Most often we don't have to choose a side because we are one, determined by our own immediate self interest and that of our family, friends, peers and alies. But when it comes to abstraction or objectivity or discussion of larger topics in our attempt to think outside the box of our own bias, there may seem to be no escaping this idea of the team and competition. Debate as a sport in school for example imposes the somewhat artificial choices in a debate match and participants who may praise the process as developming and refining their thought process are perhaps over-organizing. It is actually human organic approximation of mechanican thinking. Ones and zeros. On or off. As entertaining as it may be and as useful as it may be as an exercise it is dangerous and most issues debated this way are ill served. Certainly truth and the process of maintaining its complexity are compromised.
We understand that a crime of passion is something to be less damnable than a premeditated one. We know that someone with a great record keeping mindset and the earliest IBM punch card technology contributed to the Shoah or Holocaust and that if the worst choices are made at the top then those below in the chain of command can become little more than switches "only following orders" and united by fear of stepping out of lock-step or goose-step formation. We know that when people commit suicide they are rarely raving in overtly noticable depression and that they have settled into a calm or even a comfort zone because logic has given them a choice to aim for and a plan, a rational and simple end. Perhaps the repercussions toward others haven't been factored in, unless they have read Final Exit and accounted for who is most likely to find the body and so on. When terrorists are brainwashed it is not because of pixie dust from religious meditation but because of a targeted and logical programming of arguments that strip away the complexity of the individual and leave only what seems like a plan and a path to a closure that feels like the end of an equation.
The trouble is that it is an end-defined choice or a goal-defined method of thinking and it contaminates or aborts the search for truth. It speeds forward instead of letting tendrals of new information and forgotten information slow down progress of the team or the objective or the act. The part of the rapist's mind that allows him to steal or procure a drug like roofies and then place it into a woman's drink and then transport her patiently to a private place perhaps careful that others don't say goodnight to them or get a good look at her behaviour -- this is not a person so full of passion he is out of control. This is the mechanical mind kicking in and running the show, for all the joy the presumed act(s) of consumation will give him which have more to do with access, knowledge and access or power over someone. All consistent with the gamesmanship of logic or debate. In this case debate against the conscience or natural social instinct of trust or intimacy. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper allocated funding for G-8 and G-20 in excess of a billion dollars, and much of it for security, it was with reasonable and logical expectation of the results. Vandalism was anticipated, as was disrption or blocking of resources such as a Soup Kitchen for the homeless and economic hardship to small businesses in Toronto. When Police Chief Bill Blair failed to issue a mandate of putting citizens first and simply letting the fences for example keep the people clear of the visiting dignitaries, logic was available to him and he used it. He allowed chaos to rule and he let rule inspire chaos. A pay duty police constable or a security guard has to go out of his or her way to stop and interrogate people about why they are walking in the city core. The prospect of terrorists striking from the ground and amid a crowd was unlikely. Infiltration of the demonstrators by plain clothes police was logical, and yet the Black Bloc still did their thing. Documentary footage of interrogations and personal confrontation with citizens are especially damning because a gathering that was organic and human was contaminated by the formality of robotic, logical and goal-oriented personnelle. The psyche of the G-20 pressence was pushed and over-managed by the super-ego.
All of which are basic principles most people imagined when they saw the money being lavished on G-20. This was not so that the heads of state could see what Toronto is like. What they could see of it under G-20 wasn't an image the city wants to sell anyway, even if they could get close to it. Harper must have wanted to reinforce his message of "I can do whatever I like and prioritize however I want, and no matter what you know about me and my policies my machine will continue to run." The smooth running of the machine continues. Just as it did back when there was a glimmer of hope and talk of a Coalition between Liberals and NDP with the blessing of the Bloc finally ousting the Harper Conservatives. His neck was exposed and our dear Michelle Jean whose job was mostly window dressing through 99 percent of Canada's history has a chance to give Canada back to Canadians and circumvent the catch we are now in and she blew it. Now we still stand with a Conservative encumbant and a split of any votes against him and his party. With his detractors devided, logic lets him sail through without doing anything extrordinary. Suppose Canada had been labeled as "cheap" for not showing off any fake lake or over-the-top security bills and they had merely rented a boat and held the G-20 in Toronto Harbour and a few decoys where there was no reliable shot vantage point for an assasin, as opposed to the convention center which had several viable options. The enforcement of G-20 last minute legislation was more about putting on a show of force and putting people down. Investigating people at the top and holding them accountable in a concrete way would help undo some of that. But the machines are in charge.
We can vent on Twitter and Facebook and feel as if we are in control. And maybe that will make some small dent. People want to throw mythology and the Bible out the window these days because they are not logical. But some of that non-logic is helpful in abstracting what we can't quite articulate with what is at hand in reality. The Tower of Babel is still something that we try to make. We try to make it with logic and Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the Atheist Bus but it's just a mechanical argument. It isn't liberating to me personally to believe there is no God; I'm not going to age any slower or have better luck dating. Nobody cares if the fat guy at the party declairs himself a hedonist; it would only scare the girls off more. We have failed to contact God or reach him with our flimsy tower of technology or logic and have only found ourselves cursed. Our voices are now speaking many different languages and putting up an obstacle to our ability to built another tower. Even an earnest attempt at this goal, for altruistic reasons, will be seen as arrogance. I don't remember how many people died falling from the Tower of Babel or whether its builders gave up simply because they couldn't understand each other.
I don't understand the idea that it is immature to imagine the world other than the way it is. But I'm told that is the judgement. I don't know that God should he forced to show his face or even that such a Supreme Being would require acknowledgement in order to exist. I exist without much acknowledgement at work, for example. The Tower of Babel is also the steeple on many churches, many of which are being sold off and "de-sanctified" including one I went to as a child and a teen. Whichever church has the bigger ding-dong ringing from its clock, I suppose wins the debate about which hairstyle will doom you to Hell. Many times in my life as a Roman Catholic I have said "Amen" as a Minister of the Eucharist has offered "The Body of Christ." I was in my twenties, long after being Confirmed Catholic at 13, before being corrected that what we believe is that the wafer does transform into the body of Jesus and the wine transforms into the blood. While it's interesting to have someone tell me with authority what I believe, having worked in that Parish as a Sacristan and having drank unblessed wine stock with my friends and eaten unblessed wafers like chips (until tiring of their blandness) I find they taste the same before and after the blessing. And I wondered why for a while we were getting whole wheet brown wafers when after the blessing they were going to be Jesus anyway. To be a strict Catholic, and to say I won't eat the body of Christ as long as he manifests and tells me I am not worthy. . .is to use the same logic as the atheist in demanding he show his face. Then our own logic says that since he hasn't spoken up I must be worthy to consume the body of my God. And then we eat Him. We are Diavores. No just Omnivores, but Diavores. And how can you argue with us? We eat the Supreme Being sometimes twice on Sundays. We haven't figured out why a Priest can bless holy water and sprinkle it onto a posessed person to get a reaction but not simply bless the water that makes up a high percentage of the posessed person's body. Wouldn't blessed blood already kick the shit out of a demon? But that's being too logical. Or if a person - maybe a priest (one who hasn't renedered his blessings worthless by doing something evil) - says grace before every meal and that blessed food and drink is generating all the cells of his body, how can a vampire bite him? That logic may be too ambitious and arrogant for me. Because who am I to argue with vampires? Maybe they know something I don't.
Most of the things we debate about are bullshit or become bullshit on either side eventually when stretched to apply too globally. A person might be pro-choice because they don't believe the law should bother focusing on arresting both the doctor performing the abortion and the pregnant woman paying him to do it. Far too may of us know people we don't want to see arrested, whether we wish they had gone full term or not. But how can a person say pro-choice and freedom are their guides when it comes to insisting a doctor in a remote or underserved area must make time to perform abortions against his or her will? At what point can a person say "Keep that mission statement for your free Toronto tabloid with hooker ads at the back" ? Maybe it's not such a big deal to say that in a town where there is no huge demand for abortion maybe somebody's got to take that long bus ride or go full term. For an urban person, that attitude sounds cold and humorless and outragously conservative. But that is also an over simplification and a compartmentalization and a branding of teams and logos and objectives. You can dislike that comment or argument and then get up in arms and blast the writer with something snarky. But it's a feeling, about as solid as a logo for a sports team or a beer you feel loyalty to. It is not loyalty to a town or a group of free-agents who may or may not play a full season wearing those colors. It is like Mel Brooks said as the 2000 Year Old Man, (singing a fight song) "Let them all go to hell, except cave 76!" Your empathy is with yourself, and anything that isn't celebrating you and your like is the other. Mel also said, "Tragedy is I cut my finger; Comedy is that YOU fall into an open sewer and die."
That's the best example of tribalism and debate in general that I can recall.
And I had to write this long mess.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
protest
To protest Fox $15 million suit against PJ Mc Ilvaine for the common act of sharing scripts, send letters to:
Rupert Murdoch
Chairman and Chief Executive
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
8th Floor
NY, NY 10036
Rupert Murdoch
Chairman and Chief Executive
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
8th Floor
NY, NY 10036
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Bad day for Screenwriters and script fans
pj mcilvaine & goliath
Supposed to be celebrating the baptism of a child, two strangers knocked on her door and informed her, in front of her children, 20th Century Fox was suing her for 15 million dollars. Two hours later, after grilling her with questions for two solid hours, they left her stunned and crying in her living room staring at a business card that stated they were “private investigators.”
This was the first contact PJ had from 20th Century Fox regarding a Media Fire online script library she created — and was the day 20th Century Fox filed a law suit against PJ in federal court for fifteen million dollars.
PJ is a struggling screenwriter who sells flowers over the phone by day and writes scripts by night. She has two produced credits. She is a recognizable presence on internet screenwriting bulletin boards ["Limama" on Done Deal]. She collected scripts she found [already] posted online and placed them in an online library on a Media Fire web page and made those scripts available to other screenwriters. Free of charge. As an educational tool.
•She doesn’t sell advertising.
•She doesn’t charge a membership fee.
•She doesn’t sell the material.
•She makes it available to other screenwriters for free.
•She posts scripts for educational purposes only.
•She only posts scripts already available on other sites online.
PJ doesn’t have the kind of cash needed to hire an attorney. Like I said, days she works a telephone line selling flowers to make ends meet and nights she writes — fighting to bridge that artist-who-does-art vs. artist-who-gets-paid-for-art gap. In between she is caring for an elderly relative suffering from dementia. In between that she is caring for an infant. She is going to need help. If you can help, please send a small gift donation via :::PayPal::: to pjscriptcooperative@gmail.com — people are putting together a small fund to help PJ retain an attorney.
Supposed to be celebrating the baptism of a child, two strangers knocked on her door and informed her, in front of her children, 20th Century Fox was suing her for 15 million dollars. Two hours later, after grilling her with questions for two solid hours, they left her stunned and crying in her living room staring at a business card that stated they were “private investigators.”
This was the first contact PJ had from 20th Century Fox regarding a Media Fire online script library she created — and was the day 20th Century Fox filed a law suit against PJ in federal court for fifteen million dollars.
PJ is a struggling screenwriter who sells flowers over the phone by day and writes scripts by night. She has two produced credits. She is a recognizable presence on internet screenwriting bulletin boards ["Limama" on Done Deal]. She collected scripts she found [already] posted online and placed them in an online library on a Media Fire web page and made those scripts available to other screenwriters. Free of charge. As an educational tool.
•She doesn’t sell advertising.
•She doesn’t charge a membership fee.
•She doesn’t sell the material.
•She makes it available to other screenwriters for free.
•She posts scripts for educational purposes only.
•She only posts scripts already available on other sites online.
PJ doesn’t have the kind of cash needed to hire an attorney. Like I said, days she works a telephone line selling flowers to make ends meet and nights she writes — fighting to bridge that artist-who-does-art vs. artist-who-gets-paid-for-art gap. In between she is caring for an elderly relative suffering from dementia. In between that she is caring for an infant. She is going to need help. If you can help, please send a small gift donation via :::PayPal::: to pjscriptcooperative@gmail.com — people are putting together a small fund to help PJ retain an attorney.
Boot out the Re-boots
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a brand. It is not a license to print money. A new movie without Joss Whedon running it will be counterfeit. It will weaken Joss' oppotunity to revisit the characgter himself, perhaps with an older Sarah Michelle Geller. This non-Joss Buffy deserves to be abandoned. It is even worse than Sony's wrong-headed reboot of Spider-Man where they have trashed a team, an infrastructure. Buffy in general is little more than a blip on my radar, but I have grown to respect Whedon thanks to Firefly and to a lesser extend Dollhouse (which was however smart and well done in all respects). Regard this new Buffy as a step backwards. The feature with Swanson didn't involve Whedon enough and there were points of concern. But its director participated in the TV series. No harm done there. But this planned re-boot is a producer's wet dream - being puppeteer to any director or writer who comes along to adhere to prodcucerial instructions. For the show to have a vision and a reason to exist it should go back to Joss. Studios can recklessly crank out crap eploitations of brands it owns, but the blame will rest with whatever audience plays along and pays to see it. Boycott the re-booted Buffy. Boycott the re-booted Spider-Man. Tolerate he re-booted and then cancelled V.
Friday, November 26, 2010
gossip sucks it
Congratulations to Travolta and his wife on the birth of their new son. Shame on the gossip industry, which is frankly amplified by supposed legitimate media every time they recount accusations and innuendo. It is a form of bullying. When a male adult molests a young boy, he is officially NOT considered gay. Why? Because statistically supposedly they call themselves straight and go home to a wife. But Movie stars aren't given the same consideration. The man has humour enough to play a gay vampire in a Saturday Night Live skit and to play a woman in Hairspray and he has not used his fame as a bully pulpit to condemn gays so why is this constant badgering tolerated? If someone "outs" someone they claim to have been intimate with we know nothing about the accused but we know one of two things about the accuser: either the accuser is a liar exploiting someone else' fame or that person is indiscrete and reckless about his own sex partners. In either case, attention and weight is being given to the claims of a very pathetic and rotten person be it Paul Barresi or Robert Randolph.
Allegations come and go. Certain movie starts who are ostensibly straight are cool whatever the truth may be. Most of the time stories fade away and scandals tire.
Maybe they are bought off while other stars refuse to pay off. I don't think they are obligated to announce themselves as gay or bi either and embarrass their wives. Either someone's private life is his or her personal business or it isn't, simple as that. If a celebrity's private life is a gossip monger's actual profession, I have no sympathy for that career and it doesn't have to exist. Movie stars can afford hit men, so I'd like to see at least one movie about using a contract killer to deal with nosey little paracites.
Allegations come and go. Certain movie starts who are ostensibly straight are cool whatever the truth may be. Most of the time stories fade away and scandals tire.
Maybe they are bought off while other stars refuse to pay off. I don't think they are obligated to announce themselves as gay or bi either and embarrass their wives. Either someone's private life is his or her personal business or it isn't, simple as that. If a celebrity's private life is a gossip monger's actual profession, I have no sympathy for that career and it doesn't have to exist. Movie stars can afford hit men, so I'd like to see at least one movie about using a contract killer to deal with nosey little paracites.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Blogging
It's very important to blog, even when there is nothing to say. So that people know you are filling your time with useless rants and not reducing the in-box pile of items that threaten to become creative product.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
trueisms and axiums
I forgot, forgot the 5th of November. Someone on Facebook mentioned it in an status thingy. The end result was to mark the day by watching the first 45 minutes of V For Vendetta. Maybe it's not so necessary to remember the 5th of November. But a better way to mark the day might have been to look up the Toronto G20 documentary.
I didn't realize really how bad it went. This clip is especially interesting.
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can
become great."
- Mark Twain
If your ambition is to become a great blogger, I guess it's tough to stop that.
I don't have that ambition, personally. But it is an axium that resonates as
true, so I gues then it gratuates to "trueism" or truism however that should be spelled. Which every spelling is true.
"One man's food is another man's poison." Or one man's meat is another man's poison.
