Do you notice how DEFENSIVE some fans of Kubrick get? If a person doesn't assume a John-the-Baptist pose while discussing Kubrick's work, then out come the long knives. (And the condescending posts about how, if they don't REVERE the guy, they're not really lovers of movies, or they haven't read enough, or what have you.)
Get over yourselves. Art's house has many mansions, and a "failure" to love or even appreciate one of them doesn't make people unregenerate Yahoos. It just means that a particular piece of Art DIDN'T WORK FOR THEM.
Idolatry. No wonder Stan retreated to his mansion for the latter part of his life.
CHRIS L: (okay, I lied -- one last comment) -- to make the point more lucidly (because the vegetable remark must've been missed or ignored), films are made for LOTS of various reasons -- to entertain an audience with a terrific story; to dazzle them with visuals; to satiate the ego of the director who fancies him or herself more of an artiste than he or she really is...just because YOU dig one of those types of films, doesn't mean everyone else will -- or should. And, of course (as Cindy pointed out long ago), just because your idea of art is strictly visual doesn't mean I should lower my standards for what I think constitutes a successful film experience.
--DTS
Chris,
" people tend to like plot-heavy stuff because it's "easy" "
I can go with THAT. My point was film is not being taken advantage of as a medium when manipulated in the most rigid terms of character OR plot. Narrative defines the interplay between the two (unlike with a book, which HAS the ability to explore the inner world of one character's mind and nothing else).
EYES WIDE SHUT: Actually, it was an ironical spin on the rituals of Rasputin - the dissolute self-styled monk who enjoyed debauchery, stealing and womanizing. It was while on one of his escapades that he would be impacted by the mystical powers of the Russian Orthodox religion. (Incidentally, in my first viewing I REALLY dug that ritual scene in the mansion).
What I'd like know is where your Steve Martin thing comes from, since Kubrick had been set to make what would become EYES WIDE SHUT (Arthur Schnitzler's novel Traumnovelle) even prior to CLOCKWORK ORANGE. No connection rose between this long obssession of Kubrick's and a Steve Martin farce.
Before anyone wails on me for the typos below, I know about 'em. My only excuse -- I'm in a hurry, got a roast in the oven.
CHRIS L: (For those who are as bored with this silly discourse as I now am, this is my last word on the subject) You're starting to remind me of one of those younger kids who strikes a pose and assumes an affectation simply because he or she believes it make them seem deep or sensitive. You certainly don't strike me as a writer, since you misquoted me (or attributed a quote to me that I never made -- films should be "easy"). There's nothing wrong with a film that makes an audience think. But when the majority of an audience leaves puzzled, the filmmaker (and/or writer, etc.) have failed. Just as when a novelist becomes so obscure no one really knows _what_ he's writing about (even those black-garmented, highly affectatious, artsy fartsy types who believe they know better). It's not only the artist's job to challenge his audience, it's the artist's job to meet them at least half way -- especially if he wants an audience. More astute minds than mine have pointed out that it's easy to be obscure, but difficult to be clear. Too many people have written off folks like Fred Astaire, Ernest Hemingway, etc., for creating art that was clean and precise. But when they tried to imitate the style, they failed, falling flat on their collective faces, as it were. I don't think art has to be easy. I just think it should be entertaining. If it's not, it fails at one of the basic commandments of any artistic endeavor. And I also think that too many self-styled students of film are quick to believe they know better than others.
--DTS
**While I'm with you about the once-existing prospects of NAPOLEAN, AI and WARTIME LIES, I DID find more in EYES WIDE SHUT in my second viewing.**
I was completely baffled by Eyes Wide Shut on my first viewing. Since then, I have grown quite fond of the film. For one thing, it's a lot funnier than I realized the first time. This makes sense since, in its embryonic stage it was a sex farce starring Steve Martin. The film is truly creepy and impeccably designed. It is one of Kubrick's lesser works but still a very good film.
My friend claims it is the most Christian statement about religion ever put on film. Interesting take. It's certainly pro-marriage and anti-"foolin' around." It takes the stance that it is people who are sexy, not body parts and pokes constant fun at these pathetic self-important schmucks and their stupid little sex club.
There is a big difference between story and plot.
I think Rob said it well but sometimes it is easy to get confused by semantics.
The obsession with plot was always a uniquely American feature of films. However, as DTS said, people tend to like plot-heavy stuff because it's "easy" - it's easy to make and it's easy to sit and watch. Here's a guy and here's some stuff that happens to him and here's some obstacles he overcomes and here's the satisfying and plausible conclusion. Nice and easy, almost pre-digested. Thus, like McDonald's and Disney, the obession with plot has spread from America to other cinemas though Europe still has a less literal-minded tradition than we do in the U.S.
What is the difference between plot and story or plot and narrative? It's tough to delineate because the terms are too confusing. Let's look at 2001. The story of 2001 is that the human race reaches dead ends in its evolutionary development and needs the assistance of an alien intelligence before it can hope to advance to the next stage. The plot would be "They discover a strange black object on the phone, it beams a message out in space which they follow. During the journey, HAL goes nuts and tries to kill all the humans but Dave fights back, shuts down HAL and then gets turned into the Starchild."
Is the plot really what's interesting there? It matters, of course. But is that the reason to watch 2001? It's the theme and the way in which it is explored, the use of musical cues to convey ideas, the manipulation of time and space and, yeah, even the cool FX.
Does the PLOT of Taxi Driver matter so much or is it the theme of isolation and the remarkable character of Travis Bickle that really compels the viewer?
In a film like The Usual Suspects, you can certainly argue the plot is the most important element.
But take a look at the work of directors like Godard, Bunuel and Fellini. You're gonna watch those movies for the plot? C'mon, there's a whole lot more to film than that.
I'm bored so I feel like tossing tomatoes at Frank again...
I lost a LOT of respect for you (!!!!) with that MONICA inclusion in your list. I mean it's fraught with dopiness, as SO many presidents (et al) have had mistresses. Clinton tried to protect his staff by keeping it from them, as opposed to a Nixonian way out like bribing or misusing government bureaus to keep things quiet. Yes, he did plenty I disagreed with; a FEW points on your list are justified. But the OBVIOUS things that affect our lives in the MOST direct ways - things I cared about most vitally - he parted in policy WHOLLY from the dork sitting in as commander-in-chief right now (and having worked for a scientific environmental organization I'm in a position to know).
DTS,
2001: It's not a "STORY"; it's a "POEM" rendered in the language of film. FAR more than merely pretty pictures, the "story" itself is transcendent because its lyrical. If you understand that you may appreciate it properly. It's an ASTONISHING work.
John,
While I'm with you about the once-existing prospects of NAPOLEAN, AI and WARTIME LIES, I DID find more in EYES WIDE SHUT in my second viewing. It's a DREAM; the whole movie is a DREAM. Why else would we see New York an empty, barren city late at night? I also thought it was amusing as hell. And interesting that Kubrick himself had shot the whole damn thing. BUT...the "final cut" question is legitimate, particularly given Kubrick's habit of additional work up to the last minute.
Chris,
"plot is for books"
Well, it IS and it ISN'T. Actually, CHARACTER is the essential tool for books far more than 'plot'. But film is not about PLOT; it's about NARRATIVE (regardless of the genre), the orchestration of pov, time and subtext; more often than not I'm turned off by strictly character-driven formats in film because they fail to achieve a subjective connection with the viewer (something a novelist doesn't have to worry about because we "read" the thoughts of a character), thereby failing to take real advantage of the medium.
DTS,
2001: It's not a "STORY"; it's a "POEM" rendered in the language of film. FAR more than merely pretty pictures, the "story" itself is transcendent because its lyrical. If you understand that you may appreciate it properly. It's an ASTONISHING work.
John,
While I'm with you about the once-existing prospects of NAPOLEAN, AI and WARTIME LIES, I DID find more in EYES WIDE SHUT in my second viewing. It's a DREAM; the whole movie is a DREAM. Why else would we see New York an empty, barren city late at night? I also thought it was amusing as hell. And interesting that Kubrick himself had shot the whole damn thing. BUT...the "final cut" question is legitimate, particularly given Kubrick's habit of additional work up to the last minute.
Chris,
"plot is for books"
Well, it IS and it ISN'T. Actually, CHARACTER is the essential tool for books far more than 'plot'. But film is not about PLOT; it's about NARRATIVE (regardless of the genre), the orchestration of pov, time and subtext; more often than not I'm turned off by strictly character-driven formats in film because they fail to achieve a subjective connection with the viewer (something a novelist doesn't have to worry about because we "read" the thoughts of a character), thereby failing to take real advantage of the medium.
CHRIS L: Guess that should have been "its plot..." Typos, the bane of writers everywhere. But you're wrong: that wasn't an obnoxious opening statement on your part. Just dumb. Motherdumb, to borrow a Ellisonism. Saying I don't like films because I prefer plot is like saying I don't like vegetables because I wont eat sweet potatoes (yeeech! by the way). If everyone thought the way you did, then films might've (I say MIGHT have, for those incessant arguers out there) reached their apex back in the time just before silent movies started inserting subtitles. But someone decided to start typing up narratives to go with the moving images, thereby giving the artform much greater mass appeal. Why'd they do that? I'm guessing it was because they wanted to reach a larger audience --like most folks who practice any artform. That seems like a mighty important element; because the reality of the starving artist is much less romantic than the ideal.
--DTS
Welles?
What kind of semi-conscious knuckle-dragger wouldn't like Orson Welles.
Here's what you need to know about Welles. He made a movie called Citizen Kane that many people think is the greatest film ever made.
You could completely ignore Citizen Kane and still rate Welles' body of work as one of the most impressive of all-time.
Touch of Evil is an unquestioned masterpiece. The Trial is the adaptation of a tortured Kafka narrative you could ever ask for. Chimes at Midnight may well be the best Shakespeare adaptation on film. Lady from Shanghai, Magnificent Ambersons --- yeah, Welles was pretty good.
Welles is a fine example of how it ain't braggin' if you can make it up. It's OK to be a self-declared genius if you really are one, don't you think?
Frank, the mind reels at attempting to consider just what kind of President YOU would make. I suggest you would be far less effective than either Clinton or Bush. Please, convince me otherwise, or else admit that you're one of those eternally disgruntled people for whom nobody, or no thing, is ever good enough.
And I love Kubrick, but in all honesty, internet discussions of his stuff are a dime-a-dozen, and a little too rapturous for my tastes. So what does everyone think of Orson Welles? Looking at the disarray of his work--with all the unfinished films, studio-imposed edits, and poor technical work (bad post-synching, etc.)--it's probably HARDER to be a fan of Welles than of any other director of comparable merit. But damned if his stuff doesn't reward the effort, and it's a shame someone like a Spielberg didn't bankroll his final projects.
(You know, while we're on the subject, I think I'll watch THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI tonight. Rita Hayworth, mmmmm...)
**but it's plot keeps me in my seat**
I realize this is an obnoxious statement but, well, I goota eb honest - that just means you probably don't much like movies.
Plot is for books. Plot is one of the less interesting elements of film - with the exception of certain genres such as the thriller or the romantic comedy. Plot is merely a trick to keep people watching much like lyrics are often a trick to keep people listening.
When people start blabbing about how cool such and such a plot twist was and blah blah blah, I realize they probably aren't talking about anything I care about in cinema.
I really don't much care for standard narrative film. Film can do so much better than that, IMHO.
For me, EYES WIDE SHUT was a decidedly subpar Kubrick film, little better than an especially arty episode of "Red Shoe Diaries." Though his estate claims otherwise, I've always believed that Kubrick had nothing to do with the final edit, and would've released a far different version if he'd lived. It's the one film of his that hasn't improved with repeated viewings, and it's a shame that he never got to make NAPOLEON or WARTIME LIES or A.I. instead.
And here's one name you never see when cineastes make lists of the great directors: Howard Hawks. What's that, you say? Am I seriously including Hawks in the pantheon with Welles, Bergman, Hitchcock, et al? As my grandma used to say, "You bet your bippy!" If directing an oeuvre that includes BRINGING UP BABY, HIS GIRL FRIDAY, THE BIG SLEEP, RIO BRAVO, RED RIVER, ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS, and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT doesn't qualify him for Great status, then I don't wanna know.
(And where's Godard? And Ozu? And...)
CINDY: At the risk of bringing down the wrath of dozens of cinephiles upon my slightly furrowed brow, I should tell you that you are not alone when you say you don't "get" Kubrick. And since you're a smart cookie, I'm assuming that when you say you don't "get" Kubrick, you mean, for the most part, that you don't understand what it is about his films that make people froth at the mouth when rhapsodizing about his work. (Although, clearly, you _were_ saying that you weren't old enough to get the message behind 2001 when you first watched it). Anyway, I don't especially "get" Kubrick either. I haven't seen _all_ his films ("Barry Lyndon" and, perhaps, one other); but of those I've seen, I don't particularly feeled compelled to watch them over and over. Mostly because I judge films the way I judge a good book. It's like this: even if the Kubrick _does_ manage to cook up lots of highly original images and some interesting, underlying themes, the story -- the narrative, the plot -- should still be gripping and coherent enough to sweep the audience along. Now, I'm not saying his films should all work like thrillers ("The English Patient" isn't a thriller, but it's plot keeps me in my seat) -- I just think that some of his films lack a good, solid plot or narrative. So anyone coming to those particular films wanting to be entertained by a straightforward story will often be let down. "2001" is, in my opinion, chief among those films. Beautiful to look at, but the story...eh!
That said, I should mention that I love "Spartacus," "Dr. Strangelove," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Paths of Glory," so you might want to check out those flicks, Cindy ("The Shining," "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut," because of reasons stated above, come in as close seconds).
--DTS
Cindy,
"I was watching a majority of Kubrick's films I was a kid"
I know I shouldn't have to be the one to say this but...CINDY...if you only or MAINLY saw his films when you were a kid of COURSE you're not going to follow or particularly like them (I mean you COULD have mentioned that in the outset; your comment had left me wondering a lot of things about you). They're not STAR WARS...they're PROFOUND. PATHS OF GLORY, THE KILLING (famous for the inverted narrative, to which PULP FICTION owes a bit; and has a unforgettably funny, irritating, ingenious ending), LOLITA, 2001 (which you probably should see several times and perhaps read a bit about), CLOCKWORK ORANGE (vital to understand, the world is shown from the delinquent's pov; from his perception violence is like a ballet and so it is depicted something like one in the movie). I would recommend looking at all these carefully, every one of them a classic.
"Genius" is one of the most overused words in the English language. It can rarely be applied LEGITIMATELY. Kubrick is one of those rare exceptions.
In terms of mixing the tax discussion with the crime one, I say -- legalize pot and watch the money flow in and the jails empty, the latter especially in the U.S. but also in Canada. The spin-off money alone from the formation of anti-pot advocacy groups would probably float the national debt. Along with that you replace parts of the lumber industry with hemp and parts of the oil industry with hemp as well (hey, if hemp oil was good enough for George Sr.'s warplane, I'm sure it's good for something). Economic renewal for areas hit hard by the drop in tobacco growing, lots of tax possibilities and licensing possibilities, rises in pizza sales and sales of Rush and Pink Floyd back catalogues...
It pretty much writes itself. And I don't even like the stuff.
Cheers, Jon
Tony/Cindy,
RE: 3 Strikes.
The problem with the law (here in California) is that any crime can be bumped up to the felony level. Petty theft, shoplifting, etc. are grounds to put recidivists behind bars for an inordinately long time.
I have no problems putting repeat felons away for a mandated period as long as the punishment fits the crime.
-Andrew
Chris wrote:
"It's really not the sort of thing a Republican could understand..."
LOL!!!!!! Good one!
:)
Cindy
Brian,
I haven't seen Dr. Strangelove. This is why I asked for help. I guess I failed to accurately explain that when I was watching a majority of Kubrick's films I was a kid and not grown up enough to understand.
I really would be saddened to lose your respect. I think highly of you ( for a Yankee) and consider you to be not only very intelligent but also quite kind. If you say it's good I will watch it. However, as I stated in my original post Chicken Shit to one Chicken salad to another. I like sour cream-- you might not be able to look at it without being sickened. I don't want to dismiss the entire body of Kubrick's work.. that is why I solicited your input.
:)
Still friends?
Cindy
To Cindy, who says she never "got" Kubrick. I'm not sure what one has to "get" about a particular filmmaker. That's fine: despite recent attempts in _Salon_ and _Vanity Fair_ to characterize Brian De Palma as the most underrated genius of cinema since Ida Lupino, I've never been able to see him as more than a marvelous technician who likes to do Hitchcock-like thrillers.
I can understand if people saw _Barry Lyndon_, _Eyes Wide Shut_, or even _Lolita_ without feeling that they "got" Kubrick. I can even understand those who didn't like _The Shining_ because it wasn't a scare-fest like _Halloween_ or _Carrie_. Those are demanding films that really don't try to be like any other film out there.
But _Paths of Glory_ remains once of the most horrifying depictions of war and cruelty put on film. _Full Metal Jacket_ examines the matter of turning humans into killers. _A Clockwork Orange_ bundles up violence, the management of society, freedom and its limits, and the question of human nature into a single character, probably the best dramatic villain since Richard III. _2001_ takes the Odysseus myth to provide its viewers with not only a sense of awe about the Universe, but questions about humankind's role in it. Okay, maybe none of these are your cup of tea.
But you can't tell me that you couldn't "get" _Dr. Strangelove_, which is one of the greatest movies ever made. A thriller about nuclear war whose most realistic elements turn the whole matter into comedy. Watch it for the laughs first-- and then understand that ever plot twist makes sense, that every safeguard described in the film either really did exist or was implemented in some way, and that even the most grotesque characters had comparable real-life counterparts (read up on Curtis LeMay sometime). In other words, Kubrick tried to make a realistic film about the probable end of civilization-- and the only way to do it, to be true to the facts and to art, was to do it as _comedy_.
Now, if you tell me that you didn't "get" _Dr. Strangelove_, I will never have any respect for you. Sorry, Cindy, but one has to have standards.
Cindy,
Re: 3 strikes. Anybody who can't or won't stop committing felonies really should be put away, if not for life then at least for a good forty years without possibility of parole.
The only problem I can see with a 3 strikes law is this: there will be at least a few repeaters who decide that they can avoid that third conviction if they stop leaving witnesses. While I can't point to specific cases in which this has occurred, common sense tells me that there are such cases.
On balance, though, I think 3 strikes is a good idea; repeaters should be put away.
--tr
Chris,
", unlike other directors who worked quickly and on a regular schedule, Kubrick took his time to choose his projects and complete them at his own pace"
Of course, as I'm sure you know, 2001 was the start of that cycle; the films prior, particularly the ones he did with his partner James Harris, were spun out at a pretty good pace.
My own TOP obssessions tend to be Hitchcock, Kubrick and Bunuel; with Wilder, Lang and Chaplin on the next rung. Renoir, Coppola, Milestone, Mamoullian, Whale, and Welles are all nestled closely as well.
**Peers: KUBRICK, WILDER, AND HITCHCOCK. All three superlative; each subversive in his own way. **
Of course, for me, Kubrick towers above all others. I know that's probably a silly thing to say. There are such great directors so how can you say one stands out clearly from the crowd. I claim nothing more than a personal reaction on the matter - nobody has ever moved me like Kubrick. Nobody has ever inspired me like Kubrick. Kubrick's body of work is as close to perfect as it is possible to get. Granted, unlike other directors who worked quickly and on a regular schedule, Kubrick took his time to choose his projects and complete them at his own pace but, lord, did it pay off. From The Killing through Eyes Wide Shut, EVERY SINGLE FILM the man made is exceptional.
I can't say that about any other director. And Kubrick's best work... is simply the best work ever done in the medium.
For me, the triumvirate is Kubrick, Welles and Lean. And it's damned difficult to exclude Herzog from that list. Murnau too.
Oh, yes-indeedy, Cindy...
Peers: KUBRICK, WILDER, AND HITCHCOCK. All three superlative; each subversive in his own way.
SciFi dot com has a feature called "Sci Fiction", and this week it features a short story by Gerald Kersh titled THE QUEEN OF PIG ISLAND. It's a tasty little gem for those who haven't read it. I know the site name is a vulgarism, but SciFi's fiction section has some good stuff; new fiction and classics.
Chuck
**I'm not in awe of Kubrick and I don't particularly like his work.**
It's really not the sort of thing a Republican could understand...
:)
Hey Frank honey, sweetie, DAAAAAAAAAAAAArlin',
Please tell me what is wrong with the 3 strikes law. It looks to me as if y'all's little 3 strikes rule brought down the national crime rate at least 20 percent.
Not being a smartass here,
Cindy
Chick shit to one... chicken salad to another.
Please don't put Kubrick with Hitchcock and Wilder... please?
It's like ketchup with cottage cheese or eggs. Alone they work but if you put them together it seems perverse. Like something Nixon would eat.
I worship Hitchcock and Wilder is golden... but Kubrick must have hit during a time in my life when I was too immature or out of step to get it.
I'm not in awe of Kubrick and I don't particularly like his work. If y'all could help me please? Tell me what to see and how to understand. I didn't get it then and the experience was such that I am loathe to try them again.
It must have been the timing.
Cindy
Hey Kids! If you are interested in further mind-warping effects like those caused by my book SMOKING MIRROR BLUES (grab it while you can, because you never know . . .) You may want to check out the new anthology from Back Brain Recluse and Wordcraft of Oregon, ANGEL BODY AND OTHER MAGIC FOR THE SOUL (yeah, I know, they didn't ask me when the chose that title) edited by Chris Reed and David Memmott. It features "Burrito Meltdown" my light-hearted romp about Chicano bioterrorism that is sure to have the Department of Homeland Security watching over me -- I hope they are aren't too disturbed. Send me a snailmail address if you want a copy of the spectacular illustrated flyer. Now, excuse me, I have windmills to chase and rainbows to tilt with . . .
Ernestomente,
Ernest Hogan
Frank...
Please...have a sense of proportion: you're concerned about his LYING ABOUT MONICA (as YOU would've done; I would have done; ANYONE would have done, given our drives when hooked up or married to a probable ice berg) over the health care issue, med research, students, taxing the wealthiest, the environment AND the surplus which Bush - proving, in greater part, the two have little in common - has wiped out.
That was the most pathetic argument you handed me since HANNIBAL. My tip: go TAKE a math class and learn linear programming. That would allow you to optimize the factors that count in the end.
Frank, I concur with your entire list except the part about Bill sending his daughter to private school. That one's pretty iffey. She was the daughter of the PRESIDENT. Any idea what kind of crap some punk would fling at you because of something 'your dad did'? Constantly wondering if your A+ was not out of effort or quality, but something else entirely? Not to mention the nasty words 'KIDNAPPING' and 'RANSOM' creeping across your mind every time someone gives you a weird smile? True, these problems would not have gone away in private school, but they might have been considerably lightened.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
I don't understand how an argument over Stanley Kubrick, et al., ends up with someone calling someone else a bitch. Is this necessary?
Chris,
Re: critic as advocate -- yep, you're right. It's something I didn't even consider when posting earlier. Wasn't thinking about that aspect of it.
Re: critic as imparter of information. Yep. But what information? The example you cite is one of the critic clarifying for others how the film went about telling its story. The simple reviewer may touch on this, but he'll probably stick to letting the reader/viewer know whether he thought seeing the movie was worth the price of a ticket. The critic who becomes more useful than the simple reviewer is the one who looks at a movie, and then starts considering the questions of why the filmmakers decided to tell their story the way they did, what aspects of it worked and what aspects got in the way of telling the story, and why he believed they worked or got in the way. A nice example of this is Harlan's commentary on the closing shots of The Conversation. And somebody who can point out things like that has a greater awareness of how the medium works and how stories are told within it; that awareness makes that critic's opinions more worthy of consideration than those of the garden variety reviewer. But in the end --at least for my taste-- it still boils down to story. Which is why I watch for screenwriters rather than directors, cast, or the comments of critics and reviewers. And if there's a reviewer or critic or novelist whose taste in stories seems to run roughly the same as mine, then I'll check out the movies and books they recommend.
There may be something wrong with the way I approach this matter, but this works for me, and if I retired now, I still wouldn't have time to catch up on all the books & movies that sound like they're worth the price of admission.
Rob,
I don't mind if you're still pissed at me for voting Republican, if it's okay for me to be pissed at you for voting Democrat (or Green, or whatever). I don't even mind that you think I'm nuts for preferring The Temple of Gold to Catcher.
Have fun, gang.
---tr
Rob, let's do the math:
Clinton was pro-death penalty.
He was the architect of the horrible crime bill.
Three stikes law.
Religious nut.
Big money donors having coffee in the white house.
Pro-jail.
Pro-NAFTA, WTO, GATT.
Changed his mind on Vietnam.
Against Single Payer.
Music and movie censorship advocate.
Fleetwood Mac and Kenny G. fan.
War monger.
Gutted Clean Water Act.
Didn't do anything about SUV's.
Lied about Monica.
Bombed aspirin factory in Sudan.
Friend of insurance industry.
Pro-drug war.
Against gay marriage.
Offed a retarted man in 1992 to prove he was tough on crime.
Welfare reform.
Didn't push for ERA.
Sent his daughter to private school.
Didn't fund public schools.
Loved by Wall Street and the Journal.
Shall I go on?
Aiiiiiieeee.
Kael's poltergeist...
Nevertheless...your nearsighted comments about Steiner's score, and your shallow disposal of geniuses like Wilder, Hitchcock and Kubrick, I sincerely doubt Harlan shares.
...whatever the case I don't sell out: you shall TASTE my wrath. (And since you decided to pay me a visit...I also recently saw your comments about PAPILLON: those, too, were lame and shallow and absurd. You have no sense of BALANCE, bitch).
Now go spook someone else.
**Trouble with critics/reviewers (and not just critics of movies, but also of books, television, and music as well) is that like us they're human beings with differing tastes. As such they're of limited use. **
I think a critic's primary function is to provide information. For TV critics, the information generally gets used to help decide whether or not they might want to see a movie. This is valid but not, IMHO, the best a critic can do. In print, a critic can provide information which helps a reader understand and appreciate the film. I needed help to understand 2001: A Space odyssey and I remember an author (perhaps it was Pierz Bizony) using an analogy of the canal which must be filled before the ship can move into the next higher lock. This helped me understand the film's depiction of evolution and man's progression to the next stage.
In addition, a critic can perform the role of advocate. Critics can help popularize films that might never get seen. Ebert, for example, has clearly set himself up as an advocate for anime films. Kael was an advocate for Italian neorealism and Brian De Palma.
As to the issue of taste, I have always felt the least interesting aspect of a review is whether or not a critic liked it. Sure, it's interesting but not overly helpeful to me. However, as you get to know critics, you get to know whose taste aligns more with your own and this can also help you make decisions. I trust Ebert more than I trust Owen Glieberman of Entertainment Weekly. If Ebert likes a film and Roeper doesn't, I feel comfortable in knowing I should see it. Essentially, anything Roeper says, I am tempted to take the opposite side of which, I suppose, makes him useful in a way.
Ray,
Well, then you'll enjoy the letter I just sent them after come more thought on the matter:
To: RedEye
Tell your bosses at the Tribune that people don't read the newspaper for retreads of AP & Reuters articles. We read the paper for news written by good reporters Maybe I'll take a second look when you've hired some reporters. Besides that, some more specific criticisms:
1. The layout is blocky as hell and seems like a horrible ripoff of the Free Press.
2. Colors are well done. Good separations.
3. Kudos to whomever lays out the front Sports page. Just don't over-do the "athlete over the text" cliche (fr'instance, Jay Williams on Wednesday).
4. More news, less transparent attempts to try and grab Reader dollars. Considering what's going on right now, we have a weekly for bar & concert info. We need more news about the world.
Regards,
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, IL
See - I didn't lay into them too bad. My prediction? We won't be talking about them in a year.
Better watch out, Rob--I know for a fact that Harlan admires my criticism.
Oh, and I've been having some wonderful lunches with Kubrick up here. ("Stan," I call him; I'm "Polly" to him.) He wants everyone to know that the idolatry of some of his fans really turns his stomach. "Is that all they learned from me?" he says. "How to be a bunch of craven sycophants? I took a shit like everyone else, you know."
He's more charming than I expected. Of course, some things never change--Aquinas and Augustine are getting a little tired of all the late night phone calls. They know Stan will eventually drop them from his social list, anyway...
Chris,
If you're a man Peter and Rob's advice should be just right... if you are a woman I would add one.
Don't chew gum.
:)
Cindy
Frank,
I can't agree with you fully on that Clinton/Bush comparison. If you consider what Clinton WANTED to do - imagine if he'd had carte blanche, regardless of what would work and what wouldn't (on universal medical coverage, tax breaks to students, financial aid, lifting tax burdens on the lower end while rightfully holding the wealthiest to their responsibilities, environment, medical research, etc.) - his agenda differed by 180%; NOOOO comparison at all, CERTAINLY in THESE areas. Even in in foreign policy; Clinton had no "isolationist" sentiments Bush had before 9/11. I have candidates I'd have preferred to Clinton myself, but you're over-generalizing, ad absurdum.
Tony,
Yes...thank you. I'm still pissed at you for that pro-Republican crap - and when they tank I hope they're out of here for good (a "realistic" hope!) - but, yes, perhaps for the first time I misspelled the harpy's name.
Chris,
I don't know if I'm too late here but this is my two cents of advice about meeting Harlan:
Show the decorum you would use on a new neighbor you want to welcome to the hood. Do not try to KISS him; do not pull things out of your vest pocket to show him, like gifts, manuscripts, art, photos, stuff from the love shop, alien artifacts, etc.
The unique connection Harlan makes with us all always puts him at some risk, given the ratio of rational people to nut cases out there. Not that I'm certain which group I belong in, but I know I want a mutual ease and trust when we talk. My only real obstacle, personally, is that conversation for ME is polite but fun exchange of opinions or experiences (even "tragic"); I'm not so great at small talk. Since Harlan is PAID for his opinions there is probably a limit to which he'll go with each of us. I could be off there, it's a guess. (I mean here he is reading all this, here I am trying to figure him out).
Anyway, his explosive creative energy (which will NOT allow him to stay still unless he's at that Olympia of his; he's almost like a fish out of water when he isn't writing), immediatly detectable, makes him a wee bit unpredictable, and sometimes funny as hell. Just have a great time and be polite.
Darryl, just remember, the far left is better. Lol.
I was the big, brown-haired, blue eyed Irish guy in black cotton slacks and short sleeve white shirt with a London Fog rain coat hanging from my arm.
---Peter
Once again I am in awe of Darryl.
You have the right angle on this mess ( no pun intended).
:)
pieces,
Cindy
Peter:
I was there, but I didn't see you. Of course, I have no idea what you look like!
I have to agree with Peter, the new story is great. A fun time was had by all, or at least, I had a fun time.
I love Booksmith, it's the kind of bookstore we've been discussing on this site. Warm, friendly, intriguing books, staff favorites, animated discussions by bright people, etc.
On politics:
I learned long ago that things aren't as good as they seem, or as bad as people say they are going to be. The political system in this country is like a large boulder rolling down the middle of the street. People are pushing as hard as they can from the left and the right, but they are barely able to budge the stone. I hope the Republicans don't screw things up; I hoped the Democrats (in 1992 when Clinton was elected) wouldn't screw things up. I'll continue to teach my children about justice and fairness, that some people need a helping hand now and again, that there is good and evil in the world and nobody wears a sign, that there are infinite shades of gray between the black and white. Peace (or as my 5 year-old is wont to say, "pieces").
Chris: My best advice is just be yourself and be polite so long as those two aren't mutually exclusive; in that case I suggest politeness as the course of action. The first time I met him I was in a chemically altered state of being (low blood sugar from lack of anything to eat all day) and so barely managed to keep myself from looking like a fool -- in my own eyes, anyway, which is why I don't drink, do drugs, or listen to bubblegum pop.
I'm working on a follow up to my article about first meeting Harlan. I'll post it up somewhere for everyone to read.
---Peter
Chris asked how to behave around somebody famous and admired. . . .
Just behave the same way you would around a friend of a friend you've never met but about whom you've heard good things: polite, interested, respectful, but friendly.
That you happen to be familiar with the person's work does not make you any more familiar with her or him as a person. You can certainly ask about specific things in the work that interested you, or pass along a sincere compliment about something that was meaningful to you, but try not to ask a stupid question.
Awe and worship can get as tiresome as disdain. Be down-to-earth and approachable and most famous folks will respond the same.
Alex -
Wow. That was good. Counters Nimoy's First Strike Capability and creates a media cease fire through fear of mutually assured disgust. :)
...and yeah, Shatner's "Rocket Man" makes "Ballad of Bilbo" look like an episode of Lidsville.
Critic: Someone who considers himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him. --Ambrose Bierce (This is from memory, so the phrasing may be a bit off, but the meat of it is there.)
Rob,
Youre dead on target with your comments re: Pauline Kael (I assume that's who you meant by "Kale") on Treasure of the Sierra Madre. And you too, Frank, on the unnamed Bowling for Columbine reviewer.
Trouble with critics/reviewers (and not just critics of movies, but also of books, television, and music as well) is that like us they're human beings with differing tastes. As such they're of limited use. Even the most noted reviewers sometimes dismiss films that others regard as excellent. If Kael said the Steiner score in Treasure didn't work, then it didn't work. For her. You (and I and a lot of other folks) thought it did. Kael's taste at this point doesn't coincide with ours, so we can either wonder what she sees that we don't (if we trust her taste that much) or we can decide that on this point she's simply flat wrong. If there are enough points on which she's wrong we can stop paying much attention to that reviewer's opinions. If there are enough points where we decide after consideration that she sees the subject more clearly than we do, then we can pay closer attention to her opinions and ignore the occasional lapse.
Unless they're actually making movies, what are the critics but members of the audience who get paid to comment on what they just watched? How many of them really have taste or judgment better than your own? Pay attention to the ones that do and brush off the ones that don't.
I usually watch for screenwriters whose work I like, or for adaptations of novels I enjoyed, rather than watch for favorable reviews. The presence of a good storyteller on the project is a more reliable indicator of a good movie than the comments of any of the critics.
-- TR
I read a review of Bowling For Columbine, where the critic said the one flaw of the film was that MM was "politicing". How else do you do a movie about politics and avoid having politicing?
Todd, for your information Bill Clinton and GWB have almost the exact same policies, so far. You and I know that Clinton was never a liberal, even though he would play the part at black churches. They may have bought it, but not I. And remember that Bush brings with him some of the worst right-wing scum imaginable. Unless Todd you are saying you like Ashcroft?
And Todd, gloating about the undermining of the poor and the ethnic is beneath you. That is what the GOP monster will do.
Pelosi is rich? Why does that surprise you? Both the Dems and GOP are elite parties paid for by big-buisiness. But what do we expect from a dude who refused to read Chomsky.
Love and kisses Todd.
-----------
Here, to get the taste of the Nimoy Hobbit song out of your brains: http://www.whoohoo.net/operababy/operababy.swf
Little Washu: Yeah, but nothing beats Shatner's "Rocket Man" 'video.'
Rob: Comments like that on a Steiner score make me wonder what the critic would consider a good score.
As to flat taxes...anyone remember the Poll Tax riots in Great Britain?
And as to riots...Canadians rioting over the non-appearance of Axl Rose. What is the world coming to.
Cheers, Jon
Peter,
So, any advice from a bumpkin like me who is about to see Harlan in person for the first time ever? Unless plans have changed for the Screenwriter's Expo next, I get to see HE as a Guest of Honor next weekend. Should I avoid direct eye contact? Use extra deodorant? Eat me Lucky Charms?
Hard to believe there was once a time when I thought, "Hey! Wouldn't it be great if a typewriter could store patterns of letters, and retype the same thing over when you needed an extra copy?"
At the time, I thought that it would require some kind of "typewriter-with-some-circuitry-in-it..."
Just got back from Harlan's signing in San Francisco. The new story for the Chabon edited McSweeney's is great. I even managed to keep from passing out this time. Actually, I was smart and had dinner before the reading. Once a philosopher, twice a pervert, and all that.
---Peter
Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley Kubrick Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrickv Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick
...back to rebuking non-forum-goers at last...
I stumbled upon another KALE KOMMENT that left me all but speechless; it's enough she disposed of three of the greatest directors ever, but she can be just as reckless with great films too. The subject is the superb TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE; the issue is Max Steiner's memorable, evocative score: while noting the film as "one of the strongest of all American movies", she found space to lance what she referred to as its "terrible score".
Jeezus: the score was INCREDIBLE. Most memorably the looped 'prospectors' theme, reaching its high point when Curtin grapples with temptation to leave Dobbs buried in the mine cave-in but overcomes its lure. One of the greatest moments in film ever, depicting the triumph of ones humanity (mind you, he regrets doing it, as his expression informs us after the rescue; yet, he HAD to). Steiner's score was central in the effect of this scene. The whole meaning would have been different without the music or with another score. A reminder of what a remarkable tool a distinct score can be.
I'm tellin' ya: I just can't take critics seriously anymore. Take heed, Chris!
What's this? No one's mentioned my name in the past 24 hours. What's up with that?
I wish I could say last Tuesday's results shocked me. But the truth is, the Democrats have been little more than a whisper of a shade of their old selves for a long time. So what did anyone expect to happen come election day? If you give the electorate a choice between red meat and soy-based beef substitute, will anyone be surprised if they go for the real thing?
Look, I didn't expect my fellow Dems to be so moved by my death that they would bathe themselves in the blood of the Liberal Lamb and become born again Progressives. But the half-hearted way they campaigned in the final week almost broke my heart. Why call yourself a Democrat if you're not even going to give the old ideals a cursory fight? What's the point? Is that all we hope to be--faux-Republicans, who will destroy the environment and gut social services but feel REALLY guilty while doing it? To quote Peggy Lee (who's singing a storm up here, along with Dinah Washington and Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald), "Is that all there is?"
Maybe a few years of being the Court Eunuchs might straighten them out, and remind them of they are.
I hope so.
But I'm not holding my breath. (So to speak, of course...)
Just so's you all know where I stand politically, let me be so immodest as to quote myself once again:
"Well, as a young boy I didn't know a Republican from a Democrat, only in one way; if some man of bunch of men rode up to the ranch to eat or stay all night, and my Father set me to watching 'em all the time they was there -- what they did and what they carried off -- why, I learned in after years that they was Republicans; and the one I didn't spy on -- why, they were Democrats. Democrats were loyal in one way -- they never took from each other. You see, we was on the lower side of the Montgomery Ward line during the Civil War between the Democrats and Republicans."
I told my fellow Democrats back in '24 that they had to decide what they was all about; and then tell the voting public about it. Now they are all in the same fix as they was seventy-eight years ago. What I suggested worked just fine in '32, now didn't it?
By the way, I e-mailed the present tax code and all your proposed fixes to it to a fellow who is pretty good at numbers and finances; Alexander Hamilton. What I got back was kinda garbled, but the words "work of the devil" just jumped right out. You'll have to draw your own conclusions from that.
Uncle Will
Indulge my Ego:
Scrolling down through post after post I thought I was seeing my own "regressive tax" response to Cindy's argument, copy and pasted over and over. People kept repeating what I told her early in the day.
If I leave Frank out of the picture, I was the FIRST to make the argument. The FIRST! Didn't anyone read MY post? Where's the credit due ME? After a long rainy drive breathing in gas fumes from a leak in my fuel line, I want my credit! I DESERVE it, dammit! I am NOT a pariah, I AM...a human being!
(This, by the way, is how I would present myself in a national political debate, up there before the cameras, if I were running for Governor or President).
So, the new head of the Party Of The People is a dame whose worth is over $50 million who promises to bring the party back to its left wing roots.....
Ooooooooh boy, this is going to be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!!!
Sorry, gang, but you won't be able to even touch a run at the Presidency until Georgy Boy is done in 2008. I suffered for 8 years of Billy, now it's your turn.
Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-TODD
So THAT'S the new music video for the upcoming THE TWO TOWERS release. I thought Enya was hot, but now Leonard is sure to rock the charts! "Bilbo, Bilbo, Bilbo Baggins...." Whoooooo, I'm triiiiiiippiiiiiing...
In terms of a Flat Universal Sales Tax, you would have to amend it for "essentials" which would complicate things. Do you tax Food and Clothing? Rent? That would be essential, though Clothes are exempt from PA sales tax. You can bet that exceptions would be made to try and balance the many inequities already described by many of you.
What deserves to be taxed?
Why am I taxed once for what I own and AGAIN when I try to pass it to my heirs?
Why do I have variable and extremely subjective taxes placed on my home and property? Why do I have to pay it every year I own it or risk having it taken from me?
Why does my insurance company have to pay my hospital $2 for a single 250mg Mortin when drug reps drop off entire boxes of Viagra to hand out free? Is this why I my Health Insurance rates just DOUBLED for 2003?
The establishment of a flat sales tax would become a mess of Congressional legislation within 8 years.
Know what I think?
TAX THE CHURCH. Let them bring their own chips into the big game. Every single dime-pinching parish in the Union, baby. From the Roman Catholics down to Joe's Universal Life Ministry and Hot Dog Stand.
JAY: Oh, you evil bastard. Not only do I now have that damn song running through my head, but I have a terrible need to stab out my own eyes and cut off my ears.
Oh...
To distract you from the current intelligent discussion:
Some books should never be opened. Some sights left unseen by the fragile beings who walk the Earth ignorant of the horrors that lurk just beyond the next doorway...
http://davezilla.com/mp3/bbaggins.mov
I mean, I love Leonard Nimoy. I love dancing girls. I even enjoyed The Hobbit. The three, however, should never be combined.
Okay, okay; we can all stop jumping on Cindy now, please.
There's a reason that ideas such as a flat tax or a national sales tax to replace the income tax have gained such wide currency: Damn if they don't SOUND good.
They have the power of the concept of ditching the average guy's dealings with the IRS, the promise of more money in your pocket, and just enough sense of sacrifice (for the sales tax, paying ten percent over the six percent or less most are used to paying in state sales taxes) that they seem credible.
So they appeal to both people ignorant of the language and process of taxation as well as to smart cookies like our Cindy and Frank who just don't take the time to think through all the repercussions. Tax is a scary and complicated thing, after all; no one likes dealing with it, people do their best to avoid the knowledge of it because they fear the paying and the complications which might result.
Now; off the subject of taxes, to the relief of many, I'd guess.
I've just decided I'll be going to next month's PhilCon: Connie Willis, Nalo Hopkinson, David Gerrold, and Spider and Jeanne Robinson will be there. I'm debating whether or not to get a hotel room in my own city, but when I posed the question to a friend, she said to get it as, "It frees you from the responsibility of actually having to drive home. Plus the
chance at babes."
I have to concede, she makes good points.
Plus, just to show how screwed up my priorities are, I'm also thinking a room will be good because it'll allow me to bring my guitar (started lessons about a month ago) and practice. Not that that will hurt any with my friend's implied babes.
Since almost all of you guys are far more experienced at cons than I, what do you do? How do you decide which panels to attend (and so many of the panels look amazing)? What do you bring? Is it okay to bring books from home to be signed, or should I just buy everything there? How much money shouyld I plan on spending (and do they take credit?)? Should I rent a laptop?
If, as may possibly happen, I get to break bread with Spider and Jeanne, how do I avoid being a grinning, simpering moron?
(From Peter's example, I will at least know not to neglect my food needs.)
Thanks in advance for any help you might give.
Note: I typed this as you all were responding to Cindy - consider it a redundant example with numbers.....
##########
Cindy, Cindy, Cindy....
Where to begin. Well, how 'bout this?
It wouldn't work.
It's a regressive tax, punishing the poor out of proportion – it doesn't account for, nor change basic greed and the desire to cheat – and it doesn't address other inequities in the system.
