Monday, February 27, 2006
MORE FREE STUFF ON THE INTERNET FOR ME!: You too, if you're into audiobooks of public domain literature read by volunteers. And if you've read this blog for any length of time, you know that I am. So here you are...get some of it while the getting's good, or volunteer to read a few chapters, if you feel up to it.
AND AGAIN!: For the next item, do I have to say anything else besides "HEY, THERE'S A VINTAGE CARTOON VIDEO PODCAST"? I hope not, because otherwise we're both wasting our time here.
AND WHAT THE HELL, WHY NOT ONE MORE: (via the WFMU blog) Here's a great 1960s video for Serge Gainsbourg and Brigitte Bardot's "Bonnie and Clyde". Also, the Germans have a real knack for stressing workplace safety...poor, dumb Klaus. Or, if you have to be a whiny punk about the whole "speak English" thing, you'll have to settle for Sly Stone's incomprehensible interview with Dick Cavett.
AND AGAIN!: For the next item, do I have to say anything else besides "HEY, THERE'S A VINTAGE CARTOON VIDEO PODCAST"? I hope not, because otherwise we're both wasting our time here.
AND WHAT THE HELL, WHY NOT ONE MORE: (via the WFMU blog) Here's a great 1960s video for Serge Gainsbourg and Brigitte Bardot's "Bonnie and Clyde". Also, the Germans have a real knack for stressing workplace safety...poor, dumb Klaus. Or, if you have to be a whiny punk about the whole "speak English" thing, you'll have to settle for Sly Stone's incomprehensible interview with Dick Cavett.
|| Eric 11:28 AM#
Friday, February 24, 2006
NYUK NYUK NYUK: In my tweens-through-teens, the Three Stooges were presented as kids' entertainment on the local channels. Now, they start the day for Spike, the "first network for men". Go figure.
The last Stooges package on basic cable was an hour hosted by Leslie Nielsen on American Movie Classics (just before they ruined the channel once and for all), and he added a veneer of fake civility with the pratfalls that fit the material to a T. For Spike's presentation, they instead present the ugliest show graphics I've seen outside of a pro wrestling show or a soda commercial to an indescribably bad screaming guitar version of "Three Blind Mice", with a layer of computer-added film scratches to make it all look "grunge". The thing is that most of those clips are strictly Curly era, and you don't have to add scratches to those. For the bumps to the commercials, they include a mix of badly formatted "stooge facts" and zany "parodies" which are nothing more than random film clips playing under a "wacky" title graphic, like "Behind the Stooge". Yeah, they're making Behind the Music jokes in 2006. That's trendy. Do you have any Titanic jokes, Spike TV? Because that would put you on the bleeding edge, man.
To add insult to injury, Sony/Columbia is running ads for the latest Stooges DVDs (probably the ones that are (ugh) colorized), claiming that they were "the world's first sitcom". Really? What is the situation of this comedy, baby geniuses? I'm sure Laurel and Hardy and the Little Rascals would like to have a word with you...as long as we're playing the "first" card, that is.
As for the films...come on, they're the frickin' frackin' Three Stooges. They've never been out of circulation since your granddad was in knee pants eating penny candy at the drugstore, so if you don't know what you think of them, you've obviously been consciously avoiding them your whole life. If you've come to terms with your inner Curly and need something unspeakably stupid to start your day and there's not a House of Representatives session running, the Stooges are there for you. Just keep the mute button handy for the network's "enhancements".
The last Stooges package on basic cable was an hour hosted by Leslie Nielsen on American Movie Classics (just before they ruined the channel once and for all), and he added a veneer of fake civility with the pratfalls that fit the material to a T. For Spike's presentation, they instead present the ugliest show graphics I've seen outside of a pro wrestling show or a soda commercial to an indescribably bad screaming guitar version of "Three Blind Mice", with a layer of computer-added film scratches to make it all look "grunge". The thing is that most of those clips are strictly Curly era, and you don't have to add scratches to those. For the bumps to the commercials, they include a mix of badly formatted "stooge facts" and zany "parodies" which are nothing more than random film clips playing under a "wacky" title graphic, like "Behind the Stooge". Yeah, they're making Behind the Music jokes in 2006. That's trendy. Do you have any Titanic jokes, Spike TV? Because that would put you on the bleeding edge, man.
