cinema history class: the blood spattered bride

    

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

Session: Deadly Dykes (Week 4)
Movie: The Blood Spattered Bride (1972)
Directed by Vicente Aranda

Plot:

A yound, scared bride is haunted by her new husband's long-dead relative (who happens to be a lesbian vampire). Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The biggest problem with BSS is its lofty pretensions of being some kind of study of psych-sexual obsession and fear, or a kind of virulent man-hating feminism. The young bride, Susan (Maribel Martin), is terrified of losing her virginity. Her fear of sex is a recurring theme, an it transforms her, as she is increasingly influenced by Carmila/Mircala (Alexandra Bastedo) who urges her to kill the men in her life. The pretension is made even more obvious by the trailer (which, as per class custom, we didn't see until after the movie).

In some ways it reminded me of the more recent Thelma and Louise. I have heard both praise and hatred for T&L by people who see it as an exploration of girl power, as the titular characters rampage through Texas, exacting revenge on men. But I could never really see it that way, since the bottom line is that the two women in that movie ultimately commit suicide, preferring to die rather than drive through Texas. BSS similarly features some graphic violence against men -- one man has his genitals carved out and another takes a shotgun blast to the groin (both after the victims are dead). But ultimately the women, driven by fear, all end up dead as well. So it's hardly a real victory.

Putting aside the psychological analysis (and acknowledging that I don't have a degree in that field, I was annoyed by a certain incoherence to the plot. A lot was left unexplained -- or explained poorly. So I was often wondering what the hell was going on.

But putting those issues aside, I couldn't help but find the movie compelling. I wanted to know what was going to happen. It captivated me in a way more-coherent movies often fail.

Ratings

Me: 8

Bob-O: 7.5

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 10

Joe: 9.8

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "I like the pigeons."

Cats: No cats, but there are lots of homing pigeons and a fox.

casting continues

Earlier this month I posted about shooting test footage at Keith's as part of the casting process for Three Slices of Delirium.

Since then, Keith spent more time casting other roles with other performers. I wasn't part of those screen tests, since those are rolls that don't interact with mine. To remind, Three Slices will be an anthology of three short films, each based loosely on Poe. I will be in "The Premature Burial." In the latest, he was testing out actresses for "Baba Yaga" and "The Last Kiss of Ullalume."

While I wasn't there, I did see some of the pictures, so you can too.

baseball rules changes

I'm a bit late on this, but baseball's back. yay. whoopee. all associated glee and cheers.

Growing up I was a huge Mets fan. But after the strike of 1994-1995 I never really fully came back. I have gone to a few games since then, but infrequently. It has now been a few years since I watched an inning of the game. My interest in the game is limited to updating my stoopidstats charts and tables after each season. Here are posts about such things. At this point, I couldn;t name a player on the Mets starting lineup.

So, on the one hand, I don't really follow baseball. Other than feeling deprived of the annual ritual of updating my stats, I wouldn't care if the baseball season got cancelled. In fact, I might have even gotten an odd little thrill out of such a cancellation -- if not for the fact that I know if would make a lot of my friends and a lot of small business owners unhappy.

At any rate, given my ambivalence, I'm probably not the best person to comment on the rules changes that are part of the season-saving agreement. To make matters worse, I am not going to do any real scholarly research before opining. I'm definitely leaving out some stuff, including the rules that I don't care about. The minutia of draft rules and waiver regulations are boring to me, so there's no reason to cite each of them just to say "I don't care." And there are likely some changes that I would care about if I were aware of them, but I'm leaving out because I'm not. So take this for what it's worth.

Adoption of the DH in the NL

I have never liked the DH, and I don't like seeing the NL adopt it. This change also includes the so-called Shohei Ohtani rule. According to it, if a pitcher is batting for himself, and gets replaced on the mound, he can continue as the DH. That makes sense to me. Or it would if not for the fact that there should be no DH at all.

Pitch clock (starting in 2023)

Probably a good idea if it will speed up the games. But in terms of game length the bigger problem is the commercial breaks.

