LIve Aid at 40: Personal Reflections from the Day Pop Music Reached Its Pinnacle: Part 1

As we reach the 40th anniversary of Live Aid, many articles are being written and CNN is planning a multi-episode documentary about what was inarguably the greatest day in the history of pop music. Ahead of that documentary, and before I or anyone else is prejudiced by what we learn and how it's presented, here's my first-hand account of how the event went down and recollections (and recordedings) of someone who was completely immersed in the event from the moment it was announced:

This was going to be BIG

I'll begin by recalling the scant (by today's standards) coverage of the show's announcement. Remember this was the mid 80's so there was no internet; there were only three TV networks; and even basic cable (which many households still did not have) only provided about 40 channels. Still, it soon became clear that Live Aid (with its overlapping concerts at Wembley Stadium in London and JFK Stadium in Philadelphia) was going to be something huge. Both Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas", the charity record for famine relief in Africa that Bob Geldof had organized in December '84, and the American recording industry's answer, USA for Africa's "We Are the World", were both massive hits that generating millions. Now Geldof was announcing he'd be continuing that momentum by joining forces with American organizers and artists for a one-time music event taking place on two continents. An event that might quite literally include every relevant music artist in the world of pop and rock.

Indeed, Live Aid's lineup read like a who's who of the Top 40. Case in point, the week that Live Aid was announced, George Michael, Billy Ocean, Bryan Adams, Howard Jones, Simple Minds, Madonna, Phil Collins, Sade and Duran Duran all had songs in the Top 20. All would go on to appear at Live Aid. And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Queen, Hall & Oates, The Pretenders, Adam Ant, Black Sabbath, Lionel Richie, The Cars, U2, Mick Jagger... The ever-growing lineup was so much of a wish list and so hard to keep track of, I felt the need to document it in one of my college notebooks and for this article, I went to the Pop Culture Fiend Archives and dug up this old momento. 

Note that the "L's" and "P's" specify which venue the artist apeared (London or Philadelphia) and the check mark indicates it was a performance I actually got to see. Looking back now I realize that I most likely copied this list of scheduled acts from one the early announcements in Rolling Stone magazine or an MTV news report. And it's clear it most have been an early announcement, as multiple acts lsted (e.g. Culture Club and Tears For Fears) dropped out and/or wound up not appearing.

MIAs

In addition to Tears for Fears, Huey Lewis and the News were one of the big names that wound up not appearing. Lewis apparently had questions about mismanagement of the "We Are the World" funds and whether the money raised was actually being used to feed the starving Africa. This created controversy with the organizers and Lewis and his band were soon struck from the Live Aid bill. Other notable artists who failed to appear included:

Prince - The purple one was scheduled to be a part of "We Are the World" but missed the recording session, with excuses ranging from his bodyguard getting into a scrape at the American Music Awards earlier that evening, to rumors he just flat out hated the song. Why Prince missed Live Aid is not clear but it's also not very surprising as he was always aloof and mercurial. 

Michael Jackson - One of the creative forces behind We Are the World, MJ would miss Live Aid with his publicist giving the excuse that Jackson was "immersed in heavy projects." (Tina Turner would go on to replace him in a planned duet of "State of Shock" with Jagger.)

Cyndi Lauper - Lauper almost took some bad advice and turned down her "We Are the World" invite. In the end, she was talked into by Lionel Richie. Apparently no such persuasion took place for Live Aid, and it's likely Lauper was asked to participate but passed.

Billy Joel - Geldof had a number of counter-intuitive and downright strange ideas for the Live Aid shows. He almost didn't ask Queen, foolishly figuring that their time had come and gone. As for Billy Joel, even with a storied career that at the time already included 11 studio albums, 10 Grammy noms and 5 wins, for Live Aid Geldof purportedly only wanted him to play piano. Joel and his management rightly felt this was a silly waste of his talents and no deal was ever made.

Eurythmics - The popular British duo was set to play but had to bow out of the show when Annie Lennox developed a throat infection.

Yes and Foreigner -- Both bands reportedly wanted in on Live Aid but by the time they asked to participate, the shows were booked solid and the organizers had to start turn them away. It's worth noting that as it grew in size and scope, Live Aid, despite being a charitable endeavor, lost its "come one, come all" vibe. After a slow start, momentum began to build and several artists who had been asked to play changed their answer from "maybe" to "yes". Additionally, more and more artists who hadn't been personally approached were now making calls asking to join. Some of this was fueled by genuine desire to do their part for such a good cause; some no doubt by record companies and artists' reps worried that their clients not being part of the show would diminish their perceived importance in the music world.

One who didn't have to plead for a spot was Bruce Springsteen. Geldof and company wanted him bad, but the latest leg of the Born in the USA tour had recently ended and the E Street Band was enjoying its first break in over 5 months. Springsteen felt it wasn't fair to reorganize everyone on such short notice so he politely declined.

In addition to Prince and Michael Jackson, it's also worth mentioning the multitude of other acclaimed black artists that for one reason or another were not at Live Aid. This list includes Earth Wind and Fire,  George Benson, Grandmaster Flash, James Brown, Chuck Berry, DeBarge, Rick James, Kool and the Gang and Donna Summer, as well as "We Are the World" veterans Ray Charles, The Pointer Sisters, Dionne Warwick, Diana Ross, Al Jarreau, Jeffrey Osborne, Sheila E., James Ingram and Stevie Wonder. Chaka Kahn was also notably absent and in the weeks leading up to the event, publicly questioned the lineup's lack of diversity. Geldof fired back, implying that among the black artists he had asked to play the show, there seemed to be a lack of enthusiam and a general "I already gave at the office" attitude. In the end, the show's organizers did feel the need to include more black artists and Run-DMC (who curiously had initially been turned down), Ashford & Simpson, Patti Labelle, and Teddy Pendergrass secured spots.

The Broadcast

In America, coverage of Live Aid was split between MTV and ABC. MTV would begin its broadcast at 7:00 AM (ET) with the Wembley performances; ABC coverage would kick in late in the day and continue through prime time. At least one major New York radio station would simulcast the entire event, which pleased me no end, as in the days leading up to Live Aid, my plans to attend the Philadelphia concert were threatened.

And no, attending Live Aid in person wasn't some pipe dream for me. Philadelphia was just a short two hour ride down the turnpike from my home in north Jersey. What's more, I had tons of family living in Philly and had visited and stayed in the city (sometimes for weeks at a stretch) more times than I could count. Point being, I was familiar enough with the city that it wasn't an intimidating idea to plan on waking up early and making my way to JFK. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to secure tickets, not because they were too expensive (the $35 - $50 cost for a lineup of this magnitude was super cheap even for 1985) but because the process and logistics of buying concert tickets in the mid-80's were perhaps even more frustrating than the fiasco it often is today. First, just knowing when and where tickets were going on sale was a challenge. With no internet/social media, you relied largely on local radio to clue you in, which meant you needed to constantly be tuned in to your favorite station. Then, if you did hear that a record store or other venue would be selling tickets, there was often the rather time consuming and chaotic process of lining up (sometimes days in advance) just to receive a bracelet that would only make you eligible to buy tickets once they went on sale. When that day came, you had to return to the venue, line up all over again and hope tickets didn't sell out before it was your turn. The whole thing was as frustrating and unpalatable as it sounds, and somewhere along the way I missed a step. Live Aid quickly sold out and I was left ticketless.

But not to worry; I had a backup plan. Drive to the Philly show, purchase tickets from a scalper and witness music history.