What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, though I've heard that quote wrong for years as "IS good for the gander." In that case someone is being classed as gander, so it's not really fair.
When people hear One man's food is another man's poison" the message they seem to take away is that we should all tolerate each other's differences. But I see it as meaning that there will always be inherent conflict. If your office is ordering food and the money spent is on something you can't eat for medical reasons, or religious reasons, that's a problem. If you are watching a movie about something you find beautiful and all of a sudden you have to sit through something you find disgusting, that's a problem of a diffent sort. There is really no such thing as "fun for the whole family."
Whether it's the G20 or Toronto's Mega City amalgamation, we keep seeing that having something in common or common turf does not mean it is necessarily fair and accurate representation to create a false umbrella that claims to encompass us all. There is Rob Ford Country and then Smitherman country. There is an attitude that it is okay to work in the core of the city but your identity is defined by where you sleep and park your car between shifts. It's not to say that it's a matter of "emphasizing differences" to pick a fight. But we have to acknowledge those issues and ensure that someone isn't making decisions for you impating your life based on someone else' values system or geographic or financial circumstances. Suppose two tribes live alongside the same river and those upstreme decide to use it as a toilet and those downstream are expected to accept that. Such a system is an invitation to inevitable conflict and/ or disease.
There is occasionally a "community of emotion" in movie theaters, but even this is being compromised. But I have a dim memory of that period. The fact is that audiences did laugh out loud at Vice Vaughn's line in a trailer for The Dilema, "Electric cars. . .are gay." And also the follow-up line, "Not gay as in homosexual, gay as in my parents are chaparoning the dance." Unfortunately, people can't make up their own minds about it because the line can't be found in any trailer for the film as they exist online. Is "gay" a pejorative ? Yes. In common usage, it is. A character in a movie or a teen is likely to say it. I personally don't, though that isn't evidence of kindness to gays or open mindedness on my part. It's just self-preservation. Here's the existing trailer for what looks like a good, funny flick anyway:
Of course the timing was unfortunate for the early trailers to make any mention of anything gay-related or gay word related at a time when Hollywood has finally chosen to acknowledge a handful of recent gay teen suicides. I don't want to seem sarcastic but this is something that has gone on for years with no such effort. How long has Ellen DeGeneres been on TV? How long has GLAAD existed? Are kids still allowed to be called "Emo?" It's tempting to initiate a trend toward expressing hatred of behaviours, as opposed to social groups or human beings. I HATE cattiness, and snooty, affected ways of talking. That doesn't mean that I fear it or condone someone being abused physically. The person behaving that way is hoever due to receive a retort or equal or greater value. If a man behaves like Lovey Howell on Gilligan's Island, that's his life and I couldn't care less. It's not much different than a man self-consciously standing up straighter and sucking his gut in when a girl goes by. But in either case I might either break out in laughter or work on my poker face because I know that is expected. I don't think people should be judged for flinching or shuddering or involuntarily laughing at the sight or sound of something unusual. I also think it is peeing in the wind to go after high school students and ask one group to reign in its nature.
We only know the official version of what happened in any suicide case. We don't know that someone who has been bullied or feels like an outsider wasn't considering other options than suicide. The 1999 Colmbine massacre was perpetrated by two guys who had been called gay. Even Gus Van Sant's movie closely following those events depicted those boys as gay and having a relationship. I am concerned that the appeasement of lobby groups and organizations like GLAAD (which may be well-meaning) gets in the way of useful study of these dynamics. Does the outsider or the outcast gain a polish if there is an insinuation of his being gay? Is the herd picking up on something less benign than gay identity when it rejects someone? I don't know. Most of the people I consider friends are creative types who may choose to stand out or stand up and have sympathy for the traditional outcasts. But I work with people who tell gay jokes and has told the following joke he laughed at proudly:
"What did the deaf, dumb and blind retarded kid get for Christmas? Cancer."
Something like that. But is it my duty to speak up and cut him down? I don't know. This is a person breathing dust and gas fumes most of the day, better paid than me, but not with much interest in comprehension or self-improvement. So the emphasis on these kinds of things really should be on reminding the non-bullies and non-idiots that it is okay and cool to intervene. In an internet poll, nobody is a racist or prejudiced. But when it means stepping away from the anonymity of group think and defending someone you DON'T hang out with and whom you don't want to give your home phone number and who you don't really want to see kissing his lover, there is a lot loaded in any moment of defending that other person.
Marc Lepine killed 14 young women at Ecole Polytechnique around the same time as Colmbine, and John Salvy shot the RECEPTIONIST of an abortionist. Whatever their stated motives, these people are outsiders. Had they just killed themselves, larger tragedy might have been averted. Some people may know that a screw is loose and that they are due to cause harm. They might not have been formed right. If they were fetuses that miscarried, we could take it for granted that something in that organism wasn't growing right and it stopped living. There might be a mental equivalent in grown adults or teens. If that is the case, we might be less likely to catch it and examine it if we write off these acts as someone who could not take bullying. We are somewhat responsible for the image we project. We are marketing ourselves to others. We are deciding either counciously or unconsciously who we want to blend in with and who we want to keep a distance from.
In grade school, there were two TV movies by Mickey Rooney, Bill and Bill: On His Own. He had a catch phraise "My name is William, Bill for short." For any kid named Bill, this was the annoying gift that kept on giving. I remember a girl named Gwen who later became a friend was a pest sho sat at the back of the school bus and when I got on to take a seat she would make laser-gun sounds and there would be laughs because I was still a Star Wars fan and its hipness was in a lull. But even through that, by grade eight I managed to be President of the student council which is the high point of my brief political career.
Apart from being short and chubby, I remember seniors at my high school calling me Radar O'Reilly and singing "Turn on your radar, radar, radar" but even though it was partly because I wore glasses and was quiet and had a mole (which is now gone) I have to take some responsibility because on Frosh day or initiation day when we all had to wear togas, I had a MASH t-shirt under mine. It's funny now, but I remember my guidance councillor actually visited my dad to talk to him about it at our house so I must have been disproportionately bothered by that. I still continued wearing the MASH t-shirt when not at school, but I think I put that away for a year.
It would be cruel to say to someone persecuted, "man up" I believe the current phrase goes. But it just seems to me that in high school and in childhood people have their own problems fitting in without being Jesus befriending the leppers. It asks for a lot of sophistication from people who are all about announcing confidence and attractiveness and athletic skill so they can get the social perks that are so urgently sought. What does it mean for the Breakfast Club jock to befriend the geek? What will they talk about without the contrivance of Saturday detention and marijuana? And even if they recount the detention, when does that bubble burst? What if the job was less multidentional than Emillio's character in that film? What if he actually did just care about the team and winning? That describes most of the jocks I've known. I was involved in theater so I side-stepped a lot of that. There were terms like Dramoids or drama-fags, but I didn't hear any individual called either and I don't think anyone was offended. Every line from The Breakfast Club was like an axium though, as commonly referenced as Shakespeare, the Bible or Star Wars.
I think there is more than one scale of bullying. What if Ron Howard's new film was damaged by - who? Anderson Cooper or some name like that - griping about the gay joke on Ellen and then GLAAD's Ellen-watching department springing into action to denounce the use of the word gay and damaging their claim on that brand? I think there are some "activists" who get a lot of miliage by claiming that movie stars have to have thick skins and should be able to take punishment. They also benefit from the falsehood that calling someone gay is not derogatory. They are supposedly against defamation, but make defamation possibly legal by stating that what they accuse someone of being is not a step down. In fact, in a market where 18-35 year old males are the ones buying movie tickets much of the time, it is very easy to be branded uncool. They should not be in the business of outing people and are no different than the teens who uploaded video of their classmate in a gay situation and causing a humiliation that lead to his suicide. The fact is that equality isn't something imposed. It exists. Each person has the same vote. But SPITE and jealousy motivate a lot of the supposedly proud gay reportage out there. As if there is something necessary about exposing married ostensibly heterosexual stars for some gay act they believe to have happened. There is no good reason for it. And I'll be honest - I hate that. Call it hate literature that I'm writing it here. Hatred of outing people against their will. And these are the people preaching at us in the media about how we can speak and what words we can give a character in a comedy?
Although I've noted the blurbs here and there about the guy Perez Hilton recognizing that he has been a bully and planning to correct that, I think there is ongoing nastiness. Not just on that issue. There are some truly scummy things being said in an effort to keep Mel Gibson down, for example. There is just careless reporting and editorial snark that really pisses me off. And it comes from people who don't care to know the facts and just want to do damage. I can do without propaganda. I'm waiting to see Mel Gibson's movie about depression by Jodie Foster, The Beaver, and also his movie about wrongful imprisonment How I Spent My Summer Vacation. I've learned a lot about the media and the community of people who like to blog or post their opinions on message boards. A lot of gay people hate Mel. They may say it's all about "antisemetism" but it's not. I never heard him say anything about gay people, but apparently if anything was ever said it becomes your defining characteristic. I think those people are Melphobic.
I look forward to seeing Kevin Smith's Red State which is somewhat about the people who picket funerals. I'm interested in what a creative person has to say, but not the guardians of taste who are themselves annoying and should be irrelevant. I expect the wider the audience the more thin a movie is going to be, so I think all great comedy and movies in general that piss some people off are actually brave and more worthwhile than safe cowardly movies with token side-kicks built in to appease lobby groups instead of demo-graphics. People might not want a theater charged with an awkward vibe or some anger and maybe some walk-outs. I remember the n-word used by Dennis Hopper in the famous True Romance 'Sicillian" scene. That got walk-outs when I saw it. Malcolm X was a charged movie to watch. Milk was uncomfortable, but it was half way between a full-on Gus Van Sant and his more commercial films. I didn't feel like he was testing the audience; that film had more to get on with. My feeling is always if you don't like what you are seeing then make your own film.
There is really no such thing as totally blending in, whether it be a person in a high school or a movie that pleases "the whole family" or a mega-city that serves the suburbs the same way it serves the core. If an actor or a student wants to be seen as straight, let them be. Any organization preaching against bullying and yet strong arming actors and moviemakers is an organization vulnerable to be dismantled or disregarded. ASAP.
I didn't realize really how bad it went. This clip is especially interesting.
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can
become great."
- Mark Twain
If your ambition is to become a great blogger, I guess it's tough to stop that.
I don't have that ambition, personally. But it is an axium that resonates as
true, so I gues then it gratuates to "trueism" or truism however that should be spelled. Which every spelling is true.
"One man's food is another man's poison." Or one man's meat is another man's poison.
What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, though I've heard that quote wrong for years as "IS good for the gander." In that case someone is being classed as gander, so it's not really fair.
When people hear One man's food is another man's poison" the message they seem to take away is that we should all tolerate each other's differences. But I see it as meaning that there will always be inherent conflict. If your office is ordering food and the money spent is on something you can't eat for medical reasons, or religious reasons, that's a problem. If you are watching a movie about something you find beautiful and all of a sudden you have to sit through something you find disgusting, that's a problem of a diffent sort. There is really no such thing as "fun for the whole family."
Whether it's the G20 or Toronto's Mega City amalgamation, we keep seeing that having something in common or common turf does not mean it is necessarily fair and accurate representation to create a false umbrella that claims to encompass us all. There is Rob Ford Country and then Smitherman country. There is an attitude that it is okay to work in the core of the city but your identity is defined by where you sleep and park your car between shifts. It's not to say that it's a matter of "emphasizing differences" to pick a fight. But we have to acknowledge those issues and ensure that someone isn't making decisions for you impating your life based on someone else' values system or geographic or financial circumstances. Suppose two tribes live alongside the same river and those upstreme decide to use it as a toilet and those downstream are expected to accept that. Such a system is an invitation to inevitable conflict and/ or disease.
There is occasionally a "community of emotion" in movie theaters, but even this is being compromised. But I have a dim memory of that period. The fact is that audiences did laugh out loud at Vice Vaughn's line in a trailer for The Dilema, "Electric cars. . .are gay." And also the follow-up line, "Not gay as in homosexual, gay as in my parents are chaparoning the dance." Unfortunately, people can't make up their own minds about it because the line can't be found in any trailer for the film as they exist online. Is "gay" a pejorative ? Yes. In common usage, it is. A character in a movie or a teen is likely to say it. I personally don't, though that isn't evidence of kindness to gays or open mindedness on my part. It's just self-preservation. Here's the existing trailer for what looks like a good, funny flick anyway:
Of course the timing was unfortunate for the early trailers to make any mention of anything gay-related or gay word related at a time when Hollywood has finally chosen to acknowledge a handful of recent gay teen suicides. I don't want to seem sarcastic but this is something that has gone on for years with no such effort. How long has Ellen DeGeneres been on TV? How long has GLAAD existed? Are kids still allowed to be called "Emo?" It's tempting to initiate a trend toward expressing hatred of behaviours, as opposed to social groups or human beings. I HATE cattiness, and snooty, affected ways of talking. That doesn't mean that I fear it or condone someone being abused physically. The person behaving that way is hoever due to receive a retort or equal or greater value. If a man behaves like Lovey Howell on Gilligan's Island, that's his life and I couldn't care less. It's not much different than a man self-consciously standing up straighter and sucking his gut in when a girl goes by. But in either case I might either break out in laughter or work on my poker face because I know that is expected. I don't think people should be judged for flinching or shuddering or involuntarily laughing at the sight or sound of something unusual. I also think it is peeing in the wind to go after high school students and ask one group to reign in its nature.
We only know the official version of what happened in any suicide case. We don't know that someone who has been bullied or feels like an outsider wasn't considering other options than suicide. The 1999 Colmbine massacre was perpetrated by two guys who had been called gay. Even Gus Van Sant's movie closely following those events depicted those boys as gay and having a relationship. I am concerned that the appeasement of lobby groups and organizations like GLAAD (which may be well-meaning) gets in the way of useful study of these dynamics. Does the outsider or the outcast gain a polish if there is an insinuation of his being gay? Is the herd picking up on something less benign than gay identity when it rejects someone? I don't know. Most of the people I consider friends are creative types who may choose to stand out or stand up and have sympathy for the traditional outcasts. But I work with people who tell gay jokes and has told the following joke he laughed at proudly:
"What did the deaf, dumb and blind retarded kid get for Christmas? Cancer."
Something like that. But is it my duty to speak up and cut him down? I don't know. This is a person breathing dust and gas fumes most of the day, better paid than me, but not with much interest in comprehension or self-improvement. So the emphasis on these kinds of things really should be on reminding the non-bullies and non-idiots that it is okay and cool to intervene. In an internet poll, nobody is a racist or prejudiced. But when it means stepping away from the anonymity of group think and defending someone you DON'T hang out with and whom you don't want to give your home phone number and who you don't really want to see kissing his lover, there is a lot loaded in any moment of defending that other person.
Marc Lepine killed 14 young women at Ecole Polytechnique around the same time as Colmbine, and John Salvy shot the RECEPTIONIST of an abortionist. Whatever their stated motives, these people are outsiders. Had they just killed themselves, larger tragedy might have been averted. Some people may know that a screw is loose and that they are due to cause harm. They might not have been formed right. If they were fetuses that miscarried, we could take it for granted that something in that organism wasn't growing right and it stopped living. There might be a mental equivalent in grown adults or teens. If that is the case, we might be less likely to catch it and examine it if we write off these acts as someone who could not take bullying. We are somewhat responsible for the image we project. We are marketing ourselves to others. We are deciding either counciously or unconsciously who we want to blend in with and who we want to keep a distance from.
In grade school, there were two TV movies by Mickey Rooney, Bill and Bill: On His Own. He had a catch phraise "My name is William, Bill for short." For any kid named Bill, this was the annoying gift that kept on giving. I remember a girl named Gwen who later became a friend was a pest sho sat at the back of the school bus and when I got on to take a seat she would make laser-gun sounds and there would be laughs because I was still a Star Wars fan and its hipness was in a lull. But even through that, by grade eight I managed to be President of the student council which is the high point of my brief political career.
