Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
"Faith of the Heart" not from Enterprise
When the series Enterprise began in 2001 I thought the corny theme song sounded familiar. I had nothing against it. Some people can't stand it. But then I didn't mind Patch Adams, and I had forgotten that the Robin Williams tear-jerker used the same song for its ending credits, performed by Rod Stewart. Russell Watson recorded the version used on Star Trek: Enterprise.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Porky's and Star Trek
Last night I sat down and watched a DVD I got from the public library. I hadn't seen it since it first hit VHS more then 26 years ago. It's about friendship loyalty, antisemitism, racism, and the trouble of finding a bad guy that can make a bunch of horny kids of little distinction seem like heroes. A local brothel in the 1950's, run by the brother of a corrupt Sherrif whose station is next door, is run with little concern for repeat business. Customers may return, but usually to seek revenge. The unlikely system is that Mr. Porky has located his strip club in a free standing structure suspended over water for no apparent reason other than to give Porky a place to dump people. Apparently the regular clientelle don't mind their strippers right beside the police department. The third act of the film is the most entertaining and upbeat, and Porky makes a perfect punching bag as an antagonist so bad and mean that he defies logic or motivation of any kind. Basically he is fat and mean without a bit of business sense. He of course is balanced out by Ms Ballbricker as the minor heavy and her petty tyranny at the school railing against anyone who has sex. It's a formula that obviously worked but on reflection even the turning of the tables with their "good" police officer and the community inexplicably coming together seems a little starry-eyed. It reminds me of perhaps the one good line in the awful "It's Pat," while seeing if they have anything in common Pat's mate Chris says, "You know what I'm against? Senseless evil." Porky is a fat man who seems to have aquired riches by antagonizing potential customers from the nearest town. At least with Ballbricker one look at her explains why she hates youth, pretty girls, and peeping penises.
Star Trek (2009) I saw at the first Toronto matinee I was aware of, only because I was unaware there had been screenings the previous day. D'oh! In a couple of places my eyes glazed over a bit listening to time travel and black holes being explained, but those were brief and the movie itself has momentum to get past it. Knowing the original crew characters will be an advantage, since much of the fun is in the subtle recognition of habits and moves or quips we know. But it is almost more of a homage to Nicholas Meyer's Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country going by what is referenced. Although I am assured that there are more references to the TV series, which sounds reasonable enough. If people haven't seen any Star Trek and want to be up to speed, The Naked Time, and Space Seed episodes from the original series, then the Features The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country in that order will be excellent preparation for the new Star Trek. I have no idea whether it plays as well for people who don't know the characters. They might feel on the outside of an inside joke. The main thing is that at least the evil antagonist here has a grudge we can understand, which will be apparent when you see it. Good logical flick.
Star Trek (2009) I saw at the first Toronto matinee I was aware of, only because I was unaware there had been screenings the previous day. D'oh! In a couple of places my eyes glazed over a bit listening to time travel and black holes being explained, but those were brief and the movie itself has momentum to get past it. Knowing the original crew characters will be an advantage, since much of the fun is in the subtle recognition of habits and moves or quips we know. But it is almost more of a homage to Nicholas Meyer's Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country going by what is referenced. Although I am assured that there are more references to the TV series, which sounds reasonable enough. If people haven't seen any Star Trek and want to be up to speed, The Naked Time, and Space Seed episodes from the original series, then the Features The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country in that order will be excellent preparation for the new Star Trek. I have no idea whether it plays as well for people who don't know the characters. They might feel on the outside of an inside joke. The main thing is that at least the evil antagonist here has a grudge we can understand, which will be apparent when you see it. Good logical flick.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ever want to talk back to a critic?
A “Fanboys” review by Roger Ebert becomes a discussion with Jawsphobia
EBERT: A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them.
JAWSPHOBIA: So how do you explain them disregarding their own hygiene ?
EBERT: Their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion.
JAWSPHOBIA: Like Jesus is irrelevant to the Christian?
EBERT: Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.