***
Let's take each in turn: It wouldn't work. That's just it, 10 percent is just not enough – best estimates put it at 20 percent, and realistically, it would be higher. But let's leave it at 10 percent as a hypothetical exercise.
***
It's a regressive tax: Federal minimum wage is $5.35/hour, or $11,400/year. Let's say they are doing a little better and make approximately $15,000 or even $20,000. How much of $20,000 dollars do you think a family would have to spend to get by? My guess is all of it, but let's say we have incredibly thrifty folk, and they manage to save a full $1000. So their "purchase tax" of 10 percent is on the $19,000 they spent, or $1900. This equals a functional 9.5 percent tax rate. Cool.
Now, let go to the other extreme – this family is earning something on the order of a million dollars a year. These guys are not very frugal and the family spends something like $15,000 a week on all kinds of frivolous things, but hey – they make it, so why not. Let's see, fifteen grand times 52 weeks equals about $780,000/per year – let's even bump it up to $780,000, just in case. They get charged $78,000 purchase tax, for a functional tax rate of, uh oh, just 7.8 percent.
Our ultra extreme family makes ten million this year, spends something like $65,000 a week (or over THREE TIMES the yearly wage of our poor example) and they end up with a functional tax rate of... 3.4 percent. Hmm, it doesn't seem like we're hitting someone who can spend 3.4 million a year very hard, are we?
***
It doesn't address cheating, or greed. To avoid the tax on their very expensive luxury car, our ultra extreme family buys the thing at the factory in Europe, and has it shipped home. What's that? We're going to charge them the purchase tax on the value anyway? Good! Ah, but for a paltry grand, they get the guy to create an invoice that states they paid $20,000 less – net result, $1000 extra in their pocket. Wouldn't happen you say? Yeah, right.
Oh, yeah, we don't tax private transactions between two individuals, do we? Can't make grandma collect and pay the purchase tax at her yard sale, now can we? Oops, now the ultra extreme family pays a native to officially "buy" the car and then, in a private transaction, they "buy" the car from the individual citizen. No taxes paid at all.
Moral of the story, never underestimate greed.
***
Lastly, it doesn't address other inequities in the system. Let's go back to the car purchase idea. Both the extreme family and the poor family decide they're each going to buy a new cars. Shockingly, they both settle on the same make and model, the VrrmVrrmGo, by 3 Gerbil Motors, which has a sticker price of $15,000, including title and license – adding the purchase tax of $1500, for a total of $16,500. The extreme family writes the check, picks up the keys and is out the door in under half an hour. The poor family has to finance, but they get a great deal and pay 5 percent for five years. This includes the $1500 "tax" – which, after five years will have cost them $375 extra due to the interest. So the poor family ended up, after 5 years, paying $1875 for the "tax", a functional tax rate of 11.4 percent and the extreme family paid $1500, a functional rate of 10 percent. Who's getting hosed here?
***
So you can see, Cindy – while the "flat tax" seems like a totally equitable idea, in fact, it isn't – the working poor get hosed by it every which way from Friday.
Thus ends the simple primer on the flat tax.
Bern
DAVID:
Subtitling Japanese films is an absolute nightmare, as a literal translation of a sentence might come out as, "To the clouds jump I to heaven so happily". There's lots of filtering going on to make the dialogue comprehensible to gaijin baka like us, and it's fairly common to get two different versions of the same subtitled movie. It throws you for a goddamn spin.
:Rant/Diatribe on:
The payment each Alaskan(including children with SSN) get is called the Permanent Fund Dividend. It was nowhere near $6000 when we were there, it was $1700 for 2000, still nothing at which to sneer. There were some suggestions of a larger 1 time payout but those were defeated, albeit they may have changed since we left. Of course it's great - who wouldn't like a reverse income tax! (There is no income tax, and only a few counties have sales tax).
However, the fund was created with the intention of protecting the economy in the future when oil incomes dropped due to declining production and drops in oil price. The decision to pay out from the interest earned on the fund came later. I'm not aware that it has ever been put to it's intended use.
As to the AK environment - Cindy may be at fault for using a single resident's opinion, but Alex I think you should be more circumspect in questioning her by having a reason to doubt what was said. You are right, just because a place isn't occupied doesn't mean it needs to be a wasteland. I don't think that was the intent of Cindy's comment, though.
As former AK resident and oil industry employee who has some knowledge of environmental restrictions and reporting requirements on those operations, I can say that Alaska's natural environment is one of the cleanest, most pristine, and most regulated not only in the US but in the world. (This is not said to discount the impact of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William sound; a majority of oil operations and pipelines are land based.) Most households could not be held to the same standards as are enacted on the industry there. In fact, a fair number of Alaskans resent the desire other US citizens feel to protect Alaska instead of their own states!
Further, I can attest that compared to other areas where I have lived, a large percentage of AK citizens are well informed as to how the environment is impacted not only by various industries but by mere human presence, and the minor scale of human habitation in the vast area of the state. It does not take a lifetime of residence to come to a basic comprehension of those topics. The area affected by oil production industry is very small, even miniscule, compared with the total acreage of the state.
:Rant/Diatribe off:
> CINDY'S PLAN FOR AMERICA
> A straight purchase tax 10 percent across the board.
> Those who choose to live extravagantly will pay accordingly.
Quite apart from the inequities that Frank mentioned, this plan would be extremely unfair because 10 percent out of low income has a much bigger proportional impact on the person's resources than 10 percent out of millions. Your plan would nicely penalize big spenders on the high end, but it still leaves the poor and the working poor in a tough jam.
Would they be taxed, for example, on day care expenditures? Would the wealthy be taxed on their "purchase" of nanny care and private school tuitions?
> Those who work hard and are thrifty will not be penalized if
> they store up great fortunes.
That's a lovely sentiment. Unfortunately, most great fortunes are not "stored up," no matter how many people want to think so; they tend to be stolen or inherited.
> Those who are over a certain age should not pay-- they have paid
> enough.
If you add that those above a certain age who also generate a certain level of investment income are no longer entitled to Social Security benefits unless and until their income dips below a certain level, then I might go along with this program. Unfortunately, too many people take out more than they ever put in . . . and seem to think they're fully entitled to do so! Thus, elderly retired people are stealing from working people and the young.
> Those who are hungry should be fed and those who are cold should
> have a place that is warm to sleep... but they should be required to
> work in return for the bed. These things we should provide as a nation
> but that is it!
If you don't also provide child care, contraception, and a few other things for the poor whom you're separating from their children to go to work, then you're apt to be contributing to more poverty and crime. (See the sequence in "Bowling for Columbine" concerning welfare-to-work and the 6-year-old who fatally shot his classmate.)
> With 10 percent across the board every drug dealer, pimp and whore
> would have to pay taxes on what they spend.
Not including the illegal drugs, of course.
> Don't you think there would be more money in the government
> coffers after a year of THAT?
There might well be. But whether it would be equitable for the citizens who pay the tax is another matter.
> Death Taxes are taxes which have already been paid once-- that
> ain't right.
"Death Taxes paid twice" is one of the great bogus misnomers of our time. That the rich have managed to foist it successfully off on so many middle class and working-class voters makes it an especially rich scam.
Who's paying "twice"? The person who made the income originally? Of course not: he/she/they is/are dead. What's happening is the person who made the money originally paid taxes on it (if the usual tax loopholes weren't applied and little or no taxes equitably paid after all), then the person who inherits -- that is, receives a gigantic chunk of income -- pays a premium on it.
I see the situation as analogous to any employer-employee tax situation. The employer paid taxes on the company's income to begin with (if he or she is honest and fair); then that money proceeds to be apportioned to the company employees, who pay taxes on their income. The money has been "taxed twice," just as in the infamous "death taxes" scenario, but the PEOPLE have only been taxed once. Which is only fair.
> Okay Alex Jay, mine darlink resident expert-- what do you
> think of my solution?
Yes, I'm looking forward to Alex's reaction to this, too.
Or maybe I'll still try. Skidding tires make travel look less pleasant than it actually is.
---Peter
To anyone going to the Booksmith signing tonight:
Because of the rain it doesn't look like I'll be making it to the signing in San Francisco. Hell, I just had a bad time going to and from Borders this afternoon and that's a mere two miles from my house.
---Peter (who usually loves rain, except when he has to be somewhere)
CINDY: I hate to do this darlin', but your plan would most assuredly be bad.
NOT because it'd penalize the poor.
NOT because it would mean a heavier tax burden on the middle class.
NOT because it would help create an underground economy.
NOT because it would put the entire onus of tax collection on business owners.
NOT because it would give the rich a quantum leap in income, thus enlarging the gap between rich and poor all the more.
NOT because it would mean that businesses would skip out on 90% or more of their current tax bills.
(And it would, it would, it would, it would, it would)
But because the country would go bankrupt; it simply wouldn't bring in enough money. Nowhere NEAR enough. Such a taxation plan would reduce government revenues to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what we currently bring in (Without any stats and relying on gut feeling and my knowledge of who pays what, I'd say it'd probably bring in five to fifteen percent of what the government currently gets.
We'd be a broke and broken nation in the space of a year.
And FRANK: Not taxing those who make under twenty thousand isn't a good idea; it's not progressive, and as I told Rob, it would lessen the wish to start making OVER twenty thousand.
Joseph,
Love your letter to the Tribsters. That RedEye thing is nothin’ but a steaming pile of horse dung and its competitor duh Red Streak ain’t much better. Fortunately, I didn’t spend a nickel on either one of the rags. They had young women on the street corners practically throwing them at passersby. So it goes.
Best,
Ray
Cindy,
I will, of course, hand the responses over to Alex, but....
1)Good as it sounds to you an across-the-board cut would be regressive. Paying 10% is a LOT for people in times of hardship.
2)The top wealthiest - as I argued before - don't NEED tax cuts (they don't even have cause to demand them) because they get them through the loopholes only they are capable of getting. That's why this bullshit with welfare to the wealthy is fucked and lame.
Did you all know that Carnival Cruises pay ZERO federal taxes, ZERO!! Is that fair Cindy?
The best book about taxes in the country is called, America: Who Really Pays The Taxes? Information in that book will blow your mind--even Cindy's mind.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671871579/ref=lib_rd_next_11/104-2899904-2970337?v=oks&vi=reader&img=11#reader-link
And Cindy, your plan would never work and is unfair. The brunt of the taxes would be payed by the working poor and middle class. The rich would easily get off on avoiding their fair share; especially since they benefit the most from society and usually at the expense of the lower classes. And most importantly, the revenue stream would not be high enough to pay the government's bills.
My call is for a progressive income tax that is fair all the way around. And not taxing those who make under twenty thousand a year is a good idea as well.
Europe believes this logic, why not the major super-power?
DTS wrote:
"CINDY: After reading your post I'm reminded why I still love Texas (no matter how many crazy Bush politicos it cranks out): it's the women! You ladies are the finest (and while I'm about it, a tip o' the hat and heart to Stargirl in Dallas).
--DTS "
DTS--
You are a treasure. You're also smooooooth as water.
:)
I remain
charmed,
Cindy
Alex Jay and Rob,
CINDY'S PLAN FOR AMERICA
A straight purchase tax 10 percent across the board. Those who choose to live extravagantly will pay accordingly. Those who work hard and are thrifty will not be penalized if they store up great fortunes. Those who are over a certain age should not pay-- they have paid enough. For those whose circumstances are difficult the government will give them a temporary exemption, in card form similar to that of a driver's license for as long as it takes.
The government should hand out food. Those who are hungry should be fed and those who are cold should have a place that is warm to sleep... but they should be required to work in return for the bed. These things we should provide as a nation but that is it!
With my type of tax system the doctors would be free to treat people on a pro bono basis once more. Hospitals should be run the same way that St. Jude's Children's hospital is run. We ought to be able to figure out how they do it, shouldn't we?.
With 10 percent across the board every drug dealer, pimp and whore would have to pay taxes on what they spend. Buy a Testarosa you pay 10 percent.... buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.. 10 percent buy a six pack of beer or a bottle of mad dog 20 20 and you pay 10 percent. Don't you think there would be more money in the government coffers after a year of THAT? We would pay off the deficit FIRST.
Death Taxes are taxes which have already been paid once-- that ain't right.
This works in Texas where we have no income tax.
This is America, we should reward hard work and thrift. We should allow the people to decide how much tax they want to pay by allowing them the option of living without opulence. Those who choose to live grandly can still do so but they will pay a set amount for that luxury. How many Rockefellers would drive a vw bug? They would pay taxes. Enron execs who want to live in multi million dollar homes would be paying for that privilege
No loopholes no deductions.. you pay as you spend and there are no corporate breaks.
Okay Alex Jay, mine darlink resident expert-- what do you think of my solution? Oh and I would put YOU in charge of implementing all of my excellent ideas-- including deciphering who would qualify for the card denoting tax exemption.
For my fellow Chicagoans, a letter to the Tribune:
M. Woodward
Published November 8, 2002
Chicago -- I bought your first edition of RedEye.
I'd like to know where I can get my quarter back.
It reads like a cross between my grade-school Weekly Reader and USA Today.
How dumbed down can you get?
If this is the paper for 20-somethings, I am truly concerned about our future.
Do you really think that hip young people actually need a map explaining where Las Vegas and Boston are located?
Reading it was a truly depressing experience.
Alex,
Thanks. I jotted down some of your info.
The one year I really had it bad with seizures...and fortunately it's been a long time since...I was out of work for two-thirds of the year, having lost one job after another due to my condition (not just doing spas dances to entertain everyone in the work place but suffering discomfort from the first medication I was put on, Dilantin). The following year I was monetarily wiped out completely. I'd earned roughly $9,000 for the year. Because expenses had become impossible I DID write "exempt" on my W2; I needed EVERYTHING. What they deduct directly from your check is WAY too much for someone in that situation. Since this went on through perhaps the whole year I owed them a sum that at the time I couldn't pay. No provisions could prevent the steady climb in interest. None.
For someone in this position they simply take out too much; and provide too few options. And that's fucked. I can't say I care much about how DAUNTING the task would be for the poor Congressional staff...because the status quo is just as daunting for people who are broke.
Incidentally, I really was pissed back when they wouldn't let Clinton pass the tax credit to students.
Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself TOO much. I'm going to look into a few things you told us. It was a useful discussion.
Gary Wallen:
Thanks for the update on Avenue Victor Hugo. No, I don't know more than you; I'm just going by the news reports and hand-wringing on rec.arts.books, one of my longtime Internet hangouts. Keep us posted, willya?
With all this bitching and moaning about bookstores across the nation, I feel a little guilty about the fact that I live only 10 blocks from Powell's Books and must be one of the few people on the planet who is rather blase about the place. The other day, a friend in town read the essay on my Web site
( http://www.david-loftus.com/Books/codex.html )
about finding difficult-to-locate books and said she intended to go to Powell's and pick up some of the titles I mentioned. You won't, I said. She seemed annoyed that I was so certain. But I was right. All she could find was one of the more recent translations of Bulgakov's _The Master and Margarita_.
I saw "Seven Samurai" again on the big screen Wednesday night. Damn, what an amazing movie! Seems to be a new print in the sense of having new subtitles, at the very least: there were a lot of "fuck"s, "asshole"s, and "jerk"s in the dialogue, which I do not remember. And some of the most memorable lines for me ("You're a farmer's son, aren't you?" and "Again we have survived ... And again we've lost") have been changed, in most cases to something more quotidian as well as different from the citations in my copies of Donald Richie's _The Films of Akira Kurosawa_. What's with that?
Chris - If she's been bringing in absolutely horrible writing all semester long, what makes you think she is capable of doing any better even if she were told - "start over"? Jay said it best with his "why?" suggestion. At best, you can offer her the most general advice - and just let it slide. It's not your job to convince her to leave the field - reality will set in with alacrity once she's trying to market her work.
All - While I'll agree the NJ hunters joke recently crowned "world's funniest" is amusing, I have a suggestion for an alternate: "Broward County, FL just held an election." (If that doesn't already make you drop to the floor convulsing with laughter, maybe this link will help...)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021107/ts_nm/election_florida_dc_11
Good golly, this is sad.
Bern
Alex Jay: Yes, credits are better than non-refundables. Eight months of undergraduate tuition at a university (as opposed to a college or a CEGEP) runs around $4000-$5000 in Canada right now; figures are higher for graduate and professional programs and higher still for deregulated professional programs (mainly MBAs). Other tax breaks include deductions for student loan interest and a set amount one can not pay on for scholarships -- $2000 or $3000 on that last one, I'm not sure which, but up from $500 when I was dealing with scholarships. I'm not sure what the tuition range for U.S. institutions is, but I'd assume it's broader while skewing higher.
Of course, one can always rely on about 1 in 10 graduate students doing something really dumb with scholarship money when it comes to taxes -- I know two people who thought scholarships were completely non-taxable and thus didn't pay anything on them, leading to the heartbreak of having to pay tax on $15,000-$25,000 when they'd already spent the money, and without any of that money having been taxed before it was handed out. That can lead to years of dynamic garnishees and payroll deductions...and me asking them 'um, did you read the little guide that came with your tax forms?' To which the answer is 'no' surprisingly often.
Cheers, Jon
Oh, yeah; the credits I mentioned are, like Canada's, non-refundable.
Also, there's legislation (which I don't think will pass this time, but will gather steam and supporters toward a later bill) in Congress about making income taxes more tuition-payer-friendly.
JOHN P.: There's one Software Hut listed in the phone book, in West Chester.
JON: There are a couple things for higher education, taxwise.
The main one is twofold: The Hope Credit, which can be taken for the first two years of work in any postsecondary institution toward an undergrad degree or other recognized educational credential, allows for you to take a credit for one hundred percent of the first thousand bucks you pay for tuition and half of the next thousand bucks you pay. That's per eligible student, by the by. Also, the student has to be enrolled at least half time in one semester beginning during the tax year. An odd condition of this one is that there can be no felony drug convictions on the student's record.
After those two years, you can take the Lifetime Learning Credit, which isn't limited as to how many years you can take or when. That credit is for 20% of the first $5,000 you spend on tuition. None of the Hope Credit's restrictions apply, but you only get up to that $1,000 per RETURN, not per student.
(For tax year 2003, it'll go up to 20% of the first TEN thou, for a upper limit of $2,000).
So it looks as if Americans can actually get the better deal--remember, a credit is FAR better than a deduction.
(There is of course a credit phaseout, so that people who really don't need the credit can't take it--but that takes into account a scale of phasing it out based on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income, so we're not going to go into that here.)
There are also deductions which can be taken for trainings or classes you have to pay for which you need for your job, but that's on the Employee Business Expenses form.
Certain states (most, I think) also run education tax deductions.
Hi folks
I spoke to a gentleman at the cash register of Avenue Victor Hugo in Boston last night, as I took some Matheson, Wilhelm, & Wyndham off their hands. As I understand it, they must move out of their current location by Dec28, but are seeking new digs. That’s certainly no guarantee of reopening, and I don’t know what their prospects are (David, perhaps you know more than I heard), but let’s send them some good karma, eh?
Corned Beef Hash for my recipe needs:
www.foodtv.com
Rachael Ray is one good cook I'd marry her in a heartbeat!
But if you ask me Fried or grilled Scrapple is better!
Anyone in the Philly area know if "Software Hut" is still open?
Now, Slow Glass Books (named after the wonderful Shaw short story) in Melbourne has closed their physical store and going the way of virtual world. I bought many aussie sf books from them over the years and can continue to do so. But sad knowing the good ones are falling.
Alex Jay: Well, since you're the tax guy...
On _West Wing_, one of the big subplots this year has been Toby and Rob Lowe's character (forget the name) pushing for a tax break for people paying for college tuition. In Canada, one can claim $400/month for every month spent full-time in a college or university ($150 a month for part-time studies) and one's tuition, with the whole shebang then being multiplied by 16% and put into the non-refundable tax credits portion of one's tax form. The province of Ontario now throws in another 6.16% of the tuition and educational costs (the tuition and per month stuff) on the provincial form; I'm not sure what other provinces do with educational amounts.
Anyhoo, given the lengthy discussion of Toby and Rob's plan to help Americans on the show, don't state and federal taxes in the US include some sort of higher educational deduction? _The West Wing_ seems to be treating the idea as tantamount to landing on the moon.
Lynn: You can't get a definitive answer on corned beef hash because I'm not sure there is one. Most recipes call for ground-up corned beef, onions, and potatoes; some add egg or beef broth to the mix; some advocate frying up the potatoes with the beef and onions while others suggest segregation until serving. The L.L. Bean recipe (search under 'corned beef hash l.l. bean) looks pretty nice, though.
Isn't there a Maggie and Jiggs reference in this somewhere?
Cheers, Jon
More tax stuff, people, keep going if you don't want to see it ...
ROB: If someone makes $5000 in a year and he's of legal age, he won't owe the governmenty anything. See, the standard deduction is $4,550.00, and his own exemption would be another $2,900 ($4,7oo and $3,000 for this coming April). Subtract them from his income and you get his taxable income. A negative taxable income means zero, so if he DID pay any federal withholding, he'd get it all back when he files as a refund.
Also, the easiest hardship to get is, as I said, penalty abatement. Other hardships will involve working with the Taxpayer Advocate--there are T.A.O.s at every IRS office, so it might be best for people to go in face-to-face (most of the walk-in offices are open eight to four-thirty; eight to twelve on Saturdays, with extended hours during the tax season).
And I agree with you, as I said in my earlier post: There SHOULD be a better system to promote a truly progressive tax which doesn't unduly penalize anyone. But to do that would not take a revamping of the tax code; it would take its demolishing and replacement with something new. And that isn't going to happen in large part because of the sheer daunting SIZE of such an undertaking. Congress writes the tax code, remember (with addenda thrown in from Tax Court decisions), and even though it's the congressional staff who usually do the writing, a piece of work like that is far too damned big for a public servant to look upon without deep fear and disgust.
Alex,
BTW, it's late...I'm kinda drowsy...
So, I accidentally indicated FICA where I meant Fed Tax.
Alex,
I appreciate the clarifications.
Here are some dilemmas I still face on the issue:
The "reasonable cause" was a subject I discussed once with an IRS rep. The parameters of the definition were SOOOO tight; NO allowance was made for an illness that interfered with job stability, unless it was clearly defined as a "disability. Even if that medical condition did, in fact, lead to many months of unemployment, it might not - and PROBABLY won't - fall under their definition of "disability". Shouldn't HAVE to be a disability; if a medical condition creates a job crisis, that should be sufficient. But, unless it fits that rigid definition of "disability", interest would continue to accrue. That's COMPLETELY unfair. Somewhere between this policy and the hypothetical tax base I spoke of a fairer plan HAS to exist; as it is, the weight falls too much on low income.
You presented in your example an entire annual income. What if someone only made, say, a lousy $5,000 for the whole year? Because he's been out of work he might not be able to accomodate his expenses due to the amount taken out of each paycheck when he IS working; so he asks his employer to leave the FICA EXEMPT...I mean JUST to survive. THEN he winds up owing - what? -some $500 the following April. To him, at this particular time, that's a LOT.
I haven't much facility on the topic of economics, so I won't try to challenge the scenario you drew if we attempted that tax base I suggested. My point, ultimately, is there HAS to be a solution in there...SOMEWHERE that lifts unfair burdens off the poor or the struggling - who, mind you, are NOT stagnating in poverty, as in an abused welfare system - but are simply having serious problems trying to get where they're going. The solution doesn't lie in a $300 check that vaporizes on a week and half's worth of groceries, but a CONSISTENT structure. Taxes are certainly necessary for a civilization: roads, libraries, civic engineering, schools, colleges and universities, financial aid; we're paying for things all of us can use together...certain areas in which the private sector's role wouldn't quite work; you can go too far one way or another: it's an issue of the checks and balances. But to allow the greater proportionate burden to lean on the poor (perhaps I should stress that as the STRUGGLING poor, not "dead beats"), handing the wealthiest more than enough advantages AT OUR EXPENSE...isn't merely absurd...it's fucking INSANE. You sure don't have to remind me about outcries from insular Conservatives; their consistent detachment from this reality, the dispassionate echoes, "it should be ALL mine, you losers don't count", and total disinterest in seeking a fair middle-ground...draws my unbridled contempt. (And, I'll add, this creates a dilemma for me because the logical side of my brain reminds me of the principle and necessity of TOLERANCE; a necessity because we all have to live together. It is possibly the MOST crucial necessity for a civilization. Sometimes it's more difficult than other times; it's when one's emotions must grapple with the rational).
Perhaps my little hypothetical tax base wouldn't work. But a system allowing the rift between rich and poor to widen doesn't work EITHER, in the LONG run. Some solution HAS to be sought. Perhaps we can only find it by hitting ROCK bottom. I hope the Republicans can prove me wrong because I have goals I want to reach; I don't believe they will.
ROB: Yeah, it IS the lawmakers.
But I hate to say this: Your plan would never pass, and if by some miracle it did, it would never work. A good deal of what gets me angry is that the rich consistently weasel out of paying a fair share. Whether the share they're allotted--that is, the present tax rate structure--is itself fair or not is moot. I pay my taxes without complaint, and 15% of $30,000 hurts me a lot more than 33% of thirty MILLION would hurt a Simon or a Rockefeller. But back to your plan.
The conservatives in this country would raise such a stink over that. If you think they bitch about coddling the poor, well, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet.
And it WOULD be coddling the poor. Not the destitute poor, mind, but the working poor. Assuming your plan drops the standard deduction to the wayside, You would in effect be building the foundation for a culture of poverty; a culture in which it would cost you MORE to make seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one thousand, et cetera, then it wwould to stay comfortably under that sixteen-eight plateau. So much for mobility.
And if you KEEP the standard deductions and exemptions, even with a graduated phase-in to make it seem fair, then you'd end up paying NO tax until you hit over twenty-five thousand--and that's noty even taking into account married couples who'd end up less likely to have to pay.
(Mind, when I say "pay," I don't mean "settle up on April 15th; I mean "have deducted from your paycheck" or "pay in quarterly estimated tax payments"--it IS after all, a pay-as-you-go tax. And you have no idea how good that is. If ever this country went back to lump-sum payments at tax-time, a lot of people would go bankrupt. Literally MILLIONS of businesses would go under. And the economy would crumble like a sorority girl's inhibitions after the big game.)
Now, not that very long ago, that was what I made a year; even less. The income years like this one, when I'm laid off for a quarter of the year, aren't too much above that $25K sum. I STILL put in over three thousand in federal withholding. Think what HUGE percentage of the population makes less than thirty thousand a year, and realize the consequences which would follow.
It would lose us a HELL of a lot of government revenue. You think education and other programs are underfunded NOW?
The major tax burden would stay on the middle class, but it would intensify.
Tax rates would go up. A lot.
Fraud--welfare, tax, Social Security, and other sorts--would skyrocket.
In short, we'd all lose.
Rob, all this posturing and postulating of mine aside, if you or someone you know has had any problems like the ones you mention, that person should call our Customer Service line at 1-800-829-8815. They can tell you what you can do; they can transfer you to the Taxpayer Advocate's Office (which is now a separate entity from the IRS proper, to better get stuff done); they can advise on better payment plans--and one good thing about the economy going into the toilet: Interest rates are the lowest they've EVER been for paying off debts.
If someone TRULY has a hardship, there are MANY things which can be worked out, some of which I'm not even allowed to share outside the IRS environment. But I can tell you that I get a lot of requests for penalty relief, and as long as reasonable cause is given and accepted, we're allowed to lower or abate penalties entirely. (There's a whole definition of "reasonable cause" I won't get into right now, but rest assured, it is reasonable itself; it's not a hugely arduous thing to get.) And don't be afraid to call more than once if necessary; this is, after all, your tax dollars at work.
This goes for everyone here: go to the IRS website at www.irs.gov and see that EVERY tax publication and form open to the public is there. Better yet, when on the site, order the Publication 17, Tax Guide for Individuals. (I see they're calling it "Your Federal Income Tax" now.) So you don't have to root around a site designed to promote the downloading of forms rather than physical mail, the URL is: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/toprequests.html
Better yet, just order it over the phone at 1-800-TAX-FORM.
This relatively thin document is written, for the most part, in plain english, is comprehensive, is easily searched and well-indexed, and if by some chance it doesn't give you the answer you need, it'll point you to the publication in which you'll find the answer. I can tell you that it's so well-done that every single IRS Customer Service Rep I know uses it while talking to taxpayers.
The 2002 Pub 17 is currently on the website; I'm not sure if they're mailing it out yet.
By the by--as I was thinking about this post, I got out my paystub, and not only did I figure out that I'll be getting a refund next year, but I also came across a piece of mail--a corrected W-2 form for last year. I have to file a 1040X now; it'll get me a nice seventeen-dollar check. Not bad for three minutes' work.
(Oh, another thing: The biggest argument over taxes right now seems to be over inheritance tax. The funniest thing is that people don't even HEAR themselves, when they say things like "I worked and slaved and scraped for my million dollars, and I should be able to give it all to my kids." The implicit addendum being, "Who'll never have to get off their lazy asses like *I* did." Also, the estate tax. That was wiped out [for the most part] by last year's tax cut ... UNTIL December 31st, 2011. I'm predicting a lot of Menendez-ing of older parents right before that date.)
Alex,
"I WORK for the "goddamn IRS"--and I like it a lot"
OK: you freed my argument from its error, giving the debate some refinement.
Your place of employment: I should say more accurately I'm pissed at the lawmakers who decide the codes and policies; those at the office don't dictate the terms. Once or twice I spoke with IRS personnel and they WERE extremely helpful and polite, given the constraints.
Without going into great detail I'll try to summarize my general grievances with IRS policy. We already went into the cost-of-living issue; it's a problem, however you want to define it.
Let's say an individual had a rough employment history in the course of a year or so and goes flat broke; he can't pay what has bloated to OUTRAGEOUS debt for a relative pittance in earnings (far under annual). The offices will make arrangements with that individual...meanwhile, interest accrues till it takes THAT much longer for the poor slob to catch up. To be fair to those at the bottom, the whole scale should start at $16,800/year as taxable income; anything below that...you don't owe shit. That should be the base, which, in turn, needs to keep up with the annual cost of living adjustments (I'm sure lawmakers would think up all kinds of convenient excuses as to what would make this so complicated; but it SHOULD be the objective because it would give those in relative poverty a chance at mobility). The other problem is the very limited deferments available for those who really had legitimate difficulties. You and I, for instance, know something about seizures. They CAN create serious problems in employement AND school. Regardless, interest will accrue...till you're wading in debt to the government. Whether you have medical hassles or if you're a student, they provide no deferments. That isn't being fair at all, given the loopholes available for the wealthiest.
It's not "the goddamn IRS", so much as "the goddamn lawmakers". The right policies and the right checks and balances just aren't being engineered...probably because of indifference and spineless pandering.
That's the core of my grievance. For anything I'm missing by all means fill in the blanks. I'm not trying to be a blind militant.
Alex,
"And by god, I would KILL to have a place like that near me selling new books."
I'd love to have one in my area too. When I lived in Chicago, I worked for 9 years at Kroch's & Brentano's main book store downtown. There wasn't much time for conversation -- the place was too busy; spend too much time in conversation with one customer and three others would walk away without having been served. And there were always a considerable number of customers who just wanted to browse the shelves -- they came in to look over the stock, not to schmooze. So if somebody didn't look like they were having trouble finding what they needed, we'd let them be.
During those years, I spent a lot of off-duty time, and money, and exchange credits, at Hanley's Book Shop in Rogers Park. A small place, specializing in new & used sf, fantasy, and mystery. Terrific little shop, a one-woman operation. Bought a number of British hardcover Gerald Kersh titles there, and a Trident Press edition of Harlan's Love Ain't Nothing etc., all the Gregg Press Leibers and Heinleins. Florence Hanley had time for conversation -- there weren't usually a lot of people in the place; while I don't know this for certain, I suspect the shop was not her only source of income. Hanley's is gone now (though I heard someone else had bought the shop, name included, and opened it in a new location), along with three other shops in that area. Kroch's itself is gone, along with the competitors that had moved into the same street -- 2 Crown Books shops and a B Dalton. The Aspidistra, a nice second hand shop on north Clark, is now a sushi place.
What killed some of them off? Damned if I know. Overhead? Dwindling customer base? I don't know what the markup is on hardware, but I do know that everybody needs toilets and flashlights and ladders and wrenches, and a lot of hardware store items cost considerably more than a paperback. Maybe too many people these days think they don't need books, and so don't make them priority purchases. A few people have tried book shops in this town, but they haven't lasted. Now and then I think about trying it myself, because I always liked that kind of shop. But the proper balance between conversation and purchase time seems to be getting harder to find. I'm not sure there's enough of a margin in books these days to support a shop in which there's more conversation time than purchasing time. Unfortunately.
--TR
One more thing, to show you how owned by certain businesses our government is:
Frank asked if I were smoking banana peels. Well, no; right now I'm smoking Natural American Spirit cigarettes.
(Yes, I unquit some time ago)
It's not my normal brand, but they had a nice deal from an ad they ran: Call their 800 number and they'll send you a form. Send it back with proof of age and $4.20 for shipping, and they'll send you a free carton.
They also sent some info with it (and a survey, which, if you complete and return it, they'll send you a free tin sign, but ...). I, like I suppose most people, had thought the company to be Indian-owned (they prefer to use the term "American Indian," pointing out that "Native American" encompasses Aleuts and Eskimos, who never knew from tobacco). Nope. It's a group of Santa Fe investors.
BUT they're a conscientious company, supporting the Indigenous Language Institute, the Piegan Institute, the Native American Rights Fund, and the American Indian College Fund. They give away a lot of tobacco to Indian organizations for ceremonial use, and the company's even been designated a Founder of the Museum of the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe.
(They also will send a buck to the Rare Species Conservatory Foundation for every household which completes and sends back a little slip included on every one of their packs, and pack in cute little endagered species fact cards on each pack)
For all that, their tobacco is not American Indian-grown.
Why? Well, when they set up a tobacco growing program on several New Mexico pueblos, it was promptly shut down by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Not because of any infraction or low standards, but because There is a government quota system for growing what is called flue-cured Virginia tobacco, and six southeastern states own the exclusive preserve for the cultivation of that tobacco.
The native people who introduced tobacco to the world (yeah; it was another tribe, but still) is not allowed by the government to grow it for consumption.
The ghost of Jesse Helms, you see. The tobacco lobby owns that part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (and, likely, a big part of the ATF as well) lock, stock, and pipe barrel.
LIL' WASHU: I had a friend in high school who learned Japanese for two big reasons: She was an anime fan, and she was a Moorcock completist. Apparently, there were Japanese editions of his work with stuff not available to the English-speaking world,
Hmm. Should have made myself clearer. First off, I'm looking at unemployment in the long-term. Look at the figures from, say, 1990. Now look at today's. It's lower or about the same. What has to be considered there is that in the last, oh, seven years or so, someone realized that unemployment figures weren't matching the actual figures of people who were unemployed, so they shifted it to better reflect who ain't working. Take that into consideration, and it's lower than it was. Granted that UNDERemployment is certainly on the rise ...
Of course, with big companies like Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and others self-destructing, I'm probably proven wrong by the latest figures.
ROB: Actually, cost of living IS factored in, but the existing tax code infrastructure doesn't allow THAT much to be done with it.
But yeah; I look at the tax rates and the new deductions and credits every day, and it is PAINFULLY clear that the cuts were enacted to benefit the uppermost 2% of incomes, not to mention large businesses, with a small (relatively miniscule, really) sop thrown here and there to the larger electorate.
And remember: I WORK for the "goddamn IRS"--and I like it a lot; it's just challenging enough to be interesting, I have the greatest group of coworkers I've EVER had, I get regular raises, I get to respond to my inborn need to fight authority every now and again (and in fact am in TWO union grievances right now), my direct boss is great, HER boss is great, HER boss is crap on a stick, but HER boss is cool. And I get to help people and give away money EVERY NIGHT.
(and mess with the taxpayer's minds--I joke a lot to put them at ease)
Of course, I'm temporarily laid off until the new year (and the way they handled THAT process [gee; guess which boss listed above] is the reason for both grievances), but even so, I'm making more in unemployment then I got paid when I first started there, four years ago.
CINDY: If you ever want some enlightening stuff, try and read the current tax code. No, no; that's too cruel a fate. Just read through the Tax Relief Act of 2001 (the big tax cut enacted in June of that year), and realize how HUGELY skewed it is toward the very rich and people who stand to inherit money from rich daddies.
Harlan in Japanese...there's something I must read before my time on Earth is over.
Boy I botched that one -- make that "canceled" and "regularly scheduled" -- eeeh!
OKAY, I'LL ADMIT IT: I go to a therapy group now. And each week, I stand up and say, "I have testicles, but I loved the now cancled ABC series, 'Once and Again.'" Fortunately, I just learned there is hope for all of us long-suffering addicts, as the first year of the series was just released on DVD. (I now return you to your regularly debate).
--DTS
CINDY: After reading your post I'm reminded why I still love Texas (no matter how many crazy Bush politicos it cranks out): it's the women! You ladies are the finest (and while I'm about it, a tip o' the hat and heart to Stargirl in Dallas).
--DTS
Cindy,
I have to type this incredibly fast because I'm out of here:
The "tax cuts" are aimed at the wealthy. But the wealthy don't NEED tax cuts because they get them ANYWAY: they're called tax loopholes; the ones only THEY are capable of getting (from charities to mock businesses). That's what seems to elude everyone; and it's why I can't sympathize with the wealthy when they whine about taxes. When taxes are cut TOO much, we at the lower end get denied the programs that come from taxes, including financial aid (and my unversity has funds cut by 50%). The way we've done things - whether the Republican way or the Democrat - hasn't been done right at all. We don't need more tax cuts (particularly since it's already been done; and at a cost that will exceed anything we could put away); we need tax REFORM. The goddamn IRS doesn't factor in the cost of living, so it's much tougher on the lower end. And when that "lower end" can't pay, interest accrues on the amount owed. It's the lower end that needs total relief, not the top end. Start the base at about $1400/month and move the scale from there. Students get nailed by taxes badly; Clinton wanted to give them a break on that; the Republicans wouldn't allow it. So, fuck 'em.
It's not about your fantasy world of "leeches", Cindy. It's about incorporating the right balances. The Democrats' policies aren't always on the mark either, no question. But the Republicans are NOT - get that: NOT - about giving breaks to common workers; their purpose is to represent the interests of the wealthy. Anything else they claim is disingenuous (c'mon: you think candidates are going to say "we're for the rich?"; they HAVE to make it sound appealing to everyone. That's called being RHETORICAL. Financial aid and the schools are being cut because of the Republicans; we lost the surplus because of the Republicans; Europe will move ahead in medical research because of the Republicans; deregulation will spiral out of control, allowing the corporations to continue their bullshit because of the Republicans; wealth will get consolidated among the few because of the Republicans. Whatever your philosophical grievances may be, THIS isn't the answer. And many people you know now may not have to worry about any "leeches" because they won't have any jobs (when you're not working you don't pay taxes).
Coos Bay! God, no -- anywhere but there!
Frank.
1) Pretty much all of the mainstream media has properly reported unemployment as being up. As in, NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc.
2) Funny - I though the Democrats were doing fine by being moderate. A slight minority in the US congress is nothing to sneeze at. Hell, we could be the Libertarians, who have never managed to get anyone elected to a major office.
Regards,
Joseph
Somebody is smoking banana peels! Unemployment is not going down, but going up! Read the progressive media and learn something. Sheesh.
LYNN: Corned beef, potatoes, and onions are the base, with people using either beef broth or vinegar as flavoring and suspension medium.
And I don't want any, thanks.
Hey--Harlan is published in a bazillion languages. Why are there no Japanese, Spaniards, Frenchmen, Germans, Argentinians, whatever, on this board?
Reading all this babble and trying to decide if I want to move to New Zealand. Or maybe Coos Bay.
::sigh:: To quote Evil Willow, "Bored now."
L.
PS. I've asked five different cooks/chefs now and no one can give me the definitive contents of corned beef hash. I now throw the topic open to the good citizens of Webderland. Corned Beef Hash: what the hell is it made from?
CINDY: A lot of what you said are deeply personally held opinions, and I respect them and will not quibble with them, though I may disagree entirely.
But a few things jumped out.
* The NRA and Greenpeace are BOTH moving toward PETA territory, which is to say half-assed support of terroristic actions. Neither is there yet, but it's a matter of time.
(And as far as I can tell, no one's needless death can be directly traced back to Greenpeace lobbying and intransigence on bullshit issues.)
* By the by--the ACTUAL unemployment rate has been going DOWN steadily for over ten years. GATT and NAFTA really don't play a part in it. And though you may decry them for forcing American jobs out of the country, look at the support Bush and others have steadily been giving to companies who were moving their operations to Mexico, Korea, et cetera, long before NAFTA. Look at the support they've been giving to companies who incorporate in Bermuda while having all their operations in America just so that they can weasel out of paying their fair share of taxes.
* Also, your Alaska comment is terribly skewed. You cannot judge the impact on the environment by one woman's observation of her own, human-habitable area. That's like a suburbanite saying that toxic waste dumping isn't a problem, because hey! Her lawn is still green. Or worse, like a Love Canal resident saying he never saw any toxic waste or fumes, so everything must be okay. Hey! Do we REALLY need the oceans? It's not as if anyone LIVES there ...
* And stem cell research? Bush had to be HOUNDED for over a YEAR before he finally caved and signed a very LIMITED program--and it's not an expansion; it's a slight lessening of the cutbacks earlier ordered.
* As for Texas improving: Have you been to Dallas lately? Have you sen how many businesses were given HUGE tax breaks during Geedub's term, then jetted out of the state at their earlier convenience, essentially skipping out on the check?
(Also, the Texas Tomorrow Fund was introduced by the legislature, which [at least in '99; I can't find stats for '97] was entirely even-up in the State Senate and the State House was controlled by Democrats.)
One scary bit in teensy-tiny print on the Tomorrow Fund's website: "Tomorrow's College Investment Plan accounts are not insured by the State of Texas. Principal contributions to a Tomorrow's College Investment Plan are not guaranteed by the State of Texas. No investment return on any Tomorrow' s College Investment Plan account is guaranteed by the State of Texas."
Considering all the jiggering done in the last ten years with pension funds and whatnot, this would certainly make ME shudder, were I a contributing parent.
* Look at how many people in the current administration are former oil execs or are on the boards of oil companies, from Tommy Thompson to Condaleeza Rice all the way up to Bush and Cheney (I think it's something like forty or more in the admin), then tell me that the backtracks this government has been doing on pollution controls, environmental issues, hybrid cars, and lots more aren't unduly influenced by one glutted market force.
Or why we never hear anyone in this government bitch about the fact that 16 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, or that Egypt has sentenced many a pro-American or pro-democracy advocate to hard labor, or that Iran has developed and is ready to use biological and chemical weapons, or that a large infux of money going to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers comes from Saudi Arabia, or that there are still terrorist training camps in Pakistan, or that Saudi Arabia, in the days after the WTC/Pentagon attack, refused to share their info on the bombers ...
You don't hear that stuff. Because we want all the dead dinosaurs those countries can barrel up and send to us.
Similarly, you hear the administration bitching about the possibility that just maybe, Saddam Hussein might one day have a nuclear capability--but you hear nary a word about the Israelis' nukes, Pakistan's nukes, India's nukes, North Korea's nukes, China's nukes (does the UK have nuclear missiles? I should think they would. Likewise France.). These are all countries who consider themselves just as justified at preemptive strikes as the administration is now convinced IT is.
(But Saddam Hussein's a bad man, and that takes precedence.)
* Lastly. Taxes. Always a hotbutton issue; always a great way to sway voters. Taxes bad, Tor say.
