Category: Politics
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Paul KrugmanI remember at college taking Introduction to Economics. It was one of the best courses I ever took. For one thing, I had a great professor. But also, I knew nothing about macroeconomics. So I learned a whole lot.

What I most remember about the course, however, was the idea of fiscal and monetary stimulus. I remember thinking, "That's great! At least we will never have to live through another Great Depression." This was sometime in the middle of the 1980s. There is an important lesson here: never extrapolate how Democrats will work with a Republican President to times when there is a Democratic President.

Alberto AlesinaPaul Krugman's column today is, Knowledge Isn't Power. As it's starting point, it takes a recent University of Chicago survey of economists which found that when asked if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—"the stimulus"—helped the economy, 36 said yes and only one (our old ideologue Alberto Alesina) said it didn't. So unlike what one hears in the press, there isn't any disagreement about the nature of our economic trouble. The problem is that the politicians just refuse to do what the economists know is correct.

Krugman even says what I had thought all those years ago, sitting in class:

Economists used to assert confidently that nothing like the Great Depression could happen again. After all, we know far more than our great-grandfathers did about the causes of and cures for slumps, so how could we fail to do better? When crises struck, however, much of what we've learned over the past 80 years was simply tossed aside.

Of course, the crux of the matter is more partisan than this. If we had inaugurated President McCain in 2009, there would have been lots and lots of stimulus: not just the under-sized and poorly structured ARRA. Sure, there would have been some Democrats complaining about the budget deficit, but bills would have passed and we would now have a far better economy.

So we know what to do to help the economy. And the politicians are willing to do what needs to be done. But the Republicans won't do it if a Democratic President will get credit for it. And that means that the Republican Party has sunk so low that its only interests are those of the party. They have no interest in doing what is best for all Americans. This isn't supposed to be able to happen. Normally, such a party would parish or reform. But in a world where corporations "speak" with money and discriminate with their "religious beliefs," it is no wonder. The Republican Party is a symptom, not a cause, of our broken democratic system.


Category: Birthdays
Posted by: Frank Moraes
ClaudiusOn this day in 10 BC, the Roman Emperor Claudius was born. Woody Allen once said, "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Well, 80% of Claudius' life was just surviving. We all know Claudius from the BBC television show I, Claudius where he was portrayed as a smart, learned, and decent man who stuttered—played by Derek Jacobi. (Side note: Jacobi believes that books were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford rather than Robert Graves.) By modern standards, Claudius was not quite as nice a guy, but by the standards of Roman Emperors of his time, he was above average.

According to Wikipedia, Claudius' ailments were not confined to his stutter:

The historian Suetonius describes the physical manifestations of Claudius' affliction in relatively good detail. His knees were weak and gave way under him and his head shook. He stammered and his speech was confused. He slobbered and his nose ran when he was excited. The Stoic Seneca states in his Apocolocyntosis that Claudius' voice belonged to no land animal, and that his hands were weak as well.

No one actually knows what was wrong with Claudius. Graves (Edward de Vere) thought he had Polio. Since then, people have suggested cerebral palsy and even Tourette syndrome. None of those are especially compelling. The cerebral palsy combined with a generally sickly nature makes a certain amount of sense. But if you look at representations of him, you don't see any of the look of palsy in his lips.

There is an interesting disconnect between Claudius' writing and what many contemporaries said about him. He was described as cruel, for example. I can't really imagine an Emperor of that time not doing some things to get that label. And he certainly had a lot of enemies. The Senate did not want him as the new emperor. But they were just fighting to see ought to be in charge. Claudius was really the only person with a good claim to be emperor, plus he had the army behind him. Nonetheless, he spent a long time trying to appease the Senate. Still, he retained many enemies. And various factions in the Senate tried to take him out of power over the years. So I tend to think Claudius just had bad press.

Regardless of his personality, he was a smart guy and a quick study. He administered the empire quite well. This is especially notable considering that throughout his rule he had something of a tenuous grip on power. Of course, his personal life was a bit of mess. He was married four times. And his last wife was Agrippina the Younger, whose son from a previous marriage would become Nero, Claudius' successor. The main thing about Agrippina is that she has always been suspected of poisoning Claudius. I'm not so sure. Claudius was 63 when he died, with a 13 year reign. Both those numbers are on the high side for Roman Emperors.

So happy birthday Claudius, you slobbering, stuttering, magnificent bastard!


