February 2007 - Page 2 of 6 - Ramblin' with Roger

Oscar 2006/2007 QUESTIONS

There was this recent newspaper story about famous local author Bill Kennedy
Oscar? He’s an old friend of this author, in which “Kennedy uses his love of movies to help choose Academy Award nominees and vote for winner”. It occurred to me – again – that the process of voting is not directly related to the quality of the film, but many other factors. So, I’m going to make picks, based not on who I want to win, or who OUGHT to win (given the holes in what I’ve seen, I really can’t do that), but who I think will win.

* indicates the sparse number of performances I actually saw – all in the movie theater, BTW, as opposed to on DVD or video, which I contend changes the viewing experience

BEST ACTOR
Leonardo DiCaprio-Blood Diamond. If he’d been nominated for The Departed, i think he’d have had a better chance.
Ryan Gosling-Half Nelson. Well-received. No one saw it.
Peter O’Toole-Venus. The man’s been up, what seven, eight times before. Where’s the love?
*Will Smith-The Pursuit Of Happyness. Good, but isn’t going to win.
Forest Whitaker-The Last King Of Scotland. Not only as an actor, but as a producer and director. You know how Hollywood loves the hypenates: Robert Redford, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, pre-meltdown. He wins.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Jackie Earle Haley-Little Children. Won some of the minor awards; wouldn’t totally shock me.
Djimon Hounsou-Blood Diamond. Wish I’d seen this. In the commercials, he seems to be in a constant state of rage. Anyway, I’m not hearing the buzz from the early awards.
*Eddie Murphy-Dreamgirls. The odds-on favorite, won lots of the early awards. But Norbit ads are not helping the cause. And he isn’t Hollywood friendly.
Mark Wahlberg-The Departed. Ptractically every pre-Oscar prognosticator had Jack in this slot, so I think it mitigates against Wahlberg.
*Alan Arkin-Little Miss Sunshine. Been around, likable film. I’m going against the wave and picking the salty grandad. (If I pick all the obvious choices, what’s the fun in that?)
BEST ACTRESS
*Penélope Cruz-Volver. It’s in Spanish, with subtitles. No.
*Judi Dench-Notes On A Scandal. She’s better than the film. Probably my second pick, and if there’s an upset in the category, she’ll win.
*Meryl Streep-The Devil Wears Prada. She’s already gotten her Oscar gold.
Kate Winslet-Little Children. Someday this woman, who’s been nominated more than anyone else at her age, will get one. Not this year.
*Helen Mirren-The Queen. Who I am to argue with EVERY major award-giving organization?
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Adriana Barraza-Babel. Might win, but will be cancelled out by Rinko Kikuchi.
*Cate Blanchett-Notes On A Scandal. Won two years ago.
*Abigail Breslin-Little Miss Sunshine. Anna Paquin notwithstanding, they ain’t gonna give it to a kid.
Rinko Kikuchi-Babel. Might win, but will be cancelled out by Adriana Barraza.
*Jennifer Hudson-Dreamgirls. People applauded in the theater when Ms. 7th Place on American Idol sang. The “slight” that Dreamgirls not getting Best Picture may actually enhance her Hudson’s chances. My one concern is whether Dreamgirls plays as well on DVD as it does in the theater.
BEST DIRECTOR:
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu-Babel. Heard it was a bit of a mess.
Clint Eastwood-Letters from Iwo Jima. With two well-regarded films, and that hyphenate thing going, Eastwood should have a chance. But the film is in Japanese, and I don’t see the older voters actually watching it. Moreover, he’s won recently; are people sick of him winning?
*Stephen Frears-The Queen. Nice little film, which I saw. Don’t think it’ll win.
Paul Greengrass-United 93. By all accounts, a respectful retelling. I’m guessing that some of those screening DVDs will stay in the shrink wrap. (Do screening DVDs COME in shrink wrap?)
Martin Scorsese-The Departed. Finally. When the speculation came up with him on his last two nominated films, it felt forced. But this movie was well-reviewed. It’s time.
BEST PICTURE:
I could make a case for any of them.
Babel-For those who like the convoluted style of Traffic or Crash.
The Departed-For those who want to show Marty and the cast the love.
Letters from Iwo Jima-Since it’s ineligible for Best Foreign Language Film by the Academy, let’s show our love for Clint here, without slighting Marty.
*The Queen-All the other films split the vote, and the monarch reigns.
*Little Miss Sunshine-The Screen Actors Guild Best Assemble film is dark enough that a comedy finally wins for Best Picture. Maybe it’s the fact that I REALLY LIKED THIS FILM, but I’m going to pick Sunshine. Or Babel. Or The Departed. Maybe Iwo Jima. The Queen? OK, Sunshine, even though it wasn’t even nominated for Best Director. (But if it doesn’t, it’ll probably win the Screenplay award.)

