62 entries categorized "Film"

April 06, 2008

Opera Branches Out: La Boheme

Opera branches out:

The Metropolitan Opera: La Boheme - NCM Event (2008): Fathom presents the excitement of The Metropolitan Opera Saturday Matinees - in HD on the Big Screen! The LIVE broadcast of Puccini's La Bohème will be shown for one day only on Saturday, April 5 at 1:30PM ET / 10:30AM PT in select theatres nationwide. A magnificent cast comes together for Franco Zeffirelli's iconic production of the Puccini favorite. The exciting young conductor Nicola Luisotti presides over a glorious vocal ensemble led by the mesmerizing Angela Gheorghiu, who sings Mimì at the Met for the first time in twelve years, opposite golden-toned tenor Ramón Vargas as her lover, Rodolfo...

This is not Mimi-the-ingenue we have here...

$20 a ticket x 325,000 tickets is $6M a year:

On Air & OnLine: The Met's experiment of merging film with live performance has created a new art form," said the Los Angeles Times of the groundbreaking series of live, high-definition performance transmissions to movie theaters around the world. The series enjoyed box office success, reaching an estimated audience of more than 325,000 viewers. In 2007-08, the Met offers its second season of international HD transmissions—this time with eight broadcasts, up from last year's six. Don't miss the chance to enjoy thrilling, world-class opera at your neighborhood theater!...

Henry Murger (1851), Bohemians of the Latin Quarter:

Today, as of old, every man who enters on an artistic career, without any other means of livelihood than his art itself, will be forced to walk in the paths of Bohemia. The greater number of our contemporaries who display the noblest blazonry of art have been Bohemians, and amidst their calm and prosperous glory they often recall, perhaps with regret, the time when, climbing the verdant slope of youth, they had no other fortune in the sunshine of their twenty years than courage, which is the virtue of the young, and hope, which is the wealth of the poor. For the uneasy reader, for the timorous citizen, for all those for whom an "i" can never be too plainly dotted in definition, we repeat as an axiom: "Bohemia is a stage in artistic life; it is the preface to the Academy, the Hôtel Dieu, or the Morgue."

We will add that Bohemia only exists and is only possible in Paris.

We will begin with unknown Bohemians, the largest class. It is made up of the great family of poor artists, fatally condemned to the law of incognito, because they cannot or do not know how to obtain a scrap of publicity, to attest their existence in art, and by showing what they are already prove what they may some day become. They are the race of obstinate dreamers for whom art has remained a faith and not a profession; enthusiastic folk of strong convictions, whom the sight of a masterpiece is enough to throw into a fever, and whose loyal heart beats high in presence of all that is beautiful, without asking the name of the master and the school. This Bohemian is recruited from amongst those young fellows of whom it is said that they give great hopes, and from amongst those who realize the hopes given, but who, from carelessness, timidity, or ignorance of practical life, imagine that everything is done that can be when the work is completed, and wait for public admiration and fortune to break in on them by escalade and burglary. They live, so to say, on the outskirts of life, in isolation and inertia. Petrified in art, they accept to the very letter the symbolism of the academical dithyrambic, which places an aureola about the heads of poets, and, persuaded that they are gleaming in their obscurity, wait for others to come and seek them out. We used to know a small school composed of men of this type, so strange, that one finds it hard to believe in their existence; they styled themselves the disciples of art for art's sake. According to these simpletons, art for art's sake consisted of deifying one another, in abstaining from helping chance, who did not even know their address, and in waiting for pedestals to come of their own accord and place themselves under them.

It is, as one sees, the ridiculousness of stoicism. Well, then we again affirm, there exist in the heart of unknown Bohemia, similar beings whose poverty excites a sympathetic pity which common sense obliges you to go back on, for if you quietly remark to them that we live in the nineteenth century, that the five-franc piece is the empress of humanity, and that boots do not drop already blacked from heaven, they turn their backs on you and call you a tradesman.

For the rest, they are logical in their mad heroism, they utter neither cries nor complainings, and passively undergo the obscure and rigorous fate they make for themselves. They die for the most part, decimated by that disease to which science does not dare give its real name, want. If they would, however, many could escape from this fatal denouement which suddenly terminates their life at an age when ordinary life is only beginning. It would suffice for that for them to make a few concessions to the stern laws of necessity; for them to know how to duplicate their being, to have within themselves two natures, the poet ever dreaming on the lofty summits where the choir of inspired voices are warbling, and the man, worker-out of his life, able to knead his daily bread, but this duality which almost always exists among strongly tempered natures, of whom it is one of the distinctive characteristics, is not met with amongst the greater number of these young fellows, whom pride, a bastard pride, has rendered invulnerable to all the advice of reason. Thus they die young, leaving sometimes behind them a work which the world admires later on and which it would no doubt have applauded sooner if it had not remained invisible.

In artistic struggles it is almost the same as in war, the whole of the glory acquired falls to the leaders; the army shares as its reward the few lines in a dispatch. As to the soldiers struck down in battle, they are buried where they fall, and one epitaph serves for twenty thousand dead. So, too, the crowd, which always has its eyes fixed on the rising sun, never lowers its glance towards that underground world where the obscure workers are struggling; their existence finishes unknown and without sometimes even having had the consolation of smiling at an accomplished task, they depart from this life, enwrapped in a shroud of indifference...

March 08, 2008

Exercycle "Lo, There I See My Father" Blogging

Lo, there I see my father,
Lo, there I see my mother
And my sisters and my brothers.
Lo, there I see the line of my ancestors
Back to the beginning,
Lo, they do call to me
They bid me take my place among them
In the halls of Valhalla
Where the brave may live forever...

Benefits to watching the last forty minutes of The Thirteenth Warrior on the iPhone while riding the exercise bike:

  • The chance that I will stop pedaling before the full forty minutes are up is infinitesimal...
  • It calls forth a degree of muscular exertion that I had thought lost long ago...

Still the best Beowulf.

February 03, 2008

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Do New York Times Film Critics Watch Movies? Edition)

Does A.O. Scott even go to the movies?

You read something that begins like:

Fine Romance, My Friend, This Is: IT might be Kate Hudson, or maybe Mandy Moore, or possibly Rachel Weisz, Lindsay Lohan or a Jennifer. (Lopez? Aniston? Garner?) But if it’s February, you can be pretty sure that some pretty, plucky actress will be traipsing around some glamorous and photogenic American city (or its Canadian double) in search of the dimple-chinned fellow who embodies her one true love. Katherine Heigl, the star of “27 Dresses,” has already rushed to the altar — or rather the beach, which is where so many movie weddings take place these days — ahead of a crew that will include Ms. Hudson, Uma Thurman and Paul Rudd. (Not all of them are getting married; some are avoiding divorce.) A few specimens of the genre, usually the better ones, can be counted on to sneak in during the summer or fall, as “In Her Shoes” or “The Devil Wears Prada” did...

