No, Berman, it's not your fault for asking the question. But it is your fault for continuing to be sarcastic and baiting when I practically BEGGED you to just let it go. This should rightly be an expository essay but I don't have time to format it so you'll have to take it raw. Your original response to Lynn was offensive on three levels :
(1) It imputes Lynn's character. It sets up Lynn as the bad guy by misrepresenting your original post as a "simple question" that should draw no offense. Asking someone who has come out against animal cruelty "Does this include eating meat as violence against animals? If not, why is that different?" is CLEARLY a baiting question, and is CLEARLY not "simple". The first question begs that Lynn should consider whether eating meat is violence against animals. The second question asks, DIRECTLY, that Lynn clarify the difference between eating meat and kicking a dog. This demands a response by setting up an accusation that if Lynn admits eating meat but doesn't show the difference, she is a hypocrite.
In essence, your post asks "Have you considered that eating meat might be violence against animals? Because if you haven't, you might be a hypocrite." Any time you ask a question that by default accuses someone of hypocrisy if they do not respond, you are by definition baiting them. And when your question demands the navigation of thorny moral ground (reconciling the fact that most of us are omnivores with an expression of horror over animal cruelty), it is far from simple.
Note: This is not an "interpretation" of your post. The conclusions I draw are implicit in the questions themselves.
(2) It is unfairly accusatory. It accuses Lynn of making a "common errors" in interpreting your 3-line response when she went OUT OF HER WAY to state that she doesn't think you are being deliberately provocative that she only found the tone "questionable". Aren't you the same person who took grave offense at being told you called someone crazy when you said you were worried about their mental state?
Your aghastness at someone misintrepreting a post that is SO SHORT is also illogical, and draws a conclusion that is unfair to Lynn. The fact that your post was short is exactly what made it EASY to misinterpret. It is brevity, not verbosity, that begs for misinterpretation. Lynn did not assume ANYTHING - in fact, she made it very clear that it was specifically the fact that she could NOT determine your tone that merited her response.
(3) It is dismissive. You say someone would "somehow find a way" to be offended, implying that someone would have to be a real jerk to find something offensive in your original post. You call her reaction "dismaying" implying that she falls so far beneath your standards as to cause dismay. I hope I don't have to explain how much of a dismissive blow-off saying "forget I asked" to someone who took the time to respond to a question YOU ASKED is.
Your response to Lynn is a slap in the face and an indignant stomping-off. And you did this early the very next morning after I came here and asked everyone to play nice.
Then, when I respond and am VERY VERY CLEAR about BEGGING people to not start shit, what do you do? You are sarcastic and snippy with ME! You accuse me of playing favorites - oh, I got onto you but I let Lynn "assert a hostile tone." I DIDN'T JUMP LYNN BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T DO THAT. But of course, that's not okay with you - I should accept YOUR judgement on these matters and not my own. Not to mention the post takes ANOTHER shot at Lynn RIGHT AFTER I asked you to stop.
You know damn well I am changing jobs, moving across state, and under all sorts of stress and pressures. You also know I come on here and ASKED that people please cool it so I don't have to deal with this shit. Then you EXPRESSELY start shit with me. It's more important to you to let me have one across the lip than it is to be in the SLIGHTEST considerate.
I went to the mat for you, Berman, when I damn well didn't have to and at the expense of a lot of my personal time. I know you never asked for it, but I did it. And I have gone to the mat for ALL of you guys, several times, with Harlan. You ask him. All I asked for from all of you was a LITTLE FUCKING COURTESY, that you bite your tongues and not say the petty and sarcastic little things you always have to come out with to get that last needle in. BUT YOU COULDN'T HELP YOURSELF, BERMAN. YOU WERE AGGRIEVED, AND BY GOD YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SHITTY TO ME.
That is the ESSENCE of selfishness. You were personally inconsiderate and sarcastic to me at a time when I admitted weakness and asked for a break.
I see while I was typing this, getting my lunch, putting arnica gell on my fucked-up foot for the 13th time today, that you and Lynn reconciled. But that doesn't help me now. You've shown that you don't give a shit about me, and that says to me you'll do it again.
So, that's it. Board posting halted. I don't have time to deal with this right now. And frankly, I don't like the way this board has gone lately.
You have an opportunity when you converse with someone to respond to the discussion or to pick fights. Lynn made a post that, yes, did have a few things in it that were a bit prickly but that was also at least 60% a legitimate and considered response to your question. You took that and did NOTHING but pick out anything that looked remotely like a rat turd. Have you considered that things go south not when people take offense or misinterpret (which happens in almost every interchange we have), but when people choose to FOCUS on that and do nothing but poke at the boil?
You are not obliged, in your discourses with others, to be kind or forgiving or even considerate of their feelings. But what you MUST do it maintain the minimum level of civility that allows us to have discourse in the first place. But many of you here can't do that. You spend more time picking at scabs and slapping at gnats than you do actually discussing the subjects you bring up. You are turning this board into a breeding ground for trivia and pettiness. If not outright nonsense.
I am sick of this shit. HARLAN is sick of this shit.
I'll turn this thing on again next week when I have time to manage it. Or maybe never.
PA~ I know you didn't mean anything. Really. And I don't feel attacked. I confess, when things sound confrontational, my debating skills aren't exactly Ghandhi-esque. There are just some questions that when you ask them, don't expect a middle-of-the-road, impassionate response. "Meat as violence" is one of them. It falls into the category of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There's no right answer.
And yes, we do like to fight here. This is one of the most rational rooms I've ever been. And still, there's a badge of honor in having been burnt and coming back for more. It means you have the cajones to stand up for what you believe in, even when it's not the most popular point of view. I will say this. I've had to go the extra mile here to make sure that my true intent is communicated, knowing that vast quantities of vital bodily fluids might be on the line if I fail. The locals in SB have a phrase (beach lingo), "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch."
And you and I, we're still here, and we're still friends, right?
L.
OH yeah, as for me being paranoid: Maybe a little. I got the stuffing kicked out of me here recently and I'm feeling a bit sensitive to misinterpretation and misapprehension. I honestly didn't expect you to get pissed off by what I meant as a casual question. It's finals time around here and grades are due. Makes me a wee bit tetchy.
Also, the whole "I don't like your tone" has always been a weird issue. Often impressions of the author's intent form that the author did not imply. You could see, then, if that happens a few times, how the author would become a bit vexed, and perplexed, neh? That's all I'm saying. Yes, people here are good people, but I think people on here also like to fight.
Bermanator
Lynn: I think you're overreacting. Dragging keys down your car? Really?
It would be better if you forgot I asked. I did not mean to antagonize you and I didn't plan to follow up on your answer with some sort of scathing rebuttal no matter what you said. I honestly just wanted to know how you reconciled what seemed to me to be a paradoxical view about animal rights. I honestly don't see the comparison between this an asking people why they don't accept Jesus as the savior. Last time I checked this wasn't alt.meatlovers.
As you said, when you state an opinion here, don't expect the warm fuzzies. Expect people to tell you what they think, right? And I wasn't even doing that, because I don't think anyone really wants to hear what I think on this subject.
This does not have to be a brawl. I just wish you wouldn't assume you're being attacked when no one is attacking you. Unless the very act of asking a question *IS* somehow an attack...which could be a discussion topic in and of itself.
Bermanator
PA~ Y'know, I didn't "assert a hostile tone" to you. Controversial perhaps, certainly a wee bit passive aggressive or confrontational, but not "hostile". Did you even read what I wrote in response?
"Do I think you were picking a fight? No, not intentionally. But the tone was questionable enough on this end to put my back up."
Certain buzz phrases ("eating meat as violence against animals", "unborn children's rights", "bleeding heart liberal", "gun toting voter", "kubrick sucks eggs") are virtualy guaranteed to get someone riled around these parts. I balked at your question (which I did answer, btw) because it felt like those questions I've seen on Usenet, where someone waltzes in to alt.pagan and says, "Why don't you consider Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? I'm curious. Just asking." It doesn't matter WHAT tone you frame that question in, it's confrontational. It needles, it irritates, it exacerbates, it incenses. Can you see what I mean?
So, no I didn't not assume a "hostile" tone. The implication for an impending confrontation loomed in the background like a three-hundred pound thug. And I just said, please, no. Not today. That really should have been the end of it. Following up my response with "Forget I asked" was the equivalent of said thug dragging his keys down the paint of my brand new ride. The passive-aggressive 'whatever' that we women so despise in men. Your continued petulance, "can't win for losing" attitude is starting to take on a distinctly paranoic feel. As if you want to feel persecuted around here.
And that was never my intention. Beware the self-fulfilling prophecy, and remember, we's all good folks here. We're not out to hang anyone. (Not even Frank.)
L.
Yeah well, Rick, I thought I asked real nice too, but I guess it's fine for people to assert a hostile tone where there is none. Clearly it's my fault for asking the question.
Can't win for losing around here.
Bermanator
Zoe,
My highest felicitations on your impending walk across the stage. Mazel Tov!
Regards,
Joseph
Hello, all -
Well, finally done with some major things! College, for one (still have to walk across the stage, but for all intents and purposes... done!). Bought a car, for another. And got down to read "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktock Man" for another.
After all the discussion on it, I had to see what the big deal was. Before I got to HE's explanation, I read through the story twice. Like many of his stories (second most recent being "The Whimper of Whipped Dogs") the finale - whether it be onomatopoeia, a single sentence, or a paragraph - gave me chills. Again, before I got around to reading HE's take on it, my first impression was simply that the Ticktock man had been thrown, that it was the first time someone had told him he had made a mistake and perhaps the first time he realized HE was susceptible to the same rules as anyone else. Perhaps also the first time someone had been brave enough to tell him so, too - a possible side effect of Harlequin's existence.
In any case - it was good for shivers and chills. That's the reason I've been enjoying reading HE's stories, personally- sure, there might be a more profound message, but the best part is when something in the story strums that primal chord inside, makes your belly flipflop, and you blink - because what if it WAS that way?
I'm off to deal with family and celebration and late fees. If I'm scarce it's because moving (as Rick is experiencing) sucks and starting the latest part of one's life is rather time-consuming.
--Zoë Rose
Jesus, Berman, "Forget I asked"??? The "fuck you, charlie" of debate? I asked REAL NICE. Obviously that never works here.
YOU PEOPLE WILL CONVERSE WITHOUT TURNING DISAGREEMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS INTO STUDIED INSULTS (OR CRUDE INSULTS FOR THAT MATTER) OR THIS PLACE GOES AWAY FOR A WHILE.
I don't have time to be more polite or to explain why one needs to be careful about how one complains about the taste after opening a can of worms.
Faisal,
I don't know what's more disturbing: that Star Trek reference you made, or the fact that I wondered if it's green.
Mitch
Finally saw the new Star Wars movie this morning.
