The Rock Returns - an Acting Primer in a Ring

Inside Television 542

Publication Date: 2-25-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Many, if not all, readers of this column are aware that for roughly a decade my passion was live theatre. Ran my own company, put on some great shows, and eventually started selling out the joint when we started doing comedy melodramas every summer. Eventually you put away the toys. But the juice of it, the real satisfaction, was always in the training of the actors. They might have been 10 or 15 year-old's in children's theatre, or 50 year-old men drafted into a part that required a 50 year-old man,a nd all those in between. There would always come that moment - that Aha! moment (no, not 'Take On Me') where in rehearsal you would see it click. Literally. You could see their eyes grow bright with energy yet calm all at once. they understood this strange acting beast and felt they could break it, saddle it and ride with it.

No, not that Aha! moment

But as Elia Kazan and Lee Strasberg and probably that guy in the office who reads 'The New Yorker' all knew is that you can teach someone well enough to be serviceable, even very good, but you can't teach charisma.

Last Monday night, I saw the perfect combination of technique and charisma and I invite anyone interested in acting as a career. Find it, watch it, and read this commentary. I was tempted to leave the precise clip until the end, because you may have a knee-jerk reaction against it. Tough. You can find it on YouTube by searching, yes, The Rock returns 2011.

Dwayne Johnson aka The Rock has made himself a nice living in Hollywood. In a strange way, he is having Elvis's movie career with muscles instead of music. Both men usually exceeded their material and in neither case have the movie studios ever truly supplied a script that brought out the best in Elvis Presley or Dwayne Johnson. But watch how Johnson, returning as The Rock to WWE television for the first time in seven years, handles the moment. He is alone with a microphone. In wrestling the term is The Rock was doing a promo.

His entrance is announced with his classic ring music. This gives the audience the energy that The Rock will use. He stands, he doesn't rush or wave. He looks and absorbs. He does not become overwhelmed by the explosive reaction of the crowd; neither does he oppose it. He equals it by looking at it carefully, eye meeting eye although his are behind sunglasses - an actor knows the value of his props. But in the moment he has established communication to the audience as an equal force. And that is what an actor must communicate - you're talking to the other actor on stage, but you're communicating with the audience.

He takes his time. The Rock feels the audience even after he starts to speak. His timing is such that he neither interrupts them, nor do they interrupt him. He uses his body with economy, but always every muscle and sinew ready to launch from the starting gates. And when he finally does express appreciation for the warm welcome home, he is as sincere as baptismal water sprinkled over a well-loved infant.

This is acting, dear friends. And as this business and all arts are eventually somehow about money, I'm willing to wager that The Rock's return as the host of Wrestlemania on April 3 will pop 100,000 pay-per-view buys. At $54.95 each, there is almost $5.5 million in gross revenues for WWE, less The Rock's fee which will likely be in seven figures. Acting can pay, and the stage doesn't have to be Broadway or Stratford. It can be a hockey arena with a ring it.

Be seeing you.

Oh, Jesus!

A fine Rock upon which to build a Church

(from Act One, scene one. Jesus turns to Simon Peter and says:)

Jesus: … and so Simon Peter -

Peter: You know, I've been telling you, you can just call me Peter.

Jesus: Why can't I call you Simon?

Peter: We already have one of those. It'd get confusing. It's hard enough already when you refer to John. Half the time we don't know if you mean John the Baptist or John the Apostle. Can't keep them straight.

John: (pipes in) Oh I'm straight!

Peter: Not the way I heard it.

Jesus: Look! Can I get a word in edgewise here? Hmm? Son of God here, about to make a pronouncement? About to be bloody betrayed by (points at Peter) – you! (everyone turns at once to stare at Peter)

Peter: What? What did I do? Look, you're not still all grudge-bearing about that time I snickered up my sleeve when you said you'd feed the multitudes with those loaves and fishes. I'm sorry. I've told you I'm sorry. I should have known you had a plan. And a brilliant plan it was. Not just any three fishes. Three two hundred pound sturgeon stuffed to the gills with caviar. Served on toast. Lovely picnic. Excellent wine.

Jesus: You! Will betray me!

Peter: Oh we're back to that, are we?

Jesus: And not just once!

Apostles: (other than Peter) Shock!

Jesus: Not just twice!

Apostles: Horror!

Jesus: But three times!