Apart from being short and chubby, I remember seniors at my high school calling me Radar O'Reilly and singing "Turn on your radar, radar, radar" but even though it was partly because I wore glasses and was quiet and had a mole (which is now gone) I have to take some responsibility because on Frosh day or initiation day when we all had to wear togas, I had a MASH t-shirt under mine. It's funny now, but I remember my guidance councillor actually visited my dad to talk to him about it at our house so I must have been disproportionately bothered by that. I still continued wearing the MASH t-shirt when not at school, but I think I put that away for a year.
It would be cruel to say to someone persecuted, "man up" I believe the current phrase goes. But it just seems to me that in high school and in childhood people have their own problems fitting in without being Jesus befriending the leppers. It asks for a lot of sophistication from people who are all about announcing confidence and attractiveness and athletic skill so they can get the social perks that are so urgently sought. What does it mean for the Breakfast Club jock to befriend the geek? What will they talk about without the contrivance of Saturday detention and marijuana? And even if they recount the detention, when does that bubble burst? What if the job was less multidentional than Emillio's character in that film? What if he actually did just care about the team and winning? That describes most of the jocks I've known. I was involved in theater so I side-stepped a lot of that. There were terms like Dramoids or drama-fags, but I didn't hear any individual called either and I don't think anyone was offended. Every line from The Breakfast Club was like an axium though, as commonly referenced as Shakespeare, the Bible or Star Wars.
I think there is more than one scale of bullying. What if Ron Howard's new film was damaged by - who? Anderson Cooper or some name like that - griping about the gay joke on Ellen and then GLAAD's Ellen-watching department springing into action to denounce the use of the word gay and damaging their claim on that brand? I think there are some "activists" who get a lot of miliage by claiming that movie stars have to have thick skins and should be able to take punishment. They also benefit from the falsehood that calling someone gay is not derogatory. They are supposedly against defamation, but make defamation possibly legal by stating that what they accuse someone of being is not a step down. In fact, in a market where 18-35 year old males are the ones buying movie tickets much of the time, it is very easy to be branded uncool. They should not be in the business of outing people and are no different than the teens who uploaded video of their classmate in a gay situation and causing a humiliation that lead to his suicide. The fact is that equality isn't something imposed. It exists. Each person has the same vote. But SPITE and jealousy motivate a lot of the supposedly proud gay reportage out there. As if there is something necessary about exposing married ostensibly heterosexual stars for some gay act they believe to have happened. There is no good reason for it. And I'll be honest - I hate that. Call it hate literature that I'm writing it here. Hatred of outing people against their will. And these are the people preaching at us in the media about how we can speak and what words we can give a character in a comedy?
Although I've noted the blurbs here and there about the guy Perez Hilton recognizing that he has been a bully and planning to correct that, I think there is ongoing nastiness. Not just on that issue. There are some truly scummy things being said in an effort to keep Mel Gibson down, for example. There is just careless reporting and editorial snark that really pisses me off. And it comes from people who don't care to know the facts and just want to do damage. I can do without propaganda. I'm waiting to see Mel Gibson's movie about depression by Jodie Foster, The Beaver, and also his movie about wrongful imprisonment How I Spent My Summer Vacation. I've learned a lot about the media and the community of people who like to blog or post their opinions on message boards. A lot of gay people hate Mel. They may say it's all about "antisemetism" but it's not. I never heard him say anything about gay people, but apparently if anything was ever said it becomes your defining characteristic. I think those people are Melphobic.
I look forward to seeing Kevin Smith's Red State which is somewhat about the people who picket funerals. I'm interested in what a creative person has to say, but not the guardians of taste who are themselves annoying and should be irrelevant. I expect the wider the audience the more thin a movie is going to be, so I think all great comedy and movies in general that piss some people off are actually brave and more worthwhile than safe cowardly movies with token side-kicks built in to appease lobby groups instead of demo-graphics. People might not want a theater charged with an awkward vibe or some anger and maybe some walk-outs. I remember the n-word used by Dennis Hopper in the famous True Romance 'Sicillian" scene. That got walk-outs when I saw it. Malcolm X was a charged movie to watch. Milk was uncomfortable, but it was half way between a full-on Gus Van Sant and his more commercial films. I didn't feel like he was testing the audience; that film had more to get on with. My feeling is always if you don't like what you are seeing then make your own film.
There is really no such thing as totally blending in, whether it be a person in a high school or a movie that pleases "the whole family" or a mega-city that serves the suburbs the same way it serves the core. If an actor or a student wants to be seen as straight, let them be. Any organization preaching against bullying and yet strong arming actors and moviemakers is an organization vulnerable to be dismantled or disregarded. ASAP.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Adopt a DVD
I look at my DVD collection and I first think of the missing teeth. One disc is missing from a 2-disc John carpenter case which had The Thing (I already have a better copy of that) and Prince of Darkness which I intended to watch and ended up looking for on Youtube when I gave up looking for the disc. I loaned Fido - a Canadian zombie movie with Carrie Anne Moss and Billy Connely - to a producer named Anthony who hasn't responeded to a message or a prod or a reasonable question in. . .well, in February 2011 it will be 2 years. I'm not re-buying it unless it is with money voluntarily given by Anthony or mugged from him. (Of special note: the most important quality of a producer is honesty. He's welcome to lie to everyone else, but he must deal with me only with integrity. And since is doesn't HAVE TO kiss up to me or honor a simple thing like returning a borrowed DVD, and he has failed to do that, his window for proving he is honorable is closing fast. I forgot to open my Something MORE About Mary box, and so I don't know off hand if I still have my special features disc. Jay, the friend who introdced me to would-be-producer Anthony still has one of my discs, Orgazmo by Trey parker. But that's not theft or neglect. It was found and I decided to pointedly leave it until it has been watched. But maybe movies can't be forced on people.
The next thing I notice when I step back from the DVDs is the cheer volume. If I equate these with mental clutter I think maybe I should remove them carefully like moduals of memory from HAL 9000. Is it really necessary for me to use all of these as a touchstone to transport back to the 80's or 90's or the Zeros? There was a time when it all felt necessary, or part of learning my craft as a budding screenwriter and director. Am I ever going to need to watch Ace Ventura again? Well, maybe. I start making a pile of movies I might never watch again. Maybe I got them as part of a deal.
Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 may be the worst movie I own. I can't get rid of it because it's on the same disc as the other two. That also means that if I watch it on my laptop it won't fill the screen so I won't get full picture quality of the crap.
On the other end of the spectrum is David Cronenberg's Fast Company, which also has two of his shorts Crimes of the Future and Stereo. I have listened to the commentary and seen these movies dutifully and nothing has found purchase in my brain let alone my spirit. Stereo has a nice mind-reading premise and there is a shot I plan to reference in my own mind reading film but the tone is far more arty than anything I would want to make. Both shorts feel like there was an assigned running time and everything was shot long and edited long to fill that out. If an image is laid bare it doesn't gain meaning, as far as I'm concerned. it just seems ponderous. Fast Company is a serviceable bit of "Canadian film" in the usual sense. It doesn't look like a Cronenberg film. It may be a personal expression of his, as he says, because he does like race cars. But it would have been nice if one of the cars was a giant bug. All things considered it is better than his other car movie, Crash which I don't have (not to be confused with Paul Haggis' Oscar-winning and self-important yet forgetable multi-story LA TV movie of the week, which I do have in the most expensive version). Cronenberg's crash was notable for having a car chase that manages to be slow and boring, as well as sex that is kind of boring, and I was never stoned enough to appreciate it apparently.
I have 2010 The Year We Make Contact, and yes I have watched it this year. But I don't have 2001: A Space Odyssy. The last time I saw the Kubrick film was January 2001 whwn I borrowed a friend's VHS tape of it and watched it alone in the dark at home and actually kind of liked it. I did this because I had heard MGM had no plans to re-release it which seems a shame. I don't feel any impulse to see it again though. If I do, I'll borrow a DVD and just listen to the cast commentary.
I have the Canadian movie Defendor (sic) about a mentally challenged superhero. I like it, but I also know it is unlikely I will watch it again. Maybe it's just a matter of age. It's harder for me to forget movies even though other vital issues fall by the wayside. I have Doctor Detroit, a mugging fest about a guy posing as a pimp, which is a lesser pimp movie than Night Shift but I think more entertaining than Risky Business (which I don't have but recently borrowed from the library).
Closets full of DVDs anyway appear to present a statement: this person appears to have too much time on his hands.
90 minutes to two hours or more per DVD case, then commentaries and docs and anso some TV series. I have every episode of Wonder Woman, and I remember the circumstances under which I was able to get through most of those as they hit the stores. But for possible legal reasons I won't go into that here. It would undermine the field that I work in. Even though I was on nights at the time. I have every Young Indiana Jones episode, and I know I haven't made it through all of that and yet I like Indy. There are some great documentaries about real history, very educational, but since I had no choice but to have those as part of a very expensive package I have been stubborn about not watching them. I would have preferred some behind the scenes or commentaries or interviews or inclusion even as a special feature George Hall's bookend sequences as OLD Indiana Jones with an eye patch. Maybe those were tossed aside when Lucas realized Indiana Jones at Age 70 would look pretty much exactly like Harrison Ford - numerically old but nimble and fit. I have every Mork and Mindy available on DVD, though they don't seem to have yet released the Merth episodes which I have had to look up on a certain website. I wouldn't mind forcing myself to sit through the animated series either, but maybe I would just have it, watch one episode and just never get around to enduring it.
I have a lot of VHS to unload while it can still be unloaded. VHS was my generation, the eighties an early nineties, how I saw most of the great film and a lot of the crap - the good and bad crap. I have at least set aside a box of those for the day I have the gusto to haul it to a store than might buy it or to a library that might find the tapes a good home for donations. Maybe the latter will be the case for a lot of these. Even my Star Wars and Raiders movies on VHS are little more than paper weights. It isn't like they can be handed down like a family heirloom. Any kids of my own I might have or my neice and nephews won't be interested in the historical significance of VHS any more than Super 8. I'm old enough that when I was single digits until age 12 or so I would go to North Bay's public library and borrow a Super 8mm projector or a 16mm projector and sometimes a screen and a bunch of film reels and play those for family and neighbors. Then I was borrowing the record LP size cartridge movie discs that predated laser discs. Those tended to skip a bit but they were pretty cool anyway.
I have a hard time throwing anything out. I want to think it will benefit humanity in some way. It's like the generous way someone offers you the last rancid slice of pizza before it goes into the garbage.
Maybe a library or The Liason of Independant Filmmakers of Toronto or some other organization can put out a call for DVDs that people want to get rid of that they are simply storing but that should go to people who are actually interested in watching movies rather than using them as coasters. Tyler Durden, in a movie I'm not giving away, says, "The things you own end up owning you." Very true. I mean I question the impulse to give anything away, since that is what suicidal people do as an early warning sign and it's not like I've made great leaps in the personal life or career lately. But clutter is clutter.
I have moments of posessive tension when people take too long to watch a movie and give it back, maybe partly because of matters mentioned above. But in a sense the leap of faith in loaning out movies is something I've done since I was a kid or showing movies. That's my way of connecting and communicating. THIS means something to me. See if you like it. Of course a person can wonder why officially escapist movies mean something to me, but those people dont impress me. A well told story is a ritual, and even the silliest contains elements people can connect to. Or impose themselves on and interpret in their own private and maybe opposite way.
Anyway, still making lists to separate the wheat from the chaff.
(And yes, I just googled that line to see how to spell "chaff." )
The next thing I notice when I step back from the DVDs is the cheer volume. If I equate these with mental clutter I think maybe I should remove them carefully like moduals of memory from HAL 9000. Is it really necessary for me to use all of these as a touchstone to transport back to the 80's or 90's or the Zeros? There was a time when it all felt necessary, or part of learning my craft as a budding screenwriter and director. Am I ever going to need to watch Ace Ventura again? Well, maybe. I start making a pile of movies I might never watch again. Maybe I got them as part of a deal.
Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 may be the worst movie I own. I can't get rid of it because it's on the same disc as the other two. That also means that if I watch it on my laptop it won't fill the screen so I won't get full picture quality of the crap.
On the other end of the spectrum is David Cronenberg's Fast Company, which also has two of his shorts Crimes of the Future and Stereo. I have listened to the commentary and seen these movies dutifully and nothing has found purchase in my brain let alone my spirit. Stereo has a nice mind-reading premise and there is a shot I plan to reference in my own mind reading film but the tone is far more arty than anything I would want to make. Both shorts feel like there was an assigned running time and everything was shot long and edited long to fill that out. If an image is laid bare it doesn't gain meaning, as far as I'm concerned. it just seems ponderous. Fast Company is a serviceable bit of "Canadian film" in the usual sense. It doesn't look like a Cronenberg film. It may be a personal expression of his, as he says, because he does like race cars. But it would have been nice if one of the cars was a giant bug. All things considered it is better than his other car movie, Crash which I don't have (not to be confused with Paul Haggis' Oscar-winning and self-important yet forgetable multi-story LA TV movie of the week, which I do have in the most expensive version). Cronenberg's crash was notable for having a car chase that manages to be slow and boring, as well as sex that is kind of boring, and I was never stoned enough to appreciate it apparently.
I have 2010 The Year We Make Contact, and yes I have watched it this year. But I don't have 2001: A Space Odyssy. The last time I saw the Kubrick film was January 2001 whwn I borrowed a friend's VHS tape of it and watched it alone in the dark at home and actually kind of liked it. I did this because I had heard MGM had no plans to re-release it which seems a shame. I don't feel any impulse to see it again though. If I do, I'll borrow a DVD and just listen to the cast commentary.
I have the Canadian movie Defendor (sic) about a mentally challenged superhero. I like it, but I also know it is unlikely I will watch it again. Maybe it's just a matter of age. It's harder for me to forget movies even though other vital issues fall by the wayside. I have Doctor Detroit, a mugging fest about a guy posing as a pimp, which is a lesser pimp movie than Night Shift but I think more entertaining than Risky Business (which I don't have but recently borrowed from the library).
Closets full of DVDs anyway appear to present a statement: this person appears to have too much time on his hands.
90 minutes to two hours or more per DVD case, then commentaries and docs and anso some TV series. I have every episode of Wonder Woman, and I remember the circumstances under which I was able to get through most of those as they hit the stores. But for possible legal reasons I won't go into that here. It would undermine the field that I work in. Even though I was on nights at the time. I have every Young Indiana Jones episode, and I know I haven't made it through all of that and yet I like Indy. There are some great documentaries about real history, very educational, but since I had no choice but to have those as part of a very expensive package I have been stubborn about not watching them. I would have preferred some behind the scenes or commentaries or interviews or inclusion even as a special feature George Hall's bookend sequences as OLD Indiana Jones with an eye patch. Maybe those were tossed aside when Lucas realized Indiana Jones at Age 70 would look pretty much exactly like Harrison Ford - numerically old but nimble and fit. I have every Mork and Mindy available on DVD, though they don't seem to have yet released the Merth episodes which I have had to look up on a certain website. I wouldn't mind forcing myself to sit through the animated series either, but maybe I would just have it, watch one episode and just never get around to enduring it.
I have a lot of VHS to unload while it can still be unloaded. VHS was my generation, the eighties an early nineties, how I saw most of the great film and a lot of the crap - the good and bad crap. I have at least set aside a box of those for the day I have the gusto to haul it to a store than might buy it or to a library that might find the tapes a good home for donations. Maybe the latter will be the case for a lot of these. Even my Star Wars and Raiders movies on VHS are little more than paper weights. It isn't like they can be handed down like a family heirloom. Any kids of my own I might have or my neice and nephews won't be interested in the historical significance of VHS any more than Super 8. I'm old enough that when I was single digits until age 12 or so I would go to North Bay's public library and borrow a Super 8mm projector or a 16mm projector and sometimes a screen and a bunch of film reels and play those for family and neighbors. Then I was borrowing the record LP size cartridge movie discs that predated laser discs. Those tended to skip a bit but they were pretty cool anyway.
