(The following is a reflection on a recent experience with Spirit Airlines. There may be other airlines who haven't devolved into scumbags, and if so, to them i apologize.)
These fucking airlines have a lot of damned gall.
Capitalism makes saints of no one, i understand...but there's a layer of greedy deceit these days that is so irredeemable, that i fear for all airline worker's lives, when the revolution comes. I'm just sayin'...
I'm almost embarrassed to write the rest of this article, in fact, for the simple reason that the comedy dripping from the airline's sleaze is so pathetically, low-hanging fruit obvious, that it calls for a hack comic in a bad tux.
Dangerfield and Carlin croaked, and Rickles is playing hide the zeppelin with the Olsen Twins, so here i am.
I'm not even crying over the fact that airlines have dialed down the quality of service. I recently finished a nine-hour air trek that offered me not so much as a single goddamned complimentary peanut. Fine, i was never big on bells and whistles.
I do start to get irked however, when the in-flight movie is only for those willing to whip out the ol' credit card. You can watch it soundless for free...which, all things considered, is perhaps the only sensible way to watch standard Hollywood fare.
But the part of the whole operation that veers away from disappointingly questionable to disgustingly vile is the ticketing. It starts out with a handsome advertised rate...in my case, $90 to go 1000 miles. Okay, you've got my attention. I don't know what it actually costs to send me 1000 miles, but to get there on foot i'd need at least $90 in granola bars. So okay, sign me up and jack that bird in the air!
Oh, there's an additional charge for tax and fees? Yes, i expected as much...i mean, we've lowered the bar so far in terms of integrity, that i won't blink at the extra $30. Fine, pour that jet fuel.
I'm sorry, you want me to pay extra money for my...luggage? Um...i'm not bringing a couple of steamer trunks. Just a mid-sized suitcase. You thought i might be traveling 1000 miles WITHOUT a mid-sized suitcase? I'm sorry to disappoint you. How much for my mid-sized suitcase? $30? THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS?
May your genitals be crapped by carnivorous yaks, you FUCKING CORPORATE WHORES.
Okay fine, it's still a better deal than Greyhound, when all the factors are accoun-
What?
I'm sorry...you want me to pay more money for my...seat? You're going to have to run that one by me again, because it sure sounded like you want me to pay extra money for my seat. But of course you didn't say that, because...NO ONE would say that. I mean, that would be like...i can't even bring myself to invoke the comedic parallels, because humor that obvious doesn't deserve to see the light of day.
YOU WANT ME TO PAY EXTRA FOR THE FUCKING SEAT?? How do you walk with your big balls dragging on the ground? Ah, i see, you can afford a wheel barrow with my $20 SEAT FEE.
Lemme try this little idea...i'm no genius here, but...i think i'd just like to buy the seat without the ticket. Can we try that? I mean, without a seat, what do you have? Aren't you reducing your original fare to, well, buying the IDEA of an airline ticket? You know what? I think i can handle the IDEA of an airline ticket all by myself. I got that one covered, Orville. I don't need to give you $90 for the idea of flight. No, why don't i just give you twenty fucking dollars for the fucking seat, and we'll call it even. Yes, of course i'll pay the tax/fee charge. The luggage fee? Hmm...perhaps i can just shove my luggage up THE ASS of the nearest on-flight employee? They may waddle, but they'll make it down the aisle.
Problem solved.
So, just out of curiosity...how big a percentage of my ticket is going straight to the bribe fund for the FCC and Better Business Bureau, to allow you to advertise a $90 ticket THAT ONLY COSTS $170???
Go Greyhound, and leave the driving to us......
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Deep Space Nine, season 3
FOUR-STAR EPISODES: 1
AVERAGE EPISODE RATING: 2.6
-The Search ***
The station is assigned the Defiant, an overpowered cruiser with a cloak, originally designed for fighting the borg. Sisko takes her into the gamma quadrant in search of the Founders, to initiate negotiations. They retreat after a fight, only to find the Federation already giving major concessions to The Dominion, including ceding them Bajor. The crew goes renegade and collapses the wormhole...until we discover that these events were only playing out in their minds, while they were studied by their Dominion captors. Kira and Odo find his homeworld, and discover that his people are the Founders. A nice red herring tease.
