Monday, May 21, 2007

Vanishing Chicago: The Neighborhood Movie House

I was supposed to see Grindhouse with friends at a downtown theater--one of those comfortable joints with clean floors, stadium seating and vastly overpriced popcorn and candy. You know, the kind of place where the movies Grindhouse attempts to imitate would never, ever have played.

Unfortunately, I had to work that day. (Yes, on a Saturday. No, I was not happy about it.) So I wound up seeing Grindhouse at the Davis instead.

The Davis is a good deal smaller and not quite as tidy as its downtown competition, though the current owners have made a concerted effort to spruce the place up (the seats no longer make my ass fall asleep) and it's far less expensive than the larger theaters (only $5.50 anytime before 6 p.m. and just $8 after that). Plus, it's within walking distance of La Casa del Terror, and I know with absolute certainty that the popcorn is freshly made. (Some of that stuff in the larger theaters sits under heat lamps for hours--and tastes like buttered cardboard.)

I don't believe the Davis was itself a grindhouse back in the day. I remember it as a second-run theater (at least it was when I saw Mel Brooks's Silent Movie there somewhere around 1980). I do know with certainty, though, that the Davis is one of the few remaining examples of an increasingly endangered species in Chicago: The neighborhood movie house.

There aren't many of them left, and every year there seems to be one less than the year before. The Three Penny in Lincoln Park, in existence since 1911 according to Jazz Age Chicago and one of the few Chicago movie houses to sell beer, shut down last year. The Esquire closed not long after. Across the street from the Three Penny, the Biograph--infamous site of the death of John Dillinger (gunned down while leaving a viewing of Manhattan Melodrama)--where Red Secretary caught "classics" like The Rules of Attraction and Swimfan still stands, but has recently been converted, as a number of the downtown houses were, into a live-theater venue. And the Village, down at North Avenue and Clark Street? It went dark so quietly that it was weeks before I even heard about it.

Years ago, damn near every Chicago neighborhood had at least one little theater. Most of them are gone in the most literal sense, demolished to make way for apartment buildings, grocery stores or parking lots. Some have been repurposed, like the Lakeshore, which now hosts live theater and burlesque shows; or the Lincoln, now converted to condos (a fate the Davis narrowly avoided); or the Congress, where I saw my first movie (The Wizard of Oz) nearly four decades ago, now a live-music stage; or the Admiral, now one of only three strip clubs within the city limits.

There are still a few around, though. The Logan, in the heart of Logan Square, still shows second-run feature films just like it did back in 1972, when Mom took me there on the Milwaukee Avenue bus to see Pinocchio. We got there late--even then, the CTA was screwing up our lives--and wound up sitting through the second feature, John Wayne's The Cowboys, in which the Duke herds cattle with a bunch of young boys. At one point, one of the boys falls between the cattle and is trampled to death. To my eight-year-old mind, this was pretty funny, so I laughed. Mom batted me upside the head. I stopped laughing.

Farther up Milwaukee Avenue, the revival of the Portage continues. It now hosts small film festivals and shows silent movies (appropriate, since that's what it did when it first opened over 80 years ago). Good thing, too. I mean, if you were a movie theater, would you want your last film to be Dude, Where's My Car? Me either.

that the neighborhood movie house will make any sort of large-scale, organized comeback though--not with megaplexes ringing the city and strangling all but the most muscular theaters within. Soon, we may only be able to catch the latest sequel or remake or remake of a sequel by hopping a train and heading either for downtown suburbia, with nothing but wasteland in-between.

Until then, though, I'll treasure what I have. I've seen only six movies on the big screen this year, but half of them have been at the Davis, where the screens are oddly angled (a result of having been sliced up from one big theater into four small ones back in the '80s), the bathrooms are tiny and there are odd stains on the ceiling tiles. I couldn't mistake it for another, more modern movie house if I tried.