It didn't quite work out that way. As I anxiously counted down the days to the concert, I waffled and wondered, "What if I drive all the way to JFK and can't find a scalper?" I had never scalped before and didn't know any tips or tricks to purchase tickets this way. Plus, I figured everyone was viewing this show the same way I saw it -- as a once in a lifetime event. In that case, anyone with tickets to sell was going to have a quick and easy job. What if I got to the venue too late and even the scalpers were sold out? Plus the drive from New Jersey to Pennsylvania was going to take at least two and half hours. With the drive back, this meant missing six or seven hours of the concert if I failed to score tickets. The idea of that made me nervous. Add that to the fact that attending the Philadelphia show, as great as that would be, would be at the cost of missing the entirety of the London acts. I pondered my decision and debated making the trip all the way to the night before the show, when by chance, I happened to be out with friends til around 3:00 AM... That settled it. I decided to forego my plan to see Live Aid in person, made it home, set my alarm clock for seven o'clock and hit the sack.

The Live Aid Tapes

Waking up early the next morning for the start of the London show (after barely three hours of sleep) I switched on the small 13-inch black and white TV in my room. I knew from the announced schedule that the first several acts included no one I was particularly excited to see. Status Quo, Style Council, Ultravox, and Geldof's band Boomtown Rats. I dozed for the next couple of hours and finally fully woke up in preparation to see one of my favorite artists at the time, Sting. I tuned in the simulcast, loaded the first of the brand new Maxell cassette tapes I'd purchased especially for this purpose, and started recording. It would be the first of over four hours of live performances I would capture and keep to this day. For literally decades, stereo recordings like this made by me and others would be the only way to relive Live Aid and enjoy these performances again. It would take nearly 20 years (2005 to be exact) before a DVD set of the event would be released. Rather curiously to this day, it seems there's still no CD or other digital audio format release. In light of that, I often weigh my decision not to make more of an effort to attend the concert in person. Seeing the Philadelphia show would have meant sacrificing seeing the London show (until 2005) as well as never having an audio recording to play back. As memorable as actually being there may have been, it would have been a tremendous loss to go through the remainder of my youth (and into my 30's) before getting to enjoy any version of the Live Aid performances again.

London

And so the acts rolled through and scores of memorable moments began. 

Sting performed a subdued, acoustic set of Police hits and introduced saxophonist Branford Marsalis, part of his new heavily jazz-influenced band that played on Sting's just released The Dream of the Blue Turtles album.

Phil Collins joined Sting halfway through his set and was equally subdued in his renditions of "Against All Odds", "In the Air Tonight" and "Long Long Way to Go".

Sade stood out with a sultry performance highlighted by "Your Love is King". Though by all accounts she hit the stage before Sting and Phil Collins, MTV's coverage made it appear that her appearance was much later. This was perhaps explained by something I'd learn weeks later:  as part of its deal, ABC had purchased the right to block live coverage of several acts — including David Bowie, Elton John and others — until later in the day. This meant that in some instances, artists performances on television were not taking place in treal time.

As morning gave way to afternoon, the London show hit its stride with back-to-back performances by Paul Young (at the time riding high on the charts with "Every Time You Go Away"), Alison Moyet, U2, Dire Straits (their soon to be #1 hit "Money for Nothing" had been released just two weeks earlier) and (drumroll please...) Queen.

Queen

So how great was Queen?...  Why are they getting a section of this article all to themselves?... Well, as  Queen's participation may have difficult to secure, but once they hit the stage, it was apparent from the start that the band's perfomace was absolutely iconic. Forty years removed, everyone from music historians to casual music fans agree on this. 

The best way to describe Queen at Live Aid?... It was like Michael Jordan in his prime. Anyone (even someone who knew nothing about basketball) could watch Jordan for a few minutes on the court and be able to point at him and say with confidence, "Yeah, that guy's the best one out there." That was Queen performing at Wembley that day. Even in a setting where they were measured against the best the music world had to offer, their performance stood above all others. Their set included some of their more recent cuts ("Radio Ga Ga" and "Hammer To Fall") along with signature songs "Bohemian Rhapsody", "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions". Queen is absolutely revered in England (maybe even moreso than the Beatles) and the fans at Wembley proved this yet again. Their energy during the band's performance reverberated over the airwaves, across the Atlantic, and through television screens like mine all over the U.S. If you haven't seen this performance, stop reading and watch it below.

Philadelphia and the Back and Forth Coverage

By the time Queen finished their epic performance, the Philadelphia show was already well underway. Joan Baez had kicked things off by rather ridiculously proclaiming to the crowd, "This is your Woodstock!" Sorry Joan, Woodstock was a seminal event in music and concert history, but Live Aid played out on a world (not just an American) stage, reached a far greater audience of 1.5 billion, had a much more important cause fueling it, and greater participation (i.e., more acts). You measure Woodstock by who was there; you think about Live Aid and ask, "Who wasn't there?" No offense Joan, but compared to Live Aid, Woodstock was just a backyard hootenanny.

As I went about swapping in fresh cassette tapes into my stereo, I knew I was recording something historic. Something to be kept and treasured for all time. One of the first Philadelphia acts I captured were the Beach Boys, who finished their fun set with "Surfin' USA". With the Philly show going and now two concerts to cover (plus the aforementioned ABC deal that blocked coverage of some acts until later in the day) MTV's hand was forced and the network began taking libertties with regard to performances on two continents overlapping and how to cover them. This resulted in times when only part of an artist's set was broadcast before the network would cut to someone (or something) else -- a fact I discovered with the 2005 DVD release. I along with millions of viewers around the world never knew that we missed songs by Sade, U2, and others. Even more disappointingly, some artists' performances (like Run-DMC, George Thorogood and REO Speedwagon) received little or no coverage at all. 

But back to the show... Shortly after the Beach Boys, I was able to catch the entireity of David Bowie (back at Wembley), The Pretenders (who, after Queen, might have given my favorite performance of the day) and Elton John. The latter was quite memorable for his reunion with Kiki Dee on "Don't Go Breaking My Heart" and his team up with George Michael on "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me". This was one of, if not the, first time the two had performed the popular power ballad in public. Michael's soaring vocals took the song to a different level, and six years later a studio version would be released that hit #1 on charts across the world.

And this brings us to back to U.S. for Madonna.

Oh yes, Madonna... I have some interesting backstory and distinct memories to share regarding her appearance at Live Aid... but I'll save that for Part II.

Related Posts:
The Death of Freddie Mercury and How Great Was Queen?

5 Films Hollywood Needs to Get to Work On

Back in 1990, my friend Steve and I were riding down the New Jersey Turnpike in a rented truck, delivering furniture to his parents' new home in Pennsylvania. The experience was memorable for two reasons. First, an 18-wheeler traveling right next to us blew a tire and scared the crap out of us. And second, we spent a good portion of the two hour drive reminiscing about one of our favorite childhood animated series, Speed Racer. Steve and I then proceeded to discuss how the show was a cult favorite, how the protagonist and premise (a young race car driver with a unique, high tech automobile) were ideal for the big screen, and the chances of us ever seeing a live-action Speed Racer movie. We then shared ideas about casting, including Johnny Depp as Speed (remember, this was 1990), Depp's former real-life girlfriend Winona Ryder as Trixie, Alec Baldwin as Racer X,  Fred Savage (The Wonder Years) as Spritle, Wilford Brimley as Pops and Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee "Bubbles" as Chim-Chim.

Keep in mind, this was more than a decade before an ACTUAL Speed Racer movie would even take its first steps into production. Which is why, as ridiculous as we know it is, Steve and I still consider the Speed Racer movie OUR baby. So when the the Wachowskis gave us that hot mess of a picture back in May of 2008, we were both sorely disappointed and extremely bitter. A movie that we had wished and waited so long for, had been ruined. 

So there's nothing left for me to do now but move on and as I do, consider the other fantastic properties we need to see made. It's baffling to me how the Hollywood studios can't seem to get out of their own way and ink the deals needed to get these films into production. If they ever do, each of the following is a potential blockbuster that could earn huge dollars at the box office.

