Rotwang’s Arm

Rebel By Default

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 5 May 2010 11:08:00 -0500

[This will be part of the Rebel Rebel episode of the Rotcast podcast. Find us on ITunes].

I was a rebel only once…by default. It was Richmond, Kentucky…Model High School. I googled the school website out of curiosity and the students now call themselves the “Patriots”. I'm happy to say mine was a less politically correct time. When I went to Model, the older students enjoyed rekindling the spirit of the losing South, possibly because there was no danger of bullets or bayonets reaching them from across time and making them regret that choice. Kentucky was a border state during the Civil War. But when I went to Model High School we were definitely “Rebels”.

The year was 1971.

The real Model High School rebels were the juniors and seniors. They were wild, and free. We were younger, impressionable, and hardly rebellious. We merely watched in awe.

I was settling into life in Kentucky. I had been through several traumatic events when my eye was caught by an older women. She was in 8th and I was in 7th grade. Thankfully, I don't remember the awkwardness, but I can remember one very scary date I made with the beautiful Mary Sue. I'm going to remember it backwards.

First I arrived home shaken. I believe my mom remembers this as well. I must have presented quite a picture. Before I made it home, I had sprinted through a graveyard whistling. Quite a cliché that, but there was in fact a graveyard between the Eastern Kentucky University campus auditorium and my direct path home. It wouldn't have made any sense to walk around.

On some other night it wouldn't have been so eerie. I was on foot and alone after my date was picked up. The college students headed towards their campus dorms in the opposite direction. No one was heading in my direction. I was too young to drive so I waited with my date Mary outside the auditorium. Her family eventually came and picked her up. I felt a little better emerging from the theater alive. I had been expending half my energies trying to hide any signs of fear, while sitting with Mary. It was Halloween and I was afraid of the film.

The movie we had just seen was The House that Screamed. A poorly dubbed Spanish horror AKA: La residencia. I never enjoyed horror films but what was most unnerving about the experience was that the audience was made mostly of screaming college girls. They were having a terrific time screaming at every opportunity. I now realize they were trying to be funny due to the title of the film. Well it was too much audience participation for me and it had the effect of an extra cinematic sensation, like a William Castle picture. He was the impresario who installed buzzers under patron's theater seats to provoke an additional adrenalin rush at key moments.

It this film the big reveal at the end is a mother has an insane son who builds a “perfect woman” out of body parts taken from various boarding school girls, whom he has murdered and butchered, and assembled into a horrific mess. Yuck! No one suspects the boy, because he is young and small. The movie lays some ground work for the boys psychotic behavior. Earlier in the film you see the mother repeatedly telling her son that the girls in her care (and that he finds attractive) are NO good. And the mother is a little too clingy. So in the end, the lunatic basically implicates his mother in his crimes. She drove him to it.

I found the film disturbing for its themes and dramatic presentation. My mission was a romantic one, The slaughter happening on screen was a distraction. But we were very young rebels. There was not much more to be expected from that date besides hanging out with college kids.

I have just ordered the DVD of La Residencia. I think enough time has passed now.

___________________________

The Next Five Rotcasts

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:37:00 -0600

The next series of rotcasts will start with five themes that bleed into each other, starting with the “England Swings”. Within that show we will give a thumbnail sketch of several movies made in London during the 1960s. Among them will be: Darling, Repulsion, Georgie Girl, Bunny Lake is Missing and If. To move away from the swinging sixties, we will compare If with an earlier U.S. film called Rebel Without a Cause. This will transition us into show “Rebel, Rebel”.

I am only talking about movies in the Rotcast series, but Rotcast is setup to be a magazine of topics we enjoy, so there will be the usual talking heads and wine reviews. I have recently learned that another podcast uses the title of rotcast as a subtitle for some movie related content on their podcast. That's unfortunate, but they concentrate mostly on movies, and again we are a magazine with various departments. We will occasionally speak about movies. Old movies. We will not recommend these films, but use the movies as subject for analysis and hopefully, tangents.

In Rebel, Rebel We will jump back in time again to discuss The Wild One. And hopefully transition into our show themed: “Fathers”. (We will pivot subjects using the slang “taking a brody” which is used in The Wild One and The Dark Corner).

Fathers will transition into “All New Crime Favorites” which will transition into “New York at Night”.

To outline the order:
England Swings
Rebel, Rebel
Fathers
All New Crime Favorites
New York at Night

Followed by, but not necessarily in this order:
House Nice
All Blue Issue
Animal Follies
Not Quite Human
Heroes

I am in the process of establishing a Questionaire for these themes. You will be able to find them at www.rotcast.com. ( The original)

More later.--Rotwang

Rotcast Questionnaire for Series 1

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:40:00 -0500

We are going to extend our first ten episodes of Rotcast by adding contributions from listeners. If you see a question below which, reminds you of a personal narrative please write a 250 word or less account. Or Call the Rotline (206.888.6844) and record your answer to one of the questions below. If you wish to propose a line of questions for a future theme, announce the theme in the body of your e-mail or voice message.

