So, I had two topics I was considering for today's entry. A lengthy discussion on contemporary labor relationships and the status of capitalism, or my trip to the Museum of Science!
Don't worry, its the latter.
Spent the morning at Boston's Museum of Science. I get in free because I work for a non-profit cultural institution. Yay me! I wanted to get there today because they were having an exhibit closing this week that I haven't been able to see called "Speed". It was very hands-on and kids-oriented, so it wasn't really as fun as I'd hoped, but probably would have been nice for kids in groups. Some of it was interesting, though. Had a little thing that let you do your own animation, which was cool.
On my way there, I walked through an exhibit on Microbes, sponsored by Pfizer. I'm not going to be too hard on the Museum because this was very clearly labeled on the sign that introduces the exhibit (although its not on their website), BUT the exhibit had some pretty obnoxious corporate shilling. Its a traveling exhibit thats a few years old at this point, but it reminds me about why corporate sponsorship is dangerous in education/museum. The way it was set up, I was left with the impression the Pfizer single-handedly won World War II. Okay, I'm exaggerating (slightly) but it heavily tied Pfizer to the discovery of penicillin in a manner which wasn't entirely historically accurate. I imagine if I sat through the whole video display, it'd have been more clear, but it was definetly misleading. (Pfizer didn't discover penicillin; it also didn't discover the original research which discovered penicillin; it was just tapped to aid in production once it became clear that a drug from penicillin had considerable potential) But aside from creepy corporate influences, the exhibit had an infant-sized iron lung which reminded me how damn scary Polio must have been and how incredibly thankful I am to live in a world where fat people qualify as a major health concern. It may be wrong, but at least they only got to hassling us because they cured stuff that was really frightening. Just the thought of people trapped in Iron Lungs for the rest of their lives was shocking. We all owe much thanks to Jonas Salk, and should be thankful of where we live, because Polio hasn't yet been eradicated. Anyway, one more thing on the exhibit I want to comment on. They had a game/exhibit called "Race a Bug" which was a badly designed 3D racing game involving microbes going through a human body. There was an on-going naration in the game (which lasted WAY too long) and it kept fitting in these fat-baiting remarks. I mean, its a freaking game, and it keeps saying how the body in the game needs to lose weight. Yuck!
So, after learning how Polio saved the planet, I went into an IMAX film, Top Speed which was basically about people and things that go fast. A lot of it was a love-fest for athletes, which kinda annoyed me, since in the details were bits about how horribly dangerous these sports are and produces numerous injuries even for a good athlete. This is what we have to aspire to? Putting our bodies in unnecessary danger for the persuit of health? We're not talking aerobics or anything here, but mountain biking and 24-hour road races. It was scary just watching the mountain bikes as they hoped along some picturesque rocky desert-type terrain. No thanks. I'm not nearly that enamored with the thrill of cheating death. I'm much happy playing fair with death as opposed to tempting it.
So, those are my pointless thoughts of the day. I'll consider subjecting you all to my diatribe about labor relations some other day. Oh, and Good Will Hunting is on Bravo now. I take back anything positive I said about Ben Affleck's performance. It was much more of an absurd chararicture than I gave him credit for. Big props to Gus Van Sant for the directing, though. I love the atmosphere he creates in the film. Its all very real. Except for Affleck. I'm loving the ambient noise in the Harvard Square scene with Matt Damon and Minnie Driver. Everything about the film grounds in reality, which is so important for a story of someone with unreal abilities. Except for Affleck. Though, to be fair, Affleck was good in the final scene, but that's only because he has to act with his mouth shut so he doesn't get to ruin things.
8.31.2003
8.30.2003
dude, where's my birthday?
So, I was on IMDB looking up celebrities born the same year as my girlfriend as she's about to have a birthday and is anxious about her age. I thought I could logically reason out of this by pointing out hip, young celebs who are the same age as her. I keep noticing it in recent months, so I figure I would sit down and come up with names. Found some good ones, too, but naturally, this isn't the kind of thing you can argue against as age is such a screwed up concept in our society.