You finish reading the lead knowing three things:

  • A.O. Scott does not like "27 Dresses."
  • A.O. Scott does not remember a single frame of "The Devil Wears Prada."
  • No editor or typesetter (does it still have typesetters?) or proofreader at the New York Times remembers a single frame of "The Devil Wears Prada."

Yes, "The Devil Wears Prada" is a comedy. Yes, Anne Hathaway is lovely. But the first editor who read A.O. Scott's characterization of it as a movie of "some pretty, plucky actress... in search of the dimple-chinned fellow who embodies her one true love" should have told A.O. Scott to raise his hands immediately and step back from the keyboard: if Scott thinks that "The Devil Wears Prada" is a romance, he has no business writing about romances: "Devil" is not a romance, it is a bildungsroman that happens to have a female lead.

The rest of the article after the lead? It doesn't get better. A.O. Scott unfavorably contrasts the moderns in romance films--“How to Lose a Guy in 10,” “Fool’s Gold,” “27 Dresses,” “Because I Said So,” "Dan in Real Life," "Good Luck Chuck," and "any of the dozens like them disgorged by the studios in the past decade or so"--with the ancients--“Bringing Up Baby,” “His Girl Friday,” “State of the Union,” “The Lady Eve,” “It Happened One Night,” and “The Philadelphia Story”; he concludes that it is "something of a scandal" that in contrast with the past today's romantic comedies are "movies whose notion of love is insipid, shallow and frequently ludicrous" and that today's actors and actresses are "programmatically less interesting... lacking in the vinegar that made [the ancients]... so definitively sexy... the romantic comedy leading men of today are the kind of nice guy... whom these earlier heroines would have triumphed by rejecting."

A.O. Scott does not seem to acknowledge--indeed, does not seem to have ever learned--what every five year old about to be promoted from kindergarten does: orange-to-apple comparisons that pit the best of one class against the average of a second are worthless.

Let's try to give him a clue. Let's see what happens if we try to do a real apples-to-apples comparison. Looking at the American Film Institute's list of best comedies up through 2000, my eye spots "There's Something About Mary," "Groundhog Day," "When Harry Met Sally," "A Fish Called Wanda," and "Moonstruck" among the moderns; "Adam's Rib," "Woman of the Year," "Sullivan's Travels," "The Lady Eve," "His Girl Friday," and "The Philadelphia Story" are the ancients from the 1940s.

For the years since 2000 we can look at Amazon's best-selling romances, which yields us "Love Actually," "The Dreamers," "The Notebook," "Love Comes Softly," "Amelie," and "Garden State"--and which tells us that for the 1990s the films that Amazon customers want to own are "Pride and Prejudice" (1996), "The Princess Bride" (1987), "Sense and Sensibility" (1995), "Persuasion" (1995), "You've Got Mail" (1998), "Groundhog Day" (1993), "Emma" (1996), and "Sleepless in Seattle" (1993) (plus "When Harry Met Sally" (1989), "Somewhere in Time" (1980), "Harold and Maude" (1971), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), "Doctor Zhivago" (1965), and "Casablanca" (1943)). All of these are fine movies (with the exception of that real stinker "Love Comes Softly").

The three best romances, IMHO, are all moderns: "Moonstruck," "Four Weddings and a Funeral,"* and the Jennifer Ehle-Colin Firth "Pride and Prejudice" from 1995. I think the moderns clearly have it over the ancients when one does the apples-to-apples comparison.

But A.O. Scott doesn't seem to understand that he should do an apples-to-apples comparison. Indeed, he appears to be so uninterested in the genre he is writing about to have slept through all of "The Devil Wears Prada."

I can't help but thinking that there has to be somebody out there--some bathrobe-wearing basement-dwelling weblogger--who could do a much better job of filling the space in the New York Times: someone who loves films, knows films, cares about films, stayed awake through "The Devil Wears Prada," and knows enough about things like "apple-to-apple comparisons are good to write intelligently about films...

November 24, 2007

Beowulf, Starring Angelina Jolie as "Mom"

A very well done comic-book movie. An excellent story. But it is not the story of Beowulf. It is a different story.

"The Thirteenth Warrior" is a better Beowulf. It may or may not be a better movie. I am not sure.

August 08, 2007

John Scalzi Commands: Go See Stardust on Friday!

Scalzi writes:

Whatever: All that said, if you are a fan of Neil Gaiman's and you want to see him continue to work in Hollywood and whatnot, then you really ought not be complacent, and you really ought to see Stardust on opening weekend, and preferably on Friday. The mechanics of the movie business are structured these days so that those opening numbers matter a great deal. The movie business is not like it was 20 years ago, when Princess Bride opened up in just 600 theaters; it's not even like it was a few years ago, when movie theaters had an economic interest in playing films as long as possible. These days films need to make their money quickly, because they're going to get shoved off the screen in two or three weeks.

So yeah, if you want to do Neil Gaiman a favor, see Stardust on Friday, and bring all your friends...

The movie: http://www.stardustmovie.com/

Scalzi expands:

I can't imagine that anyone at Paramount is realistically under the impression that Stardust is going to approach even the low end of Rush Hour 3's box office bracket. But that's all right, since I don't imagine that Paramount is viewing Stardust as a legitimate #1 box office contender. Rather -- and if they're smart -- they're viewing it as counter-programming: Something to put out there so that everyone else who would rather poke out their eyes than see Rush Hour 3 will say "Hey, let's go see Stardust." Which is to say that Stardust is not competing with Rush Hour 3 for an audience; the two films are instead (and hopefully for Stardust) complementary.

In this, Stardust is actually pretty well-positioned. Rush Hour 3 gets the boys, ages 13 - 29, and the poor unfortunate women who are dragged along with them. That's its main audience. Stardust, on the other hand, cobbles together its audience from various demographics. First, science fiction/fantasy fandom, almost none of whom is interested in Rush Hour 3 (and which, as anyone who looked at Serenity's grosses can tell you, is worth exactly $10 million on opening weekend). Second, older moviegoers, who may be drawn in by the presence of Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro and the novel and amusing movie idea. Third, older (that is, 30+) couples out on dates.

Then throw in, in decreasing order of importance, family audiences (it's PG-13 but that's close enough for government work), Edwardian-era-loving gays and/or Anglophiles, the comic book and/or Matthew Vaughn fans not at Rush Hour 3, moviegoers who actually read reviews to decide what they're going to see, and single, cat-loving women hoping for just one more Princess Bride experience before they die.

Also in Stardust's plus column: the only other movie getting a wide release beside it and Rush Hour 3: Daddy Day Camp. Which means that except for the occasional family that lets an especially dim six-year-old drive the movie choices, Stardust has the whole non-Rush Hour 3 audience to itself. The only holdover film likely to have a serious impact on Stardust's numbers is The Bourne Ultimatum....