-The House of Quark ***
Great googily, don't blink...a good ferengi episode! Quark claims responsibility for the death of a klingon, then is kidnapped to Kronos and forced to marry the widow.
-Equilibrium ***
A compelling, beautiful journey on the Trill homeworld, as Jadzia goes home to deal with violent, musical visions. She discovers a well-hidden secret.
-Second Skin **
I may be overly generous on this'n.
-The Abandoned ***
An infant is discovered in a wreck. When he ages at a phenomenal rate and starts attacking people, they discover that he is jem'hadar, who are genetically manipulated to be killers and addicted to a drug only available from the Founders. Odo tries to offer him a better life.
-Civil Defense ***
A cardassian program is accidentally initiated, which immediately takes control of all station functions, to put down a bajoran insurrection. Without the command codes, the station approaches self-destruct. Dukat arrives and offers help, but at a high price. A tight episode, highlighted by the interplay between Garak and Dukat.
-Meridian ***
-Defiant ****
Will Riker!!! Wait. Back up. Tom Riker!!! Jonathan Frakes visits the station, pretending to be Will. He schmoozes Kira into giving him a tour of the Defiant. When she gives the command codes, he stuns her and takes the ship, as a member of the Maquis. He goes into the heart of the cardassian empire to expose a secret invasion fleet. Kira's psychoanalysis of him is a tad obvious, but hot damn, we got a winner.
-Fascination **
-Past Tense ***
-Life Support **
-Heart of Stone **
-Destiny **
-Prophet Motive **
-Visionary **
-Distant Voices **
-Through the Looking Glass ***
-Improbably Cause **
-The Die is Cast ***
-Explorers ***
-Family Business **
-Shakaar ***
-Facets ***
A great idea that doesn't quite gel. In a trill ritual, the spirits of Dax's former hosts inhabit her friends' bodies. Odo as Kirzon? Brilliant.
-The Adversary ***
Sisko is promoted to captain. An ambassador takes the Defiant on a mission to prevent a war. Once under way, systems' control is lost, and a Founder plot to start a war is uncovered. The crew races the clock to find the changeling and regain control. It's fascinating how much the show brightens on Defiant episodes...is this because my spirit is more moved by serial novelty?
AVERAGE EPISODE RATING: 2.6
-The Search ***
The station is assigned the Defiant, an overpowered cruiser with a cloak, originally designed for fighting the borg. Sisko takes her into the gamma quadrant in search of the Founders, to initiate negotiations. They retreat after a fight, only to find the Federation already giving major concessions to The Dominion, including ceding them Bajor. The crew goes renegade and collapses the wormhole...until we discover that these events were only playing out in their minds, while they were studied by their Dominion captors. Kira and Odo find his homeworld, and discover that his people are the Founders. A nice red herring tease.
-The House of Quark ***
Great googily, don't blink...a good ferengi episode! Quark claims responsibility for the death of a klingon, then is kidnapped to Kronos and forced to marry the widow.
-Equilibrium ***
A compelling, beautiful journey on the Trill homeworld, as Jadzia goes home to deal with violent, musical visions. She discovers a well-hidden secret.
-Second Skin **
I may be overly generous on this'n.
-The Abandoned ***
An infant is discovered in a wreck. When he ages at a phenomenal rate and starts attacking people, they discover that he is jem'hadar, who are genetically manipulated to be killers and addicted to a drug only available from the Founders. Odo tries to offer him a better life.
-Civil Defense ***
A cardassian program is accidentally initiated, which immediately takes control of all station functions, to put down a bajoran insurrection. Without the command codes, the station approaches self-destruct. Dukat arrives and offers help, but at a high price. A tight episode, highlighted by the interplay between Garak and Dukat.
