I got online to look at the news and saw that actor Matthew Perry had died. He was Chandler Bing on FRIENDS which ran from the fall of 1994 to the spring of 2004 for ten seasons. The star also starred Courtney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Jennifer Aniston, and David Schwimmer.
Mr. Perry stood out due to his delivery. It was very unnatural but often funny. Megan Mullally probably did the best send up of it -- in the sixth season of WILL & GRACE, the 19th episode "No Sex 'N' The City." Karen and Jack (Sean Hayes) are upset that their shows FRIENDS, SEX AND THE CITY, and FRAISER are going off the air and, of FRIENDS, Karen says (in Chandler Bing delivery), "Could a show be any funnier?" It even tops the episode of FRIENDS where Matt LeBlanc tries to speak like Chandler.
He acted in many shows before and after FRIENDS. Prior to FRIENDS, his best TV credit was in SYDNEY a sadly unfunny TV sitcom starring Valerie Bertinelli. Ms. Bertinelli was coming off the long running sitcom ONE DAY AT A TIME where she played the beloved Barbara Cooper which was the only reason the show aired. It should have been so much better. The cast was not the problem -- Ms. Berntinelli, Mr. Perry, and Craig Bierko. And had it starred anyone other than Ms. Bertinelli, it would not have made it to air and it would not have lasted for 13 episodes. How sad that his bad autobiography ticked off so many -- including Ms. Bertinelli.
During FRIENDS, he would star in one film bomb after another -- FOOLS RUSH IN, ALMOST HEROES, THREE TO TANGO, THE WHOLE TEN YARDS, and SERVING SARAH. Those were five big bombs that ensure he never became a film star -- or had a film career as a leading man after FRIENDS went off the air. THE WHOLE TEN YARDS was a sequel to THE WHOLE NINE YARDS -- the only film that made money -- not a lot. It only made $57.3 million at the North American box office and the film cost $41.3 million to film.
He just was not very popular except when playing Chandler Bing.
After FRIENDS, he starred in three awful shows, all of which bombed: STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP (unwatchable), MR. SUNSHINE, and GO ON. Three bombs in a row. Then he did THE ODD COUPLE for CBS. As Ava and C.I. noted in 2015's "TV: Let's Hear It For The Boy:"
Post Friends, the former Chandler Bing has struggled.
Since Friends ended, Jennifer Aniston has become a bonafide movie star, Courtney Cox has starred in the long running sitcom Cougar Town, Lisa Kudrow's found success with Web Therapy and The Comeback,
David Schwimmer's directed multiple episode of TV shows and two films,
and even Matt LeBlanc bounced back from the disaster that was Joey with Episodes.
But Perry?
He starred in NBC's bomb comedy-drama hybrid Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip which audiences fled with, followed that with the grossly unfunny Mr. Sunshine and, for his third strike, Go On which set new lows for NBC and for Perry when it came to ratings.
So to be starring in an actual hit is no minor thing.
The hit is CBS' The Odd Couple which has already been a play, a 1968 film and 1998 sequel, an animated Saturday morning offering and two prior TV shows.
All that's come before is felt in the latest incarnation which feels too often like a bald tire.
Why efforts weren't made to update or challenge the formula are obvious questions until one remembers we're talking about CBS.
Matthew Perry plays Oscar Madison -- the slob -- and Thomas Lennon plays Felix -- the priss.
And hilarity ensues -- sometimes.
Often as a result of Yvette Nicole Brown or Leslie Bibb who take the
show in a different (and fresh) direction any time they show up (as Dani
and Casey, respectively).
The show has a strong cast but you have to wonder what would happen if,
for example, Geoff Stults had been cast as Felix instead of Thomas
Lennon or if Wendell Pierce had been cast as Felix instead of Lennon.
Or if Lennon's Felix had been written gay.
(The hint's always been there, even before Tony Randall played the part in the first TV version.)
Lennon's the real problem here.
He's not good looking which wasn't a problem in the 70s but, 30 years
later, even CBS realized you had to offer good looking leads (yes, they
thought Jon Cryer was good looking when they ordered the pilot for Two and A Half Men).
Is Lennon funny enough to overcome his looks?
On Sean Saves The World, he frequently was.
On The Odd Couple?
Not so much.
He's playing the priss.
