Wither Trump

  As a guess, right now, via some unobserved channel, a feeler has been sent out to someone who knows someone, who knows someone else, who has the ear of someone in authority at the US Department Of Justice.

 "If Donald Trump ended his campaign for the presidency in 2024, and pledged to stop the shit stirring that led to the attempted insurrection and that has helped divide the nation- would any potential federal charges against him... go away?

 Not by pardon. That's unattainable unless a particular type of Republican takes the presidency. But by the simple expedience of not actually pressing these charges?

 Hey, Binky, it's a win-win. Trump gets off the national political stage, and doesn't spend the next couple years fighting in court- and whatever administration is in office next does not have to deal with the political ramifications of Trump's not facing charges.

 Just, you know, think it over. Word to the wise, and all. "

 Assume Biden retains the presidency- four more years. That gives us until January 2029 before a pardon might be issued for any Federal crimes. Best part of a decade- during which all kinds of things can happen, if charges are filed- and even if they are simply left hanging over head.

 During which Trump, in office or not- can stir up a lot of cess, what hey?

 Why not just... kick this away, now? Trump is closing in on his eighties, he's already slowing down- clearly slowing down- what are the odds that he'll become more reasonable, more responsible, more sane?

 This is the... Doug and Dinsdale Piranha approach. Nice country you have there, squire. Shame if something were to... happen to it. 

  I can even imagine Biden- the ever reasonable man who seems to believe in the Siegel and Shuster version of the US- working his way toward this kind of thinking. 

 "Pardon? HELL no. But if we could just make him go away... let the country get over him. get past him? Make the deal"

 This is- of course- exactly the wrong thing to do. 

 Because?

 Because things keep getting worse. Nixon? Watergate only got investigated at all because of massive bad luck and incompetence. And even then, once the nation got a taste for Sam Irvin chewing thoughtfully on his vowels, what was the result? Congress sent representatives to the Oval Office with a 45 caliber automatic, with one bullet in the chamber; resign, or we impeach, and we convict.  

 Then Reagan ignored Congress, as well as the Constitution, traded arms with Iran and used what sure seems to have been illegally raised cash to run a private war. Then George HW Bush lied us into a war with Iraq, first telling Saddam Hussein's government that the US would not interfere in their dispute with Kuwait-  they invaded a week later- and then crying to anyone who listened about this illegal and evil invasion. Then fabricating evidence of a non existent military build up as justification for sending in troops. Thousands died, thousands injured. Including a great many civilians when the US targeted infrastructure for leverage. 

 And then his son, after ignoring warnings specifically related to a potential attack on the World Trade Center- warnings which specifically mentioned Osama Bin Laden, lied us into an even bigger war in the Middle East. 

 Had Nixon faced serious consequences for his actions, I would argue that none of these things would have taken place- because each president would have been aware of the perils of running afoul of Congress. Of pissing off the people who can take you right the hell out of office and throw you into prison. 

 But nothing happened then. And nothing happened again, and again, and again. Some exciting theatrics, to interest the factions, but nothing else.

 What, then, dissuades a man like Trump from saying and doing whatever the hell he pleases? What dissuades him- when common sense won't- from stirring up an attempt to overthrow the government of the US when he loses an election?

 Not a goddamned thing. 

 We have gone from a man trying to game an election through three men who ran illegal wars in other countries, and now to a man who tried to start a war in this country.

What's next? If we don't demonstrate that there are limits to our tolerance, if we don't have one of the three Constitutional authorities following through on what is their job- oversight and if necessary, punishment- when whomever gets into that office has no fear- not of the people or of his government- what next?

 Think about this. Trump didn't actually get away with overturning the election. If you have been following the J6 hearings, it is pretty clear that the big stop for them was massive incompetence: Bad advice, lots of bad judgement and really terrible follow through. Marked by a clear lack of true belief in what they were trying to do.

 Trump didn't want to stay in office because of the work, because of the things he thought his administration had to get done for this country. Trump wanted to stay there because the thing- which I am certain he never either expected to win or wanted to win- turned out to be a pretty good gig.  Lots of ego-boo. Lots of knob polishing. People who formerly wouldn't let him or any of his greasy ilk through the front door- and certainly not in daylight- had to lay out the red carpet. People spent money- and a lot of it- to curry favor. 

