space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 17 -- the lambda factor

Season 2, Episode 17: The Lambda Factor

This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
One member of the crew is dead, Koenig is having nightmares and everyone's grumpy. Maybe it has something to do with that rotating disc thing that's out in space.

My Thoughts
I guess the producers decided that they wanted a murder mystery. What they put together was a muddled piece of flaming crap. The mystery angle was ham-handed. The emoting was not believable. The ending induced head-scratching.

If I have to find something good to say about this episode -- and I don't have to, but I will anyway -- it's that I think the whole Koenig-having-nightmares plot was kind of interesting. It was also nice that it recalled part of his personal history that had been mentioned in a prior episode. It's just too bad that the way they tied it into the rest of the plot was so godawful. 

on cow drawings and cheese

TL/DR: Sharon drew a cute calf for Cabot. 

Blair and Ethan were popping into the supermarket to get some things. I asked for Muenster cheese. I should note here that I'm the only one in the house who likes Muenster cheese.

"This one doesn't have good cheese," Ethan told me.

I started to say that I'll be fine with whatever they have, but Blair beat me to it. "They have stuff that's good enough for Aba," she told him. After 21 years of marriage, the lady knows me.

And the next morning, I grabbed a couple slices of cheese just before starting work. And it was...well, I wouldn't say "inedible." I mean, it'd be disingenuous to say that it was inedible, because I did end up eating the whole package over the course of a few days. But it did taste kind of bad -- in a "thank God I finished that so I don't have to eat anymore, because there are starving kids in <fill in place where kids are starving>" sort of way.

So I learned that some brands of cheese don;t taste as good as others. I should have known. And the fact is I've gotten spoiled by Blair and Ethan's taste in food. I grumble that they buy stuff that's more expensive than what I used to buy for myself when I was single. So, yes...Fiji water tastes better than Poland Spring which tastes better than tap. And some brands (e.g., Organic Valley) make better cheese than other brands (e.g., Borden).

And, while we're on the topic of cheese, another really good brand is Cabot, which brings me to what was originally going to be the topic of this post. Yeah, I can go off on tangents when I really get going.

So, Cabot has some kind of contest going on to draw a cow for them. I don't know if it's for their logo or not, or if it's just to get attention. I don't know if there's a prize. I know nothing, except that Sharon entered with the cow picture shown at the top of this post.

I asked her to text me her picture so I could see it. When I saw it, I tried to respond with "cool." But with my fat fingers, it came up as "cook." Which, with my meat-eating ways, did not appear to be a simple typo.

Sharon's response was "Don't cook him."

Ever-observant, I made a correction. "Her."

I hope she wins, but even if she doesn't, I like the drawing. And I don't like Borden's Muenster cheese.

it's zmedsday!! (lxxxviii)

 

cinema history class: kongo

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, Week 4 (Christina)
Movie: Kongo (1932)
Directed by William J. Cowen

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
An old paraplegic white man has carved out his own little jungle kingdom in the Congo. In his realm he has ultimate control. But he lives for his fantasies of revenge. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

In some sense, it felt strange watching this movie, with all the casual racism contained in it, in today's climate of hyper-sensitivity to all matters concerning race. That said, I think it's important to judge the movie with due consideration to the fact that it was made in 1932.

There were a couple of issues that the movie made me think about which are really tangential. Arguably, they're really not worthy of discussion in this writeup, but -- fuck it: Blog mea, et praecepta mea. So I will bring up the issues, and do it now in order to get them out of the way.

The first such issue relates to religion and superstition. At one point Flint (Walter Huston), in explaining his influence over the native Africans, says that their religion is based on superstition. As an atheist, I've wondered for years about the distinction between religion and superstition. I've asked a lot of people about it, but I've never really gotten an answer that satisfies me. Some Orthodox Jewish friends have tried putting it in terms of revelations -- belief systems that have been validated by predictions that came true, as opposed to those that seek to explain observed phenomena but without any predictive element. I don;t think I buy it, but I can't put into words a coherent reason why. Of course, I don't expect this blogpost to lead to my having a useful explanation. At any rate, the semantiophilosophical question was something in my head that doesn't really have any bearing on the movie.

