Session: Australian Horror/Sci-Fi, week 4 Movie: Mad Max (1979) Plot: In a dystopian world of the near future, the only law on the open road is the Main Force Patrol. After a criminal, being chased by the MFP,dies in an accident, his friends want revenge. Hilarity ensues.
Class Reaction: This went over reasonably well. There was some definite disagreement as to whether it counts as a science fiction movie. Personally, I feel that it's not. It's a dystopian movie set in the future. But it's the near future, and none of the weapons or cars are beyond the level of contemporary technology. Dave made a very good point, in that the film doesn't explain why society is in such a shambles. I agreed, and wondered whether society was in a downward spiral, or rebuilding after hitting bottom. My Thoughts: I was really looking forward to this. Years ago we had the AIP dubbed version of Mad Max on VHS. I never actually wtached the whole thing, but I'd seen bits and pieces. Seeing this just a week after seeing The Cars That Ate Paris, I can really see how it was influenced by that earlier film. Also, clearly by Spaghetti Westerns. In some ways this was coming full circle. Ethan and I first met Keith at one of the classes he teaches at Nassau Community College. We went to it becuase Ethan loved the Saw movie franchise. And Saw was inspired by the climactic scene at the end of MM. MM reminds of typical revenge films. The Punisher, Death Wish, Death Rides a Horse. They all feature an early action by the antagonist, which drives the protagonist to seek revenge. But what makes it different is that the avengeable action takes place pretty late in the film, so the revenge is somewhat hurried. You don't have the same guilty pleasure of watching the hero pick off his victims one at a time over a prolonged stretch. No matter. It was still enjoyable. As to the four movies that Keith showed in this session, I rank them in the following order:
At work, some colleagues and I got into an email exchange about mortality tables. It was prompted by a passage in an old probability textbook. Feller, I think. The relevant passage:
It is impossible to measure the life span of an atom or a person without some error, but for theoretical purposes it is expedient to imagine that these quantities are exact numbers. The question then arises as to which numbers can represent the lifespan of a person. Is there a maximal age beyond which life is impossible, or is any age conceivable? We hesitate to admit that man can grow 1000 years old, and yet current actuarial practice admits no bounds to the possible duration of life. According to formulas on which modern mortality tables are based, the proportion of men surviving 1000 years is of the order of magnitude of one in 10^10^36 — a number with 10^27 billions of zeros. This statement does not make sense from a biological or sociological point of view, but considered exclusively from a statistical standpoint it certainly does not contradict any experience. There are fewer than 10^10 people born in a century. To test the contention statistically, more than 10^10^35 centuries would be required, which is considerably more than 10^10^34 lifetimes of the earth. Obviously, such extremely small probabilities are compatible with our notion of impossibility. Their use may appear utterly absurd, but it does no harm and is convenient in simplifying many formulas. Moreover, if we were seriously to discard the possibility of living 1000 years, we should have to accept the existence of maximum age, and the assumption that it should be possible to live x years and impossible to live x years and two seconds is as unappealing as the idea of unlimited life.
Before going on, I should note one mistake in the passage above. Current actuarial practice is (and, I believe, was as of the time that Feller was written) to use mortality tables that did have a maximal age. Modern mortality tables generally have an omega -- that age at which q (the probability of dying within a year) is 1.
At any rate, the question being alluded to is whether it makes more sense to have an omega or to assume that there is no upper bound on potential lifespan. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter. There is clearly a mathematical difference between having q=1 at age 120 and having q=.99999999999999 at age 120, growing monotonically, and converging to 1 as age approaches infinity. But in the world of insurance (and its place in finance), it doesn't matter.
Conceptually, I prefer the notion that there is no omega, but q's get arbitrarily close to 1. It just makes more sense to me. But, based on the conversation at work, I am in the minority.
The annual LIDS luncheon, last Saturday, was a great success for LIDS and great fun for us.
