who needs a red shirt to serve?

For those who don't know, we don't work with Stack-Up anymore. It wasn't a real surprise the organization made its decision that we should go our separate ways; the writing had been on the wall for a while, and it was really more a matter of when and how than whether. If I recall correctly the split came on June 26. But it had been coming. Since then, there have been developments that have surprised and pleased me.

During the last year or so we've made a lot of connections with the local veteran community, and the last several months of our events have reflected that. We did several service projects with The Mission Continues, and we've been at several of their social events as well. Our last activity for Stack-Up consisted of attending a Veterans stakeholders meeting in New Jersey. At that meeting, Ethan spoke about what Stack-Up can do. We've have spent time helping fix up VFW posts and an American Legion Hall. In fact, the American Legion Hall in Weehawken honored us at their reopening on May 26. At the time of our departure, we had plans to attend an event at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn -- an event at which there would be thousands of veterans and current members of the military. The fact is that we went to more events than we had really wanted to. But when local groups (and in one case a politician) asked us to be at events, it was hard to say no.

So, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words when I was asked what we'll be doing next. That's a question we had thought about, but hadn't come up with any definitive answer. But Ethan and I went to the American Legion  Hall in Weehawken to celebrate July 4. One of the people we knew there -- one of the very people who had given us a plaque a month ago -- asked me the simple question of what we would be doing next. I had to admit that I wasn't sure.

But someone else asked about a possible event. If they could get the equipment could we run the event? It seemed strange for a second. But, thinking about it, it makes sense. There's no reason we need to be members of any specific organization in order to serve. So, while there are no guarantees that it will come to fruition, there's every likelihood that we will be putting together an event. And if we put one together, there's no reason we can't do another... And, while we're at it, The Mission Continues has made it clear that we're welcome to keep signing up for their service projects.

Now, Ethan is talking about his ideas for what kind of charity is really needed. So the future has yet to be written.

cinema history class: bride of frankenstein

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month 2018, Week 1
Movie: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Directed by James Whale
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
The monster has survived, but he's lonely. Frankenstein and Pretorius work together to find him a wife, but we're not exactly talking match.com. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
First, I should probably acknowledge two relevant facts. First, I've never seen the original Frankenstein, to which this was a sequel. For some reason I had been under the impression that Bride was generally considered an inferior film, hokey in execution. I'm not sure why I had that impression, but I had it. So I was somewhat surprised when Keith noted (or was it Dave? I'm not sure) that this is generally considered to be one of the situations where the sequel is better than the original. And, while I can't say whether this was better than the original, I can confirm that it's a great film.

In some ways, I kept thinking of this as a kind of mirror image of a Spaghetti Western. What I like about Spaghetti Westerns is that the heros, far from being icons of goodness, are conflicted and -- at best -- mixed. They're more sympathetic than the antagonists, and they do some good. But they ... how do I put this? Let's just say that they typically have their own selfish agendas. Here, the Monster is, well, a monster. But he's clearly a victim -- of his circumstances, of the townspeople, and of his creator.

All he wants is to have a connection to someone else, but he just can't have it. The sequence with the shepherd girl illustrates it beautifully. He sees her and approaches, clearly just wanting a friend. She sees him, screams in terror and falls off a cliff into a pond. He pulls her out of the water, thereby saving her life. But when she regains consciousness, she sees him again and starts screaming, which causes local hunters to come and shoot him. Later, he manages to find a potential friend in the form of a blind hermit. But then hunters show up (those damn hunters again!) and ruin everything.

In some ways the movie -- or its title, anyway -- is a tease. I expected that Mrs. Monster would be a major character, but the fact is she doesn't even show up until the end, serving the Monster his final humiliation. After all that effort and pain he's gone through, wanting a companion, you're really rooting for him, expecting -- or at least hoping -- that he'll finally have found love. But, well, you know how these things end.

The visuals in this movie were incredible. The sets, the lighting...everything. ANd the use of odd camera angles, inspired by the German films of the 1920s, did a great job of adding tension, as did the extreme closeups of the scientists during the scenes where the Bride is being brought to life. But what really did it was the sequence showing Dr. Pretorius' creations in their jars. With modern technology, that would have been nothing special. But this was made in 1935, and is incredible, given the vintage.

I was thoroughly impressed.

Ratings:
Me: 10
Ethan: 10
Joe: 10
Keith: 10
Sean: 3 out of 4

the fighting was totally predictable

That said, I would have preferred that the Republicans had given Garland a fair hearing. Perhaps they could have kept us off the road we're on now. With Scalia, the opening came nine months before the election. But the slope can get slippery very quickly. Next time it could be an opening eleven months before the election. Then thirteen months. Where does one draw the line? And why there? Politicians may start making assertions couched as principled stands, but -- as with Biden's and Schumer's arguments, these will be matters of naked political expedience.

I wrote that in April, 2017, when I was talking about the Senate confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. And I was right, as we are now seeing with the rhetoric over Judge Kennedy's announced retirement. That post was here.

And don't start with the disingenuous arguments about how this isn;t an escalation because we're less than nine months away. Everyone knows that all the rhetoric about Garland (and the Biden and Schumer quotes that the Republicans used for cover) were references to Presidential elections. By the way, it's also important to remember that Kagan was nominated and confirmed in 2010 -- another year of midterm Senatorial elections.