 It also kept him away from prosecution.

 His staff, his lawyers, his advisers didn't want to stay in power for any better reason. 

 So. What if the next president is smarter? Is more interested in their agenda, and surrounds themselves with whip smart true believers, true idealists?

 If Trump doesn't get a serious taste of the lash for his actions- this latest escalation in presidential middle finger waving? This still theoretical smart and competent president will get away with far more, and to my thinking, far worse. 

 The J6 committee are done. The new Congress, seated in January, are not going to be interested in much other than either keeping Biden's plans going or stopping Biden cold. Referrals for charges have been made.

 There is still time left for the DOJ to act. For this administration to act. 

  And they should. Trump should be tried, and if the evidence supports it, found guilty and sentenced.

 Jail?

 Never happen. Throwing an 80ish year old man- and former president- into jail? Never happen. 

 But there are other punishments to consider. Forbidding him from holding office, closing down his finances, restricting the amount of trouble he can cause. 

 Sending a message down through time to the next president.

 

 

Stan Lee

 Today would have been Stan Lee's 100th birthday. I would be stunned if anyone reading this had no idea who he was, as his name has been synonymous with US popular culture since the middle of the last century.

 The Spectacular Spider-Man. The Invincible Iron Man. The Incredible Hulk- and a great many other cultural icons, spanning TV, movies, literature- and comic books.

 There were- and are- other creative minds at work on these. Have been from the start. But the guiding mind behind those minds- for decades- was Stan Lee.

 Who, despite my overwhelming love for a couple of characters run by a competing company? Made Mine Marvel, every time.

 Stan's success- often studied, often imitated, never equaled in such things? I think it came down to two reasons. Two not at all secrets.

 One? His characters dealt with the sort of problems his readership faced- though writ large, often during a large, world or worlds threatening crisis. Iron Man was a drunk with a bad heart and a worse conscience. Spider-Man was a kid who felt enormous guilt over the deaths of his uncle and first love. Trying to balance adult responsibilities on some narrow shoulders. The Hulk? Jeezus, where to begin with the problems dumped on Bruce Banner- but foremost? How do I deal with the rage I feel at being treated like shit? How- more to the point- at being treated like a big, dumb kid?

 Two? Stan knew the value of marketing an image. When you think of DC, or Image or what have you, other big players? You think of characters. But for Marvel- for my entire life? Stan Lee. Stan Lee the creator, Stan Lee the snappy epigramist and commenter. Stan Lee, the big, enthusiastic kid. The big kid who somehow got control of the candy store, and ran it like we would. Was that image true? Not always. Not entirely. Poke and prod and you'll find bruised egos, stepped on toes, all of the stuff you find in any life.

 Except for that last bit. The bit about being a big kid.

 And for me- as well as all of us who grew up with Stan Lee's Marvel?

 That was the sale.

 I might not have been sure about the character, the writers, the artists. But if Stan Lee thought it was worth a look?

 I looked. And more often than not, I bought. Here's to you, Stan. Excelsior!

A Little Chat About Characterization: Villains And Heroes

 I've been cranking through a rewatch of the old TV series "ER".

 Most of you, reading this, probably remember it. Incredibly popular. Ran 15 years from 1994. Known for a clever mix of relatively accurate medical horror and staff soap operatics. 

 Thing is... it's incredibly well written, at least as far as I've gotten, which is season 5. Sometimes they go too far into the soap operatics, sometimes the medicine is less accurate than it ought to be- yes, another thing for which I stickle- but even when it's not a top ten episode, the writing is to a high standard. 

 In particular, the characterization. 

 I want to talk about two characters. Lead, Doctor Mark Green, played by Anthony Edwards, and supporting character Robert Romano, played by Paul McCrane.

 Green is THE hero of the show. He's the one who, despite varying titles and responsibilities, runs the emergency room at the fictional Chicago Loop hospital. He's the one who sets the tone and the pace. The one everyone turns to for validation- if not always answers. As introduced, he is a balanced sort of guy, reacting to stress with abundant humor.  His best friend, a pediatric resident, shows up blind drunk, looking to get treated for alcohol poisoning after a night on the town- he gets him treatment, keeps him away from the staff until he recovers, and once he does, puts him right to work. Edwards' handling of the material is deft. Green is tired, Green is more than a little sick of his friend's self destructive bullshit, and Green is overwhelmed with his own responsibilities. Edwards plays it straight- with a lovely undertone of wry, self amused exhaustion.  You can tell that he loves his job, his family, his friend- but that, just once, just fucking once, he'd like a little space.

