Friday, July 18, 2008
Also
Buffy wants to be J.R. I mean, if they're not going to take this movie version of Dallas seriously anyway, why not, right?
|
Labels: TV
Lil' hobby
George Maxwell knows better than science. Whereas Kelly, I assume, read the New Yorker article that pointed out that criminals cannot, in fact, see in the dark and need some light by which to do their business.
Also, Jason's raising the idea of a local ban on plastic bags at the ABH blog. My immediate reaction was negative, as I expect many people's will be. I get plastic when I go to the grocery store. They're easy to carry, cheaper to manufacture, and you can turn them into awesome playgrounds. You'd certainly have to plan ahead to take your reusable bags with you if you're a once-weekly grocery shopper like me. That said, planning ahead can be done. And the reusable bags are both easier to carry than paper bags and roomier than plastic ones. Plus, I already plan ahead to go to the store in the first place. I never go on a whim, and I always make a list. Basically, I don't think the idea of banning (or at least charging for) plastic bags is necessarily a terrible one. I know that, over the past year, I've tried to avoid getting them whenever I'm only buying a few items, seeing it as wasteful, and that Ikea's charging extra for them certainly works as a dissuasive device. Whether that Flash presentation is flawed or not, it might be an idea at least worth entertaining.
|
Also, Jason's raising the idea of a local ban on plastic bags at the ABH blog. My immediate reaction was negative, as I expect many people's will be. I get plastic when I go to the grocery store. They're easy to carry, cheaper to manufacture, and you can turn them into awesome playgrounds. You'd certainly have to plan ahead to take your reusable bags with you if you're a once-weekly grocery shopper like me. That said, planning ahead can be done. And the reusable bags are both easier to carry than paper bags and roomier than plastic ones. Plus, I already plan ahead to go to the store in the first place. I never go on a whim, and I always make a list. Basically, I don't think the idea of banning (or at least charging for) plastic bags is necessarily a terrible one. I know that, over the past year, I've tried to avoid getting them whenever I'm only buying a few items, seeing it as wasteful, and that Ikea's charging extra for them certainly works as a dissuasive device. Whether that Flash presentation is flawed or not, it might be an idea at least worth entertaining.
Listy
I guess I meant to talk about Entertainment Weekly's list of "new classics" books (1983-2008) earlier, but it slipped my mind or maybe I just didn't feel like getting het up about stuff at the time. Well, fine. Let's go. The problem with making a list like this is that it automatically (or almost) looks idiotic when compared with other lists drawing on a larger span of time. I mean, one kind of list has Socrates on it, and the other has Bridget Jones's Diary, which, not that I didn't enjoy the latter--Helen Fielding is a clever and quick writer--but it's a beach read. A lot of these are, even the ones that seem to qualify as "serious literature."
Here are the ones that I've read, complete with their number ranking and perhaps some commentary:
2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, J.K. Rowling (2000) [Um. Significant? But hardly, you know...]
7. Maus, Art Spiegelman (1986/1991) [7 might be high, but it might not]
10. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Haruki Murakami (1997) [I still sort of hate this book, to the extent that we sold our copy]
13. Watchmen, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (1986-87) [13, on the other hand, is high]
15. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Dave Eggers (2000) [Well, I guess you have to. But maybe not this high.]
16. The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood (1986)
18. Rabbit at Rest, John Updike (1990) [I expect because Rabbit Is Rich came out in 1981, and they wanted the series in there somewhere.]
19. On Beauty, Zadie Smith (2005) [It's not better.]
20. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding (1998)
21. On Writing, Stephen King (2000)
22. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Junot Díaz (2007) [No. I liked it, but it is not the 22nd best book of the past 25 years.]
25. The Joy Luck Club, Amy Tan (1989) [Ugh.]
28. Naked, David Sedaris (1997)
31. The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien (1990) [This should be much closer to the top ten, if not in it]
37. Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi (2003)
38. Birds of America, Lorrie Moore (1998)
40. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman (1995-2000) [Cheating!]
50. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen (2001)
53. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Michael Chabon (2000)
54. Jimmy Corrigan, Chris Ware (2000)
61. Money, Martin Amis (1985) [Oh, gosh. I can't remember if I've read this one. He's a fine writer, but it blends together after a while.]
63. Pastoralia, George Saunders (2000)
65. The Giver, Lois Lowry (1993)
66. A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, David Foster Wallace (1997) [And here find the small explosion. Because you might want to note what is not on this list. Not even, like, included but below a standard middle-school text or a bunch of best-selling nonsense. The almost without question best book of the past twenty-five years has been snubbed, albeit in favor of a wonderful, wonderful nonfiction collection by the same author. Not that that nonfiction collection doesn't contain important musings on tons of stuff, but it's not quite the same. It is, however, shorter.]
