Brainwash Rock

I’m no art historian, but it strikes me that the “art” of modern art takes place at some point after its creation. You paint a skyscraper-size donut, say, and then spend years talking about it: what it symbolizes, how it comments on what came before it, what it’s trying to say.

Successive modern movements upended the traditional “pretty picture” aesthetic established during the Renaissance, and in the process traditional formal skills became irrelevant. It’s all about the concept.

But in popular music, it wasn’t that simple. Ornette Coleman brought an avant-garde approach to jazz music, and at the time people thought he was just playing out of tune. Why the difference?

Unlike visual art, it takes time to listen to avant-garde music. And when so much music is so awful, how likely is it that the awful thing you’re listening to is awful for a reason? Like the giant donut, can you come to appreciate a piece of music just by talking about it?

Consider the 1969 album Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band. This record has legions of fans, a thing I know because at least 10,000 of them have tried to get me to listen to it. To the untrained ear, it’s the sound of stoned teenagers in a garage, not actually playing together but all playing different songs as they tune up or try out different amp settings. On top of that racket, there’s a guy spewing half-funny beat poetry in a near-perfect imitation of blues icon Howlin’ Wolf. So what makes it art?

Captain Beefheart (real name Don Van Vliet) recruited musicians with the idea to live the material, which meant communing in a small house outside Los Angeles for eight months and blocking out everything else. But what started as a hippiefied attempt at deep expression quickly turned into a hostage situation, later described by drummer John French as “Mansonesque.”

With no money, the band ate cold beans out of cans and took turns sleeping in various corners on the floor. They suffered constant emotional and physical abuse by Van Vliet, who demanded loyalty and ostracized those who questioned him. Straight out of the cult-leader playbook, he broke their wills by keeping them hungry and exhausted.

Van Vliet wrote melodies on the piano, an instrument he couldn’t play, that were then transcribed by John French for the band. Not knowing anything about keys or time signatures, Van Vliet assembled compositions bound together only by the paper they were written on. Thus you can hear, in just the first track, more than twenty melodic motifs in various keys and time signatures, stacked on top of each other.

But what sounds like chaos is actually an incredibly precise matrix of themes bound together by impossibly skillful musicians. With modern technology, it would be easy to overdub or program these parts, but they didn’t do that.

Captives of a megalomaniac, the band rehearsed for fourteen hours a day for eight months and their performance was recorded live. If they did the whole thing again, it would sound exactly the same.

Knowing this, when I hear the record, well… I still don’t like it. But in an art-historical sense, and considering the plight of those poor musicians, it’s hard not to stand in awe of it — kind of like the Pyramids, which were also created by slaves.

Taking a Pass at Marriage

I only know I did this because I was informed of it, by her, the following day. The subject line of the email read “Last night,” and its body detailed my slurred attempts to make a play for this unsuspecting woman.

None of it was lecherous, just clumsy and extremely uncouth. I, of course, replied, offering my sincerest apologies and clarifying that, had I been anywhere in the vicinity of my right mind, I never would have thought of, much less attempted, such an insane venture. I sent my slighted buddy — her spouse — a text stating the same. He was cordial, though I suspect I won’t be invited to Thanksgiving dinner this year.

In the days following my faux pas, my conscience took very few breaks from tearing into me, which I was fine with. I deserved it. The last thing you do after taking a figurative whiz on a couple’s marital vows is look for sympathy. In under a week, I believe I had three marginal panic attacks, four sleepless nights, and a roughly 120-hour stomachache.

Again, all of this was fitting penance for my incredible misstep.

While I was seeking counsel, some dear friends of mine, both male and female — incidentally, I refer to them as “dear” because they spared me the obvious “you fucked up” lectures — gave me open-minded guidance and advice.

They said, “You’re only human,” and “It happens,” and “This will pass in time.” Their kind words were appreciated, whether they meant them or not. My friends allowed me, and me alone, to kick myself while I was down, as they realized two pointed feet were more than enough.

But where was the lesson in all of this? What was the takeaway? Was it that, in a perfect world, you could betray a friend’s trust and he and his spouse might eventually just get over it? When posed with this question, my faithful companions should have responded with, “Get your brains out of your balls and stop looking for poetic meaning in making a pass at your friend’s wife.”

But nobody gave that, or any other, answer. So I continued to haplessly search for my own meaning in all of this and stopped pestering my pals for a life lesson in a complicated situation they didn’t cause.

This treasure hunt, at times aimless, at other times infuriating, eventually drove me to the greater realization I’d hoped for: Traditional marriage is not for me.

After years of stressing over my commitment issues, questioning my reluctance to settle down, and the idea of long-term relationships giving me the same sick feeling I had every night the weekend I headlined at a fish restaurant called Off the Hook in Marco Island, Florida, I finally understood that it wasn’t me. It was you, Marriage.

But what the fuck does this have to do with the shitty thing I did to my friend and his wife? I’d like to think there’s a profound connection. I haven’t been living my truth. Ugh, I hate that expression, even when it applies. But not living my truth led to not loving my life, led to not seeing my worth, led to not realizing my potential.

The undercurrent of discontent in my head, even though unrealized and unnoticed, is probably what caused me to attempt to sabotage someone else’s happiness, albeit inadvertently.

I’m not trying to put too fine a point on the matter. I get that sometimes we drink, sometimes we drink too much, sometimes we blackout, and sometimes we hit on the wrong person: bosses, coworkers, a friend of your mom’s, a distant cousin, a less distant cousin, and so on.

But I can’t help but believe that the mom in A Christmas Story had a lengthy string of subconscious motivations that started well before she accidentally broke that leg lamp. The dad knew what was really going on. “You used up all the glue ON PURPOSE!”

A healthy senior sex life is a nice notion if we all have the money and opportunity to age like Christie Brinkley. Problem is, you’ll still end up having to fuck John Mellencamp.

The actual conception of marriage is a bit hard to pin down, but I do know its initial roots lie in legend. And that’s a fact. So it’s time I put marriage on the same shelf on which I’ve set other storied illusions to collect dust. I’ve previously let go of voting, belief in teamwork, faith in progressivism, and my chances of ever actually constructing a working lightsaber. Wedded monogamous bliss must now join the aging pack.

Not to say I’ll pursue lovelessness and die alone. No way. I’m gonna get married someday. And as I ask you to wipe that “What the fuck are you talking about?” look off your face, I’ll state that I’m aware of my contradiction and, better yet, I have a solution for it: platonic marriage.

Here’s how it works: A friend and I — neither of us having any interest in standard matrimony — will pledge to live and grow old together, through the good times and bad, without the bond being muddied by sex or romantic intimacy. I love the friend, the friend loves me, so we take care of one another and keep our respective boning out of the house.

To be clear, I’m not talking about a couple who swings and swaps. That lifestyle works well for certain people, but I want a union completely devoid of sex — nothing to do with making love, everything to do with sustaining it.

Besides, I don’t know about you, but I’m not exactly worried about getting laid into my twilight years. I’m tired now, for Christ’s sake. But if I really need to get some squish at eighty-four, I’ll go see a hooker…a much, much, much younger hooker.

A healthy senior sex life is a nice notion if we all have the money and opportunity to age like Christie Brinkley. Problem is, even if you do, you’ll still end up having to fuck John Mellencamp. If that’s the fate that awaits me, I’ll gladly keep my companionship separate from my coitus.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to recognize intercourse as merely a means to an end. There’s nothing sacred about it. That’s why it’s called “getting off,” as in, “I’m done here and I need to quickly abscond from this situation.” If sex were truly special, it’d be called “getting on,” as in, “I’m here for the full ride, the long haul.” When it comes to fucking, I don’t need a life partner. I need a brief cooperative.

And if you’re wondering about kids…don’t. For starters, I don’t want them. But if the unlikely day that I do ever arrives, there’s no shortage of ways to obtain them outside of the act of marital conception: laboratories, adoption, fostering, and more. Hell, I bet I could even find one abandoned on the street if I really kept my eyes open. However, in that situation, I’d do my research to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN the child had been legitimately discarded before I took it home.

I don’t want to deal with the issues that traditionally complicate a marriage. Do we want a big family or a small one? Are your sexual desires identical to mine? If not, do I really have to try that? Are you still attracted to me? Why do we always have to fall asleep to Top Chef?

None of these issues matter in a platonic marriage. All that matters is that I’ll be with someone dear to me — someone who’d give me advice like, “Get your brains out of your balls” — and we’ll have each other’s backs, unconditionally, till death do us part. And if someone tries to fuck my friend, I won’t care.

Also, I’ll no longer be acting out in the unhealthiest of ways. Instead, I’ll be (sorry!) living my truth.

