I'm a bit late on this, since I've loved Lucia for decades. But here goes.
I used to live in Flushing, about two miles east of the last stop on the 7 train. Lucia is right by the 7 train. There is a bus that goes from the 7 train right past my old apartment. But at one point I started walking home from the subway after work. And over the course of time I tried as many of the pizza shops on the way home as possible. I took different routes to get as many shops as I could. I can't swear that I got them all, but I got a lot. And Lucia was, hands down, the best of them.
I can't say exactly what it is I like about them -- taste is a subjective thing. Part of it is the freshness. Most pizza shops these days make 40 zillion varieties, and they all sit out and get stale. At Lucia they make cheese pizza. If you want a slice with pepperoni, they'll put pepperoni on a slice and put it in the oven for you. But generally there are two kinds out -- Neopolitan (the round thin crust kind) and Sicilian (the square thick crust kind). So the pizza is always fresh. But that can't be the entirety of the explanation. Because the fact is that if I leave a Lucia pie out overnight, it still tastes better the next day than almost all other shops' pizzas do when they're fresh. So maybe it's that they use better ingredients than most. Maybe it's that they simply have a better recipe. I don't know. I just know that I like the taste better than any other shop I've been to. And I've been to a lot of pizza shops. It's been 17 years since I left Flushing, so I can't get Lucia as often as I'd like, but I still go back when I can, either to have a slice (or three) there or to take a pie home. AGain, because I haven't found better pizza.
Now I'm hungry...Thanks, Yelp.
PS: I'm not sure why Yelp thinks I'm in San Francisco. I'm not. Whatever.
I should have noted that Lucia is a tiny place -- there's not much seating. But it is so worth it...
More than four decades since Brinsley Schwarz* recorded their last album, the appropriately titled It's All Over Now. And until now I'd never heard it.
I've never really known the full backstory of the album, except that it was recorded and that there are some releases that may or may not be 100% legitimate. The band recorded the album, which was to be their seventh studio effort, but broke up before its release. That would put its provenance at around 1974 or 75.
After that? I've heard a bunch of different accounts. I've read that it was never released. I've read that it was released but quickly pulled from the shelves. I've read that it was released in the 1980s in limited edition. And there have been a number of other variations I've seen. All I know for sure is that, as of about ten years ago, Ian Gomm was selling CD-R copies via his website. I can't say why I never actually bought the CD-R from Gomm. I'm a huge Nick Lowe fan, and I've always had completist tendencies. But, bottom line, I never bought it.
Until now. Perusing Amazon, I found that it's been officially released. So, WTH, I bought it.
How is it?
First I should note that in some ways I go against the grain in my thoughts on the Brinsleys. For years, before I'd had all of the other six albums, I'd read the opinion in many places that the band just kept on getting better and each album was better than the last. So when I finally heard the sixth album, New Favorites of Brinsley Schwarz, I was seriously let down. Over and over again, I'd heard how great it was. I was seriously let down. There were some decent pop songs on it. But for the most part I kept trying to like songs more than I actually did like them. "I Got the Real Thing," "I Like You, I Don't Love You" and "The Ugly Things" are all good, but not great. The best track is the sarcastic as hell "What's So Funny 'bout Peace Love and Understanding"** But even that suffered by comparison to Elvis Costello's killer version. I have always felt that Silver Pistol, the country-flavored third album, was the Brinsleys' best. Their second best, for the record, was Nervous on the Road, the poppy fourth album.
Now, having said that, It's All Over Now ranks third in my book. I think. I may change my mind. but that's where I am now. It's a much more soulful outing than any of the other albums -- probably because of the influence of producer Steve Vorocca. And as such there are some really boring tracks. "Private Number," "I'll Take Good Care of You" and "(Hey Baby) They're Playing Our Song" are the most boring examples.
But the album appeals to me -- maybe more than it should -- because of the presence of, for lack of a better phrase, musical comfort food. There are a bunch of songs that I know and love from other versions, and I tend to enjoy these. The best example is "As Lovers Do," which I know of as a Dave Edmunds B-side. This simpler arrangement works really well. This Youtube clip was credited as Nick Lowe, but it's the Brinsley Schwarz track (with Nick's lead vocals).
Other examples include the early version of "Cruel to Be Kind." I've always liked this recording -- though not as much as Nick's hit version -- for its odd lounge singer vibe.
For a little more bite, there's their take on the Tommy Roe classic, "Everybody." I came to like the song by way of the cover version by Long Island favorites, Kivetsky.
Not all the comfort food works, though. "God Bless (Whoever Made You)" is just boring when compared to Jona Lewie's version. The first track, "We Can Mess Around" was later recorded by The Rumour on Max and by a solo Nick Lowe on The Abominable Showman. Both of those versions were much better than this clunky reggae-inspired rendition.
