Can you libel North Korea? Is it all a film industry plot for attention?

It is one of the old gags of being a reporter-type person who covers a lot of crime activity – “You can’t libel the mob!”


No matter how critical one is in the details they write about organized crime, what are the gangsters going to do – file a lawsuit and testify under oath that you’re wrong?

I COULDN’T HELP but remember that thought when I read an Associated Press dispatch from Seoul, South Korea, about how the North Korea government late Sunday accused the United States of spreading “reckless” rumors about its alleged involvement in a hacking of Sony Pictures computers.

The wire service reported that a National Defense Commission statement said officials planned “our toughest counteraction” against the United States, which it said is a “cesspool of terrorism.”

It also said the North Korean government has proof that it had no connection to the computer invasion that wound up disclosing sensitive information about Sony and stirred up enough attention and fear about the upcoming film “The Interview” that Sony officials decided not to release it at all.

Now I’m not going to claim to have any specific detail about U.S. foreign policy or North Korean affairs. Although it wouldn’t shock me to learn that the people who actually did break into the Sony computers are not actual government officials, but sympathizers of the Communist regime that we technically have been at war with since 1950 (although no shooting has taken place since 1953).

ALTHOUGH I DON’T expect anyone to seriously offer proof of that. Because that would involve people, possibly even Kim Jong Un, to have to “take the stand,” so to speak, and tell the truth.

It’s easier for them to spew trash talk. Just like much of our own government’s rhetoric that has blown a potentially third-rate film up into an international incident. We’re talking about putting North Korea back on the list of nations that engage in “state-sponsored terrorism.” Considering that we’re going to have to remove Cuba from that list because of the plans to restore diplomatic relations, it means there’s a vacancy to be filled.

For those of you who have been hiding away in a cave (perhaps the one that Osama bin Laden once used to hide from the U.S. military), this is the film meant to be a comedy about two men hired to assassinate Kim.

But it is a comedy because the two would-be killers are portrayed as a pair of bunglers and the film tells the story about all the things that go wrong during their escapade.

IT MAKES “GET Smart” sound downright intellectual. It sounds like something that should have starred Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels (the crew from “Dumb and Dumber”).

It’s a stupid laugh, and if the North Korean government had any sense, they’d use the film against us as evidence of just how far our society has declined. Instead, they took it seriously and are reacting like nitwits, which had enough people connected to the film industry in this country concerned that the release of the film on Thursday was cancelled.

Which gave us that “Saturday Night Live” sketch this weekend where Michael Myers’ “Dr. Evil” character lambasted Kim as a buffoon and a disgrace to evil leaders the world over.

It also has Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., talking about trying to get a print of the film somehow (I’m not sure if he has that kind of connections) so he can show it during the fundraisers he will have to have in coming months if he is to have enough campaign cash to get re-elected in 2016.

HOW MANY PEOPLE are now going to pay $2,000 or so per ticket to watch an allegedly verboten film? How much unwarranted attention is “The Interview” going to get?

Then again, perhaps Myers’ involvement was appropriate. Because this whole saga has taken on the inane character of a storyline from one of the Austin Powers series of parodies about James Bond-type films.

Which actually makes the conspiracy-theory portion of my intellectual makeup wonder if Sony is eternally grateful for the attention that caused them to stop the film’s distribution.

When it does finally get out, people will think they’re making a political statement by going to see it. Instead of just watching what could have turned out to be a corny story that would have been out of the movie theaters shortly after the coming of the New Year.

  -30-

Aldermanic take on a bachelor party, what will Stephen Colbert do w/ this?

Not exactly something Jason Ervin wants to put on his campaign mailings

Be honest! Prior to a couple of days ago, who amongst you had actually heard of Jason Ervin? Or could have picked him out of a group shot of Chicago's 50 aldermen?

But now? Ervin may be the biggest-name member of the rarely-illustrious Chicago City Council, all because of that bachelor party he attended a couple of years ago -- the one that turned up on YouTube video and has some people trying to imply that he's using taxpayer dollars to pay for such sex parties!