My expectation is that the film's opening domestic numbers are going to tally somewhere between $15 and $25 million... anything over $25 million will be having Gaiman and Vaughn sent really nice fruit baskets and a note asking when they can have a script in for Stardust 2: The Quickening.... I think the real action for Stardust is likely to be the home video and television markets, where I expect the producers of the film are probably hoping for a Princess Bride-like longevity. Note, if you will, that The Princess Bride performed only modestly in theaters when it came out 20 years ago, and found most of its fame (and financial success) on home video...


Meanwhile, author Neil Gaiman freaks out in a calm, measured way:

Neil Gaiman - Neil Gaiman's Journal: What to do with your friends on Friday. Also Chocolate Eggs.: I read this article with a certain amount of concern:

http://www.comingsoon.net/blog/2007/08/preview_and_box_office_analysi_11.php

as it explains that Stardust is a wonderful, amazing, brilliant film and that everyone will go and see Rush Hour 3 because the marketing for Stardust hasn't been any good. I hope they're wrong. I really hope that the plethora of good reviews, and the word of mouth, will make up for any deficiencies in the marketing.

(If you're in two minds about Stardust, about whether or not to see it or even when to see it, please go and see it this weekend. Friday night if you can. Take friends. If necessary, take them at gunpoint. They will love the movie so much they will forgive you afterwards. And if they don't forgive you, you can dispose of them quietly -- you're the one with the gun, after all -- and you will have a wonderful time for the rest of your life with the new friends you made at the Stardust screening.)

The reviews of Stardust continue to be lovely:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/06/entertainment/e145649D66.DTL

for example, is the Associated Press review. And they love Michelle Pfeiffer, who

is deliciously evil as a witch who wants to cut out Yvaine's heart and eat it to gain eternal youth and beauty for herself and her sisters. (Well, mainly for herself.) She shows great comic timing and isn't afraid to play with her glamorous image, or look grotesque when her character, Lamia, is at her most decayed and desperate.

It comments on the should you take kids question:

"Stardust" also calls to mind last year's "Pan's Labyrinth" .... in that it superficially appears to be suitable for the whole family, and it's really not. It's never as terrifying as "Pan's Labyrinth" but it does get dark; in a broader sense, though, kids just might not get a lot of the nuance. Their parents are truly the target audience here.

http://mikecap.squarespace.com/journal/2007/8/7/stardust-2007.html

Weeks and weeks into this Summer of Disappointing Movies, we have finally unearthed a decent gem of a film. This is the one you take a date to; especially if your significant other wears an ankh or has a Death (the D.C. comic character) tattoo somewhere or owns all the Sandman graphic novels. Paramount Pictures has graciously brought the fairy tale back to the screen, with a quality not seen since The Princess Bride. Forget Narnia, Terabithia, and Hogwart's - it's all about Stormhold and the fallen star.

http://www.badmouth.net/stardust-2007/

Stardust comes well after the burst of summer blockbusters, but looking back, it will be seen as one of the 2007’s best and most fully satisfying adventures.

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_6557055 has me trying to explain the difference between novel writing and movie making to journalist Colin Covert.

"Writing a novel is a voyage of discovery," said Neil Gaiman, who has written piles of them (including "American Gods," "Anansi Boys," and "Neverwhere") and sold millions.

But turning a novel into a film is like "running a very sharp-edged maze leading through a minefield, with people shooting at you, in a freezing downpour, having no sense of where the exit might be, pursued by hounds, while blindfolded."

July 21, 2007

Andrew Sullivan Is Trying to Give Me Nightmares...

Andrew Sullivan is posting YouTube clips from "Aliens":

I prefer the kinder, gentler Sigourney Weaver of "Galaxy Quest":

May 11, 2007

Roman Nomenclature

Interesting that Roman women did not acquire names (as opposed to "the big daughter from the Balbus branch of the Atius clan who is married to one of the Marcii") until the very end of the Republic:

Roman Nomenclature: [F]emale children of citizen families were named with the feminine form of the clan into which they were born; hence, all women whose fathers had the nomen Julius were named Julia, and all women whose fathers had the nomen Cornelius were named Cornelia. In public, they would be identified by the possessive form of their father's cognomen (e.g., Julia Caesaris, “Julia, the daughter of Caesar”), or if married by the possessive form of their husband's cognomen (e.g., Clodia Metelli, “Clodia, the wife of Metellus”). If families had more than one daughter, they were distinguished by the words maior and minor (“elder” and “younger”), or prima, secunda, tertia, etc.

However, by the late Republic these conventions were changing slightly, in that elite Roman woman were sometimes designated by the feminine form of their father's nomen plus the feminine form of his cognomen, sometimes in the dominutive (e.g. Livia, who married Octavian and became Rome's first empress, was often referred to as Livia Drusilla, since her father was a noble named Marcus Livius Drusus). Starting with Augustus, names of the most prominent women did not necessarily follow the Republican convention, but rather reflected the family connections that were most significant to the namers. For example, the two daughters of Augustus' daughter Julia, who was married to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, would normally have been named Vipsania; instead one was called Julia and the other Agrippina. When Agrippina married Nero Claudius Germanicus (grandson of Livia), her three daughters were named Agrippina, Drusilla, and Julia Livilla (referring to the family lines of both of their distinguished great-grandparents) instead of Claudia, which would refer to their father's nomen.

So why, in "Rome," is Atia called "Atia Julii" rather than the proper "Atia Balba Marcii" (after her second husband Lucius Marcius Philippus)? Presumably for the same reason that Pompey and Caesar are called "co-consuls" rather than proconsuls. The consuls for the years 50 and 49 were L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, C. Claudius Marcellus, and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus...

April 13, 2007

Best James Bond Evar

Alec Guinness (in the six-hour BBC series "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy").

April 01, 2007

Answers to Never Asked Questions

(1) Yes, it is possible to watch old "Star Trek" episodes on the video iPod while waiting for the BART, and enjoy them (as much as one can enjoy Star Trek TOS episodes, that is: YMMV).

(2) Yes, Mark Lenard is a remarkably good actor to be able to do the things he does with the incredibly cheesy role of the Romulan Starship Commander in "Balance of Terror."

(3) Yes, if I had seen "The Enemy Below" before seeing "Balance of Terror," I would have found "Balance of Terror" to be an awkward and pathetic cheesy knockoff of a pretty good WWII submarine movie.

(4) Yes, because I saw "Balance of Terror" first, I still enjoy it: my brain paths are too-deeply engraved.

(5) Yes, I do want my HUDs from A Deepness in the Sky, as soon as possible please.

March 27, 2007

But for Wales?

The Sixteen-Year-Old had never before seen "A Man for All Seasons"

Web Gallery of Art: Sir Thomas More (1477-1535).