 This is part of what makes Green relatable, rather than a saintly Medical Center or MASH style doctor*- one who staggers from extreme to extreme. Green is just a normal guy, with a difficult job, trying to wade through his days- and not be an asshole. 

 The other part is that Green is _never_ presented as blameless or perfect. Dedicated to his work, he screws up his marriage and his relationship with his daughter- he's never home, and when he is, he's still processing things that happened at work. He blows up relationships with friends- the same reason- and he's often less flexible than advertised, taking a stark position, in the end, and forcing it onto a situation just to get it resolved. Might not be the resolution that others want, but it gets things moving past a situational stall. He does not like to explain, past a certain point, he's short tempered under stress and he's got massive issues with his parents. 

 All of which are developed inside the episodes. ER does, on occasion, dedicate an entire episode to character development. And, as the lead, Green gets his share of these. But the development is earned, built toward. 

 More, Green learns- as do other characters in their lives. Green learns from his experiences, and changes, for good or ill.

 As the series progresses, the "hero", as a result, gets to do some damned unheroic things, which are absolutely not presented with moral or ethical ambiguity or shading. With justification. The audience may or may not empathize with Green, but we damned well understand how he got there. 

 The single most shocking scene- designed to be shocking, meant to be shocking- is when the good Doctor Green, the hero, the father figure, kills a guy in very, very cold blood. 

 The man went on a rampage, blaming Green and the ER's social worker for turning his son against him. He killed people, paralyzed the social worker, and went looking to kill Green. The man turns up in the ER, and Green ends up alone with him in an elevator, taking him to surgery, when the killer has a heart attack. 

 The man's reactions, seen prior, were not unsympathetic. The writing never justifies him, but it does kinda sorta explain him. The expectation, in this scene, is that Green will do his job, according to his oath, and keep the guy alive. That he will understand that they share an odd bond- both driven into emotional extremes by concern for their families, by a need to do what they see as right when others do not see it. Green, according to expectations, is the other half of the coin to the man. 

 This man went off track, blamed others for his own problems, eventually driven to kill in a sort of madness. Green, on the other hand, has learned to take responsibility for himself. To understand that life, despite what we want it to be, what we try to force it to be, and hope that it will be, is not fair at all. 

 What actually happens, is that Green puts electrical conductant gel on the man's chest, charges the shock paddles, and then holds them in the air and releases the charges. While looking straight into the man's eyes, as he realizes that Green? The dedicated doctor that even he, in the end, trusts?

 Is withholding treatment. That Green is killing him. In fact, that Green has premeditated this. When the post mortem is done, when the staff holds the mortality and morbidity hearing about this death, all the steps Green ought to have done- will be in evidence. The gel was spread, the paddles were charged and discharged. The data will reflect his story- that he did what he could, but there was no reaction. As sometimes happens. Green's eyes, as he watches all this hit- the man understanding that he is being murdered, and why, and that Green is going to get away with it- are cold. Not dead, not holding some sort of killer aspect, the thousand yard stare or whatever. 

 Just cold. Yep. Life's unfair, pal. You did what you did expecting to get away with it, and the universe put me here to insure that you don't. In fact, that you didn't.

 It's shocking, in the end, for the audience because of the realization that it's not at all out of character for Mark Green to do this.  That the prior five seasons have made Green into the sort of man who can do this, and our shock is that- holy mother of god, we didn't see this clearly until just this moment. 

 Heh-heh-heh. 

 Brilliant. I doubt it was plotted out, long term, that Green would do this. It was probably a combination of things. The actor leaving the series chief amongst them, wanting to give him a strong send off and all of that sponsoring someone to take a good, long look at the character- into what he'd gone through and grown through. And figured... you know? Just once, this guy isn't going to make it home. 

 Mark Green, as written, directed and acted, is as powerful an example of character as I have seen. 

