Avenue G

I don't think Mommy likes me -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I just returned from a week-long vacation in LA and Palm Springs. As soon as I gather my thoughts and notes about all that, I may post a travelogue; I caught a bad cold halfway through the week and it has slowed down my thought process. That doesn’t stop me from doing a movie review (triple-header) however...

ORPHAN
This morning I watched a movie made for Halloween -- Orphan. The movie is basically a retelling of 1956’s Bad Seed which has Patty McCormack as the evil, possessed child. Orphan features less well-known actors, and has a very talented 12 year-old named Isabelle Fuhrman in the role of the disturbed 9 year old orphan, Esther. The movie has received some bad press because it seems to cast shadows on the whole adoption process. The movie company had to change it’s ad campaign as a response. "It must be difficult to love an adopted child as much as your own," was switched to "I don’t think Mommy likes me very much."

I wasn’t too keen that (early in the movie) she was singled out as potentially evil for being precocious or having a large vocabulary for her age. What are we implying? Must you be a dunce to not be evil? There I went and used a word like "dunce" -- hoping that doesn’t put me in the evil category. The movie has you believe that the step siblings wouldn’t report Esther’s bizarre, violent behavior to the parents. I guess movies need incredible events to proceed. Have to confess that I enjoyed some of the sillieness -- it's easily worth a $1 redbox rental fee.

WHATEVER WORKS
This small-budget Woody Allen movie challenges our assumptions about what normal really is, when a "normal" family from the deep south dissolves. The daughter seeks life’s answers in Manhattan, rooming with an old, acerbic retired physicist played by Larry David. The mother tracks her down, soon followed by the father. I won’t divulge what happens but each person experiences self-discovery in the unfettered setting of the Big Apple. I can’t say that the movie is ground-breaking since Allen and others have done similar topics in movies like Annie Hall and Manhattan.

MAIDEN HEIST
Can’t help but think that this was a "straight-to-video" movie since I never saw theater ads for it. It features three museum guards who scheme to keep a new curator from moving some of their favorite exhibits off to a museum in Denmark. They work up a plan to substitute forgeries for the real items and all manner of buffoonery ensues. With Morgan Freeman, William H Macy and Christopher Walken, even this "B" movie was an enjoyable use of time while I was answering the door for trick-or-treaters. I am reminded of what Carrot Top said on Jay Leno: "I make my movies right in the video store, and cut out the middle man". While that makes no sense it still made me laugh out loud.

OK, I’ve had my 3rd dosages of Wal-Phed and still feel like crapola. Have done all the usual things -- fluids, rest, chicken soup. Maybe about three more movies will bring me around. I have a busy week at work next week, as well as my first on-call rotation so we’ll keep our fingers crossed that everything works out OK.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Cinema

Say what? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Before tackling the Letterman topic, I'd like to talk about Obama. A letter today in the DMN described this term as "Yes We Can't". Obama's health care initiative stalled out in committee, he was rebuffed on his quest for Chicago Olympics, and according to Paul Krugman (in today’s op-ed), we still have a recession and need more stimulus. Also, Afghanistan is getting uncomfortably close to a quagmire status with no end in site. If I were a Sunday pundit, I’d be giving Obama a “C” right now. It’s still better than Bush’s “D-“ but not much. Obama needs to lead now, and quit speechifying.

LETTERMAN
I was really surprised last Thursday when David Letterman told his Late Show audience that he had just been victimized with blackmail and extortion. It seems Robert Halderman, a producer on 48 Hours, was threatening to disclose information about a series of sexual affairs Letterman carried on with staffers (including recently). Halderman was seeking $2 million to quiet the story and was justifiably arrested for his actions.

The story did pique my curiosity because a successful producer at the same network hardly seems like your average extortion artist. Why would he sacrifice so much for really so little? It turns out that there’s quite a bit more. Halderman was having dire financial problems, facing bankruptcy. Still, that wouldn’t necessarily push someone to do something desperate and illegal. But on top of that, Halderman and Letterman were romancing the same young woman. Apparently Letterman maintains a “stabbin’ cabin” right there at the Ed Sullivan Theater for all his staffing dalliances. This woman was a “dalliance” to Letterman, but a serious love interest to Halderman.

Now we’re talking. In the “what I did for love” annals, this could be an entry. Maybe Halderman’s defense could be “crazy in love” or “insanely jealous”. He had both a romantic and monetary motive – neither one sufficient to justify blackmail or extortion.