Sexual McCarthyism and Art

So now the #MeToo movement is pressuring museums not to show the work of artists who have been accused of sexual improprieties. One current high-profile case involves the great portrait artist Chuck Close, a paraplegic, who has been accused of asking potential models to get naked when they audition to pose for him. This has made several women uncomfortable and they have complained.

There are other allegations as well, regarding his reference to their body parts, but he has denied doing anything improper.

“I’ve never had a complaint in 50 years — not one,” said Close. “The last time I looked, discomfort was not a major offense.” He acknowledged having a “dirty mouth,” but added, “We are all adults.”

Without any semblance of a trial, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., has indefinitely postponed an exhibition of Close’s painted and photographic portraits.

What’s next? Will Picasso’s paintings be removed from museums around the world? Jock Reynolds, director of the Yale University Art Gallery, expressed precisely that concern: “Pablo Picasso was one of the worst offenders of the twentieth century in terms of his history with women. Are we going to take his work out of the galleries? At some point you have to ask yourself, is the art going to stand alone as something to be seen?”

Artists throughout history have had sexual encounters with their models. Even if consensual, there is obviously a power structure involved. Some artists, like Egon Schiele, have used underaged models and painted them in the nude. In 1912, Schiele spent 24 days in jail, charged with the seduction of a female minor (that charge was dropped) and convicted of exhibiting erotic drawings in a place accessible to children.

I recently saw an exhibit of Schiele’s paintings in Vienna, which included some artistic renderings of children. Should the paintings be taken down? And what about the work of French Impressionist Pierre-August Renoir, who said some demeaning things about women?

A few years ago, New York’s Metropolitan Museum had an exhibit of works collected by Gertrude Stein. The exhibit never mentioned that Stein was a Nazi collaborator who worked closely with the head of the Gestapo in Occupied France, and later helped him escape.

When I brought this to the attention of the curator, the museum agreed to sell a book that documented her despicable collaboration with the Nazis. No one suggested taking down the exhibit. I guess it’s worse to ask a woman to pose naked than to collaborate with genocidal murderers.

There are no standards by which museums make these kinds of decisions. They simply seem to follow current public opinion. It used to be right-wingers who demanded that offensive art be taken down; now it’s the censorial left.

The implications of museum censorship of great artists, based on their personal behavior, goes well beyond sexual misconduct. Some of the greatest artists in history have lived deeply flawed lives, behaving in predatory and even criminal ways. The great painter Caravaggio was accused of murder — and he’s not the only artist to face such an accusation. As the New York Times recently pointed out, both the nineteenth-century photographer Eadweard Muybridge and the contemporary sculptor Carl Andre have been accused of homicidal crimes. Furthermore, many artists, particularly in France at the turn of the twentieth century, were rabid anti-Semites who supported the persecution of Alfred Dreyfus. Others were members of the Nazi party in the 1930s and 1940s. Still others, like the great abstract painter Mark Rothko, were communists or “fellow travelers” sympathetic to the Soviet experiment under Stalin.

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement targets Israeli artists — even those who disagree with Israel’s current policies regarding the Palestinians. Should museums go along with BDS? Once the decision is made to judge artists by their personal or political actions or affiliations, there is no stopping the process. If every artist whose actions offend someone is banned, the walls of our museums will be bare.

I have no problem with museums disclosing to visitors the sordid activities of exhibited artists, so long as there is a neutral standard and a fair process by which both sides of the alleged misconduct can be heard and evaluated. Museumgoers could then decide for themselves whether to view a particular artist’s work. But censoring art based on unproven and disputed allegations is a modern form of sexual McCarthyism.

After a Day of Stupid: Journalism

White House stories, Russian influence stories, political shenanigans — it seems like every day since the 2016 election a fresh twist or brewing scandal has set headline writers and cable-news bookers scrambling. With people following closely, online readership for the New York Times and Washington Post reporting has skyrocketed, right along with digital subscription numbers. The Trump bump, it’s been called.

And at night, legions of cable-news anchors, correspondents, and pundits dissect what’s going on, with passionate audiences tuning in. This month we salute some of those who bring us breaking news or comment smartly on it in the evenings. And since this is Penthouse, we went ahead and selected ten accomplished women who combine intelligence, news chops, and on-camera appeal to leave a memorable impression every time out. After a day of stupid, here are women who bring sense and insight to news of the world.

Katy Tur, MSNBC
A daughter of journalists who majored in philosophy, Tur worked as a Weather Channel storm chaser and an award-winning local reporter in L.A. and New York before joining NBC News. She rose to prominence as an embedded reporter shadowing the Trump campaign. More than once Trump singled her out during his rally media-bashing. Tur wrote about that experience and others in Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History. Wild cards: Her middle name is Bear. She once dated Keith Olbermann.

Michelle Kosinski, CNN
A graduate of Northwestern, Kosinski received an MA from that same university’s prestigious journalism school. Following reporting stints in Charlotte and Miami, Kosinski became a London-based foreign correspondent for NBC, covering the war in Afghanistan, European terrorism, and U.S.-Russia relations. She won an Emmy for live reporting on the 2008 presidential election. In 2014, Kosinski became CNN’s White House correspondent and now serves as senior diplomatic correspondent covering the State Department.

Eboni Williams, Fox News Channel
A lawyer educated at the University of North Carolina and Loyola University in New Orleans, Williams has worked as a public defender, criminal attorney, and legal analyst for CBS News. Joining Fox in 2015, Williams has co-hosted several shows, including Fox News Specialists, where she debated legal and political matters. Author of Pretty Powerful: Appearance, Substance, and Success, Williams works in radio as well. In 2017, she co-hosted alongside Curtis Sliwa for three daily hours on WABC Radio.

Pamela Brown, CNN
Formerly CNN’s justice correspondent, Brown now covers the Trump administration as senior White House correspondent. Daughter of 1971 Miss America Phyllis George and a Kentucky ex-governor, Brown was one of few local-news reporters to cover the 2010 Haiti earthquake, sending stories back to her D.C.-area station. Joining CNN in 2013, she has reported from Paris after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, from Brussels after the 2016 attack, and has done major investigative reporting on sex trafficking.

Katherine Timpf, Fox News Channel
A magna cum laude graduate of Hillsdale College in her home state of Michigan, the witty libertarian cohosted on Fox News Specialists in 2017 and appears often on Fox News evening shows. Timpf is also a stand-up comic, writes for the National Review, and had a weekly Barstool Sports show. “You may recognize me from being mad at me,” her Twitter bio quips. After criticizing — live on Fox News Specialists — Trump’s reaction to the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville last August, Timpf received death threats.

Rebecca Berg, CNN
Named a CNN politics reporter in late 2017, this San Diego native studied journalism and political science at the University of Missouri and was selected as a New York Times political reporting fellow after graduation. She’s reported on politics for BuzzFeed, RealClearPolitics, and the Washington Examiner. Berg cut her journalistic teeth reporting on the 2014 midterm elections and the Republican field during the 2015-2016 presidential campaign.

Julia Ioffe, CNN/MSNBC
A history major at Princeton, Ioffe is a widely published journalist who writes about national security and foreign policy for The Atlantic. Based in Moscow for several years while working as a correspondent for The New Yorker and Foreign Policy, this fluent Russian speaker is also a Putin expert. Former senior editor at The New Republic, Ioffe has generated in-depth reporting on Russian election meddling, Russian sanctions policy, and Putin’s goals.

Alexandra Field, CNN
A French and history major at Hamilton College, Field holds an MA in journalism from Syracuse. As an international correspondent based at CNN’s Asia-Pacific headquarters in Hong Kong, Field covers breaking news globally. She has reported on terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Dhaka, Brussels, and Boston. Along with filing in-depth stories on Islamist killings in Bangladesh, Field has done investigative reporting on Pakistani “honor killings,” Vietnamese bride-smuggling, and North Korean nuclear testing.

Natasha Bertrand, MSNBC
Early this year, Bertrand joined The Atlantic as a staff writer on national security and the intelligence community, focusing on the Trump-Russia investigation. Previously she was at Business Insider on the same beat. A graduate of Vassar and the London School of Economics, Bertrand once worked at a politics think tank in Madrid studying EU relations with the Middle East and North Africa. Biography wild card: handlebar-mustached Trump attorney Ty Cobb asked her if she was “on drugs” in a September e-mail exchange.

Clarissa Ward, CNN
A Yale grad who speaks seven languages, including Arabic, Chinese, and Russian, Ward has been in the news business since 2002, working for ABC, CBS, and now CNN, where she’s a London-based senior international correspondent. One of the bravest and most decorated reporters in broadcast news, Ward has won multiple Peabody, Emmy, and Edward R. Murrow journalism awards. Since the start of Syria’s civil war, she has entered the country more than a dozen times to do high-risk reporting. In 2014, she became the first journalist to interview an American Isis fighter inside Syria. Ward has covered numerous European terrorist attacks and often reported from Moscow since Trump became president.