And I don't want to try.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Review: Grindhouse (2007)

A grindhouse, for those of you who don't know, was a movie theater that showed primarily low-budget action and horror movies, with loads of violence and sex. I say "was" because grindhouses don't exist anymore; nor, for the most part, do the cinematic subgenres they displayed, like urban comedies, kung-fu revenge sagas or Satan-worship monster shows.

Downtown Chicago used to be peppered with once-prestigious movie houses that had evolved (or devolved, depending on your perspective) into grindhouses, with names like the Woods, the United Artists, the Michael Todd, the Oriental and, of course, the Chicago. A couple of these theaters (the Oriental and the Chicago) survive as live-performance venues; the rest were demolished long ago. No great surprise. Many of these theaters were in rough shape, and the late Chicago Tribune/WBBM-TV film critic, Gene Siskel, once showed a dead mouse in the lobby of one of the downtown theaters in a segment on the evening news.

Grindhouse fare also popped up at drive-ins like the Bel-Air on Cicero Avenue in Berwyn, where I saw the likes of Beyond the Door and Race with the Devil, but most of those are gone as well. (A brief Internet search turned up only two operating drive-ins near Chicago: the Cascade Drive-in in West Chicago and the McHenry Outdoor Theatre in McHenry.)

I have more than a little affection for the grindhouse era--it's when I started going to movies, no matter what was showing or where--but Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino obviously have not only affection, but a deep, abiding love for the era. What else could explain Grindhouse, the directors' attempt to re-create the experience of watching a cheap-looking double feature at your neighborhood theater or local drive-in?

Rodriguez helms Planet Terror, the front end of the twin bill. It stars Rose McGowan as Cherry darling, a go-go dancer ("Not a stripper," she explains, "There's a difference") who wants to do something else--maybe become a stand-up comedian, since "everybody tells me I'm funny" except her ex-boyfriend, Wray (Freddy Rodriguez, no relation to the director), who still loves Cherry even though she walked out on him and took his jacket with her.

They don't get much time for witty banter, though, as Cherry is attacked in the dark by roaming, ravenous creatures chew off Cherry's right leg (OW!) and run away with it. Wray rushes Cherry to the local hospital, where all hell is breaking loose: Casualties are pouring in with similar wounds (or worse), overwhelming the staff, which includes Doctor Block (Josh Brolin) and his wife, Dakota (Marley Shelton), who's trying to run off with her ex-girlfriend (Stacey Ferguson, a.k.a. Fergie) when the mayhem starts.

Pretty soon, the whole town is overrun by "sickos"--which are pretty much your basic flesh-eating zombies, but with more personality (if they had a speaking part before becoming infected, anyway) and nasty, puss-filled boils all over their bodies. This whole mess ties back to some nerve-gas nonsense and a mysterious military type (Bruce Willis), but does that really matter? It's all an excuse for some gut-munching, head-'sploding action, with Wray, Cherry (who's outfitted with a table leg and, later, a machine gun in place of her missing limb) and an assortment of colorful characters (played by the likes of Michael Biehn, Tom Savini, Jeff Fahey and Michael Parks, playing Texas Ranger Earl McGraw just as he did in From Dusk Till Dawn and Kill Bill) try to survive the zombie apocalypse long enough to find a cure to the rapidly spreading infection.

Robert Rodriguez in one of the most energetic, exuberant filmmakers working today, and his enthusiasm is hard to resist. He's clearly having fun with the cheesy material and so are his actors--even McGowan, who gives a grueling physical performance not only in the bump-and-grind she does beneath the opening credits, but throughout the rest of Planet Terror, at least half of which she spends bounding about with one leg missing.

Rodriguez mimics the action-horror films of the '70s and '80s well enough, both in terms of content, with visual and plot cues to movies like George Romero's The Crazies, John Carpenter's The Fog and Dan O'Bannon's Return of the Living Dead, but in physical presentation as well, with faux scratches on the film, a "missing reel" and a soundtrack heavy on synthesizers (a direct reference to Carpenter, who, like Rodriguez, often scores his own films).