The guest speaker, Rich Howard of CT Daylily, gave an interesting talk. He talked about growing techniques, and had lots of great photos to accompany. He also presented many pictures of his newer cultivars, along with their lineage and other relevant data. His names -- he seems to like naming his introductions after pets or songs -- were amusing. To my eternal shame, I misidentified "Incense and Peppermints" as being by the 13th Floor Elevators instead of the Strawberry Alarm Clock. What was I thinking?
Bed Head -- Howard 2017
(Love for Jesus × Horny Devil)
Come auction time, I had decided on only one plant to bid on. I've found that, at these auctions, I need to decide beforehand what I want to bid on, and exactly how high I am willing to bid. Anyway, I bid on Bed Head, which is one of his 2017 introductions. See the accompanying photo. It's a tetraploid, the result of crossing Love For Jesus with Horny Devil. Seriously. I like the colors and the toothy edge. Yes, I also find its lineage amusing.
Anyway, I won that bidding war, so I look forward to planting that beauty in the yard later this spring.
Before the speech and auction, there were some general announcements about upcoming plant sales. Blair and I signed up to help LIDs with its Spring plant sale -- I'll be taking a couple days off work for that. I also plan to get to the Horticultural Society sale, to buy canna bulbs if nothing else. I bought a whole bunch last year, and really liked the way they grew.
I learned today that Newsweek ran an article about Stack-Up. This is a great thing for the charity, and we were thrilled to find out. I also admit that I love the video in the article -- Stack-Up Rex appears prominently several times.
I am officially the co-lead of the Queens Stack, but that's a formality that's necessary because Ethan is still a minor. But, truth be told, Ethan and Blair each do a whole lot more for Stack-Up than I do. They were in Boston earlier this month to support Stack-Up at Pax East, and today they were at the MicroSoft store on Long Island for a Stack-Up event. And there have been plenty of other events that they ran without my help. And as we speak, they're emailing the manager of the Microsoft store in order to plan the next event.
In honor of Chuck Berry, who died a week ago, I present a few covers of his songs. I tried to present a variety of styles. Other than that, I offer no further comment:
"Johnny B. Goode" from the movie, Back to the Future
"Roll Over Beethoven" as performed by ELO
"Memphis" as performed by Pianosaurus
"The Promised Land" as performed by Rockpile
"Mabellene" as performed by The Everly Brothers
"Nadine" as performed by Dr. Feelgood
"Rock and Roll Music" as performed by The Beatles
"Come On" as performed by Ian Gomm
"Dear Dad" as performed by Dave Edmunds
"Too Much Monkey Business" as performed by The Hollies
I've gotten intrigued by this whole viral thing about how some Swedish FaceBook star* named Shelley Floryd believes that Australia doesn't exist.
I saw an article, which I shared, commenting that that would explain Air Supply. On someone else's post I commented that I once knew someone who said he was "moving to Australia." I never saw him again.
The theory, as explained here, is that the British made up Australia as a cover so they could just drown their prisoners in the ocean. Makes sense to me, and I wouldn't put it past the gummint to perpetrate such an elaborate hoax -- if not for the fact that they could never pull it off.
But I wasn't satisfied with seeing the article. I wanted to get back to primary sources. The video in the article I linked above referred to Floryd as an experimental Youtuber, so I went to Youtube. Alas, she only has a few videos up. They date back a few years, and none of them are about Australia being a hoax. I did find some other such videos -- more on them later.
Before I go on, let me note for the record that Floryd does not actually believe it. See the picture from her FaceBook page.
Based on that, and a couple other posts on her Facebook page, it seems clear that this was part of a plot to get to 10,000 followers. So maybe I shouldn't do this blogpost, which is only serving to give her more publicity. Awww, who am I kidding? Nobody reads this blog, so I can post this without helping her at all.
