Tonight I watched a classic from the notable early Hollywood director Ernst Lubitsch : "Trouble In Paradise" (1932), starring Miriam Hopkins, Herbert Marshall and Kay Francis. I discovered this movie in a library search for Francis after seeing her in "When The Daltons Rode" a couple weeks ago. That movie was a Western. In "Trouble In Paradise" she plays a role - that of a perfume magnate - more in tune with what she was known for, high style and glamour, and dressing to the hilt.
The disc was released on Criterion, and features an introduction by Peter Bogdanovich. He says that Lubitsch was responsible for creating the whole "sophisticated and glamorous" image of Hollywood in the 30s, and he also said that "Trouble In Paradise" can be considered the first romantic comedy of the sound era. I didn't know any of that, though I knew of Lubitsch because of "Ninotchka" and other famous films. He was known for having "The Lubitsch Touch" a light and very smooth directorial technique that used a lot of facial expression, body language, repartee and risque suggestion to build romance in his plots. He was also renowned for his seamless edits, that make his pictures easy on the eye. I learned these things from Mr. Bogdanovich as well.
The plot in this movie begins in a hotel in Venice. Herbert Marshall is a suave thief posing as "Baron" von So-And-So. He targets the wealthy at their parties, where he blends in as a peer. But before any of that can happen in the movie, he first meets Miriam Hopkins, an American gal in Italy on her own after a divorce. She acts the sophisticate role too, but during their first encounter, they come to find out that each has ripped the other off - unnoticed - of wallet, and handbag, and cufflinks, and necklace....and other things too.
Hopkins and Marshall are a couple of Master Criminals, and they are meant for each other. Naturally, they fall in love. Soon thereafter, Marshall attends a party in the hotel for the ultra wealthy Kay Francis, heir to a perfume fortune. He targets her for theft, but in the process, she hires him to become her secretary........and the plot takes a second romantic turn. And Miriam Hopkins becomes increasingly pissed at Herbert Marshall's infatuation and obedience to Kay Francis.
Of course this means that things must come to a head, and a showdown must ensue.
All of this happens, but the real attraction of the movie is in the romantic interaction between the players, and the way the crooks insinuate themselves into the lives of Kay Francis and her business manager, played by early era stalwart C. Aubrey Smith.
The movie was released in 1932 and is therefore pre-code. I was surprised at some of the dialogue - yowza! - and I won't tell you more except to say that Hollywood really had it down in the early 30s. The scripts could be very risque, and yet still clean and romantic and not crude. Watch and see for yourself the type of High Style that made Hollywood famous.
5 Stars and Two Big Thumbs Up for "Trouble In Paradise", and now I will look for other Lubitsch films and more from Kay Francis..
Elizabeth, if you are reading, I wanted to mention that I am glad you posted one of your photos from the fashion shoot two days ago. I would've mentioned it last night, but I got lost in my Utopia concert review. The building you used as your location reminds me of a Brutalist building that we had right here in Northridge, which was located almost across the street from where I live. I've mentioned it before - it was called the Northridge Medical Arts Building - and it is still there on the corner of Reseda Boulevard and Plummer Street. Except that.....horrors!.....it was covered over in a terrible Miami Vice looking facade in 1996, after it suffered damage in the '94 Earthquake.
As you pointed out in your FB post for your photograph, Brutalist buildings look stark. Yes, they do, but as you know they also stand out as architectural masterpieces. Your photos show this (in addition to the very professional fashion aspect!)
Our Medical Arts Building was designed by Richard Neutra. Somewhere under the gross stucco facade, his original concrete design remains. Maybe one day they will restore it again. :):)
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Utopia
Tonight I saw Todd Rundgren's Utopia in concert at The Wiltern. If you saw my post on FB a couple of hours ago, then you know my reaction.
What's that? You say that it's the same review I give to every concert?
Well, that may be true, although you needn't be so blunt as to point it out to me. Good grief.
Would you rather I forced myself to make a speech about a show that rendered me as mute as Sally Hawkins? Of course you wouldn't, and you also are liking how I was able to wedge in a reference to "Shape Of Water", the subject of last night's blog, so all is well now. Argument over. :)
But I really was left speechless, honest, and that happens with regularity these days, when I am seeing bands and musicians who have decades of live performance under their belts. It's weird, though, because some bands do not get better with age (and I will mention no names), but then others get so good that my larynx stops working after I see them.
You already know that Todd Rundgren is no mere musical genius, but one of the great artists in the history of rock n' roll. For me, he is one of my Top Ten. He can do it all : write, sing, play guitar like a you know what, lead a band. He is one of the top record producers of all time. Gee whiz, you know? The guy is a Musical Titan.
I discovered Todd at 13 years of age, when he was still primarily a solo artist. But then, in 1974, he formed Utopia, the progressive rock band he wanted to use to showcase his virtuoso musical abilities. He was only 26 at the time, and had already put out two of the greatest records ever made, "Todd" and "A Wizard A True Star". But those were solo records. Utopia was gonna be a band.
The self-titled debut came out in '74, and it was American Progressive Rock on the level of the great Prog bands from England. Later on, as the lineup was boiled down to a four piece, Utopia shortened the songs and added Todd's pop sensibilities into the mix, but retained the original progressive basis.
In this incarnation, which featured Kasim Sulton on Bass, Roger Powell on Keys and Willie Wilcox on Drums, the band made eight albums. I was only on board for the first three, because by the early 80s, Van Halen and Rush had taken over my life (and Judas Priest, and Rainbow, and Motorhead....et al).
But also, after "Adventures In Utopia", their last classic album in 1979, the final 5 releases from the band were not as good as the perfection of the first four. Maybe now if I went back and listened to them.....for the record, in the 2018 version of Utopia, Roger Powell has been replaced by the keyboardist/singer Gil Assayas, who is an A Plus in every respect.
But at any rate, I mean : listen folks. You have got to be joking me.
Todd Rundgren is about to turn 70 in three weeks. He has been doing this for 50 years!
He has put out a couple dozen albums, solo and with Utopia, at least 6 of them classic, many very good, and on down the line. If you just count single songs that are great, he's got a million.
Utopia played about 20 of 'em tonight, maybe a few more. They played for 2 1/2 hours (20 minutes intermission). The show started at 7:10 pm, which was weird because who ever heard of a concert starting that early? I was lucky to get there on time. But I did get there, and I had an awesome seat - front row balcony, right in the center.
Todd is 70, and he has the energy of a 35 year old, and the power of Todd. Grimsley was not speechless, he had a one word review : "Unreal".
The two-set concert combined the complex progressive rock from the debut album and "RA", their masterpiece, with the pop-prog of their most popular albums. Those songs featured three and four part harmonies that were as good as anything this side of the Beach Boys, but different and more powerful.
The first set was very loud, and in fact one of the loudest concerts I've heard since Iron Maiden. Weird, huh? I guess because of all that sound, of all the instruments playing such heavily detailed music, and then all the vocals too. It was a tidal wave of sound.
The second set was refined a little bit, toned down just a touch in volume. That was the pop set, with all the perfect vocals.
I am blown completely off the map, and I don't know what to say about all of these 70 year old performers.
I think it's because we are all part of the Wonder Bread Generation. I don't know what else to say.
In the past, 70 year olds were either dead or they looked like Fred Mertz from "I Love Lucy".
Now they play 2 1/2 hour shows and leave you speechless.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxxo :):)
What's that? You say that it's the same review I give to every concert?
Well, that may be true, although you needn't be so blunt as to point it out to me. Good grief.
Would you rather I forced myself to make a speech about a show that rendered me as mute as Sally Hawkins? Of course you wouldn't, and you also are liking how I was able to wedge in a reference to "Shape Of Water", the subject of last night's blog, so all is well now. Argument over. :)
But I really was left speechless, honest, and that happens with regularity these days, when I am seeing bands and musicians who have decades of live performance under their belts. It's weird, though, because some bands do not get better with age (and I will mention no names), but then others get so good that my larynx stops working after I see them.
You already know that Todd Rundgren is no mere musical genius, but one of the great artists in the history of rock n' roll. For me, he is one of my Top Ten. He can do it all : write, sing, play guitar like a you know what, lead a band. He is one of the top record producers of all time. Gee whiz, you know? The guy is a Musical Titan.
I discovered Todd at 13 years of age, when he was still primarily a solo artist. But then, in 1974, he formed Utopia, the progressive rock band he wanted to use to showcase his virtuoso musical abilities. He was only 26 at the time, and had already put out two of the greatest records ever made, "Todd" and "A Wizard A True Star". But those were solo records. Utopia was gonna be a band.
The self-titled debut came out in '74, and it was American Progressive Rock on the level of the great Prog bands from England. Later on, as the lineup was boiled down to a four piece, Utopia shortened the songs and added Todd's pop sensibilities into the mix, but retained the original progressive basis.
In this incarnation, which featured Kasim Sulton on Bass, Roger Powell on Keys and Willie Wilcox on Drums, the band made eight albums. I was only on board for the first three, because by the early 80s, Van Halen and Rush had taken over my life (and Judas Priest, and Rainbow, and Motorhead....et al).
But also, after "Adventures In Utopia", their last classic album in 1979, the final 5 releases from the band were not as good as the perfection of the first four. Maybe now if I went back and listened to them.....for the record, in the 2018 version of Utopia, Roger Powell has been replaced by the keyboardist/singer Gil Assayas, who is an A Plus in every respect.
But at any rate, I mean : listen folks. You have got to be joking me.
Todd Rundgren is about to turn 70 in three weeks. He has been doing this for 50 years!
He has put out a couple dozen albums, solo and with Utopia, at least 6 of them classic, many very good, and on down the line. If you just count single songs that are great, he's got a million.
Utopia played about 20 of 'em tonight, maybe a few more. They played for 2 1/2 hours (20 minutes intermission). The show started at 7:10 pm, which was weird because who ever heard of a concert starting that early? I was lucky to get there on time. But I did get there, and I had an awesome seat - front row balcony, right in the center.
Todd is 70, and he has the energy of a 35 year old, and the power of Todd. Grimsley was not speechless, he had a one word review : "Unreal".
The two-set concert combined the complex progressive rock from the debut album and "RA", their masterpiece, with the pop-prog of their most popular albums. Those songs featured three and four part harmonies that were as good as anything this side of the Beach Boys, but different and more powerful.
The first set was very loud, and in fact one of the loudest concerts I've heard since Iron Maiden. Weird, huh? I guess because of all that sound, of all the instruments playing such heavily detailed music, and then all the vocals too. It was a tidal wave of sound.
The second set was refined a little bit, toned down just a touch in volume. That was the pop set, with all the perfect vocals.
I am blown completely off the map, and I don't know what to say about all of these 70 year old performers.
I think it's because we are all part of the Wonder Bread Generation. I don't know what else to say.
In the past, 70 year olds were either dead or they looked like Fred Mertz from "I Love Lucy".
Now they play 2 1/2 hour shows and leave you speechless.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxxo :):)
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
"The Shape Of Water" + Lake Balboa
Tonight I did watch a movie; I finally saw "The Shape Of Water", which you no doubt saw in the theater when it was first released. I may have mentioned that it always takes me a while to catch up on all the big movies of the previous year, the Academy Award winners and such, and that's because I don't go to the theater as much as I once did. "Shape Of Water" must have looked amazing on the big screen, and I really enjoyed it even on my old school non-flatscreen 27 inch TV set, but....
I'm not sure it was Best Picture material.
Now don't worry, because I'm not gonna go all curmudgeon on you. I thought it was a very good movie, and I loved the other Del Toro films that I've seen : "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Orphanage".
"Shape" has his trademark retro art direction, which I love. His attention to detail with the look of his films really puts you into a cultural time machine and takes you back to the period in which his movies take place, in this case 1963, a forward looking time in America. With Del Toro, you know you're gonna get a great looking film, and that it will be stylized to put you into his own fantasy world, which he has said comes from his own obsessions with the styles and pop culture objects of the past.
Assuming you have seen "The Shape Of Water", I will omit my usual plot description and just make a few observations. I think, basically, that it was a paean to "Creature From The Black Lagoon". I know that's an "obvious" observation, one which I think a few critics have made as well, and I agree. Del Toro loves old things, he loves retro culture, he loves monsters and comic books, all that stuff. In "Black Lagoon", the Creature is after Julie Adams, and of course it is the King Kong story, the Beauty and The Beast story. The Creature is "in love" with Adams. In "Creature From The Black Lagoon", though, the feeling is not mutual. That movie is a straight 1950s sci-fi horror film, with an undercurrent of social message. But for the most part, it is straightforward.
I think basically that Del Toro just took the main theme of "Black Lagoon" and tweaked it - made it entirely about outcast or marginalised people. Sally Hawkins is mute, Octavia Spencer is black, Richard Jenkins is gay. On the opposite side, Michael Shannon is tall, white, military and imposing...and evil.
So you have a sort of comic book story of discarded heroes who in 1963 would have all been marginalised and kept in their place, and so the Creature - made handsome in this movie - becomes their idol, and for Hawkins, her soulmate.
The story took a while to develop but really got going in the second hour. Probably 15 minutes could have been carefully extracted from the film, which would have made it move faster and lost nothing in the telling of the tale.
Sally Hawkins was very good in the lead, and I would've voted for her over Frances McDormand who won the Oscar for that horrible movie she was in. Michael Shannon is always good, though I'd like to see him play a sympathetic role one day.
Overall, a very good movie, total Guillermo Del Toro, but because his films are so stylised, in this case I did not get involved emotionally with the characters. The Creature did not resonate in that way, and so his relationship with Hawkins seemed flat. There was no "get out your hankies" moment, and I am a guy who will get out my hankie if I need to, so you can trust me in this regard.
So, to sum up, "The Shape Of Water" was a very good movie in that it looked great, put you in it's world, and was very entertaining. More or less it was a "good guys" vs. "bad guys" movie with an added ingredient of social outcasts from 1963, which created a sympathy for those characters, but not enough to overcome the stylistic layer and cause you to feel those characters as real people.
Two thumbs up because it was entertaining. Best Picture material? Maybe in a year when "Three Billboards" was also a contender. ///
This aft, I took Pearl to Lake Balboa. It was our first time there since last July 4th, and our first time without The Doberman Pinscher. I felt him walking right beside us anyhow, and I pushed Pearl around the lake, past the multitude of dog walkers, skaters and bike riders.
Elizabeth, I saw on your FB that your photos from the fashion shoot at the concrete Brutalism building have been published in HUF Magazine. Congratulations for that, and I hope everything else is going well. Hopefully, the FB thing will become unstuck one of these days......:):)
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I'm not sure it was Best Picture material.
Now don't worry, because I'm not gonna go all curmudgeon on you. I thought it was a very good movie, and I loved the other Del Toro films that I've seen : "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Orphanage".
"Shape" has his trademark retro art direction, which I love. His attention to detail with the look of his films really puts you into a cultural time machine and takes you back to the period in which his movies take place, in this case 1963, a forward looking time in America. With Del Toro, you know you're gonna get a great looking film, and that it will be stylized to put you into his own fantasy world, which he has said comes from his own obsessions with the styles and pop culture objects of the past.
Assuming you have seen "The Shape Of Water", I will omit my usual plot description and just make a few observations. I think, basically, that it was a paean to "Creature From The Black Lagoon". I know that's an "obvious" observation, one which I think a few critics have made as well, and I agree. Del Toro loves old things, he loves retro culture, he loves monsters and comic books, all that stuff. In "Black Lagoon", the Creature is after Julie Adams, and of course it is the King Kong story, the Beauty and The Beast story. The Creature is "in love" with Adams. In "Creature From The Black Lagoon", though, the feeling is not mutual. That movie is a straight 1950s sci-fi horror film, with an undercurrent of social message. But for the most part, it is straightforward.
I think basically that Del Toro just took the main theme of "Black Lagoon" and tweaked it - made it entirely about outcast or marginalised people. Sally Hawkins is mute, Octavia Spencer is black, Richard Jenkins is gay. On the opposite side, Michael Shannon is tall, white, military and imposing...and evil.
So you have a sort of comic book story of discarded heroes who in 1963 would have all been marginalised and kept in their place, and so the Creature - made handsome in this movie - becomes their idol, and for Hawkins, her soulmate.
The story took a while to develop but really got going in the second hour. Probably 15 minutes could have been carefully extracted from the film, which would have made it move faster and lost nothing in the telling of the tale.
Sally Hawkins was very good in the lead, and I would've voted for her over Frances McDormand who won the Oscar for that horrible movie she was in. Michael Shannon is always good, though I'd like to see him play a sympathetic role one day.
Overall, a very good movie, total Guillermo Del Toro, but because his films are so stylised, in this case I did not get involved emotionally with the characters. The Creature did not resonate in that way, and so his relationship with Hawkins seemed flat. There was no "get out your hankies" moment, and I am a guy who will get out my hankie if I need to, so you can trust me in this regard.
So, to sum up, "The Shape Of Water" was a very good movie in that it looked great, put you in it's world, and was very entertaining. More or less it was a "good guys" vs. "bad guys" movie with an added ingredient of social outcasts from 1963, which created a sympathy for those characters, but not enough to overcome the stylistic layer and cause you to feel those characters as real people.