Suffice to say that it does wipe away the whiffy like smell of The Phantom Fart (aka The Purple Terror). It is terrific. I don't care what you people say, I don't care if it is corporate trash, I don care! Come on! Even if I stand alone on this, I say the new Star Wars movie is brilliant entertainment. Flawed, there are faults, theres a scene cut too short here, cut too long there but otherwise it is terrific. Also, homages galore for film geeks and it is the most violent SW film I have seen. Very dark, very action packed, the last hour glossed over all the faults. I'll happily have it inflicted upon me again.
FAQ
P.S. The only downside about this is that the next time I go to a bookstore, if I have any temptation to explore the SF section (which I rarely do nowadays), I shall find everyone and his locust scribbling away the backstory of Mr Lucas's latest episode thus making the shelves unavailable for something I really want to get (like say the collected short stories of Tiptree, instead I'll see 'The Sexuality of Star Trek: What does Vulcan Cum taste like').
P.P.S. I mean no offence to those writers who do write media tie-in spin off novel, books, etc. etc. Have to do something to put bread on the table.
Lynn: I knew after I posted that either you or someone else here would somehow find a way to become offended based on a simple question. The common error of assuming that you can interpret my tone based on three sparse lines of text is dismaying.
Forget I asked,
Bermanator
RICK,
You hang in there, Buddy. Moving sucks. I wish I could give you some sage advice, but I'm fresh out.
You can thank me later,
Cindy
Harlan,
We are adults. We can overcomplicate and overthink the living bejezus out of everything. We can take a simple kid's baseball game and turn it into the living hell that is Little League. We can take something fun and make it dull and dry. We can take something as vibrant as Shakespeare and squeeze and overanalyze overthink it until it becomes something that brings suffering, boredom and anguish to Jr. High kids everywhere.
And, we can take a simple mrmee, mrmee, mrmee and turn it into a maze of convoluted, confounding cowflop.
Including me.
I don't need to consult my inner child, since it never went in. But sometimes I just need to keep my inner adult locked up, bound and gagged. Except when it's time to pay the bills and rent.
Sheepishly,
Chuck
mrmeemrmeemrmee.
Frank:
You give liberalism a bad name around here. Your heart is in the right place, but your style leaves so much to be desired that I tend to avoid discussing topics about which I largely agree with you because you too often purvey them in an ugly manner.
I take a back seat to no one on this board on liberal issues (as a freshman in college, I went to the offices of the New Republic to get the autograph of "TRB" back when he was still Richard Strout), but I find I have to sidestep many of them because you're busy blasting away with your shotgun on them and I don't care to be tarred with the same brush as you. One catches more bees with honey, and makes more conversions with a light touch.
As to movies, one learns to adjust one's expectations to suit the film. In the past month I enjoyed "Spider-Man" and I enjoyed "Monsoon Wedding" and I enjoyed "Dogtown and Z-Boys" -- but for very different reasons, and I would not put them on a similar level in terms of quality.
And I believe it is Kauffmann, with two f's and two n's.
ALL: REGARDING THE MATTER OF THE TICK-TOCK MAN, All you guys are wrong! Including you, Harlan! Sit down, sit down! Don't try to tell ME that the guy who wrote the story knows what he meant. Here's the official explanation: The Tick-Tock man goes mrmee, mrmee, mrmee at the end of the story because that's how ALL of the automatic Timex watches in them days (the '60s, when the tale was written) sounded whenever they were wound too tightly. Which is what actually HAPPENED to the Tick-tOck Man by the end of this tale; and FURTHERMORE, the fact that he sounded like an overwound Timex reveals that the Ticktock man was ACTUALLY none other than JOHN CAMERON SWAYZE ("takes a licking, but keeps on ticking")! Whew! Yet another mystery finally solved. My brother Sherlock would be damned proud.
G'night,
Everettt C. Marm (aka, Infoman, aka the Sssshadow).
Thanks for clearing that up, Harlan. Looks like lonegungirl had the right idea.
Mitch
Just a check-in - I'm in the process of moving. I am likely to be totally incommunicando next week or so. Play nice while I am gone, which for some of you means please limit your posts to onomatopoeiac grunts.
We'll try to arrange getting a sound file of Harlan going "mrmee mrmee mrmee" up here when I'm settled. He does it well. He did it for me once and it cleared up all my Ticktockman questions. Also, some of my hair fell out.
Toodles.
If anyone has already made this comment, please forgive my lackadaisical scanning of the board......in regard to the cancellation of Politically Incorrect and anyone who is not happy with the decision: Ummmmm, ABC....owned by Disney. Remember?
I'm sure ABC is well aware that whatever ratings this new Kimmel talk show attains will not make much of a difference compared to PI, but they don't care. Kimmel will make a few jokes about blonde babes; and he might even ask a guest "so, what's your next project?", but at least he won't talk politics.
ABC. Disney. No surprise.
P.S., I'm not a fan of PI, but not because of the show itself, but for just two simple reasons: 1) 22 minutes and 5 voices trying to toss out their thoughts on some important topics.....actually less time due to the Maher monologue.....this ain't enough time to talk serious with so many voice. 2) That feeling of despair I would always have for that one stupid teevee actor/actress who is so blown away by any serious discussion that all they can do is nod knowingly and once in awhile toss out a clever bon mot that has nothing to do with the topic.
The show angered me even more when Harlan was on it. There should be one simple rule for when Harlan is booked on any talk show: leave everyone else in the green room and give them a fucking cookie. Hydrox for all!!!!!!!!!!!!
-TODD
Lorin O.
I think nothing is wrong with discussing Harlan’s stories here. This is the forum and Website dedicated to him. I’m not suggesting anyone has, but the only wrong thing would be expecting Harlan to answer our every query and explain his work.
This is probably a bit of a dilemma. We want to discuss his work, but we don’t want to badger Harlan, and we know he reads the board.
I think we just ask our questions, give our comments and thoughts, and if Harlan wishes to add anything, then “it be cool”. If not, then “it be cool”.
Something else that you can do is search the archives of Webderland. This question about mrmee was raised a couple of years ago. I find you can search the archives by using the Google search engine.
Which brings me to,
Rick
Google have cached copies of Webderlands archive at least back to 1999. Have you tried finding the missing data there?
Kerry
(all mistakes in spelling and grammar are my own)
Times like this make me wish I _would_ jump into discussions like the one on "Ticktockman," if only to show in advance that I knew what the ending meant.
There is one story of Harlan's whose ending has given me a long period of "Huh?" It's not that i didn't understand what happens at the end. It spretty clear. It's the moral lesson that the character seems to get at the end that I have some trouble understanding. I won't say which story it is. I figure, maybe I'll get it after some more of that "life experience" stuff.
I know, I _could_ ask Harlan... but for all I know, I could be missing something really obvious, or I could be making too much of something that doesn't require a whole lotta analysis, and I'm too damn tired to dodge a fireball.
I've been gone from the boards for a few days.....still haven't really caught up, but I just have one thing to say to your REPENT brainiacs:
mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee
-TODD
Frank, stop touching my bosoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S., the wife and I saw Hollywood Ending AND Spider-Man, on the same day. We love Woody, we love independent films, we love over-intellectualized film, and we love good ole slam bam action special effects cartoon films. We love 'em all.
Of course, the most anticipated film of the summer? Eight-Legged Freaks!!!!!!!!!!! (and the sad thing is, I ain't kidding)
-TODD
I KNEW I should have kept my mouth shut.
mreemreemreemreemree...
HARLAN to MICHAEL:
The issue of DEADPOOL, at last!!!!!!!
You are a peach.
Many many many thanxxxxxxx, yr. pal, Harlan
HARLAN EXPLAINS mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee:
Sometimes you people think too much.
The Ticktockman is mumbling to himself. That's all there is to it. Nothing more complex than that. What it SIGNIFIES, however, is that even though they have broken the Harlequin, a la Winston Smith, Everett C. Marm, poor bastard, clown and fool though he may be, has fulfilled Thoreau's dictum that "he serves the state best, who opposes the state most." He has thrown a spanner into the works. (I presume you all know what a spanner is, and are familiar with "a spanner in the works" as idiomatic jargon for "tossing a monkey wrench into the machinery.") He has moved his society an infinitesimal increment toward humanization, toward upheaval. He has subconsciously invaded the bastion of rigid behavior personified by the Ticktockman, who is the equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover, or The Spanish Inquisition, or the elders of Salem, Mass. And we see this in the metaphor of The Master Timekeeper being a little late--the "poison" of anarchy and chaos has been introduced by the Harlequin into the Ticktockman's received universe--but not only being a little late...but doing mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee...which is another way of presenting mumbling to oneself, unsettled distraction, clearing one's throat, a new tic. Listen to my reading of the story, fer chrissakes; that's why I do them, to bring the reader down to the earth of simple reading pleasure--what you see is what you got--to dispell overintellectualizing just like this.
Your determination to overthink this simple sound effect with monstrously off-the-mark pomposity and hidden "significance" dismays me. If all the hundreds of thousands of people, men women children, students teachers savants, academics and plain for-fun readers, if NONE of them "get it," simple as it is...oh gawd I want to go away and lie down in the shade.
You people think too much.
Sometimes a mrmee is...well...just a mrmee.
(Try it. Just let your lips slip apart a micromillimeter, and repeat mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee in a monotonal threnody, about thirty-seven or forty-two times, clearly but swiftly. You'll get it. I promise: you'll get it.)
Woefully, yr. pal, Harlan
PA wrote: "Does this include eating meat as violence against animals? If not, why is that different? "
*Gratuitous* violence against animals. Does that fit your bill better? I don't eat veal on principle. As for eating meat as violence, when we solve all the issues about violence between people, then I'll start worrying about keeping my food animals in the most humane conditions possible. Until then, evolution has given me a mind and body that requires a level of protein not readily available from plant sources (unless I'd become vegan before age four). That said, don't go there. Please. Picking a fight over something that neither one of us will yield on serves no one. Do I think you were picking a fight? No, not intentionally. But the tone was questionable enough on this end to put my back up.
Besides, I'm a second degree vegetarian. I only eat animals that eat vegetables.
L.
Jay,
"OH COME OOOOOON..."
That's OK because Maher stole that from ME. Technique and ALL. It works!
Frank,
BOORISH, eh? Does that classify me as schizotypal or merely homo moyen?
...anyway, even though you never qualify your arguments your artistic insights are duly noted.
Lynn said: "I have problems with violence against animals for the same reason I have problems violence against children. There's a special place in hell."
Does this include eating meat as violence against animals? If not, why is that different?
Just asking,
Bermanator
REPENT, HARLEQUIN!: You know what? Before Harlan tears into us like so much raw meat, I believe the final paragraph and the Ticktockman's last murmurings are only evidence of the Master Timekeeper's own hypocrisy. HIS little boo-boo is easily overlooked, while the average fellow on the street would have several hours detracted from his life in a flash. Nothing more, nothing less? Who knows.
FRANK CHURCH: Frank, could you simply get it over with and say in one single post what you want from us?