68. Fun Home, Alison Bechdel (2006)
75. Cathedral, Raymond Carver (1983) [Well, maybe most of the stories in it?]
79. The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell (2000) [Likewise with this, subbing in "essays" for "stories"]
84. Holes, Louis Sachar (1998)
88. High Fidelity, Nick Hornby (1995)
So, for example, The Da Vinci Code is not appearing on this page because I haven't read it, but, seriously, should it be appearing on the list? And, if you're going to put it on there but at 96 and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on there at 2, it just seems like a rather wide disparity between the two, even if, no doubt, Rowling can outwrite Brown. It's nice to see comic books on the list, too, and they've picked good ones. I even understand the need for Watchmen, although it's not my favorite. I understand why a lot of things are on the list, and some of them are good, and the whole project is difficult at very least, but, you know, I hope they got letters about the pussiness of that one big omission.
|
Here are the ones that I've read, complete with their number ranking and perhaps some commentary:
2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, J.K. Rowling (2000) [Um. Significant? But hardly, you know...]
7. Maus, Art Spiegelman (1986/1991) [7 might be high, but it might not]
10. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Haruki Murakami (1997) [I still sort of hate this book, to the extent that we sold our copy]
13. Watchmen, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (1986-87) [13, on the other hand, is high]
15. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Dave Eggers (2000) [Well, I guess you have to. But maybe not this high.]
16. The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood (1986)
18. Rabbit at Rest, John Updike (1990) [I expect because Rabbit Is Rich came out in 1981, and they wanted the series in there somewhere.]
19. On Beauty, Zadie Smith (2005) [It's not better.]
20. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding (1998)
21. On Writing, Stephen King (2000)
22. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Junot Díaz (2007) [No. I liked it, but it is not the 22nd best book of the past 25 years.]
25. The Joy Luck Club, Amy Tan (1989) [Ugh.]
28. Naked, David Sedaris (1997)
31. The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien (1990) [This should be much closer to the top ten, if not in it]
37. Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi (2003)
38. Birds of America, Lorrie Moore (1998)
40. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman (1995-2000) [Cheating!]
50. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen (2001)
53. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Michael Chabon (2000)
54. Jimmy Corrigan, Chris Ware (2000)
61. Money, Martin Amis (1985) [Oh, gosh. I can't remember if I've read this one. He's a fine writer, but it blends together after a while.]
63. Pastoralia, George Saunders (2000)
65. The Giver, Lois Lowry (1993)
66. A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, David Foster Wallace (1997) [And here find the small explosion. Because you might want to note what is not on this list. Not even, like, included but below a standard middle-school text or a bunch of best-selling nonsense. The almost without question best book of the past twenty-five years has been snubbed, albeit in favor of a wonderful, wonderful nonfiction collection by the same author. Not that that nonfiction collection doesn't contain important musings on tons of stuff, but it's not quite the same. It is, however, shorter.]
68. Fun Home, Alison Bechdel (2006)
75. Cathedral, Raymond Carver (1983) [Well, maybe most of the stories in it?]
79. The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell (2000) [Likewise with this, subbing in "essays" for "stories"]
84. Holes, Louis Sachar (1998)
88. High Fidelity, Nick Hornby (1995)
So, for example, The Da Vinci Code is not appearing on this page because I haven't read it, but, seriously, should it be appearing on the list? And, if you're going to put it on there but at 96 and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on there at 2, it just seems like a rather wide disparity between the two, even if, no doubt, Rowling can outwrite Brown. It's nice to see comic books on the list, too, and they've picked good ones. I even understand the need for Watchmen, although it's not my favorite. I understand why a lot of things are on the list, and some of them are good, and the whole project is difficult at very least, but, you know, I hope they got letters about the pussiness of that one big omission.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Oh, god, snooze-a-rama
Seriously, Madge. My mom wears this outfit all the time when she's hanging out with Iggy Pop and JT. I mean, Boxer-Dominatrix-B-Boy is sooooo two years ago.
Labels: New York Times
Enough already
I'm not saying I haven't laughed at your mock motivational posters. Some of them are quite funny, perhaps especially the sports ones. But the form has been abandoned for a mere cosmetic resemblance. If your poster contains nothing inspirational to begin with, no word or phrase that could theoretically appear on a real poster to motivate someone, then what is the point of adopting the form? Yes, I know. Black background + image + word/phrase + explanation of the connection between the previous two now equals funny, but let me just get Académie française on your asses. Some things eventually become funny apart from their original context or meaning, but there is nothing inherently funny about this form other than as a parody. It's become just a new container for the same old nonsense. Putting your movie reference in this form does not make it any funnier than just making that movie reference in the first place (i.e., not funny, in either case). Limits. Rules. Balance. These things matter even when it comes to humor, lest we find ourselves adrift in a sea of "reference = funny." Who wants that? Not me.