Two thumbs up because it was entertaining. Best Picture material? Maybe in a year when "Three Billboards" was also a contender. ///
This aft, I took Pearl to Lake Balboa. It was our first time there since last July 4th, and our first time without The Doberman Pinscher. I felt him walking right beside us anyhow, and I pushed Pearl around the lake, past the multitude of dog walkers, skaters and bike riders.
Elizabeth, I saw on your FB that your photos from the fashion shoot at the concrete Brutalism building have been published in HUF Magazine. Congratulations for that, and I hope everything else is going well. Hopefully, the FB thing will become unstuck one of these days......:):)
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, May 28, 2018
Listening To Byrds & Spiral Starecase + Another Important Paragraph from my CIA FOIA Response
Mega Super Duper Sunday Night Tired & back at Pearl's, settling in for another work cycle. I didn't watch a movie cause I was too sleepy to concentrate, and I also had some songs in my head that I wanted to study the vocal lines for, and also the chord progressions. One of my main radio stations in the car (besides KUSC) is 1260AM, the Oldies Station. They play The Byrds a lot, and I got "Mr. Tambourine Man" stuck in my head and wanted to learn the words and harmonies. It's fun when you hear a three part harmony, especially one that is perfectly blended, to try and isolate each vocal and see if you can sing it. It's easier for me on a Sunday since my voice is warmed up from choir, so I learned both Byrds hits, the other one being "Turn, Turn, Turn".
There is a song they play on 1260 that was a big hit on Top 40 radio in 1969. It's called "I Love You More Today Than Yesterday" and it's by a group called Spiral Starecase (and yes, the spelling of Starecase is correct). When I was a kid in the 60s, I had my transistor radio going 24/7, and i knew every song on the radio. I loved the Spiral Starecase song, with it's lively beat and soaring vocal, but I hadn't heard it in decades until recently, when I discovered 1260AM.
Here's what I need you to do. Youtube the song and give it a listen, even if it's not your type of music. It's actually a classic pop song and you may have even heard it before, but anyhow, listen to it one time all the way through.
Since I started singing in choir, I learned a lot about the technical aspects of music, stuff that I didn't know before except by intuition. I learned what tenor vocals are, for one thing, and when I listen to 1260AM, which plays nothing but pop music from the '60s, I came to realize that almost every single pop singer has a tenor voice, and not just that, but 95% of them have high tenor voices.
Those pop singers of the 1960s can sing!
But this guy from Spiral Starecase - I Googled him and his name is Pat Upton - he is the highest tenor of them all. Man, what a voice! Again, whether or not you like the music is one thing, but for me, as a choir singer who has a newfound appreciation for the technical aspects of singing, I am amazed at the notes Mr. Upton can hit on this song. Just when you think he's gone as high as he can go, he goes higher, and without resorting to falsetto. Every note he hits is full power.
Well anyway, there's your homework for tonight. ///
I will now give you some more information from my Freedom Of Information Act/Privacy Act response letter from the CIA, on which the background info was provided the other night, along with a few important sentences that featured two very important words. The excerpt I will give you now is from the paragraph that follows the one I posted the other night, which you can go back and reference if you wish. Here is the second paragraph :
"To the extent your request also seeks records that would reveal a classified association between the CIA and yourself, we can neither confirm nor deny having such records, pursuant to Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, as amended. If a classified association between you and the CIA were to exist, records revealing such a relationship would be properly classified and require continued safeguards against unauthorized disclosure. You may consider this finding a denial of this portion of your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3) and PA exemptions (j)(1) and (k)(1). Exemption (b)(3) pertains to information exempt from disclosure by statute. In this case, the relevant statutes are Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. 3507, as amended, and Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. 3024 (i)(1), as amended. I have enclosed an explanation of exemptions for your reference and retention".
That's all I know for tonight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
There is a song they play on 1260 that was a big hit on Top 40 radio in 1969. It's called "I Love You More Today Than Yesterday" and it's by a group called Spiral Starecase (and yes, the spelling of Starecase is correct). When I was a kid in the 60s, I had my transistor radio going 24/7, and i knew every song on the radio. I loved the Spiral Starecase song, with it's lively beat and soaring vocal, but I hadn't heard it in decades until recently, when I discovered 1260AM.
Here's what I need you to do. Youtube the song and give it a listen, even if it's not your type of music. It's actually a classic pop song and you may have even heard it before, but anyhow, listen to it one time all the way through.
Since I started singing in choir, I learned a lot about the technical aspects of music, stuff that I didn't know before except by intuition. I learned what tenor vocals are, for one thing, and when I listen to 1260AM, which plays nothing but pop music from the '60s, I came to realize that almost every single pop singer has a tenor voice, and not just that, but 95% of them have high tenor voices.
Those pop singers of the 1960s can sing!
But this guy from Spiral Starecase - I Googled him and his name is Pat Upton - he is the highest tenor of them all. Man, what a voice! Again, whether or not you like the music is one thing, but for me, as a choir singer who has a newfound appreciation for the technical aspects of singing, I am amazed at the notes Mr. Upton can hit on this song. Just when you think he's gone as high as he can go, he goes higher, and without resorting to falsetto. Every note he hits is full power.
Well anyway, there's your homework for tonight. ///
I will now give you some more information from my Freedom Of Information Act/Privacy Act response letter from the CIA, on which the background info was provided the other night, along with a few important sentences that featured two very important words. The excerpt I will give you now is from the paragraph that follows the one I posted the other night, which you can go back and reference if you wish. Here is the second paragraph :
"To the extent your request also seeks records that would reveal a classified association between the CIA and yourself, we can neither confirm nor deny having such records, pursuant to Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, as amended. If a classified association between you and the CIA were to exist, records revealing such a relationship would be properly classified and require continued safeguards against unauthorized disclosure. You may consider this finding a denial of this portion of your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3) and PA exemptions (j)(1) and (k)(1). Exemption (b)(3) pertains to information exempt from disclosure by statute. In this case, the relevant statutes are Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. 3507, as amended, and Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. 3024 (i)(1), as amended. I have enclosed an explanation of exemptions for your reference and retention".
That's all I know for tonight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, May 27, 2018
A Nice Hike Up The DeCampos Trail + Twin Peaks
Today was pretty cool. I slept in til almost noon - woo hoo! Man, does getting a good night's sleep ever make a difference. I rarely get eight hours sleep, so when I do I feel recharged. I hung around The Pad until 3:30 and then drove up to O'Melveny Park, intending a late afternoon hike but nothing major. When I got there, however the small parking lot was full. That has never happened to me before, but I suppose it was because of the holiday weekend. I didn't wanna hang around waiting for someone to leave, nor did I want to go back home because O'Melveny is a fair drive from my place. It would've felt like I'd driven all that way for nothing and wasted my day off, so, even though I hadn't planned for a strenuous hike, I drove a half mile down Sesnon Boulevard and turned up Neon Street (which probably should be all lit up with colorful gaseous tubes, but for some strange reason isn't).
At the end of Neon is a cul-de-sac that abuts the hillside, and it is there, just past someone's backyard, that the Mario DeCampos Trail begins. The DeCampos is the other trail - besides the longer, steeper O'Melveny Trail - that takes you to the top of Mission Point, the second highest mountain in the Valley.
I have written about all of these things before, and also about Mission Point very recently when I hiked up there in April via the hardcore O'Melveny Trail. That one is super steep in places, and a 5.4 mile roundtrip, and I described it as my All Time Hike. The DeCampos Trail, by comparison, is less steep overall and shorter, only 4.4 miles up and back. The DeCampos is no slouch though, and the first time I hiked it in blazing hot August 2014, it was pretty tough going, moreso than any hike I had done up to that time . Now, after a few times to the top it's more like, "well, I really wasn't planning on this today, but I'll persevere".
T'was a beautiful day, about 70 degrees with puffy clouds and sun. I brought my camera of course and took several pics, some of which I posted on Facebook. I was glad I wore a sweatshirt cause it was chilly at the top. Would've been better if it was chili. I passed a few folks going up, and a few mountain bikers too. I am always amazed at those guys because the climb is hard enough to do on foot. The bikers have to pedal furiously in first gear just to go slightly faster than the on foot hikers. I guess the thrill for them is in the descent, which I would not wanna do on a bike because I'd probably go off the cliff, haha.
I hung out at the top for a little while, taking pix, and then took my time going back down. It sure is nice to be able to take my time, sigh. Though I am grateful indeed for my job, and for every blessing...... :)
This eve I watched Episode 16 of "Twin Peaks". I hate to give a spoiler but I have to because I was so thrilled to see it happen. Close your eyes if you need to, but.......Agent Cooper regained his identity.
I needed to High Five somebody when this happened, and had anybody been here, I would've High Fived them.
That's how awesome it was. If you are a Twin Peaks fan and have seen the 2017 series, you will certainly understand.
Then I went for a nice quiet CSUN walk, to bring my total to six miles for the day. I love it when the campus is empty, right after graduation. It's funny, because I am not a hustle-bustle person. I love to exercise and be outside and do everything fast and think a million thoughts, but I also need open space and quiet, and no cars and no congested populace to do it in. In Summer, we temporarily lose 42,000 people here in Northridge, and it has an immediate calming effect.
See you in the morning and then again after church. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
At the end of Neon is a cul-de-sac that abuts the hillside, and it is there, just past someone's backyard, that the Mario DeCampos Trail begins. The DeCampos is the other trail - besides the longer, steeper O'Melveny Trail - that takes you to the top of Mission Point, the second highest mountain in the Valley.
I have written about all of these things before, and also about Mission Point very recently when I hiked up there in April via the hardcore O'Melveny Trail. That one is super steep in places, and a 5.4 mile roundtrip, and I described it as my All Time Hike. The DeCampos Trail, by comparison, is less steep overall and shorter, only 4.4 miles up and back. The DeCampos is no slouch though, and the first time I hiked it in blazing hot August 2014, it was pretty tough going, moreso than any hike I had done up to that time . Now, after a few times to the top it's more like, "well, I really wasn't planning on this today, but I'll persevere".
T'was a beautiful day, about 70 degrees with puffy clouds and sun. I brought my camera of course and took several pics, some of which I posted on Facebook. I was glad I wore a sweatshirt cause it was chilly at the top. Would've been better if it was chili. I passed a few folks going up, and a few mountain bikers too. I am always amazed at those guys because the climb is hard enough to do on foot. The bikers have to pedal furiously in first gear just to go slightly faster than the on foot hikers. I guess the thrill for them is in the descent, which I would not wanna do on a bike because I'd probably go off the cliff, haha.
I hung out at the top for a little while, taking pix, and then took my time going back down. It sure is nice to be able to take my time, sigh. Though I am grateful indeed for my job, and for every blessing...... :)
This eve I watched Episode 16 of "Twin Peaks". I hate to give a spoiler but I have to because I was so thrilled to see it happen. Close your eyes if you need to, but.......Agent Cooper regained his identity.
I needed to High Five somebody when this happened, and had anybody been here, I would've High Fived them.
That's how awesome it was. If you are a Twin Peaks fan and have seen the 2017 series, you will certainly understand.
Then I went for a nice quiet CSUN walk, to bring my total to six miles for the day. I love it when the campus is empty, right after graduation. It's funny, because I am not a hustle-bustle person. I love to exercise and be outside and do everything fast and think a million thoughts, but I also need open space and quiet, and no cars and no congested populace to do it in. In Summer, we temporarily lose 42,000 people here in Northridge, and it has an immediate calming effect.
See you in the morning and then again after church. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Saturday, May 26, 2018
At Home, Odds & Ends + Two Important Words From My CIA Response
Tonight I am writing from home, off work until Sunday morning. I don't have a movie to review because Grimsley came over, this time with a Jerry Seinfeld tape he wanted to show me. I like Jerry - who doesn't? - and his stand-up live act is very funny, so we had a good time. Unfortunately, with no movie to describe, I am left wondering what I can tell you, because as usual today was just an ordinary workday for me.
I don't wanna go on any tirades if I can avoid it, although I re-read some recent blogs in which I did go off, and they didn't seem too bad. I always think, when I have finished writing something opinionated, "man, I hope I didn't sound like a jerk". When I do write about something that bugs me, I never wanna come off as just a malcontent, because as I always take pains to point out, I am not like that. So I always try to make my tirades informative, and - because they are never planned, always spontaneous - I try to make them lively rather than cranky, like somebody talking off the top of his head rather than out his......
Well.......you know. :)
So let's see, what can I tell you?
I am listening to a lot of Frank Zappa lately. I've probably mentioned that a few times, but I just ordered yet another FZ album, the "Halloween '77" 3cd live set recorded in concert on that date, and I am super looking forward to seeing it in my mailbox.
I can't think of anything else to tell you, so I am going to give you a few sentences from the CIA response to my original FOIA request, in which I asked for any records pertaining to myself, referenced under my name. I sent my initial letter last October and I received their response near the end of that month.
After an introductory paragraph that acknowledges receipt of my letter, and then indicates that a search for the requested records was made, the FOIA Information and Privacy Coordinator of the CIA relates the following to me : "After conducting a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, we did not locate any responsive records that would reveal an openly acknowledged affiliation with the CIA".
Please read the quoted sentence very carefully. When I received this letter just before Halloween 2017 (forty years after the Zappa album was recorded), I opened the envelope expecting the usual brush off I have been given in every 1989 FOIA request to all the other agencies I've written to, including several times to the FBI (and one directly to Robert Mueller in 2014 before he was famous), and also to the NSA and the Air Force and others. With all the other responses, I always got a response that had a "form letter" feel. So when I got my response from the CIA, I was expecting more of the same.
But when I nervously scanned the opening paragraphs, two words stood out. Can you guess what those two words were?
Of course you can.
"Openly acknowledged".
Please go back and read the above sentence that is in quotations, and pay close attention to the wording of the entire sentence, but especially to the placement and context of those two words.
That is your homework for tonight. Tomorrow night I will give you some more information from the CIA response letter.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I don't wanna go on any tirades if I can avoid it, although I re-read some recent blogs in which I did go off, and they didn't seem too bad. I always think, when I have finished writing something opinionated, "man, I hope I didn't sound like a jerk". When I do write about something that bugs me, I never wanna come off as just a malcontent, because as I always take pains to point out, I am not like that. So I always try to make my tirades informative, and - because they are never planned, always spontaneous - I try to make them lively rather than cranky, like somebody talking off the top of his head rather than out his......
Well.......you know. :)
So let's see, what can I tell you?
I am listening to a lot of Frank Zappa lately. I've probably mentioned that a few times, but I just ordered yet another FZ album, the "Halloween '77" 3cd live set recorded in concert on that date, and I am super looking forward to seeing it in my mailbox.
I can't think of anything else to tell you, so I am going to give you a few sentences from the CIA response to my original FOIA request, in which I asked for any records pertaining to myself, referenced under my name. I sent my initial letter last October and I received their response near the end of that month.
After an introductory paragraph that acknowledges receipt of my letter, and then indicates that a search for the requested records was made, the FOIA Information and Privacy Coordinator of the CIA relates the following to me : "After conducting a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, we did not locate any responsive records that would reveal an openly acknowledged affiliation with the CIA".
Please read the quoted sentence very carefully. When I received this letter just before Halloween 2017 (forty years after the Zappa album was recorded), I opened the envelope expecting the usual brush off I have been given in every 1989 FOIA request to all the other agencies I've written to, including several times to the FBI (and one directly to Robert Mueller in 2014 before he was famous), and also to the NSA and the Air Force and others. With all the other responses, I always got a response that had a "form letter" feel. So when I got my response from the CIA, I was expecting more of the same.
But when I nervously scanned the opening paragraphs, two words stood out. Can you guess what those two words were?
Of course you can.
"Openly acknowledged".
Please go back and read the above sentence that is in quotations, and pay close attention to the wording of the entire sentence, but especially to the placement and context of those two words.
That is your homework for tonight. Tomorrow night I will give you some more information from the CIA response letter.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, May 25, 2018
"Texas Rangers Ride Again" + Review Derailed By Hegel Tangent
Tonight's movie was "Texas Rangers Ride Again" (1940), another oldie but goodie from my recently acquired Western 10-Pack. Unlike the first two films I reviewed from this set ("Daltons" and "Tomahawk"), this one has "B-Movie" written all over it. Now, that doesn't make it inferior. It was quite entertaining, actually. It's just that it has a more "seat of the pants" feel, like they were working on a tight budget. It has a "B-Movie" look and feel, whereas "Daltons" and "Tomahawk", which would now also be classified as B-Movies, actually looked like A-List material, whatever faults they may have had.
"Texas Rangers" is fun from the start, however, and it is in black and white, so I was hooked from the get-go even though the film began unexpectedly with a comedic sequence featuring character actor Akim Tamiroff as a "Si, Senor...Ay Chihuahua"! bumbling Mexican peasant stereotype. Again, as with last night's caricatures of Chinese people, I did not find Tamiroff's portrayal offensive, because it is not my place to do so. I'm caucasian, and I do not participate in fake Liberal Outrage, and you know that I don't like Far Left politics any more than I like Trump. Now, if a person of Mexican heritage found the character offensive, I would not argue. I would take the person's word for it and honor their opinion. But for me, the character is only a mild stereotype from the 1940s, played for laughs and in good fun. There are also white stereotypes in the film, of country bumpkins, again played as comic relief.
I mention all of this just as a disclaimer, even though I shouldn't bother because I don't believe in political correctness. Perhaps nowdays it would be inappropriate to include such a character in a movie, but this was 1940, a very different time, and again, the character is more a buffoon than a racial stereotype. And at the end of the film, he is a hero. So there you go.