The MaskI just watched The Mask for the first time in a decade. It is a charming film. And in a sense, I am more the target audience for the film than just about anything else I can think of. It appeals to all the prejudices of the kind of guy who thinks that he's "nice" and walked around with a puppet on a stick for many of his teen years. And I still spend a fair amount of time watching Bugs Bunny. He is one of my heroes. And yes, he is a hare.

But as one gets older (if he is paying attention at all), one notices one's prejudices. And the "nice guys finish last" trope has come to annoy me. It's also, I'm afraid, really sexist. The truth is that men and women make terrible mistakes in their love lives. In my experience, nothing is as attractive as self-confidence. And it is often true that people who are self-confident are jerks. I suspect it works differently from the way many people think. Being highly desirable makes people self-confident, but it also makes them more selfish. It's human nature.

Of course, in The Mask, Stanley Ipkiss is a truly nice guy. I say that because he likes cartoon and has a great dog that likes him. And what is sweet about the film is that Stanley wins the girl the way men have always won the girl: by allowing her to see past all the discomfort and pretense to who he really is. This is why the ending is so sweet with Tina Carlyle (played surprisingly well by Cameron Diaz) throwing away the mask. The truth is, Stanley's unchecked id was a bit too much for her, but surely she likes knowing that it lives within him.

On a technical level, there are some problems with the film. But I doubt anyone watching the film for the first time notices. As soon as Dorian Tyrell (the bad guy, played by Peter Greene) gets the mask, the film stalls. I understand the problem. You can't make Tyrell the wacky character that Ipkiss turned into. But the mask doesn't bring out his naughty child; it just seems to turn him into a more angry version of himself. So those scenes are tiresome. What's more, I'm afraid that Greene is miscast in the part, because he is too convincing a heavy.

But things do pick up, as Ipkiss breaks out of jail and eventually takes us to the climax of film that is as zany and wonderful as anything that came before. It just would have been a whole lot better to move faster from the point of reporter Peggy Brandt's double-cross to Ipkiss' escape. They could have trimmed five or even ten minutes from the film and sped into the third act without driving through a pothole that upsets a very consistent momentum throughout the rest of the film.

Really though: what's not to love? Jim Carrey has never been so adorable. The script is the silliest of fun. And it has the cutest dog ever. I don't know why I waited this long to watch it again.


Category: Fun
Posted by: Frank Moraes
John HodgmanThe other day, Andrea called to read from an article by John Hodgman in The New Yorker, Ask Ayn. In it, he created excerpts from a column she had supposedly written for Parade Magazine shortly before her death. Of course, the article isn't presented that way. It starts, "After a couple of appearances on the interview program Donahue, in 1979 and 1980, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand enjoyed something of a renaissance in popular culture, including a week as a panelist on Match Game and a guest appearance on Fantasy Island as the Spirit of Capitalism." I did not get the joke.

I knew she had been on Donahue, so it wasn't a stretch that she was on a second time. And the truth is that Rand had a love a pop culture. Corey Robin's essay on her is titled, Garbage and Gravitas. And the fact that I have read a couple of biographies of her made the joke much more opaque. She was a supremely strange person. In addition to this, I knew that she had written a column for a popular audience. It turns out it was for The Los Angeles Times, but that isn't too far off.

Anyway, Andrea started reading to me the fake columns. Here's the first one she read:

Some of you wrote in last week to express surprise that, when I appeared on the Phil Donahue program, I told him that I was a fan of Charlie's Angels. This just shows how poor your critical thinking is. It should be obvious why I love Charlie's Angels. The show is about three beautiful women who are not ashamed of their beauty or their ability at solving crimes. And when their talents were not appreciated by the police department and they were forced to become crossing guards, they refused! They refused to take money from the government to train American children to believe that the state will forever protect them from risk! They left their jobs and made new lives for themselves in a private capitalist enterprise. They went Galt.

Again, I was confused. I remembered that she did claim to like the show Charlie's Angels. And she was totally hung up on beauty. Whatever else you can say about her, Ayn Rand was not a beautiful woman and she was painfully aware of it. She idolized Marilyn Monroe, writing at least one entire essay about her. So I was kind of confused because all of the fake columns started off with things Rand believed, written in ways that Rand wrote. Hodgman recreates her style very well. But then the columns slid off sideways but rarely into total absurdity—rather typical of Hodgman.

