How to Act When Your Audience Doesn't React

I received a kind invitation to speak to a group of leaders in Toastmasters International in Pennsylvania. The subject was how to recruit in light of the changing economy and demographics of the membership and the potential membership. I hit the floor with high energy (I was feeling good, even after a 50-mile drive). I told the audience that, while my speech is normally about six steps to follow when facing and beating change -- "My "Six P's" -- I would deal with just three of them, given the short time I was allotted. Then I launched into my speech.

However, a problem common to all speakers came up. The audience just stared at me. They were not engaged. The presentation seemed to have no relevance to them. I was concerned because I had only 20 minutes to serve them, so it was imperative for me to solve this problem. Here are steps that I believe help in this situation.

1. DON'T PANIC. This is the first lesson to learn, and it's hard. I once heard an exchange between ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and his puppet partner, Charlie McCarthy, in which Bergen said in exasperation, "This is the most stupid conversation I have ever been involved in." McCarthy responded, "Well, I can account for only half of it." Remember that the audience is also responsible to some extent for the success of this session, so don't presume it is ALL your fault when there is a problem.

2. THINK OF HOW TO DEVIATE FROM YOUR PLANNED SCRIPT. Given the advice above, what I was saying was obviously not working. I had to find out what they wanted.

3. STEP CLOSER TO THE AUDIENCE. If you are physically nearer to your listeners, they are more apt to accept you. (However, watch the line between become more familiar and invading their personal space.) They are more likely to feel a kinship with you. This is a corollary to my advice that you should introduce yourself to your audience before the program starts, shaking hands and learning their names. (Yes, I did that on this day, but apparently it wasn't enough.)

4. ENGAGE IN A CONVERSATION. Ask rhetorical questions. Probe to find out what they want. Make them part of the event.

5. GO BACK TO "PLAN A" AT SOME POINT. You can't improvise the entire event. When you feel you have righted the ship, sail on your original course.

The talk continued, and I felt I maintained my dignity and composure in the end. I observed that subsequent speakers were having the same problems energizing the audience, so I felt more comfortable. Still, I received positive feedback in the end. I sold a few books, and later that day, I got a nice email from one of the attendees, who apologized for having to leave early. "Thanks for spending time with us today," he concluded. "Your presentation skills are exceptional ." Then Amazon contacted me afterward to say that there was a flurry of orders and my book is now of stock.

Hm, I guess it pulled it out in the end.

Ranking the 2011 Oscar Contenders -- My Own Choices for "Best Film"

Wow, what a variety of films in the following list of Best Picture nominees. Consider the different story lines: A film that takes place largely in a dream. A classic western. A young man and woman conflicted about their biological heritage. A woman of privilege faces adversity. A beloved yet shy figure faces a personal struggle. Characters face the consequences of being separated from home. A snapshot of the issues of the time. Simple country folks fight the economic odds against them. A struggle to regain riches that were taken.

Yes, this year's nominees share many of the qualities of the 1939 nominees described above. Those movies were, respectively, The Wizard of Oz; Stagecoach; Wuthering Heights; Dark Victory; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Love Affair; Ninotchka; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; Of Mice and Men; and Gone with the Wind.

Is this year’s crop of contenders for the top prize also classics? Only time will tell. However, while I felt that last year's list was a bit padded, I believe the 2010 nominees are of sufficient quality that the Academy needs not be embarrassed that they doubled the number of competitors for the awards that will be given this Sunday, February 27.

Here is how I rank the ten nominated films, in descending order. These are not my predictions, but my judgment as to their quality, innovation and uniquely cinematic quality. In other words, when I evaluate a film according to these three standards, I expect to see a work that contains a high level of competence in its craft, a film that is unlike others I have seen, and a work that I could not experience in another medium. As Roger Ebert has demanded, I think the best film of the year should make me look at film differently.

10. True Grit — Joel and Ethan Coen made a few improvements in this remake. The setting and lighting of their Old West looks more realistic. The stilted and more proper language of Charles Portis's eponymous novel (the source of the material) lends a new authenticity. The Coens restored Portis's sobering, original ending, and the casting of Matt Damon as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf was a winner (immeasurably better than the execrable Glen Campbell). They also discovered the remarkable Hailee Steinfeld to play Mattie Ross. In a just world, she would win best supporting actress over The Fighter’s Melissa Leo, she of the braying "pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd" accent. Though I like this film, it is last on my list simply because it is a remake, one that does not add much cinematically to its predecessor. I look for more in a "best film."