So, who do you think will win, and why? If you have a blog/web page and have already commented on this, please leave your link.

If I were to run out tomorrow night to see one more film before Oscar night, I would tend to look for the one that will give me the most major nominees for the buck, such as Babel or Little Children, but don’t know if I’ll have time.

MOVIE REVIEWS: Volver; Notes on a Scandal

On Washington’s Birthday weekend 1998, I saw five movies, four of them nominated for Academy Awards: L.A. Confidential and Mrs. Brown on Saturday. Afterglow (starring Julie Christie) and some strange French film on Sunday. Don’t remember which Oscar-nominated film on Monday, maybe The Apostle or The Sweet Hereafter. In any case, by Oscar night, I’d seen every film in the six major categories, (movie, director, 2 actor, 2 actress categories) except Ulee’s Gold with Peter Fonda.

On Washington’s Birthday weekend 2007, I saw two movies, both nominated for Academy Awards. By Oscar night, I will have missed several performances in the major categories. Ah well.

Grandma and Grandpa were up watching Lydia, so that Carol and I could see the Sunday film, Volver (To return), starring Penelope Cruz. I don’t recall having seen her in anything except Pedro Almodovar’s Todo sobre mi madre (All About My Mother), in which, if I’m remembering correctly, she played a pregnant nun. Almodovar’s Volver is the more conventional film. The returnee is the Cruz character’s dead mother. I enjoyed the unraveling of the mystery; Carol really enjoyed it. Almodovar tends to luxuriate over certain parts of the female body on occasion, such as their rears, and there’s what’s probably an extraneous shot of Cruz washing dishes, shot from above. Ms. Cruz has been criticized for her lightweight acting, but in this film, in her native tongue, the Madrid-born actress is wonderfully caustic, funny and passionate.

The Monday film featured Judi Dench, who I had seen nine years earlier in Mrs. Brown, and Cate Blanchette. Just from the previews, I knew that Dame Dench would be chewing the scenery, and she does, eventually, but so does Ms. Blanchette. My wife said she felt as though she needed a shower afterwards, and I understood what she meant. The Philip Glass score was too much – too loud, and occasionally too obvious and obtrusive. The performances are better than the movie, but I’m not sure that I can explain why.

It’s All About Me, You, Us

Happy Ash Wednesday! Wait a minute, it’s Lent…somber and reflective Ash Wednesday. (Or is that just a function of post-Mardi Gras hangovers?)
Where are my Requiems? I need to play Requiems during Lent – Faure. Rutter. The German by Bach. Of course, Mozart. Gets me in the mood.
At least in the tradition in our church, we usually end the service with Allelujah, Amen, but during Lent, just the Amen until Easter.
***
Snow removal in Albany-ha! I’m not talking aboout the street snow, for which the city has justifiably been criticized, but the sidewalks, which after nearly a week of warming temperatures are still often impassable. Yeah, the city can fine people, but I’m talking about the social contract. I’ve been out at least thrice since the snow stopped to continually widen the path in front of our house. Meanwhile, there are people who seem to believe that the spelling of snow removal is s-p-r-i-n-g. We’re Northeasterners, people, we should know how to do this.
***
In re: this comment: “Two hours of television a week for me, dude! The Net is where it’s at!” – what’s the diff? User-Generated Content on TV (see Doritos’ Super Bowl ads). TV on the web (see the vast majority of newtork programming. It’s the message, not the medium.
***
And speaking of television, I find myself, disturbingly, agreeing in part, with former Reagan special assistant Peggy Noonan. She has a weekly column in the weekend Wall Street Journal called Declarations. This past weekend, she wrote a piece called They Sold Their Soul for a Pot of Message about the early Presidential race; the title reference is a play on words re: Esau in the Book of Genesis selling “his soul for a mess of pottage.”