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
No, Im not an elitist--or at least the kind of John Simon type elitist, that Harlan talks about in the introduction to, "Watching". But I do know the difference between mainstream, money films and actual art. I mean, I went to see, Hollywood Ending, and I was one of THREE people in the movie. Three fucking people to see a film by the great, Woody Allen, but lines around the block to see some boring computer graphics masterbation, without any deep charactor study, or story. Believe me, I love the Spiderman comics, and the film has no sense of the comic.
I am far from an art snob, but I do feel this forum should have a high minded intellect quotient. Harlan, at least deserves that much from us.
----------------
Rob, your, "intellectual superiority" postings towards me are getting boorish. Please, let's not name call, like some school yard bully. Discuss, Spiderman, or NSync, or whatever you fancy, but be civil. Or try.
And going to my "corporate movie" point. I like a lot of mainstream films, but there are certain films that seem "obvious" to me; especially the ones with the fast food tie-in's. Spiderman is such a film. Artistically, on the same par as N'Sync. I mean, if I were to discuss the fine point of Tommy Boy, you all would drop the manure canister on my ass.
Now if Stanley Kauffman were to champion Spiderman, then I may just look at it a second time.
-------------------
And I have nothing against Todd, Joseph, we have this thing where we riff on each other. Good way to break the ice. Todd may be a wonderful guy, but to me he is a name on a message board. Maybe some time we will meet and become bosom pals, one never knows. I do respect Todd as a person and think he is a smart guy, but he does think low of me; which is a shame, since I am a great guy--or try my best at all times.
--------------
And Harlan: Thanks for the introduction to "Watching"; it made me think differently about Fatal Attraction. David Denby was right, and I feel bad that I liked the film so much. The Glenn Close Charactor was really badly written. Shame on the muddle head critics who praised it. David Denby was a class act, and so are you.
LORIN O.: Oh my god. If there's even a tiny hint of truth there...if that's even remotely possible...
But then, how do you explain the brainwashed Harlequin that was broadcasted on the communications web only just before?
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
JOSEPH: Yep. It's yours. Contact me via email to give me mailing instructions. And anyone else -- maybe just email me requests, so as not to clutter up Rick's living room with this fanboy stuff?
wearing his geek badge proudly,
Michael
Lorin,
Usually, I wouldn't be this bald about someone's interpretation of a story, so please forgive me:
No.
Lynn,
And a big "Webs away!" to you, my friend. (Yes, I'm so geeky I know what Spidey story that line is a joke on - it's an issue where Spidey teams up with the Human Torch and Torch keeps ribbing on him for not having a battle cry, like his "flame on!" Best Peter can come up with is "webs away!")
Regards,
Joseph
Am I crazy...(don't answer yet!)...or does the Ticktockman say, "mreemreemree" at the end because that's what the HARLEQUIN says?
It's been a few years since I read the story. However, my interpretation has always been that the Harlequin actually vanquished the Ticktockman, took over his position, and is continuing his battle in a more insidious (and clever) fashion, from the inside out.
Anyone?
Lorin
Joseph~
GEEK.
Lovingly,
L.
Michael,
You're a peach for the offer. Happen to have Amazing Spider-Man #328 (the one where Spidey punched the Hulk)? My cat bit the cover (no, really!)
Regards,
Joseph
HARLAN: I did indeed have a copy of DEADPOOL #61 at work. It'll be winging its way to you by the weekend. As for the other stuff, well, no line on that yet...but if you want to just send me a list, I'll post it at work and we'll all keep an eye out for that stuff.
That goes for the rest of you fanboy geeks as well...if there is something you're missing, let me know and I'll be on the lookout for it.
best to all,
Michael
Little Washu~ I haven't seen GINGER SNAPS, but isn't that one of the 113 Hollywood Clichés? You want to show how vile and worthless the villain is, you have him kick a dog?
Please don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% about such things. I have problems with violence against animals for the same reason I have problems violence against children. There's a special place in hell.
L.
I think I can provide some kind of distinction between useful gore and tawdry gore (and no, not the illustrator, or the girl who sang about crying at her party).
In most movies where gore turns up, one has a sense of what the filmakers want the audience to feel. It can be something as simple as shock, or revulsion, or something complex-- like when the formerly sympathetic Jeff Goldblum dissolves his enemy's ankle in _The Fly_.
I just bought the DVD of _From Hell_, which is one of the more horrific films of recent years. It's got its flaws, and it doesn't hold a candle to Alan Moore's and Eddie Campbell's original. But the gore isn't there to titillate. It's realistic, and details are shown, but it happens to sympathetic characters... so it's intended to elicit horror and fear in the audience.
But in some movies, especially the _Friday the 13th_ series, one has the strong sense that the filmmakers expect the audience to _enjoy_ the gore in a very sensuous way. The lingering on the hyperdetailed damage, the elaborate ways of mangling a body, the baroque touches (i.e., a spear not just into someone, but into their _eye_)... all of which is intended to have the audience ooo hand aaahhh over the spectacle.
Washu,
Re: Ginger Snaps
Your comments on the dogs intrigue me. I'll have to watch the movie again to see how that plays out for me.
As for the gore-fest question you addressed to Harlan, my short-and-dirty answer is that the gore serves a purpose in Ginger Snaps, as opposed to your examples.
I stand by my comment about the movie: best use of a piercing ever!
Regards,
Joseph
LONEGUNGIRL:
GREAT speculation on the Ticktockman! The 'mree mree mree' thing confused me slightly too, but then again I've known a few normal people who have made very strange noises in their spare time.
Um...
Yes, well, anyway, I do like your interpretation of a faint ray of hope to the tale. I think Harlan always has hope of one degree or another in his stories...it's only the illiterate dopes out there who immediately believe they have nothing to say except doom 'n' gloom.
GINGER SNAPS: Just saw the lycanthrope flick last night, and...wow. It was probably the most melancholic movie I've seen in a very long time. I haven't been this depressed since seeing Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL. You could TELL this film was Canadian, just from the ending. I'm not going to go into detail at risk of spoiling too much, but suffice to say you don't see that type of conclusion in most mainstream cinema these days. Great performances all around, great atmosphere and style...I guess I only have two complaints.
The loss of sympathy I began to feel for Ginger as she transformed into a cruel, malicious creature severely detracted from my enjoying the film. I wished Brigitte would just get it over with and kill her sister, who had essentially become nothing more than a bane to her life. I realize the point was that Brigitte's love was the only thing that kept her from doing so, but I ultimately felt too much loathing and hatred towards Ginger to pity her fate.
And then there was the rather repellent anti-dog theme throughout the entire movie. One of the first images is of a gutted dog; three other dogs are slaughtered on and/or off-screen; and Ginger gleefully kicks a dog in the face. The humans, who receive their own horrible share of deaths, aren't nearly as disgustingly treated as the dogs in this film. If the filmmakers have serious personal issues they need to work out, they should vent them in anything but the cinema medium.
Which brings me to another question, which I'd like to address to
HARLAN: In THE THICK RED MOMENT, you chronicled your reaction to the gratuitous display of violence you witnessed in THE OMEN and the audience's own bloodthirsty nature. And yet, GINGER SNAPS has blood 'n' gore flooding out of the wazoo.
I am NOT accusing you of hypocrisy. GINGER was superb. I only want to ask your take on how GINGER SNAPS differs from it's own delivery of violence as opposed to an average FRIDAY THE 13th movie.
Sincerely, LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
P.S. Out of curiosity. Did Norman's mother in PSYCHO ever actually have a first name?
GEEZE
That one got away from be before I could correct the spelling on what should have been "Maher"-- sloppy, sloppy.
Solly Chollie,
Cindy
Jay!
You wrote:
"Now if Maher would MEDIATE the discussion between his guests, that would be better. As it stands, he's like Angelica on Rugrats and his guests are all a bunch of big, dumb babies who don't know any better."
I was unfamiliar with Angelica on Rugrats so I asked my five year old daughter, Paris, about her. Paris said,
" Angelica is Tommy's cousin who bees mean to him. She tells him what to do and she breaks his toys and she steals his candy. And she even broke his clown lamp. On purpose! She meant to! And she scares Chucky. And she doesn't eat her broccoli. Her parents think she's cute so she never ever ever gets in trouble."
Now I understand your description.
HILARIOUS comparison!
I enjoyed watching Bill Mahr, he is fascinating and quick. I frequently disagreed with his position on issues but I found that he had a tendency to make me think my own choices through more carefully.r>
Sometimes he was sarcastic and came across as arrogant, but that sort of naturally goes with the territory of being brilliant doesn't it? I wasn't offended.
But the bully picture you paint is hilarious.. I did see a bit of that from time to time. There again I think it could be the giant's tendency to step on ants.
LOL!
:)
Cindy
Seriously, Rob...
I understand the tension in the debates, but in matters intended for serious discourse is it the most effective means of debate to cut your guest off in mid-sentence with "OH COME OOOOOON..." followed by a prissy non-sequitorial analogy between the topic and a ham sandwich? That's Maher's gimmick! He doesn't know how to follow up a reply from an expert giving statistics and first-hand info so he backpedals into the emotional response that not only insults the guest, but fails to provide a sound, informed alternative. We always know HOW Maher feels about an issue, but his center-stage neither promotes discussion of alternative POVs nor how his logic works. He can smirk and snear all he wants, but it only proves he's not prepared to debate even the junket-booktour-movieoftheweek seat warmers he's invited to the party.
Now if Maher would MEDIATE the discussion between his guests, that would be better. As it stands, he's like Angelica on Rugrats and his guests are all a bunch of big, dumb babies who don't know any better.
Alex,
D'oh! I meant Jerry Brown - confused my odd governors of California with my odd NBA coaches.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. Rumor likely to give you a coronary wuld be that the Bulls could use draft trades to pick up Iverson. Would never happen, but it's nice to dream...
Rob -
If you need a fix to fill the PI vaccuum, I understand tapes of the old Morton Downey Jr show are available on Ebay.
(ducks as Rob throws a promotional copy of Huffington's new cookbook and Deepak Chopra's latest guide to living at him)
:)
Sorry Rob, but PI, the few times I caught it, bored the hell outta me.
It was an intersting idea, but it suffered from its format. We had some useless monologue from Maher, then we'd get a couple of minutes introduction to the guests. They would gently spar around for more minutes, feeling out each other's opinion, and blam - the show was over. I was ALWAYS left wanting to see what would happen if the conversation continued for another half-hour - in fact, my thought was that they should film for an hour, or more - start out with some very quick, pre-taped intros for the guests and then show the most interesting half-hour. I just found most of the stuff discussed to be a boring rev-up to the REAL conversation, which we inevitably never got.
But that's just my opinion.
Alex,
Yes, PI has lost SOME of what it once had; I'd say that's pretty obvious. Sure as hell doesn't make it valueless, 'specially compared to the crap I have to put with everywhere else on the tube. Unlike with you guys, Maher's ego did not 'mar' the stir of topics for me. And while not EVERY evening holds me, many do.
I do, however, utterly disagree with your "corporate watchdog" bit (I mean if I understood you right). He didn't kiss their asses, including Disney's. Many of his remarks put him on the line.
