Category Archives: Zeitgeist Movement

Credits: Far Out / Alamy)

Unlike many of his peers, humble old David Crosby was always effuse with praise for his fellow performers. The late folk legend has said that he knew [he] couldnt match the words of Bob Dylan, heaped huge praise upon his favourite band Steely Dan, and crowned Grace Slick and Janis Joplin the queens of rock. However, while these all induced a sense of awe in Crosby, there was one song that stunned him so much he thought of quitting music for good.

Every generation needs a pioneer to take the budding energy of the zeitgeist and burst it into something new. For Crosby, the expansive scale of Brian Wilsons songwriting with The Beach Boys did just that. Brian was the most highly regarded pop musician in America, hands down, Crosby once reflectively opined. Everybody by that time had figured out who was writing and arranging it all.

With his ear tuned in to their innovative ways, he was then suddenly rocked by one stand-out tune. In My Room was the defining point for me, Crosby said. When I heard it, I thought I give up I cant do that Ill never be able to do that. He wasnt alone either; John Fogerty said, You know that Brian Wilson song In My Room? Its the truth, and Rufus Wainwright called it one of the great signature songs. Continuing: I mean Brian Wilson wrote countless brilliant tunes, but I think this one really represents him.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Interestingly, in a fitting fashion, this beloved epic from their 1963 record Surfer Girl might have helped to inspire the counterculture movement and the great art it blossomed, but it also has a dark twist in its underbelly: Charles Manson claims to have penned it. The cult leader who orchestrated six murders in 1969 was a frequent fellon before the heinous slayings and he wrote a song titled In My Cell about finding a sort of sanctity within his caged walls. When Wilson wrote a song that similarly dealt with the comforts of isolation and finding exultation from confines in the act of making music, Manson given his connection to the band thought that he had been ripped off. Naturally, his claim is false, hes not a man known for the truth, however, it does add a pertinent footnote to proceedings all the same.

Because, ultimately, if this song is, indeed, as Wainwright opines, Wilsons defining anthem, then it seems strangely fitting that the sweet sounds carry the potential for darker corroborations in the undertow. While this inverse look at isolation lingers in the songs refrains if you are inclined to look at it that way, thankfully, for Wilson, the sweet sounds came from a harmonious place.

In the liner notes to Surfer Girl / Shut Down, Wilson writes: There is a story behind this song. When Dennis, Carl and I lived in Hawthorne as kids, we all slept in the same room. One night I sang the song Ivory Tower to them and they liked it. Then a couple of weeks later, I proceeded to teach them both how to sing the harmony parts to it. It took them a little while, but they finally learned it. We then sang this song night after night. It brought peace to us.

Adding: When we recorded In My Room, there was just Dennis, Carl and me on the first verse and we sounded just like we did in our bedroom all those nights. This story has more meaning than ever since Dennis death. Wilson cogitated on the melody and the setting that spawned the song endlessly following that night in the bedroom.

When he eventually sat down to write it with Gary Usher late one evening, it simply flowed out of him, forming a perfect vignette for the transcendent power of music that got him through the isolation of suffering from agoraphobia. The song was written in an hour, Usher recalls. Brians melody all the way. The sensitivity the concept meant a lot to him. The pair had passed the curfew time that Wilsons authoritarian father had enforced. Fortunately, the anthem was deemed good enough to grant them an excuse.

We got Audree [the Wilson brothers mother], Usher continues, who was putting her hair up before bed, and we played it for her. She said, Thats the most beautiful song youve ever written. Murry said, Not bad, Usher, not bad, which was the nicest thing he ever said to me.

So, it might have meant a lot to Wilson given everything it entailed, but it subsequently meant a hell of a lot to other people too. Beyond the subtle complexities of melody and its peculiar flat VII A major chord, there is a resonant sense of depth that pushes the baroque nature of the music to poetic heights. Crosby was stupefied by this upon release and he remained a huge fan of it throughout his life, eventually choosing to cover it in 2001 alongside Jimmy Webb and Carly Simon in an all-star tribute.

Most popular

See the original post here:

I give up I cant do that: The song that made David Crosby want to quit music - Far Out Magazine

When Megan Thee Stallion first coined the term Hot Girl Sh*t in her song Cash Shit which released in 2019, she could not have envisioned her lyric kickstarting the new crown mantra for the body positivity movement, or a cultural reset that actually made you feel good about yourself, summer or not. Hot Girl Summer is easier to visualize than describe, but Ill try anyway. In the words of Stallion herself, Its about women and men being unapologetically them, just having a good-ass time, hyping up their friends, doing you. You definitely have to be a person who can be the life of the party and just a bad bitch.

In the Summer of 2019, all it took was one tweet from her, to start a moment that reframed health, happiness, and self sufficiency as hot unapologetically. If you deconstruct the term, hot girl summer is a largely feminine-coded term, and owes its origin to black women.

In the cultural zeitgeist, Hot Girl Summer worked, even in countries where summer is a far away dream is because you dont have to go anywhere, nor put yourself in harms way, nor ponder extraterrestrial life to have a Hot Girl Summer. You focus on your earthbound self and what it means to live your best life, in your own skin, as per a Buzzfeed article. This phrase has now gained so much traction that Megan had to fight a two year long legal battle to trademark the term, and earn full ownership.

The internet then did to it what it does best memefication, and co-option. Soon enough, every brand joined the bandwagon of Hot Girl Summer, with Wendys declaring their lemonade to be the The Official Drink of Hot Girl Summer, and beauty brands such as Maybelline and Fenty Beauty adding their own twist to this momentum. Hot Girl Summer became the lifestyle choice not only in 2019, but the coming years as well.

But retail brands co-opting it as an attempt to ride the cultural wave had a damaging impact. It led to a conversation on brands appropriating black culture and lingo without treating black people fairly, as an article in Bitch Media notes. The cosmetic industry has not been kind to the black community, be it in terms of exclusion in skin shades, or hair products and Wendys also came under fire for acts of racism in the past. The article goes on to state, If you dont support Black women, give them access, and make them feel seen in the products youre peddling, then you shouldnt adopt their intraracial phrases to line your pockets.

Related on The Swaddle:

Why Retailers Rebranding as Woke Is Disingenuous

Hot girl summer was less an aesthetic and more a state of mind you dont have to be conventionally petite and skinny, you dont have to be a model, you dont even have to be a girl a hot girl is anybody that oozes confidence and charisma, and lives their truth. In her interview with Variety, Stallion lists the rules that embody a Hot Girl, You just have to be the life of the party, you have to be kind, you have to be confident and you have to like try to vote! But when brands adopted the phrase they turned it into its antithesis. It did, inevitably, become an aesthetic one that drew more attention to ones body than was otherwise warranted.

The past couple years have not been great, to put it mildly. Amidst the world burning (literally), political outrages, and a persistent threat for the unseen future, summer no longer represents or celebrates the joy of life, and Hot Girl Summer is one path to some much needed respite. Hot Girl Summer owes its genesis to not only Stallion, but also those who paved the road for her, such as the Riot grrrl movement, the Girl Power movement, Spice Girls, and third wave feminist politics.

Buzzfeed goes on to describe this vision as a means to inspire this kind of jaw-dropping awe of feminine agency without completely forgoing men if you dont want to. (Its more no boys needed than no boys allowed.)

Although this phrase has largely positive intonations, it became commodified under the aegis of body positivity, and nothing was the same again. Reclaiming body positivity is no new phenomenon, and despite the repetitive chants of Hot(ness) is a mindset, summer remains intrinsically linked to bikini bodies, summer shredding, and conventionally attractive body types perhaps even more so today, in the age of Ozempic. When brands co-opt this mantra to promote diet culture under the guise of fitness, the momentum of the movement shifts.

Michelle Carroll, in her fitness blog, speaks of how during the summer, advertising is directed at getting you ready for summer, through cosmetic procedures, cellulite-reducing creams, spray tans, gyms, fat-burners, laser hair removal. In essence, they control your environment. By surrounding your physical and virtual world with reminders that you still have work to do before you even dream of setting foot outside in the summer months, you are more likely to spend, spend, spend! Capitalism does not care for body image. These tactics get the brands their desired exposure, but ultimately contribute to a debilitating body image.

A study conducted by Scott Griffiths et al reported on the fluctuations seen in body image through the seasons. As hypothesized, in summer they observed peaks for body dissatisfaction alongside peaks in four proposed seasonal body image mechanisms: pressure from media advertisements, pressure from peers on social media, the feeling that ones body is on public display, and appearance comparisons.

The beauty and fashion industry ruthlessly capitalizes on our insecurities and anxieties, and at the end of the day, a movement targeted towards upliftment and inclusivity, ended up doing nothing but putting us down again. Hot Girl Summer was for everyone now, against the spirit of its origins, its back to residing in billboards and perfect Instagram ads.

Read more:

How We Loved and Lost the Hot Girl Summer - The Swaddle

Its hard to miss the sun-faded flannel shirts and garment-dyed stretch chinos and sweaters from Faherty these days. The brand has crept into the menswear zeitgeist with its chill, comfortable vibe that at the same time feels curated earning the price tag that the $78 t-shirt or $158 button-downs garner. Faherty is a hot brand and, we think, worthy of admiration.

The company is at its core a family operation. Founded by two brothers (Alex and Mike Faherty), who wanted to create the perfect board shorts. The two grew quickly, evolving into a conscious and sustainable lifestyle brand, bringing Alexs wife Kerry in as the Chief Impact Officer soon after launch.

Together they found the perfect medium for how we dress today: not too trendy nor too stuffy even with their more business casual-minded offering complete with pricier fabrics and tailored pieces, like cashmere sweaters and a line of handsome patch pocket blazers.

The basic pieces, like t-shirts and henleys, stand out in a crowd of casual-cool t-shirts and henleys thanks to small touches like garment-dyed fabric and dusty colorways, that make them more visually interesting than others in your wardrobe. But what makes them stand out or at least keeps men coming back is the quality of the products. This is clothing that is made to last shirts and pants you want to keep, youre okay with patching up, and are there with you for the long haul. But dont take our word for it: Here are a few favorites from Faherty we love enough to recommend (and wear) ourselves.

Part flannel shirt, part shirt jacket, these impossibly soft, ultra-comfortable stretch shirt hybrid are not stiff or scratchy: Its almost like wearing a T-shirt, bolstered by the utility of two front patch pockets for your everyday carry. It comes in a whopping range of colors and is easy to button up on its own or wear unbuttoned over a Faherty henley. Once you try it, you very well might want to buy one for every day of the week.

Chinos neednt be stuffy or stiff: In fact, they can be about as comfortable as sweatpants, yet with the tailored appeal of the business casual chino. The slim-straight fit of these stretch terry chinos works for most body types, while the cotton-blend fabric is extremely stretchy for ease of movement around the office and around town post-work. Three versatile, neutral colors give you the option to wear these chinos with virtually any shade of Faherty shirt for a real one-two punch of casually cool, yet polished, daily style.

The remarkable thing about Faherty menswear is how the brand manages to take pieces that can normally be a bit uptight like the blazer or the chino then turns them into surprisingly comfortable picks to wear, well, anywhere. The Reserve Blazer takes cotton, wool, and a touch of cashmere, blends it with polyester for stretch, then fashions it into a handsome patch-pocket blazer you can wear with an Oxford shirt and knit tie or else, over a graphic tee for a bit of edgy-meets-timeless style.

Fahertys surf-tinged roots make for a nice origin story, as does the fact that the company still makes a suitably retro-minded pair of board shorts. Its right in the name, after all, with a tri-stripe design that throws it back to the grand days of surfing in the 50s and 60s. The fabric is what elevates them into a modern vacation staple: Its quick-drying and made to resist wrinkles, and the 7-inch inseam should work nicely for most guys.