Labels: comedy theory, webbernets
Life lessons
Less to say of late because, well, we have been spending most of our time painting, which doesn't lead to illuminating intellectual revelations on the whole. Anyway, here's a lesson: never paint your hallway orange. It will take four coats to get it satisfactorily covered in the first place, and you will, no matter how careful you are, hit the trim here and there. Then, when you decide months and months later that it was a poor idea in the first place if you ever hope to sell your house because, let's face it, most people run in the other direction from orange, it will take four more coats of white to cover that sucker back up. I wonder by how much we have increased the thickness of the walls of our home.
|
Labels: home ownership
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Movie Diary
Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs: Amusing and silly and with, really, tons of good jokes, but not as coalescent (new word?) as the TV show or the previous movie. That is, there's a plot strand over here and a couple over here, and you think they're going to braid more than they do. They connect, but they don't come together in a beautiful, symmetrical creation or anything. It's sort of like a longer but slightly less good episode of the show that doesn't provide a whole lot to say. Um, good voice work.
|
Labels: movies
Publications
Grub Notes hits up what was Bischero (apparently, according to my editors there, it has a name, but that name's not on the sign or the menus or the window) and Lindsey's Culinary Market.
Um, and some PR firm sent me the collaboration between Willie Nelson and Wynton Marsalis that isn't really my speed, but I still reviewed it. You should buy it for your dad or something.
|
Um, and some PR firm sent me the collaboration between Willie Nelson and Wynton Marsalis that isn't really my speed, but I still reviewed it. You should buy it for your dad or something.
Read
A little more Calvino, from a story called "Meiosis":
|
So finally the encounter of the pasts which can never take place in the present of those who believe they are meeting does take place in the form of the past of him who comes afterward and who cannot live that encounter in his own present. We believe we're going toward our marriage, but it is still the marriage of the fathers and the mothers which is celebrated through our expectation and our desire. What seems to us our happiness is perhaps only the happiness of the others' story which ends just where we thought ours began.No, the title's not a metaphor. That section of three stories goes: "Mitosis," "Meiosis," "Death." The first and last are about the innovation of their subjects, while the middle one is about the eternal process.
And it's pointless for us to run, Priscilla, to meet each other and follow each other: the past disposes of us with blind indifference, and once it has moved those fragments of itself and of us, it doesn't bother afterward how we spend them. We were only the preparation, the envelope, for the encounter of pasts which happens through us but which is already part of another story, the story of the afterward: the encounters always take place before and after us, and in them the elements of the new, forbidden to us, are active: chance, risk, improbability.
This is how we live, not free, surrounded by freedom, driven, acted on by this constant wave which is the combination of the possible cases and which passes through those points of space and time in which the rose of the pasts is joined to the rose of the futures.
Labels: books
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Oh shit, satire
I don't think I can really put it better than Gawker.
Yes, what if it had been elsewhere? But it wasn't elsewhere. It was on the cover of the New Yorker. And if, what, 25% of the population already believes Barry dresses like this in his time off camera, will this cover, if perceived incorrectly, really recruit more into voting for McCain? It is always, of course, a mistake to believe the public is other than exceptionally stupid, but I try to keep making that mistake anyway.
Also, in a fight between the New Yorker and the Barack Obama campaign, I'm picking the magazine that has shaped my life. Sorry, dudes.
|
Yes, what if it had been elsewhere? But it wasn't elsewhere. It was on the cover of the New Yorker. And if, what, 25% of the population already believes Barry dresses like this in his time off camera, will this cover, if perceived incorrectly, really recruit more into voting for McCain? It is always, of course, a mistake to believe the public is other than exceptionally stupid, but I try to keep making that mistake anyway.
Also, in a fight between the New Yorker and the Barack Obama campaign, I'm picking the magazine that has shaped my life. Sorry, dudes.
Labels: New Yorker
Movie Diary
Style Wars: This had been in our queue for so long with a "very long wait" that we were really more determined to end up with it than to watch the movie. That is, it was more of a mission and less of a desire by this point. Fortunately, the movie had other ideas about how good it is and decided to entertain us despite ourselves. It's really a charming document of its time, full of angry white NY citizens complaining about what a crime graffiti is (and the occasional one with more enlightened opinions) and a bunch of extremely young, extremely geeky taggers talking about how and why and where, and also occasionally their parents, patience clearly tried. Everyone is so youthful, and their pants are so hilarious, not to mention their hair. And the connections among tagging and breakdancing and hip hop are beautifully observed, sans commentary. I have to assume Jonathan Lethem is a fan of this movie. It's got that PBS style, in that the people behind the camera are nonjudgmental and, while not perhaps the coolest, extremely enthusiastic about diving into the subject and talking to people on the street. This is much better than that other graffiti documentary we watched some months back, which was much more concerned with form and much less concerned with joy.