Paul Scofield as More is a little too good to be real, and John Hurt as Richard Rich is a little too bad to be real, but a number of the actors--Leo McKern as Cromwell, Orson Welles as Wolsey, Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, and Nigel Davenport as Norfolk--are absolutely perfect.

March 21, 2007

Beowulf

The Thirteenth Warrior is the best version of Beowulf I have ever experienced...

February 05, 2007

Second Gilded Age Cultural Studies Watch, or O Michael Berube! Thou Shouldst Be Blogging in This Hour!

Second Gilded Age Cultural Studies Watch, or O Michael Berube! Thou Shouldst Be Blogging in This Hour!

In a Super Bowl commercial--a commercial that I thought was astonishing for a company that is in the process of a slow-motion layoff of half of its hourly workers--GM broadcast the Robot's Loser's Progress yesterday:

GM Reveals Its Obsession in Super Bowl XLI Ad - AutoMotoPortal.com: Everyone at General Motors obsesses about quality these days - even the robots in the assembly plants. During the CBS telecast of Super Bowl XLI on Feb. 4, GM will launch the next phase of a corporate campaign that began last fall with the introduction of the GM 100,000 Mile Warranty. A new 60-second TV spot, called "Robot," will tell consumers about GM's continuing focus on quality. Created with GM by Deutsch LA, the spot features a small robot that is part of a GM assembly line. Unfortunately, the robot makes a tiny mistake: it drops a screw. The line shuts down and the employees in the plant banish the little robot from the premises. The robot's anguish over its mistake helps to remind consumers that every 2007 GM car and light-duty truck is now covered by a 100,000 mile/five-year powertrain limited warranty, and illustrates GM's obsession about quality...

What AutoMotoPortal.com doesn't tell you is the robot's post-firing Loser's Progress: the robot works a succession of lower-paid jobs, gets increasingly depressed, and at the end of the commercial commits suicide by throwing itself off a bridge--before waking up and realizing that it was all a bad dream.

In another Super Bowl commercial, Kevin Federline dreams about being a rap star while in "reality" he works the fryolater at a fast-food restaurant:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Federline advert causes offence: A US advert starring Britney Spears' estranged husband, Kevin Federline, has angered a fast food trade group. The 28-year-old pokes fun at his stalled music career as he daydreams of hitting the big time while serving French fries at a takeaway. The National Restaurant Association says the advert suggests restaurant work is "demeaning and unpleasant". But advertiser Nationwide Mutual Insurance insists Federline is the only one being mocked.

The commercial will be shown on 4 February during the Super Bowl - US TV's highest-rated broadcast, commanding the highest fees for advertising. Rapper Federline, also known as K-Fed, launched his music career amid a blaze of publicity but only sold 6,500 copies of his debut album, Playing with Fire, in the first week of its release...

I am not imagining this, am I? The underlying background assumption of these commercials is contempt for the men and women who serve the fast food and work the loading docks and deliver the pizzas and staff the call centers of America, isn't it? The exectives of GM and Nationwide Insurance and their creative ad professionals think that denying the dignity of labor is the road to selling annuities and SUVs to the fiftysomethings with spare cash watching the Super Bowl, isn't it? This is a Sign of the Apocalypse for our current Second Gilded Age, isn't it? Or am I overreacting?

This is out-of-my-league. We need a Trained Professional Cultural... Studies Person... A Trained Professional Cultural Student... A Trained Professional Cultural Studier... We need Michael Berube or Bitch Ph.D. or Bad Subjects or The Valve here, as soon as possible.


Robot:

Federline: http://www.nationwide.com/nw/featured-ads/index.htm?WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=bgs00023

January 25, 2007

Your One-Stop Source for Star-Trek-Canon Blogging

Dymaxion World enters the Star Trek canon discussion:

Dymaxion World: Nerd moment: For my money, Star Trek VI is by far the best movie the series has produced, ever. Aside from being by far the superior script and directing of all the movies, I'm not sure how you can possibly top the multi-layered Cold War references. Most especially Christopher Plummer as a Klingon channeling Adlai Stevenson yelling to Kirk, "Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!"You could put that movie on every Sunday on Space, and I'd watch it every Sunday.

Honorable mention: Chekov in Star Trek IV, asking in faux-Russian accent "where are the nuclear wessels" to passersby in Reagan-drenched America. Yes...

I prefer this exchange from Star Trek VI: "We believe in alienable human rights!" "Inalienable.* I wish you could hear yourselves. Human rights. The Federation is a homo sapiens only club..."

I must disagree, however, with his claim that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is the best. There are two better Star Trek movies:

January 18, 2007

The Classic Star Trek Canon

We have a preliminary list of views on some of Classic Star Trek from http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/01/classic_star_tr.html: which parts are canonical and which parts are obvious inferior forgeries:

Genuine and Canonical:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Shore Leave
Mirror, Mirror
The Enterprise Incident
Arena
The Devil in the Dark
Balance of Terror
The Trouble with Tribbles
The Changeling
A Piece of the Action
Charlie X
A Taste of Armageddon
The Menagerie
Space Seed
The City on the Edge of Forever
Amok Time
The Omega Glory

Possibly Canonical, but Subject to Dispute:

The Gamesters of Triskelion
Star Trek: The Animated Series, various episodes

Definitely Heretic:

Spock's Brain (The Rex Momus heresy)
Star Trek I: The Motion Picture (The Bruce Moomaw and Jacob Levy heresy)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (the Stoffel and Bruce Moomaw heresy)

January 17, 2007

Classic Star Trek: The Genuine Item vs. Obvious Inferior Forgeries

Oooh. This could be dangerous. Classic Star Trek available on the iPod...

What is real genuine Classic Star Trek, anyway?

I believe that there is universal agreement that the genuine Classic Star Trek canon includes the three movies Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. (The other so-called "Classic" Star Trek movies--I, III, V, and VII--are, by universal agreement, dismissed as spurious interpolations added to the canon at a later date by unknown but untalented writers, producers, and directors.)

But I know of no similar agreement as to which of the one-hour Classic "episodes" are real Classic Star Trek and which are forgeries. Now that the first season is available on iPod format, this is an important question. I know of three first-season episodes that are definitely genuine: "The Devil in the Dark," "The City on the Edge of Forever," and "Balance of Terror." But what are people's views on the others?

December 31, 2006

Family New Years Eve Movie

The quintessential Halloween movie is "Nightmare Before Christmas." The quintessential Thanksgiving movie is "Addams Family Values." The quintessential New Years movie? We're experimenting. I was arguing for "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." The kids have settled on "Red Dawn."

UPDATE: Neither can hold a candle as a New Years Eve movie to "Trading Places."

