Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, Week 2 (Me) Movie: Head (1968) Directed by Bob Rafelson
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot: A bunch of incoherent stuff happens to The Monkees. Hilarity ensues. Reaction: For several years considered bringing Head for Bring Your Own Movie Month, but I hesitated since it's not science fiction or horror. Keith assured me that it's appropriate for the class, since it's fantasy, and that counts as being in genre. And the question of genre raised its head in the ratings portion of the evening. Joe originally rated it a 7, noting that it's not in genre. After Keith argued that it is in genre -- fantasy counts -- Joe relented and gave it a 9.8 (assuming one accepts Keith's argument). And Joe's rating (whether you look at the 7 or the 9.8) surprised me. He has often emphasized that when he watches a movie the most important thing is that he be told a story. And Head doesn't tell a story. It's a series of vignettes loosely tied to each other by (mostly) clever segues. And in the pre-class emails, Keith and I joked about how much Joe would hate the evening. But he enjoyed it despite himself -- at least in part because of the music. Dave also noted that, despite it being a bad movie, he had a good time, as it brough him back to the time he was transitioning from high school to college. Even Ethan seemed to like it better than he expected. The one negative voice was Sean*, who felt that the Monkees pulled their punches too much and effectively came up with a message they didn't really follow through on. He correctly noted that the major theme is of being trapped, only to escape and be trapped again. I add to that that, secondarily, there's the theme of getting what you want and being dissatisfied with it. But Sean noted that, while the Monkees shoot their image full of holes, they never really elevated themselves beyond it. I understand Sean's sentiment, and agree with a lot of his thoughts. I love Head because of the music and because I'm a Monkees' fan. But I am under no illusion that it's a good movie. Ratings:
Christina: 8 Dave: 6 (as a movie), 9 (for entertainment) -- averaging out to 8.5 Ethan: 7
Joe: 7 (unless you consider this a genre film, in which case it goes to 9.8 (Note: Joe rates all genre films on a curve, from 9.0 to 10) Keith: 9
Sean: 1 out of 4
*Sean couldn't make it to class, but he has seen the movie and watched it again. He emailed me his comments and rating.
A few years ago, the Film Forum was running a Spaghetti Western festival. Ethan and I went to a bunch of them. Which meant that we spent a lot of time sitting in the theaters, between showings, seeing the inter-movie sequence. Featured prominently was this song, the theme from Gunfight at Red Sands.
I saw it enough times that it worked its way into my brain.
And I started speculating about the lyrics. "There's just one kind of man who tells the truth, and that's a dead man." Well, dead men don't actually tell the truth; they simply don't lie." So I started wondering if the song had originally been written in Spanish or Italian, with the line being something like "There's just one kind of man who never lies, and that's a dead man."
I asked Keith Crocker, who's my go-to for questions about the film-making industry. He said it's most likely that the song was written in English and that line is simply that line.
I shouldn't really let it bother me. And I'd be a better songwriter if I could just let it go. Just like the way the song "Who Do You Love" annoys my ears because it should be "whom."
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, Week 1 (Dave) Movie: The Mummy (1932) Directed by Karl Freund
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot: A mummy has been brought back to life, curse be damned. Hilarity ensues. Reaction: I need to start this off by explaining that I slept through The Mummy. I had just gotten back from vacation and was severely jet-lagged. I caught up with it a couple days after we saw it in class, and watched it on archive.org. While I can offer a few comments based on that viewing, I don't think it's fair to the movie for me to try rating it. Hence, I am giving it an "NR" -- not rated. This was a very different movie than I was expecting. Somehow, I was figuring the plot to run something along the lines of the following: Archaeologist opens the burial chamber of a mummy, ignoring a dire curse placed on whoever disturbs it. The mummy comes to life, killing the archaeologist before escaping into the night. It continues on a terror spree, killing innocent people until it is somehow cornered and killed by some contrivance along the lines of a silver bullet. But this had a more interesting plot -- the Mummy has come to life, and is living among the modern Egyptians, as one of them. He's hoping to eventually free his ancient girlfriend so they can live happily ever after. What struck me was the similarities to White Zombie, a Bela Lugosi film (also from 1932). I remember WZ having scenes that focused on Lugosi's face as he worked some magic spell. The Mummy did the same thing with Karloff, and it gave the movie a very similar feel. Ratings:
Me: NR Ethan: 9
Joe: 10 (Note: Joe rates all genre films on a curve, from 9.0 to 10)
Here's something that I've been thinking of writing a post about, ever since I started this blog. I haven't written about it yet. But given some of what's in the news about now, I think it's somewhat timely.
Back when I was in college, there was a push by Tipper Gore and some other politicians' wives to protect youth from obscene music. The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) wanted to have warning labels put on records that had potentially-offensive materials.
At the time, I was one of the editors of the campus newspaper. A few of my colleagues and I were in the paper's office arguing about the PMRC and its proposal. Was this an infringement 1A? Or simply a useful tool t help parents make educated parenting decisions?