|
Labels: movies
FO
It might seem as though I haven't been knitting, but I was actually working on a top secret project, code name: BRAH, that has now come to fruition. DJ's been bugging me to knit him something forever, but you can't just, you know, whip up a hat or a scarf or whatnot for someone without thinking it through and fitting it to the recipient's personality and sense of style. A crown with his fantasy football name on it, knit in Georgia/Falcons colors, seemed about right. So this was my first felting project, and it sure did make me nervous, not to mention not exactly knowing the measurements desired, but it turned out pretty well, and it made me want to felt more stuff in the future. The yarn is Patons wool, I believe. The pattern came from Lion's website, and I modified it as needed to add more points and then, in the end, to cut some off, as it didn't shrink as much as I expected it to. I thought about hand-felting, rather than going with the washing machine, but the machine did a better job. Anyway, another finished thing. Others will be in the works once the yarn arrives and once I figure out what to do with the three skeins of beautiful, soft baby alpaca that Chris brought me from Peru. Something very very nice, clearly.
|
Labels: knitting
Gardening
Man, everything could not even be happier, what with all the rain that's been coming down, just the way it's supposed to. This thing, for example, which Caroline planted. I think it's a sweet pea? Anyway, it never showed signs of blooming before. It just sort of sat there on the ground with its little leaves. Now? Boom. Red.
And this is one of the newer beans I planted a while ago. White flowers as opposed to the purple ones on my original beans.
And this is one of the newer beans I planted a while ago. White flowers as opposed to the purple ones on my original beans.
This is just so you can get an idea of how damn many tomatoes I will have at some point. Seriously, can you even count them? The plant is just popping out with maters all over the place, to the extent that I wonder whether I should be tying up some of its limbs, but then they seem to be doing generally okay and not getting eaten.
This is my different tomato plant, a brandywine, I think. So freaking pretty.
The potatoes are blooming again, which means I do get a chance to snap a picture of the purple flowers this time around.
Monday, July 14, 2008
So there is a record
On the 14th of July, Michael Ziegler and Hillary Brown agreed to a bet of $100 that by the end of their lifetimes (assuming said lifetimes are long), there either will not (Zig) or decidedly still will (Hillary) be books in existence in their current, non-Kindle form. Zig thinks Kindle is the superior technology and will win out. Hillary, while recognizing the appeal of being able to look up a word any time or take the OED along on a trip, prefers the superior technology (in her mind) of ink on pulpwood, being that it is cheap, requires no start-up costs, can be dropped in the bathtub without too much remorse and carried around with ease for the most part, and, you know, smells good and stuff.
Someday, when I am in my nineties, I will be able to buy myself a Snickers bar with that money.
|
Someday, when I am in my nineties, I will be able to buy myself a Snickers bar with that money.
Labels: bets
Voting and suchlike
I really haven't devoted nearly as much time as my colleagues or as I should have to following the Democratic primary for Senate this year, and yet the day of voting arrives tomorrow. Dang. I better figure out who I'm going with.
This ABH article has links to all the candidates' pages. And so I've been poking around on them, trying to figure out what the differences are (largely stylistic).
Vernon Jones is out of the question. That much is obvious. I would have loved to have an African American candidate for the job, but one who voted for Bush is too bizarre to believe.
Dale Cardwell's take on the issues often creeps me out. e.g., "The brave men and women of our armed forces achieved their military objective; the removal of Saddam Hussein and the confirmation there were no weapons of mass destruction." Hmm. And: "We are already paying billions of dollars for universal health care; it happens every time an uninsured citizen makes a panicked visit to the emergency room. We can slash those costs by creating a system that's focused on preventative care." This kind of stuff worries me. I also find it difficult to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice in stance but personally disagrees with abortion. It's not that I doubt his sincerity in either case, but it makes me uncomfortable, and when candidates are close to begin with and might actually have to make decisions on such issues, it can be a deciding factor.
Jim Martin seems to be running more to the center, and his campaign is fairly focused on the elderly. That's not generally a terrible strategy for winning elections, but it's also not really where my vote will be won. For example: "Protecting seniors also means making sure age discrimination laws are enforced, and that the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Attorney General are prepared to act when unscrupulous sellers try to defraud consumers and investors." I'm not saying I don't agree, but it's a question of priorities. If you're looking for the guy who might have the best chance against Chambliss, which is rarely to never what I base my vote on, Martin seems like a good choice.
So that leaves Knight and Lanier, who are the two most liberal fellas running. Lanier's rhetoric is excellent. On immigration, for example:
On the other hand, Knight is less blunt but equally skilled. You can't say, "increasing access to family planning and comprehensive age appropriate sex education," without making my heart flutter a little. Likewise for this: "Rand Knight believes no child should be left behind, but that means creating policy that will increase funding to the schools and teachers that need it." And his positions on energy independence and green industry seem better educated (he does have that degree in the field) than those of his opponents. It's not just rhetoric about green-collar jobs. It's positions like this one: "Development planning must be locally integrated into the values of conservation, alongside programs that financially encourage folks to live sustainably within their own regions. Communities that feel ownership in their future will be empowered to define their desired outcomes and sustainable use of their resources." That could just be talk, of course, but you tend to figure someone doesn't go get a degree in something because he's uninterested in it. But I'm not nuts about his raising the idea of price gouging as responsible for gas prices, as opposed to pointing out that increased gas prices encourage conservation.