Submissions become the property of Rotcast. Keep it clean. We will not use any submission with explicit language. If we deem your submission worthy, we may send you some token. Leave your contact e-mail if you would like to be considered for this gift. (Email information remains confidential. It will not be traded or sold. Only one confirmation e-mail will be sent you.)

Episode # 1—Cherry/Firsts

* Do you remember how you spent your first paycheck? Where did that money go?
* Who was your first pinup or idol or hero? How do you feel about them now?
* Tell of a memory with cherries?

Episode #2—Show Bee

* What do you imagine Second Life to be like?
* Have you ever been taken aback by your own reflection? When?
* You meet your doppelganger in an elevator. They greet you by name. Creepy right? What do you do next?
* Tell us a memory that contains a bee or bees.

Episode #3—Noir Couples

* You are about to die in a natural disaster and you must choose one other person to die with. Who would you take? Follow up question: What if you had to spend an eternity with them?
* Which of these bad mates would you choose if you had to: A mate who helps you do things that are destructive to yourself. A mate you can never please, or a selfish mate who only thinks of his or her self. Explain your choice?

Episode #4—Special Fashion Issue

* Can you describe a piece of clothing fondly? Do you still wear it?
* What are your feelings about polyester clothing, or any man-made fibers?

Episode #5—Your Body and You

* If everyone had to have a tattoo what would yours be and where would you place it?

Episode #6—Food and Violence

* Tell us a real memory involving food being thrown?
* Have you ever destroyed food.
* Who would you like to see in a pie fight?
* What was your biggest failure in the kitchen?

Episode #7—The Clowns

* What was your favorite Halloween custume?
* Have you ever dressed up for comical affect (explain)?
* Are funny females hot (attractive)?
* Clowns: Scary or just Sad?

Episode #8—Mothers

* What song did your mother sing to you? Sing as much as you can of the song (calls only).
* Did your mother play favorites?
* Did your mother ever wash your face with spit? Why?

Episode #9—Luck

* Have you ever had your fortune told by a professional? Where and when? Did you take it to heart?
* When was your lucky day?
* Who's the luckiest person you know? Why?

Episode #10—The Grand Illusion

* Tell of a memory with something artificial or fake: hair, snow, grass, intelligence. etc.
* Tell of a memory with puppets, smoke or mirrors
* Recount a time you enjoyed being tricked.
* Have you ever misdirected anyone (why)?

Double Feature—a Winner of a Podcast

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:42:00 -0500

I had a small difference of opinion with a podcast last December over a piece of hate mail I wrote in reaction to a “review” from a second and separate podcast. The original review did not do service to a favorite film of mine (Touch of Evil), and it galled me a bit. It was a situation that could only happen in the inner connected world of internet radio and blogging. I will not bore you here. If you are curious you can go back to What Did I Expect? post.

I come to you today to praise a show that gets it right. The Podcast is called Double Feature (Check them out. Click here.).

I’ve listened to several of their shows and they also covered Touch of Evil and other films noir. They discuss two movies per podcast. I was intrigued enough with their review of Kinky Boots to give it a rent and it was quite an enjoyable night at the movies. Thanks guys! But back to noir. They are young reviewers, but they show some respect to the old films. They do a bit of research. They explain how they came to the noir and the interesting back story for the picture they discuss. They also, like another podcast I know, show their youth by not being familiar with the old-time actor's careers (Edward G. Robinson). They habitually tie some action, plot, or visual from an older film to something created in their lifetime. (probably from the horror genre), but it is impossible to fault Double Feature for this. It is natural enough to compare something unfamiliar to something familiar, and this is a good entré for others their age or younger. What raises these fellows above a host of others is they do not come the to older material with an attitude. They are not sneering or bored, like punks. They take a real interest in their own topics. Yay!

They are also creative. They recast Touch of Evil with Robert Rodriguez actors. At first I thought that I wouldn't enjoy this exercise, but I was surprised by their efforts. I could imagine the alternative version of Touch of Evil, and it was still good.

I will be talking about Double Feature again I know. Right now I'm heading for ITunes to rate them five fingers.

For the Kiddies

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:53:00 -0600

Though I keep this blog clean, many of the podcasts I review use adult language. The shows do this mostly for shock and because the Peter Pans who make up the male audience for these shows, still think rude is rad. I am often surprised when a stream of rudeness comes out of a podcaster’s mouth, followed closely by a reference to their young children just upstairs. Well this posting is definitely for those dudes who also happen to be charged with raising children. If they really want to shock someone they should bring home this book for the tots. Not because the book is shocking, but because their wife will be astonished to find there is unexpected maturity and caring beneath that veneer of retarded behavior.