Apostles: (harmonize tightly) Ho-ly Shiiiiitttt.

Jesus: That's it. I'm making that a swear.

Apostles: Oh craaaaaappp.

Jesus: And that's borderline.

Peter: If I might interrupt choir practice for a moment, what do you mean I'm going to betray you? Haven't I been your loyal servant? Mending the fish nets? Rounding up the congregations? Shouting out like a carnival barker: "Jesus here! Christ here! Get your salvation here!" Eh? Haven't I?

Jesus: All totally true. But before dawn you're going to pretend you don't know me. I'll be as unknown to you as a Saturday night pick-up on Sunday morning.

Peter: (pause) Really?

Jesus: Oh yes. Nothing I can do about it either. Dad wrote the book, I just read the pages.

Peter: Oh. Well I'm knackered then. Doomed to an eternal hell-fire playing bridge with Hitler, Jack the Ripper and some other fellow who hasn't been born yet.

Jesus: Rupert Murdoch.

Peter: Rupert Murdoch? he's going to be as evil as Adolf Hitler?

Jesus: No, but it's going to scare the hell out of him - literally - when he sees this.

Peter: Ounce of prevention -

Jesus: - pound of cure. That's my motto.

John: (interrupts) I thought your motto was 'Do unto others', etcetera?

Jesus: That's for those cute little refrigerator magnets and crocheted quilts.

John: Oh.

Peter: Anyway, I suppose I'd better start running now, before a blast of lightning comes smashing through my spine.

Jesus: What?

Peter: Well, if I'm going to be betraying you, I rather doubt your Father's going to be particularly pleased with me. Just do me a favour, okay? Not in the face, okay? Please, not in the face.

Jesus: You -

Apostles: Pop culture alert!

Jesus: You big pussy! You're not going to be struck down by lightning! I'm making you the head of my church as First Pope.

Peter: What?

Jesus: Did I stutter? You, Simon Peter, are going to be the Rock upon which I shall build my church!

Peter: If you can smellllllllll -

Jesus: Wrong Rock. 

(this is the first excerpt of my new rock musical comedy - Oh, Jesus! - about the origins of the Catholic Church. For every 1,000 views I will post two more pages. So if you want to read more, share.   

... unless of course you're wealthy and just want to buy the thing. Up to you.

Hope you're not TOO offended. 

Cheers!

H)

Immodest Proposals: Keep You Doped With Religion and Sex and TV

Inside Television 541

Publication Date: 2-18-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

I haven't written an Immodest Proposals column in, I think, a year or two. For those who don't remember the format, I put forward an idea or three that would make excellent sense in a sane world. They will never happen, for this is not a sane world. Still, it's nice to dream of things that have never been and ask, 'Why not'?

What got me to thinking was a combination of two conversations and one news item. The first conversation was one I held over the phone with Emma Forrest, author of the memoir 'Your Voice in My Head'. Forrest, a journalist turned screenwriter (aren't we all?) went through a period of mental illness that included cutting and an attempted suicide. When I asked her why cutting had appeared as a plague affecting adolescent women in the last 15-20 years, she expressed her opinion that it was as a result of the sexualization of very young girls. It starts with the manufacture of the Lindsays and Britneys and carries down into the classrooms and bedrooms of our own neighbourhoods.

The second conversation was with a woman of my acquaintance who sincerely believed and forcefully expressed the opinion that the Muslim people - all of them - had an agenda to kill Christians in order to get to Heaven. Therefore, Canada should lock its immigration doors to Muslims before they 'took over the country.' Being polite (and in shock) at the time I just said, 'No no, they're much too sensible for that.'

And third, there was a radio interview Charlie Sheen gave with Dan Patrick which was repeated on CTV News. Sheen in short said that his drugging and debauching was a periodic thing and the producers of 'Two and a Half Men' should restart production now while he was reasonably sober and strapped together.

Did I mention that we don't live in a sane world?

Now I have been at this rude sport of covering television a little too long to ever imagine that anything I suggest will ever happen. But I'm rather hoping you might agree and adjust your viewing schedules, or at least your viewing perception accordingly.

Broadly taken, gag orders aren't very popular in North America - they're de rigueur in the UK - because those of us on the Western shores of the Atlantic have this silly idea that we have an absolute right to know everything about everything. We are self-accredited experts in solving other people's problems (especially famous people with problems) as it saves all the effort of solving our own. However, I put it to you that a cone of silence above a cloak of invisibility might help in several ways.