So I'm wavering. Talk to me.
|
This ABH article has links to all the candidates' pages. And so I've been poking around on them, trying to figure out what the differences are (largely stylistic).
Vernon Jones is out of the question. That much is obvious. I would have loved to have an African American candidate for the job, but one who voted for Bush is too bizarre to believe.
Dale Cardwell's take on the issues often creeps me out. e.g., "The brave men and women of our armed forces achieved their military objective; the removal of Saddam Hussein and the confirmation there were no weapons of mass destruction." Hmm. And: "We are already paying billions of dollars for universal health care; it happens every time an uninsured citizen makes a panicked visit to the emergency room. We can slash those costs by creating a system that's focused on preventative care." This kind of stuff worries me. I also find it difficult to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice in stance but personally disagrees with abortion. It's not that I doubt his sincerity in either case, but it makes me uncomfortable, and when candidates are close to begin with and might actually have to make decisions on such issues, it can be a deciding factor.
Jim Martin seems to be running more to the center, and his campaign is fairly focused on the elderly. That's not generally a terrible strategy for winning elections, but it's also not really where my vote will be won. For example: "Protecting seniors also means making sure age discrimination laws are enforced, and that the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Attorney General are prepared to act when unscrupulous sellers try to defraud consumers and investors." I'm not saying I don't agree, but it's a question of priorities. If you're looking for the guy who might have the best chance against Chambliss, which is rarely to never what I base my vote on, Martin seems like a good choice.
So that leaves Knight and Lanier, who are the two most liberal fellas running. Lanier's rhetoric is excellent. On immigration, for example:
America is a nation of immigrants. It is also a nation of laws. One may not abuse the other if we are to have a rational and enforceable immigration policy that reflects America values and recognizes both our security and national interests. The United States rightfully and legally admits more immigrants each year than all other nations on Earth combined. Immigrants help drive our economic growth, enrich our communities, serve in our armed forces, and give meaning to the American Dream.And on the Fair Tax: "This national sales tax is a contortion wrapped in conflict and gimmicks that result in middle class Americans paying a higher share of the tax burden than the wealthy. It is not for serious consideration." He even mentions net neutrality, an issue for nerds if there ever were one.
This issue, however, has become infected with bad ideas, bad motives, lack of respect for the law, xenophobia, and pandering politicians. We need to secure our borders and ports, but we don't need the type of walls we've spent decades trying to bring down. If you are here without a current visa or green card, you have broken the law, no matter if you came from Malaysia or Mexico. If you knowingly employ someone who is here without documentation or fail to comply with other employment laws on wages and taxes, you have broken the law, no matter if you believe your business depends on scarce or low-wage labor. If you view immigrants as “invaders” or bad for America, or you just resent others of different cultures, you need to search your soul and your patriotism.
On the other hand, Knight is less blunt but equally skilled. You can't say, "increasing access to family planning and comprehensive age appropriate sex education," without making my heart flutter a little. Likewise for this: "Rand Knight believes no child should be left behind, but that means creating policy that will increase funding to the schools and teachers that need it." And his positions on energy independence and green industry seem better educated (he does have that degree in the field) than those of his opponents. It's not just rhetoric about green-collar jobs. It's positions like this one: "Development planning must be locally integrated into the values of conservation, alongside programs that financially encourage folks to live sustainably within their own regions. Communities that feel ownership in their future will be empowered to define their desired outcomes and sustainable use of their resources." That could just be talk, of course, but you tend to figure someone doesn't go get a degree in something because he's uninterested in it. But I'm not nuts about his raising the idea of price gouging as responsible for gas prices, as opposed to pointing out that increased gas prices encourage conservation.
So I'm wavering. Talk to me.
Labels: Georgia politics
Lil' hobby
Here's the difference, Mr. Moss. While it's true that you can stab someone with a steak knife, it's a lot harder to stab a crowd of people with one. Unless you're some kind of amazing knife ninja.
Also, while it's true that the most recent census numbers on Athens shouldn't be unequivocal cause for celebration, I'm sure that one can tie them to the fact that property values here haven't dropped the way they have elsewhere. Which can be a positive thing or a negative thing, depending on your situation, but, considering the specific places in which they continue to rise (Boulevard, Normaltown, other in-town neighborhoods) and the robust pace of home sales in those areas, it seems likely that the people moving in are at least partially exactly those young professionals the paper discusses.
|
Also, while it's true that the most recent census numbers on Athens shouldn't be unequivocal cause for celebration, I'm sure that one can tie them to the fact that property values here haven't dropped the way they have elsewhere. Which can be a positive thing or a negative thing, depending on your situation, but, considering the specific places in which they continue to rise (Boulevard, Normaltown, other in-town neighborhoods) and the robust pace of home sales in those areas, it seems likely that the people moving in are at least partially exactly those young professionals the paper discusses.