Anyway, I tried to scroll down her Facebook page to find the original post. I gave up after scrolling down for what seemed like forever. She had lots of links to mainstream media articles about her thinking that Australia is fake, and a few posts along the lines of "Remember -- Australia is fake." And, of course, lots of non-Australia-related stuff. Including a long video of her in a sheer negligee and sports jacket sitting -- it looks like she's on a toilet but the camera angle is, thankfully, high enough that I can't be sure -- and reading from a Harry Potter book.
Above, I promised to get to the other Youtube videos that claimed that Australia is a hoax. This is the one that caught my attention:
It's hard to know if this is real or not. She seems sincere and all. But, but...the stupid! She also posted a bunch of other stupid videos. In one, called "England is Confusing," she talks about the language barrier between England and the US.
If she's not incredibly stupid, then she's a great actor. On the other hand, my whole Joey Thumpe persona was pretty stupid. I wonder if anyone fell for it...
*I should admit here that I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Facebook "star." But what do I know? I still have trouble navigating the intertubes.
Session: Australian Horror/Sci-Fi, week 3 Movie: The Cars That Ate Paris (1974) Plot: Driving through the Australian countryside at night, Arthur and his brother George are in a horrible car accident near the rural town of Paris. Arthur awakens in the local hospital. As he recovers and acquaints himself with the town, he finds that not all is as it initially appears. And they won't let him leave. Hilarity ensues.
Class Reaction: As a group we really didn't know what to make of this movie. Not that it was bad, but it was strange. The characters' odd demeanor, the strange story... Joe gave it a 7, which may seem good, but according to his scale, movies of this genre start at a 9. Keith explained to us that Peter Weir approached this a s a black comedy, but -- save for one or two moments -- we failed to see the humor. We were unanimous in appreciating the scenes that paid homage to Spaghetti Westerns. And Dave nailed it when he said that it was a biker flick with cars. My Thoughts: I was actually looking forward to this movie. Decades ago, when I was in high school I rented it and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes*. It had been released in the US as The Cars That Eat People, and I chose it based on that screaming title. It wasn't what I expected. I have no memory of that early viewing, save for some isolated images of cars in the forest. When Keith announced his itinerary for the month of Australian movies, I was looking forward to seeing what it was I had missed. Like the rest of the class, I was flummoxed. When it came time to rate it, I explained that I had no way of placinfg it in a normal scale from 1 to 10. So I rated it a 3+4i. The climactic scene, with the altered cars, made the film. Without that, I might have only rated it a 1+4i. The characters are thin and undeveloped, which kind of left me free to impose whatever conceits I liked, which was kind of helpful. But it was hard to really care about any of them. No one was likeable. No one was good. But, despite being undeveloped, they could be interesting. The Pioneer Ball scene is, itself, a work of art. It was easy to see how this led to the Mad Max movies -- which Weir also directed -- and Death Race 2000, which was directly inspired by it. A day later, I'm still not sure what to think of the movie, but I have to admit that I liked it. The Cars That Ate Paris fails the Bechdel Test. *At the time, I loved Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, but in the intervening years I have come to loathe it. It's self-conscious style and purposeful badness just grate on me. Real kitsch has to happen organically, and AofKT tries too hard to force it.
I got an email the other day from an old friend, Scott Milner. His brother, Kelsey, knows a musician who has some interest in performing one of my songs, and they're trying to track down the sheet music.
Woo-hoo!
The song in question is "Music No One Else Can Hear," which I cowrote with a coworker. It stands as the only song of mine that was recorded for an album, which makes it my biggest success as a songwriter. The Milner Brothers (Scott, Kelsey and their brother Eric) included it in their album, Haven't Lost a Thing.
AT this point, I don't have a lyric video to display the song here. The best I have is a performance by Triple Sec in Missoula, MT. Stylistically, it's very different from the Milner Brothers' rendition. The Brothers' arrangement included only accoustic guitars and bass. Triple Sec included a clarinet, which gave it an almost Klezmer sound.