To add insult to injury, Sony/Columbia is running ads for the latest Stooges DVDs (probably the ones that are (ugh) colorized), claiming that they were "the world's first sitcom". Really? What is the situation of this comedy, baby geniuses? I'm sure Laurel and Hardy and the Little Rascals would like to have a word with you...as long as we're playing the "first" card, that is.
As for the films...come on, they're the frickin' frackin' Three Stooges. They've never been out of circulation since your granddad was in knee pants eating penny candy at the drugstore, so if you don't know what you think of them, you've obviously been consciously avoiding them your whole life. If you've come to terms with your inner Curly and need something unspeakably stupid to start your day and there's not a House of Representatives session running, the Stooges are there for you. Just keep the mute button handy for the network's "enhancements".
|| Eric 9:25 AM#
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
DROP DEAD, SOUTH DAKOTA: Great, just frickin' great...the South Dakota legislature decided to ban all abortions, apparently as a stunt to get Roe v Wade overturned by the new Dubya apointees. The fact that they pulled the trigger in a state with only one abortion clinic, open only one day a week with a doctor who flies in from out of state, shows this up for the stunt it is, and the way the law is worded, there might as well not be a woman involved in the equation at all.
On the other hand, maybe they just did it to remind people that South Dakota was still there. I'd suggest a boycott, but I have no idea what the hell South Dakota has. Somebody better pay for this at the polls this fall.
On the other hand, maybe they just did it to remind people that South Dakota was still there. I'd suggest a boycott, but I have no idea what the hell South Dakota has. Somebody better pay for this at the polls this fall.
|| Eric 10:30 PM#
JUST FINISHED: The Stranger by Albert Camus. Once fiction opened up to the inner lives of the characters, becoming about more than external events, it became a conduit for writers to discover their own minds. A prime example of this trend in action is Albert Camus' short novel The Stranger, which on the face of it is the story of Mersault, a young man in French-era Algeirs, and the series of events that leads to his committing a senseless murder and the aftermath of his actions. Of course, that's only the bare surface of what's going on here; Camus uses these events to explore his philosophy--absurdist, literary critics take pains to point out, not existentalist--and, in the process, creates a compelling, disturbing story.
From the start, Meursault, who narrates his own tale, is an unsettling character, not only in the action that he takes in the story, but in his unexamined approach to life. He'd help his disreputable friend write an inflammatory letter just as soon as he'd refuse, marry his girlfriend as soon as he wouldn't, take the post in Paris or not. He does seem to care about what people think about him, but won't lie about his feelings to preserve social conventions, or even if his life depends on it, as it eventually does. It was very satisfying when I found out later that Camus cited Melville as an influence, since I kept thinking back to Melville's Bartelby the Scrivener, whose title character "preferred not to", while Camus' central character was so alienated from the world around him that he had no preference at all.
The final pages snap everything that came before into focus...to a point, anyway. At the very least, it casts Meursault's actions in a strikingly different light. As a novel and a statement of philosophy, this is a story that demands a reread, so of course I will...or maybe not. It's all the same, I suppose.
An interesting summary of critical opinion is available online if you need some help figuring out what it all means, and the Salon article on Camus might as well be the introduction my copy of the book didn't have.
From the start, Meursault, who narrates his own tale, is an unsettling character, not only in the action that he takes in the story, but in his unexamined approach to life. He'd help his disreputable friend write an inflammatory letter just as soon as he'd refuse, marry his girlfriend as soon as he wouldn't, take the post in Paris or not. He does seem to care about what people think about him, but won't lie about his feelings to preserve social conventions, or even if his life depends on it, as it eventually does. It was very satisfying when I found out later that Camus cited Melville as an influence, since I kept thinking back to Melville's Bartelby the Scrivener, whose title character "preferred not to", while Camus' central character was so alienated from the world around him that he had no preference at all.
The final pages snap everything that came before into focus...to a point, anyway. At the very least, it casts Meursault's actions in a strikingly different light. As a novel and a statement of philosophy, this is a story that demands a reread, so of course I will...or maybe not. It's all the same, I suppose.
An interesting summary of critical opinion is available online if you need some help figuring out what it all means, and the Salon article on Camus might as well be the introduction my copy of the book didn't have.
|| Eric 12:24 AM#
Saturday, February 18, 2006
JUST FINISHED: The Eyre Affair, by Jasper Fforde. After barging through Wuthering Heights, I wanted something a bit lighter for a palate cleanser, and somehow that led me to the first of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books .
