« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »
There's a small Mexican restaurant near where I work. I drive by it maybe once a week or so. Every once in a while they change the words on the tiny "marquee" which rests in the middle of their sign. Around this time of year, it is usually emblazoned with the words "Lobsters are back."
And while the "adult" me knows exactly what they mean--that it's local lobster season, and yes, we're serving 'em up--that sign never fails to invite the 6-year-old who lurks somewhere in the recesses of my mind to come out and play. I know if I was still that age and my parents drove me by there, I would incessantly ask, "Where did they go? What did they do there? How did they get back? Did they drive a car or a boat? Do they live here? Can they fly?"
So that sign is pretty magical to me. Even though I'll probably never stop in to visit--or eat--the lobsters who are back, that sign reminds me never to lose that 6-year-old kid in my head. And for that I'm thankful.
Now if I could just get rid of that obnoxious, horny 14-year-old who keeps saying "That's what she said," I'd be a happy camper.
Posted at 09:00 AM in Innocent Bystander™ | Permalink | Comments (4)
Posted at 09:00 AM in Friday Foto | Permalink | Comments (0)
For those of you who have left comments over the past 2 weeks or so, only to NOT see them show up where they're supposed to, I apologize. In my never-ending quest to never again see the words "term papers" in the comments sections on this blog, I inadvertently caused a blockage of ALL comments, or at least any of them that contained a space. I have since removed that blockage, thanks to the fine, quick-acting folks at Typepad, who are the service providers for this blog.
Thanks are also due to my high school almost-sweetheart, Melanie, for being her usual no-nonsense self in pointing out this horrible deficiency to me, and not resting until it was corrected. (Yes, she was like this back then, too.) This is where Facebook is a good thing, folks...finding people you lost over the years (although Mel found me again on this here blog, because it is world-famous).
So...COMMENTS ARE BACK! Comment away! Just don't try and sell any damn term papers here.
Posted at 07:12 PM in Innocent Bystander™ | Permalink | Comments (1)
I love Facebook. Where else can you find old friends to reconnect with, new friends to keep up with, and check up on women you really wish you were dating and make sure their status still reads "Single."
I hate Facebook. Where else can you find useless information on people you could care less about, new people bothering you to "friend" them or become their "fans," and check up on women you really wish you were dating and find out their status now reads "In a relationship..." and it's not with you.
But here's the thing about Facebook. They watch you and when they feel you're in a weak moment, they pounce. Those little FB ads running down the right hand side of the screen are their way of reminding you that something is lacking in your life, something important is missing. Gosh, I don't know what they're trying to tell me, but here's a collection of ads from Facebook that appeared on my profile in one night, basically urging me to find a one-night stand.
And while I couldn't seem to find the classic ones that had been appearing in the weeks before I grabbed (in a chaste and purely for research type of way, I assure you, dear reader) these screen shots, this is the primary type of advertising that I'm assaulted with each and every time I log onto FB. Those "classic" ads featured women with huge breasts. I mean ginormous boobs, so big that they were one Photoshop "Scale" below ridiculously cartoonish. (If they pop up again, I'll grab them and share them with you. That's what she said.)
Here's the deal with Facebook. They're obviously playing on the fact that I'm listed as being "single" and of a...let's just say, "certain age." (I like to think of it as "mature" as opposed to "elderly and senile," but this is open to argument.) So I get these ads urging me to meet "local BBWs" or "mature singles" or "view females online." It's the INTERNET, Facebook...do you honestly think I haven't already viewed females online? Why do you think the Internet was invented?
Occasionally, when I'm in a grumpier than usual mood, I tell Facebook I don't like these ads, that I find them offensive, by clicking that little "x" in the upper right corner of each one. They ask me what's wrong, bubby...why don't you like these ads, but unfortunately there is no response that allows me to tell them I need no reminders that I'm single and that I do indeed like big boobs. Or women with glasses. Or women over 50, or women who are single, mature, in their 40s and younger women who like older men like myself. I don't need targeted advertising to tell me any of this. I know this all to be true.
And so this is why I hate Facebook, even while I love it.