I have a hard time throwing anything out. I want to think it will benefit humanity in some way. It's like the generous way someone offers you the last rancid slice of pizza before it goes into the garbage.
Maybe a library or The Liason of Independant Filmmakers of Toronto or some other organization can put out a call for DVDs that people want to get rid of that they are simply storing but that should go to people who are actually interested in watching movies rather than using them as coasters. Tyler Durden, in a movie I'm not giving away, says, "The things you own end up owning you." Very true. I mean I question the impulse to give anything away, since that is what suicidal people do as an early warning sign and it's not like I've made great leaps in the personal life or career lately. But clutter is clutter.
I have moments of posessive tension when people take too long to watch a movie and give it back, maybe partly because of matters mentioned above. But in a sense the leap of faith in loaning out movies is something I've done since I was a kid or showing movies. That's my way of connecting and communicating. THIS means something to me. See if you like it. Of course a person can wonder why officially escapist movies mean something to me, but those people dont impress me. A well told story is a ritual, and even the silliest contains elements people can connect to. Or impose themselves on and interpret in their own private and maybe opposite way.
Anyway, still making lists to separate the wheat from the chaff.
(And yes, I just googled that line to see how to spell "chaff." )
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Halloween Hangovers
This is a paste from a website where I sometimes discuss or debate movie related crap:
ME:
Robert Downey Jr. told him in front of the crew of Due Daye that he needs acting lessons.
Downey is a good friend of Mel Gibson.
Months later, there is still real tension in promotions for Due Date, and Zach went out of his way to be the spoiler in the Mel cameo plan.
I can understand Todd Phillips being nice to Zach. He has one movie to promote with him and then has to make it through Hangover 2. But sooner or later it must be clear Zach is pathetic and his act will wear out its welcome.
But a Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, Christian Bale blow-up as far as I'm concerned doesn't warrant dismissal of an actor with a body of work and pretty good reasons to vent (if not medical conditions that give them little choice).
I'm sure Robert Downey Jr. is worth seeing in Due Date, and that it takes his characters point of view, but I might not bring myself to sit through any more Zach shenanigans. Between Two Ferns was once funny when I thought he was PRETENDING to be a drooling moron.
Oh, well.
A.W.:
I suspect the negative marketing implications of including Gibson - a man who has damaged his brand - was also a factor and that it was not simply a matter of kowtowing to an actor.
ME:
The brand is a vague thing. The damaging of it arguably has been done by Oksana, various individuals in media, and whoever opposed Mel being in Hangover 2. I think it's pure bunk that the suggestion of Mel was thrown in the laps of the cast at the last minute.
If the n-word hadn't been part of the first recording released (perhaps not the first recorded) the damage would be minimal. There would still be a high-alert by those obsessed with portraying him as antisemetic. You could argue that The Passion "damaged his brand" but that and Apocalypto are excellent films. By his late 40's, he could have just sleep-walked through a string of actioners and played it safe. Instead he took risks, and I say that's an improvement on his brand.
Now - what a manic depressive alcoholic says to his nasty ex-girlfriend in the middle of a custody battle really shouldn't be any of our business. I'll go out on a limb and say that virtually every Hollywood sweetheart has zenophobia and class issues and perfectionist rages. That happens not to be the image being sold and that is not to say that their public persona is false. Mel's rage generally (apart from bio-chemical imbalance) comes from being right. I sure don't agree with Traditionalist Catholic crap any more than I agree with Scientology, but when it comes to being loyal and self-depricating Mel still has the same good reputation. There just happens to be a disproportionate amount of play on his dark side of late.
The main issue is how easily a popular entertainer can be targeted. If anyone finally breaks in we have to play a role even when we are talking to an enemy - especially over the phone. As a customer I don't feel Mel has failed me or failed Jodie Foster or anyone involved in The Beaver or How I Spent My Summer Vacation. But somebody else has robbed me of the chance to see those flicks. In order for them to be marketed, Mel does have to wade back into pop culture. I mean at least Alec Baldwin had 30 Rock already in progress and Christian Bale can count on a third Batman at least even if he becomes unhip. But people who leak audio and personal information are just hooligans as far as I'm concerned. They're not committed to "truth," because the truth is that everybody has highs and lows.
Mel was quite prescient in greenlighting Papparazzi (released two years before his TMZ drunk driving episode) and he didn't personally know the half of the damage the media can do.
P.F.
Just when I was starting to feel a bit sorry for old Mel in a 'how are the mighty fallen don't kick a man when he's down' sort of way, someone comes up with the same specious old arguments in the nasty bastard's defence - and even claims that 'The Passion' is an 'excellent' film - and I'm looking round for the first stone to cast.
A.W.
"THE PASSION..." represents the epitome and acme of debased torture porn... Gibson is a master at this kind of sadism...
ME:
If you got a hard-on watching it, then it's not for me to say it isn't torture "porn" for you. Just as if someone tells me Rambo and Conan the Barbarian are "homo-erotic." I know in any of the examples listed this was not the intent, but whatever floats your boat.
The Passion of the Christ is well made. You can't objectively cite fault in the production or the performances. If you feel it is selling something you don't want to buy (whether you admit that is what drives your opinion or not) it's east to be reductive by saying that a nerve-jangling, difficult to sit through, depiction of a flogging and crucifixion as (imagine that!) painful as "torture porn." I say the movie ultimately is an experience, and one that likely won't get a lot of repeat viewings (unlike porn). I found the movie to be transportive and unflinching. As a lapsed Catholic myself I didn't expect a "Jesus movie" to be riveting. I think the one failing of Gibson is that in his successful targeted marketing to church groups he neglected to remind them that it is Restricted and that children should not be brought along to the theater. The movie has a very effective flashback structure that offers few breaks in the present narrative that is terrifying and awful especially because it seems realistic in its depiction of the cruelty that functionaries are capable of participating in.
We agree that Gibson is a master, but I wouldn't call it sadism. In this, Apocalypto and somewhat in Braveheart there is a sense that anything can happen, a jeopardy that more safe (and saner) filmmakers don't offer. I have no interest in Vikings ordinarily, but the sort of home-invasion premise I've heard mused over by Mel for his planned and for now scrapped epic would be one of those films (like The Passion) I hesitate to dare see but I know it would be meaningfully and artfully done.
I know I'm being a little sarcastic at the start of this reply, but I don't intend to really stick the knife in with a back and forth. It's unfortunate people have to characterize a work and the people who support it with generalizations.
I'm prolonging this answer a bit because it is Halloween time and the suspense, terror, horror, torture porn tiers or classes of scary movie are worth discussing.
Kevin Smith says he hasn't seen the film because he knows the ending and it's like Titanic, "Jesus is gonna hit the iceberg." So if people haven't seen The Passion I can't say it'll win them over. Some people will hit fast-forward during the flogging for example. I didn't have fast-forward in the movie theater. But the ordeal of sitting through this does engage the empathy - like any good film does - and it makes vivid and real throw-away sayings like "your own cross to bear." It's difficult for me to feel sorry for myself with my own petty complaints and persecutions. Maybe I'd still be able to rage and yell and flip out if I had manic depressive disorder, alcoholism or some other condition (or being the target of actual conspiracies and not just theories).
P,F.:
To say The Passion is well-made is the same as complimenting Silence of the Lamb's serial killer on the stitching of his human skin waistcoat.
The only good thing I can find to say about it is thank heavens old Mel didn't cast himself as JC.
ME:
Paddy, Paddy, Paddy.
Not that I really want the back and forth but at the risk of spoon-feeding and seeming to condescend, I'd like to see how one "is like" the other. I'd indulge that. I only know how they are un-like.
a) Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill)'s stitching is made possible by his own evil act of killing; The Passion's Oscar-nominated cinematography is made possible without any evil act and the only sacrifice being Mel's $25 million stake.
b) Impact and end result are also quite opposite: A serial killer's skin suit results in loss of lives and grief of families; making The Passion had a ZERO body count, and apart from Jim Caveizel being struck by lightning on the cross three times nobody got hurt.
c) Intention - One has sociopathic intent mixed with gender confusion; the other is making prayerful tribute.
d) One is loss-only for all concerned, the other boosted everyone involved.
e) Gumb crating a human skin suit is disregard for humanity; Mel telling a well-established story in the most palpable way puts people in touch wit their humanity.
Paddy, The Passion is used as a political football and people who are against it made their mind up long ago. Bashing it is like bashing someone for being Catholic. I know there are people who object to seeing a portrayal of the Nation of Islam assassinating Malcolm X or a Hundu causing Mahatma Gandi to be shot. The relay of those events is not seen as anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu by any reasonable person. The fact that there was Jewish pressure against a Jew 2000 years ago shouldn't cause any reasonable person to bat an eye. In short, there is a disproportionate outrage. Those of us who respect J.C. don't hate Jews anymore then he did when he said "Forgive them. They know not what they do" and aren't any more racist than the statement "There are many rooms in my father's house." Those of us who respect Malcolm X and Gandhi (superficially opposites) don't necessarily resent the discendants of their Hindu or Muslim assassins, let along people who belong ostensibly to the same religion.
Happy Halloween. Whether you celebrate it or not.
P.F.:
Bill, Bill, Bill.
To tell the story of the Passion without the essential comfort of the Resurrection and Ascension is all the giveaway of Mel's sado-masochistic, simple-minded and vengeful vision of Christian myth that one needs.
ME:
Spoiler warning
psst - Scroll down for it if you must.
What's this then, at the end, sir? With all due respect. . .
"If the world hates you, remember that they hated me first."
Call me silly, but I think that's a pretty worthy theme.
PF:
Oh yeah, I remember. Almost an afterthought rather than a culmination really. Not surprising I forgot it. Or had I walked out by then?
William, you have as much chance of converting me to this film as you do of saving my immortal soul.
But in case you think I have an atheist's contempt for the subject-matter, it may surprise you to learn that I'm a big admirer of Pasolini's 'Gospel' which, if you haven't seen it, I recommend as a beautiful telling of the Christ story with no semi-pornographic gloating over the Saviour's suffering.
Anyway, let's move on.
ME: Sure thing. The point isn't to convert anyone anyway, let alone "save" anyone. Not that I'm so "holy" myself. My main point is to use examples from the movie as evidence to defend it against inexactitude. I also don't consider it "gloating over the Saviour's suffering." It just is what it is. Glad you're moving along. I wouldn't know what else to do beyond posting the scenes.
I would say the Resurrection wasn't an "afterthought." Culmination is actually a good word. The victory over Satan is pretty spoon fed, with Satan screaming in defeat once the suffering is over. It's the same story as Mel's version of William Wallace - say the word that undermines your principles and your death will be quick and painless. Or call out for rescue from the supernatural and avoid the pain (choosing to reject your humanity). He stuck with it, which is what we all have to do (with usually a lot less pain) and accept the "persecution and reasonable questions from people at a loss to comprehend," as Joseph Campbell put it.
ME:
Robert Downey Jr. told him in front of the crew of Due Daye that he needs acting lessons.
Downey is a good friend of Mel Gibson.
Months later, there is still real tension in promotions for Due Date, and Zach went out of his way to be the spoiler in the Mel cameo plan.
I can understand Todd Phillips being nice to Zach. He has one movie to promote with him and then has to make it through Hangover 2. But sooner or later it must be clear Zach is pathetic and his act will wear out its welcome.
But a Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, Christian Bale blow-up as far as I'm concerned doesn't warrant dismissal of an actor with a body of work and pretty good reasons to vent (if not medical conditions that give them little choice).
I'm sure Robert Downey Jr. is worth seeing in Due Date, and that it takes his characters point of view, but I might not bring myself to sit through any more Zach shenanigans. Between Two Ferns was once funny when I thought he was PRETENDING to be a drooling moron.
Oh, well.
A.W.:
I suspect the negative marketing implications of including Gibson - a man who has damaged his brand - was also a factor and that it was not simply a matter of kowtowing to an actor.
ME:
The brand is a vague thing. The damaging of it arguably has been done by Oksana, various individuals in media, and whoever opposed Mel being in Hangover 2. I think it's pure bunk that the suggestion of Mel was thrown in the laps of the cast at the last minute.
If the n-word hadn't been part of the first recording released (perhaps not the first recorded) the damage would be minimal. There would still be a high-alert by those obsessed with portraying him as antisemetic. You could argue that The Passion "damaged his brand" but that and Apocalypto are excellent films. By his late 40's, he could have just sleep-walked through a string of actioners and played it safe. Instead he took risks, and I say that's an improvement on his brand.
Now - what a manic depressive alcoholic says to his nasty ex-girlfriend in the middle of a custody battle really shouldn't be any of our business. I'll go out on a limb and say that virtually every Hollywood sweetheart has zenophobia and class issues and perfectionist rages. That happens not to be the image being sold and that is not to say that their public persona is false. Mel's rage generally (apart from bio-chemical imbalance) comes from being right. I sure don't agree with Traditionalist Catholic crap any more than I agree with Scientology, but when it comes to being loyal and self-depricating Mel still has the same good reputation. There just happens to be a disproportionate amount of play on his dark side of late.
The main issue is how easily a popular entertainer can be targeted. If anyone finally breaks in we have to play a role even when we are talking to an enemy - especially over the phone. As a customer I don't feel Mel has failed me or failed Jodie Foster or anyone involved in The Beaver or How I Spent My Summer Vacation. But somebody else has robbed me of the chance to see those flicks. In order for them to be marketed, Mel does have to wade back into pop culture. I mean at least Alec Baldwin had 30 Rock already in progress and Christian Bale can count on a third Batman at least even if he becomes unhip. But people who leak audio and personal information are just hooligans as far as I'm concerned. They're not committed to "truth," because the truth is that everybody has highs and lows.
Mel was quite prescient in greenlighting Papparazzi (released two years before his TMZ drunk driving episode) and he didn't personally know the half of the damage the media can do.
P.F.
Just when I was starting to feel a bit sorry for old Mel in a 'how are the mighty fallen don't kick a man when he's down' sort of way, someone comes up with the same specious old arguments in the nasty bastard's defence - and even claims that 'The Passion' is an 'excellent' film - and I'm looking round for the first stone to cast.
A.W.
"THE PASSION..." represents the epitome and acme of debased torture porn... Gibson is a master at this kind of sadism...
ME:
If you got a hard-on watching it, then it's not for me to say it isn't torture "porn" for you. Just as if someone tells me Rambo and Conan the Barbarian are "homo-erotic." I know in any of the examples listed this was not the intent, but whatever floats your boat.
The Passion of the Christ is well made. You can't objectively cite fault in the production or the performances. If you feel it is selling something you don't want to buy (whether you admit that is what drives your opinion or not) it's east to be reductive by saying that a nerve-jangling, difficult to sit through, depiction of a flogging and crucifixion as (imagine that!) painful as "torture porn." I say the movie ultimately is an experience, and one that likely won't get a lot of repeat viewings (unlike porn). I found the movie to be transportive and unflinching. As a lapsed Catholic myself I didn't expect a "Jesus movie" to be riveting. I think the one failing of Gibson is that in his successful targeted marketing to church groups he neglected to remind them that it is Restricted and that children should not be brought along to the theater. The movie has a very effective flashback structure that offers few breaks in the present narrative that is terrifying and awful especially because it seems realistic in its depiction of the cruelty that functionaries are capable of participating in.
We agree that Gibson is a master, but I wouldn't call it sadism. In this, Apocalypto and somewhat in Braveheart there is a sense that anything can happen, a jeopardy that more safe (and saner) filmmakers don't offer. I have no interest in Vikings ordinarily, but the sort of home-invasion premise I've heard mused over by Mel for his planned and for now scrapped epic would be one of those films (like The Passion) I hesitate to dare see but I know it would be meaningfully and artfully done.
I know I'm being a little sarcastic at the start of this reply, but I don't intend to really stick the knife in with a back and forth. It's unfortunate people have to characterize a work and the people who support it with generalizations.
I'm prolonging this answer a bit because it is Halloween time and the suspense, terror, horror, torture porn tiers or classes of scary movie are worth discussing.