What To Do About Alice? is the story of Teddy Roosevelt’s eldest daughter and the shenanigans she gets into before, during, and after her father's presidency. It's a picture book for young readers. The writing is clever and presents the events in Alice’s life like bullet points as easy to absorb as M&Ms in the trail mix. The illustrations are topnotch with a great deal of energy and movement. The story would be a great story for a father to share with his daughter. I think young boys would be less interested in the book for the central story, but may be curious about Theodore Roosevelt as a person. And again the pictures hold a lot of fun for boys and girls.

The book is written by Barbara Kerley; illustrated by Edwin Fotheringham; Published by Scholastic Press. It's for ages 4-8, It's hardcover, 48 pages. 12.1 x 8.4 inches.

It is $11.55 new and as low as $7.00 used on Amazon.

Breaking Up is Hard to Do

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:16:00 -0600

I want to be classy about this so, all I want to say is one of my favorite podcasts has bitten the big one. It didn't podfade. It didn't even change that much. But now it displeases. I have to break up with it. It just slipped across a line in my mind between good and bad taste. Elements of immature frat-humor were always present, but when I start to feel like I'm getting dumber listening to a show and embarrassed to think anyone might associate me as a listener of a show, It is time to vote with my feet.

It might sound like I'm upset. It is a lost for me. It was free. It was fun. For awhile there was the illusion I was having fun with the podcasters and that was a high. But Podcasting should be the most fun for the show hosts. Otherwise, why do it? Now other shows need my support.

Here is a show that I urge you to try: Decoder Ring Theater This would not be for everyone's taste. It is a nostalgia trip. It would be great to play in the car on a trip with kids. The show is a group of voice actors bringing back the golden age of radio. In the past they have created Sci-Fi and The Shadow like serials, that are pretty much pitched to kids. The Red Panda series is “cute”. I prefer their current show of Black Jack Justice. A show about two detectives one male and one female. They are equal to the task and equals to each other. This series on Decoder Ring Theater is also cute, but a little more adult cute. I would say that kids 5-10 might go for the Red Panda and kids 12-45 might enjoy Black Jack Justice. Decoder Ring Theater holds the honor of being one of the few shows this tightwad has ever contributed actual money too.

Empty Dollhouse

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:50:00 -0600

I have just listened to Alyssa host of The Big Red Podcast’s review of the new TV pilot for the Dollhouse (Fox). I agree with Alyssa's comments wholeheartedly.

I watched with an intensity born from a love of Whedon's other series Firefly. I was on board if it was going to have a certain amount of eye candy, but the pilot was morally reprehensible.

I didn’t understand that Echo’s first “mission” was actually as a call girl until well into the second half, when one of her dumb memories made it clearer. This isn't the first televised play dealing with sex and currency, but the thing that twists this too far is the way the Stepford wives horror is presented. There is no loss of humanity, there is no consequence. There is no conscience depicted in the hero or elsewhere.

It’s a bad, bad, premise. But it is also stupid. If the Dollhouse business works so well, and their scruples are conditional, why don’t they become kidnappers and skip the pretense of any do-gooding? My wife asked me if at the end, the Dollhouse organization returned the ransom. And after considering it, I not only think they did not return the money, I don’t remember seeing them return the little girl. Maybe they flew her away in a helicopter and later made her into meat pies.

It had one decent (Whedon-esque) line at the beginning. “Ever try to clean a slate?” That is hardly enough to base a show upon.

Firefly fans would compare the character arc of River Tam and Echo. Their stories are inverse. River's brain is clumsily cut up by an evil organization. She struggles with the scars. Echo signs over her soul and joins an evil organization. She lives happily ever after.

Pepsi Poops Out

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:39:00 -0600

Obama's logo for a political race is very good. Usually campaigns have no style.

Pepsi’s new logo just looks like a lazy version of their old logo. It looks tired. Maybe mad that you woke it up. At least their new plastic bottles come with a foreskin. Who is making Pepsi's marketing choices? Coke?

Black Yet Happy

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:23:00 -0600

I have always been interested in gangster films. Maybe my favorite film is the Maltese Falcon. It is arguably the first film noir. Hollywood still occasionally tries to do a film reminiscent of a Maltese Falcon, but nothing I’ve seen really gets the chemistry. The closest maybe The Usual Suspects. So wanting more, I have started exploring earlier films noir. Most of my information about the genre has come from a podcast called Out of the Past: Investigating Film Noir. I highly recommend this podcast to anyone interested in film. I’ve listened to their shows over and over, again. Their analysis holds something like the joy of seeing the films, because they are obviously passionate and knowledgeable.

As I listen through the Out of the Past series hosted by Clute and Edwards, I have come to realize what I like from a film noir. And it is a little surprising. I do not really enjoy the films that end badly for the subjects of the film. This is funny because you could almost say that a downer ending is part of the definition of a film noir. I like the ones where the lovers come together and it seems they might have a relationship as a couple. This realization has me wondering about the depths of my shallowness.

Let me give some examples. Gun Crazy is a film full of interesting moments. The courtship at the circus with guns. The lead actress and femme fatal Peggy Cummins is a totally hot babe (see jpeg above). She is also “crazier than a pair of waltzing mice”. Clute and Edwards describe the very point in Gun Crazy where the filmmakers were obliged by the Hollywood standards board to include a scene moralizing against criminal behavior. But that does not ruin the film as much as the ending. To me it becomes waiting for the inevitable.

Now compare that to the film Gilda. It is described as a Rita Hayworth vehicle full of Hollywood glitz. But also a film noir based on abnormal psychology. Glenn Ford in this case, seems to be the crazy member in a love triangle. He is shown to be punishing, and vengeful to an extreme far beyond any forgiving. Mind you, we as viewers of Gilda are never let in on the secret from his past that fills Ford with so much hate. Clute and Edwards keenly point out where the film veers away from film noir. Where the film should end in hopelessness for Rita. But Gilda ends with the couple deciding out of the blue to start over. Totally unrealistic considering what has gone before. Still I enjoy the false happy ending way more than Gun Crazy’s foggy finish. Here are some other films noir that might not have the big happy ending, but at least don’t depress.

Brick
The Glass Key
Miller’s Crossing
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
I Wake Up Screaming
His Kind of Women
Pick Up on Southstreet
Touch of Evil
Lady From Shanghai
Glida
Murder My Sweet
Laura

I highly recommend His Kind of Women starring Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell. It was my favorite find from the Out of the Past podcast. It is just a whole lot of fun and weird. Surprise it was created by Howard Hughes. Rent it.

Open Letter to Outside The Cinema Podcast

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:32:00 -0600

Please explain Episode #42 Underrated Zombie Pieces with a Touch of Evil.

No. Let me Explain. Explanation number 1. You thought the title “Touch of Evil” had something to do with Zombies.

Explanation number 2. You are really praying for some hate mail. Here's that hate mail you ordered. Touch of Evil gets a grade of B? “If you're into crime or noir films, it might be for you.”?

On one hand it was refreshing to listen to a review of Touch of Evil that ignores the opening crane/tracking shot, which is de rigor for any mention of the film. Unfortunately, that deficit is only the brightest highlight revealing your ignorance.

The more intelligent of the pair of you at least uttered the word “layers”. You should maybe crack a book and learn something about a film before you open your yaps. Or better yet, stick to what you do best: making lists. You shallow youngsters.

When I was a youngster, this film always hypnotized me. I would usually catch the end of it on TV. Charlton Heston wading in the dark, with a tape recorder, in the water and under a bridge. It would end and I would be left curious about the rest of the film. You mentioned the very different kind of role this was for Heston. This might have been the initial source of my curiosity. I disagree that the movie is unclear about the nationality of Heston's character. It is made very clear. You weren't paying attention.

The movie is so meta and a code book for Orson's career and the movie-making process, if we didn't know that Orson did not choose Heston (it was the reverse) then it might seem like an intentional casting stunt to make Heston's Vargas a key unlocking the legacy of this masterpiece. Remember that there is also Marlene Dietrich established as a chili-slinging gypsy fortuneteller in a Mexican border town. That casting was all Welles and to a lesser degree should similarly create a need to understand there be subtext here. And the cane left behind? Did you see that you goobs?

I can't believe you tools actually suggest that any would-be-viewer of Touch of Evil might want to refrain from simultaneously playing a damn video game because the film demands a bit more from a youngster. To me it sounded like you put this idea to the test. You tried to do both, found the film too powerful a distraction from Gears of Stupidity and decided to just speed-read the DVD packaging.

You should look forward to growing up and really enjoying Touch of Evil.

P.S. More Veruca Salt please.

—Rotwang

Archway Cookies Crumbles

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:00:00 -0500

God NO!

Archway & Mother's Cookie files for bankruptcy
10/7/2008, 7:36 a.m. EDT
The Associated Press

BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (AP) — The maker of Archway and Mother's cookies has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the wake of rising food and fuel costs and plans to end its U.S. operations.

This is a catastrophe.

Where's their bailout. This is getting serious. I repeat: God Nooooo!

Big Red Wrong Again?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:31:00 -0500

I am beginning to understand that it is the way The Big Red Podcast reviews TV that is irritating, not their views. Here is a recent comment I made on their forum.

You are infuriating! You weave the positive comments in so thoroughly with the rhythmic stream of BS—I guess that’s entertainment.

The key to the Fringe pilot is the set up of a dance between mad scientists. All else is secondary. But of that secondary material you found:

The pilot was plot heavy/“the seams are showing”
There was a lot of running around
There wasn’t much character development
The young leads had no chemistry

You didn’t get anything wrong you just made TV conventions seem like mistakes. It is a pilot. It is going to introduce characters. It is going to give them motivations. It is going to develop settings. You seem to ignore that the medium is fast. Would you want the pilot to explain the reasons why the Evil Dynamics Incorporated character has that incredibly weird office space? That would really be fascinating TV. Her choice of decorator, how she found them in the yellowpages.

