Categories
The Interviews

Alicia Witt

Alicia Witt has been steadily holding on to her day job – that of an extremely successful working actor – until she can make real her dream job: that of singer-songwriter. That goal is becoming ever more realized now that she has debuted her self-titled EP and its well-received first single, “Anyway.”

“Making my own music has been a dream of mine for my entire life,” she confesses to me from her home in LA. “Three years ago, I finally just started doing it. All of the sudden, there were all these songs, and the more I write, the more come out. I can’t compare this time to any other time in my life because I feel that there was something missing in all the years before that.”

This new completeness – this wholeness – can be considered closure on all those “missing” years, which she attempted to fulfill with gigs on television and in movies.

In fact, you’ll recognize this redheaded stunner from any number of obscure little projects, such as The Sopranos, Friday Night Lights, Law and Order, Cybill, Ally McBeal, Twin Peaks, and even That’s Incredible. You may have also seen her in films like Dune, Four Rooms and Mr. Holland’s Opus.

However, like a good deal of art, the joy of creativity had sprung from the depths of pain and heartache.

“[The single] ‘Anyway,’ came about at the end of a really toxic relationship,” she says. “I started writing the song when things were really bad, with the understanding that the relationship was over. Still, I was trying to figure out why it had ended and why it had happened in the first place; how I could get myself into a place in my life where I was okay with being in a situation like that. And as I was writing the song, I was like, ‘I don’t really care anymore. It doesn’t matter. It’s over. There is no point in figuring out why or how.’”

The how and the why may not matter, but to Witt, the truth always does.

“There is not anything in the song that isn’t true,” she says. “In writing my own songs, even if I feel that it’s not something specific that happened to me, which this one is, I always want the words to be true. I’ll never put a lyric in because it rhymes or it fits. I would rather spend a really long time agonizing over the right lyrics so that it works with the music but also means what I wanted it to mean.”

The subject of the song, who shall remain nameless, is long gone, but the memories linger on (and some of them not so bad).

“We’re not in touch anymore,” she says of her former love. “I guess if he heard it, he would recognize the scenario. But some really great things can come out of breakups. I’m really grateful for the relationship for many reasons. I think everything happens for a reason. It’s so cool to be able to turn something like that into a song.”

Witt’s distinctive take on her newfound creative path reflects other aspects of her unique life, including her unusual career, education and even her taste in music.

“When I was growing up, I was kind of weird musically,” she says. “I loved the big band era more than anything. It was almost like I was born in 1941. I know all of those lyrics and singers. And I love Nat King Cole and songwriters like George Gershwin and Cole Porter. There was actually a radio station back home that I was a little obsessed with, [big-band format] WNEB. I listened to that station morning, noon and night.

“My mom listened to a lot of the sixties-style stuff, like the early Beatles. It wasn’t until I was much older, a teenager, that I started appreciating The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. There were some current pop songs that I loved, like ‘Total Eclipse of the Heart.’ For the most part, I was listening to big band music. I also loved piano-driven singer-songwriters like Elton John and Billy Joel and even Barry Manilow. I do think he’s a great songwriter.”

Before her eventual move to LA as a teenager, Witt was home-schooled in Worcester, Massachusetts by her parents, both of whom were teachers. Fun fact: her mom was once listed in The Guinness Book of World Records as having the longest hair in the world, at twelve feet (and she wore it in an updo).

“Home schooling was definitely better in some ways,” she says, “because my parents’ philosophy was that they wanted their kids to explore whatever they were most interested in at any given time. I studied classical piano very seriously. I didn’t have any particular curriculum to stick to. It wasn’t a regimented kind of education where we studied history and math and geography every day. It was more like I would find a chapter in a history book that interested me and I would read that for a week. We didn’t have tests. It was really unconventional, and I did know that. At that time, home schooling was not done nearly as much as it is today.”

Her TV debut, at age five, was on the ABC series That’s Incredible, where she – incredibly – recited Shakespeare. The nation responded by exclaiming, “That’s incredible!”

“It was my first time in front of an audience,” she recalls. “I can still remember the feeling I had the moment the audience responded to something that I had done. I was sort of astounded. I was doing a scene from Romeo and Juliet, with the host, John Davidson, as Romeo. He had his little pocket Shakespeare book that he was reading from. I remember that he had a long-stemmed rose that he was going to give me as part of the reading. At one point, he went to give me the rose, and he asked me if Romeo gave Juliet a rose and I said no, it wasn’t in the play. And so he tossed it over his shoulder.”

Among those watching this broadcast were film director David Lynch’s people, who were having a heck of a time casting a certain child character for his upcoming Dune movie adaption.

She says, “They had difficulty casting the role of a five-year-old who could speak in an incredibly adept way. [The character’s] mother had drunk this magic potion, the Water of Life. It gave the daughter all of this knowledge that she wasn’t supposed to have. The casting director thought that because I could read Shakespeare, I must be able to do this. I went to New York for the casting. It was like a dream. It was the first time that I realized that acting was a viable career option. I always loved acting, but I didn’t know that it was a possibility. I knew from that point on that I wanted to do that for the rest of my life. Before that, I thought I was going to be a painter and have a farm and run a restaurant and be a governess.”

She worked with Lynch again in Twin Peaks, his enormously successful foray into weekly television. The series baffled and confounded the country, but hooked millions of obsessed fans.

“David had actually written a part for me because we worked together on Dune,” Witt says. “My mother had gotten in touch with him when we moved to LA. At that time, I was basically trying to get an agent. I wasn’t a child actor. I just did that one film at age seven. [My character on Twin Peaks] played the piano; I’m still not exactly sure why she was dressed in a princess outfit and wearing a tiara. I didn’t really watch TV much, but I was excited to get the work with David.”

Despite her lack of attention to television, she had spent a lot time on it if not in front of it. By the mid-nineties, she had landed a regular role on the Cybill Shepherd sitcom, Cybill, playing the star’s quirky, cynical daughter.

“That was the first job I had that allowed me to quit my day job as a pianist at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel,” Witt says. “It was a very, very, very big deal for me. I will always remember the day I got the part. I had gone through all these auditions and then there was a network test. There were all these people in suits sitting around staring at me. I had gone in and done my scenes the same way I had done them in the past five auditions. It was the final round, so basically I was either going to get it or not get it. I walked out of there thinking, ‘well, I did my best.’ About thirty seconds later, I was walking to my car and I heard a voice behind me call my name and it was Cybill. She was walking toward me with a few of the producers behind her and she said, ‘Congratulations, honey, you’ve got it! I just wanted to tell you!’ I screamed so loud. I called all my friends!”

The highly regarded series was also a chance for her to display her musical chops (while playing “Chopsticks!”).

She recalls, “There was a piano on the set, and I don’t think it ever came up in meetings that I played the piano. When we were doing rehearsals for the pilot, they figured I might as well be playing the piano, because it was there. They worked out a little skit where I started out playing this complicated Mendelssohn piece, and then Cybill walks in and I started playing ‘Chopsticks.’”

There were exceptions to her little-or-no-TV rule; for instance, she was already a fan of the heavily-music-packedcomedy-drama Ally McBeal before she was cast in the show.

“I was really excited to be on it and that came about because I was a huge Ally McBeal fan,” she says. “It was one of the only times that I genuinely felt star struck. There have only been a few shows in my life that I have watched religiously. I’m much more into watching movies than I am television. I wanted to make sure I was home every Monday night to watch it. I was obsessed with it.”

She also became hooked after the fact, like when she became a Sopranos fan after she landed the role as a film exec who “helps” Christopher (Michael Imperioli) with his screenplay.

“I didn’t watch The Sopranos until I was on it,” she says, “I went back and watched it and became addicted. The experience was great. I felt like I was making a movie. There was a great crew and there was plenty of time to do as many takes as we needed. It was a very different process [than what I was used to with previous shows]. I realized that TV was changing a lot. It felt like shooting scenes in a movie. The lighting was beautiful and the acting was realistic and the writing was among the best I’ve ever read. I loved Michael Imperioli so much. He is really, really magical to work with.”

Movies figured into her career as well. She was part of a number of successful films post-Dune, including the classic Mr. Holland’s Opus, about the life and career of a high-school music teacher, starring Richard Dreyfuss.

She says, “I had a special connection to that film because it was not just about music, but it was about teachers. There was so much in it that my dad had gone through, even though my dad wasn’t a music teacher; he was a science teacher. To me, it was more about teachers than it was about music, specifically. I was just excited to get to work with Richard Dreyfuss, who I think is a great actor. He was really nurturing to me but he never talked down. He really encouraged me and made me feel very welcome. After he was nominated for an Oscar for that role, he took everyone in the cast and crew out to dinner. He reserved a restaurant for the whole bunch of us. He made a speech thanking us, saying that he would not have been nominated without us.”

Witt’s current TV project is Friday Night Lights, the acclaimed series that will air its final season this year. Here, she continues her streak of playing unusual characters in high-quality shows.

“I play basically white trash, which is really fun,” she says. “My character had a kid when she was in high school. She’s now in her thirties and she has a fifteen-year-old daughter. She is not the most responsible mother in the world, to say the least. She really tries her best but she makes some really messed-up judgment calls. She doesn’t think anything of having random guys come out of her bedroom early in the morning when her daughter is getting ready for school. She dresses way age-inappropriate. She has a really good heart, but she makes some questionable decisions. I completely loved playing her.

“I could not be prouder to be a part of [Friday Night Lights]. I’ve never worked on anything like it before. They have three cameras shooting at once. There is not really any blocking or rehearsal. There is an energy of complete realism about it that I don’t think it can be compared to anything, not even the more realistic type of film. It’s not even documentary style; it’s like these cameras are just placed around, capturing moments in people’s lives. As an actor, you don’t even know where the camera is going to be because it moves around from take to take. You almost feel like there are no cameras. It’s completely brilliant. And there is so much improvising that happens. I mean, obviously there are unbelievable scripts that we work from but half the time the directors say, okay, just ignore the words and say whatever you want. I can’t stress enough how incredible the lack of continuity is. It’s so free. I think it really shows up in the work. You don’t feel like you’re watching actors.”

However, we will continue to watch Witt as she takes us down more fascinating, unpredictable roads, involving both her music and acting.