Kevin Smith says he hasn't seen the film because he knows the ending and it's like Titanic, "Jesus is gonna hit the iceberg." So if people haven't seen The Passion I can't say it'll win them over. Some people will hit fast-forward during the flogging for example. I didn't have fast-forward in the movie theater. But the ordeal of sitting through this does engage the empathy - like any good film does - and it makes vivid and real throw-away sayings like "your own cross to bear." It's difficult for me to feel sorry for myself with my own petty complaints and persecutions. Maybe I'd still be able to rage and yell and flip out if I had manic depressive disorder, alcoholism or some other condition (or being the target of actual conspiracies and not just theories).
P,F.:
To say The Passion is well-made is the same as complimenting Silence of the Lamb's serial killer on the stitching of his human skin waistcoat.
The only good thing I can find to say about it is thank heavens old Mel didn't cast himself as JC.
ME:
Paddy, Paddy, Paddy.
Not that I really want the back and forth but at the risk of spoon-feeding and seeming to condescend, I'd like to see how one "is like" the other. I'd indulge that. I only know how they are un-like.
a) Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill)'s stitching is made possible by his own evil act of killing; The Passion's Oscar-nominated cinematography is made possible without any evil act and the only sacrifice being Mel's $25 million stake.
b) Impact and end result are also quite opposite: A serial killer's skin suit results in loss of lives and grief of families; making The Passion had a ZERO body count, and apart from Jim Caveizel being struck by lightning on the cross three times nobody got hurt.
c) Intention - One has sociopathic intent mixed with gender confusion; the other is making prayerful tribute.
d) One is loss-only for all concerned, the other boosted everyone involved.
e) Gumb crating a human skin suit is disregard for humanity; Mel telling a well-established story in the most palpable way puts people in touch wit their humanity.
Paddy, The Passion is used as a political football and people who are against it made their mind up long ago. Bashing it is like bashing someone for being Catholic. I know there are people who object to seeing a portrayal of the Nation of Islam assassinating Malcolm X or a Hundu causing Mahatma Gandi to be shot. The relay of those events is not seen as anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu by any reasonable person. The fact that there was Jewish pressure against a Jew 2000 years ago shouldn't cause any reasonable person to bat an eye. In short, there is a disproportionate outrage. Those of us who respect J.C. don't hate Jews anymore then he did when he said "Forgive them. They know not what they do" and aren't any more racist than the statement "There are many rooms in my father's house." Those of us who respect Malcolm X and Gandhi (superficially opposites) don't necessarily resent the discendants of their Hindu or Muslim assassins, let along people who belong ostensibly to the same religion.
Happy Halloween. Whether you celebrate it or not.
P.F.:
Bill, Bill, Bill.
To tell the story of the Passion without the essential comfort of the Resurrection and Ascension is all the giveaway of Mel's sado-masochistic, simple-minded and vengeful vision of Christian myth that one needs.
ME:
Spoiler warning
psst - Scroll down for it if you must.
What's this then, at the end, sir? With all due respect. . .
"If the world hates you, remember that they hated me first."
Call me silly, but I think that's a pretty worthy theme.
PF:
Oh yeah, I remember. Almost an afterthought rather than a culmination really. Not surprising I forgot it. Or had I walked out by then?
William, you have as much chance of converting me to this film as you do of saving my immortal soul.
But in case you think I have an atheist's contempt for the subject-matter, it may surprise you to learn that I'm a big admirer of Pasolini's 'Gospel' which, if you haven't seen it, I recommend as a beautiful telling of the Christ story with no semi-pornographic gloating over the Saviour's suffering.
Anyway, let's move on.
ME: Sure thing. The point isn't to convert anyone anyway, let alone "save" anyone. Not that I'm so "holy" myself. My main point is to use examples from the movie as evidence to defend it against inexactitude. I also don't consider it "gloating over the Saviour's suffering." It just is what it is. Glad you're moving along. I wouldn't know what else to do beyond posting the scenes.
I would say the Resurrection wasn't an "afterthought." Culmination is actually a good word. The victory over Satan is pretty spoon fed, with Satan screaming in defeat once the suffering is over. It's the same story as Mel's version of William Wallace - say the word that undermines your principles and your death will be quick and painless. Or call out for rescue from the supernatural and avoid the pain (choosing to reject your humanity). He stuck with it, which is what we all have to do (with usually a lot less pain) and accept the "persecution and reasonable questions from people at a loss to comprehend," as Joseph Campbell put it.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Halloweekend
I still haven't decided what to be on Halloween. Maybe Col. Kurtz.
Somebody was asking for opinions about Peter Jackson doing The Hobbit himself afterall. Jackson could use a pre-sold hit.
The Lovely Bones was well-done even though the ending was a little soft for me.
Mainly it would be nice if this disease of more-is-better were cured.
King Kong could have lost a lot of the boat material and the dinosaurs he was so proud of from his abortive Kong plans back in the nineties.
The Hobbit as a two parter might mean a lot of unnecessary sweeping helicopter shots. But even then it should be said that Jackson is more judicious about pacing and his storytelling is more disciplined. del Torro is a little too smart for his own good. I have no idea what he would have made. He's a gormet of the type that if I lose my appetite over what he offers my taste pallat will be questioned. A gormet can offer baked bugs and still be a gormet. Jackson will give us the same KFC bucket we got from Lord of the Rings and I won't complain.
But I also don't care. Kevin Smith's Red State is finally being shot, and that's one of the few projects I'm looking forward to. A nice reverse from Cop Out, the movie with the title that says it all. Even though that film, like Mall Rats, is never less than entertaining. It just isn't quite the kick in the balls we sometimes need. Red State for all I know might even be shooting with money raised by Smith himself. It's not a fun Viewaskewniverse film. Whatever it is though I'm sure it will be worth watching.
I graduated Humber's Film and Television Production program in 1994. Kevin Smith had been to Vancouver Film School, dropped out and released Clerks by then so his career has been an interesting vicarious thing to watch unfold as a counterpoint to my own lack of one. I've had my projects, but I think I've been too comfortable. And whatever arguments people come up with about getting "in" and being on a conveyor belt of success versus remaining stagnant because the hand of God hasn't discovered you, ultimately there's no reason that any of us couldn't generate the count of SCREENPLAYS Kevin Smith has written over these 16 years. That comes down to either having a typewriter or computer or access to one and some time. If that lightning bolt were to strike me right now, even after writing FADE IN and FADE OUT with 100 pages or so in between at least once each year since 1988 I only have a couple of scripts that I would feel comfortable jumping right into without further re-writes. What I should have for each is also a character list, a location list, and a prop list, synopsis and anything else needed to be ready to go. I have storyboarded many drafts that have then been abandoned. But at least that process is a good exercise. It is directing without the hassle of a crew, cast and a deadline. I'll get there, but basically anything that isn;'t fuel for the fire needs to be tossed out. I can't keep living weekend to weekend with such short time at home to write. Some people do it. I also need to build a little more faith, but not the blind faith that has caused me to coast so many years.
I won't truly be sane until the first few of my features are done and shown and liked. Even getting one done won't be enough. But you do need to find a Scott Mosier, even though as Kevin Smith says on the Clerks II DVD "Nobody goes to film school to be a producer." There is a certain amount of glory in producing, but for me it is time and labor doing leg work I have no knack for that is taking away time and focus from the work I do feel I have a knack for - writing and preparation of directing. THEN you have to be careful about WHO comes along to "help" and be a producer. Are they putting all cards on the table? Maybe not. You have to know, really know, what they are getting out of it other than the credit and experience the alchemy of which can turn from thanks to shit pretty fast. More on that later.
Somebody was asking for opinions about Peter Jackson doing The Hobbit himself afterall. Jackson could use a pre-sold hit.
The Lovely Bones was well-done even though the ending was a little soft for me.
Mainly it would be nice if this disease of more-is-better were cured.
King Kong could have lost a lot of the boat material and the dinosaurs he was so proud of from his abortive Kong plans back in the nineties.
The Hobbit as a two parter might mean a lot of unnecessary sweeping helicopter shots. But even then it should be said that Jackson is more judicious about pacing and his storytelling is more disciplined. del Torro is a little too smart for his own good. I have no idea what he would have made. He's a gormet of the type that if I lose my appetite over what he offers my taste pallat will be questioned. A gormet can offer baked bugs and still be a gormet. Jackson will give us the same KFC bucket we got from Lord of the Rings and I won't complain.
But I also don't care. Kevin Smith's Red State is finally being shot, and that's one of the few projects I'm looking forward to. A nice reverse from Cop Out, the movie with the title that says it all. Even though that film, like Mall Rats, is never less than entertaining. It just isn't quite the kick in the balls we sometimes need. Red State for all I know might even be shooting with money raised by Smith himself. It's not a fun Viewaskewniverse film. Whatever it is though I'm sure it will be worth watching.
I graduated Humber's Film and Television Production program in 1994. Kevin Smith had been to Vancouver Film School, dropped out and released Clerks by then so his career has been an interesting vicarious thing to watch unfold as a counterpoint to my own lack of one. I've had my projects, but I think I've been too comfortable. And whatever arguments people come up with about getting "in" and being on a conveyor belt of success versus remaining stagnant because the hand of God hasn't discovered you, ultimately there's no reason that any of us couldn't generate the count of SCREENPLAYS Kevin Smith has written over these 16 years. That comes down to either having a typewriter or computer or access to one and some time. If that lightning bolt were to strike me right now, even after writing FADE IN and FADE OUT with 100 pages or so in between at least once each year since 1988 I only have a couple of scripts that I would feel comfortable jumping right into without further re-writes. What I should have for each is also a character list, a location list, and a prop list, synopsis and anything else needed to be ready to go. I have storyboarded many drafts that have then been abandoned. But at least that process is a good exercise. It is directing without the hassle of a crew, cast and a deadline. I'll get there, but basically anything that isn;'t fuel for the fire needs to be tossed out. I can't keep living weekend to weekend with such short time at home to write. Some people do it. I also need to build a little more faith, but not the blind faith that has caused me to coast so many years.
I won't truly be sane until the first few of my features are done and shown and liked. Even getting one done won't be enough. But you do need to find a Scott Mosier, even though as Kevin Smith says on the Clerks II DVD "Nobody goes to film school to be a producer." There is a certain amount of glory in producing, but for me it is time and labor doing leg work I have no knack for that is taking away time and focus from the work I do feel I have a knack for - writing and preparation of directing. THEN you have to be careful about WHO comes along to "help" and be a producer. Are they putting all cards on the table? Maybe not. You have to know, really know, what they are getting out of it other than the credit and experience the alchemy of which can turn from thanks to shit pretty fast. More on that later.
Fandom Menace
Picture two newspaper comic panels. In one there is a Star Wars Fan scatching his ass with a plastic lightsaber in a sidewalk tent outside a movie theater and in the other is a Stormtrooper from the movie Star Wars Episode VI: A New Hope.
Star Wars fan:
The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is that in Star Wars there is no stun setting. They shoot to kill.
Stormtrooper (few minutes into A New Hope):
There's one. Set for stun. (shoots Leia) She'll be alright.
Inform Lord Vader we have a prisoner.
Star Wars fan:
The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is that in Star Wars there is no stun setting. They shoot to kill.
Stormtrooper (few minutes into A New Hope):
There's one. Set for stun. (shoots Leia) She'll be alright.
Inform Lord Vader we have a prisoner.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Back to Back to the Future
I ended up breaking down and buying Back to the Future yet again, this time on BluRay, and again it is all-three-or-nothing packaging, which makes good business sense. But I was bummed to see that the Eric Stoltz versions of scenes are not available as their own special feature. All you get is just what you saw in the youtube clips from the Documentary. Chances are those were not from fans but from the studio itself, the unspoken implication that there was more to see. There is, but they only gave us what fit into the making-of. Interesting, but not worth buying these movies yet again.
I'm not a booster of BluRay either. I was fine with my regular DVDs. It's clearer, but it isn't like I have a huge screen. It's just my laptop. I guess I can keep my first-release DVDs for loaning out. I actually forgot the trouble those had been. I had bought those ones hot off the shelf only to find out later that BTTF Part 2 and 3 had flawed Widescreen releases. The cropping was off. I asked HMV about my complaint and sure enough they produced a copy of a flier they received from Universal asking customers to MAIL IN discs 2 and 3 to the Canadian office of Univeral and the corrected masking versions would be mailed to us. I went through that process rather than just throw up my hands and get the full-frame versions (like the VHS of BTTF) which would actually be more accurate to what was filmed because it actually WAS true full frame (not pan-and-scan) with more picture information at the top and bottom of the TV image. Yet it was a few years ago and I guess I've taken that box on my shelf for granted. I imagine if someone bought all three movies widescreen from that DVD debut there was a good chance they would end up buying the misalligned versions. Maybe those are worth more now.
Another pet peeve is that this DVD set introduces a new way to hold the DVDs inside the case. Instead of the center hole having a use now there are three points around the side that are pinning it in and they are extremely irritating. I guarantee that either popping a disc in or out will result in little dents around the edge. People want to be gentle with their DVDs especially when the set with tax comes to $54 you would never talk yourself into if you didn't have a stupid credit card. I am thinking of making history for taking DVDs back with the complaint being stupid, cumbersome packaging which threatens to harm the friggin' discs. Maybe someone else will boast of a knack for popping those things out. I haven't mastered it and hope never to see this type again.
I think I'll do without any new DVDs until THe Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman threaten my bank account before Christmas.
I'm not a booster of BluRay either. I was fine with my regular DVDs. It's clearer, but it isn't like I have a huge screen. It's just my laptop. I guess I can keep my first-release DVDs for loaning out. I actually forgot the trouble those had been. I had bought those ones hot off the shelf only to find out later that BTTF Part 2 and 3 had flawed Widescreen releases. The cropping was off. I asked HMV about my complaint and sure enough they produced a copy of a flier they received from Universal asking customers to MAIL IN discs 2 and 3 to the Canadian office of Univeral and the corrected masking versions would be mailed to us. I went through that process rather than just throw up my hands and get the full-frame versions (like the VHS of BTTF) which would actually be more accurate to what was filmed because it actually WAS true full frame (not pan-and-scan) with more picture information at the top and bottom of the TV image. Yet it was a few years ago and I guess I've taken that box on my shelf for granted. I imagine if someone bought all three movies widescreen from that DVD debut there was a good chance they would end up buying the misalligned versions. Maybe those are worth more now.
Another pet peeve is that this DVD set introduces a new way to hold the DVDs inside the case. Instead of the center hole having a use now there are three points around the side that are pinning it in and they are extremely irritating. I guarantee that either popping a disc in or out will result in little dents around the edge. People want to be gentle with their DVDs especially when the set with tax comes to $54 you would never talk yourself into if you didn't have a stupid credit card. I am thinking of making history for taking DVDs back with the complaint being stupid, cumbersome packaging which threatens to harm the friggin' discs. Maybe someone else will boast of a knack for popping those things out. I haven't mastered it and hope never to see this type again.
I think I'll do without any new DVDs until THe Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman threaten my bank account before Christmas.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
toronto zombies
Not exactly action packed, but eventually amusing.
May have to repost if the sample music that comes
with windows isn't considered cleared.
May have to repost if the sample music that comes
with windows isn't considered cleared.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
enterphone crank
So I plan to give a letter to my building tomorrow. Last night at half past mid-night my phone rang. No message. Then I heard my neighbor's dog in the hall returning from a walk. I'm pretty sure my neighbor pushed my entercode - my unit number, which isn't a very good idea when you think about it - as an irritation. Trouble getting back to sleep. I'm going to ask management to have security review CCTV from the main lobby and elevators to see if my neighbor's dog was seen, and my neighbor as described - hunchback monster with devil horns.
I hate games. But again, now that I'm beginning to accept the reality of it, I can remember a few of those occurrances.
Meanwhile I'm tidying my apartment while listening to Rob Zombie's Halloween II Director's Cut commentary track. I'm gradually continuing my October ritual of scary movies, most notably a few with Halloween in the title (although that skips a few Halloween sequels; never saw Halloween IV, V, or VI, and likely won't).