The irony is that at this point I don't like the song. The Milner Brothers' record makes it sound better than it is, but the verses annoy me. Which is why I ended up rewriting it. The rewritten version, which I like much better, is what I performed at a talent show at work late last year. Of course, that was kind of premature -- I hadn't yet registered the copyright. But, whatever, I finally took care of that last Monday.
Meanwhile, this musician who's interested in the song was asking for the sheet music. Unfortunately, I don't know enough on the technical end to write out the sheet music. I provided a lyric sheet, and said that I can give her the chords if necessary. I hope that's not a deal-breaker. I have no idea if whe just wants to perform the song in her shows, or if she wants to include it on an album. Hoping it's the latter...
I'm not sure if I joined Toastmaster's last year, or in 2015. Either way, it had been too long since I joined for me not to have given my first speech -- the "icebreaker." And I might not have given it yet if not for Tracy, one of the auditors I work with. She kind of pushed me to do it.
It's not as if I haven't participated at the meetings. I've done the "Table Topics" -- impromptu 2 minute speeches on a topic that you pull from a hat -- a number of times. But this was my first prepared speech. I asked someone to tape it, but, for some reason my phone cut out partway in. And it saved the video sideways. I don;t know why. At any rate, the following is what I managed to get, and it gives a flavor of what I said.
I continued talking about the roadtrip from Phoenix to Denver. Instead of covering three states, we covered 11. Blair tackled me in the snow in Yellowstone, we enjoyed the roads in Montana (which, at the time, had no speed limit), and we accidentally found ourselves at Carhenge. After another road-trip anecdote, I talked about how we celebrated after I'd been to all fifty states -- a big party with commemorative T shirts. And Blair conspired with friends to give me the gift of media coverage. The New York Daily News ran an article, John Montone (who does -- or did -- a human interest radio show for WINS) ran a piece about me, and four governors proclaimed holidays to honor my visits to their states.
I closed by saying that we still enjoy road trips, and the only thing better than seeing new places is seeing them with Blair.
The feedback I got was generally positive. And I do think it went well, though I note that Toastmasters -- or at least my chapter -- is very positive in feedback. So I can't be sure that it was as good as the feedback would lead me to believe.
One bit of criticism that I saw a lot of was that I put my hands in my pockets too much. Valid point. Seeing the video, I realize that that's one of my crutches. I also noticed that I have a tendency to exhale in a puff when I am transitioning between thoughts. I have to work on that. Finally, seeing the video reminds me that I really need to lose weight.
One thing that's interesting about this talk is that it's a complete last minute rewrite. Originally I wrote an icebreaker speech called "Dreams Can Come True (Sort of)." It's about how, as a kid, I had a copy of Dr. Seuss' My Book About Me. On the page about what I wanted to be when I grew up, I wrote in "officeworker." I did that because I wanted to do what my dad did. But I didn't know what he did. I just new he was an office worker. Now, decades later, that dream has come true. I practiced that talk, but the night before delivering it I decided that it just wan't working for me. So I started again from scratch, and wrote the speech you see above, calling it "Dreams Are Better When Shared."
Session: Australian Horror/Sci-Fi, week 2 Movie: Thirst (1979) Plot: Single professional, Kate, has been kidnapped by "The Brotherhood." Modern day vampires, they have turned vampirism into an industrial machine, and they will stop at nothing to get Kate to join their ranks. Hilarity ensues.