Ban on defensive shifts (starting in 2023)

This is a terrible idea. There should be no rules about where the fielders can be positioned. OK, I suppose there have to be minimal rules for practicality purposes. Like, the pitcher has to be on the mound, the catcher has to be behind home plate, and no other fielder can stand between them. But if a team wants to position the other seven fielders down the rightfield line at the base of the foul pole, they should be allowed to. Interestingly, in talking about this with a friend I learned that, other than the catcher, all fielders are required to be in fair territory when the pitcher pitches. Keith Hernandez used to get in trouble for violating that one. I'd be all for rescinding that rule. Let the fielders stand where they want, and let the batters do what they can to hit it where they ain't.

Automatic ball/strike zone (starting in 2023)

What is this

Larger bases

My understanding is that the bases will expand from 16" square to 18" square, which represents an increase in area of more than 25%. I have no opinion about whether this is good or bad.

Expanded postseason

Really? To my way of thinking, you shouldn't be allowed in the postseason if you don;t finish in first place.

Extra innings ghost runner

One article says they will be eliminating the ghost runner (who starts on second base in extra innings. I wasn't even aware they had adopted this in the majors. I must really be out of touch. Some other article says that the ghost runner is back, which means they had it and it went away, which means I'm even more out of touch. At any rate, the whole ghost runner thing is an abomination that should never have been implemented at any level.

Facing every opponent

To make the schedule more "balanced," every team faces every other team for at least one series each season. If I had my way, teams would only play against teams in their own division, and division winners would be the only ones to go to the postseason.

All-Star game decided by a home run derby

If the All-Star game is tied after nine innings, it will be decided by a home run derby. Now, I already think the All-Star game is a load of bullshit, but this will just make it bullshittier.

sharon and the birb campaign

 Sharon wants a pet bird. Or, "birb" as per some subset of the social media world (for some reason I don't know).

So this week she forwarded me something about birds being cute with a message that it was reason #262 that we should get a birb. I responded that she should put together a Powerpoint and we'd discuss. A little bit later she emailed. I have not edited or cleaned up these slides (except to redact her email address).

As persuasive as it is, I still don't think we're getting a bird. Another cat, maybe later this spring. But not a bird. Sorry...birb.

two more stories

Ethan and I have now finished our second storytelling class, studying under Adam Wade at the Magnet Theater. The last one ran from the summer into the fall. I posted videos of Ethan's and my performances here.

This class was a bit different than the first. It was billed as a "solo show" class, and I didn't quite understand what it meant. Whereas the earlier class consisted of coming up with and refining stories based on prompts, this was geared around considering what one would do if one were planning to do a solo show. So we started with a premise: If you were doing solo show, and anything were possible -- cost and practicality don't matter -- what would you do. For one assignment we had to bring in soundclips to go with a story that would be part of the show. For another assignment we had to create some original artwork related to a story that would be part of the show. All of this confused me at first. I was thinking of this as another storytelling class, and I didn't understand why we were creating art, bringing in music, and doing show and tell. Eventually, I got it -- Adam was going into different things that a solo show might include, as a way of helping us visualize a solo show. I don't actually have plans to ever do a solo show, but...well, who knows?

Anyway, Ethan told us about his experience with StackUp and I told about how Ducks Deluxe become my rock and roll ground zero.

I was glad to see Ethan really getting into it -- more than I expected him to. In fact, he's into it enough that he suggested we sign up for the advanced storytelling class. I'll post about that in a month and a half or so.

cinema history class: the vampire lovers (1970)

   

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

Session: Deadly Dykes (Week 3)
Movie: The Vampire Lovers (1970)
Directed by Roy Wood Baker

Plot:

A beautiful lesbian vampire is killing villagers and trying to outsmart those who know who she is. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

This was beautifully shot; the visuals were stunning. Of particular note was the scene near the beginning where the vampire appears as a shroud, floating through fog. And the intense blues and greens were beautiful.

Sadly, though, I had a hard time getting into this. Ingrid Pitt, as a vampire displayed some really great talent, but the characters weren't interesting and I found the plot to be a bit too simple. That may be in part because the movie was shot like a gothic horror film from ten years earlier. The kind with Vincent Price and old castles. I'm just not into those films, and this suffered in my estimation because of that.