Sadly, our debate degenerated into a shouting match over censorship. We went over and over the same ground, arguing about whether the labels and a government-imposed rating system for records counted as censorship. What saddens me (apart from the fact that we couldn't argue the issue without screaming at each other) is that, by focusing on whether the proposals amounted to censorship, we obfuscated the actual issue.
The debate became a question of how to define "censorship," with the implicit assumption that censorship is bad and whatever is not censorship is therefore not bad. Somehow, we didn't consider the possibilities that "censorship" could be defined broadly enough to include something that's not unacceptable, or that it could be defined narrowly enough to exclude something that is unacceptable. Effectively, we were fighting about semantics instead of the virtues of the issue at hand.
I really enjoy Tom Lehrer's music, which was sort of topically humorous. It's easy to say that "Alma" is one of my favorites of his songs. But so many of his songs are among my favorites that the word "favorites" is effectively meaningless.
But I was thinking about "Alma" recently. I think it's because Ethan was in Vienna.
Back in 2008, when Sharon was 5 years old, I was sitting in the car with her. I was waiting for the appointed hour when the parking regs changed and I could leave the car. Sharon was in the back seat. I had a Tom Lehrer disc on.
The opening line came on. "The loveliest girl in Vienna"
This is kind of an interesting tune. A catchy modern punk song that can really worm its way into your brain. And it's a band composed of (or at least containing) Orthodox Jews.
But it's also a bit of a downer -- the subject matter is a marriage (with five young children) falling apart. And, more than just a song about divorce, is addresses the topic of agunot -- orthodox jewish women who are stuck because their husbands won't grant them a religious divorce. I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I do know that it can be a big one for the women stuck with it. Anyway, this song even depicts the legbreakers.
But it's so damn catchy!
Anyway, in case anyone is interested, the name "Groggers" is not a reference to the alcoholic beverage, grog. There is at least one band called the Groggers whose name derives therefrom. In this instance, the name is a reference to the noisemakers that Jews use on Purim to drown out the name of Haman.
Years ago, when Blair and I were househunting, we almost bought a different house than the one we ended up in. It's on the same street, but two blocks away. It's a very picturesque house and we probably would have been happy in it. We agreed on a price, but after that we found that there weree other specifics we couldn't agree on. Chief among them was the question of an old oil tank that had been buried in the front yard. There were other things, but my point here isn't to relive a real estet purchase that wasn't. That said, I think we ended up doing better. The house we ended up buying doesn't have the same immediate charm, but in many ways is more liveable.
The house we almost bought
I was thinking about that because Blair and I walked by that old house a week or so ago. It's easy to think that my life would be largely the same if that deal hadn't fallen though. But some very big parts of my life are a direct result of living where we do.
For several years now, Blair and I have been increasingly active in the Long Island Daylily Society (LIDS). And that came about because of neighbors across the street who are LIDS members. If we had lived two blocks away we would never have been talking gardening with them. And if I hadn't gotten involved with LIDS, I wouldn;t have gotten involved in the Jamaica Estates Association (JEA) Gardening Club. And if I hadn;t gotten involved with that, I wouldn't have been invited to join the JEA Board. Which may not seem like a big deal, except that it has also become an increasing component of who I am.
Now, it's easy to know about what wouldn't have happened if I had taken that other path. What's harder (read: impossible) is to know what would have happened instead. And I have no doubt that there would have been other things in my life instead.
I've been working on some songwriting, hopefully in preparation for recording an album. Because I want to.
One problem I'm running into is the constant second-guessing of specific lines. I get a song written, I like it. It sounds good. And then, in the middle of the night I wake up thinking that a line needs work. Or that some minor change needs to made. And then I agonize over whether the song works, which line works better, and whether it needs to be completely rewritten.
I wonder if professional songwriters (here, meaning those who make a living at it) second-guess themselves?
And, since I brought up the topic, here's a rough, home-office-made video of one of the songs. The performance is warts and all.
I first heard this song on the various artists collection, Songs in the Key of Z, and immediately loved it. Surprisingly, there is also a "Cousin Mosquito #2." Actually, maybe it's not that surprising, since there would be no reason to call this #1 if there were no #2. Sadly, #2 isn;t nearly as good.
In case your interested, Malinda Jackson-Parker did in fact serve in Congress. The Liberian Congress, but who's keeping score?
I have seen a whole lot of movies in the weekly cinema history class that Ethan and I attend. It's been going on for over five years (6? 7? I'm not sure), so even with vacations and missed weeks, that's still over 250 movies. But Keith's focus isn't on the big famous movies. He's covering a genre (or, if you prefer, several related genres) and showing us movies that we might not come across otherwise.
A couple times, classics have been mentioned, and the class has expressed surprise that I hadn;t seen them. Noteworthy is Casablanca. But Joe lent me his DVD, so I have now seen that. It all makes me wonder what movies are true classics -- important parts of our culture that I really should make a point of seeing?
If you, my reader, have any thoughts, I am open to suggestion.