Before you hit the beach, equip yourself properly. Reach for a perfectly faded organic cotton pocket tee that Faherty designed specifically to call to mind vintage T-shirts youve had for years and years. The organic cotton fabric lends itself to a higher price tag, sure, but 10 color and pattern options drive home the point that this is a classic T-shirt fit for everybody.

Read more:

5 Laid Back Essentials From Faherty Prove The Hype - Fatherly

The title alone ofHow to Blow Up a Pipelinehas raised its share of eyebrowsand drawn condemnations from right-wing critics. The film, based on anon-fiction book of the same nameby Andreas Malm, depicts a fictional attempt by a group of young climate activists to take action against the fossil fuel industry. But what is the political purpose driving the film adaptationand does it actually teach viewers how to blow up pipelines? Director Daniel Goldhaber joins TRNN contributor Anders Lee to explain the vision behind the film, the intervention it seeks to make, and what lessons it can offer in a world on fire.

Daniel Goldhaberis an American director, screenwriter, and producer whose most recent work isHow to Blow Up a Pipeline

Post-production: Jules Taylor

Anders Lee: Anders Lee here. Welcome to The Real News. The movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline tells the story of five young people, all affected by fossil capitalism in different ways, who take climate justice into their own hands with an active industrial sabotage. Inspired by a nonfiction book bearing the same name, How to Blow Up a Pipeline grapples with questions of desperation, of strategy, and the roles of both violence and art in social movements. To discuss these themes and more, Im speaking with the films director, Daniel Goldhaber.

All right, today were joined by Daniel Goldhaber, the director of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, which is now in theaters. Daniel, thank you for joining The Real News.

Daniel Goldhaber: Thank you so much for having me.

Anders Lee: You conceived of this movie with a few other people during the height of the pandemic when a lot of social movements, especially the climate movement, were overtaken by a sense of powerlessness. How did the pieces come together to make this movie happen out of that?

Daniel Goldhaber: Oh, thats a big question. It was a lot of pieces. It was having a really great team to work with across the board, really amazing collaborators from my co-filmmakers to our cast and to our crew, and also to our financiers, who really gave us the support to make this movie exactly the way that it needed to be made. So this was really a team effort from start to finish.

Anders Lee: And I know the title of the movie is also the title of a book, of course, by Andreas Malm, who you had an open line of communication with throughout the process of making a film. What was it specifically about this book that inspired you to make a movie about it? And are you aware of any other nonfiction theoretical polemics that have been turned into narrative films?

Daniel Goldhaber: I dont know of any others, but if somebody knows one, I would love to be able to answer the question with that knowledge. I think that theres a number of things about the book that are really inspirational. I think reading it, you get a sense of action and activity thats very exciting. I think, obviously, the title itself suggests an action on its own, and I think that thats also very exciting, because the book doesnt actually tell you how to blow a pipeline, but it suggests immediately a movie and a genre film in which you can actually get into the details. So I think it was that perfect fusion of subject matter, of some ideas that felt really valuable to explore, and then in concert with something that could also make for a really thrilling and fresh heist film.

Anders Lee: Right. And because you were in contact with Malm, which feels like a really interesting aspect of this, what was his reaction at first when you told him you wanted to make a movie out of this? And what was it like to work with him throughout the process?

Daniel Goldhaber: I think that he was maybe initially a little bit surprised, but I think only because you dont really write a manifesto like this and expect Hollywood to come knocking at your door. I think that Hollywood is not exactly known for its radical sympathies. But after, I think, he got over that initial surprise, I think he was very excited about it. I think that he understood the ways that the movie and the book were fundamentally different, but also the ways that the movie could help communicate his message on a broader cultural level.

Anders Lee: Now you are the son, I believe, of climatologists, and you previously had made a documentary about climate change.

Daniel Goldhaber: I just worked on one as an assistant.

Anders Lee: Okay.

Daniel Goldhaber: Yeah.

Anders Lee: But one of the characters in the film is also part of a crew. He does the boom mic, I believe. What do you see having now done a nonfiction and a narrative movie about some of the same subject matter? What do you see as the main differences, and what are those experiences like in how they differ?

Daniel Goldhaber: Documentary and narrative, I think, have very different ethical considerations that you have to have in mind when you do them. One of the things about making a narrative film is youre not toying with real peoples lives. You have a different contract with an audience. And also I think that you have the ability to sometimes Something that my editor, Dan, says is that documentaries can be very good at representing the world as it is now, but not necessarily very good at representing a world that could be. And I think that with Pipeline, we very much wanted to represent a world that could be, and were suggesting and exploring a specific hypothetical action.

I think that, more specifically to the point of the problem of climate change, I think that there was a moment in which climate documentary was very valuable because there wasnt a lot of awareness. That had to be raised. And again, as the child of climate scientists and keenly plugged into just how much skepticism there has been about the movement. But I think were at the point now where, especially in a post-COVID moment, everybody on planet Earth more or less has been touched by climate change, that its critical to remember that [inaudible] is climate, and that whether or not there are holdouts in the denial category, that nevertheless, were in a place of needing to change the conversation from awareness to action. And I think that you cant really easily necessarily do that with a documentary, though Im sure that there are great docs being made today about some of the actions being taken by activists. I think that with this, we wanted to explore a hypothetical action.

Anders Lee: And it makes me think of An Inconvenient Truth thats being maybe the first wave of climate change in a cinematic way, which was, of course, came out in 2006. And do you think that a movie like How to Blow Up a Pipeline could have been made back then? Or is it unique to this zeitgeist we have in the early 2020s?

Daniel Goldhaber: I think it would just be different had it been made back then, and certainly the movie wouldve had to explain climate change to the audience. I think that one of the things that makes Pipeline a shift, or I think one of the things thats different about it in contrast to some films that have come before it is we dont really talk about Well, we do talk about the stakes of climate. We do talk about the impact of the oil and gas industry on peoples health, on peoples land, on peoples lives. But I think the movie accepts that you are aware of whats happening in the world around you. And I think that thats an assumption that, again, couldnt have really been made until a post-COVID moment.

Anders Lee: [Inaudible] spend much time debunking right-wing talking points, thats for sure.

Daniel Goldhaber: Yeah.

Anders Lee: Well, you mentioned criticism of the climate movement from the right, but it has also been criticized, perhaps unfairly, as being predominantly white, yet the cast in this movie is quite racially diverse. Im wondering if you view that casting as correcting certain tropes about environmentalists, or was it perhaps an aspirational way?

Daniel Goldhaber: In all honesty, all of these people in the film are based on real people in the climate movement or real people in our own lives that we were thinking about. I think that, obviously, there are racial divides and privilege divides in the climate movement, but in many ways those have been easing. I think, especially, its important to recognize that most people that have been most directly affected by climate disruption have been Black and Brown people, have been minority communities and poorer communities. Theyre the brunt.

The characters of Theo and Sochi were directly inspired by some Latina activists, Latina and Black activists in a community in Houston that we borrowed from a book called What Were Fighting For is Each Other by Wen Stevenson. But then you have the character, Michael, he is an Indigenous extremist, but certainly Indigenous people have been at the forefront of the climate and the environmental movement since time immemorial. And so I think that more than being a corrective, I think if its a corrective, its a corrective in trying to actually represent the diversity of the different kinds of people and experiences that have fed into the climate movement.

Anders Lee: Right. Well, something else that the characters really grapple with in the film is the term terrorist or terrorism. Certain radical scholars have argued that thats not a term people should use since it can be weaponized by the state. So its really interesting to see the characters having that same discussion. Do you agree with that assessment, or do you have an opinion on the term terrorist? Is it something that we should avoid or is it something that people who are engaged, perhaps, in industrial sabotage should take on?

Daniel Goldhaber: I dont really know if I have a clear opinion on that. Heres what I feel certain about. You have people who are being essentially turned into political prisoners of the US state using post-9/11 terrorism laws, terrorism enhancement laws that have allowed the government to charge people like Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya with terrorism for poking holes in the Dakota Access pipeline before there was even oil running through it. I think that its more important to focus on the ways that the US government is using the word terrorist and the terrorism enhancement to brand people as somehow worse than criminals, or really, fundamentally, to suppress speech and dissent and to suppress a movement thats simply just trying to protect our ability to continue living on planet Earth.

And obviously, youre seeing an even greater escalation of that tactic in Cop City in Atlanta, where completely peaceful protestors are being charged with domestic terrorism enhancements for simply attending a completely non-violent, non-destructive rally. So the only evidence being proffered being that they have dirt on their shoes because other people potentially had burned tractors. So I think that its more important to focus on those human rights abuses. And I think that, ultimately, then when it comes to the nature of how activists engage, its about whats necessary for them to defend their own speech, right to protest, and right to justice. And so I think whatever gets us there is good.

And part of the reason I dont take a strict position is I think Ive just heard both sides and positions from the movement itself. Ive talked to people who believe that you do need to defang the word [and Ive] talked to people who bristle and worry about it, because if you embrace the label, you legitimize what the states using to criminalize your speech. So its a difficult thing to navigate, but I think, again, thats why its all the more important to have eyes on what the state is doing.

Anders Lee: Right. And do you see that escalating in the coming years as the environmental movement hopefully gets more serious about these sorts of things? Are you concerned about the blowback that we could see from the federal government classifying environmental climate activists as terrorists? And what measures do you think could be taken that we havent seen yet?

Daniel Goldhaber: Absolutely. Its not even abstract. Its here. You know what I mean, its already happening. Yeah.

Anders Lee: Well, again, one of the things I found really interesting about the movie is the characters working through these problems, many of which I know you discussed with Andreas Malm. One critique of his work revolves around the concept of the propaganda of the deed, that we need a mass movement and individual acts of violence or sabotage may not be what it takes to get us there, at least on their own. How did you reconcile that argument in making the film?

Daniel Goldhaber: Can you repeat? Im a little confused about exactly which two arguments Im reconciling there.

Anders Lee: The propaganda, the deed, so industrial sabotage, for instance, do you think that its a fair critique that may not galvanize a mass movement in the way that we need? Or is that something that you incorporated by thinking into the

Daniel Goldhaber: I see what youre saying. I think Andreas does not think that there is a silver bullet to climate change. And I think that ultimately what Andreas is The way I read the book and the text is essentially as a three-part argument. There has never been a social justice movement in history that is not engaged in the disruption of civil life, and generally speaking, the destruction of property and the sabotage of the state that the climate movement and the existential threat of the climate movement and the timeline of the climate movement is such that it requires some form of escalation of tactics in order to succeed based on the historical precedence that come before it.

And then I think he makes a bit of a novel jump, which is the reason why I think his took off where other similar arguments like this have maybe not, which is to say, well, whats the target? Because I think the problem is that when it comes to climate, its such a mass systemic problem that you cant point to one industry or government or leader or individual whos responsible. We all participate in it, some to a far greater and some a far lesser degree. But you consume, and if you exist in a contemporary capitalist, especially urban, life, you are participating in the destruction of the planet. So were asking this question: what do you do if you are going to engage in these historically precedented acts, what do you attack? Because I think that theres one thing about attacking the police station when youre suffering from police violence, that target makes sense. And I think that what the conclusion Malm drives is that we need to destroy the machines that are killing us.

And beyond that, theres no ethical justification for the continued existence of fossil fuel infrastructure. This question of why is it that destroying an oil pipeline is seen as an act of violence, but the oil pipeline that destroys so many lives is not seen as a violent piece of property. So thats the argument of the book as I read it. And I think that, ultimately, thats what weve translated into the film, is its a story about eight people who believe that the destruction of this oil pipeline is an act of self-defense.