9. The Kids Are All Right — This is an entertaining, insightful portrayal of a family far from the nuclear stereotype we abandoned as “the norm.” Laser and Joni, the son and daughter of Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore), find Paul (Mark Ruffalo), their biological father, and this discovery creates a series of events that raises many questions about identity. Jules learns a new trade with Paul and then a new way to love (an aberration that is never really explained well, which weakens the story). Meanwhile, the controlling yet fragile Nic sees her whole world crumbling. The performances and the story-telling are all well-drawn, natural and effortless. A nice film with a somewhat unorthodox story that somehow did not excite me. (Alert: If anyone can upset favorite Natalie Portman for Best Actress, it would be Bening. )

8. The Fighter — Dicky Eklund was a promising middleweight before his undisciplined ways led him to crack addiction. His half-brother, Micky Ward, wants to win the title Dicky never could. The Fighter’s major characters are all endearing in their own ways. Producer Mark Wahlberg plays Micky with the same earnestness it must have taken to green light this film. Amy Adams brings a previously unseen toughness to Charlene, Micky's barkeep girl. Melissa Leo, as the boys’ slatternly mother, keeps her seemingly endless brood of loser children on a tight leash. Christian Bale is likely to win an Oscar more for the volume of his over-the-top portrayal of Dicky than for its quality. While this film is entertaining and well-intentioned, I felt that I have seen this all before in films, whether boxers, runners or otherwise.

7. The Social Network — The Social Network successfully captures our zeitgeist by telling the story of the creation of Facebook. David Fincher, displaying his versatility as a director, tells this story with more zip than it deserves … which brings me to what really bothers me about this film. Aaron Sorkin's wordy script begins with a scene well-acted by Jesse Eisenberg, as Mark Zuckerberg, and Rooney Mara, as girlfriend Erica Albright. Sitting in a bar, Erica tells Zuckerberg that he is a self-centered jerk who will always be lonely. This scene establishes Zuckerberg's character, and it is totally false, a contrivance. I believe that artistic license is one thing, but character assassination is quite another. It has made me wonder how much more of this film I can believe, and that doubt pushes The Social Network down my list.

6. Winter's Bone —Ree, at 17, bears the burden of the world. She is raising two younger siblings in loco parentis for their mentally ill mother, while her meth-making father is on the lam. We soon learn that he used the family home for collateral on his bail bond, on which he will soon default. As Ree's family stands to lose their only piece of paradise in a hardscrabble world, she decides to look for him. Her search sets off a series of setbacks and resistance that test her will and her resilience. Jennifer Lawrence (as Ree) and John Hawkes (as Teardrop, her father's brother) give star-making performances. Yet the main character in this small gem may be the unforgiving Missouri setting. Director Debra Granik gives Winter's Bone a gun-metal patina that embodies the monochromatic lives of its inhabitants. Like last year’s Precious, it is an unflinching glimpse into the lives of people we rarely see.

5. Black Swan — This was hands down the most daring film I saw this year. It is clear from the start that ballerina Nina Sayers is insane as she drives toward her goal to be cast in the lead of Swan Lake. Director Darren Aronofsky leads us into Nina's psyche, blurring the distinctions between delusions and reality with a cinematic slights of hand -- an errant reflection here, an ambiguous love scene there. Like a shadow boxer, Aronofsky feints, bobs and weaves enigmatically from start to finish. My one considerable reservation about Black Swan is its relentless pace, which becomes exhausting to the point of tedium. (Spielberg, for example, knew to lighten Jaws with occasional humor.) Still, I'll take this film over any safe rom-com or Blind Side that comes along. I’d rather be challenged than patronized.

4. The King's Speech — What a lovely film! Prince Albert of England needs a speech therapist because he is incapacitated by his stammer. Enter the uncertified, yet eminently qualified, Lionel Logue, who begins to succeed where others have failed Albert. The story takes an historic turn when Albert is thrust onto the throne after his ne'er-do-well brother, King Edward, abdicates for the sake of the harlot he loved. Albert wonders aloud how he could lead a nation when he cannot even speak to them. Tom Hooper’s direction is spare and subtle, evident in sly camera angles and tracking shots that symbolize Albert's personal journey. This film excels mainly in its performances: Helena Bonham Carter exuding loving concern as the Queen Mum; Geoffrey Rush as Logue, so devoted to Albert's well-being that he would never capitalize on his patient's royal stature; and Colin Firth as Prince Albert cum King George, in the performance of his career. The King's Speech covers a wide variety of themes (personal validation, integrity, courage, self- actualization), but ultimately I believe it is about the value of loyalty and friendship. I expect that the very accessibility of this film will lead it to the Oscar.