I live in a city which is struggling honourably with the development of a drug and intoxication strategy. To me, the issue is a relatively simple one. Should one be arrested for public intoxication in any form. one would then lose the right to purchase or consume any variant of liquor or stimulant that can be quaffed, lit, swallowed or rubbed on the belly for one year. You abuse it, you lose it.

Now what if this was twisted and extended to entertainment and news? Lindsay and Charlie, you aren't doing well and worse than that - for God gives us a perfect right to make fools of ourselves - you are setting the example that it is okay for the kids out there to grow up to be slam partying, abusive slut bags. Um, that really isn't working well for the rest of us.

There is no good reason to incarcerate Charlie Sheen for his addictions - his ritual domestic abuse is another matter - it's expensive and it doesn't work. Rather, let's snuff out the fire by removing the oxygen. No judge can order this; freedom of expression gets in the way. What if the networks and studios dusted off the old 'morals clause' and determined that Charlie's shows (sorry to pick on you old boy, but you are a gold medal pig) can't be seen anywhere for a year, his pictures will not be printed, his interviews will not be requested. For a celebrity, this is Papillon or Dreyfus territory. This would be harsh on a first offence, but if it is established that one is a celebrity Ho, then to no Ho shall celebrity go.

Charlie Sheen's photoshoot: November 2011

The other item I would like to see suffocated is any reference to religion anywhere in the news. Your mind has immediately focused on the Middle East, as it would, but allow me to explain. One of the basic struggles of that region is usually described as that between Muslims and Jews. That's become a tidy capsule description for correspondents and talking heads who either don't know a Shi'ite from a shirt collar and would never be given the proper time by their producers to do so in the first place. For if that is to be the dominant issue and its resolve a framework for peace, then that issue needs to be re-framed regularly, not just in a 2AM documentary that no one will ever see.

Besides which, it's inaccurate. I was reminded when reading 'The Midwife of Venice' by Roberta Rich that around the time of Shakespeare it was the Caliphate based in what we know as Turkey and as Muslim as it gets, that was the sanctuary for Jews fleeing the prejudice of Europe and the press-gang slavery of the Knights of Malta. Those Knights, bored with the end of the Crusades and good Catholic men every won, would capture Jewish traders and hold them for ransom. If the ransom wasn't met, they became slaves. The Turks or Muslims or Arabs took the escapees and protected them.

So if that Middle Eastern struggle is not the result of an intrinsic hatred of a different version of God's opinions on how to lead a model life, then what if analysis took religion right out of the formula? Then stories would be based around subjects, legal subjects, repairable subjects like political repression, loss of human rights, and the distribution of oil wealth. You're never going to completely agree with my sense of who or what God is, any more than you'll ever understand why tears come to my eyes whenever I hear 'You'll Never Walk Alone'. So let's just put religion aside and discuss what we can discuss moving forwards to agreement. And the final benefit is that people won't be hearing snatches of conversation or sound clip exaggerations that leads to half of the Republican Party in the U.S.A. thinking a) that Barack Obama is a Muslim born outside the U.S.A.; and b) that somehow matters. Because even personal religion will be tossed out of the news scripts.

None of this will happen Out There. But in your opinions and perceptions, maybe it can happen In Here. Be seeing you.

Dude Looks Like a Lady - American Idol 2011

Inside Television 540

Publication Date: 2-11-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Ray Davies - NOT Steven Tyler ... (I think)

I promised a few weeks ago that I was going to let 'American Idol' settle in to its new judging panel before reviewing it. In effect, I gave it the equivalent of the Broadway tryout: watch the show, take notes on the show, but don't critique the show until the kinks have been worked out. And I did write kinks, not Kinks, although Ray Davies might someday make an interesting judge or mentor.

But instead of the guy who wrote, "walks like a woman and talks like a man" ('Lola' if you had to ask), we have the guy who wrote 'Dude Looks Like a Lady'. Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together for Mr. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith!

Eh? What's that?

Joe Perry (Aerosmith guitarist): "(American Idol is) one step above Ninja Turtles. It's his business, but I don't want Aerosmith's name associated with it."

Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together for Mr. Steven Tyler of Not Aerosmith!