The Six Million Dollar Man

  

The premise of the 1970's series starring Lee Majors sees a test pilot/astronaut critically injured in a crash, fitted with bionic implants and turned into a government operative. I'm thinking Ryan Gosling -- who coincidentally recently starred in the movie adaptation of another Lee Majors series (The Fall Guy) -- for the role of Colonel Steve Austin.

Status Update: Several years ago, there were rumors of a Six Billion Dollar Man (Inflation's a bitch -- ain't it?!) being developed by the Weinstein Company, directed by Bryan (X-Men) Singer and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. More recently, there have been ongoing efforts to create a movie version with Mark Wahlberg attached to star. That project has been in development for almost a dozen years. Despite various delays and changes in filmmakers, Wahlberg remains committed to the project, stating that he's "still grinding every day to get it made."

The Warriors remake

The 1979 original was a low-cost surprising moneymaker for Paramount. Though the idea of New York City gangs dressed as mimes, wearing Yankee uniforms and Kiss-like makeup, and sporting silk purple vests and fedoras is light years beyond hokey, subsequent to its initial theatrical release, the film garnered huge cult status via cable and home video. In 2005, we even got a Warriors video game. As we near its 50th anniversary, a proper, more modern big-budget remake would be spectacular in the hands of a master of gritty violence like Breaking Bad writer/producer/director Vince Gilligan.

Status Update: Plans for a remake go at least as far back as 2005, when the Scott brothers (Ridley and Tony) were reportedly set to produce and direct. In 2016, the Russo brothers (The Avengers) were reportedly developing a TV adaption for Hulu but that project seems to no longer be on the radar.

The Donner Party

The Donner Party was a group of American pioneers in the 1840's who set out to California from Missouri. Through an incredible series of circumstances and misfortunes, the group was trapped by snow and forced to winter in Sierra Nevada, where members of the party succumbed to starvation, exposure, disease, and trauma before resorting to cannibalism. It's an absolutely riveting story and although the disaster movie genre that gave us classics like The Poseidon Adventure, Towering Inferno and Airport, has largely died out, here's a perfect opportunity to bring it back. I'm thinking an all-star cast featuring Kit Harrington, Emma Stone, Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire in key roles.

Status Update: In 1978, there was a TV movie titled Donner Pass that recounted the story and in 2009, Crispin Glover starred in The Donner Party, a straight-to-DVD thriller in the vein of Alive, that takes certain liberties in retelling the actual events. Then in 2011, a feature film also titled Donner Pass was released. Billed as "a twisted take on the legend of the Donner Party", it was a historically inaccurate and pedestrian slasher pic about teens stranded in one of the Donner Party's old cabins who (rather predictably) get mysteriously killed and eaten one by one. There have also been multiple documentaries and made for TV movies about the Donner Party, such as Dead of Winter: The Donner Party (2015). 

The last real attempt to tell this story onscreen seems to be an adaptation of the novel The Hunger which purportedly incorporated the story of the Donner Party with a "Walking Dead-style twist." That project was being developed by 20th Century Fox, with Luke Scott (son of Ridley) set to write and direct -- but that was nine years ago and since then, nothing.

Logan's Run 

The 1976 thriller Logan's Run is set in a future dystopian society where people live a care-free, hedonistic lifestyle... until they're ceremoniously death-rayed at the age of thirty in order to control the population. As science fiction, the film has a cheesy, 1950's-type perspective of life in the future. But at the same time, it offers sobering Orwellian perspectives on totalitarian rule, how much humans should entrust to technology, and the dangers that come with blindly accepting the status quo.

Status Update: A proposed Logan's Run remake has bounced around Hollywood for years with various above the line talent attached, including screenwriter Will Beall (Justice League) and directors Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) and Joseph Kosinski (Top Gun: Maverick). Ryan Gosling was once rumored to star but he's far past 30 now. I'm thinking Timothy Chalamet, with directorial duties handled by Christopher Nolan, if you want to go big screen, but I can also picture Logan's Run as a multi-year Max or Netflix series that takes its time revealing the backstory of how exactly our culture and society went so far off the rails.

The Go-Go's 

The fact that a Runaways biopic was produced and released and we're still waiting for a Go-Go's movie is bizarre. Yes, when it comes to girl bands, the Runaways were trailblazing female rockers but the Go-Go's sold more records, were the first to have a number one album, had more hit singles, are members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, are still performing together forty-seven years after they formed, and quite simply, are more iconic.

I had the idea for a Go-Go's film no later than 2001, and even started work on an extended treatment. For casting, I suggested the following (at the time) young, up and coming actresses: Christina Ricci as Jane Weidlin, Eliza Dusku as Kathy Valentine, Leelee Sobieski as Charlotte Caffey, Tara Reid as Gina Schock, and Charlize Theron or Kate Hudson as Belinda Carlisle.

Status Update: Over the years, the band has kicked around the idea of commissioning a script, but it's never happened largely because members of the band are hesitant about relinquishing rights, giving up creative control and airing their dirty laundry. Additionally, on multiple occasions, disagreements over compensation and royalties owed have created issues within the group. None of this seems to matter anymore though, as the poor performance of The Runaways all but killed any chance of a Go-Go's film ever seeing the light of day. Still, it's fun to imagine Lily-Rose Depp as Carlisle and Jenna Ortega as co-founding member Weidlin.

Belinda Carlisle and Lily-Rose Depp

Related Posts:

Beauty and the Beat Turns 40

Go-Go's Rock the Sunset Strip

Belinda Carlisle on Arsenio Hall

More Belinda

Great Album Covers: The Score, Head Games & Vacation

Go-Go's Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (About F**king Time!)

Happy New Year (from Belinda Carlisle!)

Flashdance: The Surprise 80's Hit...That Would Never Get Made Today

April of 1983 saw the release of Flashdance, a film that became a sleeper hit and finished as the third highest grossing movie of the year. Artistically, Flashdance's visual style, combined with its music video-style editing and presentation of key scenes, established a paradigm used throughout the decade in hits like Footloose, Breakin', Beverly Hills Cop, Rocky IV and Dirty Dancing. Yet despite Flashdance's unquestioned appeal, success and influence, it's safe to say that this is a movie that would never in a million years get made today. 

To begin with, the star of the film, Jennifer Beals, was a student at Yale and a complete unknown at the time. Co-star Michael Nouri had only a thin resume with mostly soap opera credits. With no big names in supporting roles or cameos, Flashdance, essentially had zero star power -- something that would be a big strike against getting any film project off the ground in modern Hollywood. Additionally, today's film industry execs would likely judge Flashdance's potential at the global box as being quite limited. This is because the film offers a story that appeals mainly to American sensibilities. For example, Flashdance is set in what is one of our nation's most distinctive metropolises -- the blue collar, steel city of Pittsburgh. Plus, if there's one thing blue collar Americans love, it's an underdog story. That beloved "I've probably got no shot and no one believes in me but I'll just work harder than everyone else and show them all" theme. Rocky III, which was a massive hit just a year earlier is a great example. That film, maybe not so coincidentally, was also set in a uniquely American Pennsylvania city,  Philadelphia. Flashdance's Alex offers that same Rocky-esque type protagonist who bucks the odds, rises from anonymity and finally realizes their dream. 

Also contributing to Flashdance's Americentric feel is its music. Flashdance's dance scenes are some of the most iconic in cinema history. The music featured in those scenes (tracks like "Maniac" and "What a Feeling") epitomized the very contemporary and rapidly growing American synth-pop genre of the early 1980's. The Flashdance soundtrack, incidentally, would spend six weeks at #1 in the U.S. and earn a Grammy nomination for Album of the Year. "Maniac" and "What a Feeling" both went to #1 and both were nominated for Record of the Year.