3. 127 Hours — Here is a surefire formula for box office poison: Lead a hiker to a ravine, trap him, and then wait for him to escape by cutting off his arm. Oh, by the way, the audience knows the story already. But under the inestimable Danny Boyle, this film, like its main character, emerges triumphant. Boyle takes us from an adventurer’s world of pools and landscapes to a view of the visceral. While Boyle captures the vast beauty of the expanses of Utah, he also narrows his focus to the small space occupied by Aron Ralston (played gloriously by James Franco). From there, both men go even more deeply into the soul of a troubled man who finds his way out of more than one confinement. The unfilmable becomes gloriously cinematic because of Boyle's guidance and Franco’s contribution. It is a breath-taking cinematic achievement that I am confident will stand the test of time.

2. Toy Story 3 — While I believed this franchise had nowhere to go, the brilliantly creative minds of Pixar resuscitated these characters, which were nearly abandoned by both their onscreen owners and their audience. Woody (Tom Hanks) and his cohort seem to have reached the end of the line as their now grown up owner, Andy, goes off to college. In a Keystone Kops-like turn of events, the toys mistakenly end up in a day care center instead of the attic, as was intended. At first, their new home looks heavenly. They even find a new leader at the day care, the seemingly avuncular bear toy, Lotso, brilliantly voiced by Ned Beatty. But all is not as it seems, and Woody leads the other toys to escape, a new adventure that is, at turns, exciting, frightening, funny, tense, creepy and more. Critic James Agee once wrote in a famous essay that the most remarkable thing about Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was not that it had moving images, but that it had images that moved people. The same could be said about Toy Story 3, as it leads us to its well-earned heart-warming and touching conclusion. I don't care that it is a cartoon.

1. Inception — To paraphrase the old radio show, The Shadow, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Inception does. Director/screenwriter Christopher Nolan created a unique concept for his film: A process called "Inception' gives a person the ability to invade another's dreams in order to learn what is contained in that person's deepest thoughts. Furthermore, Inception also allows its users to implant thoughts that will influence the mind of the encroached.
Fantasy is difficult to pull off in film, as evidenced by the sheer number of expendable movies of this type that hit our multiplexes and quickly disappear with nary a trace of impact. It requires a great director to make them work, such as William Friedkin (The Exorcist), Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange), and Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings trilogy). In Inception, Christopher Nolan has produced a stunning piece of work that once again displays his mastery of film, and that is why I pick it as the best film of the Oscar nominees.
Nolan's visual imagery seems sprung from the mind of M.C. Escher. Staircases tilt into circular, never-ending designs. Cityscapes bend improbably toward the screen, and reflections give way to new realities, all without the slightest hint of artifice. Nolan is also solidly in command of the various crafts that go into film-making, using them not merely to dazzle, but also to inform his story. The sound design matches what we would expect to hear when a street tilts perpendicularly, with all the asphalt and infrastructure giving way to this freak of nature. The art direction created environs that confuse us, because they seem so real yet bear a touch of the incredible. There is particular attention to the cinematography as we enter a variety of dreams, each distinguishable from the others because of their unique color palette, whether it is the stark white of a hidden snow resort of the beige of concrete. (As my daughter pointed out to me, Nolan deserves an Oscar for the hallway fight scene alone.) The fabulous editing makes all of these elements blend together (or perhaps more accurately, helps them coexist distinctly so that the viewer is not confused). Not the least of Nolan’s talents is his ability to draw outstanding performances from his cast (Leonard DiCaprio, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and the much-missed Pete Postlethwaite). As the actors bounce from scene to scene, they all seem to stay in the same film because Nolan can coordinate their performances — an overlooked skill in a medium that nowadays often depends too heavily on the technical. Inception also stays cohesive with the help of Hans Zimmer's evocative and insistent score, which creates a wall-to-wall bed that unifies the film.
Nolan also serves as the anti-James Cameron, as he has the ability to create a literate and labyrinthine screenplay that intertwines with a love story. (For further evidence of his skills, I highly recommend his masterpiece, Memento.) Inception has a Nashville-like ability to tell several stories at once, and Nolan knows how to write images to accomplish this. He doesn't talk his audience to death as Aaron Sorkin does in The Social Network.
For all the artsy-fartsy references to directors as the "sole creative force" behind a film, Nolan's omission from the Best Director nominees is evidence that many film snobs wouldn't know an auteur if one fell on them. This oversight shows how inadequate the Academy (and other award bodies) can be in evaluating the ability to helm a film. It is no wonder that Inception was the highest-grossing live-action film of the year, as its visual artistry was able to cross both cultural and language barriers not only in America but around the world. Not only do I consider Inception the best of this lot, but I also believe it is a singular achievement in creating a uniquely cinematic film.