But Malm is very aware in the book that what hes discussing is what a radical flank to the climate movement would look like and how it could be defensible. Whats great about a radical flank is it does not de-legitimize more mainstream efforts to then compromise with a state and a system in order to move forward. But I think that the point that hes making is that without some sort of radical flank effort, the mainstream movement will simply always lack the leverage to do whats necessary, especially when dealing with a problem and a social ill as abstract as climate disruption.

So I think that there are criticisms of that that are in the film itself. You have characters like Alicia and Sean and other characters who are pushing back and searching, questioning why theyre doing what theyre doing. But ultimately, I think that we are trying to simply present his argument through a dramatic structure.

Anders Lee: Another thing I found really effective is a motif throughout the movie of oil refineries that made it into the background at several points. And you mentioned fossil fuel infrastructure. Do you think its fair to say that the villain of the movie isnt a person or group of people, per se, but that infrastructure itself, and how did you go about conveying that?

Daniel Goldhaber: Yeah, I think that was part of the novelized structure that the movie suggests. And its even in the sound design. We have this exactingly realistic sound design, except for the fossil fuel infrastructure, which has this larger than life dystopian vibe. And thats a way in which I think the genre of the film also supports the thematic efforts of the film, that there is no individual bad guy, there is only the infrastructure. And I think that thats very, very helpful, because I think that one of the failures of the climate movement is trying to manifest the enemy as a person when there is no single individual. I have a great belief that people actually have a fairly strong sense of moral hypocrisy. And I think that when theyre presented with moral hypocrisy, especially when youre trying to change somebodys mind, it becomes impossible. And I think that thats one of the things about this thats compelling, is that in destroying a pipeline there is at the very [inaudible] moral purity to the act and its defensibility.

Anders Lee: Well, I dont want to give any spoilers, or I guess I shouldve just warned Spoiler alert But there is a pipeline that does get blown up in the movie, and I know you did not want to use CGI for this in particular. So what was it like to produce a massive explosion like that in real time?

Daniel Goldhaber: Extremely fun. Its a good time. I think that the funny thing is it was much harder to build the pipeline than it was to blow it up. I think thats the moral of the story. And so I think, in part, just because you need to blow something up that you can clean up, isnt going to produce shrapnel, that you can actually build affordably. You cant use screws. It has to hold up under New Mexico weather conditions and high winds and rains. That was a significant challenge. The blowing it up was the easy part.

Anders Lee: And I take it you were not running oil through this pipeline.

Daniel Goldhaber: Oh, of course not. It was made out of cardboard.

Anders Lee: And you mentioned the precautions you take. Specifically what did you do to make sure this wasnt causing deleterious effects to the environment where you filmed?

Daniel Goldhaber: We just cleaned up the trash. It wasnt any more polluting than that. It was cardboard and wood. Well, I think the cardboard, I believe, was recyclable.

Anders Lee: Well, Im particularly interested in that choice because, of course, now a lot of movies rely on CGI. Why was it important to you to actually use the real life pyrotechnics and not depend on animation with this?

Daniel Goldhaber: I think its because the movie is supposed to feel real. And I think that the provocation of the movie is its immediacy and its sense that its a possibility. And it was also, honestly, to some extent, a matter of price. We explored it. Also, we couldnt have afforded a strong CGI explosion that looked halfway decent. And there is CGI enhancement to the explosion itself. We had to do some cleanup work on it, but its about getting that real plate is the big thing.

Anders Lee: Yeah. Now, some people have described this as a heist movie, an eco-heist movie. I know you yourself have said that you are genre-agnostic, so I wont ask you to categorize the movie, but what were some of the cinematic influences that you drew from in making it?

Daniel Goldhaber: Oh, I would definitely say its a heist movie. I think Im a genre-agnostic when it comes to my own work, but this is definitely a heist film, very consciously. There were a lot of different influences that went into it though. On the heist side of things, Oceans Eleven, Thief, Charlie Varrick, and its corner case movies like Army of Shadows, the Jean-Pierre Melville film, which is not really a heist film, but hes a master of heist genre, and thats a similarly political movie that is actually secretly a heist film in its structure and in the way it moves.

We were also looking at movies like Zabriskie Point, [inaudible], Battle of Algiers, If a Tree Falls, Woman at War, Night Moves. And in some cases, like Night Moves, which is by a filmmaker who I adore, Kelly Reichardt. I think we were also looking at a bit of a tendency in movies about progressive movements and contemporary progressive movements to be tragedies and movies about failure. And I think thats something that was really important to us with this film was to conceptualize success.

Anders Lee: Right. Well, that brings me to my next question. Do you have an ideal audience for this picture? And if so, what kind of thinking or action do you hope that is inspired in them?

Daniel Goldhaber: I think that its art, so I think that art that tries to inspire a particular prescriptive thing is usually not very good art. I think that the goal is to provoke conversation and empathy. And in this case, I think its to present eight characters who believe that blowing up a pipeline is an act of self-defense. So maybe challenge audiences, what do you think about that, and how does that align with your If you believe that that is true, what does that mean for the way that you think about the climate movement, the way that you think about the nature of praxis? And I think that we hope that its a film that people can come to with wherever they are politically.

Anders Lee: Well, I think thats a great note to end on. Do you have any other projects or anything in the works?

Daniel Goldhaber: Im shooting my third film right now in New Orleans: Faces of Death, and very excited to bring it to the world. Its about content moderation and cycles of violence online.

Anders Lee: Right. Well, it will be on the lookout for that, but in the meantime, Daniel Goldhaber, thank you for joining us.

Related

Read the rest here:

'How to Blow Up a Pipeline' director Daniel Goldhaber explains the ... - The Real News Network

After so many years on our big and small screens, as well as in our hearts, the Muppets are part of the zeitgeist. You'd be hard-pressed to find a person, young or old, who doesn't know about Kermit, his complex relationship with Miss Piggy, or his long list of iconic felt friends. Why then is Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem so shrouded in obscurity? The band has appeared in every major incarnation of the Muppets, from the very beginning, but with the exception of fan-favorite Animal, very few know their names or history as the Muppet's house band.

Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, or just "Electric Mayhem" as they're often known, is a rock band made up of resident musicians of the Muppet Theatre. The band is usually made up of lead singer and keyboardist Dr. Teeth, bassist Floyd Pepper, saxophonist Zoot, lead guitarist and singer Janice, drummer Animal, and trumpeter Lips. Now with the band starring in their own spin-off series on Disney+, here's everything you need to know before watching The Muppets Mayhem.

RELATED: 'The Muppets Mayhem' Review: Dr. Teeth and Company Are Ready to Rock

After the success of Sesame Street which began in 1969, Jim Henson and his company featured their Muppet characters in TV segments during the early '70s, namely on Saturday Night Live. This gave Henson a taste for a more adult brand of Muppet entertainment, which encouraged him to branch out while simultaneously continuing with his children's educational programming on Sesame Street. The Muppet Show would be aimed at an adult audience, focusing on sketch comedy, and began with a TV pilot titled, The Muppets Valentine Show. The 1974 half-hour special guest-starred Mia Farrow and reintroduced '50s and '60s Muppets such as Kermit and Rowlf to a new audience.

This was then followed up by another pilot, The Muppet Show: Sex and Violence in 1975, in which the Muppets parodied the rapid growth of sex and violence on TV. Sex and Violence marked the very first appearance of Electric Mayhem, including all its usual members sans Lips. The band's introduction doesn't get much more rock 'n' roll, but America wasn't ready for such a raunchy puppet show just yet. Although this was successful in rebranding the Muppets as more adult in content (something that has since been replicated in 2015's sitcom The Muppets and 2018's The Happytime Murders) it failed to get the show picked up by ABC or any other American broadcaster at the time.

The Electric Mayhem band members were designed by creator Jim Henson and his team, including Michael K. Firth, Bonnie Erickson, Don Sahlin, and Dave Goelz. Henson and Goelz were among the original Electric Mayhem performers, which also included Frank Oz and Richard Hunt. The band resembled and represented the idea of popular bands of the '70s as a whole, and Henson and his team even based individual band members on specific musicians of the time. In look, name and character, Dr. Teeth is inspired by the American singer-songwriter Malcolm John Rebennack Jr., better known as Dr. John. This six-time Grammy winner was a celebrated New Orleans blues, jazz, funk, and R&B musician until his death in 2019.

Dr. Teeth and his band are also partly inspired by Elton John, with Gato Barbieri serving as inspiration for saxophonist Zoot and Janice Joplin directly influencing the Muppet Janice in style and in name. Karen Falk, the Jim Henson Company's historian and archivist, stated, "At that time, Jim had a strong interest in the counter-culture movement (as evidenced by his experimental film Youth '68) and sought to reflect that in the composition of the band. One proposal from about 1970 says that the band would do songs like 'Sunshine' from Hair. In fact, they are all dressed to out-hair the Hair cast." Floyd Pepper was inspired by the Sgt. Pepper-era John Lennon, and Animal is based on The Who's Keith Moon, making Electric Mayhem the world's greatest supergroup in essence.

After ABC and all other American networks passed on both pilots, British ATV producer Lew Grade agreed to co-produce The Muppet Show with Henson, debuting the series in syndication in 1976. This marked the return of Electric Mayhem as well as the first appearance of several beloved Muppet icons such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, and even Miss Piggy. Needless to say, The Muppet Show was a major hit over its five-season run, growing in popularity as a vaudevillian sketch-variety show. In it, Electric Mayhem took on the role of the show's house band and occasionally the pit orchestra, even welcoming guest members such Don Knotts and Hal Linden to perform with them.

During The Muppets: Sex and Violence, one musician is seen among the band who never again played with Electric Mayhem. His name was Jim. Jim was a banjo player, designed to look like Muppets-creator Jim Henson, and was usually seen as part of his other band, The Country Trio. The trio, made up of Jim, Frank and Jerry were all modeled on their respective performers, and featured in various variety shows throughout the 1970s as well as The Muppet Show. Only one Muppet musician ever joined Electric Mayhem after its debut and managed to remain a permanent member to this day, though, and his name is Lips.

During The Muppet Show's fifth and final season, the band welcomed its trumpeter Lips, who was inspired by Louis Armstrong. Performer Steve Whitmire recalls, "I wanted to do this Louis Armstrong kind of voice and at that point and time, there was some question as to whether or not we would offend African American people by this white guy doing a black voice as a trumpet player." As a result, Lips was kept quiet for decades. Dave Goelz stated in 2013 that "Whitmire has been frustrated that for thirty years he hasnt really found a character hook for Lips the trumpet player." Goelz continued to state that a few months prior to the interview, Lips was required to state "but we don't have any instruments" and in a moment of clarity, Whitmire finally discovered Lips' character and way of speaking. "The character was born after 30-odd years in labor."

The Muppets went from strength to strength, branching off into multiple movies including The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan throughout the '70s and '80s. In 1990, the band welcomed another short-lived member, during their appearance in The Muppets at Walt Disney World. Clifford first appeared the year prior, in The Jim Henson Hour where he was the bass player for Solid Foam. When playing with Electric Mayhem at Walt Disney World, Clifford took on the role of auxiliary percussionist. Clifford was a guest alongside Kermit on The Arsenio Hall Show to promote their most recent production, where he revealed he likes to be spanked and admitted that his career choices were to join either the Muppets or Milli Vanilli (with whom Clifford shares a resemblance). Although Clifford would not play with Electric Mayhem more than once, he went on to find success as the host of Muppets Tonight in 1996.