The place is England in an alternative 1985, where the Crimean War has gone on for 131 years, genetically cloned dodos are edging dogs out as most popular pet, and literature is a source of national pride. The latter is the beat Thursday Next works; as a special operative in charge of literary fraud, her job is to track down the vicious gangs who perpetrate them, which positions her to be the primary opposition for the most ambitious crime against literature yet. The infinitely malevolent (if slightly tilted) Acheron Hades has found a way to enter original manuscripts, and while at first he plans on using this power to decimate Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit for fun and profit, soon he sets his sights signifigantly higher, kidnapping Jane Eyre from her story at a crucial moment in the narrative. In a world where history and reality are far from immutable, now even the classics are up for grabs.
The Eyre Affair was a brisk read; I was in and out in under a day. This is Douglas Adams for lit geeks--with character names like Jack Schitt, it's not going to be highly intellectual--and while in places the pacing seemed slightly off, and a few characters seemed there just to be there, most of it was right on the money. There's almost too much bubbling through the background, but I imagine, like the White Album, it'd be a struggle to prune it down. The Oliver Stone-esque way the characters talk about the "who wrote Shakespeare" controversy was a personal favorite among the major digressions, complete with Marlowe supporters going door-to-door Jehovah's Witness style to pitch their beliefs. And I won't say no to the boisterous audience-participatory Richard III performance.
Either way, it's an enjoyable yarn if you like books at all, although I wouldn't read it before Jane Eyre, since by nature of the story here, there are spoilers aplenty.
The place is England in an alternative 1985, where the Crimean War has gone on for 131 years, genetically cloned dodos are edging dogs out as most popular pet, and literature is a source of national pride. The latter is the beat Thursday Next works; as a special operative in charge of literary fraud, her job is to track down the vicious gangs who perpetrate them, which positions her to be the primary opposition for the most ambitious crime against literature yet. The infinitely malevolent (if slightly tilted) Acheron Hades has found a way to enter original manuscripts, and while at first he plans on using this power to decimate Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit for fun and profit, soon he sets his sights signifigantly higher, kidnapping Jane Eyre from her story at a crucial moment in the narrative. In a world where history and reality are far from immutable, now even the classics are up for grabs.
The Eyre Affair was a brisk read; I was in and out in under a day. This is Douglas Adams for lit geeks--with character names like Jack Schitt, it's not going to be highly intellectual--and while in places the pacing seemed slightly off, and a few characters seemed there just to be there, most of it was right on the money. There's almost too much bubbling through the background, but I imagine, like the White Album, it'd be a struggle to prune it down. The Oliver Stone-esque way the characters talk about the "who wrote Shakespeare" controversy was a personal favorite among the major digressions, complete with Marlowe supporters going door-to-door Jehovah's Witness style to pitch their beliefs. And I won't say no to the boisterous audience-participatory Richard III performance.
Either way, it's an enjoyable yarn if you like books at all, although I wouldn't read it before Jane Eyre, since by nature of the story here, there are spoilers aplenty.
|| Eric 6:40 PM#
Friday, February 17, 2006
SEE? I DON'T EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO MYSELF: I was just nosing through my back catalog, and out jumps an offhand comment about the Super Bowl halftime show from this time last year:
Maybe if Mick Jagger does it next year...
And hey, although we didn't get the exact controversy I was anticipating, Mick Jagger did the show this year, once again proving my psychic abilities are at their best when I'm not really trying.
Maybe if Mick Jagger does it next year...
And hey, although we didn't get the exact controversy I was anticipating, Mick Jagger did the show this year, once again proving my psychic abilities are at their best when I'm not really trying.
|| Eric 4:31 PM#
I DON'T DO BLOG REVIEWS: This one just jumped out at me, though, its icy grip closing around my trachea while it asks me what the access code is for his brain control. LOST PICS is what it's called, but a more appropriate name for the pictures is "Dude, You're SO Frickin' High." Maybe all those closeups of hands mean something. Maybe it will all make sense someday, when my old age dementia kicks in.
|| Eric 12:06 PM#
CURSES! FOILED AGAIN! AGAIN!: I wanted to post another comment on the whole Dick Cheney hunting thing, but Scott McClellan said that I wasn't interested in it anymore. Dammit.
