Simple Man's Film Review - Les Misérables

Samantha Barks as Eponine and Eddie Redmayne as Marius (Source)

I have never seen the musical, Les Misérables, on stage. I've never read the book, nor have I heard any of the music other than "I Dreamed a Dream."  So suffice it to say I knew nothing about this film going into it.  What intrigued me about this film was that all of the vocal performances were "live."

That Time I Shut Down Production of "Home Improvement"

My freshman year of high school wasn’t much different than anyone else’s; except that I was in my first year of boarding school at The Baylor School in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  It wasn’t that far from home, maybe an hour, but it seemed a world away from everything I knew.  My boredom, coupled with my fascination with film and television, led to the shut down of production at ABC one afternoon …

My second cousin was the assistant to Carmen Finestra at Wind Dancer Productions.  Wind Dancer made the show Home Improvement which ran very successfully for 9 seasons.  My cousin and I would correspond through my grandparents from time to time, and she would send me some pretty cool stuff from the set.  I actually have a two whole seasons of script drafts and shootings scripts that she sent me (and made me promise to “keep them for her” forever … ).  I’d always hoped to get out to L.A. and actually watch the show being taped live. Didn’t get to do that, but the opportunity did arise for me to get to meet Jonathan Taylor Thomas. 

Around that same time, JTT and Brad Renfro were coming to Huntsville, Alabama to shoot Tom and Huck.  Brad first came on the scene as young Mark Sway in the film version of The Client. (I read for that part as well, with Mali Finn, but apparently they wanted a real street kid who would ultimately meet an untimely death less than a decade later).  Anyway, JTT is an avid fisherman, and my cousin thought it would be great if we could arrange a fishing trip for JTT and Jeff Cook (of the group Alabama) who is a die-hard fisherman that knows the area well.  So my cousin sent me (via my grandmother) the phone number to JTT’s dressing room at ABC … apparently I wasn’t supposed to actually call it. 

Jonathan’s real surname is Weiss, and I was told to contact his mother to talk about the fishing trip.  So one afternoon in Probasco Hall, from the horrible acoustics of our third floor pay phone room, I called the dressing room line.  No answer, so I left a message “Hi, my name is Michael and I’m trying to get in touch with Ms. Weiss about arranging a fishing trip for Jonathan.  You can reach me at . .  .”  Harmless enough, right?

A couple of hours later a dorm mate summoned me back to that phone room saying that my mother was on the line.  ”Did you call out to L.A. this afternoon?” she asked.  ”Yes ma’am, I called about that fishing trip,” I replied.  ”[big sigh] You shouldn’t have done that … “

Apparently JTT was insanely popular back in the day.  The network and production company took all kinds of steps to insure the safety and privacy of all three kids on the show but were especially protective of JTT.  When they heard a young sounding voice (since my voice didn’t change until I was at least 24) on JTT’s dressing room answering machine they’d decided that security had been breeched.  Sirens sounded, SWAT teams rolled in, JTT’s team tackled him, threw him in the back of a heavily armed limousine and drove him to the waiting doomsday plane where he would stay airborne until the threat had been cleared. 

Okay not really.  But they changed all of the phone numbers at the studio, they questioned all of the staff to find “the leak,” and ultimately my cousin came very close to losing her job.  Thankfully the Ms. Weiss and JTT felt less threatened when they heard the full story.  I believe production was shut down that day - of course it was a live-taped sitcom, so during the week would only have been read-throughs, rehearsals and the like.  I wrote the Weiss’s a nice little apology note on the blue Home Improvement stationery that my cousin had sent me earlier that year.  I don’t remember much of what I said, but I remember one specific line: “If someone gives me a candy bar, what do you expect me to do, stare at it?  She sent me a phone number so I called it.  What else was I going to do?”

I never heard directly from JTT or his mom, but my cousin sent me a note saying they thought the whole situation was quite funny in retrospect.  JTT and I never met, he never went fishing, and I never went out to L.A. to see the show taped.  But for one brief moment, I was the biggest threat ABC and Wind Dancer had to face.  And I’m pretty proud of that. 

My Thoughts on The Gun Control Debate

The day the shooting took place in Connecticut I made a post saying that the gun control debate needs to wait a day or two. My point was that we needed to grieve and let the affected grieve before politicizing the event. For the most part, my FB friends agreed, but some disagreed. Some stated that the time to have the gun control discussion is always "NOW" as opposed to later. I understand that, and respect that opinion. I just disagreed. I still think the event was politicized and turned into a tool the same day it happened which seemed to belittle the humanity involved. 

At any rate, it's a few days later. The debate has been going on. Some saying "gun control now," others saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well, that last statement is true, but the availability of those so-called "assault" weapons do make it easier for people to kill people. To me, that is just simple truth. Does that, however, make an all out ban on "assault" weapons the solution to the issue? I don't know. I just don't. I don't think I have enough information and factual data to say that. 

What I do know is that the majority of gun-owners in this country are responsible folks who respect firearms and know how to properly use, maintain and store them. Further, the majority of these folks teach their children/grandchildren that same respect and responsibility. They own firearms for many different reasons: recreational shooting (target shooting), hunting, protection, seemingly ridiculous "doomsday prepping," etc. 