Man......I have gotta stop getting political in my movie reviews. This is not stuff to get offended over, and I think most viewers would agree. I guess I became sensitive after watching "Song Of The South", and actually got upset that it was not available as an official release because of left wing political correctness.
I'm gonna divert from my review to talk about Hegel for a moment. Georg Hegel was a German philosopher of the late 17th century. I am reading, in a book about Skull & Bones at Yale by Antony Sutton, that Hegel created dialectical theory, the idea that human progress is only possible by conflict and resolution. I could go on a book-length tirade about Hegel, and I am glad Mr. Sutton did it for me, but to boil things down, Hegel believed in the German philosophical ideal of the Political State As God. In contrast, the Anglo Saxon ideal was of the Individual as having the God Given Right To Self Determination. Out of Hegel came Karl Marx and Communism on the Far Left, and Hitler and Fascism on the Far Right. In both cases, the State - meaning the government by dictatorship - determines the freedoms or lack thereof, of the individual under it's power.
In Anglo Saxon philosophy, under John Stuart Mill most recently, it is the Individual Right to human liberty that holds sway over any notion of "State", of which there is actually no such thing.
"State" is not an entity, only an agreement between the mass of people to be governed, according to Anglo philosophy. But in Hegelian philosophy, "State" is what the mass of people add up to. In Hegel, there is no such thing as the Individual, only members of the State. Humans are cogs in a machine to advance the goals of a faceless leadership that supposedly has their best interests in mind.
Yeah right. Ask Germany and The Soviet Union how that worked out for them. Germany was Far Right; Soviet Union was Far Left, but in reality they were the same thing, both systems based on Hegelian philosophy, that the State knows best.
So we see that, in America, both the far right and the far left subscribe to Hegelianism, which is groupthink.
Now, to take matters a step further, it really isn't groupthink. It is rather a handful of hidden people behind the scenes who choose the topics that are put forth in the media, and in academia, and these topics become groupthink because of the peer pressure of everyone who goes to college and everyone who watches the news.
This is how you are supposed to think. Choose a side, please.
And both sides are based on Hegel, and his philosophy of conflict equals synthesis equals progress.
What a Colossal A-Hole. ///
Anyway, as usual I apologise for the rant. I got way off topic, but the movie was very entertaining and involved a group a cattle rustlers led by a young Anthony Quinn who were scheming to rip off a wealthy ranch owner. But then The Texas Rangers got involved and saved the day. Ellen Drew provided the love interest, John Howard was the leading man.
See you in the morning. Think for yourself. You rule.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
"Texas Rangers" is fun from the start, however, and it is in black and white, so I was hooked from the get-go even though the film began unexpectedly with a comedic sequence featuring character actor Akim Tamiroff as a "Si, Senor...Ay Chihuahua"! bumbling Mexican peasant stereotype. Again, as with last night's caricatures of Chinese people, I did not find Tamiroff's portrayal offensive, because it is not my place to do so. I'm caucasian, and I do not participate in fake Liberal Outrage, and you know that I don't like Far Left politics any more than I like Trump. Now, if a person of Mexican heritage found the character offensive, I would not argue. I would take the person's word for it and honor their opinion. But for me, the character is only a mild stereotype from the 1940s, played for laughs and in good fun. There are also white stereotypes in the film, of country bumpkins, again played as comic relief.
I mention all of this just as a disclaimer, even though I shouldn't bother because I don't believe in political correctness. Perhaps nowdays it would be inappropriate to include such a character in a movie, but this was 1940, a very different time, and again, the character is more a buffoon than a racial stereotype. And at the end of the film, he is a hero. So there you go.
Man......I have gotta stop getting political in my movie reviews. This is not stuff to get offended over, and I think most viewers would agree. I guess I became sensitive after watching "Song Of The South", and actually got upset that it was not available as an official release because of left wing political correctness.
I'm gonna divert from my review to talk about Hegel for a moment. Georg Hegel was a German philosopher of the late 17th century. I am reading, in a book about Skull & Bones at Yale by Antony Sutton, that Hegel created dialectical theory, the idea that human progress is only possible by conflict and resolution. I could go on a book-length tirade about Hegel, and I am glad Mr. Sutton did it for me, but to boil things down, Hegel believed in the German philosophical ideal of the Political State As God. In contrast, the Anglo Saxon ideal was of the Individual as having the God Given Right To Self Determination. Out of Hegel came Karl Marx and Communism on the Far Left, and Hitler and Fascism on the Far Right. In both cases, the State - meaning the government by dictatorship - determines the freedoms or lack thereof, of the individual under it's power.
In Anglo Saxon philosophy, under John Stuart Mill most recently, it is the Individual Right to human liberty that holds sway over any notion of "State", of which there is actually no such thing.
"State" is not an entity, only an agreement between the mass of people to be governed, according to Anglo philosophy. But in Hegelian philosophy, "State" is what the mass of people add up to. In Hegel, there is no such thing as the Individual, only members of the State. Humans are cogs in a machine to advance the goals of a faceless leadership that supposedly has their best interests in mind.
Yeah right. Ask Germany and The Soviet Union how that worked out for them. Germany was Far Right; Soviet Union was Far Left, but in reality they were the same thing, both systems based on Hegelian philosophy, that the State knows best.
So we see that, in America, both the far right and the far left subscribe to Hegelianism, which is groupthink.
Now, to take matters a step further, it really isn't groupthink. It is rather a handful of hidden people behind the scenes who choose the topics that are put forth in the media, and in academia, and these topics become groupthink because of the peer pressure of everyone who goes to college and everyone who watches the news.
This is how you are supposed to think. Choose a side, please.
And both sides are based on Hegel, and his philosophy of conflict equals synthesis equals progress.
What a Colossal A-Hole. ///
Anyway, as usual I apologise for the rant. I got way off topic, but the movie was very entertaining and involved a group a cattle rustlers led by a young Anthony Quinn who were scheming to rip off a wealthy ranch owner. But then The Texas Rangers got involved and saved the day. Ellen Drew provided the love interest, John Howard was the leading man.
See you in the morning. Think for yourself. You rule.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, May 24, 2018
"The Mask Of Fu Manchu", a Creepy Classic + Hey SB!
Tonight's movie was "The Mask Of Fu Manchu" (1932), one of Boris Karloff's very early horror films. Man, this is one weird and creepy movie! Boris stars as the mad "Doctor" Fu Manchu (he has three PhDs he likes to brag about), who appears to be Chinese but speaks like Boris Karloff and was educated in England. Go figure. His name is descriptive - he has a Fu Manchu - so that much we can be certain of. But he is a supreme weirdo, and we'll get back to him in a moment.
At the beginning of the movie, an English Chief Inspector is calling upon a professor friend of his. The professor is an archaeologist, and the Inspector wants him to depart immediately for the Gobi Desert in China, in order to seek out the buried tomb of the legendary warrior Genghis Khan. The Inspector has information that an iconic sword and mask, both made of gold, were buried with Khan, and that these icons have great meaning in Chinese mythology. The Inspector has been told that Fu Manchu is seeking to find Kahn's long lost tomb so that he can recover the sword and mask, and thereby claim, to the superstitious populous, that he is the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan.
Holy Smokes, what a premise! This movie was pre-code, and would never get made today, with it's racial stereotyping, but the stereotyping is more or less innocuous. What is really played up, during the interludes in the journey to discover Khan's tomb, is the weird fetishes of Doctor Fu Manchu and his dominatrix-like daughter, played by a young Myrna Loy. They remain at their palace in China, which is created from glorious sets on MGM soundstages (hooray for MGM, my "alma mater"), and Fu Manchu has several different torture devices with which to employ upon his captives. His first victim is the archaeologist, who his flunkies, dressed as Egyptian Mummies, have captured in a museum. The archaeologist is put through The Bell Torture to get him to reveal the location of Khan's Tomb.
Meanwhile, the archaeologist's daughter and her boyfriend are on the hunt for the tomb as well, but then they hear of the kidnapping of her father, and they divert to the palace to rescue him. When they arrive, they are immediately shackled by Fu Manchu, and the strapping boyfriend is given over to Myrna Loy, who looks like a mashup of a geisha and The Statue of Liberty. She takes a liking to the boyfriend and wants to turn him into her slave. Her Dad - Fu Manchu - has just the right serum for the job.
I told you this was a weird movie, and really, it's a horror classic. I think the only reason it is not more well known is because of the racial overtones. Fu Manchu is played as the ultimate evil Asian Mastermind, and by the end of the movie Karloff - who has in his possession a Tesla Death Ray - is preaching to a large crowd of his followers that he will soon exterminate the White Race.
He uses those words, and I told you that this was a weird movie.
But don't take it too seriously, because it plays just like a scary horror film and not a treatise on racial superiority. The fascination with The Orient was a big theme in early Hollywood, especially in mystery movies. China had not yet opened up to the world, and so Hollywood put it's own spin on things, and it's not so bad because it's Boris Karloff, and if you can't love Boris, who can you love?
I write all of this stuff as a disclaimer, because I loved "The Mask Of Fu Manchu". I don't put politics into cultural or artistic situations, I simply let a movie (or whatever) speak for itself on it's own terms.
"The Mask Of Fu Manchu" is one of the most off-the-wall horror films of the early Golden Era that you will see. It is exotic and outrageous, while sticking to the usual 1930s horror plot development.
Two Big Thumbs Up therefore, and I forgot to mention that I acquired this movie as part of a two dvd set called "Hollywood Legends Of Horror", which I bought on Amazon. I have five more movies to watch from this set, none of which I've seen before, so I will dole them out to myself and make each one a special occasion, and review them for you. :)
I wish I had more to write about than movie reviews (though I like doing them), and I could go on Trump Tirades all day long, but I don't want to. I am hoping he will soon be out of office.
Elizabeth, if you still read, I am still here and hanging in there for you, and I would write more for you as I used to, but this doggone stupid Facebook thing continues. The "posts You like" feature has been stuck on the same few posts for weeks now, and I hope it will break soon, and show new posts.
I don't even know if you want to communicate, but if you do I am here, and I hope all is going well and if you have a job that it is okay and that you are still pursuing your goals.
I have no doubt that you are.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
At the beginning of the movie, an English Chief Inspector is calling upon a professor friend of his. The professor is an archaeologist, and the Inspector wants him to depart immediately for the Gobi Desert in China, in order to seek out the buried tomb of the legendary warrior Genghis Khan. The Inspector has information that an iconic sword and mask, both made of gold, were buried with Khan, and that these icons have great meaning in Chinese mythology. The Inspector has been told that Fu Manchu is seeking to find Kahn's long lost tomb so that he can recover the sword and mask, and thereby claim, to the superstitious populous, that he is the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan.
Holy Smokes, what a premise! This movie was pre-code, and would never get made today, with it's racial stereotyping, but the stereotyping is more or less innocuous. What is really played up, during the interludes in the journey to discover Khan's tomb, is the weird fetishes of Doctor Fu Manchu and his dominatrix-like daughter, played by a young Myrna Loy. They remain at their palace in China, which is created from glorious sets on MGM soundstages (hooray for MGM, my "alma mater"), and Fu Manchu has several different torture devices with which to employ upon his captives. His first victim is the archaeologist, who his flunkies, dressed as Egyptian Mummies, have captured in a museum. The archaeologist is put through The Bell Torture to get him to reveal the location of Khan's Tomb.
Meanwhile, the archaeologist's daughter and her boyfriend are on the hunt for the tomb as well, but then they hear of the kidnapping of her father, and they divert to the palace to rescue him. When they arrive, they are immediately shackled by Fu Manchu, and the strapping boyfriend is given over to Myrna Loy, who looks like a mashup of a geisha and The Statue of Liberty. She takes a liking to the boyfriend and wants to turn him into her slave. Her Dad - Fu Manchu - has just the right serum for the job.
I told you this was a weird movie, and really, it's a horror classic. I think the only reason it is not more well known is because of the racial overtones. Fu Manchu is played as the ultimate evil Asian Mastermind, and by the end of the movie Karloff - who has in his possession a Tesla Death Ray - is preaching to a large crowd of his followers that he will soon exterminate the White Race.
He uses those words, and I told you that this was a weird movie.
But don't take it too seriously, because it plays just like a scary horror film and not a treatise on racial superiority. The fascination with The Orient was a big theme in early Hollywood, especially in mystery movies. China had not yet opened up to the world, and so Hollywood put it's own spin on things, and it's not so bad because it's Boris Karloff, and if you can't love Boris, who can you love?
I write all of this stuff as a disclaimer, because I loved "The Mask Of Fu Manchu". I don't put politics into cultural or artistic situations, I simply let a movie (or whatever) speak for itself on it's own terms.
"The Mask Of Fu Manchu" is one of the most off-the-wall horror films of the early Golden Era that you will see. It is exotic and outrageous, while sticking to the usual 1930s horror plot development.
Two Big Thumbs Up therefore, and I forgot to mention that I acquired this movie as part of a two dvd set called "Hollywood Legends Of Horror", which I bought on Amazon. I have five more movies to watch from this set, none of which I've seen before, so I will dole them out to myself and make each one a special occasion, and review them for you. :)
I wish I had more to write about than movie reviews (though I like doing them), and I could go on Trump Tirades all day long, but I don't want to. I am hoping he will soon be out of office.
Elizabeth, if you still read, I am still here and hanging in there for you, and I would write more for you as I used to, but this doggone stupid Facebook thing continues. The "posts You like" feature has been stuck on the same few posts for weeks now, and I hope it will break soon, and show new posts.
I don't even know if you want to communicate, but if you do I am here, and I hope all is going well and if you have a job that it is okay and that you are still pursuing your goals.
I have no doubt that you are.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
"I,Tonya"
Tonight's movie was "I, Tonya" (2017), another film that - like "Lady Bird" - might not seem like my style, but also like "Lady Bird" it was nominated for some Academy Awards, and if I recall correctly Allison Janney won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance. After the Oscar telecast in March, I went to the Library website and reserved copies of all the films that sounded interesting to me. They took a while to get here, but now are starting to arrive. I had bad luck with one ; "Three Billboards", which caused me to question the standards of the Academy voters, but now my faith is somewhat restored with two good ones in a row, "Lady Bird" and "I, Tonya".
To be sure, both films are very much "of the present", not in subject matter necessarily but in filmmaking style, and because of that, we are not talking about masterpieces here, just entertaining films with very good performances by the lead actors.
"I, Tonya" stars Margot Robbie as the infamous figure skater Tonya Harding. The movie is essentially the story of her life, up to the 1994 Winter Olympics and the "incident" (as it is referred to in the film), that ruined her career. The script was apparently based on a series of interviews Harding gave later on in her life, and also interviews by her former husband Jeff Gilooly, who hatched the initial plan to harm Nancy Kerrigan, who was Tonya Harding's #1 skating rival.
Everybody remembers the Tonya/Nancy drama, because it was huge news, and I mean huge, which just shows you how much the world has changed since the early 90s. Nancy Kerrigan was America's Darling because she was graceful and fragile. Tonya became America's White Trash Outcast, because of the actions of her abusive husband and his inane criminal friends. The irony is that she was a great skater with groundbreaking athleticism, and very likely would have won an Olympic medal if not for her upbringing by a crude and brutal stage mother and her long and torturous relationship with Gilooly, who, as it turned out following an FBI investigation, was responsible along with his cronies for the attack that left Nancy Kerrigan with a broken knee just weeks before the Olympic Games were to begin.
As with "Lady Bird" last night, "I, Tonya" at first focuses on the relationship between daughter and mother. In both movies the families are poor and disadvantaged. In "Lady Bird", her mother tries to downplay and discourage her daughter's vague ambitions of attending an Ivy League college. She is verbally abusive but not physically violent. Tonya Harding's mother, on the other hand, is a terrible woman. She recognises her daughter's athletic gifts when she is four years old, and proceeds to push her to achieve her potential by yelling at her, criticising her and hitting her at every turn. The mother's excuse is that, "I've paid for every lesson you've ever had". Her mother drove her to be a champion through abuse combined with a sort of encouragement brought about by proxy. The Mom wants to feel superior to all of her lower-middle class associates, and she does so through the skating successes of her daughter, who goes all the way to the Olympics but has little more than a trailer park background.
Her Mom works hard as a waitress but clearly hates life and wants to stick it to everyone around her, and her talented daughter is her weapon.
I remarked about the filmmaking style of modern movies. "I, Tonya" is presented as part quasi-documentary, with Robbie-as-Tonya narrating the story via "taped interviews", and part traditional dramatic storyline. The story is filmed and presented in a way that emphasizes the "white trash" background of Harding, and I was dismayed to see reviews on the dvd box, and to read other reviews online that describe this movie as a black comedy.
I hate the term "white trash", and I don't feel it is funny to make light of a person's background. Now, it is important to note that the movie does not do this. The director plays it straight, and though he puts a slightly stereotyped touch on the characters, he never confuses the real life emotion that is involved.
But to read that some reviewers found this film funny, in any way, is disturbing to me. And I suppose it is another sign of our Trumpian times, because the same reviewers are probably the ones who thought the repulsive "Three Bilboards" was an ironic black comedy masterpiece.
