One of the lucky ones

February, 2009. 

Will this be the month that we'll look back on and realize that, "wow... yeah. America really hit the crapper THAT month?". Or was it October of '08? December? Hard to say. 

But there's no question that things are getting much worse before they get better, despite Obama's best intentions and earnest efforts. My ex still can't find work, and is at the end of her proverbial rope. We put our condo on the market, and amazingly, got an offer in 6 days. There are some people out there with money, but not many. Now fingers crossed that the deal holds. No guarantees in this world.

Further, it feels like a day doesn't go by where I don't hear about someone I personally know getting laid off. Two weeks ago it was good friends, married, a baby due in May. Both got laid off on the same day. Yesterday, it was the boyfriend of my closest co-worker.

And today it was my co-workers. A lot of them. We're an amazingly profitable company ($60+m in '08) with 300 employees, but even we can't weather the storm. 50 workers were fired, downsized, eliminated, let go, shown the door, today. Whatever euphamism you want to throw out there. It doesn't change the fact that 50 people were marched into rooms, told "it's the economy, stupid" and shown the door. 50 more people sucking up California unemployment in a state that's nearly bankrupt. 50 less people to accomplish the "mission critical" job that we've been tasked to do in a major re-invention year for our business. 

I've been on my new team for 3 weeks. For the second time in 3 months (since we downsized 10% only 2 months ago, when I was in an awkward "transition" period), I danced through the raindrops. In pretty eerie fashion though. I am one of two "product managers" in my department. I've been a product manager all of 3 weeks. My counterpart's been with the company 9 years, but she happens to work out of Connectticut in a sweetheart deal she was able to get a few years ago; we've managed to operate with a lot of conference calls and email. And she's a sweetheart, and competent, and likely an asset to the company (though I didn't work with her long enough to really know). But... guess who got fired?

It wasn't me. 

Maybe it's being cynical to just presume that geography was the deciding factor. I am well-liked at the company, so it could've been a real view of potential, value or something like that. That'd be nice to think, and I actually thanked my department head for keeping me on the team, and he seemed to really appreciate that, and also said that he thought highly of me. So on a very grim day, that was a nice emotional boost for me, and probably somewhat cathartic for him. 

It's all headlines until it's you. Until it's the person in the cube next to you. The husband who can't find work. The ex-wife who can't get an interview. The father who's forced into early retirement. The sister who can't get a job out of college because there are no jobs to be had. 

It's going to get worse before it gets better. A lot worse.

Where have you gone, Crash?

There is a difference between true actors and true movie stars. Sometimes they come together in the same package as in the case of Brando or DeNiro, but often they don't. Steve McQueen was a charismatic movie star, but would you look to him for depth, nuance or complexity? Not really. Harrison Ford had his moments as an actor ("Mosquito Coast", "Witness", "Working Girl"), but mostly he falls into the latter category. Though these days, I'm not sure he falls anywhere. 

Due to my age, I became a movie fan in the era of Kevin Costner. Watching him seduce Sean Young in the back of a limo in opened up delicious possibilities, while the earnest nobility of Elliot Ness made Connery's death that much more painful. But post-"Waterworld", Kevin Costner's become a punchline and a punching bag, much of which he's brought upon himself due to his rather naked sense of self-importance ("The Postman", which couldn't even be redeemed by a deliriously illogical cameo by Tom Petty), and woeful career choices ("3000 Miles to Graceland" could've easily been called "120 Minutes  of Pulp Fiction-lite Hell"). 

None of which changes the fact that from about 1987, starting with "No Way Out" through at least "The Bodyguard" in 1992, he pretty much owned Hollywood. Women loved him, and men wanted to be him. I was in the latter category, and unlike stars like Pitt and Cruise, he had a masculinty that men weren't threatened by. Similar to McQueen, he seemed like a "real man", a Miller Lite commercial without the cheesiness. When he brazenly, directly stated that, "I believe in the cock, the pussy... and long, deep wet kisses that last three days", he made women melt, and men take notes. 

No, Costner's not a great actor, and is often not even very good. Though he's had revelations, such as the quiet complexity of "A Perfect World", and Crash Davis is a master class of aging regret and masculine seduction. But he's always been a movie star first and actor second, which is part of why he's gotten second, third and fourth chances after a litany of box office failures. He made a lot of people a lot of money over the years, and "Dances With Wolves" bought him some respect and freedom, despite winning a truckload of Oscars above the more deserving "Goodfellas". Which, in its own way, was the start of the backlash - he was TOO big, and people knew that, and with the benefit of very short hindsight, it was clear that the noble and grand, though conventional storytellng of "Wolves" couldn't hold a candle to the artistry of Scorsese's pulsing, breathing crime epic. When "Waterworld" ushered in the modern era of mega-budgeted "failures", though it's conveniently forgotten (or, more accurately, ignored) that the man-with-gills ridiculousness actually made money.  Truly, the only thing we like more than building up and worshipping celebrities is tearing them to pieces. 

Which is what makes his complete, utter inability to find an interesting, quality movie so depressing. A few decent reviews got me to spend the evening with "Mr. Brooks", which is a miserable, almost comically cliche serial killer movie, populated with has-beens (Demi Moore) and pathetic never-will-bes (Dane Cook). All apologies to William Hurt, who gets a free pass for any of the shite he routinely appears in because, well, he's William Hurt. Costner feigns tortured soul complexity, but aside from one genuinely emotional scene, it's all a cheap fabrication to go along with the even cheaper plotting and overdone sets. 

Will no one of actual talent deign to work with this guy anymore? Costner's had moments over the years, from the underrated and fairly exceptional "Open Range", and he showed that used-up, booze-soaked charm again in "The Upside of Anger", but though he has movie-star charm to spare, no one seems willing or able to tap it. He hasn't acted with anyone relevant in the zeitgeist in years. Though he appeared against Jennifer Aniston, she was at low ebb, and Costner's doomed to star against B and C talents like Ashton Kutcher and Dane Cook rather than Matt Damon or even Shia LaBeaouf. The biggest name in his next movie is Samantha Mathis. When you ask, "Who?!", my answer is, "Exactly". 

I'm wondering if Kevin Costner has another great movie in him, or just a movie that will again connect with audiences. He and Prince (my musical god) have that trait in common: they owned the '80s, and though there's still potential for greatness, it feels destined to remain unrealized. Though Prince has genuine briliance and talent, Costner may have been more a construct of an era, a time that has passed him - and us - by.

So here's to Crash Davis. Would love to see him standing in the rain again, heading up to Annie Savoy's porch, ready to win her heart and to serve as our stand-ins for the lives we'll never lead, the women we'll never fuck, and the men we'll never quite be.