And, speaking of odd reggae-inspired songs, what possessed them to do the title track as a reggae song? I like the original version by the Valentinos. I like the Rolling Stones version. And I've heard many other covers that I liked. But this one is just painful.
Was it worth the wait? Probably not. But at least I now have all of the group's studio albums.
Yay.
*By way of background, Brinsley Schwarz was the band that Nick Lowe was in before making his name as a solo artist. It began life as "Kippington Lodge," but was renamed after its guitarist. Reportedly because some publicist decided that "Brinsley Schwarz" was a more commercially appealing name than "Kippington Lodge." Personally, I think that that publicist should be enshrined in the Stupidity Hall of Fame. **Nick Lowe wrote PL&U as a swipe at hippies. Since 9/11 he reinvented it as a touching ode to, well, peace love and understanding.
For the second year in a row, I performed at my company's Diversity and Inclusion talent show. And I don't play guitar particularly well either. But I do think I can write a decent song.
Once again, I did two original songs. Please forgive the fact that I can't really sing in tune or on key.
Now that I have seen (and had time to digest) Cannibal Holocaust and Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, it's time to compare and contrast. Don't this make you feel all collegiate again? Woo hoo!
Anyway, before we begin, let's look at the trailers.
There is one point of similarity between the two movies: The premise. Both plots center on an expedition into the jungle to make contact with a mysterious tribe of cannibals. In CH the expedition is undertaken by documentarians who are intelligent though ethically lacking. They're going into the Amazon rainforest to tell a story of war between various preliterate peoples. In CWitAJoD, the expedition is undertaken by a ragtag group whom I wouldn't trust to find their way out of an elevator. They're going into a vast uncharted avocado forest in southern California in order to stabilize the price of avocados (and, through that, guacamole).
And we've pretty much exhausted the similarities.
CH is filmed in a gritty "found footage" style -- a style that it pioneered. That lent it so much realism that the director ended up on trial for making a snuff film. He was only freed when he produced the stars -- still alive -- for the court. On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone watching CWitAJoD and thinking it's real. Unless they're drunk. Really drunk. It has all sorts of stylized Hollywood production values, including costumes that are visually impressive but don't lend an air of realism. It also doesn't help that there's plenty of intentionally bad acting. For more differences, see the chart below.
In terms of watchability, it's kind of a tossup, depending on your sensibilities. CH is a deeply disturbing movie, full of graphic violence. I'm glad I saw it, but I hope never to see it again. CWitAJoD, isn't disturbing in the same way. But it's so aggressively, painfully bad that it's also hard to watch. You can practically feel the smart leaving your head through whatever path it can.
Sometimes I wish the "rank" function in Excel allowed for multiple dimensions (i.e., a tiebreaker).
Figure 1: A simple use of the rank function
Excel's rank function is used to indicate where a number ranks within a range of numbers. The syntax is "RANK(item,range)." Technically, there's a third parameter to indicate whether the rank is based on descending or ascending order -- but that's neither here nor there. A simple application of this function is illustrated in Figure 1. There are four people, listed with their height. Column C indicates each one's rank within the group. The formula in C2 will produce the number 4 when you enter it.
Figure 2: The rank function when there's a tie
But what if there's tie? In that case the two tied items share the higher rank, as shown in Figure 2. Here there are two people who have the same height. Excel assigns them the same rank (in this case 1). The next tallest is ranked 3, so 2 is skipped altogether. If I recall correctly, I used to use a version of Lotus 1-2-3 that would have assigned the two items a rank of 1.5. Either approach makes sense.
Figure 3: Rank determined with weight as a tiebreaker
Ranks are hardcoded, not calculated
Figure 4: Rank determined by a function of two items
But suppose I don't want to have a tie. Suppose I want ties to be broken on the basis of a second measure, say height. See, for example Figure 3. I added another column for weight, which I've decided is the tiebreaking criterion because of reasons. But I had to hardcode the rank because the rank function doesn;t allow me to include a secondary item to settle ties. I'd love to have rank use a syntax such as "RANK(item1,range1,item2,range2...itemx,rangex)." In the example of Figure 3, the formula in cell D2 would be "RANK(B2,B$2:B$6,C2,C$2:C$6). Heck, let it require parameters to indicate order within each range, if that'll make it work.
The fact is, there is a way around it -- create a new item that's a function of the primary item and the tiebreaking item. In figure 4, I created an item called "rank determiner." That's calculated by multiplying the height by 1000 and adding the weight. Then rank is calculated based on the "rank determiner." If you're worried about aesthetics, you can hide the column. It works, but there are drawbacks. For starters, you have to be careful with the function you create;he function I used may not work right if some of the people weigh more than 1000 pounds.