One of the unfortunate side effects of directorial exuberance, though, is lack of self-control. Rodriguez pours on the gore (sometimes literally) to the point where it stops being funny and is merely gross. (Were the forensic-quality close-ups of chewed up skulls or the popping boils all over the "sickos" really needed? How the hell did the MPAA give this film an "R" rating?) There's also Rodriguez's use of Quentin Tarantino, the actor. He chews the scenery with abandon, which would be fine if Tarantino were even a mediocre actor. But he's not. He's an annoyance, and Rodriguez should have known better than to use him for anything more than the briefest of cameos. On the plus side, Rodriguez's indulgences don't ruin the fun as much as momentarily sidetrack it.

Tarantino indulges himself as well in his Grindhouse contribution, Death Proof, a revenge drama/car-chase ode that begins with multiple close-ups of women's feet (Tarantino has an admitted fetish). He follows the feet--and the women attached to them (including Jordan Ladd, daughter of Cheryl, and Sydney Poitier, daughter of Sidney)--as they tool around Austin, TX, shooting the shit about boys, pot and what they're doing for fun that night. They wind up in a bar (where the bartender is played by--surprise!--Tarantino), where they get drunk, shoot the shits some more and generally kill time--until they meet Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell).

Stuntman Mike is a ruggedly handsome man--or he would be, if not for the whopping scar down the left side of his face. Reasonably charming, too. Except, of course, for the fact that he's a serial killer who likes to stalk women and run them down with his armored-up, tricked-out stunt car. (The skull and crossbones on the hood? Not a good sign.) After a horrific crash in which Stuntman Mike is the only survivor, Earl McGraw (Michael Parks again) muses that Mike is probably a murderer. But proof? None.

So Stuntman Mike goes back on the prowl, this time stalking a foursome of females making a movie in Tennessee: Actress Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), makeup artist Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), and stuntwomen Kim (Tracie Thoms) and Zoe Bell (billed "as herself" because she's a real-life stuntwoman who doubled Uma Thurman in Kill Bill). Stuntman Mike gets a whole lot more than he bargained for, though, when three of his intended victims fight back in one of the most thrilling car chases ever filmed.

Even with the period subject matter and style, you can't mistake this for a film by anyone but Tarantino. There are the usual obscure pop culture references. There is great use of music, including the terrific "Hold Tight" by Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich (perhaps the most awkwardly named rock group ever) and the opening theme by Jack Nitzsche (which was also used as the theme for Bert I. Gordon's Village of the Giants and is one of the best instrumentals ever). And there are long conversations that don't necessarily advance the plot, but do flesh out the characters. Tarantino's dialog isn't nearly as sharp as usual, though, so it's easy to become impatient while the women talk and drive and drive and talk without seeming to go anywhere or say anything. Still, one of my main complaints about mad slasher films has always been that we hardly get to know the victims at all (other than hair color and bra size) before they're dispatched by the crazed killer. Getting to know these characters before they're threatened and/or slaughtered makes us care a bit more about their eventual fates.

No matter how much Tarantino spins his wheels (pun intended) for much of Death Proof, the chase at the end--by turns thrilling, frightening and hilarious--more than makes up for it. It also doesn't hurt that Russell gives a quietly menacing performance reminiscent of Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter--calm and cool when playing with his intended prey, increasingly frantic as the situation is yanked out of his control by women who refuse to be victims anymore.

Both Tarantino and Rodriguez present strong female characters capable of kicking serious amounts of ass, but both make these characters suffer before they get to be strong; the women in Death Proof are terrorized by Stuntman Mike before they turn the tables, and Cherry Darling has to be outright mutilated before she's given the opportunity to save the day. Both directors have been down this road before: Tarantino's Kill Bill features a martial-arts master who defeats everyone in her path, but not before she's shot in the head and substantially degraded. And Rodriguez's Sin City is a misogyny-a-go-go. (To be fair, so are Frank Miller's graphic novels, which Rodriguez faithfully adapted.) It would have been nice if, this time around, both directors could have let their strong women have some damn fun without paying such a high price for it.