I suppose people would rather talk about the PETA members throwing flour at Paris Hilton for opening a fashion designer's fur-related show, and it's a great visual, so who could blame them? Paris took it a little too well, which makes me think a more effective protest would be to barricade the bar at the afterparty.
But hey, fur kills...just look at Robin Williams back if you don't believe me.
I suppose people would rather talk about the PETA members throwing flour at Paris Hilton for opening a fashion designer's fur-related show, and it's a great visual, so who could blame them? Paris took it a little too well, which makes me think a more effective protest would be to barricade the bar at the afterparty.
But hey, fur kills...just look at Robin Williams back if you don't believe me.
|| Eric 10:20 AM#
Thursday, February 16, 2006
AND SPEAKING OF BOONDOCKS...OR JIHAD: Nice to see Aaron MacGruder doesn't hold a grudge. Kelvin seems to think this is Aaron's way of getting Rev. Sharpton to apologize to him, which would be an interesting trick to pull off.
|| Eric 10:35 AM#
CARTOON VIOLENCE IS A BAD INFLUENCE: Because I only comment about things I have no way of changing, I was thinking the other day about all of this violence and destruction surrounding the cartoon of Mohammed (pbuh, just to cover my butt here). The international violence and destruction over a smear on newsprint is sad and a little bewildering to my Protestant-raised self, and my mind went a'rovin' about what kind of reaction we'd get if these riots were over regular comic strips.
It would start slowly, when a small group realizes that there are two completely different Dennis The Menace cartoons, one British born, one from the US; that's got to be worth at least a burning tire. That would spark riots in the streets of Kabul, burning Snuffy Smith in effigy to demand the return of the one, true Barney Google. Armed with torches and rocks, another roving mob would destroy a branch office of United Features Syndicate in protest of Cathy's freakish jaw and the persistent beads of sweat hovering over her head. Maybe we'd get a third group of protestors in Fallujah, firing Russian-made rifles in the air demanding the reinstatement of The Boondocks in a local paper. "NO HUEY, NO PEACE!" And of course, the end result would be a bootleg truck decal of Calvin, grinning evilly over one shoulder, pissing on the turtle from Over The Hedge.
It'd be enough to make Jon Stewart take the week off.
It would start slowly, when a small group realizes that there are two completely different Dennis The Menace cartoons, one British born, one from the US; that's got to be worth at least a burning tire. That would spark riots in the streets of Kabul, burning Snuffy Smith in effigy to demand the return of the one, true Barney Google. Armed with torches and rocks, another roving mob would destroy a branch office of United Features Syndicate in protest of Cathy's freakish jaw and the persistent beads of sweat hovering over her head. Maybe we'd get a third group of protestors in Fallujah, firing Russian-made rifles in the air demanding the reinstatement of The Boondocks in a local paper. "NO HUEY, NO PEACE!" And of course, the end result would be a bootleg truck decal of Calvin, grinning evilly over one shoulder, pissing on the turtle from Over The Hedge.
It'd be enough to make Jon Stewart take the week off.
|| Eric 9:11 AM#
RUFUS!: Yes, in the upscale dog show circuit, he's called Ch Rocky Top's Sundance Kid, but don't be fooled...he's just Rufus to the little people. And dammit, he's a winner.
Yep, I'm the odd man out, a wrestling fan who watches the Westminster Dog Show. And yeah, I'm a day behind (at least) on saying "good on ya, pally", but there you are.
WE COULD ALL BE READING A BOOK RIGHT NOW: In another sign the reality show trend should die a flaming death and the perpretrators of these "trendy" series should have flaming knitting needles jammed through their eye sockets, MTV has decided to trot out three more shows "offering an unvarnished look at the lives of young people in settings not often seen in primetime". Of course, that's all pre-digested press release crap...you know it, I know it, but hey, bullet points!
Yep, I'm the odd man out, a wrestling fan who watches the Westminster Dog Show. And yeah, I'm a day behind (at least) on saying "good on ya, pally", but there you are.
WE COULD ALL BE READING A BOOK RIGHT NOW: In another sign the reality show trend should die a flaming death and the perpretrators of these "trendy" series should have flaming knitting needles jammed through their eye sockets, MTV has decided to trot out three more shows "offering an unvarnished look at the lives of young people in settings not often seen in primetime". Of course, that's all pre-digested press release crap...you know it, I know it, but hey, bullet points!
