what might have been had Dalton stayed on.  It might have moved him up a couple of notches on my most liked Bonds.

So, let's talk a bit about the plot (and when I say a bit, I mean the most miniscule details, as I never want to spoil too many details).



Amusingly enough, the film opens up nine years prior to the events that take place in "GoldenEye" in 1986 - the same year that Brosnan got screwed out of playing Bond in the first place.  Initially, Bond is working with another Double-0 Agent - Alec Trevalyan 006 (Bean) to infiltrate a Soviet chemical weapons base and blow it up real good.  But naturally, if the two agents would have succeeded at their task, the movie would have concluded in ten minutes with Pierce Brosnan and Sean Bean playing a round of golf in Hawaii.

Instead what happens is that 006 is shot by Colonel Arkady Ourumov, and 007 manages to escape in a plane while the chemicals plant explodes.

So, from what it appears, it looks like Agent 006 has been killed.  But in a Bond film, nothing ever looks as it appears.  For not only has 006 survived the ordeal - but he has crossed over to the dark side.  And, whereas Bond was once a friend...he is now an enemy.



Flash forward nine years, and Bond is now given a new mission.  Track down Xenia Onatopp (Janssen) and keep an eye on her.  Onatopp is suspected to be a member of the crime syndicate known as Janus - a criminal organization that has committed crimes all over the world over the last eight or nine years (surprise, surprise), and Bond's ultimate mission is to shut the organization down.

Unfortunately, Bond is too late to prevent the group from causing a lot of death and destruction.  After Onatopp kills a Royal Canadian Navy admiral, and Ourumov steals his identity, it allows the group to steal a Eurocopter Tiger helicopter that can withstand electromagnetic pulses - the weapon of choice that they plan on using to steal the control disk for the dual GoldenEye satellite weapons.  They descend on a secret bunker located in Severnaya, and in their quest to gain control of the weapons, kill off most of the scientists and researchers in the complex and manage to recruit programmer Boris Grishenko (Cumming) to their side.



But as it turns out, the attack did leave behind one survivor - Natalya Simonova.  And Simonova teams up with Bond to bring down the Janus syndicate before they can have the opportunity to create more damage.

Now, that's all that I feel compelled to reveal.  If I give out too many plot details, I'll ruin the movie.

But I can offer up some backstage trivia for you in regards to this movie.

01 - Desmond Llewelyn was the only returning face to Bond's team as "Q".  This was Judi Dench's first film as "M", and Samantha Bond's first film as Moneypenny.

02 - This was Albert R. Broccoli's last Bond film in which he was credited as part of the staff (as consulting producer).  He would pass away at the age of 87 on June 27, 1996 - seven months after GoldenEye's November 13, 1995 release date.

03 - The film name "GoldenEye" pays homage to Bond creator Sir Ian Fleming.  One of the operations that he took part in while in service to the British Naval Intelligence was "Operation Goldeneye"!

04 - This movie was the first Bond movie to be released on DVD format.

05 - Famke Janssen performed her own driving stunts in the movie.

06 - The Rolling Stones were offered the chance to record the theme song for this movie, but turned it down.

07 - Some of the close-up shots of Bond's hand were actually that of Brosnan's adopted son, Christopher.  The reason why was because Brosnan had injured his hand quite badly at his home in Malibu.

08 - This film features a bungee cord jump from a structure 722 feet high up - the longest bungee jump ever recorded for a motion picture.  The man who performed the jump later had a cameo in the film as a helicopter pilot.

09 - Look closely at the cards that Xenia is holding in the casino scene with Bond.  Xenia has two face cards and a seven in her hand - or 007, if you like.

10 - This was the first Bond film to have an original screenplay - without any reference to any of Ian Fleming's previous works.

11 - The first Bond movie to use computer generated imagery - the gun barrel opening was completely animated using CGI.

12 - The movie began production in January 1995.  Robbie Coltrane's scenes were the very first to be shot.

13 - Pierce Brosnan is one of only two Bond actors to be born outside of the United Kingdom.  Brosnan grew up in Ireland, and George Lazenby was Australian.

14 - During the fight scene in the sauna, I imagine that it must have been painful for Famke Janssen.  She admitted that she broke a rib filming that scene!

15 - Paulina Porizkova and Eva Herzigova were offered the role of Natalya, but both turned it down.

16 - The first Bond movie to be directed by a non-British director.  In this case, it was directed by New Zealand born Martin Campbell.