On top of this, the scope and story of Flashdance, though appealing, are both very small. Sure there could have been a sequel exploring what happens after Alex joins the dance company, but the source material is certainly not expansive enough for today's Hollywood execs to view it as something that could birth a franchise or a streaming series -- something that's practically required to get a film greenlit these days. Studios simply do not make small budget movies like Flashdance anymore, instead opting for stories with far larger scope. "Can it be a trilogy?... Or better yet a Netflix series?... Or better yet, a franchise that will let us crank out multiple movies AND provide source material for a streaming series?" These are questions that need to be answered in the affirmative before a major studio shows interest nowadays. Indeed, if you examine the smaller budgeted movie that do manage to get made today, you'll find they are typically pet projects championed by big stars or other power players in the industry. In these cases, such films are usually only backed in order to appease said big star and/or fulfill a multi-picture contract with them.

Despite Flashdance earning $90 million at the box office (a 13x return on investment), today's studios wouldn't be interested in that kind of a take. A $10 million movie that makes $100 million doesn't interest them. They're looking to make a $100 million film, pour another $100 million into marketing, and then gross a billion worldwide. (That's right, I'm looking at you Barbie!) Flashdance was in fact a studio pic, but 40 years later, small budget films that make it to the big screen are almost always independently produced and financed. Sure, an indy that happens to catch fire at a SXSW, Toronto or other prestigious film festival can still gain a studio distrubution deal, but small projects are much more often viewed today as having no pathway to the kind of paydays studios require. Thus, they have little or no chance of gaining production deals.

Despite Flashdance's stellar office performance, Beals chose to return to college and couldn't be persuaded to star in a follow-up. A stage musical based on the film debuted in the UK in 2008 but to this day as a film property Flashdance remains a one-off. Even so, I wouldn't put it past the "geniuses" who run Hollywood today to come up with the brilliant idea to produce a sequel -- one that effectively misses its window by decades. (That's right, I'm looking at you Gladiator II!) A better course, however, would be to forget about sequels or remakes and simply appreciate those more, open-minded days long ago when artists and executives had more vision and a small project like Flashdance could gain the development and backing it needed to be successfully realized on the big screen. 

R.I.P. College Football: How Corporate Interests, Greed and Defiance Killed the Game We Loved -- Part II

Below is Part II of an examination of the decades-long series of events, decisions, compromises and money-grabs that led to the end of college football as we know it. I strongly recommend reading Part I before continuing.

Obsession to Crown a Champion 

Certainly, the aim of practically every college athletic squad is a championship but for college football that quest required the glorious winning of your bowl game. With the new system, bowl games seemed like they would be getting in the way of the new aim -- chasing an undisputed title and gaining the biggest payday along the way. 

By 1990 there were nineteen bowl games and both schools and coaches considered it an honor to play in them. For players, your collegiate career simply wasn't complete unless you played in and won a bowl game. But as the nineties moved forward, with realignment taking place and big corporate dollars entering the game, the NCAA and college football's power brokers began to wonder if the bowl system had run its course. Football had long been the only college sport where the champion was not determined by some form of tournament or playoff. In addition, since 1968 (when the Associated Press began crowning a national champion) the two top-ranked teams had faced one other in a bowl game only six times. For a time, United Press International also crowned a champion -- sometimes a different one than the AP. In 1978, for example, USC and Alabama each won their bowl game and both finished with one loss. The result was a split national championship -- UPI selected USC and AP chose Alabama (despite the head-scratching fact that Alabama's lone loss was to USC.) Further complicating matters was that many conferences had contractual agreements with bowl committees that bound the conference champion to play in a specific bowl, regardless of any other circumstance. Thus, it was common for the two top-ranked teams at the end of the regular season to never have the opportunity to meet and decide a unanimous national champion. This obviously created lively debate in years where there was no consensus single best team in the land. The situation went on for decades until the early nineties when, after two straight years of controversy (1990 and 1991) the call for a #1 vs. #2 national championship game could, in the eyes of some, no longer be ignored.

College football began experimenting, first with a "Bowl Coalition" and then the "Bowl Alliance", whose rules and structure mandated a meeting between #1 and #2 to be contested in one of the major bowls. The Bowl Championship Series combined polls with computer rankings to determine the two best teams so they could be pitted against one another; the NCAA secured big dollars from sponsors and broadcasters for these games; and all of the top football schools in the country had dollar signs in their eyes more than ever. Unfortunately, there were two major problems with BCS. First, the computer rankings were both convoluted and often called into question. Second, because the goal now was to have a definitive determination after the end of the season rankings, it meant that bowl games would have to defer and forgo years of tradition so that teams that previously had been playing for berths in specific major bowls would now be free to play in others. For example, if the PAC 12 champion was one of the top two teams, it wouldn't necessarily be playing the Big 10 champion in the Rose Bowl, as had always been the case. Similarly, the SEC winner was no longer bound to the Sugar Bowl. Other traditional tie-ins were also affected and the free for all that resulted became yet another indicator of how unmanageable college football was becoming. Certainly, the aim of practically every athletic squad is a championship but for college football that quest required the glorious winning of your bowl game. With the new system, bowl games seemed like they would be getting in the way of the new aim -- chasing an undisputed title and gaining the biggest payday along the way. 

A series of selection controversies ensued and itsoon became apparent that the BCS was fundamentally flawed. 

• In 2001, Oregon, ranked second in the AP poll, was bypassed for the championship game in favor of Nebraska -- despite Nebraska's 62-36 blowout loss to Colorado in its final regular season game. 

• In 2003, three BCS Automatic Qualifying (AQ) conference teams (LSU, Oklahoma and USC) finished the regular season with one loss. Three (Non-AQ) conference teams also finished with one loss (TCU, Boise State and Miami of Ohio) sparking the argument that the BCS was unfair to Non-AQ conference teams. LSU beat Oklahoma in the BCS Championship game and USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and ended up No. 1 in the final AP poll, resulting in yet another split national championship.

•  In 2008, Utah was excluded from the BCS championship (despite being the only undefeated Division 1 team) and finished second in the final AP poll behind Florida. 

• In 2009, five schools finished the regular season undefeated: Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State. The BCS formula selected traditional powers Alabama and Texas as the top two teams, which again fueled cries of bias toward the traditional powers.

• In 2010, three teams -- Oregon, Auburn, and TCU -- all finished the year with undefeated records. While TCU statistically led the other two teams in all three major phases of the game (1st in defense, 14th in offense and 13th in special teams) Oregon and Auburn were selected for the national title game. 

Clearly the BCS was just as controversial and no better than the polls previously used to determine a champion. The call for some sort of playoff format grew increasingly louder. But a playoff wouldn't be easy to execute. Football wouldn't be able to mimic the NCAA basketball tournament where teams play every other day. Football players needed recovery time, so unless teams were willing to play into late January and February, anything other than a four team playoff would be unfeasible. So that's where things landed. Today we essentially have a four team football championship tournament with (presumably) the four highest ranked teams in the final regular season poll as the participants. 

I say "presumably" because the selection committee, as it did this past season, is free to choose whomever they deem to be the four best teams, regardless of their record, if they won their conference championship, or any other factors. So this entire system solves nothing. The four teams selected continue to be second guessed the same way they were when the national champion was subjectively named subsequent to the bowl games. We witnessed this just this past season when Florida State was left out of the top four despite being undefeated and winning its conference. This type of controversy led the NCAA to expand the playoff to 12 teams beginning with the 2024 season. But of course this won't solve anything either, as the teams that finish 13th, 14th, 15th, etc., will almost always have a case for why they should have been chosen over another program. The expansion also serves to further diminish the prestige and tradition of the bowl games, essentially making them simply the venues or "containers" for the series of playoff games. 

Moreover, with the bowl games so devalued, players have begun sitting out. Many of them no doubt question why they should play in something like the Duke's Mayo Bowl when it means risking injury and jeopardizing a fat pro contract. Not long ago, passing on your bowl game would have been unheard of but in the 2003, University of Miami running back Willis McGahee took a brutal hit in the Fiesta Bowl that destroyed his left knee. McGahee was a Heisman finalist and top pro prospect expected to go in the top five of the NFL draft -- but after the injury his stock fell and he wasn't selected until the 23rd pick. 

