There's Always Another Day -- I Take Another Plunge Into the Murky Waters of Therapy

Did my intake at the Wright Institute. I’m going to be talking to a therapist regularly again. Spent most of the ninety minutes talking about my life. Mentally ill mother, great dad, sports, addiction, happy marriage, children, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, writing, film, books, big mistakes, big laughs, friends who died, pain and joy and confusion and certainty. 

I don’t mind yakking about myself. I’ve been seeing shrinks of various kinds since high school so I’m quite used to it. Good for me. Good for anybody — assuming you’re honest about it. No use bullshitting someone who’s trying to help you. Imagine going to a doctor because of severe pain then omitting information or embellishing. Maybe I’m on the wrong track, maybe 99% of people are perfectly honest with therapists. How the hell would I know? First of all you’ve got to be honest with yourself. Failure to do so will negatively effect the ability of anyone to help you and badly curb your ability to help yourself.

It’s weird recounting my childhood again. I mean the parts about my mother yelling, cursing, stomping her foot, angry at people who aren’t there. Raving like a loon. Okay so weird was the wrong word, it’s exhausting. You live through something like that then you have to spend the rest of your life recounting it. You can never shake the memory and worst of all you can never forget how it made you feel or in some respects how it DIDN’T make you feel. In some ways I was anesthetized to what was going on. It was at once horrifying but also part of the white noise of my misery. It was ever present.

The worst part was coming home. Just before opening the front door Id be wondering if mom was going to be like a regulation mother or a raving lunatic. And if she was doing the whole June Cleaver bit, how long would it last? You never knew when she was going to go off into the deep end again and swim in the murky waters of batshit crazy.

No kid should go through that feeling. For crying out loud this was happening when I was five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, a teenager. 

So I was the ultimate helpless victim. That’s a messed up thing to realize that you had no power in the situation, helpless, like being in the jaws of a huge and powerful beast. 

To my credit I carried on. I made the most of my childhood despite the secret horror that I lived with. Plenty of friends, a loving dad, a vivid imagination (boy did I do a lot of hiding in that) great extended family. Running like hell through fields, being enthralled by books, laughing at stupid TV shows, making up games with my friends. Marveling at sports and the exploits of athletes. Later there were The Beatles and music and girls (what an amazing discovery!). Life was so rich. There was so much to do, so many experiences to have, so much to learn. School actually seemed to get in the way of my education. Feeding me what they wanted me to learn rather than what I craved, what I needed. But school was a great place to meet friends, to get to know people, to understand my fellow travelers. Sometimes teachers would expose us to things worth knowing. They mostly had good hearts. 

But the pain of my childhood followed me when I went off to college. But boy did I have a way to cope. Booze and drugs cured all. The pain was gone and I was sociable and giddy. Yes, of course the cure became nearly as bad as the disease. Problems, complications. My life ended up going in a wide array of destinations all at once. I didn’t know what I had when I had it and I didn’t know where to go, where I’d been or where I was. 

Mental illness, the consequence of my childhood or a nasty combination of both?

Anyway I’ve struggled through. Loving wife, AA, great children. Good friends. Medical professionals. 

Still have nasty scars and horrible reminders of what was but I’ve spent a lifetime drowning that pain in good times, worthy endeavors and exploring the endless variety of fascinating questions and mysteries that make up our world.

Depression is still an unwelcome companion, as are obsessive thoughts that do me no good. I’m hoping another stab at therapy will help me feel better. There’s always the next day.

A Streams Classic: I'm a Teacher and I Take Pride in My Work, Just Don't Call Me "Great" Plus Some Advice

 

Disclaimer: the above teacher is not yours truly

The following post originally appeared on this blog on January 31, 2019. I am re-posting it because....well, I think it was pretty darn good and worth a look for anyone who might have missed it (I'm looking at you Gettysburg Von Richthofen of Sycamore, Illinois). It will become clear that I wrote this post shortly before "retiring." That retirement lasted three months before I returned to teaching on a part time basis. I'm still at it today, teaching a class every morning, Monday through Friday, for higher intermediate learners of the English language. Virtually all of the school's students are visiting the U.S. to learn English or have recently arrived in this country.