I have come across another drawback since I am using the rank function on several years of data, to see how ranks change over time. Specifically, I am looking at the cumulative win totals for every major league baseball team ever. (spoiler alert: The Marlins aren't on top). As a tiebreaker, I am using cumulative games above .500 (which is the equivalent of using losses in descending order). But since I am graphin the ranks over time, I have a grid of ranks, which is based on a grid of win totals. In order to use my tiebreaker, I need to have a grid of games over .500, and a grid of a "ranl determiner" function, which I've defined as wins×1,000,000 + GamesOver500. It's doable, but it makes things less wieldy.
One of my favorite pop songs is Wreckless Eric's "Take the Cash." But there's a passage in the second verse that I simply couldn't figure out. It starts at a minute into this video.
What was that.."power ring on the dill" "sweetest in the whetties"? For decades I couldn't figure it out. I tried looking it up on the intertubes, but online lyric sites are often unreliable. Here's one example (Spoiler alert: It has mistakes.).
Eventually I had my chance to ask the man himself...I approached Eric at one of his house concerts. He explained it. "It's the sweetness of the readies makes the bell ring on the till."
"OK," I asked, "what does 'readies' mean?"
He told me that it means money. That then reminded me of another song. Dr. Feelgood's "As Long as the Price is Right" uses the word also. At just over half a minute in this video, you can hear the line "If you've got the readies."
And that being a synonym for money made sense in context. Mystery solved!
Of course, now I had another mystery -- why does "readies" mean money? It took me a couple of years, but I finally asked a Brit who was staying with us. Years? Yeah, it was a mystery, but not uppermost in my mind.
So I asked if "readies" is a slang term for pound notes or something.
"Fifty pound notes," he explained. Because they're red.
It all made sense! Reddys! Not readies! So simple...
Now, if only Eric can explain why, at the end of "Take the Cash," he calls it "K.A.S.H."
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Part 2), week 2 -- Sean's pick Movie: Victory (1981) Directed by John Huston As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL Plot: At the height of World War II, the Nazis stage a soccer match between the German national team and a ragtag group of POWs. Hilarity ensues. Background and Reaction: Victory was an odd choice for this class, being that it's not a horror film, or part of any related genre (fantasy, giallo, crimmi, etc.). But I'm not in a position to object, since I showed Shock Treatment last year, and almost showed Head this year. Sean explained that this tied together several of his interests including soccer and history. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie:
The characters aren't well developed
It has this odd Hogan's Heroes feel to it, albeit without the overt comedy.
Michael Caine,in his upper forties, was not believable as a soccer star in mid career.
It makes no sense that a team of POWs could have competed with a well-fed and well-cared for German national team.
Sylvester Stallone.
And yet, despite these problems, I was able to get into it, and feel compelled by the drama.
That is, until halftime during the soccer match. The POW team goes into their locker room at halftime, down 4-1 (due in part to the referees who aren't calling it straight). But they're about to escape. The French resistance has been tunneling under the stadium, and opens up an escape route from the locker room. The guys are getting out! But then they decide they'd rather stay and play the second half of the game. They can win! And, of course, that's better than escaping.
That's when I mentally checked out. At that point it was no longer an interesting drama. It was now another plucky underdog sports movie like The Bad News Bears or The Might Ducks. Joe was able to overlook that development by mentally rewriting the scene. Instead of deciding to play ball instead of escaping, Joe's version had the tunnel collapse, leaving the team no choice. It makes sense. That would have been more believable. And if that's what had happened, I would have been content. But that's not what happened, and I can't like a movie simply because Joe did a rewrite. Of course, that tells me that when I get around to working on my screenplay in earnest, I want Joe as a partner.
Ratings:
Joe: 9.2 (and 10 for the Simpsons segment) Scott: 7 Ethan: 5 Me: 5 Christina: 7 Keith: 5 Bechdel: Victory fails the Bechdel test. Star Trek reference: Actually, two. When the announcer talked about the cheering crowd and played canned applause, Joe and I both said "Bread and Circuses." Joe noted how the two soccer teams were playing for different reasons, evoking "The Savage Curtain." Extras: Scott teed us up with a YouTube video from The Simpsons:
Suppose you're a member of a group with a stated purpose. Maybe it's a group of people that share the same hobby, or a travel club. Something like that. But suppose the group's leadership is controlled by a small group of people who have interpreted the rules in such a way that they have full control of who can be elected. The leadership picks the candidates for office, and there's no mechanism for anyone not endorsed by the current leadership to get elected. You might not care, and continue your membership without making a fuss. But you might care a lot, concerned about leadership that is effectively unanswerable to the club's membership. In which case you may want to leave. Now, suppose this isn't simply some kind of club for hobbyists. Suppose it's a professional organization, and you need to maintain your membership for your job. That's the situation that the membership of the Society of Actuaries found itself in about five years ago. Before I go on, I need to stress that the opinions in this post are my own. They are not necessarilly shared by anyone else. That is, of course, true of all my posts. But I need to stress it here.