Both halves of Grindhouse are a good time nonetheless, just like they're meant to be. Sure, this is a vanity project suffused with nostalgia for an era most filmgoers have forgotten, if they were even alive to experience it--isn't the whole of Grindhouse an obscure pop reference, when you get down to it?--created two obsessive cinema buffs who have the muscle to get it made.

That's not the point. The point is, have Rodriguez and Tarantino achieved their goal? Is Grindhouse a cheesy, sleazy good time? Yes and yes.

Sunday, April 1, 2007

This Sporting Life: Opening Day 2007

The trees are budding. Flowers push their way through otherwise dormant lawns. Ants crawl onto sidewalks to taste something sweet. Ozzie Guillen's jaw flaps uncontrollably. Kerry Wood and Mark Prior are injured and/or ineffective.

Yep. It's spring in Chicago.

The baseball disappointments of last fall are fading into memory, but not entirely gone. The White Sox, coming off of the first World Series win this city had seen since Woodrow Wilson was president, had a winning season, but failed to make the playoffs. Their season was also marred by ugly comments from Guillen, who responded calmly and maturely to criticism from Chicago Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti by calling Mariotti a "fag."

As bad as Sox fans felt, though, Cubs fans had it worse (though I'm sure neither side of town was feeling any sympathy for the other). Prior and Wood were both being counted on for the starting rotation; both were injured much of the season. And after All-Star first baseman Derrek Lee broke his wrist last April, the team's fortunes took a decided turn for the worse, and manager Dusty Baker seemed unable or unwilling to motivate his players. Or, perhaps, the players were unable or unwilling to motivate themselves (at least while the team had a chance to win--Jacque Jones and Aramis Ramirez had fine seasons once the Cubs were well out of contention). Or maybe they were all willing and able, but just not good enough. Whatever the case, the Cubs wound up with a 66-96 record--the worst in the National League.

Most years, Cubs management would tinker with the chemistry of the team, but not make any drastic changes. This year, though, management shook things up. Baker's contract wasn't renewed, and the Tribune Company opened their corporate wallets and signed significant free agents, like slugger Alfonso Soriano, and starting pitchers Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis. Granted, neither Lilly nor Marquis is a Cy Young Award candidate, but each is capable of winning 10 to 15 games a year and giving new manager Lou Piniella plenty of innings. Soriano will be playing a new position (center field), but he's not here for his glove; he's here for his bat.

It's a shame that management didn't make one more big change--letting Wood and Prior go once and for all. It's not that I wish either of them ill. Quite the contrary: I hope that they both have long and, going forward, healthy careers. Thus far, even though neither is being counted on as in years past, their presence has been a distraction, with Wood's injuries preventing him from converting from a starter to a reliever, and Prior still working to regain his velocity. Neither will be on the opening-day roster. Neither should be.

Meanwhile, the White Sox spent their off-season doing little but make their fans scratch their heads. General Manager Kenny Williams traded starter Freddy Garcia to the Phillies, presumably to make room for Brandon McCarthy in their starting rotation, and then they...traded McCarthy, too. Sox fans were justifiably confused, until Guillen made it clear early in spring training that he didn't care for McCarthy's work habits, especially his propensity for hitting the local bars. It seems petty--vindictive, even--for Guillen to go there after McCarthy has permanently left town. Perhaps Guillen was feeling sensitive on that subject, since the team struggled to fill their fifth starter slot--the slot McCarthy was destined for--until the very end of spring training.

