August 23, 2024

 Howdy folks. Well, did you watch RFK's speech? He knocked The Truth out of the freakin' park, and I pray that it will generate enough coverage (or at least online discussion) to derail the momentum of Kamala Harris, whose speech last night was vapid and phony in comparison. The whole DNC was a joke, and I especially enjoyed the mega-rich and sanctimonious Michelle Obama lecturing America about "taking more than you need." Meanwhile, she and Barack own four multi-million dollar mansions and she charges 750K per appearance. Man, these people are awful, and Harris is in love with herself. Go Trump. If nothing else, at least he isn't phony, no matter how big an a-hole he's been in the past. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comes from the most distinguished family in modern American politics. As wealthy and controlling as they have become, the Obamas couldn't carry the Kennedys' jockstraps. Does anyone remember John F Kennedy? If you do, and if you think Kamala Harris is a viable candidate for the most powerful office in the world, then shame on you. You have lost your way.    

And that's enough of politics. Every time I get depressed by the possibility of a Harris presidency, I watch the Greta Thunberg "How Dare You!" clip. It always cheers me up, lol.

I'll tell ya what cheers me up: rock and roll, and last Monday (August 19), Grim and I went to The Forum in Inglewood to see Sammy Hagar's Van Halen Tribute, which is billed as the Best of All Worlds Tour. Grim once again drove. We left at 5:30pm and took the 405 south, encountering the usual rush hour traffic when we hit Culver City. Still, we were parked just off Manchester (on Spruce Street) by 6:30. Free parking once again. I confess that I was hoping to see Loverboy, the opening act who were coming on at 7, because I like three of their songs, but our tickets were on Grim's phone (I only have a flip phone) and he didn't want to see them. If I had been the "me" of my 20s, I wouldn't have wanted to see Loverboy, either. In fact, I'd have cringed at the prospect because I hated them back then. My 25-year-old self would've chewed my 64-year-old self out: "Loverboy?! What are you thinking?!" Why did I want to see them now? Because I am nostalgic for the 1980s. Man, what a great decade. 

Grim bought a White Claw from a parking lot salesman, and then found an unopened can of same in a trash can, which he gave to me. We drank and talked to two long-time VH fans before going inside. Our seats were in the loge, halfway back, top row. Not bad at all.

We love to talk about Time here at the blog, how elastic it is, and non-linear. How it seems to move fast and slow simultaneously. Another thing time can do is change your perceptions and/or soften your opinions. I used to "hate" Loverboy, and now I can admit I like three of their songs. Ditto Journey (and a few other bands). And I notoriously "hated" the Van Hagar version of Van Halen for a long time, because it seemed like "jock rock" to me back then. I loved Sammy Hagar when he was in Montrose, but when he went solo and became The Red Rocker....well, he started to suck, and by the time "I Can't Drive 55" came out, he was in the same league as Ted Nugent (another guy who started out good and became a cartoon). Also, regarding Van Halen, I was loyal to David Lee Roth (who eventually became a bigger cartoon than Sammy). Mostly, though, I just thought that the VH sound had gone soft when Hagar joined. Of course, I was only hearing the songs that were being played on the radio, hits like "Dreams" and "Love Walks In". My late-20s self thought: "This ain't real Van Halen! Every song sounds like 'Jump.' "

But - long story short - as the Van Halen saga dragged on through the years, and I continued to hear the Sammy songs on the radio, I started to appreciate the melodies, Ed's guitar work, and yes, even Sammy's vocals. "Dreams" is now one of my favorite Van Hagar songs. Ditto "Love Walks In". And the heavier stuff like "Poundcake" and "The Seventh Seal" is straight-up killer. To sum up, while the original DLR version of Van Halen will always be my favorite (and one of my favorite bands, period), I have come to like the Van Hagar version also, because - truthfully - they made a lot of great music with Sammy. Great enough that when he announced this tour, I knew I had to go, especially with Michael Anthony on bass. I realized I hadn't seen him since 1984, on the VH tour for the "1984" album, the last time the original band was intact. I hadn't seen Michael Anthony in 40 years, so yeah, I knew I had to be there.

