What's going on right now?

Some minor thoughts and tribulations:

I'm watching Game 3 of the NBA finals on my new 46" HDTV. The difference between regular TV and HDTV is kinda like the difference between dating a "mall cute" chick and a supermodel. Sure both will do in a pinch, but I can imagine it would be a little hard to go back to "mall cute" when you've had "goddess beautiful". And for full disclaimer's sake: it would be difficult, even in my "skinny-youthful-full-head-of-hair" heyday to date either class of female. I would have been lucky to date ANY class of female.

In the movie "Notting Hill," there's a montage scene of Hugh Grant trying to move on and date after being shut down by Julia Roberts' character, YET AGAIN. After a couple of predictable and cartoonish duds, he stumbles upon a lovely, attractive woman who clearly fancies him. In any normal circumstance, she would have been deemed a great catch. Yet, in the glaring light of Julia Roberts, she is just small potatoes . . . you know . . . "mall cute."

If I'm writing about Notting Hill, then the series is clearly not going well for the Lakers. Boston is clearly the superior team, talent-wise, in this series. That doesn't necessarily mean anything at this point. The 88 finals between LA and Detroit comes to mind. I remember the Pistons being the clearly superior team, but thanks to guts, grit and a few favorable foul calls, the Lakers escaped with a championship that they didn't necessarily deserve. Not that I'm complaining . . . I'm just saying that the Lakers have proven themselves to be the "underdog."

I guess I'm not a big "Kobe" fan; I've always been a Shaq guy. I understand why the Lakers traded him away. Hindsight has proven that Shaq was on the downside of his career. He's still a good player, he's just no longer the self-proclaimed monster force of nature. So Miami basically rented Shaq for about 2 years and he brought much needed attitude and a championship to that team. He even played his heart out that year in the Detroit series; like he had something to prove after the Lakers' loss the previous year. However, as evidenced by Phoenix's gamble this year, asking for Shaq at this point to carry a team is asking for a bit much.

I know, I know . . . Kobe is playing the best ball of his career and he's now threatening to be regarded in the same class as Jordan, but I just can't get into him. If the Lakers win the championship, I'll be very ambivalent about it.

Ok, enough basketball. Where was I?

#####################################

In terms of fan obsession, "Sex in the City" is the desperate feminine version of "Star Trek". Women dressing like their favorite "Sex in the City" character before watching the film, meet up in a bar and drinking "cosmos". Who does that? "Star Trek" fans, that's who. Dressing up and pretending to live life like their favorite FICTIONAL character . . . all in good fun. Well if it's sick for Star Trek, it's sick for Sex in the City.

But as one guy expressed in a candid conversation, "any show that encourages women to drink, screw around, cheat on their lovers and act like sluts is alright by me."

Hear, hear.

For the record, I think it's a good show.

#################################

My brother's high school buddy took it upon himself to spearhead the creation and implementation of a scholarship commemorating my sister's memory. It was a very selfless and generous action on his end. The idea of a scholarship was publicly brought up at Kim's funeral by one of her eulogists. It sounded like a very good idea, even when that eulogist dropped the ball and disappointed the hell out of my family. The scholarship seemed to be a good step to turn what was a very distressful and sorrowful situation into something positive. My brother's friend, for no reason other than compassion, took up the cause and willed this scholarship to fruition. Jay, my family is forever in your debt.

To learn more about the scholarhip, here's the speech I wrote for the scholarship recipient's award ceremony:

We’re here to present the award for the Kimberly Perez Making Connections scholarship, which acknowledges the student whose submitted essay and actions best illustrate the following ideas:

1. that such things as age, gender, nationality, language, ethnicity and religion should never stand in the way of compassion.

2. that education is the best road to compassion.

3. that compassion, even if it frightens you, should always lead to action.

These ideas, which fuel this scholarship, was inspired by our sister Kim who embodied them every day of her life. She was an amazing person; a stubbornly fearless individual who was positioning herself to make a larger contribution to the world community.

We see a little spark of Kim in this year’s chosen essay, in which the student was so moved by the plight of Ugandan children in that country’s civil war, she felt compelled enough to raise awareness and aid, by helping to organize the “Sounds of Silence” event in 2007. This is an example of education leading to compassion which in turn, leads to action.

This year’s recipient goes on to write about her time volunteering at a neighborhood hospital, noting that making connections is not just about the grand public gesture. It’s also about the smaller personal actions that can make all the difference in everyday life.

It is our hope that this year’s recipient views this scholarship as encouragement to continue down her stated path, to begin her studies in Sociology and Psychology, and perhaps one day, join the Peace Corps.