-Meridian ***
-Defiant ****
Will Riker!!! Wait. Back up. Tom Riker!!! Jonathan Frakes visits the station, pretending to be Will. He schmoozes Kira into giving him a tour of the Defiant. When she gives the command codes, he stuns her and takes the ship, as a member of the Maquis. He goes into the heart of the cardassian empire to expose a secret invasion fleet. Kira's psychoanalysis of him is a tad obvious, but hot damn, we got a winner.
-Fascination **
-Past Tense ***
-Life Support **
-Heart of Stone **
-Destiny **
-Prophet Motive **
-Visionary **
-Distant Voices **
-Through the Looking Glass ***
-Improbably Cause **
-The Die is Cast ***
-Explorers ***
-Family Business **
-Shakaar ***
-Facets ***
A great idea that doesn't quite gel. In a trill ritual, the spirits of Dax's former hosts inhabit her friends' bodies. Odo as Kirzon? Brilliant.
-The Adversary ***
Sisko is promoted to captain. An ambassador takes the Defiant on a mission to prevent a war. Once under way, systems' control is lost, and a Founder plot to start a war is uncovered. The crew races the clock to find the changeling and regain control. It's fascinating how much the show brightens on Defiant episodes...is this because my spirit is more moved by serial novelty?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
bonobo!!!
In the latter half of the twentieth century, humans discovered a "scientific" basis to support the notion that human nature is essentially brutal, selfish, and murderous.
The basis of that basis?
The chimpanzee.
Chimpanzees were considered our closest relative. The first comprehensive chimpanzee study, compliments of Jane Goodall, revealed chilling facts. Cuddly chimps murdering each other in chimp wars. A brutal male hierarchical dominance system. Round out the rosy picture with rape and infanticide.
Our perception of "human nature" darkened, and our own horrific brutalities suddenly seemed all too inevitable.
Then along came the little bonobo.
Some entrenched members of the scientific community hold fast to the dreary outlook of humanity reflected in chimp's eyes...but the times are a-changin'.
It was only a few decades ago that bonobos were recognized as their own species, and not "pygmy chimps". They've now taken their place as one of the five great apes (along with chimp, human, gorilla, and orangutan). Genetically, they're almost indistinguishable from humans and chimps. Indeed, homo sapiens faces taxonomic re-classification and the loss of our status as the only "homo" species, reflective of the fact that the genetic difference between Indian and African elephants is greater than the difference between chimps, bononbos, and us.
So what's so special about the bonobo?
They're egalitarian. Peaceful. Social networks are maintained through female relationships. The ultimate social bonding tool? Sex. Sex like you're not going to believe. Sex to resolve and deflate power issues, to stimulate sharing of food, to reduce stress while traveling, and reaffirm friendships during anxious reunions. If none of those reasons are handy, they have sex anyway. Most bonobos have preferred partners, but all bonobos have sex with almost anyone at the drop of a hat. Females copulate during most of their menstrual cycle, a trait shared with only one other species on the planet (ahem). Female chimps are only active for a third of their cycle. Bonobos have sex during lactation and pregnancy.
But wait, there's more!
Bonobo and human infants develop much more slowly than other primates.
Bonobo infanticide has never been observed.
Prior to coitus, bonobos often stare deeply into each other's eyes. During coitus, they French kiss, liberally and longly. Chimps? Neither.
Bonobos copulate in all sorts of positions! The females seem to prefer face to face. Well, why not? Their vulvas are oriented toward the front of the body, again like only one other species (ahem). Chimps? Rear-entry.
Homosexuality is common in bonobos and one other primate (ahem), but rare in chimps. The female-female genital rubbing of bonobos is absent in chimps (but happily present in humans, at least in this really cool movie i saw).
If you worriedly ask a bonobo about sexual exclusivity, they'll probably copulate with you. Or if you look worried about anything, really. May we institute that practice in the human workplace?