Class Reaction: For the most part, this class thought this was very well done. Joe, for example, gave it a 9.8. But, while the class liked it and were glad to have seen it, there was near unanimity that they don't need to ever see it again -- it was that disturbingly gross. There were also numerous comments about how they'll never eat chicken legs again. My Thoughts: If I were a vegetarian or (better yet) a vegan, and a PETA type, I would try to turn this movie into some grand statement against the meat industry. Or maybe I'd see it as an updated version of Sinclair's The Jungle. But I'm not vegetarian or vegan and I'm not a PETA person, so...so much for those observations. Instead, I saw the vats of human blood (with one unfortunate person falling in) and the scenes of people having the life sucked out of them by machine (while they're still conscious) as gross horror. This was definitely the bloodiest film Keith has showed us. Some in the class disputed that assertion. I Drink Your Blood was trotted out. But as disturbing as that film was, it didn't have the same volume of blood as this did. I mean, the shower scene? It reminded me of both Carrie and Psycho. The chicken wing scene, the vat...Over and over again we knew there was gonna be more blood. There were some really well done riveting scenes in this movie, but there were also some slow stretches that failed to hold my attention. As a result I gave it a much lower score than the rest of the class (except Ethan who found it very disturbing). I didn't find it as appetite suppressingly gross as the rest of the guys -- I'd be fine eating rare roast beef with this playing. But I also didn't think it was as good a movie as the rest did. That said, I acknowledge that this was a reasonably original idea. Thirst does pass the Bechdel Test. Easily.
"If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry.'"
-- John Lennon
They called Elvis Presley the king, but for my money, Chuck Berry was the real king of rock and roll.
When you heard the opening lick of one of his songs, you knew it was a Chuck Berry number. His style -- musical, vocal, lyrical -- was truly original. He, more than anyone else, invented what we now call rock and roll. And no song is more deserving of being called the anthem of rock and roll than "Johnny B Goode." When NASA sent Voyager into deep space in 1977, they included recordings designed to give other civilizations a taste of humanity. "Johnny B Goode" was the rock song they included.
The Beatles were part of the soundtrack of my youth, and their early repertoire included a lot of covers. Their versions of "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Rock and Roll Music" stand out as recordings I loved. But then, when I heard the originals -- Pow! It was like going from a flourescent-lit room into the sunlight.
Chuck Klosterman, writing for the New York Times, considered rock's place in history. Klosterman's article began:
Classifying anyone as the “most successful” at anything tends to reflect more on the source than the subject. So keep that in mind when I make the following statement: John Philip Sousa is the most successful American musician of all time.
He then went on to explain that Sousa's music encapsulated an entire musical idiom. Following that up, he said that, if anyone can be said to fill that same space in rock and roll, it's Chuck Berry.
I keep getting letters from Chase Bank about an account that is near abandonment. This started a few years ago, at which point the account wasn't abandoned. I never got account statements as such -- just mailed notices about the account. Now the notices are that the account is abandoned for lack of activity and will soon be turned over to the state.
If you have read this far, you may be wondering why I don't just do what I have to to get the account unabandoned. Well, it's because the account isn't mine. The name on the account is Asian, and there has never been anyone living here with that name.
I tried -- a few times -- calling the customer service number on the letter in order to inform them that they have the wrong address. That Ling Soo Wang (not the real name) doesn't live here and never has lived here, and there is a mistake. The customer service reps have always been pleasant (once I get in touch with them) and have said all the right things. "Oh, thank you so much!" "Yes, we'll do everything we can to find the right person." Blah. Blah. Blah. At the risk of seeming cynical, I find it hard to believe that anything was done. And I note that getting in touch with an actual person was no easy task. It took a lot of waiting. And saying "Representative." I hate going through that process for my own account. It's that much worse when I'm going through it because I'm trying to help a stranger not lose her money.
Yesterday's letter informed that if Ling Soo doesn't make some kind of transaction before April 6, her accounts will be abandoned to the state.
I am sorely tempted to write back a very nice letter explaining the situation. It would go something like this:
Dear Chase Bank,
I am writing in response to a letter I received (photocopy thoughtfully included) regading account number 012345678910 in the name of Ling Soo Wang.
I have lived in this house since 2000. Before that it was owned and occupied by Oinkah McDorsett [also not the real name], who was the first owner -- her father was a contractor and built the house for her as a wedding gift. In the entire history of this house, there has never been a Ling Soo Wang living here. And before the house was built, this land was occupied by trees, shrubs and grass. And the occasional raccoon.