And finally: a few of you seem really hung up on Maher's sticking it hard to some of his guests. A real 'Alice in Ego-Land' dilemma. I wonder if you consider that some of those guests NEEDED it (I turn your attention again to the likes of Heston). They were ALWAYS able to convey their points and opinions, and just as on this board with US, at a risk of drawing responses whose intensity is in direct proportion to the absurdity of the statement. It gets emotional at times (just look at Harlan in the Kazan debate) - Maher gets emotional, with refreshing honesty, while certainly not always being right - and I have no problem with THAT trip at all. Maher is not trying to be a Jay Leno or a Charlie Rose. He's being himself and he knows people hate him for it. I admire him for that even on the occasions when he gets on MY nerves, or might get too overbearing.
Like I've been trying to say, given some drawbacks and wear, the show is relatively fun and smart in an hour there is, to me, just nothing else to watch. It's like when Star Trek disappeared from the late night syndicated slot, which I would have a great time with after a fucked-up, boring workday.
Essentially, PI became a bit of an addiction of mine. Now I have to start all over again and find a new needle. Time for a flight to Amsterdam.
Jay,
Ah, I don't give a shit about PI criticism when it's FAIR; quality guests ARE less frequent. But the topics and temperaments ('cluding mine) and debates and questions to think about still come up...more so than anywhere else on the tube outside of PBS and two or three news magazine shows cut from the 60 Minutes mold. Unknowns appear a lot, some with brains some null and void, a crucial balance to watch the morons get hanged ('less Maher is out-numbered by the Hestons and Nugents). I still have a good time either nodding or giving 'em the finger. On occasion I even change the channel (never failed when Heston was on). And more often than not I absolutely agree with Maher's assessments. He even has moments of eloquence. He WAS a lit major.
At any rate, it's just a good, intelligent 20 minutes with which to close off yer waking hours. Now I guess it's back to mindless late night talk show babble, MTV or Howard Stern with his porno vixens. Fuck THAT shit. Well, LEAVE the vixens.
JAY; JOSEPH: Reel in them eyes. Black Canary is, in the context of this show, a sixteen-year-old runaway.
And she gets precognitive visions, too.
ROB: I dunno. P.I. was always better on Comedy Central, before it joined the Disney juggernaut, if you ask me. Maher seemed not only funnier, but more open to his various guests' opinions. I can't help thinking that once he started hanging at the Mansion and doing Viagra shooters with Hef, an ego explosion was inevitable. And it can't have helped to have had corporate watchdogs at his heels, making certain they had a nice tame razorwit.
I dunno. You simply cannot know how much I would LOVE to run some sort of BUG JACK BARRON freeform talk show--but I'm not certain how much of my soul I could stand to sell.
JOSEPH: Larry Brown? Not MY Larry Brown, coach of the next-year-damnit Seventy Sixers? Can't be.
ON "REPENT HARLEQUIN!..."
Just an opinion on the Ticktockman's mrmees--I didn't have the idea that the sound was either indication of literal mechanisation or of internal/spiritual death. My impression was that the world in general had taken on a clockwork nature. The Harlequin defied its oppressively orderly system and was neutralized by the Ticktockman because of it. Nevertheless, the mere fact of his resistance, short-lived and doomed as it was, had the effect of cracking the glassy perfection of the Ticktockman's punctuality--a possible indication of more changes to come. I saw the "mrmee mrmee mrmee" at the end as a sign that Ticktockman was not purring along as usual, and perhaps the oppressively orderly society would ultimately meet its end as a result of small incidences of rebellion like those of the Harliquin.
It is one of my favorite stories, although that certainly doesn't mean I understand it better than anyone else. I thought it was kinda uplifting. Anyway, if I've any gift at precognition, I expect we'll eventually be able to find out what the truth really is from someone in a better position to know...
"Maher milked his pissant talent..."
Jon...you and I disagree on lots and LOTS o'things.
For some reason, my fondest memory of PI was an evening with Al Franken, Larry Brown and Arianna Huffington, where, Franken managed to keep turning the discussion into stories of when Brown & Huffington where dating in the 70's. Smart ass of him? Sure. But strangely fascinating to watch.
Regards,
Joseph
Of course, the great Jimmy Kimmel is replacing Maher.
Y'know, I'd like the late night talk show thing to go back to Bob Costas, with his fantastic research staff and Costas' own interviewing abilities, or Tom Snyder, with that whole 'watch the coloured pictures fly through the air' stuff, along with the possibility of seeing, say, Ray Bradbury on an interview for 20 minutes with someone who asks him questions and then lets him talk. With Snyder and Costas, I've got fond memories -- "Second Costas!", Anthony Quinn breaking down, Snyder going toe to toe with Howard Stern, Snyder and Meatloaf discussing Lionel trains. With Maher, I've at least got the memory of Ellison and Fyvush Fynkel having a contretemps before Maher went to commercial, but that's about it.
Geez. I'm 33, and _I'm_ feeling old about this. Maher milked his pissant talent for about as long as he could and for way more money that it was worth: fuck 'im. Although I'd like to see Jon Stewart in the same format.
Ah, I'm such a soft touch.
Jon
Mitch,
Concering the "mrmee, mrmee, mrmee"; I think the reason he said that was because although he was made of flesh and blood, the word he lived in, that he helped maintain, was a very dehumanizing place. Everyone was being turned into ticktock automatons by the ultra-scheduled world they live in. I hate that part our wonderful world myself. Schedule this, time-manage that. Don't send that payment one day late. Late fees for this, etc. For me, it's no way to live. Remember the description of the people commuting to work on the commuter conveyor belts. Everyone on it stepping to the faster belt, side-stepping in unison like dancers in a Busbee Burley musical. People acting like machines. Then the harlequin drops a load of jelly beans (Jelly? BEANS?) and gums up the works. People spill all over the place, but the harlequin makes them laugh about it. They still had their humanity intact, if only buried inside. The Ticktock Man, however is the biggest victim of his own world. He goes slightly cuckoo when he finds out he's just a little late. His humanity has been completely extinguished. He is the ultimate slave to time. Inside, he's dead, his mind as brittle as that of any computer. That's why he makes the funny noises.
And now, a word from your Sun Safety Council:
Use Sunscreen. Really. Whether it's SPF 15 or something strong enough to let you get that job at Chernobyl, wear sunscreen.
Today, at around 4:00, I had a tissue excision for a biopsy. Dr. Hedberg shaved a nickel-sized chunk out of a quarter-sized scar on my left shoulder. A red, ugly scar I got from a massive sunburn from ten years ago. I had my nephew over, and being this was a nice, summer day, we went out to the pool. This apartment complex isn't all that upscale, but it has a great, well-maintained pool. We played in there for hours, splashing and rough-housing, having a great time. David got brown. I got burnt. Medium well. Left a wound and a scab on my shoulder that took a long time to heal.
Now, it's probably nothing. If it's anything at all, it's probably a slow carcinoma, the kind that won't kill you as long as you don't let it grow for several years. I'm not worried. Still, the anesthetic has worn off, and it stings a little, that nickle-sized crater in my left shoulder.
Wear sunscreen. Trust me on this.
Chuck
"I'm one of the 'burn and peel' people. You see us glowing at the beach." -- George Carlin
JEFFREY and R WILDER -
I think Jeffrey hit it. The quality of guests has gone downhill, which is strange since the exposure on ABC is MUCH better, even on overnight, than Comedy Central. I can only assume that it provides more screen time for Maher, who can take on the self-help gurus and self-promoting actors who don't want to risk coming off as confrontational. They tend to tailor their deep political philosophy into stand-up. The ones who know their game are either regulars Maher knows how to handle or politicians who are low-energy intellectuals who don't thrive in the environment Maher creates. At LEAST Dennis Miller was honest about whose political agenda governed the show.
Notice the bumpers where Maher is doing his own stand-up. He seems to pander to the audience. Yet now, as I watch, he is debating Monty Warner on Bush's opinion of Cuba (and vaguely worded so far)...he's losing the logic debate so he resorts to a "hanging chad" joke. Sad, really.
Sorry, Rob. I know you love the show.
Forrester~ I love the idea of the WWHD, but we'd have to limit it to tshirts & mugs. I don't know about *you*, but I don't have the time to go around cannibalizing typewriters, not to mention the ire we'd surely inspire in our esteemed patron.
But there's potential in the WWHD idea.
L.
Lynn-
Re: cafepress/webderland - was there any further discussion on the "What Would Harlan Do?" line of products? Like the WWHD bracelets made out of typewriter keys.
I haven't posted in a while, mainly because there's not a whole lot of ThrillStuff (c) in my life. I may have a job, which is nice, and the fight against the Historic District designation continues with optimism and good cheer... but outside of that, I'm boring this month.
I tuned out on _PI_ a long time ago, but I've been tuning out on a _lot_ of television lately. My disaste for PI was pretty simple: people would say things that I _had_ to argue with, but since I wasn't on the stage with them, anything I wanted to say wouldn't affect those dimbulbs one bit. I can live without that frustration. (Also, for years, the show seemed to have a quota of at least one right-wing idiot, usually Tucker Carlson, and between him and Maher's libertarian affectations, I had enough.)
And I caught the show with the two Israelis and Palestinians, and can say that R. Wilder described it extremely accurately. The Israelis would say something. The Palestinians would start to reply, and then Maher would interrupt them and start asking them why they didn't take all those _wonderful_ offers from the Israelis.
Oh, and back to Libertarian affectations-- I usually dig Penn and Teller in a tremendous way, but for some strange reason, they've cast their lot in with a lot of unsavory sorts. They've added their names to something called the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, a campaign to "get the government out of schools." (website at http://www.sepschool.org/). One might figure it's just another quixotic Libertarian campaign... until one sees that the Big Names, other than our favorite atheist magicians and a slew of Cato Institute drones, include the Rev. James Dobson, Dr. Laura "Do Me" Schlesinger, and the Rev. Tim LaHaye.
On a brighter note, Stephen Jay Gould's new book just came out today. Titled _I Have Landed_, it's the last collection of his _Natural History_ essays. So GO OUT and BUY the damn thing. READ it. WALLOW in Gould's exquisitely tuned sentences, and drink deeply of his understanding of the natural world. Then read his OTHER collections. ALL of them, dammit.
I was also confused by the Ticktockman's true nature. It wasn't the mask, but the final line that threw me off. Something to the effect of "He went into his office, going mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee...", when he arrives late. I got the impression that he was an android, starting to break down.
So if he's human, what's causing that sound?
Mitch
The following was posted on the British? _SF Crowsnest_ site earlier this month... Look familiar?
http://207.201.173.29//sfnews2/02_may/news0502_3.shtml
The title is: "Muster the Goombahs! Loose the dogs of war! A call to arms!"