Man, I can't stand phony baloney people. But I won't go on a tirade, I promise. :)
"I, Tonya" may play as "goofy/dysfuntional" but it is in no way a comedy. Instead, it is a tragedy because of what happened to Tonya Harding throughout her life. She grew up as a foul-mouthed and inelegant competitor in a sport that required feminine decorum, but she could skate circles around most of the other girls. The skating judges, though, had it in for her from the start, because of her family background, and her mother and husband were endlessly abusive, and he finally wrecked her life by organising the hit on Nancy Kerrigan.
It's not a funny story at all, just a story of a talented child who under extraordinarily difficult circumstances developed her talent to it's fullest extent, only to have her opportunities taken away from her permanently by forces beyond her control, which in this case were toxic personalities.
Child abuse is never funny, nor can it be rationalised, even if it produces a near Olympic Champion.
Man, I can't wait until the Age Of Irony is overwith, and people hopefully return to feeling normal human emotions again, emotions that include compassion and exclude ridicule.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
To be sure, both films are very much "of the present", not in subject matter necessarily but in filmmaking style, and because of that, we are not talking about masterpieces here, just entertaining films with very good performances by the lead actors.
"I, Tonya" stars Margot Robbie as the infamous figure skater Tonya Harding. The movie is essentially the story of her life, up to the 1994 Winter Olympics and the "incident" (as it is referred to in the film), that ruined her career. The script was apparently based on a series of interviews Harding gave later on in her life, and also interviews by her former husband Jeff Gilooly, who hatched the initial plan to harm Nancy Kerrigan, who was Tonya Harding's #1 skating rival.
Everybody remembers the Tonya/Nancy drama, because it was huge news, and I mean huge, which just shows you how much the world has changed since the early 90s. Nancy Kerrigan was America's Darling because she was graceful and fragile. Tonya became America's White Trash Outcast, because of the actions of her abusive husband and his inane criminal friends. The irony is that she was a great skater with groundbreaking athleticism, and very likely would have won an Olympic medal if not for her upbringing by a crude and brutal stage mother and her long and torturous relationship with Gilooly, who, as it turned out following an FBI investigation, was responsible along with his cronies for the attack that left Nancy Kerrigan with a broken knee just weeks before the Olympic Games were to begin.
As with "Lady Bird" last night, "I, Tonya" at first focuses on the relationship between daughter and mother. In both movies the families are poor and disadvantaged. In "Lady Bird", her mother tries to downplay and discourage her daughter's vague ambitions of attending an Ivy League college. She is verbally abusive but not physically violent. Tonya Harding's mother, on the other hand, is a terrible woman. She recognises her daughter's athletic gifts when she is four years old, and proceeds to push her to achieve her potential by yelling at her, criticising her and hitting her at every turn. The mother's excuse is that, "I've paid for every lesson you've ever had". Her mother drove her to be a champion through abuse combined with a sort of encouragement brought about by proxy. The Mom wants to feel superior to all of her lower-middle class associates, and she does so through the skating successes of her daughter, who goes all the way to the Olympics but has little more than a trailer park background.
Her Mom works hard as a waitress but clearly hates life and wants to stick it to everyone around her, and her talented daughter is her weapon.
I remarked about the filmmaking style of modern movies. "I, Tonya" is presented as part quasi-documentary, with Robbie-as-Tonya narrating the story via "taped interviews", and part traditional dramatic storyline. The story is filmed and presented in a way that emphasizes the "white trash" background of Harding, and I was dismayed to see reviews on the dvd box, and to read other reviews online that describe this movie as a black comedy.
I hate the term "white trash", and I don't feel it is funny to make light of a person's background. Now, it is important to note that the movie does not do this. The director plays it straight, and though he puts a slightly stereotyped touch on the characters, he never confuses the real life emotion that is involved.
But to read that some reviewers found this film funny, in any way, is disturbing to me. And I suppose it is another sign of our Trumpian times, because the same reviewers are probably the ones who thought the repulsive "Three Bilboards" was an ironic black comedy masterpiece.
Man, I can't stand phony baloney people. But I won't go on a tirade, I promise. :)
"I, Tonya" may play as "goofy/dysfuntional" but it is in no way a comedy. Instead, it is a tragedy because of what happened to Tonya Harding throughout her life. She grew up as a foul-mouthed and inelegant competitor in a sport that required feminine decorum, but she could skate circles around most of the other girls. The skating judges, though, had it in for her from the start, because of her family background, and her mother and husband were endlessly abusive, and he finally wrecked her life by organising the hit on Nancy Kerrigan.
It's not a funny story at all, just a story of a talented child who under extraordinarily difficult circumstances developed her talent to it's fullest extent, only to have her opportunities taken away from her permanently by forces beyond her control, which in this case were toxic personalities.
Child abuse is never funny, nor can it be rationalised, even if it produces a near Olympic Champion.
Man, I can't wait until the Age Of Irony is overwith, and people hopefully return to feeling normal human emotions again, emotions that include compassion and exclude ridicule.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
"Lady Bird" + Trump Must Be Stopped
Tonight's movie was "Lady Bird" (2017), starring the excellent young actress Saoirse Ronan. At first glance, if you have seen the movie yourself or are familiar with it's storyline, it might not seem like the type of flick Your Intrepid Reviewer would have an interest in. In a nutshell, it's a coming of age tale about a teenaged girl who is heading off to college. But it was also nominated for several Academy Awards, and that - combined with having Ronan as it's star - made me interested enough to have a look.
A quick note on Saoirse Ronan : She starred in a movie called "Brooklyn" a couple of years ago in which she gave an Oscar-worthy performance. She hasn't made a lot of films but has garnered a lot of attention at a young age, and she is going to be an actress to watch as her career develops. Her performance, and that of Laurie Metcalf (of "Rosanne" fame) are the two main reasons that "Lady Bird" rises above slice-of-life feel-good indie cinema.
The movie takes place in Sacramento, California, where writer/director Greta Gerwig was raised. She is an alumni of Saturday Night Live, and while the film is not a comedy, it does have a light, sitcom-type feel for much of it's first half, which is a series of quick-cut vignettes designed to move the plot forward through Lady Bird's final year of Catholic High School ("Lady Bird" being the name the protagonist has "chosen" for herself, in a move of adolescent rebellion against her mother and her given name).
She is artistic and somewhat nerdy, and boy crazy. Her family is poor, compared to some of her private school classmates. She is emotionally dependent on her Mom, but also intimidated by her. Her Dad is depressive but is the "good cop" of the family.
There are a few best friends in the mix, and boyfriends, and Catholic School hijinx, and small town boredom and envy, and Lady Bird's longing to escape to the East Coast, and to an Ivy League University where, she imagines, culture and hip identity must reign supreme.
To Gerwig's credit, she shoots down all of these stereotypes. Escape may be necessary for a young person wanting to establish her own identity, but home is where the heart is. The main conflict is between a strict but loving Mom and the independent-but-dependent Lady Bird, and - as an adult who remembers being a teenager, and still is on the inside - I (and you) can feel your way, along with Lady Bird, through the emotional twists and turns of the film. It has a "we've all been there" feel, even if you aren't an eighteen year old girl.
"Lady Bird" is short and sweet but it hits all the right notes. Two Definite Thumbs Up, therefore.
I haven't much else to report. T'was a cool and overcast day, chilly enough tonight where I had to don a jacket on top of my sweatshirt to take my evening walk at 9pm. I am very dismayed at the news that the Department Of Justice has caved in to the wannabe dictator Trump's "demand" - his actual word - that the DOJ itself be investigated over the so-called claim, by the profoundly criminal Trump and his minions - that the Mueller investigation is a fraud.
Folks........my fellow Americans......there is going to come a time, very soon, when somebody is going to have to stand up against this criminal, or else we are going to find ourselves in a situation where we will have a real crisis in this country, because of the cult of personality of one man.
Where has this happened before? Hmmm......Nazi Germany comes to mind. So does the Soviet Union.
There is going to come a time where either somebody will stand up to this very bad man, or else we are gonna lose our country. It's not a joke, and Trump is our threat from within, the threat that has been warned against by wise men throughout history as the most serious to any sovereign nation.
Today, the Justice Department caved in to him. If you read your history, this is how Hitler came to power and finally to ultimate authority in Germany.
This is no longer funny or a sideshow.
Somebody is going to have to stand up to this monster and stop him.
But who?
I read history, and I see the fate of nations throughout history. It is a mistake to think that the United States is immune to the will of an evil, driven person. It is also a mistake to underestimate just how bad a guy Donald Trump is. But now that the freaking Justice Department has knuckled under to him, we have to wonder - who is going to stop him?
Who will stop Donald Trump from destroying The United States Of America?
Anybody? /////
I am betting on the USA.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
A quick note on Saoirse Ronan : She starred in a movie called "Brooklyn" a couple of years ago in which she gave an Oscar-worthy performance. She hasn't made a lot of films but has garnered a lot of attention at a young age, and she is going to be an actress to watch as her career develops. Her performance, and that of Laurie Metcalf (of "Rosanne" fame) are the two main reasons that "Lady Bird" rises above slice-of-life feel-good indie cinema.
The movie takes place in Sacramento, California, where writer/director Greta Gerwig was raised. She is an alumni of Saturday Night Live, and while the film is not a comedy, it does have a light, sitcom-type feel for much of it's first half, which is a series of quick-cut vignettes designed to move the plot forward through Lady Bird's final year of Catholic High School ("Lady Bird" being the name the protagonist has "chosen" for herself, in a move of adolescent rebellion against her mother and her given name).
She is artistic and somewhat nerdy, and boy crazy. Her family is poor, compared to some of her private school classmates. She is emotionally dependent on her Mom, but also intimidated by her. Her Dad is depressive but is the "good cop" of the family.
There are a few best friends in the mix, and boyfriends, and Catholic School hijinx, and small town boredom and envy, and Lady Bird's longing to escape to the East Coast, and to an Ivy League University where, she imagines, culture and hip identity must reign supreme.
To Gerwig's credit, she shoots down all of these stereotypes. Escape may be necessary for a young person wanting to establish her own identity, but home is where the heart is. The main conflict is between a strict but loving Mom and the independent-but-dependent Lady Bird, and - as an adult who remembers being a teenager, and still is on the inside - I (and you) can feel your way, along with Lady Bird, through the emotional twists and turns of the film. It has a "we've all been there" feel, even if you aren't an eighteen year old girl.
"Lady Bird" is short and sweet but it hits all the right notes. Two Definite Thumbs Up, therefore.
I haven't much else to report. T'was a cool and overcast day, chilly enough tonight where I had to don a jacket on top of my sweatshirt to take my evening walk at 9pm. I am very dismayed at the news that the Department Of Justice has caved in to the wannabe dictator Trump's "demand" - his actual word - that the DOJ itself be investigated over the so-called claim, by the profoundly criminal Trump and his minions - that the Mueller investigation is a fraud.
Folks........my fellow Americans......there is going to come a time, very soon, when somebody is going to have to stand up against this criminal, or else we are going to find ourselves in a situation where we will have a real crisis in this country, because of the cult of personality of one man.
Where has this happened before? Hmmm......Nazi Germany comes to mind. So does the Soviet Union.
There is going to come a time where either somebody will stand up to this very bad man, or else we are gonna lose our country. It's not a joke, and Trump is our threat from within, the threat that has been warned against by wise men throughout history as the most serious to any sovereign nation.
Today, the Justice Department caved in to him. If you read your history, this is how Hitler came to power and finally to ultimate authority in Germany.
This is no longer funny or a sideshow.
Somebody is going to have to stand up to this monster and stop him.
But who?
I read history, and I see the fate of nations throughout history. It is a mistake to think that the United States is immune to the will of an evil, driven person. It is also a mistake to underestimate just how bad a guy Donald Trump is. But now that the freaking Justice Department has knuckled under to him, we have to wonder - who is going to stop him?
Who will stop Donald Trump from destroying The United States Of America?
Anybody? /////
I am betting on the USA.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, May 21, 2018
"Tomahawk"
Tonight I saw an awesome Western called "Tomahawk" (1951), which was based in part on a real life character named Jim Bridger, whose name might ring a bell if you remember your American History lessons about Lewis & Clark and other trailblazers, mountain men and fur trappers who explored the western US and helped open it up to settlers and the Army. Bridger was friendly with the Indians, and so the Army used him as an envoy to help solve territorial disputes. His assistance led to several peace treaties between the US and the Sioux, and in "Tomahawk" we see once again another real life character, the great Chief Red Cloud, who was portrayed in "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee", which I was not able to finish due to a dvd malfunction as mentioned last week.
Besides being the film's title, "Tomahawk" is also Red Cloud's nickname for his friend Bridger, who is a rugged frontiersman and also has a Cheyenne wife. In the story, which takes place in Wyoming, Bridger - played by the craggily handsome Van Heflin - has been hired as a scout by an Army Colonel who is also a friend. The Colonel wants Bridger to ride ahead and negotiate with Red Cloud about a fort the Army wants to build along a mail route that also is a settler's road. The fort is to be constructed in order to provide protection for the mail riders and the occasional settler who will be passing through Indian country. Bridger's mission is to convince Red Cloud and his people that the Army fort is not a provocation or a danger to the tribe. He is able to persuade the Chief, and the fort is put into place. The mail is able to be delivered through Sioux territory without problem, and a covered wagon is escorted through as well, carrying not homesteaders but a two person Travelling Show; a middle-aged male magician and his show-stopping singer partner, played by the knockout Yvonne DeCarlo.
She provides the romantic interest in the film. At first, she is solicited by an Army Lieutenant who is clearly a bad guy. He hates Indians and is out to subvert the peace treaty in any way he can. But Jim Bridger is onto him, and what's more, he suspects the Lieutenant as the culprit in some personal business that I cannot divulge, just in case you ever buy the awesome 3 dvd Western set that I purchased, and see "Tomahawk" for yourself. I must say, having seen two of the films from the ten movie set, that some of these "B" Westerns were just as good as many of the more famous ones. "Daltons" from the other night was an A Plus, and I'll give "Tomahawk" a B Plus. It's got an involving story, it fairly depicts the meetings between the Army and the Sioux, led by Red Cloud, that both caused disputes and led to treaties. The unfair treatment of the Sioux is shown, but also the attempt to make peace and share the land for mutual benefit is also shown.
Because we are in the Era Of Great Screenwriting, much story is told about the history of the Army's attempts to set up United States authority in the west, regardless of the Indians having been there first, which is why I said at the beginning of the blog that Jim Bridger was just one character in the movie, rather than the sole focus. In "Tomahawk", he is the fulcrum on which the story balances and then tilts towards war, which is shown as an end result not of diplomatic breakdown but of devious subversion of official peace agreements by individual men who are filled with hate and fear.
This seems to be the case in all of history.
But in Westerns, as in life, the Good Guys always win. Bridger ultimately restores the peace and negotiates an agreement whereby the Army will abandon it's fort. The Sioux were given back their land, though this final agreement only lasted thirty years until the move to put Indians onto reservations began in the 1890s.
That happened just 70 years before I was born. But in movies and books, it seems like a thousand years ago.
The telling of history depends on who tells it, and what is told, and what is left out, and how the official story is presented.
I am certainly not anti-White Man, in the story of the developing of the land mass of North America. If you look at the anthropological Big Picture, it was going to happen because of the European tendency toward invention and migration. The White Man was the Man Of Science and Travel. He was ahead of the game, depending on how much you stake your belief system in so-called human progress as being based only on technological advancement. But he could have been a better leader, that much is clear.
That was the message of the Jim Bridgers of the world, at that time. The explorers of the West, who got to know the Indians and made friends with them, before the Army came into the picture. ////
Two Big Thumbs Up for "Tomahawk". :)
We had a nice morning in church, and good singing too.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Besides being the film's title, "Tomahawk" is also Red Cloud's nickname for his friend Bridger, who is a rugged frontiersman and also has a Cheyenne wife. In the story, which takes place in Wyoming, Bridger - played by the craggily handsome Van Heflin - has been hired as a scout by an Army Colonel who is also a friend. The Colonel wants Bridger to ride ahead and negotiate with Red Cloud about a fort the Army wants to build along a mail route that also is a settler's road. The fort is to be constructed in order to provide protection for the mail riders and the occasional settler who will be passing through Indian country. Bridger's mission is to convince Red Cloud and his people that the Army fort is not a provocation or a danger to the tribe. He is able to persuade the Chief, and the fort is put into place. The mail is able to be delivered through Sioux territory without problem, and a covered wagon is escorted through as well, carrying not homesteaders but a two person Travelling Show; a middle-aged male magician and his show-stopping singer partner, played by the knockout Yvonne DeCarlo.
She provides the romantic interest in the film. At first, she is solicited by an Army Lieutenant who is clearly a bad guy. He hates Indians and is out to subvert the peace treaty in any way he can. But Jim Bridger is onto him, and what's more, he suspects the Lieutenant as the culprit in some personal business that I cannot divulge, just in case you ever buy the awesome 3 dvd Western set that I purchased, and see "Tomahawk" for yourself. I must say, having seen two of the films from the ten movie set, that some of these "B" Westerns were just as good as many of the more famous ones. "Daltons" from the other night was an A Plus, and I'll give "Tomahawk" a B Plus. It's got an involving story, it fairly depicts the meetings between the Army and the Sioux, led by Red Cloud, that both caused disputes and led to treaties. The unfair treatment of the Sioux is shown, but also the attempt to make peace and share the land for mutual benefit is also shown.