We are proud to present this year’s Kimberly Perez Making Connections scholarship, and its $500 dollar reward, to Margarita Lopez.


The scholarship recipient had no idea she was the winner. As I read the speech and talked about the specifics of Margarita's essay, my peripheral vision caught sight of her visible surprise as the realization dawned on both her and her friends. It was once of the nicer moments I've had in a while, and I'm sure Kim would have approved.

Coming to Terms with Sweeney Todd

Yeah, I may be a comic loving, bacon eating, former Prince listening freak. But here's something I rarely advertise: I love Stephen Sondheim musicals. When you say the word 'musical' among the general populace, you get looks that range from quizzical and uncomprehending, to sometimes vague disgust. At least superhero comics are in the general populace's attention span. Yeah, liking them may be weird, but with the dizzying amount of television, movies and advertisements that play off the superhero concept, there is a certain amount of cultural cachet and acceptance.

Musicals? Forget it. Musicals are looked on as hokey, simplistic, sappy, girlie, etc. You're watching a play and for no good reason, one of the actors break into a corny song? Why? What in the Good Lord's name would compel someone to do something so stupid as sing in the middle of the play? And why would anyone in their right minds spend good money, park their butts down and watch such a thing? Even those creators who've been successful in the recent past, like Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice, have been dismissed as unchallenging escapist entertainment. Neither of those names are considered to be great artistic geniuses. More to the point, neither has done much to refute the general public's disdain for the artform.

To counteract this perception, you now have musicals that:

• base their entire production around a pop music act's song catalog--ala Abba, Billy Joel, Queen or even Bob Dylan.
• are theatrical versions of movies--like The Producers, Young Frankenstein, Hairspray or Spamalot.
• are Disney-sponsored adaptations of their own cartoons--like the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast.
  

The obvious idea behind this trend is that these show types bring a familiarity that's more likely to stir a potential audience's interest. Putting on a theatrical production is not cheap and it's a risky financial proposition. Like the movie studios shelling out movies based on old TV sitcoms, Saturday morning cartoons, or yes, even comic books, Broadway needs something to hook the widest audience possible, perhaps at the cost of its own "artistic soul".

And that's why I love Sondheim. In the face of the decline of the American musical, Sondheim is the one figure who found continued success in pushing the medium's conventions, theatergoing public taste be damned! Whether its in subject matter, songwriting or stage presentation there's more often than not something new to be experienced in a Sondheim musical. I could go on and on about this point, but will save this part of the discussion for another day. I want to get to the meat of this post and write about the Sweeney Todd film adaptation.

I didn't quite know what to expect from this movie. Tim Burton usually is 50/50 with his film adaptations: loving that Sleepy Hollow/Headless Horseman/Depp movie, but detesting his Planet of the Apes adaptation. And for a time, he was tasked with producing and directing the Superman movie, which would have been a disaster, because from his interviews and pre-production plans, he obviously hated the character. Hey Burton, the corny stuff is what makes Supes so cool!!! I won't go into his Batman films, outside of the fact that he didn't really care about Batman as a character either. The first film should have been called "Joker Loves Batman". The second should have been called "Penguin, Catwoman and the 'more cowbell' guy with Micheal Keaton making a cameo appearance as Batman."

But enough about that. I think Sweeney Todd is probably the best recent Broadway to Hollywood translation I've seen since West Side Story. Like the best of film adaptations, it added dimensions to the work that its original format, whether by design or genre constrictions, could never envision. For example, the use of blood in the movie. Blood is a tricky thing to pull off on stage and though I've never thought about it until now, the lack of it in the stage production actually provided the audience a comfortable sense of distance. Not so with the movie; Sweeney is slathered in the fake red goo from head to toe for good portions of the movie, which makes sense since it is a horror film. Another improvement in the movie is how the whole Judge Turpin/Anthony "don't touch my daughter" scene unfolds. It always rung a little hollow and quick for me in the stage production, while the film's scene is more organic and a much better introduction to the evil character of Judge Turpin. The entire "Pretty Women" sequence (performance, editing, shot selection, etc.) was exceptionally well done.

What did I not like about the movie? The character of Anthony in the movie is a dumb girlie man, which is not an impovement over the stage production's usual casting of the dumb manly man. Also the humor that permeates the stage show, is less evident in the movie. For example, the movie's song/discussion between Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett concerning the meat pie/murder revelation rings somewhat flat and joyless.

