Posts filed under 'The Hill'
Oscar speeches are looking up. This year, many were heartfelt and to the point but there was one that had and will continue to have an impact beyond the moment itself. Michael Giacchino, winner of best original score for “Up,” delivered the best Oscar acceptance speech Sunday night:
Thank you, guys. When I was… I was nine and I asked my dad, “Can I have your movie camera? That old, wind-up 8 millimeter camera that was in your drawer?” And he goes, “Sure, take it.” And I took it and I started making movies with it and I started being as creative as I could, and never once in my life did my parents ever say, “What you’re doing is a waste of time.” Never. And I grew up, I had teachers, I had colleagues, I had people that I worked with all through my life who always told me what you’re doing is not a waste of time. So that was normal to me that it was OK to do that. I know there are kids out there that don’t have that support system so if you’re out there and you’re listening, listen to me: If you want to be creative, get out there and do it. It’s not a waste of time. Do it. OK? Thank you. Thank you.
I posted this in January/2010:
Why do so many performers fail to embrace and prepare an “acceptance speech” both in text and delivery? In public and behind closed doors, nominees say they don’t want to jinx themselves…please. If they had employed that lack of preparedness in their work, they wouldn’t have gotten nominated to begin with, so we do know they’ll throw down when it counts. Why don’t performers see their acceptance speech as a moment that counts? I propose one has to be more than just OK with receiving adulation. And the key distinction here is being OK with receiving the honor in public. In private, all feel and admit to feeling they deserve it, want it and hope for it. Yet, as that dream moment approaches, they un-create that very possibility. Very few can wing it and seize the moment of a win but those that can and do — with elegance and humor — do so because they are more than OK with “acceptance.” The road to finding one’s way with this acceptance is paved with preparedness. Like with anything, practicing out loud makes all the difference. And not just in private. You master acceptance with the practice of sharing your prepared and re-worked point of view with others. Then and only then can you stand for yourself, inspire millions and bask in the glow of a win.
Well done Mr. Giacchino.
March 9th, 2010
I teach it’s not just what words you use but how you use them. But before context, words on their own can have an impact, can have power. Words matter. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s used the word “retarded” back in August in a private political strategy meeting. This was reported and Rahm apologized. Yesterday he met with Tim Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics, and apologized — again. Rahm was asked to join the “Spread the Word to End the Word” campaign as Shriver and other advocates for Americans with disabilities are committed to having the R word removed out of everyday speech. Sarah Palin has now lashed out at Rahm for using the R word and called on Obama to fire Rahm. Does she think R-bomber Rush Limbaugh should be fired as well? As hurtful and insulting as the R word is to anyone with a disability and those who love them, I’d ask everyone to consider the impact of Rahm’s use of the S word — “sorry.” Or does the word “sorry” not matter? The R word carries more weight because…? Here it is: it doesn’t all come down to authenticity and intention and context/circumstance. Was Rahm calling someone with a disability “r—-?” No. Was he sincerely sorry if he hurt anyone by the use of the word? Perhaps. Still, a word’s power is not only as lethal as the intention behind it. Take the word “gay” or the N word? These are hot button words on their own, no matter the intention behind their use. With certain words, it’s not about the speaker but the ears that these words fall on that count. So the question begs, what about free speech? Yes, what about it? And at what price? More than words, human beings matter.
February 4th, 2010
Past Idol winners all knew who they were in vocal terms coming into their respective seasons. This season is proving to be no different. The first two singers to sail into the Top 12 this year were Danny Gokey and Alexis Grace. For the record they were the only singers, smart song choices aside, capable of sailing. More like a tug boat was Michael Sarver who also earned a spot in the 12. His vocals were uneven. I suggest Michael bring his soulfulness and compete for votes singing country rather than rock. “Uneven” vocals, and that’s being kind, were the theme of Tuesday’s competition. It always blows me away, that with all the talent in America, this is what is finally presented for TV. And it’s not just Idol. Have you heard the singers America’s Got Talent serves up? I worked on Nashville Star and Making Menudo and on both shows I was underwhelmed by the vocal talent that I was given to coach. I’ve private students right now who are beyond what we heard Tuesday night so I know the talent is out there. Maybe the talent, be it laziness, apathy or fear, just isn’t showing up at the auditions. Some of my best students aren’t interested in auditioning for Idol and I think that’s a grave mistake. Fortunately my Leona Lewis listened to me and grabbed the X Factor brass ring. Just for the experience of putting it all on line line, talented singers need to get out there and take a shot. So I’ll give the shows a pass in that some singers are being stingy with their talent but come one, dont’ tell me that this 36 on Idol is the best of the best we’ve got. We’ve got talent and this ain’t it.
It dawns on me that, because Idol’s focus is on being able to sing different “genres” and cover songs, that our premier talent out there could be more in the vain of singer/songwriters and they see Idol as a “last ditch attempt” of an opportunity. Would Amy Whinehouse or Chris Martin sans band have made it through X Factor’s early rounds? Duffy definitely. And on Idol, Bob Dylan, Colbie Caillat and John Mayer sans guitars? Jason Mraz definitely. Alica Keys definitely.
Where have all the singers gone? At home watching Idol.
Singers to listen for next Wed: Adam Lambert, Matt Giraud, Jasmine Murray, Megan Corkery and a sleeper, Mishavonna Henson.
February 19th, 2009
President George Bush and his speech writers delivered a farewell address last night to a not-so-grateful nation. “You may not have agreed with some of the tough decisions I made,” he read simply as he followed with words to the effect that he hoped his listeners appreciated the fact that he was willing to make those said tough decisions. Choosing the word “tough” was interesting, great even as it does, if not only for a moment, conjure up an image of a man wrestling with something - - a man with a conscience, if you will. Speech writers for decades have labored over answering the following question: “How do I make the case?” Well, first you start by knowing your audience. That they did. Next you must know what it is you want to communicate. That they didn’t. What they seemed to know, all too well, is what they wanted from their listeners. Words and phrases were carefully crafted to elicit understanding and forgiveness from listeners, the majority of whom are overwhelmed and disillusioned — at least pre-speech. I’m from an entertainment, legal, political and medical world so I can say this and know it’s truth in my bones: “It’s not over ’til it’s over.” Translation: When you know what it is you want to communicate and then speak those words that are hidden in your heart — when you let those words see the light of day…game on. Last night’s speech was focused on “getting” as opposed to “giving.” We never say that someone “got” a speech — it’s always been from the days of Socrates and before, he “gave” a speech. Writers and speakers, focus on giving to your listeners. I’ve met few who don’t like to get a gift. And, for the record, George Bush did give a gift last night — to late night shows and bloggers, as he read off the TelePrompter “Tombus Jefferson.”
January 16th, 2009
Hillary Clinton displayed her trademark command of the issues yesterday during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. But notice the change in her voice post election. She’s always come across with authority but the “shrill” is all but gone. Sometimes the loudest voice doesn’t win the battle. The quiet, centered, confident one has. Even raising her voice to state her intention of championing women’s rights around the world, she never got shrill. Nor did she, as impatient as she seemed, during questions re more frequent disclosure of Bill’s donors. A lot of vocal misuse (yelling above crowds, improper breathing, stress) during the campaign coupled with coming to terms with reality and who she still is, she has emerged with a new voice. Subtle maybe to some — but new. And as her words echoed it being a new day for America, it was a new day for her.
January 14th, 2009