But, rhetoric aside, the Democrats are really limited in their weapons. Blame Harry Reid for his destruction of the filibuster.

Still, there are a couple of aspects that I find interesting:

The Republicans only have 51 Senators, and John McCain is incapacitated. So, for practical purposes, they have a bare majority of 50-49. They can't afford any defections. Which brings us to Susan Collins of Maine who has indicated that she won't support a nominee who she thinks is hostile to Roe v. Wade. That effectively gives her a veto. It kind of strengthens the argument that McCain should have retired earlier. And if Ginsburg dies in a circumstance where Trump (or a Republican successor) gets to pick her replacement, it will strengthen the argument that she should have retired when Obama was President.

Trump and the Republican senators are in a rush to nominate and confirm a replacement for Kennedy before the midterms because there's a very real possibility of the Democrats winning back the Senate. But that's not guaranteed. It'll be kind of interesting if Trump picks a relative moderate in order to secure Collins' vote, and then the Republicans have a net gain in the midterms.

And, on that note, keep in mind that Ginsburg is 84 and Breyer is 78. Trump could, conceivably, nominate their replacements. You think the fighting is nasty now?

a few thoughts about hq

• The main host, Scott Rogowsky, is really frickin' annoying
• The other hosts are even more annoying
• When I first started playing, their schedule seemed more regular. Is the jumping around a bad sign? Or are they just experimenting?
• Someone said that it's really an elaborate exercise in data mining, and I'm giving them lots of information for very little money.
• The first question is always easy. A gimme. ANd yet there are always a few people who get it wrong. Are those people who don;t speak English? Do people's fingers slip? Or do the makers of the game program a few bots to go in and get eliminated quickly (so as to make real players feel better)?
• I have five friends on HQ. They are all people I know IRL. I also have five pending requests. But they're from names I don't recognize. And I can't find any way to ask "who are you?" Still, who goes onto HQ and sends friend requests to random strangers?
• After you make a choice, can you change it before the time runs out? Or is the first choice final. I wonder about this. But not enough to try it and possibly hurt my chances of winning a game.

UPDATE:

A friend emailed me to say that he is unfamiliar with HQ, and it would have been helpful for him (and any other readers) if I had given a little background.

Fair enough, though in my defense I will note that it can be a challenge to strike the proper balance. How much background to assume versus how much exposition to provide. Also, in case anyone wants more background than I have written below, here's the Wikipedia entry.

HQ is an online trivia game available for Android and Apple iOS devices. Gameplay is live, so you have to play when the game is being played.

The host presents a series of (usually 12) multiple choice questions. In order to win, you have to get every question right. The questions start out ridiculously easy, but they get harder as you go along. Winners split the prize money, which is usually $5,000, but has been as low as $1,000 and as high as $400,000. In my experience, winners usually get a few dollars each, but I did see one game where the winners each got over $8,000. That was a game with 15 questions and a $25,000 prize -- there were three winners. The one time I won, I got $1.29 -- and I did get the money, so it is legit.

Those are the basics. There are variations, and details that I'm not describing. PLay for yourself. But if you do go and download the app and sign up, please use my referral code, which is my last name. I'll get a free life if you do.

cinema history class: 42nd street memories

Session: Documentary Month, Week 3
Movie: 42nd Street Memories (2016)
Directed by Calum Waddell
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

After two documentaries about movies, Keith showed us a doc about a time...a place...an experience. 42 Street at its gritty, grimy best.

42nd Street in the Times Square area is a huge tourist attraction these days. But it's sanitized, corporate and safe -- not like the 42nd Street of a few decades ago, which was full of porn and peep shows. In all fairness, there were legit movie theaters as well, and (to hear the talking heads tell it) the area was a paradise for movie fans. Owing to my age and a somewhat sheltered childhood, I never really experienced that phenomenon, but I had* a friend from high school who would wax poetic about the place.

The bulk of the movie consisted of movie industry insiders reminiscing, and it was interesting to watch -- though possibly the most interesting part was seeing movie titles on marquees and saying "We saw that in this class!" I actually was impressed with the wide assortment of characters who spoke:

• Joe Dante -- possibly best known as the director of Gremlins
• Lloyd Kaufman -- the impressario behind the Troma brand of movies
• Veronica Hart -- a porn star from long ago
• 42nd Street Pete -- Some guy. Seriously, I couldn't figure out what his significance is other than being some guy.

The one thing that did annoy me was the repeated complaints that the 42nd Street they love was killed by "corporations," who gradually made over the whole area into what it is now. I could sympathize -- in a couple of recent blogposts I touched on the decline of the Jewish deli. But more people (or at least more people in Queens) want Korean barbecue than Jewish deli. Similarly, corporate interests transformed the area because that's where the most valuable use for property is. There's more money in the sanitized cheap imitation that the area is today than there was in the classic version. Because that's what people want.

Of course, it should also be noted that the availability of home video also had something to do with it. And the seedy street of yore will be no more.

*I say "had" because he and I haven't had any contact in six years, and I doubt that we'll ever speak again.