I completely agree with Jon Caramanica of the 'New York Times' who wrote this Wednesday that essentially this year is Steven Tyler's year. No great surprise there. It never has been Randy Jackson's year, Ryan Seacrest's year, and Jennifer Lopez has always had a certain glow about her that one associates more with manufacturing than with artistic inspiration. The only real question has been whether Tyler was going to have the attraction of a nasty amusement park accident (picture Paula Abdul on a plunging roller coaster), or the attraction of a shrewd industry player who has managed to profit from - dear God - 40 years in the rock industry.

A sure bet: Steven Tyler will never ever cover The Who's 'My Generation'. "Hope I die before I get old"? Too late for that.

So which is it: crash or soar? Well, as T.S. Eliot wrote in 'The Hollow Men':

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

In this case, we have a rather substantial shadow. For every 'ewww skiv' moment of Tyler observing rather too closely attractive 18 year olds, there is many more of a man quite seriously enjoying his new job. In four weeks, he has clearly become the Lead Judge, the one whose opinion counts. Instead of Simon Cowell lobbing grenades into the air then shooting at them with a bird gun, we have Steven Tyler feeling the songs along with the contestants.

Clearly we don't know how all this will work once the audition phase is over. (By the way, I never knew until that NYT article that the scenes where the auditioners meet the judges are actually weeks after the mass auditions.) Will Tyler become even more acute in his judging, or will he fall back into the catch-phrase swamp ('that was a little pitchy dawg') that has been Idol's Achilles Heel? But this will be a trip worth taking. Trips and Steven Tyler. They go together like ... trips and Steven Tyler. Be seeing you.

Why 'It's Not the Economy Stupid'

Politics for Joe 17

What's the Story, Morning Glory?: Campaign 2011

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

In the last installment, I promised to lay out for you a campaign that would work in the next election. This was originally going to be focused on the Liberals, until I realized that I was making distinctions between Liberals and NDP that aren't actually there. Now, before any Endipper has a conniption and roars that the New Democrats are not a bunch of shuffle-footed policy flip-floppers who will sacrifice principle for victory … yeah, I know that. But the Liberals are, and therefore that which works for one major Opposition party will work for both.

If you look up Politics for Joe 16, you'll see an argument that campaign politics is the art of story-telling mixed with money. If you elect me, I shall do X that will result in the Happy Ending of Y. Why? Because that is the public attention span, the rough equivalent of the time a parent will spend reading a bedtime story to a grumpy child.

Now, do not misinterpret the above as the prelude to the 1,957^th writing of the standard moan – and it's a wonder no one ever named a newspaper the Standard Moan – damning or chastising the public for essentially not giving a sh!t about the issues. You'll read lots of those this year. To a columnist, they are the equivalent of a quarterback sneak on fourth and inches. The play usually works and it doesn't require much creative risk.

Besides which, the public doesn't have time to care – or even if they care they lack the time to be informed. We always look back to Athens in the era of Pericles as the ideal. Where everything was voted on by the public, but really what did 'everything' entail? Are we at war with Sparta this week? The odd execution or banishment, some talk of customs duties and who are we hiring to be the house band at the Olympics? That was about it. Global climate change and its effects on economy, agriculture and society is a bit more complex.

There is also the ugly nut truth of Canadian politics – in terms of an economic policy designed towards steady growth while discouraging the sorts of wild speculation that can wither and burn a nation's treasury – it really doesn't matter what we think. As a trading nation, we are beneficiary or victim of our partners. The Canadian banking industry may well be the only sane and stable one in the G8 – but the great financial implosion of 2008 did this country no favours either. Canada's choice is either to become an insular and self-supporting state – did I mention we are a trading nation? - or be satisfied with attempting to convince, cajole and convert the rest of the major nations. And good luck with that.

ehhhhh..I got nuthin'

Harper and the Conservatives have essentially done nothing with the economy – if the Liberals or the NDP had been in power, they would have run the exact same awkwardly administered stimulus package so don 't hand me that guff – other than the relative minutiae of corporate tax cuts and the like – which nobody gives a sh!t about. Joe, when you hear about 'corporate tax cuts', or see billboards in their favour which boggled my eyes when I saw two of them, I think that your likely reaction is, 'Um, I'll care about that when I have a corporation, which is likely never. So long as my bill doesn't go up, I don't care.' But because of all that, I suspect that the next Federal election has the rare opportunity to be about something other than It's The Economy Stupid.