The whole experience was yet another example of how it is not healthy to know a lot about Ayn Rand. But luckily, John Hodgman performed the piece live and it is on YouTube. And it is hilarious. But at the start of it, he mentions that all of the bits start off with "pretty much verbatim quotes from Ayn Rand." That would have helped a lot—context is everything in comedy. But you can't miss the comedy with his performance. Even after having heard most of it, I still really enjoyed this:


For the record, Ayn Rand hated Reagan. She also hated the libertarian movement. She hated pretty much everyone. Even among her circle of Objectivists, people were constantly being excommunicated over trivial matters. There are very good reasons why people call Objectivism a cult. I don't know if I would go that far. But it was typical of small revolutionary groups so brilliantly parodied in Life of Brian:




Category: Birthdays
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Milton FriedmanToday is J K Rowling's 49th birthday and clearly the world is a better place because of it. I've tried to read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and I have to say that I didn't make it very far into it. Not really my kind of thing. It is, after all, written for grammar school children. What I find amazing is that a lot of adults like it. There is no accounting for taste. But I like the fact Rowling seems to be a decent person and even tried to publish a novel without getting massive sales based upon her name. So that's all very nice. But since I don't know much about her and don't particularly want to know anything about her given I have a nice feeling about her and I don't want to spoil it, I am not going to write about her for today's birthday post.

Instead, I'm going to provide you with a slightly edited version of last year's birthday post about probably the most pernicious academic of the twentieth century. That's right, rather than write about the nice British lady, I am going to write about a nasty American man who symbolizes most of what is wrong with our shared country. A man who not only did great harm here, but also exported his pernicious ideology to other countries where countless were harmed, many dying many years before they would have. All of this happened because of ideas pushed by an ideological zealot.

On this day in 1912, the undoubtedly great economist Milton Friedman was born. The truth is, though, that being a good economist doesn't mean you know anything about economics in the real world. The the Chicago School that he was so important in building shows that to this day. The people who have followed him tend to get lost in their models and mistake them for reality. I've seen it happen in my own field. And I think by the end, you could say the same thing about Friedman.

He was far more influential as a popularizer of libertarianism. That was especially true of the very disingenuous book he wrote with his wife, Free to Choose and then the PBS series Free to Choose. (It is amazing how much conservative propaganda the "liberal" PBS has pumped out over the years.) In this capacity, he pushed the thinking on the right to such an extent that now they would consider him a socialist who wants to steal everyone's money via the Federal Reserve and its money printing. Of course, I figure if he were still alive, he'd be as crazy as they are. As he got older, his arguments became less grounded in economics and more like the thinking of a religious fanatic.

The other thing about him is that the 2008 economic crisis showed that he was wrong about his greatest claim to fame. He supposedly showed that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression; he claimed that if the Fed had just increased the money supply, all would have been well. That is exactly what the Fed has done since 2008 and you can see that it simply isn't enough. The only reason we aren't in the same place as we were in the 1930s is because of automatic fiscal stimulus in the form of Social Security and Unemployment—the very kinds of policies that Friedman was against.

I have long wondered what Friedman would have said if he had lived to see the crisis of 2008. It is certainly the case that most of the people who followed in his footsteps came up with clever ways to justify themselves. I feel fairly certain that Friedman would have used his own remarkable mind to justify his old thinking rather than to adjust it. As it was, he was an adviser to Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Every time Friedman's free market ideas failed to pan out, Friedman's excuse was always, "It's that the economy isn't free enough!" This is, by the way, a common trick of libertarians and communists and, for that matter, any utopian thinker. There can never be the perfect system (whatever the ideologue might see it as), so there is never a way to disprove their theories. So if Friedman had still been alive in 2008, he probably would have been part of the chorus claiming that there was a crash because the deregulation didn't go far enough.

The thing is that even though Milton Friedman was totally wrong about the main things he is now remembered for and even though he caused so much pain and suffering all over the world, he had a great life. And even in death, he is deified by modern conservatives, especially the libertarians. He considered himself an agnostic, which means that in his reality, there's at least a reasonable chance that he is burning in hell. So there's that.

Now that you're dead, happy birthday Milton Friedman!


Category: Music
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Jacques BrelIt's always a good time to talk about Jacques Brel. The years have not diminished my admiration for him. What is so great is that he doesn't just sing. He acts the songs. He is, above all, a storyteller. And the stories that he tells are so filled with keen observations of the way the world is.