“I can’t believe it, not even today,” she says as she looks back at her acting career and looks forward to her singing career. “It’s such an incredible blessing. It’s a privilege to be able to do what I love for a living. I never, ever take that for granted or stop being amazed by it.”

 

This article originally ran in Popentertainment.com.

 

Categories
The Interviews

Laura Prepon

“I tend to play women who are intelligent and confident, not these little naïve girls,” Laura Prepon tells me. “I had moved out of my house when I was 15. Maybe it’s from that. I don’t know. But it’s a compliment that people think I have my stuff together.”

Fortunately for Prepon, art imitates life, and vice-versa. The tall redhead we’ve loved for years (and in reruns) onThat 70s Show is turning her now-blonde head toward the future: Netflix, that is. In the wake of Kevin Spacey’s straight-to-Netflix megahit, House of Cards, comes Prepon co-starring in a women-in-prison series, Orange Is the New Black.

“Netflix totally left us alone,” she says, “and we pushed the envelope like you would not believe.”

Based on the prison memoir by Piper Kerman, the series co-stars Jason Biggs, Kate Mulgrew and Taylor Schilling. Prepon plays a drug smuggler caught and sent to the Big House. Be sure to recognize her with this spoiler alert: her hair has been dyed jet black.

“[My character] is this rockabilly international drug mule,” she says. “I need black hair for that. People are not going to recognize me in this role and it’s amazing. As an actor, one of the cooler things is when people don’t know that it’s me.”

The series, which debuts this summer, is a welcome-back for an actress we always admired for her gravity and seamless confidence. As Donna onThat 70s Show, she suffered fools gladly and, with her arms folded, transcended the kitsch cliché. Her best prep for that may have been her former career as a model.

“I was not a fan of it,” she says of the modeling business, which came after her when she was 15. “I kind of stumbled into it. I was really into sports and hanging out with my friends. Modeling never even crossed my mind. Ever. Within months, I moved to Milan by myself, with all the castings, all the cattle calls. When you are 15-years old living in a foreign country by yourself, you really have to take care of yourself.”

The bookings came easy, but the satisfaction was hard-bitten.

“You’re really just a hanger for clothes,” she says. “Some people don’t mind it. They love it. But for me personally, it was just slowly chipping away at me. The essence of me – and all I had to give – didn’t really matter. This is not me. This is not what I want to do.”

Brighter skies beckoned, however. Modeling is how she transitioned to acting. After a series of TV commercials (she booked the very first commercial she auditioned for) came an opportunity for a new Fox series called The Kids Are Alright, later renamed That 70s Show. Prepon had just turned 18 and had never acted before, yet she won the audition.

The series was an immediate hit and ran for eight years, then forevermore in reruns.

“We were all so new,” she said of her young co-stars, which included Topher Grace, Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis. “Danny Masterson was the only one who had done anything. None of us knew what we were doing, but we were all so perfect for these characters. All of us helped each other grow. We’re a family. We’re still like family. Nobody knew what it was going to turn into, that it was going to be this huge, amazing show. It’s so amazing to be part of television history like that.”

To what does she owe the iconic status of the series?

“The chemistry of the characters,” she says. “That’s what it’s all about. That’s what it all comes down to.”

Prepon, now all grown up, plays a woman about to turn 30 in The Kitchen. With all due respect to Molly Ringwald, this could be the worst cinematic birthday ever for Prepon’s character, who finds out that her boyfriend (Bryan Greenberg) is cheating on her – with her friends! As a topper, it seems that her best friend is secretly in love with her. Thank goodness cake and alcohol will be served.

On her own recent landmark birthday experience, Prepon says, “People are nervous about turning 30. But I think about all the experiences I’ve had thus far in my life and I was so fortunate to have them. I cannot wait for what’s going to come in my thirties. It’s going to be so cool. I just embrace it.”

Her experience with the film is already embraceable, as her acting talents were tested and, in a way, vacuum-sealed.

“The entire movie not only takes place in one location but in one room,” she says. “It was like a play, and the whole thing is like a choreographed dance.”

The dance continues as Prepon continues to test her limits. She, as usual, is ahead of the game. Even she admits that, as a youth, she was listening to The Psychedelic Furs when her friends were listening to New Kids on the Block.

“Even at a young age, I was always way beyond my years,” she reflects. “I was always searching for something. I don’t know what it was, but there was something out there for me. And when I found acting, I was like, this is what I was looking for. I never took drama classes, I was never in a theater group. None of my friends acted. It didn’t even enter my mind.”

Seems like The Kid is alright.

 

This article originally ran in Popentertainment.com

 

 

Categories
The Interviews

Wilmer Valderrama

Actor Wilmer Valderrama lends his distinctive voice to an anti-bullying campaign.

As Fez on That 70s Show, Wilmer Valderrama played the funniest nerd who ever lived (“It takes a nerd to create a Fez,” he tells me). However, we all know that playing — and even being — a nerd is not always Klingons and candy.

Well, maybe it is candy.

Valderrama has loaned his everybody-knows-it voice to the Nerds candy brand (from the Willy Wonka company) in order to promote the much-talked-about “Stomp Out Bullying” campaign.

He knows whereof he speaks. Even though he was born in Miami, Vilderrama moved with his family to their native Venezuela before returning again to the US. It was then when he got his first taste of being bullied.

“When I came to the United States, I didn’t even know how to speak English,” he says. “I didn’t even know how to count to three. Then learning how to speak English with an accent was even worse. Kids could be so cruel. I was 14-years old and considered inferior and somewhat dumb. That couldn’t have been further from the truth. I was very well educated and getting straight A’s. The sad part about it is that the educational level that we had in Venezuela was two grades ahead of America. I had learned everything two years prior to that, but I didn’t know how to speak English.”

Of course, being whip-smart as he was, he learned how to turn lemons into lemonade with ice. He personally rebranded, stamping his nerd-guy persona as “one-of-a-kind.” From that moment forward, he was leading the conga line.

“For me it was about how unique my accent was and how I expressed myself,” he says,  “and most importantly, it was staying in touch with my roots that allowed me to stand my ground. And it allowed me to be who I eventually became.”

“Stomp Out Bullying” is an anti-bullying and cyber harassment organization for teens. It has teamed with Wonka to launch the “Nerds Unite!” campaign, to remind the world that we are all nerds at heart.

“That’s why I love this campaign so much,” Vilderrama says,  “because I can relate to it so directly and so organically. I really wish I had someone at that age who told me, ‘hey, man, it’s okay to be different,’ to give me permission to be great, to be myself. When you hear that from someone you love and respect, from a parent or grandparent or someone you look up to, things could be really easier.

“It was the ability I had to be different [which allowed me] to create a career. I think teens need permission to achieve greatness. They sometimes feel that society or the entertainment industry or even our families set out an ideal for what perfection is, what beautiful is and what successful is. And those definitions and theories are often misguided. It’s hard to achieve them.”

Being that he was unlike any other snowflake in the storm, he drifted with that. It spun his life and his fate into a new direction, landing him on one of the most successful television series of the last few decades.

These days, his production company is working on a long list of projects for various networks, including MTV and Disney. In addition, he continues to appear before the camera, with a part in an upcoming Spike Lee joint later this year.

“I’m at a really good place in my life right now,” he says. “I’m reaching things that I’ve worked so hard to be able to do. I’m really proud of the choices I’ve made so far.”

This article originally ran in Popentetainment.com.

Categories
The Interviews

Is The Philly Accent Disappearing?

Philly boy (and recent Temple grad) Sean Monahan is heading to Brown University in Rhode Island for his doctoral work. Although you would think his area of study would be linguistics, his major subject is actually political science, with a career in teaching ahead of him.

As it stands, he’s already an excellent teacher. Thanks to his hilarious YouTube videos (shown here), he is instructing us on how to talk like a true Philadelphian.

Many Philadelphians have no idea that they have an accent (or a pronounced one). Others are uber-aware of it, and it makes them cringe. To outsiders, a thick Philly accent sounds like a foreign language.

Currently, due to changing demographics and media influence,  linguists are declaring the demise of the Philly accent (or more accurately, the mid-Atlantic accent). However, a dialect this tough does not go gently into the night. Or as Philly people say, into the noit.

In our interview, Sean discusses the enigma of the Philly accent, and, among other things, why Hollywood gets it wrong every time.

The Philly accent is not easy for outsiders to nail, but it’s widely acknowledged that Philadelphians have a specific and unique accent.

People from different parts of the country want to make fun of us, but they don’t know exactly how. They know how to say “wudder” [water], but the could never figure out if a name like Sean should be pronounced “Shawn” or “Shaan.”

So it’s not as easy to pick up a Philly accent as it is, say, the New York accent.

It’s very complicated. It’s very hard to learn and properly mock.  [Dear Readers: click on Sean’s videos below for a crash course!]

Roughly, Philadelphia is the same distance away from New York City as it is from Baltimore. But linguistically, it’s almost identical to Baltimore and extremely different from New York. I’m not exactly sure why. It can’t just be the distance. It could just be something different about the history, going back to the colonial days.

The media is now talking about the demise of the Philly accent. What say you?

As I understand it, there are specific vowels that are becoming less pronounced in the way Philadelphians talk. But that’s not exactly the same as saying that the accent is going away. Those vowels are becoming less extreme. But some vowels are maintaining their Philadelphia sound and some are getting even more pronounced as time goes on.

It’s not changing; it’s morphing. I’m quite attached to the vowel sounds we have currently, and it would seem sad somehow for them to get less interesting.

Lay an example on us.

Specifically, one that is sort of going away is the “aw” sound in my own name, Sean. Over time, it’s becoming more like [Shaan]. That’s really a loss, because I like the strong “aw” that we have in Philadelphia and that it would be a shame to lose it.

It seems that on TV and in movies there is a common generic dialect, with any regional accent thoroughly scrubbed away.

You have common tongues around the country, the way common people speak. Those have gotten [increasingly] different from each other over the past sixty or so years, since the end of World War II when a lot of people were moving around.

People from the South don’t sound quite as Southern now. Then you have the Chicago accent: think of the Saturday Night Live skit, “The Bears.”

So a lot of big changes have occurred, despite it being an era of increasing mass media. Even though we have media with the generic sounding dialects, there has been a lot of regional increase rather than decrease.

A regional accent is not always a plus, correct?