I did manage to make myself feel young, though, when I checked out my own birth year. It seems I was born in the same year as such luminaries as Ashton Kutchner. (shudder) Also Joshua Jackson, Countess Vaughn, the guy who played Jake Sisko on DS9, Sisqo, Josh Hartnett, plus size model Mia Tyler, Ethan Embry, second best comic actor of his generation, Topher Grace, and the best comic actor of his generation, Jason Biggs.
Not like any of them make me feel old, (although Embry and Hartnett have both played homicide detectives) but man does Ashton Kutchner make me feel young. I mean, he's the epitome of horribly immature actors. Oh, well. Anyway, if I want to feel old I just need to watch MTV and realize that I'm no longer in the young demographic they are going for.
I did manage to make myself feel young, though, when I checked out my own birth year. It seems I was born in the same year as such luminaries as Ashton Kutchner. (shudder) Also Joshua Jackson, Countess Vaughn, the guy who played Jake Sisko on DS9, Sisqo, Josh Hartnett, plus size model Mia Tyler, Ethan Embry, second best comic actor of his generation, Topher Grace, and the best comic actor of his generation, Jason Biggs.
Not like any of them make me feel old, (although Embry and Hartnett have both played homicide detectives) but man does Ashton Kutchner make me feel young. I mean, he's the epitome of horribly immature actors. Oh, well. Anyway, if I want to feel old I just need to watch MTV and realize that I'm no longer in the young demographic they are going for.
8.29.2003
martha stewart and her pillows
After the somber nature of my last two posts, I wanted to post something a little more frivelous for the weekend. So, lets discuss Martha Stewart's pillows. And no, that is not some kind of play on words. I litterally mean her pillows, available at K-Mart.
I bought a pair of them a while back. I was less that satisfied with my pillows, and I felt I needed another set, anyway, to complete my bed. So, her's were on sale and they looked quite comfy so I picked them up.
They are quite comfy, but they get horribly misshapen at the drop of a hat. They rarely resemble pillows in any meaningful sense, and I can't get them back into any normal form. Its really annoying. Especially since my old pillows were so dependable at keeping their form. Oh, well. What do I expect when I get Pillows from someone who committed Securties Fraud.
I bought a pair of them a while back. I was less that satisfied with my pillows, and I felt I needed another set, anyway, to complete my bed. So, her's were on sale and they looked quite comfy so I picked them up.
They are quite comfy, but they get horribly misshapen at the drop of a hat. They rarely resemble pillows in any meaningful sense, and I can't get them back into any normal form. Its really annoying. Especially since my old pillows were so dependable at keeping their form. Oh, well. What do I expect when I get Pillows from someone who committed Securties Fraud.
ultimate penalty
One of the reasons I was prompted to write about Victor Salva is what has been going on here in Massachusetts with the death of John Geoghan. He was serving a sentence of 10 years for a lot less than Salva served 15 months for, though, in fairness, Geoghan was suspected to have done much, much worse than Salva did. His death has brought no comfort to his victims. They understand that this is not justice served. They wanted Geoghan to serve his sentence and face further justice for his crimes.
Which reminded me of how serving time often gets devalued by death penalty advocates. In my book, rotting in prison has to qualify as more punative than a quick end to one's life. Why have we gotten into this mindset of thinking prisoners have it easy? Since when is prison life fun? We underestimate the value of freedom and liberty when we suggest that life in prison is not a harsh sentence.
The death penalty is a tough issue for me. I think the notion of it as a deterrant is a joke. The death penalty is applied so inconsistantly, that it'd be silly to think it has any use at discouraging crime. As a punishment, though, I tend towards having some sympathy to this arguement. If you take another persons life, it makes sense that you should forfeit your own.
Trouble is, the system is horribly unfair. The stakes are so high that it demands a system which is beyond reproach. I think such a system just isn't possible, and that our current system is disturbing far off the mark. I just can't support it. I can understand why someone would think it is a fair punishment, but it just isn't applied in a fair manner.
I have a special understanding of how unfair the justice system can be. An uncle of mine was wrongly convicted of murder back in the 80's. The prosecutors and police withheld evidence. He was able to get the conviction overturned and was never retried, but it ruined his life. This stuff happens, and we cannot let this stuff happen with someone's life at stake. That's why we just cannot trust the death penalty. The stakes are too high. We can correct an error when we jail someone. We cannot take back a lethal injection.
