Happy Birthday to...

Me.  It is once again my 22nd birthday, one which I never tire of celebrating.  I began celebrating my 22nd birthday on January 29, 1997, and have done so ever since.  (True story: in 1999, my students brought me a cake with 22 candles on it, which they did again in 2000 and 2001.  Those kids.)

Though clearly my birthday is the most important one celebrated today, there are others who are celebrating today as well.  If you look closely, you will see a uniting theme betwixt myself and all of the celebrities who share my day:

1. Adam Lambert

You might think Adam and I share amazing charisma, or a penchant for black nail polish.  True.  More importantly, we share truly magnificent, inexplicable bangs:

2. Oprah Winfrey

Like Oprah, I am a successful woman of color who has made it in a man's world.  Okay, I'm not in a "man's world," since 99% of my co-workers are female.  "Successful" might also be a stretch, seeing as how I routinely go weeks without checking my mail.  I am a woman, though, and "Caucasian" is a color, right?

3. Tom Selleck

Like Mr. Selleck, I have wavered between full commitment to my mustache and just wanting to cut it off and be taken seriously for a change.  Tom, keep fighting.  It's worth it.

4. Jonny Lang, Andrew Keegan, Sara Gilbert, Heather Graham, Greg Louganis, Teresa Teng, Ann Jillian, Katharine Ross, John Forsythe, Victor Mature, W. C. Fields, and assassinated president William McKinley also share this birthday.  Like me, most of them remember the '70's fondly.  Those who don't I'm sure would have enjoyed it.

So there it is, friends, proof of my greatness.  For, as the great W.C. Fields once said, "Madam, you may be drunk, but when you're ugly things go to pot.  Bleah."

Have a good weekend!

Playing the Victim

Today may be the most important day in the history of America.  No, I'm misstating.  Today may be the most important day in the history of humans.

Today, the interview of Jay Leno by Oprah Winfrey will air.

I hope you're watching, because I can't.  I'm working, like a sucker.

I have read some excerpts from the interview, and I can tell you, Jay is playing this all wrong.  He's trying to make himself sympathetic by making himself the victim of evil NBC.

No, Jay!  People already dislike you!  Don't get up there and say, "Oh, it wasn't me, I just work here."

Playing the victim can be effective, if done properly. 

Firstly, it helps if one has been a genuine victim.  It doesn't matter what you've been a victim of, whether it is something someone did to you, something society did to you, or even something you did to yourself, in the right circumstances.  Strike one against Jay: no one really "did" anything to him, except NBC, who just keeps hiring him and paying him enormous amounts of money, darn it!  It is hard to feel sorry for someone who, like Mr. Leno, makes so much money at his side job that he banks his multimillion dollar salary in its entirety and thus has no need to work ever, ever again.

Secondly, when playing the victim, one must bear in mind that people don't like people who play the victim.  So one must carefully let others know of one's victim status without coming out and saying, "Hey, you need to feel sorry for ME, because my boss doesn't like brown hair!"  However, one shouldn't overcompensate and become the martyr, employing the trademarked Trembling Sigh and repeating, "No, no...I'll get through it."  Strike two against Jay: he laments NBC "firing" him twice, but has no real answer to the question, "So why are you working for them, again?"

Thirdly, one must be careful, when referring to fellow victims, to not "one-up" those in a similar situation.  As in, "Yes, I know you have exczema in your nostrils, but my big toenail just won't grow right!"  In a similar vein, avoid accusing other victim-players of faking when you are trying to get sympathy.  Jay really bungled this with the "I'm sorry, but..." line of thinking.  Jay's logic is this:

1. I love Conan, and feel terrible for all of this.
2. Not that it was my fault.
3. And if his show had been any good at all, they wouldn't have given it back to me.
4. And he chose to leave.
5. But I feel terrible for him.

Most of us can see through this line of reasoning, because you hear it all the time.  I know I do: "Oh, there goes Myrtle, bless her heart, she's such a strong soul for putting up with that cat.  Of course, you know she feeds that cat Necco Wafers, that's why he smells like that.  And she won't buy those special cat roller skates, even though it's two front feet go in opposite directions.  Oh, but I feel for her, bless her heart."  You know what I mean.

So, Jay, if you're going to get yourself out of this, here's my advice:


There.  That's it.  Nothing.  There isn't a way out.  I think Jay will just have to be hated for a while.  He's proved he's resilient, though...I don't count him out.

Bless his heart.

In Which Deb Plays Armchair Psychologist to Hollywood

It was revealed this week, by undoubtedly intrepid reporters risking serious paper cuts, that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have not been photographed together since the first week of January.