In 1992's The Muppet Christmas Carol Electric Mayhem played the role of the Fozziewig's Christmas party band, with Animal struggling to limit himself to slow Victorian-era music. They then appeared as the pirates' entertainment aboard the ship in 1996's Muppet Treasure Island and performed in the Poppyfields in 2005's The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. In the latter, they arrive late to perform backup for the Wicket Witch of the West as a result of their beaten-up tour bus, a common occurrence for Electric Mayhem's modes of transportation.

Speaking of buses, the band's 1966 International Harvester Loadstar Carpenter debuted in The Muppet Movie in 1979 and featured in that year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, solidifying its iconic status. It returned in 1999's Muppets From Space, having been updated from its classic '70s style to feature '90s appropriate CDs on the ceiling instead of 45s. After this, the original bus was auctioned on eBay for $50,000 along with a Brian Henson-signed letter of authenticity. A search was conducted by Disney in 2010 to find the original bus, so it could be featured in the 2011 movie The Muppets, but it was soon discovered to have been destroyed. A recreation was used for the reboot.

After the critical, commercial and awards success of The Muppets, ABC learned from its mistakes in the 1970s and produced an adult Muppets sitcom, this time in the workplace mock-documentary style of The Office and Parks and Recreation. It also harkened to 30 Rock in premise, as it featured the Muppets' behind-the-scenes life working on Miss Piggy's celebrity talk show. Electric Mayhem served as the show's band, and the series debuted their new wheels, a psychedelic Volkswagen Microbus. It's this new bus that features heavily in the marketing for their new Disney+ spin-off series The Muppets Mayhem, and serves as their primary mode of transport for a large portion of the new series.

After decades of being reliable supporting players in the Muppets universe, The Muppets Mayhem, which is now streaming on Disney+, finally puts the spotlight directly on the band. Current Dr. Teeth performer Bill Barretta is also a co-creator of the show, and Goelz, as he has done since the beginning, plays Zoot.

Go here to see the original:

The Totally Rockin' History of Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem - Collider

With the wave of nostalgia media as of late, it seems like things that were popular in the past will always find their way back into the cultural zeitgeist again. Recently, this movement has trended towards YA media from the 2010s that is making a resurgence as fans who are now adults reminisce about these books and shows they used to love and reboot them for a new generation. The upcoming Percy Jackson and the Olympians series on Disney Plus is a great example of this, as is The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes movie, a Hunger Games prequel, that just recently released a teaser.

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes will be adapted from the prequel novel published in 2020 and will hit theaters later this year. What's most interesting about the release of this movie is the sudden wave of Hunger Games content circulating online just prior to the teaser announcement. Fans were calling it a "Hunger Games renaissance", as discussions about the themes of the series and various memes and edits made their way around TikTok and Twitter. The timing seemed perfect, really, as it got fans excited about the series again just in time to give them a first look at the new movie. Did this just happen by chance, or was it a move planned by the studios all along?

RELATED: What Is The Hunger Games: The Ballad Of Songbirds And Snakes About?

Though a large portion of the internet is collectively talking about The Hunger Games again, a lot of people credit the resurgence of this fan flurry to TikTok user @luckyleftie, who dedicated a majority of videos on her account to discussions about themes and details from the Hunger Games books. She may not have been the very first person to talk about the series around this time, but she was definitely the spark that caught on and inspired others to have their own discussions about the books and reread them after many years, as it seemed she was showing up on the For You pages of anyone who was remotely interested in books.

It can't be overstated just how massive The Hunger Games as a series was at the peak of its popularity. The books were wildly successful and started a trend of teen dystopian novels that would try and copy their formula for years to come, and the movies were just as popular and profitable. The craze around the series died down after a while, as fans moved on to other things, but it seems like the world is ravenous for Hunger Games content once again, just in time for the prequel movie to arrive.

There are a lot of people who were either casual enjoyers or big fans of the series in the past, who have now grown up and realized that The Hunger Games dealt with some more complex themes than they had originally realized. Obviously, the subject matter is quite intense, but it would have been easy for some of the more nuanced social commentaries to fly over the heads of the 13 years olds reading the series in 2010. Adults with newfound media literacy are enjoying revisiting the series and seeing the themes that author Suzanne Collins had been discussing all along, as it's interesting to be able to find new things to appreciate about a piece of media after all this time.

The series also just holds up really well. The movies were well-done and the books appealed to both young readers and adults, and a lot of fans have been reminded of those facts recently and are simply having fun revisiting this piece of content that they got so much enjoyment out of in the past. People love nostalgia, and it's been long enough since the original release of the novels (the first book came out in 2008, while the first movie premiered in 2012) that people are starting to feel nostalgic for the series again, or perhaps the time of their life that they were in when they first read the books.

Of course, all of this discussion conveniently reaching a head just before Lionsgate released the first trailer for The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes feels a little bit fishy, and has led a lot of people to wonder if perhaps all of this was somehow engineered by the studios to create buzz around the series again. However, despite the conspiracies, it doesn't seem like this is actually the case. It appears that it was just a really fortunate coincidence for the new movie that discussion around the series restarted just as it was becoming relevant again. Part of the reason that people have been discussing it is because of how relevant The Hunger Games feels to the world today in a lot of ways, as parts of society start to feel more and more dystopian to people. Many have been discussing their feelings on this through the internet, and the evergreen relevancy of the series just hit a new peak once again. Perhaps this means that it really was the perfect time to release a new Hunger Games story, as the world starts to see itself reflected in Panem more and more.

NEXT: New Movies Coming Out In May 2023

More here:

Was The Hunger Games Renaissance Planned All Along? - GameRant

Michael J. Fox has been through hell, and not in the way youre thinking.

In the last few years, his mother died, his father-in-law died, and he had to put his beloved dog, Gus, a 120-pound mutt, to sleep after more than a decade of loyal companionship. And then there was an almost biblical series of health challenges, many of them indirectly related to his Parkinsons disease.

I broke this shoulder had it replaced. I broke this elbow. I broke this hand. I had an infection that almost cost me this finger. I broke my face. I broke this humerus, Fox says, pointing to each part of his fractured body, before concluding with a wry snort. And that sucked.

Thats to say nothing of the spinal surgery he underwent in 2018 to remove a tumor, a visit to the hospital completely independent of the falls he experiences more frequently as Parkinsons robs him of his balance. The whole thing left Fox feeling nearly as despondent as when he was first diagnosed with the disease in 1991 at the age of 29. In those days, he would retreat into his bathroom, get in the tub and ruminate with a bottle of wine or some vodka. Now sober for more than 30 years, he hasnt used booze as a shield for a long time.

But Fox says that as he grappled with these recent losses and medical setbacks, he felt a similar emptiness to that dark time when doctors first delivered the Parkinsons news. I have aides around me quite a bit of the time in case I fall, and that lack of privacy is hard to deal with, he says. I lost family members, I lost my dog, I lost freedom, I lost health. I hesitate to use the term depression, because Im not qualified to diagnose myself, but all the signs were there.

So how, I ask, was he able to shake it off? My family, he says. My family pulled me out.

And as we sit in Foxs Upper East Side office on a sweltering April afternoon, were surrounded by mementos and images from that rich family life. There are snapshots of Fox and his wife, Tracy Pollan, flanked by their four children on beaches and in backyards. Theres even a painting of Gus, staring back at us with soulful eyes. All of it vying for space with the Emmys, Golden Globes and honorary Oscar that Fox has accumulated for his work on sitcoms and movies, and for his advocacy for Parkinsons research. They are milestones on an improbable journey, one thats taken the 61-year-old from an obscure sliver of British Columbia to the height of Hollywood stardom, all while withstanding a devastating diagnosis when he should have been basking in that hard-won success. Through it all, Fox has been guided by an indomitable confidence an optimism, not that any problem can be easily overcome, but that there are reasons to be grateful for what life with all its chaotic convulsions has to offer.

Im still happy to join the day and be a part of things, he says. I just enjoy the little math problems of existence. I love waking up and figuring that stuff out and at the same time being with my family. My problem is I fall down. I trip over things and fall down and break things. And thats part of having this. But I hope that, and I feel that, I wont break as many bones tomorrow. So thats being optimistic.

There are signs of lifes inescapable progression around us too, as well as fresh reasons for hope. Just before Fox sits down, Im greeted by a new addition to his household, Blue, an Aussie Bernedoodle puppy fresh from her walk. (Shes not a dog shes a science experiment, Fox joked to Pollan when she revealed that Blue was a combination of Australian shepherd, Bernese mountain dog and poodle.) And Fox is feeling emboldened by a recent scientific breakthrough that can detect the disease at the molecular level before symptoms start appearing. That could, he says, lead to more proactive treatment and drug development. And then theres the reason that were meeting today, the upcoming release of Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie, a documentary from Oscar winner Davis Guggenheim that explores the actors life and serves as a reminder of his formidable gifts as a comic star. Guggenheim says that Fox refused to have any control over the finished film, which begins streaming on Apple TV+ on May 12, leaving the director with a single creative admonition.

The only thing he ever asked of me was no violins, Guggenheim says. He didnt want to make a pitiful, maudlin movie about a person with a condition.

Still steers clear of mawkishness, even as it offers an uplifting look at the triumph of one implacable spirit. But, of course, thats to be expected, and by now people around the world are intimately familiar with how Fox turned a potentially career-ending diagnosis into a rallying cry for awareness and action. Whats more unexpected is that Still also gives Fox his due as a performer, something that critics were often loath to do when he was a leading box office draw and TV idol. In clips from Family Ties and Spin City, or snippets of The Secret of My Success and Back to the Future, Fox is constantly in motion, making pratfalls, backflipping over beds, sliding over the hood of a DeLorean. All of it is augmented by a preternatural sense of timing. Hes almost balletic in his ability to land a joke.

I underestimated him as an actor, Guggenheim admits. And maybe until now the world has underestimated him. Hes super funny, but sometimes we fail to realize that humor and physical comedy is a craft worthy of awe. Seeing him move his body, he was graceful and swift and elegant. It seems effortless. And youd think he was trained in some fancy French school of movement, which of course he wasnt.

Castmates fondly recall Foxs gymnastic approach to comedy. He bounced around in all of his scenes, remembers Meredith Baxter, who played Foxs TV mom in Family Ties. Hed bound in the backdoor of the house, then hed bounce over to the fridge and pour some orange juice and then hed bounce again to answer the phone. He had so much energy.

That same spark is evident when Fox sits down to talk to me. His eyes pirouette as he comes up with a punchline or joke, springing to life when he ribs someone for moving his handkerchief so it will be more accessible on the table beside him. Now I need to get tested for COVID, he says with a laugh.

But Parkinsons has also taken a physical toll. Fox walks in a jerking, hesitant manner, willing himself not to stumble, and his hands tremble throughout much of our discussion, the left one making looping motions while the right one taps against the side of his chair. And then theres Foxs speech, which has also become more impaired in recent years. His words sometimes careen into each other, occasionally erupting into an imperceptible slur of consonants. For someone who was once so verbally dexterous, it must be endlessly frustrating.

I sometimes have a fleeting moment of disappointment when a really great joke comes out and lands flat because people cant understand what Im saying, Fox says. Its not like you can just repeat it. Its dead on arrival. But you find ways to navigate it.

It takes time for the medication that Fox uses when hes got an interview or a public event to have an effect. As he eases into the chair and begins to talk, his left leg moves spastically and his head ducks down toward his chest. Then after about five minutes of jerking motions, a calm washes over Fox, and his leg, at last, stops tremoring. Thats the pills kicking in, he says.