Now...all that's interesting, wrob, but why would we embrace the idea that peaceful, sexy bonobo life is a better mirror for us than our equally close relative, the chimp? Because it turns out that chimps may not even be like chimps. Observations at non-Goodall sites are showing chimps who handle food sharing in non-violent ways. Goodall may have tainted her observations by introducing an alien element. To entice them to hang around, she had boxes of bananas placed by her camp. The introduction of a concentrated, reliable (yet limited) food source led to something these normally dispersed foragers had never dealt with - competition. Not convinced? In the four years before Goodall introduced the bananas, she described the chimps as "far more peaceful than humans".
All of this is not to suggest that prehistoric humans were some kind of "noble savage". Not at all. There's evidence that infanticide has always been a part of our history, as a means of population control. No, the point is simply that sharing and nonviolence are probably much closer to our nature than genocide and "Grand Theft Auto". For probably 95% of human history, radical sharing is what "worked" for human society.
So take heart, boys and girls. Bonobo love is coming to this cold, hard world. If you're with me, take your pants off and hug someone.
The basis of that basis?
The chimpanzee.
Chimpanzees were considered our closest relative. The first comprehensive chimpanzee study, compliments of Jane Goodall, revealed chilling facts. Cuddly chimps murdering each other in chimp wars. A brutal male hierarchical dominance system. Round out the rosy picture with rape and infanticide.
Our perception of "human nature" darkened, and our own horrific brutalities suddenly seemed all too inevitable.
Then along came the little bonobo.
Some entrenched members of the scientific community hold fast to the dreary outlook of humanity reflected in chimp's eyes...but the times are a-changin'.
It was only a few decades ago that bonobos were recognized as their own species, and not "pygmy chimps". They've now taken their place as one of the five great apes (along with chimp, human, gorilla, and orangutan). Genetically, they're almost indistinguishable from humans and chimps. Indeed, homo sapiens faces taxonomic re-classification and the loss of our status as the only "homo" species, reflective of the fact that the genetic difference between Indian and African elephants is greater than the difference between chimps, bononbos, and us.
So what's so special about the bonobo?
They're egalitarian. Peaceful. Social networks are maintained through female relationships. The ultimate social bonding tool? Sex. Sex like you're not going to believe. Sex to resolve and deflate power issues, to stimulate sharing of food, to reduce stress while traveling, and reaffirm friendships during anxious reunions. If none of those reasons are handy, they have sex anyway. Most bonobos have preferred partners, but all bonobos have sex with almost anyone at the drop of a hat. Females copulate during most of their menstrual cycle, a trait shared with only one other species on the planet (ahem). Female chimps are only active for a third of their cycle. Bonobos have sex during lactation and pregnancy.
But wait, there's more!
Bonobo and human infants develop much more slowly than other primates.
Bonobo infanticide has never been observed.
Prior to coitus, bonobos often stare deeply into each other's eyes. During coitus, they French kiss, liberally and longly. Chimps? Neither.
Bonobos copulate in all sorts of positions! The females seem to prefer face to face. Well, why not? Their vulvas are oriented toward the front of the body, again like only one other species (ahem). Chimps? Rear-entry.
Homosexuality is common in bonobos and one other primate (ahem), but rare in chimps. The female-female genital rubbing of bonobos is absent in chimps (but happily present in humans, at least in this really cool movie i saw).
If you worriedly ask a bonobo about sexual exclusivity, they'll probably copulate with you. Or if you look worried about anything, really. May we institute that practice in the human workplace?
Now...all that's interesting, wrob, but why would we embrace the idea that peaceful, sexy bonobo life is a better mirror for us than our equally close relative, the chimp? Because it turns out that chimps may not even be like chimps. Observations at non-Goodall sites are showing chimps who handle food sharing in non-violent ways. Goodall may have tainted her observations by introducing an alien element. To entice them to hang around, she had boxes of bananas placed by her camp. The introduction of a concentrated, reliable (yet limited) food source led to something these normally dispersed foragers had never dealt with - competition. Not convinced? In the four years before Goodall introduced the bananas, she described the chimps as "far more peaceful than humans".