Especially in the professional world, the white-collar or academic world, it’s been a liability if you sound like you are from somewhere. So there is a huge amount of pressure to try to make yourself sound like you could be from anywhere.

To me, it seems like they are pushing you toward being from nowhere, which I think is kind of sad.

I see a lot of people deliberately trying to dull an accent, especially if they are from the South, because the southern accent has such a stigma of “you’re stupid” and “you’re poorly educated.” I think a similar thing happens to people from Philadelphia.

What was your personal experience with your own Philly accent?

I knew “wudder” [water] was different, but I didn’t think there was anything unusual about how most of my words sounded until I went out to Ohio for undergraduate school. They started relentlessly mocking everything I said. There came the awareness that I did sound like I was from somewhere.

One of Philly’s biggest pet peeves: the way their accent is portrayed in Hollywood movies. Why does Hollywood always make Philly people – especially working-class people — talk with New York accents?

It’s extremely frustrating to me. Either they don’t have an accent, or if they do, it’s a New York City accent, which I hate even more than not having an accent, because it just makes us look like we’re the sixth borough of New York.

KEEP THE PHILLY ACCENT ALIVE! CHECK OUT SEAN’S AWESOME VIDEOS HERE:

This article originally ran in Everybody’s magazine.

Categories
The Interviews

Benjamin Walker

Sounds like a sure-fire snoozefest, doesn’t it: a Broadway musical about the life and times of President Andrew Jackson, in office from 1829 to 1837. Not exactly the makings of a crowd pleaser.

But take a smart, funny book, some amazing songs that literally rock da house, and a sexy-pants actor named Benjamin Walker, and now you really have something. And so, at last, does Broadway, with the hit musical Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.

In fact, this sizzling show, which started downtown and slowly but surely worked its way up to the big league, is now the hottest ticket in New York. And that, in this economy, is not just whistling Dixie.

Walker, born and raised in Georgia and educated at Juilliard, is the new face – and voice and body – to be reckoned with on The Great White Way. His performance as our hip-swiveling seventh president is garnering double-takes, rave reviews, Tony talk and a growing legion of fans. He has been with the show since its obscure little birth in LA in 2007, and now his loyalty and multi-faceted talent are paying off big time.

In addition, his New York comedy show, Find the Funny, in which he performs stand-up along with some other stand-up-and-comers, is also becoming a major draw. In just a few short years, the little boy from Georgia has become “the man” in Manhattan.

Here, he and I talk about all that’s good:

How does it feel to move the show uptown?

It’s an honor to be accepted into the Broadway community. The creative team has done a wonderful job of maintaining the intimacy that we had downtown at the Jacobs [theater].

The show has gone through quite an evolution since its inception, and you’ve been loyal to the project from the very beginning. Are there any further changes or alterations to the show now that it’s on Broadway?

Not particularly. As a cast we are enjoying the expanse of having such large audiences. It’s easier to tell the story of populism when there is a roaring audience of 1,100.

Does the critical praise for you and the show surprise you at all? 

We’ve been the underdogs for so long that we certainly appreciate any support we can get.

Many people are saying that even though the story is set in early American history, the show’s themes are more relevant now than ever before. Would you agree? 

It is chilling to track through Jackson’s life and see the parallels. We have to examine the past in order to refrain from making the same mistakes.

What type of research (if at all) did you have to do to prepare for the role of Andrew Jackson? 

I read a few wonderful books: American Lion by John Meacham and The Life of Andrew Jackson by Robert Remini, to name a couple.

While growing up, who were your musical influences?  

My mother is a musician, a piano player, so I grew up in a very musical household, where we learned to appreciate all forms of music.

What do you like to do when you are not performing? 

This show is so physically taxing that in my free time, I rest.

You’ve been in New York City at least since your Juilliard days. How does a Southern boy like you enjoy living in New York?  

I love it. I have to say, the longer I live here, the more I consider it home.

You are involved with a comedy project called Find the Funny. How is that show, and stand-up comedy, a passion for you? 

I started Find the Funny in college, as a way to perform and give other new comics stage time, and it has grown into a wonderful community of comics, writers, and performers. It is that community that inspires me, that group of people continuing to learn and perfect their craft. Stand-up is a passion for me because it is theater at its most basic: one person stands up in front of the group and tells a story. The more isolated we become as a generation, the more we need that type of interaction.

Do you have any plans or projects we can know about in the coming year or so? 

Right now I’m focusing on Jackson, and telling his story to the best of my ability, eight shows a week.

 

This article originally appeared in Popentertainment.com

 

 

Categories
Good Books

Why We Snap

Aww, aren’t you adorable, chillin’ and scrollin’ and surfin’ the webs. Did you realize that in only one precious second, you can morph into a monstrous maniac, evolving into a full-on Rambo, raining real damage and even making the news? Once our rage circuit is actively engaged, we can’t control it, as much as we’d like to think “I got this.” It has nothing to do with insanity or mental instability. The countless stories of seemingly “normal” people who suddenly lose their shit are consistently proving that there are pathways in the brain — yes, your brain! — that can result in violent, ugly, aggressive outbursts, for better or for worse. You’ve been warned: don’t make us angry. You don’t want to make us angry.

R. Douglas Fields is a senior investigator at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and is a prominent writer in the field of neuroscience. His new book, Why We Snap: Understanding The Rage Circuit In Your Brain, details his research regarding suddenly violent behavior and the extraordinary strength, influence and relevance of our evolutionary hardwiring. Doug says there are nine precise triggers that can make anyone snap like a twig — even li’l ol’ you.

Here, we respectfully ask Doug about some of the darkest and scariest mysteries of human behavior. Dig:

What a subject! How did the idea of “rage triggers” occur to you? 

I was traveling to Barcelona to give a lecture on my neuroscience research. Normally, I travel alone, but I was with my 18-year-old daughter. We had a little bit of time before the lecture, so I thought we would go [sightseeing]. At the Metro station, I felt a tap on the pocket on my knees — I was wearing cargo pants. I felt that my wallet was gone. I reached back, grabbed the robber by the neck and threw him to the ground, and proceeded to get into a struggle to get my wallet back. I’m rolling on the ground with the robber. At this point, a thought bubbles up to my consciousness: what the heck are you doing? I realized that I had just risked my life and limb in an instant, by something in my environment. It involved no conscious thought at all. So the idea that we are not in control in these types of situations led me to wonder: what is the neurocircuitry in this?

Would you consider yourself a lover or a fighter? 

I need to clarify: this is really out of character for me. I have graying hair, and I am about 130 pounds. I don’t have any military experience or any martial arts experience. What that taught me is that we are all wired for violence. We have the behavior for violence. It is wired into our brain. We have it because we need it, as a species, to protect ourselves and to protect our young, to get food.

So let’s get physical. Give us the lowdown and let’s zero in. 

The circuitry for violence is in a part of the brain that is unconscious, in what is called the hypothalamus. It’s a part of the brain that controls other powerful urges unconsciously, like feeding and sex and thirst. If you stick an electrode in this part of the brain — the hypothalamic attack region — and you stimulate it — an animal will launch into a vicious attack and kill another animal. That raises the question: what feeds into this circuitry? What causes this response? Because that’s clearly what happened to me [in Barcelona].  New methods and insights in neuroscience are revealing that circuitry.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but common wisdom states that you should never get into a scuffle with a robber in the Metro station. 

This is what disturbed me so much. You don’t want to get into a fight with a robber. It’s dumb. But I didn’t think. Then I realized that the reason that this circuitry is in our hypothalamus — in the unconscious brain — what we are really talking about — is part of the brain’s threat detection mechanism. So the approach to this book is not psychology; it takes a neuroscience approach, understanding that all behaviors are controlled by the brain. What are the circuits that control these specific behaviors? This is part of the brain’s threat detection mechanism. A huge part of our brain — and the brain in most animals — is dedicated to threat detection. We’re constantly taking in information about our external and internal environments, and this is all unconscious.

Why unconscious and not conscious? 

There are two reasons. First of all, circuitry for consciousness is in the cerebral cortex, and that’s way too slow. Two: the amount of information that your unconscious brain is taking in vastly overwhelms the capability of the conscious mind to comprehend it and hold it. So it’s not only why I snapped when that burglar grabbed my wallet — how did I know he was there? I didn’t even see him [at first]. That’s all part of the circuitry.

This unconscious deal is not always a bad thing, right? 

We have these circuits because we need them. But they occasionally misfire. When they operate normally, as they do most of the time, we call it “quick thinking” or “heroism.” A hero will act aggressively to come to the aid of someone else. Afterwards, people will ask him why he did that, and he’ll say, “I don’t know. I didn’t even think. I just did it.” So this book is not just about negative violence; it’s also about the circuitry when it works right.

I interviewed a lot of people who depend on this circuitry: extreme athletes, drivers of a Formula One race car — they can’t actually control that consciously. They are relying — in emergency situations — on these rapid response circuits.

We tend to equate violence — and violent outbursts — with instability and even insanity. Should we? 

We tend to view violence as pathology. The fact is, most of the violence that goes on every day is not caused by abnormal mental illness. It’s caused by this circuitry. It’s aggression that we all have, getting tripped inappropriately. Everyday domestic violence, barroom brawls, this is the kind of violence that fills every day. This impulsive violent response is not due to mental illness. Yes, there is evil, and deliberate brutality and crime. But, by and large, it’s this misfiring that we all have in our brain that gets unleashed and causes the violence that we’re dealing with. And if we can understand it at a neurocircuit level, then we can begin to control it.

How did you come upon the nine triggers that make us snap? 

There are nine triggers, but that’s too many to remember. Neuroscience has shown that you can only remember seven items in a string, like a phone number. I gave them new names — not scientific names — I used F for family instead of “maternal aggression,” which is what scientists use. I used L for “life or limb,” instead of “defense aggression.” Using a mnemonic , you can quickly identify when you feel a sudden rise in anger, say on the road. You can identify which of these triggers has been tripped.

Fear plays a large part in this too, correct? 

Fighting, violence, aggression — that’s very dangerous behavior. You’re risking your life or limb to engage in this. No animal will engage in violence except for very specific reasons. That’s why you feel fear after you’ve done it. You can freeze in fear, or you can fight or you can flee. It’s all part of the mechanism of the brain’s threat detection.

Is there a gender difference in rage? 