Still, the title of Guggenheims film, isnt just a sad nod to the ravages of Parkinsons and the way it consigns its sufferers to a lifetime of uncontrollable movement. It also alludes to the restlessness that characterized Foxs rise in the entertainment industry. The son of William Fox, a former Army sergeant turned police dispatcher, and Phyllis Fox, a payroll clerk, Fox was raised primarily in a suburb of Vancouver. An indifferent student, he started doing plays in school to meet girls, discovering he had a knack for performing. After landing a few TV roles in Canada (usually with the diminutive Fox playing much younger than his age), he was convinced that he had what it took to make it in Hollywood. So he dropped out of high school and moved to Los Angeles.

I knew I was more talented than a lot of people, says Fox. And I knew that if I wanted to be someone, I couldnt just sit on my parents porch and think, Boy, if I was only born in the States and my parents had money and werent living paycheck to paycheck, I could do something with my life.

It was rough. He had a few failed auditions Robert Redford flossed his teeth while Fox read for the role of the troubled son in Ordinary People. And the gigs he managed to land were few and largely forgettable. But Fox was guided by an unwavering confidence that allowed him to keep pushing forward. Decades later, he still thinks back to a revelation he had on the set of Midnight Madness, a little-seen 1980 Disney comedy that marked his feature film debut. I was sitting around with all these actors, and I remember thinking, Why is this going to work for me and not for them? he says. Its not that I wished them unhappiness or bad luck I wished them all the success in the world. But I knew I was going to make it. God knows why. I was living on the margins. I was 18 years old, with no money, no connections, literally dumpster diving for food.

Two years later, Fox landed his career-making role as Alex P. Keaton in NBCs Family Ties. The sitcom had an easily digestible premise hip parents, square kids one tailor-made for the conservative wave sweeping the nation. As a teenage Reaganite outfitted in a suit and armed with a briefcase, Foxs Keaton embodied the newfound spirit of conspicuous consumption. He quickly became the shows breakout star.

There are rare moments where an actor and role simply fit together perfectly, says Michael Gross, who played the patriarch of the Keaton clan. Michael just understood Alex intuitively and was so much fun that the writers moved instinctively towards him and gave him more and more to do.

Viewed from todays politically polarized vantage point, Family Ties, with its portrait of parents and children who can bridge any ideological divide in less than 30 minutes of airtime, seems utterly foreign. And it is. Even Fox thinks that his yuppie alter ego, Alex Keaton, would have abandoned the GOP long before Trump and the Jan. 6 attack changed the face of the party. He would have left, says Fox. I dont think Alex would even see Republican and Democrat now. Hed see normal people and crazy, fascist weirdos.

In its time, however, Family Ties and Fox were riding the zeitgeist. Yet what really catapulted Fox to the top of the A-list was Back to the Future, a science-fiction comedy about a 1980s high schooler named Marty McFly who finds himself thrown back in time to 1955. Fox was initially forced to pass on the film because of his commitment to the show. But when Eric Stoltz, the actor cast in the leading role, was fired from the production, director Robert Zemeckis and Family Ties showrunner Gary David Goldberg devised a plan that allowed Fox to shoot the sitcom during the day and then hustle to the Back to the Future set at night. Hed film there until 3 or 4 in the morning. In between, hed get two to three hours of sleep before a teamster would wake him up and the whole thing would start again. It was grueling, but Fox thinks it helped his performance.

I was running on adrenaline, admits Fox. I barely knew where I was, and I didnt really know what I was doing. That served the film because Martys supposed to be disoriented.

Christopher Lloyd, who played Doc Brown, the mad scientist who invents the time-traveling sports car that sends Marty back, says that Fox offered a missing ingredient. Eric Stoltz is a wonderful actor, but he lacked a certain comedic sense that is inherent in Michael, he says. Initially, I was worried because wed been shooting for six weeks, and it meant going back and redoing all my scenes. I thought I might not be as good. But Michael made me better.

Zemeckis agrees. Michael taught me things about comic timing. Wed have conversations, and hed go, You know, Bob, Ill get a much bigger laugh if I move three steps, pause, and then say the line. Back to the Future is a frothy adventure, but it also has some unexpected Oedipal undercurrents a risky touch for a popcorn flick. After all, when Marty travels back three decades to his hometown, he intersects with his teenage parents, only to find that his mother (Lea Thompson) is hellbent on getting in his pants.

Theres something about it that people still respond to because its so weird, Fox says. Not to be crude, but its a movie about almost fucking your mom and shes totally ready for it. Even at the time, I realized it was bizarre plus Lea was pretty cute.

Back to the Future was a mammoth, decade-bestriding blockbuster, becoming the highest-grossing movie of 1985 and launching a popular film franchise. Fox capitalized on that with a series of hits such as Teen Wolf and Secret of My Success that made him one of the hottest stars of the 1980s. Looking back, Fox believes he didnt handle fame well.

I was a jerk, he says. And theres some archival footage in Still where Fox grills the writers of Family Ties about one of their scripts, as well as a sequence where he peevishly asks to retake a scene that, he says, captures that jerkishness. You just want to slap me. You just want to go, Shut up, sit down, have a Diet Coke and relax and sit in the corner, Fox says.

Sure, he seems egotistical, but its still pretty mild misbehavior for a celebrity. No telephones are thrown, no crew members berated. Is it possible Fox is a little too hard on himself? For their part, Foxs co-stars dont remember many diva moments. I dont think he lorded it over us, says Baxter. At the same time, when someone gets all that attention and all that heat, its hard for it not to go to their head. You cant fault where that adulation takes you. But if you stay there, then you become insufferable.

Foxs good fortune ran out as the 1990s dawned. Family Ties went off the air after seven seasons, and Back to the Future concluded with two back-to-back sequels. Then Fox suffered a series of flops including Life With Mikey and For Love or Money, films as generic as their titles. And there were missed opportunities for instance, Fox turned down the future blockbuster Ghost. I didnt see how it would work, he says. It shows I can be an idiot too.

There was a reason why Fox was taking jobs for the payday and not the part. What the world didnt know was that he was processing his 1991 diagnosis of early onset Parkinsons, something that doctors warned him meant he had only 10 years left to work.

Its such a shitty disease, Fox says. I didnt want to think about it. I didnt want to deal with it. It didnt fit my story. I just shut down.

Hed always been a heavy drinker, but his alcohol abuse intensified as he looked for ways to numb the pain. As he writes in his memoir Lucky Man, and as Still depicts, he finally decided to give up booze when Pollan made it clear that she wasnt interested in raising kids with someone who was out of control.

Why did you drink? I ask. My friend Jennifer Grey had a great expression in her memoir, Fox explains. She wrote, My body cannot metabolize the excitement that I crave. And at that point, the same was true for me. I needed something some way to express myself and I used drinking.

In 1996, with his window of opportunity to work fading and his film career stalling, Fox returned to the format that made him a phenomenon, reteaming with Family Ties creator Goldberg on Spin City, a sitcom about the various wheeler-dealers orbiting an inept mayor. The show was a ratings hit and critics loved having Fox back in front of a studio audience. But as his Parkinsons worsened, producing the show became more complicated, often leading to long delays in taping. Some of the cast and crew suspected something was wrong, but they were offered various explanations, including that Fox had Lyme disease. A rare few were told the truth and sworn to secrecy.

We knew about it very early because we had to plan around it, but we kept it from everybody else, says Bill Lawrence, the co-creator of Spin City. Because Michael had to take meds to stop his tremors and they dont work instantly, Gary and I had to build around that in the schedule so we could wait to start until he was feeling up to it.

In 1998, Fox couldnt keep his illness under wraps any longer. For one thing, he says, paparazzi used to wait outside his apartment building, peppering him with questions about whether he had Parkinsons. He decided to share the news, sitting down for interviews with Barbara Walters and People. The magazine was supposed to come out on a Tuesday, but on the previous Friday, People went live with its story online, triggering a media frenzy.

I went online and initially I thought, What have I done? Fox says. My life is ruined, and I have little kids who are going to read this stuff. The New York tabloids had headlines about how my life was over. It was like, Oh, shit.

But as he processed the publics reaction, Fox started exploring Parkinsons chat rooms. On the internet, people who had the disease were sharing their hope that Foxs celebrity would draw attention to an illness that was seen as something that only happened to old people. Those misunderstandings and prejudices meant that Parkinsons was underfunded. Reading their messages, Fox saw an opportunity.

People were naked in their thirst for somebody to come and help, Fox says. So as much as sharing that news was an unburdening, it also became a re-burdening. It was, I dont know Foxs hand moves gently as if to grasp the right words an adjustment of my burden.

Still also refers to the inner peace Fox found after going public with his illness. Instead of serving as a coda, that declaration began a new phase in his life that was his most triumphant. Since launching the Michael J. Fox Foundation in 2000, he has helped raise more than $1 billion to fund Parkinsons research. At the same time, Fox has become a prolific writer, penning memoirs that are hilarious, heartbreaking and bracingly candid. (Everyone has one good book in them, he says. Ive written four.)

And though he officially retired from acting in 2020 because he was struggling to learn lines, Fox remained active in front of the camera for decades longer than doctors thought he would. Over the past 20 years, he returned to TV frequently as an OCD doctor on Scrubs, as a lawyer on The Good Wife, and as himself, facing off against Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Ive won more awards and had more nominations since I announced my diagnosis, says Fox. It may be that people feel bad for me, but I prefer to look at it as an acknowledgment for continuing to have a legitimate career.

Guggenheim spent a year interviewing Fox for Still and observing him relaxing with Pollan and their children: Sam, 33; Aquinnah, 28; Schuyler, 28; and Esm, 21. He thinks that as horrible as Parkinsons is, the illness gave Fox a better sense of what really matters. Michael calls Parkinsons the gift that keeps on taking, and theres something to that, Guggenheim says. Because theres a clarity you get when you have this kind of horrible chronic diagnosis. Theres a kind of relentless degradation that comes with Parkinsons. But whats amazing about Michael is that all those falls and all those trips to the hospital could have turned him bitter. But, weirdly, its only made him more self-assured and openhearted.

Guggenheim is right. I witnessed the resilience and decency he describes firsthand. In fact, Im struck that the two times that I met with Fox, he made a point of standing up and walking toward me to shake my hand, despite the physical effort that requires. Theres something about that simple gesture that makes my throat catch. This, I thought at the time, is a really good guy.

Fox is very adroit at remaining upbeat and keeping things light during our time together. But watching him struggle to walk or control his wandering hands makes it clear how hard even the most mundane tasks are when you lose authority over your movements. I worry Im being too personal or too lurid, but theres something I want to ask Fox: How does Parkinsons change your relationship to your body?

Thats a good question, Fox assures me. I think about that all the time. Sometimes, he says, he will catch himself in a mirror and see his unsteady walk or think about his slurred speech. All these things together have become who I am and the way I present to the world, he says.

But, Fox admits, he also thinks about how the medication he takes to dull those symptoms gives him a false idea of what Parkinsons has done to him.

When I first sat down and started talking to you, I knew it was going to take a minute for the pills to kick in and then it was going to be OK, he tells me. But what I have to understand is that if I take the pills and I feel better, thats not real. If I dont take them and feel like shit thats real. So the better I feel, the less real it is.

For now, at least, there are plenty of reasons for Fox to feel proud of what hes accomplished and excited for whats to come. The release of Still will remind viewers of Foxs determination to emerge from any ordeal stronger in the broken places. And hes thrilled with the reaction to the film, which was greeted with glowing reviews and a standing ovation when it premiered at Sundance and screened at SXSW.

People think youre a hero, I tell Fox. And I sense that makes him uncomfortable, even if he understands it.

Its just a nice way of people letting me know they are moved by my acceptance of things and by the way that Ive tried to make a difference, he says. But no matter how much I sit here and talk to you about how Ive philosophically accepted it and taken its weight, Parkinsons is still kicking my ass. I wont win at this. I will lose.