December 08, 2006

Alex Tabarrok Performs a Miracle

He makes me want to go see the new Mel Gibson movie, Apocalypto:

Marginal Revolution: Negative real rates of return, part II: Apocalypto, yes storage costs for goods are positive in the movie. The film is about theology; virtually frame-by-frame it is commentary on Passion of the Christ, the Bible, or both. Call it mishnah, if you wish; the reviews I read didn't get this at all. The movie's central question is what the idea of a miracle, or salvation, can mean in a non-Christian world. I found it remarkable, but I can't imagine it drawing many viewers beyond the curious, the omnivorous, the Mayan, and the deeply committed.

November 23, 2006

Essential Thanksgiving Movie

Just as "The Nightmare Before Christmas" has become the essential Halloween movie, so "Addams Family Values'--for its"Pilgrim Pageant" sequence--has become the essential Thanksgiving movie.

November 22, 2006

Shaken-Not-Stirred Blogging...

Last night I got to page 186 of:

Charles Stross (2006), The Jennifer Morgue (Golden Gryphon Press: 1930846452).

I'm enjoying it immensely. Of course, I am its target demographic: somebody who knows too much about H.P. Lovecraft, too much about computers, too much about Ian Fleming, and too much about James Bond movies. All I lack is a Rhetoric Department's professors knowledge of narrative form and love of semiotics. But how large can this target demographic be?

Just before I went to bed I had a "bing" go off. if the Charlie-Stross-emulation-program running on my personal wetware is any good, the real boss supervillain is [spoiler] Fluffy [/spoiler].


And Virginia Postrel says:

Dynamist Blog: The Lost Meaning of Casino Royale: James Bond is a glamorous icon, but we don't notice some of his original glamour today, because we've forgotten what a constrained world his early audience inhabited. Simon Winder explains in his engaging new book, The Man Who Saved Britain:

Casino Royale is a book all about privilege, but privilege of a very marginal and almost grimy kind, and it shows the reality of British life with startlingly greater clarity than the Coronation. The action is entirely based in and around the dull, failing Normandy coastal town of Royale--a sort of hopeless Deauville. One can imagine that French casinos circa 1950 had been through rather a lot--the previous decade having seen a "mixed crowd" at the tables. The nature of Bond's privilege is to be at Royale at all. Currency and travel restrictions meant that the Channel, the barrier essential in 1940 to keeping the Germans out, was now quite actively penning non-military British people in. The very wealthy, or those with friends in France, could make arrangements to get round the restrictions (which stayed in place in various ways until the 1970s--yet another example of how strange the recent past was), but for virtually everyone France, even blustery, sour northern France, had become as exotic as Shangri-La. Fleming could not have chosen his location more cleverly: he would need to ratchet up the flow of exotica with each of the later books (until by the end Bond is mucking around with Japanese lobster eaten live as it crawls around his table), but Britain's frame of reference had shrunk so small by the early fifties that Royale was quite enough.

The book teems with now almost invisible digs--indeed the whole idea of the casino with its theoretically limitless stakes and winnings must have seemed derangedly heady to the book's first readers. And the Anglo-American relationship has never been better summed up than when Felix Leiter hands a broke Bond an envelope crammed with lovely new dollars, allowing him to carry on playing cards with the villain, Le Chiffre. For me the heart of the book, though, must be the scene when Bond tucks into an avocado pear. An avocado! These were exotic in 1939 but they could at least be bought. Avocados only really became available again in Britain in the late 1950s and had a desirability status akin to that felt (rather more democratically) for bananas by East Germans. The sense of the exotic which Fleming had to work for really hard in later books is won here with a mere oily tropical fruit on the windswept Channel coast. Oddly, during one of the many horrible, diarrhoeic currency crises that ravaged the international value of the pound (this one in the late sixties), avocados were specifically mentioned (along with strawberries and vintage wine) as imports to be restricted under the draconian "Operation Brutus," mercifully never implemented.

The 21st-century world of the movie is still dangerous, but far less suffocating. I recommend Winder's book: to both Bond fans (some of whom will find in infuriating) and anyone interested in the mentality of postwar Britain.

November 20, 2006

Texas Hold-em?!?!

Hmmm. I actually thought Daniel Craig made a better Bond than Sean Connery. Heresy, I know, but there it is:

Armchair Generalist: A New Bond Isn't A Bad Thing: 1 I wanted to quickly tell you two things about this new Bond movie "Casino Royale." First, Daniel Craig makes an interesting Bond. The movie's trying to show you how Bond became the smooth, hardened killer/lover that Sean Connery played - why does Bond like martinees, Aston Martins, and good clothes - it's all here. Craig plays it well - he's muscled and quick, a much different character from "Layer Cake" - and while he's no Sean Connery, he's going to be better in the next Bond movie.

The movie is about a half hour too long - the director really wanted to make a point about how Bond lost his innocence and became the tough professional, and they really didn't need to drag the movie out so long (2 1/2 hours). The Sony product placement is hardly subtle - the Sony laptops, digital cameras, and personal organizers are all embossed clearly for the audience. But the movie is worth seeing - a Bond who sweats and bleeds and gets messy in fights, and who uses no fancy gadgets or gimmicks. This is not a Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan Bond model...

But Texas Hold-em? No.

October 28, 2006

The Current Cinema

Movies worth watching:

DELIVER US FROM EVIL: Documentary, 01:41 minutes, Rated NR: This spellbinding documentary about a notorious pedophile priest deserves to be in the running for an Oscar. Filmmaker Amy Berg makes a strong case for a cover-up of Father Oliver O’Grady’s heinous acts by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in California. When she catches up with him in Ireland, where he was deported after his conviction for sexual abuse, he’s leading the life of Riley. He seems eerily removed from his wrongdoings, as if he were an actor playing a pedophile.

THE DEPARTED: Action/Adventure, 02:30 minutes, Rated R: This is Martin Scorsese’s most enjoyable film in years, and his first in 15 years that isn’t a failed attempt at a masterpiece, but rather a fabulously successful attempt at a good movie. Matt Damon is a police mole, working for a gangster (Jack Nicholson), and Leonardo DiCaprio is a spy working for the police from within the gangster’s crew, in this complicated, irresistible and always entertaining picture.

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND: Drama, 02:03 minutes, Rated R: An immediate contender for Oscar consideration and a spot on critics’ top 10 list, this startlingly original drama imagines a fictional relationship between Ugandan dictator Idi Amin and a young Scottish physician who becomes one of his closest confidants. Forest Whitaker gives the performance of his career as the strongman, playing him as a charming seducer who only occasionally shows sides of the madman within. James McAvoy is the doctor who finds the lure of power irresistible.

THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP: Drama, 01:45 minutes, Rated R: Flying solo for the first time as a screenwriter, French director Michel Gondry proves he has more of a sense of humor than was evident in “Human Nature” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” Gael García Bernal is both funny and edgy as an aspiring graphic artist in Paris who has trouble distinguishing between his dreams and waking life. This becomes particularly problematic when he falls for his neighbor, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg. The best way to enjoy this mind-bender is to not try to make sense of it. Just let it wash over you.