Because we are in the Era Of Great Screenwriting, much story is told about the history of the Army's attempts to set up United States authority in the west, regardless of the Indians having been there first, which is why I said at the beginning of the blog that Jim Bridger was just one character in the movie, rather than the sole focus. In "Tomahawk", he is the fulcrum on which the story balances and then tilts towards war, which is shown as an end result not of diplomatic breakdown but of devious subversion of official peace agreements by individual men who are filled with hate and fear.
This seems to be the case in all of history.
But in Westerns, as in life, the Good Guys always win. Bridger ultimately restores the peace and negotiates an agreement whereby the Army will abandon it's fort. The Sioux were given back their land, though this final agreement only lasted thirty years until the move to put Indians onto reservations began in the 1890s.
That happened just 70 years before I was born. But in movies and books, it seems like a thousand years ago.
The telling of history depends on who tells it, and what is told, and what is left out, and how the official story is presented.
I am certainly not anti-White Man, in the story of the developing of the land mass of North America. If you look at the anthropological Big Picture, it was going to happen because of the European tendency toward invention and migration. The White Man was the Man Of Science and Travel. He was ahead of the game, depending on how much you stake your belief system in so-called human progress as being based only on technological advancement. But he could have been a better leader, that much is clear.
That was the message of the Jim Bridgers of the world, at that time. The explorers of the West, who got to know the Indians and made friends with them, before the Army came into the picture. ////
Two Big Thumbs Up for "Tomahawk". :)
We had a nice morning in church, and good singing too.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, May 20, 2018
"Twin Peaks" Masterpiece + Waterfall Trail + What Is Under Your Feet? + How Do You Feel?
No movie tonight, but I did watch "Twin Peaks" Episode 15, and the show just gets better and better as things start to resolve, with only three more episodes to go. #15 was one of the super weird ones, and it is these episodes especially - there are about five of them - that have me convinced that "Twin Peaks" (2017) is Lynch's masterpiece. I guess, to be fair, I'd have to include the original TP as well, and just call the whole thing his masterpiece. I think I may have already said that, but it's these truly weird, horrific and otherworldly episodes from the new series that clinch it.
I wish the show would never end. :) What would be your show, that you get lost in and wish would never end? We all have one......(so tell me or give me a hint). :)
I had a very nice hike today, at Santa Susana which is full of blooming wildflowers. The blooms don't last long because rain is scarce and the heat will soon hit hard, but I saw a lot of color today on my way up the Waterfall Trail. I don't know the names of the native plants, but the main color is yellow, followed by light purple, a little bit of red, and then those Fuzzy White Things with a purple tinge that I would ordinarily think of as "cat tails" except I know they aren't. So - "fuzzy white things" it is.
I've been trying to make time for hikes. I also made it to Aliso yesterday, and my hike today up the steep Waterfall trail was especially satisfying, not only because of the color, but because I felt like I was getting back out there, and getting my legs back into shape.
On a side note, I have mentioned the sign at the trailhead that states, before you enter the park, "this is a protected archaeological site", etc, etc. Excavation and disturbance of the natural surroundings is prohibited. That sign is recent. It appeared about a year ago, and it wouldn't have fazed me until I began reading "Forbidden Archaeology" in March of this year. But now, every time I go out there, I am wondering what's in the ground? I know that it is sacred Indian land, and should not be excavated.
But it's also a site with 80 million year old landforms, and man....I would love to know what's there.
You know how last night I recommended to you some movies? Tonight I will recommend you a book, and it is "Forbidden Archaeology". I know you won't read it, and I can't blame you if you don't, because it is dry and academic and 800 pages long, but boy it is ever a mindblower, because it gets you to thinking about all the people and beings that have been here on Earth before, and it gets you thinking and wondering what is underneath your feet. As hard as it has been to get through, I'd say that "Forbidden Archaeology" has been one of the most important books I've ever read.
I asked you about your favorite show, the one you get lost in, and so now I'll ask you about your favorite book. What book has had a lasting influence on your life? It could be anything. It could be fiction. "IT" by Stephen King would be on my All Time list, of books that have affected me. Or it could be nonfiction of any type, even a biography. Or a history book, or a science book.....
I could list a bunch, cause I love to read, but tonight I want to know what you like.
What has stayed with you, what has had a lasting influence on your life? You can give me a hint on Facebook. :)
I watched a replay of The Royal Wedding on CNN tonight at Pearl's. It was beautiful, and the ceremony was magnificent, but............I felt a bit sad because I wish I was married, too.
I know you already know that, but it's hard for me, and it helps if I write about it. :)
Being single sucks as you close in on 60. Don't try this at home.
There is an awesome and incredible spiritual power that I feel inside of me, though, and it is this power that drives me forward and keeps me going, because I know I have something I have to accomplish, and I believe it is something important.
What do you think? What drives you forward? How do you feel about life?
See you in the morning and again after church. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I wish the show would never end. :) What would be your show, that you get lost in and wish would never end? We all have one......(so tell me or give me a hint). :)
I had a very nice hike today, at Santa Susana which is full of blooming wildflowers. The blooms don't last long because rain is scarce and the heat will soon hit hard, but I saw a lot of color today on my way up the Waterfall Trail. I don't know the names of the native plants, but the main color is yellow, followed by light purple, a little bit of red, and then those Fuzzy White Things with a purple tinge that I would ordinarily think of as "cat tails" except I know they aren't. So - "fuzzy white things" it is.
I've been trying to make time for hikes. I also made it to Aliso yesterday, and my hike today up the steep Waterfall trail was especially satisfying, not only because of the color, but because I felt like I was getting back out there, and getting my legs back into shape.
On a side note, I have mentioned the sign at the trailhead that states, before you enter the park, "this is a protected archaeological site", etc, etc. Excavation and disturbance of the natural surroundings is prohibited. That sign is recent. It appeared about a year ago, and it wouldn't have fazed me until I began reading "Forbidden Archaeology" in March of this year. But now, every time I go out there, I am wondering what's in the ground? I know that it is sacred Indian land, and should not be excavated.
But it's also a site with 80 million year old landforms, and man....I would love to know what's there.
You know how last night I recommended to you some movies? Tonight I will recommend you a book, and it is "Forbidden Archaeology". I know you won't read it, and I can't blame you if you don't, because it is dry and academic and 800 pages long, but boy it is ever a mindblower, because it gets you to thinking about all the people and beings that have been here on Earth before, and it gets you thinking and wondering what is underneath your feet. As hard as it has been to get through, I'd say that "Forbidden Archaeology" has been one of the most important books I've ever read.
I asked you about your favorite show, the one you get lost in, and so now I'll ask you about your favorite book. What book has had a lasting influence on your life? It could be anything. It could be fiction. "IT" by Stephen King would be on my All Time list, of books that have affected me. Or it could be nonfiction of any type, even a biography. Or a history book, or a science book.....
I could list a bunch, cause I love to read, but tonight I want to know what you like.
What has stayed with you, what has had a lasting influence on your life? You can give me a hint on Facebook. :)
I watched a replay of The Royal Wedding on CNN tonight at Pearl's. It was beautiful, and the ceremony was magnificent, but............I felt a bit sad because I wish I was married, too.
I know you already know that, but it's hard for me, and it helps if I write about it. :)
Being single sucks as you close in on 60. Don't try this at home.
There is an awesome and incredible spiritual power that I feel inside of me, though, and it is this power that drives me forward and keeps me going, because I know I have something I have to accomplish, and I believe it is something important.
What do you think? What drives you forward? How do you feel about life?
See you in the morning and again after church. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Saturday, May 19, 2018
CSUN Cinematheque, Part Two + Recommended Movies + Make Time For Art
In order to finish up about the Cinematheque, I think I'll list every retrospective we saw in the order that we saw them, and I will list one film you should see by each director. I know that I have previously listed a few of these movies when I started (but neglected to finish) a recommendation list a couple of months ago, so you might see some movies I already mentioned, but anyway, here goes :
The Retrospectives Of The Thursday Night Cinematheque at CSUN, from 2009 to 2018, listed by director and semester, followed by a recommended film.
1. Jean-Luc Godard, Fall 2009. "Band Of Outsiders" (aka "Bande a' part").
2. Federico Fellini, Spring 2010. "Nights Of Cabiria".
3. Ingmar Bergman, Fall 2010. "Through A Glass Darkly".
4. Luis Bunuel, Spring 2011. "The Discreet Charm Of The Bourgeoisie".
5. Akira Kurosawa, Fall 2011. "Ikiru".
6. Michaelangelo Antonioni, Spring 2012. "L'Avventura".
7. Francois Truffaut, Fall 2012. "Two English Girls"
8. Krzysztof Kieslowski, Spring 2013. "Red".
9. Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Fall 2013. "Love Is Colder Than Death".
10. Satyajit Ray, Spring 2014. "The Music Room".
11. Powell & Pressburger (film making team), Fall 2014. "A Canterbury Tale".
12. Yasujiro Ozu, Spring 2015. "Late Spring".
13. Orson Wells, Fall 2015. "Othello".
14. Andrei Tarkovsky, Spring 2016. "Stalker".
15. Robert Bresson, Fall 2016. "Diary Of A Country Priest".
16. John Cassavetes, Spring 2017. "Faces".
17. Buster Keaton, Fall 2017. "The General".
18. Andrzej Wajda, Spring 2018. "The Birch Wood".
So there you have it - all eighteen directors we covered during our nine year run. We saw 14 to 15 works by each one (and in Keaton's case about 20, because his films were shorter and we had several double features). I have given you just one recommendation by each, and in many cases (but not all), the film I recommend was also my favorite film of the ones we saw. In the case of "Diary Of A Country Priest" by Robert Bresson, that film is certainly in my all-time Top Ten, and probably in my Top Three.
With each filmmaker I could have listed many other favorites, but - in the hope that you will seek out at least some of them - I figured it was better to just mention one apiece, for each director. I think that world cinema may not be everyone's cup of tea........at least initially. But if you give these movies a try, you will be exposing yourself to many of the great masters of cinema ("cinema" meaning movie making as an art form), and I am betting that if you give even just a few of them a try, you will become hooked just as I was.
If I had to pick my favorite retrospectives of the entire nine year series, I guess I would say, in no particular order :
Robert Bresson
Yasujiro Ozu
Buster Keaton
Orson Welles
Andrzej Wajda
Satyajit Ray
Powell & Pressburger
I loved them all, of course, but I think with these filmmakers I saw a lot of movies I had not been exposed to before (except for Bresson, who is my #1 director of all time), and the variety of styles and artistic extrapolations from these particular directors was astonishing.
So that was my experience at the CSUN Cinematheque. It lasted for nine years, but it felt much quicker as it went by. There is something about the isolation from real life that a movie provides that makes a sequential movie experience like the nine year, 270 movie Cinematheque run feel like it occurred in a vacuum. The movies we saw, regularly scheduled in the Armer Theater every Thursday except in Summer, feel separated from the time factor of life, and so the nine years feels like........
I dunno. I could say "nine months", or some such comparison, and you would know what I mean. But what it really felt like - what it feels like now that it's gone, and overwith - it feels like it took place in a void, an opening in time where we were free to escape real life and immerse ourselves in truly great art, for two or three hours each week, on Thursday Nights.
Art is what you make it. It's what you create, it's what you appreciate, it's what you revere, it's what you make time for - what you reserve time for in the busy nonsense of regular living.
Make time for art.
Long Live The Cinematheque.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
The Retrospectives Of The Thursday Night Cinematheque at CSUN, from 2009 to 2018, listed by director and semester, followed by a recommended film.
1. Jean-Luc Godard, Fall 2009. "Band Of Outsiders" (aka "Bande a' part").
2. Federico Fellini, Spring 2010. "Nights Of Cabiria".
3. Ingmar Bergman, Fall 2010. "Through A Glass Darkly".
4. Luis Bunuel, Spring 2011. "The Discreet Charm Of The Bourgeoisie".
5. Akira Kurosawa, Fall 2011. "Ikiru".
6. Michaelangelo Antonioni, Spring 2012. "L'Avventura".
7. Francois Truffaut, Fall 2012. "Two English Girls"
8. Krzysztof Kieslowski, Spring 2013. "Red".
9. Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Fall 2013. "Love Is Colder Than Death".
10. Satyajit Ray, Spring 2014. "The Music Room".
11. Powell & Pressburger (film making team), Fall 2014. "A Canterbury Tale".
12. Yasujiro Ozu, Spring 2015. "Late Spring".
13. Orson Wells, Fall 2015. "Othello".
14. Andrei Tarkovsky, Spring 2016. "Stalker".
15. Robert Bresson, Fall 2016. "Diary Of A Country Priest".
16. John Cassavetes, Spring 2017. "Faces".
17. Buster Keaton, Fall 2017. "The General".
18. Andrzej Wajda, Spring 2018. "The Birch Wood".
So there you have it - all eighteen directors we covered during our nine year run. We saw 14 to 15 works by each one (and in Keaton's case about 20, because his films were shorter and we had several double features). I have given you just one recommendation by each, and in many cases (but not all), the film I recommend was also my favorite film of the ones we saw. In the case of "Diary Of A Country Priest" by Robert Bresson, that film is certainly in my all-time Top Ten, and probably in my Top Three.
With each filmmaker I could have listed many other favorites, but - in the hope that you will seek out at least some of them - I figured it was better to just mention one apiece, for each director. I think that world cinema may not be everyone's cup of tea........at least initially. But if you give these movies a try, you will be exposing yourself to many of the great masters of cinema ("cinema" meaning movie making as an art form), and I am betting that if you give even just a few of them a try, you will become hooked just as I was.
If I had to pick my favorite retrospectives of the entire nine year series, I guess I would say, in no particular order :
Robert Bresson
Yasujiro Ozu
Buster Keaton
Orson Welles
Andrzej Wajda
Satyajit Ray
Powell & Pressburger
I loved them all, of course, but I think with these filmmakers I saw a lot of movies I had not been exposed to before (except for Bresson, who is my #1 director of all time), and the variety of styles and artistic extrapolations from these particular directors was astonishing.
So that was my experience at the CSUN Cinematheque. It lasted for nine years, but it felt much quicker as it went by. There is something about the isolation from real life that a movie provides that makes a sequential movie experience like the nine year, 270 movie Cinematheque run feel like it occurred in a vacuum. The movies we saw, regularly scheduled in the Armer Theater every Thursday except in Summer, feel separated from the time factor of life, and so the nine years feels like........
I dunno. I could say "nine months", or some such comparison, and you would know what I mean. But what it really felt like - what it feels like now that it's gone, and overwith - it feels like it took place in a void, an opening in time where we were free to escape real life and immerse ourselves in truly great art, for two or three hours each week, on Thursday Nights.
Art is what you make it. It's what you create, it's what you appreciate, it's what you revere, it's what you make time for - what you reserve time for in the busy nonsense of regular living.
Make time for art.
Long Live The Cinematheque.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, May 18, 2018
Au Revoir CSUN Cinematheque, Part One
Well, I am kind of blown away tonight. As things stand, this was the final night for the Thursday Night Cinematheque screenings at The Armer Theater at CSUN, and I can't believe I will no longer be sitting in my front row seat on Thursdays at 7pm, with my movie friends from the community, and with Professor Tim close by at the podium, ready to introduce us to each week's film with a short lecture.
I'll talk about tonight's movies, but first I want to talk a little bit about the Cinematheque. I discovered this local cinematic treasure just a week or two after it began. In September 2009, I was leafing through a copy of the Sundial, CSUN's student newspaper, and I saw an ad for a Jean-Luc Godard movie. I'll have to dig out my journal from that year to see which one it was, cause I always write down every movie I see, but anyway, I saw the ad, and it said that the screening was "open to the public".
A free Jean-Luc Godard movie? I'm there!
2009 was a transitional year for me, and though I was barely hanging on financially, at least I had a steady job refurbishing a house in Reseda. I was making just enough to eat and pay my rent, almost literally. 2008 had been tough. In addition to being broke, I'd also lost my Dad and my best friend Mr.D that year. They died within a few weeks of each other. I was barely holding on to my apartment, but then in late '08, my life began to turn around. First, I got a job at Kmart as a cashier. It was only a seasonal job for Christmas, and I was apprehensive when I took it because I had never run a cash register before, and had never worked retail. I thought I would not make it through my first day, but I wound up adapting very quickly, and I ended up enjoying my brief Kmart job very much. It was at the old Northridge Kmart behind the Mall, and I was there for the store's going out of business period, which lasted from November 2008 until February 2009. I also worked at a poll in Century City on Election Day 2008, when Obama became President, so things were looking up for me. Then, in April 2009, I got the job at the house in Reseda, which belonged to my sister's friend. That job only kept me afloat, just enough for rent and food, but I knew it was gonna last for at least a year, and so during 2009 I was able to relax a little bit after a tense couple of years.
At the time, I was spending my evenings at the Oviatt Library. I didn't have a home computer, and I had only recently finished working on my book about 1989, which I wrote almost entirely at the Oviatt. It was likely there at CSUN's Libe that I picked up a copy of the Sundial and saw the ad for the Godard movie. It probably said something about a series of films or a retrospective, but all I remember is just thinking, "oh, I like Godard. I'll go check it out for something to do".
So I went, and I sat in the front row. I always sit close at the movies, because - just like at rock concerts - I want to be immersed in the experience. There were a lot of students there, and I kind of wondered "is this cool"? because I was not part of the University. But the ad had said, "open to the public", so I figured I was okay.