What of Letterman’s career and marriage? Well, he’s not a politician so the bar is a little lower for showbiz types. That a talk show host diddles around isn’t nearly as momentous as for politicians who are supposed to be perfect. He made a public apology yesterday to his wife, Regina, and one just has to hope that it takes. When I look at Letterman’s bespectacled, slightly befuddled picture I have trouble seeing him as a Don Juan. This old grandpa with heart trouble was breaking hearts?!

Whatever. I still like Letterman and could care less about his private life. Hope he works it out with the wife and doesn’t let up on the Elliot Spitzer jokes. We care about the sex lives of presidential candidates and attorney generals. Talk show hosts? Not so much.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Television

A brat never looked so good -- Picture courtesy of A.A. Productions Ltd

by blogSpotter
TCM showed Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962) last night -- a very black, splendid comedy about 20 years ahead of its time. Based on Nabokov’s novel, the movie tells the tawdry tale of Professor Humbert Humbert, a 50-something college professor rooming with a ditzy widow woman and her flirtatious beautiful teen daughter, Dolores (aka Lolita). He falls in lust (and even later into love) with the gum-chewing, hula hooping teen temptress. I’m not going to replay the whole plot line -- by all means rent this fantastic movie and wrap yourself up in the weird sequence of events.

There is so much to love in this movie, where to begin. Some misguided souls may see it as a drama or tragedy but it's very much the opposite -- it’s a smoldering, black comedy. The wordplay and names have double entendres that would shock and amuse David Lynch:

Cherry pie -- (Charlotte Haze bakes prize pastries, or is this what Humbert refers to?)
Camp Climax -- Where the bratty Dolores must go -- and why a camp with such a name?
Clare Quilty -- His strange last name is only one letter removed from “Guilty”
Charlotte Haze -- The ditsy 40-something has a last name that sums up her state of mind
Humbert Humbert -- A first & last name which may reflect upon the duality of Quilty and Humbert

The movie evokes Alfred Hitchcock in places. The road trip in the ‘58 Ford station wagon might call to mind Janet Leigh's character in Psycho, running from her embezzling crime, conscience in tow. The stark black and white photography also brings Psycho’s type of sleazy grittiness to the fore. Another great director who deals heavily in symbolism, irony and dream sequences is David Lynch (of Blue Velvet fame). He might have even gotten his Twin Peaks “cherry pie” pun from Lolita.

Here are a couple of interesting side notes about the movie. Pedophilia was such a forbidden topic that the novel was first published by a pornographer in France. In America, Lolita had to be advanced 4 years in age, from 12 to 16, so that the public wouldn’t be appalled (too much) by what it saw on screen. Sue Lyon played Lolita well and might even come across more as an 18 or 20 year old. Even so, the movie barely squeaked by the Hollywood ratings board and the Catholic Morals Council adamantly rejected the movie.

BlogSpotter has his own bizarre take on the movie. The Clare Quilty character played by Peter Sellers is portrayed as both a romantic rival and tormentor of Humbert. His character is most improbable -- throughout the movie he dogs Humbert and impersonates a state policeman, a German Psychiatrist and an uncle of Dolores. He shows up at strange but convenient moments when Humbert is feeling especially stressed and guilty. I think an argument could be made that Quilty isn’t even a real person -- he is in fact the guilty alter-ego of Humbert. The movie ends in suicide, not homicide. Discuss! OK, even the Nabokov screenplay has Humbert serving time for a homicide in a final note -- even he puts a literal take on his weird character(s). Movies like Fight Club and Sixth Sense have used “imagined” characters in years since Lolita was made; it might work in a rendition of this movie.

All said, the movie is excellent. I’m in a quandary as to whether I should ever erase it from my DVR, it’s that good. Please rent a copy of Lolita and see how far Kubrick had already advanced the state of cinema by 1962.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Cinema

Fallon being Fallon -- Picture courtesy of NBC

by blogSpotter
Let me preface this by acknowledging I’m behind on my blogs. My wonderful stepdad succumbed to cancer July 3rd last week, and I’ve been in Round Rock helping deal with funeral details this week. John Latchford was a man who loved life and lived large. He will be missed by all of us; his comparatively quick, unexpected passing makes me realize how precious each day really is. That said, let’s proceed with a review of a surprisingly good show…

LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON

Let me say, when I saw that Jimmy Fallon was replacing Conan on NBC’s Late Night, I was perplexed. My only impression of Fallon was his stint on Saturday Night Live, where he played mostly dopy, juvenile, silly roles. He didn’t seem to have the gravitas or tenacity to be helming a 5-day-a-week talk show that involves a constant flow of comedy monologs, celebrity interviews and skits. In my mind, he didn’t seem to have enough material, substance or talent to come through on it. Mind you, I like him jut fine as a sketch comedian on SNL but could not see him in such a substantive role.