Honestly now, while the distribution of tax revenue collection is of obvious importance, as are many other aspects of economic policy, absent either a present crisis or a really sharp difference of opinion dividing Conservatives and Opposition (which there isn't) the economy will fade as an election issue.

I suspect that this is why the Tories are running their 'good steward' commercials featuring Harper simultaneous with the rabid voiding of the bowels that are the ads slagging Michael Ignatieff. The Harper government dearly wants this election fought on the economy and will continue to attempt to make that the main issue. If I were in their War Room, I would too. If the Liberals and/or fall into the trap, they are righteously doomed.

But Joe, you may be wondering how the Opposition can take the focus off the economy, and if they do, with what will they replace it? Regarding the first, the Liberals somewhat stumbled onto the response when in 2008 when the financial world had its (first) implosion. When Harper started to strut about Canadian banks not imploding, Team Ignatieff replied, 'ya well...it was our regulations what saved 'em!' Do a Rope-a-Dope. Take credit and move on.

By the way, I have no idea what the NDP said in 2008. Nobody pays attention to the NDP on the economy, much the same as at some point in life you read Winnie the Pooh for the last time.

But – he says sensing enraged endippers firing up their OpenOffice Writer – this represents a golden opportunity for Jack Layton's Correct Politics and Chowder Society. For if the economy is shunted to the side in the Great Election Debate, what does that leave?

War. Social justice. The environment. I truly wish that then environment could be first on the list, but Stephane Dion tried that and Joe – on this one I have to call you on it – you didn't care.

I suspect that any Party that says on Afghanistan, 'We did our best. We're done. We're home.', will find a lot of support. Yes we can supply teachers and agronomists after the war is over, but after the war is over.

On social justice, the issues of health care, civil rights, native land claims and rights to privacy all can be emergent. And these are right in the NDP's wheelhouse. But what will be crucial is how these issues are put together into a narrative, which I will lay out for you...

...next time. Be seeing you.

Super Bowl! Brought to you by Budweiser's NFL!

Inside Television 539

Publication date: 2-5-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Even isopods love Doritos and football! 

As much as I've enjoyed writing for newspapers for 15 years now, there are moments that lead me to shudder under the a blanket pulled tight over my head. The Sunday's Super Bowl brings one to mind.

Eight years ago, the upstart Tampa Bay Bucs played the cagey veteran Oakland Raiders. A good friend at the Chronicle-Journal (who is still there and will not be placed subject to further embarrassment) asked me for help in making his pick in the office pool. No problem. Those cagey old vets know how to win, I said. They'll stay calm, focused, and will give the Bucs a righteous beating.

Your final score: Tampa Bay 48 – 21 Oakland.

Frankly, the only time one has a sure bet in a Super Bowl is when absolutely everyone picks one side – then take the underdog. The golden pick was the Giants against the New Arrogance, er, England Patriots a few years ago. But there's no such Goliath ready to tumble this year. Steelers – Packers. The Pros Who Knows are unsure what to do with a shaky betting line of 2.5 points with the advantage going to Green Bay.

I tend to think that a smarter bet is Julian Assange addressing a Joint Session of Congress than either of this year's teams. The Packers can't run the ball and have an odd habit of piling up great stats but not able to kill off games by converting them into points. And Pittsburgh really should hand out red capes and those funny little matador hats to their offensive line every time Ben (no charges were laid) Roethlisberger goes back to pass. And that was before their starting center went down with leg knack.

It could get ugly or it could get beautiful. If the game – which I am positive will end up as Most Watched Ever after the AFC Championship drew 56 million viewers in the U.S. - resembles the season, ugliness will rule.

Budweiser's NFL and their TV partners are trying to cast this season as The Year of Redemption. Hence Roethlisberger (there were no charges laid) has been coached to be as cheerful as a department store Santa – Grampa beard and all! - and I think they've hidden head-hunting linebacker James Harrison in a locker or something. Ancient franchises – redemption! Aaron Rodgers as the new Phoenix to Brett Favre's burnt bird – redemption! Yes, GoDaddy's NFL would have you believe that this season has all been about love, dreams, Mom, and cute little puppies. And, um, Michael Vick.