I understand that there are other artists who do this. Bruce Springsteen's best work is like this, but usually he falls into cliche. Bobbie Gentry certainly managed this on a few songs. But American songwriters tend to disappoint. As much as I love the work of Warren Zevon and Randy Newman, they rarely succeeded in any given song. I think the problem is that American popular music, regardless of the form, is too dependent upon "slice of life" stories, with little payoff. It is extremely rare that a songwriter even tries to convey what we get from the best American short story writers like Irwin Shaw.

But Brel doesn't just try—he succeeds. And he does it consistently. It doesn't matter if he's being serious or silly, he always has something to say. A good example of this comes from a song I really like, "Les Bourgeois"—a song that is both serious and silly. It tells the story of three friends: Jojo, Pierre, and the narrator. The first two verses tell of how they are drinking away their youth at the Three Pheasants Hotel bar. And when the older bourgeois pass by, the young men ridicule them in the chorus, "The bourgeois are like pigs!" And so on.

In the third verse, things are different. The three friends are now the bourgeois. They still have the same interests. They are still the same people. But they are old. And now there is a new generation of young people who ridicule them just as they ridiculed the generation before them. This is not exactly a startling denouement, although I think any reasonable person would admit that it has far more to say that most American pop songs. And that's especially true coming from a man only 32 years old. (Brel wrote the lyrics; the music was written by Jean Corti.)

What's more notable about the song is the way that Brel performs it. The entire tone of the third verse is different. It is a bit more stiff—the performance of man who knows he has to be dignified but still feels the same inside. And then, he doesn't even sing the final chorus. This is the same chorus that was sung with such gusto the first two times, "The bourgeois are like pigs!" It is spoken with sense of disbelief, "Can you believe what these kids say to us?" It's poignant and beautiful.

Here is the song. There are no subtitles, but I hardly think they are necessary:



Category: Politics
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Paul Ryan - Eddie MunsterOver at the Huffington Post, Arthur Delaney tries to get to the bottom of, Just How Much Does Paul Ryan Want the Government to Plan Poor People's Lives? And, as is getting more and more common with the more and more vanilla website, he doesn't really answer the question. But he does provide a good overview of just what the Republican wunderkind is up to. And as expected, he is showing himself to be the fraud he has always been.

Apparently, Ryan told the Christian Science Monitor today that the whole case management thing was just an idea he was fond of. Just like when people noted the gaping holes in his budget, he argues that despite all the big deal made of his plan, it's not set in stone. Apparently, anything that anyone has a problem with will be jettisoned and so his poverty proposal is just as serious as his budget was. But it's worse than even that.

Ryan told the Huffington Post, "What we're saying is we're not mandating case management. We're saying this is one of the things we recommend, but give the states the ability to try other ideas." Now you may not be as fluent as I am in the obscure Charlatan language, so let me translate. He's saying that the most important thing is to bind up all the the poverty plans and block grant them. That's what he really cares about. And the reason he really cares about it is that this is a way that the poverty programs can be destroyed over time.

Again, I wonder: why is anyone taking this guy seriously. He cares about the poor the way I care about Potato Bugs: I know they exist and they will always exist, but I don't want them around me. Let's be clear about this. Paul Ryan's primary plan to help the poor is to do what he's always wanted to do: block grant programs that conservatives don't like. His other big idea is to create "case workers" for the poor. What he's thinking—what he "knows"—is that the poor aren't poor because of a lack of opportunity; they are poor because they just don't know any better. If they had a more "can do" attitude and a cool Eddie Munster haircut like Paul Ryan, they too could be on the short list for the Republican presidential nomination.

Return to SenderIt is worse than stupid that the media continue to treat this guy with even a modicum of respect. I assure you that a young black man who had failed as totally in his career as Paul Ryan has in his would undoubtedly be spending life without parole in a prison somewhere. But Paul Ryan is a rich white guy. So we have to listen to him because rich white guys are always serious and important and filled with wisdom.

But something more general has been on my mind. This isn't just about the media needing to find a "serious" Republican. It is about this idea that both sides of the political isle want to help the poor; both parties care about making America better for everyone. But that is absolutely not true. If you want to see the real political divide in this country, look at the anti-immigration protests. Look at the angry people screaming with their "Return to Sender" signs. This is the Republicans Party in a general sense. They don't care about the kids fleeing death in their home countries. And to the point: they don't care that people are born into poverty, live in poverty, and die young in poverty. If Paul Ryan really cares about poverty, he needs to switch parties first.