My psychiatrist and I got into a long discussion yesterday that went nowhere. Or everywhere. I couldn’t tell which. It stemmed from the fact that I’m retiring in four weeks and I told him that I dread goodbye ceremonies in which my employers and co-workers heap with me praise for being such “a great teacher.” I’m not comfortable with it. I like being thanked for my services or have a student point out something in particular they liked about my class, but having an adjective thrown at me — no matter how laudatory, is useless. What does it mean if you are a “great” teacher? Okay it can mean you’ve got satisfied students, but not only does it not specify anything but it can make you complacent. I need to go out there and teach again tomorrow and I need to prepare and execute the best possible lesson plan that I can, thinking I’m “great” doesn’t help. Realizing I’m capable does. I've had a lot of students say things like "you were a great teacher." But I much prefer praise that begins: "I really liked the way that you...." Or, "I appreciate that you always..."

I have always taken great pride in my efforts as a teacher. I have also derived great satisfaction from the knowledge that I’ve impacted a lot of lives in positive ways through my teaching. This type of understanding can allow one to die a happy person. But as long as I’m still teaching I don’t need or want my ego fed.

Teaching is a humbling experience. You’ve got to perform to the best of your ability day after day. It’s a grind. I’ve loved doing it and found it wonderfully fulfilling. But I don’t need to hear the cheers as I’m doing it.

My philosophy as a teacher is to show up and do my best every damn time. Of course to do one’s best requires not merely effort, but imagination, innovation, professional growth, attention to detail and humor.

Actually maybe on the day I retire people can tell me how “great” I was and I won’t blanch, but I still think I’ll feel a little weird about it. It’s like in AA when you announce it’s your sobriety birthday and people applaud. I hate that. I don’t want applause for staying sober one day at a time. I didn’t do anything but follow the principles of the program.

I’ve gone through the whole “being great” thing. I used to think I was a great soccer player, a great journalist, a great writer. It didn’t help me a wit to think that way, it made me lazy, taking bows rather than trying to achieve actual greatness.

Yesterday when our “time was up” as psychiatrists like to say, I noted that our animated conversation had distracted me from my depression. The doctor wondered aloud if my attitude toward praise was a cause of my depression. This was a clear sign that I’d failed to explain myself. You’d think a teacher would have no problem explaining something. Maybe I’m not so great after all.

I close this with some advice I’m passing on to my current colleagues before I “hang ‘em up” on March 1.

RICHARD RECOMMENDS
Unsolicited advice from a veteran teacher.

Don’t talk too much. It’s far more important for students to talk, in fact it’s essential that they do. Most lessons lend themselves to student interaction through pair or group work. Young people in particular should only be exposed to a limited amount of lecture or teacher-centered instruction. Guided student interaction should not be just a break from the norm but an integral part of lessons.

Students want a teacher not a robot. You do not have to be the life of the party type but you should exhibit some signs of life. An occasional smile, a personal anecdote or a ready quip are advised. Don't sit behind a desk, you're not an accountant. Circulate, make eye contact, vary your voice. Don’t drone on in a robotic voice, try dramatic pauses, accents, stage whispers maybe even a bellow.

Call audibles. If students are getting bored you may need to switch activities sooner than you planned. Alternatively if students are enjoying something you may want to extend what you're doing. Sometimes lessons need to be modified while in progress. Know your audience. Read their faces, look for yawns, look for eyes wandering, note if you're getting a lot or no questions, note if students are puzzled or engaged. Classes take on different personalities and have different needs. Some are stronger academically, some are more sociable, some are quiet, some are full of the dull and lifeless and some are full of whirling dervishes. Some understand one concept but not the other. Pay attention to the different needs of each class and don’t be afraid to modify on the run.

A little TLC goes a long way. Give students encouragement and praise whenever possible, even if it's not totally sincere. You should be something of a cheerleader, rooting them on. Assuming you have a student for more than a couple of weeks, it’s good to get to know a little about her or him. Teaching is about establishing relationships, knowing what a person's strengths and weaknesses are and if they have specific needs. When writing summary comments on a student paper or giving them oral feedback I always employ PCP. Praise, criticism praise. Always leave them feeling good about themselves.

Learning is its own reward. What rewards should students get? Isn’t learning reward enough? If not isn’t a good grade or advancement to the next level a nice reward? That being said, rewards are proven to be far better in motivating students than punishments. Punishments should be swift, fair and used minimally and should never be in the form of “making them write.” Writing should be viewed as a rewarding experience, not as a punishment.

Tell them why. Teachers often fashion innovative lessons that challenge and inform students. But often students don’t understand the point of a lesson. Go ahead and tell them. In fact, sell them on the idea. If you can’t explain the value of an assignment, it’s likely because it has none. Justify the assignment to yourself, then to them. Nothing should be done just because it’s fun.