But I didn't expect the concert to be as great it was, so loud and hard-rocking. I mean, it was flat-out awesome, like an arena show from the 1980s. The band was on fire: Joe Satriani did an admirable job of playing Eddie's songs, with an approximation of the EVH tone, in a general version of Ed's style, but without trying to copy him, which no one can do. Instead, Joe played Ed through his own filter. I thought he nailed it (and of course, he's Joe Freakin' Satriani). Michael Anthony was his rock-solid self. He looked great for 70, he sang lead on "Aint Talkin' Bout Love", and even broke out his famous Jack Daniels bass. He was locked into the pocket with drummer Jason Bonham, who drove the whole thing like an 18 wheel semi. The sound was monstrous, like a harmonious buzzsaw. I don't know where Sammy gets his energy, but it's amazing for a man who will be 77 in a month. It must be his Cabo lifestyle and the Mas Tequila. He drank onstage, and even passed out cups of the golden nectar to fans in the front row. There wasn't an empty seat in the arena, and the crowd stood for most of the show, which lasted 2 hours 10 minutes. One thing I noticed: there were no loud conversations among fans, at least in my vicinity. As any concertgoer knows, this is an obnoxious modern occurance at many (if not most) shows nowdays: loud fans talking over the music. Maybe it was too loud for people to talk, or maybe the VH fans are too devoted. Whatever the reason, it was a welcome respite. The fans were 100% focused on the show. Sammy remarked how great it was to play indoors, noting that most of the dates on this tour were at outdoor amphitheaters.

I really hope they extend the tour and do a second leg. For now, check out some of the Youtube videos from the various tour stops, and read the reviews from fans. And if they play again, do not miss 'em.

I have a Montgomery Clift movie for you: "Wild River"(1960), in which Monty plays an official from the Tennessee Valley Authority who is tasked with moving an old woman off of her ancestral farm before it is sunk underwater by a new hydroelectric dam. The movie begins with an actual newsreel clip from 1933 that shows the Tennessee River raging during a flood. Homes are swept away, and a distraught man speaks on camera of how he lost several family members to the river. We then cut to the opening scene, by which time FDR has created the TVA, which will serve not only to dam up and control the river and its tributaries, but will bring electricity to impoverished people living along its banks in several states. If I am not mistaken, the TVA was one of the largest public works projects in US history. It was of course part of The New Deal, but not everyone liked it. This is evidenced in an early scene when Monty meets Jo Van Fleet, the elderly matriarch of the Garth farm, which is located on a small island in the middle of the river. She does not see electricity as progress and lives by the laws of nature. She employs a group of Negro workers, who - by her words and tone of voice - she treats like chattel, and yet it is clear she loves them and they her, especially her assistant Sam, who stands by her to the bitter end. She has "taken care" of the Negroes for all these years. Sam loves her and vice versa. What they share is a sense of family and a love of home. That's what this movie is about, the question of "What is progress, and how does it affect that which existed before it?" How does "progress" (i.e radical change) affect people who were happy with the status quo?

In this case, there is the disastrous, killing river, that requires damming up to protect the lives and livelihoods of its habitants. Heck, the Army Corps of Engineers drained the much smaller Los Angeles River in 1938 for that same reason, because of flooding in the San Fernando Valley. So you can see the government's reasoning from a safety standpoint alone. But "Mrs. Garth" (Van Fleet) is from another time, post-Civil War, before telephones and electricty in houses. We even see Monty flying over in a small plane. It is very easy to forget (or not even know) that modern technology did not exist as recently as 175 years ago, and just 100 years ago, only half the homes in the US had electricity. Monty's task is unenviable, kicking this poor old, stubborn soul off the only home she has ever known, on what she considers God's land, not the government's.  

Jo Van Fleet may not be a familiar name to most movie fans, but she was a phenomenal actress who turned in two of the greatest performances you will ever see: in addition to her heartbreaking but dignified role as "Mrs. Garth", she also played James Dean's slatternly, abused mother in "East of Eden". Watch them both and be in awe. Lee Remick, also somewhat forgotten, was a great actress who plays the widowed granddaughter of "Mrs. Garth". Desperate for escape from what she considers a stunted life, she falls in love with Monty and begs him to take her back to the city, any city, wherever he comes from, it doesn't matter. Remick should've gotten an Oscar for her performance. It becomes her movie in the middle third. Monty faces opposition not only from Mrs. Garth but from the white businessmen and local bosses who've relied on cheap Negro labor.

This is a tremendous film. Martin Scorsese called it Elia Kazan's greatest work, which is saying something whem you consider his filmography, which includes "On the Waterfront", the aforementioned "East of Eden" and "A Streetcar Named Desire", among others. If you read the IMDB reviews and ratings, you will see that the fans agree. Many give it an 8/10 or higher. Monty is great as always. Has there ever been an actor who made so few films, yet all of them are different from one another, and all are classic? And has there ever been an actor whose life was as tragic as his career was triumphant? All of this is why Montgomery Clift rules. The guy can do no wrong, because he was for real, and it comes across onscreen. He was Method Acting and playing himself all at once. The last shot of this film will blow you away. I give it a 10/10. 

And that is more or less all for today. I'm still being distracted by the political situation (please God, let it be over) but I've been back to work on finishing my second book, which has astonishing new developments. You've heard me talk about 1989 for many years, but how about 2009? Are you ready for that?

Stay tuned.