John Carpenter's Halloween
Rick (Bad Boys *) Rosenthal's Halloween II
Steve Miner's Halloween H2O
Rosenthal's Halloween Ressurection
Rob Zombie's Halloween
Rob Zombie's Halloween Direcor's Cut
Rob Zombie's Halloween II Director's Cut
On the subway I've been watching Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, which I hadn't seen in its entirety since the dawn of VHS. Could be wrong. I respect it a lot. The "coverage/non-storyboard" director who is in fashion today wouldn't have been able to make a movie like that or springboard a career. But I'm also a little bummed that I physically don't have the overdrive to just push a movie. Maybe I'll surprise myself if I lose some weight and people mistakenly regard me as if I have become more intelligent.
* indicates the Sean Penn Bad Boys, as opposed to Michael Bay's waste of Will Smith's time coasting on the "Bad Boys" tune made popular by "Cops." Just one of the earliest unfortunate results of reality TV. Interesting that Rosenthal uses Jamie Lee Curtis in a walk-by as an extra at the beginning of Bad Boys.
It's a bummer that we have to be over a certain age to refer back to that film.
Also noteworthy is the perfectly visible 35mm movie camera glimpsed in a fight scene at the end. It had to be pointed out to me by the commentary track. The acting distracts well enough, but it's amusing that it's there.
I hate games. But again, now that I'm beginning to accept the reality of it, I can remember a few of those occurrances.
Meanwhile I'm tidying my apartment while listening to Rob Zombie's Halloween II Director's Cut commentary track. I'm gradually continuing my October ritual of scary movies, most notably a few with Halloween in the title (although that skips a few Halloween sequels; never saw Halloween IV, V, or VI, and likely won't).
John Carpenter's Halloween
Rick (Bad Boys *) Rosenthal's Halloween II
Steve Miner's Halloween H2O
Rosenthal's Halloween Ressurection
Rob Zombie's Halloween
Rob Zombie's Halloween Direcor's Cut
Rob Zombie's Halloween II Director's Cut
On the subway I've been watching Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, which I hadn't seen in its entirety since the dawn of VHS. Could be wrong. I respect it a lot. The "coverage/non-storyboard" director who is in fashion today wouldn't have been able to make a movie like that or springboard a career. But I'm also a little bummed that I physically don't have the overdrive to just push a movie. Maybe I'll surprise myself if I lose some weight and people mistakenly regard me as if I have become more intelligent.
* indicates the Sean Penn Bad Boys, as opposed to Michael Bay's waste of Will Smith's time coasting on the "Bad Boys" tune made popular by "Cops." Just one of the earliest unfortunate results of reality TV. Interesting that Rosenthal uses Jamie Lee Curtis in a walk-by as an extra at the beginning of Bad Boys.
It's a bummer that we have to be over a certain age to refer back to that film.
Also noteworthy is the perfectly visible 35mm movie camera glimpsed in a fight scene at the end. It had to be pointed out to me by the commentary track. The acting distracts well enough, but it's amusing that it's there.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
DayMinder found
Sure enough, I looked up today's date and confirmed that there is no indication of a doctor's appointment for this morning. 9 am came and went and I was still at work because I couldn't very well impose upon my night guard at the last minute and ask him to stay awake three more hours. This was the appointment I got a "courtesy call" about late yesterday afternoon from ditzy Helene.
Sure if I want to take responsibility for myself 100 percent I could say that I could have kept better care of the business card the next appointment was written on or I could have immdiately reached into my bag and coppied the information into the DayMinder and then made a point of opening it and using it more frequently. But whatever I do I know this about myself: any appointment with a doctor or a dentist will sneak up on me and I won't be ready for it unless I get that week's notice.
I wonder how Helene decided on ONE days' notice. I know last time I complained that leaving a voice-mail on the Friday afternoon before a Monday morning wouldn't help me much in guaranteeing that someone can fill the morning part of my shift. I can tell myself that the week's notice is also a better way to lower blood sugar and weight just before getting weighed and having my fluids taken. But realistically I know I don't take much advantage of that aspect. What I need is the time and some kind of system that respects Murphy's Law, especially the municipal me-centered bi-law regarding choice of "courtesy" reminder time.
I don't know who it is who decided that everybody likes to get their one reminder the day before as opposed to a week before an appointment. If a poll was being taken I would choose 1 week;s notice. In fact, upon starting as someone's patient, I think we should get that choice in writing, right around the place where it asks if you have any additional medical considerations. I would say that I am an idiot savant prone to misplacing and not recording doctor's appointments or forgetting about them when they roll around three months later and that I require a week's reminder notice instead of one day.
In fact, as I said on the phone win my final conversation with Helene, the 24 hours notice required of me to cancel an appointment can't logically be met under the circumstances. And the interesting thing is that she works for a specialist in Diabetes wherein many of the patients might have such quirks and memory problems and might be on a lot of the same medications and under the same spaced-out stress that I am.
Considering the ballpark in which she works (I didn't actually say this to her) she is is a very special league of mediocrity - dangerous mediocrity and indifference to serving the interest of patients. I might even want to write that as a letter to the doctor but it might go through the gatekeeper in his outer office and go missing if my name is on it.
Sure if I want to take responsibility for myself 100 percent I could say that I could have kept better care of the business card the next appointment was written on or I could have immdiately reached into my bag and coppied the information into the DayMinder and then made a point of opening it and using it more frequently. But whatever I do I know this about myself: any appointment with a doctor or a dentist will sneak up on me and I won't be ready for it unless I get that week's notice.
I wonder how Helene decided on ONE days' notice. I know last time I complained that leaving a voice-mail on the Friday afternoon before a Monday morning wouldn't help me much in guaranteeing that someone can fill the morning part of my shift. I can tell myself that the week's notice is also a better way to lower blood sugar and weight just before getting weighed and having my fluids taken. But realistically I know I don't take much advantage of that aspect. What I need is the time and some kind of system that respects Murphy's Law, especially the municipal me-centered bi-law regarding choice of "courtesy" reminder time.
I don't know who it is who decided that everybody likes to get their one reminder the day before as opposed to a week before an appointment. If a poll was being taken I would choose 1 week;s notice. In fact, upon starting as someone's patient, I think we should get that choice in writing, right around the place where it asks if you have any additional medical considerations. I would say that I am an idiot savant prone to misplacing and not recording doctor's appointments or forgetting about them when they roll around three months later and that I require a week's reminder notice instead of one day.
In fact, as I said on the phone win my final conversation with Helene, the 24 hours notice required of me to cancel an appointment can't logically be met under the circumstances. And the interesting thing is that she works for a specialist in Diabetes wherein many of the patients might have such quirks and memory problems and might be on a lot of the same medications and under the same spaced-out stress that I am.
Considering the ballpark in which she works (I didn't actually say this to her) she is is a very special league of mediocrity - dangerous mediocrity and indifference to serving the interest of patients. I might even want to write that as a letter to the doctor but it might go through the gatekeeper in his outer office and go missing if my name is on it.
Monday, October 18, 2010
doctors and their assistants
I pop about 9 pills in the morning. Should be 10 except that the prescription ran out on that one. It was one that, fair enough, my diabetes doctor felt that my GP should prescribe. That another I haven't run out of yet. My last GP I had for 9 years and in the last couple of years he began to get twitchy. His staff was excellent and I never had any problem with them, but he used words like "us" to include his whole office when there was actually just a problem with him. For a year he kept saying, "we'll look into that," and variations of reassurance when there were no results on file for a barium enema and sygmoidscopic-something up my ass and x-rays I endured at the end of 2004. 2005 was a lot of patience and my last stretch of trust in doctors, capped by a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. In january I jad to phone around back and forth from the Rudd Clinic and that doctor's office. Nothing. But even with that collossal cluster-fuck, I stayed with that doctor out of sheer inertia. Come June just before my father passed away this doctor snapped at me perhaps provoked by an ancient letter on my file to not renew prescriptions over the phone, due to a miscommunication at Shoppers. During a regular appointment I then made the mistake of mentioning more than one ache or malady (still in the nostalgic headspace of those days when doctors were more holistic and felt one symptom might reflect an overall problem). He freaked out ranting about paying rent in downtown Toronto and not make money. This was the first I had heard of the rule that medical complaints had to be spread over several visits since the doctor gets paid per visit. Since he always had a packed waiting room, it's hard to see where those extra visits fit in and make a difference but I suppose they do. THEN he wanted to take my blood pressure. I waited until after Father's Day which was a couple of days before my father passed, and the funeral, before sending off my e-mail about these issues. I wish I had thought back then to go straight to OHIP and ask to see whether the procedures were paid for. But years later when I finally went through that process I found that whatever record of my tests there were some items that were never processed and must have been mishandled at the clinic. But considering a lot of communication that happens "as a courtesy" it is amazing that anyone ever getes well. What if I am somewhat addled by medication(s)? Like maybe 9 or 10 pills in the morning and a couple more later on? What if I was mentally challenged, worse than I am? Does that mean I just miss a lot of appointments?
Years pass, and I haven't gone through the mundane chore of resolving the issue of a new GP. Four years have passed. Four and a half sans family doctor. Some prescriptions I got from walk-ins, others from my diabetes doctor.
I don't want to disparage my diabetes doctor, and he knows what he is doing, but unfortunately his assistant manages to be more scatterbrained than myself.
I have been clear that if she was going to give me a "courtesy" reminder of an appoitntment it shouldn't be last minute or the day before because I have to advise a colleage at my jobsite and get the okay that I can be late. If not, I'll still need a couple of days to get someone else enough notice to fill in. And I am aware of my own shortcomings to put them forward: I will forget any appointment booked three months in advance or lose the card, as per Murphy's Law. I am not the one consulting a ledger every day. (And yes, that includes the Daytimer I actually have which may or may not have the upcoming appointment transferred into it and which is mostly used as a folder to stuff insane screenplay scrawlings and monologues and Mel Gibson defences which may never get typed up.
I never had any problem until this doctor moved to another hospital and a terrible assistant.
I don't know how that fits in to a questionaire about the state of my health and how it is coming along, but it will throw off my diabetes program as I look for a new doctor (in addition to a GP).
I have been thinking today about how I usually feel great for a few weeks when I have let my prescriptions run out and my thinking is clearer and I am more productive. I wasted this past weekend surfing the net, listening to a DVD commentary on The Thing, and generally catching up on illegally uploaded TV shows.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to just fast or something. If there's nothing wrong with the doctor, it's the lead-assed assistant giving a "reminder" at 3:56 the afternoon before a 9am appointment. If it's not a week before I can't gear up for it. Also, if I went in this time it would ruin my pattern of weightloss. In small incriments each time I have been there I have lost a few kilos. I'm not confident I have stayed on that course. Three months go by fast.
Years pass, and I haven't gone through the mundane chore of resolving the issue of a new GP. Four years have passed. Four and a half sans family doctor. Some prescriptions I got from walk-ins, others from my diabetes doctor.
I don't want to disparage my diabetes doctor, and he knows what he is doing, but unfortunately his assistant manages to be more scatterbrained than myself.
I have been clear that if she was going to give me a "courtesy" reminder of an appoitntment it shouldn't be last minute or the day before because I have to advise a colleage at my jobsite and get the okay that I can be late. If not, I'll still need a couple of days to get someone else enough notice to fill in. And I am aware of my own shortcomings to put them forward: I will forget any appointment booked three months in advance or lose the card, as per Murphy's Law. I am not the one consulting a ledger every day. (And yes, that includes the Daytimer I actually have which may or may not have the upcoming appointment transferred into it and which is mostly used as a folder to stuff insane screenplay scrawlings and monologues and Mel Gibson defences which may never get typed up.
I never had any problem until this doctor moved to another hospital and a terrible assistant.
I don't know how that fits in to a questionaire about the state of my health and how it is coming along, but it will throw off my diabetes program as I look for a new doctor (in addition to a GP).
I have been thinking today about how I usually feel great for a few weeks when I have let my prescriptions run out and my thinking is clearer and I am more productive. I wasted this past weekend surfing the net, listening to a DVD commentary on The Thing, and generally catching up on illegally uploaded TV shows.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to just fast or something. If there's nothing wrong with the doctor, it's the lead-assed assistant giving a "reminder" at 3:56 the afternoon before a 9am appointment. If it's not a week before I can't gear up for it. Also, if I went in this time it would ruin my pattern of weightloss. In small incriments each time I have been there I have lost a few kilos. I'm not confident I have stayed on that course. Three months go by fast.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
deleted imdb reviews
Most of the time these are referred to as "comments" but when they are deleted the alert refers to them as "reviews." So I'll stick with that wording.
I'm not entirely sure why one or the other was deleted, except by another user.
I'll modify them when I get the chance and re-post, but for now I'll just paste them here as they were. The second one, for a terrible spoof movie, is a justifyable deletion. I think I pasted some wording from a critic's blurb. I don't fully recall. I thought I had changed the context of it. I recognize the first wording (for good or ill) as my own though at first skim.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Skip the reviews; watch the movie, 7 May 2010
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)
An ongoing pet peeve of mine is the ease with which critics publish falsehoods. I don't even mean subjective arguments with which I disagree, but unqualified statements contrary to the evidence on screen. Here is an example, having looked at a review of Iron Man 2 before seeing it, since I was thrown by a claim that caught my eye. Ordinarily I avoid reviews of movies I already intend to see.
False statement number one is that Mickey Rourke doesn't have enough screen time. Fact: he has exactly the right amount of screen time for a primary movie heavy. Does he have as much as in The Wrestler? No. Does he have as much as Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman? Of course not, because there was no writer's strike during the shooting of Iron Man 2 and Tim Burton doesn't always know when enough Jack is enough. Jack had way too much screen time in that flick, entertaining as he was.
False statement number two is that we don't see Iron Man in the suit enough. This might actually be offered as proof the critic didn't even see the movie. We see as much of Iron Man in full costume as the story permits, which is exactly the right amount. Then we also get to see War Machine in his own similar costume, and Mickey again in something still similar. Not to mention the collection of Iron man suits on display in Stark's home. This of course is even clear to people who have seen the trailers. No spoilers here.
I could go point for point through the whole "review," but those were the to most laughable that drifted into my thoughts as I was watching them be disproved during the film. Proof once again that a movie should be seen as cold as possible (despite the omni-present trailer) and there is no point having a critic's nonsense rattling around in your head.
Let's face it, you are in better hands with the team behind Iron Man 2 than with even a competent critic. The themes are well explored, the character flaws of Stark are exploited for substance, and it is as it should be. I don't think I'll show up for any Stark parties or Expos, but I will keep showing up to his movies. If there's a quibble, it can be for the hurdles placed before the filmmakers by the studio when it announced the release date of this flick before telling its director - who then had to round out whatever draft of a script with an ongoing workshop with his cast. Let's hope they are given more time for part 3, but they managed to maintain the standard of the first one to a large extent.
I'm really only posting a comment at this point as a way to vent. I may never have the time to compile an archive website of disprovable quotes from critics, and there is the danger anyway that it might inadvertently promote their names.
Meet the Spartans (2008)
the first "place holder" movie, 28 January 2008
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)
Some writers write what they call place holders when they know a movie could use something here or there or an explanation or a name for a character. . .This is the first time I've noticed someone let a whole movie go through the process and keep the place-holders.
It's a generic piece of crap with nothing to say, least of all anything to say about the pop culture it references. I love spoofs. I love satire too. Naked Gun, Airplane, Mel Brooks, even the last couple of Scary Movie installments. This isn't even an attempt. It reminds me of an old TV charity event "Night of a Hundred Stars" which ended up cramming people in by having them step out and bow, one at a time if you are lucky. Except that this is not as inspired, hasn't got the stars, and hasn't got the charity.
The closest thing to a decent quote I can find is :
"Meet The Spartans makes Epic Movie look like Scary Movie."
Good quote # 2:
"The movie follows the essential narrative of 300, with some obvious detours.