For the White Sox, then, it's more a matter of players already on their roster returning to form--like Mark Buerhle, who spent a few seasons as the ace of the starting rotation, but struggled last year; and Scott Podsednik, such a sparkplug in 2005, lacking spark in 2006. The Sox have all the parts necessary to contend in the American League Central. They'll need all those parts, too, with the Tigers, Twins and Indians all fielding teams capable of winning the division as well.

As for the Cubs, they will no doubt improve their record over 2006; they can't be much worse. Have they improved enough, though, to not only contend with the defending World Series champions, the Cardinals, but actually overtake them? There's only one way to find out...

Play ball.

Opening Day 2007

The trees are budding. Flowers push their way through otherwise dormant lawns. Ants crawl onto sidewalks to taste something sweet. Ozzie Guillen's jaw flaps uncontrollably. Kerry Wood and Mark Prior are injured and/or ineffective.

Yep. It's spring in Chicago.

The baseball disappointments of last fall are fading into memory, but not entirely gone. The White Sox, coming off of the first World Series win this city had seen since Woodrow Wilson was president, had a winning season, but failed to make the playoffs. Their season was also marred by ugly comments from Guillen, who responded calmly and maturely to criticism from Chicago Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti by calling Mariotti a "fag."

As bad as Sox fans felt, though, Cubs fans had it worse (though I'm sure neither side of town was feeling any sympathy for the other). Prior and Wood were both being counted on for the starting rotation; both were injured much of the season. And after All-Star first baseman Derrek Lee broke his wrist last April, the team's fortunes took a decided turn for the worse, and manager Dusty Baker seemed unable or unwilling to motivate his players. Or, perhaps, the players were unable or unwilling to motivate themselves (at least while the team had a chance to win--Jacque Jones and Aramis Ramirez had fine seasons once the Cubs were well out of contention). Or maybe they were all willing and able, but just not good enough. Whatever the case, the Cubs wound up with a 66-96 record--the worst in the National League.

Most years, Cubs management would tinker with the chemistry of the team, but not make any drastic changes. This year, though, management shook things up. Baker's contract wasn't renewed, and the Tribune Company opened their corporate wallets and signed significant free agents, like slugger Alfonso Soriano, and starting pitchers Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis. Granted, neither Lilly nor Marquis is a Cy Young Award candidate, but each is capable of winning 10 to 15 games a year and giving new manager Lou Piniella plenty of innings. Soriano will be playing a new position (center field), but he's not here for his glove; he's here for his bat.

It's a shame that management didn't make one more big change--letting Wood and Prior go once and for all. It's not that I wish either of them ill. Quite the contrary: I hope that they both have long and, going forward, healthy careers. Thus far, even though neither is being counted on as in years past, their presence has been a distraction, with Wood's injuries preventing him from converting from a starter to a reliever, and Prior still working to regain his velocity. Neither will be on the opening-day roster. Neither should be.

Meanwhile, the White Sox spent their off-season doing little but make their fans scratch their heads. General Manager Kenny Williams traded starter Freddy Garcia to the Phillies, presumably to make room for Brandon McCarthy in their starting rotation, and then they...traded McCarthy, too. Sox fans were justifiably confused, until Guillen made it clear early in spring training that he didn't care for McCarthy's work habits, especially his propensity for hitting the local bars. It seems petty--vindictive, even--for Guillen to go there after McCarthy has permanently left town. Perhaps Guillen was feeling sensitive on that subject, since the team struggled to fill their fifth starter slot--the slot McCarthy was destined for--until the very end of spring training.

For the White Sox, then, it's more a matter of players already on their roster returning to form--like Mark Buerhle, who spent a few seasons as the ace of the starting rotation, but struggled last year; and Scott Podsednik, such a sparkplug in 2005, lacking spark in 2006. The Sox have all the parts necessary to contend in the American League Central. They'll need all those parts, too, with the Tigers, Twins and Indians all fielding teams capable of winning the division as well.

As for the Cubs, they will no doubt improve their record over 2006; they can't be much worse. Have they improved enough, though, to not only contend with the defending World Series champions, the Cardinals, but actually overtake them? There's only one way to find out...