The problem there is that was Matthew Perry's role on Friends:
Matt LeBlanc was the Oscar to Perry's Felix. So when Perry's given the
opposite role, for the show to work, you either screw with the formula
or you cast far enough away from Perry for the two actors to be actual
opposites.
Lennon hasn't found his footing yet to portray something diametrically
opposed to Perry's Oscar -- an Oscar which is much softer and milder
than what Walter Matthau, Jack Klugman and Demond Wilson offered.
The priss.
Which probably explains his unhappiness. I will always believe that Mr. Perry was either bisexual or gay. He read that way onscreen. Offscreen, there was nothing there. There appeared to be for-show relationships -- like Julia Roberts -- but there was no real love life. At one point, early during the run of FRIENDS, the media tried to make Jamie Tarses his former girlfriend. That was a lie and that started the questions about the reality of his personal life.
He had long running drugs problems and his weight was always going up and down (both are evident in episodes of FRIENDS) and I always thought that was due to his hiding in the closet.
I could be wrong about that.
But it was the most obvious answer.
He probably would have been embraced if he were gay or bisexual and came out as such. Certainly, no one would have been able to claim they were surprised.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Lynn Hastings, the U.N.’s humanitarian coordinator for the Palestinian territories, on Thursday reiterated the agency’s concern over Israel’s demand that residents of northern Gaza move to the south of the enclave, pointing to continued airstrikes even in those areas.
“For people who can’t evacuate—because they have nowhere to go or are unable to move --advance warnings make no difference,” Hastings said. “Nowhere is safe in Gaza.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Butler. I’d like to ask first about the open letter that you signed along with others, other Jewish writers and scholars, urging President Biden to support a ceasefire in Gaza. I’ll just quote a line from the letter, which says, quote, “We condemn attacks on Israeli and Palestinian civilians. We believe it is possible and in fact necessary to condemn Hamas’ actions and acknowledge the historical and ongoing oppression of the Palestinians. We believe it is possible and necessary to condemn Hamas’ attack and take a stand against the collective punishment of Gazans that is unfolding and accelerating as we write.” So, Professor Butler, could you, you know, talk about that? I mean, why — it seems so self-evident, of course, that one can condemn what Hamas did and simultaneously oppose this brutal, ongoing assault on Gaza.
JUDITH BUTLER: Well, it seems to me that one can be opposed, and should be opposed, to the killing of civilians. And that’s a basic ethical precept of war. And so it’s only logical to say that one objects to the killing of civilians on both sides. I think that what is problematic is how often many people who understand themselves as Zionists have said that the Hamas attacks justify the present response on the part of the Israeli military. But as we see, the military powers are radically asymmetrical. And this is not a conflict where, oh, both sides are at fault in some equal way. We have to understand the history of the violence that has been inflicted against Palestine, including Gaza, and I would include as part of that violence the deprivation of the people of drinking water, of healthcare, of basic foods and electricity, that, in other words, the very conditions of life itself have been attacked systematically.
So, I think that I can’t speak for all of the people who signed that letter. But as Jews, we do say, “Not in our name.” This is the — what the Israeli state is doing, what the Israeli military forces are doing does not represent us. It doesn’t represent our values. And because, as I’ve said, I think what we’re seeing is the implementation of a genocidal plan, according to international legal definitions of genocide, as Jews, it is imperative, ethically, politically, to speak out against genocide, just as it is to speak out against the production of a new class of refugees or the intensification of refugee status for so many Palestinians, who have, in some cases, been refugees since 1948. Their families have. So, that’s, I think, the basic thinking behind that petition.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Butler, I wanted to turn to John Kirby, the spokesperson for the National Security Council, who was speaking this week at a White House press briefing.
JOHN KIRBY: This is war. It is combat. It is bloody, it is ugly, and it’s going to be messy. And innocent civilians are going to be hurt, going forward. I wish I could tell you something different. I wish that that wasn’t going to happen. But it is. It is going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the killing of civilians is just going to happen. Judith Butler, if you could respond also, as a Jewish professor, for those in the Israeli government, like Naftali Bennett, who have said, “Are you seriously talking about Palestinian civilians?” that if you are to raise your concerns about Palestinians, that it somehow minimizes what happens on — what happened on October 7th, the killing of 1,400 Israelis, the worst killing of — mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust?