The most dismaying thing I’ve noticed the past 10 years on television is that ordinary people who are guests on morning news shows — the man who witnessed the murder, the housewife who ran from the flames — speak, now, in perfect sound bites. They also cry on cue. They used to ramble, like unsophisticated folk, and try to keep their emotions to themselves. Anchors had to take them in hand. “But what happened then?” Now the witness knows what’s needed, and how to do it. “And when she didn’t come home, Matt, I knew: this is not like her. And I immediately called the authorities.”

Why does this dismay? Because it’s another stepping away from the real. Artifice detaches us even from ourselves.
***
Primary Research Group has published a new edition of The Survey of College Marketing Programs. The 170-page study presents more than 650 tables of data relating to college marketing efforts, exploring trends in television, radio,newspaper and magazine advertising, direct mail, college viewbook and magazine publishing, and use of web ads, blogs, search engine placement enhancement, and other internet related marketing. The report also looks closely at spending by colleges on marketing consultancies, market research firms, and advertising and public relations agencies.

The data in the report is broken out by enrollment size, type of college, public/private status, and even by the extent to which colleges draw their applicants from the local area. Fifty-five colleges completed an exhaustive questionnaire. A list of participants is available at our website.

Just a few of the study’s many findings appear below:

• 17.65% of the colleges in the sample make payments to search engines for higher search engine placement in searches. More than a quarter of private colleges make such payments, but only a bit more than 10% of public colleges do so.

• 15.69% of the colleges in the sample have used podcasts as a way to market the college. Podcasts were used most by the research universities in the sample.

• Close to 86% of the colleges in the sample publish a viewbook; all of the private colleges in the sample and three quarters of the public colleges in the sample publish viewbooks.
The mean number of (traditional print) viewbooks distributed by the colleges in the sample in 2006 was 12,954.

• 29.41% of the colleges in the sample offered a PDF version of the viewbook.

• A shade more than 23% say that they are printing fewer and fewer viewbooks each year

• More than twice as many colleges in the sample said that their volume of direct mail for marketing the college had increased over the past two years than said that it had decreased in this same period.

• About 61% of the colleges in the sample include a virtual tour of the college campus on the college website. Larger colleges were somewhat more likely than smaller colleges to have a virtual tour of the campus on the college website. Only 20% of the community colleges in the sample had a virtual tour of the campus on the college website.

• The colleges in the sample received a mean of 53.5% of their applications through the college website, and this figure ranged from 0 to 100%.

• 20.45% of the colleges in the sample have an employee on the college enrollment, marketing, public relations or admissions staffs who is assigned the role of responding to comments about the college or otherwise providing information about the college to bloggers.

• 13.7% of the colleges in the sample use any form of paid advertising service from Google

• Mean annual spending on advertising agencies was $28,800 with median spending of $5,000.

• More than 75% of the colleges in the sample published their own magazines about the college.

• Close to 80% of the colleges in the sample have advertised on the radio; both public and private colleges use radio advertising and college size is not a major determinant of radio advertising use.