For me "Politically Correct" dried up a few years ago. Until recently I continued to watch, but usually turned it off soured by the choice of panelists. It has been quite a while since I've seen any interesting fiction writers like Harlan Ellison, or Paul Theroux. And most of the non-fiction writers are dull, self-help gurus, or partisan pundits (Christopher Hitchens is the only writer that I've enjoyed on PI this last year). When the show was on the Comedy Channel and first on ABC, it used to have dynamic combinations of personalities, not the heavy reliance on celebrity airheads. Plus, Maher beats the proverbial dead horse. He introduces a topic at the beginning of the program and flogs away, whether there's a spark of conversation or not. The last time I tuned in was a Middle-East topical program with two Israeli youths, and two Palestinian youths, boy/girl/boy/girl. For the entire half-hour Maher hammers away at the Palestinians concerning their obstinance, and not once plays devil's advocate against the Iraelis. It was obvious that Maher's pro-Israeli. Fine. He had a legitimate point, but he created one dull program. And that's the problem with "Politically Incorrect." Maher has a narrow focus, and as result his teevee show has become dull. Media reporters can write all they want about Maher's post Sept.11 comments about cowardice and bravery, or the low ratings, but for this former regular watcher of "PI" it was the pedestrian quality of the show that sent me away(now if Harlan Ellison is back on before it's demise I will certainly tune in).
R.Wilder
I liked the original incarnation of "Politically Incorrect" when it was on Comedy Central, at midnight, right after "Whose Line Is It, Anyway?" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000". Jay commented in a previous post that Maher's penchant for indiscriminately interrupting guests to belabor his own opinion gradually grew. The PI that I remember watching on CC had a better-behaved Maher, and the show seemed to resemble more of a heated discourse than a semi-structured shouting match. I also seem to recall (I don't really recall, I just seem to) that the general reasoning ability of the average guest was higher. Maher had pretty decent opening monologues and a great closing bit where he'd plop down with an old friend of his from his standup days as they'd read off whatever random material they'd thought up. All that went by the wayside when PI shifted to ABC; I imagine that these were ABC-mandated changes. I wonder if ABC issued very different criteria for booking guests and choosing topics. Under such circumstances, I could imagine one's patience easily wearing thin.
- Jeph
Ohhhhhhh. Lynn, not now with the quotes. Save 'em for that Bermanator. I'm still busy holding a cold compress to my head.
Hey! Wanna see a guy cry? Just check out the fluvial contours runnin' down my cheeks like a couple o'Mississippis.
...I HATES tv!
Careful, Rob. Don't hurt yourself. It takes thousands of training hours and millions of research dollars to be able to swear thusly. What's the line from Ripley's? "These people have dedicated their lives to understanding the risks involved." I'm not saying you're not up to it, I'm just worried for your health, that's all.
L.
http://www.cafepress.com/webderland
Stainless steel travel mugs, frosty mugs, tshirts, sweatshirts, tote bags! $5 of every purchase goes to the KICK Internet Piracy Fund.
Thank you for changing the course of my day into a shipwreck.
The news sucks! It utterly sucks: cancelling Politically Incorrect vexes the FUCK out of me! I've had a good time with this show for years. In concept and form, one of the few tiny niches of good tv in the network wasteland and the brain dead corporate automatons have to fuck everything up yet again.
ABC...you're a bunch of fucked fucking fucks!
Probatum est
JOSEH,
:)
Uh, I mean Joseph,
Look at the bright side, they won't have to worry about living up to some standard that can never be approached.
Family Affair was bad enough that they'd have to WORK THEIR ASSES OFF to come up with something that would disappoint those who are expecting Buffy! Jody! CISSSYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
If you get a real writer and a cast that can carry it, it might be fun. The premise works.
HAHAHAHAHAHA I loved the show! I think I was eight or nine.
Cindy
Joseph,
I understand that Huntress is involved and supposedly a relative of Selina Kyle (Helena Kyle I think she's named). Interesting evolution of the character here.
I hope it's more "Buffy" than "VIP" in the writing. I'd love to see the Writer's Bible on the show.
Fear me, for I am Joseh, master of Lightning!
Anyhoo...
I'll admit to being curious as to whether Sherilyn Fenn can apporach the wonderful voice-over work by Arleen Sorkin. The costume would just be a bonus....
Regards,
JosePh
Sorry, Joseph, the keys got all funky on me for a second. 'Joseh'? What the hell?
JOSEH: Wow, more harlequins! Any idea if Sherilyn Fenn will be donning the same kind of costume her animated counterpart had? And WILL she say 'puddin' at some point or another?
Harley Quinn. Probably the best creation of the Batman animated series.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Cindy,
Agreed, but I think the problem in the 1st place is doing a remake of...that...particular piece of tripe.
Jay,
Hmmm....give me a second to find a cast list....hello! Well, these are some interesting choices. I can't wait to see Sherilyn Fenn play Harley Quinn, and Dina Meyers should be worth watching. The one who makes me nervous as hell is this Shemar Moore - let's hope he's not on the show much, as he already makes me lunge for the remote every time I pass by his inane posturing on "Soul Train." Anybody know anything about this Rachel Skarsten who will be playing Black Canary?
Regards,
Joseph
JIMINY CHRISTMAS
For a second I thought your post read that they were going to Cast Gary COLEMAN in the Brian Keith spot for Family Affair. After I recovered from my initial stroke, I thought God DAMN can you GET any farther off the mark?
I HATE BAD CASTING... worse than spoiled milk.
I would say the perfect cast would be Brian Dennehy in the Brain Keith position and John Rhys Davies as Mr. French.
Am I brilliant or WHAT?
Cindy
Joseph -
Did you see the cast list for Birds of Prey? Mmmmmmmmmmm.
And continuing the lineup changes, one good & one bad from WB:
Good:
* Birds of Prey, based on the Batman comics spinoff about three female crime fighters.
I'm really interested in this one, since this is one of my favorite current comics. Good stuff there.
Bad:
* Family Affair, a remake of CBS' 1960s comedy, starring Gary Cole in the Brian Keith role and Tim Curry replacing Sebastian Cabot as Mr. French.
Sheesh. Doesn't Gary Cole have any better offers?
Regards,
Joseph
As counter-culture shows go, PI had been a great one until Bill Maher decided his view was more important than the guests. Very early on I grew tired of the pouty, spiteful look that Bill gave just before interrupting someone and completely dismissing their point of view. It REALLY said a lot when it wasn't the sitcom star he interrupted, but someone who actually knows something about the topic discussed. It was funny and entertaining, but Bill was always there to make sure you didn't have to think too hard about anything important.
So, as it stands, ABC has my thanks. Too bad they couldn't retool it into something that balanced the entertainment with the information.
ABC Cancels "Politically Incorrect"
This was posted on yahoo news today. Guess ABC will be Politically Correct from now on!
Washu,
SheeEEEEEeeek.
FAISAL,
I sent that information.
Cindy
Lynn,
Here's a page where you can search for sellers of the book, but none will come up. What will come up is a link "Search at a local library," which enables you to see where the closest copy is.
Regards,
Joseph
Lynn,
Frankly, much as I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the Codex, I have to be sympathetic to a publisher here. How many people do you think they could promote such a book to?
Oh, and for those who missed earlier conversations, here's a description of the book with some fantastic images:
http://www.io.com/~iareth/codindx.html
Regards,
Joseph
Mrs. Ellison:
Great Rabbit Hole! Thank you for the nightly ninja story raids. By the way, the silly credits are a favorite part of the Rabbit Hole for me.
Back under my rock,
Bill
Will someone please explain to me why the "CODEX SERAPHINIANVS" hasn't been reprinted? Would this actually drive down the value of the collectible original copies?
Frustrated beyond knowing,
L.
Actually, Forrester, my words DON'T synch with my mouth. It's quite disturbing. Be glad you haven't met me in person...yet.
Bwahaha.
"Look! It is Godzilla!"
"No! It is Harlan Ellison-san! Run!"
LYNN: What, you think I would actually watch the DUBBED versions?
ROB: Okaaaaay, take a good long look at Electro's costume again and honestly, truthfully tell me the first word that comes to your mind.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
HARLAN AND JOSEPH: Besides, I'm pretty sure that a copy of Deadpool #61 is indeed sitting on a shelf at work. I'll find out Wednesday when I go in and send it along.
RE: SPIDERMAN -- the one real big gap in my willing suspension of disbelief was the moment when all the New Yorkers begin throwing things at the goblin and yelling. Not one of them, NOT ONE, used the word "Fuck." Obviously, those were not real New Yorkers.
M
Harlan,
You're quite welcome.
Joseph
HARLAN to JOSEPH FINN:
Thanks, kiddo, but I only need the one issue, DEADPOOL #61. Buying the whole run at e.bay price would be wasteful. I can wait for a single copy to come down the pike. Not a matter of life and/or death. It's just a comic book.
Thanks muchly, inanycase.
Yr. pal, Harlan
"Lynn - Monday, May 13 2002 14:43:4
"Lil' Washu~ 'Much regards'? I've heard of warm regards, best regards, kind regards, but *much* regards? Huh? Have the Anime subtitles finally eaten away the English language portion of your brain?::wink::L."
Lynn - and when he speaks, do the words synch with his mouth?
Lil' Washu~ "Much regards"? I've heard of warm regards, best regards, kind regards, but *much* regards? Huh? Have the Anime subtitles finally eaten away the English language portion of your brain?
::wink::
L.
Alex,
No, I saw the multi-Hulks. I didn't read them though
Jay,
It was the hospital scene I first posted about and laid into with a vengeance. Does anyone here read MY comments?
Rob,
I take it you missed Peter David's brilliant run on The Hulk. He reimagined the brute as one part of a multiple personality, or, rather, three parts, with Banner himself as a fourth. Banner's father plays a major role in the brutalization of young Bruce. The multiple personality angle had appeared before, but no one examined it and ran with it like Peter David did. One of the high points of the eighties, in comics.
--Alex
Washu,
There is a fantastic recent Neil Gaiman book entitled "Harlequin Valentine" that might be in your line. You can ask your local bookseller or comic book store about it, but here's the description page at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156971620X/qid=1021321754/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_71_1/102-7598785-2344100
Regards,
Joseph
HARLAN:
I actually like being called either 'Little Washu' or 'Benjamin', but not a hybrid of the two. Essentially, I reserve my real title for more down 'n' dirty matters. 'Little Washu' allows me to talk about, oh, the communist underpinnings of 'The Smurfs' without waking up in the morning feeling like a different kind of harlequin. (Imagine King Lear's Fool minus the wit.)
Thank you for sorting me out. And I must apologize from the bottom of my soul for the 'sci-fi' connection. I mentioned 'cyborg' off the top of my head (the top of my head is liable to kill off the rest of my body someday) as a means to ponder whether the Timekeeper is something less than human. Your statement that the Ticktockman is indeed 100% homo sapien is ironic in retrospect. I suppose it was the 'mask' detail that distracted me and I didn't make the more obvious conclusion that it was the Timekeeper's attempt to make himself MORE than human to intimidate the likes of Everett C. Marm.