Ratings

Me: 6.75

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 7

Joe: 9.8

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "The lesson from this is...don't fall in love."

Cats: Yep!  A big fluffy one. Maybe a Maine Coon, though I don't know for sure. I'm gonna name him Chunko.

happy tunesday! (watching from the balcony)

 From Eytan Mirsky's newly-released eighth solo album.

There's not a bad cut on the disc, but this is one of my favorites. I remember he had shared a rough recording on Youtube some time ago. I liked it then, but this fully-produced track takes it to another level.

Since no commentary on Eytan's songs is complete without a reference to Nick Lowe, I'll note that this sounds like something Nick Lowe would have recorded. Or maybe Walter Clevenger, from that time that everything he did sounded like something Nick Lowe would have done.

cinema history class: blood of dracula (1957)

  

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

Session: Deadly Dykes (Week 2)
Movie: Blood of Dracula (1957)
Directed by Herbert L. Strock

Plot:

A newcomer at her boarding school, Nancy is taken under a teacher's wing. But there is a price to be paid. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Blood of Dracula is engaging and enjoyable, but it's also too simple and ultimately unsatisfying.

The film starts out as a JD film -- or a teenage party movie (complete with a musical number). Serving that, there's some very well-done exposition, and it's maybe halfway through before there's any hint of vampires. The vampire element was inadequately explained via some appeals to hypnotism and mumbo-jumbo about power. And then it just kind of wraps up too neatly and quickly.

The transformation scenes -- where Nancy (Sandra Harrison) transforms into the vampire were very well done, and I was particularly interested in how the camera (or was it the makeup) made Karen go from cute to distorted and ugly then back to cute. But those elements were largely wasted on this.

Still, it was fun to watch.

Ratings

Me: 6.5

Christina: 8.2

Dave: 9.2

Ethan: 7

Joe: 10

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "Well...It's not a ten."

Cats: Still no cats.

25 years a fellow: could i have blown it all?

Last Monday marked the 25th anniversary of my becoming a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries. Attaining that credential was the culmination of years of studying and stress. I should have marked the occasion on Monday, but I forgot. Oops. At any rate, that's not the point of this post.

A question came up at work this week -- did I, as I was receiving my fellowship diploma, risk having it taken away?

Some background is in order. When I got my Fellowship, the last hurdle was the Fellowship Admissions Course. It was a two-or-so day seminar on professional ethics and responsibility, designed to instill in us a sense of the importance of acting honestly and ethically. The process of attaining fellowship has changed over the years, but the FAC remains a part of it, and I believe the FAC still has the same purpose.

The FACends with a banquet at which the new FSAs called up one by one to receive their diplomas from the President of the Society (at the time, it was Dave Holland) and get their pictures taken. And that's where I made it interesting. I brought a gorilla mask and a banana to the banquet. When my name was called I quickly put the mask on and made my way to the podium. There, amid laughter, I offered Mr. Holland a banana in exchange for the diploma. One of my regrets is that somewhere along the way I lost the picture.

Was I was worried that the stunt would cost me my Fellowship? The fact is, is did cross my mind. I didn't want to ask Mr. Holland in advance, since I wanted it to be a surprise. But I did ask one of the FAC faculty what he thought. Was there a chance that Holland would decide that I wasn't taking the whole thing seriously enough? Might he tear up the diploma and tell me I had to start again? Might the ABCD* take interest and impose some sanction. The faculty member assured me that Mr. Holland has a good sense of humor and would most likely be amused.

I'm thinking about that question again after 25 years. Suppose Mr. Holland (or some other high-ranking SoA people or FAC faculty) was actually offended that I wasn't taking it seriously enough? Could it actually have cost me my Fellowship?

Short Answer:
No.

Long Answer:
The first important consideration is that, by the time of the banquet, we had all been declared FSAs. Why is that important? Because it speaks to what would have been needed for the stunt to cost me my Fellowship.

Suppose we hadn't been declared Fellows before the banquet. Then, I suppose, the faculty could have decided that I failed and not given me my diploma. I don't think that would have happened, and it would have been unduly harsh. But maybe it could have happened. Maybe.