• 26.42% of the colleges in the sample have advertised on cable television within the past two years.
***
In the same vein as TIME Magazine naming me, I mean YOU, as the person of the year last year, Ad Age named The Consumer as Ad Agency of the Year. So this book review I came across interested me:

Let the Seller Beware by Frank Rose. Wall Street Journal. December 20, 2006, p. D.10

“Citizen Marketers” [By Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba; Kaplan Publishing, 223 pages, $25] offers a solid, sometimes insightful explanation of how the Internet has armed the consumer — which is to say, everyone — against the mindless blather of corporate messaging attempts. The stories it tells are not all negative by any means: For every vengeful YouTube posting there are countless blogs that celebrate products as diverse (and unlikely) as Chicken McNuggets, Barq’s root beer and HBO’s “Deadwood.” The author of a blog called Slave to Target confesses that the thought of shopping at Target stores makes her “simply feel orgasmic.” The point is that in the current era of blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds, mashups, Flickr, YouTube, MySpace and whatever is coming next week, corporate decision-makers are losing even the illusion of control. It’s a buyer’s world. Caveat venditor, as [the authors] note: Let the seller beware.

Last March, the Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that 48 million Americans — roughly one-sixth of the population — were posting something or other to the Web. Given that this is a nation of consumers, much of what they’re posting involves some form of comment on consumer products, none of it authorized by the product maker. As the authors note, business people will find this “either astoundingly cool or somewhat alarming.”

The real story of “Citizen Marketers” is the rise of the activist amateur — “amateur” meaning not only a nonprofessional but also, in the original sense, one who loves. We’re seeing a fusion — a mashup, if you will — of two formerly distinct spheres, the private and the public. Privately held brands are being defined not by their owners but by unpaid, and often unwanted, public guardians. In an age when most discussion of the public weal can be filed under “commons, tragedy of,” this is a remarkable development.

Oscar Winning Films I Have Seen

Oh, why not?