This is the way I saw them. I have no illusions that my number one will be the winner come the Oscars telecast. But I also doubt that I will be disappointed by the outcome, as most of the films on the list of nominees would deserve to be called “the best.” While the 2011 nominees are likely not destined to contain the number of classics that 1939 list did, I'll take it. A few more years like this one, and the Academy will look awfully smart for having double their number of contenders.

From Business World to World Events, The (Social) Medium Is Indeed the Message

In his centenary year, Marshall McLuhan is as relevant as ever. For example, I just returned from a meeting at The Philadelphia Business Journal, where I spoke to the staff about possible speaking engagements. The hot topic that many hopefuls were proposing were the social media or Web 2.0, the media that are "pushed" to audiences.

However, far from the Philly business world, we are seeing those same social media helping to foment democracies in the Middle East. Whereas the Federalist Papers and other pamphlets fueled the American revolution, and in the way megaphones stoked American students in the 1960s and '70s, protesters in Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia and other countries are organizing through Facebook and Twitter. Furthermore, these same media are allowing the world to see what is happening in these countries, uncensored and free, in many senses of that word. Both the facts and the spirits of these events are spreading.These events demonstrate just how much ahead of his time McLuhan was. He defined media as "any extension of ourselves," and that included new technologies. Though he was writing in the mid-20th century, he was analyzing not only traditional media, (print, radio, TV), but also computers, which at that time were pretty much limited to entire floors of corporate buildings. He understood early that the structures of these media would affect how we perceive the world around us.

For those of us who are promoting ourselves or our organizations, the social media/web 2.0 must be considered part of the mix, if they're not already. We are seeing how the traditional media are chasing the "new" media to get their leads or fill in the facts of a story. Certainly the people of the Middle East get it, and their worlds are reshaping as surely as they did when the Communism fell. It is exciting to see, and we can. Lucky us.

Oprah's Announcement is a Great Lesson in PR

January 24, 2011 -- Oprah Winfrey dropped a bombshell on her audience today when she announced that she had a half-sister of whom she had no previous knowledge. Depending on your viewpoint (or the level of your cynicism), this was either a classic TV moment or a classic Oprah moment: a dramatic reveal, lots of tears, getting to know the sister named Pat, and much time spent on the background of this event.
However, I come at it a different way. I propose that this event is a perfect example of good public relations, such as Oprah and her team have practiced so expertly in the past. Mainly, it supports the notion that a person or organization often should disclose developments or news proactively in order to maintain control of it. Winfrey said as much at the top of the program. She said that she was revealing the news proactively because she and her family wanted to do it on their terms. Based on my own experience, I believe that this was an extremely wise decision.
"I'm telling you today because once the blogs and all the media get hold of this news, there is no telling what they will do with it," Winfrey said. Her strategy aligns with my own, based on my own duties as a media or communications leader. I have often advised my customers and employers that, just as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in nature, neither is there one in news. When a story breaks and there is a shortage of information, people will fill it however they can, whether with innuendo, unsubstantiated sources or even misinformation. At that point, you have lost control of your message, and you are now playing catch up. This problem is exacerbated with the social media, where anyone with a Twitter account can send an erroneous message around the world.
Unlike Winfrey, Jay Cutler, quarterback of the Chicago Bears, has allowed such a lack of control to victimize him. He left yesterday's NFC championship game complaining of a knee injury. But many observed that he seemed to be walking with no apparent pain. It was also observed that he was disengaged from the game, not even advising or interacting with his back-up quarterbacks.
Sports talk radio is now abuzz with conjecture about his "heart," his ability to play big in a big game. Some time soon, an examination of his knee will be made public, and if he does not have a major injury, he will be pilloried both in the Chicago media and across the nation.
Oh, I'm sorry, too late, Jay -- That has already happened. Now you are points behind in your PR game and little time left to fill the gap. Is that a familiar feeling?
When many public officials and other figures were caught doing something they should not have, we have often used this term afterward: "The cover-up is worse than the crime." It is an oft-told tale, yet the large majority of people do not learn from it. Maybe this time, the lesson from Oprah will take.