One thing that I really was struck with: the male/female differences. 90% of all the people in jail for violent crime are men. But 90% of all the people given an award for heroism by the Carnegie Foundation are men. A quarter of those men gave their lives. I don’t think we’re grappling with this subject honestly at a national level. Statistics say that 20% of all women have been sexually assaulted. It really opens your mind to the need to understand the biological basis of rage. We’re talking about biology here. All cultures are violent to women, and that is biology.

What struck you the most about researching rage? 

I met so many fascinating people — from the Seal Team Six to elite athletes to the relatives of the Boston bombers. When I spoke to all of these people, I was struck by how interested and free they were with their stories, because all of them wanted to understand this. It seems like we are all trying to understand this.

Find out more about Doug and read his blog.

This article originally ran in Everybody’s magazine.

Categories
Good Books

A Burglar’s Guide To The City

There has always been a strange connection between architecture and burglary; Geoff Manaugh makes that connection and more in his book, A Burglar’s Guide To The City. Although the “art” of burglary is actually dying, due to a world of surveillance cameras and advanced electronic security, Geoff suggests that the perfect heist may actually be waiting in the wings despite advanced technology and Big Brother watching us. It’s all in the planning, the psychology, and the way tech can be manipulated to dishonest ends. As well, he writes about how old-school burglars are lending their expertise to security companies, how government agencies like the FBI sanction break-ins, and how movies and TV romanticize a crime that continues to fascinate in its evil attention to detail.

Geoff is a freelance journalist who, although not trained as an architect, has a large following on his BLDGBLOG. The book is a result of three years of hands-on research, examining historic heists, researching burglary as far back as ancient Rome, and taking a closer look at some of the architecture we take for granted, including doors, floors, air ducts and crawl spaces.

Here, we ask Geoff to help us case the joint.

Great idea for a book! You’ve been covering architecture for a long time; has there been some kind of evil spark in the back of your mind leading you to the dark side? 

There is a really vibrant architectural conversation happening out there, but it’s not in the realm of people designing buildings. It’s in the realm of people abusing or misusing buildings. That seemed pretty compelling to me. Every time I would read a police report or see on the news a jewelry store owner explaining how the burglars came in through the wall and broke into the safe without ever entering the room, there was a very, very clear foregrounding of architecture — but it was in the service of using architecture in totally unexpected and fairly aggressive ways. It seemed that there was no book that connected the dots. After all, planning a heist is really a design operation, and if you can put that into the context of what architects do, you realize that burglars are really just counter-architects. They look at a building and they find new ways to get from one room to the next, or even to get from one building to the next. There is just something so spatially fascinating about that.

What kind of reactions do people have to burglary as a crime? I assume it doesn’t receive the same horrified reaction of some more violent crimes that cause physical or bodily harm. 

There are two equal but opposite responses to burglary. Burglary lends itself so well to a kind of romanticization. It has that feeling of an ingenious act of connection, where someone finds a way to get from a sewer system into a bank vault, or they find a way to get from the attic into a money room of a hotel. There is something ingenious and strange about that, as if they solved a puzzle.

On the flip  side, burglary really does have an emotional impact. You realize that someone has been in your home and has been rifling through your things, or they have made you mistrust your own neighbors or even your own family members. There is a real sense of emotional violation.

Burglary does not necessarily have to involve theft. It’s the intent to commit any criminal act while in a building that you don’t have permission to be in. It’s a very peculiar crime, and it’s really intimately tied to architecture. If you don’t have buildings, you can’t have burglars. Their very existence is dependent upon architecture. There is something just existentially strange about that.

Burglary is, above all, a psychological and cerebral crime, right? It involves a lot of thought and planning. 

In the book, one guy in Toronto figured out a way to use the city’s fire code to help choose what buildings to break into. There was another example in Los Angeles where [burglars] used the storm sewer beneath the city as their way in and out of bank robberies; so they not only broke in by tunneling through the storm sewer network, but their getaway was actually a seven-mile underground route from the bank to a stream. We tend not to think that knowing a lot about buildings would be a risk; if you understand the door plans or you know where the doors are, somehow that constitutes a threat. We think about that when it comes to questions of terrorism. It’s fascinating to think that architectural knowledge is also risky.

In the beginning of the book, you describe an architect-turned-burglar who designed and then robbed his own building!

It’s a fundamental betrayal at the heart of the city: someone who is a creator figure, an architect. Then they come back to break into and violate the thing that was created. Someone comes back to betray the thing that they made.

In the world of burglary, I would imagine that cops and detectives are constantly outwitted by burglars, and vice versa. Is there a lot of one-upmanship and plot twists? 

You have ingenuity and innovation happening on both sides. You have examples where criminals are the ones being outwitted by cops who have set up something like the Capture House program, fake apartments run by the police. You’re not even breaking into a real apartment. It’s a surrogate apartment that the cops set up.

Usually, the burglars outwit the cops though low-fi means. A building could have a multimillion-dollar surveillance system with thermal cameras and detectors, and all it takes is somebody with electrical tape and hairspray and they can make the entire system go down. It’s a constant back-and-forth battle between different types of innovation, and between super-high-tech and really low-fi.

You also write about reform burglars who help the police and security companies. How can we be sure that they are reformed?

There, you just get into a sociological question about trust. Do you believe in redemption? Do you believe that people can change? In that case, you just have to take someone at their word that they are no longer engaging in this activity.

The guy in the book, who is a reform burglar, ironically, works in the security industry now. He has a hands-on, granular knowledge of what it takes to break into certain kinds of buildings. On the other hand, there is something alarming and “double-agent”-like about that. By working in the security industry, this guy is just gaining more knowledge for his illicit pursuits. It’s really a question about whether you believe that humans can change, and whether or not trust is the currency that holds society together, or if you need something more vigorous. That’s when we get into whether we need security.

Has the digital age changed the game?

The minute you start adding these high-tech approaches, you get into a totally different and really exciting field. Burglary thefts are way down while identity thefts are way up. So if your goal is to get as much money as possible in as short a time as possible, burglary is not the way to go. As you scale up, you get into some incredible scenarios: traffic management systems, street light patterns, mobile sensors for traffic. It gets into a whole new scale for the possibilities of burglary.

Burglary on a large enough scale is almost identical to terrorism. Managing traffic, for instance, becomes an integral part of the plot. I definitely think we are going to see a real-life example of that kind of thing in the years to come, because it seems so easy to rearrange a vulnerable city. The wrong people are going to figure out how to do this.

Does burglary differ from city to city? Is burglary different in New York than, say, Los Angeles? 

There are definitely continuities that go back literally thousands of years to ancient Rome and the kind of places a burglar might hit. There is almost like a “speciation” amongst burglars, so you do see different approaches in different cities. Some of it literally just boils down to “what’s there.”

If you are in a small town that doesn’t have a lot of jewelry stores, but does have a bank in the middle of town, that bank is going to be more of a target. Some cities are more prone to tunneling jobs, for example, than others. You’ll see tunneling jobs in London and Berlin and South America, because they have more clay, mud and sandy soils, which are easier to dig through. In New York City, you are dealing with billion-year-old bedrock. It’s pretty unlikely that you are going to tunnel into a bank vault.

When you go above ground, you get the infrastructure of the city itself, so you start getting into things like where the freeways are, what routes of escape might there be, public transit. We are making decisions right now, as a society, in terms of the infrastructure that we fund. [These decisions] will have criminal side effects, and some of them are impossible to imagine. We’re setting the stage for some future event, and we don’t even know what that event might be.

Is burglary a dying art?

It’s a funny phrase. You can call it a dying art. You can call it a dormant science. You can call it a lot of things. The numbers have really plummeted. In New York, it’s astonishing that from 1990 to the present moment, burglary has gone down 87%, which is really incredible. So it is certainly on the list of endangered crimes. On the other hand, considering Zillow and all the real estate access plans and internal information we have about houses, and on social media with people posting when they are not home, we are entering an era when unexpected new vulnerabilities are emerging. I would be very interested to see if burglary has an uptick in statistics in the years to come.

Follow Geoff and visit his blog.

 

This article originally ran in Everybody’s magazine.

Categories
Good Books

The Way We Never Were

On The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Mr. Grant famously said, “I hate nostalgia. I hated it then. I hate it now.”

In 1992, with the publication of her book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, historian/author Stephanie Coontz ran with that anti-sentimental sentiment and yanked the “traditional” American family the hell out of its gauzy haze.

The study caused a major disruption in the gooey, force-fed nostalgia that keeps us longing for the good old days that never really were. We claim we know fact from fiction, but ultimately, nostalgia can make us feel like shit and keep us sort of ignorant.

Wrong, wrong and wrong: the “typical American family” tells us — in its passive-aggressive way —  that we may not measure up, or that we may not be normal enough, and that we fall below expectations of what is “typical.” And if only we can be as happy as the people on social media appear to be (welcome to the new nostalgia trap!).

As well, the culture war over “family values” may be well intentioned, but perhaps a tad askew. Take a hard look at the way it really was, says Stephanie, and see how what we believe gets in the way of the realities of now.

What better time to revise and update the original edition, now containing a fresh look at how much family life and gender relationships have changed — and even improved — in the last quarter century. And yet, our American myths remain so embedded in our collective worldview that our perceptions and opinions are thwarted and crippled.

The book exposes the nuclear family of the 1950s (think The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best) as smoke and mirrors, and proves, over and over again, that this structure was not traditional or typical at all. It was more aspirational, but what if our attempt was a total fail?

Furthermore, despite the rally cry, single mothers are not a sudden and new epidemic, the original function of marriage wasn’t really about love and romance, and money actually could buy happiness (when it comes to federal funding).

Make sure you take the quiz down below, and see how much you know about the American family — or how much you think you know.

Demographics are showing an increase in adults who are single/never married as well as a rise in single-parent households. Should the bridal industry be concerned? 

There has certainly been this huge surge in singlehood. The way I look at is that our old distinctions between “married” and “single” are breaking down. The idea is that people are postponing marriage for much, much longer. The average age of marriage for women is almost 27, but the spread is so much greater than it used to be. Women are marrying for the first time in their 40s, 50s and 60s. And even though divorce rates are falling, they are rising for older Americans. They have tripled for people over 65. So people live for long parts of their lives and make important decisions outside of marriage.