JUDITH BUTLER: So, when the national security spokesperson claims that it’s just too bad that civilians will lose their lives in Gaza, and that he wishes that it were not the case, he is, in fact, lying. Civilians are targeted. And I think we can also say that one of the things that is happening right now is that — and it has been happening for some time — is that the Israeli state claims that all these civilian targets it hits are shields for military installations. Well, that’s a very convenient explanation, but it doesn’t explain the bombing of homes, the bombing — and the targeting and bombing of people as they are fleeing the north to the south. So, I think that this is bad faith, at best, and a brutal lie, if we’re to be honest.
I think, as well, that there are, unfortunately, some Jewish groups and Zionist groups that care fully or exclusively or primarily about Jewish life, and their position is that the destruction of Jewish life is the worst possible thing in the world — and it is terrible. It’s absolutely terrible. But Jewish life is no more valuable than Palestinian life. And I think that you might find a number of people who agree with that in the abstract, but they take the massive targeting, the slaughter campaign against Gaza as justifiable, because no amount of violence can possibly compensate for their sense of injury.
I would just add that it is extremely difficult to get the media and the press to offer graphic and detailed descriptions of what the suffering is in Gaza. We hear much more, say, in The New York Times about Israeli lives and the losses they’ve endured. But we never get the same kind of coverage of Palestine. We sometimes get numbers. And as you’ve seen, those numbers could be disputed, even by Biden, even though they’re supplied by United Nations agencies or respectable agencies on the ground. So, there are all kinds of ways of minimizing and derealizing — that is to say, making fake or making illusory — Palestinian deaths. And I think our job, as scholars, activists, people in journalism, is to bring that into the open and make these lives and these deaths meaningful for the greater public.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Butler, I’d like to ask about your own work. You’ve written extensively on the question of why certain lives are valued more than others. If you could speak specifically about how this is reflected not only in the comments we just heard from John Kirby, but also in media coverage, mainstream media coverage, of the war here in the U.S. I’ll just quote from your 2009 work, Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? In the book, you write, quote, “When we take our moral horror to be a sign of our humanity, we fail to note that the humanity in question is, in fact, implicitly divided between those for whom we feel urgent and unreasoned concern and those whose lives and deaths simply do not touch us, or do not appear as lives at all.” So, if you could, Professor Butler, speak about this and how it’s manifest, in particular, as you were talking about earlier in The New York Times, in the U.S. media? And you’re in Paris at the moment, so you could perhaps also address this as it’s reflected in the European media.
JUDITH BUTLER: Well, first of all, let’s just state what I take to be obvious and true, which is that the settler colonial framework of Israel’s occupation of Palestine is a racist one, and Palestinians are figured as less than human. They’re among the non-Europeans. There are obviously Jewish non-Europeans, as well. But they are racialized, and they are treated as less than human. So the loss of those lives is not marked and acknowledged as a loss. Of course, it is within Palestine. I mean, there are always ways of gathering and mourning and carrying the dead and honoring the dead. So, we’re talking only from the point of view of those who believe that the elimination of Palestinian lives or the constant damaging of Palestinian lives is somehow justified. They’re not seeing those lives as human lives, according to the idea of the human they have.
And we’ve seen this when Netanyahu calls them animals or others call them barbaric, or, let’s keep in mind, when they are understood to be just a strategic problem: “Oh, here’s this population that has to be managed. Maybe it can be deported.” So, you know, when someone like — when someone from the Israeli government talks about relocating Palestinians to Sinai, making them into an Egyptian problem, investigating housing that’s available outside of Cairo, they are actually talking about deporting people as if they’re goods or chattel, as if they have the right to do so, as if they own these people or that these people are somehow movable goods. This is already not just a radical dehumanization, but it makes possible the brutal treatment, the deportation and the killing that is in play right now. And I think we’re not just seeing random acts of bombardment. We’re seeing a plan unfold. And unless it’s interrupted by the U.S. and other major powers, it will be devastating.
Of course, in Europe, and in Paris, there was, for a time, an interdiction against supporting Palestine through public protest. And luckily, the Constitutional Court here struck that executive decision down, and at least 20,000 people were on the street just last weekend. And, of course, we’re seeing it more and more in U.S. academic circles, but also in European ones. Unless people condemn Hamas, they are not considered acceptable. They’re considered to be antisemitic. Unless people support Israel unequivocally, they are understood to be antisemitic or aligned with terrorism. And, of course, as soon as that happens, those who want to object publicly or at their universities to the injustice that’s being committed risk losing support, losing their jobs, becoming stigmatized. I know academics who have been suspended here and in Switzerland. I know, certainly, academics in Germany who try to speak out, who are then tarred with the accusation of being antisemitic.