Movie Diary
1) There Will Be Blood: A difficult movie to love, and in the end, I didn't, but I do like thinking about it and talking about it. I also wouldn't say it's P.T. Anderson's best so far. That still goes to Punch Drunk Love, which, I suppose, could be a different version of this movie. If Daniel Plainview had just met the right girl... It is beautifully and interestingly shot--consider, for example, the shots framed just over Plainview's left shoulder and containing part of his hat at the top, which are certainly something different but not necessarily showy. And there are amazing moments of intensity. Each time someone is pulverized while working on the drilling. The explosion, of course. H.W. setting the bedroom on fire. These bits are thrilling because you don't know where they're going or what they mean. There is a feeling of the largeness and indifference of the world in them, and, in contrast, Plainview's will, which struggles against it. But in the end, all the wonderful dualities that are set up, the characterizations and acting (mostly good; perhaps too much in that last scene), the complicated meditations on family, and more add up to a handful of scattered scenes rather than a complete composition. I read, after the fact, that Anderson shot scenes in numerous locations to see which he liked best, and while I can respect some desire to see how things turn out before you start really tinkering with them, don't that and the knowledge that he allowed his actors to improvise suggest a mind without a fully formed creation waiting to be born? Anderson's looseness can be his strength, but it can also be his weakness, and I ended up mystified by the movie, and not really in a good way. Sure, No Country for Old Men--to go to the film to which There Will Be Blood seemed set up to rival throughout last year--has an ending open to interpretation, but I understood that movie. This one, I don't understand and, in a fundamental way, don't like. It's not about the U.S. greed for oil. It's not really about capitalism. It's a character portrait, and not an illuminating one. Plainview clearly has a deep desire for family and yet a need to push everyone away at the same time, a set of standards for behavior and loyalty so high that he destroys those who violate it, as well as himself. But if I am to spend 2.5 hours with such an unpleasant asshole, I need more in return for my doing so.
2) Hellboy II: The Golden Army: Quite disappointing and yet still better than most superhero movies, even if it resembles The Mummy and co. too much. As I said, right after the movie, I am entirely sick of digital creations roaring at the camera. It's loud and annoying and cliched and, honestly, did it ever scare anyone over the age of five to begin with? It happens at least twice in this movie, which is doubly irritating, and I had assumed Del Toro would never revert to such obvious nonsense. There is also great clunkiness in the plot, which raises the specter of some sort of difficulties between humans and non-humans and then neglects to do more than mention it, a couple of times. Attention, writers: if you're going to put a theme in there, don't pussy out. This also happens with the environmental theme, which is explored slightly more, but not in a way that might make anyone in the audience uncomfortable. And, please, I do understand that if you're going to include a horrible munchy little creature that loves to eat teeth then you're probably going to have it eat a couple of people's teeth, but could you make it less crystal clear that some dudes in the scene are only there to be eaten? I mean, they're not actually wearing red shirts, but it's very close. All that said, there are some lovely bits, mostly the parts when no one is fighting anyone, as with some of the interactions in the troll market or Hellboy and Abe getting smashed on Tecate and talking about women. And there's no question it is a major step up from vomit puddles like The Fantastic Four and an improvement on the first movie. It just squanders some of its potential. (Also, what's up with the John Landis reference in the background?)
3) WALL-E: This, on the other hand, is nearly perfect. If not for the slight difficulty of memory recovery at the end--something that could have been written around with a little more trouble--it probably would be entirely so. It's an important movie that is also a joy: graceful, funny, gifted in its delicacy with the heartstring tugs, and inspirational. Who doesn't want to get off his/her ass more after watching it? Or plant something? Perhaps it's just my new role as a gardener, but the magic of something growing and the way it illustrates the workings of the planet on a small scale are certainly alive to me and evoked by the movie. Also, the jokes are pointed, nearly as much as those of Idiocracy in places. The audience may not have laughed so much when the captain needs help opening a book, but owie. Also, the end credit sequence, using the evolution of art to demonstrate the evolution of civilization, is a wonder. It's a beautiful movie through and through.