17 - "M"'s real name is listed as Barbara Mawdsley.

18 - The alcoholic beverages weren't really alcohol.  The martinis that James Bond drinks were really ice water.  And "M"'s bourbon is really apple juice.

19 - Nails were attached to the tires of the Ferrari F355 for the skid in the car chase with Bond's Aston Martin.  Problem was that the car was rented, and when the car was involved in a collision, it had to be repaired immediately - at a cost of $80,000!

20 - Believe it or not, Sean Bean auditioned for the role of James Bond in 1987's "The Living Daylights"!

21 - This film also marks the film where James Bond kills the most people - with the final death toll being 47!

And, that's our look back at Pierce Brosnan's turn as Bond.  And, while I wasn't a fan of the latter two films he did, I loved the first two.  And, the seventeenth film of the Eon series of Bond films certainly was the best film that showcases Brosnan in the most positive light. 

Next week, the Bond series wraps up with the sixth (and current) Bond - and his turn as the spy shows that sometimes blond Bonds do have more fun!

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Shake It Like A Polaroid Picture!

Hello, everybody, and happy Super Bowl Sunday to all of you reading this!

I know that the big game is today, and I am sure that you are absolutely anxious to find out whether the Seahawks or the Broncos will take home the coveted Super Bowl trophy.

(Or, if you're like me, you're more interested in the halftime show and television commercials - which thanks to Canadian simulcasting we always seem to get gypped out of the latter.)

However, I just want you to take the time to read this Sunday Jukebox entry for today.  It will only take you a few minutes.  After that, you can go ahead and gorge on all the buffalo wings, pepperoni pizza, and pork rinds you desire.

Now, if you've kept up with the Sunday Jukebox entries for this year, you'll know that I am doing things a little bit differently.  This year, every song that is featured will be one that has hit the top of the Billboard charts for at least one week.  Now, this might not seem like much of a challenge.  After all, since the Billboard charts were first implemented in 1940, it's estimated that hundreds, if not thousands of songs have hit #1.

But I'm also going to issue a bit of a challenge to myself when doing this week's blog entry. 

Now, if you were a regular reader of the blog in February 2013, you'll know that I made every entry that month linked to an event known as
BLACK HISTORY MONTH.  It was certainly one of the toughest challenges that I have ever given myself, but very rewarding at the same time.  I ended up learning a lot of information and history with each post - some of which I did not know prior to writing the articles. 

I so wanted to do something similar for this February as well, but I ended up coming to the realization that I used up all of my good topics last year, so I won't be able to devote the whole month to celebrating the accomplishments and achievements of black artists, singers, actors, and trailblazers. 

But, I will be doing a selection of special themed blog topics that will celebrate Black History Month.  Mostly you can find them in the Sunday Jukebox, Friday Night TV Guide, and possibly even the Tuesday Timeline entries.  But again, I could change things up a little bit too, if I so decide.

So, here's my added challenge for today.  Can I choose a #1 song and have it be performed by artists of colour?

Well, the answer of course is yes.  And what better year to visit than ten years ago?

You see, the year 2004 was an unprecedented year in music history.  A total of twelve songs topped the charts in the year 2004, and every single song that hit the top of the Billboard charts that year were recorded by an African-American group or artist!  I can't even remember any other year where this has taken place.  Although, 2003 came really close to being similar (the only artists to have a hit that year who were not African-American were Jennifer Lopez, Eminem, and Clay Aiken).

The point is that 2004 is a perfect year to try and find a #1 song by an artist of African-American descent.  But which one should I choose?  Should I feature Usher (who had a #1 hit for twenty-eight of the year's fifty-two weeks)?  Should I choose Alicia Keys?  Ciara?  Fantasia Barrino?

Nah.  I think I'll choose this song, which actually is one of the rare songs to hit the top of the charts in two calendar years.  It first hit the #1 position on December 13, 2003 and stayed there until February 14, 2004 - an outstanding nine weeks on the charts.

And even more interesting...the song that replaced this song was recorded by the same group!

Get ready to shake it like a Polaroid picture!  Here's this week's Sunday Jukebox!



ARTIST:  OutKast
SONG:  Hey Ya!
ALBUM:  Speakerboxxx/The Love Below
DATE RELEASED:  September 9, 2003
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS:  #1 for 9 weeks

And, just on a personal note.  I have ALWAYS loved this song!



