Saturday, July 30, 2022

It Happens Every Thursday (1953)

Film: It Happens Every Thursday (1953)
Stars: Loretta Young, John Forsythe, Frank McHugh, Edgar Buchanan, Jane Darwell
Director: Joseph Pevney
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Loretta Young: click here to learn more about Ms. Young (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Sometimes with these Saturdays with the Stars months, we complete a year with a lot of untold chapters from the actor's life.  That's not going to be the case for Loretta Young.  Last week, we talked about the pinnacle of Young's career, the late 1940's, when she made massive hits, starred in a holiday classic, & won an Oscar.  Young, however, was in her late thirties at that point, which has always been a "sunset" time for actresses in Hollywood, and was particularly during the Classical Hollywood era.  By the early 1950's, though she was still working, her film career had started to wane, and today's movie, It Happens Every Thursday, was the final theatrically-released film that Young made in her career...though as we'll get to in a second, she had a surprisingly long second act as a performer.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie in many ways resembles the films we were discussing last week, with Young playing a perfect wife in a romantic-comedy.  The movie is about Jane MacAvoy (Young), a woman who is trying to find a new life for she & her husband Bob (Forsythe) as they are expecting a baby, so they move to California and buy a small-town newspaper, not realizing that it is unsuccessful.  Initially they struggle to establish the paper, but soon find that a certain kind of soft journalism (involving guessing old photos of townspeople) sells well, and they begin to take off.  When they realize that they'd been forgoing actual journalism by ignoring a drought, Bob hires an Air Force expert to use dry ice to try to get it to rain.  While the stunt doesn't actually happen, a downpour follows anyway, and when that leads to flooding, the MacAvoys are nearly run out of town before they convince the newspaper readers that the flooding (which soon ends) is not their fault.

The movie is, for lack of a better word, stupid.  The plot as described is exactly how it plays out in the movie, and you'll be forgiven for thinking "that sounds kind of silly" because it's how it plays in the film.  A lot of your mileage on this movie will depend on your tolerance for Young's sickly sweet persona, and while I have gained a newfound respect for the actress this month with intriguing work in Midnight Mary and The Stranger, she's not a favorite yet, and certainly not to the point where I'll forgive a movie this ridiculous.  Even if you watch it in suspended belief, you're going to get bored.

Young's film career ended with this picture, but it wasn't the end of her career.  The actress quickly transitioned to television, starring in an eponymous anthology series for NBC, which she hosted and frequently starred in as an actress.  The show became known for its trademark opening, with Young opening-and-closing a set of doors, and then coming out & twirling in a gorgeous evening gown.  I highly recommend you google it, as it's as over-the-top as you'd hope, and the series was a ratings & critical success, being in the Top 30 in several seasons and winning Young three Emmys.  The actress would largely retire from acting after this, just briefly coming back in the 1980's long enough to win a Golden Globe for the TV movie Christmas Eve, but mostly devoting her life to her political causes (she was a diehard Republican who campaigned for Eisenhower, Nixon, & Reagan) and Catholic charities before dying at the age of 87 in 2000.  Next month, we're going to talk about a leading man contemporary of Young's (though they never made a movie together), who like Young, starred in a major holiday classic in the 1940's and got a second act in television during the 1950's.

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Biden Will Be the Nominee in 2024 If He Wants to Be (and History Says He Does)

President Joe Biden (D-DE)
Normally we don't discuss the presidential election two years out on this blog, but I need one more re-watch before we do our next Oscar Viewing Project (I have seen all of the 2002 movies, and we'll be back to ballots right after this, but it's been 20 years since I've seen some of these films and a couple of them need a refresher that doesn't involve a teenager's eyes), and I honestly don't have a lot to say about the midterm environment right now (Democrats doing better than expected, but after several cycles that the polls overestimated the left, I am still struggling to read the tea leaves).  So we're going to break that rule to talk through something that's been bothering me about the race: the conversation about whether or not Joe Biden will run for a second term, and whether his current approval rating actually hurts his chances of getting through a primary (if he does run) without a serious primary challenge.

The reason I'm doing this is because while I hate talking races two years in advance, I love a history lesson, and I think that people are forgetting that these conversations always happen.  Leading up to 2012, there was a lot of talk about whether or not Barack Obama would shake up his ticket.  Proving how malleable politics is, the conversation was about whether or not he should remove Vice President Biden from the ticket to add on one of his most popular cabinet secretaries, Hillary Clinton (oh how the times have changed).  He didn't do that, and as a general rule within politics, you should respect Occam's Razor: that a president & vice president will run for reelection, and they will get the nomination of their party.

That's because, by-and-large, that's what always happens.  Since the passage of the 22nd Amendment over 70 years ago, only twice has an incumbent president voluntarily given up the White House, in 1952 (President Truman) and in 1968 (President Johnson).  The first was because Truman, who was exempt from the 22nd Amendment, had already served nearly eight years in office, and combined with massive unfavorable ratings and the fact that the country was clearly ready for a change after 20 years of the Democrats in the Oval Office, he declined.  President Johnson in 1968 was facing dismal approval ratings, spurred largely by the failure of the US to win the war in Vietnam, and was also in ill health.  After a surprisingly close race against Sen. Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire, and the subsequent entrance of Sen. Robert Kennedy into the presidential race, Johnson decided to forgo running for a third term.

Both of these men have something in common that they don't share with President Biden-they were in their second term.  No president since Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 has voluntarily foregone a run at a second term, and to assume that Biden would do so just because he is older is forgetting a lot of presidents (including Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt) received similar critiques but went ahead with runs again (whether these were well-advised or not is a conversation for a different day).  So while I think any conversation about 2024 is premature, if you must discuss the race, assume that President Biden will be running for the White House until told otherwise.

Conversely, you should also assume that he will be the nominee.  History bears this out as well, and particularly recent history bears it out, and I'll explain why.  First, the last time that a sitting president ran for his party's nomination and lost it was in 1884, when Chester A. Arthur lost the nomination.  It's simply not something that happens-the best candidate for the incumbent party is always the incumbent, even if they are unpopular, and history has shown us that time-and-time again.  Presidents Clinton & Obama had awful midterms, and looked like goners two years out from the election...they won in landslides.  It's true, yes, that people like Jimmy Carter & Donald Trump couldn't turn their numbers around, and I am not going to sit here and say that Joe Biden is a guaranteed win (he's not) but he's certainly not a guaranteed loss, and more pertinent to today, if he runs, he'll win the nomination.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
There's two reasons for that.  The first is borne out by Chester A. Arthur-when you throw out the incumbent president, or even when they face a tough primary, they tend to lose.  Arthur lost that nomination to James G. Blaine, a name you probably don't know as well as Grover Cleveland, and that's because Blaine lost that election, the only Republican presidential nominee between the Civil War and World War I to never become president.  If you look at more recent history, presidents who endure tough primaries tend to also lose, even if they win the nomination.  Gerald Ford faced off against Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1976, and while he (barely) won the primary, he lose the general a few months later to Jimmy Carter.  Four years later, Carter had to fend off Sen. Ted Kennedy and while the president won, he ended up losing the general election in 1980.