It plays as if someone handed over a laundry list of popular-culture flotsam, and the recipient took it to be a script."
That's about all the good that has come from this movie being made.
A series of walk-ons for one look-alike after another.
It is made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Any film that indicates these names as directors can be guaranteed to suck. What they do right is they say yes to distributors and get something shot which can be marketed close to a better film it is trying to ape. They keep the budgets around 20 million dollars and they make a profit in the first weekend before the teen audience realize that on every website the films are rated maybe two or three out of ten, and with single-digit percentages on the tomatometer. They are a brand name of suckage. Sadly a decent Canadian musical about vampires called Suck received no theatrical release and yet these garbage merchants crank out a place-holder called Vampires Suck and it gets between 2000 and 3000 screens. Why do Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get hired? They really have nothing to say about anything they are ostensibly spoofing. There are Second City improv troops who can whip up a 90 minute spoof on any topic or movie in much less time than it takes these dweebs. The studio heads need to get out more. The Kentucky Fried Theater was running for a while before Zucker Abrahams and Zucker ventured into film spoofs. Mel Brooks cut his teeth with the best of the best in live television. These putzes don't know how to generate comedy. I can watch hours of student films for all the energy and urgency and experimentation but I can't sit through the films of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for free on the internet or on a DVD that is handed to me or when I am forced to hang tight with others who are watching their crap. I have forced myself a couple of times and it is rough going.
--
Okay, by the time I was done reading over my post I realized it was not worth reposting something that had been an inexplicable word-count of mostly a published review someone else wrote. I decided to trash that and rip on the two dudes who have ruined spoof movies for half a decade.
Seriously thinking about deleting this blog or just posting elsewhere for obvious reasons. But at least it's a place to paste some useless observations while procrastinating about my own crap.
I'm not entirely sure why one or the other was deleted, except by another user.
I'll modify them when I get the chance and re-post, but for now I'll just paste them here as they were. The second one, for a terrible spoof movie, is a justifyable deletion. I think I pasted some wording from a critic's blurb. I don't fully recall. I thought I had changed the context of it. I recognize the first wording (for good or ill) as my own though at first skim.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Skip the reviews; watch the movie, 7 May 2010
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)
An ongoing pet peeve of mine is the ease with which critics publish falsehoods. I don't even mean subjective arguments with which I disagree, but unqualified statements contrary to the evidence on screen. Here is an example, having looked at a review of Iron Man 2 before seeing it, since I was thrown by a claim that caught my eye. Ordinarily I avoid reviews of movies I already intend to see.
False statement number one is that Mickey Rourke doesn't have enough screen time. Fact: he has exactly the right amount of screen time for a primary movie heavy. Does he have as much as in The Wrestler? No. Does he have as much as Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman? Of course not, because there was no writer's strike during the shooting of Iron Man 2 and Tim Burton doesn't always know when enough Jack is enough. Jack had way too much screen time in that flick, entertaining as he was.
False statement number two is that we don't see Iron Man in the suit enough. This might actually be offered as proof the critic didn't even see the movie. We see as much of Iron Man in full costume as the story permits, which is exactly the right amount. Then we also get to see War Machine in his own similar costume, and Mickey again in something still similar. Not to mention the collection of Iron man suits on display in Stark's home. This of course is even clear to people who have seen the trailers. No spoilers here.
I could go point for point through the whole "review," but those were the to most laughable that drifted into my thoughts as I was watching them be disproved during the film. Proof once again that a movie should be seen as cold as possible (despite the omni-present trailer) and there is no point having a critic's nonsense rattling around in your head.
Let's face it, you are in better hands with the team behind Iron Man 2 than with even a competent critic. The themes are well explored, the character flaws of Stark are exploited for substance, and it is as it should be. I don't think I'll show up for any Stark parties or Expos, but I will keep showing up to his movies. If there's a quibble, it can be for the hurdles placed before the filmmakers by the studio when it announced the release date of this flick before telling its director - who then had to round out whatever draft of a script with an ongoing workshop with his cast. Let's hope they are given more time for part 3, but they managed to maintain the standard of the first one to a large extent.
I'm really only posting a comment at this point as a way to vent. I may never have the time to compile an archive website of disprovable quotes from critics, and there is the danger anyway that it might inadvertently promote their names.
Meet the Spartans (2008)
the first "place holder" movie, 28 January 2008
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)
Some writers write what they call place holders when they know a movie could use something here or there or an explanation or a name for a character. . .This is the first time I've noticed someone let a whole movie go through the process and keep the place-holders.
It's a generic piece of crap with nothing to say, least of all anything to say about the pop culture it references. I love spoofs. I love satire too. Naked Gun, Airplane, Mel Brooks, even the last couple of Scary Movie installments. This isn't even an attempt. It reminds me of an old TV charity event "Night of a Hundred Stars" which ended up cramming people in by having them step out and bow, one at a time if you are lucky. Except that this is not as inspired, hasn't got the stars, and hasn't got the charity.
The closest thing to a decent quote I can find is :
"Meet The Spartans makes Epic Movie look like Scary Movie."
Good quote # 2:
"The movie follows the essential narrative of 300, with some obvious detours.
It plays as if someone handed over a laundry list of popular-culture flotsam, and the recipient took it to be a script."
That's about all the good that has come from this movie being made.
A series of walk-ons for one look-alike after another.
It is made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Any film that indicates these names as directors can be guaranteed to suck. What they do right is they say yes to distributors and get something shot which can be marketed close to a better film it is trying to ape. They keep the budgets around 20 million dollars and they make a profit in the first weekend before the teen audience realize that on every website the films are rated maybe two or three out of ten, and with single-digit percentages on the tomatometer. They are a brand name of suckage. Sadly a decent Canadian musical about vampires called Suck received no theatrical release and yet these garbage merchants crank out a place-holder called Vampires Suck and it gets between 2000 and 3000 screens. Why do Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get hired? They really have nothing to say about anything they are ostensibly spoofing. There are Second City improv troops who can whip up a 90 minute spoof on any topic or movie in much less time than it takes these dweebs. The studio heads need to get out more. The Kentucky Fried Theater was running for a while before Zucker Abrahams and Zucker ventured into film spoofs. Mel Brooks cut his teeth with the best of the best in live television. These putzes don't know how to generate comedy. I can watch hours of student films for all the energy and urgency and experimentation but I can't sit through the films of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for free on the internet or on a DVD that is handed to me or when I am forced to hang tight with others who are watching their crap. I have forced myself a couple of times and it is rough going.
--
Okay, by the time I was done reading over my post I realized it was not worth reposting something that had been an inexplicable word-count of mostly a published review someone else wrote. I decided to trash that and rip on the two dudes who have ruined spoof movies for half a decade.
Seriously thinking about deleting this blog or just posting elsewhere for obvious reasons. But at least it's a place to paste some useless observations while procrastinating about my own crap.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Open Letter to Building Management
Friday 15 October, 2010
Dear XXXXXXXXX Management:
A matter has come to light which I feel should be reported in case it escalates.
This concerns my suspicion that a resident of unit XXXX in 9 XXXXX Place, most likely the female, has engaged in a petty and disturbing game. The name associated with the unit is S. Saad. I’ll describe what background I know after the immediate situation.
Today on the above date I found two brooms on my balcony, one of which I dimly recognized as my own balcony broom (no longer fit to bring inside once it has swept bird feathers and worse). The other I did not recognize. This one also had an empty grey plastic bag tied with a twisty aluminum tie at the handle. It would be consistent with whatever plastic bag she may be used when walking their black Mastiff. It is the closest thing to a clue about who deposited the broom on my balcony. I took photos before bringing
the brooms to deposit in the basement bin. Even my own had an unnatural amount of feathers
stuck along the handle, but they would have had to get onto my balcony to get hold of it.
The brooms were on the side closest to their apartment and a broom could be tossed from their
balcony to my own but it is doubtful that one dropped from above would be able to land
inside my own. It would have to be thrown laterally.
The plastic bag I untied and left further up the hallway, approximately across from 1414. That was around 5pm. Around 9:30 pm I opened my door to check and the same bag was directly outside my door.
The difference is that while 1414 has another unit’s door directly across from it and I had placed the bag beside that door so it is ambiguous as to where it came from there is only a wall across from my own unit. So something placed directly outside my door confirms that whoever found it knows which unit it came from. At the time of writing it is 20 minutes later and I expect it is possible that such a game could continue back and forth all weekend. Except that from my end it has already helped confirm that 1414 for whatever reason tied a plastic bag to a broom and threw it onto my balcony.
It must be said that whatever the outcome it won’t result with me being scared off. Being as open as possible about this nonsense I hope to nip it in the bud. She can move or grow up, or we can see whether this mischief can be addressed with legal recourse. It is definitely harassment on her part.
In fairness, the neighbor I assume to be her husband is a hospitable sort and I have no quarrel with him. If he and his wife are together at the elevator I address him and he seems normal and civilized. All I know is that he works in construction, apart from a couple of animated complaints he has apparently made at the management office about the drain cleaner and parking leaks. From the day they moved in I have been nothing but polite and friendly. I recall the wife sitting in the hall on some luggage and I said hello and asked if she was okay. Since then in comings and goings when we have crossed paths there has been silence to the obligatory nod or hello. But even that is water off a duck’s back. A couple of years ago my security post was at a condo and it was mostly about vetting people at the intercom and making sure people didn’t con their way in. Around that time the only event happened that I could possibly point to as a reason to be angry with me. My phone rang one night and the conversation went as follows:
: Hello?
: Hi. It’s me.
: Who is me?
: I’m at the door downstairs. I have the dog.
: What’s your name?
Then someone else must have let her in. Her comment about the dog hadn’t registered by the time I
asked for the person’s name. How odd that someone who gave me the cold shoulder feels comfortable saying “It’s me” and expecting me to know who it is. A few minutes later I heard her return with the dog.
I’ve suppressed the urge to complain in the past (about some bits of loose junk or sawdust that used to be tracked into the hallway from unit 1414 or hammering from there) and in some cases I didn’t know where something came from (actual poop found on my balcony, which I figured had fallen there but now I suspect could have been flung there). I’m not quick to complain and I’m not naïve that action can be taken. I don’t know if it is mental illness that might be involved or mere immaturity. But I want to know this is a matter of record in case there have been other complaints and this gives context. I also have to protect myself from any spin-doctoring that might occur.
(I'm actually planning to send this)
Dear XXXXXXXXX Management:
A matter has come to light which I feel should be reported in case it escalates.
This concerns my suspicion that a resident of unit XXXX in 9 XXXXX Place, most likely the female, has engaged in a petty and disturbing game. The name associated with the unit is S. Saad. I’ll describe what background I know after the immediate situation.
Today on the above date I found two brooms on my balcony, one of which I dimly recognized as my own balcony broom (no longer fit to bring inside once it has swept bird feathers and worse). The other I did not recognize. This one also had an empty grey plastic bag tied with a twisty aluminum tie at the handle. It would be consistent with whatever plastic bag she may be used when walking their black Mastiff. It is the closest thing to a clue about who deposited the broom on my balcony. I took photos before bringing
the brooms to deposit in the basement bin. Even my own had an unnatural amount of feathers
stuck along the handle, but they would have had to get onto my balcony to get hold of it.
The brooms were on the side closest to their apartment and a broom could be tossed from their
balcony to my own but it is doubtful that one dropped from above would be able to land
inside my own. It would have to be thrown laterally.
The plastic bag I untied and left further up the hallway, approximately across from 1414. That was around 5pm. Around 9:30 pm I opened my door to check and the same bag was directly outside my door.
The difference is that while 1414 has another unit’s door directly across from it and I had placed the bag beside that door so it is ambiguous as to where it came from there is only a wall across from my own unit. So something placed directly outside my door confirms that whoever found it knows which unit it came from. At the time of writing it is 20 minutes later and I expect it is possible that such a game could continue back and forth all weekend. Except that from my end it has already helped confirm that 1414 for whatever reason tied a plastic bag to a broom and threw it onto my balcony.
It must be said that whatever the outcome it won’t result with me being scared off. Being as open as possible about this nonsense I hope to nip it in the bud. She can move or grow up, or we can see whether this mischief can be addressed with legal recourse. It is definitely harassment on her part.
In fairness, the neighbor I assume to be her husband is a hospitable sort and I have no quarrel with him. If he and his wife are together at the elevator I address him and he seems normal and civilized. All I know is that he works in construction, apart from a couple of animated complaints he has apparently made at the management office about the drain cleaner and parking leaks. From the day they moved in I have been nothing but polite and friendly. I recall the wife sitting in the hall on some luggage and I said hello and asked if she was okay. Since then in comings and goings when we have crossed paths there has been silence to the obligatory nod or hello. But even that is water off a duck’s back. A couple of years ago my security post was at a condo and it was mostly about vetting people at the intercom and making sure people didn’t con their way in. Around that time the only event happened that I could possibly point to as a reason to be angry with me. My phone rang one night and the conversation went as follows:
: Hello?
: Hi. It’s me.
: Who is me?
: I’m at the door downstairs. I have the dog.
: What’s your name?
Then someone else must have let her in. Her comment about the dog hadn’t registered by the time I
asked for the person’s name. How odd that someone who gave me the cold shoulder feels comfortable saying “It’s me” and expecting me to know who it is. A few minutes later I heard her return with the dog.
I’ve suppressed the urge to complain in the past (about some bits of loose junk or sawdust that used to be tracked into the hallway from unit 1414 or hammering from there) and in some cases I didn’t know where something came from (actual poop found on my balcony, which I figured had fallen there but now I suspect could have been flung there). I’m not quick to complain and I’m not naïve that action can be taken. I don’t know if it is mental illness that might be involved or mere immaturity. But I want to know this is a matter of record in case there have been other complaints and this gives context. I also have to protect myself from any spin-doctoring that might occur.
(I'm actually planning to send this)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
One Annoyance Less Annoying
The way this came about may not be the best but one of the most notorious buggers -- I mean bloggers -- in the world has announced that he plans to be less katty and annoying. Mario something or other who calls himself Perez Hilton told Ellen DeGeneres that in this time where the media has decided to talk about the suicides of gay teens and those perceived as gay and bullied for it he has decided to be less of a bully himself. He has outed a few movies or TV stars which I won't name here. And he has in the past built his reputation on making up insulting nicknames for celebrities. He has decided no more outing or mocking or bullying at all. So it remains to be seen what Perez Hilton will do with his time and whether his nasty Nancy Nazi followers will stick with him. To be honest I've only seen whatever quotes of his make it into the "news" and a few youtube clips to form whatever opinion I have of this person. People will kiss up to him for marketing reasons, but his success is reason enough to ignore the media hype machine altogether. That said, I can understand the rush to try to claim a Tom Cruise as part of his team. It's the "red rover, red rover, we call the movie star over." The diddlers on the other hand, so to speak, will always be the ones left unchosen by either team. Officially, a man groping a boy's penis is supposed to be heterosexual because he claims to be and goes home to a wife (unless the culprit is a Catholic priest without the benefit of a wife to hide behind). A movie star doesn't get that benefit of the doubt. He may claim to be straight and also to have a wife or two, but the gossips and outers like Perez in bully mode knew better. They have that special insight, that sensitivity. Meanwhile we the ostensibly straight figure (unless we want to help spin doctor the mess to protect gays from further hate) male hand on boy's penis for some sort of rush equals NOT straight. The newest publicity about kids being called fag or being humiliated into suicide is at least though something that is being taken seriously. A few decades late, but as Robin Williams once quipped, "Better latent than never." Not that there's anything funny about this example of despair and loss. But we'll see how long the A.D.D. zeitgeist keeps attentive to this and whether it reforms the schoolyard rules that have been unofficially in play since there were schools. Kids are pre-moral, for the most part. Adolescents maybe have the bar raised a little higher. College students I suppose it's reasonable to expect adult responsibility and comprehension. But it will still be tough to get people to be tamed. Is the prank of a bully any less a self expression than somebody else' romantic interests? That question might actually be taken seriously some day.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
cafe phantasmagoria Part 3
Again this doesn't seem to fit the blog frame
because it is "HD" and you may as well just
click the title and go straight to youtube
for the proper frame. But I guess if you
see it cropped here it's no big deal.