Posted at 09:00 AM in Innocent Bystander™ | Permalink | Comments (0)
While some of you may be shocked to know that there was a time before TMZ and its ilk existed, Henry E. Scott's new book, Shocking True Story: The Rise and fall of Confidenital, "America's Most Scandalous Scandal Magazine," provides direct proof that our paparazzi-prone times are nothing new. Confidential, a magazine at times so salacious my grandfather took to hiding it under his Barcalounger, was a brief, not-so-shining shooting star in the already-dying world of magazines in the mid to late '50s. Founded by girlie mag publisher Robert Harrison, the mag's circulation soared with stories such as "Does Desi Really Love Lucy?" "What Makes Ava Gardner Run for Sammy Davis, Jr?" and "The Real Reason for Marilyn Monroe's Divorce." Confidential skated right up to the goal on most of these stories, but declined to put the puck in the net just to save itself from the possible penalties.
The magazine's main courses on its menu were rumor and innuendo, and by 1955 or so, some issues of the bi-monthly gossip rag were selling over 3 million copies, almost all on newsstands in this great land of ours. Who would want their postman to know they were getting home delivery? But Hollywood soon sat up and took notice, and stars such as June Allyson (who Confidential alleged slept around on hubby Dick Powell), and Maureen O'Hara (the red-headed temptress who was alleged by the mag to have been in flagrante in the back row of Grauman's Chinese Theatre), started to grouse and even sue. O'Hara won a libel lawsuit against the mag which marked the beginning of the end. The movie industry got the California politicos to ban the magazine in the state. Harrison resorted to an uneasy peace with Hollywood, and Confidential ended up telling consumer-oriented horror stories, before he sold the mag and it died a withering death.
Scott's book is a bit schizophrenic. It presents excerpts from some of Confidential's more famous stories and then tells the story behind them, all the while continuing a running history of the mag. I'm not sure of a better way to set this type of book up, but to me this rather slim volume (194 pages minus notes and index, with BIG text) seemed awkward reading (not to mention the photos included, whose captions pretty much mirrored the text below). The wonderful dustjacket, a collage of headlines from the covers of the magazine, promises a lot more than the book delivers. The excerpt thing is a lousy way of presenting the magazine, but I understand these still might be sensitive stories to the estates of the stars involved. And I would loved to have seen a color section of Confidential covers...the red, yellow, and black color pallet so perfectly summed up that repressed yet dangerous era of American history, the 1950s. Shocking True Story does have a shocking ending, what with the almost-sad tale of Howard Rushmore, the magazine's Commie-baiting editor and his ultimate demise (if Rushmore hadn't been such a giant--literally--douchebag, it would be sad). But Scott's book ultimately doesn't deliver the kind of rat-a-tat, gutter-dwelling story the history of Confidential deserves. It's "just the facts, m'am" approach is fine, but not very sordid.
Posted at 09:00 AM in What I'm reading | Permalink | Comments (0)
I've been playing Scrabble lately. Not the old-fashioned way, where you actually are in the same room with someone and you see them and look into their eyes, and are able to convince them, across a multi-colored board, that yes, indeed, the makers of the game had F-*-C-K in mind as a legitimate word when they created it in the first place. No, I've been playing online on Facebook, and a bit earlier, on my iPhone.
The "electronic" (for lack of a better word) version of Scrabble started for me on my iPhone when the seductive Marja said, hey, you should download this app and then we can play Scrabble! And then she proceeded to whip my ass so badly on several occasions that I removed the application from my phone. Then I signed up to do it on Facebook, figuring that maybe my fading eyesight was the reason why I was so stupid while playing Scrabble on the iPhone, not really ready to admit that vision has nothing to do with stupidity, at least in my case.
I am currently involved in 3 games of Scrabble on Facebook and am getting my ass whipped in each and every one of them. I think I'm on game #6 total on there and have lost every one, even though they do allow the word f*ck. And the C words. They do not however allow "B-A-F-Z-Y" as a word. I know. I tried.
Besides the fact that I just don't think I'm cut out to play any kind of game that involves a screen or a computer chip, my point here is I can't look at a Scrabble board and see all the possibilities. Those seven little tiles are just individual letters to me, and I might as well be asked to take a written exam in Greek for what they show me when I look at them. And like everyone else, I don't want to lose, but it's not that...it's by how HUGE a margin I lose. I suck. I really, really suck. But here's the real kick in the gut for me...I LOVE words. I love writing. But I can't do Scrabble. Its intricacies and strategy escape me, and that frustrates the hell out of me. I feel like I should be better at this, and I'm not, and I really don't have the patience or energy to try and get better at it.
So, my Scrabble playing friends, I think I will retire my tiles and slink off into this good night, quietly, with just a little bit of my tail between my legs. Go ahead and play through without me, please. Life is too short to spend time doing anything so badly.
Posted at 09:00 AM in Innocent Bystander™ | Permalink | Comments (1)
Having just read Peter Biskind's excellent biography of actor/producer/director/Playboy of the Western World Warren Beatty (click here to read my review), I decided it was high-time I reacquainted myself with some of Mr. Beatty's movies. My total sum of knowledge of his oeuvre is based almost solely on Bonnie and Clyde, a movie he produced and starred in, but didn't write or direct.
My weekend Beatty viewing party started with Shampoo, his 1975 movie about a free-swinging hairdresser in Los Angeles during the fall of our discontent, i.e. 1968, the year Nixon was elected president of these here United States. Beatty plays George Roundy, a "full-service" hairdresser who, while not correcting anyone when they think he's stereotypically gay, is meanwhile scoring with just about all his lady clients (a condition Beatty was known for offscreen as well). Shampoo was considered incredibly shocking for its time, and other than Beatty banging (offscreen) the teenage Carrie Fisher (the daughter of one his "clients," played by Lee Grant), and "that" line from a drunk Julie Christie ("I want to suck his cock!"), it's really kind of tame by today's standards. Still, people walked out of preview screenings when Christie offered that bon mot back then. I suppose Beatty and director Hal Ashby captured a specific time in a bottle with this film, but it's not a pleasant time. And it's one of those films that looks incredibly dated now. It always amazes me that I can watch The Maltese Falcon or Casablanca and accept their eras and looks so readily. Those films are timeless to me, but something that was filmed in an era in which I grew up or older, looks almost laughable. For as cutting edge and nervy as Shampoo was back then, it's not now. Shampoo contains probably the best single performance by Goldie Hawn I've ever seen in a movie, right at the point where she was becoming a star, and before she became "Goldie Hawn" as we know her today.
I had recorded and saved The Parallax View, in anticipation of my Beatty book reading, way back around Christmas time when it aired on TCM. I had never seen it before. It's a 1974 political thriller directed by Alan Pakula, who would go on to make the ultimate political/journalism thriller in 1976 with All the President's Men. There are a lot of similarities between the two films, including the journalism background, the feeling of creeping paranoia, and most of all, the music (David Shire did the music for both films). Beatty is much more of an actor in this than he is in Shampoo, but that probably has more to do with his character than any kind of acting "style." He plays a down-on-his-luck Seattle based reporter who is present when a Senator is assassinated on the Space Needle. Three years later, everyone who was a witness has pretty much died. He's drawn in to investigating this when a TV reporter (Paula Prentiss, wasted in a three-minute role), comes to him to alert him that all these people are dead, and she fears she's next. The movie itself is convoluted and nonsensical at times, and you never really get the answer as to why everything is happening, other than some shadowy organization exists to train assassins. And it's another 1970s movie that wears its era like an albatross around its neck.
Next up for me was Bugsy, which I had never seen before. I love these kind of historical epic films, especially when gangsters are involved, and Beatty and director Barry Levinson do a fine job with the story of the legendary Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, the gangster who "invented" Las Vegas. This is also the film in which Beatty cast and wooed Annette Bening, the woman who he actually settled down with (the couple has four children). This is probably Beatty's best performance, and it shows how good he can be as an actor with a strong director. The film itself is episodic and a bit disjointed because of it, but hey...so is history. And there is real chemistry between Bening and Beatty.
Last but not least there's Beatty's epic, his Citizen Kane, Reds. It is a sweeping David Lean-esque filmabout John Reed, the American writer who became a part of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and beyond and is the only American buried in the Kremlin. Beatty, who co-wrote, produced, directed, and cattle-prodded his way onto the screen with this 3 hour and 15 minute piece—during a time (1981) when America was turning more and more conservative under Ronald Reagan—was coming off an unprecedented success with Heaven Can Wait, his directorial debut. Co-starring his current girlfriend at the time, Diane Keaton (herself coming off Annie Hall and Looking for Mr. Goodbar) as Louise Bryant and Jack Nicholson as playwright Eugene O'Neill, plus a cast of thousands, this movie only really heats up in the second half, after the intermission (yes...it's so long it has an intermission), when Reed is stranded in Russia and Bryant goes looking for him, crossing the frozen tundra of red-hating Finland and risking life and limb to find him. At its heart, Reds is a love story, and if Beatty isn't on the screen, Keaton is, and they are incredibly compelling together (even if she ended up despising him by the end of the shoot). Keaton is best known for her comedies, first with Woody Allen, and more recently as the incredibly intelligent yet ditzy woman who almost always plays the writer or editor or whatever in a series of forgettable films that make you want to cry out, "Say NO once in a while!" (to movie offers, that is). She has never been better as an actress than in this film, and she has Beatty to thank for that. The film was nominated for 12 Oscars and won 3, including Best Director for Beatty. Reds is long, boring at times, even more so preachy, but wonderful when it focuses on the relationship between Reed and Bryant, which is--fortunately--most of the time.