All of this is not to suggest that prehistoric humans were some kind of "noble savage". Not at all. There's evidence that infanticide has always been a part of our history, as a means of population control. No, the point is simply that sharing and nonviolence are probably much closer to our nature than genocide and "Grand Theft Auto". For probably 95% of human history, radical sharing is what "worked" for human society.
So take heart, boys and girls. Bonobo love is coming to this cold, hard world. If you're with me, take your pants off and hug someone.
not-ends 13
In the history of the world, there are three jobs nobody ever went into because they wanted to: real estate, prostitution, and finance. Okay, that's not entirely true. There was one person who went into finance because he wanted to. Fortunately, he lived in Luxembourg, where they euthanized him.
When will the movement spearheaded by Malcolm X and Muhammed Ali expand to include white folk rejecting their slave master names?
A printer's error in 1631 resulted in Bibles that proclaimed, "Thou shalt commit adultery". Like anyone needed prompting.
If you think someone is messing up, keep it to yourself. If you cannot, then say so once AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
The especial beauty of mixed race babies is well-noted. Mixed DNA theories are put forward, to which i'll add this idea: perhaps mixed couples know love's importance, having had to fight for it...so perhaps such couples are able to offer their babies more unconditional love. Maybe beauty does come from inside.
This whole "decline of the American empire" is great. The way i see it, we're just increasing our chances of one day creating a band as astonishing as the Beatles, or a comedy troupe as brilliant as Monty Python.
The naked eye cannot perceive the cellular level. If this is true, then what are those small circles with a clear interior i can see in the morning when i squint my eye against a ray of light, looking like nothing so much as cells moving across the surface of my pupil?
In a society in which one race oppresses another, not all of the oppressors are racist. The same cannot be said of the oppressed.
A friend broke his jaw, and i sent him peanut brittle. Nobody gets my humor.
One of the few things i like about this country is that our government has always had to lie to get us to go to war.
You are going to die someday. Maybe today. Anyone who says you're not, is even more afraid than you.
When will the movement spearheaded by Malcolm X and Muhammed Ali expand to include white folk rejecting their slave master names?
A printer's error in 1631 resulted in Bibles that proclaimed, "Thou shalt commit adultery". Like anyone needed prompting.
If you think someone is messing up, keep it to yourself. If you cannot, then say so once AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
The especial beauty of mixed race babies is well-noted. Mixed DNA theories are put forward, to which i'll add this idea: perhaps mixed couples know love's importance, having had to fight for it...so perhaps such couples are able to offer their babies more unconditional love. Maybe beauty does come from inside.
This whole "decline of the American empire" is great. The way i see it, we're just increasing our chances of one day creating a band as astonishing as the Beatles, or a comedy troupe as brilliant as Monty Python.
The naked eye cannot perceive the cellular level. If this is true, then what are those small circles with a clear interior i can see in the morning when i squint my eye against a ray of light, looking like nothing so much as cells moving across the surface of my pupil?
In a society in which one race oppresses another, not all of the oppressors are racist. The same cannot be said of the oppressed.
A friend broke his jaw, and i sent him peanut brittle. Nobody gets my humor.
One of the few things i like about this country is that our government has always had to lie to get us to go to war.
You are going to die someday. Maybe today. Anyone who says you're not, is even more afraid than you.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
2 Kings & Chronicles
2 Kings 3:27
The Lord's blessing had not turned from the three kings, therefore it is not reasonable that they should begin losing in battle. The wording of this verse is peculiar; it seems to imply either that the Lord turned It's wrath upon Israel (without reason or justification), or that the Moabite king's offering brought forth a divine wrath which repelled the Israelites. If it was the Moabite king's offering that brought about this wrath, then the implication is that there exists a godly force other than the God of the Hebrews, with comparable power. The Bible has before hinted at that possibility; either the Lord is randomly and contradictorily using Its power, or this verse is a confirmation of that possibility.