Hopefully, I'll get back to less serious topics, but I wanted to get this out. Thanks for putting up with me.
Which reminded me of how serving time often gets devalued by death penalty advocates. In my book, rotting in prison has to qualify as more punative than a quick end to one's life. Why have we gotten into this mindset of thinking prisoners have it easy? Since when is prison life fun? We underestimate the value of freedom and liberty when we suggest that life in prison is not a harsh sentence.
The death penalty is a tough issue for me. I think the notion of it as a deterrant is a joke. The death penalty is applied so inconsistantly, that it'd be silly to think it has any use at discouraging crime. As a punishment, though, I tend towards having some sympathy to this arguement. If you take another persons life, it makes sense that you should forfeit your own.
Trouble is, the system is horribly unfair. The stakes are so high that it demands a system which is beyond reproach. I think such a system just isn't possible, and that our current system is disturbing far off the mark. I just can't support it. I can understand why someone would think it is a fair punishment, but it just isn't applied in a fair manner.
I have a special understanding of how unfair the justice system can be. An uncle of mine was wrongly convicted of murder back in the 80's. The prosecutors and police withheld evidence. He was able to get the conviction overturned and was never retried, but it ruined his life. This stuff happens, and we cannot let this stuff happen with someone's life at stake. That's why we just cannot trust the death penalty. The stakes are too high. We can correct an error when we jail someone. We cannot take back a lethal injection.
Hopefully, I'll get back to less serious topics, but I wanted to get this out. Thanks for putting up with me.
8.28.2003
don't go see jeepers creepers 2
Okay, I'll get back to real issues later tonight, but for now, I want to make a plea to my readers. Do NOT see Jeepers Creepers 2 this weekend. Its director, Victor Salva, does not deserve your money.
Why? Because he is a convicted child molestor. Moreover, he coersed his 12-year old victim from a movie he was directing. Especially disturbing is the fact that the film was recently released on DVD. That is, the film that served as a method for him sexually assaulting a young boy is still making money for Salva and MGM. The production company, run by Francis Ford Copella, actually sued the VICTIM when his mother pulled him off the movie when she discovered her son was abused by Salva. Thankfully, Salva is a moron who FILMED his crimes. With this evidence, he was able to plea bargain himself a sentance of 15-months. Now, he cracks jokes and decieves people about the nature of his crime. He may have done his time, but he's never demonstrated any interest in apologizing for his actions. He also keeps making movies about children, although studios have at least the intelligence to not let a child on one of his sets again.
I have very little tolerance for child molesters. It is an act which horrifies me to my core. Sexual abuse of children is about as unforgivable as it gets, and our society is FAR too leniant against these scum bags. 15 months is not an appropriate sentance for rape, especially with a child victim, ESPECIALLY when you taped the damn thing. There is nothing we can do about that, now, but that doesn't mean this criminal deserves our money. I have very little desire to forgive child molestation. Especially when the scum bag exhibits little or no remorse or desire to rehabilitate. Especially with what we've seen about the prospects of rehabilitation for child molesters. Moreover, there should be consequences for such beahvior. There are plenty of people who who have never forced a 12-year old boy to perform oral sex on them who aren't getting to write and direct movies. I would say that it would make some sense to put convicted child molestors who used their job in the film industry to procure a victim should go to the back of the line.
I have never seen any of Salva's films. I'm not going to. Especially what I have read from those who have seen his work with an understanding that the director is a child molester. Powder is said to have strong allusions to an outlook which is textbook for child molesters where they feel alienated and superior to people who don't "understand" their relationships. The first Jeepers movie, too, has been said to have some creepy moments that had nothing to do with its horror movie pretext, but rather with the real horrors Victor Salva has committed.
Sorry, I know I'm really going off, but this is something that really bothers me and I get reminded with every ad for the film that this scum bag is continuing to get to persue a profession after he used the profession to molest a 12 year old boy. I just don't think that is right, and I urge you not to give this man any of your hard earned money.