The other issue is the nature of parental love and its dependence (or lack of dependence) on a blood tie. I know people who have adopted children (some of whom also have bio-children). They would be horribly offended were I to imply that the adopted children are any less theirs than the bio-children are. It's clear that the bond of parenthood is based on a devotion that doesn't depend on the genetic bond. But a major plot element of Kongo hinges on the idea of parental love being driven by and dependent on genetics. This issue is actually significant because it speaks to the believability of two characters' feelings -- and these are feelings that are fundamentally important to the plot.

I showed a few friends some Youtube clips from the movie, including the one above -- with no trailer available, I went with a clip instead. They were taken aback by the poor special effects and the overacting. I noted, however, that both were the result of this being a film from 1932. The effects were reliant on 1932 technology. As for the overacting, this was made when talkies were still a new thing, and movie actors were still used to the overacting that was necessary in silent films.

One of the interesting aspects of this movie is the fact that the main characters are all largekly devoid of redeeming characteristics. I suppose Kingsland (Charles Nagel) and Ann (Virginia Bruce) are intended to be the hero and heroine. And while they are certainly more sympathetic than the others, it's really hard to like them -- admittedly, part of that has to do with the casual racism that I mentioned above.

The fact is, this is a gritty, dirty disturbing film that can really make your skin crawl. It also makes me want to see West of Zanzibar, the 1928 silent film, of which Kongo was a remake.

Ratings:

Me: 10

Ethan: 10

Keith: 10
Sean: 1 out of 4

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 16 -- the beta cloud

Season 2, Episode 16: The Beta Cloud

This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
A mysterious cloud is hovering near Alpha. It tells them that it wants their life support system, and that it has sent a monster to get it.

My Thoughts
Remember a few episodes ago when I said that there are some decent serious episodes in season 2? Those seem like a distant memory now. Once again we have an exercise in stupidity that defies description. I do note that the headpiece on the monster looks suspiciously like the headpiece on the guardian sentry in "A Matter of Balance."

The only good thing I can see about this installment is that they had Maya turn into the same chlorine-breathing life-form that she did in "The AB Chrysalis." I appreciate the continuity.

happy zmedsday!! (lxxxvii)

 

cinema history class; frailty

 Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, Week 3 (Sean)
Movie: Frailty (2001)
Directed by Bill Paxton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A man with wild eyes (dig those wild eyes!) goes to the FBI with what he knows about a serial murder case. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

Why hadn't I heard about this movie before, and why wasn't it a hit?

The whole time I was watching this I was rapt. I was a lot less vocal than normal, which in this case was because I was so into the film. The fact is it can be slow at times, but the tension is strong enough to keep things going. And the total mind fuck -- actually, both mind fucks -- at the end blew me away.

In many ways this was a minimalist movie -- almost the opposite of Scott Pilgrim*, which I brought in two weeks ago. It didn't rely on special effects or fast cuts. It was pretty much good old fashioned storytelling. Keith attributes this to Bill Paxton's expert directorial sense. I can't say for sure that that's it, but it seems plausible.

One contributing factor is the skill of child actors Matt O'Leary and Jeremy Sumpter who played the young Meiks brothers. Very often bad acting can damage movies that feature children. I kind of understand that -- acting, conveying emotion believably -- is a very difficult thing that can take a lot of training, and not many children have developed the skill. But these two kids -- O'Leary and Sumpter -- nailed it. I also kept imagining the movie with Tommy Lee Jones in the role of FBI Agent Doyle. I'm not sure why. Maybe it was because of his role in No Country for Old Men. I think he's very good at the acerbic authority figure. No matter though, Powers Boothe was good as Doyle.

I was actually kind of proud of one call. At one point early on I commented that I was seeing a bit of a Biblical Abraham and Isaac vibe. Specifically, the movie made me think of the binding of Isaac in Genesis. It didn't go where I thought it would at that point, but later in the film Abraham and Isaac are explicitly referenced. So I felt vindicated.

When it came down to ratings, I was really tempted to give this a 10. Three years ago I gave Deranged a 10 (that writeup is here), and I think this is more deserving of that high rating. But I have made an effort to avoid grade inflation, and with that in mind I think I want to reserve my 10's for something ... more. So I opted for a richly-deserved 9.8 I do note that my high regard for this film wasn't shared by everyone.

Ratings:

Me: 9.8

Christina: 8.2
Ethan: 6

Keith: 9

*Nice reference, huh, Keith?

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 15 -- a matter of balance

Season 2, Episode 15: A Matter of Balance

This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
An impressionable young Alphan falls under the spell of a mysterious see-through alien. Turns out he comes from some kind of antimatter realm, where the antimatter people want to become matter people. But for every one of them that becomes matter, a matter person has to become antimatter. Because balance.