Category: Politics
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Bill ClintonThomas Frank has been recycling some old essays recently, and yesterday, he posted one he wrote after Obama had won the election but before he took office, Obama Really Let These Clowns Win? How Right-Wing Obstruction Always Trumps Sober Centrism. In a certain way, it is just his way of saying, "Told you so!" But I'm not so interested in it for being prophetic as I am in how much it parallels my own thinking.

The base of his essay is that Clinton played the "moderate" game and moved the country to the right and Obama was looking as though he was going to do the same thing. And we all now know that he did just that. It's true that Obama did not hurt the country nearly as much as Clinton did. But given the opportunity that Obama had coming in right after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, you have to say that he did as bad a job as Clinton.

Frank ended his essay on what was undoubtedly meant to sound hopeful but in retrospect just makes me want to close up the house and go back to bed for a decade or two:

Centrism is a chump's game. Democrats have massive majorities these days not because they waffle hither and yon but because their historic principles have been vindicated by events. This is their moment. Let the other side do the triangulating.

But there is more Frank's article than a look back on Clinton and a look forward to Obama. He also gets into the thinking of the professional centrists, of which Obama and Clinton are members, but who are mostly journalists. As he noted, "The real-world function of Beltway centrism has never been to wage high-minded war against 'both extremes' but to fight specifically against the economic and foreign policies of liberalism. Centrism's institutional triumphs have been won mainly if not entirely within the Democratic Party..." Indeed.

I've gone farther on this issue, as I did back in 2012 when I wrote, Serious Centrist Saletan's Selfishness. In it, I discussed William Saletan of Slate, but more as a type than as an individual:

The reason that Saletan and his peers share this kind of [economically conservative, socially liberal] political outlook is clear enough: it speaks to their personal interests. They are socially liberal because the corresponding views improve their lives. They have friends who are gay. They've had girlfriends who have had abortions. Their careers depend upon a strong first amendment. So their lives would be poorer and their bank accounts too, if the social conservatives got power in the United States. As a result, they are socially liberal—even extremely so.

On the other side of things, they are rich. Whether on the TV, in newspaper, or increasingly even on the internet, pundits are rich. They are all well inside the top 20% of earners. As a result, Saletan finds it easy to be a booster for so called free trade. No Chinese worker is going to take his job. (Not that there aren't about a million who could do it as well.) But unionized IT professionals might reduce his income. And increased taxes on the upper class could certainly reduce his income. So it just makes sense to argue that Social Security must be cut while ignoring the obvious fix of increasing the payroll tax cap, which it just so happens would increase his tax burden.

And I suspect this is the problem with Clinton and Obama. They are winners in society. They may care more about the poor than the Bush family, but they are no less estranged from the poor. So of course Obama would never think about raising the payroll tax cap: that would hurt every one of his friends and himself. So the only solution that makes sense to him is to cut Social Security benefits in a politically viable way. It isn't that he's a bad man, it is just that like everyone, he is largely biased by his own class interests. And those are the interests of what is called a centrist.

Barack ObamaBut as I've shown, centrism isn't the middle between the two extremes. In fact, if you look at the American people, elite centrism is more or less the popular anti-centrism. The people tend to be economically liberal and socially conservative. So what Democrats and most of the press call the "middle" is anything but. The main thing to remember however, is that whether it is elite centrism or popular centrism, it is still an ideology. Obama's claims about being post-partisan make him either a charlatan or a fool. Regardless, we are lost as long the "liberal" Democratic Party keeps electing people like him. As Thomas Frank noted, "Centrism is not merely a mental habit of the comfortable, but an ideology of its own, a system of cognition that stands beyond proof or refutation." Obama and Clinton will go to their graves certain that they had found the Aristotelian perfection: the golden mean between the two extremes.


Category: Politics
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Ezra KleinThere has been a lot of liberal rethinking and despair about what's going on with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Yesterday, Jonathan Chait wrote, Israel Is Making It Hard To Be Pro-Israel. And then this morning, Ezra Klein wrote an article basically commiserating with Chait, Why I Have Become More Pessimistic About Israel. Klein does a better job of getting at the real problem, which is that Israel's actions are bad for it in the long term.