You have been sending me letters about this account for several years. I have repeatedly informed you of the mistake, and you have repeatedly said that you would track down Ms. Wang to her actual home. But here we are. Your system still thinks this account belongs here.
It would be a terrible shame is all of Ms. Wang's hard-earned money ended up going to the state. So here is what I suggest we do. Howzabout you transfer the balance into my checking account? Since I already do my checking with Chase (my account is #019876543210), this should be very easy.
Thank you in advance, Marc Whinston
Of course, I am not deluded enough to actually believe that Chase would actually do that. There are laws and, (I am sure) corporate policies that would preclude that. But I would enjoy sending off the letter as an expression of frustration and as a joke. But I can't count discount the possibility that someone at Chase will think the letter is serious, and accuse me of trying to commit financial fraud. That is not something I would want to have to deal with.
Maybe, once the account is officially abandoned, I will stop getting the letters. I'll be happy about that, I suppose, but I'll also feel bad for Ling Soo Wang.
Session: Australian Horror/Sci-Fi, week 1 Movie: Patrick (1978) Plot: Starting her new job as a nurse at a private hospital, Kathy Jaquard is charged with the care of Patrick, a patient who has been comatose for three years. Turns out, he's not completeley unaware, and he's not exactly helpless. Hilarity ensues.
Class Reaction: The reaction was generally very positive. I recall at least three ratings that were above 9. And that didn;t surprise me, as the energy level in the room was very high. This kept us enagged from start to finish. Ethan, unfortunately, had to miss this session, as he was in Boston supporting Stack-Up at Pax-East. I would have liked to hear his reaction.
My Thoughts: Blair will often say about a movie that it wasn't as good as the sum of its parts. This was the opposite. THe acting was competent enough, but nothing to write home about, the cinematography was meh. There was almost nothing that made this stand out. ANd yet it did stand out, because it was compelling. Even in the slow parts, I was on the edge of my seat, waiting to see what would happen. I noted during the discussion that I saw this as, not so much a horror movie as a psychological thriller. We had some back and forth on that point. I think Dave agreed, but Joe won me over with a point -- If you have someone telekenetically moving all sorts of objects around a room, and throwing people into walls, then it's a horror movie. I have to give him that. Still and all, this was less "horror"y than most. As someone noted, there was remarkably little blood and gore, and the movie achieved a lot of its horror through suggestion.
The one real weakness was the ending. In the post-viewing discussion, I mentioned this and explained how I would have preferred it end. I guess I also was unimpressed by the sound effects when Roget tried to break through a door with an axe.
I also note that Patrick passes the Bechdel Test. For whatever that's worth.
Extras: Keith had an Australian couple staying with him, so they briefly discussed Australian cinema with us, and introduced the movie. Also, His friend (and author) Chris Gullo joined us. He also discussed some aspects of Australian cinema.
I just remembered that today is a Jewish fast day. Ta'anis Esther, or the Fast of Esther. It's normally the day before Purim, which is this Sunday. But when Purim is on a Sunday, it gets moved back to the prior Thursday. It commemorates, the Jews' three-day fast in the Book of Esther, which essentially tells the story of Purim.
There are six fast days in the Jewish calendar (seven for firstborn sons), of which two are major. A major fast is essentially the full day (according to the Hebrew calendar), which runs from evening to evening. The minor fast days, which include Ta'anis Esther, run from dusk until dawn.
As a nonpracticing Orthodox Jew, I don;t actually fast when a practicing Orthodox Jew would. But there have been times when I've realized, late in the day, that it's a fast day and I hadn't eaten yet. On those occasions, if there were just a couple hours to go and I felt like it, I would fast the rest of the day. But today I realized this morning. I haven;t eaten yet, so I can still keep the fast. But it's more than just a couple hours left.
So now I have to decide whether to fast. More likely, I'll decide when I'm hungry...