But take a look at our rate of taxation compared to the tax burden in OTHER countries. We actually have it easier than most.
Now, I believe taxes should be lowered. I believe that rather than constantly amending and adding to and complication the Tax Code, that it should be rewritten from top to bottom. I say this as an IRS employee, bear in mind. Changes should be made.
But do you like roads? Do you like lower milk and bread prices? Do you like municipal services? How about an army to defend us in times of need? How about disaster relief? Hospital subsidies? NASA? The NIH and CDC? Access to energy?
Where does all this come from but taxes?
Taxes suck. But there'd be no infrastructure without them. And I'm not ready to live in a cave.
(And yeah; we can still get along ... yer good people.)
I LOVE YOU FRANKIE ANGEL-- No matter your politics... why you could be a commie and it would change NOTHING about how I feel about you as a person.
DTS wrote;
CINDY: At the risk of losing my standing as a gentleman in your eyes, I have to agree with Alex Jay regarding Trent Lott. He not only strikes me as an unctuous, used car salesman type, I think he's the kind of guy who would buttfuck a chicken when no one is looking if it helped out his (or the GOP's) standing and/or plans. And I'm an independent voter.
Have a nice day,
DTS "
The same goes for you as Frank.
I don't care if you write that George W. Bush sucks eggs and Trent Lott has babies for breakfast-- after the roses you sent me (which turned up on my birthday last year) I will ALWAYS know that you are a true gentleman and a stellar example of what a man should be.
Politics are only politics and when we realize that what Uncle Will wrote is right we'll all have a Merry Christmas.
kiss kiss,
Cindy
FIRST: Guys, guys. Unless someone is a member of the American Nazi party or its ilk, there is NO reason to threaten or consider violence against someone merely because of his or her political orientation.
(Nazis are great; it's like Free Play. Go ahead, take a shot--they're friggin' Nazis, after all.)
Though we disagree on many things, I'd very much like to meet Todd, as much as I enjoyed meeting Brian or would enjoy meeting Jay, Joseph, and all the rest. I'm certain we'd have some fun conversations.
(Hey, Brian, that reminds me: What's the next PSFS meeting? Is there anything before Philcon [to which I WILL be going]?)
Now. This is likely to be a long post, so bear with me--or just scroll past.
Reading of Dangerous Visions' physical collapse and of Avenue Victor Hugo's closing set me to thinking, and the book I'm reading right now (Vince Staten's DID MONKEYS INVENT THE MONKEY WRENCH?: Hardware Stores and Hardware Stories) got me thinking some more.
Hardware stores are terribly, terribly open. I'm speaking of hardware STORES, mind; not hardware minimalls like Lowe's or Home Depot. You go into a hardware store and you'll be helped--usually by the owner or a relative. You tend to talk a lot in hardware stores--about sports, local events, anything and everything. There's a lot more conversation time than there is purchase time. I've gone into hardware stores in neighborhoods I don't know, in towns I'm visiting for the first time, and have never received anything but a warm welcome.
Yes, I have a point: Bookstores should be like hardware stores. And, from what I've read of the Covers, Dangerous Visions was very close to that model, with Arthur and Lydia being the very best kind of bookstore owners, open, funny, talkative, and loving books. That's what I want, rather than a Tower, B&N, Borders.
But in Northeast Philadelphia, which itself is one-third of the city, there is one--count 'em, ONE--bookstore which sells new books. It's Marlo, a nice place in the middle of what used to be called a large shopping mall, before malls became huge enclosures; octopi spreading out their tentacles over acres of parking lot.
Marlo's is a warm place, with kindly personnel and half the store given over to used books--but help isn't volunteered. There's no Employee Picks listed on the walls. They don't recommend stuff. And they don't make conversation except at the very point of sale.
Not what I want.
In contrast, there's a used bookstore a few miles from me, The Happy Booker, in which you'll find the owner manning (womanning) the register, with a smile for all, and usually a few kids underfoot. Though I get most of my reading material at the Free Library book sale sections, with paperbacks a quarter and hardbacks--no matter how new--three times that, I still make a point to vist her store every so often, picking up books twenty, thirty, forty years old, all paperback, for about two bucks each. It's worth it, for the service given.
Similarly, closer to me is a larger used bookstore, the Book Swap, at which, as the name implies, you bring in your old books and swap them for credit--usually, half the cover price, if the books are in good condition. You then can use your credit to pay off half the total of whatever your bookshopping comes to. It's another family place, with a great sf/f section having books going back six weeks or sixty years. It's homey; it's nice. And the people there will TALK to you at length.
The two places I cited above have ANOTHER thing in common with hardware stores: You'll get bright and happy conversation even if you end up buying nothing. They know, as do hardware store proprietors, that a good feeling about a place will even triumph over lower prices when someone wants to buy something. This is the tiny edge mom-and-pop places have over the big chains.
And by god, I would KILL to have a place like that near me selling new books.
(A note: Though many take the fact that DV will still be open as a webstore as freezing cold comfort, I think that the Covers have it in them to make even that electron-based virtual storefront homey. The biggest success at doing THIS, of course, is Mark Ziesing [http://www.ziezingbooks.com]. With the catalogs and the website he offers, he gives a glimpse into his family's life, talks about all manner of things, and makes individual comments on damned near every book he sells. Add to that the fact that you can get books there no one else has, like our pal Ernest Hogan's excellent SMOKING MIRROR BLUES. Add to that the fact that they are happy to have long e-mail conversations with site visitors and customers. Add to that the personal notes you get in the packages you receive. Mark Ziesing's bookstore is the internet equivalent to a hardware store, and I'm certain the Covers can make the Dangerous Visions site the same.
Rob wrote:
"Cindy,
"Okay, I'm a Republican. "
At the risk of getting too redundant, then, allow me to remind you what you, in all probability, have helped usher in:
...another massive welfare check to the wealthy (in a time of deficit, and after the surplus was given away); the overturning of Roe V. Wade; cuts in the schools, universities and financial aid; the banning of stem cell research; destruction of social security; empowerment of the NRA lobby; increasing unemployment; a rift more massive than ever between rich and poor; devastation of the environment...just to name a few of the goodies to come.
...not that I want to show you any ingratitude for it all...but if I ever spot you and Todd walking across the street...I'M flooring the accelerator. "
Yes, yes and oh yeah...yes!
I think there is a problem with a system that punishes those who are hard workers, those who have initiative and are able by dint of extreme effort (or otherwise) to fulfill their ambitious dreams. There is a problem with a society that will allow ticks to suck the blood of the those who sweat and toil to turn the wheel. We should NOT begrudge those who have amassed great fortunes and neither the idle nor the government has a moral right to the fruits of their labor
Why SHOULD ANYONE have to give the government a third of their income let alone HALF?
>
Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned and the law adjusted to allow for commons sense. No healthy baby that could live outside his mother's body on his own and independent of her should be butchered. Period. There is no reason for a society to allow brutality-- nothing changes about that-- even if those behind it wave a banner proclaiming "A Woman's Right To Choose".
The NRA is not as bad as Greenpeace-- they just need to be reined in a bit and whacked on the nose with a rolled up news paper. Nobody needs assault weapons and background checks are a GOOD thing.
As for funding education.. you can say what you like but I had almost 8 years of experience with George W. Bush in the Texas Governor's office. Things got better here. He was re-elected with 85 percent of the vote BECAUSE things got better here.
Under his administration our kids-- and I mean MY KIDS get (have gotten) a package that I'd stack against damned near any state's as far as help in the tuition and expense departments. I have had 3 kids in college (2 at once) so I know about THIS first hand too. We also have the Texas Tomorrow Fund which allows us to lock in the price of tuition now for our children so they can afford to attend later... this under George W. Don't discount his efforts on behalf of education. Using testing and accountability criteria implemented under-- yeeeeees George W. Bush's administration; Texas went from the bottom of the heap to close to the top... again I know this first hand because I had elementary age children who clearly learned at a quicker rate and had a higher level of comprehension under his program. Say what you want to about who actually did it-- he surrounds himself with smart people and doesn't discount their advise.
For the increasing unemployment rate you can look to y'all's boy Clinton. He is the one that brought down THAT scourge on us all with his fucking NAFTA and GAT. Don't EVEN get me started on THOSE bum steers.
The rift between the rich and poor has been with us since time immemorial and will remain with us as long as there are people. If you can expound on the ways that that rift is going to expand then perhaps I can address your concerns.
Ah devastation of the environment. In what ways? The pipelines in Alaska? I spoke with a woman recently who has lived in Alaska all her life. She told me that they have had no problems with the pipelines largely because the habitable portion of the state of Alaska is so miniscule that they never see them. She said they DO each recieve a government payment each year.. tax free for around 6 grand due to the oil income. I'll try to find out what it is called but she says every Alaskan resident she knows personally thinks it's a great thing.
Stem Cell research-- George W. just approved the expansion of the program last week didn't you read about it?
I think the Republicans will be aware that they are in a make or break situation. They can excersize restraint and caution or be blamed en toto for the fuck ups.
You know what? I wrote all this shit and what it boils down to is exactly what Uncle will posted last night... in fact I've been wondering since then....
Who WAS that masked man?
:)
Cindy
ps Todd kicks ass.
Sorry, Rob, but I'm not that far past fifty.
And if my life span follows the usual for my family, I'll be happily wrecking the country for at least another 7 presidential elections.
Again, have a nice day.
--TR
Incidentally, Frank...
I agree with you about "GREENER" prospects.
Tony,
"I've gotten by without your sympathy for over 50 years, and I think no matter how life goes I can probably do without it a tad longer."
Well, your senility explains a lot - so nothing surprises me there...and mortality will take care of the "tad longer". Sometimes life CAN make things simple after all.
Certainly the Democrats needed this kick in the ass. But the VOTING Democrat will jump off the endangered species list after you Republicans get through destroying the country's economy (you wasted NO time wiping out the surplus), medical research and education system. You'll drive yourselves headlong into extinction - doing the country and the rest of the world a great favor. This COULD be a blessing in disguise - painful medicine necessary for a crucial transition.
The Democrats will be an endangered species soon if they refuse to follow a more progressive political bend. Let the GOP be the right wing party, Democrats should be the party of the left, or at least they should get out of the way and let the Greens take over.
And many right wingers may be nice people who mean well, but their policies will destroy those who cannot speak up for themselves. Bush and his ilk just made the American people think that being selfish and greedy are ethics points.
----------
Rob, you can sideswipe Todd, but spare Cindy, she cute as a button, plus I think she can be saved.
Cindy's Liberal twelve step counseler, Frankie.
I think I I see the things the way most of you guys do regarding the feedback on the writer.
What has been nagging me, though, is that I think she's under the impression that her writing is successful and only needs to be tweaked in the few "problem areas" that get discussed in class.
On the Simpsons, Homer comes up with an idea for a screenplay involving "a killer robot driving instructor who goes back in time for some reason and his best friend is a talking pie." If I ever came in with a talking pie script, I'd want to be told "Look, it just doesn't work and it never will work - start over." I'd hate to be told "It's good but..." and spend my time trying to salvage something that can't be salvaged.
Also, I understand what you say about my lack of any credentials and the possibility I might be wrong but, in this case... no, there's no way I'm wrong. Just trust me. There are other writers in the class who I might be wrong about. But this one... no, trust me.
Rob,
I've gotten by without your sympathy for over 50 years, and I think no matter how life goes I can probably do without it a tad longer.
But your last post brightened my day enormously. I had no idea the Democrats had gone on the endangered list. Another dream come true. Thanks for the news, buddy. Have a nice day.
--TR
ROB --
this was a series of portraits on Kinski, each with extensive interviews with Herzog, including the (Herzog-made) documentary "My Best Fiend" in which he lauds his own movies permanently. That, and (and I realize this is unprofessional) I simply can't stand the way he talks. Nevertheless, it's interesting, if not for Herzog, then for Kinski.
And yes, it was obvious that Herzog and Kinski hated each other to the point that Herzog almost accepted the offer by a movie extra to have Kinski killed; later, he threatened to put 8 rifle rounds into Kinski if he tried to quit making Fitzcarraldo once more. Let me quote a bit from filmfour.com:
Herzog also once threatened to fire-bomb Kinski's house. Kinski referred to him as "The vermin...a miserable, hateful, malevolent, money-hungry, avaricious, nasty, sadistic, treacherous cowardly creep."
Chris,
I didn't see till now what I'd typed there.
Re: POV.
I was trying to say "the audience's emotional response must be in accord with the character's in order to achieve empathy."
BILL:
No, actually, it's R.L. Stine.
Chris,
Going light on a fellow student, difficult as it might be:
I suggest following your instincts in decorum - leave out the direct, scathing; don't call it Vogon Poetry ("Thy nacturations are to me as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" ) - and just objectivelly vocalize the criteria needed for a script to work. A three-act framework, while not an ironclad rule, is ideal; but in any case, dividing the script into acts serves your structure..."I feel this fails to do that", you might want to add politely. Transition in character needs to be legitimized by motivation and events; if characters change in mid-course without a reason, they "fall out of character" and the story isn't going to work. POV has to be clear: if it isn't an audience's emotional response won't be in accord with the character's. You might, then, just say, "I feel the exposition here fails to do this"; say the same for the lines: "you can write that way for yourself, but it's not going to work for an audience".
I'm just saying you CAN and probably NEED to be candid; just do it tactfully and politely. Emphasize the general rules that make a script work - subtly indicating "here the script just doesn't do this; audiences won't accept it" - over the outright potholes in her writing. You know: "if this works for you that's great; but you'll have problems with an audience if the script doesn't do this or that". If you put the problems up to the light and she can't handle THAT, then she doesn't even belong in the program. That's perfectly "ethical".
...on the other hand, if you're planning to date her LYING about EVERYTHING is the rule-of-thumb...leastways till after you get what you want. That's not ethical, just the law of the jungle.
Incidentally, about HERZOG: the only film I saw was his NOSFERATU remake, which I didn't like at all. That goes with the inherent risk of remaking a classic silent masterpiece. And, of course, that's an unfair way to measure the director. I'll get around to checking out his more important films, like Aguirre, Wrath of God (most emphatically) and Fitzcarraldo. The former I actually look forward to a lot.
Of the foreign directors this side of Bunuel, and of more recent decades, Tarkovsky is the one who became MY central focus.
Interesting bit about Welles: it's COMMON, directors screening movies past and present while preparing their approach to a project; Kubrick was undoubtedly king of the research freaks, no one more intrigued by detail. But I did NOT know STAGECOACH was the film Welles ran to do KANE; if his HEART OF DARKNESS project had not fallen through earlier I wonder if John Ford still would have been his choice.
(Incidentally, as a side, I have an odd thing with FORD: my favorite film by him is a little known piece with Karloff called THE LOST PATROL).
RABIG:
"Does this mean it's okay for us Republicans to shoot Democrats when we see them?"
...nope, nope. You don't shoot an endangered species. This is definitely a double-standard, one-way proposition. I get to tear your face off and you'll LIKE it.
...but in a year or two, when the nation's economy goes into bowel movements it can't control, some of you may regret you ever CONNECTED yourselves with the Republicans. It eludes me how you can find a virtue in pandering to the interests of the wealthy and corporate transgression at the EXPENSE of everyone else. When your life gets worse...I'm afraid I can only say you got what you asked for. No sympathy at all from this corner.
CINDY: At the risk of losing my standing as a gentleman in your eyes, I have to agree with Alex Jay regarding Trent Lott. He not only strikes me as an unctuous, used car salesman type, I think he's the kind of guy who would buttfuck a chicken when no one is looking if it helped out his (or the GOP's) standing and/or plans. And I'm an independent voter.
Have a nice day,
DTS
Li'l Washu:
Would it be Judith Krentz?
Bill
HARLAN:
I thought you should be aware of this, just in case you got the feeling I was sneaking around behind your back. (Like that's even possible.) For the final project of my english course, we were given the choice of selecting a specific writer and then disussing some aspect of their work.
You know where this is going, don't you?
Guess who IIIIIII'M writing about?
Chris,
Bern hit it perfectly. I spent much time in college earning beer money from a gig tutoring inner city kids and college students. You can't, as much as you want to, lean on them and "set them straight" about their shortcomings. Like Bern said, you might be way off base (though unlikely) but unless you're the guy handing out the grades, be supportive and encourage development. It's the only way they'll grow.
What I found works best is asking WHY...a lot. Sometimes writing is just lazy, casual or thoughtless. Forcing students to answer questions about their own work often kicks the mind back into active operation and many students see opportunities they were too tired or distracted to catch. In Middle School, many of the kids I wrote term papers like commercials and marketing, stitching together cliches without understanding the literal meaning of the phrases. College students often load up the Microsoft Word Thesaurus and replace every third "very" with "extremely" "awfully" and "dreadfully" or they'd pick the longest synonym on the list. I had a collection of academic slush that would give most people here seizures and night terrors. Pointing out the alternatives often cures those problems with those who truly want to improve. There will always be people who would rather snot into a 20# sheet of typing paper and call it art than actually WORK on it, and those folks aren't yours to help. Eventually, they'll end up writing press releases for art houses downtown and host viewings and readings for the purpose of snobbing around with others of their kind...or they'll end up working for Kinko's. :)
Just my 2 cents.
Oh, the baby site is under construction at www.zebrapix.com/colin.html Big tumbnails, but no huge pix.
Chris, “I have an ethics question for my respected colleagues here at Webderland.” (that may or may not include me, but you get my opinion nonetheless...) ;)
Perhaps not that unexpectedly - I’m going to take a slightly different tack from the others who have responded so far. You should not lie, but you should be extraordinarily diplomatic while discussing their work.
There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that you are not the instructor. It isn’t your place to savage the person or the work - even if deserved. I agree completely that you should follow the lead of the instructor - point out some of the problems as non-confrontationally as possible, just stop before you would feel compelled to say “it’s good otherwise”.
Because, no matter how well deserved you think the criticism is, there is a faint chance YOU are the one wrong about it. (mind you, I said faint) And even if you’re right - a savage attack will sour both the recipient and the rest of the class to your input entirely, defeating the point of the workshop from the start. Some will even go so far as to interpret your criticism as an arrogant bludgeon, attempting to hammer all opposing views into line - and despite the intrinsic value of the feedback - it will be ignored. (for a reference - go back to my little tiff with Rob over the Alamo. Because I started with a slam on Rob, he ignored my subsequent corrections of his errors of fact. I was right, but I had lost the argument from the first salvo.)
And since you have no professional credentials (I’m assuming - which may make me the “ass” of the equation), you don’t have the “gravitas” of real-world legitimacy to lend support your opinion. Even if you are better, smarter and more insightful than your classmates - you are still their “equal” in the larger scheme of things, thus your opinion is “no better” than those who seem to like the crap.
I’ll end with this following thought: Actually, in this situation it’s perfectly ethical to criticise, even savagely, the others’ work, in fact it’s expected. But, morally, it may not always be the right thing to do.
Just my thoughts,
Bern
"...not that I want to show you any ingratitude for it all...but if I ever spot you and Todd walking across the street...I'M flooring the accelerator."
Does this mean it's okay for us Republicans to shoot Democrats when we see them?
--TR
Chris: There's no reason you can't be honest. You could always lead with a comment about something you found semi-good (or, failing that, 'interesting', the ultimate fallback comment) before singling out the things that need to be addressed as, unh, needing improvement.
Zoe: Apparently, some members of the Canadian infantry invented a game of Crud that's simpler than the four-ball method. Those fancy-dan pilots and their four-ball game...I'm thinking some messes should invest in air hockey games and foosball tables myself.
Politics in general: Well, while America was engaging in its sea-change (I know the effects, but I find it hard to see a few seats changing as a massive shift to the Right, regardless of what the annoying CNN guy with the bowtie and the Buster Brown hair wants to talk about), Canada's Prime Minister got a bloody nose in a free vote, and Ontario's Premier vowed that no one would have their power shut off this winter because of the sudden rise in power costs (a rise caused by his own government -- dinks).
Ah, the fun.
Cheers, Jon
I'm talking Vogon Poetry here, people. Not even coherent on the most basic level. Non-writing, essentially. Should I
keep trying to "be constructive" or should I be brutally frank?
Be VERY BRUTAL and frank but be specific also! This writer may either see her errors and correct them or end up as a head writer
for a network sitcom or at worst a "Made for Cable" movie writer!
I have an ethics question for my respected colleagues here at Webderland.
Now that I'm back in film school, I am often asked to give feedback on my classmates' writing. Our screenwriting class is conducted entirely as a workshop. We read our material and the class provides feedback.
My question to you is, how do you respond when asked to give your opinion on a truly awful piece of writing? Especially if the person who wrote has turned in nothing but dreadful work all semester along AND that person seems to think she writes well.
I'm not talking about problematic scripts that can be salvaged. I'm talking about utterly hopeless material. Material that reflects a complete lack of even the most basic command of the format. Scenes which progress with no discernible logic. Characters whose personalities shift in mid-stream. Dreadfully dense action which describes every little step or movement the characters take.
When you hear something that you think is without a single redeeming feature, what is the ethical way to respond?
The teacher seems to be taking a supportive approach, pointing out problems but, essentially, telling everyone their material is good. My opinion is that if the teacher does not take the lead, it is inappropriate for me to be too blunt in my reaction.
But am I being dishonest? I'm not talking about going up to someone out of the blue and saying "Your writing is awful." I'm talking about how to respond when directly asked for an opinion in an environment where we are supposed to give honest feedback.
I'm talking Vogon Poetry here, people. Not even coherent on the most basic level. Non-writing, essentially. Should I keep trying to "be constructive" or should I be brutally frank?
No, not that kind of Frank. The other kind of frank. :)
Cindy,
"Okay, I'm a Republican. "
At the risk of getting too redundant, then, allow me to remind you what you, in all probability, have helped usher in:
...another massive welfare check to the wealthy (in a time of deficit, and after the surplus was given away); the overturning of Roe V. Wade; cuts in the schools, universities and financial aid; the banning of stem cell research; destruction of social security; empowerment of the NRA lobby; increasing unemployment; a rift more massive than ever between rich and poor; devastation of the environment...just to name a few of the goodies to come.
...not that I want to show you any ingratitude for it all...but if I ever spot you and Todd walking across the street...I'M flooring the accelerator.
CHUCK YOU WROTE:
Cindy,
"Glad to hear your film is finished. Loved the outline. I hope your film makes it onto some experimental showcase sometime. Good thoughts to you on the competition."
You are a sparkler, Chuck.
A true gentleman.
I didn't get to go to the screening in Austin but I sent my harshest critic, my mom. She said the audience howled at the Bandboy's " Are YOU talkin' to ME?" scene. She said they laughed uproariously in all the right places and they actually CHEERED at the ending.
And noooooooo not because it was OVER. It was SUPPOSED to be a stirring moment. Of course they WERE screening it at the Alamo DRAFTHOUSE which means they were all probably schickered-- but I am STILL on a cloud.
They will be screening it again tomorrow...oops tonight I guess.. it's already one twenty am. I probably won't make it but it would be fascinating to see my film on a big screen with a live audience.
i ALSO enjoy going to the 48 hour film website and gazing at my team name and film title there.
CHECK IT OUT and see if it gives you the same warm fuzzies.
http://www.48hourfilm.com/austin_screenings.htm
:)
The easily entertained,
Cindy
JAY!
Thank you for asking! I would LOVE to see your film. I will see if I can get a copy of mine into some form that can be shipped. So far it's on my computer only.. and on the mini DV that I sent off to the competition.
WE ALL WANT TO SEE PICTURES OF THE BABY!!!!!!!
Hi to your Pammie!
:)
yer pal,
Cindy
NOW SOMEBODY HELP ME.. MY MEMORY SEEMS TO HAVE SHORTED OUT.. which one of you said that his brother worked on the Philadelphia 48 hour film project? I can't find that post and I wanted to respond!!! I asked Liz, one of the organizers and she said they had just come from Philidelphia and she asked what the title of their film was. YOu SHOULD participate if you get the chance it is a kick in the head! Although the last few hours are rough if you are a greenhorn with the editing software and running short on time.I did figure it out in the end though and I felt an enormous sense of relief and accomplishment. I felt even better when I heard that the audience liked it. I had imagined how it would feel to have my twisted humor met with icy stares and silence.
NOW REMIND ME!!!!!!!
FAISAL,
YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!! YOU WITH YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS STACKING UP LIKE CORD WOOD. I am DELIGHTED by your much deserved successes.
I know this is only the beginning.
:)
Cindy
Uncle Will,
You rock. You really do.
:)
Your fan,
Cindy
Alex Jay Berman,
Your Kay Bailey Hutchison remark made me laugh... but Feinstein! EEEEEeeeyyyyouuuuuuuuuuu. If you want to know the truth I'd bet you ten dollars to ten cents Mexican money that if we knocked their heads together we'd end up with a cloud of nasty stale old dust, cobwebs steeped in antiquity, a couple of anemic spiders and no original thoughts.
I'd rather have a couple of firey old men in those seats than those two tired old cows. One belongs in a cryogenic capsule-- which she could keep cold on her own as long as she kept her yapp shut... and the other in a supermarket with a big floppy brimmed hat, a long dress and a shopping cart.
I did agree with your last sentiments entirely.
Cindy
That's "franchise". Never could master that "a".
Now, all you folks cheer up. I can see your trepidations over the "runaway stagecoach" and who's driving. But, as I have said before, there is no more independence in politics than there are in jail. They are always yapping about "Public Service". It's public jobs they are after.
This country runs IN SPITE of parties. In spite of the everglades voting with the alligators.
And now, a blast from the past, courtesy of the "The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same" department:
November 7, 1928
FOR SALE - Would like to sell, trade, dispose of or give away to right parties franchise of what is humorously known as Democatic Party. Said franchise calls for license to enter into national elections; said right or frinchise is supposed to be used every four years, but if intelligent parties had it they would let various elections go by default when understood they had no chance.
If in right hands and only used in times when it had an "issue" or when Republican Party had split, think it could be made to pay, but present owners have absolutely no business with it. Under present management they have killed off more good men than grade crossings have. Address Roscob, back at Chevrolet workshop.
--Will Rogers
For indeed, they are all...honorable men.
CINDY: Sorry; consider me uncharmed. I think of Trent Lott as a evil little pinprick who is only slightly better at concealing his contempt for the electorate than was Gingrich. The mere fact that he has DeLay as his second is substantiation enough of that. As for Daschle and Gephardt? Eh. They're passable. Not great, not horrible, though I would really have liked them to have consistently shown backbone. And Richie needs to grow some damned eyebrows, or at least get his wife to show him the wonders of Maybelline.
In my perfect world, the Republicans would have as their leaders McCain, Bunning, Thompson, Campbell, and Warner in the Senate, with Weldon and a few others whose name escapes me in the House. I may not agree with these guys that often, but I respect them and believe them to be honorable men.(*)
And don't you think it just a LEETLE indicative that there are only two female Republican Senators? (Hutchison doesn't count; hell, gender aside, I'm not even all that sure she's HUMAN.)
As for the Dems, I'd want in charge Feinstein, Kerry, Harkin, Domenici, and Baucus, with a whole lot of good candidates in the House (I miss Borski already).
Oh yeah; in my perfect world, Heinz and Wellstone would never have crashed (nor would Stevie Ray or the four planes of September 11th, but that way lies sadness).
(*) Okay, fess up; how many of you started quoting from JULIUS CAESAR just then?
Todd Cassel (TheDoh@prodigy.net) NJ USofA - Wednesday, November 6 2002 18:19:10 wrote:
"I haven't been checking in much lately since my move to Arizona and the new job have me running around, but I just had to sign in on this day-after-election to say:
Hiya Frank!
Love, Todd"
ROFLMAO!
L.
Another Republican wades into the shark infested waters...
Okay, I'm a Republican. I think there are good things and bad things about the party... uh, my party. Same with y'all. You all do your stupid things like making that bitch Tom Daschle your majority leader... and we do our stupid thingss.. like insisting that every Amerikin needs an assault weapon if hay woents wun.
Bottom line on this is that now it's in OUR laps. If we fuck up the country we can't blame it on those Goddam Democrats who refused to listen to reason... OUR reason. The buck stops here. I voted for all of this.
If you want the REAL truth... and I'll betcha this is the WHOLE reason the Republicans made that broad swath yesterday. MOST Americans either openly or covertly just could NOT abide another instant of that prig Tom Daschle and his evil aptly named twin sister Dick Gephardt. Nope uh uh, could NOT STAND the idea of either of their faces on Meet The Press after this election if the Dems picked up a seat or two. I wonder how many others had the same reaction to them.
I did vote for a few Democrats but none who would help tweedle dick and tweedle dork.
Can y'all as Democrats really stand Daschle and Gephardt?
There is just no tellin' how many of y'all jumped ship secretly to rout them out out and be done with them. AND how can ANYBODY not be charmed by Trent Lot? I smile at his good fortune and I laugh at Daschle, once more reduced to the ranks of the regular enlisted.
Still, I do not gloat... we've bitten off a chunk that's large enough to choke a horse and we now find ourselves in the driver's seat of a runaway stagecoach. Now that we have it what the hell do we do with it?
Ah yes.. be careful what you ask for Cindy, for you will surely have it.
Seriously, y'all know I love you all-- Dems dough you may be.
All of y'all's pal,
Cindy
ELECTIONS: I'm not going to say I wasn't surprised by any of this. When it became obvious that the Democrats were running campaigns based on vagaries and insubstantialities, afraid to paint themselves as against our Noble Leader and his Noble War(s), the outcome became clearly ordained.
Not that I think it'll make much of a difference in the way the country is run, save for bleeding the economy at a faster pace (unless you're rich)--the Dems were already beginning to cave faster than France in wartime (The late Senator Wellstone being a notable exception).
I only had three races to vote for, here in Pennsylvania--governor, U.S. Rep., and State Rep.--and am happy to see Teflon Eddie heading to the Governor's seat, even though only the Congressional race was the only one with any uncertainty, in the main because the Republican candidate (who should be well ashamed of herself) ran a thinly-veiled racist and classist campaign deeply into the negative, with very little regard for the truth. Thinly-veiled, racist, classist, negative--and very damned nearly successful. Mark me; I have almost never voted all the way down the ticket (except for few-race elections like this one), but this race really soured me on the local Republicans.
(It's an interesting sidenote: Democrats had better hope that this state of undeclared but loudly-trumpeted "war" had better end within the next year and-a-half; after all, NO sitting President has ever lost an election while the country was on a "war" [police action, conflict, whatever] footing.)
For those of a more liberal slant, take this small consolation: The more oppressive the government, the better the quality of art which comes out from under the bootheel. Also realize that the conservatives, having now firmly entrenched themselves in power, will, in elections to come, have to run off their achievements rather than painting themselves as "outsiders" or noble crusaders against those who keep thwarting the *koff* will of the people.
(And yes, Todd; I AM using the labels "Democrats" and "Conservatives", if only due to the fact that the Democrats who, for the most part, ran this time around were not very liberal at all [nor much of anything else--such was their problem], and the Republicans who ran were almost to a man [woman, in the case of Elizabeth Dole and others], sharply to the right of "moderate".)
(Anyone wanna take bets on Todd's identifying himself, in attitude if not in registration, as "libertarian" within four years? In terms of politicans in office, after all, familiarity breeds disgust.)
And damn; though I'd never been to Ellay, Dangerous Visions was a place I'd certainly have visited. Still, we have the consolation that the Covers will keep plugging away as an electron-based storefront, so that's something, at least.
(And can someone tell me why no L.A. Magazine-type place has done a piece on the lives of married writers/bookstore owners using D.V. as a subject, with the title "Between the Covers"? Hell; I'd do it myself if I could get out to Cali to take the necessary pics and could be guaranteed a magazine sale ...)
.....no offense to all of my other depressed pals on the board today, Frank just happens to be my very special friend.
Don't fret: you know that nothing really changes anyway. Doesn't matter who is in charge, the differences in our life are minor. If you hate the way the country is going, it ain't gonna change drastically to please you regardless of who is in office. If you love the way the country is going, the only thing to shoot you down will be events in your personal life.
Tax cuts. Tax hikes. Abortion. Health Care. Social Security. Bla bla bla bla. Vote for your philosophy, but watch the country continue to creep along slower than a molasses filled tortoise. Make what you can of your life, don't wait for Congress or the White House or even the Supreme Court to make too much of a true change in your life.
Remember, Reagan was going to kill us all in a nuclear war and end abortion forever. Yeah. Sure.
The game has grown stale. I'm a Republican by philosophy (except for abortion and that Christian Right stuff that has nothing to do with Little Hebe Todd).....but it's really just a talking point. I live my life in my own way.....after all, I survived 8 years under Bill Clinton and ended up better than I was when he left, and now I've survived 2 years of George Bush's horrendous economy (yeah, his economy, uh huh) and surprise surprise I'm doing even better than I was when BillyBoy left. Hmmmm, must be I made my own life....not Billy, not George, not the 50-49-1 huge democratic senate, and not the big huge republican led senate that will be taking over shortly.
Bla bla bla bla.....Hey, Todd, you've been away so long, why not extend that?
Ciao. -TODD
I haven't been checking in much lately since my move to Arizona and the new job have me running around, but I just had to sign in on this day-after-election to say:
Hiya Frank!
Love, Todd
Enjoy, lovers of art:
‘I am the people—the mob—the crowd—the mass. Do you know that all the great work of this world is done through me? I am the workingman, the inventor, the maker of the world’s food and clothes. I am the audience that witnesses history. The Napoleons come from me and the Lincolns. They die. And then I send forth more Napoleons and Lincolns... Sometimes I growl, shake myself and spatter a few red drops for history to remember. Then—I forget. When I, the people, learn to remember, when I, the People, use the lessons of yesterday and no longer forget who robbed me last year, who played me for a fool—then there will be no speaker in all the world say the name: ‘The People’ with any fleck of a sneer in his voice or any far off smile of derision. The mob—The crowd—The mass—will arrive then.’
------ Carl Sandburg.
Chris L.,
For a site devoted to averaging out a movie's critics, try rottentomatoes.com. They show snippets from the reputable (for the most part) critics and show how many reviews are "rotten" versus "fresh." A film needs to have a 60% approval rating (say, 3 out of four stars) to be considered fresh. It's really interesting to look at when a polarizing movie like "Punch-Drunk Love" or "Magnolia" comes out.
Regards,
Joseph
Lynn -
Score another kill for the Borders and Barnes&Nobles of the world, huh? I'm glad a place like that could exist SOMEWHERE. Here in central PA, it'd be run out of business in less than a year.
Eric -
Yvonne Craig cruised through town within the last year. I missed her con, but my comic shop has a signed pic on the wall. Found out late that she had visited my store the night before the convention. But how do you express gratitude to a woman who is responsible for igniting the passions of manhood? Any attempt could be considered a felony, I think. And "I thought you brought great depth to your role as the green chick in Star Trek" would be a little too thick.
Cindy -
Will you get a copy of your movie for exhibition? I'd love a copy if you do. I'll send you ours. :)
REPUBLICANS RUN AMUCK - HIDE THE WIMMINS!
I really don't care. Higher interest and turnout than usual, we chose our fate as a nation. Let's see what happens. Rush Limbaugh was giddy today, as if he'd been sniffing ether and smashing empty dom perignon bottles over the backs of the homeless all night. Gloating about his 98.7% accuracy on the elections and referendum questions across the country.
Round here, ironically, we lost 20+ year veteran Republican Congressman George Gekas. His first real fight in a long time was due to district restructuring. He lost by 7,000 votes. By all rights, Gekas was a statesman of good character. But, I guess it was time for new blood.
Wow, anyone see the reviews on Femme Fatale, De Palma's new movie?
Talk about all over the board!
Yahoo gathers reviews and gives them their own letter grade. The first review is an A from Ebert who raves about the film. Right below Ebert's review, an F given by E Online.
James Berardinelli calls it easily one of the worst movies of the year. Two other critics give it A ratings. There are Ds, Cs, Bs.
Not that I think any letter or star ratings are important but they do show the variety of opinion. I have a standing theory that any film that produces such a diverse reaction must be worth watching.
The last film I remember getting such schizophrenic reviews was Dancer in the Dark though the reviews skewed more positively. And I think Dancer in the Dark is the best film of the last 5 years.
Guess I'm gonna have to go see Femme Fatale.
Frank,
You've never lived in Minnesota, I'm guessing. It's a liberal conservative state, capable of being incredibly thoughtful and compassionate people while simultaneously digging in their heels against any new ideas. Damn fine state, though.
Regards,
Joseph
Actually folks, we deserve the Republicans. Sometimes to make a bitter thing sweet one must endure some pain. And friends and neighbors, pain is around the corner--big time.
The sick thing is that the voters will act like it wasn't their fault later, when the country tanks. "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time" the voters will cry. This time we may very well learn from this horror. If we do not learn from this fuck-up then there really was no hope for us to begin with.
The same fucking people who elected Paul Wellstone elected Norm fucking Coleman! Does that make any sense? Liberal states vote in Republican Governers. And what the fuck is a Saxby Chambliss? Where do these crackers come from? He must have had the some father that named his other son Sue. Sheesh. This country needs an enema.
------------
Actually folks, we deserve the Republicans. Sometimes to make a bitter thing sweet one must endure some pain. And friends and neighbors, pain is around the corner--big time.
The sick thing is that the voters will act like it wasn't their fault later, when the country tanks. "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time" the voters will cry. This time we may very well learn from this horror. If we do not learn from this fuck-up then there really was no hope for us to begin with.
The same fucking people who elected Paul Wellstone elected Norm fucking Coleman! Does that make any sense? Liberal states vote in Republican Governers. And what the fuck is a Saxby Chambliss? Where do these crackers come from? He must have had the some father that named his other son Sue. Sheesh. This country needs an enema.
------------
>Yvonne Craig will forever be my first television crush. Purple tights and all.<
Jay, indeed, me too. I have a personalized autographed photo of Yvonne in my library, which I'm not ashamed to say I ordered from her on the Web.
Julie Newmar was too much for my dim suburban tweeny hormones at the time, so Batgirl had my heart. But then came Ginger on the Island, and I was truly lost. Later I came to appreciate Maryanne (and the even more appreciable possibility of BOTH), but then it was time to date, and life has never been so uncomplicated since...
"I hate that murderous Herzog. Giant red ants should piss into his lying eyes, penetrate his asshole, gobble his balls and devour his guts."
No, really, Klauss. Don't hold back. Don't be so goddamn shy. Tell us what you REALLY think.
Chuck
**at the danger of sounding pretentious myself, I've seen quite a lot of interviews with Werner Herzog, mostly about his collaborations with Klaus Kinski; and he comes across as a pompous, hypocritical ass. At least Kinski was honest about being an asshole, and he's a much better actor than Herzog is a director.**
Kinski was a great actor but Herzog may be the most brilliant director alive.
When I saw Burden of Dreams, I also thought Herzog seemed pompous. I was 22 then and I thought any artist who took himself too seriously was pompous.
Herzog is a brilliant man who takes his work very seriously. He talks unashamedly about art and ambition. Some people think this makes him pretentious or pomopous. I think it makes him a great artist.
Orson Welles would have been a pompous ass if not for the minor fact that he was a genius. Same goes for Herzog.
I also got the chance to meet Herzog in L.A. at the Egyptian. He was witty, gracious and blunt. He thanked everyone for liking his movies. He also told the moderator on a few occasions "Oh, no, that's a very silly question, can you please ask a better one?" I didn't find it pompous - I found it honest.
In a world where the greatest sin is to take yourself seriously, Herzog can be called pompous. If you think artists should be unafraid to strive for greatness and discuss it bluntly, you might find Herzog to be honest and interesting.
And nothing you can say about him is worse than what Klauss Kinski said:
"I hate that murderous Herzog. Giant red ants should piss into his lying eyes, penetrate his asshole, gobble his balls and devour his guts."
"Let's see the Democrats blame this one on Nader"
I agree. When you're lame you're lame. The prevailing argument is the Democrats did not get a clear message out. What message did they HAVE to get out? Voters - seeing where the economy is heading - the surplus completely shot to hell - much of it having gone to corporate welfare checks - SHOULD have known on their own cognizance what was at stake (and when YOU people are eating shit down the road...you remember why. That goes for you Republican voters too). MUST the blind ALWAYS need a guide? The American population has a terminal learning disability.
If there is any virtue to be found in this bleak outcome it is that when things in the country get out of control Bush and the Republicans will not be able to blame one thing on the Democrats or anyone else. Much more is at stake for them now.
...I just want to be able to survive it.
Just saw "Spirited Away" and was blown away. Wonderfully surreal, imaginative and beautiful.
Frank, you were right. I thought you were just being cynical and fatalistic, but there you have it...
Joseph,
ILLINOIS?!!!
...yeah. YEAH! SHIT, baby - WE got it MADE!!
Now the Crats have enough power to get that road repair done on Maple Street, there on the East End of Chicago! W00-W00000!
(In this chapter of THINGS TO COME you take what you can get).
Gunther,
"Herzog...he comes across as a pompous, hypocritical ass."
Well, at least I'm not hypocritical. MY pomposity is KOSHER.
Actually, I don't know much about Herzog...I saw him briefly once or twice talking about his work. I've only seen one of his films. Your comment was interesting. What did he do or say that was hypocritical?
ROB --
at the danger of sounding pretentious myself, I've seen quite a lot of interviews with Werner Herzog, mostly about his collaborations with Klaus Kinski; and he comes across as a pompous, hypocritical ass. At least Kinski was honest about being an asshole, and he's a much better actor than Herzog is a director.
(all in my opinion, of course)
David:
I just moved from Boston to Atlanta 5 months ago. Didn't know that Ave. Victor Hugo was closing. It was a fav of mine as well. I guess that's one less thing to look forward to when I return.
http://www.readsf.com/ (The Dangerous Visions Home Page)
As if my Wednesday could get anymore shitty.
L.
BRIAN:
If there was ever any film in existence that made me want to scream to the heavens, "WHY?!", it was Burton's pile of excrement. I will never forgive Tim or 20th Century Fox for that experience. Ever. After Burton said "It's not a remake, it's a re-imagining," for the 7,547,6189th time, I wanted to bash his punk-ass head against a bathroom wall. So, yes, many bad vibes there.
My frustration really stems from what COULD have been done with this wonderfully wacky material. Why on earth didn't they set the story in a modern, twisted reflection of our own world, like in Pierre Boulle's original novel? There would've been great oppurtunity for Swift-esque satire all OVER the place.
But nope. Instead we get Estella Warren's colossal lips and Mark Wahlberg's impression of a living mannequin. Dumb bastards.
Sad to hear about Dangerous Visions. I was really hoping to visit it when I finally visit LA in the next few years.
Rob,
Republicans getting you down? Feeling put down by "the man?" Well, move to Illinois! The Democrats took almost everything last night (not surprising, as the GOP in Illinois is crashing and burning).
Regards,
Joseph
Sorry to hear "Dangerous Visions" is closing. Never got in there (I stay away from LA because I regard as bad for my health), but it sounded like a great place. I am in mourning, instead, for another one of Ellison's faves: the Avenue Victor Hugo bookstore in Newbury Street in Boston. Harlan did the writing-in-the-window thing for them, more than once, I think; and other fundraising efforts. The big black-and-white photo of Da Man at his Olympia on my Web site was taken at a benefit reading for the AVH.
I bought many of my early Ellison books and recordings at the AVH. It closes down at the end of this year.
Regarding "I just wanted to lose my mind and have fun" movies, I plan to see "Seven Samurai" on the big screen tonight: a Kurosawa festival starting up in town. It'll be probably about my seventh or eighth time for this movie; I have it and most of the others in the festival on VHS at home, but it's nice to see them again on the big screen now and then.
Okay, the elections. I'm waiting to hear the Democrats try to blame this mess on Ralph Nader.