JAWSPHOBIA: That’s fair enough.
EBERT: Extreme fandom may serve as a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills. If you are Luke Skywalker and she is Princess Leia, you already know what to say to each other.
JAWSPHOBIA: Not exactly an ideal springboard to romance, if you recall the films. . .
EBERT: If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else.
JAWSPHOBIA: How do you explain the enterprising Star Wars fans and Trekkers who write some of the most respected shows today?
EBERT: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to.
JAWSPHOBIA: Asking the Answer Man or me? Who is “you”? How is Fanboys?
EBERT: Its primary flaw is that it's not critical. It is a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle.
JAWSPHOBIA: What lifestyle? Do actual fans end up in replica trash compactors, take pilgrimages to Skywalker Ranch to physically steal movies for friends dying of cancer each week? That lifestyle?
EBERT: If you want to get in a car and drive to California, fine. So do I. So did Jack Kerouac. But. . . . beam your ass down to Route 66.
JAWSPHOBIA: I see. The lifestyle of Jack Kerouac is our yardstick. Very stable.
EBERT: "Fanboys" follows in the footsteps of "Sex Drive."
JAWSPHOBIA: Missed that film. I was “on the road” you might say.
EBERT: This plot is given gravitas because one of the friends, Linus (Christopher Marquette), is dying of cancer.. . . it's one of those movie diseases that is mentioned occasionally so everyone can look solemn and then dropped when the ailing Linus dons a matching black camouflage outfit and scales the Skywalker Ranch walls with a grappling hook.
JAWSPHOBIA: Let me tread lightly here, sir. I know you’ve had close calls with cancer and this is real and serious for you. But someone else can make the movie about sitting around waiting to die. There is a time to live, a time to die, a time to scale walls.
EBERT: "Fanboys" is an amiable but disjointed movie that identifies too closely with its heroes. Poking a little more fun at them would have been a great idea.
JAWSPHOBIA: Just how great? Ever hear the term “easy target?” As it stands, the movie has William Shatner in it. Difficult to forget that the best slams have already been delivered. “You’re almost thirty – have you ever kissed a girl?” So it’s been done and well. I take this movie as being the tone of Detroit Rock City. We can take for granted that loving KISS music is an arbitrary obsession, but it is also about all journeys.
EBERT: They are tragically hurtling into a cultural dead end. . .
JAWSPHOBIA: Only in the most literal 1999 sense, aiming to see The Phantom Menace which is a film that seems to have earned only one “thumbs up” and it was your own lonely thumb. Up what, we don’t want to know.
EBERT: That are mastering knowledge which has no purpose other than being mastered, and too smart to be wasting their time.
JAWSPHOBIA: What knowledge is worthwhile? Movie Answer Man articles? Your DVD commentaries (which I actually like)? Or porn? You know – these people do still have to attend school and get jobs.
EBERT: When a movie's opening day finally comes, and fanboys leave their sidewalk tents for a mad dash into the theater, I wonder who retrieves their tents, sleeping bags…
JAWSPHOBIA: Well, I’ve looked it up Mr. Journalist. They stuff that under the theater seat and hold it on their laps and then they all sit around while one of them reads your advance review. And the ushers walk the aisle with air freshener.
EBERT: A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them.
JAWSPHOBIA: So how do you explain them disregarding their own hygiene ?
EBERT: Their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion.
JAWSPHOBIA: Like Jesus is irrelevant to the Christian?
EBERT: Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.
JAWSPHOBIA: That’s fair enough.
EBERT: Extreme fandom may serve as a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills. If you are Luke Skywalker and she is Princess Leia, you already know what to say to each other.
JAWSPHOBIA: Not exactly an ideal springboard to romance, if you recall the films. . .
EBERT: If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else.
JAWSPHOBIA: How do you explain the enterprising Star Wars fans and Trekkers who write some of the most respected shows today?
EBERT: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to.
JAWSPHOBIA: Asking the Answer Man or me? Who is “you”? How is Fanboys?
EBERT: Its primary flaw is that it's not critical. It is a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle.
JAWSPHOBIA: What lifestyle? Do actual fans end up in replica trash compactors, take pilgrimages to Skywalker Ranch to physically steal movies for friends dying of cancer each week? That lifestyle?
EBERT: If you want to get in a car and drive to California, fine. So do I. So did Jack Kerouac. But. . . . beam your ass down to Route 66.
JAWSPHOBIA: I see. The lifestyle of Jack Kerouac is our yardstick. Very stable.
EBERT: "Fanboys" follows in the footsteps of "Sex Drive."
JAWSPHOBIA: Missed that film. I was “on the road” you might say.
EBERT: This plot is given gravitas because one of the friends, Linus (Christopher Marquette), is dying of cancer.. . . it's one of those movie diseases that is mentioned occasionally so everyone can look solemn and then dropped when the ailing Linus dons a matching black camouflage outfit and scales the Skywalker Ranch walls with a grappling hook.
JAWSPHOBIA: Let me tread lightly here, sir. I know you’ve had close calls with cancer and this is real and serious for you. But someone else can make the movie about sitting around waiting to die. There is a time to live, a time to die, a time to scale walls.
EBERT: "Fanboys" is an amiable but disjointed movie that identifies too closely with its heroes. Poking a little more fun at them would have been a great idea.
JAWSPHOBIA: Just how great? Ever hear the term “easy target?” As it stands, the movie has William Shatner in it. Difficult to forget that the best slams have already been delivered. “You’re almost thirty – have you ever kissed a girl?” So it’s been done and well. I take this movie as being the tone of Detroit Rock City. We can take for granted that loving KISS music is an arbitrary obsession, but it is also about all journeys.
EBERT: They are tragically hurtling into a cultural dead end. . .
JAWSPHOBIA: Only in the most literal 1999 sense, aiming to see The Phantom Menace which is a film that seems to have earned only one “thumbs up” and it was your own lonely thumb. Up what, we don’t want to know.
EBERT: That are mastering knowledge which has no purpose other than being mastered, and too smart to be wasting their time.
JAWSPHOBIA: What knowledge is worthwhile? Movie Answer Man articles? Your DVD commentaries (which I actually like)? Or porn? You know – these people do still have to attend school and get jobs.
EBERT: When a movie's opening day finally comes, and fanboys leave their sidewalk tents for a mad dash into the theater, I wonder who retrieves their tents, sleeping bags…
JAWSPHOBIA: Well, I’ve looked it up Mr. Journalist. They stuff that under the theater seat and hold it on their laps and then they all sit around while one of them reads your advance review. And the ushers walk the aisle with air freshener.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Shatner's appearances on 3rd Rock
Well, it took some clicking and pasting, and some watching, but here are the three appearances of William Shatner on 3rd Rock From the Sun.
Dick's Big Giant Headache (2 episodes)
The Big Giant Head Returns
The Big Giant Head Returns Again (2 episodes)
Again it's a case of something I'd rather watch this way than weekly.
Dick’s Big Giant Headache part 1 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7KOuxrPfCk0
Clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUX_f0hyn0
(this clip starts with a fun reference for Twilight Zone fans)
Clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fwTE4EqaN4k&feature=related
Dick’s Big Giant Headache Part II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XeVy1gjhCJQ
Clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UTFlBqgyU&feature=related
Clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=apEX3XL1PAs
The Big Giant Head Returns pt 1 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=huapfypXUt8
part II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=W71QO1-YYnw
Part III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYE-67rYOA only the end credits
The Big Giant Head Returns Again Pt. 1 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0DjYmCkkU
Pt. 1 clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=1QJD9avvXas
Pt.1 clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QJo8XPAQUIo
B. G. Head Returns Again Part 2 clip I http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OFr7FJC--6A
clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=20Y522AifRs
clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPgKgItisA
Dick's Big Giant Headache (2 episodes)
The Big Giant Head Returns
The Big Giant Head Returns Again (2 episodes)
Again it's a case of something I'd rather watch this way than weekly.