1928 – Wings: no
1928 – Sunrise: no (read the Wikipedia explanation on this)
1929 – The Broadway Melody: no
1930 – All Quiet on the Western Front: Seems that I’ve seen parts of it on TV, not enough to say yes
1931 – Cimarron: ditto
1932 – Grand Hotel: no
1933 – Cavalcade: no
1934 – It Happened One Night: No, and given its pedigree(Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay), I feel that I ought to. I’ve seen that famous clip with Claudette Colbert showing Clark Gable how to stop a car dozens of times.
1935 – Mutiny on the Bounty: Saw this on TV years ago, but wasn’t the movie experience I need to really appreciate the film. This isn’t knocking the film, just the environment in which I saw it.
1936 – The Great Ziegfeld: Don’t think so.
1937 – The Life of Emile Zola: no
1938 – You Can’t Take It With You: Seems that I started watching this on broadcast TV.
1939 – Gone With the Wind: Started to maybe three times. Can’t, or deep down, really don’t want to. Seems I’ve seen the burning of Atlanta scene a number of times though, including the first time it aired on network TV a couple decades back.
1940 – Rebecca: no.
1941 – How Green Was My Valley: no
1942 – Mrs. Miniver: no
1943 – Casablanca: Now this is a film I’ve seen, and more than once. It may not have been the first time, but I recall seeing this film outdoor near Rochester with my now-lost friend Debi. I did enjoy this tremendously.
1944 – Going My Way: Saw this on video. It’s OK. Don’t remember it that well, to tell the truth.
1945 – The Lost Weekend: No, but I really want to.
1946 – The Best Years of Our Lives: I did see this, on TV. Didn’t know anything about it except the title. Found it moving, but left me a tad melancholy.
1947 – Gentleman’s Agreement: No, or did I?
1948 – Hamlet: I recorded it at some point. Still haven’t watched it.
1949 – All the King’s Men: Don’t think so.
1950 – All About Eve: I started to, on broadcast TV, but never finished it.
1951 – An American in Paris: Seems that I’ve seen it on PBS or something, years ago. The musical numbers were great and still vivid in my mind, but the rest felt somehow lacking.
1952 – The Greatest Show on Earth: I’m sure I saw it on TV as a kid, but don’t remember enough to comment.
1953 – From Here to Eternity: I’m afraid not yet.
1954 – On the Waterfront: Saw this sometime this century on TV. Quite good. Always liked Lee J. Cobb.
1955 – Marty: not yet
1956 – Around the World in 80 Days: Feels like more TV fare from my childhood.
1957 – The Bridge on the River Kwai: I don’t know that I’ve ever sat from beginning to end, but I’ve seen great chunks of it, enough to appreciate its greatness.
1958 – Gigi: On TV as a kid.
1959 – Ben-Hur: ditto, should probably see again.
1960 – The Apartment: parts, on broadcast TV.
1961 – West Side Story – OK, a movie I saw in the movie theater at the time it came out! Sure it’s a bit dated, but I LOVE this movie. I’ve probably mentioned it on this blog about a dozen times. I’m heavily versed how the musical differs from the movie (the strategic switch of Cool and Gee, Officer Krupke), the dubbing by Marni Nixon. The ending still gets to me. Did I mention that I’m rather fond of this film? Own on VHS and DVD. Have both the Broadway and movie albums.
1962 – Lawrence of Arabia: On TV at some point, but probably didn’t do it justice.
1963 – Tom Jones: no
1964 – My Fair Lady: On TV, enjoyed it well enough.
1965 – The Sound of Music: This movie I saw fairly recently. Much more substantial storyline than I had recalled. And I LOVE the music, even if it encourages Gwen Stefani.
1966 – A Man For All Seasons: Saw years ago, don’t remember much at all.
1967 – In the Heat of the Night: Oh, my. I’m not sure it’s a great film, but it spoke about race in a way that hadn’t seen seen much in American cinema. The slaps in the face were jaw-dropping at the time. Here’s a review that pretty well reflects my opinion.
1968 – Oliver!: Seen bits and pieces.
1969 – Midnight Cowboy: I saw this film four times the first year it came out. Has my favorite line that I use to this day, “I’m WALKING here!” Don’t know if it would still stand up for me, but seeing the clips has a visceral feeling of awe.
1970 – Patton: broadcast TV, didn’t see enough of it.
1971 – The French Connection: Did I see this in Poughkeepsie? (Sorry, line from the movie.) Saw it in the movie theater. Don’t know that it was a great film, but I got caught up in it anyway, especially the chase scene.
1972 – The Godfather: Seems that I was in Binghamton, but that my friends Carol & Jon, and my then-girlfriend Nona drove to Syracuse to see this film. Undoubtedly a masterful work, but along with seeing Catch-22 and A Clockwork Orange, got me off most movies rated R for violence for nearly a decade. It was the horse, the dance that Jimmy Caan does when he’s character’s killed, the keyhole. Haven’t seen the movie since, and I still have too vivid recollections.
1973 – The Sting: In the theater. It was a fun film (with one disturbing scene, I think), the camaraderie was great, the music was great.
1974 – The Godfather Part II: No, still haven’t seen it. I’m sure it’s great.
1975 – One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest: Saw it in a theater years after its release. Great movie.
1976 – Rocky: Saw this movie in Charlotte, NC with my mother. I think it was a bit violent for her, but she liked it. I liked it. A bit cornball, but it worked.
1977 – Annie Hall: Warrants its own post. Saw it four times in the theater. My touchstone movie.