Re movies. My housemates rented the remakes of _Planet of the Apes_ and _The Time Machine_ this week. _The Time Machine_ was just blah: they had the effects to do a tremendous time-travel sequence, and it was done semi-well, but that seemed to be the only reason to make the damn thing.
But _Planet of the Apes_... I never regarded the original as a classic, but it looks like David Lean next to Tim Burton's version. The desolation of the first twenty minutes, the fates of Heston's crewmen, and that wonderful ending worked wonderfully. Despite a lot of ridiculous elements, you knew that _adults_ made that movie. In this one, the first ten minutes is merely an excuse to plunge the character into the land of wacky production design, he gets chased around a bit, and there's a goofy ending that's scarcely a patch on the original's iconic twist. Matter of fact, I wasn't even impressed by Rick Baker's work; didn't he do apes a lot better in _Greystoke_? This wasn't made by adults. It was made by twelve-year-olds who'd spent way too much time in front of their Playstations.
They could have used that money to alleviate starvation in Rwanda.
ROB:
"The teacher's mistake - I believe - was not showing them "bad" movies in conjunction with great ones, to give them a well-rounded understanding of the tricks, from character to editing."
This is where my Hitchcock proffessor really hit a goldmine. Before showing us the likes of SHADOW OF A DOUBT and REBECCA, he gave us a screening of one of Hitchcock's 'failures', NUMBER SEVENTEEN. It was a strange, goofy, and ultimately irrelevant movie, and yet interesting nonetheless. It added a nice touch of humility to the subject in class, which I'm always grateful for. I prefer the failures of the 1930's as opposed to today's BATMAN & ROBINS and BATTLEFIELD EARTHS.
CHRIS L, re 2001:
What can I say? The public's attention span is getting shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter and...
...huh? What was I talking about? Oh, the commercial's over. Never mind.
If REPUBLICANS taking over the country's seats of power weren't a sure sign of THE END OF DAYS, then Ellison's being robbed of a rightful award last Sunday (a World Fantasy for THE ESSENTIAL ELLISON) and the closing of the "Dangerous Visions" bookstore on Nov. 10th confirms it.
--DTS
Rob,
Thing is, SOME of them are bright and enthusiastic but they're not given any encouragement to really STUDY film. I don't think there's much realization that this is a subject that must be studied, however you choose to study it. Orson Welles screened STAGECOACH repeatedly while shooting Citizen Kane. Kubrick spent many days at the cinema - he called the theater his very own laboratory.
With the ubiquity of video and DVD, there's no excuse not to study the medium, even those boring old fart movies. But the school needs to do a better job of telling the students that "Hey, if you wanna be the next Wes Anderson or David Fincher or David O'Russell, you better get off your ass and go watch Taxi Driver, M, The Passion of Joan of Arc and Breathless because watching Taxi Driver, M, The Passion of Joan of Arc and Breathless is going to give you a much broader database to draw from. Knowledge is power. Learn what has been done with this medium so you can figure out for yourself what CAN be done with this medium."
I mean, Last Year at Marienbad - my goodness. What a revelation that movie was for me. I thought "I never knew you could do that with a movie." I take notes all the time on the movies I watch. I watched Michael Mann's _The Jericho Mile_ the other day and there's one shot in there in which Mann lingers for a seeming eternity on Peter Strauss' face while the other character (who are deliberating his fate) keep talking. The shot stays on Strauss and stays and stays and stays and we see him looking at the people talking off-screen and looking and looking. And I was leaning forward in my seat, waiting for that cut to come and waiting and waiting and... damn, did that work well. A seemingly minor thing but I will always remember it. Maybe if you're a mutant genius, you can figure that all out on your own. If you're not, you just need to watch as many movies as possible.
Heck, even a mainstream guy like Spielberg says he watched 2 or 3 movies a day and studied them.
I know, I'm ranting.
These are good kids here and some are curious. The ones who aren't though - they worry me. I want to help. I want them to know what an exciting world of film sits out there waiting for them. But I keep running into this combination of apathy and ennui. They get wrapped up in shooting their films and in watching the most recent release at the multiplex and, well, those old movies just take a back seat.
I know, I'm ranting. It's either this or finish writing my script for tomorrow.
"But I think I was born to be a critic "
Great, Chris, great. YOU had to be the one who was born to be a critic; I had to be the one who was born to be a film maker. We'll wind up outside the marquee one day beating each other's head in.
Seriously, though. You did shock me. These guys hadn't even seen 2001? These guys didn't wanna see "old movies"? These guys don't even know who David Lean was? I mean, what the fuck CAN I say? I'm speechless. You didn't mention which school we're discussing here, but even at Cal State, I heard a student recently wax enthusiastic about METROPOLIS (as well as topics in art, Van Gogh in this case). And Herzog's right; it was a point I attempted to make with Alex: you don't have to be in film school to be a film student. But in either case, if you're GOING to be a student you need to fully appreciate the medium and its history.
The irony is, they sound so lame and dopey I doubt they grasp that some of the movies they DO appreciate - maybe something by Tim Burton or Scott's BLADERUNNER - draw visual inspiration directly from many old films reaching back to the silents. That's what it's come to: to be original you turn to the past. How are you going to be "original", then, if you don't know what was made in those days. Make THAT point to the White Zombies. It might be something they never considered. But first remind them that they're REALLY stupid.
Greetings from Florida (Now owned & operated by the Bush Dynasty)
Amazon.com now sells clothes hmm any chance we can fix their website to link to http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=webderland
Would'nt that be lovely!
Random thoughts:
Republicans win it all so 20 Jan new congress meets.
21 Jan invade Iraq
22 Jan declare Saudi Arabia "Our best buddies in the Middle East"
23 Jan President Bush blames sinking economy on all Evil doers that are NON Republican party members.
24 Jan NRA membership is required to buy or own a gun.
Rob,
We have a weekly Film Society screening run by two younger students and I give them credit for trying to pick some representative films by the "masters." The problem they have is that they just don't know much. That's OK, of course - everyone has to start learning some time and at least they are eager to learn but when most of the students in a film school haven't something as "exotic" as Taxi Driver, I just know there's a lot of work to do. 8 1/2 did play to our largest crowd - about 20 students - but it didn't go over well.
I find the mention of names like Bunuel, Herzog, Fassbinder and even David Lynch draw mostly blank stares. My own unscientific poll tells me that 2 out of 3 students here have never seen 2001!!! And most of the ones that did seem to think it "was probably pretty good when it came back but now it just seems too slow." ARGH!
So who is to blame? When I was 21, I hadn't seen most of these movies either. The students who don't want to see any of the "old" movies have to be held accountable but what about the eager ones who are given no encouragement. Outside of our Film Studies class, the school doesn't provide even the slightest hint of the rich history of the medium, the notion that film is a grand tradition. That cool movie you saw last year didn't spring out of thin air but is part of an ongoing process of experimentation and discovery.
The school does nothing to pass on this notion, treating the process very much as a trade school. I think this shows what we think of film in America. We don't consider it art. We consider it an industry. We train our musicians and artists in conservatories. Our filmmakers learn their craft the same way auto mechanics do.
I try hard to share my enthusiasm for the medium but I grow increasingly frustrated with the lack of reception. I just don't know how anyone can hope to produce quality work if they don't know the history of the field they have chosen. I don't mean that you have to go to school to learn film. Good grief no! Herzog says film is not the work of scholars and I agree. But the auto-didacts of the world like Stanley Kubrick or even Robert Rodriguez still saw a shitload of movies. Sure, you learn by doing but you also learn by watching what others have done.
How can you hope to be a good filmmaker when you don't even know who friggin' David Lean is?
On the bright side, I can see a place for me to contribute to the world. I doubt I have the talent or discipline to be a good film maker or screenwriter. But I think I was born to be a critic (I mean, a real one, not an "It's the E-ticket ride of the summer!" critic) and I sure have the enthusiasm for it. I just don't know if I can put up with the almost total lack of interest I'd be confronted with on a daily basis.
Chris,
"We screened Fellini's _8 1/2_ and all they could talk about was how "pretentious" it was. Werner Herzog? Most people never heard of him but those that do tend to say "I don't know, he just seems so pretentious."
Maybe it was because of the school I was in or maybe it was several years ago and the slightly younger generation has dumbed down, but, fortunately, when I was in film school we didn't HAVE this problem. We ran Bunuel, Cocteau, Renoir, Truffaut and so on. The whole class had an intelligent response. And this was undergrad. If anything, some, I think, tried to "over-absorb", if you will; so that when they had to make a film they'd try to BE "artsy" without understanding the art: the results were godawful. I don't think I've ever seen a student film I've ever liked (excluding anything that achieved national release). The teacher's mistake - I believe - was not showing them "bad" movies in conjunction with great ones, to give them a well-rounded understanding of the tricks, from character to editing.
At any rate, the students you had to listen to were fucking lame. It pissed me off reading about that. Let's what it's like when I go back to that environment. I may have to get rough with 'em.
Chuck,
My ex-girlfriend was a devotee (and still is, more or less) of sf shows like the Trek franchise, Babylon 5, Farscape (ugh), Stargate (UGH!!), and so on.
A few years ago she and I laid there together, snuggling, and watched the 8 LIS episodes I referred to earlier. She loved 'em; she loved Smith (he was lovable, I was lovable...we were all lovable). I refused to show her any episodes beyond these; they were solid adventure with heart and substance, visually wonderful. I didn't want her to see how stupid the show became afterward. But a couple years past and she DID spot an episode or two from a later season. She said, "I see what you mean", yet was astounded by HOW different Harris was from his earlier incarnation. She didn't like those later shows any more than I did ("it's too bad," she concurred) but acknowledged the actor's colorful range. She remains fond of the first few episodes as I do.
I grew up on the reruns in the 70's, a time the show was ubiquitous (along with Trek, Twilight Zone and Batman).
You're probably aware that Harris did two Twilight Zones and co-starred in three seasons of the 50's tv series version of The Third Man, with Michael Rennie (Day the Earth Stood Still). The latter I've never seen; I believe it was run on cable occasionally.
Incidentally, Bill Mumy tells a few good stories too about his days as a child actor (one of the most talented in the tube's history), particularly when he was on the blunt end of Hitchcock's psychopathic sense of humor.
Chris, I agree about the lack of seriousness among many people, especially would-be artistes. Pretentious isn't talking about the works of Herzog; pretentious is trying to find deep meaning in superhero comics and action-adventure movies. And the people I was referring to aren't creators; they pick apart the efforts of other people while contributing nothing of their own.
**I was making the point that the cult of postmodernism has taken over to such a degree that even clerks from 7-11 practically take notes at screenings, watching with such a critical eye that it drains the experience of every last drop of fun. I want to say to them, "You're making five-fifty an hour; you ain't the next Kurosawa." It's the pretension that bugs me.**
We probably aren't disagreeing as much as I make it out to be but you're pushing one of my buttons so I'm gonna rant a little bit.
Since I returned to film school as one of the older students, I think the number one word I hear thrown around by the younger students fresh from undergrad is "pretentious." They're terrified of any film which seems "pretentious."
We screened Fellini's _8 1/2_ and all they could talk about was how "pretentious" it was. Werner Herzog? Most people never heard of him but those that do tend to say "I don't know, he just seems so pretentious."
Any film that tried to do anything other than just poke fun of itself, anything other than to merely entertain apparently qualifies as "pretentious." As if it was a sin to dare to be great. As if the most unforgivable crime a filmmaker could ever commit is to take his work seriously.
If that's pretentious, then I'm all in favor of it. Be pretentious. Try your best. Try to make something beautiful. And if you fall flat on your ass, at least you tried.
...well, it seems to be Redneck Night for the country: I think the only people who got out there to vote are those who look forward to another massive welfare check to the wealthy (in a time of deficit, and after the surplus was given away); the overturning of Roe V. Wade; cuts in the schools, universities and financial aid; the banning of stem cell research; destruction of social security; empowerment of the NRA lobby; increasing unemployment; a rift more massive than ever between rich and poor; devastation of the environment...just to name a few of the goodies to come.
Yeah....YEAH! Y'hear them there Winchesters goin' off in the White House? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEhaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!
And to those who didn't vote or decided to throw your vote away...thank you, our good friends, thank you. We'll soon find out just how much damage you really did.
...I just hope I survive it.
Chris: The "gee-gosh-wow" factor doesn't have to be an explosion or a well-crafted CGI sequence. It can be a nuanced conversation that cuts to the heart of the human condition, a characterization that brings you to tears, or a visual that makes the whole moviegoing experience seem fresh again. I was making the point that the cult of postmodernism has taken over to such a degree that even clerks from 7-11 practically take notes at screenings, watching with such a critical eye that it drains the experience of every last drop of fun. I want to say to them, "You're making five-fifty an hour; you ain't the next Kurosawa." It's the pretension that bugs me.
A movie like "Belle du Jour" lends itself to such discussions. SPIDERMAN, no matter how well-crafted, doesn't.
I was saw a dog.
The dog saw me.
he did nothing but p p p!
the i went home and screamed 4 icecream.
I was nice.
nnice 2 c u again.
Lots of love and
All my heart
and soul forever
TTFN C YA LATOR , ALIGATOR from me !!!
Y'know, I've never seen an episode of Lost in Space.
I don't remember it ever being rerun on any station I watched while growing up.
Cindy,
Glad to hear your film is finished. Loved the outline. I hope your film makes it onto some experimental showcase sometime. Good thoughts to you on the competition.
Ah, Johnathan Harris. When I'd play Lost In Space with my childhood friends, I'd usually play Dr. Smith and the Robot. We always got the good lines. Of course, as a kid, I didn't come up with the robotic pejoratives that Harris did. Still, when I have trouble with my computer at home or at work, if the internet is down (again) or the network is down (again) I still quietly come up with, "You pathetic, half-witted calculator! You doddering, digital dope! You silicon simpleton! You nattering, clattering, nincompoop!" Then I feel better. For fifteen seconds.
I also remember going to a convention which I knew would include Harris as a guest. I had a feeling he had some good stories to tell. He didn't disappoint. From meeting Cary Grant, to trying to find out what a polish accent was supposed to sound like, to being hired as Chuck Norris' acting coach, (You think Norris is bad now? The way he described Norris in the daily rushes practically had us on the floor.) he had many good stories, and he told them well. A well-spoken, colorful raconteur.
Johnathan Harris also liked playing around with us, especially the photographers. Every time someone came up on his left with a camera, he say, oh so imperiously, "WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? IF YOU'RE GOING TO PHOTGRAPH ME, DO IT OVER ON MY RIGHT! THAT'S MY GOOD SIDE!" Nobody got away with trying to photograph him on his left. A fun, funny man.
Chuck
Oh, yes. My state is turning a little more republican tonight. Sigh.
ELECTION NIGHT:
Gotta give the administration credit. They came up with the sales pitch of a lifetime. Vote for us unless you want the terrorists to kill your children.
How can you beat that? Fear sells. America votes for fear and security. ANY price for security. That has always been the case and it always will be.
Bowling for Columbine seems to be even more accurate in its depiction of the culture of fear.
Of course, there is a role for films which "merely" entertain. However, the excuse "it was just for fun" is often used to cover all sins.
We should be able to tell the difference between crappy diversionary entertainment and quality diversionary entertainment.
Dead Alive is great diversionary entertainment. Lord of the Rings is very good diversionary entertainment.
Independence Day is a piece of shit. Planet of the Apes (2001) dreams of being a piece of shit when it grows up.
Just labeling a film as entertainment does not render it immune to criticism or analysis.
As for Spider-Man, I remain conflicted. At first, I didn't like it. I saw it again and I kind of liked it. I think this reflects the quality of the film - the first half is pretty good with some surprisingly well-drawn characters. The second half is pretty bad with the worst special FX ever made on a big budget and some truly awful and uninvolving action sequences.
I think it is valid, however, in a world where 19 out of 20 films come with the label "Hey, it's just a movie, relax" to ask that we hold films to a higher standard.
Quite honestly, I'm sick of hearing people say "I just wanted to have some fun for a change" because that's what they say about EVERY FUCKING movie they go to see. All they EVER want to do is shut their brains off and watch some mindless piece of shit.
Christ, here in L.A., Herzog's new film only stayed in theaters for one week. This is Werner fucking Herzog we're talking about - possibly the greatest living director!!! And his film doesn't even get play in L.A.
OK, I'm ranting but I've been without phone service for four days (gotta love those California utilities) so I have much pent-up rage.
**I think if you're going to pursue an art, yes, you should be able to think critically and have a grasp of technique, but if you lose the gee-wow-gosh wonder factor, you lose sight of what made you want to create in the first place. **
That is, of course, if you think "gee-wow-gosh" is the proper litmus test for whether or not a film is good. I am turned off by the directors who so consciously strive for these "gee-gosh-wow" moments. The directors who want to "blow you away", the directors who want to "wow you." Spielberg is far from the worst director in the world (very far) but he's guilty of these indulgences and his elaborate set-pieces put me to sleep.
I don't want anyone to try to wow me. I don't find strippers sexy at all. Even a pretty woman who gets up on stage and starts flingin' her things around becomes much less sexy. I feel the same way about directors - again, Spielberg leaps to mind. A hell of a talented guy who so desperately wants to shake his money maker and make everyone get all bug-eyed.
ELECTION NIGHT OBSERVATION: Watching the results come rolling in, seeing the Republicans moving toward gains in the Senate and a possible "political trifecta" (Presidency, Senate & House), and having watched Jeb Bush give a victory speech after being introduced by his daddy, well...it occured to me that when Harlan puts the finishing touches on BLOOD'S A ROVER, he should change some wording in the section now known as "Eggsucker" (published in Ariel, 1977). That's the story in which Blood is having Vic recite the Presidents. And Vic ticks them off: Turman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Brown, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy...(Vic forgets Ford because everyone always does). Anyway, I think Harlan should of course update the list to include the names we now know should be there, but also the ones I'm dreading will BE there in the future. At Blood's prompting, Vic should answer: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon (forgetting Ford, of course), Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush...
...'Cause I get the feeling that most people will be more than happy to elect good old Jeb after Dubya is done screwing up the country. God (or whoever is in charge) help us all.
--DTS
P.S. For a real eye-opener where Dubya is concerned, catch "Journeys With George" if you have HBO
BRIAN: I capitalized "he" to show emphasis, forgetting the use we put it to for our patron author's acronym.
I would have liked to have seen the show you mentioned; Charles Nelson Reilly is a favorite of my best friend and I--we'll often watch the reruns of "The Match Game" on the Game Show Network when I'm over his place, and Reilly and Richard Dawson are always standouts.
A big part of the fun in watching that show is watching how schikkered the guests and Gene Barry, the host, would get; how far into bawdiness they'd descend (though with that group, it was more often an AScension). Some of the funniest weren't even regulars--pitcher Don Sutton was a howl, and we think the record for least sober celebrity guest was Shatner, who was gigglier than a schoolgirl, and virtually unable to speak.
(One of the things which lit up our days this past year was the discovery that Reilly was still alive; we had thought him long a member of the Choir Invisible--and did anyone know that he was stuntwoman/Bab5 actress/all-around cutie Patty Tallman's acting mentor?)
Alex Berman wrote:
"But I like Bill Mumy a lot; the man's got a lot of talent. I'm not sure if you know, but HE put in a proposal for a LiS film quite a few years before the stinkeroo was actually made. His concept was..."
Okay, was that "HE" merely a typo for "he," meaning Mumy, or did you mean _H_arlan _E_llison proposd an outline for _Lost in Space_?
Of course we all remember Jonathan Harris as Dr. Smith, but I have a odder memory. He was the the co-host of a 1970's Saturday morning TV show called "Uncle Croc's Block," which was a parody of saturday morning shows. Casting Charles Nelson Reilly as the show's actual host (Harris played the show's autocratic director) made it only slightly more queeny than _Hedwig and the Angry Inch_. Only lasted a year.
CHARLIE, CINDY, ROB, et al:
Thank you all for the kind words. I only wanted to do a little something for an actor who had portrayed a character that helped many a person repress their road rage by spitting out 'Smithisms' at their stubborn vehicles.
A busy highway full of people screaming "YOU MECHANICAL MAROON!"...a sight too rarely seen nowadays.
Washu,
One: I only realized what I'd just said after posting. "I spotted your LAST quote at the END." Not that I'm trying to deny I often spot your LAST quote at the BEGINNING...but I don't. Please change that brainless opener to, "I noted your LAST quote." Done and done. I didn't NOT take a grammar class for NOTHING!
Two: Only after my posting did I find the first part of my quote deep in the bowels of your grand list. But at least I put it all together the way it was originally fired off.
Jay,
As I once joked (but only halfway) to my wife, the day I discovered the difference between a girl and a woman was the day I went from Yvonne Craig in "Batman" to Susan Sarandon in "Bull Durham." Of course, I was sixteen when that movie came out, so draw your own conclusions....
Regards,
Joseph
Washu,
I saw your last quote at the end; I remember that one as an adjunct. The whole line went: YOU TIN-PLATED FRAUD! YOU WORTHLESS, ELECTRONIC SCRAP HEAP! (this was when he learned the means to fly the ship had not been programmed into the robot).
...the robot, a killing machine in the early shows, automatically responded to any question...even if it was merely colloquial (I mean he was a really fucked-up dude at this time, Smith having spun his discs too much)...after pointing out "the function of an environmental control robot is to provide data pertinent to this particular field"...
SMITH responds, "that is PRECISELY what is wrong with our civilization. EVERYONE is a SPECIALIST. Whatever happened to the Renaissance man?"
Naturally, the robot breaks into the history of the 'R' man: ..."a model of versatility...by the end of the 13th century...whose pursuits became increasingly specialized until...(blah-blah-blah)"
The robot at this time is thoroughly psychotic but his information was good. Smith just told him to "dry up".
Eric -
Yvonne Craig will forever be my first television crush. Purple tights and all.
- Jay
Eric,
The eternally wooden Glenn Corbett originally played Cochrane in METAMORPHOSIS and he was one of the reasons I disliked that TREK episode so much.
Alex,
Let me tell you one of many things that made the EARLY LIS episodes interesting (which were all tied together in a continuing storyline, bolstered by John Williams' music I should add). Elements that had made sf in movies and tv, before and after the series, which made things seem convenient and simplistic - such as aliens for some reason knowing English and space travelers chancing upon planets with a breathable atmosphere - were dispensed with: the Robinsons, here often arguing amongst themselves about what to do next, found communicating with aliens quite difficult, confronting beings who could only communicate through electrical impulses and had no bipedal humanoid features or were mute (one might guess them to be telepaths amongst their own species); and it was human actions that brought threats to the aliens, not the reverse: WE were the intruders. And finding a planet with a non-lethal atmosphere was devised by use of an advanced alien navigation system which charted planets according to relative mass ('course that wouldn't have REALLY found a planet so compatible, but at least it gave a rationalization for a problem that was never addressed in filmed sf). Our place in the universe and how we would conduct ourselves in it was approached as a big question mark, deliberately, in these early episodes. And I can tell you, that's because of the presence of two writers who would go on to Star Trek; they brought a short-lived intelligence to the series. So, my point is simply that the theme was treated with SOME intelligence at this point. As I said, it was very similar to ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS. I think it was a goddamn shame the series went the way it did. And it's the reason - like other viewers - I find subsequent episodes unwatchable. I OFTEN think of this show in terms of its potential - what COULD have been done with it. Because it's a GREAT premise.
Lil' Washu, great list, I add: Bubbleheaded Booby and Neanderthal Ninny.
LI'L WASHU,
I'm with you. Dr. Smith was always my favorite character in Lost In Space. I was a kid but I thought he was hilarious and he never bored me. He is also the one that I remember the most keenly.
I confess that I loved Lost In Space when I was a kid. I also loved Star Trek, Batman, The Green Hornet and The Twilight Zone.
Jonathan Harris is part of my childhood. I was a latchkey kid in the sixties. My parents were divorced and it was rare in my neighborhood to have a single mom. Television was my harbor.
Lost In Space was a great source entertainment for me back then. I won't forget Jonathan Harris.
Cindy
Ladies and gentlemen of the Webderland, if I may deliver a single eulogy to exorcise the melancholy in my spirit:
Animated Hunk of Machinery! Animated Weather Station! Arrogant Automation! Assassin! Automated Oaf! Babbling Birdbrain! Babbling Bumpkin! Benedict Arnold! Big Mouth! Blithering Blatherskite! Blithering Booby!Blundering Bag of Bolts! Booby!
Brutish Product of the Mineral World! Bubble Brain! Bulbous Bumpkin! Birdbrain! Bumbling Bucket of Bolts!Bumptious Braggart!
Clod-Like Collection of Condensors!Computerised Clod! Coward!
Cybernetic Simpleton! Depolorable Dummy! Digitised Dunce! Elephantine Adam! Ferrous Frankenstein! Foolish Fop! Frozen Eskimo! Galumphing Gargoyle! Gargantuan Goose! Hard-Headed Harbinger of Evil!Hardware Hyaena!Idiot!Ignominious Ignormaus!Incompetent Idiot!Ingrate!Insensitive Brute! Jabbering Jackinapse! Judas! Juvenile Junkpile! Klunker! Know nothing Numbskull! Lead Lined Lump! Mealymouthed Rougue! Mechanical Meddler! Mediocre misfit! Mental Midget! Miserable Mass of Metal! Misshapen Mummy!Mechanised Misguided Moron!
Nicel-Plated Nincompoop! Obsolete Oaf! Overcautious Concoction! Parsimonious Puppet! Pedagogical Pipsqueak! Platacised Parrot! Pot Bellied Prankster! Presumptuous Popinjay! Primitive Pile of Pistons! Pusillanimous Pinhead! Ramshackle Romeo! Rusty Rasputin! Sanctimonious Scatterbrain! Sententious Sloth! Silly Sausage! Silver Plated Sellout! Snickering Cinderbox! Sorry Specimen of Computerhood! Tarnished Trumpet! Tattletale! Tin Plated Fraud! Tiresome Thesaurus! Traitorous Tin Plated Fugitive from a Junkyard! Treasonous Tyrant! Uncultured Clump! Ungrateful Wretch! Weakling! Worthless Electronic Scrapheap!
NINNY!!!!!!!
RIP - Jonathan Harris
Hey y'all,
I'm back!
I got my film finished and turned in just under the wire.
My film will be screened tonight at the Alamo Draft House in Austin.
It's the story of a 14 year old boy who believes himself to be the only thing between crime and the citizens of his small Texas town. His brother is a rugged former football player and model who comes home to discover that his younger sibling is a member of the band.
You cannot imagine his horror and disdain, after all THIS is Texas and football is king.
My favorite scene depicts the younger brother (who is slight and small for his age) by himself in his room looking into a mirror wearing an ornate band uniform and a large, plumed band hat looking at himself in the mirror echoing those famous lines;
" Are you talkin' to ME? Are YOU talkin' to MEE?"
It was great fun to make and while my editing skills leave a great deal to be desired in the end I was quite proud of our efforts. The most difficult part was refraining from laughing at crucial points in the boy's scenes.
I wish I could put it up some place so y'all could see it-- aside from the rough editing in spots, it's a trip. I probably won't stand a chance in the competition because I was competing against teams with 15 members and the wealth of the Austin film community for editors and crew-- but I'd stack my actors against theirs and I think my story is funny as hell.
:)
Cindy
Lift from Tom Hanks entry on celebritywonder.com:
>Originally considered for the role of Zephram Cochrane in STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT (1996).<
There's prolly more out there, but I don't care to find it. When you watch the Cochrane scenes, you can see that the character (jukebox dancer, jamming to Steppenwolf, hitting on Troi, etc) was written for a younger man with a certain goofy charm. This was Hanks all over before his big breaks, which came right around that same time.
Hey, they wanted Sean Connery for Drek V, as Reebok. They couldn't get him (he just plain said no), so they named the fabled planet after his compacted name...Sha-Ka-Ree. It's true, stupid, but true.
11th Commandment:
Thou shalt not impugn the viability of Yvonne Craig.
I was never a big "Lost in Space" fan. I had my fill of camp watching "Batman" and the man-sized veggies were too much even for my young sensibilities. (I can't imagine how Veggietales passes for kid entertainment.) As a viewer, I found Dr. Smith's mincing, snide and backbiting more irritating than anything. When, twenty years down the road, I saw his name on list after list of convention appearances, I thought it was too bad that this guy was being carted out (or carting himself out) as a relic from a bad TV show despite a career so much greater than his time in a spaceship on a colllison course with goofiness. Sitting between Grace Whitney, Lou Ferrigno, Yvonne Craig and other American television museum pieces I saw him only as a member of some "where are they now?" line up and nothing more.
Then I heard the man speak. What a gentle, well-spoken and funny man! What an amazing character! How generous he seemed with his fans! While others were tolerating the steady stream of autograph and photo seekers, he took time with people and chatted. What I heard was nothing about S/F or Lost in Space. He talked about THEM, asked the fans questions and engaged them as thought they were old friends he always knew were sitting on the other side of the glass teat watching him.
How wrong I was about it. Sorry I was too nervous to approach him.
ERIC: I'm not a Lost in Space fan--it was cute, it was campy, it was forgotten, to my mind.
But I like Bill Mumy a lot; the man's got a lot of talent. I'm not sure if you know, but HE put in a proposal for a LiS film quite a few years before the stinkeroo was actually made. His concept was that the Robinsons had all aged on their trek through the stars, and looked at it realistically. The pilot was married to the older sister and having an affair with the younger, and young Will was, in burgeoning adolescence, more lost in his own space than the others, trying to deal with feelings of sexuality he would never have an outlet for. It struck me as an intelligent and deep look at something which before had been looked at in the most shallow of terms.
Granted that it's three seconds from a "What was it REALLY like to live on Gilligan's Island?" joke, but it would have shown guts to take something like that and make it real.
Eric,
Tom Hanks? An interesting idea, but I greatly admire Cromwell's complex portrayal of Cochrane. I'll go with this as a lucky accident (if the Hanks story is correct; I feel skeptical that they would go with someone that pricey and notorious).
Regards,
Joseph
Barney, did you see One Hour Photo yet? See it if not, and Insomnia can be on your rental list if you haven't seen it as well.
----------
Michael Moore's last film, The Big One is a must rent as well. Worth it for the Phil Knight (Nike CEO) interview alone.
---------
I predict that the Republicans will loose both the House and Senate: You heard it here first.
You all need to go to MSNBC.com and look at the transcript of yesterdays Donahue. A discussion with Chris Matthews about the election turned into a stunning arguement about liberalism and patriotism. Matthews never looked so whiney, and Donahue never so tough.
Rob, well said...Harris seemed pretty "with it" as well. I remember when the LIS movie came out a couple years back and he was asked to be in it and was promised a "substantial role". He turned it down knowing that they would just edit his scenes out.
Rob, a fine eulogy for Harris (who did a great job on A Bug's Life: I should know, my four-year old watches it all the time)and an even finer accolade for a too-easily maligned tv show. I'm sure many of us remember David Gerrold's scathing comments about Lost in Space, made back in print in the early 70s when Gerrold was solidly in the Trek camp and agonizing over its treatment by the networks. Many of us turned our back on LOS with a short harumph from that moment onward.
Speaking of Billy Mumy, possibly the biggest sci-fi movie casting blunder was NOT giving him the role of the adult Will Robinson in the LOS movie. It was so obvious, and I kept trying to convince myself that it was indeed him (it certainly would have helped the movie.)
This ranks to not adjusting shooting schedules to get Tom Hanks as Zefram Cochrane, for whom that role was written (and you can tell that if you listen to Cochrane's dialogue). Hanks wanted to do it, but had conflicts, and the producers decided in the end to follow the tradition of not casting A-list guest stars. Thus we get James Cromwell, interesting but too old for the part.
Anyway, adieu Dr. Smith. Even when the show was silly, and you were running from giant cabbages, I thought you were great.
Speaking of voting and laziness, I've always regarded the push for term limits as a codification of voter laziness. After all, one can limit one's representatives' term in office simply by voting against all incumbents, either every election, or every other election.
But that doesn't happen, because a majority of voters usually vote for the incumbent, whether or not he or she spends big money on the campaign.
The only alternative is that supporters of term limits, while not lazy themselves, don't trust their fellow voters to educate themselves sufficiently to vote lousy incumbents out of office. (Just as I sense the underlying motivation for opposing death with dignity/physician-assisted suicide is a mistrust of one's relatives....)
They may well be right, but I STRONGLY oppose my right to vote for an effective and ethical incumbent as many times as I like.
By the way, this seems like a good time to trot out that Will Rogers chestnut:
"I'm not member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."
Cookie,
"The idea that one's vote is meaningless seems just an argument for laziness to me."
I totally agree; it's an argument for laziness OR a conditioning for it (which would be detrimental, handing decision power over the country's course to a small handful of assholes).
OOOhhhhhh, man! JONATHAN HARRIS: what an incredibly wonderful, inventive, diverse talent. Because of his fear of unemployment he grabbed a pencil, scratched out tired dialogue handed him in the LOST IN SPACE scripts, and improvised his way to immortality; using a robot (one of the finest designed anywhere) as one of the greatest foils in tv history, berating him with alliteratives, he gave great distinction to the meaning of "comic villainy". He could do with HAM no actor in television could possibly compete with. SMITH, a landmark character, ever ready to grab a 12-year-old kid and hold him as a human shield against some alien monster, was cowardly, desperate, charming, selfish, redeeming, despicable...influential on shows to follow (including STAR TREK: recall Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones). Moreover, Harris provided the schizophrenic rendering of TWO Smiths: a nefarious, darkly humorous, eloquent, murderous, gremlin-like saboteur with expertise in cybernetics, and a penchant for relentless verbal bullshit (to avoid the issue we're discussing, like "why you programmed the robot to kill us all!", for instance, he might go on about his gifts as a gourmand); and the subsequent comic version most came to remember. A testament to the actor's range. I was frankly wondering how long Harris would live: he seemed to go on forever, as proud, candid, and sharp-tongued as ever; he outlived one of my childhood heroes, the intelligent (and fine at his craft) but undeniably macho Guy Williams (Professor Robinson), who seemed too athletic and fit to die as early as he did.
I remain a fan of the first few episodes of LOST IN SPACE (several of which were written by two future STAR TREK writers). Those weren't "crappy" at all. This was the first regular running series about space treated with any sophistication (the dawn of man's colonization of deep space and desperate conditions on an over-crowded Earth, its hemispheres still competing for military power). The show, at its inception, was not the silly, juvenile romp it came known to be but a reach for a fairly broad audience (primarily teens); its thematic focus was SURVIVAL, sharing much in dramatic form with the 1964 movie ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS, with Paul Mantee. Both try to be convincing in the way they elaborate on the natural elements and weather cycles of their alien environments. BOTH, in this sense, were visually evocative. Both, in this sense, were unique; no where else in movies or tv was such an angle taken.
I highly recommend the first five episodes (the first two being a bit uneven; the last three quite solid) and three subsequent shows, THE SKY IS FALLING (a beautiful morality play), MY FRIEND, MR. NOBODY (by mystery writer Jackson Gillis, who later did the scripts in the original COLUMBOs), and INVADERS FROM THE FIFTH DIMENSION (by a STAR TREK writer, whose dialogue you actually must listen to carefully to follow what the aliens are really after, having been disingenuous about their motives; an interesting thought is offered, too, when the robot cannot accept the mathematics of the field the bizarre alien ship exists in and Robinson replies, "it takes the human mind to accept the impossible").
It always agonized me to see how quickly the series' quality plummeted into puerility after these episodes. It was a show laced with drama and great heart to become an inane, "crappy" kiddie romp (largely due to BATMAN camp). We take LOST IN SPACE for granted because we are all too familiar with its latter form. But from its inception it was one of the most original ideas tried in TV and quite sophisticated for 1965. The concept of combining SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON and man's colonization of space, and a small group lost in the vast desert of stars with damaged navigation capability - with the gremlin-like Smith along for the ride - provides endless possibilities. I was always left with notions about what this show COULD have been if it had kept the dramatic direction it began with. But I treasure the few good shows the series had to offer; I actually owe much creative inspiration to them. Along with THE OUTER LIMITS, THE PRISONER and STAR TREK (and BABYLON 5, as a matter of fact) they remain among my top favorite sf series ever. EACH was a landmark in its own way.
...I'm sure Bill Mumy - with whom I'm certain Harlan is personally acquainted as he was a regular on BABYLON 5 - can deliver a far better eulogy than I; but JONATHAN'S contributions and creativity will remain firmly in my heart.
BARNEY--
DARK WATER is by the guy who made RING. I've not seen it yet, but I've heard really good things about it. And yesasia.com has the DVD for $7.99 or so...
I'm tempted.
I voted last week: I live in Oregon, the vote-by-mail state. I don't know how we could make it any easier for people, and we're still struggling to make 50 percent turnout.
Television ads were about as stupid and mendacious as I've seen -- both on behalf of candidates I support and those I opposed. My wife did volunteer work in the campaign HQ of one of the gubernatorial candidates and was told by staff that the research they'd seen suggests about 40 percent of the voters make up their minds based on television campaign ads.
Democracy is too good for some people.
Barney:
I didn't recommend "Secretary" here yet? I enjoyed it a lot. Odd, off-beat film about a masoschistic young woman, fresh out of a mental hospital after a breakdown and still given to self-mutilation, who gives real life a shot by taking a day job and dating a dork from high school. Her new boss is a soft-spoken but sadistic attorney, and the two of them get into S&M games together. James Spader is terrific as the boss (as usual), but Maggie Gyllenhall is STUPENDOUS as the girl. A truly bravura performance of a difficult role: a simple, mousey girl who gradually comes to understand what she needs and goes out and gets it. The movie turns strangely tender and romantic at the end.
I've also enjoyed "Igby Goes Down" (though highly neurotic rich folks abusing one another is getting to be a bit of a tired formula), and of course "Bowling for Columbine," which after the initial hour of sturm und drang is surprisingly quiet and reasonable, though persistent.
I'm in complete agreement with the voters: vote. I vote because it's my right and my responsibility. Less than a century ago, people like me had NO right to vote. I have this fear that if enough folks don't vote, eventually it is a right that will be lost or curtailed. The idea that one's vote is meaningless seems just an argument for laziness to me. I'm frustrated that my candidate for NY governor most likely will not win, but his loss won't be due to the lack of my vote. That means enough.
I'll second Xanadu's comments, and add the words of Chicago's Mayor Daley: "Vote early--and often!"
I don't usually participate in the death watch on this board, since a week doesn't go by when someone involved in our common genres of interest doesn't pass away, but here's one that I felt HAD to be brought to attention:
>- Jonathan Harris, the flamboyantly fussy actor who portrayed the dastardly, cowardly antagonist Dr. Zachary Smith on the 1960's sci-fi show "Lost in Space," has died. He was 87. <
Yes, it was a godawful, crappy show, but who here didn't watch it? And the only reason it WAS worth watching was that fine trio of Will Robinson, the Robot, and Dr. Smith, whose very character we were supposed to have loathed was the only one we can really remember, perhaps even with fondness...
We filed the last brief in Harlan's case yesterday afternoon. We weren't very nice to AOL and its lawyers, although we did (showing great restraint) stop short of calling its position "intellectually challenged," even in lawyerspeak.
After some paperwork is done, I anticipate posting the briefs on our side--Harlan's principal and reply briefs, and the amicus briefs from the RIAA (except, of course, Warner) and BSA--on the website. I expect this to be early next week, in HTML format (they're long--Harlan's principal brief is 100 pages including mandatory appendix). I'll announce it here when it's done.
We now await the pleasure of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although it is possible that the Court would choose not to hold oral argument, it is extremely unlikely on a case like this. On the ordinary schedule, argument would be held in February or March 2003, probably in San Francisco but possibly in Pasadena. The decision will come down from around six weeks to as much as eighteen months after the argument. Even then, the losing side has the chance to request that the entire Ninth Circuit rehear the proceeding en banc (twelve judges instead of just three), or petition the Supreme Court to hear the matter. So it's not over yet by any means...
Barney,
I will second the opinion on Auto Focus. Great movie. And, also, somewhat amazingly, very...umm, moral(?). I mean, here was a 'family man' and given his exposure to fame and fortune, he acted like a kid in a candy shop and look what happened to him.
Greg Kinnear will get a nomination, by the way. You heard it here first. And Willem Dafoe was his usual creepy self. I don't think he was acting either. I think they just followed him around with a camera.
Carpy says no.
Despite any and all complaints I may have about the actual, physical process I stand next to Frank on this one...
Vote.
(Though I expect this is probably an unnecessary statement on this particular board, I am compelled to make it.)
Make it from your conscience, out of anger, to "make a statement" - whatever. As I have grown older (36, shortly) - I stand in awe of a system that voluntarily offers the people a chance to say something about how they are governed. It may seem like a silly waste of effort, but as Florida continues to prove - even in a national election, a single vote can make the difference.
Thank you.
Bern
{lifts soapbox, smashes it to kindling, and starts a small fire - it's starting to get COLD here in New York...}
Check out these artists:
One, a painter, of mostly watercolor:
http://www.shadowscapes.com
One, a photographer, who likes the nighttime photo:
http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dex
Both do some pictures worth a thousand words, to be sure. There's a lot of nice art in the world, to be sure.
Since everyone is recommending films around here lately, let me be the first to suggest you all go to SPIRITED AWAY. Yes, it's Japanime, but it's also one of the best animated features I've ever seen, with visual imagination that recalls Windsor McKay's best work. It's a children's movie that an adult will appreciate. Sure as hell beats RED DRAGON.
--Alex
Barney: Enjoyed "Auto-focus" and feel it's probably Paul Schrader's best work, right behind "Affliction." Similar thematic material, the decay of family, addiction, delusion, with sexual dysfunction (or deviancy) thrown in. "The Good Girl" was ok. I liked the performances, the general plot, but walked out of the theater underwhelmed. It's pretty bleak and depressing in the end. So is "Auto-focus" but it works on a higher level.
Since I cannot bring myself to talk about BHD or Clancy or Moore or Hannibal I was wondering if anybody has seen any of these films and would like to give me their input. I just need to get out of this Hollywood rut.
The Wild Dogs - Depressing movie about pornographic movies and trafficking.
Rabbit Proof Fence - based on a true story about three aboriginal girls who were taken from their families in the 30's, to be raised as "proper christians", but escaped and went looking for the way home.
Once Upon A Time In The Midlands - It's presented as "kidney pie western" and two of the actors are Robert Carlyle and Rhys Ifans. Can be great - can be truly awful.
Horns And Halos - a biographical movie about the brouhaha which occured when the book Fortunate Son (biography about Dubya, including the tidbit that he snorted cocain) was published
Dolls - Takeshi Kitano is simply brilliant. No motivation needed. (Oh yes, a love story which takes place in different times, and then some yakuza.)
Secretary - Sex, typos, and self-mutilation... I don't know if this is getting screen time outside of festivals but there are plenty of West Coasters lurking...
The Eye - Hong Kong horror movie about a blind girl who gets an operation and suddenly can see again. Of course she can also see into the future and predict peoples death...
Intacto - Lucky people who've survived disasters join a club to see which one of them is Fortuna's golden boy (or girl). Sounds a bit like The Tenth Victim.
Auto Focus - I've just read rave reviews of this one, and I never liked Hogan's Heroes, so this is going to be a treat.
Dark Water - Japanese horror with water, Japanese titel is Honogurai mizu no soko kara (say that quick seven times).
Suicide Club - Japanese titel is Jisatsu Circle, and mixes violence, social satire and detectives.
Love Liza - Philip Seymour Hoffman has been very good or great in other films. Don't know anything about this.
The Cockettes - about the SF dragqueen/gender-bender group.