Oh, and as to the comparisons to Roman Polanski and Woody Allen that inevitably get brought up whenever anyone tries to point out Salva's crimes. First things, first. Pretty much everyone knows what Allen and Polanski did. Not everyone knows what Salva did, so it merits discussion so that people who don't want to support child molesters can make the informed decision to stay away. Next, Allen was accused of child molestation but it was never proven. What he did with Soon-Yi Previn was bizarre and wrong, and he did a great deal of emotional harm to the children he shared with Mia Farrow by breaking up their marriage in such an indefensible manner. All very wrong, but also not criminal and certainly not on part with forcing a child to have sex with you. As to Polanski, I don't want to go to see his films, either. I went to see The Pianist under duress and only because I didn't pay for it. I've never rented any of his films and I never will. He raped a young girl, and it was not consentual as some like to pretend, and I still have no tolerance for that. I'm still upset with myself for going to see The Pianist and I doubt I'll ever go to a Polanski film again. But there is a difference here. Polanski did not use his job as a director to acquire his victim. The other difference is that Polanski never paid his debt to society. He fled. As many problems as Polanski has experienced in his life, I can't respect that. BUT, he did go through a LOT in his life. A lot more than a guy like Salva who caught ever break you could. Salva wasn't imprisoned by the Nazi's, and didn't have his pregnant wife mudered by Charlie Manson. It doesn't excuse Polanski's crime or his fugitive status, but it sure makes his case different from Salva. I also don't believe any of Polanski's films can be interpreted as an justification of child molestation. But, yeah, I don't want to go see his movies either for the same reason as Salva.
Why? Because he is a convicted child molestor. Moreover, he coersed his 12-year old victim from a movie he was directing. Especially disturbing is the fact that the film was recently released on DVD. That is, the film that served as a method for him sexually assaulting a young boy is still making money for Salva and MGM. The production company, run by Francis Ford Copella, actually sued the VICTIM when his mother pulled him off the movie when she discovered her son was abused by Salva. Thankfully, Salva is a moron who FILMED his crimes. With this evidence, he was able to plea bargain himself a sentance of 15-months. Now, he cracks jokes and decieves people about the nature of his crime. He may have done his time, but he's never demonstrated any interest in apologizing for his actions. He also keeps making movies about children, although studios have at least the intelligence to not let a child on one of his sets again.
I have very little tolerance for child molesters. It is an act which horrifies me to my core. Sexual abuse of children is about as unforgivable as it gets, and our society is FAR too leniant against these scum bags. 15 months is not an appropriate sentance for rape, especially with a child victim, ESPECIALLY when you taped the damn thing. There is nothing we can do about that, now, but that doesn't mean this criminal deserves our money. I have very little desire to forgive child molestation. Especially when the scum bag exhibits little or no remorse or desire to rehabilitate. Especially with what we've seen about the prospects of rehabilitation for child molesters. Moreover, there should be consequences for such beahvior. There are plenty of people who who have never forced a 12-year old boy to perform oral sex on them who aren't getting to write and direct movies. I would say that it would make some sense to put convicted child molestors who used their job in the film industry to procure a victim should go to the back of the line.
I have never seen any of Salva's films. I'm not going to. Especially what I have read from those who have seen his work with an understanding that the director is a child molester. Powder is said to have strong allusions to an outlook which is textbook for child molesters where they feel alienated and superior to people who don't "understand" their relationships. The first Jeepers movie, too, has been said to have some creepy moments that had nothing to do with its horror movie pretext, but rather with the real horrors Victor Salva has committed.
Sorry, I know I'm really going off, but this is something that really bothers me and I get reminded with every ad for the film that this scum bag is continuing to get to persue a profession after he used the profession to molest a 12 year old boy. I just don't think that is right, and I urge you not to give this man any of your hard earned money.