I earned my Fellowship in the SoA, and the right to vote in its elections, in 1997. I don't remember whether I voted that year. For the first 15 years that I could vote I was pretty blase about it. I didn't have the time or inclination to bother researching the candidates and their positions. My thoughts on the elections could have been easily summed up in one word: "Whatever." I have no doubt that that was the feeling of the majority of the SoA membership -- and that it still is.
At the time, there was a two ballot process. I don't recall the exact process, but FSAs could nominate candidates to appear on the first ballot. The top vote-getters would appear on the second ballot. At some point around ten years ago the process was changed. There would be only one ballot, and the Nominating Committee would be responsible for picking the candidates.
I wasn't aware of there being any issue until Tom Bakos. Bakos, who had an extensive history of service to the profession wanted to run for President Elect*. I knew Tom, having served with him on the American Academy of Actuaries' Committee on Professional Responsibility. Bakos had put his name in, but the Nominating Committee wouldn't put him on the ballot.
But the SoA bylaws grant FSAs the right to nominate**, so Bakos reached out to various members, soliciting their nominations. In 2012 he was nominated for President Elect by over 100 FSAs. But when the election came around, we couldn't vote for him because he wasn't on the ballot. Predictably, many of us who had nominated him raised a hoo-hah. We were infuriated that our nominations hadn't been honored. I contacted SoA leadership. So did a lot of others, apparently. The SoA President sent an explanatory email to the membership. The key paragraph reads as follows:
The SOA has a well-considered and effective system for identifying and selecting future leaders. Since a bylaws amendment in 2006, our Nominating Committee has been charged with vetting and recommending a slate of candidates for the Board. The Nominating Committee carefully considers all nominations and interviews nominees to learn more about their strategic vision and assess their leadership qualities against the position descriptions for these roles. The Committee develops a recommended slate of candidates, which is then reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors. Nominees who are not selected as candidates are invited to receive confidential feedback from the Committee. Mr. Bakos has received that feedback.
Essentially, he was explaining that our nominations were honored; Mr. Bakos was a nominee, but it's up to the Nominating Committee to decide which nominees become candidates. I felt -- many of us felt -- that this was a semantic game which made our right to nominate meaningless. As President Smith explained it, our nomination was effectively a suggestion. But anyone can suggest a candidate. An ASA could. An actuarial student could. My dentist could.
This procedure was defended by SoA leadership as necessary. Most actuaries simply don't have the time or inclination to fully research the candidates, their visions, their character, how well they play with others. The Nominating Committee's role in deciding which nominees become candidates was necessary, they argued, to protect actuaries and the actuarial profession from electing a bad actor. I'll admit that there's something plausible about that argument. But if a small cabal has absolute control over the levers of power, they can easily set the entire agenda. They can maintain a leadership body with their particular vision and become unanswerable to the general membership. That's simply not healthy. If they want to replace the current exam-based system of credentialling with something focused on college courses, they can do it. If they want to create a casualty specialty and try to force the Casualty Actuarial Society out of business, they can do it. If they want to inject their own opinions into every political issue (whether related to the actuarial field or not), they can do it. And it doesn't matter if literally all of the rest of the membership doesn't approve of their course of action.
Following the ensuing debate, SoA leadership relented, and agreed to a new process. The Nominating Committee would come up with a slate of endorsed candidates. Anyone qualified who gets nominated by a sufficient number of FSAs will get on the ballot as a "by petition" candidate. "Enough" is defined as at least 10% of the number of people who voted in the prior year's election. So
Spoiler alert: Jim Glickman got enough nominations this year, and is the only petition candidate for President-Elect on the ballot. I'm voting for him.
I think this rule is an abomination. It still doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable interpretation that hundreds of nominations are required to get on a ballot. I could see saying you need two nominations. Or even three. I'm not sure I can determine where I think is the cutoff between reasonable and unreasonable. But the current rule is, I think, unreasonable. I suppose I can see an argument made that they can't allow anyone with one nomination to be on the ballot because then they'd run the risk of having too many candidates. But I simply don't see that happening. Under the current system we don't have an unwieldy number of people on the list of candidates for nomination.
At any rate, the irony is that, by making it so difficult to get a candidate on the ballot through the member-nomination process, the leadership actually made it more likely that such a candidate can win. If it were easy to get on the ballot, we would see more such candidates, and they would split the protest votes. With only one petition candidate on the ballot, it's more likely that he or she can win.
Honestly, I have had very limited interaction with Glickman. But several actuaries whose judgement I tend to trust are supporting him. And I am doing so -- as a protest if for nothing else. The status quo needs to be changed.