Now, I must confess that I couldn’t be more wrong. His monologs are halting and nerdy in their delivery but somehow deadly hilarious in their content. You don’t hear belly laughs or guffaws from the audience but more like a wave of gentle chuckles. The audience genuinely appreciates the jokes but the reaction is sometimes as low-key as the laid-back delivery. Fallon does a lot of celebrity impressions and he’s also very effective in the comedy sketches. They do a soap takeoff called “7th Floor West” which makes me laugh my a** off. His acting style varies between semi-serious or campy as the skit may require.

Fallon’s show has a lot of youthful (Gen X?) appeal … there are gratuitous sex ploys like “Lick it for $10” where audience members are paid $10 to lick something (inanimate but nevertheless suggestive like a mirror). They also do guest web surfing where each guest is furnished a Mac Book and they all surf to a particularly interesting web site. More that might appeal to the college crowd -- little-known iPhone apps. Fallon was actually a computer science major prior to his comedy career, so his technical savvy is impressive for a late night comedian.

What else might you come across on this fun night cap of a show? How about Obama facial expressions where the Prez is caught giving a sneer or an evil eye. There are also “conceptual” gags similar to what Conan did in the same time slot -- shared audience experiences where everyone eats an Atomic Sour ball at the same time. One of the best things he did recently was the Fallon Dance Contest where people could send in video clips of original, improvised dance routines (done to a jazzy “Fallon Dance” tune). The submissions were hilarious; the two winning high school boys got to come on the how and show Jimmy how it’s done.

Am I still perplexed about Jimmy Fallon? You bet …. I’m perplexed that I didn’t have adequate appreciation for his comedy acumen and interviewing ability. He has surprising historical and pop culture awareness for such a young man... Sometimes a new dog does new comedy tricks, and this old dog has to admit that Jimmy Fallon is funny as hell.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Television

Michael's HIStory statue in Europe -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When news of Michael Jackson’s recent death reached me, I was shocked but not entirely surprised. In the 80’s, People ran an MJ byline that said, “Is this guy weird or what?” At that point, he was just known for harmless eccentricities -- an Elephant man here, a chimp over there, maybe a hyperbaric oxygen chamber next to that. By the 90’s, his behavior verged upon reactionary neurosis and mental melt-down. He veered from child molestation charges to weirdly arranged marriages and then baby-dangling episodes. His odd plastic surgery evolution had to be (at least in part) outwardly indicative of his inward mental implosions.

Probably in part as a reaction to all his bad press, he had been treated for pain killers and rushed to the hospital on various occasions. Now if TMZ and various tabloid sources can be trusted, it appears that Jackson was getting daily Demerol injections from a live-in physician. How much emotional or physical pain do you have to be in to require such dosages from a Dr. “Feel Good”? This drug is potent, and Jackson probably cheated death innumerable times before the grim reaper came and stayed.

His death reminded me in some ways of other tormented celebs -- Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley and Judy Garland to be sure. Marilyn was found in “barbiturate coma” a time or two by agents and housekeepers prior to her actual death in 1962. At 42, Elvis was a bloated vestige of his youthful persona -- chowing down peanut butter & banana sandwiches and popping tranquilizers. He also had a Dr Feel Good in the wings at the time of his 1977 death.

What to make of these things? Marilyn was 36, Elvis was 42, Judy was about 47 and MJ was 50. All were around mid-life but still young enough for reinvention and new career moves. A modest being might just be content to do like Greta Garbo -- retire at 38 and live happily off of investments. You’d have lingering mystique and privacy to boot; she certainly did. Somehow with others, the out-size fame and fortune brings out-size expectations… “I’m famous and beautiful, how can I be so alone?”

Michael and Elvis in particular created insular, make-believe worlds even similar in name -- “Graceland” and “Neverland”. Both were surrounded by sycophants, servants and doctors wielding needles and vials with mighty elixirs of sleep and relaxation. One supposes that out-size egos might want out-size medications that exceed the limits of ordinary budgets, FDA laws and even common sense.

It’s a mighty shame, because all of the aforementioned had so much more to give the world -- in spite of low self-esteem moments they might have felt at the times of their demises. I was very much looking forward to a Michael Jackson comeback -- musical redemption was in the offing. We (and they in the beyond) can settle on the weird consolation that the world will never see their bodies buckled with age or faces withered like leather masks. To the athlete (or entertainer) who died young -- we will miss you terribly. Thank you for what you gave us while you were here.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Music, Retrospective

Giving us the scoop and some doodles -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Why do I envy Perez Hilton? Because the nonchalant, 30 year-old publicity hound is one of the world’s most successful bloggers. His real name is Mario Lavandeira and he was born to Cuban American parents in ’78. He’s worn many hats already in his short career. He’s been a GLAAD publicity agent, actor, receptionist and managing editor of Instinct magazine. He finally struck pay dirt with his on-line gossip rag, http://perezhilton.com.

The web site leverages off of Hilton’s LA celebrity connections -- many photos are originals from events that Perez personally attends. Hilton claims the site has received 8.5 million hits in one day, a staggering number. (That would probably bring my site down). His 'stage name' Perez Hilton is an obvious play on Paris Hilton -- a devoted BFF who receives a lot of promotional build-up on Perez’s site.

Others are not so fond of Perez -- his site has been drawn into much controversy. He’s been accused various things -- falsely reporting Castro’s death, playing copyrighted music of Britney Spears, and defaming an LA DJ by reporting a drug arrest. One of his biggest ongoing controversies is the outing of GLBT celebrities who aren’t ready for the spotlight. He so far has maintained that the outing is perfectly OK although civil litigation begs to differ.

The latest Perez brouhaha has been the Miss California controversy where he, as a judge, asked the perky bimbette her opinion on gay marriage. She replied that marriage should be between one man and one woman. There was a media storm that followed when Miss California lost the competition (as a result of how she answered the gay marriage question?). Perez poured gasoline on the fire by referring to Miss California as a 'dumb bitch' on his blog. The controversy whip-sawed a different direction when it turned out that Miss California had posed for some topless photos earlier in her career. ('It was windy').

The bombastic 'angel of mercy' Donald Trump gave Miss California a break for her tawdriness, probably hoping to quell the prior controversy with a little after-the-fact forgiveness, letting her keep the title.

Stir, stir, stir. What have we with Perez? We have an extreme, successful far-out-of-the-closet gossip maven who knows how to work it from a business standpoint. Closeted gays and Christian conservative models would probably do well to stay out of his way. And 5-hits-a-day blogSpotter would do well to capture any part of Perez’s momentum or business know-how.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Humor, Society

What do you need? ... -- Picture courtesy of craigslist

by blogSpotter
Craig's list is the "uber" web-based bulletin board service that has dominated the news recently -- because of an alleged craigslist murderer no less. Founded by Craig Newmark of San Francisco in 1995, craigslist is actually unsophisticated in both its appearance and intentions. With a simple text interface, craigslist just lays out all the marketing and social network opportunities for a given metro area -- the style resembles a greensheet or alternative newspaper layout. The service has been drawn into controversy recently because Philip Markoff, a dashing 23 year old medical student, was revealed to be leading a double life as the "craigslist killer".

It seems that this Philip was into gambling and girls (roughing up, robbing and killing said girls for gambling money). Now msnbc added to our knowledge base today, by saying that Philip was also into boys and cross-dressers (Dr. Phil might describe this as being pansexual). This All-American psycho was staunchly defended by his fiancée-in-denial -- "There is no way Philip could have done this," she said in desperate refutation, maybe hoping to preserve her Pottery Barn registration web site.

But investigators had the goods on Philip -- they associated his cell phone calls, his emails, his security camera images and even some "souvenirs" in his apartment with the assaults. Philip's misogynistic actions are not dissimilar to a young man here in Dallas who thought it was OK to run down a prostitute with his car. The only thing lower than a prostitute is a young man who thinks he has the right to judge and dispose of "lesser" people. The driver here in Dallas received the death penalty for his efforts; Philip might get off easier being affluent and white.

The public has been shocked by the craigslist events, illogically blaming craigslist for what happened. There are only a jillion lonely heart clubs, Usenet forums and social networking sites where similar things could've happened. We Americans like freedom of access and freedom of movement -- part of the overhead that comes with that is the risk of "stranger danger". I'm not at all defending Philip or anything that happened -- it's just incumbent upon the parties to take safeguards. Maybe meet in public or tell others who you're meeting.

The Internet has been blamed for many things now -- ponzi schemes, murders, identity theft and statutory rape to name but a few. All of these things were doable (and done) with snail mail, telephone and direct contact. The Internet just sped up the process. The Internet, like most technology is a white magic that enhances life and a simultaneous black magic that brings with it the ability to confound and destroy. Such is also the dual nature of cars, planes, mainframe computers and nuclear power. Does that mean we should banish these technical advances? No it does not. It means we should banish (or arrest as the case may be) our baser selves. And we should rise to the promise of technology -- which when applied towards its best uses, is almost like magic in the great convenience it gives us.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Society