2 Kings 14:6
It is simply staggering how outrageous this lie is. Mind you, these are solid, reasonable words in and of themselves. But to make a claim that these words are in line with the Law of Moses? These words are a direct contradiction of the words that Moses put forth in Deuteronomy 5:9. Such colossal inconsistency cannot be reconciled within a text inspired by God.
1 Chronicles 10:13-14
We have here a clear causality. Saul was unfaithful to the Lord; Saul dies. Plain and simple, and irreconcileable, for this kind of direct and immediate divine justice is simply not a reality of life. Nevertheless, the situation described is a clear-cut example of retribution following faithlessness. All this illustrates exactly what was so relentlessly frustrating about the books of the Kings. Divine justice, both as punishment and reward, occurs many, many times. And for divine intervention to be reasonable, two things must be present: justness and consistency. In Kings 1&2, the justness of the interventions was questionable, and the consistency almost nonexistent. We observed like offenses bring about differing punishments, unequal offenses given equal punishments, divine favor disappearing at crucial moments for no reason...the example of Saul is clear-cut cause and effect. Similar faithlessness throughout Kings 1&2 was treated with varying degrees of light punishment (Jehoram), heavy punishment (the small boys of 2 Kings 2), and no punishment (Jehoahaz). When divine consistency is gone, reasonableness quickly follows.
1 Chronicles 28:4
How do you reconcile this with the vast bloodshed the Lord has both sanctioned and inflicted?
The Lord's blessing had not turned from the three kings, therefore it is not reasonable that they should begin losing in battle. The wording of this verse is peculiar; it seems to imply either that the Lord turned It's wrath upon Israel (without reason or justification), or that the Moabite king's offering brought forth a divine wrath which repelled the Israelites. If it was the Moabite king's offering that brought about this wrath, then the implication is that there exists a godly force other than the God of the Hebrews, with comparable power. The Bible has before hinted at that possibility; either the Lord is randomly and contradictorily using Its power, or this verse is a confirmation of that possibility.
2 Kings 14:6
It is simply staggering how outrageous this lie is. Mind you, these are solid, reasonable words in and of themselves. But to make a claim that these words are in line with the Law of Moses? These words are a direct contradiction of the words that Moses put forth in Deuteronomy 5:9. Such colossal inconsistency cannot be reconciled within a text inspired by God.
1 Chronicles 10:13-14
We have here a clear causality. Saul was unfaithful to the Lord; Saul dies. Plain and simple, and irreconcileable, for this kind of direct and immediate divine justice is simply not a reality of life. Nevertheless, the situation described is a clear-cut example of retribution following faithlessness. All this illustrates exactly what was so relentlessly frustrating about the books of the Kings. Divine justice, both as punishment and reward, occurs many, many times. And for divine intervention to be reasonable, two things must be present: justness and consistency. In Kings 1&2, the justness of the interventions was questionable, and the consistency almost nonexistent. We observed like offenses bring about differing punishments, unequal offenses given equal punishments, divine favor disappearing at crucial moments for no reason...the example of Saul is clear-cut cause and effect. Similar faithlessness throughout Kings 1&2 was treated with varying degrees of light punishment (Jehoram), heavy punishment (the small boys of 2 Kings 2), and no punishment (Jehoahaz). When divine consistency is gone, reasonableness quickly follows.
1 Chronicles 28:4
How do you reconcile this with the vast bloodshed the Lord has both sanctioned and inflicted?
"Play On!"
