 |
HOME |  |
SCHEDULE | |
PROGRAMS | |
KIDS & FAMILY | |
LOCAL | |
SUPPORT KCET | |
ABOUT US | |
SHOP KCET |  |
| About Us | Contact Us | |
 |
|
 |
          |
|
|
 |
 |
||
|
|
Life & Times Transcript
09/15/05 Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times -- Do elephants belong in the zoo? Even in a multi-million dollar state of the art exhibit? Les Schobert>> I don't have a problem at all with the zoos. I have a problem with quality of life. John Lewis>> The public would like to see them and seeing them helps them build a conservation ethic, so I think it's important that we keep them. Val Zavala>> And then, three Oscar-caliber performances compete at the box office and at least one of them is animated. Our FilmWeek critics sort it all out. It's all straight ahead on tonight's Life and Times. Announcer>> Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Val Zavala>> Should elephants be held in captivity? Should they ever be part of a zoo's collection? Even under the best of circumstances, can we give elephants the room they need to thrive? Those are the basic questions that are fueling a controversy at the Los Angeles Zoo and, as Hena Cuevas tells us, even a large new elephant exhibit isn't enough to satisfy some animal advocates. Hena Cuevas>> They're among the most popular animals at the Los Angeles Zoo, the elephants, those huge magnificent creatures that roam the wide open spaces of Asia and Africa. But here in the heart of the city, there is no roaming. The three elephants at the zoo live in an area smaller than many house lots, a quarter of an acre. It's been that way since the 1960's when the zoo was built, but now there are efforts to build them a much bigger home. John Lewis>> There was a small yard on the back side of this before and what we're doing is pushing up that direction and pushing way back on the back side. Hena Cuevas>> John Lewis is the Los Angeles Zoo director. He's overseen the planning and construction of a new twenty million dollar elephant exhibit called The Pachyderm Forest. John Lewis>> So the new exhibit will take in all this space which is where the deep pool is for the animals to be submerged and then behind the barn to -- I guess it would be to the east northeast. The exhibit will take in the zoo meadows as well as what is existing, the reptile building, all the way up to what previously was the hippo yard. Hena Cuevas>> The Pachyderm Forest is expected to be a state of the art facility. At two and a half acres, the new exhibit is almost ten times bigger than the old enclosure, but that's where the problem lies. Some animal activists claim that's still not enough and they've gotten the attention of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who temporarily halted construction. He's requested a review of the plans. Les Schobert used to be a curator at the Los Angeles Zoo. He says he left because the animals weren't getting the attention they needed, especially the elephants. Les Schobert>> Zoos in general in North America are maintaining elephants in 1960's exhibits, 1940's exhibits. We've learned so much. Now it's time to change and apply that information that we have learned back into these exhibits. Hena Cuevas>> He argues that the existing plans which were approved two years ago don't go far enough in giving the elephants the space they need. Les Schobert>> If you build something that's minimal today and it's going to be three years before it opens at best, by then, is it going to be outdated then? So you're building something minimal. Why not build something that's going to be state of the art today than something minimal today? It seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me. Hena Cuevas>> So how much land is enough? Les Schobert>> It isn't two and a half acres. It isn't five acres. It isn't ten acres. Beyond that, you know, then I could begin to discuss things. Fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, fifty acres? Hena Cuevas>> But how realistic is it to get that amount of land in the middle of the city? According to Lewis, the zoo had to eliminate certain exhibits like the hippos to make room for the two and a half acre Pachyderm Forest. How challenging is this to try and accommodate all these animals on existing land and try pretty much to squeeze everybody in the same space? John Lewis>> Well, it is challenging, but challenging in a good sense. We're always learning new things. It is challenging, but during that process, we have to make decisions too. Do we keep everything that we have? I mean, this zoo itself over the last ten years has drastically reduced the size of its collection to respond to space needs and staff needs to make sure that the animals do have appropriate care. Hena Cuevas>> For the past twenty-five years, Jeff Briscoe has been in charge of the elephants. Jeff Briscoe>> Well, there's a lot of people that just are anti-zoo and an animal like an elephant is kind of a big high-profile animal. There's no question, you know, that the art of keeping elephants is constantly changing. It's changed a great deal in the last ten or twenty years, you know, in space. So, you know, there is something that did need to be changed and we've been making changes within the industry for all this time. Bigger space, better ways of managing them, increased exercise, better health care. So, in a sense, that interest and that push is helpful to everybody. Hena Cuevas>> For Briscoe, elephants need more than just space and the zoo is providing that. Jeff Briscoe>> You want to get all you can get, but it's really what you do with that space. For the last, I would say, eight years, we've had a very active exercise program here that we were looking forward to at least increase the exhibit. Every morning, we would take the elephants and literally walk them for several miles throughout the exhibit. John Lewis>> Is two acres enough? Well, maybe, but how many animals are we talking