It’s crazy for society to make all of its assumptions on the grounds that the only people who need dependence and support systems are married people, but it also means that single individuals are making different kinds of demands.

Should we once again turn to the Millennials to see the root of this revolution? 

I do think there has been a tremendous generational change. If you look at [research], you see that most younger people do not think you need to be married to lead a happy life, and they put marriage further down on their list of priorities. But, at the same time, most of them say that they do eventually want to get married. There is still a sense in our society that marriage is the highest form of commitment. And it does make a difference, the expectations that are attached to it. People are still attracted to it.

Is the dream of the suburbs dying? People are now gravitating toward the urban core, not the split-level with the white picket fence. 

Yes. If you look back at how the suburbs developed, they are a classic example of both the benefits and dangers of government subsidies. The frontier farm family has the honor of being the most subsidized family in American history, but the 1950s suburban family has run a close second. The government built the roads to get them there. It was government financing that created all the prefabricated housing. The banking system was set up so that you could transfer funds out of urban areas and invest them in suburban areas. It was set up so that you got federal funding and support only for new building; not for repairs, all of which were great for families who were moving to the suburbs, but it really hurt the families who were left behind, in decaying inner-cities.

Now, of course, the same sort of policies and practices are actually hurting the suburbs. There is no investment in its infrastructure.

Also dying: The 9-5 rat race routine, getting a job in a corporate center and working at that same gig for years or even decades. Job security: gone. Corner offices and cubicles: gone. Is the new office-space culture better for our psychological health? 

It is only a minority of people who are getting the positive alternative to offices. The top-earning Americans are actually becoming more and more isolated, both at work and in where they live, from the rest of America. This is a real problem because — we talk about the increase in concentrated poverty neighborhoods — there has also been an increase in concentrated wealthy neighborhoods. The middle-income and lower-income neighborhoods don’t even get any trickle-down effect. We’ve seen this huge proliferation of really low-wage, temp, contingent jobs, just horrendous. So you are really seeing a hollowing out there. There are these ideal [MicroSoft/Google-type] environments, but the people who clean those buildings are finding it harder and harder to get by.

The gig economy offers increased flexibility at a cost of long-term security.

The legalization of gay marriage, the attention paid to transgender issues, and the overall acceptance of alternative lifestyles have been swift and loud, especially on social media. The old standard of “normal” has been shattered. Is this a good thing? 

That’s been a stunningly rapid change. It’s one of these interesting contradictions that we’re seeing. There is an equality revolution, at least in terms of the idea that nobody ought to be discriminated against because of their lives or their race or their gender or their sexuality. But at the same time, we’ve also had an inequality revolution.

Social media has basically changed everything, hasn’t it?

Yes, but both for good and for ill. The stuff that gets the attention: online predators and bullying, for example — there’s not a lot of evidence that it’s really worse than before. What scares researchers the most is the exposure of babies and toddlers to [social media]. We know that they really need real people to interact with them. I’m not an alarmist about technology, but the research is absolutely clear that hearing voices and seeing faces that are not real just do not activate the same neurological pathways.

We think so much about these outside dangers to children, but the real dangers are the ones that are the biggest conveniences in our own lives.

TV series like The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It To Beaver gave a distorted view of American life. Did it reflect society or influence it? 

The more I look at the history of how people bought into this, the more I can sympathize. They’ve just gone through the Depression and World War II, and tremendous hardships and trauma. Even for the GIs who came home supposedly healthy and happy, the adjustment was very difficult for them.

This idea of “normality” was an aspirational idea. The TV shows said, “this is what it could be like.” In addition, there really was an economic time period when young men, age 25-29, until 1973, earned more in real wages than their parents and grandparents. This gave them a sense of hope, of “going up, just keep going in the same direction. Look how much better off we are than our parents and grandparents.” So I think that helped them see the consumer-driven images as goals that they could and should strive for, because then they could get rid of all of those hardships and difficulties of family life that their parents had experienced.

Single motherhood was once considered a stigma; now it’s practically mainstream and barely raises an eyebrow. We’ve come a long way from Dan Quayle chastising Murphy Brown for having a baby out of wedlock. How is the single-mother demographic fitting into modern life now that it’s not as stigmatized? 

I think there are some real concerns, but not the concerns that people initially thought.

In 1992, when my book first came out, everybody was yelling that the increase in divorce and single motherhood would cause a wave of crime. What happened? Juvenile crime fell by 60% between 1992 and today. The murder rate in 2013 was lower than at any time since they started keeping records in 1960.

We have studies that show that all the dangers of single motherhood occur to mothers who don’t have education or financial resources. There is nothing per se about single motherhood that dooms kids. Single motherhood could actually be a very positive choice for an educated, single woman who plans it carefully. What we’re learning about single motherhood is that it’s challenging, yes, but everybody faces lots of challenges.

A woman or man with an education and economic security with a planned approach to life can easily overcome [obstacles]. But the other problem is that single motherhood is most prevalent — not among people who have those resources — but among people who feel desperate and unable to enter stable relationships.

So I just want to thread a needle here, and say, yes, there is concern that so many kids have been raised in neighborhoods that have been devastated by unemployment and economic insecurity, and only have one parent to cope with all of those challenges. But is it the one-parent that is causing all the problems that these kids have, or is it the problems of those communities that tend to make single parenthood more likely? And, the next step being, what can we do to help?

We can provide high-quality preschool, which has huge [positive] effects. And we can give money. Contrary to the American myth that throwing money at a problem doesn’t help, is that it does help. I have masses of studies that show that when parents have more money, they spend more on education and more on nutrition, and on average, they spend less on temporary stress reducers like alcohol and cigarettes.

Millennials are rejecting many staples of American life, like fast-food and processed food, shopping malls, logos, and even new cars. However, we can’t count out corporate America just yet; they won’t take this lying down. What will happen to our love of consumerism? 

We know for a fact that people are happier when they get experiences rather than things, but there is also a lot of research that shows that, when people feel insecure about their prospects, when they feel that they are falling behind other people, when they don’t think they are moving in a positive direction, they then find “things” especially comforting. Even people who start out with really good values and who don’t necessarily want to go along with the corporate advertisers, they are more likely to be seduced by the prospects of “things.” America has income volatility and a worse social safety net. My grandmother would say, “get what you can, can it and sit on the can.”

Do we have reason to be optimistic about our country’s future, or should we head for the hills? 

There are some ways in which I’m very optimistic. I think individuals have learned immensely. Just look at the changes in male-female relationships. The attitudes toward gender equality have gotten so much better. Domestic violence has declined. Suicide rates have fallen. Men have tripled their amount of childcare, doubled their amount of housework. We find that men are much less threatened by egalitarian or even more educated women than they used to be. There used to be all this terror that if women were getting all this education, they would not be able to find husbands. It used to be, in the 1960s and 1970s, that if a woman had more education than her husband, then it was a higher risk factor for divorce; now it’s not.

There are all of these great changes that individuals are making, but at a certain point, they run up against the wall of a complete lack of family support systems. Only 13% of American workers have paid leave. The lack of affordable childcare, they run up against that. And, at the same time, they are increasingly hammered by this economic inequality and insecurity. That’s the part of it that’s scary; what’s frustrating is [the perception is that] family changes — most of which were actually positive — are the actual cause of the problems that we’re facing.

TEST YOUR FAMILY IQ

1. What was the LEAST traditional family arrangement in history?

A. Monogamy

B. Polgyny

C. Polyandry

D. The male breadwinner family

E. Unmarried cohabitation

2. What was the earliest historical function of marriage?

A. To feed and protect women and children.

B. To provide a labor force for the male household head.

C. Neither of the above.

D. Both of the above.

3. In most of 19th century America, at which age could an unmarried woman legally consent to sex?

A. 7

B. 12

C. 17

D. 21

E. Never

4. Which of the following statements are false?

A. When a woman marries a man with less education than she has, this is a risk factor for divorce.

B. When two people cohabit and have a baby together before getting married, they have a higher risk of divorce than when they wait until after marriage to have a child.

C. Women who marry for the first time at an older age than average have a heightened risk of divorce.

D. Men report lower levels of work-family stress than women.

E. Couples who share housework and childcare equally have less sex and lower rates of marital satisfaction than couples with a more traditional division of labor.

5. What was a common medical treatment for Victorian middle-class wives thought to be suffering from hysteria or nervousness?

6. Which of the following changes occurred during the first five years after each American state adopted no-fault divorce?

A. A feminization of poverty – with women falling into poverty at a higher rate than men.

B. A decline in wives’ suicide rates.

C. A drop in the murder of husbands by wives.

D. A decline in domestic violence. 

7. Which of the following statements are true?

A. When a wife goes to work, that raises a couple’s risk of divorce.

B. The workplace is the major source of stress for women.

C. Women’s entry into the workforce has decreased parents’ time with kids.

D. Informal, home-based childcare arrangements are better for children than center-based care.

E. None of the above.

F. All of the above.

8. Which of these statements is true about divorce trends?

A. Marriages are lasting longer than they did in the 1970s and 1980s.

B. The divorce rates of people over 65 have tripled.

C. Neither of the above.

D. Both of the above.

9. Which of the following differences have research studies found between children raised in same-sex families and children raised by married heterosexuals?

A. Children in same-sex partnerships have more academic problems than children raised in heterosexual families.

B. Children raised by lesbian partners have several emotional advantages over children raised in heterosexual families.

C. There are no significant differences in outcomes between the two.

D. All of the above.

10. Over the past 100 years, Americans have become more tolerant of a much wider variety of sexual behavior. True or False?

 

 ANSWER KEY

1. D

2. C. (The earliest function of marriage had very little to do with the relationship between the individual partners. Marriage was a way of getting in-laws.)

3. B. (If you said 7, you must be from Delaware.)

4. All these statements USED to be true, but since the early 1990s they have all CEASED to be true.

5. Having a physician massage them to orgasm, either by hand, or with a mechanical device such as water hydration or a vibrator.

6. B, C, and D. The feminization of poverty occurred in the 1950s-1970s. Since then men have been falling into poverty at a faster rate then women, although women (usually never-married mothers) comprise the majority of the extremely poor. Divorce hurts both partners financially, especially women who were homemakers. But over time, a majority of women end up better off, either through work or through remarriage.