 Which brings me to Robert Romano. The character is a weasel. An antagonist who manipulates and lies and pushes himself into a position of authority at the hospital. No one likes him. No one wants to be around him. He's a very good doctor and surgeon. But the penalty for being in his orbit- unending, sarcastic criticism, no respect shown. Unless the other character is in a position of authority over him - in which case Romano is a stunningly straight ahead kiss-ass.  Paul McCrane seems to be having a wonderful time playing this. He delivers cold stares, snotty smiles, and vicious put downs with style. 

 But, again, the writing.

 He's not Frank Burns to Mark Green's Hawkeye. Or Wo Fat to McGarrett. 

 As the character progresses through the seasons, the writers put a lot of windage into Romano. He's a sexist, even a misogynist. But he also protects and mentors those whom he would seem to oppose. When one accidentally comes out as a lesbian to him, he never thinks about using that, somehow, to his advantage. When another develops doubts about her surgical skills, he pushes her to her limits- no explanation given- to see if she can recover. At one point not responding to her desperate pages for his assistance in a surgery, letting he flail around. What she does not know- but the audience sees- is that Romano is actually scrubbed up and ready to step in to help. But holding back, watching to see whether or not she, stimulated by this stress, finally pulls it together. 

 More, as irritating as the weasel can be, he's almost always got an acceptable ulterior motive. 

 He wants to be head of X department because he is aware of someone else's legitimate short comings and - no small ego- genuinely believes that he is the better candidate. He wants to get rid of a staff psychologist because he genuinely believes that she's a future liability. 

 The audience gets to see this stuff- but the other characters do not. We see that Romano is not a villain so much as a man with no social skills whatever, a huge- but justified- professional ego and a pathological desire for excellence. In staff, in administration, in surgery. 

 Evidenced, again and again, when ER staff square off with him, expecting him to be an asshole about something, and, once they explain their need, their decision, their dilemma, Romano nods and walks away.

 Not agreeing, necessarily, with the decision or the choice, but seeing it was made out of that drive for excellence, for doing the job at a high level... and knowing that the person needs to deal with the consequences in order to learn and grow.

 If Green is the father figure, Romano is the boss that turns out not to be an opponent but more of a professional adversary, trying to get you to take control of your own damned life.

 The writing and acting are almost hysterically good. The audience ends up enjoying the character, understanding him, and still thinking he's a dick. 

 ER's writing and acting are what kept it on the air for a remarkable fifteen years. And whether or not the thing is taught in writing classes, it ought to be. 

 

 

 

* Bullshit, man. Hawkeye and Trapper, BJ, Margaret, Charles- all very well drawn characters, hardly saints. Uh, no. No. Because even when they made poor choices, wrong choices, MASH made those choices seem morally or at least situationally right. All justified. ER does not do that with Greene. When Greene screws up, he screws  up- and deals with the consequences. The characters on ER have, as a rule, to deal with the consequences of screwing up, when they do. 

Show, not Tell.

 Stage and screenplays require different writing muscles from other texts. Novels, short stories- you take whatever point of view that you favor, you dip into and out of character's heads, you can, if you choose, take a godly perspective on all that you detail. 

 Writing for the stage and the screen requires one _serious_ change. Since you cannot go into the minds of your characters, or assume an omniscient view in the narrative... you have to show everything. 

 Easy example. In another format I could go into any level of detail I wanted, to indicate that my character was getting hungry. I could say that they were hungry. I could talk about a gnawing sensation in their stomach. I could go into an anecdote about their growling stomach in church, or about a food daydream spoiling their concentration in a meeting, or, or, or. 

 In a stage or screenplay- which I am just going to call a play, for the rest of this- I have to show that. I have to write some playable instruction for the performer so that they can indicate this. 

 Problem is? Most writers take the short cut.

INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.

                                                            BOB

                                       I dunno, man. But I'm getting kinda hungry. You?

                                                            NEAL

                                         I could eat.

 Simple and direct, but this is _tell_,  It works- the audience knows that Bob is hungry, and the Neal is, as well. I could add in some dialogue about them choosing a restaurant, debating fast food or sit down, and so on. Or just cut to the two of them eating.

 All of which would be, really, tell. Not show. 

 Which robs the audience of an opportunity to _see_something_happen and leads to a static play.  It is efficient in terms of dialogue, but not great in terms of audience engagement. Nor does it tell the audience much about the characters.