about? Because it's not only relevant to just general space. It's the management of the animals and how many you have there and what you're doing with them that's important too. Hena Cuevas>> Right now, the zoo has only three elephants with a fourth one temporarily in Tennessee, but that could change if the zoo adopts a breeding program and that potential increase in numbers is what concerns Gretchen Wyler of the Humane Society. Gretchen Wyler>> That would even increase the number of elephants now walking on the concrete of that exhibit. The two acres is now filled with not four females and one male, but maybe two babies. Now all of a sudden, you have seven. I mean, the numbers don't compute. Hena Cuevas>> Earlier this year, Wyler resigned from a zoo committee because of the elephant issue. Gretchen Wyler>> We are hoping that he will ask for a fifteen acre or twenty acre enclosure perhaps in the neighboring area, perhaps in Griffith Park somewhere. Short of that, I would like to believe that the popular opinion will say they shouldn't have elephants here. Hena Cuevas>> But Lewis says that losing the elephants would be a shame because of the animals' educational value. John Lewis>> We're not here just for entertainment. We're here for entertainment for the family and for the friends, but more importantly to get people to think about conservation, think about what's happening to the wildlife in the wild by seeing the animals here at the Los Angeles Zoo. Les Schobert>> Seeing one or two elephants standing in a concrete bunker or make it a two-acre bunker with nothing really to do except man-made objects and playing with a tire or a beer keg. You know, that isn't natural at all. Hena Cuevas>> Both Wyler and Schobert agree that the ideal location for a captive elephant is in a sanctuary like this one in Tennessee. Here, elephants wander over twenty-seven hundred acres. So the question becomes, is Los Angeles the best place for an elephant? But this isn't the only zoo where this debate is going on. All across the nation, zoos are asking themselves these same questions regarding their elephants. Recently, San Francisco transferred their elephants to the sanctuary and Chicago is trying to decide if they should even have any elephants at all. Gretchen Wyler>> Unless you can provide space needed to assure psychological and physical well-being, no, there shouldn't be that species. If they can make it have a life worth living, sure. John Lewis>> I don't think there are reasons why we shouldn't have the elephants here and, then again, the public would like to see them. Seeing them helps them build a conservation ethic, so I think it's important that we keep them. Hena Cuevas>> But is this a case of animal activists just not being happy seeing animals in zoos? Schobert says no. Les Schobert>> I don't have a problem at all with the zoos. I have a problem with quality of life and that is the issue. With elephants, it happens to be space and that's why there is so much resistance. Hena Cuevas>> The zoo has until September 30 to answer the mayor's questions. What's going to happen if it's determined that the elephant exhibit is okay and it goes as is? Gretchen Wyler>> We're going to give it our best shot, but ultimately, you know who it's going to be? The people. The people are going to speak and I think they should. John Lewis>> Let me say that I'm optimistic that we'll be able to keep elephants. I certainly know that we need to be serious about answering the questions to the mayor as well as the public. They have to feel comfortable that these animals are well taken care of. Hena Cuevas>> The project is already a year behind schedule, but in this case, reaching a compromise, they require more patience than bathing an elephant. I'm Hena Cuevas for Life and Times. Announcer>> Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, transcripts and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most interesting features. Just go to kcet.org and click on "Life and Times". Val Zavala>> It's been dubbed the female Viagra and its makers claim it boosts women's sex drive, but the Food and Drug Administration says not so fast. They want to see more studies. So is it safe and effective? I came to Westwood to speak with Dr. Judith Reichman, a prominent physician, author and expert on women's health. Now tell us about this testosterone patch for women because there are many, many women out there who would love to get their hands on this. Dr. Judith Reichman>> Well, I'm sorry to say that they can't get their hands on it because it has not been FDA-approved. It was going to come out with the name of Intrinsa, which I thought was a nice name, and it basically gave a certain amount of testosterone that was going to be physiologic for women. That means it wasn't going to give huge amounts of testosterone such as that which is given to men. When they take it, it's ten times more than what we need. It was basically researched to use in women who were menopausal either with surgical menopause or spontaneous natural menopause and only if they also took estrogen, the idea being that this patch, this testosterone source, was going to help with libido, arousal and orgasmic response. Val Zavala>> And the question is, did it work? Does it work? Dr. Judith Reichman>> It did work. It wasn't something that would make women feel like they had become eighteen again (laughter), but there was an increase based on the studies with arousal and a satisfaction with sex and perhaps an increase in the frequency of sex. Not huge. It was moderate, but considered to be significant. But it didn't work just on anyone. It was really for those women who had lost their source of testosterone because their ovaries were removed and, in some cases, once they were menopausal. Although I have to add that menopausal women, if their ovaries are still intact, are still making testosterone. They're making it from their adrenals. They're