Many times over the past few days I've heard/read the arguments: "no one needs an assault rifle," "no single household needs more than one gun," no one needs a semi-automatic weapon" to name a few. As far as the "no one needs" anything argument, I just don't find that reasonable. There are plenty of things that no one "needs" that people still have. Exotic animals, multiple expensive automobiles, private islands, other kinds of weapons, etc. "Need" is such an over-used, and misused word these days. Obviously most of us have things we don't "need." Some then answer "but cars and other things aren't made for killing, guns are." I guess I have to disagree again. While the argument can be made that firearms are specifically made to kill, I don't think that is their sole purpose. One of the few activities that my father and I were able to "bond" with was target shooting. I enjoyed the times I went to the range with my dad. There were times I went to the range with others and we shot everything from revolvers to AR-15s. Each and every time I went to the range (no matter how many times I'd been) I was always reminded of the "rules." Is it fair to take away those "assault" weapons from hobbyists and enthusiasts who follow the rules and take proper precautions to secure those weapons and keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them? Maybe it isn't fair, but maybe it's necessary? Again, I don't know. I tend to think it isn't the solution because it's those responsible folks that I WANT to have those firearms. 

"No one needs a semi-automatic weapon." This seems to be one of the poorest arguments I've heard. Again it's the misuse of the word "need" relative to all of our other possessions, but that's not really the point. Other than a muzzleloader or other very old firearms, basically EVERY gun made today is "semi-automatic." Even a revolver could be considered "semi-automatic" because it allows the shooter to fire several rounds without physically reloading the weapon. Hunting rifles and shotguns are "semi-automatic" in that they may hold several rounds that can be fired in relatively rapid succession without physically reloading. I don't think this argument is worded properly to be relevant to the discussion. Be more specific about the types of weaponry you feel should be banned. 

While I'm not opposed to stricter regulations (particularly with regard to gun shows and private trades), I am opposed to an all-out ban on anything. Could I be persuaded, given ample valid evidence to support its success, to ban all assault rifles? Possibly. I'm not so married to the idea that private citizens should be rightful in possessing all kinds of firearms, but I am against an all-out ban on weapons without a realistic expectation that such a ban would resolve the problem. Again, I just don't have enough information. If we ask, how many of the guns used in these mass murders were a) legally obtained and b) legally and rightfully in the hands of the perpetrators, what answer other than 100% supports those stricter regulations? If the weapons being used in these crimes were illegally obtained (by criminals who obviously have no regard for human life let alone federal, state or local laws) then how would stricter laws prevent these events recurring? Some say that simply reducing the availability would keep these weapons out of the hands of those who don't need them. Possibly, but I don't logically see how that works. Do you systematically collect all of those firearms from private citizens? If so, what incentive would anyone other than a responsible law-abiding citizen have to turn those guns in? Those firearms would instantly increase in value and become even more desirable on the black market. The result is that criminals will still have access to those weapons, albeit more difficult, while responsible folks will not. Does that mean we should or shouldn't move forward with said ban? Again, I don't know. I don't know. 

Ultimately I think there is a multi-faceted response to the country as a whole that is essential to tackling this problem. It includes ensuring proper mental health care to those who need it, and instruction on how to identify those individuals early on. That will likely mean us giving up some of our privacy with regard to medical data, and it will mean additional bureaucracy to oversee said data (which I personally think is a nightmare). 

I think it includes a redefinition of "masculinity" in this country. Out of the 62 mass murders in the past half-century, 61 have been perpetrated by males. The profiles generally show a very intelligent younger male with social issues. My personal opinion is that it goes into the image of masculinity, and what it means to be a "real man." Males, especially in the South, are generally taught to hide feelings, bottle them up, to not show emotion, etc. I also think that young people today are more and more emotional, and I think the literal bombardment of information and opinion through television, social media, and pop culture give these young people conflicting ideas of that image of masculinity which can cause internal conflict. In extreme cases I think it leads to violent action. 

I think it includes a re-examination as a country of how we report news, specifically news of these kinds of attacks. The sensationalist journalism sells, no question, but at what cost? Do we really need to immortalize these shooters by plastering their names and faces over every medium available? Does that encourage others to want to "one-up" the last tragedy? I feel like some of these folks become so twisted that they believe being feared, becoming a monstrosity, is the only way to be noticed. Our video games, our films, our culture is so conducive to rebellion and anarchy that some impressionable minds can't help but be led down such a path. 

I'm not advocating for anything specifically at this point other than discussion. Dialogue. That doesn't mean arguing your "side" as if it is absolute truth. None of us has the knowledge to give a definitive absolute answer on this. What we all have are our opinions, and our feelings. If we can learn to express ourselves in a civil manner, perhaps we can discover some specific measures to take in preventing these tragedies in the future. Do those measures include tighter gun laws? Perhaps. Do they include all-out bans on "semi-automatic" weapons? Personally I don't think so. I think that by unequivocally making guns the scapegoat here we are missing the bigger picture. Guns are just the tools, the "symptoms" if you will, of a much larger societal illness. Let's not rush down one path without addressing everything. Let's not treat the symptoms without trying to eliminate the illness. Let's not call each other "wrong" in hastily shoving our narrow answer down others throats lest we miss some essential corrections that could also help. For any side of this to proclaim absolutely that its one-dimensional response is the absolute and only answer is simply ignorant (and I hate the word ignorant for its constant misusage - it's being used correctly here). So that's my 2 cents.