*One peculiarity of the SoA governing structure is that one is not elected President. One is elected President Elect, then serves as President Elect for a year under the President (who is the prior year's President Elect). After a year, the President Elect becomes President, and is replaced by a newly-elected President Elect. **Article III, §1.b. says "Fellows...are entitled
to vote, hold office, make nominations, and generally exercise the rights of full membership."
For a long time I was under the impression that the closing theme from WKRP in Cincinnati was a bunch of gibberish. For reference:
Now there was a time that I just assumed there were reasonable lyrics that made sense, but I had no idea what they were. Then, at some point, I read on the intertubes (and you know you can trust anything you read there) that, in fact, there are no real lyrics. It was all gibberish that was made as part of, I guess, some kind of concept demo. Believing that, a lot of people have made unserious lyric videos with words that clearly aren't the words, but sound close. For example:
The lyrics, according to the blog (OK, I made a few changes) are:
Said to the bartender "Best night I ever had" Singin' to the bar Had a microphone in her heart I said "Goodbye madam" I had a bird in hand I said I'm doing good And put love in her heart
Listen to the theme while reading the lyrics. It sounds like these lyrics, and these lyrics make sense. Could they be the real thing?
Early this year, for the first time, I decided to label my daylilies in the yard. When I made that decision, I was insisting -- I believed -- that it was strictly to know what I had. It wasn't a prelude to hybridizing. I should have known better.
Little Grapette -- notice the tags where I've tried to pollenate
I think it was on the garden tours last month that I decided to try my hand at hybridizing. I'm still not entirely sure why I want to do it. But I do. So for a stretch this summer, I was going out every day and crossing what I could. Two tets in bloom? Try crossing them. Two dips in bloom? Try crossing them. I'm also noticed good seed pods that I had no hand in pollenating. I'm not above trying to get them to grow and seeing what happens. Maybe a "Little Grapette" × unknown will come out beautiful. I'm torn where it comes to good looking seed pods where I don't know what cultivar the mother is. In those cases I don't even know if I have a tet or a dip. Do I have it in me to start using a microscope to figure that out? I can't see registering a plant if I don't know is ploidity.
What seeds I'll work with is a question I'll have to face soon, since summer is winding down. I've been watching a bunch of Youtube videos on how to hybridize, including what to do once I have (hopefully) viable seeds. Of course, some of them contradict each other about the best way to encourage germination. I take that as a good sign. If there are different approaches, then maybe they're strong enough to survive even if I don't do everything perfectly.
Of course, being a novice and all, I realize that I'm prbably making a ton of mistakes, and I can only figure that, with experience, I'll do things better. There are already a few things that I know I can do better:
There's really been no rhyme or reason to what plants I've crossed with each other (except for making sure to pair tets with tets and dips with dips. Oh, and I wanted to make sure that I crossed "My Little Fool" as much as possible, in the hope of being able to register one of its children under the name "Sewer Service." Presumably I'll get to the point of identifying characteristics that I want and breeding to try to achieve them. That will be easier to achieve once I have more labelled cultivars blooming in my yard.
Related to the above, I have to learn how to save pollen for breeding in the future. That way I'm not limited to pairings that both bloom at the same time of the season.
I paid no attention to time of day. That was naive. I should have reasoned that plants are more receptive at some times of day than others. Relatedly, it will help me to learn how to recognize when pistils are most receptive, and how to judge healthy-looking pollen.
At any rate, I figure I won't have anything to register until 2021 at the earliest. And hoping for 2021 is probably over-optimistic. Even if I get good looking seedlings, I'll have to see if they can survive a winter outside, and come back full. After that I'll want to take a couple of years to have a big clump so I can some away without depleting my own supply. I wonder how commercial growers, who introduce new cultivars with the goal of selling them do it. I'm not hoping to make money off these, so I don't need a whole lot. I'll be happy if I can bring a few fans to LIDS meetings for them to give as door prizes. Commercial growers need more of their introductions than I'll need.
In the last couple of years, as Blair and I have done more and more gardening. There hasn't been a master plan, and we keep going back and revisiting what we're doing. Grass here. No, that should be flowers. No, let's move those and add flagstones as a walkway. Let's move the flagstones. Put buggleweed there. No buggleweed...put in astilbe. No astilbe...put in hostas.
We've thought that it would be good if there were neighborhood gardening club, but didn't really expect it to happen. As far as we can tell, we're kind of oddballs for doing so much of our own yardwork. Most people seem to have all or most of their gardening done by professionals. But apparently we're not the only ones, because there is now a Jamaica Estates Association (JEA) Gardening Club. It's still embryonic -- there has only been one meeting thus far, and only seven people (including Blair and me) were there. But it's a start.
As I understand, one of the local residents -- a biology professor at Medgar Evers College -- has a keen interest in gardening, and had contacted one of the members of the JEA board. Some group emails resulted in the meeting. In the yard of the professor.