Clearly, this means they have split up.  Any couple who does not pose for a photograph together every day must no longer be together, right?

(Poor Sven.  Even if paparazzi were stalking us, we would almost never be photographed together.  We leave at different times of the morning, we get home different times of night.  If he's going out, I'm staying home, and vice versa.  I need to tell him we must get in front of a camera, stat, if we want to save this relationship.)

But enough about me.  Speculation in the media is that Brad, who has been cast as THE GOOD GUY in the breakup, is insisting that Angelina get psychiatric help, or else he's leaving.  She has made public statements that fidelity is not "necessary" to a good relationship, and that she and Brad don't "restrict" each other.  He has "reportedly" purchased a home in Los Angeles in preparation for his return to single life.  They (also "reportedly") visited a lawyer to hammer out custody and financial arrangements in the event they do split up.

Though this speculation has been rampant for over a week, there has been no comment from either Brad or Angelina, though "a source close to the couple" said, "They're fine."

I neither know, or really care, whether or not this is true.  It has, however, along with the music history lessons I am giving to my fifth-graders, gotten me thinking about the messed-up lives of so many artists and entertainers.

I make my living in the arts, if you count "music teacher" as "in the arts."  Wether you teach, produce, or perform for a living, most of us do it because we have to.  We simply can't live without it.  Some, like my dad, have a "day job" and devote spare time (ha!) to their passion.  We call these people "sensible," or "practical," or "strong."  Others, however, can't make that compromise: we have to devote our time to what we're passionate about, or be miserable.  I'm lucky: I'm as passionate about teaching as I am about music, which means I can make a decent living still being true to myself.  Others starve or scrimp by waiting tables or flipping burgers.

Others do not compromise, but due to luck become so successful they accumulate material wealth in such a vast quantity it could legitimately be called "obscene."  I know the pursuit of wealth is the American dream and all, but at some point accumulating more money not only seems ridiculous, it seems harmful.

Regardless, there seem (to me) to be two kinds of people who make art their life:

1. People who love it so much that they find their niche.  These people recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and generally stick to what they are good at without excessive concern for the material rewards.

2. People who are trying to escape what they perceive as their own flaws.  They turn to art to fill a void in themselves.  They enjoy the process of "becoming" someone or something else, but, paradoxically, see the attention and/or money they receive as a result of "becoming" someone else validation for their own character.

Turning specifically to acting, I think there are plenty of examples of category 1: those who have been fortunate enough to be successful in their profession, but who seem to be basically healthy, well-adjusted people, or at least people with the same kinds of problems that regular people have.  I mean, so what if George Clooney still hasn't found the right woman?  Nothing wrong with that, he's got plenty of time.  They say 60 is the new 30.

Those who fall in to category 2 are the stuff of legendary tragedy.  Marilyn Monroe springs to mind.  Judy Garland is another.  Unhappy childhoods, battles with depression, self-medicating with alcohol and drugs... E! built the entire "True Hollywood Story" series on these sorts of tales.

The old adage, "You won't be happy with someone else until you are happy with yourself," is true no matter how beautiful, talented, or wealthy you are.  Why do so many Hollywood marriages and relationships fail?  Is it rampant narcissism: the inability to care for someone else as much as one cares for one's self?  Or does it come from low self-esteem, the inability to accept the love of others because one can't love one's self?  The restless, changeable nature of the chronically insecure?

I'm going with all of the above.

OK Go: This Too Shall Pass

Sven showed me this video, and it is adorable. Give it a look! (Click on that sentence to take you to Youtube, they don't want it embedded.  Trust me, it's worth it!)

"Eclectic" Sounds Nicer Than "Schizo"

Princess is showing signs of having unusual taste in music.  When we go home, we plug in my iPod and put it on random, allowing the children to sample a more varied fare than the typical "kids music" genre allows.

Her favorite artists and songs right now are:

1. Lou Reed.  She loves "Perfect Day," a song I will always associate with heroin overdoses (not my own).

2. Lady Gaga.  Princess is a fan of "Bad Romance," especially the "Ra-ma, oh, ra-ma, Ga-ga, oh, la la" part.  Mommy doesn't believe that Princess understands the lone bad word used in the song, but she coughs very loudly in the same spot every time.

3. Loreena McKennitt.  "Deb," you may be saying, "what on earth is wrong with Princess liking the mellow Celtic stylings of Loreena McKennitt?"  Not a thing, if that was what Princess liked.  No, Princess doesn't go in for the Enya-style, new age, gentle, harmonious, harp-filled Irish tunes.  What Princess likes is Loreena McKennit's version of "The Lady of Shallott," (see painting below) in which she sings the poem by Tennyson in its entirety, taking just under 12 minutes, and we have to listen to every bit of it.

