Well, dear readers, it has cooled down a little here in Los Angeles, California. Yesterday was, as expected, very busy at work, although the notes to the two pieces I’ve been working on were very minimal. Today and tomorrow are very easy days, so that’s nice, and then on Monday the rush to finish two more pieces is back. And the story goes on – oh, a Maltby and Shire reference. We had a lovely lively and sparkling chat last night, with a lovely and lively roomful of people.
Last night I went to the Pacific Dome and saw the Cinerama presentation of How the West Was Won. Even when I saw this film as a wee sprig of a twig of a lad of a tad of a youth I didn’t love it. There were things in it that were wonderful and exciting, and lots that just left me cold. I still feel that way, but what a thrill to see it in its original Cinerama presentation after all these years. The Dome does have its share of problems but it’s still great no matter what. Problem one is that the screen in the Dome is not as high as the original Cinerama screen. Problem two is the screen is not as deeply curved as the original Cinerama screen, and problem three is that the screen is not louvered like the original Cinerama screen. The louvered screen was designed so that the side panels didn’t lose any light, so at the Dome the side panels are often not bright enough, although it seemed less problematic this time than it was for This is Cinerama a few months ago. But what a treat, and if you’re in Los Angeles, California, I can’t recommend a trip to the Dome highly enough. Next up in a few weeks – a special new print of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, which was the premiere attraction when the Dome opened its doors close to thirty years ago. Mad World, of course, was not shown in three panel Cinerama, it just used its name – it was actually shot in Ultra Panavision 70, as was 2001. In fact, the Cinerama Dome never showed three panel Cinerama until earlier this year.
Well, why don’t we all click on the Unseemly Button below because I must get to work, don’t you know?
As I said yesterday, there are apparently some people who are confused by this here site. They are confused that a website called haineshisway.com might just be about either Guy Haines or, in his absentia, me. Now, I would understand that if this here website were called thisisn’t aboutguyhainesorbk.com or youwontfindanyinfohereaboutanyonenamedguyorbk.com and we talked about Guy or me that there would be confusion. Personally, I think only an idiot would be confused. Yes, you heard it here, dear readers, I said I think only an idiot would be confused. I do hope that no one minds that since these here notes are called bk’s notes II that they do occasionally happen to be about bk or, at the very least, II. I just don’t want anyone to be confused, especially over at naysayers.com. From whence does there confusion stem? I actually think there is no confusion at all except in their grasp on reality. I’m actually just writing this here paragraph because I’m certain one of them will read it and I do want to give them fodder, even though one trip through the negative obnoxiousness that is their little cabal home was enough to last me a lifetime. So, they get to write there and I get to write here, but the joy, of course, is that about twelve people read their “drivel” while quite a few more read my “drivel”. That is because our drivel isn’t designed to hurt people or cause people grief. And, as always, these people complain that once, long ago, I took them on – why is it they can always dish it out but can never take it in return. They cry like stuck little piggie-wiggs is what they do. Well, to them I can only say what goes around comes around. Hasta la vista, baby. Did I shoot five bullets or six? Well, in all this excitement I just clean forgot. So, you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? What am I, Clint Eastwood all of a sudden.
My goodness what a long paragraph that was. But it had a certain amount of oomph, I thought. It had a certain amount of zotz and zing, I thought. It had pow and pizazz and was piquant and sharp as rotting cheddar cheese. In short, it had that thing, that certain thing.
Well, dear readers, I must take the day, I must do the things I do, I must work all the livelong day and then I must come home and relax. Oh, I’m sorry, was I talking about me? I didn’t mean to. Let me redo this: Well, dear readers, someone must take the day, someone must do the things he/she/it will do, someone must work all the livelong day and then come home and relax. Is that better? Today’s topic of discussion: Why do you suppose it’s necessary for some people to spread nothing but negativity in the world? What are the reasons? I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. Second topic o’ discussion: What are the most interesting shows you’ve seen, directorially. Ones where you actually thought afterwards that it was amazingly directed? For me, Oh, Dad, Poor Dad, Mama’s Hung You in the Closet and I’m Feelin’ so Sad was one – Jerome Robbins, amazing job. And Gower Champion’s production of A Flea in Her Ear was brilliant – so filled with clever and incredible staging. And Hal Prince and Michael Bennett’s work on Follies. Astonishing. Your turn.