Kennedy is a good representation of the second reason as to why Biden will get through the primary unscathed as any, and it has as much to do with the Massachusetts senator as it does the election itself.  In 1980, when the senator took on Carter, Kennedy had a sense of inevitability to him.  While Chappaquiddick was something he could never outrun, Kennedy, in the wake of the deaths of his two older brothers he felt like a "future president" in a way few others had before him.  In running against Carter, though, he showed that the emperor had no clothes.  The golden boy lost to the peanut farmer, and though Reagan had staged a comeback four years later, Kennedy was not Reagan.  It's hard to believe now given he has become omnipresent in Republican politics after two landslide victories, but Reagan was assumed to be unelectable due to how conservative he was (in echoes of conversations we're having right now, Carter was hoping to have to face him in 1980 because he thought he'd be easier to beat).  Kennedy, on the other hand, had nowhere to go but down.  Had he waited and let Carter either win reelection or lose in 1980, he would've been pretty much unbeatable for the nomination in 1984 or 1988, as no other figure but a sitting president had the stature to best the Massachusetts senator on his first foray into presidential politics.  By losing in 1980, he proved himself to be vulnerable, and also angered a number of Democrats who thought he cost them a White House by damaging Carter in a race Kennedy couldn't win.  As a result, he joins people like Hillary Clinton and Bob Dole as political titans of their era who couldn't quite get over the last hump into the White House.

Kennedy's story is what will keep serious contenders out of the White House race if Biden is running.  Even Capitol Hill figures like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who have been critical of President Biden will likely skip such a race, knowing that it'd be unlikely to succeed and almost certainly would tarnish their brands permanently.  All of these polls that show Biden against people like Warren & Sanders are fool's errands.  If he runs, it will not be prominent Democrats but people like Andrew Yang, Nina Turner, or Mark Cuban running against him, all of whom the president will outpoll.  The conversations about 2024 make good copy, but they are pointless until Biden announces (which he won't do until at least spring 2023), and given he's almost certain to run for reelection, are pointless since if he runs, he wins.

Saturday, July 23, 2022

OVP: Mother is a Freshman (1949)

Film: Mother is a Freshman (1949)
Stars: Loretta Young, Van Johnson, Rudy Vallee, Barbara Lawrence, Betty Lynn
Director: Lloyd Bacon
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Costume Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Loretta Young: click here to learn more about Ms. Young (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

When I first started this season, I talked about how I wanted to look at Loretta Young's career in part because I felt like I'd shortchanged her in terms of my opinion.  Young has always been name-checked (by me) as one of my least favorite Golden Age stars, mostly because I associate her with milquetoast roles.  As we've seen throughout this month, though, she also had room for great acting ability (The Stranger) could play ballsy roles (Midnight Mary), and had a complicated offscreen life that is still debated to this day (Call of the Wild).  Certainly, I will admit that my opinion of Young has changed...but not entirely.  We are now entering the tale-end of Young's film career, a time that was arguably her most successful.  She won an Oscar for The Farmer's Daughter in one of the biggest upsets in Academy history to that point (the smart money was on Rosalind Russell to win), and got a second nomination for Come to the Stable.  She also starred in what might be her best-remembered film, The Bishop's Wife, which became a holiday classic of the era.  But Young plays all of these parts too simply, and none of them deserved the praise for her that they got (save for The Bishop's Wife, honestly none of them are good movies).  I couldn't ignore this era even though I'm trying to rebrand Young a bit, and so from this peak period where she was making a lot of money in some of her least interesting work, I chose the romantic-comedy Mother is a Freshman, another hit starring Van Johnson.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie's premise reads less like a Classic Hollywood film and more like something out of a 1980's sophomoric comedy.  Abby Abbott (Young) lives with her teenage daughter Susan (Lynn) in a posh New York apartment.  She's raising her on her own because her husband died, and she suddenly realizes that she's broke, and while she has a trust fund that will pay out, it will only pay out once a year, and so she has months to live in destitution.  A weird clause at a local university, though, allows her to use a scholarship named after her grandmother if she attends the school, and so she enrolls as a freshman at the same school as her daughter.  Things become complicated when we learn that Abby is crushing on one of her professors, Richard Michaels (Johnson), but Richard has the hots for the new freshman Abby, and he doesn't know that she's Susan's mother.  Hijinks ensue before everyone ends up where they're meant to be, particularly a hapless Rudy Vallee as a lecherous lawyer named John Heaslip who is also lusting after Abby as well.

The film is harmless, but also charmless.  Young doesn't really have the verve to make this work, and this is what I was dreading in doing a month devoted to her-that I'd get a month of surface-level films about a beautiful woman played in an uncomplicated manner (thankfully, up until now not the case).  She has no chemistry with Johnson (though he's superb in Brigadoon, not one of my favorites overall from this era), and Vallee, the first pop heartthrob of modern music, is completely unnecessary to keep the plot rolling.  This is not a good movie, and it's sad that this is the type of film that Young would long be associated with by film fans.

The movie got a nomination for Best Costume Design, which might be a surprise if you didn't know going into it.  I assume that the thrill here was seeing Young, known for period pieces and at this point nearly forty, wearing the fashions of the modern youth at the time, but save for one gorgeous hot pink gown (that she wears before her "transformation" and honestly it's barely photographed head-to-toe) there's nothing memorable in this picture, and it feels like a weird nomination, even if it's always nice to see the Academy honoring contemporary design, even if that "contemporary" design is 35 years older than me.

Friday, July 22, 2022

Can November Be Something the Republicans Did Not Intend?

Like many cinephiles, I quote movies with regularity, and have my favorite lines to bring out in almost every occasion.  One of the best ones is from The Fellowship of the Ring, where Cate Blanchett's Galadriel over the opening credits proclaims "something happened the ring did not intend."  I've always loved this specific quote not just because I adore this movie and Blanchett in it, but because I love the idea of an inanimate object, a nameless, faceless being having a purpose.

In the wake of the 2016 elections, I have used this quote when it comes to the Republican Party.  Starting in 2016, the Republican Party got something that it could never have hoped for-the living manifestation of its decade-long "Southern Strategy" represented in the form of Donald Trump, someone it could, like the Ring of Power, pour all of its malice, hatred, & disdain for Americans who did not represent the white straight male hierarchy into, and who could in fact bring-to-life what people like Ronald Reagan, Pat Robertson, Karl Rove, & Mitch McConnell had been trying to bring to life for decades-a government that works for a minority of people, specifically the conservative wing of the American populace.