Would you like it? Create lessons and a classroom environment that you'd enjoy if you were taking the class. In fact, if you’re enjoying teaching a lesson its likely they’re enjoying learning it. Students feed off your enthusiasm and energy. Also they'll like you. Being liked by students is a big plus. If students like you they're going to be more open to what you have to say and more willing to do what you ask. Also remember you're dealing with two different dynamics: you and individuals and you and the class as a whole. The more students who you have on your side, the more likely you've got the whole group. That's key because groups are infinitely harder to manage than individuals.

Don’t drown students in paper. For one thing it’s bad for the environment and for another it can be a lazy way to teach. It’s easy to pile on the worksheets and readings to give yourself a break. My teaching philosophy is — whenever possible — offer a variety of teaching methods within one class. I like to — again, when possible — give students a mix of interactive, writing, listening, reading etc. Remember two things: 1) Variety is the spice of teaching and 2) Moderation in all things teaching.

Video, like all things, in moderation. I have heard too many aging educators (usually ones who are no longer teaching) complain about the use of videos. Several say that “students can watch TV at home.” Yes, well for that matter they can read and write at home too. However if you are showing them part of a movie or TV show or any other type of video, presumably it is something that they would not choose to watch at home and even if they did they would be doing so without the benefit of your introducing the relevance of it and clarifying and explaining and giving assignments around it. By not using video at all you are eliminating an important instructional tool. Of course many teachers overuse video. There’s got to be a demonstrable value to whatever you are showing.

Students are comforted by routines but shake it up. You start every class with a particular warm up or activity, you always do something at the end of class or every Wednesday you do this or every Friday you do that. I have a number of routines that I practice in every single class and students come to expect and enjoy them. Consistency and stability and a certain predictably is comforting. But you’ve also got to shake things up from time to time. Within the boundaries of the everyday activities mix in something different. The totally unexpected can be a refreshing break and in fact can invigorate your classroom. Make yourself and thus students step out of the comfort zone.

Test results sometimes reflect you. If I give a test and a few students fail while most do well, I have to assume those few students did not study or did not understand. I’ll work with them. But if a lot of students have trouble with a test, it’s on me. Clearly I either made it too difficult or did not prepare them well enough. Also if there’s a particular part of the test that a lot of students struggled with be sure to review that and keep it in mind the next time you give that test. Whenever “everyone” is struggling it's up to you to fix it.

Don’t not look back. A good teacher is reflective. If a lesson goes poorly do not blame the students, look in the mirror. You can’t fix how they react to a lesson but you can fix the lesson itself. Always ask yourself what you could have done differently, challenge yourself to improve. At the same time when a lesson goes well, give yourself a hearty pat on the back and learn from that too.

Have fun Teaching is challenging, at times difficult and occasionally enervating, but it’s also jolly good fun. If you’re not enjoying teaching, find a profession that you will like. Look at the bright side, it’ll probably pay more.

Films to Inspire You in the Coming Revolution

Battle of Algiers

These are dark times for American Democracy. The country is teetering toward fascism. We have a president who has no regard for political norms, cares not for social justice and is trying to bring on a second Gilded Age. The moneyed class — the very top of it — are prospering. The current prospects for the poor and marginalized are bleak. 

In response could there be revolution in the air? It’s difficult to imagine pitched battles in the streets of U.S. cities; then again it is no longer impossible to envisage something akin to Civil War. After all, Trumpy is sending troops into major cities. Troops, mind you, that locals did not request and do not want. Representatives of ICE are making a mockery of due process, arresting the innocent with the supposedly guilty. Americans are being held in detention centers without due process, some are shipped to foreign prisons.

There have been and will continue to be large protests that may get bigger. There could well eventually be repressive measures enacted against marchers. It behooves good citizens to be diligent. It may already be that we are beyond the point when writing one’s congressperson is sufficient.

There are films that can inspire us as we struggle to regain and hold our basic rights as citizens. Many movies have had powerful messages about resistance and fighting the good fight against authoritarianism. They are scattered throughout the history of cinema. I present to you ten such films. I hope they will give you hope and inspiration. Power to the people!

Battle of Algiers (1966) Pontecorvo. One of the greatest political films of all time. This faux documentary tells the story of Algerians fight for independence against the French in the 1950s. Filmed to look like actual news footage, it makes the struggles of revolutionaries seem real, important, necessary and desperate. By giving voice to the French army it broadens the scope of the story and puts it into greater historical context. Insurgency, occupation and resistance have never been more compelling on the big screen.