Oh, and as to the comparisons to Roman Polanski and Woody Allen that inevitably get brought up whenever anyone tries to point out Salva's crimes. First things, first. Pretty much everyone knows what Allen and Polanski did. Not everyone knows what Salva did, so it merits discussion so that people who don't want to support child molesters can make the informed decision to stay away. Next, Allen was accused of child molestation but it was never proven. What he did with Soon-Yi Previn was bizarre and wrong, and he did a great deal of emotional harm to the children he shared with Mia Farrow by breaking up their marriage in such an indefensible manner. All very wrong, but also not criminal and certainly not on part with forcing a child to have sex with you. As to Polanski, I don't want to go to see his films, either. I went to see The Pianist under duress and only because I didn't pay for it. I've never rented any of his films and I never will. He raped a young girl, and it was not consentual as some like to pretend, and I still have no tolerance for that. I'm still upset with myself for going to see The Pianist and I doubt I'll ever go to a Polanski film again. But there is a difference here. Polanski did not use his job as a director to acquire his victim. The other difference is that Polanski never paid his debt to society. He fled. As many problems as Polanski has experienced in his life, I can't respect that. BUT, he did go through a LOT in his life. A lot more than a guy like Salva who caught ever break you could. Salva wasn't imprisoned by the Nazi's, and didn't have his pregnant wife mudered by Charlie Manson. It doesn't excuse Polanski's crime or his fugitive status, but it sure makes his case different from Salva. I also don't believe any of Polanski's films can be interpreted as an justification of child molestation. But, yeah, I don't want to go see his movies either for the same reason as Salva.
8.26.2003
satire, too true?
So, I've finished Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken. I really enjoyed it. Its clearly a satire, and Franken is at his wittiest, but also frequently genuinely outraged. A chapter on Paul Wellstone's funeral was especially emotional and a very good demonstration of the way stories get manipulated by the "fair and balanced" press. This is satire taken seriously, because he understands that these are serious issues. He makes a solid case in spite of himself. Also, practically none of the fat jokes that made me uncomfortable with the first book. They were all in one chapter which I just skipped over, too.
The first book always troubled me because I wasn't entirely sure how much of the endless fat jokes was satire. I mean, I understood in principle. He was satirizing the break-down in public discourse precipitated by people like Rush taking cheap shots against a 12-year old Chelsea Clinton. I don't think Franken really believes the fat jokes are, themselves, justified and proper. The thing is, I'm not sure he doesn't mean them anyway. Some comments he made about Chris Farley when he passed away were frustratingly fat hating. I don't believe he thinks its right to make cheap insults at the expense of fat people, and did it in his first book just to prove a satirical point. But, I don't think he's at all respectful of fat people on his own, so the satire seemed a little too true.
This reminds me of my unending confusion on how to take Comedy Central's The Man Show. On the one hand, it seems so hopelessly over the top that it must be satire. And there are moments which seem clearly intended to mock men and their habit towards "manliness". But men have a nasty habit of not getting satires of manliness, and other elements of the shows are viciously reactionary and entirely unredeemable. Fortunetly, I'm decidedly not their target audience so never watched much anyway, but I'm usually left with the feeling that its half-satire, half-serious, and I'm not sure how to take that. They have new hosts, now, though, so I'm curious how they are going with it. Joe Rogan, for instance, is a mixed bag. While he sometimes comes off as pretty mean-spirited, he's in the "equal-opportunity hate" kinda vein and has absolutely no tolerance for bigotry. He's very libertarian-style in his thinking, and I can respect that. Besides, I liked him on NewsRadio. But, I'm guessing it will probably keep to the formula of satire that's too truthful. But, given how unmotivated I am by giggling and jiggling porn-star types, I think these questions will remain unanswered for me.
The first book always troubled me because I wasn't entirely sure how much of the endless fat jokes was satire. I mean, I understood in principle. He was satirizing the break-down in public discourse precipitated by people like Rush taking cheap shots against a 12-year old Chelsea Clinton. I don't think Franken really believes the fat jokes are, themselves, justified and proper. The thing is, I'm not sure he doesn't mean them anyway. Some comments he made about Chris Farley when he passed away were frustratingly fat hating. I don't believe he thinks its right to make cheap insults at the expense of fat people, and did it in his first book just to prove a satirical point. But, I don't think he's at all respectful of fat people on his own, so the satire seemed a little too true.