I'm not sure exactly what I had hoped for going in. Maybe to hear suggestions and tips about gardening. Actually, one positive thing that came out of the first meeting involves tomatoes. Blair and I have been trying to figure out the best way to grow tomatoes, but each year we run into logistical issues. We get a usable crop, but we always feel that we can do better...next year. Well, the guy who started the ball rolling is growing his tomatoes in those big (five gallon?) Home Depot buckets. That's what we're going to try next year. Each bucket with one plant and one cage.
Anyway, the meeting was mostly polite conversation about what we envision for the club, and the next step. Somehow I am now the keeper of the email list, and I'll be setting up the next meeting. A notice in the JEA Bulletin may also draw some more interest. Maybe we'll be able to get speakers. It was suggested that maybe some of the local nurseries would send speakers. Maybe members (assuming we grow to a larger size) will talk about their plans for their yards or their experiences. I'm always up for useful suggestions. Heck, maybe I'll be able to get someone from LIDS to talk about hybridizing daylilies.
For now, the gardening club is limited to JEA members -- which makes sense, since the club is being formed within the JEA. I also don't think that will cost us potential members, since people who don't want to join the JEA would be unlikely to want to join a JEA Gardening Club.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Part 2), week 1 -- Scott's pick Movie: Cannibal Holocaust (1980) Directed by Ruggero Deodato As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL Plot: A team of filmmakers travel to the Amazon rainforest to shoot a documentary about the preliterate tribes that live there. Things don't go well. Hilarity ensues. Background and Reaction: I have no idea why Scott chose Cannibal Holocaust, but I will forever hate him for it. OK, Just kidding... but CH is possibly the most disturbing movie I've ever seen. It's ugly. Unrelentingly so. Keith said it's a "beautiful ugly film," and I kind of know what he means, but the fact is this was ugly. That said, it's an important film in that it pioneered the "found footage" genre. It also appeared so realistic that the director, Ruggerio Deodato, ended up in court over the deaths of the stars. It didn't help him that he had contracted the stars to stay out of the public eye for a year in order to encourage the idea that the footage was real. In the end, he was cleared of the charges of making a snuff film when he was able to get the stars to appear -- live -- in court. Apparently, though Deodato still got in trouble over the numerous graphic killings of animals. Another thing that makes this film worthwhile is that there is actually a serious message about modern society and the question of who are the real savages. Now, I'm not into romanticizing preliterate cultures and denigrating modernity, but its still interesting to see the point made -- and made well -- in a film. The fact is that the modern documentarians who appear in the movie are devoid of scruples, and simply do need to be killed. As one would hope for from a found footage type of film, everything is graphic -- the murders, the rapes, the burning of villages. It simply seemed real -- more so than any big budget Hollywood production. And that's what made it such a well-done movie,a dn so disturbing as well. After Scott told us what he would be showing I did some research, so I kind of had an inkling of what was to come. I knew that this would be disturbing. I also got the distinct impression that the story behind the movie is more interesting than the movie itself. I was kind of right and wrong about that. The story behind the film is fascinating, but the movie itself, though not entertaining in the conventional sense, was much more interesting to watch than I had expected. I'm actually really glad I saw this, though I hope never to see it again. I was initially torn about how to rate this. In some ways, I felt it deserved a 10, because it succeeded brilliantly in what it set out to do. But it is so far outside the normal movie experience, and so deeply troubling that I really didn't want to give it that kind of accolade. I think it was Keith who talked me into giving it the 10. It did what it tried to do. And if Keith, having seen it several times, and having seen many many horror films, still has to look away during some sequences, then it deserves its 10. Ratings: Ethan: 8 Me: 10 Fausto: 7 Sean: Can't put a number on it, but it was better than expected Dave: 9.8 to 9.9 Joe: 9.3 Keith: 10
Bechdel: Cannibal Holocaust fails the Bechdel test.
A friend recently raised a question on FaceBook about spoilers. Specifically, how long does a story have to be around before you can freely reveal spoilers?
There ensued a whole bunch of smartass comments with spoilers of very old works. My contribution was "On The seventh day He rested." In terms of serious responses, I recall one person saying that, for modern works, one year is sufficient.
But I think a lot of it depends on context beyond how old a work is. Take, for example, the 1941 film classic, Citizen Kane. In most situations it's perfectly OK to give away the ending. Julie Brown even worked it into her song "Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun."
But if you're in a theatre, about to watch the movie, assume no one knows the ending. THis is a fact of life in the cinema history class Ethan and I take. We're watching movies that are decades old. In some cases they're almost a hundred years old. But the rule is clear: no spoilers. We can be total dumbasses in many other ways, screaming out stupid comments and random references to Pittsburgh as if we were a roomful of Tom Servos. But no spoilers. And I especially appreciated that last week, when we saw Psycho. For me, it was the first time, and most of the guys had seen it before. I could see them practically bursting as I would guess at what was going on -- "Does he have some kind of weird split personality thing going on?" "Uhh...you'll see."