You might just lose a few people.
Looking at it small might be preferable.
I realized in editing that the focus on some
of it is a little soft.
because it is "HD" and you may as well just
click the title and go straight to youtube
for the proper frame. But I guess if you
see it cropped here it's no big deal.
You might just lose a few people.
Looking at it small might be preferable.
I realized in editing that the focus on some
of it is a little soft.
gay teen suicides and movie star pests
I'm not saying "We" humanity are in our nature mean-spirited, but just as an individual psyche might me a microcosm of society and the zeitgeist of any group there are individuals who are abhorant. The sort of bully who focuses on outing and humiliating the schoolyard gay kid or tomenting others who seem "different" or vulnerable I have not seen grow up and change with new information. I know too many Bullies who have at best grown old and less able to bully, but they channel it different ways. I'm not sure they reform. Campaigns to "educate" either preach to the converted or to the culprits who will laugh it off and mock it and continue in one form or another. I think with this the focus has to be more about how students and even teachers, parents and finally employers are equipped to deal with bullies in general. Even with strict regulations it took our construction site at MLG months to get rid of a toxic foreman, a racist, even after he assaulted another boss.
I'll be honest that I roll my eyes when for example GLAAD scolds Jerry Lewis for using the word fag and doing a swishy physical thing about tennis or something. As if his core Rat Pack fans care. On the other side of the fence I laughed out loud in shock when I was watching a Kevin Pollack Chat Show episode on youtube and he opened with an obligatory "Happy Gay Pride" reference and them stared in silence at the camera with a bored smack. I had been pretty sure that kind of thing was just not allowed to be done anymore - somebody pointing out his own insincerety with something obligatory.
I like Ellen DeGeneres and I believe her heartache over a gay teen suicide - even though her heartfelt address to camera about the dog that was re-gifted to the wrong owner got a little more air time. And my reaction to her interview with TR Knight was that he was a crybaby and the much-publicized Issiah Washington deal left people asking why newspapers refer to faggot as the "f-word" when we already have a perfectly good "f-word." And when "The Hanging Garden" was making waves in Canadian film (among critics anyway) I thought it was absurd. This guy was afraid of (I think) his father knowing he was gay so he tried to hang himself as a teen?
I think the hype of this may pathologize gay teens even more. Like, "I suppose I'd better speak to you in a gentle tone so you don't kill yourself" which would be a new style of bullying. ALSO, frankly, why can't the "closet" be seen as a valid phase for them? There are a number of people I went to High School with who are now gay or lesbian. Most teens don't really know what they want to do for a living and only some idea WHO they want to do. There seems to be a myth that people should self-actualize even when they are dependant.
Possibly exploiting the tragedy of suicide either due to simply being gay or also having a psychological disorder - is less effective than the example given by Sir Ian McKellen, Neil Patrick Harris, Jane Lynch (the only Glee cast member who doesn't belong on DeGrassi or some Afterschool special) and Tom Hardy who has taken over the role of Mad Max. But even then (getting back to that closet idea) how firmly established are some of these brave people before they are out? Either for being gay or for having done tabu things. Would they have been better off being in-your-face in high school? Growing up is fine, but I think inadvertently there is a form of bullying coming at TEEN gays from their own circle of support.
As far fetched as THAT might seem, look at the inherent cruelty of groups that make it their mission to "out" movie stars who are ostensibly straight. That is high-end bullying. The conceit is "be a role model - the gay poster child - or else." Jodie Foster was badgered for years, and tured in some good performances she might not have gotten had a lesbian identity coopted her PR exposure. When Anne Heche was cast in Six Days, Seven Nights, and the Ellen relationship story broke the studio was determined to recast since the film had a rom-com element. If Harrison Ford hadn't put his foot down on principle, she would have been recast. (would be a great story if the movie was any good) Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves - I don't pretend to know anything about them personally and I don't care what they may or may not have done. It should be their own business. There are plenty of successful bi people like David Bowie that could be held up instead of potentially damaging someone's action hero career.
That's an example of what may be called "liberal Hypocrisy." There are some people who may be well-meaning in defending a teen who has been outed and goes to commit suicide, yet many of that same core group has a sense of entitlement to force actors and celebrities to be "honest" about their personal life and questions that they have no business asking.
Most of this blog is re-used and recycled from a reply to a friend who is an activist for gay issues. I tend to take the Devil's Advocate stance on a lot of issues, and either that points to leaks in the proverbial boat or it's a mean slap in the face my me depending on your estimate of my nature. I'm in favor of gay marriage and gay adoption, but I'm against hyper-sensitive media run by fear of lobby groups. It's like the difference between 60's Star Trek and Next Generation - it was brave to have a multi-racial cast in the original. But even as PC as Star Trek generally is, the aggressive Klingons are usually played by black actors and the money-grubbing Ferengi are usually played by a Jewish-sounding actor. Some might complain that (apart from an episode of the on-line fan-made version) they haven't directly dealt with a gay character. Trills are paracites that can take over either a male or female host, but I'm not sure that would be held up as an example. This reminds me of the 60's writer whose body of work was very socially conscious and yet he never took on a black character. His reason when asked was that he didn't want to be "forced to write Sidney Poitier." No slight against the great actor, but it is true that once you HAVE TO write a character a certain way to appease an interest group then there's no point.
I'll be honest that I roll my eyes when for example GLAAD scolds Jerry Lewis for using the word fag and doing a swishy physical thing about tennis or something. As if his core Rat Pack fans care. On the other side of the fence I laughed out loud in shock when I was watching a Kevin Pollack Chat Show episode on youtube and he opened with an obligatory "Happy Gay Pride" reference and them stared in silence at the camera with a bored smack. I had been pretty sure that kind of thing was just not allowed to be done anymore - somebody pointing out his own insincerety with something obligatory.
I like Ellen DeGeneres and I believe her heartache over a gay teen suicide - even though her heartfelt address to camera about the dog that was re-gifted to the wrong owner got a little more air time. And my reaction to her interview with TR Knight was that he was a crybaby and the much-publicized Issiah Washington deal left people asking why newspapers refer to faggot as the "f-word" when we already have a perfectly good "f-word." And when "The Hanging Garden" was making waves in Canadian film (among critics anyway) I thought it was absurd. This guy was afraid of (I think) his father knowing he was gay so he tried to hang himself as a teen?
I think the hype of this may pathologize gay teens even more. Like, "I suppose I'd better speak to you in a gentle tone so you don't kill yourself" which would be a new style of bullying. ALSO, frankly, why can't the "closet" be seen as a valid phase for them? There are a number of people I went to High School with who are now gay or lesbian. Most teens don't really know what they want to do for a living and only some idea WHO they want to do. There seems to be a myth that people should self-actualize even when they are dependant.
Possibly exploiting the tragedy of suicide either due to simply being gay or also having a psychological disorder - is less effective than the example given by Sir Ian McKellen, Neil Patrick Harris, Jane Lynch (the only Glee cast member who doesn't belong on DeGrassi or some Afterschool special) and Tom Hardy who has taken over the role of Mad Max. But even then (getting back to that closet idea) how firmly established are some of these brave people before they are out? Either for being gay or for having done tabu things. Would they have been better off being in-your-face in high school? Growing up is fine, but I think inadvertently there is a form of bullying coming at TEEN gays from their own circle of support.
As far fetched as THAT might seem, look at the inherent cruelty of groups that make it their mission to "out" movie stars who are ostensibly straight. That is high-end bullying. The conceit is "be a role model - the gay poster child - or else." Jodie Foster was badgered for years, and tured in some good performances she might not have gotten had a lesbian identity coopted her PR exposure. When Anne Heche was cast in Six Days, Seven Nights, and the Ellen relationship story broke the studio was determined to recast since the film had a rom-com element. If Harrison Ford hadn't put his foot down on principle, she would have been recast. (would be a great story if the movie was any good) Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves - I don't pretend to know anything about them personally and I don't care what they may or may not have done. It should be their own business. There are plenty of successful bi people like David Bowie that could be held up instead of potentially damaging someone's action hero career.
That's an example of what may be called "liberal Hypocrisy." There are some people who may be well-meaning in defending a teen who has been outed and goes to commit suicide, yet many of that same core group has a sense of entitlement to force actors and celebrities to be "honest" about their personal life and questions that they have no business asking.
Most of this blog is re-used and recycled from a reply to a friend who is an activist for gay issues. I tend to take the Devil's Advocate stance on a lot of issues, and either that points to leaks in the proverbial boat or it's a mean slap in the face my me depending on your estimate of my nature. I'm in favor of gay marriage and gay adoption, but I'm against hyper-sensitive media run by fear of lobby groups. It's like the difference between 60's Star Trek and Next Generation - it was brave to have a multi-racial cast in the original. But even as PC as Star Trek generally is, the aggressive Klingons are usually played by black actors and the money-grubbing Ferengi are usually played by a Jewish-sounding actor. Some might complain that (apart from an episode of the on-line fan-made version) they haven't directly dealt with a gay character. Trills are paracites that can take over either a male or female host, but I'm not sure that would be held up as an example. This reminds me of the 60's writer whose body of work was very socially conscious and yet he never took on a black character. His reason when asked was that he didn't want to be "forced to write Sidney Poitier." No slight against the great actor, but it is true that once you HAVE TO write a character a certain way to appease an interest group then there's no point.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Jury Duty
A few weeks have passed since I lost hundreds of dollars thanks to the legal system.
I got a form with questions like "what is your occupation?" Of course I put "security guard" because that's how I pay my rent, whether or not it is my vocation. When I was living in North Bay in 1990 or thereabouts and actually served on a jury I had put "screenwriter." Actually one time during the week from hell in Toronto I had the pleasure of seeing the author of Ginger Snaps called up. "Film and television writer" was her career description. I don't know if she made the final cut of jurors. For her sake I hope not. But after sitting in the holding area and being called into one courtroom after another to hear about a pending case and see this or that accused person and then being sent back to the waiting area if your name isn't called, maybe getting the service out of the way is best.
Even after I told a judge that I couldn't commit 5 weeks due to financial hardship, since my security company doesn't compensate for jury duty. I was sent back to the holding area. Only after I pushed and finally got through to the right person did I get dismissed. I don't have to serve for another 3 years, apparently. But I didn't really have to receive any summons at all. Even though "security guard" isn't one of the listed occupations that is excused from jury duty, shouldn't the SYSTEM bloody well KNOW by now that security guards barely make more than minumum wage and that their companies WON'T compensate them for jury duty???????!!!!! The thing that burns me is that there MUST be lots of security guards called in, losing AT LEAST a day's wages. How many times do they have to be told financial hardship is an issue for them? It's the indifference over this issue that rankles me. Institutional indifference.
I suppose it calls for actually looking up the right person to send a letter, as opposed to posting a blog that goes nowhere. But I can call this practice.
Either that or just more free time wasted.
I got a form with questions like "what is your occupation?" Of course I put "security guard" because that's how I pay my rent, whether or not it is my vocation. When I was living in North Bay in 1990 or thereabouts and actually served on a jury I had put "screenwriter." Actually one time during the week from hell in Toronto I had the pleasure of seeing the author of Ginger Snaps called up. "Film and television writer" was her career description. I don't know if she made the final cut of jurors. For her sake I hope not. But after sitting in the holding area and being called into one courtroom after another to hear about a pending case and see this or that accused person and then being sent back to the waiting area if your name isn't called, maybe getting the service out of the way is best.
Even after I told a judge that I couldn't commit 5 weeks due to financial hardship, since my security company doesn't compensate for jury duty. I was sent back to the holding area. Only after I pushed and finally got through to the right person did I get dismissed. I don't have to serve for another 3 years, apparently. But I didn't really have to receive any summons at all. Even though "security guard" isn't one of the listed occupations that is excused from jury duty, shouldn't the SYSTEM bloody well KNOW by now that security guards barely make more than minumum wage and that their companies WON'T compensate them for jury duty???????!!!!! The thing that burns me is that there MUST be lots of security guards called in, losing AT LEAST a day's wages. How many times do they have to be told financial hardship is an issue for them? It's the indifference over this issue that rankles me. Institutional indifference.
I suppose it calls for actually looking up the right person to send a letter, as opposed to posting a blog that goes nowhere. But I can call this practice.
Either that or just more free time wasted.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Wonder Woman back on TV ?
The question is going around - who should fill Lynda Carter's boots, let alone replace her booty?
What this part needs if it is going to be a David E. Kelley show is deft comedy skill. And a decent set of boobies.
David E. Kelley is a promising name for this material though. It will be social commentary in the right hands. On TV he'll get away with more of that then they would in a feature.
The origin feature has been done as an animated DVD with Nathan Fillion voicing Steve. Good choice, and nice nod to Joss Whedon who likely would have cast him.
If they shoot another live action origin story they should use the animated one as an
animatic. I'd like to see a report on the process and why DC's animated division is so killer and their live action projects (without Nolan) bog down at the script level.
Also, Meryl Streep has a Commencement address on youtube where she notes that it is
not easy for heterosexual males to identify with a female protagonist. Even though Wonder Woman is a character we fall for and respect I think we are basically Steve Trevor and want to have her do all the work but still be in an artificially superior status. I'm not sure that's bankable for an all-eggs-in-one-basket $200 million feature. With a series they can play with that dynamic.
Castle, created by the screenwriter of Air Force One, has been pretty successful with something non-threatening to the male ego - Fillion is the mystery author who shadows a pretty homicide detective and models his newest character on her. She has the authority and status, but he is the civillian who proves each week that his intuition beats her hard-bitten proceedure.
I suspect that they may discover the next Lynda Carter, who will have some chops but be the "straight man" and the Steve will be someone funny who is the breakout star.
Wonder Woman running down modern streets would be interesting, though I hope they use the old uniform and stay away from the less patriotic look in the rebooted comic. One is an icon, the other is a reaction. I think now that we are in the Omaba era it is okay for people to be a bit patriotic. And I'm sure it will pass without much comment when Paradise Island sports more diverse-looking "sisters" for Diana. But even that aspect of the show needs a smart writer or it will be soft porn.
What this part needs if it is going to be a David E. Kelley show is deft comedy skill. And a decent set of boobies.
David E. Kelley is a promising name for this material though. It will be social commentary in the right hands. On TV he'll get away with more of that then they would in a feature.
The origin feature has been done as an animated DVD with Nathan Fillion voicing Steve. Good choice, and nice nod to Joss Whedon who likely would have cast him.
If they shoot another live action origin story they should use the animated one as an
animatic. I'd like to see a report on the process and why DC's animated division is so killer and their live action projects (without Nolan) bog down at the script level.
Also, Meryl Streep has a Commencement address on youtube where she notes that it is
not easy for heterosexual males to identify with a female protagonist. Even though Wonder Woman is a character we fall for and respect I think we are basically Steve Trevor and want to have her do all the work but still be in an artificially superior status. I'm not sure that's bankable for an all-eggs-in-one-basket $200 million feature. With a series they can play with that dynamic.
Castle, created by the screenwriter of Air Force One, has been pretty successful with something non-threatening to the male ego - Fillion is the mystery author who shadows a pretty homicide detective and models his newest character on her. She has the authority and status, but he is the civillian who proves each week that his intuition beats her hard-bitten proceedure.
I suspect that they may discover the next Lynda Carter, who will have some chops but be the "straight man" and the Steve will be someone funny who is the breakout star.
Wonder Woman running down modern streets would be interesting, though I hope they use the old uniform and stay away from the less patriotic look in the rebooted comic. One is an icon, the other is a reaction. I think now that we are in the Omaba era it is okay for people to be a bit patriotic. And I'm sure it will pass without much comment when Paradise Island sports more diverse-looking "sisters" for Diana. But even that aspect of the show needs a smart writer or it will be soft porn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)