Jaylon Smith's story is similar. The former Notre Dame linebacker was projected as a top pick in the 2016 draft before tearing ligaments in his knee and sustaining nerve damage during the Fiesta Bowl. This led to a steep fall in Smith's draft stock -- one that cost him an estimated $10-$20 million. 

Smith's and McGahee's stories became cautionary tales for players. With bowl games now having no real significance unless they are part of the college football playoff, top players today often opt out of their bowl games and begin preparing for the draft. (Christian McCaffrey, Bradley Chubb, Anthony Richardson, Kenny Pickett, Breece Hall and this year's number one pick Caleb Williams are good examples,)

Defiance and Concessions

The tide of public sentiment, pushback, criticism from every direction, and now lawsuits have become too much for the NCAA to navigate and still operate as an effective governing body.

Over the last few decades, America has become increasingly (dare I say excessively) litigious. Didn't get into the college of your choice?.. File a lawsuit claiming discrimination... Don't like the state telling you to close your business during the pandemic?... Take it to court... Madonna concert started two hours late?... Sue her. 

It's emblematic of what our nation has become -- unwilling to do the hard things and unaccepting of circumstances and judgments that don't go in our favor. It's famously said the the U.S. is a nation of laws... but that only works when its citizenry recognizes and submits to some type of authority. This doesn't mean we should all swallow whatever the powers that be hand out. Certainly there are injustices we suffer and manifestations of idiocracy that are foisted upon us. It's right to challenge things like this. But the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and we've lost our sense of being members of a society. Every single thing that goes against us is now falsely labeled as being an infringement on our civil rights.

The NCAA serves as a organization that regulates student athletics for over a thousand member schools and close to half a million student athletes. But the NCAA can only accomplish this when its constituents operate under -- and yes, submit -- to the NCAA's rulings. Somewhere along the way, it became the norm to not only criticize the NCAA but also question its authority to prescribe the guidelines and regulations to which its member schools must adhere. 

 

As a result, we've seen an abundance of federal (and even Supreme Court) cases targeting the NCAA -- challenges to rulings on player eligibility, appeals for reversal of sanctions levied for recruiting violations, and more. This past season was a great example. The University of Michigan, after preliminary investigation by the Big Ten conference, was deemed to have violated an NCAA rule that prohibits off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents. Allegedly, this was part of an elaborate scheme to steal opponents' signs. As a penalty, Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh (who had run afoul of the NCAA more than once prior) was suspended for three games. What was Michigan's response? After penning a letter that first contested Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti's jurisdiction in punishing the program, the school issued a lengthy statement that condemned the conference (and the NCAA) for rushing to judgment before a full investigation could be completed. Significantly, no where along the line did Harbaugh or anyone else connected with the school expressly deny that cheating had taken place -- the video evidence of Wolverines off-field analyst Connor Stallions clearly visible on the sideline at a Central Michigan game was too damning for that. Yet that didn't stop Michigan heading further down the legal path and securing a temporary restraining order against Harbaugh's suspension.

Again, governing bodies -- in any sector of society but particularly sports leagues --- can only operate effectively when those governed willingly abide. This is how societies and other entities are able to function. We all agree to pull our cars to the side of the road to let an ambulance go by. We all stand in line and wait our turn at the post office. We all accept the determinations of our teachers as they dole out grades on our math tests. In each of these instances, there's agreement to stipulate to the judgement a higher authority. But the grievance and litigiousness that now permeates American society in general has made its way into college football: 

Coach got suspended for stealing signs?... Find a judge to issue a stay... NCAA penalized your school for recruiting violations?... File a lawsuit... Star wide out got ruled ineligible?... Rip the NCAA in the media and conduct a public relations war until they cave.

What makes this even worse is the indignance that often accompanies it. ESPN commentator (and Michigan alumnus) Desmond Howard came to Harbaugh's defense. Eleven members of the Michigan House of Representatives penned a letter to the Big Ten expressing outrage. Still, what we didn't hear from either of those parties was a flat out denial or even a plausible explanation for the preponderance of video and other evidence against Stallions and the Michigan program. At no point was anyone at Michigan willing to own up to what most deemed obvious. Instead, the conference and the NCAA got slammed for supposedly denying due process. It was a very Trumpian response, in that the perpetrator of wrongdoings turns to legal challenges, injunctions, claims of unfair treatment and delay tactics. In Michigan's case, it seems to have worked. The NCAA agreed to drop its investigation of Harbaugh; he served his three game wrist slap suspension and the team went on to make the college playoff and win the national title. Now, with Harbaugh having left the university for the greener pastures of the NFL, the entire matter will likely be forgotten, even though its entirely likely that what transpired is grounds for Michigan's championship to be vacated.

It's all because the tide of public sentiment, pushback, criticism from every direction, and now lawsuits have become too much for the NCAA to navigate and still serve as an effective body. The association has lost significant portions of its respect and its power in recent year and has acquiesced to this pressure by changing many of its most longstanding and necessary rules... even those critical to maintaining fairness, parity, and competitive balance in the sport. Which brings me to the final factor that has led to the degradation of college football.

The transfer portal

Prior to the NCAA's rule change, very few transfers would have been permissible without the player having to sit out a year. Today these kinds of ridiculous musical chairs scenarios are happening en masse across the NCAA each and every season.

Facing a tidal wave of negative press, rebellion in the ranks and what seemed like an endless string of lawsuits, the NCAA's capitulation continued. Cries of hypocrisy were launched, this time against the rules surrounding the eligibility of transfer athletes. 

 

The transfer portal launched in the fall of 2018, so it's not as new as many believe. It was implemented to bring more order and process to the mechanics of student athletes seeking to change schools. Windows were established where players could formally enter the portal, schools and coaches could view statuses, and player compliance to all requirements needed to transfer could be tracked. But in 2021, due to the disintegrating power of the NCAA, it once again made concessions to longstanding policies and ratified a new rule that allowed athletes in all sports to transfer without sitting out a year. (Previously, with regard to the five traditional “revenue sports”, upon transferring, players were required to sit out for a season before they were eligible -- except in instances where the athlete was moving from FBS to FCS, or unless they were granted a special waiver.) This concession pleased players and most of the NCAA's critics who were failing to understand (or didn't care) that the "sit out a year" rule was one of the last tools the NCAA had to prevent under the table payments that could entice players to leave one program in favor of another. It also was one of the only ways to dissuade them from leaving a school just to chase bigger and better NIL money. 

The rule change effectively turned the transfer portal into, in the words of one NCAA official from the SEC, "chaos." Players today  are transferring schools at an alarming rate simply because they believe they're not getting enough playing time... or because their position coach left... or because the team underperformed or isn't on TV enough. Take the case below.

In 2018, JT Daniels was the starting quarterback for USC. He played a year and then in the opening game of the 2019 season, tore his ACL Kedon Slovis became the new starter and played so well that rather than staying and trying to win his job back, Daniels decided to transfer Georgia. He was granted immediate eligibility to play and in 2020 he started four games and shared the position with Stetson Bennett that season. Then, in 2021 spotty play and injuries saw Daniels lose his job to Bennett so Daniels took advantage of the new NCAA transfer rule and switched schools again, this time moving to West Virginia for the 2022 season. Halfway through the year, he was benched and on Dec 5 of that year (you guessed it) Daniels entered the transfer portal a third time and wound up at Rice. 

Meanwhile, back at USC, Jaxson Dart replaced Slovis who wasn't playing well. Slovis, having lost his starting job, transferred to Pitt. But the next off season USC hired Lincoln Riley as head coach and it was rumored that QB Caleb Williams, who played for Riley at Oklahoma, would follow Riley to LA so Dart entered the portal and transferred to Ole Miss. Williams departure from Oklahoma left the starting job there vacant and it could have been filled by Spencer Rattler, who was the starter prior to Williams... except as soon as Williams took Rattler's job the previous season, Rattler transferred to South Carolina... Chaos indeed.

Prior to the NCAA's rule change, very few transfers would have been permissible without the player having to sit out a year. Today these kinds of ridiculous musical chairs scenarios are happening en masse across the NCAA each and every season. A year ago, 456 scholarship players appeared in the portal on Day 1 and 780 total players from FBS, FCS and Division II went in. This non-stop program hopping severely injures the competitive balance of the sport, as high caliber players at every position now transfer at the mere hint of losing their starter status, to follow a coach, or for potentially larger NIL payments. The latter two almost certainly had a lot to do with the University of Colorado's 2023 season. New coach Deion Sanders brought in an astonishing 53 transfers --  that's close to half of the team's total roster. Sanders' celebrity, relatability to the modern athlete and the type of culture he fosters had a lot to do with this -- but so did NIL. Sanders had numerous endorsement deals in place long before he made it to in Colorado and upon his arrival his celebrity and star personality shined a spotlight on the program among sponsors and advertisers looking to attach their brand to a team that was increasingly gaining national attention. And as we know, more advertisers equal more NIL opportunity for players.

Illustration of the very first college football game -- Princeton vs Rutgers, 1869

Thus we can all say goodbye to the game we once loved. America's second oldest team sport in fact, played since 1869. College football is more of a "showcase" now than a sport. It used to be the name on the front of the jersey that mattered -- now it's the name on the back. Players used to play for the honor of winning the PAC 12 championship, or Bedlam, or making the All-America team and being introduced on a Bob Hope Special. Now all of those things are extinct and players aspire to star in the next Dr. Pepper "Fansville"  commercial. The NCAA, once a steadfast authority that oversaw all aspects of the game, is accused of being out of touch with the modern athlete and is now ridiculed by coaches and university presidents at every turn. No longer is there any allegiance to conference or to school. Those things are mere niceties best left to us simple, naive and wistfully nostalgic fans.

So long college football. We'll miss you.

Related Posts:

R.I.P. College Football: How Corporate Interests, Greed and Defiance Killed the Game We Loved -- Part I

FX's Capote vs. The Swans & How Iconic 80's Actresses Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald & Demi Moore Make it Great

 

One of the most enjoyable things about Murphy's series: seeing the three most iconic actresses of the 1980's sharing the screen for the very first time... we have Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald and Demi Moore who, forty-plus years after their initial fame, crush their roles and once again show us why they became stars. 

 

We are barely halfway through Ryan Murphy's latest offering, Feud: Capote vs. the Swans but we've already been treated to a once in a decade type performance by Tom Hollander who positively disappears into his (title) character role. Hollander perfectly captures Capote's dual nature -- amusing and endearing but also pompous and infuriating --- and also replicates his speech and mannerisms so precisely it's practically spooky. (To be honest, they should just skip the ceremony and give him the Emmy right now.)

That said, the "Swans" referred to in this series are a group of elite socialites (most of them New York-based) who befriended and patronized Capote after he reached fame with his sensationalistic novel In Cold Blood. After years of trusting some of their most guarded secrets to the author, he reveals them in a Esquire article that included excerpts from a new book titled Answered Prayers. The group then proceeded to ostracize Capote, forever banishing him from the high society circle he relished so much. Capote supposedly coined the term "Swans" to describe these women that were, by all appearances, perfectly composed but in reality were carrying tremendous weight and beneath the surface were always paddling furiously to keep themselves afloat.  

Often, elements of this story and the reaction of the Swans to Capote's betrayal are difficult to understand. Why would these women -- wealthy, refined and entrenched in the upper crust of society, care so much about Truman? Why are they so devasted when he exposes them this way? And why do they second guess themselves for even a minute about cutting them out of their lives?

It's because Capote's assessment of them was correct. Beneath their veneers of perfection, these women are struggling mightily. They've lost their identities after marrying bankers, European royalty, and other rich and powerful men and now deep down perhaps they're realizing that most of what they've accomplished was only made possible through their family and social connections. Maybe they're awakening to the thought that although they're the envy of many, their lives are largely empty, short of pruning the perfect garden, earning "best dressed" honors, or planning Truman's famous Black and White Ball. Or maybe the betrayal thrust these women into turmoil due to simple embarrassment. For the Swans, appearances (we quickly learn) are paramount. Confronting Truman and making a scene in a swank restaurant they frequent is deemed just as much a sin as the betrayal itself. Likewise, husbands' infidelities are tolerable but the thought of others knowing is not.

It speaks to why Capote was able to fall in with the Swans in the first place. He ingratiates himself with flattery, preying on their superficiality and appearance consciousness, even going so far as to toy with them (and send them into a competitive tizzy) by suggesting he'll be choosing one of them as guest of honor at his ball. In spite of his not so subtle pandering and social climbing, the Swans adopted Truman, introduced him to power brokers, brought him along on lavish vacations, all while sharing their personal doubts and fears. So yes they are clearly victims but not entirely sympathetic due to their own snobbery and pretentiousness. All of this makes them rich, multi-layered characters that any actress (particularly those of a certain age) would love to play.

Which brings me to one of the most enjoyable things about Murphy's series: seeing the three most iconic actresses of the 1980's sharing the screen for the very first time. In addition to Naomi Watts as Babe Paley, wife of CBS head William Paley; Calista Flockhart, as Lee Radziwill, younger sister of Jackie Kennedy, and Chloe Sevigny as fashion icon and author C.Z. Guest, we have Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald and Demi Moore who -- forty-plus years after their initial fame -- crush their roles and once again show us why they became stars.

Diane Lane first grabbed headlines at age fourteen when she starred opposite Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1979 feature A Little Romance. Olivier called her "the next Grace Kelly" and Time magazine put Lane on the cover, proclaiming her one of Hollywood's "whiz kids." This was at a time  when print was still a dominant form of media, so for a respected world news magazine like Time to dedicate a cover story to a Hollywood actress (especially one still in her early teens) was practically unprecedented. 

Lane next made waves in the cult classic Ladies and Gentlemen, the Fabulous Stains and the more mainstream family pic Six Pack. At the famous casting sessions for Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of The Outsiders, she beat out a who's who of other young ingenues for the role of the beautiful and conflicted Cherry Valance. The performance earned Lane a Young Artist Award nomination. Coppola was so taken with Lane that he cast her in his next film, Rumble Fish (also based on an S.E. Hinton novel.) 

In 1984, Lane took on the role of Ellen Aim, a kidnapped rock star in Walter Hill's vastly underrated Streets of Fire and later that year she scored her first "adult" role as singer/gun moll Vera Cicero in Coppola's brilliant The Cotton Club. Lane was just eighteen during shooting (her co-star Richard Gere was thirty-four) but brought a sultriness to her performance that helped establish her as one of Hollywood's leading screen sirens. (She would go on to star in two other films opposite Gere, the acclaimed Unfaithful -- for which she earned a Best Actress Academy Award nomination -- and Nights of Rodante, adapted from the Nicholas Sparks novel.)

Diane Lane's other 1980's film roles included stripper/femme fatale Lorry in The Cincinnati Kid-esque The Big Town, and lead in the erotic thriller Lady Beware. She closed out the decade with an Emmy nominated performance in 1989's Lonesome Dove miniseries. 

Lane has one of the meatiest roles in Feud, portraying Nancy "Slim" Keith, who wed filmmaker Howard Hawks and Broadway producer Leland Hayward before marrying into British royalty. According to some accounts, Slim helped Capote land high powered agent Swifty Lazar and a million dollar book deal. Lane's Slim is resolute in her disdain and quest for revenge after Capote's backstab and Lane's strong performance portrays her as the icy ringleader of Capote's ostracization. As she did with her character in The Cotton Club, Lane plays Slim as calculating, direct and in charge. When it comes to the Swans, she is "the center of the center" -- as Slim describes herself in episode 3. Lane is also fantastic at replicating the high-born accent and affectations of New York's upper crust.

Though she's three years Lane's junior, Molly Ringwald's career path was eerily similar -- from starting out as a child actress, to having a cover story crowning her the new face of young Hollywood, to having her career propelled forward by a genius director. She first gained attention for her lead role in the west coast production of the stage play Annie. In 1979, at just eleven years old, she played Molly in the The Facts of Life but the show was retooled after its first season and the cast drastically reduced. It was a lucky break for Ringwald; she quickly found success in feature films, beginning with 1982's Tempest, for which she earned a Golden Globe nomination. But it would be 1984's Sixteen Candles that would rocket the young actress to fame. Writer-director John Hughes cast Ringwald as the film's protagonist Samantha Baker, a high school sophomore whose sixteenth birthday is forgotten in the chaos surrounding her older sister's wedding. Ringwald was praised for her tender and authentic portrayal and the film helped propel the teen movie genre into its High Renaissance. 

Like Coppola did with Diane Lane, Hughes was inspired by Ringwald and cast her in his next project -- the film that would come to define Gen X, The Breakfast Club. Ringwald would become something of a muse for Hughes and she next took on the lead role in the director's follow up, Pretty in Pink. A few weeks after the film's release, Ringwald was on the cover of Life magazine in a special issue that christened her as "Hollywood's Teen Queen". Two months later, her own Time magazine cover story cemented this status.

At this point, Molly was eighteen and ready to take on more mature roles. She turned down Hughes' Some Kind of Wonderful and starred as Cordelia in Jean Luc Godard's avant garde exploration of King Lear; played opposite Robert Downey Jr. in the Warren Beatty-produced The Pick-Up Artist; and finished her 80's run with the comedy For Keeps and the drama Fresh Horses, adapted from the stage play.

In Feud, Ringwald plays Joanna Carson, ex-wife of Johnny, who (like the New York Swans) is taken with Capote's charm, wit and intellect. Carson adopts the discarded Capote and brings him into her circle of elite (this time Hollywood) friends. Ringwald's signature red tresses are colored brunette for this role and at fifty-five years old she naturally no longer possesses her waif-like figure, so it's easy to forget who you're watching. As Carson, Ringwald brings the same effusiveness she did with her Pretty in Pink character Andie and her compassion for Truman is on display in several pathos-rich scenes that portray the man at his lowest.

Demi Moore's road to 1980's stardom was far different than Lane's and Moore's. She wasn't an accomplished child actor and in 1983 -- at the exact same time Lane was shooting scenes with the Academy Award-winning Coppola and Ringwald was about to become the face of the American teenager -- Moore was earning her bones as a recurring character on General Hospital. But in 1984, she starred opposite Michael Caine in the charming but overlooked romantic comedy Blame it On Rio. Though newcomer Michelle Johnson was the breakout star, it was Moore's first major film and she soon began a slow climb to success that would culminate with a run of critical and commercial successes through the 1990's. Ghost, A Few Good Men, Indecemt Proposal, Disclosure and Striptease (the film that made Moore the highest paid actress in Hollywood) were all in her future, along with her own iconic magazine cover, but her rise to fame largely began with the sweet and quirky 1984 teen comedy No Small Affair. The role of Jules in the seminal Gen X coming-of-age drama St. Elmo's Fire followed, as did a relationship with co-star Emilio Estevez and membership in the famous "Brat Pack". Moore then played John Cusack's love interest in One Crazy Summer and re-teamed with her St. Elmo's co-star Rob Lowe in the beloved About Last Night, both released in the summer of 1986. 

Her next film, The Seventh Sign (despite being highly anticipated) was a box office flop. Moore then closed her 80's career with the role of Molly -- a prostitute who befriends two escape convicts (Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn) masquerading as priests -- in the much-hyped Christmastime release We're No Angels.

Interestingly, though her box office hit rate was spotty, Moore's career never stalled during the eighties. She married Bruce Willis, who at the time was starring in the ABC hit Moonlighting but with the release of 1988's Die Hard would soon become a full on movie star. He and Moore became Hollywood's "it" couple which helped Demi move solidly onto Hollywood's A-list -- where she basically remained until the 2000's.

In Feud, Moore plays Ann Woodward, a former radio star and showgirl who was married to wealthy  banker William Woodward Jr. In what would become one of the biggest stories of its day, Ann killed William after mistaking him for a burglar. Speculation that it was murder ignited after Capote's book preview, which included a character based on Ann who was painted as a gold digger and murderess. In real life, Capote seemed to have personal disdain for Ann and publicly accused her of killing her husband.

Moore gives us a picture of Ann battling depression and straining to maintain her dignity amid the public stares. She displays venomous anger in certain scenes and intense vulnerability in others. At the ball, we see Moore at her best, portraying calm and elegance -- but when Truman calls security to have her ejected we see her shaken, pleading, humiliated. It's a scene where Moore demonstrates swan-like comportment as she calls Truman out for his misdeeds and it's reminiscent of another emotional scene in which Moore displayed similar range -- the break up scene in About Last Night.

For Lane, Ringwald and Moore, streaming shows and other high end television like Murphy's Feud offer strong, female lead roles that come few and far between in feature films. Past the age where they can star in rom-coms, take on "lethal lady" action roles (e..g., Black Widow, Atomic Blonde) or other parts written for younger actresses, fifty-something actresses are these days too often relegated to lesser fare -- guest shots on network shows or if they're lucky perhaps a starring role in their own series (think Tea Leoni in Madame Secretary or Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep.) Thankfully, Capote and the Swans shines a spotlight on three of the most talented and beloved mature actresses who by chance came up at almost the exact same time. You literally could not have chosen three women more representative of young Hollywood during the 1980's than these three. In fact, you almost wish Murphy would have made it an all-80's party and given the Watts, Sevigny and Flockhart roles to Elisabeth Shue, Lea Thompson and Winona Ryder instead.

Maybe next time : )

Related Posts:
Shout Out to... The Sorels

R.I.P. College Football: How Corporate Interests, Greed and Defiance Killed the Game We Loved -- Part I

The Michigan Wolverines just defeated the Washington Huskies to win the college football national championship. The victory put a cap on the 2023 college football season but in many ways it also marks the end of 155 years of the country's second oldest organized sport. The events of the last several years, the choices of  university officials, rulings by judges, and other factors have finally brought college football to a tipping point where it seems the sport's most defining rules, guidelines and provisions have been compromised (or altogether eliminated) to the point where college football no longer resembles the sport it once was. NCAA football has become the wild west -- complete with rustlers, guns for hire, and more opportunists and villains than it can handle it seems. Here are all the things that slowly killed the college game.

The demise of college football began with the creeping hand of corporate influence and the money grabbing that ensued. Beginning in the early 1990's, the sports world was seduced by the lure of the big dollars of Fortune 500 and other large companies. The 80's had seen Nike, Adidas, Gatorade and other brands strike deals with college and pro-level teams to provide shoes, apparel and more. These, plus endorsement deals with the decade's individual superstars, including Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Bo Jackson, had proved tremendously lucrative. As the US economy began roaring under the Clinton administration, and the birth of the internet led to the rise of wealthy tech companies like AOL, Yahoo and Cisco, these companies began looking for ways to elevate their brands and increase public awareness. The tens of millions of viewers watching sporting events each week provided the huge audiences they were looking to reach. 