- Tiara Girls documents the lives of beauty pageant contestants, and considering that Miss America lost its broadcast TV deal last year, getting relegated to the virtual Branson of CMT, they couldn't have chosen a better time to pull this one out of their asses, dammit.
- MTV Juvies...funny, I thought they already had a TRL Live.
- Two-a-Days following a top-rated high school football team through their season. Mmmhmm, because we all know that school athletics are shockingly underrepresented in the media. Especially on the Friday night local news.
Also, the hopeless faithful get treated to more True Life, for topics that aren't crappy enough to rate their own series, and My Super Sweet 16, which for the protection of my immortal soul I will never watch, but I understand involves overindulged spoiled upper-middle-class-to-rich girls whining their asses off until they get their goddamn overblown birthday party with no old people. And I guess that also means me, relegated to the back room that is VH1, closer to my target demographic but still annoying in its own special way.
I hate you, MTV. Cut it out already. But I'll still take your money if you're offering.
|| Eric 12:49 AM#
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
ONE MORE BEFORE BEDTIME: After serious contemplation, I'll have to say Ari Fleischer got the hell out of Dodge at the right time.
Q Was it Cheney's gun? Is that his gun, that shotgun?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Was it the Vice President's gun?
MR. McCLELLAN: You ought to talk to the Vice President's Office and check that fact.
Q You don't know?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can check with their office.
<...>
MR. McCLELLAN: Suzanne, go ahead.
Q Katherine Armstrong talked to CNN Sunday evening. She said that she thought this was going to become a story, so she was going to go to the local press. She also told CNN that she did not believe the Vice President's Office was aware that she was going to go to the local press. How do you square that with your account that they were coordinating their --
MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President spoke with her directly and they agreed that she would make it public.
Q So you're saying that she is lying, that her statement is not correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. You ought to check with her.
Q Well, we did check with her. So you're saying that's not correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President spoke directly with Mrs. Armstrong and they agreed that she would make the information public.
Q Scott, it's getting very confusing to try to figure out who knew what when, and why, you know, once Mr. Whittington's immediate medical needs were being addressed, it sounds like everything just shut down. Was there no staff member with the Vice President --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, actually, as I pointed out, there was information that was coming into people back here, all the way at 3:00 a.m. in the morning and beyond. So additional information was coming to light from what occurred down in the Corpus Christi area of Texas.
Q Over the roughly 12 hours or so, none of that information -- it took 12 hours for someone to tell someone up here that the Vice President had fired the weapon?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Jim, keep in mind two things. One, the very first priority was making sure Mr. Whittington was getting the medical care, and that's where all efforts were focused. There wasn't a press corps traveling with the Vice President, he didn't have his full entourage that he might have on other trips, official trips. This was a weekend hunting trip. And then, secondary to that is gathering the facts. And so you want to get the facts together so you can provide that information to the public. And I think that's important to do, and so they gathered facts together and those facts were coming back to us throughout the evening and into the morning hours of Sunday.
Q Who was gathering the facts? Who was doing that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think there's the information on the ground there, as well as information then being provided -- from the ground there being provided back here.
Q Right, and who was doing -- who was doing the providing, and who were they providing it to?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, people with the Vice President's Office. I think you can probably -- I would check with his office on more specifics.
Q So when did the President definitively know that the Vice President had shot somebody?
MR. McCLELLAN: He was learning additional details into that evening on Saturday --
Q It wasn't a detail that it was the Vice President that pulled the trigger? When did that detail --
MR. McCLELLAN: We didn't know the full details, but I think he was informed because Karl -- I think his Deputy Chief of Staff had spoken with Mrs. Armstrong and provided him additional update that evening. So there were more circumstances --
Q Deputy Chief of Staff Rove talked to --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- known Saturday evening. So the President was getting more information about who was involved, and that was late Saturday evening.
Q So he knew Saturday evening? Scott, definitively, did the President know or --
Q -- the question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- some additional information, yes, and the Vice President --
Q -- or hear that it was the Vice President?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that the Vice President was involved, but didn't know the full facts of what had occurred.
Q How is that possible?
Q He did know -- wait -- details here. Scott, he knew Saturday night?
MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, go ahead.
Q Straight chronological questions. We don't have to yell it.
Of course, that's just a sample...you can read the full transcript of Monday's press briefing and see if you still envy Scot McClellan's job.
Q Was it Cheney's gun? Is that his gun, that shotgun?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Was it the Vice President's gun?
MR. McCLELLAN: You ought to talk to the Vice President's Office and check that fact.
Q You don't know?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can check with their office.
<...>
MR. McCLELLAN: Suzanne, go ahead.
Q Katherine Armstrong talked to CNN Sunday evening. She said that she thought this was going to become a story, so she was going to go to the local press. She also told CNN that she did not believe the Vice President's Office was aware that she was going to go to the local press. How do you square that with your account that they were coordinating their --
MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President spoke with her directly and they agreed that she would make it public.
Q So you're saying that she is lying, that her statement is not correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. You ought to check with her.
Q Well, we did check with her. So you're saying that's not correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President spoke directly with Mrs. Armstrong and they agreed that she would make the information public.
Q Scott, it's getting very confusing to try to figure out who knew what when, and why, you know, once Mr. Whittington's immediate medical needs were being addressed, it sounds like everything just shut down. Was there no staff member with the Vice President --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, actually, as I pointed out, there was information that was coming into people back here, all the way at 3:00 a.m. in the morning and beyond. So additional information was coming to light from what occurred down in the Corpus Christi area of Texas.
Q Over the roughly 12 hours or so, none of that information -- it took 12 hours for someone to tell someone up here that the Vice President had fired the weapon?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Jim, keep in mind two things. One, the very first priority was making sure Mr. Whittington was getting the medical care, and that's where all efforts were focused. There wasn't a press corps traveling with the Vice President, he didn't have his full entourage that he might have on other trips, official trips. This was a weekend hunting trip. And then, secondary to that is gathering the facts. And so you want to get the facts together so you can provide that information to the public. And I think that's important to do, and so they gathered facts together and those facts were coming back to us throughout the evening and into the morning hours of Sunday.
Q Who was gathering the facts? Who was doing that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think there's the information on the ground there, as well as information then being provided -- from the ground there being provided back here.
Q Right, and who was doing -- who was doing the providing, and who were they providing it to?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, people with the Vice President's Office. I think you can probably -- I would check with his office on more specifics.
Q So when did the President definitively know that the Vice President had shot somebody?
MR. McCLELLAN: He was learning additional details into that evening on Saturday --
Q It wasn't a detail that it was the Vice President that pulled the trigger? When did that detail --
MR. McCLELLAN: We didn't know the full details, but I think he was informed because Karl -- I think his Deputy Chief of Staff had spoken with Mrs. Armstrong and provided him additional update that evening. So there were more circumstances --
Q Deputy Chief of Staff Rove talked to --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- known Saturday evening. So the President was getting more information about who was involved, and that was late Saturday evening.
Q So he knew Saturday evening? Scott, definitively, did the President know or --
Q -- the question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- some additional information, yes, and the Vice President --
Q -- or hear that it was the Vice President?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that the Vice President was involved, but didn't know the full facts of what had occurred.
Q How is that possible?
Q He did know -- wait -- details here. Scott, he knew Saturday night?
MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, go ahead.
Q Straight chronological questions. We don't have to yell it.
Of course, that's just a sample...you can read the full transcript of Monday's press briefing and see if you still envy Scot McClellan's job.
|| Eric 2:06 AM#
A COCK AND BULL STORY: After I finished reading Tristram Shandy lo those many years ago, my idle mind made with the speculation about what kind of movie this unfilmable book might make. Nobody had ever stepped up to the plate, but it'd be just like them to try. I pictured a Tex Avery-style metacommentary on the nature of the big screen format itself--the hairs in the projector, running off the side of the frame, grabbing sprocket holes. Hell, it never stopped Droopy, why would it stop Uncle Toby and Parson Yorick?
Anyway, somebody finally did try, and they went with a suitable (and commercially viable) mockumentary angle instead. As with anything that tries something different, it probably won't be in any theater I can find down our way; they're too busy running the latest creatively-bankrupt TV show remake. Still, come on, man, it's STEVE COOGAN; if Alan Partridge ever meant anything to you, it's gotta be worth a peek. I love the website, too; very suited to the source material.