Which state has the highest ratio of coastline to land border?
The expected answer is Hawaii, since it has coastline and no land borders, so the ratio is infinite. People often don't think about it because they picture a map of the 48 contiguous states.
But lately I've been wondering about the question. Technically, speaking, a finite number divided by zero is not infinite. It is undefined. If we defined it as infinite, the number system would break down (don't ask me where or how, as I forget).
Anyway, if Hawaii's ratio is undefined, then it seems that Hawaii doesn't have a ratio (or, at least, the ratio can't be said to be higher than the other states' ratios). Among the other 49 states, I assume the highest ratio is either Alaska's or Florida's. But I'm too lazy to check.
But asking the question, and insisting on a state other than Hawaii will just lead to arguments, Best to retire the question.
Keith and I had a good, productive meeting today about a movie idea I have. I didn't know what to expect, and our meeting certainly wasn't what I would have expected had I expected anything specific. I have a direction to go, which is good.
By way of background, this is my "Bleed Me a River" project. It started with a song that I've been writing for ten years or so. Yes, sometimes my songs take a long time to write. Anyway, the idea behind the song was to write a Louis L'amour novel in song form. And, yeah, it took a bit of a negative turn. About two years ago, we were in Keith's basement before or after the film class, discussing Spaghetti Westerns. I mentioned the song, and that "Bleed Me a River" would have made a great title for a Spaghetti Western. The guys agreed, and in minutes I had the basic idea for a plot. Coincidentally, it bore a strong resemblance for the story behind the story song I had been trying to write. Since then, I have been trying to figure out how to write a screenplay for the movie.
Through a series of emails and brief discussions, I got to the point where I had a two-page treatment. It includes (not in this order) an opening scene, an ending, and a general description of how we get from the beginning to the ending. I also included a few notes about the main characters and some potential plot holes that will need addressing. But I was stuck as to where to go. Do I try to flesh out with descriptions of other scenes? Do I start writing dialogue? Eeeek!
Keith graciously offered his time to help me figure out what to do. I honestly didn't know what to expect. Would this be a writing session, where we're sitting at the computer and putting this together? Would it be a technical discussion where we map out the plot?
We didn't accomplish either of those. Instead, it was a session where we talked about how to write. How to go about getting this swirling amorphous story from my head to paper. Ideally, he said, I should take three days locked in a room doing nothing but banging this out. Then we can deal with revisions, corrections and such. In reality, that's not going to happen. But if I can get a couple of uninterrupted hours each week, I can make some progress. We also discussed some of the plot specifics and holes, and how to develop the characters.
In a sense, it reminds me of what Maimonides considered the highest form of charity -- helping people to help themselves. Instead of helping me write the screenplay, Keith was helping me to figure out how to write it.
At this point, I hope to sit down and work on some dialogue, but instead, I spent this time writing a blogpost about it...
Session: Monsters of Hammer, week 4 Movie: Scars of Dracula Plot:
Love, lust and loyalty collide as two brothers pursue women and try to save each other in the vampire's castle. Hilarity ensues.
Class Reaction:
This was generally well-received by the class. And that's not surprising, as this was a Hammer film starring Christopher Lee. I was actually the dissenter, rating it a 7 (I think). We all appreciated the visuals, as well as the strong beginning and dramatic ending.
My Thoughts:
Visually, this was a very strong film. There were a lot of muted colors with splashes of vivd red -- tapestries, lips and blood. It all made for a dramatic look. The prologue, with its vivid shots of the aftermath of a bloodbat in church, was exciting, and set a great mood for a horror film. Unfortunately, most of the plot was repetitive, and there were many slow parts. It got exciting again near the end, and ended on another high note.
What makes it interesting is that, again, Hammer reworked a legendary monster as it needed for the film. He keeps a body around (hanging on a hook) so he can snack. And this is the first time I've seen bats being so active as part of a Dracula movie.
