Skip to main content

Beauty


Berkley MI
Wednesday

If it hadn’t been for the virus, my son Justin would most likely not have decided he needed to subscribe to Disney Plus. Which means he wouldn’t have generously shared that subscription with his Dad. Which means his Dad wouldn’t have thought to fill a glaring gap in his lifelong inquiry into the American Musical. I had never seen “Beauty and the Beast.”
You know the one. The Disney animated musical, 1991. Menken and Ashman. Alan Menken is a New Rochelle native, as am I. And how strange is it that New Rochelle has suddenly popped again into the national consciousness—first time since the Dick Van Dyke Show, I think. My cousin Jo-Ann told me that Alan Menken went to New Rochelle H. S. around the same time we did (I didn’t know him), and that his father was a friend of her father, my Uncle Arthur. Indeed, they were colleagues—both were dentists.
Now, astute followers of the American Musical might perk up at that tidbit—that Menken’s father was a dentist. Because we all know that when Menken and Ashman wrote “Little Shop of Horrors,” they memorably chose for their villain none other than a sadistic dentist (played by Steve Martin in the excellent movie). Freud might’ve had fun with that one.
Of course, I’ll always have a warm spot for Little Shop, ever since my son Dylan played Seymour—and I got to play him vicariously—in an above-average college production. I’m still jealous of him.
But I never saw Beauty. My boys were exactly the wrong age to be able to buy the VHS tape, since Disney staggered its re-issues to miss their childhoods, more or less completely. We certainly wore out “Aladdin” and “The Lion King,” but the gap in my Ashman-Mencken education remained for another 20 years or so. Until yesterday. If it hadn’t been for the virus, it might not have occurred to me to watch a movie on my own in the afternoon. Thanks, virus.
It was as good as I expected, but I’m not going to critique it here. Rather, I’m going to lament once again the untimely passing of Howard Ashman. He died just as Beauty was being released in ’91. He never saw Aladdin get made, even though it was largely his idea. He was a casualty of the AIDS epidemic, as were many in the arts. By then I had known quite a few who had died the same way, including my mentor in the ad business.
It would be silly to draw parallels between that plague and this one—there are few similarities to speak of—but it’s worth noting that this was when we first met Dr. Fauci. He was almost as visible then as he is now. Even then, his just-the-facts persona cut through the bullshit. Even then he had to deal with a president who downplayed a deadly virus—Reagan was an early prototype of the modern dumbfuck Republican, though he was far to the left of today’s party. If he were still around he’d be primaried.
So Ashman was gone by age 40, and I miss the songs he never got to write. Even so, he left us a lot to listen to. His lyrics were never less than exceptional and his theatrical instincts were so spot on that he’s credited with single-handedly reviving the Disney animation franchise, which had fallen into deep and widely-publicized disrepair. Without Beauty and “The Little Mermaid,” “Frozen,” would never have happened. Which I might watch as well.
Thanks to Justin’s subscription, I will no doubt be re-discovering most of the Ashman legacy in the coming days. Thanks again, virus.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...
11 comments
Read more

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...
Post a Comment
Read more

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...
1 comment
Read more