making it from their ovaries and they don't have this sudden loss that a woman gets if her ovaries are removed. Val Zavala>> So why did the FDA say no approval at this time? Dr. Judith Reichman>> They wanted longer term studies. Mostly the studies were anywhere from three months to six months. They wanted to know what are the long-term effects on coronary vascular disease, heart attacks and strokes. Were there any long-term effects on breast cancer, and they really didn't have that data. However, we know that if physiologic amounts of testosterone are given, in general we don't see tremendous bad changes in cholesterol or lipids. There are high doses of testosterone that were used from the 1950's in a treatment for breast cancer, so one would think that this wouldn't have any effect on breast cancer incidents. It doesn't seem to increase clot formation. And you have to remember that, when something is given through the skin with a patch, it doesn't have first bypass in the liver. So it doesn't have all the effects that an oral medication might have. Val Zavala>> Now a lot of people compare this to Viagra, which was approved in fairly short order, in about six months or less than a year. A lot of people are saying, oh, I see. Well, this is for women, so now they're dragging their feet. Is that the case? Dr. Judith Reichman>> No, it's not really the case. Viagra is not a hormone. What Viagra does is, it allows the increased blood flow so that the penis can basically expand and become erect. This doesn't seem to work in women. Although we need blood flow into the vaginal area for arousal, it really is not going to do anything for libido or for orgasmic response. It's actually the company that's tried very hard to see if it works with women -- Val Zavala>> -- the company that has the Viagra. Dr. Judith Reichman>> That's correct. And they have stopped the studies because they felt there was really no appreciable effect. Having said that, it's a lot easier to find out if something works in a man when it has to do with sexual response than if it works in a woman. Moreover, we now know that there are an awful lot of aspects to our sexuality that are not purely hormonal and that many women find that their libido is diminished and their orgasmic response is diminished because of psycho-social reasons. They're depressed, they don't like their partner, they have no partner, they're on medication. All that has to be ruled out before we even attempt to do something hormonal. Val Zavala>> So whether it be the testosterone patch or something else, do you think they'll ever find the key to unlock and boost women's sexual drive? Dr. Judith Reichman>> I think we're making progress. As far as medication, I haven't given up on the testosterone patch. I think they want more studies. I expect that eventually we will see it on the market. Meanwhile, we have other testosterone formulations. They're just not FDA-approved. We have creams and ointments that are also transdermal. In other words, they go through the skin. We're using compounding pharmacies to make them. Val Zavala>> A lot of women are using them. Dr. Judith Reichman>> Women are using them. You need a prescription. The doctor really has to know what she or he is doing and the woman has to be followed. There are going to be variances in the amounts because it's compounded. It is not FDA-approved. You have to be a little careful. NAMS, which is the North American Menopause Society, just came out with their recommendations vis-à-vis testosterone supplementation. They feel it should be given carefully and only for women who are definitely having sexual problems after the other aspects have been ruled out, such as psycho-social or medical and only in women who are menopausal. They feel it's only been tested together with estrogen, so when it's given, it should be given with estrogen and the smallest amounts should be given in order to reach the treatment goal. But they have come out and said that this stuff works and, in some women, might be appropriate. Val Zavala>> So it's promising, but in the meantime, we will move carefully. Dr. Judith Reichman>> Absolutely. Val Zavala>> Dr. Reichman, thank you so much. Great advice. Dr. Judith Reichman>> My pleasure. Announcer>> To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us by mail at this address: Life and Times 4401 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90027 You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org. Larry Mantle>> Welcome to FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC. Our first film this week is the stop motion animation "Corpse Bride". Tim Burton co-directs the film which features an array of talented voice actors. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> I'm joined this week by critics Jean Oppenheimer of New Times and Andy Klein of City Beat and Valley Beat. Jean, what did you think of Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride"? Jean Oppenheimer>> Well, I think this is a delightful, even endearing, film which may sound odd since it's about life in the underworld (laughter). But, of course, it is a Tim Burton film and I really think it's Tim Burton at the top of his form. The technical side, the stop motion animation, is very impressive to me, but I really don't know anything about it. You need Solomon here to really discuss it. The two things I liked best about the film actually were the story line, the script, and the music. I give it a lot of credit because, instead of setting it up where one of the females or one of the characters is bad and one is good, you really like both of them. You're really torn about what you want to happen, just as the hero is. If this were a more traditional Disney-esque type movie, I think they would go for, you know, the wicked one and the good one. So I really found it delightful. Larry Mantle>> Do you agree, Andy? Andy Klein>> I wish I could be that enthusiastic about it. I