http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:36:14 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/21/123614.php David WeinbergerWordWays &#8212 "The Journal of Recreational Linguistics" &#8212 has always been for a niche among eccentrics. (I'm a longtime subscriber, but not because I'm eccentric. No, no, just a healthy interest in what those other eccentrics are up to.) But the journal continues to get harder to read thanks to computers. A typical article treats words as collections of letters and tries to find ones that meet some odd constraint. Typical articles used to be about word pyramids and hyphenated words whose letters immediately before and after the hyphen cover every possible pairing. But now that word lists are computerized, the best of the WordWaysians have to come up with challenges that would not only stump a human but come close to stumping computers. I often can't figure out what the hell the challenge is. For example, Simon Norton has an article wondering if all words can be expressed as sumagrams. Here's the second paragraph:This is what is called a free abelian group, where the second word derives from the name of the Norwegian mathematician Abel. The elements of this group are sequences of (upper case) letters and antiletters...Susan Thorpe, who usually has more than one article in an issue, this time looks for words that meet various palindromic and other sequences of letters. For example, nunatakassak has three sequences of palindromic letters. (Nunataks are "points of rock appearing the above the surface of land ice" in Greenland, in case you were wondering.) Olol.iuqui (the Mexican climbing plant, of course) is a tautonymic sequence followed by a palindromic sequence. She lists hundreds of such words.Some are easier to follow. Eric Iverson, for example, publishes a list of words made only with letters with diagonals in them, from akavit to zanza. He finishes with a list of the longest words without any diagonal letters, starting with bioelectricities. And Darryl Francis lists all 300 Tube stations in London and tries to find something interesting about their names. For example, did you know that Bond Street transadds to deobstruent and sober-tinted? I didn't!WordWays continues to run some articles that actually touch on meaning. For example, in the current issue, there's an article by Will Nediger speculating that Douglas Adams took his fascination with the number 42 from Lewis Carroll. And my son and I particularly enjoyed Fender Tucker's list of 11 heterograms placed in perfectly ambiguous sentences, such as:After breaking into the Sherriff of Nottingham's armory, the flamboyant actor/thief Robin Hood took a bow.Unfortunately, WordWays has a minimal Web presence &#8212 some samples and an opportunity to subscribe. It's just about tailor-made for living on line where eccentricity is a virtue. Gaming25786@blogcritics.org Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:36:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/03/091128.php David WeinbergerA year before the movie "The Lion King" came to theaters, Disney released the opening scene as the movie's trailer. The animals congregate at the rock, the music pulses, the camera soars...it was one of the best trailers ever. Likewise, the Boston company of the Lion King stage show opens with a show-stopping number that highlights the stirring singing and astounding animal inventions. Of course, since it's the opening number, there's no show to be stopped, but it is a great beginning, which the first act pretty well sustains. As everyone who's seen the show has said, the pure theatrics of the show - all hail Julie Taymor - are astonishing.And then, after the intermission, the puppets take the stage. Pumba's amusing, especially if you like fart jokes, but Timon is in the wrong movie. The nasal Borscht Belt shtick was tired in the movie, but on stage it's irritating. Plus, perhaps because Timon is supposed to be small, he's presented as a fully realized puppet operated by a man in green behind him; the other creatures magically integrate human and animal forms. But Timon looks just like he did in the movie, only 3-D. It's like having one character in a movie be played by a live person on stage. It's distracting.The second not only drags - it's a 3-hour play, so I'd say you get your money's worth, except the tickets were outrageously expensive - it's a lost opportunity. The new music by and large is forgettable, except for the pieces that are embarrassing, the most self-indulgent vein of Disney anthem rock. I thought the choreography was generally uninspired, although the show won an Astaire award for it, so I doubt my competency to judge.If only this hadn't been a Disney movie first! Then we'd have a stage musical that mixes Hamlet with Animal Farm. When Simba exiles himself, we could have a second act where he loses himself in hedonism, only to be restored to his better self by, well, something more interesting than the appearance of his old tumble-chum, Nala. But, because this is a Disney plot, the hedonism consists of nothing more salacious and soul-eroding than prancing around while singing "Hakunah Matata." And the return to his sense of duty isn't occasioned by him hitting the bottom - Does Simba rip the throat out of a gazelle he was playing dice with? Does he wake up one day with a hangover that tastes like Timon? - or by a nasty urge to avenge his father. No, Nala just shows up one day, preparing him for his encounter with Rafiki who tells him he just has to be the best Simba he can be. From then on, all the interesting conflicts have been resolved. All that remains is theatrics - some leaping about and Scar dies as he must. There's no doubt in the plot and no doubt in the characters. In the last analysis, instead of getting Hamlet meets Animal Farm, we get Disney's Hamlet on Ice. Culture23861@blogcritics.org Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:11:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/18/113148.php David WeinbergerDuring a long stretch of my life, I read mysteries. I stopped mainly because my reading time got sufficiently fragmented, and my memory sufficiently riddled, that I couldn't remember whether it was Archer Evangeline who was caught hiding the quoit from his sister Lily or it was Sister Evangeline who was caught at archery among the lillies. So, this summer when I found myself with a bad Internet connection and nothing particular to read, I picked up Josephine Tey's The Singing Sands, a book I'd read in high school. Back then it led me to a long, happy run through the other great British women mystery writers, the anti-Christies.I finished The Singing Sands this morning. I only got through it because I couldn't believe it could keep getting worse. I was wrong. [NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD.]The book starts well. A young man is found dead in a sleeping car of a train going from London to Scotland. Our hero, Inspector Grant, happens to be in the cabin next door. (Mysteries are permitted an opening coincidence in order to get the detective involved.) Grant, apparently not up to the evidentiary standards of British Train Mystery: CSI, rather casually walks off with the young man's newspaper and notices that in one corner he's scribbled an eight-line poem about a place with -- wait for it -- singing sands. This piques his interest, and so far we're with him. Grant is, after all, on vacation to recover from a case of burn-out bordering on nervous breakdown. The book moves slowly but charmingly at first. Grant's got a screaming case of claustrophobia that shows up intermittently as he relaxes at the rural home of his cousin and her husband. (The fact that Grant's got the hots for the cousin seemingly wasn't as creepy to the Brits of the time as it is now.) Then Tey introduces a cast of characters too predictable in their eccentricity. Halfway through, she drops in an uppercrustacean lady who charms the knickers off of Grant. Grant, though, is too busy obsessing over the accidental death on the train. He even goes up to a remote Scottish island looking for singing sands, an episode lovingly told but without plot consequence.The best pal of the dead guy shows up, a personable and pliant young American pilot. With the homoerotic subtext firmly left safely in the closet along with Grant's abandoned claustrophobia, the two go to London to chase down clues. The big break comes when Grant, without a shred of motivation, visits a famed Arabian scholar who admits to having met the victim. With no other suspects, Tey only pretends to fool us from that point on. The whole sorry affair is wrapped up by a multi-page suicide note from the Arabist who explains that he killed the guy because the guy had discovered the location of Shangri-La. Nope, I'm not making this up.Inspector Grant returns to work, having dropped his nervous breakdown, the comely noblewoman, and the hot cousin without even a glance backwards. It's an implausible mystery with some lovely scenic writing in the first half. But casting a fly in a Scottish river should not be the most exciting part of a mystery novel. If you're going to advance the art of mystery writing by introducing rich, textured characters, you might be forgiven for weakness in the mystery. But Tey resolves Grant's claustrophobia by having him spend a weekend with Scottish rustics and resolves the mystery through coincidence, mythical lands and an overly-loquacious suicide note. Where are the Reichenbach Falls when you need them? Books19967@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:31:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/09/082650.php David WeinbergerMy family has been going to performances by Shakespeare & Co. up in Lenox, Massachusetts for about twenty years now and always love it. A couple of nights ago, we saw a preview of Comedy of Errors. (Hint: It's the one with the two Dromios, no Rosalind, and doesn't take place in Verona.) I loved it just a little less than usual.Shakespeare & Co.'s performances feel like Shakespeare as he was seen by his contemporaries: lively, bawdy, understandable. Yet, this performance wasn't my favorite. Too much mugging, too broad, too