Well, this is a Monkees album I won't be buying...
Two and a half years after their last reunion album (2016's Good Times!, which the critics loved but I thought was kind of meh), they've put together a Christmas album, which is expected to be released next week on Rhino Records.
Based on the listing on Amazon, it looks like this is going to be a mix of originals and traditional Christmas songs. There's also a track called "Wonderful Christmastime," which may very well be a cover of Paul McCartney's most annoying composition. I seem to recall reading somewhere (but I don't recall for sure) that one of the songs is by Andy Partridge, of XTC. So it looks like they're trying to reproduce the formula that got them GT's critical praise. I know that's not a lot of information. And, frankly, if this were still a pre-Good Times! world, I'd be eagerly seeking out more information about this album, maybe looking for Youtube videos or tweets in case there are people with information.
But fuck them.
Two years ago they put out an album. Then they put out a deluxe edition with two extra tracks -- barely a week later. That cynical ploy to get their big fans to buy two copies of the album in short succession annoyed me more than it should have. ANd I'm not going back to the well.
This post is in honor of a friend who, like me, has a soft spot for that paragon of journalism, The Weekly World News.
I't's tempting to now, go through the history of my letters to newspapers. But I'll leave that to another post. This post is about one of my favorite letters -- the one that got printed in the WWN.
It was the Autumn of 1987, and the WWN published an article warning its readers of the dangers of vampires going door to door, pretending to be young truck or treaters. The News quoted a "noted vampirologist," Richard Ferenc. If I recall correctly, the article explained that vampires were nervous about drinking the blood of homeless people because of the risk of getting AIDS. Suburban housewives were safer victims. I don't remember why they ran the article after Halloween, when it could have saved more necks if it had been run before the holiday. But, whatever.
Anyway, the article got my blood flowing (as it were), and inspired me to write the letter which is reproduced here. It remains the only time I got a letter in the Weekly World News.
So, if anyone is thinking of writing a book with a title such as An Actuary Reads the Weekly World News, I would be the perfect candidate to write the foreward.
It's no secret that I'm a baseball fan. Or was a baseball fan. I'm not sure what's the most accurate way to describe my level of interest in baseball. Whatever. I am knowledgeable about the mechanics of the game, so I can watch a game, and understand what's going on, what the basic strategies are, etc.
But cricket...that mysterious relative of baseball that they play elsewhere in the English-speaking world? That has remained a mystery to me. Not that I'd ever made any effort to understand it, mind you.
Until now.
We have an English friend visiting -- I'll refer to him as "Rich" since that's his name, and I decided to take the opportunity to learn cricket. Sort of. The strategy was pretty simple: We'd find a complete match on Youtube, and watch it together while he explains it to me. It's not unlike the strategy I employed to explain baseball to Sharon a couple years back. Of course, she got bored of it pretty quickly, so it was a bust. Oh well. But I'm more motivated to understand cricket than she was to understand baseball, so I had that going for me, which was nice. As a disclaimer, I should note that the Youtube video above is not the same match that Rich and I watched. I couldn't find that one. But this was played in the same stadium. Or on the same pitch? Is that the terminology? I think so.
Anyway, after one game I'm still no expert -- "I'll take 'duh' for a thousand, Alex." And even if I were, I wouldn;t try to explain it here. Because there's really no need for me to explain the sport. But I have a few observations* -- generally about the differences.
In baseball, the two teams alternate turns at bat. That is, the visiting team bats for one inning, then the home team bats for one inning, then the visiting team, etc. In cricket, one team bats its full allotment for the game, and then the other team bats its full allotment. I like the baseball way better.
In cricket, the ball can be hit in play in any direction -- a full 360 degrees. That just looks so odd to someone like me who's used to seeing a game where, only 90 degrees is considered in play.
It strikes me as odd that the batter, having hit the ball into play, can decline to run. If he doesn't run, he can't get thrown out. In baseball, of course, the batter must attempt to get to first base -- if he decides not to run, he can still get thrown out.
The players run with their bat. WTF?
There are always two runners -- the batter and the runner on the other base (unlike baseball, there are only two bases). They must coordinate their decision and both run or both not run. In the game Rich and I watched, there was one play where they miscommunicated -- one ran and the other didn't.
You get a point for every base you advance (as opposed to baseball, where you get nothing until you've advanced four bases).
All in all, it was kind of interesting to watch, though I think I still prefer baseball. Of course, that may be simply that I understand baseball better. Maybe I'll watch another game with Rich at some point. Or -- radical idea -- I can read up on it on Wikipedia or some other resource on the intertubes.
Session: Beastly Black and White, Week 1 Movie 1: The Black Cat (1934) Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Four travelers, stranded by a storm, are stuck in a house where evil is the norm. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
This was bait and switch, pure and simple. The movie was marketed as Edgar Allen Poe's The Black Cat, and the opening credits indicate that it was "suggested by" the Poe classic. Bullshit. Except for the fact that is has a black cat and some people in it, this movie really borrows nothing from Poe. They could have written the cat out of the script alltogether, and there would have been no material difference. I guess they would have had to come up with a different name. Something like War's Final Victim. Hey, that sounds pretty artsy, if I do say so myself.
Now, don't get me wrong; having spent this many years watching movies in Keith's basement, I've learned not to expect Poe adaptations to adhere perfectly to their Poespiration. But all the others we've seen incorporate at least an element of the original.
Having said that, I suppose it would be unfair to judge this movie by what it's not. So now I'll focus on what it is.
I'm of a bit of a mixed mind on this. In some ways this was your standard story of people trying to survive after being stranded in a monster's castle. The castle itself has a classic spooky castle layout, but the construction is all art deco, which kind of makes it disconcerting. And it was an interesting story, but very slow-moving at times.
I enjoyed recognizing more-recent things in it, and realizing how much it influenced future productions. In many ways it felt like either a really bad episode of Star Trek (note how Karloff looked like Ruk from "What are Little Girls Made of") or a really good episode of Space 1999. Yeah, that latter one for sure. The soulless way Karloff's character navigated his way through his role reminded me of S-1999 season 1.
In addition to the regular stuff, I found a couple of interesting aspects of this movie to appreciate-- places where it filled in some of my cultural knowledge.
The first is Boris Karloff's voice. Until seeing this, I wasn't aware of what Karloff sounded like when he spoke. Now, all those pop culture high-pitched lispy monsters from pop culture make sense to me. I thought of them as kind of generic monsters, without ever stopping to question why that voice is the iconic monster voice. Now I realize that they were all Karloff impressions. Bobby Pickett's "Monster Mash." Frankenberry. Innumerable monster anthology narrators -- all of them were Karloff impressions.
My other "duh" moment was a bit of dialogue. At one point, Peter (played by David Manners) says "Sounds like a lot of supernatural baloney to me." To this, Vitus (Bela Lugosi) responds, "Supernatural, perhaps. Baloney, perhaps not." The clip of this exchange is incorporated into The Monkees' movie Head (which I plan to bring to class next year for Bring Your Own Movie Month). I had always known that this clip was from some old movie, but I didn't know what movie Now I do. Yay!
Ratings:
Me: 8.5
Dave: 9.95
Ethan: 9
Rich: 7 to 8
Sean 3 out of 4
Well, this is a Monkees album I won't be buying...