PERSONALLY, I'M NOT all that offended. Not so much because I enjoy pornography (I find most of it tedious). But because insofar as bachelor parties go, it wasn’t that big a deal.

Scantily-clad girls exposing themselves and mimicking sexual acts. A batch of guys standing around, acting borderline stupid. (And the answer is “Yes,” I am "sworn to secrecy" about a few bachelor party activities I have witnessed during my lifetime). If it weren't for the political connection, involving an alderman who's going to be seeking re-election in next year's municipal cycle, we wouldn't care in the least.

But with WMAQ-TV and the Chicago Sun-Times reporting about this moment, we’re all supposed to get so offended at the very concept. We’re supposed to think that the “honorable” Jason Ervin of the 28^th Ward is now doomed to defeat – even before his re-election bid even begins.

For the record, it seems that back in November 2012, there was a bachelor party, held in the same building in which Ervin maintains his ward office. Not in the office, but two floors upstairs.

WHICH ISN'T UNCOMMON. Political people often rent multiple spaces within a building, with one designated the official government “office” covered by taxpayer dollars, and another space for private events. It’s part of the idea of keeping government funds from paying for non-government activities. Which this particular party most definitely was.

Like I already wrote, this party seems fairly innocuous. No acts of prostitution took place. No illicit drug use. Which we know because of the video snippet (a couple of minutes) that exists because someone decided that naked dancing girls was exactly the moment to pull out that cell phone and take some cheap video.

Which is really the only interesting aspect of this whole tawdry affair.

An alderman is seen having a naked girl dance suggestively before him. The video snippet, according to news reports, ends with a woman telling the guy to quit shooting video because it could turn up “on the Internet.”

IT SEEMS SHE was right. It did. And now, we’re supposed to be shocked and appalled. Even though by Internet standards, this video isn’t all that graphic. Video snippets on the Internet of bachelor and bachelorette parties (particularly those involving male strippers at women’s parties get more explicit to the point that I’m convinced they’re the male fantasy of what a bachelorette party ought to be like) are so graphic that I wonder how they get disseminated without violating laws against public pornography.

As for Ervin. It all seems so tame, by comparison.

Part of my problem in terms of dealing with this particular happening is that I regard the idea of pornography on the Internet to be monotonous.

Even the not-quite-classic porn films of the 1970s could be entertaining for their cheesiness factor. The repetitiveness of these things -- particularly if you are watching from the privacy of your computer right after reading this commentary -- is just mind-numbing, rather than erotic.

THEN, THERE’S THE factor of the need for someone to whip out their phone to take pictures. It is something I just don’t get.

I have a smartphone and have used it on occasion for pictures and video. But most of what I see people shooting images of is just so pointless. I can’t quite figure out why anyone really felt the urge to take pictures of Ervin’s moment.

I noticed the Capitol Fax newsletter out of Springfield pointed out that Ervin himself has engaged in political attacks on people the border on outrageous, and that perhaps this video is some sort of karmic payback.

This really does seem to be an incident where the only person thinking logically was that aforementioned woman who coordinated the strippers at the bachelor party. This moment is now a part of our political lore. Ervin won't be forgotten because the tale is being spread.
 

How cheap a gag will Colbert get?

BY CHANNEL 5 News, the Chicago Sun-Times, many other news outlets, then the fake news shows. Not exactly the kind of attention a political person usually desires.

Just think of what the Daily Show (or Colbert Report) crews will do with this on Comedy Central? Or maybe Evans will warrant a full-fledged sketch on Saturday Night Live.?

So much for the idea that one needs to do something of substance politically (or even criminally) to gain their moment in the public eye!

  -30-

 
EDITOR’S NOTE: Go look up the YouTube video of this party for yourself. I seriously believe that if you do take the time to watch it, you’ll wind up wishing you could have those few moments of your life back.