Pomp and Circumstance

Is it necessary? No, it’s really not. It’s not like twenty-first century America’s lacking for pageantry when it comes to war and the military. Is it responsible? We’re in year 17 of an endless war on terror and extremism, and estimates peg this parade in the area of $30 million. It is decidedly irresponsible. Will it be fun? You know, even this crabby Irishman has to admit it’ll probably be a really good time.

We’re still months away and I already know I’ll use it as an excuse to get away from the family for a weekend and drink too much with friends and former brothers and sisters in arms and wake up on my brother’s couch wondering why and how there’s a bruise shaped like the state of Missouri on my leg.

Tanks and artillery guns and polished infantry soldiers rolling down Constitution Avenue may prove a strange sight, but something similar happened post-Gulf War and the soul of the republic didn’t immediately go black. We’ll be okay. (That we clearly and definitively won that earlier war is an aside perhaps worth noting. Anyhow.) What unsettled me most is the parade’s scheduled date: Veterans Day, on the centennial of the end of World War I.

Parades remembering the past (even a nostalgic past) can convey the complexity, the mix of pride and sadness that war should conjure in a citizenry.

Veterans Day, of course, grew out of Armistice Day, an old holiday that honored the same World War I anniversary in an ultimately futile attempt to keep human beings from killing each other for resources and power. Having an inaugural tribute to a military mired in perpetual conflict on the centenary of that seems… vulgar is one word that comes to mind. Dense is another. Here’s World War I vet and writer Robert Graves with some thoughts on the subject, from his poem “Country At War”:

“And what of home — how goes it, boys/ While we die here in stench and noise?”

A hundred years later, it shouldn’t be about us. It should still be about them.

Then there’s the whole Veterans Day overlap.

In theory, I get it. We have three main patriotic holidays in America. One — the Fourth of July — is reserved for fireworks and good times, while another — Memorial Day — is for honoring the fallen… and holding mattress sales. So when Pentagon chief Jim Mattis and others got tasked with the new parade, their options were limited. But there’s a not-insignificant difference between veterans and active service members, and it’ll be interesting to see how that difference is navigated in the planning and at the event.

By honoring veterans and Veterans Day, society is paying homage to a fixed past — things that cannot be changed or altered, but perhaps learned from and studied. Something occurred, sometimes just, sometimes not, unfortunately, and now it’s in the annals of history. Men and women who were part of that history serve as living touchstones for those annals — walking connective tissue in a way. It can’t be said enough that war, no matter how just, is not glory. It’s state-sanctioned violence. Who knows that best, and can speak to it personally? Vets.

Parades remembering that past (even a nostalgic past) can convey the complexity, the mix of pride and sadness that war should conjure in a citizenry. Can parades honoring the present do the same? I’m not sure. I hope so. We have parade-like events already, of course, involving the active military — Fleet Week most prominently.

But a parade modeled after France’s Bastille Day, as the president wants, goes well beyond even the Fleet Week celebration and ceremony. (That Bastille Day commemorates a toppling of the rich from power is another aside perhaps worth noting. Anyhow.) What does it say about the state of America — and America’s relationship to war and service — that the spectacle of the immediate trumps all, even memory?

Can parades honoring the present do the same?

Hell if I know. But my man Graves might. Here he is again, from his classic 1929 memoir Good-Bye to All That: “Patriotism, in the trenches, was too remote a sentiment, and at once rejected as fit only for civilians or prisoners.”

So that’s who the parade will really be for — which is fine, in its way. Let’s just be honest about it. Vets and civilians alike.

Which brings me back to that intersection between veteran and active servicemember: I’m sure come November, everyone will be good and respectful. Vets will feel bad for the marching slick-sleeves, promising to buy them drinks once it’s all over. The slick-sleeves will be eager to hear some vet stories, as something in the tales may prove helpful to their future combat tours.

That vets will be watching this Veterans Day will be an oddity noticed by many but understood by few. (That’s an assumption on my part, and I suspect a couple veterans groups will play roles in the parade — but you really think the powers that be are going to let the angry and the righteous in our ranks march past Dear Leader on his dream day? I’m skeptical. Though a platoon-size element of long-haired grunts who met at the VA marching down Constitution Avenue behind all the pomp and polish would be a sight to see.)

There won’t be any Bonus Army-type nonsense between veteran and soldier. Not in 2018, at least. But this parade will serve as a marker that separates the two groups a little bit more than time and experience already has. That’s uncomfortable. Not a doubt in my mind it’ll still be so, come the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in Washington.

See you there.

Hollywood Remakes: Take Two?

If anything, it’s getting worse. So prepare yourselves, people, for reimaginings/reboots/rewhatevers of films like An American Werewolf in London, The Crow, Dirty Dancing, American Psycho, Scarface, Romancing the Stone, and Weird Science. We kid you not.

Looking back at the last few decades, when remakes of classic, foreign, or just plain old movies really took hold, there are plenty that should be banished for all eternity — 1993’s The Vanishing and Spike Lee’s godawful Oldboy (2013) are high on our list. On the flip side, sometimes a remake can totally work. Here are three of our favorites.

Sorcerer (1977)
William Friedkin was still riding high after The French Connection (1971) and The Exorcist (1973) when he decided to direct Sorcerer, a “personal project” based loosely on Henri-Georges Clouzot’s 1953 film, The Wages of Fear (itself an adaptation of a best-selling novel).

The black-and-white French original impressed critics, but received a limited release in the U.S.; distributors considered it anti-American, and, honestly, the first hour is slow as shit. But Friedkin reworked its plodding start to set an international thriller tone, and then got down to business: An American oil well explodes in a South American village. Irish-American gangster Jackie Scanlon (Roy Scheider, in a role originally written for Steve McQueen) and three other criminal exiles are hired to drive trucks filled with nitroglycerine through 218 miles of dense jungle to stent the burning geyser. It’s a veritable suicide mission, but one with a life-changing payout at the end.

Sorcerer was a commercial flop, vastly overshadowed by the contemporaneous release of George Lucas’s Star Wars, but critics and film lovers still worship it. A 2014 high-def remaster restored Friedkin’s 35mm negative, along with the fantastic Tangerine Dream soundtrack, so now everyone can enjoy this overlooked treasure in all its original glory.

Solaris (2002)
Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1972 sci-fi opus Solaris, based on the 1961 novel by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem, is an epic arthouse mindfuck — long, slow, and totally bizarre.

Critic Roger Ebert revisited the classic Soviet film in 2003: “We can be bored,” he mused, “or we can use the interlude as an opportunity to consolidate what has gone before, and process it in terms of our own reflections.” Fine, whatever. But this explains why only the nerdiest of film nerds saw it when it was released in the U.S.

The concept behind it is pretty cool, though: A psychologist is summoned to a floating space station above the planet Solaris after a crew member kills himself and the remaining two cosmonauts go loco. Turns out the alien planet has figured out how to infiltrate the men’s minds, creating flesh-and-blood facsimiles of memories and people from their past. In the psychologist’s case, it’s his long-dead wife.

Enter director Steven Soderbergh (The Limey, Ocean’s Eleven, Logan Lucky, etc.), who distilled the weighty ideas behind Tarkovsky’s film and Lem’s book, cut the running time in half, and cast George Clooney and the ridiculously gorgeous Natascha McElhone as leads. The result is a visually stunning sci-fi psychodrama — an unusual combo, which is probably why it was a box-office dud. But we can live without robots shooting death beams out of their eyeholes for one goddamn film, right?

A Bigger Splash (2015)
Based on the 1969 New Wave thriller La Piscine (The Swimming Pool), A Bigger Splash takes its title from a 1967 David Hockney painting — and it’s as sensually striking as a Hockney, too, with its prurient, oh-so-lux “lifestyle porn” setting.

The original film was a huge hit in France, with 60s megastars Alain Delon, Romy Schneider, Maurice Ronet, and Jane Birkin. This saucy update (by Luca Guadagnino, who directed this year’s Oscar-winning Call Me By Your Name, as well as the upcoming remake of Dario Argento’s 1977 horror classic Suspira) has an equally impressive cast.

Alien-beauty Tilda Swinton plays Marianne, a Bowie-esque rock star recovering from throat surgery at her house on a remote Mediterranean island with her younger beau Paul (Dutch actor Matthias Schoenaerts). Their taciturn pool-fucking is soon interrupted by the arrival of Marianne’s manic, party-dog ex-lover and former producer Harry (Ralph Fiennes), who totes along his newly discovered sex kitten daughter, Penelope (Dakota Johnson).
From here it’s beautiful people in a beautiful setting, all behaving very badly until someone ends up dead in the pool. Don’t miss Fiennes dancing like a coked-up chicken to the Stone’s “Emotional Rescue” — easily one of our favorite movie scenes evuh.