The Good Girl - Jenifer Aniston can supposedly do some serious acting. We shall see.
On_line - more dot.com loser/slice of life humor.
Soft For Digging - thriller/horror flick.
Send info - bored to tears.
- Barney Dannelke
Rob, just the previews to I Spy spell out the horror in splended fashion. I will avoid it at all costs.
And, surprise, surprise, Richard Roeper gives a "thumbs up" to Jackass. As they say in the Warner Brothers cartoons: "What a maroon!"
----------------
Vote!!
Barney, funny you mention Bulwer, as I picked up a couple original hand-written notes by his brother, the diplomat, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, for $10.
Hey, that's me alma mater youse talking about.
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/2002.htm
Those are the winners of the most recent contest.
---Peter
Yes Eric, you were indeed.
But here is some unquestionably BAD writing to cheer everybody up...
For those of you who do not know, Bulwer-Lytton
wrote
"The Last Days of Pompeii," which opens with the
famous line, "It was a dark and stormy night." Hence
the contest.
These are the 10 winners of this year's
Bulwer-Lytton contest (run by the English Dept of San Jose State
University), wherein one writes only the first line of
a bad novel.
10) "As a scientist, Throckmorton knew that if he
were ever to break wind in the echo chamber, he
would never hear the end of it."
9) "Just beyond the Narrows, the river widens."
8) "With a curvaceous figure that Venus would have
envied, a tanned, unblemished oval face framed with
lustrous thick brown hair, deep azure-blue eyes
fringed with long black lashes, perfect teeth that
vied for competition, and a small straight nose,
Marilee had a beauty that defied description."
>
7) "Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on
his mind as he crept along the East wall: 'Andre
creep... Andre creep... Andre creep.'"
>
6) "Stanislaus Smedley, a man always on the cutting
edge of narcissism, was about to give his body and
soul to a back alley sex-change surgeon to become the
woman he loved."
>
5) "Although Sarah had an abnormal fear of mice,
it did not keep her from eeking out a living at a
local pet store."
>
4) "Stanley looked quite bored and somewhat
detached, but then penguins often do."
>
3) "Like an over-ripe beefsteak tomato rimmed with
cottage cheese, the corpulent remains of Santa Claus
lay dead on the hotel floor."
>
2) "Mike Hardware was the kind of private eye who
didn't know the meaning of the word 'fear'; a man
who could laugh in the face of danger and spit in the
eye of death -- in short, a moron with suicidal
tendencies."
AND THE WINNER IS...
1) "The sun oozed over the horizon, shoved aside
darkness, crept along the greensward, and, with sickly
fingers, pushed through the castle window, revealing
the pillaged princess, hand at throat, crown asunder,
gaping in frenzied horror at the sated, sodden
amphibian lying beside her, disbelieving the magnitude
of the frog's deception, screaming madly, 'You lied!'"
>I'm guessing the regulars either know me well enough to know I wouldn't say anything like what the first [incomplete] version of that sentence implies or they looked at what I was referring to and filled in the blank. Or assumed I was attempting suicide in a public forum. <
Well, I assumed you were expressing an opinion that might run contrary to the tenor of the board, but was no less valid as an opinion.
Guess I was wrong.
TOM: Glad we could help.
Also, I saw nothing but bad bad bad reviews of ALL THE QUEEN'S MEN. Not that that should necessarily mean it has to be a horrible film, but I just wanted to tell you.
BARNEY: It's that moment of "GOIK!": When you look at your own phosphor-dot words, those words you felt spelled out an intelligent yet impassioned statement or argument--and then realize that one misspelled word or omitted phrase negates the whole damned thing.
I've oft GOIK!ed, myself ...
Dept. of WORST TYPO EVER - REALLY:
Holy jumpin' Jeezus!!
I don't normally go back and correct or call attention to my typos but I saw this and MUST clear this up.
6 days ago I typed;
"I don't think Harlan has the quality of Priest's writing lately, but so what if he had? Harlan's opinion and mine diverge on any number of things."
No no no no no.
That is supposed to say;
"I don't think Harlan has SAID THAT ABOUT the quality of Priest's writing lately, etc. etc."
I'm suprised Harlan hasn't shown up on my doorstep to force me to donate my liver and lights on the spot for that one. I'm guessing the regulars either know me well enough to know I wouldn't say anything like what the first [incomplete] version of that sentence implies or they looked at what I was referring to and filled in the blank. Or assumed I was attempting suicide in a public forum. Typing before coffee. It's taking your life in your own hands kids.
I am VERY sorry about that Harlan.
- Barney
Hello all,
A couple quick comments before sleepy-time-
Thanks for the suggestions on how to get an old label off of a book cover. I used Ronsonol lighter fuel and it worked great.
About 75 pages into that book, Night and the City by Kersh. I see what Harlan means, this guy makes it look easy. I will definitely be seeking more of his work.
I've heard a few references on this board to the comedian Eddie Izzard. I think his Dressed to Kill was the funniest stand up performance I've seen since Pryor in his prime. Saw in last week's LA Times a small ad for a movie with him and Matt LeBlank called All the Queen's Men. Apparently a limited release, only 6 theaters listed for the LA-Orange County area. Two websites are listed in the ad. The first, strandreleasing.com, seemed to deal strictly with gay and lesbian films and I couldn't find any reference to All the Queen's Men. The second is allthequeensmen-film.com and it exists but apparently I don't have a new enough version of IE or Netscape or Flash-something or other so I couldn't seewhat they had to offer. Then on the way home from a Capitol Steps concert tonight heard Matt LeBlank talking about it on the radio. Seems that during the was it was a lot easier to move around and search for enemy codes if you were dressed up as a woman. Sounds like a role made for Eddie.
Tom
Congrats, Faisel! I know from friends just how competitive the Chesterfield is. Great going, and best of luck w/ subsequent rounds!
Lynn - you getting my email, girl?
-- Lorin
Jon Stover - I'm days late on a response to a very slight mistake you made in a post about the commentary on this board and its similarity to the military game "Crud". I apologize, for you've probably forgotten it by now. HOwever, I'd like to point out that I've been introduced to this game and am an avid player now. I know, you're all shaking your heads. But it's not just one cue ball! No! We military know that it's _two_ balls (the cue and the eight ball) two rolls of toilet paper, as much pent up aggression as possible (not difficult - we're in the military), alcohol for those who want it, a referee and a scoreboard. Oh yes! The best thing about the game is, in my opinion, that you get to body check anyone you want - from lowly lieutenants to two star generals (I've done both and they give me the same amount of satisfaction - and bruises). Crud's a great way to relieve tension.
One other small thing I like to giggle about at night is that we got it from the Canadian military. *snicker*
--Zoe Rose
Faisal:
Way to go! I remember your screenplay, and I hope you can get it on film. Or whatever medium visual images are being processed on these days.
Chuck
FAISAL:
Woo-hoo! HI-5!
Excellent! Bravo! Congrats and Kudos!
FAISAL: Great going!
(And here's hoping for more ahead)
Just FYI: The DVD of SUM OF ALL FEARS includes a commentary featuring the director and Tom Clancy. Clancy takes great pleasure in tearing apart the movie and, sometimes, at the director's expense. It's worth a rent just to hear.
Quick follow-up on last post:
The last portion is a redundancy; main point I wanted to convey is ANYONE is entitled to analyze a film (at the occasional risk of OVER-analyzing), particularly if the viewer found it disappointing. But the more "informed" his/her opinion the more valid the analysis is likely to be. Either way, when people gripe about a movie (or a book, or a painter, or whatever) I prefer to see them QUALIFY their gripe rather than spit out off-the-cuff disposals ("ah. It sucked"; "ah. It's corporate"; "ah. That book is twash"); hence, my position that reasonable analysis of ANY film is almost obligatory. I like people to be intelligent about a movie - even a mindless popcorn movie - rather than being a collective mass of lemmings. For one, it might compel directors (as they make movies for the audiences they believe they have mingling out there) to do better work.
"Movies like SPIDERMAN, while certainly entertaining, don't lend themselves to heavy critical analysis."
...not necessarily HEAVY analysis; but ALL movies lend themselves to some (in fact, anything is depending on your own whims); particularly if the film drew unintentional laughs and if we know why it fell short of what it could have been (the shorthand is "disappointment").
...again: film analysis is especially important to those who consider the field pertinent to their professional interests, and in the long run it simply becomes a habit.
I blame that misspelled word on being up writing way too late....
Faisal,
Relly, that's cool as hell! Nice work!
Though I have to admit that I loaded the page and immediately thought: "Faisal has joined a program sonsored by a cigarette company?"
Regards,
Joseph
FAQ - that's fantastic - all available digits crossed for you.
David Silver (and other interested parties...)
****************
(originally posted by) SUSAN ELLISON - Sunday, October 20 2002 10:40:33
HARLAN ELLISON SIGNING NEWS:
HE to sign the 35th Anniversary Edition of DANGEROUS VISIONS on:
FRIDAY 8TH NOVEMBER 2002 @ 7:00PM
THE BOOKSMITH
1644 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117
415-863-8688
HE will also read a new story.
The Booksmith will have the limited edition available.
SATURDAY 23RD NOVEMBER 2002 2:00pm - 4:00pm
DANGEROUS VISIONS BOOKSTORE
13563 Ventura Blvd., Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
818-986-6963
Hope to see you there.--Susan
Note: If you cannot attend either of the signings, both stores cheerfully provide mail order services.
********************
Be there, or be square - that kind of thing....
Bern
Jon:
"_The Wild, Wild West_, _I Spy_ and _The Avengers_ (to pick just three) should have enough juice left over after one takes out the original writers, actors, directors and everyone else to give someone something to work with."
They should have enough juice left over, but that's not the problem. The problem is that too many of the people involved in the big-screen versions of old television shows appear to have no affection or respect for their source material. The Star Trek movies, The Fugitive, and Maverick all benefit from having people on board who were involved with the original series (and one of the better sequences in The Fugitive was lifted from an episode of the original series). The 80s Twilight Zone didn't, as I recall, have people on board who worked on the original, but the 80s crew clearly wanted to do right by the original.
--TR
Regarding films and film criticism, there are some people who can't just relax and become an audience member. (Rob, I am not referring to you.) I think if you're going to pursue an art, yes, you should be able to think critically and have a grasp of technique, but if you lose the gee-wow-gosh wonder factor, you lose sight of what made you want to create in the first place. And I think this board on occasion has treaded ridiculous waters. Movies like SPIDERMAN, while certainly entertaining, don't lend themselves to heavy critical analysis.
Minor accomplishment of the week:
http://www.chesterfield-co.com/html/top_50.html
FAQ
Jon,
I don't know if it's because it's late in the p.m. or early in the a.m. or because my brain got dipped in the pressure cooker Saturday afternoon by hassles, impairing my faculties, but I'm just not following your opening, "it's your 'necessarily' that's the killer." (And Wild, Wild West was just a random pick from the hat). But your hypothetical made my point: I really dug the concept of a LEAVE IT TO BEAVER by Lynch. THAT I would go see.
As to your speculation about where once flourishing directors might've wound up today (most likely begging anyone for some cash to do a movie while they find work appearing in Paul Masson wine commercials), a great line by Billy Wilder (aimed at postwar France) would echo the feelings of many: "It's a country where you can't tear the toilet paper but the currency crumbles in your hands."
I've seen some references to Harlan making an appearance here in San Francisco in the near future. Please, can somebody verify this event, and tell me the exact when and where? Thank you!
I stil yearn for the experience of having sex with a rhino.
Rob: It's your 'necessarily' that's the killer, for some reason. _The Wild, Wild West_, _I Spy_ and _The Avengers_ (to pick just three) should have enough juice left over after one takes out the original writers, actors, directors and everyone else to give someone something to work with. But leaving _Star Trek_ out of the discussion, the successful tv 'reboots' of the last couple of decades (by my reckoning) are the 1980s _Twilight Zone_ tv series and the 1993 film version of _The Fugitive._ I'm sure there must be others -- it's just that the 'ugh' list is so gigantic, my brain's having trouble coming up with good stuff. I don't think there's a rule at work here -- get good writers and directors and actors and producers together and you get the 1980s _Twilight Zone._ I'm sure a new _Me and the Chimp_ might be spectacular with the right people (ha ha ha). But the works that studios view as properties (large and small) seem to be guarded against talent being able to do anything with the material. Or in other words, stop the Planet of the Apes, I want to get off.
David Lynch's _Leave it to Beaver_ would probably be brilliant. That it might also make more money than whatever that film version a couple of years back made is, I guess, the joke. I realize there's a lot of studio interference in all three examples I'll cite now, but even with that...Peter Jackson on Lord of the Rings, Bryan Singer on X-Men and Sam Raimi on Spider-man. Three basically indy directors without prior blockbusters to their credit, much less music videos. From a strict monetary standpoint, you'd think someone would be sitting around going...hmmm...do we go with the hack for _Knight Rider: the Movie_ or do we let Spike Lee do what he wants to do with it?
That's a hypothetical, of course.
I sometimes wonder whether Hitchcock (or Hawks, or Huston, or take your pick) would have had more trouble getting control over movies now than they did in the 1940s and 1950s. Sometimes I'd say 'no' -- this is a world that allows a three-hour _Meet Joe Black_, after all. But sometimes I wonder...what would the battles on _Rebecca_ be like now? Would Hawks end up running his own tv series because the movies wanted someone younger and hotter?
Cheers, Jon
Alejandro,
Much thanks on the heads-up on buying code-free. My paranoic attitude is to check every model I might want on at least three reputable websites (Epinions.com is a good source of customer feedback). God bless having an insurance agent for a father - it makes you careful as hell.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. There's nothing better than having dinner with my convervative parents and walking them back to our apartment through the "alternative district" (down Clark from Roscoe and west on Belmont).
Joseph (and anyone who may be interested):
In case you are interested, here are two websites that offer info and Code-free DVDs:
http://www.sampoamericas.com/products_dvdplayers.php
http://www.noexpress.com/sys-tmpl/door/
Joseph:
Big warning regarding CodeFreeDVD.com. Remember that Sampo DVD I was so thrilled about? The one they promised me would play all regions and convert NTSC signals to PAL and viceversa, a feature I would need considering that most DVDs in Spain are apparently manufactured as multiregion but in PAL? Well, I tried one of these in my machine today (a DVD that came as an extra bonus in Ketama's —a pop-flamenco outfit— latest release). Well, when I put it on I did see the Copyright Warning CG and the menu but nothing beyond that. No music videos nor clips, nada. After reading the Sampo instruction manual front to back to figure out the problem and checking the DVD players rear panel and seeing a huge number 1 imprinted there, I immediately did some research on ye Internet. CodeFreeDVD.com sold me the Sampo even though it is not one of the products featured in their catalog. I then visited the Sampo website and confirmed, much to my chagrin, that not only was my unit Region 1 only (even though it does transfer PAL signals to NTSC automatically and viceversa) but had I ordered it directly from them I would have saved myself 400 bucks.
Mind you, it's a good machine, it has great sound output and I am quite sure it does read PAL DVDs A-OK (I believe the problem is within the actual Ketama DVD and not in the machine)…but I am still a bit peeved at discovering (way too late now for me) that I could have saved myself this much trouble had I asked the right questions).
Figured I'd let you know since you are planning in acquiring one of these multi-region babies.
Alejandro
Jon,
Personally, I don't have trouble (necessarily) with the idea of basing a movie on a tv show in itself. A movie as such could be as laudable as anything else (I mean the premise of Wild, Wild West, for example, leaves plenty for anyone seeing the scope in its potential). It's just that the majority of 'em are mercilessly bad - barren of any vision, passion, competence, or respect for the material - and the venture to do them has never been an inspiration but the mark of a town destitute of orginality or imagination. It's like over-processed food to make a quick buck; and, man, I's feelin' the indigestion.
Entertainment: Hmm. I guess if the thing in question is actually entertaining...
_I Spy_'s called _I Spy_ because it's part of the recycling mode in Hollywood that seems to require a licensed name or property -- any name, any property -- even when the finished 'new' product doesn't much resemble the original, or even when the finished 'new' product wouldn't seem to have any appreciable audience out there waiting for a new take on the original something. _Car 54, Where Are You_, _McHale's Navy_, _Mod Squad_, _Wild Wild West_ -- well, you can come up with your own examples. The 'new' _I Spy_ would probably better be titled _Generic Funny Spy Action Movie #2782_, thus leaving the original _I Spy_ out of the cheese-fest altogether.
I suppose the answer to 'why redo an old property' is simply 'why not -- we own the rights and it gives us the bare bones of a set-up to hang a new movie on.' Economically, though, you'd think the failures of _the Avengers,_ _Wild Wild West_, _Mod Squad_ or whatever other property you want to stick in that list might make someone think twice about doing these half-baked reboots. The success of the 'real' _I Spy_ sort of hinged on the people creating the show and the actors in it, not the concept itself. But when the concept and the names are what somebody/something owns...here come _The Avengers_ and _Wild Wild West_, stinking up a multiplex near you.
Geez, now I'm making myself depressed. Gary Oldman in a _Knight Rider_ remake, anyone? Buehler? Buehler? Buehler?
Cheers, Jon
Alex, just one more thing...
Your statement about the "belief that entertainment needn't be so scrupulously scrutinized" is invalid if applied for anyone with a professional interest and passion in the field, as this is the rule of thumb for ANY such prospects. It becomes not only important to scrutinize it carefully but it becomes HABIT too.
And even if this practical criteria were to be put aside, I don't think I share your opinion here, anyway: so long as one's understanding of a craft or science has breadth that person is surely entitled to scrutinize it as deeply as he or she likes. You don't HAVE to be in film school to be a film student, and perhaps one FAR keener on the topic than most of those who ARE in film school.
When I DID go to UCLA, I knew SO much more about film than the other students there; so, on this topic I do feel you're being a bit too narrow.
Well, Alex, how 'bout this...
Although I'm following a different plan now, I WAS in filmschool at UCLA, a year and a half...before I had hassles with those seizures.
BUT I was already capable of writing a film textbook when I started...I had a lot of homegrown information.
That should solve your problem.
ALEX:
Thank you. Nicely said. There are times for CITIZEN KANE and BLOOD OF A POET, and then there are times for SPIDER-MAN and AIRPLANE!. Times to just blow off all the soberness from your shoulders and go C-R-A-Z-Y.
In fact, SCREW IT! You know what?! I'm looking FORWARD to the FREDDY VS. JASON movie! That's right, I'm looking FORWARD to FREDDY VS. JASON! TA HELL WITH CITIZEN KANE! FREEDOM! C'MON, I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON! BWAHAHAHAHA!
(Am I humble NOW, Rob?)
Shitfuck goddamn.
We just lost Charles Sheffield today.
Rob, I have no intention of getting into a flame war with you--hell, my post wasn't even directed only at you, but rather at something I've been observing for some time--but you jumped like a frog leg with voltage put through it, so just a few things:
I exempted Chris from the "why do people feel the need to act as if they were in film school" for one simple reason: He IS in film school. Simple.
I addressed you and Little Washu on what was being said about Spider-Man for one simple reason: You were the last two to post about it. Simple.
And I find it ironic in the extreme that you harp on my being "hysterical" or needing a "cold compress", when all I did was state an off-the-top-of-the-head personally held belief that entertainment needn't be so scrupulously scrutinized. Take note that YOU'RE the one who suddenly appears to have jumped up and screamed.
Take note as well, that I did not "cite" any '60s shows to bolster what I said about art and entertainment; I made two separate posts; one a jokey bit on the tv-to-shite adaptations, and the other and afterthought on the gravity given to movies by so many these days.
Two different posts. Two different subjects. Simple.
(and unless you're Harlan, George Will, Carl Sagan, or William Safire, in whose speech we may EXPECT to find archaic and obscure words, using "fulgurous" sounds contrived. It's the kid of thing a certain narcissistic net.kook whose name I shall not mention for fear of his posting here [who believes his work that of Holy Writ and print "dinosaurs" simply cannot fathom that his body of work--thousands of self-referential USENET posts--are the new literature] might throw out to give the impression of erudition.
Of course, I don't know you, Rob; I only know what you have since posted, and it doesn't seem typical.)
All you needed do was say, "I've always been very interested in the mechanics of film, and I've been working on scripts a lot of late," or something similar, and I would have said I accepted that as reason enough for you to feel the need to dissect the movies you see.
Simple.
...and WASHU,
WHEN are you going to learn? STOP making your opinion SO humble! STICK that fire cracker up there asses and show'em you mean business! You cited the right problems that burden Raimi's outing, making clear what DID work for you. Same here; the problems weighed on me more in the end, that's all.
OH, Alex, Alex, Alex...ONE more thing you JUST don't undertand:
I ragged on the I SPY movie as an excuse to applaud ROBERT CULP, because we never talked about him much here. You see, I always post with hidden motives.
I never read what I type till after posting (the WISE way of doing things), and there's always something I missed; in other words, here's my edited post to ALEX sans the typos:
You sound like a hysterical housewife. Worse, you sound like my last ding-bat date. Even more accurately, you sound like you've been free-basing tv-to-movie adaptations. It's like you turned an incredibly frivolous topic into a fire cracker, lit it, and stuck it up your ass (only to learn that you didn't like it as much as you thought you would?). Even I didn't have to help with that. I don't even grasp why you felt the urge to cite the sources (the 60's shows/the 80's shows propects - though 70's will be next, actually). The bolt of your fulgurous rant certainly made me duck and cover.
Alex,
You sound like a hysterical housewife. Worse, you sound like my last ding-bat date. Even more accurately, You sound like you've been free-basing tv-to-movie adaptations. It's like you turned an incredibly frivolous topic into a fire cracker, lit it, and stuck up your own ass (only to learn that you didn't like it as much as you would?). Even I didn't have to help with that. I don't even grasp why you felt the urge to cite the sources (the 60's shows/the 80's shows propects - though 70's will be next, actually). The bolt of your fulgurous rant certainly made me duck and cover.
Now: who says I'm like "everyone who goes around acting like a film student"? Don't aim THAT kinda shit at me: film was a professional goal of mine; I'm driven passionately by images, not some masturbatory need to rake on everything or get glib and strut with a smooth, oily style to "shows ya what I knows" (Roeper style?). Since I was a kid I looked at films with great warmth and technical interest (particularly in my teens when I was heavily into photography). I needed no school to take me through the many eras and many filmmakers I grew to admire or hate; and for me, with MOST films, the director was the star. So, I don't know why CHRIS is "exempt" from all this. He and I speak much of the same language, though I have different angles on the subject technically. He's exempt from WHAT, Alex? WHAT the hellya talkin' about?
...and what's this shit with "me and Washu" concerning the gives and takes of the SPIDERMAN movie? When you have a blatant problem with the script it obviously has to be weighed. It didn't have to be CITIZEN KANE for me to find it entertaining, but when it comes as close to the right target as it did and misses you have to look at why; a couple of times, Alex, the audience LAUGHED at the film...and I don't mean for the right reasons. And I understood how the director fucked up those cues...and why it was unintentionally funny. For any of us who know film as well as I do, had a long-lasting technical interest in the medium, and who work on scripts, as I'm doing myself increasingly, you're compelled to look at why a film failed in this way. What I'm getting at is, I have sound reasons for "examining" films. And contrary to Washu's interpretation of my "turnabout" on SPIDER-MAN, I still like aspects of it (the acting, character fallibility, etc.); I didn't change my mind about the film so much as the feelings I had about it shortly after got hold and made me realize where it REALLY missed. I always had mixed feelings about it; but as I always try to weigh a films strenghts against its flaws, in the end I felt the flaws in this film won out. And, sure, that CAN effect my enjoyment of something.
So, grab the cold compress and get over it. Because you'll be seeing more film analysis in THIS neck of the site - steeped in all the passion, fervor, gushing sentiment, disappointments and bile: the obsessions of an artistic wanna-be.
Also, there was (very briefly) a TV version of "Ferris Bueller" in 1990. Amusingly, Jennifer Aniston was the older sister in that version.
VELVET: Sort of, but more plausible and less snarky.
Re: TV-to-crap adaptations, and what 80s series would make good big-screen transitions.
Correct me if I'm wrong (with baseball bats if necessary), but wasn't Parker Lewis an adapted version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
Velvet, who misses Herman's Head, believe it or not
WASHU, ROB: Great movie, bad movie ... Feh. SPIDER-MAN is a FUN movie. And that's what counts. No one should be expecting THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS or PATHS OF GLORY here. It's entertainment, and as such, it works.
One thing: I love great movies. My top four are CASABLANCA, CITIZEN KANE, LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, and ALL THAT JAZZ. With the exception of the last, most critics would agree that my picks are representative of the best film has to offer. But you know what? I don't understand the deification of film. I don't understand why everything has to be an absolute masterpiece; why critics and moviegoers, suddenly acting as if they were in film school (you're exempted from this, Chris) have to analyze and gush and genuflect before the flickering altar. It's just ENTERTAINMENT. Granted, there are films that make you think. There are the HIGH NOONs, the THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVESes, the BOYS DON'T CRYs. But we watch them as diversion; as entertainment. Too many of us have lost sight of that. Watch the film. Enjoy the film. Praise them when they're good. Pillory them when they're bad. Then drop it.
And yes, I realize that film is an artform, if still a nascent one. But ALL art is meant as distraction, as gratification; as entertainment, really. No matter how profound a book or painting is; no matter how your life changes after having read it, you picked it up to entertain. To learn, maybe, but to amuse while it teaches you. That's what it can all be traced back to: The need to be entertained. To take time out from working, eating, breathing, sleeping, schtupping.
Do we really need to take it all so seriously?
Oh, Rob, Rob, Rob.
You just don't understand.
However bad the new I SPY is, and however shameful it is to waste two very good talents like Murphy and Wilson (though Murphy should be used to it by now), this is NOTHING.
See, all the TV-to-crap adaptations have been of '60s and '70s shows--all the Scooby-Doos and Lost in Spaces and Brady Bunches and such.
Just think of the nigh-unfathomable coprophilia which'll drench screens in a few years when the EIGHTIES shows start getting recycled with big budget shitbuffets.
Knight Rider. Dallas. Thundercats. Masters of the Universe. G.I. Joe. Misfits of Science. Doogie Howser, M.D. Diff'rent Strokes. Silver Spoons.
It could be so much worse.
It WILL be so much worse.
(Though I might not look askance at a redo of, say, "Parker Lewis Can't Lose" or "Herman's Head". Guilty pleasures they would be; the sort of flick Jon Cryer and John Cusack got tapped for throughout the Eighties. And yes; I liked those shows; I also liked "Square Pegs," "It's Your Move," and "Bosom Buddies." Sue me. Hell; a Rockford Files movie would be fun.)
And we must always--ALWAYS--be thankful: No one has had the gall to try and reposition CASABLANCA, or CITIZEN KANE, or SINGIN' IN THE RAIN into theaters with new and edgy casts.
And for the lack of GOOD sitcoms translated into merde a la celluloid. No Mork and Mindy flicks. No Happy Days. No Lou Grant.
And no one has decided that these grand old sitcoms need a dark, frim, and gritty reworking. I can see the pitch now: "It's "Taxi" meets TAXI DRIVER: Imagine Travis Bickle arguing with Reverend Jim and Louie. Alex Rieger can go nuts trying to save a child prostitute. Can we still get Jodie Foster? No? Okay, then; what rap/hip-hop 'diva' wants to be an actress? I see George Clooney as Alex and Adam Sandler as Reverend Jim--what? He wants HOW MUCH a movie? Screw it; we'll get Carrot Top. Am I the only one who sees Chris Tucker as Travis? Huh? Huh? Okay; as I was saying ... See, in the sequel, Alex and Elaine have adopted the kid, who has to switch from turning tricks to turning in homework--and Travis and Jim are working as their nannies ..."
Okay-dokey...I hope this is my LAST post of my thoughts on the SPIDER-MAN movie, but here goes:
I re-watched the sucker on my newly acquired DVD, and...I still love it. I love the hell out of it.
From Roger Ebert's strangely anal-retentive review to even Rob's recent re-analysis, criticism towards SPIDER-MAN lately has been largely comprised of 'ah-hems' and 'wells'. I haven't yet read Peter David's full opinion on the movie, but I've come across vague hints, murky innuendos. Where is this all coming from? What, exactly, were the expectations set for this film?
Despite all this...the movie is beautiful, colourful, and just...wonderful.
The whole burning building sequence with the sobbing mother's 'God Bless You, Spider-Man!' I could've done without, and Sam Raimi could have made Spider-Man's unstable relationship with the public much more prominent in the film...BUT THAT'S IT.
Yes, the majority of the script is unashamedly goofy, but somehow, the actors' sincerity and the delivery of their dialogue creates a sense of grand opera instead of hokey cheese.
So, sorry, Frank. Sorry, Eric. SPIDER-MAN truly is a great movie. In my humble opinion, of course.
The never-ending chain of tv show-to-movie adaptations: I believe the only way this apathetic, condescending, mercenary crap-by-committee form will die out is when the Hollerwood junk machine runs out of shows to fashion.
The newest travesty is I SPY. Sometimes the preview tells you all you need to know. I sized up this Eddie Murphy/Owen Wilson thing as anemic and lame; sure enough, all the receptions concur. It's getting all the appropriate vitriol from anyone who wasn't bought off (and I hate adding that because I'm a real fan of Murphy's).
I became thoroughly attached to the original series in the 80's reruns. Many episodes were excellent, some could be dull; some were funny as hell, some were dramatically poignant. But the globe-trotting spies ROBERT CULP and BILL COSBY were CONSISTANTLY appealing. I SPY was the first dramatic series on American television to cast a black man in a starring role. Most of the time, the issue of race was left out entirely. The main highlight of the show was the jocularity between Culp and Cosby, a great deal of it ad-libbed. I'd grown up loving the great Cosby. But these reruns produced my immense appreciation for the distinctly intelligent, charismatic Culp and his writing ability; I became a genuine fan.
In typical form, the new movie expunges the subtleties and drollness that gave the show its strongest virtues for predictable all-out farce (and lame, worn out action seqences from what I've been reading and hearing). I'm not sure weather to call it a paucity in talent or perception or both, but, shit, these execs, producers and directors just have no shame. They're obtuse and disreputable. I'll be glad when they finally run out of shows to do.
Geez, I meant to direct my "Footshteps" on Mars post to Rob's attention.
BOS, didja notice a kinda familiar name toward the end of that introduction?
The wife and I are going to see "Bowling for Columbine" today. Goody, goody!
Cindy -
It was good to hear from you the other night (I forget what night you called as the days seem to melt together lately) Pam regrets not having the chance to introduce herself. Thanks for taking the time. You're a grand dame, ya know? :)
My brother, nephew and their wives participated in the 48 Hour Film Project out of Philly this last week or so. They pulled "Noir" as the genre, a turkey baster as a prop and "You've got to be kidding me!" as the line of dialogue. They had a FANTASTIC time. They took all the furniture out of my brother's house to shoot it like a house for sale, and wound up shooting until 4 in the morning. It was great. So great, in fact, they plan on doing it next year. I'm going to join them if I can.
Imagine what would be done if the Webderlanders teamed up...with or without Harlan. :)
Hello everyone.
Thank you all, again, for your wishes. I have a wall of them on the fridge. Colin will wonder who you people are one day. I hope I'm around to explain it's not some internet cult. :) You guys are terrific, fantabulous. I wish I could pass a bit of the joy I'm feeling through the T-1 line direct into the pleasure center of your brains. Until then, know that I wish an extra moment of it for each of you.
Thank you for the kind words, as well, Harlan. I grow more curious about the week you spent with Peter David's oldest girl he refers to in his Comic Book Guide column. The week she nearly drove you mad with her imaginary bell shoes. Could you elaborate? Do you even remember?
In the meantime, I want to offer a suggestion for light, yet intriguing reading (and if it's been posted in the meantime, I second the recommendation) for Kevin Murphy's book "A Year At The Movies" where he sees one movie a year in different locations around the world. From big film festivals like Sundance and Cannes, to a Swedish festival 100 miles above the Arctic Circle. Big multiplexes showing crap like "Pearl Harbor" to a shack in the desert showing outtakes from unfinished Orson Welles films. Kevin Murphy, you might remember, is the man behind Tom Servo on Mystery Science Theater. He's also a brilliant guy. Like Gorilla Grod, a big hairy genius...but without the urge to dominate the Earth. I haven't read as funny and scathing a media commentary since HE's "Watching".
Not to resurrect a dead issue, but just to clarify.
Barney: Your brain I will not pick in regards to the various printings of the Priest thang. That title will NOT be referenced. The letters/comments that appear were borrowed from other sources that I have already cited. That is all. Tim
Joseph,
Then you're made of calmer stuff than I am; I'd have probably simpered at least a little. Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft earned places in heaven when Brooksfilms produced & Bancroft co-starred in 84 Charing Cross Road (to say nothing of all the other nifty work those two have done).
--TR
Tony,
The one thing that would have made the opening night of "The Producers" even more perfect (and yes, as a Chicagoan, I pulled strings like a fucking Fate to get tickets) would have been for the author to rise out of the audience during that scene and admonish the audience. Oh, and for the real opening night, not for when the company went on tour to Broadway.
As it was, that was one of the more...interesting...nights I've ever had. I met Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft. I mean, what do you say at that point. "Uh, hi, I really, like, loved you in 'Night, Mother'" or "Damn nice job on 'Young Frankenstein?'" I can only claim that I didn't seem (in my memory) to be too much of a simpering idiot.
Regards,
Joseph
Oops--forgot the model. Either "Power Man"'s secret identity is that of a male model, or the abusive father was once considered for a Marlboro Man commercial and is still bitter that he was rejected.
(What? Hey, I don't write screenplays ... I think I may, though, when I have the chance to flesh out this one story and read Straczynski's book ...)
CINDY: Or you could screw around with the judges' preconceptions by messing with the dialogue.
Two men and a woman, staring off into the distance.
FIRST MAN: I see something.
SECOND MAN: I don't.
WOMAN: Like ...?
Or ... you might even give the whole thing a very serious cant: The entire film could be a one-person character study. It all focuses on one little boy, with adults' voices and actions just barely offscreen (this may be too stilted a conceit; you may decide to show the other actors ...). Perhaps he is the victim of abuse, an abuse marked by "playtime," during which the father starts playing with the boy and his stuffed animal. The father's manipulations of the animal change, however, somehow becoming dark and suggestive. This, then, is the usual prelude to abuse physical, sexual, or both. The theme, you see, is that the child is the father's own "stuffed animal;" his plaything.
As many abused children will, the boy retreats into the relative safety of his own mind. He dreams of his TRUE father anmd eventual salvation: Power Man, a superhero who is a;lways good and true and never gets angry. A super creation who loves him as a parent SHOULD.
Whether you want this to be representational or monologued is, of course, up to you.
Last scenes: The boy has taken the initiative the night before: He realizes he cannot count on the imaginary Power Man to save him, so he does the one small thing available to him: He pummels the now-hated stuffed animal and throws it out the window, into the rainy night. Perhaps the absence of the "plaything" will mean no more playtime.
Open on the new day dawning; the child waking. He rubs his eyes and yawns, and then stops dead, his jaw dropping. On the chair next to his bed, seemingly STARING at him, is the stuffed animal, now damp and slowly dripping onto the floor. He gapes in horror, then begins to cry.
There is a knock on the door. The father's voice is heard, calling the boy to "Playtime."
The boy's eyes open wide now, in shock and surprise rather than horror. A gloved adult's hand--NOT the father's--reaches across our field of vision and picks up the toy, then throws it into the wastebasket. The camera focuses on the door, its knob beginning to turn. The hand we just saw--and we now see that the arm is muscular; wrapped in brightly-colored spandex--reaches for the door. As the door is yanked open, the flutter of a cape washes across our enntire field of vision, and--
CUT.
Credits roll.
Cindy,
Final shot of the movie - the superhero comes into a room where the Model and the Stuffed Animal are waiting for him/her in a very suggestive fashion.
Superhero: "I see something I don't like."
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. I'm not a genius, just a man with a very suggestive mind and who has watched too many Zeb Wells shorts.
While we're tossing out Kenneth Mars lines from The Producers, let's not forget:
"You are ze audience. I am ze author. I outrank you!"
That one cracks me up even more than the image of Hitler dancing the pants off Churchill.
--TR
Rick, oh slayer of virtual dragons, untangler of inexplicable cybernetic behavior, who could outhink the supercomputer Deep Thought and break for a light lunch:
Thanks.
Chuck
All,
All Quiet on the Western Front, Grand Illusion and Paths of Glory
Notice these all take place during the First World War -- the premier blunder of the 20th Century. The great mutual murder-suicide pact of the royal houses of Europe.
A great subject for an anti-war film. Shooting fish in a barrel.
Chuck
"If I see one more king, I'll bite him!"
-Theodore Roosevelt
Someone may have answered this question back when, but I'm curious: does anyone know why Harlan does the I-Con in Long Island every OTHER year as opposed every year?
Actually, I'm surprised that he consistently appears every other year.....being that it's 3000 miles away. He must enjoy the convention to promise such a consistent schedule, but since he does it anyway, why not an annual appearance.
I am sad, so sad. The wife and I have been to the last 3 Harlan I-Con weekends, but now that I live in Arizona I don't envision our making it out there in Spring 2003. Coordinating a cross country weekend is a lot tougher than driving 2.5 hours.
Sob.
-TODD
Joseph,
You are a GENIUS.
THANK YOU!
If you have any more suggestions DON'T KEEP STILL!
:)
Cindy
Cindy,
Stuffed animals, gay models and superheroes makes for a mistaken identity sex farce. ;)
Regards,
Joseph
Mr. Ellison:
Just finished the new intros one by you and Michael Moorcock, with yours striking me a bit hard. I recall a small, dependent on perspective (objects of rudenesss may be larger than they are perceived, especially by those emitting them), snide comment I made to you here. The introduction explained it to me.
I am truly sorry for my conduct. Keep going.
See you for the 75th Anniversary edition, Scott
OH HELL--
I just got the bad news. My lot in this contest is going to be a tough one.
My genre (drawn from a hat) is "SUPER HERO"
Les Ottoman is the character I drew-- is a model.
The line of dialogue I must include is " I see something I don't like."
The optional line is " You gotta be be kiddin' me."
The required prop is a stuffed animal.
OUCH- this could be a bitch.
Thanks, Joseph for the well wishing and the 666 did not escape me either.
I wish I had Paul Williams and Tim Curry onboard.
:)
Cindy
Lurch Lange? Shit - you can't make up a name like that...
The one thing that bugs me about this 48 Hours thing is - where's Chicago? Best damn film community on the planet an d we don't get a shot?
HARLAN wrote:
"Today...Brrrroad-vay...tomorrow..." (Makes intense, sub rosa hemispherical motions with both hands, signifying an orb.)
I worked with Kenny Mars doing voiceovers on PIRATES OF DARKWATER. Also Tim Curry and Frank Welker and the diminutive Paul Williams. Was I in abject adoration Heaven? Oh, my, 'deed ah do!
Geeeeeeeeeze, and I got the 48 hour ameturo open. It is green I am, utterly verde.
That's an astounding lineup but seriously can you compete against Becky from our local meat market or Susanne Bjork from the local country store? THESE are the stars that will sparkle in MY mini DV firmament over the next 48 hours.
Sure-- boy-o, you got your Paul Williams and your Tim Curry but HEY I got Lurch Lange the trash man and Kojack the dog-- can you compete against THAT for sheer talent and ability????
I think not, ducks.
Cindy
Forgot:
"Soviet Canuckistan":
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021101/wbuch0111/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
Thanks Pat, you've finally made my day. Seriously.
Dos Vidanya, my American comrades, BOS
Hey all, in for just a bit. Hallowe'en has come and gone, but the buckets of candy will remain. Mel and her mother decided on a "little monster" motif for the children, and so people were haunted by Gamera, Rodan, and Mothra. Their escort, myself, was Caillou after his messy divorce, binge with the bottle, and sundry other offenses born from a complete disillusionment with life. Dragging the stiffened corpse of Gilbert behind him...
Better things: Got my copies of DV - 35th Anniv., both trade and hardcover. Simple comment on the jacket art: par excellance! My personal favorite: the bat-winged man perched upon a cliff, bathed in hellish colours. Got all three covers too. Chapters must be paying attention; I can't recall having asked. My congrats to all involved in the book's release; it's a must have.
Off to purloin some candy, BOS
And to think I knew ya back when you & I were just a couple of star eyed trekkies!! So Harlan when does "PIRATES OF DARKWATER" hit the Movie theaters?
"Today...Brrrroad-vay...tomorrow..." (Makes intense, sub rosa hemispherical motions with both hands, signifying an orb.)
I worked with Kenny Mars doing voiceovers on PIRATES OF DARKWATER. Also Tim Curry and Frank Welker and the diminutive Paul Williams. Was I in abject adoration Heaven? Oh, my, 'deed ah do!
Yr. pal, Harlan
Mars...
"Churchill! Viz iz zegarz, viz iz brandy, unt hiz votten painting! VOTTEN! Hitler, ZER vuz a painter. He could paint an entire apartment in VUN afternoon...TWO coates!"
Brian,
"All Quiet on the Western Front, Grand Illusion (not THE Grand Illusion, incidentally) and Paths of Glory"
Totally. Much as I love Apocalypse Now it stands in the company of its equal here. (Renoir's film is not just one of the greatest anti-war films ever, it's among the finest movies in history; the other two blow me away as well; I watched AQOTWF several times this year).
Sorry to bother you folks with this somewhat dated thread, but something else had bothered and continues to bother me from the Open Letter by Mr. Michael Moore, posted by Frank (besides those points I addressed in my initial response) – and it took me until today to figure it out.
I'll provide the relevant quotes in the interest of reducing archive searches.
First, from Frank's reply to me: "Xanadu, nothing wrong with someone having a 'soap-box' to relay lightning bolts from: It is a necessary part of democratic life, as long as what you are pontificating about has a basis in fact." - Frank, October 29, 2002
Frank, I couldn't agree more – so I take this quote from Mr. Moore's letter: "Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA we would have known after the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that those bullets were coming out of a rifle that belonged to John Williams/Mohammad. How would we know this? It's right there in the state records in New Jersey: this gun was purchased this past July, under the name of John Mohammad!" -Michael Moore, October 25, 2002
At first blush, this seems like a pretty solid indictment of the system, but then I remembered a news story, which said this: "Federal agents were scouring records at a Tacoma, Washington gun shop on Monday for clues on how suspected serial sniper John Allen Muhammad got his hands on a rifle delivered to the store in June. Agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have yet to find sales records from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply for the weapon linked to 13 shootings in and around Washington, D.C., despite several days of searching, local media have reported." -Reuters story, October 28, 2002
Originally, I had a bit of diatribe here – but in retrospect – I think the three quotes can stand alone as implied criticism of Mr. Moore's position. And while it might be an honest misremembering of the facts (The car was licensed in NJ, not the rifle) I wonder, out loud of course, how many people like our friend Frank read this kind of thinly cloaked political ad and swallow the errors as gospel truth, just because they usually agree with or admire the person making the statement?
"WHAT???!!"
"Footshteps, footshteps ... follow in hiss fader's footshteps!"
Cindy,
Best of luck, and I'm guessing the 666 motif was intentional....
Regards,
Joseph
Rick,
I want to thank you too. You are a true peach.
:)
yer fan,
Cindy
Nope, I haven't seen them yet. That is the down side of living in the middle of nowhere. It usually takes a long, looooooong time to get new films at the Odeon, with rare exceptions.
We wanted a Halloween film of some sort but the managers of the Odeon couldn't pony up the 300 bones even for an old one so it was closed last night.
Things have come a long way however since the days of BYOC three years ago. Seriously... Bring Your Own Chair.
My daughter Savannah said this is the only place where BABE was a live performance.