Deeps made a spot-on comment when he said the young female actress did a lot with expression. Yes. That was amazing. She is cautiously in love. She wants to be apart of a team that doesn’t trust her. She is reluctant to use the power of her office. She is willing to bend her personal code for love…I could go on and on. It isn’t that they didn’t give her character much to do. They gave her face way too much to do, and the actress handled the job and still made it restrained and real. Even when the action is ridiculous, the rest of her performance sells it.

Why would there be chemistry between the young lead characters? She is insanely committed to someone else. By the end of the pilot she should be in shock. The mad scientist’s son starts out as her unwilling instrument. He is wrapped up in daddy issues.

It might be a stronger criticism to mention that the show ends like a TV pilot. Everyone decides to stay together and work with a cow in the corner. I believe the ending was quite badly done. Seams indeed, the sewing machine falls off the table.

I do value The Big Red Podcast’s opinion. They said True Blood was boring and I believe them. I was a fan of Six Feet Under for a few seasons. True Blood is a show by the same creator, but I have heard the man out promoting True Blood and I don't know, maybe he said everything he had to in the earlier series.

Alcohol in its Many Forms

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:13:00 -0500

Recently, It struck me that I had seen and purchased gum with names that conjured alcoholic beverages: Sangria, Colada, Mojito. And I wondered out loud at the Stereo Radiation forum:

“Why is there no alcohol flavored gum? There are alcohol flavored chocolates, Jellies, lollipops” And further...“Why isn't there gum with real alcohol in it? It can't be because it would taste bad, because I still see Gator gum in the stores and it tastes like hell. Maybe they are afraid there would be people dying everywhere choking on their gum as they pass out.”

And Capital Z shot back...

“Beer flavored gum - this has got to be the next thing after the Beer and Clamato thing passes. This would be easy to conceal—you could be in court or something and say 'I need a freshen-up' and then proceed to get hammered.

I not sure if powdered alcohol is possible, but it almost seems like that would have to be a first step.”

He was correct. And lucky for us there is powdered alcohol. So true gum for alcoholics may be on the way. [add links]

Depiction of Carnys

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0500

Below are actors who at some point in their career depicted carnys.

Elvis in Roustabout
Nick Cage in Ghost Rider (his character as a boy)
Frank Morgan, Professor Marvel in The Wizard of Oz
Adrienne Barbeau in the HBO series Carnival (Snake Lady)

Fringe Actor Valley

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:23:00 -0500

My good wife wanted me to add to my Fringe review that she noticed the actor who played Keen Eddie was part of the pilot cast.

We enjoyed the short-lived 2003 BBC series Keen Eddie. The actors name is Mark Valley.

Unfortunately, in the opening episode of Fringe, Mark mostly plays dead. He is flat on his back looking like a man-shape gelatin a good part of the time. When he is up and about, he is very good. In the last moments of the episode, he makes an exit with a bit of an anti-climatic cliffhanger.

I'm not sure that he will be a regular on the show. I imagine you could google that if you were interested in knowing.

A Rotwang* Moment—Fringe the TV Pilot

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:43:00 -0500

Our FBI heroine is sitting in one of the most improbable corporate offices ever! We see white walls with canted geometric bracing forming the corners. The room is the size of an airplane hanger, and completely bare except for a single desk and two chairs. The desk is formed of several huge white cubes balanced on their points with a sheet of glass on top. A women of about 50, dressed in black, is coolly explaining her long and loyal relationship with her employer to the FBI agent. Her employer we know is one of a two-man team that long ago was tasked with developing “fringe” science into applications. This scientist she says saved her life when she contracted cancer. As she explains, she removes the covering for her right arm and proceeds casually around the front of her desk. Her arm is a very sophisticated mechanical device that moves too fluidly to be anything available to present day science. This is creepy. It is to paraphrase Chandler like finding a tarantula on a wedding cake, meeting this character (this villainess) sitting at the center of a pure white office in full sunlight.

This scene occurs mid-way through the pilot for the new Fringe tv show, and is truly a Rotwang moment. The show was created by J.J. Abrams, who is very busy and popular I hear. I am unfamiliar with his other projects except through reputation and reviews.

I have read only one review for the Fringe pilot, and I strongly disagreed with it. The review repeatedly said that the show was written poorly. Examples of writing deficiencies sited were; the ideas are not new; the effects were not that special, and that some of the plotting to move characters around to meet one another was unlikely and didn't ring true. These judgments are ridiculous.