Strategic Defense Initiative: Geek Impact

Even if no one could quite figure out the details: a vast array of technology from the cutting edge of science, massive enough to reach past the border of Earth’s atmosphere and into space, conscripted by the U.S. military to safeguard America and the rest of the free world against the threat of Soviet nuclear attack using X-ray lasers.

Or particle beams.

Or space-based hyperkinetic weapons. Or something like that.

The technology may not have necessarily existed outside anyone’s head, but the Strategic Defense Initiative’s historical importance couldn’t be denied — at least to the people who came up with it. President Ronald Reagan expected that protecting the West against the Soviet nuclear threat through a decisive display of technological strength would be his greatest accomplishment.

“My fellow Americans,” he said in a 1983 televised speech announcing the program, “tonight we’re launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history.”

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) seemed like something from the mind of a science fiction writer, which partly accounted for its nickname: Star Wars. And to a surprising extent, it actually was.

The program was the brainchild of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy, which reported to the National Security Advisor throughout the Reagan Administration. It included on its roster not only astronauts, computer scientists, and aerospace engineers, but a large contingent of science fiction authors, including Larry Niven and council chair Jerry Pournelle, coauthors of the popular 1977 novel Lucifer’s Hammer. They were joined by Robert Heinlein, who at the time was the most influential writer in the genre.

The sci-fi guys were clearly in charge. It may seem insane that a handful of science fiction geeks came as close as the Citizens Advisory Council did to tilting the balance of nuclear geopolitics. But since the Industrial Revolution, global leaders and civilians alike have relied on speculative fiction to help them navigate a rapidly changing world.

Avowed socialist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds, advised both Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, and helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the historic document adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov testified before governments on the threat of nuclear warfare.

But a lot of that sci-fi influence — like the idea for SDI — has come from the political right.

During the peak of the Cold War, while many of his contemporaries were crafting classic stories about the folly of nuclear confrontation, Heinlein started an advocacy group to lobby for a more robust American nuclear arsenal. More recently, Steve Bannon, a key architect of President Trump’s immigration policies and travel bans, has repeatedly compared the current global immigration situation to the staggeringly racist sci-fi novel The Camp of Saints, by French writer Jean Raspail, where a telepathic mutant leads an invading army of dark-skinned sex fiends on a mission to topple Western civilization.

To a casual sci-fi consumer in 2018, it might seem like science fiction naturally breaks to the left. Women of the anti-Trump “Resistance” movement cosplay as characters from Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale (or, more accurately, its prestige-y Hulu adaptation). Marvel’s sci-fi-heavy Black Panther movie has become the unlikely focal point for a resurgent Black Pride movement. And when progressive sci-fi visionary Ursula K. Le Guin died in January, it provoked a level of public outpouring of grief usually reserved for movie stars.

But despite how it may seem on TV, the future doesn’t belong to the right or the left. It’s entirely possible that human civilization will evolve into something more like Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets, a spacefaring society where liberal values like pacifism and tolerance are encoded in its most fundamental building blocks.

Libertarianism lined up with some of Sci-Fi’s fundamental tenets: zealous faith in the power of rational thought, quasi-mystical beliefs about the rights of man, and a weakness for romantic ideals about the superiority of the individual.

But there’s no real reason why we couldn’t just as easily turn into the brutal Terran Empire, the warlike, goateed doppelgängers of the Enterprise crew from the Original Series episode “Mirror, Mirror.” And there are a lot of well-respected sci-fi authors who’d argue that that’s the better path.

Science fiction built its name on envisioning new worlds, but since the time it emerged as a distinct genre, writers have used it to argue against disrupting the social order in the world we inhabit. While early pioneers like Frankenstein author Mary Shelley and H. G. Wells were steeped in British socialism, the American pulp magazines that gave the genre its foothold in pop culture reflected a considerably more conservative worldview.

The early pulps were notably blatant in their racism, sexism, and militarism even by the standards of the waning days of the Colonial era. On luridly illustrated covers and in stories by the likes of E. E. “Doc” Smith, swashbuckling Aryan heroes defend the cosmos — and comely white women — from armies of savage, unknowable racial caricatures thinly disguised as extraterrestrials. Meanwhile, in the pages of Weird Tales, H. P. Lovecraft used his Cthulhu mythos to dramatize the central conservative tenet that human civilization is precarious, forever on the verge of absolute chaos.

When John W. Campbell, author of the novella Who Goes There? (adapted by John Carpenter for his 1982 horror classic The Thing), took over as editor of Astounding Science Fiction in 1937, he turned pulp’s reactionary political aesthetic into something like a coherent philosophy, using a heavy hand when necessary.

But Campbell also did more than perhaps any other person to lift science fiction past its pulpy roots and set it on the path toward “serious” literature. The most luminous talents of Sci-Fi’s golden era worked under him. He gave Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke their breaks. Astounding (later renamed Analog) was the first place to publish zeitgeist-tilting bestsellers like Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, Frank Herbert’s Dune, and L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics. Anything big and important that happened in the genre over a course of half a century had his fingerprints all over it. Asimov, probably the most revered figure in postwar sci-fi, called Campbell “the Father of Science Fiction.”

Campbell provided the space and the structure for Sci-Fi’s right wing to cohere. His acolytes, like Heinlein, Niven, and Pournelle, would use it as a launch pad to spread his philosophies far outside geek circles once it collided fatefully with a new school of political thought that was almost as visionary as sci-fi itself: libertarianism.

Sci-Fi’s emergence from the pulp mags in the late 50s and early 60s coincided closely with the rise of libertarianism on the right. Barry Goldwater’s disastrous 1964 presidential campaign turned out to be a flashpoint for modern libertarianism, blowing open a schism between moderates in the Republican party and the rising conservative wing that would be firmly in control of the party by the Reagan era.

Libertarianism mixed Rockefeller Republicans’ intellectualism with appeals to conservatism’s more intangible elements, like the perpetual fear of societal collapse. The combination was a smash hit on the right, and after Goldwater’s run it spread from Washington think tanks to the paranoid outer fringes of the rabidly anti-collectivist John Birch Society.

It also found fertile ground in the science fiction world. Libertarian values lined up neatly with some of Sci-Fi’s most fundamental tenets: zealous faith in the power of rational thought mixed with quasi-mystical beliefs about the rights of man (“man” being the operative word, as it was a mostly male scene), along with a weakness for romantic ideals about the superiority of the individual over systems (and backing up those ideals with force at the drop of a hat).

As author and critic Norman Spinrad pointed out in the late 70s, the genre’s formal structure makes it a perfect vehicle for a certain strain of right-wing thought. Its reliance on Joseph Campbell’s archetypal “Hero’s Journey” encourages readers to identify with an endless supply of monomythic Chosen Ones rebelling against oppressive rulers. And it’s all but impossible to name a single science fiction novel, from anywhere on the political spectrum, where the good guys don’t use violence to solve a problem.

Sci-fi turned out to be fertile ground for libertarian thought. And libertarians were remarkably welcoming to whatever sci-fi had to contribute. After all, libertarians shared Sci-Fi’s love of thought experiments and doomsday scenarios, and the movement’s bible, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, was full of pulpy imaginary tech like cloaking devices and a sonic death ray named “Project X.”

Heinlein sealed the relationship with his novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Published in 1966 — as the budding counterculture was getting its mind blown by Heinlein’s 1961 novel Stranger In a Strange Land and libertarians were staging a revolution in the Republican party — it used an uprising on a moon colony against a corrupt Earthbound bureaucracy to put forth Heinlein’s philosophy of “rational anarchism.” Which sounded a lot like libertarianism. As one character explains, “A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.” Elsewhere the same character refers to “the most basic human right, the right to bargain in a free marketplace.”

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress was a hit, and won Heinlein his fourth Hugo Award for best novel, beating out radical progressive Samuel R. Delany’s heady classic Babel-17.

Heinlein brought so many new converts to libertarianism that it reshaped the entire movement. A survey by the libertarian Society for Individual Liberty found that “one libertarian activist in six had been led to libertarianism by reading the novels and short stories of Robert A. Heinlein,” as an article by the Mises Institute summarized it. Libertarian Party founder Dave Nolan and anarcho-capitalist thinker David Friedman — son of libertarian hero Milton Friedman — have both called Heinlein’s novel a key influence. So have dozens of other leading figures in the movement.

When libertarian-influenced Republicans found power during the Reagan years, they brought their love of sci-fi to Washington along with their love of limited federal power.