Perhaps they should have dug up Garrett Morris for ‘interpreter’ duties

It has been some nearly four decades since actor Garrett Morris did his comedy sketches on Saturday Night Live as the head of the New York School for the Hearing Impaired.

Those sketches were actually written into larger sketches when Morris’ face would suddenly appear in the sketch and he would “interpret” for the hearing-impaired exactly what was being said.

THE GAG, OF course, was that all he did was cup his hands around his mouth and scream at the top of his voice. Which usually got bigger laughs than whatever the original sketch was about!

Because we all know that when dealing with someone who is deaf, it really doesn’t matter how loud (or how slow) one speaks. They still can’t hear you.

Although I wonder if Morris would have been a more legitimate deaf interpreter than the man who actually was on hand to perform such duties at the memorial service held earlier this week for Nelson Mandela.

The world was focused on Johannesburg, with leaders from around the globe on hand – including President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle. A man was on stage going through a series of intricate hand gestures that allegedly were supposed to clue-in the hearing impaired as to just what was being said by the assorted world leaders on stage.

BUT THE REUTERS news wire service reported that officials with DeafSA, a South African organization meant to help hearing-impaired in that nation, were upset. Because the gestures the man made were little more than physical gibberish.

They weren’t any form of real sign language. The group also noted that a real interpreter also uses their face to try to convey the mood of an event – apart from what comes from the mouths of the people who speak.

It also seems that no one is really sure just who this man was. The group claims not to have any recognition of him as a legitimate interpreter for the deaf. It’s almost as though a mystery man managed to get on stage and just take over.

So much for the security for the Mandela memorial service.

I SUPPOSE WE ought to feel fortunate that this man merely felt compelled to wave his arms about, rather than commit some serious act of violence during the event.

OBAMA: Did he realize the signing was gibberish?

Although the odd part is that officials investigating the matter of “Who Is He?” have come up with television clips of African National Conference events during the past year in which the same man did a similar routine in the name of “deaf interpretation.”

Some people are more concerned about the fact that deaf people would have trouble comprehending what happened at the event. Television stations broadcasting the service within South Africa had their own sign-language interpreters on hand to translate for the hearing-impaired.

But activists in London told Reuters that deaf people in the rest of the world essentially were excluded from being able to comprehend the Mandela memorial – an event they want to believe was historic in nature.

NOW I’M NOT downplaying the significance of Mandela. Although my own impression of such large-scale events is that unless you’re actually there in person, they don’t mean much.

It just doesn’t seem like being a part of history that many people the world over watched the same television program. Or in reality, had it on their television sets as background noise.

Unless you were among those in the 95,000-seat stadium, what did you really miss? And if you were there, it was most likely that you wouldn’t have been able to clearly see the interpreter and figure out what the gestures were.

 

Which makes me wonder that if the current incarnation of Saturday Night Live wants to mock this controversy, perhaps they ought to bring back Morris for a redux of his old routine.

  -30-

If Obama looks ridiculous on SNL, will we still hear rants about "liberal" media?

I’m debating whether or not “Saturday Night Live” (I’m old enough to remember when the program’s official name was “NBC Saturday Night”) is worth watching in upcoming weeks. For we could be in store for some of the most ridiculous political sights imaginable.

It appears the program is trying to interject itself into the presidential campaign – whether we want to see it or not.

REMEMBER EARLIER THIS year when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama complained that the sketch comedy show was favoring primary opponent Hillary R. Clinton? Well now I’m wondering how long until Republican nominee John McCain will start complaining that the show is favoring his opponent.

For Obama is set to be a co-host of the show on Saturday, paired up with Olympic medal winner Michael Phelps. Does this serve as a highlight for Phelps that he gets to appear with a potential president?

Or is it a symbolic blow to Obama that he has to appear with an athlete whose gold medals mean he has already lived the highlight of his life, and can only go downhill from here? Will winning the Democratic nomination for president be the greatest achievement Obama can reach in life?