7. E.

8. D.

9. D. All of these findings have been reported, but the first two were based on skewed sources. The first study compared children of divorced couples, where one partner had come out as gay or lesbian, to children in still intact heterosexual families. The second took a convenience sample of lesbian partners who volunteered to have their children evaluated, which probably produced an especially favorable sample. Now that researchers have compared two random and representative samples, controlling for divorce, they find no significant differences in adjustment, achievement, or emotional stability between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.

10. False. Americans have become more tolerant of consensual non-marital sex, but define consent more narrowly than in the past. They are more disapproving of infidelity and much less tolerant of non-consensual sex. Until the 1970s, every state in America defined rape as a man’s forcible intercourse with a woman OTHER than his wife.

Find out more about Stephanie Coontz and her books.

 

This article originally ran in Everybody’s magazine.

Categories
Binge Watch This

The Partridge Family: The Original Garage Band

The Partridges were the original garage band, and they were also the Bradys’ prime-time neighbors (Friday nights on ABC from 1970-1974 – the prototype TGIF!). However, unlike the Bradys, who were insular and innocent, the Partridges were extroverted and world weary.

Billed as “the family who plays together, stays together,” and based on the 60s’ pop-music family group The Cowsills, the Partridges had seen it all in their travels: smoky nightclubs, hookers, gangsters, union strikes, morality watchdogs, a Detroit ghetto, a women’s lib rally, unscrupulous promoters, a prison, unstable hippie chicks and most importantly of all, Las Vegas.

The Bradys, cozy and content in their suburban womb, would only venture as far as the pedestrian soft spots of Hawaii, the Grand Canyon and King’s Island amusement park (when not fixing their bikes or drinking their milk).

Still, the Partridges, like the Bradys, were decidedly upper-middle class. They lived in Northern California (San Pueblo) in a more-than-comfy split-level (tasteful except for the brown shag carpeting and the avocado refrigerator; however, the Partridge crib had nothing on the famous Brady house). The kids, though supposedly mentioned in fan magazines, still attended public school, scraped their own dishes and washed their own considerable hair.

Their famous touring bus was an eyesore in the driveway (The “Careful! Nervous Mother Driving!” warning was for real: Shirley Jones really drove that bus – she was taught by teamsters!). And no neighbors ever complained as the clan diligently practiced their rockin’ craft with great discipline in their garage. On weekends, however, the Partridges squawked on the wild side.

Their story goes somewhat like this: a widow named Shirley (Shirley Jones) quits her bank-teller job in order to join her kids’ pop band (working mothers were a rarity on TV in those days; our hearts were meant to sink due to their unfortunate fate of having to toil outside the house). That most adolescents would rather die than even beseen in public with their parents – let alone have them rock out with them on stage for all the world to see and hear – is not explained or addressed.

According to Shirley’s narration, her husband died six months earlier (he was never named or mentioned again, ever) and, as a result, the Partridges were up a pear tree, desperately trying to make ends meet. With the help of a neurotic, hangdog, W.C. Fields-like manager, Reuben Kincaid (the terrific Dave Madden), they land their very first gig at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas (?!).  The effect: they become a minor sensation with a good vibration, allowing them to make both the mortgage and the Top 40.

The rest of their story is far more sketchy: the episodes fluctuate between the group being a) wildly famous and b) struggling nightclub performers earning a modest paycheck. One week, they have a hit record on the radio; the next week, they are toiling in relative obscurity. The writers areundecided as to the clan’s degree of fame and fortune, and they toggle carelessly back and forth to fit the current storyline.

In addition, they seem to play for The Kids in one episode, but in the next episode their audience seems to be sophisticated, jet-setting adults in bouffants, evening gowns and tuxedos (we’re almost always subjected to the same footage of a nightclub crowd seated at long tables, smoking and rattling their jewelry to the music).

Okay, so the Partridges do keep us guessing, but one thing we know for sure is that their only huge hit, “I Think I Love You,” brings all the people together and gives a happy ending to the turbulent sixties (in real life, this record will outsell The Beatles’ “Let It Be”). When they’re singing and playing, the lion lay down with the lamb; peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars, even though the brood does the worst job of lip synching this side of Milli Vanilli.

The kids in this household are not as interchangeable as the Bradys: there is Keith (David Cassidy), the teen idol who looks like a chick; Laurie (Susan Dey), the poncho-wearing, model-like oldest sister, who asks us to find it adorable that she is a radical activist (and we do) and who never, ever eats, even when food is placed in front of her; and Danny (Danny Bonaduce) the red-headed scamp who is supposedly ten-years old but has a freakish command of business, publicity and the stock market. It’s supposed to be funny, but it’s uncomfortable.

Bonaduce is still a rascal even today, in the hilarious commentary track. In a scene where Laurie is leaning over Danny, Bonaduce exclaims, “If she had breasts, that would have been a pivotal moment for me!” He also observes, “We’re five white kids dressed up like Superfly!”

Then, of course, we have the dilemma of the problem children, Chris and Tracy (Jeremy Gelbwaks and Suzanne Crough) who are easily the very worst child actors in the history of television (in this golden era of breeder comedies, how difficult could it have been to cast two child actors with some acting chops, a la Bobby and Cindy Brady?). Gelbwaks will eventually become the Pete Best of the group, being unceremoniously replaced by Chris Foster in the second season. Unfortunately, Suzanne Crough was not replaced, and she was the one who most needed to go. And like Tiger on The Brady Bunch, the family dog is fired after the first season.

The list of guest stars (and stars to be) is rather impressive. We see The Scarecrow himself, Ray Bolger, playing the grandfather who is experiencing a “youth kick” (we know this because he sports mutton chops and an ascot around his neck, and takes a joyous bite of a hot dog). He jams with the Partridges (knowing every word to their song even though it’s the very first time he’s ever heard it). We also get pre-Charlie’s-Angels Jaclyn Smith and Farrah Fawcett playing various pieces of ass, and a pre-Rookies Michael Ontkean as a hunky high schooler.

You’ll also witness a before-he-was-goofy Richard Mulligan (Empty Nest) as the concerned family doctor; Star Wars’ Mark Hamill as an awkward teen with a crush on Laurie; and a hootable William Schallert (Patty Duke’s TV poppo) as a Will-Rogers type folk singer on whom the Partridges bizarrely obsess and are determined to make a star, even if it kills him.

However, the standout episode of the collection is the one featuring Richard Pryor and Lou Gossett, Jr., in the 1970 obligatory Black Folks Are People Too offering. Get this: the Partridges’ touring schedule is somehow mixed up with the Temptations’, and the lily-white clan arrives smack in the middle of a Detroit ghetto (really a non-menacing Screen Gems backlot), complete with a woman in orange leather pants and an “African-American Cultural Society” (known in real life as The Black Panthers). To make a long story short, the Partridges get soul (“I have an idea for a song,” Keith suggests. “It’s kind of an Afro thing.”). The tension between the races is healed forever as The Partridges get hot pants and the neighborhood responds rhythmically.

A word about the music: it’s fan-TAS-tic. The unsung heroes of this series were the studio musicians who pretended to be The Partridge Family (only David Cassidy’s voice was used for real, and they sped it up slightly in order to make him sound younger. Shirley Jones would add her harmonies after the recordings were finished, and it’s always a trip to watch her perky/rockin’ body language when she’s performing).

The year was 1970, and the charts featured such mellow rock acts as The Carpenters, Bread, Chicago and James Taylor (you do the math). Most of their songs tended to use the word “together” one too many times (a very important word — nay, a groovy concept — at the end of the sixties), but each tune is like three minutes of sunshine.  In fact, the DVD offers terrific Partridge songs that should be beloved standards, monster hits and party favorites, but never achieved that status thanks to the rock bullies who insisted that we pay attention instead to Led Zeppelin.

The DVD also features boring commentary from Shirley Jones (“What a great song.” “I remember that very well.” “That bus!”) as well as two episodes of the inexplicable, unhackable animated cartoon series The Partridge Family, 2200 A.D. This junky filler was created by the cheap-bastard Hanna Barbera team, who stubbornly stuck to their Jetsons-like vision of the future (cosmic malt shops, record stores and tape decks. And when are we getting those flying cars?). The only positive thing to come out of this cartoon is that Tracy seems to be more animated than she is in the original series.

What works best besides the music is the writing, which is surprisingly cynical and highbrow. The Partridge Family, unlike The Brady Bunch, is more often than not downbeat and dark, but often out-loud funny, not always automatically sinking into the adorable. Some of the jokes are dated (references to Abbie Hoffman, Woodstock, Berkeley, and Myra Breckenridge), but credit must be given to the writers who were not afraid to go over The Kids’ heads.

Some examples: while headlining at the local prison, Shirley muses before her captive audience, “I can’t imagine what it’s like to be a convict. But I think in some real way, we are all prisoners.” Also, just like Camus, she advises Keith, “It’s human nature. You’re unhappy then. You’re unhappy now.” Dare Carol Brady to try that advice. Or contemplate Reuben musing, “Free speech is great until somebody else starts talking.” And when an embarrassed Laurie experiences radio broadcasts being transmitted through her braces, Danny incorrectly states, “The Rolling Stones don’t make personal appearances in a person’s mouth.” And count the kids on your one hand who would understand the following criticism from Danny to Reuben: “If you’ve been Toulouse Letrec’s manager, he would have been known as the World’s Greatest Short Order Cook.”

The following three seasons would see a considerable downsizing, as their big-budget traveling and road locations would be traded in for more domestic and less radical situations. Disco and arena rock were on their way in – while filmed breeder sitcoms with laugh tracks were on their way out. By 1974, the Partridges were transported to the ghetto of Saturday night and then cancelled.

However, we’ll always have their stunning Screen Gems backlot neighborhood. The Partridge home was only a broomstick ride away from the famousBewitched residence, in which all the Partridges’ boyfriends and girlfriends seemed to dwell and confuse our television worldview by doing so. And even though it would seem like a natural progression, Shirley and Reuben never hooked up; rather, they remained strangely, infuriatingly platonic.

As the Partridges themselves might say, this DVD is “heavy.” And they would mean that in a good way.

Ronald Sklar

Copyright ©2007   PopEntertainment.com.  All rights reserved.  Posted: March 14, 2007.