Reds (1981) Beatty. The epic story of John Reed, Louise Bryant and the revolutionary — American and Russian — who helped make the first quarter of the 20th century such a hopeful time for the far left. Sadly we know that the Russian Revolution fell into a reign of terror and murder under Lenin and only got worse under Stalin. However they were times of great promise to the left. Reed and Bryant were revolutionaries and journalists and as the movie shows they numbered among their associates the likes of Emma Goldman (anarchist played by Maureen Stapleton), Big Bill Haywood (IWW leader played by Dolph Sweet), Eugene O’Neill (playwright played by Jack Nicholson). Reds is a love story and it’s a history lesson and it's about the passion and idealism of people who believe power should be vested in the people and not oligarchs.

One Battle After Another (2025) PT Anderson.In theaters now. I quote from my blog post on the film from last month: Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film, One Battle After Another is a movie movie. It is a cornucopia for film goers. Rich with character, incidents, conflicts, themes, history and messages. It clocks in at two hours and fifty minutes and there’s not a yawn in it. There’s not a wasted second. It’s a nearly three hour film that’s tight and compact. It’s a wonder.One Battle is the story of an ex-revolutionary (Leonardo DiCaprio) who has to rescue his daughter (Chase Infiniti in her film debut) from a corrupt military officer (Sean Penn). That’s your over simplified plot summary. There is so much else going on. Relationships, plots, betrayals, deception and a fair bit of comedy along with something of a history lesson. No, One Battle is not based on a true story (its origins are Thomas Pynchon’s novel, Vineland) but it gives you a sense of the spirit of the Sixties among those who, like the Weather Underground, believed in using violence as a response to a regressive and repressive U.S.government.

The Strawberry Statement (1970) Hagmann. Not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination more like a prolonged music video with some of the greatest hits of the Sixties. But it for all its flaws, Strawberry Statement captures the mood of the Sixties, particularly among those college students dedicated to ending the war, the draft and social injustice. For many in the Sixties, the “revolution” was something of a lark but one that they discovered had real life impact that would resonate down the years.

Medium Coo (1969) Wexler. Cinéma vérité–style documentary filmmaking used in telling a fictional story set in Chicago in 1968 during the infamous Democratic National Convention. Actual footage of protests is used which helps show the chaotic nature of police riots. Medium Cool tackles a number of issues including the failure of whites to understand the black experience. Shot when and where it was by the great Haskell Wexler, it couldn’t help but give a real sense of the late Sixties in general and the events in Chicago in particular.

The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Ford. Based on John Steinbeck’s novel of the same name it is surely one of the greatest films ever made. It tells the story of the Joad family which has been dispossessed from its Oklahoma farm by the combined horrors of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. They head to California in the poor person’s eternal search for greener pastures. They find thousands of others on the same quest and they find land and farm owners who are only to happy to exploit the poor and brutally suppress any efforts for fair pay and decent treatment. Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) becomes an unwitting revolutionary. He muses: “I been thinking about us, too, about our people living like pigs and good rich land layin' fallow. Or maybe one guy with a million acres and a hundred thousand farmers starvin'. And I been wonderin' if all our folks got together and yelled….”

Malcolm X (1992) S. Lee. What could be more revolutionary than the story of Malcolm X? The rise from common criminal to inspirational leader to the burgeoning black power movement. There was the long stopover with the Nation of Islam before his Hajj led him to understand that Islam was not exclusive to one race. His split from Elijah Muhammad was yet another of courage and ultimately led or contributed to his assassination. Malcolm was the white establishment’s greatest fear, an inspirational Black leader who spoke eloquently of the corruption and racism in white society. His story still resonates. 

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Capra. The classic story of one man standing up to a powerful political machine that seeks to crush him while continuing to control the press and muzzle dissent. Jimmy Stewart gave his greatest performance in the title role as a naive new senator pitted against powers that seem impregnable. Senator Smith uses the fillibuster to rally support to his cause. Mr. Smith shows both the worst and the best in U.S. democracy. It has been criticized by people on the left, the right and in the middle. Perhaps because it so effectively hits home.

Z (1969) Costa-Gravas. The Best of Costa-Gavras’ many politically-charged films that include Stage of Siege, Missing and the Confession. Z is the story of the 1963 assassination by right wing zealots of a Greek liberal politician and the ensuing investigation which uncovers a web of corruption involving the military, police, and right-wing extremists, revealing the state's complicity in silencing political dissent. Z is aptly labeled a political thriller but it is also an unflinching look at the terrible damage a right wing regime can bring to a democratic society. I hope that doesn’t sound too familiar.