 So.

INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.

 Bob is restless behind the big Buick's wheel. Looking left and right.

                                                                NEAL

                                   What are you looking for?

                                         

                                                                BOB

                                     Ain't you hungry? Jesus, I'm starvin'.

 Two lines. Establishing Bob's hunger with action- his looking around while he drives. Better. But still more talk than show. Still not revealing much about the characters.

 And it should. In any play, you have a limited amount of time to get the audience's attention and give them details about the characters. Too much at once, it comes across like an exposition dump. Too little, and your characters are impenetrable cyphers- with which no one can identify.  Neither helps the story.

Third try.

INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.

 Bob is restless behind the big Buick's wheel. Looking left and right. Slowing slightly as they drive. Clearly looking for something specific- but what? 

                                                                NEAL

                                        What are you looking for?

As they pass storefront after store front. Clothing, liquor, many restaurants. Bob's stomach growls. Loudly. Dramatically. It is, in the history of growling stomachs, an epic. Easily on par with a priest, farting during mass, in terms of stertorous surprise. Or a pussy fart. It takes Neal completely out of the moment. 

He laughs. Starts as snicker, then, off Bob's embarrassment, grows into a belly laugh, a guffaw. 

                                                               BOB

                                        Ain't you hungry?

Neal gives Bob side eye. Clearly timing his reaction for maximum burn. Nuclear burn. 

                                                              NEAL

                                        Not anymore. 

A moment of tension. Are they colleagues, friends- is their relationship such where a little gentle shit giving is welcomed or tolerated, or a potential call for a thrashing?

                                                             NEAL (CONT)

                                        I mean, Jeeeesus, that was pretty fucking filling.

The moment breaks, both men laughing. That kind of relationship.

                                                            BOB

                                                   (Bouncing his hands on the wheel)

                                      We gotta stop anyway.

                                                          NEAL

                                       No kidding. Someplace that sells underwear and what, a burger?

                                                          BOB

                                       Long as they have a men's.(beat) and onion rings. 

Laughing as they go in search of just such a place, they drive on. 

Better. Funny and indicative. But notice that most of that is... me telling you in the stuff that doesn't get to the audience. This is me, seeing the moment in my head and writing down exactly what I see. 

It works- but it is me directing on the page. And a little of that goes a long, long way. Actors have their own ideas, as do directors and producers. The more specific a writer gets on the page, the more constrained they feel. 

This is not a bad example of that, as far is it goes. I have done and read much worse. But the important thing here- it goes _too_far_ in that direction. A script is not meant to be the writer telling the production what to do as much as it is the writer telling a story and indicating possible ways for it to be told on stage or screen. It is not meant to be _this_ specific. I once got a note on a script, telling me that the best writing was in the notes, the asides, the action line comments. 

A good note for a potential novelist. Not for a script. You have to strike a line between telling enough to get the ideas across and telling too much. 

I should also point out that this is still more tell than show. 

Fourth try. 

INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.

Bob is restless behind the big Buick's wheel, looking left, then right, then centering his gaze on-

CLOSE UP: PIZZA JOINT sign. Neon, red and white checked pattern, perhaps with an extravagantly mustachioed guy in a chef's hat kissing his fingers. Does everything but scream in a terrible fake Italian accent. 

Bob is eyeing the thing like it's promising him sex. Or money.

                                                               NEAL (off Bob)

                                               Uh. You okay there, Bob?

Bob pulls up to the restaurant, stops the car and, as he gets out:

                                                                BOB

                                                Many possible answers.

Bob walks toward the restaurant. 

 Better. Bob no longer talks about his hunger, but visibly experiences it and acts. Neal notices and reacts with concern- which indicates a level of interest and possible affection for his partner in this. Bob sort of blows him off as he acts- which could indicate he's an all action, few words sort. But he blows him off with a smart-ass answer. Which indicates that he is either kind of an asshole- I was aiming for Harry Callahan with that- or that he is kind of an asshole, but within the bounds of his relationship with his partner, it's acceptable. 

It gets you to the same place as the third try- and good actors and direction could make all of these work. But as an actor and a director- I'd vastly prefer the fourth take on the scene. It gets you to much the same place, but allows for the production team to get there in their own way. And it's short.