It’s not antisemitic to criticize the state of Israel if the state of Israel is a settler colonial state that’s doing violence of an extraordinary kind. One objects to violence. One objects to settler colonial arrangements. One objects to injustice. Indeed, as a Jew, you’re obligated to object to injustice. You would not be a good Jew if you were not objecting to injustice. So, to be called antisemitic — and I have been called that for years by those who oppose me — because I stand for values that are also Jewish values, shared values, but Jewish values, too, is simply appalling.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened to you in Bern. In fact, we thought we were going to be interviewing you in Switzerland, but you had a talk canceled.
JUDITH BUTLER: Well, I canceled my own talk, because I saw that speaking at the University of Bern under these conditions would have produced a controversy and could have possibly hurt my hosts and their department. But it is true that there are certain places where people who are clearly anti-Zionist or who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which I do, that there are protests, that there are efforts to censor, there are efforts to take away forms of recognition or to block the gate. I mean, this is only intensifying on U.S. campuses. And, of course, we need to protect the right of assembly and protest and demonstration. To be in solidarity with Palestine is not necessarily to agree with all the military actions of Hamas, but it is to stand with the people who are being targeted in a genocidal manner.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Butler, if you could also speak about what you think a possible resolution to the present crisis is? Also, in the context of your 2020 book, The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind, how is it that we take your injunction, your urging of nonviolence — and, of course, it’s a complicated position that you take — to understand how this situation could potentially come to an end?
JUDITH BUTLER: Well, I do think, first of all, a ceasefire is immediately necessary. But then I think there will be no resolution unless Gazans are allowed to return to their homes and to rebuild them and to undertake the mourning and the living that is theirs to do. I think the occupation has to come to an end, and I include the siege of Gaza as part of the occupation. It’s sometimes said that, oh, Gaza is no longer occupied, that the occupation ended in 2005. That’s not true. It may be that troops pulled back, but every bit of that border, except perhaps the Rafah gate, is patrolled and controlled by Israeli state authorities. And that means that goods and people can’t come and go without Israeli authority. So there’s no political autonomy to speak of under conditions such as those.
But I also think that the kind of deportations we’re seeing right now, they happened in 1948, when the Nakba began. The Nakba is not just a single event that happened in 1948. It is an ongoing condition. So the violence we see now, the killing, the massacre, the dislocation, is a continuation of the Nakba. It is perhaps its most graphic moment in the present. But we should not be imagining that, oh, if we solve this particular conflict now, we will have gotten to the root of the problem. The root of the problem involves finding a way for Palestinians to have full power of self-determination, to live in a democratic society, for dispossession to come to an end, for stolen lands to be returned or acknowledged or for reparation to be given, and also a right of return for a lot of people who have been forced to leave under terrible circumstances.
AMY GOODMAN: Judith Butler, we want to thank you very much for being with us, philosopher, political commentator, gender studies scholar, distinguished professor in the Graduate School at University of California, Berkeley, and the Hannah Arendt chair at the European Graduate School, on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Since we have two minutes on the satellite left, that title of the Hannah Arendt school, if you could say where you think Hannah Arendt would stand today?
JUDITH BUTLER: Well, there are different parts of Hannah Arendt, but I would say that she was very smart in 1948 when she wrote that basing the state of Israel on the principle of Jewish sovereignty is a terrible mistake, and that it would produce conflict of a military character for decades to come. She was arguing for a binational structure, a pluralistic structure, where Jews and Palestinians could cohabit the land, where there would be some form of equality. I’m not sure her plan was totally worked out. It seemed to be derived from Martin Buber to a certain degree. But she did think that no state could be based on an ethnic or religious form of sovereignty without producing displacement for all the people who don’t belong to that religion, that ethnicity. So, she did predict that Israel would produce a massive class of refugees, and that it would be mired in conflict for years to come.
And it’s also why I think we have to remember the right of return. We will not get to the root of the problem unless we understand the more than — the millions of Palestinians whose families have been living in forced exile for all these years, and give them some acknowledgment, some reparation, some way of honoring the right of return.