Princess has informed me that it is "her" song.  Until we get to this one:

4. She loves "Johanna" from Sweeney Todd, and has told me several times that Johnny Depp is "her boyfriend."  Sven keeps shaking his head and telling me that, when she's old enough to watch the movie, she'll be devastated at what she thought was a sweet, loving character actually being a cold-blooded, crazy killer.  I tell him she'll be fine; after all, my love for Dr. Frankenfurter didn't harm me in any way I can detect.  For some reason, that response always gets me rolled eyes and a patient sigh.  I don't know what he's fussing about.  I'm saving the Rocky Horror soundtrack for when she turns 5.

These last two artists, even I have no excuse for.  I can't imagine how I allowed my child to become exposed to the likes of:

  or

I am so ashamed.  This clearly calls for a dose of Beastie Boys, stat.  We'll get through this.  At least we haven't hit rock bottom:

 Jewish Elvis, indeed...

Misc Pics

As of last week, Sven and I have been together for 16 years.  Here is the first formal picture we took together, from 1994:

Here is a snapshot of us from Christmas of 1995:

Here we are at a party in the late '90's, I think.  Sven's older brother, Lars, used to have a Skirt Party every year, in which all of the men wore skirts, most much more elaborate than Sven's.

Our wedding day:

In the five years after our wedding, I had my interests...

...and Sven had his.

We have always been in love.

In 2005, Princess was born.

Dexy followed two years later.

We're very happy.

Have a great week.

LIST-en up...I love lists

I've been listening to podcasts lately, which, salty humor notwithstanding, have given me much to laugh about and ponder in my driving time.

If I had a podcast, it would be "Deb Loves Lists."  My podcast would be coming up with ideas for lists, listing the things that might fill those lists, and, perhaps, in a fit of ecstasy, listing the lists in preferential order.

If I watch VH-1 for any length of time, it is because they are showing one of their incomparable list shows, like I Love the '70's, I Love the 80's, the 100 Greatest Songs of the '90's, I Love Toys, the 100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders, I Love the '90's...you get the idea.

The format for the list show is simple:

1. Think of something awesome, like "Rock music" or "1984."  (The year, not the book.)
2. Hire a bunch of comedians, musicians, and "personalities" to discuss what was awesome and/or memorable, like, to use the 1984 example, Mary Lou Retton or crack cocaine.
3. Repeat

Most recently, VH-1 has been disappointing me with their choice for the top of these lists.  (SPOILER ALERT! I'm about to tell you what tops several of these lists.)  For example, when choosing the number one song of the 1980's, they chose "Livin' on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi.

Really.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great song about teenage love and/or pregnancy, right up there with "Don't Stop Believin'" or "Jack and Diane" or "Baby Got Back." It just doesn't scream "1980's" at me, tight pants and enormous hair notwithstanding.  They didn't even wear makeup, for cryin' out loud.

Then, in the 100 Most Shocking Moments in Music History countdown, the number 3 event was the suicide of Kurt Cobain.  "Huh," I thought.  "I guess John Lennon's death is number 1, but what would beat Kurt Cobain's suicide for number 2?"

Number 2: the assassination of John Lennon.  "Huh," I thought.  "What event in recent music history would be more shocking than that?"

I should have known.  The number 1 most shocking moment in music history, according to VH-1, is the death of Michael Jackson.

"Our number one event," intoned Chris Jericho, the host, who proves wrestlers can also be inarticulate and utterly without irony, "is so shocking, I'm sure we can all remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news."

Chris, I hate to tell you, but we can all remember where we were and what we were doing because it happened six months ago.  I'm sorry, but the death of Michael Jackson, while tragic, was the other shoe dropping on a train wreck of a life.  The assassination of John Lennon, on the other hand, was completely shocking and caught the entire world by surprise.  I was five years old when it happened, and I remember it clearly.  What were they thinking?

In my podcast, VH-1's Most Shocking Moments in Music History would not be on my list of Best Lists. We would need to really get into it and reorder it, put some stuff in different places, really dissect the thing and make it work for us.

Then, after my show listing the best list shows, I would do a summary show about all of my favorite summary shows (which is pretty much The Soup, since they canceled Best Week Ever.  Boo.)  Then I could do a reality show with a behind-the-scenes look about the making of reality shows.  It's endless.

It sounds like so much fun!  It's gold, I tell you.

Gold!

A Battle For the Ages

It has happened.  Finally, a showdown between the baby boomers and Generation X.  To my delight, it is playing out on the front pages of e-Newspapers, Twitter, and blogs throughout the world.