1978 – The Deer Hunter: Was still avoiding the R-rated violence. Never saw.
1979 – Kramer vs. Kramer: I saw Dustin Hoffman on that Actor’s Studio show and he explained that the dialogue at the end was ad libbed. His performance and Meryl Streep’s kept this from soap opera. I felt the sense of frustration the Hoffman character felt. Saw in the theater.
1980 – Ordinary People: I remember liking it at the time, when I saw in the theater, as much for Mary Tyler Moore playing against type as anything. Depressing, though.
1981 – Chariots of Fire: I saw this in the theater the week after the movie won for Best Picture, with my girlfriend at the time, and her son, and we all felt “Is that all there is?” Pretty vistas weren’t enough. Here’s a case where high expectations probably ruined the film for me. I should probably watch it again.
1982 – Gandhi: Epic, moving, I thought at the time when I saw it in the theater, but I haven’t seen it since, and don’t specifically REMEMBER scenes, just feelings.
1983 – Terms of Endearment: Or as I am wont to call it, “Tears of Internment”. Actually, I probably liked the first half, when I saw it in the theater, but after that, pretty much hated it.
1984 – Amadeus: I liked it a lot at the time I saw it in the theater; didn’t care about the historical inaccuracies.
1985 – Out of Africa: Saw in the movie theater, thought it looked nice, but it never engaged me.
1986 – Platoon: Never saw, although I feel that I have.
1987 – The Last Emperor: Saw this in the movie theater and fell asleep. Maybe I was just tired.
1988 – Rain Man: I liked it when I saw it in the theater, thought that Tom Cruise was actually pretty good in it. Got into great debates about whether his character could change so much in a six-day car ride; I contended that it was plausible. Have the soundtrack; the first half includes great tunes I love, the second half standard soundtrack fare.
1989 – Driving Miss Daisy: Had real ambivalence about seeing Morgan Freeman’s “wise old black man” character as someone put it. It was good, but felt very stagy. Saw in a theater.
1990 – Dances With Wolves: I liked it in parts, but it was too long by about 30 minutes. In theater.
1991 – The Silence of the Lambs: Was visiting my parents and was watching HBO, started watching it, bailed.
1992 – Unforgiven: Ambivalent about seeing a western, but ended up liking this movie quite a bit. In the theater.
1993 – Schindler’s List -Oh, yeah. I did see this film in the theater. It’s a very good film. I will NEVER see this film again. I spent more time dissecting this film with the two people I saw it with than the film’s ample running time.
1994 – Forrest Gump: Talked about this here. Some of the others too, I see. The other thing about this movie is the soundtrack picked such the cliches (For What It’s Worth, Get Together) That said, I do own it – bought it used – for the songs that I didn’t own on CD.
1995 – Braveheart: Saw this on a huge screen at Proctor’s Theater in Schenectady, the place you’d want to see a film like this. Ultimately, though, there was at least one too many battle scenes. And that tortured messianic scene at the end – yuck. Made me know that I wouldn’t be seeing his films about Christ or the Amazon people, thank you.
1996 – The English Patient: My goodness, I forgot this won. I was bored to tears by this movie in the theater.
1997 – Titanic: A very schizo movie, part romance, part disaster film. Don’t know that I LIKED it when I saw it in the theater so much as admired the chutzpah of gambling big and pulling it off. Actually liked some of the incidental music, but I don’t expect to see this film again. Ever.
1998 – Shakespeare in Love: I liked it when I saw in the theater. Best picture? Maybe not.
1999 – American Beauty: I liked this one a lot at the time, when I saw it in the theater, but I’m not remembering why.
2000 – Gladiator: Didn’t see, wasn’t interested in seeing.
2001 – A Beautiful Mind: Liked it well enough when I saw it in the theater, but don’t imagine watching again soon.
2002 – Chicago: I was rather fond of it when I saw it in the theater. Occasionally very funny, and occasionally (as with the only woman probably innocent of the crime), somewhat poignant.
2003 – The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Saw the first LotR movie, thought it was fine, didn’t feel compelled to get through the other two. But then, I couldn’t get through 50 pages when I read The Hobbit, which I know to be grand treachery, but there it is.
2004 – Million Dollar Baby: This was the year Lydia was born. Really wanted to see this, but it just didn’t happen.
2005 – Crash: Lots of people HATE this movie, just HATE it. One of my office mates was going on about it recently, citing that it was just condescendingly telling us what we already know. Others hated it for the contrivance of the interlocking stories. For the former, I found that it rang true in my own life, the sibling thing, particularly – maybe Joe Biden should go see it – and for the latter, I was willing to accept the premise. Saw in the theater BEFORE the buzz.
And here’s my theory why Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash, which I, BTW, predicted: most Oscar voters saw it on DVD, where all that Western vista stuff might have been boring. To be honest, I was a little bored myself in the theater; the story didn’t really grab me until they got off the mountain, and Academy voters, with tons of films to view in a short time, might well have just given up on it.