Categories
Binge Watch This

Speed Racer: Adventure’s Waiting Just Ahead

 

It always seems ironic and convenient when your name matches your occupation, as in the case of Speed Racer.  Yes, that’s his formal name (even though he wears a “G” on his never-changed shirt and an “M” on his crash helmet). He’s as competent, loyal and true as a Boy Scout, and is so obsessed with car racing that you never see him doing anything else, not even eating or bowling or watching TV.

In most cases, he doesn’t even sleep, despite the endless protests of his friends and family, who beg him to rest before a big race. But there’s good ol’ unflappable Speed, burning the midnight oil, turning a socket wrench underneath the car, his anime eyes wide with concentration. Either Speed is just simply supercharged and super pumped about tomorrow’s big race, or Speed’s on speed.

Living in a quasi-dream of a netherworld that is not quite Japan and not quite America, Speed is, quite literally, driven. It doesn’t seem to be the thrill of the race that motivates him, even though there are still thrills a plenty on this DVD that holds up surprisingly well (you’ll be amazed at how powerfully these compelling stories still grip your heart and get your blood racing, even though you are no longer seven years old).

Simply, Speed seems to be intensely focused, deeply stoic and fiercely determined, which is how we like our cartoon heroes. It’s his weighty one-dimensionalness that keeps us glued to his adventures. We learn from him that winning isn’t everything, or even the only thing – it’s how you get there and how many opportunities you are awarded to help others. Of course, Speed has an exciting (though deadly) career, and perhaps if he were employed in the auto department of a Caldor store or working Bay #3 of a Pep Boys, he wouldn’t be as enthused and more apt to snooze.

Even though his family is slightly dysfunctional, they are tremendously supportive. There’s his crusty-but-lovable pop (Pops), who arrogantly and illogically leaves his cushy job with a large engineering firm in order to perfect his marvelous wonder car, the Mach 5. Pops is a total fascist to his family, but they tolerate him because he’s got the engineering goods in his whacked-out head – the Mach 5 is their ticket to ride. Unlike the 1989 Ford Escort, which tends to stall at high speeds, the Mach 5 comes standard with rotary swords for cutting trees (great for forest driving!), grip tires, an underwater oxygen chamber, special illumination, a periscope and that all-important homing robot for when you need to send for help when you are being held at gunpoint or kidnapped.

Pops almost “blows a gasket” when he first learns his son is racing in this precious super machine. However, Speed Racer and the Mach 5 take to each other like STP to an engine; once Pops sees the income the boy could net from winning tournaments, he quickly changes his warped mind. And this is years before NASCAR.

Moms Racer is the real curio. Her real name is most likely something like Carburatoretta or Stickshift-anne. She’s a looker, a glamour-puss sashaying around in a tight pantsuit and a tiny apron with hearts sewn into them. Though the family is immersed in daily danger, she doesn’t seem to care about anything except serving oven-baked cookies. Call it her protection mechanism; most likely, this obsessive act is just her little way to suppress the horror of her own reality: her oldest son had run away from home and had never come back, her middle son (only 18) risks his life daily in a death machine, and her youngest is under age ten and under absolutely no adult supervision – he eats candy until his teeth rot and tends to stowaway on evildoer’s vehicles and his closest friend is a clothed chimp.

There’s Trixie, of course, Speed’s look-alike girlfriend, who is rather accomplished for a pre-feminist gal pal. She can fly a plane and a maneuver a helicopter; she can also give a wicked karate chop when confronted with evil. However, she remains perky and upbeat throughout — her trademark is to giggle and wink. Mysteriously, her blouse sports the letter “M,” like a scarlet letter. We’re left to wonder why.

Racer X (who is originally referred to as “The Masked Racer,” but the narrator drops that after one episode), is really Rex Racer (Speed’s older, normal-named brother). Years before, Rex left home in a hissy fit after a wicked argument with Pops. Of course, this seems to be a rather lengthy period to hold a grudge against your entire family, but consider the source. Also, it deepens and sentimentalizes the plot lines, as Rex, under the mask, keeps a watchful eye out for his younger brother.

Ironically, Rex had moved on to become the world’s best racing car driver (imagine that “most likely to” in your high school yearbook!), but he is known to have bad luck follow him in every race he enters (namely, other racers die!). However, he consistently stumps the media by wearing a mask and, even though it’s obvious to anyone with a brain, he gives no information as to who he is and where he came from (put this into context: there was no internet and no Matt Drudge at this time).

Every time Racer X enters a scene, we are clued in – the narrator will remind us, “Unknown to Speed, this is his older brother, Rex, who ran away from home years ago.” We wonder if this announcement starts to wear on Rex every time he makes his entrance, yet it doesn’t seem to bruise his ego that he is always referred to in the context of his younger brother. Nevertheless, it must be a drag at parties.

The real star of the show, of course, is the theme song. You know it — you love it, but you probably didn’t realize that it was written in one afternoon and recorded in practically one take. The original Japanese version (the show was called Mach Go Go Go!) was an un-zippy, over-long, marching-band style tune, and it didn’t make the scene. The American team westernized it, and viola: one of the greatest theme songs in the history of television. The jazzy closing credits, featuring a mind-blowing illustrative history of the automobile, with actual models driven by the show’s characters, is iPOd worthy. However, we’re still waiting for those damned flying cars.

The voiceover talent works overtime, and the overlapping of characters’ voices is both painfully obvious and pleasurably corny. Former child model and struggling actor Peter Fernandez found his niche dubbing Japanese entertainment for American audiences (Astro Boy, Marine Boy, Ultra Man, and several Godzilla flicks). Not only was he in charge of the entire U.S. translation/production of Speed Racer (trickier than it sounds), he was the voice of both Speed and Racer X. Corinne Orr was the voice of Trixie, Mom Racer and Spritel (Speed’s younger brother). You may also know her as the voice of Snuggle, the fabric softener bear. Voiceover vet Jack Grimes played Speed’s friend Sparky and Spritel’s simian friend Chim Chim.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the voiceover talent, the series will turn you as Japanese as it gets. Characters gasp in unison, or exclaim a long, drawn out expression of “ahhh’s,” “awww’s” and “oooooh’s!” Evildoers get punched, karate chopped and knocked out, but they never die. They say unlikely things such as “Unhand me!” and “now’s our chance!” and “if you don’t make this jump, you’ll fall a thousand feet into the river. Good luck.” And all evildoers have New York accents – just like in real life.

Speed isn’t exactly the “demon on wheels” that the song makes him out to be, and you wonder how the cast can wander around the Alps in the middle of a winter storm without a stitch of warm clothing, and Speed’s insistance on wearing an ascot is distracting, but there is a lot you can forgive here. The original animators were so in love with American culture – you can see how it was absorbed and handed back to us so lovingly and with such care. It’s exactly how you remember it, yet somehow better.

Go, watch this DVD. Adventure’s waiting just ahead. GO! GO! GO!

Ronald Sklar

Copyright ©2004   PopEntertainment.com.  All rights reserved.  Posted: December 12, 2004.

Categories
Binge Watch This

Live Aid 1985: FRANKIE SAY: FEED THE WORLD!

 

It’s been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is no better example of this than the agonizingly sixteen-hour-long Live Aid broadcast on July 13, 1985.

The official excuse for the concert was to raise money to feed the starving people of Ethiopia, but the let’s-get-real reason was to witness Western civilization’s most celebrated rock and pop stars perform because they care. They care deeply.

The event, held simultaneously in two stadiums on two continents, was a strange hit parade – musical acts whose careers literally faded as the sun set that evening.

Here’s how the magic happened: opportunist Bob Geldof (of the begging-to-be-beloved Boomtown Rats) was emotionally moved by a BBC documentary exposing the heart-wrenching horror and tearful tragedy of the victims of the African famine. The sorrowful images of suffering children and mournful, helpless pawns of a wicked political game immediately brought to mind haircut bands.

Geldof then mobilizes the English pop stars with the highest hair to record a novelty song called “Do They Know It’s Christmas” (in which the lyrics “feed the world” sound like “feed the squirrels”). The British concern for unfed squirrels rocket sales of the single into the millions, and yet somehow the proceeds are directed not toward the furry critters but toward funding relief efforts for the Ethiopian famine victims.

Not to be outdone, America’s oldest child, Michael Jackson, and former-Leslie-Gore-producer Quincy Jones form a band called USA For Africa. Together, and with the help of some show-biz friends, they churn out a best-selling anthem called, with great arrogance and presumption, “We Are the World.”

In its famous recording session, a sign is posted at the entrance to the studio warning all contributors to “Check Your Egos At The Door” (this means YOU, Kenny Loggins!).

Both records, on both sides of the pond, are accompanied by music videos depicting the planet’s most beloved singing stars (and Dan Aykroyd) getting along in the name of charity. As well, these cats and kittens are rocking out (in priority order) without their cumbersome egos getting in the way of the urgent message.

You have your Bruce Springsteens dueting with your Stevie Wonders, and your Huey Lewises patiently waiting for your Cyndi Laupers to finish their well…well…well…wells, and your Bob Dylans awkwardly attempting to be team players. When Lionel Richie at last gave the “thumbs up” sign, the world knew that USA for Africa – as well as the world – was going to be all right.

Despite its success, USA For Africa broke up almost immediately after the release of their first single, never to be heard from again.

However, to make sure that the check for the meal was covered (including tip), Geldof organized the Live Aid concert, to be held at both Wembley Stadium in London (highbrow) and JFK Stadium in Philadelphia (lowbrow).

The extravaganza, beamed by satellite and recorded with clunky, land-lubbin’ twentieth-century cameras, was most likely the tenth-best day of Bob Geldof’s life, and the most exposure The Boomtown Rats would ever hope to receive before or since.

On this date, unofficially entitled “The Day the Music Changed the World,” each stadium is filled to capacity with the kids, tattoo-less and grunge-free and well scrubbed. Girls, desperately trying to be adorable, sit on their boyfriends’ shoulders and wave their arms. To fend off the July sun and discourage horniness, the crowds are hydrated with giant fire hoses (even though the British don’t sweat). The appearance by the Prince and Princess of Wales (Chuck and Di to you, thank you very much) officially signal to the world that the Africans really must be starving – this isn’t just jive talkin’.

The festivities are initiated by Style Council and Status Quo (that’s right: “who?”), and then Adam Ant, doing his trademarked high kicks in tight leather as if he made a wrong turn off Christopher Street. Spandau Ballet sings “True” while their moussed hair bakes in the sun, and Sting sings a duet, first with his ego and then with Phil Collins.