Few combined the two as passionately as Newt Gingrich, an outspoken sci-fi fan who devoted his long career in government to advocating for conservative principles while harboring a faith in wild, theoretical technology on par with any science fiction writer. He talked about technological weapons programs with a borderline messianic fervor, and once predicted that SDI would destroy not only Soviet communism but be “a dagger at the heart of the liberal welfare state” and create a libertarian paradise bounded only by “the limits of a free people’s ingenuity, daring, and courage.”

Gingrich developed close relationships with several members of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy, and helped them make connections elsewhere on the right.

Council member Jim Baen commissioned Gingrich’s first book, Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future, which he and his then-wife Marianne cowrote with sci-fi authors David Drake and Janet Morris. Jerry Pournelle contributed the preface. Gingrich helped Pournelle’s son get a job with California congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, whose libertarian-leaning views include what his website describes as the “profitable utilization of space.”

When Pournelle adapted the Council’s presidential report to create the book Mutual Assured Survival, it came with a cover blurb from President Reagan himself.

While Heinlein and the other sci-fi libertarians on the Citizens Advisory Council were trying to change the system from its upper echelons, their philosophical descendants were coming up with new ways to subvert it completely.

During the 1970s, science fiction fandom exploded and an entire sci-fi subculture began to come together across a loosely affiliated network of conventions and fanzines. When it absorbed the emerging communities gathering around comic books and computers, it helped form the beginnings of what we’d come to know as geek culture. And while legions of fans flocked to the trippy, counterculture-infused work of Le Guin, Delany, and Philip K. Dick, Heinlein’s libertarian revolution continued to percolate.

A lot of that action was happening around what’s known as hard sci-fi– “hard” because of its exacting attention to scientific detail, its space-operatic militarism, and its contempt for the squishy abstract sentimentality of humanist sci-fi. To the average reader, hard sci-fi can be impenetrable and emotionally flat, but it attracts passionate fans who appreciate its scientific soundness and narrative problem-solving, and don’t mind that the characters don’t have much in the way of interior lives.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of hard sci-fi fans are also into computers. Libertarian ideals — if not the reactionary libertarian politics practiced by Reagan Republicans and John Birchers — flourished in the intellectual hothouse of Silicon Valley. As the vision of personal computers connecting the world into a single digital network moved out of science fiction and into the real world, the people building it saw the next step in human society, a theoretical frontier whose rules they could define before governments could have a say in things.

The most influential ethos to grow out of that thinking was called cyberlibertarianism, which essentially boils down to the idea that the internet should be kept as free from top-down control as possible, whether it’s coming from private corporations or the state. The name “cyberlibertarianism” is somewhat misleading, however. The philosophy shares a lot of core ideas with traditional libertarianism, but its practitioners are as likely to come to them from the left as from the right.

With its ragtag band of scruffy outsiders defending cyberspace against the encroachment of shadowy forces, cyberlibertarianism seemed like something out of a sci-fi novel. And to a major extent, it was.

“We wanted flying cars,” PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel wrote in a manifesto published on an investment group website. “Instead we got 140 characters.”

Like a lot of people at the forefront of the early internet, cyberlibertarianists looked to cyberpunk authors like William Gibson and Neal Stephenson not only for inspiration but for specific ideas about what cyberspace should look and feel like — in this case, a lawless digital frontier where hackers have as much power as governments.

Sympathetic media outlets like Wired, Mondo 2000, and Boing Boing — along with post-Gibson sci-fi authors like Boing Boing coeditor Cory Doctorow — were eager to showcase cyberlibertarianism’s compatibility with progressive goals like shielding activists and distributing information that governments and corporations wanted to be suppressed.

The internet was certainly capable of those and other progressive aims, but the anything-goes anarchism baked into cyberlibertarianism was just as easily adapted to less liberal, more traditionally libertarian ideas. At an academic conference in 1988, Tim C. May, who founded the influential “cypherpunk” mailing list (its name a proud nod to sci-fi), distributed “The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto,” full of dreamy ideas about subverting governments and monetizing literally everything that can have a price tag put on it.

Secure, widely available cryptographic tools would “fundamentally alter the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions,” May predicted. “Combined with emerging information markets,” he continued, “crypto anarchy will create a liquid market for any and all material which can be put into words and pictures.” The last words on a list of key terms and phrases that May attached to the manifesto are “collapse of government.”

As tech has evolved from a fringe industry into one of the most important parts of the global economy and everyday life, its most successful figures have been able to put ideas like May’s into practice on a scale few could have imagined when he first handed out copies of “The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.” With massive amounts of money and power flowing into the tech world, theories about subverting — or “disrupting” — governments and social norms are being tested out in real life.

The most devoted and powerful libertarian in the tech world is PayPal cofounder and venture capitalist Peter Thiel. Since selling PayPal to eBay in 2002 in one of the biggest tech deals of the era, Thiel has used his fame and fortune to not only speak out against government control of nearly every kind, but to work out ways of effectively taking that control away.

Of all the supervillain-like figures in the upper echelons of technology, Thiel seems to have embraced the role the most. He’s been unabashed about promoting political views far to the right of mainstream Silicon Valley culture — some of his positions conservative enough that they’d stand out even in red state America.

Thiel donated over a million dollars to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and served on the executive committee of his transition team. He funded the lawsuit over Hulk Hogan’s sex tape that successfully shut down Gawker–whose tech spinoff site Valleywag had been unsparing in its criticism of Thiel–in one of the most blatant attacks on the free press in recent history.

A good deal of Thiel’s libertarian education, and his worldview in general, seems to have come from science fiction. He’s an unabashed sci-fi geek, raised on old-school greats like Heinlein and Asimov. (He’s also a huge Tolkien fan, paying homage to the fantasy author in the names of multiple business ventures.) His career and interests seem powered by a frustration with how the real world stacks up against the future that he felt sci-fi promised him. “We wanted flying cars,” he wrote in a manifesto published on the website of his investment group Founders Fund. “Instead we got 140 characters.”

Like Heinlein, Thiel has been openly critical of the very idea of democratic rule.

“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” he wrote in a famous 2009 essay titled “The Education of a Libertarian.” Elsewhere in the essay, he bemoaned, in retrospect, extending the vote to women, because as a group they’ve historically been less supportive of libertarianism than men.

“While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised,” he wrote, “I have little hope that voting will make things better.” Thiel has been an outspoken supporter of the work of software engineer and anti-democracy thinker Curtis Yarvin, who’s become a cult figure on the far right for essays (written under the pen name Mencius Moldbug) articulating a philosophy known either as “neoreaction” or the fantasy-novel-sounding “Dark Enlightenment.”

Thiel has some big, pulpy ideas about the future that feel like something out of a sixties-era blue-sky libertarian sci-fi novel. One of his biggest and most daring ideas is building a new nation from scratch on floating oceanic platforms where businesses and individuals can do their thing, whatever it is, free of government oversight. Think of it as an Ayn Rand-ian libertarian Garden of Eden in international waters.

The notion is one of Thiel’s most widely ridiculed ideas–and a popular go-to symbol for Silicon Valley extravagance — but it’s actually nearing reality. Last year the Thiel-funded Seasteading Institute — founded by Patri Friedman, son of Heinlein-loving libertarian guru David Friedman — reached an agreement with French Polynesia to build a test platform that could become a habitable experimental city, and the first step to an independent nation founded entirely on libertarian principles.

It’s become a cliché to say that we’re all living in a sci-fi novel these days, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. In fact, it’s truer than most people realize.

Over the past half century, science fiction visionaries from Robert Heinlein to William Gibson have imagined ways for society to adapt to the sweeping technological change that’s come to define our lives. And now, with the foundations of postwar liberal democracy suddenly seeming a lot less stable than they used to be, people like Peter Thiel and the legions of pseudonymous anarcho-geeks organizing online suddenly have an opportunity to put these ideas into practice.

Soon we might have a chance to find out how these sci-fi visions work in real life. We might not have a choice.

What Would Whisky David Drink?

It’s rumored that in 1966, Scottish rock musician Whisky David got on a tour bus with the Yardbirds on their way to Spain. Whisky Dave was so down with the siestas and cocaine-laced cigarettes that he kissed his home goodbye and restarted his career in Madrid. Whisky Dave only put out one killer album, 1975’s Rusty Rock, and on it is a song called “Whisky,” which happens to be the best blues rock to drink bourbon to. In honor of the anniversary of Whisky Dave’s death, in 2011, we rounded up a selection of the latest in his favorite brown juice.

1. Few Spirits B on Whiskey — $52

This bourbon has won a bazillion awards since it hit the market and, duh, it’s delicious. Sure, we’d be perfectly happy drinking Jim Beam for the rest of our lives, but sometimes you want a shrimp cocktail, not a po’ boy. FEW Bourbon is handcrafted and distilled in small batches with a three-grain recipe, adding a bit of malt to smooth out the edges. The nose carries sweet flavors like cherries, caramel, and what we can only describe as soldered wood, but the finish is almost sour, resting just right and providing that calm you craved when you picked up the glass.