Anyway, somebody finally did try, and they went with a suitable (and commercially viable) mockumentary angle instead. As with anything that tries something different, it probably won't be in any theater I can find down our way; they're too busy running the latest creatively-bankrupt TV show remake. Still, come on, man, it's STEVE COOGAN; if Alan Partridge ever meant anything to you, it's gotta be worth a peek. I love the website, too; very suited to the source material.
|| Eric 12:10 AM#
Monday, February 13, 2006
TWINS: Yes, I still watch television; the reason I don't talk about it all the time because nobody pays me to talk about it all the time, and the two people that read me yesterday probably found me by looking for tiny teenage breasts, which is another negative incentive to keep typing.
I caught up with a show on the WB called Twins, and while it's apparently been reasonably successful, I don't watch anything on the WB, so I found this show by accident in our local affiliate's Sunday early evening "catch it again" slot. The premise is simple enough: Sara Gilbert (yes, that one) and Molly Stanton are fraternal twins. Sara's character is the dull, smart brunette one--oddly enough, the type I usually end up being attracted to, but that's my burden, not yours (*1). Molly plays the...well, the blonde (read: the fun, dim girl). Their parents are played by Mark Linn-Baker (COUSIN LARRY~~~!!!) and Melanie Griffith, and when dad decides to pass the family business down to the girls, zany hijinks ensue...which with me normally is about as much of an endorsement as "they start eating live puppies", but read on...
Mmmkay, I only saw the one episode, so it's too probably too soon for me to judge, but while it seems to be strictly from the Sitcom 101 template, it's not too bad a show either, and it's nice to see some familiar faces on the air again. Maybe my experience with The Mullets and (ugh) 12 Ounce Mouse has made me more tolerant to the simply dull as opposed to the stridently bad. Sisters doesn't want to make you put your fist through the screen; it's just there--just like this blog, oddly enough--and while I have to say it seems a bit too bland for what passes for Must See TV these days, and not stand-outish enough for me to schedule my Friday nights around(*2) , it's a reasonable go at a standard-issue US sitcom formula with people who I trust can work the style.
Still, I fear that if I'm drawn into this show's web, I'll end up watching Reba, too. And when it dawns on me that I'm watching REBA, I'll have to turn off the TV and just read for the next six months to get my Fine Literary Mind back. I have my limits, you know.
(* Footnote 1: "Dull" isn't a prerequisite, but hopefully if you got the "smart" part down, you figured out the rest on your own...)
(* Footnote 2: Like I ever have to worry about scheduling conflicts on my Fridays. HAHAHAHAisuck....
Oh, and when I found out a year or so ago that Sara Gilbert preferred the company of women, I was bummed all day, but learned to accept that things like this happen to my adolescent TV crushes. Darlene Conner was America's Slacker Sweetheart, what can I say...)
I caught up with a show on the WB called Twins, and while it's apparently been reasonably successful, I don't watch anything on the WB, so I found this show by accident in our local affiliate's Sunday early evening "catch it again" slot. The premise is simple enough: Sara Gilbert (yes, that one) and Molly Stanton are fraternal twins. Sara's character is the dull, smart brunette one--oddly enough, the type I usually end up being attracted to, but that's my burden, not yours (*1). Molly plays the...well, the blonde (read: the fun, dim girl). Their parents are played by Mark Linn-Baker (COUSIN LARRY~~~!!!) and Melanie Griffith, and when dad decides to pass the family business down to the girls, zany hijinks ensue...which with me normally is about as much of an endorsement as "they start eating live puppies", but read on...
Mmmkay, I only saw the one episode, so it's too probably too soon for me to judge, but while it seems to be strictly from the Sitcom 101 template, it's not too bad a show either, and it's nice to see some familiar faces on the air again. Maybe my experience with The Mullets and (ugh) 12 Ounce Mouse has made me more tolerant to the simply dull as opposed to the stridently bad. Sisters doesn't want to make you put your fist through the screen; it's just there--just like this blog, oddly enough--and while I have to say it seems a bit too bland for what passes for Must See TV these days, and not stand-outish enough for me to schedule my Friday nights around(*2) , it's a reasonable go at a standard-issue US sitcom formula with people who I trust can work the style.
Still, I fear that if I'm drawn into this show's web, I'll end up watching Reba, too. And when it dawns on me that I'm watching REBA, I'll have to turn off the TV and just read for the next six months to get my Fine Literary Mind back. I have my limits, you know.
(* Footnote 1: "Dull" isn't a prerequisite, but hopefully if you got the "smart" part down, you figured out the rest on your own...)
(* Footnote 2: Like I ever have to worry about scheduling conflicts on my Fridays. HAHAHAHAisuck....