Harlequins are fascinating to me, and yet there are amazingly few resources for research about them in my college library AND on the internet. I'd love to absorb more about them.
Much regards,
Benjamin A.A. Winfield
DAN -
I did see that problem, too. Perhaps Koepp knew he had already written a killer Thanksgiving scene that conveniently revealed Parker's secret ID and didn't want to spoil a scene so painstakingly constructed. :)
ROB -
It wasn't just me, but many of the people in the theater found themselves a little antsy during the hospital scenes while waiting for Spidey to go kick some Goblin ass. Spidey ALSO suffers from a case of tenative heroism. He WAITS, even after May gets her attack, he doesn't set out to find the Goblin. He hangs out and waits for him to strike again.
IN ANY CASE -
Now, this may be another stretch in the whole comic book logic protocol but say I'm a janitor at OsCorp. I know there's a glider in Area 51 1/2 being worked on by the military. I was the guy who cleaned up after somebody killed the main scentist in charge of testing. I wonder if any of these computers would have told anyone who was the test subject? Oh, and after the military leaves Oscorp for the rival corporation, some dink flying the glider from Oscorp blows through with pumpkin bombs and kills a bunch of people. Just as Bob the Janitor, I'm wondering: "Perhaps someone from my company is responsible?" Of course if I ignore that thought and continue with the beer and pork rind dinner, I'm sure to make the connection when the same guy shows up in Times Square and picks - out of thousands of people - the Board of Directors of OsCorp who had just fired Norman Osborne. While I'm making out my resume, I put a call into Detectives Logan and Brisco with a tip that perhaps Norman Osborne has been having a bad week.
Just more problems I find. Sorry to pee in the cornflakes of those who loved the flick, but I have higher standards for the writing.
Harlan,
Sorry - make that 3.99 for the four issues. eBay can be a wonderful resource for recent back issues.
Regards,
Joseph
Harlan,
There is an auction for Deadpool #61-64 (Funeral For a Freak #1-4) on eBay at the moment, asking price 9.99, ending in a couple of days. I'm quite willing to win the auction and then send the comics to you, if that would be helpful.
Regards,
Joseph
Dan,
I think ALL of us spotted and acknowledged gaffes in the film like you cited. I was generous about many of them - too much so , probably - because of the merits. But the Koepp/Raimi team, frankly, often has this kind of sloppy disregard for story logic. I have very mixed feelings about both.
The script IS uneven, with story implausibilities (like the convenient GG concurrent origin) but unlike one person posted here the pace was properly offset between longer, quieter moments (if ONLY some had been used more to their advantage!)and actions scenes.
HARLAN to BENJAMIN WASHU:
There are NO robots/cyborgs/simulacra/androids/aliens/men in black virtuals/ in "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman."
The Master Timekeeper is just a human being. That's the point of it all. Human beings do what he does, to one another, all the time. It is a simple story, with a minimum of "sci-fi" crap in it. It is another version of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, if you will.
Harlan Ellison
HARLAN TO MICHAEL D. BLUM:
The five comics arrived today. Many many thanks!
You're correct, of course, as to the size of my collection; and that it stretches back to the '40s. What I AM having an almost impossible time locating is an issue of DEADPOOL #61, from a few months ago; and copies of the newsstand versions of TALES OF THE MUTANTS, MARVEL KNIGHTS, PUNISHER and the two/three other dual-published versions that were sold only through Target or K-Mart or somesuch kinds of outlets. If you have any, or know of someone who has them for sale, let me know and I'll give you specific issue numbers.
And thank you ever so much for the offer of assistance in filling in these blanks.
Yr. pal, Harlan
Washu,
Hmmm. You spattered me with mixed feelings:
We're s'oitenly in agreement on the one-villain-per-Marvel flick. But your variables are truly troubling (man, you can tell this is a boring day for me). I don't remember Electro being too pathetic; he was among the more brazen. I do remember good stories focused on Parker's hassles built around Electro's li'l affronts (incidentally, I always dug Marvel's tradition of multi-issue storylines and multiple subplots). Likewise, I don't remember the Lizard being self-pitying (Conners, yes. He had good reason to be...I mean how would YOU feel?); he was a perennial ego-maniac boasting of his superior strength. And Sandman was among the most obnoxious snots to hang in the neighborhood. He was NEVER self-pitying; practically from a fetus in Big House U.S.A.
The Hulk: I don't think Abominiation was goofy. I dug him as a true annoyance. I did consider the Leader corny.
But Banner's father: what did HE have to do with Bruce's fate?
Re: Spider-Man
Possibly I've missed this, but with all the discussion about Spider-Man I've yet to see anyone comment on what I think is the story's MAJOR gaffe, i.e., GG paralyzes Spidey and whisks him away to have a private conversation about ruling the "Empire" together, yet GG doesn't even think to remove Spidey's mask at that time. No, that little revelation has to wait for the Thanksgiving scene because revealing it when GG has Spidey in his clutches would ruin all that is to follow. For this reason, I'm wondering if the paralysis scene was added after most of the film was shot. It seems too obvious a gaffe to have been overlooked before the film was shot. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Hey, does this mean I have the makings of being a super villain since I'm obviously more intelligent than a crazed, steroidal maniac?
I tend to side with Jay on Spider-man's appeal. I don't like repetitive torture of a character for the purposes of melodrama. Buffy (sorry for the mention, Buffy-haters) this year has the stink of certain eras of Spider-man upon it. You know, the ones in which everyone close to Peter gets killed or maimed or humiliated or cloned, in which Peter gets maimed or fired or poked with pointy sticks again and again and again and again and again and again and his clone does too and he's thrown out into the street and he's got six arms and Aunt May needs another full-body transplant and oh, no, Spidey burned his dinner again too and Galactus ate his apartment and the Hulk squashed his car and then pooped on the seat and hey, Daredevil, don't come to me with your problems, dagnabit.
I don't need my fantasy characters to be problem-free--far from it. But humiliating and torturing old Spidey over and over again strikes me as bad story-telling. If vicarious serial masochism turns your crank, then fine--it's pretty much an opinion thing.
Jon
JAY: Hmmm. So you believe the film's narrative may have been structured better if Spider-Man or the Green Goblin had come before each other as opposed to the same time? I think I might agree with you on that...the timing of Norman's transformation into GG at a different point of Peter's transformation into Spidey would have made sense.
ROB: I really think the Spider-Man movies should make an effort to keep the strategy of one villian per flick. No matter how hard one may try to organically fuse a second baddie into a film structure, it ultimately becomes superfluous and dead weight. Besides, the majority of Spider-Man's villians are either A. too pathetic to be main adversaries (Electro) or B. tragic, self-pitying wusses (The Lizard, Sandman).
ANG LEE'S THE HULK: What can I say? I'm very interested in the development thus far of the project. I like the idea of Bruce's father being the villian of the piece, even though in the comics he was dead before the series even started. Bruce's dad, I think, was far more disturbing and frightening than the standard goofy supervillians a la the Leader and the Abomination. Brian Banner was partially, if not solely responsible for the creation of the Hulk within Bruce's psyche.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
LITTLE WASHU -
Re: Removing Sticks from Our Butts. I must have missed the semester of classes that clarified what failures in logic are acceptable and which should be nitpicked within a thread of the material. All I can tell you is there are elements that I can digest and others that scream "PRODUCER TOLD WRITER TO MAKE IT FIT!!" At least in the original Batman, there was talk of Bats being around for a bit before Jack Napier fell into a boiling vat of Plot Development. I just find it lazy when relationships are forced because they fit a desired effect or contain characters that "must" be involved.
ROB -
I dunno, man. Spiderman hit me because he never let the bad guys see him sweat. It had conflict as necessary in all stories and his conflicts were far more real than others, but I was always charged by his on-the-job energy despite missing Aunt May's meatloaf and his date with Gwen and MJ at the House of Whacks. :)
I'm trying to wake up here so I'm going to babble a bit more (if I lie back on that bed yonder I'm gonna fall asleep again; 'n I have ta be oughtta here in an hour). So here's more bullshit:
Parker's woes, tragedies, losses and public cry for his blood: I hope the sequel goes much, much further with ALL of that.
I just read the sequel is to feature both Doc Ock and the Lizard. Given the relative complexity of the character I think it's a mistake bringing in two baddies (even if they too are tragic characters). More likely to get bogged in extraneous action at the expense of character. For once the dictum, "the villain is more interesting than the hero" doesn't apply.
The issue of his web-shooters: yeah, that should wake me up. They got rid of them entirely and I wouldn't have done that. I approve of the mutagenic angle but the web-shooters could have been devised to control and vary range better. So devising them still would have made sense and it would've reinforced for viewers the inventiveness and brains Parker had.
Read a bit about Ang Lee's Angle on the upcoming 'Hulk' movie. Sounds like he's being very theme-oriented, which is encouraging. He's getting rid of the gamma bomb element in the origin story; I just hope there's no semblance to the Ferrigno tv series. I hated that show, man. And isolating the trigger of Banner's transformation to anger is lame; in the comic, he only needed to get excited and things would get out of control. That made it scarey. I remember anytime the military finally got a hold of Banner, he'd start distressing, "...pulse is pounding..." and Ross would cry out, "...oh, shit. The needle! Fer Godsake, get the NEEDLE!" Poor guy was ALWAYS being sedated.
...ok, I'm going back to bed.
Washu,
You think Harry should have been minimized?
I think he was critical; his link between Parker and Osborn would be catalytic in a love/hate friendship. This is the stuff of ironic tragedy, man.
Just found out that my cartoonist friend and his girlfriend are extras in the _Spider-man_ wrestling sequence. I told him to make sure to put it on his resume as 'Star of Spider-man.'
How's this for typewriter stuff?
In Chicago, Mobile-Obil died and [Neil] Young--scanning the classifieds for a new set of wheels--found Pearl, a $400 black 1954 Cadillac that burned oil by the case. Perched atop the jump seat in the back was an old Underwood typewriter on which guests were invited to share their thoughts. "We always kept paper in it," said Mazzeo. "Anybody could go sit down, read a paragraph of what somebody had written and then take off from there. It just kept goin' and goin'." The Never-ending Novel's main contributor was [Neil] Young...pages of Young's ramblings (including lyrics for such songs as "Daughters," "Star of Bethlehem," and "Bad News") exist from this time... -- From _Shakey_ by Neil Young and James McDonough, 2002.
Cheers,
Jon
Jay,
" Spiderman doesn't endure because he's troubled and broke all the time. He's INTERESTING because of it, but it's the JOY and the FUN of his heroics that make him work."
O'no. That I TOTALLY disagree with. Generations get attached to him precisely because of the clinging webs of his daily problems and worries. That IS what makes him endure.
"Wow...can you imagine getting bit by a mutated spider on the same day your best friend's dad subjects himself to psychotropic steroids so he can better control the attack glider he happens to be working on for the military?"
Jay, sometimes some of us have to remove the sticks from our butts and allow jumps in coincidence/logic to just enjoy the film as a whole. If the story's at least PARTIALLY good, I don't have many qualms.