hectic. Yes, it's a farce with confusion piling on confusion. But there's a difference between speed and timing. Nevertheless, saying it's not one of the Company's best leaves lots of room for goodness. The play is totally worth seeing. In fact, it was one of my son's favorite performances. Plus, we saw the first preview (= beta, for you software geeks), so it's undoubtedly even better by now.I have an overall gripe, though. When we first started going, the performances were outdoors at the Edith Wharton manor, on the edge of a forest. When sprites are supposed to appear from the forest, they actually appeared from the forest. The depth of the scene was well worth the swatting of the mosquitos. But, a few years ago, the Company was forced to relocate. They're now ensconced down the road on 65 lovely acres of forest and meadow, yet they seem to have no plans to resume the sylvan stage. The Founders Theater is not such a great space - avoid seats with low numbers because they put you at the top of the U that encloses the stage - and it's inevitably indoors. Instead, the company's director, Tina Packer (all hail!), is pursuing her obsessive dream of recreating the 16th century Rose Theater. Maybe that'll be amazing. But the forest still beckons.By the way, if you have a chance, go early and see "Shakespeare and the Language that Changed the World" (title approx.), a 45-minute piece that celebrates his words. Very funny and sometimes moving. Bring the kids. Culture18427@blogcritics.org Mon, 9 Aug 2004 08:26:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/01/103559.php David WeinbergerFahrenheit 9/11 wasn't what I expected. First, forget any argument about whether it's fair. It's not. Moore admitted that on the Jon Stewart show. And so what? It's an essay by a guy with a strong point of view. He gives other positions none of his screen time, and he marshalls everything he can to get us to see things his way, including crossing several lines in several ways. The movie operates at two levels which felt oddly distinct to me. At one level, it's a set of arguments about why we are in the war: Saudi influence, corporate profits, the use of fear to manipulate us, etc. But it's mainly an argument by juxtaposition, as if two facts stated in succession must be related. In part that's because it's a big argument that can't fit into a two hour movie with lots on its mind, including entertaining and outraging us. Moore may be wrong, he may be right in whole or in part, but at least he's saying some things out loud that need to be aired. For example, the fact (or is it?) that Saudi money accounts for 7% of our economy does not prove that the Bushes favor Saudi interests over American, but, man, that's a big chunk of our economy. You will not hear in this movie about the abominations of the reign of Sadam Hussein, because the movie is about our response to 9/11. We were told we were going to war because Iraq was a threat to the US. Other possible reasons for invading Iraq -- including that Hussein was a murderous tyrant -- are irrelevant to the movie's topic. (The images of happy children in pre-war Iraq come close to white-washing Hussein, however, a disturbing lack of judgment on Moore's part.) At the other level, the movie is a stream of images that hit emotional nerves, from laughter to grief. But emotions aren't arguments. The fact that Wolfowitz spit-combs his hair doesn't lead to any conclusion, although it's fun in a mean way. And yet, there is a truth to some of the footage that goes beyond accuracy and fairness. Seeing Bush smirk here and preen there shows us something that words can't articulate. The selection is certainly unfair, and of course images can always mislead us into thinking we're glimpsing something important within the person, but, the images of Bush seem to show someone playing at being a war president, a shallow son of privilege essentially disconnected from reality. Now, I already believed that, so the images work for me. I'd love to hear how they affect the undecided. (Note to The Undecided: What the hell more do you need to know before making up your mind? Just wondering...)When the images departs from ridicule -- there was actually less ridicule in the movie than I'd expected -- their effect is more questionable. Although the footage from Iraq is raw and awful, similar footage could be found from every war, just and unjust. And a mother's grief -- Iraqi or American -- is not an argument against the war, although it may be an argument against all wars. On the one hand, such footage overwhelms reason. On the other, it's placed in the movie after Moore has shot his argumentative wad and is intending, I assume, to move us to action now that we have been "convinced" that the war was not fought to protect us. Will this movie change minds? Not mine. But no single movie could change mine: I've had four years of reasons to believethat Bush is an apocalyptically bad president, so it'd take a least a couple of years to talk me out of it. For people on the fence? Yeah, some of the facts will feed people's suspicions that W's policies can't be explained as a reaction to terrorism, and some of the images may be enough to stop giving this guy a pass. By itself, it certainly isn't a complete argument. It is manipulative and unfair. And very funny and surprisingly moving. It is an act of provocation, the starting place for arguments we need to have. If you're as firmly for the president as I am against him, you're a better person than I if you can sit through this movie. If you're one of the choir or want to see our leaders in a light they've been careful to stay out of, then join the line around the block... Video17004@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:35:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/28/091559.php David WeinbergerMany of you have wondered how my previous set of Soprano spoilers could have been so dead-on accurate. The answer is simple: I make things up, pretend afterwards that I got it right, and hope that no one checks. So, here's my prediction for what happens in the season finale. It's something the entire season has prepared us for. It has the inevitability of billiard balls caroming off the sides of the table. It is almost too obvious to say:Tony shoots the bear.Everything in the season conspires towards this. First, the bear was introduced with a feint, misdirecting us into believing that it was a way to get Carmella and the game warden together. Every few episodes, the bear comes back, seemingly the most under-motivated event in the season - if they can set a girlfriend on fire just so Tony can have a heartless breakup scene with her, they sure better have a reason for air-dropping the bear into random episodes. Finally, the entire season has been engineering Tony's return to Carmella. Here we thought it was in order to say something about the complexity of love and marriage, but in fact it was simply a way to get Tony and the bear into the same scene.So, Tony shoots the bear. Then, in one of their patented scenes of black comedy, he and Sil are caught cutting up the carcass. (Why Sil? For the irony of his not getting caught for his other offings.) As Tony is perp-walked from his house, the head of the FBI unit is requesting warrants to search Tony's house for evidence of hunting without a license and animal cruelty.The episode closes with a shot of Carmella, Meadow and AJ watching being Tony taken away. AJ says, "For shooting a fucking bear??" Cue the Davey Crockett theme song.It is not possible that any detail of this spoiler could be wrong. Video16067@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 May 2004 09:15:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/21/085853.php David WeinbergerNBC has announced that it's doing its own version of the BBC's "The Office." Instead of the ineffably uncomfortable Ricky Gervais, the manager will be played by Steve Carell. Here are predictions of the other ways NBC will get "The Office" all wrong:The office staff is racially balanced.Instead of making paper, the company makes ball bearings. Result: hilarity every time someone says "ball." Dawn is a gorgeous blonde with huge, sili-boobs. Running gag: Office staff keep dropping items in front of her so they (= we) can look down her sweater.Because it's apparently safer on TV to express gay stereotypes than racial stereotypes, the "Black cock" joke becomes a mildly risque jape about bending over in a prison shower.Guest appearance: Joey!Episode 10: When David's father shows up, we see that Pop is just like his son, and we learn why David is so desperate to be loved.Among the office staff: Hot lesbian couple.Gareth being fixated on his army service is considered too chancy during a war, so instead he is a super patriot given to saluting inappropriately.Cross-over episode in which David becomes a guest judge on American Idol so he can best Simon Cowell.During the annual Christmas show, each of the actors gets to show off his/her special talent. Who knew that Keith had such a lovely singing voice?It goes on for 8 seasons.Final episode: Tim marries Dawn, followed by a group hug. Video15853@blogcritics.org Fri, 21 May 2004 08:58:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/01/095447.php David WeinbergerMiramax (owned by Disney) acquired the rights to The Lord of the Rings in 1996 but backed out of the deal in 1998 when Peter Jackson presented his budget. New Line Cinema (owned by Time Warner) stepped in and, under producer Barrie Osborne, stepped up to the plate. The three installments cost a toal of $270M to produce, and that's before marketing costs were added, not to mention the vaseline budget for the cameras filming Liv Tyler.So, here's a toast to the money guys who said Yes to a director whose pitch must have gone something like this: I'd like to film one of the most beloved and jealously protected literary properties in history.I'd like to turn it into a sword-and-dwarves epic that will run somewhere between 9 and 11 hours.I plan on shooting the largest, most complex battle scenes in history. And you can trust me to do it based on my work in Heavenly Creatures.We will have to invent the most convincing CGI effects ever. In fact, the pivotal character will be made of pixels. And you can trust me to bring true humanity to the art of digital acting based on my breakthrough work in Meet the Feebles.A work of this scale will require marshalling 25,000 people over the course of several years. And I think I proved my ability to do so with Valley of the Stereos. All hail Peter Jackson! But thanks, for once, to the money people who took the leap with him. Video13279@blogcritics.org Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:54:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/25/122304.php David WeinbergerWe went to see Return of the King for the second time last night because our 13-year-old wanted to see it for his third time. My pre-VCR generation has trouble being entertained by a movie more than once, but there are exceptions. Lord of the Rings is one: Giant trolls, gargantuan elephants, catapults firing heads, fierce bad guys with faces made out of cookie dough, fire-tipped battering rams, stirring music, flying dragons, all in one scene. What more do you want in a movie? Even though it was my second time, I still had trouble finding a slack time to take a bathroom break. Thank goodness for Liv Tyler (or, as she's uncharitably known in our household, Mrs. Ed). I have a small wager with my son. I say that Gollum will be nominated as Best Supporting Actor. He deserves it. So does Sean Astin, but as Best Actor; nominating him for Supporting Actor would confuse his character (Frodo's support) with his structural role in the movie. And I will be personally outraged if LongBeard the Ent beats out Viggo Mortensen for the award for Best Acting by an Inanimate Object. IMO, Mortensen was way better, although I realize it's a topic about which reasonable people can disagree. Video12010@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:23:04 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/24/120432.php David WeinbergerI know how the Sopranos will end.I base this on no insider information. I have not stolen the scripts for the upcoming season nor have I slept with David Chase. I have, however, just finished re-watching the entire series. This has led me to several inescapable conclusions.First, this is the funniest show on TV. Maybe ever. On seeing it again, it seems so obviously to be structured primarily as a comedy. Chase must have been thinking, "Wouldn't it be hysterical if..." And no show earns its laughs the way this one does, putting real people into a sub-world with its own tight but insane logic.Second, I always thought that Steven Van Zandt - Silvio on the Sopranos, and Springsteen's guitarist off the Sopranos - wore that stupid scarf because he was balding. Now I'm concluding that he wears it because Silvio's hair isn't a hairpiece. Scary!Third, I have a guess about how the series ends. Here goes...[SPOILER ALERT!][SPOILER ALERT!]Christopher, his nephew, turns state's evidence on Tony in order to save his own ass. Adriana, his fiancee, has already been turned into an informant. She ends up informing on Chris - do you really want to see them get married? - who then tries to weasel out of it by ratting on Tony. We were set up for this ending in the previous season when Tony told the drug-addled Chris that from now on, Tony's going to confide only in Chris because he alone in the crew is a blood relative.I will admit that this leaves a few questions unanswered. Will Carmela be left alone? Yes. Will Dr. Melfi testify at Tony's trial? Nah, they won't show the trial. Will Paulie Walnuts switch to Johnny Sack's crew? Nope, it's clear that Johnny recognizes Paulie for the disloyal tool that he is. Will Bobby and Janice tie the knot? Let's hope not. In fact, I see a doomed fade-out on Janice eyeing Artie. Will Meadow continue her escape from the world of the Sopranos? Yes, she will continue walking the straight and narrow path of boredom, although she will realize how deeply she loves her father and the ethos within which she was raised, as Tony is perp-walked into re-runs. Will AJ get through adolescence without killing himself? Yeah, but maybe only because Chris ends up killing one of his friends. Will Ralphie arise from the dead and reassemble himself? Unfortunately not. Who will take over the family? Johnny Sack, but only after Janice exhibits a surprisingly strong will to power. Will the BaddaBing remain open? Yes, but it will be converted into an Office Max. Despite my pretense of 100% certainty, I remain puzzled by the biggest dramatic question my pulled-out-of-my-nethers scenario raises: How early in the season will we know that Christopher is betraying Tony? My guess is that they'll tell us early on, leaving us to wonder if Tony will whack Chris or Chris will whack Tony.Which leaves one final question: Which of the existing characters are not going to make it out of the series alive? My two favorite candidates for the dead pool are Paulie Walnuts because he deserves it and Artie Bucco because he doesn't.Of course, there's a tiny possibility I might be wrong about some of this. Video11213@blogcritics.org Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:04:32 EST