This reminds me of my unending confusion on how to take Comedy Central's The Man Show. On the one hand, it seems so hopelessly over the top that it must be satire. And there are moments which seem clearly intended to mock men and their habit towards "manliness". But men have a nasty habit of not getting satires of manliness, and other elements of the shows are viciously reactionary and entirely unredeemable. Fortunetly, I'm decidedly not their target audience so never watched much anyway, but I'm usually left with the feeling that its half-satire, half-serious, and I'm not sure how to take that. They have new hosts, now, though, so I'm curious how they are going with it. Joe Rogan, for instance, is a mixed bag. While he sometimes comes off as pretty mean-spirited, he's in the "equal-opportunity hate" kinda vein and has absolutely no tolerance for bigotry. He's very libertarian-style in his thinking, and I can respect that. Besides, I liked him on NewsRadio. But, I'm guessing it will probably keep to the formula of satire that's too truthful. But, given how unmotivated I am by giggling and jiggling porn-star types, I think these questions will remain unanswered for me.
8.25.2003
yes, cats
Yeah, that's right. I mentioned a cat. Aparently this is a blog rite of passage. And I just thought it was a kitten leaping on my lap. hehe
For the record, I am a cat person, but I'm not one to discuss them. For starters, I don't have a cat. Nor do I want one. I'm not that keen on being responsible for another living thing. I don't have plants, much less pets. I'm happy only having to look out for myself, thank you very much. I mean, I'd love to have a cat, but I'd be too scared I'd do something horribly wrong or not give them enough attention or something. And the hair would get over everything!
My interaction with cats consists of my girlfriend's three cats. She just got the kitten. Was just going to mind it for a few days as her landlord was giving it up, but the kitty grew on her. The darn thing is just so completely cute. This must be some evolutionary trait. Their cuteness is a means of survival by encouraging humans to grow attached to them while their cuteness persists. This one just oozes the cute. It's incredible sweet and affectionate. It always wants to be around people, and rushes into a room whenever you're their. Its also really playful. She has this toy called a cat dancer. Just some wood on a wire that cats aparently cannot avoid swatting at. The kitty is going nuts with the thing. It has a wall mount, too, so it can just entertain itself with the thing. Of course it leaps and flails about like the cutest thing ever. Worked, too, as he convinced my girlfriend to keep him. Her other cats are less enthusiastic, but at least warming up to him. And as long as he stops waking me up by biting my nose (I think he's trying to suckle... yeah, AW!), I'm cool with him, too. Even if he interupts my blog before I get to discuss Ben and Jerry's Organic Strawberry (not a fan) or Cabot Chedder Slices (BIG fan).
So, in conclusion, I'm a cat person but I don't want a pet. Or fish. Might want a Bonzai tree, though.
For the record, I am a cat person, but I'm not one to discuss them. For starters, I don't have a cat. Nor do I want one. I'm not that keen on being responsible for another living thing. I don't have plants, much less pets. I'm happy only having to look out for myself, thank you very much. I mean, I'd love to have a cat, but I'd be too scared I'd do something horribly wrong or not give them enough attention or something. And the hair would get over everything!
My interaction with cats consists of my girlfriend's three cats. She just got the kitten. Was just going to mind it for a few days as her landlord was giving it up, but the kitty grew on her. The darn thing is just so completely cute. This must be some evolutionary trait. Their cuteness is a means of survival by encouraging humans to grow attached to them while their cuteness persists. This one just oozes the cute. It's incredible sweet and affectionate. It always wants to be around people, and rushes into a room whenever you're their. Its also really playful. She has this toy called a cat dancer. Just some wood on a wire that cats aparently cannot avoid swatting at. The kitty is going nuts with the thing. It has a wall mount, too, so it can just entertain itself with the thing. Of course it leaps and flails about like the cutest thing ever. Worked, too, as he convinced my girlfriend to keep him. Her other cats are less enthusiastic, but at least warming up to him. And as long as he stops waking me up by biting my nose (I think he's trying to suckle... yeah, AW!), I'm cool with him, too. Even if he interupts my blog before I get to discuss Ben and Jerry's Organic Strawberry (not a fan) or Cabot Chedder Slices (BIG fan).
So, in conclusion, I'm a cat person but I don't want a pet. Or fish. Might want a Bonzai tree, though.