I DID like Saving Private Ryan. I thought the characters were outstanding and although I would have lopped off the beginning and the ending I thought it was far superior to the film that won Best Film that year-- the dreaded Shakespeare In Love.
Just my own two centavos.
:)
Tonight we draw for genre, character, line of dialogue and prop for the 48 Hour Film project in Austin.
Crossed fingers are appreciated. I'll let y'all know what I draw. The event begins this evening at 6 and the film will have to be delivered to 6th street in Austin by Sunday at 6.
Wish me luck-- truckloads of it.
http://www.48hourfilm.com/austin_teams.htm
I'll be checking in here from time to time over the weekend to let y'all know what's going on and to solicit opinions when I come to a fork in the road during the process. Any and all help will be vastly appreciated.
:)
Cindy
Frank Church writes:
"But everyone should buy the DVD of Apocalypse Now Redux: The best war film, or should I say anti-war film, period."
So much for _All Quiet on the Western Front_, _The Grand Illusion_ and _Paths of Glory_.
All,
A bit of an odd question, but I trust you guys. Does anyone have experience with the Apple AirPort Base Station, and have you ever mounted it on a wall? How's that working out for ya?
Thanks in advance,
Joseph
Frank,
Er...that's a fine speech by Mr. Sexton (and as about the most well-reasoned item I've ever seen at CounterPunch), but I fail to see how it relates to the historical research of BHD. The book, that is; debtaing the historical and political accuracy of a modern Hollywood film is kind of a muggers game to me. But thanks for the link.
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph, http://www.counterpunch.org/sexton1.html
---------------
David, also remember that no military plane got any where near the terrorist planes that crashed into the WTC, even though the military had more than enough time to intercept at least some of the planes.
Also, notice how the poppie crop in Afghanistan seems to be back in session, without one peep from our news media or government. We must not care about drugs afterall.
Afghanistan has the number one supply of Opium in the entire world, so it is no surprise that our goverment doesn't stop the export of the crop, even though with our military presense you think it would be a cake-walk.
Faisal,
In my all my mixed feelings about BHD there's an eye of the storm and I'm inclined to agree, even though I think it lifts its graphic inspiration DIRECTLY from SPR (I don't believe BHD would have been made - at least not in the form we know - if it hadn't been for SPR; that's kind of another gripe of mine). "The emotional baggage", as you put it, in SPR (the usual literalized emotional notes Spielberg plays on an audience he doesn't trust: the crying and hugging; outbursts like, "tell me I'm a good man"; the baptismal light when the coward finally decides he's not going to be had no more (on the other extreme, I DID like Tom Hanks' character a lot - dealing with the emotional "seizures"; and there ARE moments - MOMENTS - of absolute brilliant visual poetry that recall Spielberg's early days as a skilled stylist, to which Scott could never compare).
David,
Kenneth Mars:
This may be an odd digression, but this guy's range REALLY struck me when I saw him in THE PRODUCERS, to me one of the top 10 greatest comedies in film history, as the "Krazy Kraut" and his "stinking, filthy, desease-ridden boids", and subsequently in THE PARALLEX VIEW as a former CIA operative (I didn't even recognize him).
Thanks for changing the flat tire, Rick.
Yay, Rick! Glad to see you got us all back up and running.
Faisal: Did you already relate the conflicting points of view from your friends regarding the tale beautifully but mendaciously related by the movie "Black Hawk Down"? If not, I'd like to hear some of it.
Cindy: I didn't see "Polish Wedding" -- I remember the trailer -- but I trust by now you've also seen two other lovely ethnically divergent wedding films that came out in the past year: "Monsoon Wedding" and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"?
A friend told me last night he saw Michael Moore on a talk show where he suggested that Bush may never have had any intention of nailing Osama bin Laden. After all, the Saudi bin Laden family was one of George H.W. Bush's biggest backers, and even if Osama is the black sheep of the family, they might not take too kindly to his being very publicly slaughtered. Another interesting bit of news related by Moore is that in the day or two after Sept. 11 when all domestic flights were officially grounded, one jet was nevertheless in the air, whipping around the U.S. to pick up members of the bin Laden family and take them out of danger. Anyway, my friend said he'd like to make a contemporary version of an "It's the economy, stupid!" T-shirt -- this one to say, "It's the Saudis, stupid!"
I still say the best way to win this or any other war in the Middle East is to finance a crash alternative energy program that gets the U.S. off its oil addiction and leaves the Arabs high and dry with their black dinosaur carcass sauce.
Finally, on a more quotidian note, does anyone remember an obscure anti-war comedy that dates from 1969 or '70 called "Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came?" (?) I was thinking about it the other day -- had vague memories of tensions between a small town and the nearby U.S. army base, culminating in a chase scene in which an old WW2 tank roars into town to crash into the jail and release a couple prisoners; the tank is known as "Big Mama Two" and its exploit is musically backed by a rousing tune known as "Big Mama Two March" -- but couldn't remember the basic plot and premises. The IMDB was no help at all: information there is VERY sketchy.
Also, didn't somebody mention the Ustinov comedy from the same era, "Viva Max!" -- about a bumbling Mexican general who retakes the Alamo? I remember that silly one with fondness (Jonathan Winters is the opposing US Texas National Guard leader, John Astin plays Max's loyal and slightly more intelligent aide, and Keenan Wynn, Alice Ghostley, Harry Morgan, and Kenneth Mars are among the supporting cast), and discovered to my astonishment the other day that it was based on a novel by Jim Lehrer -- the same guy who anchors that PBS TV news hour! He had to have been in his early 30s, maybe even younger, when he wrote it.
What I found astounding about the Winona Ryder coverage was not the security guard's tale of Ryder's excuses. I couldn't believe the Fox news coverage. ABC and CNN reported what the guard alleged. Fox, using what seemed to be a klieg light on Ryder, reported, hey, look, you can see her underwear!
A low point, even for Fox.
"Black Hawk Down is a good film, I'll just be worried if someone starts using it as what actually happened."
Uh-huh. Oh yeah. Like ELIZABETH. Urrrrrghhhh....
________________________________________________________
I always try to never judge my fellow Man whenever I feel I don't have the right. I try very, very hard. But after I heard Winona Ryder's 'my director made me do it' plea to the court, and with JACKASS: THE MOVIE the top-grossing film in America, I sometimes wonder what kind of world I'm growing up into...
Black Hawk Down is a good film, I'll just be worried if someone starts using it as what actually happened. The film is politically and factually dubious but I can't say its a bad film for those reasons alone and I prefer it much more to the phoniness in Saving Private Ryan.
(IMHO - nothing more then a glorified fairground ride. The Adam & Joe show on UK C4 did a perfect attack on what was wrong with the film by just using soft cuddly animals).
I've worked with people who lived in Mogidishu at the time of BHD and they have a completely different take on the situation which I'm more sympathetic too. But BHD taken as a film is a brilliant piece of film making that doesn't have the contrived emotional baggage that SPR forced down my throat.
If anyone expects any film to be taken seriously as a history lesson though, they need their head examining. Unfortunately, there are far too many of those type of folks around...
(Sample true conversation: "The Pope did help the Jews during the war. Haven't you seen Gregory Peck in 'The Scarlet & the Black'?).
Rick - Great to see you sorted out whatever the problem was on the board. Hope all is well with you.
FAQ
BOS,
...yeah, it’s a great rift between Wellington’s redcoats and the Quarlos we’re becoming; we’re still cavemen with deadlier weapons but you have a point. The widening distance set between man and his instruments of death may, at the risk of erroneously favoring a Lamarckian sequence (the misconception about natural selection that genes will directly improve in response to increased use of some feature, and their environment causing optimal adjustments of the organism), might well set a course for us as a species; though I doubt it since the throwback rears its head almost on a daily basis for every individual just coping with life.
And your comment, "BHD gets my ire for the manner in which the people of Somalia become backdrop for the tale of heroism found in the soul within the American fighting man, almost a New Age "Green Berets". I am frustrated at how much of the actuality of history has to be left behind in order for what played across the screen to be told"...
..is just about word-for-word what I meant by "jingoistic resonance"; this was precisely what was running through my head after the film (not the book, which I know nothing about), among several problems which, in part, I spoke with Chris about. To be honest with you, had I known the extent to which things were simplified I might well have avoided the film entirely. Then, again, it's often important to me to see marred stuff as well as the exceptional: to know what constitutes a bad or flawed film gives you a better understanding of what shapes a superior film. That might often include the "jingoistic" stuff. Not a priority for everyone; but it is to me.
God how I love the film Polish Wedding.
It was aired tonight. I don't know how many times I have seen it but each time I am delighted. The music will stay with you forever.
:)
Cindy
Rick,
Thanks for all the fine work on the site. Really. Hell you put up with us, don'tcha?
Frank,
Considering the book BHD was written about an United States military action, then the info is going to come from employeees of the DOD. To fault a book for that is like faulting a history of M&Ms for interviewing employees of Mars. Really, if you would care to elucidate your complaint against the brilliant oral & recorded historical research of BHD, I'd be curious to hear it. I found it to be a balanced and fine work.
Regards,
Joseph
HARLAN AND AMAZON: Got the response from my Amazon inquiries. One Pat Boyle (no position or title was given for her) wrote me, saying that she had been in contact with Ms. Chace, the webmaster, and that, as reported here by Harlan, she had already been in contact with him about it.
She says in part: "I am reliably informed that the changes may take up to a week to cascade through our system," but I think that that's just a case of covering for them, as the problem seems to have been resolved toot de suite.
Further excerpt:
"Please allow me to reassure you that we did not intend for this
situation to arise and I hope that you will reassure Mr. Ellison of our good faith in this matter and extend our sincere apologies for any distress he incurred.
I can only speculate, not being in full possesion of the facts of the matter, but we did previously take action at Mr. Ellison's request that the offending titles not be displayed alongside his works. It is possible however, that should the other author in question have since published other works, that these would not have been specifically blocked from appearing alongside Mr. Ellison's books."
This last part is utter crap on a stick, as it was the SAME work which popped up. This leads me to believe that Ms. or Mr. Boyle is the pointy-haired Dilbert executive type who may not truly know how the company works.
And lastly:
:However, we have now taken the necessary steps to ensure that the immediate problem is addressed. I must advise you that while we have taken steps to ensure that the offending author's works are not displayed on the item detail pages of Mr. Ellison's works, it is possible that Mr. Ellison's may appear on the other authors item detail pages. I hope this solution is satisfactory."
A quick check on the Amazon listing for Priest's screed shows that it is, indeed, still packaged with TROUBLEMAKERS.
RICK: Have we told you lately that we love you? No? Oh. Well, have we told you lately how much we appreciate the work you do on the site? Oh. Not that either, huh? Well, let me just sing out the second one, then. Thank you.
Haven't and won't see BHD until it is shown on telly. I try to avoid war movies, especially the ones where the director relays most of his info from confering with the State Department and the DOD. Political ideas are one thing, propaganda I won't stand for.
---------
But everyone should buy the DVD of Apocalypse Now Redux: The best war film, or should I say anti-war film, period. \
But I like Saving Private Ryan, even though it involved a lot of America is always benevolent bs.
------------
*Spoiler involving Bowling For Columbine*:
David, I warn you, there is a scene where the actual Columbine video is shown; set to the light-hearted song, Beautiful World, sung by Louis Armstrong. Hard to watch.
Rob:
"BOS, I enjoyed your precis, but must differ with your speculation that "the soldier" might be our future stage in adaptation (even if it was meant facetiously). We evolved as soldiers; killing is our birthright."
Well, I'm left to say for the most part, my comment was facetious, or I do hope it was. The problem I have comes in the comment about soldiering. The attitude of the common soldier hasn't changed; the mentality of kill-or-be-killed, and acceptance of being ordered to do so. What has evolved is the technology in which to do so, without any consideration of the fact that both the machinery gives the process complete dispassion, removing from the military any angst or discomfort for the consquences of war, and a complete dehumanization of the people upon whom modern war is waged. We live without Wellington's alarm for "the butcher's bill"; now it's pictures of "the luckiest man in Iraq". Even more, the newer toys that are born from DoD thinking will remove the man from the conflict in entirety. Makes one consider how much easier it will be for nations to pursue conflict as solution to internation disputes, with technology able to hand them a mindset of war as a process of sanitation, rather than upheaval.
Paging Quarlo Clobregnny...
Actually, BHD gets my ire for the manner in which the people of Somalia become backdrop for the tale of heroism found in the soul within the American fighting man, almost a New Age "Green Berets". I am frustrated at how much of the actuality of history has to be left behind in order for what played across the screen to be told; the history of Somalia within the theatre of the Cold War:
http://www.arlaadinet.com/D%20&%20M%20history.htm
Another nation caught in the vise of realpolitik, continuously traded back and forth between the US and Soviets in their struggle for ideological dominance. The resultant constantly changing puppet regimes guaranteed the Somali people no hope of a government stable enough to allow any form of social order, and a lack of societal programs to ensure staving off famine or disease. Warlord factions arose, tearing the country apart in internecine conflict.
Instead, BHD gives us the Somalis as villanous backdrop, the threat to the perceived order the US represents, rather than a people reduced to factional fighting partially stemming from myopic foreigh policy decisions of the superpowers. I basically was left to sneer at the screen at the disingenous tripe that was left.
Jon: Your comment about "Crud" left me laughing. I've got a story for you, but it'll have to wait...breaktime's over.
BOS
Cindy wrote:
"The last scene in Black Hawk Down shows black people lining the streets cheering for the Amercans."
I don't remember a scene like this. Are you sure you're not thinking of the sequence where the rescue convoy left the troops behind, and they had to run all the way back to the base? The Somalians lining the streets weren't cheering--they were JEERING.
Cindy wrote:
"The last scene in Black Hawk Down shows black people lining the streets cheering for the Amercans."
I don't remember a scene like this. Are you sure you're not thinking of the sequence where the rescue convoy left the troops behind, and they had to run all the way back to the base? The Somalians lining the streets weren't cheering--they were JEERING.
I'm with my buddy Faisal on this one.
I thought Black Hawk Down was powerful, disconcerting, frightening and real. It gave me a glimpse of what it must be like for the boys on the line in much the same way Saving Private Ryan did in the Omaha beach scene.
It is harsh. WAR is harsh.
Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg brought it all into focus for me. The last scene in Black Hawk Down shows black people lining the streets cheering for the Amercans. This also gave me some perspective. Not everyone who looks like the enemy hates Americans or resents our often intrusive military actions.
This could have been what enabled me to grasp the concept of the war in Afghanistan being fought on a small scale rather than in the manner of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are people over there-- not just "the enemy" but people who need to be protected and helped. Victims who have been under the gun for YEARS.
Black Hawk Down may not have been a character study but it was a slice of reality. Not OUR reality-- snug in our homes with our fingertips busily clicking on a keyboard but another sort of reality that could visit us sometime in the future if we don't pay attention.
It was an important film TO ME for that reason. Oh, and if you don't see it on the big screen you chinglee yourself.
Cindy
I've managed to avoid Blackhawk Down, figuring it's a 'wait for the movie network' movie in terms of my own viewing priorities. A lot of the commentary here makes me think of _Zulu_, though. That and the military game Crud.*
Cheers, Jon
* Needed: one pool table, one cue ball, two players. Players stand at opposite ends of the pool table. One player whips the ball down the table; the other tries to stop the ball from hitting the end. Repeat.
I enjoyed BHD and of course felt rueful and irritated about it afterwards. It was indeed a form of pornography. Unfortunately (and unlike most fans of porn), I'm afraid a lot of American viewers out there probably couldn't distinguish between fantasy and reality where BHD is concerned.
I expect to be exhilarated and annoyed by "Bowling for Columbine" in a different way.
Had a good belly laugh watching "24" last night. Early in the episode, the President and his son are fishing on a quiet lake with a lovely treeline and a solid wall of rocky, snow-gilded mountains in the background. The setting note said "Lake Oswego, Oregon." Since I commute to Lake Oswego every weekday to work for the City, I about busted a gut laughing. It's a beautiful (and wealthy) town, all right, but it doesn't look like THAT -- as Harlan can attest, since he visited here the summer of 2001. I figure the reference was some sort of private joke of the writer/director/producers....
rich,
Sorry, there. I left out most of my question marks.
It's just the barbarian in me.
I’ll say this about BHD (I’ll try to be coherent here; I just rose from the mattress so I’m all groggy and drooly and reminded why I’m not a morning person): it left me with anger about what we are; I didn’t see it as a video game or a rollercoaster ride, a perception I think truly undermines and demeans the whole objective (SUPPOSEDLY the objective; I still suspect it sold largely because of its power as pure action not its philosophy). And even if the "pure entertainment" syndrome infected the film’s intent...I dunno, I think its appalling to liken it to a video game. While my critical objections hold about the film, I didn’t walk away with such a perception myself; I actually felt angry (I mean besides feeling a little suckered by a rather jingoistic resonance). Angry in ways I should have; about what human beings are capable of and the consequences of political corruption.
BOS, I enjoyed your precis, but must differ with your speculation that "the soldier" might be our future stage in adaptation (even if it was meant facetiously). We evolved as soldiers; killing is our birthright. It's our beginning, wherein survival is more than just competing for food; it is tantamount to taking territory and wielding power... to DOMINATING. Hey: I was called a cynic here. We only need to look at your comments about human nature and I can say, "tell me where I am in error" (though I'm far from being desolate and devoid of hope). The next stage in evolution SHOULD be our ability to surmount our genetic heritage (why DO we feel a sudden adrenalin surge of bliss when we strike someone? That SHOULD trouble us. It rarely does). Living things function and interact with one another in their environment. Adaptive changes come with changes in environment; but our environment still reinforces the behavior pattern of our ancestors. We in the modern world virtually pay homage to that feature more than trying to supersede it. I’d say we have a long road ahead of us.
rich,
As you'd read the book, what was your take on Scott's depiction of graphic violence (lifted, it seemed to me, greatly from PRIVATE RYAN). Were incidents (such as half a guy lying there, still alive and awake while he's picked up and dragged away)recounted in that kind of detail? In other words, was the movie accurate on this level or was it Hollywood embellishment (bearing in mind I do understand the real incident was extremely bloody).
Ah, a wonderful experience to wander back with four Liverpudlian lads before they became icons, and then in two cases tragedies. If you want a treat, rent or buy "A Hard Day's Night". First rate, and I haven't even gotten deeply into the extras.
Got a bit of humour out of it too. Told the little ones that the film was soooo old, the world hadn't been done over in colour yet...
Now violence. A bit of personal history; I'd experienced both domestic and government sponsored violence. (Military. At eighteen, I'd been given a choice of serving out the remainder of my sentence in either jail or the army. Essentially, the choice was between two machines utilizing incarceration as a means to manufacture units of humanity in a image professed to be of service to the greater good, the shaping techniques mostly comprised of abuse, programming and fear. After a moment's thought I went for the one that would allow me both a paycheque, and the ability to use firearms largely indiscriminately.) Perhaps it was the exposure to near continuous levels of brutality that inured me to the violence of it, so I can't say I'd gotten the sense of unreality at that Rich expresses.
I must say though that I did enjoy the sense of power that stemmed from being handed these skills to kill effectively through training, and was a recruit that showed entirely too much joy at their use. Got a taste of that pathetic elation, an opiate of efficacy if you will, that my parents must've enjoyed when they'd brutalize us; the feeling of two souls trapped by both their ignorance and cowardice in refusing to make change which would improve their lot, who could find no escape for their frustrations and fears except to manifest them in hostility against their own children. The realization of this was one of the things that began the process of change in me.
I'm left though to wonder, how many others were as I was? Does placing them in a uniform somehow improve it? Even more, in nations such as the Somalia represented in the book and film, look at the nation therein; one where violence is a commonplace as clouds in the sky, and looked upon with an equal lack of fear or concern by children born and being raised there.
Perhaps we're witnessing a step in evolution; children literally born as soldiers.
BOS
And thanks, Joseph, for the information regarding Duellists and Glengarry. Yet two more DVDs that will be sitting on top of my television waiting to be watched.
(and having just watched Charade and listened to the simply delightful commentary by Donen and Stone, i'm wondering what moron felt that Marky Mark and Thandie could even compare to Cary and Audrey. this is a movie i don't even want to rent to see how bad it is.)
Faisal,
Your comments concerning the BHD DVD...I'm going to have to rethink my desire to own that particular DVD and maybe purchase it.
Boy, you guys are in trouble now. I'm off the next three days and it's raining and I can't do yard work and the kid's at daycare and the house is a mess but I'm too damn lazy to clean and the porno isn't being downloaded fast enough 'cause I can't get DSL here (fuck Time Warner Cable) and I just stopped off at Mickey D's and my 32oz Coke is rushing through my bloodstream and I took a healthy constitutional and I'm feeling good. Soooooooooo...
I bitched about starting a BHD conversation and immediately posted comments concerning BHD. However, now that the comments seem to be about the movie itself and not the historical accuracy of the movie, I think a lot of the comments are dead on. I'm actually kinda intrigued by them.
Regarding BHD (the book, not the movie), I was struck by how the Rangers that were involved in the fighting compared the violence to a video game. And, now I'm kinda struck by the comments from Chris L. and PAB and some others about the "pleasure" they felt at seeing this violence onscreen. I think it's different from a slasher flick in that we convince ourselves that what we are watching actually happened so I don't know if that has anything to do with it or not, but here we have an entire generation of folks comparing violence to video games. I'm not debating whether that's right or wrong, I'm just interested in that comparison. Very strong comparison by the combatants and non-combatants.
Some personal history: I've lived with violence for a very long time and I've had bones broken because of this violence. I'm not looking for sympathy or anything (thanks, anyway), but when I joined the Army straight out of high school lo those many years ago, I was kinda struck (hmmmm, I'm gonna have to quit using that word; too Freudian) at the play-acting that we did in Basic/MOS training. The play-acting with automatic weapons and the desire to use our newfound abilities in what we thought was kinda cool. Now, having known what actual violence was and having seen the results of this violence one would think that I would have more sense than to play act. If I remember correctly, I think I play acted along with everyone else. I never saw combat, though I was in a combat unit. And for this I am thankful. But, I knew some Rangers that jumped in Grenada and they even mentioned the surreal video game quality of violence, though this comparison didn't come up with some of the guys I knew that saw combat in Vietnam.
So, I'm really not sure where I'm going with this other than I know what violence looks like in real life and yet I'm amazed(?) at our so-human ability to take something like violence and quantify it into terms we can better relate to. (Maybe we have to?)
Is this a generational thing? Is it our exposure to television and movies and other media? And what does this mean for future human understanding of violence and our reaction to it? Just asking. Not necessarily waiting for answers, though it'd be interesting to hear from others.
Rob,
I agree. The beginning of Blackhawk Down is a big problem. Richard Roeper revealed his stupidity once again when he said he wanted more of this so he could get to know everyone. Ebert gave him an incredulous stare and asked 'You mean, you actually wanted more of THAT?'
However, as a 3-d thrill ride simulator, BHD is so effective, it has an almost pornographic quality to it. I felt guilty over being a spectator nice and safe in my theater chair while still getting all the thrills and scared of total immersion in a chaotic battlefield (sorry for the redundancy) experience.
These were the faceless soldiers who kept getting rotated into the company in The Big Red One only to serve as never-ending cannon fodder for man's greatest feat of insanity. Scott should have committed 100% to that effect.
Still, what worked in BHD worked quite well for me. I thought it was a fine work though I am disturbed by how much I enjoyed some of the sequences.
Ah...just a fast follow-up on the "faceless". The more I visualize how the narrative could've run in BHD, adhering to this theme, the more I see how I'd have immersed MYSELF into the skirmish as a viewer. The nameless bearing the ashes of my own self-image; suddenly how well I would know those guys.
Chris, that element we just talked was a MAJOR problem not a fleeting one. You probably know that, but I don't think it bothered you as much as it did me. It was to the detriment of massive potential. A more subjective experience. And in it, a more accurate rendition. Instead, they took the commercial way out; the SAFE way out.
Oh, well. I basically enjoyed BHD, but with some grievances.
"The garbage characterization at the beginning should have been thrown away entirely - it was weak and served no purpose."
You know, Chris, if you hadn't added that I'd have taken issue with you. Indeed, I felt like I was wasting my time during these sequences; for here were being set up the stereotypes. And, at least for me in my one viewing, that resonance never faded; it firmly attached itself to the backdrop...so that I remembered it throughout the movie and, worse, after.
So, I agree. I think it would've been more effective to avoid sterotypes completely. These guys didn't need to be characterized they way we see soldiers in so many other movies (the MOVIES' version of how soldiers behave) to feel for them in the skirmish. The "faceless" should have been thematically consistent.
To qualify an earlier argument of mine, this is an example of what I meant by Scott "plays it safe". I honestly don't believe he is comfortable constructing character and complex narrative. His many radiant images are routinely marred by stereotypes.
My GOD, Berman! We actually agree on something. This hasn't happened since the wave of clueless, sophomoric slights at CATCHER IN THE RYE hit these shores. Yes, my reaction to BHD was largely the same. I had quite a lot of fun watching it; the horror and surrealism of the circumstances really pulled me in (though once or twice I kinda wanted to check their sources on the gory incidents). But five minutes or so after it ended questions rose. Questions about the simplification (virtual purging) of the political aspects, as Faisal mentioned; character; and how much of it was in debt to PRIVATE RYAN (which I also had some problems with), including one of its stars. While it DID hold out better than many of Scott's movies it was also story-telling at its simplest: a two-hour skirmish.
Let us treasure this moment as we're not likely to see it again for many cycles.
...I came in late for NOVA's presentation on Galileo. I like these documentaries; but while the renactments are fine, the fictionalized "interviews" turn me off (didn't Galileo speak Italian, whatever THAT sounded like at the time? Yes, for those hoplessly gullible that was but a wee speck of a jest). I don't think they work; I actually find them embarrassing.
**Didn't you find that Black Hawk Down was all action and no characterization? The only way I could differentiate between characters was by reading their names off their helmets. **
Yes and yes. And that was precisely the point and precisely the strength of the film. It was about nameless soldiers who get lost in the incredible chaos of the massive fuckup.
The garbage characterization at the beginning should have been thrown away entirely - it was weak and served no purpose.
You SHOULDN'T be able to differentiate between them. That's what Ridley Scott got right about it.
It was just a massive shitstorm and everyone got caught in it.
Um, hi: I'm not sure if this was supposed to be taken off, too, but as of 11 peeyem CST, the Amazon page for C. Priest's shittastic screed on Mr. Ellison still contains a special offer for buyers of that book and "Troublemakers." Hope I'm not stirring up calm waters.
Joseph: The all-too-briefness of Callow's scenes was why I didn't feel too bad about switching channels.
Hey, if anyone is reading this before 10 CST, turn on "Galileo's Daughter." You have to see the superb job by Simon Callow in the all-too brief recreation scenes. He's a fantastic Galileo.
Regards,
Joseph
XAN: No, it doesn't; I am cableless. In any event, the decision is not all that hard: I had expected the Galileo show to be a drama rather than a dramatization. The show DOES have merit, true, but I was looking forward to a movie rather than the sort of flick they show high school kids in science class--plus, I have de Santillada's THE CRIME OF GALILEO in my hands, so 24 would seem to win out.
ALEX K: I absolutely LOVE Twain's attack on Fenimore Cooper and his ubiquitous twigs underfoot, and his broadside on Bret Hart is fun as well. Would that people would grant the name "Twain" the same stature we give "Shakespeare" ...
Alex Jay:
Watch "24", and go to PBS.com to find out when "Galileo's Daughter" will be re-aired. Here, a program is re-aired two or three times a week on the edumacational channel (the one not FOX). Myself, I'm taping GD.
BOS
Mr. Ellison:
Much thanks for correction. I'd also got bawled out by an old friend who'd chanced to email me, and in the brief flurry of messages told me the same thing. In any case, my opinion of the novelist Priest remains unchanged, whilst I apologize to the CP of the comik bookies fame.
If all will excuse, I've got a copy of "A Hard Day's Night" DVD for birfday, and I want to frighten the children with the jerky images forged from the ancient history of rock & roll.
Now returning to the land of persona non gratia, BOS
Barney-- Okay, I understand the reference to Alex Panshin now, but it certainly would be a disservice to him to associate it with the Groth Grudge That Went on Forever. Panshin's book, whether one likes it or not (I do), is a creditable piece of literary criticism. It's not a hatchet job. It has considerable merit. I've got it on the shelf with other books from the same publisher, such as Damon Knight's and "William Atheling, Jr.'s."
Mind you, a really good literary attack can be a thing of joy in and of itself. Mark Twain's "Fennimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" is a dour delight. Nothing wrong with a polemic. One of my favorite books --for decades now-- is Philip Wylie's unbelievably nasty "Generation of Vipers." But the Groth Grudge is, on top of everything else, an unimpressive piece of writing. It's not just meritless in its argument. It's simply meritless.
For what it's worth,
Alex
Alex Jay - the f/x network will be showing a "special encore appearance" of "Day 2: 8am-9am" on Monday, Nov 04 - 11:00 PM e/p.
Hope that helps.
Bern
(jonsin' for the new season...)
Faisal: Didn't you find that Black Hawk Down was all action and no characterization? The only way I could differentiate between characters was by reading their names off their helmets. Also, the subplot with the captured soldier, the Ron Eldard character, was never resolved. That bugged me. My problem was trying to think about the story rather than just get caught up in the furious action onscreen.
Compared to Bladerunner and Alien, BHD was disappointing. That's not to say that I didn't find it riveting-- it was-- but it was more like watching a particularly exciting video game than a story, IMO.
Bermanator
Aargh. Unaccustomed as I am to watching television that isn't news or sports, I find myself faced with a quandary: Both hours of the PBS adaptation of the book GALILEO'S DAUGHTER, or the season premiere of 24?
Granted, I didn't watch the first season of the show, so I don't know what I'd be missing, but still, all, and nevertheless ...
Wrong again, Frank...
I like chocolate more than vanilla.
And I didn't say I liked the Spider-Man movie; I express more or less the opposite nowadays. It's merely superior to HANNIBAL.
ANYTHING else?
I recently saw Black Hawk Down again and think it is Ridley Scott's strongest movies in ages. Yes, its politically dubious and plays around with facts but it hasn't got the false emotional baggage concerning the characters, i.e Saving Private Ryan, and is more centred on story and performances compared to some of Scott's previous work.
(BTW - for those who have the DVD, please listen to the commentaries. Ridley Scott goes off on tangents that has me in stitches. The commentary from the Rangers is well worth listening to).
FAQ
BARNEY: For whatever reason, you are again completely miscontruing my post as some kind of a personal attack. It's not. I addressed it to any Webderlander who MIGHT be thinking of flying off the handle, to Harlan's possible detriment. I don't know how I can possibly make this clearer.
The battle's been won, and Harlan has asked us to drop this topic. So let's do that, ok?
> BARNEY: You need to calm down. (Or am I too presumptuous in
> saying that?).
Without being to pissy about this, yeah, you probably are. Unless you've known Harlan since prior to 1977 and or been brow beaten by him at breakfast, which I have. I'm sorry to trade on seniority here but please.
> My earlier post isn't directed at you, nor am I suggesting
> that you aren't entitled to some righteous anger.
Well it wasn't directed at the wind. You are essentially telling me when and how to write. This is something nobody else on this list (including Harlan I might add) has presumed to do.
> All I AM suggesting is that pumping Amazon full of "Priest
> Sux" reviews and threats to burn down their branch offices
> may, in the long run, do more damage than good for Harlan.
Actually, and I have been down this thrust - retreat - thrust road before, I said none of those things. And I never would use newspeak like 'sux'. I made 3 points.
1.] Amazon was inattentative to something it should have been attentative to.
2.] Mr. Priest should in no way be attaching himself to the careers of the two other writers he has attached himself to.
3.] Gary Groth publishes porn for money along with this drivel to keep other more worthy projects afloat. More worthy projects like the art of Dave Cooper and Los Bros. Hernandez and the new Ted Rall interview spring to mind. I actually pass no moral judgement on this activity and simply used these FACTS (Groth has said as much in the Comics Journal) to get to my pithy metaphor about this screed and other masturbatory works published by Fantagraphics.
> Yes, DO write a negative review of "The Book On The Edge Of
> Forever," IF YOU'VE ACTUALLY READ IT.
I have read it 3 fucking times. In its original UK version, its on-line incarnation, and in the Fantagraphics format which I am proud to say I did not pay for but rather traded some Star Trek comics for. Shite for Shite as it were. Why would a sane person do that? To check for variations and [very marginally here] to aid Tim Richmond - Harlan's bibliographer. I have also spoken or written to 3 of the people other than Priest who contributed quotes to the thing. May I please have that time back? No? Oh well.
> But DON'T engage in hysterical, pennyante name-calling.
See points 1-3. But it's okey-dokey to have you call me hysterical and unreasonable right bunky? I could make the argument that reason isn't going to win the day with regards to this, but then nothing is. As you well know.
As for my ever having been helpful to Harlan goes, well, we flying monkeys do what we can.
************************************************************
Batting cleanup here - The Alexei Panshin reference was to his book "Heinlein in Dimension" which is a book length look at the works of Robert Heinlein. I don't want to get into this to deeply but the gist was that by a number of Panshin's benchmarks Heinlein was overrated. Spider Robinson and others were part of a backlash to this text and there was much pissing in the punchbowl. I like Alexei Panshin just fine [he lives near me and we have a mutual friend] and happen to believe the truth regarding Heinlein lies somewhere in the middle. But "Heinlein in Dimension" would certainly be a more logical link than "Troublemakers", although it would then be a diservice to Panshin.
- Barney Dannelke [HERC member #1]
Xanadu, nothing wrong with someone having a "soap-box" to relay lightning bolts from: It is a necessary part of democratic life, as long as what you are pontificating about has a basis in fact. Michael Moore was ranting about an important subject, and using humor to relay it; but you have to understand the subject, before chiming in. Yes, Bern, cars, drownings, electrocutions, man eating hamsters, jealous wives and husbands, foam at the mouth pooches, anvil's falling from the sky, serial killers, planes, diseases, worker safety, Alcohol, lice eating into someone's brain, sleeping on a punch press, drugs--These all lead to death, just as guns do, but Moore was only mentioning guns at the time. I am sure MM is also against drunk driving, but he wasn't talking about that subject. He was mentioning the over-reporting of the sniper story, and mentioning the facts about gun deaths that go un-reported. That is it, Bern; but you did write a clever little screed.
Moore's main point is simple: Guns are used for the sole purpose of killing people, cars and other things have several alternative uses. Also the most important fact: Cars are registered, while guns get sold to any clod with an itchy trigger finger. I am sure the Sniper bought his gun on the legitimate market, and could have been traced with the new technology. They even ban lawn darts in some places for Christ sakes! But MM's screed was dealing with GUNS not CARS.
Bern, I wouldn't expect a letter sent back. MM's website gets a million or so hits a month! But you are a clever little bugger.
---------
Rob, let sleeping dogs lie. I like Hannibal you don't. You like Spiderman, I hate it. I am sure you like vanilla, while I prefer chocolate. Fine by me--more chocolate for me. But I do love your tenacity.
-----------
Alex,
"Foithamoa": pin the blame on bad movie accents.
HARLAN: Good to hear we could be of service.
And the "GOOD" Christopher Priest, the former Owz, is apparently a good guy. I can tell you he's a good WRITER, as his BLACK PANTHER (perhaps one of the best and least superhero-y superhero books out there) and QUANTUM & WOODY work will attest. Plus, the guy was Peter David's editor for a few years, so there's another testimonial for you.
(But he DID order Spider-Man's cop pal Jean DeWolff murdered, just to show that evil lurks in every heart.)
XANADU: The problem you had with Rob's accent was because he spelled it wrong: It's "Foyddamaw." Trust the Philly boy.
Speaking of DVDs, I see that Glengarry Glen Ross is finally being release next month. Yay! I can retire my worn-out VHS copy and watch the best male cast of the 90's in style!
Rob: "FOITHAMOA" - furthermore, yes? I start to understand why regional "accents" don't transliterate well.
Harlan,
...wonderful t'hear. Just think of us as your own private little henchmen. We won't tell you how many fingers we broke to get the job done.
Lynn,
No, I didn't *see* BLACKHAWK. I SAW it.
Washu,
"Oh heck, like I'm going to deny THAT".
...well you DID deny it. No, waitaminit, I denied it. Nooooo, hold it. I didn't deny it; SHE denied it. Oh, wait...no, THEY did. Oh, no they didn't...I...you...let's see, you carry the one...WHO and WHAT the hell were we talking about?
rich,
According to DVDJournal.com (a great source for DVD release dates, with a nice MIA section:
The Duellists
Ridley Scott's 1977 directorial debut is here from Paramount on Dec. 3.
PA Berman,
You're quite welcome. My wife also suggested you post about the tickets on rec.music.tori.amos, and hopefully someone will ask for them. As you'd be a newbie there, let them know you're verified by "fastrada" (my wife), and she can vouch for you. Sorry to hear you won't be going (I'm going to both the Chicago shows, and managed to snag third row at the Chicago Theatre. Ahhhhhhhhh!)
Regards,
Joseph
No, rich, I cover my ass. You wouldn't be able to pepper me with DUELLISTS because I had it mind when I said "a couple might be on par with BLADE RUNNER." Narrative-wise that one actually might be superior to BR. I need to see it again to weigh that; WAY to long ago for me (and cut yet!).
But your "it seems a shame that someone with so much talent has decided to do 2-hour commercials" thread is on the mark. It branches from the point I was trying to make, in part, when I said "he plays it safe".
BLACKHAWK I walked away with mixed feelings about.
ROB:
"Most of his stuff, while visually elegant, is weak in narrative and frankly derivative."
Oh heck, like I'm going to deny THAT.
"...who cares what one plans and never does?"
Because old blueprints can be VERY useful in future times of warfare.
Oh, and I don't have any pretentions that a third I AM LEGEND won't be compromised like the previous adaptations. I love the story too much to have any hope for that. I wish I could understand Warner Bros.' desire to turn Matheson's book into an action vehicle despite the fact that the story and the genre are so UTTERLY different from one another it's like trying to shove a cube into a circular hole.
Wait a second, I'll try.
...ow ow ow ow ow. I'm getting a headache. Where's my tylenol?
Oh, no. Not the Blackhawk Down discussion, again.
A better film to pepper Rob with would be The Duellists. Haven't seen this on DVD (is it even out??), but this film and Alien and Blade Runner are (not quite) masterpieces and it seems a shame that someone with so much talent has decided to make 2 hour commercials as opposed to what would've been an intriguing film career. The Duellists is a must see.
By the way, Lynn, I liked Blackhawk Down in a visceral sort of way, but to compare the movie with the book does a disservice to those that are just watching the movie. It seems to me that the movie just wanted to take the soldier's experiences and nothing more. The book did a great job of explaining the whys and wherefors, which the movie does not and, I don't think, ever intended to do.
I do find it strange that the bad reviews that the movie received seemed to be more along the lines of wanting the conflict explained (it made no bones that it wasn't a documentary about Somalia), or decrying that the movie was racist (ummm, all the Somalians were black, and with few exceptions, the Rangers were white; that's not racist, that's just what happened), or some of the lines said by the Rangers seemed to be jingoistic (maybe; but, again, that's what happened and what was said on that day). Like all movies based on a "true story", the movie does take some liberties, but for the most part seemed to be pretty accurate so I'm not sure why the reviewers panned the movie on historical grounds when the movie obviously wasn't about those things they panned it for.
>coprophagist<
Darkbloom, no, no, that's not the practice to which I was referring. Gross.
Joseph: Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help. Tell your wife she can give out my e-mail address freely. Time is of the essence though, as the concert is in only 17 days.
Thanks again,
Bermanator
I really only hit the send button once. Sorry about the double post.
B
P.A. Berman,
My wife knows many Tori fans in that area, so I'm going to frward your message to her and see if anyone is interested.
Joseph
Jim Davis! You never call anymore!! WTF?!
Call me!
L.
Rob~ Did you *see* Blackhawk Down?
L.
PS. I highly recommend the book, written from a variety of sources, including the Somalian press & military.
I hope this isn't wildly inappropriate to post here. If so, Rick, let me know.
I have two extra tickets to see Tori Amos on 11/15 in Camden NJ. They are OK seats, in the orchestra, Sec 100 Row W. If anyone from this board wants to see Tori that day, I will sell you those tix for exactly what I paid for them + mailing fee and Fedex them to you. The tix would be $45 each + the cost of the shipping. Let me know if you're interested via e-mail ASAP, like, today or tomorrow afternoon at the latest (otherwise I'll have to post them on eBay... ugh).
Thanks,
Bermanator
I hope this isn't wildly inappropriate to post here. If so, Rick, let me know.
I have two extra tickets to see Tori Amos on 11/15 in Camden NJ. They are OK seats, in the orchestra, Sec 100 Row W. If anyone from this board wants to see Tori that day, I will sell you those tix for exactly what I paid for them + mailing fee and Fedex them to you. The tix would be $45 each + the cost of the shipping. Let me know if you're interested via e-mail ASAP, like, today or tomorrow afternoon at the latest (otherwise I'll have to post them on eBay... ugh).
Thanks,
Bermanator
HARLAN CHECKS IN:
Just received a very kind phone call from the Amazon.Com webmaster, who had been apprised (apparntly several dozen times by you good people) that Christopher Priest's screed had re-manifested itself linked to Ellison titles. She was assiduously deleting same even as we spoke. She remembered the situation from a year ago, and had no problem eliminating any linkages to me. So Mr. Priest and Mr. Groth are back in their own link, to which they're entitled. I don't choose to censor the chapbook--much as I despise it--only to keep it from making a buck off MY bones.
Thank you all. (Oh, and Bos, the Christopher Priest who writes the comics is not the same Priest who wrote this book and writes novels. The comic book Priest used to be Jim Owsley, who changed his name some years ago; and the confusion has persisted. I don't know the comic book Christopher Priest, and have no desire to see him lumped in with the "bad" Priest--or as Mike Moorcock calls him, "the darting Priest")--so please rearrange your thinking on this aspect of the embroglio to protect the innocent.)
And again, thank you all.
Now, if you love me, let it drop. Mission accomplished.
Respectfully, Harlan
Ah, but Eric, therein lies the dilemma: Creeps frequently make the best art.
And medical terms like "butt-munch" are perfectly acceptable. (Priest IS a practicing coprophagist, right?)
DTS,
"it talks about some similar killings that continued in London, at the time authorities said they had stopped."
So, I presume they got into the facts surrounding Severin Klosowski. I'm not into this to the extent that I am likely to pick up this book (though you never know, with whims like mine). But every theorist coming along makes his or her case as convincing as possible (all making good, quick bucks), delivered with equal conviction as the other. Next year another theorist will most likely hop the bandwagon and debunk the theory in YOUR book (beginning with the fact that, as Whitechapel had murders almost daily, there may well have been what we call today "copycat killings"; that would've accounted for a brief continuation of the slashings). I'm not challenging its validity; but, in time, consistent reports will come along and support it (as the "Polish immigrant" theory was for a time) or question it.
...but tell us a little about who this new suspect is supposed to be. Was he the infamous "royal surgeon"? Or another mad immigrant?
Washu,
Yeah..we're talking about HANNIBAL in its handling...not BLADE RUNNER or "what he initially planned" (?). (It perplexes me that you might use the latter to make a case: one, who cares what one plans and never does?; two, I AM LEGEND has been filmed twice - thoroughly compromised in both cases, either in script or poor direction - and Scott's version might have been no better; three, clearly, I AM LEGEND is a fundamentally hot property and Swartzenegger was attached to it before Scott moved on; but even without Swartzenegger IAL is simply a hot property; FOITHAMOA, the script WAS turned into another "action/adventure"...not exactly what I would call "experimental turf").