I mean, is it not the perfect song to get moving to?  You can dance to it.  Work out to it.  Walk a steady pace with it.  Heck, you could even listen to it at a wedding!  Or a bar mitzvah!  Or on National Pickle Day!

(Well, to some people, National Pickle Day is a huge celebration...)

So, what is there to say about this song?  I'm going to get to that in a little bit.  But first, there's a very interesting story behind this particular album, as well as what went into recording this particular song.

The album that this song appears on is actually the fifth album that was released by the duo known as OutKast.  That duo, by the way, is made up of Andre "Andre 3000" Benjamin and Antwan "Big Boi" Patton.

Well, after four albums of collaborating and scoring some decent hits like "Bombs Over Baghdad" and "Ms. Jackson", OutKast decided to go a different route with their latest collaboration.

It was decided that the duo would do a double album.  Which I suppose isn't all that unusual.  After all, lots of greatest hits packages come in double albums, and last year Justin Timberlake's 20/20 Experience album was released in two parts.  



What was unusual was the fact that the album was released as what seemed to be two separate albums by two solo artists.  The first album, "Speakerboxxx" was released by Big Boi, and "The Love Below" was Andre 3000's project.

And, there were certainly hits on both albums.  On "Speakerboxxx", "The Way You Move" hit the #1 spot in February 2004 (immediately following "Hey Ya!"), and "Ghetto Musick" was also released, while "Prototype", "Roses", and "Hey Ya!" appeared on "The Love Below" album. 

Now, the reason why the duo decided to make separate albums and release them in the same compilation had nothing to do with band troubles, nor did it signify a band break-up by any means (though the group's final album release was in 2006).  Rather, it was a way for both members of the group to try their hand at their own creative projects while keeping their commitment to the OutKast name.  Initially, critics were unsure that this was the right way for the group to go, as they believed that the two solo albums would diminish the value of the OutKast brand, but in all honesty, the different sounds of the two discs flowed together very well, and offered up several different styles and flavours of music that actually made the group more versatile. 

Who knew that the figurative split up of a group would end up making some sweeter music?  Or, at the very least, music that you could dance to!

Now, it was decided early on that the lead singles for both albums would be "The Way You Move" by Big Boi, and "Hey Ya" by Andre 3000.  But ultimately, "Hey Ya" was the much larger hit.  And, part of the reason was because of the music video.

Now, do you remember earlier in the year, I did that feature on Phil Collins' "Two Hearts", where the video showed four different Phils playing in the same band on some sort of variety show?  Well, the video for "Hey Ya" borrows that idea.  In fact, the video is designed to simulate the appearance that The Beatles made on The Ed Sullivan Show nearly fifty years ago on February 9, 1964 (that's next week, everybody).  The only major differences were that the video was supposed to be set in London and not New York (therefore making it kind of like the British television series "Top of the Pops"), and that instead of just four "Beatles", there were no less than eight different interpretations of Andre 3000!

It truly was a spectacle to be seen.

Now what's "Hey Ya" all about?  Well, contrary to what the song says, it's not about shaking it like a Polaroid picture.  Truth be told, the technique of shaking Polaroid pictures only existed on the earliest rolls of the film, which made the film dry faster if the photos were shaken.

No, if you can decipher the lyrics of the song, you might find that it is all about a person who seems to be having doubts about the relationship that he is in.  As much as he would like to have a traditional, loving relationship with his love, he questions whether or not she wants the same thing, or if they are just staying together for the sake of being together.

Because as anyone who has ever been in a loveless relationship knows, staying together for the sake of staying together is not the healthiest way to maintain a relationship. 

And by the time we get to the second verse, the narrator is thinking that maybe they should just call it a day and end the relationship for good.

And, then that is followed by Andre 3000 singing the word "Alright" about fourteen or fifteen times in a row!

(NOTE:  That lyric with the 'alrights' is probably one of the best karaoke lines to sing...or so I would like to think, considering that I haven't sang karaoke in about fifteen years or so.)

Whatever the case, this song was praised by music critics, and it lasted a total of nine weeks at the #1 position! 

And, that's not all.

Billboard magazine named it the twentieth most successul song of the decade between 2000 and 2009, and at the 46th annual Grammy Awards ceremony, the song was awarded the Best Urban/Alternative Performance award.

And, many people still consider this song to be one of OutKast's best singles.  I tend to agree.