Posted at 09:00 AM in DVD | Permalink | Comments (2)
Peter Biskind's new book on Warren Beatty is called Star: How Warren Beatty Seduced America. I'm not quite sure Beatty's seduction extended any farther than the far-eastern limits of Sunset and Santa Monica Boulevards, to be honest. But Biskind's book is fascinating nonetheless.
In the limited coverage it's received the main focus has been on Beatty's sex life, but the book is really about the one thing he loved equally as much as he loved women: Making films. Beatty made really only four great films in his career (which, for all intents and purposes, seems to be over): Bonnie and Clyde, Shampoo, Heaven Can Wait, and Reds--although you can argue that Bugsy should be in there, too. He became a star at an early age, mainly because of his handsome good looks and hair, something he, too, seemingly couldn't keep his eyes off of. There's plenty of tales of Warren's romances in this 552-page tome (an additional 60 or so pages includes footnotes and an index), but if you're looking for a non-stop romp from bed to bed, it's not really here. (Maybe Kitty Kelley will write that book; that kind of dreck seems to be her specialty...her next target is Oprah.) I'd reckon a guess that this is 3/4 Beatty's movies and 1/4 his love life, but both are equally fascinating.
But Beatty as a filmmaker--no matter how canny and talented he was during his prime--is one of the most annoying Hollywood types ever, and it's a wonder any film he was involved in ever got completed. He is likened in the book to being a "selector," not a director, in that he shoots so much footage of every scene--take after maddening take--and then selects the best scene, whereas other directors have a much clearer vision of the film when they walk onto the set each day. As a writing collaborator, he's even more frustrating, yet a number of writers in the book say they'd work with him again, no matter how frustrating he was or how much they wanted to kill him. Just about all of Beatty's movies are chronicled in loving detail, from idea to pre-production to filming to post-production to critical assessment (this is the one part where the book bogs down; Biskind's own critiques of the films often drag on and on and are way too high-falutin' for me). But all in all, it's a fascinating look at how the most seductive man in Hollywood (at one time) almost always got his way, from Bonnie and Clyde through Reds, at least.
But the most amazing part of this book--to me, anyway--occurs almost at the end, when the usually smart Ariana Huffington is introduced. Huffington comes up with the "brilliant" idea that after the political comedy Bullworth (the last film Beatty directed), perhaps Warren himself should become a presidential candidate. If there's one thing that is apparent throughout the book it's that Beatty cannot make a decision. Like the old Jack Benny joke--"Your money or your life!" says the mugger, and Benny pauses to reflect: "I'm thinking it over!"--Beatty's thought process precluded instant decisions and not just on topics that involved money. Here was a man who could decide in a second who he wanted to go to bed with but would dilly-dally over the most minute of minutia for weeks at a time. Beatty as politician is the scariest thought ever, except maybe for the two words that strike cold, steely fear in my heart and mind: President Beatty.
Yet, for all his womanizing and indecisiveness, the minute he met Annette Bening, he knew this was the woman he wanted to settle down with and have children (they had 4). Perhaps it's Bening's straight forward demeanor and classy sex appeal, but she was the one for him. I find that strangely touching (although perhaps half the people who still know who Beatty is are waiting for the divorce papers to be drawn up...such is his reputation).
I believe Peter Biskind is one of the best film history writers working today. The Beatty bio is an outgrowth of his excellent Easy Riders, Raging Bulls which chronicled the changing world of Hollywood in the '60s and '70s. Any book as well-researched as either of these two takes years to write. I don't know what Biskind will tackle next, but I'll be waiting for it.
Posted at 09:00 AM in What I'm reading | Permalink | Comments (0)