THEATER 43
-summer 1998
I got a call from J.T. Smith, at the Old Schoolhouse Theater on Sanibel. It was a beautiful space, originally a one-room schoolhouse. J.T. staged musical reviews, and was trying an occasional comedy. He wanted me to play Billy in the upcoming show. The script was funny. I told him i was interested, and could he pay me? He told me he could get me $100 a week, and not to tell the other actors. I almost passed, because i didn't want to be known as an actor who works for free, but it was a great part. The script is about a community theater troupe putting on an original play, an Agatha Christie-style whodunit. The playwright keeps rewriting and meddling, and everything goes very wrong on opening night. I played the "leading man". The dressing room was a fun place. Dave Yudowitz had been a comedian, and was trying his first acting, in his late sixties. His gestures and timing were wonderful. A sweet, sweet man. Tom Corcoran played the director, and he was so great, very easy-going and fun. Clement Valentine played the villain, and very well. On the girls' side was Unota Lucero, the "leading lady", Betty Madonna, the "playwright", Teresa Shea and Carolyn Smith, the "tech crew", Joanna Theiss, the "maid", and Jene, the "Lady". The stage manager was a young guy named Jason, and he and Betty and Joanna rounded out my buddies in the cast. J.T. was a bit standoffish, but he created a good atmosphere. Dave and Tom ribbed me about the crush sixteen year-old Joanna had on me. She was talented, smart, and fun. I had been writing a play about a guy trying to deflect the crush of a teenager, and Joanna's energy crept into the writing. I finished writing it around the end of the run, and got a copy to her. She may have ended up thinking i was coming on to her. The talent level of the actors was a little uneven, but there was enough to make it a good, funny show. At the start of the second act Tom is onstage, and i enter. In our second week, i did something i'd never done. I was late for my entrance. He ad libbed some dialogue. I was shocked. So guess what happened in week three? I did the same damn thing again. Don't ask me how. Sorry, Tom.
-summer 1998
I got a call from J.T. Smith, at the Old Schoolhouse Theater on Sanibel. It was a beautiful space, originally a one-room schoolhouse. J.T. staged musical reviews, and was trying an occasional comedy. He wanted me to play Billy in the upcoming show. The script was funny. I told him i was interested, and could he pay me? He told me he could get me $100 a week, and not to tell the other actors. I almost passed, because i didn't want to be known as an actor who works for free, but it was a great part. The script is about a community theater troupe putting on an original play, an Agatha Christie-style whodunit. The playwright keeps rewriting and meddling, and everything goes very wrong on opening night. I played the "leading man". The dressing room was a fun place. Dave Yudowitz had been a comedian, and was trying his first acting, in his late sixties. His gestures and timing were wonderful. A sweet, sweet man. Tom Corcoran played the director, and he was so great, very easy-going and fun. Clement Valentine played the villain, and very well. On the girls' side was Unota Lucero, the "leading lady", Betty Madonna, the "playwright", Teresa Shea and Carolyn Smith, the "tech crew", Joanna Theiss, the "maid", and Jene, the "Lady". The stage manager was a young guy named Jason, and he and Betty and Joanna rounded out my buddies in the cast. J.T. was a bit standoffish, but he created a good atmosphere. Dave and Tom ribbed me about the crush sixteen year-old Joanna had on me. She was talented, smart, and fun. I had been writing a play about a guy trying to deflect the crush of a teenager, and Joanna's energy crept into the writing. I finished writing it around the end of the run, and got a copy to her. She may have ended up thinking i was coming on to her. The talent level of the actors was a little uneven, but there was enough to make it a good, funny show. At the start of the second act Tom is onstage, and i enter. In our second week, i did something i'd never done. I was late for my entrance. He ad libbed some dialogue. I was shocked. So guess what happened in week three? I did the same damn thing again. Don't ask me how. Sorry, Tom.