8.23.2003
random thoughts #1
The Honda Element isn't nearly as cute as it thinks it is. Its the plastic paneling that kills it for me. I know its supposed to be functional, as this is an Extreme Sports kinda car, but its just so damn ugly. The only ones that kind pull it off are the silver ones, because its a light enough color to pull of the contrast with the dark plastic paneling.
Ben Affleck should pay Kevin Smith to put him in movies. I like Affleck, and all, but the fact is that when he's in a Kevin Smith film his acting is taken to another level. Chasing Amy and Dogma stand out for his best acting work by a wide margin. Most of the time, he just mugs for the camera and allows himself to be Ben Affleck, movie star. Don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst thing in the world. There are a number of great entertainers who forge a career playing themselves in every role. Think Alec Baldwin. Has there ever been a movie where he wasn't overtly Alec Baldwin? Its the Cary Grant school of being a movie star, rather than acting. The thing is, Affleck is GOOD when he works with Smith. He should have been nominated for an Oscar for his work in Dogma. At the least, he could be taken seriously as in the running. Ditto for Chasing Amy. You think that was the case for Armageddon or The Sum of all Fears? Or the absurd impressions he passes off as acting in Good Will Hunting and Gigli? (okay, he wasn't bad in Good Will Hunting, but there were a lot of moments where he was unintentionally amusing) He makes his bank because people know he can act up a storm because they saw it with Kevin Smith. I'm just saying.
Man, fresh tomatoes are good. I mean, really store-bought are such a pale replica of the real thing. Ditto on Strawberries.
Just got Al Franken's new book. it was published a month early to capitalize on publicity. Its good stuff. Very, its funny cuz its true, though, which is also frightening. And no fat jokes, yet, which is good.
I think I need to go now, because my girlfriend's new kitten just jumped on my lap, and seriously, do you think anyone can ignore a cute kitten?
Ben Affleck should pay Kevin Smith to put him in movies. I like Affleck, and all, but the fact is that when he's in a Kevin Smith film his acting is taken to another level. Chasing Amy and Dogma stand out for his best acting work by a wide margin. Most of the time, he just mugs for the camera and allows himself to be Ben Affleck, movie star. Don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst thing in the world. There are a number of great entertainers who forge a career playing themselves in every role. Think Alec Baldwin. Has there ever been a movie where he wasn't overtly Alec Baldwin? Its the Cary Grant school of being a movie star, rather than acting. The thing is, Affleck is GOOD when he works with Smith. He should have been nominated for an Oscar for his work in Dogma. At the least, he could be taken seriously as in the running. Ditto for Chasing Amy. You think that was the case for Armageddon or The Sum of all Fears? Or the absurd impressions he passes off as acting in Good Will Hunting and Gigli? (okay, he wasn't bad in Good Will Hunting, but there were a lot of moments where he was unintentionally amusing) He makes his bank because people know he can act up a storm because they saw it with Kevin Smith. I'm just saying.
Man, fresh tomatoes are good. I mean, really store-bought are such a pale replica of the real thing. Ditto on Strawberries.
Just got Al Franken's new book. it was published a month early to capitalize on publicity. Its good stuff. Very, its funny cuz its true, though, which is also frightening. And no fat jokes, yet, which is good.
I think I need to go now, because my girlfriend's new kitten just jumped on my lap, and seriously, do you think anyone can ignore a cute kitten?
8.22.2003
shorthand fat
So, I'm watching this movie and it is quickly established that one of the lead characters is fat. Fine, no problem with that. Then, it is also quickly seen that this is him in the past, and now he's thin. As the movie progresses, it pretty clearly establishest that his weight was a physical manifestation of his emotional problems and now that he's moved past it, he's thin. Its all very "mature" rather than the vacantness of, say, Amercian Sweethearts.
I find it just as offensive.
In the first place, its lazy filmmaking. They are using fat as shorthand for emotional problems. It almost doesn't need to be said that his fat is a reflection of some psychological damage, but they say it anyway. As if everything in life can be easily explained through psycho-babble. Which really isn't the point of the film at all, except about fat.
Now, I might be okay with this if it was an occassional portrayal of fat characters, but this is it. This is the only portrayal, and that makes it a reflection of bigotry. Fat people are so narrowly defined on film that it becomes easy for people to see in such a one-dimensional manner. Hell, just watch Oprah or Dr. Phil. Fatness is regarded as an easy question. Clearly, we've got emotional problems. After all, the movies said so. Its insulting, and it is frustrating, because this is damn near IT.
Not much else to say. Just wanted to vent as yet another movie uses my body as shorthand.
I find it just as offensive.
In the first place, its lazy filmmaking. They are using fat as shorthand for emotional problems. It almost doesn't need to be said that his fat is a reflection of some psychological damage, but they say it anyway. As if everything in life can be easily explained through psycho-babble. Which really isn't the point of the film at all, except about fat.
Now, I might be okay with this if it was an occassional portrayal of fat characters, but this is it. This is the only portrayal, and that makes it a reflection of bigotry. Fat people are so narrowly defined on film that it becomes easy for people to see in such a one-dimensional manner. Hell, just watch Oprah or Dr. Phil. Fatness is regarded as an easy question. Clearly, we've got emotional problems. After all, the movies said so. Its insulting, and it is frustrating, because this is damn near IT.
Not much else to say. Just wanted to vent as yet another movie uses my body as shorthand.
8.21.2003
scooter men
So, I was planning on writing an entry about what songs I'd like to do with a cover band, but I've decided I need to think about it more. So, you get a little meandering post about little things. I'm actually wondering if my long rants are perhaps off-putting. Oh well. Its my blog.
The big fat blog has relaunched with a new look and some new features. Included are two new columnists, who just happen to be among my readers. Of course, all of my readers came from the BFB right now, so this is probably new to no one.
Anyway, what I really want to discuss is something I just saw on Comedy Central's Insomniac with Dave Attell. If you haven't seen the show, it basically is light-hearted but ultimately very earnest exploration of the nightlife of various cities. This episode had him in England where he toured the offices of Scooter Man and I can't even begin to say how impressed I am. Basically, this is a fleet of chauffers with mini, foldable scooters. When you get drunk, you call them, and they send a guy out on one of the little scooters. The scooter folds up into a dufle bag which gets put into your trunk. Its actually small enough to fit into the back seat of a Cooper Mini if you really wanted it to. They then drive you home. As their motto says, "you drink, we drive". I can't get over what a brilliant idea this is. They set the price on the idea of it being cheaper than the price of cab ride home and then a cab ride back to get your car. Not being much of a drinker and nothing of a driver, I don't really know much about the experience of drinking while you have your car out with you, but I've got to imagine a service like this is quite useful. Anything to discourage drinking and driving is good in my book, and these seems like a really smart idea to provide a useful service and also protect the public. Not, lets just see if someone tries this in the US.
Or maybe someone already has. What? You expect to be look it up? P'shaw!
The big fat blog has relaunched with a new look and some new features. Included are two new columnists, who just happen to be among my readers. Of course, all of my readers came from the BFB right now, so this is probably new to no one.
Anyway, what I really want to discuss is something I just saw on Comedy Central's Insomniac with Dave Attell. If you haven't seen the show, it basically is light-hearted but ultimately very earnest exploration of the nightlife of various cities. This episode had him in England where he toured the offices of Scooter Man and I can't even begin to say how impressed I am. Basically, this is a fleet of chauffers with mini, foldable scooters. When you get drunk, you call them, and they send a guy out on one of the little scooters. The scooter folds up into a dufle bag which gets put into your trunk. Its actually small enough to fit into the back seat of a Cooper Mini if you really wanted it to. They then drive you home. As their motto says, "you drink, we drive". I can't get over what a brilliant idea this is. They set the price on the idea of it being cheaper than the price of cab ride home and then a cab ride back to get your car. Not being much of a drinker and nothing of a driver, I don't really know much about the experience of drinking while you have your car out with you, but I've got to imagine a service like this is quite useful. Anything to discourage drinking and driving is good in my book, and these seems like a really smart idea to provide a useful service and also protect the public. Not, lets just see if someone tries this in the US.
Or maybe someone already has. What? You expect to be look it up? P'shaw!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)