In bars up and down the west coast in the 1980s and 1990s, and even to this day but to a much smaller extent, I came upon a certain kind of person who had fought in the Vietnam War. And they would lament the fact that we could have won that war but the government just wouldn't let them. I think these guys felt they had to defend themselves and their generation. This came from the fact that a lot of people thought that the Vietnam War was the first war that the United States lost. Just on a factual basis this is absurd: we lost the War of 1812, and this is why we make such a big deal of the Battle of New Orleans—it was the only thing that went well for us in that war.

But the truth is that the point of war is never to "win." By this logic, we could have "won" the Vietnam War by simply nuking the country back to the stone age. And that takes us to everyone's favorite Prussian general, Carl von Clausewitz and his often quoted aphorism, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." In other words, the war is not the point; the war is just a tool. Now I would argue that ultimately wars serve only themselves, and this is why after just about every war, people wonder why we fought it. But there is no doubt that rulers generally start wars because they want to accomplish something other than killing a lot of people.

In Klein's article, he quoted a Stratfor Global Intelligence report that looked at Israel's long term interests. It indicated that Israel is acting as though it will always be the great military power in the region. But given that it is currently completely dominant, the chances are that in fifty years Israel's situation will be worse than it now is.

Looking at the relative risks, making a high-risk deal with the Palestinians would seem prudent in the long run. But nations do not make decisions on such abstract calculations. Israel will bet on its ability to stay strong. From a political standpoint, it has no choice. The Palestinians will bet on the long game. They have no choice. And in the meantime, blood will periodically flow.

What we know is that when these conflicts arise, both sides gain more political power. It's like after 9/11—it greatly increased support for President Bush. The whole thing makes me even more cynical, because if anyone should be thinking about the long term, it should be Israel. But instead, Benjamin Netanyahu and most of the Israeli government seem to care more about their short term political interests. Clearly, Netanyahu's power is increased when Hamas starts shelling. So that's what conservative politicians in Israel get. But Israel, if anything, gets weaker.

It all reminds me of The Battle of Algiers where effectively the French "win" the battle, but lose the war. I don't think the Israeli government is working in the interest of Israel just as I don't think Hamas is working in the interest of Palestine. It is almost an unspoken conspiracy for leaders of both sides to increase their internal power, while actual people die and the long term prospects of both sides look dimmer by the day.

See Also

Cause of Every Israel-Palestine War
Don't Ask How the US Would React
A Modest Proposal for Israel-Palestine
Israel's Long-Term Security
Two-State Solution Unlikely Anytime Soon


Category: Birthdays
Posted by: Frank Moraes
Peter BogdanovichThe great film historian and and director Peter Bogdanovich is 75 today. He is an interesting guy. He started off as an actor and then somehow ended up as the film programmer at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. From this position, he met and interviewed a number of notable people from the film industry including John Ford and, most important, Orson Welles with whom he had a friendship for the rest of the older director's life. There's no doubt he could have continued on in this vein for the rest of his life. He is a great analyst of film, although I always get the feeling reading him that he's looking down on me: everything is obvious and shouldn't you just be watching the films? I largely agree and so haven't made it a point of reading much of his work.

It was inevitable given his knowledge, predisposition, and connections that he would direct films. He first became involved with Roger Corman, for whom he directed Targets and Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women in the late 1960s. In 1971, he made it to the big time when he wrote (based on the novel by Larry McMurtry) and directed The Last Picture Show. It's a coming of age film that I admire but don't much enjoy. He followed it up with the highly successful and funny What's Up, Doc? And then, of course, there was one of my favorite films, Paper Moon.


The rest of his life has been a muddle. He's made a number of good films since then. I'm a big fan of Noises Off myself. And there has always been his attraction to young actresses, most notably his relationship with Dorothy Stratten, which culminated in her murder (I'm not suggesting that Bogdanovich is in any way culpable). Currently, he is working on a film One Lucky Moon with Cybill Shepherd, with whom he was romantically involved when she was the age he seems to be most attracted to.

These days I look to him mostly for news about the status of Orson Welles' last film, The Other Side of the Wind. If anyone ever gets the film released as it should be, it will be Bogdanovich. It isn't just a matter of the legal issues (of which there have been many). There are missing bits that may require some second unit filming, narration, editing, and music. No one wants its release to be a repeat of Don Quixote. But I would like to see the film before I die. Anyway...

Happy birthday Peter Bogdanovich!


< Previous 10 Items