But, Fox adds. Theres plenty to be gained in the loss.

Styling: Britt McCamey; Grooming:Kristan Serafino/Walter Schupfer/The Best Paste; Look 1 (dark crew neck sweater): Sweater: Saint Laurent knit; Look 2 (blue suede jacket): Jacket: Mr P; Look 3 (thumbs up): Jacket: Saint Laurent

Go here to see the original:

Michael J. Fox Looks Back on Hollywood Triumphs, Setbacks and Why Parkinsons Is the Gift That Keeps on Taking - Variety

When we think of Jewish food, we usually associate it with the comforting flavors of matzo ball soup, brisket, and latkes. But what happens when Jewish cuisine meets the bold flavors of Asia? The result is a mouth-watering fusion of cultures that's taken the culinary world by storm. From Tel Aviv to Tokyo, Jewish-Asian fusion restaurants and recipes are popping up and delighting taste buds everywhere.

Up until a few decades ago, the only well-known connection between Jewish and Asian cuisine was the age-old tradition of eating Chinese food on Christmas. With fusion food becoming all the rage in foodie capitals such as Los Angeles and New York City, two cities with large Jewish and Asian populations, the two cuisines were bound to mesh.

However, the link between Jewish and Asian food has deep roots tracing back to 2nd century BCE. The history of Jews in Asia dates back hundreds of years, with Jewish communities residing in countries such as China and India. These communities have their own unique traditions and cuisines that have been passed down through generations. As Jews migrated around the world, they brought their culinary traditions with them and adapted to the local flavors.

While anti-semitism and persecution played a role, the reason why many Jews emigrated to cities like Kaifeng and Shanghai in China was due to business opportunities afforded there along the trading route known as the Silk Road. Jewish traders were able to stay current with the Jewish community worldwide while still having a position in Chinese society thanks to trade between China and the West. The Kaifeng Jews at once had a thriving population with thousands of Jewish members, but over time they mostly assimilated, and today just about 1,000 Jews remain in the Kaifeng community.

Today, we can see the results of this blending of cultures in dishes like pastrami ramen and matzo ball pho. Another popular dish in the Jewish-Asian fusion world is the lox bowl. Lox, a traditional cured salmon usually eaten on a bagel, is paired with cream cheese, rice, seaweed, and other Japanese flavors for a unique and delicious meal, similar to our Lox and Schmear Jew-shi Roll.

Leading the Asian-Jewish food movement are husband and wife duo Aaron Israel and Sawako Okochi, chefs with a unique Asian-Jewish fusion approach to food, who have created dishes that reflects their individual heritages and their shared love of food. They've been serving dishes like matzo ball ramen, Sake-Kasu Challah, and a brisket hotpot since 2013.

In an interview with The Times of Israel, Okochi explained their inspiration:

"We wanted to do something that would blend our cultures in a way that felt natural and authentic. We didn't want it to feel forced or gimmicky. We wanted to create something that was true to who we are and where we come from."

Kristin Eriko Posner, a Japanese convert, has made it her life's work to bring together the worlds of Japanese and Jewish culture.

Before converting to Judaism, Posner expressed worries: "I got really scared that if I became Jewish, it would overshadow the Japanese parts of myself, and I felt a lot of guilt about that," recalled the San Francisco-based home cook, whose mother was born in Japan and father is the descendant of immigrants from there."

She established Nourish in 2017 as an online community that highlights the fusions of various cultures, including Jewish and Japanese culture. The website features a large collection of unique recipes created by Posner that combine Jewish and Japanese cuisines. Among the dishes is a gyoza kreplach soup, mochi latkes, and fish cakes influenced by both cuisines.

Hasia Diner, a professor of Hebrew and Jewish history at the NYU Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, says, "It was always fusion," she says. "Throughout history, Jews created food that reflected the ingredients available to them and the climate and style of the people around them. And given the ubiquity of Jewish migration, they were always picking up and moving and getting new styles."

While Jewish-Asian fusion may seem like a new phenomenon, the concept of blending cultures and cuisines is nothing new. As renowned chef, Niki Nakayama explains in an interview with Vox: "I think the reason why fusion is becoming so popular now is that people are more willing to try new things. But if you think about it, all cuisine is fusion cuisine. Every culture has its own unique flavor profiles, but they're all influenced by other cultures and cuisines."

Part of the reason classically Jewish food has come into the culinary zeitgeist as of late is due to it being a comfort food. "Jewish cuisine is about taking a long way around and cooking food that is real and homey, and those are all trends that are popular in dining these days," says Laura Frangiosa, owner of a restaurant that fuses Italian and Jewish foods, in an interview with Haaretz.

By playing with our expectations and nostalgic childhood memories and subverting them, we are opened up to new flavors and experiences we could only dream of. As the world becomes increasingly connected, it's no surprise that cultures and cuisines are blending together in new and exciting ways. And with Jewish-Asian fusion food, we're seeing a marriage of flavors that's both unexpected and delightful. Judaism is about bringing people together, and there's no better way to do that than with a warm bowl of matzah ball egg drop soup or chocolate bao babka.

Browse through our favorite Jewish Asian Fusion recipes here.

Read more from the original source:

It's Raining Ramen! A Brief History of Jewish Asian Fusion - Aish

Mark Tooley

Hello! This is Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Here in Washington, DC. hosting an approximately 30minute conversation with scholars and friends about the work of the late great Theodore Weber, who taught Christian ethics at Candler School of Theology at Emory University for many, many years and wrote what is possibly the most important book on Methodist political theology. Not that theres a lot of competition. Its a much under developed field, but 30 years ago he wrote Politics in the Order of Salvation: Transforming Wesleyan Political Ethics, which I commend to everyone. The scholars who are part of this conversation include, if I can recall all of them, are Jim Thobaben at Asbury Seminary, Jason Vickers, also at Asbury Seminary, soon to be at Truett Seminary at Baylor University, Dale Coulter, down at Pentecostal Seminary in East Tennessee, our own Ryan Danker of the John Wesley Institute, and Stephen Rankin, the former chaplain at Southern Methodist University, now pastoring a church in Kansas, correct? Five distinguished men who are familiar with the work of Ted Weber.

Jim Thobaben actually studied under Ted Weber. Jim, maybe well start with you. What are your impressions and memories of Dr. Weber and what were his unique contributions, especially to a Wesleyan understanding of Christian political theology?

Jim Thobaben:

First of all, thanks for hosting this, Mark. I have two clear memories. Theyre purely anecdotal. They dont do anything; but as I say, they illustrate, so its worth mentioning them. I was really strongly influenced by Anabaptist thought because of where I grew up, and because of my own family background, and Ted was having none of that, I got to tell you so. I mean when I went to class and suggested something along the lines of what would not be called The Benedict Option, he said that simply isnt an acceptable position for a Methodist to hold. We went back and forth a little bit. Ted always knew the material, thats for sure. My other anecdote with Ted was when I presented my dissertation I had two advisors, one in ethics and one in sociology of religion, because of my topic. And Teds first comment in my dissertation defense, he looked at me, and then he looked at the other advisor. I had a sociology advisor ahead, and said, why in the world should we even consider this for our religion Ph.D? And they argued for 20minutes. Then, after they got tired,

I defended my dissertation for about 10minutes, and everybody stood and congratulated me, and said I could call them by their first names now, and Ted was just as happy and as pleasant as he could be after that.

But I wondered when that conversation started off if he was going to let my dissertation go through. He was just a smidge of a curmudgeon.

Ryan Danker

Good for him!

Mark Tooley

Well, thats a good memory of his personality. In terms of what he had as a unique insight on Wesleys view, and a wider Wesleyan view, which I guess arent necessarily the same, of the political image of God, which has a tremendous impact on how Methodism affects society across the last 250 years. But the way Weber interprets this Wesleyan political image of God, it confers a political authority upon each individual, a political image corrupted by the fall, but not erased by the fall; and this response to this duty and responsibility conferred upon each individual ultimately has a very egalitarian and democratic influence on how Methodists operate in society, which Weber contrasts with Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, and even with Karl Barth, interestingly. He says Karl Barth and his followers have a very narrowly Christocentric view of the political image of God that focuses on the Sermon on the Mount as the be all and end all of Christian, political and social witness. But the Wesleyan view is much more catholic, Trinitarian view of the political image of God, and much to fuller orbed in terms of how Christians operate in society. Its my brief synopsis of his perspective. But your alls thoughts?

Jim Thobaben

I think thats accurate. I mean what one of the things that I do remember from class, and I just. I just reread his, his big tome, it is that he was a very good and honest analyst of Wesley, and what I mean by that is, he saw Wesleys strength, but he admitted Wesleys, I wont say. weaknesses. Ill call inconsistencies, and he absolutely believed that Wesleys understanding of political engagement was a little off from his more as you put an egalitarian

theology, especially the notion of prevenient grace. Well, really, also, in this ecclesiology, with the with the way he elevated people out of the working class and into leadership.

Mark Tooley

And I think he makes the case that a Wesleyan political theology is in many ways more optimistic than the Lutheran or Reformed alternatives, in that Martin Luther would have seen government is grimly just to restrain the most gross forms of evil, whereas a Wesleyan perspective sees government more cheerfully, as Weber put it, drawn from the knowledge of the work of God, and not from the problem that humankind has become.

Jim Thobaben

Ill throw in one thing, and then Ill be quiet for a while, and let these better scholars reason. Im speaking first is, I want to say my incorrect things for the few things I actually know, and get them out for anybody else to at least claim to them. Because these are all really better Wesleyan scholars than I. I agree with you. And I dont remember Ted dealing with this particular issue when Methodism came to America. It was a sect inside of the state church, and then, because of the Revolution, the state church disappeared. So then a sectarian movement that was wrongly perfectionist, and I know Charles Wesley wasnt technically a Methodist, but he was caught up in that same kind of argument, and then perfectionism merged with American notions of progress into an optimism that was excessive.

So thats the only place Im not disagreeing with you. Im just pushing back a little bit. I think Wesley needed to, and maybe he did. And these other folks can tell us he needed to have restraint on his optimism about what was actually ever going to be possible with perfection in society because it really did move toward a theocratic argument in Charless spinning.

Mark Tooley

Jason, your thoughts?

Jason Vickers

Yeah. So, I came, if I can. you know backtrack for just a moment I came to Weber while working on Wesley all around 2008, 2009 somewhere in there, and working on his politics, as they relate to his theology, his life, and trying to make sense out of how someone could say, you cant love God if you dont also love the king. You know that that kind of a move, it struck me as something about Wesley that in the American context today we dont take very seriously, dont think about. But Ive wound up sort of backtracking a little bit to investigate how Wesley himself had been read in the past by over scholars. For a long time, he was sort of a High Church Tory, right. And then you kind of have two states theory develop that he goes from that into a more Whiggish kind of mode.

What I saw in Weber that made sense to me was, he said, well, no, he still was strong Tory, you know High Church sentiments. He still has divine right. Its just not hereditary. And hes a constitutionalist. And what I really liked in Webers work was how much he pressed the constitutionalist aspect of Wesleys political philosophy, as well as the concept of liberty rather than rights. A liberty that comes with responsibility to obey. So that then just sort of rounding this off I mean what I found in Weber was a vision of Wesleys politics that wanted to avoid, got two things at least in terms of Wesley. Wesley wants to avoid two things at the same time.