Nothing is new, of course, when looked at piece by piece. The removing of the arm I mentioned, happened in two different Schwarzenegger Sci-Fi movies. And the premise of Fringe sounds very much like the Xfiles. But the writing is good. The dialog is very believable. The plotting of the pilot is going to serve to introduce new characters and can be forgiven a few economies. The special effects shouldn't be too outrageous. This technology isn't suppose to look like magic, merely a little better than what we know.

I really like the setup. Two scientists once worked together. One ends up in a mental hospital drooling on himself (the good one) the other creates a company that may have already taken over the world (the evil one). Samson and Goliath.

A prediction

The 50 year-old women in black, our tarantula, reappeared at the end of the pilot obviously in-charge. I predict she is not working for the evil scientist, but is the evil scientist. Either that or she is the lab assistant who became injured back in the day. The guilt over that accident drove the good scientist into the mental hospital. In fact both parts of my prediction could be true. I may watch this show again.

* For the uninformed — Rotwang was the evil scientist in the Fritz Lang silent film Metropolis (1927). He brings to life an evil robot/replica of Maria. He learned to do this trick by experiments that cost him his own right arm.

Spanish Red

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:03:00 -0500

This is a wine my beautiful sister Elizabeth gave me from her wine shop. I really enjoyed it. I would definitely drink it again. The first taste was very raspberry. Stronger than I had ever tasted. Much of the flavor was in the aroma. Subsequent sips didn't hold the same raspberry sensation. It might have gone into a blackcurrant, I don't really know how that tastes. I drank the wine within a week, replacing the cork from the bottle between meals. It remained a great tasting wine to the last glass. It is a Spanish wine and it wasn't expensive ($8.50). I will definitely be writing more about this wine.

From the winemaker’s website.

COLOMA Garnacha Roja (2005).
Varieties: 100% Garnacha roja.
Young red wine
Vineyard estate: Viña Amelia

Tasting Notes: a bright and intense purple-red, with wild berry fruits notes, offering a fine very fruity aroma with blackcurrant and raspberry notes. Smooth, elegant and rounded with a well structured palate and long aftertaste.

Recommended for: carpaccios, pasta, game, meat, vegetables and cheese.

“It’s not a rotten brain!! It’s a good brain!!”

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:29:00 -0500

Yes—Frau Blooker, I'm a little depressed. I listen to a podcast call ??. I find it most enjoyable. The show is two Michigander men quipping back and forth. They possess a good mixture of intellectual and bawdy humor. They often pick up on stories of the strange. They follow the news, and current events and even when I've heard other shows commenting on the same items, I prefer Stereo Radiation’s attitudes and presentation. They do not try to shock. They maintain a “cool” delivery. They are laid back, yet their minds jump from one association to another very quickly. This is my trouble.

My depression started after they mentioned a comment that I made on their forum. They called out my handle “Rotwang” on their feed. This has happened a few times with other shows and I always get a kick out of the small recognition factor (Obviously this is why the hosts do this. To tickle the fans). But joy turned to sadness when they said I was one of their oldest fans. My mind is wary of double meanings lately, and I quickly thought ?? and ?? (the hosts) are saying I'm old as in “age” not as in “long-time” listener. The truth is I'm a bit of both. I'm probably five to ten years their senior and I did find them quite early on in their broadcasting careers.

If I were in the same room with them say at a party, I could understand them, but I don't think I could interject. I think I may be too old and slow. I found that listening to another podcast live (Redbar Radio) that I couldn't think of much to say or type out what I did mean to say fast enough to be apart of the show. (At the time this seemed like fun.) But now at the Stereo Radiation forum (not live), I have all the time in the world and I can't think of much to say. The hosts of ?? aren't as frenetic as Redbar’s Mike D, but they are nearly as unpredictable. I find them difficult to anticipate. Once I think I have a handle on one of their bits— it changes.

Oh well. As long as they are polite to this geezer, I will enjoy what they do.

HI-FRUCTOSE

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:24:00 -0500

Hi-Fructose magazine’s masthead description is “Under the Counter Culture.” This cute fusion of the phrases “counter culture” and “under the [store] counter or [drug] counter” is very apt. The artwork inside does have a counter culture-ish vibe, like the real counter culture artists of the 1960s some of who appropriated an older 1930s-40s cartooning style to speak of serious subjects like war and holocaust.

Within its pages, Hi-Fructose artists exaggerate with graffiti and the repurposing of found mast-market images and nick-knacks in a way that is sweet and ironic. The chemically enhanced reference of the magazine’s title is only implied as far as I can tell. I have read no overt messages inside the magazine concerning the talking of drugs, but it probably can be taken for granted that drugs were involved with the creation of the artworks. Much of the art looks like elaborate doodles that would require a level of concentration that, I imagine, might be attainable with a little help.

I was looking at Volume 8, which I picked off the rack at Borders books. You might call this art kitsch, but it is a type of kitsch I found very attractive. The magazine is divided into interviews of the artists along with examples of their work.