Presidents’ Day

Here’s a link to all of the Presidential Libraries. It, and the holiday, got me thinking about how I would rank the Presidents. Thing is, though, while I REMEMBER all the Presidents, and their years in office (very useful if you ever go on a game show), I don’t always recall just what they DID. I could look it up, but why do that when I have you to fill in the holes?
Washington- the Kelly Clarkson or Richard Hatch of Presidents. It’s tough being first. He could have turned the office into a quasi-monarchy. That he didn’t serves us well. He also came up with that two-term idea.
J. Adams- The fact is that I’m not recalling much other than the Alien & Sedition Act
Jefferson-I think he gets a lot of points for his pre-Presidential stuff, like that Declaration thing. It’s so fortunate that Napoleon was so hung up on holding on to Haiti that he’d sell Louisiana to us for a relative pittance.
Madison- Of all the wars the US ever fought, the one I probably understand the least is the War of 1812.
Monroe-He had some doctrine that said, “Europe, stay out of the Americas! It’s our turf now!” And, over the years, we’ve acted accordingly.
J.Q. Adams- Strange. I remember his controversial 1824 election, and his subsequent service (and death) in the House, but his Presidency doesn’t register.
Jackson- The guy who appears on the $20 bill wasn’t that fond of the national bank. He also believed in the spoils system.
Van Buren-the Herbert Hoovers of his half century, with the downturn in 1837, probably not his fault.
W.H. Harrison-Gave a killer of an inaugural speech.
Tyler-As the first person to become President after not being elected President, don’t think he had much leverage. (But his post-Presidential career really weirded out some guy in Buffalo.)
Polk-I read recently someone comparing his adventurism in Mexico to GW Bush’s actions in Iraq.
Taylor-Was he poisoned?
Fillmore-The last of the Whig Presidents (4 guys, 8 years). Don’t remember if the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed under his tenure or his predecessor’s. The guy pictured, as though you didn’t know.
Pierce-Another one of those ineffectual antebellum Presidents. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, allowing new states whether they’ll be slave or free, didn’t help the situation.
Buchanan-The “bachelor” President. Way out of his league in stopping the war, or maybe it was inevitable.
Lincoln-On the one hand, he saved the Union. On the other hand, he used tactics suspending liberties that the current occupant seems to have purloined.
A. Johnson-From a different party from Lincoln. Impeached and almost convicted. Grant-Was he sober by then?
Hayes-One of my least favorite Presidents. Not only did the 1876 election vs. Tilden make Florida in 2000 seem like due process at its finest, but the end of Reconstruction was disastrous for freed blacks, as the rise of the KKK and other groups took place.
Garfield-Lived a while after being shot, which probably ground the government to a halt.
Arthur-Seemed like a competent public servant.
Cleveland-Definitely need to read up on this – I remember labor and currency issues abounded in the 1880s and 1890s –
B. Harrison-But I’m not remembering…
Cleveland-…the major issues of these administrations.
McKinley-Definitely the hard money, backed by gold, issue. Also the Spanish-American War.
T. Roosevelt-Environmental stuff, didn’t shoot a baby bear, won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the Russo-Japanese War. One of my faves.
Taft-Even though he was TR’s VP, TR was so ticked off by him that he ran as a third party, giving the election to the Democrats.
Wilson-Kept us out of war, for his first term. Got us into war in his second. Was too ill to really push the League of Nations.
Harding-The first President elected after women’s suffrage, and I recall some historian saying “See? See? They should have had the vote,” as though they voted for him because he was (arguably) good looking. Teapot Dome.
Coolidge-Don’t know. They called him Silent Cal.
Hoover-Depression. If he never became President, he would have remembered much more kindly by history.
F.D. Roosevelt-Term 1: great programs to try to get folks out of the Depression. Term 2: the great overreach, with the Supreme Court packing plan. Term 3: TERM 3? WWII, of course. Term 4: TERM 4?! Died early on.