Now throughout the years, the program has gone out of its way to use political activity in its humor. Chevy Chase is still remembered for his Gerald Ford impressions that weren’t really impressions, and Phil Hartman was the ultimate Bill Clinton impersonator.

AND FOR SOME people, Will Ferrell’s “vapid frat boy” take on George W. Bush is more real than the real thing.

That’s why I think it kind of sad that the show has done a terrible job of coming up with a Barack Obama impersonator. The guy they have had doing it in recent weeks doesn’t seem to have a handle on his target. In fact, the big gag behind his routines appears to be that he is a white guy impersonating a bi-racial man.

So could Obama wind up doing himself on the show when he appears? It wouldn’t be the most ridiculous thing. Former presidential press secretary Ron Nessen played himself in a sketch where Chase’s President Ford stapled himself and knocked over a U.S. flag.

There’s even the potential for some humor in the fact that one-time Saturday Night Live writer and performer Tina Fey is being asked to consider coming back to the show for a few weeks to be a Sarah Palin impersonator.

SOME PEOPLE THINK the two look a lot alike.

I say some because I don’t see the resemblance, unless we want to think that Fey (a one-time member of the Second City comedy troupe here in Chicago) looks like every single woman with glasses.

Will she smear herself with lipstick to get into character? Or have I just libeled the reputation of the Republican vice presidential running mate by bringing up the “L” word?

Could we literally be treated to the sight of Obama as himself beating up on Fey as Palin? Or will the star of “30 Rock” wind up whomping on Obama - perhaps even giving him a lipstick pasting? It could wind up being one of the most surreal sights ever seen in American politics.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Saturday Night Live is trying to bolster its own ratings by playing off the great public interest in this year’s presidential election, the same interest that (http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/09/12/SNL_wants_Fey_to_play_Palin/UPI-82521221231642/) resulted in record-high television ratings for the broadcasts of the nominating convention speeches given by both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

Is Saturday Night Live relevant or not?

I find it ridiculous for people to complain that Saturday Night Live is somehow responsible for the Barack Obama campaign’s inability to “finish off” opponent Hillary R. Clinton’s presidential dreams.

The same people who say the show is kissing up to Clinton at the expense of Obama are the same ones who go around claiming the show is irrelevant because nobody watches (almost like the Yogi Berra-ism, “Nobody goes there anymore because it’s too crowded”).

PERSONALLY, I CAN’T remember the last time I watched a full episode of the show (although I recently watched a DVD of episodes from the show’s first season and occasionally catch cable television reruns of earlier years), but I am skeptical that any portrayal of Clinton would be enough to sway the Mood of America.

Throughout the years, the NBC program of comedy sketches that in some ways is little more than a rip-off of that Chicago institution, “The Second City,” has incorporated the politics of the times into its humor.

Everybody still remembers Chevy Chase’s “impersonation” of then-President Gerald Ford, although it really was nothing more than Chase stumbling around and acting stupid – just because of the two times Ford fell on the airport tarmac. Chevy Chase and Dana Carvey are two of the few Saturday Night Live cast members who actually dictated the way the public perceived a politico. I doubt Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton is going to make this duo a trio. Just off the top of my head, I also recall Dana Carvey as President Bush the elder (and as whacked-out Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot), and the impersonations done by Dan Aykroyd and Norm MacDonald of one-time Senate leader Bob Dole that cemented the impression to many people of the Kansas politico as a mean, bitter old man.

BUT THIS IDEA that the show’s political humor somehow tars or praises every single politico is just wrong. Anyone who is trying to blame a television program for a political candidate’s flaws is just looking for excuses.

Ultimately, reality triumphs over dramatic interpretations, particularly when it comes to a political character with such a well-defined personality as Hillary Rodham Clinton. There’s nothing that Amy Poehler (the one-time Chicago actress who these days is doing a “Clinton” character on the show) could say or do to change their perception.