Whatever the case, BLADE RUNNER...was a rare exception (perhaps two others are on par). Most of his stuff, while visually elegant, is weak in narrative and frankly derivative. Hardly what I could call an "experiment". ALIEN was fun - mostly because of its visuals with some thanks to Giger; but its roots are firmly planted in 50's sf. LEGEND bored the shit out of me with its fairy fluff. SOMONE TO WATCH OVER ME was laughable. BLACK RAIN had little to say for it. BLACK HAWK DOWN, in all honesty, probably titillated a beaming, drooling exec upon first eyeing the script: "it's two hours of non-stop action, chills, thrills n' spills! Whatta property! Whatta property! Whatta property!" Well, I don't think the script changed much in its final form.
>let's not revert to petty mud-slinging and ad hominem attacks. <
Oops, I suppose "butt-munch" qualifies there. Sorry...it's so HARD to take the high road all the time...not that munching butts in itself is BAD, mind you...ok, I'll stop...
BARNEY: You need to calm down. (Or am I too presumptuous in saying that?) My earlier post isn't directed at you, nor am I suggesting that you aren't entitled to some righteous anger. All I AM suggesting is that pumping Amazon full of "Priest Sux" reviews and threats to burn down their branch offices may, in the long run, do more damage than good for Harlan. Yes, DO write a negative review of "The Book On The Edge Of Forever," IF YOU'VE ACTUALLY READ IT. Yes, DO tell Amazon that linking Harlan's and Priest's books is not the brightest idea they've ever had (not to mention offensive and cynical). But DON'T engage in hysterical, pennyante name-calling. It does a disservice to Harlan, and it engenders more of the same from Priest and his camp. Keep your responses calm and logical, and they'll help Harlan all the more. (And that, ultimately, is what this is about: Helping Harlan. Right?)
>Misguided meanspiritedness is an nice way to say the man is a jerk and an asshole.<
True, and the world is full of them, particularly in the thin-skinned world of authors. Can't imagine painters or actors bitch-slapping each other with the frequency that writers seem to, but maybe it comes with working with words. There are many famous literary feuds. Are there any such things between sculptors, or ballet dancers?
The larger question is: does one read/listen to/view the work of an asshole? Richard Wagner was a very large asshole, and for that reason I avoid his work, although I've read that he's one of the great composers of all time. I guess I'm just not interested in hearing the deep emotions of a man who was such a committed racist...the experience is sullied for me, no matter how noble and profound the harmonies.
On a much lower scale, the same goes for Priest. I've never read his stuff, and I'm sure I never will, but knowing that he's a butt-munch certainly caps the resolve. Life's too short, and there's far to much to read and see, to waste time on the art of creeps.
Not me, John.
You wrote:
"Barney: Priest is a fine novelist, just misguided and mean-spirited in his personal attacks. I believe we can separate the art from the artist."
I don't want to see John Wayne Gacey's clowns or Hitler's roses.
Misguided meanspiritedness is an nice way to say the man is a jerk and an asshole. The world has too many of those to waste time looking over the hack job of yet another. When society learns to shun those who seek to hurt others intentionally we will all have a Merry Christmas.
What Priest did to Harlan was not only wrong, it was unnecessary. So he didn't make the sift in THE LAST DANGEROUS VISIONS-- ACT LIKE A MAN! Here I am reminded of Don Corleone slapping his Godson, Johnny Fontane (who is crying like a girl) in the face .
If Priest has an ability or a talent he should refrain from using it to further his misguided meanspirited agenda as to do otherwise makes him less of man and more of a bitch.
Cindy
Never having met Mr. Ellison or contacted him by other means, I can't claim any form of friendship with the man. In fact, I think myself to be an ambivalent stranger towards Ellison; a persona non gratia here and happy to be so. Somehow it gives me a good feeling to be on someone's shit list; guess I'm a bit queer that way.
As for Priest, I've read some of his work too. I am an owner of his little tome regarding TLDV; finding it, based on my own research to be somewhat self-serving and indulgent, a treatise built to massage an middling talent's injury at rejection by a much greater one. As for the rest of Priest's work, well, I'll pass on assessment of his JLA/Black Panther stuff (me no reedy the comik bookies) and rattle an aging brainpan for these few titles. It's not Hemingway folks, trust me. He is a partial talent whose work reminds me that Dick, Disch, Sturgeon, Panshin and Lem has laboured in the same fields of theme and narrative and have produced far better crops.
In case anyone's interested:
Indoctrinaire (1970)
The Inverted World: A Novel (1974)
An Infinite Summer (1981)
To my recollection, those are the top of the mark for Chris. Find them at a library, they're not worth the buying.
BOS
ROB: read the book -- it talks about some similar killings that continued in London, at the time authorities said they had stopped, and even later in other another country (where Sickert resided). Cornwell isn't the first to point this out, but she's the first to point out all the forensic evidence so boldly. And to name the killer.
--DTS
Barney,
I'll bite. Why would it be reasonable to link CP's screech to Alexei Panshin? I don't recall Alex writing anything similar. Pity he never finished the Anthony Villiars series, though.
--Another Alex
While you are of course "entitled to your opinion", and long time readers of Harlan will know why that is in quotes I will continue to disagree. Moreover, Harlan knows that it is actually in my best [or better] interest to sit this one out, if only to present some patina of impartiality.
Without plugging this body of work I was aware of Priest as a writer in the 70's and continue to keep up. I have not read it all, but like a snake watching a mongoose, I continue to pay attention. If I happen to believe that a writer of Black Panther comics is a better writer than CP I will say so. Certainly Harlan is. After self-trepanation Harlan would be a better writer.
I don't think Harlan has the quality of Priest's writing lately, but so what if he had? Harlan's opinion and mine diverge on any number of things. I'm his friend, not his bitch.
Furthermore, do not presume to tell me WHEN to be reasonable. It was not reasonable for Groth to rush this into print just to piss Harlan off at his 1st convention post heart surgery and it remains unreasonable to press Amazon book links like a crack-head lab rat in a Pavlovian literary experiment simply to jump on Harlan's bandwagon. He should link his stuff to Alexi Panshin. That would be reasonable and appropriate.
As far as doing Harlan damage, well I'm sure he'll let me know publicly or privately if I have annoyed him. Of that I have no doubt. You'll just have to forgive me if I don't consult you on these matters first.
- Barney Dannelke
ROB:
Ridley Scott = 'playing it safe'?
For a guy who was initially planning to shoot the first hour of I AM LEGEND without any dialogue whatsoever, that phrase doesn't really ring true with me. True, Ridley had the packaging of Arnold Schwarzenegger to back him up, but even then the studio was tugging at their collars. BLADE RUNNER goes against so many Hollywood conventions it's incredible. ALIEN; "What, the WOMAN survives? How can the woman survive? Why can't it be the captain? Isn't he the lead?"
I have to agree with John. Priest has written some good work, and his latest novel, THE SEPARATION, is getting stellar reviews. (Critic John Clute has called it one of the four great novels of WWII in the literature of the fantastic.) Even Harlan has said that Priest can be a fine writer on occasion, so let's not revert to petty mud-slinging and ad hominem attacks. Yes, Priest's TLDV screed is an embarrassment, and Harlan has every right to be upset if it's being linked to his books. But it does HE no favors if Webderlanders start harassing Priest en masse via Amazon, *especially* if they haven't read any of the works in question. Let's keep our heads and take the high road, ok? (And I'll be in Scotland before ye...)
John,
"Because few modern films or movies are that brazen in over-the-top imagery, it will seem completely tasteless to a lot of folks. Sure, violence abounds in modern media, but by and large, it's manipulation by rote. HANNIBAL is an experiment in extremes."
Definition of brazen: shameless; impudent. Have you been to the movies a lot in the last 15 years or so? The majority - depending on the genre we're talking about - are "brazen in over-the-top imagery". Thrillers like, say, THE SIXTH SENSE and THE OTHERS brought a tameness that in this day and age is a novelty (whether that works for a viewer or not).
HANNIBAL (the film) is, on the contrary, not an experiment in the extremes, but a routine exercise in the extremes.
An experiment in the extremes is something like Lynch; "playing it safe" is Ridley Scott.
Sure Jim. Soon as I see an artist.
- B.
...I SHOOK my head upon saying, "give me a fucking break"...I didn't NOD.
I was SLEEPING on that one.
Barney: Priest is a fine novelist, just misguided and mean-spirited in his personal attacks. I believe we can separate the art from the artist.
*** Harlan ***
Last I checked [and I'm not planning to check often] Cindy's review and my new one hadn't popped up yet under the Priest title but Amazon is notoriously slow with regard to these sorts of things. In an effort to keep traffic DOWN on that title I'm posting my review here. It's short and not terribly clever but why waste words on shite.
****************************************************************
Amazon ought to be ashamed of itself for allowing this jumped-up fan tirade to be linked in any way to Harlan's titles. But since the link is probably established by Priest pressing on the link repeatedly in his free time, which I suspect he has in abundance it doesn't suprise me.
An unsuspecting reader should also know that when pressing the name Christopher Priest one is presented with links to a number of comic book TPB's by a different Christpher Priest. Here we have an example of a person achieving marginal notice by riding on the coat tails of TWO different (and far better) writers.
This book is published by Fantagraphics. This is appropriate as Fantagraphics also publishes the Eros line of XXX rated comics in order to stay afloat these days. Fans of self-abuse will be right at home with this title.
***************************************************************
Hugs [or a firm handshake] - Barney
HANNIBAL, the book, was an unapologetic gothic, much like the work of Monk Lewis. Because few modern films or movies are that brazen in over-the-top imagery, it will seem completely tasteless to a lot of folks. Sure, violence abounds in modern media, but by and large, it's manipulation by rote. HANNIBAL is an experiment in extremes.
I don't think the movie is as involving as the book. The intriguing concept of Lecter's "memory palace" was sacrificed, something that lent a certain gravity to the more grotesque proceedings. And the book's climax is a mind-bender, something that offends our notion of How Things Should Be. Isn't that what good fiction does? Surprises, shocks, mystifies and even sometimes offends?
Chuck,
...ah, fuck it! Let's go back to Grog.
Re: HANNIBAL. (God knows when I'll just let it be). After you've seen Romero's DAY OF THE DEAD nothing effects you - ever. My main problem (and I WILL give you the make-up on Oldman) was all the lame improbabilties that abound. I LISTED some of 'em. Seriously: didn't you at all get distracted by people just standing, gawking, and LETTING their entrails get yanked out? That detective (for one) - a trained inspector - was clueless, even though he knew what Hannibal was capable of. Before he was even chloroformed I was nodding, "give me a fucking break." Everything is so easy for Hannibal to LOOK smart because everyone around him has inactive neurons; including the director and writers. And the chase scene with Clarice; and the imbicilic, much less impossible, "brain" scene at the end; it didn't even work as dark humor. The urge to be gross was a vicious one, as you suggest. But more...the whole movie was STUPID...and lazy, trying for the cheapest tricks in the director's book. Let's put it this way: it CERTAINLY wasn't trying to be a "smart" movie. In fact, it was hoping for as many suckers in the audience that it clearly got, like Frank.
Rob,
re: The Priest and the Grog, and Enemies of Ellison.
I read the whole sordid story on another part of this here Webderland. I knew the name was something like Groth, but I didn't care enough to look it up. Think of it as dismissive contempt. Not for who Groth is, but for putting so much effort into such a sparrow fart of a book. What, no sequel to "We Never Made it to the Moon"?
And, Hannibal was a gagfest. Lambs and Red Dragon showed less and were more suspenseful as a result. Being based on better books probably helped.
Sorry, Frank, but although I don't think of the movie as stupid, I do think of it as cynical and manipulative. To do that AND show entrails dangling from the dead guy hanging from the second floor was too much. I did think the makeup for Mason Verger was one of the best of its kind, though.
Hannibal-Schmannibal. I think it's time for Harris to move on. I just hope the readers will let him. Many of them want more of the same. Douglas Adams had the same problem when he wrote the Dirk Gently novels. I loved them, but the fans just wanted more Hitchhiker's Guide.
Chuck
I mean everything seemed to BE spelled right.
Cindy,
"I went years without cursing in my early twenties... then (during my divorce) the word "damn" crept into my casual conversation. It felt so good to say "damn" that the word "shit" was really satisfying. It didn't take long until the word "fuck" would slip out as well and THAT felt like such a BLESSED release that to say "God Damn it "
(snicker followed by a LOL)...Ned Flanders went through a trip like this.
Frank,
Well, no. That's the point: HANNIBAL did NOT try to be smart. EVERYONE in it does lame, improbable, STUPID stuff. I thought I'd made that clear. Eh?
Frankaroonie: HANNIBAL is a STUPID movie. R'peat after me: STUPID. A stupid movie is not known to be "smart". Eh?
On the other hand, your thank you letter to Bush, Heston and the NRA was very good. Everything seemed to spelled right.
Cindy, I do the same thing from time to time, when I'm in very polite company. (At my current place of employ, my mannerisms are controlled enough that everyone thought I was Mormon until they started paying attention to my attire. Bluecollar goth: keeps 'em on their toes.) Actually, I got into the habit of saying "God save the Queen" thanks to my paternal grandmother, who was first-generation Canadian. Of course, you can just hear the unspoken predicate to that phrase on my breath: "We mean it, maaaaaan..."
Bern~ Two words: You rock.
L.
Frank - and by extension, Mr. Moore(to whom I emailed this very text - I’ll let you know if I get a response.)
Thank you for the funny little rant today, it was terribly enlightening.
But.... I have a question... You gave us all those names - those people who couldn’t have died because they hadn’t been shot by “The Sniper”... It seems to me that you forgot a few...
Twelve-year-old Jacob Miller and 4-month-old Veronica died today, did we hear about it from you, Mr. Moore? 18-year-old Eric Springmyer is also dead. Anthony Irby, 15, and an unidentified friend are dead. 52-year-old Lory Kuschmider passed on today - did you let us know this, Mr. Moore?
Oh, that’s right - they died in car crashes, and that’s not your point today. Sorry.
How about Angela Dawson and her five children — Carnell., 10; Juan, 12; twins Kevin and Keith, 9; and LaWanda, 14? Or 11-month old Isaiah; 1-year-old Antonio; and 4-year-old Enrique Winston? Or even Jose R. Rodas?
Oops, pardon me - those folks died in fires - that might be tomorrow’s cause, but we can’t mention them today.
Now I have it. Why didn’t you clue us in about 1-year-old, Anna Vorase, and 3-month-old, Olivia?
Oh yeah, they drowned. Sorry.
Here’s some: Mark Tiger, 35; Eugeno Torres, 47, and Hector Leon, 50.
Darn - they were electrocuted.
Maybe these folks: Carla Huebner, 44; Eddie "Gwen" Araujo, 17?
ixnay - angledstray.
Do see where I’m going with this, Mr. Moore? Maybe not, I’m not nearly the clever guy you are and my point may be too clumsily made.
You point to your neat cause - and you offer your neat solution, and it it would not have meant a damn thing to any of the people who you mentioned - they would still be dead.
Sure, maybe we would catch the killers that much quicker - maybe - but those people’d still be dead Mr. Moore - not breathing - pushing up daisies - assuming room temperature. And all the “ballistic fingerprint databases” we could ever devise wouldn’t set their hearts beating again.
A ballistic fingerprint isn’t a living, regrowing thing, Mr. Moore. Firing two or three hundred rounds would permanently alter it - sufficiently enough to render the diligently collected data stored in some government supercomputer useless. So would re-rifling the barrel. Or stripping the rifling off completely. A smart guy might change barrels - they’re interchangeable you know. Or, jeez - they COULD MAKE THE FREAKIN’ BARRELS THEMSELVES. It’s not that hard, Mr. Moore.
But a smart guy like you, Mr. Moore, you’d know that kind of stuff already, I’ve heard you’re a Lifetime Member of the NRA.
So why did you make the statement you did? Maybe you have a point to make - an ax to grind that is completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject of guns and their nature.
I’ll let you in on a secret, Mr. Moore - just between you and me - I’d really don’t much like Mr. Bush, either. I didn’t vote for him, nor will I. But I seem to be able to realize that he is not personally to blame for the tragic deaths down in the D.C. area - nor is Mr. Heston - nor even Mr. Dyke.
It’s kinda like how I don’t blame filmmakers for “inspiring” idiots and malcontents to stupid, dangerous or deadly actions.
Place the blame where it belongs, Mr. Moore - and leave the soapbox at home next time.
You too, Frank.
Bern
Frank:
Oh, I agree, we still have a free press -- comparatively. It's just that far too much of it is lazy and obsessed with the bottom line rather than revealing truth.
I haven't been around this board much lately, but has anyone seen "Secretary" or "Igby Goes Down"? Neither a masterpiece, but hugely entertaining, each in its oddball way.
Powell's says they finally got my hardbound copy of the 35th DV in -- yippee! I'll go pick it up this evening, and all three of the paperback editions if they got those in, too.
De Palma's best film is, Casualties Of War.
Classic rant from Michael Moore, enjoy:
"Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?
Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton, MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not being shot by The Sniper.
Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by The Sniper.
Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways -- unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.
Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA we would have known after the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that those bullets were coming out of a rifle that belonged to John Williams/Mohammad. How would we know this? It's right there in the state records in New Jersey: this gun was purchased this past July, under the name of John Mohammad!
Many more people died needlessly in the days and weeks after that first hour of the shootings, and every one of their deaths could have probably been prevented had we had a national ballistics fingerprinting data base.
Thank you, Mr. Heston for this unnecessary carnage. Thank you, Mr. Bush, for supporting Mr. Heston and his group's agenda -- which protects only the criminals.
And thank you, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., for providing the gun used to shoot the 13 people in the DC area. Bushmaster's president, Richard E. Dyke, was the Maine finance chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign. According to Business Week, Dyke had to step down as Bush's finance chair "after reporters began quizzing him about his business dealings. Bushmaster Firearms Inc., is notorious for using loopholes to sidestep a 1994 federal ban on assault rifles." Bush and Bushmaster. Too tragically perfect."
------------
Rob, those movies are both "corporate" but at least Hannibal tries to be smart. Spiderman is just a concession of computer graphics and meager acting. Also, Spiderman attracted the kind of young kids who can't chew gum and think at the same time.
But I will admit, Hannibal had some awful reviews. We just don't see eye to eye Robert. No harm, no fowl. Cluck.
Rob,
Most of the time when I say "God Bless America" it's an oath.
I say it instead of God DAMN it".
I went years without cursing in my early twenties... then (during my divorce) the word "damn" crept into my casual conversation. It felt so good to say "damn" that the word "shit" was really satisfying. It didn't take long until the word "fuck" would slip out as well and THAT felt like such a BLESSED release that to say "God Damn it "(the worst of the worst for a Christian) became the beat all end all exclaimation. Taking the Lord's name in vain made me feel relaxed, in control and sort of bad in a good way. Still, while "God Damn it" now regularly finds it's way out of my mouth or the ends of my fingers it comes with an aftertaste of guilt.
While I maintain that "God" isn't really "God's" name I am conditioned to shudder and flinch when I say it together with "dammit".
There is also another reason I say God Bless America, and that is because I prefer my children to say " God Bless America" than God Damn it". They repeat what they hear you know. Sooo rather than hearing reports of my babies irreverence I get compliments on their patriotism.
Twisted, but effective.
Oh, AND if God IS listening.. then it doesn't hurt to solicit His blessings on this our conflicted but beloved nation.
:)
Cindy
Yes, but Rob... Spiderman didn't have anyone's entrails splashing onto the Italian cobblestones from a height of, oh say a little over a story. It didn't have a villain who outdid the supposed antagonist (himself revered for his gastronomic propensities) by washing his face with the tears of an innocent child. It didn't have pedigreed boars trained to eat human flesh. It didn't have someone's skull blithely opened like a snuff box while their cerebral cortex was sliced out in tiny, bite-sized morsels, lightly sautéed in butter and garlic, and served with a sprig of parsley. It had no amputations, no arterial bleeding, no Mozart!
As far as I'm concerned, you can have your corporate cuckoo clock, my dear. Give me my Vitruvian Man and have done with it.
L.B.
Duchessa di Ferrara
Ah, what the fuck...
One more shot at you, Frank, before I shut the hell up and leave...
...yes, incidentally, with ALL of its problems (and they are MANY, God knows; on the whole it IS a big disappointment) Spider-Man is a better movie than HANNIBAL. My girlfriend's home video of her two dogs is better than HANNIBAL! Just recall, you just griped that SM was "corporate" (?) and specified nothing as to why it was a lousy film; HANNIBAL is JUST as corporate (calculated to make an easy buck). Perhaps more so.
DV, 35th Anniversary's Amazon.com Sales Rank: 2,526
Paingod's Amazon.com Sales Rank: 32,946
Troublemakers' Amazon.com Sales Rank: 52,152
City on the Edge of Forever: The Original Teleplay...'s Amazon.com Sales Rank: 62,738
Slippage's Amazon.com Sales Rank: 64,115
Angry Candy's Amazon.com Sales Rank: 67,748
Mind Fields' Amazon.com Sales Rank: 76,294
Repent, Harlequin!...'s Amazon.com Sales Rank: 94,416
Midnight in the Sunken Cathedral's Amazon.com Sales Rank: 96,444
Harlan Ellison's Dream Corridors' Amazon.com Sales Rank: 242,363
You see where I'm going with this...
Priest's Amazon.com Sales Rank: 274,524
DTS,
(Do you know you sound like a bug spray?)
...not up on that new Ripper theory...till recently the "Polish immigrant" was the general conjecture; he'd been put away in a nut house and no more slashings followed.
Frank,
"Rob, yea, no movie can be as high minded as Spiderman."
Well, YOU'RE the elitist - not me!
Nevertheless...I'm simply going to have to ask you to step outside for that low shot. C'mon, man...let's DO it!
(and after watching HANNIBAL I have some pretty good ideas about my plans for you...as it's also apparent you didn't read all my Spider-Man comments. Noooooo...I don't like that OOONE bit.)
Cindy, this one's to forum-goers at large but if it doesn't draw any interest maybe you'll have something to say.
But...
Before I fire this off I really wanna make it clear it isn't a loaded question. I'm not trying to position anyone to bully him or her, or ridicule that person's world view. I'm not going to argue the matter whatever your angle might be. This is just idle curiosity on the issue of interpretation; a moment ago I was looking at these words and REALLY studying their intended meaning...and found myself asking,
What does "GOD BLESS AMERICA" really mean?
It has to be something apart from just a loving embrace...or maybe it doesn't. What IS it exactly?
Is it a proclamation? A presumption? An entreaty? A demand? A mere hope? A Mickey Mouse Club slogan that didn't take?
Can other nations be blessed by God as well? Britain? Holland? Canada? Cape Dezhnev? Perhaps the globe itself?
Does the rest of the world come to mind at all when you say, write or read these words...or is it comparable to isolationist sentiments? Should it be thought of as a divine light unique to this nation? Perhaps it symbolizes to you the example this country should serve to the rest of the world (if so, how do such words evoke the notion?).
Just ruminating while I ruminate my lunch. Had nothing better to do.
ALL: Almost finished with PROFILE OF A KILLER: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed by Patricia Cornwell. It's turning out to be a dynamite piece of investigative journalism (the amount of forsensic evidence gathered by Cornwell and her team of experts is amazing) and a terrific profile of a man -- Walter Sickert -- who very likely WAS Jack the Ripper. Fascinating stuff. The book comes out on Nov. 10th
--DTS
Yea David, that was me who mentioned the Buzzsaw book, but I do think we have a free press. The government in America doesn't control the press like in other countries, but most of the mainstream press knows what it should report and what it should not. The corporate press write for the elites in society; the common man has to find his news elsewhere. But it is easy to search out. Just takes a little snooping. But that is a great book.
----------
Rob, yea, no movie can be as high minded as Spiderman. Sheesh.
Gene's Ghost...
"God I rule."
Oooohhhhhh...stuff it up your warp drive!
GOD BLESS AMERICA,
Gene Roddenberry's Ghost kills me every time he pipes up.
Arrogance in a sheet.
I love 'im.
:)
Cindy
Hey chumlies, be thrilled that none of your books are linking to my autobiog, being scratched out right now here in the Great Beyond, between shots of Chivas Regal. And don't worry, I'm not going to waste anyone's time with really boring stories about who wrote what when, or even more tiring tales of why something did or did not get published...this is a tale of POONTANG, friends, and just how much you get when you're a kickass teevee producer like me.
I've had them all, and then some, and you better believe my bio will be way more fun to read than yet another collection of the science fiction short story...yawn, wouldn't you rather know if Diana Hyland squeals or screams? God I rule.
I don't remember who it was here that recommended _Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press_, edited by Kristina Borjesson -- was it Frank? Alex? -- but I'm racing through it now, and a gripping and hair-raising set of tales it is.
The other day, some net-friends I met for the first time in Oakland suggested the Inigo Montoya theory for the pending war in Iraq: "My name is George Dubya. You diss my father. Prepare to die!"
Lynn:
Forgot to tell you, eldest child and I both love our "Smokin' E" wear. She got a T with a cap, and I got a baseball jersey, with matching headgear. I'm still in awe of the fact of their ergonomic design; two sleeves, a hole for the noggin to go through and everything else you would want in a garment to encase the upper part of the human torso. Good job!
BOS
Finally got to see RED DRAGON on Friday. Interesting. Not exactly ground breaking. Ralph Fiennes was amazing as ever (yowza) and Anthony Hopkins skated the fine line between the literary Lechter and the pop-culture Lechter. It dragged in spots and was intense in others. The most disturbing thing for me was the twelve year olds in the theatre, but then, I read the book more than a few years ago. In all honesty, the movie wasn't really that twisted.
Also, on DVD, watched DEATH TO SMOOCHY. What a bizarre, twisted, disturbing little film. I still haven't decided whether or not I liked it. I'm a big fan of Edward Norton, but I felt like I needed to pop in FIGHT CLUB just to cleanse my brain after this one. Favorite Quote: "C'mon, boys. Let's go pray and get shitfaced."
And finally, HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH. Fabulous. A hundred times the movie I imagined I would be seeing. I'd heard a few murmurings, but nothing that prepared me for this film. The music is really great, the acting superb, and the writing even better. If you haven't seen this one, I highly recommend it.
We now return you to reality, already in progress.
L.
Jay:
Much felicitations on Colin's emergence into our messed up little rat's nest. Here's to him making it a bit better for at least you and Pammy, if not the for rest of us blighted souls.
BTW, you missed by one day. Yesterday was mine and Danny's, and I got the repeating pleasure of enjoying birfday with one of the four best presents I ever got. We gots tons of cool stuff alongside.
Darryl: Rally Stitch sends his condolences, and hopes there are no hard feelings. The Giant I felt worst for was Russ Ortiz; sanguine in his assurance of a victory and a ring, taking the ball back to the dugout as a memento of his work on a pitching change with a five run lead in Game Six, only to watch it evaporate. That had to be one of the most painful things a soul can go through. Good, not great series: the hitting was fantastic, but the pitching was spotty.
Not much to say on the Amazon thing, except that it doesn't seem a big deal to me. Most people will realize Priest's diatribe is crap from the get go, and won't bite on the special offer. Hmmm...maybe that's the tack to take with bringing it to the company's attention. Either that, or we have a seance to contact Skunky in the Great Rodent Beyond. We can invoke him and the other rotted critters to infest the Amazon headquarters. Skunky's still got Olly North's phone number, I believe.
With that, gone for a bit.
BOS
Jay, Pam, and Colin - congratulations! Best wishes for a speedy recovery for Pam and a warm welcome to the little tyke.
RE: Amazon stuff: Amamzon.co.uk doesn't provide links to Priest or his book with any of Harlan's books. Made sure to check the new DV edition several times, nary a sign.
Peg
UPDATE:
Amazon.de lists your available books with authors such as:
Herman Melville
Jonathan Swift
Jules Verne
Bruce Sterling
Neal Stephenson
and, oddly: "The Perfect Lover: Sex Techniques To Make You Mad" by Lou Paget.
However, and I hope this brightens your day, it doesn't list the book in question by Priest at all.
Post-weekend me, and wow, what a lot to catch up to.
VENKMAN -- congratulations, finally, on the sproglet!
MR. ELLISON -- I'll double-check to see if Amazon's German branch, amazon.de, has any Priest listings connected to yours, and if so, I'll contact them about it.
Oh, Chuck...
GROTH is the name. Gary Groth. He did the magazine called THE COMICS JOURNAL. I remember wayyyyy back when he did a verrrry long interview with Harlan - 'parently through the wee hours of the morning. It was a good one. And the two seemed to be getting along at that point. Thus, it was disappointing to find out later what a dipshit Groth could be.
Chris,
"I think that's DePalma's best movie, probably by a good margin too."
Yeah...of course that isn't saying a LOT. I would say instantly CARRIE was superior; EASILY. I never saw PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE but it too may be one of his better outings.
But here's one item I didn't mention about that class. Two films were presented back-to-back: PSYCHO and SISTERS, respectively. In the course of the latter, a number of students practically hissed a couple of times (I may have been one of them); beside a piece like PSYCHO, this thing looked like an 8mm amateur effort. De Palma's Hitchcock wanna-be indulgence drew SO much attention to itself that everything missing seemed just as apparent, like the neurosis, humor and perversity that was only Hitchcock's. It LOOKED like he was trying to imitate Hitchcock without understanding what made his stuff work. I'm not saying presenting the film in this way was fair; but I did have to credit so many students for appreciating what made Hitchcock unique.
But listen, you can like or dislike anything you want by De Palma...because I'm incredibly indifferent. When he did SCARFACE I began having some hope for him; THEN I viewed the film a second time and felt it was a bit over the top. Once I saw BODY DOUBLE I gave up on him completely; now THERE'S a movie when you wanna have a laugh...Jeezus.
Venkman,
Had some bad computer problems, so I'm a little late:
CONGRATULATIONS!
Regards,
Joseph
ERIC:
"...I'm finally tiring of violence, endless mayhem and cruelty in movies."
Well, compared to SILENCE and HANNIBAL (I'm using 'compared' strongly here, admittedly), RED DRAGON is a little tame. We never see Dolarhyde's murderous acts being carried out; we only see the aftermath. A few critics reacted negatively to this, but I think Ralph Fiennes' performance conveyed a strong enough sense of sickness and perversion to make the inclusion of the gory details unnceccessary, making them all the more horrific in our own imaginations.
There is a certain point when too much violence (real and staged) witnessed on-screen begins to blacken your own psyche. My personal remedy: watch a little WALLACE & GROMIT, read a little CALVIN & HOBBES. There is some entertainment out there that has untapped healing powers on your soul.
Oddly enough, I'm more disturbed by the casual, shameless cruelty directed towards a single individual, i.e. MEET THE PARENTS. That movie has haunted me for ages.
**On the other hand, we screened De Palma's SISTERS once in a classroom and REALLY had a great time tearing it apart. We all hated it;**
Geez, I think that's DePalma's best movie, probably by a good margin too.
>I've no whim, inkling, itch or plan to see RED DRAGON.<
Nor I. Didn't think it would ever happen, but I'm finally tiring of violence, endless mayhem and cruelty in movies. Sure, you can guss it up with Tony Hopkins and fab production values, mebbe even a good script, but it's still about people being savage and murderous to other people in the end. It's been a tough enough year already, with plenty of real-life destruction and inhumanity that I don't need to go to the flicks for even more.
So I'm watching Upstairs Downstairs reruns on DVD, and enjoying the fine acting, rapt attention to period detail, and generally high-quality writing that TV series so rarely produce. Lesley-Anne Down is certainly easy on the eyes as well. No-one is getting mangled, tortured, or beaten, much less killed, and there are no colorful pscyhos, snipers, or scumbags played by peers of the realm. It's really a rather wonderful escape.
Venkman,
Congratulations and cheers for you, Pam, and that new kid: Colin. 9lbs! Sounds like a bruiser. May he be a happy and healthy kid. Sounds like he lucked out in the parent dept.
Harlan,
Didn't get in yesterday, so I only now read about the mess with the Prowler at the Edge of Harlan's Bullshit Threshold. Sorry to see that this once again has ended up on your radar screen and I wish I'd been there to add my voice. I'm glad things seem to be working in your favor. You've been very kind to me in the past, and naturally I feel rather kindly toward you. What a great bunch of folks we have here on the board. What a kindly, generous fella you are, gracious even with Eric, when it might have been easy to snap at him.
Just remember something you probably already know. Mr. Priest and Grog, or whatever that other guy's name is, are not worthy adversaries. Together they wouldn't add up to a gnat. You have friends and fans far more worthy, and I hope that takes some of the sting out. Maybe a hug from the missus, too.
Here's wishing I could go to San Fran for the signing to thank you in person, but I hope this will do instead.
Chuck
VENKMAN!!!!!
HAPPY BABY!!!!!!
I got your message about the new boy and wanted to say congratulations.
9 pounds is HUGE.
I look so forward to reading of your adventure in the delivery room when and if you have the time and inclination.
Again, CONGRATULATIONS my pal-- you're the MAN!
:)
Cindy
HARLAN, an addendum: I duplicated the message I sent and put it in an e-mail sent to Amazon's "General Questions" form, which is NOT the same as their suggestions form--this one promises: "We will reply as soon as possible, usually within 24 hours."
JAY: It won't be on PAD's website anytime soon; he and the webmaster had only gotten up to archiving the third "But I Digress ..." column, from 1990, before the site went nuts and they had to switch up servers and rewrite code. CBG's website doesn't archive columns either, so this might be a good time to start another push for Krause Publications to collect a second, third, fourth, et al., book of "But I Digress ..." columns.
Little Washu: The killer in the Intro to Film course at the local university is its addiction to the Bordwell&Thompson formalist approach -- a class on Sound: Diegetic and Non-diegetic, a class on Editing, and so on and so forth. It's non-chronological and seemingly hostile to people who come in already interested in films.
Explaining the Axis of Action and the 30-degree rule is always fun, though, in a Professor Frink sort of way. That and counting shots in _Citizen Kane._
Cheers, Jon
HARLAN: The PlanetFeedback letter has been sent--and it DOES apparently go straight to Bezos (or, more likely, Bezos' secretary). Even though the pairings of your books with Priest's seem to have gone away for the nonce, I pointed out that an apology was in order, as was an assurance that such things wouldn't happen again.
A happy aside: Your books are now "Great Buy"'d with VOICE FROM THE EDGE, of which the site says it has only one left, with more on order (of the CD version, that is). And is the second of the "Voice" audiobooks really coming out next month, as Amazon says? I smell Hanukkah gift!
A funny bit on Ellison in this week's CBG that equates Harlan with Rocky the Flying Squirrel, "Weird Unka" Neil Gaiman with Bullwinkle and Todd MacFarlane as Boris (I think that's who Todd was in the metaphor) It also has a cute little tale of David's oldest daughter spending time with "Unky Harlan" and invading his inner sanctum to show him her tap shoes. Quite amusing. I'm sure even moreso from Harlan's point of view. :)
Don't know if it's on David's website yet.
Harlan,
Keep us "posted", as I'm sure you will, on any contact or progress you make with Amazon. All the good folk in this here cyber-hamlet are tired of the flakes you have to keep blowing your time and energy on.
Hope things get straightened out.
Susan:
Do you have any plans to offer any out-of-print stuff at the San Francisco signing? If not, I'd like to reserve a hardcover of Troublemakers, please. If so, I'll buy one at the signing and hopefully have it personalized with a bit of that famous Ellison wit.
Thanks.
Frank,
I wouldn't count on Amazon so readily cleaning up its act. So long as institutions like infomercials set the precedent for misleading advertising I think all will posit, "well, if they can do it WE can do it."
...and, uh, nope...nope...I've no whim, inkling, itch or plan to see RED DRAGON.
Eric,
"if (Priest is) remembered at all, it will be by Ellison biographers in about two paragraphs."
soitenly moa than he d'soives.
Washu,
re: film classes. I'll give you this: I analyze films all the time but I enjoy doing so free of the constraints of a class environment. I think of most films - whether I like them or hate them - as a personal experience. The classroom often removes that feeling, imposing a sense of distance. I saw SHADOW OF A DOUBT in a class once; I couldn't experience it the way I did on my own (and grew extremely attached to it). Perhaps analyzing films isn't your grievance so much as the sterililty a classroom brings to it.
(On the other hand, we screened De Palma's SISTERS once in a classroom and REALLY had a great time tearing it apart. We all hated it; and that was a big class, of around 60. That was fun).
JON,
I didn't raise it as a question. Surely you can imagine the jitters people had in their shower stalls for a while during PSYCHO'S run. The imagined hazy phantom or shadow of someone with a knife suddenly appearing outside the glass door or curtain most certainly crossed their radar screens, stirring a touch of paranoia; the creepiness of that should't be such a mystery, just because we're desesitized by it now. 'Sides, tons of interviews with people from that period DO recount audience reactions at the time. We don't NEED a book about it.
I was going to complain that this was a freedom of speech issue until I realized that misleading adds are not really that ethical. Amazon made a big fuck-up, and hopefully they will mend the fence.
I never did believe that advertising was protected by the First Amendment the way other speech was; that is why I support the effort to rid the country of those silly billboards cluttering America's roadways.
Harlan, what Eric said made sense, but I would like you to challenge Priest to a debate that might be printed on the Webder-page. But I am sure the guy is merely a measly little roach, who hides in dark corners.
------------------
Rob, did you like Red Dragon?
HE, what's definitive is that Dangerous Visions has been re=released, and is going to sell. I plan on acquiring a copy meself. It's a book for all times.
Priest won't have anything on the shelves in 20 years (does he even now?), and if he's remembered at all, it will be by Ellison biographers in about two paragraphs.
Yaaaay: All is well in Venkland. I can't tell you how happy I am that a person I've never met has a healthy addition to his family. I get good vibes from you, Venk, and I wish you and yours a wonderful life. Great news! Yaaaaay!!!
JON:
I dislike film courses, but I still attend them all the time. What the heck, I want my major.
I can't lay the blame on the professors, the students or the class itself; it's something about the whole process that I'm instinctively repelled by and can't explain.
But you do have a HUGE point. For every Merchant Ivory production I had to be dragged across burning coals for (with perhaps the exception of A ROOM WITH A VIEW), I also experienced Charlie Chaplin's greatest works, Lang's METROPOLIS, Hitchcock's SHADOW OF A DOUBT, etcetera.
THE LAST LAUGH, however, I discovered on my own. My personal number one film of all time. Top of the list. Ubermensch of my entire cinematic lifespan.
Period.
HARLAN:
I read your message between 10:00 and 11:00 pm my time. Almost everyone else had already leapt in to lend a hand. I thought for a while. Checked the 'Customers Who Bought this...' section on Amazon, saw BOOK ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER for myself. I tried to contact Amazon via e-mail with not much luck, and I wasn't sure what else I could do at the time. I went to sleep, and came back here to discover the fuss had been resolved.
I'm sorry I didn't offer nearly as much help as the other Webderlanders, but I know you'll settle the concern with Amazon without any bad karma on either side of the fence.
Cheers, Benny
Mr. Ellison's shadow has loomed so large and his character so great in the realm of fantastic fiction, that pernicious tiny gnats are compelled to bite. But since the fleas are so few, they're hardly drawing blood... My own love for "Dangerous Visions" and "Again, Dangerous Visions" and my respect for it's editor far exceed any disappointment on the status of "LDV." I'm the eternal optimist, and believe publication is only a matter of time, in all it's relativity.
HARLAN THANKS THE HELL OUT OF YOU:
Alex Jay...yes, by all means, please do contact Planet Feedback and pass along the excellence of your request.
Everybody else, including Eric: I am in your debt. Not an idle phrase. You have call on me now, just for the simple act of caring enough to stir your efforts. I cannot say thankyou loudly or often enough. And, yes, Eric, I know I oughtta shine this thing on, but even as you and you and, oh yes, you over there...even as each of you has some petty, silly, "blow it off for the sake of your sanity" annoyance that turns you into a crazed fruit-bat when it pops up...so do I flame and flare when Groth and Priest hit this particular button.
I know I should control my feelings better in this instance, it's decades past and ridiculous now, but . . .
Either way, upset or sanguine, I am in YOUR debt. And tomorrow I'll be on Amazon.Com like South Park's Mongols on that poor bastard's wall.
Yr. pal, Harlan
Jon,
I'm afraid I must differ with you on this. It has everything to do with Amazon policy. Their search engine is easy to manipulate, if you're willing to spend enough time playing "click on another title." I have little doubt that such manipulation is precisely why this linkage comes up. Somebody is pushing The Grudge That Never Died in association with Harlan's books.
But if the same thing happened with "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and it was being associated with the work of Elie Weisel, do you really think Amazon wouldn't be willing to strip the link?
They can do something about it. It's just an issue of whether they're willing to.
--Alex
Alex Jay: Susquehanna Hat Company? Slowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch...
Cheers, Jon
JON: You okay? A whole post, and not one mention of me by someone else's name!
Rob: As to audience reactions to _Psycho_...as I mentioned in my post, my mother was terrified by the movie. A question would be whether there's a good book out there on exactly the question you raised -- what were audience reactions to [insert film title here]? A well-researched book based on interviews would be a dandy piece of work, and I've had exactly the same topic come up more than once in casual conversation. And reviews and news stories don't necessarily give one much of an idea of how a film affected people.
Little Washu: As to film classes...their worth is going to depend on the films, the readings, the student, the theoretical model, the professor and possibly the TA (if there are any), not necessarily in that order. I probably wouldn't have seen _The Last Laugh_ or _Birth of a Nation_ or _Grand Illusion_ as 'young' as I did without a film class, and I was already a film buff (compared to the general population) when I took the classes with those films and others. I probably would have looked them up eventually -- but I wasn't a normal student. You might have a bunch of kids who are taking an intro film course because it looks like an easy credit, same as with any other course. But out of those students, a few will be exposed to stuff that they never otherwise would have seen, and they'll dig it and want more. Even a lousy professor can't destroy _Rules of the Game_ -- and some of the people seeing _Rules of the Game_ would never otherwise have seen it _and_ might actually go 'hey -- maybe those subtitled movies aren't that bad.' I realize that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of higher education. In defense of higher education, I've had film profs who could get people turned on to stuff that they might otherwise dismiss out of hand, and I've had courses that made relatively minor stuff (for example, _The Musketeers of Pig Alley_) exciting because the course laid out how that film fit into an evolving language of movies and an evolving pantheon of directors and subjects. But at the end of the day, my baseline defense of any film course (or lit course or history course or philosophy course or insert course focus here) regardless of teacher or model would be that some people will see stuff that they never otherwise would have seen, and like it, and go looking for more.
Cheers, Jon
Eric Martin wrote:
**I can say the only thing impressive about it was that the non-appearance of an announced anthology could so much sturm and drang, and that people who should know better (Priest and Groth), would try to convince a reading public that a book in limbo was something bizarre and outrageous, rather than a commonplace in the byzantine byways of book publishing. **
Right.
To me, this has been the most puzzling aspect of the flap-a-doodle regarding the 3rd DV book.
Sure, everyone would love to see it. Sure, everyone who submitted work for it would love to see that work published.
But for crying out loud, don't projects get announced and then pushed back or cancelled ALL THE FREAKING TIME???
Perhaps the reason the non-existence of the 3rd DV seems to stir such emotions is that the first two books are just so damned amazing, the non-existence of the third really feels leaves a void that many would love filled. That would seem to be quite a testament to the exceptional quality of the first two DVs, the two books that got me hooked for life on speculative fiction.
>does that mean someone should allow himself or herself (or his or her works) to be used as an advertisement for an attack upon him? <
Amazon lumps these books together to move product. Do authors have rights in telling booksellers how to market their wares? Probably, but I think it needs to be spelled out in a sales contract from the publishers.