I will pass the issue on to my nephew, it may inspire his inner artist.

Better in the Dark

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:58:00 -0500

I have always meant to speak more in-depth about the podcasts I enjoy. It is far easier to warn others about poor podcasts than it is to make a case for a good show. For example, I have spent much time maligning Keith and the Girl episodes and guests, but this is only for the attention it might focus back on to my blog. So far this plan hasn't worked. I usually enjoy the Keith and the Girl show. I understand the effort they put in. They deserve their position at the top, but I still feel the need to, on occasion, say hey: that was very bad, or you’re just filling time. Someday I will have to praise their show, beyond remarks about what a benefit they have in Patrice.

The film discussion cast Better in the Dark is created out of Brooklyn and therefore is not too far from Keith and the Girl in region, but the shows overlap very little beyond geography.

If you are interested in film talk, I would advise you to give Better in the Dark several listens. I say several, because the show is quirky. Quirky in a good way. While Derick and Tom are all about discussing production values captured on film, their show is ironically recorded without many niceties or special effects. The sound as I mentioned is only passable. I believe they share a microphone, which accounts for the sound levels rising and falling as one or the other of the podcaster leans into their laptop. The first thing you may notice, however, is the editing.

The editing cuts are often and severe. It almost becomes a punk-like special effect on its own, the equivalent of a director inserting video static (snow) into his film in post-production as a transition. The transitions I say are severe, abrupt, and happen within sentences. This type of editing reminds me of “patches” a way music is refined in a studio. If a musical solo is flubbed or uninspired in the studio, the recording doesn't start over from the beginning, instead a patch is made over the offending portion. Usually the musicians play from one silence to the next for a seamless finished product, but Better in the Dark is all about seams. The patches are so frequent they almost create a rhythm. Another way the audio portion is like music.

At first the seams may be distracting. You will hear words stutter where the patch doesn't quite cover over the original take, but the longer you listen, the less the seams invade your thoughts.

Is this editing intentional? You can tell that tremendous effort is going into the edit. But the sound patches seem to be more a matter of who is talking and possibly what is being said. It seems like a dialog is improvised and polished as the show is being made. So the edits build the show instead of a show being organized or abbreviated later through edits.

The Better in the Dark episodes I have enjoyed most are the ones where the hosts bring their personal stories of how and when they first enjoyed a film, or what in their experience brought them to choose a topic (Pam Grier). They are always enthusiastic about their topics. I appreciate their knowledge of film categories (like blaxploitation) which maybe unfamiliar to me. They quickly summarizing movie plots, finishing each others sentences or one repeating the other for emphasis, which is more endearing than it sounds.

If you are a regular listener to many podcast, you will know how they often plead for money to help improve their show quality. With Better in the Dark, part of me wishes the men did have a better recording setup, but another part of me really enjoys the way they create their shows presently and I wouldn't want a slick new production. (If you want slick try Hollywood Saloon.)

I realize my review may not be eloquent or persuasive enough, but try a few shows out and make up your own mind. Give Better in the Dark a good listen for what they are not sa_saying as well as what they do sa_say.

What’s on the Old Ipod

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:07:00 -0500

These are shows I recommend:

Better In the Dark-Two guys from Brooklyn talk movies (sound quality is passable).

Answer Me This!-Helen, Ollie and their sound-man answer listener questions. Very fastpast, Very funny (from the UK). Any show with a dedicated sound-man should have good sound...it does.

Cinema Diabolica-Two guys talk about trash cinema.

Ramdom Thoughts!-“Ramdom” is spelled like that.I don't know why (Maybe it is gay). This show is mashups & remixes from the UK.

Big Red Podcast

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:57:00 -0500

I just found the Big Red Podcast. This is a pop culture show comprised of TV reviews with a smattering of literature. The audio is very good and the talking heads take turns and control their interactions well. I haven't heard a single earsplitting outburst. They make allusion to a breakfast meeting where the group has already hashed out what they might say and where the emotional reactions, full of swearing and spitting of egg, are discreetly kept away from my tender ears. Thank you.

One thing you might want to say to these people is “put the TiVo down.” They seem to be consuming way more TV than is necessary. But this works to the listener's advantage...at least in the short term. I have listened to four episodes and these have either confirmed a presumption about certain on-going series or made me excited to netflix a new series that I was unaware of. In short, the Big Red Podcast is a winner. I will return to one of the criticisms the Big Red Podcast made last year about Madmen. This would bear upon one of my past blog entries. I will comment back in that blog 7/23/07.

Some podcast losers. (evil snicker)

In the same arena, but not in the same league are “Hey, want to watch a movie?” podcast and “Destroy All Media” Show. I have been looking for new shows at Podcast Pickle instead of Podcast Alley. I have found hidden gems at Pickle before. However these two did not fall into that category.