Sorry to Bother You (2018) Riley.  Sorry to Bother You"is a surreal satirical comedy that follows a young African-American telemarketer who discovers that using a polished, exaggerated “white voice” catapults him to success in a dystopian version of corporate America. As he rises through the ranks, he uncovers a disturbing conspiracy and is ultimately forced to choose between personal wealth and power, or standing in solidarity with his activist friends fighting to unionize and reclaim their humanity. The film exposes the big-money people behind the curtain and how they manipulate our culture and transform people into corporate slaves. It’s a movie to enjoy maybe mostly because it will piss you off.

Also recommended: State of Siege, Missing, Matewan, Our Daily Bread, Meet John Doe, Judas and the Black Messiah, Born on the Fourth of July and Running on Empty.

In the Wake of Diane Keaton's Death We Are Reminded of The Lies, Damned Lies and Vicious Lies Against Woody Allen

Diane Keaton and Woody Allen

In the wake of Diane Keaton’s death Woody Allen has been back in the spotlight. Again he’s either been marginalized or badly misrepresented. Allen was a one-time boyfriend of Ms. Keaton and they had remained friends for over fifty years. She was his most valued critic. It was Allen’s Annie Hall (1977) that rocketed Ms. Keaton to fame. For her role in the film she not only won the Best Actress Oscar but became a fashion icon and a beloved superstar. In writing retrospectives of Ms. Keaton people have been unable to avoid mentioning the importance of Annie Hall in Ms. Keaton’s life and Allen’s role as writer, director and co-star.

Manohla Dargis of the New York Times couldn’t help but write about the film in her essay on Ms. Keaton. But she managed to avoid so much as mentioning any of her other roles in Allen films such as Sleeper, Manhattan, Love and Death and Manhattan Murder Mystery. Other writers have been equally circumspect greatly minimizing Allen’s role in both her professional and private life.

Simply put Allen has become a pariah.

There are still jokes about him marrying his daughter, there was one recently on a late night talk show. People still revile him for his marriage to his “daughter.”

However it should be noted that his wife, Soon-Yi is the adopted daughter of the late Andre Previn, not Woody Allen. It should be further noted that Allen played no part in raising Soon-Yi, never lived under the same roof as her and barely had any contact with her. The charges that Allen groomed Soon-Yi have absolutely no factual basis. They are made up.

It is odd that Allen dated the step daughter of his ex-lover, Mia Farrow and the age gap of over thirty years is substantial. But perhaps of greater significance is the fact that they have been happily married for 28 years and have raised two adopted daughters who are quite successful and love their parents as is evident by their Instagram accounts which I follow.

But the real reason for freezing Woody Allen out are the charges of molestation leveled against him by his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. People believe her. We have lately been taught to listen to all women, which is unquestionably a good thing. Most people who have listened to Dylan have believed her and assumed that Allen is a child molester. However the facts do not support her contentions. Before proceeding it should be clear that one can believe Dylan’s story and still believe that Woody Allen is innocent. The fact is that there are more witnesses to Dylan being coached by Mia Farrow than there are to any molestation. Indeed there are zero witnesses to any molestation on Allen's part again Dylan or anyone else.

Woody Allen has been cleared by two separate investigations. He passed a lie doctor test. There are no other accusations or hints of pedolphelia against Allen (pedophiles do not just molest once and then retire, they have sickness that is acted our repeatedly). The one act of molestation that Dylan describes could not have happened as she tells it. For one it “happened” in a house full of people who were keeping an eye on Allen. It allegedly took place in a small space that Allen, a claustrophobe, would never have spent a second in, and Dylan describes an electric toy train in a room that had no electrical outlets. (However Mia Farrow’s sister wrote a song years before about an act of molestation taking place in a room with an electric train circling. Coincidence? Unlikely).

It is clear to people who have objectively studied the allegations against Allen that he was framed by Mia Farrow in one of the more contemptible acts ever committed by one celebrity against another. Mia Farrow essentially created traumatic memories in her own adopted daughter just to get revenge against an ex-lover. Despicable. Two of  Mia Farrow's  adopted children committed suicide and a third died under suspicious circumstances. These three children along with Soon-Yi and Moses Farrow (who back Woody’s side of the story) have something in common: they are people of color. The two adopted children who support Mia Farrow are white. 

Oh yes and Mr. Allen is Jewish which undoubtedly plays a part in how he is perceived among bigots who follow the case.

For more on this case see this blog post of mine from a few years back which is quite comprehensive and includes numerous links to other articles, stories, facts and accounts that support Woody Allen. Here is the best of those. 