And, oh, those hokey bats... These are big hairy bats on a string. The kind of effects you'd expect from Gilligan's Island. Except, of course, for when they were going after cleavage. Of course, the cheesiness notwithstanding, the bats provided some truly horrifying moments.
Extras:
Joe showed us an old Bugs Bunny short, What's Cooking Doc, in honor of last week's Academy Awards. In this short, Bugs Bunny gets incensed that he didn't win the Oscar, and shows an old film clip in a futile effort to change the judges' minds. It was amusing.
First a disclaimer: I don't give a rat's ass about the Oscars. Or the Felixes. Or any other awards shows. It's a bunch of celebrities congratulating each other on how wonderful they all are. Also, if I have any of the details wrong, please feel free to correct the record.
That said, I'm kind of amused by the kerfuffle over best picture. Maybe I shouldn't be. But I am. I'd say it's schadenfreude, except that I'm not really happy about it. It's more a matter of amusement at something ridiculous happening.
When I first heard about it, my reaction was that Marisa Tomei really did win her award back in the '90s. I remember people expressing shock that she had won, since My Cousin Vinny was a lightweight movie. There was speculation that she wasn't supposed to win, but the presenter somehow read the incorrect name and no one wanted to mess up the show by going out and correcting the record. Now we know that the show's producers will correct the record if necessary. Of course, one can play devil's advocate and point out that they might have had different priorities a quarter century ago. Hmmm...
When I heard more about what happened -- that one of PWC's accountans screwed up because he was tweeting when he should have been paying attention to the show -- I remembered a FaceBook post that someone made a month or two ago. He was complaining that people are glued to social media. That he can't go to a restaurant with people without the phones coming out. That eveyone is always Tweeting Twoting or Posting or Selfie-ing, and it interferes with conversations. Frankly, it's rude. And I'm not saying that as a person who's above such behavior -- I've tried to cut it out, but I still fall back on bad habits at times. But some situations are worse than others.
My understanding, based on what a colleague who knows some PWC accountants told me (and it jibes with media reports) is that the presenters alternate sides of the stage. One pair enters from stage right. The next from stage left. The next from stage right. Etc. On each side, standing at the wings, is a PWC accountant (or two?) with a set of envelopes naming the winners. They each have a complete set. So, when the accountant on one side hands the presenters the "Best Actress" envelope, the accountant on the other side is supposed to discard his. Then, when the accountant on that side hands a presenter the "Best Picture" envelope, the accountant on the first side discards his. That way, everything stays in sync. So, one of those accountants, Brian Cullinan (who is the episode's official villain), was busy on social media and forgot to discard his "Best Actress" envelope.
Now, while Cullinan is the biggest shlemiel in the episode, he's not the only one. Here are the others:
Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway: The card specifies the category. And, in fact, the card that Dunaway read specified that Emma Stone was the winner for her role in La La Land. So, if they had had their wits about them, they would have realized something was amiss and called over someone to clarify. Beatty did explain that it didn't seem right, but instead of getting a clarification he just handed the card to Dunaway for her to make the mistake. I don't buy the idea that they were nervous, since they are show business professionals. More likely, they don't think as fast as they used to.
Whoever designed the cards: This article explains it better than I can. The fact is that the cards could be designed in a way that would make this kind of mistake less likely. In short, the winner should be the boldest, biggest thing on the card, the category should be more prominent, and the "Oscars" logo should be tiny and unobtrusive.
This is obviously not going to help Cullinan's career, and I feel bad for that. You hate to see one mistake screw up a guy's professional life. Or I do, anyway. It's not like I've had a career without mistakes. Of course, none of mine were quite so public...
It's been made clear that Cullinan won't be back at the Oscars. But that doesn't mean that the next guy in line at PWC should be getting excited. I'd be surprised if the Academy doesn't switch accounting firms.
But that, of course, brings up my final question: Why does the Academy need one of the big four accounting firms to oversee the balloting and awards process?