2. Few Spirits Rye Whiskey — $70

This one’s is a winner from the first sip. It’s bottled younger, at four years, so it’s spicy with a swift kick. It’s 70 percent rye, 20 percent corn, and 10 percent malted barley. The aroma is pretty sophisticated, with hints of brown sugar, caramel, vanilla, and cinnamon, and going down you can taste all its buttery goodness. Each swig carries a whole cabinet of varied spices and sugars while balancing out with a rustic luxury. But who cares about that shit, because after a few shots you’ll feel like one of those inflatable tube men in a used car lot. And we consider that a good thing.

3. Barrell Bourbon Batch 014 — $85

Distilled in Tennessee and Kentucky, this classic bourbon is aged at least nine years and is so bold we don’t even care that we used a lame word like “bold” to describe it. We have yet to meet a whiskey lover who isn’t impressed by this batch, with its delicious notes of honey, raisin, and creamy citrus curd. It’s a spicy, oaky bourbon that’s just begging to be poured neatly into a rocks glass with a rim rubbed with orange peel. But don’t just take our word for it…

4. Bulleit 95 Rye Frontier Whiskey — $40

Bulleit is always a safe bet when you want to get a bang for your buck, but this 95 percent rye-mash whiskey is one of the best bottles you can get for the price. Round, rich, and fruity, this powerful and delicious poison is distilled in white-oak barrels that have been charred to the max. Even the biggest Scotch snobs will agree that this is a complex, flavorful bourbon that bursts with notes of apples, citrus, and warm spices. Though it may not hit the mark as a top-shelf sipping whiskey for certain cigar-smoking, velvet-robe-wearing connoisseurs, it’ll do the trick when mixing up cocktails for your dinner guests.

Holy Might

Redneck Rampage: Far Cry 5 (Ubisoft, Xbox One, PS4, PC)

— Aliens, terrorists, zombies, Nazis, and even Nazi zombies make for tame, uncontroversial targets in typical shooting games, but the latest installment in the Far Cry series doesn’t play it safe. Judge this game by its cover and you’d think you were declaring war on a Duck Dynasty-style family of libertarian gun nuts. That’s not far off the mark. Your hero — a small-town sheriff’s deputy — is swept into a backwoods revolt against a doomsday cult of fundamentalist Christians. Known as the Project at Eden’s Gate and led by a crazy-eyed preacher, the cult was inspired by real-life homegrown militias, bitter clingers who praise God and pass the ammunition. The choice of cult preacher as a villain has some players complaining this game is too preachy; one online petition demanded that publisher Ubisoft change the enemies to Muslims, or at least make them less straight, white, and male.Eden’s Gate cultists believe the end is nigh, so it’s your mission to usher in their demise before they drag the residents of Hope County, Montana, to kingdom come. True to the Far Cry formula, this sequel delivers an open-world sandbox filled with play-your-way missions mixed with a trip to the zoo. Take a break from bashing Bible thumpers to hunt deer, go fly-fishing in rivers and streams, and just take advantage of the game’s stunning recreation of Big Sky Country.

Joining you in your anti-jingoist jihad is your mutt, Boomer. He sinks his fangs into the cultists and even fetches their weapons. You can also hire snipers, pilots, and other mercs from a colorful cast of locals, or just go about each mission alone or with a friend online. Hope County’s wilderness is the largest yet seen in the series and completely open from the outset. Explore this great outdoors with a fleet of made-in-America muscle cars, ATVs, big rigs, and even puddle-jumping planes equipped with napalm to baptize the doomsday cultists in fire.

Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire (Obsidian, PC)

— If you spent your adolescence tossing 20-sided dice or skulking through PC-game dungeons, this loving homage to the time-sapping Baldur’s Gate series might be the only game you need this year. Multiple players set sail on their customizable ship to battle the gods of a mythical world.

Dark Souls Remastered (Bandai Namco Entertainment, Switch)

— Death lurks around every corner in this unforgiving hack-and-slash fantasy that tested the mettle of gamers when it first released in 2011. This deluxe edition for the Nintendo Switch has even more dangerous cultist enemies (“Praise the sun!”) and new dark spaces to explore.

Devil May Cry HD Collection (Capcom, Xbox One, PS4, PC)

— The Devil May Cry series wins a permanent spot in the action-game hall of fame for its tragically hip antihero, Dante, the platinum-blond lovechild of an angel and a demon. This collection spiffs up the graphics and control of the first three installments.

God of War (Sony, PS4)

— Gaming’s angriest Greek god converts to Norse mythology and works out his anger issues on a new pantheon of vengeful deities in this reboot of the edgy action franchise. Badass baldy Kratos is joined by his son and must teach him Cobra Kai-style lessons in striking hard and showing no mercy.

Eric Thames

Last season opened with a month-long individual performance that set franchise records and was the talk of the league. In fact, the numbers this guy put up were so impressive that the Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee’s divisional archrival, wondered about steroids. The league wondered, too — officials began testing the player’s blood and urine before April was over.

His name was Eric Thames. He was 30 years old. He’d washed out of the league in 2013 and had played the previous three years for a Korean team. For the Brewers, he hit seven home runs in his first 12 games. He tattered in five straight contests. Midway through April, he’d homered more than the entire Boston Red Sox team.

Fellow Brewers began calling him Superman. Teammate Ryan Braun said he’d never seen a two-week stretch like this. Thames ended the month with 11 home runs in all, a Brewers April record, hit .345, and posted a sparkling .810 slugging percentage.

And then Superman fell off a kryptonite cliff. In May he hit .221. In June he hit — if that’s the right word — a miserable .163. He did have a couple good bounce-back months, including September, when the Brew Crew were in a playoff race and the outfielder/first-baseman hit .328. He ended the season with 31 home runs, tied for the team lead.

I think I can speak for the Brewers’ most famous fan, longtime radio announcer Bob Uecker (aka George Owens from the TV sitcom Mr. Belvedere, and David Letterman’s favorite guest) in saying it will be interesting to see how Thames starts off this year.

His blistering April got me wondering: What players this century have had the best opening month? Diving into online baseball almanacs, I assembled a lineup of torrid season starts. Nine hot Aprils, if you will. (Get your mind out of the gutter.) Did Eric Thames make it? Read on!

Darin Erstad (Anaheim Angels, 2000)
It seems fitting to begin with a leadoff hitter. Not to mention a guy who destroyed major-league pitching at the very start of the century. The North Dakota native came out of the gate hot as blazes, smacking 14 hits in his first five games. By month’s end he’d set an MLB record for April hits, tallying a bananas 48. He batted a scorching .449. Hats off, Darin, hats off.

Barry Bonds (San Francisco Giants, 2004)
Leaving aside the question of chemical enhancement, it’s hard not to stand in awe of this otherworldly April. Statistically, it could be the greatest ever. Bonds reached base seven out of every 10 trips to the plate. That’s what happens when you hit .472 and get walked a crazytown 39 times. Along with 10 home runs and 21 RBIs, he posted an extraterrestrial 1.132 slugging percentage.

Albert Pujols (St. Louis Cardinals, 2006)
The Dominican All-Star, 26 years old in 2006, crushed 14 home runs that April, setting an MLB record. He hit .346, while slugging at a .914 clip. Midway through his first monthly split, he blasted four home runs in a row, becoming the twentieth player in history to do so. In his next at-bat, he socked a double off the wall in right-center. Had it cleared the top, Pujols would have been the first player to go yard five consecutive times.

Alex Rodriguez (New York Yankees, 2007)
Rodriguez also launched 14 baseballs into the seats, entering the record books alongside Pujols. Four games into the season, he clubbed a walk-off grand slam. Locked in the entire month, the pinstriper hit .355 in April and barely looked back, winning his third MVP award with a .314 season BA, 54 home runs, and an eye-popping 156 runs batted in.

Matt Kemp (Los Angeles Dodgers, 2012)
Following a season where he led the National League in home runs (39) and RBIs (126), the Oklahoma-born outfielder picked up where he left off, and then some. “The greatest April ever by a hitter who played his home games at sea level,” concluded ESPN baseball analyst Jayson Stark. Kemp hit .417, cracked 12 home runs, knocked in 25, and scored 24 runs himself. Oh, and he was voted — no duh — National League Player of the Month.

Troy Tulowitzki (Colorado Rockies, 2014)
The Golden Glove shortstop known as “Tulo” had his best month ever offensively that April — and the best start in the league by far. Consider the home-field numbers. On the morning of April 30, Tulowitzki was batting .563 at Coors Field (yes, you read that right), with an OBP of .643, and a slugging percentage of 1.094. To quote Dickie Roberts in the David Spade comedy: “That’s nucking futs!” His overall April slash line? .381/.495/.762.