Collins makes musical and jet-flight record books by being the only performer in history to play London and then Philadelphia within four hours, and to be the only performer in history to even think of heading to Philly after London. If this isn’t proof enough that the 80s were an age of wonder, witness the Band Aid finale, in which Adam Ant gets more microphone time than Elton John.

Paul Young is inexplicably given the green light to sing three songs, complete with black back-up singers (usually an indication that either the white lead singer has soul or that the white lead singer has no soul). In addition, Alison Moyet blows Young away in a duet while doing the Belinda Carlisle Go-Go’s dance.

Meanwhile, the American crowds are delighted by semi-host Jack Nicholson, who shows his cool detachment by chewing gum and wearing sunglasses. There’s a jeff cap for the Beach Boys’ Al Jardine and a headband for Mark Knopfler. The entire stadium heads to the restroom during REO Speedwagon’s set. And who invited Chevy Chase?

There are cringe-inducing moments aplenty. Most unbearable of these is when Joan Baez announces “THIS IS YOUR WOODSTOCK.” Madonna sings history’s Top Two All-Time Worst songs (“Holiday” and “Into the Groove”). And what cringe-inducing moment would be complete without yet another tiresome rendition of John Lennon’s unhackable “Imagine,” this time oversung by Patti Labelle. To take cringe inducement into the homestretch, feel your toes curl when you witness the entire crowd sing along with every word to Queen’s “Radio Ga Ga,” complete with the 80s Arm Wave.

The concert’s high points are arguable. Some say the highlight is that Huey Lewis and the News were not invited. Others insist that it’s the appearance of U2, in the intense mullet phase of their fledgling career. Bono wears boots that are made for walkin’, and he symbolically brings his own Courtney Cox out of the crowd and dances with her (where is that girl today, besides seventy pounds heavier?). He also sings “Ruby Tuesday,” most likely in honor of the restaurant chain (food, get it?).

Of course, the most memorable moment of Live Aid is when Mick Jagger asks, “Where’s Tina?” and he ain’t talking about Tina Louise. He and Tina Turner do a proto-type wardrobe-malfunction jig as Jagger not only rips off black culture in general but rips off Tina’s leather mini skirt.

Nicholson introduces “the transcendent Bob Dylan,” and the inevitable finale involves a mega-version of “We Are The World,” which includes a formerly uninvited Cher.

It’s fifteen minutes of fame stretched over four disks and ten hours. A lot is missing, due to legal hassles and destroyed tapes (this explains Rick Springfield’s absent performance – or does it ?).

Warning: 80s Overload can kill. Small doses are prescribed. However, sales of this DVD continue to fund the fight against world hunger, so:

FRANKIE SAY: FEED THE WORLD!

Ronald Sklar

Copyright ©2005   PopEntertainment.com.  All rights reserved.  Posted: June 1, 2005.

Categories
Business Blogging

The Centrum’s Amazing New Look

Cubicles be gone—the search for office space is now trending younger, and that means more collaborative, creative space. If that space doesn’t comply, it needs to get with the program or remain empty (or withering). Quadrant Investment Properties founder Chad Cook says that his company is focused on finding office buildings that can be redeveloped into something more awesome. Case in point: The Centrum (3102 Oak Lawn, 2.6 acres at the northeast corner of Oak Lawn Avenue and Cedar Springs Road) offers deep floor plates and high ceilings as well as multiple on-site amenities, all of which are ideal for creative office space users. The renovations include a redesigned lobby and outdoor courtyards and the addition of rooftop decks and multiple food concepts. Other additions include updates to the common areas and parking garage, and a spec suite program. Chad says the collaboration with architects Merriman & Associates (exteriors) and Entos (interiors) have been very rewarding, as we can see in The Centrum’s new look. Get more information on our Bisnow partner, Quadrant Investment Properties, and take a closer look at The Centrum.

This content originally ran in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Are EB-5 Funds Right for Your Development?

Growing use of the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program has led many prominent Bay Area real estate developers to recognize it as a mainstream source of low-cost capital. It allows qualified foreign nationals a path to US permanent residency for themselves and their families by making an at-risk investment of $500k to $1M into a new business in the US, which then uses the funds to create jobs directly or indirectly. Many high-profile commercial real estate projects in California have utilized EB-5 funds in their capital raises, including the Renoir Hotel, Marriott San Jose and Hunters Point Shipyard. To ensure higher likelihood of project success, it’s crucial to assemble the right team of experts from the get-go. Collectively, the EB-5 Alliance has worked with more than 400 real estate projects using EB-5 funding to ensure each project is executed smoothly. For more information on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally ran in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Head’s Up: Hidden Title Challenges

Long gone: drama-free, plain-vanilla deals, says Stewart Title DC office VP & associate senior underwriting counsel Gary Cortellessa. As the local market continues to surge, investors, particularly those from out of town, are confronting some of the subtle title intricacies to overcome (or what Gary calls “hair on the deal”) in the DC Metro market. A typical example for Stewart Title was an Old Town Alexandria waterfront project regarding water rights issues and boat basins. Another potential roadblock: the DC Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), which gives residential tenants a first right of refusal. In Maryland, there are less stringent requirements to satisfy prior to the sale of a multifamily project that vary by county. There could also be issues hiding in large acreage: old restrictions still on the books that may hinder construction or development. Gary’s also been proactively helping clients make sense of the recordation tax issues and how to reduce these taxes through refinancing or amending and restating the security instrument. E-recording is helping to quicken and simplify closings in DC, Virginia and nationally. Baltimore City is trying a pilot program for e-recording (the first in Maryland). Gary sees investments in multifamily and mixed-use projects continuing to be strong so far, with assisted-living projects gaining momentum. For more information on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally appeared in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Why You Need Virtual Reality Now

The writing is on the wall—rather, in the viewer. Transparent House account director David Scott Van Woert says client migration towards Mobile VR (Virtual Reality) is feverish. The technology is enabling his clients to incorporate high-tech options for real estate marketing and immerse themselves in 360 degrees of 3D. The big demand answers a yearning to take the sales experience to a new level and foroverseas buyers to have a more palpable connection. R&D is on the job, dedicated to simplifying navigation, enhancing resolution, and making it even more user-friendly. Now live: the SF Shipyard VR Tour app, developed by Transparent House for The Shipyard Communities, which allows buyers to immerse themselves in a complete tour of one of the project’s properties. At Lennar’s Welcome Center: another mind-bending app that showcases the project as a working Navy shipyard in the 1950s and the project’s near-future vision, when the entire development will be completed. For more information on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally ran in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Are You A Lone Worker? And Safe?

According to the United States Department of Labor’s statistics, between 2010-2013 there have been 279 work-related fatalities in the real estate and rental/leasing sector. Emergency monitoring for lone worker safety is needed, especially in life-or-death situations. In response, Kings III Emergency Communications, which provides emergency monitoring for commercial and multifamily property managers’ tenants via emergency phones, also offers SoloProtect. It’s a monitoring system featuring simple-to-use emergency communications for those who often find themselves alone at work, such as those in leasing, sales and facilities management. The device resembles an ID badge so it’s discreet, and can be activated in a health or crime emergency, or in a dangerous situation that can quickly escalate. It opens a one-way communication with the Kings III emergency dispatch service and allows for a proper assessment of the situation. A yellow alert is also available, in which the lone worker can report whereabouts ahead of time, such as address, floor number and room number. Contrary to popular belief, most 911 call centers cannot detect location from a cellphone call. For more information on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally ran in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

After Multifamily, What’s Good?

Multifamily will always be a stable asset type in South Florida, but medical office building (MOB) investment opportunities are coming on strong. FIP Realty brokerRoy Faith (here with daughter Lyla and wife Sophie) tells us he’s seeing action with MOBs within the vicinity of hospitals; the investment company itself owns property in North Miami Beach next to Jackson North Medical Center as well as Aventura. Roy adds that North Miami Beach is also becoming a very big market for mixed-use development. Wynwood also continues to build its hot and trendy reputation. FIP Realty recently sold a large multifamily portfolio in northeast Dade County, which continues to be a high-demand multifamily marketplace. For more information on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally appeared in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Wooing Clients? Save Them a Seat

The race to woo clients and reward employees continues to intensify. Sports Shares exec Anne Murlowski tells us that this private-membership club offers exclusive member access at luxury suites in top venues for the most sought-after events. What this means: You don’t have to buy season tickets for one specific sports season or be confined to one suite or even one city. Instead, Sports Shares offers a portfolio of suites with per-seat access to events and games in many places. Yep, a la carte. Right now, the club is based in three markets: Atlanta, Denver and Dallas/Fort Worth, but its SuiteHop program allows for access to big-market suites nationwide (think Airbnb); the SuiteFlex membership requires no upfront commitment but a choice of events, locations and suite types. Packages include catering, VIP parking and more. For more information on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally ran in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Hospitality Gets Hip

The middle market of the hospitality sector is on fire, with an eye toward cooler, hipper renovations, says AVRP Studios partner Chris Veum. He says that the urge toappeal to Millennials is lighting up like crazy, and even Class-B office buildings are breaking down the oppressive cubicle walls in exchange for funkier, more flexible collaborative and huddle space. A recurring client request for commercial interiors: retrofits; these days, it’s all about the amenities. Chris also sees a resurgence of surgery and outpatient centers, but we’ll see less of inpatient facilities (the most expensive construction of all). For more info on our Bisnow partner, click here.

This content originally ran in Bisnow.

Categories
Business Blogging

Charging Station Amenity Powers Up

With increasingly more people driving electric vehicles, the importance of car charging stations as an amenity is becoming a marketing reality for property owners. Since we last spoke with NRG EVgo VP Terry O’Day, the company has signed up more than 1,000 apartments in Northern California for charging. Now in Southern California, they’ve already signed up more than half of that (and counting!) through their Take Charge Program. For a limited time, NRG EVgo is wiring qualified properties to support EV charging for free. Terry says the most valuable benefit for a driver/tenant is to have reliable charging at home; of all the sustainable amenities a property owner can offer, this could be one of the most personal. For more information on our Bisnow partner’s offer, click here.

 

This content originally ran in Bisnow.