My Thoughts
We're getting back into the realm of the really stupid episodes. And that's kind of a shame. The basic concept -- someone from a different realm is trying to lure Alphans into his realm so he and his realm-mates can take their place in ours -- has promise. But it's handled so ham-handedly that it just comes off as an exercise in silliness. And that weird giant antimatter froglike thing guarding the obelisk? I mean, seriously -- WTF!

In the episode's favor, I like the fact that they're sticking with the ongoing side-story of Tony's beer-brewing. But I wish they hadn't just dropped the concept of Dr. Russel as a sculptor.

Oh, for those who are into beefcake, there's Stuart Wilson in a very revealing outfit. He is quite attractive, though his sneer and voice kind of remind me of Richard O'Brien in The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

happy zmedsday!! (lxxxvi)

 

happy tunesday! "jimmy polk of tennessee" by oscar brand

 
Joe Biden announced his running mate today, so (barring weirdness) the teams are set and the games can begin*. I figure this is as good a Tunesday as any to break out an old presidential campaign song.

But there's one problem. As much as I'm a political junkie, I generally avoid politics on social media. It's just too much heat and not enough light. So a song from a recent campaign brings with it the risk of this post getting all politicized. With that in mind, here's "Jimmy Polk from Tennessee," which was a song from James Polk's presidential campaign. There aren't many people alive who have first-hand memories of the 1844 campaign, so maybe the passions raised by this post will be muted. One can hope.

Also, Polk's middle name made it into a Dr. Seuss book, Fox in Socks, which featured a character called a Knox. I have no idea why Dr. Seuss chose to honor President Polk in this way. He was born well after Polk died, so it's not as if they ever met. But there are certainly things that may have driven Seuss' interest in Polk:

• Both were born on the second of the month -- Dr. Seuss on March 2, 1904 and James Polk on November 2, 1795
• Seuss wrote a book called I Had Trouble in getting to Solla Salew. Polk never actually managed to get to a place called Solla Salew.
• Without Polk's expansionism, California may never have become a state. It was in the state of California that Seuss opened his first theme park, Disneyland. Oh, wait -- that was Walt Disney. Never mind.
• Polk died at age 53; Seuss at 87. These two numbers add up to 140, which has a prime factorization of 2^2×5×7. That is, there are three distinct prime factors (2, 5 and 7), with the third being the sum of the first two.
• Both men would have opposed the designated hitter rule.

See what I mean?

*Like they haven't already?

cinema history class: m

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, Week 2 (Ethan)
Movie: M (1931)
Directed by Fritz Lang

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A serial murderer is stalking Berlin and preying on children. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

I have to admit that it seems odd that I used BYOM month to share an overproduced post-MTV-age  fluff story that's ultimately disposable (see blogpost here),  and then my kid -- my kid! -- followed it with this cinematic classic.* Of course, I liked Scott Pilgrim for the music. I think Ethan likes M because it's such an intense character study. He'd rather have a weak story with interesting characters than an interesting story with forgettable characters.

I have to admit that the part of M that most drew me in came near the end of the film. I was intrigued by the whole dynamic of Beckert being tried by a court made up of criminals, but being given a defense attorney who -- despite himself -- seemed to be making as good a case as he could for acquittal. And Beckert's argument was actually quite intriguing. He argued that, despite the heinousness of his crimes, he is not as evil as the criminals who have him on trial. They commit their crimes out of greed -- a compunction that they can control. His compunction is beyond his control, and therefore he has no choice in the matter. Make of the argument what you will, but it's an interesting point that raises all sorts of issues regarding the nature of temptation and sin.

But the buildup is where the action is. The suspenseful chase through the abandoned building is superb, and Peter Lorre's bug-eyes accentuate his deer-in-the-headlights mien. But the true artistry of the film is in the subtlety with which the child murders are portrayed. There's no blood or gore; there isn't even a moment when we know that a murder is taking place offscreen. We just know -- as we see a ball bouncing in the grass, and a balloon flying into the sky, that a little girl has died. And the simple shots of the distressed mother convey more horror and pathos than explicit gore could ever manage.

Sean, for his part, was disappointed that we were watching the English language version, with dubbing rather than the original German with subtitles. He therefore felt he couldn't adequately rate the movie based on the bastardized (my word, not his) version we saw.