At one end of the spectrum, the mob, anarchy. At the other end of the spectrum, absolute power, right? Thats not checked by the constitution. So you so, whoever gives you a sort of vision of Wesley, that that doesnt give you a divine monarchy that is the form of absolute power that can turn against you, right. But, on the other hand, youre not developing some kind of notion of natural rights that can evolve in a way that leads to a kind of mob situation. So, obedience is important, obedience to king and constitution. The kings powers are limited by the constitution.

But you can forfeit your liberties. You can forfeit civil and religious liberties. If you dont obey, these things are not unconditional. I thought all of that actually built well with what I kind of think of as his Covenantal Arminianism. You know the terms of salvation or covenant. There you have a role, if you will, you have a responsibility in terms of salvation where Ill just say this round of my kind of intro marks where I found myself disagreeing or not, as convinced by Weber is, I think, when he gets to Wesleys politics to Wesleys theology, I think he has some reservations about whether Wesleys understanding of the Trinity in particular is problematic.

And I actually think that Weber, if I could say so without you know being condescending at all, I think he gets a little out of his depth. At that point I dont find Wesleys Trinitarian theology in general to be a problem with respect to his particular political vision. I think they actually go together. Maybe we can get back to that.

Mark Tooley

But first I want to ask Dale Coulter. Weber, as I mentioned, contrasted the Wesleyan perspective with a Thomistic Natural Law tradition perspective that derives government from the social and rational character of human nature.

But according to Weber, Wesleys idea of government is not so anthropological, but its based more directly on Trinitarian divine agency, and through a notion of nature infused by divine grace. Now, Dale, you wrote a piece for our publication, Providence, on this very notion that the Wesleyan perspective on nature infused by divine grace has political ramifications. Could you explain?

Dale Coulter

As Jason said a few moments ago, with a little fear and trembling. Maybe with respect to all that Webers done, because I do have a tremendous respect for what hes done in this book. I didnt really agree with how he was reading Wesley on Natural Law, and thats because generally speaking, people who dont invest deep time in the Middle Ages go to Thomas for obvious reasons.

I dont think Wesley is. You cant even put him in the Aristotelian optimistic trajectory of natural law. I think hes following Cicero. He read Cicero, let me say this. He quotes from Cicero regularly, when he writes the sermon on the Use of the Law, and it gives some of his definitions, their Ciceronian, in my view. And its actually a way of connecting what Wesley is doing in the mid-1700s with what Samuel West does in his 1776 sermon where he calls for revolution in in the colonies, and he talks about natural law in terms of the eternal fittingness of things, uses the very same phraseology that Wesley had done, its Ciceronian. And thats the same phraseology that James Wilson, who gives his lectures on law right at the end of the 1700, sort of sets the tone for the Use of the Law. So I think if you, if you put Wesley in a different trajectory, then his natural law position comes out. The other thing for me is.

I think I would disagree with Weber. I think its kind of a false dichotomy to talk about anthropology, and its not grounded there versus Trinity, because Wesley thinks that the human person is both christologically formed, and thats where you have to read his natural law. Even his sermon On Conscience is also pneumatologically infused.

So from the moment we enter life, its both in, not either, or. And whoever doesnt really develop that side. So, theres a Trinitarian ground that to the image that in comes through natural law and flows into that. And the last thing Ill just simply say is I found it interesting that Weber does so much with the political image at the end which I agree with. I think hes right there.

But then he contrasts that with Thomass view of the Aristotelian view that humans are social animals. Well, Aristotle wasnt the only one who said that, you know Augustine believes that I mean therere so many in the patristic tradition that believe that. And it comes through the Middle Ages in a number of different ways. And so, I dont see how you can unpack Wesleys notion of humans in the political image, and not say the implication is that humans are social animals. Gods called them to govern. And I would call it the cultural mandate out of Genesis one and two. But thats what Wesleys rooting around and thinking through, especially because love is so crucial to Wesleys notion of the image.

And let me say one more quick thing here. Weber at times will act as though Wesleys strong Augustinianism on sin kind of holds in a way that I dont think it holds. I mean Wesley is really strong on sin, but this is where I wish Weber would have developed more the Providential side because were fallen but restored immediately. Were never outside of grace. There is no human person in the state of pure nature. Wesley says that.

So on the one hand, yeah, you can affirm that he has a strong Augustinian doctrine, saying: on the other hand, you have to say what that doesnt matter as much, because the Spirit is already there, correcting humans from the outset and giving rise to conscience and conscience is not natural, but supernatural; that is to say, its grace from the outset.

So all of that is to say, I have really great appreciation, I think hes absolutely correct about, we have to have a political language that binds us together, and I appreciate the deep historical dive. He did try and give us one. And I think the move that he makes in the last chapter on the political image is the right move, and then move into grace. But you know, having said that, then theres just some things that I would differ with him on how to appropriate Wesley for us today. Thats where Ill stop.

Mark Tooley

Thank you, Dale. Steve, your thoughts. I know you wrote a very important article about the Wesleyanism and just war teaching, how would you relate that to what Ted Weber has to say?

Steve Rankin

I think what Weber says about Wesley is consonant with my understanding of Wesleys view of war. And you know what Wesleys doctrine of entire sanctification corporately applied, and even cosmologically applied. Weber says that Wesley was not a pacifist, and I agree with that. Wesley said the closer we get to the image of God fully restored in us, the closer we are to pacifism, is kind of how I read Wesley on that point, and I think that fits with what Weber says.

I would like to raise a question that I had about Webers conclusions if its okay to go this direction for a moment. And, Mark, I dont want to destroy your plan here. But in that last chapter Weber mentions, and I got kind of stuck on this quote, the concept of the political vocation of humankind corresponds to Wesleys Armenian doctrine of universal grace, whereas his view of political authority corresponds to Calvinist doctrines of decrees and particular election.

This is one of the criticisms that Weber makes of Wesley. As I understood Weber, hes saying Wesley didnt fully grasp the political implications of his own theological convictions on this point. But I also dont think its fair of Weber to say that Wesley, in in his view of hierarchy, for example, falls back on some sort of Calvinist doctrine of decrees. And Im just wondering if its possible to see in Wesleys commitment to a constitutional monarchy, even if thats just, you know, according to the context in the period of time, and prudently adopted, and not necessarily a universal thing, that seeing the validity of hierarchy is a Wesleyan Arminian view of political authority worked out. This doesnt seem as inconsistent to me as Weber took it to me, and I thought. I thought his conclusion about Wesley at this point, leaning toward Calvin, was overstated, and Im just curious what other people thought.

Mark Tooley

Ryan Danker, your response?

Ryan Danker

Yeah, I agree with Steve. I dont think its necessary to go to Calvin or Calvinism for that. I think Ill say this about Weber. I love the fact that he was successful in not writing a book about his political thinking, and then attaching Wesleys name to it, because we have others who have done that. And he also admits at the beginning that hes an American. He doesnt believe in monarchy and hes trying to translate this into another context that doesnt have a monarchy. But I but I think, Steve, you run into some of the problems that often those of us on this side of the pond run into, because were generally not monarchists. And Wesleys political theology is built upon his monarchical views. but I think its not a Calvinism. Its the establishment of an Anglican, an Anglican establishment with the revolution of 1688, and Wesleys intention to maintain that Protestant Episcopal liturgical heritage, even if it meant limiting monarchy. Some of us have just referred to it as constitutionalism. Steve, I agree with your critique that it does. Its not Calvinism. Its actually a mature Tory perspective. mainly from the reign of George the Third. And I think we need to take seriously the fact that Wesleys political writings were predominantly all during the reign of George III.

When the Tories came back as a political force after the Whig junta of George I and II, and I think you present a really good argument for that High Church Tory political perspective. Im not sure we need to go to Calvin. I think we can go to 1688, and refer to that as the Anglican Revolution and that helps us understand Wesley after the accessions of the Georges.

Dale Coulter

Let me say something real quick. Here I agree that its not Calvin. I think thats right. But this goes to an exchange right. I have not figured out how Wesley thinks about divine power. Hes very clear power does not come from the people. Only God can authorize this, and God does. What hes not clear about is actually how God does this. He certainly has an understanding of the providential sweep of history, and he will differentiate between God as Creator and God, as Governor.

So he says you cant be the one, the supreme Power who wields the sword without receiving the authority to do so. When that sword comes from God. The question is, again, how does God transmit that authority? And Wesley knows enough about history to know that William I, Duke of Normandy, comes across the Channel and takes control and establishes the new monarchy. He knows enough about history to know that monarchy shifts.

And how is God providentially now establishing a new monarch? And now that monarch, by virtue of the right of war, has supremacy, and is now ruling under Gods power and authority. I cant find where he answers that question or the how. I do think this is where to me Webers move at the end, and the political image, is an important move, because it is certainly one way of answering the how at minimum we know that God has granted this power through the political image with respect to humanity. Now, from there we have to ask, how does that power translate from all humans to particular humans, right?

And I dont know that Wesley answers that. My way of getting a Wesleyan answer that is not distinctive to Wesley is to say, well, what happens in the 1760s when Mary Fletcher and Sarah, when theyre questioning whether women have been preach, and I think theyre doing so because of Fletchers Pentecostal move on Wesley, the unleashing of the laity, the extraordinary gifts of God. All of this moves Wesley in a direction of saying, well, God does supernaturally give these gifts to certain people, and they have to be exercised in particular ways.

And so, it may. This is why one of my questions to Ryan. Does Wesley believe in a sacramental understanding of kingship, where at the moment that the person is anointed from that anointing, just like holy orders. Now the power of God begins to flow in and through the King. Because that view is certainly there in British history even in recent history. And that would make sense, and that would align more with the idea of extraordinary gifts that Wesley eventually comes to accept later.

But you know, I think I dont know about all of that. But that would be where I think I push back a little bit on Wesley and where his political theology is incomplete, and you just have to say with Ryan. Well, hes a High Church Tory because hes an Englishman. He wants to defend that settlement.

Ryan Danker

Well, but not everybody in England. Why dont we defend it in the same way? I think we cant. We cant say that everybody in England was a Tory or even if they should have been but yeah, I said that. We cant underestimate the fact that the second, like king or queen dies, then the next king or queen is, in fact, the monarch, and that hereditary nature is a part of the political situation that Wesley embraced. I think we need to go back to something else that helps us understand British. So, whats that?

Jim Thobaben

Thats your claim that Wesley embraced not just monarchy, but hereditary right?

Ryan Danker

The Anglican revolution of 1688, we have to keep that in mind in his view. If they stepped away from their role to defend the Church then they were essentially giving away their right to the throne.

Jim Thobaben

I only raised that because, you know, with respect to Weber, or my reading of him, and someone operating from memory here, which so, because this might be wrong, you know that he actually kind of challenges the idea that this so. He thinks that Wesley is a kind of a Tory. Thats its not tightly wet into hereditary succession. And so then he quotes Wesley, when he says, look, English, liberty really begins to thrive with the Glorious Revolution

So thats evidence that you know its not hereditary succession. Its not, you know, essential for Wesley what the maybe just one quick. Add on there that you know, part of it is the political parties and sensibilities shift and change. And so the question is whether or not theres some fluidity to Tory identity or Whig identity in the eighteenth century. You know these labels get difficult to just paste on to Wesley. Theres some fluidity in that century, but that passage stood out to me about the Glorious Revolution, Wesley saying that after the Glorious Revolution that Englishman enjoyed liberty.

Ryan Danker

Remember what he thought of Catholicism. He believed Catholicism to be anti-liberty. So, when hes saying that hes, saying finally, we have the Protestant establishment, that God intended and those who will defend that are in line with God. So I think we have to tie all this together because think of the ancient regime model of weve got the king. You have church, and you have gentry or Parliament. and essentially, hes trying to hold those 3 together.

