Archive for June 30, 2009

Tuesday Trivia: All quotes

June 30, 2009 / / 16 comments

1. I was surprised to learn that lesbians accessorized.
Solved by Andygrrrl (comment #2).

2. And I’m thinking, Christ, I got 45 minutes to show this guy how loving, smart, supportive, funny, independent, and sexy I am. And all I can really think about is how I’d rather be sitting home watching the baseball game.
HINT: The actress speaking this line is better known as part of a group of singing siblings.
Solved by Daven.

3. Is the colonel’s underwear a matter of national security?
Solved by Daven (comment #6).

4. Hey look, Mister, we serve hard drinks in here for men who want to get drunk fast, and we don’t need any characters around to give the joint atmosphere.
Solved by Hazel (comment #1).

5. You know me. I’m the same as you. It’s two in the morning and I don’t know nobody.
Solved by Ken (comment #4).

6. My voice is raised in emphasis. It’s a perfectly legitimate use of volume.
HINT: Opened in Chicago with a role played by Christopher Walken; that role was taken over by Ron Silver on Broadway and played by Kevin Spacey in the film. None of them, however, spoke this particular line.
Solved by Melville.

7. You know, there was a man that lived here once that had a prize-fighting kangaroo.
HINT: This haunting and confusing film was originally conceived as a television series.
Solved by Hazel (comment # whatever; I don’t have comment numbers anymore).

Eh, I dunno

June 30, 2009 / / 13 comments

I like the colors, it’s modern and easy to use, my old theme didn’t have the latest features, but it seems kind of bare. What do you think?

Monday Movie Two-fer: The Italian Job (1969) and (2003)

June 29, 2009 / / Comments Off on Monday Movie Two-fer: The Italian Job (1969) and (2003)

The Italian Job (1969) 6/10
Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) is a thief just out of jail. His former partner has a big heist planned, but is murdered before he can meet with Charlie. With his late partner’s plans, Charlie puts together a complex gold heist in Italy.

There’s a lot of fun ideas here, although the whole thing is kind of thin. Probably the biggest delight, other than the famous Mini-Coopers, is Noel Coward as Mr. Bridger. Bridger is a crook of such power and influence, that he happily stays in jail because he runs the place; every prisoner and every guard does his bidding. Charlie needs Bridger’s help with financing, and it’s charming and silly to see the prisoners acting, not like they’re in jail, but like they have an alternate lifestyle/cult with Bridger as their charismatic leader.

Michael Caine does his best with a thinly-written character. We know little about Charlie except that he’s a ladies man and a crook, and that he’s in charge of an enormously complex scheme. I suspect that the character work that Caine does wasn’t really scripted, but something that he found between the lines. Unfortunately, what he found was a bitchy and unpleasant guy; anxious about details and constantly rude out of nervousness. I found a lot of my natural pleasure in watching a heist drained away.

The overall purpose of the plan, what gets Bridger on board, is to bring down the Italian lira out of English national pride. Not very exciting to an American 40 years later. In addition, a lot of the planning involves talking people into things. Not enough action and not enough fun, despite the movie’s fame.

The Italian Job (2003) 7/10
Charlie Croker (Mark Wahlberg) pulls off a gold heist in Italy with the help of his mentor, John Bridger (Donald Sutherland). But one of the crew is a traitor who murders Bridger, leaves the rest for dead, and keeps the gold for himself. A year later, Charlie gets the gang back together, and persuades Bridger’s daughter (Charlize Theron) to help them rob the gold back.

Mark Wahlberg is no Michael Caine. Let’s just accept that and move on. This movie corrects a lot of the flaws of the original: The murder at the beginning is integral and motivating instead of an aside. The revenge plot is more engaging than economics. The characters are in general more likable. The only woman is there for something other than sex.

There’s a good sense of humor here. Jason Statham and Seth Green are definitely fun, although the whole thing doesn’t have that sense of play that the original had.

Still, it works better, it’s a smart heist (two, actually) without too many stupidities, and it’s entertaining from beginning to end. I ended up surprised at several points, not sure how things would play out. Which is so important in a heist film. I also really enjoyed that the get-things-by-being-sexy character was male—Handsome Rob, played by Statham. Usually when there’s a token woman in the gang she’s the designated seducer, but Theron is cool and collected as Stella Bridger, an expert in safes and locks who normally stays on the right side of the law.

The budding romance fumbled towards by Whalberg and Theron is a waste of time, but very little time is spent on it, so that’s okay.

Michael Jackson

June 26, 2009 / / 13 comments

I have listened to about six obituaries, and seen about two hundred Facebook postings. I have seen extraordinary YouTube videos; reminders of a great talent. I’ve heard “King of Pop” and “great talent” and “genius” and “savvy investments.” And I’ve seen maybe two or three oblique references to “controversy” or being “troubled” from individuals (not on the news). Even a feminist blog referred gently to “shortcomings.”