Although I have to agree on the 'Harry Osborn' angle (spelled 'Osborn', no 'e', fellas). He should have been a far more minor character, alotting more screen time to the conflict between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin.
Ah, well. STAR WARS EPISODE II opens shortly, and we'll see if that little punk Anakin Skywalker can knock the big, scary spider out of his No. 1 position at the box office.
REPENT, HARLEQUIN: Just re-read Harlan's story, and it just struck me how vague the description of the Ticktockman really is. Other than mention of a 'mask', the details are sketchy, deliberately I guess. Is he human? Is he a cyborg? Or is he something else entirely? It'd be great to see some opinions on this.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
HEY Faisal,
Making it into the semi-finals in the Chesterfield is quite an accomplishment. Everybody and his DOG sends something in so the field must be enormous! I will be pulling for you from Texas, hoping that you win this time around.
A friend of mine just sent me an email on a new screenwriting competition. He got it from his producer last week. If you'd be interested I could send you the information.
Right now I'm trying to get my tiger whipped into shape in time to make the deadline for the Heart of Texas Screenwriter's competition at the Austin Film Festival.
Cindy
Spiderman's biggest problem, to me, was its inconsistent energy level. It had great energy in many of Spidey's scenes, but then slowed down quite a bit often too long. Given the end of the film, Peter's veiled overtures to MJ at the hospital seem a little pointless. By then we KNEW he was in love with her, but it would have been far more fulfilling if she had come around to him without the whining hearts and flowers.
Now, I'm not against hearts and flowers, but it was not the time or place to stop the movie. The Goblin's just laid the smackdown on his Auntie, knows his secret ID and is coming for him at any moment, BUT...he made sure to take the time to goo-goo the redhead. Then Harry comes in and, PFFFT!, it's over.
The whole relationship with Harry Osborne was forced. Harry was deluding himself and MJ was clearly uninterested. Perhaps what Norman said about her at Thanksgiving was correct? In any case, the triangle doesn't work because you know there's no competition. It's a convenient device to keep all the characters revolving around Parker and we're supposed to say "Wow...can you imagine getting bit by a mutated spider on the same day your best friend's dad subjects himself to psychotropic steroids so he can better control the attack glider he happens to be working on for the military?"
I think my biggest beef with the film - a week down the road - is that Spidey could have ended on such a high. Yeah, he's got problems and conflicts, but that whole "it is my gift...my curse..." was so Batman cum Darkman that it stole much of the joy I felt watching him hit his stride. It may sound Hollywood, but I SO MUCH wanted to see him swing off into the skyline more than wandering off a brooding, troubled hero. Spiderman doesn't endure because he's troubled and broke all the time. He's INTERESTING because of it, but it's the JOY and the FUN of his heroics that make him work.
THAT's what's been bugging me since opening day.
Alex,
If you have a copy of The Typewriter Story (I think that was the Two Jakes original title) I would be very interested to know more about it. I know the script has got around but I never succeeded in finding a copy.
With Chinatown though, it is acknowledged by Towne that Polanski did so much development on the script, he could have asked for and got co-writers credit.
Best.
FAQ
Knowing how many baseball fans there are on this board, I'd be remiss if I didn't post this link: http://buytheexpos.poptopix.com/
Wanna co-own a Major League team? I know *I'M* pledging some money ...
Alex Jay: Yep, Pronzini's.
Culinary detectives: SCTV did a bit on this twenty years ago. The show was called "Wok on the Wild Side" and featured John Candy as the crime-solving cook. And then there's "Mohicans Galore."
Jon
FAISAL: Bear in mind that the TWO JAKES which was filmed bears almost no resemblance to the film Towne wrote, despite the screenwriting credit they were forced to give him. Still, Towne's recent output seems a huge artistic dropoff from the stuff he did back in the Seventies like CHINATOWN and THE LAST DETAIL, or even all the uncredited script doctoring he did for decades.
JON: There are a couple Nameless Detectives--do you mean Bill Pronzini's?
Actually, speaking of decades-separated detective stories, I would dearly love to see a series of films for either Max Allan Collins' Nathan Heller or Stuart R. Kaminsky's Toby Peters ...
And if anyone could do a convincing portrayal, I would kill to see a television version of Ron Gou;art's conception of Groucho Marx, Master Detective.
Actually, I'm rather surprised that televison hasn't picked up on the potential of the burgeoning "culinary mystery" subgenre. Imagine every episode bookended by a recipe demonstration--or each one started with a recipe demo that sets the theme for the show.
Or even a show: "Iron Chef--Super Hero"!
ZOË: "Gosh, I haven't seen that show in years!" Gods, but I'm old. A codger am I. Lord save me from days to come, when a wave of Pokemon nostalgia sweeps the nation ...
Re: Spiderman. I enjoyed it. I thought it was faithful (more-or-less) in spirit to the original story. I found it much more rewarding cinematic experience than any of the Superman or Batman films. Before discussions about plot and character motivations get too heated, I do think it is important to remember that we are talking about adaptations of COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS here.
The gentleman who referred to the film as "corporate excrement", ... , using his definition you would have to apply that tag to every movie ever produced by Hollywood, even the so-called "classics".
Cindy, yes, I certainly wanted to see what was going to happen, that's for sure. I guess that's why I was a bit disappointed....as I said, more of the dinner-scene stuff and less of the teen horror stuff and I would have been intrigued throughout.
As for the humor....yes, more lines like your rewrite "God DAMN, Jerome! Couldn't you just shoot her, did you have to burn my fucking house?"...now THAT's fucking funny!
Good Luck! -TODD
P.S.....you got me on Frankenstein and Dracula except for one thing...it's a different world in today's film biz. But hey, ya never know.
Cindy,
Thanks for that. Last year I got through to the semi-finals. This year I feel my application is a lot stronger so we'll see...
FAQ
Noooo Todd, darlin',
You haven't. You had some valid points, some that stung a bit and some that I disagreed with, but NO you haven't offended in any way. I ASKED for your opinion and you gave it. I appreciate that!
I Reeeeeeeeeeeeeally believe that you read it all in one sitting NOT to keep with the pace of the movie, but because it didn't BORE you.
It really WAS my intention to (as you put it) "just present a rip-roaring horror flick, not deep-thoughts-about-life-as-we-know-it."
When Ingena ate the bird at Chalmer's funeral that was a clue. BUT if you didn't feel uncomfortable AND like laughing then I missed my mark.
As for the title-- hmmmm, you mean like Frankenstien or Dracula?
As for the ending.. I am having to rethink that as well. I might be pissed at the clear lack of payoff if I was in the audience.
You DO have a point about the burning of the house. I laughed out loud when I read what you wrote about the gun-- you're RIGHT!!!!!!!!
I WOULD be pissed if I had been Hayden.
Okay REWRITE--
" God DAMN, Jerome! Couldn't you just shoot her, did you have to burn my fucking house?
I LOVE IT.
No Todd, no offense... you're a sweetie for reading it. But didn't you find it the least bit entertaining? Weren't you curious about what was going to happen next?
:)
Cindy
ROGER -- I haven't seen the new Woody Allen yet, so it's entirely possible that the floating boom mikes were integral to the comedy and whatnot ... but I doubt it. The people (or person) (or whatever you wanna call the boobs who tend to work at movie theaters) you have to thank for the boom mikes are the employees of the theater who botched up the projection. The boom mikes are there all the time, but they're supposed to be cut off by the top of the screen. (I'm a little woozy right now, so I hope I'm not oversimplifying or offering up a wrong-minded explanation. If so, sorry.) Next time it happens, go complain. You are entirely within your rights, and it is a problem that very easily can be fixed.
We interrupt this paper-writing frenzy to post!
Alex Jay- Gosh, I haven't seen that show in years! My favorite 'insert' into the beginning song was, "Animany, totally insaney, talk like Jo-ohn Wayney, we're Animaniacs!" I of course adore Yakko and Wakko (Helloooo Nurse!). Dot /was/ the coolest, though... and thus I'm sure I open myself for a beating.
John Stover- I will most definitely have to get a few of those you mentioned. I must agree with Joseph, though, I'm hoping your tongue (for your sake) remains intact.
Having read several books in the past two days (cramming), I've decided my vocabulary needs expanding. Anyone know a good, effective, fun way to do this? I find myself using the same verbage all the time and it's annoying - here I am reading the great weavings of words, but far too often I run into words that I can glean the meaning of, just from surrounding words. However, if I were asked to define the word directly? No dice.
--Ltd
--Zoë Rose
Cindiana....I hope I haven't offended.
-TODD
I received my latest issue of The Rabbit Hole yesterday, terrific job Susan. What a kick to read some of Harlan's earliest stories, thanks for digging them out.
I went to the new Woody Allen film yesterday and enjoyed it greatly. My only question/comment is what was up with the boom mic coming into the picture so often, it had to happen nearly a dozen times? Some of the time it was in the shot so long you could see it moving back and forth between the actors speaking.It got more than a little distracting as I was trying to enjoy the movie. Bye for now, Roger
FAISAL,
I'm working my ass off right now to rewrite.
XANADU THANK YOU!!!!!!!! Without your help I wouldn't have noticed the bumps that need grinding and the amputations that are clearly in order.
But I'm leavin' the bovine surrogacy stuff, I think it's a cool idea and the sooner science sets to work on making it a reality the better for women.
LOL!
FAISAL, I hope you whip 'em in the Chesterfield competition.
Cindy
Faisal: No argument here about Chinatown. The Two Jakes reminds me a lot of another belated sequel, Texasville. Neither of those films is awful, but they're stuck living up to their predecessors. A third film would be interesting, as I imagine they'd have to set it in the 1950s unless they plan to CGI Nicholson's face. Maybe Towne could talk to Walter Mosley about the logistics of writing decade-separated adventures of private detectives. Hell, maybe Jake Gittes and Easy Rawlins could team up and have wacky adventures together.
A friend who teaches a popular culture class was asking me what contemporary movies would work well with _The Maltese Falcon_ on a course list. That part of the course loosely consists of 'hardboiled' and 'British' detective fiction (_The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_, "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" and a VI Warshawski novel have showed up on the list before). The best suggestion I had for really recent films was _Memento._ _Chinatown_, _The Long Goodbye_, _Heaven's Prisoners_ and _LA Confidential_ also came up in discussion. Are there any tv shows about private investigators left (excepting A&E's Nero Wolfe and Spenser series)? It's sort of weird how all tv detection has shifted into the realm of various police experts.
Now a Matt Scudder or a Nameless Detective series...or film.
Jon
Jon Stover: Are you from Nova Scotia? Do I recall you mentioning something about vacationing in Nova Scotia? Because, coincidentally, my friend and I are thinking about going there in August for a vacation...Boston to Bar Harbor to NS to Montreal back to Bingoland. Do you have any hot tips, dos and don'ts, or must-sees? We were thinking about the ferry from Bar Harbor to Nova Scotia, then maybe to Prince Edward Island and/or Cape Breton. Any info from an insider would be greatly appreciated. If you like, you can e-mail me.