Ratings:

Me: 9

Christina: 8.5

Keith: 9
Sean: No Rating

*Yeah, I had to throw in a reference to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World to annoy Keith.

\

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 14 -- space warp

Season 2, Episode 14: Space Warp

This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
Alpha goes through a space warp, putting them light years away from where they had been -- which wouldn't be a problem except that it happens while Koenig and Tony are off the moon in an eagle, investigating a derelict spaceship. so they're stranded. Meanwhile, Maya has a high fever causing her to transform into a series of scary monsters. As a result, she's a danger to herself and others.

My Thoughts
This started out very strongly. The whole space warp thing was handled really well, and built some real suspense. And the Maya fever plotline was introduced with a tease that it may be related to the derelict spaceship. So, watching the episode, I made the assumption that everything would somehow be tied together.

Boy, what a letdown.

The Maya fever story was apparently unconnected to the spacewarp/derelict ship story. So, as with "Catacombs of the Moon," we have some stories that really don't connect in any meaningful way. Neither story is particularly interesting or suspenseful, and Helena's snarky line at the end is obnoxious.

We see a bit of Maya changing into various threatening life-forms, and that would be good in the context of an interesting plot, but here it just comes off as an empty gimmick in service of a nothing plotline. Oh, and I don't want to forget the Power Ranger-looking alien whose recorded video gives Koenig and Tony the guidance they need to get back to Alpha. That stage whisper was really frickin' annoying, and I would have preferred a simpler approach of just having a human (or maybe a human with prosthetic face-ridges) talking in a normal voice.

There had been a couple of good episodes, but these last two were just wastes. I hope they get back to better stuff.

it's zmedsday!! (lxxxiv)

happy tunesday: "regretting what i said... (a musical apology)"

The first thing to note is that I was a big fan of Christine Lavin's early on. And "Regretting What I Said" was one of my favorites. It caught Christine at her early witty best.

It also provided me a chance to get a letter published in The Ann Arbor News (back when writing letters to newspapers was my thing), and it provides Blair her earliest memory of me -- from 11 years before we actually met. She thought I was a dick. And, based solely on that one brief incident (which, again, happened 11 years before we met), I kind of was.

But there's one question I need answered. On the album cover, the song is simply listed as "Regretting What I Said...(A Musical Apology)." But in the recording, Christine introduces the song with the following monologue:

This song is called "Regretting What I Said to You When you Called Me at Eleven O'Clock on a Friday Morning to Tell Me that at One O'Clock Friday Afternoon You're Gonna Leave Your Office, Go Downstairs, Hail a Cab To Go Out to the Airport to Catch a Plane to Go Skiing in the Alps for Two Weeks. Not that I Wanted to Go With You -- I Wasn't Able to Leave Town, I'm Not a Very Good Skier, I Couldn't Expect You to Pay My Way -- But After Going Out With You for Three Years I Don't Like Surprises." And it's subtitled "A Musical Apology." In this song I attempt to take back everything I said while standing in a phone booth on the corner of 39th and Third.

So...What is the actual correct title? The short one written on the album cover? Or the long one that Christine recited at the beginning of the track?

cinema history class: scott pilgrim vs. the world

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, Week 1 (Me)
Movie: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)
Directed by Edgar Wright

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
Slacker musician, Scott Pilgrim, has found the woman of his dreams. But in order to date her he has to defeat her seven evil exes. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

I knew going in that it was a risk to pick this movie for BYOM month in Keith's class. There were some reasons that a rational version of me would have chosen something else:

• Ethan had seen the movie, and doesn't like it.
• I was pretty sure that Keith wouldn't like it.
• I was hanging my hat on the fact that the movies has some prominent elements. But the fact is that, at its heart, this was a young adult rom-com.

Nevertheless, I persisted. Keith encouraged me to go with it of I really love it. And so I did. I was truly unprepared for how poorly it would go over.

Ethan had trouble hooking into any of the characters, so the whole thing didn't interest him. And since he's not a big music fan, it's not as if the musical element of the movie would redeem it for him. I had hope that Christina would like the movie, since she's a big music fan. But apparently the brand of garage punk that's so prominent here is decidedly not music she likes. Sean, for his part, felt that this is the weakest of Edgar Wright's movies -- and he was annoyed that I hadn't done what he felt was the appropriate level of research (i.e., watching all of Wright's films and the TV show Spaced) in advance of this session. No one else in the class really liked any of the characters, and they all had concerns about certain creepy elements of the plot which I'll get to later.