What about the singing? Well, the quality of Depp & Company's vocal acumen is appropriate for the film. Nothing to write home about, but it doesn't detract from the movie one bit. You need to make allowances for such things. It's important for these musicals to find people who can act first, sing second. How pretty a lyric is sung means nothing if you're not buying the character or story. And with advanced recording technology and techniques these days, you can pretty much make up for any singer's deficiencies (see any song in the current top 40). Depp & Company weren't required to project their voices the way one would have to for a stage production. For singing, that's half the battle. It's not necessarily the range of high and low notes that gets you. It's the stamina of having to do it repeatedly for a significant and continuous block of time. Your voice is produced by muscles that need constant exercising to perform optimally. Singing is exertion. In fact I would suggest that to be a MLB starting pitcher and a performing singer are very similar in demands on one's stamina. We're talking about a very specific exhausting activity that is segmented to one area of a person's body. For a pitcher, it's an arm. For a singer, it's the vocal cords.

Okay, last point. Sweeney has been traditionally sung by a low baritone/bass voice. Depp has a girlie baritenor/tenor range. It'll be interesting to see how this affects later live productions of Sweeney. Has a precedence been set for casting tenors in a historically deeper toned role? I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who cares!

more quick random thoughts

I can't sleep. It's 11 pm and I need to sleep. But I can't sleep.

Here are some pics of my current pastels. Nothing too deep. Just something to excerise (however lightly) the artistic eye. Think 'pop song' as art piece.





Quick thoughts . . .

• Sopranos Finale - If you were pissed off by the ending, all I have to say is "what in the hell did you expect?" when has this show EVER given viewers what they wanted or expected? this show is all about unsympthetic blind curveballs that were cleverly foreshadowed seasons before. now i'm not passing judgement on whether it was a decent or effective closing. I'm not even saying it was a good episode. all i'm saying is that if you were expecting a pat ending, then it's obvious you f##ks haven't really been watching the show.
  
  
• Spider-Man 3 - what's up with that "a husband must put his wife's needs ahead of his own" storyline crap? Was Oprah one of the movie's screenwriters? Am watching a big, dumb popcorn summer flick or a lifetime movie of the week? It's a good thing wifey didn't watch this flick, otherwise she'd pull that "wife's need" card out whenever she wants me to do something i REALLY do not want to do. "Well Spider-Man would have taken out the trash, cuz he would put Mary Jane's needs ahead of his!" Thanks a lot for the relationship advice Spidey! Oh, and now I know, if I every want to be "Bad Kilatzin", all I really need to do is comb down whatever bangs I have left on my balding head and wear some nice black kenneth cole suit. Thanks for the "Evil Primer 101", Spidey!!! Keep that good advice coming.
  
  
• paris hilton in jail - good.
  
  
  

Random thoughts, random entry july edition

Hello everyone. I want to start off with something I found at my parents' house last week. Will wonders ever cease?



I suppose you can view this as another sign of the coming of the apocalypse. I tend to view this as the answer to my half-assed diet prayers! Who can eat a whole CAN of SPAM? Sometimes just a little SPAM will do. And this comes pre-sliced, with much less clear jelly goo!

All you need to do to enjoy this wonderful feast is to ignore the oh-so-annoying nutrition label, which i believe in this case was designed to spoil my fun!

#############################################

Speaking of "spoiling my fun . . . "

Superman Movie Thoughts

Okay, so the other shoe has dropped. The Superman movie has finally come out and already people have started baiting me with fighting words. One person who saw it said to my face that he found it "uninspiring, directionless, and plodding." Of course, I could to the same adjectives to describe that aforementioned old fogey with his constant reminiscing about events that happened thirty or forty years ago, but that would be too easy. He's entitled to his opinion and I can see how he would view the movie that way. It's not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination.

However, a blog buddy, near and dear to all our hearts, wrote:

"one of bert's co-workers saw it the other day and proclaimed it the worst movie EVER.

pretty harsh for a guy that pretty much likes anything."

like a dagger to the heart.

Really? The "co-worker" likes pretty much anything? So this "person" would place that 80s gymnastics film with Mitch Gaylord and Janet Jones, late Woody Allen films like "Shadows and Fog" and "Husband and Wives" and any Pauly Shore or Yahoo Serious movie behind "Superman Returns" as the worst movie EVER. This person will eat every piece of sh***y filmmaking on STARZ, Showtime, USA, ABC Family, Nickelodeon or Lifetime, but "Superman" is the one line "he/she" won't cross, huh? I mean, if this "co-worker" went to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video, you're telling me that this person would be HARD PRESSED to find something WORSE than "Superman Returns?"

Okay. I guess I'll have to say that "co-worker" has the WORST TASTE IN MOVIES EVER.