From the earliest days of baseball -- America's oldest professional sport -- billboards for beer and cigarette brands were a regular site at ballparks and stadiums. Soon after, play-by-play announcers for baseball, football, basketball and boxing began interrupting their calls to offer a word from the sponsor, whether it was a breakfast cereal, shaving cream, or clothing brand. Later, with the advent of television, games were brought to you by local and national companies in industries including hardware, automobiles, hair care and insurance. But this advertising was always in the background -- fairly innocuous and far from anything one would consider obnoxious. But as time changed, businesses of the new economy wanted a bigger bang for the their buck than billboards or live reads could offer. No longer would companies be satisfied with signage inside the stadium. Instead they sought a much higher profile by acquiring naming rights for the stadiums and arenas where teams played. So it was that by the mid-90's corporate sponsorship in sports reached new heights as American sports stadiums and ballparks quickly sold out (no pun intended.) In 1995, Candlestick Park became 3 Com Park, after the manufacturer of networking equipment. In 1996, the newly opening Pac Bell Park would debut. The following year, Jack Murphy Stadium, home of the NFL's San Diego Chargers became Qualcomm Stadium. We also got Coors Field, Invesco Stadium and several others. From coast to coast, our most famous sports venues were unceremoniously rebranded as big corps shelled out millions to have their names attached to sports franchises.

The Death of the Bowl Games

Around the same time this was taking place, there was also a major disruption in the college bowl system. Bowl games had been played since since 1902 and more were gradually added each decade beginning in the 1930's. By the eighties, the corporate giants (with their footprint now clearly established in the NFL) turned to the college game. Thanks to its new, deep pocketed sponsor, the Sugar Bowl became known officially as the "USF&G Sugar Bowl" in 1988. The next year, the Orange Bowl became the "Fedex Orange Bowl." All of the other bowls followed suit and this soon led to an unwieldy increase in the number of bowl games. To this point, bowl games were events rich in tradition and history. (The Sugar Bowl, for example, has been played since 1935 and came about because Louisiana was once the nation's leading producer of sugar. The game's solid silver trophy was made in London in 1830 during the reign of King George IV and was gifted to the bowl's organizers for the inaugural game.) After corporate sponsorship creeped in, history and tradition were swept aside and bowl names were shamelessly bastardized to afford the sponsor top billing in all press materials and during the TV broadcast.

The final step in this grand sell out was to create all new bowl games -- because after all, more bowls meant more money for everyone. It didn't take long for things to get completely out of hand in this regard evidenced by the fact that several of the newer bowl games have no other name other than that of the sponsor itself. Thus we've seen the likes of the Meineke Car Care Bowl, Little Caesar's Pizza Bowl, GoDaddy.com Bowl, and (God help us) the Pop Tarts Bowl, just to name a few.

Compensation and NIL Concerns

While big businesses were scrambling to stake claim of sports venues, and Nike was profiting and building its brand through partnerships with the professional athletes, new opinions began to form regarding compensation for college athletes. For instance, while practically every other nation on the globe sent players from their professional leagues to compete in the Olympics in sports like basketball, and volleyball, the U.S. had long maintained that only amateur athletes should be eligible for the Olympic Games. This was in spite of the fact that track, cycling and other American sports clubs had long been subsidizing its athletes training costs and even paying them stipends -- something that for all intents and purposes amounted to professionalism. But during the late 80's, the International and United States Olympic Committees began relaxing its rules and by 1992 professionals (including the famous "Dream Team") were ruled eligible in practically every Olympic sport. The line between professionals and amateurs became further blurred. 

For decades, the goal for top high school football players was to gain a scholarship to a top university,  excel there, graduate, get drafted and then make all your money in the NFL. Sure, there were unscrupulous backroom deals being made. Various NCAA investigations would reveal that money, cars and other enticements were offered to recruits to sign with a certain school and boosters or "friends of the program" provided cash payments and bonuses for outstanding play. Still, the fundamental tenet remained intact -- paying college players was illegal. Yet there was a growing sentiment that athletes were somehow being exploited. Many reasoned that the hundreds of millions the NCAA's member schools were making from TV rights were gained off of the backs of poor student-athletes. Others pointed to the fat multi-year contracts top coaches were signing. And while it was true that most top players were being paid in the form of full scholarships (a single year's tuition, room and board at major universities like Stanford, Michigan or Duke costs around $60,000 for example) such arguments held little sway. Figures like these seemed a mere pittance compared to the millions the schools were making, Thus, the opinion that college athletes should be paid continued into the 2000's.

Then in 2009, former basketball star Ed O'Bannon, who had led the UCLA Bruins to a national title in 1995, filed a class action against the NCAA to challenge its rules regarding the use of players' likenesses. Among other things, the O'Bannon case argued that the restrictions on compensation for the use of athletes' names, images and likenesses (NIL) for video games, live game telecasts, and other purposes violated antitrust laws. O'Bannon brought the suit after learning that his (and scores of other former players') likenesses were being used in EA Sports NCAA Basketball video games without the players' consent. EA Sports had established a licensing agreement with the NCAA but the individuals players were all left out, making the hypocrisy clear -- others could profit off of the performance and fame of college athletes but not the the athletes themselves. 

O'Bannon eventually won the case and EA soon abandoned both its NCAA football and basketball games. Similar lawsuits followed and the courts continued to side against the NCAA. Now, not only was public sentiment seemingly in favor of rewriting compensation rules for college players but so was the legal system. The NCAA was clearly losing its grip as judges (who previously considered college athletics completely subject to NCAA regulations) now felt compelled to step in and overrule longstanding policies.

So the NCAA read the writing on the wall and finally began to seriously consider ways in which players might be compensated. Unfortunately, paying players is a lot easier said than done. Initially, ideas revolved around only paying athletes in the "revenue generating sports" ((baseball, men’s and women’s basketball, football and men’s ice hockey.) It's easy to see how this idea might have quickly been dismissed. First there was the matter of equity. Should the third string safety be paid the same as a Heisman candidate running back?... You can also imagine it wouldn't have been long before someone brought a lawsuit claiming only paying the revenue generating sports teams was discriminatory. And then of course there was Title 9. If you're paying the men's teams and not the women's it was a super safe bet there'd be all kinds of additional lawsuits quickly filed. 

It's possible though that the NCAA never even seriously considered all this because the decision was more or less taken out of the their hands. In 2019, California passed the “Fair Pay to Play Act” -- which was the first state NIL law enacted. The legislation basically set the bar for how college athletes could be compensated moving forward. Players could now to be paid based on their value as an individual. More simply, any player could accept any endorsement deal, appearance fee or other payment available to them in the free market (provided it didn't create a conflict of interest with a deal already signed by the player's school.) The NCAA called the legislation harmful and "an existential threat to college sports" and even toyed with the idea of declaring all NCAA players in states who allowed payments ineligible. But threats don't get much emptier than that. It didn't take long for the association to capitulate to the new paradigm.

 

Conference realignment

Further disruption came to the NCAA's status quo with regard to its member conferences. Since their inception, conference affiliations had been both voluntary and fluid. Technically, institutions were free to switch conferences whenever they wished, so long as they gave notice and paid any agreed upon exit or entrance fees. Despite this, more often than not, a sense of logic prevailed and teams by and large remained in conferences that corresponded with their location on the map. That all changed in the nineties when football powerhouses Penn State and Florida State joined the Big 10 and ACC respectively. Meanwhile, the Big East looked to replicate its success as a basketball conference by adding five football schools. Notre Dame, which had always been staunchly independent, began flirting with the idea of joining the Big 10 and the Southwest Conference disintegrated altogether, its member teams joining the WAC, Conference USA and the Big 8 (which subsequently became the Big 12.) Tradition was once again pushed aside and nonsensical realignments (like Miami joining the Big East) proved that what mattered most now were the financials and what a conference could offer its member schools in terms of TV revenue.

To be continued...

Related Posts:
R.I.P. College Football: How Corporate Interests, Greed and Defiance Killed the Game We Loved -- Part II