I figured that the lights would go down and they would just show the film, but I was wrong. There was a podium up front, and within a few minutes, a tall man approached it and introduced himself. He was Professor Tim, and he proceeded to give us some background on the film we were about to see. he probably also showed us some documentary material related to the movie. He had a very informal but very involving manner of presentation, and boy did he know his stuff. Right off the bat, I knew he was a movie fanatic like myself.
And so this was my introduction to Thursday Night at The Cinematheque, as hosted by Professor Tim. I didn't know it that first night, but I was hooked. To cut to the chase, I continued to attend. I was there the next week, and the next, and soon the whole semester went by and I had seen about 12 Godard films, including perhaps 8 that I had never seen before. And all of this was for free, and in a state of the art theater where talking and cell phone use was actively discouraged each week, via a polite but firm announcement by the Professor. These screenings were to have the reverential presentation of a classical music concert.
So when the Jean-Luc Godard series ended in December 2009, I was thrilled to hear that the next retrospective would begin in just six weeks, at the end of January 2010, when Spring semester began on campus. I had sat in my front row seat for every film I'd attended, and hadn't been asked to move, so I was feeling right at home. On the last night of Godard, The Professor announced that the next series would commence in the Spring, and would be a retrospective of the films of Federico Fellini.
Whoa! So of course I was back.
When I came back the following semester for the Fellini, I noticed a familiar face or two. Not of students, but of older folks like myself (wait a minute, Ad! What's this "older folks" stuff?) It's just cause University students look like kids to me, and I feel like a kid myself but don't look like one, haha.
But yeah, I noticed a that a couple of fellow attendees looked familar. And that's how the Long Time Fans Of The Cinematheque came into being. These were all fans from outside the University. Some came from a fair distance, like Venice or West L.A.
But I was the first of the Long Time Fans, and I was there since the third week of the Cinematheque, and during the course of our nine year run, I would estimate that I saw approximately 270 films from 18 directors, from countries all over the world.
We finished up with a retrospective of the great Polish director Andrzej Wajda, and I will have to write more for you tomorrow night as the hour is now late and I went into more detail in my preamble then I had thought I would (as usual).
So tonight is "Cinematheque Part One", and I will finish tomorrow night with Part Two.
Long live the CSUN Cinematheque, the great cinematic experience of my life.
And thank you Professor Tim. (Movie Hero)
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I'll talk about tonight's movies, but first I want to talk a little bit about the Cinematheque. I discovered this local cinematic treasure just a week or two after it began. In September 2009, I was leafing through a copy of the Sundial, CSUN's student newspaper, and I saw an ad for a Jean-Luc Godard movie. I'll have to dig out my journal from that year to see which one it was, cause I always write down every movie I see, but anyway, I saw the ad, and it said that the screening was "open to the public".
A free Jean-Luc Godard movie? I'm there!
2009 was a transitional year for me, and though I was barely hanging on financially, at least I had a steady job refurbishing a house in Reseda. I was making just enough to eat and pay my rent, almost literally. 2008 had been tough. In addition to being broke, I'd also lost my Dad and my best friend Mr.D that year. They died within a few weeks of each other. I was barely holding on to my apartment, but then in late '08, my life began to turn around. First, I got a job at Kmart as a cashier. It was only a seasonal job for Christmas, and I was apprehensive when I took it because I had never run a cash register before, and had never worked retail. I thought I would not make it through my first day, but I wound up adapting very quickly, and I ended up enjoying my brief Kmart job very much. It was at the old Northridge Kmart behind the Mall, and I was there for the store's going out of business period, which lasted from November 2008 until February 2009. I also worked at a poll in Century City on Election Day 2008, when Obama became President, so things were looking up for me. Then, in April 2009, I got the job at the house in Reseda, which belonged to my sister's friend. That job only kept me afloat, just enough for rent and food, but I knew it was gonna last for at least a year, and so during 2009 I was able to relax a little bit after a tense couple of years.
At the time, I was spending my evenings at the Oviatt Library. I didn't have a home computer, and I had only recently finished working on my book about 1989, which I wrote almost entirely at the Oviatt. It was likely there at CSUN's Libe that I picked up a copy of the Sundial and saw the ad for the Godard movie. It probably said something about a series of films or a retrospective, but all I remember is just thinking, "oh, I like Godard. I'll go check it out for something to do".
So I went, and I sat in the front row. I always sit close at the movies, because - just like at rock concerts - I want to be immersed in the experience. There were a lot of students there, and I kind of wondered "is this cool"? because I was not part of the University. But the ad had said, "open to the public", so I figured I was okay.
I figured that the lights would go down and they would just show the film, but I was wrong. There was a podium up front, and within a few minutes, a tall man approached it and introduced himself. He was Professor Tim, and he proceeded to give us some background on the film we were about to see. he probably also showed us some documentary material related to the movie. He had a very informal but very involving manner of presentation, and boy did he know his stuff. Right off the bat, I knew he was a movie fanatic like myself.
And so this was my introduction to Thursday Night at The Cinematheque, as hosted by Professor Tim. I didn't know it that first night, but I was hooked. To cut to the chase, I continued to attend. I was there the next week, and the next, and soon the whole semester went by and I had seen about 12 Godard films, including perhaps 8 that I had never seen before. And all of this was for free, and in a state of the art theater where talking and cell phone use was actively discouraged each week, via a polite but firm announcement by the Professor. These screenings were to have the reverential presentation of a classical music concert.
So when the Jean-Luc Godard series ended in December 2009, I was thrilled to hear that the next retrospective would begin in just six weeks, at the end of January 2010, when Spring semester began on campus. I had sat in my front row seat for every film I'd attended, and hadn't been asked to move, so I was feeling right at home. On the last night of Godard, The Professor announced that the next series would commence in the Spring, and would be a retrospective of the films of Federico Fellini.
Whoa! So of course I was back.
When I came back the following semester for the Fellini, I noticed a familiar face or two. Not of students, but of older folks like myself (wait a minute, Ad! What's this "older folks" stuff?) It's just cause University students look like kids to me, and I feel like a kid myself but don't look like one, haha.
But yeah, I noticed a that a couple of fellow attendees looked familar. And that's how the Long Time Fans Of The Cinematheque came into being. These were all fans from outside the University. Some came from a fair distance, like Venice or West L.A.
But I was the first of the Long Time Fans, and I was there since the third week of the Cinematheque, and during the course of our nine year run, I would estimate that I saw approximately 270 films from 18 directors, from countries all over the world.
We finished up with a retrospective of the great Polish director Andrzej Wajda, and I will have to write more for you tomorrow night as the hour is now late and I went into more detail in my preamble then I had thought I would (as usual).
So tonight is "Cinematheque Part One", and I will finish tomorrow night with Part Two.
Long live the CSUN Cinematheque, the great cinematic experience of my life.
And thank you Professor Tim. (Movie Hero)
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, May 17, 2018
"When The Daltons Rode" ( A Great Movie)
Tonight's movie was called "When The Daltons Rode" (1940), starring Randolph Scott and Kay Francis. A quick note to The SB or anyone who might have seen my "Blazing Saddles/Randolph Scott" post on Facebook today : please ignore the idiotic comment from a friend who shall remain nameless. I always loved the bit in "Blazing Saddles" about Randolph Scott, and when I became a fan of older movies, Randolph Scott became one of my favorite Western stars. I couldn't care less about his sexual orientation, but some people never got out of junior high, it seems.
Back to the movie, but first - cue the "Blazing Saddles" choir : "RANN - daugh-allph SCOTTT"!
Okay, now we're all set. Well, I wanted my Western Fix and I finally got it, and in Black & White no less. Couldn't be better. Color westerns are okay, but ideally every one would be in black and white.
The story is about the infamous Dalton Gang, who may be known to even a person with marginal knowledge of the Old West. The Daltons were right up there with Jesse James and The Wild Bunch as far as Outlaws go, and in fact they were connected to both. They were cousins of James, and a couple of the Daltons joined The Wild Bunch after their own gang was gunned down and broken up.
Sounds like being in a rock band, because you have names for the gangs, lol, and they sometimes change members. :)
In the movie, which has great photography and amazing natural scenery (and authentic Western sets), the Dalton brothers are at first presented as law abiding citizens living in Kansas. Brother Bob is a local U.S. Marshall, and his siblings live on a farm with their Irish-born mother, just outside of town. They are minding their own business when a government land surveyor shows up and claims part of their land as Federal property. They claim they bought it ten years prior, fair and square. In the movie, the government surveying team are made out to be the bad guys. They are forcing farmers off their land, lying about the boundaries, and are doing all of this in collusion (love that word) with millionaire railroad barons. The movie portrays the law abiding Daltons as the first family to stand up to the crooked surveyors and their wealthy backers. But after a confrontation one of the Daltons is up on a murder charge, and is in court. During his trial, which seems fixed, his brothers break him out, and are now on the run. From here their life of wanton crime begins, and ends up including bank robberies, train robberies, and murder. The movie claims they were driven to all of this by crooked government and business officials.
I checked Wikipedia afterwards, and got a different story on the Dalton brothers, which only presented them as career criminals. Farming was not mentioned, nor was anything about a land dispute. The movie script was based on a book by Emmett Dalton, who lived until 1937. The other brothers were killed in a shootout following a bank robbery in the 1890s, and if you Google it you can find a famous photo of them all laying dead, posed in a row, as publicity for law enforcement. And you can believe Emmett Dalton's story or Wikipedia. I don't know myself, but I tend to believe the movie version just on instinct, and because I'm not a fan of land developers as you know.
Still, it doesn't absolve the Dalton Brothers of their crimes........but wait a minute!
I am not gonna go on another self-righteous lecture about morality because the movie was too darn good. You had Broderick Crawford before he was heavy set, in a lead role as Bob Dalton, the US Marshall. You had Randolph Scott as his best friend and lawyer, who sticks by the family and tries to get them out of their legal jams. You had the stylish and luminous Kay Francis as the Love Interest, initially bequeathed to Broderick Crawford, but who falls for the more considerate and attentive Scott.
My Screenwriting Tirade holds especially true with this film. There is so much story jam-packed into 80 minutes (not even 90, but 80!), that you feel you are living right there, inside the scenery as an onlooker. You are in The Old West, when life was lived in Black & White, and you are part of "When The Daltons Rode".
That is your experience when you watch this movie. Every Western should be so good, and this one has everything : Land disputes! Bank and Train Robberies! Courtroom Drama! Romantic Drama! Shootouts in Rocky Landscapes In Simi Valley! And Kay Francis, a new discovery. :)
That's all I know for tonight. I am still plowing through "Forbidden Archaeology" but am in the home stretch now, at page 640. Did I tell you to Google Reck's Skeleton? I think I did.....
Elizabeth, if you are reading I am still right here, but the FB thing is still stuck in place and I am not able to see any new "likes" for several weeks now. I hope all is well, and I hope the algorithm will revert once again to normal.
The mockingbird is here in Pearl's backyard as I write, and is speaking non stop, in an amazing language that sounds like words to me.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Back to the movie, but first - cue the "Blazing Saddles" choir : "RANN - daugh-allph SCOTTT"!
Okay, now we're all set. Well, I wanted my Western Fix and I finally got it, and in Black & White no less. Couldn't be better. Color westerns are okay, but ideally every one would be in black and white.
The story is about the infamous Dalton Gang, who may be known to even a person with marginal knowledge of the Old West. The Daltons were right up there with Jesse James and The Wild Bunch as far as Outlaws go, and in fact they were connected to both. They were cousins of James, and a couple of the Daltons joined The Wild Bunch after their own gang was gunned down and broken up.
Sounds like being in a rock band, because you have names for the gangs, lol, and they sometimes change members. :)
In the movie, which has great photography and amazing natural scenery (and authentic Western sets), the Dalton brothers are at first presented as law abiding citizens living in Kansas. Brother Bob is a local U.S. Marshall, and his siblings live on a farm with their Irish-born mother, just outside of town. They are minding their own business when a government land surveyor shows up and claims part of their land as Federal property. They claim they bought it ten years prior, fair and square. In the movie, the government surveying team are made out to be the bad guys. They are forcing farmers off their land, lying about the boundaries, and are doing all of this in collusion (love that word) with millionaire railroad barons. The movie portrays the law abiding Daltons as the first family to stand up to the crooked surveyors and their wealthy backers. But after a confrontation one of the Daltons is up on a murder charge, and is in court. During his trial, which seems fixed, his brothers break him out, and are now on the run. From here their life of wanton crime begins, and ends up including bank robberies, train robberies, and murder. The movie claims they were driven to all of this by crooked government and business officials.
I checked Wikipedia afterwards, and got a different story on the Dalton brothers, which only presented them as career criminals. Farming was not mentioned, nor was anything about a land dispute. The movie script was based on a book by Emmett Dalton, who lived until 1937. The other brothers were killed in a shootout following a bank robbery in the 1890s, and if you Google it you can find a famous photo of them all laying dead, posed in a row, as publicity for law enforcement. And you can believe Emmett Dalton's story or Wikipedia. I don't know myself, but I tend to believe the movie version just on instinct, and because I'm not a fan of land developers as you know.
Still, it doesn't absolve the Dalton Brothers of their crimes........but wait a minute!
I am not gonna go on another self-righteous lecture about morality because the movie was too darn good. You had Broderick Crawford before he was heavy set, in a lead role as Bob Dalton, the US Marshall. You had Randolph Scott as his best friend and lawyer, who sticks by the family and tries to get them out of their legal jams. You had the stylish and luminous Kay Francis as the Love Interest, initially bequeathed to Broderick Crawford, but who falls for the more considerate and attentive Scott.
My Screenwriting Tirade holds especially true with this film. There is so much story jam-packed into 80 minutes (not even 90, but 80!), that you feel you are living right there, inside the scenery as an onlooker. You are in The Old West, when life was lived in Black & White, and you are part of "When The Daltons Rode".
That is your experience when you watch this movie. Every Western should be so good, and this one has everything : Land disputes! Bank and Train Robberies! Courtroom Drama! Romantic Drama! Shootouts in Rocky Landscapes In Simi Valley! And Kay Francis, a new discovery. :)
That's all I know for tonight. I am still plowing through "Forbidden Archaeology" but am in the home stretch now, at page 640. Did I tell you to Google Reck's Skeleton? I think I did.....
Elizabeth, if you are reading I am still right here, but the FB thing is still stuck in place and I am not able to see any new "likes" for several weeks now. I hope all is well, and I hope the algorithm will revert once again to normal.
The mockingbird is here in Pearl's backyard as I write, and is speaking non stop, in an amazing language that sounds like words to me.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Half Of "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee"
Sorry I missed ya last night. It was one of those nights where I didn't watch a movie, had a thoroughly average day, and couldn't think of a thing to talk about when it came time to write the blog. I hate it when that happens, so thank goodness it hardly ever does.
Today isn't much better, but at least I have a movie I can mention. The problem is that I didn't watch it all the way through. You know how when a movie sucks I will try to hang in there but then I eventually have to turn it off? That's not what happened this time.
What happened this time was that the movie was really good, but it turned itself off.
Doggonnit! Maybe it's payback by the other movies, the bad ones that I refused to sit through. Maybe one of those movies sabotaged the dvd I was watching tonight, because I tried all the usual tricks to revive it - polished it up, tried fast forwarding, skipping ahead a scene - but nothing worked. I had watched the movie a little more than halfway through, and all of a sudden it just froze up and wouldn't play no matter what I did.
The movie was "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee", an HBO production and a very good one up to the point where I was not able to view it any longer. I had searched for it in the Library's database because I am always looking for a Western fix, and I remembered the title from a bestselling book of the 1970s. I found out it had been made into a movie by HBO and within days I had the disc in my hands, but alas it was not to be.
The first 75 minutes of the story began with a depiction of the massacre at Little Big Horn (of Custer's troops), and then moved on the resettlement of the Sioux Tribes to reservations in the Dakotas, after peace treaties were forced upon their leaders, who were given ultimatums to either move or be killed.
The movie tries to get it's history right - and I wasn't there so I can't say - but it shows that although the White Man was indeed encroaching upon the land of the natives, he did make an attempt to include the Indians in a share-the-wealth plan that included mining and railroad building on Sioux lands. Various treaties were signed over a decade.
The main point is that the Indians were there first, but the White Man with his superior weaponry and his ability to develop the land and to organise his society on a technical level, could not be stopped by the Indians and therefore must be bargained with.
The situation was not entirely black and white. In modern history, the White Man is portrayed as The Bad Guy and the Indian as entirely innocent, and in the first sense, that seems to be true, simply because they were here first.
But then a researcher would have to consider the long term question of human migration, and which peoples wound up where at what time in history. It is also true that the European peoples had tribes as well, who migrated all over the place. As my history teacher was fond of saying, "There are no Germans in Germany". My theory about the European tribes is that they developed technology out of necessity, because they lived in the cold and therefore had to take action to ensure their survival. They had to sail the seas, and look for food, etc. In warmer climates, it was easier for a people to maintain a static approach to life. The Indian peoples could live off the land much easier than could the tribes of ancient Europe.
The cold vs. warm lifestyles led to the outward movement - the seeking out of new lands - of the White Man tribes, and formed their aggressive attitude.