What Chevrolet's NFL doesn't want you noticing is that this has been more the year of the cataclysmic injury with wide receivers regularly run under CT scans checking for brain injuries. In fact, one curiousity is that the Packers have 16 – 16! - players on injured reserve. Bizarrely, this has worked in their favour as the replacements may not be as talented but they are certainly healthier and fresher than their opponents. Maybe the trick for success in FedEx's NFL is to shoot all your starters except the quarterback round about week eight and bring in the scout team.

Mike Lupica said a few weeks ago that the best thing about being a pundit is that no one ever remembers who you picked once the game is done. So even though I'm not putting a single dime on this game, I see it as lower-scoring than most expect. The over/under number is 44 and that under is looking pretty sparkly to me. Pittsburgh 21 – Green Bay 20. Enjoy Dorito's NFL title game and pass the Pepsi. Be seeing you.

If you Love Oprah, Don't Read This

Inside Television 538

Publication Date: 1-28-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Three stories this week that bear attention: two goodbyes and a hello. Let's start with a goodbye.

It was one day previous, almost to the minute, before I heard the news that the inevitably-captioned fitness guru Jack Lalanne had passed away at the age of 96. I had been thinking about writing a column on a slow week about Lalanne; prompted by an excellent article on slate.com comparing Lalanne with Jane Fonda nd Jillian Michaels.

I think that what Jack Lalanne got about fitness was that it needed to be a family thing; we're all ij this together. Thus his gentle cajoling of the kids to 'go and get Mom'. If Mom was chomping on bonbons while the kids did jumping jacks, well that wasn't a good plan – and if the kids were screaming for Mom while she was doing back leg kicks holding on to the back of a kitchen chair, she wouldn't be getting fit either. He hated dairy products (and there is reasonable science to back him, but do pass the cheese tray my way), ate fruit like a Barbary ape and from all accounts was a good and honest man. My kitchen chair wept a little tear.

The next goodbye. (I feel I should be turning to camera three.) Keith Olbermann and MSNBC parted ways. Whether it was a firing,a resignation, or a resignation instead of a firing is unknown at the time of this writing. What is known is that Olbermann is one of the few broadcasters in history whose style became an entire channel's style. He made MSNBC into the voice of the Democratic left (which is scarcely Bolsheviks massing in St. Petersburg) when he dropped the pretense of objectivity in 2006 and years following. Ratings followed. Rachel Maddow and others were hired. Granted, Fox News still led in the ratings, but the tilt to the left had taken MSNBC from ratings in the 0.5 range to 1.5 and that is worth millions. There is nothing cheaper to produce than a news show, yet it is always the news that faces cuts.

But NBC-Universal, the owner of MSNBC, has been sold to Comcast and there are changes at the boardroom level and in the executive suites. News chief Jeff Zucker who had endorsed and protected the MSNBC shift has been removed. I predict and expect MSNBC will, ahem, commit to objectivity which means that it will deflate into the same giddy pap and goo that has turned CNN into news worth missing. I hope Keith is back somewhere soon.

Finally, of all the things I've ever written, the line most often quoted back to me is that 'Oprah Winfrey attempts to come across as so sincere she becomes insincere.' I couldn't help but think of that after the emergence of her half-sister Patricia on Oprah's show this week. This right on the heels of a series of stories on the major trade sites that Oprah and her OWN network (God I hate typing that phrase – so coy, so cute, so wrapped in fudge and covered in melted chocolate sweet) weren't exactly pulling big numbers.

So – hey now! - look what I found! New family!

Oh it worked very well. Oprah popped her biggest rating in six years. Isn't coincidence lovely? I have said before that everything – everything – seen on television is a work. It is designed to make you have a visceral reaction deep in your belly that will compel you to go and buy things. That is why television exists. That is why Oprah exists. That is why the 'look what I found at Thanksgiving' awww moment exists.

I trust that Patricia is being paid very well and good for her. She will exist as part of the real-life Truman Show played out on OWN with the role of Truman played not by Jim Carrey but by a serially overweight talk show host. There are worse parts. At least it's long-running and you're not likely to be re-cast.

I do believe Patricia is whom they claim her to be. But I do have two questions: If Patricia had clued in to all this in 2007, you're telling me that on first contact there wouldn't have been DNA specialists and private detectives all over this like ants on an uncle? And two: If all of this was about family love and all that real 'real life' stuff … why isn't Patricia allowed to use her last name? Don't her adoptive parents maybe deserve a little love too? Or did they hold out for parts in the Oprah Show too?

Be seeing you.