BY BEN WINTERS
The first major arts
story of 2004 (not counting BritneySpears' quickie marriage, which this
column will be content to leavewithin parentheses) was a continuation
of a major arts story of 2002-03: how best to deal artistically with Sept.
11, 2001.
On
Jan. 6, a design for the memorial at "GroundZero," once the
site of the World Trade Center, was chosen at last--or chosen way too
soon, depending on who you ask. "Reflecting Absence," designed
by an architect in the employ of the city of New York, was described in
the Washington Post as an "elementa ltwinning of submerged pools,"
in the New York Times as "a teeming grove of trees above two deep
reflecting pools within the outlines of the twin towers," and in
a report by John J. Goldman in the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times
as "a pair of pools marking the footprints of the twint owers and
a grove of trees intended as a symbol of rebirth."
Newsday,
among other outlets, was not impressed:"Welcome to nowhere,"
wrote Justin Davidson. "Of the eight finalists in the memorial competition,
'Reflecting Absence,' by Michael Arad, was the blankest, the most forbidding,
the most oppressively generic."
Like
Maya Lin, who became famous in 1981 for her design ofthe Vietnam Veterans
memorial, the winner of the competition is not a sculptor or architect
of international renown. (Unlike Daniel Libeskind, the guy incharge of
the skyscraper that will soon begin to rise at the site.) Arad is "an
architect with the New York City Housing Authority who has worked on designs
for police stations in Brooklyn and the Bronx."
Time
will tell if Arad's design is stark, simple and effective or stark, understated
and boring. Memorials, like buildings, last a lot longer than most types
of art, which is why many people (including many family members of 9/11
victims) had hoped for a longer discussion and review period for the design.
Indeed, in the last days of the selection process, everyone seemed kind
of unhappy with the alternatives.
"Over
and over, the same critique was heard," writes Michael Powell in
the Post. "None of the designs spoke adequately to the horror of
what transpired, and the heroism it inspired."
This
Will Mean Confusion At The Blockbuster
You
can't argue with an article headlined "Springtime for U's Hip Hitler."
The
U in question is Universal Pictures; the "Hitler" in question
is The Producers. The headline, of course, is from Variety, who broke
the news that the hit Broadway musical, developed from the 1968 movie,
is set to complete the circle of life and become a movie once again in
2005. Starring will be the twosome who've made the Broadway version into
a phenomenon: Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Variety notes that both
Lane and Broderick will pull a "mid-seven-figure" salary for
the picture; this after both stars returned to the stage version for th
first quarter of 2004 at a mind-boggling (for the legitimate stage) $100,000
a week.
Variety
also notes that much of the creative team will remain in place for the
film transfer: "Key members behind the stage show are also said to
be on board, including Brooks, who will produce, his co-writer Thomas
Meehan, and Susan Stroman to helm."
(Confidential
to non-Variety-speakers: "Helm" means direct.)
(Confidential
to Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick: Can I borrow some money?)
Crikey!
Steve
Irwin is the Australian goofus whose crocodile-hunting antics elevated
him to the easily parodied pseudo-celebrity reserved forAussies like Paul
"Crocodile Dundee" Hogan. But Irwin found himself in some unfortunate
company in the early days of 2004, being compared to no less a child-endangerer
than Michael Jackson.
The
incident began on Jan. 2, when "Irwin posed for the cameras by feeding
chicken to [a crocodile] while holding his son in his other arm at his
reptile park in Beerwah," writes Lisa de Moraes in her always-entertaining
Washington Post TV column. "When it was shown on some Australian
TV networks, their phone lines were jammed with viewers expressing outrage."
Chickens
were also outraged, but lacked the facility to dial.
Irwin's
first response was to give the Australian public an "emotional defense
on Channel 9," according to the Sydney Herald, "in which he
refused to apologize for holding his baby son while feeding a 4-metre
crocodile. In fact, he vowed to do it again, when there were no cameras
around."
It
was only when concern was expressed by the Discovery Channel--which carries
"Crocodile Hunter" in the US and is presumably Irwin's dominant
income source--that Irwin began to sing a different tune. He told the
Today show how much he regretted the incident; if he could go back in
time, he said, he'd have gone surfing instead--presumably towing his son
behind him on a piece of baling wire.
Slightly
calling into question the sincerity of his contrition, Irwin noted that
his crocodiles are perfectly safe: "When you put your child into
the car, you have no control of the other traffic. When I'm in there with
the crocodiles, I am in complete control."
Isn't
that what Siegfried and Roy thought?
In
headlines and columns nationally and internationally, Irwin was compared
with accused child molester Michael Jackson, who last year dangled his
own baby son over a hotel balcony.
OK,
We Can't Resist
Shouldn't
at least one news outlet have called Jason Alexander (the one who played
George on Seinfeld) to ask what he made of Jason Alexander (the one who
married and then was quickly annulled by Britney Spears)?
The
most hilarious Britney Hearts Jason coverage was provided by the New York
Post's promotions department. On Jan. 8, they enticed readers with a "Win
Britney's Wedding" contest. The winning couple will be flown to Vegas
for a ceremony at the same chapel, plus accommodations and a duplicate
of the trashy garter Britney wore over her ripped jeans.
Man, this year is gonna be sweet.