Rex Reed...feared film critic dapper! Articulate and outspoken...

 

Mint Julip, please!

Occasionally, I get the urge to pick up a specific newspaper or magazine.

Generally, that is a sign (my inner voice speaking) that there is an article or news item in the publication that warrants my scrutiny.

Or, just maybe, right for a post that day!

Sure enough, when I responded to the calling earlier this week by plucking up a disgarded copy of Beverly Hills (213) off a diner's table in a trendy watering hole on Canon Drive, I was not disappointed.

Rex Reed graced the cover in a publicity still that underscored what a smart-looking man-about-town he truly is (regardless of the occasional bad rap - and subsequent  baggage- that he hauls along in his shadow).

In fact, as I gazed upon the image, I couldn't help but notice his stylish attire was impeccable in every sense of the word (correctly-knotted tie, right amount of shirt sleeve peering out from the jacket sleeve, a collar that framed his cravat just so) from the get-go.

Suddenly, it struck me like a bolt of lightning, that Reed was a likely candidate for next year's prestigious Best-Dressed Men's list.

And the eyes - well - they are devastating also.

Rex is (quite simply) the country gentleman personified (in this photograph anyway) provided the acid tongue is kept firmly in check (cheek?).

The career profile was entertaining to peruse as well.

The editors noted that Reed is the most-known, well-respected, and most-feared film critics of all time.

Darn, I thought that was my slot in life!

No matter.

In respect to that dubious title, he notes for the record - after being queried about his well-earned status - that it doesn't worry him a bit about the possibility of running into a subject he has dragged through coals by virtue of a nasty film review.

"I just say what I believe (!) and that is why I have a career."

"Do you know how many people were movie critics when I first started out? Nobody even remembers their names and they're not even around anymore and they've completely vanished - even the ones who did not die - vanished!"

"I'm still here doing this," he no doubt smiled with a cheshire grin during the interview.

"Why?"

"Because I never compromise and the one thing I will say is because I have good taste (Myra Breckenridge an example of it?) And am I a snob? YES!  I'm a snob about mediocrity. I'm up to my eyeballs in second-rated-ness."

Is "second-rated-ness" actually a legit term in the dictionary?

Doesn't matter.

If Rex has coined the son-of-a-gun, it's downright kosher, alright.

One of the perks of being a legend in one's own mind, I expect, eh?

When asked about the state of the film industry, he turned bug-eyed (I imagine) and wailed that the biz depended entirely on the people who won't settle for second best (Reed and moi, of course).

The film critic was livid about the fact that few filmgoers were lining up to see a handful of recent faves  making the rounds of movie Theatres - "Up in the Air", "Public Enemies", "The Last Station" - for instance.

On the other hand, he quipped viciously that Sherlock Holmes was an absolute noisy, filthy, horrible, stupid, disgrace of a movie that was making a lot of money nonetheless.

I laughed when he also snarled that "Hurt Locker" was the best movie you'd never want to see twice.

Not primed or ready to become a classic, huh,  Rex?

Rex would prefer that movies illuminate the human condition - enlighten and inspire - too.

"James Cameron really doesn't know about life. His movies are about teenage comic book fantasies."

I suppose old age is creeping in and that Rex is subsequently losing his memory; after all, if my own grey cells  serve me right, I recall that Cameron directed one of the biggest block-buster romances of all time ever to grace the screen (Titanic).

Ooops!

But, nobody's perfect.

Rex has already written his epitaph to explain away his side of things on this mortal coil.

"He (Rex Reed) tried to make things better."

Amen!

Rex with Raquel Welch on set!

(Myra Breckinridge)

http://www.thetattler.biz

Babies..."damaged goods" due to lack of parenting skills!

The other morning as I was exiting Starbucks, a woman strode up to the front door of the popular cafe pushing a stroller with a baby inside.

Then, for some inexplicable reason, she turned the buggie on its wheels and scurried off the other way. As I alighted from the cafe, I noticed her cowering in the corner near a table. Other patrons were staring at her oddly, too.

When I asked her if she'd like some assistance opening the door, she mumbled something incoherently.

Perplexed, I went on my way; but my heart went out to that child.

If the woman was on drugs or alcohol, the effect on a young tot could be devastating.

Many parents are unaware of the fact that in the formative years - one to five, in particular - their baby is most impressionable.

During that time span, most of their personality traits are formed, arising out of daily events - negative and positive - that parents unwittingly thrust them in to.

In some instances, a lack of proper care and nurturing may not only scar the young one, but result in a personality disorder that he or she may carry around with them for life.

I have been fascinated by the subject every since I took a course in psychology focusing on - "Personality Profiles" - a few years ago at St. Mary's College in Brentwood, California.

A number of prominent psychologists contributed to the fascinating course material in the compulsory text.

Eric Erickson - for instance - believed that personality develops in a series of stages and his intriguing theories zeroed in on the impact of social experience across the individual's entire lifespan.

One of the main elements of Erikson’s psychosocial stage theory is the development of ego identity, an interest shared by fellow colleague, Sigmund Freud.

Freud (who shared my birthday!) theorized that there are three basic aspects to that identity: the Id, the Ego, and the Superego.

Ego identity is the conscious sense of self that we develop through social interaction. According to Erikson, our ego identity is constantly changing due to daily experiences and information acquired in our constant interactions with others.

Obviously, the quality of the relationship between mother and child in those early years is of paramount importance.

In addition to ego identity, the prominent scholar also believed that a sense of competence also motivated behaviors and actions.

In Erickson's view, there are a handful of stages that are intertwined with the task of becoming competent in a specific area of life. If the stage is handled well, for example, the person will feel a sense of mastery in their sphere. If the stage is managed poorly, the individual may emerge with a deep-rooted sense of inadequacy.

In each stage, Erikson believed people experience a conflict that serves as a turning point in their development. And, these conflicts are centered on either developing a psychological quality or failing to develop that quality.

During these times, the potential for personal growth is high, but so is the potential for failure.

Trust vs. Mistrust (Stage 1)

The first stage of Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development occurs between birth and one year of age and is the most fundamentally important stage. Because an infant is utterly dependent, the development of trust is based on the dependability and quality of the child’s parents.

If a child successfully develops trust, they will feel safe and secure in the world. Providers who are - inconsistent, emotionally unavailable, or rejecting - contribute to feelings of mistrust in the children they watch over. Failure to develop trust will result in fear and a belief that the world is inconsistent and unpredictable.

Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (stage 2)

The second stage of Erikson's theory of psychosocial development takes place during early childhood and is focused on children developing a greater sense of personal control and freedom in their environment.

Like Freud, Erikson believed that toilet training was a vital part of this process. However, Erikson's reasoning was quite different then that of Freud's. Erikson believe that learning to control one’s body functions leads to a feeling of control and a sense of independence.

In contrast, other psychologists mentioned in the course, felt that potty-training a child too early may result in the development of an anal retentive personality!

Other important events include selective control at meal times, preferences for playthings, and clothing selection.

Children who successfully complete stage two (moi) feel secure and confident, while those who do not are left with a sense of inadequacy and self-doubt.


Add a negligent parent, without parenting skills into the mix, and the end result is obvious: a troubled untrusting child unable to develop properly through the natural stages in the early years.

Something to chew on, parents.

Clarence Darrow once said,

The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents, and the second half by our children.