For their part, the Indians seem to have had their warmongering, dominant factions as well. So we see that human nature was present in America even before the Europeans arrived. The Indians were not saints, but the difference was that they lived off the land and we had our technology. They lived in a warm undisturbed climate and we came from a cold and increasingly polluted climate that bred disease.
They believed in The Great Spirit and we believed in Jesus Christ.
They believed that the land belonged to all people, and we established private ownership of the land.
All of these points are argued and challenged by characters in the movie. One of the main characters is a young Lakota man who has been assimilated into American society and has risen to attend Dartmouth College. He becomes a doctor and returns to a reservation to treat his people.
I did not get to see the final hour of the movie. I think it was based on another massacre that ultimately took place - at Wounded Knee - but I am not certain. I will need to see the whole movie.
I think, however, that the story is really less about the wars and more about the rights of all peoples, wherever they may come from and wherever they may settle. It is true that the White Man developed much of the technology that settled and organised the modern world.
He developed science, whereas the Native Americans relied on nature to provide for them. They had their small technologies, but basically they trusted in their God.
So who is right?
Maybe both of us, and maybe all cultures of the Earth. If the White Man is going to conquer with his technology, then he is also going to have to lead spiritually as well. He is going to have to lead morally.
Right now there are doubts that he is leading in these ways. He believes in himself, but there are too many "selves" (i.e. egos) to come to an agreement on anything.
Technology vs. nature. Stasis vs. progress. Ego vs. leadership.
The Indians and the White Man were both subject to human nature, and neither people were perfect. Also, humans had migrated for thousands of years prior to the White Man's coming to North America, so it is hard to say who exactly has a claim on any piece of land on Earth, meaning who was "there first" in a particular place.
But having said all of that, it was wrong what we did to the Indian people.
The best we can do to make up for it is to honor their land and have respect for their way of life.
I hope this made even a little bit of sense as I am extremely tired tonight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Today isn't much better, but at least I have a movie I can mention. The problem is that I didn't watch it all the way through. You know how when a movie sucks I will try to hang in there but then I eventually have to turn it off? That's not what happened this time.
What happened this time was that the movie was really good, but it turned itself off.
Doggonnit! Maybe it's payback by the other movies, the bad ones that I refused to sit through. Maybe one of those movies sabotaged the dvd I was watching tonight, because I tried all the usual tricks to revive it - polished it up, tried fast forwarding, skipping ahead a scene - but nothing worked. I had watched the movie a little more than halfway through, and all of a sudden it just froze up and wouldn't play no matter what I did.
The movie was "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee", an HBO production and a very good one up to the point where I was not able to view it any longer. I had searched for it in the Library's database because I am always looking for a Western fix, and I remembered the title from a bestselling book of the 1970s. I found out it had been made into a movie by HBO and within days I had the disc in my hands, but alas it was not to be.
The first 75 minutes of the story began with a depiction of the massacre at Little Big Horn (of Custer's troops), and then moved on the resettlement of the Sioux Tribes to reservations in the Dakotas, after peace treaties were forced upon their leaders, who were given ultimatums to either move or be killed.
The movie tries to get it's history right - and I wasn't there so I can't say - but it shows that although the White Man was indeed encroaching upon the land of the natives, he did make an attempt to include the Indians in a share-the-wealth plan that included mining and railroad building on Sioux lands. Various treaties were signed over a decade.
The main point is that the Indians were there first, but the White Man with his superior weaponry and his ability to develop the land and to organise his society on a technical level, could not be stopped by the Indians and therefore must be bargained with.
The situation was not entirely black and white. In modern history, the White Man is portrayed as The Bad Guy and the Indian as entirely innocent, and in the first sense, that seems to be true, simply because they were here first.
But then a researcher would have to consider the long term question of human migration, and which peoples wound up where at what time in history. It is also true that the European peoples had tribes as well, who migrated all over the place. As my history teacher was fond of saying, "There are no Germans in Germany". My theory about the European tribes is that they developed technology out of necessity, because they lived in the cold and therefore had to take action to ensure their survival. They had to sail the seas, and look for food, etc. In warmer climates, it was easier for a people to maintain a static approach to life. The Indian peoples could live off the land much easier than could the tribes of ancient Europe.
The cold vs. warm lifestyles led to the outward movement - the seeking out of new lands - of the White Man tribes, and formed their aggressive attitude.
For their part, the Indians seem to have had their warmongering, dominant factions as well. So we see that human nature was present in America even before the Europeans arrived. The Indians were not saints, but the difference was that they lived off the land and we had our technology. They lived in a warm undisturbed climate and we came from a cold and increasingly polluted climate that bred disease.
They believed in The Great Spirit and we believed in Jesus Christ.
They believed that the land belonged to all people, and we established private ownership of the land.
All of these points are argued and challenged by characters in the movie. One of the main characters is a young Lakota man who has been assimilated into American society and has risen to attend Dartmouth College. He becomes a doctor and returns to a reservation to treat his people.
I did not get to see the final hour of the movie. I think it was based on another massacre that ultimately took place - at Wounded Knee - but I am not certain. I will need to see the whole movie.
I think, however, that the story is really less about the wars and more about the rights of all peoples, wherever they may come from and wherever they may settle. It is true that the White Man developed much of the technology that settled and organised the modern world.
He developed science, whereas the Native Americans relied on nature to provide for them. They had their small technologies, but basically they trusted in their God.
So who is right?
Maybe both of us, and maybe all cultures of the Earth. If the White Man is going to conquer with his technology, then he is also going to have to lead spiritually as well. He is going to have to lead morally.
Right now there are doubts that he is leading in these ways. He believes in himself, but there are too many "selves" (i.e. egos) to come to an agreement on anything.
Technology vs. nature. Stasis vs. progress. Ego vs. leadership.
The Indians and the White Man were both subject to human nature, and neither people were perfect. Also, humans had migrated for thousands of years prior to the White Man's coming to North America, so it is hard to say who exactly has a claim on any piece of land on Earth, meaning who was "there first" in a particular place.
But having said all of that, it was wrong what we did to the Indian people.
The best we can do to make up for it is to honor their land and have respect for their way of life.
I hope this made even a little bit of sense as I am extremely tired tonight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, May 14, 2018
Light Years + Happy Mother's Day + "Bride Of The Monster" + Google "Zana" + "Almas" (very important)
Light Years Tired - That is when your tiredness can only be measured by how far light has traveled since the last time you got some sleep. Or something like that. :) I was gonna retire the Sunday Night Superlatives, and I think it's been several weeks since I used one as my opener, but tonight I had to bring it back because I don't think I've ever used Light Years to measure tiredness before.
I wanted to make my explanation of Light Years Tired a lot more convoluted than it is - make it ultra mathematical and relative and add in Red Shift, and measure the speed and distance traveled of tiredness........but it was taking me too long to come up with something both plausible and sufficiently ridiculous, and I was getting too tired to continue (which was tiredness feeding back on itself, like a guitar and amplifier) so I gave up and went with the simple approach as written above. I hope it will suffice for tonight.
We had a nice morning in church, with good singing. I drank a little bit of orange juice beforehand, and I am having good results with the citrus effect so I will keep using it as part of my pre-choir intake : lots of water, a modicum of coffee, a twinge of juice. Voila! Voice works how I want it to.
They had a nice Mother's Day service at Reseda Methodist, with red and pink carnations passed out to all the ladies present, and a great sermon by Pastor G. I thought of my Mom, who I miss every day, and who was a wonderful and awesome lady. Elizabeth, if you are reading I hope you had a nice Mother's Day with your Mom, and I wish this for everyone, and also for anyone who misses their Momma as much as I miss mine.
The rest of the day was just a chill out, because of the Sunday Factor and because I was very much affected by the concert last night.
Tonight I watched a movie called "Bride Of The Monster" (1956), directed by the legendary Ed Wood of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" infamy. I wasn't planning to watch it, because I had a dvd from the Libe lined up for tonight, but when I got home this evening at 7pm, I was browsing horror movies on Amazon (because I am always on the hunt), and I came across "Bride".....and I thought, "hmmm, it's supposed to be an Ed Wood classic, and I'll bet it's on Youtube". And it was, with a very good print, too. I don't normally watch movies on a computer, and ordinarily I would not do so, but all of a sudden I was drawn in.
I suddenly needed to see "Bride Of The Monster", because it was classic and cheesy, but also because as I started to watch the video, it looked really good, with a lot of Haunted House atmosphere. I am not an Ed Wood expert, but I'd guess that this is one of his more accomplished films. Bela Lugosi stars in his very last role, as a Mad Scientist who is bent on using Atomic Power to create a race of Superhumans. He lives in a Scary Mansion over which lightning is always striking every night. He has a Giant Man Of Subnormal Intelligence working for him (Tor Johnson), who helps Lugosi to capture and then experiment on poor souls who made the mistake of wandering out near the swamp that surrounds his property. Bela also has at his disposal a Giant Squid who lives in the swamp, and who is accessible to him via a large water tank. The victims of Lugosi who have not successfully passed through his experiments are given over to the Squid, and man. this is something that you would not want to befall you.
You would rather have Tor Johnson get hold of you than be tossed to the Giant Squid, trust me.
"Bride Of The Monster" is actually a very good Wood film, believe it or not. There is a section in the last half of the movie that features a dramatic meeting between Bela Lugosi and a spy from his home country of Hungary, in which the spy tries to persuade him to return home. Here we see some of the best acting of Lugosi's career, which manifests onscreen like an exercise in German Expressionism.
The scene is pure theater, but it's also downright weird, and it is a highlight of "Bride Of The Monster".
I give it Two Thumbs Up, in this case calibrated for the fact that it's an Ed Wood film, but it's also really good, given that caveat.
As I Googled afterward, I saw that it is a famous film by Mr. Wood, and I am surprised I had never seen it before. Now I have. ////
Lastly for tonight, I wanted to ask you "how are we doing on that Patterson/Gimlin film"?
Have you watched the Sasquatch/Bigfoot movie yet? If you have watched it, what do you think? Real or not real? Lemme know. You know where I stand.
On the same subject - and as per "Forbidden Archaeology" (my source book) - we have now read about the Yeti of Mongolia and Northern Asia. He is also known in folklore as The Abominable Snowman. He's apparently a real dude, and you can Google him if you wish (Google "Shipton Footprint"), but more importantly tonight, I want you to Google a homonid known as the Almas of southern Asia. Read about the Almas in China and Russia in the 19th Century.
And then Google a person known as Zana. Google "Zana" + "Almas" and see what you get. Read about Zana, and make sure you check Google Images for the famous picture of her. You will also find pictures of her son, who died in the mid or late 1800s.
Make sure you do all this Googling and studying, so that we can continue our discussion of Living Ape-Men who may be with us in the world today. And go back and look at the Patterson/Gimlin film if you haven't already.
But check out Zana for sure, because I'd be interested in your verdict. You already know mine.
See you in the morning after a Monster Sleep-In. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I wanted to make my explanation of Light Years Tired a lot more convoluted than it is - make it ultra mathematical and relative and add in Red Shift, and measure the speed and distance traveled of tiredness........but it was taking me too long to come up with something both plausible and sufficiently ridiculous, and I was getting too tired to continue (which was tiredness feeding back on itself, like a guitar and amplifier) so I gave up and went with the simple approach as written above. I hope it will suffice for tonight.
We had a nice morning in church, with good singing. I drank a little bit of orange juice beforehand, and I am having good results with the citrus effect so I will keep using it as part of my pre-choir intake : lots of water, a modicum of coffee, a twinge of juice. Voila! Voice works how I want it to.
They had a nice Mother's Day service at Reseda Methodist, with red and pink carnations passed out to all the ladies present, and a great sermon by Pastor G. I thought of my Mom, who I miss every day, and who was a wonderful and awesome lady. Elizabeth, if you are reading I hope you had a nice Mother's Day with your Mom, and I wish this for everyone, and also for anyone who misses their Momma as much as I miss mine.
The rest of the day was just a chill out, because of the Sunday Factor and because I was very much affected by the concert last night.
Tonight I watched a movie called "Bride Of The Monster" (1956), directed by the legendary Ed Wood of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" infamy. I wasn't planning to watch it, because I had a dvd from the Libe lined up for tonight, but when I got home this evening at 7pm, I was browsing horror movies on Amazon (because I am always on the hunt), and I came across "Bride".....and I thought, "hmmm, it's supposed to be an Ed Wood classic, and I'll bet it's on Youtube". And it was, with a very good print, too. I don't normally watch movies on a computer, and ordinarily I would not do so, but all of a sudden I was drawn in.
I suddenly needed to see "Bride Of The Monster", because it was classic and cheesy, but also because as I started to watch the video, it looked really good, with a lot of Haunted House atmosphere. I am not an Ed Wood expert, but I'd guess that this is one of his more accomplished films. Bela Lugosi stars in his very last role, as a Mad Scientist who is bent on using Atomic Power to create a race of Superhumans. He lives in a Scary Mansion over which lightning is always striking every night. He has a Giant Man Of Subnormal Intelligence working for him (Tor Johnson), who helps Lugosi to capture and then experiment on poor souls who made the mistake of wandering out near the swamp that surrounds his property. Bela also has at his disposal a Giant Squid who lives in the swamp, and who is accessible to him via a large water tank. The victims of Lugosi who have not successfully passed through his experiments are given over to the Squid, and man. this is something that you would not want to befall you.
You would rather have Tor Johnson get hold of you than be tossed to the Giant Squid, trust me.
"Bride Of The Monster" is actually a very good Wood film, believe it or not. There is a section in the last half of the movie that features a dramatic meeting between Bela Lugosi and a spy from his home country of Hungary, in which the spy tries to persuade him to return home. Here we see some of the best acting of Lugosi's career, which manifests onscreen like an exercise in German Expressionism.
The scene is pure theater, but it's also downright weird, and it is a highlight of "Bride Of The Monster".
I give it Two Thumbs Up, in this case calibrated for the fact that it's an Ed Wood film, but it's also really good, given that caveat.
As I Googled afterward, I saw that it is a famous film by Mr. Wood, and I am surprised I had never seen it before. Now I have. ////
Lastly for tonight, I wanted to ask you "how are we doing on that Patterson/Gimlin film"?
Have you watched the Sasquatch/Bigfoot movie yet? If you have watched it, what do you think? Real or not real? Lemme know. You know where I stand.
On the same subject - and as per "Forbidden Archaeology" (my source book) - we have now read about the Yeti of Mongolia and Northern Asia. He is also known in folklore as The Abominable Snowman. He's apparently a real dude, and you can Google him if you wish (Google "Shipton Footprint"), but more importantly tonight, I want you to Google a homonid known as the Almas of southern Asia. Read about the Almas in China and Russia in the 19th Century.
And then Google a person known as Zana. Google "Zana" + "Almas" and see what you get. Read about Zana, and make sure you check Google Images for the famous picture of her. You will also find pictures of her son, who died in the mid or late 1800s.
Make sure you do all this Googling and studying, so that we can continue our discussion of Living Ape-Men who may be with us in the world today. And go back and look at the Patterson/Gimlin film if you haven't already.
But check out Zana for sure, because I'd be interested in your verdict. You already know mine.
See you in the morning after a Monster Sleep-In. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, May 13, 2018
There Is Nothing You Can Really Say About A Steven Wilson Concert, Except.......
I am back from the Steven Wilson concert, and I will repeat what I posted on Facebook. My review of the concert is "...................". I mean, you knew that was gonna be my review, didn't you? I feel a little dumbfounded, or maybe dumbstruck (something with "dumb" in it) whenever I go to see Mr. Wilson, a musical genius if there ever was one. He plays a combination of music that is very advanced - progressive rock of the highest level - but which also has simpler passages where sometimes he is singing to just a piano melody. He plays the hardest, heaviest industrial-sounding riffs you've ever heard, and he mixes them with melancholic singer-songwriter tunes that, in concert, he jokes about.
"I just recently listened back to this next one, and it depressed even me". SW is quite the raconteur live, telling stories between songs, and he is self-deprecating about his penchant for sad songs, of which he has a lot. But his sad songs are always majestic, and even then, in concert he follows them up by either ripping your head off with a monster instrumental, or he changes the tone entirely with a song influenced by 80s pop, or one with Beach Boy harmonies but weird minor chords. It must be incredible to hear what he hears inside his head.
In concert, there are also the production values, which are on the level of Rush and Pink Floyd. Besides his career as a musical artist, Wilson has also long been known as one of the best producers in the business and a legendary remixer of classic 70s material from bands like Yes, King Crimson and Jethro Tull. He is a Soundmeister, in other words - he's got an ear like nobody else - and he brings his studio ability to the live setting. His band gets a live sound that is one of the very greatest I've heard, and like Pink Floyd, he uses state of the art visuals to enhance the sensory experience. One thing Wilson does that I've never seen anyone else do, is to use a "front screen", which is see-through and made out of mesh, onto which all kinds of striking visual effects are projected, from films to lighting effects to holograms. Meanwhile, because the front screen is see through, you can still see the band playing behind the projected up front visuals, and the band is lit in bright liquid colors that either compliment or contrast with the onscreen effects, so you get a dramatic 3D effect a lot of the time.
It is very special to see an artist like Steven Wilson, because you feel you are not only seeing something unique and incredibly powerful and moving, but also because you feel like you are seeing something that won't be approximated any time soon. In other words, there are no Steven Wilson proteges out there. He is one of a kind, as was Frank Zappa, or Todd Rundgren, who is not "was" but "is". And I will be seeing him at The Wiltern in a couple of weeks, with his band Utopia.