On So You Think You Can Dance last night, Nigel Lithgow celebrated Jackson as an artist; given the nature of the show, that’s appropriate, but then he said something about “a great life.” No. A great art, yes, but not a great life.

Can we please, and I know I’m interrupting the great national outpouring of grief, but can we please remember that this man was almost certainly a child molester? Of multiple children on multiple occasions? Can we please just notice that?

Can we remember: This man was tried for this crime, and afterwards the jurors said they really felt like he’d done it, but that the prosecution hadn’t proved their case and they had no choice but to acquit despite feeling he was guilty.

I get that people are complicated. I’m not a great believer in (you should pardon the expression) black or white. Everyone has good and bad within them. But how is it that in this barrage of information I am the first person I’ve heard mention this kind of important thing?

You want an answer? It’s because this culture has already decided it’s not important. If we just ignore child abuse and pretend it’s not there, minimize it when forced to confront it and put it back undercover as soon as possible, everything runs so much more smoothly. If we just forget the little part about the children suffering horrifically, everything is so much better. If we forget that part.

I don’t want to forget that part.

But hey, this isn’t exceptional. It’s not like we usually condemn child molesters but Michael was so special that in this one case we’re giving it a pass. This is the normal functioning of Western patriarchy. This is how it’s done.

I don’t know that I have a lot more to say about that. I don’t think I need to amass evidence, here, that we ignore child abuse wherever possible. I don’t think I need to point to the many newspaper articles, for example, about men in their forties “having sex with” twelve year old nieces or whatever. Not abusing, raping, attacking, assaulting, or molesting, mind you; “having sex.” That’s even prettier than “controversy.”

I’m not interested in prettying it up. I’m not here to make nice. An extraordinarily talented child molester died yesterday. Some people are not grieving the loss of talent. Let’s remember them, too.

What the firewalk meant

June 25, 2009 / / Comments Off on What the firewalk meant

Zsuzsa talked a lot about the meaning of the firewalk being a release from fear. Once you’ve walked on fire you can do anything; that sort of thing. Fear wasn’t on top of my list, though.

Someone asked about what it would mean, how to know what it would mean to them. And I asked, what if I don’t want it to “mean” something? Like, if I want it to live in a place in me beyond words that can condense into “meaning.”

Which is a lot of what I got, in truth, and I think where my deep sobbing came from — that place beyond meaning within.

A lot of what it meant for me was the move past cynicism. I tend to sneer at a lot of things. Which is, hello? I’m a witch! So why make fun of crystals? Why make fun of anything without first giving it a fair hearing? But I do, I do. I sneer and am cynical and think a lot of things that people do are silly. And doesn’t that hold me back? Doesn’t that leech into my magic? Well, certainly a thing I laughed at was firewalking, but now I’m not laughing, and maybe that changes me.

I used to long, long for visible manifestation of magic. Blue light shooting from my athame. Levitation. All that fancy stuff. And at some point I gave up that wish. I got reasonable. Sane. Witchcraft worked without all that Hollywood stuff. But firewalking? Pretty frickin visible.

But a big thing was about releasing trauma related to fire. I realized, after I signed up for this, that I had a major trauma about this. Arthur walked on a Starwood firepit when he was nine years old. He thought it was cool ash, but there were hot coals underneath the ash, and he absolutely trashed his feet. Trashed. Spent the summer in a wheelchair. We were, in fact, investigated by Child Protective Services for possibly abusing him (our doctor told CPS he thought we were forcibly initiating children by making them walk on fire — nice!). So I knew I had that trauma, and I didn’t know how that would play out with this ritual.

But I’d utterly forgotten an earlier trauma. About fifteen years ago, there was an incident involving a person at a festival jumping into a fire. Deranged, drug-and-alcohol addled leap into the fire, pulled back by two people, fought them off, jumped back in. And this was someone I knew fairly well and liked, a stable and gentle person before and after (he ultimately recovered from his burns), not some dingbat crazy person. I was standing no more than six feet from him when it happened, and I gave an eyewitness report to the police. It was, let me say, a bad night. Worse for him than for me. Bad night all around.

And the day after the firewalk, I suddenly remembered that, and was full of feeling. And I though, how did I forget that and not think about it around the hot coals? How did I do that?

Beyond words. Beyond “meaning.” But the meaning is there.

Television Trivia Solutions

June 23, 2009 / / Comments Off on Television Trivia Solutions

All wrapped up!

» Read more..

Tuesday Trivia: Television

June 23, 2009 / / 14 comments

…because I feel like it and it’s my blog.