Dick’s Big Giant Headache part 1 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7KOuxrPfCk0
Clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUX_f0hyn0
(this clip starts with a fun reference for Twilight Zone fans)
Clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fwTE4EqaN4k&feature=related
Dick’s Big Giant Headache Part II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XeVy1gjhCJQ
Clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UTFlBqgyU&feature=related
Clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=apEX3XL1PAs
The Big Giant Head Returns pt 1 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=huapfypXUt8
part II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=W71QO1-YYnw
Part III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYE-67rYOA only the end credits
The Big Giant Head Returns Again Pt. 1 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0DjYmCkkU
Pt. 1 clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=1QJD9avvXas
Pt.1 clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QJo8XPAQUIo
B. G. Head Returns Again Part 2 clip I http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OFr7FJC--6A
clip II http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=20Y522AifRs
clip III http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPgKgItisA
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
New Year Crap-Clear
So I'm sorting through the gym bag that usually keeps vital work-related materials I take to the workplace, pills, work shirt, body spray and random free newspapers I have read on the subway with articles I hadn't finished importing into my brain. Garbage in, garbage out.
I can understand keeping an issue that boasts one of my letters to the editor. Those may not be thrown out except by accident. Whether I should keep them or not. But since it is perfectly acceptable and thoughtful to leave a Metro or Eye Weekly on the subway seat, I have chosen to stuff the most worthless material in my gym bag. So as I throw these papers out it's a review of the year's news that isn't quite news.
Jerry Lewis went to Australia and when asked if he liked playing cricket he said, "That's a faggot game" and did some physical comedy miming use of a cricket bat. So there's an article about GLAAD slapping him on the sturdy wrist and asking him for an apology. Like millions of Rat Pack fans will abandon Jerry for using the "new F-word." It amazes me how lobby groups seem to be in the business of telling people to lie to them. I don't have to pathologize Jerry for being out of touch with the latest edition of Newspeak. But you can understand if he has lingering resentment for the 2002 TV movie Martin and Lewis that was made about him where a guy from Will and Grace - Sean Hayes - played him. I remember saying to a friend after seeing a clip, "I didn't know Jerry Lewis was gay."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318908/
That gives an idea the kind of time and thought wastage results from reading a newspaper.
Did I have to know about that? When Issiah Washington was fired from Grey's Anatomy for calling T.R. Knight the same derogatory term for homosexual, my first instinct was that this is an over-reaction and extremely political (read: cowardly). T.R. crying on Ellen's couch didn't help boost his preferred image as the stoic leading man he was destined to be. Somehow since those articles we have more recent useless information that his role has been reduced on the show since Mr. Washington went to the Bionic Woman (much to the glee of snarky, fey critics). I'll be honest, I thought the Bionic Woman pilot episode was okay and I like Katee Sackoff as a satirical antagonist. A can't comment on Gay's Anatomy, because I've never seen an episode.
Still the new Bionic Woman pales by comparison to the original Bionic Woman and The Six Million Dollar Man which have been mired in a legal dispute between Universal and I forget what company. I try to google it and the term "Million dollar" is pretty common and "Bionic Woman" tends to bring up reference to the new-fangled version.
I seem to be finding a lot of blurbs about the apparent comeback of Tom Cruise after having supposedly killed his career. Imagine Tom Cruise in the early days of Top Gun and Rainman, with Barbara Walters bringing in a psychic to tell him this: "You will be very popular for many years until what kills your career is that you are so happy that you jump on Oprah's couch - but of course that's not enough to REALLY kill your career; you also criticise Brooke Shields."