I just have to take a step back, as I said last night in talking about David Lynch, but this time it is a step back to reflect on what I have seen and what I have heard.
It is not enough to go to a concert and come home and say, "It was awesome".
That is cool, for sure, and to have such a response is the normal thing to do.
But for me, I have to go a little bit further and reflect on what I have seen, especially after a show like I saw tonight.
The guys who put on that show know how mind boggling it was, and they want the audience to really let it sink in, and not just to say, "awesome show, what's next"?
I feel that at some shows, like a Steven Wilson show - or even many shows that I've seen - that I am seeing something in concert that people 100 or 200 years from now will say was legendary.
Like, "holy smokes!........you got to see Mozart"?
Well, I didn't get to see him, but I got to see Steven Wilson and many others.
These concerts that we go to, and that we are amazed by, are something that will be known in the future by people who haven't even been born yet.
They will read about the history of this music, and they will listen to it, and they will say, "Wow! Imagine having been there".
And we were. :)
See you in church in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
"I just recently listened back to this next one, and it depressed even me". SW is quite the raconteur live, telling stories between songs, and he is self-deprecating about his penchant for sad songs, of which he has a lot. But his sad songs are always majestic, and even then, in concert he follows them up by either ripping your head off with a monster instrumental, or he changes the tone entirely with a song influenced by 80s pop, or one with Beach Boy harmonies but weird minor chords. It must be incredible to hear what he hears inside his head.
In concert, there are also the production values, which are on the level of Rush and Pink Floyd. Besides his career as a musical artist, Wilson has also long been known as one of the best producers in the business and a legendary remixer of classic 70s material from bands like Yes, King Crimson and Jethro Tull. He is a Soundmeister, in other words - he's got an ear like nobody else - and he brings his studio ability to the live setting. His band gets a live sound that is one of the very greatest I've heard, and like Pink Floyd, he uses state of the art visuals to enhance the sensory experience. One thing Wilson does that I've never seen anyone else do, is to use a "front screen", which is see-through and made out of mesh, onto which all kinds of striking visual effects are projected, from films to lighting effects to holograms. Meanwhile, because the front screen is see through, you can still see the band playing behind the projected up front visuals, and the band is lit in bright liquid colors that either compliment or contrast with the onscreen effects, so you get a dramatic 3D effect a lot of the time.
It is very special to see an artist like Steven Wilson, because you feel you are not only seeing something unique and incredibly powerful and moving, but also because you feel like you are seeing something that won't be approximated any time soon. In other words, there are no Steven Wilson proteges out there. He is one of a kind, as was Frank Zappa, or Todd Rundgren, who is not "was" but "is". And I will be seeing him at The Wiltern in a couple of weeks, with his band Utopia.
I just have to take a step back, as I said last night in talking about David Lynch, but this time it is a step back to reflect on what I have seen and what I have heard.
It is not enough to go to a concert and come home and say, "It was awesome".
That is cool, for sure, and to have such a response is the normal thing to do.
But for me, I have to go a little bit further and reflect on what I have seen, especially after a show like I saw tonight.
The guys who put on that show know how mind boggling it was, and they want the audience to really let it sink in, and not just to say, "awesome show, what's next"?
I feel that at some shows, like a Steven Wilson show - or even many shows that I've seen - that I am seeing something in concert that people 100 or 200 years from now will say was legendary.
Like, "holy smokes!........you got to see Mozart"?
Well, I didn't get to see him, but I got to see Steven Wilson and many others.
These concerts that we go to, and that we are amazed by, are something that will be known in the future by people who haven't even been born yet.
They will read about the history of this music, and they will listen to it, and they will say, "Wow! Imagine having been there".
And we were. :)
See you in church in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Saturday, May 12, 2018
"Twin Peaks" + Lynch + Santa Su + Hey SB!
No movie tonight, but instead : Episode 14 of "Twin Peaks". Man oh man, the whole story is beginning to come together now, and I can see that every strange little sequence Lynch included along the way was a piece of the puzzle. Everything has meant something. Plot and meaning are often easy to overlook with David Lynch, who often seems to be focused on the weirdness of what is happening in his shows, and the viewer can be lured away, by the weirdness, from paying attention to the story. But there is a story, and as Lynch himself has said of his work : "I give you all the information you need to figure out what is going on". In other words, he gives you the same amount of info that you'd receive in a straightforward script from a mystery movie or film noir. It's just that he gives it to you in a very abstract way, and you have to make sense of it.
In the course of watching "Twin Peaks" (2017), I vacillated between thinking it was amazing and thinking it was pretty good but not as good as the original. I've returned to amazing, and I'm sure that will be my final verdict. This "Twin Peaks" is not to be compared to the original. It is an entirely different conception, with many different actors (and many from the original), and different settings. There are many scenes set in office buildings, in cities, whereas the original was - if I remember correctly - entirely set in Twin Peaks, Washington. So the 2017 version has branched out quite a bit (an understatement!), and yet it is part and parcel of the original series, because - apparently - it is a continuation of the same storyline.
There would probably have to be a Mueller Investigation of David Lynch's mind to determine if this is true, but for now we will just have to accept that it is.
I've still got four episodes to go, but I'm ready to declare the entirety of "Twin Peaks", from 1990 to 2017, as one of the greatest works of television ever produced. If you total up the episodes from the original series (30) and the 2017 TP (18), and if you add in the 1992 movie "Twin Peaks : Fire Walk With Me", you have a 50 hour experience that was made mostly for television but could also stand up as a non-stop motion picture, if anybody had the stamina to watch for that long, lol.
I'm not done yet with "Twin Peaks", but it goes without saying that it gets my highest possible rating. I think that with Lynch, sometimes you have to take a step back to truly appreciate what he is doing. I will eventually re-visit the entire work and watch all 48 episodes (from both series) and the movie, and do it all over the course of, say, three or four months. Pound it! in other words... Maybe in 2019. ///
This afternoon I managed to go out to Santa Susana for a one hour hike. Give me a High Five, because I am trying to get back into it.
(Wait).......didja give me the High Five? You did? Okay thanks.
I wasn't sure because I am over here on the computer, and you are over there on the computer. Or maybe on the iPhone. Can you read blogs on a iPhone? I dunno, but thanks for the High Five. Your support means a lot to me because I wanna start hiking again, as much as I can, and I wanna start taking pictures again. Gotta get back in shape, too, and lose weight.....
Elizabeth, if you are reading, I saw and heard your re-post of your cover of "Dream", which you originally recorded last year, and though I may have said this at the time, I have gotta re-iterate that your vocal on that song is exceptional. I am sure that you know the concept of "selling a song" by conveying the emotion of the lyrics in your delivery, and in emphasizing and isolating high notes at the crescendoes. In other words, "singing it like you mean it". Our choir director harps on this every Sunday, but he also talks about the dynamics of a song, and which words need to be given volume. That kind of thing. You had more choir training than me, so you know what I am talking about. But speaking simply as a music fan who has been listening all my life, boy do you ever know how to sing a song, SB. You really bring out the feeling in the lyrics, not an easy thing to do.
I hope you have more music in the works! :):)
Tomorrow night I will be going to see Steven Wilson, so I am looking forward of course. For once I won't be going by myself, hooray! My friend Ono (not his real name) will be going with me, and we will be meeting Grimsley down there. Grim has a separate ticket, he is not a major SW fan but decided to go at the last minute.
Mr. Wilson always puts on a show that ranks with the best you can see, and I will tell you about it tomorrow night when I get home, which should be before midnight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
In the course of watching "Twin Peaks" (2017), I vacillated between thinking it was amazing and thinking it was pretty good but not as good as the original. I've returned to amazing, and I'm sure that will be my final verdict. This "Twin Peaks" is not to be compared to the original. It is an entirely different conception, with many different actors (and many from the original), and different settings. There are many scenes set in office buildings, in cities, whereas the original was - if I remember correctly - entirely set in Twin Peaks, Washington. So the 2017 version has branched out quite a bit (an understatement!), and yet it is part and parcel of the original series, because - apparently - it is a continuation of the same storyline.
There would probably have to be a Mueller Investigation of David Lynch's mind to determine if this is true, but for now we will just have to accept that it is.
I've still got four episodes to go, but I'm ready to declare the entirety of "Twin Peaks", from 1990 to 2017, as one of the greatest works of television ever produced. If you total up the episodes from the original series (30) and the 2017 TP (18), and if you add in the 1992 movie "Twin Peaks : Fire Walk With Me", you have a 50 hour experience that was made mostly for television but could also stand up as a non-stop motion picture, if anybody had the stamina to watch for that long, lol.
I'm not done yet with "Twin Peaks", but it goes without saying that it gets my highest possible rating. I think that with Lynch, sometimes you have to take a step back to truly appreciate what he is doing. I will eventually re-visit the entire work and watch all 48 episodes (from both series) and the movie, and do it all over the course of, say, three or four months. Pound it! in other words... Maybe in 2019. ///
This afternoon I managed to go out to Santa Susana for a one hour hike. Give me a High Five, because I am trying to get back into it.
(Wait).......didja give me the High Five? You did? Okay thanks.
I wasn't sure because I am over here on the computer, and you are over there on the computer. Or maybe on the iPhone. Can you read blogs on a iPhone? I dunno, but thanks for the High Five. Your support means a lot to me because I wanna start hiking again, as much as I can, and I wanna start taking pictures again. Gotta get back in shape, too, and lose weight.....
Elizabeth, if you are reading, I saw and heard your re-post of your cover of "Dream", which you originally recorded last year, and though I may have said this at the time, I have gotta re-iterate that your vocal on that song is exceptional. I am sure that you know the concept of "selling a song" by conveying the emotion of the lyrics in your delivery, and in emphasizing and isolating high notes at the crescendoes. In other words, "singing it like you mean it". Our choir director harps on this every Sunday, but he also talks about the dynamics of a song, and which words need to be given volume. That kind of thing. You had more choir training than me, so you know what I am talking about. But speaking simply as a music fan who has been listening all my life, boy do you ever know how to sing a song, SB. You really bring out the feeling in the lyrics, not an easy thing to do.
I hope you have more music in the works! :):)
Tomorrow night I will be going to see Steven Wilson, so I am looking forward of course. For once I won't be going by myself, hooray! My friend Ono (not his real name) will be going with me, and we will be meeting Grimsley down there. Grim has a separate ticket, he is not a major SW fan but decided to go at the last minute.
Mr. Wilson always puts on a show that ranks with the best you can see, and I will tell you about it tomorrow night when I get home, which should be before midnight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, May 11, 2018
"Katyn" + Evil, and Trump, Must Be Stopped
Tonight at CSUN we saw "Katyn" (2007) by Andrzej Wajda. You may remember the title from a review last year; I watched it at home last November, so this was my second go-round but my first on the big screen. As I probably mentioned in my first review, the title is a place name for the Katyn Forest, which is located in Russia. The Katyn Forest became synonymous with a horrific war crime known as the Katyn Massacre, which took place in 1940, in which 22,000 captured Polish Army officers were systematically taken by train, from their prison camps to an outpost in the forest, and then were rapidly executed in a gruesome assembly line. The bodies were then thrown into mass graves dug out of the ground by a bulldozer, and finally were covered over with the upturned dirt and forgotten about.
Relatives in Poland were told various stories, usually that their officer husband/son/brother died of an illness in his prison camp. But rumors began to surface of a massacre, and the Soviets were quick to claim they had solved the mystery. They said it was the Germans who did it, and it was easy to blame on the Germans, whose SS and Gestapo had already committed war crimes of equal ferocity.
But soon after the war ended, there were some Polish officers who had survived the slaughter. They had been conscripted into the new Soviet-controlled NKVD secret police in Poland, and though they were sworn to lie about the massacre and uphold the official story about the Germans, some of them started to talk about what they had witnessed.
And the truth came out - it was the Soviet Army that had carried out the massacre, on the order of their government's Politburo.
What is depicted in the movie is not just war, or even war crimes. Those terms are too clinical to describe what we see onscreen, which is just plain evil. I have mentioned many times that we need to understand that evil is real, and that it is not to be underestimated. Only humans carry out evil, and when they do, there is often a "long road" or process that leads up to it, when it happens en masse, such as in a war. Yes, there are singular acts of evil, such as those committed by serial killers, but large scale evil requires a like-mindedness among a wide spectrum of the population, or the military and it's leaders who are engaged in a war.
You can't just massacre 22,000 army officers (or 6 million Jews) unless everyone involved is in agreement about the action.
That is Evil writ large. To call these things "war crimes" is to sanitise them.
You have to see what happens to understand what it is, and what the motivating force is.
At any rate, sorry for the grimness, but I wanted to explore the theme a little bit because of where we are as a country, and specifically because on the news today we saw some truly disgusting comments made against John McCain, a man who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam and who is now dying of cancer.
Both of the comments came out of the Trump camp. One came from a United States Army General, and the other came from an aide to Donald Trump. If you are not aware of these comments, you can Google them if you wish.
I will give you the gist, however. The General insinuated on television that McCain was a coward who succumbed under torture by the Vietnamese and gave them information that was damaging to the US military strategy. The aide to Trump made a very crude remark that McCain was "dying anyway", and so his vote or opinion on a particular matter was of no consequence.
I don't know how many people read this blog, or if anybody I know besides the SB has ever read it. But if anyone is out there who remembers what America is, and what America is supposed to be, I ask you tonight to consider the history of Europe, and what befell those countries after centuries of unresolved strife.
Having seen "Katyn" for a second time tonight, I also remind you that Mass Evil requires a process, to make sure everyone is going to go along with it.
We are now seeing, on our television screens, United States Army Generals and White House aides who work for the monster Donald Trump (evil personified, for real), mock a dying man who fought in Vietnam and was tortured in a Vietnamese prison camp.
At some point, we had better realise that we are up against a potential mass evil developing here.
We may not be at the breaking point just yet, but we are seeing people in high places drop their guard and state exactly how they feel. And we see them mock a dying man. And we see the sycophantic Mike Pence call for an end to the Mueller investigation.
At some point, someone is going to have to stand up to Donald Trump and shut him down.
Or we could have a real problem on our hands, just as Russia did, just as Germany did, and as is depicted in Andrzej Wajda's "Katyn".
See you in the morning. :):)
Relatives in Poland were told various stories, usually that their officer husband/son/brother died of an illness in his prison camp. But rumors began to surface of a massacre, and the Soviets were quick to claim they had solved the mystery. They said it was the Germans who did it, and it was easy to blame on the Germans, whose SS and Gestapo had already committed war crimes of equal ferocity.
But soon after the war ended, there were some Polish officers who had survived the slaughter. They had been conscripted into the new Soviet-controlled NKVD secret police in Poland, and though they were sworn to lie about the massacre and uphold the official story about the Germans, some of them started to talk about what they had witnessed.
And the truth came out - it was the Soviet Army that had carried out the massacre, on the order of their government's Politburo.
What is depicted in the movie is not just war, or even war crimes. Those terms are too clinical to describe what we see onscreen, which is just plain evil. I have mentioned many times that we need to understand that evil is real, and that it is not to be underestimated. Only humans carry out evil, and when they do, there is often a "long road" or process that leads up to it, when it happens en masse, such as in a war. Yes, there are singular acts of evil, such as those committed by serial killers, but large scale evil requires a like-mindedness among a wide spectrum of the population, or the military and it's leaders who are engaged in a war.
You can't just massacre 22,000 army officers (or 6 million Jews) unless everyone involved is in agreement about the action.
That is Evil writ large. To call these things "war crimes" is to sanitise them.
You have to see what happens to understand what it is, and what the motivating force is.
At any rate, sorry for the grimness, but I wanted to explore the theme a little bit because of where we are as a country, and specifically because on the news today we saw some truly disgusting comments made against John McCain, a man who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam and who is now dying of cancer.
Both of the comments came out of the Trump camp. One came from a United States Army General, and the other came from an aide to Donald Trump. If you are not aware of these comments, you can Google them if you wish.
I will give you the gist, however. The General insinuated on television that McCain was a coward who succumbed under torture by the Vietnamese and gave them information that was damaging to the US military strategy. The aide to Trump made a very crude remark that McCain was "dying anyway", and so his vote or opinion on a particular matter was of no consequence.
I don't know how many people read this blog, or if anybody I know besides the SB has ever read it. But if anyone is out there who remembers what America is, and what America is supposed to be, I ask you tonight to consider the history of Europe, and what befell those countries after centuries of unresolved strife.
Having seen "Katyn" for a second time tonight, I also remind you that Mass Evil requires a process, to make sure everyone is going to go along with it.
We are now seeing, on our television screens, United States Army Generals and White House aides who work for the monster Donald Trump (evil personified, for real), mock a dying man who fought in Vietnam and was tortured in a Vietnamese prison camp.
At some point, we had better realise that we are up against a potential mass evil developing here.
We may not be at the breaking point just yet, but we are seeing people in high places drop their guard and state exactly how they feel. And we see them mock a dying man. And we see the sycophantic Mike Pence call for an end to the Mueller investigation.
At some point, someone is going to have to stand up to Donald Trump and shut him down.
Or we could have a real problem on our hands, just as Russia did, just as Germany did, and as is depicted in Andrzej Wajda's "Katyn".
See you in the morning. :):)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)