I have heard all manners of positive and negatives opinions about the movie, and I can understand where most of them are coming from. The movie is too long; some scenes i thought lasted much longer than they should have. I can understand why some people would find it extremely slow and boring. The casting is a little off. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane seemed too young to be an experienced Pulitzer Prize winning report/mommy. Brandon Routh lacks the charisma and humor that Christoper Reeve brought to the role. This was underscored by the fact that he looks AND sounds like Christopher Reeve. To be THE SUPERHERO you gotta have this presence, kinda like Reagan or Clinton . . . full of authority tempered with a whole bunch of charm. The movie, in general, takes itself a little too seriously and is not as joyful as you think it would be.

So it's not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination.

But here's what the movie gets right . . . it translates from the comic to the big screen what I think is so cool about Superman.

First thing, it provides a proper sense of scale to the character. By that I mean, he doesn't really punch out bad guys in this film . . . that's kind of small potatoes in this day and age . . . any fool superhero can do that. Leave that small scale crap to Batman. Supes tackles the kind of problems that only he can deal with like: stopping a falling jet, lifting a sunken yacht, catching a giant statue in midair, blowing out an entire house fire, carrying of an entire ISLAND!!!! The movie does a VERY good job of showing how monumental it is to have one man, one lone tiny figure against an immense backdrop, handle these impossible tasks. The focus is never really on Superman in these situations. The movie takes its time in setting up the dangers, showing everyone what's at stake in every sequence. Just when things seem bleakest and beyond hope, that's when you see that the only thing that could avert certain disaster would be Superman.

Second thing, the movie does a VERY good job of displaying the selfless heroism of the character. By that I mean, just because you have this immense power, doesn't mean it allows you to be lazy or soft. Supes gets put through the wringer in this film. He gets a monumental beatdown. He gets brutalized . . . almost tortured. When push comes to shove, Superman does the right thing no matter what it might cost him. None of this Spider-Man wishy washy dilly dallying about his purpose. He knows what needs to be done AND more importantly, does it.

In the film, Luthor accuses Supes of being selfish and not sharing his power with the rest of the world. What Luthor views as sharing is actually imposition, forcing others to acquiesce to your will. Luthor's view of power is fascist. Superman is about restraint . . . about not forcing your will on the situation unless it's absolutely necessary. The film shows the scary and destructive potential that anything from Krypton would have on Earth: the technology, the island, even the child who accidently kills a henchmen . . . but never once do you see that in Superman. And that's what I love about the character . . . the sense of restraint for the greater good. Logically, having a being with the power of Superman is a very scary proposition. Think of the bad shit that COULD happen with such a powerful being and the fact that the character shies away, even revulsed by the possibilty is incredible.

#######################

Alright, that diatribe went WAY off the deep end.

See the movie. Don't see the movie. What do I care? The damage has already been done. The movie had made its major money and it looks like the clear public choice is that Pirates movie anyway.

#######################

Other quick movie points:

• A co-worker of mine, who saw the film, commented that Supes was a borderlline stalker throughout it . . . using x-ray vision and superhearing to sneak a peak at Lois . . . flying in the middle of the night to catch a peek at the child . . . I told him that any love worth having is a love worth stalking. Most of what Superman did in the film, we could do with some night vision goggles, audio surviellance equipment, motion detectors . . . just another incident why people at work find me strange



• My mind kept drawing a parallel to Superman's leaving for Krypton without telling Lois and Dave Chappelle's leaving for Africa without telling his wife. Who was more pissed . . . Lois or Chappelle's wife?
  
  
• What kind of a world is it where my mother gets to see the new Superman movie before I do? Not only see it, but also publicly stating that she LIKED it!!! ugh. This is the woman that hid my comics in box under heavy box in her closet. I would have to wait til she left the house, go in there and rummage through my collection like i was a perv, mining for a taste of banned dirty magazines or dvds.

############################################

On to Other Things

My one year old son has a MAJOR "Dora the Explorer" obsession. I think it's either because he's really into Dora as a chick and he REALLY LIKES chicks, or he's gay and he views Dora as the ultimate "fag hag." Don't want him to be gay for the simple reason I'm selfish and I want grandkids. Let his children torture him the way he's currently torturing mommy and i . . . the way I tortured my father and mother. Oh, that would be SOOOOO sweet.

Warning to those who'll attend Comicon in San Diego this year . . . Triumph the Insult Comic Dog might stalk the convention to rip us nerds a new one! The man behind the puppet, Robert Smigel, is doing a Friday night presentation and I can't imagine him passing on such a plum comedic cherry as Comicon.