One of the worst aspects of Mia Farrow's vindictiveness is how it has curtailed Woody Allen's film-making career and caused him to be virtually excised as a voice in this country on matters such as Diane Keaton's death, or Tony Roberts' passing before that. He was interviewed but cut from a documentary on the famous Carlye Hotel (he had a few seconds in the DVD extras). Discussions of great directors from the Seventies on no longer include him or his films despite their widespread popularity before Dylan spoke out. 

In defending him over the years I've been astounded by how ignorant people are of the true facts of the case and what ridiculous lies are spread by otherwise reasonable people. And many people get incredibly angry when you defend him to the extent that they will say that you must be a supporter of child molestation. 

Woody Allen's film restore my faith in humanity. The vicious lies told about him help destroy that faith.

Diane Keaton One of a Kind, An Appreciation

Diane Keaton 1946-2025

Celebrity deaths hit us in different ways. Some don’t hit us at all because while we were aware of the person we might not have known much about their work or not liked what we did know. Such was the case for me with the deaths of people like Paul Walker and Kurt Cobain. 

The age of the decedent can also matter. The death of someone in their nineties is sad but feels inevitable, but someone who was in their twenties feels tragic.

Our feelings vary based on how much we knew of the person outside of their work. Sometimes we feel a connection to a celebrity perhaps because we’ve seen so much of their work or because we’ve “gotten to know” the person through articles, interviews, podcasts and the like.

Last month I was saddened enough by Robert Redford’s death to write about it on this blog. I’d been seeing him in films since I was a teenager and he was in several pictures that meant a lot to me. Besides, he was a good all-around chap whose politics aligned with mine.

But that pain was minimal compared to how I felt yesterday when I learned that Diane Keaton had died. In a post from April 2023 I wrote about my favorite actresses and named Ms. Keaton my favorite of the second half of the 20th century.

Last night the missus and I watched her Oscar-winning performance in Annie Hall (1977) Allen. (No idea how many times I've watched Annie Hall but it must be close to or over twenty). It was a brilliant performance and I’ve always been impressed that the Academy rewarded her for a role in a comedy. She brought such depth and humanity to the role, a genuineness and charming eccentricity and style. She was sexy, lovable, cute, nerdy, fun and wise all in one role. I remember a friend once complaining that she got an Oscar for essentially playing herself. And is that easy? Even for a professional actor? I don’t think so. Besides, despite their similarities, Diane Keaton and Annie Hall were not the same person.

Ms.Keaton brought a different vibe to another Woody Allen film, Manhattan. Here she was far more worldly, cynical, overbearing yet at times vulnerable. A woman searching for her true self and true love and stepping on toes along the way. Manhattan is an interesting movie because it’s a comedy with dramatic elements or a drama with comedic bits. Actors will tell you that doing the comedy bits is tougher. Diane Keaton was a master at it. She excelled in comedic roles for Allen in pictures like Play it Again, Sam, Sleeper, Love and Death and Manhattan Murder Mystery (a vastly underrated film). Yet she was also the wife of Mafia Boss Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2. She was never impressed with her performances in those films and felt she was miscast. I think most filmgoers disagree. I’d go so far to say that she was perfect for the part. Ms. Keaton captured the post World War II trustingly naive young wife. But she also embodied the woman who's seen enough, has her internal come to Jesus moment and splits.

Around the time she made Annie Hall Ms. Keaton was in a very different film, Looking For Mr. Goodbar (1970 R Brooks, is dark, psychological drama about a woman in a continual search for sexual partners. It's not an easy watch but through Ms. Keaton's performance it is accessible. The film was flawed but her performance was not.

One of her greatest roles was in Reds (1981) Beatty, in which she played journalist and activist Louise Bryant opposite Warren Beatty’s John Reed. It was a demanding role in a long movie and she was excellent throughout more than holding her own opposite such powerhouses as Beatty, Jack Nicholson, Paul Sorvino, Maureen Stapleton. It’s difficult now to think of Louise Bryant without imagining Diane Keaton. She was the strong-willed feminist who could love deeply and earnestly amid the incredible political tumult that she was both reporting and influencing. 

Diane Keaton was a film star. Sure she was a terrific actress, yes she was beautiful. But more than that she seemed relatable and fun. Men would picture her in bed, but they could also imagine having a long chat in a cafe over coffee. Browsing in a bookstore with her. Laughing with her. Maybe that’s the key. Sure you’d want to make love to her, but you felt you could also look forward to long, loud belly laughs together. Beautiful but accessible. Sexy and funny. Diane Keaton defied labels. She was more her own person than ninety-nine percent of the actresses in Hollywood have ever been.