When I first heard that Seth MacFarlane was working on a Star
Trek parody (now called The Orville), I wasn’t really sure what to
think. I had lost interest in the official Star Trek franchise and anything new
it had to offer – the reboot movies were more annoying than entertaining (in
fact, the last several movies pre-reboot had also kind of sucked). And it was
about the same time that the next TV series in the official Star Trek universe
(CBS’ Star Trek: Discovery) had been announced, and it was not looking
promising.*
But a MacFarlane-created parody had promise. When he’s at
his best, Seth MacFarlane produces some very funny material. I kind of had the Airplane
movies and Police Squad in my head. I realize that the ZAZ team that
produced those had a very different comedic style, but that kind of parody is
still what I had in my head. On the other hand, Police Squad didn’t last
very long -- which I assume is because it’s hard to maintain that type of humor
at a high level of quality.
So, with a sense of ambivalence, I ignored the show’s
existence.
That is, until I found that it was available on Hulu, to which
I subscribe. I have now watched both seasons (a third is expected some time
next year).
The show very quickly established its humor, though that
very often involves juvenile gags – which wasn’t surprising, and is perfectly
fine by me. What surprised me was the quality of the show as science fiction. Putting
aside the crude humor, the show is more a tribute to Star Trek than a parody.
Someone less charitably inclined may call it a ripoff, though starved as I am
for good Star Trek material, I don’t want to put down anything that’s giving it
to me. As it has progressed, the humor of the show has taken more and more of a
back seat in favor of the science fiction; my interpretation is that MacFarlane
realized he could do comedy or sci-fi – and chose the latter. There’s still
some humor, but its become less crude (overall). Except for the penis jokes,
the reliance on the word “bang” in reference to sex, the humor is about on par
with what we saw on The Next Generation.
Which seems to be MacFarlane’s target. I was unaware (though
I have since learned) that MacFarlane grew up on TNG, and that’s kind of
ground zero of his Star Trek fandom. The Orville seems like a
note-perfect homage to TNG. I know it’s not Star Trek cannon. But,
dammit, it should be. It should be known as Star Trek: ORV. The look and
feel of the show, as well as the incidental music is just like TNG. Castwise,
there’s Mark Jackson as Isaac (an artificial lifeform) and Peter Macon as
Bortus (a “Moclan,” which can be thought of as this series’ version of a
Klingon). The two sound sound like they are literally channeling Brent Spiner
and Michael Dorn. IN addition there’s Halston Sage as Alara Kitan, the chief of
security. The comparison to Tasha Yar from TNG isn’t quite as obvious as
the others – but once again we have a hot young female security chief who can
kick some major ass. And placing Captain Mercer’s ex-wife as his first officer
creates the same kind of friction that TNG could have had with Riker and
Troi, but never had the guts to explore. I just have to say thank God they didn’t have
an equivalent to Wesley Crusher, who was probably the most annoying ingredient
in TNG.
And one of the things that I like about this show is that
the characters aren’t annoying in the way that TNG characters could be. The
attempted humor kind of humanizes them in a way that never happens with Picard,
Riker and the others. And the fact that they lose their sense of decorum helps.
One gutsy call that MacFarlane made is that there’s no
transporter beam – a staple of the Star Trek universe. I initially found that
jarring, since I’m so used to seeing Star Trek characters escape danger by just
beaming up. In a way, that became a big cheat, and I’m glad that MacFarlane (or
whoever) made the gutsy call not to have it. Interestingly, The Orville
does have “simulators,” which are the show’s equivalent of Star Trek’s
holodeck. I’m kind of ambivalent about whether I would prefer the show not have
them. But part of that ambivalence is based in the fact that – unlike TNG,
this show doesn’t overuse them. I got really annoyed whenever shows in the Star
Trek universe became too reliant on Holodeck plots. Fortunately The Orville
only had one such episode (through two seasons at least), and that one was
nowhere near as annoying as some of the depths that the Star Trek shows sank
to.
The one thing that doesn’t work, though it’s admittedly good
for some laughs is the fact that the crew seems oddly enamored of late 20th
and early 21st century pop culture. They play the music of Billy
Joel and Creedence. They watch clips from Seinfeld on the main
viewscreen in the bridge. And, when Bortus’ mate wants to watch something that
will make him happy, the computer’s entertainment database plays a dance
sequence from The Sound of Music. I suppose I should view the whole
thing with a sense of fun, but it doesn’t really make a whole hell of a lot of
sense.
None of the foregoing would matter if the show sucked.
Fortunately, it doesn’t. As I was watching the early episodes, I was thinking
that it seems like a second rate iteration of Star Trek – which actually isn’t bad.
But it did, in fact, get better as it progressed and found its footing. By the
end of the second season, it became quite good – and season 2 did end on a high.
I, for one, am looking forward to season 3.
*For purposes of full disclosure, I have still not watched Discovery.
I have watched some clips on Youtube, and seen some that were incorporated into
various Youtube commentaries. Nothing that I’ve seen gives me any reason to
think I’d like it.