|
2) Hellboy II: The Golden Army: Quite disappointing and yet still better than most superhero movies, even if it resembles The Mummy and co. too much. As I said, right after the movie, I am entirely sick of digital creations roaring at the camera. It's loud and annoying and cliched and, honestly, did it ever scare anyone over the age of five to begin with? It happens at least twice in this movie, which is doubly irritating, and I had assumed Del Toro would never revert to such obvious nonsense. There is also great clunkiness in the plot, which raises the specter of some sort of difficulties between humans and non-humans and then neglects to do more than mention it, a couple of times. Attention, writers: if you're going to put a theme in there, don't pussy out. This also happens with the environmental theme, which is explored slightly more, but not in a way that might make anyone in the audience uncomfortable. And, please, I do understand that if you're going to include a horrible munchy little creature that loves to eat teeth then you're probably going to have it eat a couple of people's teeth, but could you make it less crystal clear that some dudes in the scene are only there to be eaten? I mean, they're not actually wearing red shirts, but it's very close. All that said, there are some lovely bits, mostly the parts when no one is fighting anyone, as with some of the interactions in the troll market or Hellboy and Abe getting smashed on Tecate and talking about women. And there's no question it is a major step up from vomit puddles like The Fantastic Four and an improvement on the first movie. It just squanders some of its potential. (Also, what's up with the John Landis reference in the background?)
3) WALL-E: This, on the other hand, is nearly perfect. If not for the slight difficulty of memory recovery at the end--something that could have been written around with a little more trouble--it probably would be entirely so. It's an important movie that is also a joy: graceful, funny, gifted in its delicacy with the heartstring tugs, and inspirational. Who doesn't want to get off his/her ass more after watching it? Or plant something? Perhaps it's just my new role as a gardener, but the magic of something growing and the way it illustrates the workings of the planet on a small scale are certainly alive to me and evoked by the movie. Also, the jokes are pointed, nearly as much as those of Idiocracy in places. The audience may not have laughed so much when the captain needs help opening a book, but owie. Also, the end credit sequence, using the evolution of art to demonstrate the evolution of civilization, is a wonder. It's a beautiful movie through and through.
Labels: movies
Friday, July 11, 2008
Viddy
Oreo is shooting for that Mark Ryden market. Those people love cookies.
This song could be cut down by at least a minute, but it sounds like icicles. Like Bjork with the punching sucked out of her.
|
This song could be cut down by at least a minute, but it sounds like icicles. Like Bjork with the punching sucked out of her.
Movie Diary
Be Kind Rewind: A heartwarming tale of a neighborhood populated entirely by the mentally deficient who somehow manage to survive in this harsh and cruel world. Okay, so yes, it is as annoying as many people said, with brief flickers of charm. Clearly I was in for a series of irritations from the title, with its complete lack of punctuation, but I still didn't think Gondry would direct his actors to talk over and on top of one another or flub their lines. Apparently, suckiness is the new good. Because it's, I dunno, real or something. I'm not saying I'm not amused by their remakes or delighted by the solutions they find to special effects, but I'm also thrown that the entire neighborhood prefers fifteen minutes of crap and plot summary to a well-crafted Hollywood blockbuster. I'm guessing that a lot of movies could be improved by a reduction to fifteen minutes. The thing is that this might be one of them. It's one idea stretched like taffy to a passable 100 minutes, and the holes are quite visible. So their version of King Kong (1933) is better than the original, a classic that's lasted for generations? In fact, King Kong is exactly the kind of movie they shouldn't be remaking. It doesn't need improvement unless that improvement is through updated special effects, one of the few areas in which it has flaws, and, you know, someone tried to do that. I'm not the best person to be talking about this movie because I don't always care about the difference between real and artificial that Gondry seems to be addressing, but if you're not an artist and instead an art appreciator, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot in it for you. Maybe if we saw anything they added in their remakes the situation would be different. If Hoke turned around and clocked Daisy. If HAL triumphed in the end of 2001. But instead they just make crappier, shorter versions, and the fact that their neighborhood adores them proves either that their neighbors have a large appetite for kitsch or that they happen to live in a pocket of idiots.
|
Labels: movies
Lil' hobby
I was just talking about the issue of wages versus services the other day with a friend at lunch, and here it is coming up in OneAthens. The point is, while wages might be one answer, they're an answer that's much harder to make happen, given that state law prohibits living wage legislation and while pressure from the community can do a little to make independent businesses think about raising wages, a lot of them are feeling plenty of financial difficulties too, meaning that they're rather less likely to pay their workers more. Some good has been achieved in the area. UGA, for example, while it hasn't been perfect ("temporary" workers are still in a bind), has significantly raised the lowest salaries it pays. You can argue that the folks at the top got raises too, and I'm sure they did, but at least the folks at the bottom weren't left out. It's been an excellent change in policy. Okay, so. Wages. The thing is that it's much harder to raise wages than it is to increase services, and both of them can leave you with more money in your pocket, albeit with less flexibility in the latter case.