enjoyed this okay, but I actually found it kind of underpowered and not nearly as engaging as "Nightmare Before Christmas" which is the obvious comparison. I guess it was ten years ago now. Yeah, the story is terrific and the animation is, I think, a big step up from "Nightmare Before Christmas", but it's just not that funny. I mean, I think that was the central problem I had. The laughs are very few and far between. You've got fabulous voice artists. You've got Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Tracey Ullman, Albert Finney. Christopher Lee is terrific as the priest. Still somehow, this kind of -- I would say I didn't think it was bad, but it kind of sat there for me. Larry Mantle>> Well, "Nightmare" had all kinds of great sight gags. This didn't have that? Andy Klein>> It had a few. It had some sight gags, but it just -- you know, if I hadn't expected a comedy, maybe I would have liked it better. Larry Mantle>> Next up is the action adventure film, "Lord of War". It's written and directed by Andrew Niccol and it stars Nicolas Cage and Ethan Hawke. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> Andy, what did you think of "Lord of War"? Andy Klein>> Well, Andrew Niccol wrote "The Truman Show" and then wrote and directed "Gattaca", so he's a really interesting talent. I found this less interesting than either of those. Nicolas Cage plays an arms dealer and we actually see him from the beginning of his career in the early 1980's when he's just an immigrant kid growing up in Little Odessa, New York. He decides that this is what he's good at and he, very quickly over the course of a few years, becomes a top international arms dealer. The story is narrated by him in a sort of clunky narration and it reminded me very, very much, but not as good as, "Goodfellows". I mean, it was structurally very similar, the use of the narration was very similar, and that's not a comparison you really want to put yourself up for. It makes a lot of good political points, but I thought it was kind of hand-fisted while it did that. But it is engaging for a film that I think is a little over two hours. It certainly held my interest. Larry Mantle>> Jean, do you agree? Jean Oppenheimer>> I really responded to the cynicism and irony of this story and I think the acting was wonderful. It's a very serious subject, but it's handled in sort of a black comedy way. It's a little bit in tone like "Three Kings" was. I'm not saying it's as good as "Three Kings", however. What I found so interesting is that I do not personally usually respond to amoral protagonists, amoral characters, and it's hard to be more amoral than the character played by Nicolas Cage who is based on real people. I thought this one was very well acted. It had a good script. I thought there was a lot of humor, a lot of funny lines and politically right on target. Larry Mantle>> And finally this week, we have the film adaptation of David Auburn's Pulitzer Prize-winning play, "Proof". John Madden directs Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal and Anthony Hopkins. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> Jean, did "Proof" work for you? Jean Oppenheimer>> You know, I liked "Proof". I liked the kind of movie that "Proof" is, which is that it is a serious, very intelligent, almost intellectual film that has a lot of psychology and a lot about emotions and feelings. Jake Gyllenhaal , I think, gives his best performance to date and I almost always liked him in roles, but here it's almost like his first adult role in a way, his emotionally adult role. He just outshines everybody. Gwyneth Paltrow was good, but she has a way of knitting her brow and pursing her lips that to me seems mannered. Now I still think she was good. She plays the part as a real depressive. I never saw Mary Louise Parker on the New York stage, but I think I probably would have responded to her interpretation which would be more with a real edge of humor and that you really question whether this woman is crazy or not. But having said that, I think there's real tension in the story. I think there are some great lines and, overall, extremely well acted. Larry Mantle>> I think Paltrow did play this role on stage in London. Jean Oppenheimer>> And John Madden was the director there. Larry Mantle>> Who directed the film. Andy, what did you think of "Proof"? Andy Klein>> I was, once again, a little less enthused than Jean. You know, it's a story that's sort of a combination of math and people going crazy. It's sort of like "A Beautiful Mind" that way, but only in the subject matter, not in the treatment at all. I agree with Jean about Jake Gyllenhaal, who really was terrific, and the others are good. Hopkins has a kind of small role despite his billing and most of it is him just being manic. He's fine at it, but it's pretty limited. But I have to say that, once again, the experience was compromised for me by the fact that it reminded me of something else that's better. I hate to keep doing that, but the Tom Stoppard play, "Arcadia" which altered the ultimate math prodigies and also with a locale that's very claustrophobic, was so brilliant that I was looking at this and thinking this is okay. Larry Mantle>> Well, we thank you for joining us for another FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC for critics, Andy Klein of City Beat and Valley Beat, and Jean Oppenheimer of New Times. We invite you to join us next week at this time for our next FilmWeek on Life and Times. Val Zavala>> KPCC radio broadcasts a full hour of FilmWeek every Friday morning at eleven a.m. And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at Life and Times, thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. Announcer>> Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Sponsored in part by:  | |
|
Home | Features | Arts | Health/Science | OC Edition | L&T Blog | Archives | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |