I can’t tell if I’m annoyed that C.S.S. has a song in the new iPhone commercial thus subjecting them to all the mass-consumer losers who are oblivious to under the radar music (btw, I’m loving the new Feist album)…
…Or annoyed that they didn’t even bother to credit the band in the video. Help some Brazilians out, would ya?
Showing posts with label hypocritical bullshit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocritical bullshit. Show all posts
Friday, November 9, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Hoo Hoo: Everyone rips me off, Robin
Mildly amusing footnote to this blog which got a shout-out at Jeff Wells’ Hollywood Elsewhere blog a couple days ago (my God, just typing that makes me realize how little any of this shit really matters) after Jeff decided to call “dibs” on the expression “C.S.I.: Riyadh” as the go-to glib critique of Peter Berg’s quite enjoyable in a rousing, sort of disposable kind of way, The Kingdom. He went so far as inferring that any review that uses the expression should attribute the quote to him in their review (Jeff would no doubt say this was written in jest but I suspect that’s only a disguise of true intent).
First of all why anyone would want to take credit for being the brain trust behind something that’s clearly a plain as the nose on your face call is beyond me (the hard part is simply googling what the capital of Saudi Arabia is so one doesn’t look like an ass) but more to the point Jeff wasn’t the first person to use the expression in print. Not by a long shot.
As Daniel Feinberg (a fellow blogger/Angelino/Sox fan) was kind enough to point out, I used the expression in my The Kingdom piece that I wrote way back in April. At the time, I assumed everyone would come to the exact same conclusion and was amused with myself for all of eight seconds for coming up with something so “witty” and then moved on. But shoot, maybe I should be seeking out royalties from the two dozen or so major market film critics who have reappropriated the expression. Can we get it written in stone somewhere that I was the first one to belch out this t-shirt worthy expression?
What made me most happy about the whole thing is that before I even had a chance to meekly chime in to plug my site, Feinberg had beaten me to the punch. This implies that I not only have readers but they’re actually retaining this drivel? The mind boggles. Makes me wish I proofread more carefully.
Anyway, you can read the whole sordid affair at the link below. Or you can correctly assume that this self-aggrandizing retelling is probably the most interesting this particular story could *possibly* be and go do something productive with you time. Your choice.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/09/csi_riyadh.php
First of all why anyone would want to take credit for being the brain trust behind something that’s clearly a plain as the nose on your face call is beyond me (the hard part is simply googling what the capital of Saudi Arabia is so one doesn’t look like an ass) but more to the point Jeff wasn’t the first person to use the expression in print. Not by a long shot.
As Daniel Feinberg (a fellow blogger/Angelino/Sox fan) was kind enough to point out, I used the expression in my The Kingdom piece that I wrote way back in April. At the time, I assumed everyone would come to the exact same conclusion and was amused with myself for all of eight seconds for coming up with something so “witty” and then moved on. But shoot, maybe I should be seeking out royalties from the two dozen or so major market film critics who have reappropriated the expression. Can we get it written in stone somewhere that I was the first one to belch out this t-shirt worthy expression?
What made me most happy about the whole thing is that before I even had a chance to meekly chime in to plug my site, Feinberg had beaten me to the punch. This implies that I not only have readers but they’re actually retaining this drivel? The mind boggles. Makes me wish I proofread more carefully.
Anyway, you can read the whole sordid affair at the link below. Or you can correctly assume that this self-aggrandizing retelling is probably the most interesting this particular story could *possibly* be and go do something productive with you time. Your choice.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/09/csi_riyadh.php
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Addressing this AFI bullshit
What a difference a decade makes. The last time the AFI hosted one of their top 100 films of all-time lists I was 17 and the concept of a definitive list of “the greatest” films ever (in some semblance of ranking order) felt like something of a valuable resource. Finally that bar bet could be settled over what’s the better film: Fantasia or The African Queen. Furthermore, the AFI itself struck me as a vaunted institution who merely by virtue of hosting a bloated, self-congratulatory special akin to the Academy Awards, must surely be worth taking seriously.
And once upon a time, that AFI list served an important purpose: it guilt-tripped me the fickle adolescent into the “classics” section of the video store where I received my first exposure to Wilder, Capra, Ford, Huston, and Lean. Before the AFI I’d never experience the Marx Brothers, Woody Allen, James Dean, Humphrey Bogart or Clark Gable. And, a part of me hopes there are teenagers out there who will take this new list to heart the way I did and search out some of the films that aren’t familiar to them.
But really now, this thing is such horseshit.
There’s a few way of looking at the decision to revisit this AFI list a scant decade after the last one was published. AFI is claiming it’s an opportunity to observe the way films can grown and change in our perception over time. Nice thought, but really is a decade going to make Casablanca seem like less of a classic? What cultural cross-winds are blowing that will make Gone with the Wind fall from #4 ten years ago to #6 now? (it’s still one of the 10 best films of all time… only a little less so) One should read between the lines here as, the list smacks of Monday morning revisionism with most of the list’s most radical changes geared towards addressing the most vocal complaints brought up by the last list.
Gone are dated and not especially well-regarded musicals An American in Paris and My Fair Lady, replaced by dated and slightly better regarded (this year anyway) play adaptations Twelve Angry Men and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe? Forgettable, curiously-championed best picture winners Amadeus and Dances with Wolves have been given the boot while Ben Hur barely hangs on, plummeting from 72 to 100 as the list caters to the fanboy sect making room for one of the Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner (not that I'm complaining) and The Sixth Sense (really?). Somehow through all of this Forrest Gump remains.
Granted, this year’s model is a little bit less clueless as far as placing sacred cows willy-nilly on the list. The Searchers which was embarrassingly for all involved placed in the 90’s on the last list is now #12. Vertigo, which despite its indifference from the general public is considered by film scholars to be Hitchcock’s most accomplished work, gets the bump from #61 to just inside the top 10. Unforgiven also benefited greatly from Clint’s time in the public eye over the past five years, moving from a head-scratching 98 to 68. Most commendable is the inclusion of Buster Keaton’s The General at #18 after not even making the last list (even if I personally prefer Sherlock, Jr which sadly is not on the list).
But even a lot of the “fixes” feel misguided, and driven more by populous than any real critical assessment. Is there anyone alive who honestly considers Star Wars a better film than its sequel The Empire Strikes Back, or is it simply easier to rubber-stamp the first film as a place holder for the whole series? You could say the same thing for the inclusion of Fellowship of the Ring which, despite being my personal favorite of the Lord of the Rings trilogy isn’t the one with 11 Oscars and a billion in box office. Chosen to represent 1999, arguably the best year cinema had since the 70’s we get The Sixth Sense? Hell, forget about the year 1999: chosen to represent the horror genre they went with The Sixth Sense over The Exorcist? When the AFI did its list of the greatest horror films (excuse me, “greatest thrills”) it placed The Exorcist at #3 and The Sixth Sense at #60. How this all comes out in the wash like this I have no clue.
For every addition that’s commendable there’s an addition that’s just plain retarded. Sophie’s Choice is one of the 100 best films of all-time? If you say so. I’m pleased beyond words they got rid of the embarrassing cultural relic Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner but they replaced it with an equal antiquated Sidney Poitier race-relations flick from the same year, In the Heat of the Night, which I can pretty much guarantee no one’s been hankering to watch in the past 40 years (1967 offered a wealth of great films, either Cool Hand Luke or In Cold Blood would have been much better choices). Titanic makes the list but L.A. Confidential doesn’t, proving once and for all nothing makes a film a classic like bilking millions of teenage girls out of their allowance. And can someone please explain to me how Tootsie keeps showing up on these lists (boy is that film attracting buzzards) but Broadcast News, which just gets more prescient with each passing day, is a no-show?
I could go on and on, but you get the point. AFI is subsidized by the big studios and by putting on this annual dog and pony show it raises rentals of the studio’s catalogues so this isn’t really about promoting the best of anything, but rather creating instant revenue right around the time the studios are taking a bath on over-budgeted shit in theaters. In fact the only reason I bothered watching any of it (albeit with the generous help of Tivo) is the rumor that a certain 25-year-old sci-fi film which made a surprise appearance on the list would be getting a spiffy new trailer unveiled during the program. Speaking of which…
YouTube will no doubt take this down in the next few days, because heaven forbid someone post A FUCKING ADVERTISEMENT on the web. Because it would be awful if maybe someone saw this thing and maybe got excited to buy a product. Anyway, assuming the above imbedded video is still up, I encourage everyone to watch the new trailer for the Blade Runner theatrical re-release/DVD release which is due later this year. It made me unconscionably happy. I’m not especially vocal about it, but Blade Runner quietly became my de-facto response to the fairly stupid question “what’s your favorite movie?” over the past few years but I’ve been forcing myself not to watch it in anticipation of the bells and whistles treatment it was rumored to be receiving from Warner Brothers.
The film is notoriously difficult to crack and complaints that it’s more interested in set design than story aren’t exactly correct but are certainly easy to understand. The film values mood over clarity and atmosphere over pacing so if you’re not paying attention you’re likely to grow frustrated. Even I was fairly indifferent to the film the first time I saw a lousy VHS copy of the film. But the film stays with you. It’s both deeply poetic and unspeakably ugly. Nihilistic yet profoundly human. I’ve heard rumors that Ridley Scott filmed new scenes for the new edit, but I suspect this will be more along the lines of the work done on the Alien re-release a few years back, consisting of minor tweaks simply to conform to contemporary viewing practices (I expect the Young/Ford romance which never played especially well to be tightened and hopefully they’ll ditch Vangelis’ shitty, smooth jazz score during these interludes). Mostly I’m excited by seeing the film re-mastered and projected on film at Arclight sometime this fall and eventually owning an elephantine dvd package containing every piece of minutia compiled on the film.
Oh and as an aside, I can’t help but giggle at the irony of this thing being scored with music from The Fountain. Someone at Warner Brothers marketing has a heck of a sense of humor.
And once upon a time, that AFI list served an important purpose: it guilt-tripped me the fickle adolescent into the “classics” section of the video store where I received my first exposure to Wilder, Capra, Ford, Huston, and Lean. Before the AFI I’d never experience the Marx Brothers, Woody Allen, James Dean, Humphrey Bogart or Clark Gable. And, a part of me hopes there are teenagers out there who will take this new list to heart the way I did and search out some of the films that aren’t familiar to them.
But really now, this thing is such horseshit.
There’s a few way of looking at the decision to revisit this AFI list a scant decade after the last one was published. AFI is claiming it’s an opportunity to observe the way films can grown and change in our perception over time. Nice thought, but really is a decade going to make Casablanca seem like less of a classic? What cultural cross-winds are blowing that will make Gone with the Wind fall from #4 ten years ago to #6 now? (it’s still one of the 10 best films of all time… only a little less so) One should read between the lines here as, the list smacks of Monday morning revisionism with most of the list’s most radical changes geared towards addressing the most vocal complaints brought up by the last list.
Gone are dated and not especially well-regarded musicals An American in Paris and My Fair Lady, replaced by dated and slightly better regarded (this year anyway) play adaptations Twelve Angry Men and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe? Forgettable, curiously-championed best picture winners Amadeus and Dances with Wolves have been given the boot while Ben Hur barely hangs on, plummeting from 72 to 100 as the list caters to the fanboy sect making room for one of the Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner (not that I'm complaining) and The Sixth Sense (really?). Somehow through all of this Forrest Gump remains.
Granted, this year’s model is a little bit less clueless as far as placing sacred cows willy-nilly on the list. The Searchers which was embarrassingly for all involved placed in the 90’s on the last list is now #12. Vertigo, which despite its indifference from the general public is considered by film scholars to be Hitchcock’s most accomplished work, gets the bump from #61 to just inside the top 10. Unforgiven also benefited greatly from Clint’s time in the public eye over the past five years, moving from a head-scratching 98 to 68. Most commendable is the inclusion of Buster Keaton’s The General at #18 after not even making the last list (even if I personally prefer Sherlock, Jr which sadly is not on the list).
But even a lot of the “fixes” feel misguided, and driven more by populous than any real critical assessment. Is there anyone alive who honestly considers Star Wars a better film than its sequel The Empire Strikes Back, or is it simply easier to rubber-stamp the first film as a place holder for the whole series? You could say the same thing for the inclusion of Fellowship of the Ring which, despite being my personal favorite of the Lord of the Rings trilogy isn’t the one with 11 Oscars and a billion in box office. Chosen to represent 1999, arguably the best year cinema had since the 70’s we get The Sixth Sense? Hell, forget about the year 1999: chosen to represent the horror genre they went with The Sixth Sense over The Exorcist? When the AFI did its list of the greatest horror films (excuse me, “greatest thrills”) it placed The Exorcist at #3 and The Sixth Sense at #60. How this all comes out in the wash like this I have no clue.
For every addition that’s commendable there’s an addition that’s just plain retarded. Sophie’s Choice is one of the 100 best films of all-time? If you say so. I’m pleased beyond words they got rid of the embarrassing cultural relic Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner but they replaced it with an equal antiquated Sidney Poitier race-relations flick from the same year, In the Heat of the Night, which I can pretty much guarantee no one’s been hankering to watch in the past 40 years (1967 offered a wealth of great films, either Cool Hand Luke or In Cold Blood would have been much better choices). Titanic makes the list but L.A. Confidential doesn’t, proving once and for all nothing makes a film a classic like bilking millions of teenage girls out of their allowance. And can someone please explain to me how Tootsie keeps showing up on these lists (boy is that film attracting buzzards) but Broadcast News, which just gets more prescient with each passing day, is a no-show?
I could go on and on, but you get the point. AFI is subsidized by the big studios and by putting on this annual dog and pony show it raises rentals of the studio’s catalogues so this isn’t really about promoting the best of anything, but rather creating instant revenue right around the time the studios are taking a bath on over-budgeted shit in theaters. In fact the only reason I bothered watching any of it (albeit with the generous help of Tivo) is the rumor that a certain 25-year-old sci-fi film which made a surprise appearance on the list would be getting a spiffy new trailer unveiled during the program. Speaking of which…
YouTube will no doubt take this down in the next few days, because heaven forbid someone post A FUCKING ADVERTISEMENT on the web. Because it would be awful if maybe someone saw this thing and maybe got excited to buy a product. Anyway, assuming the above imbedded video is still up, I encourage everyone to watch the new trailer for the Blade Runner theatrical re-release/DVD release which is due later this year. It made me unconscionably happy. I’m not especially vocal about it, but Blade Runner quietly became my de-facto response to the fairly stupid question “what’s your favorite movie?” over the past few years but I’ve been forcing myself not to watch it in anticipation of the bells and whistles treatment it was rumored to be receiving from Warner Brothers.
The film is notoriously difficult to crack and complaints that it’s more interested in set design than story aren’t exactly correct but are certainly easy to understand. The film values mood over clarity and atmosphere over pacing so if you’re not paying attention you’re likely to grow frustrated. Even I was fairly indifferent to the film the first time I saw a lousy VHS copy of the film. But the film stays with you. It’s both deeply poetic and unspeakably ugly. Nihilistic yet profoundly human. I’ve heard rumors that Ridley Scott filmed new scenes for the new edit, but I suspect this will be more along the lines of the work done on the Alien re-release a few years back, consisting of minor tweaks simply to conform to contemporary viewing practices (I expect the Young/Ford romance which never played especially well to be tightened and hopefully they’ll ditch Vangelis’ shitty, smooth jazz score during these interludes). Mostly I’m excited by seeing the film re-mastered and projected on film at Arclight sometime this fall and eventually owning an elephantine dvd package containing every piece of minutia compiled on the film.
Oh and as an aside, I can’t help but giggle at the irony of this thing being scored with music from The Fountain. Someone at Warner Brothers marketing has a heck of a sense of humor.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
It’s worth noting…
At Fenway Park, when some drunken fuck from Southie feels like climbing down onto right field and running around like a retard during the Sox game, the camera crews make a point of turning their cameras away from them, not only to not reward their behavior but also to discourage anyone else from doing it.
When a greasy-headed Korean with a chip on his shoulder decides to gun down thirty-two of his schoolmates because of some perceived slight against him before mercifully eating a bullet and sparing the legal system years of headaches, NBC decides the best way to address the situation is to broadcast his “multi-media manifesto” on the 6pm newscast (complete with their logo stamped all over it), playing right into his hands and further mystifying this douche bag like he’s Kevin Spacey in Se7en or something. This stunted malcontent should be ridiculed as the pizza-faced, Napoleon Dynamite-sounding ass hat that he is (Opie & Anthony acting out his truly horrid plays is a nice place to start), and yet there he is, all over the cable news programs 24-7 with his post-Columbine dress-code and guns held sideways like a Chuck Bronson poster.
All this from the same cowardly network which fired Don Imus last week for making an ill-timed and off-color joke about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. What a disgusting little chapter in recent history and one I hope media studies classes return to in years to come, simply to watch the semantics line being walked by hypocrites like Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton and Snoop Dogg, who reminded us that when they use “nappy-headed ho” it means something different than when Imus does (this is made all the more sickening when you realize Imus’ only familiarity with the expression probably came from hearing African American men using the “term of endearment.”) Over and over we heard how these fine, outstanding young women who have reached the pinnacle of sports (too bad they lost the championship, huh?) were “scarred for life” because a saggy-faced, senior-citizen radio personality who holds no influence in their world had called them ho’s. Never mind the fact that many of these women no doubt have songs on their ipods which use this same colloquialism, or words to the same effect, there are press conferences to be held and books to be written.
But what about the friends and families of the dead Virginia Tech students or those wounded who survived? These are people whose lives have literally been ruined by a hateful act, not a lousy joke about the hair styles of black women. Aren’t they being scarred by seeing this scumbag being given a public forum for his incoherent ranting which places the blame for the massacre squarely on the victims? Not only have they lost their loved ones but they’re being lectured to by the killer? Where’s the inflated sense of moral fortitude from NBC on this one?
Furthermore, in seeing that these random acts of violence will gain media attention, broadcasting their shitty YouTube rants all over the airwaves, NBC has given the greenlight to every asshole with an assault weapon to “martyr” themselves for their cause. In the past two days there’s been a self-immolation in Long Beach and a mad gunman at NASA in Texas, no doubt innervated by the fallout in the wake of Virginia Tech. NBC had a chance to let this man-child drift away into obscurity and instead they gave him a forum and in the words of a VT survivor “rubbed salt in their wounds.” But there you go, thank God he didn’t call anyone a “nappy-headed ho” otherwise the whole thing would have been tasteless.
When a greasy-headed Korean with a chip on his shoulder decides to gun down thirty-two of his schoolmates because of some perceived slight against him before mercifully eating a bullet and sparing the legal system years of headaches, NBC decides the best way to address the situation is to broadcast his “multi-media manifesto” on the 6pm newscast (complete with their logo stamped all over it), playing right into his hands and further mystifying this douche bag like he’s Kevin Spacey in Se7en or something. This stunted malcontent should be ridiculed as the pizza-faced, Napoleon Dynamite-sounding ass hat that he is (Opie & Anthony acting out his truly horrid plays is a nice place to start), and yet there he is, all over the cable news programs 24-7 with his post-Columbine dress-code and guns held sideways like a Chuck Bronson poster.
All this from the same cowardly network which fired Don Imus last week for making an ill-timed and off-color joke about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. What a disgusting little chapter in recent history and one I hope media studies classes return to in years to come, simply to watch the semantics line being walked by hypocrites like Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton and Snoop Dogg, who reminded us that when they use “nappy-headed ho” it means something different than when Imus does (this is made all the more sickening when you realize Imus’ only familiarity with the expression probably came from hearing African American men using the “term of endearment.”) Over and over we heard how these fine, outstanding young women who have reached the pinnacle of sports (too bad they lost the championship, huh?) were “scarred for life” because a saggy-faced, senior-citizen radio personality who holds no influence in their world had called them ho’s. Never mind the fact that many of these women no doubt have songs on their ipods which use this same colloquialism, or words to the same effect, there are press conferences to be held and books to be written.
But what about the friends and families of the dead Virginia Tech students or those wounded who survived? These are people whose lives have literally been ruined by a hateful act, not a lousy joke about the hair styles of black women. Aren’t they being scarred by seeing this scumbag being given a public forum for his incoherent ranting which places the blame for the massacre squarely on the victims? Not only have they lost their loved ones but they’re being lectured to by the killer? Where’s the inflated sense of moral fortitude from NBC on this one?
Furthermore, in seeing that these random acts of violence will gain media attention, broadcasting their shitty YouTube rants all over the airwaves, NBC has given the greenlight to every asshole with an assault weapon to “martyr” themselves for their cause. In the past two days there’s been a self-immolation in Long Beach and a mad gunman at NASA in Texas, no doubt innervated by the fallout in the wake of Virginia Tech. NBC had a chance to let this man-child drift away into obscurity and instead they gave him a forum and in the words of a VT survivor “rubbed salt in their wounds.” But there you go, thank God he didn’t call anyone a “nappy-headed ho” otherwise the whole thing would have been tasteless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
