Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008
Piper Laurie remembers the smoldering genius of George C. Scott
BY MICHAEL SRAGOW
(09/30/99)
Michael Sragow's retrospective on the late George C. Scott evoked memories in me -- not personal, of course, but those of a movie-goer.
I remember Gen. Buck Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove," explaining with quivering enthusiasm to a shocked war room how his bombers can slip in under the Russian radar. His whole body has become a bomber, arms spread and at an angle. His eyes shine with a dark pride, his mouth shows a smile, teeth like the teeth of a skull. He's a perfect complement to Peter Sellers' timid president.
I also remember a lesser-known film, "The Flim-Flam Man": Scott is the old con artist, explaining to his young "student" the fine points of the flim-flam. Those eyes again, twinkling with the enjoyment of the con.
And finally, "Anatomy of a Murder," the courtroom drama. The powerful image I have is of James Stewart arguing in court. There is turmoil and arguing going on around Dancer, the prosecutor, which was Scott's character, but he sits controlled, hands together as if in prayer, thumbs pressed against his lips and nose. Again his eyes are alive, but controlled. Suddenly Stewart slaps his hand down, angrily, on the table right in front of Scott. Scott barely flinches. Every time I see that, I think, "What characterization. What concentration."
I will miss George C. Scott because I enjoy good acting.
-- Bob Siegmann
Who's the real underdog?
BY ANTHONY YORK
(10/02/99)
Anthony York misses a major point. If a major candidate must be "media ready" -- the filter through which York seems to judge Bradley -- then we will never rid ourselves of multimillion-dollar politicians. The media are a major part of the problem, because they create the problem.
I support Bradley simply because I believe he would at least try to fix this broken political system. This is a judgment on my part about his character, not an agreement in every detail to his program.
If Bradley does not succeed, it does not matter to me whether Bush (the likely winner in this case) or Gore becomes president. Both are the ghostly conceits of television, and not anyone I will ever know. I don't expect them to do anything that would really help me or the people I know.
-- Walter L. Battaglia
Davis, Calif.
York tries to paint Bradley as out of touch with reality -- as though every other significant presidential candidate weren't also an elite politician and therefore just as out of touch. Bradley, the candidate with the most serious, clearly defined proposals for change, is the last one who should be called a "cipher." The result of his candidacy will tell us a lot about what kind of leaders America really wants -- this is a race of substance vs. style, ideas vs. polls. Every article like York's that treats image as more important than the issues contributes to the ongoing dominance of slick, fake politicians. I suppose it was only to be expected that the media would turn on Bradley the moment he stopped being the underdog, but it's too bad to see Salon leading the way. Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single article in Salon that actually analyzes Bradley's policy proposals -- or anyone else's, for that matter. A magazine that fails to make a positive contribution has no right to critique the status quo.
-- Tom Davies
Takoma Park, Md.
Said who?
BY CHRIS COLIN
(10/04/99)
Chris Colon manages to both damn Edward Said with faint praise and coin a new oxymoron. Colin writes of Said's just-published memoirs that "'Out of Place' offers sufficient evidence to exonerate Said of any blatant obfuscation." However, obfuscation is by definition subtle rather than blatant. To have engaged in "blatant obfuscation" on the subject of his uncle's house in Jerusalem, Said would have had to tell lies about the house which were at once both clear and confusing -- an obvious impossibility. So to defend Said against a charge of "blatant obfuscation" concerning that house is meaningless.
-- Jonathan S. Mark
Alexandria, Va.
Get Salon in your mailbox!