Bryce Harper (Washington Nationals, 2017)
Now we come to the Nationals. This team gets off to hot starts. And much of that is due to their superstar right-fielder Bryce Harper, the hottest April hitter this decade. He’s also baseball’s best opening day hitter, with a league-leading five HRs, including two on Opening Day 2013. Last April, Harper went on a tear, batting .391, reaching base at a .510 pace, and setting a new MLB record with 32 runs scored.

Ryan Zimmerman (Nationals, 2017)
If Harper is greased-lightning out of the gate, Ryan Zimmerman, now 33, usually starts slow. That all changed last season. Healthy coming out of spring training, the veteran first-baseman had a dream April, leading the MLB in batting average (.420), RBIs (29), and slugging percentage (.886). He was voted National League Player of the Month.

Eric Thames (Milwaukee Brewers, 2017)
He hit an MLB-best 11 dingers. He led baseball in OPS (slugging plus on-base percentage). He crossed the plate 28 times, third-best in league history. And Thames joined Willie Stargell in the MLB record books as the only guy to hit eight home runs against the same team in April. The squad he terrorized? NL Central rival Cincinnati. As a Brew Crew fan, I’m hoping Thames gives Bob Uecker plenty of reason this year to drawl, “That’s… OUTTA HERE!”

Audrey Hepburn: Legend of the Fawn

Green Mansions was an IOU from MGM Studios, which had promised Hepburn’s then-husband Mel Ferrer that he could direct a movie with Hepburn as the star. Instead of writing his own script, Ferrer hired screenwriter Dorothy Kingsley to adapt the bizarre, utopian turn-of-the-century novel by W. H. Hudson, Green Mansions: A Romance of the Tropical Forest.

It’s about a mysterious South American jungle princess, Rima the Bird Girl, and a Venezuelan man, Abel (played by Anthony Perkins in the film), who are fleeing political violence. After Abel gets bitten by a snake, he falls in love with Rima when she nurses him back to health.

According to Hepburn biographer Barry Paris, Ferrer had been obsessed with the novel since he read it at Princeton, and saw Hepburn as his real-life Rima: “a feminine symbol of innocence, a victim of male greed and lust.”

While Hepburn finished work on the movie The Nun’s Story, Ferrer and his crew traveled to British Guiana and Venezuela to collect intel for filming. They decided against filming on location, mostly because The Nun’s Story was shot in Africa and they didn’t want to send Hepburn abroad again. Instead, they shipped back 250 tons of props, plants, tree-bark canoes, blowguns, and live snakes so they could recreate the jungle at MGM.

Most importantly, Hepburn’s character needed a fawn to be her loyal sidekick. However, the only way to get such an animal to be trusting enough was to have Hepburn raise it from infancy so the deer would think the actress was its mother.

At Ferrer’s request, MGM bought a four-week-old fawn from a local zoo and gave it to Hepburn. She called the animal Pippin, nicknamed Ip after the sound it made when it was hungry, and immediately adapted to her motherly duties.

The frail, doe-eyed Ip had to be bottle-fed every two hours as it grew and developed teeth, and Hepburn would often interrupt a scene or rush off from meetings to tend to her pet. She and Ferrer took Ip home to live in their house, where they built a custom bathtub for it to sleep in.

“For two and a half months it lived at our house,” Ferrer recounted. “It ate its bowl of pabulum with us in the dining room, and at night it slept in our bathroom. It got so that it actually thought Audrey was its mother; professional animal trainers were amazed at the way it followed her around.”

“I’ve fallen in love with her,” Hepburn told a California newspaper. “Lord knows what I’ll do when the picture is over and they take her away.”

During the filming of Green Mansions, the paparazzi shot iconic photographs of Hepburn out and about with Ip. The fawn would follow her around the local supermarket, cuddle on her chest to sleep, and stroll with her, unleashed, around Beverly Hills. Ip even echoed her owner physically — slender, elegant, and innocent.

Ferrer and Hepburn already had a Yorkshire Terrier, Mr. Famous, who eventually warmed up to Ip. According to Paris’s account, Ip would take the laces out of Ferrer’s shoes and give Mr. Famous the leather so he could chew on it. Ip also loved electrical cords, so Hepburn had to unplug every lamp in the house. The actress even carried plastic knitting needles in her purse to give to Ip as a chew toy so the fawn, sitting in Hepburn’s lap, could happily gnaw away while the star gave interviews.

Hepburn was known to be calm and motherly by nature, but still, the bond that developed between actress and fawn astonished even those who knew her.

Ferrer and Hepburn’s maid got used to seeing the fawn sleep on Hepburn’s stomach and would shake her head and smile as the lookalikes napped. Ip would run to Hepburn’s side when the actress called and lick her face wet with kisses.

As if Hepburn wasn’t already the epitome of wholesome, feminine goodness, she had turned herself into a real-life Disney princess by making this delicate animal fall under her spell.

“Ip is a European deer,” Hepburn told the same California newspaper. “When she is full-grown, she will stand only four feet high, and she’ll be pure white. Fortunately, Ip is a wonderful actress. In all our scenes she behaves beautifully — never more than two takes and most of the time she comes through the very first time. I don’t have any children of my own, but I’m learning a lot from Ip.”

Hepburn went on to tell the reporter how, after a day on set, she and her husband, along with Mr. Famous and Ip, would pile into Ferrer’s two-seat sports car and head home. “Mel drives, Famous sits between us, and Ip falls asleep in my lap,” she explained.

Literally no one in the world could pull this off except for Audrey Hepburn. And what better Hollywood tale to highlight given the theme of this May issue — a legendary beauty and her surprising, celebrated pet!

Fall in Love

Playa Alert
Hi Leah. Recently I met this guy and I really like him. I’m 20 and he’s 38. He’s attractive and successful. We hooked up and he was into me and we spent a whole night together. He said he wanted to take me out the next night but I had to work. He also said he’d text me the next day and never did. But I could see him online on the app. The day after I contacted him we talked, but he was being really dry. So, I thought I was done with him. But then he texted me, sent me pictures, told me he wanted to see me before he left on vacation. How do I lock him down? I want him to like me for me, so how do I go about letting him know I’m not just a hookup?

Girl, no. You do not want a man who is 38 and dating 20-year-olds and I will tell you why. There’s a reason he’s dating women half his age and it’s because women closer to his age smell his bullshit a mile away. You need to treat this dude like a ho. Trust me. Treat him like a hookup — men go nuts when you do this. Flip the script on him. Kind of like reverse psychology. The more you treat this man-child as if he’s disposable, the more he will be wrapped around your pinky. But do not fall for him. Use him as practice, because he’s the first of many fuckboys headed your way. Just have fun and remember this guy has “danger zone” written all over him.

Project Jatnna
Hey beautiful! I’d love to first and foremost say how much of a fan I am of you and Laura. Funny thing — one of the best relationships I ever had was with a guy who put me on to your podcast. We still secretly text about listening to episodes, sharing opinions, etc. Y’all really bring us together (ha ha).

Well, I’d love for y’all to address the HUGE topic of us ladies getting our groove back after a breakup. I’m more than sure half the time you weren’t even ready to be single because you didn’t expect such bullshit to end the relationship you just dedicated and jeopardized so much for. Also, if you could address just MOVING ON overall from a relationship you clearly should be running from. I’m one year into a relationship and my BF has done it all, including leaving me for another girl for a time and then me finding out he still keeps her nudes. He talks to her all the time and concerns himself with her life.

I’m at a point where I found him willing to pay a prostitute for sex. Meanwhile, our own sex life is in shambles because he doesn’t fuck me. He’s lazy, too. It makes no sense why I haven’t moved on. Somehow I’m in a never-ending cycle. Help!

Jatnna!!! I want to shake some sense into you sooo bad! And shake some self-love into you also. I am guilty of staying in relationships I should’ve run from — we are all guilty of that. But this sounds very emotionally and mentally abusive. Yet you stay. Here’s what I suggest: Instead of focusing on him and why you haven’t left him, and how you can maybe make things work with him, you must start falling in love with yourself.

The more you fall in love with yourself the easier it will be to walk away from him. In fact, the more you fall in love with yourself, staying with him will be impossible. Here is how I fell in love with myself while dealing with a terrible relationship I found myself stuck in — maybe this will help you, too. By the way, it is a journey and doesn’t happen overnight. I started doing yoga and SoulCycle. Yoga is incredibly healing. I would find myself crying after certain positions as energy I was holding onto was being released and I was able to let go of a lot of pain. SoulCycle on the other hand lifted my spirits and the endorphins being released worked magic on my brain (and soul).