Corporate vs. artistic.  The establishment vs. the upstart.  The slightly less funny vs. the sometimes just bizarre.


Conan vs. Jay.

Some history: in 2003, fearing the loss of a popular late-night personality, NBC offered Conan O'Brien a guaranteed hosting slot for The Tonight Show, beginning in six years, 2009.  According to reports at the time, Jay Leno was not consulted.  He made some kind-of-bitter-sounding jokes at the time about being told about his retirement on the front pages of Variety.


(Disclosure: I loathe Jay Leno.  I don't think he's funny.  I've never really forgiven him OR NBC for the Leno vs. Letterman debacle in the 1990's.  I like Conan most of the time, but I'm a fan of "alternative comedy," in which just about anything is considered funny.)


NBC, at the time, apparently decided the future of their late-night lineup was Conan, so they were willing to discard Leno in his favor.  Early in 2008 it was announced that SNL comedian Jimmy Fallon (who, although a breakout star on SNL, has failed to establish himself in films or television) would take over Conan's former late-night spot.  All appeared to be moving forward as planned.


Then, someone at NBC, displaying a startling amount of common sense, says, "Hey, wait.  Leno is number one in his time slot, has been for a while, why are we kicking him out again?"  The suits all nodded.  Then the guy said, "And, if we kick him off the network now, some other network is sure to snatch him up."  The suits all agreed, then sent the guy back to the mail room so the real brains could work out something that would keep "everyone happy."


Their brilliant solution debuted this past fall: Jay Leno gets a one-hour late-night format show in prime time, Conan takes over The Tonight Show name and time slot.  Great.  Everyone's happy, right?  Especially the suits at NBC, who now realize that a talk show is way less expensive than traditional prime-time programming.


Except Leno's new show is terrible.  Awful.  Nigh on unwatchable.  Ratings in the 10/9 hour plummet even further for an already troubled NBC, which leads to local affiliate news shows at 11/10 suffering, which means The Tonight Show, traditionally anchored by the prime time/local news block, is also rated very, very low.


Unfortunately, the guy from the mail room is now an executive at Fox, so the suits are on their own.


Clearly, they figure, it isn't that Leno stinks.  No, it can't be that!  It must be the time slot.  But if they let Leno go, SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT GET HIM.  And they can't have that.  No, no.


Solution proposed: Jay Leno will now get a half-hour "Jay Leno" show at 10:35/11:35, followed by The Tonight Show at 12:05/11:05.  (Jimmy Fallon gets what he gets and should be happy to get it, apparently.)


Today, Conan O'Brien justified my love by issuing a response.  He didn't speak through a lawyer or publicist, he issed the statement himself, and what he said should go down in history as a prime example of what someone who is upset, but ultimately too gracious and self-respecting to be vindictive, does to say no:


**************

People of Earth:

In the last few days, I've been getting a lot of sympathy calls, and I want to start by making it clear that no one should waste a second feeling sorry for me.  For 17 years, I've been getting paid to do what I love most and, in a world with real problems, I've been absurdly lucky.  That said, I've been suddenly put in a very public predicament and my bosses are demanding an immediate decision.

Six years ago, I signed a contract with NBC to take over The Tonight Show in June of 2009.  Like a lot of us, I grew up watching Johnny Carson every night and the chance to one day sit in that chair has meant everything to me.  I worked long and hard to get that opportunity, passed up far more lucrative offers, and since 2004 I have spent literally hundreds of hours thinking of ways to extend the franchise long into the future.  It was my mistaken belief that, like my predecessor, I would have the benefit of some time and, just as important, some degree of ratings support from the prime-time schedule.  Building a lasting audience at 11:30 is impossible without both.

But sadly, we were never given that chance. After only seven months, with my Tonight Show in its infancy, NBC has decided to react to their terrible difficulties in prime-time by making a change in their long-established late night schedule.

Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate the Jay Leno Show at 11:35.  For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news.  I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting.  The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn't the Tonight Show.  Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot.  That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it.  My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction.  Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn't matter.  But with the Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next.  My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it's always been that way.

Yours,

Conan

***********


How could I not love this man?  Sticking to his guns with style and grace, basically saying, "I know it's a great job, but if you don't let me do the job you hired me to do, I won't do it at all."

Even more impressive when you factor in Conan's reportedly $15 million annual salary.  While NBC would probably have to negotiate a payout to get Conan out, it won't be anything near what he would have made just saying yes and going forward.  Conan's not in it for the money; he clearly understands that he's got more than enough of that.

If only I could stay up past 9:00 p.m., I'd be his biggest fan.

P.S. I think Dave may be on to something here: