Raymond Tomlin is a veteran journalist and educator who has written frequently on the political realm — municipal, provincial and federal — as well as on cinema, mainstream popular culture, the arts, and technology.
View all posts by Raymond Tomlin →
Growing up in the ’60s, in the era of Phil Spector and the Wall of Sound, The Beachboys, The Beatles — and all the groups who were a part of The British Invasion — was to feel vibrant and alive, hopeful for a better world for all, within a revolutionary era of societal change that spanned the globe.
Music served to awaken a younger generation to the possibility of change, to define an era for themselves, and be moved to work collectively for the betterment of society. And as anarchist Emma Goldman was wont to say, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” There was no music better to dance to than the music of Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound.
An excerpt from Danny Tedesco’s very fine 2008 documentary, The Wrecking Crew, in which Cher, American record producer and recording engineer, Bones Howe, bassist Carol Kaye, drummers Hal Blaine, and more, exclaim about Phil Spector and the Wall of Sound.
To attain the Wall of Sound, Spector’s arrangements called for large ensembles (including some instruments not generally used for ensemble playing, such as electric and acoustic guitars), with multiple instruments doubling or tripling many of the parts to create a fuller, richer tone.
For example, Spector would often duplicate a part played by an acoustic piano with an electric piano and a harpsichord. Mixed well enough, the three instruments would then be indistinguishable to the listener.
Additionally, Spector incorporated an array of orchestral instruments (strings, woodwind, brass and percussion) not previously associated with youth-oriented pop music. Reverb from an echo chamber was highlighted for additional texture, which he characterized as “a Wagnerian approach to rock & roll: little symphonies for the kids”. The intricacies of the technique were unprecedented in the field of sound production for popular music
Imagine being 12 years old, turning on the radio and hearing Darlene Love and The Crystals, The Ronettes, Smoky Robinson and The Miracles, The Beatles, Marvin Gaye, The Zombies, The Righteous Brothers, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, Diana Ross and The Supremes, Mary Wells, The Drifters, Chris Montez, Dionne Warwick, Martha and the Vandellas, Otis Redding, Roy Orbison, Ray Charles, and more, so much more — in the early ’60s, the hits really did ‘keep on comin‘, Vancouver’s CKLG part of the musical revolution.
Today on VanRamblings, a musical tribute to Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound, which in an era of one track studios embodied a revolutionary approach to the recording of music, setting a standard that prevails to this day, in the complex arrangements of your very favourite progressive bands and artists.
In the spring of 1974, Cathy and I traveled to Europe for a three-month vacation across the vast expanse of the European continent, something Cathy had insisted on — and when Cathy wanted something, she got it.
Within 48 hours of our arrival at Heathrow Airport, and after snuggling down in a small hotel, Cathy — who was two months pregnant at the time, her pregnancy not in any way proving a deterrent to her desire for a summer European sojourn — fell “ill”. Cathy and I took a taxi to the hospital, where she ended up staying a week, miscarrying our child.
In the two months prior to our departure, Cathy and I had talked about whether we should follow through on our summer plans, given that when we had traveled to San Francisco to visit her mother’s cousins, she had miscarried. But Cathy’s mind was set, and the doctor signed off, so …
After leaving the hospital, Cathy needed rest, so we traveled down to and vacationed on the Isle of Wight for a week, before continuing our vacation on the continent, taking a luxury cruise ship from Southampton to Lisbon.
The vacation was everything and more that we both thought it might be, and by the end of our vacation in the latter part of August, upon returning home (landing in Edmonton, where her mother and sister lived), we were both thrilled to discover that Cathy was pregnant once again!
Over the course of the nine months Cathy was pregnant this time, Cathy took every precaution to preserve her pregnancy: changing her diet to organic foods, plant-based proteins, and upon the advice of the doulas who worked with us during the pregnancy, a great many foods with Vitamin E, including almonds, sunflower seeds, spinach and broccoli, wheat germ and safflower oil, in order that Cathy’s uterus might become more supple.
On Friday, May 16th, 1975, just two days before Jude’s date of birth, Cathy and I took in a concert at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, with Eric Andersen opening, and Phoebe Snow as the headliner. As it happened, our doctors — Roy, our primary physician, and his wife Dr. Patricia Blackshaw, who also saw Cathy during her pregnancy — were sitting in the row right behind us.
When Eric Andersen took the stage, Cathy went into labour, no Braxton Hicks contractions this time. We spoke with Roy and Patricia during the intermission — Patricia examining Cathy in a private room — with both advising us that it would be fine for the two of us to remain at the concert.
We called our doulas to inform them that Cathy was in labour, and that we’d be home around 11:30pm. Our son to be was on his way, and about to announce himself to the world!
16343 96th Avenue, in the Tynehead area of Surrey. In the early 1970s, a decision had been taken by the GVRD to acquire all the land from 160th to 176th streets, and from 96th Avenue to Highway #1, in order that the regional district might create a large regional zoo. While discussions were ongoing, the GVRD acquired all of the land, renting it out to any who applied — which Cathy and I did early in 1973, living on the farm until August 1975, after which we traveled into the Interior for me to begin a teaching job.
At the time Cathy and I were living on a five-acre farm in the Tynehead area of Surrey, renting our farm home (pictured above) from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, for $125 a month. Between boarding horses and selling hay (and the eggs from our chickens out back), we ended up living rent free on the property for more than two years.
Upon arriving home, our doulas were waiting for us, taking Cathy up to our bedroom to examine her. Cathy was only 1cm dilated, and birth didn’t seem imminent. We had prepared for a home birth and kept up our communication with Dr. Roy Blackshaw (who visited the next day), as Cathy’s labour continued throughout the Saturday, and into the evening.
Cathy’s mother called on Saturday morning, the phone answered by a friend of ours (who we had instructed not to tell her of the pending birth — Myrtle was opposed to the home birth, despite our precautions, and we felt sure that were she present, she’d harass us into going to the hospital).
Myrtle knew that something was afoot. When she hung the phone up at 10am, she almost immediately had friends take her to the Edmonton airport. By 2pm, she was bursting through the front door of our house, all but screaming, “Where’s my daughter? Where’s Cathy? I want to see her now,” yelling this in a packed front room of 20 of our closest friends.
Now, you can see a picture of Cathy above in the week before Jude’s birth — Cathy gained massive weight, going from 110 pounds to 185 pounds. By the time her labour pains started, she was more than ready to give birth — but truth be told, both a little uncertain and a little scared at the prospect.
We had made the decision for a home birth in large measure because: Cathy wanted me present and in the room for the birth, which at the time no hospital would allow, and because we didn’t want drops placed into our child’s eyes, and his care taking place in an antiseptic hospital setting.
From the time Myrtle arrived on Saturday til noon on Sunday, she was like a broken record: “Get Cathy to the hospital now. What are you trying to do, kill my daughter?” Myrtle threatened to sue the doulas, and have me charged if any harm came to her daughter. To be fair, had I the opportunity to do it all over again, I would opt for a hospital birth, despite the attendant “problems” that a hospital birth would have conferred on us, and our baby.
Finally, at noon on Sunday, after speaking with the doulas and on the advice of Roy Blackshaw, we made the decision to have the birth at Surrey Memorial Hospital, who were ready for us upon our arrival, placing Cathy in a wheelchair and whisking her to the maternity ward, and into a surgical room where Roy and three nurses were waiting for us.
The room was brightly lit (not what we wanted), the nurses overly officious and insisting that everything be “done by the book”, ordering me out surgical room with Cathy screaming, “No, no, no! He stays!”
Roy took charge, and ordered the nurses out of the delivery room, telling me to stay, and asking that I dim the lights. By 1pm, Jude was ready to announce himself to the world, with Cathy’s screams of pain piercing the room, with me not knowing what the heck was going on, and Roy keeping the both of us calm, and focused.
At 1:42pm, on a warm, sunny and wondrous Sunday, May 18, 1975 afternoon, Jude Nathan Tomlin was born — the single most transformative and most joyous moment of my life (and Cathy’s, too, as within seconds of Jude’s birth, Cathy looked at me to say, “I want another baby right away!”).
Roy recommended keeping Cathy in the hospital overnight, with Cathy and I discussing a middle name for our new baby boy. Earlier, we had decided on the name Jude — one sunny afternoon while visiting friends a couple of months prior to our son’s birth, as we were conversing around the dinner table about what we would name our child, something miraculous occurred: at the very same moment, the song Hey Jude came on the radio, the recently drafted Montréal Canadiens centre Jude Drouin, scored a goal (the hockey game was playing on the TV, which could just be heard in the background), and at the very same moment, Cathy and I simultaneously spotted a copy of Thomas Hardy’s Jude the Obscure on a side table. Almost in unison, Cathy and I screamed out, “Jude, we’ll name our child Jude!”
And so we did.
In her hospital room early on Monday, with me by her side, Cathy and I discussed what name we would choose for Jude’s middle name. At the time, Cathy was reading Nathaniel West’s Miss Lonelyhearts, West’s widely regarded masterpiece, the book on the table by her bed (Cathy had asked me to bring the paperback to the hospital later on the Sunday afternoon of Jude’s birth). I suggested to Cathy, “How about Nathaniel as the middle name?” Cathy considered my suggestion for a moment before saying, “Nathan, let’s choose Nathan, instead, for his middle name.” And so we did.
By 2pm on Monday afternoon, just 24 hours after Jude’s birth, Cathy and I left the hospital to return to our home (Myrtle traveling in a taxi, right behind our car). Once home, Cathy rested, and I assumed Jude’s care, along with his maternal grandmother, who was now calmer, and … elated!
Cathy’s mom stayed only through Tuesday afternoon (Cathy insisted she leave — Cathy wanted the experience to be ours, sans her mother). On Wednesday, we left our farm house to go shopping at the Woodward’s food floor at the nearby Guildford Shopping Centre, Jude’s first foray into his bright new world — from the time we got out of the car, until we reached the entrance to the food floor, at least a dozen people stopped us to look at our newborn son, with Cathy & I beaming like the proud parents we were!
Jude Nathan Tomlin, the boy now man, in the winter of 2017, snow boarding up on Grouse Mountain. Happy 44th birthday, my most beloved, precious and much-loved son.
From the earliest days of Hollywood, women were stage managed and manipulated by older men in powerful positions. And it remains clear that, although Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves, John Lasseter, Luc Besson, among a host of other male predatory Hollywood executives who have been outed, little good has been achieved still for women in the film industry.
In the Hollywood dream factory, trauma surfaces as light entertainment.
In 2013, introducing the list of best supporting actress nominees during the Oscar ceremony, actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane quipped: “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” What was chilling was that no one got the joke. The idea that female stars and aspiring, often young, female stars are required to accept the attentions, at the very least, of older male studio executives, producers and prominent male stars, is as old as the Hollywood hills.
Given the profile that the #MeToo movement has brought to sex discrimination, why does sexism continue to prevail in Hollywood?
According to San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, women made up only 7 per cent of directors on the top 250 films of 2018, which was actually a 2 per cent decline from 2017. The same study found that while women made up higher percentages of other fields in the industry — 24% of producers, or 17 per cent of editors, for example — they only accounted for 17 per cent of the workforce of all the jobs surveyed. And that too, was a 2 per cent decline from the year before.
The University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering’s Signal Analysis and Interpretation Lab (SAIL) revealed how sexism is embodied by characters on the silver screen. If female characters are taken out of the plot, it often makes no difference to the story the study found.