|
"The way you alleviate poverty is give people income," Mathis said. "Child care is great, but if I have enough income, I'll obtain my own child care. Transportation is needed, but if I have enough income, I'll obtain my own transportation."She's right, yes, and services isn't necessarily the most efficient way of helping people out, but it can also make sure that money's being spent on the right things, on goals that will improve someone's life (nanny state, yes, I know). It's also, honestly, one of the few directions in which we can move. I'd love to see a massively redistributive income tax policy, but in a Republican state it seems pretty darn unlikely, even in our little blue county, so in the meantime, rebuilding and expanding the social safety net seems the way to go.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Just go
I pay almost all the major taxes, and I’m also part of a local program in my town where we pay experimental taxes to see if we get mad. There’s a tax on those who throw away too much homemade food (they’re like, “Just cook better, and then you’ll eat more of it”), and there is also a tax on guys who smoke regular tobacco from a bong in public solely to be provocative.
|
Labels: comics
Read
I'm working on Italo Calvino's t zero in addition to all these comic books (psst: I'm reading it because there's a story in it about comics to some extent, or at least a story that uses comics as a device). It's a sequel of sorts to Cosmicomics, and it's got a very similar tone: short stories about things one doesn't ordinarily make short stories about, such as the origin of birds, what it must feel like to be a single-celled organism about to undergo mitosis, why once we lived in the sea and now we carry inside us a wet and salty environment. They're abstract, and then sometimes they're not. Some are frustratingly obscure and slow. Others are quick and beautiful. Anyway, here's a little bit from a story called "Crystals" that struck me as especially nice:
|
Of course, if he chooses, a person can also take it into his head to find an order in the stars, the galaxies, an order in the lighted windows of the empty skyscrapers where between nine and midnight the cleaning women wax the floors of the offices. Rationalize, that's the big task: rationalize if you don't want everything to come apart. Tonight we're dining in town, in a restaurant on the terrace of a twenty-fourth floor. It's a business dinner: there are six of us; there is also Dorothy, and the wife of Dick Bemberg. I eat some oysters, I look at a star that's called (if I have the right one) Betelgeuse. We make conversation: we husbands talk about production; the ladies, about consumption. Anyway, seeing the firmament is difficult: the lights of Manhattan spread out a halo that becomes mixed with the luminosity of the sky.It's not so much the impact of the whole paragraph that caught my attention as its isolated little bits. Light pollution. Oysters. Odd punctuation. That lovely sentence about the sexes different topics of discussion. The focus on rationalization as essentially a big game but an important one. This is a jumpy story, but it's very Calvino in its combination of consideration of the workings of the universe and extreme lightness.
Labels: books
Lil' hobby
This editorial on the Clarke County school system's missed chance at a grant due to its single grant writer's busyness employed writing other grants is mostly sensible. That is, it offers good reasons the deadline was missed. But then this paragraph:
|
All that said, however, there still is some reason for Clarke County residents to see the failure to make the deadline for the federal grant application as an indication that their public school system is at least somewhat hobbled by a bureaucracy that couldn't respond in a timely fashion to an opportunity that dovetailed perfectly with the community's effort to address its 31 percent poverty rate.Do you have to get the word "bureaucracy" in there? I'm not saying it's not one, but isn't the real problem that there's only one grant writer? That sounds like a lack of resources, not the excess of resources and regulations that's the hallmark of a bureaucracy. They weren't entirely tied up in red tape, and, although complications resulting from governmental deadlines/regulations may have contributed to the inability to apply for that grant in time, the fact that the district seems to lack the manpower is not a bureaucratic issue. It's an issue stemming from the fact that people spend a lot of time bitching about and cutting funds for administrators in the school system. See? They don't just take up space and push pencils.
Movie Diary
Vantage Point: Oh, yeah. It's definitely Rashomon-esque. If Rashomon sucked ass. Incompetently made and annoying, with dumb performances. It's sort of like 24 if they managed to create no tension. The thing with 24 is that it works by making you constantly nervous that it will go just where you think it's going to, such as by killing off most of the major characters (they've gone that route) or having Jack Bauer show up with someone's head in a duffel bag. It works within our knowing what is acceptable to put on TV due to FCC regulations and what is not, and it makes us think, often, that it's heading toward what is not, fines be damned. If you're going to do terror porn--and I'm not necessarily opposed to movies that exploit the current, freaky state of things to give me a thrill--you really need not to wuss out. Only person we've met in the movie dies in the explosion, and she just has a little trickle of blood on her face. Her make-up's not even mussed. Dennis Quaid and Forest Whitaker get a little dusty. Come on! Take an arm off, filmmakers. Don't you want to make your audience jittery? Apparently not. There's also a car chase that is cut all to hell and includes the revelation, perhaps, that Dennis Quaid has a third, invisible arm out of frame with which he operates the stick shift on his vehicle. And the plot is just kind of sucky, a fact you can't figure out at first due to the film's desire to keep large chunks of it from you. It almost works, but there's no there there. We'd be okay with one character's perspective if the editor didn't cut away the second that character said, "oh my god."
|
Labels: movies