TIM BURTON'S THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS IN DISNEY DIGITAL 3D: Animation, 01:16 minutes, Rated PG:

October 18, 2006

One-Click Rules!

We increasingly live in a complicated world in which those things that can be done in one click get done, and those that can't, don't. And those things that are done often acquire increasing salience. Hence the dominance of YouTube:

Gimme my embedded video! - Download Squad: Jordan Running: This has been bugging me for awhile, and I've just got to get it out in the open: If I want to put a cool movie trailer, a funny Comedy Central clip, or a news clip on my web site, why do I have to go to YouTube, where some kid has uploaded it in violation of the owner's copyright, and where as likely as not it'll be yanked a few days later, in order to do it? I'm talking about stuff that's already on the web--Comedy Central puts the best clips from its shows on its own web site, as does NBC for Saturday Night Live, and Apple.com has all the best movie trailers. But while I can stick a pirated clip from YouTube on my web site with two clicks, there's usually no simple, straightforward way to do the same thing from a legitimate site.

Some companies have shown signs of getting a clue. Google Video... some movies and TV shows--in particular those targeted at the youth market--now have a presence on YouTube... a few big record labels... but the selection remains pretty bare. What troubles me is that there's no discernible disadvantage for companies to put their own TV clips, movie trailers, and music videos online in a YouTube-like way. There can't be a technical barrier--the tiny dev team at Netscape.com put together their impressive embeddable video-sharing feature in a matter of weeks--nor a commercial one--movie trailers are advertisements, as are TV clips.... What's more, if they hosted their own embeddable videos, they could decide what plays before and after them instead of some kid on YouTube deciding for them, and though they'd be crazy to put anything longer than a two seconds before the video, after the video is a great time to advertise, as the Revver folks have discovered.

So, movie studios, TV networks, ad agencies, and record companies, here's my plea: Let me advertise your stuff on my web site. Hire some smart folks to put together a Flash player... give me HTML snippets to copy and paste... and let my visitors see your stuff, and your ads, without the extra clicks and without waiting for your lame Windows Media Player to load.

September 15, 2006

Speak for Yourself, Tyler Cowen!

Ezra Klein writes:

Ezra Klein: Reading is Hard!: Tyler Cowen wonders why we consume movies in single session, but stretch books out over many. I'll stick with hypotheses 2 and 4 (books are much longer and we don't like reading enough to sustain focus), and pose another question: Slightly contrary to Cowen's assumption, I can polish off fiction at a pretty absurd clip, and read it for hours on end. Nonfiction, however...that's another story. I've got an outer limit of 40 minute sessions, and that's on books I like. Meanwhile, where I'll speed through fiction, I comparatively crawl through its less fantastic cousin...

And I get really annoyed when I have to put down any book--any book with a plot, that is--in the middle.

And you don't know what I want to do to authors who write multi-book series and fail to achieve satisfactory narrative resolution at the end of each one. They should be afraid. Very afraid.

August 19, 2006

Yes, It Is Finally Time for "Snakes on a Plane"!

Flashboy writes:

Flashboy: Review: Snakes on a MOTHER------- PLANE : One of the greatest moments in the history of Newsnight Review (or The Late Review, as it was then) was when Tom Paulin somehow managed to find deep meaning in Speed. Somewhere around Sandra Bullock's line about "what did we do to this guy - did we attack his country?", Paulin convinced himself that it was actually an insightful look at individual alienation in a fracturing world, or something.

This would not have happened with Snakes On A Plane.

Snakes On A Plane tries to do nothing other than to mine every possible nugget of fun from that old, old story - what happens when a crime lord tries to kill a key witness by putting a load of (SPOILER) snakes on a plane. There is no social realism. There is no analysis of political agency or the innate prejudice that lurks beneath the facade of civilisation. The snakes are not symbols for anything, except for how awesome snakes are.

It is, thank f---, not Crash.

It knows what it is. It is a snakes on a plane movie. The director knows what it is, the cast know what it is, and Samuel L Jackson (throwing himself into it, super serious, like there's an Oscar for Best Reptile Antagonist) sure as hell knows what it is. The studio, of course, didn't know what it was for quite a long time, but finally they just threw their hands up and went with the flow.

It has the best snake/toilet scene I have ever witnessed....

It's funny, really funny; sometimes with an overt, campy winkiness, other times just through sheer, joyful oversnaking. And it's also a proper gory eat 'em up, with several guaranteed frights and plenty of gruesome herpetological face-twatting....

The non-Jackson cast are also enjoyable, manfully refusing to act like they're in Airplane! when many of them really actually are playing characters from Airplane!. It has Julianna Margulies from ER. It has Nancy from Peep Show as a vacuous bimbette with a dog. It has Champ Kind from Ron Burgundy playing the co-pilot, and playing him as Champ Kind from Ron Burgundy. Whammy!

Criticisms? Sure. Duh. The tone flaps about a bit, as I said.... But really, it hardly matters. It's an unashamed and unafraid out-and-out creature-feature, a righteous chunk of OTT snakesploitation that puts the snakes right where you want them. On a motherf------ plane. It's not quite at the level of a classic like Tremors - but with any luck, the sequel can improve on that. Snakes on a Plain: Snakes v Graboids. You know it would work.

Hippos on a Helicopter
Penguins in a Porsche
Yaks on a Yacht
Tyrannosaurs on a Train
Beetles on a Bus
Cougars on a Catamaran...

July 31, 2006

The Internet Is Useless!

It cannot answer a simple yet urgent question: why isn't K.T. Tunstall's "Suddenly I See"--the opening credits song--on "The Devil Wears Prada" soundtrack album?

The Devil Wears Prada Soundtrack @ Movie Music . com: Music by various artists for the 2006 movie. Released 7/11/2006 on the Warner Bros label, catalog number 44383. Tracklisting:

  1. Vogue - Madonna
  2. Bittersweet Faith - BitterSweet
  3. City of Blinding Lights - U2
  4. Seven Days in Sunny June - Jamiroquai
  5. Crazy - Alanis Morissette
  6. Beautiful - Moby
  7. How Come - Ray LaMontagne
  8. Sleep - Azure Ray
  9. Feelin Hypnotized - DJ Colette
  10. Tres Tres Chic - Mocean Worker
  11. Here I Am - Keenan, Tamra, David Morales
  12. Score Suite - Theodore Shapiro

July 11, 2006

Fish, Barrel, Gun

Alicublog makes fun of James Lileks:

alicublog: AS LONG AS I'M IN A FRIVOLOUS MOOD, WHY DON'T I WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT LILEKS?

Am I the only person who loved the first "Pirates of the Caribbean," yet fears the sequel will feel like six hours of rubber hoses to the kidney? Hollywood ruins everything, it seems...