1. There is now a statue on the spot of the hat-tossing location of this sitcom.
Solved by George (comment #4).

2. In an episode of this show, a character visited a city that was the setting of a film musical that actor also starred in. The actor, in character, sang a line of his own from the musical, and this was included in the show.
Solved by Melville (comment #1).

3. “I’ve had a really fucked-up life and I need sarcasm to hide how ridiculously miserable I am!”
Solved by Evn (comment #14).

4. The apartment building that this show was set in is at 328 Chauncey Street in Brooklyn, New York. This was the star’s childhood address.
Solved by Melville (comment #1).

5. “I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.”
Solved by George (comment #5).

6. The number 47 pops up many times on this show; on computer screens, in serial numbers, in dates, etc. This in-joke was started by a show writer/co-producer because when he was a graduate student, a math professor joked that all numbers are equal to 47.
Solved by Hazel (comment #9).

7. This was the first series to feature a “final episode” in which all the plot lines were resolved and all questions answered.
Solved by Melville (comment #1).

Fire. Walk.

June 22, 2009 / / 5 comments

I haven’t seen any movies this week, and, while I could review movies I’ve seen but not reviewed, I’d rather not. I just got back from Wic-Can Fest and talking about movies is just not where I am today.

I want to talk about firewalking.

I cannot say for sure why I signed up for the firewalk. I saw it was offered, and I guess that I wanted to make a chink in my own armor. I am such a cynic, after all. I mean, I’m a witch, and a psychic, and I know this isn’t other people’s definition of cynicism, but within the context of the magical community I am high on the snark side of things, and have great disdain for people I perceive as too credulous. And firewalking? That’s crazy. That’s impossible.

Somewhere in there I thought “But.”

But they’re offering it here. But people here have done it and report being blown away by it. But what have I got to lose (burnt feet!)? But what if I’m wrong? Well, my friend assured me that you don’t have to walk the fire if you attend, so I signed up.

» Read more..

Wednesday Trivia?

June 17, 2009 / / 15 comments

All day yesterday, I kept telling myself to post trivia. But darn, I was busy.

So, I’m going out of town. Feel free to play round robin all week:

Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

Monday Movie Review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

June 15, 2009 / / Comments Off on Monday Movie Review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009) 8/10
A group of hijackers led by Ryder (John Travolta), take a subway car hostage and demand ten million dollars for their release. On the other side of the microphone is transit dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), struggling to keep the situation from becoming deadly. Directed by Tony Scott.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 opens like a fast shot of whiskey, all quick cutting and smart story-telling and brutal music. The situation is introduced with economy and enthusiasm; HERE is the MTA and HERE is the subway being boarded and HERE are the hijackers.

In general, the pace remains excellent, moving briskly, telling the story clearly, letting us breathe and laugh when we need to, but then pushing us right back under water. Pelham 1 2 3 shares with the original movie a gritty, unadorned feel for New York City, and a cast of real characters without any prettiness or Botox in sight. The on-location feel isn’t a gratuitous show of cleverness, it’s fully integrated into the film. This story needs these streets; it is particular and specific about subways, motormen, old tunnels, new technology, and rats.

The story takes us a little into Garber’s life, a little into meeting the mayor (James Gandolfini, reminding me why I love him), and a lot into Ryder, who is angry, maybe crazy, and definitely dangerous. Ryder is the real thing: A bad guy all the way. Not for one moment is the audience led to sympathize with him or believe that he is cool. As he says so very often in the R-rated film, he is a motherfucker. And I appreciate the actors and script and director for keeping him bad, because I don’t think the alternative is “misunderstood,” in general, the alternative tends to be “cool” or “gangsta.” And really, this crime is just too nasty to be treated like outlaw chic.

Tony Scott is a journeyman director; he does good work and is not in the business of making masterpieces. Like every movie of his that I’ve seen, this one is flawed. There are moments that are too corny, close-ups that over-emphasize points that could have been delicately revealed, and an overall heavy-handedness. But I am quibbling. Pelham 1 2 3 works, it is exactly what it’s meant to be: A thrill-ride crime story that races like an out-of-control subway.

The acting is, well hello, did you see the cast? There was a small moment when I realized how good Travolta was, and a funny moment when I realized how deft Gandolfini was, and then I realized I never had a thought like that about Denzel, because Denzel is so good, you never see him acting. Not for one moment. And by the way, John Turturro and Luis Guzmán are in this movie too, and when those guys are “by the way,” well, that’s quite a cast. Did I mention any women? No. That’s because there aren’t any. Some hostages, a conductor who leaves early on, Garber’s wife for the duration of a phone call, I think a cop ina background shot, and that’s it. I really enjoyed this movie, but I am sick of that shit.

« Older Entries  
zeeReputation Theme