Analyzing 1000 scripts, the study found that there were seven times more male than female writers & twelve times more male directors than women.
The biggest impact in counteracting the gender imbalance was if female writers were present at script meetings. If this was the case, female characters on screen was around 50% greater.
Inherent in these observations of the film industry are powerful messages about what it means to be female.
In our “post-feminist” era, where we are frequently told the problems of girls are yesterday’s news — that girls are awash in the largesse of civil rights, and it is boys who really require our attention — it is worthwhile to consider the conduct of male Hollywood writers and executives.
Actress Geena Davis, founder of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
The problem is so glaring that in 2005, the actress Geena Davis, who would go on to start her own gender institute, commissioned Stacy Smith, a researcher at the University of Southern California, to study the issue and help push the studios beyond the staid male-centred film industry.
From 2007 through 2017, according to Smith’s research, women made up only 30.2% of speaking or named characters in the 100 top-grossing fictional films.
The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media reports that films featuring women are financially profitable. “Guess what, Hollywood? Female-led films consistently make more money, year over year,” Madeline Di Nonno, the Institutes chief executive has reported to the heads of Hollywood studios.
Hollywood actor Charlize Theron has criticized the movie industry for gender bias. Promoting her film Atomic Blonde, she told feminist Bustle magazine: “Fifteen, ten years ago, it was almost impossible to produce female-driven films, in any genre, just because nobody wanted to make it.”
A quiz that was designed to find out how sexist a film might be was developed by Alison Bechdel and Liz Wallace in 1985. To pass, the film needed three positive answers to these questions: Does it have more than two named female characters? Do those two talk to each other? Is that conversation about something other than a man? The Hollywood Reporter applied the Bechdel-Wallace test to the top-selling movies of 2018, finding that only around half of the films passed the test.
Actress-writer-director Lena Dunham, creator of the HBO series, "Girls"
Female directors are in what “Girls” creator Lena Dunham calls “a dark loop.” If they don’t have experience, they can’t get hired, and if they can’t get hired, they can’t get experience. “Without Googling it,” Dunham asked a recent Sundance panel, “Ask anybody to name more than five female filmmakers who’ve made more than three films. It’s shockingly hard.”
The sheer scale of rampant Hollywood sexism is daunting, the stories of what actresses have to put up with disturbing, the tales of pay inequity and pushing for more female-led stories are instructive.
Actress-writer-producer Zoe Kazan, star of the Oscar-nominated film Big Sick, and writer and executive producer of the films, Ruby Sparks and Wildlife (the latter now on Netflix)
Actress Zoe Kazan (The Big Sick) toldIndieWire reporter, Kate Erbland, “There’s so much sexual harassment on set. And there’s no HR department, right? We don’t have a redress. We have our union, but no one ever resorts to that, because you don’t want to get a reputation for being difficult.”
The Oscar winner and star of The Favourite, Rachel Weisz, told Out Magazine that a number of her male co-stars have taken lower salaries in order to match her own. “In my career so far, I’ve needed my male co-stars to take a pay cut so that I may have parity with them,” she said.
Actress Emmy Rossum sounded off during a recent Hollywood Reporter roundtable about her experience with overt sexism in the industry.
“I’ve never been in a situation where somebody asked me to do something really obviously physical in exchange for a job, but even as recently as a year ago, my agent called me and was like, ‘I’m so embarrassed to make this call, but there’s a big movie and they’re going to offer it to you. They really love your work on Shameless. But the director wants you to come into his office in a bikini. There’s no audition. That’s all you have to do.'”
If the dynamic of older men and younger, submissive women greases the wheels of Hollywood production offices repeats itself on screen, it is not an accident, but the desires of the producers and directors who create these films played out on the biggest stage of all: Hollywood cinema, the world’s most effective propaganda machine. Who is Hollywood trying to kid?