The first Pirates, as we all know, was not made by Hollywood, but by ordinary citizens like you 'n' me who banged open the doors of Universal Studios with an airline beverage cart.

I could keep this up all day, and maybe I will.

Definitely one for the Orwell File. The "Hollywood Is Bad!" ideological filter is so strong that Lileks's ossified brain cannot contemplate the idea that "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" was a product of... HOLLYWOOD!

July 05, 2006

I Pity the Poor Fool...

Apple's iTunes store is selling episodes of the A-Team.

This could become expensive.

July 02, 2006

Not Anybody's Father's Iliad

Troy. Now that was non-canonical. (They did keep the heel part, and the dragging Hektor around the city part, and the Patroklos-in-Akhilleus's-armor part. And the horse part.)

And Helen, Andromakhe, Astyanax, Briseis, and Paris escaping with Aeneas?

After Watching "The Devil Wears Prada"...

"That audience was 9-1 female."

"This is San Francisco. Don't be too sure."

"Even so... where were all the men? Why weren't there a lot more men in the audience? I mean, the movie is a lot like "An Officer and a Gentleman" with Meryl Streep in the Louis Gossett role and Anne Hathaway as Richard Gere."

"You're demented."

"No I'm not. Well, maybe I am... but for other reasons. It's a coming-of-age story. In "An Officer and a Gentleman" we had Richard Gere learning who he is by dealing with tough sergeant Louis Gossett and lots of film of men beating up on each other with a lot of bloody noses. In "The Devil Wears Prada" we have Anne Hathaway learning who she is by dealing with tough boss Meryl Streep and lots of film of women strutting in very expensive, sexy clothes. What's not to like?"

"A lack of big explosions? You can't get men into the movie theater without big explosions?"

"Plus, plus, plus--with an audience 9-1 female, it's a great opportunity to meet women."

June 06, 2006

Afternoon Tea Audio Podcasts

More experiments with one-button audio-visual web publishing: Afternoon Tea Audio Podcasts:

The U.S. Current Account Deficit Once Again: June 6, 2006

Henry Paulson to the Treasury Department: June 2, 2006

The White House Press Secretary's Nonexistent 401(k): May 31, 2006

Do We Have a Good Economy?: May 29, 2006

May 31, 2006

Lobsters (Spoilers for "Where the Truth Lies")

Colin Firth was so good as Fitzwilliam Darcy in the BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice that we have felt duty-bound to watch his movies--at least on DVD--since. It's not been good. A fine actor, but strange casting and often even stranger vehicles.

In the latest, "Where the Truth Lies", it's really not his fault. He does a truly excellent job with his role. But the film as a whole... one plot point was so implausible that I could not get past it and just watch the movie.

You see, I know lobsters. My great-uncle Phil used to take me to eat lobsters at the Marblehead Yacht Club. My great-uncle Jack had lobster pots offshore of his house in York. I know what lobsters are. They are scavengers.

A key plot point in "Where the Truth Lies" has the body of the murdered ingenue being shipped from Florida to New Jersey--in a crate full of live lobsters.

Lobsters are scavengers.

Her body would never have gotten to New Jersey. There would have been a lot of fat, happy lobsters in the crate.

I don't know what the moral is. Perhaps that screenplays that involve lobsters should only be written by people from New England? And not by Anglenos? Let the Angelenos write screenplays about abalone...

May 26, 2006

"Welcome Aboard the Black Pearl," Said Ben Bernanke

Greg Mankiw defends Ben Bernanke's view--the Taylor rule approach to monetary policy--against Ned Phelps by assigning Ben Bernanke the role of the villainous pirate Barbosa:

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Phelps on the Taylor Rule: I think Ned exaggerates the danger here, for two reasons.

  1. If the Fed overestimates the natural interest rate (essentially the constant in the Taylor rule), it will tighten monetary policy too much. The economy would respond with a lower rate of inflation, which in turn would induce the Fed to lower interest rates. In the end, overestimating the natural interest rate would mean a steady-state inflation rate below target. This is hardly a catastrophe....
  2. Ned seems to be knocking down a strawman. I don't recall hearing anyone recommend a Taylor rule as a hard and fast rule to which the Federal Reserve would commit itself. The Taylor rule is more like a rule of thumb or a guideline for monetary policymakers, like the Pirate's Code in "Pirates of the Caribbean"...

The reference is to this line by the villain Barbosa:

First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.

I'm with Greg on this one. They are "guidelines"...

April 17, 2006

Morning Coffee Videocast: Stocks Have Been an Extraordinarily Good Investment: Why?

In which I drink my morning coffee, hog bandwidth, and talk briefly about what I am going to do today--largely think hard about the equity premium, and about why stocks have been such a good investment

Continue reading "Morning Coffee Videocast: Stocks Have Been an Extraordinarily Good Investment: Why?" »

April 16, 2006

Morning Coffee Videocast: International Issues

In which I drink my morning coffee, hog bandwidth, and talk briefly about the three most important long-run issues in international economics...

Morning Coffee Videocast: International Issues

Alan Blinder on Outsourcing: Summary: Economists who insist that "offshore outsourcing" is just a routine extension of international trade are overlooking how major a transformation it will likely bring -- and how significant the consequences could be. The governments and societies of the developed world must start preparing, and fast...

Alan Krueger on Immigration: Immigration policy involves fundamental issues about what and who we are as a country. There are no simple answers on immigration policy because different people can legitimately assign different weights to the welfare of new immigrants, recent immigrants, and various groups of natives. In addition, there is considerable debate disagreement among economists about the economic impacts of immigration....

Brad Setser on Barry Eichengreen on global imbalances: Eichengreen provides the best summary I have seen of competing views on the sustainability of large US trade deficits, along with the impact of sustained trade deficts on US external debt and the investment income balance. He leans towards what he calls the standard view: what cannot go on forever, won't go on forever. But he also clearly explains competing views, whether the "New Economy and Higher productivity make it all OK" view of Richard Cooper (and Michael Mandel), the "Savvy investor" view of John Kitchen (Cavallo and Tille have a similar argument) or the US isn't really in debt because of dark matter view of Hausmann and Sturzenegger and their various acolytes in the investment world. Well worth reading.

April 15, 2006

Morning Coffee Videocast: The Balanced, Non-Partisan Two-Step

In which I drink my morning coffee, hog huge amounts of bandwidth, and think about whether it's really in Greg Mankiw's long-term interest to do the balanced, non-partisan two-step...

Morning Coffee Videocast: The Balanced, Non-Partisan Two-Step

Greg Mankiw's weblog.

March 23, 2006

"Snakes on a Plane!" Is Going to Be Even Better than "Red Dawn"!

Duncan Black writes:

Eschaton: Best. Movie. Evar. And it's going to get even better.If you can't understand why a movie with Samuel L. Jackson killing snakes on plane will in fact be the greatest movie ever made no matter how bad it is then there's no hope for you.