Friday, December 3, 2010
the lonely lover
The golden boy lied
The black man lied
The drunkard lied
The feminist lied
The teacher lied
The father lied
The lonely lover would not lie
The virgin lied
The whore lied
The priestess lied
The queen lied
The sister lied
The friend lied
The lonely lover would not lie
Romeo lied
Juliet lied
James Bond lied
Mata Hari lied
Casanova lied
Cleopatra lied
The lonely lover would not lie
The black man lied
The drunkard lied
The feminist lied
The teacher lied
The father lied
The lonely lover would not lie
The virgin lied
The whore lied
The priestess lied
The queen lied
The sister lied
The friend lied
The lonely lover would not lie
Romeo lied
Juliet lied
James Bond lied
Mata Hari lied
Casanova lied
Cleopatra lied
The lonely lover would not lie
"he's just not that into you"
-a review
I don't often broker in the emotion hate.
I hated this movie. I wanted to do an oedipus on my eyes.
Admittedly, i saw only half the movie. The second half. Why didn't i turn it off? We humans slow down for carnage.
This is not about chick flicks. Watch LOVE ACTUALLY with me, and see who cries. The problem with this movie is not that it's insipid (it is). The problem is that it acts like it's not - and the dialogue is clever enough, the performances winning enough, that idiots will be lulled into agreeing. This is not like the romantic comedies of Katherine Heigl, which make no pretense to intelligence. No, this movie would make Gandhi want to hurt someone.
Part of it is the sense of betrayal, from actors who have done delightful, respectable work. Jennifer Connelly. Scarlett Johansson. Ben Affleck (hey, he did SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, okay?). Luis Guzman. Were they not allowed to read the script? It may be that they owed favors to Drew Barrymore, who produced this offal. And understand, i have no hatred for Drew, but this is not EVER AFTER, an inoffensive yawner.
Affleck's character has been Jennifer Aniston's love for seven years. He doesn't believe in marriage, an eminently defendable position. She snaps one day, needing that ring! They break up. As soon as she realizes that marriage isn't important, he gives her that ring. You'll never witness a more facile, unrealistic treatment of an important issue.
On another track, Justin Long is buddies with Ginnifer Goodwin, a romantic who gets her heart trampled weekly. He tries to make her understand men. She decides that he's in love with her, and throws herself at him. Consistent with his character, he rejects her. Then he's suddenly mooning over her, realizing that...oh, never mind. This stuff makes LOVE, AMERICAN STYLE seem like DANGEROUS LIAISONS.
"he's just not that into you".
See it with someone you don't like very much.
I don't often broker in the emotion hate.
I hated this movie. I wanted to do an oedipus on my eyes.
Admittedly, i saw only half the movie. The second half. Why didn't i turn it off? We humans slow down for carnage.
This is not about chick flicks. Watch LOVE ACTUALLY with me, and see who cries. The problem with this movie is not that it's insipid (it is). The problem is that it acts like it's not - and the dialogue is clever enough, the performances winning enough, that idiots will be lulled into agreeing. This is not like the romantic comedies of Katherine Heigl, which make no pretense to intelligence. No, this movie would make Gandhi want to hurt someone.
Part of it is the sense of betrayal, from actors who have done delightful, respectable work. Jennifer Connelly. Scarlett Johansson. Ben Affleck (hey, he did SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, okay?). Luis Guzman. Were they not allowed to read the script? It may be that they owed favors to Drew Barrymore, who produced this offal. And understand, i have no hatred for Drew, but this is not EVER AFTER, an inoffensive yawner.
Affleck's character has been Jennifer Aniston's love for seven years. He doesn't believe in marriage, an eminently defendable position. She snaps one day, needing that ring! They break up. As soon as she realizes that marriage isn't important, he gives her that ring. You'll never witness a more facile, unrealistic treatment of an important issue.
On another track, Justin Long is buddies with Ginnifer Goodwin, a romantic who gets her heart trampled weekly. He tries to make her understand men. She decides that he's in love with her, and throws herself at him. Consistent with his character, he rejects her. Then he's suddenly mooning over her, realizing that...oh, never mind. This stuff makes LOVE, AMERICAN STYLE seem like DANGEROUS LIAISONS.
"he's just not that into you".
See it with someone you don't like very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