Play ball.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Can't Take Anymore

Mrs. Fluffy, a friend of mine who now lives in Atlanta recently lamented that she missed the CTA.

No surprise. I often hear people from other cities (both friends and random strangers) say that it's so much easier to get around in Chicago than in (insert your city here). They have a point. The Chicago Transit Authority covers more ground than most cities and, for the most part, they've done a decent job, moving tourists and natives alike about the metropolitan area for decades. They haven't been remotely perfect--waits for buses or trains could be frustrating, but at least you had a pretty good idea you'd get where you needed to go when you needed to go there.

Lately, though, CTA has been falling down. A lot.

CTA will no doubt say that they need better funding at the state and federal levels, and no doubt that's true. Trains and buses aren't cheap. Neither is maintenance of said buses and trains. Neither is maintenance of the extensive rail system those trains ride on. They will also no doubt say that they've done a fine job with what they've been given. With that, I would respectfully--even disrespectfully--disagree. Going just on what I can see and what I experience nearly every day of the week as a rider of CTA, they don't spend what little money they receive very well.

Example: whenever I see CTA work crews, whether on the tracks or at street level, the same pattern repeats itself: four or five workers will be standing around, arms crossed, mouths flapping about the weather or the war or last night's game or whatever, while only one or two workers are actually, you know, working. (Friends of mine who frequently ride trains and buses have reported the same pattern.) CTA has claimed that they don't have enough money for maintenance crews. Perhaps they should consider smaller crews that do more--or any--work.

Another example: the federally funded Brown Line reconstruction project, which will take years to complete and cost many millions of dollars to expand or rebuild existing Brown Line stations to handle longer trains and accommodate the handicapped (most stations don't have elevators or ramps), has been mishandled from the get-go. The initial bids came in way over budget, causing CTA to scale back the designs and revise construction schedules, making it necessary to close stations for extended periods of time (rather than keep them open throughout construction, as initially promised) and cut back amenities at the reconstructed stations, like canopies that stretch the length of the stations.

Two of the stations that have reopened, Kedzie and Rockwell, are ugly, boxy, chilly things. (Quite literally chilly--there are no heat lamps on the platforms, and the ones installed inside the stationhouses are so high off the floor that only someone my height can feel any warmth at all.) If they're the shape of things to come, I don't want to see what's coming.

Even the recently reopened Francisco station, which does indeed have heat lamps on the platform, is little more than a pale imitation of the stationhouse that stood there for nearly a century--its look and feel are, most politely put, strained.

The buses don't seem to be running much better, with long waits no matter what the time of day or weather. It's not uncommon to see two, three, four buses arrive at once. Once, at the corner of Western and Addison, I saw no less than eight Western Avenue buses go past me headed north, while I waited for one westbound Addison bus to show up; after half an hour, I gave up and walked home.

On another occasion, I waited for a Western bus on the way home from Mom's house at a fairly early hour on a weekday evening. It was bitterly cold, and the temptation to take a cab was great. Still, I waited, feeling seeping away in my feet and fingers as the minutes went by and taxi after taxi approached, slowed to see if I wanted to hop in, and drove away, leaving me freezing in a bus shelter that holds back the wind as effectively as a collander holds water. After 12 cabs had rolled past me, I yielded to temptation and jumped in the 13th cab. There was still no bus in sight.

And now, CTA is telling riders that things will get worse--much worse--before they get better. Starting in April and continuing for the next two years, one track of the Red Line will be taken out of service in the high-traffic corridor between Fullerton and Belmont, both of which will have their stations reconstructed, and the Red Line trains will have to run on the tracks that serve the Brown and Purple Lines.