RE: Deadloss, or whatever they're calling it now: it's hard to believe that there is one person alive who has read this ramble and thus decided that "Harlan Ellison is a bad person and now I'm not gonna buy any more of his books." Indeed, I'd wager that 99% of the readership has been Ellison fans and committed patrons, who ingested the screed with the same bemusement and slight stupefaction that I did. And I read it for free. Would anyone out there actually pay for this thing?
In re to "The Book on the Edge of Forever", DO NOT mention that title if you are within earshot of HE!
David
ERIC: Even if the "sturm und drang" dies down, does that mean someone should allow himself or herself (or his or her works) to be used as an advertisement for an attack upon him? To be forced, in essence, to pimp for his own attackers?
Though I loathe the man, I wouldn't want people looking for Rush Limbaugh's books to see that they can get a deal if they buy one of his books at the same time they buy Franken's RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A BIG FAT IDIOT; it would just be wrong. And you wouldn't expect to see a copy of Nicholas von Hoffman's and Garry Trudeau's TROUT FISHING IN THE REFLECTING POOL (or even a copy of something less adversarial, like Ted White's BREACH OF FAITH) being sold in the Nixon Library.
Even moreso than a brick-and-mortar store's bookshelf, an author's page on Amazon.com (or B&N, or Ziesing, or Powells) is that author's own store; he or she should not be forced to share his shelf with those who attack and deride him.
ALL: On a whole 'nother note, I happened upon Gen. Chuck Yeager's official site, and came across something interesting: On the store page where he sells autographed stuff to benefit his foundation for education, he has this posted at the bottom of the order form:
"Waiver: I agree that neither I, nor any agent of mine, will sell, barter, trade, auction, or in any way profit from any item autographed by General Yeager."
It goes on to say that no items will be shipped without this signed waiver.
Granted, it's just a caution; all on the honor system--but this might be something which Harlan and a lot of others who've found their signed knickknacks--usually signed for free, and often with monies paid going to the celebritiies' charities--sold for the long green on ebay, stretching from athletes to artists to politicians, might consider. What thoughts have you all on that?
Excuse me, that's "Dozios."
“Cindiniana:”
The flames of this fire, never persuasively blazing to begin with, died out a long time ago. It’s now almost 2003. The flapdoodle over the 3rd Dangerous Visions book dragged on a bit throughout the 70s, but was only of concern to a few cognoscenti who had precious little else to talk about. Remember, this was the pre-Net age; genre gossip was a much rarer commodity back then.
Having read the Priest essay, back when it was available on the Internet without charge, I can say the only thing impressive about it was that the non-appearance of an announced anthology could so much sturm and drang, and that people who should know better (Priest and Groth), would try to convince a reading public that a book in limbo was something bizarre and outrageous, rather than a commonplace in the byzantine byways of book publishing.
That in itself is a tribute to Ellison, I suppose: I can’t imagine many people caring much if the latest Gardner Dozier annual didn’t make its appearance one year (indeed, we might even breathe a sigh of relief). Oh, maybe there’d be one or two lawsuits, some screaming at the Stoker Awards cash bar, but not much else.
So, to fight this non-battle only fans the dead embers, and only serves the interests of the non-entities who are trying to make a very minor profit off a non-issue that occurred about 25 years ago. The biggest boosters of Deadloss are its antagonists, by their continued public freaking at its blue moon mentions.
As Sean Connery once said, Cindiana, let it go.
Hey Eric,
Ever have something really shitty happen to you at the hands of someone who hated you for no good reason? Ever had your mom or somebody say, " I wouldn't waste my time thinking about it."or " Don't dwell on the negative" Or " Rise above it."
Doesn't it piss you off when your blood is boiling and somebody tries to make you feel better by trivializing the insult or trauma you were dealt?
He's hot for good reason darlin'. See those heat waves rolling off his post? Best stand back and let him work it out his way.
Cindy
Great minds, Barney. I had already written mine when I read your post.
I signed my name and gave my town of origin too-- in case this Priest troll wants to come to Texas and whip my ass.
LOL!!
I only wish there had been a no star rating. I also found a lovely feature that Amazon offers... it's a little thing that reads... "WHAT'S YOUR ADVICE?" it then has a nifty button for
" I recommend "... and a button to click that says, "instead of this item" and a spot to insert the number of a preferred choice. I recommended "An Edge In My Voice". ( which is ISBN 1565049608).
:)
Oh and I'm not done.. after all, I'm a flyin' monkey too.
Cindy
Chris,
"I think there's probably a good reason the technique is used so rarely."
Yeah...well we part on CARRIE's example but we ARE in agreement on - woooooh...I just saw Scott Spezio's homer suddenly give the Angels 3 runs, after an hour of dour faces! - the discretion needed in applying the effect. You should take a look at the two films I mentioned in my earlier post.
>While I have no suggestions on how to get Amazon to block such a poorly associated link<
I'm not sure one can. Amazon, as a book-seller, can market books in any way they like, unless a contract from a publisher specifically details they do not. I doubt any of Ellison's publishers have a contract rider concerning the Priest work. That may be the only effective way to stop Amazon, or any other book vendor, from packaging Priest with Ellison.
It would be pretty hard for any retailer to keep tabs on literary feuds without such a formal notice. Tom Clancy is currently bundled with Clive Cussler. What if Tom and Clive loathe each other? Is a handful of e-mails from one author's fans enough justification to kill a promotion? I think something more official will be needed.
>I am furious, as you may gather!<
HE, rise above. It's all ancient history. Not worth the effort to even care.
BARNEY: Hell, they still haven't removed UNDERSTANDING LOVED BOYS AND BOYLOVERS (nor the glowing reviews it received from people who began their missives with, "I am a pedophile, and ..."), despite angered reviews, a flood of complaints, media attention, and such ... I'm surprised that the Harlan/Book on the Edge Great Buy disappeared as soon as it did.
As both a purchaser of badly described merchandise on Amazon and a professional bookseller on Amazon I understand all too well the "that's outside the scope of our responsibility" attitude that all of you will probably encounter when dealing with the folks at Amazon.
While I have no suggestions on how to get Amazon to block such a poorly associated link - and I suspect it may be simply a function of dumb algorithmic association, the same way every time I buy a novel written in the last 5 years half.com thinks I might like to ALSO buy one of their copies of "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood" as though that would be a perfect compliment to a new Joe Gores DKA novel,
I DO HAVE THIS SUGGESTION;
Write a review of the Priest book. I'm sure folks here might be able to think of something to say about such a work. That review, however testy, however unfavorable, will follow that book wherever ISBN's of the damned go when they're not trying the patience of better writers.
Difficulty removing stuff from Amazon cuts both ways.
- Barney Dannelke
I just spent about twenty minutes cruising around Ellison itmes on Amazon.com and wasn't recommended BOOK ON THE EDGE.... It has happened in the past, a while ago, but not now. I figured I'd add my voice to the crowd, one more can't hurt, but since it didn't come up for me, I didn't. Perhaps the e-mail messages and such have already prompted removal. If anyone else goes on and I'm wrong, let me know and I'll go in and send off an e-mail message to the company regardless of whether it's there when I look or not. I'd do it now except I don't want to beat a dead horse if they've already shot it.
Bill
Rob asked:
**I tend to view your sentiments on film aligning closest with mine among the post-addicts here. We did clash once, however, on the validity of split-screen. It's clear to me you've been through LOTS of films by now. I wonder, then, did you ever finally come across one you felt utilized the technique effectively **
I can think of two films in which the use of split-screen benefitted the film - Sisters and Requiem for a Dream. In both cases, the split-screen is used not to show separate actions but the same action from slightly different points of view, creating a voyeuristic, creepy feeling in the scenes.
I think split-screen harms both Carrie and The Ballad of Cable Hogue and I think there's probably a good reason the technique is used so rarely.
I'm not sure if you have this information already, but I offer it as a real-world alternate contact point...
Amazon Inc
Headquarters
P.O. Box 81226
Seattle, Washington 98108-1226
Phone Corporate
(206) 266-1000
Address of Principal Executive Offices
1200—12th Avenue South, Suite 1200, Seattle,
Washington 98144
(206) 266-1000
Amazon live telephone customer service 16 hours a day
Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: 1-800-201-7575
Auction Pro phone number 1-877-251-0696
********************
Amazon.com
1200 12th Avenue South
Suite 1200
Seattle WASHINGTON 98144-2734
(206) 266-1000
(206) 266-1821
*******************************************
The second number directly above is different - it may be worth something.
I'll be adding my voice to the growing electronic torrent.
Bern
ALEX: My only concern is with the "Great Buy" links. Personally, I don't see what anyone can do about the listings for other purchases--that has little or nothing to do with Amazon policy, so there's no point in getting upset about it.
Sent the following e-mail to Amazon's Help Dept.:
"Dear Sirs,
A "Great Buy" link to Harlan Ellison's TROUBLEMAKERS is listed on the order page for THE BOOK ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, by Christopher Priest. As a fan of Mr. Ellison's, I am offended at this linking of the two books. Mr. Priest's work is little more than a thinly-disguised attack on Mr. Ellison's reputation, and I am disturbed that Amazon.com thinks the two books are complimentary IN ANY WAY. I'm a loyal customer who's spent literally hundreds of dollars through Amazon over the last few years, so I trust that this is just an oversight, and the link to Mr. Ellison's book will be removed as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time, and don't hesitate to contact me for any reason regarding this matter."
It's not much, but it may help.
Guys, let's all get on the same page about how the Amazon problem works. It's essentially a search engine. You bring up a Harlan Ellison book and it looks for other books that have sold in orders including Harlan's books, or books with similar subject matter. A single viewing of the page for "Troublemakers" will not determine if "The Grudge That Goes On Forever" is linked up, because it won't come up every time. I just ran "Troublemakers" four times. "Bitchy Book about Ellison" came up the fourth time, but not the first three.
It probably doesn't hurt if you view Harlan's books every time you shop at Amazon, while making a point of ignoring Groth's Grudge. Pushes it down the algorithm, as it were.
Off to see "The Ring." Night, all.
The "Great Buy" link to TROUBLEMAKERS is still there on the page for Priest's book. I'll e-mail a complaint to Amazon as soon as possible. (Your other books seem Priest-free, as far as I can tell.)
HARLAN:
As of 6:45pm, the "Great Buy" links to THE BOOK ON THE EDGE... have been removed from the Amazon pages for TROUBLEMAKERS and DANGEROUS VISIONS. I'll check the listings for your other books, and see if the Priest barnacle is there, as well.
OK...here's the run-down, so no one wastes TOO much time taking useless routes:
I called Amazon and even customer service can't locate a webmaster e-mail address. (Hell, I'm used to tracking down board members and VP's...these guys provide nothing). They assured me, though, my message would be forwarded and one of us will get some response within 24 hours. I used a polite professional tone...I didn't want them thinking they were dealing with some dubious Trekkie-type fan...but stressed urgency in the matter.
Harlan,
I can't believe this is happening again. Unfortunately, all my contacts--like so many of yours--are among writers and publishers, not booksellers. Last time this happened, you resolved it while I spun my wheels trying to find a route to some small degree of influence with Amazon.
For what it's worth, I've just written the following letter to Amazon. Doubt if it will help much, but if enough people write, hey, maybe we can trigger something.
-------
Sirs,
I notice your website is once again linking the works of reknowned essayist and short story author Harlan Ellison with a particularly scurrilous attack upon him. The book "The Book on the Edge of Forever" does not appeal to Harlan Ellison fans. It's a foul attempt to harrass and defame the man. It doesn't appeal to Ellison fans. It's an appeal to those who dislike him, published and written by two men who have an axe to grind and a grudge that goes on...well, forever.
I realize your system is automated to some degree, but I can assure you that you're not selling more books this way. You're pissing off Ellison's legion of fans at best. De-link the wretched Priest book, and give us all a respite.
Cordially,
Alex Krislov
Webmaster, ForumsAmerica.com/books
CompuServe Literary Forum
CompuServe Writers Forum
That is a labyrinth at Amazon. There is a 'Contact Us' page accessible through the Help page, complete with the caveat that emails won't be answered. It's also possible to review the books, which means suggesting that a potential buyer might want to invest $6.95 in something other than _The Book..._ is also possible.
I'll muck about a bit more later, once I've eaten. This isn't probably any comfort, but Amazon at least isn't supplying a further discount if one purchases both _Troublemakers_ and _the Book..._ -- the price for both is simply the discounted price of _Troublemakers_ if one simply ordered that along with _The Book..._ at full price.
Later, Jon
HARLAN: There's a web-based outfit called Planet Feedback which allows users, free of charge, to complain, compliment, or whatever to any given company. They have e-mail addresses and snail mail contacts for thousands of companies logged in their database, and will send users' comments along to the execs you cite. A few years ago, I had occasion to use the service and received prompt replies, one even from the president of a corporation.
Shall I quote your post below and send off comments on your behalf?
(Not that I think Jeff Bezos'll see it, but still, it ought to go to someone who can get something done.)
BTW, you guys. You can access that link to voice your reactions about that bullshit with Priest and Groth to Amazon...it's direct e-mail.
Harlan,
I made some effort to contact Amazon.com's webmaster. I don't know if my course was addle-brained or not, but for now I sent through a polite request, simply identifying myself as an assistant to give credence to the request but without leaving specifics, to contact you. I have no direct means to reach you other than here and Rick's webmaster address, so I provided the latter. For the time this contact link was the best access I could find; for all I know you'd found it and it proved useless: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/handle-generic-form/103-0374681-6565451
But I put the message through anyway. I've done online research before and found the necessary contacts. But I have to admit Amazon seemed to put up more screens than many organizations I've come across. Anyway, let's see what happens. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do.
Harlan,
Hi, bro. Just popped in and saw your post; I'm starting a browse right now. I did promise you my assistance if I could provide it. I'm juggling my effort with several errands; if I get no immediate results I'll try a couple of tricks in the course of the day. My computer is low on power (we're talking a 166 here) so a compatriot on the field might find something before I do. Let's see what happens.
...ah...HUMAN VIRTUE...one day we'll find it...many millenia from now...
HARLAN ASKS URGENTLY FOR HELP:
That defamatory piece of crap by Christopher Priest (a writer I rejected for THE LAST DANGEROUS VISIONS, thus incurring his wrath), as published by the despicable Gary Groth, who got me embroiled in that ridiculous Fleischer lawsuit, and who was one of the founders of Enemies of Ellison, well, it's surfaced again.
If you go to Amazon.Com and punch up my book TROUBLEMAKERS or, more urgently, the new 35th anniversary edition of DANGEROUS VISIONS, you will find links to "people who bought these also bought" or "books of similar interest" and they've got Priest's "Book on the Edge of Forever" attached as a "best buy," if you buy one of MY books. It's not bad enough the shitbird has returned to the manger, but now it's making money for these thugs RIDING MY COAT-TAILS, which was what Groth and Priest intended from the first...to use my name and rep to defame and harass me. And make a buck off it.
A year ago this crap first turned up on Amazon, like a bloodsuck on my neck, and at that time both I and my attorney spoke to a woman identified as the Amazon.Com webmaster, a Ms. Sarah Chace, who--after many conversations--assured me it would be deleted. Now, either it was never done, or a glitch has brought it back, or someone has purposely reinstituted it.
I am furious, as you may gather!
Thus, I come to you folks, who seem to know your way around this e.labyrinth far better than I. For hours today, I've tried to reach ANYBODY at Amazon who can quash this NOW. I don't want to be jerked around till Monday...who knows how long this has been up there ALREADY?!?
PLEASE unleash your internet abilities. You guys seem to know what you're doing, as I have come a cropper trying to get through the corporate foliage. Get through this impenetrable obfuscatory facade that keeps complaints beyond the castle moat. Make some noise. Raise your voices, I ask you, to get them to contact me personally, immediately; or at least to decry this misuse of my name and work. (I realize this is a piddling matter in comparison to the real and serious matters you have to contend with. I haven't lost all perspective. But if you know what it's like to be frustrated, angered, feel used and buttfucked, then you will identify with my irrational need to do something about this instantly.) If I sound apoplectic, it is because I am.
Whatever you can do, however small, I will appreciate. No...hell...I'll MORE than appreciate it. I'll drop to my knees and sing your praises in several languages.
And let me know what happens. I'll pop back in here later.
Thank thank thank you. Harlan.
Many congratulations, Jay!
Treat the good mama to a footrub on my bill, okay?
Chris,
I tend to view your sentiments on film aligning closest with mine among the post-addicts here. We did clash once, however, on the validity of split-screen. It's clear to me you've been through LOTS of films by now. I wonder, then, did you ever finally come across one you felt utilized the technique effectively (Noting, I realize many films DIDN'T. But a FEW did, e.g., CHARLY and THE BOSTON STRANGLER with Curtis and Fonda)?
I'm not interested in returning to the debate itself. This is just sweet, warm, amiable, loving, wholesome, benevolent, uninhibited, innocent curiosity.
Yeah, Jay!
Congrats on the bundle o' joy and I wish all of you much happiness.
Bern!
P.S. A belated shout out to Dennis for his recent promotion to 'rental unitdom, as well.
We interrupt your regular commentary on sex, films, Chomsky and religion to bring you this notice of further planetary contamination by new and casual addition of human beings:
I AM A DAD AGAIN...FINALLY.
For more details, see the post in the Pavillion.
Thanks to all of you, again, from the lot of us.
(Even Skunky the Dead Wonder Gerbil who was FAR more entertaining in print here after his death than at any time in his 18 months in the habitrail.)
**Actually, that's one of the few reasons I despise film classes. They trap your mind into this state of perpetual hoity-toity analytical chrysalis instead of simply EXPERIENCING the film on it's own terms. **
Certainly, everyone is entitled to enjoy and experience films however they see fit so I don't claim you are wrong.
Personally, however, I enjoy analyzing films. It adds to my enjoyment of the film. Also, many of the movies I am most interested require analysis. I don't think anyone can understand 2001: A Space Odyssey or Last Year at Marienbad without doing supplemental research on the films - critics can fill a valuable role in this regard.
I think there's MUCH more to movies than simply the visceral reaction a viewer has. We have reams and reams of critical analysis on Shakespeare and I would guess most people agree that, while some of it is garbage, such material is of use in appreciating the Bard's work.
I already know I love many of the films directed by Kubrick, Herzog, Fassbinder, Murnau, Dreyer, Satyajit Ray, Resnais, Welles, Wilder, Peckinpah and Lean. I'd also like to know more about them rather than just settling for "I like them."
Alex,
"I used to wish for film versions of my favorite novels and comics. I don't anymore."
In many cases that's happened to me as well. In some, however, I often obssess over how I would film it (filmmaking is what I once wanted to do; one day, when it's monetarily feasible, I may still take that bend). I only raised the case with MAN-THING because of the comics craze in movies right now (it's interesting as it occurs to me now: for eons this was a genre isolated to tv; comics - superheroes, anyway - were rarely, RARELY considered for movies; it was almost taboo in movies; now they're all being adapted for movies and almost never considered for tv). As studios are now considering almost every title under the sun, this is the one property I tried to imagine adapting without losing what makes it unique and effective: the creature is a mindless empath. Every story is narrated to describe the subjective draw some powerful emotion has on the creature and the fucked-up character it's all centered around. Fear is the one emotion that causes the creature terrible pain; for his own survival he must destroy the source of that pain. I don't know how you're going to capture this internal complexity on film without a narrator (which probably would work better, if at all, in a tv format than in a movie); and even then something seems lost. It's the one comics character inherent to the printed page.
Here's a bit of Robert Christgau's review of Eminem's new album:
"I'm not saying The Eminem Show isn't a good album. I like it and I enjoy it; I think it represents an articulate, coherent, formally appropriate response to Eminem's changing position and role, one that acknowledges the privileges and alienations that accrue to all fame as well as the resolution of Marshall Mathers's worst traumas and the specifics of his success. It states its business exactly where it should, on the first song, which is one of the good ones: "White America." Some terrific lyrics here. Rather than complaining about his oppression by the media—a wheeze that comes up briefly on only two tracks—he accentuates the positive: "so many motherfuckin' people who feel like me," "a fuckin' army marchin' in back of me." He observes, realistically, that when he was an unknown MC his skin color worked against him, that he was probably as good for Dre's stalled career as Dre was for his potential one. But he also recognizes that at his level of stardom whiteness is an advantage: "Let's do the math, If I was black I would've sold half." Eminem's audience is no longer an expanded version of the hip hop audience. It's bigger and whiter—a "rock" audience. His musical conclusion: to cut back his involvement in the genre he's explored with such brilliance, passion, wit, fidelity, and respect. "
Little bitty Washu, But you gotta dig those new laser guided urinals that flush by themselves?
No, Movies are open for debate among snobs, but if a person cannot see the beauty in some classic film then thats that. And there is that debate about quality of the older films compared to the newer ones. This stuff will go on forever. Snobs jacking off other snobs is not a fun pursuit. Enjoy films, but look for an asthetic. Art is not a dirty word.
Todd, I hope you are wrong about Punch Drunk Love. But I will still hate Adam Sandler. If the guy gets an Oscar I may order some takeout hemlock pudding.
Frank, what have you been smoking? The weather conditions at the destination airport were practically textbook conditions for icing of aircraft control surfaces, and there was a 30-knot crosswind for an aircraft notorious for difficulty with crosswinds at landing. I doubt that it's "pilot error," either; just an unfortunate confluence of difficulties that would have challenged the best pilots in the best small aircraft.
[When on active duty, I commanded aircraft maintenance squadrons and have buried more than one pilot.]
JON:
Actually, that's one of the few reasons I despise film classes. They trap your mind into this state of perpetual hoity-toity analytical chrysalis instead of simply EXPERIENCING the film on it's own terms. Maybe that's the cause behind why PSYCHO didn't effect me so much. It's like a restroom in a mall. Everyone's already been there, and you don't really have much else to do once you arrive except try to come up with an interesting new way to urinate.
ALEX:
"What did we, as an audience, gain from the film version of "From Hell" and "Spider-Man?" Weren't the originals better?"
Wellll, FROM HELL and SPIDER-MAN is kind of a big leap. FROM HELL is a self-contained graphic novel with a solid beginning, middle and end. SPIDER-MAN is a never-ending soap opera.
After another viewing, I do acknowledge SPIDER-MAN is an incredibly goofy, silly movie. But what makes me adore it is the complete absence of arrogance and obnoxiousness prevalent in ALL major Hollywood output nowadays. It has a distinct heart and soul. It's neither superior or inferior to the comics. It's a beautiful, charming extension.
And I still think the Green Goblin costume looks sweet.
Rob, the Ring is supposed to be scary, and the Blair Witch Project does it to me every time.
Could you all imagine Harlan in a mosh pit? Woohaa.
I am broken into fragments of fragments when I heard about Wellstone passing, and in such a bad way. Not just because he was a decent liberal, but because he had a certain kind of ethics unknown in most of Washington. His passing bites out a piece of my heart. The Republicans must be celebrating as I type.
Call me crazy if you will, but it is possible that there might have been sabotage associated with the Wellstone plane crash. Not saying Bush did it, but something seems fishy. And did you all know that both Edward Kennedy and Mondale were supposed to be on the same flight, but they passed. I have no proof in this conspiracy theory, so I will leave it here.
Reading the boards over at TCJ and see someone posted about a heavy metal tribute song to Harlan by the band BlöödHag. Included in the post are some lyrics and song info.
For those interested, the URL is:
http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001237.html
John Q.
Rob, sorry for misreading you. I inferred, from your remarks about Man-Thing being unfilmable, that you'd like to see a filmed version that worked. Now, me, I don't think it's unfilmable. Some of Steve's old story lines, such as "Night of the Laughing Clown," and "A Candle for Saint-Cloud," seem open to film interpretation. But I don't want them to be filmed.
I used to wish for film versions of my favorite novels and comics. I don't anymore. Most adaptations suck. Film has its own strengths, but I've come to feel that the bulk of adaptations detract from the strengths of the originals, rather than adding to them. What did we, as an audience, gain from the film version of "From Hell" and "Spider-Man?" Weren't the originals better? And those are pretty good films--I'm sure you can name a dozen rotten ones that adapted comics. After what Lucas did to "Howard the Duck," I grew to dread adaptations. I'd rather leave well enough alone.
On "Frenzy," mine is a personal reaction. I'm not easily repulsed. Sometimes, though, I simply react so strongly I can't read something or see a particular film. I once told Stephen King I'd read all but one of his books. He wondered why I didn't read "The Dark Half," and I told him straightforwardly that when you're a twin, and your twin son just died, you don't feel drawn to a book about a surviving twin with twin sons, whose own dead twin returning from the grave (if you can follow that). It wasn't the book's quality or lack thereof; it was a personal reaction, not applicable to most people, and nothing to do with judging artistic merit. Sometimes, that's how it goes.
--Alex
Jon,
Scary movies: I don't find ANYTHING scary nowadays but when I was a kid JAWS scared the fuck out of me and I quite literally had trouble keeping my legs in the water that summer. I believe, in its time, PSYCHO had to have been comparable in its impact on audiences (though on deeper levels too). It HAD have been. Audiences hadn't been subjected to anything like it BEFORE. My point is, and I'm sure you're savvy on this, PSYCHO doesn't scare me (though Marion's death is still agonizing) but I know WHY it scared the fuck out of everyone back then. The shower stall was as scarey a place for people in those months as ocean water was to people in the summertime of JAWS.
Little Washu: In terms of Hannibal (the novel), I'd agree exactly with what you said as well as what I wrote. The movie's got echoes of a lot of smarter stuff, but there's also a lot of the old 'let's please the guy who wanks off to entrail-showers' stuff.
Psycho and Frenzy: Psycho doesn't scare me or sicken me or make me worry, and that's probably as much about time and context as anything else -- I know people who were terrified by it when it was released. But I think filmed horror has a short shelf life in a lot of cases. Psycho works for me because a)Norman Bates is such a sympathetic character _contextually_ -- look at the camera angles that always put Bates at a disadvantage related to Martin Balsam's detective or Janet Leigh's boyfriend, both of whom loom far more manacingly in the film than Bates ever does -- and b)Anthony Perkins is so terrific in the role. All this supplements how weirdly funny the movie is, and it's not the funniniess of a period piece gone past its sell-by date. There are great shock moments in Psycho -- the shower scene, the overhead jump-out scene when Balsam's character is covertly investigating the upstairs (beautifully and smartly quoted in _Exorcist III_ from the horizontal) and the scene in the cellar -- but they're not the sort of thing that keeps a movie alive outside of a film class, because they're copied so much over and over again.
Cheers, Jon
Alex: "Adolph Green (of the songwriting duo Comden and Green) just died."
This saddens me so much. I just saw him the other month at the 50th Anniversary of "Singing in the Rain" celebration, and he was so exuberant! He just bubbled over with stories and jokes about the writing of the movie and probably talked more than any of the other guests. He was in a wheelchair but it was announced that he had fallen and broken his hip, and was otherwise perfectly fine. Oddly enough, Green was also in a wheelchair--we were told that she had recently fallen and sprained her ankle so as to keep him company.
Richard Harris too...it never rains but it pours. I feel sorry for all the kids now who will be mourning Dumbledore...
Todd,
I never shred a movie I haven't seen yet. Magnolia, on the other hand, I'm praising to the skies, as I just saw it for the first time recently. God, what a soaring piece on loneliness and making a connection.
Regards,
Joseph
Punch-Drunk Love is, so far, my favorite movie of the year.
Looooved this sucker. Mwaaah, big kisses!!!
OK, time for you guys to shred it to pieces and let me know that some Iranian movie about the love between a camel and a desert scorpion as allegory to solving the middle east crisis is far better than a quirky little love story starring Adam Sandler and directed by the man who gave me one of my favorite movies of the 90's, Magnolia.
Punch-Drunk Love......damn, I want to see it again right now!
-TODD
Alex,
Now and then you do this to me - either confusing my posts with someone else's or reading something I never wrote. I said nothing about wanting to see those comics titles filmed. I said I'd like to revisit them at some point (and added Man-Thing just happens to be a book that CAN'T be filmed).
...and to both you and Washu on FRENZY...
...yeah, its explicit cruelty hits you like a bull horn. Supposedly, its degree was urged by the studio more than Hitchcock - though it still would have been heavy. This was, after all, in the era of films like DELIVERANCE. BUT...the film in both structure and character development is SO well done...I easily got past the "willies". I was captivated by moments like the brilliant camera drifting up the Tames in the opening credits and the classically ingenious sequence in which we follow Rusk and his next victim all the way up two stair flights to her apartment; when the door closes behind them the camera slowly, quietly dollies back all the way to the ground floor, continuing out to the noisy, bustling afternoon street. FUCK! I love that scene. Of course, there's the dark humor too; as Jon mentioned, the inspector's wife tortures him with her hideous cooking school gourmet efforts. And Finch's character, who I can relate to when he is constantly shafted by his own luck and unemployment.
...the reason, Washu, I think we can feel sympathy for Bates and not Rusk - even though they're both victims of their own sick minds (in Frenzy police experts detail the symptoms accompanied by Rusk's type of psychosis, including impotency and the uncontrollable man-child buried within) - is because much of PSYCHO spends time in intimate talk with Bates; Bates is a nice guy who is caught in his own trap of madness, paralleled by Marion Crane's own personal trap. Sympathy and empathy are deliberatly and carefully set up. Rusk, on the other hand, is PRETENDING to be a nice guy; he's conscious of his acts - he remembers them and decides how he'll deal with it (he winds up framing Finch). From the outset, our sympathy is firmly with Finch (and perhaps the gentile police detective; his batty wife is the only other character in the film we'd really like to see taken out). Our pain for the two women brutalized and killed tend to push our sympathy for Finch almost to the sense of urgency he himself is caught up in.
Hitchcock is great with these eccentric, colorful psychos: Joseph Cotten as the elusive Uncle Charlie in SHADOW OF A DOUBT; the unforgettable Bruno Anthony, with forshadows of Bates' mother fixation, in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN; Bates, of course; and Rusk. Interestingly, I think Rusk is the only one in the group with all his clothes off meant to be explicitly loathsome (that's the reason he was played the gentleman, while Finch, his patsy, is violent-tempered, frustrated and edgy).
Don't ask me why I connect with all this so well. I don't think I want to know either.
Li'L Washu: I see HANNIBAL as Thomas Harris' doing to LAMBS fans what Frank Miller id with THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN: Throwing satire in the faces of those who expected the sequel to be something momentous.
Only difference is, I ENJOYED DK2, and thought HANNIBAL an abject failure, if a beautifully-shot one.
For one reason or another, FRENZY was far more effective and disturbing to me than Hithcock's 'magnum opus', PSYCHO. (The term magnum opus is interpretive when it comes to Hitch, mind you.) The psychopath in FRENZY was far more diabolical and loathsome than Norman could ever achieve. Perhaps it's because Norman was never fully conscious of what his other persona was committing, rendering him a little more sympathetic. Emphasis on a little.
JON:
No, I don't think you're blowing smoke. I'm not sure what it is about HANNIBAL, but I love it's bizarre, quirky attitude of, "I'm gonna throw all your fancy-pants expectations to the WINDS, nimrod! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
Please don't ask me to justify myself on this, because I can't.
You've got a stronger stomach than I do, Rob. I cannot watch "Frenzy." The murder scene is just to intense for me. I recognize it's a fine film, but I can't sit through that scene without feeling like I'm going to puke. A lot of people talked about the realism in "Schindler's List," and, yes, it was realistic--but it never turned my stomach like "Frenzy" did.
You also commented on wishing for a film version of "Howard the Duck" and "Man-Thing." I trust you know that both were the brainchidren of Steve Gerber. He's sworn never to work for Hollywood again. A great guy, Steve, but you have to remember that Howard is essentially Steve with feathers. He won't sell out, even for a really big paycheck. Too many dreams stomped upon.
Harlan: Robin and I took in "The Producers" last week. There's a point where Bialowsky says, "Thank you, Prince Mishkin." Made me wonder how many people know the origins of that name, y'know? Too many Idiots out there.
Charlie: I'm not certain, but I believe that the governor of Minnesota can name a fill-in Senator until the swearing-in of the next Congress. But I dunno who Ventura would name. There's even been talk of him resigning a few days early, to give his Lieutenant Governor a shot at being, for a few days, the first female Governor in the State's history.
--Alex
Being from a state that has decided "liberal" means "to the left of Hizzoner da Mayor, Emperor Richard I of the City by Lake Michigan"--a status to which Gerald Ford could well aspire--I truly regret the untimely death of Paul Wellstone. I knew him slightly from my time in DC. He was an uncommonly decent man who, when he asked someone's opinion, actually listened--and engaged with that individual to make sure that he understood. He was also one of the most literate elected officials I've ever met (and, sad to say, that's well over 1,000).
And last, but far from least, his death gives the Senate back to the Republicans. There is now no majority party until after the election, and maybe not then; given that, the Vice President breaks all ties in the Senate (when he's not holed up in an "undisclosed location"). I can only hope that Bush's people are just as good at predicting what candidates for federal judgeships will do on the bench as were Eisenhower's--after all, Ike appointed both Warren and Brennan to the Supreme Court and a startling number of thoughtful, influential, liberal men to other federal judgeships, despite being a Republican who was somewhat more conservative than Nixon and Ford, although not as far right as Reagan or George II (Daddy Bush).
Rob: You may have seen Finch in Shakespeare already -- as Macbeth in Polanski's 1971 version of the play. As to Frenzy and Hannibal, Frenzy takes ordinary food and eating and makes them horrifying and comic (the potato truck scene, the meals the inspector keeps getting served by his wife) while Hannibal takes horrifying eating practices and meals and makes them pedestrian.
Cheers, Jon
BTW, Jon...
FRENZY is a GREAT film. Last month I watched it several times. One of many interesting things to note is that the serial tie killer was genial and mellow in mannerism whereas actor Jon Finch, the down-on-his-luck chap mistaken for the murderer, was a fire-breathing bull in a china shop.
...here's an in'rstin' tid-bit (I've been serving those a lot lately): for anyone who remembers well and liked ALIEN, the guy who was originally cast in John Hurt's role - whose chest goes-a-poppin, with Alien Jr. leaping out - was Jon Finch. I believe I read he'd come down with an illness just after filming started and just couldn't make it back.
Apparently, Finch is a wonderful actor - with a great deal of Shakespeare in his background.
Richard Harris has also passed.
I lift a pint for his memory.
L.
Richard Harris has also passed.
I lift a pint for his memory.
L.
TEL AVIV (Reuters) - For 10 months, Golan Cohen had one of Israel's most important civilian jobs -- working as a security guard protecting popular Tel Aviv cafes and nightclubs against Palestinian suicide bombers.
But his work ended abruptly this week when police said they had discovered that the 27-year-old was actually a Palestinian working under a false name and identity.
http://tinyurl.com/27o4
::fuming::
L.
PS. Ally of democracy. Yeah. Uh-huh. Right.
Frank...
ANGER issues?!
Who said I was pissed? You're taking the exclamation points too literally. (97% of the time - not 98%, not 96%, mind you - in spite of all my habitual embellishments I'm not at all venting). I was just telling you what makes a very bad movie in my own home-grown style. If you like I'll go on to tell you why the Die Hard flicks and the second Indiana Jones suck royally as well. Yet, I'll concede even those weren't as bad as Hannibal.
Frank: After my initial disappointment that Hannibal wasn't what it was "supposed" to be (the novel, not the movie), I ended up enjoying it as a clever satire of the genre and the mouth-breathing portions of the audience that take to Hannibal (or any other monster) as cool and only cool because, like, he's funny and he kills people in cool ways. I'd argue that the wedding of Hannibal and Clarice is the logical ending -- the novel's final 'fuck you'/'this is what you really want, isn't it?' to a portion of the audience. The melodrama, the super-pulpy elements (the pig plan is like something out of Doc Savage. No, make that the Spider), the critique of sexism, the critique of media, the elevation of the aesthete to superman-revenger-figure...It doesn't all work all the time, but it was certainly a better novel than I expected from the majority of the reviews and 'ewws!' at the time it came out.
As to the movie...representing violence on-screen while also making an intellectual point is a tricky business. If the killings played like those in _A Clockwork Orange_ or _Frenzy_, maybe the movie 'gets' some of the novel's commentary on violence and an audience's love for the grotesque...but Ridley Scott isn't Kubrick or Hitchcock, and many of the set-pieces (especially the execution of the Italian cop) play out as no more and no less than yet another money shot from a slasher film, albeit with better production values and better lighting. And Lecter on the plane at the end...ha ha, yeah, that Lecter is a funny one, isn't he?
Lecter would probably happily kill and maybe eat the members of the viewing and reading public the novel appears to attack -- the ones who want the money shots of dangling guts and frying brains. Maybe that's the point.
Or I could be blowing smoke out of my butt.
Cheers, Jon
If any of you have read Harlan's essay "Terrorists" in the collection September 11: West Coast Writers Approach Ground Zero, please take a moment and post your opinions/reviews on the booksellers' sites such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. We are trying to get the word out that this is an essay that no Harlan Ellison fan would want to miss.
-Rhonda Hughes, Hawthorne Books
Sen.Paul Wellstone, his wife, and daughter dead in a plane crash.
A terrible personal loss for those who loved them, and a huge blow for the political left in this country.
I promise folks, I only clicked it once. Head down, at parade rest.
Rob, you must look into these anger issues; Hannibal was just a movie. Say it to yourself real slow and compulsive. But here is my short take:
The Die Hard movies and the Indiana Jones films have much more implausability than Hannibal; which doesn't mean they aren't good movies to view. I base my case for Hannibal on the good acting of the assembled cast plus the weird plot of the story. Also, the interesting dialogue. Lesser films have become favorites. And truly Rob, intellect is not the problem with the film and it's detractors, it is the idea of differing tastes. You hated it, I liked it, nuff said.
In the book, Hannibal and Starling fall in love and move to Mexico. Now tell me that is not the worst plot device ever? The overall book is well written, but any meaning it might have is lost with the horrible ending. That is the reason Jodie Foster passed on the film: She didn't think Starling would be that idiotic to fall for a killer like Hannibal.
Rob, you must look into these anger issues; Hannibal was just a movie. Say it to yourself real slow and compulsive. But here is my short take:
The Die Hard movies and the Indiana Jones films have much more implausability than Hannibal; which doesn't mean they aren't good movies to view. I base my case for Hannibal on the good acting of the assembled cast plus the weird plot of the story. Also, the interesting dialogue. Lesser films have become favorites. And truly Rob, intellect is not the problem with the film and it's detractors, it is the idea of differing tastes. You hated it, I liked it, nuff said.
In the book, Hannibal and Starling fall in love and move to Mexico. Now tell me that is not the worst plot device ever? The overall book is well written, but any meaning it might have is lost with the horrible ending. That is the reason Jodie Foster passed on the film: She didn't think Starling would be that idiotic to fall for a killer like Hannibal.
Since the titles just popped up here I'm reminded of the more eccentric comics I'd really like to revisit at some point:
CAPTAIN MARVEL, and its odd "big red cheese" humor written by Otto Binder (if I got that right). I recall this book from reprints being extremely funny.
MAN-THING drawn by Mike Ploog (one comic that, tempting though it may be, cannot be filmed as it is entirely subjective).
HOWARD THE DUCK
DR. STRANGE
...and now that you bring it up (wuz that rich?) I'd like to see ONE ground-breaking subversive issue that would break all comics codes and warp kids' minds forever, wherein ALL Marvel characters join together on the last page to scream out in chorus, "FUCK!!!!"
One peculiar tidbit regarding the old cult-driven EC TALES FROM THE CRYPT comics that were driven out in the 50's. For anyone who might recall the old SUPERMAN series with George Reeves, do you know some of the violence in the first season (produced by Robert Maxwell) drew its inspiration directly from those EC books (most evident in a Grand Guignol episode called THE EVIL THREE)?
...AND Mr. Eric,
I'm not so sure we can actually say Hopkins' career is recovering from ANYTHING (from a business/box office standpoint), though you might think it WOULD be. He's making unbelievable paychecks from the Hannibal outings, obviously; and that tells me he has no problem selling out (given the crappy scripts, which Foster wisely passed on). AND he's still getting a good range of offers, though they're straddling the line of select psychos more and more. But if he DOESN'T watch it he may finally wind up being seriously typecast - in a worse way than Tony Perkins ever was.
Here's a "wow-neat" comics tidbit: Don Rosa, writer/artist of Scrooge McDuck and successor to the "good duck artist" mantle of the great Carl Barks, just popped up posting on the writing newsgroup I frequent. Sometimes I just love the 'Net.
I interrupt the comic's cavalcade and the wishes of HE writing so and so's favorite character ("I mean, can you imagine if Harlan Ellison wrote for Dr. Fate and Dr. Fate would say 'Fuck', or if he wrote for Captain Marvel and he would say 'Fuck' and it would be, like, so cool 'cause they would all say 'Fuck'.") and the ever-pressing debate of 'Hannibal: B-Movie or just Bad Movie?'
I beg of you, no, I DEMAND that you (that's right, I'm talking to you) go and pick up a copy of Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Read it. If you cannot afford this book, then I urge you to go to your library and check it out (as Joe Bob would say). Do it. Now. I will not argue about this.
I say the above with only the slightest bit of hyperbole. I mention the book to this board because I think everyone on this board (and that includes the Lurkers 'cause you're intelligent, too; and probably more intelligent than people like me who can't bear to go a day without our name appearing on this board) would be interested in this book. And this includes Mr. Ellison, too. Pick this book up. Read it. Devour it.
Note: This book does not have the answers. However, this book has the questions and it has the information needed to make up your own mind in regards to human nature. You have been warned.
>". It’s a LOUSY B-Movie<
Hannibal is a piece of shit. Go ahead, say it, you know it to be true. And Hopkins' career has yet to recover (let's not count Dragon, ok?)
Ridley Scott doesn't come out of the mess very well either.
Just a quick question - directed at any of you in the know... How did the Webderland Fantasy Baseball League go? Who won? I thought we'd at least get a minor update... ;)
John - I'm with you for the low, but a full season commitment to the TZ is the new high?
Those stories I could actually sit through were, at best, mediocre - and there was that bunch that I just turned off, not caring how they ended... And please - will someone get Forest Whitaker off the damn green screen set and tell him to tone down the oh-so-earnest emoting. He acts like he MUST invest every single word with the full "gravitas" one of the producers said he brought to the project. All in all, TZ is not awful television, but I'd hardly consider ordering a season of it a new high. (If they brought back Strange Luck, that'd be a different story...)
Just my 1.5¢.
Bern
The Television media reachs a new High and Low today!
The new "Twilight Zone" show has had a full season ordered by UPN
network! Any chance Harlan or one of his stories will be adapted for it?
A new LOW for the "Glass Teat" E! network has RE-NEWED the "Anna Nichole" show!
JON: "Could Matter-Eater Lad eat Wolverine?" Well, being that both are consenting adults, I don't see that it's really any of our business ...
Alex: Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the Golden Age and the...whatever Age we're in now were spanned by a plethora of great heroes and villains. And I wonder...could Matter-Eater Lad eat Wolverine if it came to that? M-E Lad ate the Miracle Machine, after all, and no one else seemed to be able to destroy that. Could Mano disintegrate Galactus? If Nemesis Kid met God, could he beat Him, Her or It?
Ultra The Multi-Alien...that's who we need. The Multi-Alien, the Composite Superman, and all DC's gorilla heroes and villains formed into one titanic set of HeroKliks...
Cheers, Jon
... damnit.
Adolph Green (of the songwriting duo Comden and Green) just died.
BARNEY: Yup. Put Ellison and Chabon together on a pr