Joming Lau, a City of Vancouver Planning Analyst and member of Vancouver city’s Community Serving Spaces Team, and his colleague James O’Neill, a Cultural Planner with the city, working in the Cultural Spaces and Infrastructure Division of the Planning Department — and also a member the city’s Community Serving Spaces Team — have been kind in posting to VanRamblings the core document informing the conduct of the Tuesday, May 7th, 2019 affordable housing forum held at CityLab, at Cambie and West Broadway, the document in question, the Community Serving Spaces Place of Worship [pdf] presentation paper on the development of affordable housing and community service spaces on the sites of places of worship.
In an April 1, 2019 article in the Vancouver Sun / Province / PostMedia, migration, diversity and religion writer Douglas Todd asked the question, “Can Metro Vancouver churches plug the dire housing gap?”, going on to ask a second, related question, “How big a dent will re-developing scores of places of worship into housing make in a metropolis that ranks as one of the most unaffordable in the world?”, quoting Andy Yan, director of Simon Fraser University’s city programme as saying …
“Hopefully, the redevelopment (of places of worship) is one of the steps of creating a stairway to housing nirvana in Metro Vancouver. But the scale of trying to house those on local incomes affordably is almost biblical.”
Mr. Todd goes on to report that Christian and Jewish religious groups are together adding hundreds of units each year to the region’s rental and housing market, their annual contribution sometimes exceeding 1,000 new homes, a relatively small portion of the roughly 20,000 to 28,000 homes being constructed each year across Metro Vancouver, but still an invaluable contribution of low cost, affordable housing across our region.
Approved by Vancouver City Council in 2014, completed in 2018, a partnership between Central Presbyterian Church and Bosa Properties.
In collaboration with the city, Bosa Properties and Central Presbyterian Church, at 1155 Thurlow in downtown Vancouver, set about to provide 45 social housing homes that would be owned by the church, allowing Bosa Properties to build 168 secured rental homes that would be owned by Bosa, the project including the construction of a new church (and child care centre) built for the church by Bosa — at no expense to the church — and still owned by the church, the very much needed social housing homes and the child care centre creating an ongoing revenue stream for the Central Presbyterian Church. A win-win for all concerned: city, developer & church.
The role of the city? To collaborate with the places of worship to secure funding — from private sources, from the federal or provincial governments through their affordable housing programmes, or in some cases through access to the city’s Community Amenity Contribution programme, which secures in-kind or cash contributions from property developers in exchange for re-zoning of the property — which pays for the entire cost of construction, the city liaising with the place of worship to establish a relationship with a non-profit or for-profit property developer / builder.
Further, the city expedites the development permit process.
From first contact with a place of worship to final completion & occupancy, an average of three years transpire, with the end result: the creation of affordable rental housing, low cost social housing, and much needed community serving spaces, such as the aforementioned child care centre.
The most common phrase enunciated at the Community Serving Spaces for Places of Worship forum last week was, “Robert Brown can’t do it all.”
Mr. Brown, the founder of the Catalyst Housing Development Society is the President of our province’s largest non-profit real estate developer, he and his team responsible for the development of more affordable rental homes on the Lower Mainland and across our province than any other British Columbia developer, allowing faith groups to unlock the value of their real estate assets, while reinvesting that value back into communities for the benefit of families, and a revenue creation stream for places of worship.
A key piece of altruistic advice Mr. Brown provided to faith groups at last week’s affordable housing forum: retain ownership of your property.
Here’s the bottom line: there are 364 land rich, cash poor places of worship across the Vancouver landscape. The City of Vancouver, as part of the city’s Healthy City Strategy, has set about to work with faith groups to create the conditions necessary that would result in the construction of much needed low cost, affordable housing on the under developed properties owned by faith group congregations, providing a no cost renovation or reconstruction of the aging church, synagogue or other place of worship infrastructure, while also creating a revenue stream for the faith group membership, to ensure that our city’s places of worship will continue to thrive, while serving the social and community interests of neighbourhoods across our city.
