Sometimes if I am bored or trying vainly to fall asleep I'll start running through lists in my head. One such list is the fifty states.
I never memorized the states in alphabetical order. Rather, I picture a map and draw a path in my head, going from state to state. Starting in Maine, my mentally-created path goes the\rough each of the lower 48 states without visiting any twice, and ends in Washington. After that I add Alaska and Hawaii.
But this has gotten me to thinking about how many different paths there are through the lower 48 so that each state is visited once and only once. I suppose it's an exercise in graph theory. Or brute force enumeration.
Sadly, while I have enough interest to wonder about it, I don't have enough interest to actually figure it out. That is something I leave to the reader.
But I have gleaned a few insights:
Since Maine only borders one state (New Hampshire), it has to come first or last. For the rest of this discussion, I will assume it comes last -- each path in which Maine comes last has a direct analog in which Maine comes first. Since New England only borders New York, the path has to go through all of the New England states first, and then enter New York. A little analysis should convince you that any path must start with Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York.
Since South Carolina only borders North Carolina and Georgia, any path that doesn't end in South Carolina must contain the sequence: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia (or its reverse).
Since Florida only borders Georgia and Alabama, any path that doesn't end in Florida must contain the sequence: Georgia, Florida, Alabama (or its reverse).
The above two notes imply that any path must:
end in South Carolina;
end in Florida; or
contain the sequence: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama (or its reverse)
Since Washington only borders Oregon and Idaho, any path that doesn't end in Washington must contain the sequence: Oregon, Washington, Idaho (or its reverse).
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Week 2, Me) Movie: The Incident (1967) Directed by Larry Peerce
Plot:
Two violent thugs make their way onto the subway late at night, terrorizing the other passengers. Horror ensues.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
When I present a movie each year, I write out what I want to say in advance. But I treat my prepared remarks as a roadmap rather than a script. So I always deviate quite a bit. That said, the following is what I prepared.
I think y’all
know that I have always been fascinated by the subway. Subways in general,
really, but especially the New York City subway system. I went to yeshiva by
subway when I was in elementary school, and as an impressionable kid I
developed a love for the system. Joe has his buses, but I have the subway.
That love was
rekindled when I was in high school. Living in Queens but going to school in
Manhattan, I was in the subway again. At that time I was collecting subway
memorabilia. I delighted in taking alternate subway routes home just to
experience different lines. Sometimes I would set aside an after-school
afternoon to take a train to Brooklyn to see a part of the system I hadn’t been
to. I remember the occasional Sunday spent riding the trains around – with no
particular place to go.
I was part of
my high school’s subway club, and contributed to its annual magazine. As a
club, we had some great field trips. We arranged a tour of the old City Hall
loop. That’s an ornate old station – the original southern terminus of the IRT.
It last saw passenger service at the end of 1945, but since then it has been
used to turn trains around. And we got to tour it and take pictures. This was a
time when it was actually illegal to take photos in the subway system unless
you had a permit. We were among the few people who knew of that rule and had
permits. The other big trip I remember was to Washington DC. We were
interviewing some official from the Department of Transportation. We also
planned to ride the entire Washington Metro – that’s what they call their
subway – but were thwarted by a breakdown on the red line. I guess they wanted
us to feel at home.
Now, as a
commuter, I have a more-jaundiced view of the subway, but the boy in me still
appreciates it. A couple years ago I set aside a couple weekend days to ride
the sections of the system that I’d never been to, and I am planning to take a
day to ride the PATH system. Just because. I also get the occasional thrill
when I see a work train in the system, or see one kind of car running on a line
that I don’t expect it to be on. And one of the thrills of my trip to Prague
was riding their subway. That kind of thing.
Despite all
the fears about crime on the subway, I have never been robbed or mugged in the
system. I’ve been robbed in the street, but not underground. While I have seen
plenty of insanity in the system, most of my trips have gone without incident.
But you can’t ride the subway without thinking about it. What if you find
yourself in the middle of an incident? You’re on the train, minding your own
business, and before you know it your car has been invaded by thugs who have
you and your fellow passengers at their mercy…
And that’s the
subject of tonight’s movie.
Now, for me as
a longtime railfan, the unquestionable star of this movie is the New York
Subway itself. Specifically, the East Side IRT. The movie contains a remarkable
sense of realism. In fact, the producers contacted the St. Louis Car Company,
got original blueprints of the IRT Lo-V subway car, and built a full-scale
replica. But the subway wasn’t the only big star. This movie featured some big
names that really need no introduction or elaboration. Martin Sheen, Tony
Musante, Jack Gilford and Beau Bridges are just a few of the big names in this
movie. We can see Ed McMahon in a rare performance as an actor. And I want to
specially note Brock Peters who, decades later, would be on Star Trek:
Deep Space Nine as Sisko’s father. He’s here as the young angry black
guy.
I’ll have more to say after the movie. I have comments on the cast, the
plot and the denouement. But I don’t want to risk spoiling anything. So,
without further ado, here is The Incident.
I prepared those remarks with the hope of fooling the others into thinking that I was showing The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. They all know that I love that movie, so I figured that if I approached my remarks the right way I could build their expectations. I had fun imagining their minds puzzling things over when I started to list the stars. "Hey, wait," I imagined them thinking, "Martin Sheen wasn't in Pelham. Sadly, I failed at my bait and switch. I had told Keith and Christina what I was showing, and both Ethan and Joe were out for the week. That left Bob-O and Dave. For some reason Bob-O guessed immediately what I was showing. Early in my talk, he asked if Martin Sheen was in it. And I knew he had it figured out. That bastard. I think I got Dave, though, since he wasn't familiar with The Incident. So I have that going for me, which is nice.