Thanks,
Bermanator
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY to all those who are, have or act like mothers!
Jon - Yup good old Richard Sylbert passed away. I think he was the only Production Designer to become a studio head and he also worked on the classic Chinatown.
Now what a great movie Chinatown is, despite it being molested by screenwriting workshops the world over (i.e. Syd Field), it is truly a wonderful film that has lasted extremely well. With Polanski coming back maybe its time for the third Jake Gittes script (Towne had planned a trilogy and a third script had been written) to go infront of cameras... anything to make up for the extremely flawed The Two Jakes.
FAQ
Jon,
I fucked up on the Batman thing; 'parently that was Washu I was "straightening out".
Who keeps track of who posts what on this site, anyway?
Jon,
"I'd like it if Frank drew a clearer explanation of what consititutes what in his aesthetic universe"
That would be like waiting for a mannequin to express free thought.
Incidentally, the first Batman far exceeds Burton's uneven sequel.
Lurk,
Like Frank you appear to have exceptional ability at missing the main idea. He is entitled to call any film he chooses excrement, stool, Montezuma's revenge or fetid road kill. It was the ludicrous posturing of being a cultural elite that made me put on my boot. Considering some of the putrid stuff he's touted here at some points himself - and is like-wise entitled to - he's in no position to lay a condescending tone on Joseph or anyone else.
Jon,
I hope that no young ladies cut off your tongue in the upcoming year.
Joseph
Zoe Umlaut: Oddly enough, part of tonight's bar conversation involved the always popular 'how old are you?' bit. When I said I was 33 and expected to be dead before I was 34 (jokingly, sort of), someone said 'I hear a lot of that -- it's a Christ thing, right?' My reply was, 'No, I'm expecting to be killed by an Ellen Jamesian any day now.'
Good old Garp. _Cider House Rules_, _A Widow for One Year_, _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and _Hotel New Hampshire_ are also mucho enjoyable out of the Irvings I've read. "The Imaginary Girlfriend", a memoir, is also very good -- wrestling and anecdotes about writing classes with Kurt Vonnegut. In the _Trying to Save Piggy Sneed_ collection in the States, I believe. (In Canada, "The Imaginary Girlfriend" initially appeared as a standalone novella-length paperback.)
Defending Frank. Sort Of: If Frank had said something about the original Lee/Ditko Spider-man comics being dismissable, I'd say take his ears off. He took a shot at the movie, and I don't see any overarching problem with his take (besides the dismissiveness toward the tastes of people who do indeed have good taste). The movie does spend $120 million producing something with far less wit, pyrotechnics, and angst than the best parts of (in my case) the Ditko/Lee run. Insert 'Stracinski/Romita Jr,/Conway/Andru,Lee/Romita, etc. here, depending on taste. There is something perverse about the idea that the best Batman movies show less writerly competence than an average issue of the title written by David V. Reed or Bob Haney in the 1970s (and that's not a slam on Haney or Reed) or that the Superman movie wasn't half as well-written as a good Pasko or Bates issue of Superman from the same era. I'd like it if Frank drew a clearer explanation of what consititutes what in his aesthetic universe -- as briefly explained, his art universe would seem to exclude comics altogether, but I don't think that's what Frank was trying to say.
Cheers,
Jon
Alex,
Yeah, I would have brought up Peter Parker #33, but wasn't sure how canonical it might be - still, how funny is the mascot scene? Now that's comedy!
Regards,
Joseph
"Peter Parker" is synonymous with "underdog." As such, what team COULD he root for (within the confines of New York, that is) save the Mets?
The Parkers are Metropolitans fans for sure, as shown most recently in the excellent PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN #33 by Jenkins and Buckingham.
(May always struck me as an Indians fan, though ...)
Yankees. Feh.
("Murderers Row" and the DiMaggio-through-Mantle years notwithstanding)
DOT, DOT, & DOT, INC.: Whaddaya got against Yakko and Wakko?
Harlan- Dangit, you know, every time I write a message with your name in it, or to you, I wonder if I should be saying Mr. Ellison, or Harlan Ellison, or HE, or Mister HE, or... you get the point. Someone wrote in a posting awhile back that someone, elsewhere, had written something using just your first name, and that they were really immature because of it. Or something. So now I wonder each time I post - then again, I figure you'd rip into me if it bothered you. So, this posting DOES have a point - I wasn't trying to fish for a local appearance (I wouldn't do that to you! it's /still/ cold up here and they still predict snow once in awhile); I more just wanted to know if and when/where you do them. Perhaps I shall have to find out how to get one of these Rabbit Holes you speak of. I would think you do several in California, where I'll be shortly... er, lecture or speak, not rabbit holes. Right. Moving on.
Rick- If you tell me how to access my archives and other such page-saving files, I probably have some of those posts. I never clean out my cache or whatever (why does that sound so dirty? Ah well), so perhaps I can be of some help?
--Dot, Dot, and Dot, Inc
--Zoë Rose
PA Berman,
Thank you for your correction on the geographical division of Yankees/Mets fans. I always thought it was a little tighter than what you have noted, but obviously I was wrong. However, I still believe the Parkers are Mets fans.
Rob,
Despite our occasional differences, you're a mensch.
Regards,
Joseph
DEAR ZOE DOT DOT:
Yes, I still do lecture/speaking/platform appearances. Quite a few of them. Many take place between listings in RABBIT HOLE so you're not aware of them, perhaps. But I continue to be abysmally busy on the lecture circuit. All it takes is money.
Do not ask for specifics unless/until you have a fish on the hook, at which time an e-mail to Mr. Wyatt will net you a contact number. If that's what you had in mind.
Respectfully, Harlan Ellison
I'm gonna defend Frank on the Spider-Man issue. He has every right to call it corporate excrement, without having to forward suggestions for raising it out of the toilet bowl. That kind of take-no-prisoners polemic is what many of you find so endearing in the writings of HE. Numerous are the writings of Mr. Ellison that skewer sacred totems of pop culture, and often in language far more visceral and in tone far more "down from the mountaintop" than Frank's.
Frank,
"I do know the difference between high art and low culture".
I would say that’s easily open for debate.
Joseph has a point: there IS a condescending pungency to your posts. Invariably, you pose simplistic arguments in black and white with the smugness of a would-be savant - incredibly anal tripe - while missing the complexity of an issue entirely. If you’re going to play the role of a learned person you need to be a better actor. Debaters can’t afford to have tunnel vision.
Exempli gratia: if the Spider-Man film - one with plenty of problems to be sure - is such corporate excrement what, by your astute, discerning eye, would raise it out of the toilet bowel? How ‘bout all the other films of its genre? They’re ALL corporate. Most of the movies YOU like are corporate. Here, however, they did something new even if they didn’t take it far enough (and the script gets too loose with coincidences and so on). The main character loses out; those who are close to him either die or lead broken lives, largely due to HIS actions. That's new turf for this genre. Tobey McGuire and Willem Dafoe brought some breadth to the film’s uneven exposition. I don't care about this movie as a "romp"; I care that they brought a deeper component to the material.
The film COULD have done remarkable things with its elements and it didn’t. But it still breaks the one-dimensional mold of superhero movies before it. You don’t have to like it but to attribute your evaluation to your "high aesthetic sense" (about as high as John Ashcroft’s!) is delusional.
Joseph--re: people in Queens being Mets fans, as far as I can tell that's not really true. The boroughs don't divide up that way. My dad, for instance, grew up in Brooklyn during the heyday of the Dodgers/Yankees rivalry. Despite growing up in Bath Beach, he has always been a dyed in the wool Yankees fan. Good taste overcomes geography.
Bermanator
Frank,
Couple of things...
Where did the Vidal statements come from?
And what the hell are you talking about?? Are you doing to us what you're doing to those poor bastards on Nugent's site? That's gotta be it. You're posting to them with some of our comments like you sometimes cut and paste some sappy sonovabitch's comments from that site to this board. That can be the only logical reason you say some of the things you say. You need to read more of Faisal's posts and get a feel for what an intelligent response would be for someone with your political position.
Example: "Our leaders frankly hate actual freedom; unless that freedom is for rich people and other elites".
Hate to disillusion you, but the so-called Founding Fathers didn't want anyone to run the government but the rich people and other elites and this country was not founded with the intent of having the "people's" voice heard.
Another example: "Joseph, noone (sic) defends freedom more than me."
Really? And how do you defend freedom, Frank? Posting to this site? How do you know that a "lurker" out there isn't donning a cape and mask and protecting our freedom. I'm sure you're doing your best, Frank, but I haven't seen anything from CNN or Znet with the great things Frank Church has done to protect freedom more than anyone else.
By the way, Vidal wasn't listed as an essayist for the 9/11 book, but there was only a partial list on the Hawthorne website. Some good names out there and it appears there may actually be some varied viewpoints presented.
Hey all - Busy week last week, busy week this coming week. Finals, finals, essays, independent study follow-ups, and, yes, more finals. Then, to cap it all off, FAMILY! Augh! Family flying into town this week for the graduation/commissioning, so you understand why I'm scarce.
Quick question, that's probably answerable elsewhere but y'all are the knowledgeable ones: does HE do public appearances/readings still? I looked on the schedule but the most recent one is from last year, I think. Just curious...
Oh! and just finished "The World According to Garp" by John Irving - what a riot, what a tearjerker, and what an adventure. Enjoyed it muchly, especially how the book seemed to echo the character's (Jenny Fields, Garp, etc) views and opinions - very parallel, if that's the right word.
Enough! Back to American Lit studying!
--Truly Dotty these days,
--Zoë Rose
Joseph: When I watch Spider-man again, I'll pay better attention to how the 'When you attack...' line is delivered. I think the entirety of the line is delivered while the camera's on a few of the people on the bridge. It just seemed a bit odd.
I did keep waiting for Spider=man to Tick-like punch through a surface when he landed on it...
I believe the production designer behind the 4-colour 'look' of Dick Tracy just died, but I'm probably getting the film designation wrong for him. His efforts actually won an Oscar, I think.
Jon
JON: I'm uncertain about the 'you attack one of us, you attack all of us' line too. But I think it was in the original script before Sep. 11. I've read Peter David's novelization of the movie, and the very same scene is in there as well. Now, I'm making the assumption that the writer doing the novelization receives the 'final draft' in it's relatively raw form so that he/she can get the book to print right before the film is released. Nevertheless, both the scene and the dialogue seem superfluous, leaving room for suspicious. But since it doesn't have hardly any effect on the total film, I don't let it bug me.
I actually prefer BATMAN RETURNS over BATMAN. It seems far more 'Burton' than the first one, for a reason I can't quite put my finger on.
I pray Doctor Octopus is in the second SPIDER-MAN. Otherwise I'd only accept Harry Osborn as the Green Goblin. (James Franco was better than most critics are giving him credit for.)
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
P.S. Just saw WHITE HEAT. Top of the world, ma.
I just got