First of all the sound of Want to Watch a Movie? is atrocious. When I explain the nature of the show one can understand why. This show creates commentary tracks meant to accompany favorite movies. The first minutes are an explanation of this, then an introduction of the cast and finally a countdown to sync your pod-cast up with the movie. The Hollywood Saloon did this once with much higher production values. Please refer back to my November 2007 blog. The key problem for Want to Watch a Movie? is the group commenting on the film seem to be linked via skype. Skype seems to be a highly compressed scheme for phoning through your computer. I've heard call-ins to podcasts from listeners using a skype connection and the hosts regularly hang up on them. This tells you how poor the sound quality can be, because programs recorded live are very desirous of a decent call in from a listener. So now imagine a show based entirely on this type of sound. Additionally, this show introduces a huge number of people who, in theory, would be adding comments. It would be far too many to keep tabs on if they actually all did have comments, but there are frequent dead silences which make you want to check if your headphones came unplugged, but no, it is just where (10?) people have nothing to say. To be fair, I didn't listen while I was synced. But still...Skip this show, it is still in hobby mode. It isn't that the comments for the movies aren't funny and intelligent, but I found it not worth the trouble given the movie selections.

Better is Destroy All Media, but not by any great margin. Three guys discuss tv and movies in this podcast. One of these men is a huge nerd. Star Trek knowledge, a full-blown goober. This makes the other two speakers cool in proximity, and there is a friendly awareness of this dynamic. The sound quality here is not so great. The nerd is heard most clearly, with his hipper peanut-gallery off mic or at some greater distance (besides a degree of hipper style). This is the opposite arrangement for optimum enjoyment. You want a know-it-all to chime in with some trivia occasionally, not run the show. Also if you have a Cliff Claven happening, you want to double-check his info. Nerdman went off on a tangent about the director Coen Brothers when he actually meant the director Wawkowski Brothers. Ooops! My inner nerd is showing.

Still, You might want to take a chance on this show. It could be made better with the a couple more mics and a bit more structure.

In Praise of the Saloon

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:43:00 -0600

Wow...an actual comment! My evil plan is working! Now I haven't posted in a long while. In fact, it has been so long, that my last posting, especially in light of the nice comment, needs a brief explanation. Since I mentioned a couple of podcasts dedicated to film review, I left the impression that I favored "Movies You Should See" possibly more than "Hollywood Saloon." I had just started listening to the Saloon. And since that posting, I have enjoyed the "Hollywood Saloon" quite extensively. In particular, I watched a movie I own on my computer for which the Saloon guys made a commentary track. This audio file I downloaded from their website. This is a fantastic idea! It was also an especially brave thing to do following their through critique of the many types of DVD commentary tracks that are being made, both scholarly and ridiculous. I thought the track was quite good. I'm not sure I learned that much, but, it did what I enjoy about commentary. It made a film I'd seen many times before fresh. I hope they continue this type thing.

Mad Men “Ad-pointment” TV

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:43:00 -0500

The first Mad Men aired this week. It looked like it was going to be good. The pilot was terrific. It’s full of attitudes we have left behind in our cultural history. The characters were very simplified, maybe as an introduction they need to be. I guest I most enjoyed the advertising agency (staff?) research psychologist. She has a German /Austrian accent (of course) and is as cold as ice. We know that cliché. In reality she would’ve been a temporarily hired team of geeks in white coats probably all male. That still might be giving Madison Avenue too much science cred. Probably her role would’ve been filled by a survey conducted with a cross-section of types who would have been rewarded for the their time. I’m not complaining. The women researcher has greater story potential. Maybe we will learn in future episodes the accent isn’t real.

Then there is a seemingly closeted gay Italian graphic artist who works closely with the lead ad-man. The artist’s life-choice is so telegraphed, how he talks about his enjoyment at using his relaxed male neighbor for his artist model in a drawing for a future Lucky’s billboard. The joke seems to be everyone around him is “gay” blind. His gay remarks go un-noticed except by a stray women in a strip club and by us the TV audience. Maybe in future episodes we will find that lots of people know about his secret. Maybe only the junior executives will be caught unawares. They are the college boys running amok like a pack of wolfs.

All in all I am hooked already. I really think this period was way cool. Maybe in one episode they will show someone watching an old Dick Van Dyke Show. They did mentioned, in a condescending fashion, the Danny Thomas Show as a good advertising position for their new Jewish client.

It’s a battle of the sexes, but Madmen would collapse very fast if the writers did not create a balance. The balance seemed only to be implied in this introduction. The women have knowledge of and power over one another, and indirectly their bosses careers. The only women who maybe somewhat powerless to begin with is the lead ad-man’s wife. She is a surprise reveal at the end, as the lead ad-man’s actions do not indicate a married man with children. He seems to have been away from home for days not merely during office hours in the city. If the clichés hold true, his wife will start a drug habit of barbiturates and maybe lose one of their 2.5 children. I don’t know if I will still be watching if that happens. We shall see.