The Power of Poltical Words: Kennedy's Inaugural Address at 50

Quick, how many U.S. Presidential inaugural speeches can you recall? Other than the words "With malice toward none, with charity for all," from Lincoln's second inaugural, do any phrases jump to mind?

I didn't think so.

This week, on January 20, we observe the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. Though I was a child, I remember how it caused a stir. Now, a half-century later, I know the speech to be stirring still, a testament to speech craft that communicators should continue to study and revere.

Why does this speech, just shy of 14 minutes, stand the test of time? You can't say that it was the national swoon with youth, when the youngest man elected President succeeded the then-oldest in Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan would become the oldest man elected President.) That zeitgeist is lost to us today. It's not even all the themes comprised in the address, as some are anachronistic. For example, Kennedy pledged a measure of militarism that might not be tolerated or appreciated today.

No, the secret to this speech's longevity is its art employed by the writers. (I am purposefully vague here, as the authorship is not completely certain. For decades, the speech was credited to Ted Sorensen, which he denied. Indeed, there are notes in Kennedy's own hand that indicate he was actively involved in writing the address's key phrases.)

As you listen to the speech through this link on YouTube, hear the various devices. One common device is the use repeating phrases that conclude in different sentiments: "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life."

As is common in these sorts of speeches, Kennedy strikes a conciliatory pose, offering to stand above the fray. When he says, "We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom," he practically dares his opponents to diminish his disputed victory.

There is also the power of the repeated word. Look at this use of the simple word "any": "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge -- and more."

Similarly, look at his use here of the words "both" and "problems":
"Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations."
It is both an invitation to negotiation and a challenge to it.

And of course there is that use of the antimetabole (called tongue-in-cheek by some, the "reversible raincoat"), which repeats words in successive phrases, but transposes their order for effect. Of course, the most famous example of this produced the most-quoted phrase: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Another example, seldom cited, simultaneously expresses strength and conciliation: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

We often forget that much of the success of the speech depended on Kennedy himself and his ability to deliver such lofty rhetoric. His voice would rise when needed, and he punched the words that needed emphasis. And yet again, there was Kennedy's youth. As I listened to the speech today, I really had not remembered how high his voice was. This was a man with the energy and enthusiasm to deliver on these problems.

But beyond the craft, I believe the the speech stands up because of the optimism, the ideas that this was still the American century in 1961. "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors," Kennedy intones, an appropriate sentiment during the paranoia of the Atomic Age. "Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce," he called, and Americans believed that there was nothing we could not do.

Sadly, the speech was sadly prophetic of his rudely interrupted term of office when he said that "All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Today, polls show that Kennedy still ranks as the best of the post-World War II presidents. This surprises me, but perhaps the answer lies in this speech. In an era when many so-called political stars speak without wit, compassion, or solutions to the problems they cite, the inspirational words from a man whose best was yet to come are all but irresistible.

ROYAL TREATMENT: Lessons from "The King's Speech"

The King's Speech is a movie about a man finding his voice. It is about friendship. It is about mutual respect. It is about integrity and the sometimes dubious value of "professional certification." It is a movie about courage. In fact, one of the most remarkable things about this wonderful film is that it touches all of these themes so deftly and warmly.

The main architect of the English language, William Shakespeare, wrote in Twelfth Night, "Be not afraid of greatness: some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them." Prince Albert, cum King George VI (the father of the current Queen), had greatness dubiously thrust upon him when his brother, King Edward, abdicated the throne to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson. But Albert (known as Bertie to his family who treated him cruelly) did not seek, did not want, and was not prepared for this royal role for one reason: He spoke with a ferocious and painful stammer. It was difficult for him to get out a simple sentence. He wondered aloud, how could he lead a nation when he could not even speak to them?

Bertie's caring and supportive wife, Elizabeth (played lovingly by Helena Bonham Carter), wants to spare him public humiliation, so she seeks out so-called "professional" speech therapists. Despite their credentials, they seem to be little more than hacks. One prescribes the soothing and relaxing qualities of cigarettes to Bertie. Another employs the tried, trite and untrue method of putting marbles in his mouth. No one seemed able to help.

Then Elizabeth finds Lionel Logue, a struggling (if not failed) actor, and to boot, an Australian, an emigre to the England from their penal colony. Portrayed by the great Geoffrey Rush, Lionel has no academic credentials, but his confidence, skill and humanity are the stuff of success.

To begin, he insists on interacting with Bertie on a first name basis. No titles here. (Having worked in hospitals myself, I found that this practice was important. I learned not to use the title "Doctor" and to address physicians by their names, forcing them to deal with me as a colleague.) Furthermore, Lionel is firm with his patient, insisting on excellence and never patronizing him. He believes that Bertie can be successful, and he wants Bertie to believe it, too.