Truman-Dropped the A-bomb (yuck), instituted the Marshall Plan for post-war Europe (yay), was declared politically dead in ’48 (but wasn’t), fired MacArthur over Korea.
Eisenhower-selected Earl Warren to head the Supreme Court (apparently to his later chagrin). Sent troops into Little Rock, which is probably the first event I remember separate from things immediately in my life.
Kennedy-On one hand, Bay of Pigs; on the other, the successful (and ultimately peaceful) 13 days in October. On one hand, VietNam; on the other, coming around on civil rights, especially after the August ’63 March on Washington.
L.B. Johnson- Great Society (Medicare/Medicaid), civil rights, VietNam. But guns and butter didn’t work. In some ways, nearly as tragic as Nixon.
Nixon-EPA, China on the one hand; VietNam and Watergate on the other. He’s better than I thought at the time, or maybe his successors are worse than I could have imagined.
Ford-Revisionists now praise him for his courage in pardoning Nixon. I’m not convinced yet.
Carter-I thought he was saying a lot of the right things about conservation. Perhaps he didn’t communicate them well enough: his Moral Equivalent Of War became dubbed as MEOW. Then the 11/4/79 capture of the hostages in Iran sealed his fate.
Reagan-At the time, I thought he ought to have been king. He was a great cheerleader for America. His greatest accomplishment was surviving the assassination attempt in good spirits, for it generated the political capital to propel his budget-busting tax cuts in that first year that the election alone would not have provided. 200+ dead in Lebanon? Invade Grenada! After VietNam and Watergate, he discerned America needed a win! Even if it was some place most of them never heard of. Reagan was also helped, oddly, by the Carter-directed boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, for when the Soviet bloc retaliated at the 1984 Olympics in L.A., the US really cleaned up. Born in the U.S.A. indeed.
The fact that I disliked Reagan more than any President in my lifetime, over Star Wars, Iran-Contra, his positions on race, doesn’t negate the fact that, in large part, that people seem to have bought his message.
G.H.W. Bush-The ex-head of the CIA made me nervous going in. “100 points of light” SOUNDED good, but I’m sure that it really translated into policy. History, though, will be kinder to him, though, because while he did engage in war with Iraq, he didn’t invade Baghdad, which would show the geopolitical wisdom the next Republican President would seem to lack.
Clinton-“The first black President” – don’t know where that came from, but it annoyed the crap out me. Oh, where was I? Oh yeah, Clinton’s Presidency. First two years – a disaster over health care and “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” His successes in balancing the budget, albeit it with a Repub Congress will stand out. Monicagate, and the fact that THAT was the source of his IMPEACHMENT (as opposed to, say, a successor’s twisting of the truth to go to war) should make historians chuckle. I remember very specifically, during that mess, when he tried, and failed, to get Osama bin Ladin, and the general consensus was that it was a ploy to distract us from the importance of the stained blue dress.
G.W. Bush- After 9/11, with the world united behind the United States, this President had the opportunity to be a great President. And he blew it. Won’t even get into his dismal environmental record, which is actually mildly surprising, given his reasonably positive record – I hear – as Texas governor. Or his suspension of liberties, for which the Repub Congress in his first six years must share the blame.

O.K. – so the best Presidents, just based on their terms in office, not before or after- it’s hard not to put Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts in some order. The worst? Aside from those who died too quickly (W.H. Harrison, Garfield), it’s difficult not to put those Presidents immediately before and after the Civil War, and of course, Harding. I’d pick Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Hayes, and old Warren G., in some order. Since his term isn’t over, I won’t muse about the current occupant as Rolling Stone did, but, absent a miracle in the next two years, bottom five land seems certain. Lucky Franklin Pierce.
***
Here’s what historians think, and more importantly, what Gay Prof thinks.