But, absent a specific context that changes things, I can buy the idea of giving it a year.
Not that I'm about to stop, but why am I watching this shit?
The shit I'm referring to is House of Cards, the Netflix original series. The latest offense came in Season 4, Episode 3. Claire Underwood tells her husband, who is running for President, to make her his running mate. Seriously, Netflix, WTF?
I get that they wanted drama, and so far the figfhting between the Underwoods has been the major source of conflict. But, while the principles address the debatable issues about whether the move would help him get more votes, they totally ignore the practical matter of it costing them electoral votes in their home state.
I quote the 12th Ammendment to the Constitution:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
What this means is that when the electors vote, they must vote for either a Presidential of Vice Presidential candidate from outside their state. Assuming Frank and Claire both live in South Carolina, being running mates means that each elector from South Carolina can vote for Frank for President or Claire for Vice President, but not for both. Giving up those electoral votes would be bad strategy. If the show is going to go there, they at least need to address the issue.
Incidentally, I wrote about this a year ago, in addressing the possibility of Hillary Clinton picking Bill as her Veep. As I discussed, the pundits who say she couldn't because he was term-limited out are wrong.
The bigger problem is that Claire is a poorly-written character. She's inconsistent. I said as much after viewing the episode with her outburst in Moscow. At the beginning of the series, Claire was running a not-for-profit, and benefiting from her relationship with her husband who was then a Congressional Whip. It seems as if the writers decided they didn't like that story line, so they had her move on. But then they just didn't know what to do with her. If they can't find a role fpor her where she can be consistent, then just kill her off and let the show move on without her.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, week 4 Movie: Psycho (1960) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL Plot: A lady on the run gets more than she bargained for when she runs into a troubled motel manager. Hilarity ensues. Background: This was Dave's pick, a movie that he says is from his wheelhouse. There was some surprise expressed over the fact that I had never seen this movie before. But, hell, I've never seen Gone with the Wind or Casablanca either. Anyway, Ethan and I were the only regulars who had never seen it. I'm not sure if Fausto, our guest, had ever seen it. Reaction: The thing that surprised me most about Psycho was the iconic shower scene. I had always just assumed that it was the climax, coming at the end of a plot starring Janet Leigh. So I was surprised to see that it came maybe a third of the way through, and was kind of a transition point between a preliminary plot (Marion stealing money and running off) and the main plot (Norman trying to hide the nature of his insanity from various investigators). I was torn about the psychiatrist's exposition at the end. There are a million reasons that it didn't make sense -- a psychiatrist couldn't have figured out all that that quickly, sharing the information with everyone was a violation of medical ethics, etc. etc. Now, I'm used to movies and TV shows working exposition in in unrealistic ways. It's necessary for the storytelling. I get that. But in some ways this seemed anticlimactic. Maybe. I'm still not sure. Joe was definitely sure -- he argues that the exposition itself was as creepy as the rest of the movie. And I will acknowledge that Anthony Perkins' scene after the psychiatrist's monologue was one of cinema's creepiest scenes. So why did they have to follow it up with the shot of the car being pulled from the swamp? Having said that, I should be clear about the fact that I loved this movie. The only other Hitchcock movies I've seen are The Birds and Vertigo. And while those were good movies, I came away thinking that they're overrated. By comparison, this was great. It featured a captivating story, brilliant acting by Anthony Perkins, and incredible use of shadow and odd camera angles. In short, this was a great movie experience. I was surprised that Ethan wasn't crazy about it. Everyone else in the room praised the film to the heavens, but Ethan felt that the characters weren't fully-developed -- a flaw he says he sees in other Hitchcock films. I'm not sure I agree, but I am proud that he was willing to say so instead of just going along with the crows. Ratings: Me: 9.9 Scott: 10 Sean: no rating -- this film is a classic in a different dimension Joe:10 Ethan: 4 Fausto: 9 Keith: 10 Christina: 9
Bechdel: Psycho passes the Bechdel test. barely. Odd Pittsburgh reference: As Marion is checking into the motel, Norman tells her to put down her home address. But, he notes, "just the town will do." Dave chimed in with "Pittsburgh."
There's an old lady in our neighborhood who collects deposit bottles and cans. I see her at least once a week, carrying a bag, pushing a granny cart, or going through my recyclables bag, separating the deposit bottles from the others. I don't know when she first showed up -- it's possible she was in the neighborhood before us, but I honestly don't know. At any rate, she's a fixture here -- one of the full cast of characters that gives this neighborhood its flavor.