What else hurt him? Of course Sumner Redstone making a point of saying that his behaviour hurt the box office of Mission: Impossible III. I see in another trash blurb that they have since reconciled and had lunch, but only after Tom had to become head of MGA/UA. Old Redstone seemed to be administering the death blow, and he was motivated because his lovely wife had a head full of this disposable tabloid crap. The guy manages to survive as a top Box office draw with a name like Cruise and what almost sinks him is an old man's wife reading the kind of crap I'm now finally throwing out.
What I can't have the pleasure of physically trashing is the sort of "news" feed you get signing into certain websites for e-mail. How do they choose these columnists? It has never been more true that somebody got a job by giving a blow. Do I really want to see an idiot's list of the "forgettable movies of the year" or a rant against Mel Gibson and the gossip about his marriage? Just another distraction. I have to reign myself in or I'll spend all of my time e-mailing incompetant cyber-columnists. Those that actually have a talk-back e-mail provided. Even then, likely it only bolsters the impression that people are reading the shite.
I won't mention a local Toronto film community that has a pressence on the web and sends out shameless viral marketing. I like the people involved but I've had to withdraw from involvement or the loop of promotions. It's too much. You get double and tripple versions of the same link and it takes up space in your Facebook feed even if you sellect "less from" this friend. And again I've had to confront this mentality and I've been told point blank that their columnists deliberately take extreme and controversial positions - many of which are inarticulate and non-persuasive - to get people fired up and attract feedback. I just thought why make myself crazy. Throw it all out. Ignore, ignore.
Now I'll have to look at my mostly blank Day-timer from last year, with its pages used as a notebook for some random ideas and snippets of dialogue. Maybe I'll actually have more time to plan things to do this year if I'm not wasting a little bit at a time paying attention to the sickening void of pop culture.
I should add another note for the sake of the few knee-jerks who might happen upon this blog and take offence at my issues with GLAAD and groups like them: I'm all for gay marriage and gay adoption and all of those many bench marks of progress that won't have an impact on what I want or have to do in my own life. But we live in a climate where we don't know each other and few intelligent people dare say anything that isn't affirmative. I'm not surprised to see a full-page article about the return of Andrew "Dice" Clay to comedy. People may very well need to listen to something that is expressing a very valid feeling of discomfort. I don't think discomfort should be lumped in with fear and certainly not hated to the point where someone's disinterest or a market's disinterest in something is branded "non-inclusive." I think it's great that the net version of Star Trek has introduced Captain Kirk's gay nephew, but I'm not rushing to find out how that is illustrated. Live long and prosper, as long as I don't have to pretend T.R. Knight is cool. Roddenberry was bucking the system to deal with race and staff the Enterprise with a multi-racial crew, but these days to buck the system is to be politically incorrect and outrage lobby groups.
All of this cluttering my head as I haul fresh new garbage out the door.
I can understand keeping an issue that boasts one of my letters to the editor. Those may not be thrown out except by accident. Whether I should keep them or not. But since it is perfectly acceptable and thoughtful to leave a Metro or Eye Weekly on the subway seat, I have chosen to stuff the most worthless material in my gym bag. So as I throw these papers out it's a review of the year's news that isn't quite news.
Jerry Lewis went to Australia and when asked if he liked playing cricket he said, "That's a faggot game" and did some physical comedy miming use of a cricket bat. So there's an article about GLAAD slapping him on the sturdy wrist and asking him for an apology. Like millions of Rat Pack fans will abandon Jerry for using the "new F-word." It amazes me how lobby groups seem to be in the business of telling people to lie to them. I don't have to pathologize Jerry for being out of touch with the latest edition of Newspeak. But you can understand if he has lingering resentment for the 2002 TV movie Martin and Lewis that was made about him where a guy from Will and Grace - Sean Hayes - played him. I remember saying to a friend after seeing a clip, "I didn't know Jerry Lewis was gay."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318908/
That gives an idea the kind of time and thought wastage results from reading a newspaper.