To be fair, both stations have needed renovation and expansion for some time. The Belmont station, in particular, is in rough shape, with narrow, dark stairways and lamp posts that, if you lean on them, tend to lean right with you. unfortunately, to clear room for these new, improved stations, the CTA had the glorious, gothic Hayes-Healy Gymnasium demolished (with the permission of the building's owner, DePaul University) at Fullerton, as well as the longtime home of Belmont Army Surplus (where I once bought a leather jacket to impress a woman who, to no one's surprised, wasn't remotely impressed) at Belmont.

The construction of these two expanded, upgraded stations will cause drastic reductions in service at rush hour (up to 25 percent) and a near doubling of commute times for the better part of two years. So CTA is encouraging its passengers to find other ways to get to work. Take buses. Ride Metra. Carpool. Crawl.

What amuses me (if anything about the situation can truly be called "amusing") is that CTA President Frank Kruesi seems to really believe that riders will flock back to the affected lines once construction is completed--two years from now.

Maybe most riders will. But speaking for myself, if I have to alter my commute so drastically that I must seriously consider taking other modes of transportation, including the possibility of buying a car and driving to work (those of you who know me, STOP LAUGHING, DAMMIT!), there's no way I'd go back. It would be like a restaurant closing for renovations and asking me to find someplace else to eat for the next two years, but urging me to come back when they reopen.

And maybe that would work--if I liked the food and the service that much to begin with.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The Daley Grind

Today is Election Day in Chicago. To say the least, I'm not enthused.

There are aldermanic elections in all 50 wards, but my alderman is running unopposed. Or at least I think so. (If there is opposition, I haven't heard about it.) There may also be a referendum or two to consider.

And then, there's the mayoral race. If you can even call it a race.

Richard M. Daley is going to win reelection. That's a foregone conclusion. His two opponents--Dorothy Brown, the current Cook County Circuit Court Clerk, and William "Dock" Walls, a former aide to the late Harold Washington--have done the best with the resources they've had (i.e., virtually no money). And the two potential candidates who actually had some cash and could have put up a better fight--U.S. Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Luis Gutierrez--chose not to stay out of this fight. Only they know why. Maybe the new Democratic majority in Congress afforded them more opportunities. Maybe the poll numbers showed that though the various corruption scandals that continue to swirl like raw sewage around Daley's administration had wounded the mayor's reputation, they hadn't wounded him enough for an easy victory. Maybe they put their own best interests ahead of what would be best for the city as a whole.

And what would be best for the city as a whole would be to remove Richard M. Daley from office. For good.

It's not that Daley hasn't done good things in his 18 years as mayor (just short of the record set by his father, Richard J. Daley, who was mayor from 1955 until his death in 1976). Richard the Second has done plenty of good things for Chicago. He took over the public school system; granted, it's still not great, but it's in better shape than before he took it over. He's done a great deal to beautify the city. The public housing projects that had become vast stretches of institutionalized poverty are all but a memory. Navy Pier, the long-dormant stretch of concrete and brick jutting out into Lake Michigan like a middle finger, where dad and I used to spin-cast for perch when I was a kid, was revitalized under Daley's reign. Millennium Park has received much praise (locally, nationally and even internationally) and has become quite the tourist attraction. And basic services have run pretty smoothly (except, perhaps, for the Chicago Transit Authority, and even that's a more recent development).

Any good he has done, though, must be weighed against the bad. And, unfortunately, there's plenty of bad to be weighed.

He had the small lakefront airport, Meigs Field, demolished without bothering with public debate or even discussion. (In a move as cowardly as it was cunning, he had the runways destroyed late on a Sunday night, after the newscasts had all ended.) Millennium Park was years late and millions of dollars over budget, and the contract for the upscale restaurant in the park just happened to go to supporters from Daley's home ward.

That brings me back to the aforementioned scandals.

Numerous subordinates in the Daley administration have been accused, arrested and convicted for all sorts of hiring and contract-issuance irregularities. (I won't even bring up the drug-dealing in the Water Department--except, oops, I just did, didn't I?) Essentially, the impression has been created that only citizens with an "in" at City Hall can get a job, and those who do get a gig with the city don't have to work all that much (at least not at their city jobs; some went off to work at other jobs or sleep or do whatever while somebody else punched them in and/or out).