You could watch her opposite Woody Allen, Al Pacino, Warren Beatty and any other actor lucky enough to share the screen with her. One of a kind. She seemed perfect and it’s unimaginable that she’s no longer in this world. We are so much poorer for her absence.

The Kennedy Assassination, Many Historians Can't Handle the Truth

Kennedy moments before the fatal shots

I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of U.S. historians are cowards. I recall reading an otherwise brilliant Pulitzer Prize winning biography of J Edgar Hoover in which the author asserted that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John. F Kennedy. It is little different than noting that the Earth is flat. The Warren Commission’s fatuous conclusions have been repeatedly disproved for decades. The Commission was set up by then president Lyndon Johnson solely to establish Oswald’s guilt and thus avert a crisis in the country in which real questions were asked about the events of November 22, 1963. There have been hundreds of books — ranging from the amateurish to the scholarly — that have picked apart the commission and the lone gunman theory. There was a United States House Select Committee on Assassinations held from 1976 to 1978 that concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and that acoustic evidence suggested a second gunman might have been involved, implying a probable conspiracy. That was actually pretty weak sauce. Countless authors and researchers have come to much stronger conclusions backed by sound evidence that there were multiple gunmen in Dallas that. The CIA’s fingerprints were all over the assassination and the participation of the Mafia is not just likely but probable. 

Note these facts from assassination researcher Carl Oglesby:

* Oswald's description was broadcast over police radio within fifteen minutes of the assassination. No one knows how this description was obtained.

* No interrogation records were kept for those arrested at Dealey Plaza, or for Oswald.

* The pictures of Oswald holding a gun appear to be faked.

* JFK's body was removed from Dallas before an autopsy could be performed there.

* JFK's corpse left Dallas wrapped in a sheet inside an ornamental bronze casket. It arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington in a body bag inside a plain casket.

* The autopsy photographs of JFK's wounds differed radically from the descriptions of the doctors at Parkland Hospital.

* A whole tray of evidence, including what was left of the president's brain, remains missing from the National Archives.

* The pristine condition of "the magic bullet" suggests it was planted.

* Numerous films made by witnesses to the event were confiscated.

* Many more witnesses have died than would normally be expected, many in mysterious circumstances.

* Both the FBI and the CIA concealed important evidence from the Warren Commission.

It is noteworthy that the bizarre theories, the ones that strain credulity come from the advocates for the lone gunmen theory. No better evidence is needed in then the “magic bullet” theory. The theory posits that a single bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald, struck Kennedy in the back, exited through his throat, then entered Connally’s back, broke a rib, exited his chest, shattered his wrist, and embedded in his thigh. The idea is not only implausible but downright silly.

A few years ago documentarian Errol Morris put forth evidence that he felt debunked the notion of multiple gunmen by presenting an interview with the supposed “umbrella man.” The umbrella man was a mysterious figure seen in photos and film footage of the JFK assassination standing on Dealey Plaza holding a black umbrella, despite the clear, sunny weather in Dallas that day. His presence near the motorcade route and his unusual behavior—raising and possibly twirling the umbrella just as President Kennedy’s limousine approached—sparked decades of conspiracy theories. Many speculated he was signaling the gunmen -- probably because it was pretty obvious that he likely was.

Decades later a man confessed to Morris that he was the umbrella man. He explained his behavior during the assassination by claiming that he was there that day to protest the president’s father’s appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany when he, Joseph Kennedy, was ambassador to England at the outset of World War II. The umbrella, he explained —evidently with a straight face — was meant to represent another appeaser, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. 

In other words we are to believe that over twenty years after the war someone decided to show his displeasure with Joseph Kennedy by holding up an umbrella as the president’s motorcade went by reasoning that JFK would see said umbrella and immediately think: “damn, that’s clearly a reference to my father and his efforts to appease the Nazis, he sure showed me.” It's amazing that Morris and others actually believed that nonsense. I also suppose that in this scenario the umbrella man calmly sauntered off as bullets flew and everyone else fell to the ground because his mission was accomplished and all this gunfire had nothing to do with him. 

Utter claptrap. 

Bear in mind these facts:

After the shooting people, including police officers, ran and pointed to the Grassy Knoll. Within forty seconds of the assassination Oswald was found (by a police officer) on the FIRST floor of the Book Depository, calmly drinking a soft drink.