Did I have to know about that? When Issiah Washington was fired from Grey's Anatomy for calling T.R. Knight the same derogatory term for homosexual, my first instinct was that this is an over-reaction and extremely political (read: cowardly). T.R. crying on Ellen's couch didn't help boost his preferred image as the stoic leading man he was destined to be. Somehow since those articles we have more recent useless information that his role has been reduced on the show since Mr. Washington went to the Bionic Woman (much to the glee of snarky, fey critics). I'll be honest, I thought the Bionic Woman pilot episode was okay and I like Katee Sackoff as a satirical antagonist. A can't comment on Gay's Anatomy, because I've never seen an episode.
Still the new Bionic Woman pales by comparison to the original Bionic Woman and The Six Million Dollar Man which have been mired in a legal dispute between Universal and I forget what company. I try to google it and the term "Million dollar" is pretty common and "Bionic Woman" tends to bring up reference to the new-fangled version.
I seem to be finding a lot of blurbs about the apparent comeback of Tom Cruise after having supposedly killed his career. Imagine Tom Cruise in the early days of Top Gun and Rainman, with Barbara Walters bringing in a psychic to tell him this: "You will be very popular for many years until what kills your career is that you are so happy that you jump on Oprah's couch - but of course that's not enough to REALLY kill your career; you also criticise Brooke Shields."
What else hurt him? Of course Sumner Redstone making a point of saying that his behaviour hurt the box office of Mission: Impossible III. I see in another trash blurb that they have since reconciled and had lunch, but only after Tom had to become head of MGA/UA. Old Redstone seemed to be administering the death blow, and he was motivated because his lovely wife had a head full of this disposable tabloid crap. The guy manages to survive as a top Box office draw with a name like Cruise and what almost sinks him is an old man's wife reading the kind of crap I'm now finally throwing out.
What I can't have the pleasure of physically trashing is the sort of "news" feed you get signing into certain websites for e-mail. How do they choose these columnists? It has never been more true that somebody got a job by giving a blow. Do I really want to see an idiot's list of the "forgettable movies of the year" or a rant against Mel Gibson and the gossip about his marriage? Just another distraction. I have to reign myself in or I'll spend all of my time e-mailing incompetant cyber-columnists. Those that actually have a talk-back e-mail provided. Even then, likely it only bolsters the impression that people are reading the shite.
I won't mention a local Toronto film community that has a pressence on the web and sends out shameless viral marketing. I like the people involved but I've had to withdraw from involvement or the loop of promotions. It's too much. You get double and tripple versions of the same link and it takes up space in your Facebook feed even if you sellect "less from" this friend. And again I've had to confront this mentality and I've been told point blank that their columnists deliberately take extreme and controversial positions - many of which are inarticulate and non-persuasive - to get people fired up and attract feedback. I just thought why make myself crazy. Throw it all out. Ignore, ignore.
Now I'll have to look at my mostly blank Day-timer from last year, with its pages used as a notebook for some random ideas and snippets of dialogue. Maybe I'll actually have more time to plan things to do this year if I'm not wasting a little bit at a time paying attention to the sickening void of pop culture.
I should add another note for the sake of the few knee-jerks who might happen upon this blog and take offence at my issues with GLAAD and groups like them: I'm all for gay marriage and gay adoption and all of those many bench marks of progress that won't have an impact on what I want or have to do in my own life. But we live in a climate where we don't know each other and few intelligent people dare say anything that isn't affirmative. I'm not surprised to see a full-page article about the return of Andrew "Dice" Clay to comedy. People may very well need to listen to something that is expressing a very valid feeling of discomfort. I don't think discomfort should be lumped in with fear and certainly not hated to the point where someone's disinterest or a market's disinterest in something is branded "non-inclusive." I think it's great that the net version of Star Trek has introduced Captain Kirk's gay nephew, but I'm not rushing to find out how that is illustrated. Live long and prosper, as long as I don't have to pretend T.R. Knight is cool. Roddenberry was bucking the system to deal with race and staff the Enterprise with a multi-racial crew, but these days to buck the system is to be politically incorrect and outrage lobby groups.
All of this cluttering my head as I haul fresh new garbage out the door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)