I know that impression isn't true. I know the city has many hardworking, honest individuals working for it. But the impression that jobs and contracts with the city were (and, for all we know, still are) for sale runs deep and far.

No one has yet accused Richard M. Daley himself of any wrongdoing. No one has said that he's guilty of any illegal activities. But an informed voter has to wonder: Given the mayor's carefully built reputation as a hands-on, involved administrator, how did he not see the corruption festering all around him? Or is the reality that he's really a hands-off, aloof manager who failed to notice what his direct subordinates were up to? Or, worst of all, did he see all the dealmaking and bribe-taking all over City Hall and turn a blind eye to it?

No matter which scenario in the above paragraph is true, the same conclusion can be reached: Richard M. Daley has fostered an environment in which corruption could not merely exist, but flourish, has irreparably breached the trust of the electorate of the City of Chicago, and no longer deserves to be its mayor.

Unfortunately, he's going to be reelected anyway. That doesn't mean I have to vote for him again.

I'll vote for one of his opponents. Or I'll vote for no one. One or the other.

And I suggest all of you who read this page and plan to vote tomorrow do the same, for a vote for Richard M. Daley is an acceptance of a perpetual atmosphere of corruption, unchecked greed and demonstrated lack of respect for the voters of the city he claims to love. I can't bring myself to vote again for someone who thinks so little of me as a voter, a citizen, a person.

I have more self-respect than that.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Oscar Hangover 2007

I never make it all the way through an Academy Awards telecast without becoming at the very least distracted, if not outright bored to the verge of coma.

So it was last night. The fashions, the production numbers and Ellen Degeneres just weren't enough to hold my interest and, about 45 minutes into the proceedings, I stopped caring and started channel-flipping.

I did, however, catch two of the moments I wanted to catch in the first place. I wanted to see the presentation of the Best Supporting Actor award, because I had picked an upset in that category--Alan Arkin instead of the heavily favored Eddie Murphy. And Arkin won. I found it charming that he set his Oscar on the stage beside him as he read his speech from a crumpled piece of paper. (I know I sure as hell would need a piece of paper, crumpled or otherwise, to keep my thoughts straight up there.)

Maybe the Academy decided that Arkin's long career should be honored. Or that Murphy's performance, while good, wasn't Oscar-worthy. Or maybe the bad karma Murphy had accumulated through bad movies (maybe some of the Oscar voters saw Norbit over the weekend?) and all the homophobic shit he slung back in his standup-comedy days bit him in the ass. Or maybe the fact that Sailor J loves Little Miss Sunshine so very much tipped the scales. (It also won for Best Original Screenplay, so she must be doubly happy.)

Whatever. I'm happy for Alan Arkin.

And I got to see Jennifer Hudson win Best Supporting Actress for Dreamgirls. I thought she deserved it and said so when I left the theatre with Sister Dee. (I think my exact words were, "Just give her the damn Oscar, already.") I'm glad the Academy agreed.

I had hoped Peter O'Toole would finally win an Oscar, but that didn't happen. Not that I begrudge Forest Whitaker--he's always been a solid actor, and it's great to see him the Academy give him some long-overdue recognition. But O'Toole is elderly and reportedly in ill health, he really should have won one by now, and, by all accounts, his performance in Venus was indeed Oscar-worthy; it wouldn't have been a pity award. Would have been nice, is all I'm saying. Maybe he'll get nominated again. And maybe he'll win. Stranger things happen every day in this world.

At least Martin Scorcese finally won for The Departed, just as I'd predicted, but I was sleepy and today was a workday, so I was long in bed by the time he asked, "Could you double-check the envelope?"

One of these years, I'll guess right in every single category. Until then? Five out of six ain't bad.