AMY GOODMAN: Thank you so much. To see Part 1 of our conversation with the professor at University of California, Berkeley, we want to urge you to go to democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
Indeed, effective political or military actions anywhere in the world hardly take place without an edifice of text and language that facilitates, rationalizes, and justifies those actions. Israel’s perception of Palestinians is a perfect illustration of this claim.
Prior to the establishment of Israel, Zionists denied the very existence of the Palestinians. Many still do.
When that is the case, it becomes only logical to draw a conclusion that Israel, in its own collective mind, cannot be morally culpable of killing those who have never existed in the first place.
Even when Palestinians factor into the Israeli political discourse, they become “bloodthirsty animals,” “terrorists,” or “drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”
It would be too convenient to label this as just “racist.” Though racism is at work here, this sense of racial supremacy does not exist to merely maintain a sociopolitical order, in which Israelis are masters and Palestinians are serfs. It is far more complex.
As soon as Palestinian fighters from Gaza crossed into the southern border of Israel, killing hundreds, not a single Israeli politician, analyst, or mainstream intellectual seemed interested in the context of the daring act.
The post-October 7 language used by Israelis, but also many Americans, created the atmosphere necessary for the savage Israeli response which followed.
The number of Palestinians killed in the first eight days of the Israeli war against Gaza has reportedly exceeded the number of casualties who were killed during the longest and most destructive Israeli war on the strip, dubbed “Protective Edge,” in 2014.
According to The Defense for Children International–Palestine, a Palestinian child is killed every 15 minutes, and, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, over 70% of all of Gaza’s casualties are women and children.
For Israel, none of these facts matter. In the mind of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, often perceived as a “moderate,” the “rhetoric about civilians not (being) involved (is) absolutely not true.” They are legitimate targets, simply because they “could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime,” he said, referring to Hamas.
The support of Washington and the European powers for Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians in Gaza and the looming prospect of a US war with Iran have provoked a desperate crisis in Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government.
After the Israel-Gaza war broke out on October 7, Erdoğan initially tried to block a mass movement against Israeli bombings in Gaza. Turkish riot police assaulted solidarity protests with Gaza, as Erdoğan called for “de-escalation” and a “ceasefire,” equating the violence of the Palestinians with the imperialist-backed Israeli state. On Wednesday, however, as the Israeli regime ignored his calls for “restraint” and outrage mounted in the overwhelming majority of the Turkish people, he was forced to suddenly shift his policy.
In a speech at a meeting of his party, Erdoğan said: “We have made every effort in order for this crisis to not further escalate, and will continue to do so … We have clearly stated that we never approve of any acts against civilians, including Israeli civilians, no matter who carries these acts out.” He added: “We do not have any problem with the State of Israel, but we never have and never will approve of Israeli oppression and their course of action, which resembles that of an organization rather than a state.”
The advocacy group estimated that this is the largest number of complaints received in a similar time period since former President Trump, a presidential candidate at the time, announced his intentions for a Muslim ban in the United States in 2015.
“Anyone with a conscience should be deeply concerned by this sudden rise in complaints amid an atmosphere of rampant anti-Muslim bigotry and anti-Palestinian racism,” Corey Saylor, research and advocacy director at CAIR, said.
“Public officials should do everything in their power to keep the wave of hate sweeping the nation right now from spiraling out of control,” Saylor added. “That includes bringing the horrific violence overseas to an end before it endangers more innocent people there and here at home.”
President Biden's approval rating among Democrats has plummeted to a record low of 75% — down a staggering 11 percentage points over just the last month, according to a new Gallup poll conducted between Oct. 2 and Oct. 23.
Why it matters: Biden is at risk of alienating members of his own party with his unequivocal support for Israel, which has carried out a weeks-long bombardment and total siege of Gaza in response to Hamas' Oct. 7 terrorist attacks.
- An annual Gallup poll conducted in February found that Democrats sympathized more with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time in the survey's two-decade history.
- The divide is particularly stark between generations: Less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the U.S. should publicly voice support of Israel, according to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.
You've been away for far too long
You can't come back and think you are still mine
My poor discarded baby
I said, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
I said, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
You are left out
Out of there without a doubt, 'cause
Baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
October 26, 2023
Read issue 975
Our email address is BlackCommentator@gmail.com
Our voicemail number is 856.823.1739
-
City of Oil2 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Crooked Clarence6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Arroz Con Pollo in the Kitchen6 hours ago
-
Closet case6 hours ago
-
Zero Accountability for War Crimes9 hours ago
-
-
-
-