As Prince Albert, Colin Firth gives an inspiring performance. As the father of a son who has triumphed over stuttering, I could feel his frustration at the inability to get out a simple sentence. I sympathized with his stumbles over a conga line of consonants. But I could also sense the satisfaction that comes with overcoming this problem. (I have learned from my son and others that, like alcoholics, there are no "former" stammerers. One beats the condition every day through sheer determination.)

At one point in the film, Lionel's honor is called into question. He is accused of taking on the job merely to have the cache of a royal client. But at this very moment we realize that Lionel has acted exactly opposite to that charge. He assumed this assignment because of commitment to his craft rather than the bloodlines of his student. (In fact, Lionel displays a measure of disdain for royalty, which is not unusual for someone from outside England.) Furthermore, he becomes Albert's friend, confidante and counselor. Through their interactions, we learn the roots not only of Albert's speech but also of his underlying uncertainty.

After all the preparation is done, and when it comes time for the new King George to inform the British Empire of their entry into World War II, director Tom Hooper makes us feel not only the historical import of the event, but Albert's singular success. The camera follows his walk to the recording studio through long corridors strewn with cables, symbolizing his long journey to get to this moment. As Albert speaks, Hooper cuts to visuals of listeners who would fight this war for the Crown: factory workers, truckers and the middle class. We also see signs at the transmitters that show how the message is being broadcast to the colonies of the U.K., a symbol of the reach of the new King's power.

One could argue that Albert was born great just by virtue of his royal lineage. But he had greatness thrust upon him in an unusual turn of unforeseen and unprecedented events. Through his own courage and the help of a loving partner-in-life and a new-found friend, he achieves his own measure of majesty. It is a simple story made great by the telling, a footnote to history that we may not have known. As a speaker and communicator, this film resonates with me. As a man, as a husband, and as a friend of others, I find it unforgettable and inspiring.

(As an extra bonus to you, my loyal readers, here is a link to the actual speech by King George in which he rallied the English people to enter the War, made available through the BBC archives. It is important to know that this wonderful script was written by David Seidler, who was a stutterer himself, but was inspired to fight his situation by this very event. Unfortunately for all of us, he promised Elizabeth the Queen Mum that he would not make his script known until she was gone. However, she had the temerity to wait until 2001 to pass, when she was 101. Otherwise, we may have enjoyed this story much earlier.)
.

Getting the Holidays Right

Francis and Julia Rocchi, Christmas, c. 1989

My wife, Marie, and I always tried to de-emphasize the gift-giving aspects of Christmas in favor of the spiritual side and the importance of family. One year, my daughter innocently and inadvertently taught me that we were heading in the right direction.
We lived in upstate New York at the time. A few short days before Christmas, I had to make a run to the mall to pick up some last-minute gifts. There was much to do. We had pageants, Mass and other activities at our church, school and community. We would spend Christmas Day together, just the four of us. Then we would hit the road to be with our families back in Philadelphia. I had very little time that day, but I was able to spare a hour or two to get some final items. I grabbed my daughter Julia, about 7, and we were off.
The mall was amazingly quiet given that it was just before Christmas. Luckily, that allowed me to get what I needed. Julia asked if she could see Santa Claus. Since we had time to spare, it was no problem.
I let her go, and she had Santa all to herself. I observed from a distance, and I could see that she was quite animated, really chatting up the old man, so I could only imagine what kind of booty she wanted for Christmas.
When I went to retrieve her, she went off to see some decorations. I asked Santa privately, out of her earshot, what she asked him for.
"Oh, she didn't ask for anything," he said.
I was taken aback. "She sat with you a long time. What was she talking about?"
"She was telling me all about how you were going to church tonight, how you were going to be together for Christmas and then travel to be with family. Most kids spend their times telling me about what they want. But she was totally focused on family."
Hm. I guess Marie and I got it right that year.
I have been reminded of that story every Christmas since because, I'm sorry to say, our view of the holiday is looking more and more unusual. To say it is about gifts is a cliche. To say that we don't keep Christ in Christmas is even more obvious. But in the end, I don't know if any of us know what this holiday means any more. Perhaps it has come to mean nothing.
When I turn on the television, I see so many images that are unrelated and even random. There are saccharine movies on Showtime or The Hallmark Channel. Cartoon specials about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman and The Polar Express. They all add up to...