Cut out other toxic people in your life — I’m sure he isn’t the only one. Baby steps. Buy expensive skincare products. I’m not sure why this helps, but it does. Start bathing with apple cider vinegar once every two weeks. This shit is a full-body detox. I cried hysterically after the first time I did it, it was that intense. Crying is healing. We stay in bad relationships because we are used to pain and are comfortable with it. We need to release the pain and start feeling good. I really hope you fall in love with yourself, Jatnna. It’s the best experience.

Virtual Question
Sup Leah. Do you think we live in a simulated world? S.K.

Hi S.K. We 100 percent live in a simulated world. It’s pretty much a joke. If Jim Carrey had a cult I would join it.

Killer Anxiety
Hi Leah. Over the last several years I’ve followed you, and I’ve been so entranced with your energy. I remember being in school, broke, and I found your Seduce & Abandon coffee mug and bought it right away because I’ve always connected to your message.

But I am so lost. I have so much passion and so much love, but when I’m home alone I have no idea what I’m doing. I have so many ideas and secret passions, but how do I pursue them? I’ve always loved acting so I’ve decided to start after the new year.

I’m excited because it’s so new, but I really hope I follow through. How did you do it? I have nothing to lose. My clinical anxiety really fucking holds me back. I hate it. Nobody understands that. They don’t know that sometimes I can’t speak because I’m having a panic attack. I skip work because my heart is beating and that’s all I can focus on. How do I fight that? I know I have something great to give this world, but how do I step out of my own way? D.

Hi D. First off, I so appreciate your support. Not just for buying the mug but for connecting to the message. I love hearing that.

I totally feel your pain regarding passions and being held back by the prison of your own mind. It sounds like you are your own worst enemy — which many of us are. But the good news is, that means you are in control and have the power to change things.

Anxiety is a mindfuck. So are panic attacks. But you can recover from both of those things. I did, and I didn’t think it was possible. I was diagnosed with panic disorder, among many other things. I’ve been panic-attack free for a couple years now. I think the fact that you know it’s YOU in your own way is the first step — and the most difficult one.

I had a total breakthrough a couple years ago when I realized that I was the creator of my own life and I had the power to make myself feel like shit, but also to make myself feel amazing. It took going to a mental hospital and seeing really sick people to give me that perspective. Not to minimize my own struggles, or yours either, but I really saw people in so much pain and people who couldn’t tell reality from delusion. It was then that I decided to take control of my life and not waste any more of the precious time I have on earth. I know this is all easier said than done, but I believe in you. You got this. XX Leah

Start bathing with apple cider vinegar once every two weeks. This shit is a full-body detox. I cried hysterically after the first time I did it, it was that intense.

Contact Leah with Thoughts or Questions

Progressivism

Progress. Not since the terms “literally” and “ironic” has a word been so blatantly bastardized in the American discourse. And it’s no wonder. Any time we start throwing a word around with such habitual carelessness, its true meaning will eventually be abandoned.

Progress, originally defined as a literal or figurative forward movement, enlightenment, prosperity, and goal-obtaining growth, has now been reduced to represent an individual’s championing of their own interests and mindset, meant to benefit themselves and their contemporaries and lay waste to the cares and concerns of anybody else. And that is literally ironic.

This pollution of language is precisely what’s kept me from playing in the modern day progress game. I believe in the fight for change, but I want a clean fight and I want to know exactly what I’m fighting for.

What progressives have currently waged is a war — selfishly motivated, cloaked in bullshit, and riddled with casualties — but presented as a drastic measure for the greater good.

Ultimately, this is not about evolution for them, it’s about self-congratulating and compromise. And if you think I’ve harshly mounted too high a horse here, just remember, this year’s Golden Globes attendees were comprised of two groups: a) those that wore black to support abused women and b) Tonya Harding. Something tells me Nancy Kerrigan didn’t share in the Academy’s joyous celebration of our nation’s most famous steel-pipe-attack conspirator.

All you needed to do was watch that televised travesty to realize the proudest of progressives are always willing to sacrifice, to some extent, the dignity and respect of others in pursuit of their own version of a better tomorrow. Incidentally, that same ceremony failed to invite a multitude of industry women who actually led the charge against Harvey Weinstein … because those women weren’t currently notable enough.

“We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community.”

Oh, Hollywood, home to so many of those that claim to think liberally, you can be truly disgusting. You pat yourselves on the back with one hand while using the other to stab the next person in theirs. And if you really hate watching award shows but still want proof of pseudo-progressivism, go watch the post-election episode of Saturday Night Live. It’s the one where Lorne Michaels (yes, I’m blaming only him) had the show open with Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton singing a Leonard Cohen song about hope. Funny, I don’t remember seeing the “Sorry, we let Donald Trump host our show and we might be partially responsible for this mess” sketch that week. It must’ve been cut at the last minute.

The progressives conveniently never seem to have any blood on their hands. Take gentrification. I find it nothing short of fascinating that most of the privileged assholes that take over an inner-city neighborhood, using Daddy’s dime to ruin its history, people, and culture, are the same dildos sitting in the newly-constructed coffee shop, delivering mocha-latte-fueled pontifications about racism and fascism being “gnarly.”

(On a related side note, isn’t it amusing that so many of the people complaining about “Trump’s wall” are people that live in gated communities? I don’t want the wall either, but it’s an interesting thought.)

Back to the modern day pilgrims descending on our urban communities. These people essentially steal land, conquer villages, and destroy all in their path, except instead of using guns and ammunition, they use higher tax brackets and low-interest loans. They come in peace, with kind eyes and smiling faces, then slowly eat away at everything, from the inside out. First, they buy the apartments, then the houses, then the businesses, then the buildings. Bodegas become jewelry stores, neighborhood bars become gastropubs, and the chicken joint with the bulletproof glass becomes a mirrored pilates studio. There is no adapting — there is only dragging everything down to their own sick, self-involved level so that the entirety of their surroundings serves to assist them in completing their mental, spiritual, and personal fitness goals. And that’s their version of progress. Run the natives out so we can build a more “civilized” society where we can talk about the sad state of the natives.

(Another side note: Everything I’m referring to is precisely why fucking McDonald’s has fucking kale salads on their fucking menu now. How about this? Don’t eat at McDonald’s, you fucking child.)

The proudest of progressives are always willing to sacrifice, to some extent, the dignity and respect of others in pursuit of their own version of a better tomorrow.

I find it all quite devilish. The progressive’s heart and mind lust for security and dominance, but their lips will tell you their only objectives are growth and understanding. Sorry, but I, for one, prefer a devil that displays his horns, not one that hides them from me. At least then I know where I stand with the prick. I’m tired of people taking jobs with individuals they deem as unethical or even criminal, then donating their paycheck to charity when they get called out on it. Not impressive, not progressive; in reality, it’s actually suppressive. It sends a message to the victims of the world that their tragedy has a price, and it’s only worth paying if you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Progressivism isn’t a concept you suddenly realize. There is no magical Scrooge on Christmas morning awakening. You’re either consistently ethical or you’re conveniently hypocritical. I’m a human being, so I know either is immensely possible.

Throughout my life, there will be an extensive list of right choices, wrong choices, murky decisions, and all-around moments of disregard. Bearing that truth in mind prevents me from screaming at others about how evolved a person I am (minus this column, of course). I’m complicated. And so is progress. Whether you’re looking for better living conditions, boosting morale, increasing safety standards, improving the learning curriculum, or conducting a respectful awards or variety show, it doesn’t matter. Somewhere, somehow, somebody is probably going to get fucked. So please let’s stop pretending we’re unaware of that. Using our cell phones is endorsing sweat-shop labor, more efficient computers mean even fewer jobs, and the continuation of our species leads to the inevitable destruction of nature.

What’s the mentally sound solution then? Damning the demented do-gooders or never entering the cocoon in hopes of a greater emergence? I think it’s somewhere in between. Both of those endeavors are far too complicated and I do my best to keep things simple — examining my actions, considering the people around me, and frequently asking myself one simple, horridly cliched question: What would Jesus do?

I’m about as far from spiritual or religious as one can possibly get. Faith has never been reassuring to me. Fact, on the other hand, I find very useful. And these days, the best you can do when it comes to facts is hopeful speculation. So here’s some of that: A guy named Jesus probably existed, and he most likely was consistent in his lifestyle and teachings. He lived his philosophy. That’s why he hung out with all kinds, hookers included. He didn’t judge, he didn’t cast aspersions, and he didn’t compromise. He just tried to uplift without ever stroking himself for doing so.

Much less can be said for the current cast of progressives. Strangely though, it was today’s progressives that finally made me realize it wasn’t “ironic” that Jesus hung out with prostitutes…they were just some of the only people in Nazareth that weren’t “literally” full of shit.