You’ve heard the phrase “he had a face made for radio”?
Perhaps Deborah Solomon, who writes a weekly interview column for the “New York Times Magazine”, has a personality made for print.
Solomon interviewed Steve Martin at the 92nd Street Y in New York City on Monday night during a stop on the promotional tour for his new novel An Object of Beauty.
Afterward, the 92nd Street Y sent an email apology to all attendees along with a $50 ticket refund. The email said, “We planned for a more comprehensive discussion and we, too, were disappointed with the evening.”
Steve’s new work of fiction takes place in the art world, and Solomon spent the bulk of the interview talking to him about just that. Art. And specific artists.
Steve is an avid art collector, and Solomon writes art criticism, so the two of them were having a bang up good time. The problem? The 900 people in attendance were not.
Solomon said the Y didn’t tell her what they wanted from the interview. But any good facilitator is going to know her audience and gear her questions to their interests and motivations.
Solomon’s mistake? She simply had the conversation with Steve that interested her.
Solomon’s reaction to the Y’s email? “I think the Y, which is supposedly a champion of the arts, has behaved very crassly and is reinforcing the most philistine aspects of a culture that values celebrity and award shows over art.”
Maybe. Or maybe they are respecting their audience, who buys memberships to their yearly lecture series, and will be there long after Solomon is gone.
Point of interest — when I saw Steve Martin on the 92nd Street Y calendar, I was at first anxious to attend. But when I noted that Deborah Solomon was conducting the interview, I decided to skip it.
I saw the two appear together at the Times Center a couple of years ago. Her interview there angered the audience in a very similar fashion.
Lesson learned.
The Twitter-sphere is all abuzz about today’s holiday of note —
What’s in a name?
I have devoted many a blog post to the all-too-short-lived series Parenthood on NBC.
You may have noticed.
But this weekend, an unrelated article in the Sunday New York Times has brought forth yet another question:
Why did the family name change from Buckman — in the 1989 origin film — to Braverman in the TV series?
I’ve done some research, and apparently I’m not the first to ask this question, but for decidedly different reasons.
Many viewers pointed out that “Braverman” is a surname of Jewish origin, but the Parenthood family is decidedly not so. Others surmised that “Buckman” sounded a bit too Midwestern — where the movie was located — and the name change was necessary to reflect the California setting.
Or was it a bit of an inside joke?
The Sunday New York Times article discussed the evolution of Doc Johnson Enterprises, the ‘first family of pleasure products.’ The family surname? Oh, it’s not Johnson; it’s Braverman. And it got me thinking…
Could one of television’s great family dramas have added this little Easter egg…just for giggles and grins?
Or maybe one of the creators is simply related to a Braverman, or it tested well…neither of which is as fun for me.
Leave a comment
Posted in Commentary, Entertainment, Humor, Life, Television
Tagged Braverman, Buckman, Doc Johnson Enterprises, Easter egg, Jewish origin, Midwestern, New York Times, Parenthood, Parenthood movie, Parenthood tv show