Jim Thobaben

But the reality is, he only sees their validity when theyre maintaining what he says, what God wants, which is a Protestant national church? Is it the fact that he doesnt go with his mother, right? Thats what Weber sort of links to. He doesnt hold a hereditary but transmission of the monarchy because he is, he would prefer a Protestant. So the Hanoverian line comes in, and thats preferable because its Protestant, even though its a German elector whos coming in to a Stuart line that would be Catholic, even though the Stuart line might have the better hereditary claim.

Ryan Danker

Both have a hereditary claim. The question is which one is valid.

Dale Coulter

Yeah. Well, I mean I, thats what Weber says. Wesley doesnt hold to hereditary monarchy in some strong sense, right? And in that case, I agree with Weber. I just think we cant get rid of the term hereditary, because I think then we misunderstand Wesley. But the reality is wherever provided, something that was Wesley. And I think we need to keep that in mind, too. He wasnt just talking about Wesley.

Mark Tooley

The way Weber portrays it, Wesleyan political theology is distinct from John Wesley, and takes us in directions that John Wesley would not have foreseen, and maybe not even have approved in terms of its ultimate egalitarian political impact. Do you agree with that interpretation?

Dale Coulter

Absolutely. And I dont think theres any choice. Because lets assume Ryan is correct, which admittedly is a big assumption. What happens when the sect is no longer part of a state church? What I mean, and furthermore, what happens in our era, when at least it seems that theres no longer Christ in them. How in the world can you function if youre going to stick back with Wesleys arguments in their narrow sense. So, you have to turn to his theology and look at either argument of prevenient grace, or maybe a vocational calling arising out of justified and sanctifying grace that leads Christians to participate in politics because youre not getting it out of a Christianized society, because there isnt a Christianized society. So, if his theological argument rests on that alone. if it really rests on the revolution of 1688. Theres a problem with them. Were using them anywhere else. And Weber does say by the way that how Wesley understood politics was, its prima facie if I can use that phrase, its prima bishop, monarchy. Its not necessarily monarchy.

It really depends upon the social circumstances of the of the nation state in which one lives. I think thats what were doing. But if we dont come up with a Wesleyan argument thats independent of his actual application were going to be lost, because we dont live under a king. I mean thats that. And we dont even live in Christendom anymore in the United States.

Mark Tooley

Moving towards conclusion. Why, when we discuss Western political theology, are we essentially almost confined to Ted Webers book? Why isnt there more of a Wesleyan school of thought on this topic? Why is almost all Protestant political theology from the Reformed side of the equation, and not from the Wesleyan side? Whats lacking in our tradition that it hasnt produced more resources?

Jim Thobaben

Let me toss one thing out real quickly, and then Ill. Ill back off and listen to these better scholars. But the historical move of Methodism was toward perfectionism in society. In the United States it was not just individual perfectionism. It really had this. We can perfect the nation state. And in your article, for instance, Mark, you did mention what was euphemistically called the Temperance Movement, the abstinence movement.

And thats why that building is located there by the Capitol and by the Supreme Court, because those folks really thought they could change the society, and its roots are there, I mean, right down to its foundation, and that failed. And then what happened? What came into its place was an absurd concession to whatever the Zeitgeist was. They had the Board of Church and Society, at least in the United States, and it was utterly ineffective, and certainly didnt speak for the people who were going, who were attending those churches that were called United Methodist.

So the reason we got to where we got to is because of the organizational failure. And that thats not even counting the stunning organizational failure of Methodist Church in the South, in the early period that tolerated slavery.

So, I mean we failed a number of times, historically, and part of that we have got to get. We really do have to get back to, I think, Wesleys theology, not his politics, if were going to have a Wesleyan political theology.

Mark Tooley

Steve, your final thoughts.

Steve Rankin

I think Methodists have been better at producing activists than theorists, and what Weber essentially says, he didnt he didnt talk about the legacy necessarily, but thats still the kind of the issue that we face in Methodism. We have activists, not really theorists. And on the theological side where the political theology and the theory that could really germinate and develop. I think Methodism got caught up in historical movements, intellectual historical movements that led us away from Wesley, and I think in some ways were still trying to find our way back. Theres been a lot of good work on Wesleys theology, but this is one of those areas where there just hasnt been the attention given, because attention has been given elsewhere, and it really should be the next step.

And let me throw in one thought that may really seem like a left feel kind of thing. But I wonder if we dont see more of Wesleys political theology that could be worth looking at from this particular angle in the structures of Methodism. Right? Its sort of political theology worked out in in the ecclesiology of the movement. Right?

Yeah. And thats where the Evangelical egalitarian Arminianism really starts to show up with people being developed from within to take these leadership roles.

That looks a lot less Calvinist, you know, when we start looking at the people who take these roles and who exercise leadership in the movement, but back to the point. I think we know the Methodist activism on the one side, and just the historical circumstances our scholars, our thinkers about these kinds of things grew up in in generations already swept up by other larger intellectual forces, Liberalism, the Social Gospel movement, etc., that this aspect of Wesleys thinking just hasnt been looked at carefully yet.

Mark Tooley

Jason Vickers your final thoughts.

Jason Vickers

One possibility for why Weber is one of the only resources weve produced, why , Wesleyans havent been more engaged in political theology, has to do with the locus of divine action for most Wesleyans namely, its in the interior, in the human heart. Its. This is our pietist heritage that is shared by conservatives and liberals alike.

So that the divine action that happens that takes place in the human heart. For the conservative wing of it, it can just be a matter of ones personal salvation, right? The liberal side would tend to push it more in terms of advocacy for justice and society, and so on. What neither, I think, has been particularly good at is thinking about structures, political structures, offices, as being modes or locations of divine action.

So now Im going to come back to Weber on Wesley. So, whatever we make of monarchy doesnt matter, or the English Constitution. It doesnt matter where it is. If youre American, youre not under these things, but the point here is that for Wesley these were given by God. They were locations of divine action, and in some sense I would argue, almost revelatory in very specific ways, not of saying Christ and salvation, but in terms of you know, positive law, and so on.

But the point is that they are of God. They are extensions of Divine Providence. So then, its not just the human heart. Its the location of my action.

See the original post here:

Ted Weber's Wesleyan Political Theology - Juicy Ecumenism

Two recent events illustrate a very peculiar dilemma facing the west. The first is a comment by a black actress who plays an aristocrat in the hit series Bridgerton. She commented that the line-up on the balcony after the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla was terribly white spurring a record number of racism complaints to Britains TV watch-dog. The second is the selection of a black actress to play the role of Cleopatra in another new web series.

In the first case, the comment of the actresson a TV panel covering the coronationeven drew an approving nod from a co-panellist who is a royal biographer. The illogicality of the statement clearly did not strike the other person, just the political correctness of it. Were the white people on the palace balconyanachronistic as they looked in their gaudy raimentduty-bound to find their life partners according to the diversity zeitgeist rather than their hearts?

Clearly the allusion was to the absence of Prince Harry and his wife Meghanwho, as has been cited all too often, is of mixed racefrom the balcony appearance. But the reason for the absence was not race at all. Besides, was their choice of each other a matter of fashion or passion? It could not possibly be the former; so why should the race of a prospective spouse for anyone (including royals) be a matter of concern if they happen to be of the same race?

The second case is even more curious. The new web series portraying Cleopatra, the Ptolemaic queen of Egypt, as Black is not an artistic move like the Royal Shakespeare Companys 2023 production of Julius Caesar having Brutus played by a black woman. It is meant to be an assertion of fact and part of a political movement to reclaim history and historical figures for the race, especially female ones. Its a commendable purpose but uses questionable means.

The Ptolemy dynasty was founded in 305 BC by the Macedonian Ptolemy I Soter, a general and friend of Alexander the Great, and Cleopatra VII who died in 30 BC was its last monarch. He was obviously of Greek origin as indeed were his successorswho intermarried with siblings and other royal Greeks. Just because their kingdom was in Egypt did not make them of native African descent. Indeed, even the name Cleopatra is Greek, meaning beloved of her father.

But Jada Pinkett-Smith, the producer of Queen Cleopatra justified what is being called blackwashing thus: We dont often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them! There are indeed many blackindeed non-whitequeens. India too, is rediscovering her many forgotten Veeranganas but not by twisting facts.

A similar blackwashingfor a similar reclamation effortis being done to Queen Charlotte, the wife of Britains King George III, who was the subject of much gossip for her alleged black ancestry in the 18th century. The reasons offered have been distinctly feeble, including supposedly tell-tale facial features gleaned from just one of many portraits painted of her, but enough to prompt a new (US) web series on her now, with her being played by a black actress.

The intentions of both Queen Cleopatra and Queen Charlotte are very different from the series Bridgertonthe colour-agnostic portrayal of Regency era life in Britain. It does not assert that the aristocracy had black members but demonstrates that stories need not be told only through actors of one race. Hence there are Indians in that mix too. Nor is it the RSCs case that Brutus was a black female but rather that his traits and actions should not be seen as gender-specific.

But asserting that Cleopatra and Charlotte were actually blackand looked itis a willful distortion of history to pander to a particular section of society. On the contrary, it pushes a false narrative that actually turns energies away from the important task of identifying and bringing to the forefront the actual black queens forgotten or overlooked by historians. Besides Egypt, the African continent has had many great empireshow many of their queens have been found?

Nigerians, for instance, are proud of a feisty 16th queen named Amina of Zaria, who ruled for 34 years. Her exploits live on mainly through folk histories and accounts of foreigners. The similarity to our own 16th century queen Durgawatiwho also lives on as a legend among the Gondsis striking. But Durgawati finally became the focus of solid scholarly study; overlooked African queens like Amina deserve the same serious inquiry, not fickle Hollywood dalliances.

History and reality often become too unfashionable for some tastes. So an effort is on to change or gloss over facts. The west, in particular, is now leaning towards seeing every event through the prism of race, a practice made popular in and by the US. However, this leans only in one direction: blackwardsa bias that is definitely not unconscious. It makes political sense in the US as the white or European-descent population there now stands at just around 60 per cent.

The same does not apply to the UK, where an average of 87 per cent of the population is white, and when disaggregated into the four parts, it rises to above 96 per cent in Northern Ireland and above 95 per cent in Scotland and Wales. Englands London and Manchester have huge non-white populations while whites are now in a minority in Birmingham and Leicester. But the truth is, todays Britain remains largely white, so its King, Queen and the Royal Family are pretty much in synch.

But that militates against the fashionable self-image that woke Britons have of being a very (racially) diverse society. And the argument is illogically extended to imply that all families haveor should havemixed race links. Some now even go so far as to insinuate that white families and individuals are closet racists just because they have no mixed-race quotient. If so, then non-white families and individuals with no white links at all should also be deemed racist.

Just the fact of being white or non-white does not imbue anyone with specific characteristics or mindsets. Racism, however, is an ugly trait that some humans do possess. A feeling of superiority usually lies at the heart of it, and many racesnot just whiteexhibit facets of it. Its definition should not be broadened to taint everyone of a particular race simply because they happened to be born into it as is being attempted now, especially via terms like unconscious bias.

It is definitely a telling tale of our royally confused times that Charles, Camilla, Cleopatra and Charlotte find themselves pawns in the same game of racial roulette. Just as the British Royal Family cannot be railroaded into becoming some perceived mirror of modern Britain, appropriating historical figures on the plea of racial re-calibration deflects from real progress on that front. Weaponising race will only harden stands and ultimately defeat the purpose.

The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed are personal.

Read all theLatest News,Trending News,Cricket News,Bollywood News,India NewsandEntertainment Newshere. Follow us onFacebook,TwitterandInstagram.

More here:

What do the British Royals and Cleopatra have in common? - Firstpost