But by the time I pulled the stunt I was already an FSA. So for it to have cost me my Fellowship the faculty would have had to revoke it. That, I figure, is a bigger deal. The faculty at the FAC do not have the power to revoke Fellowship. They would have had to make a complaint to the ABCD. After a full investigation, the ABCD could decide to revoke my credentials.

But that seems unlikely. I looked at the Code of Professional Conduct to see if I could find anything there on the subject. Most of the precepts in the code have to do with the actual work of being an actuary. They govern communication, disclosure, ethical issues. Things that aren't affected by a lighthearted but irreverent joke. at the FAC banquet. The closest I could come to seeing anything problematic is in Precept 1, which reads:

An Actuary shall act honestly, with integrity and competence, and in a manner to fulfill the profession's responsibility to the public and to uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession.

Maybe that last clause could be invoked to argue that wearing a gorilla mask at the FAC banquet could harm the reputation of the profession. But I think that would be a difficult argument to make. Especially in light of Annotation 1-4, which clarifies that even that part of the precept is intended to apply to professional activities. That Annotation reads:

An Actuary shall not engage in any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or commit any act that reflects adversely on the actuarial profession.

Now, it's possible that non-actuarial activities can be interpreted as being violations of the Precept if they are egregiously immoral, and well publicized. And then an actuary could be censured or lose his credential. But it's hard for me to see that happening in the kind of situation I'm discussing.

Thoughts?

__________________________

*The Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline, which is the profession's body charged with dealing with ethical or professional violations. They have the power to investigate accusations and, among other things, revoke or suspend actuaries' credentials.

cinema history class: dracula's daughter (1936)

 

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

Session: Deadly Dykes (Week 1)
Movie: Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Directed by Lambert Hillyer

Plot:

Dracula may be dead, but now his daughter is looking for women in London. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I came into this with expectations of something very different. I knew we were going into a month of lesbian vampire movies, so I was kind of expecting this to be all exploitationy. I would have known better had I given it any thought, since we're talking a code-era film from the 1930s. The code-era being what it was, the lesbian angle isn't over the top -- it's no more than hinted at in the way the Countess (Gloria Holden) -- AKA the titular vampire -- stares longingly at her female victims. But even so, the only overt references to romantic or sexual interest involve men -- her henchman Sandor (Irving Pichel) and Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger).

So, putting aside the lesbian angle, which really doesn't benefit the movie or detract from it, the simple fact is that this was a worthy successor to Dracula, and a good movie in its own right. The Countess is almost sympathetic as a vampire who seems to want to overcome her vampiric state, trying to be a human. She's suffering as her henchman seems to delight in her predicament. Her dialog is clever, as she keeps throwing in little references to her vampirism.

Not a great movie, but still very enjoyable.

Ratings

Me: 8.5

Christina: 8.5

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 7.5

Joe: 12*

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "So she's Dracula's daughter? That's an interesting concept."

Cats: No cats. But bats, which are sort of like cats, but different.

_____________________________________________

*Technically, our more-or-less agreed on rules don't allow for grades above 10. But Joe missed this session, watched the movie on his own and emailed us his comments and grade. He insists that, since he watched in his own home, he is not bound by the usual grading rules. I'll let him and Bob-O fight it out assuming Bob-O objects. He also missed the session due to vacation.

back for more test footage

I didn't realize it, but more than half a year has gone by since Keith had me in front of a green screen to shoot test footage for his next feature film, Three Slices of Delirium. If you're reading this far and still care, the follow ups to the above-linked post are here and here.

But today I was back as Keith's as he was running some screen tests  with my potential costars -- guys who would be playing the young students who attract the...uh, interest... of my character. Today's goal was to see how well the three of us could interact well.

It sure beats a day in front of my spreadsheets!

Thanks to Christina Crocker for these pictures.

We're all yucking it up:

I can't keep my eyes off one of my victims -- I mean students.

They plot!

We watch the action...

happy tunesday! do you think of me (now and again)?

 

Yet another version of "Do You Think of Me (Now and Again)."

This is the same as the one I posted late last year, but with a new lead vocal track by Tim Patterson.

Enjoy...