March 15, 2006

DeLong Smackdown Watch! ("Are My Methods Unsound?" Edition)

Matthew Yglesias demonstrates that he is Il Maestro di Color che Sanno as far as quotes from "Apocalypse Now" are concerned:

Health Care as Opportunity | TPMCafe: An interesting perspective from Brad DeLong:

"Even Medicare and Medicaid and the long-run fiscal crises of America's public health-care programs and the employer-funded health-care system... Let me put it this way: it's not a crisis, it's an opportunity. If technological progress in medicine were to stop tomorrow--if what doctors and nurses and druggists and researchers do and how they do it were to freeze--then we wouldn't be looking forward to a health-care funding crisis. We would have no difficulty funding Medicare and Medicaid, as underlying economic growth boosted tax revenue by more than a stagnant health care system could spend, even with the aging of America. It is only because we--rationally--expect that our doctors, nurses, druggists, and researchers will learn how to do new things, marvelous new things, incredibly expensive new things, that we project health-care spending into the future and blanch in terror. And I do blanch in terror. But it is important not to forget that this is an opportunity: how many wonderful, medical things will we as a society decide to purchase, in how egalitarian a fashion will we as a society distribute them--will only the rich be offered clone-eye transplants when macular degeneration sets in in our nineties--and how will we pay for them? We may fail to grasp this opportunity, or fail to grasp it well. And to miss this opportunity would be a catastrophe. But it is an opportunity, not a crisis."

That makes sense when you think about it. Later, Brad steals a page from my book, quoting "Apocalypse Now" to describe the Bush approach to public policy, but he mangles the lines. Willard says, "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound." Kurtz asks: "Are my methods unsound?" And Willard replies: "I don't see any method at all, sir." (They're surrounded by deep-jungle tribespeople, decapitated heads on sticks, all sorts of corpses, etc.) I think that about sums it up.

In comments, Robert Waldmann piles on as well. Clearly I need to buy a DVD of "Apocalypse Now" if I'm going to run with big dogs...

December 10, 2005

Signs of Something Very Wrong with Brad DeLong, Part CXXXIV

While watching the Johnny Cash movie, "Walk the Line," he spends a substantial part of the movie spinning increasingly ridiculous and implausible scenarios as to how a man who committed felony murder in Nevada (Reno) could have wound up incarcerated in a California state penitentiary (Folsom Prison).

I mean, federalism.

November 24, 2005

New York Power Couple

David Edelstein may well be the best movie critic around these days. And he's leaving Slate for New York Magazine. Scott Rosenberg writes:

Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment : My friend, the movie critic David Edelstein, has been writing wonderfully alive and intelligent pieces for Slate from its very beginning in 1996. That makes him a true Web old-timer. (He's also on NPR's Fresh Air.) But today the news broke that he is leaving Slate for Adam Moss's revamped New York magazine, which will begin featuring his reviews beginning in January. Congratulations to David -- the Web's loss is New York's gain, and those of us beyond the five boroughs now have one strong reason to point our browsers to http://nymag.com..

And his spouse Rachel Klayman--who is at least as sharp-eyed and quick-witted--is backing Barack Obama for policy and profit:

The Telegraph - Calcutta : International : Nine years ago, Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, was published to good reviews and lacklustre sales. The best estimate his publisher and agent can come up with is that it sold around 15,000 copies. But after his rousing keynote address at the [Democratic] convention [in August 2004]... the Crown Publishing Group [was] racing to ship copies of the book to stores around the country.... "What's really gratifying is that as the months have passed, we've seen him become more and more visible, with booksellers' enthusiasm rising and reaching a fever pitch after the speech," said Rachel Klayman, a senior editor at Crown....

[L]iterary agent Jane Dystel.... "The thing that struck me was his writing, which was unbelievably gorgeous," Dystel said.... [T]he young politician... caught Klayman's attention after he became the Democratic nominee in the Illinois Senate race. Klayman broached the idea of an Obama book a few days after he won the hard-fought primary. But she also had a dim memory... discover[ed] that her own company was the publisher of Dreams From My Father. But there was no copy of it to be found, not even on the Crown shelves -- something Klayman said is not unusual for a book published so long ago....

"I haven't read too many books by politicians that are as eloquent as his," Klayman said. "I told him that if I were his speech writer, I'd be intimidated."

November 23, 2005

From the Wayback Machine...

Funny:

A Can't-Turn-It-Down Offer From Amazon.com:

The Theory of Moral Sentiments Or, an Essay Towards an Analysis of the Principles, by Which Men Naturally Judge Concerning... by Adam Smith ...List Price: $30.00

Great Buy: Buy Theory of Moral Sentiments with Sex and the City - The Complete Third Season today! Buy Together Today $64.88. Buy both now!


UPDATE: Teresa Nielsen Hayden has a more systematic view. She points out that "For some while now Amazon has been recommending Sex and the City--The Complete Third Season! as the obvious complement to all the works of H. W. Fowler, who as you know Bob is the author of the cranky and magisterial Dictionary of Modern English Usage. You can buy the two together for just $47.83..."

Originally posted on June 11, 2002.

November 16, 2005

Brontefication

Somebody else who sees the new Pride and Prejudice as "Brontefied":

The New Yorker: The Critics: The Current Cinema: “Pride and Prejudice” by ANTHONY LANE: What has happened is perfectly clear: Jane Austen has been Brontëfied. In the book, Lady Catherine appears in daylight, “too early in the morning for visitors.” The film has rightly kept the hint of social insolence but switched the hour, so that the dramatic may be shaded and inked into melodrama. The question is not whether the director was justified in that transmutation but whether he had the choice; whether any of us, as moviemakers, viewers, or readers, retain the ability—-not so much the scholarly equipment as the imaginative clairvoyance—-to see Austen clearly. Maybe we are doomed to view her through the smoked glass of the intervening centuries, during which the spirit of romance, and the role of the body within it, have evolved out of all recognition. Why, when Lizzie accompanies her aunt and uncle to the Peak District of England, should the film take care to set her silent upon a peak, her dress and tresses stirring in the wind, if not to drop the clanging hint that Mr. Darcy is less an icy gentleman of means than a britches-busting Heathcliff in the making?

The hint becomes a yodel toward the end, as Matthew Macfadyen strides grimly through a wet meadow, at some ungodly hour, with Keira Knightley squarely in his sights. He has donned a long coat, which sways fetchingly in the mist; obviously it was copied from a Human League video of the nineteen-eighties.... For her part, Knightley has been crisp and quick throughout-—more girl than woman than seems fit, perhaps, and a boyish girl to boot, but ready and able to hold her own in any rally of wits. Now, like the queen in “Aliens,” she extends her famous underbite and gets down to business.... Any resemblance to scenes and characters created by Miss Austen is, of course, entirely coincidental.

November 11, 2005

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?</