The Secret Service was ordered off the Presidents limo at the airport for unknown reasons by unknown people. There is video of this and the agent being called off is clearly perplexed, as this goes against his training, and the plans for that day. The parade route was changed. Why did the limo not go straight down Main Street to the freeway? Instead it jogged over to in front of the Book Depository.

Kennedy is violently slammed BACKWARDS when he was shot in the head, this is easily visible on the Zapruder film. An intact, nearly pristine bullet was "found on a stretcher" at Parkland Hospital just after the President was brought there. 

The Secret Service washed down and removed evidence from the limo within one hour of the assassination. The car was driven across country and the interior rebuilt without any real examination. The President’s autopsy was performed by two doctors who had never done an autopsy. The President was given an autopsy that was not adequate for a Skid Row bum, let alone a murdered head of state. 

Oswald’s hands were tested for gunsmoke residue and the test was negative.

Lone gunmen advocates asked us to believe that Oswald hit was successful on his first try at a moving target, rapid fire, using a clumsy bolt action -- no one has ever succeeded at such a combination of shooting challenges.

Why would Oswald have taken a bolt-action rifle out there in the first place? Why would anyone push the weapon near to its absolute limit for rapid fire shot-production? 

It is quite enough of a challenge for any shooter that he would get thrown off line with 160-grain charges ramming his shoulder with each shot.

In 1967, eleven professional marksmen took all day with that Italian Carcano gun before one of the sharpshooters from the State Patrol could learn to get off the three shots in time and hit a target.

Bottom line: anyone with a 6.5mm or 30-06 bolt-action rifle can prove to himself the practical impossibility of the story we've been sold. That is common sense -- experience overwhelms hypothetical assertion. White is never black.

And back to the pristine bullet. It’s not just suspicious, it’s incriminating. This projectile was planted, period. Where and how would anyone get a pristine bullet that had been fired from that very rifle? It takes the work of a ballistics expert and possession of the barrel from the rifle itself, if not the intact rifle. 

People say: if there was a conspiracy surely someone would have spoken by now. True. The fact is people have, a lot of them. Many are full of it and some of those may be part of CIA disinformation campaigns. But there have been highly credible witnesses who have pointed fingers and given specific information about whos and wheres and whys. But it’s been difficult to sift through it all and get to the truth. 

Besides some “establishment” historians the New York Times has been a staunch defender of the lone assassin theory. Their highly respected columnist Russell Baker once posited that people want to believe that a conspiracy was behind the assassination because it’s more comforting than imagining a lone random gunman. Others have asserted the same. Can you imagine? To suggest that people would find comfort in the notion that shadowy figures, likely linked to the government, were behind the assassination of the president of the United States. It’s as crazy as the magic bullet theory.

So who do I think killed Kennedy? The best evidence points to people within the CIA perhaps with the assistance of the Mafia. Remember it is a fact that the CIA and Mafia were in league back then. Both organizations had cause to want to see JFK dead.

As we approach the sixty-second anniversary of the Kennedy assassination the answer to the question of who killed Kennedy and why has not been definitively answered. I’ve resigned myself to the idea that we probably will never know. What we do know is that Lee Harvey Oswald was exactly what he said, nothing but a patsy, and that there were multiple shooters.

If you’re interested in learning more about the Kennedy assassination this podcast co-hosted by Rob Reiner and Soledad O’Brien is a good place to start. One of the better books on the assassination is Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs. The website JFK Facts managed by Jefferson Morley is indispensable. Morley, by the way, wrote an excellent book about James Jesus Angleton, (The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton) the most notorious of CIA agents from its early days. Angelton held the CIA's files (started in 1959) on Oswald but he never released them to the Warren Commission.

I started this post by bemoaning the fact that so many historians toe the company line and are afraid to say the obvious about JFK's murder. I'm not entirely sure why that is. I imagine that they're afraid of being labeled conspiracy nuts. Maybe it's just considered bad form.

According to a gallup polll from two years ago 65% of Americans believe that John F. Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy and that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Yet too many historians continue to cower behind some version of the Warren Report, much to their discredit.

I close by noting that in part four of his multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson, Robert Caro ignores the question entirely. He does show that the Warren Commission was conceived by Johnson for the purpose of convincing the American people that Oswald acted alone -- nothing to see here folks, move along. Evidence be damned the conclusion was determined in advance. Caro is also unequivocal that, based on his exhaustive research,  LBJ was not, as some have suggested, responsible for Kennedy's murder. I was relieved but not surprised that Caro did not prop up the Oswald as lone assassin canard.

Would that other historians would open their minds to the truth.