Oh, and when I found out a year or so ago that Sara Gilbert preferred the company of women, I was bummed all day, but learned to accept that things like this happen to my adolescent TV crushes. Darlene Conner was America's Slacker Sweetheart, what can I say...)
|| Eric 12:42 AM#
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
JUST FINISHED: Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. Really, it'd be a bit presumptuous to assume you haven't heard of this one, but then again, I did a yard-long writeup of Plato back in the day, and that's bedrock, dammit. So here we are again.
If you skipped this one in school, or the school skipped it for you (as mine did, since you can only fit so many novels into a year), here's the pitch in a nutshell: the head of the Earnshaw household--known as Wuthering Heights--takes on a scruffy, dark, sullen foundling named Heathcliff. The old man dotes on the child, and Heathcliff and Mr. Earnshaw's daughter Catherine take a shine to each other (although his end of this infatuation may have been shinier). However, Catherine's brother is seething with resentment over the upstart's stealing of attention, and when the old man dies, he puts Heathcliff in with the servants. He doesn't know it at the time, but that's where his troubles begin.
Yes, there's a love element in it, but for the most part this is a hate story, as Heathcliff sets out to ruin the lives of the people he perceives as having kept him apart from his soul mate, and everybody learns to dread the man. When Catherine marries the lad down the lane, all that does is widen the path of rage. Heathcliff runs away and comes back several years later, changed for the worst, and sets about the business of tearing their world apart.
Don't let the amount of time it took me fool you (check the date on the previous post), I definitely enjoyed the experience. There were some genuinely creepy character moments with Heathcliff and his household; most of the other males in the book were either physically or morally weak, making it that much easier for Heathcliff to put his plans into place. When you're in the middle of the narrative, however, it definitey carries you along with its power.
Once again, cheapness drove me to the Barnes and Noble edition, which has a definite advantge of footnoted translations of the sometimes impenetrable dialect a few of the supporting characters speak in. The B&N edition also includes snippets of the outraged contemporary reviews; apparently Wuthering Heights droped like an incendiary bomb in 1850, as bad an influence as gangsta rap, Grand Theft Auto, and the Republican party all rolled into one. It's just another indicator that whatever you think you're seeing for the first time, we've probably been there before, just at a lower threshold. It's under $5, bub; it won't break you.
If you skipped this one in school, or the school skipped it for you (as mine did, since you can only fit so many novels into a year), here's the pitch in a nutshell: the head of the Earnshaw household--known as Wuthering Heights--takes on a scruffy, dark, sullen foundling named Heathcliff. The old man dotes on the child, and Heathcliff and Mr. Earnshaw's daughter Catherine take a shine to each other (although his end of this infatuation may have been shinier). However, Catherine's brother is seething with resentment over the upstart's stealing of attention, and when the old man dies, he puts Heathcliff in with the servants. He doesn't know it at the time, but that's where his troubles begin.
Yes, there's a love element in it, but for the most part this is a hate story, as Heathcliff sets out to ruin the lives of the people he perceives as having kept him apart from his soul mate, and everybody learns to dread the man. When Catherine marries the lad down the lane, all that does is widen the path of rage. Heathcliff runs away and comes back several years later, changed for the worst, and sets about the business of tearing their world apart.
Don't let the amount of time it took me fool you (check the date on the previous post), I definitely enjoyed the experience. There were some genuinely creepy character moments with Heathcliff and his household; most of the other males in the book were either physically or morally weak, making it that much easier for Heathcliff to put his plans into place. When you're in the middle of the narrative, however, it definitey carries you along with its power.
Once again, cheapness drove me to the Barnes and Noble edition, which has a definite advantge of footnoted translations of the sometimes impenetrable dialect a few of the supporting characters speak in. The B&N edition also includes snippets of the outraged contemporary reviews; apparently Wuthering Heights droped like an incendiary bomb in 1850, as bad an influence as gangsta rap, Grand Theft Auto, and the Republican party all rolled into one. It's just another indicator that whatever you think you're seeing for the first time, we've probably been there before, just at a lower threshold. It's under $5, bub; it won't break you.
And yes, now that I've read the book end to end, I still have no idea how or why MTV would turn this into just another TV teen movie. If I can track down the DVD, I'll let you know. And hell no, I'm not buying it.
|| Eric 10:54 AM#