But the big reaction was Keith's. His commentary was an apoplectic rant. SPvTW represents everything that Keith doesn't like about the last couple decades of movies. Those effects and fast cuts, the video-game stuff overlaid on the screen, the stylized fighting and jumping. He hates that shit, and finds it a bad substitute for good storytelling. As a result, he mentally disengaged pretty much at the beginning*. He spent most of the movie uncomfortably waiting for it to be over, and staring at the clock thinking things like "Shit, it's only 9:05?"

I kind of expected Keith to not like the movie, but I wasn't prepared for the depths of his disdain. Surely he'd see something positive -- The music? The humorous interplay between Scott and Wallace? The way Ramona seems to be this international woman of mystery? No such luck. So he gave it a big fat zero. And that capped off the ratings for what may have been the worst-rated film in the class' history.

As for the creepy element? As the movie begins, Scott -- a 22 year old -- is dating 17 year-old Knives Chau. And the status of that relationship (such as it is) is a big part of the movies. I recognize the ick factor, but am able to look aside in order to enjoy the movie. Others in the class -- especially Sean, not so much.

And that brings me to what has been one of my big criticisms of the movie -- and the fact that this class may have given me a better insight into it. I have always thought that Michael Cera and Ellen Wong were miscast as Scott and Knives. Cera looks too young to be 22 and Wong looks too old to be a 17-year old. In truth, Cera was born in June, 1988, so I figure he was 21 when most of the shooting was done. Wong was born in January, 1985 so she actually has nearly 3½ years on Cera. Because of this, the pairing doesn't appear to be a 22 year-old guy with a 17 year-old girl, and creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. But now, having seen the movie with a group and been part of an actual discussion about it, I can appreciate that the casting may have been helpful in making it feel less icky. In addition, the oddly chaste relationship helps -- Scott is not actually having sex with (or even kissing) the underage girl.

Which, brings us back to one of the problems with Michael Cera in the role of Scott Pilgrim. As the narrative unfolds we learn that Scott is quite the ladies' man, having left a trail of broken hearts. And it's really not believable. I suppose this is fantasy, and part of the fantasy is that any geeky guy can be an operator. But it is kind of hard to believe. It's much easier and more believable when we see Scott acting all clumsy and tongue-tied when he's trying to impress Ramona.

Related to all of this is the issue of the ending. There are two alternate endings -- one where Scott goes off with Knives and one where he goes off with Ramona. I prefer the Knives ending, since Ramona is a bundle of neuroses and baggage, and Scott is better off with Knives. Others prefer the Ramona ending. As Chrstina noted, Scott spent the entire movie fighting for Ramona. If he goes off with Knives at the end, that means that he's back where he started and hasn't really grown at all. It also re3turns us to the ick factor.

So why, with all these negative factors, do I love this movie to the point that I wanted to bring it to class for BYOM month? It's hard to say. I think the biggest thing for me was the music -- I love the The Sex Bob-Omb performances. But I also enjoy the humor. I dunno. I just like it. This is one of those movies that I keep coming back to and watching. Or watching clips of. But I guess Keith won't be doing that.

There's part of me that regrets bringing this to class. And a big part of that is the fact that it was a stretch to argue that this belongs in a class focused on horror, science fiction and fantasy. My excuse was that there are major fantasy elements. But at least this actually brought out some good conversation, and I actually got to give the movie -- and my criticism of its casting much more seruious thought than I had in the past. So, as much as the movie was a flop, the session can be called a success.

Ratings:

Christina: 2
Ethan: 4

Keith: 0
Sean: 1 out of 4

*I did hear him laugh at the name when the character Stephen Stills was introduced. Or maybe that was a scoff.

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 13 -- catacombs of the moon

Season 2, Episode 13: Catacombs of the Moon

This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
A woman lies near death awaiting an artificial heart that Dr. Russel is struggling to build. Meanwhile her increasingly-delusional husband is predicting that the moon will soon be burnt to a crisp, and insisting that only he can save his wife.

My Thoughts
This episode is kind of a weird muddle of two plots that really shouldn't have anything to do with each other, but which seem to have been uneasily stitched together. Of course I have no evidence so this is just speculation, but I think they had two ideas for episodes but didn't have enough material for either, so they created this Frankenstein's episode.

It combines all the worst elements of S99 (except for the wooden sterility of season 1), into a boring, boring watch.