Now for those fans of the show (personally, I think it died after the Aykroyd/John Belushi pairing left in the late 1970s) who cite the examples of Chase, MacDonald and Carvey as examples that I’m wrong, I’d say they are proof that I’m right.

That is three actors during the run of a show that has lasted 32 years. That’s not many, even though the show usually tries to lead off every single episode with a sketch of political parody.

JUST LIKE MANY people only think of the name Brad Hall as “Mr. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss,” there are a lot of Saturday Night Live actors who did political impersonations, but nobody remembers.

Although people still remember the sketch when Ron Reagan Jr. appeared as himself and danced around “the White House” in his underwear as a parody of Tom Cruise in the film “Risky Business,” does anybody remember who played Reagan the elder in that sketch? (Randy Quaid, with Terry Sweeney as first lady Nancy – I had to look it up).

And while Phil Hartman kind of had the ability to parody President Clinton’s southern drawl, neither he nor any of the follow-up actors who impersonated Bill have really gotten his mannerisms down.

I’m sorry, but it just isn’t sufficient to say “I’m Bill Clinton” while wearing heart-covered boxer shorts and acting like a lecherous pervert around ladies of the twenty-something generation.

EVEN CHASE’S IMPERSONATION was more a product of its era (the mid-1970s), rather than any serious interpretation of what President Ford was really about. Watching those old Jerry Ford sketches is agonizing because they have not aged well – they are about as awful as listening to all 18 minutes of “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.”

I wonder if the reason Obama supporters are looking to this lame excuse for the primary losses in Texas and Ohio is because Saturday Night Live has not come up with a quality Obama character.

“All publicity is good publicity,” and Barack as the focus of a humorous sketch every week would benefit him. They didn’t complain when The Second City devoted an entire series of their live comedy shows to an Obama interpretation entitled “Between Barack and a Hard Place.” Obama himself attended the show.

Obama has also had his share of pop-culture moments on national television. I still remember his spot from two years ago where he appeared to be declaring himself to be a presidential candidate, but all it turned out to be was a Monday Night Football spot that plugged the Chicago Bears.

JUST THIS WEEK, Obama is on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. For anyone who’s about to say that Rolling Stone is for old fogies, I’d argue so is Saturday Night Live. Obama-mania has had its share of high-profile moments. To claim he is somehow being neglected is silly.

I’d be more concerned if Jon Stewart were doing fawning Hillary bits on The Daily Show. Even though Stewart always makes it clear he is an actor (the fourth-male lead in “Death to Smoochy”) who does a “fake news show,” too many people take his comedy bits too seriously – as though one can get a serious understanding of the world from Stewart’s jokes.

Most of Poehler’s “Clinton” work is destined to be watched by people flipping around their cable channels who happen to stumble across the E! network just after midnight.

Eventually, it likely will turn out to be like Dana Carvey’s 1988 impersonation of J. Danforth Quayle taking the oath of office as vice president. The gag was that his intellectual capacities were so diminished that he had to be fed the oath word by word by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, but it is not among the more memorable.

WHEN IT COMES to Saturday Night Live political humor, there is one sketch I remember. It was the show’s parody of the 1992 presidential debate (Hartman as Clinton, Carvey as both Bush and Perot), which started off with long-time NBC announcer Don Pardo telling us that the ’92 presidential campaign was the, “challenge to avoid saying something stupid.”

To this day, I hear Pardo’s voice reciting that line in the seconds before I deal face to face with any political person – regardless of their party or views on the issues. Stupid statements just have a knack of rolling from the tongues of the politicos.

They even come from the lips of political followers who try to blame a comedy show that has seen its best days for Obama’s flaws of recent weeks.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Too many L.A. geeks take television way too seriously. It (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-snl13mar13,1,6959732.story) is just the “boob tube,” nothing more.

Is it that the modern media trivializes politics, or is it the trivial nature of modern politics (http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/OPINION05/803130304/1006/OPINION) that causes the content of too much news programming to be, for lack of a better word, stupid?