I know that people are tired of trying to use real life to make allegories about politics, and other than Trump as the ring I'll abandon the allusion here, but I think it brings up an interesting point-for the most part, the past six years have gone exactly as this faceless Republican ethos of being anti-government, anti-truth, & anti-science has planned.  Trump was able to appoint three Supreme Court justices, largely because of McConnell's breaking of democratic norms in 2016 by not allowing Merrick Garland to have a fair trial in the Senate.  The last of those justices, Amy Coney Barrett, came just days before an election that Donald Trump was certain to lose, and came after Democrats in Missouri, Florida, & Indiana threw out incumbents based largely on Trump's devoted fanbase...a devoted fanbase that stormed the Capitol and tried to kill the vice president, nearly ending democracy in the process.  It saw institutions such as the Secret Service, Supreme Court, & the Postal Service be destroyed in the public eye, and hundreds of thousands of people died in the wake of an anti-vaccine movement that Trump helped to perpetuate.

It's not entirely clear whether or not, yet, Trump losing in 2020 particularly hurt the movement rather than just delayed it.  Though the past two years have seen a lot of substantial bills passed that include progressive reforms, they've also continued to sew distrust in the democratic norms.  People realized that the Supreme Court was deeply conservative & undemocratic, stripping them of their rights (specifically access to abortion rights), and in the process people felt despondent, blaming not the Republicans who put those people on the Court but instead people like Joe Biden & Chuck Schumer, who are hamstrung with limited resources to fix it.  Biden's approval fell, and most polls indicated that Americans will punish his party at the polls...despite Trump literally attempting a coup and no one in the Republican Party save for a smattering of figures like Liz Cheney & Adam Kinzinger standing up to him, the Republican Party winning back Congress after such an event would indicate that the American populace will continue to deny it is in danger.  Even if Trump is arrested, this movement has evolved past him-figures like Ron DeSantis, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Kristi Noem, Kevin McCarthy...they are basically a sleeker, more sophisticated version of Trumpism.

So where, exactly does the "something happened the ring did not intend" come in here?  It comes in an unusual set of polls we've started to see in recent days.  It's become undeniable that despite Biden's approval being in the toilet, so far Democrats have not abandoned his party.  Indeed, they seem to have become more determined through impressive fundraising and polls that show even the most marginal of figures like Matt Cartwright & Cindy Axne being competitive in November.  Senate Democrats have yet to watch one of their own completely falter heading into November (which should've started to happen by now), and instead increasingly it looks like the most vulnerable seat on the map isn't held by a Democrat at all-it's held by Republican Pat Toomey, where Lt. Gov. John Fetterman is running one of the scrappiest, most inventive campaigns we've seen in a while (in many ways borrowing from the Trump playbook).

From a practical standpoint, a situation where Democrats buck trends and do something insane like hold the House or increase 2-3 seats in the Senate remains still the stuff of fairy tale, and quite frankly it would remain that way until Election Night were it to happen, as you'd be hard-pressed to convince most people that the Republicans won't get the natural midterm bounce.  Democratic success of any kind in November would be, by definition of history, a surprise.  But the closer we get, the clearer it is that the American populace isn't willing to take a lot of risks with Republicans, and the map is particularly kind in 2022 for a populace that largely wants to vote for Biden's party, even if they aren't loving him as president.  If the Democrats won all of the Biden seats (they won't, but let's do this for a hypothetical) they'd have 226 House Seats (+4), and 52 Senate Seats (+2).  Putting aside the practical aspects of such a scenario (the filibuster would likely be gone, the Democrats would be able to profoundly reshape the lower courts in a way that would last decades), it would also do something to the Republican plans for 2024.  Right now, the GOP has not suffered an electoral punishment other than Trump and the two Georgia senators in 2021, something that they feel they can quickly undo.  A four-year trifecta, particularly one that is built on a map that they know Democrats can use to win again in 2024, would scare the crap out of them, to the point where change would be certain.  Democrats hitting 52+ seats in the Senate would mean that Mitch McConnell's assumption that he'll take back the majority if not in January, then surely in 2025, would go up in smoke-the Senate would be a coin toss in 2024.  Right now, the Democrats' biggest disadvantage is assuming the inevitable.  But like the ring finding Bilbo Baggins, winning 52 Senate seats or an unexpected House majority (or both) in November, while unlikely, would change the game.

Thursday, July 21, 2022

The Cinematic Life Achievement Triple Crown

This morning, the Kennedy Center announced that it would be honoring George Clooney with its lifetime achievement award, alongside singers Amy Grant & Gladys Knight, composer Tania Leon, & the rock band U2.  Clooney's victory marks him as the latest person to win what I have dubbed on this blog "the Cinematic Life Achievement Triple Crown."  This includes film personalities who have won the Kennedy Center Honors, the AFI Life Achievement Award, and the Cecil B. DeMille Award, which is from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.

While this has been a long-time list we used to update almost every year on the blog, the last few years have disrupted everything, including this award.  For starters, the last time we did a profile here, Dame Julie Andrews had just won the AFI Life Achievement Award.  While this was in 2019, Andrews is the only person to win this award in the past couple of years, because the ceremony kept being delayed due to Covid.  The Kennedy Center Honors didn't skip a year due to Covid, but they did have a delay as a result of it, and while the Cecil B. DeMille Award skipped a year (last year), it wasn't due to Covid, but instead because of the decision by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association to not hold their ceremony due to scandal.

It's not entirely clear what the future of the Golden Globes are, and if as a result we are now in the throes of only previous DeMille winners (like Clooney) getting this honor, but I thought it would still be fun to mark Clooney's victory by taking a look at where we stand in terms of living people who have won the Life Achievement Triple Crown, as well as which people are inching their way up the ladder to victory.

Living Triple Crown Winners: George Clooney is just one of a number of living Lifetime Achievement Award Winners.  As you'll see, generally if you're going to start this journey, it's likely you're going to finish it if you live long enough, since film only has so many legends & these honors tend to be very group think (i.e. if you win one, other people will want you to join their club).  The other twelve living victors of all three are Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Dustin Hoffman, Barbra Streisand, Robert de Niro, Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Warren Beatty, Morgan Freeman, Shirley MacLaine, & Tom Hanks.

Minus DeMille: 
Julie Andrews was an early victor for the Kennedy Center Honors, which are less shy about giving trophies to non-Americans than the AFI (it's in the name), and also likely due to Andrews' work on stage & television, as the Kennedy Center Honors go with people who are in the performing arts, not focused solely on film (like the other two trophies).  That said, one wonders if she could pull off the DeMille at some point considering her solid history with the Globes (14 nods, 5 wins).  Other figures that have won both the Kennedy Center Honor and the AFI include men who are behind-the-scenes (who therefore might not be as inclined for a trophy at the star-loving Globes as even Spielberg & Scorsese had to wait a while to win here): John Williams, Mel Brooks, and George Lucas.  Perhaps the most likely person after Andrews could be Steve Martin, who'd give a brilliant speech & has six Globe nominations but no trophies yet.  If he's going to win the AFI with his comparatively thin filmography (certainly compared to some of the people we listed as current Triple Crown Winners above), you'd think the Globes would be fine going for him

Minus Kennedy: 
The Kennedy Center Honors can usually pick 1-2 film figures, though it seems slightly less-inclined to "popular" movie stars than DeMille or AFI, and more likely to make them wait a bit for the trophy.  This might be why this is the missing leg for the likes of Harrison Ford, who might also just be over the idea of going to more awards shows (this could also explain why he hasn't gotten an Honorary Oscar yet).  Denzel Washington seems almost certain to take the Kennedy Center Honor at some point, though I wonder if the ship might have sailed for Michael Douglas, who has both of the other awards but is routinely beaten for the Kennedy Center.  His father won it, but that was years ago and the younger Douglas's fame has started to deplete in recent years with neither he nor his wife making films (focusing more on television).  The only name I'm confident won't show up here?  Jane Fonda.  Her sharp criticism of the Vietnam War is decades old, but that doesn't mean that DC is ready to honor Hanoi Jane.

Minus AFI: 
There are now just two living people who have won the Kennedy Center & the DeMille but not taken the AFI.  This is always the shortest list, which is weird because the AFI feels like it's the hardest to come by (since not as many people win the Kennedy Center & the DeMille has been around longer).  The first of these two is beyond a mystery to me.  How Robert Redford didn't take this award in the past 15 years considering his work as a multi-hyphenate movie star/filmmaker, as well as the founder of the Sundance Film Festival, is so odd.  The mystery of how Redford has avoided this honor is one of those random "awards season enigmas" I ponder from time-to-time.  The only other person who is in this same camp is Oprah Winfrey.  Winfrey's win at the DeMille's happened before the launch of the Carol Burnett Award (focused more on TV than film) and one wonders if she would have won the DeMille had the Burnett Award already existed, since Winfrey's biggest contributions have been in television.  I suspect, even with her moving into film at a more aggressive clip with movies like A Wrinkle in Time and Selma in recent years that Winfrey won't be able to take the AFI at any point in the future with such a thin cinematic resume.

Kennedy Only: 
We now move to people who have only won one leg of the awards, and it's a good reminder that the Kennedy Center Honors pick recipients based on not just film (like the Globes & AFI), but all of their contributions to the performing arts.  This means that there are figures like Cher, Rita Moreno, Angela Lansbury, Lily Tomlin, James Earl Jones, Dick van Dyke, and Bette Midler who definitely have a cinematic background and could conceivably win one of the other two awards, but are more associated with TV, music, and/or the stage & simply don't have the credentials to win the AFI or the DeMille.  Really there's just two people who have the Kennedy whom one would indisputably associate with the movies: Joanne Woodward & Sally Field.  Woodward won the same year as her famed husband Paul Newman (who like his Butch Cassidy costar won the Kennedy & DeMille but never picked up the AFI), but her ill health likely precludes her from taking any other trophies (she suffers from Alzheimer's Disease).  Field, on the other hand, seems a probable contender in the future for the AFI or DeMille, as she's still very active in cinema and has enough popular hits to make it for either award, though her age means they should get a move on if they don't want to risk waiting too long.

DeMille Only: 
Looking at the DeMille Award winners who never caught on with the other two bodies, I'm seeing names that could definitely translate to the Kennedy or AFI, but I wonder how many actually will.  Gene Hackman has completely retired from cinema and public life, and as a result it's doubtful that they ever go for him again.  Woody Allen's filmography certainly warrants at least the AFI, but his personal problems guarantee he'll never win an award like this again.  Sophia Loren is a living legend, but her most important film work is in a different language, and that hurts her chances, particularly with the AFI.  The best bets to get another of the trophies would be Anthony Hopkins, Jeff Bridges, and Jodie Foster, all of whom work still in mainstream projects and have rounded-enough filmographies for the other awards.  Hopkins won his DeMille 16 years ago, so it's odd he hasn't taken the other prizes yet as they don't usually make you wait so long, but Foster & Bridges both won their DeMille's in the past ten years and could easily grab the next leg of their Crown soon.

AFI Only: 
Since the AFI is the hardest award of these to win, only one woman is on the list of actors who have taken the trophy but nothing else: Diane Keaton.  She gave the speech at the Globes for her friend Woody Allen when he won the DeMille (but in typical Woody fashion refused to accept it)-perhaps they assume she's already won as a result?  She at least deserves to take the Kennedy Center Honor at some point-the quintessential American star of Annie Hall and Reds feels right at home for such an honor (and honestly, has done more for cinema than George Clooney, who might be getting up there to the point of life achievement awards, but honestly feels too young to have finished this entire list).

Not Yet Started: 
Of course there are always going to be people starting their journey for the Cinematic Life Achievement Triple Crown Award.  Generally you start to get this going with your first win at a young age, so don't be surprised if you see actors in their fifties you might consider too young start taking these at an aggressive clip.  While not all of these people will make it to even one of these awards, here's a sampling of some of the living film legends who could be contenders for future honors (in case these bodies need any ideas) as well as their ages: Brad Pitt (58), Goldie Hawn (76), Robert Duvall (91), Spike Lee (65), Michael Caine (89), Will Smith (53), Ron Howard (68), Eva Marie Saint (98), Glenn Close (75), Jessica Lange (73), Samuel L. Jackson (73), Tom Cruise (60), Julie Christie (82), Maggie Smith (87), Faye Dunaway (81), Ian McKellen (83), Judi Dench (87), Ellen Burstyn (89), Helen Mirren (76), Catherine Deneuve (78), Angela Bassett (63), Sandra Bullock (57), Sissy Spacek (72), Vanessa Redgrave (85), Kathy Bates (74), Norman Jewison (96), Ridley Scott (84), Liza Minnelli (76), Sylvester Stallone (76), Annette Bening (64), James Cameron (67), Daniel Day-Lewis (65), Whoopi Goldberg (66), Holly Hunter (64), Kim Novak (89), Emma Thompson (63), Michelle Pfeiffer (64), Viola Davis (56), Cate Blanchett (53), Matt Damon (51), Sean Penn (61), Matthew McConaughey (52), & Julia Roberts (54).

Stop Blaming Democrats for Republican Extremism

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
In 2012, Sen. Claire McCaskill looked like she was about to lose reelection.  In a year where Democrats were doing well in most races, McCaskill's chances seemed to be on life support.  Four years after nearly taking Missouri, President Obama wasn't at all competitive in what was once a quintessential swing state, and Missouri was transforming from a state where rural Democrats could give enough support with KC/STL metros to get wins for the Democrats into a hard-right state that could elect someone like Josh Hawley or Donald Trump.  But McCaskill, who had been in Missouri politics for decades, had an ace-up-her-sleeve.  She knew of all of her Republican opponents Todd Akin had a history of putting his foot in his mouth, and so, flush-with-cash, she ran $2 million worth of ads prior to the primary saying Akin was "too conservative for Missouri," an attack that in a Republican primary seemed like it was an asset.  McCaskill's gambit worked-Akin won the primary, and a few weeks later, Akin said in an interview that women who had been the victim of a "legitimate rape" couldn't get pregnant (despite the fact that all rape is illegitimate by definition and that women can & do become pregnant as a result of rape).  Akin was faced with calls to drop out of the race, as he had put at risk a seat that felt like a sure thing, but he refused, and on November 6, 2012, McCaskill won by 15-points against Akin (a margin a Democrat may not reach in that state again in my lifetime), largely due to a backlash from moderate/conservative female voters who refused to back Akin even if they weren't wild about McCaskill.

Since McCaskill, this has become something of standard practice, sometimes with great results like McCaskill's, other times with horrifying ones (Democrats who gleefully bragged about Donald Trump being unelectable soon found that this was not the case).  This has become a particularly important conversation in 2022.  Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D-PA) has run negative ads against Doug Mastriano, while Democrats have also been running a campaign against Kari Lake in Arizona...all of the ads of which make them seem unpalatable by Democratic standards but give them an edge in the Republican primaries.  This past week, Maryland Republicans nominated Dan Cox, an ardent Trump supporter, in one of the bluest states in America which will now certainly flip to the Democrats.  This doesn't always work (Democrats have tried this year to do this tactic in Colorado & California in what ended up being a waste-of-money), but it's become standard practice.

The question that some, including McCaskill, has poised is if this is correct to do in an era where Republicans on the far right, particularly those like Trump, Mastriano, & Lake, are skeptical of democratic processes and deny that Joe Biden won the White House in 2020 (which he did).  Some have said that Democrats are playing a dangerous game, while others are blaming them for ensuring that people like Mastriano & Lake get to be in positions of power, potentially governing highly-important swing states ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

I am in the middle on this.  The first thing I want to say is that, yes, it is a dangerous game.  Claire McCaskill's seat, it's worth noting, was important but it never decided who held the majority in Congress during her second term (it did during her first term, but that had nothing to do with Akin).  Had Akin won from 2013-19, the party in control of the Senate would've remained the one who held it with her in office...though obviously Democrats had no way of knowing that.  It's also worth noting that this wouldn't work in Missouri today.  It seems probable that former Governor Eric Greitens, by pretty much every definition a far more heinous politician & human being than Akin could ever hope to be, will beat any contender in the Missouri Senate race this fall because the state is so highly-polarized.  So this tactic would be idiotic in some states, and Democrats seem to acknowledge this, only trying it in places where an election denier would be guaranteed a loss (like Maryland) or in purple states where gaining a point or two of disaffected conservatives might truly make the difference (like Pennsylvania or Arizona).

Kari Lake (R-AZ)
But I also think the media needs to stop putting the onus on Democrats here.  The job of people like Shapiro, Katie Hobbs in Arizona, & Wes Moore in Maryland (the candidates facing Mastriano, Lake, & Cox, respectively) isn't to help the Republican Party in their states become less extreme-it's to get the most votes in November.  So while this is risky, it's playing with fire for a worthy cause.  The Republican opponents of these election deniers are still very conservative, they still will govern as Republicans...there's a lot to be gained from this strategy, and if the only way to beat a Republican is to try to peel off moderates & independents, this is one way to do it.

It's also worth noting that Democrats are not voting in these primaries.  There is no evidence of widespread party-switching to change the outcome of a Republican primary in order to win a general...indeed, the only example close to this in the past decade would be Thad Cochran in 2014, where African-American voters who were traditionally progressive switched to vote for Cochran in the runoff, likely getting him victory.  But they did this because Cochran was the more moderate of the two contenders, not the more conservative.  Democrats are attempting to do something similar in the Wyoming At-Large seat this year to help Liz Cheney get another term.  While Democrats are running ads, it's Republicans who are listening to them.  The media blames Democrats, but this is another example of the media forgetting that Republicans are supposed to be adults too...why should Democrats be blamed for Republicans' actions in primaries?

After all, Democrats are not falling for this.  While Democrats have ousted incumbent House members in the past decade, it's not due to Republican efforts.  Democrats also, largely, have not been idiotic about giving up winnable seats by nominating gadflies.  In 2018, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (the most moderate Democrat in either house of Congress) had a liberal challenger that would have certainly been defeated in the general...she lost the primary in a landslide.  The only time that Democrats gave up an otherwise winnable federal election in the past decade due to a primary miscalculation was Nebraska-2, and it's not like Brad Ashford was a sure thing compared to Kara Eastman.  Democrats have not made these mistakes-this is entirely a Republican phenomenon, which kind of means that while Democrats might be greasing the wheels, the cart is already barreling down a hill.  People like Mastriano & Cox winning don't reflect Democrats' chicanery...they represent the will of the Republican Party.

Saturday, July 16, 2022

OVP: The Stranger (1946)

Film: The Stranger (1946)
Stars: Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson, Loretta Young, Philip Merivale, Konstantin Shayne
Director: Orson Welles
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Motion Picture Story)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Loretta Young: click here to learn more about Ms. Young (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

The last two weeks we went through some wild shifts in Loretta Young's career and public persona.  While she'd been able to pull off some unique and more audacious roles in the early 1930's, the Hays Code and Young's relative conservatism offscreen led her to play very similar "beautiful saint" type roles for much of the rest of her career.  This was solidified in terms of her public persona in the 1940's with her three-decade marriage to Tom Lewis, providing even less fodder for Hollywood gossip rags after her quickie annulment marriage in the early 1930's and association with Clark Gable.  However, Young did make one film in the 1940's that feels atypical & also is widely-celebrated today, and before we get to a relatively typical film that we'd expect from Young during this era next week, we're going to discuss probably the best movie she ever made, and for sure the film that stands up the best upon scrutiny decades later: Orson Welles' The Stranger.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in the immediate aftermath of World War II, in an idyllic Connecticut town.  There we find Professor Charles Rankin (Welles) who is about to marry the daughter of a Supreme Court Justice named Mary (Young).  We also learn that the man we've been tracking for the first ten minutes of the movie, a war criminal named Meinike (Shayne) is looking for Rankin, and knows him to actually be Franz Kindler, a Nazi and the architect of the Holocaust.  Kindler murders Meinike to cover up his intentions, which are to wait out in this Connecticut town until the Nazis "inevitably" come to power again.  The only problem for Kindler is that a detective named Wilson (Robinson) is on his trail, knowing of Kindler's obsession with clocks (which Welles spends much of the film working on the large town clock) and that Meinike is the only person who knows his real identity.  This sets up a game of chess between the two men (or checkers, as it were, which play as a subplot metaphor between Kindler & Wilson), with Kindler trying to find a way to cover his tracks...potentially even if it means having to kill Mary to do it.

The Stranger is really well-constructed.  Welles never really made a bad movie in my opinion, and this one with the backing of a studio (RKO) meant that he could spend money, and it doesn't go to waste.  The art direction is superb, as is the cinematography (all of those random angles in the clock tower make it harder to know exactly what is happening, which adds to the suspense of the final face-off between Young, Robinson, & Welles).  Robinson & Welles play well together, and I wasn't entirely sure they would (they're both very stylized actors, but Robinson is more sandpaper and Welles is more cashmere, and I thought that wouldn't gel but it does).  The film was nominated for Best Motion Picture Story, and the way that it's structured (no tight ends-at less than 90 minutes this is a taut film) it's hard to argue with this inclusion.  I love the way that late in the film a plan that Kindler has executed works perfectly as far as he's aware...only to discover later that Mary has accidentally screwed it up by not knowing what the plan is about.  Or the way that Wilson realizes that Kindler is suspicious not because of his bombastic views on fascism, but instead because of his casual antisemitism which shows his actual beliefs.  It's good stuff, and I get why The Stranger is the one film in Welles' directorial filmography that was an unquestioned hit for the studio.

As for our star?  While she's not in the same league as Welles & Robinson in terms of elevating her role, she's really good in this.  It's a smaller part (despite Young's position on the poster, we'd consider this a "supporting" role today as the leads are Robinson & Welles), but she's perfectly-cast here.  Welles knows exactly how to play off of Young's real-life persona with his director, having her play the "perfect wife" but showing how that can make her complicit in some really ugly things.  To Young's credit, she nails the part exactly the way that you'd need to make it chilling.  We know Kindler is evil, we know Mary is good...but the film makes a point of showing that Mary knows far more about Kindler's actions (even if she doesn't know he's a Nazi) to the point where she's covering up a murder the back half of the film, putting multiple people's lives at stake.  Throw in her really strong third act when she finally wants revenge on Kindler & to take him down, and you've got a great piece-of-work from the actress, and one that stands apart in her collective filmography.

Wednesday, July 13, 2022

Ranking the Judges on Guy's Grocery Games

A few months ago, I released a ranking of the Chopped judges because I love Food Network, and because for the amount of time I spend watching it, I should probably talk about it more on a personal blog (it is basically the closest thing I have to a roommate).  So we're going to do a followup today where we discuss a different flagship show on Food Network: Guy's Grocery Games.

For those that are unfamiliar, Guy's Grocery Games is kind of the crazy younger brother of Chopped.  It puts chefs against each other, oftentimes with some sort of twist.  Hosted by Guy Fieri, the show takes place in Flavortown Market, a fictional (but oh how I wish it was real) grocery store where Fieri will do things like ban certain aisles or limit a chef's budget to get them to think creatively about contests like "make your favorite Winner Winner Chicken Dinner."  Unlike Chopped, where host Ted Allen is almost comically neutral about the contestants, Fieri makes the show largely a reflection of his big, boisterous personality.  This makes the show more of an acquired taste, but I generally like Fieri.  I know that his theme restaurants are the bane of the Manhattan culinary scene, but he makes a point in his show of highlighting women, people of color, and queer contestants in a way that even Chopped struggles to achieve.  The show is a little bit vain, but honestly-he's built an empire, he's kind of earned it.

Before I get to the rankings here, I want to put a caveat.  Almost all of the Chopped judges have appeared on Guy's, and in the cases of people like Marc Murphy, Tiffani Faison, & Maneet Chauhan are basically series regulars at this point.  But since we already ranked these people in the Chopped rankings, we're going to skip them here.  Additionally, while Chopped does occasionally have its judges compete, it's nowhere near as often as Guy's Grocery Games, where it feels like every five episodes or so he has some of the judges play along.  As a result, these rankings have as much to do with what these judges are like as contestants as they are to do with their actual judging abilities.  Finally, Guy has more rotation in his judges (and has been more open about letting competitors graduate to judges than Chopped), so if one of your favorites are missing here, call me out in the comments as listing over a dozen names felt excessive but incomplete.

Honorable Mention:
Guy's son Hunter Fieri has taken to cohosting or serving as a judge in the past couple years, and while the 25-year-old isn't exactly judge, it feels weird to skip him as a discussion topic since he's in virtually every new episode the past couple of seasons.  While it's easy to dismiss Hunter as a legacy (his dad's name is literally in the title of the show), he adds a really awkward charm to the series that I kind of like, and also helps keep Guy somewhat in check (occasionally he can be a lot with the pranks & puns).  Also, and my friend Drew would chastise me if I didn't point this out because I talk about Hunter a lot with him...I think Hunter is REALLY cute.  Definitely a go-to celebrity crush answer.  I cannot quite explain this as he does not noticeably stand out as the hottie of the Food Network, but he's my Swipe Right of anyone on the channel.

12. Aaron May

Unlike Chopped, I had to think much longer about the rankings here as generally the judges here I like in similar patterns.  But my first and last places are cemented.  Of all of the judges on Guy's I wish would take a hiatus, Aaron May is #1.  May's judging critiques are rarely helpful, almost always underlining something that another judge has already said, and as a result he rarely adds something to the conversation.  But he's at his worst when he's competing.  While I admire anyone trying to win (that's the whole point), he actively pouts whenever he loses, to the point where I feel like a recent victory when they did "at home" meals he gained points largely because he was so angry about losing the first round.  He gives off the energy of someone who takes their ball home when he is losing the game.

11. Catherine McCord & Melissa D'Arabian

I'm tying these two, mostly because after all of these years of watching I can't quite tell them apart.  Both of them are attractive blondes, both of them are relatively immune to Guy's games & mostly just their to take care of business.  They have different background (D'Arabian is a longtime chef, McCord started as a runway model and then moved into writing cookbooks), but I think the primary reason they don't both show up in the same episodes (the only proof I have of them having even met is this photo) is because even Guy thinks they are roughly the same person.

10. Brian Malarkey

Brian is frustrating to me as a contestant for a variety of factors.  For starters, while he's very talented offscreen (he's one of the more successful figures on the show in terms of his restaurants), he has not grown enough through the seasons for me to be a huge fan of his work.  He always buys too much and as a result his dishes look scattered & like they are giant kitchen sink presentations (the only way Malarkey is ever going to win is in a Budget Battle).  He also loses all the time, and while there are other people like Jet Tila who lose frequently but you love them because they have such a specific approach to their judging, his judging isn't all that interesting either.  He also is one of the few judges who tries to match Guy in terms of his energy, and it feels excessive, particularly since it'll drown out some of the calmer panelists.

9. Beau MacMillan

A repetitive criticism you're going to see in these write-ups is whether or not someone is a good fit for Guy.  There needs to be a balance (no one should ever upstage Fieri, which is very different than Chopped where the host plays such a minor role), and Beau is not great primarily because he doesn't make a huge impression, but still has a bro-y nature.  As a result, he serves as neither a particularly intriguing counter to Guy (someone who is the "adult" in the room) nor is he helping a lot with the jokes by being super goofy or funny.  He's a panelist who doesn't make an impact.

8. Aarti Sequeira

Aarti is a former Food Network Star (Fieri won an early season of the show and has made a point of hiring different people from this series through the years to be judges).  She has solid culinary taste, and is one of the few judges on the panels that would make sense on Chopped (for the record, while Chopped judges show up here all the time, it's rare that the reverse happens).  As a result, it's really easy to cheer for her as a competitor, because you know the "Spice Queen" is going to give you a solid dish even if she doesn't win.  But as a judge, she's just all right.  She frequently struggles with the repartee & the cheesiness of Guy's show, and her criticisms of dishes feels repetitive.

7. Damaris Phillips

Obviously when you watch this show over the course of years and not just occasionally in the background, certain judges irritate you, and certain ones grow on you.  Phillips is the latter for me.  I initially wasn't a fan of Phillips; it's not a good idea to try to out-quirk Guy, and generally those that attempt to do so fall on their faces.  But Phillips grows on you.  She's a southern woman who does a lot of vegetarian cooking, which is a fun juxtaposition you don't see very often on the Food Network, and she's genuinely funny in the way that she can perplex Guy.  I honestly think she's more fun on Beat Bobby Flay (she and Bobby have awesome chemistry) and her competition skills aren't quite up-to-snuff with some of the top contenders on this list, but I always smile when she's on the panel because I know it'll be a good time.

6. Richard Blais

Richard Blais is easy to confuse with Brian Malarkey, because their approaches are all over the place.  But I love Blais in a way I never could Malarkey because his dishes & approach require so much focus. Blais is kind of the stud of the panel (of the male judges, he is undoubtedly the best-looking), and it shows in his cooking as he'll not be afraid to try new techniques, but he also brings a sophistication to his work that feels impossible given the time constraints of what he's working on.  His judging is occasionally drowned out because he doesn't quite know how to punch it up (especially if it's a louder panel), but he's always someone I'm rooting to show up as a contestant.

5. Troy Johnson

Troy is great, and the panelist I always want to see regardless of the combo since he works well with everyone.  Johnson, unlike every other person on this list, is not a culinary professional, but instead a food critic, which is something you rarely see on the Food Network, where "Chef" is an honorific thrown around so often you think it's part of a drinking game the network executives play each night.  So while he's a lousy contestant as a result (the rest of these contenders can cook circles around him), it makes his critiques really interesting.  Troy is the judge most likely to strike out on his own, and also the one whom you feel like you're getting a genuinely honest depiction of what's happening (unlike Chopped, there's a lot more positivity here, even when someone royally screwed up a dish).  He's also got the best chemistry with Fieri himself, who makes Johnson the butt of multiple jokes in every episode, and takes it the most in stride.

4. Justin Warner

"The wild card" Justin Warner is an unusual judge.  Unlike most of the judges on this list, he's not formally-trained, but that means that he frequently will mix flavors or techniques that a classically-trained chef might not employ.  Warner's fun to watch-he's quirky, his approach is bold, and he's very hard to predict.  This occasionally makes him a bit annoying to root for as a contender, as he'll oftentimes employ techniques that feel like they'll inevitably fail (I remember once he used bagged fries, which is about as big of a no-no as you can get on Guy's), and as a home chef who likes to learn, he'll frequently do things I can't recreate at home (he goes to the liquid nitrogen way too much), but I am a fan.  Also, he was so much fun when he got to mentor one of the young chefs who idolized him.

3. Jet Tila

The top three are much higher than the rest.  I generally like Chopped better than Guy's because I like the structure of it, but the Top 3 can compete with any Chopped judge in terms of adoration.  Jet is an excellent, amiable competitor.  He is great on all of the Food Network shows (he was also fun on BBQ Brawl and Beat Bobby Flay) and brings an approach to cuisine that doesn't feel too daunting.  It's clear Food Network agrees with me because lately they've been using him for everything (he seems to be a guest judge pretty much every other show), but it doesn't feel overwhelming.  The one thing that I will say is that he's very tough to root for because he has a Washington Generals-style win record on Guy's, but his approach is always strong.

2. Michael Voltaggio

Another regular on Beat Bobby Flay, Michael Voltaggio isn't as regular of a competitor on Guy's, and I almost didn't include him (in many ways, he mirrors someone like Brooke Williamson who is a Guy's judge occasionally but doesn't appear regularly enough for me to list her here, though if she was she'd be in the Top 3 as she's an amazing chef).  But Voltaggio is on Guy's enough that I figured I'd make an exception, and also because he's a superb competitor.  Creative, frequently able to make really amazing dishes with the most unusual ingredients (Voltaggio, more than anyone, is unfazed by a whammy ingredient when Guy throws one at him).  He's also really cool...on a network that isn't particularly hip, Voltaggio brings a swagger that is undeniable.

1. Antonia Lofaso

The Warrior Princess (I frequently wonder if Guy asks permission before bestowing a nickname on one of his judges) tops this list for a variety of reasons.  First, her judging is insightful-she respects the game play (I hate when someone cheats & doesn't actually do the challenge), but her French culinary cuisine training comes out in the way she knows how to handle even the most ostentatious of dishes.  Second, she's a genuinely great competitor.  Of the people I regularly cheer for, she wins the most of the bunch, and it's rare that she botches a dish.  And lastly, she's a joy to watch.  She's funny, charming, knowledgeable, and plays off Guy really well.  She's gotten two hosting gigs in the last year (doing Beachside Brawl and The Julia Child Challenge), and I'm so glad as she's more than earned them.

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Why Didn't the Democrats Codify Roe in 2009?

Democrats are currently running an unusual campaign for the midterms, specifically when it comes to abortion rights.  President Biden & Senator Schumer have basically stated that while Biden might be able to issue executive orders that would override Roe to a degree, codifying abortion rights is not possible currently.  Despite the Democrats having the White House, Senate, and House, two Democratic senators (Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia) have point-blank refused to eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe into law, and based on current Senate rules, the Democrats cannot pass the bill under a bare majority in the Senate, which there are not enough pro-choice votes to do even if the Democrats were able to find a bill that might appeal to nominally pro-choice Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

The big question that Democrats have been throwing around in recent days has been "why didn't Democrats codify Roe when they had the chance?"  This isn't a bad question.  Democrats have had a trifecta multiple times since 1973, and as a result would've had opportunities to push for Roe becoming national law, potentially preventing the type of overreach the Roberts Court committed recently.  This dismisses, though, the historical reality of how much the Democratic Party has changed, and so I wanted to take a look today at specifically the brief period in 2009, the last time that the Democrats had the White House, House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate.

In order to break the filibuster (without eliminating the filibuster) you need sixty votes, and for a small window during President Obama's first term in office, the Democrats had that.  While they won overwhelming majorities in 2008 in the White House, Senate, & House, the mythology about the filibuster-proof trifecta is a bit exaggerated in terms of how long they actually had 60-votes.  This is due to three factors.  First, Al Franken won the 2008 election by a bare majority (312 votes), and wasn't seated in the Senate until July 7, 2009.  Second, Arlen Specter wasn't a Democrat the entire term-he switched parties on April 28, 2009, to the Democrats, but for the first three months of the Senate he was a Republican.  And third, Sen. Ted Kennedy died on August 25, 2009, and wasn't replaced by Paul Kirk until September 24, 2009.  Kirk would eventually be replaced (he didn't stand for election) by Republican Scott Brown on February 4, 2010.  This means that the Democrats only had a 60-seat majority from 7/7-8/25/09 and from 9/24/09-2/4/10, or about 6 months.  During that time Senate Democrats did pass a lot of legislation, most notably the Affordable Care Act and the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  But in a slow-moving Senate, they had a very brief window to be able to pass this without the filibuster.

The reason I bring this up is because overturning the filibuster to pass legislation didn't really become en vogue until the Trump years.  Before that, while it was oftentimes discussed for judicial blocks (i.e. the nuclear option), it wasn't something that either party wanted to get toward.  Overturning it for something like the ACA wasn't really on the table, and codifying Roe, which was considered "safe" by pretty much all Democrats, was too big of a political risk.  It's not clear if you could've gotten 40 votes to remove the filibuster, much less fifty.

So assuming that you were just going to go in this window, the biggest problem with codifying Roe would be that there weren't actually 60 votes to pass it even with a majority.  Let's assume President Obama would have signed legislation codifying Roe into law (an easy assumption for a very pro-choice president) and that the House would've found the votes (a bigger leap given the number of southern conservatives still in the body, but given Nancy Pelosi's legendary whip-counting abilities & the size of the majority, probably would've been achievable).  But you still need 60 Senate votes, and I can't find the math to get there.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
For starters, at least one Democratic senator was anti-choice: Ben Nelson.  It's hard for modern people looking at politics to grasp, but 2009 was around the first time in American history where all of the Democrats were to the left of the most moderate Republican.  In 2004, for example, Democrats would've had a senator like Zell Miller who was deeply conservative (to the point of voting almost always with the Republicans), while the Republicans would have Lincoln Chafee, a senator so liberal that he'd eventually become a Democratic candidate for president.  Ben Nelson would make Joe Manchin look like Chuck Schumer by comparison.  A popular former governor of Nebraska, he was very against abortion rights, to the point where he was endorsed by Right to Life in his 2006 reelection campaign.  Nelson would've been a very tough, if not impossible get for the Democrats in codifying Roe.

Nelson wouldn't have been the only problem for the Democrats.  While Nelson was the only truly anti-choice Democrat in the caucus, many other Democrats were very much to the right of what we'd expect for the Democrats to do on abortion rights.  Mark Pryor (AR), Robert Byrd (WV), Evan Bayh (IN), Kent Conrad (ND), & Arlen Specter (PA) all had mixed views on abortion, and would've been difficult to get to support the same bill.  Even Bob Casey, who is a current senator whose views on abortion rights would indicate he'd likely now codify Roe, was much more conservative on abortion rights in 2009-10.  The Democrats likely would've needed to peel off at least a couple of Republicans, and while there were five GOP members who were pro-choice to some degree during that Congress (Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), & Scott Brown (MA)) it's hard to imagine that they would've bucked their party leadership to codify Roe in that scenario.

This is because Roe wasn't really considered that vulnerable at the time.  While the Supreme Court had 5 conservatives and 4 liberals, it was a very different makeup than we have today.  While all of the liberals (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter/Sotomayor, Stevens/Kagan) were very proudly pro-Roe, only three Republicans (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) seemed certain to overturn Roe.  Chief Justice Roberts was viewed as an institutionalist, and the Democrats had a very certain fifth vote for Roe in Anthony Kennedy.  Roe didn't look to be in immediate danger, particularly if Obama could get more appointments in his final three Congresses (Ginsburg, Kennedy, & Scalia all being older).  We know how that turned out, but in 2009 there was more concern over fixing the economy & passing the ACA than on Roe.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
One last thing to remember is also what codifying Roe would look like, but it's also worth remembering that the left flank has very different views on abortion than some of the moderate pro-choice voters.  In 2009, we were not super far away from the "Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003" where Republicans banned late-term abortions.  31 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Collins, Snowe, Chafee) all voted against this bill.  It's probable that several of the most liberal/pro-choice members of the Senate in 2009 (think people like Barbara Boxer (CA), Patty Murray (WA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Bernie Sanders (VT), Mark Udall (CO) and Russ Feingold (WI)) wouldn't have allowed a codification of Roe that likely would've required limitations on abortion access.  In all likelihood, they would've pressed for at least some overturning of the 2003 act, setting up a game of chicken that it's hard-to-tell who would've won, particularly considering that there wasn't an obvious end-date for Roe being legal given Kennedy was on the bench, and so "doing nothing" was the probable outcome in such a standoff.

In retrospect, the Democrats should've been wearier.  Many assumed that the 2003 "partial-birth" legislation would be overturned by the Court.  After all, a similar piece of legislation had been overturned in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart had done just that but in 2007 when the case made it to the Supreme Court (Gonzalez v. Carhart) it was held up 5-4.  The biggest difference didn't appear to be the legislation itself, but instead that Sandra Day O'Connor, a pro-choice jurist, had been replaced by Samuel Alito, decidedly anti-choice; this focus on the composition of the Court and not the merits of the legislation would be what eventually caused Roe to be overturned via Dobbs 16 years later.  However, given the gargantuan economic recession, the opportunity to pass the biggest expansion of healthcare since the 1960's, and the seemingly "safe" (it would, to be fair, stand for another 13 years without issue) status of Roe resulted in Democrats not codifying in what was surely their best opportunity to do so until present-day.