Haines His Way

DEAR LURKER BRIAN CRANE:

we know you're out there, oh yes we do, taking note of all we post.  For, you see, last week DR DerBrucer posted a little story with the line "How about giving a senior citizen a break here?" and what do I find when I open my Sunday paper?  Why, the very same story in your comic strip Pickles® and also at your web site: http://www.comics.com/wash/pickles/

Delurk, you rascal, you, and give credit where credit is due.

ooops! I thought it obvious my post was a "lift". I gave no attribution because if was sent uncredited to me in an EMail - I suspect you DT WEO (DT=Dear Dectective) has unearthed the source.  

der repentant Brucer

Who made me the genius I am today,
The poster that others all quote,
Who's the professor that made me that way?
The greatest that ever got chalk on his coat.

One man deserves the credit,
One man deserves the blame,
And Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.
Hi!
Nicolai Ivanovich Lobach-

I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in posting:
Plagiarize!

Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

with apologies to Tom Lehrer

I suspect our audience had more receptive listeners (read: older gay men) than did the previews. Woody disagrees, he thinks this performance had more out-of-towners attending, more open to the play’s ironies.

Actually, our audience was significantly younger than the preview audience!  While there was an eclectic mix of ages and genders at yesterday's matinee, when I saw "I Am My Own Wife" in previews, the audience consisted mainly of women (Lesbians, mostly, as I learned while eaves-dropping in the ladies room) in their 50s or 60s.  After I considered it further, I do think that Jefferson Mays is performing the role slightly differently now.  His performance was far more subtle in previews, allowing both the humor and the sadness to be expressed by his face alone, while now he incorporates more variation vocally.  Though I found the play to be far more moving in previews, I found yesterday's performance to be more engaging and enjoyable.  I also noticed that the play is significantly shorter now, meaning either that Mays has increased his rate of speech substantially or that some material was cut.

Doug Wright wrote a letter to the New York Times (printed in today's Arts & Leisure section) about homophobic subtext in "The Passion".  I found it interesting and rude that the Times did not include a "Mr. Wright is the author of Broadway's 'I Am My Own Wife'" after his signature, because that would have offered some perspective on his argument about how homosexuality ought to be presented in art.

How was "Wonderful Town"?

My daughter, who is in Hungary and Switzerland right now -

Left foot- Switzerland, right foot -  Hungary!

Doug Wright wrote a letter to the New York Times (printed in today's Arts & Leisure section) about homophobic subtext in "The Passion".  I found it interesting and rude that the Times did not include a "Mr. Wright is the author of Broadway's 'I Am My Own Wife'" after his signature, because that would have offered some perspective on his argument about how homosexuality ought to be presented in art.

There's homophobic subtext all over that misbegotten movie; King Herod and his coterie are portrayed as mincing, crossdressing sissies; Satan is played by a woman with a dubbed-in man's voice.  If there are sure ways to make a fundamentalist audience respond favorably, portray homosexuals as unsavory stereotypes, and blur gender lines...it gets them every time.  

Not only is there anti-gay subtext all over this movie, it's fetishistic focussing on Christ's torture and suffering is so over-the-top (and unbelievable!) that I found myself becoming desensitized to His suffering.  

And exactly how many times did Christ fall in s-l-o-w m--o--t--i--o--n?  I lost count.  And that overblown score?  Gimme a break...!

I know this movie is getting rave reviews all over the place, but they're obviously watching it with a very different perspective from my own.  I thought it was reprehensible.  

Good afternoon all!

Just got back from shopping. And I've been trying to catch up on today's posts.

Hope everyone is having a good Sunday.

I have another word origin question: As a punishment, school kids are made to stay after school.  This is called "detention" ... was the word (and punishment) in use in the early 1950's?

You betcha. Red Rider!
Been there. seen that, done that - in der early fifties!

Here is an extract from an Article about English Boarding school in the 1920's:

And for those who were caught...

Detention was given in multiples of a quarter of an hour, mainly for so-called idleness and misbehaviour in class.  It consisted of copying out from a book, usually a history book, for the given time.  At least there was no need for a boy to write fast.  All awards of detention were read out by Mr Easterfield in Assembly at the end of the morning.  If he found that a boy had so much detention that it amounted to two hours or more, he said "Come to the study", the boy then had it 'whacked off'.  A boy could also go himself and ask to 'have two hours whacked off'.  This was a merit in Mr Easterfield's eyes: he liked a boy who showed spunk.