Nothing in particular. In the end, they do not comprise a unifying image of Christmas. The radio is just as bad, with songs about lists of things that kids want, grown-up lists of things we want, a seductress that wants cash from Kris Kringle, and people being blue because someone they love is not with them for the holiday (Merry Christmas Darling, All I Want for Christmas is You, Blue Christmas, etc.). But why do these people want someone with them at this time of year? Either they don't need to say it out loud because we know intuitively, or they don't say it because they don't know themselves. Karen Carpenter sang that logs on the fire filled her with desire. But desire for what? Why bother?

However, during that one Christmas, our daughter (and later our son, Francis) showed us that we were able to cut through the Yuletide clutter. By taking them to church, singing "Happy Birthday" to Jesus, hearing religious music more than the secular, and showing them many more Nativity scenes than pictures of Santa, we have had a modicum of success in fighting a distinctly myopic view of the holiday. I only hope that we can do the same with other holidays. I like to remember that the Fourth of July and Memorial Day are not just long weekends, but were actually created to honor heroes. But I guess I'll take one battle at a time.

The end-of-year holidays can be significant to all of us, as most of us can find their roots in our individual cultures. I hope you find your own special meaning in these days, and I wish you all health and happiness in the new year.

BAH! HUMBUG on all-Christmas radio!

I generally hate to add any negativity to this lovely season, but here goes...

I have come to hate all-Christmas radio broadcasting.

There, I said it. I have become a Christmas Crab on this subject. And believe me, I love Christmas. I sing it every year with my group, A Cappella Pops. I have more CDs than my family care for me to have, and I play them constantly. One of my biggest coups in life was getting a car with a multi-CD play that even scrambles the selections. Oh, Joy! Now I can have a wide variety of Christmas music playing during all of my drive time. (Add this to the long list of things that drive my wife nuts.)

However, my idea of Christmas music is not the same as radio programmers. To me, Christmas is about being with family, and believe it or not, I actually believe it is about celebrating the birth of Christ, the seed of the Christian faith. I believe this just as I regard Hanukkah as the remembrance of a miraculous victory rather than eight days of gift-giving.

Yes, I snap my fingers to Mariah Carey singing "All I Want for Christmas is You," but not once an hour. Once a week will do, thank you. And while I believe that the season is captured in the lovely "O Holy Night," I don't think the song was composed so that Celine Dion could pop several arteries proving she can hit the high note at the end.

Now the all-Christmas stations start their assault on Thanksgiving and stop sharp on midnight of Christmas Day. (By the way, people in Europe treat Christmas as a season, not a one-day event. Hello, the 12 days of Christmas? Anyone hear of that?) That's a long time to endure mind-numbingly bad music, such as "Do They Know It's Christmas," or "Grown-Up Christmas List." And please don't get me started on "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer."

So, excuse me, Radio Programmers, I will pass on your secular selections until you show more awareness of what the season is all about. In the meantime, dear readers, I direct you to a performance of what I regard as one of the greatest Christmas songs of all time, In the First Light, as performed by Glad. Enjoy, and happy holidays.

SWIFT JUSTICE -- This Entertainer has Earned her Leading Status Through Careful, Consistent Image Management

Several years ago, a good friend who lives in the Reading, Pa., area had a visitor to his home. He and his son are both musicians, and a young female friend of the son came to their home. "Would you like to listen to my music?," she asked. "I wrote some songs, and I'd like to play them for you."
He listened, and yes, they were pretty good songs. He also liked the young lady, thinking she was sweet and polite.
A few years later, her parents took a huge leap of faith and moved from Pennsylvania to Nashville to support her dream of being a songwriter. It paid off big, for their daughter, for themselves and for all of us.
The title of this post and the accompanying photo tip my hand, I'm sure. Yes, the young lady in question is Taylor Swift, who has just been named by Entertainment Weekly magazine as the Entertainer of the Year.
I cannot imagine anyone more deserving. Think of her accomplishments in the past year alone: A Grammy for Best Album of the Year, and three more in a variety of categories. A new album, Speak Now, which sold more than a million copies in its first week (PLATINUM IN ONE WEEK!) and for which she wrote all the songs. An appearance in a hit movie, Valentine's Day. Hosting Saturday Night Live, and showing herself to be a pretty capable sketch comedian. A successful tour. Surviving and even deftly handling a zeitgeist moment when rapper Kanye West publicly dissed her at the MTV Video Awards, calling Swift unworthy of her trophy when compared to Beyonce.
Most people view the world through their own prism, and mine tends to communication and marketing. What amazes me most about this artist is the consistency of her vision and her subtle self-confidence. This is most evident in her careful stewardship of her own image and messaging, staying calm in every situation.
Would you argue that she owes that to her handlers? I don't. She stood on that stage alone at the MTV Awards when West dishonored her, and she handled the situation with more grace and restraint than we have the right to expect from a 20-year-old. Also, I was impressed by her calm control during her in the course of her interview with EW. Her expressions were articulate, her words as well-chosen as you would hope from a successful songwriter. She diminished the interviewer's suggestion from others that she saved the music business: "I write music about my life and love and relationships, and...(t)hat's where I have to draw the line as far as what I am and what I am not."
The interviewer also asked how she felt about being linked to Kanye West. She replied, "The one choice that I do have, that I continue to make, is to not talk about it."
The interviewer next asked if she had heard his new record. Underlining her point, she simply replied, "I don't want to talk about him."
End of story. Point well made, Ms. Swift.
I don't own one of her albums, although I listen to her and catch her on the tube when I can. (Let's get real; I'm not part of her target demographic.) But I look forward to watching her grow as an artist and a cultural force. I dare say she is off to an astounding start.