It's easiest for me to think of The Incident in comparison to Pelham. In some ways, Pelham is a more entertaining movie. It had a bigger budget, and there's lots of action and intrigue -- not to mention humor. The Incident, by comparison, is a much smaller film. On the other hand, Pelham's high concept allowed it to get away with very little character development. We don't get to know the passengers at all, and two of the hijackers are largely undefined. And the caper begins very early in the movie. The Incident spends a lot of time exploring the passenger/victims. We spend a reasonable amount of time with each of them, seeing their interactions as they make their way onto the train. And a good bit of time goes by before the thugs (Sheen and Musante) make their way onto the train.
Keith put it well when he noted that The Incident is very much an art film, exploring cowardice -- a few years after the infamous Kitty Genovese affair. And, based on his comments, I suspect that he thinks this worked better than Pelham (which I had been considering) would have. So that's a win, too.
I've loved "Do Anything You Wanna Do," a 1977 single by Eddie and the Hot Rods for a long time now. I have felt that this was a truly underappreciated record. But something hit me just recently.
The anthemic nature, the narrative of escaping from a life of unremitting grunge... This is, thematically very much like Bruce Springsteen's early works.
With that thought in mind, here's a Tunesday post...
As a big fan of Breaking Bad (and, while we're at it, Better Call Saul), I want to talk about my biggest quibble with the show. It's actually about a scene that, judging from what I have seen on the interwebs, is a fan favorite. I'm talking about a scene near the end of season 4, episode 13. Gus Fring's death.
I won't try to set it up. Those who watched the show know the backstory, and I can't possibly do it justice for those who haven't watched it.
I get what people like about it. At that point, Gus was the major antagonist, the focus of the fans' hatred. And we all knew that he would kill Walt if Walt didn't kill him first. As always, it was fun to watch one of Walt's elaborate plans come to fruition. And we loved watching Gus -- gloating in his victory over Hector, the experiencing that moment of panic as he realized he was about to get blown up. Then the explosion. But somehow Gus manages to escape. He steps out of the room, seemingly unharmed. He even starts to straighten his tie -- such a classic Gus Fring move. But as the camera pans we, the viewers, see the injuries. Our jaws drop as we wonder how he survived. Then he collapses. And we breathe a sigh of relief, marveling at what we've seen.
Yeah, I get it.
But I really hate the way they did that. BB was a serious show. There were lighthearted moments that served to cut the tension. Remember when Walt threw the pizza on the roof? Remember when Walt spent a whole episode trying to kill a fly? But the show never descended into cartoonishness. Except for when Fring died. That was some major Wile E. Coyote vibe happening. And it didn't belong.
To be clear, my objection isn't just about the lack of realism. There are other places in the show where the science is wrong or things just don't add up. But these examples all serve the greater purpose of great storytelling. But this? Cartoony shit, and by far the worst moment in the series.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Week 1, Joe) Movie: Spider Baby (1967) Directed by Jack Hill
Plot:
After their father's death, the last three inbred children of the Merrye family are living in a dilapidated mansion, while dad's loyal servant tries to protect them from the world -- and the world from them. But greedy relatives are looking to cash in on the family fortune. Horror ensues.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Joe kicked off our annual "Bring Your Own Movie" month in style with this underappreciated gem.
Spider Baby is one of those seemingly little movies that has flown largely under the radar, but is way better than it has any right to be.
A lot of times, after we watch a movie, some of us have comments along the lines of "so-and-so stole every scene he/she was in." The interesting thing about this movie is that there were four characters who stole their scenes. The loyal chauffeur (Lon Chaney) and all three inbred kids (Jill Banner, Sid Haig and Beverly Washburn) did such impressive jobs. It was as if they were competing to see who can steal the scene the most. In addition, Mantan Moreland (as the messenger) had potential. He was terrific in the entirety of his role. Sadly, that role was cut short.
It was interesting to see the mash-up of influences in Spider Baby. Most notably. American Gothic blended with The Addams Family and The Munsters. It was creepy, scary and funny all at the same time.
The visuals were also done much better than I would have expected from a film like this. The use of shadow beautifully enhances the moods. And I personally loved the way the camera played with perspective during Mantan Moreland's scenes.
On a personal level, I enjoyed watching the women play at being children. It reminded me of a one-act play I was in more than twenty years ago. "All Day Suckers" portrayed four children in day care, but they were to be played by adults. I had trouble with it. And, since I was of stocky build, I was probably not right for my part. But my castmates were great. I remember rehearsals when we were all trying to figure out how best to exaggerate our childlike movements. Watching Spider Baby brought back fond memories.
It is, however, too bad for that beautiful Maine Coon cat.
Ratings
Me: 9.5
Bob-O: 9.6
Christina: 9.65
Dave: 9.8
Keith: 9.8
Extras:
As always, Joe wasn't content to just show a movie. He also showed us an "Two Renegades," an episode of the old TV anthology series, The O. Henry Playhouse. In years past, Joe's extras are somehow related to the movie. This time, it wasn't. Well, picking up Joe's challenge I did find a connection, but it wasn't the reason for him to show it.
Joe picked "Two Renegades because it's an interesting story and because it starred Charles Bronson and John Carradine. I can't speak to the rest of that series, but "Two Renegades" was an interesting and well-acted story. And I did not anticipate the denouement, which is good.