She and I don't talk much -- her English is limited, and my Mandarin* is virtually nonexistant. But we smile at each other and wave hello. Today we had what may have been our most extensive interaction. I was taking the garbage to the curb as she was going through the cans and bottles. I asked if she needed help, since it was about to rain, or a bigger bag. She said "I have" and continued her work. Soon Blair came outside to tell me something, and the bottle lady told us something (I've no idea what) about our tomato plants, and that there are nice people living around here. In particular she pointed to the house across the street.
Most of what I know about the bottle lady I learned from the man in the house across the street. He's kind of the mayor of the block. Anyway, from him I learned that the lady is an immigrant from China, where she grew up in poverty. Now she lives with her daughter's family in the area. The daughter is a high-powered doctor. Or lawyer -- I forget which. And she's kind of embarrassed that her mother goes around collecting bottles and cans for the deposit. The man across the street knows the daughter, or at least has met her. He jokes that he will, one day, show up at her house with a bag of bottles and say "This is for your mom." I laugh at the thought, but I hope he never does it.
We have a friend in the Czech Republic who has visited a few times, staying with us while she does research for her doctoral dissertation. She says that she wants to be the bottle lady when she's old. It seems odd, but I can kind of understand it. She sets her own hours, gets lots of fresh air and exercise, and meets lots of people.
The point of all this is that the bottle lady recently stepped things up and brought us cucumbers that she grew herself. It seemed odd to me, but Blair viewed it as a win-win. She managed to thank us for the bottles, and show pride in her gardening. And we get yummy cucumbers.
I guess you can't beat that.
*Maybe it's Cantonese, I'm not sure. But I think it's Mandarin
It was in my seventh grade English class. Our teacher, Mrs. Hirschhorn, assigned us an essay to write about a hero.
At the time, I was a huge baseball fan. Strike that. I was a huge Mets fan. That's a distinction I may expound on in another post if I ever feel like it. At any rate, I was rabid. Tom Seaver was my favorite player.
For those who are unaware, Seaver was the first true superstar the Mets ever had. His acquisition by the Mets (through an odd sequence of lucky events) is often cited as the first fundamental step in turning the team from a motley crew of lovable losers into a respectable club (and the 1969 champions). I won't spend the time here cataloging Seaver's achievements and awards. Suffice to say his career to that point was impressive.
So I wrote my essay about Tom Seaver. I was proud of it when I wrote it. In it, I expounded on what a great ballplayer he was -- I mentioned his awards, his one-hitters, his achievements as one of the era's power pitchers.
Mrs. Hirschhorn. wasn't kind to the essay. I don't remember what grade I got -- or even if the essays were graded as such. But her comments were to the point, even though she didn't address the quality of the writing itself. She told me that she had no doubt that Seaver was a superb ballplayer. But, she asked, what can I point to show that he's a good person. That stung. I resented Mrs. Hirchhorn's reaction. But, decades later, the message she was trying to convey has stuck with me.
Empress Wu is, I understand, the largest hosta cultivar
As the daylily season draws to a close, I've been turning my attention to hostas. They don't have the beautiful flowers that daylilies have -- actually, I think the flowers are generally ugly -- but they have beautiful lush foliage.
I'd never thought much about hostas until the last couple years or so. There are a couple sections of our yard that needed...something...some kind of greenery besides grass. But these areas didn't get much sun, and so nothing really took. But some people gave us hostas through Freecycle (as long as I was willing to dig them up), and I learned that they can get by in the shade. Now several areas that are -- how do I put this -- strategically protected from the sun have beautiful hostas growing in them. Blair, meanwhile, started joking that daylilies and hostas are all that you need. In fact, her Twitter handle is hostadaylily. But even so, I still didn;t really appreciate them. Over the last several years I have come to appreciate that there's a rich diversity of daylilies, but I didn't really think about the fact that the same is true of hostas.
I think the turning point came a month or so ago, when I went on the LIDS garden tours. As I said when I wrote about that here, the last garden we toured had a heavy emphasis on hostas. Many varieties, of different sizes and shapes. The owner of that garden had handed out information sheets with listings of good mail order houses.
Well, we've placed a couple large orders and planted a whole lot of hostas. There's a large area of yard on the side of the house that's shaded by trees and not conducive to growing most plants that I would want. Well, that's now hosta city. Unlike when I initially started buying daylilies, I have actually been marking what's what. I have to get around to ordering stakes with labels from the label makers. We have about a dozen hosta labels to order, and a few daylily as well.
Despite the cost and the hard work involved, I can think of a few real benefits to ordering and planting our own hostas (not necessarily in order of importance):
I get a more attractive yard (questionable -- arguably the yard would be more attractive if I gave up this gardening thing and just paid landscapers to make it beautiful).
I'm actually getting some exercise outdoors
Working the garden with Blair gives us an excuse to spend time together. Just the two of us, working on one project. With three kids, it can be hard to find those opportunities, and gardening with Blair is fun. But more than fun -- it's nice.
My review of Lucia Pizza on Yelp.