My Own Trumpet; A F Lace

der Brucer (leaving it to TCB to comment on "whacked off"!)

There's homophobic subtext all over that misbegotten movie; King Herod and his coterie are portrayed as mincing, crossdressing sissies; Satan is played by a woman with a dubbed-in man's voice.  If there are sure ways to make a fundamentalist audience respond favorably, portray homosexuals as unsavory stereotypes, and blur gender lines...it gets them every time.  

Not only is there anti-gay subtext all over this movie, it's fetishistic focussing on Christ's torture and suffering is so over-the-top (and unbelievable!) that I found myself becoming desensitized to His suffering.  

And exactly how many times did Christ fall in s-l-o-w m--o--t--i--o--n?  I lost count.  And that overblown score?  Gimme a break...!

I know this movie is getting rave reviews all over the place, but they're obviously watching it with a very different perspective from my own.  I thought it was reprehensible.  

I don't think there is any force on earth that could persuade me to sit through this film, and DR Robin's comments only solidify my resolve to avoid it like the plague.

And I've been meaning for two days to say,,,
Do feel better, Jrand 53! Good health vibes to you!

I agree with WFO above. And I hope, Jenny, that you got a chance to read director John Hirsch's remarks about feeling "the outsider" - posted by me yesterday evening. His remarks about theatre ain't too shabby either.
(Mind you, (that's a general "you") no one responded with comments . Sigh. And I didn't just paste the remarks from a website. No sir. I typed them out with my own little hands... over a hot computer... Not that anyone should feel pressured to read them. Just thought I'd mention it Oh, I have to go and change the bandages on my injured hands.)

Then back to readin, writin' and (one of the few blessings of being all grown up) NO 'rithmetic.

Something picked up from your Gabor kin - no balancing of check book!

I also am looking forward to a NW HHW dear readers get together! I look very forward to meeting TCB, Jed, George, Jane, JMK, and Ann (am I leaving someone out? Seems like there are a couple more around the Pacific Northwest). And of course my wish would be for JRand53 to fly in for the partay!

Maybe this summer! Maybe there will be a really good play or movie to go to...or just dinner and a walk around downtown Portland?

I know this movie is getting rave reviews all over the place, but they're obviously watching it with a very different perspective from my own.  I thought it was reprehensible.  

And you are not alone in your disgust:

FromAndrew Sullivan :

WARNING: EXTRACT CONTAINS VERY GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLENCE


PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h'ors d'oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn't even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail - which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man's eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot.

While we're talking about CITY LIGHTS -- I have a question/discussion topic for the DRs.
NOTE: SPOILER for those who haven't seen the film, so don't read on.
I've read a few articles about the film this morning. All of them assume that the Blind Girl accepts Charlie. I'd have to look at the ending again (my eyes were blurred with tears) - but it didn't seem like a slam dunk to me. To me, on that one blurry viewing, it looked like she was surprised and grateful, and filled with pity, but not that she would/could love him as a man.  "I can see now" does not necessarily mean"Yes, and seeing you, I accept you and love you as before." The whole film is after all about reality and illusion. The Millionaire only loves Charlie when he's blind drunk. In the cold sober light of day, he shuns him. The police assume that Charlie stole the money, they can't see the truth. And so on....  
This may be my Hungarian view of things. Perhaps there is a rosier interpretation. Perhaps the Little Tramp went to work in the flower shop and they got married and had babies that the Grandmother babysat and they all lived happily ever after. That would be lovely. What do you all think? (None of this, of course, makes one whit of difference in enjoying the film - which was SO good. I'm actually lucky in a way that I hadn't seen it before. It was like opening up a new and absolutely delightful gift.)

Funny, but mabye it is Canadian in me. But I never forsaw a happy ending for City Lights. I think that after that moment the tramp will walk away and never see the girl again. The image to me says. I am glad you can see and that you don't have to worry about me. I will be all right

I have a question for those in the know about the latest production lingo....  Just finished reading a book review written by Richard Schickel in the LA Times. In his little bio it states that Schickel is at the moment producing a "reconstruction" of Sam Fuller's THE BIG RED ONE for Warner Bros.

So - I'm not sure what is meant by "reconstruction"... Is the movie being re-edited to include lost footage? Is it being remade shot by shot like the misguided remake of PSYCHO? Or have they just found another word for "remake"...?

And you are not alone in your disgust

Never let it be said I don't give credit where it's due; but Mr. Sullivan wrote it better than I ever could...and I rarely agree with him on anything.  But we're on the same page here...