We Need Leslie Nielsen, a Hero for These Challenging Times

Okay, so I was in an airport in Boston maybe 30 years ago, waiting for my plane. I had gone for a job interview, and when it was over, I called my wife, Marie, and told her how it went.

When I got off the phone, I was wandering the concourse when I looked over and saw a crowd of people staring at a man who was sitting alone. He was tall, grey-haired and pretty handsome. It was Leslie Nielsen, star of the movie Airplane! and the TV show Police Squad.

People were just looking at him, poking each other and not doing anything in particular. But no one was talking to him. I thought What the Hell, and I walked up to him and stuck out my hand.

"Mr. Nielsen, I know you have no idea who I am, but my name is Pat Rocchi, and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your movies and how much pleasure you have brought into my life."

He was taken aback at this. I don't know if it was the audacity I had to just walk up to him and tell him how much I liked him or if it was the frank admiration of his work. He gathered himself for a moment before he rose and said, "Well, thank you; thank you very much.'
He paused for a moment and, groping for something to say, he told me, "You know we have a new Police Squad movie coming out." He was referring to his then-upcoming film, The Naked Gun.

Being a movie buff and a fan of the TV show, I was aware that it had been in production. "Yes, I was aware that you were working on it. How is it?" (Such a small-talk thing to say, as though he would respond with, "It sucks. Don't go see it.")

His eyes lit up. "It's very funny, very funny. I think you'll enjoy it." In fact, I did. It is still none of my favorite comic movies of all time, just for the sheer silliness of it.

I had to ask him about his foray into comedy at a later part in his career. "Mr. Nielsen, I remember you as the Swamp Fox (an old Disney show about the American rebel, Francis Marion), and you were always so upright and serious. How do you like this new role in comedy?"

With that, he broke into a big, broad, absolutely sincere smile. "I love it," he said, quickly adding with a sly wink, "I like being dumb and stupid for people!"

We exchanged a few more pleasantries and, not wishing to overstay my welcome, I shook his hand and thanked him for his time. But one thing disappointed me. "You know, I just got off the phone with my wife, and she is also a big fan. She will never believe I met you."

He thought for a moment and then said, "Well, let's see if we can convince her." With that, he reached into his pocket and pulled out a handful of change. I was thinking, "Will he give me a quarter, and I must tell Marie that it came from Leslie Nielsen?" But he poked around the objects from his pocket, and pulled out a lapel pin that was a replica of the badge he wore in his TV show, Police Squad. He handed it to me and said, "Here. Give that to your wife, and she will know that you met me."

I was incredulous, gratified and delighted, all at once. I shook his hand again, laughing, and said, "Well thank you very much, Mr. Nielsen. I will always treasure it."

And I have. Never more than I do today. I wear it occasionally to an event just as a conversation starter, and the story never fails to get a laugh, as well as some appreciation for Mr. Nielsen's graciousness that day. He really has given me a lot of enjoyment over the years through his work, but that little encounter with me, an average fan of no particular import, makes me remember him very specially. I'm glad we had him, and I will miss him. Thank goodness for the permanence of film and video.

By the way, if you can, I suggest you search for the six-episode series of Police Squad on video, either streaming or by purchasing the DVDs. As my personal friend Leslie Neilsen told me, "It's very funny, very funny."

Leslie Nielsen died on Sunday, November 29, 2010, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., of complications from pneumonia. He was 84 years old.